University of Colorado Boulderarp.colorado.edu/events-and-deadlines/past-final-reports/2015_AA... · University of Colorado Boulder 2015 Program Review Division of Academic Affairs

University of Colorado Boulder

2015 Program Review

Division of Academic Affairs Office of Diversity, Equity, and Community Engagement Office of Faculty Affairs Office of the Dean of the Graduate School Ombuds Office Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research Office of the Senior Vice Provost Office of Student Affairs Office of Undergraduate Education

Academic Review and Planning Advisory Committee Final Report

Approved Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs : Date

2015 Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 2

Contents Process Overview – 3 2015 ARPAC Members – 4 Unit Overview – 5 Past Reviews – 15 Campus Context – 16 National Context – 18 Analysis – 19 Recommendations – 43 Required Follow-Up – 55


The review of the Division of Academic Affairs (AA) was conducted

in accordance with the 2015 review guidelines. One aspect of the

review should be noted at the outset. The Academic Review and

Planning Advisory Committee (ARPAC), which conducts and

writes the final reviews of all academic units on the Boulder

campus, is chaired by the vice provost and associate vice

chancellor for faculty affairs and has two other administrative

leaders from the division who serve as non-voting permanent

members. For the purposes of this review, the three members of

the committee holding AA administrative appointments were

recused from ARPAC throughout the process, and the committee

was chaired by a member of the faculty holding the rank of

professor.

Each of the units within AA prepared a self-study, which was

reviewed by an internal review committee (IRC). In most cases

where the IRC raised questions about the self-study, additional

information was provided or responses were clarified. An external

review committee (ERC) visited the division in May 2015 and,

having reviewed the relevant documents, met with faculty

members, students, staff members, university administrators, and

ARPAC members. ERC comments and recommendations are

cited at appropriate points. This public document reflects the

assessment of and recommendations for the Division of Academic

Affairs as approved by the Academic Review and Planning

Advisory Committee.

Process Overview


Sanjai Bhagat, Professor, Leeds School of Business Margaret Berg, Associate Professor, College of Music Ken Bickers, Professor, Department of Political Science Kevin Krizek, Professor, Environmental Design Program Jack Maness, Associate Professor, University Libraries Susan Nevelow Mart, Associate Professor, School of Law Polly McLean, Associate Professor, Department of Media Studies Warren Motte, Professor, Department of French and Italian Agnes Szendrei, Professor, Department of Mathematics Andre Grothe, Office of Faculty Affairs

Academic Review and Planning

Advisory Committee

(ARPAC)

Staff

Academic Year 2015-16 Members


As a result of the 2000 accreditation by the Higher Learning

Commission (HLC) of the North Central Association of Colleges

and Schools (NCA), the University of Colorado-Boulder moved to

a provost model, with the Division of Academic Affairs launched in

2002 to improve academic leadership. As of fall 2015, the Division

of Academic Affairs includes eight units: Office of Diversity, Equity,

and Community Engagement; Office of Faculty Affairs; the Office

of the Dean of the Graduate School; Ombuds Office; Office of the

Vice Chancellor for Research; Office of the Senior Vice Provost for

Budget and Planning; Office of Student Affairs; and the Office of

Undergraduate Education. All units report directly to the provost.

The Office of Diversity, Equity, and Community Engagement

(ODECE) works to support the university's commitment to

principles of diversity and inclusiveness. Diversity includes (but is

not limited to) ethnicity, race, gender, age, socio-economic status,

sexual orientation, religion, disability, political viewpoints, veteran

status, gender identity or expression, and health status. ODECE

leads CU Boulder's efforts to promote the involvement of every

student, staff member, and faculty member, recognizing that a

truly diverse community includes individuals from a range of

ethnic, regional, cultural, economic, and religious backgrounds, as

well as first-generation students, persons with disabilities,

students who are parents, people of different sexual and gender

orientations, people of different ages and political viewpoints, and

many others.

Initially established in 1997 under the leadership of an associate

vice chancellor, the office was elevated to the level of vice

chancellor in 2007 in response to a recommendation of the 2000

North Central Association of Colleges and Schools Accreditation

Report. The vice chancellor for diversity, equity, and community

Unit Overview

Overview: Diversity, Equity, and Community

Engagement


engagement serves as the campus chief diversity officer,

participates on the chancellor’s cabinet, and provides leadership

for inclusive excellence in all areas of university activities and

operations.

The unit's self-study mentions that ODECE pursues its mission

through the specialized efforts of its divisions and through defined,

ongoing institutional initiatives such as the Office of Pre-College

Outreach and Engagement, the Student Success/CU LEAD

Alliance, the Colorado Diversity Initiative, Office of Disability

Services, the Faculty and Staff Advisory Group, and campus

climate and community engagement projects.

The Office of Faculty Affairs (OFA) provides support for the growth

and professional development, mentoring, and guidance of CU

Boulder faculty and oversees processes for faculty appointment,

reappointment, promotion, and tenure. The OFA is led by a

tenured faculty member who serves as the vice provost and

associate vice chancellor (VP/AVC) for faculty affairs. Since its

establishment in the early 1980s, the OFA has expanded to

accommodate new faculty roles and broadening forms of

scholarship.

Core OFA functions include:

• Oversight of regular faculty personnel processes (tenure-track faculty and instructor-rank faculty) from hiring to retirement; including reappointment, tenure, and promotion processes;

• Management of the academic program review process;

• Maintenance and management of data on faculty members throughout their careers;

Overview: Faculty Affairs


• Oversight and development of innovative data resources to illuminate faculty information in support of core campus initiatives and to promote the reputation of the campus and the faculty;

• The review, development, and enforcement of academic

affairs policies on behalf of the provost.

• Oversight of major shared governance committees, including the Vice Chancellor’s Advisory Committee, the Academic Review and Planning Advisory Committee, and the Salary Equity Appeals Committee, all of which are chaired by the VP/AVC and composed of faculty members who have been approved by both the provost and the Boulder Faculty Assembly;

• Assistance with conflict management for faculty members,

chairs, and deans;

• The investigation of allegations of unprofessional behavior or misconduct for the purpose of making written recommendations for disposition;

• The coordination of efforts to assist faculty in developing

leadership skills;

• The coordination of efforts to recognize and celebrate faculty achievements.

In pursuit of its mission to promote success and excellence across

all areas of the academic enterprise, the OFA provides the

following faculty professional development and support services:

• Leadership Education for Advancement and Promotion (LEAP), which focuses on the professional development and success of new and midcareer faculty members;

• The Faculty Teaching Excellence Program (FTEP), which assists faculty members at all levels to strengthen their teaching;


• Coordination on behalf of the Boulder campus for the CU system-based Excellence in Leadership Program (ELP), which provides a select group of faculty members (and some staff) with leadership training and an opportunity to develop a “big picture” understanding of the University of Colorado, the state legislature, and other aspects of the higher education landscape; and

• The Office of the Director of Faculty Relations, which

supports faculty members and academic administrators in managing working relationships, addressing difficult professional situations, resolving conflict, addressing unprofessional behavior, and developing their capacity to serve as academic leaders.

In addition to the various services the OFA coordinates, office

personnel also take the lead in developing or revising a number of

key policies and documents including: Parental Leave Policy; Early

Tenure Policy; Program Discontinuance Policy; the Faculty Rights

and Responsibilities document; the Grievance Policy; instructor

status; clinical faculty track policy; and leave policy.

Regarding diversity, the OFA self-study states that the office has

put into place a number of initiatives to aid in increasing diversity

and inclusivity. These initiatives include: (1) dedicated funds to

attract and retain a diverse faculty and (2) requiring that hiring

plans, including diversity efforts, be in place before a hire is put on

the chancellor’s delegation report.

The Graduate School’s most recent mission statement gives it

responsibility for planning, implementing, and evaluating the 116

masters, doctoral, and professional programs in 53 different

graduate programs on the CU Boulder campus; for facilitating and

enhancing the educational experiences and opportunities of CU

Boulder’s approximately 5000 graduate students; and for

encouraging excellence in research, creative and scholarly work.

