Board of Regents
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM
Held in 1820 Van Hise Hall
September 6, 2007
- President Bradley presiding -
PRESENT: Regents Bartell, Bradley, Burmaster, Connolly-Keesler, Crain, Cuene, Davis, Falbo, Loftus, Pruitt, Rosenzweig, Salas, Shields, Spector, Thomas, and Walsh
UNABLE TO ATTEND: Regents McPike and Smith
- - -
Regent President Bradley began the meeting by indicating that Regent McPike was unable to attend because the cancer for which he had previously been treated had returned. President Reilly added that Regent McPike told him that his service on the Board of Regents has been a highlight of his career and that he hopes to continue serving as circumstances permit.
- - -
THE STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK OF THE UW SYSTEM TO ADVANTAGE AND ADVANCE WISCONSIN’S FUTURE
In opening remarks, Regent President Bradley recalled that, to address the needs of the state going forward, the UW advanced the Growth Agenda for Wisconsin. Noting that this plan generated a broad range of support, he said that many with whom he has spoken have asked whether the state could afford not to pursue it.
While many aspects of the Growth Agenda came forward as budget initiatives, the UW was now moving to a broader framework, which was under-girded by the recent presentation to the to the board by Dennis Jones, president of the National Center for Higher Educational Management Systems.
He then turned to President Reilly for a presentation regarding the strategic framework. President Reilly began his remarks by acknowledging the work of Executive Senior Vice President Don Mash, Senior Vice President Rebecca Martin and all the others who contributed to the framework being presented at this meeting.
Last May, he recalled, he had spoken with the board about the Growth Agenda and beyond – big picture ideas. In June, Dennis Jones spoke about his view of the situation on a national level, how Wisconsin fit into that picture, and how other states were advancing in the knowledge economy. Discussion at a chancellors’ retreat played a key role in developing the framework; and, in July, the Board of Regents’ retreat focused on the board’s role in the process. There also had been discussion by the provosts; and faculty, academic staff, and students also would all be involved going forward.
It is called a strategic framework, he explained, because of its system-wide nature and because it is intended to guide the UW System as a whole, along with all of its parts, and to provide a shared context for decision-making.
He then gave examples of two key issues for which such context would be needed: In the area of tuition and financial aid, a working group was making good progress and would develop a number of options, along with the pros and cons of each. Another such issue involved the role of the UW Colleges in relation to the rest of the UW System and the Technical College System. He planned to empanel a system-wide group to work on this matter.
As to the words “Advantage Wisconsin”, the President recalled three of the strategic planning principles offered at the May meeting:
- Lead from behind;
- It’s about all of Wisconsin, not just the UW System.
The intent would be to consider with others outside of the university how to use the UW to best advantage Wisconsin in the 21st century knowledge economy.
President Reilly noted that Wisconsinites could thank their ancestors for their willingness to invest in creating a first-class higher education system that spurred successful industries and strong communities. This symbiotic relationship between the state and university, he emphasized, will only become more important in the 21st century knowledge economy.
Stating that Wisconsin is at a crossroads, he explained that, in an increasingly competitive and knowledge-based global economy, the state’s future will be shaped by three interrelated factors:
- The talent of its people;
- The ability to create, attract, and retain high-paying jobs and dynamic companies;
- The attractiveness of Wisconsin communities to business and residents alike.
The problem, he pointed out, is that Wisconsin has gaps in all three dimensions.
- Wisconsin is below the national average in the percent of people with baccalaureate degrees, and the United States as a nation is not keeping pace with the growing investment of other nations in higher education. In that regard, Dennis Jones had advised the board that the United States is now the eighth most educated country in the world.
- While the UW System has a very strong research and development enterprise, Wisconsin is below the national average in venture capital and successful commercialization.
- While Wisconsin has many strong communities, the state’s largest urban area faces significant social and economic challenges; and the state as a whole is not attracting young talent at levels needed to maintain a thriving economy. Wisconsin ranks near the bottom in attracting such workers.
The result is that relative income has not kept pace with the national average, which has created taxing capacity issues at the state level, competitive issues for businesses, and personal hardships for families. These hardships exist even though the state is highly employed, with more people in the job market than in almost any other state.
The answer, President Reilly said, is not to scale back vital educational systems because cost-cutting in education cannot lead to success in a knowledge economy.
Instead, he continued, the answer is evident in places around the state, including:
- The positive impact of UW-Madison on the capital region and statewide;
- The positive impact of the three campuses serving the I-94 corridor between the Chippewa Valley and the Twin Cities;
- The important role that UW-Milwaukee is playing in its metropolitan area;
- The lead role of UW-Green Bay and UW-Oshkosh in the New North and the Fox River Valley.
These and other UW assets, he stated, must be fully leveraged to advantage Wisconsin in the 21st century knowledge economy.
Showing a slide that provided a visual image of how the university’s traditional missions of teaching, research, and public service translate into what needs to be done for the future of Wisconsin, President Reilly stated that:
- The UW is the premier developer of advanced human potential, working with partners to serve all residents who strive to stay current in a world where knowledge is changing rapidly;
- The UW System is a key catalyst for creating and retaining high paying jobs that employ its talented graduates and attract others from outside the state;
- The UW System is an invaluable asset, in a 21st century form of the Wisconsin Idea, to communities across the state in dealing with the pressing issues and challenges that they face.
President Reilly then turned to the Strategic Framework, which is intended to map the long-term route to the Advantage Wisconsin vision. In that regard, students must be prepared with the integrative learning skills, multi-cultural competencies and practical knowledge needed to succeed in their professional lives and contribute back to their communities.
In order to dramatically increase the UW System’s positive impact on Wisconsin, he outlined the following goals:
- Significantly increase the number of graduates and educational opportunities for Wisconsin residents through such strategies as improving access, retention and graduation rates;
- Expand the university’s research enterprise and link it more firmly to entrepreneurship and business development;
- Strengthen Wisconsin communities by increasing the university’s service impact through active engagement, research and learning applied to the state’s greatest challenges.
Three strategies to under-gird achievement of those goals are:
- Grow the UW’s financial resources by broadening and diversifying sources of funds and further developing talented faculty and staff;
- Advance operational excellence, especially through enhanced flexibility that external and internal deregulation could provide;
- Create multiple new and stronger collaborations – fully leveraging the UW System, its increasingly robust cross-campus work and relationships with entities, including the PK-12 System, the Wisconsin Technical College System, and others.
As Dennis Jones advised, strategic planning is complex for public systems of higher education. On one hand, planning at the campus level is important for Wisconsin’s regions, and a top-down planning model would not work in that environment. On the other, planning at the system level is needed to address statewide public policy needs and big picture issues. The result should make the whole greater than the sum of its parts.
The Strategic Framework, President Reilly said, is designed to do just that and to fully leverage the multiple assets of the UW System for the good of Wisconsin’s future.
In that regard, he noted that work over the last few years, including that done in Charting a New Course for the UW System, in the Growth Agenda, and in the board’s and chancellors’ retreats, has been instrumental in constructing the Strategic Framework to Advantage Wisconsin and being ready to carry it forward.
President Reilly then outlined next steps in the process. First, seven think tanks would delve deeper into each of the seven components of the Strategic Framework and surface their best ideas. This work would go on through December and include broad input from others in multiple ways, including an “Advantage Wisconsin” website, face-to-face communication sessions with business and community leaders, and, through UW-Extension, communication with citizens across the state.
The ideas formulated by the think tanks would be integrated into an enriched Strategic Framework, fleshed out with more specific goals and system-wide initiatives and strategies to achieve those goals.
The Strategic Framework then would create the overarching context for decision-making by the board, for creation of new campus initiatives and for resource deployment. More than a budget-development process, it is intended to provide an overarching focus across several biennia as it evolves and goals become more far-reaching. It also is intended to be a practical framework to guide development of institutional initiatives for the 2009-11 biennial budget cycle.
