MINUTES

Executive Committee Meeting

Boulder Faculty Assembly

May 3, 2004

Attending:

Barbara Bintliff, BFA Chair

Stein Sture, Vice Chair

Greg Carey, Secretary

Andy Cowell, BFA Academic Technology Committee Chair

Dipankar Chakravarti, Minority Affairs Committee Chair

David Guenther, BFA Administrative Services Committee Chair

Bob Hohlfelder, Budget and Planning Committee Chair

Uriel Nauenberg, former BFA Chair

Jerry Peterson, At-Large Board Member

Mike Preston, BFA Intercollegiate Athletics Cmte Chair

Lori Seward, BFA Committee on Women Chair

Rodney Taylor, At-Large Board Member

Martin Walter, BFA Student Affairs Cmte Chair

Bill Waite, Academic Affairs Committee

Guest Speakers:

Dr. John DiBiaggio, Special Assistant to the President and Chancellor

Phil DiStefano, Provost

Scott Adler, Special Committee on Athletic Reform

Elizabeth Bradley, Special Committee on Athletic Reform

Not Attending:

Cathy Comstock, BFA AAP Committee Chair

Mark Dubin, BFA Libraries Committee Chair

Mel Branch, BFA Faculty Affairs Committee Chair

Clayton Lewis, Faculty Compensation and Benefits Cmte Chair

Marguerite Moritz, BFA GLB Affairs Committee Chair

Tom Mayer, Communications Committee Chair

Gail Ramsberger, Arts and Sciences Council Chair

An Executive Session of the Boulder Faculty Assembly Executive Committee was held on Monday, May 3, 2004, in UMC room 425.  Chair Barbara Bintliff presided.  The meeting convened at 3:30 p.m. and adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

A.                  Minutes

MOVED  by Waite and seconded by Sture that the Executive Committee meeting minutes of  April 19, 2004 be approved as written.   A motion to approve the minutes carried without dissent.

B.                  Chair’s Report

Chair Bintliff welcomed everyone to the meeting.  The Chair made inquiries and found that closing executive committee sessions to the press is permitted according to University Counsel; the only group affiliated with the university required to hold open meetings is the Board of Regents. 

C.                  Committee Reports

Seward gave an update on the Faculty Course Questionnaire and she provided a handout prepared by  Michael Grant of sample questions for faculty review.  She added that the report from the Chancellor’s committee is not finished as of this date, and that how to use the FCQ data still needs to be addressed.   Grant is completing a report for the chancellor which will include this concern of advising the evaluation team on how to use the data.   Walter asked if the median score could be included in addition to the mean score, and Seward offered to take the message to the committee.   Hohlfelder asked about the statement, “….direct comments to dean.”   Seward said that the statement invites students to write direct comments to division chairs or deans if they so chose.     She added that  there is also a recommendation regarding a mid-semester questionnaire which would help instructors get feedback and make changes or  improvements to their courses earlier rather than at semester’s end.   Waite asked if the word “your” could be included in the statement about “personal interest in the subject” in the questionnaire.  Bintliff thanked Seward for her work with the FCQ change process and then asked her to present the resolution which comes from the BFA Committee on Women. 

Seward introduced  a  resolution from the Committee on Women regarding safety and security on campus, and invited Bintliff to comment on the impetus behind its creation.  Bintliff stated that the underlying problem and backdrop for discussion on campus athletic reform is the issue of sexual assault on campus.   We can’t draw conclusions about the alleged assault cases but the safety and security of everyone in the campus community is of great concern.   Through this resolution the Committee on Women and the BFA state the importance of providing a safe and respectful learning environment and community while encouraging the administration to complete several initiatives that are taking shape right now.   Waite pointed out a spelling error which will be corrected in the final version of the resolution.  Bintliff asked the committee if the resolution, once corrected, could be considered as ready for submission to the entire BFA.  A motion was made and it was unanimously approved that the resolution be considered for presentation to the full BFA on May 6.

Boulder Faculty Assembly Executive Committee Resolution:  Safe Campus Environment BFA-R-0503  May 3, 2004 WHEREAS a safe, secure, and respectful environment for all members of our campus community is essential; and WHEREAS the campus culture and climate should reflect our expectations for the behavior of our campus members; and WHEREAS there are several initiatives on campus that are reviewing the services and policies that define our campus expectations for a safe and secure environment, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Boulder Faculty Assembly requests that the campus administration, in recognition of strong campus community concerns regarding campus climate, and specifically acknowledging the problem of violence against women, move forward with all committee deliberations and reviews of policies and services with a goal of clarifying behavioral expectations and consequences, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the BFA calls for an articulated plan to educate the entire campus community about these services, policies, expectations, and consequences. Resolution presented to the BFA: May 6, 2004 Passed by the BFA: May 6, 2004

D.   Special Reports

Provost Phil DiStefano handed out a copy of a Memo of Understanding delivered to Ron Stump’s office by the UCSU Tri-Executives who sought an increase in the role and presence of students on campus boards and committees and increased opportunity to negotiate when setting campus policies.   There is no mention in the memo of including students on tenure committees despite newspaper reports to the contrary. The Chancellor agreed to the provisions in the memo; there had been no time to alert the BFA that the document existed.  Bintliff asked if this document could be viewed as a “quid-pro-quo” between student government and the administration and DiStefano answered that it certainly could be viewed as such. 

