Citation
The Auraria Higher Education Center

Material Information

Title:
The Auraria Higher Education Center
Creator:
Milstein, Philip
Place of Publication:
Denver, Colo.
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
1 v. (various pagings) : ill., map ; 28 cm.

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Doctor of Public Administration)
Degree Grantor:
University of Colorado Denver
Degree Divisions:
School of Public Affairs, CU Denver
Degree Disciplines:
Public administration
Committee Chair:
James, Franklin
Committee Members:
Gage, Robert
Cesario, Franics
Schoemer, James

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
Copyright Philip Milstein. Permission granted to University of Colorado Denver to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
22692855 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
THE AURARIA HIGHER EDUCATION CENTER
by
Philip Milstein
B S C E University of Colorado at Boulder, 1928
B S A. E . University of Colorado at Boulder, 1929
M.U.R.P. University of Colorado at Denver, 1973
A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of Public Affairs of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Public Administration Graduate School of Public Affairs 1990


This dissertation for the Doctor of Public Administration
degree by Philip Milstein has been approved for the Graduate School of Public Affairs
J.
L, it A /
Date


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A dissertation on the subject of the Auraria Highei Education Center is particularly timely since major changes in governance took effect July 1, 1989. This campus has been operating for 12 years and has been embroiled in controversy from opening day. It has been studied, restudied, reviewed, criticized and praised. Innumerable reports and consultant studies have been developed which are a fascinating source for research and evaluation. Many of these have been valuable to the future of the campus.
I received special advice and counsel from Dr. James Schoemer; Dr. Franklin James, my committee chairman Dr. Robert W. Gage; Dr. Frank Cesario and Phyllis Muth, all of whom were helpful and considerate in this process.
Without the patience, kindness and cooperation of my wife, Elisabeth, we could never have arrived at this place of completion.
Philip Milstein Denver, Colorado


Milstein, Philip (D.P.A., Public Administration)
The Auraria Higher Education Center Thesis directed by Professor Franklin James
The Auraria Higher Education Center has been in operation for 13 years as a combined campus containing the University of Colorado at Denver, Metropolitan State College of Denver and Community College of Denver. These institutions serve a diverse student population: some may not have received a high school diploma; others may be studying toward an advanced degree.
Even though the campus is 13 years old, only one previous dissertation on this subject has been written, this one in the early 1980s. A 1987 review of this document created the desire to correct errors in names, dates and attitudes toward Auraria and to look at this campus in a more objective manner.
In this dissertation, therefore, the purpose, advantages and disadvantages of Auraria are detailed, as are the original concepts and goals set forth by legislative action. The plan to place three institutions on one campus was considered an experiment at the time and still remains such. A search of the Educational Research


Information Center records on higher education mergers, consolidations and closings did not reveal any similarities with the Auraria model.
The site, the histories of the three institutions, the Auraria location, and the early problem of space shortage (which continues to the present) are some of the issues which will be discussed in this dissertation.
After reviewing past and present attitudes toward Auraria, the author notes a pattern emerging of a lack of cooperation by some of the institutions with each other and with the operating board, the Auraria Board. This can be traced to a lack of space for each institution, which has created a difficult atmosphere in which to work. This was confirmed in personal interviews with past and present actors on the campus.
Processes required by the Colorado legislature, such as master planning and a space study, were found in the long run to be impediments to cooperation since the Auraria Board is the ultimate coordinating agency.
A review of reports by outside consultants who recommended major changes in the operation of the institutions and/or the campus confirms the basic premise of this dissertation: the Auraria campus represents an eminently economical method of blending the educational


function of three institutions with an outside, or fourth management board. The necessary ingredient is to find three executives of the institutions who are of good will with education of the student their prime focus.
The form and context of this abstract are approved I recommend its publication.
Franklin James
Faculty advisor in charge of dissertation


CONTENTS
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION........................................... 1
Auraria Concept and Goals......................... 1
Purpose and Scope................................. 3
Methodology....................................... 5
CHAPTER II
BACKGROUND ERIC SEARCH............................... 7
CHAPTER III
OVERVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION AT AURARIA............... 18
CHAPTER IV
AURARIA REALIZED.................................... 3 3
CHAPTER V
INTERAGENCY FUNCTIONING............................... 80
CHAPTER VI
ASSESSMENT OF AURARIA TODAY.......................... 102
CHAPTER VII
CONCLUSION........................................... 132
BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................... 137
APPENDIX
142


TABLES
1. 1987 Enrollment Statistics by Race,
Metropolitan State College..................... 27
2. Comparison of Minorities in Student Bodies
of Three AHEC institutions: 1987 .............. 30
3. Enrollments for Spring Semesters for Three
AHEC Institutions: 1977-1989................... 32
4. Inventory of Items in the Auraria Library,
March 1989 .................................... 40
5. Space Allocation in the North Classroom
Building....................................... 51
6. Allocation of Classroom Space in the North
Classroom Building for Spring Semester 1988... 52
7. Summary of Available Parking Spaces on the
Auraria Campus................................. 62
8. Comparison of Enrollment for Three Institutions 67
9. Academic, Support and Auxiliary Space,
Recent and Projected.......................... 104
10. Academic Office and Service Space,
Recent and Projected.......................... 104
11. Laboratory and Physical Education Space,
Recent and Projected.......................... 105
12. Total Space Deficit, Recent and Projected..... 105
13. Estimated On-Campus Headcount Enrollment
in 1983....................................... 107
14. Comparison of Undergraduate Tuition Fees
for Fall Semester 1988........................ 127


CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Auraria Concept and Goals
The Auraria Higher Education Center (AHEC), which opened on the Auraria Campus for spring classes in 1977, is an innovative model in American higher education. The campus contains three independent colleges and universities which share classroom buildings, library, athletic facilities, and parking areas along with all non-academic services. These common facilities are managed by an appointed board, which hires a staff.
In many parts of the country, there are campuses housing two institutions, but none has three separate institutions on the same site served by a landlord board providing all non-academic services and functions. The concept is unusual. It allows the individual institutions to concentrate on their students' welfare without the trouble of clearing the snow or trimming the hedges, for example.
Auraria is significant educationally because on one campus a student may begin education in the open enrollment Community College of Denver (CCD), advance through Metropolitan State College (MSC) for a degree, or
1


2
continue at the University of Colorado (UCD) for special study or a master's degree or a doctorate.
Economy of function was a major consideration of the Colorado Legislature when it debated establishing the campus. By consolidating three institutions on one campus, a lower initial cost could be realized. Since the campus was part of an urban renewal project, land costs were generally lower than outright purchase of land. For example, the 169-acre Auraria site cost $1.45 per square foot compared to adjacent land at $10.00 to $25.00 per square foot. Furthermore, building one campus with crossuse of buildings would be more economical than building three separate campuses with duplicating facilities.
When the campus was complete and in operation, the anticipated lower operating costs began to materialize, particularly in utilities and maintenance. All the facilities for a well-rounded student life were here: available jobs in the adjacent central business district and many other parts of the area, and reasonable parking costs. All of this helped meet the need for higher education in the Denver area, which comprises almost half of the state's population and includes a significant portion of its low-income and minority population.


3
The original goal was for the Auraria Higher Education Center to "afford Colorado a unique opportunity to offer an urban-oriented, educational experience with maximum program diversity and greater resource effectiveness."1
Purpose and Scope
This dissertation will assess the operation of the Auraria Campus from its inception to the present. This subject was chosen because the institutions are valuable to the future of Colorado and to the students educated at the Auraria Higher Education Center. Planning for the future must take into consideration the advantages and disadvantages of the present system. Both will be examined.
The purpose in choosing this subject is twofold. First, a serious attempt will be made to separate real problem areasthose based on factfrom those based on prejudice. The second purpose will be to reexamine the advantages perceived at the inception of this multi-campus concept and to ascertain how well it is working.
Two topics have been the subject of reams of
1 The Joint Budget Committee Report for FY 1970-71, 1.


4
newsprint and hours of discussions since spring 1977: space deficiency and management by the Auraria Board. This dissertation is based these hypotheses:
1) That a chronic lack of space has been the source of continuing dissatisfaction within the institutions composing the Auraria campus. With adequate space, the major problems with campus management by the Auraria Board would disappear.
2) That management of the physical plant, parking and security by the Auraria Board has been above average since the 1978 "Report on Organization Relationships" and has consistently improved under new directors subsequently hired by the board.
Space: Classrooms, Laboratories, Faculty
The lack of sufficient classroom, laboratory and faculty space has been an unsolved problem since the day in January 1977 when the campus opened with 2,000 more FTE than the Colorado Commission on Higher Education (CCHE) had anticipated. The space shortage has been exacerbated by a burgeoning enrollment without space increase until the new North Classroom Building was completed for the spring semester in 1988. This building, however, did not add any additional square footage to the campus or represent a net gain in classroom space. Before any construction began, a small group representing each


5
institution determined the space needs in this building. Laboratory need overshadowed classroom space since a lack of laboratories existed in the 1100 14th Street building. The North Classroom Building does not have any more classrooms than the building it replaced. It does add laboratory and faculty spaces but overall did little to relieve a perilous situation except to provide new, bright quarters. Some may question "perilous," but in the years of campus operation, lack of space has been at the center of the many controversies between institutional leaders and AHEC management.
Methodology
The data reported in this dissertation is based on the following:
1. Review of archival documents. Much of the background material on the history of the Auraria campus, the participating educational institutions and AHEC's management was extracted from materials in the archives of the Auraria Library.
2. Review of ERIC data. Relevant information on campus consolidations and mergers in other parts of the United States was pursued through a search of the Educational Research Information Center data through the Auraria Library.
3 .
Interviews with campus executives and


6
managers. The clarification of individual attitudes and points of view was derived from interviews with a large number of people involved in managing the Auraria campus.
4. Examination of recent reports. Current information was analyzed from a number of reports from consultants and auditors, and secondary data from the Community College of Denver, Metropolitan State College, University of Colorado at Denver, Auraria Higher Education Center, and the Colorado Commission on Higher Education.
5. Incorporation of personal knowledge. The author's long association with the University of Colorado at Boulder and at the Denver and Auraria campuses as a student, alumnus and adjunct assistant professor; extensive involvement with development of Legislative Bill 1153 creating the Auraria campus; service as 1974 to 1977 AHEC board chairman; and current service as a planning consultant has helped to shape the analysis of the subject matter.


CHAPTER II
BACKGROUND ERIC SEARCH
Economic Problems of American Higher Education
Joan Cannon addresses the serious economic problems of higher education in her study on the implications of mergers:
"Higher Education today is experiencing what might be called a major turning point or crisis in its life cycle. Some institutions who remember the good old days are finding themselves vulnerable to the realities of financial cut-backs, program obsolescence, lay offs, and terminations. Institutions are responding to this change in various ways."1
Merger/Consolidation as a Solution
Historically, there were a number of mergers in the 1970s between institutions of higher learning: Carnegie and Mellon; Harvard and Radcliffe; Boston State College and the University of Massachusetts are some examples Cannon mentions. Now, many more institutions are examining mergers and consolidations as possible answers to their economic crisis.2
A study of the status of independent, nonprofit
1 Joan B. Cannon, The Organizational and Human Implications of Merger, (Montreal, Canada: American Educational Research Association, 1983), 1.
2 Ibid., 1
7


8
colleges and universities in the 1970s, published by the National Institute of Independent Colleges and Universities,3 reports that during the seventies, 45 independent colleges merged and 19 independent colleges shifted to public control.
Cannon describes four types of inter-institutional arrangements: voluntary cooperative agreement; formalized consortium; federation; and mergers and closings.
Chambers categorizes them a little differently.
"Mergers in the 1970's followed four basic patterns: consolidation, dissolution/acquisition, interlocking directorate, and a form which represents a holding company." 4
Of the four, she asserts, consolidation and acquisition were the most widely used. The author points out that in most instances consolidation was discussed but acquisition occurred; there was no merger at all. Cardozier adds to this list upper-level college arrangements, i.e., instances where two-year junior
3 National Institute of Independent Colleges, Openings, Closings, MergersAccreditation Status of Independent Colleges and Universities, (Washington, DC: 1980), 2.
4 Gail S. Chambers, Forms of College Merger, (Bridgeport, Connecticut: University of Connecticut,
1983), 1.


9
colleges are augmented by a two-year, upper-level college. In the early seventies 11 states tried this type of educational system in still another attempt to overcome growing economic restrictions.5
Examples of Mergers
In the early 1960s, Indiana University and Purdue University, "both regional campuses, began to share facilities on one campus. The institutions did not merge but consolidated by elimination of duplicating functions, services, and overlapping programs."6 Based on numerous interviews with faculty members and administrators of each, Cresmore concluded, "more explicit direction is needed for future planning by regional campuses in serving the academic, occupational, and personal needs of local citizens."7 An important point to keep in mind is that at the time of this article, the combined campus was then 24 years old, and there was still dissention between faculties. Some of the interviewees, however, felt that benefits had accrued to the students through the changes
5 V. D. Cardozier, Upper Level Colleges Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow, (Austin, Texas: University of Texas, 1984), 2.
6 Avon Cresmore, The Role at the Regional Campus in Indiana, Especially Indiana University and Purdue University, (Fort Wayne, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1983), 1.
6 .
7
Ibid


10
in educational mission and administrators' actions. Administrators may view merger as a mutual opportunity similar to the successful 1960s mutual action taken by Case Institute and Western Reserve University in Indiana.
Both institutions were in financial difficulty; merger was a better choice than closing. The merger has been a successful one.8
Many mergers occur for non-economic reasons. In 1986, after two years of preparation for merger, DeKalb Community College became part of the University System of Georgia.9
The first instance of a U.S. court-ordered merger for purposes of racial desegregation at the university level occurred in a case involving the University of Tennessee and the primarily black Tennessee State University. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Geier may set a precedent for future similar actions in higher
8 Chambers, Forms of College Merger, 2.
9 Robert Walker and Jacques Poythress, A Change in Governance of the DeKalb Community College Creating an Academic Ranking System, (DeKalb, Georgia: DeKalb Community College, 1983).


11
education.10 "There has, however, been a continuing decline in white student enrollment in the combined institution."11
Mergers frequently occur in several stages.
A two-step merger in Connecticut between the University of Bridgeport and the University of New Haven was initiated because of debt issues of both institutions. Although the governing boards agreed at the beginning on the need for a merger, the plan failed after two years of talks and considerable expense.12 There are other models, particularly the multi-step merger of Nasson College in Maine and the University of New England in the 1980s. This model consisted of a step-by-step plan by which the governing boards of each institution agreed to permanently transfer their control over specified activities one at a time to a new board. When all actions are complete, the present board will transfer operations to the newly federated university board. The key factor in making the transition a smooth one was the willingness of the partners involved to make
10 Kent Shimeal, Merger As Remedy in Higher Education, (Nashville, Tennessee: University of Tennessee, 1982), 1.
11 James Godard, Merger As Remedy in Higher Education, (Nashville, Tennessee: University of Tennessee, 1982), 1.
12 Chambers, Forms of College Merger, 2.


12
it work.13
Florida had planned a semi-merger between an upper-level university and a junior college in an effort to retain the best aspects of both. As Chambers points out "the model ultimately developed here is one where program strengths combined while control over funding and governance may have to follow a unique dual pattern." 14
Florida established two upper-level institutions in the early 1970s with great enthusiasm but without studying potential problems or failure. By the spring of 1983, legislative action reversed the process requiring underclass students to be accepted again.15
The program in Florida was based on a concept that two years in a junior college and two years in an upper-level institution would create an upward mobility in education at less cost to the state. This did not prove to be the case. As the state began to integrate junior colleges into the system, it also assumed the costs of junior colleges from separate localities which had
13 Ibid., 2.
14 Ibid., 1.
15 Cardozier, Upper Level Colleges, 2.


13
previously funded their own systems.
Cardozier listed other problems.
First, enrollment did not meet expectations due to overestimation of the student body in all areas. Second, students from junior colleges did not flock to the upper-level institutions; they attended a standard four-year college or university instead. Third, lack of freshman and sophomore courses severely handicapped the opportunity for upper-level institutions to provide students a high quality education.16
As would be the case at Auraria, unless the student has kept up his or her lower-level courses, the transfer directly to an upper-level institution created an educational gap which could not be filled except at the four-year institution.
At a meeting of presidents and chancellors of upper-level institutions, one president summed it up this way: "Upper-level universities are so busy training
people in the two years they have them, that there is no opportunity to educate them."17
16 Ibid, 2.
1 7
1 .
Ibid


14
In the same period, Texas established 10 upper-level institutions while 26 were established in 11 states using the Florida model. By 1983, a similar disenchantment with the process eliminated most of the programs although some remain. At a meeting of presidents of institutions in 1979, one remarked, "The only people who support upper-level concepts are those who have had no experience with it."18
In the past, numerous discussions have taken place among educators on the subject of making the University of Colorado at Denver an upper-level institution with master's and graduate courses only. The next step would make Metropolitan State College the premier four-year institution on the Auraria campus. The Board of Regents of the University of Colorado and the leadership at UCD have steadily resisted such actions on the basis that this would reduce the overall effectiveness of the institution. A review of Cardozier's 1984 paper justifies this stand.
In addition to the unique problems of upper-level institutions, a number of more general difficulties arise when mergers are attempted.
1.
Ibid


15
1. Personnel
As the merger process went forward at the University of Tennessee, there were found to be duplicate positions in each institution which required review. Resumes were required to be submitted for 15 top contested positions. In addition, academic programs were still under review.19
Walker and Poythress recall that the most important issues to be resolved before the merger of DeKalb College into the University System of Georgia was development and implementation of a faculty ranking system.20 In addition to determining minimum qualifications for initial academic appointments, it was necessary to stipulate eligibility and criteria for promotion.
2. Management
Cannon reports that "Some institutional mergers came under legislative requirements despite considerable organizational ambiguity. The result was duplication of orders, faculty contracts without union agreement, no single governing system emerging, operating budgets not consolidated, and retention of pre-merger
19 Frederick S. Humphries and John Matrock, The Planning of the Merger of Two Public Higher Education Institutions, (Nashville, Tennessee: University of Tennessee, 1979), page 2.
20. Poythress and Walker, A Change in Governance of the DeKalb Community College, page 2.


16
problems."21
3. Morale Problems Cannon adds:
"Mergers resulted in continued dissatisfaction and anxiety. This eventually cleared, although many in the acquired institutions felt less secure, had lost pride and were dissatisfied with the merger. While the respondents [to Cannon's survey] indicated that these experiences were not helpful professionally, the extent to which they affected actual work performance is not known."22
"This does not imply that the faculty (at DeKalb)
is less concerned regarding its future, which I believe
must be cleared soon, however, or the quality of education
may be reduced through dissatisfaction on the part of the
faculty."2 3
Successes
The Indiana University/Purdue University cooperative venture appears to be successful, but Cresmore concluded that future plans need to incorporate more explicit directions. Chambers notes the successful merger of Case Institute and Western Reserve University and the smooth multi-step merger of Nasson College and University
21 Cannon, The Organizational and Human Implications of Merger, 2.
22 Ibid., 2.
23 Poythress and Walker, A Change in Governance of the Dekalb Community College, 2.


17
of New England.24 At the University of Georgia, despite the anxieties about the new system of governance, all faculty are still employed and the students see no change in the quality of instruction.25
24 Chambers, Forms of College Merger, 2.
25 Poythress and Walker, A Change in Governance of the DeKalb Community College, 2.


CHAPTER III
OVERVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION AT AURARIA
Over many years, the educational process in Colorado had an unfilled need for the multitude of potential students who could not attend one of the existing institutions of higher learning. Junior colleges, supported by local communities, filled some of the void, but more was needed.
The Colorado legislature took a first step toward filling this void by passing HB349 on May 5, 1963. It required the Consortium of State Colleges to provide a comprehensive plan for the long-range development of Metropolitan State College, a two-year, mainly vocational and technical institution.
Funds were appropriated on May 17, 1965 (HB344) for establishment of Metropolitan State College (MSC) with orders that instruction begin in the fall of 1965. MSC opened in rented facilities around downtown Denver.
In 1965, the Consortium of State Colleges developed a paper entitled "Characteristics and Size of Student Body"1 which defined the future student body of the two-year
1. The Consortium of State Colleges, Characteristics and Size of Student Body, (Denver, Colorado: Metropolitan State College, 1965), 1,2.
18


19
institution, the original concept of MSC. This report eventually related more to the community college system than MSC, although many of the figures are applicable to both.
From these figures, it was possible to determine the need for an additional educational institution in the Denver metropolitan area. This need was addressed in action taken by the legislature in creating a community college system opening in 1968 and 1969, and changing the mission of Metropolitan State College to a four-year, degree-granting institution. MSC added a third year in 1967-68, and a fourth in 1968-69 (Chapter 238, Laws of 1967 Colorado). By transferring the vocational system to the community colleges, MSC could include liberal arts and sciences in its curriculum.
In 1968, a study of MSC indicated that 80 percent
of high school graduates who could benefit most from a
university education were not then able to pursue their
goals--there was no place which they could afford which
was available to them:
"The emphasis of added metropolitan facilities should be on the largest group able to benefit but not now provided by other institutions. Through its four-year majors and through its technical curricula, Metropolitan State College will meet this


20
need."2 Site Selection
Initial planning for a site for Metropolitan State College began in 1965, shortly after the school had been approved as a two-year vocational/technical college and proceeded rapidly after MSC became a four-year, degreegranting institution in 1968-69.
A series of site selection studies took place, the first by the Denver Planning Board, on nine locations in Denver. This study was supplemented by a study of neardowntown locations made by the Downtown Denver Master Plan Committee. Using 10 criteria, both studies recommended the Auraria site.
In order to ascertain whether other locations outside of Denver met the criteria involved, MSC hired Lamar Kelsey Consultants of Colorado Springs to review 19 sites in the metropolitan area, including those reviewed by the Denver Planning Board. Auraria was a clear leader here, also. Selecting a new site was a priority, because the legislature was becoming concerned about rental costs of buildings being leased by MSC and the Community College of Denver (CCD) adjacent to downtown Denver. The lack of
2 " Metropolitan State College A Factual Analysis
of Need," 1968, 2.


21
cohesion for the educational process in such disparate surroundings also became a concern.
If MSC was to be built, the Auraria area had to be cleared. The most logical step, then, would be to ask the Denver Urban Renewal Authority (DURA) to inventory the area and determine if it was blighted. A review by DURA in 1968 confirmed the area was blighted and a candidate for clearance.
A number of simultaneous actions were necessary, however. Under urban renewal laws, the federal government would advance two-thirds of the clearance cost if the city would authorize one-third. The total amount was determined by DURA. Denver Mayor William McNichols agreed to hold a city-wide election on a bond issue which asked for authorization of the one-third share of $6,000,000. A citizens' committee was formed to spearhead this effort. The bond issues passed successfully in November 1969, although the vote was close, winning by only 4,500 out of
50,000 votes cast. The Federal Urban Renewal Agency then agreed to authorize a $12,000,000 grant for land clearance and resettling the residents and businesses.
The second major action was for the state legislature to authorize the funds to purchase the 169


22
acres. The Denver Urban Renewal Authority determined it could not clear and gain title to move more than one-quarter of the land in each of the years 1971 to 1974.
The legislature agreed to this procedure at the urging of Governor John Love.
In 1971, the Colorado Commission on Higher Education (CCHE) determined that Auraria would be the site of not only MSC, but of newly formed (1967) Community College of Denver (CCD) and the University of Colorado at Denver (UCD). These three institutions formed the Auraria Higher Education Center (AHEC). This was perhaps the most crucial of all decisions.
The final requirement was funds to build the campus. By action of Governor John Love, State Senator Joe Shoemaker (who served on the Joint Budget Committee), and others, $40,900,000 was allocated by the Colorado Legislature. This included $5,638,000 to be paid to DURA for the cleared land. DURA agreed to leave all potential landmark structures intactSt. Cajetan, St. Elizabeth, Emmanuel Chapel and the houses on 9th Streetand to turn them over to the AHEC board in their 1974 condition.
The University of Colorado at Denver
The oldest institution of the three, the University


23
of Colorado at Denver, began as an extension school, governed by the University of Colorado in Boulder and known as the Denver Center. It opened in 1911-12. At that time the city of Denver had fewer than 200,000 residents but was the dominant city in the metro area and in the state. The suburbs were small, in some cases a few people surrounded by a city name. The Denver Center was successful in that it filled a need for a growing metro population.
In 1923, the Denver Center was reorganized into bureaus, and the program in Denver came under the aegis of the Bureau of Class Instruction at the University of Colorado, Boulder. From 1923 to 1962, the records show three general phases of center development. Until 1938, a small number of credit classes was offered in various parts of the city: the YMCA, the YWCA, and East High School. Administration was centralized in Boulder and all instruction was on a part-time basis. Tax support, except for administration, was negligible, as was physical plant expense.
A second phase began in 1938 when three major steps were undertaken. Space was leased in the Kittredge Building in downtown Denver for a few administrative offices and classrooms. A full-time administrative


24
assistant was appointed to organize the Denver program, and the first full-time member of the Denver faculty was hired.
The end of the World War II marked the beginning of the third phase. It became evident that institutions of higher education all over the country would soon have a heavy enrollment of veterans using their G.I. Bill. At the Denver Center, larger downtown quarters were leased in 1947 for 10 years and all activity was concentrated in those quarters at 16th and Glenarm, the Kittredge Building. From 1945 to 1952, enrollment of credit students tripled from 1,700 to 5,000, while noncredit enrollment more than doubled to 1,150.
In 1952 the University of Colorado purchased the Denver Tramway Corporation Building at Fourteenth and Arapahoe Streets. In 1964, the Denver and Colorado Springs centers were removed from the University of Colorado Extension Division.3 In 1972, a constitutional amendment was approved establishing Denver and Colorado Springs as separate campuses of the University of Colorado at Boulder. The Denver campus, after 60 years, had reached maturity and became a degree-granting institution
3 Office of Administration Memorandum, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 1963, 3.


25
with master's and doctorate degrees available, as well as undergraduate degrees in many disciplines. Accreditation was granted in 1972.
UCD at present includes seven major units and five community outreach groups):
College of Liberal Arts and Science College of Business and Administration College of Engineering and Applied Science School of Architecture and Planning Graduate School of Business Administration Graduate School of Education Graduate School of Public Affairs
Forty percent of UCD enrolled head-count students are at the graduate level, greater than any other institution in Colorado and one of the highest in the United States.4
Metropolitan State College
MSC moved to the Auraria Campus in December 1976 and January 1977. Growth continued in all phases of operation. In general, its role as a primarily liberal
4. "Role and Mission Statement, University of Colorado at Denver," Colorado Statewide Master Plan for Postsecondary Education 1983-84 through 1986-87, Colorado Commission on Higher Education, 1983, V16.


26
arts and sciences college was expanded to include urban-and career-oriented programs plus technical programs leading to BA or BS degrees.
In 1973 the trustees of the Consortium of State Colleges of Colorado voiced their commitment to work with UCD and CCD and "that the trustees are committed to the concept that the Auraria institutions together provide a comprehensive educational opportunity."5
In the 25 years of its existence, MSC has served approximately 130,000 students as a four-year undergraduate institution consisting of schools of letters, business, arts and sciences and professional studies.
Metropolitan State College has filled a need in education in the four-county area of Denver and beyond. From an enrollment of approximately 318 students at its opening in 1964-65, it has grown to 15,638 in the fall of 1988. There have been fluctuations over the period with a drop from 1983 to 1984 due to funding differences and a cap on enrollment. MSC has a broad student population (as do UCD and CCD). The composition of the student body in
5 "Commitment of Trustees of State Colleges in Colorado to the Auraria High Education Center," March 26, 1973, 1.


27
1987 is typical of an given year for the school (see Table 1)
TABLE 1
1987 Enrollment Statistics by Race Metropolitan State
College
Asian and Pacific Islanders 432 Black 654 Hispanic 1194 Foreign 83 Native American 74 Caucasian 12663
Total 15150
Source: Auraria Higher Education Center, Spring Semester 1987
A drop in black students has been experienced since 1980, along with an increase in Hispanics.
Neither of these enrollment percentages is adequate when related to the percentage of these groups in Denver's population (19 percent Chicano; 13 percent black) and in the area from which MSC draws its students. In developing this urban campus, planners hoped that the minority population of the Denver area would use this opportunity for increasing their education beyond high school. Enrollment of minority students has not kept pace with enrollment of majority students. MSC continues to work toward improving the situation.


28
Community College of Denver (CCD)
In the spring of 1967, the legislature passed HB1449 creating the Community College of Denver with three campuses to be operative by 1970. The Auraria portion opened in rented quarters at 1201 Acoma Street. (The North Campus, now known as Front Range Community College opened in September 1968; the West Campus now known as Red Rocks Community College opened September 1969.) In 1983, the legislature authorized an east campus (which was not part of the original plan), the Community College of Aurora. In the five-year period from 1968 to 1973, enrollment in the original three institutions grew from 1,861 students to 9,662, indicating a drastic unfilled need for a broader approach to higher education in the Denver Metro Area.
The first president of the Centralized Community
College system, Dr. Leland Luchsinger (1967-1973), and his
staff operated from headquarters at 1109 Grant Street,
Denver. He made the following statement in 1973:
The Community College system offers comprehensive occupational programs, diversified courses in general subjects and provides a growing list of community services. We have an open door policy and are a student-centered organization. Our staff is more interested in what the student is ready to do than what they have done in


29
the past.6
CCD assumed the vocational and technical training
and education formerly assigned to MSC when the latter was
originally organized as a two-year vocational/technical
institution. CCD admitted its first students in 1970,
and, with growth in student population, expanded into
additional rented quarters. Due to lease expiration, one
CCD building (the South Classroom) was completed first by
the AHEC Board so that occupancy took place in the
partially completed structure in 1976.
The Community College of Denver had, in 1970, the following student mix: one in four was minority, the average age was 27 years old, three of four students had jobs, one in four was a veteran, the majority lived in the Denver metropolitan area and needed the opportunities for education through the open-door policy which provided a much needed haven for those previously unable to attend an institute of higher education.7
In July 1980, the State Board of Community Colleges disbanded the system of central administration; each campus became autonomous. Community College of Denver retained its original functions but added responsibility for a Technical Education Center (TEC) located in Adams County, six miles north of Auraria, serving both Denver
6 Leland Luchsinger, "A Philosophy of Commitment," 1973, 2.
7 Luchsinger, "A Philosophy of Commitment," 1973, 2.


30
and Adams County.
"CCD provides extensive programs through specialized refugee and international student advisors, the Center for the Physically Disadvantaged, a Special Learning Support Program (for adults with learning disabilities), Computer Programs for the Handicapped, a Women's Center at Warren Village (a housing facility for singleparent families), a special Word Processing Program for Female Single Heads of Households, a College for Living (for developmentally disabled) and Off-Campus GED/ESL Programs at housing projects community center and Community schools."8
CCD has entered the ethnic community to a greater
extent than the other two AHEC institutions as shown by
Table 2.
"Clearly CCD can be a major feeder institution for Metropolitan State and the University of Colorado. Additionally, CCD must expand its outreach efforts, particularly to the Hispanic and Black Communities"9
TABLE 2
Comparison of Minorities in Student Bodies of the Three AHEC Institutions: 1987
CCD MSC UCD CITY POPULATION
Hispanic 13% 7% 4% 19%
Black 12% 4% 3% 13%
Asian 11% 1% 5% 11%
Source: Community College of Denver "Priority for Progress" 1987.
8 Byron McClenny, "History of Community College of Denver," 1987, 3.
9 Byron McClenny, "Priorities of Progress, 1987",
28.


31
Providing access to educational opportunity is consistent with community priorities for economic development and entrepreneurial growth and development. Full attainment of these goals will be illusive without significant progress in the minority communities. A vital link will be with the Denver Public Schools which has ten high schools, potentially a prime feeder for CCD. In addition, articulation with Emily Griffith Opportunity School, already a reality must be enhanced.10
Table 3 shows a compilation of enrollment for spring semester from 1977 to 1989. The enrollment figures emphasize further the space shortage which has existed since the campus opened.
The 13,000 FTE figure was irrational as an initial planning tool, but it was never revised. Using a subjective figure that FTE is approximately 70 percent of headcount, this would assume a headcount of less than
19,000 when in actuality the enrollment was 25,269.
The Colorado Commission on Higher Education has not yet admitted that their basic error created one of the major dissatisfactions with the campuslack of space.
1 0
Ibid., 28.


32
TABLE 3
Enrollments for Fall Semesters for Three AHEC Institutions: 1977 to 1989
Year UCD MSC CCD TOTAL
( Auraria Only)
1977 8832 13637 2800 25269
1978 8516 13671 2875 25082
1979 8744 13351 2920 25015
1980 9101 15324 3000 27425
1981 9809 15914 3005 28728
1982 10720 17384 3020 31124
1983 11364 17303 3100* 31767
1984 10794 14423** 2968 28180
1985 10591 14238*** 3080 27909
1986 10617 14557 3047 28220
1987 10455 15526 3667 29628
1988 10096 15638 3333 27087
1989 10470 16827 4166 31463
* In FY 83-84 the Auraria Campus Aurora Center became the Community College of Aurora. Figure shown is the new Auraria enrollment.
** Until summer 1984, MSC included interinstitutional enrollments in their official headcount reports. They stopped this practice effective summer 1984.
*** Starting with summer 1985, MSC ceased reporting Extended Campus headcount enrollments only in their official enrollment reports.
Source: The Auraria Higher Education Center


CHAPTER IV
AURARIA REALIZED
Composition and Management Systems of the AHEC Board
The Auraria Higher Education Center (AHEC) was created by Executive Order in 1971, and an official board of directors was established in 1974 through HB1163. The seven-member board was composed of one person each from the governing boards of the three institutions, and four from the metropolitan community appointed by the governor. Since that time, two non-voting members have been added, one representing the faculty of the three institutions, the other representing students.
The legislative action gave AHEC the authority to manage all facilities and grounds and to operate the many centralized student and administrative functions. AHEC was charged with developing a cooperative mechanism between institutions, their boards and itself. The unpaid board met regularly, particularly during construction of the campus. It has acquired a staff to deliver services to the institutions. The staff relieves the institutions from maintaining structures; clearing the streets and sidewalks of snow or debris; maintaining lawns, shrubs, and trees; and performing repairs.
33


34
The AHEC Board is specifically authorized to perform all duties as noted aboveit is not under the authority of the Colorado Commission on Higher Education, although CCHE may recommend approval or disapproval of AHEC's actions to the legislature. The Auraria Board is, therefore, autonomous.
The campus opened officially in the spring semester of 1977 with 25,269 students. Not all of the buildings were complete: some interior work was yet to be finished; some sidewalks were non-existent; and landscaping was incomplete. The educational process went forward as planned, however.
In September 1978, after little more than a year and part of a semester in operation, the Auraria Board responded to a CCHE request to answer this question:
"What changes, if any, should be made in the administrative structure of the Auraria Higher Education Center?" The AHEC board recommended, as part of its report:
In light of acknowledged differences, it is recommended that the Auraria Board of Directors and the institutions thoroughly examine, during the next year, all areas of centralized management to evaluate where further decentralization to the institutions would be desirable. Additionally, it is recommended that the Auraria Board and the institutions review such management areas


35
desirable.1
A further recommendation suggested that since this was the first year of operation CCHE should not propose any changes in the statutory framework of Auraria. The AHEC report went on to evaluate the operations of physical plant, public safety and parking, student auxiliary services, and business services. The report found that the performance of regular building maintenance "is very inadequate" due to lack of funding to hire additional workers. Other operational areas also had problems, mainly due to new relationships with the three institutions which had furnished their own services prior to coming to Auraria.
The result of the "Report on Organizational Relationships" was that nothing changed the governance of the campus. After such a comparatively short period of operation, it was too early to evaluate the management of the campus.
Facilities/Space
1. Imperatives
Originally AHEC was responsible for scheduling all facilities and establishing student services such as
1 Board of Directors, Auraria Higher Education Center, "Report on Organizational Relationships," 1978, A-
2.


36
health services and food services. In 1988, HB1226 added
the authority of the Auraria board to buy, sell, and lease
appropriate buildings and land, including off-campus
requirements. Since space has been a continuing problem,
HB1226 allows AHEC authority to allocate present space
according to need and to attempt to increase availability
of additional space, both on and off campus. AHEC has
statutory authority
"To allocate among and assign to the constituent institutions in accordance with needs, suitable space within the Center for the use of such institutions or for such joint or cooperative educational, vocational or other activities and programs as may be provided by the constituent institutions."2
The staff allocates classrooms, faculty and
administrative offices, laboratories and other space to
the institutions. It also conducts facilities utilization
studies and facilities inventory reports.
The long-range planning function includes establishment of future building locations, and coordination with the institutions of long-range enrollment statistics as part of a facilities master plan. The latter is now in process. It is planned for completion by November 1990.
2
Colorado Legislature, 1988.


37
2. Acquisition
The requirement that the new Auraria campus be available for classes by spring 1977 complicated the space acquisition plans. In order to meet the deadlines, the AHEC Board brought onto the staff a campus planner/architect and developed a construction management team consisting of three builders. A large floor plan model of the proposed buildings was created, and certain uniform standards for buildings were determined. Finally, it was decided that a separate architectural firm would be chosen for each new building in order to facilitate design and construction. By the time the land was available, plans for the buildings were completed and approved.
All of the land was cleared by 1974 and available for construction, which began immediately. Construction bids were let. Fortunately, the process worked and the campus opened on schedule.
The first building fully completed was the library which became a focal point of the campus. Its white exterior sets it apart from other campus building, which are of brick and of generally standard design. Academic sharing began here. In 1976, the three small libraries of CCD, MSC AND UCD were merged under the management and administration of UCD.


38
As a new operation, the library had, and continues to have, areas of weakness, some of which are being corrected. The basic problem is that the library building is not large enough. The primary objective of the library is to support the educational requirements of each institution as well as support the faculty in their need for up-to-date reference materials for both teaching and research.
Library support for a two-year open enrollment institution through master's and doctoral programs requires that new books meet a very broad requirement. Support for faculty needs is a high, but second, priority. A UCD program review of the library which took place 1983-1985 yielded the following statistics: The Auraria Library's collection totaled 595,709 volumes at the close of fiscal year 1984-85, including books, bound periodicals, microfilms, and non-print materials. In addition, the library maintained 3,309 current periodicals and serial subscriptions. The number of volumes added per FTE dropped from 2.42 in 1978-79 to 1.41 in 1984-85.
This situation is expected to become more critical in coming years as UCD aggressively explores new outreach activities. At the same time, increasing use of the


39
library is being made by the downtown business community and the other educational institutions on campus. Given the above, and in keeping with the basic tenets of the Colorado Academic Library Master Plan, the Auraria Library identified the following objectives for the coming five years:
Access
Collection Development Library Services Administrations3
The present library inventory is outlined in Table 4.
Library goals are affected by the changing needs of MSC and CCD whose students have equal access to the Auraria Library as UCD students. Present AHEC plans call for an expansion of the library dependent upon availability of funds.
Two other acquisition-related actions began in 1974 and were completed in 1976. The first was an agreement between DURA and the AHEC Board that the then-derelict houses on 9th Street be saved. With that agreement, Historic Denver, Inc. (HDI), a private nonprofit organization involved in saving important historical structures, agreed to raise the funds necessary to restore
3 Interview with Alfreda Redd, Manager, Department of Internal Statistics.


40
TABLE 4
Inventory of Items in the Auraria
Library, March 1989
Item Titles Volumes
Books 363,012 460,701
Periodicals 4,269 38,754
Audiovisual Materials* 12,193 38,682
Microforms** 11,478 89,146
Maps 2,486 7,884
Archives 1,564 2,163
Total 395,001 637,330
*Includes slides, videos, films, audio tapes, phono discs, PC software and other material.
**Includes microfilms, microfiche and ultrafiche.
Note: The library also has acquired federal and state government documents which are measured by linear feet rather than volumes.
Source: Alfreda Redd
the houses while maintaining the historical character of the exteriors. HDI raised $900,000 from various sources and each house was restored as closely as possible to its original design. On July 4, 1976, the houses were officially turned over to the AHEC Board in an unusual gesture of great pride on the part of both groups. The board accepted the houses and immediately began planning for their use as faculty and executive offices.
The Denver Landmark Preservation Commission


41
declared the houses and the area a Landmark District. The Colorado State Historic Preservation Office added designation as part of the National Trust for Historic Preservation so that the 9th Street Historic Park has gained national recognition.
A related activity was the development of a landscape plan for Ninth Street funded by a $50,000 grant from the National Trust for Historic Preservation which added beauty and dignity to this unique campus area. The ambience of the campus is further enhanced by several other Landmark structures:
St. Cajetan's Church now remodeled into a meeting area with 300 seats.
Emmanuel Chapel now Emmanuel Art Gallery for campus and off-campus exhibits.
St. Elizabeth's Church an active Catholic
Church.
St. Francis Chapel a meeting room for general use and offices for chaplains of varying faiths.
The Tivoli a former operating brewery put out of


42
business in 1965 by the 100-year Platte River flood.
The Tivoli belongs to the state of Colorado, as do the other properties. They are operated and managed by the AHEC Board. A private developer, chosen by the Board, revitalized the property into retail shops, theatres, restaurants and public spaces under the Board's supervision. The developer has a 60-year lease.
The physical education facility was constructed in 1977. It is operated under the jurisdiction of the Auraria Board, as are other campus facilities except the Library, which is still operated by UCD. The Auraria Board has charged the executive director of the physical education building to program this facility for use by all students as their needs require. The structure has excellent facilities which include an Olympic-sized swimming pool, athletic areas for basketball, dance, volleyball, etc., plus courts for handball, racquetball, and squash. The director of the physical education facility, Dick Feurborn, notes that with UCD students now on the campus, activity at the facility has increased.
MSC has also inaugurated intercollegiate sports which adds to the usage of the facility. Plans have been made to expand the PE Building by 1991.
The obvious question arises: Why wasn't the campus


43
planned for future growth? The answer is a simple one.
The allotment of $40,900,000 dollars included everything from land purchase to completion of the buildings, landscaping, sidewalks, curbs, and gutters. The period of construction was also one of high local and national inflation. The 1974 board asked the legislature for an additional $9,000,000 to complete the plan adequately.4
Some $3,000,000 was received with the advice "don't come back for more."5 The buildings were finished and the campus opened as ordered, but space was at a premium in 1977 for the 13,000 day FTE and 3,000 night FTE (18,000 headcount) and continues to be a greater problem with 31,463 headcount.
Space constructed totaled 1,379,819 gross square feet of which 139,192 was student funded for the student union, leaving 1,240,627 gross square feet. This included the remodeled houses on Ninth Street and the Emmanuel Art Center. It did not include St. Cajetan's church, which was remodeled in 1978.
4 All the space authorized by total funding was built. Some of the walls were of temporary material (until the next budget period), landscaping was reduced and some parking areas were usable but did not have a hard surface.
5. Joseph Shoemaker, chairman, Joint Budget Committee, Colorado Legislature, 1975 session.


44
The assigned square footage (that space which is available for academic use after deducting all non-academic space) with the North Classroom Building added is 948,400 as of July 8, 1988. From this figure, it is necessary to deduct space used by the Auraria Higher Education Center for offices, physical plant, transportation, security, parking and open storage space. This includes 53,476 assigned square feet for office service buildings, 91,214 for student areas, and 95,204 for parking and other open space.6
When the campus opened, 74 percent of the buildings were new; seven percent were historical buildings which had been remodeled; 18 percent were already in existence (the 1100 14th Street building occupied by UCD). These percentages changed when the North Classroom Building was constructed. It opened in the middle of the 1987-1988 academic year. This changed the percentages to 87 percent new, seven percent historical, and five to six percent existing.
3. Allocation
A shortage of space continues to exist because initial planning for space on the campus was based on MSC
6 Report by Warren Taylor, director of facilities management to James Schoemer, vice president of administration for AHEC, September 12, 1988.


45
and CCD institutional figures which were much too low.
This is not to say more space could have been built with the funds allocated, but the actual enrollment and anticipated enrollment by CCHE did not match and do not come close to matching today.
The 9th Street houses have reduced only slightly the "tight" space needs for offices. Space has also been at a premium because the campus was convenient to students from almost every part of metro Denver; transportation was effective; at the beginning, adequate parking was available at low rates; the buildings were new; and jobs were close by. It was inevitable that growth would occur, and growth caused problems.
At the opening of the campus in 1977, space was assigned without an agreed-upon system; each institution retained unused space in square feet and traded space between them.7 Less faculty office space was appropriated than on other Colorado campuses when the legislature reduced the average office size from 120 square feet to 80 square feet. It made no provision for the night instructional program, which is close to one-third of the total full-time equivalent generated in Auraria. This
7 Warren Taylor, director, Facilities Management, interview by author, Denver, Colorado, August, 1988.


46
translated to a shortage of 181 offices, and planners and administrators had to turn to multiple occupancy of small offices in order to make sufficient desk space available for faculty needing offices. Most part-time faculty do not yet have any office space available to them.
Each institution was given total control, on an annual basis, of all its allocated space and, at the request of MSC and UCD, permanent control of 85 percent of classroom allocations. Since then, laboratory allocations as well as allocations of administrative office space have not been reviewed on a yearly basis.
AHEC continued to believe that in the long term, space allocation, scheduling, and assignment function should be returned to a centralized system. MSC and UCD argued that classroom and faculty office space should be allocated to them permanently. They had not, however, agreed about how much space each should receive and, therefore, it has not been possible to reach agreement on a base for a permanent allocation. In September 1980, a memo from the AHEC assistant executive director advised the Board that the Auraria Executive Committee (AEC) had created a Space Allocation Committee whose major thrust would be to recommend annually reallocation of space plus help institutions to support their recommendations.


47
Because of continuing differences between MSC and UCD, the
reallocation recommendations became ineffective.
On May 13, 1981, the Auraria Executive Committee published
a memorandum entitled: "Responsibilities and Procedures
for Allocation of Space at the Auraria Higher Education
Center." It said, in part,
"...pressure for additional space mandated a new procedure for allocation which would ensure that all types of space at the Auraria Higher Education Center were being utilized as efficiently as possible."8
The procedure involved centralizing all space under
AHEC as "pooled space." AHEC, then, had to be certain all
requests were met. Offices were also considered
centralized.
The thrust of this document, if continued by the institutions, would have solved many problems, but changes were made by new executives of the institutions.
Further decentralization did not seem desirable to AHEC and centralization of the process was recommended again in
1983. This condition continued in a more or less unstable manner until the Auraria Board authorized Project Associates to report on space allocation at AHEC.9 This
8 Auraria Executive Committee, "Responsibilities and Procedures for Allocation of Space at the Auraria Higher Education Center," May 13, 1981, 2.
9 Jack R. Herbertson, "The History of Space Allocation at the Auraria Higher Education Center," December 1984.


48
report confirmed that classroom space was being used efficiently, but a shortage of space existed for classroom, faculty office, library, and physical plant.
In the previous three years, 10,627 square feet of additional assignable classroom space had been created by the conversion of lobbies and hallways in various buildings. The State Auditors Report of 1983, however, found 32,000 assignable square feet in the Technology Building which was under-utilized. They also found an excess of 7,000 square feet of administrative space which exceeded Joint Budget Committee assumptions but only exceeded CCHE guidelines by 325 assignable square feet.
The report further stated that the Auraria Board had a statutory duty to look for alternative space throughout downtown Denver and other areas adjacent to the campus, as well as excess public school facilities. No funds were made available to meet this suggestion. The Auditors Report confirmed the need for more space regardless of whether the 32,000 square feet was allocated to classes.
The report found that the institutions had provided students with a diversity of educational opportunities, and that the board and staff had done a "good job" in funding non-academic services primarily because of dedicated people and not the governing structure. Because the legislature had to resolve academic differences by


49
funding certain activities through special appropriation, the report suggested that the legislature should consider changing the existing governing structure and try other alternatives which would provide diverse educational values and "minimize existing inefficiencies."10
Recommendations from this report were:
1. By use of the Long Bill (legislative appropriation from previous years), prorate the number of teaching stations based on the appropriate FTE.
2. Pool day FTE and night FTE so that the proportion of the day and night locations are available for each institution. This relates to both class and laboratory space.
Herbertson summarized his recommendations by suggesting an allocation system based on the then and future on-campus FTE, considering day/night FTE, and lab FTE.11
The UCD building at 1100 14th Street, along with the adjacent Bromley Building, was becoming more and more uneconomical to operate. Both were ineffective for a growing student body and increasing class options. In 1985, the state legislature funded a replacement building on campus, the North Classroom Building. This 250,000-
10 "Report of the State Auditor," 1983, 19.
11 Herbertson, "The History of Space Allocation at the Auraria Higher Education Center," 18.


50
square-foot structure was put in service in the Fall of 1987. It provides office space for UCD and some MSC faculty and administrative service plus cross-use of classroom and office by UCD, MSC and CCD for day and night use. For the first time since the AHEC Center was developed, the majority of students are on the Auraria campus, except for those in off-campus facilities in the Dravo Building at 1250 14th Street leased by UCD. All use available student services and office spaces. This crossuse structure provides classroom space for CCD and MSC day students and UCD day and night students. There are the same number of classrooms in the North Classroom Building as were in 1100 14th Street, but laboratories are larger and better equipped and space for some larger classes is now available. The structure has not added to the total space on campus; it has merely replaced 1100 14th Street but with better design and more usable areas.
Table 5 shows space allocations for the North Classroom Building. They were taken from the Final Design Report (December 6, 1985) and are reported in net square footage.


51
TABLE 5
Space Allocation in the North Classroom Building
UCD MSC CCD MISC. TOTAL
Laboratories 64,417* 2,040 66,457
Office Space 62,957 4,347 67,304
Storage, Etc 9,761 9,761
Auxiliary 4,314 4,314
TOTAL 127,374 6,387 4,314 9,761 147,836
*All figures are in net square footage.
Source: AHEC, Final Design Report, North Classroom
The North Classroom Building contains 34 classrooms with a total net square footage of 32,762. Table 6 notes how the spring semester 1988 classroom space was allocated.
A Space Audit Committee reported in September 1987 an established methodology for equitably allocating space. CCD and MSC agreed to the methodology; UCD did not support it. Dr. Warren Taylor and his committee concluded that until 1988, no consensus had been reached regarding allocating space on the Auraria Campus.