Overview: Graduate School


The mission has undergone de facto alteration through the

organizational restructuring that created two positions and two

offices where once there was one: in 2010, the position of dean of

the Graduate School and vice chancellor for research were split

into two separate positions and two mostly separate offices. The

mission statement, last updated in 2001, does not reflect this

change or the fact that ten of CU Boulder’s research institutes

now report to the dean of the Graduate School.

The Graduate School currently accomplishes its work though five

more or less discrete offices:

• Student Services, with two staff members who assist students, staff members, and faculty members with compliance with Graduate School rules, polices, and requirements;

• The Office of Student Funding and Admissions, with two staff members, manages the 11,000 graduate applications received annually and the admissions process for CU Boulder and provides guidance for and oversight of all funding, awards, and fellowships for graduate education;

• Communication, with one staff member, is responsible for

maintaining a presence in mass media, maintaining websites, and creating in-house publications;

• The Graduate Teacher Program, with two staff members

and the help of graduate student assistants, offers graduate and professional student development program; and

• Budget and Personnel, with two staff members, oversees,

jointly with the Office of the Vice Chancellor of Research, all matters of budget and personnel for both offices, including the institutes.

The Ombuds Office (OO) is designed to be a confidential,

impartial, informal, and independent problem-solving and conflict

Overview: Ombuds Office


resolution resource for all members of the university community. It

serves faculty, staff, and students. The OO provides a safe place

to help individuals review options for managing or resolving

interpersonal disputes and/or university-related

problems. Services include interpersonal conflict coaching,

mediation, group facilitation, unit consultations, and making

referrals. In addition, the office provides constituents with help in

understanding and navigating CU Boulder’s bureaucracy,

including its norms, rules, policies, and procedures. The office

does not provide legal advice, advocate for individuals, or accept

formal notice about problems on behalf of the university. It

operates according to the standards of practice set forth by the

International Ombudsman Association.

Established in 1972 as a service for students, OO originally

reported up through the vice chancellor for student affairs. In 1985

its services were expanded to include faculty and staff, and in

1990, the OO director began reporting administratively to the

chancellor. In response to a recommendation in a 2001

accreditation review, the director began reporting to the provost.

Operating with a staff of two ombuds (a director and associate

director) and one administrative assistant, the OO serves

anywhere between 300 and 500 visitors on an annual basis.

Complementing the OO is a Faculty Ombuds Office (FOO), which

was established in 1997 with two part-time retired faculty

members. The FOO serves anyone with teaching responsibilities

(i.e., graduate students and faculty members) with approximately

65-100 visitors annually.

The mission of the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research

(OVCR) is to provide administrative assistance to promote,

sustain, and assist in securing funding for research of CU Boulder

Overview: Research


faculty members, research staff, and students. The OVCR is

organized into four primary sub-units and additional secondary

sub-units, as briefly described below:

• Office of Contracts and Grants (OCG): OCG is the most well-known sub-unit of OVCR. OCG assists faculty, staff, and students in obtaining and managing external support for their sponsored research. OCG monitors and helps enforce campus and sponsor policies regarding the sponsored research.

• Office of Research Integrity (ORI): ORI focuses on regulatory and ethical compliance pertaining to conflicts of interest, controlled substances used in research, export controls, human research, laboratory animal care and use, and research misconduct.

• The Office of Animal Research ensures the well-being of

laboratory animals and provides investigator and student training.

• The Office of Industry Collaboration (OIC) builds industry

connections “that may, or may not, involve sponsored research.” OIC is designed to “provide a single, designated point of entry into CU Boulder for industry.”

• The Department of Environmental Health & Safety shares

responsibility for biosafety and occupational health initiatives.

• Sponsored Project Accounting is a part of the accounting

and business support unit and is involved in the post-award financial administration of sponsored projects.

• The Executive Advisory Committee approves the

appointments of research faculty (for AY 2014-2015: 19 cases).

The senior vice provost and associate vice chancellor (SVP/AVC),

a position that was created in 2014, serves to fulfill multiple

commitments, including, in the SVP role, the obligations of an

Overview: Senior Vice-Provost


officer of the University of Colorado with authorized signing

authority. Formally, the Office of the Senior Vice Provost (OSVP)

and the Associate Vice Chancellor for Budget and Planning, the

OSVP is fully integrated within the Office of the Provost in the

Division of Academic Affairs, sharing space, staff and budget. As

such, the vision, mission and values statements for the OSVP are

identical to the provost’s.

The SVP/AVC works with the provost and the senior vice

chancellor & chief financial officer (CFO) to develop the budget

strategy for the campus but has limited involvement in budget

details like specific budget allocations. Areas of emphasis for the

SVP/AVC have included new revenue development and budget

governance. Over the past two decades, the SVP/AVC has

launched initiatives for generating new revenues, including

incentive funding to grow summer session revenues; development

of MayMester; graduate student enrollment growth through tuition

remission reform; course and program fees; differential tuition for

business and engineering; and professional masters programs. As

the chief budget officer for the Division of Academic Affairs, the

SVP/AVC chairs the Academic Affairs Budget Advisory Committee

(AABAC). The OSVP has other major responsibilities including: (1)

academic and space planning, (2) serving as the official liaison

between campus administration and the Boulder Faculty

Assembly and (3) the campus accreditation liaison to the Higher

Learning Commission.

According to the IRC report,

[The OSVP’s office] aligns with the university’s mission and its strategic goals for student success, reputation, and generating new sources of revenue. The office further supports the university’s ability to expand educational


pathways through the creation of new professional degree programs and the optimization of campus space.

According to the current SVP/AVC,

The office provides innovative and entrepreneurial revenue generation strategies for the campus. The primary constituents for this office are the Provost and the Chancellor.

The Office of the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs serves to

develop and implement innovative programs and services that

positively impact retention and graduation rates, engagement,

campus climate, and student success. Student Affairs promotes

the personal growth, success, health, and well-being of every

student at CU Boulder and is committed to enhancing the factors

that lead to academic success while reducing the obstacles that

may impede progress. The office supports academic success by

creating inclusive environments that address the social, emotional,

physical, spiritual, professional, and academic needs of students

to increase engagement, retention, academic progress, and

graduation rates and to improve campus climate and overall

student success.

The Office of the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs encompasses

most support services for undergraduate and graduate students.

It oversees services and programs in out-of-classroom

environments, including where students eat, sleep, build

community, make friends, and where students can go when they

need help and support. The office is comprised of 27 divisions

(including major operations such as Housing and Dining Services,

Wardenburg Health Services, the University Memorial Center, and

Overview: Student Affairs


Recreation Services), with 947.8 staff FTE and 2233 student

employees.

The Office of Undergraduate Education (OUE) is tasked with

oversight of student programs with a campus-wide scope and/or

those programs that do not belong to a single school or college.

These include the Office of International Education, the Student

Academic Success Center, the Leadership Residential Academic

Program, including the Chancellor’s Leadership Studies Program

and the Ethnic Living and Learning Community Leadership Studies

Program, Special Undergraduate Enrichment Programs (Norlin

Scholars, Boettcher Scholars, Undergraduate Research

Opportunities Program and Professional and Academic

Conference Endowment), the Top Scholarship Office, and the

President’s Leadership Class.

According to the internal review committee, the Office of

Undergraduate Education is "a large and complex unit" whose

function is to enhance the undergraduate experience for a broadly

inclusive student body.

Overview: Undergraduate Education


The Division of Academic Affairs is undergoing review in 2015 for

the first time, although several of the units have previously

engaged in internal evaluation processes. In their exit interview,

external review committee members commented they had never

seen a similar review and that they are interested in the process

and its results.

Past Reviews


“Shaping the New Flagship,” the self-study released in August

2009 by the Boulder campus as part of the re-accreditation

process for the Higher Learning Commission, described a set of

structural changes to the campus governance and reporting

structure. Among the changes reflected in that self-study, the role

of provost was designated as the chief academic officer of the

university, with the title provost and executive vice chancellor for

academic affairs (referenced throughout this report, except when

greater clarity is required, simply as provost). The provost reports

directly to the chancellor, as do the chief financial officer (CFO),

the athletic director, the director of the Office of Institutional Equity

and Compliance, the vice chancellor for advancement, and a chief

of staff, who is also the director of compliance. The Division of

Academic Affairs reports to the provost.

