Agenda

(1)

· _Qr,---

fAtn

'

State Board

gt'

Agriculture

Fort Lewis College

University of Southern

Colorado

Colorado State University

(2)

Report of the Secretary

to the

State Board of Agriculture

and

General Board Business

(3)

L"U\\L{\

Q(;

~

('<\ ~ ~.\(a) \qci~

AetH

I\{

E

~

REPORT OF THE SECRETARY COMMITTEE REPORTS

GENERAL BUSINESS TO THE

STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE

March 16, 1979 Denver

UBRAR!ES SITY

£ UNIVER

COL0RAD0 STAT _. _Colorado IO~:illl Fort Collins.

(4)

I N D E X

Dates and locations for future meetings

Approval of the minutes of the meeting of February 8, 1979 Annual Report of the Secretary

Resource Book

Conflict of Interest - reporting requirement

Status of general legislation impacting on higher education and SBA institutions in particular

Activities and meeting of your Secretary, Staff and Presidents Public Office - employees of SBA seek approval to run for off ice Committee assignments and appointments to vacancies

Committees of the Board - Reports Litigation Pending

Ratification of executive committee approval of stock transaction

PAGE 1-1 2-1 3-1 4-1 5-1 6-1 7-1 8-1 9-1 10-1 11-1 12-1

(5)

Secretary's Report

Committees and General Business

SBA MEETING 3/16/79 1-:-1

MATTERS FOR ACTION:

Dates and locations for future meetings RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Information only. EXPLANATION:

The following meetings have been set for the State Board of Agriculture:

April 12 Durango USC, System, FLC Business

May 9-10 Fort Collins All Institutions - Statutory

June 21 Pueblo USC, System, FLC Business

July 18-19-20 Keystone Seminar for All Institutions

August 16 Fort Collins

September 20 Durango

October 18 Denver

November 15 Pueblo

(6)

Secretary's Report

SBA MEETING 3/16/79

MATTERS FOR ACTION:

2-1

Approval of the minutes of the February 8, 1979 meeting of the Board, as reported by the Secretary.

RECOHMENDED ACTION:

MOVED, the Board approve the minutes of the Secretary, the Committees and General Business of the Board, SBA Systems, Fort Lewis College, Colorado State University and the University of Southern Colorado in the form in which they were mailed to the board.

EXPLANATION:

(7)

Secretary's Report

SBA MEETING 3/16/79 3~1

MATTERS FOR ACTION:

Annual Report of the Secretary RECOMMENDED ACTION:

None - information only

EXPLANATION:

Highlights of the Activities and Reports of and to the State Board of Agriculture will be distributed. It should be noted that these highlights are not inclusive of all actions of the board in the fulfillment of its governing responsibilities.

(8)

Secretary's Report

SBA MEETING 3/16/79 4-1

MATTERS FOR ACTION: Resource Book RECOMMENDED ACTION:

None - information only EXPLANATION:

The Secretary's intent in preparing this resource . book is to make basic information for informed. decision-making and effective governance readily available to board members. It is not complete. Sections will be added in response to specific issues brought before the Board and

to concerns the Board has. Existing sections will be replaced as required to keep them current. At points it is intended to be suggestive - to motivate questions, not answer them.

(9)

Secretary's Report

MATTERS FOR ACTION:

Conflict of Interest - Reporting Requirement RECOMMENDED ACTION:

MOVED, that the board amend its present reporting requirement for the filing of an annual disclosure statement by each individual indicating whether of not an actual or potential conflict of interest exists.

EXPLANATION:

Auditor's Report: "Finding

During 1978, the State Board of Agriculture adopted a policy which required certain management personnel of the University to file an annual disclosure statement with the Board if they believed that an actual or potential conflict of interest existed between their University responsibilities and any of their other financial or business interests. However, since there is no requirement for a statement to be filed if there are no perceived conflicts, we do not believe the policy can be effectively monitored by the Ethics Committee of the Board".

CODE will be amended as follows:

"If after review of the Code, you believe that the discharge of .your board or institutional duties has/HAS NOT resulted or may result in

(10)

Secretary's Report

Committees and Gene~~l ausiness

SBA !1EETING 3/16/79 5-1 (a)

a conflict of interest, you must advise the Ethics Committee of the Board to that effect by April 30 of this year. In advising the Ethics Committee of an actual or possible conflict, INDICATE IN WRITING

WHETHER OR NOT AN ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTS BY APRIL 30 THIS YEAR. In advising the Ethics Committee of an actual or possible conflict, you must provide sufficient detail for it to be fully understood.

(11)

Secretary's Report

MATTERS FOR ACTION:

Status of General Legislation impacting on higher education and SBA institutions in particular.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

None - information only.

EXPLANATION: Verbal.

(12)

Secretary's Report

MATTERS FOR ACTION:

Activities and meetings of your Secretary, Staff and Presidents.

RECOMMENDATION:

EXPLANTION: Verbal.

(13)

Secretary's Report

Connnittees and General Business 8-1

SBA MEETING 3/16/79

MATTERS FOR ACTION:

Creation of policy for institutions governed by the State Board of Agriculture for employees running for public office.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

MOVED, employees of the institutions governed by the State Board of Agriculture should seek approval of the Board before running for election

to public office. Reelection for the same position need not have re-endorsement of the Board.

EXPLA,NATION:

Employees of CSU have historically asked Board approval to run for public off°ice. It has not been clear, however, whether reelection re-quired a new approval. It is also necessary to seek this action to make uniform requirements of other institutions governed by SBA.

(14)

Secretary's Report

MATTERS FOR ACTION:

Committee assignments and appointments to vacancies.

RECOMMENDATION:

EXPLANATION:

Appointments to committees pending election of officers at the statutory meeting in May:

Mr. John Stencel Faculty/Staff Affairs

Mr. Tom Farley Finance Committee

Mr. Alan Love Affirmative Action Committee

(15)

Secretary's Report

Com;m,ittees and General Business 10-1

SBA MEETING 3/16/79

MATTERS FOR ACTION:

Reports of the Committees of the State Board of Agriculture. RECOMMENDED ACTION:

None - reports only. EXPLANATION:

The Committees of the State Board of Agriculture will report as follows:

Finance Committee

Affirmative Action Committee Faculty Reports

Student Reports

(16)

Secretary's Report

Connnittees and General Business

MATTERS FOR ACTION·: Pending Litigation. RECOMMENDED ACTION:

No action required - report only.

EXPLANATION:

(17)

Secretary's Report

Committees and General Report

SBA MEETING 3/16/79 11-1 (a)

REPORT TO THE STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE

ON PENDING LITIGATION

A. Litigation Pending in Federal Court.

1. Mary Alice Hill v. Colorado State University, et al.

I will discuss this case with the Board at the meeting.

2. Keith R. Grebe v. the State Board of Agriculture, et al.

No change.

B. Litigation Pending in State Court.

1. The Painter Estate

2.

3.

4. The appeal which was authorized by the Board at its last meeting

has been filed.

Colette v. the State Board of Agriculture, et al.

This case is set for trial on March 26, 1979.

Alvin Miller v. the State Board of Agriculture

No change.

Eseex v. the State Board of Agri cul tu re

No change.

C. Cases in which Counsel for the State's Insurer Is Representing the

University.

1. Tomekins v. the State Board of Agriculture

No change.

2. James A. Nelson v. the State Board of Agriculture

Since the last Board meeting, depositions of the parties have been

held.

