Q&A With CU Regent Michael Carrigan

We are pleased to present our fourth Q&A, giving you the opportunity to directly ask questions of politicians and state leaders throughout Colorado. Today we are happy to have with us Regent Michael Carrigan, one of nine regents of the University of Colorado.

(To read past Q&As, click on the links below the Governor Line on the left.)

Michael Carrigan was elected in 2004 as the CU Regent representing CD-1 (Denver). He is a graduate of CU Law School and has long family ties to the University – his father, former CU Professor Jim Carrigan, was elected as a statewide regent in 1974.

Mr. Carrigan has graciously agreed to participate in this Q&A and answer your questions, and all responses are entirely in his own words. Please be respectful in your questions and understand that, for legal reasons, there may be specific questions that he is not allowed to answer. You may disagree with Mr. Carrigan, but please do so in a respectful manner. Any disrespectful comments will be promptly removed.

Any responses here are those of Regent Michael Carrigan, on his own. He is not speaking for the Board of Regents or the University of Colorado.

With that out of the way, let’s get to it…


1. If you had any idea that your first three months on the job would be like this, would you have just run for dogcatcher instead?

When I ran I knew that the Board of Regents was becoming an increasingly high profile position. However, little did I know that my second board meeting, less than a month after taking office, would involve riot police and national media coverage. I am only three months into a six-year term, but I’m hopeful they’ll let me off early for good behavior!

With that said, it is times like this that people run for public office. I hope that by being a reasoned voice for due process, academic freedom and the benefits of public higher education I can be of service to CU and its core mission.

2. The departure of President Elizabeth Hoffman was obviously due to a combination of factors, but what were the causes that finally led to her resignation in the end?

Despite President Hoffman’s many successes, her leadership was becoming a distraction for the University. Quite simply, it was becoming increasingly difficult for her to deliver CU’s message with constant criticism from all sides. I have tremendous respect for her decision to put the University’s interests before her own.

3. What specific background would you like to see in the next CU President? Do you give more weight to someone with a particular professional background? Who is on the short list of candidates at this point?

Given that President Hoffman will be leaving on June 30th at the latest, we have to consider whether we can have a thoughtful search in that short amount of time. Personally, I see value in having a senior statesman or woman who can restore public confidence in CU and help state leaders pass necessary TABOR reform. If we can accomplish those goals, I am confident that we will have many talented applicants to lead CU into the next decade. The Board has not considered any specific names.

4. Opinions on Ward Churchill vary, particularly regarding what the state and the university should do with him. What can the Regents legally do and where are your hands tied? 

Like any person who is publicly employed, Professor Churchill is entitled to due process of law before any adverse employment action can be taken. That means that, despite the “legal” opinions offered on talk radio, the University is required to respect his freedom of speech, no matter how personally offended we may be by his comments. The First Amendment is not there to protect popular ideas, but unpopular ones.

The Chancellor has referred several very serious allegations of research misconduct over to a specialized committee who will consider the charges. From there, the matter may be sent on for further action through the President and, ultimately, the Board of Regents. This is due process, and the fairness is more important than speed.

5. What role, if any, should the university take in limiting the speech of one of its professors?

With academic freedom comes academic responsibility. Both of these principles are outlined in the governing laws of CU, the Laws of the Regents (see our website at http://www.cu.edu/regents). Great universities like CU should foster debate and controversy, which are foundations of learning. Therefore, I will resist any effort to limit our faculty to teaching only popular and pre-ordained ideas and opinions.

6. What are the next steps with the football team/recruiting/slush fund/athletic director business? Sorry to lump them all together, but can you take us through the latest on these issues?

There are two major outstanding issues: (1) the State Auditor is undertaking an audit of Coach Barnett’s football camps and the CU Foundation (which, contrary to popular belief, is not controlled by the University), and (2) the Title IX case against CU is set for trial in federal court beginning May 31, 2005. This is the case in which two women claim they were sexually assaulted by football recruits, and that CU is liable for damages. Both of these issues will likely receive significant attention from the press and public. 

7. Suppose the football scandals and the Ward Churchill controversy didn’t exist. What would be your top priorities for CU that you would like to concentrate on, and how would you address them?

My long-term top priorities remain the same as when I ran last year: (1) better funding from the state, (2) better access to students from diverse backgrounds and, (3) more accountability and transparency by the University.

 
8. There is a lot of talk regarding Colorado’s budget and the ability to fund higher education. Can you set the record straight about how funding for CU will be impacted by TABOR and other budget factors? The state doesn’t pay all of the university’s bills, such as research funding, so can you explain roughly where state money is spent? How concerned are the Regents about future funding from the state?