Walter asked if SB252 would have had an impact on the recent decision of the UCSU to approve the $400 fee increase and whether the capital construction projects would be “green.”  DiStefano was familiar with SB 252 and reassured Walter that the new construction projects would be “green.”  Bintliff asked for questions on the MOU and thanked DiStefano for explaining the origination of the document.

She then asked the committee to consider the report of the Special Committee on Athletic Reform as presented by Scott Adler and Elizabeth Bradley and she introduced Special Assistant to the Chancellor and President, Dr. John DiBiaggio.  She asked that everyone present keep the report’s contents confidential as a courtesy to the members of the BFA who need time to read the document.   The report will go public on Thursday, May 6. 

Adler gave thanks to the committee and to Chair Bintliff, Elizabeth Bradley and Ted Snow for their hard work and support while preparing the report.  The Special Committee on Athletic Reform began meeting in February and in the process of acquiring data and information contacted many people, including the Executive Committee, faculty, administrators, academic counselors, members of the Athletics Department, including Mark Nelson and Dick Tharp, as well as athletes.   Individual outside of CU were also contacted, including former presidents ofseveral major universities who had dealt with athletics reform issues.  Dr. DiBiaggio provided both “outsider” and “insider” perspectives.   The committee considered the extensive literature available on athletic reform and the committee drew on its experience with the issues.  Chair Bintliff had assisted with the drafting of the report.   The result is a two-tiered set of proposals, with the first tier calling for immediate changes to the way athletics is governed at CU.  A more structured hierarchy which includes faculty involvement is proposed in the report with the changes focusing on the welfare of the students.   The second tier calls for the administration to become leaders in the athletic reform movement, and poses a series of questions and issues to be considered at the national level.   

Adler pointed out that by themselves, none of the reforms are radical, but taken as a package to be implemented together you have the most progressive set of reforms ever instituted at a Division I university. These reforms will restore the institutional control and accountability over intercollegiate athletics while at the same time reemphasizing the importance of academics and education over “winning on the playing field.”  He added that from the perspective of the BFA there now exists a short window of opportunity to advance and set the agenda for the current reform debate through a show of support for this document.   Up to now the faculty have been relatively silent in this process, but this report represents an  opportunity to act well in advance of the independent  investigating committee, (the IIC), the Attorney General, and even the athletics liaison and set the agenda for the coming debate on athletic reform at CU.  

Bintliff asked for comments.  Bradley thanked Adler for his work on the report.  Hohlfelder was concerned  whether it will be possible to trust the athletic department to do the right thing.  He asked whether the functionally illiterate  athletes in classes, all of whom are going through the admissions “window,” really stand a chance of graduating.    He also asked about the misuse of tutors: in the past he was made aware that some exceeded their role by actually writing papers for student athletes and he asked how this could be controlled.   Adler said that along with reworking the athletic program reporting structure we’ve also brought in a strong advisory role in the form of an Athletics Governing Board which comes directly from the recent COIA recommendations.  This board, comprised of faculty, administrators  and students, would  propose policies to the Vice Chancellor regarding admissions.  The reform report calls for a tightening of the admissions window; currently certain athletic teams allow a disproportionate number of their admits through the window. DiStefano pointed out that currently twenty percent of CU’s admits come through this window, and this number will be changing  in the next few years.  Included in this number are athletes, home schooled students, those from high schools without grades, foreign-educated students, and so on.  With the implementation of these proposals the window admits would be screened by the proposed Athletics Governing Board;  a number of faculty on the governing board would be representatives of the BFA.   Regarding tutors, Adler said that the implementation of the reform report would necessarily mean a review of the processes with discussion about academic assistance for students athletes. 