3. Tracey Mumey and Vernon Porter v. Colorado State University

No change.

(18)

Secretary's Report

Committees and General Business SBA Meeting-March 16, 1979

MATTERS FOR ACTION:

Ratification of Executive Committee approval of stock transaction.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

MOVED, that the Board ratify the approval of its Executive Committee to accept an offer for purchase, at a rate of $33 per share, of 4,050 shares of Gardner/Denver common stock held in the Ludlow Estate Gift.

EXPLANATION:

Gardner/Denver is to be merged with Cooper Industries. Cooper Industries offered to purchase up to 8.6 million shares of outstanding Gardner/Denver common stock at $33 per share, compared with the market price of $30.50. The offer was open until March 6, 1979.

The terms of the gift permit the Board to invest and reinvest. After consulting several stock brokers, staff of the Vice President for Finance concluded that taking advantage of the off er and r einvestment of the proceeds would maximize the funds available for scholarship. On February 28, 1979

the University Treasurer contacted the Executive Committee by telephone. The

(19)

Report of Fort Lewis College

to the

State Board of Agriculture

(20)

NO BUSINESS March 16, 1979

(21)

Report of University of Southern Colorado

to the

State Board of Agriculture

(22)

REPORT OF PRESIDENT PESQUEIRA UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN COLORADO

TO THE

SECTION 1 - President's Report

NO BUSINESS MARCH 16, 1979

(23)

Report of President Chamberlain

to the

State Board of Agriculture

(24)

SBA SYSTEM REPORT

March 16, 1979 Highlights of results of joint SBA System/USC

Study of USC Recruiting .... . ... .... ... ... 1-1 through 1-l(g) Formalizing the name, PUEBLO VOCATIONAL

COMMUNITY COLLEGE ... . . 1-2 through l-2(a) Completion and report on Task B, REVIEW

AND UPGRADING OF USC ADMINISTRATIVE

(25)

I

SBA Meeting-March 16, 1979 SBA System

MATTERS FOR ACTION:

1-1

Highlights of results of joint SBA System/USC Study of USC Recruiting RECOMMENDED ACTION:

No action required. EXPLANATION:

Carryover item for discussion per SBA action on February 8, 1979. The SBA may wish to postpone discussion on this item until the April meeting which is dedicated to USC business.

(26)

1-1 (a)

SBA-USC JOlr;JT ADMISSIONS STUDY

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN COLORADO 14-COUNTY SERVICE AREA

----~INSTITUTIONS INCLUDED IN THE SURVEY

AHS - ALAMOSA HIGH SCHOOL AAHS - AIR ACADEMY HIGH SCHOOL AHS - AGUILAR HIGH SCHOOL CCHS - CANON CITY HIGH SCHOOL · CHS - CENTENNIAL HIGH SCHOOL CHS - CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL

CMHS -CHEYE ~m E MOUNTAIN HIGH SCHOOL

CHS - CORONADO HIGH SCHOOL

CCHS - CROWLEY COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL CCHS - CUSTER COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL OHS - ·DOHERTY HIGH SCHOOL

EHS - EAST HIGH SCHOOL FHS - FLORENCE HIGH SCHOOL FHS - FOUNTAIN HIGH SCHOOL FHS - FOWLER HIGH SCHOOL HHS - HARRISON HIGH SCHOOL JMHS - JOHN MALL HIGH SCHOOL LJHS - LA JUNTA HIGH SCHOOL LCC - LAMAR COMMUNITY COLLEGE

LCC

"UiS

BENT POWERS

SHS

LAS ANIMAS BACA

Ll-iS - LAMAR HIGH SCHOOL

LAHS - LAS ANIMAS HIGH SCHOOL LPHS - LEWIS ?ALMER HIGH SCHOOL MSHS - MANITOU SPRINGS HIGH SCHOOL MHS- MITCHELL HIGH SCHOOL

OJC-OTERO JUNIOR COLLEGE

PHS - PALW. ER HIGH SCHOOL

PPCC- PIKE'S PEAK COMMUNITY COLLEGE PCHS - PUEBLO COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL RFHS - ROCK} FORD HIGH SCHOOL RHS- RYE HIGH SCHOOL

SHS- SALIDA HIGH SCHOOL SHS - SOUTH HIGH SCHOOL SHS - SPR INGFIELD HIGH SCHOOL

SMHS- ST. W.ARY0

S HIGH SCHOOL THS- TRINI DAD HIGH SCHOOL

TSJC-T RiNI DAD ·STATE JUNIOR COLLEGE WHS- WASSON HIGH SCHOOL

WHS - WIDEFI ELD HIGH SCHOOL

(27)

SBA Meeting-Mareh 16, 1979 SBA System

1-1 (b)

Highlights of Results of Joint SBA System/USC Study

of USC Recruiting

The opinions received from 1946 high school and community college

students, and 106 high school and community college counselors will

pro-vide a vast reservoir of information that should help guide USC academic and admissions/recruiting practices. Five major "themes" clearly emerged from the study: (1) The Need for Improvements in the USC Recruitment Program, (2) Over-emphasis of the USC "Open Door" Admissions Policy,

(3) Over-emphasis of Recruitment of Ethnic Minorities, (4) The Need for Improvements in Financial Aid Administration, and (5) Some General

Academic Concerns. These five areas are hi ghlight ed in this brief report. (1) The Need for Improvements in the USC Recruitment Program

The USC recruitment program is viewed on a continuum ranging from totally inadequate to satisfactory; no one judged it to be above average

among Colorado colleges. Counselors in the Pueblo area (Districts #60

and #70) indicated that the recruitment program has shown some improvement

over the past two years, but that it still contains serious deficiencies in thoroughness , visibility of recruiters, distribution of materials, and informal communication with parents and students. There was a feeling that Pueblo students are "taken for granted" and that USC needs to actively recruit better students, in part by being more specific about the advantages of USC.

The harshest assessment of the recruiting effort came from counselors in El Paso Count y , particularly District #11 (Colorado Springs). Comments here indicated that USC's story is not being dis semina ted (an observation

substantiated by student input), and that

use

ne eds to be more aggressive

and visible. El Paso county graduates some 4500 high school students per

year; yet counselors feel USC pretty much "writes off" the whole area.

Personnel· at Pikes Peak Con~unity College (enroll ing some 6000 students)

tended to have similar feelings.

The results showed that turnover in recruitment personnel is also a serious public r elations problem, and a problem which contributes to feel-ings of lack of program consistency, particularly outside the Pueblo area. Most schools and community colleges ind icated that personal linkages with

the University do not exist.

Overall, counselors in both the h igh schools and community colleges felt they should see USC representatives far more often . On the one hand, while a few commented that admissions and financial aid personnel were very eager and willing to assist, others indicated th<1t: "The nearnes s to ... we could see them more often," "No on(' has been to recruit here at our

school as far as I can rememb er" (from a school quite close to Pueblo), "We have had little recruitment here from USC."

(28)

SBA Meeting-March 16, 1979 SBA System ·

1-1 (c)

Counselors outside of Pueblo in both high schools and community

colleges suggested that far more information is needed about

use

and its

programs. Many felt the institution really had much to offer but that information was not being di sseminated. Students r e inforced this theme;

those in the USC service area outside of Pueblo raised a near unanimous concern that they know little about the school. The following comments were typical:

- I never hear anything about it.

- I've heard only a little about your school.

- In general, I don't know much about USC and I think you will find not many others do either.

