Meeting, February 10, 2004
Gallagher Business Building, Room 123
Approved 3/10/05

Members Present:	E. Ametsbichler, T. Atkins, D. Beck, N. Bradley-Browning, S. Brewer, C. Bruneau, G. Cobbs, J. Crepeau, D. Dalenberg, L. Dent, S. Derry, P. Dietrich, D. Doyle, J. Eglin, W. Freimund, M. Fromm, S. Ganesh, F. Glass, S. Gordon, T. Herron, K. Hill, R. Hughes, J. Hunt, C. Johnston, R. Judd, S. Kalm, A. Kinch, B. Knowles, B. Larson, J. Laskin, R. Ledbetter, M. Mayer J. McNulty, V. Micheletto, N. Nickerson A. Peterson, D. Potts, E. Putnam, J. Sears, D. Schuldberg, P. Silverman, G. Smith, A. Sondag, F. Snyder, S. Stiff, T.Tonev, M. Tonon, A. Ware, C. Winkler, S. Woods
Members Excused	D. Bedunah, J. Carter, M. DeGrandpre, S. Gaskill, L. Gillison, J. Gritzner, C. Lawrence, H. Thompson
Members Absent	J. Belz, E. Edlund, H. Eggleston, J. Henry, W. Holben, J. Glendening, M. Monsos, F. Rosenzweig, M. Valentin
Ex-Officio Present:	Provost Muir, Registrar Bain, Associate Provost Staubs and Walker-Andrews, and UFA President Kupilik

Registrar Bain called roll.

The minutes from 12/9/04 were amended and approved.

Chair Winkler announced that there would be a change in the agenda order. Dr Bell will address student’s medical documentation first under communication. After the UFA communicates we will skip to old business and then back to the Chair’s report.

Communications:

Dr. Bell, Director, Curry Health Center
The Curry Health Center provides students with three kinds of medical documentation, mostly to meet the needs of faculty for proof that the medical reasons are legitimate. One is simply a class excuse for situations where attendance is required. The second is for medical withdrawal, where the student withdraws completely from the semester for medical reasons. In this situation CHC reviews the medical information to assure it meets the regulations and communicates with the Registrar’s Office regarding the legitimacy of medical withdrawal. The third type of documentation is for a student to drop one or more classes. The University requires students to appeal to a professor to drop a class after the fifteenth day of the semester. For years the CHC had a simple fill in the blank form. Over the past few years the CHC received feedback from faculty members that it appeared from the form that the doctor was actually granting the permission to drop the class. The form has been revised to clarify this confusion and reassure students that the nature of the health problem is confidential.

In all of the situations, the advantage of having CHC involved in the process is to validate the legitimacy of the medical issue and respect the privacy of the patient who is sometimes uncomfortably telling faculty about the nature of the illness. Occasionally the CHC hears from students that they feel pressured from faculty to share the nature of their condition. He is convinced that this is a misperception and that a lot of faculty are quite concerned and caring. Because faculty are seen in a position of authority students are reluctant to say no. He does not want to discourage concern. Faculty are often in a position to spot situations where a student needs help and early intervention could save them from having to withdraw. At some point he would like to have continued dialogue with the Senate on ways to improve the referral process.

Provost Muir
Academic Naming
As requested by ECOS the Provost spoke about appropriate naming for colleges and schools. Universities of our size have typically changed their collegiate units to colleges; even small schools have adopted the college name. Thus, the naming at UM is a bit out of date with the rest of the country. This matters because there are connotations. The term school implies a small place. In the early days of academic planning naming was discussed and ideas were explored about different names and units. Over time different groups have discussed changing their names. The College of Forestry and Conservation for example, now has three departments. In this instance there was a minimal cost due to the chair stipends for each department. This change went through faculty governance and was approved by the Board of Regents.

The School of Pharmacy proposed a name change in the fall that combined a college name with school names. It is common for professional program areas to have school names. Schools are another form of organization within a college. In this situation the schools are an equivalent to a department. This follows a tradition around the country of schools of social work, which can be either dependent or independent. In this case the school is dependent. Another unit that could think about a name change is Fine Arts. It is not uncommon to have a school of music as apposed to a department. This issue is up to the faculty in the fine arts to discuss. A school does not necessarily imply that there is a dean. At Kent State University there were mostly colleges with some schools under a college, in which case the schools would have a chair or director.