52
TABLE 6
Allocation of Classroom Space in the North Classroom Building for Spring Semester 1988
Source:
DAY EVENING
CCD 9% 0%
MSC 60% 32%
UCD 31% 68%
Division Facilities Management, AHEC,
1988
At the time the North Classroom was opened, the Auraria Board commissioned a second study: "Update to a Report on the History of Space Allocation at the Auraria Higher Education Center," March 1988.
This report reviews actions of the Auraria Executive Committee (AEC) and the Auraria Board in conformance with the 1988 Auraria Higher Education Center Audit Report, Office of State Auditor, through the years 1985-1988. As a consequence of the latter report, which included an "Interim Report on Current Space Use at AHEC," the Auraria Board reprogrammed the Technology Building by re-using 32,000 square feet of space used as technical laboratories and classes. The Auraria Executive Committee (AEC) approved a program for centralization of scheduling of classrooms. A "Time-Block" Scheduling System was approved by AEC to standardize class periods and provide


53
better utilization of classrooms.
In 1986 the executive director of AHEC asked the Auraria Executive Committee for recommendations on methods of allocating campus space. In December of that year, the AEC established a Space Audit Committee made up of representatives from AHEC, UCD, MSC and CCD in an effort to forge a cohesive space allocation policy. From the committee's 1987 report, the work of the Space Audit Committee was to serve two purposes:
1. To provide the basis for determining if there is an equitable distribution of current non-instructional space. It is an AHEC responsibility to distribute space fairly; however, the Space Audit Committee was created to make recommendations related to the distribution of space; and
2. To establish institutional needs to support additional space.12
The space audit committee felt that institutional needs assessment should follow the analysis of equitable distribution of current space. The most effective needs assessment would be provided through a campus Facilities Master Plan. Funding was requested for development of such a plan. A Facilities Master Plan is presently being developed based on institutional Academic Master Plans (1988-1989). The committee approached equitable distribution of non-instructional space as the most
12 Warren Taylor, "Report of the Space Audit Committee, Auraria Higher Education Center," 1988.


54
pressing problem to be addressed and resolved prior to the move into the replacement facility. The committee focused its energies on this issue but reached no long-range conclusion.
Laboratory spaces were designed for specific academic functions, which continue to be the highest priority for laboratory space use. There has, however, been an on-going practice by the institutions of assigning laboratory space for non-laboratory related classes on an overload basis. Based on an April 11, 1988, Auraria Board action, effective the first day of classes in the Fall of 1988, AHEC's Office of Facilities Use had access to laboratories (as well as classrooms). At that time AHEC scheduled classes in laboratories on an overload basis only. AHEC will notify the departments responsible for the laboratory space prior to assigning the space.
For purposes of assigning classes to laboratories, all laboratories have been assigned a code designating the degree of access:
A = multipurpose B = restricted/multipurpose C = restricted/special purpose
These codes were developed in July of 1986 and were


55
reviewed by the institutions after that time. Based on input received from the institutions, some individual codes were changed and the original four-tiered classification scheme was modified to a three-tiered system. Multipurpose laboratories are the first ones used for overload class scheduling (if necessary). Restricted/multipurpose laboratory space may be assigned to classes in which students have had previous course work related to the operation of that lab space.
Restricted/special purpose laboratory space will not be used for overload class scheduling.
The addition of laboratory space to the pool of classroom space available to AHEC provides increased flexibility in the assignment of classes. It should be stressed, however, that it remains a stated goal of the Classroom Assignment System (CAS) to reduce the pressure of laboratory space use by non-laboratory classes.
In summary, there are two problems with space allocation:
1. A shortage of space has existed since the campus was built because enrollments increased beyond plans and square footage of the buildings. The new North Classroom has added no additional classroom space but had


56
reduced office crowding.
2. Institutions cannot agree on an appropriate division of available space.
Institutional budgets are affected by the number of students registered, and space is assigned accordingly. AHEC, as of this time, allocates space to meet programmatic needs. Even though the space is being used more efficiently, this method is not fully accepted.13 AHEC considered it necessaryfor efficient space use that there be one office which made space assignments. It is under jurisdiction of the Auraria Board in order to eliminate duplication and conflicts and at the same time use classroom areas to maximum efficiency. This continues to cause institutional concerns and disagreements as to whether one is being treated unfairly in relation to another.
AHEC and the institutions agree that there is not adequate instructional space on the campus. Facilities inventory data show that the average square footage per FTE student on the Auraria campus is 55 assignable square feet. This compares to a national norm of 100 assignable
13 Warren Taylor, interview with author, Denver, Colorado, August 15, 1988.


57
square feet and is one-third less than any other Colorado institution. Classes are now being held from 7:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. with the major impact on space beginning at 4 p.m. and increasing from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. The Patterson report discussed in Chapter VI suggested more Saturday and Sunday usage as is scheduled by the California state system. This could create a conflict, however, for many students who work weekends and nights in order to attend classes, although weekend classes are already scheduled for those who are available at that time.14
Service Delivery
1. Imperatives
In addition to furnishing centralized services to the three institutions, a community college (CCD), a four-year state college (MSC), a four-year plus graduate school university (UCD), AHEC provides non-state supported activities including parking, a bookstore, student union, and a child-care center. Early 1980 legislation added AHEC responsibility for student services and for administration. AHEC's long-range planning function includes expansion of parking in order to compensate for recent losses due to campus expansion, development of
14 Franklin Patterson Associates, "A Study of the Management of the Auraria Higher Education Center," August 1988.


58
improved transportation access, and elimination of campus traffic as well as long-range facilities planning.
2. Operations
The physical plant is the heart of the campus operation since, with the security department and parking management, physical plant management touches in some way, personally or impersonally, every member of the campus: student, faculty and staff. The present director of physical plant in the three years of his tenure feels that he has developed a competent staff which can provide prompt service, particularly in emergencies. In a review of records by the author, it was found that emergencies are cleared immediately, while routine requests are taken care of in sequence or priority. Complaints have been logged from the leadership and faculty of the institutions (records list three to four complaints per week); there is little delay in clearing them.
The operations department has 132 employees with 64 custodians, 10 groundskeepers, 9 supervisors, 7 office support, 4 architects, and 38 utility workers of all categories. The custodial group works three shifts,
Monday through Friday nights, with a small clean-up crew to service after-Saturday classes.


59
An organization is an arrangement of interdependent parts, each having a special function with respect to the whole.15 An organization chart of the Auraria Physical Plant illustrates this point effectively. (See Appendix I) The grounds department performs a myriad of services and it is difficult to itemize its functions. It has developed an updated landscape plan which denotes the kinds of trees, shrubs and flowers that thrive on campus and require the least amount of maintenance. In process is a plan for bicycle movement based on completion of the Auraria Parkway and 7th Street. The department is also responsible for maintenance of the heavily used playing fields. The grounds crew is supplemented by eight people who have learning disabilities. They are furnished by and paid through the Jefferson County Developmental Group for the Retarded. They work only four hours per day, but they keep the walkways and building entrances clean.
Additional physical plant activities include constant checking of the efficiency of utilities such as water, heat, light and sewers. The annual cost of utilities is close to one million dollars per year. In addition, there is in operation a storage facility for needed major items and parts.
15 James G. March, Handbook of Organizations, (New York City: Garlen Publishing) 1987, 1.


60
The custodial service has received the majority of
complaints from the faculties and institutional officers.
Some changes in supervising personnel, in addition to
yearly purchase of more and better equipment (scrubbers,
vacuums, etc.) which do a faster and better job, have
resulted in 20 percent fewer complaints. The director,
Dean Wolf, has recommendations which he feels will improve
housekeeping services.
"This year the budget was cut so that housekeeping service is reduced. This is a short sighted policy. All buildings except the North Classroom are now over ten years old and have had constant heavy use. More maintenance both long term and daily is needed not less. Late afternoon service is necessary for many areas but cannot be provided now."16
The director also pointed out the importance of faculty cooperation with security. Physical plant people are in the buildings when no one else is available. Some complaints concern losses during this time. The security department requests that desks be locked and nothing of value be outside of the locked desks, but this is not always done.
When Auraria officially opened in the spring of 1977, there was excellent Regional Transportation District
16 Dean Wolf, director of physical plant operations, interview by author, Denver, Colorado, September, 1988.


61
(RTD) bus service available to the campus along with 5,500 parking spaces at very low rates. This was an important amenity, since at that time over 75 percent of the students had part- or full-time jobs which required that little time be lost between class and work. The original concept of providing 5,500 spaces of close-in parking within walking distance of any part of the campus was one which could be managed during the early years of operation. As the student body grew, demands on parking grew proportionately. During the first years, the 5,500 spaces were turning over 15,000 to 20,000 cars daily.
There were delays in the early-morning hours which, with the help of Denver traffic engineers, were reduced by improved entrances and other engineering improvements.
Also, UCD students at the 1100 14th Street Building parked on the street and in an adjacent city garage, where special permits and lower rates were available to students and faculty.
All the present lots on the west side of the campus were replanned for more efficient design of spaces so that for spring semester 1989, 3,488 spaces were available on campus (see Table 7). Students who have been unable to park on campus have solved the problem (and created problems for AHEC parking management) by using spaces to


62
the north of the campus designed for customers of businesses on Wazee Street. Many students and faculty have found free space elsewhere, comparatively close to the campus. Parking in the West Side Community to the south of campus also continues but on a reduced scale.
TABLE 7
Summary of Available Parking Spaces on the Auraria Campus.
Original Parking Places 5500
Lost to Construction:
Tivoli 696
North Classroom Bldg. 733
Auraria Viaducts and
Parkway 645
Golda Meir House 6
Speer Blvd. Interchange 25
7th Street Relocation 93
Total 2198
Original places remaining 3302
Added by replanning 186
Total places now available 3488
Source: AHEC Parking and Transportation Division, 1988
The AHEC Board engaged consultant BRW to do a needs assessment study. Completed in January 1988, the study identified a need for 2,800 new parking spaces.17 It also reviewed alternatives for meeting parking needs over the next 10 to 15 years. The report offers a combination of strategies, including acquisition of additional land for
1 7
brw, Inc.,
Parking Needs Assessment", 22.


63
surface parking and construction of multi-level parking.
In conformance with this report, the parking staff and the Auxiliary Services Committee proposed a parking plan which the AHEC Board has approved. The plan calls for construction of a multi-level parking structure (1,480 net new spaces) on Lot F.
On January 26, 1989, the Auraria Board approved the report of the campus Planning and Design Committee to hire an architect to design a four-level structure on the lots between 7th and 8th streets, Walnut to Lawrence Streets.
It is to be completed by January 1991.
The structure will contain 1,480 spaces and a new office for the parking and transportation department on the south side of floors one and two. All entrances and exits will be on the 8th Street side with a major interior ramp for circulation. Stairs will be built for student access with elevators at each end for handicapped and services uses.
The exterior design will conform to the standard set in 1974 in order to retain compatibility throughout the campus.
The location serves the campus educational core


64
without impinging on the views to the west, which provide an unobstructed view of the mountains.
The present parking administrator has developed, with the parking staff, a procedure to speed up the sale of "decals" for cars and a system of operation of the remaining lots which have, generally, eliminated delays. Parking management has developed a series of maps showing location of lots as they become available through reconstruction and a series of signs at major entrances to the campus indicating which lots are full and which are available. All of this has eased the burden on the user.
Access and Transportation
When the campus was planned in 1974, a roadway 80-feet wide on the north end of the campus was left for a future route around the campus. It was hoped that traffic could eventually be taken out of the student areas and transferred to the periphery. This occurred when the Auraria Parkway which opened December 12, 1988.
Landscaping (trees and fences) and lighting are scheduled for 1989 and 1990. The two viaducts which created traffic on Larimer and Lawrence have been removed because of age and safety reasons. Two new viaducts have been constructed by the Colorado Department of Highways


65
and the Federal Urban Highways Administration. These, known as the Walnut Viaducts, connect to the West Colfax Viaduct and Interstate 25 for access to the campus and downtown Denver by way of the Auraria Parkway. The viaducts come to ground level between 6th and 7th Streets at Walnut where they connect to two three-lane extensions along the north end of the campus. These were paid for by the city of Denver ($2,570,000), AHEC ($2,500,000 in state funds), and the Colorado Department of Highways ($1,435,000). The parkway is the property of the city of Denver. In exchange for the land Auraria had contributed, the majority of the present street system through campus is in the process of being vacated and transferred by city ordinance to Auraria. Seventh Street has been completed from West Colfax to the Auraria Parkway and has replaced the 8th Street route, which will revert to Auraria as parking and open space.
Plans have been approved by AHEC, the city of Denver, and RTD for a Larimer Transitway using small shuttle buses or large buses, on a route from the RTD Market Street Station to the 16th Street Mall to Larimer, on Larimer to a 10th Street cul-de-sac and return.
Regular routes 0 and 15 will use Larimer Street in order to serve the needs of the students, staff and faculty until small shuttle vehicles can be supported.


66
Construction is proposed to begin in March 1990 with a 90-day completion schedule.
Lawrence Street between 1-25 and Speer Boulevard has been closed to traffic due to safety deficiencies in the Lawrence Street viaduct. The street has been converted to a pedestrian mall from 9th Street to Speer Boulevard. New sidewalks, places to congregate, trees, grassed areas, benches, and infrastructure helped to create the mall which was completed in late fall 1989. Until then, the campus has lacked this amenity, a green oasis in the midst of the city.
Instruction and Faculty Space
Official discussions regarding space at Auraria began early in the life of the campus. The student body was to consist of 15,000 FTE in 1977, but this was reduced by CCHE to 13,000 FTE. FTE was approximately 70 percent of head count. CCHE anticipated that there would be fewer than 19,000 students enrolled. Table 8 shows actual enrollment by institution.


67
TABLE 8
Comparison of Enrollment for Three Institutions 1977, 1987, 1989, 1990
Source: Enrollment Statistics, Department of Facilities Management, AHEC
In an April 15, 1981 meeting of the Auraria Executive Committee, members determined
"that pressure for additional space mandated a new procedure for allocation which would insure that all types of space at the Auraria Higher Education Center were being utilized as efficiently as possible."18
Space policies were summarized at this meeting.
"In summary, AHEC has reaffirmed its commitment to meet all campus needs, and to provide as little disruption to the current operations as possible. In this context, common sense will prevail in the assignment of space and it is believed that the overall space pressure on the campus will be significantly relieved through centralized scheduling. At the same time, the Auraria Executive Committee is well aware of the fact that the Auraria institution continues to utilize space at a rate that is twice as efficient as the next best utilized campus in Colorado. Renewed efforts will be made to obtain funds for new construction that will relieve some of the current space
18 "Responsibilities and Procedures for Allocation of Space at the Auraria Higher Education Center, May 13, 1981," Appendix IV.
CCD
MSC
UCD
1987 1989 1990
3115 3655 3814
15150 15638 15361
10215 9885 10069


68
pressures.
The Auraria Executive Committee once again
discussed Centralized scheduling on November 28, 1984.
"As a follow up to his 11-21-84 memo to Wartgow,...Gene Nordby [chancellor of the University of Colorado at Denver at the time] asked about the class scheduling system project. Dr. Nordby said first that he remains very supportive of the centralized scheduling system. ...Schoemer said that there is extensive involvement of institutional personnel in the development of the system and process. He said ^/arious approaches are being explored and evaluated and said it would be premature at this point to say what the ultimate scheduling process will be. The AEC agreed that it is an objective that the new system centralize the process as much as possible and not just add a duplicative or bureaucratic step to the process. ...the executives reaffirmed that the scheduling of class labs was intended to be part of the centralized system. Many courses have class lecture sections.
Schoemer said it did not appear at this juncture that special purpose laboratories would need to be scheduled centrally but that their use would have to be accurately reported. Accurate laboratory utilization information was specifically cited for improvement in the 1983 Auraria performance audit.
Relative to enrollment reporting, Dr. Schoemer said that there is no objective to report FTE enrollments. In fact it could not be done from the data to be contained on the course scheduling file.
19 "Responsibilities and Procedures for Allocation of Space at the Auraria Higher Education Center," May 13, 1981, 1 & 2.


69
In terms of implementation, Schoemer said that the traditional and new systems would probably be run in parallel in the spring to set the schedule for fall,
1985. "2 0
The Auraria Board of Directors discussed off-campus
space in its meeting on December 15, 1984.2 1
Recommendations regarding space were discussed and passed.
"Recommendation 1 That the Board adopt the following policy: Prior to approval of any off-campus space or designation of any satellite center, the institution must submit a five-year projection concerning future program needs, location justification and funding requirements on a standard form developed by AHEC for such projections.
"Recommendation 2 That the Auraria Board of Directors adopt the following policy for use of off-campus space: To enable the Auraria Board of Directors to effectively carry out its statutory responsibility (C.R.S. 1973, 23-70-104(g)22 and to coordinate the space requirements of the constituent institutions in a manner which provides efficiencies in rental rates and supports capital construction budget request items, the Board hereby adopts as policy the following requirements for use of off-campus space.
1. Approval of the Auraria Board of Directors is
20 Minutes of the Auraria Executives Committee, November 28, 1984, 8.
21 This section was researched from files of correspondence received from UCD Chancellor Glendon Drake, the AHEC Board, AHEC Executive Director Morgan Smith, and from review of HB1226-88.
2 2
HB1153, 1973.


70
required prior to execution of contracts or agreements by constituent institutions to use any space off campus for any purpose. 'Contract or agreements' include, but are not limited to, commitments by the institutions to lease or to buy space, as well as any commitment to exchange teaching or in-kind services for use of space.
2. Any renewal or exercise of an option to continue the use of off-campus space is also subject to approval of the Auraria Board of Directors.
3. After formal execution of any contract or agreement for off-campus space, the institution will submit a copy [to] AHEC.
4. On July 15 each year the constituent institutions will submit to the Board an inventory of use of off-campus space for the current fiscal year including information concerning location, type of use, size, cost (if any) and projection of future use. All requests for approval are to be submitted at least 30 days in advance or required Board action on Form 0CS-l...as it may exist from time to time."23
2 3 Minutes of the Auraria Higher Education Center Board of Directors Meeting, December 15, 1984, 8 & 9.


71
The University of Colorado at Denver requested authority to lease space in the Dravo Building at 14th and Lawrence Streets. Space in this building had become available because the former owner and tenant had moved.
On September 17, 1986, the Auraria Board approved a
lease for approximately 46,000 square feet of off-campus
space. The communication from AHEC to UCD read
"The leases are consistent with the planned completion date of the new [North Classroom] building. At least six months prior to the expiration of the lease we should meet to re-evaluate your need for off-campus space and discuss space which may be available in the East Classroom complex. By that time, more should be known about the status of the proposed addition to the replacement building."24
Further communication began on February 10, 1988
between Chancellor Glendon Drake of UCD and Morgan Smith,
executive director of AHEC.
"I am enclosing a copy of a renegotiated lease agreement between the Regents of the University of Colorado and Equitable Real Estate for space in the Dravo Plaza Building. The complete lease document and a summary of major provisions and financial arrangements are being provided for your information. I anticipate that this lease agreement will be finalized with Equitable within the next week.
This lease agreement allows CU-Denver to consolidate all off-campus academic and administrative units into the Dravo Building by July 1, 1988. The scheduled occupancy dates are
24 Letter from Executive Director of AHEC to Chancellor of UCD, August 13, 1986, 1.


72
intended to accommodate the complete move of the School of Architecture and Planning from the Bromley Building, the relocation of the College of Business from the BetaWest Building, the consolidation of the Department of Mathematics and other services into one facility.
The cost of space in Dravo during the two and one-half years remaining in the existing lease is $10.06 per rentable square foot ($9.50 in FY 88-89 and $11.00 in FY 89-90). The renegotiated effective lease rate of $8.00 represents a 20% savings per square foot.
I would be pleased to provide further information regarding lease provisions or financial considerations should you have any questions."25
On February 23, 1988, the AHEC executive director acknowledged the February 10 letter from Chancellor Drake
"So that there is no misunderstanding about the review process and approval for the leasing of off campus space, I'm enclosing:
1. The 1984 Legislative Audit Committee Report (relevant sections only)
2. The response to this of AHEC, UCD, Metro, and CCD
3. The AHEC report of use of off-campus space
4. The AHEC Board minutes of December 10, 1984, approving the recommendations
5. The forms that we have been using for the review of off-campus rentals
6. Jerry Wartgow's memo of September 17, 1986, confirming AHEC's approval of the Dravo lease and indicating the need to meet at least six months prior to the expiration of that lease "to reevaluate your need for space off-campus and
25 Letter from Glendon F. Drake to Morgan Smith, February 10, 1988.


73
discuss use of space which may be available in the East Classroom complex."
7. An example of the Request for Approval form. This was submitted by Randy Cordova on 2-26-86 and approved by Jerry Wartgow on 3-5-86.26
The Rocky Mountain News subsequently reported on
the existence of the Dravo Building lease.
"The University of Colorado at Denver has leased 104,000 square feet in the Dravo Building in downtown Denver, the building it unsuccessfully tried to buy last year for $12 million, officials said yesterday."27
An additional letter from Morgan Smith to Glendon
Drake followed on March 2.
"I appreciate your call on Tuesday, March 1, but want to reiterate my concern that you are pushing us toward an unnecessary and wasteful confrontation.
For the record, let me summarize the history of this issue.
On December 10, 1984, the Auraria Board approved a policy whereby it would review and approve all off-campus leases. That policy came about as a result of an earlier report from the State Auditor and was reviewed by the AEC prior to the Auraria Board's action.
Everyone has followed that policy. Your staff, for example, used our forms to explain the proposed usage of space in the Dravo Building. Discussions occurred regarding that lease and one result was to change the ending date of the lease from July 1988 to January 31, 1988.
26 Letter from Morgan Smith to Glendon Drake, February 23, 1988.
27 "CU-Denver leases classroom space," by John Rebchook, Rocky Mountain News, February 23, 1988.


74
Jerry Wartgow then indicated his approval of the Dravo lease. I'm enclosing another copy of his memo of September 17, 1986. As you can see, the understanding was that you were to submit the lease to us 'at least six months prior to the expiration of the lease...' so that we could 'reevaluate your need for space off-campus and discuss use of space which may be available in the East Classroom complex.'
It is clear from this record that you're making a major departure from a long-established policy in which you yourself participated as recently as late 1986. Given the Dravo experience of last fall and all the pressures on us to work together on our joint space needs, I find your refusal to follow our policy incomprehensible."28
An Auraria staff memo to the AHEC Board of
Directors further outlined the issue.
"Further, at the same time that the University was executing the Dravo lease without AHEC approval, it was providing public testimony in support of pending legislation amending the AHEC statute confirming that UCD leases are approved by the AHEC Board as a matter of policy.29
During this period, the Colorado State Legislature passed HB1226 (March 1, 1988) which in part reconfirmed HB1153 (passed in 1974). The bill laid out in full the duties of the AHEC Board of Directors.
"SECTION 1. 23-70-104 (1) (a), Colorado Revised Statutes,
as amended, is amended to read:
Duties of the Auraria board. (l)(a) TO ACQUIRE,
28 Letter from Morgan Smith to Glendon Drake, March 2, 1988.
29 "Supplementary Information and Recommendation," for Auraria Board of Directors' meeting, March 14, 1988.


75
plan, construct, own, operate, maintain and manage, OR DISPOSE OF all the physical plant, facilities, buildings and grounds in the center (except the land owned at the Auraria center by the regents of the University of Colorado shall continue under such ownership but shall be maintained and managed in a similar manner to the other facilities in the Auraria center) and such additional land and facilities as the Colorado Commission on Higher Education may from time to time designate and approve and to accept and hold for the use of the center and its constituent institutions such properties as was designated or used prior to May 13, 1974 for purposes of the center or its constituent institutions.
SECTION 3 Article 70 of title 23, Colorado Revised
Statutes, as amended, is amended by the addition of a new
section to read:
23-70-114. Powers of board not limited. Subject to the approval of the Colorado commission on higher education, the Auraria board may exercise any and all powers conferred by this article with respect to any land or facility not otherwise a part of the Auraria center. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the powers of governing boards of constituent institutions to acquire or dispose of facilities not otherwise part of the Auraria center; however, any building or facility acquired by a constituent institution in support of academic programs shall be subject to the approval of the Auraria board, including the renewal of existing leases.3 0
Discussions with the University continued. The regents of the University at Boulder accepted the chancellor's proposal to use student fees to purchase the Dravo Building. This was determined by CCHE to be illegal and was disapproved. Finally, after a period of acrimonious charges and countercharges, the University of
30 HB1226 Concerning the Auraria Higher Education Center, 1988, 1,2.


76
Colorado at Denver submitted a request to lease the Dravo Building for use by the departments of architecture and planning, business (graduate and undergraduate), continuing education, the chancellor and other administrative offices.
This lease added approximately 148,000 square feet but did little to alleviate the space shortage. With the Bromley Building on the east campus going out of use, as well as the 1100 14th Street building, and UCD giving up leases for business and continuing education, little or no new space was added. An advantage exists in consolidation of these units in one building, as it creates a more efficient administrative function.
Heads of the three constituent institutions and the executive director of AHEC reached an agreement on July 11, 1988.
"The following program plan is presented to the Auraria Higher Education Center and the Colorado Commission on Higher Education with the following understandings between AHEC, CCHE, CU-Denver, and the University of Colorado President's office:
1. All parties agree to a common goal of placing the program units in the Dravo facility no later than 9/1/88.
2. All parties agree to "fast track" the development, review, and approval of the program plan by (a) sharing information and data as it's developed, and (b) employing telephone polls, administrative approvals, and other related techniques (as appropriate).


77
3. All parties agree to use the Paulien and Associates space analysis regarding the Dravo Building as the basis for determining CU-Denver program space needs in Dravo. If there is excess space based upon the Paulien analysis, CU-Denver agrees either to sublease the space to any Auraria-based institution or agency at reasonable rates or to move, within 6 months, CU-Denver programs from the Auraria campus to the Dravo Building, freeing up on-campus space for other Auraria-based institutions.
4. All parties recognize AHEC staff will require time, consistent with item #2, above, to review the program plan prior to making a recommendation to the AHEC executive director.
5. All parties recognize that AHEC believes that its basic operating budget funding level is inadequate and that it will be pursuing avenues of collecting appropriate cost recoveries and charges for services provided to cash-funded programs. CU-Denver will provide AHEC with completed revised OCS-1 forms by August 1, 1988. AHEC will use this information and information gathered from the other two Auraria institutions to initiate remediation via the Re-exam of Base process and other appropriate processes.
6. CCHE agrees to an administrative review and (hopefully) to approve the program plan consistent with item #2, above, immediately following a favorable recommendation from AHEC. Formal ratification can occur on August 4, 1988, according to the schedule developed by CCHE."31
A July 11, 1988 memo from Morgan Smith to the
Auraria Board of Directors said:
"On April 7, the CCHE voted not to recognize UCD's February, 1988, lease of space in the Dravo Building. The University was directed to undertake a formal program planning process and have a
31 Memorandum of Understanding, July 11, 1988, signed by Jerome Wartgow, E. Gordon Gee, Houston G. Elam and Morgan Smith.


78
program plan adopted by the Regents, then the Auraria Board, and finally the CCHE.
We received the program plan on June 27, have reviewed it in conjunction with CCHE staff and recommend its approval, with the following understanding:
1. That all parties accept AHEC's revisions to the program plan's preamble. (This has been accomplished.)
2. Upon completion of the needs assessment and master plan, AHEC and UCD will initiate a programming effort that will ensure completion of future space plans six months prior to expiration of the Dravo lease.
3. That the Science Building space vacated by the CU-Denver Mathematics Department will be placed on hold until data from the facilities study currently in progress is analyzed.32
Before the issue of space is concluded, the summary of increased enrollment for 1990 is important in light of the fact that no new space is being created. Dr. James Schoemer, vice president for administration for the AHEC Board notes that
CCD enrollment is up 33 percent over 1988, and continues to grow at a rate of five percent per year. The really excellent news is that for the first time in many years,
UCD enrollment is up by five percent.33
Campus Master Plans
HB1226, as enacted last year, directs the Commission to coordinate, and the governing boards of the constituent Auraria
32 Memorandum from Morgan Smith to the Auraria Board of Directors, July 11, 1988.
3 3
AHEC Notes, volume 71, 3.


79
institutions and the Auraria Board to formulate comprehensive master plans for academic programs and facilities so as to maximize economic and administrative efficiency at the Auraria Center.34
The legislative action directed the Commission to
submit a report on both the academic and facilities master
plan, together with its own reviews and comments, to the
General Assembly (not later than January 15, 1989). The
Commission report was approved on January 5, 1989 as
submitted to the General Assembly.
Following this action, the Auraria Campus Facilities Master Plan was approved by the Auraria Board of Directors on December 13, 1989 in conformance with the above. This plan included Cycle I, which projected space needs (prior to institution reports), and Cycle II which included institutional reports on refining the campus needs assessment.
34 Colorado Commission on Higher Education, Agenda Item III, January 4, 1990, 1 & 2.


CHAPTER V
INTERAGENCY FUNCTIONING
The goal of interviewing those who had been on the campus during the early period and those who are currently involved in campus operations was to relate the past to the present. Both positive and negative reactions to a list of general items was sought. Interviewees were encouraged to discuss other issues as well.
The primary function of this campus is education. Campus operations supplement the educational process, and together they create an inter-agency relationship which operates on a daily basis. Fortunately, not all of the early educators have left the campus. This provides the continuity needed in any organization. Only one former board member is still involved, but other former board members were available for interviews.
Each person was interviewed separately. The interviews were informal, but each began with a list of general questions on the subjects of
a. Potential for Institutional Cooperation
b. The Common Calendar
c. Space Allocation
d. Library Services
e. Parking
80


81
f. Signage and Visibility
g. Pooled classes
h. AHEC Management
i. Impact on Education
Some interviewees did not wish to discuss each item. They were considered equally important to the interview process, however, because an opportunity for discussion was opened. Many, as expected, diverted the discussion to their own point of view. An effort was made to cover the basic set of issues, but the interviewees included other issues which were uppermost in their minds. Many welcomed this opportunity for an informal meeting. These interviews were conducted by the author in 1988 and 1989 .
The present institutional executives, and others who have been involved in the campus operations or have been affected by the campus institutions, have not discussed their feelings and thoughts about AHEC on a one-to-one basis at any previous time until the interviews were conducted by the author. The purpose of the interviews was two-fold. First, to get personal reactions to the various activities of the AHEC Board and the effectiveness of its management, and second, to discuss these issues with someone known personally to each interviewee for the in this dissertation.


82
Those people listed below did not, as far as it is known, meet together before or after the interviews.
Dr. Byron McClenney president of Community College of Denver for two years. Dr. McClenney has served for 17 years as a chief executive of a community college.
Dr. Martin Van De Visse served in various capacities in the community college system since its beginning. He has had various assignments in personnel management and instruction and has a broad knowledge of the campus.
Dr. William Fulkerson interim president at MSC until June 30, 1988 and president, Adams State College. He is also senior vice president of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities and a staff person for the past several years.
Dr. Richard Netzel professor of physics, Metropolitan State College. He served in the variety of leadership roles including president of MSC from January 1971 to November 1972, academic vice president 1972-1978, and acting president 1978-1979. Dr. Netzel has an extensive knowledge of the Auraria campus.
Dr. Glendon Drake chancellor of the University of


83
Colorado at Denver who served for over three years from 1985 to 1989.
Lawrence Hamilton chairman of the board of Community Colleges. Mr. Hamilton was the first executive director of AHEC and has been a member of AHEC Board and chairman and an employee of CCHE. Marvin Buckels past vice chairman of the Auraria Board (July 1977 February 1979), and the Community College Board (1976-1979). As the present chairman of Denver Civic Ventures and the Denver Partnership, Mr. Buckels argued that to move Speer Boulevard to the west where it would encroach on campus was wrong.
Warren Taylor Auraria Higher Education Center, director of facilities use. Mr. Taylor's resume indicates a background in the three campus institutions in addition to other institutions of higher learning. He began his career at the University of Colorado at Denver in 1965.
Waldo Benavidez & Dan Trujillo Auraria Community Center, executive director and chairman of the board respectively (Note: the Auraria Community Center was closed in July 1989).
Potential for Institutional Cooperation
McClenney, when interviewed, pointed out that "we


84
[CCD] have an advantage in that we are not part of the competition with MSC or UCD due to our open enrollment policy for high school students, etc." According to Hamilton, there is a lack of communication between MSC and UCD. Fulkerson agrees and adds that although MSC and CCD get along well and work together, UCD has a different, uncooperative attitude, as though MSC is not considered good enough. There is apparently no problem among the three institutions with regard to fund raising.
Netzel said that the number of presidential turnovers in recent years has had a destabilizing effect on the institutions but added that MSC has continued to do an outstanding job in education despite the turnover of presidents. There have been concerns regarding the ebb and flow of presidents and chancellors. Although McClenney continues to agree with the general landlord concept, Fulkerson and Drake feel that they, with their past experience, should handle these tasks themselves. Patterson said in his report1 that the turnover in executives is caused by their sense of "lack of control."
McClenney felt, however, that the turnover in CEOs in the past years had been due to a lack of background
1 Franklin Patterson, "A Study of the Management of the Auraria Higher Education Center,"
16


85
rather than any reflection on the Auraria system.
A wide variety of opinions exist regarding services supplied by physical plant. Hamilton stated that the physical plant had been both efficient and effective in providing service. Netzel also felt the service had been good over the years he had worked with the physical plant. Fulkerson, on the other hand, said that the management of physical plant had created an unsound relationship between the institutions and Auraria, and that the institutions were the victims. Drake complained that he did not get the service he required from AHEC agencies. He suggested a more accessible structure was needed for services to the three institutions. He also said that he would prefer to operate all phases himself. The interviewees were asked if this same situation would not exist if each institution maintained a part of the campus. The answers were not as expected--Fulkerson and Drake felt that "they could do better," even though it could become a more complicated issue.
The Common Calendar
The common calendar class schedule is the source of one problem among the institutions and AHEC. Drake noted that UCD has certain holiday features that the other institutions do not currently have and do not intend to implement. With the use of the common calendar, UCD feels


86
that they are being placed in a negative position, in fact, Drake said that the common calendar proposal locks in actions: it prevents innovation and destroys flexibility. He felt that the facilities could be used more effectively without the common calendar since there would be less trouble scheduling. Taylor pointed out a number of reasons why UCD did not want to participate:
UCD has Martin Luther King's birthday as a vacation day; CCD and MSC do not. UCD begins and ends spring classes on different days than CCD and MSC. UCD also has faculty who teach and students who take classes at the Boulder campus. Taylor in his interview outlined the following advantages of the common calendar:
a. Better utilization of facilities;
b. More efficient planning by physical plant;
c. More efficient planning by parking and transit; and
d. Availability of common pool of classes.
Space Allocation
In 1977, Buckels recalled, the AHEC Board had to open and begin operation of the campus. Space allocation, at the beginning, was not well organized. Each institution wanted to control its own space and each would then report any excess to the AHEC staff for reassignment as secondary space. Van De Visse pointed out that the use


87
of the space by three institutions has worked well for CCD, although because of limited space at AHEC, often many rooms in the CCD South Classroom Building are also used by MSC or UCD. McClenney concludes that there is a space problem which will have to be solved cooperatively.
Library Services
Library services go beyond the community college needs and expectations, McClenney commented. Having UCD operating the library, Fulkerson pointed out, had resulted in some problems with stocking materials for MSC's needs, but he had no specific details.
Parking
Van De Visse mentioned his concern about a fee for parking when the other campuses of the community college system have free parking.
Signage and Visibility
Two other items of concern surfaced in the interviews--campus and building signage (the identification of structure by institution)2 and the marketing of three disparate institutions on one campus when the name Auraria is so widely used. Drake felt the
2 Note: The new Auraria Board has authorized signage for each institution. This is on order for completion in spring 1990.


88
reason the university had not developed in the community was lack of visibility.
In addition, Drake said that the AHEC environment works against, and creates a lack of, individual identity. McClenney agreed, saying that each institution needs individual identities and the campus and its buildings need improved signage. He also voiced his concern that, although there has been no major problem becoming part of the community, institutional identity is difficult to create and maintain as part of Auraria.
Pooled Classes
One critical item of cooperation between UCD and MSC at the inception of the campus was cross-registration of "pooled courses." This gave students an opportunity to take courses for credit in either institution or to attend a joint class. This worked well until the policy was temporarily dropped by UCD in 1987.
Fulkerson discussed some of the problems with the plan for common pool classes. He said that UCD had required its full-time students to take a minimum of 15 credit hours at UCD, and eventually had withdrawn from the common pool program. Netzel pointed out that the physics department at MSC has had both good and bad experiences


89
with the forced disengagement. He adds, however, that all that is needed to make it workable is cooperation and full access by students in both institutions.
Common pool courses have now been re-investigated
and were re-introduced in the spring 1989 semester, as
reported in The Denver Post by Mary George.
"Metropolitan State College and the University of Colorado at Denver will expand their students two colleges for the price of one. Almost 30,000 students attend classes at the two schools,
which, along with Community College of Denver, share the Auraria Higher Education Campus in downtown Denver. The expanded list of pooled courses, which was announced Wednesday, will be ready for the spring 1989 semester."3
AHEC Management
It is 15 years after construction of the campus began in 1974 and 12 to 13 years since all institutions became part of Auraria. It is now time, stressed Van De Visse, for the three institutions to try to understand each other. McClenney pointed out that in 1987 the leaders of the three institutions spent a day discussing problems and effective actions, but at that time there was no common understanding or common ground reached. All that the idea needs to make it more workable, Netzel commented, is three leaders of good will and a desire to work together. He added that it is understandable that
3
Mary George, The Denver Post, July 7, 1988.


90
each institution feels it needs to drive for power, resources, prestige and reputation, but these should not get in the way of educating students. Finally, he observed that each institution admittedly has a different culture, but this should add to the strength and not create diversity on the campus.
As of July 1988, a "Memorandum of Agreement" between MSC, UCD, and their separate systems, finalized a cooperative agreement between the two. The agreement set up a faculty committee to review the pooled courses and a task force to find other issues on which the two schools can cooperate.
In the past 12 years, there have been continuing discussions, both pro and con, regarding the Auraria Board as the campus landlord. With three educational institutions on one campus, it was anticipated by the chairman of the CCHE board, Frank Abbott, in 1974 that the management of the campus could most effectively be accomplished by having one entity provide services to the educational institutions.
Interviews with campus leaders indicate a disparity of opinion. Buckets, past vice chairman of the Auraria Board, said the Board, in his experience, had been


91
cooperative, accommodative and helpful. He added that because the institutions have primarily an educational thrust, the Auraria Board is in the best position to develop non-educational policy. Hamilton agreed that AHEC works well, but, he added, none of the institutions is a premier one. He pointed out that AHEC depends on the three leaders of its institutions to get along but that does not always work, and that the present plan lacks cooperation in the area of education.
The institution's leaders, however, have a different view. Van De Visse pointed out that from the beginning of the combined campus in the spring of 1977, institution administrators and AHEC had difficult times. There were no rules for action, he added, so that the AHEC board which replaced the original 1974 board in June 1977 was not only unsure of its specific functions, it forgot its role as landlord. This concern is repeated in McClenney's statement: "Although economics do suggest that AHEC should operate the bookstore, the student assistance center, the student center and provide some counselling, there are times when AHEC forgets that it is supposed to be the landlord not the operator." The same theme is echoed in Fulkerson's remarks when he says that because the three institutions leaders do not or cannot agree, AHEC, who should be the landlord to serve the


92
institutions, is becoming more involved in areas that are questionable.
Fulkerson also voiced his opinions about the diminished role of the institution leaders. Most presidents, he says, have run their own campuses, but here AHEC is the landlord. He adds that at a separate institution campus, the library reports directly to the president but here they do not. In addition, presidents cannot reward people with "perks" as they could on a separate campus. Finally, he complains, "We presidents are precluded from being active and from working with the AHEC Board."
Drake argued that the shared Auraria environment takes away major responsibilities from the faculty and Board of Regents. The issue, he suggests, is that AHEC is not accountable and it lacks the motivation and ability to communicate in a direct line relationship: governing board, university, students.
McClenney felt the problem in the past has been that the AHEC leadership has not accepted suggestions for change or disagreements gracefully. Recommendations on how to solve this rift between AHEC management and the three institutions also differ widely. Buckels believes


Full Text

PAGE 1

THE AURARIA HIGHER EDUCATION CENTER by Philip Milstein B.S. C.E. University of Colorado at Boulder, 1928 B.S. A.E. University of Colorado at Boulder, 1929 M.U.R.P. University of Colorado at Denver, 1973 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Public Affairs of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Public Administration Graduate School of Public Affairs 1990 _. i I ....... .... "" ...... ,.

PAGE 2

his dissertation for the Doctor of Public Administration degree by Philip Milstein has been approved for the Graduate School of Public Affairs Date >

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A dissertation on the subject of the Auraria Higher Education Center is particularly timely since major changes in governance took effect July 1, 1989. This campus has been operating for 12 years and has been embroiled in controversy from opening day. It has been studied, restudied, reviewed, criticized and praised. Innumerable reports and consultant studies have been developed which are a fascinating source for research and evaluation. Many of these have been valuable to the future of the campus. I received special advice and counsel from Dr. James Schoemer; Dr. Franklin James, my committee chairman; Dr. Robert W. Gage; Dr. Frank Cesario and Phyllis Muth, all of whom were helpful and considerate in this process. Without the patience, kindness and cooperation of my wife, Elisabeth, we could never have arrived at this place of completion. Philip Milstein Denver, Colorado

PAGE 4

Milstein, Philip (D.P.A., Public Administration) The Auraria Higher Education center Thesis directed by Professor Franklin James The Auraria Higher Education center has been in operation for 13 years as a combined campus containing the University of Colorado at Denver, Metropolitan state College of Denver and Community College of Denver. These institutions serve a diverse student population: some may not have received a high school diploma; others may be studying toward an advanced degree. Even though the campus is 13 years old, only one previous dissertation on this subject has been written, this one in the early 1980s. A 1987 review of this document created the desire to correct errors in names, dates and attitudes toward Auraria and to look at this campus in a more objective manner. In this dissertation, therefore, the purpose, advantages and disadvantages of Auraria are detailed, as are the original concepts and goals set forth by legislative action. The plan to place three institutions on one campus was considered an experiment at the time and still remains such. A search of the Educational Research

PAGE 5

Information center records on higher education mergers, consolidations and closings did not reveal any similarities with the Auraria model. The site, the histories of the three institutions, the Auraria location, and the early problem of space shortage (which continues to the present) are some of the issues which will be discussed in this dissertation. After reviewing past and present attitudes toward Auraria, the author notes a pattern emerging of a lack of cooperation by some of the institutions with each other and with the operating board, the Auraria Board. This can be traced to a lack of space for each institution, which has created a difficult atmosphere in which to work. This was confirmed in personal interviews with past and present actors on the campus. Processes required by the Colorado legislature, such as master planning and a space study, were found in the long run to be impediments to cooperation since the Auraria Board is the ultimate coordinating agency. A review of reports by outside consultants who recommended major changes in the operation of the institutions and/or the campus confirms the basic premise of this dissertation: the Auraria campus represents an eminently economical method of blending the educational

PAGE 6

function of three institutions with an outside, or fourth, management board. The necessary ingredient is to find three executives of the institutions who are of good will with education of the student their prime focus. The form and context of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication. Franklin James Faculty advisor in charge of dissertation

PAGE 7

CONTENTS CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Auraria Concept and Goals..................... 1 Purpose and Scope............................. 3 Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 CHAPTER II BACKGROUND ERIC SEARCH........................... 7 CHAPTER III OVERVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION AT AURARIA............ 18 CHAPTER IV AURARIA REALI ZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 CHAPTER V INTERAGENCY FUNCTIONING............................ 80 CHAPTER VI ASSESSMENT OF AURARIA TODAY ........................ 102 CHAPTER VII CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 132 BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 APPENDIX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 142

PAGE 8

TABLES 1. 1987 Enrollment Statistics by Race, Metropolitan State College .................... 27 2. Comparison of Minorities in Student Bodies of Three AHEC Institutions: 1987 .............. 30 3. Enrollments for Spring Semesters for Three AHEC Institutions: 1977-1989 .................. 32 4. Inventory of Items in the Auraria Library, March 1989.................................... 40 5. Space Allocation in the North Classroom Building. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 51 6. Allocation of Classroom Space in the North Classroom Building for Spring Semester 1988 ... 52 7. Summary of Available parking Spaces on the Auraria Campus................................ 62 8. Comparison of Enrollment for Three Institutions 67 9. Academic, Support and Auxiliary Space, Recent and Projected .......................... 104 10. Academic Office and Service Space, Recent and Projected .......................... 104 11. Laboratory and Physical Education Space, Recent and Projected .......................... 105 12. Total Space Deficit, Recent and Projected ..... 105 13. Estimated On-Campus Headcount Enrollment in 198 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 107 14. Comparison of undergraduate Tuition Fees for Fall Semester 1988 ........................ 127

PAGE 9

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Auraria Concept and Goals The Auraria Higher Education Center (AHEC), which opened on the Auraria Campus for spring classes in 1977, is an innovative model in American higher education. The campus contains three independent colleges and universities which share classroom buildings, library, athletic facilities, and parking areas along with all nonacademic services. These common facilities are managed by an appointed board, which hires a staff. In many parts of the country, there are campuses housing two institutions, but none has three separate institutions on the same site served by a landlord board providing all non-academic services and functions. The concept is unusual. It allows the individual institutions to concentrate on their students' welfare without the trouble of clearing the snow or trimming the hedges, for example. Auraria is significant educationally because on one campus a student may begin education in the open enrollment Community College of Denver (CCD), advance through Metropolitan state College (MSC) for a degree, or 1

PAGE 10

continue at the University of Colorado (UCD) for special study or a master's degree or a doctorate. 2 Economy of function was a major consideration of the Colorado Legislature when it debated establishing the campus. By consolidating three institutions on one campus, a lower initial cost could be realized. Since the campus was part of an urban renewal project, land costs were generally lower than outright purchase of land. For example, the 169-acre Auraria site cost $1.45 per square foot compared to adjacent land at $10.00 to $25.00 per square foot. Furthermore, building one campus with crossuse of buildings would be more economical than building three separate campuses with duplicating facilities. When the campus was complete and in operation, the anticipated lower operating costs began to materialize, particularly in utilities and maintenance. All the facilities for a well-rounded student life were here: available jobs in the adjacent central business district and many other parts of the area, and reasonable parking costs. All of this helped meet the need for higher education in the Denver area, which comprises almost half of the state's population and includes a significant portion of its low-income and minority population.

PAGE 11

3 The original goal was for the Auraria Higher Education center to "afford Colorado a unique opportunity to offer an urban-oriented, educational experience with maximum program diversity and greater resource effectiveness. "I Purpose and Scope This dissertation will assess the operation of the Auraria Campus from its inception to the present. This subject was chosen because the institutions are valuable to the future of Colorado and to the students educated at the Auraria Higher Education Center. Planning for the future must take into consideration the advantages and disadvantages of the present system. Both will be examined. The purpose in choosing this subject is twofold. First, a serious attempt will be made to separate real problem areas--those based on fact--from those based on prejudice. The second purpose will be to reexamine the advantages perceived at the inception of this multi-campus concept and to ascertain how well it is working. Two topics have been the subject of reams of 1 The Joint Budget Committee Report for FY 1970-71, 1.

PAGE 12

4 newsprint and hours of discussions since spring 1977: space deficiency and management by the Auraria Board. This dissertation is based these hypotheses: 1) That a chronic lack of space has been the source of continuing dissatisfaction within the institutions composing the Auraria campus. With adequate space, the major problems with campus management by the Auraria Board would disappear. 2) That management of the physical plant, parking and security by the Auraria Board has been above average since the 1978 "Report on Organization Relationships" and has consistently improved under new directors subsequently 'hired by the board. Space: Classrooms, Laboratories, Faculty The lack of sufficient classroom, laboratory and faculty space has been an unsolved problem since the day in January 1977 when the campus opened with 2,000 more FTE than the Colorado Commission on Higher Education (CCHE) had anticipated. The space shortage has been exacerbated by a burgeoning enrollment without space increase until the new North Classroom Building was completed for the spring semester in 1988. This building, however, did not add any additional square footage to the campus or represent a net gain in classroom space. Before any construction began, a small group representing each

PAGE 13

5 institution determined the space needs in this building. Laboratory need overshadowed classroom space since a lack of laboratories existed in the 1100 14th street building. The North Classroom Building does not have any more classrooms than the building it replaced. It does add laboratory and faculty spaces but overall did little to relieve a perilous situation except to provide new, bright quarters. Some may question "perilous," but in the years of campus operation, lack of space has been at the center of the many controversies between institutional leaders and AHEC management. Methodology The data reported in this dissertation is based on the following: 1. Review of archival documents. Much of the background material on the history of the Auraria campus, the participating educational institutions and AHEC's management was extracted from materials in the archives of the Auraria Library. 2. Review of ERIC data. Relevant information on campus consolidations and mergers in other parts of the United States was pursued through a search of the Educational Research Information Center data through the Auraria Library. 3. Interviews with campus executives and

PAGE 14

6 managers. The clarification of individual attitudes and points of view was derived from interviews with a large number of people involved in managing the Auraria campus. 4. Examination of recent reports. Current information was analyzed from a number of reports from consultants and auditors, and secondary data from the Community College of Denver, Metropolitan state College, University of Colorado at Denver, Auraria Higher Education Center, and the Colorado Commission on Higher Education. 5. Incorporation of personal knowledge. The author's long association with the University of Colorado at Boulder and at the Denver and Auraria campuses as a student, alumnus and adjunct assistant professor; extensive involvement with development of Legislative Bill 1153 creating the Auraria campus; service as 1974 to 1977 AHEC board chairman; and current service as a planning consultant has helped to shape the analysis of the subject matter.

PAGE 15

CHAPTER II BACKGROUND ERIC SEARCH Economic Problems of American Higher Education Joan Cannon addresses the serious economic problems of higher education in her study on the implications of mergers: "Higher Education today is experiencing what might be called a major turning point or crisis in its life cycle. Some institutions who remember the good old days are finding themselves vulnerable to the realities of financial cut-backs, program obsolescence, lay offs, and terminations. Institutions are responding to this change in various ways."l Merger/Consolidation as a Solution Historically, there were a number of mergers in the 1970s between institutions of higher learning: Carnegie and Mellon; Harvard and Radcliffe; Boston State College and the University of Massachusetts are some examples Cannon mentions. Now, many more institutions are examining mergers and consolidations as possible answers to their economic crisis.2 A study of the status of independent, nonprofit Joan B. Cannon, The Organizational and Human Implications of Merger, (Montreal, Canada: American Educational Research Association, 1983), 1. 2 Ibid., 1 7

PAGE 16

colleges and universities in the 1970s, published by the National Institute of Independent Colleges and Universities,3 reports that during the seventies, 45 independent colleges merged and 19 independent colleges shifted to public control. 8 Cannon describes four types of inter-institutional arrangements: voluntary cooperative agreement; formalized consortium; federation; and mergers and closings. Chambers categorizes them a little differently. "Mergers in the 1970's followed four basic patterns: consolidation, dissolution/acquisition, interlocking directorate, and a form which represents a holding company." 4 Of the four, she asserts, consolidation and acquisition were the most widely used. The author points out that in most instances consolidation was discussed but acquisition occurred; there was no merger at all. Cardozier adds to this list upper-level college arrangements, i.e., instances where two-year junior 3 National Institute of Independent Colleges, Openings, Closings, Mergers--Accreditation status of Independent Colleges and Universities, (Washington, DC: 1980),2. 4 Gail s. Chambers, Forms of College Merger, (Bridgeport, Connecticut: University of Connecticut, 1983),1.

