April 2026

UCCS Faculty Representative Assembly Meeting

Friday April 10, 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, Laura Austin-Eurich, 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, Katherine Cliff

Call to Order / Approval of Minutes 

Motion to Approve: March Minutes 2026

Motion: Karin Larkin

Second: Evan Taparata

Approved. 

Report/Open Q&A Panel Conversation

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 & Jennifer Sobanet, Chancellor

Anonymous Questions/Comments

  • How revenue projection is slated to increase between now and 2031? 
  • Baseline increase begins in FY27: 
    • Revenue projections were revised upward by ~$5.3M based on updated assumptions and CU system guidance. 
  • Growth driven by multiple factors (not just enrollment): 
    • Although enrollment may initially decline (~2%), it is expected to recover and grow incrementally over time. 
    • Student credit hours are expected to increase, supporting revenue growth. 
  • Targeted investments to boost future revenue: 
    • Reinvestment in high-demand and high-growth academic programs to attract more students. 
    • Expanded recruitment beyond freshmen (e.g., graduate, reskilling, and nontraditional students). 
  • Tuition and policy changes:
    • New tuition structures will generate additional revenue over time. 
    • Transition plans aim to protect current students, phasing in gains gradually. 
  • Diversified revenue streams:
    • Increased reliance on: 
      • Partnerships and leased campus spaces 
      • Potential developments (e.g., conference center) 
    • These provide steady, non-tuition income growth through 2031. 
  • Strategic financial approach:
    • Revenue growth is paired with expense reductions and reinvestment, not cuts alone. 
    • Strong emphasis on retention and program alignment with demand to sustain long-term gains. 

 

  • Can the ELT explain how changes to federal financial aid—particularly funding caps—have been factored into enrollment projections, and what strategies are in place to ensure continued affordability and access for both undergraduate and graduate students amid tuition increases?
  • Monitoring federal aid changes:
    • A dedicated expert (Javita) is actively tracking federal financial aid changes (including funding caps). 
    • These updates are continuously incorporated into financial aid models and enrollment planning. 
  • Link between tuition increases and aid: 
    • When tuition increases, institutional financial aid also increases proportionally to offset impact on students. 
  • Additional financial aid investments:
    • The university allocated ~$3.9M from reserves to support student financial aid. 
    • After adjustments, about $600K gap remains, to be addressed in future budgets. 
  • Protecting students (short-term affordability): 
    • “Hold harmless” strategy: 
      • ~$2M in FY27 and ~$500K in FY28 to shield students from tuition hikes. 
    • After FY28, this protection ends, freeing revenue for other priorities. 
  • Graduate student considerations:
    • No tuition increase for graduate programs in FY27. 
    • Future tuition changes (FY28 onward) are still under discussion. 
    • Future revenue may support graduate/doctoral stipends. 
  • Overall strategy for access & affordability: 
    • Combine: 
      • Increased institutional aid 
      • Short-term tuition protections 
      • Targeted reinvestment (e.g., stipends) 
    • Ongoing focus on balancing tuition revenue with student financial need. 

  • Federal aid changes are being actively modeled, and the university is maintaining affordability through increased institutional aid, temporary tuition protections, and targeted reinvestments—especially in the near term.

     

  • Clarifying Question, I want to make sure I understand—federal aid and institutional aid are different, but they’re being discussed similarly. If tuition goes up and institutional aid increases proportionally, wouldn’t students still face a larger gap, especially if federal aid is capped?
  • Two related but separate processes: Javita is the setting expert and goes through a calculation. 
    • Institutional aid adjustments: As tuition changes, financial aid is recalculated proportionally (handled by an expert using a formal model). 
    • Existing aid funding gap: There is a separate $3.9M ongoing expense, previously covered by reserves, that now must be built into the base budget. 
  • Key distinction:
    • Proportional increases in aid are tied to tuition changes going forward. 
    • The $3.9M issue is a structural funding problem, not directly caused by tuition increases. 
  • Connection between the two:
    • They are linked conceptually (both relate to financial aid), but: 
      • One is a formula-driven adjustment (tuition → aid). 
      • The other is a budget shortfall that must be resolved. 
  • Additional nuance:
    • Tuition rates vary by college to remain competitive and market-sensitive (e.g., lower rates in some programs to maintain enrollment). 

