Meeting, February 12, 2004
Gallagher Business Building, Room 123

Approved 2/26/04

 

Members Present:

E. Ametsbichler, M. Bachmann, D. Beck, F. Brown,  C. Brewer N. Browning-Bradley, C. Bruneau, G. Burns, J. Carter, K. Canty,  J. Crepeau, D. Dalenberg, L. Dent, S. Derry, P. Dietrich, D. Doyle, E. Edlund, P. Fandozzi, R. Field,  D. Fillmore, C. Gajdosik, L. Gillison, L. Hayes, T. Herron,  N. Hinman, R. Judd,  S. Kalm, K. Kane, B. Knowles,  J. Laskin, , M. Mayer, V. Micheletto, N. Priestley, D. Schantz, M. Monsos,  S. Mueller, D. Pletscher, B. Reider, J. Sears,  D, A. Sondag, L. Tangedahl, H. Thompson,  T. Tonev,  D. Schuldberg , P. Silverman, D. Six, S. Stiff E. Uchimoto C. Winkler

 

Members Excused:

R. Chacon,  G. Cobbs, J. Gritzner, W. Holben, C. Knight, C. Krussel, J. McNulty, N. Nickerson G. Smith

 

Members Absent:

T. Bedunah, T. Deluca, S. Greymorning, C. Johnston, R. Ledbetter

Ex-Officio Present:

Provost Muir, Vice President Duringer, Registrar Bain, Dean Strobel, Dean D’Andraia, Associate Provost Walker-Andrews

 

Guests:


Aaron Flint-ASUM President, Jim Jacobs and Bill Woessner- Enrollment Council, Richard Hutto

 

 

 

Chair Knowles called the meeting to order at 3:13p.m.

Registrar Bain called roll.

 

The December 11, 2003 minutes were approved (motion made by Senator Linda Gillison, seconded by Senator Ralph Judd).

 

Communications:

Provost Muir

Three years ago there were discussion regarding shortening winter break, after which the President charged the Provost and the Deans to develop a workable plan.  There has been progress.  The year prior to the plan improvement there were 24 courses and 317 students, this last wintersession there were 66 courses and 843 students.  More general education courses are being offered, so there are solid core courses available to students.  She and the deans will continue to work on improvements and thanks the faculty for their efforts.

 

The targeted enrollment strategy investment has been very successful in recruiting students.  The Provost displayed a stack of applications representing 1216 potential students with GPAs above 3.5.  The applications do not mean the applicants will choose UM. There are a lot of factors involved in students’ decisions.  Financial aid and whether the institution and campus community is one the student will love and want to experience are factors.    The human dimension is critical.  Academic Affairs is requesting faculty to be more active in connecting with potential students.

Bill Woessner- Enrollment Management Council
The volume of quality applications is impressive.  The Senate vocalized support for  improving the quality of the academic body when the Admissions Standards Enhancement proposal was brought forward two years ago.  In order to accomplish this goal in today’s competitive environment faculty need to get involved. The Enrollment Management Council is appealing to you and your colleagues to help contact students before they make their final decision.  Research shows that a personal interest from a faculty member can make a difference. In the next week or so there is a need for faculty to get more involved in attracting students.  Please explain the need to your colleagues and be willing to make the investment to improve the academic quality of the student body. 

Chair Knowles asked if the Provost’s remarks could be taken to indicate wintersession will continue. The Provost responded that her remarks did not indicate the continuance of wintersession.  The President has the report and has the matter under deliberation.   He will make the final decision.

 

Vice President for Administration and Finance Bob Duringer
VP Duringer appealed to senators to attend an open forum on Wednesday, February 25th from 7pm-8pm in GBB 122 to talk about the budgeting initiatives that will go to the legislature for FY 2006-2007.  Only 10 people attended yesterday’s open meeting. Please come to the forum to be informed about what will be proposed and let us know your ideas.  One of the initiatives is a proposal to increase property taxes to pay for higher education.  We are trying to put our best ideas forward and plan to take the initiatives to the Regents in March.

