Meeting, December 9, 2004
Gallagher Business Building, Room 123

Approved 2/10/04

Members Present: Members Excused Members Absent

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

Ex-Officio Present:

President Dennison, Vice President Duringer, Associate Registrar Carlyon, Associate Provost Walker-Andrews, Dean Fetz, Dean Forbes, and UFA President Kupilik

The Faculty Senate Administrative Associate called roll.

The minutes from 11/18/04 were approved.

Communications:

President Dennison

President Dennison provided handouts to Senators. The first document contains executive budget highlights from the Governor’s news conference and the second describes general fund budget planning for the FY2006 & FY2007 biennium. The figures reflect the outgoing administrations budget proposal. The figures listed for 2006 and 2007 are very tentative and preliminary with the understanding that the Schweitzer administration will be making changes. The current administrations budget proposal contains a total of $48,745,000. Of this 25 million is one-time-only (OTO) and 23 million is built into a continuous budget. The budget has several elements:

1) Focuses on the Regent’s Shared Leadership for a Stronger Montana Economy. There is $2,580 (OTO) allocated under Workforce Development. It is also expected there will be some matching funds from the business industries that benefit from the training programs implemented. Distance Education has $1,000,000 (OTO) earmarked for a better infrastructure or approach to meeting distance education needs across the state. The details have yet to be worked out, but there will clearly be a request for proposal process (RFP) by which institutions may be involved. There are a series of initiatives in Agriculture, Natural Resources and Rural Development for $963,000 with a match of $320,866. Then there are some Outreach initiatives for $360,000 (OTO) that will mostly be focused in the Commissioner of Higher Education’s Office. The total of $4,903,528 for Shared Leadership initiatives is to be expended during this biennium, if this amount is adopted by the new administration.
2) There is $5,000 (OTO) set a side for equipment in support of two-year programs. This includes colleges of technology, community colleges and campuses that have two-year programs. Again there will be some kind of RFP process to evaluate pressing needs and determine the allocation of funds. This money requires a dollar for dollar match.
3) Deferred maintenance consists of $16,052,100. The Missoula campus does quite well here with the upgrade to the steam utility tunnels, renovations to the HVAC system in the Science Complex, roof maintenance, and classroom renovation. The project descriptions and cost are listed on the Long Range Building Program handout. This will be cash funded so it is not a bonding program. It is not clear whether Schweitzer will adopt a bonding program.
4) Present law base adjustments total $11,789,549 and takes into account enrollment increases, inflationary adjustments, and utility increases. This will be ongoing money that gets distributed among campuses according to the cost of education funding model.
5) The outgoing administration’s proposal places 3% increase each year into the State Pay Plan and adjusts the insurance benefit by $46 per month the first year and $51 the second year. As in the past, the pay plan will not be fully funded with state funds; 43% will come from state funds with the remaining coming from tuition. This aspect of budget planning has not yet been worked through but is estimated at around $11,000,000.

The general fund budget planning document is based on assumption that the health insurance will increase $46/$51 per month for 2006/2007. The scenario plans for a tuition increase of 7.5% for residents, 8.5% for non-residents, and 4% for the College of Technology each year. One reason the planning includes a differential increase for residents and non-residents is that our tuition is closer to the top with regards to the average income in the State of Montana. However, when you look at non-resident tuition with our comparative schools (those schools where perspective students send their applications) it is right about in the middle. So we have held tuition close to where it seems to keep us competitive. Our resident tuition seems to be putting pressure on the ability of Montanans to pay.

The projected general fund is based on the Martz’s budget and the allocation of those dollars in accordance with the cost of education model, which takes into account student credit hours by discipline and level, then aggregates the institutional level and distributes the general fund proportionately based on enrollments on each of the campuses.

