A Year-End Letter: Opportunities, Challenges, Impressions
By Chancellor Biddy Martin

1. Preamble
2. The Madison Initiative for Undergraduates
3. Great People Scholarship Campaign
4. Research Administration and Funding
5. Graduate Student Funding
6. UW Foundation Presidential Search
7. Global Health and Sustainability
8. Diversity
9. Faculty and Academic Staff Salaries
10. Collaboration with WAA and UWF
11. University Relations/Communications
12. Looking Forward

- Eds.

A Year-End Letter: Opportunities, Challenges, Impressions

By Chancellor Biddy Martin

Dear Members of the UW-Madison Community,

Before the semester ends and many of you leave for summer jobs and research activities, I want to summarize some of the important issues that have engaged us this year, share some of the impressions I have formed over two academic years, and look to the opportunities and the challenges ahead.

Among the major issues we addressed this year, I include: 1) the implementation of the Madison Initiative for Undergraduates, 2) efforts to build support for the Great People Scholarship campaign, 3) studies of the organization and effectiveness of our research administration, 4) the need to increase graduate student funding, 5) the search for a new president of the UW Foundation, 6) Global Health and Sustainability, two university-wide interdisciplinary initiatives, 7) re-dedication to our diversity efforts and to extending our reach internationally, 8 ) the activation of new tools to address salary issues, 9) collaborative efforts with our partners –  the Wisconsin Alumni Association and the UW Foundation — to achieve greater coordination and enhance our alumni and donor base, and 10) changes in university relations/communications to similar ends.

As is always the case with my letters, this one is too long. For that reason, I have divided it into sections. At the end, I will re-emphasize the balance we need to achieve between quality and affordability, and I will share my view of where we need to head. This letter covers some of the important issues that have engaged me as chancellor this academic year, but they are a tiny fraction of the critically important activities, achievements and opportunities in which you are involved. I want to thank all of you for the extraordinary work you do on so many fronts to make this one of the most vibrant universities in the world.

The Madison Initiative for Undergraduates

Let me start by thanking all members of the community who developed proposals for the first two rounds of the Madison Initiative for Undergraduates. We saw a range of impressive ideas aimed not only at enhancing, but also transforming, aspects of undergraduate education and the student experience on campus. We set out not simply to fill gaps or address bottlenecks in courses and majors, as important as those goals are, but also to have an impact on the way students are taught and how they learn, both in and outside the classroom. We also made the diversity of the faculty who teach them a high priority for the initiative.

The student board and the general oversight committee have worked long and hard, reading, assessing, ranking and trying to add value to your proposals. At the end of the first two rounds, we have approved initiatives that take us over the $10 million mark. In the fall, we will call for a third round of proposals and will be able to spend another $4 million. We are on track to add as many as 75 faculty positions. We have funded a range of important student and academic service initiatives, including additional Freshman Interest Groups, new residential learning communities and internship programs. We have set aside well over $1 million in ongoing funding in anticipation of a proposal that takes a holistic and innovative approach to student advising. Money has also been held aside for a promising proposal to establish spaces for technology-assisted teaching and learning.

I regret the fact that we are unable to approve even more proposals. I know it is disappointing to those of you whose proposals were not supported, not only because of the time and energy you gave to the process, but also because you have serious needs for additional funding. There are great needs all over campus. I thank you for caring enough about undergraduate education and the overall quality of the university to do the work you did. I hope we can find other funds over time, private as well as public, to enable the improvements you seek to make. For information on the proposals and our decisions, please visit http://www.madisoninitiative.wisc.edu.

Great People Scholarship Campaign

As you know, $20 million of ongoing funding from the Madison Initiative for Undergraduates is being allocated to need-based financial aid. This year we were able to add $5 million, and next year we will add another $5 million in ongoing funds.

Need-based aid has become our highest university-wide fundraising priority for several reasons. It is absolutely essential that we keep UW-Madison affordable to students from low- and low-to-middle-income backgrounds, for the good of every one of our students and for the sake of the communities we serve. Each student needs to interact and build networks with peers from every conceivable background and the families of this great state need to be able to afford an education for their children at one of the worlds great research universities.

As I have argued since I arrived at UW-Madison, keeping tuition near the bottom of our peer group is not the answer to those needs. Over the long term, balancing quality with affordability will mean marking out a path that puts tuition at the median of our peer group and provides much higher amounts of need-based aid. The desire to keep tuition at the low end is understandable, but it has a number of problematic and often unintended consequences: It ends up subsidizing those who can more easily afford an education at UW-Madison, and it threatens the university with a potential deterioration in quality, putting the value of our students degrees at risk over time.