 

Provost Muir asked for a scale to compare what the increase would look like for the average tax payer. 

 

VP Duringer used his November property tax bill as an example.  He paid 32 dollars on the six mill levy.  The initiative proposes an increase of double the amount which would be 64 dollars.  This is not too egregious, and would mean 5.6 million dollars for higher education state wide.  He would appreciate the feedback and any new ideas or strategic ways to approach declining state support.

 

 

ASUM President Aaron Flint 

ASUM is planning a lobbying effort over spring break.  Flint will be visiting small towns in Montana (Browning, Glasgow, and Roundup) with the message to support higher education.  The goal is to take the message to the people that make the decisions and urge them to put pressure on the legislature.  It would be great if ASUM was joined by faculty in this effort.

ASUM will have two or three action items at the Board of Regents in March.  One will be a letter regarding financial aid increase limits and Pell Grant funding at the federal level.  Specifically ASUM is in support of increasing loan limits to help middle income students, which the University has difficulties retaining.

He would be interested in hearing from anyone with thoughts regarding ASUM initiatives, including the proposed doubling of the athletic fee.

 

Call for Special Meeting on February 26th, Chair Knowles

The authority to call a special meeting is listed in the bylaws.  It has been invoked to allow the Senate to complete its business.  The draft agenda is available in the letter from the chair.  There will be a presentation from CIS Client Services Director Vicky Pengelly on what faculty members need to know with regards to the elimination of Selway and changing email accounts, and etc.  There will also be a demonstration of the Faculty Senate elections process that will take place on a secure site via email this year.  The President will address the senate because he was unable to attend today’s meeting.  Any left over business from today’s agenda will be put on the February 26th agenda.  UM is the only elected body within the Montana University System that meets monthly, others meet weekly or ever other week.

 

The Faculty Senate could use a parliamentarian, preferably someone who is experienced.  Ideally the individual would be an elected senator.  If you would like to volunteer or know of anyone who has an interest please inform Chair Knowles or the Faculty Senate Administrative Associate Camie Foos.

 

Committee Reports

ASCRC report, Chair Louis Hayes

  • The curriculum changes were unanimously approved.
  • ASCRC’s policy governing minors was presented for Faculty Senate approval.

 

Provost Muir asked whether there might be minors that for various programmatic reasons could not be available to all students.

Hayes responded that it is always possible to relax a stringent standard, but difficult to strengthen a weak standard.  A minor that has specific needs for restriction, would make a case for the standard to be waived.  The burden of proof would be on the program requesting the minor.

Senator Gene Burns stated that the School of Education has several restrictions. For example a minor in Health Enhancement requires acceptance in the Teacher Education Program.

 

Hayes indicated that requirements for specific programs would be a reasonable requirement for the policy to be waived. 
The issue of teaching minors was addressed at ASCRC.  The committee agreed to use the term academic.

 

ASCRC has a member from the School of Education, who brought up the issue of teaching minors and seemed to be satisfied by the term academic minor.

The Provost indicated that academic referred to anything with academic rigor.

 

Senator Paul Silverman suggested amending the motion by removing the last line.
Hayes recommended the motion be sent back to ASCRC for consideration.

 

Burns suggested that there is sufficient language in the catalog that defines the requirements of minors available only within a specific program.

 

The motion was referred back to committee. 

 

·          The committee has revisited the pass/no pass option and is recommending changing the language.  The motion is presented for consideration and will be discussed at the next meeting.

 

Anyone interested in cross-listing is welcome to attend ASCRC’s Tuesday, February 17th meeting at 2:10 in GBB L14. Most likely cross-listing will be discussed around 2:30.

 

Graduate Council Report, Chair Nigel Priestley

The curriculum changes were unanimously approved.