In addition to the units within Division of Academic Affairs

described above, the deans of the colleges, schools, and libraries

report to the provost. These include the College of Arts &

Sciences, the College of Engineering & Applied Science, the

College of Media, Communication and Information (CMCI), the

College of Music, the School of Education, the School of Law, the

Leeds School of Business, the Graduate School, Continuing

Education, and the University Libraries. Also reporting to the

provost are the director of the Biofrontiers Institute and the

Newton Chair in Leadership.

Several units with immediate, direct connections to academic

activities report not to the provost but to the senior vice chancellor

& chief financial officer (CFO). These include the assistant vice

chancellor for information and technology and the director of

institutional research. Also reporting to the CFO is the assistant

vice chancellor for enrollment services and financial aid, who

Campus Context


oversees the director of admissions, the registrar, and the

associate director of scholarships, student employment and

administration. The coordinator of international student programs

co-reports to the CFO and the provost.


The Division of Academic Affairs is responsible for carrying out the

university’s commitment to providing high value education at

affordable rates to students from the state of Colorado, from other

states, and from around the world, while trying to build on and

enhance its reputation as a major research university — all in a

resource environment of increasing uncertainty and potential

scarcity. Though varying by specific fields and disciplines, the peer

institutions with which CU Boulder competes for students, faculty,

and resources include top universities in the United States and

around the world, in particular the top tier of American public

universities.

Virtually all public universities across the country are contending

with shrinking support from state appropriations for their

educational and research missions. For better or worse, Colorado

is at the leading edge of this trend. Students and their families are

being asked to bear a larger share of the cost of their education,

paid for increasingly by taking on student loan debts that are seen

by many as growing at unsustainable rates. Yet costs of running

academic institutions are being driven higher by increased

regulatory burdens from the federal government as well as by

required and expected enhancements in academic and social

supports for students, particularly students from more diverse

backgrounds than have typically been the case in the past.

The Boulder campus, despite these challenges, continues to be

committed to being a first-rate research institution, advancing

knowledge across a wide range of disciplines, and to student

success. This commitment cannot be sustained cheaply. It

requires significant investments in research excellence, student

success, and the development of alternative revenue streams.

National Context


The overall assessment of the Division of Academic Affairs in the

external review committee report is complimentary, noting that

those who work within and closely with the provost have great

respect for him. While the current provost and the senior vice

chancellor & chief financial officer (CFO) work together effectively

in an unusually supportive partnership, the ERC cautions that “the

distributed nature of reporting relationships of areas with functions

related to academic affairs between the two offices could be

problematic in the future.” The ERC pointed to budget constraints

that result in a lack of proactive and forward-thinking initiatives.

Also, according to the ERC report, there seems to be an

impression that the provost does not have full decision-making

authority over the budget for the Division of Academic Affairs,

which may be based on previous structural relationships between

the provost and budget offices.

How can Academic Affairs under the leadership of the provost

make meaningful progress toward the three-fold goals of

increasing student success and retention, enhancing the

university’s research reputation, and developing alternative

revenue streams? In considering the reports dealing with the

specific units within AA, ARPAC was impressed with the overall

effectiveness of most of the units. An analysis of each unit is

provided below. However, in considering these reports in

conjunction with information provided to the committee about AA

as a whole, ARPAC had a number of concerns about the

possibility that units may not be working in a coordinated fashion

to achieve common goals.

One of these concerns revolves around structural issues,

specifically whether the Division of Academic Affairs has all the

administrative assets that it needs to pursue effectively the three-

Analysis


fold goals to which it is committed. The provost model is relatively

new to the Boulder campus, having been instituted only after the

accreditation review of 2000. New responsibilities were added to

the provost’s portfolio with the structural changes accompanying

the accreditation review of 2009-2010. A comparison of the CU

Boulder Division of Academic Affairs with comparable units on

other campuses reveals some notable differences in the offices

reporting to the provost.

ARPAC did not undertake a comprehensive study of the

organization of academic affairs units across the country but did

review the organizational charts of 13 other public Association of

American Universities (AAU) campuses.1 All of the institutions

reviewed can be considered peers, more or less, of the Boulder

campus. In two cases, there is no title of provost, but there is a

chief academic officer under the title of executive vice chancellor

or senior vice president for academic affairs. On one campus, the

office of provost was created in 2006. In seven cases, the

information technology office (or equivalent) report directly to

provosts; it reports jointly to a provost in one other case; and in

still another case, the provost chairs a council for educational

technology, with that university’s office of information technology

formally reporting outside of academic affairs. International

programs, sometimes called international initiatives, report to

provosts in about a third of the cases. Offices of institutional

research report to provosts in just fewer than half the cases. In six

institutions, planning and budgeting offices (or the similar offices of

administration and finance) report to a provost, while in a seventh

institution such an office reports jointly to a provost and CFO. In

about half of these cases, enrollment management is part of

academic affairs.

1 These were University of California Berkeley, University of California Santa Barbara, Georgia Tech University, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Indiana University, Iowa State University, University of Kansas, University of Maryland College Park, Penn State University, Purdue University, Rutgers, Texas A&M, and the University of Texas, Austin


These comparisons are important. With people who are

committed to collaboration and who share common visions in

place, any structure may be made to work. But such people may

not always be in place. In such instances, having supportive

structures can facilitate the implementation of the academic goals

of a campus.

Consider as an example the issue of student retention. The

Division of Academic Affairs has been tasked with achieving the

chancellor’s goal of graduating 80 percent of undergraduate

students within six years of matriculation. According to the Office

of Planning, Budget, and Analysis in a report released in October

2015,

The overall 6-year graduation rate was 71% for full-time freshmen entering in 2009, the most recent class to have had a full 6 years to graduate. This is a new record high since tracking began in 1980. This is also the sixth consecutive year in which the graduation rate has either bettered or equaled the previous all-time high.

This graduation rate, though still well below the target of 80

percent, compares favorably with the rate at public universities

across the country, which as of 2013 (the most recent year for

which such figures are available nationally) stood at 58 percent.2

Research indicates that the biggest fall-off in student retention is

between the first and second years of college. Many of the

indicators that a student may leave the university because of poor

academic performance exist prior to matriculation. Because

admissions and enrollment management at CU Boulder do not

report to the provost, they may not share—or be held accountable

for—the provost’s commitment to improving graduation rates.

2 http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cva.asp, figure 2.


An admissions office or an enrollment management office that

operate according to performance standards unrelated to student

retention and success have few direct incentives to identify

strategies under its purview that might be useful to academic units

in providing interventions on behalf of at-risk students even before

they enter the gates of the university.

Or consider students who might qualify for and need scholarship

assistance to continue their programs of study. On the Boulder

campus, scholarship information for potential first-year students is

found on the website of the Office of Admissions. Scholarship

information for students in the second years and beyond is to be

found on the website of the Office of Undergraduate Education.

While this may make sense to the administrative units involved, it

may not make sense to students and parents unfamiliar with

internal divisions of labor in a university.

Consider as another example the role of institutional research (IR),

which at CU Boulder does not report to the provost. To intervene

in a timely way to ensure that students are making meaningful

progress toward their degrees requires real-time data in a form

that is useful to the individuals and units capable of such

interventions. These may be advisers, financial aid specialists,

chairs of academic units, faculty members teaching large

introductory sections, deans, the Office of Student Affairs, or

others. The Office of Institutional Research should see its mission

as contributing to student success. With a structure that embeds

IR in the academic mission of the campus, provision of such real-

time data is more likely to happen regularly, systematically, and

institutionally – rather than on a work-load availability basis.

Finally, consider one more example. One of the recurrent themes

in the self-studies of the units within AA, as well as units in schools

and colleges reviewed by ARPAC over the past several years, is


the need for resources to develop and maintain websites. ARPAC

routinely recommends that such resources be made available on

the grounds that websites are a key form of communication for

units to tell their stories about their research accomplishments and

student success and to provide useful, timely information for

current students, potential students, alumni, and faculty members.

