Meeting, May 5, 2005
Gallagher Business Building, Room 123

                                                            DRAFT                                                           

 

Members Present:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E. Ametsbichler, D. Beck, N. Bradley-Browning, C. Bruneau, G. Cobbs J. Crepeau, D. Dalenberg, S. Derry, P. Dietrich, D. Doyle, J. Carter, E. Edlund, J. Eglin, H. Eggleston, S. Gaskill, F. Glass, J. Glendening, L. Gillison,  J. Gritzner, K. Hill,  W. Holben, R. Hughes J. Hunt, R. Judd, S. Kalm, C. Knight, B. Knowles,  B. Larson J. Laskin, C. Lawrence, R. Ledbetter, M. Mayer J. McNulty, V. Micheletto, D. Moore, D. Potts,  E. Putnam, J. Sears,  D. Schuldberg, P. Silverman, G. Smith, A. Sondag, H. Thompson,  A. Ware, C. Winkler, S. Woods
 

Members Excused

 

S. Brewer, M. DeGrandpre, L. Gillison, S. Gordon, R. Ledbetter, M. Monsos,  B. Reider, F. Snyder, T.Tonev, M. Tonon, M. Valentin
 

Members Absent

 

T. Atkins D. Bedunah, J. Belz,  L. Dent, W. Freimund, M. Fromm,  S. Ganesh,  T. Herron,  N. Nickerson J. Henry, C. Johnston F. Rosenzweig,  S. Stiff

Ex-Officio Present:

Provost Muir, Registrar Bain, Associate Provost Staubs and Walker-Andrews,  Associate Vice President Ford, and UFA President Kupilik

 

Registrar Bain called roll.

 

Minutes from 4/14/05 were approved.

Communications:

 

Provost Muir

The Provost reminded the Senate that the Academic Convocation is on August 26th at 4:00 PM.  Faculty will be contacted by their chairs to participate.

The book for next year’s freshmen reading experience is The Lone Ranger and Tonto, Fist Fight in Heaven.  The author Sherman Alexie will be visiting campus.

 

You may have seen the story in the Missoulian regarding the average years (4.88) it takes students to graduate from The University of Montana.  This is a number that should make us proud.  The number was actually skewed by a few students who took over eight years to graduate.  The median was 4.31.   This number is in part due to the success of the Four Bear Program that has graduated 491 students since 1995, and some have taken less than four years to graduate. 


This is a bargaining year, thus action on Faculty Evaluation Committee (FEC) recommendations are delayed until the contract has been ratified.

 

Ray Ford, Associate Vice President of Information Technology – IT Central
AVP Ford reported that the goal of IT Central identified in the 1991-92 Information Technology Plan has been realized.    Many involved in the strategic planning effort have since retired, thus meeting the goal is rather significant. 

IT Central is modeled after Griz Central, is located on the first floor of the Social Science Building and combines the Computer Network Help Desk, Instructional Equipment, Web Support, and other services pending budget availability.


As the effort continues to create the central service location, the Writing Center will move to the LA building and the Office of Civic Engagement to the basement of the Honors College.  There will be some general remodeling taking place as well. 

 

The three Directors involved with these services are Lorie DeYott, Director of the Computer Help Desk, Bob Wachtel, Director of Presentation Technology Services and Adriene Irish, WEB Services Manager.  In addition, an offer has been made to a candidate for the Assistant Chief Information Officer position that will be responsible for all client related activities.

 

 

Sharon Alexander, Dean of Continuing Education- Summer Schedule Option

Dean Alexander asks that faculty start thinking about a four-day work schedule option for summer school.  Currently there are several ways of offering summer courses. One is the standard 5 week session, M-F, 90 minutes a day.  Another is a 10 week session, M-F, 45 minutes per day.  Then there are several special session courses that fall outside the traditional offerings.  These non-traditional courses account for 56% of all summer offerings.

 

The proposal is to add an additional option of a 4 day course week.  The only change that would affect the current offerings is the starting times of 7:30, 9:30, and so on.   The deans and department chairs will be fully apprised of the plan order to implement.

 

Senator Mayer commented that contact hours are not the only issue to consider in a reduced week.  Some schools have adopted four-day weeks but extended the number of weeks to accommodate the reading assignment requirements.

Dean Alexander responded that adding another option is certainly possible and could be worked out through the department chair and the dean.  Continuing Education could certainly accommodate such an option.  

