APOLOGIES:    Figueroa

GUESTS:          Loring Abeyta – Interim Principal Tutor and Director, McBride Honors Program
Dan Baker – Representative, GSA
                           Tom Boyd – Dean, Graduate Studies
Ryan Ford – Representative, ASCSM
Lara Medley – Registrar, CSM
                           Alexandra Newman – Professor, Economics and Business

Mishra, Senate President, called the meeting to order and welcomed the guests. 

COMMENTS FROM GUESTS:
A.   Loring Abeyta – Abeyta distributed a handout (Attachment A) regarding the changes in policy of the McBride program. She reported that the McBride Program is following a historically consistent policy regarding GPA. She also stressed that although the program does have a high attrition rate, this rate is similar to rates of transitional programs, and a large proportion of students at CSM fulfill the requirements of the program. She also reported that students failing to achieve a minimum GPA of 2.9 for a given semester will only be put on probation if this causes their cumulative GPA to also drop below the 2.9 minimum. She also reported that they are hoping to expand their portfolio process to allow for closer scrutiny of students. She will have a finished draft of the proposed changes for the next meeting.
B.   Dan Baker – Baker reported that the GSA fully supports increasing access to Volk Gymnasium.
C.  Tom Boyd – Boyd reported Wendy Harrison is busy with the Provost candidates and he would report to the Senate for this meeting.
      Boyd requested that anyone that met with the Provost candidates to please send their opinions to the committee at provostsearch@mines.edu . Furthermore, all applicant CVs as well as additional information is available at the Provost website located at: http://www.mines.edu/admin/provost/search/
      Boyd also discussed his recent message outlining changes in summer registration policy (Attachment B). This item is located below in Old Business, Section C.
      Boyd also discussed the proposed increase in graduate student tuition for both resident and non-resident students. The proposed increase is on the order of 9-10 percent, but there is pressure to lower this figure. The increase should be covered by increased TA budgets and increased stipends. They have also requested additional TAs for some departments. It was also noted that over the last 3-4 years the graduate tuition has been increasing more than undergraduate tuition in an effort to couple the two tuitions. This, however, has proven to be unfair as the max load of credit hours is 15 for undergraduates and only 9 for graduate students. They are working to address this problem.
D.  Ryan Ford – Ford had no new business to report.
E.   Alexandra Newman – Newman, at the Faculty Senate Meeting on March 25, submitted a report outlining her concerns about a lack of accessibility to Volk Gymnasium and Steinhauer Fieldhouse (ATTACHMENT C). This item can be found below in Old Business, Section E.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:  The Minutes from the March 25, 2008 Faculty Senate Meeting were approved with two minor corrections.

OLD BUSINESS:
A... President’s Reception for Faculty Senate: April 10: FYI – Mishra informed the senate that they and their spouses are invited to attend the President’s Reception on April 10th.
B... Alumni membership on BoT – Wu submitted two versions of the Proposed Amendment to Statutes Concerning Alumni Quota on CSM Board of Trustees (ATTACHMENT D). The first version will be submitted to the Alumni Association for approval. The second version is intended to be a talking point.
C.  Summer registration for graduate students – Boyd discussed his recent message outlining changes in summer registration policy (ATTACHMENT B). The change mainly affects graduate students performing research over the summer. He has eliminated the registration exceptions and now all students must register though they will still be financially supported through a full research stipend. The registration deadline has also been shifted to the end of field session. Only those students not working towards a degree are exempt from registering, and Boyd will deal with those students individually.
D.  McBride Honors Program –
E.   Use of Old Gymnasium – Newman, at the Faculty Senate Meeting on March 25, submitted a report outlining concerns about the accessibility of the Volk Gymnasium and Steinhauer Fieldhouse (ATTACHMENT C). Newman reported that Volk Gymnasium and Steinhauer Fieldhouse offer several athletic facilities not offered by the new Recreational Facility and that they are currently being underutilized due to restricted access. Davis submitted to the Senate the following proposal in response to the concerns brought up by Alexandra Newman (ATTACHMENT C):

“In the light of the current underutilization of the Volk Gymnasium facilities, and with a view to creating a more integrated athletics and recreation environment amongst student athletes, non-student athletes, faculty, and staff, I move that the Administration undertake a review of the current restricted access policies of the Volk Gymnasium, with the goal of expanding the availability of the facilities to be inclusive of the entire CSM community through more comprehensive usage privileges and extended operating hours.”

