Posts tagged 2010
Cropland Policy Advisory Group to discuss genetically engineered crops
Aug 5th
When: Wednesday, Aug. 10, 5:30-8:30 p.m.
Where: Plaza Longmont Hotel Conference Center, 1850 Industrial Circle, Longmont
No public comment will be taken, but forms will be available for written comments, which will become part of the public record. Future hearings will provide additional opportunities for the public to comment on the proposed policies.
Three experts will address the questions and concerns of the advisory group.
– Dr. Michael McNeill, Crop Consultant
– Kent Davis, Crop Consultant
– Dr. Philip Westra, Professor of Weed Science and Extension Specialist, CSU
Cropland Policy
The effort to develop a Cropland Policy for county-owned croplands began in 2010 with public outreach including farm tours, an open house, a Sustainable Agriculture Forum, and a Farm and Ranch Panel Discussion.
In 2011, the commissioners convened the Cropland Policy Advisory Group to advise Boulder County staff in developing the policy. Through discussion and proposed policy statements, the members of CPAG provide guidance and advice for developing a final policy.
Boulder Xcel deal falls apart: condition ends talks about possible wind deal
Jul 15th
Several weeks of intensive and committed negotiations with Xcel Energy about the possibility of a wind purchase plan with Boulder ended this week, when Xcel refused to drop a condition that City Council agree to put a 20-year franchise on the ballot in November, without a corresponding wind agreement.
Xcel wanted City Council to put both the franchise paired with a wind deal and the franchise by itself on the ballot. City staff had been working with Xcel to develop a proposal for council that could have included the franchise if it were paired with the increase in renewable energy that was associated with the possible wind agreement.
City staff advised Xcel multiple times that council support for a standalone franchise was unlikely. During each of these conversations, the utility’s representatives indicated they wanted to keep negotiating and take that issue “under advisement” later. On Tuesday, July 12, Xcel communicated a final determination that it would not agree to a wind deal at all if the standalone franchise was not a part of the proposal to council.
The city’s energy future goals include stable rates, more local control and a decreased carbon footprint. While the franchise paired with significantly increased renewable wind energy would have moved toward some of these goals, the franchise by itself does not.
Since then, Xcel Energy has continued to provide electricity to homes and businesses in the city without a franchise agreement, as required by state law. The city, meanwhile, has worked to define the community’s goals for its energy future and analyze a variety of paths for achieving them. One of these has been the possible creation of a municipally owned power utility.
In late May, Xcel outlined a proposal that could help the community achieve some of its goals without creating its own utility. The proposal involved the city paying increased initial costs associated with the construction of a new wind farm in eastern Colorado. The turbines would have put 200 megawatts of new wind power onto the state’s grid. Boulder, in return for its investment, would purchase the Renewable Energy Credits. While the city was interested in exploring a wind agreement, both the staff team and council members had significant concerns about the proposal. Among them was the level of financial risk the city would assume in this venture. Representatives of the city, Xcel Energy and wind developer NextEra Energy Resources began negotiations in hopes of resolving these concerns.
Many of the questions were addressed; however, Xcel’s insistence on a standalone franchise ballot option has brought the discussions to an end.
“The City of Boulder understands why Xcel Energy wants a 20-year franchise agreement, and it is possible that council and voters might have approved that, if such an agreement came with a well-negotiated wind purchase plan,” said City Manager Jane Brautigam. “But we know that a franchise by itself would tie the city to a long-term energy future that remains largely dependent on investments in coal and a business model that prevents local communities from making decisions about their own energy futures. This runs contrary to the goals Boulder wants to achieve.”
City Attorney Tom Carr said the city appreciates Xcel and NextEra’s interest and work on the proposal, but that successful passage of this option, given the utility’s demand, was unlikely.
“We spent many hours at the table, and it was clear that all the parties were committed to trying to reach a mutually acceptable agreement,” Carr said. “I thank everyone for their participation, but sometimes there are problems for which there are no solutions. This appears to be an obstacle we could not overcome.”
Carr plans to provide a written update on the status of the wind negotiations as part of a memo that council members will receive prior to their July 19 meeting. He will also give a brief verbal presentation on July 19 under a section of the meeting called Matters from the City Attorney, which typically occurs near the end of the evening. A public hearing on other energy options will proceed as planned. Because the staff team does not believe that it can make a good faith recommendation that council consider a standalone franchise, and because Xcel has said it will not move forward without one, the wind proposal will not be a part of that hearing.
The full memo to council will be available at http://www.boulderenergyfuture.com before Tuesday’s council meeting. Additional information and previous memos are available at that same website now.
MAJORITY OF CU-BOULDER STUDENTS REPORT POSITIVE CAMPUS EXPERIENCE, ACCORDING TO SOCIAL CLIMATE SURVEY
Jun 1st
The survey, done in fall 2010, was the latest edition of CU-Boulder’s Social Climate Survey, conducted about every four years since 1994 by the university’s Office of Planning, Budget and Analysis, or PBA. The online survey was sent to 29,926 degree-seeking undergraduate and graduate students, and completed by 7,777, or 26 percent.
