Board of Regents

Minutes of the February, 2012 Board of Regents meeting

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING

of the

BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM

Held in 1820 Van Hise Hall
1220 Linden Drive
Madison, WI 53706

Thursday, February 9, 2012
10:00 a.m.

PRESIDENTS’ GREETING

STRATEGIES FOR COST CONTAINMENT AND IMPROVED EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

UW-Superior
UW-Stout
UW-Milwaukee

UPDATE ON LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE ON UW RESTRUCTURING AND OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITIES

REPORT OF THE AD HOC WORK GROUP ON UW SYSTEM STRUCTURE AND GOVERNANCE


MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING

of the

BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM

Held in 1820 Van Hise Hall
1220 Linden Drive
Madison, WI 53706

Thursday, February 9, 2012
10:00 a.m.

-President Spector Presiding-

PRESENT:  Regents Jeffrey Bartell, Mark Bradley, Judith Crain, John Drew, Tony Evers, Michael Falbo, Tim Higgins, Edmund Manydeeds, Charles Pruitt, Gary Roberts, Troy Sherven, Brent Smith, Michael Spector, Mark Tyler, José Vásquez, David Walsh and Gerald Whitburn

UNABLE TO ATTEND:  Regent Katherine Pointer

- - -

PRESIDENTS’ GREETING

            President Spector greeted Board members and others present at the meeting.  He said that when he entered the room, he became aware that Regent Pruitt’s portrait was now hanging the wall.  He offered congratulations to Regent Pruitt.

Introduction of Dr. Betsy Morgan

            President Spector asked President Reilly to make an introduction.  President Reilly introduced Dr. Betsy Morgan, Interim Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs at UW-La Crosse.  He said that Dr. Morgan agreed to step into the position at Chancellor Gow’s request after Provost Kathleen Enz Finken accepted a position at Cal Poly University.  He noted that Dr. Morgan had three years of experience in the Provost’s office, having served as a faculty assistant to the Provost from 2005 to 2008, and more than seven years of experience as Chair of UW-La Crosse’s Psychology Department.  President Reilly said that he looked forward to working with Dr. Morgan in the months ahead. 

Board’s Role in Policy Changes

            President Spector noted that the day’s meeting agenda included some weighty topics, which was a positive thing.  He said that higher education in Wisconsin was facing some significant challenges, just as it was elsewhere, and it was important and appropriate that the Board be directly involved, especially in the policy aspects. 

            Various agenda topics before the Board were at the forefront of issues on the national stage.  President Spector noted that other topics, such as how to maximize the “value added” by the Board, were more local.  He said that in all cases, the topics were worth the Board’s best, interactive, engaged efforts to make decisions that would stand the test of time. 

            President Spector said that portions of the 2011-13 budget bill responded to that concern and granted various cautious first-step flexibilities to the System and its institutions.  Equally important, he noted, was that the budget bill raised the possibility of more to come, through the creation of the Task Force on UW Restructuring and Operational Flexibilities, chaired by Regent Falbo.  He said that President Reilly also responded to the concerns by requesting that the President’s Advisory Committee on the Roles of UW System Administration make recommendations for major changes in the delegation of System powers to the chancellors and their institutions.  He noted that the Committee did so, and those recommendations were starting to be implemented.

            President Spector said that it was now time to consider additional ideas for decentralization.  He said that the UW System was seeking the right balance of transformative change that adapts to the realities of life in Wisconsin in 2012 and preserves the best of the status quo, by continuing to take an in-depth look at what the UW System does, and how the System does its work. 

            He said that Board members were fortunate to be policymakers at a crucial time in the history of Wisconsin higher education.  The Board’s challenge, working with the governor, the legislature, Regent Falbo’s task force, chancellors, and shared governance partners, was how to maintain at this difficult time the scope and quality of public higher education at the heart of the state’s culture. 

- - -

STRATEGIES FOR COST CONTAINMENT AND IMPROVED EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

            President Spector indicated that the morning would start with a presentation on strategies for cost containment and improved educational attainment, led by interim Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs Mark Nook.  He said that he had been assured by Senior Vice President Nook that his presentation would inform the Board about current efforts to hold down costs and increase efficiencies, and how these efforts were also an investment in the future.  The presentation would provide the Board with more context for its discussions. 

Background

           
            President Reilly commented that the topic of the cost of obtaining a college education was very much in the public sphere these days.  He noted that it was a hot topic, from the “Occupy” protests around the country, to the President’s State of the Union speech, to the front pages of local newspapers and media sites.

            He said that at the core of the debate were some complex questions that did not have clear, simple answers.  Among the questions was how the nation and the state meet the growing national demand for more well-educated graduates, as the resources to produce those graduates continue to diminish.  He said that the presentation on cost containment strategies would keep these issues connected, addressing both cost containment and educational attainment, two economic and social imperatives for colleges and universities, and also for the country. 

            President Reilly said that for years, under the Board’s leadership, the UW System had sustained relatively modest tuition rates, while earning a reputation as one of the most respected and efficient systems of higher education.  He added that efforts heretofore were insufficient, as the System faced significant challenges, noting that operational costs continued to rise, as did demands for the UW System to make contributions to economic development.  Also, state and federal tax revenues continued to be constrained, leading to leaner funding for both university budgets and for student financial aid.  This, in turn, contributed to higher tuition bills and longer waiting lists for grants and scholarships.  Finally, he noted that the depressed economy had left families in Wisconsin with lower incomes, depleted savings, and justifiable fears about the future. 

            President Reilly said that the upcoming presentation and discussion were designed to highlight one facet of those challenges, how the UW System was containing costs for both students and taxpayers while also improving educational attainment.  He turned to Interim Senior Vice President Mark Nook to lead the discussion.

            Overview of Cost Containment Strategies

            Dr. Nook stated that his presentation would provide a high-level look at the funding that the University of Wisconsin receives, at what level the university had been good stewards of those dollars, and how the university had controlled costs.  He asked three chancellors to come forward to form a panel of experts that would answer questions and provide examples of what was happening at the campuses.

            Dr. Nook explained that Regents had received copies of the presentation slides and a document entitled “Cost Containment Strategies at UW System Institutions.”  He said that the latter document was put together with the help of the chancellors and their colleagues on their campuses, and identified the strategies that they were using to control their operating costs and their direct costs to students.  He noted that the materials had been put together in a synoptic way, but each of the chancellors was willing to answer questions about the items that were included. 

            He started by reiterating what President Reilly had said, that there was a national discussion regarding the cost of attending college.  He said that the cost discussions focused on tuition and the change in tuition, but there were many other parameters that determined the price that a student pays:  funding from state appropriations, particularly within public institutions, available financial aid dollars, and other resources available to students.

            The State of the Union address highlighted this issue, and was followed by President Obama’s presentation at the University of Michigan on how to flesh out ideas for controlling costs, making more funds available for financial aid to help to mitigate the cost as tuition continues to rise. 

Trends in State Appropriation and Tuition Per Student

            Dr. Nook said that his presentation would start with a macroscopic look at the 30-year funding history of the University of Wisconsin.  The funding was in two forms:  the state appropriation and tuition dollars.  He added that he was not going to address auxiliary activities, such as room and board, or the other operations within the university.  Instead, the focus would be on the core mission of the university and funding for the academic endeavor.  He said he was choosing this focus because the debate had been about what had happened with tuition, and he wanted to make sure that Regents understood the impacts on tuition within the state of Wisconsin.  He noted that he would provide a high-level look at funding and how the university used the funds.  In addition, he said that he would briefly address some simple, macroscopic, measures of educational attainment and how the university continued to improve with the money that was available. 

            Dr. Nook said that following his presentation, Chancellor Renée Wachter from UW-Superior, Chancellor Chuck Sorenson from UW-Stout, and Chancellor Michael Lovell from UW-Milwaukee would present information about their institutions’ efforts.  He noted that the “Cost Containment Strategies” document in Regents’ folders provided an overview of efforts within the UW System, and the three chancellors would provide more detail. 

            Dr. Nook started by explaining that there are two sources of funding for the educational enterprise within the University of Wisconsin System, the state appropriation and tuition paid by students, noting that some of the tuition is actually paid through federal and state financial aid. 

            Referring to a slide, Dr. Nook pointed to the funding history of the university, starting with 1980, which provides a reasonably long period of time for examination.   He said that the slide showed that over the 30 years, the level of tuition and state support for the educational enterprise had kept pace with the Consumer Price Index and the inflation rate. 

            However, higher education costs differ from the goods included in the Consumer Price Index, which is based on a basket of goods that the average household purchases, rather than the goods that a university purchases.  He said that the Common Fund Institute puts together a Higher Education Price Index, which is an inflationary index for universities that includes 45 indicators that measure the cost of higher education.  He noted that while the System remains a good buy for students and the state, the University of Wisconsin is falling further behind the cost to do business within the higher-education sector. 

            Focusing on the two fund sources for the educational enterprise, Dr. Nook said that the state appropriation showed growth from 1980 through about 1998-2000, and had since leveled off; tuition has started to fill in those dollars.  A greater percentage of the funds available to educate students is coming from tuition.

            Comparing the two funding sources to the inflation rate, Dr. Nook said that from 1980 to 2012, the state appropriation had always lagged behind the inflation rate.  Tuition revenues were actually lagging behind the inflation rate, as well, but from 1987-1988 onward, tuition increased at a rate greater than the inflation rate.  Going back about a decade, to 2000-2002, the mirrored nature of these two indices is remarkable.

            The UW System has been a good steward of the resources that it has received, keeping the total cost of education essentially at the inflation rate and, in addition, it has moved its resources from the operational budget into the educational and student services budget.  From 1980 to 2011, adjusting for inflation, the System invested about $503 more in instruction, $380 in academic support, $218 per student in financial aid, and $49 in student services.  These are areas that make students more effective at moving through their programs, meaning the System is better able to serve the student.  Other areas of investment are indicators of campus operations, such as institutional support, physical plant, and others.  Services to students are where more resources have been invested. 

            Referring to a slide reflecting the inflation rate, Dr. Nook said that over the past 30 years, the UW System had been very good at maintaining its spending on the educational side of the house and keeping this at the inflation rate, at the expense of staying true to costs within the higher-education industry.  Dollars had been repositioned to better support students and help increase student achievement.

Degree Efficiency

            Senior Vice President Nook showed a graph that plotted the number of degrees granted in a year divided by the number of students who were enrolled that year.  The graph showed that in 1980-1981, about 14.8 percent of the undergraduate students on campus graduated.  The current rate is over 18 percent.  While this sounds small, it is actually about a 4-percent increase, or a 22-percent growth in degree efficiency, a measure of the percentage of students on campus who graduate in a given year.  Including all degrees, not only bachelor’s degrees, shows growth of 45 percent in degree efficiency over the 30-year period, while enrollment grew 12 percent.  By working with the funding sources that have followed in line with inflation, the System has repositioned the resources to better serve students, increase retention rates and graduation rates, and improve educational attainment and educational quality. 

Cost Containment at UW System Institutions

            Having asked Chancellors Wachter, Lovell, and Sorensen to join Regents at the table, Dr. Nook introduced the panel discussion.

UW-Superior

            Dr. Nook first asked Chancellor Wachter to describe efforts to control costs and improve educational attainment at UW-Superior.  Dr. Wachter provided a brief snapshot of the UW-Superior campus.  UW-Superior has about 2,800 students.  Fifty-two percent of students coming in are first generation students, she said, and 38 percent of those freshmen are Pell students.  Of the students overall, 68 percent are participating in the Pell Financial Aid Program.  Thus, UW-Superior has a student body with a high degree of financial need.  The institution is very conscious about trying to control student costs.

            Chancellor Wachter described three ways of controlling costs.  The first is to increase access to financial resources.  Even though UW-Superior students may have financial aid or a scholarship, oftentimes they are working one job, and sometimes even two jobs, to afford to go to school.  If they participate in employment on campus, they have a better chance of succeeding and of being retained.  UW-Superior has worked hard in the past few years to increase participation in its Jacket Jobs Employment Program, such that over a quarter of the students on campus are employed on campus.  This provides the benefit of the employer’s understanding that these are students first, which means their work schedule can be more accommodating than that of an employer in the regular market when a student has a group project, needs to go out of town for a project, or has an exam. 

            UW-Superior also tries to match students with jobs that are relevant to their area of study.  Chancellor Wachter referred to pictures of Health and Human Performance students facilitating a climbing camp and students working with faculty on the Lake Superior Research Institute.  Overall, the institution spends 7.5 to 8 percent of its salary budget on student employees.

            Second, the institution has reduced its program requirements so that it does not take five or six years for students to graduate.  Curriculum creep can lead to a higher number of credit hours in a program; an effort was made to bring the number of credits down.  Education programs, in particular, had too many credits (e.g., 138 credits).  It was taking students sometimes five or five-and-a-half years to graduate.  The institution stepped back and took a hard look at what was absolutely necessary, and what could be left behind.  In Elementary Education programs, the number of credits was reduced from 141 to 123, which means shaving off a semester, or even a year.  All Secondary Education programs are now below 130 credit hours.  This means that students accumulate less debt, and are out of school and teaching sooner.

            Third, Chancellor Wachter spoke about increasing educational attainment by increasing access to distance learning.  Given UW-Superior’s location, and its distance from River Falls and Eau Claire, it is unrealistic for some students to drive to campus, especially if they are adult learners, have a job, or have childcare responsibilities.  Making distance learning available is a cost-efficient way for these students to earn credits.  Chancellor Wachter said that UW-Superior had seen tremendous growth in its distance learning program.  Since 2006, it had grown by 82 percent, such that 18 percent of the student body are distance learners.  The top programs engaged in this are education and degree completion, a design-your-own major.  She said that the institution does a lot of prior-learning assessment, which helps get students on their way to completing their degree. 

            The chancellor said that as the technology has evolved, more hybrid programs were taking advantage of the cost efficiency of distance learning, plus some courses being offered on campus.  The social work program, which has gone online, is one example.  She said that UW-Superior was also collaborating and combining strengths with colleagues across the state to deliver programs that would not be efficient for the institutions to deliver individually.  Sustainable Management and Health and Wellness Management are two of those programs. 

            Chancellor Wachter noted that UW-Superior wanted the experience of its distance-learning students to be the same as they would receive on campus.  For example, if they were an on-campus student, they could wander the halls, stop in to see their advisor, and be on their way.  This is not so easy for a distance learning student who may have strange working hours.  The institution is using technologies like Skype, through which students can have the same face-to-face experience, except by using the technology.  Overall, distance learning is very promising area, the Chancellor concluded.  There is pent-up demand, and the institution looks forward to introducing new programs shortly.

UW-Stout

            Chancellor Sorensen spoke next about cost-reduction strategies at UW-Stout.  The first strategy he mentioned was the institution’s laptop program, which was put in place ten or eleven years before.  By every measure, the program has been successful.  The goal was to change the way that courses were taught and the way that students learn.  The charge to students is $1,000 per year for the laptop, or $4,000 after four years.  The students take the laptop with them when they graduate.  Technical support is available from 7:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.  The campus is entirely wireless, except for some of the lobbies of the residence halls. 

            The chancellor said that UW-Stout eliminated the need for general-access computer labs, which opened up a lot of space on campus; a 2,500 square-foot computer lab with about 250 computers is gone.  The cost of the laptop program has been reduced from $37 per credit hour to $27 per credit hour.  This reduction was strategic.  The institution no longer purchases theft insurance; it self insures, saving $200,000.  Eliminating the purchase of backpacks and cables for replacement laptops saved $80,000 a year.  The program has been a very important tool and has produced cost savings.

            Chancellor Sorensen said that UW-Stout had saved $110,000 by returning surplus products, such as furniture, to departments.  The institution is also working with River Falls and Eau Claire on further efficiencies related to selling surplus property, which may save $300,000 for the three campuses.  The three campuses are also examining information technology to find efficiencies; the most extreme would be to have one common Chief Information officer for the three campuses.  Opportunities to coordinate on print materials and purchasing were also being explored collaboratively.

            The chancellor said that he thought that UW-Stout was the only university in the System with a per-credit tuition model.  It eliminates any kind of subsidy by those who take less than 12 hours.  For those who take more than 12 hours, it is a real cost.  “What you take is what you pay for,” he said.  This has not dramatically affected average credit-hour load or retention and graduation rates.  It has been an efficient and good model for the campus. 

            UW-Stout has three three-year undergraduate degree programs, in Business Administration; Hotel, Restaurant and Tourism; and Psychology.  Students are guaranteed to get out in three years if they sign up for a three-year program.  The numbers are not large, but they do demonstrate interest; 17 people are enrolled in three-year programs.  Also, 28 UW-Stout students are enrolled in a four-year-guarantee program that each campus has.  This is marketed through advisors and freshmen orientation. 

            Like Superior, Chancellor Sorensen said that UW-Stout had reduced the credit hours for each program.  When he arrived, there were 142 to 144 credits per program.  The institution is down to 120 to 124, with a couple of programs above that:  Engineering and Education, which are exceptions. The institution had recently finished a laborious General Education reform process, reducing General Education two full credits; this helps students to finish on time.

            Finally, Chancellor Sorensen discussed the Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference.  The universities control the athletic programs through the conference, with the commissioner.  The chancellor said that the institutions had taken very seriously how to reduce the cost of athletic program delivery.  For example, men’s and women’s basketball teams are required to travel together on a single bus, and to play on a single day; this eliminates a lot of overnight stays.  A geographic model limits where teams can play and also cuts travel, lodging, and food costs.  An annual total of $400,000 was saved in the previous four or five years through these strict measures.  He said that the chancellors were very serious about controlling athletic quality and costs, meeting monthly and having a strong commissioner.

