Falsehoods- Research Collaborations

One of the fears that I’ve heard revolving around the New Badger Partnership and the proposed split from UW System is that it will destroy research collaborations with other universities across the state, particularly our sister-doctoral university, UW-Milwaukee. In recent days, this fear has been expounded by average citizens, faculty, Board of Regent members, President Pruitt, and President Reilly. Since a large portion of our university is in the research area, this is definitely an issue that needs to be discussed in the context of Chapter 37.

The premise of this concern arises from the believed fact that have a centralized administration for UW-System facilitates these collaborations. I say believed fact because this claim is blatantly false. Research collaborations between Madison and her sister campuses do not stem from top-down coordination from system, but are created by campuses and faculty on an individual basis. One of the major examples of this is the Intercampus Research Incentive Grants Program. This program, which was created between UW-Madison Chancellor Biddy Martin and former UW-Milwaukee Chancellor Carlos E. Santiago, provides money for collaborations between faculty members at both universities to create “synergistic interactions between the two institutions.” Also, this fund, which is comprised of monies entirely provided for by private donors, is intended to focus in on

key project areas, including water/energy, health care, advanced manufacturing, biomedical engineering, K-12 education, social sciences and the humanities.

As a side note on this issue, to show a potential future for this program, it was renewed between Chancellor Martin and interim Chancellor Michael Lovell after Chancellor Martin knew that Governor Walker was proposing the split of UW-Madison.

Other areas of collaboration exist within the current model that were not administered from the system level as well. The UW-Consortium for Extension and Research in Agriculture and Natural Resources provides grants for cross collaborations in the areas of agriculture and natural resources for faculty members from UW-Madison, -Platteville, -River Falls, and -Stevens Point. Also in the area of CALS, the Center for Integrated Agriculture Systems collaborates with UW-River Falls, -Green Bay, -Eau Claire, -Oshkosh, -Fox Valley, -Marathon County, -Barron County, -Stevens Point, and -Whitewater in multiple areas of food science. Just last semester, as I stated in a post about Green Energy a while ago, the Wisconsin Energy Research Consortium was created between UW-Madion, -Milwaukee, Marquette University, and the Milwaukee School of Engineering to work on new “advanced energy, power, and control technologies.” A final example, of which there are many, is the Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts which brings together researchers from 8 campuses and facilities to analyze potential impacts of climate change on the agriculture and natural resource industries in Wisconsin.

President Reilly seemed to side step everything I just laid out though when he said that this would change if UW-Madison would become an independent flagship institution. Using a false analogy to the University of Michigan model, Reilly posited that there would be no reason for Madison to continue research with other campuses. I’ve been accused of talking shit, by none other than Max Love, about President Reilly, and I guess I’m going to do it again. If the President had taken the 5 minutes that I had taken to do a Google search on the topic, he would have found that this was false. Partially established in 1999 as the Life Science Corridor, the University Research Corridor is a collaborative effort between UM, Michigan State, and Wayne State University. Their vision is

[t]o unite and lead, playing a key role in creating a vibrant Michigan economy that leverages the intellectual capital of its three public research universities, to work proactively to attract the knowledge economy businesses that can find the research activity that feeds new enterprise, educates the workforce and plants the seeds for the new industries of tomorrow.

To me that sounds like cooperation. In fact, it sounds very similar to the Wisconsin Idea, helping to improve the state and prepare it for the future.

But let’s look at a more realistic analogy, that of Virginia. Those self interested, independent universities, University of Virginia, Virginia Tech, Virgina Commonwealth University, and the College of William and Mary, could never come together to work on research. In reality, these institutions have gone beyond that call of what Michigan does, they were all founding members of the MidAtlantic Terascale Partnership, a research group founded to work on projects requiring “next-generation high-performance network connectivity.” Sounds like a pretty close relationship to me.

So I’m sorry if I talk shit about President Reilly, but when falsehoods are presented time and time again, when they are easily researched, some shit needs to be talked. Do your research. So I ask, what would be keeping these relationships from continuing. More importantly, what would be stopping Madison from creating an omnibus research group with Milwaukee and a possible new research university if Milwaukee was to split from system as well. Imagine it, 3 differently tiered research universities, each individually working on different issues, but at the same time collaborating for the betterment of the state of Wisconsin. What’s stopping us?

