Boulder Faculty Assembly Meeting

Minutes

March 4, 2004

Attending:

Barbara Bintliff, BFA Chair

Mel Branch, Faculty Affairs Committee

Stein Sture, Vice Chair

Jerry Peterson, At-Large Board Member

Andy Cowell, Academic Technology Committee Chair

Greg Carey, Secretary

Martin Walter, BFA Student Affairs Committee Chair

Michael Preston, Intercollegiate Athletics Chair

Virginia Anderson

Anne Bliss

Peter Boag

Kandace Einbeck

David Fagerstrom

Roberta Flexer

Natalie Hedberg

Bruce Henderson

Bob Hohlfelder

Leslie Irvine

David Kassoy

Kai Larsen

Richard Laver

John McIver

Peter Molnar

Rolf Norgaard

Gail Ramsberger

Terry Sawchuk

Bob Schulzinger

Ted Snow

Deward Walker

Erik Monsen, UGGS

Jeff Dodge, Silver and Gold Record

Guests:   Ric Porreca, Senior Vice Chancellor and  Chief Financial Officer

                Chancellor Richard Byyny

Not Attending:

Francis Beer

Bud Coleman

Cathy Comstock, BFA AAP Committee Chair

Kim Dickey

Pamela Diggle

Mark Dubin                                          

David Guenther, Administrative Services Chair                                            

Frances Charteris

Carol Cleland

Mark Dubin, BFA Libraries Committee Chair

Philip Graves

David Guenther

Rob Guralnick

Lakshman Guruswamy

Robert Kuchta     

Roger King                                                                                                           

Paul Kroll

Andrew Pleszkun

Uriel Nauenberg, Former BFA Chair                                                

Tom Mayer                                                                                                          

Marguerite Moritz

Lori Seward                                                                          

Rodney Taylor

Bill Waite, Academic Affairs Committee

A meeting of the Boulder Faculty Assembly was held on Thursday, March 4, 2004 in the Fleming Law Building, Room 156. Chair Barbara Bintliff presided.  The meeting convened at 4:00 p.m. and adjourned at 5:30 p.m.

A.    Approval of Minutes

Moved by Preston and seconded by Bliss that the minutes of February 5, 2004 be approved.    There being no further comments or changes to the minutes, the motion to approve the minutes carried.

B.    Chair’s Report

Bintliff welcomed everyone to the meeting and thanked those present for coming to meetings regularly.  She announced that Chancellor Byyny was scheduled to appear before the Assembly but was at the moment giving a press conference on significant changes to recruiting policies and would be late. 

Bintliff asked for a moment of silence in honor of Tony Barker, who passed away on the weekend. 

The Chair announced that the Uniform Grading Policy is doing well thus far having passed in five of the UCB colleges: Law, Music, A&S, Engineering, and Journalism.  

Bintliff  reported on conversations with Carl Weiman and Phil DiStefano about what constitutes a “credit hour” and how the faculty’s expectations of students  are characterized.   Do faculty anticipate 2 hours of work per credit hour from students?  How much variance exists across campus in terms of this expectation?  Kassoy asked what prompted the inquiry.  Bintliff  replied that Weiman had raised the issue.  She stated that the out-of-class time expectations may not be well enough communicated to students . and  asked if a guideline that students are expected to do approximately 2 to 3 hours of homework for every hour spent in the classroom was reasonable.  Monson thought a similar guideline might also be useful for graduate students.    Schulzinger stated that it is not a good idea to specify the number of hours we expect in out of classroom time from students.  The  special  committee on faculty expectations of students recently completed a document which clearly acknowledged that students should have extra curricular activities and a certain number are working as well.  He asked what would be gained by making a blanket statement about the hours students should put in for classes and asked if faculty should be more concerned with what they accomplish.   Preston said that the idea of the traditional  2 hours  per undergraduate class time hour stated as a rule of thumb, with the understanding that some courses require more or less preparation,  could be a useful guideline.  Kassoy added that what counts for him was that students can perform and  that we need to emphasize the outcome of their efforts rather than the number of hours spent outside of class on a subject.   Sture added that we could compromise and take the average or typical student so that a reasonable expectation is outlined.  Bintliff added that the deans thought a guidelines would be a  protection for faculty.  Bliss told the group that for her online courses to be approved, she had to show a work level comparable to a typical classroom experience.  This worked out to be 2 hours outside class for every 1 hour of instruction.   Bintliff stated that she would check in with other groups, and as she had two very compelling viewpoints presented at the meeting, she would keep the discussion open on this subject and see if a consensus could be reached at the next meeting.  She also suggested the issue could be given to a BFA committee. Einbeck added that it is difficult to give new students two hours of work per classroom hour in foreign language study when these courses meet five times per week.   Bintliff asked everyone to bring this up with departmental colleagues come back with thoughts at the next meeting.  