Web Central (within the Office of Strategic Relations), in

partnership with OIT, offers tutorials and limited support for units

seeking to develop websites. OIT otherwise offers limited support

to academic units in general or academic affairs in specific for their

website development and maintenance. Many units appear to

have contracted with third-party vendors for web development

assistance and maintenance. To be sure, OIT appears currently to

be more responsive to the academic side of the campus than was

true in the past. Yet in the committee’s estimation, the Office of

Information Technology on the CU Boulder campus should be

expected to be directly responsible for and to be more fully

engaged in providing assistance for the academic pursuits of

faculty and students and the units that support them.

Responsiveness to the needs of those on the academic side of

the campus would be enhanced if OIT reported to and were held

accountable by the provost.

ARPAC is not making specific recommendations about what units

should report within Academic Affairs although our examples and

those of the ERC may provide some guidance on that issue.

Instead, ARPAC is recommending a decision rule: campus-level

units should be brought into the Division of Academic Affairs when

such structural changes demonstrably facilitate achievement of

campus academic goals (i.e., student success and retention,

enhancing the research reputation of the campus nationally and

internationally, and/or the development of new revenue sources).

According to the ERC, “Examples of the organizational structure


which could be considered include moving Institutional Research,

Admissions, and Registrar into the Division of Academic

Affairs.” Another suggestion related to organizational structure

from the ERC is to better coordinate the work of the offices of

Student Affairs and Undergraduate Education.

One of the concerns raised in the self-study of the Office of the

Vice Chancellor for Research merits discussion at a general level

and not just in the context of that one unit. State support for the

university is steadily declining while increasing tuition to

compensate is unsustainable, leading to the need for both

alternative sources of revenue and strategic decisions about

where those resources should go.

For ARPAC, these revenue concerns add urgency to the need for

the campus to identify and tap new revenue sources. Below we

discuss some of these possible sources for funding of research

and creative activities. The flip-side of new revenue streams is

more painful. It may be necessary for the campus to begin looking

strategically at places where long-term cost savings can be found.

The test for such savings, in our opinion, should be the mirror

image of the one articulated above with respect to potential

structural changes: long-term savings should be considered

where cuts do not impair pursuit of the academic goals of the

campus (i.e., student success and retention, enhancing the

research reputation of the campus nationally and internationally,

and/or the development of new revenue sources).

The search for additional revenue sources is likely to lead to

greater entrepreneurship on the part of academic units. This can

be a good thing. The same is true of the new revenue-sharing

model recently adopted by the provost. ARPAC applauds this


recent move, as it is consistent with recommendations the

committee has made in a number of recent reports.

At the same time, it is worth considering the role that AA may

need to be attentive to the unintended consequences that can

result from revenue sharing models that reward production of

additional student credit hours. Unhealthy competition among

units is one of the most likely unintended consequences as units

may seek to gain additional credit hour production by poaching

students from other units or by duplicating programmatic offerings

offered elsewhere on campus. Reduction in cooperation across

units may also ensue.

The question is how the Division of Academic Affairs will equip

itself to monitor schools and colleges to prevent such unintended

consequences. Some of these potential consequences can be

tempered through revenue sharing formulas that set remuneration

to a level no greater than the marginal cost of providing the

additional student credit hours. Others require that AA actively

monitor standards and enforce sound curricular goals. Put simply,

this means additional responsibilities for AA. It is our sense that

the appropriate places to lodge such responsibilities may be in the

Office of the Senior Vice Provost jointly with the Office of the Vice

Chancellor for Undergraduate Education for issues involving

undergraduate curricula, and jointly with the Office of the Dean of

the Graduate School for issues involving graduate curricula.

The ERC and the IRC praise the Office of Diversity, Equity, and

Community Engagement (ODECE) for its enthusiastic and

thoughtful leadership and for its excellent programs, including the

Chancellor’s Postdoctoral Fellowship Program, the LEAD Alliance

programs, and a wide range of community engagement

programs. ODECE monitors its impact and uses qualitative data

Analysis: Diversity, Equity, and Community

Engagement


and surveys to assess the success of each one of its six major

programs. External recognitions—most recently the Higher

Education Excellence in Diversity Award and recognition by the

Colorado Department of Higher Education’s Colorado Completes!

campaign—also attest to CU Boulder's progress in diversity and

inclusion, remarkable accomplishments given the office’s current

resource level.

One of the main challenges ODECE faces is positioning itself as a

permanent part of the university and maturing as a divisional unit

within the Division of Academic Affairs, to move beyond managing

its programs and actively participating in institutional initiatives to

developing its own initiatives. In line with that goal, and in

response to the criticism in the ERC report, ODECE recently

initiated a major planning process, called the Diversity, Inclusion

and Academic Excellence Plan. The purpose of the initiative,

which has been endorsed by the chancellor and the provost, is to

formulate a campus-wide vision for a diverse campus climate and

create a common understanding of the campus's vision, mission,

and strategic goals regarding diversity and inclusive excellence. As

the self-study states, “ODECE envisions itself as facilitating

cohesion for advancing inclusive excellence throughout the

campus.”

The ERC perceived that, currently, “ODECE does not appear to

have a significant role in staff and faculty diversity, and its

relationship to graduate students appears tenuous.” The process

of developing new strategic goals regarding diversity and inclusive

excellence is an outstanding opportunity for ODECE to explore

ways (including some of the goals stated in the self-study) to reach

all major campus groups with its programs.


Although ODECE has existed in its current structure for almost ten

years, this is the first (fiscal) year when ODECE has received a

continuing budget. About the past, the self-study says: “ODECE

has gradually taken on a larger set of departments and initiatives

since its inception in 1997. Nonetheless, the modus operandi for

this challenging work has been to 'do a lot with a little' in terms of

traditional resources (i.e. staff and budget).” The lack of resources

has led to inefficiencies. For example, the self-study argues that as

a result of the high turnover in the volunteers (students and faculty

members) who carry out many ODECE initiatives, substantial

resources have to be spent on training new employees, and it is

difficult to maintain continuity, institutional memory, and data

collection, which are essential not only for campus reporting but

also for obtaining competitive national grants. Therefore, a

continuing budget is a welcome first step. The IRC concurs with

the self-study that ODECE needs more resources to perform its

role in advancing inclusive excellence, diversity, and inclusion, and

in achieving student success, enhancing the reputation of the

university, and generating new sources of revenue. In its self-

study, ODECE states: “Funding for inclusive excellence must . . .

be viewed as an 'added value' investment in the larger success of

the University and as an important service to the state.”

The resource needs listed in the self-study are extensive. The

recurring requests (from the unit as a whole and from its six

programs) include: covering annual budget shortfalls, additional

staff, increased scholarships/fellowships for participating students,

increased office space, and resources to develop new programs.

The self-study makes the following point: “Resources are needed

to meet federally mandated requirements for accommodations

and services to students with disabilities as well as to best serve

the retention goals of the University.” Some of these resource

needs may be resolved by cooperation with other campus units.


For example, a campus testing center for students with disabilities

may become a reality in the new CASE building.

Another example of where the resource needs of ODECE may be

met by cooperation with another AA unit concerns ODECE’s

summer programs. For example, the Office of Pre-College

Outreach and Engagement offers residential academic

experiences to first-generation and low-income students on the

Boulder campus for extended periods during the summer.

According to the self-study:

The intent of these experiences is to expose the students to the campus so that they might visualize themselves as college students through daily interaction with students, staff and faculty and prepare themselves for their eventual transition to college. Although the programs are not intended to be a recruiting mechanism, ongoing exposure to the Boulder campus increases the likelihood that the students in these programs will see CU-Boulder as a viable option to continue their education beyond high school. Historically, approximately 40-50% of students who have completed the program have returned to CU-Boulder to continue their educational pursuits.

The primary resource need for the program is to “[c]over existing

annual budget shortfall for accumulated housing cost increases for

current summer residential programs ($87K for FY15).” ODECE

would be able to bring in more students for these programs and

avoid budget shortfalls if the prices charged by the Office of

Housing and Dining Services were lower.

However, most additional resource requests will require external

funds. ODECE is aware that “resources come in various forms,

and the opportunities to generate revenue in support of inclusive

excellence must be developed from all sources: institutional, donor

funds, federal grants, and fees for services.”


