Meeting, October 15, 2004
Gallagher Business Building, Room 123

Approved 11/18/04

Members Present: Members Excused Members Absent

E. Ametsbichler, T. Aitkins, D. Beck, J. Belz, S. Brewer, N. Bradley-Browning, C. Bruneau, J. Carter, J. Crepeau, D. Dalenberg, L. Dent, S. Derry, P. Dietrich, D. Doyle, E. Edlund, E. Eglin, H. Eggleston, W. Freimund, M. Fromm, S. Ganesh, L. Gillison, F. Glass, J. Glendening, S. Gordon, J. Gritzner, T. Herron, K. Hill, R. Judd, S. Kalm, A. Kinch, B. Knowles, B. Larson, J. Laskin, C. Lawrence, R. Ledbetter, M. Mayer, V. Micheletto, M. Monson, N. Nickerson, D. Potts, M. Putnam, B. Reider, Y. Reimer, F. Rosenzweig, D. Schuldberg, , G. Smith A. Sondag, S. Stiff, H. Thompson, T.Tonev, M. Tonon, A. Ware, C. Winkler, S. Woods R. Hughes, M. DeGrandpre, S. Gaskill, W. Holben, J. McNulty, A. Peterson, J. Sears, F. Snyder D. Bedunah, J. Hunt, C. Johnston, P. Silverman, R. Vanita

Ex-Officio Present:

Provost Muir, Registrar Bain, Associate Provost Walker-Andrews and Staub, Dean Fetz, and ASUM President Price

Chair Winkler called the meeting to order at 3:13. She announced that there is an exam scheduled in the room immediately following the meeting 5:00 so we must adjourn on time or early. She also requested that senators introduce themselves during any debate to assure accuracy in the minutes.

Registrar Bain called role.

The minutes from 10/14/04 were approved.

Communications:

Provost Muir

The writing assessment is now computerized. Students can take the upper-division writing assessment on the computer. They still have the option of using a blue book if they choose. Her office is pleased that this is now possible because people are now accustomed to thinking while writing on a keyboard.

Academic Affairs has been working on allocation and reallocation of the budget. There were fewer students this summer than planned which required an adjustment. The budget news is fairly good with the upturn in fall enrollment, non-resident students in particular. This increase allowed for buffering of the summer decline and replacement of the funds that were carried forward for next year. Also, the one-time only cuts have been partially rescinded.

Preliminary budget planning for 2006-2007 includes another academic quality initiative. The Provost has been working with the deans for about six months on various approaches to the plan. Hopefully this will be realized as the budget goes through the legislative process.

There were no questions.

Charles Couture, Dean of Students – Student Disruptions
Part of his position as Dean of Students is to adjudicate the student conduct code when students are charged with alleged misconduct. Residence Life deals with instances in Residence Halls and University Villages. Thus, the data he is referencing does not include these areas. The statistics suggests that student disruptions are on the rise at the University of Montana, and it is disproportionate to enrollment increases. In the 2001-2002 academic year he had 70 cases. The next year there were 78 cases. Prior to 2001 there were maybe 25-30 cases for several years. Last year he had 152 cases. So the incidences have almost doubled. The majority of his time is now devoted to these misconduct cases.

His first consideration is for the health and safety of the campus community. If this is not at issue, he approaches the situation as a chance for education, to somehow impact the student in a positive way. So far this semester, he has had 45 cases which is par with last year. Referrals come from faculty, staff, Public Safety, other students and City Police. Most come from Public Safety. Violations based on alcohol and marijuana use are tied for the first time this year. Normally there are more alcohol incidents. He attributes this to the quieter approach of campus safety’s bicycle officers. Other violations include disorderly conduct, malicious intimidation, theft, vandalism, physical assault, sexual assault, and intentional disruption of normal university activities including teaching.

There has been an increase of reports from faculty of inappropriate student behavior. Last year there were 11 direct referrals from faculty and 6 from staff. Often faculty will call Public Safety first and then Public Safety will contact him, so there are more incidents being reported by Faculty than the data indicates.