I do not believe there is anything more important to our long-term success than the appropriate balance between affordability and quality. We will need to establish a new compact with the state of Wisconsin, one that recognizes our reliance on revenues from the private sector, from the federal government and from tuition, and one that, therefore, allows us the flexibility to use our funds in ways that will keep the university strong, for the good of the state, the nation and the world. The new compact with the state would provide us greater freedom to manage our resources and clearer forms of accountability to the state. I expect to spend a significant amount of time working with you, with business leaders, with political and government leaders, and with the general public to develop and promote change of this kind.

Given the importance of financial aid, I want to thank UW-Madison faculty and staff again for your generous contributions to the Great People campaign. You have raised almost $619,000. The match from the UW Foundation brings your contributions to more than $1 million. While the magnitude is impressive, the amount is less important than the number of contributors among our faculty and staff. In my fundraising activities this past year, I have observed the strong impression it makes on our alumni and donors that so many of you would contribute at a time when your own salaries not only are not growing, but also have temporarily shrunk as a result of furloughs.

Research Administration and Funding

UW-Madison, as a research powerhouse, has a significant economic impact on the region and the state as a whole. We are one of only two universities in the United States, including both public and private institutions, to be ranked in the top five in total research expenditures for 20 consecutive years. Over the course of the past two decades, the administration of research has become a much larger and more complicated responsibility, in part because the nature of research has changed, and in part because of unfunded regulatory mandates from the federal government.

During my first year as chancellor, I heard from a large number of faculty members that our infrastructure has failed to keep pace. As you know, the provost presented a plan for the reorganization of research administration early in the fall semester. That plan grew out of a sense of urgency about changes that need to be made in the management of what is both a traditional strength and a major priority for this campus.

The University Committee (UC) was charged by the Faculty Senate with establishing a faculty task force to consider the proposal and make recommendations of its own about the administration of research. At the same time, the Academic Staff Executive Committee (ASEC) charged a committee with a similar task. Both groups have now reported –  one to the UC and the other to ASEC. Both favor the continuing integration of research with graduate education, and reject the proposal that research and graduate training be separate management activities. The ASEC-sponsored report called for more study and offered excellent recommendations for improvements in our processes. The faculty task force made a series of recommendations that became the foundation for the motion offered by the UC for the Faculty Senate.

The university administration has accepted the wisdom of the faculty and staff on the integration of research and graduate education. They will remain under one roof. Provost Paul DeLuca and I worked with the UC on the motion that was approved, overwhelmingly, with minor revision by the Faculty Senate on May 3. I am confident we have emerged from this year’s deliberations with a structure, a set of process improvements and an industry-relations program that, together, will ensure the university’s continued leadership in research, discovery and technology transfer.

The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) has provided the margin of excellence in research for many years. Despite the hit on its endowment in 2008-09, WARF provided a $53.4 million grant to the Graduate School for 2009-2010 to support research and graduate education. In addition, WARF has made a long-term commitment to the Morgridge Institute for Research, the private partner to the state-funded Wisconsin Institute for Discovery; together, they form the Wisconsin Institutes for Discovery. WARF has spent the year developing plans for the institutes and for the town center, to which the entire first floor of the building is dedicated. I hope the town center will become a destination not only for faculty, staff and students, but also for a larger public. It has the potential to build community, enliven intellectual exchange and increase interest in science and scientific literacy far beyond the campus.

I have just returned from the spring meeting of the American Association of Universities where we heard from Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and John Holdren, chief science adviser to President Obama. It was clear from both presentations and from subsequent discussions that the current administration understands the importance of scientific research, both basic and applied, and is doing, what it can to find funding in a budget that the president has promised to freeze for the next three years. The president’s budget proposes increases for NIH (3.2 percent), the National Science Foundation (8 percent), the Department of Energy (4.4 percent), the Department of Defense (7 percent), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (11.4 percent), and a decrease of 3.7 percent for the National Endowment for the Humanities. Base funding for the various federal agencies is up, but, as you know, we also face a cliff when American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding ends.

In response to questions about the administration’s top science priorities, John Holdren commented that the U.S. cannot attempt to lead in every domain. He then listed four areas in which it will be important that we do lead: low-carbon economy, life sciences, information and communication technologies, and new materials. It seemed evident that a low-carbon economy is this administration’s highest priority. Our strengths at UW-Madison put us in an excellent position to take advantage of the administration’s focus on energy, environment, and climate change; the life sciences and health; information technologies; and materials.