Concluding his presentation, President Reilly remarked that much progress already has been made through the Growth Agenda and that the Strategic Framework should keep the university’s impact growing. It is hoped that the process will lead to a new understanding with the state and its leaders about what they expect from the university and what they are willing to invest to meet those expectations.
In discussion following the presentation, Regent Crain commented on the importance of the liberal arts to quality education and asked where that topic would fit in the Strategic Framework.
In reply, Senior Vice President Martin indicated that the university was participating in a national program to promote the liberal arts and that they are an important part of the component of the framework that deals with preparing students.
President Reilly added that several campuses were in the process of reviewing their general education requirements and would be in a position to take the lead in that area.
Regent Loftus commented that there are communication issues to address, as indicated by a lack of understanding on the part of some legislators and media about the rationale for the 5.5% tuition increase approved by the board. He also felt that language more forward-looking than “Advantage Wisconsin” would be preferable; and he suggested that the structure of the UW System be examined, since it had been created long ago and under very different conditions.
President Reilly agreed that communication is a challenge that must be addressed on a continuing basis and indicated that, while he felt that the words “Advantage Wisconsin” were forward looking, other language also could be used. With regard to the structure of the UW System, he remarked that the system is very different than it was 30 years ago in terms of increasing collaborations, revenue sources, and other changes that have occurred over time. What is needed, he said, is for the system to be nimble enough to respond to future challenges.
Regent President Bradley noted that the 5.5% tuition increase was based on the budget approved by the bipartisan Joint Committee on Finance, assuming the traditional state contribution and funding for the Growth Agenda.
Regent Walsh suggested that there be participation in Strategic Framework discussions by such stakeholders as students, parents and others who fund increasing portions of the UW’s budget.
Regent Salas recalled that his support for the 5.5% tuition increase was based on the understanding that there were no alternative ways to fund pay plan increases and the Growth Agenda initiatives, both of which he supported.
With regard to the Strategic Framework process, he suggested inviting legislators and the Governor to participate from the start, as had been done in the Charting a New Course study.
Expressing her support for moving forward with an inclusive approach, Regent Davis urged that the issue of affordability and finding new resources for financial aid be made a high priority and be boldly addressed because of the significant impediment posed to student access by lack of adequate financial resources.
Noting that a working group currently is studying tuition and financial aid issues, President Reilly remarked that it will be an ongoing challenge to reconcile the need to educate 50-55% of the population with the fact of rising tuition costs.
Regent Rosenzweig commented that a strength of the Charting a New Course study was inclusion of legislators in the process. She felt that the current process also should include external players, particularly given the implications for jobs and economic growth in Wisconsin.
Regent Burmaster noted that the Wisconsin Covenant would fit into the Strategic Framework as a part of the enabling strategies.
President Reilly concurred, adding that, with a flat demographic trend, what is needed is to educate a broader, deeper cut of the student population, which is what the Covenant is designed to do, as well as to educate more adult students.
Expressing support for the Strategic Framework, Regent Cuene remarked that flexibility in educational offerings is a key to educating more students. In that regard, she found students to be especially interested in online courses, as well as evening and weekend courses.
Regent Pruitt observed that innovative outreach to businesses and legislators will be important. In order to give everyone a stake in the process, he indicated that both building coalitions and hearing from people would be helpful. In order to educate more students, he remarked, it would be necessary to hear from them about what is holding them back and then expand the university’s reach accordingly.
Expressing agreement, President Reilly indicated that the Know How 2 Go campaign uses technology to reach students and that other new strategies are needed as well.
Regent Loftus felt that one source of confusion regarding the board’s approved tuition rate was that the university used as a basis the budget approved by the Joint Committee on Finance, while other state agencies simply went forward on the basis of their current budgets. While he agreed that much about the UW System has changed over the years, he asked if Chapter 36 of the statutes still provides the most appropriate framework for the university.
Regent President Bradley began his remarks by indicating that the purpose of this discussion was to surface some of the best ideas on how to convene a statewide conversation regarding what Wisconsin can do to prosper in the 21st century economy.
As examples of what has been done in other places, he related that in Ireland, labor, parliament, the government and higher education all agreed on concessions needed to move forward; and, as a result, the economy has become the second most prosperous in Europe. Finland found a new approach for an economy that traditionally had been based on natural resources. Ohio decided to freeze tuition, while the state provided money to accomplish goals, with higher education held accountable for achieving them.
Noting that different states have used different approaches, he said that, in some states, the Governor has convened a public discussion, while in others the business community has taken leadership. In still others, higher education has led the discussion, although he noted that it would seem beneficial that leadership come from a broader source, so that there would not be the perception that the discussion was propelled by self-interest.
He recommended two reports from national organizations regarding how to move forward. The Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission of the National Association of State Legislatures found that higher education is essential to economic prosperity and that, while higher education had been part of the problem, so too were legislatures. The report concluded that, in order for the states to move forward, legislatures and higher education entities need to work together.
Innovation America, by the National Association of Governors, reported that, in order to prosper, states need to innovate to be competitive with other states and nations and that states need to determine how to differentiate themselves and how to have a regional focus.
Observing that both reports recommend something very like the Growth Agenda for Wisconsin, Regent President Bradley remarked that President Reilly had been “spot on” in bringing forward that initiative.
Taking into account Wisconsin’s businesses, economy, stakeholders, political atmosphere and culture, he inquired as to which leaders or groups need to be involved in launching the discussion in this state.
Regent Loftus commented that the brilliance of the Growth Agenda was its basis in the budget. In order to get people involved, he felt that the framework would have to direct dollars and, if that were the case, higher education could lead the discussion.
Regent Burmaster suggested bringing together by region PK-16, business and economic development leaders. Noting that the state’s assets differ by region, she remarked that there are the beginnings of regional solutions in initiatives like the New North. She suggested that the PK-16 Leadership Council, which includes many of the key players, would be an effective vehicle to launch the statewide discussion, adding that chancellors also were developing regional PK-16 councils. She thought the charge for the group could come through agreement among the UW System President, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, the President of the Wisconsin Technical College System, the President of the Wisconsin Association of Independent Colleges and Universities and representation from elected leaders of both parties.
Regent Davis urged that all voices be represented, including those of parents. This would both have a positive influence on legislators and be a means of educating parents about the issues.
Regent Crain suggested that agencies which work with children and families also be involved, since much of what happens in children’s development takes place before they get to school.
Regent Rosenzweig agreed that the PK-16 Council, expanded to include more players, would be an appropriate vehicle since its charge is expansive and the timeline for developing the Strategic Framework is short.
Regent Burmaster added that parents are involved in the council, through the presidents of Parent-Teacher Associations.
In response to a question by Regent Loftus, Regent President Bradley noted that it is the statutory responsibility of the Board of Regents to determine the needs for higher education in Wisconsin. Regent Loftus felt that, if the board did not itself lead the process, it should decide what group would be appropriate to do so.
Regent Spector thought that it would be preferable for a new group to be formed to provide leadership. It would be difficult, he commented, for the board to lead without involvement by the Legislature and Governor, who control financial resources. He felt that they need to be convinced that the state is losing ground and that a blueprint lasting for multiple biennia is needed to move the state forward in the public interest.
Noting that the Governor formed an Economic Growth Council several years previously, Regent Burmaster said that the board could ask that the council be revived and given this new charge.
Regent President Bradley remarked that the Governor and Legislature had provided leadership in Nebraska’s economic development efforts, which necessarily involved the role of higher education and the K-12 system.
Regent Salas commented that the Strategic Framework should add value to the strategic plans of the campuses, which already are involved in economic growth collaborations.
Regent Walsh remarked that it would be helpful to know best practices in other states. Noting that Wisconsin’s tradition has included such prominent and successful collaborations as the Kellett Commission and the Merger Implementation Commission, he urged that the all parties be involved in becoming part of the solution. He suggested that a group such as Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce might be asked for resources to support the effort, and he agreed with Regent Loftus that the outcome needs to involve dollars and economic growth.