There is a good deal of discussion taking place regarding whether or not the funding model takes into account the needs of the smaller campuses. It is likely there will be some changes. There will be a discussion next Thursday in Helena at the Regents Budget Committee meeting. He suspects there will be movement in the direction of differential tuition, a lower percentage for cost of education in colleges in the two-year sector, a slightly higher percent for the four-year colleges, and then a slightly higher percent for the two universities.

This biennium money was moved from the general fund to relieve the pressure on the smaller campuses. The plan is to continue this practice and revise the funding model.

They are projecting growth in enrollment of 9215 resident students in FY06 and 9287 in FYO7, 2572 non-resident students in FY06 and 2616 in FY07. This should work considering that this year the seven-year trend of declining non-resident students was reversed. This year there were 9028 residents and 2490 non-residents. Targeted recruitment efforts will continue in order to realize these numbers. The projections are conservative and have been scrutinized by the Enrollment Management Team.

Under revenues on the planning document there are negative figures that represent likely transfers during the implementation of the next funding model. These dollars will move to the smaller campuses. Total revenue is projected at 114,440,358 for FY06 and 123,855,706 for FY07. The other category represents funds, such as auxiliary accounts that have been used to balance the budget in the past. The use of this should be reduced over the next two years. Any changes will be worked into the scenario and modifications will be made.

Total projected expenses for FY06 are 114,369,603 and 122,647,807 for FY07. The termination pool is the liability of accrued annual and sick leave payouts when faculty or staff terminate or retire from the university. Taking into account retirement patterns the university has a 9 to 10 million unfounded liability over the next 3 or 4 years because there is not enough money in this account. Thus this account balance will be increased by 400,000 (FY 06) and 200,000 (FY 07) to respond. Utilities costs are estimated at 533,100 (FY 06) and 403,400 (FY 07), but these are difficult to predict. The operating and maintenance figure of 539,280 in FY07 has to do with the new Skaggs and Journalism buildings. Fixed costs primarily represent insurance increases. The increase of 500,000 both years will take the contingency will take it up to 3 million as a buffer in the event projected enrollments are not met. A commitment was made to set aside funds to prevent any future budget difficulties in Athletics. Then there is money allocated for several initiatives. There is $300,000 earmarked for retention because we are loosing about 25% of our student population every year, and they are not graduating. We need to figure out a way to keep them. There is again an equivalent of 1% tuition increase for the enhancement of faculty positions and about a half percent to begin to address staff issues. This is needed because we have been adding faculty but not staff, so this would begin to bring the ratio back into balance.

There were no questions. The administration will let the Senate know how the budget turns out after next week.

A lot of this information focuses on two different approaches to making budget requests. One approach, which is advocated by Regent Chairman Mercer, is to calculate what is needed to maintain the programs at the level of quality desired, plug in what is known about the general fund increase, and then calculate the tuition increase needed to maintain the program. This number will be known at the beginning of the legislative session so that if policy makers want to reduce the tuition they need to increase the general fund. The two go together to provide the resources to maintain the program.

The other approach is to make a political judgment about what will sell for tuition and plug in that number. He does not advocate for this approach and hopes that the first will prevail. We shall see where we are at the end.

With these numbers on tuition we can still accommodate the changes in the funding model. Differential tuition will come to Montana as it has across the country. It will probably arrive in 2 or 3 biennium. This is a mechanism by which we will get there.

Senator Knowles asked the President’s opinion of how the K-12 pressure in Helena will impact higher education. The President responded that given the position of the Governor and Lieutenant Governor elect you could draw the conclusion that higher education will receive more priority than we are accustomed. He is unsure of how to translate this into dollars because the legislature does need to address the K-12 issue and there is only so much money. We are relatively well positioned because of the ending fund balance. So in all likelihood we will get at least what was presented today and they have already talked about making some positive changes. The new administration has made it clear that they like the emphasis on “give us this and we will do this.” They are particularly attracted to two-year education because they believe the training programs will have an immediate payoff. Then there is some discussion that the absence of any pay increase over the past several years needs to be addressed and 3% may not be enough. He doesn’t know how this will play out. This is all he has heard other than there might be a bonding program. If there is one, The University stands to benefit.

