September 2026

UCCS Faculty Representative Assembly Meeting

Friday September 11, 2026

Attendance:  Emily Mooney (chair), David Havlick (past chair), Jeremy Bono (incoming chair), Kylie Rogalla (secretary), Roxy Rosenthal (notetaker), Laura Austin-Eurich, Suzanne Cook, Dylan Harris, Evan Taparata, Jennifer Kling, Jennifer Zohn, Larry Eames, Karin Larkin, Rhonda Glazier, Joseph Lee, Douglas Risser, David Anderson, Catherine Simmons, Rosely Conz, Norah Mazel, Gabriela Martinez Mercier, Todd Endres, Birgitta de Pree, Shujia Mei, Daniel DeCelles, Rebecca Green, Stefanie Ungstad, Christina Jimenez, Brynn Adamson, Brandon Vogt, Martin Key, Katherine Cliff, Eric Billmeyer, Allen Westcott, Raphael Sassower, Mike Larkin, Kevin Laudner, Shannon Michaux, Elise Naughton, Jacqueline Berning, Laurel Bidwell, Lauren Nelsen, Stephanie Gangemi, Allen Schoffstall, Brynn Adamson, Tae Park, Grant Clayton, Darshika G Perera, Erick Scheminske, Gordon Stringer, John Barnett

Call to Order / Approval of Minutes 

Motion to Approve: May 2026 Minutes 

Motion: Jennifer Kling 

Second: Norah Mazel

Approved. 

Report/Open Q&A Panel Conversation

Jennifer Sobanet, Chancellor, & Erick Scheminske Interim Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance, & Jon Caudill, Interim Vice Chancellor for Enrollment Management & Student Affairs, & Robin Parent, Vice Chancellor of Strategic Initiatives and Chief of Staff 

Jennifer Sobanet, Chancellor

  • Leadership Present
  • Introduced the senior leaders present:

Jon Caudill — Interim Vice Chancellor for Enrollment Management and Student Affairs

Robin Parent — Vice Chancellor of Strategic Initiatives and Chief of Staff

Erick Scheminske — Interim Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance

 

  • Campus Update
  • Strong energy across campus at the start of the academic year, citing:
    • New and returning students
    • Move-in activities
    • New faculty orientation
    • Disorientation Week
    • The ribbon-cutting for the new Air Force ROTC
  • The Chancellor acknowledged the September 11 commemoration, including a memorial walk.
  • Air Force ROTC cadets placed flags along the campus spine, with Army ROTC cadets scheduled to remove them later that day.
  • The commemoration marked 25 years since the tragedy and brought members of the campus community together.

 

  • Follow-Up to May Vote of No Confidence and Shared Governance
  • Referenced the June UCCS News article containing statements from President Solomon and Board of Regents Chair Ken Montera, as well as coverage in The Gazette.
  • Spent the summer engaging with shared-governance leaders.
  • She thanked Jennifer and Dylan for meeting with her and said the discussions identified a shared priority of minimizing the effects of the university's financial situation on its people.
  • The discussions also focused on opportunities to generate revenue and support the university's mission.

 

  • Facilitated Shared-Governance Conversations
  • The university launched a facilitated conversation process during the summer.
  • Kate Beatty, from the Center for Creative Leadership, was engaged to facilitate the process. The Chancellor described Beatty as a former community executive and executive coach.
  • The process began with interviews involving both outgoing and incoming shared-governance leaders.
  • The information from those interviews was compiled and aggregated and used for the first group meeting in August.
  • Additional meetings are planned.
  • Key topics identified through the process include:
    • Clarifying roles and responsibilities
    • Defining responsibilities among shared-governance leaders and the ELT, SLT, ULT, and UBAC
    • Improving communication across these groups
  • Thanked David and Emily for the substantial time they devoted to the process during the summer.
  • She also recognized the participation of the Staff Council and Student Government Association.

 

  • Provost Search
  • UCCS will launch a national search for a provost beginning in the fall.
  • The goal is to have the new provost named by April 2027.
  • Leadership considered conducting a faster search for a January start, but decided that would be too rushed.
  • Instead, the university plans to conduct a full, approximately year-long search designed to develop a broad candidate pool.
  • UCCS will use a national search firm because the HR team has become smaller and has less capacity, they want to prioritize this search and invest in a national search firm to support a deeper candidate pool and a thorough process.

