Faculty Senate Meeting
March 20, 2013, 2:30 pm, Noble 130
Senators attending: Michelle Bonanno, Beverly Chew, Rebecca Clausen , Betty Dorr, Jay
Dougan, Leslie Goldstein, Rick Gore, Kris Greer, Andy Gulliford, Ryan Haaland, Jonathan Latta,
Justin McBrayer, Carrie Meyer, Chuck Riggs, Amy Sellin, Heidi Steltzer, Kaori Takano, Deborah
Walker, Amy Wendland
Senators absent: Rebecca Austin, Melissa Knight-Maloney, Kenny Miller, Astrid Oliver, Pam
Smith,
Guests: Marta Bergen, Barbara Morris, Mary Ann Erickson, Nancy Cardona, Carol Smith, Suzie
Null
Reports / Announcements:
President’s remarks – Chuck Riggs –


Minutes, vote on this next meeting.
President’s remarks – extra Faculty Senate meeting scheduled for April 10
BOT Faculty Representative update – Amy Wendland

None
HLC Assumed Practices and Institutional Obligations (Provost Morris)








This coming fall begin process to upload our data for review for accreditation.
Barbara began reviewing documents, including policy changes document.
The change policy states that need prior approval for any substantive changes of clock
hour/credit hour.
Intent of HLC is to make sure cost is not increasing.
Concerns that a crisis is being manufactured. This is not the case.
Since 1996, we don’t have policies and procedures in place, we don’t have assessment
in place; we don’t use data to inform our decision making.
Accreditation has changed over time regarding what we need to be accountable for and
tangible artifacts that need to be available.
We had triggered concern of HLC, because we were over 120; spent time this fall/spring
to make the changes needed to correct being out of compliance.
1|Page













HLC needs to know what has happened, i.e. over 120 and corrections made to correct
this. Overview of policies discusses what policies need to have prior commission
approval.
o “A change from clock to credit hours in one or more institutional programs or
substantial increase or decrease in the number of clock or credit hours awarded
for successful completion of an academic program.”
Process is between 3-8 months for review; commission change panel, change visit, desk
approval.
Policy put in place in 2010, is time period relevant to just time period since that time.
Doesn’t matter when changes at college happened, i.e. even if shift happened prior to
2010.
We didn’t specify and make it intentional and there has been more intentionality as of
late.
Did liaison state what constitutes ‘substantive’?
Paragraph read:
o How unit of credit is measured in 25% or more of its courses, needs to be
submitted for review
o Quarter to semester, when semester remains, but courses offered differently;
ex. if courses shift from 3 to 4 credit – experience, education, financial aid not
compromised.
If curriculum and courses shifted, so total is about the same, does this trigger the need
for review.
If we continue on this path with more than 25% courses changed for course credit from
3 to 4 credits, then we need to complete the substantive change form.
Explain what you are doing and why you are doing it?
If we change back to 3 credits, we would not need to complete the substantive change
form.
o It would be as if it never happened, since we have not let them know we’ve done
this.
o No assessment has been done as part of making the 3 to 4 credit shift.
Succinctly fill out form; honestly fill out form. We have 2 years and 2 months before we
file our assurance plan for accreditation and this process takes 8 months.
Going back to 2002 senate resolution, talk of benefits of credit hours changing based on
teaching pedagogy; but we don’t have assessments/measures, so how do we address
that majority of schools and those in Colorado are 3 credit courses. Ongoing
assessment of better outcomes would be needed, direct artifacts and measures.
When look over documents, host of concerns in 2002 document about: 3-4 credit
change. State ratified a 3 credit model. Scheduling courses. Transferability. GE not
2|Page