Vice President Duringer

Chair-Elect indicated that Vice President Duringer was invited to ECOS last week to clarify some of the issues surrounding the Coke contract. ECOS felt that this information was something the Senate would like to hear.

Vice President Duringer provided a handout and reported on the mechanics of the Coke Contract-- how much money the university receives and where it is spent. The contract is an exclusive distribution contract between the University of Montana and the Coca-Cola Corporation and includes all the different Coke products, other sodas, fruit and juice drinks, flavored milk drinks, energy drinks, water and other beverages used primarily in Athletics. The term of the contract is 7 years. We are 2 ½ years into the contract to date. The value of the contract is $4.2 million dollars that comes in two categories. The first is cash. The university receives approximately $400,000 a year. The second category is for a broad marking, branding and promotion program that gets the name, image and logo in the public’s eye. Approximately $200,000 per year goes into this program. When the contract was negotiated significant discounts were locked in at a fixed rate for 7 years. Thus far we have saved over a $1.5 million based on the discount structure. For example the rate the university receives on syrup is $1.59/gallon. The standard commercial rate is $7.80/gallon. Without out this discount, Dining Services would have significantly higher operating costs.

Where has the money been spent? There are about 15-20 vending machine stakeholders. Vending machines are now set up on a contract so that Coke must give the university the money. At this point, the vending stake holders have continued to receive the vending proceeds. This represents $537,000. In the area of general fund support, in 2002 the $100,000 of the Coke money was spent to buy down the tuition sir charge. Since then $200,000 or $300,000 has gone into the general fund to keep the budget balanced and for a number of other smaller initiatives. At the end of this year, there will be $120,000 to use from the Coke contract. Taking into account the cash, marketing, and discounts the overall gross value of the contract is $8.3 million dollars over seven years.

Senator Johnston asked about vending stake holders. VP Duringer responded that stakeholders are various entities where machines are located that receive kickbacks, such as departments, student clubs, the Adams Center, and Athletics.

Senator Valentin inquired about the involvement of the University with a corporation that has been involved with allegations of human rights abuses and the ethical implications. Should this not be something that needs to be evaluated?

Vice President Duringer provided a diagram addressing Coke and the human rights violations in Columbia. Over the past three years the administration has given a great deal of attention to the claims of coke’s connection to the abuses. He has no doubt that there is a lot of violence, civil war and intimidation taking place in Columbia today. The connection between the bottling plants in Columbia to the affiliate that is now FEMSA, Mexico, which bought out Panamco, to Coke-Atlanta that primarily makes syrup, to Coke-USA located in Denver, which is the major distributing chain to Denis Anderson in Missoula is nebulous. They have not found any corporate connection with what is going on in Columbia to the corporation in the United States. There could possibly be a link through Mexico, but it is impossible to find out any information. There is no evidence that Coke gives any directions to the companies in Columbia. They have talked to individuals from Columbia and to corporate attorneys at Coke. He has been very active looking through the anti-Coke web sites. David Aronofsky, the University’s attorney has done a number of Nexus Lexis litigation searches and analysis to find out where this issue is legally. Last year Coke Atlanta was dismissed from the law suit. There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding what is going on in Columbia. They have found no link from a directive perspective from Atlanta to Columbia and certainly not from Missoula to Columbia.

Senator Valentin reiterated that VP Duringer is saying that Coca-Cola in Atlanta doesn’t have anything to do with Coke in Columbia. He asked whether he and the President were convinced of this after speaking with the two union members that visited from Columbia. VP Duringer was very convinced that Mr. Mendoza and his colleagues had been harassed and abused, but he could not make the link to what happened there with the influence of the paramilitary, the drug lords and a dysfunctional government to something that would go out of Columbia through Mexico perhaps to Atlanta. He could not make the connection.

