February 2026

UCCS Faculty Representative Assembly Meeting

Friday February 13, 2026

Attendance: David Havlick (chair), Joel Tonyan (past chair), Emily Mooney (incoming chair), Kylie Rogalla (secretary), David Moon, Laura Austin-Eurich, Suzanne Cook, Dylan Harris, Robert Mitchell, Evan Taparata, Emily Skop, Jennifer Kling, Markus Moeder-Chandler, Roxy Rosenthal, Jennifer Zohn, Larry Eames, Karin Larkin, Birgitta de Pree, Rhonda Glazier, Dylan Harris, Julie Torres, Joseph Lee, Douglas Risser, David Anderson, Jian Ma, Catherine Simmons, Rosely Conz, Suman Lakkakula, Marina Eckler, Gordon Stringer, Jena McCollum, Darshika G. Perera, David Weiss, Norah Mazel, Armin Moin, Jon Forshee, Carole Woodall, Rebecca Wood, Aaron Corcoran, Gabriela Martinez Mercier, Todd Endres, Paul Yankey, Shujia Mei, Robert Michell, Jennifer Zohn, Natasha Smith-Holmquist, Daniel DeCelles, Jena McCollum, Birgitta de Pree, Marina Eckler, Jon Forshee, Aaron Corcoran, Douglas Risser, David Weiss, Rebecca Wood, Rachel Weiskittle, Jay Hubert, Karin Larkin, Norah Mazel, Gordon Stringer, Hayley Blackburn, Jennifer Kling, Stefanie Ungstad, Christina Jimenez, Brynn Adamson

Call to Order / Approval of Minutes 

Motion to Approve: December 2025 Minutes

Motion: David Moon 

Second: Joel Tonyan

Approved. 

Reports

Jennifer Sobanet, Chancellor & Lynn Vidler, Provost & Executive Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs & Jeff Greene, Interim Vice Chancellor for Administration & Finance

  • Will not go into depth on the healthy campus initiative as there is a lot of information out there. They have been getting a lot of questions and comments and the FAQ is being updated constantly, which is on the Healthy campus website, Healthy Campus Initiative | Office of the Chancellor.
  • They did not hire external consultants in order to save money and instead chose to handle the work internally through collaboration. As a result, progress may sometimes be slower, since the work is being done by campus staff, and they ask for patience and understanding.
  • After mixed feedback, the university will not assign allocation numbers or percentages to unions, colleges, or divisions and will not use a rubric to determine reductions. Although a rubric was previously proposed, feedback showed it would not fit the complexity of the university.
  • Instead, the Senior Leadership Team (SLT) is using a collaborative, iterative, multi-year approach to identify reductions. The goal is to announce as many decisions as possible before June 30 while also planning ahead to avoid restarting the process each year. Some reductions will occur by late June; others will take longer due to shared governance and restructuring. There will be no across-the-board cuts, and decisions will follow Regent law and campus policy.

The process includes 4 steps:

  1. Reviewing unallocated base funds and vacant positions to eliminate duplication and unnecessary activities.
  2. Examining operational budgets.
  3. Reviewing non-academic programs, positions, and activities for restructuring, efficiency improvements, outsourcing, or partnerships.
  4. (Lynn steps in to speak about step 4) Focuses on reviewing academic-related activities, structures, and potential programs, and is described as a longer and more involved process.
  • Leadership’s top priority is to protect as many academic programs as possible. Before considering program discontinuance, they will first explore other cost-saving measures such as workload adjustments, departmental restructuring, and other structural expense reductions.
  • If program discontinuance becomes necessary, it will follow clearly defined campus policies and APS 1015, aligned with Regent law. The process will include gathering both quantitative and qualitative data to ensure decisions are informed not only by budget concerns but also by strategic and broader impact considerations.
  • This step is intentionally last, as academic programs are the highest priority to preserve, and leadership aims to achieve as many reductions as possible elsewhere before making cuts at the program level.

Q&A – Discussion with Faculty

Anonymous Question 1:

  • What exactly is the SLT, and is it the same as the ELT?

