彩民宝典

Jan. 17, 2023, 3:30鈥�5:00 pm, Zoom

听

Representatives Present:听

Shelley Copley (MCDB), Paul Romatschke (PHYS), Mike Zerella (RAPS), Joe Bryan (GEOG), Andrew Cowell (LING), Christopher Osborn (CINE), Marissa Ehringer (IPHY), Benjamin Brown (APS), Mark Whisman (PSYC), Keller Kimbrough (ALC, AHUM Divisional Rep), Cecilia Pang (THDN), Matthew Burgess (ENVS), Martin Boileau (ECON, SS Divisional Rep), Jeffrey Cox (ENGL, AHUM Divisional Rep), Robert Parson (CHEM), Jennifer Schwartz (HONR), Annje Wiese (HUMN), Christina Meyers (SLHS), Elspeth Dusinberre (CLAS), Cosetta Seno (FRIT), Lorraine Bayard de Volo (WGST), William Taylor (ANTH), Anthony Abiragi (PWR), Zachary Kilpatrick (APPM), John D. Griffin (PSCI), Aun Ali (RLST), Stephanie Su (AAH), Nils Halvorson (APS, NS Divisional Rep), Albert Bronstein (MATH), Robert Rupert (PHIL)

听

Representatives not present:

Sebastian Schmidt (ATOC), Robert Kuchta (BCHM), Juan Pablo Dabove (SPAN), Nichole Barger (EBIO), Matthias Richter (ALC), Daniel Kaffine (ECON), Enrique Sepulveda (ETHN), Liam Downey (SOCY), Shemin Ge (GEOL), Doug Seals (IPHY), Anastasiya Osipova (GSLL), Andy Baker (PSCI, SS Divisional Rep)

Also in attendance:听Glen Krutz (Dean of A&S), Bud Coleman (Associate Dean of Faculty Affairs and Initiatives, A&S)

The meeting was called to order at approximately 3:32 p.m.

The Chair expressed the intention to record the meeting for the purpose of writing minutes of the meeting afterwards. He assured the membership that the recording would be used solely for that purpose. He asked for objections or concerns from the floor. None were expressed. Chair commenced recording and yielded the floor to Dean Krutz.

听

Dean鈥檚 Remarks

Dean Krutz commended Andy Cowell for his work as Interim Chair of the ASFS in Fall, 2022.

The Dean announced that awards have been made through the Dean鈥檚 Innovation Fund. These are one-time awards, which were initiated with the goal of funding $200,000 worth of projects. Seventy-four completed project applications were submitted. Seventeen were funded. In the end, $317,000 was awarded. The Dean applauded the high quality of the applications, those funded as well as those that were not. Those who were not successful are encouraged to apply next year.

The Dean emphasized the importance of A&S leadership searches. The new Associate Dean for Research will, hopefully, be announced soon. An offer has been made. Negotiations are still in progress. Thanks to search committee members and to those who participated in other ways. Job descriptions and ads will be posted any day for Divisional Deans. The AHUM search is internal and is likely to move more quickly to the interview stage. Searches in other two divisions will be open to internal and external applicants.听

The new budget model is now in effect, but we are in a 鈥渉old harmless鈥� period. The forecasted result seems to be that if a unit grows strongly, it might not see as much of an increase as one would have thought, but if a unit doesn鈥檛 grow, negative effects will definitely be felt. Two things to keep in mind: First, the model focuses mostly on enrollment 鈥� SCH鈥檚, retention, and the home department of students 鈥� so it鈥檚 important that we grow as best we can in these respects. Second, a supplemental process plays a significant role in the budget model, which allows for funding over and above funding determined by SCH鈥檚, etc. We should plan ahead for our requests, things we鈥檒l want to ask for supplemental funding for when hold harmless is over.

The Dean announced that enrollment is down a smidge for the spring, year-over-year. The College might consider the possibility of late-starting classes (lasting five or eight week), beginning half-way through the semester. This might get students into classes with us instead of taking them take them, say, back home, over the summer. For some students, these can serve as 鈥渟econd chance鈥� classes during a semester in which they鈥檝e fallen behind or done poorly in some of their classes early on in the term. The goal might be to offer a few of these in each division, and maybe we could bump up enrollment next spring over the current one. The Dean is willing to fund this initiative initially. Space could be an issue, but the Dean is exploring options.

The Dean provided an update on online education. Generally speaking, he would like to discuss what we might offer in the fall in the online format. High-quality online courses with lots of interaction could be of benefit to the students. We should consider high-demand classes, in particular. Students have options for taking their gen-ed courses on-line at other institutions. We should try to capture these credit hours. This an opportunity to increase enrollments without cutting into demand for our in-person courses, given that the competition here is with other online offerings or courses the students might take back home, over the summer.

听

Chair鈥檚 remarks

The Chair thanked Andy Cowell for stepping in as Interim Chair and for his excellent work.

The Chair reminds the membership that, in December, this body voted to put a proposed amendment to the bylaws to a vote of Faculty of Arts and Sciences. The Chair is working with Lynne Howard, who provides staff support for the BFA, to run a Qualtrics vote soon.

