The Arts & Sciences Council (ASC) meets regularly every academic year, including fifteen times during the 2000 to 2001 academic year. The notes from said meetings are found below:

May 10, 2001

Minutes: Arts & Sciences Council Meeting

  • Thursday, May 10, 2001
  • CU Recreation Center, Rooms 3 & 4
  • 3:30-4:30 P.M.

Members present: Ernesto Acevedo-Munoz (FILM), Fred Anderson (HIST) Chair, Tony Barker (PHYS), Chris Braider (FRIT), David Budd (GEOL), Stan Jones (COM), Terry Kleeman (RLST), Rolf Norgaard (UWRR), Artemi Romanov (GSLL)

The Chair convened this, the last UC convocation of the academic year 2000-2001, in a pensive mood—yet one undeniably tempered by those pleasurable sensations that come to those chairs who know that they are about to preside over their final meetings. It was 3:35 p.m. Outside the sun shown warmly over a campus all but deserted by students. The fine weather, the end of final examinations, and the fatigue so (understandably) pervasive among conscientious faculty members at the end of the term, may have accounted for the comparative thinness of the assemblage.

The minutes of the March meeting were approved with much favorable commentary on the author’s prose style.

The Chair then made his final report. He noted that while he had taken office, nine months earlier, with more than a little apprehension about the general health of faculty governance on the campus, he had come to realize that his colleagues on the Council were not only conscientious in performing the important services required of them, but genuinely committed to bettering the life of the academic community at CU Boulder. His major concern at the beginning of the year had been to encourage the members of the Council to break free of a certain disposition to think defensively and parochially, as representatives of departments fearful of the further erosion of scarce resources, and instead to look toward identifying their shared interests and goals. He was, therefore, genuinely gratified by the way in which the members had defined the issues that they wished to address; and the vigor with which the two bodies that took responsibility for making the reports, did their work. Indeed, he said, both groups—The Ad Hoc Committee on Retention, Career Management, and Academic Community and the Budget Subcommittee on Faculty Raises had produced reports that were models of their kind: documents that would provide direction for successor Councils over the next several years, and which would stand for a good deal longer as examples of how faculty members could indeed cooperate in defining their common good as scholars and teachers, and promoting their common welfare as members of an academic community that is more than the sum of its parts. Finally, he said, the thoughtful actions of the Council, the activities of the representatives on standing committees, and the extraordinary service of the members of the two reporting committees had done one more thing, which was of great importance to him personally. For whatever it might be worth, they had restored his own faith in the institution and the idea of faculty governance. In eighteen years at the University of Colorado, he concluded, he had never been more proud than he was, at that moment, to call himself a member of the faculty of the Arts and Sciences.

The next order of business was to formalize the election of the coming year’s ASC Chair. Professor Anthony Barker (PHYS), the author of the minutes commented upon above, was elected acclamation. The incumbent Chair asked if he would like to address the Council.

Professor Barker said that he looks forward to continuing the progress made toward share governance in the coming year—a task he regards as now more important than ever. In the coming year he anticipates encouraging the Council to follow up on this year’s reports, to attend the pressing issues that remained before the College, and to articulate public positions for the faculty on issues of common concern. In the case of faculty raises, the coming year’s Council needs to address the utilization of “blue book value” the dollar differential between the salaries of faculty who have retired or resigned, and the smaller salaries of those hired to replace them. The Budget Subcommittee report had left no doubt that a series of increases to faculty salary equivalent to inflation plus one percent annually would be inadequate to the task of moving salaries up to something like parity with those at our peer institutions; in the absence of markedly increased funding from the state or endowment sources, the blue book may be the only source of funds for efforts to close what seems to be a steadily widening gap. Next year’s Budget Committee should, therefore, study the issue and make recommendations to the administration on the use of the blue book; our straitened circumstances are such that we cannot afford to be less than absolutely clear about our expectations. In following up on the Ad Hoc Committee’s report, he continued, the Council as a whole and the Standing Committee on Academic Community and Diversity would need to be clear on setting priorities, and to identify funding sources that would sustain progress toward realizing the recommendations in the Report. Inasmuch as several of those recommendations cannot be implemented without new monies, no real progress can be made if we are content simply to redistribute resources currently at hand.

Professor Barker discussed several issues of concern that remain before the College The state of the libraries is now so perilous as to constitute a real danger to the educational welfare of the students and the scholarly productivity of the faculty alike The Council must take an activist promoting the health of the libraries At the same time, the ASC would do well to inform itself, and the faculty members it represents, about the state and the operations of Information Technology Services (ITS) on the campus. At present the size of ITS charges against the budget remain unknown, and have been imposed without input or review on the part of the faculty. This situation needs to be addressed with care, and with no little sense of urgency. The proposed Honor Code, which has become a matter of concern during the Spring term, will also remain on the agenda of the ASC next year. Serious issues remain to be settled with the Code’s student architects, and we owe it to them to make sure that any implementation of an Honor Code is done carefully and with due respect for traditions of faculty responsibility in supervising academic ethics. Finally, the relationship of the ASC and the Chairs and Directors remains to be addressed in the coming year. At present a considerable overlap exists between the responsibilities of the two bodies, and the potential for duplication of effort remains high. An ad hoc committee of the Chairs and Directors has created a report on the relationship between the bodies that suggests their roles may be defined in such a way as to assign a more explicitly administrative role to the C&D, and a policy role to the ASC. The coming year’s Council should carefully consider these recommendations, and respond with their own.

Finally, as an example of the need for the ASC to articulate faculty concerns on matters of common interest, Professor Barker called attention to an open letter from Regent Jim Martin published in the most recent issue of The Silver and Gold Record. In this document Mr. Martin suggested a set of approaches and solutions to what he perceives as pervasive structural and cultural problems within the University. Since one of these problems he identified is “the outmoded institution of tenure” and Mr. Martin’s preferred solution is its abolition, the ASC might do well to make its own views, and those of its constituents, known.

The Chair asked for comments on Professor Barker’s remarks, and for the reflections of the members on what the priorities for next year’s Council ought to be.

Chris Braider (FRIT) commented that next year’s activities would largely consist of orchestrating change, and that the Council should not merely allow its activities to reflect administrative priorities and the implementation of the Strategic Plan, but to take a pro?active role in setting the agenda for the College.

Stan Jones (COMM), speaking as a retiring faculty member, advocated making the Faculty Course Questionnaires a priority item; in part because they at present do little or no good in helping faculty members actually to improve their teaching, and in part because they tend to aggravate the pervasive problem of grade inflation. Everyone knows that FCQ grades closely mirror the grades students receive in any given class, and junior faculty concerned about their prospects for tenure or future employment are perhaps unusually susceptible to the temptation to raise grades or lower standards.

David Budd (GEOL) came back to the issue of orchestration. It is, he said, extremely important to settle the relationship between the ASC and the C&D so next year’s Council really can focus on policy matters. Professor Braider added that, for example, the Chairs and Directors have to deal with the size of skims as a matter of practical administration, but the Council is the appropriate venue for discussing whether there should be skims of any sort.

Professor Jones continued that following up on this year’s initiatives would be extraordinarily important, and Rolf Norgaard (UWRP) strongly seconded the sentiment. Follow-up on the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Retention, Career Management, and Academic Community should happen in the Committee on Academic Community and Diversity, he said, but larger issues, such as the status of instructors and the changing complexion of the teaching faculty in the University, need to be addressed by the Council as a whole, even as the committee proceeds with implementation.

Terry Kleeman (RLST) noted that, from his perspective as chair of the Planning Committee, one of the most serious problems we face is the chronic shortage of office space, and that that ought to be a priority item in the coming year. For example, in the planned ATLAS building, ten offices would be reserved for people doing ATLAS-related projects; yet it is entirely possible that they might be better utilized if they were assigned as permanent faculty office space. In general, building renovations currently underway take little account of the need for offices. Meanwhile, the large number of construction projects on the boards for the next several years will disrupt the normal functioning of the campus, putting even greater pressure on our already critically overcrowded facilities. The Council needs to think carefully about the impact of these additions and renovations, and the Planning Committee needs to monitor their effects as they take place.

To that end, Dr. Norgaard commented, it would be a good idea to have regular reports from the Standing Committees, throughout the year. The Chair could only agree, adding that one of his regrets in the past year had been the irregularity with which those committees had reported; this was clearly his fault, and in part a consequence of the inordinate amount of time the discussion of the Bylaws had taken in various meetings. In that sense, he concluded, perhaps the best advice he could give to the coming year’s Council would stay well clear of anything to do with changing the Bylaws.

Professor Barker added that his experience as chair of the Personnel Committee had shown him that the standing committees have a kind of lore that defines what they do and how they do it – the equivalent, in a way, of the unwritten common law of medieval and early modem England, before case law compilations and scholarly commentaries began to regularize judicial procedures and rulings. The time has come, he argued, for the ASC to scrutinize and systematize these customary practices; only the Council, which has never heretofore been active in this role, can properly authorize and oversee the committees’ operating principles. Professor Braider agreed: the ASC’s emphasis should be on defining principles, he argued, and the committees’ activities should reflect them from year to year.

The Chair, noting a natural pause in the discussion, availed himself of the opportunity to thank the Council and its invaluable administrator, Lucy Nowak, for their good will, their participation, and their counsel throughout the year. He noted that while he had not sought the position he was now about to vacate, he regarded it as his good fortune to have held it. The most gratifying things of all,he concluded, were that over the course of the year he had come to know so many more colleagues than he otherwise would have had occasion to meet in many years; and that he had come to think of so many of them as friends.

Having delivered this peroration, the Chair wondered aloud if anyone wished to make a motion to rise. Professor Barker so moved, and, there being no dissent, the Council adjourned, sine die. The time was 4:25. The sun still shown brilliantly over a campus that now seemed utterly abandoned by students, who would—very soon—be joined by the rapidly retreating members of the Arts and Sciences Council.

Respectfully submitted,

Fred Anderson, Chair

April 19, 2001

Minutes: Arts & Sciences Faculty Spring Meeting

  • April 19, 2001
  • Old Main Chapel
  • 3:30-4:30 p.m.

The Chair of the Arts and Sciences Council, Fred Anderson, called the meeting to order at 3:35.

Having introduced himself, the Chair ruled that, in view of the absence of a ten-percent quorum of the faculty, the announced business of the meeting (consideration of two amendments to the Bylaws of the College) could not be conducted. An email ballot would instead be taken in the coming week. The meeting, therefore, would be for informational purposes and general discussion only.

The Chair then invited the chairs of the six ASC standing committees, as well as a member of the Ad Hoc Committee on Retention, Career Management, and Academic Community, to describe the activities of their organizations over the course of the year.

Martha Gimenez (SOCY), chair of the Grievance Committee, reported that no new grievances were filed with the committee this year, and that its activities had consisted of completing the one case that had carried over from the previous year.

Terry Kleeman (RLST), chair of the Planning Committee, reported that he and his colleagues had dealt with a variety of issues, including the ATLAS project and the operation of facilities management on the campus. In the coming year, the brief of the committee would be expanded beyond its present bricks-and-mortar emphasis to include instructional technology and the formulation of policies for the College in the field of intellectual property.

Tony Barker (PHYS), chair of the Personnel Committee, described the activities of his committee as being both confidential and time-consuming. More than fifty personnel cases had passed through the committee this year: nineteen for pre-tenure reappointment, and sixteen each for promotion and tenure, and promotion to the rank of Professor. Ninety percent of these cases were decided positively. The only consistently problematic issue to arise had to do with the ways in which departments defined and documented “excellence” as applied to teaching. As a result, the committee made a formal definition and guidelines on how to demonstrate it available to the departments. This was not an attempt to define a new standard, but rather to specify the one already in place and used for several years by the Personnel Committee and its predecessors. The guidelines had been added to the “Tips for Re-Appointment, Tenure, and Promotion Cases” document that departments may use to help them organize candidates’ files.

Dennis Van Gerven reported on behalf of the Diversity Committee, of which he is chair. The Spring Forum series on diversity issues, inaugurated last year, is proceeding this year with a panel discussion on the state of female faculty. This forum, entitled “Women Doing Twenty,” draws on the experiences and the insights gained over the last two decades by women who have been on the faculty that long, or longer. The committee is presently in the midst of awarding funds for diversity activities to be conducted by departments and other organizations in the coming year. Current activities supported include providing buses, tours, and lunches for groups from under-represented schools who wish to come to campus, and facilitating partnerships between K-12 educators and departments in the College. Proposals that will be funded include increasing the availability of rooms, special facilities, and proctors for learning-disabled students taking examinations; and a video documentary entitled “So Tell Us What You Do” concerning the custodial staff on campus, produced by students from Film Studies under the sponsorship of Professor Ernesto Acevedo-Munoz. The latter project will continue in the Fall term.

Oliver Gerland, chair of the Curriculum Committee, described his organization as the primary decision-making body in undergraduate education, with a charge that extends to the supervision of major and minor requirements, core curriculum, and the approval of course proposals. The committee does not, at present, review every course proposal–those duties have been delegated to the Assistant Dean for Curriculum, Richard Nishikawa; its current emphasis has been instead on policy matters, such as the revision of the core curriculum (defeated by faculty vote in the fall term) and proposed changes to the wording that defines residency in terms of the minimum numbers of hours spent on campus before graduation, and the proportion of those hours that must consist of upper division courses.

Gail Ramsberger, chair of the Budget Committee, described both the routine business of her committee–to meet with and advise the Dean on budgetary matters and policies–and the activities of a subcommittee appointed this year to examine faculty raises. This subcommittee report, available on the Arts and Sciences Council web page, grew out of a sense that the amount of money available for faculty salaries is simply insufficient for us to keep pace with our peer institutions, and that we are therefore both continually vulnerable to being raided and perennially faced with the poor morale that accompanies unrewarded or under-rewarded work. Having examined the data available on special merit raises, including those made to match offers, it is quite clear that under-funding is indeed the core issue, and that much more than annual increments of inflation plus one percent will be necessary if we are to close the gap between ourselves and our peers. The state legislature, in part because of constraints imposed by the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) Amendment and in part because of its traditional parsimony in matters of funding for CU-Boulder, seems unlikely to increase appropriations to the point that this problem can be resolved in the near future. One possible means of addressing this is for the CU Foundation to make fund raising for faculty salaries a major emphasis; the drawback to this is that donors typically have specific interests or projects to support, and tend to resist giving money to the University in a form that could be used to support faculty salaries.

Rolf Norgaard (UWRP), reported on behalf of the Ad Hoc Committee on Retention, Career Management, and Academic Community, which has also rendered a report available on the ASC web site. Retention issues, this report argues, are not solely matters of salary but of the quality of life in the university, and thus must be addressed more broadly, by making improvements in the quality of academic community. Among the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee’s report are that high priority should be placed on developing a web-based means of coordinating and publicizing initiatives in housing assistance, child care, tuition support, etc. Even more than this, however, the need for proper mentoring, recognition, and support for all members of the College, at every career stage, is central to sustaining a viable academic community. To this end the report pays special attention to the welfare of instructors, associate professors who have been in rank for more than a decade, and full professors who are within a decade or so of retirement–all groups that may experience “frozen” career progression in one form or another. This report, a long and detailed document, will be available as a guide for the agenda of the Diversity Committee, which will be charged with pursuing it in future years.

The Chair expressed his gratitude for these excellent reports and asked the Dean of the College if he would care to add a few words. Peter Spear replied that, indeed, he would. Five years ago, he said, both he and the Arts and Sciences Council were new to the University of Colorado. He had regarded the nurturing of a culture of shared governance as one of his highest priorities ever since. While much remains to be done–notably, at present, in specifying the relationship between the Chairs and Directors and the Arts and Sciences Council in such a way as to make the two bodies complementary and cooperative, rather than competitive and redundant–the progress that he has seen in five years has been palpable, and he has been proud to be involved in the growth of a culture of shared governance. He concluded by thanking the incumbent Chair for his service over the last year.

The Chair thanked the Dean for his support of faculty governance and commented that he had found it an unexpected pleasure to serve as a member of the Council. A more reasonably anticipated pleasure, he added, now awaited the patient assembled faculty members, in the form of a buffet reception upstairs in the Heritage Center; all that would be necessary for the faculty to avail themselves of those dainties and delights would be for someone to make a motion to adjourn. And it was, indeed, so speedily moved and seconded, with so little evident dissent, that the meeting stood adjourned (on schedule) at 4:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Fred Anderson, Chair, Arts and Sciences Council

(These minutes were prepared from notes taken by Susan Phillips, Assistant to the Dean of Arts and Sciences.)

April 5, 2001

Minutes: Arts & Sciences Council

  • Thu, April 5, 2001
  • CU Recreation Center, Rooms 3 & 4
  • 3:30 – 5:00 PM

Members present: Ernesto Acevedo-Munoz (FILM), Fred Anderson (HIST) Chair, Tony Barker (PHYS), Ronald Bernier (FA), Cathy Comstock (FARR), Bob Easton (APPM), Robert Eaton (EPOB), Oliver Gerland (THDN), Howard Goldblatt (EALC), Stanley Jones (COM), Terry Kleeman (RLST), Carl Koval (CHEM), Dale Mood (KAPH), Rolf Norgaard (UWRP), Gail Ramsberger (SLHS), Artemi Romanov (GSLL), Jerry Rudy (PSYC), Eckart Schutrumpf (CLAS), Peter Spear (Dean, A&S)

Members absent: Joanne Belknap (WMST), Robert Boswell (MCDB), Christopher Braider (FRIT), David Budd (GEOL), Gary Gaile (GEOG), Martha Gimenez (SOCY), Paul Gordon (CLHM), Anna Hasenfratz (PHYS), Daniel Jurafsky (LING), Amanda Lynch (PAOS), Jerry Malitz (MATH), Donald Roper (ECON), Dennis van Gerven (HONR), Sue Zemka (ENG)

The Chair called the meeting to order at 3:40 P.M.

The first order of business was the adoption of the following resolution on the proposed Honor Code, which had been read at the meeting of March 15, 2001:

WHEREAS the integrity of the educational process at the University of Colorado depends upon the articulation and enforcement of the highest standards of academic ethics, and

WHEREAS the Laws of the Regents assign responsibility for supervising academic ethics in the College of Arts and Sciences to the Faculty and their representatives, and

WHEREAS any change in the current system will necessarily require the approval of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences,

RESOLVED, that the Arts and Sciences Council approves the continuing work of the student body on an Honor Code, encourages the students involved in formulating such a code to consult closely with the Council and its designated representative(s), and promises to provide its views and advice on any proposed changes in the existing system for enforcement of academic ethics.

The resolution was adopted unanimously, without abstentions.

The Chair then turned to the next item, the approval of the Bylaw motions to be transmitted to the Faculty for a vote at the coming College-wide Faculty meeting, on April 19th. The motion of transmittal passed unanimously, again without abstentions, and the proposed changes to the Bylaws will accordingly be placed before the Faculty.

The Chair then introduced the main business of the meeting, the discussion of the Budget committee’s deliberations on the skims contemplated for the coming academic year, and the discussion (carried over from the previous meeting) of the Report of the Budget Subcommittee on Faculty Raises, and the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Retention, Career Management, and Academic Community. He called on Gail Ramsberger (SLHS), Chair of the Budget Committee, to summarize the findings of the Budget Committee.

Prof. Ramsberger outlined the current anticipated size of the budget increment that can be allocated to salaries as CPI plus 1%, or a total increase of 5%. Unit merit will likely be taken care of above the level of the College by a skim made by the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs (Provost); had that skim been made at the College level, it would likely have amounted to between .4 and .5 percent, so the savings will be substantial, and the amount available for faculty raises at the College level will be the full 5%. The Budget Committee wishes to propose that promotion raises, never previously formalized at the College level, be implemented this year. This can be handled in one of three ways:

  • Option 1: A&S takes a skim of .55% and sets the promotion raise at $2,000.
    • This leaves less in the way of funds for retention and career merit.
  • Option 2: A&S takes a skim of .6% and sets the promotion raise at $2,500.
    • This leaves slightly more for career merit and retention cases.
  • Option 3: The Chairs and Directors have expressed a preference for a .6% skim and then setting the raises differentially at $2,000 for associate professors and $3,000 for professors.
    • This can be done so long as we return CPI to the departments.

Discussion followed. Bob Easton (APPM) expressed a preference for Option 3, which offers at least some small help in the endless problem of counteracting salary compression.

Eckart Schutrumpf (CLAS) asked what the value in dollars for one percent would be in the anticipated budget. Dean Peter Spear responded that assuming a .6% skim on the current salary base of the College ($46 million), one percent would amount to $276,328; this would return at least CPI to the departments.

Tony Barker (PHYS) then asked what went back to the departments last year. Dean Spear replied that last year’s return rate was 3.01%; inflation was 2.9%. Professor Barker then observed that the proposed rate of return in the coming year would be unlikely to remedy the result complained of so frequently this year, that faculty performing at or above expectations were receiving raises below the rate of inflation. Dean Spear observed that in the current year 67% of faculty members in Arts and Sciences had in fact received increases equal to or greater than the rate of inflation; and that while it was by no means salutary for one-third of the faculty who performed their jobs well to receive sub-inflationary increases, it was important not to overstate the case.

Oliver Gerland (THDN) noted that, unlike last year when the inflation rate was pegged to the national CPI and produced an increase well below the Denver-Boulder rate of inflation, this year’s legislature had agreed to increases at the local rate of 4%-a relatively more generous settlement, or at least a less punitive one, than in the previous year.