PAGE 17

9 colleges are augmented by a two-year, upper-level college. In the early seventies 11 states tried this type of educational system in still another attempt to overcome growing economic restrictions. 5 Examples of Mergers In the early 1960s, Indiana University and Purdue University, "both regional campuses, began to share facilities on one campus. The institutions did not merge but consolidated by elimination of duplicating functions, services, and overlapping programs. ,,6 Based on numerous interviews with faculty members and administrators of each, Cresmore concluded, "more explicit direction is needed for future planning by regional campuses in serving the academic, occupational, and personal needs of local citizens."7 An important point to keep in mind is that at the time of this article, the combined campus was then 24 years old, and there was still dissention between faculties. Some of the interviewees, however, felt that benefits had accrued to the students through the changes 5 V. D. Cardozier, Upper Level Colleges -Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow, (Austin, Texas: University of Texas, 1984),2. 6 Avon Cresmore, The Role at the Regional Campus in Indiana, Especially Indiana University and Purdue University, (Fort Wayne, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1983), 1. Ibid., 6.

PAGE 18

10 in educational mission and administrators' actions. Administrators may view merger as a mutual opportunity similar to the successful 1960s mutual action taken by Case Institute and western Reserve University in Indiana. Both institutions were in financial difficulty; merger was a better choice than closing. The merger has been a successful one.B Many mergers occur for non-economic reasons. In 1986, after two years of preparation for merger, DeKalb Community College became part of the University System of Georgia. 9 The first instance of a U.s. court-ordered merger for purposes of racial desegregation at the university level occurred in a case involving the University of Tennessee and the primarily black Tennessee State University. The ruling by U.s. District Judge Geier may set a precedent for future similar actions in higher B Chambers, Forms of College Merger, 2. 9 Robert Walker and Jacques Poythress, A Change in Governance of the DeKalb Community College Creating an Academic Ranking System, (DeKalb, Georgia: DeKalb Community College, 1983).

PAGE 19

11 education. 10 "There has, however, been a continuing decline in white student enrollment in the combined institution. 1 1 Mergers frequently occur in several stages. A two-step merger in Connecticut between the University of Bridgeport and the university of New Haven was initiated because of debt issues of both institutions. Although the governing boards agreed at the beginning on the need for a merger, the plan failed after two years of talks and considerable expense. 12 There are o ther models, particularly the multi-step merger of Nasson College in Maine and the university of New England in the 1980s. This model consisted of a step-by-step plan by which the governing boards of each institution agreed to permanently transfer their control over specified activities one at a time to a new board. When all actions are complete, the present board will transfer operations to the newly federated university board. The key factor in making the transition a smooth one was the willingness of the partners involved to make 10 Kent Shimeal, Merger As Remedy in Higher Education, (Nashville, Tennessee: University of Tennessee, 1982),1. 11 James Godard, Merger As Remedy in Higher Education, (Nashville, Tennessee: University of Tennessee, 1982),1. 1 2 Chambers, Forms of College Merger, 2.

PAGE 20

12 it work.13 Florida had planned a semi-merger between an upperlevel university and a junior college in an effort to retain the best aspects of both. As Chambers points out "the model ultimately developed here is one where program strengths combined while control over funding and governance may have to follow a unique dual pattern." 14 Florida established two upper-level institutions in the early 1970s with great enthusiasm but without studying potential problems or failure. By the spring of 1983, legislative action reversed the process requiring underclass students to be accepted again.15 The program in Florida was based on a concept that two years in a junior college and two years in an upperlevel institution would create an upward mobility in education at less cost to the state. This did not prove to be the case. As the state began to integrate junior colleges into the system, it also assumed the costs of junior colleges from separate localities which had 13 Ibid., 2. 14 Ibid., 1. 1 5 Cardozier, Upper Level Colleges, 2.

PAGE 21

13 previously funded their own systems. Cardozier listed other problems. First, enrollment did not meet expectations due to overestimation of the student body in all areas. Second, students from junior colleges did not flock to the upperlevel institutions; they attended a standard four-year college or university instead. Third, lack of freshman and sophomore courses severely handicapped the opportunity for upper-level institutions to provide students a high quality education. 16 As would be the case at Auraria, unless the student has kept up his or her lower-level courses, the transfer directly to an upper-level institution created an educational gap which could not be filled except at the four-year institution. At a meeting of presidents and chancellors of upper-level institutions, one president summed it up this way: "Upper-level universities are so busy training people in the two years they have them, that there is no opportunity to educate them."17 1 6 1 7 Ibid, 2. Ibid., 1.

PAGE 22

14 In the same period, Texas established 10 upperlevel institutions while 26 were established in 11 states using the Florida model. By 1983, a similar disenchantment with the process eliminated most of the programs although some remain. At a meeting of presidents of institutions in 1979, one remarked, liThe only people who support upper-level concepts are those who have had no experience with it."18 In the past, numerous discussions have taken place among educators on the subject of making the University of Colorado at Denver an upper-level institution with master's and graduate courses only. The next step would make Metropolitan state College the premier four-year institution on the Auraria campus. The Board of Regents of the University of Colorado and the leadership at UCD have steadily resisted such actions on the basis that this would reduce the overall effectiveness of the institution. A review of Cardozier's 1984 paper justifies this stand. In addition to the unique problems of upper-level institutions, a number of more general difficulties arise when mergers are attempted. I 8 Ibid., 1.

PAGE 23

15 1. Personnel As the merger process went forward at the University of Tennessee, there were found to be duplicate positions in each institution which required review. Resumes were required to be submitted for 15 top contested positions. In addition, academic programs were still under review. 19 walker and Poythress recall that the most important issues to be resolved before the merger of DeKalb College into the University System of Georgia was development and implementation of a faculty ranking system.20 In addition to determining minimum qualifications for initial academic appointments, it was necessary to stipulate eligibility and criteria for promotion. 2. Management Cannon reports that "Some institutional mergers came under legislative requirements despite considerable organizational ambiguity. The result was duplication of orders, faculty contracts without union agreement, no single governing system emerging, operating budgets not consolidated, and retention of pre-merger 19 Frederick S. Humphries and John Matrock, The Planning of the Merger of Two Public Higher Education Institutions, (Nashville, Tennessee: University of Tennessee, 1979), page 2. 20. Poythress and Walker, A Change in Governance of the DeKalb Community College, page 2.

PAGE 24

16 problems."21 3. Morale Problems Cannon adds: "Mergers resulted in continued dissatisfaction and anxiety. This eventually cleared, although many in the acquired institutions felt less secure, had lost pride and were dissatisfied with the merger. While the respondents [to Cannon's survey] indicated that these experiences were not helpful professionally, the extent to which they affected actual work performance is not known."22 "This does not imply that the faculty (at DeKalb) i s less concerned regarding its future, which I believe must be cleared soon, however, or the quality of education may be reduced through dissatisfaction on the part of the faculty. ,,23 Successes The Indiana University/Purdue University cooperative venture appears to be successful, but Cresmore concluded that future plans need to incorporate more explicit directions. Chambers notes the successful merger of Case Institute and Western Reserve University and the smooth mUlti-step merger of Nasson College and University 21 Cannon, The Organizational and Human Implications of Merger, 2. 2 2 Ibid., 2. 23 Poythress and Walker, A Change in Governance of the Dekalb Community College, 2.

PAGE 25

17 of New England. 24 At the University of Georgia, despite the anxieties about the new system of governance, all faculty are still employed and the students see no change in the quality of instruction. 25 2 4 Chambers, Forms of College Merger, 2. 25 Poythress and Walker, A Change in Governance of the DeKalb Community College, 2.

PAGE 26

CHAPTER III OVERVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION AT AURARIA Over many years, the educational process in Colorado had an unfilled need for the multitude of potential students who could not attend one of the existing institutions of higher learning. Junior colleges, supported by local communities, filled some of the void, but more was needed. The Colorado legislature took a first step toward filling this void by passing HB349 on May 5, 1963. It required the Consortium of state Colleges to provide a comprehensive plan for the long-range development of Metropolitan state College, a two-year, mainly vocational and technical institution. Funds were appropriated on May 17, 1965 (HB344) for establishment of Metropolitan state College (MSC) with orders that instruction begin in the fall of 1965. MSC opened in rented facilities around downtown Denver. In 1965, the Consortium of state Colleges developed a paper entitled "Characteristics and Size of Student Body"l which defined the future student body of the two-year The Consortium of State Colleges, Characteristics and Size of Student Body, (Denver, Colorado: Metropolitan State College, 1965), 1,2. 18

PAGE 27

19 institution, the original concept of MSC. This report eventually related more to the community college system than MSC, although many of the figures are applicable to both. From these figures, it was possible to determine the need for an additional educational institution in the Denver metropolitan area. This need was addressed in action taken by the legislature in creating a community college system opening in 1968 and 1969, and changing the mission of Metropolitan state College to a four-year, degree-granting institution. MSC added a third year in 1967-68, and a fourth in 1968-69 (Chapter 238, Laws of 1967 Colorado). By transferring the vocational system to the community colleges, MSC could include liberal arts and sciences in its curriculum. In 1968, a study of MSC indicated that 80 percent of high school graduates who could benefit most from a university education were not then able to pursue their goals--there was no place which they could afford which was available to them: "The emphasis of added metropolitan facilities should be on the largest group able to benefit but not now provided by other institutions. Through its four-year majors and through its technical curricula, Metropolitan state College will meet this

PAGE 28

20 need."2 Site Selection Initial planning for a site for Metropolitan State College began in 1965, shortly after the school had been approved as a two-year vocational/technical college and proceeded rapidly after MSC became a four-year, degree-granting institution in 1968-69. A series of site selection studies took place, the first by the Denver Planning Board, on nine locations in Denver. This study was supplemented by a study of near-downtown locations made by the Downtown Denver Master Plan Committee. Using 10 criteria, both studies recommended the Aurari a site. In order to ascertain whether other locations outside of Denver met the criteria involved, MSC hired Lamar Kelsey Consultants of Colorado Springs to review 19 sites in the metropolitan area, including those reviewed by the Denver Planning Board. Aurari a was a clear leader here, also. Selecting a new site was a priority, because the legislature was becoming concerned about rental costs of buildings being leased by MSC and the Community College of Denver (CCD) adjacent to downtown Denver. The lack of 2 "Metropolitan State College -A Factual Analysis of Need," 1968, 2.

PAGE 29

cohesion for the educational process in such disparate surroundings also became a concern. 21 If MSC was to be built, the Auraria area had to be cleared. The most logical step, then, would be to ask the Denver Urban Renewal Authority (DURA) to inventory the area and determine if it was blighted. A review by DURA in 1968 confirmed the area was blighted and a candidate for clearance. A number of simultaneous actions were necessary, however. Under urban renewal laws, the federal government would advance two-thirds of the clearance cost if the city would authorize one-third. The total amount was determined by DURA. Denver Mayor William MCNichols agreed to hold a city-wide election on a bond issue which asked for authorization of the one-third share of $6,000,000. A citizens' committee was formed to spearhead this effort. The bond issues passed successfully in November 1969, although the vote was close, winning by only 4,500 out of 50,000 votes cast. The Federal Urban Renewal Agency then agreed to authorize a $12,000,000 grant for land clearance and resettling the residents and businesses. The second major action was for the state legislature to authorize the funds to purchase the 169

PAGE 30

22 acres. The Denver Urban Renewal Authority determined it could not clear and gain title to move more than onequarter of the land in each of the years 1971 to 1974. The legislature agreed to this procedure at the urging of Governor John Love. In 1971, the Colorado Commission on Higher Education (CCHE) determined that Auraria would be the site of not onl y MSC, but of newly formed (1967) Community College of Denver (CCD) and the University of Colorado at Denver (UCD). These three institutions formed the Auraria Higher Education Center (AHEC). This was perhaps the most crucial of all decisions. The final requirement was funds to build the campus. By action of Governor John Love, state Senator Joe Shoemaker (who served on the Joint Budget Committee), and others, $40,900,000 was allocated by the Colorado Legislature. This included $5,638,000 to be paid to DURA for the cleared land. DURA agreed to leave all potential landmark structures intact--St. Cajetan, st. Elizabeth, Emmanuel Chapel and the houses on 9th Street--and to turn them over to the AHEC board in their 1974 condition. The University of Colorado at Denver The oldest institution of the three, the University

PAGE 31

23 of Colorado at Denver, began as an extension school, governed by the University of Colorado in Boulder and known as the Denver Center. It opened in 1911-12. At that time the city of Denver had fewer than 200,000 residents but was the dominant city i n the metro area and i n the state. The suburbs were small, in some cases a few people surrounded by a city name. The Denver Center was successful in that it filled a need for a growing metro population. In 1923, the Denver Center was reorganized into bureaus, and the program in Denver came under the aegis of the Bureau of Class Instruction at the University of Colorado, Boulder. From 1923 to 1962, the records show three general phases of center development. Until 1938, a small number of credit classes was offered in various parts of the city: the YMCA, the YWCA, and East High School. Administration was centralized in Boulder and all instruction was on a part-time basis. Tax support, except for administration, was negligible, as was physical plant expense. A second phase began in 1938 when three major steps were undertaken. Space was leased in the Kittredge Building in downtown Denver for a few administrative offices and classrooms. A full-time administrative

PAGE 32

24 assistant was appointed to organize the Denver program, and the first full-time member of the Denver faculty was hired. The end of the World War II marked the beginning of the third phase. It became evident that institutions of higher education allover the country would soon have a heavy enrollment of veterans using their G.I. Bill. At the Denver Center, larger downtown quarters were leased in 1947 for 10 years and all activity was concentrated in those quarters at 16th and Glenarm, the Kittredge Building. From 1945 to 1952, enrollment of credit students tripled from 1,700 to 5,000, while noncredit enrollment more than doubled to 1,150. In 1952 the University of Colorado purchased the Denver Tramway Corporation Building at Fourteenth and Arapahoe streets. In 1964, the Denver and Colorado Springs centers were removed from the University of Colorado Extension Division. 3 In 1972, a constitutional amendment was approved establishing Denver and Colorado Springs as separate campuses of the University of Colorado at Boulder. The Denver campus, after 60 years, had reached maturity and became a degree-granting institution 3 Office of Administration Memorandum, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 1963, 3.

PAGE 33

25 with master's and doctorate degrees available, as well as undergraduate degrees in many disciplines. Accreditation was granted in 1972. UCD at present includes seven major units and five community outreach groups): College of Liberal Arts and Science College of Business and Administration College of Engineering and Applied Science School of Architecture and Planning Graduate School of Business Administration Graduate School of Education Graduate School of Public Affairs Forty percent of UCD enrolled head-count students are at the graduate level, greater than any other institution in Colorado and one of the highest in the United States.4 Metropolitan State College MSC moved to the Auraria Campus in December 1976 and January 1977. Growth continued in all phases of operation. In general, its role as a primarily liberal 4 "Role and Mission Statement, University of Colorado at Denver," Colorado Statewide Master Plan for Postsecondary Education 1983-84 through 1986-87, Colorado Commission on Higher Education, 1983, V16.

PAGE 34

26 arts and sciences college was expanded to include urban-and career-oriented programs plus technical programs leading to BA or BS degrees. In 1973 the trustees of the Consortium of state Colleges of Colorado voiced their commitment to work with UCD and CCD and "that the trustees are committed to the concept that the Auraria institutions together provide a comprehensive educational opportunity. ,,5 In the 25 years of its existence, MSC has served approximately 130,000 students as a four-year undergraduate institution consisting of schools of letters, business, arts and sciences and professional studies. Metropolitan state College has filled a need in education in the four-county area of Denver and beyond. From an enrollment of approximately 318 students at its opening in 1964-65, it has grown to 15,638 in the fall of 1988. There have been fluctuations over the period with a drop from 1983 to 1984 due to funding differences and a cap on enrollment. MSC has a broad student population (as do UCD and CCD). The composition of the student body in 5 "Commitment of Trustees of state Colleges in Colorado to the Auraria High Education Center," March 26, 1973, 1.

PAGE 35

27 1987 is typical of an given year for the school (see Table 1 ) TABLE 1 1987 Enrollment Statistics by Race -Metropolitan State College Asian and Pacific Islanders Black Hispanic Foreign Native American Caucasian Total 432 654 1194 83 74 12663 15150 Source: Auraria Higher Education Center, Spring Semester 1987 A drop in black students has been experienced since 1980, along with an increase in Hispanics. Neither of these enrollment percentages is adequate when related to the percentage of these groups in Denver's population (19 percent Chicano; 13 percent black) and in the area from which MSC draws its students. In developing this urban campus, planners hoped that the minority population of the Denver area would use this opportunity for increasing their education beyond high school. Enrollment of minority students has not kept pace with enrollment of majority students. MSC continues to work toward improving the situation.

PAGE 36

28 Community College of Denver (CCD) In the spring of 1967, the legislature passed HB1449 creating the Community College of Denver with three campuses to be operative by 1970. The Auraria portion opened in rented quarters at 1201 Acoma street. (The North Campus, now known as Front Range Community College opened in September 1968; the west Campus now known as Red Rocks Community College opened September 1969.) In 1983, the legislature authorized an east campus (which was not part of the original plan), the Community College of Aurora. In the five-year period from 1968 to 1973, enrollment in the original three institutions grew from 1,861 students to 9,662, indicating a drastic unfilled need for a broader approach to higher education in the Denver Metro Area. The first president of the Centralized Community College system, Dr. Leland Luchsinger (1967-1973), and his staff operated from headquarters at 1109 Grant Street, Denver. He made the following statement in 1973: The Community College system offers comprehensive occupational programs, diversified courses in general subjects and provides a growing list of community services. We have an open door policy and are a student-centered organization. Our staff is more interested in what the student is ready to do than what they have done in

PAGE 37

29 the past.6 CCD assumed the vocational and technical training and education formerly assigned to MSC when the latter was originally organized as a two-year vocational/technical institution. CCD admitted its first students in 1970, and, with growth in student population, expanded into additional rented quarters. Due to lease expiration, one CCD building (the South Classroom) was completed first by the AHEC Board so that occupancy took place in the partially completed structure in 1976. The Community College of Denver had, in 1970, the following student mix: one in four was minority, the average age was 27 years old, three of four students had jobs, one in four was a veteran, the majority lived in the Denver metropolitan area and needed the opportunities for education through the open-door policy which provided a much needed haven for those previously unable to attend an institute of higher education. 7 In July 1980, the State Board of Community Colleges disbanded the system of central administration; each campus became autonomous. Community College of Denver retained its original functions but added responsibility for a Technical Education Center (TEC) located in Adams County, six miles north of Auraria, serving both Denver 6 Leland Luchsinger, "A Philosophy of Commitment," 1973, 2. 7 Luchsinger, "A Philosophy of Commitment," 1973, 2.

PAGE 38

and Adams County. "CCD provides extensive programs through specialized refugee and international student advisors, the Center for the Physically Disadvantaged, a Special Learning Support Program (for adults with learning disabilities), Computer Programs for the Handicapped, a Women's Center at Warren village (a housing facility for singleparent families), a special Word Processing Program for Female Single Heads of Households, a College for Living (for developmentally diSabled) and Off-Campus GED/ESL Programs at housing projects community center and Community schools."B 30 CCD has entered the ethnic community to a greater extent than the other two AHEC institutions as shown by Table 2. "Clearly CCD can be a major feeder institution for Metropolitan State and the University of Colorado. Additionally, CCD must expand its outreach efforts, particularly to the Hispanic and Black Communities" 9 TABLE 2 Comparison of Minorities in Student Bodies of the Three AHEC Institutions: 1987 CCD MSC UCD CITY POPULATION Hispanic 13% 7% 4% 19% Black 12% 4% 3% 13% Asian 11% 1% 5% 11% Source: Community College of Denver "Priority for Progress" 1987. B Byron McClenny, "History of Community College of Denver," 1987, 3. 9 Byron McClenny, "Priorities of Progress, 1987", 28.

PAGE 39

31 Providing access to educational opportunity is consistent with community priorities for economic development and entrepreneurial growth and development. Full attainment of these goals will be illusive without significant progress in the minority communities. A vital link will be with the Denver Public Schools which has ten high schools, potentially a prime feeder for CCD. In addition, articulation with Emily Griffith Opportunity School, already a reality must be enhanced. 10 Table 3 shows a compilation of enrollment for spring semester from 1977 to 1989. The enrollment figures emphasize further the space shortage which has existed since the campus opened. The 13,000 FTE figure was irrational as an initial planning tool, but it was never revised. Using a subjective figure that FTE is approximately 70 percent of headcount, this would assume a headcount of less than 19,000 when in actuality the enrollment was 25,269. The Colorado Commission on Higher Education has not yet admitted that their basic error created one of the major dissatisfactions with the campus--lack of space. 1 0 Ibid., 28.

PAGE 40

32 TABLE 3 Enrollments for Fall Semesters for Three AHEC Institutions: 1977 to 1989 Year UCD MSC CCD TOTAL (AUraria Only) 1977 8832 13637 2800 25269 1978 8516 13671 2875 25082 1979 8744 13351 2920 25015 1980 9101 15324 3000 27425 1981 9809 15914 3005 28728 1982 10720 17384 3020 31124 1983 11364 17303 3100* 31767 1984 10794 14423** 2968 28180 1985 10591 14238*** 3080 27909 1986 10617 14557 3047 28220 1987 10455 15526 3667 29628 1988 10096 15638 3333 27087 1989 10470 16827 4166 31463 In FY 83-84 the Auraria Campus Aurora Center became the Community College of Aurora. Figure shown is the new Auraria enrollment. ** Until summer 1984, MSC included interinstitutional enrollments in their official headcount reports. They stopped this practice effective summer 1984. *** Starting with summer 1985, MSC ceased reporting Extended Campus head count enrollments only in their official enrollment reports. Source: The Auraria Higher Education Center

PAGE 41

CHAPTER IV AURARIA REALIZED Composition and Management Systems of the AHEC Board The Auraria Higher Education Center (AHEC) was created by Executive Order in 1971, and an official board of directors was established in 1974 through HBl163. The seven-member board was composed of one person each from the governing boards of the three institutions, and four from the metropolitan community appointed by the governor. Since that time, two non-voting members have been added, one representing the faculty of the three institutions, the other representing students. The legislative action gave AHEC the authority to manage all facilities and grounds and to operate the many centralized student and administrative functions. AHEC was charged with developing a cooperative mechanism between institutions, their boards and itself. The unpaid board met regularly, particularly during construction of the campus. It has acquired a staff to deliver services to the institutions. The staff relieves the institutions from maintaining structures; clearing the streets and sidewalks of snow or debris; maintaining lawns, shrubs, and trees; and performing repairs. 33

PAGE 42

34 The AHEC Board is specifically authorized to perform all duties as noted above--it is not under the authority of the Colorado Commission on Higher Education, although CCHE may recommend approval or disapproval of AHEC's actions to the legislature. The Auraria Board is, therefore, autonomous. The campus opened officially in the spring semester of 1977 with 25,269 students. Not all of the buildings were complete: some interior work was yet to be finished; some sidewalks were non-existent; and landscaping was incomplete. The educational process went forward as planned, however. In September 1978, after little more than a year and part of a semester in operation, the Auraria Board responded to a CCHE request to answer this question: "What changes, if any, should be made in the administrative structure of the Auraria Higher Education Center?" The AHEC board recommended, as part of its report: In light of acknowledged differences, it is recommended that the Auraria Board of Directors and the institutions thoroughly examine, during the next year, all areas of centralized management to evaluate where further decentralization to the institutions would be desirable. Additionally, it is recommended that the Auraria Board and the institutions review such management areas

PAGE 43

35 desirable. 1 A further recommendation suggested that since this was the first year of operation CCHE should not propose any changes in the statutory framework of Auraria. The AHEC report went on to evaluate the operations of physical plant, public safety and parking, student auxiliary services, and business services. The report found that the performance of regular building maintenance "is very inadequate" due to lack of funding to hire additional workers. Other operational areas also had problems, mainly due to new relationships with the three institutions which had furnished their own services prior to coming to Auraria. The result of the "Report on Organizational Relationships" was that nothing changed the governance of the campus. After such a comparatively short period of operation, it was too early to evaluate the management of the campus. Facilities/Space 1. Imperatives Originally AHEC was responsible for scheduling all facilities and establishing student services such as Board of Directors, Auraria Higher Education Center, "Report on Organizational Relationships," 1978, A-2

PAGE 44

36 health services and food services. In 1988, HB1226 added the authority of the Auraria board to buy, sell, and lease appropriate buildings and land, including off-campus requirements. Since space has been a continuing problem, HB1226 allows AHEC authority to allocate present space according to need and to attempt to increase availability of additional space, both on and off campus. AHEC has statutory authority "To allocate among and assign to the constituent institutions in accordance with needs, suitable space within the center for the use of such institutions or for such joint or cooperative educational, vocational or other activities and programs as may be provided by the constituent institutions."2 The staff allocates classrooms, faculty and administrative offices, laboratories and other space to the institutions. It also conducts facilities utilization studies and facilities inventory reports. The long-range planning function includes establishment of future building locations, and coordination with the institutions of long-range enrollment statistics as part of a facilities master plan. The latter is now in process. It is planned for completion by November 1990. 2 Colorado Legislature, 1988.

PAGE 45

37 2. Acquisition The requirement that the new Auraria campus be available for classes by spring 1977 complicated the space acquisition plans. In order to meet the deadlines, the AHEC Board brought onto the staff a campus planner/architect and developed a construction management team consisting of three builders. A large floor plan model of the proposed buildings was created, and certain uniform standards for buildings were determined. Finally, it was decided that a separate architectural firm would be chosen for each new building in order to facilitate design and construction. By the time the land was available, plans for the buildings were completed and approved. All of the land was cleared by 1974 and available for construction, which began immediately. Construction bids were let. Fortunately, the process worked and the campus opened on schedule. The first building fully completed was the library which became a focal point of the campus. Its white exterior sets it apart from other campus building, which are of brick and of generally standard design. Academic sharing began here. In 1976, the three small libraries of CCD, MSC AND UCD were merged under the management and administration of UCD.

PAGE 46

38 As a new operation, the library had, and continues to have, areas of weakness, some of which are being corrected. The basic problem is that the library building is not large enough. The primary objective of the library is to support the educational requirements of each institution as well as support the faculty in their need for up-to-date reference materials for both teaching and research. Library support for a two-year open enrollment institution through master's and doctoral programs requires that new books meet a very broad requirement. Support for faculty needs is a high, but second, priority. A UCD program review of the library which took place 1983-1985 yielded the following statistics: The Auraria Library's collection totaled 595,709 volumes at the close of fiscal year 1984-85, including books, bound periodicals, microfilms, and non-print materials. In addition, the library maintained 3,309 current periodicals and serial subscriptions. The number of volumes added per FTE dropped from 2.42 in 1978-79 to 1.41 in 1984-85. This situation is expected to become more critical in coming years as UCD aggressively explores new outreach activities. At the same time, increasing use of the

PAGE 47

39 library is being made by the downtown business community and the other educational institutions on campus. Given the above, and in keeping with the basic tenets of the Colorado Academic Library Master plan, the Auraria Library identified the following objectives for the coming five years: Access Collection Development Library Services Administrations' The present library inventory is outlined in Table 4. Library goals are affected by the changing needs of MSC and CCD whose students have equal access to the Auraria Library as UCD students. Present AHEC plans call for an expansion of the library dependent upon availability of funds. Two other acquisition-related actions began in 1974 and were completed in 1976. The first was an agreement between DURA and the AHEC Board that the then-derelict houses on 9th Street be saved. With that agreement, Historic Denver, Inc. (HDI), a private nonprofit organization involved in saving important historical structures, agreed to raise the funds necessary to restore 3 Interview with Alfreda Redd, Manager, Department of Internal Statistics.

PAGE 48

TABLE 4 Inventory of Items in the Auraria Library, March 1989 Item Books Periodicals Audiovisual Materials* Microforms** Maps Archives Total Titles 363,012 4,269 12,193 11,478 2,486 1,564 395,001 Volumes 460,701 38,754 38,682 89,146 7,884 2,163 637,330 40 *Includes slides, videos, films, audio tapes, phono discs, PC software and other material. **Includes microfilms, microfiche and ultrafiche. Note: The library also has acquired federal and state government documents which are measured by linear feet rather than volumes. Source: Alfreda Redd the houses while maintaining the historical character of the exteriors. HDI raised $900,000 from various sources and each house was restored as closely as possible to its original design. On July 4, 1976, the houses were officially turned over to the AHEC Board in an unusual gesture of great pride on the part of both groups. The board accepted the houses and immediately began planning for their use as faculty and executive offices. The Denver Landmark Preservation Commission

PAGE 49

41 declared the houses and the area a Landmark District. The Colorado state Historic Preservation Office added designation as part of the National Trust for Historic Preservation so that the 9th street Historic Park has gained national recognition. A related activity was the development of a landscape plan for Ninth street funded by a $50,000 grant from the National Trust for Historic Preservation which added beauty and dignity to this unique campus area. The ambience of the campus is further enhanced by several other Landmark structures: st. Cajetan's Church -now remodeled into a meeting area with 300 seats. Emmanuel Chapel -now Emmanuel Art Gallery for campus and off-campus exhibits. st. Elizabeth's Church -an active Catholic Church. st. Francis Chapel -a meeting room for general use and offices for chaplains of varying faiths. The Tivoli -a former operating brewery put out of

PAGE 50

business in 1965 by the 100-year Platte River flood. The Tivoli belongs to the state of Colorado, as do the other properties. They are operated and managed by the AHEC Board. A private developer, chosen by the Board, revitalized the property into retail shops, theatres, restaurants and public spaces under the Board's supervision. The developer has a 60-year lease. 42 The physical education facility was constructed in 1977. It is operated under the jurisdiction of the Auraria Board, as are other campus facilities except the Library, which is still operated by UCD. The Auraria Board has charged the executive director of the physical education building to program this facility for use by all students as their needs require. The structure has excellent facilities which include an Olympic-sized swimming pool, athletic areas for basketball, dance, volleyball, etc., plus courts for handball, racquetball, and squash. The director of the physical education facility, Dick Feurborn, notes that with UCD students now on the campus, activity at the facility has increased. MSC has also inaugurated intercollegiate sports which adds to the usage of the facility. Plans have been made to expand the PE Building by 1991. The obvious question arises: Why wasn't the campus

PAGE 51

43 planned for future growth? The answer is a simple one. The allotment of $40,900,000 dollars included everything from land purchase to completion of the buildings, landscaping, sidewalks, curbs, and gutters. The period of construction was also one of high local and national inflation. The 1974 board asked the legislature for an additional $9,000,000 to complete the plan adequately. Some $3,000,000 was received with the advice "don't come back for more."5 The buildings were finished and the campus opened as ordered, but space was at a premium in 1977 for the 13,000 day FTE and 3,000 night FTE (18,000 headcount) and continues to be a greater problem with 31,463 headcount. Space constructed totaled 1,379,819 gross square feet of which 139,192 was student funded for the student union, leaving 1,240,627 gross square feet. This included the remodeled houses on Ninth Street and the Emmanuel Art Center. It did not include st. Cajetan's church, which was remodeled in 1978. All the space authorized by total funding was built. Some of the walls were of temporary material (until the next budget period), landscaping was reduced and some parking areas were usable but did not have a hard surface. 5. Joseph Shoemaker, chairman, Joint Budget Committee, Colorado Legislature, 1975 session.

PAGE 52

44 The assigned square footage (that space which is available for academic use after deducting all non-academic space) with the North Classroom Building added is 948,400 as of July 8, 1988. From this figure, it is necessary to deduct space used by the Auraria Higher Education Center for offices, physical plant, transportation, security, parking and open storage space. This includes 53,476 assigned square feet for office service buildings, 91,214 for student areas, and 95,204 for parking and other open space. 6 When the campus opened, 74 percent of the buildings were new; seven percent were historical buildings which had been remodeled; 18 percent were already in existence (the 1100 14th street building occupied by UCD). These percentages changed when the North Classroom Building waS constructed. It opened in the middle of the 1987-1988 academic year. This changed the percentages to 87 percent new, seven percent historical, and five to six percent existing. 3. Allocation A shortage of space continues to exist because initial planning for space on the campus was based on MSC 6 Report by Warren Taylor, director of facilities management to James Schoemer, vice president of administration for AHEC, September 12, 1988.

PAGE 53

45 and CCD institutional figures which were much too low. This is not to say more space could have been built with the funds allocated, but the actual enrollment and anticipated enrollment by CCHE did not match and do not come close to matching today. The 9th street houses have reduced only slightly the "tight" space needs for offices. Space has also been at a premium because the campus was convenient to students from almost every part of metro Denver; transportation was effective; at the beginning, adequate parking was available at low rates; the buildings were new; and jobs were close by. It was inevitable that growth would occur, and growth caused problems. At the opening of the campus in 1977, space was assigned without an agreed-upon system; each institution retained unused space in square feet and traded space between them. 7 Less faculty office space was appropriated than on other Colorado campuses when the legislature reduced the average office size from 120 square feet to 80 square feet. It made no provision for the night instructional program, which is close to one-third of the total full-time equivalent generated in Auraria. This Warren Taylor, director, Facilities Management, interview by author, Denver, Colorado, August, 1988.

PAGE 54

46 translated to a shortage of 181 offices, and planners and administrators had to turn to multiple occupancy of small offices in order to make sufficient desk space available for faculty needing offices. Most part-time faculty do not yet have any office space available to them. Each institution was given total control, on an annual basis, of all its allocated space and, at the request of MSC and UCD, permanent control of 85 percent of classroom allocations. Since then, laboratory allocations as well as allocations of administrative office space have not been reviewed on a yearly basis. AHEC continued to believe that in the long term, space allocation, scheduling, and assignment function should be returned to a centralized system. MSC and UCD argued that classroom and faculty office space should be allocated to them permanently. They had not, however, agreed about how much space each should receive and, therefore, it has not been possible to reach agreement On a base for a permanent allocation. In September 1980, a memo from the AHEC assistant executive director advised the Board that the Auraria Executive Committee (AEC) had created a Space Allocation Committee whose major thrust would be to recommend annually reallocation of space plus help institutions to support their recommendations.

PAGE 55

47 Because of continuing differences between MSC and UCD, the reallocation recommendations became ineffective. On May 13, 1981, the Auraria Executive Committee published a memorandum entitled: "Responsibilities and Procedures for Allocation of Space at the Auraria Higher Education Center." It said, in part, ... pressure for additional space mandated a new procedure for allocation which would ensure that all types of space at the Auraria Higher Education Center were being utilized as efficiently as possible."e The procedure involved centralizing all space under AHEC as "pooled space." AHEC, then, had to be certain all requests were met. Offices were also considered centralized. The thrust of this document, if continued by the institutions, would have solved many problems, but changes were made by new executives of the institutions. Further decentralization did not seem desirable to AHEC and centralization of the process was recommended again in 1983. This condition continued in a more or less unstable manner until the Auraria Board authorized Project Associates to report on space allocation at AHEC.9 This e Auraria Executive Committee, "Responsibilities and Procedures for Allocation of Space at the Auraria Higher Education Center," May 13, 1981, 2. 9 Jack R. Herbertson, "The History of Space Allocation at the Auraria Higher Education Center," December 1984.

PAGE 56

report confirmed that classroom space was being used efficiently, but a shortage of space existed for classroom, faculty office, library, and physical plant. 48 In the previous three years, 10,627 square feet of additional assignable classroom space had been created by the conversion of lobbies and hallways in various buildings. The state Auditors Report of 1983, however, found 32,000 assignable square feet in the Technology Building which was under-utilized. They also found an excess of 7,000 square feet of administrative space which exceeded Joint Budget Committee assumptions but only exceeded CCHE guidelines by 325 assignable square feet. The report further stated that the Auraria Board had a statutory duty to look for alternative space throughout downtown Denver and other areas adjacent to the campus, as well as excess public school facilities. No funds were made available to meet this suggestion. The Auditors Report confirmed the need for more space regardless of whether the 32,000 square feet was allocated to classes. The report found that the institutions had provided students with a diversity of educational opportunities, and that the board and staff had done a "good job" in funding non-'academic services primarily because of dedicated people and not the governing structure. Because the legislature, had to resolve academic differences by

PAGE 57

49 funding certain activities through special appropriation, the report suggested that the legislature should consider changing the existing governing structure and try other alternatives which would provide diverse educational values and "minimize existing inefficiencies. ,,1 0 Recommendations from this report were: 1. By use of the Long Bill (legislative appropriation from previous years), prorate the number of teaching stations based on the appropriate FTE. 2. Pool day FTE and night FTE so that the proportion of the day and night locations are available for each institution. This relates to both class and laboratory space. Herbertson summarized his recommendations by suggesting an allocation system based on the then and future on-campus FTE, considering day/night FTE, and lab FTE. 1 1 The UCD building at 1100 14th street, along with the adjacent Bromley Building, was becoming more and more uneconomical to operate. Both were ineffective for a growing student body and increasing class options. In 1985, the state legislature funded a replacement building on campus, the North Classroom Building. This 250,000-10 "Report of the state Auditor," 1983, 19. 11 Herbertson, "The History of Space Allocation at the Auraria Higher Education Center," 18.

PAGE 58

50 square-foot structure was put in service in the Fall of 1987. It provides office space for UCD and some MSC faculty and administrative service plus cross-use of classroom and office by UCD, MSC and CCD for day and night use. For the first time since the AHEC center was developed, the majority of students are on the Auraria campus, except for those in off-campus facilities in the Dravo Building at 1250 14th street leased by UCD. All use available student services and office spaces. This crossuse structure provides classroom space for CCD and MSC day students and UCD day and night students. There are the same number of classrooms in the North Classroom Building as were in 1100 14th street, but laboratories are larger and better equipped and space for some larger classes is now available. The structure has not added to the total space on campus; it has merely replaced 1100 14th street but with better design and more usable areas. Table 5 shows space allocations for the North C lassroom Building. They were taken from the Final Design Report (December 6, 1985) and are reported in net square footage.

PAGE 59

51 TABLE 5 Space Allocation in the North Classroom Building ucn MSC ccn MISC. TOTAL Laboratories 64,417* 2,040 66,457 Office Space 62,957 4,347 67,304 Storage, Etc 9,761 9,761 Auxiliary 4,314 4,314 TOTAL 127,374 6,387 4,314 9,761 147,836 *All figures are in net square footage. Source: AHEC, Final Design Report, North Classroom The North Classroom Building contains 34 classrooms with a total net square footage of 32,762. Table 6 notes how the spring semester 1988 classroom space was allocated. A Space Audit Committee reported in September 1987 an established methodology for equitably allocating space. CCD and MSC agreed to the methodology; UCD did not suppdrt it. Dr. Warren Taylor and his committee concluded that until 1988, no consensus had been reached regarding allocating space on the Auraria Campus.

PAGE 60

TABLE 6 Allocation of Classroom Space in the North Classroom Building for Spring Semester 1988 DAY EVENING CCD 9% 0% MSC 60% 32% UCD 31% 68% Source: Division Facilities Management, AHEC, 1988 At the time the North Classroom was opened, the Auraria Board commissioned a second study: "Update to a 52 Report on the History of Space Allocation at the Auraria Higher Education Center," March 1988. This report reviews actions of the Auraria Executive Committee (AEC) and the Auraria Board in conformance with the 1988 Auraria Higher Education Center Audit Report, Office of State Auditor, through the years 1985-1988. As a consequence of the latter report, which included an "Interim Report on Current Space Use at AHEC," the Auraria Board reprogrammed the Technology Building by re-using 32,000 square feet of space used as technical laboratories and classes. The Auraria Executive Committee (AEC) approved a program for centralization of scheduling of classrooms. A "Time-Block" Scheduling System was approved by AEC to standardize class periods and provide

PAGE 61

53 better utilization of classrooms. In 1986 the executive director of AHEC asked the Auraria Executive Committee for recommendations on methods of allocating campus space. In December of that year, the AEC established a Space Audit Committee made up of representatives from AHEC, UCD, MSC and CCD in an effort to forge a cohesive space allocation policy. From the committee's 1987 report, the work of the Space Audit Committee was to serve two purposes: 1. To provide the basis for determining if there is an equitable distribution of current noninstructional space. It is an AHEC responsibility to distribute space fairly; however, the Space Audit Committee was created to make recommendations related to the distribution of space; and 2. To establish institutional needs to support additional space.12 The space audit committee felt that institutional needs assessment should follow the analysis of equitable distribution of current space. The most effective needs assessment would be provided through a campus Facilities Master Plan. Funding was requested for development of such a plan. A Facilities Master plan is presently being developed based on institutional Academic Master Plans (1988-1989). The committee approached equitable distribution of non-instructional space as the most 12 Warren Taylor, "Report of the Space Audit Committee, Auraria Higher Education Center," 1988.

PAGE 62

54 pressing problem to be addressed and resolved prior to the move into the replacement facility. The committee focused its energies on this issue but reached no long-range conclusion. Laboratory spaces were designed for specific academic functions, which continue to be the highest priority for laboratory space use. There has, however, been an on-going practice by the institutions of assigning laboratory space for non-laboratory related classes on an overload basis. Based on an April 11, 1988, Auraria Board action, effective the first day of classes in the Fall of 1988, AHEC's Office of Facilities Use had access to laboratories (as well as classrooms). At that time AHEC scheduled classes in laboratories on an overload basis only. AHEC will notify the departments responsible for the laboratory space prior to assigning the space. For purposes of assigning classes to laboratories, all laboratories have been assigned a code designating the degree of access: A multipurpose B restricted/multipurpose C restricted/special purpose These codes were developed in July of 1986 and were

PAGE 63

55 reviewed by the institutions after that time. Based on input received from the institutions, some individual codes were changed and the original four-tiered classification scheme was modified to a three-tiered system. Multipurpose laboratories are the first ones used for overload class scheduling (if necessary). Restricted/multipurpose laboratory space may be assigneq to classes in which students have had previous course work related to the operation of that lab space. Restricted/special purpose laboratory space will not be used for overload class scheduling. The addition of laboratory space to the pool of classroom space available to AHEC provides increased flexibility in the assignment of classes. It should be stressed, however, that it remains a stated goal of the Classroom Assignment System (CAS) to reduce the pressure of laboratory space use by non-laboratory classes. In summary, there are two problems with space allocation: 1. A shortage of space has existed since the campus was built because enrollments increased beyond plans and square footage of the buildings. The new North Classroom has added no additional classroom space but had

PAGE 64

56 reduced office crowding. 2. Institutions cannot agree on an appropriate division of available space. Institutional budgets are affected by the number of students registered, and space is assigned accordingly. AHEC, as of this time, allocates space to meet programmatic needs. Even though the space is being used more efficiently, this method is not fully accepted. IS AHEC considered it necessary--for efficient space use--that there be one office which made space assignments. It is under jurisdiction of the Auraria Board in order to eliminate duplication and conflicts and at the same time use classroom areas to maximum efficiency. This continues to cause institutional concerns and disagreements as to whether one is being treated unfairly in relation to another. AHEC and the institutions agree that there is not adequate instructional space on the campus. Facilities inventory data show that the average square footage per FTE student on the Auraria campus is 55 assignable square feet. This compares to a national norm of 100 assignable 13 Warren Taylor, interview with author, Denver, Colorado, August 15, 1988.

PAGE 65

57 square feet and is one-third less than any other Colorado institution. Classes are now being held from 7:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. with the major impact on space beginning at 4 p.m. and increasing from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. The Patterson report discussed in Chapter VI suggested more Saturday and Sunday usage as is scheduled by the California state system. This could create a conflict, however, for many students who work weekends and nights in order to attend classes, although weekend classes are already scheduled for those who are available at that time. 1 4 Service Delivery 1. Imperatives In addition to furnishing centralized services to the three institutions, a community college (CCD), a four-year state college (MSC), a four-year plus graduate school university (UCD), AHEC provides non-state supported activities including parking, a bookstore, student union, and a child-care center. Early 1980 legislation added AHEC responsibility for student services and for administration. AHEC's long-range planning function includes expansion of parking in order to compensate for recent losses due to campus expansion, development of 14 Franklin Patterson Associates, "A Study of the Management of the Auraria Higher Education Center," August 1988.

PAGE 66

58 improved transportation access, and elimination of campus traffic as well as long-range facilities planning. 2. Operations The physical plant is the heart of the campus operation since, with the security department and parking management, physical plant management touches in some way, personally or impersonally, every member of the campus: student, faculty and staff. The present director of physical plant in the three years of his tenure feels that he has developed a competent staff which can provide prompt service, particularly in emergencies. In a review of records by the author, it was found that emergencies are cleared immediately, while routine requests are taken care of in sequence or priority. Complaints have been logged from the leadership and faculty of the institutions (records list three to four complaints per week); there is little delay in clearing them. The operations department has 132 employees with 64 custodians, 10 groundskeepers, 9 supervisors, 7 office support, 4 architects, and 38 utility workers of all categories. The custodial group works three shifts, Monday through Friday nights, with a small clean-up crew to service after-Saturday classes.

PAGE 67

59 An organization is an arrangement of interdependent parts, each having a special function with respect to the whole.15 An organization chart of the Auraria Physical plant illustrates this point effectively. (See Appendix I) The grounds department performs a myriad of services and it is difficult to itemize its functions. It has developed an updated landscape plan which denotes the kinds of trees, shrubs and flowers that thrive on campus and require the least amount of maintenance. In process is a plan for bicycle movement based on completion of the Auraria Parkway and 7th Street. The department is also responsible for maintenance of the heavily used playing fields. The grounds crew is supplemented by eight people who have learning disabilities. They are furnished by and paid through the Jefferson County Developmental Group for the Retarded. They work only four hours per day, but they keep the walkways and building entrances clean. Additional physical plant activities include constant checking of the efficiency of utilities such as water, heat, light and sewers. The annual cost of utilities is close to one million dollars per year. In addition, there is in operation a storage facility for needed major items and parts. 15 James G. March, Handbook of Organizations, (New York City: Garlen Publishing) 1987, 1.

PAGE 68

60 The custodial service has received the majority of complaints from the faculties and institutional officers. Some changes in supervising personnel, in addition to yearly purchase of more and better equipment (scrubbers; vacuums, etc.) which do a faster and better job, have resulted in 20 percent fewer complaints. The director, Dean wolf, has recommendations which he feels will improve housekeeping services. "This year the budget was cut so that housekeeping service is reduced. This is a short sighted policy. All buildings except the North Classroom are now over ten years old and have had constant heavy use. More maintenance both long term and daily is needed --not less. Late afternoon service is necessary for many areas but cannot be provided now."16 The director also pointed out the importance of faculty cooperation with security. PhYSical plant people are in the buildings when no one else is available. Some complaints concern losses during this time. The security department requests that desks be locked and nothing of value be outside of the locked desks, but this is not always done. When Auraria officially opened in the spring of 1977, there was excellent Regional Transportation District 16 Dean Wolf, director of physical plant operations, interview by author, Denver, Colorado, September, 1988.

PAGE 69

61 (RTD) bus service available to the campus along with 5,500 parking spaces at very low rates. This was an important amenity, since at that time over 75 percent of the students had part-or full-time jobs which required that little time be lost between class and work. The original concept of providing 5,500 spaces of close-in parking within walking distance of any part of the campus was one which could be managed during the early years of operation. As the student body grew, demands on parking grew proportionately. During the first years, the 5,500 spaces were turning over 15,000 to 20,000 cars daily. There were delays in the early-morning hours which, with the help of Denver traffic engineers, were reduced by improved entrances and other engineering improvements. Also, UCD students at the 1100 14th street Building parked on the street and in an adjacent city garage, where special permits and lower rates were available to students and faculty. All the present lots on the west side of the campus were replanned for more efficient design of spaces so that for spring semester 1989, 3,488 spaces were available on campus (see Table 7). Students who have been unable to park on campus have solved the problem (and created problems for AHEC parking management) by using spaces to

PAGE 70

the north of the campus designed for customers of businesses on Wazee street. Many students and faculty have found free space elsewhere, comparatively close to the campus. Parking in the west Side Community to the south of campus also continues but on a reduced scale. TABLE 7 62 Summary of Available Parking Spaces on the Auraria Campus. Original Parking Places Lost to Construction: Tivoli North Classroom Bldg. Auraria Viaducts and Parkway Golda Meir House Speer Blvd. Interchange 7th Street Relocation Total Original places remaining Added by replanning Total places now available 696 733 645 6 25 93 2198 5500 3302 186 3488 Source: AHEC parking and Transportation Division, 1988 The AHEC Board engaged consultant BRW to do a needs assessment study. Completed in January 1988, the study identified a need for 2,800 new parking spaces.17 It also reviewed alternatives for meeting parking needs over the next 10 to 15 years. The report offers a combination of strategies, including acquisition of additional land for 1 7 BRW, Inc., "parking Needs Assessment", 22.