Senator Valentin referenced a situation with a world-wide company in Switzerland that was forcing its product. He asked whether there is a similarity or whether it is just a coincidence that there is a pacifist government in Columbia and Coke happens to be there. Of course there is no direct link, but there are subtle connections. This should not be an embarrassment for the university. Can the administration in good conscious go along with Coke as long as the money comes in?

VP Duringer indicated that when we can connect the dots, then the University will bail out of the contract. The administration has not taken this issue casually.

University Faculty Associated President Mike Kupilik

UFA President Mike Kupilik spent the weekend at the Montana Education Association- Montana Federation of Teachers Committee and spoke to Governor Elect Brian Schweitzer. As well as the perhaps soon to be House Majority Leader, David Wanzenreid, and the President of the Senate, John Kester. He talked to each individual specifically about higher education and the coming legislative session. They all talked the talk. It will be very interesting to see how the legislative session unfolds. John Kester was quite adamant that something needed to be done about the funding of higher education.

There are a couple of bills that MEA-MFT is sponsoring. One is the Alternative Pay Plan Bill-draft 837, sponsored by Dave Gallik. The bill calls for the state pay plan to be funded at 6% (FY 06) and 6%(FY 07). As President Dennison stated, the university is only funded partially by the state. This particular bill has a provision that the university will be funded at 100%. If this happened it would be nice, because we wouldn’t have to scramble to get pay raises out of the general fund budget. Faculty are not a part of the pay plan, but this provision would appropriate monies for the university system to give pay raises to all MUS employees.

Another bill is the MUSORP correction. This is the TIAA-CREF bill. The state contribution to TIAA-CREF is approximately 2% less then the contributions to the TRS retirement system. There have been several efforts to get this corrected. For the first time there is a bill that has a chance of being passed. This bill will bring the TIAA-CREF contribution up to the level of the TRS contribution in phases. The first year there would be an increase of 1/6^th, 1/6^th the second year, 1/3rd, the third year, and 1/3 the fourth year. It will start on the second year of the biennium, so in terms of immediate cost there is not much, approximately $1 million, but will take four years to equalize. The bill is being carried by Holly Raser out of Target Range. Kupilik suggests that if you have a chance to speak with Raser about the importance of this bill. He will be organizing individuals to testify when the Bill comes before the legislature. He hopes there will be a week to 10 days notice. If you can think of a young faculty member who would be good please let him know. Young faculty are particularly affected by the lowest TIAA-CREF contribution in the nation, because now is this time that they start to build their retirement.

The University Faculty Association is bargaining now. The Martz administration has quit talking to the union with salary increases of 3% (FY06) and 3% (FY07). Three percent is not acceptable to the union. Talks cannot begin with Governor- elect Schwietzer until January 3^rd. Bargaining will start in earnest with the Commissioner’s Office and the new administration in January.

Senator Valentin requested that faculty be provided advanced notice when the time comes to ratify the contract. July is not a good time because many faculty are not on campus.

UFA President Kupilik responded, “Of course.” Bargaining sessions will be scheduled every other week in January. If in deed the legislature settles K-12 and higher education early in the session, there should be no reason that bargaining can’t be done by the end of the semester. Delays in the process occur when there is uncertainty about how much money is on the table. Hopefully we will be done early, if not, the union will make every effort to have a ratification vote that is timely, and will give everyone enough time to consider.

Dean Forbes commented briefly about the TIAA-CREF issue referenced by UFA President Mike Kupilik. This is a critical issue considering it is getting more difficult to recruit faculty. During his 17 years at UM he has yet to have anyone ask about the retirement package. Everyone assumes that the TIAA-CREF benefit will be the same as other institutions.