Graduate Student Funding

Our ability to compete for the best graduate students is critical to our research enterprise, as well as to faculty recruitment and retention. Our offers of support fall short of those of our peers in some fields. In those fields where grant funding is not available and there is no discretionary funding for graduate education, the problem is particularly grave. This year, we found the funds to address the shortfall in NIH training grants. Darrell Bazzell, vice chancellor for administration, is working with the University Committee to develop a biennial budget proposal that would allow us to address the problem.

In addition, we have submitted a request for graduate funding and for tuition remissions as part of our contribution to the UW System’s Educational Attainment Initiative. We also will submit a proposal for new graduate student funding as part of our participation in the system’s Research to Jobs Initiative. We are working with the UW System on other possible approaches to the challenge we face. Meanwhile, we continue to educate our donors about the importance of graduate student funding, and we are encouraging them to consider linking graduate fellowships to professorships. The Madison Initiative for Undergraduates also will provide a number of departments with additional teaching assistantships, and the Great People campaign is a good platform for educating our donors about the need for graduate student aid.

I will suggest that the new vice chancellor for research and graduate education undertake a study of the sizes of our graduate programs in relation to faculty research needs, departmental and program teaching needs, the job market in various disciplines and sources of funding.

UW Foundation Presidential Search

As you know, the University of Wisconsin Foundation (UWF) is currently searching for a successor to Sandy Wilcox, UWF’s very successful current president. I consider this to be one of the most important appointments that will be made during my tenure as chancellor. I have been consulting with the search committee and will be fully involved in the process once the search firm (Spencer Stuart) has developed a list of prospects for review by the committee. The committee hopes to present a candidate for the UWF Board’s consideration by the end of the summer. I encourage you to nominate promising candidates. For the position description, visit http://www.uwfoundation.wisc.edu/home/employment/currentpositions/president /president.aspx.

Global Health and Sustainability

We have chosen as two interdisciplinary, university-wide initiatives areas of campus strength and societal need that also integrate research, education, policy and action — Global Health and Sustainability. In each case, we seek to help identify the full breadth of campus capabilities and bring them to bear on pivotal issues. The provost’s office is providing leadership, staff support and funding for these areas.

Jeannette Roberts, dean of the School of Pharmacy, and Jeremi Suri, professor of history, are co-chairing the Global Health Initiative. For Global Health, we anticipate an inclusive initiative that brings together the sciences, social sciences and the humanities to address what is one of the most challenging problems of the new century.

The Sustainability Initiative is co-sponsored by the provost and vice chancellor for administration and will ensure a fusion of academic and functional/administrative initiatives campuswide. Led by Gregg Mitman, interim director of the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, and spearheaded by the institute, this initiative includes faculty, staff and students, and is focused not only on research and education, but also on having our campus serve as a laboratory for best practices. Initial subject-matter retreats for each initiative attracted hundreds of faculty and staff, and generated strong interest and enthusiasm. Both initiatives are open to participation, and we encourage you to get involved.

Diversity

Our efforts to diversify the faculty, staff and student bodies will be aided by the expectations we have set for the use of funds from the Madison Initiative for Undergraduates (MIU). Departments and programs will be held accountable for the proactive recruitment of underrepresented scholars and scientists, as well as for innovations in undergraduate curricula. Funding from the MIU will open up opportunities for students to study and find internships abroad. It will also help us establish exchanges that bring students from other countries to UW-Madison. Each student deserves the opportunity to study with peers from all over the world; we intend to create more of those opportunities.

In an effort to ensure that we are more actively recruiting a diverse student body, we have invested additional funding (from reallocations) to initiatives coordinated by the offices of the Vice Provost for Diversity and Climate, the Vice Provost for Enrollment Management, and the Vice Provost for Faculty and Staff.

The best students for UW-Madison represent the global marketplace. The Vice Provost for Enrollment Management is working with University Relations to create a new marketing plan for the university that specifically focuses on increasing numbers in each of the following populations: first-generation students, geographically diverse students (urban, rural, in- and out-of-state), economically disadvantaged (in particular, more Pell-eligible students), targeted ethnic minorities, international students, transfer students, Women in STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) fields and Wisconsin high-achievers.

Building the new marketing and recruitment strategy will involve rethinking how the admissions office handles inquiries, how and when admission decisions are made and communicated, how financial aid plays into our success and how we maintain a close relationship with every applicant at every step of the process.