UW-Milwaukee

            Chancellor Lovell spoke next, about cost-cutting measures at UW-Milwaukee.  He said that he would talk about a single program on campus, and then about a national report that puts things into perspective for the whole System.  First, however, referring to the handout that Dr. Nook had provided, he indicated that the snapshot of cost-cutting activities across UW institutions was impressive.

            Chancellor Lovell focused on UW-Milwaukee’s Life Impact Program.  UW-Milwaukee has many nontraditional students, who return to earn their degrees later in life.  Therefore, one of UW-Milwaukee’s strategies was to establish a way to assist older students, those with families, to obtain a higher education.  This can be a challenge for an older student with family, time, and financial commitments.  The institution was able to obtain funding from the Great Lakes Higher Education Guaranty Corporation and the Jane Pettit Bradley Foundation to develop a program that for older students with families.

            Essentially, the program provides a laptop computer for their academic and professional growth, and it also provides emergency funds to assist students and graduates.  When supporting a family, things can come up; it is important that students not drop out of school because they cannot afford to fix a broken water heater, for example.  With the emergency fund, students can apply for help on an as-needed basis so that financial crises do not interfere with their academic plans.

            The program also brings together a life coach team, which assists with obtaining additional scholarships, in addition to the one from the Life Impact Program itself; helps them balance their credit load; and helps them graduate sooner and find sustainable employment.  Students are also given access to specialized computer rooms and stations, printing, and supplies.  In addition, participating students attend a series of workshops on family budgeting and meeting family needs in the areas of health care, food and child care.  Thus, the program provides an infrastructure and support structure to let students succeed. 

            And as it turns out, the chancellor said, the students involved in the program are mature and very serious about their education.  When given the support they need, they are very successful.  The program had resulted in an 86-percent graduation rate for the 118 students who participated.  This is more than twice UW-Milwaukee’s current graduation rate of 42 percent.  Ninety-five percent of these students have either reported being employed directly out of the program, or have gone on to further education and graduate school.  The students are also saving money, with an average of almost $20,000 less debt when coming out of this program. 

            Chancellor Lovell then mentioned a national report that shows how lean UW-Milwaukee is, and how it is controlling costs.  He observed that all UW System institutions, if ranked among their peers nationally, would fare well.  He highlighted results from the Goldwater Report that addressed reasons for the higher cost of education.  The report included the top 198 research universities in the country, and UW-Milwaukee was the 12th least in the country in annual spending per student.  UW-Milwaukee spent $13,000 per student, on average, when the national average is $41,000.  The institution was also 12th lowest in instructional research and service staff ratio per 100 students.  UW-Milwaukee had half the average instructional-staff ratio, or 3.5 instructional staff per 100 students; the national average is 7 per 100 students.  UW-Milwaukee had 3.6 administrative staff per 100 students; the national average is 9.4.  Both instructional and administrative staff are much lower than the national averages. 

            The chancellor said that it is important to point out what has happened at UW-Milwaukee in recent years.  The institution had 25-percent enrollment growth over the past decade.  It also increased its number of graduates by 39 percent, or well over 5,000 per year.  Research growth was 170 percent over that timeframe.  Chancellor Lovell noted something that he said was critical, that survey results of UW-Milwaukee graduates over the past 15 years show a 96-percent graduate satisfaction rate.  People feel that they are getting a great value from the education received at UW-Milwaukee. 

            Chancellor Lovell suggested that all UW System institutions should be proud of their accomplishments and of the good stewards they had been.  Ne noted that Interim Senior Vice President Nook had shown how resources on campus were focused on instruction and the benefit of the students.  Chancellor Lovell agreed that this had been the case.  Even in the current budget, with cuts and lapses, the focus was on keeping sections open and minimizing the impact on students. 

            This has been done well; however, there is a price to pay when doing this.  As resources have been moved toward instruction, support for other parts of the campus has been dwindling.  For example, in the College of Letters and Science, there is a 800- to-1 student-to-advisor ratio.  In mental health, there are 3,500 students per mental health advisor.  Particularly with the stress on students and the fact that UW-Milwaukee has 1,400 veterans, who often need more mental health services, these numbers are cause for worry, particularly when it is understood that students who are better supported have higher retention and graduation retention rates. 

            Interim Senior Vice President Nook thanked the three chancellors for their presentations, and thanked all chancellors for their contributions to the materials that demonstrate cost-containment measures.  He also complimented chancellors for being effective stewards of the resources that they had.  Dr. Nook also thanked the office of Policy Analysis and Research, Heather Kim and Gail Bergman in particular, for helping to pull together data.  He thanked Freda Harris and her staff in Budget, particularly Lynn Paulson, as well as Special Assistants Rebecca Karoff and Bob Jokish in the Office of the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs.  A large team gathered the information together. 

Regent Discussion

            President Spector thanked Dr. Nook for the in-depth and enlightening analysis, and then recognized Regent Vásquez, who followed up on Chancellor Lovell’s comments by asking about the possibility that reductions could become so significant that people would conclude that the institution is so cheap that it must not be that good.  He asked how the System could ensure that institutions do not reach this point. 

            Chancellor Lovell responded, saying that this was philosophical question.  There is a point in time when an institution may offer less quality – when an institution has fewer resources overall, tuition is cheaper, and it is not possible to become any more efficient.  He said that point was being approached.  This was discussed with the legislative Task Force on restructuring; Interim Chancellor David Ward had done a good job of explaining this philosophical dilemma.  It is necessary to consider whether to continue to cut the costs of higher education to a point where quality suffers, or whether to look at higher education as an investment for the future.  A debate is occurring about this. 

            Chancellor Sorensen commented that each UW-Stout program has an advisory board of professionals.  They meet regularly and serve as a test of the content of academic programs and what jobs graduates are getting when they enter the profession.  If the institution cuts back too much, it hears from the boards.  In fact, because of some of the boards, UW-Stout reinvested more heavily in some programs where it recognized that there was a decline in quality.  Placement rates are another indicator of quality; if employers like the institution’s graduate product, they will hire the graduates.  Every fall, about 250 to 300 corporations come to campus to recruit interns or professionals.  If those numbers decrease, the institution will know it should look more carefully at the programs.  Therefore, Chancellor Sorensen said that there are measures to watch, although, as Chancellor Lovell indicated, there is a line that will be crossed.

            Interim Senior Vice President Nook said that the line may have been crossed in some places.  He gave the example of faculty and academic staff salaries, which are not keeping up. Shifting resource costs by reducing the number of tenured faculty and increasing the number of adjuncts is one way to reduce costs, but at some point quality suffers.

            Chancellor Lovell added that UW-Milwaukee had lost 41 faculty the prior year to better offers and more competitive salaries at other institutions.  That is the top 5 percent of the faculty, he said.  He questioned how many years in a row the top 5 percent could be lost before quality goes down significantly. 

            Regent Crain asked how, when decisions are made about reducing the number of credits required for a degree, consideration is given to whether the ultimate quality of the degree is changed.  Chancellor Sorensen responded, saying that the faculty are the ones who should know what goes into a major.  Beyond that, the Regional Accreditation and Higher Learning Commission accredits the universities, and a large percentage of programs receive specialized accreditation, where deficiencies of individual majors are addressed.   

            Chancellor Sorensen also commented that he had been in leadership positions for 30 years in public higher education, at Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.  What he witnessed was a tendency to add to the total credits, because new information is viewed as a new course, rather than as information to be integrated throughout the curriculum.  More credit does not mean a better education.

            Chancellor Wachter noted the importance of well-defined learning goals.  Sometimes the process of defining program outcomes, and the curriculum changes needed to achieve and measure those outcomes, is not as deliberate as it could be.  More attention could be paid to this. 

            Chancellor Sorensen said that during his career he had witnessed changes “around the edges,” rather than systemic change in how information is being delivered, and this is changing.  He said that the Board would be asked to approve two programs that afternoon from UW-Stout that were collaborative, integrative, and across disciplines.  This is the way information is now, he said.  Students do not major in Biology anymore; they major in Biology associated with Psychology and with Environmental Science.  It is important to look at systemic change in how to define a degree and deliver a course properly.  He posed the question whether the proper delivery is a three-credit course on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday until a student reaches 45 hours of credits to earn a major.  He said that it is necessary to challenge the basic fundamental philosophy of how courses and programs are delivered most efficiently.

            Regent Bartell asked about a comment by Chancellor Sorensen that students resist a three-year program.  With students spending longer than ever on campus, which increases their costs, Regent Bartell wondered what could be done to interest students in earning their degrees more quickly.

            Chancellor Sorensen said that he did not know the answer to this, but at UW-Stout it did not appear that 18-year-old students were rushing to enter the work force at 21, even though these younger students have parents exerting some control.  He wondered if the concept could be sold differently. 

            Dr. Nook shared a related anecdote.  In 2001, when his daughter left home and went to college, he asked what she expected to be doing four years from that time.  She said she would be entering her senior year, and he said he thought she would be graduating.  She planned on five years because she was in very tough major, and she wanted to swim on the swim team; the national average was five years so she thought it would take that long.  As it turned out, Dr. Nooks’ daughter double majored, was on the swim team, studied abroad, and graduated in four years.  He felt it was valuable to have an early conversation about goals, rather than making assumptions. 

            Chancellor Wachter commented that the current generation of students likes options.  They may add a second major, knowing full well it will take them an extra semester, because they want options.

            President Spector recognized Regent Walsh, who said that it is undisputed that there are fewer public funds available for higher education.  Ten years ago, when the UW System received a $250 million cut, it backfilled with tuition increases.  He said that this year, in the face of a more-than-$250 million cut, the Board would not have the option of tuition increases.  He asked about chancellors’ sense of the current debt burden on students, and about the “new normal” in the recession, when graduate students are not finding jobs.  He also noted the high number of students per academic advisor or mental health counselor, and asked at what point it would be necessary to cut enrollment because of the lack of funds.

            Chancellor Lovell, addressing the first part of Regent Walsh’s question, said that he was worried about increasing student debt when 46 percent of students need remedial work; these students are taking classes for which they are not earning credit, and they are taking on student- loan debt to pay for them.  A decade before, only 32 percent of students needed remedial work.  Students who enter college better prepared can graduate in four years; those who are not prepared have trouble getting through in five or even six years. 

            As to Regent Walsh’s question about the point at which enrollments should be cut, Chancellor Lovell said that there needed to be a philosophical discussion about this.   From a financial viewpoint, it is more cost effective to have fewer students with a higher graduation rate.

            Referring to funding problems that lead to declines in quality in areas such as mental health and counseling, Regent Walsh reiterated his interest in understanding when it is time to cut enrollment.

            Chancellor Sorensen noted that there is a fundamental question about the historic role of state universities and access.  He said that at UW-Stout, the average ACT was about 21.8, which is not as high as other UW institutions, and yet output and placement rates are good.  If the freshman class were reduced by about 25 or 30 a year over four years, analytical models show that the ACT of admitted students would increase to about 23.2.  Retention and graduation rates would go up.  However, this would mean denying access to some of those who deserve it.  The basic philosophical choice is access versus selectivity. 

            President Spector asked President Reilly to respond to Regent Walsh’s question.  Related to the question of what jobs are available during the struggle to recover from the recession, President Reilly said that this was likely a temporary issue.  Data suggest that more of the jobs of the future will require people to have some level of college degree.  Even in a recession, people who have attended college are less harmed than people who have not. 

            Regent Walsh commented that the economic model does not work forever, and that cuts could not continue.  At some point, a decision would be needed that the quality of the educational experience was not fair to the students, and enrollment should be cut.  He said that he was not saying that enrollment should be cut but, rather, was asking when that point would be reached.

            President Reilly said that this was a topic at virtually every chancellors’ meeting.  He said that the simple answer was that when that point was reached, he would bring that information to the Board.  Regent Walsh responded that his question had been about when this point would be reached, and he concluded that the answer was that the timing was unknown. 

            Regent Spector recognized Chancellor Gow, who said that he would not necessarily agree with the notion that quality had declined.  What had declined was the compensation of UW faculty and staff, and yet they keep delivering.  Perhaps the question is, at what point will faculty and staff compromise their commitment to students.  Chancellor Gow said that, fortunately, they are great people, and he did not foresee that happening soon, but a significant challenge is how to maintain morale.  He also commented that enrollment limits at UW-La Crosse would hurt the institution, because the institution is so tuition-driven, and this is the future trend. 

            Regent Bradley asked chancellors to comment on the long-term effect on institutions of putting increased dollars into instruction and academic support, while taking funds away from the physical plant, for instance.

            Chancellor Sorensen said that he did not know the exact answer, but UW-Stout had been fortunate in the past decade in getting to do renovation projects and two new building projects.  The property is maintained very carefully, with a good maintenance staff.  Deferred maintenance at UW-Stout is about $50 million, including auxiliary funding for new roofs for residence halls and rejected renovation of residence halls, which are included in the master plan.  On the whole, he said he was pleased with the maintenance of the physical plant at UW-Stout.

            Regent Pruitt asked a question about affordability, observing that it seemed as though budget reductions would potentially increase the time to degree for students who lack access to an advisor to help them navigate through the system, or mental health services, for example.  He asked whether chancellors had begun to attempt to measure in a tangible way the hidden costs of budget reductions, increases in class size, reduction in sections, and reduction in infrastructure. 

            Chancellor Lovell responded that he did not believe these costs had been quantified, although all chancellors probably have anecdotal evidence.  Each time he meets with a student group, he hears about a student’s inability to get into the one course that they need to graduate. 

            Returning to a point that Chancellor Gow had made, Chancellor Lovell commented on the breaking point for faculty and staff.  He said that during that semester, the class of a particular faculty member was full, and there were four or five seniors who needed the class to graduate.  The faculty member objected, saying that he had not had a raise in six years and questioning why he would bring more work on himself by letting more people into the class.  After some discussion, the faculty member was persuaded to change his mind.  However, some faculty have reached the point at which enough is enough.  Chancellor Lovell reinforced the Chancellor Gow’s point that it is the people on campus who have been doing more with fewer resources.

            Regent Drew observed, based on Chancellor Lovell’s comments, that the chancellors, faculty, and staff throughout the System deserve a tremendous amount of credit for maintaining quality in the face of difficult times.  The 41 faculty departures from UW-Milwaukee last year were an indication of how bad things are.  He said that it was important to continue to make the case about the disproportionate impact of the budget lapse on the UW System compared to the rest of the state, and the overall trend in funding.  It was also important to continue the cost reduction activities and engage students, faculty, and staff in developing ideas.  However, Regent Drew said that he thought it important to reject the notion that continued cuts and decreasing access and cutting enrollment are inevitable.  He praised President Reilly’s efforts and suggested that it was also incumbent upon Regents to get the story out about the challenges at the UW System institutions.

            President Reilly followed up on Regent Pruitt’s question about the wider range of costs to students, saying that more attention had been paid to this in recent years.  He complimented Regent Pruitt on his work related to textbook costs, and stressed the importance of looking at other costs.  He said that an interesting hidden dynamic was students’ willingness to raise fees on themselves as when, for example, they sought increased fees for more freshman-year advisors, or more expensive equipment for a program.  This was happening because the state had reduced the subsidy.

            President Reilly followed up on Chancellor Lovell’s and Chancellor Sorensen’s earlier remarks about full classes and different course delivery methods and mentioned that Chancellor Ward had been articulate about these issues, as well.  President Reilly said that it could be argued that electronic versions of core lectures, with graduate students or other guides “on the side,” may provide an opportunity to add students more easily to popular course sections.  It is necessary to consider how to transform the core enterprise to hold down costs.

            Following up on Chancellor Lovell’s remarks about national comparisons, President Reilly also commented on the startling nature of the lower costs at UW institutions, compared with peers with whom those institutions compete for academic reputation, as Chancellor Lovell had noted.  He said that the numbers show that the University of Wisconsin is holding down costs.  However, money does matter, and it is connected to quality.  It is the university’s role, working with the state and federal government, faculty, staff, students, and all UW partners to not allow the resources to get so low that quality does decline.

            Regent Spector recognized Regent Vásquez for a final comment.  Regent Vásquez expressed his interest in the answer to Regent Walsh’s question about when to limit enrollment because of quality.  He also said that the UW System would continue to serve more students of color and more students with diverse needs, such as students with disabilities.  He wondered how these students could be served adequately and given as much of a guarantee as the “ideal student” who already has the fundamentals and would be able to graduate in four years.  He expressed concern that the focus is sometimes on the ideal student and not on these other populations.    

            To close the conversation, Interim Senior Vice President Nook said that the cost containment strategies that were discussed were similar to those at public institutions across the country.  Too often the national debate is focused on the tuition and driven by what is happening at a handful of elite public universities.  It is important for stewards and servants of a public institution to keep an eye on the subsidized price.  Many things help to offset that price.  At private institutions, it is federal or private financial aid.  In Wisconsin, it is the state appropriation; federal, state, and private grants; and loans.  Loans have been growing the most.  Dr. Nook said that as the national debate about costs continues, it is important to keep in mind the many factors that affect price in addition to the operational costs of the institutions.   

            President Spector thanked Dr. Nook and the chancellors who presented, and they received applause from the Regents and others in attendance.

- - -

UPDATE ON LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE ON UW RESTRUCTURING AND OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITIES

            President Spector asked Regent Falbo, chair of the Task Force on UW Restructuring and Operational Flexibilities, to present an update on the work of the Task Force, which had met for the third time the day before. 

Regent Falbo’s Report

Regent Falbo reported that Interim Chancellor Ward from UW-Madison and Chancellor Lovell from UW-Milwaukee gave a joint presentation on the relationship between the UW System and its two doctorial institutions.  The chancellors observed that the structure of the UW system allows for diverse UW institutions to tie to a statewide system that allows access and choice for students and fosters transfer among the institutions.