The proposed change in Pharmacy is a rather elegant organizing name because it allows the use of a donor’s name.

Senator Schulberg had two concerns about possible truth in advertising issues. The first is the apparent size of departments, schools and colleges. In this case the School of Social Work is smaller than many departments at UM and gives an illusion of greater size. As a member of Psychology that is in many ways a Health Science he is concerned that the overarching term may be somewhat exclusionary and that the Department of Psychology is being left out of something that we should belong to conceptually. His other concern is about administrative implications.

The Provost responded that the proposal does not have implications for administrative structure. There is a dean of the college and the proposed schools directors are the current department chairs. The personnel don’t change. Size is not the critical dimension of why a unit is called a school or department. In this case the school naming is more about professional entities. On this campus we have a school that is smaller than many departments. So at UM names have not been based on size.

Senator Silverman asked whether there were any other schools on campus that do not have departments under it.

Provost: Up until last year there was Journalism and Forestry. At most universities schools do not have departments under them. At UM schools are interchangeable with departments, and this is not an uncommon way to structure. There are no implications for governance. Faculty decide how they want to be organized with regards to governance. Over time the administrative structure may evolve, but this would be more a function of size.

Senator Johnston indicated that after the last meeting he researched the naming structure of other western universities. The size of schools of social work vary-- University of Denver = 28 faculty, New Mexico State = 10 faculty, Boise State = 13 faculty, Colorado State = 16 faculty. So the “school” name does not imply a large faculty base. A large part of the naming scheme is contingent on a separate accreditation agency, a separate student selection process, and identification as a separate and distinct professional programs, which all of the programs in the proposal have. A significant benefit to the proposed name change is the ability to honor Skaggs and the possibility of using the name of a future donor for the schools. The name change is just a step to address what is happening in pharmacy.

The Provost responded to the term health profession. The accredited clinical psychology program could be included in health professions. However, she imagines most are not under health science. Generally psychology departments align themselves in a certain area and it varies across the country. Some clinical psychology programs are in science, liberal arts, or education.

Senator Schuldberg asked about the governance component. If a department wanted to change to a school with a dean rather than a chair, what would be the procedure?

The Provost responded that across the country there is a trend to reduce academic deans because of administrative issues. An increase in deans would be going against the current legislative cost constraints.

Senator Schuldberg commented that this would make a great deal of sense in Psychology so he is inquiring about regulations and procedures involved.

The Provost explained that a change from a chair to a dean is a qualitative change and would have contractual and other implications.

Senior Schuldberg asked how this would be explored.

According to the Provost discussions would need to take place with the faculty, the union and the administration.

Chair Winkler stated that ECOS would research the issue and report back to the Senate.

Senator Johnston indicated that most likely this type of a change would be a level II proposal because it would require additional funds. The Pharmacy name change is a level I because it is revenue neutral.

The Provost responded that the issue doesn’t fit within the parameters of the level I/level II structure. This type of change is not in the current proposal, but if it were it would be voted on subsequently.

Legislative Transfer Audit

The Board of Regents established workgroups to address the recommendations of the legislative transfer audit. The Provost sent in names for faculty leadership. Almost all of the workgroups have a faculty member from UM. The Provost was put on the general education workgroup. She asked John Eglin, Chair of the General education to listen in during the first teleconference. Her reading of the politics is that there will not be implications on units having a distinctive general education program. There may be other innovative things that might come out of the workgroups related to transfer issues.

Senator Mayer asked about the Regents’ policy mandate that students, who complete general education at one university, have completed general education at any university within the Montana University System. So that the unique general education program would only apply to students who are enrolled at UM from the beginning and any student that completed general education at another MUS institution would be exempt.

The Provost questioned whether it was a good idea to structure general education this way, when innovation in general education doesn’t work within these confines. The Regent on the workgroup would like to follow-up on this issue, but it will be in the longer term. The Provost’s guess is that all institutions feel strongly about the distinctiveness about their programs. The uniqueness of the institution dictates how general education is devised. She thinks the workgroup will agree on this issue. There could be a statewide core that can be pieced together for transfer students, but this is just a guess.