Our goal is not only to enroll a more diverse student body, but also to ensure that students from every background succeed once they are here. Working together, we can eliminate the achievement gap between majority and minority students –  a commitment we made to one another in our strategic plan and reaccreditation self-study.

Finally, after more than a year of consultation about how best to coordinate and enhance existing diversity programs, we are moving toward a new structure whereby the Vice Provost for Diversity and Climate will assume responsibility for the oversight of several key programs that currently report elsewhere.

Faculty and Academic Staff Salaries

Faculty/staff compensation has been a high priority for the provost’s office this year. Under the leadership of Vice Provost Steve Stern, we have made a serious effort to identify, review, revise and use the tools at our disposal to adjust salaries in the absence of a faculty/staff pay plan. The purpose of the initiative was to develop a set of tools that allow frequent review and appropriate adjustments in compensation in response to retention and market pressures. At the same time, we have increased the amount added to faculty salaries at the time of promotion to associate professor and to full professor. We also added a periodic post-full professor review that can lead to salary increases. We would like to be able to do more, but, as you know, we are prohibited by the state from implementing salary increases that would appear “pay-plan-like” when no pay plan exists. I hope that a new understanding with the state will eventually allow us considerably more freedom when it comes to compensation practices.

Vice Provost Stern has also been working with Stephen Lund, director of the Academic Personnel Office, and academic staff on a set of initiatives that could give us tools to reward and enhance excellence, and to introduce clarity about job security among our academic staff. That work is ongoing; we will ensure that any developments are communicated to the community as a whole.

Collaboration with WAA and UWF

The university will be increasingly dependent on private funding. With that in mind, I charged a task force with considering how the university; its schools, colleges and departments; the Wisconsin Alumni Association (WAA) and the University of Wisconsin Foundation (UWF) could be more closely coordinate and enhance our joint efforts to build our alumni and donor base. The task force met for several months and presented a set of recommendations at the end of the fall semester. They included the formation of a steering committee with representation from all three organizations charged with developing “an enterprise-wide approach to development and engagement”; charging a group with the task of recommending new technology platforms that would enable us to reach and communicate with our alumni, friends and donors; and developing a culture of giving among our current students. I expect to get recommendations from the members of three different committees by the end of the summer.

University Relations/Communications

Last year I established a new position, vice chancellor for university relations, and named Vince Sweeney to the position. This position is intended to coordinate the university’s messaging and relationship-building strategies across a broad range of audiences. That’s a tall task, but we are making progress. From a state-relations level, for example, I’m pleased to report that we’ve been in direct dialogue with the three major candidates for governor, and we have had ongoing conversations with Gov. Jim Doyle, legislative leadership and industry lobbyists — all in an effort to share our priorities and nurture those relationships. On the internal and external communications level, you’ll soon see a redesigned front page on our university’s website, with improved functionality and a new and exciting look that will better reflect the excitement and energy of this great university. On a daily basis, I continue to see the benefits of our efforts to articulate and communicate our priorities and goals more effectively and more consistently across a range of different audiences. We are approaching our relationships with a greater degree of intentionality and with more coherent messages.

Looking Forward

As you know, this summer the UW System Board of Regents will discuss our next biennial budget request. At the moment, the UW System is working to develop two initiatives — Educational Attainment and Research to Jobs — for which the regents are expected to ask for new funding. UW-Madison has submitted a report to UW System showing the means by which we could increase the number of graduates. We included an increase in transfer students, elimination of the achievement gap and overall decreases in time to graduation. We also estimated the number of new freshmen we could serve if, and only if, new funding existed to support the increased instructional costs as well as infrastructure. We made graduate student funding a central part of our report and proposal to UW System.

UW System also established a Competitive Workforce Commission to study compensation and make recommendations about the changes that they deem necessary. I was asked to speak to the commission and I gave a presentation several weeks ago, providing comparative data on UW-Madison faculty salaries and establishing the context in which I think that data should be viewed. I believe the commission, which is made up of business leaders and representatives from various campuses, will recommend strong measures to improve faculty and staff salaries in the UW System.

Given the budget deficit in the state of Wisconsin and the slow rate of recovery from the recession, I am not optimistic about increased funding for the UW System for this next biennium. In addition to the cost to continue, I believe a pay plan and graduate student funding should be at the top of our priority list. We will, of course, have time in the fall to discuss priorities and tactics. At the moment, we are considering inviting an outside consultant to study how we might effectively organize some of our administrative functions and services, and realize savings in the process. Should we pursue such a course of action, faculty, staff and students will be involved in the work and in any consideration of recommended changes. All of us should be thinking about how we can manage effectively in the face of ongoing budget challenges and possible cuts. What we have achieved over the past two years under significant budget pressures is remarkable. Though the outlook is beginning to brighten, I anticipate that we will face another two years of pressure.

