March 2026

UCCS Faculty Representative Assembly Meeting

Friday March 13, 2026

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

Call to Order / Approval of Minutes 

Motion to Approve: February Minutes 2026

Motion: Norah Mazel

Second: Evan Taparata

Approved. 

Report/Open Q&A Panel Conversation

Jennifer Sobanet, Chancellor & Jeff Greene, Interim Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance, & Kevin Laudner, Dean of Helen and Aruthur E. Johnson Beth-El College of Nursing and Health Sciences, & Robin Parent, Vice Chancellor of Strategic Initiatives and Chief of Staff

  • Thanks to David for the invitation. Acknowledging that the current period has been difficult for everyone. Instead of delivering prepared remarks, they propose an open Q&A session to share information, answer questions, and exchange ideas. Their goal is for the group to leave the meeting, becoming a bit more on the same page. 

Anonymous Questions and Answers

  • Mentioned in the last meeting – What is the timeline for communicating decisions so people understand what’s happening and can evaluate the results instead of worrying about the process?

    - Answer: They have returned to a familiar, iterative decision-making process used in recent years, but with more structure and collaboration among Deans, Vice Chancellors, and Leadership.

    The timeline is:

  • Late March: Develop and refine budget reduction proposals through leadership meetings (before Spring break) and UBAC.
  • End of March–early April: Bring proposals to UBAC meeting, March 30. Finalize a recommendation. 
  • Late April–early May: Inform individuals affected (especially in cases of job separations).
  • Afterward: Share overall outcomes with the broader university.

Overall, decisions will be made through a collaborative process over the next few weeks, with clear communication expected by late April or early May.

  • If the final budget numbers aren’t set yet, how are decisions being made now—and what numbers are those decisions based on?”

    - Answer: Decisions are based on well-informed budget estimates, particularly the $11.7 million reduction target, which leadership believes is fairly accurate even though final state and board approvals are still pending. The number may change slightly, but not drastically.

  • Right now, leaders are working with these estimates to plan ahead, focusing first on non-personnel reductions and other flexible areas before considering job cuts. More precise breakdowns (e.g., impacts on specific colleges) are expected after upcoming meetings in mid-March.

    Overall, while the exact numbers aren’t finalized, the estimates are reliable enough to guide current planning, with refinements coming soon.

  • Leadership to the anonymous question above, of the number… So, when I hear you say, what is the number? 

    - Answer: The speaker explains that the university has shifted to a long-term, five-year planning approach instead of focusing on just one year. Rather than dividing a budget target across units upfront, they are treating the university as a whole and working toward a larger overall reduction goal.

    - They are identifying and applying savings step-by-step—starting with areas that have the least impact on people and positions, then subtracting those savings from the total before moving to more difficult cuts if needed.

    - This approach is different from the past and can feel unclear, but it’s meant to create a more strategic, holistic path forward over multiple years rather than assigning fixed cuts to each unit right away.

  • How will you avoid cutting so many at-will positions in a department that it effectively destroys the program and makes program discontinuation unavoidable?

    - Answer: Faculty and staff within an academic program are treated as a single unit for planning purposes. Any reductions that affect tenure-track, IRC, or lecturer faculty tied to a program would go through the program discontinuance process, ensuring decisions are made collectively rather than arbitrarily cutting positions.

    - At-will positions, such as some IRC faculty with short-term contracts, may be adjusted annually based on course needs, but these reductions are handled at the college level and factored into the overall budget reduction.

    - Emphasizing the complexity and lack of precise terminology but reassuring that reductions are coordinated to avoid unintentionally dismantling programs, with Deans managing decisions within shared governance processes.

  • Will IRC faculty likely be among those getting terminated sooner rather than later?

    - All filled positions—including staff, part-time, full-time, lecturers, and IRC faculty—are being evaluated collaboratively by Vice Chancellors and Deans to identify efficiencies, such as eliminating duplication or sharing responsibilities across units. Each position is discussed as a group to assess impact, and no final decisions have been made yet. Every position is still “to be determined”, with the goal of making thoughtful, coordinated choices rather than immediate cuts.