Bintliff announced that Friday, March 5 was the official deadline to submit nominations for BFA positions with approximately one-third of the positions on committees and for Assembly positions available.  Online ballots were available, and print ballots were offered at the meeting.  Ballots should be turned in to Shernick. 

The Chair announced that Ron Stump was launching a project designed to define “social norms” for the campus which will include social expectations of students, and he would like a faculty member to volunteer.  Irvine offered to serve as faculty representative for the project. 

Bintliff announced that Tim Foster has left CCHE to take up the duties as president of Mesa State College. 

C.    Special Reports

The Chair acknowledged unscheduled guest Ric Porreca who was available to  present a budgetary update to the Assembly.  Porreca began by stating that this time each year we are uncertain about budgetary matters and the same is especially true for 2004, and he addressed the following points:

·         The JBC will begin the process of setting the budget for higher education soon and will be using the inflation rate of  1.1 percent, which is important for higher education because as the inflation rate goes down, the amount of spending growth from one year to the next is reduced under TABOR.  On the revenue side the inflation rate is also linked to tuition.

·         CU enrollment is expected to grow next year even with a smaller freshman class but a larger student population overall as the incoming freshmen class is larger than the outgoing senior class.  The nonresident and resident student class mix is not at historic levels and the out of state applicants are down by 12 percent from last year. 

·         Building the framework for the budget this year  will include anticipated revenues (enrollment figures times  1.1% tuition revenue growth ) with the assumption there is no change in state funding.  Then mandated operating expenses like the increased cost of utilities and insurance rates are added along with enrollment growth which adds expenses such as financial aid, library materials, and additional compensation for staff.  The result in an imbalance of revenues offset by expenses somewhere in the range of a $30 million dollar deficit system-wide. 

·         The State of Colorado continues to experience a structural budget deficit.  Ironically  a rebate will be triggered under TABOR even as a new budget cut is coming.  Between $100 to $170 million in reductions will hit higher education across the state which translates to $40 million in cuts coming to CU.  As much as 40% of that cut could come to CU. 

Porreca stated that in his seven years of working on the budget he has never seen it so out of balance.  Peterson asked if there was “good news” regarding contracts and grants monies and Porreca replied that it has been above last year’s levels.  He went on to say that things could change if the Colorado economy continued to improve and a new  forecast is expected in the next few weeks.   The State could also consider the securitization of  tobacco: if securitized each state is owed money which, if sold as future values,  would buy the university some time but only for one year.  When this temporary money runs out we would still need to act.  If the state decides to cut higher education funding we would come back and ask to replace money with tuition increases.    To do that would require third action of declaring either tuition out from under TABOR or moving to enterprise status.  It is possible that cuts could be imposed and tuition increases taken to offset them while at the same time we avoid making  cuts to operating budgets or programs.   Norgaard asked what is happening with confirmations, and Porreca answered that confirmations are within the predicted range and are lagging a bit on the nonresidential side.  His office is planning to send out mailings to students who have confirmed and he will be joining the Provost, the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and the Chancellor on a road trip in early April.    Peterson asked if a member of the faculty would be joining them and Porreca was not certain if a faculty member was scheduled until fall when CU recruits. One time scholarship funds for the most highly qualified non resident students who have confirmed is also under consideration. 

Monsen stated that the graduate student government is considering two resolutions regarding TABOR and enterprise status which mirror faculty discussions.  He then asked the current status of the building fee, and Porreca said the state continues to be unable to fund capital construction projects the question is whether students want to tax themselves to pay for buildings.  We are continuing to discuss this with student leadership which has not said “no” at this point in time.  

