Board of Regents
Minutes of the December, 2011 Board of Regents meeting
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM
Held in Varsity Hall II
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Madison, WI 53715
Thursday, December 8, 2011
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM
Held in Varsity Hall II
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Madison, WI 53715
Thursday, December 8, 2011
-President Spector Presiding-
PRESENT: Regents Jeffrey Bartell, Mark Bradley, Judith Crain, Tony Evers, Michael Falbo, Tim Higgins, Edmund Manydeeds, Katherine Pointer, Charles Pruitt, Gary Roberts, Troy Sherven, Brent Smith, Michael Spector, Mark Tyler, and Gerald Whitburn
UNABLE TO ATTEND: Regents John Drew, José Vásquez and David Walsh
- - -
President Spector announced that he was pleased to convene the Regents’ December meeting, hosted by UW-Madison. He thanked Chancellor Ward and his team for their warm hospitality, and encouraged attendees to explore the new Union South building.
Saying that his first task of the morning was one of the best parts of his job, President Spector said that he was pleased to introduce the three newest members of the Board. The first introduction was Regent Tim Higgins, owner and principal of ChiRho Services, a consulting firm based in Appleton, which is focused on health care payment, reform issues and the integration of complimentary and traditional medicine. He earned his Bachelor of Arts Degree in Economics from UW-Madison and his law degree from IIT Kent College of Law in Chicago. President Spector said that Regent Higgins had served two terms on the Wisconsin Alumni Association (WAA) National Board of Directors and was honored as the Alumni Advocate of the Year in 2005.
President Spector invited Regent Higgins to make brief remarks. Regent Higgins related a story about when he was a graduate student in 1977 on the UW-Madison campus in the Department of Educational Administration. His graduate advisor, Professor Joe Kauffman, a wonderful mentor, who helped Sergeant Shriver start the Peace Corps, served as dean of students at UW-Madison, and served as president of Rhode Island College, asked Regent Higgins why he was pursuing his degree. Regent Higgins joked that the question may have been a subtle hint that he would not make it as a high school principal. Now-Regent Higgins said that he thought he surprised the professor when he told him he thought the degree would be good preparation because he wanted to be a UW Regent. Regent Higgins said that he never completed that particular graduate program because job commitments took him away from Madison, but in the intervening years he tried to stay close to the UW.
Through the Wisconsin Alumni Association, Regent Higgins said, he had the opportunity to participate in promoting diversity on the Madison campus as a member of the WAA’s Diversity and Inclusivity Council and in legislative advocacy, as a participant in the Alumni for Wisconsin Group. Regent Higgins said that he was most proud of a program that he and his wife, Jonna, started in 1998 through a local WAA chapter. He said that they raised $10,000 from local businesses to begin a recruitment effort targeting Hmong high school students from the Fox Valley. Working with the Hmong-American Partnership of Fox Valley, they bring more than 100 students to visit UW-Madison, where they meet with the admissions office staff and with their older sisters, brothers, cousins, and friends who are already UW students. The result has been that more than 100 students have matriculated at Madison, and the vast majority of those have graduated. Regents Higgins observed that it had been a great pleasure to follow the successes of those first-in-the-family college graduates, because many of them return to their adopted roots in the Fox Valley.
Regent Higgins expressed the hope that his ongoing connection with the UW would help him learn more quickly about the System, so that he could participate productively in its governance during these trying times. He said that he was proud to be placed among such a distinguished group of citizen volunteers and hoped to live up to the responsibilities that go with the honor of serving.
President Spector introduced Regent Gary Roberts of Onalaska, President and CEO of Morrison Creek Cranberry Corporation, based in Warrens, Wisconsin. He has extensive experience managing and owning restaurants, including the 1990 National Restaurant of the Year, Piggy’s Restaurant, in La Crosse. President Spector said that Regent Roberts was an alumnus of UW-La Crosse, where he earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in Political Science and Psychology. He has served on several boards in the Cooley Region, including the La Crosse Area Convention and Visitors Bureau and the La Crosse Chamber of Commerce.
Regent Roberts thanked President Spector and began his remarks by saying that his career started as an entrepreneur, and being an entrepreneur is what he brought to the Board table. He said that when he was 10 years old, he was not old enough to be a paper boy. He wanted to work, so he told his father that he was going to the swimming pool, and instead he hitchhiked to Fort McCoy to shine shoes. On a good day he would get a quarter for a pair of shoes, and on a bad day it was a nickel. Ever since then, he has had a job, Regent Roberts said, and he had been creative in developing an entrepreneurial attitude in life.
Regent Roberts said that one of his most proud service opportunities was through Riverfest in La Crosse, about 25 years before. He said he gathered together three or four people and suggested that a festival should be held, because it was quiet in La Crosse over the Fourth of July, with festivals going on all over the state and country. Since a river runs through the downtown, he suggested the festival be called Riverfest. There were “a million roadblocks” in the way; the mayor, the council, and others said that it could not be done, and since La Crosse already had Octoberfest, it was suggested that another festival was not needed. Regent Roberts said he persuaded people to find a way to make the new festival happen, and Riverfest is now at least the second-most-successful festival in La Crosse.
Therefore, Regent Roberts said, his strengths lie in not accepting “no” for an answer. His restaurants were not all as successful as Piggy’s in La Crosse, but his goal was to exceed expectations, and that was what happened. Regent Roberts said that he was honored to be on the Board with such a distinguished group of people.
President Spector next introduced Regent Jerry Whitburn of Wausau, Chairman of the Board of Church Mutual Insurance Company in Merrill. He has an extensive background in business and government, having served as Labor Secretary in Wisconsin and Secretary of Health and Human Services in both Wisconsin and Massachusetts. He received his Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science and History from UW-Oshkosh and Master of Arts Degree in Political Science from UW-Madison. He is a Director of the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute and the Natural Resources Foundation in Wisconsin and serves on the National Advisory Council of the Marshfield Clinic.
Thanking President Spector, Regent Whitburn said that this was a high honor. He mentioned his service on the Board of Visitors for Political Science at UW-Madison, which meets at North Hall, the oldest building in the whole System. Contrasting that with Union South, he said it was nice to be present in one of the newest buildings in the whole System.
Regent Whitburn said that for many years he served on the Board of the Wisconsin Center for Academically Talented Youth, the principle advocate for gifted and talented in Wisconsin. The entity had now been merged into the School of Education at UW-Madison. Regent Whitburn said that he would leave both of these assignments if confirmed by the Senate.
Regent Whitburn said that he came to Wisconsin immediately following undergraduate school to do graduate work and to serve on the Governor’s staff. In 1968, Martin Luther King was assassinated, and the Governor had to bring the National Guard onto the UW-Madison campus for the first time in the history of the campus. These were very electric days. People like himself learned a great deal. He said that people have continued to learn much in this ever-evolving organization. Regent Whitburn said that the UW System enjoys a wonderful reputation worldwide. More Fortune 500 CEOs across America come from Wisconsin than any other system, which is a wonderful tribute to the System’s excellence. Regent Whitburn concluded his remarks by saying that it was a high honor to have an opportunity to join with the other members of the Board to try and make the System even better.
President Spector noted that Board members’ three new colleagues would be going to the Capitol that afternoon for their confirmation hearing. He wished them the best on behalf of the Board, welcomed them, and thanked them for contributing their time, efforts, and wisdom to Wisconsin public higher education.
President Spector called upon President Reilly to offer some additional welcomes. President Reilly welcomed the new Regents and said that he looked forward to working with each of them in the years ahead.
President Reilly also acknowledged that UW-La Crosse Provost Kathleen Enz Finken, who was present at the meeting, would be leaving UW-La Crosse later in the month to become the provost at Cal-Poly University in San Luis Obispo, California. He said that it was a wonderful opportunity for Kathleen, but she would be deeply missed at UW-La Crosse, in the System, and in the state. President Reilly thanked Provost Enz Finken for her service and wished her the best in California.
President Reilly added that Chancellor Gow had asked Betsy Morgan to serve as interim Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs at UW-La Crosse. Dr. Morgan has three years of experience in the Provost’s Office there, having served as Faculty Assistant to the Provost from 2005 to 2008. She also has more than seven years of experience as Chair of UW-La Crosse’s very well regarded Psychology Department. President Reilly said that he looked forward to working with Ms. Morgan in her new role.
President Spector called Regents’ attention to visitors who would be joining the committee meetings later in the day, participants in the UW Colleges and UW-Extension Leadership Academy. He said that he had the interesting experience of meeting them for an hour the day before and talking about leadership and how the Board works. President Spector asked that Regents welcome the participants when they saw them.
- - -
UW-MADISON PRESENTATION BY INTERIM CHANCELLOR DAVID WARD: “A STRATEGIC APPROACH TO RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP”
Turning to the day’s business, President Spector said that UW-Madison, the System’s extraordinary flagship institution, would be the host presenter. Its quality, influence, and deserved acclaim happened neither by accident, nor overnight. They resulted, in significant part, from the kind of careful, forward-thinking planning about which Interim Chancellor David Ward would be speaking.
President Spector introduced Interim Chancellor Ward, who offered three prefatory comments. First, he noted that the music playing as people entered the meeting room was from the Pro Arte Quartet, which was celebrating its 100-year anniversary and which was the longest continuously-performing quartet in the world. It was founded in Brussels and, in 1941 or 1942, was performing in Madison. Hitler invaded Holland and Belgium, so the then-president, one of the chancellor’s predecessors, invited them to stay in Madison. They have been a fixture in the Madison musical scene.
Second, the chancellor said that Union South, which was only an idea when he left Madison in 2000, was now a reality. Interim Chancellor Ward said that the administration had nothing to do with it; rather, the building was the result of the good taste of UW-Madison students and was creatively put together with program revenue and their own commitments. It is a remarkable building that all can enjoy. The chancellor noted that about 20 or so students would be at lunch at various tables for those who “wish to sample the precocity and the extraordinary vitality” of some UW-Madison students.
Third, a shuttle will be available to take attendees the four or five blocks to the Chazen Museum for the evening reception. The Chazen is a truly remarkable addition to the campus, as well, within the framework of the arts.
Interim Chancellor Ward commented that he was now obviously back at UW-Madison, barely four months. Being back is a little like wearing old clothes, he said, in that it is a very familiar place. On the other hand, it is a very different fiscal environment, one that is extremely challenging. He said that he would speak about a strategic approach to the current fiscal situation.
First, Dr. Ward noted that when he was President of the American Council on Education (ACE) – which includes a broad range of 1,800 institutions, such as comprehensive research universities, small private institutions, Ivy League universities, and community colleges – one of his roles was to try to speak with one voice about all of American higher education. What struck him was the fact that the environment had changed in all of the institutions in that they were having to adapt. At the institutional level, and even at the state level, there is a certain myopia about the problems being faced. National and global problems have local expression, but the broader context is being faced by everybody in different, creative, and impressive ways.
Dr. Ward said that while at ACE, one of the advantages he had was to have once been Chancellor of UW-Madison. It was amazing how much credibility that gave him. He said he didn’t realize that he would once again gain that credibility. He did not know whether it was deserved or not, but the association was critical to him in working not only with comprehensive research universities, but with the full range of American higher education. The credibility came from being in a system which also had national credibility, and the combination of a major research university embedded within a system gave him plausibility as he advocated for higher education in Washington.
The chancellor offered comments on “a strategic approach to resource stewardship.” He said that by “strategic” he meant moving away from a preoccupation with the arithmetic of econometric and fiscal challenges, and asking what is the strategy to deal with these challenges. Much of the dialogue, both in the political sector and, to a lesser degree, in the higher education sector is about the magnitude of the changes. The magnitude is understood, but there is less clarity about the nature of the response. The core of that response is a concept of joint stewardship, between the governing board; faculty, staff, administrators and students; and the political sector, which has a significant equity interest in the enterprise. The word “stewardship” is used to try to create a more neutral language about a serious funding problem that has to be solved in relation to higher education. It is not only a state problem, but is truly a national and global problem.
The problem is one of the distribution of revenues and the magnitude of revenues, the chancellor said. Throughout the post-World War II period, from about 1945 to 60, there was a democratic idealism, and also a Cold War, that gave credibility to the advancement of science and knowledge. There was a deep commitment to access and low-cost higher education. There was an idea that both low cost and high quality were possible. This was a very deeply embedded value, at a time when about 20 percent of the college-aged group normally went to college. College was affordable.
What is being faced now is the limits of mass higher education; well over two-thirds of the age group that traditionally go to college is going to college. The demands of the knowledge economy have costs that would have been unimaginable to the Congress and the state legislatures that had this idealism back in 1945. Since 1945 to about 2000, a sort of pendulum of good times and bad times existed. It was possible to survive the bad times because the good times would return.
Interim Chancellor Ward said that beginning in the late 1990s, and throughout the last decade, the pendulum has fallen off its pin. It is no longer swinging; it is lying on the ground. Whether there is any blame for that is irrelevant. It is a reality that has to be faced. If the pendulum is not swinging, then what other concept is there to look at in terms of good times and bad times? The sum of the state subsidy and tuition together is now declining. The core budget is no longer simply trading tuition for state funding but, instead, there is probably an absolute decline.
This pendulum presents a real problem. For a long time only special tuition increments provided a revenue gain. Federal and philanthropic funds, which are incredibly important to UW-Madison – 45 percent federal and perhaps 15 percent philanthropic – are designed and given to the university as the margin of excellence. They are not really designated or organized to be the core budget. What has occurred is an impoverishment of the core budget, even though the total revenues have gone up. It is difficult to complain that during the last decade the university was in pain; the revenues have actually gone up. However, that composition has changed dramatically.
Public universities with very different missions are facing a challenge of the adequacy of the core budget. They can ask for more money. They can think of different tuition policies. They can find private gifts. However, the core budget is, in fact, the challenge. It is necessary to imagine how to address that issue.
This leads to the idea of stewardship, Dr. Ward said. When dealing with strategic planning on campuses, the purposes are considered – e.g., education, research, outreach, regional economic development, and democratic values. However, deep down, there is a resource challenge. In the 50 years following World War II, there was not great worry about resources. The fixation was on doing the things institutions wanted to do, and invariably new money was found to do that. The core budget was taken for granted.