    - Answer: The ELT is Executive Leadership Team that includes the vice Chancellors and the chancellor. The SLT is the ELT plus the Deans and the ULT is the SLT plus the deans plus 5 shared governance leaders including, David Havlick, David Moon as the Chair of the Faculty Assembly committee of the budget, Christina Menez as Chair of the UBAC, Deann Barrett as Chair of Staff Council and then the Chair of Student Government Sociation Aid work. 

  • Which specific cuts will occur before June 30 and which will occur after?

    - Answer: The goal is to inform affected individuals as soon as possible, even if their positions officially end at the close of the fiscal year. Most reductions occurring before June 30 are expected to be non-academic, though not exclusively.             

    - Reductions tied to program discontinuance will take longer due to required policy processes, formal recommendations, and teach-out obligations.

  • Are the cuts happening after June 30 primarily academic?

    - Answer: After the Restructuring, outsourcing, or partnerships may also delay some decisions beyond June 30, particularly on the non-academic side. 

    - Academic-related changes will generally take longer because they involve defined policies, governance processes, and faculty protections.

Anonymous Question 2:

  • On the academic side, when will deans and college governance be involved in identifying potential reductions? Will they be engaged early in the process, or only after leadership determines the broader budget picture and savings targets?

    - Answer: The timing will vary by college, since each has its own governance process. Deans are already working within their college governance structures, particularly around reviewing unallocated funds and other initial steps. Any academic reductions must follow formal processes, especially if they involve program discontinuance. Initiating program discontinuance requires a clear rationale and must go through a structured, multi-month review process (about four months), with defined steps and evaluation. Overall, there is significant time and procedure involved before a program could formally be discontinued.

Anonymous Question 3:

  • Why academic programs are being reviewed last if they are the highest priority to protect. They wonder, in simpler terms, how this approach works. Since the university must meet a required budget reduction (due to state law and mandatory cost increases), could leadership first assume no academic program cuts and try to solve the structural budget gap through other measures? Is there a realistic scenario where academic programs would not need to be cut at all?

    - Answer: Leadership explains that the university is required by state law to present a balanced budget and faces an $8.8 million gap, partly due to mandatory, uncontrollable cost increases. The strategy is to first reduce that gap by targeting areas with the least direct impact on people—such as unallocated funds, vacant positions, and other creative structural solutions. The goal is to shrink the deficit as much as possible before considering academic program cuts. If enough savings can be achieved through these earlier steps, it may reduce or even eliminate the need to discontinue academic programs. Leadership emphasizes that protecting academic programs is the priority and that they are open to feedback on alternative approaches.

Anonymous Question 4:

  • What is the distinction between an academic position and a non-academic position? How do you decide which staff or faculty fall into each category, given that many university functions rely on both?

    - Answer: The distinction is practical and process-driven, not a value judgment:

    - Academic positions include all faculty and staff directly associated with academic departments.

    - Non-academic positions include staff not tied to academic departments, such as administrative or operational staff.

  • The goal is to clearly define which positions will be reviewed by specific dates (e.g., May 1) so employees understand the timeline.
  • This definition has been finalized only recently because the university is handling the process internally (without consultants) and has had to adapt based on feedback. Initially, a rubric was considered, but it proved unworkable, so the SLT developed an organic, collaborative approach based on prior experience, unallocated funds, and vacant positions. The process continues to evolve as feedback is incorporated, ensuring clarity and fairness for all employees.

Anonymous Question 5:

  • Is there a specific target or number for academic reductions, such as for LAS, or will that never be known? How might a target be developed to guide planning?

    - Answer: No specific target is being set this year for individual academic units. In past years, the campus provided targets, but this time the focus is on addressing the overall budget gap—the minimum gap plus an additional reset amount (about $3.3 million).

    - Reductions will not be distributed proportionally across all units because some areas have already absorbed significant cuts and proportional reductions could impair their ability to function. Instead, the process will be iterative, assessing where cuts can be made to reach the overall goal while ensuring the university remains operational and sustainable. Units may see different impacts, and adjustments may be made as the process evolves.

