Senator Larson, do we have you yet?
Nice to see you.
We have to see you, but to see you, sir, thank you.
Thank you.
Good morning.
This is the start of the meeting on committees and universities for technical colleges and
universities.
So this committee is now in session.
Welcome all of you who are attending as visitors and potential speakers.
If you are looking to register, whether to speak or just to register, please talk to our folks who are
by the doors or we have kiosks outside that you can fill out for the benefit of this committee.
We have everybody coming for and we understand who is here to speak versus just here to attend.
With that, we will go ahead and take the role of the committee.
Senator Hutton, here.
Senator Pearl, here.
Here.
Senator Fine.
Here.
Senator Larson, here.
Senator Pat.
Here.
Thanks.
Well, thank you for joining us today.
We ask you to ensure that for the respect of everybody.
If you have a phone that you would mute it in the lower or less committees, the actual chair forgot to do that.
So I will sort of be consistent with all of you to make sure that it happens as well.
Mr. Chairman, before we get started, why don't I ask Pledge Council a question?
Let me go ahead and get through our remarks.
Senator, and we can do that.
Thank you.
If you do have written testimony and you do plan to, just if I would ask that you would have copies for the committee ahead of time
and again, our folks and pages that can help that, please get your information to them and they will take care of making those copies for you.
We are here today about a decision by the Board of Regents that raises concerns not just about transparency,
but about how prepared or serious they are about addressing the strategic direction of the University of the Wisconsin system.
Appiring President Jay Rothman without a clear explanation to the public requires scrutiny.
It demands the public receives the answers that it is entitled to.
This is not a routine personal matter.
This is the Chief Executive of one of the most important public institutions in our state.
Decisions of this magnitude require a straightforward explanation.
Transparency is the foundation of public trust when decisions are made without an explain justification.
Further arose confidence not just to the Board of Regents, but in the institution itself.
The legislature has an important role in the oversight of a state entity like the Board of Regents in exactly this type of situation,
particularly the Senate has a role of approving the governor's nominations to the Board of Regents.
If Regents expect to earn the approval of this body, they must demonstrate a commitment to open and humble decision making.
Throughout my time in the state Senate in this committee's time, we have tried to focus on big picture and long-term challenges
that need to be addressed in higher education, which remains strong over the coming decades.
UW's system is a cornerstone of our state's economy.
I believe we all agree with that consensus.
It is currently educating 1,650,000 students, and it provides a critical workforce pipeline for employers across our state.
At the same time, it faces serious long-term challenges.
Enrollment has declined by 9% since 2012, far more than counting just traditional students, with some campuses seeing 25 to 30% enrollment drops.
There is a shrinking college age population, increasing alternatives to four-year educations, and growing concerns over families about the cost and value
and return on that education investment.
Employers across Wisconsin are telling us they cannot find enough workers with the skills they need,
while students are questioning whether the traditional model of higher education is being their needs long-term.
At the same time, we continue to hear concerns about the cost and value of their degree and the same bureaucracy within the current system.
These are issues that demand full attention of the Board of Regents.
Instead, we are faced with a sudden leadership shake-up that risks creating instability at a time when the Chancellor turnover is high,
and our flagship university is losing its CEO.
While the system's desperate needs to be more ambitious and reform-minded,
President Rothman worked to loop the system forward through difficult challenges,
engaging with both the legislature and the governor on reforms,
removing him with no explanation, sends a troubling signal to taxpayers, students, and employers,
and even donors about where the institution is heading.
My committee and I have consistently worked to advocate for deep system reforms that will strengthen the UW system long-term.
Reforms that improve accountability, align education with workforce needs,
and ensure that taxpayers and families are getting the value of their investment.
We must ensure that the UW system remains strong, competitive, and responsive to the needs of its employers.
Today's hearing is about what went into the decision to remove President Rothman,
if those justifications weren't as removal and if the process earns the continued trust of the site.
Senate has a constitutional role in conforming regents, and that authority exists for a reason,
and that reason is accountability within the system.
If that standard is not being met, it is appropriate for this committee to act.
We owe it to the people in Wisconsin to ask questions, to demand answers, and to ensure the governance
of the UW system reflects the depth of the challenges it faces.
With that, we will go into the hearing, and we will begin to call out those who are here to testify,
and Senator Papp, you have a question for the legislature council before we proceed.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
My question for the legislature is, can you explain to me, and to my colleagues,
what is the definition of at-will employment?
Let's just gin it down to, it could be generally,
cast as an employment arrangement that is able to be discharged by either party,
employer or employee, would not cause for a reason.
So just to be clear, do you or do you not have to have a reason for your termination if you are an at-will employee?
Generally no.
I thank you very much for that, and I assume that the former CEO of Wisconsin's largest
law firm knows that as well.
I would also say this, I do always take the responsibility of oversight, very important,
and I do agree with the chair, that investment in the University of Wisconsin's system is important as an investment in our economy,
but I will just make this comment.
This is the fourth public hearing, this legislative session, that this committee has had.
We have only meant three times prior, and if we're serious about oversight, when it comes to the University of Wisconsin's system,
making sure that there is accountability with the UW system, we have a job to do as well,
and it is disappointing that this is only the fourth time that this committee has met this legislative session.
With that, I yield that.
Very good.
With that we have two individuals registered to testify before this committee here this afternoon.
I will ask President Logust and are we going to have both of you come up at the same time?
Very good.
Welcome to the Board of Regents, and obviously the Board Chair.
You are free to come up and testify before us.
Okay, thank you very much.
We need for Andrew to join.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Hayten and members of this committee, good morning.
I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I do not take it lightly that this is my third time before this committee.
I want to begin where I always begin when I speak about the University of Wisconsin with gratitude.
Serving on this Board of Regents has been among the greatest honors of my life.
For six years, I have had this privilege of sitting in rooms with students who are first in their families to earn a college degree,
with veterans returning to finish what they started, with researchers unlocking discoveries that will change how we treat diseases,
and with faculty and staff who show up every single day committed to the mission of these institutions.
The University of Wisconsin is not an abstraction.
It is a living, breathing engine of opportunity for the people of the state,
and it contributes billions of dollars to our economy by producing the teachers, engineers, nurses, and business leaders Wisconsin depends on.
My entire family are graduates of the University of Wisconsin.
I have seen firsthand what these universities have meant to my family, and just so many Wisconsin families.
That is why I take this responsibility so seriously, and why I will continue to advocate for these institutions with everything I have.
I say all of this because I want this committee to understand the spirit in which every one of my fellow Regents approaches this work.
We are experienced leaders from business, law, academia, and public service.
We are proud alumni.
We are volunteers who take no compensation and bring deep judgment to the responsibility we have been entrusted with.
It is from this place of genuine care for these institutions and the people they serve that the Board of Regents reached a unanimous 17-0 decision to end Mr. Rothman's employment.
I recognize that this hearing has been convened in the wake of that decision, and I want to address this committee directly and honestly.
It is entirely understandable that this committee has questions, and I want to be as transparent with you as I am legally able to do.
But I need to say something clearly.
President Rothman knows exactly what he is doing.
He is a sophisticated professional who understands that personnel matters are confidential.
The confidentiality surrounding his evaluation was not arbitrary.
It reflects a fundamental fiduciary duty that this Board owes to the University of Wisconsin to the integrity of our process and to every individual who is subject to them.
We kept this matter confidential because that is what responsible governance requires.
It is what law requires and is what our obligation is to these universities.
And yet President Rothman understands all of this has chosen to use that constraint as a shield, making public statements he knows I cannot revive.
And framing the narrative he knows I cannot correct.
That is deliberately one-sided. That is not a search for truth, that is strategy.
I will not pretend otherwise. What he said publicly is misleading, and the fact that is misleading does not reflect a lack of reasons on the part of this Board.
It reflects the opposite. The reasons are substantial. Process was very thorough.
And if Mr. Rothman generally wants this committee and the public to understand what happened, there is a straightforward path.
He can waive his confidentiality. The moment he does, I will sit before this committee and walk through the details. I welcome that conversation.
Until then, I am not hiding behind this rule. I am honoring it.
It is my responsibility, the Board's responsibility as a member and attorney that I must do.
What I can tell you is this. That decision was not made lightly. It was not political. It was not retaliatory. It was unanimous.
Every single member of the Board in attendance was in agreement.
Boards of Regents do not reach 17-0 decisions on a limb.
I also want to address directly what has been said publicly in recent phase.
Mr. Rothman has stated that he will not step down because he believes he is doing what is best for the University of Wisconsin.
At the same time he is making this claim, he is engaged in a sustained public campaign that is causing real harm to these very institutions.
The ones he says he is protecting. Every day spent relittigating this decision through the media is a day that undercuts the faculty, the students and the staff and the reputation of our universities.
I will let the public and this committee decide if that is a mark of true leadership.
Mr. Rothman made clear repeatedly that he would only wish to serve with the Board's full confidence.
We took him at his work. When that confidence was no longer existed, we acted accordingly.
The Universities of Wisconsin at this critical moment in higher education deserves nothing less than a leader who is fully aligned with the Board in ready to leave.
I have devoted six years of my life to this Board. We are not political hacks. We are not a rubber stand.
We are serious public servants who have given up ourselves because we believe in what the Universities of Wisconsin means to the people of Wisconsin.
And we made a difficult decision for the right reasons and we stand by it.
I am honored to continue this service. I firmly believe that this Board and the Universities of Wisconsin are made of something much stronger than this moment.
And I thank you very much for this time. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. President, for your testimony.
So next we would like to go ahead and testify and then we can open up the committee.
Let me just take a few comments because President Poco has covered that she and I are sort of in the name of the game at least in style.
So let me do my two Nixon comments.
This is an unfortunate situation for the University of Wisconsin.
I did not choose this. Jay Rothford did.
This was done by the way exactly like he handled the same situation for others.
Look at the political letters from a couple of days ago.
This is the way since at least Governor Thompson was there that these kinds of situations are handled at UW.
So I want to be clear that there is nothing unusual about the approach to Mr. Rothman, the request.
This is what the UW has done, including Mr. Rothman.
He played this well. He knows we cannot miss close events that occurred in a closed session.
He's using that to believe me. He's being quiet for a week.
It's unnatural for me. I may have to be committed, but I have that quiet.
I am 68 years old, never before, never have I been accused of not being direct, clear, and unambiguous.
My reputation is that I am too much so.
His claim that he does not or did not know as all of the substance of the shadow of a starving pigeon would repeat that.
All of the substance of the shadow of a starving pigeon.
In the beginning, his command and control management style and practices were necessary
and beneficial to bring financial and operational discipline to an organization that needed it.
No dispute on that. You all sit here. You've been looking at it longer than I have.
I thank him for that. That is a service.
Regarding other accomplishments, he is a bit like the rooster crawling and then taking credit for the sunrise after.
The good things that were a massive team effort, not the accomplishments of one person.
This is about the future. What kind of leadership is needed for the future?
Let me just point out one sort of quasi-objective.
US News and World Report does an annual review of the 50 top innovative universities in the United States regarding education, class size, all of that sort of thing.
How we educate people at universities. It lists the top 50.
Most of these lists don't think much of, and it's not that we're not number one.
We're not even on the list of the top 50 innovative schools in the United States.
