October 2026

UCCS Faculty Representative Assembly Meeting

Friday October 9, 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, 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: September 2026  Minutes 2026 

Motion: Norah Mazel

Second: Larry Eames

Approved. 

Reports

Jennifer Sonanet, Chancellor: James Ma, Provost’s Policy Fellow, Policy Development & Revisions Update; Robin Parent, Vice Chancellor of Strategic Initiatives and Chief of Staff; Linda Black, Interim Provost; Melinda Hagemann, Melinda Hagemann, Vice Chancellor for Advancement & Engagement & Erick Scheminske, Interim Vice Chancellor for Administration & Finance

Jennifer Sobanet, Chancellor

  • Retirement Announcement and Chancellor Search
  • The Chancellor confirmed that she will retire effective June 30.
  • She described her decision as exciting but bittersweet, expressing deep appreciation for UCCS and its community.
  • She characterized her time at UCCS as the pinnacle of her career and thanked colleagues for making it such a meaningful experience.
  • She emphasized that she will remain actively engaged for the next nine months and is not saying goodbye just yet.
  • President Solomon will lead the search for her successor:
    • He will meet individually with shared governance leaders on Tuesday.
    • He will also meet with campus and community stakeholders.
    • These conversations are intended to gather input about the qualities and priorities desired in the next Chancellor.
  • Impact on Leadership Searches

The Chancellor outlined adjustments to the university's leadership recruitment timeline:

  • Provost Search: The search will be slowed down so the incoming Chancellor can select the next Provost.
  • Vice Chancellor for EMSA Search: The process will be accelerated.
  • Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance (VCAF) Search: The process will also be accelerated.

The timing and details of these adjustments are still being determined.

  • State of the Campus and Strategic Vision
  • The Chancellor highlighted the successful State of the Campus event held Wednesday, noting the strong participation, videos, and overall engagement.
  • She presented a vision and clear call to action for moving UCCS forward.
  • She emphasized that this work will continue throughout her remaining time at the university and will ultimately be transitioned to the next Chancellor.
  • Creation of the Mountain Lion Momentum Team
  • A new Mountain Lion Momentum Team is being established.
  • The team’s formal charge is currently being developed, after which members will be identified.
  • Its primary responsibilities will be to:
    • Align initiatives and activities taking place across campus with the university's strategic vision and imperatives.
    • Bring people together to advance institutional priorities in a coordinated, comprehensive manner.
    • Establish accountability for progress and results.
  • Faculty Forum and Shared Governance Process
  • The Chancellor acknowledged and appreciated Emily's outreach regarding faculty interest in holding a faculty forum.
  • She explained that the university is approximately halfway through a system-office-sanctioned process involving shared governance leaders.
  • The process is focused on clarifying roles, improving communication, and streamlining shared governance structures and interactions.
  • She would prefer to allow this process to conclude before scheduling a separate faculty forum, at which point next steps can be determined.
  • She reiterated her interest in hearing faculty perspectives and encouraged faculty to raise questions through existing channels:
    • Executive Committee: Vice Chancellors meet with the Executive Committee at least once each semester, providing an opportunity to raise specific issues.
    • Emily: Faculty may also direct specific questions to Emily for consideration and follow-up.

