University of Denver
President Leon Giles convened the meeting at 12:08
The minutes were approved pending corrections.
Highlights: Provost Coombe offered a brief report on how the year is ending in a financial sense. We did well, once again. We are going to have a surplus of a little more than $4 million. This is the second year of our savings plan. We have made the target of saving $10 million in two years. Enrollment projections for next year are strong for both graduate and undergraduate levels. He just presented the proposed FY04 budget to the BOT, passing it through the budget and finance committee and executive committee; it will go to the full board at its June meeting. His office is in the process of writing a report that will go the senate in the fall. Were in good shape. Coombe announced that DU has been in negotiations since last October with the Eleanor Roosevelt Institute (ERI) about an affiliation. It is a highly regarded research institute. ERI will be a part of NSME. They do funded research related to genetic research. It has six PIs, 17 technicians and a few graduate students, and has great growth potential. With the support of the Boetcher Foundation and the Bonfils Foundation, we were able to come to an agreement. He is very, very pleased that this actually happened. The agreement represents a step forward for us. The affiliation was not official until just a few days ago.
Discussion: Chip Reichardt: What does the agreement consist of? Coombe: DU acquires all of their operations and current grants. Their current board will become a supporting foundation and continue raising funds. Their employees will become DU employees. We acquired their building and the land at 19th and Gaylord. Reichardt: Will the PIs become research professors? Coombe: Six of the PIs will become research faculty. Elizabeth Anderson: Will they move physically to this campus? Coombe: No they will not. Anderson: Could you elaborate a little more on whats in it for us? Coombe: Primarily academic value, particularly research opportunities for students. We need additional capacity for undergraduates. We want to expand the number of graduate students. This offers an expansion of those possibilities. It creates a mass of work that is of greater size in several areas. ERI has an excellent reputation. Joel Cohn: What other institutions did they consider? Coombe they talked with CU and some other institutions. The fit with us is an excellent one in terms of what they do and what our outlook is in how we want to grow the sciences. Giles: This is a really exciting opportunity.
Stedman offered a second reading on change in the APT document, which is regard as a clarification. He noted that if you are unpaid, the text of the APT does not cover your situation. Andy Divine called the question; Szyliowicz seconded. The motion passed.
Criminal Background check. Because of confusion regarding the status of the motion, Stedman called for a reaffirmation of the vote. The motion was affirmed.
Stedman added an information regarding SPARChe learned that the indirect costs to everyone who does research has been raised. Monthly time sheets as well as effort sheets will be required. It is unclear how effort is to be assessed when you are at a faculty senate meeting, for example. Changes in the cost of paying research assistants also have been discussed.
Discussion: Sandy Dixon: Are you raising this issue so people will need to know how much their grants will be charged or because of a lack of consultation with SPARC?
Stedman: There is nothing illegitimate about having these figures dropped on SPARC; this is just a matter of information. Coombe: the fringe rate is what it is; its not negotiable. It costs us what it costs us, and those costs have not increased in some time.
Giles turned the floor over to Alton Barbour for election business. Sandy Dixon and Shelly Smith-Acuna assisted Barbour in distributing ballots. Barbour called for nominations from the floor, carried out the election, and left the room to count the ballots.
Giles reported that Patty Helton was apologetic about not being able to attend the last meeting. She provided a written report that Giles distributed.
Highlights: An ad hoc committee met this morning to develop a position statement regarding how to move forward with the Board of Trustees regarding the shared governance issues arising out of the appointment of a president of the university. Giles expressed feeling encouraged by the discussion. Giles and Potter met with the executive committee of the BOT to express faculty concerns. He took a split approachexpressing concerns to the board regarding the lack of process and use of title University President, and secondly alerting them that the senate will be coming to them in early June with a statement about how wed like to proceed. He had 15 minutes with the executive committee. They indicated a general level of interest and took his comments under advisement. Giles said he was a little surprised that some board members were learning for the first time of the campus community unrest. The next step is a report to the FEAC on Wednesday. His sense from John Low, FEAC chair, is that there is board interest in talking with the faculty to ensure that this sort of thing does not happen at DU again. The recommendations that came out of the morning meeting lie along two potential lines:
Giles will meet with the executive committee of the Senate to talk about the message to be conveyed to FEAC at its next meeting. He invited comments from the floor.