When TABOR was enacted, roughly 25% of the state budget went to funding higher education; it is now under 10%. CU currently receives about 9% of its funding from the state. With the passage of the College Opportunity Fund, these amounts no longer come in the form of block grants but are stipends passed through individual students.

Without TABOR reform there is only one result - the end of state funding for higher ed by the end of the decade. If this happens, CU will be able to keep its doors open through drastic tuition increases. The real loss will be to Colorado’s regional and community colleges, many of which will not survive. Fully 40% of CU’s students begin their studies in community college.

The Regents are quite concerned about the budget disaster on the horizon. On March 24, 2005, we unanimously approved a resolution endorsing the budget compromise reached by Gov. Owens and legislative leaders. Without passage of that proposal Colorado will be the first state to completely divest from higher education - not the example I want to give to the rest of the nation.

The Regents are quite concerned about the budget disaster on the horizon. On March 24, 2005, we unanimously approved a resolution endorsing the budget compromise reached by Gov. Owens and legislative leaders. Without passage of that proposal Colorado will be the first state to completely divest from higher education - not the example I want to give to the rest of the nation.

9. What specific steps are you taking to restore the public’s faith in CU and the university’s credibility? 

Both publicly and privately, I have been advocating for more accountability and transparency from the entire University. Whether it is animal testing at the Health Sciences Center or athletic recruiting on the Boulder campus, we need to open our books, labs and classrooms until the public is confident we have nothing to hide. To assist in that effort, I have spent many hours explaining CU’s processes and policies to members of the press and the public. Over time I am hopeful that these relationships will restore trust in CU.

10. How does CU go about attracting a more diverse student body, particularly among African-Americans, especially given the fact that Colorado has such a small percentage of African-American residents to begin with?

Approximately 3.5% of Colorado’s population is African-American, and the population at UC Boulder is only 1.5%. As the state’s flagship university, we have to do a better job of increasing those numbers. Slowly, we are making progress at retaining more African-American staff and faculty, which will help attract more students.

I should mention, however, that we are proud of the progress on our other campuses. At the Downtown Denver campus, approximately 25% of the graduates are ethnic minorities, the highest of any university in the state. The School of Pharmacy has also had tremendous success; nearly 40% of its students are students of color.

11. It’s Final Four week. When can we realistically expect to see CU in a Men’s Final Four?

Your question comes exactly 50 years after CU’s last appearance in the men’s final four. I wish you had asked about the women’s Final Four, where CU’s Coach Ceal Berry is retiring after an amazing career. I don’t know about the men’s program, but my money is on the women reaching the final four first.

 
Questions? Comments? Enter them below, and Mr. Carrigan will answer as many of them as he can throughout the day on Thursday.

Comments

[Alva Adams]

The following three questions were submitted this afternoon in an earlier post:

1. As a CU Grad it has been a tough couple of years for my school. From the Sex scandle to Churchill CU has become an embarassment for me when people ask where I went to school. What steps specifically are the Regents taking to bring some respectability back to Degree?

Posted by: Jay Z | March 30, 2005 01:10 PM

2. If Gary Barnett could guarantee that he would win the CSU game and the Nebraska game for the next 5 years, would you vote to keep him on

Posted by: Ralph | March 30, 2005 01:41 PM

3. Regent Carrigan,
Thank you for taking the time to answer questions. What are your thoughts of student fees paying for construction costs ordinarily paid for by the University? For example, student fees paid for the UMC expansion and the new Law School.
Is this high-risk game of chicken between the Student Government and the Legislature the best way to pay for much needed construction? Or, is it a loophole that needs correcting?
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Posted by: Lurker | March 30, 2005 03:51 PM

[Alva Adams]

Here's one more question from an earlier post:

I would like to know what he plans on doing outside the public eye. For example, how does he plan to keep tuition costs from continuing to spiral out of control? Does he have any plans to bring more DPS students to Boulder, or does he still believe that inner-city students belong at UCD? (As he suggested repeatedly during the election)

Posted by: Essaywhuman?!! | March 28, 2005 09:24 AM

[vladimir]

1. It was reported that Betsy Hoffman falselyclaimed to have other job offers -- is that true and is that why she is no longer working for you
2. Rumor has it that you worked tirelessly behind the scenes to get rid of Hoffman is that true
3. Why have you not taken steps to make Ethnic Studies a legit department instead of a dumpting ground for dumb jocks? Is your unwillingness to take on this shuck and jive department merely fear of not looking politically correct?
Thank you

[Donald E. L. Johnson]

You apparently are in the "scare them into revising TARBOR" camp. You predict sharply higher tuition and the end of state funding as the only outcomes if the TABOR taxe increase isn't approved.