  • Increasing aid proportionally to tuition is a separate mechanism from the existing financial aid funding gap; both must be managed together, but they address different financial challenges.

     

  • Is any of the $3 million marketing funding being used for rebranding? If so, how much, and can you briefly explain the rebranding effort?
  • Rebranding status & feedback:
    • Active process with strong community engagement (surveys, focus groups, ~600+ responses). 
    • Feedback is mixed:
      • Pros: stronger recognition, better recruitment/retention through CU brand alignment. 
      • Concerns: loss of identity, naming/acronym issues, alumni sentiment. 

  • Purpose of rebranding:

    • Driven by competitive market pressures and need for broader visibility. 
    • Aligning with the CU brand could expand reach beyond Colorado Springs.

     

  • Use of the $3M marketing funding: 
  • Not primarily for rebranding. 
  • Main priorities: 
    1. Short-term enrollment push (120-day effort for Fall 2026). 
      1. Website optimization, especially for AI/search visibility (critical for recruitment). 
  • Approach to rebranding (if adopted):
    • Would be phased and cost-conscious, not a full immediate overhaul. 
    • Changes would happen gradually during normal update cycles (web, materials, merchandise, facilities). 
    • Goal: avoid major new costs (which could otherwise be ~$2M–$5M). 
  • Key takeaway:
    • Rebranding is still under consideration, supported by mixed input. 

    • Current funding is focused on enrollment growth and digital presence, with rebranding integrated gradually if approved—not as a separate major expense.

       

  • How are increased class sizes, increased tuition, and less sections of classes going to improve student retention? Also, at the SGA meeting, students were asked to keep an “open mind” about tuition increases while the university is also making cuts. How do these decisions fit together in the overall financial strategy?
  • Tuition increases were carefully considered: 
    • Leadership aimed to minimize impact on students and understand effects on affordability. 
    • A “hold harmless” approach was used to protect current students from immediate impact. 
  • Why tuition is increasing:
    • State allowed increases (up to ~3.5%), and the university chose ~3.5% to stay aligned with peer institutions (e.g., CU Denver). 
    • Increases are relatively small per credit hour (a few dollars). 
  • External pressure & uncertainty:
    • State funding decisions are unpredictable, making tuition a necessary and more stable revenue source. 
    • Some prior funding cuts were partially restored, but uncertainty remains. 
  • Balancing cuts with student experience: 
    • Budget cuts were made in various operational areas to avoid major harm to academics. 
    • Goal: preserve student experience and faculty ratios as much as possible. 
  • Expected impacts:
    • Some trade-offs: 
      • Slightly larger class sizes 
      • Fewer course sections (especially summer) 
    • However, efforts were made to limit these effects. 
  • Reinvestment in student support:
    • Increased funding for: 
      • Advising 
      • Mental health services 
      • Student success centers 
    • Focus on retention and support services. 

  • Tuition increases and budget cuts are being used together to manage financial challenges, with an effort to protect students, maintain quality, and reinvest in key support services, even though some impacts are unavoidable.

     

  • Anonymous Comment – UC Springs – it did not happen then so why now? Vice Chancellor Parent, two things, you seem to believe in magic of a board. You change to UC Colorado Springs and magic would happen. Point 1, in last century, it was still AD, but last century it was tried, it was tried in the form of CU the springs. And it didn't work, it didn't survive, and second point, What's rhetorical question? What's in a name? But any name a rose will smell as sweet. That's it.

     