            To address the question of System structure, the chancellors presented a proposed advisory-board model under which the Board of Regents would retain its role, but would receive additional input from institution-level boards.  These boards would have two to three Regents appointed as members, which would allow for greater understanding of institutional issues, problems and concerns; provide an enhanced communication flow about institutions to the full Board of Regents; and inform Regent policy decisions with institutional perspectives. 

            Regent Falbo said that the chancellors also pointed out that UW System Administration is moving to a customer-service focus and playing more of a coordinating and strategic role.  It was noted that the primary challenge would be gaining flexibilities from state control, rather than from the Board of Regents or System Administration.  It was emphasized that as much as they need any enhanced governance system, the institutions need additional flexibilities to meet their fiscal challenges in achieving savings through procurement flexibility, for example, and retaining faculty and staff.  The Task Force would discuss flexibilities, including procurement and capital issues, at its April meeting.

            The Task Force also discussed the idea of a social compact, primarily in terms of state support for higher education.  There had been a gradual shift from the classic post-war model of high state support and low tuition, toward lower state support with higher tuition.  This shift had occurred through the fiscal realities confronting the states, rather than through any specific policy or decision.  As state support decreased, this revenue had been replaced with tuition.  The chancellors, including those who were members of the Task Force, expressed concern about the potential impact on quality as revenues continue to be restricted. 

            Regent Falbo said that the next Task Force meeting would focus on human resources and credit transfer.  He offered to respond to questions.

Regent Discussion

            Regent Higgins, a member of the Task Force, commented that the structure that Regent Falbo had devised for the Task Force had been excellent.  The first three meetings essentially had been “data dumps,” so that everyone would be on the same page for the discussion that follows.  He commended Regent Falbo for how he had been managing the information presented. 

            President Spector asked Regent Falbo to remind Regents who else from the UW was on the Task Force.   Regent Falbo noted that the other regents were Regents Higgins and Tyler.  Three chancellors were on the group, Chancellors Wells, Cross, Shields. 

            Regent Crain asked whether the flexibilities being discussed would be for all UW campuses, and Regent Falbo said that they would.  He also clarified that the discussion about advisory boards was not necessarily only for the doctorial institutions, although those institutions had been the focus of the presentation at the meeting.   

            Regent Bartell asked about the input of the UW System for the work of the Task Force, in addition to the involvement of Regents and chancellors.  For instance, extensive memos had been prepared on tuition and on structure and governance; Regent Bartell wondered whether the Task Force was considering these.  Regent Falbo responded that the System had been of great assistance, and had provided the backbone of support.  Support from System Administration was being led by Associate Vice President David Miller and Jessica Tormey from the Communications Office, although other System staff were working on this, as well.   Three people from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau were also involved; the Fiscal Bureau had been disseminating the information, and the meeting materials had been posted on the Fiscal Bureau’s website. Staff from the Department of Administration were also part of the support group. 

            President Reilly commented that System working groups had produced white papers on each of the six topics that the Falbo Task Force was charged with addressing.  These papers were being supplied at the appropriate times, and he and Regent Falbo had talked extensively about how System Administration could be responsive.

- - -

REPORT OF THE AD HOC WORK GROUP ON UW SYSTEM STRUCTURE AND GOVERNANCE

            Introducing the next agenda item, President Spector said that he had asked the Ad Hoc Work Group on UW System Structure and Governance, chaired by Vice President Smith, to focus on one of the six Task Force subjects on a timetable and in a manner that complements the work of the Task Force.  For that reason, Vice President Smith would not be seeking formal approval of any proposal during the day’s meeting but, instead would provide information, context, and ideas.  The Board’s discussion would parallel the work of the Task Force, with any final decision reserved for late in the spring.

Vice President Smith’s Report

            President Spector turned to Vice President Smith to comment on the report of the Work Group on UW System Structure and Governance, which had been provided to Regents in advance of the meeting.  Vice President Smith said that he wanted to especially thank the group members, who were Regent Crain, Chancellor Levin-Stankevich, Chancellor Lovell, Regent Pruitt, Chief of Staff Richards, and Chancellor Wells.  There had been a lot of hard work, but most of all by Regent Secretary Jane Radue and Assistant Secretary Jess Lathrop.  He joked that he and Secretary Radue had gotten to know each other’s weekend schedules way too well while working on and communicating about drafts of the report.  

            Returning to the origin of the report, Vice President Smith said that the report originated from two sources:  (1) the need to prepare a white paper on System structure and governance for legislative Task Force consideration, and (2) the recommendations of the President’s Advisory Committee on the Roles of the UW System Administration (i.e., the “Pruitt Committee”).  The Advisory Committee discussed whether some type of institution-level board would be of some assistance, and what type of board that would be.  One of the Committee’s recommendations to President Reilly was to look into the institution-level board concept.  

            Vice President Smith said that the issue, given the current economic and administrative environment, was what structure would be best for the UW System.  This question needed to be considered in the context of state funding and the budget lapse, flexibilities, the public purpose of the UW System, and the changing roles of System Administration and chancellors. 

            The Work Group concluded that there should be significant, but not dramatic changes. Vice President Smith commented on the approaches taken to reach conclusions:  Secretary Radue and Assistant Secretary Lathrop spoke with all of the chancellors about their views on institution-level boards.  The group studied other systems, as the attachments to the report reflect.  The group also relied in part on the proposals of Chancellor Lovell and Chancellor Ward, which Regent Falbo had mentioned, and reviewed some of the comments of Aims McGuinness, one of the speakers at the Task Force’s first meeting.  In reaching its conclusions, the group combined this information with individual group members’ experiences. 

            Vice President Smith said that the Work Group’s report centered on three entities:  institution-level boards, regional education counsels, and a systemwide advisory council.  Some of these already exist in some form, and some do not.  Related to institution-level boards, the report recommended an advisory, as opposed to a governing, structure.  The reasons were delineated in the report, many of them coming from the chancellors, who preferred advisory boards at this point in time.

            Institution-level boards, as proposed by the Work Group, would be for all UW institutions, not only for UW-Madison and UW-Milwaukee.  They would perhaps be more formal than they had been.  The group discussed such concepts as accountability and reflecting the uniqueness of each institution.  Vice President Smith said that words like “advise” and “advocate” were used in the report.  He said that institution-level boards, or councils, would be optional, rather than something mandated by the Regents.  Their functions, roles, and membership would be set at the discretion of the chancellors, many of whom already have some form of advisory board.  The proposal would be a way to enhance existing institution-level boards, and one or more members of the Board of Regents would possibly be part of those boards.  Regent Bradley would be speaking the next day about Regents’ roles and ways that Regents might have more time to spend on activities such as this.  

            Vice President Smith said that the Work Group’s report observed that the System was headed in the direction of gaining flexibility.  When even more flexibilities are gained, the question of the relationship between the Board of Regents and institution-level boards can be considered again. 

            The second entity that the Work Group discussed was regional education councils.  The Work Group said that the economy is viewed in terms of regions, and not only particular cities.  Therefore, higher education should have a regional focus, and UW System institutions should collaborate with K-12, the technical colleges, and private institutions, as well as businesses.  Regional collaboration would help in such areas as advocacy and college readiness. 

            The third entity would be a systemwide advisory council.  President Reilly currently has the ability to create such a council, but had not yet done so.  While the Work Group focused less on this third area, the group recognized that this concept would add another dimension, taking the work from the local, to the regional, to the statewide level; representatives from institutions’ advisory councils would come together to compare notes and advise the president of the System on matters involving all institutions. 

            The Work Group concluded that the combination of the institution-level boards, regional education councils, and the systemwide council would be a different way of doing business and would be consistent with the idea of increased flexibility and institution-level authority for decision-making.  Vice President Smith said that no action would be taken on the report at this meeting, and that this was the start of the discussion.  He invited other members of the Work Group to add their comments. 

            Chancellor Wells, a member of the Work Group, commented that this had been a good summary.  He said that the Work Group had good, frank discussions, spending a lot of time on the idea of institution-level advisory boards, deciding to refer to these as “councils,” to avoid confusion with institution-level governing boards.  He said that he had played devil’s advocate, pushing hard for institution-level governing boards, but this idea was ultimately rejected in favor of advisory councils.

            Chancellor Wells said that what convinced him that advisory councils were a good thing was the idea that, until UW institutions get substantially more authority and the flexibility to manage and lead their institutions, by adding governing boards they would just end up with another level of bureaucracy and the same amount of flexibility.  This is not acceptable. 

            Chancellor Wells also observed that Chancellor Ward, at the previous day’s Task Force meeting, made an exceptionally good observation about a chancellor’s role.  He pointed out that a CEO of a corporation is not a good metaphor for a chancellor.  He said that, at best, a chancellor is like a mayor of a messy city.  Any changes in structure and governance that would facilitate the ability of the chancellor – the chancellorship more broadly – to build trust, confidence, and collaboration among internal and external stakeholder groups would be very helpful. 

            Chancellor Wells said that the Work Group’s report was suggesting some real, substantial change.  It was not suggesting transformative, radical change, and that is not necessary.  What drives a lot of the ideas is how to enhance the communication among and between the stakeholders in the state of Wisconsin, internal and external.  It would be especially helpful to maintain this focus.  More high-impact practices on UW campuses are needed for a better quality educational experience.  Resource constraints hinder this.  Students need to be even better prepared than they currently are, at a better subsidized price.  A better education for students, at a better subsidized price, leads to a better price value for a better life for more Americans and Wisconsinites.  Continuing to do a better job of providing a better quality education is important for getting the university’s investors to invest more in the university, or to cut less.  This spirit was developing the day before at the Task Force meeting, the chancellor said. 

Regent Discussion

            Regent Falbo remarked that the Task Force had a brief discussion about names for the institution-level boards or bodies, but did not reach conclusions.  In some cases, he said, these boards may sound like duplication, but he said he did not see it that way.  As a Board of Regents, board members are not equipped to promote goals of individual campuses in the way that they should be promoted.  That would be the role that these local-level groups would play, and it is an important role.  The sky is the limit as to what institutions could do with this kind of support, which is also tied to flexibilities and cost. 

            Regent Crain, a member of the Work Group, said that she, like Chancellor Wells, had played devil’s advocate during some of the conversations.  She said that she supported the conclusions of the Work Group, that she appreciated the good discussions, and that the group had covered a lot of territory in a short period of time. 

            Regent Crain raised the issue of the role of the Regent, which she said was relevant to both the Structure and Governance Work Group report and the Board Roles and Responsibilities report, to be discussed the next day.  Regent Crain expressed concern about the role of Regents on institution-level boards, and whether those Regents would become advocates for a particular institution when communicating with the Board of Regents.  She said that it was important to remember that the responsibility of each Regent is to the UW system.  She was not opposed to anything that could enhance communication and strengthen the System, as well as individual institutions; however, it is important to be thoughtful about how this plays out.

            President Spector observed that Regent Crain’s comments during Work Group meetings had raised group members’ consciousness about the potential problem and drew some good discussion.

            Regent Falbo said that the Task Force had talked about this to some extent.  He said that his belief was that if a Regent has a preference for a campus, they have that preference already, and it is not a bad thing.  He referred to his close working relationship with the UW-Parkside chancellor, which he thought was beneficial, and which exists even without a local-level board.  Regents all know what their overall responsibilities are.  Regent Falbo suggested that Regent involvement on institution-level boards would be an opportunity to expand relationships, which is a positive thing.

            Regent Pruitt, another Work Group member, said that he would like to underscore that the Work Group did not approach its task with any resistance to change.  Even though the final report did not recommend dramatic change, Work Group members took a hard and serious look at national systems, debated, and challenged each other with difficult questions. 

            Regent Pruitt said that he thought that one thing that emerged once again out of the Work Group process was a deep appreciation that Wisconsin has a lot of things right, and that this remarkable System may, in fact, be a good model for other states to look to as they pursue the future of higher education.  The group discussion did not reflect a Board of Regents committee that was jealous of power and that did not want to give up power to institution-level governing boards.  Rather, the group recognized a lot of the strengths of the current system.  

            Regent Pruitt also said that he wanted to underscore the contingent nature of the Work Group’s recommendations related to institution-level governing boards, and the connection to flexibilities.  He emphasized the group’s willingness to reexamine these issues in the future if there were a decision to relinquish some control from the university’s state partners.  There may come a time, if circumstances change, that having institution-level groups with enhanced authority, whether governing boards or something else, should be discussed. 

            Regent Vásquez remarked that, regardless of the structure adopted, it is important to be clear, from a governing perspective, about the authority, accountability and responsibility that each tier has.  It is important to try to avoid instances where the line of separation is fuzzy.  He expressed concern that it would be confusing if, for example, a local-level board believes that it is in charge of the chancellor, or in charge of the budget, and the state-level board also believes that it is in charge of the chancellor and the budget.  Each could claim to have ultimate power and authority.  Regent Vásquez said that he was not expressing an opinion about whether institution-level boards should or should not exist, but rather he wished to stress that whatever system exists should not create more confusion.  Clarity is especially important because chancellors will undoubtedly want to have people of means and influence – people who want to make a difference – on their institution-level boards. 

            Regent Vásquez also observed that having Regents serve on institution-level boards was an intriguing idea, but in his experience, a Board member’s first and foremost responsibility is to the organization that they are serving by being on the Board.  He suggested that if a Regent were to serve on a local-level board, it would be very important to consider where his or her loyalty should be. 

            President Spector, in closing the conversation, noted that he would end with two points.  The first point applied to both the Bradley report to be discussed on Friday, as well as the Smith report which had just been discussed:  President Spector said thank you to all of those who participated in thinking about the issues, developing ideas, being devil’s advocates, or being in the majority from the beginning.  He said that he appreciated this involvement very much and that it had moved the discussion forward.

            Second, President Spector noted that a number of very intelligent people had said, in one form or another, “I don’t know what I think until I write.”  He said that there was a lot to that; he learned while writing legal briefs, like Regent Bartell and others, that it does help to write it down.  In that regard, he said that he especially wanted to tell Regents how much Secretary Radue and Assistant Secretary Lathrop had done to make possible the two reports.  They wrote them the hard way, doing the initial draft, and then doing redrafts.  They had the benefit of the thinking of some of the wisest people around, but nevertheless they wrote a lot.  President Spector said that this work deserved appreciation, and his remarks were met with applause.  

- - -

The meeting was adjourned at 11:55 am.

Submitted by:
/s/ Jane S. Radue                          
Jane S. Radue, Secretary of the Board

 

 

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING

of the

BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM

Held in 1820 Van Hise Hall
1220 Linden Drive
Madison, WI 53706

Friday, February 10, 2012
9:00 a.m.

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 2011 BOARD OF REGENTS MEETING
REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD

Introduction
Board of Regents’ Responsibilities
Emerging Roles for Board Members
Strategic Focus
Number of Meetings
Standing Committees
Board Meeting Format

Approval of Bylaw Revisions to Create a Research, Economic Development, and Innovation Committee
REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SYSTEM

OPAR Report on Transfers
Aftermath of Residence Hall Fire at UW-La Crosse.
South Korea’s Order of Service Merit for UW-Madison Professor Jae Park
Sustainability Award for UW-Oshkosh
New Student Center at UW-Stout
New Center for Arts and Humanities at UW-Parkside
New Residence Hall Under Construction at UW-Platteville
Significant Gift to UW-Eau Claire
LEAP Day at UW-Whitewater
Donation for Scholarships at UW-Whitewater
Great Lakes Maritime Research Institute Agreement
UW-Madison Biochemist Judith Kimble Chosen for National Committee
UW-Green Bay Women’s Basketball
UW-La Crosse Water Ski Team Nominated Team of the Year
ECampus College Fair
BOARD OF REGENTS DIVERSITY AWARDS PRESENTATION

REPORT OF THE BUSINESS, FINANCE AND AUDIT COMMITTEE

General Contract Signature Authority, Approval and Reporting
Real Property and Construction Contract Signature Authority and Contract Approval

2011 Annual Financial Report and Auditor’s Opinion
2011 Annual Trust Funds Report
Review and Approval of the 2012 Operations Review and Audit Plan
Quarterly Audit Status Update
UW Strategic Plans for Major Information Technology Projects
UW System Information Technology Reports:  Status Report for Major Projects
Review and Approval of Changes to Regent Policy Document 30-4: Mandatory Refundable Fee Policies and Procedures for Student Government Organizations
Approval of the Minutes of the December 8, 2011 Meeting of the Business, Finance and Audit Committee
Consideration of an Adjustment to the Salary Range Related to the Recruitment for the Provost Position at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Report on Gifts, Grants, and Contracts
Report of the Senior Vice President

Regent Policy Document Review: RPD 13-1 General Contract Signature Authority, Approval, and Reporting
Regent Policy Document Review: RPD 13-2 Real Property and Construction Contract Signature Authority Approval
Operations Review and Audit Calendar Year 2012 Operations Review and Audit Plan
Regent Policy Document 30-4 Mandatory Refundable Fee Policies and Procedures for Student Government Organizations

Consideration of an Adjustment to the Salary Range Related to the Recruitment for the Vice Chancellor/Provost Position at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
REPORT OF THE CAPITAL PLANNING AND BUDGET COMMITTEE

Authority to Increase the Budget of the Parking Ramp and Police Building Project and Construct the $13.8-million Project, UW-La Crosse
Authority to Demolish the River Commons Building, UW-Oshkosh
Authority to Increase the Budget of the UW-Platteville Porter Hall Renovation Project
Authority for UW-Platteville to Transfer a Small Amount of Land to an Adjacent Private Property Owner.
Authority to Construct the $15.3-million Ross and Hawkes Halls Renovation Project, UW-Superior
Authority to Increase the Budget and Construct the $5.3-million Drumlin Dining Hall Remodeling Project, UW-Whitewater
All Agency Maintenance and Repair Projects.