 

  • Interim Provost search
  • Thanked the interim-provost search committee for the substantial time members devoted to the process over the summer.
  • Candidates were brought to campus for consideration. One candidate withdrew immediately before the campus visit, and another candidate who received positive feedback ultimately declined the offer.
  • Faculty members who served on the search committee included:
    • David Havlick
    • Grant Clayton
    • Hillary Fouts
    • Ella Gibson
    • Chris Malec
    • Dan Olson
    • Larry Plummer
    • Jen Poe
  • Continuing the interim-provost process in consultation with Emily, shared-governance leaders, the deans, and the Executive Leadership Team.
  • Hoped to have information about a potential candidate and possibly bring a candidate to campus as early as the following week.
  • Appreciation Kevin Laudner, who has been serving as interim provost, noted that neither she nor Laudner had anticipated that his interim service would extend for as long as it has.
  • Thanked him for his continued service and asked faculty to express their appreciation to him.

 

  • Enrollment Updates
  • Enrollment remained 1.9% down from the preceding figure referenced in the presentation.
  • Emphasized that this represented a significant improvement compared with the university's position approximately eight weeks earlier, which attributed the improvement to the collective efforts of the university community, including outreach to returning students.

 

  • Budget and Financial Planning
  • Reiterated that enrollment directly affects the university's budget because lower enrollment results in reduced revenue.
  • UCCS is therefore moving forward with:
    • Reorganization and restructuring
    • Program review
    • Increased investment in some areas and reduced investment in others
  • The university has launched a targeted voluntary retirement incentive program, since faculty had requested such an option during the previous semester.
  • During the summer, worked with the CU System Office, which is providing financial support and assistance with the legal framework for the program.
  • The retirement incentive process began September 1.

  • After assessing the financial impact of the program, the university will determine what additional measures may be needed to balance the budget.

     

  • Revenue Growth and Potential Reductions
  • Emphasized that the university is pursuing both:
    • Revenue-generating opportunities
    • Expense reductions
  • Stressed the importance of identifying opportunities for growth because increased revenue could help UCCS address its financial situation.
  • If sufficient revenue is not generated, the university may need to consider:
    • Reductions
    • Consolidations
    • Potential discontinuation of programs
    • Both academic and non-academic programs

 

  • Planning for the Future of UCCS
  • The university needs to maintain a sense of hope and focus on its future mission and students.
  • Announced the creation of a working group to develop concrete strategies and action steps for “the UCCS of the future.”
  • Bret Amundson will lead the working group.
  • The goal is to move beyond defining a vision and identify the specific actions needed to implement it.
  • Additional announcements are expected at the October 7 State of the Campus at the Ent Center.
  • The campus and community State of the Campus updates will be combined into one event.

 

Jon Caudill, Interim Vice Chancellor for Enrollment Management & Student Affairs

  • Overall enrollment
  • Current enrollment is 3.9% below last fall. 
  • The university had budgeted for a 2% decline, so it is currently 1.9 percentage points below the enrollment target. 
  • However, the cycle initially started at approximately 19% below target, indicating significant improvement over time. 
  • Two distinct enrollment trends, with a noticeable shift around week 12, which he believes may be related to the university’s coordinated efforts to improve enrollment. 

 

  • Recognition of faculty/staff efforts
  • Thanked faculty and staff who worked during the summer to support enrollment, particularly those on nine-month contracts who were not required to work during that period. 
  • Noted that faculty involvement with students can also support recruitment and retention, including developing relationships with potential TAs, RAs, and GAs.
  • Plans to work with Faculty Assembly and the Provost’s Office to explore ways to recognize people who contributed to the enrollment effort. 
  • Cautioned that the current data demonstrates correlation, not causation, but said the differences in enrollment trends are significant enough to warrant attention. 