Sture asked about the voucher bill.  Porreca replied that one of the intentions of the voucher bill was to recategorize state funds to tuition funds.  The direct state funding would drop to below 10% for all institutions across the state and they would fit the under 10% enterprise definition and get there monies out from under TABOR.  The CU system is already below the 10% and therefore does not require that the change of funding pass in order to hit the 10% level.  What is missing in state law is the clear definition that institutions of higher education can qualify as enterprises even if they drop below the 10 percent.   This clarification is included in the bill, and it states if an inst of higher education has otherwise met these conditions of enterprise they will be declared as enterprise.   If this passes the COF process would start the next fiscal year.  Walter asked if having vouchers meant less state money coming to the university as some monies would be funneled to private institutions.  Porreca answered that in order to do vouchers they have to have the equal value at all institutions.  Additionally, the voucher bill provides for a state grant to make up the difference for institutions that have differential funding at this time. 

Bintliff stated that the College Opportunity Bill, which is an omnibus bill covering several topics relating to higher education, would give us necessary flexibility regarding academic and vocation programs, remove tuition from TABOR, include bonding for academic facilities, and give the university exclusive control over our own cash funds.  The bad news is that the appropriations for the college opportunity funds (vouchers) would not go into effect until July 2005.   She went on to say these issues were extremely complex and encouraged everyone to take time to read the legislative bills and that Porreca would be invited back at some future date.   She thanked Porreca for coming.

Bintliff stated that  the Student Bill of Rights (SBOR) introduced ten days ago is similar to the Academic Bill of Rights (ABOR).   There was a hearing at which an unfortunate altercation between a student and faculty person in the hearing room disrupted the proceedings.  President Hoffman made a very strong statement supporting  faculty and in opposition to this bill.  She included commentary on the difficulty in recruiting and retaining faculty who feel they are not trusted and who feel there is an intrusion into the classroom, and noted that passage of  this bill would lower the morale of faculty. 

Colorado Civil Rights Act (SB04194),  recently introduced, prohibits a public entity which includes an institution of higher education from discriminating against or granting a preference to any individual or group based on race, gender, ethnicity, color, or national origin in the spheres of employment, education, or public  contract.  This bill could affect admissions programs and faculty recruiting.    The Chair has placed a call to the President’s office for clarification as to how the university will respond to this bill and suggested the Faculty Affairs Committee recommend a response. 

Walker asked for the Chair’s view on the relationship between ABOR and SBOR.  Bintliff replied that the language is very similar.   It is possible that legislators interested in these issues decided that while the ABOR might not pass, couching it in terms of student rights might make it a more palatable way to address the issues.   

Bintliff introduced Chancellor Byyny, who was returning from a press conference in Denver.  The Chancellor began his remarks by reminding the assembly that it is important to remember that the university is comprised of 29,000 students, 7,000 faculty and staff , and everyone is working to resolve the many issues facing the campus.  The Chancellor reviewed the history of the allegations against the football program, beginning with incidents dating back to 1997 and ending with the Title IX lawsuit filed against CU in 2002.  He described the recent creation by the Regents of an investigative panel in response to new information received about recruitment practices and the appointment of DiBiaggio as a critic of the athletic program.  He stated that every year there is an evaluation of programs and changes are made and asked the faculty for their input and help in evaluating the athletic program issues.  Byyny outlined a few of the changes presented at the press conference as follows:

·         Recruiting visits will be limited to 24 hours.

·         An 11:00p.m.curfew will be imposed.

·         Visiting students will be supervised by a coach or parent.

·         High academic expectations will be explained during the visit and the student will meet with faculty as well as learn about current issues associated with alcohol use, drugs, abuse issues and behavioral standards will be reviewed.

·         The sanctions for violations of policies will be made clear and there will be no admittance to CU if said policies are violated.

Byyny clarified that CU wants to have a model football recruitment program and believes we will receive national attention for the changes mandated today.  The ICC will examine the current culture in athletics and make recommendations accordingly.  Dr. DiBiaggio begins March 5 with an office in the Athletics Department and he will meet with students, staff and coaches and report to the President and Chancellor’s office.  He stated that he believes students leaving CU still receive an excellent education despite the cloud currently hanging over the campus.  He noted that we have to deal with these problems effectively. 