  • What evidence or market research supports the idea that a hotel and conference center would increase enrollment? And what are the environmental and campus impact considerations, especially regarding its location near Austin Bluffs open space?
  • The hotel and conference center is being discussed primarily as a potential revenue and academic opportunity, not a finalized project. 
  • Enrollment connection:
    • Linked to a hospitality-related academic program in the College of Business. 
    • Would also support student learning and employment opportunities. 
  • Financial rationale:
    • Seen as a way to diversify university revenue, including through possible public-private partnerships (P3s). 
  • Campus benefits considered:
    • Could create a real-world teaching environment for students. 
    • May support sustainability-focused programs and integrate with existing campus initiatives. 
  • Environmental and campus impact concerns:
    • Leadership emphasizes the need to be very careful about environmental impacts and campus footprint. 
    • These concerns are explicitly acknowledged as part of the evaluation process. 
  • Decision-making process:
    • No decision has been made yet. 
    • Any development would involve campus-wide engagement with faculty, staff, and stakeholders before moving forward. 
  • The hotel and conference center is still in the early “request for interest” stage, and the process is taking longer than expected. 
  • No decisions have been made yet, and updates are expected next semester. 
  • Clarification on location: 
  • If the project moves forward, it would be located near the current softball fields along North Nevada Avenue, aligned with existing campus facilities. 
  • There is still uncertainty about where displaced facilities (like softball fields) would be relocated.

 

  • Effort to reassociate the brand with the CU system – Why is it that the system is not investing more in it? 
  • The speaker begins by saying this is not a question they can fully answer directly, but they will bring it to system colleagues for more information. 
  • They briefly note a broader point about institutional naming/identity, referencing that the system sometimes uses “CU Colorado Springs” in communications. 
  • Commitment to follow-up: The issue will be taken back to the system office for further review and information gathering.

 

  • How is the ELT reflecting on aspects of this year’s approach that have not worked as well as hoped, and how will those reflections inform adjustments moving forward?

    - The speaker begins by acknowledging this is an important question and reflects on recent campus feedback about the process (what worked, what didn’t, and suggestions for improvement). 

  • Leadership reflection and response: 
    • The executive team (ULT, deans, shared governance, and Chancellor) has already met to review and document feedback. 
    • They are actively using that input to adjust and improve the planning process going forward. 
  • Key acknowledgment:
    • The timeline for decision-making this year was very compressed, which created stress and anxiety across the campus. 
    • Leadership recognizes this and is factoring it into future planning. 
  • Next steps in planning:
    • Focus is on finalizing the FY27 budget and approvals. 
    • After that, attention will shift to: 
      • Managing any necessary workforce adjustments with care 
      • Moving into longer-term, multi-year planning for sustainable growth 
  • Bottom line:
    Leadership is acknowledging concerns about process and timing, actively incorporating feedback, and transitioning from immediate budget decisions into longer-term planning while recognizing the stress caused by this year’s compressed timeline.
  • Closing Comment - Jeff - The speaker emphasizes reflecting on the past ten years of enrollment and student base changes. 
  • Main concern: 
    • Loss of enrollment requires UCCS to remain competitive with state colleges and community colleges. 
  • Key challenge identified: 
    • Changes in concurrent enrollment funding and structure are expected to significantly impact higher education and could be a “game changer” for UCCS. 
  • Strategic focus moving forward: 
    • Strengthening partnerships with high schools and school districts. 
    • Expanding and improving concurrent enrollment pathways. 
    • Building stronger pipelines from K–12 to university enrollment growth. 
  • Future enrollment strategy will heavily focus on high school partnerships and concurrent enrollment to stay competitive and rebuild student numbers amid broader system funding and enrollment challenges.

Officer Reports
David Havlick, Executive Committee Chair

  • Clarifying meeting procedures and signaling a more formal structure moving forward. 
  • The meeting will follow Robert’s Rules of Order more strictly, including: 
    • The chair will facilitate discussion but not express personal opinions on motions. 
    • Speakers must stay focused on the motion being discussed when recognized. 
  • Debate structure will be more controlled: 
    • Support and opposition to motions may be alternated. 
    • Each person generally gets one chance to speak per motion until everyone has spoken once, then may speak again. 
  • Special motions (e.g., “previous question”): 
    • Can end debate early 
    • Require a two-thirds vote 
  • New motion rules: 
    • Either require a vote to suspend rules, or 
    • A 5-day review period before voting. 
  • Voting eligibility: 
    • Limited to: 
      • Elected Faculty Assembly representatives 
      • Executive officers 
      • Standing committee chairs (with co-chairs sharing one vote) 
  • The speaker clarifies that non-elected faculty can still fully participate in meetings. 
  • Even if someone is not a voting representative: 
    • They may still join discussions and debate 
    • They may even introduce motions (though it’s recommended that elected members do so) 
  • Voting eligibility clarification: 
    • System representatives are included as voters (3 members confirmed) 
    • Total eligible voters are estimated at ~43–45 people 
  • Quorum definition: 
    • Based on the number of eligible members present and voting 
    • Decisions pass by a majority of those present 
  • The chair notes: 
    • They only vote if needed to break a tie or affect the outcome 
  • Additional process notes: 
    • Meetings are now more formally structured for high-stakes decisions 
    • Meetings are recorded and open to the broader UCCS community, not just faculty 
    • Prior misunderstanding about restricting non-faculty participation is being corrected 
  • Participation is broader than just elected members, voting rules are being clarified and formalized, and meetings are open, recorded, and structured to improve governance consistency.