Melinda Hagemann, Vice Chancellor for Advancement & Engagement

  • Mission and Scope of Advancement and Engagement
  • The office's mission is to advance UCCS through resource development, partnerships, outreach, and service in support of the university.
  • Its work helps the university accomplish things that might not otherwise be possible through traditional funding sources.
  • The office has a broad portfolio that includes:
    • Philanthropy and fundraising.
    • Alumni engagement and relations.
    • Government and community relations.
    • Executive events, including commencement.
    • Public-private partnerships.
  • UCCS has a particularly comprehensive Advancement and Engagement structure compared with other CU campuses.
  • Examples of its work include student scholarships, faculty engagement and presentations with alumni, and campus and community celebrations.
  • Fundraising Strategy and Donor Relationships
  • The office follows a donor-centric fundraising model, emphasizing intentional engagement with donors and being thoughtful about who is approached, for what purpose, and how frequently.
  • Approximately 35% of fundraising dollars come from a particular donor/foundation category discussed in the presentation. Melinda emphasized the importance of maintaining strong relationships with major institutional supporters, including the Al Kamar Foundation.
  • She noted that important foundation partners do not want to receive frequent, repetitive requests. Instead, they want to understand the university's priorities and how their support can make a meaningful difference.
  • The office is working to expand alumni participation in giving and, over time, increase the proportion of fundraising dollars represented by alumni contributions.
  • How Philanthropic Support Benefits the University

Melinda shared a breakdown of how philanthropic contributions are distributed across campus priorities.

Area of Support

Approximate Share

Scholarships and student support (combined)

60%

Research

10%

Program and departmental support

Approximately 9–10%

Key takeaway: Student success is the largest beneficiary of philanthropic support at UCCS, with approximately 60% of contributions directed toward scholarships and student initiatives.

Research represents a smaller portion of total philanthropic funding, while programmatic and departmental support also receive meaningful contributions.

  • Donor Behavior and Engagement
  • The office conducted a study examining donor behavior across four giving areas.
  • One of the key findings was that the strongest donors are not necessarily those who make the largest individual gifts; they are often those who give consistently and repeatedly.
  • Recurring engagement demonstrates a strong connection to the university and a sustained commitment to its mission.
  • The study examined the number of connected donor accounts and the frequency of giving.
  • Student support and scholarships have a particularly strong base of connected donors.
  • Research donors represent a smaller population, but those who give to research tend to be highly engaged and closely connected to the institution.
  • Melinda highlighted the relationship between meaningful engagement and philanthropic support: the more connected people feel to UCCS, the more likely they are to give.
  • Faculty and Staff Opportunities to Support Advancement

Melinda emphasized that faculty and staff play an important role in alumni engagement and fundraising. Faculty connections with former students are particularly valuable because they often helped shape alumni careers and experiences.

She identified several ways faculty can participate:

  • Engage alumni academically: Invite alumni to serve as guest speakers, participate in career panels, or review academic competitions.
  • Share faculty and student accomplishments: Highlight research, student success stories, and other noteworthy campus achievements.
  • Promote UCCS pride: Share positive stories and experiences that demonstrate the university's impact.
  • Contribute stories to alumni communications: The university distributes a regular alumni email newsletter during the academic year, typically on Mondays. Advancement welcomes faculty and alumni stories for newsletters and social media.
  • Identify potential donor connections: Faculty and staff often have relationships with individuals who may be interested in supporting the university.
  • Recognizing Opportunities for Philanthropy
  • Melinda encouraged faculty and staff to listen for comments that indicate a meaningful connection to UCCS.
  • For example, when a former student says that a particular class or faculty member fundamentally changed the trajectory of their career, that represents a valuable indication of the university's impact.
  • While such comments may not translate into immediate philanthropic support, they can signal a meaningful relationship that could develop over time.
  • Melinda emphasized that major gifts rarely happen by chance. There is generally a history of engagement, relationships, and meaningful experiences behind them.
  • Faculty and staff should share these types of insights with Advancement so the office can help identify opportunities and determine appropriate next steps.
  • Resources and Training
  • Advancement website: advancement.uccs.edu — a resource for questions and additional information.
  • The office has dedicated alumni relations and donor relations teams.
  • These teams provide regular training opportunities for faculty and staff.
  • A recent training addressed the appropriate use and expenditure of philanthropic gift funds, helping campus partners understand the requirements and responsibilities associated with donated resources.
  • Closing Message

Melinda closed by emphasizing that fundraising and engagement are genuine partnerships. Advancement cannot accomplish its work independently; its success depends on strong relationships and collaboration across the university.