With a total of 1,589 faculty members (1162 tenure/tenure track

and 427 instructors) across seven schools and colleges under the

jurisdiction of the Office of Faculty Affairs (OFA), the evaluation

reports of the IRC and ERC praised the work of this vital unit. For

example, the IRC report states that the OFA has created an

“excellent climate in which employees are given appropriate

autonomy,” “appears to communicate well with other units on

campus,” and is “efficient in terms of structure, with no overlaps.”

The ERC report also acknowledges the “good service” that most

deans recognize.

The most pressing resource needs articulated by the unit’s self-

study and confirmed by the IRC is to hire additional staff to handle

its growing information needs. Since this recommendation was

noted, the OFA has been able to hire an associate

director/development and technical manager, a semantic software

manager, and a scholarly research impact liaison, which will help

improve efficiency and communication with faculty.

The IRC notes that there are other critical resource needs that are

essential to the smooth functioning of this unit. These needs are

again attributed to the growth of the OFA and its many faculty-

support programs developed over the past decade. For example,

the demand for FTEP services by faculty members has grown

significantly in the last decade while its budget has not increased

for over 15 years. Similarly, with the growth of online platforms to

manage services of the OFA, such as the new ARPAC online

management system, there is an immediate need for a web

developer and the upgrades necessary to keep the system afloat.

Another concern raised by the ERC is that from time to time some

deans reported that there are “delays in the approval of offer

Analysis: Faculty Affairs


letters, retention offers, faculty performance, and salary

increases.”

Over the last seven years, the OFA has developed an impressive

array of activities to enhance their delivery of services to the

faculty, to improve program review, to improve OFA’s general

services to the Division of Academic Affairs and the campus, and

to continue to upgrade faculty information services.

Concerns have been raised by the faculty, as evidenced by the

Boulder Faculty Assembly’s recent statement, about processes

relating to the fidelity of Academic Affairs to the due process rights

of faculty in a number of recent high profile cases. This statement,

adopted by the Boulder Faculty Assembly December 4, 2014,

states as follows:

We, the Boulder Faculty Assembly of the University of Colorado, believe that recent events involving the disciplining of faculty members demonstrate the need for the administration of the University of Colorado to fully implement the rules and procedures that govern the rights, interests, and well-being of its faculty. The rights and responsibilities for faculty and administration are clearly delineated in the University’s governing documents. The administration has taken precipitous punitive measures against faculty members without due regard for these rules and subsequently reversed those measures. These actions have not only drawn negative attention from civil rights groups like the AAUP and ACLU and various media outlets, they have also exposed the University to legal liability. Consequently, when there is a dispute involving a faculty member, the administration should exercise caution, judgment, restraint, and afford real due process to the faculty member. We urge the administration to communicate with the faculty, as much as legally possible, about the behaviors in questions and as much as possible about the policies and procedures to be used in considering punitive actions.


ARPAC concurs with this statement and urges the Office of

Faculty Affairs to be diligent in protecting due process and

respecting faculty rights and privileges. ARPAC also urges that the

OFA be assertive in advocating on behalf of due process and

faculty rights and privileges with other campus authorities.

The Graduate School is an integral part of CU Boulder’s reputation

as a premier research institution. As the External Review

Committee noted, the Graduate School is “able to accomplish

much with its resources,” but “the purpose and the role of the

Graduate School is not well understood.” The Graduate School

reports that it cannot currently fulfil its mission to assess or

evaluate student program quality, due to lack of resources. The

quality and quantity of the work the Graduate School is able to

accomplish with its limited staffing, resources, and space

problems cannot be overstated. Nor can the fragility of that ability,

predicated as it is on its roster of exceptional senior staff.

As part of the Flagship 2030 Strategic Plan, the Task Force on

Graduate Education set several goals for the Graduate School,

including increasing graduate student support, program

innovation, and development, and to clarify the role of the

Graduate School. The Flagship 2030 Strategic Plan set a goal for

the Graduate School of increasing the graduate student

population to 20% of all students. The Graduate School has, by its

own assessment, made limited progress on these goals.

The first goal the task force set was for the Graduate School to

improve graduate education. Without increased funding and with

decreased staffing, the Graduate School has creatively used

budget reallocations, salary savings and unrestricted gift funds to

create dissertation-completion fellowships and summer support

Analysis: Graduate School


for late-stage doctoral students, as well as supporting student

travel and creating the Dean’s Research Award. Funds have been

made available for student recruitment for all graduate programs,

and the Beyond Academia series helps students discover careers

outside of academia. Lack of funds keeps the Graduate School

from providing the same level of support offered by AAU peers.

Moreover, the Graduate School has no funds for assessment of

program quality and cannot address problems that do come to

light about academic quality, equity, compliance with rules, and

professional behavior. All of these factors impact the Graduate

School’s ability to recruit the best students and to recruit more

students.

The task force’s second recommendation was that the campus

“create structures to enable program innovation and

development.” The Graduate School has created a number of new

doctoral programs and professional master programs. Progress in

creating professional masters degrees has been relatively slow,

but the new revenue-sharing budget model has resulted in a long

line of proposed degrees waiting to be approved.

The third recommendation of the task force was that the campus

clarify the role of the Graduate School. The self-study, the internal

review committee, and the external review committee all agree

that the purpose and role of the Graduate School are not well

understood by the CU Boulder community.

The IRC and ERC reports acknowledge that the climate in the

Ombuds Office (OO) is “excellent” and that the OO provides a

much-needed service to the Boulder campus. This service also

aligns with the university’s goal of “promoting a climate where

faculty, staff, and students can work productively.” Over the years,

the OO has managed to build a strong working and collaborative

Analysis: Ombuds Office


relationship with other campus units, such as the Office of

Institutional Equity and Compliance.

Even with such high praises, the IRC and ERC reports point to a

number of concerns, which if addressed would enhance the

performance of this important campus resource. These include:

• Understaffing: The OO is presently operating with inadequate staffing. Given the number of visitors the unit sees on an annual basis (300-500), the increased demand for the OO’s services at the Boulder campus, there is an immediate need to increase the staff size. The unit’s staffing need is further heightened by the pending retirement of the director and the recent loss of its associate director.

• Space: The OO office has a reception area and two

offices for its two professional staff and one small conference room. Due to the lack of available space on the Boulder campus, the Faculty Ombuds program operates out of the east campus. Since the faculty and staff within OO are restricted from communicating with each other via email or through written work, having these two offices in the same physical location is crucial. ARPAC concurs with the IRC and ERC reports, which recommend a common space for these two offices.

• Marketing: The OO has the challenge of educating the

Boulder campus on its services and objectives. The IRC and ERC report notes that the demand for staff time is a challenge. More importantly, the small staff of the OO lacks the time to participate in college or departmental visits to promote its services. Considering these challenges, it is recommended that the OO needs immediate assistance in marketing its services to community stakeholders.

• Policy changes: Presently the OO does not have the

protection of a Shield Law, which protects the privacy of the staff’s interactions with cases that end up in court.


The External Review Committee (ERC) credits the Office of the

Vice Chancellor for Research (OVCR) with a research environment

at CU Boulder that is “outstanding.” It is important for our

committee to emphasize this conclusion of the ERC to the

provost, and the OVCR itself, especially because the IRC report

focuses (by the nature of the committee’s task) on concerns and

issues.

The ERC (as well as the IRC and the self-study) focus on the

critical lack of budgetary and personnel resources at OVCR, given

its responsibilities and the growth in size and scope of these

responsibilities during the recent past. The self-study raises

concerns about the expanding regulatory burden on OVCR staff

and investigators. This concern is valid and should be taken up

with the Government Relations and Federal Relations Advisory

Board (via the proper chain of command: provost, chancellor, and

president).

The self-study raises the potential of crowd-source funding as a

new funding source. It might be worthwhile to investigate crowd

funding at other AAU institutions as well as best practices for

managing such revenue steams before fully committing to the

practice. The committee notes that there are disciplines that might

take advantage of smaller and less continuous funding while

others, especially those accustomed to seeking large grants for

their research projects, as is commonly the case in the hard

sciences and engineering disciplines, might find crowd funding

less useful.

The Office of Industry Collaboration aspires to build industry

connections “that may, or may not, involve sponsored research.”