Intentional disruption of classroom instruction means that an instructor has repeatedly asked a student not to inappropriately interrupt a lecture. This is not uncommon based on what he is hearing from faculty. Malicious intimidation refers, for example to a violent student outburst during which the offending student smashes an object because he was angry at the professor, or the student directly threatens the teaching assistant with harm. Sexual harassment is pervasive and persistent talk by a student about sexual likes and dislikes when the student has been asked to refrain from such comments. Stalking includes students repeatedly asking a professor for a date in person, over the phone, and/or via email.

Unfortunately, he does not know for certain the reasons for the trend. It is not unique to UM, it is happening at campuses across the country. More people seem to be entering college with more serious emotional issues that can and are controlled by drugs. There have been a number of problems when a student has ceased taking his or her prescribed medication. More students demand immediate gratification and exhibit anger if they don’t get it. Many students have the belief that there is not going to be any negative consequences from misbehaving or there shouldn’t be. Also, there seems to be an increased level of parental involvement. He had a recent case involving a student disrupting Griz Central with loud, rude behavior directed at a staff member. The student did not get the response she wanted and got her mother, who proceeded to act in the same manner. The student brought her mother to the meeting in his office as well. The student had an attitude when her mother was around. More parents are assuming the back up role for the student.

Students are increasingly disrespectful of authority. For example, a Public Safety Officer caught two male students in a physical fight. The students were ordered to stop fighting and one of the students proceeded to take two more punches. It is not uncommon for students to run, or fight back when they are tackled.

Faculty have resources in these difficult situations. You don’t have to put up with continued disruption in the classroom. When students get away with inappropriate behavior, their behavior problems tend to escalate. It is important that faculty set boundaries and hold students accountable. Communicate clearly to problem students that if they do not adhere to expectations you will enact Student Conduct Code action. The university expects a certain safe environment conducive to learning. The University will not allow inappropriate behavior. In severe problem situations students not willing to comply are deemed too dangerous to keep on campus and will be expelled.

He has a one page synopsis available for anyone interested. Just send him an email and he will provide a copy. He is happy to talk with anyone who has questions.

Senator Michael Mayer – Faculty Governance
Senator Mayer was asked by the Executive Committee of the Senate to provide some background on what is meant by shared governance.

He took a two pronged approach to describing Faculty Governance.  The first prong was to describe what the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) has identified as a national trend in faculty governance.  The AFT claims that shared governance is under threat from the emerging corporate model of university and college governance.  They cite the increased use of part-time, temporary faculty and the reorientation of the curriculum toward practical or vocational types of education.  The emerging ideology is that there needs to be a different response from universities in the rapidly changing market place of higher education.  Faculty are too slow to make decisions, they are too hide-bound and they cling to old, out dated, unfashionable models.  Therefore, there has to be another way of getting things done.  These are current considerations that have some validity, but shared governance has always been an issue.

The AFT report discusses characteristics of shared governance.  Senator Mayer brought two of them to the Senate’s attention.  One is that academic decision making should be largely independent of short term managerial and political considerations.  The other is that faculty are in the best position to shape and implement the curriculum and research policies.

The province of the Faculty Senate at the University of Montana has always been “academic matters.”  But academic matters at UM have been very broadly defined going back for decades.  For example, in 1991 a proposed Student Conduct Code put together by the administration was rejected by the Faculty Senate. 

The Senate has several responsibilities and a central one is academic freedom.  This is complicated on this campus because it is shared by the union.  Academic Freedom is guaranteed in section 6.100 in the collective bargaining agreement.  He suggests faculty take at look at the language if they haven’t done so already. The 1991 proposed student conduct code was blocked in large part because of restraints on academic freedom, most notably a speech code. 

Academic standards is another area where the Faculty Senate really needs to assert itself.  The best example in recent times is the writing assessment.  The assessment had been in the catalog sense the early 1980s, but had never been administered through the mid 1990s. It was only through action of the Faculty Senate that the administration was spurred into actually administering the exam.