Approval of the Design Report of the Parking Ramp and Police Building Project and Authority to (a) Increase the Scope and Budget, and (b) Construct the Project, UW-La Crosse
Authority to Demolish the River Commons Building, UW-Oshkosh
Authority to Increase the Budget of the Porter Hall Renovation Project, UW-Platteville
Authority to Transfer a 0.374-Acre Parcel of Board of Regents-Owned Land, UW-Platteville
Approval of the Design Report and Authority to Construct the Ross and Hawkes Halls Renovation Project, UW-Superior
Approval of the Design Report of the Drumlin Dining Hall Remodeling Project and Authority to Increase the Budget and Construct the Project, UW-Whitewater
Authority to Construct All Agency Maintenance and Repair Projects, UW System

REPORT OF THE EDUCATION COMMITTEE

New Academic Program Approvals
UW-Milwaukee Charter School Authorization and Renewals
Annual Program Planning and Review Report

Program Authorization (Implementation) B.S. in Nutritional Sciences, UW-Milwaukee
Program Authorization (Implementation) B.F.A. in Entertainment Design, UW-Stout
Program Authorization (Implementation) B.F.A. in Graphic Design and Interactive Media, UW-Stout
Program Authorization (Implementation) B.S. in Sustainable and Renewable Energy Systems, UW-Platteville
Program Authorization (Implementation) M.S. and the Ph.D. in Epidemiology, UW-Madison
The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Charter School Contract Extension, Capitol West Academy
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Charter School Contract Extension, School for Early Development and Achievement

The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Charter School Contract Approval, Breakwater Lighthouse Charter School
CLOSED SESSION
Closed Session Resolution
Authority to Name the New Program-Revenue-Funded Residence Hall the “Jesse H. Ames Suites,” UW-River Falls
Authority to Name the New School of Nursing Facility “Signe Skott Cooper Hall,” UW-Madison

 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING

of the

BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM

Held in 1820 Van Hise Hall
1220 Linden Drive
Madison, WI 53706

Friday, February 10, 2012
9:00 a.m.

-President Spector Presiding-

PRESENT:  Regents Jeffrey Bartell, Mark Bradley, Judith Crain, John Drew, Tony Evers, Michael Falbo, Tim Higgins, Edmund Manydeeds, Charles Pruitt, Gary Roberts, Troy Sherven, Brent Smith, Michael Spector, Mark Tyler, José Vásquez, David Walsh, and Gerald Whitburn

UNABLE TO ATTEND:  Regent Katherine Pointer

- - -

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 2011 BOARD OF REGENTS MEETING

The minutes of the October 2011 meetings were distributed.  There were no additions or corrections.  Upon the motion of Regent Bartell, which was seconded by Regent Whitburn, the minutes were approved on a unanimous voice vote.
- - -

REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD

 

            President Spector noted that he had a phone conversation with Regent Pointer the day before to brief her on what had occurred at both the closed and regular sessions.  He said that she was in Washington, D.C., at a conference and looked forward to seeing everyone at the next meeting.

Educational Communications Board, Hospital Authority Board, and Wisconsin Technical College System Board Reports

           
            President Spector said that the reports for the Educational Communications, Hospital Authority and Wisconsin Technical College System Boards had been provided.  The Board of Regents has representatives on each of those boards.  He asked whether anyone had any questions or comments about those reports.   There were no comments.

Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Board Responsibilities

            Moving forward to the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Board Roles and Responsibilities, President Spector observed that, the day before, the Board had been pleased to hear Regent Falbo’s update regarding the Legislative Task Force on UW Restructuring and Operational Flexibilities and Vice President Smith’s report from the Working Group on System Structure and Governance.  At the current meeting, Regent Mark Bradley would report on the work of the Ad Hoc Committee on Board Roles and Responsibilities.  As part of that report, several recommendations would be made as to what the Board should be doing in terms of internal structure, as well as how it conducts its business. 

            President Spector said that he hoped that after Regent Bradley’s presentation and the related discussion the Board would be comfortable acting upon a recommendation from the committee regarding a new Board of Regents standing committee.

Introduction

            President Spector turned to Regent Bradley for the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Board Roles and Responsibilities.  Regent Bradley said that he was pleased to present the report of the committee, and introduced the other committee members:  Regents Walsh and Manydeeds, Chancellor Van Galen from UW-River Falls, Interim Chancellor Ward from UW-Madison, UW System Vice President Debbie Durcan, and Board Secretary Jane Radue.  Jess Lathrop, Assistant Secretary of the Board of Regents, capably assisted the committee with its work. 

Regent Bradley noted that the committee identified six recommendations, included at the end of the report.  He indicated that President Spector charged the committee with committing to writing the key roles and responsibilities of the Board of Regents and then examining how the Board could best meet those functions and responsibilities, including whether to change the Board’s committee structure.

Board of Regents’ Responsibilities

The committee examined the Board’s statutory and historical responsibilities, and considered best practices of governing boards throughout the country.  The committee was mindful of the recommendations of the President’s Advisory Committee on the Roles of System Administration, as well as the Legislature’s directive that there be more delegation to campus leaders and its decision to reduce the budget of UW System Administration by 25 percent.  He noted that the committee identified nine key responsibilities of the Board of Regents, summarized in the report.  This list was not all-inclusive, but comprehensive.

Emerging Roles for Board Members

Regent Bradley stated that after reviewing the Board’s responsibilities, the committee concluded that new roles for Board members were emerging on at least three fronts.  As the UW System moves into an era of providing more flexibility to institutions for funding decisions and planning, the Board has a continuing obligation to assure that the efforts of each of the institutions are aligned with systemwide priorities.  Furthermore, as institutions are given more operational flexibility, the Board’s committees, especially the standing committees, can focus primarily on items for which Regent involvement is critical, thus allowing more time for Regents to engage in strategic discussions and fulfilling their role as advocates for higher education. 

Finally, as science and technology play an increasingly important role in a 21st century economy, the committee concluded that the Board could focus greater attention on the varied research missions of UW System institutions, including how professional development, outreach, and research can enhance ongoing regional and state-wide economic development efforts.

Strategic Focus

Regent Bradley stated that after identifying the Board’s key responsibilities, the committee turned its attention to how the Board could best carry out those responsibilities.  The committee’s guiding principle was that the Board of Regents is a policy-setting board, not an operations-focused board.  The committee considered how the Board could maintain a strategic focus as a policy-setting board, how the committees operate, and how meetings are structured.

As for the strategic focus of the Board, the committee concluded that Regent meetings offer a very valuable public forum for discussing significant higher education issues, and the emphasis of the Board should be on discussion and deliberation.  He added that if there is going to be a sifting and winnowing of higher education policy in the state of Wisconsin, the appropriate place for that to occur is before the citizen board that has the statutory responsibility to set policy and recommend policy to the Governor and the legislature.  The committee believed that this also would be an opportunity for the Board, in an era where there will be more delegation to institutional leaders, to hear from those leaders regarding their strategic visions for their institutions.  In addition, Regent meetings would provide an opportunity for Chancellors to report on their goals for the institution, and how those goals align with systemwide priorities. 

Therefore, the committee envisioned the Board’s Thursday-morning sessions as a sort of public forum on higher-level higher education issues.  To allow time for presentations by chancellors, System Administration, or people invited from outside the UW System community, the meetings would begin on Thursday morning at 9:00 a.m. this would give a sustained period of time not only for the presentations, but especially for board discussion, deliberation, discussion, and examination of the issues. 

Regent Bradley said that the committee also proposed that after lunch on Thursdays, the early part of Thursday afternoon would be reserved for the important function that the Board plays in recognizing achievements throughout the System.  This time would be reserved for the awards that the Regents present and also for farewells, honoring the service of people on the Board and from around the system.  Thus, in order to reserve Friday morning for Board of Regents business, ceremonial functions would be reserved for the first part of Thursday afternoon.

Number of Meetings

Regent Bradley said that if the Board moves toward an emphasis on higher-level policy and strategic thinking, it might be time to consider, for several reasons set forth in the report, going to six two-day meetings and discontinuing the practice, in place for only about four or five years, of having two one-day meetings focused on big issues.  The committee thought that the Board would not need the two one-day sessions if it were going to move that type of discussion and analysis to its Thursday-morning sessions. 

Also, the recommendation to focus on six two-day meetings recognized the amount of staff time that meeting preparation takes.  Regent Bradley said that he had not talked with President Reilly about this, and he based his comments on his observations.  He said that everybody recognized that if the Board wanted ten meetings a year, President Reilly and his staff would produce ten meetings a year, or if the Board wanted 14 meetings a year, President Reilly and his staff would carry out that directive.  However, he suggested that Board members need to be realistic and to recognize the changes occurring in the role of System Administration, budgetary support for System Administration, and System Administration’s relationship with the institutions.  Referring to the amount of work it takes to support the Board’s meetings, Regent Bradley noted that the people who do support the meetings have regular Monday-through-Friday jobs.  Preparing for Board meetings takes time away from their regular jobs.  There will be fewer people in System Administration. 

Mainly, though, reducing the number of meetings to six two-day meetings would allow Regents time to be involved with institutional advisory committees, if the institutions adopt them.  Many Board members also spend time on Regent-related committees throughout the year.  There would be more of an opportunity to continue very committed involvement in UW System governance, but it would take some different forms.   

A final factor that the committee considered was large-system governing boards throughout the United States.  During an effort led by Regent Connolly-Keesler a number of years before, to examine the UW System Board of Regents’ operations compared with operations of other large-system boards, it was determined that the UW System “took the prize” for the amount of time spent in formal meetings among all large-system boards in the United States.  It could be suggested that those other boards come up to the high standards of commitment and time spent of the UW System Board; however, another perspective is to ask how all of those other large-system boards are able to carry out their responsibilities as policy-setting boards in less time.  This provides food for thought.

Standing Committees

Regent Bradley said that the Committee on Board Roles and Responsibilities also looked at the Board’s standing committee structure.   The committee recommended streamlining committee operations.   The agenda items for the Board’s standing committees could be better aligned with the Board’s policy-making and oversight roles.  The agendas also should align with the Board’s interest in examining high-level higher education policy issues and its strategic direction. 
The committee’s recommendation was to reduce the size of the standing committee agendas by delegating some of the items that historically have come before the standing committees either to the System president or to institutional leaders.  Another committee recommendation was to forego the practice of having committee chairs read their reports to the Board on Friday mornings.  These reports could be prepared either Thursday evening or Friday morning and be delivered to Regents electronically.  One of Board members’ obligations would be to read the reports and be ready to discuss their content and vote on the proposed resolutions on Friday morning.  Regent Bradley quoted one of the members of the Committee on Board Roles and Responsibilities, who said, “We can all read.”
Regent Bradley said that the committee’s report also set forth its rationale for recommending a new, fourth standing committee for the Board of Regents, the Research, Economic Development, and Innovation (REDI) Committee.  The proposed committee would meet several important goals.  It would elevate the knowledge economy as a priority topic for the Board of Regents.  It would signal the Board’s recognition of the importance of the System’s scientific and research and technical work in moving the state forward.  It would also highlight for the state and local leaders the role and potential of the UW System institutions in addressing the state’s economic development challenges; rather than being a big part of the state’s budget problem, the System is an essential part of the budget solution for the state of Wisconsin.  In addition, the new standing committee would recognize that institutions from multiple sectors within the UW system are involved in important research and economic development work.  
The committee developed a prospective description of the scope of the REDI Committee’s work, shown in the report, included with the Board materials.  Regent Bradley emphasized that the committee was proposing that initially the REDI Committee would be a committee of the whole Board of Regents, convene on Friday mornings, and be chaired by the President and co-chaired by the Vice President of the Board of Regents.  How often the committee would meet, and what it would do, could evolve; the report proposed an initial structure.

Board Meeting Format

With an eye toward strategic and systemwide issues, rather than focusing on operations, and also toward streamlining the Board’s committee meetings, the Roles and Responsibilities Committee developed a revised board meeting format.  The Board meetings would start at 9:00 a.m. on Thursday mornings.  Full-Board sessions would be focused on listening to presentations after Board members had read on their own time the background materials provided in advance by the presenters, System Administration, or the chancellor who might be presenting about his or her strategic plan.  Thursday afternoon, after lunch, the Board would fulfill its ceremonial duties, followed by the meetings of the standing committees.  Those committee meetings, with more streamlined agendas would, it was hoped, be shorter meetings.
Regent Bradley said that Friday morning would be the full Board’s business meeting, including the Board President’s Report and System President’s reports.  After these reports would be a discussion of the committee reports, which Board members would have read either Thursday evening or Friday morning before coming to the full-Board session.  Initially, Friday morning also would be devoted to meetings of the Research, Economic Development, and Innovation Committee, whenever necessary.  Friday also would be available for the items that the Board has a responsibility address in closed session.

Regent Bradley closed his remarks by saying that the committee believed that this revised format would help the board maintain its focus on strategic and high-priority issues and that it would be consistent with the roles and responsibilities of the Board of Regents as a large-system operating board.  Regent Bradley concluded his report by thanking all Roles and Responsibilities Committee members for their excellent work, participation in the meetings, and comments on drafts of the report; they contributed greatly to whatever success the report has.

Regent Discussion

            President Spector thanked Regent Bradley for his leadership and also thanked all others who contributed to the report.  He said that when he charged the Board Roles and Responsibilities Committee with its task back in October, he had certain expectations.  However, Regent Bradley and the committee more than exceeded his expectations, as had Regent Smith and his working group, the results of which were discussed during the previous day’s meeting.  President Spector said that he was most appreciative of what everybody had done.

            President Spector suggested that the Regents discuss the recommendations or other content in the report Regent Bradley had presented.  He said that he thought that in the seven years he had served on the Board, this was the first time the Board had really examined these issues.  He added that it had been a worthwhile, good effort, and it would help the Board, going forward, to do the best job possible.

            President Spector recognized Vice President Smith, who commented that the Board has an Executive Committee which had not been used very much as long as he had served on the Board.  He said that if the Board had fewer meetings, and if there were more time in between meetings, one of the results might be more responsibility or influence for the Board leadership, or for System leadership.  He asked if there was an increased role for the Executive Committee for the times in between meetings.

            Regent Bradley said that while the report did not mention it, the committee discussed that topic.  The committee noted that the Board had always had an Executive Committee but, in his experience, never used the Executive Committee.  He said that the Committee discussed how policy boards in large institutions, including those in private corporations, deal with their meeting schedule and with the issues that come up in between meetings.  The committee believed that the Board ought to use the Executive Committee structure that it has. 

            Also in the report, related to the recommendation to have the Board set six two-day meetings, is the idea of reserving two additional days that could be used for meetings at the discretion of the Board President.  Alternatively, the Executive Committee could act during this time. 

            Recognized next, Regent Whitburn said that in the private sector, in certain circumstances, the executive committee of a board is authorized to act on the board’s behalf on certain matters during those months when the board is not meeting.  He said that an executive committee cannot hire and promote the CEO, but in some companies it can do everything but that function.  He asked if this was the kind of role envisioned for the Board’s Executive Committee.  He said that he did not think the Board’s bylaws empowered the Executive Committee in that way. 

            Regent Bradley said that the committee’s discussion was focused on relying for the Executive Committee for things that absolutely needed attention in order to keep the engines of the University of Wisconsin System going.  It was not the Committee’s intention that the Executive Committee take on permanent decision-making responsibilities in between the Board meetings.

            President Spector acknowledged Regent Bartell, who said that he was very impressed with the report, and thought it properly identified the appropriate functions of the Board and where Regents should direct their focus.  He added that he liked the idea of chancellor presentations; this had been discussed by the President’s Advisory Committee, and he thought it was an excellent idea.  Regent Bartell said that, with regard to other deliberations and strategic discussions, to identify times during the meeting when the Board could do those kinds of things was an excellent idea.  He also liked the “REDI” Committee, as it would be a good way to direct the Board’s attention to functions that are very important to the state.  He also agreed with paring back or eliminating functions that committees or the Board have done for traditional reasons, public relations reasons, or other reasons. 

            Regent Bartell said that the one thing that he did not agree with was the recommendation to reduce the amount of time spent by the Board collegially in discussion and interaction.  He said he had come to that conclusion for a number of reasons.  First, the Board had been asking for more legislative authority that the Board would delegate to the various institutions that it supervises.  In doing that, the Board should not be spending less time together, but should be addressing the issues that will arise in connection with that process.

            Second, Regent Bartell said, reducing the number of meetings also reduces the input the Board would have with System Administration staff.  Most of the staff he talks to appreciate the feedback they receive from the Board; Board members would not see them as much if two meetings a year were eliminated, and staff would have to make more decisions without Regent input.  Regent Bartell said that maybe that was good, or maybe that was not good, but the Board of Regents is a public body that represents the entire population of the state with respect to higher education.  He said that he thought the Board ought not to diminish its impact in that area. 

            Third, Regent Bartell said that he thought there was a real benefit to meeting collectively.  Looking around the table, he said that a lot of wisdom and experience is shared when the Board meets.  He commented that he has been on the board almost six years and had learned so much from his fellow Regents.  He said he thought his decision-making had been improved by that.  He recognized that some Regents have a lot more responsibility in that they serve on other boards, and serving on the Higher Education Aids Board or the Hospital Board is time consuming.  He said that he knew it was difficult for some people to do, but that this was a commitment that one made when they joined the Board.

