UNIVERSITY OF DENVER
April 9, 2004
President Giles opened the meeting at 12:10.
Chancellors Faculty Roundtable: Friday, April 23rd
Provost Reception for University Book Authors: Friday, May 14th (3:00 5:00 p.m.)
Next Faculty Senate Meeting: Friday, May 7th
Final Senate meeting for this academic year: Friday, May 28th
A request was made to amend the minutes to reflect that a motion was made and a vote taken to support the Student Relations Committees request to submit a letter to the Provost with regard to the proposed use of student evaluations. However, no official vote to endorse the memo was taken at the March meeting. At that time, President Giles stated that the committee was free to communicate with the provost at will. As stated in the minutes, a straw vote was taken to determine the sense of the senate regarding the memo.
The minutes were approved pending necessary changes.
Academic Administrator Evaluation--Tinka Crosby and Phil Tripp
Arthur Best asked if it is possible to vote more than once and whether anyone would know if that has been done. Tripp said that IDs are tracked to ensure that no one evaluates an administrator more than once. Don Hughes asked if the provost could look to see how he voted. Tripp said that the provost would not be able to access that information unless he is an excellent hacker. Dave Cox asked if it is possible to determine whether or not a faculty member voted. Crosby said that it is possible for office to determine that information because access to the form is gained through entering a university ID; however, she gets the information only data so that it is not possible for an administrator to determine that information. Tripp added that your ID will identify you as having participated, but the identification is not linked with the evaluation. David Christophel asked if he should keep a copy of his remarks, or is there a capability within the system to retain the file. Tripp said that it is highly unlikely that the system will cache the form. If you want to be extra care about whether your evaluation and comments are cached, you might wish to close your browser to ensure the termination of the program. Margaret Whitt asked if you can start and stop and go back later. Tripp said that you cannot do that on a single evaluation. Crosby said you can evaluate one administrator at a time, stopping between forms. Hughes asked a question regarding the security relative to maintaining emails for federal inquiry. Tripp said that the files will get backed up and could be provided from the back up tapes, but he is not an expert on homeland security and cannot answer the question definitively. He expects that the evaluation would be subject to the same treatment as any other file. Crosby said she can delete the files once she collects the data. Giles said that when evaluations were done on paper, the data were taken from the forms and the forms destroyed. His preference would be that once the information is gathered, processed, and consolidated, the information be destroyed. Tripp concurred and added that the on-line course evaluation data was treated in that manner. In his opinion, the process is at least as secure if not more so than the paper process. He is not sure why the government would be interested in such data. Lisa Conant asked if we would get an e-mail with the link that we could easily access. Crosby said the evaluation will be on WebCentral. The link in the e-mail will be to WebCentral, not directly to the evaluation form. Giles asked for clarity regarding evaluating administrators at different sittings. He asked how long the screen will stay active. Tripp said that it will stay open as long as you keep it open. Once youve evaluated an individual, you send the form. You can evaluate one administrator, send the form, close your browser, and return later to complete additional forms. You will be able to see what you have done but not change it. Lois Jones asked whether Marc Holtzman will be added to the list of administrators. Giles responded that he will not. We evaluate academic administrators and not others. That issue is still open for future consideration. Any administrator who has been in the position for less than two quarters also is not evaluated because that period is not sufficient for significant consideration of progress. He added that the scale has changed to a six-point scale.
Comments: Provost Coombe announced that Tom Willoughby will join DU from Drake University as the vice chancellor for enrollment. He also mentioned the search for the dean of the Daniels College of Business. The chair of the committee is Scott Reinman. Coombe met with him and the chancellor a week or so ago. Jim Griesmer will continue as dean through the summer and fall 2004 if a replacement has not been found. Coombe is hopeful that a selection will be made by that time. The end of the year is looking good in a financial sense. Enrollment patterns suggest that we will end the year with a reasonable surplus. The provosts office is working feverishly on the budget for next year. This month the provost will write the budget transmittal for the Board of Trustees.
