The University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents extensively debated a proposed revision to Regent Policy Document (RPD) 2027 — which governs the selection process for system‑level senior leadership — and then voted to table the proposal for further revision.

Dan Chanin, associate vice president and chief human resources officer, presented the change, saying the revision would give the system president flexibility to determine an appropriate process when vacancies occur for senior vice presidents, vice presidents, general counsel and the chief auditor. Chanin said the positions are "limited appointments" under Wisconsin Statutes Section 36.17 and that the policy revision is intended to reduce administrative burden when a full search may not be necessary.

Several regents voiced support for giving a president the ability to assemble a leadership team, but many raised process and transparency concerns. Regent Menides asked whether the change conflicted with any legal posting requirements; Chanin said the Office of General Counsel had reviewed the draft and identified no legal impediment. Regent Walsh, Regent Goedendam and others argued that the office of general counsel — which has historically reported to both the board and system leadership in some form — should be excluded from a broad delegation because the role serves both the board and the president. "I'm not comfortable with lumping a position like that in with these other ones," Walsh said, urging a separate process for the general counsel.

Other regents pressed for more detail or at least nonbinding guidance about what a search process might include, arguing the policy as written was too permissive. Several regents suggested a middle ground that would preserve presidential authority to appoint while adding transparent procedures or executive committee consultation for certain positions or in particular circumstances. Some regents also raised the practical challenge of addressing multiple interim appointments already in place and whether the board could grant waivers to convert certain interims to permanent status while a rewritten policy is considered.

System leadership defended the need for flexibility so a president can quickly assemble an effective team and be held accountable for those hires. The president said that without the discretion to appoint a preferred team, accountability is harder to enforce.

Following the discussion, the board president moved to table the proposed revision to allow staff and regents to draft amendments addressing concerns raised, including potential carve‑outs for the general counsel and the role of the executive committee. The motion to table passed on a voice vote; the chair announced the motion carried and asked staff to return with revised language.