Not even on the list. This is not a conservative liberal thing because our good friends and neighbors at Marquette University have made the list of the most innovative universities in the United States.
So thank God one higher education institution in the state has made the list.
There's at least one other one that should be on that.
Change is not Mr. Rothman's strong suit. Yet change is what we desperately need.
We need to be nimble. A major difference between Mr. Rothman and me was his lack of urgency, despite protestations to the contrary.
It is his nature to be very deliberate. We don't have time to be very deliberate in the year 2026 in the sense that we can't take a year and six months to decide and think about every single issue.
This is no different than moving on to a new quarterback no matter what you thought of the previous quarterback or what they did.
We know how to do that in this state. That's functionally what we're doing forward. Thank you.
Very good. I appreciate that testimony as well.
And with that, I'm sure we'll have a few questions for you over the next few minutes.
So we'll go ahead and open up the committee and go from there, Senator Larson.
Thank you both for coming to testify on short notice.
We are hearing after the legislature has adjourned.
So we're coming back from vacation just to be able to talk to you guys to appreciate that.
The specifics of what happened with President Rothman and the negotiations that happened in terms of his employment.
It does happen in open session or where those being closed session.
Those were in closed session and we had a lot of dialogue and this was never taken lightly.
Again, we have a criteria duty to the University of Wisconsin and the people that it serves.
This was not a light decision. We had many discussions in closed session regarding this issue.
Let's counsel. What does the law say about leaking information that happens within a closed session in terms of employment?
I have to research that. I'm not exactly sure in this case, but I can find out to you about this particular law in that area.
I can tell you what the open record is on. It says that I can tell you what the reading law is, but I don't know exactly what the nature of your question is.
I'm just curious if the Regents, as they're here before us, started to talk openly about things that happened in closed session with that open university up to legal liability.
I don't know what they know so possibly.
If there was them, that's a possibility for sure.
It is a possibility.
Sure.
Okay.
So there is a possibility of a lawsuit if they violate the closed session understanding of what was discussed in a personal matter that is not public and the person is not waived there has not waived their confidentiality.
I'm not sure if I'm sure I have a question.
My last one to you is, did President Rothman ever threaten to resign?
Many times.
He had told us many times that if he did not have the confidence of the board, he would resign.
I think that was a public statement a few years ago.
I know he sold that to other constituencies as well.
Thank you.
I just want to make very clear that I'm not on vacation.
Even though that this has been viewed as coming back from vacation, I don't think that's the case.
I think that it's important that if any committee comes into this session here or is presented that, we come and we do what we've been elected to do.
So I don't got no tan going on, sir.
I'm still working.
My interest here is not only to question what happened, but my interest in it is not political.
It is solely because obviously there's an issue and I'm assuming it's not just about him.
It's about a larger picture here of things that need to be addressed.
So as I sat here today and have been looking at this over the news, my question is, okay, what's the issue?
Why is he not meeting those needs?
How are we going to fix this for the next person coming up or for the university as a whole?
In my mind, the one thing that pops in is decreased enrollment, right?
I'm sitting here and thinking, okay, maybe that's the issue.
Maybe they've lost confidence in the fact that there's decreased enrollment.
What is the solutions to that?
Or is there a different reason?
So as I heard a lot of people call me and contact me and hearing some comments today, this isn't just a political issue.
This is, in no way, in my opinion, the focus.
The focus is, what are the issues that need to be addressed?
How are they going to be solved and how can we continue to date the UW system great as a whole, right?
So for me, it is much bigger than what is being presented in this room right now in here today.
Thank you. Thank you for that question.
That was a part of my testimony.
I hadn't read because I didn't want to go to the rooms.
But you have asked, and I have an answer for you.
This is about the future, okay?
There are, I already gave you one question.
Why are not we one of the top innovative, at least in the top 50,
the Native schools in the United States, because we're not being innovative in the ways of dealing with the issues that you phrased.
The drop-offs.
Now, we've authorized 90 credit bachelor's degree.
We haven't seen any proposal yet.
We need to be talking about certificates.
We need to be talking about non-traditional students.
We need to be talking about educating people from kindergarten through their adult life,
not necessarily in the silos that have been built and existed historically.
That's a big hitch.
But let me give you a specific that has been bothering me.
Why does the University of Wisconsin system bureaucracy have 579 employees
for a 13-school system when the technical college has 50 for a 16-school system?
That's a great question, isn't it?
When I'm on the technical college board, by the way, they can use it for more people than those 50.
I just want to tell you the truth.
That's really the meaning for them.
I'm on both boards.
Since last November, I have, in particular, this has been my horse I've been riding,
I have asked for justification.
I just don't see the difference.
When you look at other systems, they don't have this many people.
These people do good work.
I don't want to insinuate that they're lazy, that they're not doing good work.
But in my view, they are better off reassigned or the resources used at campuses where we actually educate people.
President Rothman has not provided an answer to me since November.
The only thing we've done is had a meeting where they all told us about all the good things they're doing.
Don't just speak there, but why 579?
Can't we cut that?
Maybe that's the right number.
Okay?
He's not justified to me.
But I think we ought to take some of those people and move them on campuses where we actually educate people.
And he has not been on board with moving that along.
May I just get a little follow-up?
If you have an answer, I'm sorry.
Well, I was just going to say thank you for providing a specific example rather than some grey zone where we just kind of jump around the issue.
I mean, these are the things that, you know, thank you.
They scare me while you wait a time.
Go ahead.
Oh.
Would you like to comment to that?
Otherwise, I'd like to have another question.
My other question was you talked in here about him waving his rights for confidentiality and so forth.
I mean, is that some written agreement that was somewhere that both of you had signed upon employment or something that or in this particular situation?
I mean, if there's something that was really personal matters by law and definition are confidential.
And that's why we talk about personal matters because it was a little session.
And so it is not our ability to wave it and, you know, by some counsel as well.
We are not able to do that.
It is his to wave.
It's, you know, his confidentiality.
And he has to wave it before we're able to say something legally.
That's it.
Let me add that.
I want to emphasize.
This has been the UW practice.
At least as far back as Governor Thompson was president.
I'm not commenting on the wisdom of it.
I am merely stating that requesting people to leave their job under friendly, quiet circumstances is the way UW has been doing this and the way President Rothman actually did.
And again, if you want specific examples, I think somebody leaked the public record anyway.
Correspondents to Politico from Mr. James Larson about laying in.
Sorry.
I'm sorry.
I get a little happy.
I'm sorry.
I'm 68.
That this is exactly the way President Rothman let him know with exactly the same no information response.
Now, this is I'm going to tell you, this is the way it has been done.
I'm not commenting on what I think of that.
I might have an opinion these days, but it's just the way UW did it.
And one other thing, as a lawyer, and you're getting me for free today like you do every day, so this is a really good deal for the state of Wisconsin.
When you have an at will or a probationary employee, the general recommendation is you never give them a reason for terminating the relationship.
Because all that would do is raise the potential for a lawsuit.
At will, you just let them know.
The probationary, you just let them know because if you tell them anything and we all know how lawsuits work, truth, no truth, it doesn't much matter.
There are lawsuits.
You don't do this even in the private sector with those two kinds of employees tonight, the lawyer, I apologize.
So this is the advice I would have given my own clients.
In addition for large corporations that are very public, this is the way you usually get out CEOs.
Because you don't want to damage, in that case the brand, whatever you're selling.
So you try not to have these public blowups.
And so there's nothing here in my mind from my experience that's unusual.
And that way that follows UW practice.
Now whether that practice is appropriate for a public institution, I'm not commenting about that.
I am merely reporting a fact.
I appreciate the testimony.
So you can reach an exit regarding that.
It is a little surprising to me admittedly to hear from the Board of Regents who are eagerly, eagerly pushing for significant reforms of the system.
Because I would argue going back for a few years, the Regents have been viewed as the gatekeepers for the status quo.
So if you're telling me there's a new revelation within the Board of Regents that says the President isn't acting quick enough in terms of significant reforms and efficiencies.
That is a surprising be encouraging.
I would love to hear a little bit more context as to how that is the new face of the Regents that somehow in this case,
then President Rothman wasn't on board with or keeping pace with in terms of the reforms that either you all were pushing or are pushing or that you expected than President Rothman to be pushing.
The short answer is yes.
Now let me just provide a little color to that.
President Rothman moves methodically.
He moves deliberately.
And part of that is he's a corporate lawyer, hopefully.
They just do that.
I'm a lawyer.
Okay, so I know how they understand the thought process.
You don't move until every eye is dotted.
You don't move until every T is crossed.
You don't move until everybody's lined up.
That takes six months to a year to do that in anything.
The major difference between President Rothman and I, and even after everything that's happened, I still like the guy.
Okay, let's just, let's just be blunt about that.
They do not dislike him, is I always sensed a lack of urgency on some of these issues, which to me looked like they're pressing on these universities today.
And an answer a year from now or two years from now is not going to be good enough.
President Rothman never, to his credit, doesn't want to upset either the legislature, the governor, or the faculty or anybody else.
Sometimes when you're changing things, that's kind of a necessity.
I mean, I don't want to back you guys off.
I've got an administrative law for you.
I've taught him administrative law for 23 years.
One of the things I've told, and I've repeated, even said this is the part of the region several times, we are not elected officials.
You are the elected officials.
The governor is the elected official.
We do our job, but we do it subject to your oversight and direction.
Act 15 is a good example.
You saw that we followed the law.
I quote you what I said to people who were not as happy as they could be.
I said this is a law passed by a Republican legislature signed by a Democratic governor.
This is the law.
And we don't care if you like it or not.
Okay?
That's pretty relevant to us and that was directed at certain people in the university who thought it was inappropriate.
In my point of question, I just want to add to that.
I just wanted to be clear.
Mr. Rothman, we are very pleased in what he has done to this moment.
There are many difficult things that we went through as a board and we were aligned with Mr. Rothman, many difficult things.
Change happens at a snail's pace in any institution.
Unfortunately, the industry of higher education is a very antiquated system.
Working within those systems is very difficult to make change.
And I think right now we're kind of at a precipice in higher education.
You mentioned a demographic slide and the pressures are coming down hard on us.
This narrative that higher education wasn't necessary.
Part of this decision is that we need a transformative leader and that we have to really take this into the future, which is to me yesterday.
I mean, we have pressures of AI.
You know, this narrative that I don't know, I probably didn't get my statistics wrong, but 76% of the public doesn't want AI either terrified.
Even now, more than ever, we need people in our institutions.
We need people that have critical thinking skills that understand AI because we as humans need to control the machine, not the other way around.
So there's many pressures that we are feeling as a board, as an institution where we like to have and work well together with that leader that can bring us into the future.
And I do not want to diminish all the wonderful things that Mr. Rothman has done.
And he has done in great services, any overseas responses.
So I do not want that to be our thought process here.
That's not what it is.
Mr. Chair, I would like, I had removed a number of my remarks, but in light of the senator's question, I want to bring up another one.
There is no Regents guidelines or guardrails on AI.
AI is a lot of smoke and noise and good things in the universities, but there are no guidelines or guardrails.
President Rothman has blocked those since November, and this is another one of my resources.
We've got to speak. We've got to say something.
We need an articulated Wisconsin Board of Regents Wisconsin AI guidelines not uncrafted by Silicon Valley through negligence or neglect.