Professor Schutrumpf then inquired how the Dean proposed to dispose of the money (approximately $200,000, by his estimate) remaining after the monies paid in promotion increases were taken out. Dean Spear replied that the remaining money would be spent on retention and career merit increases, just as it is now; as well as on the so-called “Dean’s list,” which supports pay increases for Chairs, and usually totals between ten and fifteen thousand dollars annually.

Professor Barker asked the Dean to describe what happens to raise money that would go to vacant lines. The dean responded that the Vice Chancellor’s (Provost’s) office retains this sum, then uses it on a campus-wide basis to supplement salaries. This year, for example, the $160,000 set aside for gender-equity adjustments, and quite probably the money used for unit merit adjustments, will come from this source.

Professor Ramsberger noted that the Budget Committee is in favor of beginning the new promotion-raise system conservatively, and increasing the amount allotted over time, if possible; the point is to preserve as much as possible for the other raises.

Jerry Rudy (PSYC) observed that if the College is skimmed for unit merit, we should vocally oppose this, or take the unit merit money and use it to fund retention offers; at no event should we fall below 4.4% increase-i.e., the skim should be no larger than .6 percent.

Dean Spear replied that the Chancellor is committed to finding money for unit merit in addition to the promised 5 percent; at least some of this increase will be up to the legislature, which Ric Porreca is confident will come through with a healthy share. As a point of clarification, he added that the difference between Option 1 and Options 2 and 3-i.e., between a .55% skim and a .6% skim-would be approximately $15,000, or the difference between $60,000 and $75,000.

Carl Koval (CHEM) spoke in favor of Option 3 as the best because it occurs outside of the normal modified-2X scheme, leaves money for retention, and does something to fight against compression. That the College is faced with nine to ten retention cases a year, he concluded, is a good sign, because it means our faculty continue to do high-quality work, and to attract attention when other schools seek to hire scholars of distinction.

The Chair then called for a straw vote to determine which of the three options should be adopted. Two members voted in favor of Option 1; none in favor of Option 2; and 15 in favor of Option 3. The recommendation of the Council to the Dean is therefore to reward promotion at a rate of $2,000 for those being made associate professors, and $3,000 for those being made professors.

Professor Ramsberger then raised two housekeeping issues in the previously adopted Report of the Budget Subcommittee on Faculty Raises. Section 4B, as adopted along with other modifications to the Report at the last meeting, now has the potential to reduce the Dean’s discretion and to force a large skim to be taken irrespective of whether the overall budget increase in any given year exceeded inflation. The Budget Committee therefore recommends that section 4B be deleted from the report. Professor Schutrumpf inquired if this would make the Report a toothless document; Professor Ramsberger answered that the point of deleting the section is to remove an element of irrationality in potential outcomes. Professor Koval, speaking as a member of the Chairs and Directors, noted that that body would prefer the section to be removed.

The Chair then called for a vote on a motion to delete Section 4B. The motion carried by a vote of 16 yes, 0 no, 1 abstention. Section 4B was therefore removed.

The Chair then asked the Council for comment and suggestions for modification to the proposed Preface to the Budget Committee report, written by an ad hoc committee composed of Christopher Braider (FRIT) and himself. There were no suggested amendments. A motion to adopt the Preface as a part of the Report then passed by a unanimous vote.

The Chair asked Rolf Norgaard (UWRP) to address the proposed changes in the Ad Hoc Committee Report on Retention, Career Management, and Academic Community. Dr. Norgaard thanked the members for their comments on the Report and summarized the changes made in consequence of their advice. All references to “free agents” and “free agency” have been removed; the Career Management section has been altered to remove references that might be construed as derogating the primacy of teaching and research over service.

A vigorous, not entirely orderly, and difficult-to-summarize discussion then ensued, centering on the metaphor of “frozenness” to describe the evident loss of career momentum on the part of some faculty members. Several objections were raised-by Professors Koval, Schutrumpf, and Easton, among others-to what they perceived as a needlessly pejorative term; others-particularly Ron Bernier (FINE), Stan Jones (COMM), Ernesto Acevedo-Muñoz (FILM), and Cathy Comstock (FARR)-found the term to be vivid and intentionally provocative, and favored retaining it. The Chair, perceiving that little progress was being made toward resolving the issues under discussion, suggested that perhaps an ad hoc committee on revision might be appointed, as in the case of the Preface to the Budget Subcommittee Report; and that this committee’s modifications could then be submitted to the Council for approval or further change.

At length Professor Koval called the attention of the members to Section 3.5, dealing with institutional service, commenting that while service is no doubt a worthy endeavor, we tend to do far too much of it, and this section seems to “incentivize” service by suggesting that it be rewarded on the same basis as teaching and research. Dr. Comstock disagreed, on the grounds that service should be valued more, and that it increases the sense of community and mutual obligation among colleagues, both within the College and on the campus as a whole.

Professor Rudy called attention to what he regarded as an offensive and gratuitous fling at the character of administrators at the top of page 17. Dr. Norgaard offered to remove the paragraph; Dr. Comstock observed that a single sentence might be removed, and the paragraph retained.

The Chair, noting that the time for adjournment was rapidly approaching, asked if the members would approve the appointment of an ad hoc committee on revision, consisting of himself and Dr. Norgaard, which would report back; and asked if the Council would care to adopt the report, subject to the approval of those revisions. It was then moved and seconded that the ad hoc committee on revision be appointed, and the report adopted subject to approval of their revisions; the motion passed by a vote of 16 yes, 0 no, and 1 abstention.

Professor Barker, who had evidently been watching the clock even more closely than the Chair, observed that the hour of adjournment had indeed arrived, and moved that the Council rise. There was so little in the way of dissent among members, who were, in truth, already in the process of rising from their seats, that an observer might almost have thought that they had anticipated this motion by a kind of mental telepathy, and had voiced their assent by the same instantaneous means. Fortunately, enough affirmative noises hung in the air as they broke for the doors that the Chair was able to conclude that there was in fact no dissent from Professor Barker’s motion. The meeting therefore stood adjourned at 5:00 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Fred Anderson, Chair

March 15, 2001

Minutes: Arts & Sciences Council Meeting

  • Thu, March 15, 2001
  • CU Recreation Center, Rooms 3 & 4
  • 3:30 – 5:00 PM

Members present: Ernesto Acevedo-Munoz (FILM), Fred Anderson, (HIST) Chair, Tony Barker (PHYS), Robert Boswell (MCDB), Chris Braider (FRIT), Cathy Comstock (FARR), Jeff Dodge (S&G Record), Bob Easton (APPM), Robert Eaton (EPOB), Oliver Gerland (THDN), Martha Gimenez (SOCY), Stanley Jones (COM), Terry Kleeman (RLST), Carl Koval (CHEM), Russ McGoodwin (ANTH), Robert McNown (ECON), Dale Mood (KAPH), Gail Ramsberger (SLHS), Peter Spear (Dean, A&S)

Visitors: Ron Stump, Vice Chancellor Student Affairs, Jeff Luftig, Faculty Advisor to Honor Code, Student Representatives: John-John Cord, Christian Gardner-Wood

Members absent: Joanne Belknap (WMST), Ronald Bernier (FA), David Budd (GEOL), Gary Gail (GEOG), Howard Goldblatt (EALC), Paul Gordon (CLHM), Anna Hasenfratz (PHYS), Daniel Jurafsky (LING), Amanda Lynch (PAOS), Jerry Malitz (MATH), Rolf Norgaard (UWRP), Artemi Romanov (GSLL), Donald Roper (ECON), Jerry Rudy (PSYC), Eckart Schutrumpf (CLAS), Diane Sieber (SPAN), Dennis van Gerven (HONR), Sue Zemka (ENG)

The Chair called the meeting to order at 3:35 PM.

The first item of business for the meeting was a discussion of the student-proposed Honor Code. The Chair introduced two students working on the Honor Code, John-John Cord and Christian Gardner, as well as the faculty advisor for the Honor Code, Jeffrey Luftig, Senior Instructor in the College of Business, and Ron Stump, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, who has also been closely involved with the development of the draft Honor Code. The Chair invited the students to explain the present status of the Honor Code to the ASC.

Mr. Cord explained that the proposed Honor Code had gone through a number of revisions, and that the students had decided that further revisions would be necessary, partly in response to concerns expressed by members of the faculty, including the Executive Committee of the ASC. In order to facilitate greater faculty input into the Honor Code, the students requested that an ASC representative be appointed as Honor Code Liaison. The representative would then participate in biweekly Honor Code meetings aimed at producing a final draft Honor Code for consideration by the Arts and Sciences faculty in Fall 2001.

Mr. Cord explained that the Honor Code was intended to establish a system of trust between students and faculty. He noted that studies of cheating behavior among college students showed substantially less self-reported cheating at institutions with honor codes, indicating that peer enforcement of academic ethics is more effective than enforcement by faculty.

Prof. Koval (CHEM) asked Mr. Cord whether an Honor Code would involve the transfer of primary responsibility for academic ethics from the faculty to the students. Mr. Cord replied that it would. Prof. Koval remarked that this could be problematic, since the Laws of the Regents explicitly delegate authority for matters of academic ethics to the faculty. Vice Chancellor Stump replied that the Honor Code merely amounted to a change in the venue of the original hearing on charges of ethics violations, and that the Chancellor held the relevant authority. Prof. Anderson (HIST) disagreed, and noted that Regental approval would indeed be required for any transfer of authority over academic ethics. Vice Chancellor Stump replied that the Regents would likely approve such a change if the faculty supported it.

Prof. Mood (KINE) remarked that the existing Arts and Sciences Committee on Academic Ethics has both student and faculty representation, as opposed to the proposed Honor Council, which would consist entirely of students. Vice Chancellor Stump replied that the majority of the existing committee consists of faculty, which is inconsistent with the concept of a student-run Honor Code.

Prof. Easton (APPM) asked how the Honor Code would work in large classes: would students be expected to turn each other in for violations? Dr. Luftig responded, noting that he teaches large classes in the Business School. Recently he caught 23 students cheating. After confronting them, all admitted to the violation. He noted that this situation would not have been different had there been an Honor Code. Mr. Gardner remarked that the proposed Honor Code is of the variety called a "Modified Honor Code," which does not require students to report Honor Code violations, as a traditional West Point-style Honor Code does, and which has a variety of sanctions dependent on the offense, whereas a traditional Honor Code has a single sanction of expulsion.

Prof. Barker (PHYS) noted that although he supports the idea of having a variety of sanctions, he is concerned by the concept of "Modified Honor," which relieves students of the responsibility to enforce the Honor Code. If an Honor Code is designed to give students control over and responsibility for academic ethics violations, he suggested that it should require students to report Honor Code violations they observe. Dr. Comstock (FARR) noted that she strongly supported the Modified Honor Code concept, and that she would not want an Honor Code that would require students to “snitch” on one another.

Dr. Comstock asked Prof. Mood how many cases go before the existing Academic Ethics Committee each year. Prof. Mood replied that the number is generally between zero and ten. Dr. Comstock then asked Mr. Gardner whether faculty members would have the flexibility to decide whether cases of ethics violations would go forward under the proposed Honor Code, or whether faculty could resolve such cases privately as is often done in the existing system. Mr. Gardner replied that faculty would continue to have flexibility to resolve cases by mutual agreement with the accused student, but that any such case would have to be reported to the Honor Council so that records could be kept. Dr. Luftig noted that this is similar to the system currently used in the Business School.

Dr. Luftig then returned to Prof. Barker’s reservations about the lack of a reporting requirement in the proposed Honor Code. He asked Prof. Barker whether he would report a fellow faculty member whom he (Prof. Barker) knew to be guilty of ethics violations. Prof. Barker replied that the ongoing discussion concerned implementation of a student Honor Code, and that faculty ethics are a separate matter. The ASC Chair added that this question is a red herring, inasmuch as well-established systems already exist for dealing with ethics violations by faculty.

Dr. Comstock asked how the proposed Code would handle borderline cases of plagiarism, which can be controversial and unclear. Dr. Luftig responded that the instructor would still use his or her judgment to determine what constitutes cheating.

Prof. Jones (COM) asked how the new Honor Code would establish an environment in which cheating is unacceptable. Would this be accomplished merely by asking students to sign a document in which they promise not to cheat? Mr. Cord replied that an extensive system of education sessions in residence halls would be established in order to inform students about issues of academic ethics. In addition, the Honor Code pledge will be posted and will be printed on exam blue books.

The Chair noted that the time allotted for discussion of the Honor Code was drawing to a close. He informed the ASC that Prof. McGoodwin (ANTH) had kindly agreed to serve as the ASC Honor Code liaison for the remainder of the academic year. In addition, the Chair had prepared a resolution in support of further development of the Honor Code, which will be brought forward for a vote at the next regular ASC meeting.

At 4:10 pm, the Honor Code discussion was concluded, and the Chair introduced the topic of the report of the ASC Budget Committee on faculty raises. Prof. Gail Ramsberger (SLHS), Chair of the Budget Committee, reviewed the draft report and the recommendations it contained. Some issues to discuss include retention increases, the setting of priorities, particularly when the raise pool is below the CPI, and promotion raises.

Prof. Koval then proposed several modifications to the recommendations. These included eliminating recommendation 2.2, concerning what percentage of the college raise pool should be returned to departments, and removing the 49% limit on the portion of the special merit pool used for retention in recommendation 3.1.3. Prof. Koval noted that "money will always flow from the top," and that the ASC probably cannot control the size of campus and college skims in any event. Prof. Ramsberger remarked that Prof. Koval’s amendments would have the effect of emasculating the recommendations, so that there would no longer be any emphasis on the importance of getting at least CPI back to the departments for the regular merit raise pool. Prof. Braider (FRIT) noted that the ASC cannot hope to control skims at the campus level. To Prof. Ramsberger’s following comment that these are after all only recommendations, not binding policy, Prof. Braider responded that the principles stated will almost certainly be ignored at times.

Prof. Koval then proposed further reductions in the recommendations, this time removing quantitative guidelines in recommendation 2.1. Prof. Gerland (THDN) noted that the reason for mentioning the CPI several times in the recommendations was to recognize the sentiment that faculty with meritorious performance should get cost of living raises.

Prof. Ramsberger noted that the report does not attempt to dictate how departments divide the raise pool they receive. Dean Spear agreed with this, and remarked that departments could still elect to use funds in their raise pools for retention offers. However, if the language in recommendation 3.1.3 were adopted, they might not get as much help from the college special merit pool as they do now. Prof. Gerland remarked that this would make life in a department with a retention case extremely uncomfortable, and argued that the Dean must have some flexibility to deal with retention cases at the college level.

Prof. Braider said that the document tries to address fundamental principles, but perhaps doesn’t go deep enough in laying out the basic problems. For example, at the root of the several mentions of the CPI in the recommendations is a basic issue of equity. Prof. Braider then made the incisive comment that “The foolish and demeaning carrot-and-stick philosophy underpinning the existing merit raise system is annoying and self-defeating.” He wondered whether we should not have COLA’s and a step system of raises. Moving back to the report under discussion, he suggested that since we have no policy control, we should try to state a basic philosophy and not confound it with excessively detailed recommendations, which he compared to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

The Chair asked whether Prof. Braider was proposing to add a preamble to the report espousing a set of basic principles. Prof. Barker remarked that concern over raises below the CPI in 2000 lay behind much of the discontent that led to creation of the report, so that setting out basic principles of fairness would be a good idea. Dean Spear noted that 67% of the Arts and Sciences faculty had actually received raises equal to or above inflation in 2000. Prof. Koval suggested that the principles to be stated should in any event be independent of the size of the raise pool, and that all references to the CPI should be removed from the document. He reminded the ASC that the real problem is the inadequate size of the raise pool to meet all the legitimate needs.

Prof. Koval asked the Dean to explain what happens to the differential between the salaries of retiring faculty and those of newly-hired faculty, known as (by apparent analogy with automobile trade-in allowances) as "blue-book value." Dean Spear explained that this money, which might otherwise have been available for faculty raises, had been used to replenish a $1.7 million cut taken by his predecessor Dean Middleton in salaries allocated to vacant faculty lines. As these lines came up to be filled, the salary money had to be recovered and this came from the "blue-book value." All the “blue-book value” money for the last four years has been used for this purpose. Thus, the $1.7 million cut was effectively taken from the potential faculty raise pool. The Dean also noted that the college maintains more faculty lines than it actually has continuing funding for, and that salary money from vacant lines is used to cover this deficit. Future blue-book value funds may be needed for this purpose as well. In any event, next year will see the first positive blue-book value for the college in six years.

Prof. Easton noted that one of the key issues is the competition for funds between the need to reward special merit, and the equally vital need to reward "ordinary merit." There is a tendency to overlook ordinary merit because of the greater urgency of special merit cases. Dr. Comstock said that the Budget Committee had reviewed all the special merit cases for the last three years, and found that the raises granted seemed reasonable in the vast majority of cases. She added that departments need flexibility, but praised the overall quality of the report.

Prof. Gimenez (SOCY) asked the ASC to consider what merit really means. Is merit equal just to the quantity of output? She emphasized that due consideration must also be paid to quality. Prof. Ramsberger said that the report does not try to address how departments do internal merit evaluations.

Prof. McNown (ECON) noted that the tradeoff between special and ordinary merit is a difficult issue that the recommendations in the report try to address. Prof. Kleeman (EALC) remarked that promotion raises should really be in a separate category from other special merit raises.

Prof. Eaton (EPOB) said that he shared Prof. Koval’s concern about limiting retention raises. He said that his department supports lower raises for most faculty if that is required to fund special merit raises for “stars.”

Prof. Barker suggested that the report needs a clear statement of the importance of rewarding ordinary merit.

The Chair moved to conclude the discussion by summarizing the proposed amendments. First, there was the Braider Amendment, which would entail drafting a preamble which would state the general principles the ASC would like to see used in faculty raises decisions. Second, there were a series of Koval Amendments, which would remove all mention of quantitative guidelines, in particular all references to the CPI in the recommendations.

The Braider Amendment was passed 15 Yes, 0 No; Profs. Anderson and Braider will get together to draft the preamble.

Prof. Barker proposed a new version for recommendation 2.2: “The College of Arts and Sciences should place high priority on recognizing ordinary merit by trying to ensure that the salaries of meritorious faculty members keep pace with inflation.” This was agreed to unanimously by the ASC.

Votes were taken on the rest of Prof. Koval’s amendments to modify the various recommendations. The amendment to provision 2.1 passed, 10 Yes, 5 No; the amendment to provision 2.2 passed, 8 Yes, 7 No; and the amendment to 3.1.3 failed, Yes 5, 8 No, 2 Abstaining. A revised version of provision 2.2, proposed by Prof. Barker, was adopted 15 yes, 0 No.

The meeting had by this time extended until some ten minutes after 5:00, and the Chair began to note a general Restlessness among the now-weary Members. The necessary Votes having been cast and tallied, the Chair suggested that a Motion to Adjourn would not be unwelcome. This suggestion did not long go unheeded, and it was so moved and seconded with Dispatch, whereupon, the Chair having called for a vote, the air was filled with enthusiastic cries of Assent.

Respectfully submitted,

Fred Anderson, Chair, ASC

(These minutes reflect a virtually verbatim transcription of notes taken by Professor Tony Barker, with additions and one inconsequential correction by Fred Anderson, and further additions by Lucy Nowak. The style is Professor Barker’s inimitable own, including several well-chosen Capitalizations for Emphasis.)

March 8, 2001

Minutes: Arts & Sciences Council

  • Thu, March 8, 2001
  • CU Recreation Center, Rooms 3 & 4
  • 3:30 – 5:00 PM

Members present: Ernesto Acevedo-Munoz (FILM), Fred Anderson (HIST) Chair, Tony Barker (PHYS), Joanne Belknap (WMST), Ronald Bernier (FA), Chris Braider (FRIT), David Budd (GEOL), Cathy Comstock (FARR), Jeff Dodge (S&G Record), Bob Easton (APPM), Martha Gimenez (SOCY), Alice Healy (PSYC) visitor, Stan Jones (COM), Terry Kleeman (RLST), Carl Koval (CHEM), Dale Mood (KAPH), Rolf Norgaard (UWRP), Gail Ramsberger (SLHS), Artemi Romanov (GSLL), Peter Spear (Dean, A&S), Sue Zemka (ENG)

Members absent: Robert Boswell (MCDB), Robert Eaton (EPOB), Gary Gaile (GEOG), Oliver Gerland (THDN), Howard Goldblatt (EALC), Paul Gordon (CLHM), Anna Hasenfratz (PHYS), Daniel Jurafsky (LING), Amanda Lynch (PAOS), Jerry Malitz (MATH), Donald Roper (ECON), Jerry Rudy (PSYC), Eckart Schutrumpf (CLAS), Diane Sieber (SPAN), Dennis van Gerven (HONR)

The Chair called the meeting to order at 3:40 PM.

The members approved the minutes of Feb 15th without dissent.

The Chair reported on pending issues, beginning with the Honor Code; student representatives will attend the Council’s next meeting (March 15th) to report on the progress of the code. He warned the members present that the principal item on the coming meeting agenda will be the Budget subcommittee report, and that there will be a motion to adopt the report, as amended, to be voted at that meeting. He also mentioned that measures proposed by Frank Beer for the closer coordination of governance activities between BFA and ASC will be taken under consideration in the coming year. As far as the remainder of the present year is concerned, the ASC will need to return to the Report on Retention and Academic Community for a vote at the meeting of April 5th; bylaw amendments, including the proposed amendment to reduce the membership of standing committees to 4 as compared to "at least 7" will be submitted for approval at the Spring faculty meeting, and not (unless a motion is made there to require it) voted on by mail ballot.

