November 2012

FACULTY REPRESENTATIVE ASSEMBLY MEETING

November 9, 2012


Attendance:  Pam Shockley, Gayanne Scott, David Moon, Kelli Klebe, Katie Kaukinen, Andrea Hutchins, Mandi Elder, Jeff Spicher, Bob Durham, Craig Elder, Kathy Blair, Monique Dooley, Pam Carter, Rebecca Webb, Christine Robinson, Curt Holder, Andrea Wenker, Carla Myers, Anna Kosloski, Christina Martinez, Sheri Trumpfheller, Leal Lauderbaugh, Corinne Harmon

Call to Order / Approval of Minutes:

Motion to approve the minutes from October 12, 2012 meeting by Bob Durham
S
econded by Pam Carter
M
otion passed unanimously

Reports of Visitors:

Pam Shockley, Chancellor:
There is good news on the budget side with the governor’s budget request.  It is not clear, however, if the classified staff proposed increase will go to base or be a one-time increase.  As such we will treat it as a one-time increase until we know.  They have not had a pay increase in 4 years and the lowest pay grades on campus are in classified staff.  Pell grants have not been reduced for next fall, but they may be later on.  Admission applications are strong for next fall and also look good for spring.  

Gayanne Scott, Resource Management Executive Director:
The governor’s budget request came out on November 1 and this is the first time since 2008 that there was no mention of budget cuts to education.  We will be able to receive more funding to take the pressure off of tuition increases.  There is a proposal from the governor to increase compensation for classified staff to include a 1.5% cost of living increase as well as a 1.5% merit increase.  This action opens discussion for a possible merit pool for faculty and staff.  He is also asking to set aside 5% of state reserves to help with increases to state Financial Aid.  Campus construction projects are moving along fine.  Berger Hall will be closed December and January for upgrade remodeling.  The new academic office building is also moving forward. 

David Moon, Interim Provost:
Updated information was given on performance contracts and related metrics going to CCHE for approval.  We are not clear on what the implications will be since it only kicks in for a certain dollar amount of funding.  Some of the categories we had to look at are increasing the number of both undergrad and graduate degrees, measurement of student success by retention rates and number of incoming transfers, working with attainment gaps in the student population to better serve all student levels, and commitment to increase financial aid with tuition increases.  This is a CU system initiative so the system office is working with all the campuses on this project.  Updated information was given on the non-tenure track faculty contract issue.  A draft has been produced but it is still under revision and should be ready for review in January.  The contract needs to be ready for implementation with the spring cycle of appointments. 

Kelli Klebe, Interim Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs:
A presentation was given to demonstrate VIVO, which is a searchable data base of faculty doing research.  It is a collaboration among researchers across all disciplines.  CU Boulder is already online with the program.  It is tied in with FRPA and is also international.  UCCS is under development now to be accessible very soon, maybe in a couple of weeks.  The program will be open only on campus through next spring and then should go live in the summer.  The purpose is to link collaborators together.  To view this program, follow these links:  vivo.colorado.edu (Boulder); vivo.uccs.edu (UCCS); vivoweb.org (general info).

Officer Reports:

President’s Report

Vice-President’s Report
No report

Past President’s Report
No report

Reports from Standing Committees:

EPUS Report

Personnel & Benefits

University Budget Advisory Committee

Faculty Minority Affairs Committee

Women’s Committee

Non-Tenure Track Faculty

Academic Computing

Library

Intercollegiate Athletics

Sustainability:
Has not met yet this month

PRIDE:
Has not met yet this month

Misconduct in Research, Scholarship & Creative Activities:
No one present – no report


OLD BUSINESS

None

  

NEW BUSINESS

Motions:

 

1.   The Faculty Representative Assembly Executive Committee moves that the Faculty Representative Assembly approve the following wording for the full faculty ballot on the General Education Curriculum Model:

 

Whereas, the UCCS Faculty approved the UCCS General Education Goals in 2010;

 

Whereas, a faculty Taskforce was assembled to develop a curriculum that delivers on the promise of the goals;

 

Whereas, the General Education Taskforce has gathered input from the faculty on curricular components and framework and has, on the basis of that input, developed a general education curriculum model described in the document General Education Revision UCCS Campus-wide GE Curriculum;

 

Therefore, be it moved that UCCS shall adopt the General Education Curriculum as described in the document General Education Revision UCCS Campus-wide GE Curriculum.

 

A “yes” vote indicates support for the proposed curriculum model and authorizes the Provost to assemble and charge a faculty Taskforce for Phase III of the General Education Revision: Implementation, to begin work in Spring 2013.

 

A “no” vote indicates a lack of support for the proposed curriculum model.  If a majority of faculty vote no, then the General Education Curriculum Taskforce will continue their work to develop a curriculum model that matches the approved UCCS General Education Goals.

 

(Motion passed unanimously as presented with 17 in favor, opposed – 0, abstention – 0)

Note:  It was suggested that voters identify their college affiliation before voting.