The ASFS is still without staff support. It was removed at the beginning of fall semester. There is an effort underway to try to hire a graduate student to provide some administrative support. A job description is in the works, and the job will be advertised soon, if all goes well.

About searches for Divisional Deans, the Chair encouraged everyone to participate in whatever way presents itself, through the ASFS, Divisional Councils, Department-level processes, or any other channel available.

Potential policy-related responses to climate challenges (Andy Cowell, Chair of Budget Committee)

Cowell brought this issue forward at the end of last semester, in his role as Interim/Acting Chair of the ASFS, and he continues to have interest in the issue in his capacity as Chair of the ASFS Budget Committee, which has discussed the topic.听

Cowell shares his screen. Budget invited CU sustainability team to come to Budget. CU has a Chief Sustainability Officer, Heidi VanGenderen reports to Interim Vice Chancellor Chris Ewing.

Cowells shares links to many resources 鈥� including a sustainability report, a climate action plan, information about an on-campus summit, and about BFA actions. Many questions about campus activity and sustainability are technical and facilities related and may be outside the purview of ASFS.听

But, there are some questions that pertain to higher education more generally. There is a report from the American College and University Presidents, which makes a number of recommendations to do with climate change, some of them pertaining to the general role of colleges and universities: supporting research and education, increasing curricular offerings on climate adaptation, serving as hub in the community for dissemination of information, and acknowledging the inequitable distribution of climate impacts across populations. The report makes recommendations for pursuing these goals, some of which 鈥� for instance, evaluating current curricular offerings 鈥� might fall within the purview of faculty governance (the Curriculum Committee鈥檚 purview, for example).

Moving beyond the report, Cowell displayed a list of policy-related matters that may well be within the purview of the ASFS, such as travel policy, hiring priorities, increasing investment in deferred maintenance (big issue, need money for the facilities upgrades), divestment, research priorities (including, potentially, distancing CU from certain kinds of research), and outreach. Cowell opens the floor, asking has questions or comment and whether the membership would like to see the ASFS or its standing committees to pursue any of these topics.

The representative from ENVS polled the faculty in his unit. He reported results largely in line with the sort of action suggested by Cowell鈥檚 presentation, though he also noted that when asked whether the ASFS should issue statements representing the opinion of the faculty on matters of public controversy, his unit鈥檚 faculty leaned toward 鈥渘o鈥�. He would like to follow up on the apparent tension in responses. He announces upcoming panel on divestment, sponsored by CIRES and Leeds, on March 1. He encouraged the body, as it moves forward, to do its due diligence and consider the nuances of the issues 鈥� for instance, the effects of travel restrictions on the careers of students who need to develop professional networks or the effects of divestment in savings plans on the retirement resources of junior faculty. He expresses concern about the idea of having a policy that tells individual faculty members what not to research. He announces additional event (with former congresswoman Claudine Schneider) on how to make a difference for the climate in business, government, and the private sector.

The representative from APS asks Cowell whether it鈥檚 possible to get a report on sustainability and climate-related infrastructure 鈥� what鈥檚 been done, what plans are in the works.

Cowell says that the Budget Committee has been given such a summary, and it has been supplemented by responses to the Budget Committee鈥檚 follow-up questions.

Rep from Classics points out that the deferred maintenance budget in the college (over which the ASFS has some influence) is very small. Most of the money for deferred maintenance comes from elsewhere and not within the ASFS鈥檚 sphere of influence.

听

Intellectual Property Rights for Course Material Created by Faculty Members

The Chair introduces a guest, Alastair Norcross (Professor of Philosophy, RAP Director, and a member of the system-level Faculty Council Committee on Educational Policy and University Standards -- EPUS), and explains the topic to be addressed, which concerns the protection of faculty members鈥� intellectual property rights to material produced for courses.

EPUS examines documents that govern the system, including Administrative Policy Statements (APS鈥檚). Last semester, EPUS reviewed a proposed revision to APS 1014 governing intellectual property rights. Norcross shares the relevant text, currently in effect, and a proposed change to APS 1014 that caused controversy. Norcross reads out and explains the gist of the current wording, which allows the University to share educational materials created by a faculty member with an accreditation agency as part of review as well as to use such materials until the end of a semester in which the faculty member who created the materials is unable to finish teaching their courses in progress. Norcross then shared the proposed changes that EPUS reviewed in the past fall semester. The proposed text assigns rights to educational materials to the faculty member who created the materials but also grants the University an irrevocable license to use the material and material derived from it in perpetuity. Norcross illustrates the implications with a hypothetical scenario.听

EPUS solicited faculty input on the proposed changes and received many comments, coming in from all from all four campuses, which were highly critical of the proposed changes. Other practical issues have arisen to do with the cumulative nature of some course material, tracking which person created which material.

In response to faculty comments, the University is working on a revised version of the proposed revisions. And, EPUS will solicit comments on that new draft, when it arrives. The University鈥檚 agents do seem to have taken faculty concern seriously.