An Inexperienced Leader~Samuel Seering

The Badger Impact

Recently, a coalition of students was formed to educate students on the Budget Repair Bill and then teach them how to combat it. The Badger Impact group has now moved into a new field. Their new website declares they are “Students United in Stopping Biddy Martin’s Plan to Ruin the UW System.” For being a group that was so rooted in education for SB-11, there seems to be a lot of misinformation on their website. Let’s go down their list of what their vision of the New Badger Partnership is, and then see what it actually is.

Badger Impact: Extreme, unprecedented tuition hike of, at the least, 26% over two years for which families have no way of preparing. The average annual increase in tuition is 5.5%.

Reality: Everyone loves to toss around the 26% number because of a January 7th memo from Chancellor Martin to the DOA. But as that report says, that increase is unacceptable. The report says that combining cuts, new streams of revenue, and tuition increases, students are more likely to see around a 10% increase per year. This would seem huge if Badger Impact’s “fact” on annual tuition increases was true. They get their 5.5% number from what UW System set the increase to be, but when adding in tuition differentials, we see that over the past 8 years, tuition at UW Madison has increased by 12.9%. In fact, the 10% is still lower than the 13% increase predicted by UW System for the 2011-2012 school year, and that does not even include Madison’s MIU differential.

Badger Impact: A board that steals the voice and decision-making power from students, faculty, and staff. Out of the 21 new members of the board, 11 are directly appointed by the governor, 6 represent other private interests, and the student body is represented by only one individual.

Reality: Well they got the composition right, but their analysis is a little off. In terms of stealing the voice and decision-making power from students, faculty, and staff, this is false. Currently the Board of Regents (the board that would be replaced by the new Board of Trustees) has no faculty or staff representation, and while there are two students on the board currently, neither is guaranteed, or currently is, from UW-Madison. Also in terms of the selection of that student, the governor currently appoints the positions, whereas students would get to choose their representative on the new board. I am a little weary of having 3 outside organizations pick more seats than direct campus constituencies, but as the composition currently stands, UW Madison will see our share of seats increase by almost 20%, and 33% if a amendment passes to lessen UW Foundation’s, WARF’s, and WAA’s share of membership by 1 a piece.

Badger Impact: A divorce of UW- Madison from the UW system, separating Madison into a quasi-private institution. This will handicap the entire UW system.

Reality: I have not heard hard evidence of this claim actually coming true. In actuality many of the connections with individual campuses will remain the same. I have not heard one person up at Bascom or the Capitol that wants these connections to be lost. What this plan proposes is a split from UW System administration so that decisions relating to Madison can be made by those that have a vested interest in UW Madison.

Badger Impact: Institutionalized union busting: the outsourcing of labor to a private company at the Wisconsin Institutes for Discovery is a precursor and an example of what to expect from the NBP. This goes against our university’s values and the Wisconsin Idea.

Reality: In case people haven’t been around for the past few weeks, Walker is currently trying to do his own form of union busting. Interestingly enough, SB-11 does not repeal Subchapter VI of Chapter 111, just all instances of it from state statutes. In case you don’t know, Subchapter VI is the UW Employee relations subchapter. It would be very simple for Madison to adopt that subchapter as its human resources policy under the new 37.11(1g). On the issue of the WID, that was a public-private partnership, and non-unionized workers are employed on the private side of the institute. Another interesting thing is that Section 1016 of SB-27 will define UW-Madison as a state agency.

Badger Impact: A sell-out of our university to Governor Walker. Despite Governor Walker’s evident scorn for higher education- cutting UW-Madison $125 million – Biddy Martin is putting the future of our university in his hands.

Reality: Chancellor Martin has been discussing these ideas since this time last year, meaning that this plan was not meant for Governor Walker. It was meant for UW-Madison. The idea that the entire future of UW-Madison will be in the hands of Walker is a complete fallacy. He will not be governor of Wisconsin forever. This also comes down to a question that I asked in a post a while ago, what would you do as Chancellor? I anticipate that UW-Madison would be facing a very similar cut even if the New Badger Partnership was not proposed. Again I will ask, what would you do if the university was facing a $62.5 million cut for each of the next two years?