Let me end with a few observations and a perspective on the longer term. Our trip to China this semester was gratifying for a number of reasons, among them the high regard in which UW-Madison is held there. In addition to historical reasons for the university’s reputation, the Shanghai Jiao Tong rankings of world universities, which place UW-Madison 17th in the world, also contribute to our high standing. The unique attributes of this university attracted attention in China, including not only the talent of our faculty, staff and students, but also our commitment to the Wisconsin Idea. As China considers its goals for higher education, its students, faculty and academic leaders displayed a great deal of interest in the notion that the university could be, at once, preeminent in the quality of its research and education, and also committed to partnerships with people and institutions outside the university dedicated to addressing the state’s, the nation’s and the world’s most vexing problems.

After two academic years as chancellor of this university, I have come to see UW-Madison as a uniquely open and engaged intellectual community. Our faculty, staff and students are deeply engaged with the larger public, fiercely devoted to “sifting and winnowing” and willing to work not only at the cutting edge, but at the heart of things. The larger community, which includes the city of Madison, the surrounding region, the state of Wisconsin and all of our alumni, is involved in the university to a remarkable degree. It is our responsibility to preserve the quality and uniqueness of this great institution and to enhance its impact.

That requires that we find the right economic model for the university — the right balance of quality and affordability. Over time, we will need to establish a new relationship with the state of Wisconsin, one that recognizes how reliant we are on revenues from the private sector, from the federal government and from tuition; one that would, therefore, allow us the flexibility to use our funds in more effective ways that make sense for us, for the larger UW System and for the state. A new compact with the state would provide greater freedom to manage our resources and clearer forms of accountability to the state.

I expect to spend a significant amount of time working with you, with business leaders, with political and government leaders, and with the general public to develop and promote such a compact. I believe the issue of increased flexibilities for the university will become a topic of discussion in the context of the gubernatorial election. It will be important that we be active, informed and thoughtful participants in that discussion. I look forward to working with you toward that end.

The spirit, energy and dedication of our faculty, staff and students make this university worthy of celebration. I celebrate all of you, and I hope you have a wonderful summer.

• the text of Prof. Tracy’s email message
• the text of the motion with revisions
• the present organizational chart
• the proposed organizational chart

As before, we urge campus faculty and staff to carefully study all aspects of the motion and to post comments here prior to the Monday (May 3d) meeting of the Faculty Senate.

Motion to Senate to Restructure UW-Madison’s Research Enterprise

Recommendation I: Retain a close relationship between research and graduate education within the Graduate School.

A. Maintain close association between the UW-Madison research enterprise and graduate education, with responsibility for both in a single administrative structure, which is the Graduate School.

B. Existing Graduate School centers, including the Wisconsin Institute for Discovery will remain in the Graduate School. These centers will be under the authority of the new vice chancellor for research and dean of the Graduate School (see Recommendation II.A.). The creation of new centers, as well as the restructuring of existing centers, will follow existing policies and procedures.

C. The Graduate Faculty Executive Committee of the Graduate School (GFEC) will be restructured, with expanded responsibility for both research and graduate education. Members of the new GFEC will be elected from each faculty division and will continue to serve four-year terms. The function of the new GFEC and its relationship to the Research Policy Advisory Committee requires further discussion. The structure of the Graduate School Academic Planning Council (APC), its relationship to a restructured GFEC, and representation thereon by academic staff, requires further discussion. All changes to the structure and function of GFEC and the Graduate School APC will require amendment of FP&P after due consideration by the Faculty Senate.

D. The four divisional executive committees of the faculty shall annually each appoint one individual from their divisional ranks to be available as direct and independent advisors to the WARF Board of Trustees and to the chancellor in regard to the WARF resource allocations.

Recommendation II: Create a new position of vice chancellor for research and dean of the Graduate School.

A. Create a new position of vice chancellor for research and dean of the Graduate School to replace the current position of dean of the Graduate School with the working title of vice chancellor for research. The responsibilities for research and graduate education, and their close association, shall reside with the individual occupying this formally integrated position. Responsibility for either function, research or and graduate education, shall not be fully delegated to other individuals.

B. WARF funds will be under the authority of the vice chancellor for research and dean of the Graduate School, who, in consultation with the faculty, shall administer the allocation of those funds.