  • Speaking of the five-year plan, why does it include an assumption of enrollment growth that seems widely optimistic in part of how it got here in the first place?

    - The five-year plan assumes slight enrollment growth but conservatively predicts a 2% decline in FY27. This accounts for current trends and strategic initiatives, such as the strategic enrollment plan, which has already increased applications by over 2,000 for Fall 2026.

    - While the projections are cautious, there is optimism that recruitment and retention efforts will exceed expectations. The multi-year model is dynamic, allowing adjustments if enrollment trends are higher or lower than anticipated. Overall, early indicators show positive results from recent strategic efforts.

  • What is the Regent policy definition of ‘at-will’ employment at the university, given that there are multiple definitions?

    - APS 5060 and the Appendix has a description of every rank, title, and type of employment.

  • With so many initiatives happening, is there anything in the implementation process that’s especially promising or exciting that we can hear about?

    - Several promising initiatives are underway to improve student recruitment and enrollment:

  1. Personalized outreach: Deans are creating videos for admitted students to build personal connections and touchpoints, which has shown promise with EAB as a great strategy.
  2. Marketing support: $3 million from the CU Foundation is funding targeted recruitment projects to impact Fall 2026 and 2027, including a 120-day sprint (beginning April 1st) using Slate for multi-population outreach.
  3. Web optimization: Enhancing the university’s online presence using AI and GEO optimization to attract prospective students.
  4. Program expansions:
    • Air Force ROTC can enroll 50 more students.
    • Adding three assistant coaches expands rosters in three sports, bringing in ~40 more students.
    • Concurrent enrollment legislation may allow teaching in high schools, attracting more students competitively.

  5. Coordinated outreach: Traditional, non-traditional, and transfer student marketing efforts are being aligned across teams for measurable, strategic impact.

    Overall, these initiatives are new, collaborative, and data-driven, designed to improve enrollment outcomes over the next two years.

  • Will all primary units add one class per faculty member before we consider eliminating any filled positions? Also, will this be temporary to align with their R2 status in which of Commission?

    - Adding one class per faculty member is under consideration as a potential efficiency measure, but no decisions have been made. Leadership is evaluating the impact on research and collaborating with faculty before determining if or how it might be implemented.

  • Is differentiate workload being thought of as a way to figure out how to balance the desire to have active research faculty?

    - Faculty workload could potentially be adjusted using a differentiated model, where increases in teaching are balanced by reductions elsewhere, but nothing has been decided. 

  • What institutional-level metrics are being used to guide program discontinuance decisions when clear criteria haven’t been defined?

    - As I understand the program discontinuance policy has specific criteria that are a part of that entire process and that process has different steps in it with initiating just how the process is initiated and steps to go through. It's kind of its own entity of a process that's run through that.

  • Any decision to eliminate an academic program would be made at a team level. Is that true? Will the deans make the decision? Who gets to decide which programs to modify, eliminate? That includes majors and minors. 

    - It is a collaborative discussion on everything as it comes to the table and doing that together so that we can understand the cross college and decision ramifications and choices that we’re making.  

  • Why did the ELT allow the decrease in enrollment to decrease in so many years since 2018, why have we not fixed that yet?

    - Wishes the situation were different but focusing on what she’s done since arriving. Surprised there was no strategic enrollment plan, so creating one to align efforts on growing enrollment. Speaking to past leadership and acknowledges challenges like the pandemic and broader enrollment declines at similar institutions, believing there are strategies to improve enrollment, though some could have been started earlier.

  • Are there detailed data showing how different types of student involvement (like athletics, arts, field experiences, or student government) affect retention—and which activities or programs are the strongest predictors of students staying enrolled? 

    - Initiatives were done at minimal cost and should be viewed in terms of return on investment, including added credit hours. The requested data can be provided, and emphasizes that if a program strongly supports retention, which should be considered before deciding to discontinue it.

    - Deans are being given extensive data and reports to help them make informed budget decisions while minimizing impact on programs and individuals. Although some impacts are unavoidable, the process aims to be sensitive. The information includes details on vacant positions, pay and stipends, use of temporary funds, and personnel data, with more reporting still being provided.

