Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes

University of Southern Colorado

January 29, 2001

The regular meeting of the Faculty Senate was held on Monday, January 29, at 3:00pm in the Ether Arthur Conference Room – Library 106.

Members Present:

G. Abrahamson, M. Avina, K. Brown, J. Browne, S. Calhoun-Stuber, J. De Palma, J. Dorsch, M. Druelinger, S. Ebersole, J. Fogelquist, J. Goodman, V. Hansen, M. Hoots, R. Joyce, G. Miller, E. O’Leary, G. Orr, N. Osborn, W. Sauer, P. Sefovic, H. Regassa, D. Sullivan, T. Taylor, L. Valerio, W. Wright,

Members Absent:

Lucero, Tate, Otis, Frye, Medina

Parliamentarian:

E. O’Leary

Guests:

Dr. Tito Guerrero, President; Dr. Barbara Montgomery; Provost; Dr. Bud Allen, Dean; Dr. Russ Meyer, Dean; Valerie Borge, VP Financial Services; Pam Anastassiou, Director of Admissions & Records; S. Hudock, faculty

  1. CALL TO ORDER

Senate President Browne called the meeting to order at 3:09 pm.

II. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

Without objection, the agenda was approved.

III. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

Without objection, the minutes from the 11/29/00 meeting of the Faculty Senate agenda were approved.

  1. INFORMATION AND ACTION ITEMS

A. Senate President Browne provided information on the following:

Faculty Senate Meetings 3-5 p.m. (L-106)

Monday, January 29

Monday, February 26

Monday, March 19

Monday, April 16

Executive Committee Meeting 3-5p.m. (HSB Conference Room)

Monday, January 15

Monday, February 12

Monday, March 5

Monday, April 2

Provost’s Luncheons w/Senate Executive Committee Noon –1 p.m.

Tuesday, January 30 – President’s Dining Room

Tuesday, February 20 – President’s Dining Room

Tuesday, March 13 – Monarch Room – OUC 206

B. President – Dr. Tito Guerrero

    1. At the next SBA meeting in February, Dr. Guerrero expects the SBA to vote to approve a name change from USC to USC-Pueblo. Dr. Guerrero is hopeful that there will be a phase-in time for the changeover dealing with all the issues and costs in regard to the name change. He is confident the campus will retain its present level of autonomy. Ultimately, the name change requires action by the state legislature. J. Dorsch asked if the name change would be regional (i.e., CSU-Southern rather than CSU-Pueblo); Dr. Guerrero said "probably not." Dr. Guerrero emphasized the opportunities with the name change such as a likely enrollment increase and enhanced outreach.
    2. W. Wright asked for information about faculty sabbaticals and Dr Guerrero responded that the item has not been presented to the SBA. Dr. Guerrero anticipates presenting sabbatical recommendations to the SBA at their next meeting.
    1. Provost – Dr. Barbara Montgomery
    1. Dr. Montgomery followed up with questions, what changes the name? Who we are and what we are trying to become? She stated that this would be the time for the campus and the community to work together. How do we make the most of the opportunities presented to us as a campus? She stated that her time is short for this semester and she must focus on these three things, quality, enrollment management, and community outreach. She will be working with the deans and faculty on academic programs, and work with CSU to partner more on program development.
    2. Dr. Montgomery stated that she understood the previous provost, Dr. Glennen, had an interest in revising the Faculty Handbook.. She stated that the type of revision that might be desirable constitutes a large project. Therefore, she believes that taking sections of the handbook, one at a time, would be the best way to get through the revision. She stated input from faculty is needed for any revisions.
    3. W. Sauer asked about the rewriting of the Faculty Handbook.. Dr. Montgomery believes that chapter two is on the web and chapter three is being updating at this time. There is no general rewrite of the Faculty Handbook in progress at this time. Some feedback to the provost regarding faculty sabbatical section is needed. Browne stated that he believes there are unreasonable service expectations placed on the faculty and any handbook changes should improve the quality of work life for faculty and enhance the quality of teaching at the University. He stated he believe faculty serve on too many committees.
    4. G. Miller asked how to report summer scholarly activities on the APR. Specifically, given that APRs are now on calendar year basis, rather than an academic year, may a faculty member choose to report, or not to report, summer scholarly activity? Dr. Montgomery responded by suggesting there may be utility reporting summer activities, especially those that involve scholarship or creative activities.
    1. V.P. Financial Services – Valerie Borge
    1. V. Borge utilized transparencies and distributed a report for faculty members to use and follow along while she explained Resource Allocation for the university.