            One argument that Regent Bartell said resonated with him, in favor of reducing the number of meetings, was the burden on staff.  He said that if that was a serious problem, then he might be persuaded to reduce the number of meetings, but he said that knowing boards of other higher education institutions meet fewer times was not persuasive, adding that he follows a couple of other boards, and he believes that the Board of Regents does a better job in many respects.

            Regent Bartell concluded by saying that the Board and its membership provide a certain consistency to higher education policy in the state, and it is meeting around the table that does that.  Board members are not lone wolves, and do not come to the table with single issues, for the most part.  Board members collectively come to conclusions that are important, and he would not want to reduce that fact.  He said that if the Board must do its work with six meetings instead of eight, he would vote in favor of the report, but would prefer to continue with the schedule as it was now. 

            Regent Bradley responded by saying that he thought that Regent Bartell had made an eloquent counterpoint argument to the recommendation in the report and that the Board would have to make a decision.

            Regent Falbo said that he agreed with what Regent Bartell said, but was not going to go through all the reasons because Regent Bartell said it very well.  He said he learned at every function he attended, and he thought that helped him to be a better Regent.  He said that he thought that Board of Regents meetings were extremely important.  He suggested that if the Board could lift some burdens from the staff, and streamline what is needed, that would be helpful, but the burden on staff should not be a driver in determining how many meetings the Board has. 

            Regent Falbo said that he would not feel comfortable carrying out his responsibility as a Board member by meeting less often.  He said that public company boards did not try to have fewer meetings; they had more meetings because it was important to do so.  He said that Board members knew the responsibility they were taking on when accepting their appointment.   He suggested that if the Board wanted to lift some burden, it should consider looking at the buddy system.  He said he felt badly when leaving a campus because he had put the institution through a lot of work.  He suggested revamping the buddy system, or finding a way to make it more productive.

            President Spector called upon Regent Vásquez, who said that he was very appreciative of the committee’s work, and thought the report was excellent.  He said that he wanted to highlight that embracing technology, individually and collectively, would provide more flexibility.  He noted that the report made reference to that, and he thought the Board needed to do more in this area. 

            Regent Vásquez continued by saying that in not-for-profits and also in the for-profit world of governance, boards have internet sites that are exclusively for the board of directors to use to access meeting minutes, to do research, and generally to access information at any time.   Such an arrangement is easier for staff, because instead of one gigantic deadline, staff could add information to the website as reports or other materials are completed.  He suggested that the use of technology should be examined to determine if it would create more efficiency.  Board members could access information on a website, and in so doing, spread out the work and avoid spending meeting time reviewing materials.

            President Spector observed that when the Board is asking institutions to be more efficient, it could certainly be more efficient itself.  President Spector then called on Regent Tyler. 

            Regent Tyler said that he thought the UW System was a complex entity, and for new Regents, the ramp-up period can be difficult.  He added that Regents can read and can get material through technology, but he was not sure that this would provide the full context of what a new Regent needed to know to be prepared.  He said that his preference would be to not reduce face-to-face meetings.

            Regent Crain said that she had also struggled with the issue of the number of meetings.  She agreed with most of what was said, but at the same time realized how much staff work goes into a Board meeting, and was sensitive to the issue.  She added that in the end, the staff time may turn out to be a more important factor.

            Regent Crain said that in contrast to other things in which she was involved, the Board meetings were the only time that she saw everybody around the table and in the room.  She joked about her longstanding preference that those in the room wear nametags, but said that nametags had been very helpful because familiarity among Board members and others was important.  Board members come and go every year, and it takes time for them to know each other, operate in a collegial fashion, and express opinions freely.  Familiarity is a strong consideration.

            Regent Crain, expressing her interest in the REDI Committee, asked Regent Bradley why the subject of the REDI Committee should not be part of the full Board’s regular focus, since the committee would operate for the time being as a committee of a whole.

            Regent Bradley said that initially, the REDI committee would be a committee of the whole, but eventually it would be like the other standing committees and meet on Thursday afternoons.  President Spector added that to give the REDI committee more prominence and a chance to develop substance, the entire Board would at first meet as a committee of the whole. 

            President Spector asked if there was anyone in favor of reducing Board of Regents meetings to six meetings per year, and no one responded affirmatively.  He then asked if there was anyone with concerns regarding the REDI Committee who wanted to be heard on that issue or who was concerned about the Board moving in that direction, and no one responded affirmatively.  President Spector suggested that those two issues be set aside, and asked if anyone had any other comments regarding ceremonial things occurring on Thursday afternoons, or other issues. 

            President Spector recognized Regent Pruitt, who said that he thought the report was terrific.  He said the proposed regular Board meeting format for Thursdays and Fridays that the Bradley Committee developed was thoughtful, reasonable, and an efficient way of looking at the issues and reorganizing things.  He said the flow would modernize the meetings.  He complimented Regent Bradley and the committee for their good work.

            President Spector called upon Regent Higgins, who said that he agreed with Regent Pruitt.  He said that as a new Board member, he thought the report was very well written, as it described the necessary history, current operations, and future direction.  He said it was an excellent job, and thanked the committee for making his job easier.  President Spector agreed, emphasizing that the quality of the report was first rate; he said that the report was easy to understand, logical, and well done.   

            President Spector recognized President Reilly, who noted that Regent Bradley had referred to the 25-percent reduction to System Administration, and the requirement to give up 50 positions, which was about one-quarter of the System Administration staff.  He said it was a tough job, but that System Administration had done it well with the help of the President’s Advisory Committee, which Regent Pruitt chaired.
 
            President Reilly said that one of the commitments made in the process of undertaking reductions was not only to cut, but instead to use the crisis to put dollars behind some new priorities.  One of the biggest reallocation decisions was to fund a System Administration position focused on economic development, an idea that was thoroughly discussed with the chancellors and others. 

            President Reilly said that Paul Jadin, chief executive officer of the new Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation, was approached about this position.  Mr. Jadin agreed to fund half of a position at UW System Administration, to bring together all of the economic development, research, and innovation-related activities across UW System institutions and work with the state-level economic development entity.  On February 24, recruitment for an Associate Vice President for Economic Development would begin, and the staff person would hopefully be on board within a couple months.  President Reilly added that the new position would begin at the same time that the new committee would be starting up, which was a happy coincidence.  He said that he liked the idea of the new committee. 

Approval of Bylaw Revisions to Create a Research, Economic Development and Innovation Committee

            Following up on one of the recommendations of the Board Roles and Responsibilities Committee, President Spector said that he had presumptuously prepared a resolution to revise the Board’s bylaws to create a Research, Economic Development, and Innovation Committee.  He noted that Secretary Radue had prepared the revisions and asked if she wanted to make any further comments.  She noted that the marked changes reflected the description of the REDI committee in the “Bradley Committee” report. 

            President Spector asked if there was any discussion on any of the proposed changes to the bylaws.  He said that inherent in this change was that the REDI Committee would meet as a committee of the whole at first, and a future Board would decide at what point that approach would change to a more conventional standing-committee approach. 

            Upon the motion of President Spector, which was seconded by Regent Whitburn, the Board unanimously approved the resolution:

Approval of Bylaw Revisions to Create a Research, Economic Development, and Innovation Committee

Resolution 10013:       That, upon the recommendation of the President of the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, the Board of Regents approves the attached bylaws revisions to create a Research, Economic Development, and Innovation Committee.

            President Spector thanked the Board for their vote.  He said that as for the rest of the report recommendations, he would suggest no change to the number of Board meetings at this time.  He added that he thought the Board could implement the changes recommended to the Thursday- and Friday-morning portions of the Board meetings without any bylaw changes, and that meetings would start at 9:00 a.m., for example, instead of 10:00 a.m. on Thursdays, as recommended by the committee.  He asked if there were any concerns about this, and no one responded affirmatively. 

            President Spector thanked Regent Bradley for his work.  Regent Bradley expressed appreciation and said the committee’s report was a group effort.  He thanked, in particular, Secretary Radue and Assistant Secretary Lathrop for their quality work.  President Spector indicated that his thanks of the day before, regarding the work of Ms. Radue and Ms. Lathrop on the governance report, applied to their work on the present report, as well.  

- - -

REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SYSTEM

News from Around the System

            President Spector called upon President Reilly to present his report.   He started his report by extending condolences to the family and friends of Edwin Young, who passed away on January 2nd at the age of 94.  He said that Dr. Young served as Chancellor at UW-Madison during the tumultuous Vietnam War era, and as President of the UW System from 1977 to 1980.  Dr. Young helped shape Wisconsin’s public university at a pivotal and stressful time.  Having served as the UW-Madison Chancellor, when he became the President he worked very diligently to ensure that individual universities and colleges retained maximum operational freedom within a unified statewide system.  President Reilly said that Dr. Young was known for his folksy Maine accent, dry humor, and canny political mind and that he would be missed. 

OPAR Report on Transfers

            President Reilly said that a new report from the UW System’s Office of Policy Analysis and Research showed that the number of students transferring into or within the UW System in 2010-11 reached 17,209.  He said that UW-Milwaukee was the most frequent destination, with more than 2,500 transfer students, followed by UW-Madison, UW Colleges, and UW-Oshkosh.  Almost one-third of new degree-seeking undergraduates were transfer students, a remarkable fact. 

      Twenty-eight percent of new transfers were from out-of-state institutions.  Part of the Growth Agenda was to attract more out-of-state students to Wisconsin and have them earn their degrees, and hopefully with the jobs the UW System is helping to create, keep them in Wisconsin.  President Reilly said that 25 percent of the transfers were from the Wisconsin Technical College System, and seven percent were from Wisconsin’s private institutions.  New transfers were more likely than new freshmen to be non-traditional aged students, and half of new transfers were first-generation college students.   He said the UW System was continuing to work on making transfer a smoother, more efficient process for students.  He added that while there was work that still needed to be done, the Board of Regents, System Administration, and the institutions could be proud of the major improvements made on transfer policy and practices. 

            President Reilly said that more students were voting with their feet to take course work at more than one campus, including Regents Sherven and Pointer, and the UW System had a central role in helping ensure that the decision to transfer was an enhancement to students’ undergraduate experience. 

Aftermath of Residence Hall Fire at UW-La Crosse

            President Reilly reported news from UW-La Crosse.  Chancellor Gow and the campus had been rallying to cope with a fire that occurred in Drake Hall in the early morning hours of January 29th, resulting in the displacement of 271 residents of Drake Hall for the rest of the term.  President Reilly said that the good news was that nobody was hurt in the fire and the building would be repaired.  The outpouring of support from the UW-La Crosse area community, as well as from sister institutions around the UW System, was heartening.  For example, each of UW-Oshkosh’s residence hall directors and staff adopted one of UW-La Crosse’s residence hall staff members and sent care packages filled with candy, door decorations, bulletin boards, cards and more to distribute to UW La Crosse’s Resident Assistants.  In addition UW-River Falls sent cookies and other sweet treats to residence life staff team members.  President Reilly asked Chancellor Gow if he wanted to provide an update. 

      Chancellor Gow said that he did not know if any of his colleagues had had a similar experience, but at a previous institution he received a call at 5:00 a.m. and learned that there was a fire, one student was dead, and four others were critical.  He said that it was something no one would want to experience.  The most important thing about the fire at UW-La Crosse was that everyone was all right.  The campus had received incredible support from the community and other institutions.  Relocating 271 students only two weeks into the semester, with no advance notice, was a big logistical challenge for Residence Life staff, but the campus was able to manage it.  Some faculty and staff offered space in their homes, there were some vacancies in other residence halls, and students that had been living two people in a room had taken in a third person.  It was wonderful to see it all work out.  The chancellor added that UW-La Crosse had given full refunds for their housing. 

            The situation was unusual in that catastrophes often close a whole university, but in this case it affected just one group of students, who were dramatically affected, but for others life went on as normal.  Chancellor Gow said that the campus was still looking into the cause of the fire, and would have more information early the following week.  The campus systems had worked perfectly; the alarms worked to get people out of the building.  He thanked President Reilly for bringing the situation to everyone’s attention, and expressed thanks to the many who had offered support.

South Korea’s Order of Service Merit for UW-Madison Professor Jae Park

            President Reilly said that Dr. Jae (Jim) Park, UW-Madison’s professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and a native of South Korea, received South Korea’s Order of Service Merit in recognition of his volunteer consulting for a multi-billion dollar river restoration project in that country.  He said that the Order of Service Merit was among the highest honors in Korea and was comparable to the U.S. Congressional Gold Medal.  Dr. Park, an expert in biological processes for removing toxic compounds in waste treatment and the environment, gave new meaning to burning the midnight oil.  A Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story noted that Dr. Park’s second workday would often begin as his UW colleagues were going to sleep.  He said that when it was nighttime in Madison, it was daytime in South Korea, and Dr. Park would talk with engineers and the Presidential Office overseeing the project by e-mail and internet telephone.  Dr. Park also made appeals on national television and wrote many articles for Korean journals about the value of river restoration, all on a volunteer basis.  The students in Dr. Park’s UW-Madison classrooms reaped the benefits of his work on the restoration project. 

Sustainability Award for UW-Oshkosh

            Earlier in the week, it was announced that UW-Oshkosh had become only the 25th institution in both the United States and Canada, and the first in Wisconsin, to earn a gold rating from the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education’s Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System (STARS). This was a huge accomplishment. While UW-Oshkosh had been repeatedly honored with listings among Princeton University’s “Guide to Green Colleges” and the Sierra Club’s “Cool Schools,” the rigorous and all-encompassing STARS assessment process was the strongest, most quantifiable validation of UW-Oshkosh’s sustainability practices yet.  President Reilly congratulated Chancellor Rick Wells and his colleagues, as well as UW-Green Bay and UW-River Falls, which each earned silver STARS ratings in the past year. 

New Student Center at UW-Stout

            President Reilly noted that several campuses were celebrating the opening of new or newly improved facilities.  Late in January, UW-Stout officially opened the doors on its newly-renovated Memorial Student Center after nearly eight years of studying, researching, planning, designing, and construction.  The Center featured new and improved lounge and meeting spaces, a variety of dining options, a new outdoor amphitheater and an involvement center for student organizations.  UW-Stout students were closely involved in every stage of the renovation process.  Saying that the grand opening celebration would be on April 18th, President Reilly congratulated Chancellor Sorenson and the UW-Stout community on the new addition.

New Center for Arts and Humanities at UW-Parkside

            President Reilly said that the prior month marked the official debut of “The Rita,” UW-Parkside’s new Rita Tallent Picken Regional Center for Arts and Humanities.  He attended the grand opening, and reported that it was a very impressive addition to the campus.  He added that Regent Drew and Regent Vásquez also were there.  President Reilly said that it was an impressive building with great theater, gallery, studio, and classroom space.  The generosity of the late Rita Tallent Picken, for whom the building was named, helped with the bricks and mortar part of the project and provided endowed scholarships for students in the arts and humanities.  The new center was expected to be a bridge between UW-Parkside and the community, enriching the lives of both the people on campus and throughout the entire region with its academic and artistic programming.  He congratulated Chancellor Ford and UW-Parkside campus community.

New Residence Hall Under Construction at UW-Platteville

            President Reilly reported that UW-Platteville’s Rountree Commons was on track to be complete for the next school year.  The six-story residence hall was a necessary addition in light of the university’s growing enrollment and would be home for more than 600 students beginning in the fall.

Significant Gift to UW-Eau Claire

            President Reilly reported that UW-Eau Claire had announced that in the coming months the UW-Eau Claire Foundation would receive its largest gift ever, a $4.3 million gift from the estate of Lieutenant Colonel George L. Simpson Jr., whose father was one of UW-Eau Claire’s first faculty members and whose mother was a member of the university’s first graduating class in 1917.  He said that the gift was in addition to a $2 million gift made to the foundation at the time of Mr. Simpson’s death in 2003.  Noting the university’s gratitude for such generosity, President Reilly quoted Chancellor Levin-Stankevich, who said that Lt. Col. Simpson “clearly found the university to be an important part of his life and now ensures that it will continue to make a difference in the lives of its students for years to come.”

LEAP Day at UW-Whitewater

            President Reilly reported that UW-Whitewater was hosting LEAP Day on February 29th.  The occasion had to do with LEAP, Liberal Education and America’s Promise, an initiative launched by the Association of American Colleges and Universities.  President Reilly said that LEAP was about engaging in a public discussion about what matters in college and connecting employers and educational leaders in making the case for the importance of a liberal education in the global economy.  The UW System had been involved in this initiative from the start and was regarded by colleagues at AACU as a national leader in LEAP’s work.  The event at UW-Whitewater included a variety of sessions and keynotes, and Regents were more than welcome to attend. 

Donation for Scholarships at UW-Whitewater

UW-Whitewater was the benefactor of generous donors.  Two alumni, Quint and Rishy Studer, recently provided $1 million for scholarships to Janesville high school students who attend UW-Whitewater.  The newly established Janesville Promise Fund would award $50,000 annually to graduates of Craig and Parker high schools.  Chancellor Dick Telfer said the full impact of the gift was nearly impossible to predict, and southeastern Wisconsin would benefit from the Studers’ generosity for many years to come. 

Great Lakes Maritime Research Institute Agreement

            The Great Lakes Maritime Research Institute had a new five-year agreement with the U.S. Maritime Administration to study environmental issues facing the Great Lakes maritime industry.  He said that one of the first tasks would be determining if it was economically feasible for steam-powered ships to switch from fuel oil to natural gas to meet approaching federal emissions mandates.  He said that the Great Lakes Maritime Research Institute was a consortium involving UW-Superior and the University of Minnesota-Duluth, along with ten affiliated universities around the Great Lakes.  President Reilly congratulated Chancellor Wachter and the UW-Superior community.