Committee Reports:

Faculty Library Committee Chair Tom Stanton

The Faculty Library Committee was reorganized last year and started regularly meetings in September. In September the Committee set the agenda, in October the Committee began to look at the budget, in November review of the budget continued, and there is a meeting next week. We now have a pretty good understanding of the budget in theory at least. The Library has been very patient in answering the committee’s questions.
The report available on the website is pretty extensive and provides resources to find answers to questions you may have. The committee talked about approval plans and had a presentation about electronic dissertations.
Finally the committee asks for assistance from the Senate. Particularly in terms of identifying mechanisms for opening communication to the Faculty Library Committee that respect the Library faculty as the main conduit for information. The committee has had very little contact from faculty. He was under the impression that there is concern about faculty’s ideas getting to the library. The committee is there to respond to the faculty, so please share this information with your colleagues and contact the committee with your issues, or contact the library directly through the various channels available. The committee wants input from the faculty on what they see as good points, bad points, or concerns with the library.

Committee Reports:

ECOS
Motion to approve name change for the School of Pharmacy, Dean Forbes

Dean Forbes provided a bit of history about the School of Pharmacy. Back in 1913 both MSU and UM had Engineering. Pharmacy was at MSU. The Engineering programs were consolidated in Bozeman and Pharmacy was moved to UM. In 1979 the Physical Therapy program was started and the School became the School of Pharmacy and Allied Health Sciences. Since then the School has grown, Physical Therapy has become more involved in Rehabilitation Sciences. The New Directions Program provides rehabilitation services to the community. Thus, the Department of Physical Therapy proposes to change their name to the School of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Science. The name of School of Pharmacy and Allied Health Sciences does not adequately describe the programs, which are Pharmacy, Physical Therapy, and as of three years ago Social Work.

The proposal is to change the name to the College of Health Professions and Biomedical Sciences with three subunits: 1) Skaggs School of Pharmacy, which will comprise the Department of Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Sciences and the Department of Pharmacy Practice; 2) School of Social Work; and 3) School of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Science.

The Skaggs family has provided significant resources to the Pharmacy, thus the proposed name change will honor their name. In the future there may be someone willing to name the other schools as private fundraising is becoming more prevalent. The revised name is more inclusive, does a better job of explaining what the areas do, and each program has accreditation agencies that are interested in as much autonomy given to the unit as possible. This structure provides more stand alone status for the programs within the College.

Senator Silverman asked why the subunits are schools and not departments.
Dean Forbes responded that the schools title provides a bit more status for the programs. There are a variety of different descriptions around the country. In some instances these subunits have an administrator that is a department head. In others the unit has a program director or a dean. This structure would provide more autonomy which is desired by the accreditation agencies.

Silverman: Is there an administrative difference in the Montana University System between a school and a department?

Dean Forbes: If there is, he hasn’t found it.

Senator Carter clarified that this is a seconded motion coming from ECOS.

Senator Schuldberg commented that there are inconsistencies within our own campus given that there are deans of Schools and Colleges. It seems that it would be useful for the administration to define the proper use of the terms and what they entail.

Senator Silverman asked whether the schools under the college would have deans or chairs. Dean Forbes responded that the schools would have chairs. The plan is not to change the current administrative structure.

Senator Valentin asked whether there is any tension between the philosophy of social work and pharmacy. Dean Forbes responded that he is not aware of any tension. There was some concern whether Social Work would agree to the designation of health professions. Apparently this was not an issue because the committee that developed the proposal was chaired by Cindy Garthwait, who is the chair of the Department Social Work.

Senator Silverman would like to know more about the designation of school and what that implies before the vote is taken. For example, if the designation school gives them more status, and this has influence in terms of budgets and faculty positions and so forth, then he could easily imagine a race among departments to become schools. In fact Psychology, Social Work, and Counseling share some characteristics.

Dean Forbes responded that he did not have an answer, but as far as he knew the term school does not apply anything. It is not used to gather more faculty, pay, administrators, or budget. That is simply not the way things are done on campus.

Senator Johnston commented that some of us who have come from other institutions have worked in both schools and colleges. He has seen no difference in the two other than the name. Back in 1990 he was asked why Pharmacy was a school and not a college. The only difference is the name and how the university establishes the structure of colleges and schools. There was a similar name change in Forestry recently.