 

UFA President Mike Kupilik

The University Faculty Association continues to bargain.  UFA President Kupilik stated that he wished he could inform the Senate that there will be a contract prior to the end of the semester, but that is not the case.  It was apparent at last Friday’s negotiations that the faculty and the administration are far apart on unit standards, and compensation has not yet been discussed.  Attendance at the Bargaining Council this year has been outstanding.  The opinion of the faculty on unit standards is unanimous.  Over 30 hours are scheduled in May for bargaining.  There will be two sessions each week until the first week in June.  We hope to be finished by the first week in June.  If this is the case the contract will go out for faculty to have sufficient time to review prior to a vote. If negotiations continue into the summer ratification will wait until the fall when faculty return to campus. Contact your bargaining council member or a member of the executive committee for specifics.

 

Chair’s Report

There is a special Board of Regents meeting next Tuesday, at UM to discuss the proposed retirement community on the south campus.  This is a good opportunity for faculty to attend a meeting if interested in the process.

Board of Regents proposed minimum grade policy

At the regular May Board of Regents meeting in Billings on May 18th the proposed policy on minimum course grades will be discussed.  In summary there are three proposals or versions to the policy.  The first permits individual programs throughout the System to establish minimum grades for pre-requisite and required courses in a major, minor, option, certificate and general education courses.  This policy sets the minimum grade for elective courses at D- or better and the minimum grade for general education courses would be C- or better, and individual programs could establish their own standards.  The second proposal sets the minimum course grades for electives the same as general education courses at C- or better.  The third proposal does not allow programs to establish minimum course grades and sets the standard at C- for all general education courses, prerequisites or courses to satisfy a major or minor and a D- or better for all elective courses. Included in this proposal is a requirement that all campuses adopt a plus minus grading system.  

 

 

Senator Holben commented that unified standards across the university system makes a lot of sense especially considering all the issues we have related to transfer students.  He clarified that he is not advocating for the Regent’s model but rather the concept.

 

Senator Mayer stated that the problem with the third proposal is that if the Regents set the standard lower than what programs consider appropriate there  is no opportunity for change.  Again this is an area where the Regents have no expertise.

 

According to Senator Laskin a C- in certain courses for professional programs would not be acceptable.   He would have to look into accreditation standards to find out whether a certain grade is required, but he would think professional programs would need to be able to set minimum grade standards for courses in their programs.  

 

Senator Hill commented that programs need to have the prerogative to set grade standards.  The nursing program requires a B in some courses and this is needed in health care.

 

Chair-elect Crepeau pointed out that the mandate for faculty to use plus minus grading goes against faculty governance.  This is an issue with the Regent’s attempting to implement uniformity across the Montana University System.

 

Senator Doyle’s interpretation is that if the plus-minus grading is to be required, the issue would have to come before the Faculty Senate again.

 

Senator Knowles indicated that this would not be the case if the Regents adopt the grading system as a statewide policy.

Chair-elect Crepeau commented that it is unclear whether or not the use of plus minus grading will be required by every instructor and wonders whether language should be recommended to clarify that faculty have the option to use plus minus but are not required.

Senator Beck does not have an issue with the Regents setting the minimum standard, but believes programs should have the option to set requirements above the minimum grade standard.

 

Senator Knowles’ opinion is that programs need to be able to determine what it takes to get through their program, and the Board of Regents are not qualified to do this.   In the case of plus minus grading, it seems the Regents have the right to set this type of standard throughout the system, but whether the use of the plus-minus is required by every instructor is a separate matter.

ASUM Vice President Lesley Venetz pointed out that a student could pass all of his or her classes with a C- (1.67 quality points) and still not have a 2.0 GPA which is required to graduate.

 

Senator Kalm agreed that this requirement seems to send a mixed message.

 

Registrar Bain urged the Senate to look very closely at all the ramifications of these policies.  The proposals are a result of a report intended to assess the ease of transferability within the system.  Any responses to the report should make transferring easier.  However these policies will have exactly the opposite affect. Alternative 2 would essentially eliminate the D grade.

 

Chair Winkler agreed that if a D is no longer a passing grade on elective courses, faculty will be reluctant to give D grades and the result will be grade inflation.

 

Chair Winkler will take the comments back to the Board of Regents.

 

Senate Year in Review

Chair Winkler informed the Senate that the year-end report is available for their review on the web site.  The Executive Committee of the Senate accomplished most of its goals.  Some of the items are continuing and so those of you considering service on the new ECOS will have those to consider next year.

 

Chair Winkler reminded the Senate that the summer meeting has been set for  July 14th.  Usually the only action item is the approval of summer graduates and the meeting is very short.

 

Committee Reports:

 

ASCRC Chair Don Potts

The curricular items were approved unanimously.

 

Increasing the number of vocational-technical credits allowed by petition

ASCRC received a request in March from the Accounting and Finance department to increase the number of vocational technical credits allowed for a baccalaureate degree from 10 to 30 by petition.  The Accounting and Finance department has been working with the College of Technology’s Business Technology two year accounting program on a joint baccalaureate degree.