Kassoy stated that oftentimes when groups have problems with a practice or procedure is it useful to ask them to take some responsibility.  In the case of the current football program crisis, should the football team  as a unit be asked to come up with new rules and changes to be used to meet these problems.   Byyny responded affirmatively that it comes down to all of us to accept responsibility and this thinking  has been a part of our process up to this point in time.  Bintliff asked how realistic is it that we may not continue with  football program.  Byyny said that short term there was no question that CU would continue to have an athletic department and football program; the question is can we make the necessary changes to make the program one we can be proud of.  Byyny believes this is possible and any deliberation as to whether we keep the football program should be part of a careful and considerate process, and faculty should provide input and put forward what they want as well.    Walker asked if there would come a time when could try what former president Gordon Gee tried at Vanderbilt.  Byyny said he didn’t know but as the investigation moves forward, CU would consider all possibilities; he invited the faculty present to share information about athletic programs with which they were familiar.  He added that Vanderbilt doesn’t have football or basketball programs that generate a lot of revenue.   Bintliff  remarked that the BFA Intercollegiate Athletics Committee is reviewing recommendations and programs and Byyny replied that he welcomed joining COIA.  He reminded the assembly that faculty involvement with the recent academic reforms and expectations of athletes can provide changes quickly, and he reiterated that faculty working with chancellor, president and athletics department, real changes and significant progress can be made on these concerns. 

The Chair thanked the Chancellor for coming to speak to the Assembly. 

D.    Committee Reports

Faculty Affairs Committee Chair Branch presented changes to the Professional  Responsibilities of Faculty and Chairs Part II, which has been on the Academic Affairs website and  defines faculty expectations and ethical principles.  He reviewed  the specific changes made in response to faculty feedback he received.  Bintliff stated this was the second reading for the final vote on the document and asked for further questions.  The  document comes from the Faculty Affairs committee which moves its passage and  it needed no second.  She called for a vote of those in favor of adopting the document as revised.  The document was approved unanimously.   The Chair thanked Branch and the Faculty Affairs Committee for their work on this document.

Student Affairs Committee Chair Walter and UGGS representative Monsen reported unanimous approval of the Graduate Student Bill of Rights (GSBORR).  Monsen explained that the content elements are the same after months of collaboration and revision, and the document has already been approved by the Arts and Sciences Faculty Council without objection. The document makes recommendations and proposes guidelines and minimum standards at both the campus and departmental level.   Bintliff asked for questions. McIver asked what the fiscal implications are for passage of the GSBORR.   The Chair said that the document offers guidelines and is not a mandate. Sture said that late last spring Porreca’s office and PBA made an analysis of the proposed bill and the fiscal implications were resolved.  There being no further questions or comments, Bintliff stated that the Student Affairs Committee had moved for a vote, and the bill it does need a second as it comes from a committee.  A vote was taken and the GSBORR was approved unanimously.   The Chair thanked Walter and Monsen for all their work on the bill. 

Bintliff asked that the assembly read the resolution before them on joining the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics.    The COIA is a national organization founded  by faculty to insure greater involvement and control over the athletic programs in Division I universities.  Adler added that the BFA’s approach to the Coalition is not limited to the recent activities of the past few months.  This interest in this goes back in time and that the Intercollegiate Athletic Committee, working on many different issues and not just recruiting concerns, unanimously recommended to the BFA that it join the Coalition.   He stated that the role of faculty is critical to the process as is their place in governing athletics.  Kassoy asked why the resolution was broad-based and Adler replied that the resolution is ratifying the charter, which is broadly written.  From his perspective we do need to consider the place of athletics at a large research university and the recent events on CU’s campus have prompted us to do exactly that.   Bintliff acknowledged that this resolution was being brought with very little time for discussion and that it could be voted on today or discussion postponed.   Walker moved that the assembly adopt and Walter seconded.  A vote was taken and the resolution to adopt the charter passed unanimously.

The Chair thanked everyone for attending and the meeting was adjourned.