Meeting,
Approved 5/5/05
|
Members Present: |
E. Ametsbichler, N.
Bradley-Browning, C. Bruneau, J. Crepeau, D. Dalenberg, L. Dent, S. Derry, P. Dietrich, D. Doyle, E.
Edlund, J. Eglin, H. Eggleston, W. Freimund, M. Fromm, F. Glass, J.
Glendening, L. Gillison, T. Herron, K.
Hill, J. Hunt, R. C. Johnston, Judd, S.
Kalm, C. Knight, B. Knowles, J.
Laskin, C. |
|
Members Excused |
D. Bedunah, D. Beck, S.
Brewer, G. Cobbs, J. Carter, S. Ganesh, J. Gritzner, W. Holben, R. Hughes, B.
Larson, N. Nickerson, D. Schuldberg, G.
Smith, A. Sondag, S. Stiff, H. Thompson, M.
Valentin |
|
Members Absent |
T. Atkins, J. Belz, M.
DeGrandpre, S. Gaskill, S. Gordon, J. Henry, F. Rosenzweig, P. Silverman, F. Snyder,
S. Woods |
|
Ex-Officio Present: |
President Dennison, Provost
Muir, Registrar Bain, Associate Provost Staubs and Walker-Andrews,
and UFA President Kupilik |
|
Guests: |
Joe Campana-interim
co-director of English Composition |
Registrar Bain called roll.
The minutes from
Communications:
President Dennison
President Dennison provided
the Senate with an update on the budget and the legislative process. A
different budget request approach was used by the Regents this legislative
session. The approach was to do a
calculation of what the expenditure levels should be in order to accommodate
the anticipated students and maintain the current programs. Once the expenditure levels were set, a
computation was performed and approved.
This was a difficult process because Administration and Finance was not
accustomed to calculations from this side of the equation. Typically the
process involved waiting for the general fund allocation decision, then
calculating how much of a tuition increase was possible. This became the budget and Administration and
Finance squeezed expenditures and salary needs into it. The approach this time was quite the reverse.
Out of the process came a number that the University was expected to hold firm
and justify to the legislature. Then the
governor’s recommendation and the committees’ activities were considered and a
tuition figure was devised that would allow the university to meet expenditures. Chairman Mercer is advocating for the new
approach. He uses the analogy of planning to cross the
Approximations were used for
salary figures based on the incoming governor’s state pay plan increases.
Salary increases have been approved for the state at 3.5%, or a little over
$1,000 depending on salary level for FY 2006 starting in October, with approximately
an additional $55/mo toward health benefits.
The second year the increase is 4% or a little over $1100 depending on
salary level, with approximately $50/mo additional toward health care. Salary negotiations are continuing for the
faculty at UM. Included in the calculation were approximations for inflationary
increases (present law adjustments) such as energy, library and enrollment
increases. A figure was provided to the legislature that was based on the
Governor’s recommended appropriations. This figure would require a tuition
increase of approximately 7.5 to 7.75% for resident students, and about an 8.5
to 8.75% increase for non-residents.
The legislature agreed to
all the present law adjustments. Last
year it did not agree to any. There was also a change with regard to the level
it was funded from appropriated money. In the past when the present law
adjustments were calculated, the Governor’s Budget Office looked at the
operating budgets to see what percentage came from the general fund and what
percent came from tuition and then covered the portion of the increase by the
percentage the operating budget was general fund. Since the early 90s this was usually a 30%
general fund, 70% tuition split. This year, the Governor’s and the legislative
committees’ recommended an 80/20 split (80% general fund, 20% tuition). This is
still in the basic appropriations bill, House Bill 2. This is a much better arrangement than in the
past. Unfortunately the traditional
30/70 approach was used to fund the pay plan. This will take a 4-5% tuition
increase just to cover the state pay plan, and faculty increases are still in
negotiations. In any case this is a fair
budget, given what we have had in the past. Taking into account the tuition
increases, it represents about a 7.5% increase in total budget for the next two
years.
The two parts to the long range building program are cash and bonds. The Martz administration did not have a
bonding program. The cash program was
supplemented by a good portion of the money left in the ending fund
balance. The Martz administration
dedicated a good portion of this money to deferred maintenance. This will allow
us to repair our steam line in one biennium rather than two. This allocation is
still intact.
There has also been action
by the
There is also a bonding
program that finally came through dedicated to the colleges of technology.