PAGE 71

63 surface parking and construction of multi-level parking. In conformance with this report, the parking staff and the Auxiliary Services Committee proposed a parking plan which the AHEC Board has approved. The plan calls for construction of a multi-level parking structure (1,480 net new spaces) on Lot F. On January 26, 1989, the Auraria Board approved the report of the campus Planning and Design Committee to hire an architect to design a four-level structure on the lots between 7th and 8th streets, Walnut to Lawrence Streets. It is to be completed by January 1991. The structure will contain 1,480 spaces and a new office for the parking and transportation department on the south side of floors one and two. All entrances and exits will be on the 8th Street side with a major interior ramp for circulation. Stairs will be buil t for student access with elevators at each end for handicapped and services uses. The exterior design will conform to the standard set in 1974 in order to retain compatibility throughout the campus. The location serves the campus educational core

PAGE 72

64 without impinging on the views to the west, which provide an unobstructed view of the mountains. The present parking administrator has developed, with the parking staff, a procedure to speed up the sale of "decals" for cars and a system of operation of the remaining lots which have, generally, eliminated delays. parking management has developed a series of maps showing location of lots as they become available through reconstruction and a series of signs at major entrances to the campus indicating which lots are full and which are available. All of this has eased the burden on the user. Access and Transportation When the campus was planned in 1974, a roadway 80feet wide on the north end of the campus was left for a future route around the campus. It was hoped that traffic could eventually be taken out of the student areas and transferred to the periphery. This occurred when the Auraria parkway which opened December 12, 1988. Landscaping (trees and fences) and lighting are scheduled for 1989 and 1990. The two viaducts which created traffic on Larimer and Lawrence have been removed because of age and safety reasons. Two new viaducts have been constructed by the Colorado Department of Highways

PAGE 73

65 and the Federal Urban Highways Administration. These, known as the Walnut Viaducts, connect to the west Colfax Viaduct and Interstate 25 for access to the campus and downtown Denver by way of the Auraria parkway. The viaducts come to ground level between 6th and 7th streets at walnut where they connect to two three-lane extensions along the north end of the campus. These were paid for by the city of Denver ($2,570,000), AHEC ($2,500,000 in state funds), and the Colorado Department of Highways ($1,435,000). The parkway is the property of the city of Denver. In exchange for the land Auraria had contributed, the majority of the present street system through campus is in the process of being vacated and transferred by city ordinance to Auraria. Seventh Street has been completed from west Colfax to the Auraria parkway and has replaced the 8th Street route, which will revert to Auraria as parking and open space. Plans have been approved by AHEC, the city of Denver, and RTD for a Larimer Transitway using small shuttle buses or large buses, on a route from the RTD Market Street Station to the 16th Street Mall to Larimer, on Larimer to a loth Street cul-de-sac and return. Regular routes 0 and 15 will use Larimer Street in order to serve the needs of the students, staff and faculty until small shuttle vehicles can be supported.

PAGE 74

construction is proposed to begin in March 1990 with a 90-day completion schedule. 66 Lawrence street between 1-25 and Speer Boulevard has been closed to traffic due to safety deficiencies in the Lawrence Street viaduct. The street has been converted to a pedestrian mall from 9th Street to Speer Boulevard. New sidewalks, places to congregate, trees, grassed areas, benches, and infrastructure helped to create the mall which was completed in late fall 1989. Until then, the campus has lacked this amenity, a green oasis i n the midst of the city. Instruction and Faculty Space Official discussions regarding space at Auraria began early in the life of the campus. The student body was to consist of 15,000 FTE in 1977, but this was reduced by CCRE to 13,000 FTE. FTE was approximately 70 percent of head count. CCRE anticipated that there would be fewer than 19,000 students enrolled. Table 8 shows actual enrollment by institution.

PAGE 75

CCD MSC UCD TABLE 8 Comparison of Enrollment for Three Institutions 1977, 1987, 1989, 1990 1987 3115 15150 10215 1989 3655 15638 9885 1990 3814 15361 10069 Source: Enrollment Statistics, Department of Facilities Management, AHEC In an April 15, 1981 meeting of the Auraria Executive Committee, members determined "that pressure for additional space mandated a new procedure for allocation which would insure that all types of space at the Auraria Higher Education Center were being utilized as efficiently as possible."18 Space policies were summarized at this meeting. "In summary, AHEC has reaffirmed its commitment to meet all campus needs, and to provide as little disruption to the current operations as possible. In this context, common sense will prevail in the assignment of space and it is believed that the overall space pressure on the campus will be significantly relieved through centralized scheduling. At the same time, the Auraria Executive Committee is well aware of the fact that the Auraria institution continues to utilize space at a rate that is twice as efficient as the next best utilized campus in Colorado. Renewed efforts will be made to obtain funds for new construction that will relieve some of the current space 67 18 "Responsibilities and Procedures for Allocation of Space at the Auraria Higher Education Center, May 13, 1981," Appendix IV.

PAGE 76

pressures.,,19 The Auraria Executive Committee once again discussed Centralized scheduling on November 28, 1984. "As a follow up to his 11-21-84 memo to wartgow, ... Gene Nordby [chancellor of the University of Colorado at Denver at the time] asked about the class scheduling system project. Dr. Nordby said first that he remains very supportive of the centralized scheduling system .... Schoemer said that there is extensive involvement of institutional personnel in the development of the system and process. He said warious approaches are being explored and e aluated and said it would be premature at this point to say what the ultimate scheduling process will be. The AEC agreed that it is an objective that the new system centralize the process as much as possible and not just add a duplicative or bureaucratic step to the process .... the executives reaffirmed that the scheduling of class labs was intended to be part of the centralized system. Many courses have class lecture sections. Schoemer said it did not appear at this juncture that special purpose laboratories would need to be scheduled centrally but that their use would have to be accurately reported. Accurate laboratory utilization information was specifically cited for improvement in the 1983 Auraria performance audit. 68 Relative to enrollment reporting, Dr. Schoemer said that there is no objective to report FTE enrollments. In fact it could not be done from the data to be contained on the course scheduling file. 19 "Responsibilities and Procedures for Allocation of Space at the Auraria Higher Education Center," May 13, 1981, 1 & 2.

PAGE 77

69 In terms of implementation, Schoemer said that the traditional and new systems would probably be run in parallel in the spring to set the schedule for fall, 1985."20 The Auraria Board of Directors discussed off-campus space in its meeting on December 15, 1984.21 Recommendations regarding space were discussed and passed. "Recommendation 1 -That the Board adopt the following policy: Prior to approval of any off-campus space or designation of any satellite center, the institution must submit a five-year projection concerning future program needs, location justification and funding requirements on a standard form developed by AHEC for such projections. "Recommendation 2 -That the Auraria Board of Directors adopt the following policy for use of off-campus space: To enable the Auraria Board of Directors to effectively carry out its statutory responsibility (C.R.S. 1973, 23-70-104(g)22 and to coordinate the space requirements of the constituent institutions in a manner which provides efficiencies in rental rates and supports capital construction budget request items, the Board hereby adopts as policy the following requirements for use of off-campus space. 1. Approval of the Auraria Board of Directors is 20 Minutes of the Auraria Executives Committee, November 28, 1984, 8. 21 This section was researched from files of correspondence received from UCD Chancellor Glendon Drake, the AHEC Board, AHEC Executive Director Morgan Smith, and from review of HB1226-88. 22 HBl153, 1973.

PAGE 78

70 required prior to execution of contracts or agreements by constituent institutions to use any space off campus for any purpose. 'Contract or agreements' include, but are not limited to, commitments by the institutions to lease or to buy space, as well as any commitment to exchange teaching or in-kind services for of space. 2. Any renewal or exercise of an option to continue the use of off-campus space is also subject to approval of the Auraria Board of Directors. 3. After formal execution of any contract or agreement for off-campus space, the institution will submit a copy [to] AHEC. 4. On July 15 each year the constituent institutions will submit to the Board an inventory of use of off-campus space for the current fiscal year including information concerning location, type of use, size, cost (if any) and projection of future use. All requests for approval are to be submitted at least 30 days in advance or required Board action on Form OCS-1 ... as it may exist from time to time."23 23 Minutes of the Auraria Higher Education Center Board of Directors Meeting, December 15, 1984, 8 & 9.

PAGE 79

71 The University of Colorado at Denver requested authority to lease space in the Dravo Building at 14th and Lawrence streets. Space in this building had become available because the former owner and tenant had moved. On September 17, 1986, the Auraria Board approved a lease for approximately 46,000 square feet of off-campus space. The communication from AHEC to UCD read liThe leases are consistent with the planned completion date of the new [North Classroom] building. At least six months prior to the expiration of the lease we should meet to re-evaluate your need for off-campus space and discuss space which may be available in the East Classroom complex. By that time, more should be known about the status of the proposed addition to the replacement building. 1124 Further communication began on February 10, 1988 between Chancellor Glendon Drake of UCD and Morgan Smith, executive director of AHEC. "I am enclosing a copy of a renegotiated lease agreement between the Regents of the University of Colorado and Equitable Real Estate for space in the Dravo Plaza Building. The complete lease document and a summary of major provisions and financial arrangements are being provided for your information. I anticipate that this lease agreement will be finalized with Equitable within the next week. This lease agreement allows CU-Denver to consolidate all off-campus academic and administrative units into the Dravo Building by July 1, 1988. The scheduled occupancy dates are 24 Letter from Executive Director of AHEC to Chancellor of UCD, August 13, 1986, 1.

PAGE 80

72 intended to accommodate the complete move of the School of Architecture and Planning from the Bromley Building, the relocation of the College of Business from the BetaWest Building, the consolidation of the Department of Mathematics and other services into one facility. The cost of space in Dravo during the two and onehalf years remaining in the existing lease i s $10.06 per rentable square foot ($9.50 in FY 88-89 and $11.00 in FY 89-90). The renegotiated effective lease rate of $8.00 represents a 20% savings per square foot. I would be pleased to provide further information regarding lease provisions or financial considerations should you have any questions. ,,2& On February 23, 1988, the AHEC executive director acknowledged the February 10 letter from Chancellor Drake. "So that there is no misunderstanding about the review process and approval for the leasing of offcampus space, I'm enclosing: 1. The 1984 Legislative Audit Committee Report (relevant sections only) 2. The response to this of AHEC, UCD, Metro, and CCD 3. The AHEC report of use of off-campus space 4. The AHEC Board minutes of December 10, 1984, approving the recommendations 5. The forms that we have been using for the review of off-campus rentals 6. Jerry wartgow's memo of September 17, 1986, confirming AHEC's approval of the Dravo lease and indicating the need to meet at least six months prior to the expiration of that lease "to reevaluate your need for space off-campus and 25 Letter from Glendon F. Drake to Morgan Smith, February 10, 1988.

PAGE 81

73 discuss use of space which may be available in the East Classroom complex." 7. An example of the Request for Approval form. This was submitted by Randy Cordova on 2-26-86 and approved by Jerry wartgow on 3-5-86.26 The Rocky Mountain News subsequently reported on the existence of the Dravo Building lease. "The University of Colorado at Denver has leased 104,000 square feet in the Dravo Building in downtown Denver, the building it unsuccessfully tried to buy last year for $12 million, officials said yesterday."27 An additional letter from Morgan Smith to Glendon Drake followed on March 2. "I appreciate your calIon Tuesday, March 1, but want to reiterate my concern that you are pushing us toward an unnecessary and wasteful confrontation. For the record, let me summarize the history of this issue. On December 10, 1984, the Auraria Board approved a policy whereby it would review and approve all 0ff campus leases. That policy came about as a resu t of an earlier report from the State Auditor and was reviewed by the AEC prior to the Auraria Board's action. Everyone has followed that policy. Your staff, for example, used our forms to explain the proposed usage of space in the Dravo Building. Discussions occurred regarding that lease and one result was to change the ending date of the lease from July 1988 to January 31, 1988. 26 Letter from Morgan Smith to Glendon Drake, February 23, 1988. 27 "CU-Denver leases classroom space," by John Rebchook, Rocky Mountain News, February 23, 1988.

PAGE 82

74 Jerry wartgow then indicated his approval of the Dravo lease. I'm enclosing another copy of his memo of September 17, 1986. As you can see, the understanding was that you were to submit the lease to us 'at least six months prior to the expiration of the lease ... so that we could 'reevaluate your need for space off-campus and discuss use of space which may be available in the East Classroom complex. It is clear from this record that you're making g major departure from a long-established policy in which you yourself participated as recently as late 1986. Given the Dravo experience of last fall and all the pressures on us to work together on our joint space needs, I find your refusal to follow our policy incomprehensible."28 An Auraria staff memo to the AHEC Board of Directors further outlined the issue. "Further, at the same time that the University was executing the Dravo lease without AHEC approval, it was providing public testimony in support of pending legislation amending the AHEC statute confirming that UCD leases are approved by the AHEC Board as a matter of policy.29 During this period, the Colorado State Legislature passed HB1226 (March 1, 1988) which in part reconfirmed HBl153 (passed in 1974). The bill laid out in full the duties of the AHEC Board of Directors. "SECTION 1. 23-70-104 (1) (a), Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended, is amended to read: Duties of the Auraria board. (l)(a) TO ACQUIRE, 28 Letter from Morgan Smith to Glendon Drake, March 2, 1988. 29 "Supplementary Information and Recommendation," for Auraria Board of Directors' meeting, March 14, 1988.

PAGE 83

75 plan, construct, own, operate, maintain and manage, OR DISPOSE OF all the physical plant, facilities, buildings and grounds in the center (except the land owned at the Auraria center by the regents of the University of Colorado shall continue under such ownership but shall be maintained and managed in a similar manner to the other facilities in the Auraria center) and such additional land and facilities as the Colorado Commission on Higher Education may from time to time designate and approve and to accept and hold for the use of the center and its constituent institutions such properties as was designated or used prior to May 13, 1974 for purposes of the center or its constituent institutions. SECTION 3 Article 70 of title 23, Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended, is amended by the addition of a new section to read: 23-70-114. Powers of board not limited. Subject to the approval of the Colorado commission on higher education, the Auraria board may exercise any and all powers conferred by this article with respect to any land or facility not otherwise a part of the Auraria center. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the powers of governing boards of constituent institutions to acquire or dispose of facilities not otherwise part of the Auraria center; however, any building or facility acquired by a constituent institution in support of academic programs shall be subject to the approval of the Auraria board, including the renewal of existing leases.3o Discussions with the University continued. The regents of the University at Boulder accepted the chancellor's proposal to use student fees to purchase the Dravo Building. This was determined by CCHE to be illegal and was disapproved. Finally, after a period of acrimonious charges and countercharges, the University of 30 HB1226 Concerning the Auraria Higher Education Center, 1988, 1,2.

PAGE 84

76 Colorado at Denver submitted a request to lease the Dravo Building for use by the departments of architecture and planning, business (graduate and undergraduate), continuing education, the chancellor and other administrative offices. This lease added approximately 148,000 square feet but did little to alleviate the space shortage. With the Bromley Building on the east campus going out of use, as well as the 1100 14th street building, and UCD giving up leases for business and continuing education, little or no new space was added. An advantage exists in consolidation of these units in one building, as it creates a more efficient administrative function. Heads of the three constituent institutions and the executive director of AHEC reached an agreement on July 11, 1988. "The following program plan is presented to the Auraria Higher Education Center and the Colorado Commission on Higher Education with the following understandings between AHEC, CCHE, CU-Denver, and the University of Colorado President's office: 1. All parties agree to a common goal of placing the program units in the Dravo facility no later than 9/1/88. 2. All parties agree to "fast track" the development, review, and approval of the program plan by (a) sharing information and data as it's developed, and (b) employing telephone polls, administrative approvals, and other related techniques (as appropriate).

PAGE 85

77 3. All parties agree to use the Paulien and Associates space analysis regarding the Dravo Building as the basis for determining CU-Denver program space needs in Dravo. If there is excess space based upon the Paulien analysis, CU-Denver agrees either to sublease the space to any Aurariabased institution or agency at reasonable rates or to move, within 6 months, CU-Denver programs from the Auraria campus to the Dravo Building, freeing up on-campus space for other Auraria-based institutions. 4. All parties recognize AHEC staff will require time, consistent with item #2, above, to review the program plan prior to making a recommendation to the AHEC executive director. 5. All parties recognize that AHEC believes that its basic operating budget funding level is inadequate and that it will be pursuing avenues of collecting appropriate cost recoveries and charges for services provided to cash-funded programs. CU Denver will provide AHEC with completed revised OCS-1 forms by August 1, 1988. AHEC will use this information and information gathered from the other two Auraria institutions to initiate remediation via the Re-exam of Base process and other appropriate processes. 6. CCHE agrees to an administrative review and (hopefully) to approve the program plan consistent with item #2, above, immediately following a favorable recommendation from AHEC. Formal ratification can occur on August 4, 1988, according to the schedule developed by CCHE."SI A July 11, 1988 memo from Morgan Smith to the Auraria Board of Directors said: "On April 7, the CCHE voted not to recognize UCD's February, 1988, lease of space in the Dravo Building. The University was directed to undertake a formal program planning process and have a 31 Memorandum of Understanding, July 11, 1988, signed by Jerome wartgow, E. Gordon Gee, Houston G. Elam and Morgan Smith.

PAGE 86

program plan adopted by the Regents, then the Auraria Board, and finally the CCHE. We received the program plan on June 27, have reviewed it in conjunction with CCHE staff and recommend its approval, with the following understanding: 1. That all parties accept AHEC's revisions to the program plan's preamble. (This has been accomplished.) 78 2. Upon completion of the needs assessment and master plan, AHEC and UCD will initiate a programming effort that will ensure completion of future space plans six months prior to expiration of the lease. 3. That the Science Building space vacated by the CU-Denver Mathematics Department will be placed on hold until data from the facilities study currently in progress is analyzed. 32 Before the issue of space is concluded, the summary of increased enrollment for 1990 is important in light of the fact that no new space is being created. Dr. James Schoemer, vice president for administration for the AHEC Board notes that CCD enrollment is up 33 percent over 1988, and continues to grow at a rate of five percent per year. The really excellent news is that for the first time in many years, UCD enrollment is up by five percent. 33 Campus Master Plans HB1226, as enacted last year, directs the Commission to coordinate, and the governing boards of the constituent Auraria 32 Memorandum from Morgan Smith to the Auraria Board of Directors, Jul y 11, 1988. 33 AHEC Notes, volume 71, 3.

PAGE 87

institutions and the Auraria Board to formulate comprehensive master plans for academic programs and facilities so as to maximize economic and administrative efficiency at the Auraria Center. 34 79 The legislative action directed the Commission to submit a report on both the academic and facilities master plan, together with its own reviews and comments, to the General Assembly (not later than January 15, 1989). The Commission report was approved on January 5, 1989 as submitted to the General Assembly. Following this action, the Auraria Campus Facilities Master Plan was approved by the Auraria Board of Directors on December 13, 1989 in conformance w ith the above. This plan included Cycle I, which projected space needs (prior to institution reports), and Cycle II which included institutional reports on refining the campus needs assessment. 34 Colorado Commission on Higher Education, Agenda Item III, January 4, 1990, 1 & 2.

PAGE 88

CHAPTER V INTERAGENCY FUNCTIONING The goal of interviewing those who had been on the campus during the early period and those who are currently involved in campus operations was to relate the past to the present. Both positive and negative reactions to a list of general items was sought. Interviewees were encouraged to discuss other issues as well. The primary function of this campus is education. Campus operations supplement the educational process, and together they create an inter-agency relationship which operates on a daily basis. Fortunately, not all of the early educators have left the campus. This provides the continuity needed in any organization. Only one former board member is still involved, but other former board members were available for interviews. Each person was interviewed separately. The interviews were informal, but each began with a list of general questions on the subjects of a. Potential for Institutional Cooperation b. The Common Calendar c. Space Allocation d. Library Services e. Parking 80

PAGE 89

81 f. Signage and Visibility g. Pooled classes h. AHEC Management i. Impact on Education Some interviewees did not wish to discuss each item. They were considered equally important to the interview process, however, because an opportunity for discussion was opened. Many, as expected, diverted the discussion to their own point of view. An effort was made to cover the basic set of issues, but the interviewees included other issues which were uppermost in their minds. Many welcomed this opportunity for an informal meeting. These interviews were conducted by the author in 1988 and 1989. The present institutional executives, and others who have been involved in the campus operations or have been affected by the campus institutions, have not discussed their feelings and thoughts about AHEC on a oneto-one basis at any previous time until the interviews were conducted by the author. The purpose of the interviews was two-fold. First, to get personal reactions to the various activities of the AHEC Board and the effectiveness of its management, and second, to discuss these issues with someone known personally to each interviewee for the in this dissertation.

PAGE 90

82 Those people listed below did not, as far as it is known, meet together before or after the interviews. Dr. Byron McClenney -president of Community College of Denver for two years. Dr. McClenney has served for 17 years as a chief executive of a community college. Dr. Martin Van De Visse -served in various capacities in the community college system since its beginning. He has had various assignments in personnel management and instruction and has a broad knowledge of the campus. Dr. William Fulkerson -interim president at MSC until June 30, 1988 and president, Adams state College. He is also senior vice president of the American Association of state Colleges and Universities and a staff person for the past several years. Dr. Richard Netzel -professor of physics, Metropolitan state College. He served in the variety of leadership roles including president of MSC from January 1971 to November 1972, academic vice president 1972-1978, and acting president 1978-1979. Dr. Netzel has an extensive knowledge of the Auraria campus. Dr. Glendon Drake -chancellor of the University of

PAGE 91

83 Colorado at Denver who served for over three years from 1985 to 1989. Lawrence Hamilton -chairman of the board of Community Colleges. Mr. Hamilton was the first executive director of AHEC and has been a member of AHEC Board and chairman and an employee of CCHE. Marvin Buckels -past vice chairman of the Auraria Board (July 1977 -February 1979), and the Community College Board (1976-1979). As the present chairman of Denver Civic ventures and the Denver partnership, Mr. Buckels argued that to move Speer Boulevard to the west where it would encroach on campus was wrong. Warren Taylor -Auraria Higher Education Center, director of facilities use. Mr. Taylor's resume indicates a background in the three campus institutions in addition to other institutions of higher learning. He began his career at the University of Colorado at Denver in 1965. Waldo Benavidez & Dan Trujillo -Auraria Community Center, executive director and chairman of the board respectively (Note: the Auraria Community Center was closed in July 1989). Potential for Institutional Cooperation McClenney, when interviewed, pointed out that "we

PAGE 92

84 [CCD] have an advantage in that we are not part of the competition with MSC or UCD due to our open enrollment policy for high school students, etc." According to Hamilton, there is a lack of communication between MSC and UCD. Fulkerson agrees and adds that although MSC and CCD get along well and work together, UCD has a different, uncooperative attitude, as though MSC is not considered good enough. There is apparently no problem among the three institutions with regard to fund raising. Netzel said that the number of presidential turnovers in recent years has had a destabilizing effect on the institutions but added that MSC has continued to do an outstanding job in education despite the turnover of presidents. There have been concerns regarding the ebb and flow of presidents and chancellors. Although McClenney continues to agree with the general landlord concept, Fulkerson and Drake feel that they, with their past experience, should handle these tasks themselves. Patterson said in his reportl that the turnover in executives is caused by their sense of "lack of control." McClenney felt, however, that the turnover in CEOs in the past years had been due to a lack of background 1 Franklin Patterson, "A study of the Management of the Auraria Higher Education Center," 16

PAGE 93

85 rather than any reflection on the Auraria system. A wide variety of opinions exist regarding services supplied by physical plant. Hamilton stated that the physical plant had been both efficient and effective in providing service. Netzel also felt the service had been good over the years he had worked with the physical plant. Fulkerson, on the other hand, said that the management of physical plant had created an unsound relationship between the institutions and Auraria, and that the institutions were the victims. Drake complained that he did not get the service he required from AHEC agencies. He suggested a more accessible structure was needed for services to the three institutions. He also said that he would prefer to operate all phases himself. The interviewees were asked if this same situation would not exist if each institution maintained a part of the campus. The answers were not as expected--Fulkerson and Drake felt that "they could do better," even though it could become a more complicated issue. The Common Calendar The common calendar class schedule is the source of one problem among the institutions and AHEC. Drake noted that UCD has certain holiday features that the other institutions do not currently have and do not intend to implement. With the use of the common calendar, UCD feels

PAGE 94

86 that they are being placed in a negative position. In fact, Drake said that the common calendar proposal locks i n actions: it prevents innovation and destroys flexibility. He felt that the facilities could be used more effectively without the common calendar since there would be less trouble scheduling. Taylor pointed out a number of reasons why UCD did not want to participate: UCD has Martin Luther King's birthday as a vacation day; CCD and MSC do not. UCD begins and ends spring classes on different days than CCD and MSC. UCD also has faculty who teach and students who take classes at the Boulder campus. Taylor in his interview outlined the following advantages of the common calendar: a. Better utilization of facilities; b. More efficient planning by physical plant; c. More efficient planning by parking and transit; and d. Availability of common pool of classes. Space Allocation In 1977, Buckels recalled, the AHEC Board had to open and begin operation of the campus. Space allocation, at the beginning, was not well organized. Each institution wanted to control its own space and each would then report any excess to the AHEC staff for reassignment as secondary space. Van De Visse pointed out that the use

PAGE 95

87 of the space by three institutions has worked well for CCD, although because of limited space at AHEC, often many rooms in the CCD South Classroom Building are also used by MSC or UCD. McClenney concludes that there is a space problem which will have to be solved cooperatively. Library Services Library services go beyond the community college needs and expectations, McClenney commented. Having UCD operating the library, Fulkerson pointed out, had resulted in some problems with stocking materials for MSC's needs, but he had no specific details. Parking Van De Visse mentioned his concern about a fee for parking when the other campuses of the community college system have free parking. Signage and Visibility Two other items of concern surfaced in the interviews--campus and building signage (the identification of structure by institution)2 and the marketing of three disparate institutions on one campus when the name Auraria is so widely used. Drake felt the 2 Note: The new Auraria Board has authorized signage for each institution. This is on order for completion in spring 1990.

PAGE 96

88 reason the university had not developed in the community was lack of visibility. In addition, Drake said that the AHEC environment works against, and creates a lack of, individual identity. McClenney agreed, saying that each institution needs individual identities and the campus and its buildings need improved signage. He also voiced his concern that, although there has been no major problem becoming part of the community, institutional identity is difficult to create and maintain as part of Auraria. Pooled Classes One critical item of cooperation between UCD and MSC at the inception of the campus was cross-registration of "pooled courses." This gave students an opportunity to take courses for credit in either institution or to attend a joint class. This worked well until the policy was temporarily dropped by UCD in 1987. Fulkerson discussed some of the problems with the plan for common pool classes. He said that UCD had required its full-time students to take a minimum of 15 credit hours at UCD, and eventually had withdrawn from the common pool program. Netzel pointed out that the physics department at MSC has had both good and bad experiences

PAGE 97

89 with the forced disengagement. He adds, however, that all that is needed to make it workable is cooperation and full access by students in both institutions. Common pool courses have now been re-investigated and were re-introduced in the spring 1989 semester, as reported in The Denver Post by Mary George. "Metropolitan state College and the University of Colorado at Denver will expand their students two colleges for the price of one. Almost 30,000 students attend classes at the two schools, which, along with Community College of Denver, share the Auraria Higher Education Campus in downtown Denver. The expanded list of pooled courses, which was announced wednesday, will be ready for the spring 1989 semester."S AHEC Management It is 15 years after construction of the campus began in 1974 and 12 to 13 years since all institutions became part of Auraria. It is now time, stressed Van De Visse, for the three institutions to try to understand each other. McClenney pointed out that in 1987 the leaders of the three institutions spent a day discussing problems and effective actions, but at that time there was no common understanding or common ground reached. All that the idea needs to make it more workable, Netzel commented, is three leaders of good will and a desire to work together. He added that it is understandable that 3 Mary George, The Denver Post, July 7, 1988.

PAGE 98

90 each institution feels it needs to drive for power, resources, prestige and reputation, but these should not get in the way of educating students. Finally, he observed that each institution admittedly has a different culture, but this should add to the strength and not create diversity on the campus. As of July 1988, a "Memorandum of Agreement" between MSC, UCD, and their separate systems, finalized a cooperative agreement between the two. The agreement set up a faculty committee to review the pooled courses and a task force to find other issues on which the two schools can cooperate. In the past 12 years, there have been continuing discussions, both pro and con, regarding the Auraria Board as the campus landlord. With three educational institutions on one campus, it was anticipated by the chairman of the CCHE board, Frank Abbott, in 1974 that the management of the campus could most effectively be accomplished by having one entity provide services to the educational institutions. Interviews with campus leaders indicate a disparity of opinion. Buckels, past vice chairman of the Auraria Board, said the Board, in his experience, had been

PAGE 99

91 cooperative, accommodative and helpful. He added that because the institutions have primarily an educational thrust, the Auraria Board is in the best position to develop non-educational policy. Hamilton agreed that AHEC works well, but, he added, none of the institutions is a premier one. He pointed out that AHEC depends on the three leaders of its institutions to get along but that does not always work, and that the present plan lacks cooperation in the area of education. The institution's leaders, however, have a different view. Van De Visse pointed out that from the beginning of the combined campus in the spring of 1977, institution administrators and AHEC had difficult times. There were no rules for action, he added, so that the AHEC board which replaced the original 1974 board in June 1977 was not only unsure of its specific functions, it forgot its role as landlord. This concern is repeated in McClenney's statement: "Although economics do suggest that AHEC should operate the bookstore, the student assistance center, the student center and provide some counselling, there are times when AHEC forgets that it is supposed to be the landlord not the operator." The same theme is echoed in Fulkerson's remarks when he says that because the three institutions leaders do not or cannot agree, AHEC, who should be the landlord to serve the

PAGE 100

92 institutions, is becoming more involved in areas that are questionable. Fulkerson also voiced his opinions about the diminished role of the institution leaders. Most presidents, he says, have run their own campuses, but here AHEC is the landlord. He adds that at a separate institution campus, the library reports directly to the president but here they do not. In addition, presidents cannot reward people with "perks" as they could on a separate campus. Finally, he complains, "We presidents are precluded from being active and from working with the AHEC Board." Drake argued that the shared Auraria environment takes away major responsibilities from the faculty and Board of Regents. The issue, he suggests, is that AHEC is not accountable and it lacks the motivation and ability to communicate in a direct line relationship: governing board, university, students. McClenney felt the problem in the past has been that the AHEC leadership has not accepted suggestions for change or disagreements gracefully. Recommendations on how to solve this rift between AHEC management and the three institutions also differ widely. Buckels believes

PAGE 101

93 the Auraria concept will be difficult to administer due to three separate clients and their varying approaches to education. But, he adds, it can be administered effectively if there is a true spirit of cooperation on the part of the administrators, and if they keep in mind that their actions affect each other. Taylor, from his particular vantage point of working with both the AHEC Board and the institutions, made the following observations in the personal interview: "The AHEC Board, despite the fact that it is not involved directly with academics, needs a clear concept and an overall view of what the campus should be academically. The primary purpose of the campus is to educate, and AHEC actions should address this at all times. The AHEC Board, in order to be effective, should reach an agreement with the other three governing boards as to the function of each on the campus. The four boards must work together and this unity would create a better climate for education. 4 Netzel, on the other hand, stated that the present problem clearly is that AHEC management is expanding its activities in areas that are the province of the institutions. Fulkerson concluded that: "The theory of AHEC is a good one but there are 4 Warren Taylor, interview by author, Denver, Colorado, August 1988.

PAGE 102

94 certain assumptions--that four people of good will have the same level of interest and objectives, and that the goals of the three institutions are the same as the goals of AHEC and vice versa. If the above is not true, the result is conflict."5 Several basic policy changes have been proposed to address the discord between MSC and UCD. One solution, Fulkerson suggested, would be to recreate UCD as a graduate school only and let it manage its affairs, but not to do away with AHEC as landlord. Another proposal called for a merger of UCD and MSC. Drake responded with opposition to any merger with Metro. He said that MSC was an effective organization but there are two separate cultures and two separate missions. Netzel felt ambivalent regarding a merger with UCD, particularly at the time. He said there had been difficulty working with the University which, with the Board of Regents, is reluctant to recognize another institution. Following the AHEC report on organizational relationships in 1978,5 the chancellor of UCD at the time projected a merger between UCD and MSC under the University of Colorado Board of Regents. UCD Chancellor Harold Haak agreed that the "structure of the two5 William Fulkerson, interview with author, Denver, Colorado, July 1988. 6 Board of Directors, Auraria Higher Education Center, "1978 Report on Organizational Relationships," December, 1978.

PAGE 103

95 institution campus was a good one, but the Auraria management functions were poor."7 Haak also agreed that no changes in the category of students "who are currently enrolled" will be made; no mention was made of future students. MSC president Netzel spoke in opposition to this proposal due to the complex issues involved. He did not feel that a merger would benefit MSC and would perhaps harm it. He also felt that "Auraria was a success" and that the timing of this proposal was premature and had not allowed for a adequate test. Discussion and proposals for merger have continued over the years culminating in the Patterson Report of 1988.8 McClenney argued that AHEC's take over of the programming and lecture series deprived each institution of its ability and opportunity to bring its own students and their needs into the system. "This arrangement," he added, "separates the institution from the main stream--the solution lies in reverting these programs to each institution and allowing them to cooperate and coordinate." Hamilton believes that the campus should keep the 7 Harold Haak, interview with author, July 1979. B Franklin Patterson and Associates, "A study of the Management of the Auraria Higher Education Center," Boston, Massachusetts, September 1988.

PAGE 104

96 three steps of education: strong community college, strong college, strong university. Because the present system lacks unity of control, he suggests that one institution with one independent governing board would serve the students best. But Drake said that the separate independent board simply won't work. Fulkerson struck a positive note when he pointed out that there are economic advantages of the present operation: "The system, with its faults is working." But AHEC bureaucracy has grown and, he cautioned, its growth should be carefully monitored. Impact on Education--MSC and UCD The Auraria Higher Education Center, Hamilton asserts, provides three educational advantages: 1. Each institution is allowed to concentrate on education. 2. The diverse operating interests of each helps satisfy the diverse needs of the students. 3. The "smallness" of each institution provides a more personal type of education. Buckels recalls that CCD was required to make an early move onto the campus before the Technology Building was completed. During the two years it took to clear the

PAGE 105

97 initial problems and install minimum air conditioning, Buckels fears that the educational process was adversely affected. Currently, McClenney reports, the facilities for physical education, student activities, child care, and workshops exceeded anything a medium-sized community college could hope to build. The potential for collaborative relationships with Metropolitan state College and University of Colorado at Denver, he explains, is another exciting aspect of being part of the center. Van De Visse concurs when he says that: "This concept is still a fantastic approach to education and is amplified by the fact that all students have access, as they continue their education, to Metro and UCD. In addition the single library, media center and physical education facility bring the students together.'" He also noted that the community college creates pride in its people who otherwise would not have higher education open to them. CCD has no entrance requirements--a high school diploma is not required. Netzel feels that MSC does the best job in providing undergraduate education because it is only undergraduate and can concentrate on this student population. He thinks the Auraria concept is a good and workable idea and he says that MSC has tried to develop 9 Martin Van De Visse, interview with author, Denver, Colorado.

PAGE 106

98 its distinctiveness in both education and in relations to the student body and facility. Fulkerson points out that MSC has twice the number of students as does UCD, and that the educational experience at MSC is unique since its courses are 20 percent traditional and 80 percent nontraditional. The students on the campus, he concludes, have available to them a broad, varied and fine education. Drake's comments, on the other hand, expressed his concern that UCD students were becoming more traditional--60 percent have outside jobs and the average age is 26 to 27. He fears that because energy is in fact diverted from education, the Auraria concept may be unworkable both educationally and academically. Taylor, when discussing economic advantages, said that the institutions at Auraria, on a cost/benefit analysis, are actually very efficient in the use of space, (55 square feet per student at Auraria compared with 120 square feet per student at the Boulder campus). This means, he explained, that the space usage is very high; therefore, the educational quality is maintained at a lower cost. In addition, he said, this process can and does work, but the four executives must work toward the common goal of excellence in education. In the final analysis, according to Taylor, when looking at the quality

PAGE 107

99 of education and its measures, there are three items to be considered: 1. Accreditation. 2. post-graduation employment: what percentage of students get jobs and at what level. 3. post-graduation achievement: how well do the students do after graduation. He concludes that the students are receiving a good education and that the problems that exist are transparent to them. But, he cautions, the problems, if not solved, could have an effect on the type and quality of programs that are delivered. Conflict Resolution Buckels discussed the relationship of the west side community and campus leadership. He recalled that the west side community had many concerns of which the various boards were aware. These included parking, housing and drugs, among others. Students needed discipline, he felt, so that they would use campus parking lots and not impose on the people around the campus. He said that regular meetings were held and regular reports handled by the AHEC Board in an effort to defuse the problems with the west side community.

PAGE 108

100 Since 1978, both Benavidez and Trujillo felt that there had been only a spasmodic relationship. Complaints arose because students parked in front of residents' houses and deprived the latter of the use of their property. This seems, however, to have been improved by the issuance of special permits to the residents; there have been far fewer complaints recently. Benavidez and Trujillo want to develop better communication between the west Side or Auraria Community Center and AHEC and to bring their community into closer contact with the educational potential of the campus at various levels. If possible, they would like Auraria to develop some offcampus institutional programs which might help with reeducation of dropouts and advanced education. They also expressed a need for help at the Community Center with accounting, housing programs, and other programs. Conclusion Agreement exists that space is at a premium and inadequate; that most of the problems could be solved at the executive level if the three institutional executives would cooperate; that the AHEC Board has moved into areas which were the province of each institution; that more parking is needed promptly; that the library is too small but serves its purpose well within its limitations; and most important, that the education provided by all three

PAGE 109

101 schools is excellent. Except for Chancellor Drake of UCD who felt that Auraria could not and would not work, there were agreements, although not a consensus, that Auraria does work. The facilities are first class, but space shortage causes major problems. The Auraria Board of Directors has taken over programs affecting student relationships to their institutions and this should not continue. Perhaps most important, the three heads of the institutions must work together to create an atmosphere on the campus conducive to cooperation and creativity. This campus, then, provides for the student an opportunity to progress through the educational process like no other campus does.

PAGE 110

CHAPTER VI ASSESSMENT OF AURARIA TODAY The Auraria campus operations, both academic and non-academic have been researched, reviewed, damned and p raised since the day the campus opened in January 1977. The fact that it was a new concept made it a natural target for study. Space Needs When the current deficiency in space is evaluated, it must be remembered that the campus was originall y p lanned for 15,000 FTE. This was reduced by CCHE to 13,000 while construction was in process in 1974. On opening day, however, there were 18,000 students head count or approximately 15,000 FTE. Space continued as a problem despite efforts of the Auraria Board to implement certain 1983 recommendations of the state auditor. In the fall of 1987, UCD enrolled 10,500 students, MSC 16,000, and CCD 3,500, for a total of 30,000 with an FTE of 21,000 (70 percent). In 1987, the AEC contracted with Paulien and Associates to assess the current use and projected needs of facilities for the Auraria campus. This report reviewed space existing and percent surplus/deficit for year 1987 (Fall), base year 1988 (Fall) and target year 102

PAGE 111

103 1994 (Fall). The report studied space needs on two bases: 1. using CCHE guidelines, it determined the need for fall 1987 for each type of space. 2. Due to the institutional concern about the fairness of the Auraria space allocation, it compared current needs with current assignment of space. The Paulien report shows a 1994 deficit of academic space as 274,261 assignable square feet. Also, a deficit in state academic support (library, physical plant, security and services) of 184,325 assignable square feet. The total required is 448,723 assignable square feet. Table 9 confirms the space problem at AHEC, both in 1986 and projected to 1994.1 The Auraria Higher Education center performance audit report from the office of the state auditor in 1988 also issued the results of its reviews and said that "space continues to be a problem on the Auraria Campus. This is in spite of the fact that the Auraria Board has implemented the 1983 audit recommendations. ,,2 The 1988 Paulien and Associates, "Facilities Use study or the Auraria Higher Education Center," Denver, Colorado, October 1988, 2. 2 Office of the Colorado state Auditor, "The Auraria Higher Education Center Performance Audit Report 1988," Denver, Colorado, 53.

PAGE 112

104 report further recommended that the Auraria Board implement HB1226 which gives the board authority to buy, sell, and/or lease property off-campus. TABLE 9 Academic, Support and Auxiliary Space, Recent and Projected Year 1987 1988 1994 Surplus (Deficit) (125,419) (144,408) ( 81,069) (209,400) ( 99,404) (115,077) (274,261) (174,325) (115,077) Source: Paulien Report TABLE 10 Percentage -21.48% -55.78% -86.57% -35.60% -30.91% -110.80% -46.63% -53.88% -110.80% Academic Office and Service Space, Recent and Projected Year 1987 1988 1994 Surplus (Deficit) (44,661) (65,127) (77,480) Source: Paulien Report percentage -32.32% -49.67% -59.09%

PAGE 113

TABLE 11 Laboratory and Physical Education Space Recent and Projected Year Surplus (Deficit) percentage 1987 Labs 42,277 20.37% P.E. 1,624 3.20% 1988 Labs 29,394 14.65% P.E. (2,252) 3.67% 1994 Labs 14,788 7.34% P .E. (7,784) 12.57% 105 (Physical Education space will increase in 1994 due to additions to the health, physical education and recreation facilities. ) Source: Paulien Report TABLE 12 Total Space Deficit, Recent and Projected Year Deficit percentage 1987 (350,190) -34.48% 1988 (423,971) -45.04% 1994 (523,663) -55.63% Source: Paulien Report Two campus projects are in process for 1990, a 1,700-car parking structure with associated parking off 6th Street, and a $4.7 million addition to physical

PAGE 114

106 education supported by student fees. The next priority capital construction is a 194,966 square foot classroom building located west of the 9th street Historic Park. Subsequent to the Paulien Report and in response to the 1988 HB1226, CCHE created two master planning cycles for Auraria and the institutions: Cycle one -(1987-1992) to rapidly determine a process for ascertaining both campus-wide enrollment and space requirements, i.e., projecting campus space needs without benefit of institutional academic planning. Cycle two -(1988-1993) running concurrently with Cycle one, to submit comprehensive academic master plans by each institution for approval of each governing board, Auraria and CCHE. The AHEC Board will submit by November 1990 the comprehensive facilities plan as a basis for meeting space needs on and off campus. The AHEC Master Plan as presented to the Colorado General Assembly in January 1989 by CCHE sets forth its enrollment projections and space needs assessments. Based on the Master Plan, CCHE projects the on-campus headcount enrollment at Auraria will increase about 2,400 in the period under discussion. The anticipated enrollment

PAGE 115

107 growth for the constituent institutions is found in Table 13. TABLE 13 Estimated On-Campus Headcount Enrollment in 1993 CCD 3,900 MSC 16,211 UCD 11,213 31,324 Note: Fall 1989 enrollment was 31,702. Source: Colorado Commission on Higher Education Estimated 1993 space needs were based on the anticipated enrollment growth factors. CCHE disagreed with the anticipated space needs in a few categories such as non-educational, self-supporting service, music practice rooms, art gallery, and theater facilities. In most categories, however, the 1993 space needs estimated by CCHE are essentially identical to the Paulien figures. AHEC Internal Conflict Resolution The March 1986 CRS 23-70-106.53 details the procedure at Auraria and at CCHE regarding conflict resolution. In addition, AHEC By-laws and operating 3 Colorado Revised Statutes 23-70-106.5, Colorado Legislature, March 1986

PAGE 116

108 policies of May 1986 outline the procedures internally. Issues should be resolved at the lowest possible level. aCHE will become involved as infrequently as possible. Auraria has attempted to follow these legislative requirements, but it was unworkable without former UCD Chancellor Glendon Drake participating at the AEC level. Chancellor John C. Buechner has replaced Chancellor Drake and cooperation between the institutions has been improved. Management Studies A distinguished panel (Franklin Patterson and Associates), studied the management of Auraria during August (on campus) and September 1988. In addition to personal interviews made during five days on campus in August, the panel reviewed many past and present documents regarding the governance and general operation of the campus. They were also supplied with current statements from the four governing boards summarizing their separate views of the present management of AHEC. The Board of Trustees of the Consortium of State Colleges in Colorado, the governing board of MSC, voiced a Auraria Higher Education Center, "Operating Policies and By-Laws," 1986.

PAGE 117

109 concern that the inability of the executives to relate the academic objective to student support services, resources, facilities and space affect efficient educational services: "Unmet needs for space and facilities" in addition to an "uneven formula" for these exist.5 They also said that even if additional space were provided, space allocation is unequal and such additional facilities would not help. 6 Further, they suggest that the Auraria Board be replaced by an Auraria Higher Education facilities management structure consisting of 11 members including one member from each governing board, the executives of each institution, and five unaffiliated members with various committees special action. 7 The University of Colorado's management statement, written by former Chancellor Drake confirms his feeling that the Auraria Board does not work and will not work. There is also a feeling similar to that of the state College's that the academic function is seriously affected by the institution's lack of control over the many 5 The Consortium of state Colleges in Colorado, "A statement on the Management of the Auraria Higher Education Center," September 1988, 3. 6 Ibid., 4. 7 Ibid., 8

PAGE 118

110 functions of the campus now furnished by the Auraria Board, particularly space allocation.B In September 1988, after having reviewed these statements and completed extensive interviews with representatives of UCD, MSC, CCD, AHEC, and CCHE, the Patterson group issued its report. The Patterson Report concluded that Auraria has successfully met the challenge of providing highly effective education to a diverse student population, and that this was accomplished, in part, by intensive use of classroom facilities and common resources such as the library, bookstore and student center. But, the report noted, these achievements had been handicapped by the "failure to align administrative form with academic function. 9 The Patterson Report also listed a number of failures or dysfunctions of Auraria: AHEC management exists independently from the institutions it is supposed B University of Colorado at Denver, "Statement on the Position of the Positive and Negative Aspects of the Management of the Auraria Higher Education Center," Denver, Colorado, September 1988, 6. 9 Franklin Patterson and Associates, "A Study of the Management of the Auraria Higher Education Center," Boston, Massachusetts, September 1988, ii.

PAGE 119

111 to serve; the AHEC Board is unworkable for conflict management; there has been a much too rapid turnover of institutional CEOs; all three institutions compete for enrollment because of an FTE-driven budget; and all four participants are polarized. Additionally, the report concluded that there are too few interchange courses (common pool courses) and unnecessary duplication in "remedial" programs. There has been constant arguing about space availability, yet there is little or no offcampus expansion except at Dravo. The Patterson panel made three recommendations for restructuring Auraria: 1. Model One--The Service Consortium (Modified Status Quo): Eliminate the Auraria Board and replace it with a new service group. 2. Model Two--Single Institution Manager (Consolidation): Disestablish the Auraria Board and have one institution (Metro) perform the service function. 3. Model Three--(Merger): Establish a professional university to replace existing institutions (except CCD). The Auraria Board and staff would have a single executive and board.1o Subsequent to publication of the Patterson Report, 1 0 Ibid., 23.

PAGE 120

112 the AHEC Board held a special meeting to discuss its contents. The AHEC staff recommended to the Board that Patterson's Model Three would, in their opinion, furnish the metro area with potentially the best opportunity for education, but that CCD should remain as part of the campus. In addition, they felt that the "new governing board" should be solely dedicated to the development, growth and orientation of the new university, and that the commission and legislature should follow this suggestion or make no change in the present operation. The final vote was 4 to 3 for the staff recommendation. I I The Colorado Commission on Higher Education issued a staff paper in January 1989. The commission staff recommended the "professional university" model of the Patterson report: merge MSC and UCD and leave CCD as a separate operating organization on the campus. The report further suggested that the goals of the state require extensive off-campus space together with more access to student financial aid--these goals articulate the above.12 II Auraria Higher Education Center, minutes of the special Board of Directors' meeting on October 14, 1988, 3 12 Colorado Commission on Higher Education, staff memo, January 15, 1989, 2.

PAGE 121

113 Immediately after the Patterson Report was completed, CCD responded in a memo from the president's desk. This memo pointed out that although Patterson, when pressed, named a number of institutions that fit the description of the favored "professional university" model, "He failed to mention the significant community colleges functioning in the same areas." Further, the CCD response stated that any model of merger at Auraria that excludes CCD will be seriously short-changed. "There is not an example of a thriving community college component within a university that is meeting the significant needs of a major urban area."13 All parties involved with the Auraria Campus gathered at a summit meeting in early December 1988. Those in attendance were: Morgan Smith, (subsequently succeeded by James Schoemer as executive director of AHEC); Gordon Gee, president of the University of Colorado system; Houstam Elam, president of the Board of State Colleges; and Jerome wartgow, president of the community college system. After serious discussion they agreed that the Auraria Board would be disbanded and that a new board consisting of the president of the University of Colorado system, the president of the Board of State Colleges, the 13 Community College of Denver, Inside CCD, Vol. II, Issue 36, October 10, 1988, 1.

PAGE 122

114 president of the Community College system, a member of each of the above governing boards, and three appointees of the governor be constituted. Nonvoting representatives from faculty and students completed the new board. The summit determined that the new board would 1. Solve management problems since the presidents of each institution would be directly involved; 2. Reduce competition and redundancy and redefine roles and missions of the institutions. UCD would raise admission standards to the selective category; Metro would transfer all remedial education to CCD which would work with Emily Griffith Opportunity School of the Denver School System to eliminate duplication and strengthen programming. CCHE would develop state-support for offcampus space for those students whose needs are not met at Auraria. 3. Meet present and future higher education needs by setting up a committee including business, education and political leadership to determine these future needs. 4. Appoint an executive vice president for administration responsible for managing Auraria activities and functions. He or she would serve on the AEC (th e new Auraria Executive Council) which would develop operating policies and act as an action group to resolve disputes. H e or she would a lso be a member of the chief executives

PAGE 123

115 officers (CEO) cabinet. UCD and Metro agreed to continue the common pool program which the state auditors found to be effective and efficient. 14 Legislative approval was granted in HB 1156-1989 which passed on July 1, 1989. Institution/Community Interaction Competition increased for community identity and cooperation from a reduced business community. There is a recognition in the community of the periods of past disagreements. It is important that contacts be maintained with the business community. They can be helpful as the outside community becomes aware of the campus and its advantages to the city and the metro area. It was through strong efforts of Denver's business leadership that the legislative atmosphere for the was created in the early 1970s. Many of these leaders remain active today in the metropolitan community. AHEC Management The administrative structure of AHEC remains as 14 Paper by summit participants, "Education Leaders Draft Auraria Plan," December 3, 1989, 4.

PAGE 124

116 originally proposed in 1974--three institutions and the Auraria Board. However, the new, revised board, which strengthens the institutions, held its first meeting on July 1, 1989. In the past there have been reactions from many executives no longer on campus that non-academic management by the Auraria Board is below standard, and that the insertion of a fourth board into the process is unworkable. This has been the attitude of some past chancellors and presidents who believed that each should be able and are capable of ."doing better themselves." It is possibl e that if each institution were on another campus, separated from any other, that presidents could efficiently operate all the facilities needed. The fact is that they are on this campus which, despite the desire of many to assume this situation is unworkable, works efficiently in the provision of services. Even the Colorado auditor's reports confirm that "due to the staff," (the staff is under board control) this campus is efficient. If the institutional leaders thought that Auraria did not work, they would not have continued with a similar board after July 1, 1989. The institutions should have more control over their personnel consistent with operating efficiencies. All direct relationships with personnel should be part of each institutional authority, i.e., registration,

PAGE 125

117 counselling, lectures, some purchases, etc. Duplication of three finance offices, mail systems, physical plants, public safety, purchasing office, child-care centers, would add no efficiency to the present operation and would be costly, taking needed funds from education. These are best consolidated. The present system is most efficient and eliminates both duplication and waste and should be continued. In Leadership and Ambiguity, Cohen and March discuss ambiguity, organized anarchy, garbage-can process, and loose coupling as the methods of decision making. 15 The processes of the Auraria Boards and the governing boards fall at times into each of these categories. It is not due to inefficiency but due to the requirements of making decisions that affect disparate entities, each of which often has a special agenda. As the board is replaced, the new board will take many similar actions under similar conditions. These conditions will not automatically drastically change because of a new board. 15. J. Cohen and James March, Leadership and Ambiguity, (Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press), 1988, IV.

