Campus update on New Badger Partnership

Dear Members of the Campus Community,

The past week has been marked by passionate reactions to the release of the state budget repair bill last Friday. You have seen the various communications on that bill and its potential impact on our campus.

During the past couple of days, media attention has also begun to focus on next Tuesday’s release of the governor’s 2011-13 biennial budget. I write to correct some of the misinformation in the media and on the rumor mill about the New Badger Partnership and the process through which it has been advanced.

1. I have been promoting an integrated case for greater flexibility for more than a year.

2. UW System has been advocating for flexibility for a very long time with a number of governors of different parties, without significant success.

3. I have said repeatedly that all three gubernatorial candidates expressed interest in and support for the basic premises set forth in the argument for flexibility. In 2011, lack of interest in moving forward with flexibility is a recipe for even greater economic pain.

4. In late December, members of the governor-elect’s team asked for a meeting at which they expressed ongoing interest in flexibility for UW–Madison. They also announced interest in exploring a public authority model.

5. In response to hypothetical questions posed by the governor’s team, we provided responses in a memo dated Jan. 7, 2011. That memo contains no decisions. It provides answers to questions we were asked about what it would take to offset 75 percent of a $50 million cut with tuition; it states unequivocally that the tuition increases required to offset 75 percent of a $50 million cut would be unacceptable to us. We made very tentative suggestions about other ways to deal with such a cut. We made no decisions or commitments about tuition rates or about anything else.

6. Neither the governor’s team nor the UW–Madison administration made any commitments to public authority status or to any other change of that sort at the meetings cited in the memo, nor did they or we agree to any particular cut or tuition numbers. Meetings in January were exploratory.

7. In the meantime, as you know, we have worked with representatives of on-campus constituents on the principles that would guide discussions with the governor’s office.

8. In the absence of a strong, timely system-wide proposal on behalf of all the institutions, my staff and I continued working with the governor’s staff on their suggested approach to UW–Madison.

9. I made President Reilly aware of the fact that we had met with the governor’s staff and had been asked for information. I did not share the content of the exchanges that ensued. I believed and still believe that it was the governor’s prerogative to speak with system leadership about what he was willing to consider for the system and for UW–Madison. I was told that the governor’s staff had input from system back in January and had let President Reilly know they were open to ideas, and were considering a different approach for UW–Madison.

10. Our advocacy for greater flexibility and fewer layers of bureaucracy has always had as its goal the preservation of UW–Madison’s world-class quality at a time of enormous fiscal challenge. In our discussions, we have consistently emphasized the importance of flexibility for the other universities in the system. I do not agree with those who say that changes in the administration of the campuses will damage the state. The state will be irreparably damaged if the universities in the system deteriorate because of significant budget cuts and the absence of new tools. Innovations in structure are essential to avoiding that damage. The merits of the campuses’ argument for appropriate levels of flexibility and more decision-making ability on the local level outweigh defenses of the existing administrative set-up, in my view.

11. Regardless of the administrative structure with which we end up, UW–Madison will not only honor all its joint programs and partnerships with other system institutions, it will enhance them, including transfer programs, educational and research collaborations, and shared outreach commitments.

Our interest in the public authority status is based on its potential to help us realize the principles that we established in the New Badger Partnership:

1. The state needs a world-class research university that offers education to its citizens, attracts talent from around the world, promotes the ability to think analytically and synthetically, conducts first-rate research, and applies its discoveries to solving society’s most urgent problems. It needs a research university that supports existing industries and turns discovery into innovation and job creation.

2. UW–Madison needs new tools if it is to retain and enhance its quality and its capacity for innovation in service of the public.

3. Removing excess bureaucratic layers is critical to the university’s ability to fulfill its mission.

4. Every region in the world is rushing to establish a major research university because of the value of those universities in a knowledge-based economy. Wisconsin needs to preserve the one it has.

Going forward:

1. I believe that Governor Walker will propose public authority status for
UW-Madison in his budget bill, when it is released on Tuesday, Feb. 22. I also believe he supports greater flexibility for other universities in the system.

2. We will provide whatever information and clarity about the bill and its
implications as soon as we can. Please watch for updates here and here.

3. During the next several months, the campus community will have the
opportunity to work with the administration on features of a potentially new model.

Chancellor Biddy Martin