There is a piece in the program for the Montana Historical Society that is
causing some controversy. They are
trying to acquire an abandoned shopping mall in
President Dennison suspects
that House Bill 2 will hold, hopefully House Bill 5 will hold with the
provisions for the two campus buildings, and the bonding will be successful in
terms of UM concerns.
The University is looking
fairly good with regard to student recruitment numbers. The Senate should
request Vice President Teresa Branch to speak about enrollment numbers for next
year. The initiative of targeting non-residents in recruitment is working, as
is the effort that includes scholarships as an enticement for them to come. The
application numbers are up. The recruitment
numbers that are soft are resident students.
The reasons for this could be the decline in the cohort group and the
increased cost of tuition. We
anticipated this decline in resident enrollment. Of particular concern is that smaller proportions
of graduating seniors are not taking the ACT or SAT and the reason for this is
unclear. Perhaps they believe college is
not possible for them given what has happened to tuition. The University is trying to address this by
enhancing the scholarship money that is available. In this regard the Board of Regents approved
a proposal to add 16 presidential leadership scholarships for each of the next
two years.
In addition, this spring it
was discovered that we were down resident students compared to the projection
using the usual trend forecasting. The academic
profile of the students who stayed and those who left is similar. These were upper-division
students who left. It is clear that they
have invested a lot of time in their education already. It becomes clear from the financial profile
of these students that those who left had a greater need then those who stayed.
The difference was approximately $1,600. So next year we will put some loans
and grants in place to help retain and graduate these students. If we can retain them over the long term it
is beneficial to them and us.
Senator Judd asked where the
money for these grants would come from. President Dennison answered that the
money was identified as an expenditure in the budget
that was approved by the Regents. So a
portion of revenue from tuition would be used for those who need the financial
assistance. There is about three million a year that goes out in scholarships
through the available endowments, but this would be over and above that.
Senator Gillison asked about
the levels of the presidential leadership scholarships. The President responded
at the platinum level.
Senator Moore asked for the
President’s thoughts regarding the
There was a lot of pressure
from donors and alums in the
Provost Muir
Provost Muir thanked the faculty who participated
in the meetings for the five-year interim accreditation visit. The results were very positive. The University was commended in four areas:
1) Ingenuity to move forward even with constrained resources, 2) master plan,
3) diversity, and 4) assessment. Recommendations
were made for improvements in two areas: 1) deferred maintenance and space, and
2) assessment.
It was recommended that all departments be using assessment data to make
decisions about the program. This
involves completing all three assessment steps: devising the learning that is
expected from the program, devising ways to assess or measure the learning, and
making decisions based on this information. Some units are completing the full
loop so that improvements are made based on the data.
Another recommendation was
for all programs to inform students of the learning outcomes in their majors. So the Provost has asked the deans to publish
the learning outcomes on department websites.
She also asked ASUM for ideas. A
student suggested that the information be provided to students when they
enrolled. Another possibility is to put the information in the catalog.
The third recommendation is related to general education. The University needs to ensure than general education
is assessed as an integrated whole in relationship to the goals of the general
education program. It is important for
those involved with the general education review to devise a way for the
overall goals of general education be assessed as a whole.
Academic Affairs has started
a new collegiate learning assessment that is a nation wide measurement to assess
critical thinking.
The Academic Convocation is
planned before classes begin on Saturday, August 27th. Student Affairs believes it can get students
to attend. Harry Fritz and one of the Regents
Professors will speak at the convocation.
The book that has been
selected for the freshmen reading experience is Sherman Alexie’s,
The Lone Ranger and Tonto,
Fist Fight in Heaven. Sherman Alexie will visit campus tentatively the second week in
October.
Graduation Lists
Provost Muir presented corrections
to the fall 2004 graduation lists and candidates for spring 2005. One late PhD student was added to the spring
2005 list. The lists were approved
unanimously.
Electronic theses and dissertations, presented by John
Greer, Head of the Mansfield
John Greer presented a brief
power point presentation. Electronic
theses and dissertations are simply an electronic representation of student’s
work. The files can also include multi-media.
Universities are moving to electronic dissertations because it increases access. For example Virginia Tech had over 7 million downloads
in 2002/03. The most access to a single
item was 72 thousand times. The most circulated
dissertation at UM was checked out less then 100 times. The electronic format allows for flexibility
and introduces students to digital publishing.
