Meeting Minutes, November 19, 2019

 The Arts and Sciences Council (ASC), November 19, 2019, 3:30-5:00, Old Main Chapel

Meeting Minutes

Representatives present: Tania Barham, ECON; Barbara Buttenfield, GEOG; Sebastian Casalaina-Martin, MATH; James Cowell, LING; Françoise Duresse-Stimilli, AAH; Erica Ellingson, APS; Michaele Ferguson, PSCI; Gerardo Gutierrez, ANTH; Elizabeth Huard, SPAN; Peter Hunt, CLAS; Leslie Irvine, SOCY; Daniel Jones, HNRS; Dan Kaufman, PHIL; Robert Kuchta, BCHM; Angelica Lawson, ETHN; Ramesh Mallipeddi, ENGL; Matt McQueen, IPHY; Christina Meyers-Denman, SLHS; Stephen Mojzsis, GEOL; Cecilia Pang, THDN; Lonni Pearce, PWR; Patricia Rankin, PHYS; Evelyn Shih, ALC; David Stock, EBIO; Rebecca Wartell, JWST; Deborah Whitehead, RLST; Annje Wiese, HUMN; Mike Zerella, RAPS

Representatives not present: Daniel Appelö, APPM; Tanja Cuk, CHEM; Lew Harvey, PSYC; Alison Jaggar, WGST; Julie Lundquist, ATOC; Roger Pielke, ENVS; Hanna Shell, CINE; Tim Weston, HIST; Ding Xue, MCDB; Masano Yamashita, FRIT

Ex-officios: present: Roshanne Ebrahimian, SAC; Robert Ferry, BFA; Meghan Perea, SAC: Kristy Tiampo, GEOL

Also in attendance: David Brown, CAS; David Carpenter, Advancement; Bud Coleman, THDN; Jackie Coombs, ALC; Sandra Firmin, CUAM; Nick Flores, ECON; Wendy Franz CSF; Jennifer Ho, ETHN; Lori Hunter, SOCY; Vilja Hulden, HIST; Nina Molinaro, SPAN; Jenny Schwartz, HNRS; Bernadette Stewart, CAS; Zack Tupper, CAS; Sharon Van Boven, CHA; Katie Walker, BFP; Jim White, A&S

The meeting was called to order at 3:30p.m.

Chairs remarks, Stephen Mojzsis

Stephen Mojzsis welcomed the ASC members and the A&S chairs, directors and staff who attended to hear the presentation on the budget by Ann Schmiesing and Carla Ho-a.

Dean’s remarks, Jim White 

No word has been received on the Growth Enrollment Funds; an estimation, taking into account growth was slower than last year, is that GEF’s will be about $2,000,000. When the funds are received, the Dean’s Office will move ahead on funding some of the Instructor Task Force initiatives.

Anna Jensen from the Dean’s Office is putting together the comments received from the departments concerning disability accommodation requests. Dean White wants to have information to take to Disability Services when he talks to them about the difficulties faculty are having providing accommodations.

In response to a request from the ASC Executive Committee, Dean White has sent a list of all the formal and informal groups he meets with. The members of the Dean’s Advisory Board, a group of 鶹ѰAlumni, will be published. The ASC is hoping to identify parallel governing structures. Dean White has an open door policy and he welcomes feedback and concerns from all members of the 鶹Ѱcommunity. 

CACD response to the recent Diversity Engagement Survey, Daniel Jones

Most members of 鶹Ѱfaculty and staff received the Diversity Engagement Survey and the CACD (Committee on Academic Community and Diversity) received feedback from many that it was a “curious” survey that didn’t clearly indicate who it was from or what is was intended to accomplish. The Diversity Committee would like to send a formal response [Appendix A] and to respond in a timely manner while receiving ASC approval; the response will be sent with a Qualtrics survey asking for an up or down vote. There will be a place for comments.

Motion to form a new ad hoc Faculty Affairs Committee, Lonni Pearce

Lonni Pearce previously distributed a copy of the motion to form an ad hoc Faculty Affairs Committee [Appendix B]. From the description:

While the Chair and Executive committee can urge the Council to address important issues that affect A&S faculty, there is no committee dedicated to addressing issues such as recent decisions made by upper administration with very little faculty input (e.g., appointing an Interim Dean) and the protection of faculty rights.

Pearce let the assembled representatives know that there will be a vote on the following motion during the December meeting.

Motion: Shall the A&S Council establish an ad hoc Faculty Affairs committee to represent all A&S faculty in matters relating to the rights and responsibilities of faculty in their teaching, research, and service?

After 3 years, the ad hoc committee’s work will be evaluated and the ASC will decide if the committee should be made a standing committee of the ASC.

Motion to form a new ad hoc Strategic Plan Implementation Committee

During the previous academic year, the Strategic Plan implementation committee, chaired by Michaele Ferguson and Elaine Paul, reviewed the Strategic Plan. One of the first charges of this new committee would be to report to the Provost’s restructuring committees (Faculty Governance, Budget and Structure) to call attention to the Strategic Plan. This committee with be comprised of staff, students as well as faculty. The vote will be held at the December meeting.

BFA ‘Iron-clad’ resolution, Vilja Hulden

Vilja Hulden distributed a BFA Resolution Regarding the Faculty Ownership of the Curriculum. The ASC Online Education Committee would like the ASC to vote on endorsing this resolution at the December meeting. The Online Education committee has been concerned that, with the growth of online courses, the University may lose sight of the faculty’s ownership of the curriculum

Visit from Ann Schmiesing, Executive Vice Provost for Academic Resource Management, and Carla Ho-a, Deputy Chief Finance Officer, to discuss the College’s Budget

Ann Schmiesing and Carla Ho-a gave an overview of budget issues and challenges with an emphasis on the budget process and the budget remodel that has recently be started. They also let the assembled Arts and Sciences Community know that they are available to discuss the budget at divisional and department meetings.