The core budget can no longer be taken for granted. The old money is now challenged, and it is the source of the leverage. Thus, the nature of the core money is critical. The idea of public-private partnership, and the critical role of alumni and friends of the university over, above, and beyond legislative appropriations, becomes more important. How to be a steward of multiple resources is the collective challenge. Dr. Ward suggested that the discussion needs to be about a public investment grounded on a public-private partnership, and a commitment to the future, with a long-term pay-off. The idea of “stewardship” provides a language of discourse that suggests a look forward to figure out collectively how to be stewards of our future, because higher education is indispensable to it.
Dr. Ward showed a diagram of a funding graph of UW-Madison’s operating budget. Tuition and state funding are probably less than one-third of total revenue now. Buildings are additional, and almost 80 percent sustained by private activity.
What makes UW-Madison and other institutions different from their peers and creates the margin of excellence is philanthropy. Most donors want to make a difference to the margin of excellence. Research and technology transfer are growing, as well, but federal funding will be challenged, and technology transfer is changing in its nature. In the business world, without adequate core funding, the leverage is impoverished.
Dr. Ward suggested that in many state universities, the sum of state funding and tuition may become too low to entice the kind of funding from the federal government or from philanthropists that dramatically affects the margin of excellence. This balance is of concern.
The chancellor posed the question of how to attract this funding and said that, depending on the institution’s mission, there may be a variety of strategies. Whatever the strategy, resource stewardship – the stewardship of multiple resources – should be in the plan. Both philanthropy and research in technology transfer in different ways will have to be a creative part of the core budget. By this, Dr. Ward said that he meant that most named shares given by donors provide supplementary research support, very rarely salary support. He suggested that this needed to change, and that support would be needed for salaries.
With respect to technology transfer, WARF and the UW Foundation are important donors that will increasingly have to figure out how to seed research. To be successful in technology transfer, not only is current research important, but when young professors arrive on campus, their capacity to be future leaders in technology transfer is being seeded. Seed money is core money. Core money used to come from the state or from tuition, the conventional revenues.
The chancellor also mentioned educational innovation and administrative streamlining, in the context of self-generated savings. With respect to educational innovation, there are many things that can be done regarding “reform of learning and the acquisition of knowledge.” In administration there are a variety of things that can be done to streamline operations.
Describing some possible changes, Dr. Ward said that in changing philanthropy, changing research, or changing administration, it is still necessary to make sure that the two sources that are critical – the equity interest of the state and the interest of students and their families – remain critical. Providing moderate but targeted tuition increases may be necessary. He said he would no longer place student loan levels as one of the highest priorities; there is a loan bubble being created by tuition and the substitution of loans for grants, which means tuition policy must be developed very prudently. There are areas on UW campuses where there could be targeted increases. They have to be value-added areas; the tuition increases should not be entitlements. Sustained state support is also important, because it leverages other funds.
State and System flexibility, something that was discussed a great deal in the spring, relates to autonomy. Autonomy does not mean independence, but rather the elbow room to be creative in an entrepreneurial sense within the institutional mission. The UW System is great, not because all institutions are the same, but because in different ways the institutions have defined their missions within a niche. This serves the purposes of the state at large. For UW-Madison, in many respects, access is a very challenging issue and yet others are providing access in far more creative ways. There should be an indelible connection between UW-Madison and other campuses. There are inter-institutional relationships in engineering between UW-Milwaukee and UW-Madison, and in nursing and social work between UW-Eau Claire and UW-Madison. Inter-institutional linkages are going to be indispensable to campus survival in the 21st century. Institutional autonomy in a narrow sense does not work, but the autonomy to create direct inter-institutional relationships is critical.
Addressing personnel systems, Dr. Ward said that in a state system, a university runs like a state agency and thus, in general, “the more people that report to you, the greater your seniority.” However, the university prefers to reward people by brain power. Referring to Dr. Thomson’s stem-cell research, Chancellor Ward said that “if nobody reports to Jamie Thomson, and he gets the Nobel Prize, why should I care how many people report to him?” The critical thing is the brain power, the leverage of the brain power, and a better understanding of the knowledge economy and what a personnel system is in a knowledge economy. A high-tech company would be a better model than a state agency, he concluded.
Regarding the reallocation of base funding, the chancellor said that there are legacy items in base budgets, entitlements that have built up over the years. The last budget offered more flexibility with respect to personnel and also a greater degree of flexibility on base reallocation. It will take time to develop the capacity to make major structural changes; it needs to be a five-year cycle so that students in programs that may be more vulnerable are not harmed. There has to be a cycle to the kind of reform demanded by reallocation, which is not a cycle of six months or one year, but rather is the cycle time of education.
The chancellor noted the need for increased investment in the base budget and need-based aid to ensure access. He said that need-based aid is something that his predecessor had paid a lot of attention to, and that he would, as well. Also needed are fully-endowed professorships and funds for educational innovation.
Educational innovation and administrative excellence are two areas that the university could undertake on its own, as its own steward. Educational innovation involves re-thinking how to educate. Blended delivery, distance learning fused with residential learning, could be used to a greater degree. There are areas that could be examined based on an understanding of cognition, and there are breakthroughs in understanding the brain and the different ways in which 18-year-olds learn. This does not pertain to standards, but rather to providing customized and variable delivery. The genius of technology is the avoidance of standards, which are frequently lower than the top part of the curve of talent among students. In mass higher education, variability must be addressed. There need to be minimum standards, but also a consciousness of different ways in which individuals learn. The university can take advantage of the research on its own campuses to understand learning in relation to new knowledge about how the brain evolves.
Dr. Ward indicated that there were opportunities to rethink academic structures, which are currently discipline-related structures; some interdisciplinary structures do exist, but “they run horizontally across a deep set of silos.” This has been said for many years, but there are ways to rethink academic structures; it is not a matter of eliminating them, but more likely of how to merge creatively into 21st-century knowledge categories.
Providing an example, the chancellor said that since the middle 19th century, the medical school started with anatomy, physiology, and pharmacology; everybody went into those disciplines. However, these are no longer disciplines which are the essence of the frontier of medical research. The medical school considered whether these are the right subjects for new medical students to be taking and then merged the three programs and divided them in two. One of them is regenerative medicine, and the other one is neuroscience, 21st-century categories. Anatomy and physiology are embedded within those larger, more conceptual delivery arrangements; and a different structure of people and resources was the result. The chancellor said that from what he understood, the quality of the infrastructure of the two programs, compared with the original three, is infinitely better, having been raised up to the level where there are certain economies of scale in the infrastructure that departments require.
Dr. Ward also suggested re-thinking comprehensiveness. This is a critical issue because not all programs can be delivered everywhere. The genius of the System has been that redundancy and duplication are far less than in most other states. However, comprehensiveness should be reconsidered when resources are diminishing or new areas of study (e.g., microbiology or media studies) are developing. The intellectual configuration of knowledge is changing. The chancellor opined that the existing extent of comprehensiveness was at an outdated level; it is important to re-think a level comprehensiveness that makes sense for the current time. This is occurring, but on a small scale.
Following up on this point, the chancellor suggested there is a need to scale best practices for maximum gain. He noted that the opportunities for reform that he mentioned were currently occurring on the UW-Madison campus. The amount of innovation is overwhelming, as is the response to flexibility; however, the chancellor said he was underwhelmed by the university’s capacity to scale these things upward. Instead, work is done “as independent contractors at a cellular scale.” Although it is very hard to scale up in the university culture, departments that have reformed themselves should be models for others. Best practices should be scaled upward, not invented.
In addition to educational innovation, the other area in which institutions can be stewards of themselves is administrative excellence. Information technology on most campuses does not look the same way in the corporate world. It is very idiosyncratic, built from the bottom up, and rarely conceived from the top down. Considerations are space management, a reduction of lease space, and the computer programming necessary to allocate space to classrooms and not have courses that students are required to take offered at the same time. Most large comprehensive research institutions do a very poor job of handling space assignment.
Demand management of supplies is another area that could be done better. Savings from coordinating facilities and streamlining the grants management process, for example, have to be reinvested in educational innovation. There need to be internal ways of retaining savings for reinvestment. Cuts to funding destroy the savings, affect morale, and break the cycle of innovation.
Dr. Ward noted that UW-Madison has a major research commitment. Nationally and globally, much of UW-Madison’s identity is the volume, magnitude and impact of its research. He said that even in the research area, systemic changes were needed to become better stewards. From good stewardship of the state’s interests, the students’ commitment can be preserved. Rather than looking only at the magnitude of the cuts, it is important for the university to be able to say that it is a key part of the solution. And out of that perhaps a public partnership in stewardship and reinvestment can occur.
The chancellor turned to UW-Madison Paul DeLuca to speak next, saying that even though UW-Madison receives accolades for research, there are opportunities to enhance the institution’s research excellence.
Provost DeLuca referred to three mechanisms for changing course: efforts in academic excellence in the education area, which would be discussed during the afternoon at the Education Committee meeting; improvements in the administrative infrastructure, to be discussed in the Business, Finance, and Audit Committee meeting; and the importance of what needs to be done in the research enterprise, which Provost DeLuca said he would be discussing.
He began his remarks by providing a national context. He referred to data on the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from the fourth quarter of 2007 through the third quarter of 2011 and said that it is contraction and devaluation of the workforce in very specific areas that led to recovery of the GDP. Data from the National Bureau of Statistics show the impact of education. The higher the number of degrees, the more immune a state is from downturns in the economy. That represents systematic movement toward a knowledge-based economy.
Provost DeLuca made several observations about the economic impact of research. First, the impact of the Madison campus on the economy of the region and the state is in the billions of dollars. It is critical to not only maintain this impact, but to grow it. He also referred to total base research funding, marveling that in a state of 5.5 million people, an engine of discovery has been ranked in the top five in the nation for the last 25 years, which is astounding. More importantly, those numbers have been going up.
Second, UW-Madison has been highly competitive in federal research funding and will remain so. Where there is a margin for improvement is on the non-federal side.
Third, UW-Madison has two major and significant partners. The first partner is the University Research Park. The visionary effort to create the research park is going to grow and be recognized as one of the seminal moments that took place. The space, size and complexity of that organization are a proving ground for the University’s ability to take discovery into commercialization, which reflects the degree to which UW-Madison can generate additional revenue streams for its core budget. The other major partner is the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF). The impact of WARF is shown in $1.25 billion in research support being returned for UW-Madison since the creation WARF. WARF is an enormous resource that has allowed UW-Madison to leverage itself to the position of second, third, and fourth in the nation with respect to its research enterprise.
Provost DeLuca showed a slide illustrating the tremendous growth of the WARF endowment since 1991-92 (although WARF has existed since the 1930s). The licensing revenue that comes from patents and relicensing is another feeder in the enterprise. The result has been a tremendous increase in commercialization, or WARF start-ups. These are companies in which WARF licensed royalties, and WARF also participated in their commercialization. This is being driven in an entirely high-technology, knowledge-based economy.
Provost DeLuca, saying that the various indicators he had described suggested great success, made a comparison between the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the University of Utah. The provost said that UW-Madison has triple the number of disclosures to WARF with respect to the discovery process. Where the problem lies is the commercialization aspect. Utah is generating as much commercialization as is UW-Madison, with half the disclosures. “Discovery to product” is a golden opportunity that UW-Madison can pursue. UW-Madison has laboratories throughout the campus that can actively pursue the movement of discoveries to patent disclosure and subsequently to commercialization.
Presently, what generally happens is that intellectual property that comes from UW-Madison scientists, faculty, staff, and laboratories is disclosed to WARF; the most likely outcome is that patents are filed and obtained and then subsequently relicensed to industry and society. The institution could do more, in partnership with WARF, to pay closer attention to direct commercialization.
Current activities, while rather extensive, generally address a specific problem or make a specific change. There is no cohesive matrix by which assets are moved to a higher degree of commercialization. Working together with WARF, UW-Madison could reach into laboratories and improve the disclosures which could easily be accomplished, identify among that set of disclosures those discoveries that have a particular application that would benefit from commercialization, and actively pursue commercialization to increase the yield that comes out of the institution. It would be almost effortless to accomplish this, Provost DeLuca said. A considerable amount of time and effort will be spent to figure out how to do this. This is not rocket science. It is exactly the process that the University of Michigan, Stanford University and, to a certain extent, Utah, have been actively pursuing with great success. They have done a much more effective job of leveraging their resources, and UW-Madison has a unique opportunity to pursue that.
In closing, the provost reviewed the avenues through which the core budget can be enhanced: (1) to improve effectiveness and efficiency with respect to administrative infrastructure; (2) to increase efficiency in the academic area by developing a form of instruction that is much leaner, more flexible, and more effective; and (3) to make dramatic improvement in moving discoveries into the marketplace and providing a high impact on the state of Wisconsin and the region.
President Spector thanked Interim Chancellor Ward and Provost DeLuca for their presentation, and they were greeted with applause. He asked Regents if they had questions.
Regent Crain asked for greater specificity about what other universities are doing that this university has not yet accomplished. Provost DeLuca provided examples, saying that one issue is the interface between high-technology industry and the university’s discovery and educational process and how to create a closer relationship between the two. For example, Stanford brought public and private facilities and scientists and researchers into close proximity to each other to enhance the movement of creativity into the marketplace. The University of Michigan has also pursued such activity. In comparison, southern Wisconsin lacks serial entrepreneurs, people who have brought an idea to commercial success and then done so repeatedly. Michigan has such resources and has also put serious effort into the education and training of those individuals, the provost said.
President Spector recognized Regent Tyler, who asked whether the university typically retains ownership of patents or intellectual property, whether there is joint ownership, or whether property is sold outright, and how this impacts an organization’s willingness to contribute.
Provost DeLuca responded that at UW-Madison, intellectual property is owned by the faculty and staff, not by the university. As a result of the Buy Dole process, intellectual property created through federally-funded research is assigned to WARF, which takes ownership of the intellectual property. WARF subsequently commercially licenses it. From the funding stream of the royalties associated with that licensing, a component goes back to the investigators. The remainder goes to build the WARF “endowment,” and a very significant component comes back to the institution in an annualized process. Thus, there is clear feedback between licensing revenue and the support of the infrastructure.
President Spector commented that WARF was one of the great innovations in the history of the United States. Provost DeLuca cited Vitamin D and the medical diagnostic area as two examples, saying that virtually everyone in the room would at some point benefit from intellectual property created at UW-Madison.