- I don't know anything about your programs

- Needs more advertisement; I never h ear anything about USC.

- I hav~ no knowledge of USC. I have not received any informat ion.

- People just don't hear much about USC -- all we hear about is CSU and CU. You need to publicize it more.

- I'm sorry, I really don't know too much about USC, but I would very much like to.

Many references were made to USC recruitment personnel's effect on potential students. Personnel effectiveness ranged from a very high regard of one or two recruiters to near rejection of others. For example, a typical comment was: "Provide admissions staff who display intelligence good vocabulary, neatness and since rit y ." Community College personnel indicated that students report that they had received assurances that all their credits would transfer and, upon enrolling, found this not to be the case .

Conclusion. As with any people-to-people program, there were wide ranges of opinions about the USC recruitment program and recruit ers . The theme of a need for more consistency, thoroughnes s and organization was clearly visible. It was also apparent that some USC recruit ers need

to improve their knowledge of .~S C programs and need to be more professional

in fulfill ing their respons lbilities .

Comment. It should be understood that counselor opinions derive from impressions built up over a number of years, not just the past year. On the other hand, some sample groups, s uch as students , do provide current impressions. To some extent tl1e University already recognizes some of the probl ems identified by the s tudy; in-depth r evi ew of the total study (by geographical region, schools, etc.) will permit further analysis and

(29)

1-1 (d)

(2) Over-emphasis of USC "Open Door" Admissions Policy

The State master plan, the USC role statement, and campus publications clearly establish USC as bein g an "open-door" institution. (That policy means that the University will admit all applicants who possess a high school diploma or GED equivalent. In effect it gives any high school graduate "a chance to try;" the policy requires no evidence of potential academic success.)

Particularly by high school counselors, this item was most frequentl y identified as a detriment to .institutional recruiting. Almost unanimously, counselors saw students equating the "open-door" policy with poor quality education. According to the respondents, this policy results in the

rejec-tion of

use

by large numbers of students who are academically talented.

Many counselors indicated that USC will probably never appeal to students in the upper one-third of graduating classes, these students tending to matriculate to CSU or CU. Counselors, in the main, reported student reactions to considering USC as, "Oh, I don't want to go there, they let anybody in.'' Pueblo students th emse lves voiced dissatisfaction over the present admissions policy and what they perceived to be USC's poor academic image.

Conclusion. The open admissions policy, while intended to provide a positive alternative within the State system, appears to have an unfortunate counter effect, debasing the academic reputation of the University. The policy was viewed by counselors, students and parents as that one single item, right or wrong, that sets an image of academic mediocrity. Until this image is ?ltered, counselors felt that USC will continue to draw upon, for the most part, the pool of l ess academically inclined students and students who cannot get into other schools.

Comment. Most counselors did not suggest that the open door policy be abandoned, although a significant number did. A few were pleased that it existed. Instead the implication was that USC "overemphasizes" or "over markets" this aspect. (Basically, many four year insti tution s in the State . are open door institutions; it simply is not publicized as such.) As an alternative many counselors suggested that USC should admit some of the marginal students in a special category or division or "on probation." This would give the better-prepared student some recognition for his/her academic record.

(3) Over-emphasis on Recruitment of Ethnic Minoriiie~

Strong feelings were expressed by counselors, particularly by those in Pu eblo District #60 and some of the outlying counties that the recruit-ing program overemphas izes a commitment to minorities. It was observed that th (' rPcruitml'nt. of minorHics w:i s being overdone and tlw.t the recruit-ment appro:ich hy USC was t oo m11 ch oric·nt.ed in thi s direction. At one time or another, recruiters apparently hnvc left the inprcssion that USC is

(30)

1-l(e)

Parents were represented by counselors as having some reservations about USC's appropriateness· for students other than minorities; they also judged the admini s tration as being too readily influenced by special interest and cause groups. This theme was underscored by counselors who in effect said the multicultural environment should continue to be

encouraged but should not be allowed to dominate campus activities. Conclusion: The feeling clearly exists that an over-emphasis in minority recruiting has occurred at USC. This reported over-emphasis has been reinforced, unfortunately, because of the popular interpretation

(identified earlier) of the erfect of the open-admissions policy at USC. Comment. Most, but not all, comments on this point came from

counselors. The responses could be interpreted by some as reflecting an element of bias. Although there are a number of minority counselors in the 14-county area, no attempt was made to identify the racial back-ground of respondents. In any case, the concern does clearly emerge and USC should consider its impact.

(4) Need for Improvements in Financial Aid Administration

It was clearly shown that past practices and policies in financial aid have left much to be desired. The general fe eling by couselors was that the financial aid office has suffered from a lack of communication and organization.

Pueblo counselors cited the lack of promptness in responding to

ap-plications for financial aid and/or scholarships as a major shortcoming.

District #11 counselors responded quite vigorously to the overall financial aid program; they viewed the program's administration as being less than adequate, mainly because communications had broken down, commitments were not kept, and that students chose to go elsewhere because notice of awards was not received in reasonable time.

Some references by other counselors were to the effect that personnel in the financial aid office were neither quali fied nor dedicated to follow-up and/or follow-through with students and parents. Parents were represented as being dismayed by the numb e r of problems caused by admissions and financial aid practices . Counselors also called for an improved application process , lamenting the fact that it shouldn't take two to three months to be notified of acceptance.

Conclusion. It is apparent that a history of poor past practices in financial aid continues to plague the institution.

(31)

1-l(f)

Comment. Problems in financial aid administration are of long standing duration and the current administration has undertaken efforts to improve the situation. If such efforts come to fruition, counselors, students and parents should become more secure in the dependability of communications and commitments of financial aid and admissions officers.

(5) Some General Academic Concerns

Comments regarding this area pertain mostly to academic standards and curricular offerings. Counselors made reference to the level at which academic standards were being maintained in certain classrooms and referenced substandard performances and quali fications of certain

(unnamed) instructors at USC. Along these s ame lines, one counselor ex-pressed consternation over the quality of course work available at USC,

as former students had bragged t9 him how easy classes were. These

per-ceptions are apparently shared by many parents. Closely allied to the quality of classroom instruction was the concern expressed by a few

counselors relative to the transferability of credits earned at

use.

Reference was also made to the fact that USC awards neither Advance Placement (AP) credits nor is involved in a College Level Examination Program (CLEP), two items of interest to the more capable student con-sidering applying for admission at USC. An observation attributed to parents was that parents of underachievers appreciated the open-door admissions policy, but those whose children are characterized as being accelerated see USC as lacking the quality of education they want for their children .

There also is no question but what there exists a degree of confu-sion in the minds of counselors and students as to what direction USC is embarked upon. No doubt much of this confusion sterns from information provided by former counselees and the publicity given the change of mis-sion for USC under the new governance situation.

Counselors felt that parents, as well as thems elves , were not clear on what i s really available at USC and how good certain programs actually are, the feeling being that some good and unique curricular offerings are provided, but that the University is remiss in not publicizing these

ad-vantages. A communications concern mentioned more than once w~s that

publicizing the value of technical education and the resulting job op-portunities was something that USC did not consistently capitalize on.

Several references were made to th e status of the existing graduate program. By and large, these comments suggested that it would be mutually beneficial to USC and teachers alike in the 14-county area if an expanded elementary and secondary graduate program could be developed, one that also offered counseling and administrative programs. It would seem that

(32)

1-l(g)

counselors were lamenting the fact that they found it necessary to travel to schools further away than USC to improve their professional preparation.