Badger Impact: The NBP makes no mention of diversity and does not address by any means the financial aid.

Reality: In reality SB-27 talks about minority and disadvantaged programs twice, in 37.25(14m) and 37.34. Financial Aid is addressed in section 37.11(6) by saying that to Board of Trustees will have all power to “Make grants to students from funds budgeted to or controlled by the university and formulate policies and adopt rules for the grants.” Also under 37.34, the board must report on how much financial aid is given to minority and disadvantaged students, making the university accountable for how it creates and distributes financial aid to these groups.

While Badger Impact got some of their information correct, much of their information and all of their analysis was off base. While I encourage debate of the issues, please, make sure you are using factual information when making your arguments. I’m pretty sure I know who made this website, and I know that he has heard me say these things, with factual evidence like I presented here, many times before. I’ll challenge him again to read the legislation, and supporting documents, and then tell the truth.

An Inexperienced Leader~Samuel Seering

Budget Address Preview

We have all been hearing these past few weeks about how this budget will effect UW System and UW Madison. Much more evidence came out today confirming that Governor Walker will be proposing large changes to the way that higher education is operated in the state of Wisconsin.

This morning, WisPolitics came out with a preview of what will be included in the Governor’s budget. Specifically they say:

The UW System is looking at a cut of about $250 million with UW-Madison taking the biggest hit of the campuses. To help offset that reduced aid, Madison would be spun off from the rest of the system into an independent authority, according to WisPolitics.com sources.

This was pretty much all expected. Rumors have UW Madison receiving a $50 million cut out of that $250 million. Madison has already released how it would handle this cut, but it will be interesting to see how system reacts to the $200 million cut.

Also, the Governor’s office has released some excerpts of his speech tonight. Again, a specific passage relates to education (and I am assuming that it is specifically relating to higher education):

Just as we reform our entitlement programs for the 21st century, we must also reform our education system.  Clearly, we have to produce graduates who are able to compete ‐ not only with their peers from Chicago or Des Moines ‐ but also from Shanghai or Sydney.

This rhetoric is very interesting, particularly because it sounds very similar to Chancellor Martin’s talking points about the New Badger Partnership, at least the second half. Unless something crazy happens in the next hour, which I hear happens all the time with the budget, it looks like we will have final confirmation that Governor Walker will propose a split between Madison and the rest of System.

That’s all that I have for now. Check back later for a summary of the actual speech, and then a summary of the legislation.

An Inexperienced Leader~Samuel Seering

What would you do as Chancellor?

At Friday’s Board of Regents meeting, a very reasonable and thoughtful question was asked by Regent Walsh. He asked to United Council Government Relations Director Michael Moscicke and UW-Eau Claire student body president Dylan Jambrek if they were the chancellor of the entire UW System, how would they solve the revenue problem in face of the current climate. You can listen to the full exchange here starting at the 2:36:30 mark.

Michael did a fine job of reviewing the recent history and problems that system has faced in term of revenue and then somewhat got to an answer. He said:

If I were a chancellor, I don’t think there is any solution. I think right now we have a crisis in higher education, and I think we need to talk more about that. And I don’t think there is any one solution.

I have great respect for Michael, but when he says that there is a crisis going on and the only thing that we can do is talk about that crisis, that is wrong. Of a man of great knowledge, I would have hoped that a solution could have been presented. Maybe not the exact plan of how we get out of this situation, but at least a guide of how we could find our final path.

The New Badger Partnership is one such path of leading us out of this crisis. It actively works to solve the revenue problem that UW-Madison is facing and to help it retain the grand status that it holds. I have not seen one other proposal that is a realistic path to take.

So my question to all of you is, facing a $50 million cut from the state in support for UW-Madison, what would YOU do as chancellor of UW-Madison to make sure that  the quality of this great university does not deteriorate?

An Inexperienced Leader~Samuel Seering

Summary of UW-Madison Budget/Changes

This post is going to be only a steam lined summary of what the current proposal, as of February 18^th, for Governor Walker’s budget will look like for the University of Wisconsin Madison. I will touch on my personal feelings of the legislation in the future. The summaries can be found here.

