February 11, 2000
Announcements:
Parking. (Craig Woody, Vice-chancellor for Financial Affairs)
After nine months of mediation with the University, the city of Denver is imposing a 3-block perimeter of 1 hour parking around the University of Denver. Building and growth at the university are having a significant impact on residential neighborhoods surrounding the campus. A Memorandum of Understanding between the university and the city acknowledges everyone's concern for the problem of parking. The university’s primary concern is how to get the word out about restrictions, and how to ameliorate the situation for students, staff, and faculty. Additional parking facilities will soon be constructed. For the short term, temporary lots will be constructed between Iliff and Asbury on University and at the lumberyard site on Buchtel. Shuttles will run between the Buchtel lot and campus. There will be a Good Neighbors meeting next Wednesday (2/16) at 6:00. The university has undertaken a comprehensive study of parking needs on campus, and will move forward with permitting and long-range planning.
The building of the Performing Arts Center, and the move of the Law School to the University Park campus have made parking accommodation a critical issue. Carol Nappholz asked how parking would be provided for faculty who are closed out of their assigned lots by construction. Woody answered that parking will be tight in Spring, but that he thinks accommodation will be made. Leon Giles raised the security issue of students parking 5-6 blocks from campus in the evenings. Woody indicated that campus security patrols will be extended to the perimeter. Antonia Banducci indicated that she is a resident of the area, and expressed neighborhood concern about increased numbers of parking and temporary parking facilities. Woody indicated that all structures and lots will comply with city codes. Woody was asked how the recent parking survey was conducted, and during what times of day. He explained the comprehensive process used. Les Goodchild asked why the residents had insisted on one-hour as opposed to three-hour parking. Woody indicated that it was a matter of principle. Bob Stencel asked about the university’s Ordinance 1600 (1964) that grandfathered existing parking space to square footage. Woody responded that the parking solution speaks to the ordinance, not to demand. Special events parking is a separate issue. Nancy Sampson asked about provisions for bus passes, and the prohibition of student cars on campus. Woody indicated that there was little support for restricting student cars on campus. He also indicated that there is a proposal coming from SAC for Eco-passes for all employees.
Board of Trustees Report: (Arthur Best; Susan Sadler)
The Board of Trustees was told of a favorable year-end budget variance. The Trustees approved a 5.9% tuition increase. Chancellor Ritchie explained that household income has increased proportionally; He also pointed out that price is perceived as a measure of quality. Arthur Best pointed out the faculty salaries should reflect the same maxim. Trustees approved their own inclusion in provisions of the Honor Code, adjudicated under terms of bylaws of the BOT. Distance Learning was also discussed in favorable terms. Best indicated that the Executive Committee of the Senate is convening a general faculty meeting on Feb 29, 3:00 in Daniels College of Business. TOPIC: Intellectual Property issues in the face of new technology issues.
Jenna Brown, DU Ombuds Officer.
Brown introduced herself to the Senate, described her role at the university as an organizational ombudsperson, as opposed to a governmental or investigatory one. Her role is to facilitate process. She can meet with anyone (faculty, staff and students), but can advocate for no one. Her role is to listen, identify and advise re procedures. She can review letters, rehearse an approach to grievance procedures, make presentations, give referrals, etc. She can also provide direct mediation assistance through other units on campus. Office is cloaked in confidentiality and privacy. Her office is currently located in Room 420 Mary Reed Building, but Brown will meet with anyone anywhere by appointment. When she was asked how heavy her contact load is, and how she is getting the word out to the campus community, Brown indicated that her load is increasing, that she will be sending out letters, but has no support staff. There is an Ombuds Website, and she has been doing presentations to groups on campus. Brown was also asked about her own reporting lines. She replied that she answers directly to the Chancellor at this time, but that she observes total confidentiality in her dealings with him.
Calendar Committee meeting (Susan Sadler):
A special meeting of the Campus Calendar Committee was held in January at the request of Susan Sadler, member of the Faculty Athletic Committee. Intent was to establish a farther reaching academic calendar to ensure that coaches do not schedule athletic travel during exam periods, etc. Bill Zaranka commended Dennis Becker, Registrar and Chair of the Campus calendar Committee, suggesting that he be invited to participate in the Senate. Best indicated that he had already been an invited guest.
Honor Code:
Student committees continue to work on the Honor Code. The Board of Trustees has not yet voted on the Code. Sheila Wright has expressed concern about what to say to students participating in Denver Days about the existence of an Honor Code. Zaranka indicated that an Honor Code is not yet in force, but that action on it is becoming imperative. It will soon be brought to the executive body of the BOT. In the meantime, the faculty Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure document must be revised to reflect faculty roles and obligations re an Honor Code. Prospective students will be told that we are in the process of adopting a code, but that it is not yet been implemented. The question was raised whether such students should also be told that certain units on campus, like DCB and Law, have implemented internal honors codes.
Reporting lines for Affirmative Action Officer.
Zaranka indicated that in the past the Affirmative Action officer has answered to Human Resources, but that the new officer will answer to Paul Chan, University Counsel. Following the 1996 Survey on Respect, administered by Karen Anderson, the ad hoc decision was made to relocate the position to HR. Concerns were expressed about appropriateness of this decision, and attempts were made to change reporting line to Chancellor. He declined. Current solution: University Counsel is also under fire, and it has been suggested that the position be realigned with HR. Woody explained the rational for such a move, but indicated that there might be a conflict of interest, since the AA Officer’s supervisor would be the person designated to defend the university against any actions taken. Les Goodchild asked that the university be proactive in assigning the office a leadership role. Nappholz expressed concern that in the past, a remote reporting line for the AA Officer slowed down hiring procedures. It was suggested that other institutions be canvassed to see what reporting lines are in place. John Coombe expressed his opinion that the office needs the stature of reporting to one of the top two officers on campus. Antonio Ledesma reinforced Coombe's opinion, adding that the responsibility of assuring the meeting of affirmative action goals must rest with the Chancellor.
Committee Reports.
Graduate Council (Goodchild). Two notices of motion:
Carol Nappholz reminded the Senate that nominations for faculty awards are due on February 23.
There was no New Business.
Meeting was adjourned at 1:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
2/24/00