PAGE 126

118 AHEC Services--Physical Plant (Reprise) The physical plant operation is a well-organized and well-run program. In three years of tenure, the present director of physical plant has developed a competent staff and seemingly provides prompt service. Institutional problems may arise in the future; therefore, it would add to efficiency if the new executive vice president for administration of the new board, or his or her staff, could have the opportunity to correct them promptly by advice from the Auraria Executive Council. Since few of the minutes of the Auraria Executive Committee (AEC) meetings have indicated problems in the past years, it is assumed that the operation has become more efficient. The basic operational guide set by the director is that physical plant is a service organization whose only function is to serve the educational needs of the institutions. He emphasizes to his staff that every action taken by the staff should be done efficiently and with a service attitude. The staff is performing the basics well but they need a closer relationship with the scheduling of classes and room availability to supply better service. A program has been developed with UCD to automate all records including class scheduling--past and present--so that by the end of 1989, all details wil l be

PAGE 127

119 available to aid future planning by physical plant management. It is possible that, due to the heavy load on space, much of the future maintenance work on campus will have to be done after 10 p.m. Barnard in The Function of the Executive describes the attitude of management of the physical plant when he says "responsibility is the property of the individual. 1116 With the attitude that service to the institutions is the reason for the existence of physical plant and with cooperation of the leadership and faculty of each institution, this operation can continue to develop into a close-knit, effective venture. In Administrative Behavior, Herbert Simon defines the theory of administration as "being concerned with how an organization should be constructed and operated in order to accomplish its work efficiently."17 The present director of physical plant has directed his organization to add to the efficiency. other less-than-efficient areas have brought criticism to the Auraria Board. One was the delivery of 16 Chester Barnard, The Function of the Executive, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press), 1974, 267. 17 Herbert Simon, Administrative Behavior: A Study of the Decision-Making Process in Administrative Organizations, (New York: John Wiley & Sons), 1957, 38.

PAGE 128

120 mail during the move to the North Classroom Building in 1987-1988. Due to insufficient unloading doors, mail was seriously delayed. The large backlog was not cleared until after classes began in January. Naturally, the movement of furniture and fixtures took priority so that classes could open on schedule. The delay in mail delivery served as a lesson for future similar actions. (Note: Mail delivery in 1988-1989 break was handled in the normal, efficient manner.) Parking management has gone from what was a lessthan-efficient organization to become a service institution to the campus primarily because of the leadership and cooperative attitude of the current director. If all of the plans of the AHEC Board can be funded through various sources, including the Auraria Foundation, the present, tight parking situation should be eliminated in the next two years. The recent closing by UCD of the library on Sundays due to "lack of funding" is a concrete example of poor management which caused considerable discontent among the students in all three institutions. An average of 600 to 700 students use the library on Sunday, compared to 3,000

PAGE 129

121 to 4,000 on weekdays. With so many students holding jobs in addition to classes, for some, Sunday is an important time, even though many others work on Sunday and use the library during the week. After closing for one month, the library opened again on Sunday. Those in charge of the library should have realized the effect of closing. "Probably the most important management fundamental that is being ignored today is staying close to the customer; to satisfy his needs and anticipate his wants."lS The UCD program review of the library, which took place during 1983-1985, had three main conclusions: 1. The library has made much progress toward achieving its goals of serving the needs of the diverse elements on the Auraria Campus. 2. Funding for the library has been inadequate. 3. The principal plant housing the library is inadequate. 19 The status of the library as of September 1, 1988, indicates additional growth with no expansion of space. This situation must soon be alleviated or the educational process may suffer. A continuing negative is the inadequate funding level for graduate and faculty research materials. This is not a criticism of UCD--it is a fact IS. Lem Young, editor-in-chief, Business Week, as quoted in The Search for Excellence, Thomas A. Peters and Robert Waterman, (New York: Harper & Row Publishers), 1982, 156. 19. University of Colorado at Denver, "Library Review, 1983".

PAGE 130

122 of educational funding in Colorado. Space Needs/Deficiency Space, or the lack of space, and the usage of this space has been the major area of confrontation and dissatisfaction with Auraria. Lack of space is one of the most important problems of Auraria, and is not of Auraria's making. The space-needs assessment done by Paulien and Associates in 1987 and 1988 basically confirms a shortage of each type of space: academic institutional, support, auxiliary, office, general administration, and service. The report confirms the immediate need of 79,000 assignable square feet for classrooms, faculty offices, and general administration offices. As pointed out previously, the new North Classroom Building did not add to the total number of classrooms on campus, but it does contain excellent laboratories, faculty lecture rooms, and office space. The AHEC Board authorized UCD to rent the Dravo Building at 1250 14th Street for administrative offices, the Mathematics Department, the School of Architecture and Planning, and the College of Business Administration. The current classroom scheduling system occasionally results in two institutions scheduling a room

PAGE 131

123 simultaneously. CCD complains that it has difficulty scheduling all of its classes since the other two institutions are not willing to make space available until after a term has begun. Under a centralized system, courses would be scheduled into available space once the basic academic schedule was developed by each institution. A centralized system could assure the greatest possible utilization of space. AHEC believes this can be implemented with the number of FTE currently enrolled in the three institutions. In retrospect, CCHE has evaded this issue since it assigned 13,000 FTE to this campus in 1977, knowing that the number of students was far in excess of this amount at the time. Enrollment has grown steadily. Despite the Patterson report suggesting that 55 square feet per student was not harmful if space was not wasted, every other institution in Colorado has two to three times that amount per student. The solution is to do the best with the space available while taking every legitimate means of achieving parity in space with other Colorado educational facilities. With space the major problem, along with growing enrollments at MSC and UCD, CCHE and the legislature must soon meet this challenge. Regardless of recommendations

PAGE 132

124 for future use of the campus, for a new institution or revision of the present institutions, there will be continue to be differences between the institutions on campus. Off-campus space may be a partial short-term answer, but it is not likely that the legislature will expend large sums on additional rented space. Allocations of funds for the next five years to clear this present shortage will result in an atmosphere of cooperation which is necessary to the well-being of the students. Patterson Report Many items in the Patterson report have to do with the failure of the institutions to cooperate in the areas of educational activity, e.g., the "fight over students." This may have been remedied by the UCD, MSC, CCD agreement of December 1988. The report remarks that the frequent turnover of executives at Auraria is part of the chronic and continuing trouble on campus. This may be part of the problem, but not all of it. These are men and women of ambition, always looking for a better location or improved position.

PAGE 133

March and Cohen in their book Leadership and Ambiguity had something to say about this. Since the research on this book was completed, several thousand college presidents have been appointed to their posts, replacing several thousand who have left. That turnover is reflected in the sample of colleges and universities we used in our study. In the 14 years from 1970 to 1984, 53 new presidents were appointed to office in the 41 colleges and universities in our sample. Of the 41 college presidents on whom our study was based, only 6 were still in. the same presidency in April of 1985, some 15 years later. It is a new generation of presidents. 20 125 The average administrator on the AHEC campus, as well as the faculty and some students, has viewed the turnover of the leaders of CCD, MSC, and UCD as being endemic to some of AHEC's problems. The experience of the authors of Leadership and Ambiguity would seem to negate some of the factors used to explain the turnover in the three institutions. Yet, there must have been some impact on leaders who came from institutions where they and their staff provided all services and who came to one where services were provided for them. They were naturally concerned: their prerogatives were reduced. The experience of March and Cohen would seem to be at odds with the Patterson Report. The Patterson report that notes there had been a 20. Cohen and March, Leadership and Ambiguity, XI.

PAGE 134

126 "lack of comprehensive planning in the developing of physical and other facilities is not correct."21 Planning for additional space has been going on for 10 years. A series of master plans shows space needed over the years as funding becomes available. If the legislature does not provide funding, planning is wasted, but planning has been continuous. If a "professional university" were to replace the existing institutions, many believe that the MSC students would eventually be eliminated. The requirements of this new entity might involve all the trappings of CU-Boulder and Colorado state university in Fort Collins. With the funding for higher education in Colorado already far less than in many other states, can Colorado fund another top-flight university? Many MSC students cannot afford to pay UCD tuition and fees now. The fees for fall 1988 are shown in Table 14. 21 Patterson, "A study of the Management of the Auraria Higher Education Center," 21.

PAGE 135

127 TABLE 14 Comparison Of Undergraduate Tuition Fees for Fall Semester 1988 I NSTITUT ION IN-STATE TUITION CCD $ 390 MSC 504 CU-Denver 605 CU-Boulder 805 Office Source: Facilities Management, AHEC 1988 There is already a disparity in fees, a fact not mentioned by the Patterson task force. What will occur under the programs of the "professional university" if it is to be what the task force envisions? Certainly fees will be comparable to CU-Boulder or CSU. Summit Meeting Report Of the numerous reports over the past 10 years, the only one which serves the best interest of present and future students, is the UCD, MSC, CCD, CCHE, AHEC summit recommendations of December 1988. A concern lingers that over the long term the institutions will not cooperate any better in the future than in the past. This is their last chance to develop a working relationship and be the kinds of institutions they want to be. If this fails at the sunset period in 1993, CCHE will again advocate a

PAGE 136

128 professional university that would eliminate both UCD and MSC. The one area in this agreement which may cause problems is the new board which replaces the Auraria Board. Potentially the three system presidents might be too busy to attend meetings regularly. If this occurs, the process will be weakened. Also, if four non-aligned members of the Auraria Board were a problem to the institutions, is three any better? A small committee of the board acting as an oversight group over the operational facilities would be more efficient and effective in the long run than a board containing the eleven people. The committee could be made up of one representative from each governing board, the operations vice-president of each institution, and the campus planner or other knowledgeable staff member. This group could meet bi-weekly, learn the campus operation, and closely check operations. A working group, it should have the authority to act and accomplish what had to be accomplished. Internally it would report to the heads of each institution through the executive vice president for administration and to the leaders of each system. The new governing board will have faculty and student officers who can act for their constituents to keep the board informed

PAGE 137

129 of their needs. (As a student taking classes over the past five years in various buildings and speaking to others about services, the author found that the average student has little interest in who cleans the snow or cuts the lawn as long as the campus is effectively maintained.) In addition to campus operation, the new board will need to address master planning, facilities planning, transportation planning, long-range capital budgeting, and landscape planning. Unless solving the space problem is a priority, any board will have difficulty dealing with the institutions. The new board should have adequate legislative strength to get approval for new classrooms and other space needs of Auraria if they wish to solve this ongoing problem. The Future of the Auraria Campus More than any other word, "if" describes the future of the Auraria campus. If the three institutions meticulously follow the agreements made at the December 1988 summit, a step toward stability will be taken. If the three executives of the institutions work closely with the Auraria Executive Council and its executive director to solve mutual problems, many areas of disagreement will be eliminated.

PAGE 138

130 If the three executives can muster and retain good will toward each other and strive to make the summit work, much can be accomplished. If these executives and the institutional board presidents can eliminate a paranoia regarding the word "Auraria" and make it the asset the Colorado Legislature envisioned, much good will result. If the attitudes return that prevailed before the summit, the risk persists that the legislature will apply the sunset law to this board and these institutions in July 1993. Should this happen, the result could be a new form of education on the campus, i.e., a principal university similar to the University of Colorado at Boulder and Colorado State University. If this occurs, the basic reason for the Auraria campus to exist--to create a broad spectrum of education for the students of this area--will disappear. It has already been noted that tuition costs for a principal university are higher relative to costs at Auraria institutions. Any change in the structure of the Auraria campus would surely eliminate many students from a higher education opportunity. If this occurs, the author believes irreparable harm will be done to higher education in the metropolitan area of Denver. It will affect present and future students adversely, as well as students in the K 12 systems. Many potential students will be deprived of a university

PAGE 139

or college education, and serious harm will be done educationally to the future of Colorado. 131 The future of the Auraria campus, therefore, depends on the personalities of the institutional leaders and their presidents. If they sincerely wish to see this campus achieve its intended goals, then a pattern for higher education will be set for Colorado and many areas of this country: a place where education is foremost and where people of all abilities can further their education.

PAGE 140

CHAPTER VII CONCLUSION The institutions at Auraria are classic examples of constant change and constant interplay of personalities. There have been numerous variations in educational programs depending on the changes in leadership over the past 12 years. Participation with each other has been an irregular process depending often on the leadership of the institutions. The institutions continue to disagree with each other and with the Auraria Board over space allocation. There is still competition for students, particularly between MSC and UCD since CCHE and State Audit Reports indicate some 39 percent of those students matriculating in MSC could have attended UCD. The complaint that the name "Auraria" deprives them of an identity has been part of the dissatisfaction of some with the governance here. Yet, "Auraria" can be a strong central force for effectively and efficiently marketing each institution as part of the whole. Finally, the Auraria Higher Education Center is the official name of the campus as determined by the governors and legislators of Colorado since 1974. In addition, it is not likely that funds will ever be made available for a separate campus for each institution, therefore, why not use the situation as a plus, rather than a point of discord? 132

PAGE 141

133 The three institutions have provided excellent education as ascertained by personal interviews, but they have been unable to confront the major problem: lack of space. Since the last enrollment period in 1989, there has not been agreement as to an allocation method. perhaps with new executives at UCD and MSC, this problem will be pursued to a satisfactory conclusion based on the limitation of existing space. Unless adequate space is provided by CCRE and the legislature, the Auraria campus will continue to be in discord. The CCRE participated in the criticism of the Auraria Board by hiring Patterson and Associates and actually became a part of the problem by doing little to alleviate the space deficit. Up to now, students have been most affected by the space situation and have had to put up with overcrowded or inadequate classrooms and laboratory spaces. At the same time, faculty are housed in inadequate offices and teach in laboratory spaces that are too small. Meanwhile, the institutional officers bickered; CCRE listened but did little. In order to get this issue resolved, it is necessary to mobilize the students, faculty, business community, and the new board to lobby for legislative action.

PAGE 142

134 With adequate space for each institution, the majority of complaints against the Auraria Board would greatly diminish. Attitudes toward education and teaching would be improved. Even now, everyone interviewed agreed that education at Auraria is excellent. How much better it could be if space needed by the students was available! If the management up to July 1, 1989 was so inefficient, why does the recently passed HBl155 recreate a larger, fourth board replacing the AHEC board to provide services, even though the board of institutional executives and their top leadership are part of the new process? The next three or four years will be interesting one from this point of view. Finally, Auraria is the most economical of all campuses in Colorado based on operating efficiencies, space usage, and student population. It houses the largest number of students (approximately 29,000) in Colorado on only 169 acres and has the lowest square footage use in the state while operating 15 hours per day. Education and Students Numerous voices are raised and evaluations quoted in this dissertation, most agreeing that the educational processes are excellent and have been so since the campus opened. In addition, CCD has shown a new vitality in

PAGE 143

135 creating opportunities for the students. This strengthening is evident by an increased enrollment of minority students by 29 percent for 1989 (and an overall growth of 23 percent). Minority enrollment is greater than in similar areas and tuition costs are comparable or less than for other area schools. Institutional Cooperation and Dissatisfaction Housing three different functional institutions was obviously an experiment, both in education and in economy of function. There were, and are, many adjustments to be made by each institution--some easy, some painful. Considering the fact that the university of Colorado had been operating at 1100 14th street in an autonomous manner for many years, their problems were compounded mentally. The other two institutions had no previous central home and were thus more amenable to the change. The real problem for all three institutions was one of management. All three present institutional officers feel that they lose some relationship with students unless each controls all phases of campus operation. This is not possible at AHEC, so cooperation through the new board is vital. In setting up the original AHEC Board, it was felt that the institutional function was, and is, to educate. Institutional leaders

PAGE 144

136 have had to work in a vastly different environment from their own experiences. Some leaders have felt a loss of leadership; others have been relieved to be out of the line of fire. "American colleges and universities are organizations with unclear goals and technologies and fluid participation. III The Denver metropolitan area must have available to its citizens the best and most complete educational resources in Colorado. This area is the heartland of the state and must not be neglected. CCHE and the legislature have the responsibility of seeing Colorado prosper. It can do so by producing a large cadre of highly educated people who can serve the long-range needs of this state. Basically this is the reason that good planning and judgment placed this campus at Auraria, central in the area, so that it could best serve the general population, minority and non-minority. The plans of the past have now begun to become reality. This is an economically efficient method of operation--one which should be a pattern for the future in Colorado and elsewhere. James March and Johan P. Olsen, Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations, (Bergen, Norway: Universitats Forlanger), 1976, 175.

PAGE 145

BIBLIOGRAPHY Barnard, Chester, The Function of the Executive, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1974. Board of Directors, Auraria Higher Education Center, 1978, 1978 Report on Organizational Relationships, December, 1978. Board of Directors, Auraria Higher Education Center, Mission statement, March, 1978. Board of Directors, Auraria Higher Education Center, A Resolution Referring to the Patterson Report, 1988. Board of Directors, Auraria Higher Education Center, New Board Authority Organization By-Laws, August, 1989. Bolman, Lee, Terrence Deal, Modern Approaches to Understanding and Managing Organizations, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, London, 1985. By-Laws and Operating Policies, Auraria Higher Education Center, June 1986. Cannon, James B., The Organizational and Human Implications of Merger, American Educational Research Associates, Montreal, Canada, 1983. Cardozier, V.D., Upper Level Colleges -Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow, University of Texas, Austin, Texas. Chambers, Gail S., Forms of College Merger, Connecticut University, Bridgeport, Connecticut, 1984. Cohen, Michael D., James March, Leadership and Ambiguity, Harvard Press, Boston, Massachusetts, 1988. Colorado Commission on Higher Education, Conflict Resolution by Board of Directors, Auraria Higher Education Center, Denver, Colorado, March 1986. Colorado Commission on Higher Education, 1986 Final Legislative Report, Denver, Colorado, 1986. Colorado State Legislature HBl153/CR 520-70-101 Authorizing an Official Board of Directors, Auraria Higher Education Center, Colorado state Capitol, Denver, Colorado, 1974.

PAGE 146

Colorado state Legislature HB1226 An ACT Concerning the Auraria Higher Education Center, Colorado state Capitol, Denver, Colorado, May, 1988. Colorado state Legislature, A Bill for an ACT Concerning the Auraria Higher Education Center, Colorado state Capitol, Denver, Colorado, February, 1989. Colorado Office of the state Auditor, Review of Operations of the Auraria Higher Education Center, Colorado state Capitol, Denver, Colorado, 1983. Crismore, Avon, The Role at the Regional Campus in Indiana, Especially Indiana University and Purdue University, Fort Wayne, Indiana, 1983. Denhardt, Robert G., Theory of Public Organizations, Brooke/Cole Publishing Company, Monterey, California, 1984. Dravo Lease, Auraria Higher Education Center, Issues and Problems, AHEC Board of Directors, Denver, Colorado, April 1988. Drucker, Peter, Management -Tasks, Responsibilities and Practices, Harper and Row, New York, New York, 1982. ERIC Computer Printout, Consolidations, Closings, Mergers of Institutions of Higher Education, Auraria Library, Denver, Colorado, March 1988. Executive Summary, UCD Statement of the Position of the Positive and Negative Aspects of the Management of the Auraria Higher Education Center, Denver, Colorado, September 1988. Herbertson, Jack R., A Report on the History of Space Allocation at the Auraria Higher Education Center, Auraria Higher Education Center, Denver, Colorado, December 1984. Higher Education Leaders Draft Auraria Plan, The Summit Meeting, Denver, Colorado, December 1988. Humphries, Frederick S., John Matrock, The Planning of the Merger of Two Public Higher Education Institutions, Nashville, Tennessee, 1979. Inside CCD, "Auraria Higher Education Management Study," Community College of Denver, Denver, Colorado, September 1988. Katz, Daniel, Robert L. Kahn, The Social psychology of Organizations, John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York,

PAGE 147

1966. Love, John, Executive Order Designating the Auraria Board of Directors, Colorado state Capitol, Denver, Colorado, 1971. March, James, G., Handbook of Organizations, Garlen Publishing Company, New York, New York, 1987. March, James, G., Johan polson, Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations, Universitats Forlager Bergen, Norway 1976. Memorandum of Agreement Regarding Pooled Courses UCD, MSC, Denver Colorado, 1988. Metropolitan state College, Characteristics and Size of Student Body, Denver, Colorado, 1988. Paulien and Associates, Facilities Use Study of the Auraria Higher Education Center, October 1988. Peters, Thomas A., Robert Waterman, Jr., In Search of Excellence, Harper & Row Publishers, New York, New York, 1982. poythress, Jacques, Robert Walker, A Change in Governance of the Dekalb Community College Creating an Academic Ranking System, Dekalb Community College, Dekalb, Georgia, 1983. Priorities in Progress, Community College of Denver, Denver, Colorado, February 1987. Responsibilities and Procedures for Allocation of Space at Auraria Higher Education Center, Auraria Executive Committee, Denver, Colorado, May 1981. Role and Mission Statements for the Auraria Higher Education Center for the Period 1988-1993, Auraria Board of Directors, Denver, Colorado, June 1988. Simon, Herbert, Administrative Behavior, A Study of the Decision Making Process in Administrative Organizations, John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York, 1957. A Statement on the Management of the Auraria Higher Education Center, The Consortium of state Colleges of Colorado, Denver, Colorado, September 1988. stout, Russell, Management or Control, The Organizationai Challenge, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana, 1980. A Study of the Management of the Auraria Higher Education Center, Franklin Patterson and Associates, Boston,

PAGE 148

Massachusetts, September 1988. Warren, Dennis, Changing Organizations, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, New York, 1966.

PAGE 149

SOURCES INTERVIEWED BY AUTHOR R. J. Alfultis -Director, parking and Transportation, Auraria Higher Education Center Waldo Benavidez -Executive Director, Auraria Community Center Marvin Buckels Vice Chairman, Auraria Higher Education Center Board of Directors Glendon Drake -Chancellor, University of Colorado at Denver William Fulkerson -Interim President, Metropolitan State College Lawrence Hamilton -Chairman of the Board, Community Colleges of Colorado Byron McClenney -President, Community College of Denver Richard Netzel -Professor of physics, Metropolitan State College James Schoemer -Executive Director for Administration, Auraria Higher Education Center Warren Taylor -Director of Facilities Use, Auraria Higher Education Center Dan Trujillo -Chairman of the Board, Auraria Community Center Martin Van De Visse Community College System Dean Wolf -Director of Physical Plant Operations, Auraria Higher Education Center

PAGE 150

APPENDIX I Organization Charts Auraria Higher Education Center Physical Plant (Operations) Planning and Transportation Services Public Safety & Plan of Auraria Campus

PAGE 152

PHYSICAL PLANT ORGANIZATIONAL CHART DIREC10R , Staff Ass't. ........... .. .. . .. .. Manage r of Environmental Health. Safety & Energy -, Assistant Director' 1 Design & Construction Management Manager -Engineering Building & Mechanical Trades Manager -I Assistant to the Manager General Maintenance Electrical Mechanical Painting Lock/Sign Shop Construction/Maintenance 11DO/010490/44/baa Design Staff I ,,_ 1 Grounds Manager Business Manager' Grounds Maintenance Admin. Support Vehicle Maintenance Purchasing Utility Key Control _1Housekeeping Maintenance Manager ,,",,.I,p i '9 (1st Shift) Maintenance (2nd Shift and Night Shift)

PAGE 153

Aurarla Higher Education Center Organizational Chart I July 1989

PAGE 154

J Parking and Transportation Services Division Organizational Chart Financial Operations Manuer Intemal Auditor Referees Transportation Services Manager Director Asst Director Day Shift Supervisor Evening Shift Supervisor Field Coordinators Utility Worlcers Parking Attendants n Parking Auendants I Parking Systems Manager 5/89

PAGE 155

r Auraria Public Safety Organizational Aurarla Higher Education Center Board of Directors I Executive Director Dr. Jim Schoemer Deputy Executive Director I Director of Public Safety David Rivera I Sr. Secretary I I June Irwin Field Operations Technical Serv ices Lt. G Kasson Sgt E Daugherty I I Watch I Watch II Watch III Communicat i ons I Records Cieri< I Sergeant Sergeant Sergeant Supervisor Gloria Bemal 2300-0730 07301 530 1500-2330 V i cki Schonschek ---1 ---1 ---1 --1 I Investigator I 4 P S.O .II -f P S O.III -1 P S O .III --1 Dispatcher I Shift I 4 Guard -f P S O II -1 P S .O.II -1 Dispatcher 4 Hourty -f P S O .II -1 P S O .II Shift II -1 P S O .II -1 Guard iI D i spatcher Shift III -1 Guard Y Hourly H Support 4 Hourly 1 H Relief Hourly I

PAGE 156

APPENDIX II Metropolitan State College Characteristics and Size of Student Body 1965

PAGE 157

9/10/65 -------.-_. STATE COLLEGE SIZE OF STUDENT BODY Metropolitan State College will attract, to education beyond the high 1 school, the student who now does not go on to college, because access is too difficult. Access is financial, geographic and motivational. As was I pointed out in the studies of the Task Group, access is a major problem in the metropolitan area for all but the most able students and those from highly motivated and financially able families. Approximately twenty per cent fewer high school graduates of the metropolitan area now go on to college in Colorado than in the five Colorado counties having a public four-year college or university. It is among these students--ones who are ,11blocked from higher education, from personal achievement and fulfillment, i from making their highest possible contribution to the econonic, CUltural,; and civic life of the community and the state, blocked by geography or blocked by finances or family background-that Metropolitan State College. will find many of its students. Studies of the Trustees indicated that Metropolitan State College should expect a full range of students. It will enroll its share of the most able. It will have a very large contingent of students from the middle third of their graduating classes. It will admit students just out of high sc 001, young adults, w 0 a ter some years away from school, have found the ambition and the financial ability to return to education, mature men and wome n facing the necessity of retraining for a changing economy. The net result is not only an expansion of the educational market. but also better distribution of students through the state's educational and better articulation within the system. In addition to added numbers of high school graduates going on to college, many more adults will also pursue higher education. In n umbers alone; the mission of Metropolitan State College will be large. By 1970, more people will live in the Adams, Arapahoe, Denver and Jefferson four-county area than in the rest of the state combined. Between 1940 and 1960, population in this metropolitan area more than doubled. By 1970 it will have tripled. The proportion of all Coloradans in the fourcounty area shifted from 36 per cent in 1940 to 49 per cent in 1960 and it will be 52 per cent in 1970. The Inter-County Regional Planning Commission estimates there will be approximately 2,500,000 people in the metropolitan area of Denver by the year 2000. In 1963--977,000; 1970--1.280,000; 1980--, 1,625.000; 2000--2,475.000. In the next ten years, the number of metropolitan area high school graduates will more than double. This growth trend will be twice as fast" as in the rest of the state. Between 1962 and 1971 over a quarter of a million students will graduate from public and parochial schools in Colorado and the number of students in graduating classes state-wide will grow by 78 per cent. But, the growth rate will be 119 per cent in the four-county area compared with 45 per cent for all other counties combined. y ___ ---

PAGE 158

-2 It is difficult to comprehend the numbers involved in the growth of higher education in Colorado. It is even difficult to believe there will be an expansion of the magnitude projected. But these children are already born. There were 39,000 students in the autumn enrollments in state sup ported colleges and universities this year, 1 964-65. This number will sky rocket by 1980-81 to over 80 ,000 students. Such growth will require that all of the existing colleges and universities be expanded. Furthermore, it will require some additional institutions ..... In this kind of a growth situation a new state college in the Denver ) metropolitan area will not deter the rather rapid expansion of any of the existing colleges and universities. With a state college easily accessible the percentage of high school graduates going on to college from the metropolitan area will increase. This is frequently referred to as "expanding the market." But the new college will also share some of the enormous growth anticipated in the state's system of higher education. Whenever a new college is established it takes from seven to ten years for the pat-terns of attendance in the state to become realigned into relatively permanent new patterns. The gradually expanding size of these changes is shown in the table on the following page. The statistics in this table also document the conclusion of the Trustees that all state colleges and universities will grow rapidly even though Metropolitan State College enrolls upward of 18,000 full time students. The projection of undergraduate students in the table on the following page was made in autumn of 1963. The projection included, therefore, an estimate of the enf1:tlhilEli [ f'()( the current year, fiscal 1964-65, at which time it was hoped Metropolitan State College would be funded. That the estimates in this table are based on conservative concepts is demonstrated by the fact we estimated there would be 30,338 undergraduate students in the autumn of 1964. There was actually 31,983. We underestimated by 1,645 students for the first year of the projection. Metropolitan State College --Data Sheets and Analysis pp. 10 & 11.

PAGE 159

APPENDIX III House Bill 1163 Establishing the Auraria Higher Education Center 1974

PAGE 160

. HOUSE BILL NO. 1163. BY REPRESENrATIVES Tempest, Gustafson, .Arnold, Cooper, Benavidez,' Bendelow, Boley, Carroll, l)e.\loulin, Gallagher, Gaon, Hayes, Hobbs, Hm/e, Kopel, Lucero, Safran, Smith, Taylor, Valdez, and Webb; also SENATORS Sh oemaker, Fnstrom Ruland, Calabrese, Dines, Mad, lanus, and COI\'CERNING WE ESTABLISHMENr OF TIlE AIJRARIA HIGHER EnUCATIO:-I CENTER, AND PROVIDING FOR TIlE CRFATION OF ITS BOARD OF DIREcroRS, AND DEFINING TIlE POWERS, wrIES, k\'D R.l:SPONSIBILITIES .OF suar. Be it enacted r. the General Assembly of the State of Colorado: .. SECfION 1. Chapter 124, Colorado Revised Statutes 1963, as ame nd ed, is amended BY TIiE ADDITION OF A ARTICLE to ARTICLE 29 Auraria_ Higher Education Center 124-29-101. Legislative .declaration. (1) The general asselr.bly hereby findS and declares that this article is necessary to: (a) Provide for the coordination of the planning and constpJCtion of a multi-institution".l higher education complex located in the city and county of Denver on land d esignated' therefor and on land occupied by the university o f at Denver, collectively known as the Auraria higher education center and referred to in this article as the "center"; (b) Provide for -the land, physical plant, and facilities necessary to accclI'Illodate and house t-latrOpolitan state college, the t!l1ive-r-sity of Colorado at Denver, and the conm.mity college / C "-Pl.t:;rTctters indicate neH material nd:led to existinr, statutes; dashes thro ugh words indicate deletions from existing statutes and such n lateri.al not part o f act APr k' Y

PAGE 161

-I j / -I I I ; of Denver, Auraria campus, referred to in this article as the "constituent institutions", at and Hithin the center; (e) Facilitate the execution U\J perfo11i'.!lnce of the constitutional and statutory responsibilities of th!:: governing boards of the constituent institutions ; (d) Establish a new board to plan, .;onstruct, maintain, and Ule land and physical facilities of the center ruld perform the duties and exercise the pOh'ers othenvisc set forth in Ulis article; and (e) Provide a system for facilitating cooperation the constituent institutions, their governing boards, and the governing board created by this article ., me:nbcrshi (1) There is hereby create e boar of t e Auraria higher education center, referred to in this article as Ule "Auraria boanl", \ /hich shall consist of seven members, appointed in the folloHing manner: (a) (I) Four members appointed by the governor as soon as practicable after the effective date of this article, the first of Hhom shall serve for a term of one year, the seco:1d for a term of two years, the third for a term of three years, and the fourth for a term of four years; thereafter, gubernatorial appointWoents shall be for four-year terms; (II) In the event of death, resignation, or inability or refusal to act of any such appointed menIDer, the governor shall fill the vacancy for the remainder of the term. (b) Three members, one appointed by, and from among the members of, each of the follOliing boards: TIle state board for community colleges and occupational education (or, upon such board 's. designation, the Denver area council for cOJ;rnuni ty colleges), the trustees of the state colleges in ColoraUo, and the regents of the tmiversity of Colorado, each such member to serve at the pleasure of the appointing board so long as he is a member of the appointing board. (2) Each of Auraria board shall take and subscribe to the oath of office prescribed by the constituticn of this state before entering upon the duties of his offiCi!, Hhich oath shall be placed and kept on file in the office of the secretary of state. 124-29-103. Responsibility of governing hoards of constituent institutlons. (1J EXcept ns nlZl)' be expressl}' prOVided in this artlcle, the respective goveming boards of the constituent institutions are charged \-lith the responsibility for, and shall plrul, initiate, manage, anJ control, their respective

PAGE 162

, ,I ..... progrCifo'.5 :ithin the Co"'..orado system of higher education as provided in this article; and, in addition, said rc?pectiv:! bO'lrds shall initiate <, .. nd control joint academic and vocational programs among 1:' ... :) or morn of the constituent institutions at the center. (2) The resl'ective f,overning boards of the institutiolLS shall previue for a cOlillr.on aca:ler.ric calendar h'l:ich is sufficie:lt so that students may begin, ma}: e progress to\{ard. and complete a course at a time ,.hich will allow full opportunity for enroll.J;:ent in courses offered at any of the three constitl.!;:nt institutions. Registration periods shall coincide and the academic year shall cOliU"ilence and tcnninate sirrW taneously. (3) The respective governing boards of the constituent institutions shall provide that credits earned at each of the constituent institutions shall be transferable inst; f:l1tions insofar as they meet the degTee and requirel\oents of the student's chosen program of studies at one of the constituent institutions as determined by the degree-granting institution 124-29-104. Duties of the Auraria board. (1) TIle Auraria board has the duty: (a) To plo.n . construct, Olm, lease. operate,' maintain, anu m:mage all of the physical plant. facil i tics. buildings, anJ grounds in the center, except that land owned at the center by the regents of the university of Colorado shall continue under such ownership but shall be maintained and managed in a similar manner to the other facilities in the Aurari1. center,' and such additional land and facilities as the assembly may frc;";} time to time designate to be part of the cente: aIld to accept and. hold for the use of the center and its constituent institutions such property as was designated or used prior to the effective t!.;'lte of tlus article for purposes of center or its constituent institutions; (b) To allo::ate and assign in accordance l.nth needs to the constitui;:nt institutions suitable space \ilthin the center fer the use of such institutions and for such joint or cooperative edu::ational, Yocation:ll, and other activities CL"'.l as lnay be provided by the constituent institutions; (c) To facilitate effective coordination and economics of operation of physical fC!.cilities by designating joint facilities of the cOllstitul:nt in:;':itutions to inclucle, but not be to, dininl! facilities. student service facilities. library facilities) warchouse filcilities, recreational facili tics, hcalt;, fncilitic$, ruld fncilities; (d) To deterr..ine and designate nonvocatiG:tal joint programs or joint PAGE 3-lnJSE DILL NO. 1163 the nonacademic activities of th:!

PAGE 163

institutions' to incL.. . but not be li.r.JiteJ to, sccL_-ity [, ,1 fire protection, l;:aintc.1
PAGE 164

:-e, 1 -beards of state institutions of higher (a) To promulgate rules and regulations for the safety of st'-!dent!;, employees, and pro?erty located lIithin the center; (b) To promulgate rules and regulatio ns providing for the op3ration ::md of vehicles upon the g rounds, drive l ;ays o r ro:clways Idthin the center under the control of the Aura.ria bo : n-d; (c) l2.ws; To ,cede jurisdiction for the enforcement of traffic 'Cd) To institute and ,carry out a system of registration and identification of vehicles olmed or operated by students, faculty, and, staff attending or employed by the constituent' ir.stitutions and the Auraria staff located at the center; and (e) To receive gifts and bequests of money or property which may be tendered to the Auraria board. 124':'29-107. Borrowing For the pUl110ses of a acq'Jirinr;, aJli equlpplng dining facilities, recreational health facilities, and parking facilities for the use of stwc: :t.s and employees at the center, the /wraria board is, after approval by the Colorad o corrmissicm on higher c:! :!catio:1 and subsequent affi mati ve vote by the combined s tu:!en!: of the Auraria campus if student fees are to be us::!d iI, financing such projects, to eilter into contracts with anyone or J;(H';! pcrs':)!ls or corporations or state or federal goven'l.-:len't for the advancement of moneys for such purposes and far the repa}T.lent of sllch advanc::lI aUI :hori;:::;J. to pledge the net income ueriv:!d from other dining recreational facilities, hC:1.1th facilities, an d parking facilities, not acquired and not to be acquired Hiti, J;:!lneys a:: :propriated to the Auraria bCla.d by the stat;) of ColoraJo. anu to pledge the net inco!1e, fees, and rcv-::nues cu.iveu f::c.;n said sources, if such be \lnpledged, or, if pldged, net inco:ne, fees, and rcvenUeS currently in c:l.cess of E'Jr,:.)Wlt to meet principal, int
PAGE 165

.. . - ) \ ; .;: inco;:.:. fees) b" : 'ie th:::etofoTc been pledged. (2) Any of mon<:}'" 1.1:lY by'intcrim 1 if necessary, arid bonds to Lt! e x(;cut ed by a'ld on behalf the Au:.-aria b::>ard. such tc :ms 2a:l pro'/isions, provisio;lS for redemption prior to matu:-ity, <1S Tn.:ly be by th A'.lrar ie: b oard. \ {:1rr81ts o r bon d s at t,1C of the board, be r ei: i $ trab l::! i\S to p 'rincipa l or inter:!st, o. both, and shall never be sold at' less tll.3ll ui!lety-fiv:! percent of tl:e principal ar.omt th:!reo and accrued interest t!ureon to the date of delivery or at a f ,rice ,.;hiCh Hin result in a net effective intorest rate \oIhich exceeds specified in t i le for the aliv;mceJr. ent of JYJ!:eys. hIt of the warra.,ts or bonds of the Auraria board issued p !r';;'-lant this section or any Qther may be refundad pursU<1J1t to 8 of chapter 125, C.R.S. 1953, if in the ju:1gment of the Auraria board. suc:\ refunding shall be to its best interosts. refur:.ding P.3Y be r..a.:ie payable fro;:! any source 'ir.ich may be legally pledged for the payr.!:!nt of the obI ig2 tions being refunded at the ti.r.:e of the issuance of the obligatioas so refunded or from any of the descri!>ed in :;ubsection (1) of this section, notwithsta.,ding that the pledge fO"r the paymant of the outstanding obligations being reftmtled is thereby rn'.Al.i fied. . (3) In the event that the pledged fees, and revenues exceed tho! required to meet principal, in:.c:;:-est, reserve reqcirClaents b wi t h revenue b onds of the jnstitution or institutions to such income has been pledged, the Auraria board r:'3Y retab such surplu.> and utilize the tor sudl as in its judgment shall be in the int:orcsts of t ;,e centr;:r indcling, but not to, r<:habilitation, al teration., aUdi ti')n to, or eq'.lippip.g of any existing facilities acquireLl purs.l!tHt to the provi5iolls of this section. and the acquisition of sites for the constn.;ction, acquisitil)n, and equipping of additional f'lcilities pursL13..,t to such pr':lvisions, or for p : .... ior ree' .::,? !:ion oE outstar:.dit\g b':.lJ1ds. (4) Anticipation l{arrants or bonds issued pnrsuant to this section nay be used as security for 211y depo s tory b0nd or obligation where My kir, d of bond or other securit'/ must or may, by 1:3.\", i.;.} as s ecurity ... 121-29-109. Nt) pT'Or'ery lien. The IcI.!raria b nrd not create a Jr.ortgageupon any belonging to t!!e boaT.:! or to the state of ColoI':ul o or to any c{)nstitu-i!nt. institution, nor shall the state be to sec,-:r::: or r:::pay issued pursuant to the p '!'ovisions of 12 ,:-29-107 PAGE BILL NO. 1163

PAGE 166

.. . [) v and 1 2 : b/ the J\'.I:-?:-ia board shall exempt f.o m for count), school district. special dis-trL:t, municip .1.1, or other in the state of. Colorado. 1n-29-1E. Cert:l.i_'1 d ebt!: ?.nd e xo:mses prc::ibited. The AuraL'i a board is prolnbltt.: . l from cr<.:a tmg r.!'I1' debt a:; a:;aJJlS t the state c : Col or.:;,!(' or t ho' board:; of institt;tions 0: from incurnng a : ,j' exp ensu beyond i t s abilit:: to pay th:: SaJi1e fro: n the or appropriated fu.l.ds for the then C l:rrent )'i!a;:-. of No action shall be brought questio[,in g th'! ot any contract, p rQceeding or or executed or to be executed by the Aurarin bo ard in conn:ction Hith the of. any dining, health. or parkiag facilities p rovided or to be provided for the purpose.i authorL:!d by this article after thirty days have after t : he effective date of any resolution or other official action authorizing such contract, adop ting such procc< xUngs. or autho'.("i.z.ing the issuance of suc;' \;arrants or bonds. SECTION 2. Safety c1uuse T"ne general assembly hereby PAGE 7 1 !OOSE lliil. NO. 1163

PAGE 167

" fin'is, detcr.j:.!.ncs, anel th'lt t his a c t th:") inmediate preservation of the publi<.: saJ.:::::y. JO}U1 IJ. Fuh .. SP.E:\;.J;1 OF 11-E IKXJSE OF is n e:.:;;ssary f : -,. peace. !:cal th, CL,j Ted L. ACTlj\:G PRESIDS T OF TI-IC SENAiE LorrOlwe F. LCHlbard1 Comtort N. 5:12-.. alIEF CLERK OF TIlE llooSE S ErnETARY 0;: OF REPP.ESENT1 \TIVES THE S ENA:t! __________ ____________________ __ John D. Vand::rhoot GOVERNOR OF TIlE Sf ATE OF COLOfUm : ,' r -PAGE 8-mUSE RILL 00. 1163

PAGE 168

APPENDIX IV Responsibilities and Procedures of Allocation of Space at The Auraria Higher Education Center 1981

PAGE 169

' AlJlOJiO ducotton C"nlur IA\ D"flas determined that pressure for add itional space mandated a new procedure for allocation which woul d insure that all types of space at the Auraria Higher Education Center were being utilized' as efficiently as possible. The essential tenets o f the new bilities/procedure are as follows: 1) The chief academic officer s the respective institutions will constitute a corrrnittee ",hich is charged with preparing recommendations to resolve the length of class periods/teaching days per week issue. This issue will be resolved by a majority vote of the Auraria Executives Committee on or before June 10. AHEC will implement the AEC decision of length of class periods. 2) Under its statutory authority. AHEC has determ ine d that effective irrrnediately, all space at the Auraria Higher Education Center has reverted to the central authority of AHEC and is considered "pooled space" which is a vailable for reassignment and use at such time and under such conditions as AHEC deems nece ssa r y and 3) AHEC has committed to providing space for all classes, laboratories and activities through reassignment referenced in (2) abo v e with the exception .(Ioted in (6). Due to lateness in the year no changes in methods of providing class schedules for Fall 1981 will be implemented at this time Each institution will'be responsible for assigning classes and laboratories to the same spaces it had been allocated "in block" for the current year with the foll OI'I'i ng exceptions:. Science 119 will be transferred from UCD to for evening courses; EC 220 will be transferred from UCD to' CCD-A for daytime courses.