Finally, the area to which the Faculty Senate needs to pay the most attention is that only UM Faculty can grant a UM degree.  And that is something we should jealously guard.  We need to watch out for all sorts of different encroachments, whether it is waiving requirements or off-campus certification.  Some may be perfectly legitimate, it is very important that the Senate assert itself in these areas.  He is not saying that the administration shouldn’t have taskforces on issues such as the writing requirement.  Obviously that’s part of the academic function as well, but it is important that they be held to account and that the work product of the taskforce come to the Senate for action. 

A final point on which the Senate worked in the early 1990s was the meaning of faculty governance as construed at The University of Montana.  The Senate has always asserted that shared governance means consulting with the Faculty Senate in advance of decisions rather than presenting it with fait accompli, and listening to the response of the Faculty Senate. Obviously not every administrator is going to agree with faculty recommendations, and some faculty recommendations are not going to be binding.  That is part of the process.  Faculty governance at UM has always meant an insistence that the administration listen, pay attention, and consult with the faculty. 

An example of what the Senate can, and sometimes must, do occurred in 1993 when a presidential task force proposed a “curricular review” to revise language and texts, effectively censoring those that presented rape as a culturally sanctioned expression.  That would have eliminated various works, including many classical dramas and several of Shakespeare’s plays.  The same report proposed censoring what students could display in their dorm rooms.  This was something that the courts wouldn’t tolerate.  In his opinion the effort was ill-considered and attempted to make an end-run around the Senate.  The Faculty Senate rejected the taskforce’s recommendation. There was a new report that did not include the objectionable attack on academic freedom.  That is the Faculty Senate functioning at its best and demonstrates the role of faculty governance at the University of Montana.

There were no questions.

ASUM President Gale Price

After the last Senate meeting ASUM President Price had concerns that Web for Faculty would provide faculty with an overly broad access to student records. Allowing faculty access to any student’s academic record and personal information puts students and faculty in an awkward situation. Registrar Bain worked on a compromise that allows faculty access to students’ records in their classes or their advisees and blocks access to others. Students can supply faculty members with their pin number for access if needed.

ASUM has been very diligent in addressing safety issues on campus. There will be a lighting review and consultation with a security company to determine the best way to implement new security equipment. In addition ASUM is sponsoring self defense courses this fall and may also sponsor additional courses in the spring.

There have been a few concerns brought to ASUM regarding plus minus grading. One that has been repeated is the opportunity for different grading scales among different sections of a course. This might have the effect of students choosing professors based on their usage of plus minus grading. There is a desire on the part of students for more uniformity in courses with multiple sections.

ASUM thanks everyone for their help during voter registrations. Please remind your students about elections. ASUM will have a voter guide coming out next week. The guide will have candidates’ responses to higher education issues. If your students have questions refer them to the ASUM voter guide.

University Faculty Associated Vice President Liz Ametsbichler

Senator Ametsbichler apologized that President Kupilik could not be here. She reminded the Senate that this is a bargaining year. It is very important that department bargaining representatives have been appointed and will attend Bargaining Council meetings. This is a critical opportunity for faculty contact with the union. The Commissioner of Higher Education’s Office conducted a salary survey that in the union’s opinion is seriously flawed. This survey has been provided to the Board of Regents.

Chairs report

§ Chair Winkler reported that the Executive Committee of the Senate nominated faculty to several committees.

§ The Board of Regents is focusing on three of the shared leadership initiatives: access and affordability, online education, and workforce development. Chair Winkler has been appointed to the Access and Affordability Advisory Committee and Chair-elect Crepeau to the Workforce Development Advisory Committee. If you have any comments or questions, please contact either the Chair or Chair-elect.

§ Chair Winkler has been assigned to the committee to review the President’s recommendations concerning oversight of Athletics and the charge of the University Athletic Committee.

§ Commissioner Stearns has established a campus advisory group that meets on a bimonthly basis. The faculty association representatives are invited to attend these meetings. She will let the Senate know if anything of great interest comes out of these meetings. The President, Provost and Vice Presidents attend these meetings.