being more than 40 credits. Undermine integrity of academic programs. Workload and
equity. Reduction in courses available to students. These have all been listed as
ongoing concerns.
Many of these issues have come to fruition given work that has needed to be done this
past year.
In 2002 resolution, reduce number of courses shifting and in 2006 moratorium on new 4
credit courses. Demonstrate the benefits of the 4 credit model. Follow-up documents
not available to show positive impact of change.
These resolutions abandoned, but not clear why they were abandoned. No clear new
policy/procedure put into place.
We now have a form that expects us to document substantive changes and impact.
Normal course load for a student is 15 credits; 5 course, 3 credits each; we have a range
of units that are a normal course load. This would not be adequate with federal
government to have a range, because they could be over or underpaying. Need to
either be a 15 credit or 16 credit per term; so a 3-5 or a 4-4 plan.
Urgency given our timeline for accreditation. We already have a host of issues that we
need to do better at. Academic standards policies have been cleaned up a lot – this
helps. But this is a significant issue.
Just identified this issue over spring break.
1996 report exists; follow-up visit report and 2006 report. In writing, but not e-forms.
Lack of student assessment and learning in GE core part of earlier report. This led to
EGCs. Now EGCs have been eliminated and HLC will want to know why, since they
initially wanted to see this.
Yes, this is a concern because it was reactionary to cut EGCs, so substantive assessment
is lacking.
There is a pattern, due to policies that aren’t present. Policies need to be written – is
this a good place to start?
Assumed practices – what we should already be doing. Assume we are doing unless
they found out they we are not. We are not doing all these things, which needs to be
fixed.
Creating teams on each of 5 criteria and one on assumed practices. Look at all core
components, familiarize, ask are we in compliance? Gap analysis to determine what
policies are needed. Not really 2 years to do this, because need time to write it up. To
do all this work and to fix it.
Urgency is that this prompts concrete answer to a complex issue now. Open, honest,
transparent and all on board. We shouldn’t be split on something so big.
3|Page












Some pedagogy driven reasons and some self-interest reasons. Taught both. What
options are available? Revert back to 3 credits, and adjust workload to 9-12 teaching
requirement, because it may not be affordable to go to 9-9 teaching requirement.
Is a course a course? But there is an issue of pedagogy too. Financial aid divided by
competencies. Colorado is not there yet to go to a course model. We would have too
many courses if we each had 4 courses per term. In STEM, would need a lot more
resources to shift workload.
There could at least be a pool of release time that people apply for.
We are already delivering more curriculum than we can afford.
Still problem for not having policies and procedures for assessment. We have new
assessment person coming on board to do this. Start measuring.
Still doesn’t get at what is a normal course load from a student perspective.
Expectation of HLC is that we fill out substantive change form, not that we shift to
different credit model. Provost Morris is not comfortable filling out the substantive
change form.
o Can’t answer questions on the form well.
o Wish knew about this sooner. Task force timeline is by December. 3-8 months
for review of the form.
o Does timeline for 3-4 credit task force need to change.
o Can’t manufacture data we do not have. No data exists to justify the changes we
have made.
Programs we dropped, ex. Agriculture, were done correctly.
Some items keeping you awake more than others? Highlight ones that are directly
related to 3-4 credit issue. Anything on substantive form relates to the 3-4 credit issue.
Could some be addressed by saying we are now doing assessment and are now on a
path to be able to assess?
Did we as a whole believe that 3-4 credit mix-match benefits our institution?
Given that there were historical concerns and now making this argument for the
positive, from the student’s perspective, is this an improvement?
What is next for a solution?
o We need to go back to 3 credit courses.
o How would we get there?
o Task force work on this? It is part of their charge.
o Timeline? We need to move at a pace. Manage our curriculum within our
means. We have about a year.
o Whole intent of task force charge preceded this issue.
o Issue of reaccreditation of the whole college.
 Think it will be lost, no?
4|Page












Place on warning? Yes, and would lead to bad press
Worry about performance contract and funding
Student aid could be affected.
Accreditation authorizes institutions to offer title 4 funds. College would
be shut down if we couldn’t provide these.
We are vulnerable by not having a consistent institutional course load.
Accountability has increased over time in higher education. Substantial change in what
federal government, legislators, families and more require us to prove.
Admissions changes, remedial changes are taking place.
Used to matter that students had access; now need degree attainment, expertise is
needed. If you are not graduating students, you are failing as an institution.
Agenda behind task force? There wasn’t one. Tasked to look at the problem. Problem
is having both and neither at the same time. Institutional decision was not made to go
to 4 credits. Historical documents state it could be a bad idea and as it has taken place it
was not assessed.
FLC is providing more courses than we can afford – can you explain this? Adjunct
requests are more than what is in our budget. Position requests are also more than can
be afforded.
If we went to 3 credit model, some courses would still have 4 credits for
clinic/lab/practicum type activities.
Normal course load needs to be set and cannot be variable.
Motion to adjourn, Ryan Haaland. Seconded Bev Chew. 3:40pm.
5|Page