PAGE 170

Vice Vice Chancellors, Ot' ilns Department (heirs, Space Coordiniltors 13, 1981 Page 2 4) Jf an not currently have enough classrooms allocated to it to rneet requirements for Fall 1981 (i.e. science classrooms due to reduction in capacity because of fire codes) the classes are to be identified in the class schedule with "location to be arranged". Prior to '.ay 15, 1981 eilch institution is to submit to AHEC a list of the course title, size and day and hours of the "to be arranged" cl asses. To be arranged classes will likely be scheduled in what (a) now may be considered personal faculty "laboratories", (b) classrooms heretofore assumed to be in the ,"pool" of another institution, and/or (c) specialized space such as the media center, physical education facility, library, Technology .Building, etc. 5) Office space is to be considered centralized and under AHEC control, just as are classrooms and laboratories. 6) The policy is that all grant proposals which require additional space be in advance by AHEC so that.it is certain that space commitments can be met. Externally funded programs that were in existence on April 15, 1981 must be accommodated within "block" allocations made to the respective institutions; In summary, AHEC has reaffirmed its commitment to meet all campus needs and to provide as little disruption to the current operations as possible. In this context, common sense will prevail in the assignment of space and it is believed that the overall space pressure on the campus will be significantly relieved through centralized scheduling. It is understood that some faculty are likely to be inconvenienced through .this process, but that, overall, it will be of significant benefit to the large majority of faculty. staff and students. At the same time the Auraria Executi ves Cor.vni ttee is well aware of the fact that the Auraria institutions continue to utilize space at a rate that is twice as efficient as the next best utilized campus in Colorado. Renewed' efforts will be made to obtain funds for new construction that will relieve some of the current space pressures. The combined efforts of the entire Auraria corrrnunity will be necessary if we are to be successfulin attaining appropriations for this purpas In the. meantime, we request your support and understanding of the measures above as a positive response to an immediate problem. JFW/evw

PAGE 171

APPENDIX V A Report on the History of Space Allocation at The Auraria Higher Education Center Herbertson 1984

PAGE 172

i f I I I -I I I I I' I I I I I I I I JZ!T A REPORT ON THE HISTORY OF SPACE ALLOCATION AT THE AURARIA HIGHER EDUCATION CENTER A Report Prepared by Project Associates in cooperation with the Auraria Higher Education Center Jack R. Herbertson December, 1984

PAGE 173

Q Recommendation of a Process for Allocation of Space The number of teaching stations should be pro-rated based on 1 ppropriated on-campus FTE of the prior year as set forth in the pre v ic year's Long Appropriation Bill. (Timing and schedule planning would dicta! that there be a one year lag. ) The proportion of the total on c ampus F for the institution would determine the proportion of the stations that would be assiglled. The proportion of FTE would be modified to exclude 1 FTE and would be divided into day and night FTE according to the proportic of day/night student enrollments. The proportion of FTE that are 1 ab F wi 11 be detenni ned by the number of student credit hours tha tare 1 hours. The number of day and night FTE respectively would be determined the student credit hours produced in the day or at night. By pool i ng the day FTE and the ni ght FTE s ep a ra te 1 y. the proport i day stations and night stations for each institution could These would then be translated into the proportion of the tot stations assignable to each institution for each hour during the day a ni ght. This method has the advantage of tying available classroom resourc to the annual appropriation process. It recognizes the anticipat ----proportion of student credit hours to be generated in classroom a instructional laboratories. It factors in the annual process f implementing changes in institutional roles by a consideration of the annu number of HE appropri ated and/or all ocated to the Aurari a Campus by t legislature and the respective governing boards. The recommendation can be summarized as: Development of an all ocation system based on on-campus FTE whil takes into consideratiPILJiqy/oight FTE and lab FTE. 18

PAGE 174

APPENDIX VI The Auraria Higher Education Center By-laws and Operating Policies 1986

PAGE 175

Auraria Board of Directors Attachment to Agenda Item 3 Ju 1 y 14. 1986 "9' UAr-L AURARIA HIGHER EDUCATION CENTER BY-LAWS AND DPERATIHG POLICIES Adopted by the Auraria Board of Directors June 9, 1986 -13-

PAGE 176

AURARIA HIGHER EDUCATION CENTER BY-LAWS ArID QPERATWG 1. STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND RESPOHSIBILlTY OF THE AURARIA BOARD 23-70-10l. assembly hereb y to : ARTICLE 70 Aurar ia Higher Education Center Legisla:ive findS and dec lares that (1) this The general article is (a) Provide for the coord ination of the planning and construction of a multi-institutional higher education complex located i n the city a n d county of Denver on land designated t herefor and on lan d now occupied by the university of Colorado at Denver, collectively known as the Auraria higher educat ion center and referred to in this article as the "center" ; (b) Provide for the land, physical plant, and facilities necessary to accommodate and house Metropolitan state college, the university of Colorado at Denver, and the community college of Denver, Aurar i a campus, referred to i n this article .5 the "co nstituen t instit.utions", at and within the center' ; (c) Facilitate t h e execution and performance of the constitutional and statutory respo nsibilities of the govern ing boards of the constituent institutions; (d) Establish a new board to plan, construct, maintain, and the land and physical facilities of the center and perfurm the duties and exercise the powers otherwise set forth in th i s article; and (e) Provide a system for facilitating cooperation among the 'const ituent institutions, their governing boards, and the govern ing board created by this article. 23-70-102. A ureria board membershio terms -oath. (1) There is hereby created the board of d irectors of the Aurdria higher education center, referred to in this article as tile Auraria board", which shall consist of nine members, chosen in the following manner : -1-_14-

PAGE 177

(a) (1) Four members appointed by the governor as soon as practicable after M.3Y 13,1974, the first of whom shall serve for a term of o n e year, t h e second for a term of two years, t h e third for a term of three years, a n d t h e fourth fQr a term of four years; thereafter, gubernatori al appointments shJll be for four-year terms (II) In the event of death, resignati on, or r e fusa l t o act of a n y such appoi nted me. ber, shall fill the vacancy for the re mainder of the vacancy in the elected office o n t h e board s hall reelection for the unexpired term inability or the gov ernor term Any be filled by (b) Three one appointed by, and from the of, eac h of the following boards : The state board for community col l eges and education (or, upon such board s des ignation, the Denver area council for community colleges), the trustees of the consortium of state colleges in Colorad o, and the re gents of the university of Colorado, each such member t o serve at the pleasure of the appointing board so long as he i s a member of the appointing board. (c) A n advisory committee of six members who are full-time students shall be elected, two from each of the student bodi es of each of the three institutions governed by the Auraria b oard and it shall elect one of its members to fill one office' o n the Auraria board to serve for one term beginn ing July L Said elected office shall be ad visory, without the right t o vote The elected member of the board shall have resided in the state of Colorado not less than three years prior to his election. (d) A n adv i s ory of six members who are full-time fa culty members shall be e lected, two from each of the faculties of eac h of the three institutions governed by the Auraria board, and it shall elect one of its members to fill the remalnlng office on the Auraria board to serve for one-year terms beginning each July 1. The committee shall select suc h a member from the same institution only once in the same three-year period. Sai d elected office shall be advisory, without the right to vote. The elected member of the board shall have resided in the state of Colorado not less than three years prior to h i s election. (2) Each member of the Auraria board shall take and subscribe to the oath of office prescribed by the constitution of. this state before entering upon the duties of his office, which oath shall be placed and kept on file in the office of the secretary of state. -2-15-

PAGE 178

23-7 0-103 Resp"r'lsibilit'l of governin g boards of lonsti t uent ir'lstitution;. (1) Except as may be expressl y prOVided in this article, th e respective boards of the consti tuent institutions are charged resp e ,lsibility for, ar.d shall plan, initiate, manage ana control, the i r respective progra m s within the Colorado system of higl'l.er educati o n as pro '/ided in thi s article; and, in addition, s ai d respec tive beards s hall init i a t e and control jo i nt and vocat ion al two or more of th e const i t u e n t institu:ion s at the center. (2) The respective gover nin g boards of the constituen t instituti ons shall pro vide for a common calendar w hic h i s sufficient so that students may begin, mak e progress tuwaroi, and complete a course a t a time whic h will allow full opport unity for enrollmen t in courses offered at any of the three constituent institutions. Registration periods shall coinc ide and the academic year s h a l l commence and term inate simultan eously (3) The respective governing boards of the constituen t instituti ons shall pro vide that credits earned at ea ch of the c onstituent institutions shall be transferable betwee n instituti ons insofar as they meet the degree and grade requirement s of the student's chosen program of studies at one of the constituent institutions as determ ined by the degree-granting institution. 23-70-104. Duti es of the A uraria board. (1) The Auraria board has the duty : (a) To plan, construct, own, lease, operate, maintain, and manage all of the physical plant, facilities, building s and grounds in the ce nter (except that land owned at the center by the regents of the university of Colorado sha i l continue under such ownership but shall be maintained and managed in a similar manner to the other facilities in the Auraria ce nter) a n d such add i t i onal land and facilities as the genera l assembly may from time to time designate to be part of the center and to accept and hold for the use of the center and its constituent institutions such property as was designated or used prior to Hay 13, 1974, for purposes of the center or its constituent institutions; (b) To allocate among and assign to the constituent institutions, in acco rdanc e w ith needs, sujtable space within the center for the use of suc h institutions and for such joint or cooperative educational, vocational, and other activities and programs as may be provided by the constituent institutions; -3--16 -

PAGE 179

(c) To facilitate effective coordination and economies of of physical facilities by designating J01nt fac111tles of the constituent institutions, to include, but not be limited t o. dining facilities, student service library facilities. warehouse facilities, lecreat10nal facilities, health facilities, and parking fac ii.i t ies; (d) To determine and designate the nonacademic and nonvocationa l joint programs or joint activities of the constituent institutions, to include, but not be limited to, sec uri ty and fire protection, maintenance, and purchasing; (e) To continually develop, review, and update annually a lon g-range plan for operation of the center. There shall be a five-year forecast of the operational costs and capita1 construction costs, which shall be submitted to the general assembly no later than January 1 of each year, commencing Ja nuary 1, 1975 (f) To decide interinstitutional disputes presented to the Auraria board by anyon e or more of the constituent institutions pursua n t to section 23-70-106.5; and (g) To in vestigate supplementary 0: methods for delivery o f selected higher educat10nal servIceS through the use of existing campuses and facilities in Denver and the metropolitan area 23-70-105. Gene:-al pO"iers Auraria board is a body corporate board of d irector s of the Auraria as such and by its sa i d name. has of Auraria board (1) The by the name and style of the higher education center and, the power to: (a) Sue or be sued to the extent permitted by law; (b) Contract or be contracted with; (c) Acquire. hold. and lease as lessor or lessee both real and personal; property, (d) Have a common seal which it may change and alter at its pleasure; (e) Elect officers of the board, appoint a chairman, and promulgate bylaws and rules of to the t r ansaction of its business as prov1ded In thIS art1cle; (f) Employ. within funds appropriated for such purpose or otherwise made available therefor. such employees as are necessary to perform the funct i ons and carry out. the duties of the Auraria board ; and -4--17-

PAGE 180

;l!l (g) Assess, after approval of the governing board s of the constituent institutions, a special student fee, which may be pledged as prov ided in section 23-70-108 and sha l l be col lected as prescribed by the Auraria board 23-70-106 Auraria board to hav e certai n Dowers simi lar to powers exercised by the govern ing bodi es of other state instit u tions o f h i g her education (1) The A uraria board may e x ercise the following powers t o t h e same exte n t a n d in the same manner as may be provided or extended by law t o the governing boards of state institutions of higher educati o n : (a) To promul gate rules and regulati ons for of students, e m plo yees, a n d property located center; the safety with in the (b) To promulgate rules and regulati ons providing for the operat ion and parking of vehicles upon the grounds, driveways, or roadway s with i n the center under the contr ol of the Auraria boar d; (c) To cede jurisdiction for the enforcement of traff ic laws; (d) To and carry out a system of registration and identification of vehicles owned or operated by students, faculty, and staff attending or employed by the constituent institutions and the Auraria staff located at the center ; and (e) To receive gifts and bequests of money or property which may be tendered to the A urari a boa r d 23-70-106 5 Resolution of dis utes at Aurar i a cen t e (1) After notification to the affected chief executive officers, which notification provides for a deadline of not more than ten days for the resolution of a dispute, the chief officer of any governing board at the Auraria center, including the Auraria board, may request the Colorado commission on higher education to resolve a conflict concerning an academically related issue at the Auraria center. The commission shall have the authority to make the final decision to resolve the issue presented to it or may delegate its respons ibility and authority for the final decision of the issue to the Auraria board The decision of either the commission or the Auraria board shall be binding on all of the governing boards and institutions and on the AUfJria board. It is the policy of the general assembly that the commission is encouraged to delegate to the Auraria board, to as great an extent as possible, its authority for making final decisions at the Auraria center, / -5/ < >c 1 \ -l/:l-

PAGE 181

(2) The chief e x ecutive officer of any governing board at t h e A u raria cent e r includ ing the Auraria board may request the Auraria to resolve a confl ict concerning t h e operat ion, acministration, or use of the physical facili t ies at the Auraria cente r The Auraria board shall have the authvrity to make the final decision to resolve the i ssue prese n ted to it, and such decision shall be b indin g on all of the governing boards a n d institutions and on the Auraria boar d (3 ) All issues involving interinstitutional disputes at the Auraria center shall be considered as either academic ally related or operationa l ly related, and the commission is aut hori zed to determine whether i t or the Auraria board shall have jurisdiction in regard to the resolution of the dispute 23-70-107 Borrowinq funds for auxiliary facilities. For the purposes of obta ining funds for constructing otherw i se acquiring and equippin g d in ing facilities, recreati onal facilities, health facilities, par king facilit ies, and student cente r facilities for the use of students and employee s at the center, the Auraria b oard is authorized, after approval by the Colorado commissio n on higher education and subsequent affirmative vote by the combined student bodies of the Auraria campus if student fees are to be used in financing such projects, to enter into contracts w i t h anyone or more persons or corporations or state or f ederal government agenc i es for the advancement of moneys for such purposes and to provide for the repayment o f suc h adva ncements wit h interest at a specified net effective rate. 23-70-108. Pledge of income. (1) When the Auraria board enters into a contract for the advancement of moneys described in section 23-70-107, the board is authorized, in connection with or as a part of such contract, to pledge special student or the net income derived or to be derived from suc h land or faci1 ities so constructed, acquired, and equipped, or speci a 1 student fees and sa i d net income as sec uri ty for the repayment of the moneys advanced therefo r, together with interest thereon, and for the establishment and maintenance of reserves in connection therewith; and, for the same purpose, the Aurari a board is a1 so authori zed to use the net income derived from the Tivoli Brewery and parking areas associated with the Tivoli Brewery and to pledge the net income derived from other dining facilities, recreational facilities, health facilities, parking facilities, and student center facilities not and not to be acquired with moneys appropriated to the Auraria board by the state of Colorado and to pledge the net income, fees, and revenues derived from said sources, if such be unp I edged, or, if pI edged, the net income, fees, and revenues currently in excess of the amount requi red to meet principal, interest, and reserve requirements in connection with outstanding obI igations to which such net income, fees, and revenues have theretofore been pledged. -6--19-

PAGE 182

(2) Any advance ment of moneys may be evidenced by interim warrants, if necessary, and bonds to be executed by and on behalf of the Auraria board containir.g such terms and prOVIsIons, including provisions for redemption prior to maturity, as may be determined b y the Aurari a board Such warrants or bonds may, at the discretion of the Auraria board, be registrable as to principal or interest, or both, and shall never be sold at less than ninety-fiv e p e rcen t of the prin(ipal amount thereof and accrued interest t hereon to t h e date of delivery or at a price w hich wil l result in a net effective interest rate which e xceeds that specified in the contract for the adva n cement of Any of the warrants or bonds of the Auraria board issued pursuant to this section or any other law may be refunde d pursuant to article 54 of title 11, C R S if in the judgme n t of the Auraria board such refunding shall be to its best interests. Such refun d ing obligations may be made payable from any source which may be legally pledged for the payment of the obligations being refunded at t h e time of the issuance of the obligations so refunded or from any of the s ources described in subsection (1) of this section, notwithstanding that the pledge for the payment of the outstanding obligations being refunded thereby modified (3) In the event that the pledged net income, fees, and revenues exceed the amount required to meet principal, interest, and reserve requirements in connection with revenue bonds of the institution to which suc h income has been pledged, the Auraria board may retai n such surplus and utilize the sa m e for such purposes as in its judgm ent shall be in the best interests of t h e center including, b u t not limited to, rehabilitation, alteration, addition to, or equipping of any existing facilities acquired pursuant to the provisions of this section and the acquisition of s ites for the construction, acquisition, and equipping o f additional facilities pursuant to such provlSlons, or for prior redemption of outstanding bonds (4) Anticipation warrants or bonds issued pursuant to this section may be used as security for an y depository bond or obl igation where any kind of bon d or other security must nr may, by law, be deposited as security. 23-70-109 No property lien. The Auraria board shall not create a mortgage upon any property belonging to the board or to t h e state of Col orado or to any constituent institution, nor s hal l the state be obI igated to secure or repay any funds advanced pursuant to the provisions of sections 23-70-107 and 23-70-108 or the interest on such funds. -7-20-

PAGE 183

23-70-110. Tax exemotion. Any bonds, certificates, or warrants issued pursuant to the provlsions of sections 23-70-107 and 23-7 0 -1 0 8 by the Auraria board shall be exempt from taxation for a n y state, county, school district, special district, municipal, or other purpose in the state -of Colorado. 23-70-111. Certain debts and exoenses prohibited. The Auraria board is prchibited from creating any debt as aga ins t the state of Col orado or the governing boards of the constituent institutions or from incurring a n y expense beyond its ability to pa y the sa m e from the annual income or appropriated funds for the then current year. 23-70-112. Limitation of actions. No action shall be brought questioning the legality of any contract, proceeding, or warrants or bonds executed or to be executed by the Auraria board in connection with the provlSlon of any dining, recreational, health, parking, or student center facilities provided or to be provided for the purposes authorized by this article after thirty days have expired after the effective date of any resolution or other official action such contract, adopting such proceedings, or authorizing issuance of such warrants or bonds. 23-70-113. Possible change of Auraria higher education center. Repealed, L. 82, p 624, section 22, effective April 2, 1982. -8--21-

PAGE 184

APPENDIX VII Priorities for Progress Community College of Denver 1987

PAGE 185

-.. .... Community College of Denver f J 1111 Well Colfox A venue Denv er Col orod o 80204 Attilchlllent to t linutes (J...of.1 February 9, 1987 1.1 Page 1 of 8 i:u cf'J:JJurn PRIORITIES FOR PROGRESS COHHUNITY COLLEG E OF DENVER FEBRUARY 3 1987 .,.

PAGE 186

t.! r ./ / PREFACE Following his appointment as of Community College of Denver in Septeober, 1986, Dr Byron HcClenney set into motion with faculty, administrators, staff, students and college advisory council a process of searching self-study. The year of self-study 1986-87, coincides with the Horth Central Association's (NCArs) of the college for reaffirmation of accreditation. That process includes an internal review on and Added to the ;,li:< is an equally intensi','e look at the exce'rnal e nvironment within whic h the institution ;!lust operate. P;-eliminar), to determini.ng institutional staff members were to and issue papers: o Planning Overview o Population Characteristics and Trends o Community Economic and Social Priorities o Enrollment Potential o Students and Faculty o Finance o CCD at Auraria priorities, and formulate the following The issue papers were by the College Advisory Council, a body of seven community leaders appointed by the State Board to provide guidance for the development of CCD. The Council adopted formal responses which were then forwarded to the Steering for Self-Study Council). Following work wit h the entire faculty and sti.lff, the Planning Council \,'3S asked to help draft a strategic plan for consideration by the College Advisory Council. This interactive process of internal and external assessment followed by planning has provided the "building blocks" for a collective vision of Community College of Denver's Priorities for Progress and Strategies for Progress. ?'i

PAGE 187

/ PRIORITIES FOR PROGRESS Community College of Denver (CCD) is a unique institution in Colorado higher education. It is the only "open door" institution ", located in the City and County of Denver, and it is part of one) of the most significant experiments in American higher education. As the communitY colleQe in the three-institution Auraria Higher Education Center, CCD is the "starting place" for the thousands of persons who would not otherwise have access to higher education. Given the provision of access, the emphasis is on affordable, quality education. The mission of the institution is fourfold: / o Developmental Studies o College Transfer Courses o Technical/Occupational P:-ogr;:!r.:s o Continuing Education Fall credit topped 3,600, reflecting a 17 percent) increase over 1985 In addition, hundreds of other were served in offerings including contract training for businesses Jnd governmental agencies. more than $9 million in the in the form of and The institution directly expends local economy, most goes salaries to more than 300 full and par t tim e e m p loy e e s. h i 1 e current numbers are impressive, it is clear that the institution should double in size during next five years if human needs are to be met in Denve:-. ----A number of unique and constraints must be taken into account as the insti t ution strives to meet needs in Denver: I There are virtually no auxilinry enterprise funds available I since the traditional J,e under the control of the I Auraria Center. \ o Library services are by the University of Colorado a,ld the institution has lit:le c0ntrol over these costs. ) \ Costs for physical operations are outside the control of V' -C CD, and the sec 0 s t s are h i g her t h d nth 0 set y pic all y f 0 u n din a I/: .. stand alone institution. ( .L..." ,i IJ/,)}/ ttjJ,/ J :1. "e.J / o Room scheduling seve:-e constraints due to Auraria I coo r din a t ion a n cl c r 0 ,. d e I con U i t ion s I o Finally, the is provid ing 3n extraordinary array of services to special need populations at a time when special funding is declining,

PAGE 188

Service Area The service area assigned by the Colorado Commission on Higher Education (CCIIE) includes territory inside the City and County of Denver, the Technical Education Center in Adams County, Lowry Air Force Base (CCD provides special needs in cooperation with t h e Com m u nit y Coli e g e 0 f A u r 0 r a ), and the For t Log a n t 1 n t ,ll II e a 1 t h Center. This territor}, includes a population in excess of 500,000. At least 50 percent of the employed persons in the metropolitan area work in this service area. Demographics Minorities and single adults are an increasing share of the total population. The area also includes the largest number of femaleheaded households in Color3Jo. The latter fact indicates a major need for child care and hence the preparation of child C3re workers. Hispanics with 19 of Colorado and Blacks with 12 percent of Colorado total) are largesf groups, but Asians also constitute a growing segment of the population. Sadly minorities who have an increasing share of total population have the lowest average incomes, the highest public school dropout rates, and the lowest percentage of college attendance. Attention to this segment of population will become critical if Denver is to avoid the problems experienced in other urban centers. National percentages reported by tile College B03rd illustrate that minorities are less likely to enter college, anJ of the percentage who do, are less likely to complete than their Anglo counterparts. Anglos Blacks Hispanics High School Graduates 83% 72% 55% Enter College 38% 22% Complete ) 12% 7% The loss of human potential and the negative economic impact are simply too significant to ignore! -1-r{! /."h",,. .fA,> d;:' h 7'/', ..5>/-&.';-( "" .IT $ .e vz., hc-/ C'

PAGE 189

CCD's Commitment to Serving Minorities The ethnic percentage breakdown (rounded by Auraria institutions) reveals the extent of penetration in the community. CCD Hetro UCD City F POQulation Hispanic 13 % 4% 197Black 12% 3% 12 % Asian IIi. 1% 5% IIi. Clearly CCD can be a feeder institution for H etropolit3n State and the University of Colorado. Additionally, CCD expand its outreach e(forts, particularly to the Hispanic community. Providing a ccess to education uortunity is consistent \"ith community priorities (Denver Chao e of Commerce) for econo ::lic development and and Fu!l attainment of the goals will be lusive without signific?nt progress in the minority comnunities. A vit31 link will be the Denver Public Schools \":lich has ten high schools, p:-ioe feeder schools to CCD. In addition, articulation with Emily Griffith Opportunity School, already a reality, must be enhanced. .: 28

PAGE 190

/. / .I Vision of the Future Given the fact that 20 percent of the 1985 baccalaureate graduates took a job that did not require college and that the fastest growing occupations in the world of work requiring postsecondary education demand less than a baccalaureate degree, c ommunity colleges in general have a major role to play during the next decade. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the fastest growing occupations between now and 1995 will be the following: o Paralegal Personnel o Data Process Equipment Repairers o Electronics Technicians o Computer Operators o Peripheral Data Processing Equipment Operators o Travel Agents o Physician Assistants o Mechanical EQgineering o Registered Nurses o Medical Records Technicians o Office Register Services CCD has progr am offerins.5 :'n virtually all of the a:,ove job are.Js. In addition, Denver r.as a particular need f o r child ca.e wo rkers. Enha n cing existing programs like Early Childhood Education and developing new programs will be vital if the needs o f Denver are to be met. The major employment sectors in Denver with which the institution alig n include the followin3: o Finance/Insurance/Real Estate o Health Care Services o Distribution o Tourism o Telecommunications/Computing o Government o Energ), C C D finds itself at a pivotal point in development with the d)'namic community which is Denver and the human needs that abound in that community. Colorado can be proud of the educational achievement of its citizens. T h e percent of college graduates leads the country. In contrast, however, is the recent report that one in six adults is unable to read. CCD must address the educational needs of people needing basic and developmental education, as well as students seeking occupational training and certification, associate, and baccalaureate degrees. CCD truly has a decade of exciting challenge ahead if Denver is to realize its potential and avoid the typical problems experienced by manyl other urban centers. -529 \ / / / / .'

PAGE 191

APPENDIX VIII Update to: A Report of the History of Space Allocation at The Auraria Higher Education Center Volume II Taylor 1988

PAGE 192

II] WI r , --__ Update to A REPOR T ON THE HISTORY OF SPACE ALLOCATION at the Auraria Higher Education Cente r VOLUt1E II le.r{ -

PAGE 193

"A Report o n the History of Space Allocation at t h e Auraria Higher E duca t ion Center" was completed and presented by Jack R. Herbertson in Decp.llner, 1984. The rep ort chronicled space allocation efforts at the Aurar i a Campus from its in ception to the end of 1984. As noted in t h e r -eport sum m a r y "Con s ensus has not been rea ched on the method of allocation to be used in t h e division of spac e o n campus." (pg.l]) The problem continues to b e c ritical, "sor.1ethin g still n e eds t o b e d one to arrive at a method to allocate sp ace in anticipat ion of inc r e as ing pres s ure on limited p h ys i ca l resources and no additional s pace o r construction o n campus."(pg.l7) An on-g o ing theine related to space allocation is the lack of cons e n s u s on t h e metho d used to allocate space. The State Auditor'S 1983 s t udy iden tified spa c e utilizatio n and allocation as a major problem on the Aurari a Campus ( pg.6 ) The "Report on the History of Space Allocation at the A uraria Higher Education Center recommendation was the: Develop ment o f an allocat io n system bas ed on on-camp u s FTE which takes into consideration d a y / nigh t FTE and lab FTE." Ipg.18) document, Volume II updated the canipus space allocation history (0 It is an outgrow t h of Part II, page 7 of Volume 1. The up-date 1985. major concern about space allocation on the Auraria Campus was t h e a ocation of classroom and lab space. Classroom and lab space allocation w a s a ddr es sed and resolved by the Auraria Executives Committee i I'\-_ t he FaJL..-a.f 1984. At the September 26, 1984 meeting of the Auraria Executives Committee
PAGE 194

!I::: ,-,the October, 1983 Auraria Higher Education Center Special Study Audit Auraria report outlined the agreements and developments related to Classroom Scheduling System, the Time Block Scheduling System and Technology Building Reprogramming . The the the -On July 14, 1986, the Auraria Board of Directors re-adopted and Operating Policies. (Appendix G) Tris reJlly didn t change any statute. n dld reaffirm the Auraria [loard's specific r esponsibilities in t his \ / area, to wit : _ ___________ ___ __ ...... __ ---:--jc-, allocate among and assign to the constituent institutions, ( l-J/accordance with needs, suitable space within the center for the use A "/ such institutions and for such joint or cooperative educational, /6 i i vocational, and other activities and programs as may be provided by the ,.vI institutions. r Th, e s pJA n .n51l!L to effective in part throug utilization. An example of the application of the above by-laws and ,operating policies was AHEC's coordination of the review and approval of the North Classroom Reprogramming of the Fourth and Fifth floors. AHEC irnplemented and directed the Fourth and Fifth floor planning and reprogramming effort to better allocate and utilize the space in the North Classroom Building. Also, during the Fall 1986 semester AHEC reallocated space in a coo era t ive effort with and CCD to bet ter accommodate severa 1 prograr.1s. ppen lX / / In November 1986 the Auraria Committee agreed to establish a ) Space Audit .--O.ne.-to establish institutional needs to support additional space. Second1 to provide a basis for determining if there is an equitable distribution of current space. The Space ; Audit Committee was charged with reporting back to the Auraria Executive Commit.tee in 1987. (Appendix 1) I (!9 Th'e Auraria Executives Committee met with f1r. Dick Ross of CCHE in Hay) 1987 to discuss the Auraria campus' coordinated institutional master planning as outlined in Appendix J. At its July 7, 1987 meeting the Auraria Executives Committee reaffirrned that the Space ..Aud it .1;Qmmj ttee wa 5 charged wj th recofirnend i ng criter i a of the allocation of space on the campus. The Space Audit Committee report, (3 )

PAGE 195

----' -; 1 IJ I I --.. , t I submitted on September 10, 1987, (Appendix K) established terms, assumptions and a theoretical hasis for further development of an equitable methodology for campus space allocation, (Appendix L) The Space Audit Committee agreed to) develop methodology AHEC used the report recommendations to rnake space allociltion decisions, ) CCD and / 'lSC H't., t e as reflected in AEC minutes of DeCemher 8,1987 jamenwent to--November Without 3.ypport-v of-kex=-e lp.ments hy UCD ion scheme vias genera 11y assumed to ___ inoperab1e_ -----. 1988 [> --In response to requests t o the constituent governing boards from tlte CCHE, t he A uraria Executives Committee agreed to hire a consultant to use CCHE guidelines in preparation of a campus facilities need report based on Fall 1987 d(lta. (Appendix N) T h e consultant is charged with submitting the report (.vC(,,, \ SUmIllilry of Attempts to Reallocate Space The conclusions reached in Volume I, the 1984 "Report on the History of Space Allocation at the Auraria Higher Education Center" continue to be true. (Appendix N). To date there is no consensus on the method of allocation to be used in the division of space on campus. Also the lack of consensus continues to impact effective utilization of space on campus. Recommendation \ \ \ The recom mendat'Dn of this update report is in agreement with the earlier "Report on History of Space Allocation at the Auraria Higher Educa t ion Center" and th recommenda t ions of the Space Aud i t Committee. The recommendation of this up ate report is to have the constituent institutions develop a space allocat n plan based on day/night on-campus FTE for classrooms and laboratories, (4)

PAGE 196

APPENDIX IX House Bill 1226 1988 A Bill for an ACT the Auraria Higher Education Center

PAGE 197

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LOO NO. 88*0017/1 Second Regular Session Flftyslxth General 1918 "STATE OF COLORADO -Education-BY REPRESENTATIVE Schauer; also SENATOR P. Powers_ R E A BILL FOR AN ACT CONCERNING THf PURAHIA HIGHER EDUCATION CENTER. Bi 11 Sunmary (Note: This summarr to this bill introduced and does not necessari y reflect amenaments WhlCh be SUDsequentlyadopted.) Authorizes the Auraria to buy. sell. and trade land and facilities on or the Auraria campus to consolidate and improve the campus. Gives the Auraria board sole authority to acquire 'facilities other than at the Auraria campus on behalf of the constituent institutions. Directs both governing boards of constituent institutions and the Auraria board to formulate certain master plans for academic programs anc master plans. and to submit these plans to the C.olorado conmission on higher education and the general assembly. it enacted hl the General Assemblv of the State of Colorado: SECTION 1. 23-70-104 (1) (a). Colorado Revised Statutes. as amended. is amended to read : 23-70-104. Duties of the Auraria board. (1) (a) To ACQUIRE. plan. construct, own. lease. operate. maintain. OR DISPOSE OF all of the physical plant. facilities. buildings. and grounds in the center (except that land owned at the Auraria center by the regents of the university of

PAGE 198

2 3 4 5 i 7 ---8 9 10 11 17 13 14 15 16 17 18. 19 20 21 22 23 24 24a 25 25a 26 27 27a Colorado shall continue under such ownership but shall be maintained and managed in a similar manner to the other facil ities in the Auraria center} and such additional land and facilities as the COLORADO COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION may from to time designate AND APPROVE and to accept and for the use of the center and its constituent institutions such property was designated or used prior to May 13, 1974, for purpose s of the center or its constituent institutions; SECTION 2. 23-70-105 (1) (c), Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended, is amended to read: 23-70-105. General powers of the Auraria board. (1) (c) Acquire, hold, aRe lease as lessor or lessee, OR DISPOSE OF property, both real and personal; SECTION 3. Article 70 of title 23, Colorado Revised Statutes, as &Mended, is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A SECTION to read: 23-70-114. Powers of board not limited. Subject to the approval of the Colorado commission on higher education, the Auraria board may exercise any and all powers conferred by this article with respect to any land or facility ret otherwise a part of the Auraria center. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the powers of governing boards of constituent institutions to acquire or dispose of fc.cil ities not otherwise part of the Auraria center; however. buildin or facility ac uired b a constituent ins itution in sUPPQI 0 a,ademi c PCQJlrams sha 11 be sub iett to the. approva 1 of the Auraria Board the renewal of existing leases. SECTION 4. Article 70 of title 23, Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended, is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW -2CP

PAGE 199

SECTIOII to read: 2 23-70-115. Directive master plans. (1) In order to 3 maximize economit and administrative efficiency at the Auraria 4 center and to further the goals articulated in section 5 23-1-101, the genera 1 assembly fi nds it necessa ry that there 6 bE' comprehensive academic and facilities master planning for 7 the dnd development of the Auraria center constituent 8 institutions. Therefore the governing boards of the 9 constituent institutions and the Auraria board, in 10 consultation with the Colorado commission on higher education, 11 shall prepare comprehensive master plans according to the 12 following requirem ents and schedule: 13 (a) On or before a date to be set by the Colorado 14 commission on high e r education, and in accordance with 15 commission policies and procedures, the commission shall 16 coordinate, and the boards of the constituent 17 institutions shall to the commission, academic master 18 for the constituent The coordinated 19 academic plans shall address all Auraria 20 multi-institutional issues that the commission determines to 21 be relevant to the role and mission of each institution and 22 academic. program requirements for fulfilling that role and 23 mission. 24 (b) The commission shall review the master plans and 25 shall, after consultation with the governing boards, order 26 revisions to the extent that the plans fail to maximize 27 efficiency and academic program effectiveness. When approved -3-

PAGE 200

by the commission, the academic master plans shall be 2 submitted to the Auraria board which shall a 3 comprehensive facilities master plan for the Auraria 4 constituent institutions. The master plan shall 5 be submitted to the commission at a date to be established by 6 the commission. The commission shall submi t a report on both 7 the academic and facilities master plans, together with its 8 own review and comments, to the general assembly not later 9 than January IS, 1989. The general assembly shali not 10 consider new facilities funding requests for the Auraria 11 center or constituent institutions for the 1989-90 fiscal year 12 and ensuing fiscal years that are not consistent with th e 13 commission-approved master plans. 14 SECTION 5. No appropriation. It has been detennined by 15 the general assembly that this act can be implemented within 16 existing appropriations, and therefore 110 separate 17 appropriation of state moneys is necessary to carry out the 18 purposes of this act. 19 SECTION 6. Safety clause. The general assembly hereby 20 finds, detennines, and declares that this act is necessary 21 for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety. 22 (i .. -41226

PAGE 201

LDO *88 AM 1226/3 HOUSE COMMITTEE Of REFERENCE REPORT Chairman of Committee Date Committee on Education. The Committee recommends the following: H.B. 1226 be amended as follows, and as so amended, be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation: 1 Amend printed bill, strike everything below the enacting 2 clause, and substitute the following: 3 "SECTION 1. 23-70 -104 (1) (a), Colorado Revised 4 Statutes, as amended, is amended to read: 5 23-70-104. Duties of the Auraria board. (1) (a) To 6 ACQUIRE, plan, construct, own, lease, operate, maintain, aR6 7 manage, OR DISPOSE OF all of the physical plant, facilities, 8 buildings, and grounds in the center (except that land owned 9 at the Auraria center by the regents of the university of 10 Colorado shall continue under such ownership but shall be 11 maintained and managed in a similar manner to the other 12 facilities in the Auraria center) and such additional land and 13 facilities as the COLORADO COMMISSION ON 14 HIGHER EDUCATION may from time to time designate 15 ANO APPROVE and to accept and hold for the use of 16 the center and its constituent institutions such property as 17 was designated or used prior to May 13, 1974, for purposes of 18 the center or its constituent institutions; 19 SECTION 2. 23-70-105 (1) (c), Colorado Revised Statutes, 20 as amended, is amended to read: 21 22 23 23-70-105. General powers of the (1) (c) Acquire, hold, aR6 lease as lessor OISPOSE OF property, both real and personal; Aurar i a board. or lessee, OR 24 SECTION 3. Article 70 of Title 23, Colorado Revised 25 Statutes, as amended, is amended 8Y THE ADDITION OF A NEW 26 SECTION to read: 27 23-70-114. Powers of board not limited. Subject to the 28 approval of the Colorado commission on higher education, the 29 Auraria board may exercise any and all powers conferred by 30 this article with respect to any land or facility not 31 otherwise a part of the Auraria center. Nothing in this 32 section shall be construed to limit the powers of governing 33 boards of constituent institutions to acquire or dispose of 34 facilities not otherwise part of the Auraria center.

PAGE 202

1 SECTION 4. Article 70 of title 23, Colorado Revised 2 Statutes, as amended, is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW 3 SECTION to read: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 23-70-115. Directive master plans. (1) In order to maximize economic and administrative efficiency at the Auraria center and to further the goals articulated in section 23-1-101, the general assembly finds it necessary that there be comprehensive academic and facilities master planning for the use and development of the Auraria center constituent institutions. Therefore, the governing boards of the constituent institutions and the Auraria board, in consultation with the Colorado commission on higher education, shal l prepare comprehensive master plans according to the fol lowing requirements and schedule: 15 (a) On or before a date to be set by the Colorado 16 commission on higher education, and in accordance with 17 commission policies and procedures, the commission shall 18 coordinate, and the governing boards of the constituent 19 institutions shall submit to the commission, academic master 20 plans for the constituent institutions. The coordinated 21 academic master plans shall address all Auraria 22 multi institutional issues that the commission determines to be 23 relevant to the role and mission of each institution and 24 academic program requirements for fulfilling that role and 25 mission. 26 (b) The commission shall review the master plans and 27 shall, after consultation with the governing boards, order 28 revlS10ns to the extent that the plans fail to maximize 29 efficiency and academic program effectiveness. When approved 30 by the commission, the academic master plans shall be 31 submitted to the Auraria board which shall prepare a 32 comprehensive facilities master plan for the Auraria 33 constituent institutions. The facilities master plan shall 34 be submitted to the commission at a date to be established by 35 the commission. The commission shall submit a report on both 36 the academic and facilities master plans, together with its 37 own review and comments, to the general assembly not later 38 than March I, 1989. The general assembly shall not consider funding requests for the Auraria center or 40 constituent institutions for the 1989-90 fiscal year and I 41 ensuing fiscal years that are not consistent with the 42 commission-approved master plans. 43 SECTION 5. No appropriation. It has been determined by 44 the general assembly that this act can be implemented within 45 existing appropriations. and therefore no separate 46 appropriation of state moneys is necessary to carry out the 47 purposes of this act. 48 SECTION 6. Safety clause. The general assembly hereby -2-

PAGE 203

1 finds, determines, and declares that this act is necessary 2 for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, 3 and safety.". 4 **** **** **** '\ -3-

PAGE 204

APPENDIX X Facilities Use Study Paulien and Associates 1988

PAGE 205

J .. I I II -19 11 II JI .J ,II I r II' -. FACILITIES USE STUDY Based on Fall 1987 Data FOR THE AURARIA HIGHER EDUCATION CENTER including CCHE Guideline Analysis of Programs of the Auraria Higher Education Center Community College of Denver Metropolitan State College University of Colorado at Denver September 8, 1988 2010 EAST 17TH AVENUE DENVER COLORADO 80206 ( 303) 333-1916

PAGE 206

J I J 1 ] J J 1. I: 1 J j IJ IJ I] II Jr) ;. II Jul ie Report prepared by: PAULIEH & ASSOCIATES Daniel K. Paulien Susan Harrison Jill Whi tehead I Jerd Smi th Diane Van Wormer With thanks to the Study Steering Committee: Warren Taylor, AHEC, Manager, Office of Facilities Use Carol Chapman, AHEC, Assistant Manager, Office of Facilities Use Stephen Hunter, CCD, Vice President for Administration and Finance Tim Griffin, CCD, Director of Institutional Research Jett Conner, MSC, Interim Director of Enrollment Management John MUKavetz, MSC, Director of Institutional Research Carnahan, UCD, Special Assist. to the Vice Chancellor for Admin. & Finance Gil Schmidt, UCD, Assistant Vice Chancellor Academic Affairs

PAGE 207

I AURARIA HIGHER EDUCATION CENTER SPACE GUIDELINE ANALYSIS SUMMARY ACADEMIC SPACE Cla.!.room and Service CIa.!' Labs and Service Phy.icaJ Education OUler T eaching Other Instructional Research Academic Ortice and Service A C ADEMIC SUBTOTAL ACADEMIC INSfR Public Service Space Ubrary & Study Space OUler AdministraLi ve & Cen (,hy. Plant Service (incl ornC!) SUPPORT SUBTOTAL ACAD & SUPI'ORT TOTAL Auxiliary TOTAL SQ IT. Paulil.'n & f44,9.2 6 165 ,304 53, 803 . >' :. 23,646 { j82 ;839 : 109,183 ./:' SUPPORT .. :,,::: 1 ; 106;336 .67;61 '\9,245 :( ,\ 68,492 174,701 111,3(1I < 9 3,684' ')20,363 .'69,190 ;; !!3,491, ,,',:20',261:, ,,':' 106,269 (131;132 ( ;':,::12,420:>;',., "i"': j ,,133,119 . 84,822 .. ". 13,122' :: 6;i22 '.3.6,604 24,152 :i 48,798:",' 24 9,aO.(.;, l,f46,a62,,::' ::837,468 2 18 ,030: .:103,862 ,:(63,020) 14,138 } (1,784) ,)44,794:>", (86,i;71) ) ) (49;626) .' (11,480) ':i" :::J!!,626 , ,138(",(i2'\$'8)\ : 2 (72,267)) 84,822 ':. (38;418)', >: ii'nnJ. k tY}i 6y!22 6,122 . 24,152 '249,304. (iS4;32:1):>' 837,468:, (408,586) 103,862 (116,077) 0(\/2 I 18!l

PAGE 208

APP ENDIX XI A Study of the Management of The Auraria Higher Education Center (Patterson and Associates) 1988

PAGE 209

J -C L', : r . r TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................. I Summary of Findings ............................................ 1 Study Limitations and Assumptions .............................. 3 Summary of Recommendat ions. : ................................ ... 4 CHAPTER ONE: SPACE GUIDELINE ANALYSIS .............................. 6 Method Used to Analyze Course Data ......... .................... 6 Teaching Space Resul ts ......................................... 7 Physical Education ........................................ ... .. S Other Teaching Facilities ...................................... S Other Instructional Space ...................................... S Research ....................................................... s Academi c Offi ce Space .......................................... 9 Publ ic Service Space .......................................... 10 Library Space ............................... ......... ......... 10 Administrative Office Space ................................... lO Other Administrative and General Space ........................ Il Phys i ca 1 Pl ant. ............................................... Il Treatment of Rental Space ..................................... II Auxil iary Space .............................................. 13 CHAPTER TWO: RECOMMENDATIONS ON METHODOLOGY TO FAIRLY ALLOCATE AURARIA SPACE ........... 14 AHEC Was Appropriated Less Than the Usual CCHE Guidelines .... Space Allocation AnalYSis Overview ............................ 14 Classroom Allocation Issues ................................... IS Determining Classroom and Laboratory Need" ................... IS Special Issues Relating to CCD Instructional Approaches ....... 16 Low Utilization Rooms ........................................ 17 Office Space Allocations ............................. IS Space Needs Conclusions .................................. IS APPENDICES 1 -16 See list on following page

PAGE 210

J I APPENDICES .. 1. 1987 ENROLLMENT TABLES I 2. CAMPUS CLASSROOM, LAB, SELF-PACED, AND PHYS ED SPACE ANALYSIS 1 3. FALL 1987 CLASSROOM/LABORATORY UTILIZATION 4. UCD RESEARCH S PACE ---1 5. OTHER TEACHING FACILITIES AND OTHER INSTRUCTIONAL SPACE CALCULATIONS 6. COMMUNITY COLLEGE OF DENVER ACADEMIC OFFICE SPACE ANALYSIS I 7. METROPOLITAN STATE COLLEGE ACADEMIC OFFICE SPACE ANALYSIS I 8. UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO-DENVER ACADEMIC OFFICE SPACE ANALYSIS 9. LIBRARY GUIDELINE ANALYSIS I 10. AHEC OFFICE SPACE ANALYSIS 11. COMMUNITY C OLLEGE OF DENVER ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE SPACE ANALYSIS -12. METROPOLITAN STATE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE SPACE ANALYSIS I 13. UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO-DENVER ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE SPACE ANALYSIS 14. PUBLIC SERVICE OFFICE SPACE !J 15. PHYSICAL PLANT SERVICE SPACE 16. AUXILIARY SPACE ANALYSIS 1 1 t 1

PAGE 211

I FACILITIES USE STUDY FOR THE AURARIA HIGHER EDUCATION CENTER September 8, 1988 Executive Summary The Auraria Higher Education Center contracted with Paulien & Associates/Planning & Development Services to conduct a detailed analysis of facilities use including an application of the CCHE guidelines in detail. This included guideline analysis for courses on a section-by-section basis, for staff space by type of employee within department, and for research by type of employee within department. It included an application of the new CCHE library guidelines, and the CCHE guidelines for the other space categories. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The studY found that at Fall 1987 enrollments, the CCHE guidelines show the campus could justify an additional 259,288 asf of educationa l and general space. This is a 31% increase over the existing space. Instructional space which includes classroom, class laboratory, physical education, other teaching and other instructional space shows a need for an additional 75,417 a s f approximately an increase over the current amounts. A table summarizing the results by category is on the next page. Research space which is limited to the University of Colorado at Denver sho w s a need for an additio nal 5,341 asf or a 29% increase over the existing space Academic office space shows a need for an additional 42,211 asf or over additional space. Library space shows a need for an additional 62,088 asf or more than a 45% increase. The media center is not included in these guideline numbers. Its current space is included within the other instructional category. Administrative office space shows a need for an additional 25,466 asf or a increase Other administrative and general space which consists of such spaces as administrative computing centers currently shows 6,515 asf available No CCHE guideline has been developed for this category and therefore the existing space was carried forward as guideline space. Physical plant shows a need utilizina the normal ((HE guideline of more than double its existing space, an increase of 48,000 asf. -1 -

PAGE 212

AUltUIA EDUCATION tENTER CAMPUSIiIDE SPACE TOTALS Percent Surplus Surplus or o r Guidel ine Existing icit) Cl .... oom 144,926 95,nO (49,206) S1.41% -CI ... Lab 165,304 222,5113 57,279 25.73% "-"'-Physical Eo..c.tion 49,075 50,699 1,624 3.2OX Tuching 53,803 2S,On (28,731) '114.59% Instruct ional 89,590 33,207 (56,3113) '169.79% II I NSTRUCT I OIIAl SUBTOT ... l 502,698 427,281 (75,417) '17.65% --Ruurch 23,646 18,305 (S,341) '29.18: ... cademic 182,1139 140,628 (42,21" '30.02% ,. Publ ic Service Space 765 0 (76S) 100.0OX LIbrary' Study 198,1180 136,792 (62,0811) -45.39% )I Acrninistr.tive Office 109,706 84,240 (25,466) '30.23: Other ard General 6,515 6,515 0 O.OOX Physiul Plant 76,879 2.8,879 (48,000) -166.21% -INSTRUCT IOIIAL 4IID GENEItAI. SUBT01AL 1,101,92.8 842,640 (259,2811) -30.71:1: -Auxil iary 174,701 93,638 (al,063) -86.57% ---TOTAL 1.276,629 936,278 (340,351 ) -36.35% / -V /(1 ,,.... ..... / : l-" ) tt {. ""1'. j r s f f -, Paul ien As.ociat"" -2 1

PAGE 213

-) Auxiliary space shows a guideline need for an additional 81,063 asf, an 67% increase over the existing space. The Consultant used FTE stuoent counts rather than head count figures suggested in the CCHE guidelines The headcount figure would have generated 100,000 addititlnal square feet in this area. Fall 1987 utilization of classrooms was 29. 2 average weekly day hours, 14.4 average weekly evening hours, a total of 43.6 average weekly hours. The day classroom utilization is essentially at the CCHE guideline of 30 hours per week. Fall 1987 utilization of instructional laboratories was 15.6 average weekly day hours, 5 9 average weekly evening hours, a total 21.5 average weekl y hours.', The day 1 aboratory use is 22% below the CCHE guideline average of 20 hours a week. The study found that there were space classification problems with many of the spaces identified as clas s laboratories. The Steering Committee identified 35,000 feet which were re-allocated to other categories duri ng the course of th i s study. Th is is 15% of the space that had been identified as class labs. The Consultant believes that as much as another 10% may either belong in the classroom category or in the other teaching category. The Consultant's analysis of courses and where they are taught suggests that there are a number of rooms which are really utilized as table and chairs classrooms but are shown in the laboratory analysis. Many of them, perhaps all, have some special ized storage or other uni que features in the room. A careful room-by-room analysis should be undertaken. STUDY LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS It was not possible to show the bv-institution results for the instructional areas because of space allocation issues relatino to the facilities inventory. For example, when all three institutions share a room, the Community College of Denver (alphabetically first) is shown as Institution 1, the column used for determining space allocations. They correctly object to this. The Steering Committee was not able to agree on an alternate allocation method. A second example involves the art laboratories which are shared by all three institutions and are scheduled on a cooperative basis by the three departments. CCO again shows as Institution 1. A third example is that for classrooms with different institutional assignments for day and evening use, the day assignment is Institution 1. MSC objects to this because they have the highest percentage of day use. A detailed study of alternative solutions to this problem should be undertaken. Rental space was not included in the needs analysis since no authori zat ion exi sts to 1 ease such space beyond 1991. UCD currently 1 eases 76,449 asf of instruct i ona 1 and general space in the Dravo Building on Larimer Street just across Speer Boulevard from the campus. MSC leases some space near the campus. The Consultant was not provided 3 -

PAGE 214

Ii ---II Ii - --t 1 --with information as to the location, amounts, and uses of that space. Extension outreach and CCD urban mission programs are not located near the Auraria campus and were not included in this analysis. Analysis was limited to Fall 1987 data No projected enrollment analysis was requested within the scope of this study . SUMMARY OF RECOMHENDATIONS The Consultant makes the fo 11 owi ng recommendat ions to the Aura ri a Hi gher Education Center: The primary finding of this report is that the campus needs a significant amount of additional space at Fall 1987 enrollment levels. The indications of the three institutions are that they each expect growth duri ng the next fi ve years. A four-ent i ty focus on tryi ng to provide additional 'space is encouraged. The short term solution would appear to be to find additional rental space such as the Dravo Building space which the University of Colorad o has been authorized to lease until 1991. The longer term solution would be to attempt to secure authorization and funding for another building on the campus. If only the instructional, research, 1 ibrary and office components are taken into account, this would need to be a project containing more space than the North Classroom Building and approximately as large as the three block complex consisting of the Arts Buil di ng, the West Cl assroom Buil di ng and the Central Cl assroom Building. It would contain about 300,000 gross square feet. The Consultant recommends that AHEC consider allocatino two categories of space. These would be long term assignment space which would be only re-allocated in the case of extreme fluctuations in enrollment between the three i nst i tut ions and short term ass i gnment space wh i ch would be allocated on a year-by-year basis. The Consultant believes that approximately of the laboratory and office space could be long term assignment space. The Consultant recommends that efforts be made to develop an existing space analysiS system which deals with the very complex issues of shared space. This will require a working committee of the three institutions and AHEC. Such a group would need to meet over a period of a number of months to identify and attempt to resolve the various issues. It ; s recommended that the exi st ing method of cl assroom a 11 ocat; on be retained but that a unified on-line scheduling system be implemented. The institutions are given allocations by Auraria based on estimated needs, they build their schedules, have the opportunity to schedule courses in another institution's space with that institution's consent during the period the schedule is being built and on a specified date just before the start of each semester the schedule is submitted to AHEC and open slots are then filled by the institutions on an as-needed basis. Because each entity uses different computers, data transfer problems often complicate the process. An on-line scheduling 4 -

PAGE 215

e -I --I 1 system used by all campus entities would help smooth this proce can be set up so only the party responsible for scheduling a part room can make entries for that room. Such a system would reQuir new software and additional hardware. In the case of office space where institutional allocations are enough to be presented in the report, AHEC should not re-allocate until a study has been made of the station capacities of all offi campus. Such a study was done in 1978 and is intended to deal wi fact that different buildings were built to different guideline 1 Therefore, a simple comparison of bottom line existing square f to guideline square footage could produce results which would no with the actual usable capacities of those rooms. -5 -

PAGE 216

APPENDIX XII Colorado Commission on Higher Education Agreement University of Colorado System The State Colleges of Colorado Community College and Occupational Education System Auraria Higher Education Auraria Plan December 1988

PAGE 217

, J By Franklin Patterson Usociates For The Colorado Commission on Higher Education State or Colorado Members or the Study Team: Edmund T. Cranch, Ph.D. Gail M. Donovan, Ph.D. Franklin Patterson, Ph.D. Frank A Tred1nniclc, Jr., M.A. Franklin Patterson' Usociates 21 Rushmore Street Boston. Massachusetts September 1988

PAGE 218

AN ACKNO'It'LEDGMEN'I' We. who undertook and completed the at the of the Colorado on Higher Education (CCHE), to acknowledge the given by of the by the Executive Director and and by of the and their governing The time allowed for the by the contract under which it WL3 brief, technically extending from 8 to September 23, 1988. We are keenly aware that, vithout the active help of the and related to CCRE; AHEC; Metropolitan State College (MSC); and The State the of Colorado at Denver (OCD) and the Oniversity Regents; and the Community College of Denver (CCD) and the Colorado Community College and Occupational Education System (CCCOES), we could not bave come to an informed Judgment about AUraria and its future course. We are grateful for the L3sistance given at all levels, for tbe data, and perceptions provided us by of tbe public higher education cOll1lllUnity in Denver. At the sUle time, we to emphasize that the fo llowing report 13 in all vays the product of our own independent inquiry, and Judgment, and that ve therefore regard its content &S our With that said, we hope that it may be helpful to those vho vill decide the future configuration of public higher education in the Denver area and in Colorado. I

PAGE 219

--EXECUTIVE SUMMAR'! The present study ot tbe management of tbe Auraria Higher Education Center was commissioned by tbe Colorado Commission on Higher Education in July, 1988. The consulting team's report summarizes an independent examination ot tbe governance and management issues tbat are associated with the Auraria campus, reviewing possibilities tor rectifying difficulties and better assuring that Colorado's goals for bigher education in metropolitan Denver will be acbieved, and presenting a Judgment about which models of a solution to management/governance needs at Auraria deserve tbe most serious consideration by CCHE and other autborities. The report is based on extensive review ot bistorical documents pertaining to the Auraria campus as well as recent statements prepared by tbe tour governing boards ot tbe institutions, and on interviews which the consulting team conducted during its visit OD August 7-12, 1988. Tbese extended sessions were scbeduled witb statt and several members of the Colorado COmmiSSiOD OD Higher Education, staff and board members of the Auraria Bigber Education Center, and representatives of tbe administration, faculty, and governing boards of tbe University ot Colorado, Hetropolitan State College, and the Community College of Denver. The report ackDowledges tbe success of the Auraria Higher Education complex in representing tbe State's commitment to the dual goals of diversity of student ') educational opportunities and maximum resource effectiveness in the delivery of ,/' bigher education of quality in tbe Denver metropolitan area. At the same the report underscores that the collective enterprise has been handicapped fro tbe beginning by a well intantioned but misconceived approach to its management ot space and other resources, and its failure to align administrative form with academic t'Wlction. I The resulting dyst'Wlctionalities --reflected in the public documents as well as in conference and interview sessions --include: (1) disconnection of academic fUnctions trom the management ot tbose support activities and resources upon which they depend; (2) dependence on ABEC internal processes tbat do not work; (3) turnover ot CEOs at a destabilizing rate; (_) unproductive competition for stUdent enrollment at tbe CCD-HSC and HSC-OCD intertaces; (5) undue constriction ot the possibilities ot interchange oourse anrollment tor Auraria students; (6) duplication ot ettorts at remedial education; (7) site-bound approacbes to progr .. planning and implementation of student servioes; (8) endless arguments over space allocations; (9) polarizatioD of Auraria partiCipants; (10) incurrence ot signiticant lost-opportunity costs. Previous reports document many ot these dyst'Wlctions: the Report on Organiza tional Relationsbips, ABEC, December 1978; the Special Study of the !BEC Center, Office of the State Auditor, October 1983; the Committee OD Higber Education Study, 198_; and the receDtly completed 1988 Auditor's Report. Their proposals for rectityiDI the SitUation, however, appear to bave been stymied by vested higher education interests and a vacuum ot leadership initiative at the State level. H .-. .