C. Working closely with the four divisional associate deans (see Recommendation III.) the new vice chancellor for research and dean of the Graduate School will have responsibility to develop mechanisms within the Graduate School to: 1) document and integrate the existing efforts of faculty and staff on national advisory boards and other research agenda-setting activities; 2) seek out and stimulate engagement of members of our community in representing the visions of UW-Madison faculty and staff in emerging areas of research investment; 3) broker spokesperson and advisory roles for the campus with national and international bodies; and 4) serve as a clearinghouse for information gathering and sharing.

Recommendation III: Expand and support the roles of the four divisional associate deans of the Graduate School.

A. The current duties of the four divisional associate deans that represent the four faculty divisions will be expanded to serve the new vice chancellor for research and dean of the Graduate School not only in research but also in graduate education. The appointment percentages of the divisional associate deans will be increased to enable them to carry out their expanded roles. In light of this expansion of the academic associate deans’ roles and the principle of keeping graduate education and the research enterprise united, the new vice chancellor for research and dean of the Graduate School should consider whether a position at the level of associate dean for graduate education is necessary.

Recommendation IV: Move the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs (RSP), and responsibility for compliance and safety to the vice chancellor for administration.

A. RSP and administrative responsibility and oversight for compliance functions, including chemical safety, biological safety, and radiation safety will be assigned to the vice chancellor for administration. The vice chancellor for administration will create a new unit and administrative officer position to oversee research compliance and provide quality assurance. Adequate funding and continual evaluation of the performance of this unit must be assured. These functions, although essential to the research enterprise and to the university community as a whole, are largely administrative in nature and need not reside in the Graduate School. It is essential that clear lines of responsibility and accountability be delineated, including direct reporting from the administrator of research compliance and quality assurance to the chancellor, whenever federally mandated.

B. Create an Office of Research Policy under the new vice chancellor for research and dean of the Graduate School to establish research policy for select functions for which federal law requires Institutional Official/Responsible Official oversight, federal mandates are in flux, terms or conditions are highly variable, or specialized research expertise is essential, and to administer these functions. The new Office of Research Policy will also oversee pre-award industry contracts, conflict of interest, and the use of human subjects, vertebrate animals, and select agents. This office will coordinate research policy implementation with relevant faculty governance groups and with the vice chancellor for administration. It is essential that clear lines of responsibility and accountability be delineated, including direct reporting to the chancellor, whenever federally mandated.

C. The vice chancellor for administration will work with the new vice chancellor for research and dean of the Graduate School to develop policies and mechanisms to facilitate and promote relationships with industry. Responsibility for pre-award contract negotiation will reside in the Office of Research Policy and post-award contract management with RSP. Collaboration between the new vice chancellor for research and dean of the Graduate School and the vice chancellor for administration is critical because of the need for a seamless handoff for industry contracts between the Office of Research Policy and RSP.

D. The Faculty Senate will establish a governance committee that shall provide advice and consultation to the new Office of Research Policy, RSP, and the safety and compliance units. This new committee will ensure effective and rapid resolution of problems involving research. The committee will be comprised of five faculty members, including a chair appointed by the University Committee and one faculty member appointed by each faculty divisional committee, and two members of the academic staff appointed by the Academic Staff Executive Committee. Establishment of this committee will require amendment of FP&P after due consideration by the Faculty Senate.

We had been waiting with bated breath for the counterpart committee appointed by the faculty’s University Committee (UC) to release its own findings on the same issue.  This report was originally due by the end of 2009, but this deadline could not be met.

The following message has just now  (2:50 pm today) been broadcast by the University Committee:

Dear Colleagues:

Attached and at the link listed at the end of this communication, please find the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee to Review the Needs and Structure of UW-Madison’s Research Enterprise.  In the fall semester, the UC appointed a blue ribbon faculty governance committee in response to the administration’s announcement last summer of its plan to restructure the institution’s research enterprise.  That action prompted a series of town hall meetings at which the provost presented the administration’s justification for its proposed restructuring.  Subsequently, the Faculty Senate, by a near unanimous vote, adopted a resolution opposing “any action to implement such a plan, e.g., through the creation of a new vice chancellor for research or changes in the functions of the Graduate School, until the administration provides a fully developed written plan in response to the University Committee’s ad hoc committee report and recommendations, which has been reviewed and approved by the University Committee and the Faculty Senate with appropriate opportunity for comment by all members of the faculty.”

The University Committee looks forward to looks forward to a constructive dialogue with the chancellor and the provost in developing a plan that can be presented to the Faculty Senate.

The University Committee

Here is the link to the document.