The Chair continued that the Homework Assignment had been completed and has produced two excellent reports. The two reports, he suggested, are closely complementary to each other, and have the common goal of maximizing limited resources to build a sustainable academic community, one that faculty members will not necessarily be eager to abandon when offers from other institutions come their way.

Rolf Norgaard (UWRP) then reported on behalf of the Ad-Hoc Committee on Retention, Career Management and Academic Community; Professor Alice Healy (PSYC) was also present to answer questions and represent the non-ASC members of the Committee. A vigorous discussion followed. Cathy Comstock (FARR) commented favorably on the report, asking that certain dimensions relating directly to Instructors, such as institutional support for their research and creative work, be amplified in the final version. Carl Koval (CHEM) objected to what he perceived as the report’s tendency to confound categories of scholarship and service that have always been considered separately, and objected as well to the absence of any sense of what the proposals would cost to implement. Aspects of the report that suggest any lessening of the rigor with which departmental and college committees assess the scholarly achievements of faculty members should, he continued, be stricken. Martha Gimenez (SOCY) observed that promotion and tenure committees at the department level are often unwilling to assess the comparative quality of various faculty members’ work, and prefer to take approaches that gave preference to work completed speedily, rather than work that shows creativity and genuine intellectual accomplishment. Tony Barker (PHYS) disagreed with this assessment as stating a general case, pointing out that the ASC has a Personnel Committee to superintend decisions on promotion and tenure. It is that committee’s duty attend to differences between departments and disciplines, and he believes that at least at present it does so without overturning standards or blurring distinctions between scholarly work and other dimensions of faculty activity.

The Chair suggested that the report had been intended to generate discussion, and that the discussion that was taking place was a sign that it had succeeded in that goal, at least. He also urged members not to overlook the whole scope of the recommendations contained in the report, and especially the recommendation that a committee be established to carry on the implementation phase for the next several years.

Discussion then resumed on the question of service and whether it could be considered creative work. Dr. Comstock remarked that service tends to be undervalued, and any effort to increase recognition of its importance is a good thing. Dr. Norgaard in reply drew a distinction between “managerial” service, such as department chairmanship and superintending independent studies, and creative service, such as curriculum design and the training of graduate instructors.

David Budd (GEOL) drew attention to the language of the report with respect to "free agency," and called to the members’ attention the response of one of his colleagues who had been tendered an outside offer and elected to remain at CU; to be characterized as mercenary in motive simply for having had one’s work recognized as worthy of an outside offer seemed to him a harsh and unwarranted judgment. He urged that the language be moderated in the final version. Chris Braider (FRIT) remarked that retention is a matter that depends upon many things other than salary, and commended the report for approaching the topic as it did. It would be well to recognize, however, that there were factors not considered in the report–the state of the libraries, for example–which may also bear on retention. Joanne Belknap (WMST) added that civility is one such factor, noting that there seems to be a rising incidence of hostility among students directed toward minority and female (particularly younger female) faculty. Ronald Bernier (FA) concurred.

Dean Spear applauded the report for its concrete recommendations and commented that retention efforts are in fact proactive; much of the special merit money is directed not to staving off outside offers but to rewarding worthy faculty and making them refrain from seeking other positions. Ernesto Acevedo-Munoz (FILM) asked if we have actual data on the departure of faculty for other institutions, and the reasons they leave. Dean Spear replied that exit interviews indicate that salary and spousal-employment issues are leading causes of departure. He went on to note that the rate of erosion of faculty to outside offers at CU is quite close to the rate at our peer institutions.

Sue Zemka (ENGL) and Professor Braider remarked that because outside offers may be tied to phases of career development–in Humanities they tend to come in the early years of employment or at the level of associate professors who have completed major second projects but have not yet been promoted to the rank of professor–retention may in part be a chimerical issue; the real concern of larger numbers of faculty is with “frozenness,” or being unable to continue to develop professionally and intellectually as a result of institutional factors that discourage or inhibit it. Stan Jones (COMM) inquired about the sense of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with career paths described in exit interviews with retiring faculty. Dr. Norgaard replied that emeriti are not interviewed at present. Professor Bernier suggested that retirees should not be allowed to fade away, as at present, if only because so much might be learned from them in exit interviews. Professor Belknap asked if exit interviews are at present analyzed; Dean Spear replied that results are summarized and made public, and that Associate Vice Chancellor Todd Gleeson, who supervises the interview process, might be approached to expand and improve it, perhaps by including retirees.

The Chair, noting that the time for discussion of the Budget Subcommittee report was drawing near, suggested that perhaps next year’s Council would wish to address this issue, and that AVC Gleeson might be invited to report on the topic, since his office is vitally concerned with many of the community life issues the report addresses. Further discussion of the Retention report would be possible at the 5 April meeting before voting on the motion to adopt the Ad-hoc Committee’s recommendations, as amended; he therefore invited the members to continue to consult their colleagues and return ready to complete the consideration of the report. The Chair then introduced Gail Ramsberger (SLHS), who would present the Budget Subcommittee report on faculty salary issues.

Professor Ramsberger summarized the findings of the report as falling under three headings: (1) the size of the pool; (2) the operation of the “modified 2X” rule in the special merit process; and (3) the size of the skims taken for rewarding individual and unit merit. Under heading (1), the subcommittee has concluded that the size of the pool is too small at present, and even the current commitment to increases at a rate of one percent above inflation would not serve to correct the problems–resulting in, although by no means limited to, losses of faculty to better-paying institutions–that arise from the inadequate size of the salary pool. With respect to (2), it seemed clear to the subcommittee that the “modified 2X” special merit process is in fact working as it was intended. The analysis of special merit requests for the past three years, however, discloses that while the number of annual requests has remained roughly constant, promotion raises are handled irregularly and career merit requests often result from promotions unaccompanied by pay raises; the report therefore recommends a standardized promotion increment. The analysis also disclosed that the average size of requests for matching outside offers has risen annually over the last three years, and is currently consuming a larger proportion of special merit funds than ever. Finally, with respect to heading (3), the report suggests that skims should take place at the college level only once inflation increases have been allocated to departments.

The Chair, observing that the last recommendation would in effect invert the way that skims are currently taken, invited discussion. Professor Koval responded with a series of observations and questions. He noted that he did not understand recommendation 3.1.4; that he found 3.1.3 a nightmare to implement and misguided insofar as it would make retention impossible in a sub-inflation-increase year; that any effort to guarantee inflation-level increases to departments would be met by opposition from the Board of Regents, which had mandated that inflation not be considered as a factor in granting pay increases to faculty members.

The Chair replied to Professor Koval’s last point by suggesting that the report in no way contravened Regental policy. Under its proposed scheme, departments would continue to award raises to individuals without respect to inflation, according to the merit-pay schemes they all have in place; the net effect, however, would be for departments not to lose ground to inflation as units. Professor Ramsberger added that the consequence of a sub-inflation year would be that all departments would maintain their same relative positions. Dale Mood (KAPH), a member of the subcommittee, commented that the intention was, insofar as possible, to preserve a “minimum level of decency” in the treatment of departments so that none would be unduly penalized as a result of straitened resources. Professor Koval replied that he found the underlying philosophy of this proposal worrisome; high-performing departments might well suffer more severely than mediocre ones in years of sub-inflation increases, and deserved to be treated in such a way as to preserve the excellence they had achieved.

Professor Belknap asked if Table 2, showing the gap between UCB salaries and those of counterpart institutions, had been adjusted for the cost of living, which had increased at a greater rate in Boulder-Denver than elsewhere. Professor Ramsberger replied that the table had not. Professor Easton commented that self-funding, while useful as a means of covering short-term problems, cannot permanently solve them.

Professor Budd disagreed with Professor Koval’s earlier suggestion that high-performing departments deserve special protection in years of low increase in order to keep from losing position with respect to peer departments in other institutions. Average departments (and even those judged less than average), Professor Budd argued, still have high-performing members, as well as members who meet or exceed expectations. Such faculty will be even more severely under-rewarded if their departments are made to suffer in order to sustain the reputations of high-performing departments in hard times.

Professor Koval did not reply directly to Professor Budd’s comment, but called attention to recommendation 3.1.1’s suggestion that a flat promotion increase should be instituted; what would become of that provision in the event of a sub-inflation-increase year? Dr. Comstock responded that while she finds unit merit (which she believes Professor Koval favors more than many faculty members) problematic, rewarding faculty at promotion deserves to come first, if only because it will tend to increase faculty morale, which might more easily be eroded by an approach that gives priority to rewarding unit merit. She concluded that on the whole she admired the report as the clearest statement of the operation of the merit pay system she had ever seen.

The Chair (reluctant as usual to see a vigorous discussion come to an end) commented that the announced time for adjournment had arrived, even though the issues raised by the two reports had not yet been exhaustively discussed. He noted, however, that insofar the discussion of the Budget subcommittee report would continue in the coming special meeting of 15 March, a motion for adjournment would be in order. Instantaneously it was so moved and seconded.

The meeting adjourned at 5:00 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Fred Anderson, Chair, Arts and Sciences Council

(This report was assembled from notes kept by Lucy Nowak, Terry Kleeman, and Fred Anderson.)

February 15, 2001

Minutes: Arts & Sciences Council

  • Thu, Feb 15, 2001
  • CU Recreation Center, Rooms 3 & 4
  • 3:30 – 5:00 PM

Members present: Ernesto Acevedo-Munoz (FILM), Fred Anderson (HIST) Chair, Tony Barker (PHYS), Frank Beer (BFA), Joanne Belknap (WMST & SOCY), Ronald Bernier (FA), Cathy Comstock (FARR), Bob Easton (APPM), Oliver Gerland (THDN), Howard Goldblatt (EALC), Paul Gordon (CLHM), Terry Kleeman (RLST), Jerry Malitz (MATH), Dale Mood (KINE), Gail Ramsberger (SLHS), Eckart Schutrumpf (CLAS), Peter Spear (Dean, A&S), Dennis van Gerven (HONR), Sue Zemka (ENG)

Members absent: Robert Boswell (MCDB), Chris Braider (FRIT), David Budd (GEOL), Robert Eaton (EPOB), Gary Gaile (GEOG), Anna Hasenfratz (PHYS), Stanley Jones (COM), Daniel Jurafsky (LING), Carl Koval (CHEM), Amanda Lynch (PAOS), Rolf Norgaard (UWRP), Donald Roper (ECON), Jerry Rudy (PSYC), Diane Sieber (SPAN)

The Chair called the meeting to order at 3:35 PM.

The members approved the minutes of the Jan 25 ASC meeting without dissent.

The Chair then made a brief report concerning the status of the draft Honor Code. Contrary to rumor, it has not been implemented for the College of Arts and Sciences, nor can it be until the ASC, and the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, have approved of the abolition of the Academic Ethics Committee, an eventuality that can only come to pass by amending the bylaws. He invited ASC members to review the draft Code and discuss it with their faculties. He also called attention to the draft of the “Course Forgiveness” policy, copies of which had been distributed to members in their meeting packets; this is much closer to implementation, on a trial basis. Faculty authority over this issue, which involves the ability of students to repeat up to nine hours of course work and substitute the grades earned for their original marks, is somewhat more tenuous than our custody of academic ethics. Yet it remains clear that while the Boulder Faculty Assembly had been consulted, and one of its members had indeed worked with the students and registrar’s office employees who drafted the policy, no substantial effort was made to consult the Arts and Sciences Council. Little can be done at this time to do more than protest the lack of consultation; but the ASC should monitor the development of the policy in its trial period, and may wish to seek direct involvement in evaluating its effects, as a means to determining whether or not to protest the policy’s permanent implementation.

Professor Anderson then introduced Frank Beer, Chair of the Boulder Faculty Assembly. Professor Beer spoke about governance shared between administrators and faculty members. Upon his election as BFA Chair in 1999, he spoke with various faculty members and administrators about how to make shared governance effective. Dean Spear advised, “Stay in the loop.” Beer has since expanded the metaphor, identifying shared governance as a network. To be effective, one must be connected, communicate and work within the network.

Beer then addressed the three most-frequently-made criticisms of shared governance: that “The best people don’t go into it;” that “It’s completely ineffective;” and that “It’s not representative.” Referring to a BFA handout distributed before the meeting, he noted that faculty government is by definition representative, because it was established by the Laws of the Regents (sections 4 and 5.E.1 and following), which stipulate the representative nature of both the BFA and the ASC. He then argued that the BFA is not only a de jure but a de facto representative of the campus faculty, with members drawn from various schools and colleges according to a prescribed arrangement, e.g. 8 at-large representatives from the College of Arts and Sciences, 8 representatives from schools and colleges other than A&S, etc. This distribution assures a fair representation of faculty opinion though, of course, not every UCB faculty member will agree with every position taken by the BFA. To those who complain about lack of representation or effectiveness, Beer advised, “Get involved! It is part of the faculty’s service responsibilities to participate in shared governance.” He described some BFA standing committees and current activities, taking special note of the BFA web page which, he argued with perhaps a hint of whimsy, is the single best source of information about shared governance in the world. Beer noted that BFA elections are coming up and concluded by saying that ASC and BFA should forge closer ties, perhaps by having an ASC “resource person” sit on BFA committees.

At the request of the Chair for a definition of a “resource person,” Beer stated, in essence, that this would be an ASC representative serving on a BFA committee as a member “without a vote, but with a voice;” such service, he continued, could not be rewarded, but would be a duty undertaken for the good of the College and for the promotion of common faculty interests. Oliver Gerland (THDN) noted that there are no rewards for shared governance generally: why should faculty members get involved? (This is an issue that ASC has struggled with as well). Beer answered that the rewards are intrinsic, not extrinsic; that faculty members can feel good about improving their fellow faculty members’ lives and the campus. He noted, for instance, the achievements of Cathy Comstock who after several years of work pushed through the “Instructor’s Bill of Rights” and the Administrator Appraisal Program. Current BFA projects include advancing so-called “soft benefits,” e.g. day care, surviving spouse health insurance, faculty housing, dependent tuition, etc.

Dean Peter Spear then commented that he greatly values shared governance, and thanked Professor Beer for his commitment to it. But the existence of two bodies of faculty representatives raises questions about hierarchy: How do decisions reached by Faculty Council impact action taken by the BFA, for example? Is the ASC bound by resolutions approved by the BFA? Beer replied that different campus administrators consult different faculty governance bodies, e.g. the President consults Faculty Council, the Chancellor consults BFA, the Dean consults ASC. Decisions reached by faculty-governance bodies in and of themselves are not binding on other faculty bodies; on the other hand, if a faculty resolution is approved by an administrator at a particular level, then everyone below that level must abide by it. For example, if the Chancellor establishes a BFA resolution as campus policy then the ASC must abide by it. The role of the BFA is to declare faculty sentiment on questions of concern to the campus as a whole; should the BFA come into direct conflict on an issue of policy with the governing body of one of the Colleges or Schools, such as the ASC, the Provost would arbitrate, or impose a solution. This eventuality, however, seemed unlikely, since representative bodies tend to agree when their constituencies overlap as extensively as those of the BFA and the ASC.

Eckart Schutrumpf (CLAS) applauded the efforts of Professor Beer and the BFA to address salary issues, but pointed out that the proper role of the BFA was to seek larger allocations of money, not to micromanage its distribution within the College of Arts and Sciences by means of motions on policy. Beer replied that the BFA is legitimately concerned with insuring a transparent faculty pay system, and that this would have little effect on the inner workings of the College of Arts and Sciences, in which the pay system is comparatively transparent, but other Colleges and Schools with less transparent systems might be influenced for the better by a clear articulation of principle. Dale Mood (KINE) recurred to the previous topic by observing that the question of hierarchy in faculty governance is an important and timely one in view of the current state of the Honor Code and Course Forgiveness policy, both of which (he continued) the BFA approved in principle, without first consulting the ASC. Professor Beer acknowledged that this is an example of the kind of breakdown in communication between the BFA and ASC, which he would like to prevent in future. These proposals came from the “Student Affairs Committee” and were put on a fast track, meaning that they were accepted in principle on a trial basis with the details to be worked out. Dean Spear added that there seems to have been a breakdown in communication as well between the Student Affairs Committee and Faculty Affairs. Professor Beer replied that the issue was always to improve the quality of communication, and that this was an instance, which would perhaps not have occurred, had there been a system of cross-representation of ASC members on BFA committees.

The Chair then observed that more than half of the allotted time for the meeting had passed and suggested that the time might be ripe for shifting to the next agenda item, which would have a substantial impact on governance issues within the College, and perhaps beyond it. He thanked Professor Beer for his thought-provoking comments and the members of the ASC for a “courteous and vigorous discussion,” then proceeded to the next item of business: votes on the proposed by-law amendments.

The Chair outlined the order in which the discussion and votes would occur: first, Professor Schutrumpf’s motion not to vote on Amendment A; and then Amendments A, B, and C. Professor Schutrumpf asked to clarify his motion. He argued that the ASC had already rejected Amendment A by voting down the motion from former ASC Chair Peter Knox that inspired it. The Chair then explained that Amendment A differs from the original Knox motion in an important respect—i.e., that only department chairs are excused from standing committee service under A, whereas Knox had proposed that the service requirement be eliminated for all ASC members. The “No” vote on the original Knox motion foreclosed the possibility of eliminating the ASC requirement as a general matter, but not of modifying it, as the Executive Committee has done in its proposed motions.

The Chair then ruled that Professor Schutrumpf’s motion required a second because it proceeded from an individual member rather than a committee, and that because its effect would not be to require the adoption of a bylaw change but to prevent further discussion and a vote, it would require only a simple majority, rather than a two-thirds majority, to pass. He asked Professor Schutrumpf to read the motion. Professor Schutrumpf obliged, and Paul Gordon (CLHM) seconded the motion. [Note: The full text of this, and the other three motions, can be found in the minutes of the ASC meeting of 25 January 2001.] There being no further discussion, the vote was taken: Yes, 2; No, 9; Abstentions, 3. With the addition of absentee ballots, the final vote was Yes, 2; No, 17; Abstentions, 3. The motion failed.

The Chair then summarized the three motions relating to the revision of the by-laws. Amendment A would excuse chairs from service on ASC standing committees; Amendment B would allow chairs to serve through their whole 4-year term by being re-elected, and resigning in order to allow their successors to take their places (if their successors chose to do so); Amendment C would allow direct election to the ASC Executive Committee with chairs of standing committees serving on the Executive Committee as non-voting members. The net effect, if all three measures were adopted, he observed, would be to render the ASC a body on which department chairs might serve more easily than they typically do under the current arrangement; but all three measures were not necessarily to be regarded as contingent on one another. For example, the adoption of Motion B might well be considered apart from the other two, and arguments had been made for it independently of the other two proposed amendments.

Cathy Comstock (FARR) initiated the discussion by saying that the central problem in faculty governance is access, and that any change which would encourage “greater inclusiveness” on the ASC should be approved. The proposed by-law change that would ease the rules on term limits would do that by making it easier for small programs to find representatives, and she therefore supported it; insofar as the other measures would increase access, she was willing to support them as well.

Professor Schutrumpf brought to bear his training and perspective as a classicist to argue that the proposed by-law changes would create a system in which “philosopher kings” (in the person of “chair representatives”) would dominate College faculty governance. He noted Aristotle’s critique of Plato held that just as the proper judge of a house is not its architect but its inhabitant, citizens, not rulers, know best what makes a good state. By analogy, regular faculty members, not chairs, know best what makes for good faculty governance. He therefore opposed all three amendments because they would tend to muffle the voice of ordinary faculty members, and allow chairs to dominate what is already (in his view) a body that is too tightly structured and controlled to permit adequate discussion of important issues.

Tony Barker (PHYS) replied that if a department wishes to elect a department chair as its ASC representative, it has a right to do so. A vote for the proposed amendments would simply make it easier for chairs to serve, and he therefore supported them.

Paul Gordon agreed with Professor Schutrumpf that it is unwise to make the ASC too “chair-friendly.” If a chair does not wish to serve on the ASC due to a heavy service load, he or she can always refuse the honor. Dale Mood (KINE) argued that it is the department’s obligation to find someone to serve on the ASC. If no one is willing to do so, that’s the department’s problem—it will have missed an opportunity to have its viewpoint represented. Joanne Belknap (WMST) strongly seconded Professor Mood’s point, affirming that service on a body such as the ASC requires members to shoulder equal burdens for the good of the College.

Professor Barker then observed that without the bylaw changes, the ASC would run the risk of being further marginalized in governance, by the loss of influential voices that might otherwise be heard. Professor Schutrumpf replied that the chairs have the Dean’s ear already in the Chairs and Directors meetings. If the motions pass, it can only add to the cynicism of regular faculty members.

Ron Bernier (FINE) stated his view that the underlying problem has nothing to do with the position of department chairs, but rather an institutional culture that continually shows lack of respect for service. The faculty should be doing a better job of affirming the value of service obligations, and can do so by defeating the proposed measures. Terry Kleeman (RLST) argued against the amendments stating that they create a special class of citizen exempted from important College committee work, and a further problem for the representation of junior faculty and non-tenure-line faculty in faculty governance generally. Gail Ramsberger (SLHS) added that because Chairs are in fact middle managers and thus at least temporarily more like administrators than faculty members, she could not support the amendments. The ASC, she said, was formed to give faculty a voice in shared governance, which chairs already have. Cathy Comstock concluded the discussion by reiterating her argument in favor of inclusiveness, noting that the BFA has no service requirement for its members and that the staffing of committees has not proven to be a problem.