 

Unfinished Business:
Avian Science Center, Workgroup Chair Monsos and Richard Hutto, Biological Sciences

Professor Hutto provided a brief summary.  The Avian Center is an opportunity for UM to research birds, and use birds as a source to gain knowledge of land use practices, to gain insight into biological stories of interest, and as an education conduit.  Creative activities can be planned for the public at large and K-12 students.  There is a prospect of raising money for graduate students to go into the field and educate the public about science.  The Center is primarily grant funded.  There are several federal/state agencies and private corporations interested in monitoring work that require a coordinating body. Thus, the Center can offer a valuable service before MSU does.

The motion was approved unanimously (motion made by Carol Brewer, seconded by Judd).

 

 

Modifications to Admissions Plan, Jim Jacobs- Enrollment Council

The addendum to the plan to enhance admissions standards covering non-traditional freshmen was approved.  (Motion made by Senator Linda Gillison, seconded by Senator Paul Dietrich.)

 

Motion to Establish Faculty Library Committee

A motion to remove the Library matter from the table was made by Senator Winkler, seconded by Judd: 38 in favor, 4 opposed.

 

Chair Knowles read email communications from senators who could not attend the meeting. The bylaws do not allow for vote by proxy.

 

From Senator Rafael Chacon:

I intend to vote "no" to the proposed plan to reorganize the Library and Archives Committee and would urge my fellow Senators to do likewise.  In principal, I agree that this committee is floundering under its present charge and leadership.  It needs a clear charge, but not one drafted without the direct input of the faculty most directly affected by its decisions.  Whether we like it or not, the process by which this proposed charge was drawn up did not have clear participation from the Library Faculty and is therefore fundamentally flawed.  We cannot push this forward and expect to have a functional committee, one that truly represents the faculty and staff of the Library.  Going forward without their input, support and participation risks creating another failed and ineffective committee.  This body has nothing to lose and much to gain by starting a new, truly cooperative process, with fresh leadership.  I would urge we move in that direction.  Thank you.


From Senator Norma Nickerson:
I would like to vote in support of the faculty Senate Library committee.  I think it is needed and critical for the faculty to be involved in the library.  It is very important for the Senate to know what is going on at the library and have some input and this is the best way to do that.   

 

Winkler suggested that the Senate view the timeline of the ECOS subcommittee on relationship of library to all faculty. There are two issues involved: whether the procedure was so flawed that there is a need to start over, or whether the motion can be taken on its merits despite procedural inadequacies.

 

On October 23rd the workgroup members met with the library faculty for over an hour. 

Changes were made to the motion and sent to the library faculty.  Further comments were received and discussed with the library senators and the motion was again altered. The motion was changed substantially to conform to the sentiments expressed by the library faculty.  The library faculty did have input and their concerns were incorporated as much as possible.

Senator Sebastian Derry read a response.

Fellow Senators, The motion before you today concerns a creation of an important committee.  The library faculty fully support communication and a library committee that represents all library constituents (faculty, students, staff, and the Montana community at large.) With complete consensus the faculty ask you to allow us to be full participants from the beginning in writing a revised charge for this committee.  This committee is central to our professional effectiveness. To be invited as an after thought to react to an all ready written document is not fair, equitable, or respectful, and underscores the flawed process.  We want to be involved.  We like you, care about words, we value process.  We would like full representation from the beginning of the process in drafting each word of a new committee charge.  We unanimously and respectfully ask that you vote no on this motion.
Our involvement with the workgroup came was very late in the process.  The document was drafted all ready.  There were some cosmetic changes, but at that point we were on the defensive reacting to the document.  Derry asks where was the invitation for the library chair to attend an ECOS meeting when the process had been going on sense May.

 

Gillison: It seems that the dean was involved in the process early on, and one would expect that the dean would have communicated with the faculty. 
Derry: Perhaps, but as faculty we still want to be involved in the process.  The library faculty request full involvement. 

Gillison: Back in April a resolution dealing with the issue was presented to the Senate.
Derry:  There was still no indication to the faculty about the process of reconstituting the committee.
Gillison:  Perhaps the faculty should have asked.
Derry:  The library faculty want to be considered out of courtesy.  No one ever came forward to inform the faculty.
Gillison:  The information was provided to the dean.
Derry: That is true, but we still request full consideration.