The OVCR should consider whether it is wise to devote resources

to initiatives/programs that do not involve sponsored research.

Analysis: Research


Also, OIC claims to “Provide a single, designated point of entry

into CU Boulder for industry.” The OIC might wish to consider

potential sources of tension/conflict with the objectives of CU

Foundation and the development offices on campus, especially in

the professional schools, and the Technology Transfer Office.

Industry is seeking access to the deep technical and nuanced

knowledge that resides with our research faculty and researchers.

The OIC might consider putting resources toward understanding

the nature of industry’s interests. The objective to provide our

students with industry contacts is laudable. However, this is also

the objective of various campus career and internship centers.

Hence, OIC might consider collaborating/coordinating with these

campus career and internship centers.

As indicated in the IRC and ERC reports, the Office of the Senior

Vice Provost and the Associate Vice Chancellor for Budget and

Planning currently includes one full-time position. With no lines

reporting to the SVP/AVC, the senior vice provost relies on

support from individuals reporting to the provost and through the

Division of Academic Affairs’ chief of staff and the director of

budget and finance. The reviewers state that despite having a

single person serve myriad functions amidst other constraints, the

individual has been able to advance the academic mission of CU-

Boulder. The ERC report notes, “He has a wealth of experience at

CU and in many respects functions as the institutional memory of

the university, particularly as it applies to the Division of Academic

Affairs. His efforts in this regard are greatly appreciated.” Given the

current and expansive role of this office, especially in light of

generating new sources of revenue through the creation of new

professional degree programs and the optimization of campus

space, it is clear that this office will continue to face a number of

challenges to meet its expected goals for student success and will

Analysis: Senior Vice-Provost


likely experience expanded demands to engage in planning

activities in the near future.

Both the IRC report and the unit’s self-study highlight changes

that will most likely need to occur going forward, with special

emphasis on the following:

• Clarifying the responsibility and authority of the OSVP/AVC under the Division of Academic Affairs, on the one hand, and the senior vice chancellor & chief financial officer under the Office of the Chancellor, on the other. While the ERC’s report notes that, in most institutions, the individuals occupying these two positions would work closely together, this has not always been the case at CU Boulder. There is therefore an urgent need to clarify the role of these positions, especially in relation to the campus budgetary process.

• Given the dual responsibilities of the Office of the Senior Vice Provost—over innovation and entrepreneurial growth, on the one hand, and space allocation on the other—there may be a need to transfer units (e.g. the Office of Institutional Research) into the Division of Academic Affairs so that these can more directly support the efforts of the OSVP/AVC.

• Consider the role this office plays as the official liaison between campus administration and campus-wide faculty governance to ensure that responsibilities and accountability are clearly articulated and communication and trust between different units continue to grow.

• Given the principal mission of this unit and the strategic contributions it is making now and is poised to make in the future, significant concern exists that there are not adequate resources to support the challenges this office faces.

• With the new revenue-sharing budget in place, seek ways to extend the logic of the new model, paying particular


attention to units that do not now fall into the revenue sharing budget model.

The Office of the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs (SA) is

enthusiastic about its mission and is devoted to improving its

existing programs and implementing new programs to support

student success through personal growth, health, and well-being.

The ERC concludes that "Students feel very well supported by the

student affairs units, particularly undergraduate students." To

assess the quality and impact of its programs, SA has conducted

program reviews and compared its programs to national

standards since the 1980s. To measure student satisfaction, SA

has administered student surveys and has participated in campus-

wide and nation-wide surveys. The new, 3-year strategic plan

shifts the focus of SA's assessments to "targets involving

retention, graduation rates, campus climate, and positive learning

outcomes."

New initiatives that resulted from the strategic planning process

include a Student Activities Office, supported also by the CU

Student Government (CUSG), to improve student involvement; a

structured First-Year Experience Program to contribute to student

retention; and a professional master's program in higher education

and/or student affairs to provide research partnership

opportunities with faculty and professional development

opportunities for SA staff. The self-study indicates that SA would

welcome International Education (from OUE) and Disability

Services (from ODECE) if these units were moved to SA. The IRC

recommends an in-depth analysis of the benefits and challenges

before such restructuring takes place. The ERC recommends that

"purposeful efforts be pursued to better integrate and/or

coordinate the efforts of the Division of Student Affairs and the

work of the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education."

Analysis: Student Affairs


A major challenge facing SA is the co-management of

departments funded by the CUSG, including the University

Memorial Center and the Recreation Center. What emerges from

the self-study and the IRC report is that the CUSG, overseeing an

annual budget of approximately $31 million (more than 16% of the

total SA budget), has programmatic, policy, and management

authority over the departments that it funds. However, the annual

changes in the CUSC leadership often lead to major shifts in

priorities and funding from one year to the next, which makes it

difficult for SA to advance its strategic goals. In its self-study, SA

recommends the following solution:

Restructuring the Student Affairs and CUSG relationship and responsibilities would contribute to clearer roles and level of authority for both organizations while ensuring that decisions are still made with student input and perspective. Student Affairs should have the authority to manage complex departments and programs requiring stable administration for long-term effectiveness and efficiency. CUSG should be responsible for fully managing programs and services that change annually (e.g. speaker and event series, student group funding requests, etc.) and should have a voice for input to the administration for programs and services whether funded through the CUSG fee or through other financial means (similar to the structure provided by the Residence Halls Association which provides input to Housing and Dining Services).

SA will necessarily be impacted by the expected enrollment

growth in the near future.

The Office of Undergraduate Education (OUE) hosts multiple

thriving programs. The external review committee remarked that

each of the individual programs reporting to OUE "adds richness

and opportunity for specific groups of students" and that each

seems to be successful in pursuing its mission; yet it recommends

that OUE bring its collective mission into clearer focus. By doing

Analysis: Undergraduate

Education


so, the committee suggests, OUE would be well positioned to

advance the university's initiatives in the areas of student

academic success, progression, and retention.

OUE's current programs target various groups of students,

including first-generation, low-income, and other non-traditional

and underrepresented students, international students, students

interested in research experience, leadership programs, study

abroad programs, and reserve officer training. These programs

serve OUE's mission, which is "to maximize the quality and

graduation success of undergraduate experiences and programs

for students from all majors, schools and colleges." For example,

the Student Academic Success Center (SASC) was a principal

contributor to the CU LEAD alliance learning community model

recognized recently by the Colorado Department of Higher

Education’s Colorado Completes! campaign, while the Top

Scholarship and Assessment program has helped a number of

high-achieving students to compete for prestigious national

awards.

However, ARPAC believes strongly that OUE should serve all

undergraduate students at CU Boulder, not just the ones

participating in programs currently reporting to OUE, and should

play a strategic role in pursuing the academic goals of the

campus. OUE should also have a more robust monitoring role

over the undergraduate curriculum (e.g., to work against the

duplication of programs and grade inflation). In addition, OUE

seems to be the appropriate place within AA to monitor and

prevent the unintended consequences of the incentive-based

revenue sharing budget model in undergraduate education.

Finally, as the ERC suggests, OUE "could take a strong leadership

role [. . .] in academic advising," and expand the current initiatives

for improving advising (e.g., putting advising tools online) by "the


development of quality metrics for advisors and the adoption of a

unified advising philosophy that particularly focuses on exploring

and transitional students."

To fulfill this new, more-complex mission, OUE will need to

develop responsive and dynamic new leadership.

The self-study, the IRC, and the ERC reports mention examples of

successful cooperation among programs within OUE and between

OUE and other campus units, but the ERC wonders about the

connections between the Division of Academic Affairs units

(probably OUE and SA) that are most directly concerned with

undergraduate students and the enrollment management units

(like Admissions, Financial Aid, and Registrar), all of which report

outside the division. The ERC points out that this structure "can

lead to a difficult hand-off of the student from the recruitment to

matriculation and into the first-year experience." The ERC thinks

that it is also somewhat unusual not to have institutional research

as part of the division, because "the potential lack of alignment

with the academic units makes it difficult to provide needed

programs." The ERC also recommends that "purposeful efforts be

pursued to better integrate and/or coordinate the efforts of the

Division of Student Affairs and the work of the Vice Provost for

Undergraduate Education."

