Colorado § 23-20-112 - General powers of the board - definitions.

§ 23-20-112. General powers of the board - definitions.

(1) The board of regents shall enact laws for the government of the university; appoint the requisite number of professors, tutors, and all other officers; and determine the salaries of such officers and the amount to be paid for tuition in accordance with the level of cash fund appropriations set by the general assembly for the university pursuant to section 23-1-104 (1)(b)(I). It shall remove any officer connected with the university when in its judgment the good of the institution requires it.

(2) Repealed.

(3) (a) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, an institution governed by the board of regents may use funding provided pursuant to section 23-18-303.5 as financial assistance for in-state students to reduce the student's share of in-state tuition, as defined in section 23-18-102.

(b) For purposes of parts 1 and 2 of article 18 of this title, for an institution governed by the board of regents, "student's share of in-state tuition" has the same meaning as set forth in section 23-18-102 less the amount of any financial assistance awarded to the student pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subsection (3).

Source: G.L. § 2757. G.S. § 3448. R.S. 08: § 6944. C.L. § 8006. CSA: C. 169, § 11. CRS 53: § 124-2-11. C.R.S. 1963: § 124-2-11. L. 70: p. 357, § 10. L. 93: Entire section amended, p. 1519, § 25, effective June 6. L. 2008: Entire section amended, p. 118, § 3, effective March 19. L. 2010: Entire section amended, (SB 10-003), ch. 391, p. 1842, § 8, effective June 9. L. 2014: (3) added, (HB 14-1319), ch. 169, p. 612, § 6, effective May 9. L. 2020: (3)(a) amended, (HB 20-1366), ch. 181, p. 835, § 14, effective July 1, 2021.

Editor's note: Subsection (2)(b) provided for the repeal of subsection (2), effective July 1, 2016. (See L. 2010, p. 1842.)

Cross references: For the legislative declaration in the 2010 act amending this section, see section 1 of chapter 391, Session Laws of Colorado 2010.

ANNOTATION

I. General Consideration.

II. Procedures.

III. Regulation of Conduct.

IV. Oath.

I. GENERAL CONSIDERATION.

Applied in Van Pelt v. State Bd. for Cmty. Colls. & Occupational Educ., 195 Colo. 316, 577 P.2d 765 (1978).

II. PROCEDURES.

Board of regents is distinct from the executive branch of government. The board of regents is created by the Colorado constitution, has general supervisory powers over the affairs of the university of Colorado, and has been recognized as a body politic which is distinct from the executive branch of the government. Sigma Chi Fraternity v. Regents of Univ. of Colo., 258 F. Supp. 515 (D. Colo. 1966).

Only express legislation can change regents' authority. The specially granted authority of the regents to govern the university and enact laws pursuant to that end can only be nullified by a legislative enactment (or constitutional amendment) expressly aimed at doing so. Associated Students of Univ. of Colo. v. Regents of Univ. of Colo., 189 Colo. 482, 543 P.2d 59 (1975).

Sunshine law inapplicable to certain executive sessions. The sunshine act cannot and does not repeal by implication the statute concerning the attorney-client evidentiary privilege, § 13-90-107(1)(b). Thus the provision concerning executive sessions involving "attorney-client communications" in the laws of the regents is upheld. Associated Students of Univ. of Colo. v. Regents of Univ. of Colo., 189 Colo. 482, 543 P.2d 59 (1975).

Open records law not applicable to university. The open records law is a general statute and will not be construed to supersede the regents' specific supervisory control over the university. Uberoi v. Univ. of Colo., 686 P.2d 785 (Colo. 1984) (decided prior to 1985 amendment to § 24-72-202).

Board hearings do not have to be in the nature of court hearings. The board of regents, in conducting a hearing with respect to one of its agencies, is not required to conduct something in the nature of a court hearing, because the regents must have a degree of latitude in determining the course and scope of the proceedings to be taken; rather, the important question is whether there was an opportunity to be heard. Sigma Chi Fraternity v. Regents of Univ. of Colo., 258 F. Supp. 515 (D. Colo. 1966).

Delegation of hiring authority. Absent legislative authorization, the board of regents' hiring authority cannot be delegated. Univ. of Colo. v. Silverman, 192 Colo. 75, 555 P.2d 1155 (1976).