The Chair noted that some ASC members who could not attend the meeting had sent in absentee ballots, and that these ballots would be included in the final tallies. He reminded the members that the amendments would have to pass by a two-thirds majority in order to be brought to a full A&S faculty vote later this spring. He then called for votes on the measures in alphabetical order.

In the case of Motion A: 4 yes, 6 absentee yes, for a total of 10 in favor; 10 no, 2 absentee no, for a total of 12 opposed; no abstentions. Motion A therefore failed.

In the case of Motion B: 9 yes, 8 absentee yes, for a total of 17 in favor; 1 no; 3 abstentions. Motion B therefore passed, and will be proposed to the faculty at the April 19th general meeting.

In the case of Motion C: 5 yes, 8 absentee yes, for a total of 13 in favor; 9 no; no abstentions. In the absence of a two-thirds majority (59% in favor), the motion failed.

The Chair observed that as the clock now read 5:00, if there were no new business to be proposed from the floor, he would entertain a motion to adjourn. And indeed it was so moved and seconded, without so much as a hint of dissent from the members who, with their customary dispatch, filed out the exit.

Respectfully submitted,

Fred Anderson, Chair, Arts and Sciences Council

(This report was assembled from notes taken by Lucy Nowak, Oliver Gerland, and Fred Anderson.)

January 25, 2001

Minutes: Arts & Sciences Council

  • Thu, January 25, 2001
  • CU Recreation Center, Room 3 & 4
  • 3:30 – 5:00

Members present: Ernesto Acevedo-Munoz (FILM), Fred Anderson (HIST), Chair, Tony Barker (PHYS), Joanne Belknap (WMST & SOCY), Chris Braider (FRIT), David Budd (GEOL), Cathy Comstock (FARR), Jeff Dodge (S&G Record), Bob Easton (APPM), Robert Eaton (EPOB), Oliver Gerland (THDN), Thomas Hollweck (GSLL), Stanley Jones (COM), Terry Kleeman (RLST & EALC), Carl Koval (CHEM), Jerry Malitz (MATH), Dale Mood (KINE), Rolf Norgaard (UWRP), Gail Ramsberger (SLHS), Eckart Schutrumpf (CLAS), Peter Spear (Dean, A&S), Dennis van Gerven (HONR)

Members absent: Ronald Bernier (FA), Robert Boswell (MCDB), Gary Gaile (GEOG), Paul Gordon (CLHM), Anna Hasenfratz (PHYS), Daniel Jurafsky (LING), Amanda Lynch (PAOS), Donald Roper (ECON), Jerry Rudy (PSYC), James Scarritt (PSCI), Diane Sieber (SPAN), Sue Zemka (ENG)

The Chair called the meeting to order at 3:43 P.M.

Terry Kleeman (RLST), as chair of the Planning Committee, reported that the Committee is now seeking input from faculty on how to design the 9 or 10 classrooms that will be located in the new ATLAS building. To submit advice, contact Terry.

The Chair reported that the student Honor Code is proceeding. A student representative met with the Executive Committee and had provided an outline of a plan, but was unable to provide any specifics on its operation. He promised to keep the Council informed of all developments.

A motion (Dennis Van Gerven, HONR) to accept the minutes of the meeting of 14 December 2000 was seconded (Christopher Braider, FRIT) and passed without dissent.

The Chair reminded the members that while the principal purpose of this meeting was to consider the bylaw amendments that the members had before them in the form of three motions from the Executive Committee, Dean Peter Spear had shown great patience in allowing his report on the Strategic Plan to be deferred from meeting to meeting since the beginning of the academic year, and the first order of business would be to hear his summary and discuss it.

Dean Spear then briefly summarized the Strategic Plan as a document from which he, in consultation with the Investment Advisory Council (the faculty body that the Strategic Plan Task Force had recommended be formed as a successor to the Reinvestment Advisory Council, to see to the Plan’s implementation), had established two priorities on which to concentrate during the first two years of the Plan’s five-year projected span. First, the College’s resources would be used to begin building excellence in selected departments, chosen in consultation with the Investment Advisory Council. Second, measures for the assessment of “unit merit” would need to be developed during this period, for two reasons: such measures would almost certainly be imposed upon us from above if we did not take the initiative to establish them ourselves, and concrete standards would have to be developed in order to make the allocation of resources a transparent and systematic process. Discussion then followed.

Dennis Van Gerven (HONR) observed that the second item on the Dean’s list—the development of criteria for measuring unit merit—was critical, because the increasing use of short-term contract teachers and the Colorado Commission on Higher Education’s stress on outcomes assessment, in combination, threatened to create an opening for outside intervention in curriculum and resource allocation, both of which would undermine academic freedom. We need, he suggested, to take the initiative on developing criteria for unit differentiation and to do it well, before it is done to us casually, by fiat.

Oliver Gerland (THDN) agreed, and asked if in fact the sequence of actions proposed was not in fact reversed; i.e., that the development of unit standards and mechanisms for the measurement of excellence would logically precede the allocation of funds to begin building excellence.

David Budd (GEOL) added that in his view the second goal was unclear, because it did not necessarily take account of the very different standards by which excellence might be construed in departments across the various divisions of the College.

Dean Spear replied that quality must be measured systematically, and that the measures would naturally differ according to the character of the various departments. To define these must be the task of a faculty committee cognizant of the nuances of disciplines, and the standing of each department with respect to its peers at other institutions. Professor Budd observed that this made it all the more necessary to do as Professor Gerland had suggested, and determine the measures for assessment before allocating resources differentially.

Tom Hollweck (GSLL) asked what role the Program Review Reports might play in the process of comparison among units. The PRPs, he said, would logically be the basis for understanding how various departments might rank nationally among their peers. If we undertake to develop assessment standards de novo, we may be yielding to external pressures to reshape our curriculum and other operations, infringing on academic freedom; the danger here, he concluded, is quite real, and we as a faculty need to take a stand against it.

Carl Koval (CHEM) replied that, as a member of the Investment Advisory Council, it was clear to him that we can in fact plan to build excellence in worthy departments at the same time we develop measures for unit merit. The very absence of new monies makes it difficult to mis-allocate resources at present, while there is a real need to appease our principal external constituencies (particularly the CCHE) by developing standards they will find acceptable, which will in turn allow us to control the internal allocation of resources.

Dean Spear concurred. The measures (more than 30) currently established by the CCHE for allocating resources among the various state colleges and universities are not useful within the institutions as a guide to budgeting, because they ignore functions such as research and graduate education that are central to our mission. Therefore we must develop standards of our own, useful to ourselves, and direct resources accordingly.

Bob Easton (APPM) then made two points: first, that we need to be cognizant as we develop measures of assessment of whom we develop them for; second, we need to be entrepreneurial, and not exclusively focused on departments. Inevitably directing resources means deciding which departments will be allowed to grow, but we must not be so straitjacketed by a plan as to disable ourselves from hiring exceptional individuals as they may become available—especially at the beginning associate professor level, where we might still hope to afford them.

Chris Braider (FRIT) called attention to the organic relationship between the Dean’s first and second items: that is, he explained, the way in which one informs the other. While we may very well begin in an ad hoc way to identify meritorious departments, we must not lose sight of the goal of developing excellence and its impact on the institution. In that sense, there are actually three goals, not two: to build excellence, to development measures for determining excellence, and to discover what kind of institution we in fact are, and will become.

Gail Ramsberger (SLHS) noted that the Boulder Faculty Assembly’s Budget and Planning Committee, on which she sits as an observer, has already begun to discuss unit performance measures. The experience of watching their deliberations has made it clear to her that we must bear in mind something that is all too easy to lose sight of: one (building excellence) is a goal; the other (measuring the degree to which excellence exists) is a mechanism for achieving it. Measurement is not, and should not be, an end in itself.

Terry Kleeman (RLST) observed that the focus on departments might well tend to reinforce the status quo within the institution, and prevent us from seeing areas in which we need to grow stronger. For example, at present we deal very little, and in a haphazard way, with the world outside the borders of the United States; yet the rising tide of globalization would seem to suggest that insularity is a luxury we cannot afford. We should not, therefore, be so transfixed by the hope of creating excellent departments that we fail to hire excellent faculty as individuals who are capable of helping us to understand, and thus to transcend, our limitations.

Professor Van Gerven commented that we cannot, as a faculty or as an institution, afford to allow departments that happen to be less than excellent to decline further. Sometimes the poor, not the rich, need to be taken care of, and it is the legitimate role of the ASC to decide whether rich or poor are more deserving of support.

Dean Spear replied that while this was a valid concern, the criteria set out in the Strategic Plan, requiring that programs be considered by a variety of criteria (including curricular centrality, expense, student demand, and others) would effectively prevent the pursuit of excellence from becoming the sole criterion in budgeting, and thus would prevent the poor from being taxed solely to benefit the rich.

Professor Braider noted that this demonstrates the interplay of goals and assessment to which he had previously referred.

Professor Koval asked if there had been any useful result from the unit merit exercise performed last year; perhaps a means of assessing excellence could be found in the records of that process, which should at least be consulted. Second, he continued, merely maintaining excellence in already outstanding departments would require a substantial increase in resources, insofar as excellence depends on retention of excellent faculty. In Chemistry, for example, a great many faculty members are presently poised “to walk off the age cliff” into retirement, and they will be extremely expensive to replace, given the increasing size of assistant professor salaries and the fact that each start-up package is now running approximately $300,000 to $400,000. Without new resources being made available, it may be possible that merely holding the position of eminence that several of the Natural Science departments now occupy will consume the entire budget increase in the College of Arts and Sciences, for several years to come.

Professor Ramsberger pointed out that, in that case, perhaps the wisest move would be to make modest investments in smaller, poorer units, where increases might have more beneficial effect at greater cost efficiency.

Professor Budd observed that the College may in fact have to decide what it will do if its resource constraints are such that it cannot afford to maintain even three excellent Natural Science programs; at the least we should be prepared to face this outcome. Meanwhile, it may be useful to think of centers and institutes, rather than departments, as places where investment might be most efficacious. In that case, however, all the effort that will go into assessing merit on a departmental basis may well be wasted.

The Chair thanked the members for their comments, and Dean Spear for bringing these issues before the Council for comment. Dean Spear also thanked the members, and promised to incorporate their comments in his approach to implementing the Plan.

The Chair then invited the members’ attention to the next item on the agenda, a discussion of the proposed amendments to the bylaws. After a brief review of the history of the issue, and its vicissitudes over the course of recent meetings, he noted that the three motions placed before the Council today were in the form of Notices, requiring a vote at the next meeting, on February 15. [These Notices of Motion appear at the end of this document as an Appendix.] The Chair noted that the bylaws are silent on procedures for amendment, except for the provisions of Article VII establishing a minimum time for notification of proposed changes and the requirement of a two-thirds majority ratification by the faculty at large. He ruled, therefore, that the majority necessary for approval of the proposed amendments at the coming meeting, and hence the majority prerequisite for their submission to the faculty, would be two-thirds. (This ruling was made in accordance with Article VI of the bylaws, by the standard established in Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised [9th ed., New York, 1990], 574: “If the bylaws contain no provision for their amendment, they can be amended at any business meeting by a two-thirds vote, provided that previous notice... has been given.”)

The Chair then read the following notice of motion that had been handed him before the meeting by Eckart Schutrumpf (CLAS):


Whereas the ASC in its meeting of Dec. 14, 2000 decided with an overwhelming majority that the Executive Committee draft specific measures in accordance with the proposed resolutions

And whereas the ASC in its meeting of Dec. 14, 2000 decided with a majority not to change the Bylaws to the effect that the requirement, that ASC representatives must serve on one of the ASC committees, be eliminated

Be it therefore resolved that the ASC honors, and stands by, its decision not to recommend a change of the Bylaws to the effect that the requirement, that ASC representatives must serve on one of the ASC committees, be eliminated.

The Chair observed that this would have the effect of voiding the aspects of the Executive Committee’s proposed motions that pertained to committee service, and invited Professor Schutrumpf to comment. Professor Schutrumpf explained that while he had been unable to attend the previous meeting, the minutes of that meeting had plainly suggested to him that the a majority of members had disapproved of eliminating the committee-service requirement, and that the Executive Committee had exceeded its charge from the Council in returning motions the effect of which would be to excuse members of the ASC who were also chairs of programs or departments from service on one of the standing committees. This was, he argued, an effort to resurrect a failed resolution, one defeated in open discussion. The Council should, therefore, confirm its previous judgment, and refuse to discuss the matter further.

The Chair, whose recollection of the previous meeting had been embodied in the minutes previously adopted, allowed that he had not understood the sentiment of the meeting to preclude Executive Committee discussion of the modification of the requirement for committee service. He also admitted that his recollection might well not conform with those of others who had been present, and invited members to comment.

Professor Koval said that while the discussion had been confused at the meeting of 14 December, his recollection was that the negative vote had been specific to the wording of the resolution eliminating the committee-service requirement, and that many said they would have voted affirmatively on a substitute resolution offered by Janet Ward (GSLL) that would have modified the bylaws to excuse chairs from committee service. He believed that the 18 to 1 vote to empower to Executive Committee to return a set of recommendations included authorization to consider the modification proposed by Professor Ward.

Professor Braider said that his recollection agreed with Professor Koval’s.

Tony Barker (PHYS), speaking as a member of the Executive Committee, remarked that the committee had regarded the sense of the meeting as articulated by Professors Koval and Braider, not just the formal votes, as its guiding principle in composing the motions now before the Council. He suggested that the Council proceed to discussion.

Cathy Comstock (FARR) spoke to address issues of access to governance, as affected by the proposed measures. Both the elimination of term limits and the relaxing of the rule that each standing committee would be predominately (or heavily) composed of ASC members seemed to her to increase the likelihood of accessibility, and to benefit small units, which have few faculty and which would therefore be able to participate in governance more easily.

Professor Van Gerven asked, rhetorically, What are the real issues here? In his view, they center on making adjustments to a system of governance that was founded for one set of reasons–to impose some degree of control over a Dean whom many faculty members had come to regard as imperious or even tyrannical in behavior–and had been structured accordingly, with checks and balances emplaced to restrain the reckless exercise of power. Because the departure of that Dean means that these conditions no longer obtain, the ASC can–perhaps should–make adjustments to its structure and practices. Or perhaps, he continued, the time had come to open the general question of what the form and function of faculty governance should be; to reconsider the very existence of the ASC, and to ask if another structure of governance would be better suited to current circumstances.

Professor Schutrumpf recalled his experiences as a participant in the College Futures Committee on Faculty Governance, the body which proposed the current form of the ASC. The intent of that committee, he said, was that the ASC follow the Parliamentary practice of assigning each member committee responsibilities; that this was a means of keeping faculty members from becoming disconnected from the workings of the College; and that committee service was necessary to ensure that members would be sufficiently knowledgeable to make informed decisions. Participating in a governing body, he concluded, imposes responsibilities upon, as well as granting privileges to, the elected members.

Professor Braider noted that the spirit behind the proposed changes was to increase efficiency in governance procedures by reducing the duplication of effort that now seems to dog both the ASC and the Chairs and Directors. The disconnection feared by Professor Schutrumpf, he continued, is unlikely to afflict chairs who are intimately familiar with the functioning of the College; the point is rather, he said, that chairs are fully informed, but overburdened with service responsibilities.

Professor Budd commented that if efficiency were the sole criterion, we might as well dissolve the ASC and allow the C&D to assume full responsibility for faculty governance in the College. But the ASC serves a useful purpose, unlikely to be fulfilled by the C&D, of diversifying the input from faculty members in decision-making. As to the issues presently before the Council, he believes that the same rules should apply to all members elected to serve. For that reason, he intends to vote No on Motion A, Yes on Motions B and C.

Professor Kleeman spoke up to reinforce the general point just made. The duplication of function is not necessarily the crucial issue, he argued, though there should by all means be a clarification of how functions are best to be divided between the ASC and the C&D. The key is to broaden participation in faculty government as much as possible. Because the ASC at present is much better at representing the diversity of the faculty, and much better at articulating the concerns of minority groups, we should be careful about changing its composition.

Robert Eaton (EPOB) said that he wished to endorse everything that Professor Koval had previously said about the need for efficiency and for reducing overlap and duplication of effort. With respect to the problems specific to large versus small departments, he observed that, in general, the larger departments have larger numbers of joint appointments, and that the core size of the faculty available for service in those cases is proportionally reduced. Some departments of 45, for instance, may have only 15 or so reliable members who can be called upon for extensive department obligations, without even taking into account the needs for service beyond the department. In such cases, chairs may well be the only people available for ASC service, and should not be discouraged from participation by becoming automatically burdened with an additional committee assignment.

Professor Easton replied that the ASC is, and should be, a body different from the Chairs and Directors. In his recent service on the Planning Committee, for example, the department chairs of the College had submitted a list of necessary repairs to the Committee, which was responsible for making a prioritized list from them. Such a function would not be possible, he argued, for a body composed of Chairs only, since Chairs are by definition first responsible to their units, and would logically attend to their parochial interests before those of the College as a whole.

Professor Gerland then spoke to Professor Schutrumpf’s concern about the necessity of committee service to informed membership in the ASC. While it is true that, in the case (for example) of the Curriculum Committee, there is a good deal of interaction with the ASC, it mainly occurs through the Executive Committee. Because the proposed revisions make the Chairs of the Standing Committees ex officio members of the Executive Committee, it should be possible to maintain those connections, even without the formal requirement for committee chairs to be ASC members.

Professor Barker commented that service on the ASC should be inclusive, and that departments’ choices of representatives should be as nearly unconstrained as possible; for those reasons, he favors all three amendments.

The Chair then posed a question for the members to consider, in the event that all three amendments should be adopted, and the portal accordingly widened for service on the Council by department chairs: would it not be wise, in that case, to restore at-large membership? To do so would have the benefit of allowing more faculty access to the Council, even as it would make committees easier to staff; it would also encourage the representation of other, non-departmental groups and viewpoints in the ASC’s deliberations.

Professor Van Gerven commented that the Council should be able to create whatever committees it sees fit, and that the committees will in turn “create the product” that the ASC, acting as a body, can approve, modify, or reject as necessary. The most important function of the body is to communicate faculty views to the Dean. While that voice will be a different one if all three proposals are adopted, it will still serve a useful, necessary purpose.

Professor Koval recurred to Professor Van Gerven’s opening remarks concerning the evolution of the present structures of governance, as opposed to the utility of a revolutionary approach that would throw the current system out altogether in favor of establishing something new. He favors the idea of evolution, especially if it can be accomplished in such a way as to make faculty governance more open to faculty participation, as well as to enable chairs to bring their expertise and views to bear on the issues before the College.

Professor Schutrumpf summed up his opposition to the measures before the Council by observing that in 1993-94 faculty governance had rested in the hands of a Council of Chairs, and that their performance had been far from satisfactory to a majority of the faculty. The result had been the formation of the Arts and Sciences Council. The original intent of the faculty in creating the ASC had been for committee members to provide feedback both to the Council and to their colleagues in the departments and programs. Committee service is not onerous, he maintained; nor is there any benefit to be gained by changing the system, as it presently exists. The prudent approach, he concluded, would be to retain the current system for another three years, and then to reconsider it.

The Chair, who had positioned himself in such a way as to see the clock, noted that the stipulated time of adjournment had arrived, and that he would therefore entertain a motion to adjourn. He began to explain that, insofar as a quorum had not been assembled, and therefore the meeting had not formally convened, until 3:43, he would also be glad to continue the session for another thirteen minutes. But this instructive observation was lost amidst a hubbub of voices crying, “So moved!” and “I second!” and accordingly the meeting stood adjourned, with great promptness, at 5:00 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Fred Anderson, Chair, The Arts and Sciences Council

(These minutes have been compiled from notes made by Terry Kleeman, Lucy Nowak, and Fred Anderson.)





In response to the 14 December 2000 instruction by the Arts and Sciences Council that the Chair and Executive Committee “draft specific measures to revise the bylaws” and bring those measures before the Council for its consideration at the meeting of 25 January 2001, the following motions are respectfully submitted.


In response to the request for exempting those chairs of departments and directors of programs who may serve as Arts and Sciences Council representatives from the requirement of service on an ASC standing committee, the following amendments to the ASC Bylaws are hereby adopted:

  1. In Article IV, Section C, the description of the normal responsibilities of ASC members shall be altered to change the phrase “participate in the work of an ASC standing committee” to read: “participate in the work of an ASC standing committee, except for members who are chairs of departments of directors of programs,”.
  2. In Article V, Section D, Subsection 2, the sentence describing the duties of the Committee on Committees that reads “This committee appoints each ASC representative to a standing committee and reviews all committee nominations for non ASC members to their standing committees, except as otherwise specified,” shall be altered to read as follows: “This committee appoints each ASC representative who is not a department chair or program director to a standing committee and reviews all committee nominations for non ASC members to their standing committees, except as otherwise specified.”
  3. In Article V, Section E, Subsections 1 through 6, the specification of levels of ASC membership in each of the standing committees enclosed in parentheses following the name of each committee shall be stricken, and the following sentence shall be inserted following the title of the section: “Each committee shall have at least 7 members.”