We need to do this the Wisconsin way.
And this has not been brought to us.
We've been asking for it since November.
We're studying it. We've got lots of committees in that system studying it, and they're not going to be a job.
Just will not bring it forward to us.
But overall, I do also want to add that I'm very proud of our individual universities who do have wonderful policies and guidelines for their campuses.
They're doing amazing work on the campuses, so I don't want to lose sight of that.
Thank you. Appreciate the digital information, Sir Pat.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you both for being here. Mr. Davidson, thank you for your openness and your candor.
I appreciate it because you talked about hobby horses.
This is something that I believe, I didn't know the exact number, but at $5.79 now I know the number.
I really do believe that there can be reform done.
And I strongly support not just our playing right university.
We've had some very proud regional comprehensors that we have.
So I look forward to continuing to work with you and the Regent President in regards to moving forward on this.
But my follow-up question is to the Board President.
Thank you for your testimony.
And I appreciate your candor.
But you write this.
If Mr. Walkman generally wants his committee in the public to understand what happened, there is a straightforward path.
He can waive his confidential housing.
Absolutely.
Why hasn't he done that?
He seems to be talking a lot.
Why does he not waive his confidential?
I believe that his objective is to be able to get his narrative out and be one-sided.
He knows that I cannot reflect what he's saying.
He knows, and he does know the truth.
He knows the truth, and he understands what this is all about.
And we were hoping that he would move on and we could celebrate all his great accomplishments.
That I think was going to be the best path forward for the universities.
And to do the media circuit that he's on, denigrates our wonderful universities.
And that makes me really sad.
Because I know that he worked tirelessly for the universities.
And I really was hoping to celebrate his past accomplishments and keep that stability.
It was so needed for the universities.
And to celebrate him and the campuses and all the hard work that these people come to work
every day.
We're here for the students.
We're here for the people that we serve, the students in the states.
And it's unfortunate that he's taking them down.
One follow-up question.
I read in the news media that
was given an opportunity to retire at the end of this calendar year.
Is that correct?
He was given an opportunity to resign at the end of the year.
And it was a nice runway for him to be able to go out, finish a few loose ends, and celebrate him,
and visit all the campuses and celebrate the fact that he has accomplished many things in his tenure.
I mean, if you look around this country, these jobs right now are so difficult.
They don't have a long shelf life.
Things are moving so quickly and so fast we have to be humble.
And so I wanted to give him that opportunity and have him be able to celebrate and the board
to stay steady and focused on what comes next.
So he chose not to do that.
You know what I would say.
Just so you don't think that we would walk in the box, that would do whatever.
I was not in favor of the 18 months.
I would not in favor of law.
I was in favor of a runway, but not that long.
However, this is our president, and she made that decision, and that's what we went with.
I thought that was too long.
And then I went up here.
I've also heard, I don't know where I heard her, right, that there has been a six month
service package that's been approved.
Correct.
That's from his contract.
That's from the contract.
Can we just talk about the contract for a little bit?
I find it interesting I see this somewhat tongue in cheek, but also somewhat genuinely
when I look at employment contracts today.
The fact that I see a contract that is any less than 20 pages seems quite unusual in
the world that we now live in, and I appreciate all the role that you'll play in that.
It did seem a little odd that the contract, at least we've provided to us, is as thin as
it is as it relates to the use of paper.
And curious as to what's behind that, why that would be the case.
Is there other contractual information that is an aside from that four page document?
And should a little insight, based on the fact that you are both attorneys, and in this
case, it is a personal matter that Jim Rothman would have been putting in that position
with that narrow of a contract.
And would we do that again?
Was that done intentionally?
If you could just shed a little bit of perspective on that?
I can start, and I'm sure Mr. Nixon can't follow up, but I can tell you that the negotiations
for the contract is very, that contract is standard.
It's been used in the past over and over again, being at will.
And I think I might be wrong, but maybe you can be on this.
I think the sixth month is by statute that you have to give an employee, and there's
something else in there for every sign, it's a 90 day, that's all standard.
And so it isn't light, but again, Mr. Rothman, his whole attorney light was a transactional
attorney.
So he reviewed the contract, and he had made no changes to the contract.
And again, this was used for all the prior presidents.
I don't know how far back it goes, but absolutely.
I think it's perhaps a time to look at the contract that's been used over and over again.
But again, Mr. Rothman accepted it without any changes, and being a transactional attorney
had every opportunity to do so.
Sure.
Yeah, I didn't see it a little bit ago, I was on the board with the contract.
I was talking about what you did, I was astounded at the contract.
But I will go back, Jay Rothman is an intelligent man and a good lawyer.
Let's talk like that.
And he's representing himself there.
Quite frankly, if I were his lawyer, and I were different, I might have had different
ideas if I were advising him on that contract.
But he is who he is, he chose to sign it.
And if we struggle with that, then you say that we want to sign the other contract.
That's not fair.
But I even advised him not to sign that contract as the president.
But he is acting as his own lawyer.
And he's a good lawyer.
He's a good lawyer.
He's no doubt.
All right.
Thank you.
I'm probably prescriptive.
Is there any other questions?
Thank you.
And just to be clear, we're back in here taking up the Board of Regents appointments.
While there are over 100 other appointments that are outstanding for the Senate that have
not been taken up for a full vote, the Senate adjourned.
At the end of that, I know in my district, they're struggling with affordability of trying
to adjust me against meat.
Housing has not been addressed in any way, shape or form.
We didn't do anything on data centers.
And so it's the Wild West.
Our tech companies are going at it.
And the community is going to be able to get what they want with no repercussions.
We haven't done anything on the water law to make sure that we have clean water in our
state.
So this goes on.
Is there a question to determine this?
Yeah.
Just then we decided that this was it.
That this was a thing to say, let's snap our fingers.
Let's come back in because we want to drag a few appointments in front of us to score
political points.
This seems exactly what it is.
And frankly, I've been here for 15 years fighting for our universities.
I was here when Governor tried to repeal the Wisconsin idea and stated we're going to
shift from the search for truth and say that the borders of our universities end and the
borders of the state and saying that we are here for the enrichment of all.
Instead, say we're going to focus on workforce development and people turn out and say that
that's not what they want.
We've seen the degradation of the university.
We've seen the cutting of funds.
We've seen the forcing of tuition and freezes that are unfunded from the state.
So therefore, the product that is turned out is less than it was for students today than
it was a decade ago.
And I have been fighting for that.
And I find it curious that now we're coming in to deal with this.
In sports, we would call this a flock.
If you know the term, which is that somebody is reacting very bigly of, oh my gosh, I've
got followed.
And they're looking for a reaction.
They're looking for a follow.
And it seems that the refs have called in and said and are saying, okay, it was a loan.
We've got something here and now we're drawing it because of this flock.
Because the president is protesting and saying that, you know, I am unclear as to what was
going on and that somehow in all of these close sessions, no direction was.
He's claiming no direction was given, no criticism was given, and that nothing, you know, would
have led him to believe that this was ever an option.
And the other side is unable to respond to that because he has not waived his confidentiality
agreement in a personnel matter.
And that is the only way to go back to the sports metaphor that we can actually check
the tape, Mr. Chairman, is for him to waive his confidentiality agreement.
So then we can check the figurative tape and see what was actually put before him.
For what his guidance was and where that may have varied along the way in those performance
reviews.
He has not done that.
And until that happens, we are only here in one side of this where we're seeing the athlete
who was waving his arms and saying that this was a huge problem.
And we can clarify that.
And until that happens, I don't know.
We don't know.
You don't know.
Maybe, you know, we don't know exactly what the terms of agreements were that were violated,
all we can do is speculate.
And frankly, I personally, given what is happening within our universities, given I have a campus
in my district, and I talk to my students, I talk to my faculty, I talk to the neighbors,
and they were not thrilled.
They were not thrilled with the direction of what the president was doing.
And I have not seen many tears shed in leaving the teachers' union AFT put out a statement
saying that they were frustrated with some of his decisions.
I've heard from students who were very frustrated with the attacks on diversity, equity, and
inclusion, which matters in my district and my campus because it is the most diverse campus
in the state.
Those issues, I have not heard him addressing, and those were a giant area of criticism.
So if we are going to get back, Mr. Chairman, to what the Wisconsin idea is, which is the
search for the truth, the only way that we can actually get to that is if the president
waves this confidentiality.
Otherwise, we are standing up for something that we have no idea what it was.
And there could be things beyond that.
My mind wanders to reasons other folks have been dismissed, and we are getting large public
attention for it.
We don't know what we are wandering into, and that is the decision that we are coming back
into.
We are coming back out of session instead of addressing all of those other issues.
And frankly, not addressing what the universities are supposed to be doing for our students
and for the state.
And we are talking about one person.
The universities are bigger than one person.
And so I would ask, you know, do you, what do you view your service as, as regents?
Because I was surprised to find out what your compensation was.
For this goal, for your public service.
And what do you believe the goal of your service as regents are?
Because I believe this is up for your appointment.
Why do you want to serve on the Board of Regents?
If you are still here.
Thank you, Senator Anderson.
We are actually here to ask you to double our salary.
Which is?
Zero.
I appreciate all that.
And I see this as a distraction from the excellent work that we are all doing.
I would love to be here celebrating the amazing budget that Governor Evers and your leadership,
the Republicans have worked tirelessly to get to us.
I mean, it was amazing that we worked together on that.
And I know I had a really nice conversation with you, Senator Cotton over the weekend.
And my desire is that we continue forging ahead to work hard to give the state what it so deserves.
I always have wanted to work with all sides, both sides, sorry, both sides, the governor,
and move ahead to what the state needs.
I mean, we have great needs as you said, Senator Cotton.
The work forces is dying.
The needs are great.
Business leaders, both sides of the aisle, they appreciate and respect the universities
and what they are trying to accomplish.
I serve.
I am so privileged to serve.
And would like to continue to serve to really help work together to bring in the needs to this state.
I love Wisconsin.
My grandparents came here as refugees and could not believe their crazy love.
They got to live here.
And I want us to flourish together.
The divisiveness really breaks my heart.
We are a board of 18 independent individuals no matter what the press says about us.
We all have our own thoughts, but the one thought that I think everyone in this world can agree to,
the University of Wisconsin is the crown jewel for this state.
I'm sure many of you have educated some, have taught at the University of Wisconsin.
We cherish it.
And for anything to come between that, to not get to distract it, is really a shame.
It is a distraction.
So I know that we continue this work together.
That is my hope for the board.
It's my hope for myself.
Believe me, this is not an easy thing to do as a volunteer with my time.
I have a law practice.
It's very difficult, but it's worth every minute for this investment into the future of our state.
I mean, it's the economic engagement of our state.
So why not all work together?
What's best for everybody?
And to get our students, and not just your typical students.
We have over 800, I think we talked about this last time in our hunt.
We have somewhere around, and Governor Thompson has spoken about this,
over 800,000 students that they have dropped out.
They have a lot of credits there.
Love to get them back into our universities to help out, whether it's with a certificate,
some of our campuses, some way to up their workforce and get them in their veterans.
Love more veterans.
There's many people of all different walks of life that would really have a wonderful opportunity
right here in their own backyard in all of your districts.