 

Senator David Beck:  Native American Studies supports the establishment of this committee.  There are several issues of concern to the department in relation to the library.  One of those issues is communication.  And this seems to be of issue here.  I feel for the library faculty that they were not included in the process.  It seems the responsibility lies with the dean of the library to communicate to the faculty about those issues that he is apart of that affect them. There have been other issues regarding communication that we would like to know how to interact with the library. There are issues in relation to the collections that are of concern to us.  It is much more difficult for us now to conduct research because of the way collections have been disconnected to finding aids and from people who are knowledgeable about those collections.  So we were hoping a committee like this would provide some type of a connection.  There were several other issues as well.

 

Senator Judd read the comments of a colleague and former Library and Archive Committee member, Fred Allendorf. 
I have serious concerns about the Motion to Establish a Library Committee that is scheduled to be considered tomorrow in the Faculty Senate.  I will not be able to attend tomorrow because I am chair of a search committee here in DBS, and one of our candidates is giving a seminar tomorrow afternoon.

 

As I told you on the phone last fall, I have served on the Library & Archives Committee four separate terms (under four Library Deans) in my 28 years at the University of Montana.

 

I believe that the process leading to this motion has been deeply flawed, and the motion should be not be approved.  A new committee should be formed to reconsider this issue.  This new committee should include Library Faculty members as well as interested members of the Library & Archives Committee.

 

The Timeline describing this issue on the on the faculty website is in error.  According to the posted timeline:

 

4/16/03

Library and Archive Committee members were invited to join a meeting with ECOS to discuss the committee on 4/17/03. Members did not respond nor attend the meeting.

 

This is not true.  I was never invited to or informed of such a meeting.  In fact, I talked with Karen Hill on the phone several times about my concerns, but I was never told about the meeting or given an invitation to meet with the committee at any time.

 

To check my memory, I went back through every email that I received about the library last spring.  There was no mention of a 17 April 2003 meeting.  I will paste below the email that committee members received from Chair Hayden Ausland after our last meeting a week later on 24 April 2003.  There is no mention of such a meeting in the minutes.

 

Karen Hill did not remember any conversations with Fred Allendorf.  She made the point that there was no attempt to be secretive or exclude anyone from consideration.  The issue was discussed in front of the Faculty Senate with a Library Senator in attendance.  The efforts of ECOS and the workgroup were not an attempt to choose sides.

 

Library and Archive Committee Chair Hayden Ausland supplied the email that he said Allendorf apparently didn’t receive or read.  An important thing to consider about the Library committee is for the 20 years that Allendorf served on the committee it has been a rather cushy service assignment, which we are now attempting to change.   Allendorf stated in the last L & A meeting that over his 20 years of service on the committee, he never once read the charge of the committee.

 

Senator Susan Mueller was a senator on the Faculty Senate several years ago when the L & A committee was dealing with the serial shift issue and reported to the Senate.  Carolyn Lott was the chair of the committee at that time.  The committee was very active with the Library in dealing with that particular issue. In this instance and in others the L & A committee was very active and very effective in their work with the library.  So she asks why this charge has been brought forward when they have not seen any problems with the previous charge. Carolyn Lott did not have a problem with the charge or have difficulties with the committee and did not see any reason for the evaluation and reconstitution of the committee.
 

Senator Steve Kalm was on the committee the year Lott chaired and he was the chair the following year.  His frustration was that the committee was pretty much out of the loop.  There was no one on the L & A committee involved with the search for a new dean. This is a pretty significant statement about the importance of the committee.  An interesting irony is that there was yet another Library committee formed for Northwest accreditation that came to talk to the L & A committee about how they were evaluating the library. He spoke to the 1999-2000 Faculty Senate Chair Ray Ford about the dysfunction of the committee and that in his view the committee had been marginalized.  He was on the committee for three years and his experience was that the committee had become obsolete.