Discussion: Rick Layman asked the provost to comment on the Denver Post article on Marc Holtzman that spoke of a new education building. Coombe said there is no campaign for a new education building. The conversation began a year ago when a desire for a new high school was expressed. Over time, the discussion got connected into a conversation regarding a new space for the College of Education with the suggestion that the buildings be combined. Ginger Maloney and others have been working on a new strategic plan. There has been some talk of a major donor but there has been no money raised. There may be an opportunity to raise the money to enhance the College of Education, but there is no organized effort at this point. Cathy Potter asked about the possibility of external review committees raised in the article. She expressed a concern that while previous discussions have indicated that the president would not be involved in academic issues, the article suggested otherwise, particularly in regard to the establishment for program review committees. Coombe responded that he and Chancellor Ritchie have talked with deans about visiting committees for some time. There is general interest in putting a few together. Holtzman has not been involved in that. Regarding the proposed SECS committee, Holtzman was asked for input because of his connections in that area. Whitt asked about the nature of such committees. Coombe described them as a little more than an advisory committee. Engineering offers a good example. The have had an industrial advisory committee which meets regularly to talk about issue such as placement. Visiting committees are altogether different. They often are comprised of a small number of very, very high-level people who meet annually to talk about issues such as strategy and resource flow. They are not necessarily local. They are a handful of very best people who can offer suggestions about directions a department can pursue, resources, and where the field is moving. Lots of universities do this, particularly in graduate and professional schools. Ritchie is a member of a visiting committee at Harvard. It is a good idea for major units of the university. Potter asked whether the provost and deans would direct the efforts to establish such committees. Coombe said yes and added the chancellor as well. A senator who failed to identify herself asked if it is true that Holztman has declined a salary. Coombe said that is true. Lois Jones addressed the inaccuracies in the Holtzman article, specifically that he has established a homeland security degree and plans a College of Education building campaign. She asked if DU will attempt to correct those inaccuracies. Coombe said he knew of no such effort. Regarding the homeland security degree, Coombe said that he is aware of some planning under way, but any proposal would have to go through normal channels for approval. None of that has happened. Joe Szyliowicz clarified that GSIS has a certificate program but does not have plans to develop a masters degree. Coombe said the program he has had heard about would include some folks at GSIS and the Denver Research Institute. Szyliowicz asked if a job description has been prepared for Holtzman. Coombe said he has not seen a document, a job description in the normal sense. He knows that many discussions have taken place regarding the work he will be doing, but he has not seen any document. Whitt raised concerns regarding the perceptions the Post article leaves the audience regarding the Holtzmans claims. She expressed further concerns that the provost was not cited in the article. She thinks the misinformation should be straightened out and asked who could make the corrections. Coombe said that the article did not go through the DU communications officenormal channelsthats why there are so many errors. He said we need to ask who the audience for the article is. His sense is that the faculty has a good sense of what is going. His major concern is that the public and perhaps our students do not. It probably is unfortunate that there are misperceptions in these two groups regarding university governance. Dean Saitta noted a letter published in the Post from a citizen who apparently accepted the errors and wrote to reinforce negative stereotypes of faculty. He noted that the publisher is a trustee and asked if we could we appeal to him for corrections. Coombe said that if there would be a correction, it should come from the chancellor, and he would make that request if the senate so desired. Potter would support that conversation and asked if there are processes in place to ensure that such articles go through proper channels in the future. Coombes understanding is that there have been considerable responses conveyed to the chancellor regarding the article. His guess is that rather than imply in the press that there are all kind of divisions at the university that may or no may not exist, Ritchie has chosen to ride out the issue. Coombe will convey the faculty senates wishes to Ritchie but is not sure what the chancellor will do. Giles asked whether a recruiting office in Hong Kong and has been budgeted. Coombe said it has not been budgeted. We were approached about 18 months ago about opening a recruiting office in the in the Far East, specifically Hong Kong because our enrollments have been declining, he said. The