University of Colorado at Colorado Springs

Faculty Assembly


Comments from VCAA
Comments from Chancellor
Comments from Fac. Assembly President
Committee Reports
Budget Committee Motion on Study of Expenditures
Email Motion from ACPC

Swartzendruber, Malone, Olson, Welshon, Warner, Sale, Hagedorn, Chambers, Carlson, Carey, Blade, Zwirlein, Harvey

REGRETS: Sheidley, Jillson, Morley, Shub

ADMINISTRATORS PRESENT: Chancellor Shade,VCSS Shockley, VCAA Pierce


Carlson suggests change to reflect his position that last meeting produced agreement that there would be a followup in the faculty assembly to the faculty salaries forum held a few weeks ago.  Assembly Secretary Harvey agrees to make the change. Thus amended, minutes approved.


Comments from VCAA Pierce.

**Computing Policy Task Force has produced white paper, which ACPC will be taking a look at. They have produced a budget showing what would be required to follow through with the plan, organizational chart, suggested structural changes et al. The committee that produced the document was composed primarily of faculty and staff. Tom Zwirlein points out that he has taken a look at the document, and had raised a number of questions about the organizational chart.

**VCAA Pierce has received academic master plan, produced primarily by ACE fellow Jim Henderson. He will be looking at the plan over the break. It’s about a 20 page document.

Comments from VCSS Shockley

* Applicant pool larger and stronger than in previous years. 57% exceed 103 index.

* Refinancing of housing village means that we will not have a shortfall, because bond market is favorable right now. Housing village will be refinanced, paid out over 27 year period. This means that we will not have to shift resources from other parts of campus to cover looming deficit. Looks at present that we will fill the housing village in the fall (600). Means that we may have to move Beth-El out of housing village to allow space for all students who want housing. Beth-El’s use of the housing space, however, has been absolutely critical to the success of the housing village.

Questions from Bob Carlson, for VCAA Pierce.

1) Can we get some aggregate figure that shows our funding per student compared to similar institutions across the country? Perhaps this would help show public the extent of our problem, and help to produce political pressure to alleviate our budget crisis.

Chancellor responds that Colorado ranks 48th in the nation in terms of funding per student, but at present this dismaying figure seems to have no impact on decision-makers. Swartzendruber says many constituents feel that if they can get a quality product in higher education for rock-bottom dollars they allot now, then why give more? This is dilemma of running quality institution on inadequate budget.

Eric Olson points out that we are bottom of barrel because bottom two states are Vermont and New Hampshire which have much higher tuition, which means effectively that we are last.

Chancellor gives figure on average tuition nationwide and tuition in Colorado, showing huge gap. Tuition increases throughout 1990s have been relatively minuscule, combined with decreasing dollars because of TABOR. The two taken together have produced a crisis situation, made worse by our growth.

Zwirlein points out that he sees fissures in TABOR popping up everywhere, especially with recent announcements of huge deficits in local D-11 and D-20 school budgets.

2) Carlson reiterates his concerns with peer group comparisons for our salaries. His discipline’s salary rankings discriminate in meaningful ways (BA granting colleges vs. those who have MA/Ph.D. program). Comparing with CUPA data understates our problem. CUPA looks just at bachelor’s degree granting institutions, which understates the problem. CUPA data for math is 8% below where it should have been given the kind of institution that we are. Thus, showing that we are below norm on CUPA understates how far below the norm we really are with our true peer institutions. Carlson points out that he spent the morning talking to Steve Chambers, who told him that CUPA data was being used, despite the fact that previously we had been told there would be a richer and more accurate database. Carlson reiterates point that if database we are using is wrong, the conclusions reached will be off.

Response from Pierce: this is why we were trying to get Rich Harpel down here before (his visit was cancelled due to weather).  Will try to get him here again, so that we can influence the creation of the database.

Carlson: Statistics are problematic because disciplines can be underpaid but aggregate figure can show that we appear to be ok. Just a quirk of how statistics work, but a quirk that will leave us in trouble.

3) Carlson asks, in terms of the library funding crisis, whether we can impose a student fee. For example, could we raise a per-course library fee, just as we now have a technology fee and various other fees for services.  Discussion ensues on whether or not that would require a vote from the student body--not clear whether it would or not. Chancellor responds that this could be a good idea and that we should look into it. Clearly, the library materials budget problem will not be solved by just relying on base budget appropriations, which simply will not be forthcoming to the degree necessary to restore adequate funding.


We have gotten funding restored for Main/Cragmor restoration. Keith King went to Joint Budget Committee, and Gail Berry (R-Denver) carried forward the motion. This is critical to the future of our Student Success Center plans.