Conclusion. USC suffers from the image of being an institution with low academic standards, impacted by certain instructors who detract from the school's academic credibility by their classroom performance. The future direction of USC is a major concern, along with what is considered to be a lack of publicity relative to outstanding programs presently being offered. The graduate program might ptofit by being more responsive to a larger number of adults in the 14-county service area.

Comment. At the time of· the proposed change, many campus constituencies expressed concern to the SBAS that the new change in governance and the

"poly-technic" mission would further confuse counselors, and potential students about the future of USC. That is why it is imperative that the University push forward rapidly with its transitional activities -- mission statement, planning, separation of Pvcc, etc. -- so that the "new USC" can be established, stabilized, publicized, and promoted.

SUMMARY: The results presented above simply highlight the major themes resulting from the study. USC administrators will find their analysis of the specific results to be useful in improving the recruiting program of the institution.

(33)

MATTERS FOR ACTION:

1-2

Formalizing the name, PUEBLO VOCATIONAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Moved, that the State Board of Agriculture approve the name PUEBLO VOCATIONAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE, effective July 1, 1979 for the separated two-year institution.

EXPLANATION:

At its meeting of November 16, 1978 the SBA moved to administratively separate Pvcc from USC, effective July 1, 1979. At the February meet-ing, SBA agenda item (SBAS 1-3) set forth that Board counsel opinioned that the SBA could legally establish the college name at any time. The formal naming of the college is now reconnnended in order to facili-tate preparation of catalogues and other descriptive materials and to clarify the independent status of the two-year institution. The executive director of the CCHE has given his verbal support of this action. Likewise, as indicated on the following page, the SBCCOE endorses the recommendation.

(34)

l-2(a)

rc:d

~

2 1979

---·-··

.. ... . .. .

PRESIDENT'S OFFICE

RICHARD o. LAMM . Governor Colorndo State

University

STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND OCCUPATIONAL EDUCATION

I07 •TATE all:RVICE• aUJLDINQ • I 125 SHltRMAN 8TRl:ll:T • Dl:NVltR. COLORADO 10203

WILLIAM D. WOOLF, Director OCCUPATIONAL EDUCATION

(303) 839·3071

February 21, 1979

Dr. James R. Schoemer

Vice President for Planning and

Speci a

1 Programs

State Board of Agriculture System

Colorado State University

Cam~us

102 Administration Building

Ft. Collins, CO

80523

Dear Jim:

TERRENCE A. TOLLEFSON , Director COMMUNITY COLLEGES

(303) 839-3151

As

you reouested a week aao,

I

have

poll~d

the members of the State Board

for Community Colleges

a~d

Occunational Education concerning their choice

of

a legal name for the Orman Campus of the University of Southern Colorado.

The State Board members agreed to endorse the Pueblo local preference for

"Pueblo Vocational Community College."

Sincerely,

~A · ~~k

Terrence A. Tollefson

bl

(35)

MATTERS FOR ACTION:

1-3

Completion and report on Task B, REVIEW AND UPGRADING OF USC ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

No action required; information item EXPLANATION:

At its May, 1978 meeting the SBA Liaison Committee approved five task activities related to SB 81, the assumption of governance of USC. Task B of that series involved a review of USC administra-tive operations . The approved objecadministra-tives, procedures and ·timetable set forth for Task B (excerpted from the System report of May 25, 1978) are highlighted below:

OBJECTIVES: To review and evaluate functional policies, procedures and operations in the areas of financial ad-ministration (accounting services/controller, treasurer, financial systems), purchasing, computer services, physical plant operations, auxiliary enterprises, registration systems, and to subsequently determine what further action to take, i f any.

PROCEDURES: Key CSU personnel with expertise in the func-tional areas mentioned above will be des ignated as a Review and Evaluation Team. The team will vis i t the USC campus, and will evaluate the designated policies, procedures and operations during a one to two week period. A comprehensive report with suggested improvements will be submitted to the

SBA system president with a copy to the USC president. .

Based on that report the SBA system president, in consultation

with the

use

president, will determine and implement a

subse-quent plan of action. The system president will work with the CSU Vice President for Finance in organizing the project and setting up the Review and Evaluation Team.

TIMETABLE: The Review and Evaluation Team will assemble and the review period commence as soon as finance personnel on each campus have completed the year-end closing process. The report should be presented to the s ystem president by mid-August . *

(36)

l-3(a)

Task B has now been completed and all area review reports have been sent to the USC President and the new Vice President for Finance. The reports include more than 142 recommendations for consideration by USC (plus seven recommendations for the Trustees of Consortium). Similar to the procedure followed on recommendations contained in audit reports, the System has asked the USC president and/or staff to provide a response to all recom-mendations. (In fact many area responses have already been received

from USC.)

From July 1, 1978 through February 1, 1979, CSU staff (exclus ive of System coordination) devoted more than 42 personweeks on this

project' all at no financial cost .!E_

use.

In the process of conducting the review, CSU personnel discus sed the reviews with USCcounterpart s . To a person, the CSU personnel found their USC counterparts to be most cooperative and helpful. The document should assist the new Vice President for Financial Affairs at USC (who started on February 1) to accelerate any needed improvements in financial operations.

(37)

REPORT OF PUEBLO VOCATIONAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE TO THE STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE

(38)

• '1' "

NO BUSINESS

(39)

Report of Colorado State University

to the

State Board of Agriculture

(40)

REPORT OF PRESIDENT CHAMBERLAIN TO THE

SECTION 1 - President's Report

March 16, 1979 CCHE Review of Intercollegiate Athletics Another Survey of Faculty Reputations Status of 1979-80 J.B.C. Budget

1-1 through 1-l(a) 1-2 through l-2(b) Discussions ...•..•...•... 1-3

Ranking of Research Libraries at

Universities, 1977-78 •... . 1-4 through l-4(a) Approval for Faculty Member to be

(41)

SBA Meeting-March 16, 1979 Colorado State University MATTERS FOR ACTION:

1-1

CCHE Review of Intercollegiate Athletics RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Information only. EXPLANArioN:

Reproduced below are the questions included in a review study of intercollegiate athletics being conducted by the CCHE.

(42)

SBA Meeting-March 16, 1979

Colorado State University 1-l(a)

CCHE Review of Intercollegiate Athletics

Agenda Item

· Ma re h 2 , 19

79

-Attachment

Each question should be considered in relationship to intercollegiate athletics,

intramur-al athletics, club sports, and physical education. Please provide separate

responses for each question, one for each tyre of athletics to which it is applicable.

1. What is the role and mission of athletics at your institution? How does

athletics further the institutipn's fulfillment of its overall role and mission?

2. What priority does your institution place on athletics in comparison to other

higher education demands for funds? If the General Fund appropriation for

your total institutional budget were reduced by

10~ ,

25S or 50%, what changes

would you make in the allocations for athletics? (Would you reduce athletics

by the same percentage as the reduction in the general appropriation, or

would you reduce athletics by more to protect other institutional priorities,

or would you reduce it by less?) If the General Fund appropriation for your

in~titutional

budget were increased by 10%, 25% or 50%, what changes would

you make in the allocations for athletics?

3. What is the relationship between funded awards to athletes and

state-funded awards recognizing other types of student merit?

4. Are the justifications for intercollegiate athletics different from the

justifications for intercollegiate athletic grants to students? Of the

sports in which you presently participate in intercollegiate competition,

which could exist without athletic grants?