No contract with university absent affirmative action by board. Since the board of regents' hiring authority cannot be delegated, no contract with the university could come into being absent affirmative action by the board of regents itself. Univ. of Colo. v. Silverman, 192 Colo. 75, 555 P.2d 1155 (1976).

Power to accept resignations and retirements of faculty members is not vested in the board of regents only and is delegable. Kreith v. Univ. of Colo., 689 P.2d 718 (Colo. App. 1984).

Interpretation of regents' rules. Rules providing that senior instructors at the school of medicine be appointed for three years are, for purpose of interpretation, like statutes, and cannot be ignored. Where the regents have promulgated rules more stringent in favor of the appointee, due process requires regents strictly comply with their rules. Subryan v. Regents of Univ. of Colo., 698 P.2d 1383 (Colo. App. 1984).

Standards for notice of nonreappointment. Regents must give 12 months, post notice prior to the end of the appointed term, rather than merely giving 12 months, post notice at any time during the appointed term. Subryan v. Regents of Univ. of Colo., 698 P.2d 1383 (Colo. App. 1984).

The university of Colorado was entitled to claim immunity from suit in federal court under the eleventh amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Rozek v. Topolnicki, 865 F.2d 1154 (10th Cir. 1989).

III. REGULATION OF CONDUCT.

The university has the power to formulate and enforce rules of student conduct that are appropriate and necessary to the maintenance of order and propriety, considering the accepted norms of social behavior in the community, where such rules are reasonably necessary to further the university's educational goals. Buttny v. Smiley, 281 F. Supp. 280 (D. Colo. 1968).

The right of the university administration to invoke its disciplinary powers need not be entirely bottomed on any published rule or regulation, as it is an inherent power that the school administration authorities have to maintain order on its campus, and to afford students, school officials, employees, and invited guests freedom of movement on the campus and the right of ingress and egress to the school's physical facilities. Buttny v. Smiley, 281 F. Supp. 280 (D. Colo. 1968).

Regulations and rules which are necessary in maintaining order and discipline are always considered reasonable. Buttny v. Smiley, 281 F. Supp. 280 (D. Colo. 1968).

Rule prohibiting hazing is not unconstitutional restraint of freedoms of speech and assembly. University rule prohibiting hazing in all forms, including class conflicts, injury to property on campus or elsewhere, and interference in any manner with public or private rights of citizens, is not on its face prior restraint on right to freedom of speech and right to assemble. Buttny v. Smiley, 281 F. Supp. 280 (D. Colo. 1968).

Rule is unconstitutionally vague. State university rules requiring students to conduct themselves so as to reflect credit upon university and prohibiting hazing in all forms were not invalid on grounds of vagueness or uncertainty. Buttny v. Smiley, 281 F. Supp. 280 (D. Colo. 1968).

There was no denial of equal protection where there were three distinct types of punishment imposed on students who had engaged in campus civil disobedience: (1) Suspension with permission to reapply; (2) suspension with immediate reinstatement and probation; and (3) probation; and where the punishment meted out to the respective plaintiffs was in direct relation to the student's class year at the university and his maturity. Buttny v. Smiley, 281 F. Supp. 280 (D. Colo. 1968).

Judicial review in the expulsion of students is limited to the scope of the regulation and its reasonableness, not the wisdom of the discretion exercised under it. Buttny v. Smiley, 281 F. Supp. 280 (D. Colo. 1968).

Students held to have been afforded procedural due process by university authorities. Buttny, v. Smiley, 281 F. Supp. 280 (D. Colo. 1968).

IV. OATH.

Oath required of teachers and employees of the university of Colorado, which was promulgated by the board of regents is not vague and indefinite so as to be a violation of due process. Hosack v. Smiley, 276 F. Supp. 876 (D. Colo. 1967), aff'd mem., 390 U.S. 744 (1968).

There is no procedural due process deprivation growing out of the failure to provide a hearing following a dismissal of a teacher or employee for failure to prescribe to the oath required by the board of regents because in the case of the failure to take or subscribe to an oath the action itself is final and conclusive and no amount of hearing can change the fact that the person has refused to take it. Hosack v. Smiley, 276 F. Supp. 876 (D. Colo. 1967), aff'd mem. 390 U.S. 744 (1968).