She thanked faculty and staff for their contributions and encouraged them to reach out to Advancement whenever they identify opportunities to strengthen alumni relationships, share campus accomplishments, or connect potential supporters with the university.

  • Questions
  • If we are interested in dialogue about this, who should we contact in advancement? Answer - If you send to that centralized e-mail box, we can find the right person on our team.

James Ma, Provost’s Policy Fellow; Policy Development & Revisions Update

James Ma, the new Provost Policy Fellow, presented an updated process for the development, revision, review, and approval of UCCS academic and sponsored research policies and procedures. His presentation focused on improving version control, streamlining the review process, and creating a centralized online resource for tracking policy development.

  • Purpose and Rationale for the New Process

James identified two major problems with the university's existing policy development and review process:

  • Poor version control: Multiple individuals work on policy documents, often downloading and editing separate versions. This creates confusion about which document is current and requires someone to manually reconcile and merge changes.
  • Lengthy review and revision cycles: Policies can get caught in repeated rounds of review, disagreement, and revision. Different review groups may have conflicting comments, resulting in extended back-and-forth discussions and delays in completing policies.

The new process is intended to address these challenges by establishing a centralized, consistent, and transparent system.

  • Centralized SharePoint Policy Website

James has developed a centralized online resource through the Office of the Faculty Assembly (OFA) to provide information about policies and their development status.

The website is intended to serve as a single point of reference for:

  • Policy access: Finding existing policies and procedures, particularly academic policies and sponsored research policies (200- and 900-level policies).
  • Policy status tracking: Determining where a particular policy is in the development or review process.
  • Process guidance: Understanding how policy development and review work.
  • Roles and responsibilities: Identifying who is responsible for different stages of the process and whom to contact with questions.
  • Review guidance: Providing instructions and expectations for development teams and reviewers.

James encouraged faculty and staff to consult the website before directing policy-related questions to him. If a policy or relevant information is missing, users should let him know so it can be added.

  • Document Management and Version Control

A significant feature of the new system is the requirement that policy documents be edited exclusively online.

Key features include:

  • Documents must be edited using Word for the Web.
  • Downloading policy documents is disabled.
  • Users must work directly in the shared online document rather than creating separate offline copies.
  • When sharing documents with others, users must share the document link rather than downloading and emailing attachments.

The goal is to maintain one authoritative version of each policy document and eliminate confusion caused by multiple versions and manually merged edits.

  • Access and Authorization

James explained that access to policy documents will be controlled through designated leadership roles.

  • Individuals who receive a shared link will only be able to access the document if they have the appropriate permissions.
  • Access requests will be handled through designated chairs and leaders, such as:
    • Development Team Chairs.
    • Review Team Chairs.
    • Other designated committee or governance chairs.
  • James does not intend to respond to individual requests for access. Instead, the appropriate team chair or designated leader will determine whether access should be granted.

This approach is designed to ensure that policy documents are accessed by authorized participants and that the review process remains organized.

  • Policy Development and Review Workflow

James demonstrated the policy workflow and explained the different stages through which a policy moves.

  • The process includes multiple development and review steps.
  • Early stages involve a development team drafting and refining the policy.
  • The policy then moves through designated reviewing teams.
  • The process may involve movement back and forth between development and review as comments are addressed and revisions are made.
  • Step 8 represents the publication phase.

Once a policy reaches publication:

  • It is made available publicly on campus.
  • Responsibility transitions to the university Policy Office.
  • The Policy Office assumes ownership of the policy and manages its publication online.
  • Expected Timeline and Potential Delays

James emphasized that policy development and review can be lengthy, even with the new system.

  • Policies may spend considerable time in the early development and review stages.
  • Movement between Step 1 (Development Team) and Step 2 (Reviewing Teams) can be particularly time-consuming.
  • Some policies may take a year to a year and a half to move through the process.

The centralized website should help faculty and staff understand why a policy is taking time and identify where it is currently being reviewed.