- - -
PRESENTATION BY TERRENCE MacTAGGART: “REGENT RESPONSIBILITIES AND LEADERSHIP ROLE IN A TIME OF CHANGE”
President Spector observed that higher education systems, like so many entities, normally survive at a high level only through adaptation to changing circumstances. He said that Board members would continue their discussions on the evolving roles and responsibilities of the Board, the changing landscape, adaptations already made, and future change. He turned to President Reilly to provide an overview of recent changes.
President Reilly noted that change was not only a Wisconsin phenomenon; the broader national landscape of higher education is changing and evolving, and Wisconsin is part of the evolution. The current economic climate presents public colleges and universities with challenges that cannot be ignored or set aside without compromising the university’s reach and quality.
As in other states, challenges include continued declines in state funding. The 2011-13 state budget reduced taxpayer support for UW System institutions by $250 million over two years, including a specific requirement to make major reductions in System Administration offices. State funding was reduced by another $90 million, or $45.3 million per year, to reflect higher employee contributions to retirement and health insurance benefits. That results in a total impact on the UW System of more than $340 million. The proposed budget lapse calls for the UW System to prepare for the loss of $65.6 million more over two years.
At the same time, President Reilly noted, the UW System had been given unprecedented new operational flexibilities, which was good news. These flexibilities are not everything the UW System requested in the Wisconsin Idea Partnership, but are a good step in the right direction. President Reilly listed flexibilities that were gained: (1) in budgeting, the ability to reallocate savings from one area in the budget to another, using all or almost all of the financial resources to address educational needs; (2) in financial management, the authority to manage revenues and retain interest earnings; (3) in personnel systems, the freedom to develop new personnel systems, one for UW-Madison and another for other institutions, that will fit the UW System’s needs more efficiently; (4) in purchasing, the ability to enter into contracts for materials, supplies, equipment or services that relate to higher education; (5) in tuition, the authority to increase resident undergraduate tuition without restriction, subject to a two-year 5.5-percent cap on tuition increases; and (6) in construction, the authority to manage building projects that cost less than a half-million dollars that are entirely funded with gifts and grants, without approval by the State Building Commission.
As to the tuition authority, President Reilly said that there is a contradiction in terms. The authority to increase resident undergraduate tuition without restriction is subject to a two-year, 5.5-percent cap on tuition increases. He added that the UW System is very conscious of using tuition authority very responsibly and that tuition increases are not going to fund the majority of what the System does. As to construction authority, President Reilly said that the new flexibility is narrow, because most projects cost more than $500,000 and many of them are not entirely funded with gifts and grants. Therefore, more work is needed here.
President Reilly also remarked that the authority and flexibilities that had been gained could be taken away as quickly as they were granted. Thus, part of the goal in the first year is to exercise them very responsibility.
As he presented in September in his response to the President’s Advisory Committee on the Roles of UW System Administration, President Reilly identified a number of strategic changes that must be made to take full advantage of the newfound freedoms and reshape the relationship between UW System Administration and the UW institutions. These include new ways to involve chancellors in developing systemwide policies. For instance, three chancellors serve on President Reilly’s cabinet; two other chancellors are involved in regular discussions with the board president and vice president. System Administration as a whole is implementing a new management philosophy that calls for more consultation earlier on, and more local control. Responsibility for some personnel decisions has been moved to the chancellors, for instance. Also, a review of all Regent policies is underway to eliminate policies that are out of date and change policies that may impose excessive authority over the campuses.
In September, the conversation focused on three major areas where responsibility and accountability are being moved to the institutions, while UW System Administration works harder to connect the resources of the entire UW System to the needs of the state: (1) restructuring the process for approving new degree programs, leaving the responsibility for academic quality with UW institutions, their faculty members, provosts, and accrediting agencies, with the Board of Regents focusing on the state’s array of degree program options; (2) moving to refocus UW System Administration’s auditing resources on work that relates to overseeing board policies and fiduciary responsibilities; and (3) adopting a more targeted approach to the UW System’s investment in economic development through a partnership with the new Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation, focused on job creation and new industry sustainability.
President Reilly said that the guiding premise of all this was to transform the UW System in substantive, intentional, and visionary ways and to work to encourage the evolution of a System that is more effective, efficient, nimble, innovative, and entrepreneurial. This was only the beginning of a long-term change process, he said. The Regents and UW System staff would be refocusing their priorities and asking chancellors and colleagues across the 15 UW institutions to do the same.
President Spector noted that as part of navigating uncharted waters, consideration had begun of which aspects of Regents’ roles and responsibilities might change and which would not change. The first step in that process was the creation of two ad hoc committees, one focused on Regent roles and responsibilities and the other on System structure and governance. The timing of the latter committee would likely coincide with that of the legislative Task Force chaired by Regent Falbo. President Spector expressed the hope that recommendations from the Roles and Responsibilities Committee would be considered at the Board’s February meeting.
With the purpose of better informing that conversation, Dr. Terry MacTaggart, a nationally recognized expert on such things, had been invited to the meeting to share his knowledge and experience. Dr. MacTaggart served as the facilitator for President Reilly’s Advisory Committee on the Roles of UW System Administration. He is a former chancellor of UW-Superior and a former CEO of two other public university systems, the Minnesota State University System and the University of Maine System.
President Spector said Dr. MacTaggart’s research and publications focus on higher education system governance, improving relations between such institutions and the public, and restoring institutional vitality. Calling upon his own personal experiences and his work with the President’s Advisory Committee, Dr. MacTaggart was asked to speak with Regents about “Responsibilities and Leadership Roles in a Time of Change.” President Spector noted that he had asked that Dr. MacTaggart provide comparative and other information that would help the Board’s ultimate decision-making and avoid any conclusory recommendations or discussion on what those decisions should be.
Dr. MacTaggart expressed pleasure at being in Madison, and in such a remarkable facility, Union South. He commented to his former-colleague UW System chancellors that one would be hard pressed to find a system in which the comprehensive universities are of as uniformly high quality as in Wisconsin. Not many rise above the UW System. .
Saying that his job was straightforward, Dr. MacTaggart said that the goal would be to engage Regents in a discussion about what it means to make a difference as a Regent in bringing positive change to the System. Referring to Interim Chancellor Ward’s earlier remarks, he said that presentation had underscored the point that if the System moves forward, the state moves forward, and if the System does not move forward, the state does not either.
Dr. MacTaggart noted that three questions would be discussed and that he would introduce them and then look forward to Regents’ questions, criticism, and thoughts. He emphasized that the conversation would be an “upstream” discussion, with the results of the two ad hoc committees and subsequent debates leading to specific actions and changes.
First, Dr. MacTaggart posed the questions, which pertained to: (1) what it means to be a high-performing board today; (2) how to assert leadership that will improve the quality of students’ experience, ability to pursue a career, and ability to be great citizens of the state, without micromanaging; and (3) how to align Regents’ understanding of their roles and responsibilities in Chapter 36 with the changes that must occur if Regents are going to make a difference.
Dr. MacTaggart said that he would use a triangle to try and illustrate the growth and change in responsibility for boards of trustees that emerged in the past ten years. The base foundation role of boards is fiduciary. If fiduciary responsibilities are not met, and if the people of the state lose confidence in the Board’s oversight of the finances and ability to make correct budget decisions, then anything else that the Board does is not going to matter much.
Something implicit in the work of boards, but now more explicit after recent events in Athletics at Penn State, is the protection and advancement of the brand and reputation of the institution or System. Dr. MacTaggart asked about the availability of polling results or a scientific social science research-based understanding of what the people of Wisconsin think about the Board and the System Administration, asking about Regents’ intuitive understanding of how they would like to be regarded in the minds of the public. Regents’ role is not only about managing resources, student tuition, and federal grants, but is also about managing the reputation of the System and the Board itself. Every board should be attentive to this kind of thing.
The next level is to develop a culture of dissent and agreement. Dr. MacTaggart said it is important to have someone who asks tough questions, who challenges conventional wisdom. In many cases, newcomers on a board play this role. Citing an author named Richard Chase, Dr. MacTaggart said that robust conversations before decisions are made can prevent mistakes, develop buy-in, and develops better ideas. This is not enough, however. The new expectation of the last decade, and particularly in the last three years, is to play a role in “change leadership” – to not only preside over a large system, but to figure out a way to use brain power and governing authority to help the system move forward. This is not recentralization, but rather a more devolved, decentralized model. Dr. MacTaggart said that the question becomes how the Board of Regents can add value, and how it can make a difference. He paused and asked for comments, questions, disputes, or queries about the framework he was discussing.
President Spector said that he thought it was helpful. Dr. MacTaggart asked Regent Crain if it made sense for her, and she replied that she wasn’t sure she understood the “change leadership” idea. Dr. MacTaggart said that he hoped to have part of the answer to this as the discussion progressed. Referring to a document entitled, “How Boards Contribute to Positive Change and How They Don’t,” Dr. MacTaggart said that a mantra in higher education lately has been “the engaged board.” Every president or head of a university wants a board, or at least says they want a board, that is more engaged with the workings of the institution. It is a general feeling that the more the board is intelligently involved in the working of the institution, the better long-term strategies will result.
One way to think about “change leadership” is to draw a distinction between the results of one’s experience and training, intelligence, brain power, success and experience in business, government, or the social sector, and one’s governing-authority role within the UW System. If both of these roles are brought to the table, this is one way to impact change. Four Regents served on the Advisory Committee to the President; that was the brain-power part. The Regents could have cut to the conclusion that they were going to try to create a more entrepreneurial or more innovative decentralized System, but they did not do that. They thought about what was the right way to accomplish change; this is an example of brain power.
Another example is in Maryland. The board there, in concert with system head Brit Kirwan, has done more to reform itself and the operations of the system than perhaps any in the country. One of the many things that happened there was that the chair of the board realized there was a deteriorating relationship with the legislature. The reputation of the system became one of its being too expensive, too slow moving, and not responsive to the needs of the state. The regent president said that it was necessary to change the game dramatically, including changes in the third rail of higher education – teaching loads and tuition increases – so that more students could be educated in measurable ways, without additional resources from the legislature. They were successful.
Dr. MacTaggart said that the board, and particularly its chair in that case, stepped up to the plate and then worked with an extremely able chief executive to bring about those changes. The core thing was not so much their governing authority, but their political savvy. They realized that the usual arguments to the legislature weren’t going to work anymore. As it happens, the board chair at the time was a developer, and he knew both the business side and the political side.
In addition to brain power, the next step is the assertion of governing authority. Dr. MacTaggart provided an example from a private institution in Pennsylvania, Widener University, where the board also played a key role. Widener is located in Chester, Pennsylvania, which had been left behind in post-industrial changes in our country. The biggest reason people did not attend Widener was its location in Chester. For years the institution had ignored its neighborhood, wanting to be regarded as a prestigious institution not associated with a bleak urban environment.
The board had the good insight to realize that it should embrace its neighborhood, rather than turn its backs on the neighborhood. The board hired a president to carry out that responsibility. After about two years, a delegation of faculty members went to the board and said they were losing confidence in the president; the civic engagement was not academic enough for them, was not what they were trained to do. The board responded, however, that it did have confidence in the president.
Dr. MacTaggart said that the changes that lie before the Board of Regents would surely create push-back at times from legislators or in the media, not only with the president, but with the chancellors, who will need the backing of the board if dramatic changes are to occur.
Where problems arise is in board members’ confusing the two ideas, mistaking intellectual capital and good ideas for their governing authority. Contributing an idea about a marketing strategy, for example, is the contribution of an idea, but not the assertion of governing authority and bringing about change.
Dr. MacTaggart paused again for questions or criticisms. Vice President Smith posed a question about whether these concepts were most applicable to the forthcoming changes associated with the new management flexibilities. Dr. MacTaggart responded by saying that he had worked with about 17 systems, focusing on six of them which had gone through major change. In most cases, they went through something like what the UW System went through 40 years ago, a merger of pre-existing systems or institutions and the creation of a new board. He said that this was happening presently in Connecticut, where the community college and comprehensive university merged. It happened eight or nine years ago in Minnesota, where they merged the technical colleges, community colleges, and comprehensives. They started with a new board so that they could begin to fashion new policies and a new approach. They had a new agenda, with goals partly articulated by the state. In the Wisconsin instance, the change is occurring within the existing System. Dr. MacTaggart said that he was proposing the Board think about changing the way it operates more fundamentally than thinking, “our responsibilities have shifted a bit.”
President Sector said that he thought that the Board of Regents had operated, to a certain extent, in the way that Dr. MacTaggart described. However, the approach being described now provided a more stark conceptual distinction, which he said was helpful to consider. Dr. MacTaggart said that he had interviewed Regent Bradley and others related to a book in which he discussed the Growth Agenda for Wisconsin. The Growth Agenda was an ideal example of applying brain power with executive authority to bring out something good.
Regent Crain remarked that she was struggling with the ideas being presented, because her commitment was not to “change,” but to “improvement.” Dr. MacTaggart said that he used the word, “change,” partly because it is more dramatic. He posed a question about whether change would be incremental, but perhaps at a faster rate, or more dramatic. The more dramatic option is not identified yet, but it could be argued that the times do not allow for marginal adjustments. Regent Crain responded that she did not mean to sound as though she was supporting “marginal.” Dr. MacTaggart said that the word, “change” gets people’s attention and sends a more dramatic message.
Dr. MacTaggart continued his remarks, saying that a shift would be needed in the answer to the question of “who does what,” now and in the future, between the Regents and the president. He asked Regents to imagine three categories of decisions: (1) decisions in which they dominated the decision-making, listening to President Reilly, the chancellors, and others, but ultimately making the decision; (2) decisions in which the Board and the president work very closely together; and (3) decisions in the domain of the president, without significant Regent involvement. Dr. MacTaggart asked Board members to think of examples in each of these three categories.
As an example of the first category of decisions, it was suggested that the Regents control their own operations, selecting a president of the Board, officers, and committees.
In the second category, in which Regents work closely with the System President, Regent Bradley suggested that an example was the statutory requirement to determine the higher education needs of the state. Regent Whitburn suggested the allocation of capital and decisions about resources. Vice President Smith referred to the public advocacy role.
Regent Higgins mentioned the issue of disinvestment in higher education, in Wisconsin and around the country, and said that Board members could choose to handle this issue in two different ways: by wringing their hands and saying there would be no progress and no change until funding is available, or by empowering the UW institutions to find creative ways to use current funding to accomplish what change they can. President Reilly and the chancellors have obviously taken indications from the board already in this area. This is the kind of governing decision that should be made. Dr. MacTaggart responded that this description of a fork in the road was expressed well.