The majority of the access to the library today is through electronic resources
such as journals. Having the theses and
dissertations available electronically will conserve shelf space for the
library so that items on shelf are the most used. Also the electronic access makes the material
available to students in a much shorter time frame.
In February 2004 a committee was established to look into issue. It developed recommendations that have been
refined and approved by the Graduate council, the Faculty
Recommendations:
The
R1)
The student will recommend one of 5 levels of access
restrictions to the
1. Freely available worldwide.
2. Freely available to current students, faculty, and
staff of the University only
3. No access for a period of one year. (This can be
extended in one year increments by contacting the
4. Release the entire work for UM access only, and
selected portions worldwide.
5. No Access
The five levels provide
flexibility for students who are planning to publish.
Senator Judd asked why a public university would ever have a dissertation with
no access. Greer responded that this is
allowed in cases that involve security clearance or trade secrets and are very
uncommon. The Provost added that the document does exist in the archives, but
access is blocked.
R2)
The basic format for an electronic dissertation will
be Adobe PDF. Supporting files for audio/video materials will also be
allowed. The file formats listed below
are supported.
Text
- pdf
Images-
pdf, jpeg, gif, tiff, png
Video-
mpeg, quicktime, avi
Audio-
wav, aiff, mp3,
R3)
Students will be required to submit the committee approved draft electronically
to the
R4)
Students will be required to submit the final committee approved dissertations
electronically to the
R5)
The Graduate School will continue to copyright and archive the certified
dissertations with UMI
R6)
The library will retain a bound paper copy of the
dissertation in the archives. This will be printed from the electronic copy by
the library, where possible. Supporting files may be archived in electronic
format. The library will charge students on a cost-recovery basis for this
service. Departments are free to print a paper copy for departmental collections.
R7)
The library will be responsible for protecting,
preserving and maintaining access to the certified electronic copy of the
dissertation by following Best Management Practices.
R8)
The library and graduate school will work together to
develop an online tutorial to ensure the successful production of electronic
dissertations.
R9)
The library will install Adobe Acrobat on the main
floor computers to allow for conversion of the completed dissertation to PDF
format. Additionally several
workstations are available for full multimedia creation.
R10)
Masters thesis and professional papers will be considered for inclusion in the
same process, with the same recommendations, potentially excluding ProQuest/UMI, after the successful implementation of
electronic doctoral dissertations.
Senator Gillison asked
whether this was going to be the only way students would submit dissertations. Greer confirmed that the student would only
submit electronically to the
The Provost asked for
clarification regarding a recommendation made by her that one bound copy would
be provided to the library so that the archives are preserved.
Gillison then asked whether
the student pays for and provides the bound copy as is the current practice. Greer responded that the library would be
printing the copy from the electronic file.
The Provost indicated that
there should be some discussion to ensure integrity and it may be that the
student will be required to provide a bound copy with the electronic
submission.
Dean Strobel indicated that
the order could be easily handled by the inclusion of the signature page with
the copy printed and bound by the library.
The dissertations will appear in the library just like other
dissertations.
Senator Judd asked whether
there was any significant cost to students.
Greer responded that the new procedure should be revenue neutral. The students will be required to supply one
bound copy rather than several. The
Senator Knowles asked about
the procedure for professional projects that replace theses in some disciplines
that are done in a different format such as DVD. Greer indicated that this has yet been discussed
yet. These will have to be evaluated to
make sure the recommendations cover them.
There are currently DVD projects available on the web.
The Provost suggested that
R6 needs to be clarified. The library’s role is not to certify integrity of the
dissertation.
Senator Edlund commented
that it should be open to students to supply a bound copy because the quality
of PDF is still not the same as the original.
Chair-Elect Crepeau
indicated that there is a potential to alter the electronic file so that it
would not be the same as the document the committee members certified.
Dean Strobel suggested that
the process could be simplified by requiring the student to submit a paper copy
that is certified by the committee and the dean and electronic file of the
document. Then the same process of
binding the paper copy will take place. This will be the copy archived by the
library. Electronic copies of doctoral
dissertations are also archived by UMI. UMI warehouses the files in three
different locations. So basically UM’s electronic dissertations will increase the security.
The recommendation will need
to be revised.
It is expected the process
will be in place by fall graduation.
The amended recommendations
will come to the Senate for a vote at the May meeting.