Regarding cooperation between current OUE programs and

departments, the self-study and the IRC reports mention two new

initiatives. In STEM (and some other) fields the Student Academic

Success Center (SASC) plans to replace the current model of

teaching SASC-run co-seminars that support the department-

taught courses by a new model where gateway courses taught by

departments would be taught by SASC in small sections "in order

to improve student persistence in STEM majors through inclusive


pedagogy, embedded in a multicultural learning community."

However, the self-study indicates that SASC's ambitions are much

higher: its plans include “the curricular development of our

gateway courses, notably in STEM fields, and the scalability of our

tutoring and academic skills services into a campus-wide

resource.” Viewing this plan in the context that one of the main

priorities of the OUE for the future is to develop a campus-wide

tutoring center, it seems that the OUE is heading toward a

situation of potential conflict with regular academic departments

and programs if it attempts to offer gateway courses to all

students, thereby displacing credit hours historically produced by

those academic units.

Another OUE initiative stated in the self-study is “to change the

outlook of many faculty members who view a high proportion of D

or F or W grades as a positive mark of high academic quality of

their courses. We want to reorient outlooks from a ‘weed out’

perspective to a ‘help them succeed’ perspective.” In its response

to the IRC report, OUE mentions that “Two or three of the Deans

have agreed to lead the strategy of how best to proceed” to

achieve “unit coordination of appropriate grade distributions.”

ARPAC thinks that there are many factors that affect student

success, and rather than influencing or mandating grade

distribution (which may result in grade inflation), OUE should play a

leading role in developing initiatives for faculty, advising offices,

and the Office of Student Affairs to join forces to help struggling

students.

The self-study, the IRC report, and the ERC report all agree that

the OUE and its programs are understaffed and have modest

resources to fulfill even their current mission. Some of the

programs, like the Office of International Education and SASC, are

also struggling with insufficient or inadequate space. The IRC


offers the following observation: "in order to continue their

success, it is clear that the subunits will need resources (financial,

staff and space) to meet the demands of the growing

undergraduate population at CU." Some of the most urgent

resource and space needs mentioned in the self-study include

staff and space for a campus-wide tutoring center; increased staff

and space for the Office of International Education to cope with

the record-setting increase in the number of international students;

resources to change lecturer positions into stable instructor

positions; and increased funding for the Undergraduate Research

Opportunities Program. The more complex mission for OUE

outlined above will probably further increase its resource needs.


The members of the Academic Review and Planning Advisory

Committee (ARPAC) address the following recommendations to

the eight offices of the Division of Academic Affairs, and to the

offices of the provost and chancellor. It is the committee’s

intention that the recommendations serve to benefit program

improvement and development and to further the mission of the

University of Colorado Boulder.

1. Complete the recently initiated Diversity, Inclusion, and

Academic Excellence Plan. Work with faculty members,

students, and staff to create a common understanding of CU

Boulder’s vision, mission, and strategic goals regarding

diversity and inclusivity.

2. Assume the leadership role for the division in defining diversity

and inclusivity at CU Boulder. In developing CU Boulder's

vision for a diverse campus climate, draw other Academic

Affairs offices into collaborations, such as Undergraduate

Education, the Graduate School, Student Affairs, and Faculty

Affairs.

3. Strive for an inclusive balance, with respect to the full range of

diversity, among professional staff members and volunteers in

your programs.

4. Work with the Office of Information Technology, Student Affairs

and Undergraduate Education on the creation of a testing

center for students with disabilities, potentially in the new CASE

building or in another suitable location.

To the Office of Diversity, Equity, and

Community Engagement

To the Office of Faculty Affairs

Recommendations


1. Develop a back-up staffing plan that will ensure the

accessibility of staff to address critical, time-sensitive requests.

2. Develop a sequenced plan for proposed Office of Faculty

Affairs initiatives. Include descriptions that reference how the

proposals further campus academic goals.

3. Continue to increase faculty diversity and inclusivity through

recruitment, advancement, and retention efforts. For example,

the Office of Faculty Affairs could work closer with ODECE on

faculty mentoring and on the recruitment process to modify

job advertisements to get a broader pool of candidates.

4. Explore ways to reinforce awareness about key faculty policies

(particular instructor rights) through multiple communication

channels (including the web and at the annual chairs and

directors retreat and the new faculty orientation.)

5. Communicate to departments, colleges and schools the

importance of reviewing bylaws annually.

6. Assert faculty rights and privileges with campus authorities in

all cases in which punitive actions may be taken against

members of the faculty, such that no significant punitive action

(i.e., suspension, dismissal for cause) is taken against a faculty

member until the vice provost and associate vice chancellor

for faculty affairs is consulted to ensure that disciplinary

processes and proposed sanctions are appropriate and

consistent with established norms.

1. Update the Graduate School’s mission statement.

To the Office of the

Dean of the Graduate School


2. Think creatively about succession planning for staff, including

financing for pre-retirement hiring in key positions to ensure

that institutional knowledge and best practices are passed on

to new employees.

3. Create a template for professional masters certificates and

degrees that clearly addresses the tradeoffs and goals so that

units and schools considering a certificate can easily

understand the interplay of revenue enhancement, teaching

loads, student success, and reputation.

4. Create, in consultation with the OSVP/AVC, a best practices

project management plan for approving professional graduate

degrees. Such a plan should identify and eliminate causes of

delay in the current process.

5. More clearly describe fees and funding in communications

with graduate students. Establish a more robust graduate

student orientation to include information about graduate

student rights and responsibilities.

6. Work with the provost and the Office of the Vice Chancellor for

Research to complete the process of separating the two

offices functionally and spatially.

1. Enhance the Ombud’s outreach efforts. Explore options

afforded by the Chairs and Directors Retreat, the New Faculty

Orientation, and the Graduate Teacher Program’s Fall

Intensive.

2. Develop a comprehensive marketing and public relations

strategy. Consider utilizing the services of the Office of

To the Ombuds Office


Strategic Relations for help with drafting and implementing a

plan.

1. Consider new options, including collaborative efforts with other

AAU schools, for communicating to national funding agencies

about the consequences of expanding regulatory burdens on

university staff.

2. Work with the Office of Industry Collaboration to think carefully

about devoting resources to initiatives/programs that do not

involve sponsored research. Consider how the objective of

providing “a single, designated point of entry into CU Boulder

for industry” might both impact and potentially conflict with the

objectives of the CU Foundation; the development offices on

campus—especially in the professional schools—and the

Technology Transfer Office.

3. Work with the provost and the dean of the Graduate School to

complete the process of separating the two offices

functionally and spatially.

1. Consider ways in which the institutional knowledge of the

senior vice provost for budget and planning can be efficiently

shared and realized by others.

2. In consultation with the Graduate School, author online

guidelines to assist units in developing their professional

master’s degree programs.

1. Work collaboratively with other campus units, including

Undergraduate Education and Advising and Admissions, to

develop a structured first-year experience program.

To the Office of the Senior Vice-Provost

To the Office of Student Affairs

To the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research


2. Work collaboratively with the Division of Continuing Education

to explore the feasibility of creating a professional master's

program (or certificate program) on higher education and/or

student affairs.

3. Work with the campus to establish an alternative funding

model to enable summer activities that promote recruitment of

first-generation students and students from under-represented

communities.

1. Develop a collective mission statement and strategic plan that

puts OUE in the leadership position to coordinate student

success and retention efforts. Furthermore,

a) review the best ways to offer gateway courses to improve student success and retention and the role that academic units and perhaps the Student Academic Success Center (SASC) might play therein;

b) define the relationship of SASC to the planned

campus-wide tutoring center; and, c) explore how OUE could play a leading role in

improving academic advising at CU Boulder, for example by developing a unified advising philosophy and quality metrics for advisors.

2. Use ongoing data collection efforts (e.g., in Institutional

Research, Admissions, and Enrollment Management) to

identify appropriate points of intervention to improve student

success and retention. Using that information, establish a plan

to help units with intervention efforts.

To the Office of Undergraduate

Education


3. Develop policies that encourage schools and colleges to

introduce new interdisciplinary majors and to offer more

opportunities for self-constructed majors.

1. Work collaboratively to prioritize resource and space needs

and explore new funding sources.