In Forestry the subunits were departments.

Senator Schuldberg stated that there is a contradiction because the term school supplies more status and autonomy for the unit. In terms of administrative structure within the UM system generally a school has a dean, and this has a lot implications in terms of academic governance.

This would be the only college on campus that would have schools as subunits.

Senator Laskin indicated that autonomy is a huge issue for Physical Therapy programs across the country both professionally and politically. Other programs that are schools have indicated that this designation is important to allow the program to do what they do now and to grow. This is a critical issue for accreditation and competing with other programs.

Senator Ware stated that there seems like there will be some new administration needed. Who will run the School of Pharmacy?

Dean Forbes indicated that he would run the School of Pharmacy and the College of Health Professions and Biomedical Science.

Senator Tonev asked, just for information, how many faculty are in each of the units.

Dean Forbes provided the approximate figures: Physical Therapy and Social Work = 8 or 9 faculty; Pharmaceutical Sciences = 25; and Pharmacy Practice = 12.

Senator Shuldberg raised the issue that Psychology is also a health science. There are other disciplines as well that could be health sciences that would not be under this umbrella.

Dean Forbes indicated that this was a good point and he doesn’t know how to address this. Pharmacy is not trying to encroach on any other discipline’s area; they are just trying to find a better way to describe themselves. Many in the programs do not like the term “allied” health sciences.

Senator Silverman moved for postponement to allow for clarification. First he would like to know what the precedent is for having a college broken into schools, and secondly what the implications are in terms of future structure and designations as schools.

Senator Shuldberg indicated that in terms of looking at structure the number of faculty is important. In his experience the size of the unit influences the term. Departments have the smallest number of faculty, next is schools, and then colleges. He believes this should be a campus-wide discussion. He wonders whether the administration has a policy about this, or should have one.

Senator Carter apposed the postponement. She is not sure whether postponing would bring clarity to the issue.

Senator Laskin stated that within the departments under Pharmacy and Allied Health Science there was no dissension over the name change. Everyone liked the idea of having a more appropriate name for the umbrella and associated units.

Senator Dietrich indicated that the issue is whether the use of the terms in this way is advisable across campus. The concerns are connected to the lack of certainty with regard to the terms. It would be useful to speak to someone who has researched the issue, perhaps hear or in Helena, to clarify the definitions as to what constitutes a school and what constitutes a college. There are lots of schools at this campus, and this is not likely to be the last time the issue will come before the senate. The Senate would benefit from being better informed about the range of meanings in order to better respond to the request.

Senator Silverman: What is the policy, or should be the policy for forming a school that is not composed of departments?

Senator Laskin: The designation of school provides the ability in the future to grow. There are no subdivisions under a department to accommodate Physical Therapy’s growth and changes.

Chair-elect Crepeau clarified that according to Roberts rules each individual is allowed two opportunities for the floor.

The question was called on the motion to postpone. A hand count ensued with 39 in favor and 12 opposed.

Senator Putnam asked what happens now, who is responsible for finding the information.

Chair Elect Crepeau indicated that ECOS will have to ask for the information to address the questions, deliberate, and then report back to the Senate.

ASCRC Chair Don Potts

ASCRC Chair Don Potts presented the curriculum consent agenda. There were 17 actions, 14 are routine changes, and three are a little more substantial. There is a proposal creating an AA and certificate program in carpentry, a new Forensic Studies certificate program in Anthropology, and the much debated minor in Military Studies. The motion approved with one dissension.

Back in 1996 during the University transition to 120 credits from 128 for graduation, as mandated by the Board of Regents, ASCRC reduced the number of credits allowed for ROTC courses to 6. To accommodate the new minor in military studies, which includes 12 credits of military science courses and 9 credits of Political Science or History courses, the number of allowable credits for Military Science courses must be increased to accommodate students in the minor. The motion passed unanimously.

Senator Valentin asked whether the minor in Military Studies had been discussed. ASCRC has been deliberating on the minor for several years and has provided various updates to the Senate.