UW-Madison Biochemist Judith Kimble Chosen for National Committee

            President Reilly reported that UW-Madison biochemist Judith Kimble was chosen to be a member of President Obama’s Committee on the National Medal of Science.  As a committee member, Kimble would help choose the next recipients of this honor, which is the nation’s most prestigious science award.  He said that Dr. Kimble was the Vilas Professor of Biochemistry at UW-Madison, and an investigator with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.  He said that she studies the molecular regulation of animal development and had made a number of key discoveries, including finding the first stem cell niche, the micro environment that controls stem cell maintenance. 

UW-Green Bay Women’s Basketball

            At UW-Green Bay the women’s basketball team was staking its own claim to Title Town lore.  According to a recent New York Times article, the Phoenix women’s basketball team was a force to be reckoned with, despite competing against programs with ten times their budget.  The Phoenix recently moved up into the top ten in both the Associated Press and USA Today/ESPN Coaches’ Poll, the highest rankings in program history.  The Phoenix hit a bump in the road with their first loss of the season in a game against Detroit, but their record was still a very impressive 20 and one.  President Reilly added that their run of 13 consecutive Horizon League regular season championships stood as the longest active streak of its kind in the country. 

UW-La Crosse Water Ski Team Nominated Team of the Year

            The UW-La Crosse Water Ski and Wakeboard team was named the 2011 Team of the Year by the National Collegiate Water Ski Association at the USA Water Ski Awards in January.  He said that the UW-La Crosse team was at the top of the field of 72 teams from around the country, which was especially impressive given their somewhat shorter open water training season in the river.  President Reilly congratulated Chancellor Gow and UW-La Crosse.

ECampus College Fair

            President Reilly reported that the UW System eCampus hosted a college fair the prior month that was a wild success.  He said that the first-ever college fair via Twitter was a one-hour event geared to providing information and inspiration to adult returning students who were considering on-line degrees.  A panel of experts tweeted about financial aid, the 100 on-line degree programs available throughout the UW System, and tips for adult students.  The event was successful, with more than 1,100 tweets generated and an estimated 100,000 people receiving the word about the UW System’s eCampus.

- - -

BOARD OF REGENTS DIVERSITY AWARDS PRESENTATION

            President Spector said that the Board would turn to one of its most enjoyable responsibilities as Regents, the presentation of Regent Awards, at the present meeting honoring the recipients of the 2012 Regent Diversity Awards.  He introduced Regent Crain to lead the presentation. 

Opening Remarks by Regent Crain, Chair of the Diversity Awards Committee

            On behalf of her fellow Regents, Regent Crain extended a special welcome to the award recipients, their families, friends and colleagues.  She said she and the Board were honored by their presence.  She said that this was the fourth year that the Board of Regents would present its Diversity Awards, which were meant to recognize the outstanding contributions to diversity and inclusion by people in programs at the UW institutions.  She said that while the awards were relatively new, the ideals have been promoted by UW system for more than 20 years.  The honors bestowed by the Board of Regents represented significant campus efforts to ensure a high-quality UW education to all students, of every background.  She said that the recipients of Regent awards were an inspiration and source of great pride for the Regents.

            Regent Crain said that the Regents’ Diversity Awards Program was established through a Board directive calling for the formal recognition of individuals, teams, or units within the UW System who successfully fostered greater access and success for historically under-represented populations.  These efforts were vitally important, not only because of the principles of justice and genuine opportunity for all, but because of the educational, social, and economic value to the university, the state of Wisconsin, and beyond.

            The people and programs that the Board would recognize understood those values and had done something extraordinary to show a genuine respect for the human differences among us, a deep attentiveness and understanding of the learning process, and a keen responsiveness to students and their educational needs. 

Regent Crain explained that the selection committee included Regents Manydeeds and Pruitt and herself.  She said that the three of them greatly valued the time they took to read and evaluate the portfolio submissions they received from UW System institutions.  She said they were grateful to the universities and colleges for their nominations, and that there were outstanding and many people worthy of recognition.  She also thanked the staff, especially the Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, and also the other staff who helped with preparing the recognitions.  It was helpful that there were people on the staff committee who represented other institutions in the System. 

            Regent Crain said it was very difficult to select the winners, but rewarding to see the exceptional work on diversity and inclusion occurring all around the UW System, work that leads to progress for all in this important area.  She encouraged the Regents to read the profiles of the award recipients.

Individual Award:  Irma Burgos, Director of the Center for Academic Support and Diversity at UW-Oshkosh

            Regent Crain said it was her honor to be the presenter of the individual award, and announced that the Diversity Award in the individual category was for Irma Burgos, Director of the Center for Academic Support and Diversity at UW-Oshkosh.  She said that Ms. Burgos had served in that capacity since 2007, and that the Center included the Office of Multi-Cultural Retention Programs, Student Support Services, Multi-Cultural Education Center, and the Office of Precollege Programs.  Regent Crain said that Ms. Burgos’ commitment to the educational success of students of color attending UW-Oshkosh spanned more than 20 years, since 1989.  In that time she had done it all -- served as advisor, counselor, career planner, tutor coordinator, and program manager -- and each role had a focus on the needs of diverse students. 

            Regent Crain spoke of Ms. Burgos’ dedication to the university’s mission and of the profound difference she had made in transforming the lives of many multi-cultural and disadvantaged students and enhancing the educational experience of all UW-Oshkosh students.  Regent Crain said that much of Ms. Burgos’ work focused on improving retention and graduation rates, with an eye on closing the achievement gap, which was a priority for UW-Oshkosh. 

            Regent Crain explained that Ms. Burgos had developed a relatively new initiative, called the Multicultural Retention Programs Tracker, a shining example of being proactive.  The Tracker is in effect, an early warning system to alert campus staff, faculty, and administrators when students of color and at-risk groups are struggling academically or socially.  She said the Tracker pinpoints students are who apt fail before that happens and then helps connect them with resources and people to turn things around.  She added that the intended result is for students to develop the necessary skills to become successful students and ultimately successful graduates.  Regent Crain said that the Tracker initiative was still in the early stages, but all indications were that this was a step in the right direction.  This effort was only one of the initiatives in which Ms. Burgos had been involved. 

            Ms. Burgos had also received the Trio Achievements Award, the UW System Women of Color Award, and the 2011 College of Letters and Science Diversity Award. 

            Regent Crain presented the 2012 Regent Diversity Award winner in the individual category to Ms. Irma Burgos, who received a standing ovation from those assembled.

            Ms. Burgos greeted Board members and said that she was greatly honored to be at the Board of Regents meeting to receive the award.  She said she was excited, humbled, and deeply moved that the Board chose to present an important award to her, a first generation Puerto Rican woman from the Bronx.  She thanked the Board for recognizing her accomplishments, and said she was sure that she was one of many nominated for the award.  She believed that each nominee was deserving of the honor in that all of the nominees were involved in working with a diversified student population and carried the passion, determination and courage to see that students received the best education possible. 

            Ms. Burgos said she accepted the award with profound gratitude on behalf of all students across the UW System campuses who sought to achieve academic success, and as a tribute to the UW System’s pursuit of diversity, equity, and inclusivity.  Saying that her thanks extended to many, Ms. Burgos acknowledged:  the Board of Regents for its leadership and continued support of diversity in Wisconsin higher education; the Regent Diversity Awards Committee for its tireless work in reviewing, examining, and weighing all submissions; Chancellor Wells of UW-Oshkosh for his support; and Provost Earns, her direct supervisor, for recognizing the valuable work done each day.  She said that knowing the work is appreciated spurs creativity in forming new ideas, programs, and alliances.  She thanked her staff, most of whom were present, from the Center for Academic Support and Diversity. 

            Expressing her deepest gratitude, Ms. Burgos said that she would not have received the award without the collaboration, cooperation, and talent of her wonderful staff.  She said that she and her staff worked toward the same goals, day after day, and that a one-size-fits-all approach is not in their vocabulary.  She said that students were treated as individuals, and without her staff’s flexibility, creativity, and unwavering dedication to see that the students received the best services possible, the award would not be a reality.  She also thanked the UW System Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion for its leadership. 

            Ms. Burgos said that during her 22 years of service she had had the privilege of working with the UW-Oshkosh campus community in an array of exciting ventures to improve the campus climate, enhance the enrollment and retention of students, and increase the diversity of faculty and staff.  She was proud of their progress in creating programs geared toward retention and graduation of historically under-represented populations. 

            One of their most successful programs, the Multi-Cultural Retention Programs Tracker, or MRP Tracker, was a coordinated effort that provided a comprehensive plan targeted for academically at-risk students.  The target population was students with GPAs that may put them in jeopardy.  Ms. Burgos said that with help from the faculty in identifying students experiencing academic difficulties, the Center can implement action-based intervention strategies to further guide students in their successful pursuit of post-secondary education. 

            Ms. Burgos observed that one of the most important resources is faculty.  Another important feature was the assessment of programs to measure outcomes.  It is not quotas that need to be filled, but potential.  Data collection from key departments is important.  All retention programs are time sensitive in nature, being based on faculty, university, and departmental guidelines; being respectful of these timelines facilitates better relationships and communication between her department and those of the faculty and campus community. 

            Ms. Burgos said that she and her staff would continue being intentional, flexible, and mindful of their actions, in their commitment to provide the best opportunities for student retention, graduation, and lifelong learning.  She thanked the Regents again for the award, and said she felt truly fortunate to have had the opportunity to work at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, partnering with faculty and staff to help students achieve academic success.

Team Award:  University Honors Program at UW-Eau Claire

            Regent Pruitt said it was his privilege to introduce the Regent Diversity Award in the team category to the UW-Eau Claire Honors Program.  He said that in 2009, the UW-Eau Claire Equity Scorecard Report on Excellence noted that students of color were underrepresented in the university’s Honors Program.  Of 392 students officially enrolled in honors, only seven students, or 1.7 percent, were known to be students of color.  He said that the Scorecard also reported that admissions criteria for the university Honors Program unfairly disadvantaged students of color and suggested the university reexamine its ACT and class rank admissions requirements. 

            Regent Pruitt said that one of the unfortunate canards offered by too many in society was the assertion that the pursuit of diversity is at odds with the pursuit of excellence, that somehow if one sees a more diverse and representative community on campuses or in businesses, it will be at the expense of high standards and high achievements.  He said that everyone in the meeting room knew that was simply not true and, indeed, the opposite was true.  He said that “diversity enriches us all and we can never achieve true institutional excellence without diversity, equity, and inclusion.”  Regent Pruitt said that on this point, as Dr. King used to say, “our lives begin to end the day that we decide to become silent about things that matter.”  He said that the good staff in the UW-Eau Claire Honors Program understood this well, and not only were they not silent, but they took the findings of the Equity Scorecard and used them as a call to action. 

            Regent Pruitt said that the Program Director, Jeff Vahlbusch, and Faulty Fellow David Jones developed and implemented, with the help of a campus-wide team, an innovative, holistic admissions pilot project that takes into account other factors, such as service and extracurricular activities in addition to academic performance and potential.  Regent Pruitt said that in 2010, the year after the program was revamped, representation of students of color in the UW-Eau Claire Honors Program increased from 1.7 percent to 9.6 percent.  First- and second-year retention rates for the 2010 cohort were 92 percent.  He said that, as a result, a larger number of deserving and capable students were taking part in high-impact practices that were known to be powerful in enhancing student learning and success. 

            Regent Pruitt said that in the two years since the holistic admissions process was implemented, more than 100 students who otherwise would have been overlooked had been invited to join the UW-Eau Claire Honors Program, representing real change and recognition that the pursuit of increased diversity can and should go hand in hand with the pursuit of individual excellence. 

            Regent Pruitt said that it was his pleasure to present the 2012 Regent Diversity Award in the team category to the Honors Program at UW-Eau Claire.  Program Director Jeff Vahlbusch and Faculty Fellow David Jones accepted the award on behalf of the program and were met with a standing ovation.

            Dr. Vahlbusch expressed his gratitude and said that he and University Honors Faculty Fellow and English Professor Dr. David Jones were delighted to accept the award.  He said they did so as representatives of a wonderful group of faculty, honor students, staff, and administrators from across the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, who worked together on their Honors Holistic Admissions Project. 

            He said it was his pleasure to thank and name the main members of their team:  the Chancellor’s EDI Fellows, Dr. David Shih and Dr. Selika Ducksworth-Lawton; Executive Director of Enrollment Management Kris Anderson and her staff, including multicultural recruiter Kia Lee, Office of Multicultural Affairs Director Dr. Jessie Dickson and Assistant Director Charles Vue; Associate Dean of Students Jodi Thesing-Ritter; Director of American Indian Studies Dr. Deborah Barker; honors students Adam Gewiss, Sara Tweedale, and Mariah Quick;  Assistant Director of Honors Dr. Ivy Bohnlein; all of the members of the University Honors Council; Professor of Geology and Honors Council member Dr. Phil Ihinger, and Honors Program Associate Pam Golden.  He said that this was an award in the team category and every single one of these members deserved thanks and appreciation. 

            Dr. Vahlbusch said that two things made the project possible.  The first was the UW System’s adoption; the Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion’s administration; and UW-Eau Claire’s successful implementation of the Equity Scorecard.  He said that the Scorecard gave them a clearer picture of the problem, that their university Honors Program was far less diverse than their broader university population.  The Scorecard also pointed them toward a solution:  to reexamine Honors’ traditional reliance on absolute ACT and rank-in-class cutoffs.  Most helpfully, he said, the Scorecard told them exactly how many students in which under-represented groups were needed in the program to attain equity.  The Equity Scorecard gave them a goal to meet, and they were well on their way to meeting the goal.

            Dr. Vahlbusch said that the second key to their success was the unwaveringly strong support for Inclusive Excellence and EDI initiatives by UW-Eau Claire Chancellor Brian Levin-Stankevich, Provost Patricia Klein, Arts and Sciences Dean Marty Wood and their staff members.  He said they created the context in which they could do their work well. 

            Dr. Vahlbusch said that he looked forward to making the high-impact practice of honors education available to ever greater numbers of underrepresented students.  He thanked the Regents and Diversity Awards Committee members for their support of equity, diversity, and inclusiveness. 

            Faculty Fellow Dr. David Jones added that he wanted to mention two deceptively simple keys to diversifying the pool of honor students.  The first key was to review the honors criteria for admission to make sure that they were equitable and valid.  He said that prior to the development of the holistic admissions process, UW-Eau Claire students were admitted to honors based on a 28 ACT score and a top-5-percent-in-class rank.  He said that these criteria were originally set to manage enrollment; when put in place in 1983, these benchmarks had no known validity for predicting student success, yet they guided honors admissions for 26 years. 

            Dr. Jones said that when they took over the honors program in 2009, they began to ask questions about the benchmarks:  Is there is a significant predictive difference between a score of 28 on the ACT and a score of 27?  What about top-5-percent-in-class rank versus a top 8 percent?  If one comes in third out of a graduating class of 35, should they be ineligible for honors admission?  If one learned English after early childhood and had a 23 ACT in reading but a 31 in science, should they be disqualified from honors admissions?  He said they posed such questions and revised the criteria to help assure equity and validity. 

            Dr. Jones said that the second key was to begin to read student applications with diversity in mind.  He said that he started in honors with Dr. Vahlbusch, and in his tenth year as a UW-Eau Claire faculty member, but until that point had never seen or read an admissions application.  He said that implementing holistic admissions required that they start reading.  He said that by taking this deceptively simple step, they learned a great deal about incoming students and their academic achievements, their extra-curricular activities, employment, career interests, and personal stories.  They could never get this kind of detail from an ACT score, and were able to identify ethnic and other kinds of diversity in the student pool, make more informed decisions about admissions, and look deeply within student data to help track student success. 

            Dr. Jones said that he was describing the steps as “deceptively simple,” because it did require time and effort to review admissions criteria to make sure they were equitable and valid, and it takes time to read student applications.  However, if one is unable or unwilling to take these steps, they choose not to seek or develop a great deal of student talent.  He closed by saying that the future productivity of the state depends on developing this talent.  He thanked the Regents and said it was a great honor to receive the award.

Institution Award:  First Nations Studies Program at UW-Green Bay

            Regent Manydeeds said that he wanted everyone to know that he felt honored and privileged to be included in the group of people present.  He said that he admired and respected everyone present, and acknowledged that their jobs were difficult.  He asked that his remarks be accepted, not as a statement of complaint, criticism, or blame, but as fact and concern for some people close to him.

            Regent Manydeeds explained that Native people face many challenges, just as the UW System faces challenges.  Two of those challenges are at a crossroads and when that happens, they must be examined with concern, to see what can be done to change things.  Regent Manydeeds said that when he was reading the submissions for the nominations, he came across a shocking statistic:  According to a System study in 2009 (or perhaps 2011), of the 1,000 Native American students that graduated from high school, only 40 took the ACT test and applied to a UW System institution.  Of those 40 students, 34 were admitted.  Of those 34 students admitted, only 22 enrolled.  Of the 22 students that enrolled, only 16 were retained through the first year, and of those 16 students, only 8 graduated.  Regent Manydeeds said that this was a concern of his, and he knew it was a concern of everyone in the room.  He said that it was a problem that must addressed.

            A second area of concern, Regent Manydeeds said, was preparing teachers.  It is state law that Superintendent Evers cannot license a teacher in Wisconsin unless that teacher has received instruction in the study of minority group relations, including the history, culture, and tribal sovereignty of Wisconsin tribes.  He said that he believed this was being done, but questioned if it was being done well enough.  He said he thought that most of the campuses he had visited were doing what they could, and as well as they could. 