Regent Loftus inquired about chancellors’ support of the Strategic Framework, and President Reilly replied that they had been involved in developing the proposed outlines for the framework.
Chancellor Wells indicated that, in developing the New North and New ERA groups in his region, all players had been at the table. He stated that there should be a sense of urgency in the effort because Wisconsin was losing ground and this work would be instrumental in re-establishing its advantage for the future.
Executive Senior Vice President Mash began his presentation by explaining that development of initiatives in each area of the Strategic Framework would be addressed by a think tank team, involving eight to ten of the best thinkers on that topic that could be assembled. The teams would communicate with each other as the process evolved, and a leadership group consisting of President Reilly, the chancellors, and the President’s cabinet would oversee the work of the think tanks.
Noting the importance of extending the reach of the work beyond the teams themselves, he said that such efforts would include discussions with business leaders, a website set up to provide information and obtain input, and outreach organized by UW-Extension in each county. Provosts, campus business officers, and faculty, staff and student governance groups would be engaged as well; and the chancellors would discuss progress every month at their meetings. It also would be important to involve such groups as the Wisconsin Technology Council and Competitive Wisconsin.
Between this meeting and February, each of the seven areas of the Strategic Framework would be fleshed out with the most compelling initiatives that could be developed. Individual institutions then would add initiatives from their own strategic plans, which would serve as a basis for future budget development.
The Strategic Framework then could serve as a five-year plan, with upgrades after two years. At that point, it would become a widely recognized blueprint for developing a broader understanding of how to add value to Wisconsin’s future.
Dr. Mash concluded his remarks by indicating that updates would be provided to the board on a monthly basis.
In discussion following the presentation, Regent Davis urged that a high priority be given to the crisis in affordability in the charge to the Resources Think Tank.
In response to a question by Regent Rosenzweig, Dr. Mash indicated that formation of the think tanks would begin the following week and that any additional recommendations would be added to existing lists of potential members. The think tanks would report to President Reilly and his leadership group, including the chancellors. The results then would be shared with the board.
Regent Bartell asked how the think tanks would coordinate with each other, and Dr. Mash replied that coordination would be done through the leadership group and through the way in which the think tanks would be staffed. The website also would be used to pull the work of all groups together.
Regent Connolly-Keesler asked if there would be regional representation on the think tanks, cautioning that they should not be overly weighted toward any one region since all regions are different. Dr. Mash responded that attention would be given to regional representation.
Regent Loftus questioned whether “think tanks” would be the best way to characterize these groups and noted that campuses housed existing think tanks, like the La Follette School at UW-Madison. He asked how such campus-based groups would fit into the process.
In reply, President Reilly indicated that expertise on the campuses and elsewhere would be tapped with regard to specific topics. Noting that recommendations would come from him to the board, he reported that he had asked the Tuition and Financial Aid Working Group to provide him with the pros and cons of each of a number of options.
Regent President Bradley remarked that the UW would be part of any statewide discussion that is convened. Even if such a discussion were not convened, he added, the Strategic Framework process would need to be conducted in order to move forward.
Regent Thomas observed that the broad topic of preparing students seemed too wide a range of issues for one think tank. It was indicated by President Reilly that other teams also would focus on aspects of the student experience, and Dr. Mash added that much regarding preparation of students would be addressed through individual campus strategic plans.
In reply to a further question by Regent Thomas, Dr. Mash indicated that the Strategic Framework would not address specific curricular recommendations since such matters are better handled at the campus level.
Regent Rosenzweig suggested that think tank ideas could be vetted through existing regional groups and be brought to the board after that external input had been obtained.
Indicating that there would be a number of opportunities along the way to bring fresh ideas into the process, President Reilly noted that Regent Spector had suggested a steering committee that could draw in outside leadership, parents, alumni and others.
After conclusion of the discussion, President Reilly thanked all involved for their work on the Strategic Framework and noted that a progress report would be presented in October.
Upon motion by Regent Crain, seconded by Regent Cuene, the meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m.
Judith A. Temby, Secretary
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM
Held in 1820 Van Hise Hall
Friday, September 7, 2007
- President Bradley presiding -
UW-La Crosse: Authority to Seek Waiver of s.16.855 Under s.13.48(19) to Accept a Single Prime Contractor bid; Approval of the Design Report; and Authority to Adjust the Project Budget and Construct the New Stadium and Fields Project.. 22
UW-La Crosse: Authority to Seek Waiver of s.16.855 under s.13.48(19) to Accept a Single Prime Contractor Bid; Approval of the Design Report; and Authority to Adjust Project Budget and Construct New Stadium and Fields Project.. 23
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM
Held in 1820 Van Hise Hall
September 7, 2007
- President Bradley presiding -
PRESENT: Regents Bartell, Bradley, Burmaster, Connolly-Keesler, Crain, Cuene, Davis, Falbo, Pruitt, Rosenzweig, Salas, Shields, Smith, Spector, Thomas, and Walsh
UNABLE TO ATTEND: Regents Loftus and McPike
- - -
Upon motion by Regent Davis, seconded by Regent Cuene, the minutes of the August 7, 2007 meeting were approved as distributed.
- - -
Noting that it is the Board’s statutory responsibility to identify and advocate for the needs for higher education in Wisconsin, Regent President Bradley reported that he and others have been active in that advocacy role. Those efforts, he said, are appreciated by the UW System’s 163,000 students, their families, and business persons across the state who need to employ qualified workers.
Recent editorials included those by Regent President Bradley in the Wausau Daily Herald, Regent Crain in the Green Bay Press Gazette, Regent Bartell in the Capital Times, President Reilly in the Wisconsin State Journal, Regent Connolly-Keesler in the Oshkosh Northwestern, Regent Smith in the La Crosse Tribune, Chancellor Wilson in the Fond du Lac Reporter, Chancellor Bunnell in the Stevens Point Journal, Chancellor Shepard, in the Green Bay Press Gazette, Dean Daniel Blankenship in the Fond du Lac Reporter, Dean Michael Knetter in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and a news story on Interim Chancellor Richard Telfer in the Janesville Gazette.
Editorials currently in development or awaiting publication were written by Regent Thomas, Regent Falbo, Regent Loftus, Regent Walsh, and others.
In other activities, Regent Crain recently had a rewarding visit to UW-Stevens Point, and Regent President Bradley visited La Crosse, during which time he participated in a Chamber of Commerce meeting, three radio interviews, a La Crosse Tribune interview, and conversations with campus leaders.
Regent Falbo met with legislators about the Growth Agenda for Wisconsin, and Regents Falbo and Walsh met with legislators on the topic of veterans tuition remissions. President Reilly also had been active in legislative visits, and Regent Burmaster had been involved in advocacy on behalf of PK-16 needs.
Observing that such efforts have a cumulative effect, Regent President Bradley remarked that the agenda is a positive one about growing Wisconsin and the need for adequate support to do that successfully. He thanked all involved for their continuing efforts, noting that what they are doing is for the good of the entire state.
- - -
President Reilly added his thanks to all who had written editorials, visited legislators and engaged in other advocacy efforts. Indicating that he has met with almost all members of the Conference Committee, he remarked that this advocacy work has been positive and intense and that every effort will continue to be made to keep the message in the forefront.
In introductory remarks, President Reilly noted that he had appointed the commission in April in response to the tragedy at Virginia Tech. The commission was composed of UW System faculty, staff, and students, was chaired by UW-Madison Police Chief Sue Riseling and included Regent Bartell in its membership.
The commission’s initial report had been presented at the July meeting, at which time President Reilly asked Executive Senior Vice President Mash to coordinate review and response to the report.
Since then, Governor Doyle’s Campus Security Task Force, co-chaired by Chancellor Shepard, issued an interim report that focused primarily on best practices in Wisconsin and around the country.