Anonymous Question 6:

  • How the partially funded Faculty Affairs Office—currently supported with one-time funds—will be treated going forward. Will it be evaluated for continued funding or integrated into the base budget?

    - Answer: Faculty Affairs Office is funded half by system OPS funds (restricted to that purpose) and half by reserve savings. Base funding will not be automatically added; instead, once the current one-time funds are spent, the Provost will evaluate the office’s impact, using data and reports provided by the Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs. Based on that evaluation and the university’s evolving budget situation, a decision will be made about continuing or integrating the office into base funding.

Anonymous Question 7:

  • Student retention is a huge issue. I’m wondering if there’s ever been a comprehensive survey of students and what things are important to them and why and what are the things that make them stay?

    - Answer: Finances are the biggest factor affecting student retention—tuition affordability and family/work obligations. The university addresses this by: Keeping tuition increases at or below inflation and expanding scholarships and financial aid.

    - Additionally, comprehensive focus groups and guidance from the National Institute of Student Success have helped shape the strategic enrollment plan. Student engagement is another key factor: highly engaged students, like athletes, have higher graduation rates. Efforts to boost engagement include supporting student government initiatives, clubs, events, and classroom experiences. These combined strategies have contributed to a 2-point increase in retention last year.

Anonymous Question 8:

  • Will cuts be made to other areas to provide ongoing funding for the Faculty Affairs Office, which is valued by the university community?

    - Some cuts to academic programs or other areas may be required to sustain the Faculty Affairs Office once its one-time funding ends. This applies to all ongoing activities currently funded with one-time funds. Decisions will focus on evaluating what provides the most value and making difficult choices about what to continue funding.

Anonymous Question 9:

  • How does the $11.7 million in required cuts work with the split of reductions before and after June 30th? Is there a way to aim for just $8.3 million initially while managing ongoing adjustments over multiple fiscal years?

    - The $8.3 million addresses mandatory costs and inflationary increases, while the additional $3.3 million is a structural “reset” to hedge against uncertainties like enrollment or state funding. Cuts are phased: some realized by June 30th, others take longer due to multi-year planning and governance processes. The university is using $10.78 million in reserves to buffer timing and allow more careful planning. He emphasized that this approach spreads reductions over time, provides flexibility, and allows the institution to adjust while aiming for long-term fiscal stability.

Anonymous Question 10:

  • If academic programs that generate revenue are being considered for cuts, how do we justify those decisions and ensure we aren’t cutting programs that are financially beneficial?

    - Answer: The decision involves analyzing cost per credit hour and comparing revenue generated versus program delivery costs. Programs that bring in significant revenue at low cost would not be cut solely for budget reasons. Any potential discontinuance undergoes formal study, considering both financial and organizational impacts, with discussions coordinated by the Provost alongside Deans for academic programs, and VCs for non-academic areas.

David Havlick - 

  • Faculty attendance has been unusually high (over 100 online and strong in-person turnout), showing intense concern about the issue. He urges leadership to hold more small, in-person sessions (20–30 people) to allow meaningful dialogue and address fears, as some faculty are deeply distressed and worried about their jobs. He argues that a website with answers is not enough and calls for direct contact with decision-makers.

Jennifer’s Response

  • Leadership has already taken steps to provide direct engagement, including a January 30 open forum and requiring each Vice Chancellor and Dean to hold forums within their own areas so specific questions can be addressed. They plan to continue hosting both small, intimate sessions and larger forums to ensure meaningful dialogue tailored to different departments’ needs.
  • They express appreciation for the faculty assembly discussion and stress a shared commitment to students, faculty, staff, and the university’s mission. The goal is to move away from past approaches, adopt a new multi-year dynamic model, and work collaboratively to create a stable, sustainable future for UCCS. By focusing on growth—such as diversified revenue and improved retention—they hope to minimize cuts. The speaker closes by urging unity and notes that the next UBAC meeting will be dedicated entirely to Q&A.

Anonymous Question 11:

  • I really wanted to hear more about the response to that shooting that happened in January. What was the decision making around that? What lessons were at work? Was on campus that day and have a large of the form students in the library. And I would just like to know why did we open? Why did we even close? Why was there such a fog around the communication?