Have you initiated a study to find ways to run the university with less money---to drop marginal programs that don't pay for themselves or serve many students, to downsize the university into an institution that fits the needs of the state rather than those of the academics? Do realize what a surplus of good educators there is and how easy it would be to replace high-paid profs who might leave with even better ones who want to teach instead of publish and win consulting contracts and grants? Are you willing to look outside the box, or are the trustees minds as closed as those of its scholars?

[Barbara Laing]

What is the regents' role in ensuring safety on the campus? A handful of students got press attention this week, calling on the university to allow guns on campus. Guns on campus would threaten safety, especially since so many students are in the most volatile age group where gun injury and death are concerned. Most parents wouldn't want their kids sitting next to a student with a gun in his backpack.

[Strider]

[moved to open thread above]

[Alva Adams]

Please restrict your comments to questions for Mr. Carrigan. Please also be respectful - rude comments will not be tolerated. There is no reason you cannot get your question and point across in a respectful manner.

[Donald E. L. Johnson]

[moved to open thread above]

[Strider]

Sorry. Please feel free to strike my comments. Perhaps this subject is a little to close to my heart.

[Ter Ducken]

Thanks for participating Michael. I'm curious what schools at the university seem to be growing the most and attracting the most students. Are there specific departments that students seem to be more interested in recently?

Thanks again.

[Alva Adams]

Kindly move your discussion to the open thread above and restrict this post to questions for Mr. Carrigan. Thanks.

[Donald E. L. Johnson]

[moved to open thread above]

[sparky]

Okay. So here are a few questions for Regent Carrigan. Do you believe the TABOR adjustment, assuming it passes, will fix the problem, or is it just a start?

Will it be necessary, as some here have suggested, to let go of our best professors and replace them with less qualified teachers?

And should programs be cut based on their popularity or lack thereof? That would mean that education, medical and science programs would be cut while business administration, and probably basket-weaving, programs would be expanded, no?

Wouldn't these 'fixes' be detrimental to student recruiting?

On a personal note, I had intentions earlier this year of going back to school to get a degree in education, so I checked in to UCCS (or CUCS, whatever it is these days). Well, it's been over 10 years since I was in college, so I was extremely shocked to see how high the tuition costs have gotten. I assumed the only impediment to me going back to school was going to be finding the time to do it. Turns out, I can't afford it. Any comments?

[Evil Genius for a Better Tomorrow]

Has anyone considered raising base tuition and then enacting a more graduated financial aid program?

I went to a private college with extremely high tuition, but it was actually cheaper for some of my classmates to go to the private school than it was for them to attend our state school. The base tuition at the state school was about a third as much as the private school, but because full-tuition students were paying so much, there was plenty of available financial aid.

It seems to me that CU students are getting a deal because we subsidize even the most well-off students. If the most well-off students were paying tuition rates comparable to private universities, there would be more funds available for lower-income students to receive more financial aid, and there would be more funds for the University system in general.

It just doesn't make sense to have a base price for tuition of about a third of comparable private universities.

[Daniel Ong]

Hi, Michael. It was a pleasure to meet you on the campaign trail last Fall.

My concern is with the discrimination against part-time students, minimally at UCDHSC downtown Denver campus but primarily at CU-Boulder, in the areas of tuition, policies, and fees. The College Opportunity Fund, or higher ed "vouchers" or stipends, being implemented this Fall, calls for state funding of undergrads to be by a fixed amount per credit hour, regardless of hours taken at a time. All CU campuses charge tuition using a "window" within which the tuition charged is the same no matter how many hours are taken, and part-time students are charged tuition roughly based on the minimum hours in the window. This has the effect of charging part-time students significantly more per credit hour than full-time students (about twice as much at UCB) and in effect taking away the state subsidy for part-time students and directing it toward full-time students.

In addition, part-time students are essentially ineligible for financial aid if less than half-time (federal rules), and students can be forced out of financial aid if they do not continue at at least a two-thirds-time rate. The COF has a provision, in which Jennifer Mello was instrumental, that directs part of future tuition increases toward financial aid. So not only are part-time students being charged more per credit hour, part of that differential is being directed into a financial aid pool for which the part-time students are not even eligible. By the end of the campaign, even Jennifer agreed (on KGNU) that that provision should probably be revisited.