5. What role should student fees play in the support of athletics? If State

funds available for athletics were reduced, would you choose to reduce

expenditures for athletics or would you seek to increase student fees?

6. What impact does athletics have on enrollment? What factual material is

available to demonstrate that impact? Does a large athletic program have a

proportionately larger impact than does a small athletic program?

7. What is the role of the out-of-state student in Colorado athletics? What use

should be made of state funds for out-of-states athletes? Are your answers

to this question the same for all sports?

8. State funds are accompanied by state direction. In athletics should that

direction be programmatic or budgetary?

9. What are the requirements of Title IX? How will they be accommodated in

Colorado athletics? If additional funds are needed for women's athletic

programs where would you obtain those funds?

10. To what extent are your answers to these questions influenced by the level

of competition or the conference in which you participate.

11. Please provide copies of t he competition schedules for intercollegiate

sports at your institution.

Certain funding probabilities should be recognized as answers are developed for

these questions. Additional State funds for athletic programs at your institution

are most likely to come from one of two sources: from other ·programs at your

institution or from athletic support presently given to other institutions. The

probability of new money being available for athletic finance is very low.

(43)

SBA Meeting-March 16, 1979 Colorado State University MATTERS FOR ACTION:

1-2

Another Survey of Faculty Reputations RECOMMENDED ACTION:

I

Apprb~

While surveys of the nature of this one are highly subjective , this one is shared for general information.

Note that of all of Colorado's higher education programs, f or the areas covered only CSU's agriculture and forestry faculty made the list.

(44)

Tl/£ CHRO.YICLE OF HJCJ/ER £DUCA 110..Y Ja1111a1)· 15, 1979

FACT-FILE

How Professors Rated Faculties in 19 Fields

Foll0"ing are r:uinp of facultie> in 19

ticlJ,. tia,cd ''n :i surq:y 0f fa-:ult) members

conducted 1n 1':!77 t-' herell Cir!! L.1Jd . Jr ..

and s,·) nll•Ur :>.l artln Lip,cl. The fir>! Clllumn include> :ill dcp'1rtmcnts thJt ''t:rc r;itcd am0ng the 10r ti':.> n.i!1,,n.ilh tiy :it k:t>l 10

r.:r cent ,,f the re>r,,n.icnr, . The 'ecimd column indi-:ak> the pcr~cnt:ige ,,f

re-;pon-dcnt> l"tir.,: the dcrann;,·nt a' liein;.: the "be>t" in the n.1t1,,n

One of the

5 Best The Best

-1. Corne:! U 42 'o 13°0

2. u of \\'1s:ons;n_

Mad1so-i 38°0 10°0

3. Iowa Statt:? U 36°0 go · •O

4 Michigan State U. 31°0 10~o

5 Purdue U 30°0 3•. 6 u of California. Davis 27°0 4°0 7. U. of Ca!1fornia . Berkeley 26°0 s•. 8. North Carolir;:i State U., Ra l !:'1~h 23°0 7° 0 9. U. of l!l1nois. Urbana 23°0 50 , 10. U. of M.nnesota ... ... 22°0 4 °•o 11 . Texas A&M U. 20°0 30· . o 12. Ohio State U. 13°0 1 ~o 13. Oregon Sta:e U. ... . . 12 ~ . -14. Colorado State U. . .. . 12% 15. U. of Nebraska . Lincoln . .. . . 12°0 One of the ~~ 1. Harvard U. . . .. ..•... 54°C. 24°0 2. U. of Cali:ornia. Ber~('icy 33°0 10°0 "l I • r ' \ • ! - - -- •

7. U. of 11!1no1s. Urbana 18°0 3~o

8. Columbia U. . . .. . . 18% 2° 0

9 Cornell U. 15~o _{1 ••}

10. U. of Chicago 15°0 o•.

One of the

S Best The Best -1. Harvard U 2 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 3 u of Ch1cJgo 4. Yale U. 5 u of California. Berkeley 6. Stanford U. 7. Princeton U. 8 u of Michigan 9. u of Wisconsin. Madison 1. Stanford U. 2. Ohio State U. 3. Indiana U. 4 . U. of Illinois, Urbana 5. U. of Wisconsin, Madison ... . ... . 6. Harvard U. . ... . 7. U. of Chicago 8 . Columbia U. . ... .. . 9. U of California. Los Angeles ... . 10. U. of California, Berkeley ... . 11. U. of Michigan .... . . . 12. Michigan State U. 13. U. of Oregon ... . 14. Pennsylvania State U. sg•. 39°0 87°0 39°0 86~ 0 14°0 5-0 ::i 0 3°0 40°0 1~o 29°0 1•. 23°0 1 ., .o 12°0 o•. 10°0 1 ~o One of the 5 Best The Best

3')0 _L ₀ 31 ~. 2s0_• 23°0 23°0 20°·• 20~ ;, 18°0 17% 14~. 12~-o 12% 11% 11% 11°0 g~. 6 ~. 50. 4•. 20 · _,o 301

,.

5. Princeton U. . . . 28% 10% 6. U. of Texas, Austin ... 28% 4% 7. Columbia U 24% 7% 8. Indiana U. . . . 22~. 1 O/o 9. U . of Michigan . . .. .. . 22% 1·· 10 10 U. of North Carolina. Chapel Hill . . . 21 ~~ 2•'

..

11 . Stanford U. 21 ~o 1 O • _{1 0} 12. U. of Pennsylvania 13~. o~·o 13. U. of Illinois, Urbana 12 ~ . 1 ~o One of the

5 Elesl The Best

-1 Harvard U. s2°0 45°0 2 Yale U .... 70°0 20°0 3. u of California. Berkeley ... 59% 70· IO 4. Princeton U. 40°0 301 10 5. U of Wisconsin. Mad 1~cn 32 °', 2•. 6. U. of l.~ .. :higan 29°0 201 _•0 7. Stantc· ~ U ... 23% 2•· 10 8. U. of C. , :!]O _{22° .} s•o 9. Colur · lj 22~. 1°0 10 Joh n~ : >1n5 U 12°. 1~o One of the 5 Best The Best

---1. YaleU . ... . 92 °0 14% 2. Harvard U. . .... .... . BS·o 61° 0 3. U. of Chicago 4. Stanford U. 57°0 51 ~. s o;, 3°0 5 . U. of Michigan 46 ' 0 3•. 6. Columbia U. . .. 43 ~. 30· 1 0 7. U. of California, Berkeley .. .... .... . 24'% o•· 10 8. U. of Pennsylvania .. . , 1°'0 J°;o 7. U. of Southern California ... . 8. Oberlin C. . .. . 9. Northwesiern U. 1. Harvard U. . ... . 2. Princeton U. . ... . 3. U. of Michigan ... . .. . 4. U. of Pittsburgh 5 U of California. Berkeley ... . 6. U. of California. Los Angeles ... . 7. Cornell U. . ... . .. . .8. Yale

u: ... .