    - Jennifer answers, that the incident was classified as a shots-fired situation, which differs legally and procedurally from other types of events. Due to an ongoing investigation, they cannot share all details.

    - Compared to a similar incident two years earlier, the university responded more quickly and effectively because of improved protocols, working closely with Colorado Springs Police. Initially, the decision was made to remain open based on available information. However, when new information emerged with serious safety implications for individuals on campus, the decision was made to close to protect them.

    - Acknowledges the confusion caused by the changing decisions but emphasizes that their priority was safety. They would rather be seen as acting too quickly to shut down campus than risk anyone’s safety, honoring a promise made after the previous incident to act decisively if there were safety concerns.

Anonymous Comments

  • On a positive note, it’s encouraging to hear that there is now more time to determine the metrics for budget cuts, something UBAC members had been requesting. Previously, they believed all cuts would need to be decided before June 30, including academic reductions. Now, it seems there is at least some time for units—such as LAS—to define and articulate their own measures of value. Sees this as a small but meaningful win, though they still have questions about the scope of the $12 million in cuts and how much will affect academics.
  • As of that morning, they are still hearing that deans were initially told 70% of the budget cuts would come from academic units and 30% from other divisions. However, the deans have been pushing back against this split. As a result, leadership (ELC and LT) appears to be reconsidering the 70/30 model and proposing a different approach. There is uncertainty about how the revised plan will actually work, implying that leadership may not yet have a clear solution.
  • The actual budget-cut decisions will likely be made at the level of teams and department chairs. Encouraging faculty who are worried about their jobs to stay in close communication with their chairs and deans to understand the process and find ways to support their division’s interests during the decision-making process.

Officer Reports
David Havlick, Executive Committee Chair

  • They recently sent a detailed message to colleagues and have since heard from dozens of people. While some are appreciative, many are scared and fearful about their jobs. Faculty want unscripted, direct conversations with leadership, and the speaker has been advocating for more open dialogue.
  • Reiterated that key decisions will likely happen at the team and chair level, encouraging concerned faculty to stay engaged with their chairs and deans to understand the process and advocate for their divisions.
  • Emphasized the importance of clearer communication and responsiveness. Overall, there are faculty concerns, fear, and the need for more transparent, two-way communication.

Emily Mooney, Chair-Elect

  • Elections are coming up. Encouraging people to run or suggest candidates, emphasizing that contested elections are positive. They add jokingly that if no one volunteers, they’ll start recruiting people directly.

Joel Tonyan, Past Chair

  • Nothing to report, but thank you for David Havlick’s leadership.

Committee Reports 

Vote

Voting on a proposed revision to the university’s intellectual property policy. The changes, introduced by the College of Engineering in December, would:

  • Broaden the definition of what counts as intellectual property.
  • Increase the share of revenue or ownership that creators (e.g., faculty) are allowed to retain, compared to what goes to the institution.

The proposal came through the appropriate governance process (via EIBC), and the vote is being conducted during the meeting.

Vote: Passed

Anonymous Comment

  • The faculty member reframes their earlier comment to emphasize that while academic units may now have slightly more time to address budget cuts, other parts of campus may not and could face job losses before June 30.
  • Highlights concerns about spending priorities, pointing to the five-year plan’s allocation for IT deferred maintenance to support AI initiatives. They note this was presented as a choice at the UBAC retreat, suggesting that operational and auxiliary budget decisions—often described as outside faculty purview—are in fact discretionary.
  • Their main point is that even amid tight timelines, there are still choices being made about resource allocation. Urging faculty to recognize this and organize around those decisions, though they acknowledge uncertainty about how or where that influence can be exercised.

New Business

Mike Schaller, Police Lieutenant

  • Has been at UCCS since 2014 after retiring from the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office with 23 years of service. They describe campus policing as a rewarding, community-focused environment compared to traditional law enforcement. 
  • Regarding the shooting incident, they state they are willing to answer specific questions if anyone has them.

