1. FACULTY GOVERNANCE TASK FORCE February 8, 2008 Meeting

2. AGENDA Introduction and Background Presentation of 4 Models Discussion of Criteria to Evaluate Models Small Group Review of Models Sharing Small Group Discussions Working Dinner-Compensation and Service Agreements Discussion of Next Meeting

3. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Review of charge to task force, deliverables and timeline (Roxanne) Review of research on approaches in benchmark schools (Judy) Ground rules for task force meetings (Jerry)

4. TASK FORCE OBJECTIVES, DELIVERABLES, TIMELINE April/May – Structure of Faculty Governance that will pass Faculty Assemblies FGEB interface between Chancellor and Task Force Faculty compensation for service - subcommittee

5. RESEARCH FINDINGS FROM OTHER SCHOOLS University of Illinois University of Alabama-Birmingham University of Florida

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

7. PRESENTATION OF 4 MODELS Model # 1-The current approach with governing board Model # 2-The current approach with some changes Model # 3 A more consolidated approach Model # 4 A highly consolidated approach

8. MODEL # 1 Chancellor VC ResearchVC Health AffairsVC New InitiativesProvost Downtown Faculty Assembly Budget Oversight and Planning EPUSGLBTWomen’sPersonnel.... AMC Faculty Assembly HSC Library VC University Relation VC Finance FGEB

9. Pros/Cons #1 Pros Least amount of work Closer association with home campus Familiar No change Cons Almost no interaction Divide and Conquer Minimal chance of passing accreditation Everything through Provost Risk of leaving some faculty not represented

10. MODEL # 2 Chancellor VC ResearchVC Health AffairsVC New InitiativesProvost UCD Executive Assembly Budget Oversight and Planning EPUSGLBTWomen’sPersonnel Research Committee Clinical Affairs Downtown Faculty Assembly AMC Faculty Assembly VC University Relation VC Finance

11. Pros/Cons #2 Pros Very little change Close association with home campus Probably could pass accreditation More input from both campuses to committees Harder to Divide and Conquer Cons Minimal interaction Divide and Conquer Everything through Provost Risk of leaving some faculty unrepresented Not very innovated Slightly more time commitment

12. MODEL # 3 Chancellor VC Research Committee on Research Infrastructure and Policy (CRISP) VC Health Affairs Committee on Clinical Practice and Policies VC New Initiatives University Planning and New Initiatives Provost Faculty Affairs, Promotion and Tenure Policies Educational Policies and University Standards University Libraries Oversight and Planning VC University Relation Committee on Family and Diversity VC Finance University Budget Oversight and Planning CU Denver Operating Committee Downtown Faculty Assembly AMC Faculty Assembly

13. Pros/Cons #3 Pros Close association with home campus Joint committees Interaction between campuses and all Vice Chancellors Harder to Divide and Conquer Input to Chancellor Very innovated Cons Culture shock for both faculty and administration Risk of leaving some faculty unrepresented Big time commitment More complicated Harder to “get it right”

14. MODEL # 4 Chancellor VC Research Committee on Research Infrastructure and Policy (CRISP) VC Health Affairs Committee on Clinical Practice and Policies VC New Initiatives University Planning and New Initiatives Provost Faculty Affairs, Promotion and Tenure Policies Educational Policies and University Standards University Libraries Oversight and Planning VC University Relation Committee on Family and Diversity VC Finance University Budget Oversight and Planning UCD Faculty Assembly

15. Pros/Cons #4 Pros Joint committees Interaction between campuses and all Vice Chancellors Impossible to Divide and Conquer Input to Chancellor Very innovated Cons Culture shock for both faculty and administration Big time commitment (but less than 3) More complicated Campus issues may be lost Harder to “get it right”

16. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION Which Model: - Is most likely to promote the faculty’s role in governance? - Best promotes the faculty as a true partner in meeting mission and consolidation goals? - Best promotes efficiency and opportunism for the faculties at each campus?

17. CRITERIA CONTINUED -Best promotes the feeling that both campus faculties are important and properly represented? -Best promotes learning between the faculty governance groups at both campuses? -Best balances the goals of meeting faculty governance objectives and the unique needs of each campus?

18. CRITERIA CONTINUED - Best assures that the faculty has timely awareness of important issues of concern? - Best enables the faculty to broaden involvement in areas in which there is no current involvement? - Is easiest to sell (consider ease of implementation, support from administration, etc.)?

19. SMALL GROUP EVALUATION OF MODELS Each small group will evaluate the 4 models using the pros and cons, criteria, and any additional considerations Feel free to develop additional models or modify current ones and evaluate them Record the highlights of the discussion on a flip chart and rank order the models using consensus or voting if necessary

20. FULL GROUP REVIEW OF SMALL GROUP DELIBERATIONS Each small group will present the highlights of their discussion and recommendations The full group will compare the discussions and recommendations At the next meeting the full group will make its recommendations

21. WORKING DINNER First hour: Dinner and socializing Second hour: Discussion of compensation agreements and service issues Wrap up and discussion of next meeting