proposal included a great deal of money but provisions with which DU did not agree. DU declined. There was talk among a fair number of people that it might not be a bad idea to have a more aggressive office in the Far East. We have a number of good contacts. That conversation has continued. Coombe said that he knows that Holtzmans office is interested in pursuing the idea and has talked about alumni who might be good at that sort of thing. Nothing has been established beyond that. There is noting in the budget. There is not specific plan but some general interest. Divine asked if this falls under the purview of the new vice chancellor of enrollment. Coombe said yes. Jenny Cornish asked if it is possible to get a report on what Holtzman has done thus far. Coombe suggests that the senate speak with him. He speaks with Holtzman fairly frequently and knows some of the things he is doing. Holtzman is scheduled to report to the BOT next month. Ved Nanda responded to the media concerns and requested that faculty send no more letters to newspapers. He prefers that the chancellor be allowed to handle the concerns. Coombe said his response to the article was equal to ours if not more intense. He concluded that it does not have much of an impact on how we do things at DU. He does think there is an issue regarding the perception of DU among the public and more so with our students. Students need to know role of faculty and the faculty governance structure. That is the major point. He expressed support for Nandas request. He is not sure whether raising the issue in the press gets to the main point. There may be other ways to approach students to give them a clear picture of the university governing structure. What ever may have been published in the press, the things he does and is in charge of have not changed. Saitta said that he found nothing inappropriate about responding as one who was quoted in the article. Who is going to defend the faculty franchise? Nanda said that Saitta was right in responding. His concern is that additional letters might send the signal that we are a university that does not know what we are doing. Saitta said from the looks of it. He encouraged anyone with strong feelings to act on them. Dennis Barrett pointed that we will have an opportunity to speak with the chancellor at the round table. Giles will be sending out a reminder about the roundtable. David Cox asked if we are getting a better feel for how the interview process and undergraduate enrollment are going. Coombe said we have 4,500 applications at this pointlast year at this time we had 4,300. We are up substantially in deposits, at 390 as of this morning. That figure is up 60 or 70 from last year. The deadline was two weeks early this time, and that may have an effect on figures. Most of the deposits are from early the action pool. The Hyde interviews have resulted in an 8% higher yield in the past. DU is banking on the yield being up a few points in the regular admits. We have admitted a smaller number of students than we did last year: 78% last year and 71% this year. We have admitted fewer students at the bottom of the pool. There is a lot of uncertainty at this point because it is too early to tell. Ron DeLyser, asked if we had changed the emphasis of the results of Hyde interviews? Coombe said no. The emphasis is still on trying to find the students with the best fit. This year there will be a greater number of admission decisions that will be influcenced by the Hyde interview. The goal was to improve persistence rates by finding the appropriate fit; the impact on yield was an unexpected benefit. When there we no more questions, Coombe concluded his report by encouraging faculty to participate in evaluations. They are taken very seriously. Giles expressed his appreciation to Provost Coombe for his candor and willingness to talk with the chancellor regarding the nature of the discussion today. He asked if the senate would like to formally communicate to the chancellor, in a letter, regarding the lack of truth in the newspaper article, particularly in light of the fact that the university prides itself on ethical conduct. Best suggested that a conversation between Giles and the chancellor might be better than a crafted letter.
Motion: Best stated: I move that the senate direct the president to convey the essence of the conversation to the chancellor. Divine seconded. Barrett said that senators who have additional concerns may wish to speak to the chancellor direclty. Nanda said the opportunity to do so is always there. Elizabeth Anderson said there were two concerns: the content and the process. The usual procedure was not followed. That is a very important concept that needs to be conveyed. Giles said he will convey that concern. He explained that the university can try to control communications with the media, but any reporter has license to write about anything at anytime. We should not try to control all communications. Anderson followed up: it may be that the president does not understand that there is a certain protocol for communicating with the media and maybe he needs to be informed of that. Some one called for the question called. Sandy Dixon asked if a vote could be taken at the same meeting at which the motion was made. Barrett said yes for a sense of the senate resolution.
Vote: One abstention. The motion carried.