If the delayed release means that the report gives a more thorough, nuanced, and defensible analysis of the need for restructuring of the Graduate School then would have been possible by December 31, then we are of course all for it, and we thank the provost and chancellor for not using the delay as an excuse to forge ahead with their plan without the input from both the the ASEC and UC white papers.

We have not yet had time to read the report and are at this time simply posting the above communication, and the link to the report, without editorial comment.

- the Editors.

Of greater interest than the Chronicle posting itself is one reader’s response, a short excerpt of which follows:

The real story here is not the restructuring of research supporting systems but the broader issue of disintegrating research administration infrastructures at Wisconsin, and indeed across the United States. Offices that manage sponsored programs (grants, contracts, research fellowships, etc.) universally have had flat budgets for the past decade, and yet this period saw an unprecedented growth in research funding (e.g., doubling of NIH grants) as well as a torrent of new regulatory requirements governing all aspects of research (electronic submission of proposals, research subjects, animal care, conflict of interest, export controls, accounting, reporting, auditing, technology transfer, etc.).

(continue reading comments)

From our vantage point at S&W at least, this is indeed a new perspective on the restructuring issue.   We hope more  readers will weigh in.

Their unambiguous conclusions:  “yes” to the first question, and “no” to the second.

Extensive documentation supporting their findings was provided as an appendix to the report.

Todd Finkelmeyer of the Capital Times has done a good job of summarizing the key conclusions of the committee, so we won’t attempt to duplicate his effort.

We still await the report of the University Committee’s own Ad Hoc Committee, due later this month.  But we will be surprised if it reaches a substantially different conclusion about the merits of the Graduate School restructuring proposal aggressively promoted by Provost Paul DeLuca last Fall with clear backing from Chancellor “Biddy” Martin.

The main remaining suspense concerns the administration’s response to both reports.  But Provost DeLuca has  recently been quoted by the Badger Herald as disavowing unilateral action by the administration, so we are considerably more optimistic now about the process moving forward from here than we were at the time of the Faculty Senate resolution vote last November

- Editors

The reports were originally due at the end of last month.  The Badger Herald now reports that the due dates have been pushed back to January 21 in the case of the ASEC report and to the end of the month for the University Committee report.

While that news would normally imply a disappointing prolongation of our suspense,  the same article also reported that “Paul DeLuca assured he would not pursue any plan to restructure without faculty consent.”   The article went on to say,

Moving forward, DeLuca has ensured he will take the time and trouble to carefully analyze pending ad hoc reports on his proposal and promised shared governance will “definitely be more of a factor in the next phase.”

In summation, DeLuca attributed the contentious proposal process last semester to what he called a “new kid on the block phenomenon.”

“I don’t intend to do anything dictatorialized, and we will just follow the best process we possibly can,” Paul DeLuca said.

Those of us on the faculty and staff who have been following the Graduate School restructuring issue since September and have been (mostly) alarmed by the process that triggered the Faculty Senate resolution vote on November 2  should be very relieved by, and supportive of, the provost’s latest statements.

As far as we can tell, it was never the intention of the critics of the process to block needed reforms or to try to preserve the status quo at all costs.  Rather, the voices we heard (some of which were published on this site) almost universally emphasized the need for a more deliberative process that pooled the experience and insights of all those affected by the existing problems and/or by the proposed solutions to those problems.  In short, their insistence was not on a particular outcome but rather on a reaffirmation of a proper role for shared governance and due process.   It appears that that is what Provost DeLuca has now committed himself to, and we welcome the fresh start on this important topic.

Today, in the article “Free speech constraints spark criticism, concern”, the Daily Cardinal has reported that  Prof. Donald Downs (Political Science) is taking up that issue with our University Committee. That article, and the background information from the AAUP, is essential reading for anyone who might ever disagree with an administration decision.

The issue of free speech is of course of particular concern to the editors and contributors of this forum, which came into existence precisely to facilitate commentary on all matters of importance to the university community, including Administration policies.  In particular, during the Graduate School restructuring controversy over the past several weeks, many of us have been torn between a desire to take an unabashed public stand and genuine uncertainty over how vulnerable we might be if the Administration ever became truly annoyed with us.   For non-tenured staff, the concerns were of course even greater.

During that time, those of us who chose to post here anonymously were sometimes criticized for doing so.  In light of what we have now learned about the current legal status of free speech on campus, our caution seems vindicated.

Sifting and Winnowing applauds Prof. Down’s initiative and urges the University Committee to support policy revisions that unambiguously protect the right of university faculty and staff to speak openly and, if necessary, critically of administration policies without fear of retribution.