PAGE 220

change in the organ1zational at Auraria, includ1ng the replacement ot the AREC board and management model by new deemed crit1cally Although change to be w1th all de11berate the team that action be taken within a tramework ot that the on the Auraria and a dynamic and to future higher educat10n ot metropolitan Denver. Three are in depth. The model a new 3ervice contiguration; the 3econd up one &s the manager ot the Aurar1a while the th1rd a COmp03ed ot element3 o( the pre3ent three III the f1rst lIodel, the AREC management and governance 3tructure at Auraria 13 replaced by a new, aore-limited organization restricted to serving the con3tituent institut10n3 and being d1rectly respon31ve and accountable to them. Two venion3 o( such an organization have been suggested by MSC and OC-D re3pectively. In the model, AKEC i3 d1se3tab11shed and the management ot the Aurar1a becomes the re3pons1b111ty o( MSC, wh1ch would contract w1th the other two constituent in3t1tut10ns tor the prov1s10n ot serv1ce3 and resources. Oversight ot the quality ot cooperat10n under th13 model would be provided by CCRE on a regular1zed b&31s. In the third model, present. management and governance structure3 13 d13continued, to be replaced by a new 3ingle inst1tut1on made up ot element3 from the exi3ting constituent and operating under a new board. The pro(e33ional univer31ty re3ulting would not repl1cate the in3titution3 at Boulder or Fort Collin3, but emphas1ze broad acce33, 3trong general and pre profe3s10nal undergraduate study, and graduate study at the degree level in selected (1eld3. The profe3310nal would be de31gned to keep pace w1th the future o( the Greater Denver area and 1t3 needs (or a high-grade worlcfol'Ce. Each of lIOdeb 13 d13cuUed in detail, and with regard to 1ts effect1 nnU3 in relation to loals, srato internal proce33e3, strateg1c con3t1tuenc1es, an4 ooapet1ng The coasultants recOllaend that equ1Tooat1oD and dr1ft with regard to luraria be anded, and that CCHE and the princ1pal State author1ties undertake specific 3tep3 with regard to luraria an4 the Colorado higher educat10n 3etting.

PAGE 221

III. POSITIVE ACHIEVEMENTS AT AURA RIA The dlfflcultles and dystunctlonalltles of the AurarlaJAHEC configuration that have developed during the past decade or more are dealtwith in the next section of this report. Before coming to those matters, lt is appropriate to note ways in whlch the current organlzatlonal structure of the Aurarla Higher Educatlon Center has achieved some of the goals touched upon in the previous section. We believe that the performance audlt of selected issues at the Auraria Higher Education Center conducted by the Office of State Auditor and reported in October, 1983 struck the correct note: We found that Metropolitan State College, the Oniverslty of Colorado at Denver, and tbe Community College ot Denver on tbe Aurarla campus have successtully provlded students with a diverslty ot educatlonal opportunities. In addltion, the Auraria Higber Education Center Board and its statf have done a good Job providing non-academlc services. Acbieving tbis goal is the result of efforts by dedicated people on the Aurarla campus and not of tbe exlsting organlzational structure." ("Auraria Higher Education Center Speclal Study," Offlce of the Colorado State Auditor, October 1983 talics added ) Whatever the and shortcomings ot the Auraria Higber Educatlon Center, the constituent institutions bave drawn many tbousands of students to enroll and recelve education important in their lives arid development. This process continues actively today. Despite unhappiness with AHEC management of space, interinstitutional > competltion, and other difficulties, the Auraria campus has achieved a remarkably intensive level ot utilization of physical tacilities. It is said that the highest space utilization rate among Colorado higher education institutions exists at Aurarla. While sucb a level ot use is notable, it can be uked whether highly intensive space utilization, separate trom a controlling concern tor educational program quality, 'is a deSirable end in itselt. A college or universlty is not sUply an input-output system like a .. chine or a largely autolll&ted industrial cterprise. There are innUlllerab le buman ,variables in a coaplex institution like a college or univeraity, and, even IIOre in a clJIpus u b1g and diverse u luraria. These otten cannot be dealt with adequately by .. chanical procedures and arrangements. Too rigid and narrow an approach to a college or university's needs for operating space can even b. counterproductive, u it appears to be at lurarla. Students enrolled at the three constituent institutions have access to Joint or common resources that enrich the luraria experience tor them. These include a Child Care Center, Bookstore, Library, Student Center, and other facl1ities. 9

PAGE 222

Support activities that are centralized, such as parking, classified personnel, physical plant, designated student services, and others, a ppear to offer a combination of cost control and benefits that vould be difficult for the three institutions to achieve operating separately. A number of other developments have occurred on the Auraria campus because of its interinstitutional character and can enrich the education of students and provide some opportunity for relative control of costs. These include the development of a limited common pool of courses, a common calendar, some ease of transfer by students trom one institution t o another, joint sponsorship of such activities as the Hispanic Institute, the Summer Bridge Program, and other activities. It should also be noted that the interinstitutional character of Auraria has the potential for enlarging the lives of students through bringing them together vith others of different backgrounds, values, and goals. Auraria has a substantial potential for introducing incoming students to the important notion that education is open-ended and a lifelong process, not" one divided rigidly into discrete levels, each of Which is more or less terminal. 10

PAGE 223

. I J, /1 In the 1mmed1ate present, lim1ting the Aurar1a concept to the ex1sting Aurar1a phys1cal s1te unnecessar1ly exacerbates the tightness of space felt by the const1tuent inst1tut1ons. House Bill 11226 (1988 Sess1on) equ1ps the AHEC Board of D1Tectors to plan and manage off-campus fac1l1t1es for use by UCD/HSC/CCD throughout the' metropol1tan area. CRS 23-70-104(g) d1rects the lHEC Board to winvestigate supplementary or alternat1ve methods for the de11very of selected higher educat10n serv1ces through the use of ex1sting campuses and fac1llt1es in Denver and the metropolitan area. Glven the d1ff1culty of relat10nshlps between AHEC and the const1tuent inst1tut10ns, tbese authorlzatlons and dlrectlves seem unlllcely to be fru1tful in the sbort term. But if suburban campuses where space is ava1lable could serve as satelllte centers for UCD/KSC lower dlvis10n courses, ex1sting Aurarla fac1l1t1es could be redeployed for metropolltan-wlde upper dlv1slon/graduate instruct10n and center-c1ty lower dlvislon instructlon. Th1s would be an lmportant development, poss1bly helplng meet State leg1slat1ve goals without unnecessary leasing/construct10n of new Auraria faci11t1es. It 1s 1mportant both for present educat10nal needs and tbe rea11zat10n of future possib1llties that Auraria overcome an outlook confined to a conception of educatlonal delivery systems limited to a single physical site. 8 Arguing endlessly over space allocations. In part because of the limitatlon noted above, but also because on-campus demand, particularly at KSC, goes significantly beyond the space made aval1able and the scheduling for its use, space availability and allocation is the single largest inst1tutional Quarrel with ABEC on the Auraria campus. It is a labyrinthine, ) enormously detailed, and select1vely-perceived matter, perbaps as much a symptom of the major underlying dysfunction of the AHEC management model and of defeatism as it is of actual space deficlts. The most common comment beard by tbe conSUltant team w1th regard to a possible solution was that whatever was worked out should result in sbaring tbe burt in terms ot space. Thls struck us as a negative and limited view of what could be possible (see itea 7 above). As noted, the campus was planned tor a .aximua enrollaent of 15,000 daytime FTE (tradltional) atudents, a cap only recently removed. Evening enrollments (non-tradlt10nal students) were not capped. Institutional competitlon tor FTE funding appears to the consultant team to bave led to competition tor the limited supply of wpopular" class scbeduling bourse The institutions tradltionally view ) facl1lty space as a -free good,with no perceived cost advantage / disadvantage to tbe institution in scbeduling a course at the popular-hours of the day/eveeing. An analysis ot classroom schedul1ng by day/hour shovs that oourses are scheduled for a 19

PAGE 224

i .j f1ve-day week as 1f the inst1tut10n were a trad1t10nal res1dent week time block scheduling (as 1n the Ca11fornia State Un1versity System), remains an option to construction of mere space to serve the popular hours. Suburban community colleges, as implied earlier, show classroom space availability at the Auraria popular late atternoon hours Courses could be scheduled at the suburban community college locations if taculty and financing could be resolved. This point wu discussed in several presentations to our team, including that by The State Colleges System, which said that KSC is operating w1th only approximately 60-65 percent of the space necessary to adequately provide for its enrollment and programs: In the recent put, HSC and UCD, and their governing boards, have advocated the use of off-Auraria facilities and space as a way to address the problem. Due to complex understandings 1nvolving lease and rental obligatiOns, this approach has only been moderately successtul in the one -area of procuring off1ce space for faculty and statf. As an approach to allev1ating the unmet requirements for classrooms, laboratories, research and --:'other academic activities, the CCRE's FTE Reporting Policy, which prohibits general tund support for off-Aurari. 1nstructional activities unless extenuating circum3tances prevAil, stood in the way of any serious attempt to implement this possible solution. Even assuming a policy reVision, it is unclear vbether Auraria enrollments would be reduced (thereby reducing the space requirements at Auraria) since both HSC and UCD already operated successtul off-Aurari a instructional programs. However, given the propensity of the State to avoid building mer. facilities for higher education, an approach which combines on-Auraria with oft-Auraria instruction without imped1.llents to (sic) hindering the oft-Auraria .tforts seeas to have .erit (Statement by The State Colleges in Colorado the llanagement ot the Aurar1a Higher Educat10n Center, August 1, 1988). One v1.w ot the .ndless aralZaent o .... r spac. allocat10n, expressed by a CCBE ob .. r .... r, vu that the dlaputaa over shared use of tac1liti.s are ult1ately rooted in the lack ot acceptClce ot the ... 1s10n tor operat1on of the Center as a atudegt-serT1cc enterprise l rather than as an It is the \ tension between a non-trad1t1ollal 'Ldon tor au:1a1II student access to a broad range ot educational opportun1t1es and trad1tional institut10n a4ainistrators' visions tor cootrol over all the J .JJ resources tor ach1evin& the ,oala ot the1r institut10n. Whether or I not thu 14 an accurate assessment, 1t seemed to our team that the 'tv""'; rtPJ-.. endless arau1ng ov.r apace allocation vu a ser10us result of the 1 failure ot the Auraria aanagemeat model, as presently constituted, NJA-"'''' and a failure as well by all aajor partic1pants to come together to I find solut10ns Within the leg1slat1ve aandate tor Auraria. : \ 20

PAGE 225

9. Polarizing the Aurarla partlcipants. The lack of forward-looking thinking on behalf of nearly all of the .staff players (including AHEC) in the Aurarla .sltuation was dl.sappointing to the team. Below the governing board level, nearl y everyone our team talked to out.slde of CCHE propo.sed an incremental -fixthat .seemed .shallow in .sub.stance, intended to promote parochlal intere.st.s or advantage, or to play one or two off agalost the other.s. I (In a .sltuation whlch cal15 out for thinklng in term.s ot close ) \ collaboratlon and an accountable approach, the team heard llttl e O . te.stlmony from the partlclpant.s to thl.s effect. Even vhen prompted by team member.s, fev partlclpant.s ro.se to somethlng more than the ( .short-term .solution level. Board and Comm15.sion member.s, who are familiar vlth overal l .sy.stem.s thinking, moved more e&5ily to the con.sideratlon of solutlon.s beyond tho.se that would naturally grow out of apparent lo.stltutlonal .self-loterest. But for many of the lo.stltutlonal admin15trators With ye exlsting polarizatlon and contention seemed to have blinded them to more comprehenslve and con.structive thinking. Opposltion to consuming, i.L1DO.st. an end in lt5elf ca.ses. -Positive sOTu"t"lons ---:'""; -tdvanced tended to be self-.serving and limited in conceptlon, but /' Jea-iou.sIy defended when que.sUoned. 10. Incurring lo.st-opportunlty co.st.s. OVerall, the team came away with a .sense that a serious dysfunctl onallty of the ex15ting Auraria management .structure 15 that over t h e year.s 10' which it has been in effect, great opportunltles for dolog better the thing.s that vere on the original agenda have been lost. /0 While soaething of 10od. .euure hu been at Aurarla in the educat10n of student.s, much .ore could have been accompl1shed if so alch leadership tiM and energy had not been coo.sumed in confl1ct and struggle and pol1t1cal maneuvering of the kind touched upon in th15 report and documented in the h15tory of the put ten years. It was interesting to the te .. that several adain15trators referred to lost-opportun1ty costs of the s1tuat10n, of the Auraria potent1al that has Dot been real1zed, soaetimes uying this even when their own solut10ns d1d Dot appear to move the s1tuat10n to a .ore acceptable level. The present Execut1ve D1rector of ABEC summarixed th15 by saying that he had -Dever been in a sltuatlon where the gap between rea11ty and poss1b111ty was so great.-I / Although 1t aay be remedled by present CCBE direct1ves, the s1tuation up to the present time haa been ODe w1thout comprehenslve planning, e1ther 10 terms of coordinated academic pr08rams or 10 21

PAGE 226

term3 of the development of phys1cal and other fac1l1t1es. The opportunities for better serving the Greater Denver area that have been lost in the past ten years cannot be recaptured, but 1t is of the utmost importance for the State of Colorado to ensure that lost-opportun1ty costs of similar d1mens10n are not incurred 10 the ,.ears aheat!. Perhaps the most important lost opportunit1es have been those that 1 would have provided for more impact on the human resource develop ment needs of the area's large populat1on and changing workforce. Preoccupied with inward-looking campus quarrels, the Aurar1a institutions have not spent the energ,., time, and to reach out adequately to business and industry, to minority populations, to school systems and communit1es, etc., or to increase the active availability of higher education through on-site educational deliver,. 10 plants and offices, through decentralized satellite campuses, through closed circu1t and broadcast course work, and other means. These and other lost pportunities need to be made up for in the future. 22

PAGE 227

; o / o / None of the on campus flna l authority or overall The !uraria Board has statutory authori t y to only 'non-academic' No such for academ i c This academic to other for resolution. Further, as on most fev issues appear to be totally non-academic. (Special Report page 22). The performance audit's recommendation on what should be done about Auraria was equally unequivocal, as follows: CONCLUSION: 'THE TIME FOR CHANGE IS HERE Based on what we have just outlined, ve believe that there is sufficient cause for the Legislature to change the g overning / at Aurarla added ) Based on our revlew of the history of changes. t h e r e appear to be three vlable that the could talce to flaws : Hod if led Status Ciua.-:' Alternatlve Two: Consolidation. ---'\ ( !Iternatlve Three: Herger:.-____ ----Status Quo alternatlve suggested by the aud l t woul d keep three separate inst1tut10ns report1ng to three soverning boards, but provlde for a body on to all disputes. This authority sight either in a within the AHEC Board I made up ot the three institutional governing board .. or I -'. The head ot this structUNl would be appointed b)' the three in a new single executive structure replacing the !HEC Board tional lOTern1n& boards. / In the aud1t t. aecond alternative, Consolidation,e1ther HSC and OCD, or KSC, UCD and CCD, vould be consolidated under one govern ing board. The inst1tut1ons would retain the1r separate identity. It vas suggested that conso11dat1on could occur e1ther under the Trustees ot State Colleges, the Regents of the On1vers1t)' of Colorado S),st .. or under an independent nevl),-created governlng board. The aud1t's th1rd alternat1ve, -Herger, suggested that either two of the inst1tutions or all three at !urar1a could be organizationall), merged, creating only one inst1tution under one board. 25

PAGE 228

-3. The Committee on Higher Educat10n Study. 1984. Th13 pub11c comm1ttee created by B11 1 '1360 (1984) -to rev1ew the organ1zat10n of Colorado higher educat10n,-including about the administrat10n and governance of Aurar1a. The meeting of September 4, 1984 of that committee held on the Auraria and concentrated on Aurar1a The State Aud1tor's report vas reviewed, with discussion of the finding that the governillg structure at Ya.lI cumbersome and .ineffic1ent and that the Leg1slature oonsider revising that structure. After a great deal of d13cuss10n, tHEC Board Kember Donald Sain presented two of the Aurar1a Board on organizat10nal relationsh1ps. The first recommended that UCD and HSC be merged into a inst1tut10n under a common governillg board and ch1ef execut1ve off1cer, in order to rectify difficulties in management and admin13tration. The second recommendatioD an alternat1 ve, 1f the f1rst vere not implemented. It called for the estab11shment by statute of an ult1mate body wbich would have the author1ty to determine po11cy on issues affecting .are than one of the Aurar1a admin13trat1ve entities. In a senae, the AHEC Board vas re1terat1ng in 1984 the princ1pal recommendat10ns it had made in 1978. The work of the Committee on Higher Education bore fru1t in House B111 11187 wbich strengthened the role of CCRE in Colorado pub11c higher educat10n, and in relat10n to Auraria, but d1d 11ttle to resolve and rect1fy the -failure-explicitly described by the State Aud1tor s Report of 1983. Some .odification of the Aurar1a status quo was accomplished by Bouse Bill 11187 through the add1t10n of a new Section (23-70-106.5) to Section 30, Article 70, of Title 23, Colorado Revised Statutes, providing for CCRE to have a role in the -Resolution of D13putes at Auraria Center.The later .adificat10n v1a House Bill 11226, touched upon earlier in th13 report, also was .ad est and did not coae to the heart of the aatter. As of 1988, the recognition of dysfunction in Auraria organizat10n that had been articulated onr tbe put ten years Ya.lI in one vay or another agreed to by all of tbe people witb wboa our teu talked during our Denver Yisit. The .. jor coaaeaaua ve found vas tbat the preset structure 18 working badly and .E!i be cbanged. Related to tbat consensus vaa agreeMDt by all concerned that vIlat 13 needed 13 not .are -tinkeringor equivocatillg, but definite and "Jor action. l In virtually e.,.ry conference and interview that our te .. conducted the participants were agreed that tbe existing 1BEC structure must go. Even tbe prinCipal !HEC stafr officer said that, if 1BEC cannot be so strengthened as to bave the authority needed for ultimate decision &&king on the Aurar1a campus, tben !BEC should be replaced. 26

PAGE 229

7. participating 3tudent3. Tbe ab3ence of adequate opportunlty of thi3 kind under the ex13ting conflguration at Aurarla ha3 been a matter of valld complaint on the part of tbe partlclpating in3titution3. It Ls to everyone'3 advantage to promote tbe Identlty and VLslbl1lty of the tbat 3erve the people of the Greater Denver area. The fUture. Whatever new entity or configuratlon i3 created 3hould not be a 3tep Whlcb would lock public bigber educatlon 10 tbe Greater Denver area into a form whlcb would Impede eventual fUrtber re3pon3e to emerglng and cbanglng educatlonal needs of the developing urban soclety centered on Denver. The mix of undergraduate and graduate professlonal educatlon tbat is now aval1able at Auraria Ls a bealtby one, in terms of tbe emerging educatlonal needs that are 3erved. A new organlzational model mu3t pre3erve thLs 1Iix. But it 3bould also in3ure tbat tbe way is kept open toward tuture development tbat will not be 11lDlted to tbe pre3ent tradltlonal forms in exlstence nor be as exclusively in conceptlon, but able also to respond to new need3, to accommodate learners in business and via SY3tem.s of dLstance-learning, to provlde for career-long educatlon, and generally make a dynamic contributlon to economic and soclal 11fe tbat Ls rapidly being transformed as we move on into the 21st century. C. THE STATE NEEDS TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES -!lID ACT UPON THEM The consultant teu bu studled and dlscussed all of the alternatlve proposals-for the aanagemant/governance of Auraria that bave been put forward since 1978. Generally speaking, tbese alternatlve3 appear to us to comprehend vlrtually all of the posslble optlons, and to include some tbat, If they bad been adopted, could have aaterlally beneflted tbe planning, support, and dellvery of higher educatlon in the Aurarla setting. At this point, it does not appear usetul to ,0 back to any OfJ the proposals advanced in earlier years, hovever, but to try to sUlllllarue thrM .ore current options that we focuaed upon during the \e .. 's din to DenveY. thise "Iri"eiCfiDea belov, lojether-v1th s -ome analysiS azidteiac"Cllllent. 1. HODEL ONE: The Servlce Consortium. TbLs .odel, different nr1ations of 1IIbich were put forward in documents pr,pared separately by The State Colle,es 10 Colorado and the University of Colorado during the course ot our visit, involves replacing the 1BEC Board structure/staff vith a body representing servlce configuratlon accountable to such a body and presumably, -.----. . ---------_ ._-._------" ...... -. 31

PAGE 230

/ therefore, more respons1ve operat10n:! the State College of model and the On1ver51ty vers10n would cotft1llue the found1.Dg pr1llc1ple of Aurar1a : that d l rteNat1ated-bY--T-ole and and by three d1stin9t governing would a common .., ------'-' .. '. -.---'.' In the State College vers10n, "management of the common of Aurar1a would occur through a fac111t1es management organ1zat10n to be kaown .., The Aurar1a Higher Educat10n Management Author1ty (AHErHJ), w1th a Board of D1rectors "to ach1eve clear po11cy determinat10n." The Board would have members. Six of these would be made up of one member of each governing board and the CEO of each System. F1ve other members would be unaff111ated w1th any of the three or govern1Dg board.s. Thu.s, unlllce tht . .pr..sent AHEC Board of D1rectors, the aaJor1ty of the'new Board would not be unaff1l1ated ind1v1duals, but represent1Dg the institutiOnal" governing boards 1Ilvol ved, wh1ch "have .., System governing boards the capac1ty to manage effectively and effic1ently in requ1r1.Dg and priority sett1Dg among compet1.Dg 1Ilterests." Th!! State Co. Ue&e br1efly descr1bes an AHEFMA Board dec1s10n-making process, calls for immed1ate of a policy to correct "the current inequ1ty in the d1.strlbut1oii "to the of the ex1.sting space at Aurar1a," ..,s18 academ1c support, per:!onnel, and other support fUnct10ns to the respective "thereby plac1Dg author1ty w1th respons1bi11ty and <1IlcreaSing the effect1veness and eff1c1ency of program de11very." The State College .. rs1on also calls for revuing the CCHE's FTE reporting pol1cy to enable MSC and UCD to offer course;-&Dd prOgrams off-Auraria 1Il the Denver aetropol1tan area for general fund support, a change Wh1ch, aeong other thingS, might lessen "demand for Idd1t10nal apace at Auraria." The Univers1ty of Colorado vers10n in ao .. of 1ta .. 1Il features that of the State College, but d1ffers "in that we see the new Board as An.eat1ty created to aerve the 1Ilst1tut1oos on the iurari&-Cu.pus With apec1Ue limited re.spons1b111t1es (Ital1c:! added). ------... The Un1vers1ty vers10n would replace the 1HEC Board body cODs1.st1n& of th!U::EO's frOll the three SysteJl .&overning tioarda and 2 BO&ra' aeillbers des1&nated by each of those three new Board, unlllce the' one env1.s10ned by the State Colle,e:!, would have no unaff1liated ae&ber:!. The Board's primary re:!pon.s1b1l1t1es would be to aerve .., the legal ent1ty w1th respect to the operation of the and to e:!fihl1.sh appropr1ate 1Ilter1llst1tutional pol1e1e:! w1th re:!pect to delivery of caapus serv1ces. 32

PAGE 231

The for the employment of a Manager for \ the of developing and for the del1very _by the and the new / of an Execut1 ve I -----_. Under the would be managed by the new Board, by a or by a pr1vate company under contract to e1ther the new Board or / would e1ther be through and or funded according to approved by the new Board. The ot Hodel One calls for allocating of d1rectly to each of the three academic ded1cat10n ot and to ind1v1dual allocating and other space in accordance w1th of the new Board, continuing the operation ot the Library through UCD and of HPER through HSC w1th new oversight COII-) privatizingall or ot the physical plant functions, and as the Child Care Center, Center,. the _Center, Public and ._ Parkin8:-The University version allocating the the budgets and fund involved in to the Such an allocation, the version would give the fundamental influence over the of fund and playa p1votal role 10 the long-range planning of the student serv1ces env1ronment of the campus, as well as having other The version that / services and the Student Center fUnct10ns would not be centralized, althougb a rea:ssessment of th13 ... tter would be made. / Analysis and On the tace ot lt, the new servlce aodel in two nrlatiou .. rs .satisfy at least aloimally some ot the coulderatlona l10tiG rn-B:-above : J:t is in that sellse, as a resolutlon ot the 'uraria dlff1cult1es, that this aodel ol1lht to be judged. It is clearly, in both versiona, an effort by the respectlve instltutlonal systems to come up with a cOllstruct1ve / but l1a1ted approach, whlch would replace the existing 'BEC /' structure wlth so_thing considerably IIOre lim1ted 10 power and .. / aore dlrectl1 aaenable to inst1tut10nal interests. In our te .. 's proposal, we that we would approach the examinat10n of alternat1ve solutions by what they speak to, 33

PAGE 232

or not. in term3 of goa13. 3Y3tem re30urce3. 3trateglc con3tltuencle3. and competing value3. In term3 of g0813. 1t appear3 to our team that th13 model could accomp113h the goa13 stated in both vers10ns. wh1ch are 11mited and measurable. 1f there were a high degree of cooperative spir1t amoog the three institut10ns and systems accompan1ed by the 10teractive 3kills to make things werle. In term3 of the larger goals implicit in the leg1slat1ve mandate and in a tuture-or1ented v1ew of Stat e respon31b11ity in the Denver metropo11tan area. the team whether such a minimal organization prov1des a sat1sfactory bas13 for operation. I n term3 of system resources (1.e., State and soc1etal resource3), 1t appear3 that th1s model could acquire the re30urces i t need3 (except tor new space) for the level of operation imp11ed. Because 10f the emphas13 on institutional autonomy and the role of the separate System3. a clear connection ex13t3 between resources needed and customary mechanism3 for sat1sfying these needs. W1th regard to strategic constituenc1es (i the pub11c to be served, the Leg13lature and State author1tie3, and the variOU3 3egment3 of the higher educat10n commun1ty). it appear3 that th13 lIodel at least minimally satisfy those conc.rned. On the other hand, 1t amoog t h e const1tuant governing 0 s, the issue of academic compet1tlon amoog the-COnstituent the acute pattern of turnover in CEo3;' o r 'the' ex13ting lack of coordinated academ1c p l anning
PAGE 233

With regard to competing our team that while the model, at theoret1cally, can be accommodating to constituent in the critical areas of human commitment, maximization of output, and consolidationcontlouity on a minimal it does a enough to adequately over t to ei or the developing fUture needs of the Greater Denver metropolitan area. It is, therefore, our team's judgment that, while model may have surface and might have to be turned to if a better solution cannot be agreed upon, it would not over time be satisfactory 10 term3 of our criteria of 2 HODEL TWO: The Single-Institution Hanager. A second alternative for the fUture of the Auraria campus is to bring the existing !REC functions under the authority and res ponsibIlIty of one of tbe three Of the three con;illTan T l1etrJ5pol1tan State College would be the proper one to be given ------. Hetropolitan State College (HSC) emerged the"largest and ) most of the three elements 10 the Auraria combloation now a Chief Executive Officer who experienced 10 administering complex and under a System President who had substantial experience 10 the operation of higher" education in urban environments In bringing the existing AHEC fUnctions under one of the consti tuent lostitutions, a major step would be taken toward regularizing campus on the only basis that proved workable in nearly all American collegiate and university lostitutions. That is, both academic and non-academic fUnctions would be under a single in the cue of HSC involving t h e largest of the three educational From a State-level perspective, alternative -which would \ disestahl1ah but Dot 1HEC Board -would reduce the :tOur nlimber oiPiffillc-higher educatIon "'governinl boards in
PAGE 234

con3tltuent in,titutlon,. In 30me ca,e" a, in tbe in,tance of t h e lt would be appropriate to have management /operation continue under non-KSC admini,tratlon, in the ca,e of the Llbrary fUnded by formula but continuing under Oniver3lty oV&r31ght. During the tran3ltlon to campu3 operation under th13 model, a 3erie3 of critically important agreement3 would need to be negotiated between the management 103tltutlon, KSC, and the other two in3titutlon3. The,e negotiation3 would have to cover the following and re3ult in formal agreement, both for their initi a l allocation, etc., and for procedure3 that would govern future adju,tment, and reallocatlon,: a. General cl."room3. (By agreement, dedicated block3 of cla33room3 could be de3ignated by time of day or completely allocated through the week. Th13 proce33, conducted under KSC but in cl03e con3ultation wlth the other two CampU3 adm1oi3tration3, would need review eacb ,eme3ter and enough flexibllity for negotlation to adju,t imbalance3. b Laboratorle3, 3bop" and cl10ical facilltle3. The current practice of dedlcating laboratorie3, 3hoP3, an d cl1oical facilitle, to each 103tltution 3bould be continued, but wlth overall management by KSC. Reallocatlon, and new a331gnment3 would be tbe re3pon3ibl1ity of KSC, again 10 cl03e consultation witb t b e other two in3titutlon3. Kanife3tly, soae of tbese facilltles would bave to be sbared by two or more campu3 institution3. c. Otber pace. The allocatlon of otber kinds of space would slmilarly be a responslbility of KSC, working in an interinstitutional consultative process. Le&3iDg of additional space could be undertaken by each institution cOIls13tent V1th current CCHE review and oversight, and arter prior consultation with the other institutions. d. Library and pbY3ical education facilitie3. / The tran31tion to Hodel Two would need to be accollpanied b y b&3e-line negotiation between KSC and the other institutions in term3 of the tramework for of the3e faoilities and inter103titutional procedures for ongoing con3ultation about their operation, C03t3, and other Ilatter3. 36

PAGE 235

e. Plant operation, mail, and maintenance. HSC, in consultation witb tbe otber institutions, might advantageously study the possibilities of prjvatizing" physical plant support functions, as suggested by the University oCCoforaiio; -lilieehir or not sbifts to private / operation, accompanied by reduction of tbe State employee workforce, occurs, tbese services WQuld remain a / administration to assure. f. Public safety, parking, child care center, student center, book center. The KSC administration, after initial transition review witb the otber institutions, would carry responsibility for tbe central operation of tbese services and facilities. During continued operation, interinstitutional mechanisms for regularized consultation about tbem would be a necessity. g. Otber services and tunctions. personnel, counseling, computer services, and certain otber fUnctions would be tbe responsibility and authorityof the individual institutions, and would not be centralized under this model; it tbe same tlme, all of would benefit from regularized interinstitutional consultation and communication, including joint planning review. In all of the .. tters noted above, it 13 clear that beginning in the transition period with the in1t1al_Qegotiation of agreements in critical areas, tbere would have to be provision for regularized, continuing consultation on a good f81th basis between HSC and the two other partic1pating institutions at many levels. In effect, bile HSC vould beco.e the authoritative &aDager necessarily accountable to its own 51Ste. Board, but also to otber higher State autbority --it would also under this .odel have a primus inter pares relationsbip vith tbe other tvo institutiOns, .ucb in the aanner of cooperative consortia of colleges and univer sities in &aDy parts ot the United States. The model could not succeed on a unilateral, -now bear.tbis'\ / basis .... For tbe Legislative aandate to survive and be tulfilled, it would be absolutely necessary tor the diversity represented by the / continued presence of ceo and UCD to be protected and encouraged. This would, in fact, becoae a major responsibil1ty of HSC to take leadership With regard to, tbat is, to assure that, under its initiative and unagerial role, cooperation would tlour13b rather tban languish, as it has done too frequently in the past. 37

PAGE 236

(It appeared to the consultant team that of the constituent institutions or System3 ha3 an agenda that includes leaving Auraria. Obviously, this 13 not an agenda of HSC. Similarly, such an agenda was not reflected to us by the Chairman of the University Boare! of Regents or his a3sociates. 1nd when we asked the head of the Community College System about the repeated rumors we had heard from virtually every Quarter that CCD was to be removed from auraria, we vere emphatically &3sured that th13 13 not currently the ca3e.) ,.--' necessity for this model to be viewed a3 (a) providing an institutional line organization for the administration of suppor t services and relating them to the educational fUnctions of the constituent 1nstitutions. and (b) providing at the same time improved cooperative consortial mechan1sm3 for relating the three inst1tut1ons, w1th HSC &3 f1rst among equau, 13 bas1c to any / examinat10n of th1s alternative. Fundamentally, the success of th13 model would reQu1re not s1mply general admon1tions for the part1cipants to work together in good faith and goodwill; much more practically. it would requ1re before 1t was begun at least the follow1ng three act10ns: o 1 strengthening of CCHE oversight author1ty. It would be necessary, probably by legislat1ve act1on, for CCRE to be given spec1f1c respons1bility and author1ty for "regular1zed overSight of the quality of cooperat1on between HSC and the other inst1tut10ns on the Aurar1a campus. The consultant team can see DO other way to &3sure that conflict among the respective governing boards about Aurar1a, and conflict among the partic1pating 1nstitutions, can be averted under th13 JaOcfel without a strong presence of higher State authority 10 the picture. Effect1vely, th13 .. ans that, in order for an acceptable level of cooperation to be .. 1nta1ned, provision alst be IUde for CCHB to have oversight 1n this regard. Tbus, the leadership and aanagerial errectiveness or HSC at ( Auraria and the role or The State College Syst .. Board VQuld be reviewed periodically by CCRE, &3 would the I fUnctioning or the other institutions and their Boards 1nvolved at Aurar1a, in term3 or the level of constructive / cooperation achieved to fUlfill the Legislat1ve lIandate. ::, CeRE's d1spute fUnction under the lHEC .adel, while essentially react1ve and little used, should probably be adapted and cont1nued under the new condit1oas of thb aodel. But the add1tion of CCRE responsibility for 38

PAGE 237

oversight of the quality of cooperation should be viewed as more pro-active thac reactive, with the expectation of initiative from CCHE, along w1th the Leg1s1ature, to the maintenance of a constructive operation at Auraria. o Formal contractual A f1rst in the organ1zat10n of the new model, which would requ1re among the leadership of the \ three their and CCRE, would be the) development of appropriate and min1mally bureaucrat1c contractual procedures for negot1ating acd allocating and support service under KSC management. ;' o for cooperative It would be at the beginning of the new model to that were ava11able for ong01ng. regularized that could not only and support contract but also help interinstitutional communicat10n. to and the encouragement and support of collaborat1ve activ1ties. The most important of would be a . _meetings of the Pruident of MetrQ, tne---enancellor of OCD, an d tbel're31dent of ceo on a bTweeklior monthly in the transition perroa-WVOiiid be to include in group board staff. While the President of KSC woUld-teci:ulicihY" be first among equab in tliis &3 the officer responsible for the management of the it would be important (or the group to adopt a style, aimed less at authoritY and lIore at infoZ"lll&lly working out fundaJllental l5suea of operation collaborat1vely. Onder tb15 council of CEOs, 1t would be necessary -&3 15 the case in IIOSt successful cooperative clusters of institutions --to establisb sOlIe addit10nal oonsultat1ve bodies endowed w1tb a sallar coll&Eoratlve Sty"1.. l.o 3ee what could be done to interinstitutlonally in academiC &3 well U Doii;'academio are&3. nOves in th15 direction have -according to test1aony glven to tbe consultant team during tbe Denver v15lt, witb the of several interinstitut10nal committees between OCD and KSC. The team applauds tbis, but feeb tbat care sbould be taken to inolude ceo, and to see &3 a .. Jor to upgrade Aurarla operation. . 39

PAGE 238

and It the team'3 Judgment that HSC and The State vol leges SY3tem have the viII and potential to give the kind ot leader3hip br1efly 3ummarized above. It is also the team'3 that, in a tran3ition, care would be taken to and utilize The number: ot whom vould a human re30urce under the management mooeI. The con3ultant team does not conclude that anyone ot the individual governing board3, including that ot The State SY3tem, has a great advantage in terms ot political p03ition, and there tore the mo3t logical organizatlon to as3ume managerial re3pon3ibility at Auraria. It 13 the team's conclusion 3 imply that Cal KSC, the large3t and mo3t vigorou3 con3tituent ot the Auraria aake3 3en3e as the logical line organization to provide ettectlve management ot the campu3, and (bl the critical element politically and organlzationally in as3uring that 3omething better happen3 at the Auraria campus now the Colorado on Higher Education, wh03e nece3Ur)' role 1D th13 model i3 de3cribed above The emerging capability ot CCHE also a33ure3 that, it Metro d1d become the Auraria manager, thi3 would not lead to programmatic imperialism by Metro and the active duplication ot existing CeD and UCD programs. Authority now re3ide3 in CCHB over program continuance, aaster planning, role and ditterentiation, etc., which 3hould sub3tantially 3ateguard aga1D3t unilaterally advanced duplication ot cour3e3 by any ot the 1Dstitution3. It was alleged by aOllle with whom the teu talked that Metropolitan State College, with lta big enrolllllent, was being U3ed by the Board ot Truatees ot the State College3 to prov1de re3ource3 to the other aaaller atate ooll.gea. We talked with State College Syatu representatives, both Trustees and aen10r adllin13trator3, about this isau.. We wer. told that, the Board ot Tru3te.s d1d r.allocat. a port10n ot the resources due KSC via the CCRE torwula to support act1v1ties at the oth.r three State Colleges. But w. vere also told that, aince 1985, the State Colleges Board ot Trust.es has made budget adjustment3 ,d13proportionat.ly in Metro's tavor to 8OV. Metro to a 'tlag3hip' status w1thin th. Stat. College Syst It appears to the team that lt .. 1t111.JtOQ.tinues to b. th. case, and 1t CCRE over:.l!ght fUnctions it should, the danger that the Aurar1a might not receive 1ta tair share ot resources tro. the State College SY3te. under model should be 111n1IIal.

PAGE 239

, OVerall, the con3ultant team f1nd3 Model Two attract1ve and 3er10u3ly worth cons1der1og by State author1t1e3 1otere3ted 10 t h e welfare of Aurar1a. In terlll3 of goab, the model u outlined prom13e of (a) prov1d1ng effect1ve management of n on academ1c 3upport 3erv1ce3 and 3ign1f1cant re30urce3, and (b) forma11zing and upgrading operat10n and accountab111ty for cooperat10n at Aurar1a. SY3tem re30urce3, 1t appear3, could be acqu1red under the new model, at lea3t &3 effect1vely a3 under ex13ting c1rcUlll3tance3, and probably IlUch IIOre so. Safeguard3 appear to o13t, noted, again3t the expl01tat10n of campu3 management a3 a mean3' for d1verting needed re30urce3 e13ewhere. In the area of 10ternal proce33e3, the model prov1de3 a clear opportun1ty for contractual procedure3, con3ultative. communicat10n, and collaborative work parallel to an improved line organ1zation for the del1very of support and other 3ervice3. The smooth internal tunctioning o f these processes 1s not thought to depend completely on the goodw111 of those 1ovolved, but to be signif1cantly insured by the CCHE oversight de3cribed earl1er. Given this, it appears to the team that all strateic const1tu enc1e3 could be at lea3t m1n1mally 3a t 13f1ed by this model and probably a good deal more 30 than in current Auraria experience. In the matter of competing values that attect the Aurar1a pre3ent and tuture, 13 the team'3 Judgment that Model Two can prov1de needed emphasis Qn the max1mization ot output, on 103t1tut10nal continuity, and on human commitment to the var10us part3 of the enterprise. Where we are lea3t sure in terms at competing value3 is whether the model, in tact, would rea11ze the potent1al tor expan310n adaptation that a tuture-oriented and necessary v1310n at Aurar 1 a w111 require. That 13, it th13 model is seen saply as a short-tera solution to troubling managerial d1tticult1e3 at Aurar1a, it will not sat13ty the State ot Colorado'3 emerging needs tor publio higher education in the Greater Denver .. tropo11tan area. Ve would like to hope that, it this .adel vere put into etfect, a .. Jor emphasis expected at the System and institut10nal leadersh1p elements inYolyed would be to collaborate, not only to resolve current difficult1es, but to build new delivery systems and other important capabi11ties ot the kind touched upon in earl1er discussion of higher education and the tuture of the reg10n. 41

PAGE 240

3. HODEL THREE: The Professional University. This alternative would replace the existing lostitutional configuration at 1uraria, as well as the 1HEC Board and starf organization, with a new single lostitution composed of elements drawn from OCD, KSC, CCD, and of other components developed over t1me. The largest components merged at the outset under a single adm101stration would be KSC and OCD, the combloation prov i ding b o t h undergraduate baccalaureate degree work and graduate study 10 professional fields. The aim of the new configuration would be both to contloue and fulfill the origloal Legislative mandate set forth for 1uraria 10 Section 23-10-101 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, but also to provide a single stable lostitutional veh1cle, maximally capable of responding effectively to the present and future higher educat10n needs of the Denver metropolitan region complex. In understanding th1s model, 1t is 1.mportant to see 1t LS a distloct type for wh1ch there are 1mportant precedents, a type d1fferent both frOm the aany general lostitut10ns that are called un1versit1es, and from the more advanced scholarly centers that seek to be nationally or loternationally known LS research un1versit1es. The team sees Hodel Three LS that of a professional un1versity, to be defloed from the begloning as much more focused on 101t1al, contlouing, and career-long profess10nal development than on educat10n domloated by and mainly serving the academic dbciplloes The concept of a professional un1vers1ty flows naturally from the origloal 1uraria concept, and from the character that educat10nal programming at 1uraria hLS taken during the passing years. 1t present, the &1x of lost1tut10ns at 1uraria provides both broad access, the fUndamentals of general educat10n, the advanced undergraduate work, and a good part of the graduate professional education required tor the rea11zation of a profess10nal un1vers1ty. Th. full real1zat10n of the concept ot such an lost1tut10n 11 currently prevented by the tact that the 1cst1tut1acs involved do not make up a coherent, interacting, untragaented whole. It is aao hand1capped by the lack of a central v13ion of the role that a tocused and forward looking protess10nal university could play in contributing to the future of the developing urban reg10n in which Denver is located. The need tor the kind of profess10nal univers1ty touched upon above is increasingly recogn1zed in var10us parts of the country. Amer1cen higher educat10n 13 in an unprecedented pos1tion as the present century ends. F1fty years ago, one could prepare for the demands expected 10 a l1fetime of personal and career development

PAGE 241

with a four-year ourrioulum primarily on general eduoation and praotioe of that era. The rate of teohnological and other ohange did not require extraordinary to keep current in one's field, Today , however with the aooeleration in the pace of all change, one must be oommitted to a personal program of lifelong eduoation in order to maintain personal and professional competence. The penetration of the technologioal revolution into all seotor s of the eoonomy has brought about a marked ohange in our workforce with a growing number of fUnotions requiring substantial and sophistication. Hodern teohnology, and particularly so-called high teohnology, has fundamentally ohanged the way human labor is vbile eduoat10nal requ1rements have risen for almost all oocupa Contamporary soc1ety has complex needs that require extens1ve training and education on a continuing g1ven th13 ourrent pace of ohange. In the Denver metropo11tan region, 1t seems olear that the following w111 be requ1red: o A continuing supply of high qua11ty manpower w1th suffic1ent educat10nal breadth to adapt to ohang1ng o An educat10nal environment that links the of business, industry, and the professions with the educational process; o A aystea that gives suooessful practitioners in profess10nal fields the opportun1ty to teach; o A flex1ble .. ans for updating and extending the capabi11ties of professionals on a oareer-long basis; I I '", / o Innovative .. ans for the aaxiaally oonven1ent and oosterfect1ve de11very of educational serv1ce over distance. Develop.ent of auch aeans has been oocurring in various parts ot the Un1ted States tor the past two decades or aore, and the establishment by the Un1vers1ty or Colorado ot the rour-caapus f1ber optios cable network that became operat1onal last July 13 a aign of the aign1r1cant potent1al availab111ty of such aeans. The presenoe of lat10nal Technolog1cal Un1versity, based at Fort vollins, also both underlines what is happening in the development of capab111t1es in educat10nal delivery and a unique Dew resource. The consultant team &5SWles in th13 lIOdel that a professional ) university at Aurar1a, bu11t out of ex13ting resources, would be -3

PAGE 242

guided by certain propositions critically appropriate to the changing era in which we live; among these are: o That diverse, accessible, flexible admissions -of the Icind typified in different ways by CCD and HSC -will be 11& in tained; o That the new configuration would move explicitly toward a careful and creative articulation between Bachelor degree programs and Haster's degree programs in order to maximize human resource development through Auraria; o That the institution would explicitly recognize and under line the importance of Haster's level education in its own right, particularly in the professional fields, as opposed to the more traditional academic view of the Master's degree as Simply a way station on the road to the Ph.D. degree; o That the professional university, in this connection, would seek to strengthen and enhance Haster's degree curricula; o That the institution would deliberately develop its ability to respond to the needs of practicing or mid-career professionals present in a modern metropolitan region like that around Denver; o That the professional university model would recognize the importance of continuing education, not as a way tor institutions to secure aore income, but as an integral and necessary part of its own major eftort to contribute to SOCiety, responding on a continuing basis to continuing change in the world of work, the trend toward increased professional1zation, and the need to prepare more women and members of minority groups for higher worlc-levels and tor decision-making leadership positions. 'It should be olear that the consultant teu, by Hodel Three, does not mean siaply a static .. rger of the existing institutions, but a dynaaic reconstruction ct their resources into a stronger collaborative ecterpriae, .are responsive both to past commitments and to future possibilities. The consultant teu sees three options for the governance ot such an institution. ODe option would be to bring it under a new Jay b0az:1. ll2!. designed to be represectative ot various competing int.rests. 10 .tne .higher education cOlllllUnity Such a would require continuity over 11me in order to assure the new institution's development -_ ... -_._-. 44

PAGE 243

A option would be _ for a of of unde r -tbc go'Vernance of a temporary board draw equally from the -or--State-Colleges, The and the Board of The College System. board, 11ke that under the first option, would be charged among other things with that the transition from the configurat1on to that of a was with minimum difficulty. A third option would be to provide for governanc e _at Aurar1a _during the transition period to occur temporarily under CCHE authority. Both the second and third for governance would keep open the possibility that, in the event of any further reorganization and of the structure of public higher education in Colorado in the fUture, the governance arrangement at Aurar1a would not be vested as to constitute an obstacle to change. Regardless of wIlich governance option be chosen, the consultant team it as of great importance for CCRE to have / / progress toward change to Hodel Three at Auraria. f It is the consultant team's understanding that, in seeing a necessary monitoring role for CCRE with regard to changes in the I governing structure at Auraria, we are essent1a11y in agreement with the Auraria Higher Education Center Performance Aud1t Follow-Up -completed by the State Office in September 1988. In terms -or administrative and managerial structure, it the team's thought that Hodel Three would require a single Chief Executive Off1cer, wIlose posit1on would assure the accomplishment of the respons1bi1ity/authority/accountab11ity cycle under a healthy and effect1ve institution operates. This management structure would bring ada1nistrative form into alignaent with educational fUnction (purpose), in the way f&a1liar throughout American higher education. We would suggest that, under the CEO or President, there be a Vice President for Undergraduate Programs, primarily with responsibil1ty tor modif1ed open enrollment lower division level programs and for nonprofess1onal upper division level programs. This position's responsib1lity would inolude both some components from CCD as well as IlUch of the program presently operated by MSC up to the baccalaureste level. A Vice President for Protessional and Graduate Programs would have responsibility for undergraduate professional-oriented programs and Haster's level professional 115

PAGE 244

graduate programs. In addition to two principal programmatic vice under the CEO, we would the need for two additional one for a Ch1ef Off1cer, the other for a Chief Off1cer; The Ch1ef Execut1ve Officer to lead in the and transit10n to the of be an exper1enced having a fiveto comm1tment to the and the full of the governing board and CCBE. It the hope that CeD, wh1le 1t would be free to own educational would to have coupled to the new as an important component of the university concept. !3 implied earlier under lIOdel, !BEC and the Aurar1a Board would be terminated, with the new structure assuming all and legal control. and discuss1on: Even more than tor the tirst two models sketcbed, Hodel Three would requ1re a involvement in tbe process of 1ts aceomp11shment by top State autbor1t1es, and a large degree of agreement and commitment among tbem about tbe State's intentions at Auraria. involvement and agreement would appear to include and at m1nimum, tbe Governor, tbe Leg1slature, and CCIIE. It is a process tbat, for its success, would need to some degree to be insulated from tbe pressures of vested institutional and in tbe State. Whether sucb cond1tions are feas1ble to achieve is beyond tbe capability of tbe consultant team to determine. What we do Icnow that tbere would need to be a substantial degree of among top authorities for the new professional un1versity concept to become operational at Auraria. It tb1s aodel 15 considered by .CCHE, a principal. in1tial need will be to deteraine vbetber sucb a consensus 14 at all poasible. Looked at in teru ot tbe criteria ot analys14 that tbe consultant team bas used, tbe model has features tbat are !Jl terllS of ,oals, tbe ex14ting institutional configurat1on at Auraria 14 already accomplisbing in part sa.e ot the progrUlJllat1c goals a protessional university would bave. Its non-academic operation has tbe dysfunctions noted above, and therefore 14 not .. eting as well as it could the stated goals of supporting educat10nal programs with satisfactory services and resources. Nor is the ex14t1ng configuration oriented well to the future-oriented goals that IlUSt be considered by public higher educat10n in the Denver &rea. Tbe profeSSional univers1ty model, it appears, would

PAGE 245

provide tor improved goal accomplishment, both programmatic, operational in terms ot support and resources, and tuture responsive in terms ot emerging area needs. Single institution 110e organization would help assure a tauter ship than is the case at Auraria at presentj the articulation ot undergraduate and graduate programs withlo the protessional concept should strengthen wbat is already being otteredj and an authoritative State mandate to be responsive to emerging needs of the economy and its people should strengthen Auraria goa l performance With regard to system resources, it would appear that a protes sional university would not compete with Boulder or Fort Collins tor the great resources that research universities need, and that a clear and economic connection could be made between the resources needed tor undergraduate and graduate protessional education and the social values to the State that would tlow trom the existence of such a unique lostitution. In terms of loternal processes, the single lostitution traditional line organization -tested historically throughout the United States --would seem to assure a relative absence ot internal stralo, usually smooth loternal functiOning, and a clear accoun t able connection between organizational management and the basic tasks ot the lostitution. On the criterion of strategiC oonstituencies, Hodel Three would appear to have promise 10 satistying the public constituencies served by an lostitution. The critical question, however, is wbether the larger strategiC constituencies touched upon at the begloning of this -analYSiS and discussion-section -constituencies with powerful lofluence on decisions &bout higher education 10 Colorado --could be at least mlo1aally satisfied that the new concept was acceptable 10 terms of their own priorities. Floally, with regard to Hodel Three's effectiveness 10 relation to competing values, the consultant team's Judgment is that the concept could provide for aatisfactory response in terms ot human commitlleDt to and throUCh an educational enterprise, for the kind of consolidation/oontinUity that the State should expect 10 the development ot ita educational lostitutiona, and could at the same t1lle .. et output expectations as vell as input economies ot the kind or1loally articulated in the Legislative mandate. The team also teels that this .adel would have -providing it vere supported by top State authorities and led by educators/administrators with vlaion -an unusual capabilitI for adaptation to the changing demand for publiC higher education that is sure to exist in the Greater Denver metropolitan area 10 the Iears ahead. We regard thla potential capability as being of extraordinary importance to the public interest 10 Colorado, going far beyond solving the manage.ent problems of the present, and opening the way for a powertul contribution by h1her education in the future. 47