President Reilly noted that Governor Walker had signed a bill earlier in the week that would make the selection of Regents in the future regionally based. He observed that success in advocacy for the UW System had been based on third parties, such as individuals that chancellors identified in their regions, who spoke on behalf of the UW. In the future, the Board may be more regionally conscious than in the past. He queried how the Board could be effective with local third-party advocates and the chancellors in the future.
Regent Pruitt commented that the evolution in the Board’s role seems in part connected to the movement from a board that perhaps micromanaged a little too much and was more focused on process, to a board that is more focused on outcomes and accountability. This may mean the Board would focus more on things like the annual accountability report, because as responsibilities are devolved, accountability is important, as well.
In conjunction with this point, and also related to advocacy, Dr. MacTaggart asked whether advocacy means putting together a coalition or caucus, with the university chancellors and their local business, civic and political leaders, to look after funding and operational independence. Some states have done this. He asked whether it is important to put together a campaign and to breathe fresh life into the Growth Agenda for Wisconsin. Aims McGuinness, who addressed the legislative Task Force the day before the Board meeting, observed that devolution to the institutions for its own sake may not be a bad idea, and streamlining may not be a bad idea; however, if these things do not advance Wisconsin, help people get an education, create jobs, or help a business grow, what is the purpose? Dr. MacTaggart opined that part of advocacy is not old-fashioned lobbying. It calls for a more comprehensive and sophisticated approach, because the resources are not there.
President Spector suggested that if the Board of Regents as a board, rather than as individuals, has prestige in the state, then one could argue that it is incumbent upon the members to be advocates in areas in which it is right for them to be advocates. He said that one area that came to mind was the change in culture that had been discussed. This is not particularly within the academic role of the university or the expertise of only some. Regents have expertise from their life experiences, their businesses, etc. They should perhaps do more during this transitional time to convey a message about the roles of those in university leadership and about being entrepreneurial. President Reilly commented that speaking more loudly, more often, or more broadly would send a message in itself about how seriously Regents take the situation.
President Reilly said that he would like to link the advocacy discussion to Regent Pruitt’s issue of accountability and to Dr. MacTaggart’s question about whether it is time for a fresh campaign to breathe new life into the Growth Agenda. He said that also in the budget bill, the Legislature for the first time gave the System a set of performance indicators, consisting of eight general areas with sub-indicators under them. President Reilly said that the System should make much of this when thinking about accountability and about a new campaign for the Growth Agenda. Some of the new indicators were like the ones on which the System has already been reporting in its accountability report; but now the System knows what the people of the state, through their elected representatives, are saying they would like the university to do. The university is going to do its very best on each of the indicators. The Board, the chancellors, and he should all be involved in thinking about the indicators and setting goals based on the performance indicators. For example, if the university meets certain goals, it should receive fresh investment for the Growth Agenda to do more for the people of the state.
Dr. MacTaggart, referring to previous conversations with chancellors involved in the President’s Advisory Committee process, noted that based on the process President Reilly described, chancellors would be part of the conversation about how to work in partnership without giving up accountability. He also noted that, based on the Board’s agenda, it appeared that much of its current work was bound up in negotiations and trying to work through the major issue of the budget lapses. The Growth Agenda, for example, did not appear to be on the table for the current meeting. As the Board thinks about aligning its work with where it wants to go, it may be necessary to shift attention to considering how to “move the needle” in Wisconsin.
President Spector asked if the implication of this comment was that the Board should consider a separate long-range, strategic planning committee to examine where the Board has been and where it wants to go. Dr. MacTaggart responded that this would be one approach, and President Spector and his predecessors had named ad hoc or longer-term committees as the need has arisen. Some consideration could be given by the whole board to the alignment question. It is necessary to fight battles with advocacy and intelligence. However, this should not be all the Board is doing. Rather, Dr. MacTaggart suggested a focus on revitalizing the state of Wisconsin through conversations over the next few months. He said that breaking old habits is the hardest thing to do.
Moving on to the category of actions the System president could take on himself, Dr. MacTaggart asked for illustrations of such items. He returned to Regent Whitburn’s earlier point about allocation and budget priorities and posed the question of whether there is a point at which the role of Regents stops. Budget allocation is a significant part of Regents’ fiduciary responsibilities, but he wondered where the responsibility stops and should be left to the president and his staff.
Regent Whitburn said that Regent Pruitt had been accurate in his statements about accountability. In an organization whether expectations are extremely high across all stakeholders, the margin for error, whether on the fiduciary side or elsewhere, is extremely narrow. Therefore, Regents’ expectations need to be high, with an understanding by the President and among the chancellors that appropriate performance must be the law of the land.
Dr. MacTaggart commented that the world had changed from the time when vignettes and anecdotes were sufficient. He said he did not know of any board in the country that was not attentive to metrics. It is important to not have too many and to pick the right ones. Metrics are the watch word of the day.
Regent Pruitt spoke in support of cohesion and coherence among goals, measurements, accountability standards and outcomes, not only internally, but in whatever advocacy role the Board plays in the future with the System’s partners in the Capitol and with people across the state. Aligning himself with President Reilly’s comments, he said that the paradigm should be that the goals would be stated, and if the university achieves them, reinvestment in higher education in the state would follow. Dr. MacTaggart ageed with the idea that old-fashioned lobbying and core improvement should be brought together to increase the chance of success.
Regent Crain commented on Dr. MacTaggart’s observation about the Board’s agendas and President Spector’s suggestion about a long-range planning process and committees. She said that one challenge is to do this as an entire board, as well as with appropriate input from others. A number of years ago, the Board changed from a monthly two-day meeting to a more abbreviated schedule. There were good reasons for that, but these are the kinds of conversations that require the entire board to be together for a substantial period of time.
Regent Sherven asked if it would be fair to say that as many decisions as possible should be in the category of high involvement by the president, with low involvement by the board, and with accountability. This would free up Board members to do other tasks. Dr. MacTaggart expressed agreement, saying that it was a matter of what could be devolved to the president and what the Board would do with more time. He asked for President Reilly’s reaction.
President Reilly concurred, saying that it would be necessary to agree on what the “what” is and then to decide who does each piece. Part of this relates to the comfort level of the leadership and membership of the board, and that changes every year and has to be renegotiated on a regular basis. However, being clear about expectations is a good way to be effective and stay out of trouble with each other and the public.
President Spector added that, based on long experience with public boards, he found it sensible to err on the side of the board’s knowing more rather than less, in order to have a cohesive board that works well together. While it is possible to conceptualize giving President Reilly things to do that the Board does not get involved in, the Board still would like to know in a general way what is going on. They do not want to be surprised. They want to make sure there is oversight occurring, even on things that to an outsider would seem quite minimal.
Dr. MacTaggart observed that as trust dissipates, questions increase. President Spector said that when that happens, people may assume that the board leadership is in conspiracy with the president, it does not work well. This is one reason to spend time examining items in committees.
President Reilly agreed, saying there is a difference between knowing and doing. He said that there is a conscious effort to spend a lot of time informing the Board and getting advice. Some things the Board needs to do. Other things the Board needs to know about and provide advice on. President Spector said that President Reilly sometimes takes actions without asking, as he should, but he is wise enough to let Board members know what has happened.
President Reilly observed that the decentralization model was the culture that he and the chancellors were developing, as well, allowing him to be informed while chancellors are doing many more things than they were in the past.
Turning to board culture, Dr. MacTaggart suggested some things the Board may want to consider during a longer board workshop. He asked whether there is some way, without becoming tedious, to measure what the board culture is now. He said that his sense was that there was a high level of conversation, trust, and mutual respect, which was not always the case many years before. He asked what the Board wanted the culture to be in the future. Would it be more like that of corporate boards that some members serve on or work for? He asked Regents how their work would change and how their interaction with the chancellors and the universities and colleges would change. He observed that this was more fundamental than saying the Board would do more or less of certain things.
Dr. MacTaggart referred members to an article by Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a Yale Professor, called “What Makes Great Boards Great.” The article addresses relationships and the trust that the author thinks makes a difference between high-performing companies and those that are not.
Dr. MacTaggart also asked about the System Administration office culture, using the example of how the staff answer the phone. He said that he had found that there is a culture of helpfulness in the UW System office, but it may not always be perceived that way on the other end of the line. This is something to which to be sensitive.
President Spector said that he had learned recently that in a time of cultural change, it is important for people serving on the Board to get out and talk with those who deal with the System. The nature of institutions is such that the System often will not be fairly critiqued. Without trying to micromanage anything, it is important to listen and report back. If there are issues between those with whom the System office deals and the System personnel, this should be reported. He said that he, Regent Bartell, and Regent Falbo had met recently with some UW-Madison governance groups, and during the course of the meeting, there were discussions about relationships, which were very helpful. Dr. MacTaggart remarked that at Maryland, there was an effort to manage the balance between understanding what was happening at the university and not becoming captive and losing perspective.
Advocacy for the future requires more thought, as does brand, Dr. MacTaggart said. It is important for the Board not to have its image defined by somebody else, particularly when there is competition for resources and the tenor of the political debate has become tighter. Boards often make the mistake of overlooking this because they know that they are doing good things, they assume that everybody else believes the same thing, and they are wrong.
Dr. MacTaggart identified some other common missteps, based on his experience with other boards. Some boards make decisions without listening to the people that have to make things work or who are better informed. The University of Alaska System some years ago assumed that they would have different bargaining units once they merged the community colleges and the universities. It turned out the faculty at the two-year institutions ended up getting paid and having the same teaching loads as those at the research universities, which is a dramatic example of the dangers of Board members thinking they know more than they do.
Alaska was an illustration of moving too fast. Some places acted too slowly. It took four years in Minnesota, and they made no progress during that period because some people thought they would have another opportunity to overturn the merger. In Wisconsin, the pace seems to reflect a better balance between thinking it through, starting with the Advisory Committee in the summer, and then taking action.
As a final point, Dr. MacTaggart noted that structural issues are not nearly as important as relationships, trust, and talent. Other systems have hired new executives during periods of change who did not understand the culture. The UW System has tested leaders and veteran board members and, therefore, its talent pool is in good shape.
President Spector thanked Dr. MacTaggart for his helpful presentation, and Dr. MacTaggart received a round of applause.
- - -
President Spector said that he had altered the usual agenda order because of a business commitment on Friday, a rare instance of a conflict between two of the Boards on which he serves, and would be giving his report during the Thursday-morning meeting instead.
Educational Communications Board, Higher Educational Aids Board, Hospital Authority Board, and Wisconsin Technical College System Board reports
Written reports for the Educational Communications, Higher Educational Aids, Hospital Authority, and Wisconsin Technical College System Boards were provided. There were no comments or questions.
In board related news, President Spector reported that Governor Walker visited UW Marathon County earlier in the week to sign Senate Bill 28, requiring regional representation on the UW System Board of Regents. President Spector reminded Regents that the Board endorsed the idea of regional representation in the spring, and the Board was currently within one congressional district of meeting the standard of the eight regional representatives.
President Spector noted that on Friday, Regent Falbo would be providing an update on the work of the legislative Task Force, which he chairs. President Spector had attended the Task Force’s meeting the day before.
Returning to the subject of the Board’s ad hoc committees, President Spector said that the Committee on System Structure and Governance is composed of several Regents and chancellors and chaired by Vice President Smith, who would present a status report on Friday morning. The Ad Hoc Committee on Board Roles and Responsibilities is chaired by Regent Bradley. He called upon Regent Bradley to present an interim report on behalf of the committee.
Regent Bradley said that the Ad Hoc committee on Board Roles and Responsibilities included himself, Regents Manydeeds, Walsh, and Spector; Board Secretary Radue; Chancellors Van Galen from UW-River Falls and Ward from UW-Madison; and Vice President Debbie Durcan. The group met once in November, and it was a very productive meeting.
President Spector had charged the committee with examining the roles, responsibilities, and internal structure of the Board, in light of recent statutory changes giving more flexibilities to UW institutions, as well as the ongoing efforts to decentralize some administrative authority. President Spector had asked the committee to commit to writing the key roles and responsibilities of the Board and also to examine how the Board can best exercise those functions and responsibilities, including considering new standing committees or a modified committee structure.
Regent Bradley said that, initially, the committee was asked to have its final report ready for the current Board meeting, but because of difficulties in scheduling a second meeting, the committee was granted special dispensation to come to bring forward its final report in the month of February. The committee would meet again on December 21, draft a written report, and be ready to report at the February board meeting.
At the conclusion of this report, President Spector adjourned the meeting.
- - -
The meeting was adjourned at 11:53 am.
/s/ Jane S. Radue
Jane S. Radue, Secretary of the Board
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM
Held in Varsity Hall II
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Madison, WI 53715
Friday, December 9, 2011
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM
Held in Varsity Hall II
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Madison, WI 53715
Friday, December 9, 2011
-Vice President Smith Presiding-
PRESENT: Regents Jeffrey Bartell, Mark Bradley, Judith Crain, Tony Evers, Michael Falbo, Tim Higgins, Edmund Manydeeds, Katherine Pointer, Charles Pruitt, Gary Roberts, Troy Sherven, Brent Smith, Mark Tyler, José Vásquez, and Gerald Whitburn
UNABLE TO ATTEND: Regents John Drew, Michael Spector, and David Walsh
- - -
Vice President Smith convened the meeting in the absence of President Spector, who had an unavoidable business commitment. Vice President Smith announced that the minutes of the July and September Board meetings had been distributed. There were no additions or corrections, and the minutes were approved.
- - -
Before initiating the first discussion topic, Vice President Smith thanked Interim Chancellor Ward for hosting a reception at the Chazen Museum the previous evening, which had provided interactions with members of the campus community, legislators, and others. He also acknowledged the presence of members of the UW Colleges and UW-Extension Leadership Academy, who were observing the meeting, and welcomed them.
For an update on the first meeting of the legislative Task Force on UW Restructuring and Operational Flexibilities, created as part of the biennial budget bill, Vice President Smith turned to Regent Falbo, chair of the Task Force. The group met for the first time on Wednesday, December 7. Regent Falbo pointed out that Regents Higgins and Tyler were among those serving on the Task Force.