Norcross entertained questions and comments. The representative from CLAS points out that the previously proposed language applies to the University as a whole, and thus that, under the language of the proposed change, course materials could be used on one campus while its originator was still teaching at a different campus. The representative from APPM points out that the proposed changes are not limited in their application to online or posted material. So, in theory, it would apply to handouts distributed in paper form in class even to a faculty member鈥檚 handwritten lecture notes. But, it is acknowledged that, practically speaking, posted materials are the ones that would have been most directly affected. The issue of a chilling effect on online teaching was raised, because the pragmatic approach among faculty who don鈥檛 want their material co-opted would be not to use online resources. Norcross raises an issue related to the timing of the creation of materials. If one were to prepare for a course over the summer, when the individual is not under contract, would that exempt the materials from the University鈥檚 claim as asserted in the proposed language? Norcross intends to distribute the new version of the proposed changes when they come in.

听

Bylaws Revisions

The Chair moves to the next item, further possible changes to the ASFS bylaws. He shares his screen, which displays a redlined version of the current bylaws, showing possible changes to the bylaws that have been discussed by the Executive Committee over the past year. The first such change concerns the definition of voting faculty, not of the ASFS, but of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences as a whole. The historical interpretation of such language as it appears in faculty governance bylaws and the longstanding practice in the College has been to treat 鈥榝aculty鈥� in this context as referring to TTT faculty and Teaching Professors [Instructional Faculty, in the language of the relevant APS, that is, 5060]. But APS 5060 lists a wide range of titles all under the heading of 鈥榝aculty titles鈥�. For example, Lecturer is listed, in a section entitled Supplemental Faculty. The following wording is shown on the screen and read out by the chair: 鈥淭he voting members of the FAS are听tenured and tenure-track faculty members, Teaching Professors, and any other nonsupplemental听faculty members of primary units in the College of Arts and Sciences (CAS)听when, and only when, those nonsupplemental faculty members have voting rights in their home unit.鈥� The Chair explains that the second change is in place to accommodate departments in which faculty members (other than TTT or Teaching Professors) with nonsupplemental titles, such as Research Professor, have voting rights.

Comments and questions. The representative from the RAPS raises a question about faculty members in RAPs. The Chair indicates that the operative question is whether a RAP is housed in A&S. But, assuming it鈥檚 clear that a RAP is housed in A&S, then voting rights in those RAPs would be straightforward, given that such RAPs satisfy the criteria for being primary units (as specified in the current bylaws).

The representative from ENGL asks whether 鈥榲oting rights in one鈥檚 home dept.鈥� means 鈥榓ny voting rights at all in the home dept.鈥� The Chair expresses and supports the view that department chairs should be given discretion. But this might be a matter for further discussion. (The discussion to follow sometimes uses Lecturers as examples; the representative from MCDB points out that that particular example is not to the point, given that the discussion, at this juncture, pertains only to nonsupplemental faculty titles.) The representative from IPHY suggests wording such as 鈥渨hen, and only when, those nonsupplemental faculty members have voting rights in their home unit,听as defined within their department鈥澨齕with the text in italics being added], to clarify matters. The representative from CLAS suggests polling chairs about the issue.

The Chair indicates that the next proposed bylaws amendment replaces 鈥業nstructors鈥� with 鈥楾eaching Professors鈥� throughout the document. The following proposed change would codify the听ex-officio, non-voting status of the Associate Dean of Faculty Affairs and Initiatives.听

The next two changes concern the Personnel Committee. The first deletes reference to College Professors of Distinction, to bring the bylaws into accordance with current practice, which has not been to include decisions about the awarding of that title in the brief of the Personnel Committee. The second change inserts the words 鈥榯enured and tenure-track鈥� before 鈥榝aculty鈥� to make it clear that there has been no change in the way evaluation or promotions of Teaching Professors is being handled by the Personnel Committee (the job of which has only been to review non-reappointments of Teaching Professors).听

The final change would put the requirement that Division Councils use Robert鈥檚 Rules of Order to govern their parliamentary procedures into the portion of the bylaws that Divisional Councils are free to amend, while leaving a general requirement of the use of Robert鈥檚 Rules for the FAS and ASFS outside the scope of Divisional Councils鈥� amending power, as Article X.听

There were no further comments on or questions. The Chair invites input on these proposed changes, to be sent to him or conveyed to any of the standing committee chairs.

听

Credit for DEI work in Unit-Level Merit Review

The final agenda item concerned credit for DEI-related work in merit review. The BFA has passed a resolution mandating that departments give credit in merit review for DEI-related work, by a system determined by each academic unit. The Chair asks what the role might be of the ASFS in this process. One possibility is that the ASFS would play an enforcement-related role, somehow working to get departments to comply with the BFA鈥檚 resolution. A second possible approach is for the ASFS to support resource-sharing, to serve as a repository of sorts for documents from departments that have addressed this issue, which documents could then be shared with other departments that want guidance, ideas, or a model to work from. The Chair of DEI has offered the services of the ASFS Committee on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion as the base for such a resource-sharing endeavor. The Chair suggests that the membership give some thought to these questions 鈥� of whether the ASFS should play a role in the process of implementing the BFA鈥檚 resolution and, if the ASFS should do so, what that role would be, enforcement-related or oriented toward resource-sharing or both.

The meeting is adjourned at 5:01 p.m.