PAGE 246

VII. CONCLUSIONS The rev1ew of the of higher educat10n development! at Aurar1a, and loqu1ry and 10 Denver, bave led to the and noted above, and to the following a recommended course of act10n for the State of Colorado. A. EQUIVOCATION urn DRIFT WITH REGARD TO AtmARH SHOULD BE ENDED For a decade or more, the of the State of Colorado have had two basic choices with regard to Aurar1a and 1ts of governance and .anagemen t. One cho1ce has been to do substant1al and def101te to end the diff1cult1es that appeared from the 10 the lHEC model. choice has had aVailable to it a wide range of alternat1ves, locluding, at one extreme, to so strengthen the 1HEC board and staff pos1tion relat1ve to the other three governing boards and starfs that AHEC's author1ty would be unequivocal and cootrolling over the Whole enterprise, and, at the other extreme, to the lHEC governance/management structure and replace it w1th something better. The second ch01ce available over the passing has been to do nothing, or as l1ttle as poss1ble, about !BEC, except to study 1t, temporize, and tinker with it 10 minor ways. the second cho1ce that has been taken, down to the pre!ent moment. That has been the ca!e appears to have been the re!ult of an earlier lack of enough w1ll or leadersh1p at the top 10 the State to rectify a bad situat10n, 10 the face of oppos1t1on by ve!ted and confl1cting loterests 10 the higher educat10n commun1ty and 1ts constituenc1es. The consequences are that higher education at Auraria bas not fUlfllled the origloal expectatiocs of the and severely handicapped 10 responding to the emerging and fUture higher educat10n needs of Colorado's .ost densely populated urban area. The prevalence-D!. .J11.sablJ.n& ..1Dt..rnal contl1ct at Auraria, and Auraria' s 'capatile of .eVing adequately 1o . .v1t h econoaic and aceial ohange, are facts 10 vtl1ch responsible State authorities should take little pr1de. --_ .. The consultant te .. believes that the of the State locluding the Governor, the and the Colorado Comm1s!ion on Higher Educat10n -should no longer be w1th the choice. Effectively, its consequences face the State with an eabarrasament. Equivocation and dritt at Aurar1a should end. 48

PAGE 247

---, I tbe cbo1ce and It clearly t1me to take cbo1ce, and replace tbe !HEC w1th a \ \ better / B. SPECIFIC STEPS SHOULD BE TAKEN It the recommendat10n that CCHE and the princ1pal State undertake the tollowing :spec1t1c w1th regard to Auraria and tbe Colorado higher educat10n :setting. 1. Come to agreement througb that adequate act10n be taken w1th regard to Auraria governance/management to correct ditf1cultie:s and a dygam1c and to future h1gher educa t10n need:s ot the Greater Denver metropol1tan area. involved in th1:s bave a to arrive a t :sucb an agreement w1thout allowing 1t to be compromised by competing witbin the higher educat10n community. 2. Come to CUrther agreement, a130 independent ot :such compet1ng tbat the !REC :structure should be replaced by one of tbe three models outlined in the preceding :sect1on, or by another model it a better one can be In the judgmect, Hodel One would be a .in1 .. lly :sat1sfactory choice. Hodel Two. w1th HSC as the main and in:stitution in a seCof I: great deal to recommend it'is a e:spec1ally 1t the CCHE role in it:s over:sight coulQ o8U:sured. Hodel Three a130 recommendlS 1tult. elSpecially coherent change trom tbe pre:sent. overcoming dy:sfunct1ona11tie:s noted, and po:s1t10ning Colorado to :serve emerging bigher educat10n need:s ot the future. 3. Ul tbree .ode13 would requ1re and planned per1od:s ot tran:sit10n. One entail the ISborte:st tran:s1t Jgnal and probably could be Killy accoiap i1lShec'in a year atter a po11cy dec1:s1on to 150 acve. Model Two WOUld, be two to three yearlS for 1tlS adequate rea11zation. Hodel' Three .... ntailing the lIO:st complex in:st1tut1onal ah1ttlS and ai.pl1t1cat1oo:s. _ight take a trans1t1on p.r1od ot as little alS three years to b. su1tably ach1eved. but a1&ht requ1re longer. ----_ .. --CCHE and other top State author1t1es would Deed to be prepared to :support change stead1ly throughout whatever trans1t10n per10d Deeded. to an under:standing. and act upon 1t. that the matter not a d1:screte phenomenon in Colorado higher educat1on, but in large .aasure a :sy.ptom ot the Deed ot the State further to clar1ty. and regular1ze 1t:s organ1zat1on or public higher education. ,/ 119

PAGE 248

O hlr;ne:-COLORADO COMMISS;O" 0" HIGHE R EOUCATIO" bruce C".or"..an Srvan VIC"!"-Cnal:' L Eo ..... ard A :JGue r H arol(. !.. Ro::>er: L. Deeoee Gal e ""a ver Paul Sanao,.1 Jon n C. SWICK ?OR 2, 1968 5 c: -=h e Cel C:-2.c.:> C:c;::::-. ':' iO!1 Co2-lege. "We a .-\..': -,.; ... ... _--, ,/?[J\ k-: (.v ..... ,!1u ::.\.e;.. .. (t' t'''I,.I.O,,,,t-:"""CIO' ':':1 Colc:-ado, CO::-:;>=:;lilise, 2.S ., e>:p.:.a:':1e::. '---

PAGE 249

su=.i tac}:les canpus' problens ---* fro!:'. Auraria "Currently, --_ .. whose is conpromised by the split in lines 0: authority between the acadeni::: institutions and AIlEC," he saic.. The proposal also seeks to end UCD's and Metro's f:::r students by.--=:aising adr.:ission standards at U<:;Q. Under the proposal, the University of Colorado would develop a plan to bring UCD the "highly sele:::tive" admissions category, the same category as the University of Colorado at Boulder, Colorado State University and Colorado School of Mines. proposal also endorses a recent agreement between ueD and Metro designed to make it easier for students from one institution to take courses fron the other institution and to inprove interinstitutional cooperation. "We believe thi s proposal can solve Auraria's most serious problems while, at the same time, maintaining the identities of each institution," said Longanecker. "To ensure ac:::ountability, we) have also proposed that L,e new structure be Subject to a sunset review process prior to the legislative session." In addition to Longanecker, in Auraria were University 0: Cclorado President E. Gordon Gee, President 0: the State Colleges in Colorado Hocston Elan, Colorado College and Oc:::upational President Wartgow -30-

PAGE 250

--OF [.eVe.l.:::::>eC. ":::tv David C:::-T E. Gee, P::-o....sid2..-:-:, Urive..."'"Si-::y 0: C::lo::-ad:> E:>'..lS""...!)n P:"esici2..'17., ':':1e S-:.a-::.e Colleges in Colc:::aco Wa=-...q:;1,;, P::-esicie."l-:, c.:rr:r.-..::-..i-::y arC. OC::-..1pa-:.ic:1al r=u::a-:ior. S-.. 's-..z:. :::Xec.:-...ive Di---e::-....::::-, :'.i<;:1e= E::'..:.::z-:ic:; ce::-:.e= Gva2.: Goc' h!-::E: a:-c. a:::acie:-..i::: '\ :r.s-...i-::-..r..i:>:-:s, j:la:::ing all 7..'1e Aurc.=ia i."1S".:'-=.:-..i::::-:s 0:; -::':'"1e > sa:ne u:.an an:i elir.i."1a-:ing 7..'1e use 0: .hi-::E: as a =peg:::.c::,. / ;.:s: Eloa-.-d s.'1:::-.lld be ro...s:::x::-.....!::-ed so a rr.aj:::::-i":" :. -:.s me.7.:,e..."'"S :::-e;:::-ese."17. S of -'::Ie 0:15. The new boa--d \o."::'"..:.1d be c:::::'?Osed of cine vIi .t;;.-:::J.e."1 a:;:?Cin-::.e:::. by -1.:"1e ti'.::-ee me!:'.:,e..."'"S a;::::x:ii::eo. c: -:he acade::-..i::: a."ri wi 7..'1 ;:::-esicie."1-:.s 0: ea:::..' of a:::acie::-i::: \ i:'.s-..i'::.r..icns as =.:,e..."'"S. a.-x::. so..::ie::-:.s s."l:lUld re.:a:n re;:::-ese::-..a-:io:1 on -;Se Boa=::.. ) / I cr.ride2.ines :0::-t:'le Doa::-::: !::>e es-..a!J2.i.s..,ed -;::; V -=wo are n=:. a!Jle Ugang 1-";:" -=., .... ..i--d ':':1e di.s:::-.:--.e rescl c:-..io:1 F::-=ess s.':::-..:.1:::' i::;e n-':":--.":.C.ine= .. c--""':::-a.rqe::ne..-t: s.'1::r.ll::' be S\:!Jj e:::-: w Sl...'"'.Se-: :-eview p=s ;:::-io::--:::> :.?93 sessic::. le;'....sla-:ive le:;is:a-::'ve L-c t="'-,e.=.l -:i.:::1 =c:-S::-.x:ie::-:.s, a22cr ..... :..:; -=---=ee ':"'-s--.i'::-...:--ior$ b ;:,e_::.e.:se...-ve c.....-::;:e-';:y; r-:-f== !..-;;:;:-:,ve a.11d a..:va.-s::-:y =e="1.!::-=--'; a.."!"'_:"q ':':1e r..issi::::15 c: 7..'1e k:..---a=ia i.-:s-..i-=..r..i:::3 l:Je :::::::-e cle.a::-ly i::le::-:':"::ie=. a."'"ri C!S -'.. t.':'.ive...-s:'-::y c: C::lo:::a::':' is c=:-i-.::.ed "':.:>. 5=:..'e::c:..:..==e:--e::-=ic::i::"'i c= -::...'1e =-::l e an::! r...issic.; c! U:::> a .\Oo:-,i.::..-: ::-=VE t;= sele=-":ve ::z:: e;:::-.:", \ \

PAGE 251

=..:.:::e-.:._ 2 0: COlleges ='::'"t. Me-::"-:::?Ql.:um Col.le::re =se "t..::> c""'=,,:-e:ne:iial = .:..-ses fc= aca d e::tic c::e::'::: c= =::''1:!in;, a'1:::' wi.:.l \o,-:::=k ':...,e c:::=.:ni ::y C::::'lege c: Le."1Ve= "t..:l ;::::ovide =e:ne:::..:a:. i. ..i.0:1 as needed -:.0 5e-.-ve ME.-::"-o s-'...tie::-:.s_ ., TI.e 5':aoo:e B:>a=d c...--:::rr..r":::y o==upa":ic:12.! Ecu=a,,:icn cor.t::'.i ":s -:.:> cxpe...... cr:ive 2--=aI)?eno-r:'":.S \o.l'i7.:.'1 -:"'1e G=':'==:'-:..-: C!=?O:::-:-..:.-.i-::y 5=..'1001 wi2.1 reC".l=e c"..:?l.icaOO:i.o:1 c: se::vices anj C-..""7.?lE!!T'e.-:-:.a:-" p.::-o:;ran-s 4. Tne Colorado C:::::::li.ss:on on Hict1e::-:S::uca-:iC:1 =..:.-:.s "t..:l devel= a p 1 a'1 "t..::> ?::-::IVide :c= 0::-/J" & '7 :"'15"::::'''::::-:::'0:1 c:fe=e::. "t.:> ':....e u ... me-: nee:::.s c_ Le."1Ve= a=ec res: d e.-:-:.s_ Ma-::..-o a'1d S..'1:::-..:lC. be e.'1=.!...'-a?e:i "to i..,,:?le:na:.::. p la-.s "t..::> c=on pool an;j t:o =:r:i."T.le / fc= wavs U) l.!.'1ne:::essa:::-'1 colica"':i.on, :ac:.2.i:::a-:e I .i.::::.a.-iT-.s--i -=_--ion2.l :a:::-.J.l-::y =:!..la:x::aoo:ion a'ld "t..::> a"-"::-ess,l C"':.'1e:r acadcc issues I :-'"'TG:--:-':) T l\r:::::::s G:al.: V Ine-:=:::xJ:: "':a. '1 2-'""ea en:::. devel:;:) WC!'.'S :.. '1 r-i.:::;e= C2l1 c::::--=:.:::r..:-...e w ':....e red.c:: I 5 f"....-:::.l..--e -=y /De:i..'1e t.'1e lon:; ':e... .. -:il h i c;ne:r e:::-.l::z:::ic:1 nee::s c_ ::e.."Tv'e::-\ J. s;e::ic.l urrie= t..;,e. _Ci.re=--io:1 c: ._5...1.:r..:.l=. \ be ::::::-ea::ed l.."1Volve ):;o.siJ1esS, e:::u=aoo:i.o:1 a'"l:l. -le.a:Je..-s det.a.-::-.i. .,,;:19' -="'e 2--e.c. I s f":"....=e nee:is . :!lle =:':J.i:::-...ee sho:.lld nr.:'.l ... --e de::ncc:::-a::::::i.c /' n.:::-.:..--e j6 re::;.li..--ene.. ..s and C"::"le::-ee-:1:.... .::.::

PAGE 252

Ho-..:.s-:.::n !:2..a::-. Go::-::'cn E. Gee Dav:"::' Sr. :"-:.:' Je::-one F. __ Dece!:'.!:le::-, :988 Pursuan-:. -:'0 we have -:'0 deve:c? an al ':.e::-;;a-:.{ve re:::c=enc.a-:.ion fo::':.he Au::-aria Hig:'e::E:::'uca-:.ic;. Cen-:.er. We arE: please::' -:'0 ::-e;m=-:. ou::-fo::--:'::E fcllowing ':.:'ree pa::--:. prc?osal. . -,.'"-1. ';'he V:si--C:-1 is we e=ba::-k fo:-leng 1:e= a:-E:a and educa-:.ion can a:1d :::us-:. :-ela-:.e and on a p:-ocess 0= developinc; a hic;he:-educa-:.ion neec.s e= -:.:'e -:.he ways in which 1:0 anc:: suppo=-:. the rec;io::' s social Much has al::-eac::y been done. S-:.u::'ies inclu:ie s::a:: by "the 0: ,. Lave::-:...'1c_ and He:-va-:.h s-:.udy p:-epa:-ed fer -:.he Denve:-\, the Ci-:.y and Coun-:.y 0= Denver's bole. new : cor.Drehensive CAC:'s =0:-Colorado, 'Gove::-nc:-'s Wor}:=o:-ce 2000 repor-:., Jo::s fo:-Colorade's s Eispa::-.ic agen::a a:1d -:'he wo:} ; e= -:.he Cclo:-aco Ro::.nd-:.a:::le. We believe is esser:-:.ial ':.0 :,uild on ':.his ",' or}; a:1c. no=e a include, bu-:. no-:. b; -:'0, an analysis of =u-:.::.::-e de:::Joc;raphic -:.::-en::'s =c:-:.he De:1ver me-:.::-o a::-ea, \. as ::-eca::-::s unde::--se::-vo::' =-..:-,,-;,' j c '--pG._ .. Denve::-ne-:.ro new airpo=-:. anc ecS:=:::',,:,.ic ce pose spe'cia:

PAGE 253

S, 1986 Page -2-DRArIOr'LY To :i}:ely we of a special be bv CCHE in .. ;i -::.he c: higher educa and invcl"; ing }:ey ) and we CC::::: seek e>c-er:1al fo:::-::::is a:-::: \ ask -::.ha-::. i -::. C-::HE by Decerile::-1989. we ) p1ecge ou::-:u:l suppo::-:: in CCH::: and in car=ying to T::is should be :indinss ::-eoc::-::ed I.iil se::-ve i l.'i2..: p::-o.ide necessary in:o:-:na c::::::: and va::-ious higher sys::e:::s in CCHE needs such -::'0 s long-te= pos-::.-seconda::-y needs, ea::::: needs -::'0 i::s area of ::-esponsibili::y in Secon::" I.'i:l provi_ ste a I.'r..: _::.h C:::E a:-::: o:::r;ers-can --j udge ___ ot __ al ve. gove::-:1a:1:::e we are D::-oDosing -::oc.a\' ----/ ----_ ... -_. --... -, l I 'l-ie ac::-ee basic Dre:::ise cf J>,u::-a:-ia I s c .Qve=nance. i __ a:1C i-::. .o! s-:.o.:: 0-=_ -:.u-::i onc..l 5-:.a :::J -::.:-'a-::. :or \ by a nu::-'se::_ 0: ha::_d w'o::_king, tale:-:-:.e:: inc:.ividuals whose is by in lines 0: <:y be-::..,een -:':',e aca:le::. i c and -:.h e s-::aff believe s-::a:: < t:::: neec.s because a::-e a Pc:=-:: c: a \ c.e-en-"--=-"" be' 'eve .. 'c! and cocoe=a-::ior., ..... ... -, c::::lle:::-::ive enyi::-o:1:ne::::, inc.ividual e):a:::' .?les c: is a anc cocpe=a::.:o:: t :'ne=:ic:'e::-: 0 sc_' ve _c: 1 e= -"e _ .... _''''''-: .. I ... 1.... __ ... IC., W ....... 1 __"" ______ ... -:: bca::-c. we conside::-ed adc.!n; special powe::_s boa::_c bu:: CO:1cl1.!oec. -:0 :c::-:::e wou:d be anc

PAGE 254

Je:::e::-';:'e:::6, 1986 Page J '} OhJL Y in anc boa:::-c anc acaaer.ic ins':.:" t.'...!':.ions. we be_ieve 1,.,:'12 e::"::.:":1a-:.e oc::...:.::-s becat:se a2.1 0:1 calr.pus now be pa=-: c: same wi:l no longe::be a:1 agency is pe:::-::eivec be sepa::-a-:e a:1c blamed :0:::-a:1 goes w::-on;, speci:ical!y, our propcsal is as follows: The new Au:::-a:::-ia boa:::-c wOl:.ld be c::mpcsed 0: me;:o.;:,e:::-s: by Gove::-no::-Th:::-ee appointed gove:::-r.ing bca:::-d 0: :::::::-ee \ acade::::ic '\. "" -:he ::h:::-ee gove::-ni:1C; ( !n there will be one non-vo-:ing rep:::-esen-:a-:ive and one non-vo-:ing fac...:.:-:y as provided by s::a-:u-:e We we:::-e ve:::-y conce:::-ned in developing a new :or Boa:::-o we main-:ain a in whi:::: each :ai::-would no-: be :c::::wo 0:::-rep:::-esen::a-:ives ::0 impose on the rer.oaining To a c::: o::::p 1 ish ::::'is, we on all -:aken by ::he Boa::-d in wr.icn bo-: h f::-om any sinc;le have minc::-i::y, majc::-i-:y opinion p:::-evail only i: is suppo=-:ed by a of lay 0: ::he Boa::-c. as a :inal safegua::-d, we p:::-opose :::-e-:air.ing cu::-::-er.-: process, whicn a:101.'s a:1Y pa=-:y .. i ::hin cor':::w"1ity to appec.l a decision by Au::-c.:::-ia "'oa--' / C::E:::. / Au:::-a:::-ia Boa:::-d would a:::point an vice :or whe wo:.:ld De :::-eS::lons!.;::le fc:::-\.. Au::-a::-:..a :"unc!icns ve '.."'ice 'c=es:,ae;:: WOIl.!.:: '--Se:::-ve c 151easu::-e -of -:he A:.::::-a:::-ia 1.r.ich w01.:lC: l.i -:ri:1n s':.t _u ':0:-1' -bounds, -the---':unc-:iens anc 0: the vice ::le::-son also se:-ve as a ::le::-.be= -:.he s ca= :'ne-:. :0= each c'! ",,:.:.. -:.!;.i:i --:::ie vice p:::-eside:1-: would se:::-ve C::1 an ";':.:.::-a::-ia (A3::) wi-:!1 -:;he ::::'::-ee: hE: wocld Au::-a::-ia Boa:::-d and would have aene::-al :::-esoonsi:::il;' :c:::policies and ac::ing as aroong -:::::-ee ;:=o::e$S, :. ,i}:e ::-ec:::, : Bea=-:: I ves-;

PAGE 255

Je::e::-.;:'e= 8, ?aqe ---l' 8RAri ONL Y new = a j::= has p::-oven ;:,e so Au::-a:-ia the::-e a=e as oPe.-: we we=e also conce=ned. To recuce 'for students, we have agreed that missions 0: -'Eo---'be-o::::-e-.=.cl-e.2. .:.., y _ i ied, ,-and we have ag-:-eed to Un':ve=si;y 0: Colo=ado is to of the":=olea:; c r .iss "ion 1Jnive::-sity of Colo=ado Denve=, a plan w:-.ic:: ... i::.:. e: Colc=ado at to hiS-::ly selective ac:::-,issicns ..-ith policies The State in Colo:-ado State Colleoe ... ill cease e::e= =emec.i2ol f::= acader:.ic c::--edi 0= :c= ar:c ",'ill wc= } : ccllabo::-a-::ively ""i t::: t..'1e Co=:.:.:-.i College of Denve= :;::-ovide remedial as se:-ve Met=opolit2on S-::ate College The State Bo2o::-d fo= Colo=aco Cor::..--:::.:.::i Colleges an:: to n:.:.=suinc coooe=ative the 2r,ily Schoel that will =ecuce unnecessa:-y 0: se=vices and st=eng-::hen The Cclo=ado en Eiche= co==.its _ develop a plan :0= s:.:.:;:po:-: tc= to 0: t:1e of the De::ve= 2o::-ea. -----.-.,. -:n t..'1ese specific to c l e2o=ly the a=eas of ::-espcnsi=ility t h e the have =ecentlv a en the nool e! C01..:::-ses, wili be we a;-=ee ve.!.y to exar:.i:1e ac.d i -::ionai .:ays to. unnecessa:-y c:.:.plicatior: 0: cou=ses p=og::-a=s, to !acili ==oc=a=

PAGE 256

! 0, ?a?e -5-DRAFT Of'l!L Y J. issues as developed in proposed Memorandum 202.leges i:1 Coloraco and Uni vers: c: / We believe a:1c will and Auraria. we also reco;::ize we should be helc:! e. Thus we propose that would be su=je=-;. a sunse":: review process prior to 1993 session Colorado General Assembly and would only be iz suppor-::ed by General Asse::-.:::.:.::. fuiG. c : c::.J'o..l=se, T.lc.':'n-=ain I 5 ==02.c. :::ver. ,'" our is ac=ep"::ed and er,ac-;.ec, wi_l za=e an period no1. ::..:.2.::, we allow period be a oz and Acco::rrngly 'we have asked prepare a work plan would anc., :.n c..:r:':1C; .--", ,-per:.od as wel.l as to cr:;ra::ize progress or. c::::-_-::::r. . iss\ies. wo:-}: plan be n=esen-:.ec. -:'0 a:1d in=luae issues as: The space as well as space needs. r-':'he pla:1ning process in_r._:_3 ___ and sic;r.age. / # ....-!::>_E,;: i e ve".: -:.!::'s :-esponc.s ;:=-:::::le=.s h __ a __ a a:1 .... pro ... iaes necessary zramework pt:rsue = .::re cc;:;ressivE:ly of be-:-:er r.i:;her neecs c: a=ea. .::'2.l work a vel v see}: e>:ec-.:.-:::' ve l e V e::' a:1d p_an for i';e have beS-:':l develc;::in; a ?-'e:::c:::-an::-.:.:n of 1.':'2.2-speci:ic be us concurren::e,

PAGE 257

APPENDIX XIII House Bill 1156 A bill for an ACT Concerning the Auraria Higher Education Center 1989

PAGE 258

-3 Genera: 89 BY Schauer; also SENATOR MeiKlejohn. A BILL FOR AN A:T CONCERNINu THE AURARIA HIGHER EDUCATION CENTER. Bill Summary (Note: This to this bill end does no't'riecessarily refle:t .!!!!r-aiiienciiiien:s .... nlc n E! suoseouentlv aooptee.) Chanoes the composition of the board. Reouires that, on all by the board in which representatives of any single institution have voted in the minorhy. the major'ity opinion Ior'ill prevail only if it is supponed by e majority of the lay members of the Auraria board. Reoeais specifications for the composition of the board in 2993. Raises aemission standards for the university of Coioraao a: Denver. SECTION 1. Article 70 of title 23, Colorado Revised 4 Statutes, 2988 Repl. Vol., is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A 5 SECTION to reac: 6 23-70-101.5. abolished. Effective July 1, 29E9. 7 the existing boar d of directors of the Auraria higher B 9 10 educat ion center is abolished, and the terres o f members of the board then serving are terminated. SECTION 2. Tne introductory portion to 23-70-102 As !:: ,:; f! 1 0 1923 C.pIIDI Iclle,.. ;nd;c.u .. materi.1 10 be added to ex;.,; n ; YOU S : DUIOhcs Ihr-oUfh tnt"" W(H'Ti", indicatr from c.rilt,inf .,alu'c.

PAGE 259

) 1 Ie 2 237C-l 02 (1) (a) (1) (1 \ (rd. (1' (;;) n r '1 \ (c! \ Lo1oraco kevlsed 198B Rep1. Vol., are and tne s"ld 23-7C.-102 1s 3 BY THE ADDITION OF THE 4 SUeSECTIONS, to relic: 5 23-7G-I02. Aurarie board otths 6 (1) EFFECTIVE JULY I, 1989, 15 hereby created 7 ;Re A HEW board of directors of the Auraria higher education B center, referred to 1n this art1cle as the "Auraria boa:-c!" 1 9 wh1ch shall cons1st of n1ne members AND EX OFFICIO 12 AURARIA BOARD shall be chosen in the manne:-: 13 (a) (1) THREE LAY members appointed by the governo:-14 as soon as practicable after JULY 1, 2989, the 25 first of whom shall: serve for II term of one year, the second 16 for a term of two years, AHO the third for II term of three IB Qubernatorial appointments shall be for THREE-YEAR 19 terms. ALL LAY APPOI[iEO SHALL BE RESIDENTS OF TH: 20 DENVER AREA. 2! (b) (1) THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICEPS, RESPECTIVELY, OF 22 THE REGEHTS OF THE UHIVEPSITY OF COLORADO, TRUSTEES OF THE 23 STATE COLLEGES IN COLORADO, AND THE STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNiTY 24 COLLEGES AND OCCUPATIONAL EDUCATION. 25 (II) Three members, one appointed by, and from among the 26 members of, each of the following boards: The state board for 27 community colieges and occupational educat ion -2-

PAGE 260

2 the trustees of the stete colleges in 3 lnd the regen:s of the of toloraoo, ee:h su:h to serve the pleasure of the epp01n:ing board so 5 long es he is 6 member of thE e?point1ng board. / 6 (e) (II) This paragraph (e) is effective July 7 1, 1993. Prior to said repeal. the advisory committee B shall be reviewed as provided for in section 2-3-1203, C.R.S. 9 (d) (I J) lhis paragraph (d) is repealed. effe:tive July 10 1, 1993. Prior to said repeal. the advisory commi:tee shall 11 be reviewed as providec for in section 2-3-1203, C.R.S. (3) All by the board shall be by 12 13 vote, but. on all in which both 14 from single system or institution heve 15 16 17 voted in the minority, the majority opinion shall prevail only if it is supported by 6 majority of the ley members of Auraria board. (4) In any instance in which no majority opinion can 1B 19 prevail under the terms of subse:tion (3) of this section, the 20 Auraria board shall have sixty days in which to reach a 21 p"'ev?ilinq ion oy/majority vote. ;If no majority is reached within sixty days, the commission on hi9her 22 23 education shall thereafter consider and determine the issue et 24 25 26 27 its next (5) the lay meetings meeting. The board shall ele:: 6 chairman from membe:-s of the board, who shall act chairtlian et of said board and liS such board's re;Jresentative in -3-f) 5to . ....,!': './'

PAGE 261

oealin;s third 2 (6) se:tlon Is repealec, Ju1y 1, 1993. 3 S[:TIOH 3. 23-70-103, Colorado Revised Statutes, 1988 4 Repl Vol., Is amended BY THE or H[W to 5 rea::!: 6 23-70-103. of covernino boards of ) -1-/150

PAGE 262

2 their chief offl:e,s. with tne 3 participation of the executive of tne on higher education. shall jOintly oraf: a memorandum of 5 agreement covering issues ,t the 6 The memorandum of agreement shall provioe 9uidan:e 7 and direction to the Auraria board in the determination of . 8 operationally related matte,s but shall not bind or otherwise 9 limit the board in i:s authority to manage the Auraria campus. 10 An initial memorandum of agreement shall be to tne 11 commission on higher education to be forwarded to the gene r al 12 not later than January IS, 1990. 13 SECTION 4. 23-1-105 (1) (f), Colorado Revised Statutes, 14 1988 Repl. Vol. is amended to read: ), 15 23-70-105. __ __ __ 16 (1) (f) Employ, within funds appropriated for such purpose or 17 otherwise made available therefor, such employees as are 18 necessary to perform the functions and carry out the duties o f 19 the Auraria board, INCLUDING AN EXECUTIVE FOR 20 hDHlll!STRATION WHO SHALL BE THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER FOR 21 OPERATIOHS AT THE AURARIA CAMPCS; and 22 SECTION 5. 23-20-101 (1) (b), Colorado Revised Statutes. 23 1988 Repl. Vol.,;s amended to read: 24 23-20-101. Universitv of Colorado role and miss ion -25 all (1) (b) The Denver campus of the university of 26 Coiorado shall be a comprehensive baccalaureate liberal arts 27 and sciences institution with HIGH admissio n

PAGE 263

Z 3 5 6 7 8 --9 10 11 12 13 14 ) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ) ; 1ne uenver carr.:l:JS Sill! 11 prov1oe se)e:ted profess ional programs end suCh 9 raduete programs at the IIdsters' lind do:toral ) r e 1 dS w1ll serve tile nee:1s of the uenver metropo11tan erea, err.;>ndslzlng tnost professloMl progrllms not offered by other institutions of h1gher education. SECTION 6, :-3 -1203 (3) (f). C.olorado Revised Statutes, 1980 Rep 1, Vo ". as amendec, is amended BY THE ADOJT I ON OF A !IEW SUBPARAGRAPH i I I I to read : 2-3-1203, r e vi!'.: (If" (3) (f) (XIl). The advisory committee to the Auraria board appointed pursuant 'LO secti o n 23-70-102 (1) (e) and (1) (d). I SECTION 7. Reoeal. 2-3-1203 ( 3) (d) (X). C.olorado Revised Repl. VoL as amended, is repealed. 298 0 SECTIDN..i. Effective' date. 1hls act shall take effect July I, 19S9. SECTION 7. Seretv clause. The general assembly hereby f1nds, determines, dnd declares that this act 1s neCessllry for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, lind safety.

PAGE 264

APPENDIX XIV Auraria Board Authority Organization By-laws and policies August 1989

PAGE 265

Higher Education Center Office of Executive Vice-President 1for Administration 1027 Ninlh Snel Pari< P.O. Box 4615 A Colorado 80204 (303) 556-3291 (303) Community College of Denver Metropolitan State College University of Colorado at Denver TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: M E M 0 RAN DUM Members of the Auraria Board of Directors Betty Miller King T rimble Larry Hamilton Jerry Wartgow James Osbourn Tex Elam Richard Bernick E. Gordon Ge e Thorpe cker 2 Board Authori anization Consistent with your agenda, item 12 is intended to initiate the process of amending Board by-laws and policies. Attached is a draft document which I believe contains all authority-related information for the board. Part II of that document contains the by-laws for the Board, that is, how the Board will organize and operate. Recommended new or amended information is highlighted in yellow. It should be discussed and acted upon at some point. Part III contains the policies of the Board; again new or amended information is highlighted. These policies deal primarily with how the staff/administration shall function. These should be discussed and acted upon at some point. JRS:cac 0004E-60

PAGE 266

--BOARD OF DIRECTORS AURARIA HIGHER EDUCATION CENTER STATUTORY AUTHORITY, RESPONSIBILITIES BY-LAWS AND POLICIES Adopted by the Auraria Board of Directors July 14, 1986 REVISED 7/1/89 Amendments under consideration by Board drafted on 8/25/89

PAGE 267

PART I STATU'l'ORY AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE AURAlliA BOARD SECTION 1: Enabling Legislation and Statutory Authority SECTION 2: Other Responsibilities -1-

PAGE 268

PART I: STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES SECTION 1. ENABLING LEGISLATION AND STATUTORY AUTHORITY 23-70-101. Legislative declaration. ( 1) The general assembly hereby finds and declares that this article is necessary to: (a) Provide for the coordination of the planning and construction of a multi-institutional higher education complex located in the city and county of Denver on land designated therefor and on land now occupied by the University of Colorado at Denver, collectively known as the Auraria Higher Education Center and referred to in this article as the center"; (b) Provide for the land, physical plant, and facilities necessary to' accommodate and house Metropolitan State College, the University of Colorado at Denver, and the Community College of Denver, Auraria campus, referred to in this article as the constituent institutions, at and within the center; (c) Facilitate the execution and performance of the constitutional and statutory responsibilities of the governing boards of the constituent institutions; (d) Establish a new board to plan, construct, maintain, and manage the land and physical facilities of the center and perform the duties and exercise' the powers otherwise set 'forth in this article;. and (e) Provide a system for facilitating cooperation among the constituent institutions, their governing boards, and the governing board created by this article. 23-70-102. Auraria board membership terms -oaths -voting. (1) Effective July 1, 1989, there is hereby created a new board of directors of the Auraria Higher Education Center referred to in this article as the "Auraria Board which shall consist of nine members and two ex officiononvoting members. The voting members of the Auraria board shall be chosen in the following manner: -2-

PAGE 269

(a) (I) Three lay m embers appointed by the governor as soon as practicable after July 1, 1989, the first of whom shall serve for a term of one year, the second for a term of two years, and the third for a term of three years; gubernatorial appointments shall be for three-year terms. All Lay members appointed shall be residents of the Denver metropolitan area. (II) I n the event o f death, resignation, or inability or refusal to act of any such appointed member, the governor shall fill the vacancy for the remainder of the term. Any vacancy in the elected office on the board shall be filled by reelection for the unexpired term. (b) (I) Th e chief executive officers, respectively, of the Regents of the University of Colorado, the Trustees of the State Colleges in Colorado, and the State Board for Community Colleges and Occupational Education. ( I I) Three members, one appointed by, and from among the members of, each of the following boards: The State Board for Community Colleges and Occupational Education, the Trustees of the State Colleges in Colorado, and the Regents of the University of Colorado, each such member to serve at the pleasure of the appointing board so long as he is a member of the appointing board. (c) (I) An advisory committee :of s i x members who are full-time students shall be elected, two from each of the" student bodies of each of' the three institutions governed by the Auraria board, and it shall elect one of its members to fill one office on the Auraria board to serve for one term beginning July 1. Said elected office shall be advisory, without the right to vote. The elected member of the board shall have resided in the state of Colorado not less than three years prior to his election. ( II ) This paragraph (c) is repealed, effective July 1, 1993. Prior to said repeal, the advisory committee shall be reviewed as provided for in section 2-3-1203, C.R.S. (d) (I) An advisory committee of six members who are full-time faculty members shall. be elected, two from each of the faculties of each of the three institutions governed by the Auraria board, and it shall elect one of its members t9 -3-

PAGE 270

-fill the remaLnLng office on the Auraria board to serve for one-year terms beginning each July 1. The committee shall select such a member from the same institution only once in the same three-year period. Said elected office shall be advisory, without the right to vote. The elected member of the board shall have resided in the state of Colorado not less than three years prior to his election. (II) This paragraph (d) is repealed, effective July 1, 1993. Prior to said repeal the advisory committee shall be reviewed as provided for in section 2-3-1203, C.R.S. (2) Each member of the Auraria board shall take and subscribe to the oath of office prescribed by the constitution of this state before entering upon the duties of his office, which oath shall be placed and kept on file in the office of the secretary of state. (3) All actions by the Auraria board shall be by majority vote, but, on all actions taken in which both representatives from any single system or institution have voted in the minority, the majority opinion shall prevail only if it is supported by a majority of the lay members of the Auraria board. (4) In any instance in which no opinion can prevail under the terms of subsection (3) of this section, the Auraria board shall have sixty days in which to reach a determination by prevailing majority vote. If no majority determination is reached within sixty days, the commission on higher education" shall thereafter' consider' and determine the issue at its next meetil)g. (5) The Auraria board shall elect a chairman from among the lay members of the board, who shall act as chairman at meetings of said board and as such board's representative in official dealings with third parties. (6) (a) This section is repealed, effective July 1, 1993. (b) The general assembly acknowledges that the Auraria board has entered into, and may hereafter enter into, long-term contracts as authorized by law. It is not the intention of the general assembly in enacting paragraph (a) of this subsection (6) to prohibit or impair any such contracts which have been or may be validly entered into by the Auraria board pursuant to law, and the general assembly inte"nds that -4-

PAGE 271

.implementation of paragraph (a) of subsection (6) will include provision successorship to or other satisfaction of obligations of such contracts. 23-70-103. Responsibility constituent institutions. of governing boards this for the of (1) Except as may be expressly provided in this article, the respective governing boa.rds of the constituent institutions are charged with the responsibility for, and shall plan, initiate, manage, and control, their respective programs within the Colorado system of higher education as provided in this article; and, in addition, said respective boards shall initiate and control jOint academic and vocational programs among two or more of the constituent institutions at the center. (2) The respective governing boards of the constituent institutions shall provide for a common academic calendar which is sufficient so that students may begin, make progress toward, and complete a course at a time which will allow full opportunity for enrollment in courses offered at any of the three constituent institutions. Registration periods shall coincide and the academic year shall commence and terminate simultaneously. (3) The respective governing boards of the constituent institutions shall provide that credits earned at each of the constituent institutions shall be trans ferable between institutions insofar as they meet the degree :and grade requirements of the students chosen program. of studies at one of the constituent as determined by. the degree-granting institution. (4) The governing boards, through their respective chief executive officers, with the participation of the executive director of the commission on higher education, shall jointly draft a memorandum of agreement covering inter-institutional issues at the Auraria campus. The memorandum of agreement shall provide guidance and direction to the Auraria Board in determination of operationally related matters but shall not bind or otherwise limit the board in its authority to manage the Auraria campus. An initial memorandum of agreement shall be submitted to the commission on higher education to be forwarded to the general assembly not later than January 15, 1990. -5-

PAGE 272

23-70-10(. Duties of the Auraria board. (1) The Auraria board has the duty: (a) To acquire, plan, construct, own, lease operate, maintain, manage, or dispose of all of the physical plant, facilities, buildings, and grounds in the center (except that land owned at the Aurari a center by the Regents of the University of Colorado shall continue under such ownership but shall be maintained and managed in a similar manner to the other facilities in the Auraria center) and such additional land and facilities as the Colorado Commission on Higher Education may from time to time designate and approve and to accept and hold for the use of the center and its constituent institutions such property as was designated or used prior to May 13, 1974, for purposes of the center or its constituent institutions; (b) To allocate among and assign to the constituent institutions, in accordance with needs, suitable space within the center for the use of such institutions and for such jOint or cooperative educational, vocational, and other activities and programs as may be provided by the constituent institutions; (c) To facilitate effective coordination and economies of operation of physical facilities by designating joint facilities of the insti tutions, to include, but ndt be limited to, dining facilities, student seryice faCilities, library facilities, warehouse facilities, recreational facilities, health facilities, and parking facilities; (d) To determine and designate the non-academic and non-vocational joint programs or joint activities of the constituent institutions, to include, but not be limited to, security and fire protection, maintenance and purchasing; (e) To continually develop, review, and update annually a long-range plan for operation of the center. There shall be a five-year forecast of the operational costs and capital construction costs, which shall be submitted to the general assembly no later than January 1 of each year, commencing January 1, 1975. -6-

PAGE 273

(f) To decLde inter-institutional disputes presented to the Auraria board by anyone or more of the constituent institutions pursuant to section 23-70-106.5; and (g) To investigate supplementary or alternatLve methods for delivery of selected higher educational servLces through the use of existing campuses and facilities in Denver and the metropolitan area. 23-70-105. General powers of Auraria Board. (1) The Auraria board is a body corporate by the name and style of the Board of DLrectors of the AurarLa HLgher EducatLon Center and, as such and by its said name, has the power to: (a) Sue or be sued to the extent permitted by law; (b) Contract or be contracted with; (c) Acquire, hold, and lease as lessor or lessee or dispose of property, both real and personal; (d) Have a common seal which it may change and alter at its pleasure; (e) Elect officers of the board, appoint a chairman" and promulgate bylaws and rules of procedure to govern the transaction of its business as provided in this article. (f) Employ, within funds appropriated for such purpose or otherwise made available therefor, such employees as are necessary to perform the functions and carry out the duties of the Auraria board including an executive vice-president for administration who shall be the chief executive officer for operations at the Auraria campus; and (g) Assess, after approval of the governing boards of the constituent institutions, a special student fee, which may be pledged as provided in section 23-70-108 and shall be collected as prescribed by the Auraria board. -7-

PAGE 274

23-70-106. Auraria board to have certai n powers similar to powers exercised by the governing bodies of other state institutions of higher education. (1) The Auraria board may exercise the following powers to the same extent and in the same manner as may be provided or extended by law to the governing boards of state institutions of higher education: (a) To promulgate rules and r egul a tions for the safety of students, employees, and property located within the center; (b) To promulgate rules and regulations providing for the operation and parking of vehicles upon the grounds, driveways, or roadways within the the center under the control of the Auraria board; (c) To cede jurisdiction for the enforcement of traffic laws; (d) To institute and carry out a system of registration and identification of vehicles owned or operated by students, faculty, and staff attending or employed by the constituent institutions and the Auraria staff located at the center; and (e) To receive gifts and bequests of money or property which may be tendered to the Auraria board. 23-70-106.5. Resolution of disputes at Auraria Center. ( l) After notification to the affected chief executive officers, which notification provides for a deadline of not more than ten days for the resolution of a dispute, the chief executive officer of any governing board at the Auraria center, including the Auraria board, may request the Colorado Commission on Higher Education to resolve a conflict concerning an academically related issue at the Auraria center. The commission shall have the authority to make the final decision to resolve the issue presented to it or may delegate its responsibility and authority for the final decision of the issue to the Auraria board. The decision of either the commission or the Auraria board shall be binding on all the governing boards and institutions and on t .he Auraria board. It is' the policy of the general assembly that the commission is encouraged' to delegate to the Auraria board, to as great an extent as possible, its authority for making final decisions at the Auraria center. -8-

PAGE 275

(2) The chief executive officer o f any governing board at the Auraria center, includi ng the Auraria board, may request the Auraria board to resolve a conflict concerning the operation, administration, or use of the physical facilities at the Auraria center. The Aurari a board shall have the authority to make the final decision to resolve the issue presented to it, and such decision shall be binding on all of the governing boards and institutions and on the Auraria board . (3) All issues involving inter-institutional disputes at the Auraria center shall be considered as either academically related or operationally related, and the commission is authorized to determine whether it or the Auraria board shall have jurisdiction in regard to the resolution_qf the dispute. 23-70-107. Borrowing funds for auxiliary facilities. For the purposes of obtaining funds for constructing, otherwise acquiring, and equipping dining facilities, recreational facilities, health facilities, parking facilities, and student center facilities for the use of students and employees at the center, the Auraria board is authorized, after approval by the Colorado commission on higher education and subsequent affirmative vote by the combined student bodies of the Auraria campus if student fees are to be used in financing such projects, to enter into contracts with anyone or more persons or corporations or state or federal government agencies for the advancement of moneys for such purposes and to provide for the repayment of such advancements with interest at a specified net effective interest rate. 23-70-108. Pledge of income. (1) When the Auraria board enters into a contract for the advancement of moneys described in section 23-70-107, the board is authorized, in connection with or as a part of such contract, to pledge special student fees, or the net income derived or to be derived from such land or facilities so constructed, acquired, and equipped, or special student fees and said net income as security for the repayment of the moneys advanced therefor, together with interest thereon, and for the establishment and maintenance of reserves in connection therewith; and, for the same purpose, the Auraria board is also authorized to use the net income derived from the Tivoli brewery and parking areas associated with the Tivoli brewery and to pledge the net income derived from other dining facilities, recreational facilities, health facilities, parking faCilities, and student center -9-

PAGE 276

facilities not acquired and not to be acquired .... ith moneys appropriated to the Auraria board by the state of Colorado and to pledge the net income, fees, and revenues derived from said sources, if such be unpledged, or, if pledged, the net income, fees, and revenues currently in excess of the amount required to meet principal, interest, and reserve requirements in connection with outstanding obligations to which such net income, fees, and revenues have theretofore been pledged. (2) Any advancement of moneys may be evidenced by interim warrants, if necessary, and bonds to be executed by and on behalf of the Auraria board containing such terms and provisions, including provisions for redemption prior to maturity, as may be determined by the Auraria board. Such .... arrants or bonds may, at the discretion of the Auraria board, be registrable as to principal or interest, or both, and shall never be sold at less than ninety-five percent of the principal amount thereof and accrued interest thereon to the date of delivery or at a price .... hich will result in a net effective interest rate .... hich exceeds that specified in the contract for the advancement of moneys. Any of the .... arrants or bonds of the Auraria board issued pursuant to this section or any other law may be refunded pursuant to article 54 of title 11, C.R.S., if in the judgment of the Auraria board such refunding shall be to its best interests. Such refunding obligations may be made payable from any source .... hich may be legally pledged for the payment of the obligations being refunded at the time of the issuance of the obligations so refunded or from any of the sources described in subsection (1) of this section, notwith'standing that the pledge for the payme{lt of the outstanding obligations being refunded is thereby modified. (3) In the event that the pledged net income, fees, and revenues exceed the amount required to meet principal, interest, and reserve requirements in connection with revenue bonds of the institution to which such income has been pledged, the Auraria board may retain such surplus and utilize the same for such purposes as in it judgment shall be in the best interest of the center, including, but not limited to, rehabilitation, alteration, addition to, or equipping of any existing facilities acquired pursuant to the provisions of this section and the acquisition of sites for the construction, acquisition, and equipping of additional facilities pursuant to such provisions, or for prior redemption of outstanding bonds. -10-

PAGE 277

(4) Anticipation warrants or bonds issued pursuant to this section may be use d as s ecurity for any depository bond or obligation where any kind of bond or other security must or may, by law, be deposited as security. 23-70-109. No property lien. The Auraria board shall not create a mortgage upon any property belonging to the board or to the state of Colorado or to any constituent institution, nor shall the state be obligated to secure or repay any funds advanced pursuant to the provisions of sections 23-70-107 and 23-70-108 or the interest on such funds. 23-70-110. Tax exemption. Any bonds, certificates, or warrants issued pursuant to the provisions of sections 23-70-107 and 23-70-108 by the Auraria board shall be exempt from taxation for any state, county, school district, special district, municipal, or other purpose in the state of Colorado. 23-70-111. Certain debts and expenses prohibited. The Auraria board is prohibited from creating any debt as against the state of Colorado or the governing boards of the constituent institutions or from incurring any expense beyond its ability to pay the same from the annual income or appropriated funds for the then current year. 23-70-112. Limitation of actions. No action shall be brought questioning the legality of any contract, proceeding, or warrants or 'bonds executed or' to be executed by the Auraria board in connection with the provision of any dining, recreational, health, parking, or student center facilities provided or to be provided for the purposes authorized by this article after thirty days have expired after the effective date of Any resolution or other official action authorizing such contract, adopting such proceedings, or authorizing the issuance of such warrants or bonds. 23-70-114. Powers of board not limited. Subject to the approval of the Colorado CODlDlission on Higher Education, the Auraria board may exercise any and all powers conferred by this article with respect to any land or facility not otherwise a part of the Auraria Center. -11-

PAGE 278

Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the powers of governing boards of constituent institutions to acquire or dispose of facilities not otherwise part of the Auraria center i however, any building or facility acquired to a constituent institution in support of academic programs shall be subject to the approval of the Auraria board, including the renewal of existing leases. 23-70-115. pirective -master plans. (1) In order to maximize economic and administrative efficiency at the Auraria center and to further the goals articulated in section 23-1-101, the general assembly finds it necessary that there be comprehensive academic and facilities master planning for the use and development of the Auraria center constituent institutions. Therefore, the governing boards of the constituent institutions and the Auraria board, in consultation with the Colorado commission on higher education, shall prepare comprehensive master plans according to the following requirements and schedule: (a) On or before a date to be set by the Colorado Commission on Higher education, and in accordance with commission policies and procedures, the commission shall coordinate, and the governing boards of the constituent institutions shall submit to the commission, academic master plans for the constituent institutions. The coordinated academic master plans shall address all Auraria multi-institutional issues that the commission determines to be relevant to the role and mission of' each institution and 'academic program requirements for fulfilling that role and mission. (b) The commission shall review the master plans and shall, after consultation with the governing boards, order revisions to the extent that the plans fail to maximize efficiency and academic program effectiveness. When approved by the commission, the academic master plans shall be submitted to the Auraria board which shall prepare a comprehensive facilities master plan for the Auraria constituent institutions. The facilities master plan shall be submitted to the commission at a date to be established by the commission. The commission shall submit a report on both the academic and facilities master plans, together with its own review and comments, to the general assembly not later than Janaury .15, 1989. The general assembly shall not consider new facilities requests for the Auraria center or constituent institutions for the 1989-90 fiscal year and ensuing fiscal years that are not consistent with the commission-approved master plans. -12-

PAGE 279

--SECTION 2. Other responsibilities of the board It is the responsibility of the board to carry out any further activity authorized under statute not specified in these by-laws. 2.01 2.01 Auraria Memorandum of Agreement. Submit-ted in June, 1989 in response to HB 1156, the board operates according to the Auraria Memorandum of Agreement. That agreement states that, in addition to its statutory responsibilities, the board will respond to mandates contained in Long Bill headnotes and footnotes, and to approved role and mission policies established under the authority of CCHE. Approval of Institutional Facilities Leases. Consistent with 23-70-114, the board will function wi thin the Memorandum of Understanding by the constituent system presidents and AHEC and ratified by CCHE June 2, 1988. -13-