Generally, Regent Falbo said, Task Force members were interested in how to make sure that the UW is accessible in terms of cost to students, while controlling the need for additional revenue. Issues presented by members during the introductory meeting included the desire to examine the relationship between the UW System and the technical colleges, how this has evolved since the merger, and how it should be designed. The Task Force will discuss issues are raised. Other issues included the need to develop a new contract between the state, the UW, and the taxpayers, with a focus on providing and ensuring opportunity for future generations. Changes are needed, and the Task Force should investigate flexibilities that can be provided to institutions and how resources can be used more efficiently.
The Task Force heard and participated in a three-hour presentation by Aims McGuinness, who suggested that the Task Force should clearly understand the issues to be addressed, problem areas, and the state’s culture, especially the expectation of state government’s role. Wisconsin has a strong tradition and culture of treating the UW System as a state agency, with strict state control over procedures and processes, how things are done. Dr. McGuinness also made an important distinction, which is separating the “what” from the “how.” Regent Falbo said that there as a comment that the legislative charge of the Task Force included a lot of “hows,” and not so many “whats,” and this would need to be addressed as the Task Force’s work progresses.
According to Dr. McGuinness, some states have moved away from this strict-state-control approach toward an emphasis on how the university assists in meeting the state’s goals. The emphasis has been on a flexible management model with accountability. System governing boards should clearly define missions for institutions with clear lines of authority and responsibility and stay away from hands-on management of campuses. The governing board should set policy and an agenda, but avoid one-size-fits-all approaches, recognizing the differences in missions and capacities among the institutions. Basically, the state should determine the long term goals from the state, understand which of these goals should be met by the university system, create performance accountability measures and expectations for these goals, and then look to buy or fund those services from the university that will help the state achieve its goals.
Regent Falbo said that the Task Force’s discussion after the McGuinness presentation covered things such as whether the state will provide public funding to public universities and also give up state control. He said that Dr. McGuinness’s answer to that would be “accountability.” There is a trade-off. The basis of discussions about accountability should be what is to be achieved, rather than how the UW System would achieve it. A decision about the extent to which higher education is considered a public good in Wisconsin needs to be informed by businesses and other leaders, Regent Falbo said. Education will be critical for economic development and growth.
Regent Falbo discussed the nature of accountability, saying that there are questions about whether institutions should be given flexibility before achieving the accountability performance metrics or afterwards, and what should be the consequences if the metrics are not met. He said that it is very important to determine the top two or three accountability benchmarks, such as the educational attainment of the population or assurance of transfer and articulation between institutions and systems.
Additional discussion about the direction of the Task Force included the suggestion that the Task Force needs to: hear about the issues and concerns affecting all institutions; clarify the problems that need to be addressed; and engage all of the stakeholders – business, and community leaders, but also UW faculty, staff, and students. The next step should be a presentation by the UW System on its goals and accountability measures. President Reilly would speak about these items at the next Task Force meeting.
Regent Falbo said that the Task Force should look at the training of workers and workforce issues, and also consider the role of each institution within its community. Questions arose about whether the Task Force should examine the program array and campus and administration consolidation, which he commented are related to the “how” instead of the “what.” Issues include both funding and quality, as well as how to do things more effectively. Dr. McGuinness’s presentation, which was very good, drew Task Force members into a broad discussion. Task Force goals would need to be narrowed down at subsequent meetings, the next of which is January 11, 2012.
Vice President Smith thanked Regent Falbo for his update and asked if Regents had questions. Regent Crain asked about the role of the Board in communicating with the Task Force. Regent Falbo responded by saying, first, that all Regents were welcome to attend the Task Force meetings. He also stressed the importance of communication, saying that he was working with Department of Administration, Legislative Fiscal Bureau, and UW System Administration staff, who were doing the work to prepare for the Task Force meetings. He said that he and Vice President Smith were in contact to coordinate the work of the Ad Hoc Work Group on UW System Structure and Governance with the Task Force’s work. The first Task Force meeting was informative, and by the next meeting more would be known about the scope of the groups work.
Regent Bartell, noting that Regent Falbo had commented that any subject may be discussed by the Task Force, sought clarification about whether this referred to everything in higher education in the state of Wisconsin. The legislation called for the Task Force to address six or seven specific issues. Regent Bartell asked whether the Task Force would make recommendations on those issues, and beyond those issues.
Regent Falbo responded that he was going to work hard at narrowing the discussion, but within the six issues, there was significant ambiguity and generality. He said that it would be his job to try to keep the discussion focused. He asked Regents Higgins and Tyler if they would like to make any other comments.
Regent Tyler commented that it would be difficult to answer the six questions without getting into a lot of other issues. One of the six is clearly about strategy and how the System moves forward. The others are more about micromanaging an institution. He said that his own opinion was that the Task Force should stay at the strategy level and not micromanage. He said that he was not aware that the state had an overall strategy to higher education, but this is needed.
Regent Falbo noted that Chancellors Cross, Shields, and Wells, as well as Vice Chancellor Darrell Bazzell, were also on the Task Force.
Vice President Smith recognized Chancellor Wells, who observed that was an excellent first meeting, and there was good consensus that the Task Force should frame its charge in terms of the “what” – what is needed for the present and future for the state’s citizens from its higher educational institutions. The “what” is meeting the knowledge needs of individuals and groups in communities, as detailed within the Growth Agenda. If the Task Force charge is framed as “what,” then the Task Force will be able to address the “hows” in a thoughtful way.
- - -
Vice President Smith presented an update on the work of the Ad Hoc Work Group on UW System Structure and Governance, noting that President Spector had called for two committees to be formed to provide a more in-depth examination of the responsibilities of the Regents and the structure of university governing boards. The work group was charged with: (1) exploring and doing background research on one of the six topics assigned to the legislative Task Force, whether there is a need to restructure the UW System; and (2) considering and responding to President Reilly’s recommendation that a conversation occur on the benefits and drawbacks of establishing institution-level boards. The group includes Regents Crain, Pruitt, and Spector; Chancellors Levin-Stankevich, Lovell, and Wells; and Special Assistant Andy Richards from President Reilly’s office.
Vice President Smith reported that the work group had an initial phone meeting in November, and a second meeting was scheduled for December 20. The discussion at the first meeting covered a number of topics, including how the goals of one state-wide system of public higher education have changed since merger, the extent to which the current System structure is effective for meeting the needs of UW institutions, current board policy on boards of visitors and the extent to which UW chancellors rely upon boards of visitors and other types of advisory boards, governance and structures of other public university systems in the United States, and the advantages and disadvantages of various governing structures. He said that the work group started the conversation on these issues, with the benefit of background work from Board Secretary Jane Radue and Assistant Secretary Jess Lathrop.
- - -
Vice President Smith called upon President Reilly to present his report.
Update from UW-Madison Police Chief on UW Institutions’ Progress on Safety Issues
President Reilly began by noting the shootings at Virginia Tech the day before and expressing concern for President Steger and his colleagues. President Reilly asked UW-Madison Police Chief Sue Riseling to speak briefly with the Board about the work that she and her colleague police chiefs around the System had been doing to help ensure security and safety on UW campuses. He said he wanted UW students and their families to know that everything possible is done to keep UW campuses safe. Chief Riseling had chaired a group to examine what the UW System could learn from the earlier Virginia Tech shootings about making the UW’s prevention and reaction more effective.
UW System Task Force Recommendations
Chief Riseling thanked President Reilly and the Board and recalled that on April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech had the United States’ worst mass casualty shooting to date on their campus. Thirty-two people were murdered, 25 others were wounded, and the gunman also turned the gun on himself. A task force was formed within the UW System, with representation from all 13 four-year campuses, UW Colleges, and UW-Extension. The Regents were represented by Regent Bartell. The group produced a report within about four weeks, and it was presented to the Board in July 2007.
The report had 17 recommendations, everything from administrative changes, to communication changes, to training changes. The recommendations focused on some major areas. One area was awareness. People need to be aware of the characteristics of people who are avenger shooters, and know how to go about reporting what they think they see. A very broad awareness campaign went very well in the four years since.
The second area was counseling. Prevention requires early warning and detection capabilities. Some of these troubled individuals show up at the campus counseling center. In 2007, all of the campuses were struggling with the lack of resources for counseling. Many of the campuses have made strides in the intervening years to boost their counseling services. However, the struggle continues due to budget cuts’ effect on campuses. Many of the chancellors have tried to preserve the core student functions of providing counseling, police, and safety on their campuses, because they know how important these are; but it continues to be a struggle.
A tremendous amount of training in rapid deployment was done for all of the university police officers throughout the System; this is the law enforcement response to a shooting tragedy. Years ago, the strategy was to set up perimeters and wait out the “bad guys.” Today the bad guys come with such an arsenal that waiting is not an option, the chief said.
Part of the recommendation was that each campus make a continuity-of-operation plan. In the intervening years, all but a small number of campuses developed complete continuity-of- operation plans. For the campuses that do not have such plans, it is a resource issue. Decisions about putting resources into something that might happen, versus putting them into everyday business, are a struggle.
All 13 four-year and 13 UW Colleges campuses have campus crisis plans. Many of them have been tested. Testing shows that the amount of resources brought to a situation never match the situation. There are always ten more things to do, but which cannot be done, because the staff resources are not available. It is not because of lack of trying or lack of planning, Chief Riseling said. Rather, it is the nature of crises; it is not possible to staff at the crisis level all the time.
Communication in a crisis seems to be almost as important as whether or not people will get hurt. If attention is not paid to communicating, there will be criticism. Ironically, the day of the recent shooting, Virginia Tech representatives were in Washington, D.C., defending the institution against the $55,000 fine it received from the Department of Education for not putting out warnings quickly enough in 2007. On the day of the recent shooting, Virginia Tech was able to put out its first warning in under six minutes, which was remarkable. The chief said that most UW campuses have the capability to message out quickly, either through e-mail, text messaging, Twitter, Facebook, or other social technology.
Chief Riseling said that whether or not the campuses could successfully employ this technology when under stress is an interesting thing to consider. Usually this responsibility is assigned to somebody who is being inundated with phone calls or with the response itself. However, most of the campuses have done away with any kind of administrative overview of emergency messaging, which is key.
At Virginia Tech, police dispatchers have the ability to push a button and send out an emergency message. They were able to do that and get out the first message in six minutes. That does not mean that is when they hit the button. It is understood at UW-Madison that when the button is hit, a message is being sent to 77,000 people. That overwhelms the cells and the email system. The current time it takes to get an emergency email in people’s in-baskets is under ten minutes for about 90 percent of the 77,000 emails sent. This is a great improvement over 2005, when it took two hours. Text messaging is much faster because only 23,000 people have opted in for text messaging at UW-Madison. Text messages go out in five to seven minutes, similar to Virginia Tech.
The responsibility for this does not reside in the dispatch center, Chief Riseling noted. The reason is that at the time of a shooting, the dispatch center will be overwhelmed with people dialing 911 and wanting to tell the police that there was a shooting. Thus, a command system is in place very quickly, and the message goes out from a command member, from anywhere in the country, by using the Internet.
Each campus has a different system and a different method. The important thing is that most of the campuses have a method. How quickly they can use that method is one issue, and how quickly that method works is another. However, none of the campuses is in the two- hour mode anymore. Students help, because they Tweet very quickly. The downside is that they also Tweet false information, which remains a challenge.
The focus of the majority of resources and time throughout the UW System is on prevention and early warning – identifying those students, staff, faculty, or visitors who have some type of issue that they are struggling with that may lead to violence. The focus is also on having review teams in place; all of the campuses do, and the Colleges have a more centralized system, but it seems to be working well. UW-Madison is on contract with the Colleges, so UW-Madison will help them with some of their threat analysis when they need it. Also, all of the campuses communicate; the police chiefs meet once a month by conference call and talk over any issues and help each other wherever they can.
The key to understanding Virginia Tech of 2007 is prevention, Chief Riseling said. By identifying potential perpetrators early on, intervening, and getting them some assistance, Virginia-Tech-type situations can be thwarted.
The situation the day before at Virginia Tech can happen literally everywhere. Evidently, the shooter, who was not a student, took advantage of a police officer who was otherwise detained doing a traffic stop. It was a routine traffic stop. The officer was back in his vehicle, perhaps writing a ticket or calling in information. The individual walked up and, at point-blank range, pulled the trigger and executed the police officer. Indications were that it had nothing to do with the traffic stop. A backpack was found that was believed to be the shooter’s backpack, containing a change of clothes, suggesting that he changed out of the clothes he was wearing when he executed the police officer, perhaps as part of his escape psychology. It is believed that the shooter took his own life in a second parking lot.
Shooting and killing a distracted police officer, or a police officer engaged in other work, is becoming too common in the United States, Chief Riseling said. Police officer deaths in 2011 were up substantially from 2010. Police are dealing with this execution-style shooting all over the country. On campus, the goal is for campus police to be open and available, and not to immediately assume that someone approaching them has ill intent. Officers want to give students and visitors directions and to be helpful to parents. At the same time, these killings make police uncomfortable when people approach them. It is a balancing act with which police struggle.
Chief Riseling said that, based on the preliminary information, the shooting was not meant to be a mass casualty shooting, and this individual was not known ahead of time to the campus. This sounds more like somebody who wanted to kill a police officer and for whatever reason chose Officer Kraus, who was 39 years old and the father of five. It was not quite what was seen in 2007, which was very premeditated avenger violence. The shooter in 2007 wanted to avenge something. The motivation for the recent shooter was not yet known, the chief said. The death toll was far different, but no less tragic, she said.
Chief Riseling indicated she would be happy to answer questions. President Reilly thanked her for her remarks and also thanked her and her colleagues for the work done on these issues in the prior several years. Great progress had been made, but some work still needs to be done.
President Reilly continued his report with a brief update about the proposed budget lapse. The UW System was notified on October 14, 2011 by the Department of Administration that the state would need to implement the $174.3 million lapse which had been authorized in the 2011-13 state budget. The lapse is a tool that allows the state to withdraw a portion of taxpayer funding already allocated to state agencies or to the UW. Given the lingering effects of the economic downturn, it was not a surprise that the state might have to use this budget balancing tool. However, it was a surprise to see that UW institutions were being asked to absorb 38 percent of the lapse, although they represent only 7 percent of the general purpose revenue (GPR) budget. These lapses amount to a loss of $65.6 million over two years, on top of the $250 million in cuts already imposed on the UW system in the biennial budget.