9. U of Pennsylvania .. . 10. U. of Chicago 11. Stanforc! U. . .. . ... . 1. U. of California, Berkeley . . . 2 . California Institute of Technology 3 . Harvard U. 4 . Massachusetts fns11tute of Technology 5. Stanford U. 6. Princeton U ... 7. U. of Illinois, Urbana 8. Cornell U. ... 9. U. of Chicago 10. Columbia U. ... . .... . 20% 15°0 13°0 One of the 00 1 _.o 5 B.,t The Best as•. 63~o 53°0 _,..,. 28 ~. 20°1. 15~• 10~. 10~c 10% One of the 5 But 40~. 23% 10°0 1C; -The Best

---66~·. 66°0 60°0 ss· . 46% 43°0 24°0 21°10 16°10 14~o One of the 5 Be.i 25° 0 20° 0 15% 11°o 1 ,~~ 4°·o 20· .o 6~o o·· , Q 2• 1 1 0

(45)

,,. 14 Co1u:.10J S;a:e U. 15. U. of Nebras'-a . Lin:oln . . ... . .. . ..• . 12% One of the 1. Harvard U. . ... 2. U. of California. Berkeley . . .... .. . . . 3 U. of V\/isconsin, Madison 4 . Stanford U ... . . 5. Yale U ... ... . 6 . U. of Michiq an . . . . .. 7 _ Massachusetts lnst;tute of Tec hnol~y 8 Cornell U. . . __ _ .. _. _ . 9 U of Illinois. Ur cana 10 U of Cal1forn1a. Los Angeles ... 11 U of Washington 12. RocKefeller U. . ... S 8pst The Be-st 33°0 3'° ' 0 30°0 19~o 19% 18°0 14°: 14~ o 14°0 1 l°o 10°0 24°0 10°0 One of the

5 Best The Best

1. Stanf0rd U 67°0 28'o 2 Ha:-,Jrd U 4-0 I O 2 i ·c 3 U of Ch1cagc ... 35:io 5c, 4 U of Pennsyivan1a 32°0 ~ ., 0 5 North ... es:ern U. . . 25°0 10°0 6. U of Illinois. Urbana 25°0 5°0 7_ u of Texas. Au stin 8. Massachuset:s ln s:1:~t~ 23°0 3•. of Technology 20°, 3° o 9. U. ot California . Berkeley 20co 2•, 10. U. of M1ch1can ... 17°0 1°0 11 u. of Ca lifornia. Los Angeles 15°0 1 c, 12. Columbia U. . . _ 10°. 1 •• 13 Michigan St ~te u 10°0 1°0 The Best ---1. Harvard U 79°0 43°0 2. U. of California. Berkeley 65°0 goo 3. Stanford U. 53 °0 18°0 4 . California Institute of Technology so0• 9 ~o 5. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 45°0 6~ o 6. U. of Wisconsin . Madison . ··· ... 26°0 0°0 11.1.:idison . .. .. ' . ... .. 23°0 4°0 6. Harvard U. 20° 0 B ~o 7. _{U. of Chicag~ · · · 20%} 40' ,o 8. Columbia U. . . ... .. 18% 3% 9. U. of California, Los An?iele>s ... . . 17~0 40 • 10. U. of Ca 1fornia, ,o Berkeley . .. . .. . . ... 14% 201 ,0 11 . U. of Michigan ... . . 12~~ 30.-10 12. Michigan State U. 12% 20~ 13. U. of Oregon . .... . . . 11% 2°•o 14. Penl' sylvan1a State U. 11% 2~1₀

One ol the 5 Best The Best ---1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2 Stanford U. . .. 3 U of California. Berl-.el ey .. . . . 4 U. of lllino1 s. Urbana 5. U of Michigan 6 California Institute of Technology 7. Purdue U .... 8 U of Wisconsin Madison ' 9 Cornell U ... . 10. U of Minnesota ... . Yale U ... . 2 Harvard U .. . . . 3 . U of California, Berkeley ... 4. U. of Chicago 5 Princeton U . 6 Stanford U. . ... .. . 7. U. of V1rg1nia ... . 8 Johns Hopkins U. 9 Columbia U. . . .. : . . . 10. U. of Michigan ... . 11 _ U of North Carolina Chapel Hill · 1. Yale u 2. U. of Cal.1i~r~i~.' · · · Berkel ey . ... . . 3. Harvard U. 4. u_ of Wisconsi-~ .' · · · Madison . . ... ... . 63° 0 32°0 57 °0 14 ~o 5500 geo 44° 0 10°0 2s·. 3•. 23°0 4°0 20°0 2co 14 °0 4°0 12~o 4=0 12°0 2°0 _ _ __ The Oe'.it 79°<> 52°0 70co 20°0 54 0, 50, 37°0 3°0 27° 0 1°. 1 9~. 20, 19°0 l co 18°: 1°. 14°0 1°. 13°. 0°. 10°0 O ~o One of the

5 Best The Best

48% 21% 46% 10°0 43% 17 ~<> 32°0 50· .o 1 . 'rale U . ... ... . 2. Harvard U . . . . ... .. . . 3 . U. of Chicago 4 . Stanford U. . ... .. . .. . 5. U of Michigan ... , 6. Cclumb1a U . . . . .... . 7. U. of California Berkeley .. . '. .... . . -. 8 . U. of Pennsylvania . . . 1. U. of California, Berkeley . ... . ... . 2. Princ eton U. . ... . . . 3 Harvard U. . .. . _ ... . . 4 _ Stan lcrd U ... . 5. U. of Chicago ... . 6. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 7_ U. of Wisconsin , Mao1son ... . .. . . 8 U cf t~ or1h Carolina . Cha;:>el Holl 9. U of M1ch1gan ... . .. . 10. Yale U. . . . . . . 11. U. of llhno1s. Urbana 1. Harvard U. 2 Stanford U 3. Ya le U. 4. Johns Ho;:ikins U. 5. U of Cai1forn1a. Los Angeles 6. Columbia U 7. Washington U. (Mo.) 8. U of Cali fornia . San Francisco Med. Ctr. 9. Duke U . . ... . . ... . 10. U. of Pennsylvania ... 11 . U of Wash:ngton 92 ~o 89% 57% 51% 46'}~ 43% l..\ ~ o 6 1 ~o 8~~ 3% 3~·0 3% 00 1 _{, 0} 30 / ₁₀ One of the ~Tho Best . 65% 20°0 55% 22°', 51% 13°0 44 ~ o 11°0 44 ~~ 6 ~o 40°0 500 16°0 2°0 14°0 l~o 14°·0 0°0 12°0 1 '\o One ot the ~ The84?St~ 65°0 34°0 23°0 24 ~ o 22°·0 22° 0 21 ~. 18% 13 ~o 13°0 12 'o 31°o goo Seo 2°0 One of the 5 Best The Best

1. Indiana U. 67~. 33°?

2. U. of Rochester 540• .o go• •o 3 . The Juill1ard School .. 500· .o 20°,

4. u_ of Michigan 440, • O 40 -. o 5. U. of l:linois, Urbana 39~ • 901

,.