Discussion: Margaret Whitt: Has the faculty senate had a letter published in the News or Post? Giles: No, there isnt a specific letter. The letter written on the Senates behalf is posted on the webpage and available to the Post and News. There will be an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education. A reporter from the Chronicle called Giles on Tuesday of this week. Whitt expressed concern regarding an editorial that appeared this week. Szyliowicz suggested that one approach is to write an op ed piece that is framed within the larger context of faculty governance. Stedman congratulated Giles on his letter. John Holcolm described a situation at Stanford in which an office was bombed because students took issue with university governance. He said it would be a good idea to have shared governance strengthened under Chancellor Ritchie to avoid such incidents at DU. Motion: Whitt moved that Giles as senate president send a letter to the newspaper. The motion was seconded: Motion carried. Giles asked for volunteers to work on the letter with him. Whitt and Dean Saitta volunteered. Saitta added that Janette Benson wrote a response and has been contacted and her letter looks like it might be printed in the paper. Szyliowicz: What outcome do you expect from the FEAC meeting, and do you plan to send an email out to faculty to let them know the outcome? Giles: The expectation is that FEAC will go to the board with the recommendation to form a small committee along with the faculty senate. This raises the next level of question. Who should be the faculty members on such a committee? Logically, the president of faculty senate should be a member, and two other faculty members need to be a part of that committee. It has been suggested that the provost appoint one member so that a faculty representative outside of the Senate can become involved. We dont want to do anything that violates the spirit of what we want to build with the board. We need a broad process that is inclusive of the general faculty. It is hard to have a general faculty election at this time of year. Stedman: We ought to be able to conduct an election for the committee in the virtual world without warm bodies. Giles agreed that we have the technology to do that but questioned the feasibility, given the time of year. The consensus was that if the BOT accepts the recommendation, an electronic election should be held. Motion: Szyliowicz presented an alternative approach, moving that if it is deemed appropriate to establish a committee, its members should be the Senate president, a senator appointed by the provost, and one senator elected by the Senate. Leaman said we want to get the most illustrious people. We might wish to consider past senators. We dont want to diminish our authority by restricting committee membership to senators. Stedman: Would future members be included? Divine seconded Szyliowiczs motion, stating that because senators represent the units from which they are elected, the senators do represent the entire faculty. Leaman noted that many senators are elected from dead burrows. Szyliowicz said that if the Senate as a body deals with more important issues, perhaps more faculty members will want to be elected to the Senate. Watt said we need to be representative. Syzliowicz called the question. Vote: 19 in favor/ 12 opposed. The motion carried.
Barbour reported the following were elected:
Giles introduced and welcomed new senators.
Motion: Sandy Dixon called for a vote of thanks to Leon for his leadership. Dixons motion was seconded and accepted by acclamation demonstrated by extended applause. Giles said he could not have been successful without the support of the faculty. He thanked the senators for their support.
A meeting has been scheduled with executive committee and Marc Holtzman for June 11th. All senators are invited. A location will be announced. Several questions were raised regarding sending substitutes and questions if unable to attend. Giles welcomed substitutes and questions. Lisa Conant asked whether Holtzman was scheduled to participate in commencement. Giles responded that he did not think so as Holtzmans appointment does not start until July. Watt asked who will receive the honorary doctorate. Divine responded that the Chairman of Arrowmark would be the recipient. Giles added that commencement speakers and honorary doctorates are two areas in which the senate may wish to consider becoming more involved.
Barbara J. Wilcots, Ph.D.