  • How Faculty and Staff Can Access the System

James directed attendees to the Office of the Faculty Assembly website:

  • Website: OFA – UCCS
  • Look for the Policy Quick button to access the policy resource.
  • A QR code was also provided during the presentation.

Faculty and staff are encouraged to use the website to locate policies, monitor their progress, and understand the review process.

  • Questions: Where will policies open for 30-day campus review be posted? Why can't individual faculty members provide feedback directly? If significant concerns are raised during the 30-day review, how can they be addressed if the Faculty Assembly has already voted? Answer - The response clarified that faculty will have two opportunities to review policies and provide input before final publication:
  1. New Step 2.5 (between Steps 2 and 3): Faculty will have approximately one week to review the policy and vote. During this period, faculty can raise questions or concerns through their Faculty Assembly representatives.
  2. Step 6: Faculty will have another opportunity to review the policy and provide feedback later in the process. The presenter acknowledged that the concern about faculty input was valid and explained that the additional review opportunity at Step 2.5 is intended to provide broader faculty awareness and participation.
  3. Key takeaway: The process is being adjusted to provide faculty with two opportunities for input—one earlier in the process, before Step 3, and another at Step 6. The addition of Step 2.5 is intended to ensure faculty have an opportunity to review policies before the Faculty Assembly's subsequent consideration.
  • Question: Will EPUS retain its traditional role in bringing policy motions to the Faculty Assembly for endorsement, or will this responsibility move to the Provost's Office? I think it's important to maintain faculty governance and independence in this process. Answer – He is just making sure the document is flowing… still a bit vague on this answer… will need more

James concluded his presentation by demonstrating the new centralized policy portal and explaining how it will improve access to policy documents and visibility into the policy development process.

  • Centralized Policy Portal
  • Previously, there was no centralized portal for accessing policies or tracking their status.
  • Faculty had to contact James directly, who would locate the relevant email and send the policy as an attachment.
  • The new portal provides a centralized location where users can:
    • Access the list of university policies.
    • See the current development or review stage for each policy.
    • Locate relevant policy documents and links.
  • Access and Permissions
  • The portal itself should be accessible to everyone.
  • However, access to individual policy documents will depend on the user's authorization and assigned permissions.
  • Users may be able to see that a policy exists and identify its current stage but may not be able to open the document if they are not authorized to view it.
  • James plans to add individuals to appropriate access groups, including EPUS and other designated groups.
  • Document visibility will be limited according to each user's authorized role and responsibilities.
  • Role-Based Document Access
  • James demonstrated that, as the portal owner, he has access to all documents and information.
  • Other users will only see the portions of documents and materials they are authorized to access.
  • This approach is intended to maintain appropriate access controls while providing broader campus visibility into policy activity.