Regent Manydeeds said that he heard about something that happened in northern Wisconsin within the last two weeks, which disappointed him.  He indicated that he did not know all of the facts, but he understood that a young student was disciplined by a teacher for speaking in the Menominee language.  He said his father was a teacher, and until recently his wife was a teacher.  He said that teachers have a hard job, and he understands their hardships.  He said that he was not criticizing the teacher, but that more must be done as a System to better prepare teachers.  He said that he thought that moment could have been used as a great teaching moment by that teacher had he or she been better prepared. 

            Regent Manydeeds said he was very happy and pleased with the recipient of the institution/unit award, UW-Green Bay’s First Nations Studies program.  He explained that the First Nations Studies Program was part of a professional program in education at UW-Green Bay, an interdisciplinary degree program that reflected the holistic world view of Native indigenous people.  He said that the program was committed to the study of Indian culture, philosophy, history and language, as well as the social, economic, and political status of indigenous people in their communities.  The First Nations Studies Program actively embraced the oral traditions of the American Indian Tribal communities and incorporated those teachings and learning approaches of tribal people offering students a new way to learn.

            Regent Manydeeds said that Tim Kaufman, chair of UW-Green Bay’s Professional Program in Education, included in his nomination letter a description of the opportunity to learn from oral tradition scholars.  Regent Manydeeds explained that elders are people from a tribe that are educated in the ways of the tribe, have received an oral history of the tribe and its culture, embody those key spirits of the culture, and are able to tell them and translate and explain how the tribe and culture work, and the beliefs of the tribe. 

            Regent Manydeeds said that this approach mirrored the tribal world, as the indigenous people of Turtle Island have transmitted this knowledge for many thousands of years.  He said that the impact of the program was cross-disciplinary.  In collaboration with the professional program in education, the First Nations Studies program created an innovative fusion model designed to teach teachers how to deliver culturally relevant instruction about history, culture, and tribal sovereignty of First Nations people.  In essence, First Nations knowledge is fused into existing undergraduate courses, such as social work, history, democracy and justice studies, human development, and biology, a practice which aligns it with the UW System’s Inclusive Excellence initiative. 

            Regent Manydeeds said that First Nations Studies was also responding to community needs of the tribes in areas such as language, preservation, generational healing, and efforts to increase the recruitment, retention, and graduation rates among First Nations students.  He cited the personal impact on students in the program, including a Hmong student who noted that the courses had touched his or her heart. 

            Regent Manydeeds said that he was pleased to present the 2012 Regents Diversity Award to the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay’s First Nations Studies Program.  Dr. Lisa Poupart, chair of the program, was unable to attend, but two members of the First Nations Studies faculty were present to accept the award, Cliff Abbott and JP Leary.  They received a standing ovation from those present.

            Dr. Cliff Abbott expressed his gratitude and introduced himself and Mr. JP Leary.  He joked that the two of them were bookends for the program:  He was working on his fourth decade as a faculty member at UW-Green Bay, and Mr. Leary was working on his second semester.  He explained that they wanted their chair, Dr. Lisa Poupart, to be present but she and other members of the program were at UW-Eau Claire as part of a workshop at which they were explaining the kinds of the things they do at Green Bay, and sharing advice, the kind of advice that wins awards. 

            Dr. Abbott said that he had been at UW-Green Bay for a long time, and a program like this did not happen overnight; it took a long time to build.  He said that he could remember when he first arrived at the UW-Green Bay campus, in the mid-1970s, and thought about trying to do something for diversity.  He said that at that time, as embarrassing as it was to say, they simply cast around to fellow faculty members and asked if anybody was teaching anything about minority groups somewhere in their classes.  He said that if some responded “yes” to that, they gathered all of the courses together and said they had an ethnic studies program. 

            Dr. Abbott said that over the years, they were able to focus the program, hire faculty members with the expertise to increase the focus of the courses, assemble courses in a coherent program and create a minor, eventually to create a major for First Nations Studies, and then to have that major be able to support a center for experimentation and innovation.  It had been a long path, and important work had been done.

            Dr. Abbott said that he would mention one significant step that happened about 15 years before.  It was the point at which the institution posed the question, “Why do we want a First Nations Studies program in the first place?”  He said that the answer was that it had to be more than only being able to recruit Native students, and it had to be more than an effort to close the achievement gap.  It had to be more than carving out a small place for Native American communities to recognize themselves in academia.  It was decided that the program should invite challenges to the traditional ways that the academy was operating, and relying upon the voice of Native American people would be an excellent way to do that.  He said they hired several people from the communities. 

            It was not always comfortable, but there was an effort to apply the Wisconsin tradition of sifting and winnowing when considering different value systems, appropriate ways to teach, and different ideas about access to knowledge.  He said that for the academy, access to knowledge should be available to all students and to all citizens.  He said that for Native American groups, the access was often something that had to be gained by developing relationships with elders and community, which is a different way of organizing knowledge.  Dr. Abbott said that the holistic way of viewing the world that was characteristic of Native people was different from the structure of most universities that “silo things into departments.”  A challenge was the high value placed on an oral, rather than written, tradition. 

            Mr. Leary spoke next, noting that he was brand new to UW-Green Bay, and prior to joining the institution, he worked at the Department of Public Instruction with Superintendent Evers and others for about 15 years.  He said that in his position with the American Indian Studies program, he had a good sense of what was happening around the state and around the UW System.  He also said that he had been fortunate to work with Professor Abbott, Dr. Poupart, and others, and knew about the work occurring at UW-Green Bay. 

            Mr. Leary indicated that about a year before, he and Regent Evers were walking to a meeting, and he told Regent Evers that UW-Green Bay was doing some really good things, he wanted to be a part of that, and had applied for a job there.  He said he was not leaving DPI, but going toward something.  He expressed his gratitude for the recognition for the program, and told Regent Evers he still thought he had made a good decision. 

            To close the awards ceremony, Regent Crain said that the Regents were truly honored and inspired by the extraordinary recipients and their work, and that there was still a lot of work to be done.  President Spector thanked Regent Crain and others, and said that the presentations were very enriching. 

- - -

REPORT OF THE BUSINESS, FINANCE AND AUDIT COMMITTEE

President Spector then called upon Regent Falbo to present the report of the Business, Finance, and Audit Committee.

Joint Meeting of the Business, Finance & Audit Committee and the Capital Planning & Budget Committee

            Regent Falbo reported that the Business, Finance, and Audit Committee met jointly with the Capital Planning and Budget Committee and heard about the UW Colleges’ relationships with the city and county political subdivisions.  He said they had a presentation from UW-Marathon County and the city planner from Marathon County.   He said that the successes, collaboration, and partnerships were impressive.  Regent Falbo explained that Marathon County was one of Chancellor Cross’s 72 “bosses” across the state.  

General Contract Signature Authority, Approval and Reporting

            Regent Falbo indicated that the first resolution discussed during the joint meeting, general contract signature authority, would update and consolidate several Regent Policy Documents relating to signature authority.  The resolution would streamline the process for delegating authority to sign documents by allowing the UW System President to delegate approval of authorized signers to institution chancellors, rather than having chancellors recommend signers for the UW System President’s approval. 

Real Property and Construction Contract Signature Authority and Contract Approval 

            A second item discussed during the joint meeting, a resolution related to real property and construction contract signature authority, would consolidate several Regent policies and bring them in line with existing laws and regulations.  Authority for these actions would be maintained with the Board and, in most cases, would also require the approval of the State Building Commission or, in the case of leases, the state Department of Administration. 

Committee Business

2011 Annual Financial Report and Auditor’s Opinion

            Regent Falbo said that the committee then reconvened as the Business Finance, and Audit Committee to take up the 2011 Annual Financial Report and Auditor’s Opinion.  He said that for the first item Julie Gordon, the Associate Vice President for Financial Administration, presented a summary of information for the UW System’s 2011 Annual Financial Report, which included an unqualified audit opinion from the Legislative Audit Bureau.  State Auditor Joe Chrisman and Financial Audit Director Carolyn Stittleburg of the Legislative Audit Bureau (LAB) presented the auditor’s opinion.  Regent Falbo said that LAB highlighted three findings, two of which were repeat findings that had been addressed by management.  The remaining finding related to security access in the new HRS System and would be addressed as HRS stabilizes. 

2011 Annual Trust Funds Report

            Regent Falbo said that Trust Funds Director Doug Hoerr presented highlights from the 2011 Annual Trust Fund Report.  Trust funds are comprised of gifts and bequests made directly to a UW institution, rather than to a foundation.  Regent Falbo reported that as of June 30, 2011, the trust funds held net assets of $464.2 million, up from $409.3 million at the end of the prior year.  The long-term fund gained 21.2 percent over the period, and the intermediate and the income fund returned 8.3 and .2 percent respectively. 

Review and Approval of the 2012 Operations Review and Audit Plan

            Regent Falbo said the committee took up the review and approval of the 2012 Operations Review and Audit Plan.  They welcomed back from maternity leave Elizabeth Dionne, Director of Operations Review and Audit.  He said that at their last meeting the committee had discussed potential audit topics, and the proposed plan was adjusted based on risk analysis, institutional impact, staffing realities, and priorities expressed by the committee.  Due to the priority placed on the review relating to reporting crimes against minors, work began on this audit in December.  The committee approved the plan as presented. 

Quarterly Audit Status Update

Ms. Dionne provided an update for the committee of ongoing Office of Operations Review and Audit projects.

UW Strategic Plans for Major Information Technology Projects

            Regent Falbo reported that the committee discussed UW strategic plans for major informational technology projects.  Ed Meachen, Associate Vice President for Learning and Information Technology, presented the overview of the UW System IT Strategic Plan, entitled “The Common Systems Road Map.”  In addition to this overall UW System plan, each institution is required to develop a plan for its local systems and projects.

UW System Information Technology Reports:  Status Report for Major Projects

            Regent Falbo indicated that the project status for UW System information technology reports, another topic discussed by the committee, was available online.

Review and Approval of Changes to Regent Policy Document 30-4: Mandatory Refundable Fee Policies and Procedures for Student Government Organizations

            Regent Falbo reported that the committee reviewed changes to Regent Policy Document 30-4, “Mandatory Refundable Fees and Procedures for Student Government Organizations.”  The committee approved changes to the Regent Policy requiring UW institutions to collect fees for any UW System inter-institutional governance support groups for which the board approved a mandatory refundable fee.  Interim Associate Vice President for Student Affairs and Chief Student Affairs Officer at UW-Oshkosh, Petra Roter, explained the process used to draft the proposal and highlighted the changes.  Regent Falbo said that the only organization for which an MRF is currently approved is United Council of UW Students.

Approval of the Minutes of the December 8, 2011 Meeting of the Business, Finance and Audit Committee

            The committee approved the minutes of the December 8, 2011 meeting of Business, Finance, and Audit. 

Consideration of an Adjustment to the Salary Range Related to the Recruitment for the Provost Position at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

            The committee considered an adjustment to the salary range related to the recruitment for the provost position at UW-Milwaukee.  Chancellor Lovell outlined some of the recruitment challenges surrounding the current salary range for the provost position.  The range had not been adjusted for six years.  The committee approved the resolution. 

Report on Gifts, Grants, and Contracts

Vice President for Finance Debbie Durcan presented information regarding gift, grant, and contract awards. 

Report of the Senior Vice President

            Regent Falbo noted that Senior Vice President Michael Morgan updated the committee on progress toward operationalizing the ITMAC (Interpret, Train, Monitor, Advocate, Consult) philosophy of management in Administration and Fiscal Affairs.  Mr. Morgan also talked about the Human Resources System, which he reported was on time and on budget, with only two more critical pieces to come online. 

            Regent Falbo said that Associate Vice President Freda Harris provided an overview of the 2013-15 biannual budget process and timeline for informational purposes.

            The committee than heard an update from the UW Personnel Systems Task Force.  The University Task Force is co-Chaired by UW-Platteville Chancellor Dennis Shields, who briefed the committee on recent activities.  The Task Force held its third meeting on Wednesday, February 8.  Regent Falbo said the working groups were developing systems and reporting back to the Task Force.  The Task Force has an aggressive timeline.  Regent Falbo said that Chancellor Shields stressed the importance of having all the stakeholders participate in the process. 

Consent Agenda

Regent Falbo then moved adoption of Resolutions 10014, 10015, 10016, 10017 and 10018.  The motion was seconded by Regent Whitburn.  Regent Drew requested that Resolution 10018 be removed for separate consideration.  A vote was called on Resolutions 10014, 10015, 10016 and 10017, and these resolutions were adopted unanimously on a voice vote: 

Regent Policy Document Review: RPD 13-1 General Contract Signature Authority, Approval, and Reporting

Resolution 10014:       That, upon the recommendation of the President of the University of Wisconsin System, the Board of Regents approves the attached revised Regent Policy Document 13-1 General Contract Signature Authority, Approval, and Reporting.  This action repeals existing Regent Policy Document 13-3, Authorization to Sign Documents and Regent Policy Document 13-4, Delegation of Responsibilities to the Vice President for Finance, the subject matter of which will now be covered under this consolidated and renumbered policy regarding general contract signature authority.

Regent Policy Document Review: RPD 13-2 Real Property and Construction Contract Signature Authority Approval

Resolution 10015:       That, upon the recommendation of the President of the University of Wisconsin System, the Board of Regents approves the attached revised Regent Policy Document 13-2 Real Property and Construction Contract Signature Authority and Approval.  This action repeals existing Regent Policy Document 13-1, Authorization to Sign Construction Contracts and Change Orders, Regent Policy Document 13-4, Delegation of Responsibilities to the Vice President for Finance, and Regent Policy Document 19-13, Acquisition of Property within Approved Campus Development Plan Boundaries the subject matter of which will now be covered under this consolidated and renumbered policy.

Operations Review and Audit Calendar Year 2012 Operations Review and Audit Plan

Resolution 10016:       That, upon the recommendation of the President of the University of Wisconsin System, the Board of Regents approves the Calendar Year 2012 Operations Review and Audit Plan.

Regent Policy Document 30-4 Mandatory Refundable Fee Policies and Procedures for Student Government Organizations

Resolution 10017:       That, upon the recommendation of the President of the University of Wisconsin System, the Board of Regents approves the changes to Regent Policy Document 30-4, “Mandatory Refundable Fee Policies and Procedures for Student Government Organizations.”

            Prior to the vote, Regent Bartell had asked a question about Resolution 10017.  He noted having received a communication from the Student Senate at UW-River Falls about the amendment of RPD 30-4, the mandatory refundable fee policy.  He asked if Business, Finance, and Audit had considered this communication.  Regent Falbo said that it had. 

Consideration of an Adjustment to the Salary Range Related to the Recruitment for the Vice Chancellor/Provost Position at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

            Called upon by President Spector, Regent Drew spoke against the motion to adopt Resolution 10018.  He said that he understood the vital importance of the provost/vice chancellor position to UWM and to all of the institutions and the need to be competitive in attracting high-quality candidates.  However, he cautioned that the Board ran the risk of appearing tone deaf to the concerns of faculty and staff at a time of declining state aid, rising tuition, frozen salaries and, in effect pay cuts, with the benefit contributions that went into effect.  Regent Drew said that he did not believe that an increase of $73,000, which would be the midpoint increase for the provost position, was justified.  He said that he did not see how the Board could raise the salary for someone not yet hired, and ignore the needs of current employees. 

            President Spector asked if there were other comments on the motion.  Regent Higgins observed that disinvestment is taking place in public universities all across the country.  With budgets being cut, he asked at what point in time the competitive environment would change in the university’s favor.  Associate Vice President for Human Resources and Workforce Diversity Al Crist was called upon for a response.  Dr. Crist said that the proposed new salary range was developed pursuant to Regent policy, the same policy structure that applies for chancellors, provosts, and presidents in the System.  The range was essentially based on surveying the peer institutions that were established by the legislature through a committee in 1984.  The range was based on data from UW-Milwaukee’s peers; a reduction of the peer median by 5 percent to reflect a lower cost of living in Wisconsin; and a 10-percent spread around the median.  This was a narrow range, last calculated in 2006 and was, therefore, out of date and out of market.

            Responding to a question about the peer group for the UW-Milwaukee position, Associate Vice President Crist said that the state Legislature sets the ranges for the vast majority of UW employees, a very unusual circumstance across the country.  That will improve with the new personnel systems to be put in place on July 1, 2013. 

            President Spector asked Chancellor Lovell if he had any comments.  The chancellor said that the reason for the proposal to change the range was that when UW-Milwaukee started the provost search, the search firm received questions from the candidates.  The firm had done the preliminary screening and had identified 12 people for interviews; five of them asked what the salary range was.  All five of them were already making more than the maximum of the range, as deans at other universities.  It became apparent that a competitive search for a provost of high quality would require an adjustment to the salary range.  Chancellor Lovell added that it is sometimes necessary to pay market value for new faculty, which has resulted in newly-hired assistant professors being paid more than full professors who had been on campus for 20 years.  This is not fair, but is part of the reality in hiring quality people. 

            President Spector, referring to Regent Higgins’ inquiry and Chancellor Lovell’s comments, summarized by observing that Chancellor Lovell seemed to be saying that notwithstanding that in the abstract there ought to be more people available of high quality, in this specific situation, based on the people the search firm identified, it seemed best to look at raising this range.

            Regent Walsh commented that Regent Drew’s concern about being tone deaf to faculty and staff posed an honest question and a challenge.  He said that he saw a significant distinction in who controls what.  Unfortunately, the people who control the ranges for faculty and staff do not have to be accountable for the consequences, but the Board does.  The Board controls salaries for the leadership positions, and the Board watches people leave because they are paid too much elsewhere.  It is the Board’s responsibility to make sure the right people are hired.  He recalled that, going back ten years, there was an effort to adjust salary ranges as a group, but now it was being done individually, following the reality of the legislative prescription.