 

  • New student enrollment is generally strong
    Compared with the previous year:
  • First-time freshmen: +0.96% 
  • Transfers: +3.81% 
  • Master’s students: +8.09% 
  • Graduate certificates/licensures: +1.82% 
  • Doctoral students: +33% (from 33 to 44 students, so a small base but meaningful increase) 

  • Total new students: +1.88%

     

  • Primary enrollment problem: continuing and stop-out students
  • The major losses are among continuing students and stop-out students—students who stopped attending for a semester, potentially because of academic probation or other circumstances.
  • After identifying the problem shortly after July 4, the university began surveying these students to understand why they were not returning. 
  • Students could select from roughly 18 reasons, and their responses were routed to the appropriate campus office, such as Financial Aid, Dean of Students, Wellness, or Academic Advising. 
  • Financial/economic challenges appear to be a significant factor, although the university has limited ability to address some of those issues through additional financial aid. 
  • Emphasized that once the university accepts a student, it has made a commitment to that student and needs to find ways to help them remain enrolled and fulfill that promise.

 

  • Enrollment by college
  • Business: +5.73% 
  • Letters, Arts & Sciences: −9.94% 
  • Education: +0.33% 
  • Engineering: +0.06% 
  • Nursing & Health Sciences: +3.66% 
  • Public Service: +0.77%
  • Clarified that while student headcount is important, the metric that most directly drives the university’s General Fund budget for many units is Student Credit Hours (SCHs).
  • For many people in the room, SCHs—not simply the number of students—are the key budget driver. 
  • Having students on campus matters in many ways, but when evaluating the General Fund specifically, the university focuses heavily on the credit hours students generate.
  •  The trend in SCH follows similarly to the headcount.

 

  • Next phase of enrollment work, shifting from responding to the current cycle to identifying and fixing problems before the next fall enrollment cycle.

 

  • Move from reaction to strategy
  • The university will identify both short-term fixes (“quick wins”) and long-term strategies to improve enrollment. 
  • The focus will be on understanding the student experience and identifying points where students encounter unnecessary barriers. 

 

  • Student Experience Committee
  • Dr. Wendy Klaus, Chief Enrollment Officer, has been asked to lead the EMSA Student Experience Committee. 
  • The committee will examine where students experience “hiccups and hurdles,” such as difficulties accessing academic advising or getting timely assistance.
  • Faculty and staff may be contacted to provide input. 
  • Immediate changes are already underway
  • Orientation and Academic Affairs have been combined into a one-stop process.
  • The goal is for students who attend orientation to leave as enrolled students, addressing the previous problem of students completing orientation but failing to enroll. 
  • Additional problem areas will be identified and incorporated into an action plan. 

 

  • Financial aid strategy
  • The university is reviewing how effectively its financial aid supports recruitment.
  • Approximately 70% of the university's financial aid is merit-based, while 30% is need-based.
  • The university is evaluating whether that mix aligns with the students it is trying to recruit and whether financial aid is being used as effectively as possible. 

 

  • New enrollment faculty fellow
  • Dr. Grant Clayton from the College of Education has been appointed the first enrollment faculty fellow for EMSA. 
  • His expertise includes student retention, retention programs, and evaluation. 
  • The position is being funded through one-time funds previously provided for marketing and recruitment, emphasized that it will not create an ongoing hit to the university's budget. 

 

  • Weekly “strike force” meetings
  • Since shortly after July 4, enrollment management staff, deans, and associate deans have been meeting regularly to address tactical enrollment problems. 
  • These meetings focused on issues that could be identified and fixed week by week.
  • Would like to continue this approach. 
  • A final meeting with the deans is planned to gather feedback on what should happen going forward. 
  • Faculty and staff interested in participating should connect with their dean or associate dean.

 

Discussion - Comments/Questions

  • Anonymous Question: As far as the interim time lines go, will those searches begin before we have a provost in place? Like, will they coincide with the search for the provost or not?
  • Jennifer Sobanet - Answer: I don't know the answer to yet… I think we need to think that through with what. Once we get an interim provost, what we want to do with that, if we want to wait a year, I haven't talked to anybody about that. I don't have any direct line of sight yet about what to do. But it's a possibility it could happen. It's not a definitive no or definitive yes. 

 

  • Anonymous Question: How will the waiting and changes in provost leadership affect the PRC (Position Review Committee) process, particularly the review and approval of faculty positions? 
  • Answer: There should be no delays or changes to the faculty hiring approval process through the PRC (Position Review Committee) as a result of the change in provost leadership. Looking at them very strictly like they always have. If you are experiencing delays let Kevin Laudner or your dean know.