Emphasizing the importance of a safe environment for students, faculty, staff, families, and visitors, President Reilly said that nothing is a more basic need than having confidence in the security of the campus environment.
He then noted some statistics, supplied to the Governor’s Task Force by Gary Pavela, an authority on campus security. The murder rate on college campuses is 0.28 per 100,000 people, compared to the national off-campus average of 5.5 per 100,000. In addition, college students ages 18-24 experienced violence at average annual rates lower than non-students in the same age group, and employees of colleges and universities have a violent crime victimization rate lower than just about all other occupations.
While students and families can rest assured that UW campuses are among the safest places in the state, he said, the UW System will never stop trying to make them even safer, and everything possible will continue to be done to prevent an incident like the tragedy at Virginia Tech.
President Reilly then called on Executive Senior Vice President Mash to present a progress report on what was being done in response to the report of the President’s Commission.
Dr. Mash began by indicating that two study groups in Virginia, one appointed by the Governor and the other by the university, had recently issued their reports, which were being reviewed. Noting that the reports included recommendations for changes in the law, he said that those reports also were being reviewed by the Wisconsin Governor’s Task Force.
All UW chancellors had named coordinators for crisis groups that already existed on most campuses, and the coordinators group would be brought together to share best practices. UW campuses began reviewing their practices right after the Virginia Tech tragedy, and the UW System would be focusing and coordinating those efforts.
Turning to a composite list of recommendations by the President’s Commission, Dr. Mash noted that Chapters UWS 17 and 18, Wisconsin Administrative Code, which deal with conduct on university lands and disciplinary procedures, already were being reviewed by an appointed group. That group also will take into consideration the commission’s recommendations.
A number of the recommendations already were being implemented, including development of an awareness campaign to be conducted on each campus; training to ensure that staff knows what information about an individual can and should be disclosed; and broad distribution of campus safety information to all staff, faculty, students and parents.
In addition, plans would be put in place for communication after any incident that might occur, for a post-incident assessment; for involvement of students in decision-making and implementation of healing measures; and for continuing follow-up for at least six months after any incident.
In three areas, the commission had asked a sub-group to do more work and report in September: Review of security needs of the UW Colleges and UW Extension; examination of counseling and mental health resource requirements for each campus; and review of technology and communication systems. Chief Riseling had been asked to review these recommendations, so that her thinking could be incorporated.
Some recommendations, Dr. Mash noted, have significant cost implications, which may inhibit implementation, given current fiscal challenges. These include levels of police and counseling/mental health staffing. With regard to the latter, he noted that, nationally, counseling centers have not fared well in times of fiscal shortfalls, since this type of service can be provided off campus. Concerning the recommendation for 24/7 police staffing at all four-year universities, he indicated that, while the UW System was not in a position to hire all those additional police, all campuses are working with their local police departments to provided coverage as needed and that these efforts will be continued and enhanced. A recommendation for radio interoperability among police forces will be implemented at a cost of about $50,000.
Given the deep budget reductions in recent years that have been focused on administration, Dr. Mash observed that one would expect a decrease in the number of police officers on campus. That had not been the case, and numbers of police actually have increased across the UW System, demonstrating the high value that campuses place on security.
Turning to other commission recommendations, Dr. Mash noted that campuses already have multi-disciplinary review teams to track troubling behavior. Crisis management plans and continuity of operations plans are under development. Recommendations for a communications plan in the event of a crisis and for police authority to determine sharing of information with the public were being reviewed. Noting that the subgroup on technology had some communication issues on its agenda, Dr. Mash observed that these issues are challenging and differ by campus.
In closing, he commended what was already being done by UW institutions to ensure campus security.
Noting that the Virginia reports recommended some changes in the law, Regent Rosenzweig expressed the hope that any needed revisions in Wisconsin law also would be identified.
Dr. Mash indicated that chancellors have asked for guidance with regard to what can be disclosed in such areas as counselor-client relationships and that legal staff would provide that advice. The Governor’s Task Force also might have recommendations in this area.
Chancellor Shepard added that the Task Force has been advised that there may be more flexibility in the law than originally thought and that federal law is most controlling in this regard. While it is important to share some information regarding troubling behavior, the Task Force was cautioned that people in need of mental health services might be deterred from seeking help if too much information is shared.
Regent Bartell explained that legal restraints on disclosing information were misinterpreted in Virginia to mean that nothing could be disclosed. Noting that so strict an interpretation is incorrect, he said that the Commission asked legal counsel and the Attorney General’s office to review Wisconsin statutes and the Administrative Code to see if any changes are needed.
He believed that one of the most important recommendations concerned monitoring of troubling behavior by a multi-disciplinary review team. Because gathering and assessing such information is such a critical function, he asked that continued attention be given to the make up and training of these teams.
Chief Riseling noted that all campuses have such teams and that UW-Madison had two, which they decided to merge into one team for faculty, staff and students. She agreed that this function is critical, adding that the recommendation can be implemented with current staff and that UW-Madison would be willing to provide training to personnel from other campuses.
Chancellor Wells suggested that stalking laws are among those that need to be reviewed. Noting that there is an appropriation that goes to cities in which campuses are located to pay for municipal services, he suggested reviewing how this money is used to ensure that it is spent to enhance security as much as possible.
Concluding the discussion, President Reilly noted that one recommendation of the Virginia reports was that universities need to work together to promote security. He observed that an advantage for the UW is its system structure, which enhances opportunities for working together effectively.
Gift Received by UW-River Falls
President Reilly congratulated Chancellor Betz and the UW-River Falls community on receipt of a one million dollar gift from the estate of River Falls Teachers College alumna Lucile Spriggs. The gift, which was the largest single contribution in UW-River Falls history, would be used exclusively to fund leadership scholarships for students who excel both in and out of the classroom.
Expansion of Momentum Chippewa Valley
President Reilly announced expansion of Momentum Chippewa Valley, a regional economic development organization serving Chippewa, Dunn, Eau Claire, and Pepin counties. After receiving a recommendation from Chancellors Brian Levin-Stankevich, Charles Sorensen, Don Betz, and Chippewa Valley Technical College President Bill Ihlenfeldt, the organization’s board of directors unanimously approved a resolution inviting other west-central Wisconsin counties to join. This move recognized the enormous economic potential in the St. Croix and Chippewa valleys, supported by UW System campuses in that area. He thanked the chancellors and President Ihlenfeldt for their advocacy.
It was reported by President Reilly that UW-Platteville was partnering with the UW Colleges to offer a new way of delivering four-year engineering degree programs around the state and that UW-Marathon County was one of the colleges to participate in the new delivery method. UW-Platteville already had engineering partnerships with UW-Rock County and UW-Fox Valley.
Students will be able to use the Associate of Arts and Science Degree at UW-Marathon County to satisfy UW-Platteville’s general education requirements and they also will be take entry level engineering courses taught by engineering faculty. Students then will use streaming video technology, including real-time office hours using web cams, to complete upper-level course requirements. The program also will feature a mobile laboratory that will come to UW-Marathon County periodically so students can have the necessary laboratory experiences.
Congratulating the parties to this partnership, President Reilly noted that this is one of many examples of how the UW System is recasting old methods of operation and extending its resources in new ways to meet the needs of Wisconsin citizens.
Major Expansion of Gehl Corporation in West Bend
President Reilly reported that the Gehl Corporation, announcing its decision to remain in West Bend and undertake a major expansion there, cited UW-Washington County as a main factor in its plans. The company will retain 191 jobs at its headquarters facility and construct a new $20 million research and development center in the community. The new center will create 87 engineering jobs and generate around $30 million in new economic activity every year.
Noting that partnerships between UW institutions yield great economic benefits for Wisconsin, the President said that, in this case, UW-Platteville is supplying educational support for a new engineering facility in West Bend that will help UW-Washington County further expand a new engineering initiative. He expressed appreciation to UW-Washington County Dean David Nixon and all others who worked to ensure continued economic growth for the West Bend area.