            Regent Walsh said that as Chair of the UW Hospital and Clinics, he has seen a similar problem.  He said he was sensitive to Regent Drew’s concern.  However, the Board’s responsibility is one of leadership, and it is important to be in the market when hiring leaders.  

            Regent Roberts asked about the source of funding for the UW-Milwaukee provost position.  Dr. Crist said that the funds would come from UW-Milwaukee’s existing operating budget.  Regent Roberts, expressing an appreciation for Regent Drew’s point about the need to be sensitive to the current environment, said that he thought it was also important to be sensitive to and to support the chancellor’s wishes. 

            President Spector called for a vote on Resolution 10018.  A roll call vote was necessary to comply with Regent policy regarding salary range adjustments.  The resolution was adopted on a roll call vote, with Regents Bartell, Bradley, Crain, Evers, Falbo, Higgins, Manydeeds, Pruitt, Roberts, Sherven, Smith, Spector, Tyler, Vásquez, Walsh, and Whitburn (16) voting in the affirmative, and Regent Drew (1) voting in opposition. 

Consideration of an Adjustment to the Salary Range Related to the Recruitment for the Vice Chancellor/Provost Position at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Resolution 10018:       That, upon the recommendation of the Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, in accordance with Wisconsin statutes and Regent Policy Document 6-5, the Board of Regents adopts a new salary range for the UW-Milwaukee Vice Chancellor/Provost as set forth in the attached, effective July 1, 2012.

- - -

REPORT OF THE CAPITAL PLANNING AND BUDGET COMMITTEE

President Spector then turned to Regent Bartell for the report of the Capital Planning and Budget Committee. 
Joint Meeting of the Business, Finance & Audit Committee and the Capital Planning & Budget Committee

Referring to the joint meeting with Business, Finance, and Audit, Regents Bartell said that he would only add some numbers to what Regent Falbo had reported, because the numbers were impressive.  The counties and municipalities around the state of Wisconsin provided about $25 million of financial support to UW Colleges and Extension last year.  That is $25 million not provided by the state, but by the local municipalities and counties.  With respect to UW Marathon County, which made its presentation, that campus described six major projects that they had undertaken that had a total insured value of $61 million, which Regent Bartell said was a very impressive amount.  He emphasized the significant partnership with these local governmental entities, which should be valued and treasured.

In recognition of the Bradley Committee recommendations that the reports of the committee chairs be abbreviated, Regent Bartell said that he would identify the items that were approved by the Capital Planning and Budget Committee unanimously and then address any questions or concerns.

Committee Business

Authority to Increase the Budget of the Parking Ramp and Police Building Project and Construct the $13.8-million Project, UW-La Crosse

Regent Bartell said that the Capital Planning and Budget Committee adopted Resolution 10019, having to do with a UW-La Crosse request for authority for a parking ramp and police building project at $13.8 million.  The new police building would provide appropriate modern space for campus security, which is now housed in outdated space.

Authority to Demolish the River Commons Building, UW-Oshkosh

The committee approved Resolution 10020, requested by UW-Oshkosh, to demolish the River Commons Building on Pearl Avenue, using insurance funds to finance the demolition.  Once it is demolished the site will be developed into fields for intramural athletics. 

Authority to Increase the Budget of the UW-Platteville Porter Hall Renovation Project

Resolution 10021 requested authority for a small increase in the budget at UW-Platteville  for the Porter Hall renovation project. 

Authority for UW-Platteville to Transfer a Small Amount of Land to an Adjacent Private Property Owner.

Resolution 10022 was UW-Platteville’s request to transfer a small amount of land to an adjacent private property owner who claimed it by adverse possession.  This action resolved a substantiated claim that a fence, which the campus located on the property years ago, was not constructed on the true property boundary.

Authority to Construct the $15.3-million Ross and Hawkes Halls Renovation Project, UW-Superior

Resolution 10023, by UW-Superior, sought authority to construct the $15.3-million Ross & Hawks Hall residence-hall renovation project. 

Authority to Increase the Budget and Construct the $5.3-million Drumlin Dining Hall Remodeling Project, UW-Whitewater

Resolution 10024, for UW-Whitewater, requested authority to construct the $5.3-million Drumlin Dining Hall remodeling project, replacing food service equipment, exterior windows, and outdated HVAC equipment, as well as remodeling the hall’s dining areas. 

All Agency Maintenance and Repair Projects

Regent Bartell said that Resolution 10025 would seek authority to construct six all-agency maintenance and repair projects at five UW institutions, for a total of $16 million. 

Consent Agenda

Regent Bartell then moved adoption of Resolutions 10019, 10020, 10021, 10022, 10023, 10024, and 10025.  Regent Drew seconded the motion, which was adopted on a unanimous voice vote.

Approval of the Design Report of the Parking Ramp and Police Building Project and Authority to (a) Increase the Scope and Budget, and (b) Construct the Project, UW-La Crosse

Resolution 10019:       That, upon the recommendation of the UW-La Crosse Chancellor and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, the Design Report of the Parking Ramp and Police Services Building project be approved and authority be granted (a) increase the project scope and budget by $1,707,000 Program Revenue-Cash; and (b) construct the project for a total project cost of $13,838,000 ($6,838,000 Program Revenue Supported Borrowing and 7,000,000 Program Revenue-Cash).

Authority to Demolish the River Commons Building, UW-Oshkosh

Resolution 10020:       That, upon the recommendation of the UW-Oshkosh Chancellor and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, authority be granted to demolish the River Commons building, which is located at 632 Pearl Avenue on the UW-Oshkosh campus, for a total estimated cost of $693,000 Insurance Funds.

Authority to Increase the Budget of the Porter Hall Renovation Project, UW-Platteville

Resolution 10021:       That, upon the recommendation of the UW-Platteville Chancellor and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, authority be granted to increase the budget of the Porter Residence Hall Renovation project by $150,000 Program Revenue Supported Borrowing for a revised total project cost of $4,926,000 Program Revenue Supported Borrowing.

Authority to Transfer a 0.374-Acre Parcel of Board of Regents-Owned Land, UW-Platteville

Resolution 10022:       That, upon the recommendation of the UW-Platteville Chancellor and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, authority be granted to transfer 0.374 acres of undeveloped Board of Regents-owned land to the adjacent private property owner.

Approval of the Design Report and Authority to Construct the Ross and Hawkes Halls Renovation Project, UW-Superior

Resolution 10023:       That, upon the recommendation of the UW-Superior Chancellor and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, the Design Report be approved and authority be granted to construct the Ross and Hawkes Halls Renovation project for a total cost of $15,276,000 Program Revenue Supported Borrowing.

Approval of the Design Report of the Drumlin Dining Hall Remodeling Project and Authority to Increase the Budget and Construct the Project, UW-Whitewater

Resolution 10024:       That, upon the recommendation of the UW-Whitewater Chancellor and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, the Design Report of the Drumlin Dining Hall Remodeling project be approved and authority be granted to increase the budget by $673,000 Program Revenue-Cash and construct the project for a total cost of $5,300,000 ($4,627,000 Program Revenue Supported Borrowing and $673,000 Program Revenue-Cash.)

Authority to Construct All Agency Maintenance and Repair Projects, UW System

Resolution 10025:       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 $15,775,400 ($12,029,500 General Fund Supported Borrowing; $2,143,500 Program Revenue Supported Borrowing; and $1,602,400 Program Revenue-Cash).

Report of the Associate Vice President

Regent Bartell closed his report by noting that Associate Vice President David Miller reported that the State Building Commission approved $84 million of projects for the UW at its December meeting. 
President Spector, thanking Regent Bartell for his report, said that he set a wonderful example for the future with his brevity.

- - -

REPORT OF THE EDUCATION COMMITTEE

            Regent Vásquez next made his report on behalf of the Education Committee, saying that he, too, would be brief.  The full discussion would be reflected in the committee’s minutes.

Committee Business

New Academic Program Approvals

            Regent Vásquez said that the Committee unanimously approved six new academic degree programs, all of which would be a part of the consent agenda.  These included the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Epidemiology at UW-Madison, on which the committee heard a brief presentation.  Madison Provost Paul DeLuca and Hal Skinner, Professor of Population Health Studies, made clear the extent to which Epidemiology is fundamental to the program array and the education of students in the School of Medicine and Public Health.
Collaboration was being explored with UW-Milwaukee, which is also developing a Ph.D. in Epidemiology as part of its new School of Public Health, and Regents can expect to see that degree proposal sometime in the near future.

UW-Milwaukee Charter School Authorization and Renewals

            The committee welcomed Dr. Bob Kattman, Director of the Office of Charter Schools, and Dean Carol Colbeck, Dean of the School of Education at UW-Milwaukee, to discuss the charter schools that they were bringing forward.  Dr. Kattman would be retiring soon, Regent Vásquez said.  The charter schools that were moved forward were the two existing ones:  Capitol West Academy and the School of Early Development and Achievement came before the committee, which recommended them for four-year renewals.  Normally these would be a five-year renewals.  They have been making some substantial progress and showing good achievement.  There were some areas where a four-year renewal was deemed more appropriate, it this gives the office an opportunity to come back earlier rather than later to do a good assessment of them again. 

            A third school that was recommended was the Lighthouse Charter. This was a new school, Regent Vásquez explained.  In response to a question from President Spector, Regent Vásquez said that this school would have a five-year renewal period.

Annual Program Planning and Review Report

            The committee discussed the Annual Program Planning and Review Report, presented by Dr. Stephen Kolison, and provided in the Board materials.  Regent Vásquez indicated there was a good analysis and good recommendations, tied in with President Reilly’s recommendation that UW System Administration take responsibility for managing the System’s program array, and leave the determination of quality to the institutions.  The committee’s discussion centered on some key issues, including what it would mean for System Administration to manage the array; how gaps in the array could be identified and addressed; and what role the Board would play in this changing process.  Some recommendations on these questions would be forthcoming in the near future, Regent Vásquez said. 

Report of the Senior Vice President

Regent Vásquez said that the committee meeting concluded with the Report of the Senior Vice President, which included updates on:  the transfer of several Academic Affairs Advisory Committees to UW institutions; revisions to the System’s Growth Agenda for Wisconsin Grant Program; and recent developments in the System’s LEAP Wisconsin work.  

Consent Agenda

Regent Vásquez then moved adoption of Resolutions 10026, 10027, 10028, 10029, 10030, 10031, 10032 and 10033, and the motion was seconded by Regent Crain.  Regent Drew asked that Resolution 10033 be removed from the consent agenda.  President Spector called for a vote on Resolutions 10026, 10027, 10028, 10029, 10030, 10031 and 10032, and these resolutions were adopted unanimously on a voice vote.

Program Authorization (Implementation) B.S. in Nutritional Sciences, UW-Milwaukee

Resolution 10026:       That, upon the recommendation of the Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, the Chancellor be authorized to implement the B.S. in Nutritional Sciences.

Program Authorization (Implementation) B.F.A. in Entertainment Design, UW-Stout

Resolution 10027:       That, upon the recommendation of the Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Stout and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, the Chancellor be authorized to implement the B.F.A. in Entertainment Design.

Program Authorization (Implementation) B.F.A. in Graphic Design and Interactive Media, UW-Stout

Resolution 10028:       That, upon the recommendation of the Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Stout and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, the Chancellor be authorized to implement the B.F.A. in Graphic Design and Interactive Media.

Program Authorization (Implementation) B.S. in Sustainable and Renewable Energy Systems, UW-Platteville

Resolution 10029:       That, upon the recommendation of the Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Platteville and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, the Chancellor be authorized to implement the B.S. in Sustainable and Renewable Energy Systems.

Program Authorization (Implementation) M.S. and the Ph.D. in Epidemiology, UW-Madison

Resolution 10030:       That, upon the recommendation of the Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, the Chancellor be authorized to implement the M.S. and the Ph.D. in Epidemiology.

The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Charter School Contract Extension, Capitol West Academy

Resolution 10031:       That, upon recommendation of the Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, the Board of Regents approves the extension of the charter school contract with Capitol West Academy, Inc., together with amendments to the contract, maintaining a charter school known as the Capitol West Academy.

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Charter School Contract Extension, School for Early Development and Achievement

Resolution 10032:       That, upon recommendation of the Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, the Board of Regents approves the extension of the charter school contract with School for Early Development and Achievement, Inc., together with amendments to the contract, maintaining a charter school known as the School for Early Development and Achievement.

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Charter School Contract Approval, Breakwater Lighthouse Charter School

            President Spector acknowledged Regent Drew, who spoke in opposition to the charter for Breakwater Lighthouse School.  He said that UW-Milwaukee does great things in collaboration with its partners in the public K-12 system, but he said that he was opposed to adding an additional charter school because he did not believe that as a public higher education system, the System should continue to contribute to the unsustainability of the K-12 public system in Milwaukee.  Adding 644 students, which would be the capacity of this school, only siphons more money away from the established public system.  The track record for voucher charter schools is mixed.  UW-Milwaukee probably does a better job than some of the “fly-by-night charter outfits and voucher outfits” that exist.  However, Regent Drew said that he believed the Board should hold the line and not continue to add more charter schools.  The purpose of having a laboratory to look at different methods is well served by the existing schools.
           
            Regent Vásquez spoke in support of granting the authorization, saying that Dr. Kattman had been very successful at creating an office that holds the schools accountable.  He was concerned that the quality would decline, left to other authorizers.  He said that he believed charters would continue to exist and would grow in number; he said that the Board of Regents had at its disposal a vehicle to ensure children received a quality education.  It is a tool that the Legislature gave the Board, and the Board should take the tool and use it wisely.

            Regent Crain, for the benefit of newer Board members, said that this was part of an ongoing conversation that had been occurring on the Board, especially in the Education Committee.  A lot of the opinions, she said, were reflective of members’ individual opinions about the direction of public education.  This would be an ongoing conversation.  She said that she personally would support the motion, as she had supported the others, while acknowledging that many of Regent Drew’s broader concerns about public education were concerns for her, as well.   

            Regent Crain said that she very much respected the office at UW-Milwaukee, and the work of that office.  While the concerns are ongoing, that office and UW-Milwaukee had done what the Board had asked in the course of the various proposals, and she said she honored that work.

            President Spector recognized Regent Evers, who also said that he would support the resolution, although he had the same sort of concerns that Regent Drew had.  This investment in Milwaukee Public Schools caused elementary class sizes to go from the mid-20s to the mid-30s at a point in time when work is being done to turn their achievement around.  The expansion of charters impacts that.  That aside, Regent Evers said that he would be supporting the resolution.

            Regent Evers also mentioned his hope that in the future UW-Milwaukee could, in addition to providing quality control related to the charters that they are authorizing, take an opportunity to incorporate the entire UW-Milwaukee community with these schools.  For example, student teachers should be teaching in these schools, researchers should be going in and out, and the schools should become lab schools.  If these things are not done, a great opportunity will have been missed.  He said that quality control is important, but he hoped that UW-Milwaukee would take a more active role in the schools.

            Regent Spector observed that these were timely comments, with the appointment of a new Dean of Education at UW-Milwaukee.  In response to Regent Drew’s comments, he added that while he understood Regent Drew’s concerns, he had been supportive of Superintendent Thornton and his efforts to improve the Milwaukee Public Schools on a steady basis.  President Spector said that he would also ask that UW-Milwaukee, through the provost and the chancellor, ask the School of Education to continue its strong work in training teachers who are well prepared to teach in the Milwaukee Public Schools.  That function should be performed at the same time that UW-Milwaukee is monitoring and authorizing charter schools.  President Spector said that he was going to vote for the resolution, but he appreciated Regent Drew’s comments. 

            President Spector then called for a vote on Resolution 10033, which was adopted on a voice vote, with Regent Drew voting in opposition:

The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Charter School Contract Approval, Breakwater Lighthouse Charter School

Resolution 10033:       That, upon recommendation of the Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, the Board of Regents approves the charter school contract with the Lighthouse Academies of Wisconsin, Inc., establishing a charter school known as the Breakwater Lighthouse Charter School, effective July 1, 2012.

- - -
The meeting was recessed at 11:45 a.m. and reconvened at 11:55 a.m.

CLOSED SESSION

President Spector called upon Vice President Smith to present Resolution 10034, to move into closed session.  The motion was seconded by Regent Falbo and adopted on a roll-call vote, with Regents Bartell, Bradley, Crain, Drew, Evers, Falbo, Higgins, Manydeeds, Pruitt, Roberts, Sherven, Smith, Spector, Tyler ,Vásquez, Walsh, and Whitburn voting in the affirmative.  There were no dissenting votes and no abstentions.

Closed Session Resolution

Resolution 10034:       That the Board of Regents move into closed session to consider UW-River Falls and UW-Stout honorary degree nominations, as permitted by s. 19.85(1)(f), Wis. Stats.; and to consider personal histories related to the naming of facilities at UW-Madison and UW-River Falls, as permitted by s.19.85(1)(f), Wis. Stats.

            The following resolutions were adopted during the closed session:

Authority to Name the New Program-Revenue-Funded Residence Hall the “Jesse H. Ames Suites,” UW-River Falls

Resolution 10035:       That, upon the recommendation of the UW-River Falls Chancellor and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, authority be granted to name the new program revenue funded residence hall on the University of Wisconsin-River Falls campus the “Jesse H. Ames Suites.”

Authority to Name the New School of Nursing Facility “Signe Skott Cooper Hall,” UW-Madison

Resolution 10036:       That, upon the recommendation of the UW-Madison Interim Chancellor and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, authority be granted to name the new facility for the School of Nursing, which will be constructed at 701 Highland Avenue, “Signe Skott Cooper Hall.”

- - -

            The meeting was adjourned at 12:05 p.m.


Submitted by:
/s/ Jane S. Radue                          
Jane S. Radue, Secretary of the Board