Application fee, course fee,

Matriculation fee, interest,

And other misc. fees

Total 25.8M

State appropriation is tied directly to university enrollment. The university receives state money only on Colorado residents. Out-of-state students are not counted for state appropriation of funds.

100%
    1. Borge noted that WUE students do not pay full out of state tuition. Resident tuition is $1860 per year. WUE students pay one and one-half times in-state tuition. The average cost of educating a student at USC for one year is $6200. USC will receive $40,000 less this year due to enrollment drop in FTE Spring 2001.
    2. J. Browne noted for the benefit of the Faculty Senate that there may be a budget restraint (again) for funding a faculty salary increase comparable to what other universities across the county receive. The restraint arises from a mandated classified staff increase of approximately 5% and utility costs that have increased several fold. However, the state appropriation will only increase about 2% and tuition costs will increase about 3.9%increase. When asked why utility costs have increased so dramatically, Borge stated that the University previously went through a broker to negotiate natural gas prices. Yhis is no longer the situation since the broker has gone bankrupt and the University is now paying full market price. The University expects there will be no help from the state for the cost of utilities due to Amendment 23. Across campus the temperature should be set at 68 degrees. The cost of utilities has resulted in a realignment of budget projections.
    1. In regard to the Walking Stick Development two parcels were sold in 1994, one parcel was sold in 1995 and one in 2000. The parcel sold in 2000 was put in an endowment to support the honors program.
    2. The Budget Board had problems getting started last semester, but with the new members V. Borge believes it will function well, and W. Wright is the new chair.

7. Athletic department has an operating deficit of $317,365. All operating costs are being run through her office so there will no longer be overruns on their budget, and the athletic department is on a repayment schedule for the deficit.
    1. General Education Board – Dr. Sam Ebersole

Catalog copy sent around for approval.
    1. W. Wright made the motion to accept the Gen Ed proposal report, and M. Hoots seconded. A lengthy discussion took place regarding the Gen Ed changes. The revision of the courses and contents will be an on-going process for the rest of the spring semester and into the following year. Because there are no written exemptions that are clear and precise from all departments, the Gen Ed committee wants to be fair, consistent, and practical about the Gen Ed changes. Individual departments may apply for exemptions to their program. W. Wright reminded everyone that the Gen Ed Board reduced the number of groups, but did not eliminate any courses. G. Miller asked if some Gen Ed courses could be double counted? J. Goodman indicated the possibility of double counting could vary with each major. J. Browne called for question. Motion passed. It was noted there were 2 objections and 1 abstention.
    2. Pam Anastassiou distributed a draft document to aid in Gen Ed advisement. It was recommended that faculty use the 120 minimum semester credit hours for undergraduate degree - 40 hrs upper division; 30 hours residency, i.e., USC credit (down from 32 hours); 60 hours maximum from a 2- year school (down from 64 hours); 90 hours maximum transfer from a 4-year school (down from 96 hours). She also distributed a draft revision of the graduation planning sheet for review. The Records Office is trying to accommodate both the 128 hour and 120 hour degree plans. If a student did not graduate at the end of Fall, and they come back and only need 3 hours, the student will have to submit an amendment to their graduation planning sheet under new Catalog requirements. Transfer agreements are in the process of being updated. The community colleges were also asked to review their requirements and lower the hours to 60 if they have not already done so (most have). The advising (Gen Ed) sheet is strictly an advisement tool. M. Hoots asked about a second degree which needs 32 hours, 16 of which have to be at USC. (Clarification: for a second baccalaureate degree, all hours -- 32 previously, 30 under the new system—need to be completed from USC. The 16 hour stipulation – now 15 hours – refers to the maximum number of credit hours which may be transferred in from another institution for a student’s first baccalaureate degree). P. Anastassiou needed to finalize the graduation-planning sheet. There is a rule in the catalog that says that no more than 30 hours of correspondence can be applied to the baccalaureate degree. Who monitors this? You cannot tell the difference on the transcripts. W. Wright moved to change the language in the catalog from 32 + 16 to 30 + 15 seconded by P. Sefcovic. Motion passed. J. Dorsch asked if the department major should be the person to monitor correspondence courses. P. Anastassiou stated that there are very few correspondence courses, it has been changed to Independent study.