 

  • Anonymous Question: Will the university provide an updated three-year enrollment and budget plan considering the current enrollment figures?
  • Answer: Erick - An updated three-year plan is forthcoming, but leadership needs time to assess the latest enrollment data and its financial implications. Although the university faces significant budget challenges, faculty and staff are encouraged to contribute to student success and enrollment retention while the plan is being finalized. 
  • Follow up question: So much of the emphasis was on enrollment and I wonder if there's a way at this stage to just be more specific about retention and in the plan so that we can see the numbers and work towards it more explicitly?
  • Answer: Jon - The university is continuing to move forward with its Strategic Enrollment Plan, with a stronger emphasis on early student engagement, persistence, and a supportive campus culture. Retention is viewed as an ongoing commitment that begins at acceptance, not simply after students start attending classes. Answer: Jennifer - The university needs a common understanding of enrollment while prioritizing retention, persistence, and graduation as core parts of its mission. Financial benefits are a positive outcome, but the primary goal is to help students successfully achieve their educational aspirations.
  • Anonymous Comment: The speaker is concerned that uncertainty surrounding academic program discontinuations may negatively affect student confidence and retention. They are advocating for greater communication about the Student Experience Committee’s findings and careful consideration of how program-related decisions are communicated to students.
  • Discussion: Jon - The university recognizes that students’ perceptions of stability and access to academic opportunities matter for retention. He is committed to involving faculty and staff in the Student Experience Committee’s work and sharing its findings more broadly, even with those unable to participate.
  • Anonymous Question: How closely ISA (Institutional Student Achievement) works with the VCAS (Vice Chancellor for Administrative Services) office to improve financial transparency and access to revenue information across academic units, particularly within the College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences (LAS)? The lack of accessible, understandable financial data makes it difficult for academic units to assess their revenue generation and plan strategically. The speaker is seeking greater collaboration, transparency, and simpler reporting methods to support informed budgeting and decision-making.
  • Answer: Jon - EMSA, Academic Affairs, and the BCAS Office are collaborating closely on enrollment and budget planning, with strong coordination underway since June 1. Cross-campus collaboration is active, and the teams are working to finalize enrollment and budget figures, though the complexity of tuition calculations means the process is still underway. Answer: Erick - Acknowledged that he is still new to the role, but identifying how student credit hours translate into revenue is an early priority. He discussed the issue with the dean the previous day and emphasized that, the calculations are complex, accurate data is essential, decisions have broad consequences, and transparency matters. 

Officer Reports
Emily Mooney, Executive Committee Chair

  • Thanked faculty and staff for stepping up to fill vacant leadership positions and provide representation for UCCS at the system level. She expressed appreciation for their willingness to serve and specifically recognized Norah for volunteering and expressing interest in taking on a system-level role.

  • Two additional initiatives underway at the system level: AI group: A system-wide group focused on artificial intelligence. Collective bargaining group: A system-level group addressing collective bargaining matters. Dylan is expected to provide an update on this group later in the meeting, potentially in November.

  • Clarified that the system-level discussions are currently focused on learning about each campus’s needs and understanding the different approaches being taken.

  • Information gathering: The current goal is to understand campus-specific needs and perspectives.

  • No predetermined direction: No specific approach or outcome has been decided at this stage.

  • Gradual progress: The process is moving forward slowly and deliberately.

  • Faculty communication: Faculty who have questions can be reassured that the discussions are exploratory and focused on gathering information.

  • Faculty Assembly website is significantly out of date; is working to update it.

  • Committee membership: Committee chairs are being asked to provide current lists of members so the website can be updated.

  • Filling vacancies: Identifying open committee positions will help the university recruit volunteers and fill vacancies.

  • The process of meeting individuals being recruited for the interim provost role, clarifying that they should not necessarily be described as formal candidates, since the process does not appear to be a traditional open search.

  • Faculty input: Faculty and the Faculty Assembly Executive Committee were asked to gather questions from their representatives and constituents. Emily thanked everyone who submitted questions through the form.

  • Meeting with Dr. Beer: Dr. Beer, the interim provost, met with faculty representatives. Emily and others described some of his responses as unexpected and concerning, prompting further questions about the process and the interaction.

  • Next recruit: The Chancellor indicated that another person being considered for the role would visit campus the following week.