In response to the request for altering the provision prohibiting consecutive election to permit re- election, the following amendment to the ASC Bylaws is hereby adopted:

In Article IV, Section D, the first sentence of the third paragraph, which reads “After a two-year hiatus, a person may be re-elected,” shall be altered to read as follows: “A representative may not serve more than two consecutive terms. After a two-year hiatus, a person may serve again.”


In response to the request for allowing the direct election of the ASC Executive Committee from the membership of the Council, and for the elimination of the requirement that the chairs of standing committees be members of the ASC, the following amendments to the ASC Bylaws are hereby adopted:

  1. In Article V, Section C, Subsection 2, the phrase “and chairs must be ASC representatives” shall be stricken from the first sentence, which shall read as follows: “The chairs of the standing committees are elected by the voting members of the committee.”
  2. In Article V, Section D, Subsection 1, the initial sentence, which reads, “The Executive Committee consists of the chairs of the six standing committees (Budget, Curriculum, Diversity, Grievance, Personnel, and Planning) and the Chair of the ASC, who also chairs the committee,” shall be stricken. In its place the following sentences shall be inserted: “The Executive Committee consists of six members elected from the membership of the ASC and the Chair of the ASC, who also chairs the committee. This committee shall include at least one member affiliated with each of the three divisions of the College. Chairs of the Standing Committees shall be ex-officio members of the Executive Committee but shall have no vote in that committee’s deliberations.”

December 14, 2000

Minutes: Arts and Sciences Council

  • Thu, December 14, 2000
  • CU Recreation Center – Rooms 3 & 4
  • 3:30 – 4:30

Members present: Fred Anderson (HIST) Chair, Tony Barker (PHYS), Joanne Belknap (WMST & SOCY), Ron Bernier (FA), Robert Boswell (MCDB), Luc Bovens (PHIL), Chris Braider (FRIT), David Budd (GEOL), Jeff Dodge (S&G Record), Bob Easton (APPM), Robert Eaton (EPOB), Oliver Gerland (THDN), Paul Gordon (CLHM), Stanley Jones (COM), Daniel Jurafsky (LING), Terry Kleeman (RLST), Carl Koval (CHEM), Amanda Lynch (PAOS), Russ McGoodwin (ANTH), Dale Mood (KINE), Gail Ramsberger (SLHS), Jerry Rudy (PSYC), James Scarritt (PSCI), Steve Snyder (EALC), Peter Spear (Dean, A&S), Dennis van Gerven (HONORS), Janet Ward (GSLL)

Members absent: Eckart Schutrumpf (CLAS), Donald Roper (ECON), Sue Zemka (ENG), Ernesto Acevedo Munoz (FILM), Vincent McGuire (FRND), Gary Gaile (GEOG), Jerry Malitz (MATH), Anna Hasenfratz (PHYS), Diane Sieber (SPAN), Rolf Norgaard (UWRP)

The Chair called the meeting to order at 3:36 P.M.

Minutes of the A&S Faculty meeting of Oct 26 and the ASC meeting of November 30 were approved unanimously.

Dennis van Gerven (HONORS), Chair of Diversity Committee, briefly reported on the committee’s activities, which are proceeding on five fronts. (1) Through the Office of Community Relations, the President has provided $5,000 to the Diversity committee in order to develop partnerships between the campus and various schools in Denver with heavy minority enrollments; the Committee will be calling on departments for help in making these partnerships a vital part of University recruitment, and in building goodwill for the campus in these schools. (2) Disabled students in need of special spaces, equipment, and proctoring in the taking of examinations have for several years been ignored; the committee has submitted a proposal to create dedicated space for solving this problem. The new system should be in place in the coming semester. (3) The committee is sponsoring a 30-minute student-produced video on the campus’s janitorial staff, “So What Do You Do?”, under the supervision of Ernesto Acevedo Munoz (FILM). This is an attempt to bring what is perhaps the most culturally diverse (but otherwise unheard and nearly invisible) group on the campus to the attention of students and faculty. It will be introduced in one of two planned Diversity forums in the Spring term; if successful, it may be used as a permanent part of the orientation program for students and new faculty members. (4) The committee is working with Joyce Nielsen (SOC, Social Sciences Associate Dean of the College) to create a second Diversity forum on women’s issues, which will look back on the changes that have taken place on campus over the last 25 years. (5) The committee is organizing an awards ceremony to recognize students who have achieved excellence in non-traditional ways. Professor Van Gerven expressed his gratitude to, and admiration of, the members of his committee, and the large amount they have accomplished thus far in promoting diversity in the College, and on the campus generally.

The Chair then called the Council’s attention to the proposed bylaw changes. He noted that while at the previous meeting the members had shown so little enthusiasm for any changes that they had declined to appoint an ad hoc committee to report on them, the measures themselves had not been formally voted down; at the direction of the Executive Committee he therefore wished to introduce the three proposed changes for discussion and disposition by vote. To promote what he had expected to be a brief discussion, he explained that he carried no personal brief for the adoption of any of the resolutions, then called the members’ attention to the sheet he had prepared (“Supporting Material for Agenda Item 4: Bylaw Proposals”), setting out the text of the three resolutions and listing the arguments that had been advanced in favor of, and against, their adoption. But life, as always, turned out differently from expectation, and the discussion that ensued turned out to be longer, more wide-ranging, and more vigorous than the Chair had anticipated.

Carl Koval (CHEM) opened the discussion by explaining the background of the proposed changes. Faculty in many departments, particularly in the Natural Sciences, have become concerned by what they perceive as an adversary relationship between the ASC and the Chairs and Directors (the “C&D”). There is no reason, he said, for the ASC to “control” chairs, who are, after all, elected by their colleagues, and who therefore represent their colleagues’, as well as their departments’ interests. The burden of service on both the C&D and the ASC is so great that, if these measures are not adopted, the Natural Science departments may well withdraw from participation in the Arts and Sciences Council by refusing to send representatives.

Professor Van Gerven asked if these proposed changes would make it possible for the standing committees of the ASC to be chaired by non-ASC members. The Chair replied that this was indeed the case.

Chris Braider (FRIT) observed, with respect to Professor Koval’s comment, that perhaps we tend to presume Machiavellian designs where none exist, and that the bylaws themselves may assume a negative and antagonistic relationship between the Dean, the Chairs, and the faculty at large. While this may once have been the case, he said, in his view it is the case no longer; perhaps it is possible that the proposed changes would tend to lessen the assumption of antagonism. But (he asked) what, specifically, is the objection of the Natural Science departments to the present arrangement, and why is it so strong that these departments would contemplate withdrawing from participation in the Council?

Professor Koval responded that the Natural Sciences chairs labor under heavy administrative burdens within the departments alone, and that service (as in his case) on two additional bodies–the ASC and the C&D–can make those burdens intolerable. Because service on the ASC also requires Chairs representing their departments to participate in standing committees, he has adopted a personal policy of not attending meetings of the standing committee to which he has been assigned.

Oliver Gerland (THDN) asked Professor Koval why it was necessary for the Natural Sciences to be represented by department chairs. While he himself is the Chair of his department as well as its ASC representative, he intends to encourage one of his colleagues to assume the ASC role in the coming year, as a means familiarizing that colleague with the workings of the College, as well as spreading around the burden of service.

Professor Koval replied that no one but a department chair was sufficiently versed in any department’s budgetary position to be able to make informed decisions on resource allocation. Policies made by ordinary faculty members acting as ASC representatives tend to be naive and might well prove destructive to the welfare of the departments they represent.

Bob Easton (APPM) objected that the most vital part of the ASC representative’s duties was not attendance at the Council’s full meetings, but rather participation in the work of the standing committees. The proposed bylaw amendments are unacceptable because they do not recognize the importance of this work. If chairs wish to represent their departments, they should not be exempted from committee service. He spoke in favor of a renewable three-year term, so long as a strict six-year limit was enforced, and expressed his conviction that it was necessary to have the executive committee made up of standing committee chairs, since this was the best way for the Council to make informed agenda and policy choices.

Professor Gerland inquired if it would be difficult to staff committees if all members did not have a service requirement enforced upon them. The Chair replied that the standing committees are already hard to staff; there seemed to him to be no question that the proposed bylaw changes would make them more so. Thus if the changes were to be adopted, the chair continued, he would also wish to see the Committee on Committees elected from the ASC members, enabling the chair to enlist their help in locating colleagues willing to serve.

Jim Scarritt (PSCI) observed that what are now ASC standing committees existed long before the current form of faculty governance was adopted, and that by one means or another they had always been staffed. He continued that he strongly supports the proposed changes for reasons of efficiency, and minimizing the amount of overlap between the ASC’s and the C&D’s responsibilities. He added that he, for one, would be MORE willing to serve on a committee if he did not also have to attend ASC meetings.

Janet Ward (GSLL) offered an amendment to the first resolution, saying that when department chairs are elected to serve as ASC representatives, they shall be excused from committee service, and their departments would choose a second person to act as their representative’s proxy on the committee to which the representative would otherwise be assigned.

Amanda Lynch (PAOS) said that, speaking as a representative of a Natural Science department in which the chair is pleased NOT to be acting as ASC representative, her colleagues would be likely to view Professor Ward’s amendment favorably.

The Chair now observed that the hour had reached 4:10, and that a twenty-minute item, the Dean’s summary of the College Strategic Plan, remained on the agenda. He also noted that the Dean had offered to yield his time, and asked if it was the Council’s wish to continue with the discussion. By a straw vote (15 in favor of continuing the discussion, 4 opposed) the members chose to continue.

Paul Gordon (CLHM) replied to Professor Ward’s proposed amendment by saying that he stood opposed to any measure that would encourage increased participation by department chairs. The only foreseeable effect of excusing chairs from committee duty would be to increase the participation of department chairs in the ASC and make it, in effect, a reincarnation of the Council of Chairs from six or seven years ago.

The Chair replied that if the measures were adopted, it was indeed likely that department chairs would migrate to the Arts and Sciences Council as representatives, and that it was not inconceivable that it would ultimately become the sole body of faculty governance within the College; as a consequence of which, he continued, he would wish the Council, if it voted to adopt the resolutions, to consider restoring seats for at-large representation, which had been abolished in the previous year’s ASC on the grounds that no one had stood for election to them, and (as a consequence) only one at-large member remained on the present Council.

Peter Spear (Dean, Arts and Sciences) injected a point of fact for the record: that whereas the discussion so far had tended to suggest that the C&D was an administrative body and the ASC a deliberative one, both bodies discuss the same issues, and both act to make policy for the College by advising the Dean on their constituents’ views.

Professor Gerland observed that if the proposed measures were adopted, it would only make it easier for department chairs to serve, not that chairs would be required to represent their departments. It seemed likely, he thought, that the result might be a larger body, with fuller attendance at meetings.

Russ McGoodwin (ANTH) commented that as a general principle all the members of a representative body should have the same responsibilities, privileges, and duties; department chairs and program directors, he continued, are members of the administration, and should therefore be kept apart from the ASC, which was intended to represent the faculty as a whole. If we exempt certain members from the ordinary duties of the whole, he continued, we will create a privileged class of policy-makers who are, in effect, allowed to pass along their duties to substitutes appointed in their stead.

But, Professor Braider asked, would it really be to create a privileged class? Or might the larger number of participants in governance that would result from chair-members of the ASC being allowed to delegate their committee duties actually have a democratizing effect? Surely, he said, the increasing number of participants would have the effect of broadening faculty commitment to governance.

Professor Van Gerven recalled that drafted soldiers in the Civil War had been able to hire substitutes. Perhaps all ASC members should have the option of finding someone to fill in for them on committees. That might, he concluded, further extend the participation that Professor Braider had spoken of.

Or, Professor Lynch quipped, recalling the Civil War analogy, it might result in increased participation by enlarging in the number of warm bodies capable of stopping bullets.

When the laughter died down, David Budd (GEOL) observed that in previous discussions the question had been how we might increase the effectiveness of faculty governance. The ASC, it seemed to him, is typically the last body to learn of any initiative, especially if it has to do with resource allocation. Department chairs know about those issues first, and deal with them accordingly, because resource allocation is what matters most. If we can find ways to work together better, and thereby increase the collaboration between C&D and ASC, fine; but these proposals seem merely to be nibbling at the edges of the problem. Should we not, he asked, appoint an ad hoc committee to meet with a counterpart group from C&D to assess the efficacy of faculty governance?

Professor Koval observed that such an initiative had been suggested at the beginning of the semester, and the members of the ASC had ranked it so low on their list of priorities that it had been abandoned.

Dean Spear asked if he might introduce a point of information to clarify the role of C&D and its relationship to ASC. The Chairs and Directors is not, in fact, the Council of Chairs, a body created by his predecessor, but a broader organization with a different mission. If the C&D hears an issue before the ASC does, that reflects the fact that C&D meets on a different schedule than the ASC; there is neither a hierarchical relation between them nor any manipulation of the schedule of meetings in order to privilege one group over the other. He seeks and values, he concluded, the opinions of both bodies, and has often been struck by the similarity of views expressed in both.

Professor McGoodwin returned to the issue of permitting chair-members of the ASC to appoint substitutes for committee service by pointing out that his colleagues had chosen him to represent them, and that was not the same as choosing him to find someone else to represent them. Substitutes have a tendency to elude the control of those who hire them. Perhaps a more apt analogy would be the British practice of hiring of Hessian mercenaries to fight American colonists in the Revolutionary War; would the Chair care to comment?

The Chair, noting that ordinarily he would be more than delighted to declined in the interest of completing the business on the agenda. He observed that the discussion that had just taken place had been an extremely informative one, and suggested that while at the previous meeting the members had explicitly voted down appointing an ad hoc committee to draft revisions and report them back to the Council, it might be appropriate (if the members wished) for the executive committee to meet and draft revisions.

Dale Mood (KINE) then interjected a reminder: the purpose of the meeting had been to take a vote on the proposed resolutions, and that this needed to be done so that the executive committee would have clearly in mind the sense of the meeting, with respect to the proposed changes. Professor Van Gerven strongly agreed.

Professor Gerland said that he, as an executive committee member, would like to have a straw poll from the members to guide him in thinking further about the proposed revisions. He proposed a vote on the question, Is it the sense of this body that the discussion of bylaw revisions is moving in the right direction, and should continue in the executive committee?

Professor Braider, taking this as a motion, supported it with a second.

Professor Easton objected that this was out of order, and called the question on the first of the three resolutions, viz., Resolved, That the Arts and Science Council draft revisions to its Bylaws to eliminate the requirement that ASC representatives must serve on one of the ASC committees.

Professor Ward asked if the Council could instead vote on the amended form she had proposed, noting that she would have to vote against the unamended resolution, but would vote in favor of the amended one, viz., Resolved, That the Arts and Sciences Council draft revisions to its Bylaws to eliminate the requirement that ASC representatives who are chairs of their departments must serve on one of the ASC committees.

With a sudden welter of motions on the floor, the Chair ruled that the Council should vote on the unamended motions, but that in the event the Council wished the Executive Committee to proceed, even if the first resolution should fail, the executive committee in drafting its proposed revisions could take into account the sentiment in favor of an amended form. He then proposed the following measures to the Council:

  1. Shall the Executive Committee proceed to draft specific measures to revise the bylaws in accordance with the proposed resolutions?
    • Vote: 18 yes, 1 no.
  2. Resolved, That the Arts and Sciences Council draft revisions to its Bylaws to eliminate the requirement that ASC representatives must serve on one of the ASC committees.
    • Vote: 7 yes, 9 no, 3 abstentions.
  3. Resolved, That the Arts and Sciences Council draft revisions to its Bylaws to change the limit on service by members to two consecutive three-year terms.
    • Vote: 15 yes, 2 no, 2 abstentions.
  4. Resolved, That the Arts and Sciences Council draft revisions to its Bylaws to allow its standing committees to elect their own chairs regardless of ASC affiliation and to allow the direct election of the ASC Executive Committee.
    • Vote: 11 yes, 8 no.

The Chair thanked the members for their counsel and their patience, and promised that the executive committee would meet to sort out the sense of the meeting, with respect to the bylaw revisions, in light of the votes just taken; and that it would return with concrete measures for discussion in the coming meeting.

Dean Spear then asked permission to distribute and comment upon on the College Budget Request packet for the coming fiscal year, which he had presented to the Vice Chancellor. He briefly described the contents of the packet to the members, answering questions on the substance of the request and the priorities it set out. In reply to one question on the genesis of the priorities, Professor Ward, a member of the Budget Committee, described the process of consultation by which this list had been arrived at, and emphasized that the Budget Committee had been fully involved from the beginning of the year in formulating the Budget Request.

When there were no further questions for the Dean, the Chair asked for a motion to rise. In a twinkling, Professor Van Gerven moved that the meeting adjourn; and no dissenting voice being heard above the murmur of members wishing one another a happy holiday season, the meeting adjourned at 4:46 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Fred Anderson, Chair, Arts and Sciences Council

(Compiled from notes taken by Lucy Nowak, Gail Ramsberger, and Fred Anderson.)

November 30, 2000

Minutes: Arts and Sciences Council

  • Thu, November 30, 2000
  • CU Recreation Center – Rooms 3 & 4
  • 3:30 – 4:30 PM

Members present: Fred Anderson (HIST) Chair, Tony Barker (PHYS), Ron Bernier (FA), Bob Boswell (MCDB), Luc Bovens (PHIL), Jeff Dodge (S&G Record), Bob Easton (APPM), Robert Eaton (EPOB), Oliver Gerland (THDN), Anna Hasenfratz (PHYS), Stanley Jones (COM), Terry Kleeman ((RLST), Dale Mood (KINE), Rolf Norgaard (UWRP), Gail Ramsberger (SLHS), Jerry Rudy (PSYC), James Scarritt (PSCI), Eckart Schutrumpf (CLAS), Diana Sieber (SPAN), Steve Snyder (EALC), Peter Spear (Dean, A&S), Dennis van Gerven (HONORS), Janet Ward (GSLL)

Members absent: Ernesto Acevedo Munoz (FILM), Joanne Belknap (WMST/SOCY), Christopher Braider (FRIT), David Budd (GEOL), Gary Gaile (GEOG), Paul Gordon (CLHM), Daniel Jurafsky (LING), Carl Koval (CHEM), Amanda Lynch (PAOS), Jerry Malitz (MATH), Russ McGoodwin (ANTH), Vincent McGuire (FRND), Donald Roper (ECON), Sue Zemka (ENG)

The Chair called the meeting to order at 3:40 p.m.

The members approved the minutes of the meeting of 9 November 2000 without dissent.

The Chair called on Gail Ramsberger (SLHS) and Dean Peter Spear to report on the College Budget for the coming year. Spear noted that the College Budget Committee had come up with a prioritized list of proposed spending targets for the coming academic year. The prioritized items (ranked on a three-point scale) were discussed and explained in general terms; and in general none of the members objected to the rank-ordering proposed. The most intense concern of the members focused on the slippage of our funding position vis a vis other AAU research universities; and assuming an increase (which Spear believed probable) of $3,000,000 in continuing funds and $3,000,000 in one-time monies, there seems to be little prospect for catching up to our peer institutions in faculty salaries, even if the formula of Inflation Plus One Percent continues to be our standard. In view of the likelihood that we will continue to fall behind, albeit at a somewhat slower pace than in the past, and recognizing that the level of funding increase will require us to patch over rather than to solve problems permanently, the question remains of how best to allocate the expected increases in the coming year. To that end, Spear asked the guidance of the Council on how to respond to two issues, based on the assumptions below:

  1. Assuming $3 million in continuing monies, above inflation, will enter the budget in the coming year, and assuming that another $3 million in one-time funds also will become available; and recognizing that a net salary increase of one percent above inflation, distributed across the faculty of arts and sciences, will cost approximately $1,000,000; how much of the total continuing monies should be allocated to salary increases? The options offered for vote were (a) $1 million; (b) $1.5 million; (c) $2 million; (d) $3 million. By straw poll, the members present voted as follows in favor of the various options: (a) 1 vote; (b) 3 votes; (c) 13 votes; (d) 2 votes. The Council’s near consensus, thus, was for allocating approximately two-thirds of new continuing monies for salary increases to the faculty, and reserving approximately one-third for other purposes.
  2. Given that result, and assuming that somewhere between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000 will remain available after covering salary increases, what proportion should be directed to creating new faculty lines, and what to supporting the infrastructure? The options offered were (a) to allocate two-thirds of the remaining monies to new faculty lines and one-third to infrastructure support; and (b) to allocate one-third to new lines and two-thirds to infrastructure support. Again by show of hands, 5 members voted in favor of option (a), and 15 supported option (b). The preponderance of members, therefore, favored concentrating what resources remained after salary increases in infrastructure improvement rather than in expanding the faculty.

Spear thanked the members for their counsel and noted that the same questions, when put to the Chairs and Directors at their most recent meeting, had yielded virtually identical proportions. He promised to communicate the result to the Vice Chancellor when making the College’s budget presentation.

In view of the advancing hour, Dennis Van Gerven (HONR) yielded the time allocated to the Diversity Committee report, and will report on those activities at the next meeting (14 December).

The Chair then reported on three matters. He noted, first, that the curriculum initiative had failed by a narrow margin, with 62% favoring the proposed Core Skills and Distribution curriculum, and 38% opposed, and invited the curriculum committee to consider what if any steps should be taken in light of this development. Oliver Gerland (THDN) indicated that the committee would indeed be considering the question, and would report at a later date.