I have spoken to the Board of Regents previously on these issues, including policies requiring full-time class loads at UCB for consideration of intracampus transfers, and significant fees being charged regardless of credit hour load, resulting in my fees being more than tuition at times.

Many students are unable to take a full-time class load due to personal or financial commitments (care of dependents or commitment to housing financial arrangements). Part-time students are an integral part of the learning experience, as I experienced recently at UCDHSC downtown Denver, as many of them are already in the work force in related fields and can bring work experiences to classes and labs and immediately apply what they learn in industry and society.

You and the CU administration have stated a commitment to diversity. I think it is no accident that the UCDHSC Downtown Denver campus has the most diversity in the CU system while encouraging part-time student participation the most. I can think of no action that would increase diversity more (without quotas or other tinkering with the market) than committing to equitable treatment of part-time students on all campuses in the areas of tuition, policies, and fees.

I would like all future tuition increases to be only on full-time students, until they were paying as much per credit hour as part-time students. Furthermore, part-time students should not be charged for that portion of tuition that is directed into a financial aid pool for which they are not eligible. I am not calling for the end of tuition windows, but eventually any part-time student should not be charged more per credit hour than any full-time student within the same category (school, major, division). All policies which discriminate against part-time students should be ended. And all future fee increases and implementations should be by a flat amount per credit hour unless shown unrelated to credit hour enrollment (i.e. parking).

The Regents set and approve tuition and fee schedules, although Governor Owens (with his budget veto) and CCHE seem obsessed with the percentage increases in tuition only for full-time students while ignoring the blatant discrimination against part-time students inherent in the tuition schedules. The Joint Budget Committee seems willing to consider addressing this issue by narrowing the tuition window. Can I count on your support to address these issues and treat all students equitably?

[Michael Carrigan]

Here Michael’s response to this morning’s questions:

(1) I can’t speak for the whole Board, but I am working for more transparency and accountability at the University to regain the public trust. Also, we are planning on developing a strategic plan to communicate some of CU’s many positive stories. Hopefully these efforts will increase pride in the institution.

(2) I honestly don’t know what will happen to Coach Barnett, but winning games is only part of my measure of success for our coaches.

(3) I don’t like the idea of student fees for capital construction. I think the that is the responsibility of the state, with the support of donors and alumni. However, as a graduate of CU law school, I am immensely grateful that the UC Boulder students stepped up to the plate to allow construction of that building to begin. I hope it does not send a precedent.

(4) I have always been committed to more diversity at UC Boulder and any suggestion that I “believe that inner city students” belong at UC Denver is patently false as is the claim that I supported that as a candidate. Both UCB and UCD are great campuses and both need more diversity. At the Board’s March meeting I sponsored a resolution expressing our continuing commitment to diversity an condemning the recent racial incidents on the Boulder campus. Finally, regarding tuition increases—CU needs funding to maintain its excellence and the less state funds we get, the more we need from tuition.

(5) Questions regarding President Hoffman:

(1) I don’t know what representations President Hoffman made regarding other job offers. A reminder, I only joined the Board in January.

(2) No I did not work behind the scenes for President Hoffman’s departure.

(3) I don’t see how to respond to this question in a constructive way.

(6) Yes, I believe that TABOR reform is essential for CU’s health. After years and years of cuts, CU is running at incredible efficiency. Of course we can do better, but sometimes I tire of persons who want CU to run more like a business, but at the same time won’t allow us to charge market rates for our education product.

(7) As a former prosecutor with more than five years experience in law enforcement, I agree that guns on campus would not increase safety.

(8) CU’s growth campus is, without a doubt, the Colorado Springs campus. There are wonderful things going on there—unfortunately they never get attention.

(9) Responses to your multi-part question-

(1) I think the current TABOR solution is a great start. It is hard for me to say what other changes might be necessary.

(2) I am hopeful that our quality senior faculty will stay. However, I have concerns about our ability to recruit and retain talented junior faculty who will be winning Nobel prizes 10 and 20 years from now. Excellence does not come cheap.

(3) I agree that as a world class university, CU has to have a wide variety of programs. However, if students are not choosing to enroll in such programs, we should consider whether resources are better spent elsewhere.

(4) I agree, the lower the quality of our faculty and smaller the class choices, the less interested students will be in attending CU.

(5) It’s regrettable the CU’s tuition has ballooned, but we still are well below the tuition charged by other major state universities throughout the U.S. I hope you will bring your concerns to the Governor and the General Assembly. If they restore past funding cuts we won’t need increased tuition revenue.