President Reilly said that the System was working hard to shine a spotlight on this important public policy discussion. On October 27, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel published an editorial, cosigned by all 14 of the chancellors, all 13 of the UW Colleges deans and himself, about the disproportionate allocation of the new cuts. In the editorial, he and the other administrators promised to engage in civil and constructive dialogue to help arrive at a more proportional lapse.
On November 15, the Senate’s Higher Education Committee, chaired by Senator Dale Schultz, invited UW leaders from across the state to testify at an informational hearing about the challenges facing the university and how best to move the Wisconsin Idea forward. The UW System’s goal was to present a compelling and comprehensive story. President Reilly thanked the UW chancellors and faculty members, students, and business leaders who joined in that presentation.
Prominent business people have stepped forward to assert that cutting the UW so disproportionately is bad for business in Wisconsin. Julia Taylor, President of the Greater Milwaukee Committee; Craig Culver, founder of Culver’s Restaurants; and Jim Schneller, President of AVISTA in Platteville, stated their support for reconsidering the inequitable cuts to the UW System. More than a dozen editorials and opinion pieces in newspapers around the state also championed that position.
Throughout this time, the UW System was in regular contact with the Department of Administration. President Reilly said that he had several conversations about this directly with the Secretary of the Department of Administration, Mike Huebsch. The lines of communication remained open, President Reilly said, and he remained hopeful that DOA would reconsider the UW’s share of the new budget lapses.
Effect of Potential Budget Lapse on Several UW Institutions
The chancellors are most familiar with the impact of the proposed cuts on their students, families, and communities. President Reilly said. He turned to three chancellors – Chancellor Lovell, Chancellor Ford, and Chancellor Levin Stankevich – to share their thoughts about the impacts at their institutions.
Chancellor Lovell said that he would highlight three specific examples of the impact of the budget lapses on UW-Milwaukee. The first was the impact on faculty and staff. Morale was already poor, and the lapses would make things harder. Having heard of people leaving for greener pastures, and knowing that faculty and staff at UW-Milwaukee are underpaid, he found that they were benchmarked to be between 19 and 29 percent below their peers in various disciplines. With the lapses, they would be asked to do more with less. Forty-one faculty and staff had been recruited by other universities during the year, a number greater than the chancellor expected. These were the top performers, being poached away to other universities in other parts of the country. One top faculty member was recently recruited away to Northwestern. Top people were being taken from the UW because of the cuts, and people are being asked to continue to do more without salary increases or any sign that things will get better.
Second, Chancellor Lovell said that the lapse would affect UW-Milwaukee’s teaching. Based on the current lapse, allocated in a traditional way, Letters and Science, for example, would have to absorb about a $2.5 million cut. The dean said that if he had to take that cut, he would have to lay off over 100 lecturers in the College of Letters and Science. To be effective, most lecturers within the College would teach two sections with an average of 30 students per section. There would be about 6,000 students in the College of Letters and Science who would be looking to get into courses that would no longer be there. The campus already had trouble providing enough sections for students to get the classes that they need to graduate. This would exacerbate that problem. This is an example of only one college; ten or eleven other units would be affected, as well.
Third, Chancellor Lovell said that UW-Milwaukee had millions of dollars of investment during the past year from regional industry. The institution has had endowed chairs from Rockwell and Johnson Controls. It has had millions of dollars in new labs in which corporations invested. The reason companies are doing this is that they are looking at investing in their future by investing in the university. They want to be able to train students in specific areas of technology. The chancellor said he was very concerned that with the current lapses the institution would no longer be able to hire technicians to staff those facilities. Rockwell funded a new center for supply chain management, and the chancellor said he was worried about being able to hire a director for that center.
In closing his remarks, Chancellor Lovell said that he was concerned about being unable to fulfill UW-Milwaukee’s end of the bargain with the investments being made by private companies, as well as about keeping faculty and staff generally. The campuses’ competitive advantage is their faculty and staff; great people are being lost. If the top five percent are lost this year, then the next year and the following year, the institutions will be at a real disadvantage. Courses must be provided so that students can graduate in a timely manner; UW institutions owe that to both the students and their families. It is necessary to make sure that resources are provided to fulfill the UW’s end of the bargain, in terms of training and developing technology for the companies making investments, and to ensure that the millions of dollars in investment continues.
President Reilly thanked Chancellor Lovell for his remarks and asked Chancellor Debbie Ford to speak about how the budget lapse situation is affecting UW-Parkside. She began by saying that UW-Parkside was taking the situation very seriously and understood the “new normal” in higher education. She said that she shared many of the same concerns that Chancellor Lovell expressed from UW-Milwaukee’s perspective, and she would like to add two other dimensions to the discussion.
The first dimension, she said, was the implication of the continued budget lapse and the uncertainty around funding and how it impacts the institutions’ ability to be strategic and entrepreneurial. UW-Parkside is in the second year of its strategic plan. The institution had worked through the budget reduction, and then had the challenge of the budget lapse. UW-Parkside was in the process of providing strategic initiatives and dollars to enhance technology on the campus. The technology was going to be used to enhance the learning environment and the quality of the experience for students, and also to help with administrative efficiencies. It has been necessary to slow down and look at how to take the additional reductions in an already tight budget. Chancellor Ford said that the decisions made today not only impact the quality of the student experience and the delivery of the mission now, but have longer-term impacts, and this is of concern.
The second aspect is not only how to retain quality, hard-working faculty and staff, but also how to attract faculty and staff to the state of Wisconsin. The first question they ask is about the stability of funding and the support for public higher education. UW-Parkside’s response is to emphasize quality; but the future is uncertain.
Chancellor Ford noted that in these times of uncertain funding and continuous changes, the institution has continued to be a very good steward of the available resources, and the most important focus is on the delivery of the mission and continued service to students.
President Reilly thanked Chancellor Ford and called upon Chancellor Brian Levin-Stankevich to speak about the effect of funding cuts at UW-Eau Claire. He said that the institution put a lot of work into the recruitment of faculty at UW-Eau Claire, because it needs faculty who are at the top of their fields conducting research and staying current in their disciplines. More importantly, there is a need for faculty who are dedicated to teaching and focused on the undergraduate student and the undergraduate experience.
Chancellor Levin-Stankevich said that the last few years he had heard his colleagues, primarily from UW-Madison and UW-Milwaukee, talk about the affect of budget reductions on faculty retention. He said that UW-Eau Claire had not lost that many faculty to competitive offers. The university had developed over the years a strong culture and had selected the right kind of people to contribute to that culture. However, he said that the situation was different during the current year. The third year in a row of salary reductions for faculty and staff led to significant losses in faculty, primarily from among those who had just gained tenure and who were at the top of their game in their ability to contribute new ideas to the curriculum, contribute new programs to the university, and inspire students.
Those losses were particularly tough, the chancellor said, because UW-Eau Claire had invested so much in these individuals, and they had invested in the university. People were going not only to other universities, but largely to the private sector, where they have opportunities in fields like science. UW-Eau Claire lost five nurses in the nursing faculty. One left mid-semester, which had a programmatic impact; the incoming class in the next accelerated nursing program had to be deferred for up to a year, until (and if) those faculty can be replaced. This was disconcerting, because it was having an effect on the core culture of the institution, on which UW-Eau Claire builds its reputation.
Providing another example of the effect of the budget cuts, Chancellor Levin-Stankevich said that he was a proud member of the award-winning History Department at UW-Eau Claire. A couple days before, his department chair sent out a message about constructing the fall schedule. The chancellor said that he normally teaches a course in the fall. He wrote back to say that he would teach that course, or he could teach another course, if there were a need. The chair sent a note back, saying it would be some time before she could make that decision because of all the uncertainties about how many instructional academic staff the department would be able to hire; the status of rehired annuitants, on whom the institution relies for many courses; and whether additional people will retire on short notice. The chancellor said that there were a lot of shared faculty across disciplines within any university (e.g., Latin American Studies and History). As positions are not being replaced in one of the disciplines, their chairs are urging that faculty not help out in another area. A domino effect is created across the institution.
The key issue for the department chair is that, in the past, because of the campus culture, faculty have generally stepped up to do whatever is necessary for the department to meet its needs. The external forces that have affected that culture prompt questions about whether there is a willingness to engage in these extra efforts upon which the institution has relied over the years.
Chancellor Levin-Stankevich said that UW-Eau Claire was also looking at other areas, such as health services, to determine whether services should be provided, all or in part, by non-university personnel or non-university entities. Areas such as this were being examined as UW-Eau Claire looked at ways to prevent itself from having to raise student fees. Health-service fees are program revenue fees, but they are costs that students have to pay; and finding ways to reduce nonacademic costs can allow the university to continue to put quality faculty in the classroom.
President Reilly thanked Chancellor Levin-Stankevich, and summarized by saying that the institutions are facing significant challenges that have real impacts on students, as well as on partnerships with business and industry across the state. He said that the dialogue with the state would continue.
Asked about the timing of a decision on whether the proposed budget lapse would be reconsidered, President Reilly said that this was not entirely clear. Each of the state agencies and the UW System were asked to provide a report to the Department of Administration about how they would handle the lapse. The initial number for the UW System was $65.5 million. In conversations with the Secretary of DOA, it had been agreed that the UW System did not need to submit that report yet, until the discussions between the UW System and DOA had concluded.
Regent Higgins said that he thought that the reports of the chancellors, about the specifics of the damage and the hurt that the lapses would cause, were very useful for bringing home the point. He said that he was happy to hear that there was discussion occurring with DOA.
Regent Higgins said that he understood that the lapses fell disproportionately on the UW System and a certain part of state operations, because the Governor and administration decided to exempt certain types of things like Human Services and K-12 education from their proportionate share of the lapses. These decisions reflected value judgments about the impact of those things on the state of Wisconsin. Regent Higgins asked if the university, with its wealth of research, knowledge, and statistics, was offering alternatives during its discussions with DOA. For example, could the UW System suggest alternative ways to view the level of impact that the cuts on Badger Care, as opposed to the cuts to the university, might have on the state. Coming to management with a solution to a problem is always better than saying, “it hurts,” and Regent Higgins wondered whether this method was being followed.
President Reilly said that the UW System had worked hard to give DOA information on how disproportionate the cut would be and to say that if the state, in the long term, is going to be prosperous and have enough revenue to operate, the university needs to be a priority. This will lead to more people being educated, and to more partnerships with business and industry that create new jobs. The focus had been on making the case about the value of the UW System. President Reilly said that the UW System had not typically told state government to cut K-12 or Badger Care more. He said that this should not be the UW System’s role but, rather, its role is to advocate for the value of the university to the state. It is for elected officials to make judgments about priorities. President Reilly said that he thought this was a more appropriate way to operate.
President Reilly added that in the conversations with DOA, the System had recognized how hard these choices were and how rough the economy is. The System had also noted that when taking the original $250 million cut, which was tied for the largest cut in UW history, the System did not complain at all. However, the disproportionality of the lapse, on top of that large cut, was something that it was necessary to speak up about.
President Reilly provided a summary of work to comply fully with the new Wisconsin Voter ID law. Civic participation should be an integral part of the college experience. Therefore, all UW colleges and universities were working diligently to ensure that eligible voters who are UW students would have the information and resources needed to exercise their right to vote. To date, ten campuses had submitted to the Government Accountability Board and had approved versions of new student ID cards that fully comply with the Voter ID requirements. Approval of the design for the remaining campuses was expected soon.
Other Legislative Updates
President Reilly reported that it had been a busy time, generally, with the Legislature and the UW. In early November the Assembly Committee on Colleges and Universities met jointly with their Senate counterpart committee for an informational presentation about aligning education, workforce, and economic development policy. He said that he testified about efforts to align education with the state’s workforce needs and economic development efforts, and good examples from the UW institutions were highlighted.
Many other legislative meetings, both formal and informal, had taken place with senators and representatives from both sides of the aisle. As noted earlier, there were also several meetings with the DOA Secretary. At various times, President Spector and other members of the Board, as well as chancellors and representatives of the UW System, had all been involved.
President Reilly shared news from around the System:
Senior Alexis Brown, of UW-Madison, became one of an elite group of American students to be awarded a 2012 Rhodes Scholarship, one of the most coveted honors in the world of higher education. Alexis, an English major from Algonquin, Illinois, would be invited to spend two to three years of study at Oxford University. The scholarship is valued at approximately $50,000 a year, and is the oldest international study program in the world. With the scholarship, Alexis hoped to further her studies in English literature. President Reilly congratulated Ms. Brown, Chancellor Ward, and UW-Madison on the scholarship.
UW-La Crosse history professor Greg Wegner was named the 2011 Wisconsin Professor of the Year. He was selected for the award by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, and the Council for Advancement and Support of Education. Dr. Wegner, an alumnus of UW-La Crosse, had been teaching there since 1989. His area of expertise is the Holocaust, which he has studied for more than 40 years. Dr. Wegner also coordinates western Wisconsin’s National History Day contest, which involves more than 1,300 middle school and high school students each year. He says he never gets bored with his career, because his work is filled with pondering core questions relating to what it means to be human, the relationship between the individual and the state, and the persistence of genocide and mass murder. President Reilly congratulated Dr. Wegner, Chancellor Joe Gow, and UW-La Crosse.
UW Oshkosh’s Integrated Marketing and Communications Team was recently awarded the first ever American Marketing Association Higher Education Team Award for its leadership and achievements in higher education marketing. The team works to maintain the integrity of the UW Oshkosh brand through a marketing strategy that links the university’s mission, vision, and priorities for its various audiences. The American Marketing Association received more than 80 nominations for the individual and team Higher Education Marketer of the Year Awards. President Reilly congratulated Chancellor Rick Wells, the team, and the UW-Oshkosh campus community.
President Reilly reported that for the past year, UW-Stout made efforts to increase the number of racial and ethnic minorities staying at the school. The State Council on Affirmative Action and the Office of State Employment Relations acknowledged these efforts by presenting UW Stout with a Program Achievement Diversity Award. The award specifically recognized UW-Stout for its Summer Bridge and Pre-College Programs, which help students make the transition to college, as well as the Math, Teaching and Learning Center. UW-Stout Provost Julie Furst-Bowe noted that the retention rate for minority students at the university was now the same as for other students. President Reilly congratulated her, Chancellor Sorenson, and their UW-Stout colleagues.