Second, the Chair recalled to the memories of the delegates that the proposed bylaws, discussed at the previous meeting, remained unresolved. This was a consequence of the Chair’s failure to realize that the discussion of the proposed bylaw motions had taken place entirely in the form of a debate over whether or not to appoint an ad hoc committee to return with a report and a set of recommendations; and that the Committee’s decision not to appoint an ad hoc committee was not equivalent to voting down the bylaw motions. The chair therefore promised that he would bring back the motions for a formal vote, and that he would provide a summary of the implications of the motions as he understood them. Eckart Schutrumpf (CLAS) offered his opinion that the bylaw proposals were not proper motions, but “unadopted” legacies of a previous Chair, and therefore needed no further action. The Chair responded that his understanding of the proposals was that they were motions from the chair, and therefore not in need of a second; and that as a consequence they needed to be voted up or down, in order to clear them from the agenda. Professor Schutrumpf reiterated his views. The Chair observed that he had no personal brief for the proposed changes, but wished to see them disposed of in an orderly way; and (he continued) insofar as the hour was growing late, rather than debate the nature of the resolutions or the applicability of the parliamentary concept of “adoption” to this specific case, he would prefer, if possible, to complete the remainder of his report. Professor Schutrumpf observed that insofar as he would not be attending the meeting on December 14th, these matters were accordingly of no personal concern to him.

The Chair thanked Professor Schutrumpf for his views, then concluded his report by summarizing the third item, the status of the student initiative to create an Honor Code and a system of enforcement. These might, if pursued, result in the elimination of the current Academic Ethics Committee of the ASC. He then proposed the following resolution from the executive committee to assert the ASC’s intention to maintain its existing responsibility for the enforcement of standards of academic integrity:

WHEREAS the Laws of the Regents (Sections 4.A.6, 5.E.4, and 5.E.5) affirm that faculty members as represented in their properly constituted governing bodies shall have responsibility for the making of policy on academic ethics; and

WHEREAS the College of Arts and Sciences Council, the faculty governance body of the College of Arts and Sciences, fully intends to continue to discharge this important responsibility;

BE IT RESOLVED, the Arts and Sciences Council asserts its claim to the role aforesaid and reminds the University of Colorado Student Union and the office of the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs that the consent of the Arts and Sciences Council is prerequisite to the adoption of any and all changes in the system governing academic ethics within the College of Arts and Sciences.

This being a motion from the chair, no second was necessary. There was no discussion. Professor Van Gerven called the question; Professor Rudy seconded. A vote by show of hands carried the resolution 17 yes, 0 no, 1 abstention.

A motion for adjournment (from Professor Van Gerven) having been heard, and no dissent being audible amidst the movement of members toward the exit, the Chair accordingly adjourned the meeting at 4:38 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Fred Anderson, Chair, Arts and Sciences Council

November 9, 2000

Minutes: Arts and Sciences Council Meeting

  • Thu, November 9, 2000
  • CU Recreation Center – Rooms 3 & 4
  • 3:30 – 4:30 PM

Members present: Fred Anderson (HIST) Chair, Tony Barker (PHYS), Joanne Belknap (WMST/SOCY), Ron Bernier (FA), Luc Bovens (PHIL), Chris Braider (FRIT), David Budd (GEOL), Bob Easton (APPM), Robert Eaton (EPOB), Oliver Gerland (THDN), Terry Kleeman (RLST), Amanda Lynch (PAOS), Dale Mood (KINE), Rolf Norgaard (UWRP), Gail Ramsberger (SLHS), Jerry Rudy (PSYC), Jim Scarritt (PSCI), Eckart Schutrumpf (CLAS), Stephen Snyder (EALC), Janet Ward (GSLL)

Members absent: Ernesto Acevedo-Munoz (FILM), Robert Boswell (MCDB), Gary Gail (GEOG), Paul Gordon (CLHM), Anna Hasenfratz (PHYS), Stanley Jones (COM), Daniel Jurafsky (LING), Carl Koval (CHEM), Jerry Malitz (MATH), Russ McGoodwin (ANTH), Vincent McGuire (FRND), Donald Roper (ECON), Diane Sieber (SPAN), Peter Spear (Dean A&S), Dennis van Gerven (HONORS), Sue Zemka (ENG)

The Chair convened the meeting at 3:40 PM.

The minutes of the October 12 meeting were approved unanimously.

The Chair gave a brief report on the A&S Faculty meeting, which was attended by 32 people, who conducted a civil and lively discussion of the issues relating to the proposed College curriculum. He then described what he knew of the student government’s proposed Honor Code, which would create its own student-run judiciary and thus alter the way in which ethics issues are handled in the College. Since by the laws of the Regents the students and the administration cannot act in this area without the approval of faculty, the proposed system cannot be instituted within the College until the ASC has acted to approve the changes. He added that the ad hoc committee on academic community and retention issues and the budget subcommittee on faculty compensation issues had both been formally charged, and will be making their reports by 1 March 2001. The chair reminded the members that the 30 November meeting would concern budget issues, and would include reports by Gail Ramsberger, Chair of the Budget Committee, and Dean Spear; he then concluded by distributing a corrected schedule for the Spring meetings.

Committee Reports:

David Budd (GEOL), member of the Grievance Committee, reported that the committee is working on one case, which is a carry-over from the last semester.

Gail Ramsberger (SLHS), Chair of the Budget Committee, reported that the committee meets twice a month with the Dean and their primary role is to advise him on budgetary priorities. She mentioned that two primary foci had emerged to date: the cross-subsidization of other colleges and units by the College of Arts and Sciences, on which the committee had heard a presentation by Ric Porreca, Vice Chancellor of Planning, Budget, and Analysis; faculty salaries and compensation issues, which a subcommittee was in the process of investigating, and on which they would make a report to the ASC. It was at present unclear whether a subcommittee would be formed to investigate the cross-subsidization issues as well.

Jim Scarritt (PSCI) introduced a point of order, asking that the reports be kept brief in the interest of having adequate time for the discussion of the principal agenda item, the proposed revision of the bylaws.

Oliver Gerland (THDN), Chair of the Curriculum Committee, reported that the committee is awaiting the results of the faculty vote on the revised curriculum, and that the outcome of this election would set its agenda for the remainder of the year. He also spoke on behalf of the committee on the Dean’s Fund for Excellence, which has a certain amount of money to support research, and which welcomes faculty requests for support.

Tony Barker (PHYS), Chair of the Personnel Committee, reported that the committee meets two hours per week and is presently involved in evaluating 20 promotion and tenure cases, in addition to 20 cases of promotion of associate professors to the rank of professor.

Terry Kleeman (RLST), Chair of the Planning Committee, reported that the Athletics department has placed a “Micro-Master Plan” before the Boulder Campus Planning Commission, and that this document, a small part of the 300-page Master Plan for Athletics, had been approved. The total cost estimates for the Master Plan’s implementation currently exceed $100 million, a sum that the Athletic director has assured the Commission will be raised privately without any effect on fundraising for the College of Arts and Sciences; however, no formal mechanism has been established to ascertain whether that is in fact the case.

Luc Bovens (PHIL), representative of the ASC on the Honors Council, reported no activity at the present.

Dennis van Gerven (HONORS), Chair of Diversity, was not able to attend this meeting but will submit his report at the next meeting.

The chair then opened the discussion of the proposed bylaw changes with a brief summary of what changes might occur if these provisions (i.e., an increase in term limits on service from three to six years; the release of ASC representatives from the requirement of service on one of the standing committees; and the election of the executive committee members from the Council) were adopted. He ventured that one possible result of these measures would be to encourage the increased participation of department chairs on the ASC, and that this might well change the character of faculty governance. He suggested that an ad hoc committee might be formed to consider the ramifications of these proposals, and to consider potential further changes in the structure of faculty governance institutions in the College.

Bob Easton (APPM) then spoke vigorously in opposition to all three proposed bylaws, which he believed would tend to diminish the requirement for responsible participation in committee work of all ASC members.

Eckart Schutrumpf (CLAS) strongly agreed, and offered his view that the standing committees should have more participation and input from the ASC; indeed, the Council in his view should play a more active role in articulating policy as well as in administering College committees, and should make a point of inviting faculty members generally to attend its meetings.

Prof. Scarritt spoke in favor of considering the changes as a means of minimizing the amount of duplication of effort and wasted time in faculty governance. We need to be efficient as well as effective, he argued; and if the increasing participation of chairs as ASC members brought about a better interface between the Chairs and Directors and the ASC, that might well serve the interests of the College as a whole.

Prof. Schutrumpf replied by reminding the Council of the origins of the ASC in an attempt to rein in a dean who had effectively co-opted the chairs of departments, and cautioned the members that such circumstances could well arise again. The Council, he maintained, needs to be made more productive, not to be changed in any structural way. He opposed any extension of the length of terms that members could serve on the grounds that the rotation of faculty members on and off the council would tend to keep it in closer touch with the faculty at large.

Chris Braider (FRIT) observed that the ASC does effectively represent faculty views, and makes a substantial if under-appreciated contribution to the College; in that sense, he argued, three-year terms might be too short to allow faculty members to maximize their impact on policy and administration. He opposed removing the requirement that representatives serve on standing committees because to do so would be to tend to lessen their knowledge of the issues with which they need to be conversant. He did, however, favor the proposed system for reconstituting the executive committee as a body elected from the Council members as a whole.

Oliver Gerland (THDN) suggested that the proposed bylaw changes might avoid the current, serious problem of duplication of effort between the ASC and the Chairs and Directors; and argued that they might bring about a more effective form of governance in which the faculty at large would begin to see the ASC as an effective policy-making body rather than a group whose principal function is to supply members for service on unrewarding (and un-rewarded) committees.

Joanne Belknap (WMST and SOCY) argued that it would be in all of our interests as faculty members to make the ASC a more vibrant and effective body, and that the extension of term limits might well allow faculty members who excel at, and even enjoy, service to make a greater contribution to the life of the College.

Dale Mood (KINE) asked for a clarification of the current term of office; the chair replied that the limit was at present a single term of three years without reelection, but that the member might return for subsequent terms after a hiatus in service.

Prof. Budd observed that the issues we need to consider with respect to faculty governance center on how we can become a more effective body. In that regard, he saw little value in the proposed bylaw changes, which might tend toward the creation of a Council full of “dead wood.”

Prof. Easton commented that he saw no need for an ad hoc committee to study the issues in the proposed bylaws further, and to make a report.

Prof. Schutrumpf spoke in support of Prof. Easton’s comment, observing that the ASC needs to become effective as a body, and that to do so it doesn’t need to hear reports. Meetings are at present entirely too scripted, and no change to the bylaws will change that. He concluded with a plea for a different culture of governance, not a different structure.

The Chair, noting that the hour was late, suggested that the time had come when the Council might wish to vote on the appointment of an ad hoc committee to report on the proposed by-law changes, and other structural issues that their adoption might require, were they to be adopted. He therefore moved that the committee be appointed and charged with making a report and recommendations to the Council. A vigorous, somewhat disjointed discussion followed, as a consequence of which it became clear even to the chair that there was substantial opposition to the idea of appointing an ad hoc committee, and hence to changing the bylaws. He therefore asked for a vote to indicate whether the members wished him to withdraw the motion on the floor, first noting that there was another issue in the bylaws, which had not been discussed, that needed to be addressed: i.e., that the number of ASC delegate members stipulated for each standing committee (typically seven members on each of the major committees) is too high to be sustained with the current 36-member council, and seemingly represents a carryover from the previous version of the bylaws, which permitted the election of at-large delegates, and which envisioned a substantially larger membership on the ASC. Prof. Schutrumpf took strong exception to this as a reason for the appointment of an ad hoc committee, and rebuked the Chair for not having specified it for separate discussion as an agenda item. The Chair, chastened, begged the pardon of the Council for not having foreseen the course of the discussion of the bylaws, and thus for not having specified the committee-composition issue as a separate agenda item. Prof. Easton suggested that if the composition of committees were a great problem that needed to be addressed, it might be addressed without the composition of an ad hoc committee, but by the Chair, who could be charged to bring in a report before the end of the academic year specifying lower levels of ASC representation on the standing committees. The Chair replied that he would be glad to do this, if the Council wished; but that he would therefore have to ask that the rules specifying the membership levels of the various standing committees be suspended for the balance of the academic year. Prof. Barker, speaking as chair of the Personnel Committee, spoke in favor of this suspension of the rules. With that, the Chair asked for a vote instructing him to withdraw the motion currently on the floor, that an ad hoc committee be appointed to consider the proposed bylaw changes and to report on possible changes in the structure of faculty governance. The vote was 14 yeas, 5 nays, and the motion was withdrawn. The Chair then proposed the following substitute motion:

Moved, that the rules with respect to the numbers of Arts and Sciences Council representatives on standing committees be suspended for the balance of the academic year; and that the Chair be instructed to report to the Council by no later than the end of the academic year regarding the appropriate levels of ASC representation on the various standing committees.

The motion being seconded and no discussion (beyond a request for the restatement of the motion by a member who wished to be sure that it was the academic year, not the calendar year, to which the motion referred) following, a vote was taken by a show of hands, and the motion was adopted unanimously.

The meeting adjourned by 4:40.

Respectfully submitted,

Fred Anderson, Chair, Arts and Sciences Council

ADDENDUM: In the aftermath of the meeting, Prof. Budd spoke to the Chair, reminding him that, insofar as the specific by-law changes had not been formally voted down, but only that the motion to appoint an ad hoc committee to study them had been withdrawn and a substitute motion adopted, those by-law resolutions remained unresolved, and still needed to be voted upon separately. The Chair, chagrined that he had grown so muddled in the course of the discussion that he had missed this crucial point, agreed that it would indeed be necessary to submit these motions to a formal vote, thanked Prof. Budd for reminding him of it, and promised to have the issues brought up for decision at a future meeting.

October 26, 2000

Minutes: Arts and Sciences Faculty Meeting

  • 26 October 2000
  • UMC Forum Room
  • 3:30-5:00 p.m.

Fred Anderson, chair of the Arts and Sciences Council, convened the meeting at 3:30 p.m. with a brief report on what the ASC has been working on this year. (1) An ad hoc committee has been formed to consider issues relating to retention, career management, and academic community; it is to render a report, with recommendations, by March 1, 2001. (2) A subcommittee of the ASC Budget committee is considering salary issues, particularly operation of the merit system at the department level; it is also to render a report with recommendations by March 1, 2001. (3) The Budget committee is investigating cross-subsidization on the UCB campus, to determine if possible how much more the College of Arts and Sciences contributes to the University’s operation than it gets back; if anything can be done to scrutinize this cross-subsidization, the committee will report on it to the council, and the faculty as a whole. (4) The Council has voted to implement a college-wide mentoring policy, by which department-level “professional guidance” will be supplemented by a variety of mentoring and support programs that operate across departmental divisions. Pending business from the Council: consideration of bylaw changes that may lead to the restructuring of faculty governance in the College; and completion of the curriculum discussion.

The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the Core Skills and Distribution Plan (CS&D). Oliver Gerland, chair of the Core Curriculum Task Force, gave a brief overview of the plan, sketching its evolution since the task force’s origins in the Spring 1996 survey of the faculty, which disclosed widespread discontent with the College’s current core curriculum. He explained that the only change from the proposal voted down by the faculty as a whole last spring is an increase in required hours from 10 to 13 in the Natural Sciences distributional area. This adjustment in the Natural Sciences requirement matches the requirement of the current core. He also described the Core Skills area of the new curriculum, with special attention to the new lower-division Writing requirement, which will operate without exemption. He concluded that the essential difference between the current Core and the proposed CS&D curriculum is that the new system collapses courses in five overlapping categories into two fields–Humanities and Social Sciences–on the assumption that there are essential similarities among the disciplines in each of these broad regions.

Discussion was then opened.

Carol Cleland (Philosophy) had several concerns with respect to the Writing skills requirement. Why, she asked, is there a change to the writing requirement? Why will there no longer be exemptions for better students? Many students, she thought, are not in need of writing instruction at the introductory level, whereas others require remedial instruction; would it not be wiser to concentrate our limited resources where they could be used to maximum effect? Joyce Nielsen (Sociology) and Elissa Guralnick (UWRP) responded on behalf of the task force that the plan is to group students by ability. The writing requirement, they noted, will change regardless of whether or not the CS&D proposal passes; there is not remedial intention in requiring instruction on both the upper- and lower-division levels.

Professor Cleland then turned to the question of the unity, perspective, and method of the “arts and humanities” distributional area.” What is the common element of the various departments? Gerland replied on behalf of the task force that while the Natural Sciences have a fairly good written definition of what should be studied within that division, definitional statements are needed for both the Social Sciences and the Arts and Humanities. These will be developed if the proposal passes. It should be noted that the content and the method of the course, and not the divisional home of the department, determines into which area any given course will fall.

Peter Knox (Classics) observed that the question before the faculty is one of the difference between the current proposal and the current core. Why is the proposal better? It does not seem, he said, to demonstrate more breadth than the current core. Is the proposed plan merely a way to clear up administrative problems? What is the academic and intellectual rationale behind it? Gerland replied that the proposed plan “is a cultivated extension of the current core,” one that prunes an overgrown set of requirements and imposes a new order on the curriculum. The idea is breadth: to get students to experience different ways of thinking and to broaden their intellectual experience. Depth in instruction will continue to take place, as at present, in the students’ majors. Knox responded that it is still possible to over-concentrate; ingenious students might well find it possible under the CS&D to take virtually all of their required Humanities and Social Sciences courses in a single department.

Ron Bernier (Fine Arts), citing the utility of students from Arts and Sciences taking courses in Music or Architecture, asked if students could take courses from other colleges to fulfill CS&D area requirements. Gerland replied that has not yet been considered. Bernier inquired, further, if it would be difficult, or even impossible for the Senior Experience, or capstone courses, to be put into place in departments with large numbers of majors relative to faculty. Gerland replied that this is a resource issue that needs to be worked out.

Dennis Van Gerven (Anthropology) observed that a single department–e.g. Anthropology–conceivably could place courses into all 3 distributional areas. Therefore, the student could do large chunks of the requirements in only one department. Where is the breadth, he wondered, in this arrangement? Joyce Nielsen replied that the breadth is in the content and method rather than in the department. She also asked that the faculty remember that students are required to take 75 hours outside of their majors.

Elissa Guralnick observed that this proposal seems to be an advance insofar as it is easier to understand and no doubt easier to administer; but she found the issue of breadth troubling. Could the proposal be approved in principle only, she asked, with further revisions (for example, providing sub-schedules of courses within each area from which students would be required to choose, thus forestalling the chance to over-concentrate) after the curriculum had received a positive vote? The Chair observed in reply that while it would be possible to change the curriculum once it had been adopted, and indeed that the curriculum would almost certainly be modified over time, there was at present no provision for revising the proposal, nor was there a means to vote a conditional pass. The ballots (already printed) made it clear that this was to be an “up” or “down” vote only. He inquired, however, if those in the audience opposed to the adoption of the new system might be willing to reconsider their position if it were possible to amend it after adoption. If so, it might be possible for the ASC to reconvene and reconsider the curriculum, adding a third option–to adopt with amendments–to the ballot. Peter Knox responded that he would find it impossible to support the new curriculum under any circumstances. Several other members of the audience were heard to murmur assent, and the discussion of adoption with amendments went no further.

Michael Tooley (Philosophy) observed that it is crucial for the faculty of Arts and Sciences to provide students with a liberal arts education. Is that more likely under the present system or the proposed one? Gerland replied that the Task Force members had discussed the concept of a liberal arts education at length, and concluded that this proposal will give students that experience.

Jim Symons (Theater and Dance) noted that one major issue yet to be discussed is the constitution of a committee that will decide within what division each of the courses making up the curriculum will lie. Strict guidelines are needed. Criteria for the current core have become looser and broader over the years. Gerland replied that the ASC’s Curriculum Committee will work with departments to sort courses into correct categories, according to criteria established within each division. David Grant (Mathematics), commented, on behalf of the Task Force, that this is not a core-based system, but a rather a skills core (writing, math, and diversity) with a distribution requirement. The writing portion of the skills core, and certain aspects of mathematics instruction, will be implemented regardless of what happens to the proposal; but while the math module program will be closed out, testing to place students into the appropriate MQR course will not happen if the proposal does not pass. The set of courses in each of the 3 distributional areas will be larger, so the possibility of a broad education is likely.

Dick Ham (MCDB) commented that this proposal would create CU’s least restrictive curriculum in the last four decades. One current problem, he said, is that courses required for the major are not allowed on the core. Therefore students are exempted from certain requirements. However, exemptions cause problems when students change majors. In fact, however, none of the Natural Science departments really need the exemptions. Previously those requirements had to be taken outside of the department. This is no longer the case; thus it should not be taken as an argument in favor of changing to a new system. Another problem frequently cited with the current core, he continued, is its cumbersome way of allowing courses satisfy more than one area. If this is an argument in favor of abolishing it, however, the faculty should recognize that this is a relatively trivial one in technical terms; it should be able to be solved using available software.

Gerland replied that under the new curriculum, courses will still spread across the various areas. Departments will need to determine into which area the course best fits. Ham then inquired, how inclusive will the list of courses for the 3 areas be? Gerland responded that he (and the task force) while a distinction may be made between courses that satisfy the major and those that are in a distributional area, and specific details are yet to be worked out, the task force hoped that departments would nominate many of their courses to the curriculum and so the lists will be very inclusive.