Anonymous Question/Comment

  • Describes their experience with the notifications, and asks for clarification about the notification process and timeline during the shooting incident. They recount their understanding: shots were fired around 10:30 p.m., a shelter-in-place was issued and then lifted around 1:30 a.m., and the next morning I had to be in at 9:30, we were told the provost was in their office with the shades down, door locked and the rest of us were like, what is going on, we are not? They shortly after at that meeting, leadership indicated new information they learned—that the suspect was a former student who had made specific threats—had emerged. Then there was a gap, shortly after that, campus was closed for the day.
  • They note that different groups seemed to have different perceptions of the situation at different times and ask whether the response followed proper protocol, whether anything could have been handled differently, and what lessons were learned.

Answer/Follow Up 

  • The Police Lieutenant explains that there was confusion between a campus closure and a lockdown. After the initial shelter-in-place was lifted at 1:30 a.m., no further lockdown or shelter-in-place order was issued. However, some confusion arose when individuals began spreading information or interpreting events on their own, leading to misinformation—such as signage referring to an “active shooter,” which the lieutenant clarified was inaccurate. The incident involved a shooting where the suspect left, not an active shooter situation.
  • He noted that once the suspect was identified (a former student), some individuals who had prior interactions with him became understandably fearful, contributing to heightened concern. Additional confusion occurred when dispatchers received calls from people claiming there was a lockdown, prompting efforts to improve how dispatch communicates official information.
  • Emphasized the importance of clear terminology, timely communication, and relying only on official sources like UCCS Alerts. He explained the difference between Clery Act timely warnings and faster emergency alerts, and said the department is working to streamline notification processes. He also acknowledged that the communications center can become overwhelmed during incidents, which can delay immediate responses. Overall, the focus is on improving clarity, speed, and consistency in emergency communications.

Anonymous Question

  • My biggest question is why was the decision made to open campus before we identified the subject?

Answer/Follow Up

  •  At the time of the initial decision, law enforcement did not know who the suspect was and had no indication that there was an ongoing threat to campus. The suspect had left campus, and there was no information suggesting they would return. Based on what was known at that moment, there was no clear reason to close campus.
  • However, in hindsight, he acknowledges that future decisions may factor in a more cautious approach—potentially erring on the side of closing campus even without clear evidence of a continuing threat. He emphasizes that decisions were based on the information available at the time.
  • Clarified that when the decision was made to close campus and release students, there was no indication of an immediate safety threat. If officials had believed there was an active or imminent danger, they would not have dismissed students; instead, they would have issued a shelter-in-place order.
  • Explained that closing campus was not a response to an active threat but a precautionary decision made at higher levels. Moving forward, leadership may reconsider how and when to close campus, but in this case, the absence of evidence suggesting the suspect would return meant a shelter-in-place was not warranted.
  • Rely on official alerts, not rumors. Get your information from verified alert systems—not from coworkers, friends, or “someone who heard something.” Misinformation spreads quickly and can escalate confusion.
  • Rumors can create unnecessary panic. In this situation, claims about buildings being on lockdown spread without confirmation, which fueled fear and confusion.
  • Personal safety decisions are valid—but avoid amplifying assumptions. If someone feels unsafe, locking their office door is completely appropriate. However, those individual precautions shouldn’t automatically be interpreted or communicated as an official “lockdown” or “shelter in place.”
  • Language matters. Using terms like “lockdown” or “shelter in place” without official confirmation can cause situations to escalate “like wildfire.”
  • Big takeaway: Verify before sharing. Stick to official communications to prevent confusion, fear, and unnecessary disruption.