UW-River Falls received a $134,000 Susan Harwood Training Grant from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to establish the Center for Dairy Farm Safety. That center would be developed and managed in collaboration with UW-Extension, with the goal of bringing together best-practice protocols for dairy-operation occupational safety and health programs. The grant strengthens the capacity of both UW institutions to develop new curricula designed with dairy industry involvement, extend outreach capabilities to dairy producers, and provide training to future producers and managers by incorporating the curriculum into secondary education courses. President Reilly extended congratulations to Chancellor Dean Van Galen and Chancellor Ray Cross and their respective institutions.
UW-Eau Claire Pilots “Transitions Program” to Facilitate Transfers
President Reilly said that as part of the UW System’s focus on facilitating transfers, UW-Eau Claire was piloting a program to ease the transition process and success rate among students who transfer to UW-Eau Claire from Chippewa Valley Technical College, the largest source of UW-Eau Claire’s transfer students. The Transitions Program, funded through the UW System’s Growth Agenda Grant Program, was designed to assist students from the technical college, both before and after they enroll at UW-Eau Claire. Program leaders say that the objective is to improve the retention and graduation rates among students who transfer, but also to increase the number of multi-cultural students who transfer. President Reilly congratulated Chancellor Levin-Stankevich and UW-Eau Claire.
President Reilly said that a new venture at UW-Parkside was a great example of the value of building relationships between the university and local businesses. A startup mechanical engineering firm called ProCubed has moved into temporary quarters at the university’s Solutions for Economic Growth Center, where plans were being developed to build a better wheelchair drive system. Student teams would get hands-on experience as they worked with ProCubed on engineering, business management, and the successful marketing of this product. President Reilly congratulated Chancellor Ford and the UW-Parkside campus community.
The UW System Administration staff awards were presented in November. These awards are opportunities to recognize some exceptional colleagues who have made a difference. A program from the event, with brief descriptions of the award-winners, was included in Regents’ folders.
President Reilly wished the best of luck to the UW-Madison Badgers in the Rose Bowl again, and the UW-Whitewater Warhawks, who were likely to be in the Amos Alonzo Stagg Bowl again. Chancellors Ward and Telfer have enviable records in winning in bowl games.
President Reilly concluded his report by reading a poem by Alfred Tennyson, appropriate for the season, called “Ring Out Wild Bells.” He wished peace to all.
- - -
REPORT OF THE CAPITAL PLANNING AND BUDGET COMMITTEE
Vice President Smith then turned to Regent Bartell for the report of the Capital Planning and Budget Committee.
Regent Bartell reported that he had been joined for the Capital Planning and Budget Committee meeting by Regents Pointer, Manydeeds, and Spector, as well as new Regents Whitburn and Higgins. The committee addressed nine resolutions which were unanimously approved by the committee and would now be presented as consent agenda items:
Resolution 9995, brought by UW-Eau Claire, requested authority to modify its campus boundary. The campus recently completed a facilities master plan, which recommended the expansion of the campus boundary south, to include the future addition of a state office building and land, which is adjacent to the upper campus, when that property becomes available. It would give the campus an opportunity to create a somewhat more prominent front-door entrance for one of Eau Claire’s most heavily-travelled streets.
Resolution 9996 requested authority to construct the UW-Madison $10-million Carson Gulley Renovation project. Half of that funding would come from program revenue support borrowing, and the other half from program revenue cash. This project would replace all of the plumbing, mechanical, and electrical systems in the existing building, which was constructed in 1926. All interior finishes would be upgraded, and the exterior improved, with new energy-efficient windows, consistent with the historical façade. Regent Bartell said that this project would incorporate sustainable design elements, such as a high efficiency HVAC system, storm water control, indoor air quality management, and construction waste management. These renovations will make the building safer, result in a more efficient facility, and reduce maintenance costs. Regent Bartell noted that Carson Gulley was an African American premiere chef who, during much of the 1950s and 1960s, worked at UW-Madison; he was the creator of Fudge Bottom Pie at the Memorial Union.
Resolution 9997 requested authority to demolish and remove five store-front buildings on University Avenue on the UW-Madison campus, in anticipation of construction of the new Music Performance Facility, included in the 2005 Campus Master Plan. The programming and conceptual design had been completed for the new facility, the fundraising was in progress, and the land would provide useable open space until the design for the facility is completed. The Board’s last prior action on this was to commence proceedings in eminent domain to acquire one of the properties, the Brothers Bar at 704 University Avenue. The Board received pushback and were defendants in a lawsuit, which was eventually settled, and the property was purchased for an amount closer to what it was worth than what had been requested.
Resolution 9998, also brought by UW-Madison, requested authority to construct the $52 million Memorial Union Theater Wing Renovation Project-Phase I. This project, funded with $40.5 million program revenue supported borrowing and almost $12 million in gift funds, would renovate the Theater Wing of the Memorial Union. The Theater Wing was built in 1938-39, and although revered for its design and functionality, is quite dated. The project also would renovate selected spaces in the other two wings of the building, and the entire fifth floor will be made into offices. The renovations would include upgrades to the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems, some of which date back to the time that the building was built in 1928, combined with improved accessibility to areas of the other two wings of the building. The Memorial Union is on 16 different levels, and that will be improved. An addition to the building will provide a 2,500-square-foot theater lounge at the north end of the current theater.
Regent Bartell noted that this project was the subject of some tension among some students and faculty because of concern that the addition was too large. After a student referendum, the Union asked the designers to make revisions, and the objections were addressed. Also, the project would be constructed using sustainable design practices, with a goal of becoming a LEED-certified project at least at the silver level.
Resolution 9999, brought by UW-Madison, requested authority to construct the $2.9-million, entirely gift-funded Kohl Center South End Club at the south end of the Kohl Center main concourse, and will be a club area for patrons. Project work includes construction to create a club seating space and a buffet and beverage area. Also, the audio/video area would be expanded and remodeled to meet current needs.
Resolution 10000 requested authority to release building trust funds to continue planning the UW-River Falls Health and Human Performance Building Project. This project was approved for advance enumeration in the 2013-15 biennial budget, as part of the capital budget. The planning funds would allow for the selection of an architect/engineer team and preparation of plans and specifications to go out for bid in July 2013, when funding for the project becomes available.
Regent Bartell said that Resolution 10001, brought by UW-Superior, requested authority to enter into land lease agreements and to acquire real property for the long-term operation of the Lake Superior National Estuarine Research Reserve. The funding for this acquisition was obtained through a federal grant. The Reserve works in collaboration with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the university, and other key partners to improve the understanding of Lake Superior freshwater estuaries and coastal resources. It involves research, education, outreach, and considerable stewardship.
Resolution 10002 requested authority to construct eight all-agency maintenance and repair projects at six institutions, totaling $10.5 million. These include utility improvements, space remodeling, and equipment replacements, and also shoreline restoration in front of the Memorial Union Terrace, which is falling into the lake.
Resolution 10003 requested approval of the UW System Administration Major Capital Projects Evaluation Criteria, the standard for ranking general fund major projects. This standard is updated periodically. The planning cycle for the 2013-15 capital budget has begun, and that process includes approval of the criteria used for prioritizing major projects funded by general fund supported borrowing. There are objective and subjective criteria, and they were updated to reflect current systemwide initiatives, priorities, and goals of the Board of Regents. These are used to create a priority list of projects in the next cycle. Regent Bartell said that the evaluation criteria were vetted by the campus planners and chancellors from around the System.
Regent Bartell moved, and Regent Whitburn seconded, approval of resolutions 9995, 9996, 9997, 9998, 9999, 10000, 10001, 10002, and 10003. The Board adopted the resolutions on a unanimous voice vote.
Resolution 9995: That, upon the recommendation of the UW-Eau Claire Chancellor and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, approval be granted for various campus boundary changes associated with a new master plan at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire.
Approval of the Design Report and Authority to Construct the Carson Gulley Renovation Project, UW-Madison
Resolution 9996: That, upon the recommendation of the UW-Madison Interim Chancellor and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, the Design Report be approved and authority be granted to construct the Carson Gulley Renovation project at an estimated cost of $10,049,000 ($5,000,000 Program Revenue Supported Borrowing and $5,049,000 Program Revenue-Cash).
Resolution 9997: That, upon the recommendation of the UW-Madison Interim Chancellor and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, authority to demolish five buildings on the UW-Madison campus at a total estimated cost of $830,900 using Building Trust Funds.
Approval of the Design Report and Authority to Construct the Memorial Union Theater Wing Renovation-Phase I Project, UW-Madison
Resolution 9998: That, upon the recommendation of the UW-Madison Interim Chancellor and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, approval of the Design Report and authority to construct the Memorial Union Theater Wing Renovation-Phase I project for a total project cost of $52,000,000 ($40,500,000 Program Revenue Supported Borrowing and $11,500,000 Gift Funds).
Approval of the Design Report of the Kohl Center South End Club and Audio/Video Relocation Project and Authority to Construct the Project, UW-Madison
Resolution 9999: That, upon the recommendation of the UW-Madison Interim Chancellor and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, the Design Report of the Kohl Center South End Club and Audio/Video Relocation project be approved and authority be granted to construct the project at a total cost of $2,900,000 Gift Funds.
Authority to Request the Release of Building Trust Funds to Continue Planning the Health and Human Performance/Recreation Building Project, UW-River Falls
Resolution 10000: That, upon the recommendation of the UW-River Falls Chancellor and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, authority be granted to request the release of $3,770,000 Building Trust Funds-Planning for the Health and Human Performance Building project, as needed by the project.
Authority to Enter into Land Lease Agreements and to Acquire Real Property for the Long-term Operation of the Lake Superior National Estuarine Research Reserve, UW-Superior
Resolution 10001: That, upon the recommendation of the UW-Superior Chancellor and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, authority be granted to (a) enter into 30-year land lease agreements for properties located at 3 and 14 Marina Drive, Superior, Wisconsin, at an annual operating cost of $5,000, and (b) acquire two, single story buildings on the site, consisting of 3,388 square feet and 3,848 square feet, and a 110- by 15-foot dock at a total acquisition cost of $850,000.
Resolution 10002: 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 $10,554,800 ($4,663,200 General Fund Supported Borrowing; $1,717,300 Program Revenue Supported Borrowing; $3,762,300 Program Revenue Cash; and $412,000 Gifts and Grants).
Resolution 10003: That, upon the recommendation of the President of the University of Wisconsin System, the University of Wisconsin System Administration Major Capital Projects Evaluation Criteria be adopted as the basis for prioritizing major capital projects funded by General Fund Supported Borrowing (GFSB) for inclusion in UW System capital budget requests.
Regent Bartell noted that a resolution included in the meeting materials was not presented because it had not been acted upon by the committee. This was a request by UW-Platteville to enter into a set of agreements with UW-Platteville Real Estate Foundation for the purpose of constructing and operating a residence hall and dining facility on campus, on state-owned land. The goal is to construct the residence hall to meet more of the existing and projected demand for on-campus housing by 2013. These agreements would permit the Real Estate Foundation to construct the building, to consist of approximately 160,000 square feet, at a total estimated cost of $26 million, and housing approximately 460 students and a dining facility. The foundation would own the facility and be solely responsible for financing the project.
The problem discussed in the committee, and not yet resolved, was the nature of the agreements. There are some legal issues with having a private entity construct a facility on state land to be used by students, as well as policy issues as to what will happen to that facility at the end of the term of the agreements, or if for some reason the operation were to fail. There are questions about responsibilities, liability, and management issues, Regent Bartell said. The Capital Planning and Budget staff is working with the Department of Administration and the State Building Commission on these issues.
Regent Bartell noted that the Capital Planning and Budget Committee met with the Business, Finance, and Audit Committee to hear two presentations. The first was a very fine presentation by UW-Madison Vice Chancellor Darrell Bazzell, describing the university’s plan for stewardship of its resources by creating a culture of process improvement through a phased approach. Also, UW-Eau Claire presented an overview of the university’s new Master Plan, which was the result of two years of collaborative planning, also a very fine presentation.
Before concluding his report, Regent Bartell said that Associate Vice President David Miller reported that the Building Commission approved about $130 million of projects for the UW System at its October meeting. Regent Bartell expressed gratitude for this approval.
In addition, the Committee recognized that Vice Chancellor for Facilities, Alan Fish, of UW-Madison would be leaving the System to take a position at Johns Hopkins University. Regent Bartell said that his talents and tact would be missed. The committee recognized his departure with a round of applause and three cigars, he said.
- - -
Vice President Smith called upon Regent Vásquez to present the report of the Education Committee.
Regent Vásquez said that the committee heard from Provost Paul DeLuca; Vice Provost for Teaching and Learning, Aaron Brower; and Vice Provost for Lifelong Learning and Dean of the Division of Continuing Studies, Jeff Russell. Their report was a continuation of Chancellor Ward’s morning presentation. They described some of the educational innovations being explored and implemented on the Madison campus that seek to unleash the entrepreneurial and creative energies of faculty and staff and, in the process, preserve the quality of student learning, create efficiencies, and potentially develop new revenue sources.
While the innovations that were being sought were based on building on past successes, what really separated this work from previous initiatives is that there were no new or additional resources with which to do this. They were not trying to do more with less; they were trying to do better with less, a very critical distinction. Regent Vásquez said that also discussed was how to report this out to the community, both the campus community and the external community, so that there would be a clear understanding that innovation was happening at the campus.
As part of the overall restructuring in which UW-Parkside is engaged, UW-Parkside Provost Terry Brown brought to the committee a request to approve the establishment of three new colleges, as required by System policy. Pending full Board approval, UW-Parkside planneds to establish the College of Arts and Humanities, the College of Natural and Health Sciences, and the College of Social Sciences and Professional Studies. The process of implementing these colleges would be phased in between the fall semester of 2012 and fall 2013.
Provost Brown explained the reasons behind the reorganization, which seeks to address the unwieldy nature of UW-Parkside’s existing college structure and strengthen the university’s academic disciplines through more focused leadership. It was reported that the proposal had broad support on campus; it was unanimously approved by faculty governance in October. The Committee, likewise, was very supportive of the overall reorganization and unanimously approved the resolution to establish the three new colleges. Regent Vásquez noted that he had visited the campus, along with some other Regents, as part of the buddy-campus structure, and got to hear firsthand about the changes.
Regent Vásquez said that the committee heard Interim Senior Vice President Mark Nook’s report about work being done in the Academic Affairs area to address the recommendations from President Reilly’s response to the Advisory Committee on the Roles of UW System Administration. This includes work to integrate and frame the various initiatives in Academic Affairs as clear components of the Growth Agenda. In addition, an update was given on the changes to the UW System’s accountability report, as required by Act 32, some of which present significant challenges because no data exists for some of the required indicators. Also discussed was the formation of the Program Planning Review Committee, the group being charged with revising the System’s program planning and review process.