Emily Mooney, Chair-Elect

  • The representative assembly election/ballot process will be sent out within the next week and remain open for one week. 
  • Faculty are encouraged to vote and remind colleagues to participate. 
  • If anyone does not receive a ballot, they should contact leadership to get it resolved. 
  • The goal is to ensure everyone eligible receives and can complete a ballot, though technical issues may still occur.

Joel Tonyan, Past Chair

  • No Update

Committee Reports 

New Business

Jena McCollum—Institutional Based Salary Policy

  • Requirement & current gap: 
  • The university is required to have an institutional-based salary policy, and this policy is being created to meet that requirement. 
  • Broad and flexible design: 
  • Policy is intentionally kept broad to cover all faculty, including special cases (e.g., research roles like IRC). 
  • Units (departments/colleges) have flexibility to apply specifics rather than strict central rules. 
  • Built-in revision timeline: 
  • Includes a mandatory review in 3 years (earlier than the standard 5-year cycle) to fix issues quickly due to initial uncertainties. 
  • Core purpose: 
  • Formalizes how academic year salary and summer salary (e.g., “three-ninths” for grants) are handled. 
  • Largely reflects current practices, now standardized. 
  • Service roles and stipends: 
  • Small stipends (e.g., minor service roles) are not included. 
  • Larger, long-term service roles (e.g., chairs) can be included in salary calculations. 
  • Grant and compensation implications: 
  • Helps define what salary can be charged to federal grants. 
  • Takes a conservative approach to limits and compliance. 
  • Flexibility in external work: 
  • Maintains faculty discretion for outside/contract work (e.g., “one-sixth rule”). 
  • Overall approach: 
  • Aim is to be inclusive, flexible, and minimally restrictive, while ensuring compliance. 
  • Includes a “safety valve” (escape hatch) to revise quickly if issues arise. 
  • The policy establishes a compliant, flexible framework for faculty salary—standardizing existing practices while allowing unit-level control and future adjustments.

Anonymous Question

  • Why are 12-month faculty excluded from this policy?

    - The exclusion of 12-month faculty was a mistake. The policy was meant to apply broadly to all faculty after expanding the definition. I will remove that line and confirm the correction with the policy committee. 

Janice Thorpe—Certificates Policy Revision (200-23) 

  • Reason for update: 
    • Policy was due for its required 5-year review. 
    • Also updated to reflect changes in financial aid regulations and to clarify processes. 
  • Types of certificates clarified: 
    • Identified five types of certificates (academic and non-academic), with distinctions tied to: 
      • Financial aid 
      • Regulations (e.g., gainful employment) 
      • Transcript designation 
  • Major policy change: 
    • Minimum credits to qualify as a certificate reduced from 12 credits to 9 credits.  
  • Approval process change: 
    • Now explicitly requires Chancellor and Board of Regents approval (especially for programs tied to financial aid/gainful employment regulations). 
  • Procedural updates: 
    • Clearer, more structured process for how certificates are proposed and approved. 
  • Compliance & oversight: 
    • Changes informed by federal regulations (Department of Education). 
    • Developed with input from a broad committee (financial aid, legal, academic leadership). 
  • The update modernizes the certificate policy by lowering credit requirements, clarifying types and processes, and ensuring compliance with evolving financial aid and regulatory standards.