  • Any extra questions that are on the chat that have been unanswered, Kylie will post and keep referring to the FAQ for those answers. Everything Thursday in the UCCS News there is a link to FAQ and a hold on our updates, so we will add them there. Just keep referring back to the FAQs. 

Officer Reports
David Havlick, Executive Committee Chair

  • Urging everyone to help recruit candidates for next year’s faculty representative positions. Current reps who want to run again should notify David or Emily, and those who need to step down should do so promptly to ensure full representation. Ballots will include executive committee positions like chair elect and secretary, with each college’s representation proportional to its size. The goal is to share ballots by early April, with voting in the second week, emphasizing that participation in these roles is meaningful for shared governance. 
  • Conversation about Open AI contract and if people wanted to process the special election results and the vote of censure. About 10 minutes for that…

Anonymous Comment on Open AI

  • Working on APS 6012, the Responsible Use of AI policy. Although it wasn’t faculty-initiated, faculty are now reviewing it. Key points include:
  • Campus input: All campuses have provided feedback except UCCS, which is delayed due to budget priorities. 
  • Policy updates: A second, revised version was released on March 9th, available on the website. The policy is broad, meant to guide responsible AI use rather than serve as a contractual document. 
  • Focus areas: 
    • Confidentiality and intellectual property, especially regarding faculty-developed materials and student-generated content in AI systems. 
    • Mandatory and robust training is needed, as the current 5-minute training is widely regarded as insufficient. The plan is to create a basic training “shell” that each campus can adapt. 
  • Integration with existing codes: APS 6012 will tie into the Student Academic Ethics Code (updated in 2019 for AI), and student government/system working groups are reviewing it. 
  • Usage statistics: Around 90% of students are already using AI in classes, often paying for it themselves. 
  • Next steps: Faculty council and system working groups are addressing concerns, and ongoing coordination is happening with people like Todd Solomon to respond to issues. 
  • In short, the APS 6012 policy aims to ensure responsible AI use across campuses with proper guidance, mandatory training, and alignment with academic ethics, but implementation details and training are still in development.
  • Todd Solomon has been meeting with the faculty council chair to address concerns about AI policy. Each campus will be asked to create an AI group with shared governance representation. Previously, some groups were appointed by leadership rather than through shared governance. UCCS campus is currently the only one with faculty representation on an AI committee. There’s potential to expand the existing committee instead of starting a new one. 
  • Faculty members interested in joining the committee should let David know, and more details will follow once the process is open.

Anonymous Question/Comments on Censure Vote

  • The question asks whether the Faculty Assembly (FA) will hold a timely deliberation after the censure vote to assess if the administration has met the vote’s demands. The deliberation is expected to occur after the March 31st deadline.
  • Some confusion between Faculty Assembly vs Faculty Representative Assembly
  • Faculty Representative Assembly is 28 people
  • Faculty Assembly is a big body 570 – Open to all the faculty
  • Proposal for a special session suggesting holding a session to deliberate on the censure vote, focusing on whether the administration has met the vote’s demands—specifically regarding Dean transfer information. Current reports indicate the demands have not been fully met. The session should be open to the entire faculty assembly, not just the representative assembly.
  • Early April, after spring break, seems the most practical to allow for incoming information and avoid rushing deliberation. 
  • Information transparency: There’s a need to clarify exactly what information the deans have received and ensure it’s shared more broadly to prevent miscommunication. 
  • Turnout context: 262 faculty voted on the censure, which is relatively high compared to last year’s faculty assembly election (170 votes). 
  • The vote of censure is a statement of faculty sentiment, not a directive or guarantee of administrative action; it does not directly prevent layoffs or produce immediate material outcomes.
  • The Staff Council Executive Committee issued a statement disagreeing with the censure vote. It is unclear how representative this statement was of the broader staff. The Executive Committee did not solicit staff input before issuing the statement.

Emily Mooney, Chair-Elect

N/A

Joel Tonyan, Past Chair

N/A

Committee Reports 

New Business

Greg Williams, Director of Networks and Infrastructure, OIT

  • Faculty/staff email system hasn’t changed since 2011, when it was restricted and automated (no opt-in/out). This has led to email fatigue and accessibility issues. A group was formed to review and improve communication, including analyzing email types, checking how many users filter or ignore messages, and exploring solutions like customizable digests (daily/weekly), better accessibility, and a central website for archived information.