The motion to submit this proposal to the Athletics Director passed unanimously. It was also decided to have Ford report this to ASCSM and see if they might submit a similar proposal on behalf of the undergraduate students.
F.   Review of Admission Standards – Mishra, at the Faculty Senate meeting on March 25, submitted a report on the SAT, ACT, High School Rank, and Average Index for entering freshmen at CSM for the Fall 2005 - Fall 2007 period (ATTACHMENT E).
G.  Office of the Dean of Undergraduate Studies – Harrison, at the Faculty Senate Meeting on February 26, reported that she is working with John Moore to create a new Office of the Dean of Undergraduate Studies with the intention of adding additional scrutiny to undergraduate affairs. Mishra reported that there is a feeling that this office is not needed, as CSM already has two associate provosts on campus, and that they should be able to provide that function. Eberhart requested more discussion on this matter, but due to time constraints it will be added to the next Faculty Senate Meeting’s agenda.
H.   Amendment to Faculty Senate By-laws: Faculty Trustee Election – Mishra reported that it is desired to hold the election before the summer break and thus elect the Faculty Trustee in time to serve by the July Board of Trustee meeting. Mishra is working with Derek Wilson of AC&N to facilitate the election process. They are currently preparing ballots for the election. The election requires two-thirds of academic faculty to participate and the winner needs over 50% of the vote to be elected. As the faculty has not yet approved the process of having the Faculty Senate facilitate this election, it was decided to postpone the election until the amendment to the Faculty Senate By-laws is approved at the Faculty Convocation on April 30th. A motion was made that the Faculty Senate will facilitate the Faculty Trustee election, which will be held after the Faculty Convocation, and the amendment to the Faculty Senate By-laws can be approved. The motion passed unanimously.

NEW BUSINESS:
A.   Senate Distinguished Lecturer 2008 – Mishra reported that the Senate Distinguished Lecturer Selection Committee has chosen Dr. Arthur Sacks to be the 2008-2009 Senate Distinguished Lecturer. Eberhart moved and Martins seconded to accept the Selection Committee’s selection of Dr. Sacks as the 2008-2009 Senate Distinguished Lecturer. The motion passed unanimously.
B.   Faculty Forum 4/23/08 on Diversity at Mines – Mishra reported that the next, and final for this academic year, Faculty Forum will take place at 4:00PM on April 23rd, 2008. Heidi Loshbaugh will be presenting Diversity at Mines.
C.  Provost Candidate Interviews – Mishra reported that times have been set to have members of the Faculty Senate meet with the Provost Candidates. All meetings will take place in the Ted Adams Room (GC 270) at 9:00. All senators are invited to meet with Donald Birx on April 8, Joseph Cecchi on April 22, Richard Buckius on May 2, and Marc Donohue on May 6. It was also decided to hold a special meeting shortly after the last meeting to discuss the four Provost Candidates. Additionally, all faculty members will be invited to voice their opinions.
D.  Approval of Gradating Lists - The graduating list for the B.S. degree for the May, June, and August graduates was approved by the Senate

COMMITTEE REPORTS:
A.   Senate Committees
      1.   Committee on Committees – Andersen reported that there are four nominations for the four vacancies opening in the Faculty Senate this year. Andersen also reported that one of the vacancies is the position of President of the Faculty Senate and that eligible applicants are needed.
      2.   Sports and Athletics – Graham reported that although the Sports and Athletics Committee has been informed that he is now serving as the Senate representative, he has not yet been invited to a meeting.
3.   Academic Standards & Faculty Affairs Committee – Vincent submitted the minutes from the Academic Standards & Faculty Affairs Committee meeting on February 28:

Academic Standards and Faculty Affairs Committee
February 28, 2008
Meeting minutes recorded by Tyrone Vincent

Members Present: Sumit Agarwal, Pamela Blome, Harold Cheuvront, Dean Dickerhoof, Nigel Middleton, Tyrone Vincent, Ray Zhang

Apologies: Kadri Dagdelen, Fred Sarazin

Guests: Mark Eberhart, Chemistry; Lara Medley, Registrar; Bruce Goetz, Admissions; Heather Boyd, Admissions.