Chancellor passes out budget allocation formula from regents, showing what monies will come to the CU-system, to this campus, and how they are divided up. Overall, campus will get 1.8% increase on base (total allocation of 2.4% minus TLE funds and other monies taken off top). Growth in student population will produce a little over $800,000, representing growth this year. We are getting bulk of growth money. CCHE asked for 7 million on technology, CU’s share is about 2 million, which will be allocated through the TLE process. JBC said we couldn’t spend it for fiber. Tuition increase will be 2.4%. Overall, university revenues are expected to increase by 4.1%, and expenditures by 5.5%.--hence the budget deficit crisis we are looking at stretching to 2002.

System administration has agreed to fund our facilities master plan, to tune of 100K. They will also fund the utilities master plan. This can't exactly be counted as savings since we wouldn’t have paid for it, but these are plans that need to be made and now we can make them.  Shade reiterates that we continue to fund large growth off a very small and underfunded base, and that we need assistance from the central administration.


Diversity seminar is March 31 in Denver. Lynda Dickson. Faculty work roles discussion with Dean of Arts and Sciences at Arizona State University will take place on April 16. This will replace April monthly forum. He has produced some interesting work on faculty work roles.

11.3 million health care problem: Presidents of all faculty assemblies will be put on special committee that Pres. Buechner is appointing, to be headed up by John Bliss, who will begin on April 1. Committee will try to figure out how where health care deficit has come from.

Carlson asks whether Zwirlein has any insights beyond what has been in the paper re: the health care deficit. Reps from Faculty Personnel and benefits Committee warned administration that this deficit crisis was looming--system-wide Faculty Council President said (in essence) that we told them so. Benefits officers on various campuses had warned them that rates had been set too low, but relevant parties apparently did not hear.

System-wide EPUS: continues to work on FCQ. Malone (who is on committee) says proposal is that FCQ will be broken down into two different components. Faculty will have choice of instruments to administer for formative help, designed to improve instruction rather than just evaluate it. New instrument will have different name, something like "Student Satisfaction Survey." Formative evaluations would be on-going, such as mid-way through the semester. Final evaluative instrument would be administered at end, like FCQ is now, but with different questions that have research to show that they will produce valid responses.

Our P and B committee is looking at a web-based student evaluation, involving a one-time expenditure of 5,000 that would eventually save 17 K a year in current FCQ expenditure.

Elections are near. We need warm bodies. Zwirlein asks for volunteers for Rep. Assembly.

Randy Kouba wants us to begin thinking about what we might want to do about time between class modules. Is 10 minutes enough time between classes? If we extend that time there will be trade-offs.



No Epus representative is present.


Presentations by historian Nancy Cott from Yale well-attended. Dorothea Olkowski is this campus's first winner of the system-wide Elizabeth Gee Memorial award and lectureship. She and co-winner from CU-Boulder are giving presentations on March 19. Women's Committee also working on curriculum integration project for next year, and on mini-grants for teaching and research.


P and B is looking at web-based FCQ process. We are also going to contract out with this company to try APAs on web. Will cost about $500 on web. Should be very confidential. Will save $300 on paper costs (xeroxing costs), and save time of processing. Will save lots of labor time, and will have good raw data to produce correlation studies. Will depend on how many colleagues take to survey on Web. There is concern concerning confidentiality, but Blade suggests that, as far as we can tell, there is good security on that system.

P and B has made a recommendation for a change in the sexual harassment policy--see P and B page for details. However, system-wide committee is looking at this so consideration of the motion will be delayed for present.

For information on CU Policy on harassment, see:


Budget committee report on UBAC website. Budget Committee has prepared motion for consideration, considered under "new business" below.


Lengthy report distributed. Distance education policy draft has been completed, is distributed to Rep. Assembly members. See ACPC PAGE for full report.


See report on Minority Affairs Committee page. Warner expresses concern that diversity issues not be particularly singled out for budgetary cuts given the constraints faced by the university. Everything will have to be looked at, but this should not be a particular target.


No reporter present.



Consideration of sexual harassment policy guidelines delayed, as the requested changes may be put into effect in the new system-wide policy that is being drafted.


EPUS recommends approval of "University of Colorado at Colorado Springs Graduate School Policies and Procedures, " as amended by Associate VCAA Kenneth Rebman. Graduate school rules have been posted at //www.uccs.edu/gradschl/gradrules.html. Mark Malone moves that we accept the motion. Motion seconded by Warner. Warner speaks in favor of policies, points out extent of faculty involvement in formulating the policies. Zwirlein says that draft they started with had problems, but draft has since resolved those problems and that this policy has ratified the direction towards decentralization by campus and keeping policies and procedures at unit level, as un-bureaucratic as possible. Question called, no objections raised. Motion approved unanimously.


