UNIVERSITY OF DENVER
FACULTY
SENATE
Minutes
April
9, 2004
President Giles opened the meeting at 12:10.
AGENDA
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.
APPENDIX A
Amendments Proposed by NCR Committee to
BY‑LAWS of the Faculty Senate, 5 March 2004
[vProposed additions are in bold, proposed deletions are struckthrough]
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.