Mike Kupilik, UFA President
It looks like House Bill 2
is pretty well set. House Bill 2 does
call for increases to the university budget, about 6.7 million in enrollment
growth and operation costs. This includes about 13.4 million for new proposals
under the shared leadership for a strong
However, one has to remember
that in 2003 the legislature eliminated over 39 million dollars in present law
adjustments. This leaves us down 16
million dollars from where we started the 2003 budget.
We are better off then Martz
ravaging but we are not back to where we were before Martz second budget. On April 1st there was an effort
by the legislature to cut 4.5 million dollars from the university budget. He
was in
The
Chair Winkler asked when the
two sections will be bargained. Kupilik
responded that they are being bargained right now.
Chairs Report – BOR meeting
Chair Winkler and
Chair-Elect Crepeau reported on the March Board of Regents meeting. The meeting was fairly interesting. The Academic
and Student Affairs Committee makes recommendations to
the Board of Regents on academic issues.
The Committee met from
The Outdated Course Work policy stipulates that any course work taken within
5yrs will be considered in a transfer analysis for the major. Courses taken within 15 years will be
considered for general education and electives.
This policy was not controversial.
The draft Systems of Control
policy was somewhat controversial because it stipulates that within 5 days of
receipt of an application for transfer or an admissions file, the institution
will send the student a communication identifying what additional information
is necessary to complete the transfer file. The student will be informed of the
final credit decision for his or her major no latter than the last day for
which it is possible to add courses for the term in progress. The faculty
representatives raised the concern that this would not be enough time to
complete the determination. After
considerable discussion, the committee approved the policy but said that if it
turns out to be unworkable it can be changed latter.
Chair Winkler would like to hear the Senates feedback. Senator Putnam commented
that the policy should have been fixed up front.
There was considerable
discussion regarding the draft policy on minimum transfer grades. The draft policy defines the minimum grade
accepted for transfer work as a C. This
is problematic for UM because of the plus minus grading system. During the debate it was commented that the
minimum grade required to pass any course should be a C. The issue was sent back to committee. Since then there have been various solutions
proposed, such as require a grade of C- or better, or D- or better. Chair Winkler must get back to the committee
with the thoughts of the faculty so she would like to hear ideas from the
senators. At this point the policy would
only apply to students transferring within the system.
Senator Knowles stated
certainly grades lower than a C should not be accepted and a C- would be an
arguable point for campuses that use plus/minus grading. A C- minus is pretty low.
Senator Hill indicated that
the C range should be acceptable because sometimes there isn’t much difference
in the grading scale.
Knowles contends that there
could be quite a difference in the C range depending on the professor’s scale.
Chair-Elect Crepeau added that as the discussion progressed, the Regents
discovered that plus/minus grading is optional.
This lead to a suggestion to mandate the use of
plus/minus, and then degenerated into a suggestion to mandate grading scales in
terms of what is a C and a C-.
Senator Ledbetter recommended the use of grade points such as 2.0 or better,
similar to the language in UM’s catalog that defines
a C as 2.0 quality points.
Senator Laskin indicated that this could put UM students at a disadvantage
compared to campuses that do not use plus/minus grading because even a low C
would still be assigned 2.0 points.
Senator Glass clarified that
UM assigns specific values to letter grades and a C- = 1.67.
Chair-elect Crepeau is under
the impression that the Regents would be satisfied with the recommendation of a
C- if it resolves the issue.
Registrar Bain indicated
that the Regents are attempting to respond to the Legislative audit to
facilitate ease of transfer for students within the system, but the draft
policies will make in more difficult to transfer and will cause unequal
treatment of students. Current UM
students are allowed to count Ds toward the 120 credits required for
graduation.
The last draft policy discussed was the Gen Ed transfer policy. One of the most concerning issues is the
structure and function of the
The Provost indicated that
there was a workgroup meeting, but she was unable to attend. She was informed that this concern was raised
at the meeting, but the recommendation is that the Commissioner of Higher
Senator Mayer strongly
stated that the faculty determine curriculum.
The Regents are moving into
an area that is governed by the faculty.
The Regents need to be reminded of their limitations.
The Provost indicated it
might be helpful to suggest specific wording changes. Although she missed the meeting, the notification
was disseminated regarding a modification that establishes the minimum transfer
grade as a C-. You cannot say to the
Regents just stay out of curriculum matters.