Graduate Council Chair Rick Hughes
Graduate Council Chair Rick Hughes presented a small curriculum consent agenda. The proposal for a PhD program in School Psychology was received well by the subcommittee and Chris Fiore and Margaret Frankenburger joined the Council to elaborate on the program. Dean Strobel had some concerns that were discussed at the meeting, however the proposal was passed with two abstentions. There will be a few items coming in February that the Science Subcommittee was not able to complete due to scheduling difficulty. The motion was approved.

As an informational item, Hughes referenced the Masters in Public Health proposal that was approved in November. The program was approved “pending receipt of external funding of the magnitude specified in the proposal.” The Council was informed that the federal earmark that was included in the proposals budget was not awarded. The Council questioned whether the proposal would be changed to go forward to the Board of Regents. The Council is not apposed to a Masters in Public Health; it just had a procedural concern. If relatively major changes are made then the academic integrity of the program becomes an issue.

Associate Provost Arlene Walker-Andrew just spoke to the Provost who indicated there have been no promises of new money. The budget is being reconsidered at a minimum that would fund faculty only. The director’s position would be delayed for a year.

The Council wanted to go on record that if the changes now being considered are made to the program, then the program would not be the one that they approved.

Senator Beck commented that it seems if the Faculty Senate approved this contingent on a funding source that was not realized than the program does not have Faculty Senate approval.

The Council wanted the Senate to be informed that the funding was not received.

Speaking as a faculty member from the School that this program would be in, Senator Johnston indicated that he does not know of any fund sources that would allow the program to proceed in the manner in which it was designed.

Hughes: The Council is very supportive of the program. The procedure is of concern and he is not sure what happens next.

Senator Johnston has concern regarding the technical and administrative assistance that was an important part of the proposal because of the online courses. Without the external funding, where will this money come from?

Senator Sondag asked whether it would be safe to say that if the proposal is rewritten it should go back through the faculty governance process starting with the Graduate Council.

Hughes: The Council does not know what those changes will be.

Senator Carter made a motion that the revised proposal would need to be submitted to Graduate Council for consideration. The motion approved unanimously.

General Education Committee Chair John Eglin

General Education Committee Chair John Eglin reported that the committee is very close to language for a general education preamble that 1) describes what general education is for, and 2) is linked to the University’s mission statement. He hopes that language will be agreed on at the first meeting of the spring semester. He acknowledged Garon Smith for preparing the preamble draft.

Transferability continues to be an issue, as the Regents are now under taking their own review to be completed by January 2006. So the committee is hoping that their recommendations due in April will not be affected by the Regents review.

Thus far there hasn’t been anyone other that the committee members, sitting in on the meetings. The meetings are Monday afternoons, from 3:10-4:00 in LA 344. Anyone is welcome. The committee wants the process to be transparent.

Old Business:

Chair-elect Extended Term Bylaw Amendment
At the last meeting ECOS brought forward a proposal to change the bylaws to account for the situation when the chair-elect is at the end of his or her Senate term and may or may not be re-elected to the Senate. ECOS has decided to withdraw the motion and reconsider all the implications.

Good & Welfare:
Scott Nicholson, Organizer for the Montana Human Rights Network, commented on a few items presented by Vice President Duringer that he feels are not completely accurate. VP Duringer stated that the administration is not taking casually the allocations of Coca Cola’s involvement with human rights abuses in Columbia. Over the last three summers he has traveled to Columbia and has spent five months accompanying leaders of the Coca Cola’s workers union who have been threaten by the right-wing paramilitary’s threats. The idea behind the accompaniment is that the paramilitaries are less likely to follow through on those threats in the presence of a international witness. Thus far nobody has taken him for a Columbian, so it has worked out fairly well. His bias is on behalf of the workers and the University of Montana’s mission statement which reads: “The University seeks to educate competent and humane professionals and informed ethical and engaged citizens of local and global communities.”