- the Editors

November 11, 2009

Dear Faculty, Staff and Students:

As you know, we have been reaching out to get your views into the challenges that confront us as a research and learning community. A potential realignment of our research infrastructure has, not surprisingly, resonated in different ways with many of you. I write today to let you know that your comments and concerns will be important factors in any change that may be implemented. The strength of our university is derived primarily from the creativity and hard work of our faculty, staff and students. Without your efforts and inspiration, UW-Madison would not be the great university it is, and thus any substantive change to our research apparatus will occur only through the combined efforts of the campus community.

There are no predetermined outcomes for this process. A range of options is possible. We do, however, need to acknowledge that there are issues that must be addressed and that careful consideration of how we organize ourselves to retain and grow our position as a top research university is an exercise in the broad interest of current and future Wisconsin faculty, staff and students. A failure to address these challenges and position the university for future success would constitute a serious lapse of leadership.

In five town-hall meetings and last week’s session of the Faculty Senate, in addition to numerous consultations with deans, center directors, department chairs, and faculty and staff leaders and committees, we have been able to hone our perception of the issues at hand, and of a desired process for implementing any change.

Through the University Committee and the Academic Staff Executive Committee, as well as faculty and staff ad hoc committees charged with examining our current structure and the issues we face, we will obtain the parameters to direct our efforts. It is clear to us from our conversations  that Wisconsin faculty and staff possess a strong sense of ownership of UW-Madison’s programs of research and training. This ownership is part of our tradition of shared governance, and change should be guided through a consultative process to forge desired outcomes. Toward that end, we look to our faculty and staff through their governance structures to play a critical, guiding role in the process. I will continue to work closely with Bill Tracy, chair of the University Committee, and look forward to the  results of the ad hoc committees as they examine the issues at hand.

In response to specific concerns such as the processing of grants, the disbursement of the annual WARF grant, the intimate connection between research and graduate education, and the need to address effectively issues of compliance, we will depend on the community through its representatives to set the tone for change and develop options for moving forward. It is imperative that we approach this opportunity comprehensively and with the knowledge that some of the key issues we face are driven by our commitments to conduct research responsibly and within the rules we have agreed to abide by.

Let me state with absolute clarity that our intent is to seriously engage  the university community in this conversation. We expect that the  collaboration will help us addresses acute needs and position us for future success. Nearly 80 years ago, UW-Madison was set on a path to research  success through bold action to foster graduate training and the discovery  of new knowledge. Our goal is to maintain the excellence of Wisconsin  scholarship and establish a framework for a new century of success. Finally, we continue to informally seek ideas and comments. These will be  gathered, shared and factored into the outcome of what we hope will be a  collegial and instructive exercise. Comments can be e-mailed to provost@provost.wisc.edu.

Sincerely,

Paul M. DeLuca, Jr.
Provost

The right of faculty members at public colleges and universities to speak freely without fear of retribution is endangered as never before.

In 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government can restrict the speech of public employees when they comment on issues related to their “official duties.” Although the decision specifically set aside academic speech, recognizing that additional constitutional interests were at stake, several lower courts have ruled recently that faculty members who speak out on matters affecting their institutions are not protected under the First Amendment.

To protect free speech on campus, AAUP has launched a campaign to raise awareness of this threat to faculty speech and to provide faculty, administrators and others with the tools to preserve academic freedom on campus.

“Speak Up, Speak Out: Protect the Faculty Voice on Campus” launches November 10 with the release of an AAUP report on the Supreme Court case and its implications. The report recommends a number of action steps, including adoption of specific policy language designed to protect academic freedom and shared governance.

In conjunction with the report, the AAUP is making available on our Web site a series of opinion columns and other materials that we encourage supporters of free speech at public colleges and universities to republish and disseminate.

Here’s what you can do. Find out whether your college or university has written policies that protect the full range of academic freedom. If not, urge your faculty senate and administration to work together to develop them. And if so, use the AAUP materials to reinforce their strength; collaborate with other groups on and off campus to conduct governance workshops, monitor emerging cases, and publicize successful actions; and support fellow faculty around the country in protecting academic freedom and shared governance.

See the full report for model policy language.

Read suggestions for other actions that faculty can pursue.

Hear Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression director Bob O’Neil, AAUP senior counsel Rachel Levinson, and Virginia AAUP Conference president-elect Craig Vasey explain why faculty should be concerned about this issue (video).

The AAUP Online is an electronic newsletter of the American Association of University Professors.