Chair-elect Crepeau’s understanding of the situation is that the
Regents’ power is in the state’s constitution and faculty governance is
not. Regents are in a power position,
yet they do not want to be involved in micro managing the units. They are only
looking at lower division general education and would like to see “apples
compared to apples.” To their way of thinking an ENEX or HIST 101 on every
campus should have relatively the same content.
Senator Mayer disagrees with
the Regents’ core transfer mandate. It
interferes with the individual character of the various units within the
system. Montana Tech has a very
different mission than UM or
Chair Winkler reminded the
Senate that the core has existed for some time and it was not designed to
enforce change to campuses’ general education programs. The legislative audit found that the campuses
were not in compliance.
Senator Mayer asked who
determined the core.
Chair Elect Crepeau stated
that his understanding is that the core is not a set of classes designated by
the Regents, but rather a container or framework for local institutions to plug
in their courses. The Regents are not
mandating changes to campuses’ general education programs but rather enforcing
how the transferable core is applied.
Senator Mayer responded that
the requirements in the policy fundamentally change our general education for
transfer students.
Senator Eglin commented that
it appears that the Regents have not finished formulating the criteria for the
core courses.
Senator Moore asked how the Council’s
function is different from the Regents’ oversight status, and whether the
charge outlined in the draft policy is indeed a broadening of their power.
Chair Winkler responded that
the Council’s charge is on a micro level in terms of approving a list of
courses.
The policy is too vague in
terms of how the Council is created and who determines the membership. Who
exactly is the Montana University System?
The policy should indicate that the faculty governance body on each
campus shall appoint faculty to serve on the Council.
In Chair-Elect Crepeau’s opinion the establishment of the Council was
added to the policy to choose appropriate courses to satisfy the core because
the Regents themselves are not in a position to do so.
Senator Eglin suggested that
the Senate make a recommendation to amend the policy language to stipulate that
the faculty governance bodies appoint faculty to serve on the Council rather
than allowing the responsibility to fall back to the Commissioner of Higher
Chair Winkler indicated that
when the various workgroups were created to work on the transfer issues, the
Commissioner’s Office did not ask for nominations from the Faculty Senate. So she doesn’t believe there is a precedence for involving faculty governance bodies in the
process.
Senator Hill commented that
it seems as though by establishing the Council in number 6 of the policy the
Regents have taken over control of the procedure to approve courses that
fulfill the MUS core. They can determine who will serve on the Council and
micromanage in that way.
President Dennison recalls
that the original discussion goes back to the early nineties when Dick Walton
was the chair of the Senate. At that
time there was a rather elaborate discussion on whether one size fits all and the
definition of a baccalaureate degree. Is it just a total number of credits or
does it represent an integration of major, general education and elective
courses. The MUS Core was designed to be
the minimum number of credits counted toward general education for transfer
students. It was not intended to be the
definition of general education imposed on The University of Montana. That was the agreement. However, there are not many people left in
the commissioner’s office or the Regents that remember the discussion. What has happened now is that the MUS Core
has been interpreted as how general education is defined within the
Chair Winkler would welcome
comments. She has to submit a
recommendation to the Regents on Monday and will take into consideration
today’s discussion.
The Provost indicated that the section (#9) pertaining to Indian
Committee Reports
The curriculum motion
was approved.
The dormant course
list was presented to the Senate as a point of information. Potts reviewed
Writing Suggestions
Last month
Some of the suggestions are simple recommendations to the administration.
Senator Mayer stated that it
is nonsense to claim the administration is not making an effort to get the
message across to students. Nancy
Mattina is making an extraordinary effort to communicate information about the
assessment to students.
Potts indicated that
Catalog Language
One of the proactive actions
that can take place is to require that students pass ENEX 101 with a C or
better. The idea is to make students who
are not performing well do better.
Originally the WPA was intended to be a gate to upper-division courses.
Changing catalog language to require that the WPA be taken between 45 – 70
credits rather than between 45-90 is to encourage students to take the exam
earlier and not as a senior.
Registrar Bain asked whether plus/minus grading was
used in ENEX 101. Joe Campana-interim co-director of English Composition
responded yes.
Senator McNulty informed the
Senate that a passing grade of C is also required for the Math proficiency.
Final Preamble
Eglin asked whether the faculty in the Natural Sciences feel included by the reference
to liberal arts and professional programs.
They did. The final preamble
draft was approved unanimously
Good and Welfare - none
Executive Session
The posthumous degree for
Nick Porter, a senior in percussion performance, was approved.
The meeting was adjourned at