Budget

Since last spring the Provost has worked with the deans on resource investment in academic affairs. The process evolved with more and more specificity. Each year the Provost and the deans go through a reallocation process where all the vacancy savings are taken and redistributed according to justified priorities. Most of the time deans will argue for positions vacated, so usually there are very little funds to move around. The deans also bring forward requests for new money.

In fiscal year 2004-2005 academic affairs received a total of $900,000 in new money. The final budget request for the next biennium was approved by the Board of Regents with a total of $1,800,000 in new money ($900,000 each year). A piece of this budget caused some concern in ASCRC. The funds designated for English composition lecturers do not imply a new requirement for a second composition course. There have been conversations about more composition for students but a final decision is still pending. The problem is that if the faculty decide that an additional composition course is needed there won’t be the money to support it. So the earmark is an attempt to be prepared and get some money for the possible eventuality. The sum is not enough for a second composition requirement. The faculty will determine the requirements in curriculum development. Curriculum is not established through top down means. The Provost has supported pilot projects for additional composition courses. English came forward with four courses crafted for humanities, social science, science and one for business. The pilot courses are designed to see whether the courses would be helpful to students. These courses have had some success in enrollment and it is not required, so this indicates that there is some interest by students.

Senator Johnston asked about the flexibility of the earmarked budget. If the faculty decide a second composition course was not needed, what would happen to the money?

The Provost stated that it would still be used for English instruction. The current requirement is designed to have a second lower-division writing course and there are not enough courses. Usually the budget is used according to the request.

Senator Hill inquired about the Missoulian article referencing a building funds bill for colleges of technology in which UM’s College of Technology was missing.

The Provost responded that the bill follows the long range planning committee’s priorities. UM’s College of Technology is included in the planning, but for authority only because the intention is to get external funds to cover the costs. The College of Technology does need funds and has $300,000 built into the biennium budget which will help, but the needs continue.

Academic Affairs is very pleased that the budget has gotten this far and is optimistic. The new budgeting approach biased on Regent Mercer’s suggestion to start with what is needed for a quality education and then back into tuition has been interesting. It seems that the university is in a more positive situation as a result.

University Faculty President Mike Kupilik

UFA President Kupilik spoke about the fate of House Bill 430 which would have equalized the state contribution to TRS and TIAAcref. He testified in favor of the bill last week. The Director of TRS testified that TRS had no objection to the bill. Kupilik also spoke to several republican legislators. One of which, said he would vote to move the bill out of committee. Yesterday the bill was tabled, so we will see.
He attended the higher education portion of the appropriations committee meeting. The tenor of the meeting was much different than it has been in the last 15 years. He thinks that Governor Schweitzer’s appropriation bill for higher education will probably pass. The provision in Senate Bill 447 calling for 100% funding of the university pay plan was amended to fund at 39%. At the appropriations meeting there was talk to increase this percentage to 50% or approximately $2 million dollars. This would be very helpful.

The UFA is bargaining the contract right now. There has not yet been discussion of the difficult issues. Discussion regarding compensation and evaluations will start at the next bargaining session on Friday 2/18/04. They have had discussions about directors and concluded positions that function as a chair, are still faculty and should be in the unit. The Union would be interested if there was an effort to exclude positions from the Union by changing the title. He is heading for Helena after the meeting.

Old Business:

Renaming of the School of Pharmacy to the College of Health Professions and Biomedical Sciences
Under the College there would be three schools: Skaggs School of Pharmacy (comprised of the Departments of Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Sciences and the Department of Pharmacy Practice); School of Social Work (formerly Department of Social Work); and School of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Science (formerly Department of Physical Therapy)

Senator Johnston read a letter from the Dean of the School of Pharmacy who was unable to attend the meeting.

The proposal to change the name of the School of Pharmacy and Allied Health Sciences to the College of Health Professions and Biomedical Sciences will not result in new deans. I will be the Dean of the College and I also will have a role as the Dean of the Skaggs School of Pharmacy. Our intention is neither to exclude other departments nor to include them.

Our proposed College doesn’t not have imperial aspirations! This proposal changes the designation from School to College in recognition of the complexity of the overarching entity.

It is my understanding that this University has had schools in the past without departments and may have such schools in the future.

In summary, my colleagues and I have neither intention nor plans for using a College designation to disadvantage any campus unit or any of or any of our campus colleagues. We are fortunate to have experienced tremendous growth on this campus. We have been good campus citizens and we have developed strong collegial relationships with a number of campus academic units including, but not limited to, Chemistry, Mathematical Sciences, Biological Sciences, and Health and Human Performance. We ask for your support on this issue.