 

2.  The Faculty Representative Assembly Executive Committee moves that the Faculty Representative Assembly approve the full faculty vote on the proposed General Education Curriculum Model be conducted from November 12 to November 30.

 

Discussion:  Jeff Spicher moved to amend the motion and Pam Carter seconded that move.  (Vote to amend motion: 17 – favor, opposed – 0, abstain – 0).  Amendment was to change the dates to November 26 to November 30.  Amended motion to read as follows:

 

The Faculty Representative Assembly Executive Committee moves that the Faculty Representative Assembly approve the full faculty vote on the proposed General Education Curriculum Model be conducted from November 26 to November 30.  (Motion passed as amended with 16 in favor, opposed – 0, abstention – 1)

 

3.   The Educational Policy and University Standards Committee of the Faculty Representative Assembly requests that the full faculty be polled on the topic of course forgiveness.  (Motion passed with 16 in favor, opposed – 0, abstention – 1)

 

4. The Educational Policy and University Standards Committee of the Faculty Representative Assembly requests that Faculty Representative Assembly approve the following wording for the poll of the full faculty on the topic of course forgiveness:

 

UCCS Student Government Association (SGA) supports the concept of course forgiveness and has requested that the University consider adopting a course forgiveness policy.  The UCCS Faculty Representative Assembly has discussed this topic with differing opinions as to whether a course forgiveness policy should be adopted and what the parameters of such a policy might be.  The Educational Policy and University Standards (EPUS) Committee would like to know the will of the full faculty on this issue.

 

Course forgiveness can have various contingencies; however, it usually allows a student to retake a course and have the previous grade replaced with the second attempt.  A brief review of other educational institutions in the state indicate that Adams State University, the CSU system, Colorado Mesa University, Fort Lewis College, and University of Northern Colorado currently do have some form of course forgiveness.  Colorado College, University of Denver and the CU System do not have current course forgiveness policies, although CU-Boulder did have a pilot program from 2002-2009.

 

UCCS students performing poorly in a course currently have the option to withdraw from the course or seek an incomplete if there are circumstances that are interfering with their ability to complete their work.  Additionally, first year students who are performing poorly are supported through the University’s Early Alert System.

 

Please choose one of the following:

 

I am in favor of UCCS considering a policy on course forgiveness.

            ____  yes

            ____  no

 

If a course forgiveness policy is under consideration, which of the following parameters do you feel are important to include? (Choose all that apply.)

 

·         Restrict the length of time allowed between the initial course and the retake.

·         Restrict the level of courses that are eligible for forgiveness (e.g. 1000 or 2000)

·         Limit the number of times a single course could be forgiven.

·         Limit the total number of credits that a student could have forgiven.

·        Require that the original course grade still be displayed on the transcript even though it would not be calculated in the GPA.

·        Restrict the courses that could be forgiven to undergraduate coursework only.

·       Restrict the grade which is eligible for forgiveness (e.g. D or below)

·    Require that the most recent grade in the course, even if it’s lower than the original grade, be listed on the transcript and calculated in the GPA.

·         Courses where students were found guilty of academic dishonesty  are not eligible for forgiveness.

·        Other: ________________________________________

 

 

Discussion:  {Please note that in the interest of avoiding confusion, the above motion has been written in its final amended state.}  There were 2 amendments to its original text: 1) Amendment to add bullet to include space to add additional parameters (Vote to amend motion: 17 – favor, 0 – opposed, 0 – abstain); 2) Amendment to change wording to “If a course forgiveness policy is under consideration,…” (Vote to amend motion: 17 – favor, 0 – opposed, 0 – abstain)

 

(Motion passed unanimously as amended above with 17 in favor, opposed – 0, abstention – 0)

 

5.    The Faculty Representative Assembly Executive Committee moves that the Faculty Representative Assembly approve the proposed EPUS poll be conducted from November 26 to December 5.  (Motion passed unanimously with 17 in favor, opposed – 0, abstain – 0)

 

6.    Whereas any bylaw may be temporarily suspended by a 2/3 majority vote of the Faculty Representative Assembly, the Faculty Representative Assembly Executive Committee moves that the December meeting of the Faculty Representative Assembly be cancelled.  {A vote was taken to suspend the rules to continue with the vote: 17 – favor, 0 – opposed, 0 – abstain}

(Motion passed unanimously to cancel the December meeting with 17 in favor, opposed – 0, abstain – 0)

 

7.    Whereas any bylaw may be temporarily suspended by a 2/3 majority vote of the Faculty Representative Assembly, the Faculty Representative Assembly Executive Committee moves that the December meeting of the Faculty Representative Assembly be held on the first Friday in December.  (This motion was formally withdrawn)

 

Adjournment:

Motion to adjourn the Faculty Assembly Meeting by Jeff Spicher
Seconded by Pam Carter
Motion passed unanimously
Meeting adjourned at 1:37 p.m.