Linda Black, Interim Provost

  • Collaboration is central to her leadership approach. Dr. Black wants to build relationships through shared work and meaningful engagement.
  • Improving communication is an identified priority. She recognizes a need for stronger communication between the Provost's Office, faculty, and shared governance groups.
  • Faculty engagement is encouraged. She is open to conversations with faculty in both small and large groups.
  • This is the beginning of an ongoing dialogue. She views this introduction as the start of continued engagement rather than a one-time opportunity to meet faculty. 
  • Overall message: Dr. Black is signaling a collaborative and relationship-oriented leadership approach, with a particular commitment to improving communication and strengthening the relationship between the Provost's Office and faculty governance.
  • Questions: How will you build faculty trust and demonstrate accountability during this period of significant institutional change, particularly as someone new to UCCS? Answer – 
  • Trust Must Be Earned
  • She emphasized that trust is not automatic; it must be earned through her actions and responses.
  • Faculty will judge her by whether she responds clearly, communicates openly, and remains accessible to questions and concerns.
  • She welcomes conversations both online and in person. She is generally on campus Tuesdays and Wednesdays.
  • Relevant Experience with Institutional Change
  • She has worked at two universities that experienced significant challenges, including reductions in force and program closures.
  • She has experienced these situations from both administrative and faculty perspectives.
  • She understands the anxiety and disruption that accompany difficult institutional decisions.
  • Listening and Collaboration
  • With a professional background in counseling, she values deep listening and understanding multiple perspectives.
  • She acknowledged that UCCS has experienced a tumultuous period and emphasized the importance of recognizing that history as the university moves forward.
  • She described herself as someone who works collaboratively, actively seeks input, and asks questions to understand different viewpoints before making decisions.
  • Accountability and Shared Governance
  • She believes in accountability—not only for herself and the Provost's Office but also across other areas of campus.
  • She specifically referenced her engagement with the Faculty Assembly and other shared governance groups.
  • When considering an action or decision, she wants to understand:
    • Who needs to be involved in the discussion?
    • Whose perspectives are being represented?
    • Whose voices may be missing from the conversation?
  • Commitment to Faculty Engagement
  • She shared that she has been impressed by the willingness of faculty and staff to speak directly with her during her first two weeks.
  • She values direct communication and wants to maintain those relationships.
  • She also brings 11 years of experience as an Associate Provost at the University of Northern Colorado.
  • Anonymous Comment: Shared that she had the opportunity to work briefly with Dr. Linda Black at the University of Northern Colorado during the transition involving Chancellor Feinstein.
  • Expressed confidence in Dr. Black based on how she navigated that challenging period, which involved significant anxiety, stress, and financial pressures.
  • Thanked Dr. Black for stepping into the interim Provost role during a difficult time for UCCS.
  • Described the faculty as engaged and connected to the campus community.
  • Offered faculty support and encouraged Dr. Black to communicate what she needs from them.
  • Acknowledged that institutional uncertainty and change can be unsettling for faculty, students, and staff.
  • Wants to better understand faculty experiences and perspectives by holding small-group meetings, informally over coffee, to hear directly from a broader range of faculty.
  • Explained that while the Faculty Assembly provides important representation, some faculty voices may not always be reflected through formal governance structures.
  • Recognized the importance of being physically present on campus at critical points, despite personal family circumstances that sometimes require her to work remotely.
  • Emphasized that the work ahead requires broad campus participation and collaboration.
  • Plans to build on what is working while constructively challenging practices that are not working.
  • Acknowledged that decisions may not satisfy everyone but wants to seek solutions that work for as many people as possible.
  • Anonymous Question: How do you feel about the proposed motion to pause discontinuous efforts while so many interim leaders are in place? Answer - Response to the Proposed Motion to Pause Discontinuation Efforts
  • Acknowledged faculty concerns: Recognized that having many interim leaders and uncertainty around program changes can be unsettling. She understands why faculty may be proposing a pause.
  • Explained the process already underway: The review began around mid-spring under Interim Provost Kevin Laudner. Deans worked with their colleges through the summer and September to evaluate programs. Their recommendations were submitted to the Provost’s Office the day before the meeting.
  • Outlined the next steps:
    • Review the deans’ recommendations over the weekend.
    • Send follow-up questions to deans early the following week.
    • By October 16, summarize the findings and provide a recommendation to Jennifer.
    • Jennifer will decide which programs, if any, should move forward for discontinuation.
    • Any programs selected will follow the applicable policy, including a 90-day review period with a committee representing Faculty Assembly and the colleges.
  • Emphasized that the review is broader than discontinuation: The process should also identify programs that could be revitalized, restructured, or combined with others.
  • Committed to better communication: A website is being developed to provide the process history, key milestones, policies, decisions, and regular updates. A campus-wide communication was anticipated around October 19.
  • Asked faculty for time: She acknowledged that she is still reviewing the information and does not yet know the number or scope of programs potentially affected. She asked for time to complete the review and communicate the findings before pausing the process.
  • Respected faculty governance: Stated that Faculty Assembly should take whatever action it believes is necessary and described it as an important part of campus governance. She remains open to further discussion.
  • Question: Where will the program discontinuation tracking website be located within the UCCS website, and what information will it include? Answer – 
  • Location: The website will initially be hosted on the UCCS Provost website.
  • Public access: It will be publicly accessible to promote transparency and keep the campus community informed.
  • Management: The Provost’s Office will initially host and maintain the site, coordinating with University Communications.
  • Review committee access: Additional access will be needed for the committee overseeing the 90-day review process so members can view and respond to comments submitted during the 30-day comment period.
  • Committee preparation: Dr. Black wants to identify Faculty Assembly and college representatives in advance so the committee can begin its work promptly once the Chancellor confirms which programs will move forward for discontinuation.
  • Open to suggestions: She is willing to consider other locations or approaches, provided information is shared promptly and those responsible for updates have appropriate access.