As I said with my update post, shared governance is fully preserved in the legislation, only transferred to the new Chapter 37.

1. Shared governance, as articulated in Chapter 36.09 of the current state statutes, must be preserved.

The draft bill preserves shared governance, as articulated in Chapter 36.09.

An area of concern that has been brought up is academic freedom. This will be protected for the university.

3. Academic freedom must be protected

The draft bill maintains protections for academic freedom that currently exist. The draft bill also transfers the application of all current policies, including Faculty Policies and procedures which addresses academic freedom. In addition, while the university will continue to be subject to oversight by the Legislative Audit Bureau, The draft bill specifically prohibits audits of issues related to academic freedom.

A large area of interest has been for the university to retain its own monies if they are unspent. This was because of a “sweep” that Governor Doyle used last year to take money university reserve funds to fill holes in his budget. Under the legislation, monies of the university would no longer be considered state funds, and therefore could not be taken by the state. This should be a huge relief for students because it means that the segregated fees that you pay will not be taken and spent on things that they are not meant for.

12. The university must be allowed to retain money saved, without threat of seizure, for its own purposes.

Currently, all funds received by UW-Madison, regardless of source, are considered “state funds” to be deposited in the State Treasury. The draft bill would allow non-state moneys received by UW-Madison- tuition, fees, program revenues, gifts, grants and donations- to no longer be considered “state funds,” and to no longer be subject to seizure….

In the next summary document, a big aspect of it is the description of what the new governing board, the Board of Trustees, will look like. Yesterday I told you all about some of the rumors that I had been hearing about the board, but here are the definitive answers to what the board will look like and what its powers will be.

UW-Madison would be governed by a Board of Trustees consisting of 21 members to oversee its specific and unique needs as a world-class educational and research institution. The governor would appoint 11 members to include one member of the Board of Regents for the University of Wisconsin System. The remaining 10 members would be appointed by the UW-Madison faculty (2 members), UW-Madison non-faculty employees (1 member), UW-Madison students (1 member), the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (2 members), the Wisconsin Alumni Association (2 members), and the University of Wisconsin Foundation (2 members). The Chancellor would serve as a non-voting member. Board terms would be for three years, except for the student member who would serve a two-year term. Terms for the initial board would be staggered. Board meetings would be open to the public and the records of its meetings and proceedings would be open for inspection under the Public Records law.

The bill requires the board members, as a group, to have expertise in the various dimensions of the university’s mission. The Board would appoint the Chancellor to serve as the chief executive officer of the university. The current shared governance system of the university would be maintained under the bill.

The Board of Trustees would have the powers necessary and convenient to carry out the university’s mission and purpose. These powers and duties include, but are not limited to, the authority to establish an annual budget and allocate funds, condemn property, develop and implement a personnel system, execute contracts, enact policies, promulgate rules to govern conduct on university property, and exercise police power to preserve the safety and ordinary operation of UW-Madison. This bill also grants the Board of Trustees the power to confer degrees, establish the policies for admission to the university and for the appropriate transfer of credits with other educational institutions, and set and manage tuition at the institution. The Board of Trustees would replace the role of the Board of Regents in all aspects related to the University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, including contracting and board membership.

Also, a new funding stream would be created. UW-Madison would receive a “block grant” of funding from the state, with some other line items in the budget directed at Madison from specific programs.

UW-Madison would continue to receive significant state funding, albeit under a revised structure. Currently, UW-Madison’s funding flows through the Board of Regents. The Board of Regents receives state money through many appropriation lines, limiting how the money may be spent when passed through to UW-Madison. Under the new structure, UW-Madison would receive its funding directly from the state, largely through a single, unencumbered “block grant.” A small number of other, separate appropriation lines directly to UW-Madison would also be created.

A big issue for students is the issue of tuition and financial aid. It does not look like the model of how tuition is handled would change under the legislation, just who controls it. Also, students would be able to access all of the financial aid programs that they are currently able to.