§ Montana University System Faculty Association Representatives (MUSFAR) meets prior to the Board of Regents meetings and has established a list serve. Currently Keith Edgerton from Billings is serving as the group’s liaison to the Board of Regents.

ECOS Workgroup Chair, Ralph Judd – Background Checks

Last year a concern came to the Senate related to faculty background check procedures, specifically that the hiring committee would be informed only if the candidate could or could not be hired. In fall of Nov 2002 a policy was instituted requiring criminal background checks on staff. The intent of the policy is to protect the university against negligent hiring, or hiring an individual with a known criminal record that could endanger the campus community. The following spring the policy was applied to faculty hiring and a memo was distributed outlining the procedure. This memo most likely was the cause of concern. However, this is a perception issue --not an actual problem. Background checks are currently done in-house by University Public Safety’s Captain James Lemke. He consults with the Human Resource Director and then if necessary with University Legal Counsel. The vast majority of background check results are either eligible for hire or not. There have not been any instances where a faculty member is rejected because of a background check. When a background check contains questionable information Captain Lemke, the Human Resources Director, and if necessary Legal Counsel gets involved and contact sheriffs, parole officers, etc., to determine whether the candidate’s criminal history is relevant to the position or extraneous. There could be special requirements or restrictions placed on the individual via a signed agreement if hired. ECOS met with the Provost, Kathy Crego, Director of Human Resource Services, and David Aronofsky, University Legal Council to discuss the issue. It is clear that hiring authority resides with the Provost and the administration. When and if there is a problem the administration will do their best to disseminate the information to the search committee or hiring department with consideration to the liability and privacy issues. Therefore, it wad decided not to do anything until there was an instance that required deliberation.

Senator Eglin indicated there has been a concern that the vacancy announcement is required to include language that a criminal background check is required. This is not how the department wants to introduce candidates to the university.

Provost Muir responded that technically the verbiage does not have to be included in the advertisement. Nancy Borgmann, the Equal Opportunity Officer requires that it be included because if it is not, the search may run into problems latter because the background check is required. Therefore, the idea is to provide the information up front so candidates are not shocked. The bottom line is the hiring process is not going forward without a completed background check. It is better not to hold up the process. The candidate needs to be told sooner or latter. The provost cautioned not to get carried away with this. The check is for criminal records only --not traffic violations or credit reports. Just because something shows up doesn’t necessarily mean the candidate will be ineligible for hire.

Senator Dietrich stated that there is a spectrum of ways to word the ad that sound more professional.

The Provost reminded the Senate that if a background check has not been received prior to the decision, the letter of offer is contingent on the individual’s background check clearance.

Old Business:

§ General Education Committee Bylaw Amendment

Jean Carter, Chair of the ad hoc committee to create the General Education Committee provided a brief background. The proposal for revisions to general education made by the Provost General Education Task Force was introduced to the Senate last April. The Senate voted to create a subcommittee of ASCRC to look at the proposal, and other issues related to general education.

ASCRC already has a structure in place to review courses for first time general education designations and an ongoing review process for perspective courses and criteria. The new General Education Committee will be looking at the bigger picture in terms of general education requirements, and they will have access to the information gathered and produced by ASCRC. They will look at various models and determine what is appropriate for this campus in terms of our graduates’ needs and various constraints.

The ad hoc committee struggled to create a committee structure that was functional and representative. Virtually all departments are affected by general education, either by teaching or advising. The first draft included over 20 members to be inclusive. This was cut in half by ECOS for functionality. There will be 10 voting members, 8 faculty, 2 students, and ex-officio members from the Provost and Registrar’s Office. There will be 3 members from the College of Arts and Science, 1 representative each from the School of Fine Arts and the College of Technology. These faculty represent the areas that teach the majority of the general education courses. The other three members from the schools represent the consumers and/or advisors of general education. The terms will be staggered for three years. One member should also be on ASCRC and one should be familiarize with the Native American education requirement. The committee is a subcommittee of ASCRC, thus ASCRC will appoint the chair of the committee and any recommendations will go to ASCRC and then to the Faculty Senate for consideration. The meetings will be open so anyone may attend.