So for me to serve on this board is the privilege of lifetime.
But I am so looking forward to cut the divisiveness and work together.
We all want the same thing.
So let's do it.
And let's not have this be the disruption.
So I appreciate that question.
Thank you.
If I may, I want you to know that there are two of us here.
The meeting was called on 48 hours notice.
I've been waiting two years.
She's been waiting.
Six.
Six years.
Okay.
So not everybody could come on two days notice.
All right.
These are real things.
We have lives, families and jobs.
Okay.
So just pick up and move on two days.
That's very hard.
The region job.
I don't know why anybody wouldn't want it.
You don't get paid.
Next week I spent five days in Eau Claire.
Five entire days in Eau Claire.
Last week I spent two days reviewing orders from the student discipline committee of which
I am the chair because I want to make sure the students are fairly heard.
I spent two days doing that.
You don't get paid for it.
However, what do you get?
Well, the number of regions have had their houses vandalized in Madison and Milwaukee.
You get that.
You get protests.
I'm surprised.
We have meetings.
We have a lot of jobs and police doing checks to make sure nobody wants to do a sin because
some people do.
And it was last fall.
I think the guy said he was going to show up at two o'clock in the afternoon with a rifle
and shoot us.
So I don't know why anybody wouldn't want this job.
Appreciate the comments from our two guests.
I would take a little bit of exception in terms of the divisiveness for which we are operating.
You should do it on behalf of the state of Wisconsin certainly taxpayers to be engaged
in the knowledgeable and to be able to ascertain decisions that are made within our agencies.
That's certainly why we're here today is to ask the questions and to gather as much information
as we can so we have a liable answer for the decisions made right or wrong or different.
But that's what we're here and called to do.
I would say to my colleague Sarah Larson that of all the reforms that we've worked on over
the last year and a half, I don't recall your name being on too many of those reforms in
terms of transforming what needs to happen at UW.
And yet I'm hearing from our two Regents who have done it today that we need significant
reforms within our UW system structurally and otherwise.
And I think that leads into my question with you to represent the Regents here this afternoon.
Can you help maybe all of us in general understand the relationship between the Regents and
the President in terms of the reforms that
Regent Nixon used more so alluded to but Madam Chair you have as well that are just
nibbling around the edges.
They're significant in terms of what we say needs to be happening within UW to at minimum
keep pace with where we're going as a
well-weather institution in our state and in our engine in our state.
So in the dynamics between the administration and I'll throw the Governor's office in that
mix the President of the systems and the Regents just from an outside perspective where and
who and how do those initiatives in this case significant reforms land on the table and
where the driving forces as to what those reforms should be what reform should be prioritized
and who's going to take the ball in one of those reforms to ensure that those actually happen.
Senator that is the question.
Let me go back to what I see the initiatives.
We are 18 people doing their very best as volunteers.
But we functionally are captains of the UW system administration and the President because
we can ask for things but we can't necessarily write them or do them or move them along.
They move them along or not move them along.
And I'm going to give you a couple examples of things that haven't moved along despite multiple requests.
I think if the President will often hear what he would say, well the board hasn't as a whole told me what it's wanted.
It's 18 people that meet six times a year together, six times eight times a year,
and that we do things otherwise but we are not the full-time professionals.
Unfortunately this would be like you taking instruction from the Secretary of the Department of Administration.
Okay, think about that for a second. Nothing against the Secretary of the Department of Administration.
It makes it very hard. That's why the relationship between the President and the board has to be one of trust,
confidence and being able to work together and not believing that there are any issues.
Because we are the captive of the people that were supposed to be looking at.
And we would hope in the next President that we kind of addressed that.
Doesn't it, Rothman has a command and control kind of management style,
which was necessary and useful to get the budgets balanced and all that stuff.
Wouldn't have happened without somebody with that stuff.
Okay, would not have happened.
But now we tend to need something else.
We need to be able to work with and not just sort of be hanging out here without the support of that administration,
which is very large. I think they've got some kind of to do stuff for us, but you think not.
So you mentioned the AI briefly in terms of where the system currently sits with AI and some of the reluctance to continue to on that path.
Can you name four or five other initiatives that President Rothman was,
more of a gatekeeper of the status quo and either rejected or was not on board in moving some of those reforms through the system?
Good thing.
Here's one of the things I like to say. Everybody's in favor of change. Just nobody wants to do it.
But President Rothman was always concerned about it.
And this is legitimate. He goes, you know, this is the University of Wisconsin.
Change isn't necessarily welcome in here. He was always concerned.
And he told me he didn't like what I set out loud because it would alarm people.
Okay, my view would be should be loud.
But he didn't like what I would say a lot about things because it would agitate the staff or the faculty or the students
because it wasn't fully taught out. So in general, we talked about a lot of these things.
We've talked about this stuff. We've talked about certificates. We talked about faculty pay.
We've talked about campuses. We've talked about program already.
Okay, but everything moves in my view that he would disagree with me.
Fairness to him. He would disagree with me.
But in my view, everything moves a little too methodically.
And admittedly, I'm in the patient curses. I was once tested for patients and I tested negative.
All right, so, but if we've got to move and starting to move is the first thing,
if he's generally speaking, except for the things, and we did agree a lot of things.
We put at 15 in the place. We, the regions before I got on, agreed with the, the idea,
one of the things I talked to him about was, is this system complying with that deal?
Whatever you might think of it. It was an agreement. It really had taking agreements.
And we talked about it in a lot of those terms. So there was a lot of support.
Don't get me wrong. This is not like, oh my God, everything is wrong. I'm not saying that.
But I'm saying for innovation and movement forward,
feet and the system are not designed to really move quickly.
And, but on the other hand, what organization is, state government, the Pentagon?
Let's be fair.
Let me just add to that too. And to be fair, this is a moment of transformation,
but I can tell you that the system and the people of the ecosystem, we put more of the campuses.
At 15 was a lot of work. It took a lot of time and a lot of buy-in from the campuses.
And I give them all so much credit for working together to get what they had to get done.
But it really sort of prevented us at the moment for, it's a way to move forward, but it was all hands on deck.
And, you know, now that we're kind of past that, it is a moment in time that we must move forward.
And it's not necessarily looking backwards to what we could have been doing.
In these days, we've gotten a lot of big things accomplished.
We have a great budget that we're working with. We got Act 15 done.
We were trying our very best to make sure all campuses are confined.
It was a heavy lift. And people worked tirelessly.
I mean, 60, 70 hours of work to make sure that we're in compliance.
And they're still very much worried. They want to make sure that all the eyes are dyed and the teasers are crossed.
As we look there, we're also looking forward to move ahead and in sync with the next leader,
that the board and that leader, not a silver of light, I think I'm quoting a past present, will get between us.
And that's what we need, because it is a difficult place to get changed as we all know.
We think that we've got a clear week and then we're throwing something, whether it's from the federal government
or something that we've got to accomplish. All hands on deck, okay, we'll put this over here.
But little by little, we're getting there and we're hoping that the next leader can really be transformative, energetic
and work with the board closely so we can accomplish more.
Thank you.
In August, I don't know that I heard the four or five other areas that President Rothman was the gamekeeper of
and I think some additional detail that would be helpful if it's available before we go to.
Sir, come up with a real quick question.
President Roth, was the gatekeeper a lot of things?
We did not like it when we talked to individual legislators and we had to report every time we talked to one of them,
but we said, I'm not a big fan of that. Maybe I did, maybe I kind of didn't.
In fairness to him, Act 15 did block everything out for about a year.
But what do we need to talk about? Here are other things we need to talk about.
And we haven't even gotten them on the list.
Well, they're concerned about dormitories.
Well, should we have dormitories?
Should dormitories be public? Should dormitories be private?
Should they be whatever?
So things can be, we didn't even get to talk about those things because they have considered third rail.
And quite frankly, they are third rail.
This is an example.
Their AI is third rail.
We've already read, yes, I read that book how to overcome your shyness.
And I'm willing to grab the third rail.
President Roth was just less likely to do that than any number of things.
He and I talked a lot as you might guess.
And I don't dislike him.
We just didn't see eye to eye on the speed of which you could move and any of the topics you could, in fact, move on.
We didn't want to upset the end.
Projectively, the end currently needs much better.
Senator R. C. G.
I have two questions here.
I'll let you call for it. Maybe you could help me out with this one.
And again, I like the detail.
I guess I'm stuck on it's him.
It's them.
Level by. I don't like that.
Right? I just bet.
So if this board actually met in closed session,
would Rothman be actually able to weigh confidentiality if he was in a closed session?
Is that possible if you're in a closed session? Can he do that?
Would he be able to do that?
Would he know facts from that closed session to be able to weight that?
I think he could communicate his own issues that he was discussing in the closed session.
He could disclose what he actually said and did.
But not what anybody else said or did or be able to say any sort of concerns that they had about him.
If it was in closed session.
Has it seemed, since I don't know, that the communications will really hesitate to venture?
It's a gray zone again, if we don't.
He has reasons that he can come up and say that he personally intends for reasons to come up in this circumstance.
I'll proceed with your reasons for me.
Gotcha.
Can I?
I'm sure you can.
Okay.
Possibly my last question that I would have here is, again, black and white.
I just like facts.
I kind of appreciate your style here.
I don't know if I'm as abrupt as you, but...
And I appreciate it, right?
But when we don't have facts, we get assumptions.
And very rarely do we assume those assumptions are in the positive, right?
They're usually in the negative.
I mean, sitting here and reading your non-verbals, girl, Fred, and I'm not taking them as the reading of the positive, okay?
Now we have our UW president who got booted, and we have our chancellor who's leaving.
When we think about what the general population in our country and the other universities are assuming because they don't have facts, I'm going to assume it's not in the positive.
Maybe I'm wrong.
But again, my intention is, what are the facts so that it can be clear so that people are not making negative assumptions about our flagship here?
And the Regents and the University as a whole.
Just something upon your, and consider, how does that look to the general folk?
In my opinion, it doesn't look good in the assumptions that I'm developing in my own little mind here because I have no facts, except for what you have provided.
Thank you for that.
As far as the UW Madison, maybe if I had a question on it, UW Madison Chancellor is leaving to take a position at home university.
She has left the flagship better than when she found it.
I have no doubts that when we begin the search, which we begin shortly, we will find an excellent leader for a flagship, which is key.
Our flagship is really the crown jewel.
And we take that doing very serious.
And I think that her leaving, and I think we will find many good people.
I mean, look at she's going to the top one, the top ideally leaves in our country.
And I think she's done so many wonderful things for the university.
As far as President Rothman, it's unfortunate that he chose this exit.
It's unfortunate that he's creating a narrative that has to be negative.
It doesn't have to be negative.
The past is the past.
He's done wonderful things, as I've said before.
He rited the ship for all our comprehensives, which has never been done.
We work together well in civil dialogue, and we're very excited about where it's headed.
I'm so proud of our 13 universities and how serious they're taking civil dialogue in free speech.
And we are all, every one of us, I can speak for the board, our proponents, all that is happening with this.
This is necessary.
More speech is better, right?
We all agree with that.
And I'm so proud that we've taken a lead, and the President's taken that lead.
I mean, people can assume things, but that's not up to us.
That's up to President Rothman.