The proposal was approved unanimously

Communications Continued:
Chair’s Report:

Shared Leadership

Chair Winkler informed the Senate that the shared leadership project has been progressing. Steering committee and advisory committees have been established. She is a member of the Access to Education Advisory Committee. The report posted on the agenda includes the steering committees recommendations. The report also includes a summary of costs for the proposed recommendations.

In response to the question of what will become of the project, the provost commented that it depends on whether money is allocated.

Legislative Transfer Audit

Another item that has caused a lot of activity is the legislative transfer audit. The Board of Regents established workgroups to address the recommendations. You will find the recommendations summarized at the end of the report available on the Faculty Senate Website. The General Education Committee is considering the impact on UM’s program. The audit covered transferability issues within majors as well.

Committee Reports:

ASCRC Chair Don Potts

The curriculum consent agenda was approved.

General Education Committee Chair John Eglin

The committee has been sorting out the consequence of the audit. The charge of the committee has been modified slightly by ECOS. Mainly the deadline has been lifted to have models presented to the Senate for vote in April. They hope to have something not too long after the deadline and should have a preamble available for review in March.

He will try to monitor the Board of Regents General Education Core workgroup and is cautiously optimistic that the university will be able to preserve its autonomy.

Senator Knowles asked who was responsible for not having a member of the General Education Committee on the Board of Regent’s Workgroup.

Eglin responded that the decision was made by the Commissioner of Higher Education’s Office. Only one person from each campus was appointed to the workgroups and all of the Provosts wanted to be on the General Education Core Workgroup. UM does have representation on the workgroups, there just isn’t any overlap with the General Education Committee. However, the Provost is on the BOR general education workgroup and will keep Eglin apprised of any relevant developments.

Senator Johnston asked whether there were any students on the workgroups.

Chair Winkler indicated that this was brought up at the Board of Regents meeting, but the Associate Commissioner of Higher Education did not address the issue.

Graduate Council Chair Rick Hughes
The curriculum consent agenda was approved. The Council had the opportunity to review the revised proposal for a Masters in Public Health and was impressed with the thought and coordination that have gone into the proposal and did not have any issues. The program will now be initiated in stages.

New Business:

Review of Centers
Each year the Executive Committee of the Senate evaluates current Centers according to Academic Policy 100.0 (103.0). This year there were a total of seven scheduled for review. ECOS has completed four of them and recommends continuation. The other three should be on the agenda in March. The recommendations made by ECOS were approved for the Centers with some comments that are listed below.

The Provost noted an error in the Policy that is available on the University Web Page. The policy was approved by the President not the Vice President of Administration and Finance. There have been a few changes made to the electronic policies that are not in line with references in the collective bargaining agreement.

The Bolle Center for People and its Forest

Senator Dietrich inquired about the following comment. “It is unclear, however, to what extent these other academic units, faculty, and organizations have and do contribute “hands on” to the projects. In general, the Center appears to have a beneficial relationship to CFC units, by means of research projects that also involve students, courses, and advising for students, as well as public engagement that combines academic research with issues of public interest.” This was a reflection of the material included in the report and may not represent the actual relationships with academic units.

Public Policy Research Institute
There was an amendment made to the document for the Public Policy Research Institute. The reporting line should only reference the Office of Research and not include the advisory committee for the Natural Resource Conflict Resolution Program.

Montana Business Connections

Montana Business Connections does not currently have a budget. The operation has been scaled back. The director is currently working .5 for the Bureau of Business and Economic Research assisting with data analysis, database development and administration, information technology and systems administration needs. He is maintaining MBC’s websites and databases and responding to inquiries while pursuing funding opportunities. Basic expenses of $100 per month for phone, postage and connectivity are covered by funds from its SPABA account. The report does not show how the entity is monitoring or evaluating its success. In the absence of any new funding the center will cease to exist. Thus ECOS recommends that the MBC be reviewed again in two years.

Good & Welfare:
The Provost indicated that she should have announced during communications that interviews for the Dean of the Davidson Honors College will be starting soon. The Provost’s Office will arrange meetings with various groups and send out announcements.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:43 PM.