  • The Governor has submitted his budget request for next year which includes a 2.5% increase in higher education funding; a 3% increase in tuition; a 3% compensation pool.
  • The compensation increases do not keep up with the private sector’s increases making it difficult to keep our salaries competitive.
  • The focus on student retention has increased; a 1% increase in retention generates an additional $6 million in revenue.
  • The Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, which will be taking effect January 1, 2021 has been estimated cost the Boulder campus $10 million; how do we plan for that impact? Should the merit pool be increased to help deal with the requirements of the Act?
  • Enrollments are growing for the Boulder campus.
  • The campus has been able to set aside reserves in case of a budget cut.
  • Online education is looked at as expanding the reach of CU; providing programs the campus currently doesn’t provide and having the possibility of aiding with space restraints. 
  •  Administration is committed to receiving input and feedback from faculty.
  • Budget models shouldn’t be set without understanding priorities.
  • The shift of students from the Arts and Humanities and Social Sciences to the STEM fields has a fiscal impact as the STEM classes are more expensive.
  • Now we have base budgets that are based on history and have not been comprehensively analyzed for a long time.
  • Not every academic unit will be revenue positive; we are a comprehensive public research and teaching institution.

A slide show was presented showing sources of funding, the budget breakdown, uses of education and general funding, the current budget model, types of investments and the timeline for the budget redesign and questions were taken.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:01.

Minutes submitted by Janice Jeffryes

Appendix A

ASC Committee on Academic Community and Diversity Response to the Diversity Engagement Survey

On 10-28-19, emails were sent out to all “Members of the University of Colorado Community,” asking us to “help the University of Colorado enhance its efforts in diversity and inclusion by completing a Diversity Engagement Survey” (hereafter “Survey”). In response, on 11-3-19 Fred Anderson, emeritus professor from the 鶹ѰBoulder campus, contacted various members of the 鶹ѰBoard of Regents and Boulder’s A&S faculty governance bodies, reporting on and questioning various aspects of this “curious survey.” The ASC Committee on Academic Community and Diversity (CACD) would like to respond to both of these events.

In spirit, CACD absolutely supports enhancing diversity and inclusion efforts at the University of Colorado. That being said, like Anderson, we find this survey mysterious. Basic information on the source of the survey are not disclosed; the only clue to its sender is a footnote at the bottom of the soliciting email, directing questions to the “Assistant Secretary to the Board of Regents.” Specific aims or agendas are never made clear, only general “enhancement.” Intended use of the data collected is not specified, only that they “will only be reported in aggregate form, not provided to any unauthorized parties.” How the university plans to follow up and act upon the results is never addressed.

The survey questions also seem an odd fit for accurately and deeply assessing diversity and inclusion at a university. As detailed by Anderson, the survey was created by an outside business-oriented data analysis firm using ready-made questions selected from their common stock. Throughout the survey, 鶹Ѱis referred to as “the institution” or “at work,” and the cultivation of a diverse and inclusive community is referred to as “manag(ing) diversity effectively.”

Two aspects of the survey go beyond curious and raise significant concerns for us. First, it appears that the survey can be completed an indefinite number of times by any one person, which would leave it completely open to skewed results and misrepresentation. Also, the second section of the survey asks for various personal data—including sexual orientation, (religious) belief system, and political affiliation—which seems personally intrusive, especially when there is no explanation of how such data will be used.

鶹ѰBoulder has made some wonderful institutional efforts in the aim of cultivating a diverse and inclusive community. The periodic Student Climate Surveys and the recent IDEA Plan are two prominent examples. And in both of these cases, extensive thought has gone into the project’s creation, results have been carefully considered and turned into implementable actions, and the whole process has been carried out with transparency.

Unfortunately, none of these commendable elements seem present in the current survey, and its relationship to our other initiatives is unclear. In its present form, it is both curious and troubling, and it comes across as an unexplained “quick fix” to an unspecified problem and with unknown implications for the future.

Our committee applauds the University’s endeavors to “enhance its efforts in diversity and inclusion.” That being said, it is our view that those endeavors need a more considered and thorough approach than this survey seems to represent.

Daniel Jones, Chair, on behalf of the entire Committee on Academic Community and Diversity

Appendix B

As a member of the ASC for several years, it seems clear to me that the ASC would benefit from the formation of a Faculty Affairs committee for several reasons. While the Chair and Executive committee can urge the Council to address important issues that affect A&S faculty, there is no committee dedicated to addressing issues such as recent decisions made by upper administration with very little faculty input (e.g., appointing an Interim Dean) and the protection of faculty rights. Given the uncertainty of the college restructuring, the potential impacts of the Academic Futures and Financial Futures work, and the need to maintain a strong voice in college and campus conversations, I’d like to bring the following motion to the Council for discussion and then, if the Council so moves, a vote.

Shall the A&S Council establish a Faculty Affairs committee to represent all A&S faculty in matters relating to the rights and responsibilities of faculty in their teaching, research, and service? This committee would be comprised of at least one third A&S Council members and chaired by an A&S Council member, with the remaining members recruited from other A&S faculty. And, given that this committee would represent all rostered faculty, the committee should include roughly two thirds Tenure-Track faculty and one third Instructor or Senior Instructor faculty. The A&S Executive Committee will articulate a mandate for this committee. So that the Council can pilot and evaluate the usefulness of a Faculty Affairs committee, it should first be established as an ad hoc committee with a three-year existence, to be reviewed annually. At the end of the third year, the Council would discuss and vote on whether to maintain the committee as ad hoc, convert to a permanent standing committee (with the necessary changes to the ByLaws), or disband.