June 9, 2014 

Present: Broman, Fair, Farrar Edwards, Meyerand, Petty, Wendt 

The meeting began at 1:00 p.m. 

1. Minutes of the University Committee Meeting Minutes 2014-06-02 were approved as distributed. 

2. There was consensus that: Dorothy would serve as the UC representative on the UAPC; Meyerand and Wendt will serve on the Committee on Committees; and Broman will attend the Sept. CIC meeting in Columbus. 

3. Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration Darrell Bazzell discussed his thoughts about the newly approved Board of Regents budget. 

4. Grant moved (Dorothy second) to convene in closed session pursuant to Wis. Stats. 19.85(1)(c), and (f) to discuss personnel matters. Motion carried. 

The meeting reconvened in Open Session at 2:30 p.m. 

5. Chancellor Blank reported on the areas and issues on which she plans to work over the summer months. She indicated that she is conducting an evaluation of the Vice Chancellors and invited members to send her any comments they may have. 

6. Dean Ian Robertson (Engr.) and Steve Lund, APO, discussed the intended purpose of the Professor of Practice honorific title proposal. The aim is to try to create a title that will attract people to these positions. The professor of practice title has meaning in the engineering field and keeps UW-Madison competitive and attractive to highly experienced engineering leaders in government or industry. The initial appointment would be up to 5 years with a review yearly. It was noted that ASEC opposes the professor of practice title. Jo Ellen suggested that an alternative idea might be to create a more neutral title that would indicated a temporary position but also one of high quality, for example, the "Lathrop Guest Professor of Engineering."

7. Dean Robertson discussed his tentative proposal regarding creation of college-level 3rd Year and Tenure Review Committees. A major function of the 3rd year review committee would be to help junior faculty by making sure that best practices in mentoring are available to every assistant professor in the college and to make sure that no one falls through cracks. Members informed the Dean that as outlined, the purposes of the 3rd year review committee do not appear to be in conflict with or violation with FPP. The idea behind the college-level tenure review committee is not to work around department executive committees or divisional committees. This college-level committee would serve as a quality control mechanism for all dossiers leaving the college. In this context, quality means a review of the dossier for consonance with departmental metrics as well as presentation of the material in the dossier. As a described, such a committee would not appear to violate FPP or faculty rights and authority. 

8. Broman moved (Petty second) to convene in closed session pursuant to Wis. Stats. 19.85(1)(c), and (f) to discuss personnel matters. 

Petty moved (Meyerand second) to reconvene in open session. Motion carried.

The meeting reconvened in open session at 4:10 p.m. and adjourned. 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

William A. Heiss, M.S.S.W. 

Interim Secretary of the Faculty University Committee University of Wisconsin-Madison