If he wants to wave confidentiality, then he can do that, and we can talk about the personnel matters.
I mean, I think there's enough narrative out there from the positives, and the fact that we want to go forward with a leader for the future is really, to me, it's not a negative.
Everyone can create their own stories, but that's not on the regions.
We didn't want it that way.
It's unprecedented to determine how he wants the narrative.
So it's unfortunate, but here we are.
I'm just hoping we are looking at a negative block because of large departures.
If you haven't considered that, that would be shameful because now it should be.
I appreciate that.
And it's unfortunate in Regent and, I'm sorry, Mr. Rothman's tenure for various reasons.
We've lost 10 chancellors, right?
We don't want that.
We want stability.
We want to bring stability back.
And if you look around the country, again, higher education is a big change.
Chancellors, presidents, these are really difficult jobs.
It wasn't like it was 10, 15 years ago when they don't have issues that are so controversial.
Everyone's under a magnifying glass.
And these jobs for these people at such a high level, there's burnout.
And they're hard.
They're under the government 24-7.
So for whatever reason that the public assumes, these jobs are really tough.
And I think we have a lot of good people that we will find to replace both Mr. Rothman and
Chancellor Mannehkin.
I am very confident.
A couple of points to raise on that.
In addition to leaving for Columbia, it's going to make $3 million there.
She makes $1 million here.
We also had Chancellor Schmitt leave Eau Claire and he had a really good bump when he went
to James Madison.
And I'm going to say this, the $600,000 we paid President Rothman.
It's nice of him to accept that that's not a market salary for a system this size.
You can look around and just say, but that's where we are.
One of the things that President Rothman and I frequently put it heads on was open meetings.
He firmly believed in closed meetings and he also believed in briefing us individually
in small groups so that we didn't have these public discussions about things.
I am a huge, I was an municipal official for 20-some years.
Open meetings don't bother me.
I lived with them.
I ran a village.
I ran a water utility.
They are what they are.
You just follow the law.
But when you're using it to try and keep people from discussing what is going on, that's
another reason why we look so opaque.
It's just because you can go into a closed session.
Doesn't mean you have to.
You are given the opportunity by statute.
And I think we have way too many closed sessions.
And I think our little side briefings, I always say those because of the major purposes.
So it wasn't publicly discussed to have meeting.
And I just think that's inappropriate enough.
And his favor, what he used to tell me was, I don't want to agitate individual legislators.
I don't want to agitate individual campuses.
I don't want to agitate by them hearing this.
And meeting.
And I'm going, isn't that?
You guys do that when you talk about stuff, don't you agitate?
If you hold when you talk about the law, you're going to do that.
Yes.
These means dial charges.
Yes.
So that's another thing I agree with you.
I am not a fan of closed meetings.
The university has too many.
Not because they're not legal.
Okay, because I made sure that if we go, this is one of the places.
If we start veering off what we said we're going to discuss,
I'm the one that raises my hand and go, excuse me.
And so this is a general constant now.
This is off topic.
Okay.
But we still have too many of them.
We need to be more transparent for you and for the public.
I'm not ashamed of them.
Is it controversial?
Oh, God.
You're doing it.
You know, Benjamin Franklin said, someone in public life where no one angry at them needs to be ashamed.
Okay.
I mean, you're not doing something.
So that would be another point of philosophical disagreement.
President Roth would not talk the lie.
Okay.
Can I ask a follow-up question?
I'll get to you.
I promise.
Oh, wait a minute.
Sir, you were there first?
Okay.
I'll just finish my comment a little quickly.
Let's see.
Again, you really, really know things that President Rothman was not in support of or not needing to charge with or for.
You've mentioned, again, a couple of specific others, but a little bit more vague.
Can you kind of walk us through a process of, was there, were there meetings, review meetings, performance meetings with President Rothman around those areas that you found him to be insufficient
or counter to what you were trying to accomplish?
Were those meetings in private?
Were they open meetings?
Were they documented meetings?
Are there documents that, as a board, we can have access to just to, again, behind the scenes of how this fall some have played out?
The University of New York, I'm sorry.
I'll just, because I was, I will just tell you that, and I think this has been in my statement before, and I don't know if this is helpful to repeat this, but the President of the Board is tasked with the, it's in policy that we are tasked with giving an annual evaluation to the President.
This is nothing new.
It's been going on forever, and that was done.
And there were things that, you know, he was tasked with, and he had gone into some closed sessions about his personal evaluation, because it was, when it first happened, it was me, the President, and our Vice President, Kyle Weatherly, that did the evaluation.
We gave him that information.
We had further talks and closed session about his personal evaluation, and then, you may or may not be aware, there was many, many discussions with individual members, with President Rothman, as time went on.
So, unfortunately, the evaluation was done, you know, all personal evaluations are done this way, in confidence, and that's the way I was told to conduct it, that's the way I did conduct it, and spent dozens and dozens of hours doing the evaluation, and a lot of things sent from that, and has further performances we went forward.
So, again, I apologize, but it is confidential, those things that came out.
I know President Rothman was very well aware of all those things, so.
Well, I'll say that the system is obsessive about not making public matters.
President Rothman and I had a discussion one time, and I was a little annoyed, but I didn't remember the topic.
I sent him an email, and his response was, do you understand that's a public record now, and I go, yeah, I don't remember the topic, but there's an example.
And the reason he used to give, because this was a discussion, and I got over and over and over again, all you're going to do is upset the separate constituencies.
Okay, that's, I'm not saying he's wrong, that's probably true, but to me, that's what comes about the territory.
I don't know, that's the way I looked at it, but I spent 20-some years as an additional official, I used to.
And to be fair, to Mr. Rothman, there are many things that happen in a system that are hard for the campuses, and hard for constituents, and hard for legislators,
and so I think he was, he was, a lot of the times, he was just trying to be respectful to the other public, because there are many things that are discussed, as you all know, that are very difficult,
and hard things that we need to do, that are very difficult. So, it's a balance, and it's really difficult to get the right balance.
Okay, can I quickly ask, were those performance reviews, how long performance we used it, or something different?
If they were reviewed by the overall Board of Regents, and I guess agreed to, in that regard, those were presented to, then President Rothman, either verbally or in writing,
again, is there a policy about those documents being and writing that he signs in consideration of the review given, or how does that necessarily play out?
No, there's nothing that he signs. It was a discussion that was had, the initial discussion with both Kyle Weatherly, the Vice President and myself,
the results of my, the process that we went through with the evaluation, and all the various stakeholders that we talked to.
That was the first initial stages, and then it was my duty, and my fiduciary duty, to let the full board know the results of that conversation,
and then we went into closed session with Mr. Rothman, and then to try to push it along,
there were, and there were further discussions that were fought between other members of the board, discussing these with them.
And those other discussions were reasons for, in the same vein of other concerns the Board of Large had, or were those individual concerns that those reasons were identified, or speaking into?
Sorry, that, yeah, I'm glad I should need to be clarified. It was all stemming from the evaluation and issues that were identified going forward.
It wasn't individual members kind of piling on their own opinion.
No, Frank, I'm sorry.
That would be the case, but I'm just going to encourage you.
I apologize, yeah.
Thank you.
And one thing that people tell you, and there's some fluid in each of this, is that when he was talking to us, sometimes it wasn't clear whether, in fact,
you see, in my state, that I'm only responsible for what I say that she's not.
It wasn't always clear whether discussions were a group, a majority.
You know, we can't have a rolling forum on voting, so we really don't know what's going on.
But in fairness to, yes, sometimes we're speaking for more than one person, sometimes we're speaking for ourselves.
So that's in fairness to you.
Anybody have been confused?
Yes.
Thank you both.
Appreciate the answer.
Someone's questions?
I know we've got a list.
So our gaffers are a large, so I'm not sure who was first.
So that you guys aren't going to solve work.
I'll be real quick.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to thank you both for being here.
Thank you for your readership.
I appreciate it.
I know it's not easy to be here.
You've worked very hard.
Mr. Nixon, in your testimony, you write his command and control management style.
Now, you went on to talk about how that was needed during the financial and operational
discipline to an organization.
My question to you is this.
What's that?
Command and control management style?
Did that stifle conversation among you and your colleagues in the work?
Not for the issue.
Well, later on, but not for the issues that he was using it for, where it was really effective.
Where we had campuses that were running structural deficits for years, where they had too many
people that go down that list.
That's something that you just don't go up to.
People go, hey, do you want to cut your budget?
You've got to go in and you've got to say, excuse me, but you must do these things.
I'll tell you where it does get a little stifling is where if any of us talk to a chancellor,
they're supposed to call him and then he's talking to me of you or something, it got a little,
you know, where he wanted to make sure he knew everything, and you can't know everything
when you're managing a $8 billion organization.
Maybe he could, but I just say overall.
So it's that kind of thing.
Oh, you talk to someone, so the idea.
You talk to the speaker.
Yes, I talk to the speaker.
That sort of thing.
It was sometimes Python, but I want to be clear.
It was an absolutely necessary way of doing things, because people just don't have their
budgets by the means of dollars.
They don't let people go voluntarily.
They don't.
So when we were in that process, that was extremely beneficial.
Would you identify that man who style is top-down?
Or would you identify that style as bottom-up?
It's distinctly top-down.
And again, depending on what you're trying to do, that was the kind of point I was trying
to make at the end of the quarterback.
It depends on what you're trying to do, right?
Sometimes you need a top-down command to control structure.
What exactly does it want?
A top-down management aspect.
Who the heck wants?
Governor doesn't want to listen to you.
He doesn't want to listen to us if that creates the above.
That's a natural tension that exists, but it exists for a reason.
It exists for a reason, so we're trying to get a good decision.
But that management style is what brought fiscal sense.
I understand.
I'm asking about these five things that you've identified.
It's not helpful.
So I'd like to hear from you.
How is it not helpful when you're trying to move the UW system forward?
I do appreciate this financial management.
We've crossed that bridge.
We now are talking about moving forward for state of Wisconsin.
We need to have these discussions at the board level by board of regents.
And where are you?
No.
And why were you not?
I thought you were not.
In my view, we were not having the discussions that we should have had about the major issues.
For instance, let's talk about AI for a second.
We had a meeting where half the day was spent, what I call a dog and pony show.
Because we had been saying we needed a meeting on the AI guidelines.
We needed one.
Half the day was a dog and pony show about the truly great things happening at all our campuses.
Nobody questioned that.
But they're doing it without any guardrails or guidelines or consideration by the board of regents.
And I am a big believer in letting the campuses be creative and do great things.
That's for the strength.
The strength is not a board of regents.
The strength is not in the system.
You've got to let them bet you.
But we're supposed to, just like you are, in this committee, you're supposed to provide some oversight and some guidance.
We are too.
In those kinds of situations, there was a reluctance.
And it was wanting to control the entire process for beginning to end rather than letting us know.
Sometimes make mistakes.
I'm sure this committee has never made a mistake.
The board of regents then might have a couple of times.
Don't contest that.
But really, you've got to have some public discussion on these issues.
And not to put words.
Thank you.
No, you can try.
No, no, not to put words in your mouth.
Board President.
But did you, did you two feel that there was a command and control management style of the fathers moving forward on innovation in the UW system?
I do believe that.
And I think there are many reasons, again, many that I can't discuss.