Michael Tooley observed that it appears that the Natural Science credit requirements were raised to get the proposal to pass, but that the proposal also loses a requirement for reading (the current “literature and the arts” core category). A faculty-wide discussion of concepts would have been useful. Graham Oddie (Philosophy) added that the faculty had not yet achieved a full understanding of the proposal is missing. There was a belief that all courses would be placed into one of the three distributional areas. The areas must be defined and this part of the proposal should be clarified prior to the vote. Gerland replied that only those courses nominated by departments will be placed in the distribution areas. There was no plan to gazette every course in the catalogue into one or more of the three distribution areas. The task force’s members were reluctant to define correlation between areas and courses until the proposal was approved, and departments could have the appropriate input on criteria for assigning them to their respective categories.

Chris Braider (Comparative Literature) noted that in the Frequently Asked Questions section of the CCTF web page it is stated that the intent is that all courses should be placed in one of the areas. Gerland replied that the task force intended that students be offered a broad range of courses in each of the distributional areas. Departments will have control over what courses are on the Core and will work with the Curriculum Committee to determine where they are placed. Nielsen added that, in reality, departments will have control over what is in and what is not in the distributional areas. Richard Roth (Mathematics) commented that the requirement for a “senior experience” is new to some majors–Math, for example. If resources are available the result might well be positive; but this of course raises the usual problem of resources actually being made available. Will double majors be required to do two “senior experiences?” Oliver Gerland (who had at this point been on his feet answering questions for nearly an hour and a half, and who deserved a break if anyone ever did) gamely replied that the answer to both questions is unknown, but the double-major issue might be understood in one of two ways. If the “senior experience” requirement is considered to be a “general education requirement,” then the answer is No. However, if the requirement is seen as one within the major, then the answer is Yes. The task force had not made that distinction, but it could be decided after adoption of the curriculum.

The Chair, noting that the hour had grown late and that several of the attendees had already left, thanked the remaining members of the audience for coming and for commenting on the proposed plan, then asked for a motion to adjourn. It was so moved, and there being no dissenting voice heard, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m.

(These minutes were based on notes taken by Susan Phillips, Lucy Nowak, and Fred Anderson, with corrections by Oliver Gerland.)

October 12, 2000

Minutes: Arts & Sciences Council Meeting

  • Thu, Oct 12, 2000
  • CU Recreation Center
  • Rooms 3 & 4
  • 3:30 – 4:30 PM

Members present: Fred Anderson (HIST) Chair, Tony Barker (PHYS), Joanne Belknap (WMST & SOCY), Robert Boswell (MCDB), Luc Bovens (PHIL), Chris Braider (FRIT), David Budd (GEOL), Jeff Dodge (S&G Record), Bob Easton (APPM), Oliver Gerland (THDN), Paul Gordon (CL/H), Elissa Guralnick (for Rolf Norgaard, UWRP), Terry Kleeman (RLST), Amanda Lynch (PAOS), Jerry Malitz (MATH), Russ McGoodwin (ANTH), Joyce Nielsen (SOCY) (Curriculum Core Task Force), Susan Phillips (Curriculum Core Task Force), Jim Scarritt (PSCI), Eckart Schutrumpf (CLAS), Diane Sieber (SPAN), Steve Snyder (EALC), Dennis van Gerven (HONORS)

Members absent: Ernesto Acevedo Munoz (FILM), Ronald Bernier (FA), Robert Eaton (EPOB), Gary Gaile (GEOG), Anna Hasenfratz (PHYS), Stanley Jones (COM), Daniel Jurafsky (LING), Carl Koval (CHEM), Vincent McGuire (FRND), Dale Mood (KINE), Gail Ramsberger (SLHS), Donald Roper (ECON), Jerry Rudy (PSYC), Peter Spear, (Dean, A&S), Janet Ward (GSLL), Sue Zemka (ENG)

The Chair convened the meeting at 3:40 PM.

The minutes of the 28 September meeting were approved unanimously.

The Chair briefly reported on the formation of an Ad Hoc Committee on Retention, Career Management, and Academic Community, consisting of Anna Hasenfratz (PHYS), Rolf Norgaard (UWRP), Janet Ward (GSLL), Ron Bernier (FINE), and two non-ASC members, Jule M. Gomez de Garcia (LING) and Alice Healey (PSYC). Since there had been only a single volunteer for service on an ad hoc committee on salary issues, Russ McGoodwin (ANTH), the responsibility for investigation of the salary system has been assumed by a subcommittee of the Budget Committee, consisting of Gail Ramsberger (SLHS) and Dale Mood (KINE), with one invited non-ASC member, Robert McNown (ECON), as well as Professor McGoodwin. The Chair’s charge to both committees will be presented to the Executive Committee for approval at its next meeting, and the committees will report their findings and recommendations to the Council no later than 1 March 2001.

At the Chair’s request, the discussion of by-law changes was postponed to the meeting of 9 November. Dean Spear having previously agreed to present the College strategic plan at that meeting in order to permit a full faculty meeting on 26 October for discussion of the curriculum, the proposed by-law changes and the potential appointment of an ad hoc committee on governance will be the major agenda items at the 9 November meeting.

The Chair discussed moving the ASC’s meetings from a two-week to a three-week cycle in the Spring term, with 90 minutes scheduled in place of the present 60 minutes. After brief discussion, the Council unanimously approved a motion from the Chair to adopt this scheme; meetings for the Spring semester will accordingly occur on 25 January, 15 February, 8 March, 29 March, 19 April (general meeting), and 10 May (chair election).

The Council then turned to the resolution scheduled for discussion by prior notice of motion from the Chair, “Resolved, that the Arts and Sciences Council endorses the proposal of the Ad Hoc Committee on Mentoring, ‘Avenues of Mentoring,’ as amended by the Chairs and Directors, and adopts it as the policy of the College.” Luc Bovens (PHIL) asked if the proposed mentoring system did not simply bureaucratize what would otherwise normally occur, and perhaps occasion litigation, should a faculty member believe that he or she had not been properly mentored. Dennis Van Gerven (HONR and ANTH) replied that the new system’s intention was not to constrain departmental practices, but to supplement them with college-wide opportunities for mentoring; and that there was no intention that the advice received at either level would be contractual in nature. Tony Barker (PHYS), chair of the Personnel Committee, noted that in all likelihood this new system would reduce the occasions for suits, and that extra-departmental mentoring had worked well in cases where it had already been tried. David Budd (GEOL) commented that it might well be possible for the College-wide mentoring structure to compensate for flaws in department-level professional guidance; Steven Snyder (EALC) replied that this might, however, produce cases of conflict between advice given at the department level and that given by College-level mentors. Dennis Van Gerven observed that in fact the two levels were complementary, because department level professional guidance concentrates on the specifics of teaching and research within the discipline, while College-level mentoring aims at enabling the mentee to navigate the shoals of University policy, culture, and expectations. The question having been called, the resolution was passed by a show of hands, with 17 members voting Yea, 0 Nay, and one Abstaining.

Oliver Gerland (THDN) then reported for the Curriculum Committee and the Core Curriculum Task Force on the proposed changes in the curriculum, in the form of a shift from the present Core Curriculum to a course-distribution system known as the Core Skills and Distribution (CS&D) plan. He explained the CS&D system as a “cultivated extension” of a curriculum that had become overgrown with confusing requirements. The Task Force, he argued, believed that the new system of assigning courses to categories according to content and methodology (rather than according to any department’s membership in an administrative division of the College) would allow greater convergence between teaching and research for faculty, as well as greater transparency and flexibility for students. As for the boost in the number of Natural Science hours required (13) from the previous iteration of the CS&D (10), he explained that this was primarily a means of attracting more support from the Natural Science departments, which had tended to vote in opposition to the proposed system last Spring; but it was arguable, he noted, that the growing importance of science and technology would offer a sufficient intellectual justification for greater emphasis on science in the curriculum. As for practical objections concerning the loss of credit hours in the Humanities and Social Sciences, he noted that changes in the Skills components of the curriculum–the six-hour requirement in writing and the three-hour requirement in Diversity–would redound to the benefit of Humanities and Social Sciences divisions.

A Question and Answer period followed Professor Gerland’s report. Joanne Belknap (WMST and SOCY) spoke in favor of the proposed changes. Fred Anderson (HIST) inquired if the new scheme had sufficient safeguards against abuse, and if might not be too easily manipulated by students who could take fewer courses outside their majors than is possible under the present system. Gerland replied that the present system does not preclude such manipulation, and that in fact the proposed system tends to increase breadth in course offerings. Bob Easton (APPM) voiced his concern about the Mathematics component, noting that it was possible to test out of the Math requirement, but that no information had been made available concerning the examination. Gerland replied that the Mathematical Association of America had published guidelines for the construction of such examinations, association-approved versions of which might also be purchased as a package at reasonable rates. Joyce Nielsen (Associate Dean for Social Sciences, representing Dean Spear) added that these tests had been examined by members of the Core Curriculum Task Force, and that their findings could be consulted on the CCTF’s web page; Elissa Guralnick (UWRP, present as a member of the Task Force) commented that great emphasis had been placed by CCTF members from the Natural Sciences on rigor, and that the proposed system of testing would in fact be more demanding than the present system.

Eckart Schutrumpf (CLAS) reported that his department did not regard the proposed change as either practically necessary or intellectually justifiable; indeed, it was his view and that of his colleagues that while the old system was at least a balanced approach to the curriculum, the proposed plan might well harbor disadvantages in the form of student and department game-playing that would far outweigh whatever benefits its seeming simplicity might confer. Gerland replied that the task force had sampled faculty reactions to the old system, and discovered a nearly universal discontentment with its complexity, which in fact allowed plenty of game-playing to go on at the department level, and which as a consequence had substantially blurred disciplinary boundaries in the various categories and thereby promoted further confusion.

Diane Sieber (SPAN) reported that colleagues in her department liked the clarity of the proposed system, but had concerns about the number of Natural Science hours as opposed to the number required in the Humanities. Joyce Nielsen replied that comparisons to other universities’ curricula had shown that the number of hours proposed in Natural Sciences was close to the norm, once it was clear how the various institutions classified their requirements; that is, not all universities lump together biological, physical, and chemical sciences as we do, and their curricula reflect that fact. She reiterated the importance of understanding that the writing skills requirement adheres to the Humanities, and adds hours there, while the diversity requirement generally belongs to the Social Sciences; she also reminded the Council that the Humanities/Social Sciences/Natural Sciences divisions within the proposed system were substantive and methodological, not administrative, and would not strictly follow from the bureaucratic organization of the College. Elissa Guralnick followed with what she characterized as a “low road” justification for the 13-hour Natural Sciences requirement: the vote (she reminded the Council) is between a current core that allots the Natural Scientists 13 hours, and a proposed core in which they also have 13 hours. If the Social Scientists and Humanists reject the proposed curriculum, they’ll simply be acting out of pique, and missing the fact that nothing will change.

Paul Gordon (CLHM) spoke in favor of the CS&D, commenting that while some had objected to it on the grounds of the absence of a separate critical thinking requirement, most courses–and certainly all capstone courses within departments–stress those skills. Terry Kleeman (RLST) called attention to the dangers of over-concentration in the proposed system, asking if we really need more scientific knowledge to cope with the future, or more knowledge of the cultural diversity of the world. Would it not be possible, he asked, for students to be able to graduate with courses that touched only on American culture, society, and history? Gerland and Nielsen together replied that the Curriculum Committee would act as a watchdog to insure that departments did not try to smuggle courses into inappropriate divisions of the curriculum, and that while some students might seek to over-concentrate, they were generally smart enough to choose interesting and wide-ranging courses. To add an international studies requirement would be to invite a specifically national requirement, which would in turn open the door to other specialized requirements that would soon replicate the existing core system.

At this point the Chair proposed that the discussion cease, and moved the following four resolutions:

Resolved, that the Arts and Sciences Council instructs the Chair to call a meeting of the faculty of the College to discuss the proposed changes to the curriculum, and that this meeting shall convene on 26 October 2000 at 3:30 PM in the Forum Room of the University Memorial Center. Passed without dissent.

Resolved, that the Arts and Sciences Council transmits the proposed Core Skills and Distribution curriculum to the faculty of Arts and Sciences for adoption in place of the current Core curriculum; and that this vote shall be conducted by secret mail ballot. Passed, 14 votes Yea, 0 votes Nay, 1 vote Abstaining.

Resolved, that the Arts and Sciences Council transmits the proposed Core Skills and Distribution curriculum to the faculty with a recommendation that it be adopted as a replacement for the current Core curriculum. Defeated, 5 votes Yea, 10 votes Nay. (The CS&D is therefore transmitted to the faculty without recommendation or endorsement.)

Resolved, that the ballots will counted by a three-member subcommittee of the Executive Committee, chosen at random by lot; that one member of this subcommittee will open and discard the envelopes, a second member will sort the ballots according to vote, and the third member will count the ballots in the presence of the others, who will confirm his or her totals; and that the subcommittee will report the confirmed vote to the Chair of the Arts and Sciences Council and the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences no later than the close of business on Tuesday, 21 November 2000. Passed without dissent.

The agenda for the meeting having been completed, the Chair inquired if any member wished to introduce new business. In reply he heard only a motion to adjourn; in the absence of so much as a murmur of dissent from the now-rapidly-dispersing members, the Chair therefore adjourned the meeting at 4:40 PM.

September 28, 2000

Minutes: Arts & Sciences Council Meeting

  • Thu, Sep 28, 2000
  • CU Recreation Center, Rooms 3&4
  • 3:30 – 4:30 PM

Members present: Fred Anderson (Chair, ASC), Tony Barker (PHYS), Joanne Belknap (WMST &SOCY), Ronald Bernier (FA), Luc Bovens (PHIL), Chris Braider (FRIT), Jeff Dodge (S&G Record), Robert Easton (APPM), Robert Eaton (EPOB), Oliver Gerland (THDN), Anna Hasenfratz (PHYS), Stanley Jones (COM), Terry Kleeman (RLST), Carl Koval (CHEM), Merrill Lessley, (A&S), Amanda Lynch (PAOS), Jerry Malitz (MATH), Russ McGoodwin (ANTH), Rolf Norgaard (UWRP), Jim Scarritt (PSCI), Eckart Schutrumpf (CLAS), Diane Sieber (SPAN), Peter Spear (Dean, A&S), Dennis van Gerven (HONORS) Janet Ward (GSLL)

Members absent: Paul Gordon (CLHM), Stephen Snyder (EALC), Donald Roper (ECON), Sue Zemka (ENG), Ernesto Acevedo Munoz (FILM), Vincent McGuire (FRND), Gary Gaile (GEOG), David Budd (GEOL), Dale Mood (KINE), Daniel Jurafsky (LING), Robert Boswell (MCDB), Jerry Rudy (PSYC), Gail Ramsberger (SLHS)

The Chair convened the meeting at 3:40 PM.

A motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of 14 September was approved unanimously.

The Chair informed the Council that the next meeting of the ASC, scheduled for 12 October, would have as its main agenda item the revised Core Skills and Distribution (CSD) curriculum. The goal of the 12 October meeting will be to prepare for the Fall semester meeting of the full Arts and Sciences Faculty, which will take the place of the regular ASC meeting scheduled for 26 October. The CSD curriculum, as modified by the Core Curriculum Task Force over the last several months, will be presented for the approval of the faculty at the 26 October meeting. It is likely that the CSD proposal will again be sent to an email ballot of the Arts and Sciences faculty. The results of the ballot will be kept secret, and tallies by unit will not be made.

The Chair also informed the ASC that the proposal for junior faculty mentoring entitled ‘Avenues of Mentoring,’ which was distributed to ASC members by email, had been approved by the Chairs and Directors at their recent meeting. This proposal will also be discussed at the next ASC meeting, and the Chair further made a Notice of the following motion for consideration at that meeting: "Resolved, that the Arts and Sciences Council endorses the proposal of the Ad Hoc committee on Mentoring, 'Avenues of Mentoring,' as amended by the Chairs and Directors, and adopts it as the policy of the College."

The meeting then turned to consideration of the eight items proposed by the Executive Committee as possible ASC initiatives for the present academic year. The Chair briefly reviewed the list, which included:

  • Cross-subsidies of other CU colleges by Arts and Sciences;
  • Salary Issues, such as merit raise procedures, skims, and comparisons of general salary levels to our peer institutions;
  • FCQ’s: can they be made more useful?;
  • Issues of Career Management and Academic Community, including a variety of issues such as the post-tenure review process, ‘frozen associate professors’, attitudes toward service, and the role of instructors in the college;
  • Pressures on the college resulting from rising enrollment;
  • Quality-of-Life issues such as spousal hiring policies, parental leave policies, and other faculty benefits (or the lack thereof);
  • Library issues, such as cutbacks on periodical subscriptions;
  • Possible changes to faculty governance structures in order to reduce redundancy between the Council of Chairs, the Chairs and Directors, and the ASC.

The Chair explained that these were possibilities for initiatives, but that insofar as the ASC would not be able to address all of them effectively, the members should establish priorities. Ad Hoc Committees of the ASC would be established where necessary to address those issues deemed to have the highest priority.

The first item on the list, cross-subsidies between colleges, was already under review by the Standing Committee on the Budget. Data on this issue is old, with the numbers shown at the meeting dating from the report of the Pursuit of Excellence Task Force in 1994. In the 92-93 academic year, the Task Force found that the income of the College of Arts and Sciences exceeded its expenditures by approximately $ 28 M. In view of the fact that a 1% salary raise costs about $1 M, it is important for the ASC to determine whether this diversion of ASC revenues is a continuing phenomenon.

As a Point of Information, the Dean of the College noted that it is the stated policy of the campus to transfer funds between the various colleges in this way. He added that it is important to note that the 92-93 figures included all sources of revenue, not just state general funds. In the present studies, it will be important to break out the general fund portion of the college budget.

The discussion then moved to the next proposed topic, that of faculty salary issues. The Chair noted that an extensive study of this problem is currently being conducted by the BFA. He noted that although the ASC might wish to support this effort, it could complement the BFA effort by extending and deepening the study of salaries within the college. This could involve performing a departmental analysis, and making a longitudinal study of faculty salaries to document inequities arising from a history of raises which are small compared to increases in market-driven starting-salary levels.

Chris Braider (FRIT) noted that the real problem is the miserable amount of money available in the overall raise pool. He suggested that the ASC should avoid devoting too much effort to detailed considerations of how to divide an inadequate pie among the competing interests, drawing an analogy to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Carl Koval (CHEM) asked why the BFA feels empowered to criticize the salary policies of the College of Arts and Sciences, such as the 2X rule. Robert Eaton (EPOB) remarked that the BFA is failing to pay enough attention to the campus-level salary skim.

Eckart Schutrumpf (CLAS) remarked that on this and other issues it would be wise to hear directly what members of the faculty think. He suggested that some ASC meetings should be open and allow non-ASC members to speak, so that average faculty can have a voice.

Stanley Jones (COM) wondered how many faculty have merit evaluation ratings of ‘Meets Expectations’ or better, yet fail to receive raises equal to inflation. He noted that the mean raise figure of 4.6% for last year is not a good indicator of the overall distribution of raises.

Russ McGoodwin (ANTH) remarked that to say the problem is entirely in the small size of the total raise pool is to put one’s head in the sand. He said that any raise below the increase in the cost of living manifestly indicates that one’s performance is regarded as NOT meritorious. He added that the distribution of raises is currently inequitable and that it is becoming increasingly unfair as ordinary faculty with meritorious performance are cannibalized to support large raises for a small elite.

Robert Easton (APPM) ended the discussion of salary issues by noting that small general fund increases for the university, which limit the total raise pool, are a consequence of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights approved in 1992. He suggested that more attention should be devoted to finding a mechanism for freeing the University from TABOR restrictions. He also remarked that large amounts of money had been devoted to the Administrative Streamlining Project, and wondered whether the college would ever reap any benefits from ASP that could justify the costs.

The discussion moved next to the possibility of an initiative concerning improving the FCQ process.

The Chair noted that an FCQ initiative is already being pursued by the Systemwide Faculty Council. He wondered if the ASC should try to cooperate or coordinate with their effort.

Dennis van Gerven (HONORS) suggested that we would do well to study what is done at other institutions, such as the University of Missouri. He thinks we should ask whether we are doing as well as we can with FCQ’s. A substantial amount of information is already available in the literature, and as a result of other studies, such as one conducted by the Faculty Teaching Excellence Program. Improvements to the FCQ process based on this information, such as training students in how to approach FCQ’s, could produce a more useful evaluative instrument.

Russ McGoodwin (ANTH) reminded the ASC that a 1998 Chancellor’s Committee had already considered FCQ issues. Their report had been sent on to a higher-level committee. He noted that the format and content of the FCQ’s is largely under Regental control. Fred Anderson (HIST) suggested even if some questions are mandated by the Regents, we can certainly add more. McGoodwin added that the issue of anonymous FCQ responses being used as a method of teaching evaluation is a serious concern. Peter Spear (Dean, A&S) replied that the ASC Personnel Committee requires multiple measures of teaching proficiency for its reappointment, tenure, and promotion decisions, so that FCQ’s are only one factor among several. Tony Barker (PHYS), Co-Chair of the Personnel Committee noted that while this is true, some of the other measures, such as student letters, are also problematic, and that FCQ ratings do play an important role in personnel considerations. Russ McGoodwin (ANTH) suggested that we should make sure that students are fully aware of the importance and uses of FCQ’s, including the effect they can have on a faculty member’s career.

The Chair ended the FCQ discussion by noting that FCQ policy changes at least don’t cost anything, and so are relatively feasible.

