FACULTY GOVERNANCE TASK FORCE

February 8, 2008

Meeting

AGENDA

• Introduction and Background• Presentation of 4 Models • Discussion of Criteria to Evaluate Models• Small Group Review of Models• Sharing Small Group Discussions• Working Dinner-Compensation and

Service Agreements• Discussion of Next Meeting

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

• Review of charge to task force, deliverables and timeline (Roxanne)

• Review of research on approaches in benchmark schools (Judy)

• Ground rules for task force meetings (Jerry)

TASK FORCE OBJECTIVES, DELIVERABLES, TIMELINE

• April/May – Structure of Faculty Governancethat will pass Faculty Assemblies

• FGEB interface between Chancellor and Task Force

• Faculty compensation for service - subcommittee

RESEARCH FINDINGS FROM OTHER SCHOOLS

• University of Illinois

• University of Alabama-Birmingham

• University of Florida

SUGGESTED GROUND RULES

• Show respect for others• Keep an open mind, be willing to share• Process comments, suggestions adequately• Stay focused • Avoid passivity, domination• Maintain confidentiality• Record appropriate information• Try consensus before voting

PRESENTATION OF 4 MODELS

• Model # 1-The current approach with governing board

• Model # 2-The current approach with some changes

• Model # 3 A more consolidated approach

• Model # 4 A highly consolidated approach

MODEL # 1

Chancellor

VC Research VC Health Affairs VC New Initiatives ProvostVC University

Relation

Downtown Faculty Assembly

Budget Oversight and

PlanningEPUS GLBT Women’s

AMC Faculty Assembly

Personnel....

VC Finance

HSC Library

FGEB

Pros/Cons #1

Pros• Least amount of work• Closer association

with home campus• Familiar• No change

Cons• Almost no interaction• Divide and Conquer• Minimal chance of

passing accreditation• Everything through

Provost• Risk of leaving some

faculty not represented

MODEL # 2

Chancellor

VC Research VC Health Affairs VC New Initiatives ProvostVC University

Relation

UCD Executive Assembly

Budget Oversight and

PlanningEPUS GLBT Women’s Personnel

VC Finance

Research Committee

Downtown Faculty Assembly

AMC Faculty Assembly

Clinical Affairs

Pros/Cons #2

Pros• Very little change• Close association with

home campus• Probably could pass

accreditation• More input from both

campuses to committees• Harder to Divide and

Conquer

Cons• Minimal interaction• Divide and Conquer• Everything through

Provost• Risk of leaving some

faculty unrepresented• Not very innovated• Slightly more time

commitment

MODEL # 3Chancellor

VC ResearchVC

Health AffairsVC

New InitiativesProvost

VC UniversityRelation

Committee on Research

Infrastructure and Policy

(CRISP)

Committee on Clinical Practice

and Policies

University Planning and New Initiatives

Faculty Affairs, Promotion andTenure Policies

Educational Policies

and University Standards

University Libraries

Oversight and Planning

Committee on Family and

Diversity

VC Finance

University Budget

Oversight and Planning

CU Denver Operating Committee

Downtown Faculty Assembly

AMC Faculty Assembly

Pros/Cons #3

Pros• Close association with

home campus• Joint committees• Interaction between

campuses and all Vice Chancellors

• Harder to Divide and Conquer

• Input to Chancellor• Very innovated

Cons• Culture shock for both

faculty and administration• Risk of leaving some

faculty unrepresented• Big time commitment• More complicated• Harder to “get it right”

MODEL # 4Chancellor

VC ResearchVC

Health AffairsVC

New InitiativesProvost

VC UniversityRelation

Committee on Research

Infrastructure and Policy

(CRISP)

Committee on Clinical Practice

and Policies

University Planning and New Initiatives

Faculty Affairs, Promotion andTenure Policies

Educational Policies

and University Standards

University Libraries

Oversight and Planning

Committee on Family and

Diversity

VC Finance

University Budget

Oversight and Planning

UCD Faculty Assembly

Pros/Cons #4

Pros• Joint committees• Interaction between

campuses and all Vice Chancellors

• Impossible to Divide and Conquer

• Input to Chancellor• Very innovated

Cons• Culture shock for both

faculty and administration

• Big time commitment (but less than 3)

• More complicated• Campus issues may

be lost• Harder to “get it right”

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION

• Which Model: - Is most likely to promote the faculty’s

role in governance? - Best promotes the faculty as a true

partner in meeting mission and consolidation goals?

- Best promotes efficiency and opportunism for the faculties at each campus?

CRITERIA CONTINUED

-Best promotes the feeling that both campus faculties are important and properly represented?

-Best promotes learning between the faculty governance groups at both campuses?

-Best balances the goals of meeting faculty governance objectives and the unique needs of each campus?

CRITERIA CONTINUED

- Best assures that the faculty has timely awareness of important issues of concern?

- Best enables the faculty to broaden involvement in areas in which there is no current involvement?

- Is easiest to sell (consider ease of implementation, support from administration, etc.)?

SMALL GROUP EVALUATION OF MODELS

• Each small group will evaluate the 4 models using the pros and cons, criteria, and any additional considerations

• Feel free to develop additional models or

modify current ones and evaluate them

• Record the highlights of the discussion on a flip chart and rank order the models using consensus or voting if necessary

FULL GROUP REVIEW OF SMALL GROUP DELIBERATIONS

• Each small group will present the highlights of their discussion and recommendations

• The full group will compare the discussions and recommendations

• At the next meeting the full group will make its recommendations

WORKING DINNER

• First hour: Dinner and socializing

• Second hour: Discussion of compensation agreements and service issues

• Wrap up and discussion of next meeting