Item 1: Reviewed information item concerning minimum GPA from McBride program.
The committee did not have an objection, but felt the full senate should approve the matter.

Item 2: The Chemistry Department is concerned with the large number of students that receive a D, F, or W in CHEN121. The committee reviewed information presented by Bruce Goetz concerning preparation for students who received a D, F, or W in CHEN121. Of 126 students in this category, only 9 did not have chemistry in High School. Based on this information, the Chemistry Department developed a proposal that was presented by Mark Eberhart. After some modifications, the proposal was unanimously accepted as:

• At least one semester of chemistry should be required of students accepted to CSM.
• The Chemistry Department, in cooperation with Admissions, will administer a chemistry assessment test. Its purpose is to determine whether a student has a fundamental understanding of the structure of the atom, the periodic table, and the mole concept.
• Those students failing the assessment test will take their first chemistry course in the spring trailer section of 121.
• CHEN121 will move into the same grade program as MACS111, 112, and PHGN101, where by a C or better is required the first time these courses are taken to move on (as outlined in pages 26-27 in the undergraduate bulletin).

This proposal will be sent to the full senate for approval.

Items 3 and 4: These items were presented and will be discussed further at the next meeting.

Next Meeting:

      Due to time constraints discussion on these topics will be postponed until the next Faculty Senate meeting.
B.   Senate Councils

• 1.   Graduate Council – Martins reported that the Graduate Council is in favor of the proposed increase of TA and RA stipends by 4%.

      Martins also reported that there is little interest in the council on the topic of limiting the amount of time that can be spent working on graduate degrees. It was decided that the Senate is still in favor of a limit and Martins will request the Graduate Council to submit a recommendation.
2.   Research Council – Eberhart proposed changing the By-laws so that the Senate Representative will chair the Research Council and that a member of the Council will serve on the Research Management Cabinet. This issue will be added as an Old Business Item at the next Faculty Senate Meeting.
3.   Undergraduate Council – Jesudason submitted the following report outlining the proposed changes to the Independent Study Course forms and the possible adoption of the ‘plus minus’ system to the undergraduate letter grading system:

1. Changes to Independent Study Course Form

I understand that for a student to receive an academic credit for independent study, the student is expected to invest A MINIMUM OF (replaces approximately) 25 hours per semester for each semester credit hour awarded in the educational activity involved.
Additionally, an appropriate course syllabus has been developed for the course, reviewed by the Department/Division HEAD and the student, and is available upon request.

2. Grading System

The Senate supports the idea of introducing pluses and minuses to the letter grade system we now have in place. The reasons are:

• Faculty think that the current spread is too wide to accurately reflect student performance.
• We would like to see consistency between the graduate and undergraduate course grading.
• We don’t see any adverse consequences for the student, certainly not enough to override i. and ii. We don’t believe there will be meaningful changes to the GPA.
• The new Honors system makes subtle distinctions among the various award categories (Summa; 3.9, magna: 3.7, cum laude; 3.5), but our current grading don’t capture these nuances.
• The new system of retaking courses and counting only the last grade obtained has led to much faster recovery rates for students under probation, etc. The feeling of GPA reduction with this proposed changes only a perception, but in addition does not consider the provision we made last year, which has helped many students out.

Jesudason reported that the Undergraduate Council rejected the increase in hours required for independent course credits. Jesudason also reported that the change to the ‘plus and minus’ grading system is not likely to occur until at least next year. He also mentioned that there is still some debate on the change as other engineering schools don’t use it and that it may be difficult getting all professors to begin using it.

C.  University Committees

• Budget Committee – Mooney reported that for the financial year 2009, there has been an increase of $8-9M in revenue, mostly due to increased tuition. He also reported that most of the increase has already been spent on many different things. He reported that approximately 1M has gone to new faculty, 1M to new start-ups, and smaller amounts to classified staff, the cost of living increase given to all faculty, and paying off debt.
• Handbook Committee – Davis reported that the Committee is done meeting for the year.
• Calendar Committee – Dagdelen reported that the new calendar has been approved by the President.