6. Yale U . . .. . . ... ... ·-· 28% 0% ..). : 1 ... : \t.1 1l.. v 4 . Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5. Stanford U. . . . ... . 6. Princeton U. . ... . 7. U. of Illinois. Urbana 8. Cornell U. . ... . . 9. U. of Chicago 10. Columbia U . .... . ... . 1. Harvard U. . .. . .. . .. . 2. Yale U . ... . 3. U. of California, Berkeley ... .. .. . . 4. U. of 1-lichigan . .. .. _. 5. Stanford U. . .... . . _ 6. U of Chicago · 7. Princeton U ... ... . . . 8. U. ?f Wisconsin, Madison ... _ . 9. Massachusetts lnst1lult' of Tecnnology 1. Star.lord U _ . _ 2 U ol Michigan 3 HarJard U. . . . 4. U. of California, Berkeley ... .. . . 5 Ya le U ... _ ... _ ... . 6. U ol lllino1s. Urbana 7. U. of Minnesota ... __ 8. U. of Pennsylvania 9. U. of California , Los Angeles ... . 10 U of W1scons1n, Mad:son .... 11 . Rockefeller U 1. U. of Chicago 2. u_ of California, Berkeley . ... . ... 3 Har1ard U. 4. U. of W1sconsi~_- · · · Madison 5. U. of M1chig-~~ ·: :: '.::: 6. Columbia U. . . _ ... 7. u_ of North Carolina . Chapel Hill ... 8 . Stanford U . _{.. ···.} 58% 46 ~~ 43% 24 ~<> 21 % 16% 1 4~0 One of the 5 Best 81% 18°\. 36°0 35°0 30°0 14°0 14 ~o One of the 11 °to 11 ~-4'?~ 2% 6~:, 0% 2~~ ':. r-.•., · T.,e 9csl 33° 0 330, 24°0 16°0 15 °~ 13 °-~ 11 ·~ 10°0 One of the s B .. t 71 ~. 68°0 59% 56°0 55 ~o 36~o 23% 10 ~o ..::·· ... 1° 0 4°0 The Oest 17% 25 ~o 17°0 17% 50~ 50· _•0 o·· •o 1 ~o

(46)

Colorado State University 1-3

MATTERS FOR ACTION:

Status of 1979-80 J.B.C. Budget Discussions RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Some time needs to be devoted to discussing our collective information on the status of J.B.C. and other legislators discussions about the 1979-80 budgets being considered f or higher education.

(47)

I

MATTERS FOR ACTION:

Ranking of Research Libraries at Universities, 1977-78 RECOMMENDED ACTION:

No action; discussion item EXPLANATION:

The following table (Colunm 2) indicates that the CSU library is nearly on the bottom of the 94 Universities ranked. It is ranked 87 of 94. The University of Colorado is 42 out of 94. In Colorado, state appropriations for library volumes is a line item in the Long Bill.

(48)

SBA Meeting-March 16, 1979 Colorado State University Reproduced From

l-4(a)

THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION February 20, 1979

FACT-FILE

Rankings

of Research Libraries

at

Universities,

1977-78

..._ ... ...,et? \illt4u_•.,..., C~Mtie'• lpeftdl ... ..,. _...,. ... tftetftwtkW'I

---- - ----

...

-

Mow"'"'

....

...

_

• lll111Nl

._

..

...

-

---- -

---U of AtJbama 1,170 J6S

..

40 486

..

12 . ~2 85 l 90"i9U 93

LI r.>I AllJ+Jrta 1,891 .0&4

,.

H .J!lol 35 15. 17S 70 2. 166,605 18

U.>IA11:~ 2.068.328 29 136.620 12 18,768

••

I 96A 024 2•

An11'tta S1.11e U I 330 SIS

••

83,192 38 1'->020 " I 4J9 '87

..

Bos.Ion U 1.265.Jel 77 47.0"3

..

21 ,692

..

1 OJ.4 29.l 15

Bngh•m You"9 U 1.·HUl14 81 66.291 !16 17 367 51

...

-U of 81111sn Cofumb+a I 941 , 783 34 100,JOI 2' 19 739

..

2.473 368 10 &ownU 1.595.341

..

39 467 87 13.606

..

837,880 85

ll ot CahlrOfn.e. 8e1k•le'f 5.035.75.J 5 142,783 " 97.978 1 2,471 036 "

U ot C•111ofn1a. Davis 1.45'4 495 62 76.S85 43 40.499

..

1,885,000 28

U o' Cahlofn1a, los Angeles J .993.m 13 129,873 13 57 881 7 2.765 897

•

U of CA11frorn1 1, San Otego 1,284,058 72 64. 191 60 25.278 30 1.486 390

••

U or Ca111otn1<1. Santa Barbara I 275,311 75 S0.091 75 18 096 55 t.436 989 •8 C..:ase WcSlern Reserve U . 1,813,427 52 27.210 92 13.955 79 8361)()6

••

U ol Criica90 4,019,470 12 144,J.'9 10 '3.563 13 1.357 Q.18 S2 U ol C1nc:1nna11 1.278,8J7

"

58.953 05 16.021 87 1,058 146 73

~or<K>Q 1:..,7~63~ 49,667 70 11 ,255 89 901 698 8•

C:O" " ..tll•l ,1;ue U I_, 13'!,_959 _ _ 8 1_ 57 257

..

18.•20

..

766 879 90 · -c.oi ... ·no.iu ... 832.891 8 126.679 _" 5i8 897

•

2,06' 341 21

U of Conn"'llCUI 1,&42. 162

"

91 ,798 32 19, 165 " 1.386 770

••

Cornen U ... 4,095",234 " 122.4 17 20 50,980 9 2 337 368 _" Oanmourri C l,285,1D8 78 26,597

..

15,9«

..

1.030 284 77 0ukeU .. 2,944 ,73:1 19 78.227 " l3 979 19 1.614 610 34 Err.ory U 1,531 ,820 SI M•60 SI 14 128 78 1.264 242 SI U at F!otlda " l,9'43,750 33 93,653 29 16.238

..

3.337 220 2 F'Of'(JI Stale u 1,2M,258

,.

60,037

..

12.708 83 2.936 S89 6 Geot'.}elown U .. 1,127,614

..

47 392 80 16.544 63 1,072 695 72 u otCftOl'g•a 1,811.235

••

92 057 J1 JI Of>J 20 1,9'1040 25 Hal"Vara U ". 9,753.21 4 1 255 085 1 95 000 2 3.569 9'6 1 U 1)1 Hawc1u 1.602.532 5J 69 871 so JO 217 23 1,273 847 57 U nl H!lUSlon .... 1.501 343 59 97 373 26 17.002 !16 1799217 29 ko ... .:aiau ... 1.012.493 91 64. 115 61 a .0:10

..

I 227 676 81 U Qf tHtli\)tS 5,622.938 3 151 .565

•

91 ,913 3 2.217 557 1S lnaian.J U 4,604 .395 7 220 780 3 •2 389 " 2.94186' 5 U ol low• " " 2,136,!9'9 28 89.905 34 26 315 29 2 051256 22 lo •a Slate U 1,248,822 80 89 588 51 18 405 52 1,400 931

"

JOl'lns Hopkins U .... 2,218 303 27 62 900 82 "913 72 I 2J.4 0 :'8 60 JO" n10· " 1.405.293 83 45 848 80 IS 318 09 1.115,0d8

..

U ol Kan!ioas " " . 1.995.890 32 74,670 45 27,485 26 1.SJ.4,7 41 36 Kenl Stale U ... 1,245,350

..

57,489 87 19. 127 •8 543 812 93 U ol Ken1ucky . . 1,706.653 •8 90 zoo 33 25.037 J1 1,468 371 •2 :..oi.is1•na Stale U . 1,708.334 " S2.7S5 " 16 583 62 1.079 05' 70 McG1!1 U 1.863.071 38 78,230 •O 16.627

..

1.559 163 J5 McM.aS\CfU 900, 199 92 57.856 66 10,324 90 1,513 3SJ 39 u o1 Marytaoo 1.283, 127 7J 62.539 83 16.645 60 1,475 666 " U ol Massacnusons 1,587 653

..