Question: If the Faculty Assembly passes a resolution to pause program discontinuations, while allowing restructuring to continue, how much impact would that resolution have on the process already underway? Answer - Dr. Black declined to predict whether a Faculty Assembly resolution to pause program discontinuations would affect the process already underway. Emphasized that the decision to pass or not pass the resolution belongs to the faculty. Reaffirmed her commitment to an open and transparent process, stating that faculty should have access to all relevant information because it is their university as well. Acknowledged that she was deliberately avoiding a direct answer, explaining that she did not feel it was her place to judge the resolution’s potential impact.

  • Invitation for further Communication
  • Encouraged faculty to email her with additional questions, thoughts, or concerns.
  • Shared her email address: lblack5@uccs.edu.
  • Emphasized that she is open to hearing faculty perspectives and continuing the dialogue.

Officer Reports

Emily Mooney, Executive Committee Chair

  • A request was made for a campus presentation to provide more details about the Chancellor’s response to the Faculty Assembly’s vote of no confidence. The request was declined, and the decision was to continue with the existing process.
  • The shared governance process is intended to clarify leadership roles and improve communication. However, Emily has temporarily paused her participation in submitting the AI-generated review documents because of questions about compliance with university AI policy and upcoming state legislation.
  • Question: Whether the same AI policy concerns should apply to program review and restructuring decisions, particularly if deans used AI to prepare their recommendations. Calling for clarity and consistency about acceptable AI use in high-impact decisions. Answer - That's definitely a consideration for sure, that the state bill 189. That's the terms I understand. That's something that we need to kind of keep an eye on. Emily clarified that her main concern is not simply that AI was used, but how it was used and whether that use was properly acknowledged. The shared governance documents were reportedly created with AI assistance, but the specific methods and prompts were not clearly explained. The documents themselves did not include an acknowledgment that AI had been used. Referring to APS 612, Emily stated that, at a minimum, AI use should be disclosed and acknowledged. She emphasized that she is not an expert on the policy but believes transparency is essential.
  • She also noted that Jennifer had announced Todd would be on campus the following week.
  • Emily, Jeremy, and David are coordinating a meeting with Todd and have been gathering input from faculty and members of the Executive Committee about topics and concerns to raise.
  • Faculty are seeking clear, practical guidance on how AI policies and HB 189 affect their work, particularly high-impact decisions, faculty evaluations, FCQs, and contract-related matters. Emily acknowledged these concerns and agreed that they should be addressed in the forthcoming CU Faculty Council AI guidance.

David Havlick, Past Chair

  • Nothing to report

Jeremy Bono, Chair-Elect

  • Nothing to report

Committee Reports 

  • Committee on Educational Policy and University Standards
  • Committee on Personnel & Benefits
  • Faculty Advisory Committee on the Budget
  • Committee on Disability
  • Committee on Misconduct in Research, Scholarship & Creative Activities
  • Committee on Research
  • Educational Policy & University Standards Committee
  • Faculty Assembly Committee on Teaching
  • Faculty Assembly Women's Committee – 
  • FAWC is looking for new members to join as voting members or members of the advisory committee. Next meeting is 11/13 at 10:00am. Contact Stephanie Gangemi, sgangemi@uccs.edu
  • FAWC Annual Fall Brunch is scheduled for Friday, October 30th, from 11-1 in UC303. Join us!
  • Mini-Grant Call for proposals will be sent out in late October.
  • Faculty Assembly Grievance Committee
  • Faculty Equity & Inclusion Committee 
  • Instructional, Research, & Clinical Faculty Committee
  • Intercollegiate Athletics
  • PRIDE  
  • Sustainability Committee 