Two friendly amendments were accepted to correct the language in the bylaw amendment.

Senator Dietrich expressed concern regarding the structure of the committee. At least ¾ of general education courses are offered through the College of Arts and Science. Yet faculty members from CAS represent 30% of the committee’s membership. Thus, the College is under represented in terms of who does the teaching of general education courses. Part of the work of committee members will be to familiar themselves with the intricacies of the current general education system and courses. This is one area where faculty in CAS will be valuable on the committee. He stated that this was more of an observation then a suggestion for an amendment.

Senator Carter indicated that members will need to familiarize themselves with all the issues related to general education.

Senator Kent asked whether the language “ongoing evaluation” was meant to include assessment. He asked whether this was part of the function of this committee.

Carter responded that the charge in the bylaws was designed to be concise. Assessment is included in the memo detailing the charge to the committee.

The Provost indicated that she hopes the committee will have the opportunity to be involved in assessment.

Senator Kent suggests that the bylaw should say evaluate and assess.

Senator Knowles asked how you can evaluate and not assess.

Senator Crepeau commented that it appears what is being evaluated in the statement is the plan.

Chair Winkler reminded the Senate that the memo detailing the charge does not require a vote. It is the amendment to the bylaws only that requires approval of the Senate.

Senator Gillison clarified that Senator Kent is suggesting an amendment to include assessment in the bylaw charge.

The amendment to the motion to amend the bylaws was approved unanimously, as was the motion itself.

Chair Winkler announced that ECOS is still accepting nominations for the General Education Committee. These need to be received by the Faculty Senate Office by next Wednesday, 10/20/04. The terms are on a rotating three year cycle, so any volunteers may indicate a preference for a 1, 2, or 3 year assignment. Directly after the next week’s ECOS meeting the members will be notified and a meeting will be coordinated as soon as possible.

New Business:

§ Bylaw amendment to eliminate the elections committee
The amendment was introduced by Chair Winkler as a first reading. This is a practical amendment proposed by ECOS because the new electronic process tabulates votes and there is no need for a committee to be involved. This will be voted on next month.

Good & welfare:

§ Cyberbear for faculty
You should have received a memo from Registrar Bain this afternoon in an email from the Faculty Senate Office. After the ASUM President Gale Price raised the question of whether the access to student records afforded by the new Cyberbear for faculty might be broader than what was really needed for faculty to do their jobs, the Registrar’s Office took a look at the issue. It was decided that the access was indeed more than what was needed, so they crafted a computer solution that allows faculty access to students’ records in their classes and those that they advise, or to any student who provides their pin number. It is important that the university respect privacy of students.

Faculty will have access to their advisees that are assigned in Banner. It is very difficult to assure that Banner contain current advising information on every student and faculty member, therefore faculty may need to request that their advisees provide their pin number.

Senator Knowles asked about the need for department chairs to have access to students’ records in their department. The chair has to sign the graduation papers and needs to review students’ transcripts at that time.

Registrar Bain responded that the software does not currently provide that capability.

Senator Dietrich inquired about the original proposal and why it wouldn’t be possible for the chair to have access, especially considering the effort toward paperless functions.

Registrar Bain explained that the software wouldn’t allow this function, but it wasn’t a bad approach. At this point they need to get the system up and running.

§ Bachelor of Applied Science Clarification
Chair Winkler updated the Senate regarding the confusion surrounding the Bachelor of Applied Science Committee. Last year ASCRC discovered that the committee had never been formed as outlined in the proposal approved by the Board of Regents in 1996. The Faculty Senate was listed as having oversight of the committee, with appointments made by ECOS. After consultation with the Provost, it was determined that oversight of the committee shouldn’t rest with the Faculty Senate, but rather the Provost’s Office and the deans. She would therefore work through the Board of Regents for a more appropriate structure.

The Provost commented that the concept in the original approval tried to set up a mechanism that is similar to departmental faculty. ECOS will provide the names to construct the Bachelor of Applied Science Committee. We are trying to make the committee as analogous as possible to departmental faculty oversight.

Meeting adjourned at 4:30 PM.