Faculty members of the University of Colorado Colorado Springs have followed up a censure with a vote of no-confidence in members of its executive leadership team.

Out of 525 ballots distributed, 221 approved a vote of no-confidence against UCCS Chancellor Jennifer Sobanet, Provost Lynn Vidler and Vice Chancellor for Strategic Initiatives and Chief of Staff Robin Parent. Fifty-one voters opposed the vote, 22 abstained, and 231 cast no vote.

While the vote itself won’t lead to a single action, Faculty Assembly Executive Committee Chair David Havlick said it communicates multiple concerns and raises questions to yield change on their campus.

He added that some faculty members might like to see removals or resignations, while others may simply be seeking more accountability and dialogue with their leadership.

Both this year’s censure and no-confidence votes come following the announcement of a five-year plan to address a $27 million budget shortfall in January, consecutive years of stagnant salaries and violent incidents on campus.

Years of insufficient communication and collaboration with staff and faculty for significant university decisions were also mentioned as reasons for growing discontent.

“In principle, this vote is a statement that the named parties have failed to uphold the mission and vision of UCCS while neglecting to ensure a safe learning environment and abrogating their shared governance responsibilities to faculty, staff and students,” read an informational statement in support of a motion for the special election.

UCCS’s executive leadership team comprises eight members. During an April 10 faculty assembly meeting, members agreed to a potential vote on only three members since many others had operated on an interim basis or held their positions for a brief time.

In response to the successful vote, on behalf of the executive leadership team, Sobanet said she respected the “assembly’s right to conduct the vote.”

“I’m optimistic that the upcoming facilitated conversations between our shared governance leaders and me will help us reach a shared understanding of facts and issues as we create the UCCS of the future on a stable, sustainable foundation,” she wrote.

Following the budget plan’s announcement and the March censure vote, the leadership team held a series of town hall meetings in March and April, where they and university deans fielded questions ranging from how the ongoing gaps would be closed and if any positions were at risk of getting cut to general leadership questions.

These initial discussions presented scenarios of various salary reductions and staffing cuts, which Havlick said led to “a great upswelling of concern” among staff and faculty.

Following the meetings, the state budget approved by the legislature exceeded initial projections for higher education and allowed UCCS to spare both salary cuts and position terminations for next year.

While he wasn’t sure if these meetings completely satisfied everyone on campus, Havlick said the increased effort to communicate “created a different dynamic and a different forum for them to express themselves.”

As for why faculty continued with the vote, he suspected that the reassurances in salaries and positions may have come too late to quell the “anger, anxiety and discontent” that had festered on campus over recent semesters.

“And so, even though the most acute components of that had been lifted, I think that there was still kind of a lingering … range of emotions that people held that didn’t get absolved until late in the year,” he said.

Not everyone, both in UCCS and the broader CU System, share the faculty’s sentiments toward its leadership.

Following the March censure, the UCCS staff council, which represents non-teaching positions on the campus, issued a statement disagreeing with the faculty assembly vote, stating that their current fiscal situation was neither sudden nor the result of solely the executive leadership team.

“This is not a time for division or reproach. It is a time for collaboration, unity and mutual support,” the statement read. “The UCCS Staff Council Executive Board supports the UCCS Executive Leadership Team and continues to be appreciative of their incorporation of shared governance in their decision-making process.”

Staff Council representatives didn’t respond to a Gazette request for comment regarding the vote of no-confidence.

CU President Todd Saliman, who appointed Sobanet as UCCS chancellor in 2023, reiterated his support for her following the faculty’s vote in his own statement and added that “All voices matter and are important and I am listening.”

“It is my hope that the entire campus community, and broader community, will work together in good faith to define a successful future for UCCS that continues to honor what an extraordinary place it is to learn and work,” Saliman said.

When reached for comment, a representative for the CU Board of Regents told The Gazette it echoes Saliman’s support for Sobanet.

Despite the negative connotations of the vote itself, Havlick said that the positive developments and meetings following the censure could continue in the coming months.

“At one point, one of the faculty members said that ‘This is an expression of love.’ Which I’m not sure [leadership team] felt, but I think that there’s an important core of truth there that we had more faculty participation in shared governance … than I think we probably ever had,” he said.

“And it was because people were concerned, but they also cared enough to show up.”