Preface to Center Review Comments

Six Centers were reviewed by ECOS in April of 2003. This was the first group reviewed in response to Academic Policy 100.0 (Periodic Review of Centers) in an ongoing effort aimed at assuring that Centers at UM-M are fulfilling their stated purposes and are not creating a significant drain on academic funding.

Some allowances in reporting style were given because this was a new process for both reviewers and those reviewed. It is ECOS’ hope that future reviews will follow a specific process that will make the reports easier to follow. The Faculty Senate Office Manager researched missing information on several centers to facilitate review. Had she not done so, we might have asked a number of groups to resubmit. We expect the guidelines we offer will make this process easier in the future.

In an effort to simplify the process and give suggestions to make the reports and review more easily accomplished, ECOS/Senate Office has prepared an outline form that follows the items identified in Policy 100.0 that should be included. The narrative report may be supplemented with documentation material as appendices. In general, the readers should be able to tell where and how a Center started, how it is funded now and five years ago, an evaluation of how well its goals are being accomplished, and what are the future plans. Difficulties are not necessarily reasons for discontinuing a Center; honest evaluation of them may reveal creative alternatives that support the mission of UM-M. The report should be only a few pages long but in a narrative style that allows the Senate to see beyond the surface.

Summary of Recommendations

Bureau of Business and Economic Research - CONTINUE

Flathead Lake Biological Station –CONTINUE

Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit -CONTINUE

Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station –CONTINUE

Museum of Fine Arts - RESUBMIT REVISED REPORT

Stella Duncan Memorial Research Institute -CONTINUE