  • Open campus forum: Emily has advocated for an open forum so the campus community can engage directly with the next recruit, although the schedule had not yet been confirmed.

  • Faculty and staff participation: Faculty may have another opportunity to ask questions, but the meeting may be shared with staff. Emily expressed concern that combining the groups could limit faculty discussion, since faculty and staff may have different responsibilities and concerns.

  • Follow-up: Emily invited faculty to submit additional questions and offered to report back on the responses if direct opportunities to meet with the recruit are limited.

  • The interim provost recruitment process is still developing, and Emily is advocating for faculty input, greater transparency, and an open campus forum while working within the process currently being used.

  • Anonymous Question: Is an open campus forum for the next provost recruit being advocated for, but not yet confirmed? Answer: Emily confirmed that this is correct.

  • Follow up question: If no open forum is arranged and questions are collected through a survey, can faculty submit more than one question? Answer: If no open forum is arranged and questions are collected through a survey, can faculty submit more than one question?

  • Anonymous Questions: Do we know who the recruit is? Has that been announced?

  • Clarified that the next person being recruited for the provost role has not yet been publicly announced. She was unsure whether she could share further details, but indicated that the individual is currently serving in a role in Colorado.

  • Anonymous Follow up Question: Why is UCCS continuing to recruit interim provosts instead of conducting a public search for a permanent provost, potentially saving time and resources while providing greater transparency?

  • Answer: Suggests that conducting a nationwide search at the usual time might attract a broader pool of qualified candidates.

  • Broader candidate pool: A nationwide search conducted on a normal timeline may provide more opportunities to identify potential candidates.

  • Repeated searches: The speaker expresses frustration that the university seems to be repeatedly going through interim leadership recruitment.

  • Long-term planning: The concern is that recurring interim appointments may delay the process of finding stable, permanent leadership.

  • Structural thing? Can’t get around it entirely…

  • Anonymous Question/Discussion: If the current recruit is selected to serve as interim provost, when is the person expected to begin the role? The reason it is being asked is because the timing of the interim appointment matters because major academic decisions may be underway, and faculty want clarity about who will represent their interests and how those decisions will be handled. - Agreed

  • Anonymous Comment: Concerned that repeated unsuccessful searches and frequent provost turnover create instability, and questions whether national searches are attracting candidates genuinely interested in long-term leadership at UCCS.

  • Anonymous Comment: Concerned about the lack of internal interim leadership options, the reliance on external leadership, and the potential impact on faculty representation and academic programs during a period of institutional uncertainty.

  • Anonymous Comment back… The speaker questions why someone would take an interim or is already internal role primarily to oversee program closures and then leave without being accountable for the long-term consequences.

  • The speaker expressed that faculty affected by program discontinuance may find the process more understandable if decisions are made by a trusted leader who knows the institution and is believed to have acted in good faith, rather than by an unfamiliar external recruit.

  • Anonymous Comment: I think maybe the next move, the next potential move for the faculty is precisely this, is to really start to advocate for that national search. It has to be a faculty-centered search committee. It is concerning that we have actually had little faculty involved in some of the search like actively cutting us out in open forums and things like this.

Jeremy Bono, Chair-Elect

  • Welcome, have no updates, it is a privilege to be in this position, thank you.

David Havlick, Past Chair

  • David wants resume work on proposed revisions to the Faculty Assembly bylaws, to update the bylaws through an open, collaborative process that allows all representatives to provide input, rather than creating a separate committee, with the goal of bringing the revisions forward for an October vote.

Committee Reports 

  • Committee on Educational Policy and University Standards
  • Committee on Personnel & Benefits
  • Faculty Assembly 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
  • Faculty Assembly Grievance Committee
  • Faculty Equity & Inclusion Committee 
  • Instructional, Research, & Clinical Faculty Committee - Laura – announcement, if you are IRC or know one, please fill out the working condition survey from Colin Lewis, Philosophy, IRC fellow, everyone IRC please fill it out. Another item, the committee when we met in August we decided on chances to connect with more IRC host more informal listening sessions, Sept 29, Oct 12 330-5, sitting there and hanging out, and one online as well, Nov 12.
  • Intercollegiate Athletics
  • PRIDE  – Larry – down representatives, college of public service, Education, Engineering and a very chill service commitment, want a fully rostered committee, you just need to be cool. Hosting a social on Sept 24 Cerberus.
  • Sustainability Committee 