Anonymous Question/Comment

  • Campus closures need clearer definitions. While alerts indicate whether the campus is “closed” or “open,” what that actually means—who can remain on campus, who must leave, and which facilities are accessible—is often unclear.
  • Department-level guidance is essential. Policies vary by department or college. Without clear local guidance, faculty and students are uncertain about expectations during closures (e.g., snow days or non-emergency shutdowns).
  • January shutdown highlighted ambiguities. Students and faculty were unsure whether they were allowed on campus, especially in labs, because departmental policies were not well defined.
  • Action being taken. Jena McCollum is actively developing departmental policies to clarify what closures mean in practice and remove ambiguity.
  • HR context. Central HR defines closures for staffing and pay purposes, but day-to-day operational guidance may require additional departmental clarification.
  • Official alerts are clear about closure status, but practical implications for campus access must be explicitly defined at the department or college level to avoid confusion 

Answer/Feedback

  • Campus closure ≠ evacuation. People (students and staff) do not have to leave campus during a closure. It simply means normal operations are suspended.
  • Buildings and offices are mostly inaccessible. Classrooms, offices, and other facilities will not be unlocked. The campus is “closed for business,” so events, lectures, or services like the bookstore will not operate.
  • Exceptions exist. If someone has essential access (e.g., labs, experiments, residence halls), arrangements can be made, usually coordinated via the website or campus authorities.
  • Safety and security continue. Campus police continue to patrol and ensure safety, but they will not unlock buildings for general access.
  • Overall meaning: A closure is about suspending campus operations, not restricting people from being physically on campus. Normal business activities are paused, but the campus remains physically accessible where safety allows.

Anonymous Question

  • Relating to potential ICE operations on campus. What happens if they appear on campus without notice of public safety?

    - If anyone notices ICE on campus, call the campus Police Department right away so they can assess the situation. The campus will cooperate with law enforcement for criminal investigations or judicial warrants only. They do not enforce immigration detainers, administrative warrants, or immigration enforcement.

    - ICE does not have the right to enter residence halls or other restricted areas with controlled access. The campus Police Chief has established a relationship with local ICE offices so that, if they ever need to be on campus, the campus is notified in advance.

    - The policy ensures students, including naturalized citizens and non-native English speakers, are not targeted or detained based on appearance.

    - The campus prioritizes safety and privacy for its community while complying with criminal law enforcement—but administrative immigration enforcement is not supported on campus.

    - No expectation of surprise visits. ICE does not operate randomly on campus; their actions are planned and coordinated. Does not anticipate them “popping in” or entering classrooms without notice. Immediate reporting required. If ICE is seen on campus, the community should call the Police Department immediately at 255-3111.

    - Reassurance to the community. While the campus cannot guarantee ICE will never appear, proper protocols are in place to protect students and staff, and reporting is the key action if they do show up.

Anonymous Question

  • I am signed up for the UCCS alerts and I was wondering, is that the same speed as the UCSCCS safe app?

    - Yes, the safe app is highly encouraged for tracking and safety purposes on campus. Strongly suggested as a tool for students, faculty, and staff. Users can notify campus dispatch when they are walking, for example, from a building to a parking garage. Dispatch tracks the estimated walk time. If the walk takes longer than expected or the app “doesn’t shut off,” dispatch will call to check on the person. If a walk takes longer due to stopping or socializing, the user should update dispatch, so unnecessary alerts are avoided.

  • Overall, the app enhances personal safety and provides real-time monitoring and support from campus police.

Anonymous Question

  • Panic button, where is it? If a student felt unsafe, where would they find the panic button?

    - The desktop button acts as a discreet emergency notification tool. It’s designed for situations where someone may need help (e.g., a disruptive visitor in an office) without making it obvious or having to pick up the phone.

    When clicked, it notifies campus emergency services of the location tied to that computer. The notification goes to the Police Department, allowing them to respond quickly. It functions like the “old days” of reaching under a desk for a panic button, but in a digital, less conspicuous way.

  • Limitation is the alert is linked to the registered computer’s location. If you are away from that office or building, it will still report the original location (e.g., Gateway Hall 215).
  • Not all computers may have it installed yet; availability depends on IT rollout.
  • How to find it: Log into a campus computer and look for the desktop icon. If unsure, restart your computer; a message may appear prompting you to access emergency tools.
  • Additional instructions are available on the UCCS Police Department website by searching “panic button.”
  • Thank you for your time and the questions. Remember the Police Department is available 24/7. Students, faculty, and staff can reach the Police Department by email, phone, or in person. The police inbox is monitored around the clock to ensure timely responses. Community members are invited to reach out anytime with questions or concerns about safety, policies, or protocols. Emphasizes an open, continuous communication and support for the community at all times.