President Reilly welcomed David Schejbal, who had been selected as dean and director of UW-Extension’s Division of Continuing Education, Outreach, and E-Learning. Dean Schejbal came to Wisconsin from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, where he served as associate vice chancellor and director of continuing education. At UW-Extension, he will coordinate continuing education across all 26 UW System campuses.
President Reilly reported that the Association of Information Technology Professionals had named UW-Whitewater’s Management Computer Systems Program the best in North America for the eighth time. The program’s ability to adapt its curriculum to major trends in the information technology field was a major reason for its enormous success, with only one other program in the nation having been so honored multiple times. He congratulated Interim Chancellor Richard Telfer and all those involved in the program on this impressive accomplishment.
Reporting that the UW-River Falls Physics Program was recently recognized by Interactions, a magazine devoted to particle physics, President Reilly said that the article characterized the Physics Department as having one of the thriving programs in the country in terms of its success in increasing the number of graduates and praised its student-centered offerings. President Reilly commended Chancellor Betz and the UW-River Falls Physics Department on this recognition.
Regent Salas commended UW-Madison hockey player Sara Bauer for being named a finalist for NCAA Woman of the Year.
- - -
In opening remarks, Regent Davis, chair of the Regent committee that selected the award winners, noted that the Board of Regents annually confers three awards, two individual awards and one department or program award. The individual awards honor outstanding career achievement by the university’s finest teachers. The department or program award recognizes collaborative teaching and a coherent, well-executed teaching philosophy that helps all students to learn and succeed in life.
She thanked the other committee members – Regent Bartell, Regent Salas, Regent McPike, and Regent Thomas – for their individual efforts and team work in sifting through so many deserving portfolios. Among the outstanding nominations, they looked for teachers who were deeply committed to creating significant maturation and leaps of understanding in their students. While these dedicated nominees pursued different avenues to effective learning and teaching, they all demonstrated a remarkable accommodation to the needs of their students and a commitment to high standards in their profession.
Noting that this year marks the 15th annual presentation of these awards, Regent Davis expressed the committee’s pride in this tradition of honoring teachers who go well beyond the call of duty, fostering imaginative problem solvers and educating the minds and hearts of Wisconsin’s new leaders. In the continual search to make the UW System the best it can be, these awards recognize that teaching is not merely a job, but a special calling. They honor teachers who happily sacrifice to inspire their students and prepare them for their life’s work. To sustain this passion for teaching over the span of a career, she remarked, takes extraordinary dedication and energy.
Stating that he was privileged to present this award, Regent Bartell remarked that he was awestruck by the achievements of the nominees and that the UW is extremely fortunate to have such inspiring teachers.
In describing her philosophy of teaching, Professor Reddy said that she began her career by delivering information in a traditional lecture format. However, she soon wondered what would happen if she moved away from that approach and started guiding and facilitating student learning. What happened, Regent Bartell said, is that she became one of the UW System’s most accomplished teachers.
Educated at the University of Hartford and the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Maryland, she joined the UW-Milwaukee faculty in 1983. Characterized by her colleagues as a “teacher’s teacher”, she won the 2006 Alumni Association Award for Teaching Excellence and the 2001 Distinguished Undergraduate Teaching Award. In addition, her outstanding teaching has received national recognition from the American Psychological Association, which selected her as a consultant on teaching health psychology; and her undergraduate course materials were published in the book, Teaching Health Psychology, which is used by peers throughout the country.
Her extraordinary gift for teaching and mentoring, Regent Bartell said, has inspired undergraduate and graduate students for decades, with a teaching philosophy captured in the following words: “I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand.”
Throughout her career, she has directed numerous masters and doctoral theses and initiated reform-driven curriculum development. Her research on the health of women and under-represented populations has had a great impact on scholarship and patient care. Her publications typically include undergraduate and graduate student authors, and her graduate advisees regularly receive national research awards. She also encourages her students to engage in community service.
In support of her nomination, one of her students wrote: “Dr. Reddy is very successful at finding the strengths of others . . . and further developing those strengths. Education, in general, seems to have the glass ceiling effect . . . Dr. Reddy is all about removing that glass ceiling for her students by helping them overcome the barriers to education that are both inside and outside of themselves.”
Another student wrote: “The long-lasting effect that Dr. Reddy has had on my life is the most remarkable testament to her teaching excellence. The most important and lasting lessons I learned from her won’t be found in her syllabus and weren’t even a topic for discussion in the classroom. She creates a high level of involvement and learning in the classroom that has had a lasting positive effect on me.”
Dr. Reddy was the founder of the department’s annual “Meet the Faculty Days”, an open forum at which students are free to express their opinions and suggestions about the psychology curriculum. She also initiated hybrid learning courses that combine face-to-face with online instruction, and she created the U-Pace Teaching Initiative aimed at increasing student learning and retention in Psychology 101.
Provost Rita Cheng called Dr. Reddy an “innovative teacher who has captured the admiration and respect of the students and alumni with her dedication to student learning and her use of collaborative active learning techniques.”
Regent Bartell concluded his remarks with a quote from another student, who wrote: “Because of her exceptional teaching skills and her incredible commitment to students, I felt I could not pass up any opportunities I had to learn from her.”
Stating that she felt honored to receive the award, Dr. Reddy recalled that, when she began teaching, she viewed her role as a deliverer of knowledge and lectured for almost the entire class period, assessing performance with multiple choice exams. This, she noted, was the model in her own education and the way most of her colleagues taught.
Although students appeared to look favorably upon her teaching, she felt that she could do more to facilitate their learning and wondered if changing students’ roles from that of spectators to participants would increase their interest and learning. To test the idea, she initially changed just one aspect of her teaching. Instead of describing research studies and findings, she put volunteers from the class through mock-ups of the studies, allowing them to experience the findings for themselves. This shift in her thinking about the educational process had an immediate positive impact on student interest in the subject matter and on their exam scores.
Last fall, with the support of Chancellor Santiago and Provost Cheng, she spearheaded a major teaching innovation, entitled the U-Pace Initiative, which increased student learning and success, including students of color, students with lower GPAs and students with lower ACT scores. The initiative also improved students’ test-taking and time management skills, enhanced their sense of control and achievement, and increased student access. This, she noted, is especially important at UW-Milwaukee, where 76.4% of students work for pay and 42% work more than 20 hours a week. The U-Pace Initiative empowered those students.
In conclusion, she thanked Chancellor Santiago and Provost Cheng for funding the initiative and supporting her nomination. She also expressed gratitude to her deans, colleagues and the many students who have enriched her career.
Introducing the second award presentation, Regent Salas noted that Professor Smith earned two graduate degrees from UW institutions – her MBA in Marketing from UW-Whitewater, and her Ph.D in Management Science and Marketing from UW-Milwaukee. She served two terms as chair of the Department of Marketing at UW-Whitewater and previously taught English at various colleges, as well as basic skills to inmates at the Rock County jail.
In her nomination materials, Professor Smith wrote: “I began my formal education in a one-room country school house on the South Dakota prairie. My world was small with boundaries running about three miles distant – as far as I could walk or ride my bicycle and get back home in time for supper. The geography of my world and my experiences in education have never stopped expanding since those days.”
Noting that her world has since expanded to include the Netherlands, Regent Salas indicated that Professor Smith was instrumental in setting up an exchange agreement with the Arnhem Business School. In addition, she was one of the first faculty members in the UW-Whitewater online MBA program to make her classroom the whole world, with students from the Georgian Republic, Singapore, Indonesia, Afghanistan and all over the United States.
Among the honors she received were the prestigious UW-Whitewater H.P. Roseman Teaching Award, the University Faculty Award and, twice, the College of Business and Economics Service Award. Earlier this year, she was initiated as the national president of Pi Sigma Epsilon, a national sales and marketing student organization.