ANNOUNCEMENTS:
A.   The next Senate meeting will take place on April 29, 2008 in Hill Hall room 300.

The meeting adjourned at 4:10 pm. 

ATTACHMENT A

                  April 8, 2008

TO: CSM Faculty Senate

FROM: Loring Abeyta, Interim Principal Tutor and Director, McBride Honors Program

RE: McBride Honors Program Standards of Student Performance Revisions

I am writing this in response to questions from Dr. David Wu that were sent to me in an e-mail dated March 27, 2008. A clarification is in order prior to my more in-depth response to the questions raised regarding the McBride Standards of Student Performance revisions. In Dr. Wu’s e-mail, his first question asked whether I agree with the student assessment as balanced against the desire to have higher GPA standards in McBride. The proposed revisions to the McBride Standards of Student Performance do not include an increase in the GPA standards of the Program. The GPA standard has been 2.9 for several years, and will remain at 2.9. The revisions are in the areas of procedures to enforce the Standards of Student Performance Policy.

As is noted by the National Collegiate Honors Council (NCHC) in their summary of the characteristics of an honors program (a document that was distributed to the Faculty Senate prior to the meeting on March 25)1, “[n]o one model of an Honors program can be superimposed on all types of institutions. However, there are characteristics which are common to successful fully developed honors program that “[t]he program should be both visible and highly reputed throughout the institution so that it is perceived as providing standards and models of excellence for students and faculty across campus.”2

A recent special issue of the Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council, titled “Grades, Scores, and Honors,” provides further guidance for how an honors program can determine and implement appropriate standards of student performance. The issue opens with an important historical perspective:

From the beginning of the burgeoning honors movement in the United States during the 1960s, the role of numbers has extended over the full spectrum of possibilities, from the single factor determining admission and retention, for instance, to pretty much complete irrelevance in that process. The more recent decades, however, have expanded both the applications and pressures of numbers within honors programs and colleges.3

The “centerpiece’ essay of the journal issue was written by Larry Andrews, former dean of the Honors College at Kent State University. According to Andrews, academic standards policies of honors programs should be guided by two major values: “(1) the specific culture or our honors programs and our institutions, and (2) the noble honors pedagogical and advising tradition of investing in the individual student.”4 Andrews acknowledges that these guiding values do not answer for us the tough questions, such as “[w]hat do numbers tell us about creativity, curiosity, or integrative thinking, for example? How do we accommodate not just the ‘good student’ but the original character, such as the under-achiever with high potential?”5 It is worth including here Andrews’ fuller explanation of how the two guiding values he noted should inform admission and retention decisions in honors programs:

How do we resolve these dilemmas? First, we pay attention to our own program and institutional context. If using a 3.3 GPA and 24 ACT seems below perceived national standards but matches the kinds of students we are likely to be able to attract in the numbers we desire, let us not be embarrassed. If we have grown so large that we go by the numbers without further evidence of motivation or unusual intelligence, let us work within the limitations of our resources but also pay attention to the interesting exceptions who bang on our door to get in. We can invite such students to submit other documentation, and we can be flexible enough to take a gamble. If part of our expectation of current students is leadership or service, we will look for these qualities among our prospects in lists of activities and service, giving them considerable weight alongside the numbers. If we are receiving too many qualified applicants, we must consult the admissions or enrollment management leaders and our academic superior about whether cutting off admissions and wait-listing will be best for the institution or whether additional resources for class sections or scholarships will be forthcoming to support this success. Second, we should recognize the limitations of the numbers and make every effort to get to know prospective students as individuals through invitations to visit, discussions at recruiting events, open houses, follow-up e-mail exchanges, perhaps even a brief paragraph on an application essay explaining their motivation for joining honors. We can also offer membership to students after their first semester or year of proven college success – again usually according to some minimum GPA threshold but aided by an interview and application essay – on an individual basis.6

The McBride Honors Program has already instituted these suggestions from Dr. Andrews. The Program has historically focused on a “whole person” assessment of applicants, and sustains this “whole person” assessment of our students throughout their McBride experience. The tutorial model, or student-centered learning, is the cornerstone of our McBride Honors Program mission and pedagogy. The position title of Principal Tutor and Director indeed emphasizes the tutoring role of the program head. The McBride Honors Program has a long and consistent history of focusing on each student as a unique individual in our Program.