The discussion then proceeded to the next proposed initiative topic, issues of Career Management and Academic Community. The Chair started the discussion by asking whether service work by faculty is truly valued. He suggested that excessive service commitments can result in stalled careers (the issue of ‘frozen-associates’). This problem might be dealt with by some form of mid-career mentoring to complement the early-career mentoring proposal currently under consideration.

Dennis van Gerven (HONORS) remarked that the faculty should carefully consider its attitudes toward service work. For example, we generally encourage assistant professors to avoid service activities because they are perceived as unimportant to achieving tenure. The low value this implies for service is clear, and this results in only a small number of faculty being actively engaged in service work even later in their careers. Van Gerven asked the ASC to consider how the value of service work can be supported, and how the college can reward it equitably.

Eckart Schutrumpf (CLAS) added that service commitments are not equal between units in the college. In small departments, faculty must serve on many committees (search committees, evaluation committees, curriculum committee, etc.), resulting an especially heavy service load. Amanda Lynch (PAOS) added that minorities and women are often tapped for numerous service responsibilities, even as junior faculty.

Dennis van Gerven (HONORS) also noted that Instructors sometimes face a heavy service commitment because they are thought to have more time for service work due to the absence of tenure pressures. Rolf Norgaard (UWRP) added that more attention should be paid in general to the role of instructors with respect to that of tenure-track faculty. He noted that the question is really one of the nature of our academic community, and that there are many facets to the issue of instructors, including salary questions, the danger of ghettoization, and opportunities for research work.

The discussion turned next to the issue of pressures due to increasing enrollment. Robert Easton (APPM) remarked that the growing population of the state will inevitable lead to these pressures, as we have seen with the large freshman class this year. Oliver Gerland (THDN) wondered whether this is a significant issue for faculty, to which a number of ASC members responded that it is. Joanne Belknap (WMST & SOCY) noted that the issue is connected to the instructor questions raised earlier. Chris Braider (FRIT) added that the question of rising enrollment bears on a number of other issues, and probably should not be considered in isolation by the ASC.

The Chair moved the attention of the ASC to the next proposed initiative, on ‘Quality of Life Issues’, noting that the BFA also has a committee, which is addressing benefits issues. Dennis van Gerven (HONORS) remarked that these issues are not limited to the college, so that it would perhaps be more appropriate to address them in campus wide or systemwide forums. Chris Braider (FRIT) noted that the Quality of Life issues are closely linked to those of Career Management discussed earlier. Janet Ward (GSLL) objected that the phrase ‘Quality of Life’ is vague. She added that the real issue is one of faculty retention, and remarked that these issues must be addressed by the ASC even if they are of systemwide significance.

A brief discussion of library issues followed. It was noted that the library is in sad and declining shape, and that its problems are a concern to most, if not all, of the Arts and Science faculty.

The last of the proposed initiatives concerned Faculty Governance Structures. The Chair noted specifically that several changes to the ASC Bylaws were currently under consideration, one consequence of which would be that it would become easier and more attractive for department chairs to serve on the ASC. The ultimate effect of these changes might be to eliminate some of the present redundancy between the Council of Chairs, the Chairs and Directors Meetings, and the Arts and Sciences Council.

The Chair then asked the ASC to consider which of the proposed initiatives should be pursued during the present academic year. A straw poll was held to see how many members wished to pursue each of the topics. For the purposes of the vote, the three issues of Career Management, Enrollment Pressures, and Quality of Life Issues were combined to form a single topic (Career Management and Faculty Retention Issues). The Faculty Governance topic was set-aside at the request of Eckart Schutrumpf, who argued that it would be premature to appoint an ad hoc committee on governance without further discussion of the proposed bylaw changes in the ASC convened as a committee of the whole. James Scarritt (PSCI) objected that the issue is important and should not be postponed further. The Chair promised to return to this issue at the next ASC meeting.

The vote was as follows (of 21 members present)

  • Salary Issues: 13 votes
  • FCQ Improvements: 7 votes
  • Career Management and Faculty Retention Issues: 14 votes
  • Library Issues: 9 votes

In a straw poll, most members of the ASC favored limiting the number of initiatives to be considered to two. However, Janet Ward (GSLL) noted that we could try to look at other initiatives next semester, and Chris Braider (FRIT) remarked that committees could be formed to consider additional issues (such as the state of the libraries) even if the full ASC would not take up those issues until a later date.

The Chair therefore announced his intention to form Ad Hoc Committees of the ASC to consider the two top issues: Faculty Salaries, and Career Management/Faculty Retention Issues. He plans to solicit ASC volunteers for each of these committees before the next ASC meeting.

At this point, the Chair, having noted a certain restiveness once the council had concluded his business, inquired if anyone would care to make a motion for adjournment. An adjournment was accordingly moved (by Christopher Braider) and seconded (by a small chorus of voices accompanied by so much pushing-back of chairs that the seconding members could not be individually identified). Hearing no objection to the motion, the Chair accordingly adjourned the meeting at 4:45 PM.

September 14, 2000

Minutes: Arts & Sciences Council Meeting

  • Thu, Sep 14, 2000
  • CU Recreation Center, Rooms 3&4
  • 3:30 – 4:30 PM

Members present: Fred Anderson (Chair, ASC; HIST), Joanne Belknap (WMST & SOCY), Ron Bernier (FA), Luc Bovens (PHIL), Chris Braider (FRIT), David Budd (GEOL), Robert Easton (APPM), Robert Eaton (EPOB), Oliver Gerland (THDN), Paul Gordon (CLHM), Anna Hasenfratz (PHYS), Stanley Jones (COM), Terry Kleeman (RLST), Carl Koval (CHEM), Jerry Malitz (MATH), Russ McGoodwin (ANTH), Dale Mood (KINE), Rolf Norgaard (UWRP), Gail Ramsberger (SLHS), Jerry Rudy (PSYCH), James Scarritt (PSCI), Eckart Schutrumpf (CLAS), Stephen Snyder (EALC), Peter Spear (Dean, A&S), Dennis van Gerven (HONORS), Janet Ward (GSLL)

Members absent: Frank Hsiao (ECON), Sue Zemka (ENG), Ernesto Acevedo Munoz (FILM), Vincent McGuire (FRND), Gary Gaile (GEOG), Daniel Jurafsky (LING), Robert Boswell (MCDB), Amanda Lynch (PAOS), Anthony Barker (PHYS), Diane Sieber (SPAN)

The Chair convened the meeting at 3:38 PM.

The minutes of the August 31 meeting were approved unanimously.

The Chair then opened the floor to further discussion of the Homework Assignment. He invited Janet Ward, GSLL, to speak about the email memo which she had sent in response to that assignment. She made four main points, all of which bear on faculty recruitment and retention:

  1. crediting the work done to date on faculty mentoring;
  2. calling for a spousal hiring policy;
  3. urging shifts in language describing the implementation of the Parental Leave Policy in the CU Desk Reference for Faculty and Administrators; and 4) calling for additional money in support of individual faculty members’ teaching and office supplies (which she has frequently paid out of her own pocket).

Dennis Van Gerven, Honors, brought up the issue of FCQs. He observed that as a part of program review for the Faculty Teaching Excellence Program it has become clear that CU is behind peer institutions (including the University of Missouri) in mentoring faculty teachers and developing meaningful teaching evaluations. At Missouri students are given instructions on how to fill out course questionnaires, the survey instrument has been revised into a form that we might well consider emulating, and an administrative structure has been set up to both to encourage faculty members to create teaching portfolios and to facilitate their doing so by means of faculty retreats.

Oliver Gerland, THDN, returned to Ward’s point by asking Dean Spear if the Dean’s Fund for Excellence could fund the sort of teaching expenses that Ward and presumably other faculty members are currently taking out of their salaries. Spear replied that the fund could be used for such purposes, but that the essence of the problem lay in the lack of funding to departments for instructional expenses. The College (he continued) plans to keep increasing instructional funds for each department until they reach 100% of the target set by the budget algorithm. He also observed that the $1000 College Accounts for individual faculty members were set up in part to cover expenses incidental to teaching.

Dean Spear then replied to Ward’s earlier comments on spousal hiring by laying out the College spousal hiring policy, which, he said, is in place but has not yet been written down. (Ward responded that it would be in her view an excellent idea to make this policy both explicit and public.) Spear continued that spousal hires are used for both recruitment and retention purposes. The College works with departments to find positions for spouses who are also first-rate researchers/teachers. No new faculty lines can be created for this purpose but the College can provide bridge funding to a department until a faculty line opens up due to retirement, or other causes. Chris Braider, FRIT, asked if anything had been done to learn how spousal hiring actually works. He observed that, from his own experience, spousal hires work best when one department hires both partners. He asked if that was generally true. Dean Spear replied that he didn’t know; and that no formal study has been done to inquire into the functioning of the current policy.

Anna Hasenfratz, PHYS, asked if special opportunity hires could be used for spousal hiring even in cases where the trailing spouse was a white male. Dean Spear explained that a principle and a hierarchy of priorities governs all special opportunity hires, as follows: among equally qualified candidates the order of hiring will be 1) ethnic minorities; 2) women in disciplines in which they are under-represented; 3) special cases which can lead to others, including white males, being hired. He noted that all SOPs are new lines, and said that spousal hiring is treated as a separate matter, not typically deal with by SOP.

Rolf Norgaard, UWRP, observed that, given the persistent salary problems, it’s good for the College to work hard on issues like spousal hiring and other “soft benefits” (including tuition aid for the children of faculty members) that can improve faculty morale. The Chair observed that the BFA is already working on a “Soft Benefits” initiative which addresses such issues as one of their priorities for the present year.

Joanne Belknap (WMST, SOCY) thanked Dean Spear for his work on spousal hires and suggested that the policy should be called “partner hires” as not all who qualify are married. She also mentioned the importance of partner benefits. Dean Spear said that the policy has been used to hire unmarried heterosexual partners as well as those who are gay or lesbian.

Anna Hasenfratz, PHYS, inquired about potential improvements to the Parental Leave policy to include covering absences that do not require a full leave to be taken. She observed that, for example, faculty parents who have sick children must often miss work. At least one university has created a subsidized nanny service to relieve faculty parents of sick children for periods long enough to allow them to meet their teaching obligations: would that be possible here? Russ McGoodwin, ANTH, agreed that the Parental Leave policy is definitely something worth looking into, and noted that both fathers and mothers needed to be adequately covered since both can be (and not infrequently are) equally responsible as caregivers. Dennis Van Gerven wondered if it would be possible to piggy-back a “roving nanny” service such as the one Prof. Hasenfratz had mentioned onto our developing service learning initiatives, and thus to engage students as a potential pool of trained labor.

Oliver Gerland asked how the Strategic Plan fit into the conversation. Dean Spear said that he would condense the Plan and present it at the next ASC meeting.

Paul Gordon, CLHM, then returned to the spousal hiring issue by inquiring what happens when both members of a couple are not equally qualified for employment. He asked how departments and the institution at large benefit from hiring spouses, and whether this did not tend to bestow benefits on large rather than small departments. Dean Spear replied that he is not interested in providing any incentives to lower the standards of employment, but pointed out that departments often find it beneficial to cooperate across disciplinary lines, and even across colleges, in the hiring of equally qualified spouses. The institution benefits largely by the likelihood that, given the difficulty of finding similar arrangements elsewhere, the spouses will be inclined to remain at CU. In response to Gordon’s question about the differential benefits to large departments, Spear replied that the reverse was actually true; small departments, where turnover is typically slower, benefit from long bridging appointments.

Chris Braider then returned to an issue that Janet Ward had raised concerning parental leave, that Chairs may require parental leave to “be consistent with the teaching schedule of the department.” Why, he wondered, was the policy couched in such an adversarial tone? He then raised several questions about the sense of community in the College: what sort of community do we work in? How do we treat each other as individuals and members of the College community? What sort of College should this be in human terms? Is it not possible for us to repair a flawed vision of community here by attending to these sorts of issues? Dennis Van Gerven agreed with Braider’s concern for community and expressed a concern of his own, in much the same vein, about faculty members late in their career who are ceasing to grow as teachers or researchers. The post-tenure review policy, if employed in an adversarial way, can be used to force such people out: a policy that would obviously tend to erode the basis of community. But what should we do to help our colleagues retrain and regroup mid-career? Oliver Gerland asked what the source of so much concern for enforcement was; Van Gerven replied that it was simply built into the system by its creators as an escalating set of sanctions to be applied against faculty who are found wanting in their post-tenure reviews. The College, he suggested, needs to be concerned with mentoring faculty all the way through their careers, not just at the beginning.

Ron Bernier, FA, seconded Van Gerven’s general point by mentioning that faculty members typically went through post-tenure review without any face-to-face communication with either their department Chairs or the members of the faculty committees who had performed the reviews. Jerry Rudy, PSYC, observed that this may be a function of the differential response of individuals and departments to the kinds of personal challenges posed by post-tenure review processes. James Scarritt, PSCI, commented that the very frequency of post-tenure review tends to undermine its efficacy, and that insistence upon it as a punitive measure by extra-university authorities also diminishes its usefulness to faculty who ought to be encouraged to take it seriously as a means of self-evaluation. Joanne Belknap pointed out that two years in a row of evaluations “below expectations” compromises one’s tenure standing, and that this tends to frustrate associate professors who are no longer shielded by their departments from mounting service obligations, yet who typically have no additional support to enable them to continue to grow as researchers and teachers. Dean Spear replied that below-expectation evaluations trigger further processes of review that involve the faculty member setting performance goals and then being evaluated on whether or not they are met: this, he said, is jokingly referred to as “Dante’s loop.” Stan Jones, COMM, commented that the frequency of post-tenure reviews in fact substantially increases workload for departments as a whole; a view in which Robert Eaton, EPOB, concurred, especially with respect to the burden of conducting instructor reviews. Dale Mood, KINE, said that there have been many positive changes in the College–the $1000 College Accounts, the new Advising system–but noted that insofar as these have also tended to increase the decentralization of administrative burdens, the load borne by department staffs and individual faculty members has grown enormously, without comparable increases in resources and support available.

Carl Koval, CHEM, returned to the salary issues that were raised at the previous meeting. One percent above the Consumer Price Index inflation rate is not enough money to give all faculty members who are “meeting expectations” at least an inflation-rate raise while appropriately rewarding high achieving faculty. That said, he noted that the bell-shaped distribution charts seem fair: what other kind of distribution would we want? The real issue is to monitor the operation of the special-merit and unit-differentiation systems over time. Dean Spear observed that the current system of “modified 2X” special merit increases, as well as diaconal skims to create an individual merit pool, had been approved by last year’s ASC Budget Committee, the ASC as a whole, and the chairs of departments. He observed that the essential problem with the system, and the root of much current discontent, is that the size of the budget pool is simply too small. Chris Braider replied by articulating a couple of disheartening salary paradoxes: the more people who are excellent, the less money there is for each; the lower one’s starting salary, the smaller one’s increase (given a constant percentage). Unit merit schemes may help correct that, but only if they can be directed to disadvantaged departments. It is always, he noted, the lowest-paid faculty, the instructors, who suffer the most.

Eckart Schutrumpf, CLAS, suggested that perhaps there need to be different mechanisms for the reward and recognition of meritorious faculty; for example, the creation of named, endowed chairs. Dean Spear replied that that this is one of the highest priorities in the current fund-raising campaign.

At this point the Chair observed that as the hour was late and the meeting had been in progress for sixty minutes, a motion for adjournment would be welcome. It was duly moved and seconded; and, sensing in the comportment of the members no dissent, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 4:38 pm.

August 31, 2000

Minutes: Arts & Sciences Council Meeting

  • Thu, August 31, 2000
  • CU Recreation Center, Rooms 3&4
  • 3:30 – 4:30 PM

Members present: Fred Anderson (Chair, ASC), Tony Barker (PHYS), Joanne Belknap (WMST/SOCY), Bob Boswell (MCDB), Luc Bovens (PHIL), Chris Braider (FRIT), David Budd (GEOL), Jeff Dodge (S&G Record), Bob Easton (APPM), Robert Eaton (EPOB), Oliver Gerland (THDN), Paul Gordon (CLHM), Frank Hsiao (ECON), Stan Jones (COM), Dan Jurafsky (LING), Terry Kleeman (RLST), Jerry Malitz (MATH), Russ McGoodwin (ANTH), Dale Mood (KINE), Rolf Norgaard (UWRP), Jerry Rudy (PSYC), Diane Sieber (SPAN), Steve Snyder (EALC), Peter Spear (Dean, A&S), Dennis van Gerven (HONORS), Janet Ward (GSLL)

Members absent: Ernesto Acevedo Munoz (FILM), Ronald Bernier (FA), Gary Gaile (GEOG), Anna Hasenfratz (PHYS), Carl Koval (CHEM), Amanda Lynch (PAOS), Vincent McGuire (FRND), Gail Ramsberger (SLHS), James Scarritt (PSCI), Eckart Schutrumpf (CLAS), Sue Zemka (ENG),

The Chair convened the meeting at 3:30.

The minutes of the May 4th meetings were approved unanimously.

At the Chair’s request, the members approved, without dissent, the addition of two new members to the Committee on Committees: Paul Gordon and Rolf Norgaard.

The Chair then introduced two housekeeping measures, asking that those pending measures requiring discussion and formal votes would be deferred until the 28 September meeting. These measures were the set of three proposed changes to the bylaws pending from last spring’s final meeting and the approval of the proposed mentoring policy. Copies being distributed for further study, both were tabled by voice vote, without dissent.

The Dean discussed four important issues before the College: curriculum reform, implementation of the Strategic Plan, fundraising, and salaries. (1) The Curriculum Committee is currently reexamining the proposed changes to the Core in light of last Spring’s vote, and will very probably propose a modified form of the curriculum for faculty consideration before the end of the semester. (2) The College Strategic Plan is now complete, and has been posted on the web. The Dean will be sending out a summary of its principal points, and is working to implement it by outlining concrete steps to be taken in near-term, mid-range, and long-range intervals. He expects to propose these to the ASC for discussion at the third meeting of the semester (28 September) or perhaps the one following (12 October). The Strategic Plan will figure prominently in setting budget priorities, and will be a means of engaging in budget planning earlier in the academic year than has heretofore been the case. (3) The Foundation has been reorganized and the Dean reported that the College has succeeded in raising donations on the order of $8 million in the previous year; he believes that this, the second highest amount ever raised by the College in a year, and the identification of a naming donor for the Humanities Building, indicate promising trends in the relationship between the College and the Foundation. (4) The Dean then made a detailed report on the salary exercise of the previous academic year, explaining how the 3.01% increase allocated to departments was achieved as the product of two skims off the total increase of 3.9% allocated for salaries by the President’s office: the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs retained 0.39% to redistribute to departments chosen on the basis of their excellence, while the Dean retained 0.5% to distribute to meritorious faculty to whom their departments had agreed to “Two-X” (i.e., to make twice the average departmental raise as a base contribution). Of these skims, $205,000 returned to the College from the VCAA to reward unit merit, and $47,000 of the total of $85,000 allocated by the VCAA for gender equity adjustments also returned to the College; this meant that the College received somewhat more than its proportional share of the increase. As a consequence, the mean faculty salary increase in the College this year was 4.2%, with a median of 3.3%. The Dean reiterated his desire for faculty government input on salary issues, and several representatives (Dennis Van Gerven, Russ McGoodwin, and Robert Easton) raised issues dealing with salary compression in the faculty of Arts and Sciences, and the merits of alternative allocation methods including dollar vs. percent raises.

At approximately 4:10 the Dean’s report and discussion ended, and the Chair opened the discussion of the “homework assignment” by asking the representatives for their views on issues to which the ASC might productively address itself in the coming year. Russ McGoodwin proposed two motions–that no 2X or unit merit differentiation should take place until across-the-board inflation increases had been awarded to faculty members whose work had met expectations, and that the shared governance model of faculty government be reassessed–and explained the reasoning behind these motions in an extended, cogent argument that a merit pay system constructed to ignore inflation and its effects on faculty salaries produces a system of differential punishment for most faculty members in most years, irrespective of their demonstrated merit; while a hierarchical administrative structure and a state legislature disinclined to make increases in any given year only aggravates the long-term loss of income, with little prospect for remediation. The Chair expressed gratitude for McGoodwin’s contribution but declined to proceed to the making of motions insofar as the agenda called merely for open discussion. The Dean replied that the previous year’s budget skims and the 2X rule had been openly proposed to the previous year’s Budget Committee and approved by that body as well as the ASC as a whole. Dennis Van Gerven suggested that at least marginal improvements might be made as a consequence of exploring different models for helping departments and their chairs figure out means of minimizing inequities in the merit system; he further suggested that the ASC might appoint a committee for surveying the operation of various systems with a view to making chairs aware of the range of options available. Jerry Rudy asked the Dean to comment on the operation of the TABOR amendment as a factor in our budgetary dilemmas. The Dean replied that higher education received the limit, or very nearly so, of the monies available under the TABOR provisions, but that the strict limits on discretionary funds meant that higher education had no privileged position among other claimants. Rudy then inquired about the percentages allocated at the state level versus the percentages finally made available to campuses and colleges, and when the Dean replied that the increase was indeed greater than three percent, Rudy suggested that the problem did not lie simply with a parsimonious legislature, nor an inequitous distribution on individual campuses, but rather with what he called “the God-damned system administration.” This evidently struck many of the members as a keen insight, worthy of fuller exploration, but the Chair, noting that the hour had approached for adjournment, suggested that the discussion might well begin at this point at the next meeting, on September 14.

At that, adjournment was duly moved, seconded, and approved without dissent. The Chair adjourned the meeting at 4:30 p.m.