 

Anonymous Questions

  • I know FAEs have also needed approval by the US Department of Ed at some point for gainful employment. Is that still part of the process? 
  • It’s not explicitly written into the new policy. Instead, compliance is handled internally by financial aid experts (like Javita) to ensure programs meet federal requirements. 
  • Formal U.S. Department of Education approval may still be required, but it’s part of the compliance process, not a separate highlighted step. 
  • A committee reviewed this carefully, and financial aid oversight will ensure everything meets regulations. This process may slow things down, but ensures compliance.
  • If a unit (like a library or center) doesn’t have a college-level committee like LASCNR, how does the college/school approval step work for them?
  • That situation wasn’t addressed in the policy. It’s a good point that was overlooked. Will follow up and likely add clarification to the policy/procedure.
  • Anonymous Answer:  I think the answer to that question, though it's not in the policy yet, may be that those units have to make a comparable body to review to those proposals. 

Discussion #3—Heather Albanesi—Program Discontinuance Policy

  • The Program Continuance Policy was approved and signed by the Chancellor on January 30. 
  • Recently, it went through additional review with legal counsel, the provost, the Chancellor, and system representatives, who proposed further edits (redlining). 
  • Faculty leadership reviewed those changes and found that: 
    • Some edits were true compliance requirements 
    • Others were not necessary for compliance 
  • After pushback, they reached a final agreement that: 
    • Keeps only the required compliance changes 
    • Preserves important protections like: 
      • 90-day deliberation period 
      • 30-day notice period 
  • The policy is now in a 30-day public review period for feedback. 
  • Faculty are encouraged to review it and submit comments through representatives or leadership channels. 
  • The policy was refined through negotiation to keep key procedural protections, is now officially approved in revised form, and is open for final campus review and feedback.

David Moon—Faculty Qualifications Policy Discussion

  • Motion to have the Faculty Qualifications policy back on the table. 
  • Motion: Larry Eames
  • Seconded: Laura Austin-Eurich
  • You have a month to look at it and will vote on it next month – 
    HLC changed their policies on faculty qualifications. They made them much less prescriptive, which means the responsibility is now on us.
  • The speaker indicates that future requests will likely require additional policy work if units want to hire based on anything other than traditional academic credentials. 
  • In those cases, a formal, campus-approved policy must be developed that: 
    • Aligns with the existing hiring framework 
    • Establishes a clear, consistent, and defensible standard 
    • Allows consideration of experience or external credentials 
  • Any hiring approach outside standard academic credentials will need a structured policy with clear standards to ensure consistency and defensibility.
  • Colleges and units will have to develop a policy by February
  • If your dept does not hire anyone just on credentials. 

Dylan Harris—Collective Bargaining Resolution

  • The proposal is faculty-led and broadly supported, with input from many representatives and modeled after a recent CU Denver resolution. 
  • It aligns with growing interest from CU Regents, who are now actively encouraging exploration of collective bargaining through a possible task force. 
  • Key distinction from shared governance: 
    • Shared governance is advisory and non-binding. 
    • Collective bargaining is legally binding, requiring formal negotiation with the state/university system. 
  • Scope is broader than salary: 
    • Includes working conditions, not just pay. 
    • Could address issues like AI in classrooms, curriculum, workload, and workplace policies. 
  • Proposed structure: 
    • A “wall-to-wall” model that includes faculty, staff, and other employee groups together. 
    • Aims to reduce divisions between employee categories and create equal negotiating power. 
  • Equity and protection focus: 
    • Would provide more consistent protections across faculty and staff groups, including contingent faculty. 
    • Seen as a way to address perceived inequities in current governance structures. 
  • Context and rationale: 
    • CU is described as an outlier, as most similar institutions already have collective bargaining. 
    • Could prevent issues like salary reductions being used as a management lever, since compensation would be formally negotiated. 
  • The proposal argues for exploring collective bargaining as a legally binding, inclusive system that expands beyond salary to broader working conditions, improves equity across employee groups, and aligns CU with most peer institutions.
  • The resolution, once introduced, will go to a vote next month. 
  • It contains two main components: 
    • The Faculty Assembly expresses support for the concept of collective bargaining rights. 
    • The Faculty Assembly would create a task force to study and explore how collective bargaining could be implemented. 
  • It is not an authorization to begin collective bargaining and does not formally establish a bargaining unit. 
  • Instead, it is a preliminary, exploratory step to investigate possibilities and structure. 
  • The resolution is about supporting the idea and forming a task force to study it, not initiating collective bargaining itself.