Dr. Andrews acknowledges the importance of student assessment that is “consistent with our own program and institutional context.” Dr. Wu has raised two areas of inquiry where it can be demonstrated that the McBride Honors program revised Standards of Student Performance does not deviate from either the history of the Program or the overall CSM context in terms of grade assessment.

Attrition levels:

Our current attrition levels are not abnormally high when compared with all years that the McBride Honors Program has been in existence. For example, the McBride Tutorial Committee notes from May 3, 1989, states that the “McBride Program’s attrition rate is about 44-46%. This percentage has leveled off and is holding steady. CSM’s average attrition rate is 22%.”

GPA Standards:

At the end of fall 2007, the CSM Registrar, Lara Medley, reported these statistics7

Clearly, a significant number of CSM students perform above the GPA standard established by the McBride Honors Program. These statistics suggest that the argument presented by students opposed to the revised McBride Standards of Student Performance – that we are excluding large numbers of highly gifted and creative students because our academic standards are so high – is not supported by the evidence.

Proposed Solutions:

The McBride Executive Committee has considered these issues at length, and has weighed the concerns brought by the McBride students at the last Faculty Senate meeting. The McBride Executive Committee continues to uphold the following conditions of the revised McBride Standards of Student Performance:

• Freshmen will not be allowed to enter the Program if their first semester CSM GPA is below 2.9
• All McBride Students must maintain a minimum cumulative GPA of 2.9
• Students will be placed on a one-semester academic probation if their cumulative GPA falls below 2.9
• Students failing to restore their cumulative CSM GPA to 2.9 during the semester of academic probation will be withdrawn from the program

At its meeting on April 1, 2008, the McBride Executive Committee proposed the following procedural changes to maintain the basic Standards of Student Performance procedures but also to address student concerns about the probation/appeals process:

A subcommittee of the McBride Tutorial Committee would become the medium for bringing appeals to the McBride Executive Committee.

If the CSM semester GPA falls below 2.9, the student will be referred to the McBride Academic Probation/Academic Appeals subcommittee of the McBride Tutorial Committee. The subcommittee members will meet with the student and advise the student about strategies and available campus resources that will help them improve their CSM GPA.

If the CSM cumulative GPA falls below 2.9, the student will be referred to the McBride Academic Probation/Academic Appeals subcommittee of the McBride Tutorial Committee for the same advising that is noted above. In addition, the student will be required to meet with a subcommittee member on a regular basis throughout the semester of academic probation.

If the student fails to bring the CSM cumulative GPA back to 2.9, the student will be withdrawn from the McBride Honors Program. If the student wishes to appeal the withdrawal, the subcommittee will receive the student’s appeal letter and will make the determination about whether the appeals case should be heard by the McBride Executive Committee.

In addition to this procedure which brings the Tutorial Committee directly into the Standards of Student Performance procedures through the subcommittee on McBride Academic Probation/Academic Appeals, the McBride Executive Committee has discussed the possibility of updating the McBride practice of portfolio entries by the McBride students. This has been discussed with the McBride student representatives, and the idea was well received. We will be working on integrating a portfolio process more directly into the overall student assessment procedure.

1”Basic Characteristics of A Fully Developed Honors Program (Approved by the NCHC Executive Committee on March 4, 1994, and amended by the NCHC Board of Directors on November 23, 2007,” http://www.nchchonors.org/NCHC%20Basic%20Characteristics.pdf accessed on March 31, 2008.
2Ibid.
3Ada Long, “Editor’s Introduction,” Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council, Vol. 8, No. 1, Spring/Summer 2007, p.9.
4Larry Andrews, “Grades, Scores, and Honors: A Numbers Game?” Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council, Vol. 8, No. 1, Spring/Summer 2007, p.23.
5Op. cit., p.24.
6Op. cit., p.25.
7E-mail communication with Lara Medley, April 7, 2008

ATTACHMENT B

REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS FOR SUMMER AND FIELD APPOINTMENTS

ALL Graduate Assistant and Graduate Hourly Appointees WORKING TOWARD DEGREE during the Summer or Field sessions (i.e., May through August) ARE REQUIRED TO REGISTER.