New Business

  • Motion #1—FAWC, PRIDE, FEIC – Discuss Resolution to Pause Program Discontinuance  
  • Motion – Jennifer Kling

  • Seconded – Larry Eames

    Jennifer explained the purpose and reasoning behind the resolution:

  • Broad faculty support: The resolution was developed based on conversations with faculty and ongoing Faculty Assembly discussions. It was brought forward with support from FAWC, FEIC, PRIDE, and the Faculty Assembly Grievance Committee, which had also voted to support it.
  • Not intended to block change: Jennifer emphasized that the resolution was not meant to stonewall or prevent all program changes. Its focus was on the timing of major decisions.
  • Concerns about interim leadership: She argued that significant decisions about program discontinuations should not be made while much of the university's leadership is interim and the Chancellor has announced her departure at the end of the year.
  • Need for accountability and stable leadership: She expressed concern that decisions made during this period could lack sufficient long-term accountability.
  • Protecting faculty and institutional values: The resolution aims to ensure that major decisions are made with stable leadership and appropriate protections for:
    • Shared governance and meaningful faculty participation.
    • Academic freedom.
    • Vulnerable members of the university community, particularly faculty and staff without tenure protections.

What the resolution requests:

The resolution calls for a pause in program discontinuations until permanent university leadership is in place, allowing major decisions to be made with greater stability and safeguards for shared governance, academic freedom, and vulnerable members of the campus community.

  • Question: What do you think about how the Provost just responded to this? i.e. I’ll consider it, maybe. Answer - Jennifer believes passing the resolution is important even if it does not stop program discontinuations. It creates an official record of faculty opposition, demonstrates collective concern, and gives faculty a stronger platform to challenge administrative decisions and ask difficult questions about the rationale behind program discontinuations.
  • Question: Could the resolution be more specific about which leadership positions need to be permanently filled before program discontinuation decisions move forward, particularly the deans? Answer - The resolution specifies that the Provost and VCAF should be permanent appointments at a minimum, with most or all deans ideally permanent as well. The language was intentionally left somewhat flexible because faculty committees could not agree on requiring all leadership positions to be permanently filled. However, this flexibility also makes it harder to determine exactly when the leadership requirement has been met.

Question: Since the resolution requires leadership positions to be filled through normal procedures, would appointing the next Chancellor in the same way the current Chancellor was appointed qualify as a normal process? Answer - Jennifer clarified that the appointment of the next Chancellor through a process like the current Chancellor’s would not be considered a normal appointment process. She explained that the resolution intentionally includes the phrase “through normal procedures” to emphasize that established university hiring processes should be followed when selecting leaders responsible for making major institutional decisions.

VOTE – Yes, motion passed.

 

  • Vote #1—Resolution to Pause Program Discontinuance  
  • Do you vote to approve the resolution to pause program discontinuance?
  • Motion – Larry Eames

  • Seconded – Norah Mazel

     

    VOTE - Yes, passed. 

  • Motion #2— Motion to table edits on FA Bylaws to next month
  • A motion to table edits on FA Bylaws to next month to make sure it is done correctly and most accurately. 
  • Motion – Larry Eames
  • Seconded – Norah Mazel

  • Also, yes, consensus from online folks as well. 

     

    VOTE – Yes, motion passed. 

  • Vote #2—Larry Eames-Approval to join CU Faculty Council – Member at Large

  • Do you vote to approve Larry Eames to join CU Faculty Council?

     

    VOTE – Yes, passed. 