New Business

  • Follow up of the Vote of No Confidence – Discussion
  • The goal is to reflect on how the vote of no confidence was handled over the summer, assess the response to date, and begin defining what the Faculty Assembly wants to happen next.
  • What happened over the summer
  • Over the summer, the university undertook several activities related to shared governance and the response to the vote of no confidence, involving a corporate communications consultant, Kate Beatty.
  • What took place
  • Interviews with shared governance leaders: Kate Beatty conducted six Zoom interviews with current and former Faculty Assembly leaders, Staff Council presidents, and Student Government representatives. The interviews gathered perspectives, opinions, and background knowledge about shared governance.
  • Review of interview findings: On the Friday before the start of the semester, the group met to review a presentation prepared by the consultant summarizing the responses. Participants were not given access to the raw interview data.
  • Policy review: Participants were asked to review Regent policies and UCCS policies relating to shared governance in preparation for the meeting.
  • Leadership standard operating procedures: The group also worked on a draft document outlining the responsibilities and duties of shared governance leadership positions, including guidance that outgoing chairs could pass on to incoming chairs.
  • Viewed the development of leadership procedures as a constructive step. Noted that higher education institutions do not always provide sufficient training or structured guidance for people taking on leadership roles, and that having a resource to support incoming leaders could improve continuity.
  • The summer work focused on gathering perspectives from shared governance leaders, reviewing relevant policies, and developing leadership guidance. 
  • Anonymous appreciated the work on communication and leadership continuity but was concerned that the AI-generated interview summary misrepresented faculty perspectives and that the overall process did not adequately address the underlying issues raised by the vote of no confidence.
  • Anonymous Question: Asks for clarification and transparency about who participated in the summer process with consultant Kate Beatty.
  • Answer: 6 people plus the Chancellor, Emily Mooney and the Chancellor, David Havlick and the current and former president of Staff Council as well as the current and former president of Student Government.
  • Anonymous Question/Answer: Whether the results of the summer interviews incorporated the broader faculty’s views, particularly given that more than 70% of faculty participated in the vote of no confidence. The concern was that the perspectives of a small number of staff and student representatives might not adequately reflect the views of the wider faculty. The speaker questioned whether the interview findings accurately represented the majority sentiment regarding trust in the Chancellor. In Comment to this: Did not think it was to the response of the vote of no confidence. 
  • Anonymous Comment: Anonymous felt that a serious discussion about job security, economic uncertainty, declining graduation rates, and the reasons for diminished confidence had been reframed as support for enrollment and retention efforts, misrepresenting the concerns they had actually expressed.
  • Anonymous Comment: Questioned the transparency and effectiveness of the consultant’s process, while emphasizing that the more fundamental concern was the Chancellor’s lack of direct response to faculty after the no-confidence vote.
  • Anonymous Comment: Felt that the absence of a direct response to faculty, combined with a process she perceived as emphasizing support for the Chancellor over faculty concerns, had deepened distrust rather than helping rebuild confidence.
  • Anonymous Question: Whether Emily and David plan to prepare a formal written response critiquing the consultant’s process and findings, particularly the perceived inadequacy of using input from students, staff, and only two faculty members to address a faculty-wide vote of no confidence. The speaker also emphasized that faculty are still waiting for a direct response to the concerns they formally raised and asked whether Emily and David intend to address these issues in writing. 
  • Answer: Emily said she had hoped that a formal response would emerge collectively from the faculty, rather than being written solely by her and David. Although she acknowledged their representative roles, she wanted broader faculty involvement in defining what an acceptable response should include. She suggested working together to clearly state why the current response was inadequate and what faculty expect instead.
  • Anonymous Comment: Noted that Robin and Lynn were also involved in the process. They expressed little expectation of hearing from Lynn, for reasons they considered obvious, but pointed out that Robin was present and available to contribute.
  • Anonymous Question: Whether the consultant’s summary report addressed only Article 5 of the shared governance policy or also included Articles 6 and 7, which cover staff and student governance. They questioned whether staff and student governance provisions were discussed or considered in the report. 