Research Assistant Appointments: By definition Research Assistants are presumed to be working toward degree and, therefore, MUST REGISTER during the summer semester. The required minimum registration requirement for a Research Assistant appointed during the summer term is three (3) credits of research. To insure research appointees have access to the appropriate campus services (i.e., building access, Health Center, Recreation Center, etc.), Research Appointees MUST REGISTER for the required research credits BY THE LAST DAY OF REGISTRATION FOR THE FIELD TERM. All Research Appointees are assessed tuition at the normal summer tuition rates and Mandatory Fees at the "Thesis Research" rate.

If a student on a Research Assistant Appointment is also completing coursework during the Summer or Field terms, the Appointee MUST REGISTER FOR THESE COURSES IN ADDITION to the required three credits of research. The registration deadline for coursework registration is the normal deadline for the Field or Summer session course. Tuition is assessed for both the required research and coursework credit hours at the normal Summer and Field rates. Mandatory Fees incurred by students completing both research and coursework during the summer are assessed at the "Thesis Research" rate.

Teaching Assistant and Hourly Appointments: If a Graduate Teaching Assistant or Graduate Hourly Appointee is not working toward degree requirements at any time during the Summer or Field sessions (i.e., May through August), REGISTRATION during the Summer or Field terms IS NOT REQUIRED. Such appointees will, however, be subject to the TIAA-CREF payroll deductions.

Summer fees are not automatically assessed for students who do not register. So, unless students proactively indicate they want fees assessed, students working on Teaching Assistant or Hourly Appointments during the summer will not have access to university-provided services (e.g., Health Center, Recreation Center, etc.).

If a Teaching Assistant or Hourly Appointee is also working toward degree requirements during the Summer or Field terms (i.e., May through August), these appointees must register as appropriate.
• Appointees completing research during the summer must register for at least one (1) credit hour of research. The registration deadline for this required research registration is the last day of registration for the FIELD TERM.

• Students completing coursework must register for the appropriate courses by the appropriate Field or Summer registration deadline. Tuition is assessed for all credits in which a student is registered at the normal Summer and Field tuition rates. Mandatory fees incurred by students completing coursework are assessed at the appropriate Field or Summer rates. Mandatory fees incurred by students completing research are assessed at the "Thesis Research" rate.

• Teaching Assistant or Hourly Appointees working toward degree during the summer by completing both research and coursework during the summer (i.e., May through August) are required to register for both research credit hours and course credit hours as defined above by the deadlines defined above. Tuition is assessed for both the required research and coursework credit hours at the normal Summer and/or Field rates. Mandatory fees incurred by students completing both research and coursework during the summer (i.e., May through August) are assessed at the "Thesis Research" rate.

Students required to register during the Summer semester are responsible for all Mandatory fees incurred during the Summer semester. These fees may, or may not be remitted as part of a Graduate Assistant Appointment. Students for whom registration is not required during the Summer semester but who are working on campus may chose to pay Mandatory Fees at the "Thesis Research" rate. Payment of these fees provides students access to campus facilities including, but not limited to the Library, Health Center, Recreation Center, etc. during the entire summer (i.e., May through August). Requests for prorating of this voluntary fee payment will not be considered.

REVISED SPRING DEGREE COMPLETION DEADLINE

The Office of Graduate Studies allows students registered in a previous semester to continue to work toward degree and checkout of their degree program as late as the last day to register in the next semester without paying additional tuition. In the past, this has meant that students registered during the Spring semester, could continue to work toward degree and check out as late as the third week of June before being required to register for the Summer semester.

With the change in Summer research registration proposed above, the Office of Graduate Studies will now be using the close of registration for the Field semester as its deadline for checkout from the Spring semester. For the upcoming year, however, as we transition to the new Summer registration requirements, the Office of Graduate Studies will be flexible in allowing students to extend their checkout timeline beyond the new requirement. Starting Spring 2009, however, the Office of Graduate Studies will rigorously enforce this new checkout requirement.