Anonymous Question

  • Did you say how the Regents feel about this?
  • The speaker notes there are mixed views among members: some strongly support the resolution, some are undecided, and a few oppose it. 
  • The purpose of the resolution is primarily to signal formal support for exploring collective bargaining. 
  • This signal could potentially influence undecided (“swing”) members. 
  • There is also external interest at the system level, including a push to form a task force. 
  • The resolution would allow the Faculty Assembly to affirm support and initiate its own task force through formal action. 
  • The resolution is meant to express support for collective bargaining, influence undecided voters, and enable creation of a faculty-led task force while aligning with system-level interest.

Anonymous Comment

  • The speaker begins by thanking Dylan for their leadership and support. 
  • They acknowledge that the term “union” can feel intimidating, and that there are valid concerns and emotions associated with it. 
  • The resolution creates an opportunity to openly discuss those concerns and have transparent conversations about collective bargaining. 
  • The speaker emphasizes the broader context: 
  • The institution and higher education more generally are facing uncertain and difficult (“scary”) times. 
  • Core message: 
  • Challenges are less daunting when addressed collectively. 
  • The effort is framed as a way to support and care for one another as a community. 
  • The comments frame the resolution as a chance to openly discuss concerns about unionization while emphasizing solidarity and mutual support during uncertain times.

Anonymous Questions

  • Adjuncts, I feel very strongly they should be included in this union. But how do we, how do we determine that? 50% or 30% mark or whatever?
  • The taskforce and relation to the system level is who would decide this and be able to speak on it. A lot of these questions would be great taskforce questions.
  • What is the difference between UCW (United Campus Workers) and AAUP as potential union options, and if we move forward with a vote next month, would it still be possible to choose AAUP instead of a broader, all-employee union like UCW—especially if we want a faculty-focused union?
  • Important philosophical and strategic question, not something that has a fixed answer yet. 
  • The choice between UCW and AAUP models (or others) is not being decided at this stage. 
  • A task force would be responsible for exploring and evaluating these options, including different “theories of change.” 
  • Different union models exist: 
    • Traditional model: separate bargaining units for different groups. 
    • UCW model: broader, “wall-to-wall” structure including multiple employee groups. 
  • No decision has been made yet—the structure of any union (AAUP vs UCW or other models) will be determined through a future task force discussion, not in the upcoming vote.

When this comes up for vote next month, we'll be sure to try to carve out some time for discussion then as well.

Dylan Harris—Vote of No Confidence Information

  • Introducing a motion for a vote of no confidence, based on a jointly written resolution (about 10 pages long), which has already been shared with the Chair and Secretary.  
  • The motion specifically targets three individuals (Jennifer Sobanet, Robin Parent, and Jeff Greene) rather than the entire Executive Leadership Team. 
  • The resolution is a formal motion for consideration and debate 
  • The scope (whether it remains limited to those three individuals or expands to the full ELT) is still open to discussion during the process 
  • Document and intent to be openly discussed with the full group moving forward 
  • Decided that a motion is not happening, just a circulating the document for feedback to move forward.
  • It was agreed that the document will be shared with all 43 eligible Faculty Representative Assembly voters for review. 
  • The initiators will have an opportunity to revise and refine the document based on feedback before it moves forward as a formal motion. 
  •  A workshop or follow-up meeting may be scheduled to finalize the version for voting. 
  • The process must follow a minimum 5-business-day review period, which could extend into finals week. 
  • Emphasis was placed on following proper procedure carefully due to the importance of the issue and timing constraints.

VOTES

  • Do you vote to approve the PRIDE bylaws?
  • Seconded

  • Motion Passed

     

  • Do you vote to approve the nomination of Karen Markel to the System Faculty Grievance Committee?
  • Seconded
  • Motion Passed 

Wrap up, everyone is working hard. 

Motion to Adjourn

Laura Austin-Eurich motioned to end the meeting; Larry Eames seconded; passed.

  • Next meeting: Thursday, May 8, 2026, 12:00-2:00 pm in Hyflex Format; Dwire 103 or MS Teams