1. Work collaboratively and proactively to ensure that, as the

campus moves toward incentive-based revenue-sharing

models, the intellectual rigor of courses is preserved, grade

inflation and duplication of programs are prevented, and the

existing level of cooperation across academic units is not

degraded. This effort may involve adding new responsibilities

and enhanced information flows to the standing committees

that contribute to the work of each of these units.

1. Consider advocating for structural changes to move units

currently housed outside the Division of Academic Affairs into

the division when such a move demonstrably facilitates the

pursuit of campus academic goals. Examples of units that

might be considered for movement into AA include Institutional

Research, Admissions, Enrollment Management, Registrar, the

Office of Information Technology, and the CAD/Documentation

Management office.

2. Consider extending the logic of the new revenue-sharing

budget model to AA offices. The committee is convinced that

incorporating incentives that promote campus academic goals

into budget algorithms will have useful consequences.

To the provost

To ODECE, SA, and OUE

To the OSVP/AVC, OUE, and GS


3. Consider removing impediments that constrain Housing and

Dining Services from supporting summer programs at CU

Boulder. These programs are integral to attracting and

retaining first-generation and historically disadvantaged

student populations.

4. Provide ongoing oversight of the revenue-sharing budget

model. In so doing, facilitate a collaboration involving the the

senior vice provost and the offices of Undergraduate

Education and the Graduate School with a view toward

ensuring that the intellectual rigor of courses is preserved,

grade inflation and duplication of programs are prevented, the

existing level of cooperation across academic units is

maintained and potential conflicts mitigated among colleges,

schools, and AA units.

5. Develop succession plans for divisional offices to assure the

effective transfer of institutional knowledge during changes in

leadership.

6. Consider bringing the offices of Diversity, Equity, and

Community Engagement, Student Affairs, and Undergraduate

Education together with a facilitator, with a view toward

developing a healthier collaborative culture to enhance student

retention and success. In so doing, encourage ODECE, SA,

and OUE to jointly prioritize their resource and space needs

and to explore new funding sources.

7. Identify places where long-term cost savings can be found.





where cuts do not impair achievement of the academic goals

of the campus.

8. Facilitate collaboration between the Office of Strategic

Relations and OIT to provide more robust and responsive web

support for AA offices.

9. Provide due care that, prior to taking punitive actions against

faculty members, all of the established rules and procedures

governing the rights, interests, and well-being of the faculty are

respected.

10. Encourage ODECE to develop a mission statement that clearly

articulates a broad vision tying together its various programs.

11. Encourage ODECE to take a stronger role in promoting faculty

and staff diversity.

12. Give ODECE the leadership role in defining diversity and

inclusivity at CU Boulder. Encourage collaboration with other

units in Academic Affairs, such as Undergraduate Education,

the Graduate School, Student Affairs, and Faculty Affairs.

13. Continue investment in Faculty Affairs’ technological

infrastructure and support personnel to respond to institutional

growth and changing demands for information systems and

advanced uses of technology.

14. Consider a structured approach to encourage active

collaboration among offices that handle faculty grievances and

rights and responsibilities (e.g., Faculty Ombuds program, the

Ombuds Office, the Office of Institutional Equity and

To the provost regarding the Office of

Diversity, Equity, and Community

Engagement


Faculty Affairs


Compliance, and the Office of Faculty Affairs/the director of

faculty relations).

15. Consider providing the Graduate School with enhanced

resources, including additional personnel and space. The

committee is convinced that such investments will help with

oversight efforts and ongoing quality improvements.

16. Review and remove institutional impediments to creating

professional master’s certificates and programs, such as

summer enrollment, continuous enrollment requirements, and

student tuition and fees.

17. Work with the Graduate School to create a plan for approving

professional graduate degrees. Such a plan should identify

and eliminate causes of delay in the current process.

18. Work with the dean of the Graduate School and the vice

chancellor for research to complete the process of separating

the two offices and to better define their spheres. Additional

resources, including space, may be needed.

19. Consider additional resources to strengthen the role of the

dean of the Graduate School regarding the institutes with

mission funding and staff. Alternatively, consider creation of a

new position, a dean for the institutes, which would be a new

unit within the Division of Academic Affairs.

20. Increase the current level of professional personnel offering

ombuds services.

21. Provide ombuds personnel with a combined space.

To the provost regarding the Graduate

School

To the provost regarding the Ombuds

Office


22. Explore with the chancellor’s office and the CU system’s vice

president for government relations the possibility of seeking a

change in the state’s Shield Law to ensure that the privacy of

faculty members, staff members, and student is protected

when they interact with ombuds offices on all the CU

campuses.

23. Consider increasing OVCR’s budget so that appropriate

investments can be made in compliance, budget

administration personnel, space, research developments,

innovation, and strategic partnerships.

24. Support the OVCR’s efforts to make the Government

Relations and Federal Relations Advisory Board aware of the

burden on OVCR staff and investigators of expanding

regulation.

25. Consider advocating for the realignment of units with

important academic roles that today report outside of the

division. The committee believes that the Office of the Senior

Vice Provost for Budget and Planning is an appropriate focus

for the realignment. These units might include Institutional

Research & Analysis in the Office of Planning, Budget and

Analysis and the CAD/Documentation Management office

under Facilities Management, which is responsible for

cataloging and archiving all campus project documents and

related materials.

26. Advocate for the inclusion of the senior vice provost for budget

and planning on the Capital Governance Group, and any other

university bodies making key decisions on the development

and disposition of space.


the Senior Vice-Provost

To the provost regarding the Office of the Vice Chancellor for

Research


27. Consider ways in which the institutional knowledge of the

senior vice provost can be documented and passed on to a

successor.

28. Encourage the Office of Student Affairs to conduct an in-depth

analysis (possibly with the help of the Office of Performance

Improvement) of the current governance structure of CUSG-

funded SA units, with the goal of achieving greater funding

stability.

29. Promote a strong leadership role for OUE in academic

advising at CU, as part of a broad effort to centralize and

improve campus advising services.

1. Review the budget process for units that are not currently

included in the revenue-sharing model, identifying those

factors that meet two criteria: 1) the unit has the ability to

affect these factors; and 2) these factors have the potential to

contribute to achieving the three-fold academic goals of the

campus. Embed these factors in an algorithm that provides

incentives to promote these goals while providing

transparency and certainty to the units’ budgets.

1. Move units now outside of Academic Affairs into Academic

Affairs, consistent with the decision rule that such structural

changes demonstrably facilitate achievement of campus

academic goals (i.e., student success and retention,

enhancing the research reputation of the campus nationally

and internationally, and/or the development of new revenue

sources). Units that might be moved into AA include

Institutional Research, Admissions, Enrollment Management,

To the chancellor


Student Affairs


Undergraduate Education

To the provost and the senior vice chancellor


Registrar, the Office of Information Technology, and the

CAD/Documentation Management office.

2. Identify places where long-term cost savings can be found.




where cuts do not impair the effort to achieve the academic

goals of the campus.

3. Consider, in consultation with the provost and the CFO,

formalizing a relationship between the Office of the Senior Vice

Provost for Budget and Planning and the office of the CFO to

ensure that campus academic goals align with financial goals.

4. Secure the appointment of the the senior vice provost for

budget and planning to the Capital Governance Group and

any other university bodies making key decisions on the

development and disposition of space to more effectively

manage the space needs of academic units.

5. Explore with the CU system’s vice president for government

relations the possibility of amending the state’s current shield

law (C.R.S. 13-90-119 NS 24-72.5-101 RO 106). As currently

written, the law does not protect the privacy of faculty, staff,

and students in their interactions with ombudsmen.


The administrative leads of the eight Division of Academic Affairs

offices shall report annually on the first of April for a period of three

years following the year of the receipt of this report (i.e., April 1st

of 2017, 2018, and 2019) to the provost on the implementation of

these recommendations. The provost, as part of review reforms,

has agreed to respond annually to all outstanding matters under

her/his purview arising from this review year. All official responses

will be posted online.

Required Follow-Up

Documents

University of Colorado Boulderarp.colorado.edu/events-and-deadlines/past-final-reports/2015_AA... · University of Colorado Boulder 2015 Program Review Division of Academic Affairs