The Montana Human Rights Network met with Vice President Duringer on October 24, 2002 when the contract was being negotiated and shared 8 pages of information documenting incidents of union workers oppression. During the course of the meeting Vice President responded to a question: “I don’t have the luxury of living those values.” The values being discussed were labor and human rights.

Nicholson thinks that VP Duringer’s bias is in favor of the company. In 1997 as the Director of Business Services at Oregon State University, he negotiated a nine-year exclusive contract. In 1999 as Vice President of Administrative and Finance at the University of Main he negotiated a ten year exclusive contract.

In their October, 2002 meeting Vice President Duringer said that he had done a three hour Google search in terms of looking into the allegations. A few weeks later he was quoted in the Kaimen as having looked into the allegations and found that they were baseless The Network was who brought William Mendosa, the president of the workers union in Columbia to the University, as well as Louis Cardona. The Human Rights Network is very concerned about how the involvement with a corporation that has a violation of human rights record reflects on The University of Montana.

Seven leaders of the Coke Workers Union have been killed in Columbia. The President of the Union was murdered inside the bottling plant on December 5, 1996. He was involved in contract negations at the time. Four days latter the paramilitary returned to the plant and rounded up all the union workers and gave them until 4:00PM that afternoon to sign resignation letters from the union. By the end of the day 50 workers had signed the letters and the union was effectively disbanded at the plant. From the Network’s standpoint these are very serious allegations that deserve critical investigation. We think it would be a good idea to have an independent investigation because by promoting Coca Cola, the University of Montana is promoting Coke policies in Columbia and elsewhere. It would be in the best interest of the University to have a clear understanding of what is going on.

He thanked the Senate for their work on behalf of public education at The University of Montana.

Maria Bustos-Fernandez invites her colleagues to reflect on the Coke-Columbia issue. She referenced the message from Vice President Duringer that the dots are not linked together. Faculty in the social sciences and the humanities strive to teach students to be aware and put the dots together. The dots are together, the connection is very subtle. Those of us who spend time reading and trying to figure out how globalization works and what’s happening in our world today try to put those thoughts together. Being in Latin American Studies she sees the dots very clearly. Setting aside the Columbian human rights issue, she is still very worried about The University of Montana signing long-term contracts with corporations. Public education should not do business with corporations just because it is financially convenient. She probably is naïve, but faculty need to be somewhat naïve in order to go on thinking. She is against the contract and would be very proud if the university terminated the contract with Coke.

Senator Valentin commented that the Senate shouldn’t take the issue of the University involvement with corporate money that has blood attached to it lightly. We all know that there is sweat involved with most companies, but when there is something more such as violations of human rights it should not be ignored. It seems that the Senate should find a way to look into the matter.

Senator Gillison stated that a three hour Google search doesn’t seem to be sufficient.

Valentin: The information will not be found in Google.

Senator Gillison commented that Vice President Duringer indicated that if the connection is proven the University would be out of the contract. So perhaps a little more effort should be taken to try to find out what the connection is between Coke USA and Columbia. Also the Faculty might like to know what Vice President Duringer did find out when he searched for information.

Jay Bossner, a teaching assistant on campus responded that Vice President Duringer actually did connect the dots on the diagram. Those apposed to the contract did not make claims that Coke Atlanta is giving orders to the Columbians. Coca Cola is being sold and bottled in Columbia. It is Atlanta’s corporation and they own 26% of FEMSA. Coke in Atlanta has every right to tell Coke in Columbia to stop its practices. The connection is there. What Vice President Duringer provided as evidence is not research. A petition has been started that indicates the campus community wants to be informed, to put the issue to rest, and calls for an independent investigation. The University should ask Coca Cola to participate in an investigation undertaken by an independent legal body. Ask Human Rights Watch to do something to find out what is going on. Ask Amnesty International to participate in the investigation. The investigation has to be independent. A public institution should not trust the Corporation to investigate themselves.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 PM.