ASCRC discussed the issue in length and finally approved the motion by a majority vote, but subsequently decided to bring it forward as information only so as not to rush the issue through the Senate at the last meeting of the year.

 

Senator Doyle asked whether the policy would apply across-the-board and not just to Accounting and Finance.   Potts affirmed this.

 

Chair-elect Crepeau clarified that the decision to accept the vocational-technical credits would still remain with the department.

 

Potts responded that that is correct.  The receiving department makes the determination of whether or not to accept the vocational technical credits. There was considerable discussion regarding the checks and balances that currently exist, one of which is the requirement of 39 upper-division credits.

 

Senator Myer commented that theoretically this would mean that ¼ of the credits for a baccalaureate degree could be vocational credits. This seems to  undermine the intent of liberal arts baccalaureate degree.  This proposal might remedy the problem for one program, but could potentially create problems for the rest of campus.

 

Potts responded that ASCRC discussed the issue and there are a number of  safeguards to maintain the integrity of programs, such as general education requirements, and upper-division requirements.  Therefore, the committee thought it would be acceptable to give receiving departments the authority to decide which courses would apply to their degree requirements.  For example Forestry has used the graduation appeals petition process as a remedy and have had as many as 25-35 associate of applied science degree credits count toward their program.  

 

Chair-elect Crepeau would argue that having any limit on these credits would undermine individual units having the authority to govern their curriculum.

 

Senator Silverman asked whether in a program such as psychology that requires 36 credits, a student could transfer in 30 vocational technical credits and would only be required to take 6 credits from the program.

 

Potts responded that the department would have the authority to decide which credits it would accept and presumably the Psychology program has a number of upper-division courses that could not be satisfied in this way.

 

Senator Dietrich asked what UM departments would find this an attractive option.

 

Potts indicated that Forestry certainly finds this option useful because there are a number of feeder institutions back east, the New York Ranger School, for example, has many articulation agreements with major forestry programs in the east. There are several others such as Paul Smiths College and Mt. Alto Program at Penn State. So students that complete these associate of applied science degrees are automatically an upper-division student when they transfer into the forestry programs back east.  Therefore in order to compete for these students, the credits had to be accepted.   In some cases these courses are offered in a rich field environment and may well be superior to the lower-division courses offered at UM. It turns out that Forestry is one of the few programs that takes advantage of the current petition process.

 

There are two other collaborations in the planning stages between the School of Business and the College of Technology.  Potts is not aware of how many other programs would utilize this option.

 

Provost Muir indicated that the first year she was at UM, Fred Reed from Sociology approached her with a problem like this.

 

Senator Doyle commented that Sociology has students interested in criminology from the College of Technology legal studies program.

Potts asked Stan Jenne to come to the meeting today, as the representative from the Accounting and Finance Program.  His concern has been related to accreditation, not that the College of Technology has a two-year accounting program, but rather that students are taking a backdoor to a four-year accounting degree through the bachelor of applied science, which is not the same as a bachelors in accounting from the School of Business.  So the solution to this problem is the agreement between the two programs.

 

Senator-elect Frey commented that when she first read the motion she was appalled that programs would give that much control over their credits to another institution automatically. She sees that this could be the start of a breach that would allow all kinds of COT credits count toward programs.

 

Potts responded that the problem with the current process is that it is not transparent. The catalog stipulates that only 10 credits may be petitioned.  The appeals process has always existed but it is not specifically identified in the catalog.  ASCRC discussed putting that wording in the catalog so students would be informed.  Then it was agreed that the chances for abuse of the allowance is pretty remote now that the Bachelor of Applied Science Oversight Committee is in place and the allowance is based on a petition process via the department chair and the Registrar’s Office.

 

In senator-elect Frey’s opinion programs will be much stronger with the current mechanism for petition.  She sees this proposal as a crisis of declining expectations rather than rising expectations. This would open the door to the acceptance of technical credits from institutions programs may know nothing about and this language would pressure programs to find out more about these institutions.  Therefore it is counter productive. She can’t imagine any accrediting agencies would approve of this.

 

Senator Putnam commented that the Senate is losing sight that this proposal still has a petition process in place, and it is still controlled by the department.  So if programs have separate accreditation standards they can maintain them, but have the flexibility to accept appropriate credits.  The department still maintains the control.