Thanks...
Tom

ATTACHMENT C

Use of Volk Gym and Steinhauer Fieldhouse

Volk Gymnasium and the adjoining Steinhauer Fieldhouse (subsequently referred to collectively as Volk Gym in this memo) currently contain athletic offices, a gymnasium, an athletic weight room, a 200m indoor track, racquetball courts, and a martial arts (formerly wrestling) room. Until the fall of 2007, the policy was that this facility was open to the campus community (all students, faculty, and staff) during approximately the following hours: Monday-Friday: 6am-10pm; Saturday: 10am-2pm; Sunday: 1pm-9pm.
During the summer of 2007, the Recreational Facility was opened. This facility consists of a climbing wall, several gymnasiums, a recreational weight room, a 1/16th of a mile (approximately 100m) jogging track (note: with square corners), and various exercise rooms.
As of the opening of the Recreational Facility, Volk Gym hours were curtailed to: Monday-Friday: 6am-5pm; Saturday and Sunday: closed. Addionally, no one except NCAA athletes and students taking PA classes is allowed to use the athletic weight room.
I would like to propose a relaxation of the current policy to revert back to a policy closer to what was in place prior to the fall of 2007.
I base my proposal on the following arguments:

• Volk Gym houses several desirable athletic training assets, including a 200m indoor track and an athletic weight room. The track is twice as long as the track in the Recreational Facility and allows for interval training. The Volk Gym weight room, in contrast to that in the Recreational Facility, possesses squat racks, a vast array of dumbbells, and multiple bench press stations, among other items necessary for serious athletic training. These assets are currently vastly underutilized. While the varsity teams should be and are given priority, the track stands empty many evenings and on the weekends. The weight room has a posted schedule for its use by varsity teams and PA classes from 6am to 5pm Monday-Friday. About half of the time slots during this time frame are empty. Its use is not regularly scheduled either after 5pm on the weekdays, or on the weekends.
  (NCAA) athletes and non-athletes (students, faculty, and staff) could benefit from the use of the facilities in the Volk Gym during non-peak times, specifically, after 5pm on the weekdays, and on the weekends.
• While it is understandable that athletes should receive priority for facility use, curtailing and/or excluding non-NCAA athlete use of campus facilities seems to be inappropriate, especially at a public institution and where unrestricted funds are used to pay for said facilities.

Furthermore, current policies appear to aim to separate NCAA athletes from the rest of the student body and from the faculty. This has a negative impact on athlete-non-athlete interaction among students, and athlete-professor interaction.
It would seem appropriate that the culture of athletics should be determined by the faculty and not independent of the faculty. We seem to have moved into the realm of the latter situation with recent policies that foster isolation, specifically, restricted building access, separation of NCAA athletes from others, the Recreational Facility fee structure, etc. If one loosely defines “culture of athletics” as including all aspects of physical recreation, exercise, and training, by all members of the CSM community, then the faculty (CSM Faculty Senate) have clearly lost control of the athletics and recreation side of the CSM experience to the detriment of all of the students, faculty, and staff.

• Providing additional athletic facilities and facility hours has a positive impact on the Mines community as a whole, and encourages students and staff to exercise.
• Closing the 200m track at 5pm (or, effectively, 4pm because of track team use), especially during the winter months, creates a hazardous situation for those who then are forced to run on dark, icy streets.

Indeed, there is no reason to restrict use of a very fine athletic facility that was enjoyed by faculty, staff, and students (athletic and non-athletes alike) at all hours of the day prior to this academic year. Given we now have access to campus buildings via the BlasterCard, this presents an excellent mechanism to curtail Volk Gym use to the Mines community. The possible result of allowing increased access to Volk Gym would be the necessity for increased janitorial services, which could easily be covered by leveraging a fee (especially on faculty and staff) for their use of the facility depending on the extent of use, e.g., using the showers might be free whereas the weight room might require a maintenance fee.

ATTACHMENT D

Proposed Amendment to Statutes Concerning
Alumni Quota on CSM Board of Trustees
(first version)

The current Colorado statutes (23-41-109) on the filling of vacancies on the CSM BOT sets a quota for alumni membership:

(2) Commencing with appointments made by the governor in 1977, and at all times thereafter, at least four and not more than five of the appointed members of the board shall be graduates of the Colorado school of mines upon each of whom a degree has been conferred by its board of trustees not less than ten years prior to his appointment.