Nauenberg echoed Hohlfelder’s concerns and added that we currently admit students who cannot handle academics and that the same standards and conditions should apply to athletes as they do for the home-schooled and other students.  Preston said that he found item “1C. Eliminate alcohol advertising” somewhat  problematic  and suggested that faculty need to be supportive of administrators when issues concerning athletics come up.  Adler said we can’t do anything about the name “Coors Stadium” and Bintliff added that most people understand the building was named as a result of a family donation.   Adler described the role of the regents in terms of influencing policy regarding oversight over athletics and expressed the hope that the responsibility for the athletics department will be clarified and  will rest with the Chancellor.  Taylor asked if, in 1C, the issue was alcohol or the advertising of it.  Adler said both were at issue.  DiStefano commented that alcohol is sold in the club seats of the stadium and the regents wanted beer sold at the Flatirons Club, while no beer is sold at all other levels of the venue.    Nauenberg said this sends a mixed message to the students and Taylor added that this policy is a double-standard.  DiBiaggio commented that alcohol was not served in the president’s box or in the stadium at Michigan State and he expressed shock that beer was still sold at CU basketball games.  Adler recommended that the language be kept as is with an additional  strong recommendation that the current policy on alcohol be reviewed.  DiStefano agreed and added that the main goal is to get the academic portion of the policy approved.                   Hohlfelder assumed that the athletic department has its own “wish list” of things they want for the future.  Adler said that their wish list 2010 sets out that $1.3 million dollars of student fees will go to athletics and that questions about the strategic plan for athletics will have to go through the athletic governing board, chancellor and vice chancellor.   Chakravarati suggested that the current report needed a stronger element about the alcohol advertising issue included in it and that the faculty’s initial position ought to be one that  makes the substantive issue clear: item 1C should say, “eliminate alcohol from sporting events.”   Bintliff offered that the faculty could strongly recommend that all policies regarding alcohol be reviewed with an eye to elimination of alcohol.   Cowell said that the essential focus of the report is not alcohol but rather  the faculty taking control of recruiting and the governance of athletics, and that inclusion of alcohol as a specific issue will mean  the loss of  the broader issues if the statement on alcohol too strong.  Adler said he was willing to make a strong statement on the alcohol issue, but wanted the real focus to be on athletic reform.  Bintliff said that the alternative then would be to bring out the alcohol issue in a separate resolution.  Preston commented that this report represents the faculty’s one chance to affect governance and reform of athletics, whereas peripheral issues like alcohol could be brought up later.  Waite concurred and said that the alcohol issue diverts our attention and it would be better to omit it from the current report.               Bintliff agreed and proposed that the paragraph be pulled out of the report and that the appropriate BFA committee be charged to bring a report or a resolution early next fall.  Walter asked DiBiaggio if athletics would be able to rent skyboxes and not serve alcohol.  DiBiaggio said he wasn’t sure if it was possible and that the alcohol paragraph is not in agreement with the rest of the committee’s document.   He hoped that this problem will remain on the BFA’s list of serious questions to address.

Seward asked if report  item “E” included measures of performance for coaches and how these evaluations would cross over to faculty evaluations.   Adler said that wasn’t included in the purview but they will look at what measures the NCAA is using and  the specifics will have to be worked out, hopefully by the Athletics Governing Board.   Seward asked how he thought the report will be perceived by athletics as a whole.   DiStefano offered that the campus administration is very supportive of the report’s suggested reforms, and that the  meeting between Adler, Bradley,  Snow, Bintliff and the Chancellor and DiBiaggio went well.  He acknowledged that the Athletic Department needs some structural changes.  Adler concurred that Chancellor Byyny was very receptive to the proposals within the report.  Bintliff told the committee that she and Bradley outlined the report in broad terms for Hoffman and she responded positively.  Adler said that Athletic Director Tharp will receive a copy of the report on Tuesday, May 4. 

Waite was concerned that the report gives the athletic coaches the responsibility without the authority  and asked how the coach could be expected to improve the grades of individual players.  Adler said that, under these proposals,  the standards for incoming students will be tightened and marginal students will not be admitted.  Additionally, along with the tightening of standards the hope is that faculty will be involved in the recruitment and retention of new students and that they will stay involved to ensure they are performing at a high level.  Coaches are perceived by athletes as teachers and are very involved in the educational process.   Bradley offered that both Ceal Barry and Gary Barnett have been known to check up on athletes about their classes and that coaches can provide and convey an attitude of support.   Bradley brought up the fact that each team has its own handbook and the education of the coaches is completely variable.  Adler said one goal of these proposed reforms  is to integrate student athletes with the rest of campus.   Sture said that a statement requiring attendance at sexual harassment training and alcohol abuse training was needed.  Adler said that the student athletes are required to attend Life Skills sessions and their handbooks do outline the appropriate behavioral standards.  Cowell asked why there was no mention of the criminal allegations in the report and how they would be handled.  Seward said that one of Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Ron Stump’s committees is actually dealing with actual processes such as how criminal investigation information must be given to the police.  

Bintliff stated that the Executive Committee wanted to distribute the report to the BFA before the next meeting scheduled for Thursday, May 6, with the agreed upon changes.   Adler agreed to eliminate the alcohol proposal, review of academic support services policies, review of all window admits by team, and including mention of  how we’ll measure academic performance for coaches using the new NCAA guidelines.  Bintliff asked for a motion approving distribution of the report to the BFAonce the report was amended and Sture so moved.  Preston seconded the motion, a vote was taken, and it was unanimous that the report be forwarded to the BFA once the changes were made. 

DiBiaggio said the report was one of the better documents he had ever seen in the country and that it was a remarkable piece of work that  could serve as a model for other universities.   DiStefano thanked the Special Committee on Athletic Reform and offered to come back to speak to the Executive Committee to discuss changes proposed at the upcoming Big 12 conference.  Adler said that the transition will be made easier having had DiStefano as the FAR in the past, which will change in the future. 

Bintliff thanked Provost DiStefano and Special Assistant DiBiaggio for attending the meeting. 

E.   Next Meeting

The next regular meeting of the Boulder Faculty Assembly Executive Committee will be Monday, August 30, 3:30 to 5:00 p.m. in UMC 425.