Motion on split email-lists (see ACPC page for full text of motions). Agreement that original motion now amended so that faculty will be subscribed to "faculty-d" list by default, and can only unsubscribe by choosing to do so. Thus, all faculty would start out by being subscribed to faculty-d list.

. Carey speaks in favor of motion, pointing out that there is no censorship involved, and that the motion addresses many of the concerns that faculty (many of them privately) have raised about use and abuse of email system. Carey advocates policy as experiment; if it turns out that one list falls into disuse, or that new system appears not to be working, then we can ditch it.   Carey sees us as Representative Assembly, we have raised motion in response to loud faculty complaints about use of email list, and it’s our responsibility to listen to our colleagues and act as representatives.

Warner sees motion as sensible solution, also advocates taking vote here.

Harvey asks Richard Blade if he will be setting up a front-page web server for threaded discussion. Harvey says if this is accomplished, then it accomplishes the spirit of the original email motion, which is to create a threaded discussion forum. Blade replies that he hopes to have that up in the future, but it's going to be a while before that happens, and that in the meantime this "faculty-d" list would be a temporary solution to at least get a start-up forum dedicated to discussion. Other members present agree that we should act on this motion for present, and perhaps in the future can move to a user-friendly graphical interface discussion forum.

Questions raised on whether we can vote this down and then take this to full-faculty vote? If we were going to take this to full faculty, there would have to be separate motion, which would then take precedence over motion that is currently on the table. No one offers such a motion.

Vote taken. 12 in favor. 1 opposed. Motion approved.


The Fac Assembly Budget Committee recommends that the university conduct a thorough analysis of the revenues and expenditures of all units on campus (colleges, departments, chancellor’s office, vice-chancellors’s office, etc.). Based on this analysis, the university will determine ways to reduce and eliminate the budget deficit which has been forecasted over the next several years. Further, the university will set a goal of substantially increasing the proportion of tuition and the general fund allocated to revenue generating instruction.

Friendly amendments proposed to clean up wording. As amended, motion reads: "Recommended, that the university conduct a thorough analysis of the revenues and expenditures of all units on campus (colleges, departments, chancellor’s office, vice-chancellors’s office, etc.), this analysis to determine ways to reduce and eliminate the budget deficit which has been forecasted over the next several years, and to substantially increase the proportion of tuition and the general fund allocated to revenue generating instruction."

Bob Carlson asks what is the intent of this motion? He understands wording but not intent. Zwirlein answers that departments and faculty members are concerned that operating budgets have remained static while some programs have grown substantially. LAS has run out of money to pay phone bill even while we have 2 more months to go in this school year. Thus, we have to look at programs that deliver revenue, and deliver resources to those areas.

Swartzendruber: part of this is to address where deficit is coming from, and if we’re going to cut how we’re going to do that. Also, budget book at beginning of year is not reflective of expenditures that actually take place, so it’s not clear at end of year what has actually been expended where.

Carlson: the motion is too condensed, represents too many ideas at once. Blade: meeting at which this motion occurred did not find us in agreement, so this motion represents the common denominator that seemed to exist between us. Probably everyone at meeting had a different idea of how to word such a motion.

Pierce notes that budget shortfall projected for next year is based on pro forma models, a number of assumptions that suggest that if all this does happen then there will be this budget deficit. Zwirlein replies that this may be true, but it’s clear that expenditures have outpaced revenues and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

Carlson: are we not conducting systematic surveys of expenditures at present, as called for in the motion? Pierce: we are not explicitly looking at reallocating revenues between units or to/from administration and academics.

Blade: VCAF McDaniel spent time last summer trying to figure out and discover what money goes where. Warner does not think the last line of this motion quite captures this. Zwirlein points out example: EXCEL labs are well liked, appear to provide all kinds of services, but don’t explicitly generate revenue (although it may generate some revenue through retention). Same might be said for a program like the freshman seminar program.

Carey: understands what Jim is trying to say with this motion. Campus theme is increase enrollment, but forget new faculty or more S and E budget. Olson: downsizing not focus on business any more, but rather strategic thinking, so downsizing is a poor model for us.

Pierce: costs are escalating faster than revenue if we stand still. If we just get 1.8% increase and marginal increase in tuition, then we must have increased enrollment to meet increased demands.. Also, there are pernicious side effects to these kinds of things—for example, incremental changes in enrollment leading to increased dollars has dangers in terms of colleges not wanting to let students take courses in other colleges, for fear of losing dollars.

There being no consensus on motion, and it being past time to adjourn, Blade agreed to withdraw the motion for present and have it reconsidered among committee members. Faculty Budget Committee, meanwhile, will work on clarifying and improving motion, and reintroduce it later.

Motion made and seconded to adjourn.

Submitted by Paul Harvey, Faculty Assembly Secretary