In support of her nomination, her students point to her infectious passion for teaching, her availability outside the classroom, and her ability to accommodate their various learning styles. Her colleagues praise the manner in which she “creates interactive learning environments by using multiple instructional techniques and by emphasizing critical thinking.” She has earned a reputation throughout Wisconsin for remarkably innovative and effective pedagogy, as well as thoughtful integration of technology into her classes.
As co-coordinator of the College of Business and Economics Learning Community, she set up an office on the first floor of Lee Residence Hall, the handicap accessible floor designated for men who use wheelchairs. She began to meet with the wheelchair basketball team and to use new technology to talk with students whose speech was impaired. Of this experience, she said: “My world grew again. The walls of my classroom widened to include the campus as a whole and students outside the ‘average’, whatever that may be.”
Professor Smith’s students appreciate above all how accessible she is, not just in terms of offering her time to students, but in the comfort and ease she makes them feel. She regularly mentors students who complete research as part of her marketing courses and then accompanies them as they present their findings at national conferences. Her objective is to teach students “so that they are ready for the world of work, but also for life outside of work.” In that vein, she wrote: “Separating the concepts of teaching and learning is difficult for me. Every location, every subject, and every group of students has taught me something and made my life wider and richer.”
Noting that her colleagues deeply appreciate her leadership, Regent Salas said that she has led teaching-related faculty book discussion groups and has served as a peer coach for new faculty members. She co-coordinates the Undergraduate Assessment Program in the College of Business and Economics, in addition to which she serves as leader of the college’s Teaching Mentoring Program.
He concluded his remarks with a quote from Interim Chancellor Richard Telfer, who said of Professor Smith: “Lois’ conception of teaching is that it involves much more than just what occurs in the classroom. She exemplifies this conception.”
Thanking the Board for having created this award, Professor Smith said that it promotes pride in teaching and demonstrates that teaching is valued at the highest levels. It felt to her as though she was accepting the award for the thousands of excellent teachers in the UW System.
Noting that a supportive environment is key to good teaching, she indicated that the support of the board and of other university leaders is instrumental in that regard. At UW-Whitewater, those leaders include Interim Chancellor Telfer, who has made clear that he values excellent teaching, and Dean Chris Clements, who stretches faculty to make them become the best they can be. The university also has a learning center for faculty that includes discussion groups, speakers, and mentoring programs. This center creates a community among faculty and contributes to good teaching.
Professor Smith then identified three programs that make an important difference for students.
- Learning communities, in which students take courses together, with the curricula of those courses being integrated. Students in these programs are retained in greater numbers than other students and graduate sooner.
- Programs through which students study abroad. Although many students who are not well-traveled worry about undertaking such an experience, they are rewarded by what they learn and by returning from the experience stronger and more worldly than before.
- Student organizations that provide students with opportunities such as presenting results of their research or engaging in community service.
Concluding her remarks, Professor Smith stated that she could not think of a more rewarding career and that UW-Whitewater students are eager, hard-working and grateful for what they learn.
Introducing the award presentation, Regent Thomas observed that the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering must be a remarkable place to learn, do research and work. Three of the eleven faculty members are graduates of the program who have returned to the university to teach. Provost Carol Sue Butts praised the faculty as “exceptionally cohesive teachers, who exhibit an outstanding commitment to the teaching/learning process and the success of their students.”
The department is passionate about its discipline and the vital role it plays in American society, noting that: “From the building where we live and work, to the roads we drive on, to the clean water we drink without a second thought, society as we know it could not function without civil and environmental engineers.” The department, which educates undergraduate students exclusively, has made student learning and success its primary mission. Recognizing that the challenges of the 21st century will require the creativity and talents of a diverse group of engineers, the department has sought to increase the diversity of its students and to retain those who have been underrepresented by emphasizing diversity in the curriculum and staffing.
Proof of the department’s excellence is demonstrated in these key outcomes:
- The department’s graduates have achieved the state’s highest scores in the Fundamentals of Engineering exam every year since 1988, surpassing the national average every year.
- Graduates have a 100% job placement rate within six months of graduation, with most graduates opting to stay in Wisconsin.
- The department has received significant external grant funding, including a recent National Science Foundation grant of $100,000 to modernize the freshman civil engineering curriculum by instilling an emphasis on the challenges posed by the nation’s aging infrastructure.
In support of the department’s nomination for this award, one graduate wrote: “The … faculty always stress the big picture of engineering, how our decisions as designers impact all of society, and that engineering is not just about equations and theorems. Civic involvement, a focus on the total design process (not just number crunching), and emphasis on team building and cooperative learning were always stressed . . .This teaching philosophy produces engineers who are not only grounded in fundamental science, but are capable of immediately contributing to society and the field of engineering.”
Concluding her remarks, Regent Thomas thanked the department for its commitment to excellence and presented the award to the department chair, Professor Max Anderson.
Expressing appreciation for the award on behalf of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Professor Anderson stated that the work of civil and environmental engineers is an integral part of daily life. As such, they hold a public trust that requires technical excellence, and the department is singularly dedicated to instilling technical and communicative excellence in its students and to preparing them to excel in their future careers.
He then outlined several attributes that were critical to the department being nominated for this award.
- First, the recruitment of energetic faculty with a commitment to the scholarship of teaching and learning. The department had been fortunate to hire and retain an entire faculty with a strong desire to be effective teachers.
- Second, camaraderie within the department, enabling faculty to work together to improve teaching and learning. New faculty are encouraged to attend teaching development workshops and are mentored by senior faculty. Faculty read pedagogy books and discuss them as a group. In addition, outside experts in teaching are brought in to aid in improvement. “We recognize,” Professor Anderson said, “that we have a duty to prepare graduates for a world of change. We have a duty to prepare graduates for a future world that they cannot imagine.”
- Openness to new ideas and willingness to embrace change. In that regard the department faculty chose to take the lead nationally in educating students to be prepared to solve pressing problems with the nation’s decaying infrastructure.
In conclusion, Professor Anderson remarked that: “It is only through adapting to change, being willing to embrace new ideas, and looking for creative solutions to problems that we as a faculty and our graduates will be successful in the future. As a result of our efforts, significant, positive change is occurring both in what we teach and the way in which we teach….I thank you for your recognition and support of our efforts.”
- - -
Regent Davis, chair, presented the committee’s report.
The committee discussed what had been accomplished last year and what remained to be done. It was suggested by Regent Spector that the committee address whether it was using its time well and spending it on topics that warrant the committee’s attention. The committee then discussed priorities that it might want to address in the coming year. Senior Vice President Martin indicated that she would use the Strategic Framework as a means of organizing these items for further discussion at the October meeting.
The committee approved, for inclusion in the consent agenda, resolutions on the following:
- Approval of UW-Green Bay’s revised mission statement
- Approval of expansion of the UW-Stevens Point Board of Visitors
- Approval of revised faculty personnel rules for UW-Eau Claire and UW-Milwaukee
- Authorization for UW-Parkside to recruit a new provost
Regent Connolly-Keesler, chair of the Committee on Academic Staff Excellence Awards, joined the Education Committee to introduce a resolution to add a third academic staff award – one for program excellence. Since 1998, the board has annually given two awards to academic staff members to recognize their individual achievements and contributions.
It was noted that adding an award for program excellence would make these awards consistent with the annual teaching excellence awards that go to two individual teachers and one department or program.
The committee agreed that this would be an appropriate way to recognize the importance to students of quality academic staff programs and approved a resolution to authorize the award for inclusion in the consent agenda.
The committee was informed that this report is prepared pursuant to direction by both a regent resolution and a motion of the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Finance to report on the matter of drop rates. It shows a course drop rate for the UW System as a whole of 3.6 percent for spring semester 2005-06 and fall semester 2006-07.
While this is well below the five percent level that triggers the reporting requirement, two institutions – UW Colleges (6.7%) and UW-Oshkosh (5.2%) had course drop rates above that level. Provosts of both institutions provided compelling reasons for the level of their drop rates; and, because both are participating in the Equity Scorecard Project, they have been analyzing data to see which students drop courses and why.