F. SBA Representative - Mr. Michael Hoots
    1. M. Hoots distributed his SBA report (January 2001) and summarized the Quality Indicators for 2001-2002 (page 1). Some historical budget data was presented, which shows where USC fits in comparison to other institutions. Page 4 is the Prioritized CCHE Budget Request and shows that a top issue for the Colorado State University System is faculty salary increases. J. Goodman said in reviewing USC salaries of our so-called peer groups, the CCHE has listed USC as a general baccalaureate, but not a comprehensive masters institution. He asked who determines the institutional listing. M. Hoots responded that CCHE determines our classification. J. Browne noted that USC is a Carnegie 2A classification school. W. Wright stated that before we protest our current listing, we should investigate the implications of our current classification.
    1. CAPB – Ms. Kathy Brown – No report
    2. APSB – Mr. Paul Sefcovic

      3. 1. P. Sefcovic asked for comments regarding the added contact hours, which would extend the length of the semester. He asked for a senate vote to send this to the faculty. M. Hoots asked if we should vote to continue the discussion of the issue or drop it altogether. W. Wright moved, T. Taylor seconded, to discontinue any further Senate consideration of this issue. J. Browne called for the question. There was a standing vote of 10 for, 9 against, 1 abstention. Motion carried.

    3. Faculty Compensation Committee – Dr. Mel Druelinger
    1. On December 1, 2000 the members of the FCC met with President Guerrero to discuss Faculty Salaries. Druelinger stated there were two things he wished to address: the average faculty salary by rank at USC and selected institutions, and the suggested course of action. J. Goodman suggested the increases be phased in over a period of time. He moved to direct the Strategic Planning committee to build in a five-year plan to move toward market equity based on the FCC report. J. Dorsch seconded. Senate discussion focused on which body should address salary equity issue over the long term. Provost Montgomery stated that most universities face this same issue and that they usually resolve the issue through reallocation of resources. J. Browne said if we are serious about this issue all appropriate avenues should be explored. J. Browne called the question. Motion carried. J. Browne indicated he would forward the recommendation to the Strategic Planning committee.
    1. Handbook Committee – Dr. Wolfgang Sauer

1. W. Sauer asked for discussion on the Code of Ethics and Conflict of Interest document, distributed to faculty.

J. Browne asked for an extension of 10 minutes if Senate wished to continue discussion. Dorsch moved, seconded by G. Orr. Motion passed.

    1. W. Sauer indicated a need to define Conflict of Interest. The University President will need to give prior approval for any outside activity. Monitoring of the possible conflicting activities of family members is also in the Code. Certain sections, such as #7, were believed to be especially intrusive. Discussion focused on the origins and possible intent and scope of the Ethics document. J. Dorsch moved, seconded by N. Osborn, to reject the SBA Code of Ethics document. Motion passed unanimously.
    1. Committee on Committees – Mr. Gayle Abrahamson – no report
      2.
    2. CFAC Representative - Dr. Pauletta Otis – no report

V. Unfinished Business – None

  1. New Business – J. Goodman brought up the question of committee size and asked if the Faculty Handbook requirements for committees could be revised.

VII. Adjournment

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Dan Sullivan Pamela Parrack

Secretary Recording Secretary

Back to Faculty Senate Main Page
Please direct comments to: Dan Sullivan, Faculty Senate Secretary
University of Southern Colorado
Updated 19 February 2001