But I think when you're under a lot of pressure in this position, sometimes thought is given that perhaps that's the best way to go about things.
And the board, I think, didn't find it the most helpful.
And, again, I have no further questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you both for your dedication.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Senator.
Senator Larson.
Thank you.
And again, thank you both for your service.
It's a follow up for the last question I asked.
You're doing the roles that you're doing.
And you bring us to our stage.
Actually, at the end of the day, too.
Yeah.
So, as we are turning the page, there is a sense of what went not as well.
And so, as we are moving forward, you are moving forward.
What can the legislature do to make sure that our universities are as successful as possible in recruiting,
quality chancellors, retaining quality chancellors,
and bringing in a new system precedent that is going to be responsive to the needs of students
and to the citizens of Wisconsin and to faculty and to everybody who interacts with our state's largest employers.
That's a good question.
You almost have a good question, but that was a good one.
Thank you, Senator Larson.
I'll start.
Excellent question.
I think that as we move forward into the future, and I apologize if I alluded to that this is divisiveness.
That's not what I was referring to, and I'm sorry.
I really appreciate all of you in having this discussion,
because I think what we need to make clear to everyone in this entire state is how much we all value the universities.
And I know that when I talk of conversations with everyone, legislators on both sides of the aisle,
people that I have nothing in common with.
When you bring up the University of Wisconsin, there's pride.
And I don't think the system, the universities itself, has done a very good job in bragging about all the incredible things that we've done.
And we continue to do, and I think that if we get the messaging out there together, we are what makes the state run.
The Wisconsin idea is so near and dear to so many of us that the opportunity to have knowledge in the classroom
turns out to the state and the peoples and the people of the state and beyond.
That is what we're here for, right?
We're here for that knowledge and everywhere beyond not just our country, but the world.
I mean, we are valued because of the Wisconsin idea and all of them we accomplish.
And the benefits that we receive from this university, and I think we have to give back to that.
We have to give back to how important it is for educating our people of the state and not talking just 18-year-olds.
I'm talking about everyone.
And I want more, I think, than we've had this great initiative at the universities just recently,
where the wonderful credit union has given money so we can have online courses for anybody in the state.
I think there's nine different courses for AI.
I mean, it's wonderful that you know, on there now, like, you'll see all sorts of other universities trying to get in.
This is free for our citizens.
That's what we're here for, and I think going forward in a leader, we want someone to see the future.
I'm someone that can bring us to where we can get the resources that we need for our students and our faculty and our staff.
And they're so deserving.
I mean, when I spend time with students on the campuses, I sort of probably leave, but I was up at UW River Falls.
And I was meeting with D3 students' athletes.
And it just amazed me.
Their dedication, I talked to one kid, grew up on a farm up there.
And he was so thrilled that he got to play football at River Falls.
And you know how well their team has done.
And he was so excited that he got to talk to me.
He didn't even know what her region was.
But that I am listening to him.
He told me his daily schedule of when he would get up at four o'clock in the morning, he'd go and work out.
Then he would go to his job at a diner, working so hard.
His family didn't have the money to send him.
And then he'd go back to practice, and he'd go to class, and then he'd go back to work, and then back to practice.
And I was embarrassed because I started to cry.
I mean it was unbelievable, the dedication of our students and our faculty, and what they want to better their features,
and the futures of their children, and to make their families proud, and those around them.
That's why we're all here.
So, you know, maybe I'm looking for a unicorn and a president.
I don't know, but someone that sees the full vision and what we're all here for that can make bold decisions
along with the Board of Regents.
I mean, for me to have a successful president and a successful board, we move in sync.
We move in sync, whether there are disagreements below, underneath, in closed session.
We move together as one choice, because we have one mission.
And that's what I'm hoping for.
I think your question was the legislature.
Didn't you ask what the legislature could do?
Did I understand the question?
Whoever asked the question.
Part of it.
Yeah, what the legislature could do.
Sure.
Here's a couple of things you need to think about.
Okay.
Number one, you need to understand we're competing on the national level for talent.
Okay.
So, we're talking like the fusion.
We're getting close to fusion here in Wisconsin.
Pretty interesting.
But, you know, we got to pay what they would make at MIT, all those places.
We've got to be able to pay them that money.
The other thing is, I'm worried about becoming the fire team for university leaders.
Okay.
You know, we grow these people, but because of what we pay them relative to what the market is elsewhere.
Now, you can say they're paying too much.
I'd be paying nothing.
So, let me go back there.
But if you use that same logic, you should be Jordan Law of $600,000 because he's in Green Bay.
Okay.
You've got to compete in the market, you're in.
So, you need to be aware of that.
What you let us do and what you fund for us, that's up to you.
You are the elected officials.
That's sort of number one.
Number two is I would really like legislators to go visit campuses because the sense I get
is that to a number of legislators, they're Mr. Potato Hands.
They're all potatoes, but a few have different hands and different ears and stuff.
When you go to the campuses, you understand their unique qualities and what they do.
And by the way, if you're getting a little down and you want to get kind of pumped up,
you're going to talk to these kids and these faculty members.
And if you're thinking you're having a bad day, that'll help.
But to understand that you need this, and that's the other thing we're pushing toward,
is each campus sort of having a specialty, but then everybody's got to teach childcare.
Everybody's got to teach teachers.
So, I would like legislators to be aware that we compete in a particularly medicine.
It competes in a national market for talent.
And you've got to pay whatever that market gets, whether you like it or not.
The other thing is I would like legislators to the extent they don't.
The number you do, go and visit individual campuses and see what's on those campuses.
Talk to those students.
Talk to those staff.
Talk to those faculty because it helps bring it real.
I know question anybody's good faith here.
I just simply don't.
I think people have to put themselves forward in public life and public service are in that faith.
What we're disagreeing about sometimes is how to do things.
I would like conversations with legislators personally.
I know I have talked to Vice Chair.
I've been to your office.
You may not remember.
Well, I remember you.
Most people do.
I am hired as well.
I talk to the speaker every year before the past two years.
I've known to talk to the speaker and I said, what are your legislative priorities?
I want to know.
I've actually suggested bringing legislative leaders in to meet with the Board of Regents,
but that was something else that was not met with.
I'm honored.
Okay.
If we actually invite you.
So we can keep this die a lot ago because we want the same things.
I think we want the same things.
As far as I can tell, how to get there I think is where we're running up against the rub.
And I kind of wish this never would have happened.
But hey, we can't.
So we're all going to deal with it and I understand why you're asking me the questions.
A little question.
Yes, I got a couple here.
I got more down this.
Senator Larson has made clear.
So when you talk about earlier transformative leaders, I would just say as we look at the
budget, I've drawn some things down here.
We have $250 million in new revenue that was brought in the last budget.
We got $50 million in GPR for the athletic facility.
We got legislation that NIL just in the last floor session got over the final little bit
there.
That was a close one and it was close, but it got there.
Healthcare related wise, I mean numerous buildings for healthcare.
Hundreds of millions of dollars for healthcare.
I think he did some pretty amazing things and was transformative in regards to getting
things within this budget and policy.
I was a little bit kind of boned after that budget was passed that then there was a 5%
increase amongst tuition.
And recently I just heard that there's a possible another 2% increase in tuition.
I guess my question is, is that correct?
I'm kind of curious because we're thinking transformative leaders.
I think he's done some pretty amazing things here and still there was an increase and now
again another potential increase.
You know, it's pretty contentious in this building at times.
And when this gentleman did come to the office and we worked through some of this stuff,
it's a rough atmosphere to be in here.
So as you are looking for somebody to fill this place, I hope that there's some sort
of demeanor that Rothman had that is able to work across party lines and actually get things
done because in this building we talk a lot and a lot doesn't be done.
It's frustrating and you don't even get to do it.
It's not just one person.
It's many things that come together.
But I hope that as you find a transformative person, whoever that might be, that these
discussions and this policy continue to be worked on and not just one side or another.
And then I will just add here that, you know, I appreciate all the info that you have
provided here today.
And as we talk about transformative kind of leadership, I look for not the great plot.
Just get to the point, tell me what it is and let's get it done.
I hope that when you go back and speak with your regions that you are not in some way
punished for the things that you have discussed here today and that folks continue to support
you on your board there because, again, I hope that this has been a productive conversation
that's not punitive in any way towards you, sir.
There's a reason you've both sent it.
It should make people tell us a different style here.
I just hope that it continues to be productive and nobody is silenced.
That's all.
But two percent increases.
I've heard that is that coming this way.
I will try to answer.
I know you mentioned Mr. Rothman being, um, advocating for the universities.
Absolutely advocated for us and I am so pleased that he really went in there and advocated
along with many other people from the system and from the campuses and it was a group effort.
It was a group effort and in the end, so pleased that both the legislature and our governor
I have done.
I mean, this is the governor's budget and the compromises that were made in the end
benefited us greatly and we are very, very grateful for that.
Um, I think as far as Mr. Rothman, I think, you know, as any good leader should do,
he relied on many other people to get it done as well.
So we are grateful for that and as far as the tuition increase, um, you know, for example what we need.
I have heard many times from the wonderful Chancellor Media at La Crosse who says,
we have a demographic clip and I just tour the campus again.
I try to go to the campuses often.
We have a demographic clip but I've got kids that I can't take and got students that are applying
and he showed me, of course I always like to show me the terror, like the nightmare of buildings
that you see with the wires coming down.
But this was a dorm.
He's like, I don't have no place to put that.
I would love to take more students and so it seems like building, building, building,
but when we want our campuses to grow, you can't put them, you know, can't let them put them intense.
So that's just one example of moving forward but 2% increase as far as an increase in tuition.
We have to consider the budgets.
It's, you know, we're looking at everything right now that is nothing right in stone.
This is just out there.
I don't know if it's going to happen.
We really have to kind of drill down into what the campuses need, talk to all the campuses.
And that's where we're at right now.
So potentially a 7% increase.
No, no, no.
If I'm after the budget and now another 2, that would be set.
That is, right now, there's no tuition increase right now.
We're looking at what the campuses need and seeing if we can move forward.
That's where it's at.
We've had discussions with Mr. Rothman as well, bringing it to us, trying to figure out
can we move forward without it?
What can we do here?
How can we kind of close the gap here?
So there's current discussions but it hasn't been solidified.
Right.
Please keep that in mind though.
That does have a 7% increase within a very short period of time.
I'm checking that right now because that's not my understanding.
So let me turn this into clarification.
Yes, no.
I know you are.
So am I.
There you go.
Thank you.
Or, President, I've got a few questions that I would just like to follow up with you on
if I may.
Questions that I thought of that I thought were just important.
It's a part of our discussion specific to the hiring of Jay Rothman.
I'm just going to read up to you since we're a little bit long and if I need to read them
to you as well.
I appreciate all the discussion around what we should be doing for universities and all
the positive things that we need to be moving forward on.
Unfortunately, this hearing is really specific to the understanding of the process with Jay
Rothman and our understanding of it.
Just because I think we need to have it where does it be if we need to be concerned about
what President looks like as well as best practices relative to individuals that will
employees in this case and are dismissed.
But you indicated that there was a clear evaluation with President Rothman relative
to his performance.
Suggestions made around improvements that the board or you was the board president were
asking him to take on.