Anonymous Question

  • Are we still going to maintain a system where faculty can post to the rest of the faculty in some capacity? We are not looking at like an increased crackdown on moderation or anything?

    - Yes, you still will be able to post, specific changes will just being that they can opt in or opt out. 

    - Clarifies that there are no plans to moderate or censor faculty/staff emails. Although the term “moderation” was mentioned earlier, he says it was a poor choice of words and not the intent. Instead, the goal is to organize communications into categories (“buckets”) and deliver them through appropriate channels so people can access information how they prefer. He emphasizes that emails have not historically been blocked or censored, aside from rare policy violations, and reassures that open communication will remain.

    - You can all reach out to Laura Austin-Eurich, Larry Eames, Todd Endres, if you have questions you would like to have represented.

  • Open AI rollout – In 2024, President Solomon convened system wide AI working groups across all four campuses—largely made up of faculty—formed to guide decisions and recommendations. UCCS faculty played a key role, and faculty governance helped shape AI-related content and policies. OIT later issued technical guidelines, while academic and ethical considerations were handled by faculty groups. Leadership used this input to decide how AI (including OpenAI tools) would be implemented, with a careful, collaborative rollout involving pilot groups from across campus.

Anonymous Question

  • I thought this was paid for by the system for a year or 2, and then we have to put it in our base budget? 

    - The system covers the cost for the first year, and future participation (years two and three) will be optional decisions. He doesn’t know the exact cost details because he hasn’t seen the full contract due to a nondisclosure agreement.

  • Anonymous – The AI contract is publicly available and can be shared. The estimated cost is about $250,000 per license. They clarify that earlier information about $100,000 in future IT funding, being specifically for AI, was incorrect. Beyond licensing, there don’t appear to be major additional infrastructure costs. They also note there are broader budget considerations, like deferred maintenance, and emphasize that more financial details are available upon request. 
  • Greg encourages questions, emphasizing transparency, and notes the contract has been shared with faculty.
  • David shared - The 72-page AI contract has been shared with faculty, noting important points like the potential use of de-identified student work for AI training, raising privacy and security questions. Todd Solomon is expected to address faculty concerns in the rollout.
  • Anonymous - Emphasizes that the three-year contract isn’t binding beyond the first year—paid by the system—so the campus can decide afterward whether to continue or opt out and truly should speak up.

Edward Portillos, Associate Professor with Tenure, Sociology

  • Faculty Pay Report 

    - Purpose of research: Examine salary inequities at the university, understand why the Equal Pay for Equal Work Act hasn’t resolved them, and explore impacts on faculty lives. 

    - Methodology: Mixed methods including HR data requests, surveys, and qualitative interviews with tenure-track faculty. 

    - Key findings:

    • Significant pay disparities exist across faculty levels, with men more likely to occupy the highest-paying positions. 
    • Faculty dissatisfaction is widespread, even among high-paid faculty.
    • Implementation of the Equal Pay Act is seen as largely symbolic, with inconsistent application across departments. 
    • Transparency concerns: Faculty lack clarity on how raises, pay, and resources are allocated. 

    - High-paid faculty receive additional resources (summer pay, research funds, publication incentives), creating inequities. 

    - Pay disparities affect financial stability, including extra jobs, student loans, retirement decisions, and overall morale. 

    - Implications: The report emphasizes fairness and equity concerns, urging proactive administrative action rather than waiting for lawsuits (noting similar cases at CU Boulder and CU Denver). 

  • Conclusion: Faculty are encouraged to read the report, on the Sociology website or here White Paper--Faculty Pay Research.pdf and questions can be directed to Portillos. The findings highlight the need for attention to equity, transparency, and support amid rising living costs.

Anonymous Questions

  • Salary inequities in the College of Education, noting that even full professors there may earn less than assistant professors in other colleges. Points out that education is female dominated, with historically lower salaries. Is this pay pattern simply being perpetuated, which appears discriminatory in multiple ways?