Bri Newland, Associate Dean, College of Business and Administration

  • Academic Qualifications Policy - Faculty Qualifications FRA Review.docx
  • The policy has been updated to align with HLC standards (Higher Learning Commission), with review and confirmation by David Moon.
  • No universal procedure included: A single procedure document was not provided because faculty qualifications vary widely across departments and disciplines (e.g., College of Business follows AACSB standards, while the library has different criteria). Each unit is expected to develop its own procedures tailored to its needs.
  • Faculty qualification categories outlined:
    • Based on academic credentials – clear examples of faculty who meet this standard.
    • Progress toward academic credentials – for graduate students or those still completing degrees.
    • Equivalent experience – allows for professional qualifications to count, such as years of experience, level of professional achievement, or non-academic credentials relevant to teaching.
    • Other categories – provides flexibility for areas that don’t fit neatly into the above categories, enabling departments to define appropriate qualifications.
  • The goal is to ensure faculty are qualified to teach while allowing departments flexibility to develop procedures appropriate to their discipline, balancing academic credentials and professional experience.

Anonymous Question

  • Is it really about HLC certification? Is that the purpose and need for it or is there a broader intent?

    - The Higher Learning Commission expanded its standards, allowing more flexibility in defining faculty qualifications across disciplines. The revised policy reflects these broader criteria while still providing guidance on what qualifies as acceptable credentials or experience.

  • Departments must define:
  • What counts as relevant professional experience
  • Any additional qualifications specific to their teaching areas
  • All department-level decisions on faculty qualifications must be documented and justifiable for reviewers. Some things remain prohibited, so policies must clearly explain the rationale for qualifications. The flexibility ensures that all types of teaching areas and faculty backgrounds can be appropriately covered, rather than using a “one-size-fits-all” approach.
  • The policy provides a framework aligned with HLC, but each department is responsible for defining specific procedures and criteria in a way that is sound, transparent, and defensible.

Anonymous Question 

  • Does this (faculty qualification policy) have any relationship to HR matters, such as equal pay for equal work, or recognizing professional experience for compensation purposes?

    - Not necessarily, departments must submit the position’s qualifications to HR. This means clearly identifying the criteria for the role and documenting them in the job description.HR keeps this on file to have an official record of the qualifications for that position. This filing only covers the formal qualifications for the position. It does not include other aspects like ongoing professional contributions, experience beyond the stated criteria, or discretionary considerations. 

    - Also, wanted to note that the same policy that you would follow to make sure that they are appointed to the Graduate School, that policy is still there or it's still part of the policy. If you're hiring faculty for graduate courses, you just must follow their appointment process. Still graduate schools process and it's just documented as such in this policy.

Come up for a vote next month. 

Open Discussion (1:50-2:00pm)

  • What do you think we should do to try to advance our concerns and interests? What would you like to see happen from here in terms of faculty? What are some specific actions you'd like to see us taking?
  • There are multiple committees across colleges—like budget and planning committees, faculty assembly budgeting committee, and UBAC—that could theoretically address faculty concerns. Many of these committees are actually effective in addressing the specific issues under discussion, particularly regarding metrics. He recommends forming or empowering a strong faculty committee focused on metrics, rather than relying on existing committees that may not listen or act on these concerns.
  • Should have a strong faculty committee on metrics, if we have more time, would likely be more impactful for advancing faculty priorities.

Anonymous Question

  • Would you want metrics or not want metrics? And metrics, could be all kinds of things. They could be qualitative.

    - Faculty are worried that if metrics are used to guide program cuts or resource allocation, the process could be biased or misused. Metrics might be interpreted subjectively to justify decisions leadership already wants to make, rather than reflecting objective analysis.