A little bit of a redundant again, but can you clarify whether that discussion and that
that additional request for improvements was put in writing and was documented in
support of his employment or employee file and if so, is that documents available to
us as a committee to have access to?
I appreciate the question again.
The way that all of these are conducted just as Mr. Rothman had done with other
employees is that I took copious notes that I didn't share with anyone.
I mean, I was trying to find my notes and I never shared those with anyone on purpose
because that's what I was told how to conduct the evaluation.
It made it a lot more difficult for me to conduct this evaluation because I did sit there
and talk to so many constituents, chances, regions, other stakeholders and ask them the
same questions over and over again.
And it took notes and when I gave Mr. Rothman that evaluation, I was reading from my notes.
I was told that I could not make any record, that that was not okay.
Personnel evaluations are always conducted that way.
So unfortunately, I am unable to share those.
Can I just interrupt quickly, just ask who advised you of your ability to documents or anything
writing, which is for a call?
Right.
Well, besides the fact that I knew that was all the way that had been done that way but also
the general counsel and Mr. Rothman.
So that's the way I conducted it.
And believe me, I would love to have done it in a different way because it would have been,
it would have saved me a lot of time.
So you took quite a few personal notes as you were formulating your evaluation as you were
to talk to several people to gather their thoughts and opinions.
Totally understood.
So you had a lot of your own personal copies notes on that.
But we don't in terms of best practices.
Currently the system has a means for however that evaluation is constructed for that to be
transferred into a formal document.
Right.
Yeah.
He then reviews, agrees, tortoise agrees to, sends off on and is in a permanent place for
that ongoing litigation that doesn't exist today.
Is that what I understand we're saying?
Yes.
I probably don't remember this.
I don't know if general counsel had him sign off.
I don't remember that.
I apologize.
Now that you're saying that, I don't know if he signs off that we didn't evaluate or not.
I can find out.
I didn't think he did, but I'm just not positive.
I don't know.
I think, I mean, obviously he acknowledged it and there are ongoing discussions.
But I don't know if there's anything.
I mean, nothing written down of what was in the evaluation.
But as far as confirming that one was done.
Honestly, I don't remember that.
I apologize for that.
I can get back to you.
I will definitely get back to you.
I appreciate that.
If you mentioned you obviously took several of your own notes in preparation for that evaluation,
are those notes still accessible and available to this committee if so requested?
They're not available because they're considered confidential.
And I never, I shared it with them orally, but I never shared it with anybody else.
I don't know if it would, it would, the way that I write.
I don't know what that would be.
I mean, again, if Mr. Rothman wave his confidentiality, I'll try to look at my notes and go further with you.
Sure.
I'd be happy to do so.
Okay.
Thank you.
Just a couple of other questions if I may.
I know you, you, you refer to several good fake discussions with Jay Rothman, a set of what those may be or, or not.
Were you in a position where based on those discussions, you were able to document the, just to cover the basis for the regions,
cover the dates and times of those discussions and have anything formally as followed and writing to those discussions that we've given to Jay to say,
based on the discussion we had yesterday at 2pm, here's a summary of what we did discuss.
Please review it to make sure that we're in agreement to what those discussions were in terms of some formal document there again that was signed or at least provided to him.
He was, he never received a document, but he received the, the summary of the evaluation.
I want to say numerous times.
I mean, there were certain things asked of him and he was repeated to him by me.
And by the boarding flow session, and then again by other members of the Lord.
So, we don't have any documentation of that.
I can try to figure out the dates and I think we have records of the flow session, of when the dates of the flow sessions were.
And there's shortly after the evaluation, I know him and I also met with his cheapest app to go over those.
It was, I want to say five days later.
And I can try to look at my calendar and see what those dates were, but I apologize that there were nobody who knows.
Sorry for that.
And not being critical to you or anybody, but maybe a little bit concerning regarding the process.
Those were pretty high stakes.
We're talking about the UW system and leadership across the board.
That's a lot of good memories.
Don't necessarily make up for things being documented.
Sure.
In my case, I would concur with that as well.
So, we'll be able to determine the terms of best practices.
You folks are in the legal business for a lot of good reasons that we haven't applied some of those disciplines within the UW systems.
It relates to key employee ease.
Again, just is shut to pricing to me.
I think that's kind of where we're at in that regard.
That's what leads to a lot of verbal hearsay.
And he said she said, I believe that President Rothman has been clear that in those discussions that there was no mention of potential termination if so and so didn't happen or it wasn't going to happen.
Was that the case?
Wasn't the case?
We really don't know because that may have just been verbal discussion with you.
He, appropriately so, I don't think anything documented that said, here's actually took place just from good governance but also from a legal perspective.
And I agree with you.
And the way things are done is very difficult.
We are very public facing board.
I think it's the most public facing board in the state.
And I do agree with you.
It made it much more difficult for me.
But I think these were said over and over again.
And because of that, it's the fact that the board lost confidence.
And that's really truly what was the outcome.
But no, it's absolutely something that we need to reevaluate and see how we can proceed further.
This is something that's been done over and over again.
I know many areas of employment, you know, an outflow employee and personnel evaluations are always confidential.
But because we are such a public facing board, maybe perhaps there is a better way to do it.
So, I appreciate that.
Yeah.
Well, thank you.
Appreciate if you back on there.
Again, I know there continues to be, unfortunately, is reflecting fully on the regions in this case.
In terms of comments made publicly or privately regarding what was but communicated as relates to a lead up to the actual termination.
Again, I think it would be helpful for folks that are in our roles of fiduciary responsibility on behalf of taxpayers.
And I don't know about my colleagues, but I've certainly received enough communication from residents in my district
around the state that are huge, huge advocates for UW,
but are concerned about this process and how it played out and why it played out.
I think those taxpayers demand transparency and answers to that.
Hopefully, are available in a form that can be big public because there's written documentation for the facts,
which is all I think we'd all want to see.
And the answers to those facts.
So, appreciate your thoughts and comments on that in terms of public played out.
Hopefully, we can't figure out going forward truly what best practices should look like in that case in every regard.
Is it a fair statement to say that without going back to specific dates or years
that there were evaluations done with then-President Rothman
that were very affirming and very positive based on the work that he was doing and had been doing?
Again, no flows are in writing or not.
I think those would be helpful to see as well.
Because I think my takeaway based on all the good feedback and discussion that we've had
is you certainly give proper recognition to President Rothman for a lot of the great things he did do
and a lot of the issues that he did lead and push forward.
Where those evaluations clear in his mind is to jump well done.
We really appreciate what you're doing.
We can do a support of the world for taking us down.
And it cannot be found somewhere in terms of just the base relationship between President Rothman and the board.
Because at some point in time it appears that there was a quick veer to the left or quick veer to the right
that what he was and had been doing changed and what he wasn't doing going forward became unacceptable to the board.
And again, I'm phrasing that as I'm phrasing it.
I mean, if he has that really said, but something happened at some point that he went from being a board
president that was, I'm sorry, a systems president that was highly supported by the board
to a systems president that was very unsupported by the board for like a better way of saying it
that ultimately led to his firing by the United States Board.
And I'm just, again, I know some of those things have been alluded to.
It would be, I think, really beneficial for the systems to have a track record of what that was and why.
It could be for very legitimate reasons, obviously.
Don't doubt that or question that.
But the process for which that was done, again, is somewhat concerning.
And just wondering if you can, kind of, what a thousand foot view, kind of modified and effective,
what was very supportive in terms of physics Rothman's accomplishments on the board.
At some point became very unsupportive and was that just out of the field or was that a growing set
and over time because there were hypothetically twenty initiatives that the board really felt like
we could get done that weren't, or was as they slow, we just don't see this moving in the right direction type,
decision by the board.
I just want to clarify something.
When I gave Mr. Rothman his review, I did, it was really difficult, somewhat of a 360 review.
And as Mr. Rothman, his own words, when he has said publicly in media, I've given hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of evaluations.
He would tell us all the time, you've got to give at least four positives to every negative.
Okay?
And I was very certain of myself that I did that.
I gave him many positives to, you know, at least four or five.
And my vice president and I thought we had that covered, that we pointed out the positives and where we were happy with, but then the negatives came.
And he was very disheartened by those and very upset by that.
And I was surprised how upset he was by that.
These are things that we tried to work on.
It was not sudden.
And Mr. Rothman knows that.
It was ongoing situations that we had in many discussions with him about.
And I didn't want to pile on, so of course there are many positive things that are happening.
So it's, you know, in any good review, you do want to say the positives, and we all felt confident that there are positive things.
But there are many things as we move forward together that we needed him to work on.
And that's where we got stuck.
And again, this was not overnight.
It was a process that was going on, and on, until the board completely, every one of us lost confidence.
And as opposed to the board.
Let me suggest that we were caught by circumstances.
Both Mr. Rothman and the board.
I first got on the board in May of 2024.
The word was, for God's sake, the extent that you're not shut, because we're in a budget negotiation.
Don't raise any of this stuff.
Don't talk about it.
We're negotiating a budget, so don't raise this stuff.
Okay, fine.
We're in a budget negotiation.
I'm not going to raise this stuff.
I'll be good, but that's really hard for me.
Then, when you passed Act 15, and we went to enforce it, and I am, I liked some things in Act 15.
This would get me in trouble, but I did like some things in Act 15.
That took an inordinate amount of time, so for the period that the budget was in process in Act 15,
anything that was sort of boat rocking was pushed aside.
Okay, so I'm thinking about what you're saying, so it's kind of like that's sort of what happened.
We were not probably talking about a lot of things, because we were trying not to rock the boat.
And then we were trying to implement Act 15 without a folder phone.
Okay, but both of those things were done now.
And so now these things have, you're right, they have sort of stacked up over time, and now they're there.
And in fairness, the President often asked us, I kind of think that's a bit of what happened here,
was, you know, at least for me I know that they asked me not to say things out loud, and I didn't.
Oh, by the way, may I address the vice chair?
Quickly, two percent is being proposed and talked about what's not locked in, it is not seven percent.
It was five percent, not, if you want to add.
That's what I'd say.
And if you're getting back to, yeah, we're doing, we're proposing, or they are proposing,
it hasn't been presented to some of those things.
And we've got these little round drop-in discussions where you bring in two regions of the time,
and then you brief them so you don't have to, you know, go through the thing with everybody.
There are other things that we're throwing around as well, though, and whether we do it or not.
Yeah, so it's in the discovery of what we're looking at.
Yeah, it's under discussion, not been brought to us yet.
So it's not been proposed to us yet.
I just, you know, as somebody that used to teach at UW Oshkosh, as a student at UW Oshkosh, UW Milwaukee,
I mean, it's a big deal.
Affordability is a big deal.
So we talk about a transformative leader and we talk about keeping those tuition costs down.
Hey, there was a lot of money in the last budget, current budget, five percent shortly after another two percent,
and I've had people reach out to me.
We could talk about that.
We had 579 employees that we talked about there.
We could come in.
They had it very proud.
Save that two percent.
I bet you could cut four percent.
But 579 people are a lot of people that we don't need, and we only need 50.
Well, that's just where we're going to start.
Just throw that out there.
I'm not going to count on those.
We have one of the lowest positions in the Big Ten, and still, seven percent is a lot in two years.