  • Answer: It did, to her understanding, the full Regent policy related to shared governance and the specific UCCS policy were included in the consultant’s process, rather than only Article 5. Also explained that participants received advance reading materials covering shared governance documents for faculty, staff, and students, along with a broader list of documents to review before the meeting.
  • Anonymous Comment: They want shared governance to be recognized as a policy-based institutional responsibility, not a subjective perception, and believes the Chancellor should meaningfully respond to faculty concerns about whether those responsibilities are being understood and upheld.
  • Anonymous Comment: Torn between allowing leadership the autonomy to respond and ensuring that faculty communicate what a meaningful response needs to accomplish, so the university does not continue repeating actions that faculty find inadequate.
  • Anonymous Comment: The Chancellor’s published response relied on supportive letters from people who had been asked to provide recommendations, rather than directly addressing faculty concerns. Emphasized that the published statement was directed toward the broader community, not toward faculty who had voted no confidence. Believes faculty may need to clearly articulate what they expect from leadership, including a direct, internally focused response that addresses the substance of their concerns rather than relying on public endorsements.
  • Anonymous Comment: Ongoing concerns after the no-confidence vote: Argued that a series of subsequent actions continued to suggest that faculty concerns had not been heard or addressed.
  • The hiring of a consultant without sufficient transparency about the purpose of the work, as well as limited communication about summer meetings and related activities.
  • The recruitment process, including a candidate’s week-long visit to UCCS and another candidate’s short-notice visit, as examples of insufficient transparency and faculty engagement.
  • Felt these actions reflected the same issues that contributed to the no-confidence vote and reinforced the need for a clear, specific faculty response.
  • Another participant suggested adding concerns about the lack of clarity surrounding the university’s budget situation.
  • Faculty should document specific actions taken after the no-confidence vote—particularly around transparency, leadership recruitment, and budget communication—to demonstrate how the original concerns remain unresolved.
  • Anonymous Comment: Sees improved enrollment and financial stability as essential foundations for rebuilding trust, emphasizing that leadership must demonstrate results and fulfill its responsibilities regardless of personal opinions to regain trust. 
  • Anonymous Comment: Wants the Chancellor to show genuine understanding of why faculty voted no confidence, acknowledge the impact of leadership decisions and turnover, and provide a direct, substantive response to faculty that demonstrates accountability.
  • Emily is trying to decide how to bring this together and raise these concerns.
  • Anonymous Comment: Believes faculty need to collectively define clear, measurable expectations for the Chancellor, including specific actions, direct engagement, and accountability, so that the concerns behind the no-confidence vote are fully understood and there is a concrete basis for rebuilding trust.
  • Anonymous Comment: Wants to give the Chancellor and Robin another opportunity to provide a detailed, meaningful response in a dedicated forum with sufficient time for direct engagement with faculty, rather than a brief update during a regular meeting.
  • Anonymous Question: The speaker is asking what meaningful escalation looks like when leadership repeatedly fails to address faculty concerns or change its actions, and what options remain beyond continuing the same cycle of communication? 
  • Answer: Favors a deliberate, faculty-led process to define specific concerns, desired changes, and measurable commitments for the coming year. The goal is to establish clear expectations that leadership can be held accountable for, rather than simply seeking another verbal response to the no-confidence vote.
  • Overall Discussion: Participants generally supported developing a simple, concrete, faculty-supported action plan that identifies what leadership should do differently, particularly regarding enrollment, budgeting, leadership stability, transparency, and shared governance. They favored gathering input from the wider faculty, setting realistic expectations within leadership’s control, and using the resulting commitments as a basis for measuring progress and determining next steps.
  • The discussion centered on organizing broad faculty input into a concrete, collectively supported action plan for the Chancellor. This would provide a constructive path toward addressing concerns while also giving faculty governance a clearer basis for accountability and potential escalation if meaningful action does not follow.
  • The group moved toward a coordinated, faculty-led approach: establish a committee to develop a broadly supported set of concrete expectations, request a substantive open forum with university leadership, and begin arranging direct engagement with the Regents. Protecting vulnerable faculty remains an important consideration throughout the process.

Motion to Adjourn

Emily Mooney motioned to end the meeting; Larry Eames seconded; passed.

  • Next meeting: Friday, October 9, 2026, 12:00-2:00 pm in Hyflex Format; Dwire 103 or MS Teams