The favorable view of CU-Boulder’s social climate was generally shared by all subgroups studied — men and women, undergraduate and graduate students, students in all of the university’s schools and colleges, politically liberal and conservative students, students in fraternities and sororities, students who are the first in their family to attend college, gay and straight students, students from all socioeconomic backgrounds, students of different races and ethnicities, students with physical or psychological disabilities, nontraditional-age students, students who entered as freshmen and transfers, international students, students affiliated with the military, and students with different religious affiliations, including Catholics, other Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and nonbelievers. Membership in these self-identified subgroups was determined using survey responses provided by the students.
Overall, students described the campus as friendly and welcoming, with 80 percent of both undergraduate and graduate students reporting feeling welcome and accepted either often or very often. Eighty-eight percent said they feel comfortable in their classes, and 80 percent reported feeling intellectually stimulated. Large majorities described CU-Boulder as “accepting of diverse perspectives” in the classroom, 81 percent, and outside the classroom, 63 percent.
On a broad measure of feeling welcome and comfortable on campus and in the Boulder community, students who self-identified in diverse subgroups generally reported a positive experience — averaging about 4 on the 5-point scale. Although the positive assessment of the campus’s social climate was shared across all subgroups, two subgroups of at least 100 respondents did rate it slightly lower — around 3.5 — African-American students and students who characterized themselves as having a psychological or psychiatric disability such as depression or post-traumatic stress disorder. Their ratings were, however, still above the scale midpoint of 3.0. There was also a tendency for slightly less positive evaluations of the campus social climate by GLBT students, nontraditional-age students, students of lower socioeconomic status, very liberal students, very conservative students, students not affiliated with a fraternity or sorority, transfer students, and students affiliated with the Buddhist and Muslim faiths. Their ratings were, nevertheless, well above the neutral point on the scale.
Comprising 149 scaled questions, plus another six open-ended questions, the survey collected a massive amount of information — over a million responses to the ratings, and nearly 23,000 written comments, amounting to half a million words. The thousands of student comments include praise for particular classes that addressed diversity issues, suggestions to increase enrollment of international students and to make tuition more affordable for low-income students, reports of uncomfortable situations involving derogatory comments about women or gays or people of color, descriptions of personal experiences with religious or political prejudice, and accounts of situations that led to better understanding between people of different backgrounds. One student wrote, “Thanks for continuing to educate people on these issues, I feel like a much bigger and better person since I came to CU.”
Differences in survey results across 2001, 2006 and 2010 indicate an overall trend of small but consistent and wide-ranging improvements in the social climate on the CU-Boulder campus. For example, students’ level of comfort taking part in campus social life was higher in 2010, as were the average levels of feeling welcome, accepted, supported and intellectually stimulated at CU-Boulder. In all three surveys, African-American undergraduate students perceived the climate at CU-Boulder somewhat less favorably than did undergraduates of other races/ethnicities. Compared with 2001 and 2006, however, African-American undergraduates in 2010 reported feeling more welcome on the Boulder campus and more comfortable participating in campus social life and life on the Hill. Other students also reported feeling more welcome and comfortable in 2010.
A campus advisory board representing a wide range of campus units helped guide the survey and data analysis, including the assistant vice chancellor for diversity, equity and community engagement, the associate vice chancellor for undergraduate education, faculty, and representatives from student government, Disability Services, the GLBT Resource Center, Religious Campus Organizations, Wardenburg Health Center, the Office of Orientation, the Center for Multicultural Affairs and the Women’s Resource Center.
The survey’s findings are used primarily to evaluate, revise and develop programs and policies that promote student success by helping all students feel like valued members of the university community. PBA and members of the survey’s advisory board have been working together to distribute the results and encourage their use throughout the university community.
“For several years, the Office of Diversity, Equity and Community Engagement has worked with several campus community committees to assess and maintain the social climate for all students, especially as it impacts learning in and outside the classroom, as well as staff and faculty,” said Alphonse Keasley, assistant vice chancellor for diversity and equity. “The results of the latest survey will be most instructive in the ways that various Chancellor Advisory Committees can continue to recommend diversity and inclusion needs to ODECE and senior level administrators that are central to the campus’s mission and purpose.”
The results will also be used by academic affairs. “The Office of Undergraduate Education will be using specific results of this campus climate survey to fine tune or modify specific programs which have a significant focus on improving the welcoming climate we want for our students,” said Michael Grant, associate vice chancellor for undergraduate education. “For example, our McNeil, Daniels, Ethnic Living and Learning and Academic Excellence programs, among others, all work with students who may find understanding and fitting into a research university environment a particular challenge for it is often a really new and different cultural environment. This is also the case for many international students.”





