 

Provost Muir pointed out that the lack of inclusion in Northwest accreditation efforts and  the search for a new library dean were administrative oversights and not the Library’s fault.  She was not yet on campus.  Last year the L & A committee was consulted to evaluate the dean.

 

Kalm indicated that the efforts of the workgroup were not an attempt to be punitive to the library in any way.  We are all users and advocates of the library.  No matter who was in the administration, leaving the L & A committee out of the loop on issues was a reflection to where the faculty stood in relationship to the library.  The main goal is to lift up the library to show its importance to faculty.  It is important to all of us that we have a standing together.  The raised standing of the committee is a positive factor.

 

Derry:  We understand the point, but feel it is a bigger issue than the Senate.  The library faculty feel that it is vital that all stakeholders be involved from the beginning so everyone has an opportunity for input. 

Senator Mike Mayer received two emails about this from faculty who requested to remain anonymous. Both expressed concerned about their experience with the library that presumably this type of committee would address.  One deals with the movement of IMS.  The email suggests that the reorganization isn’t really the issue; the issue is the lack of response.  A letter was sent detailing the problem and never received a response.  The other deals with the Government Document Collections and the lack of working microfilm readers.  This is something that is particularly worrisome. There are still resources on microfilm and there should be a means to view the documents.  He has mentioned this several times and has not gotten a response.  These examples highlight the need for a more formal structure for faculty input into the library.  A greater weight comes from a formal committee of the Faculty Senate as we all do have an interest in the library. I’ve heard a lot about the process and he would like to hear what specifically the library faculty objects to, and what they would like changed.

 

Derry:  The motion does not represent involvement.  They request that they be involved from the beginning with all of the stakeholders.

 

Chair Knowles directed Senator Derry to answer the question about what in the language is objectionable.

Derry:  A lot of the language is redundant in terms of the annual acquisitions budget, which is all ready available.  There is a process in place for evaluating the dean.

A lot of the ensuing points below B are redundant.  The lines of communication are already open. There is library representation by departmental representatives.  There is open dialog between faculty and the Library has two senators on the Faculty Senate.

 

Chair Knowles asked if anyone from the Library would like to respond to the issue of working microfilm readers.

Erling Oelz:  We are aware of the malfunctions and they are targeted as a priority in terms of replacement.  We are presently working without an equipment budget. 

 

Doug Dalenberg understands that the process was flawed and that sets a bad precedent.  However, it is unclear what is objectionable in the motion and what prevents the library faculty from adjusting the motion to make it right.

 

Holly Eggleston:  There are three central issues.  The first is the role of the committee.  Is the intention oversight or advisory?  The second is the representation of user groups.  There are fundamental roles and objectives that are not reflected in the motion.  The third is the lack of integration of current Library processes and structures.

 

Gillison does not understand how this committee would interfere with the current forms of communication.  Clearly there are problems that have come up that have not been communicated.  The issue is how we as faculty can be part of the process.  The faculty feel excluded from the processes that go on in the library the same way the faculty library feel excluded from this process.  There needs to be another level of communication.

 

Holly Eggleston:  Because the Library faculty were excluded from the process they do not know the reasons for not including suggestions that were made. It is fundamental that all stakeholders be representative in the structure for developing the charge. 

 

Winkler: Apologized for not including the library faculty. The membership intentionally includes two library faculty and gives preference to departmental library representatives.  Once the committee is constituted they can come to the Senate with a new charge.  There has been no functioning committee this year and a committee needs to get working because of the issues that were pointed out earlier.  If the charge needs to be changed we all would support the library faculty to work with the members of the new committee to change the charge.

 

Senator Carol Brewer:  It does seem that the process was flawed, in that clearly the library faculty are apart of the committee, and it is reasonable that they want to have input.  So why not let that happen so we can move forward with something that can be a benefit to us all?