70.991

••

"412 7S 811 ,55-4 87 Massacttusens lnsutute ot fechnoklqy 1,709,747 •5 64 914 57 18,512

"

922 866 82 U ol twtr;wru IFI• ) 1.25-4,381 79 '5.555

..

11 ,900 87 966 887 81 U ot Mte.ntqan S,049,501 • 125.901 15 51 268

•

2,212.803 16 M ~anS1a:eU .. ... 2.427,885 23 94,469 28 24.079 34 1,SJl ,52• 37 U ot Minnesola .. .... 3,62'3,481 " 123.456 " 38,S42

"

1.928.i57 28 U olM•S'\OUr1 1.929,232 35 55.438 69 19.990 •s 1,JT9 475

..

U °' Nebras'ia ... 1,384,427 65 68 624 S2 21 721 39 1.437,758 •s New You U 2.597, 163 22 112 067 21 19028 •9 1,518 974 38 U cl Nonn C•rollna . ... 2,373,599

,.

104,093 23 30 923 21 2.089.588

..

Nonf'lwo'\l"rn U 2.555,440 21 70 062 •9 28 J50 2S 1 368.909

"

U of Noir& Came .. 1,3'46,600

..

37,189 90 11 728 88 767 JcJS

••

on.a S1a1e U 3,371 ,519 16 125 630 18 30,080 2' 1.654 939 31 U ot Q1t.lahc>tna .. 1,686,957

••

48 885 78 14,340 76 1 033 273 78 Ql..lanoma State U ... 1,210.406 83 30,781

..

9,870

..

614 .023 92 U ot 1')1eqon .. 1.3n .205

..

38,037

••

21 246 '2 1.011 350 79 U 01 ~'l'O .. ~ylv:trua 2.82 1,564 20 74.791

..

26 591 28 I 298 623 SS PtrnnstlYiln1a 5131• U ... 2.027,'12 31 83.509 37 22,733 J6 1,90;' 019 27 U ol P111 snurgt'I 2.283.082 • 25 122.988 18 21 .800 J7 1.us9n •3 Pr1nce1on U 3.091 .903

..

18~ . 128 s JO 711 22 1 978 637 23 PuHJue U 1.357.n5 67 48.503 79 11.962 !16 I 152 41'

.,

(bernsU 1.288.048 " • 5.711 83 14 168 77 I 020 300 18 A1ct1 U 881 ,585 9J 26 665 93 8 318 93 73.Z 998

..

U nl Rochr:'ller 1,565.000 57 Sol 000 " 12 000 66 I. 100.000 09 AulfJ"'!i.U 2.082.970 30 110 176 22 2J 252 35 2.410 800 13 U ot So111h C..:.:m,i1nc1 1,BSJ,305 so 95 SSS 27 16 303 65 I 385 334 50 U (.f Soutr'IOfn Ca1tk>fn•a 1.866 161 37 79 862 38 2•8~ 33 1 6?• 934 32 Ci011!h,.1n ll11no.s u 1.5.89.293 55 S4 , ,~ 10 21 769 38 1.399 161

••

s1.1,,..,..<1 u 4 ... 87,703

•

1'5 360

•

49 266 _" 3 ' " &36

.

Staie U 01 New Y0tk , Albany 878 569

..

49 711 16 14.697 73 971 000 80 51,\IO U of N•1w YQfk Buttalo 1,810.6!)8 _" d7 9~3 ,,.. 18 765 so I 2">6 187 59

SI.It,, U nl N1:w '(Of k Slon~ Brook 1. 123.230 89 !>3 848 12 12,664

..

I IS()8~'5 66

s~ ... ,..,.,e u 1.7~2·~

..

7qJ:t'l ,. 21 :.'0 1 ., 1().12611 "

Trmplf'I U 1,501 .025 60 87 963 SJ 13 "r,o 8-0 1 1911 06 OJ

IJ ol fttrin• •nett 1,390 SAi

..

64 233 59 24,965 32 1 3l066<j 53

'J or r, .. ,, .. . . 4,'24, 101 9 227 SJ2 2 60000 5 3 ~J'lJtt>tl 3 fo 1,1· Al.M U 1,168.s.84 8, 12 •SB

.,

35.243 18 1 "' " ~ 2JQ 56 U ot Trnou10 4, 165 711 10 208 702

.

41 . 1~ 1S 2 lh1l :155 1 fuM11tt tJ 1.308.725 70 37,;>78 89 9 •5J 92 nu ">5Y 88 U ultJ1.111 1,8 11 .271 39 9'1.090 25 18.207 53 I 01 ') '511 " IJ .,1 J•111•nrJ 2,231 .91 I 26 93 2" 30 20.711

..

2 ., , 7')7 12 v.·0 11 .. 11 ' .. !y 1n-;1 .uw.J t:;1Jtn U 1 010 549 90 76 812

.,

,, 3q3 " 17.'7fi11_H JO

u 11 ~l 1'< t1"t1llOl'I 3Y>lfU'> 15 161'i R•ifl 1 46 'JA4 IZ 2 06·1 lHl5 :!O

...,., 1·.-., , ,.1; .. n ',' 1tn II I IC) }88

••

.-o ,~ ... 85 , 7 t>Al 21 I IJ." .-JJ 61

11.· ... , ... , •• ,,, . , • ,, 11.tU•, 1,fi>fl<J">ft • 6 S.1 4 14 I] 14 •'l2 " I Ot ... ?Jl

••

"'·· ~"'' "' .... u l;' !J'J ~I CJ 61 .lf.6

.,,

13 J22

.,

I .'0 1 :'1"

.,

u .: ~ .. 1o .. 11r)o,1,1110 l .'J'JI (,()7 02 74 O J • 6 1 8. •~6 ,,.. 1 h.' I 1 •t' 3J IJofl'J ... .,11-.111 'Jj'", I~

"

1nlil 1'l 1• so 184 10 i ,'1l' •1\.1."

"

'(,1• .. 11 1 nt~ 345

,

1tt:"/tJ)

•

eo ft/S • 'tt.'I OJJ 8 " ' _...

...

·~··

..

,,, '"""

~ ... \• ... ... ,· •"""'"•""''•'; 1111 • • 1 ,, .... I~ 11,, .. •U • I ~I •• , •I I I •• ••II•

(49)

MATTERS FOR ACTION:

Approval for faculty member to be a candidate for public office RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Moved, that the State Board of Agriculture approve the request of Dr. Joseph L. Daly to be a candidate for election to the Poudre R-1 Board of Education.

EXPLANATION:

Governing board policy directs that employees seeking public office obtain the approval of the SBA. Dr. Daly is a· highly respected member of the faculty of the Department of Education. He is currently filling an appointed seat on the board, a seat

(50)

SECTION 2 - Academic Affairs, Library and Personnel Items

March 16, 1979

Personnel Actions ... 2-1 through 2-l(s) Supplemental Pay to Faculty and

Professional Staff ... 2-2 through 2-2(ee) Change in the Name of the Office

of Educational Media . . . 2-3 Report on Low Productivity Degree

Prograpis . . . 2-4 Report: Football Coaches' Salaries ...•. 2-5 Pay-As-You-Go Policy for Intercollegiate

(51)

SBA Meeting-March 16, 1979 Colorado State University

MATTERS FOR ACTION: Personnel Actions

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

2-1

MOVED, that the State Board of Agriculture approve personnel actions as submitted by the Personnel Off ice through the Office of the Academic Vice President, and Graduate Assistant Agreements as forwarded through the Graduate School.