  • Metrics could be valuable if developed collaboratively, reflect the academic and research mission, and are applied transparently. Without those conditions, they risk being a “black box” that faculty have no control over. Faculty have seen situations where work was done, recommendations made, but leadership still made pre-determined decisions, leading to mistrust. This includes concerns about program cuts, hiring, and faculty retention decisions.
  • Faculty want clarity on deadlines and timeframes for making recommendations, to ensure thoughtful input rather than rushed decisions that may compromise programs or colleagues. There is uncertainty about whether decisions around program mergers, alignments, or discontinuances will follow shared governance processes or be imposed from above. Clear procedures for faculty participation are lacking.
  • Committees like budget and planning aim to protect faculty and programs, even if some sacrifices are required. Faculty want assurance that their input will be respected and considered in decision-making, but there is low confidence in leadership transparency and collaboration, creating fear that metrics or new initiatives could be used to justify unilateral decisions rather than support the academic mission.
  • Faculty are open to metrics and data-driven decisions only if the process is transparent, collaborative, and clearly governed, with proper timelines, shared governance, and protections for faculty and programs. Without these, metrics may do more harm than good.

Anonymous Comment

  • Problem with metrics-focused discussions: The emphasis on metrics has caused fear and competition among faculty, with colleagues defending their own programs to protect jobs. This undermines collaboration. Rather than focusing narrowly on metrics or program cuts, the conversation should start with campus identity and long-term vision—asking questions like:
  • Who are we as a university in 5–10 years?
  • How do budget decisions and realignments support that identity and strategic goals?
  • The differentiator project, suggesting its findings should inform investment and decision-making, rather than letting fear drive the discussion.
  • Faculty should have a role in shaping decisions, but the approach should be forward-looking, focusing on the university’s mission and identity, rather than just reacting to potential program cuts.
  • The focus should shift from defensive, metric-driven debates to a strategic, identity-driven approach that guides budgeting, investment, and program decisions in a collaborative, transparent way.

Anonymous Comment

  • Emphasizes that being a research institution is central to the university’s mission. Teaching is important, but research defines much of the institution’s value and identity. Therefore, supporting research involves not only faculty but also vulnerable staff who contribute to that mission. Decisions should aim to preserve this research capacity.
  • Any planning, budgeting, or metrics approach should account for how decisions affect the university’s research identity, not just student metrics or program outputs.

Closing Questions/Comments

  • Would you like to have another open meeting for faculty to discuss something like Joel had last year when we talked about academic freedom and something like that productive conversation or would you rather like wait and see what open forums we get invited to participate in? Would a faculty only conversation be more useful? Would people appreciate that or resent that?
  • The current approach is largely reactive, responding to plans or proposals after they’ve already been developed by leadership or committees. Therefore, there is an importance of being active and proactive—anticipating decisions, asking questions, and engaging early rather than just reacting.
  • Leadership is struggling with fundamental distinctions (faculty vs. staff, academic vs. non-academic, revenue vs. non-revenue roles), which is concerning because these are essential to their decision-making.
  • Without proactive involvement, faculty may bear the consequences of leadership’s mistakes or oversights.
  • Suggestions of holding another open faculty meeting to continue discussions. Noting that staff could also be included, though they wouldn’t invite certain groups like SGA for this particular session. Emphasizing the importance of faculty and staff being in the same room together, noting that historically they’ve been pitted against each other, and bringing them together could help rebuild collaboration and shared understanding.

Anonymous Comments

  • Jeff reported $10.87 million in unrestricted reserves, the first time this number has been made explicit. This gives faculty and staff a clearer sense of financial flexibility for the institution’s future. Even without making cuts immediately, the institution could cover expenses using these reserves, though it’s not ideal. There needs to be more time to make decisions rather than being forced into rushed cuts.
  • Faculty want adequate time to make thoughtful decisions and avoid reactive metrics or arbitrary cuts. The immediate $12 million cut requirement was viewed as unfair and not aligned with shared governance principles.
  • Clarity on the location of reserves is essential for transparent, fair decision-making about resource allocation and college-level sacrifices.

Motion to Adjourn

Larry Eames motioned to end the meeting; Evan Taparata seconded; passed.

  • Next meeting: Friday, March 13, 2026, 12:00-2:00 pm in Hyflex Format; TBD or MS Teams