In addition, it was all this entire country that I'll look to this and say, you know, when I was in school,
it was much higher percentage from the state.
I was very, very happy because I couldn't afford it.
I still had to take loans out, but I look at what I paid and what's being paid by the students now.
It's a tremendous difference.
So I would love to work together to figure out ways to make it more affordable, where we keep quality education.
You just can't keep cutting, where students lose out.
So, just an observation.
Yeah, worthy one, for sure.
Board President, can you speak to, and certainly reach this as well, the strategic vision that the board,
the presuming can put together in 2022.
Again, presuming is all encompassing in terms of the system in general.
Is that strategic vision, if you will, still in place?
And did it come out of a broader discussion with the board of Regents, in terms of who is driving that
division?
Can you speak to President Rothman's involvement with the lack thereof?
How that vision started, hopefully, by person agreement in that regard?
And are we still kind of running on that same strategic vision?
And is there copies of that somewhere that the board reviews consistently?
And is that something that's available to us as a committee also?
I believe it's available.
I'm sure it is.
I mean, I will definitely check and get it to you as soon as I can.
I mean, that was in 2022.
I think one of President, Mr. Rothman's first jobs in duties was to do the strategic plan.
And I think he went to work right away.
I think he brought in constituencies for that 2022 plan.
I think one of the issues was the board is brought in on the later side of things.
We all talked about it.
And I think that we all went far with it.
But now, of course, as you know, things move so fast, change so fast.
Some of that strategic vision was carried out.
Some of it really didn't make sense because things were changing so quickly.
I don't have it.
I apologize.
I can't answer completely because I don't have it in front of me to tell you what we carried out.
We didn't carry out.
But part of it going forward is that we're trying to come up with what is needed at this moment
in time, which is different from what happened in 2022.
So, but I will get you.
I know we have it.
First time.
I appreciate that.
At the young boys, we know all these documents are fluid and for changing because sometimes
she's rubbish.
So keeping those up to date and current are always a challenge.
I would just say that part of the formula tell me this is not true.
But my understanding as part of the formula of how much is charged for tuition is dictated
by how much you get from the state and how much we support our institution.
And I believe that percentage has been in a state fine.
I know that having conversations across generations, there was folks who were paying nothing to
go to school or could afford to cover tuition by working a couple of weeks.
I just did the math.
It would require, I believe, 38 weeks of working a 40 hour week and then I would like to cover
a year's tuition.
So the idea of working to cover tuition has grown out of the region.
I believe a lot of that has become the state's dedication to the universities.
As a percentage of where they're getting the revenue from has been steady decline.
Is that correct?
That is correct.
I mean, I think that it's very fair to say that all our campuses have food pantries.
There's a lot of food insecurity because they want to go to school and they don't have enough.
They don't make enough of their jobs and many of them work.
And also, you know, I know a couple students, friends of my daughter, that lived in their
first year.
I mean, housing is enormously expensive.
I don't care what campus you're talking about.
It's very, very expensive.
I mean, it's not just here in our state.
All of you are very well aware.
I mean, housing is extremely expensive.
Food has gone up enormously.
I mean, I know the grocery store and I'm in shock.
So for students to be able to eat themselves by books, it's enormous.
So when we talk about Pell Grants or tuition remission, we're not talking about housing.
We're not talking about food.
We're not talking of just existing, right?
I mean, families can't afford this.
I'm making their parents or they have both parents, one parent, one guardian making a minimum wage,
working two jobs.
That's the state of our country right now.
We're committed to trying to help address that, to make sure it's accessible to more folks,
to make sure that we're not keeping in knowledge, keeping education, right?
It's very, very...
Which is to make sure that we have a smart population, which is the Wisconsin idea,
and the reason we have public education is to have smart neighbors.
And I just want to add that, you know, one of the biggest populations from this area,
right?
And to me, that's very, very sad, because when we're offered a job at Jiffy Louvre with a $1,000 sign-on bonus,
that looks pretty good to you, right?
And to not have the support of our state to help those people makes me sad.
And I know that many of them would rather go.
And even I know friends of friends that are having a tough time trying to make a go of it,
and it would be great to have that support.
So, thank you.
Is there a CG?
Just leave it like that, right?
You want me just to smile and just...
It's the main goal that's there for me.
But it's pass lunch, but if you want to...
This is the second vacation, so...
I know, I see the tan!
I see the tan!
We're on a sign.
I think that we worked very hard in the last budget.
We're not going to sit here and debate that.
We're not going to.
But I thought very hard for hundreds of millions of dollars for health care buildings.
And what you're telling me right now is that maybe shouldn't have been our focus.
It should have been more focused in other areas.
I don't know where the solutions are, but I do know nothing is for free.
And as we talk about increasing of tuition possibly again,
as we talk about compensating that through tax dollars, nothing is free.
I hope that all of you guys can work together as well as the individuals in this building to find a right number.
But again, you know, you brought up 579 employees.
I mean, that's a lot of bucks.
A lot of bucks.
So as we talk about it in a responsible fashion,
I just hope that for the people of Wisconsin that utilize our programs,
that we can find a great solution.
And I don't know what that is offhand.
Right?
I mean, that's part of the discussion.
Is it the 2%?
Is it, you know, increase in funds from the taxpayer of COTS that we have here?
I don't know what that is.
What I know is that costs continue to increase, which is concerning on many levels.
I mean, I can tell you my sad story about my time attending at UW schools
and the other schools that I've attended also, right?
Makes us stronger in the end when we make it through and then we are successful.
But I would just say as a whole, I hope that there will be continued productive discussions
with your transformative leader, whoever that might be, to address these issues
that our taxpayer base isn't the lead and our students aren't the lead.
But you've given two examples today of things that need to change.
And I will not forget 579.
I will continue to bring it up every opportunity because now I think we can get down to 529
and all of that money that goes to those 529 other people can possibly go to the pockets of our students.
Mr. Rothman has never admitted that 579 is the Roth number.
Whatever number it is, we can get down to those tech numbers at 50.
So I look forward to continuing to talk about those.
Now 529 salaries that can go to our students' tuition.
So as the chair of the committee, I have the dubious duty of allowing for some bandwidth of discussion,
because more than 5, but I'm also tasked with bringing you back to our narrow focus
with respect of your time and the committee's time as well.
If I can ask and it goes back to again, I think concerns we're hearing from taxpayers
in terms of transparency within all agencies, including UW.
And some of those questions have been prompted by constituents,
related to how the Board of Regents conducted our most recent process with President Rothman.
I'd just like to guess, has some sense of understanding of the last two or three Regent Board meetings.
When did those take place and what were the topics of those meetings and where they centered around President Rothman
and a little decision that was going to be there to have to be decided on by the Board?
And was there a comprehensive or meeting of all of those Regents represented
through that ultimate decision in the process of your communication ultimately happening with the President Rothman?
Again, I think it's valuable to understand the process within the Board of Regents,
knowing that unless we have things in writing, which maybe we do,
then we don't from those board meetings, we're left to conjecture with the citizens of the state as to how that process did play out
either very well or not very well and covered to that.
So you speak to that process with the Board in terms of the most recent meetings
and how they tied into the ultimate decision with President Rothman.
I'm trying to go back to the last meeting.
Well, we had the meeting on, it's all, I apologize, it's blurry, but the meeting we had in full session
was to discuss a personal issue of Mr. Rothman.
And we all discussed where we were at with his evaluation and the tasks that we asked him to do.
And it was closed session on that, and I think it was one of those days of personal evaluation.
And discussions were had by the full board.
I believe that every, I'm trying to think of this full board, there may have been perhaps one personnel.
I do think that one was full board meeting.
I will get you all this.
I don't remember if there was one person missing.
And we talked about what comes next and that's when we put the notice out for his discuss Mr. Rothman's termination.
I apologize.
I can't remember the meeting before that when we had a closed session.
It wasn't that far apart.
I'll take the information and I can tell you the, at least I want to say the full board.
And discussions again about personal issues.
And it wasn't, it wasn't that far apart.
But I can leave you those records.
I apologize.
I should have kind of witnessed.
That's quite right.
I think the jibbler asked for quite a bit of information here in the hearing.
We're having to summarize that.
And if that's helpful, because I know it.
Yeah.
That would be great.
So it was so.
I tried to write down stuff.
I understood.
No apology necessary.
I think my last question, which may be profound, may not be profound.
I just think it's an interesting question to ask.
Can you remind me how long Jay Rothman's tenure was in the role as systems president?
Is it?
I think he started in June of 2022.
That's all right.
Okay.
So roughly four years.
Four years this June.
Okay.
As the board president and as a regent board member, if you had to do it all over again,
would your decision be different relative to the hiring of Jay Rothman in that role?
If yes, if no context to it.
Yeah.
It's just.
Can you give back and tell the future?
Maybe not be a perfect answer to it.
I'm just kind of curious, because I think it gives context to the overall discussion around
his role, the federal device and the decision they were made out of its hiring him, but
also consequently to this myself.
I would say that I would stick with what we did.
I think we were proud of that choice.
I think Mr. Rothman worked very, very hard.
He didn't come from the sector of higher education.
He was a lawyer.
With Foley Lardner, his entire career, which I give him a lot of credit for sticking with
that.
And he came into this with a lot of eagerness to do his best.
And, you know, it's a huge, difficult role.
So I would say yes, and it's unfortunate we've got to this point.
I would rather have not done this and display this out in public.
And I apologize for that.
But I would say yes.
I think it was so wise decision at the time.
And you never know how the future plays out and the complications of the world that exist
and how we maneuver that.
So.
Yeah.
I'm really happy.
I'm sorry.
I'd like to hear your comment.
Yeah.
You will.
Don't worry.
But you have to wait 10 seconds.
I was on the board and the President of Rothman was quick.
And obviously I'm part of the major law firm in Milwaukee South.
Pretty familiar with Mr. Rothman's law firm and everything.
At the time they did the hire, I was pleased it wasn't an academic.
I was pleased they went outside academia to look for somebody.
Now, that's a citizen's kind of view of the world, because I tend to believe any group
has too much inquiry, whether it's lawyers or academics or everybody else, right?
They all pick each other.
They all like each other.
And so they bring somebody from the outside, struck me as a good idea.
In addition, I don't know what their other choices were.
You know, it's not just in the abstract, it depends on, okay, who applied for this and
can we pick them?
At the time, I thought it was a good decision, and I don't think there's anything that would
change from now to say that bringing in an outsider wasn't a good idea.
And in fact, some of the results prove that that's true, okay?
Because I don't know the academics, but I'm going to take a good word there about cutting
on some of these things.
I really appreciate that.
Again, in response to having an open question, I think it gives some clarity for decisions
they could better otherwise, and where we're here today, and that's all we're going to.
It's our path.
The question is, any information shared by those who test idly and meet with the chairman
and share that with all members of the community?
Absolutely.
For a small fee, we're happy to provide it.
That's a very good point, and we'll make sure that that happens.
Any other questions from the committee?
Anybody on the phone?
With a question?
Okay, hearing none, thank you so much for your time and ability to be here and sit through
a committee to answer some questions.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
All right.
We'll see you.
Next up to speak is Sherry Gellitzer.
Sorry.
Can you tell me that again?
Gellitzer.
Oh.
I wasn't very happy with her, so.
Oh.