In addition, the process was underway for the transfer of the Institute for Urban Education to one of the UW campuses, according to Dr. Nook, who shared details about how and why the Institute was being transferred. Broad consultation occurred with the Provosts and Education Deans, and there was wide agreement that this was the right path at the right time. A Request-for-Proposal process would be unfolding in the coming weeks, with a decision about this transfer to occur sometime in the spring of 2012. The Institute is a program that is of value to UW institutions in their efforts to prepare educators to teach in urban settings, and the committee followed the Institute’s progress with interest over the four years since its inception. Dr. Nook said that he would keep the committee informed about the transfer of this program, as well as several others identified in the President’s response to the Advisory Committee.
In addition to the minutes from its October 6, 2011, meeting, the Education Committee unanimously approved four resolutions. Regent Vásquez then moved approval of Resolutions 10004, 10005, 10006 and 10007. The motion was seconded by Regent Crain, and the Board adopted the motion on a unanimous voice vote.
Resolution 10004: That, upon the recommendation of the Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, the Chancellor be authorized to implement the B.S./B.A. in Environmental Science.
Resolution 10005: That, upon the recommendation of the Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, the Chancellor be authorized to implement the B.A./B.S. in Computer Science.
Program Authorization (Implementation) Collaborative Online B.S. in Health Information Management and Technology, UW-Green Bay, UW-Parkside, and UW-Stevens Point
Resolution 10006: That, upon the recommendation of the Chancellors of the Universities of Wisconsin-Green Bay, -Parkside, and -Stevens Point, and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, the Chancellors be authorized to implement the Collaborative Online Bachelor of Science in Health Information Management and Technology.
Resolution 10007: That, upon the recommendation of the Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Parkside and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, UW-Parkside be authorized to establish three new colleges: the College of Arts and Humanities, the College of Natural and Health Sciences, and the College of Social Sciences and Professional Studies.
- - -
REPORT OF THE BUSINESS, FINANCE, AND AUDIT COMMITTEE
Vice President Smith called upon Regent Falbo to present the report of the Business, Finance, and Audit Committee.
Joint Meeting of the Business, Finance, and Audit Committee and the Education Committee
Regent Falbo reported that the Business, Finance, and Audit Committee started out meeting jointly with the Education Committee to address three items.
The first item was the 2010 Annual Report of the Wisconsin Partnership Program. Dean Robert Golden of the UW School of Medicine and Public Health presented the report, which details the use of funding awarded to the UW School of Medicine and Public Health when Blue Cross and Blue Shield United of Wisconsin was converted to a for-profit stock corporation.
The Partnership Program has a remarkable track record. Since its inception in 2004, the program has awarded more than $97 million through 234 initiatives to: community-based, nonprofit organizations; faculty-led education, research and outreach; and government agencies. Moreover, the program has resulted in incredible leveraging of its grants, to bring in additional funding from other sources, especially federal. The program made 23 grants in 2010 for projects that advance population health in Wisconsin, including: continued support for the Lifecourse Initiative for Healthy Families, a major strategic initiative to improve birth outcomes among African-Americans in Wisconsin; support for physical activity and obesity prevention in young people; and development of targeted therapies to fight breast cancer.
Regent Falbo said that the second item addressed during the joint meeting was Operations Review and Audit’s program review report on students with disabilities. Director Elizabeth Dionne discussed highlights of the report. The review was conducted to evaluate compliance with Regent Policy Document 14-10, Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability, as well as with applicable federal and state regulations. Overall, the analysis found the institutions reviewed were meeting the Board’s policy objectives and were in compliance with applicable regulations. The report offered recommendations intended to improve the efficiency of operations, minimize the risk of noncompliance, and ensure the effectiveness of the disability services UW institutions offer students. Due to the increasing number of students needing the services and the university’s goal of producing more degree holders, Regents suggested data be collected to ensure the services are resulting in the success of students with disabilities.
The third item on the joint-meeting agenda was UW-Milwaukee’s contractual agreement with CERNET Education Development Co., Ltd. Chancellor Lovell explained how the agreement with CERNET fits within UW-Milwaukee’s vision of focusing on global engagement and would serve to enhance its reputation. The Committees were asked to approve the contractual agreement for the recruitment of Chinese students to UW-Milwaukee’s Intensive English Program. UW-Milwaukee had been working on the agreement for more than a year, and financial, legal, academic and student success considerations were all attended to by Chancellor Lovell and colleagues in the development of the agreement.
Regent Falbo said that UW-Milwaukee anticipated that a large number of students would be admitted to and graduate from its degree programs, after completing the English as a Second Language program. Among the perceived benefits are a more globally engaged university, enhanced student diversity on campus, and improved non-resident tuition revenue. After a good discussion and assurances about oversight by the Provost’s Office, the contract was approved unanimously by the committee.
When the Business, Finance, and Audit Committee reconvened, Operations Review and Audit Director Elizabeth Dionne reported on three topics.
Compliance Review of the Implementation of Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) Regulations.
Director Dionne discussed highlights of the recently-completed program review of implementation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). The review concluded that UW institutions were generally meeting FERPA requirements, and the report offered eight recommendations which may further enhance the ability of institutions to effectively implement the provisions of the law.
Ms. Dionne provided an update of ongoing and recently-completed activity of the Office, along with information regarding current or pending activities of the Legislative Audit Bureau which may impact the UW System.
Discussion of the Draft Operations Review and Audit Plan for 2012
Regent Falbo reported that the committee discussed the draft Operations and Audit plan for 2012. Because of the recent, serious allegations of misconduct and illegal activity related to minors at prominent universities, the Business, Finance, and Audit Committee would require, as part of the calendar year 2012 Audit Plan, an audit of reporting requirements of crimes against minors. The audit would include an evaluation of the adequacy of policies related to reporting of crimes against minors at UW System colleges, universities, and extension. This review was part of a two-part strategy to ensure that the thousands of children who visit UW institutions are protected. The second part of the strategy would involve a risk assessment to ensure that practices and policies in conducting sports camps and educational programs that invite minors to UW campuses are designed with safeguards in place to protect those children. This work will be done by the UW System Administration risk management group. A report is expected in the spring. Also, Regent Falbo said that President Reilly had already asked legal counsel to provide a summary of pertinent state and federal laws and university policy; that summary was sent to Regents earlier in the week.
Trust Funds: Investment Policy Statement Review and Affirmation
Doug Hoerr, UW System Trust Funds Director, reviewed the Investment Policy Statement revisions with the committee. The committee approved changes to the way certain asset categories are defined, minor changes to the asset allocation targets, and minor revisions to the Investment Policy Statement. The committee also reaffirmed its adoption of the Investment Policy Statement for the UW System Trust Funds; no change to the 4-percent spending policy was recommended.
Minutes of the October 6, 2011 Meeting
The Committee approved the minutes of the October 6, 2011, meeting of the Business, Finance, and Audit Committee.
UW-Madison Contractual Agreement With Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Regent Falbo reported that the committee examined UW-Madison’s contractual agreement with Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The committee approved the extension of a data research analysis agreement between UW-Madison and Sunovion Pharmaceuticals. Approval of the agreement would extend the contract, which had been in place since May 2009, through December 2014, with an estimated total value of about $682,000.
Quarterly Gifts, Grants and Contracts Report for 1st Quarter
UW System Vice President of Finance Debbie Durcan presented information regarding gift, grant, and contract awards for the period July 1, 2011 through September 30, 2011, Regent Falbo said. Total gifts, grants, and contracts for the period were approximately $578 million, a decrease of $94 million over the same period a year ago. A significant portion of the decline in federal awards was due to a reporting anomaly of federal direct student loans in 2010-11.
Report of the Senior Vice President
Regent Falbo said that Senior Vice President Michael Morgan covered several items in his report.
Mr. Morgan provided an update on the implementation of flexibilities included in the 2011-13 biennial budget, Act 32, and the President’s Advisory Committee recommendations. Vice Chancellor Darrell Bazzell, serving as the co-chair of the task force to develop a new personnel system, provided a brief summary of the first meeting of the task force.
Regent Falbo reported that Senior Vice President Morgan provided a brief update regarding Human Resource System (HRS) implementation and on-going efforts to work through any implementation challenges. He stated progress was being made with HRS functionality and stability, and payroll targets were being reached. The last payroll cycle saw some improvement. To build on this improvement process, he stated the HRS/Service Center project team began their second round of campus visits in November and would conclude in December.
Mr. Morgan also spoke of the success of an eBenefit pilot program, a self-service program that enables employees to enroll in benefits programs online at three institutions – UW-Green Bay, La Crosse, and Oshkosh. Based on the success of the pilot in the fall, the team recommended the UW System implement eBenefits for the fall 2012 open enrollment period at all UW institutions.
Mr. Morgan also spoke about Talent Acquisition Manager, the PeopleSoft functionality to support the recruitment process, which is scheduled to be implemented in the first quarter of 2012. The initial rollout next year will include functionality for unclassified recruitment processes only.
Regent Falbo then moved the adoption of Resolutions 10008, 10009 and 10010. The motion was seconded by Regent Pruitt and adopted on a unanimous voice vote.
Resolution 10008: That, upon the 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 contractual agreement between the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and CERNET Educational Development Co., Ltd.
Resolution 10009: That, upon recommendation of the President of the University of Wisconsin System, the Board of Regents approves the recommended revisions to, and otherwise reaffirms its adoption of, the Investment Policy Statement for the University of Wisconsin System Trust Funds.
Resolution 10010: That, upon the recommendation of the Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, the Board of Regents approves the contractual agreement between the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Prior to the adoption of the resolutions, a brief discussion ensued about the audit related to reporting of crimes against minors. Vice President Smith clarified that although approval of the audit did not require Board action, the audit would go forward. Regent Falbo confirmed that not only would the audit go forward, but it would be the number-one priority. Regent Whitburn asked about the sufficiency of audit resources to accomplish this important project. Senior Vice President Morgan responded that staff resources would be reallocated to ensure the project would be completed by the spring of 2012.
- - -
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR UW-MADISON FOR HOSTING THE DECEMBER BOARD OF REGENTS MEETING
Vice President Smith called upon Regent Pointer to present the resolution of appreciation to UW-Madison. Regent Pointer said that as a student at UW-Madison, she had particularly enjoyed this Board meeting, with the opportunity to welcome Regents to the campus that she calls home. The students, staff, faculty, and administration are truly remarkable.
Prior to attending UW-Madison, Regent Pointer said, many friends had talked about its uniqueness. She was skeptical, but learned quickly that UW-Madison is an incredible institution that not only equips students with a world-class education, but provides an environment in which to pursue entrepreneurial ambitions, and endless leadership and activism opportunities through the unique Wisconsin experience. She said that her experience and time at UW-Madison had caused her to grow more fond of the university that she would be proud to call her alma mater.
Regent Pointer acknowledged and thanked Interim Chancellor David Ward, whose hospitality and genuine love for the campus and the UW System, played such an integral role in her transition as a student there and into her role as a student Regent. She also thanked Provost Paul DeLuca, Vice Chancellor Darrell Bazzell, Dean of Students Lori Berquam, and their colleagues who hosted the Board.
Regent Pointer said that she could think of no better way to express appreciation on behalf of the Board and her fellow Regents, than to say “On Wisconsin.” She then read the resolution, which was approved by acclamation:
Resolution of Appreciation: UW-Madison
Resolution 10011: WHEREAS, the University of Wisconsin-Madison is an extraordinary educational asset, recognized worldwide for its teaching, research, and outreach efforts; and
WHEREAS, a century after the birth of the Wisconsin Idea – the principle that the university should improve people’s lives beyond the classroom – the university continues to exert its positive influence on Main Streets across Wisconsin and globally through transformative outreach programs involving faculty, students, and staff; and
WHEREAS, UW-Madison was ranked among the top 10 American public universities in 2012 rankings issued by U.S. News and World Report; and
WHEREAS, UW-Madison for the first time in its history conferred more than 10,000 degrees in a single year in 2010-11, with an average time-to-degree of 4.06 years; and
WHEREAS, the university’s research mission has continually grown in scope and prestige, evidenced by the fact that more than $1-billion worth of vital, transformative research is conducted at UW-Madison each year; and
WHEREAS, UW-Madison is a strong component of a healthy Wisconsin economy, as shown in an economic analysis that estimated the university has a $12.4-billion annual impact on the state’s economy and, along with its affiliated organizations and startup companies, supports 128,146 jobs and generates $614 million in state tax revenue; and
WHEREAS, UW-Madison’s administration is seeking creative and cost-effective means to provide budgetary self-help to the campus through initiatives such as Educational Innovations and Administrative Excellence; and
WHEREAS, the Regents enjoyed experiencing the newly expanded Chazen Museum of Art, and applaud its expanded role as a hub for the arts on the UW-Madison campus and as a leading cultural resource for the region;
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents hereby thanks Interim Chancellor David Ward, Provost Paul M. DeLuca Jr., and all of their colleagues for advancing teaching, research, and outreach and for generously extending the campus’s hospitality and sharing their thought-provoking presentations as they hosted this December 2011 Board of Regents meeting.
- - -
The meeting was recessed at 11:00 a.m. and reconvened at 11:15 a.m. in the Northwoods Room on the 3rd floor.
- - -
Vice President Smith called upon Regent Pruitt to present Resolution 10012, to move into closed session. The motion was seconded by Regent Higgins and adopted on a roll-call vote, with Regents Jeffrey Bartell, Mark Bradley, Judith Crain, Anthony Evers, Michael Falbo, Tim Higgins, Edmund Manydeeds, Katherine Pointer, Charles Pruitt, Gary Roberts, Troy Sherven, Brent Smith, Mark Tyler, José Vásquez, and Gerald Whitburn voting in the affirmative. There were no dissenting votes and no abstentions.
Resolution 10012: That the Board of Regents move into closed session to consider UW-Milwaukee honorary degree nominations, as permitted by s. 19.85(1)(f), Wis. Stats., and to confer with legal counsel regarding pending or potential litigation, as permitted by s. 19.85(1)(g), Wis. Stats.
- - -
The meeting was adjourned at 12:25 p.m.
/s/ Jane S. Radue
Jane S. Radue, Secretary of the Board