The Board of Trustees would be authorized to set and manage tuition rates for UW-Madison. Current tuition policies and procedures would remain in effect until changed by the Board of Trustees or July 1, 2013, whichever occurs earlier. Multiple provisions in the bill ensure that UW-Madison students would continue to have access to a variety of financial aid programs.

In relation to current events up at the capitol in relation to the Budget Repair Bill, a sign of hope for graduate students is contained in the legislation.

Further, the bill would maintain existing collective bargaining rights for TAs, PAs, and RAs.

A final issue, that again I brought up somewhat yesterday, is the question of administrative policies. According to the summary, administrative policies would simply be transferred to the control of UW-Madison. This clears up the mess of having to establish all new policies for the university, and somewhat sidesteps the review process of the legislature.

All current policies and procedures related to the operation of UW-Madison would transfer to the authority and remain in effect until they expire, are modified or rescinded by the Board of Trustees.

I hope to have my thoughts on the legislation to you soon.

An Inexperienced Leader~Samuel Seering

 

Surprising Move

In a surprising move, at least in my opinion, the Chancellor’s office has decided to release a summary of what is going to be in Governor Walker’s budget next week in the area of higher education. You can read the summaries here and here. I will have my thoughts on this document sometime tonight or tomorrow posted, but for the time being, here is section from the second summary about 36.09(5), student shared governance:

7. Terms of student participation in governance, including consultation with the chancellor on disposition of segregated fees, as articulated in Chapter 36.09(5), must be preserved

The draft bill preserves student participation in governance as articulated in §36.09(5)

An Inexperienced Leader~Samuel Seering

Questions and Answers on the New Badger Partnership

Under all of the turmoil that is currently going on up at the capitol building, some issues have been forgotten for the time being. One of these issues is the New Badger Partnership. Last week, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel wrote an article revealing recommendations from the Chancellor’s office to the Department of Administration of what a public authority model would look like at UW-Madison. This article brought forward a slew of questions about the play. Adam Johnson over at The Campus First answered some of these questions in two separate posts, here and here.

I have also been trying to find out some information about different questions. Below are a few that I have been able to find some answers to. These questions are a little more nuanced than the average student would care to deal with, but they are important nonetheless. Answers for these questions come from a variety of sources, all of which wish to remain anonymous.

How will administrative rules be set up at UW-Madison after a plan is implemented?

The process for setting up new administrative rules to deal with areas of human resources, shared governance, classroom policies, and any other areas of flexibility will most likely begin in the late spring if the provisions look like they will stay in the bill. The base group working on these new policies would be similar to the current New Badger Partnership working group, but it would be expanded to have more voices so that the best rules result. This development would continue over the summer and into the fall and winter of 2011. Once the rules and policies were created, they would have to be approved by the new governing board at the University (see below). Unlike some rumors that I have been hearing, the state would NOT have final say over these rules; the board would.

What will be the effects on differential tuition?

The situation of differential tuition in a transition to a public authority model would not change from what is currently going on. The Madison Initiative for Undergraduates differential tuition charge would still remain in place. The only difference would be that the implementation of collecting that differential tuition fee would move from the current Board of Regents to the new governing board. Most likely what will happen is that it will be rolled into the total tuition number. This opens up the possibility of income based tuition (something that I will be discussing in greater detail in a future post).

What would the make up of the new governing board look like?

This is a very difficult question to answer, but I’ll try my best with the limited information that I have. To remain a public university, a majority of the board would have to be appointed by the governor. It looks like though that these appointees will have to have certain qualifications, such as being alumni of UW-Madison. This takes the new board out of the current political nature that the UW System Board of Regents resides in (again which I hope to discuss in greater detail in the future) and moves it to a system that makes sure members have a vested interest in UW-Madison. Also to this end, different campus constituencies and groups would appoint members to the board. These groups include students, faculty, staff, the Alumni Association, the UW Foundation, and WARF. There is also a rumor that a member of UW System Board of Regents would also be a member of UW-Madison’s board. I have been unable to find concrete numbers on the size of the board, but based on some calculations I’ve done, the number could range from the low teens to the mid-twenties.

That is all that I have for now. I hope to update everyone with more answers to questions soon. What questions would you like me to investigate?

An Inexperienced Leader~Samuel Seering