The faculty senate views this quota as overly restrictive and not in the best interests of the school for several reasons:

• A less restrictive quota will allow access to a wider selection of highly qualified candidates without compromising on the essential qualities the original quota was meant to uphold (strong commitment to the interest of the school, an understanding of the values and strengths of CSM).  Specifically, a reduction of the quota does not prevent the selection of CSM alumni if they are the best-qualified candidates.

• There is a lag in the demographics of alumni fields of study or expertise, and the demographics of current CSM degrees and directions, such as engineering or biology.

• The pool of eligible and interested alumni to be drawn from is fairly small, limiting the choice for qualified candidates.

• With a broader membership on the BOT, actions taken would draw from a variety of viewpoints and be better informed.  An area of concern, for example, has been a drop in standards associated with actions to increase enrollment.

• Other Colorado universities have an alumni quota of one, presumably for similar reasons of balance and best interest of their institutions.  CSM seeks to be closer to this state (and national) standard.  (Prior to 1977, CSM also had an alumni quota of one.)

Accordingly, the following text is proposed as a replacement for the current statute:

(2) Commencing with appointments made by the governor in 2009, and at all times thereafter, at least one of the appointed members of the board shall be a graduate of the Colorado school of mines upon whom a degree has been conferred by its board of trustees not less than ten years prior to his appointment.

Note that this amendment neither specifically raises nor lowers the alumni membership on the BOT.  It does remove both restrictions of the alumni membership being at least four and not more than five.

We believe the alumni and administration will ultimately support this change giving greater flexibility in the selection of BOT members because it will allow the selection of the best BOT composition, whether the optimal number of alumni is 1 or 9.

Proposed Amendment to Statutes Concerning
Alumni Quota on CSM Board of Trustees
(Second Version)

The current Colorado statutes (23-41-109) on the filling of vacancies on the CSM BOT sets a quota for alumni membership:

(2) Commencing with appointments made by the governor in 1977, and at all times thereafter, at least four and not more than five of the appointed members of the board shall be graduates of the Colorado school of mines upon each of whom a degree has been conferred by its board of trustees not less than ten years prior to his appointment.

The faculty senate views this quota as overly restrictive and not in the best interests of the school for several reasons:

• A less restrictive quota will allow access to a wider selection of highly qualified candidates without compromising on the essential qualities the original quota was meant to uphold (strong commitment to the interest of the school, an understanding of the values and strengths of CSM).  Specifically, a reduction of the quota does not prevent the selection of CSM alumni if they are the best-qualified candidates.

• There is a lag in the demographics of alumni fields of study or expertise, and the demographics of current CSM degrees and directions, such as engineering or biology.

• The pool of eligible and interested alumni to be drawn from is fairly small, limiting the choice for qualified candidates.

• With a broader membership on the BOT, actions taken would draw from a variety of viewpoints and be better informed.  An area of concern, for example, has been a drop in standards associated with actions to increase enrollment.

• Other Colorado universities have an alumni quota of one, presumably for similar reasons of balance and best interest of their institutions.  CSM seeks to be closer to this state (and national) standard.  (Prior to 1977, CSM also had an alumni quota of one.)

Accordingly, the following text is proposed as a replacement for the current statute:

(2) Commencing with appointments made by the governor in 2009, and at all times thereafter, at least one of the appointed members of the board shall be a graduate of the Colorado school of mines upon whom a degree has been conferred by its board of trustees not less than ten years prior to his appointment.  Furthermore, at least four of the appointed members of the board shall have degrees from or have degrees equivalent to those granted by the Colorado school of mines.

Note that this amendment neither specifically raises nor lowers the alumni membership on the BOT.  It does remove both restrictions of the alumni membership being at least four and not more than five.

We believe the alumni and administration will ultimately support this change giving greater flexibility in the selection of BOT members because it will allow the selection of the best BOT composition, whether the optimal number of alumni is 1 or 9.

ATTACHMENT E

SAT, ACT, High School Rank, and Average Index for entering freshmen Fall 2007 – Fall 2005

SAT – MATH SCORE RANGE

SAT – CRITICAL READING SCORE RANGE

ACT COMPOSITE SCORE RANGE

HS RANK IN CLASS

AVERAGE FRESHMEN INDEX