The UW Colleges has been taking action to reduce the drop rate, but the open access mission of the institution means that a five percent rate may not be attainable. At UW-Oshkosh, the increase in the drop rate has resulted from extending the deadline for dropping courses, which has had the positive result of a decline in the number of students placed on academic probation.
Regent Loftus pointed out that the report did not adequately include steps being taken to reduce the drop rates at institutions over the 5% rate; and it was agreed that, in the future, there would be separate transmittal letters, one for the Legislature and one for the board, explaining the data. Chancellors of the UW Colleges and UW-Oshkosh also would submit letters to the Joint Committee on Finance explaining their higher drop rates and how they are addressing them. The committee also asked that Regent President Bradley write a letter to the joint committee in support of what the two campuses were doing.
Senior Vice President Martin reported on affiliations with third-party providers of study-abroad programs with which institutions contract in order to expand such opportunities for their students.
A recent article in the New York Times reported on certain practices, including “free and subsidized travel overseas for officials, back-office services to defray operating expenses, stipends to market programs to students, unpaid membership on advisory councils and boards, and cash bonuses and commissions on student-paid fees.”
Following this report, UW System Administration surveyed UW institutions in order to ensure that any affiliations with third-party providers are conducted legally, ethically, and in the best interests of students.
The survey found that:
- Five UW institutions do not use third-party providers for study-abroad programs (UW-Green Bay, UW-La Crosse, UW-Stout, UW-Superior, and the UW Colleges);
- The remaining institutions have a variety of home-grown study-abroad programs, and a few have affiliations with third-party providers in order to expand overseas offerings to students;
- While specific agreements vary, UW institutions in general choose third-party providers because of the in-country logistical and student support services that they offer, including housing, orientation, registration assistance, and internship placements.
- Another advantage of these programs is the safety and security to student participants that they offer, along with the assurance of quality programming that allows students to receive credit and opportunities to study in less-frequented destinations.
UW institutions strive to pass the benefits of these agreements directly to student participants, as the goal of study-abroad offices is to enable as many students as possible to take advantage of such opportunities and to keep them affordable.
Senior Vice President Martin assured the committee that System Administration carefully reviewed what the campuses submitted to ensure ethical practice in agreements with third-party providers; and Regent Davis stated appreciation for the pro-activeness with which System Administration addressed this matter.
Regent Davis presented Resolutions 9383-9388 as consent agenda items and moved their adoption by the Board of Regents. The motion was seconded by Regent Cuene and carried on a unanimous voice vote.
Resolution 9383: That, upon recommendation of the Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, the Board of Regents approves the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay’s revised mission statement.
Resolution 9384: That, upon recommendation of the Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, the Board of Regents authorizes the expansion of the UW-Stevens Point Board of Visitors to twenty-five members.
Resolution 9385: That, upon recommendation of the Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, the Board of Regents approves the amendments to the UW-Eau Claire Faculty Personnel Rules.
Resolution 9386: That, upon recommendation of the Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, the Board of Regents approves the amendments to the UW-Milwaukee Faculty Personnel Rules.
Resolution 9387: That, the President of the University of Wisconsin System be authorized to recruit for a Provost and Vice Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Parkside, at a salary within the Board of Regents salary range for university senior executive salary group one.
Resolution 9388: That, upon the recommendation of the President of the UW System, in addition to the two existing Regents Academic Staff Excellence Awards for individuals, a $5,000 Academic Staff Regents Award for Program Excellence be established.
- - -
The committee’s report was presented by Regent Smith, chair.
A report was provided on terms and disclosures of UW System Banking programs, pursuant to the committee’s request at the July meeting.
The committee asked that UW institutions implement the following:
- Disclose that they receive financial support and what it is used for;
- Disclose that the selection of the banking program was through a competitive process; and
- Provide a list of alternative banking options in campus brochures and/or websites.
These changes were expected to be in place no later than the fall of 2008, and the committee was informed that many of the changes already have been made.
Maliyakal John, managing director of the WiSys Technology Foundation provided a general overview of WiSys activities, including outreach efforts to regional businesses.
Chancellors spoke to the need for state GPR investment to unleash the huge research potential available at the comprehensive universities.
Changes were proposed to target allocations to improve overall diversification and portfolio efficiency, and the committee was asked to approve a resolution regarding the new strategic asset allocation plan and to re-affirm its current four percent spending plan.
The committee approved the proposed resolution on these matters for inclusion in the consent agenda.
In discussion at the board meeting, Regent Salas expressed some concern about movement of assets from U.S. equities and bonds into global and emerging markets. He asked if there is any requirement to maintain a certain level of investment in U.S. funds or to invest in Wisconsin companies. He also was concerned about exposure to loses through investment in hedge funds. Regent Smith said that more information would be provided to him about those matters.
The committee was informed that ongoing projects included a review of computer security policies and procedures and an assessment of student mental health services at UW institutions.
Associate Vice President Freda Harris provided an update on the status of the 2007-09 biennial operating budget. She indicated the Legislative Conference Committee was continuing to meet; however, no timeline was available on when the budget would be completed.
Vice President Durcan informed the committee that total awards of nearly $1.3 billion were reported for the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2007. This was an increase of $138.2 million over the prior year.
Vice President Durcan provided an update on the work of the Tuition and Financial Aid Advisory Group. The group had discussed per credit tuition, nonresident tuition, including programs in place to increase the number of nonresident students, and tuition stratification. On the matter of differential tuition, the group concluded that the current board policy on student consultation should continue
The group was asked by President Reilly to conduct a review of the pros and cons of tuition models, including income-based tuition, cohort tuition, discounts for multiple family members, and use of differential tuition, and tuition stratification.
Vice President Durcan reported that Regent President Bradley sent appointment letters to members of the Segregated Fee Committee that will continue to review allocable segregated fee policies. Regent Shields will continue to serve as a Regent member of that committee
The committee received an update on these matters and will hear more at future meetings.
Regent Smith presented Resolution 9389 as a consent agenda item and moved its adoption by the Board of Regents. The motion was seconded by Regent Shields and carried on a unanimous voice vote.
Resolution 9389: That, upon recommendation of the President of the University of Wisconsin System, the Board of Regents approves the changes to the strategic asset allocations for the UW Trust Funds’ Long Term and Intermediate Term Funds, as described in the report to the Board of Regents entitled “Strategic Asset Allocation and Spending Plan Review: Long Term and Intermediate Term Funds,” dated September 7, 2007; and reconfirms the four percent spending plan for the Long Term Fund.
- - -
Regent Salas, chair, presented the committee’s report.
All regents were invited to attend this presentation, which described plans for academic and residential buildings, campus enhancements, safety improvements, and modernization of the campus. Regent Salas commended Chancellor Linda Bunnell and Vice Chancellor Greg Diemer for their excellent presentation.
UW-La Crosse: Authority to Seek Waiver of s.16.855 Under s.13.48(19) to Accept a Single Prime Contractor bid; Approval of the Design Report; and Authority to Adjust the Project Budget and Construct the New Stadium and Fields Project
The committee was informed that the project budget would be increased by $1 million ($600,000 general fund supported borrowing – all agency funds and $400,000 gift funds), for a total cost of $15.6 million ($600,000 general fund supported borrowing, $1.75 million program revenue supported borrowing, $750,000 program revenue-cash, and $12.5 million in gift funds). It was indicated that $2.5 million of the project would be funded by segregated fees, as approved by the students through a referendum. The fee increase was $2 per semester in 2006, $3 per semester in 2007-08, $4 in 2008-09, and $7.50 thereafter until the debt is satisfied.
The committee approved a resolution for inclusion in the consent agenda to grant the requested authority and approve the design report. Regent Falbo abstained from the vote.
The committee was informed that these projects would include paving of two parking lots adjacent to the UW-Oshkosh Titan Stadium and a new electrical power distribution system to serve the new academic building, the Rothwell Student Center, and the central chilled water plant at UW-Superior.