    - Salary disparities in the College of Education are part of a national trend, not unique to UCCS. The Equal Pay for Equal Work Act is meant to address “substantially similar work,” but market differences and how salaries are allocated lead to large variations across colleges, especially in female-dominated departments like Education, Social Work, Sociology, and other examples detailed in the report.

  • Thank you very much for this report. I look forward to reading further into it. I just have a quick question. Did you take any time to actually see which legal firms the faculty on the campuses at CU Denver and CU Boulder were actually working with? Did you discuss in terms of what the next steps were actually moving forward with a lawsuit?

    - Yes, I have that information and no I did not discuss in terms of what the next steps were actually moving forward with a lawsuit. 

  • Has HR responded to the report at all?

    - There is a meeting scheduled with Emily Skop, myself and Esther and compensation folks in HR in about 3 weeks. 

  • Is there an idea that we would look at the same thing for IRC faculty?

    - We would love to and we applied for a grant on campus, but we didn't receive it. We would certainly support folks if they're interested in doing it, kind of walk through what we did, but right now it just took a lot of time, took a lot of resources and so we would certainly need help to do that if folks are interested.

  • Would you be able to report back to Faculty Assembly, after the meeting with the HR folks if something comes out of that?

    - Yes, I can do that. 

VOTE

  • Vote for the policy: Do you vote to approve the Academic Freedom & Care Resolution Policy?

Vote – Resolution Passed

  • Discuss and Vote on the Faculty Qualifications Policy – it was presented by Bree Newland, College of Business, open for discussion.
  • Anonymous Complex Concern 
    • Part 1 is fine, faculty qualification, background and credentials, that all makes sense.

    • Part 2 (qualification by “equivalent experience”) is raising concerns. 

      Main issues:

    • It may undermine the value of academic credentials (like master’s or PhD degrees). 
    • It could allow institutions to substitute experience for formal education too easily. 
    • This might lead to hiring less-credentialed instructors, potentially even those with only bachelor’s degrees. 
    • There is concern it could be used to justify lower pay, thereby devaluing faculty overall. 
    • Some evidence suggests this is already happening in certain departments (e.g., College of Business). 

  • Core question:
    Is it appropriate to adopt or keep this “equivalent experience” provision without deeper discussion, given the potential risks of lowering standards, reducing pay, and replacing highly credentialed faculty?

    - The Faculty Assembly Committee (a subcommittee) unanimously voted to recommend tabling the policy vote. They believe more time is needed to carefully examine the proposal, including its implications and potential consequences, before moving forward.

  • Response/Discussion:
  • The speaker explains that qualifications based on experience is not new on campus—many departments already use it, especially in graduate programs. The policy mainly aims to align with updated Higher Learning Commission (HLC) guidance, which gives institutions and departments more flexibility to define appropriate faculty qualifications by discipline. Rather than restricting practices, the policy formalizes what some departments are already doing and shifts from a highly prescriptive system to one where departments set their own guidelines. Importantly, there is no expectation that most departments will change their current practices; the policy is intended to provide a consistent framework and transparency, not to force widespread adoption of experience-based qualifications.

Anonymous Question/Discussion –

  • How can the policy prevent experience-based qualifications from becoming the norm instead of remaining a limited exception?

    - Answer: The speaker explains that the policy is not intended to push departments to adopt experience-based qualifications. Neither the institution nor the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) is requiring this. Departments retain full control. The policy is about clarifying and standardizing existing practices, not expanding them. Departments that choose not to use experience-based qualifications are not required to adopt it.

  • Is there a motion to table it? I want to motion to table… 

Carole Woodall motioned, seconded, Larry Eames

Need to vote on it… Faculty Representatives who can vote – 

Vote – Do you vote to table the Faculty Qualifications Policy?

Vote – Passed – Motion to table passes.

  • Bottom of Form

Motion to Adjourn

Laura Austin motioned to end the meeting; Evan seconded; passed.

  • Next meeting: Friday, April 10, 2026, 12:00-2:00 pm in Hyflex Format; TBD or MS Teams