Chris Mullin: Several senators have asked what the library faculty object too and he will attempt to answer this question.  They discussed coming back to the Senate with a list of amendments, but decided they wanted to be involved.  Many faculty in the library have spent six hours or more working on this. Amending the document word by word on the floor seems unreasonable. He found a couple of items particularly worrisome. 1.f., 2, and 3 need to be revised. All they found out in April was something was going to be done and didn’t realize until September that there had been a charge drafted without their participation.  They just did not like the process.  He suspects the process can be done over to have something in place next fall.

 

Senator Mike Monsos:  It seems that the committee being proposed is the committee that would be able to do all of those things.

Senator Dick Field is saddened that this turned out to be so controversial.  One of the things the workgroup hoped to clarify is that this is a Faculty Senate committee and is designed for communication between the library and the faculty.  We are the stakeholders. The previous library committee wasn’t functioning very well and we had to do something.  Then we discovered that who the committee was responsible to was not clear, so then we decided to give the committee a fresh start.  We didn’t make any profound changes.  The committee is still an advisory committee designed for communication.  It has no authority to bother anybody and he doesn’t see how it is a threat to anyone.  We did not intend for the Library Faculty to feel left out.  The motion dissolves the existing L & A committee, which has not been functioning, and replaces it with this committee that has a more detailed charge and clarity of structure.  If the motion fails we just go back to the old committee where the Library Faculty has a lot less input.  It seems better to move ahead and try to get the committee functioning.

 

Senator Joe Crepeau stated that we have heard the same arguments several times for and against the motion, and thus he called the question.  Judd seconded the motion.

 

Chair Knowles ruled that Senator Crepeau's motion was a non-debatable motion to limit debate, which requires a two-thirds majority. The motion carried on a show-of-hands vote, 38 to 4.

 

Chair Knowles then called for a show-of-hands vote on the previous question. The motion carried with 31 in favor and 10 opposed.

 

Former Chair Karen Hill stated that to error is human to forgive is divine.  She apologized for the actions that unwittingly hurt feelings and proposes that we move forward from here.

 

Chair-elect Bylaw Amendment, Workgroup Chair Ametsbichler
The workgroup consisted of Linda Gillison and three former Faculty Senate Chairs: Rhea Ashmore, Bill McBroom, and Stan Jenne. 

 

The reason for the change is because a chair who knows a year in advance can appropriately schedule courses, committee appointments could be made in the spring, and there would be continuity in leadership for Board of Regents meetings. The change would provide for more efficiency and a smoother transition of leadership

The workgroup recommends that a chair elect be elected every spring.  The transition this spring would involve a one-time-only election for both the Senate Chair and Chair-elect. 

 

Chair Knowles indicated that in relation to his own experience this change would be very helpful.  The Collective Bargaining Agreement provides for course relief, but until one knows for sure he or she has been elected adjustments cannot be made.

The motion passed unanimously.


Procedure Bylaw Amendment, Chair Knowles

Essentially this change allows for more flexibility in the order of the agenda, the committee operating rules and procedures will ad some efficiency to Senate business, and correct language for current practices.  The motion passed unanimously.

 

New Business:

Commencement Committee Bylaw Amendment
Currently under the bylaws the Commencement Committee is a product of ASCRC. The Committee meets once a year and should more appropriately be under the general Faculty Senate.  The committee is involved with the ceremony not curriculum.
Registrar Bain indicated there would be a language change to reflect the actual makeup of the committee. (First reading, to be voted upon

 

Voting Group Bylaw amendment
There has been some departmental name changes and Environmental Studies is more appropriately considered in the Social Science voting group. 

Foreign Languages name change was corrected in the motion.

After the meeting Senators from Pharmacy noted a change in the department title.  The motion was corrected to reflect the change.   Also noted is Forestry’s change from a school to a college.

 

ECOS temporary replacement
ECOS requires a replacement for Ametsbichler who is students to Austria for the remainder of spring semester.

Senators from the College of Arts and Science caucused to nominate a temporary replacement on ECOS.  Senator Dave Beck from Native American Studies was elected.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.