  • Discussion #1—Credit for Prior Learning Update – David Weiss & Andrew Czaplewski
  • Discussion – David Weiss, faculty member in Chemistry and Biochemistry and returning chair of the Faculty Assembly Committee on Teaching, provided an update on the proposed Credit for Prior Learning (CPL) policy. He explained that the policy has been under development for several years, with input from faculty committees, deans, and the Provost’s Office. Although the deans and EPUS have approved the current version, the Faculty Assembly Committee on Teaching continues to have concerns and is requesting targeted clarifications before supporting it.
  • Proposed credit limits

The current policy, approved by the deans and EPUS, includes these limits:

  • Undergraduate degrees: Up to 75% of the degree may consist of combined credit for prior learning and transfer credit.
  • Graduate degrees: Up to 50% may consist of combined credit for prior learning and transfer credit.
  • Transfer credit: No more than 30% may come from other institutions toward a graduate degree.
  • Faculty concerns and requested clarifications
  • The Faculty Assembly Committee on Teaching identified five main concerns:
  • Demonstrated learning, not just experience: Students should not receive academic credit simply because they have relevant work or life experience. They should provide independently verifiable evidence and demonstrate that their learning meets course learning outcomes and academic standards.
  • Faculty authority over eligible courses: Departments and programs should have the authority to determine which courses are eligible for CPL, what assessment methods are appropriate, and whether a student's demonstrated learning warrants credit. Faculty are concerned that the current language could imply that every course must be available for prior learning credit.
  • Clear limits and academic standards: The policy should clarify how CPL and transfer credits interact and explicitly allow departments and programs to establish lower credit limits and more rigorous academic requirements when appropriate.
  • Workload and actual student demand: Faculty are uncertain how many students will use the process. Some departments anticipate very few requests, while evaluating applications could create significant additional work. One department reported only one request in 40 years.
  • Administrative support and faculty compensation: The university should establish centralized administrative coordination rather than placing the entire burden on individual faculty and departments. Faculty also want appropriate resources, compensation, or workload recognition for the evaluation work.
  • What the committee is requesting
  • David has shared the committee's concerns with the policy lead, David Moon.
  • The committee is seeking targeted changes and clarifications that would address faculty concerns.
  • The committee is not asking to change the proposed 75% undergraduate credit limit or the other established percentages.
  • Its primary concern is ensuring that faculty retain academic authority and that the policy does not create unreasonable or unsupported workload expectations.
  • Key takeaway: The Faculty Assembly Committee on Teaching is not opposing Credit for Prior Learning itself or asking to change the proposed credit percentages. It wants clearer protections for academic standards, faculty control over which courses qualify, departmental flexibility, centralized administrative support, and recognition of the additional workload required to evaluate students' prior learning.
  • Discussion Question: Has the university considered how the Credit for Prior Learning policy connects with broader initiatives such as concurrent enrollment, dual enrollment, and three-year degree programs? As these options become more prominent in enrollment and cost-saving strategies, do you expect demand for prior learning credit to increase, and has that possibility been factored into the policy? Answer – David Moon may have to clarify as David Weiss  was not involved in writing the policy and was responding from the faculty committee’s perspective.
  • Faculty are concerned about how much additional work the policy could create, particularly if they must evaluate whether students’ prior experience qualifies for course credit.
  • There is concern that the policy could be promoted as an enrollment or cost-saving strategy, potentially allowing students to earn substantial credit without taking UCCS courses.
  • Faculty have observed that some students are already enrolled at UCCS but are requesting credit for courses they have not demonstrated they can replace through prior learning.
  • The committee wants data on how many students are likely to request this credit before faculty take on potentially significant assessment work.
  • Key takeaway: Faculty are asking for evidence of likely student demand and a clearer understanding of the workload before implementing a policy that could shift substantial evaluation responsibilities onto departments.
  • Motion to Adjourn

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

  • Next meeting: Friday, November 13, 2026, 12:00-2:00 pm in Hyflex Format; Dwire 103 or MS Teams