(10) CU currently dedicates 25% of tuition increases to need based grants and scholarships. If current tuition trends continue, I hope that we will continue this policy so that we don’t price out talented students who don’t have the resources to pay our tuition.

[Michael]

Mr. Carrigan: You state that you are in favor of more accountability and transparency by the University. However, your comments seem to lean more on the transperency side and less on the accountability side. President Hoffman's comments seem to have the same air. How will you insure accountability and restore academic credibility?

[Stygius]

It seems that transparency and accountability would have nipped the Athletics situation in the bud long before it happened. Perhaps you could be more specific on the mechanics of transparency and accountability. I.e., will it lead to an open and responsive grievance process for students AND staff? Will it lead to more centralized control in the hierarchy? Will it include efforts to change culture and attitudes? Will it include a more stringent ethics standards for Regents to abide by?

[JenJen]

If the budget does not recover, what else can CU do besides tuition increases in order to make up the costs? What other measures are being discussed?

thanks for making yourself so availble to us!

[Napoleon]

Isn't it more correct to state that the problem hasn't been TABOR, but mandatory increases in spending in Medicaid and K-12 Education which have pushed funding levels for Higher Ed lower? TABOR attempts to keep government spending from balooning and although Higher Ed is a priority, when 70% of the budget is mandated to increase, things will get squeezed out - Higher Ed simply happens to be the Department which the necessary amount of cuts could come from (dollar wise).

[Michael Carrigan]

Here are Michael’s response to questions posted between 12 p.m. and 3 p.m., in order:

(1) To explain, CU (like most universities) subsidizes full time students in that for the most part students are charged the same tuition for 9 credits (3 typical classes) as 15 or 18 credits (5 to 6 typical classes). This model is currently under review and is likely to change over time. It has the effect of CU giving away 25-33% of its product, something we can no longer do in these lean times.

(2) Transparency is a good place to start, but I agree we have a long way to go on accountability. I hope that people remember all the personnel changes that have occurred on the Boulder campus—from the Athletic Director, to the Chancellor to, coming in June, the President. While there are a variety of reasons for these moves, they show that when changes are necessary, they can be made.

(3) I could not agree more that if there had been more accountability in the football controversy a year ago we would be far better off today. We do need to changes cultures and attitudes and stop trying to hide things from the public. One step I have taken is asked tough questions in our public meetings—it might mean that I am not popular with some administrators, but I don’t work for them, I work for all of you. Regarding Regent Ethics policies, at our March 2005 meeting the Board adopted a massive overhaul of our conflicts of interest policy. I worked hard to make sure this passed with an overwhelming vote.

(4) One thing President Hoffman did very well is cultivate an environment where CU has attracted an enormous number of research grants, mostly at the Boulder campus and the Health Sciences Campus. This revenue source has helped lower the need for higher tuition increases.

(5) I agree that we have had other budget constraints other than TABOR which have added Colorado’s current problems. However, the reality is that at the same time CU was enduring cuts the state was giving out TABOR refunds. Given that CU contributes over $26 to our economy for every dollar of general fund investment, we should be looking for ways to help the university. Major research universities like CU are the railroad hubs of the 21st century—our state economy cannot succeed unless our universities succeed.

[Daniel Ong]

Michael,

Thanks for your prompt and succinct reply regarding tuition schedules, clearly pointing out the discrepancy. I would like a response on the issue of discrimination against part-time students in policies and fees also, however. Favoring full-time students over part-time students, whether via tuition, policies, and/or fees, simply increases the difficulty of participation in higher education by potential students with personal, time, or financial commitments, no matter what their race or lot in life.

P.S. How's your foot recovering?

[Josh P]

I'm curious about the finances of the football team. How much money do they bring in to the university in a given year, and how much of that money gets distributed back to the unversity?

Thanks!

[michael carrigan]

Michael’s final responses- questions posted between 3:30 and 5:30 p.m., in order:

(1) I agree that these inequities should be looked at and while we can’t change the tuition policies overnight (which would result in tuition increases approaching 45%), unless we get other funding sources we have to look at changes like this.

(2) I can’t give you specific numbers on the football program. All I can say is that revenue for the football program does provide essential support for all of our other athletic programs.

THANK YOU ALL AND I HOPE YOU WILL REMEMBER ALL THE POSITIVES ABOUT THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO—THERE ARE MANY!

[moncler coats]

So fun article is! I know more from it.