Chancellor's Council on Inclusion

Chancellor’s Council on Inclusion
December 1, 2005
2:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

MEETING MINUTES
Union Room E280
Facilitator: Joan Prince

I. Welcome (Co-Chairs)

II. Council Logistics – Joan Prince

Introduction of New Member – Pamela Barnes; Pamela Fendt

Minutes from October 27, 2005 meeting accepted as documented.

2006 Meeting Dates
a) The first four months verified: January 26; February 23; March 30; April 27

Miscellaneous
a) Welcomed Robin Van Harpen– UWM Legal Affairs, guest

III. Campus update Rita Cheng and Larry Martin

1. Associate Vice Chancellor for Diversity was introduced – Professor Anthony Lemelle. He will join the Council.

2. Monitoring Progress toward 2008 (faculty, staff, student numbers)

• Accountability Report
  • Preliminary data will be available at the January 26, 2006 meeting
• Access to Success Matrix
  • A report and new matrix will be presented either at the January or February meeting. The report will be based on first semester data
• UWM is the pilot campus for the Equity Scorecard.
  • Council will review information from campus team in charge of the pilot process
  • Initial report back will occur at January meeting
  • UW System President Kelly has implemented a council on diversity, with Regent Danae Davis and community leader Corey Nettles as the chairs
  • Reading seminars on Race & ethnicity will occur on campus (six on the web site) The reading seminars are focused on selected books on diversity, and they will be discussed in small groups.
• S47 – Discriminatory Conduct Policy
  • Still in codification. Could go to the January faculty meeting. Hybrid policy.
• Multicultural recruiting position
  • The paperwork is in the pipeline
• Satellite UWM Campus Offices
  • Two satellite offices will open in early Spring 2006. (UCC and PIC)
  • Focus on student recruitment efforts
• Scholarship strategy for campus
  • Jane Clark is the coordinator. Focus is to use scholarship monies strategically. Jan Ford is helping to coordinate as well. Recruitment schedule is being established with visits planned to area high schools
• Multicultural Student Office location is moving
  • Move completion schedule for early Summer 2006

• The report was presented to the Deans council. Future presentation to faculty & staff will be done. The executive summary will be printed and distributed to campus leaders. Full report will be available on the Provost’s web site.
• How should the council proceed? What do we do now?
  • Should we take a vote to endorse the report?
  • What message should we send to the Chancellor?
  • Where do we go from here?
  • Should a group be developed to monitor campus race/diversity activity?

  Suggestions:

  • With the Task Force on Women’s report findings and the findings from the Race & Ethnicity report, we could link the implementation teams back to the Council for progress review. The implementation team will include Council members.
  • Should an endorsement be made to the chancellor to endorse the report?
  • Motion was made to refer an official endorsement of the report recommendations to the Chancellor. Motion was unanimously accepted.

IV. Ombuds plan

• Review current working plan from sub-committee, and act on recommendation to Chancellor
  • The Provost office received comments from UWM committees, Academic staff, & Deans and a printed handout of compilation of comments provided.
  • There may be another motion (vote) on ombuds program (pilot) after Dev Vengupolan talks about their findings
• Robin Van Harpen
  • In the state of Wisconsin, there is no privilege of confidentiality in regards to an ombuds testifying
  • People need to be told of this
  • The Wisconsin public records law is subject to litigation
  • Conflict of confidentiality/resolution
  • Rights must be clearly defined

Comments:

• People have to feel comfortable to approach the ombudsperson.
• Is this (ombuds) a duplication of what UWM currently has?
  • The answer is no; Base on the Race & Ethnicity report, UWM needs an ombudsperson.
• UWM currently has mentoring; the Secretary of the University; several service centers such as Women’s resource center is example.
  • The question is - how does this fit?
• Perhaps we need to sort out what an ombuds can or cannot do .
• The Secretary of the University’s role is to shepard governance and system policy.
• The void is UWM needs an independent/neutral body
• The perception of the voices heard in the taskforce report is important; we may need to educate the campus about what’s available.
• There are critical elements to consider.
  • Expectation of consistency
  • more of universal experience
  • the point of entry is important; first contact
  • quality of ombuds service
• A year from now – what are we/ombuds going to look like? What successful outcome is expected?
• There are three things to consider:
  • Information - People need to be informed; there were many instances where people did not know of existing services
  • Trust – people may have fear of losing job
  • Unresolved – people still had issues not solved
• People would welcome resolution without it becoming a formal compliant; low-level
• One way to deal with climate – central office would be extremely helpful
• The informal process does not have any “teeth” in it; person might feel alone in the process
• The office of student life is resource on campus; designated staff ; there are designated people in each school/college/department
• Designated people that provide this service; when items go to EDS (Equity Diversity Service) – people would prefer a low level resolution
• We need ombudsperson who knows the campus; the procedure: 1) unit level people, 2) Campus wide group; suggest who get appointed; independent review by Deans and department heads
• Unit level has a different culture.
• Creating efficiency is important; need to train leadership role; the problem is implementation
• The ombuds draft – the concept is good; perhaps we could have an ombuds program which include:
  • all services on campus
  • different point of entry
  • each person has the same training
• Students get lost in the process; should the program be tied into Human Resources – partnering
• Motion was made to recommend to the Chancellor the formation of a coordinated Ombuds program (Cathy Seasholes provided the second)
• Motion was passed unanimously

Once we hear from the Chancellor regarding our two formal recommendations, we will proceed to send the charge back to the Ombuds working group for continued development.

VI. Wrap up – Action items

• Enrique Figueroa again requested information regarding detailed data about enrollment on transfer students (approx -18, 600) & students (18, 020); why denied and what percentage (breakdown) where student of color. He has not yet received it from his request at the September meeting.
• Gary Williams re-requested information on the breakdown diversity numbers by schools/colleges/ departments. He requested it at the October meeting.
• The Provost will respond to both requests.
• Event coming up on campus on January 27, 2006 called Common Ground; learning opportunity on Race; Guest speaker: John Powell
• The Co-Chairs will provide official written recommendations to the Chancellor (Joan will write the letter on behalf of the co-chairs).

Next meeting date: February 2, 2006
Chapman Hall – Regent’s Room-2nd Floor
2:00 PM to 4:00 PM