A resolution to grant the requested authority was approved for inclusion in the consent agenda.
Regent Salas presented Resolutions 9390 and 9391 and moved their adoption as consent agenda items.
At the request of Regent Smith, Resolution 9390 was removed from the consent agenda.
The question was put on Resolution 9391, and it was adopted on a unanimous voice vote.
Resolution 9391: That, upon the recommendation of the President of the University of Wisconsin System, authority be granted to construct various maintenance and repair projects at an estimated total cost of $1,269,000 ($577,200 General Fund Supported Borrowing; $338,000 Program Revenue Supported Borrowing; and $353,800 Program Revenue Cash).
UW-La Crosse: Authority to Seek Waiver of s.16.855 under s.13.48(19) to Accept a Single Prime Contractor Bid; Approval of the Design Report; and Authority to Adjust Project Budget and Construct New Stadium and Fields Project
Adoption of the following resolution was moved by Regent Davis, seconded by Regent Shields, and adopted on a voice vote, with Regent Falbo and Regent Smith abstaining.
Resolution 9390: That, upon the recommendation of the UW-La Crosse Chancellor and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, the Design Report be approved and authority be granted to: (a) increase the project budget by $1,000,000 ($600,000 General Fund Supported Borrowing – All Agency Funds and $400,000 Gift Funds); (b) seek a waiver of s.16.855 under s.13.48(19) to accept a single prime contractor bid for the project; and (c) construct the project for a total cost of $15,612,000 ($600,000 General Fund Supported Borrowing, $1,750,000 Program Revenue Supported Borrowing, $750,000 Program Revenue-Cash, and $12,512,000 Gift Funds).
Assistant Vice President David Miller reported that the Building Commission approved $11 million in projects at the August meeting, including $8.3 million of general fund supported borrowing and $2.7 million of program revenue funds.
- - -
Regent President Bradley reported that he had circulated a proposed schedule with fewer meetings and more engagement with UW campus communities.
Noting that there had been a Committee on Meeting Effectiveness, composed of Regent Connolly-Keesler, chair, Regent Falbo and Regent Pruitt, Regent President Bradley said that, in developing the proposal, he used information from the report of that committee, from the recent regent retreat, and from his study of best practices of large system boards, along with comments that he had received.
If a meeting schedule were to be designed on the basis of that information, he did not believe that the result would be what currently exists, that there would be less time devoted to committee reports, more time devoted to policy issues, and more time spent on the campuses.
Therefore, he referred the matter to the Committee on Meeting Effectiveness and asked that the group meet before the October board meeting, consider the matter, and make a recommendation to the board.
Regent Connolly-Keesler said that options would be identified, along with the pros and cons of each.
Regent Falbo indicated that he would be away and unable to participate before the next board meeting, and Regent Thomas volunteered to take his place on the committee. Regent Bradley accepted that offer.
Regent Salas commented that meetings on campuses are fruitful and that meetings with students are beneficial as well. He hoped that such meetings would continue and that meetings with UW-Madison students also could be incorporated.
As to frequency of meetings, he pointed that projects brought to the Physical Planning and Funding Committee are coordinated with the schedule of the Building Commission. Expressing concern that reduction in the number of meetings might adversely affect the ability to move projects forward on schedule, he suggested that the committee work with Assistant Vice President Miller to ensure that there would be no problems in that regard with any proposed schedule.
Replying that he would be pleased to meet with the committee, Mr. Miller suggested that there might be redundant approvals that would not need to be brought back to the board and that the board might not have to approve actions such as minor easements.
While she had empathy for the demands that meetings placed on system and campus staff, Regent Crain also saw the need to consider the ability of the board to function collegially as a group. In that regard, she remarked that it takes time for board members to get to know each other and to learn to interact effectively as a group. In addition, she noted that fewer meetings might necessitate more use of the Executive Committee, which might not give other members of the board a feeling of engagement.
Noting that student regents have only a two-year term, Regent Shields felt that fewer meetings might reduce the effectiveness of the student voice.
Regent Walsh remarked that, as regent president, he had seen all the work that goes on in the background to prepare for meetings. The cost in staff time, he noted, is immense, and time is money. In addition, attending board meetings does not make the best use of time for university leaders. In the interest of efficiency, he thought that meetings should be fewer and shorter, perhaps not lasting for two days, and better focused on policy issues.
Regent President Bradley said that he had spoken with Regent Loftus who shared Regent Walsh’s view that meetings should be devoted to big picture policy issues and be more focused in that regard.
Regent Cuene reported that the Wisconsin Technical College System Board had been meeting every other month, but then added three special meetings focused on strategic planning. This year the board returned to a six-meeting schedule, but found that move not to be well received, and planned to move to eight meetings next year. One meeting is two days in length, and others are either one day or a combination.
She enjoyed visiting the UW campuses and suggested that one or more Madison-based meetings might be condensed to one day.
Regent Bartell said that he, too, appreciated the opportunity to meet on campuses and hoped that the schedule would retain at least the current number of those visits, perhaps adding one. He also thought that reserving months for individual Regent visits to assigned campuses would be helpful.
With regard to focusing meetings, he suggested that high-profile issues should be considered by the full board, rather than in committee, so that all regents could have the opportunity to participate fully in discussing them.
Regent President Bradley asked the Committee on Meeting Effectiveness also to consider whether or not more use should be made of the Executive Committee.
With regard to visiting assigned campuses, Regent Davis commented that she would prefer to select her own time, rather than visit in designated months; and she also indicated her support for holding board meetings on campuses. She suggested that committee meetings should be more efficient and more focused on policy issues.
While she did not oppose reducing the number of meetings, she felt that six would be too few. In that regard, she commented that the board was able to deal with a number of difficult issues effectively because it had been able to act nimbly in response to them.
Regent Spector suggested that two criteria be employed to guide decisions about meetings. First, what would best enhance respect for the board in the Legislature, Governor’s office and among the public; and second, what structure would help the board make the best decisions.
He also supported meeting on campuses, noting that it is important for campus constituencies to get to know the regents, as well as for the board to get to better know the campuses. In that regard, he suggested that there be more opportunities for regents to meet with faculty and academic staff when on campus, as well as with students.
Regent Thomas noted that student regents have terms of only two years and that part of that time is needed to learn and build relationships in order to be an effective board member. Reducing the number of meetings from 20 to 12 over that time would, she thought, result in a dramatic decrease in the ability of student regents to be effective and represent their constituents.
Regent Pruitt said that it would be helpful to hear from President Reilly and the chancellors about the demands on them and their staffs.
Regent Connolly-Keesler added that cost information would be helpful as well.
Regent Walsh cautioned that it is necessary for the board to meet frequently enough in order to remain firmly in control, so that the momentum of decision making would not shift elsewhere.
Regent Burmaster pointed out that, as a public entity, the manner in which the board is perceived is important. It will be necessary to make sure, she cautioned, that any decision about meetings is not perceived as making the board less transparent or public in its operations.
- - -
The meeting was recessed at 11:45 a.m. and reconvened at 11:55 a.m.
The following resolution, moved by Regent Pruitt and seconded by Regent Davis, was adopted on a unanimous roll-call vote, with Regents Bradley, Burmaster, Connolly-Keesler, Crain, Cuene, Davis, Pruitt, Rosenzweig, Salas, Smith, Spector, and Thomas (12) voting in the affirmative. There were no negative votes and no abstentions.
Resolution 9392: That the Board of Regents Move into Closed Session to Consider Approval of Salary at UW-Madison, as Permitted by s.19.85(1)(c), Wis. Stats., to consider Personal Histories Related to Naming a Facility at UW-Milwaukee, as Permitted by s.19.85(1)(f), and to Confer with Legal Counsel about Pending or Potential Litigation, as Permitted by s.19.85(1)(g), Wis. Stats.
The closed session concluded, and the meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m.
Judith A. Temby, Secretary