Recommendation for University Policy change concerning assignment of w grade. (Second reading): Giles reminded the senate of the purpose for the recommendation. Students do not withdraw from classes by the end of the first week of classes are assigned a grade of W that stays on their transcripts. The recommendation is to change the policy to withdrawal by the second, rather than the first week. The question was called. Divine called a point of order, stating that the issue should be taken up with the graduate and undergraduate councils. Giles noted that we cannot make policy and any recommendation will need to go through those councils. Divine clarified that the recommendation includes formally that the recommendation go directly to the graduate and undergraduate council. Barrett called for the motion to be tabled. Giles asked if the full motion was stated in the March minutes. It is not. The discussion is recorded, but the motion is not. Giles expressed concern that the complete motion is not in the minutes and agreed that the motion should be tabled. Divine objected, explaining that to table the motion would delay the action. It was his understanding that the recommendation would move forward to the councils. Giles asked if it was sufficient to give the sense of the motion and call for the vote. The body agreed.
Motion: (second reading) Giles stated that the intent of the motion is to recommend to the graduate and undergraduate councils that the university policy concerning students assignment of W grade be changed. Students who do not withdraw from class by the end of the second week of classes will be assigned a grade of W that stays on their transcripts rather than after the end of the first week of classes.
Vote: the motion carried.
NCR motion concerning change in Senate Bylaws (Second reading)
Barrett directed the senates attention to the hard copy version of the committees motion. Motion: For the full text of the motion, see Appendix A.
Vote: The motion carried.
Barrett addressed senate membership, directing attention to a senate roster. He recommended consideration of senate assignments and asked that those who will be on sabbatical to notify him so that replacements may be elected. He noted vacancies on the executive committee. Please see him with questions and concerns.
Faculty Expectations Survey (complete by Monday, April 12)
Giles announced that the survey will be pulled as of Monday, April 12th at 4:30.
Potter provided a summary sheet covering the number and range of proposals submitted. There were requests totaling more than $600,000 for the $200,000 fund. She encouraged the provost to provide additional funding and noted that Holtzman had announced that he will not long accept a salary. Each divisional committee needs a leader to call the meetings. Each committee will need to select a senator to send to the senate PROF committee. Anyone who was on the divisional committee and submitted a proposal will need to be withdrawn from the committee and replaced. She will send out a list of divisional committee members.
She has received questions regarding why it is necessary to submit to Potter and Moran all of the review sheets to Potter and Moran. She said the sheets will be useful to the person who must send out letters to the applicants. She requested that all involved reflect on the process and suggest improvements. Bill Anderson said there is no date set by which all of the divisional committees must conclude review. Todd Wells asked about who submitted them the reviews; where there as many junior faculty as senior faculty? Giles said that is a good question. Saitta asked if there will be a faculty research fund this year. Potter said yes. A call should come out soon.
Student Relations Committee: Ron DeLyser announced that there were questions raised about use of evaluations and students racist, sexist, and political biases. He said that he and Arthur Best and met with Summers Thompson to address these concerns. There will be forums planned in the future to discuss the use of evaluations
Financial Planning Committee: Dave Longbrake announced that the financial planning committee will meet with Holtzman for a general information exchange. They also are planning a meeting with the senate president, the provost, and Craig Woody to review the year.
Academic Planning Committee: Bill Anderson announced that work on the next rounds of faculty research grants is getting started.
Branding initiative: Giles reported that the branding initiative research results are in and Carol Farnsworth has planned a round of discussions for next week. He encouraged senate participation. . Research results are in. There will be a round of discussions next week. Farnsworth set the discussions up to encourage the senate and others to hear what the results have been.
DU Pioneers: Saitta reported that the hockey team is kicking ass and encouraged support.
Commencement: Gordon Von Stroh announced that he is graduation exercises coordinator. He hopes to increase faculty participation. Contact him if you are interested in becoming a marshal. Additionally, if you have an opinion regarding whether summer graduation should be held on the graduation green, please let him know. It is more expensive than holding it in Magness Arena, but it can be done if there is enough interest in doing so.
Reminders and Announcements:
ADJOURNMENT: President Giles adjourned the meeting at 1:40.
Amendments Proposed by NCR Committee to
BY‑LAWS of the Faculty Senate, 5 March 2004
[vProposed additions are in bold, proposed deletions are
Amendments to these By‑Laws may be made by majority vote of those present at any meeting of the Senate, provided the proposal has been presented at a previous meeting and reported in the minutes thereof.
Adopted by The Senate at its regular meeting of 20 Nov 1986.