 

Stan Jenne stated that it might be helpful to explain why Accounting and Finance went down this path in the first place. Some of you may know that he was given credit for the failure of the proposal to remove the T suffix from College of Technology courses, so it seems a little ironic that he is the one in favor of this change.   Essentially what happened was that after completing a two-year degree at the College of Technology, students would inquire about what was needed to complete a four-year degree in accounting or other business field--most of the time the student would need an additional three years. Even after the student had completed all the general education requirements, lower core requirements and upper-division credits, many times they would need an additional 10-20 credits because the vocational-technical courses did not count towards a baccalaureate degree. Faced with the additional credit requirements some of these students used the bachelor of applied science as a way to get a degree that appeared to be equivalent to a four-year accounting degree.   Students are very creative and it was actually the super-tuition that provided some insight regarding what was happening and identified students enrolled in upper-division courses that were not majors in our program.

 

What has been negotiated is an agreement where students complete two years at the College of Technology, take a few summer courses, then bridge over into the Business Administration’s accounting program and complete the degree in four years.   The department of Management and Marketing as well as Information Systems Technology is pursuing a similar agreement.

When a student follows the agreed program they will have completed all of the general education requirements, lower-core requirements, and upper-division requirements.  What is being proposed is that the vocational technical courses be allowed to count toward general elective credits.

 

Business Administration met with the legislative auditor last summer and it is very apparent that the Regents and the Legislature are very concerned about transferability and transfer problems. The department is trying to be proactive on this and essentially set up a program that would be acceptable rather than have a separate body dictate the program.  As a postscript Jenne commented that the problem with the T issue is that their accrediting agency recognizes the University as a unit and accredits four-year business programs not two-year programs.  If students find a way to get a four-year degree in a business subject that is not through Business Administration then there is a threat to our accreditation.  The T designation helps differentiate College of Technology’s program from the Business School.

 

Senator Mayer used the example of a 40 credit major in the humanities which is very typical.  It takes another 42 credits for general education and 20 of the 40 credits must be upper-division, so then the student still could sample a wide variety of vocational-technical credits that are approved by the department but still may not be appropriate for a liberal arts degree.  In order to meet the needs of a particular program you are threatening to undermine the entire liberal arts curriculum.

 

Senator Doyle clarified that it seems the Senate is debating an item that is informational only and that the debate should take place in the fall.

 

Chair-elect Crepeau made a motion that the Senate approve the language in the  information item.

 

Senator Micheletto seconded the motion.

 

Provost Muir commented that Stan Jenne made a good point.  This motion   keeps the control in the hands of the faculty in the unit in terms of what they approve for transfer.  She is concerned that the Regents will develop a policy and there will not be options.  Most Regents think that College of Technology courses should not be blocked from transferring to a four-year school within the Montana University System.  This at least keeps the control with departmental faculty and might work with a possible Regents’ policy.

 

Senator Dietrich stated that if the Board of Regents has trouble understanding our position that it behooves us to patiently explain it to them once again.  It just looks bad to have that many vocational credits identified as counting toward a baccalaureate degree in the catalog. There should be language to accommodate Business Administration, Forestry and others that clearly explains the petition process so students are aware of the possibility.  This seems like a more reasonable solution to the issue.

 

Senator Glass asked how ASCRC determined to change the number of credits allowed by petition from 10 to 30.

 

Stan Jenne responded that there were 28 credits needed to make the proposal work and they simply rounded it up to accommodate other programs with a similar issue.

 

Senator Ware commented that there are still a few issues that are unclear about the proposal, but mainly he doesn’t see the need to hurry on the motion and moved to postpone until the fall.

 

Senator Knowles seconded.  The motion to postpone was approved.

 

ASCRC Year-end report 

The year-end report summarizes many of the items that have brought to the Senate throughout the year and senators may review this at their convenience.

 

Curriculum deadline for next fall
The deadline for submission of curriculum proposals is September 30th. The deadline is in place to expedite the work of the committee.  Late submissions are an inconvenience and interrupt the flow of the committee, therefore any late submissions will require sufficient justification for consideration, otherwise they will not be acted on until the following year.

 

The Provost announced that with the change in the Board of Regents meeting schedule there will be no level I or level II proposals submitted in May.  Those that were planed for May will be reviewed by the Chief Academic Officers in July.

So those of you who thought you needed to go to the May meeting for curriculum issues will not need to go for curriculum issues, but may want to attend for transferability issues.

 

ASCRC Chair Don Potts was presented with a certificate of appreciation.

 

General Education Committee Chair John Eglin

The written yearend report of the general education committee will be posted to the website later; instead Eglin provided a verbal account of the committee’s work.  The main accomplishment was to create the preamble, which has been approved by the Faculty Senate.  Since then established guiding principles for the structure of the program and has started to look at alternative models.  The committee was charged with reviewing its structure.  Thus the Committee formerly recommends to the Executive Committee of the Senate that the General Education Committee in the future consist of 5 faculty from Professional Schools with no more than one member from any school, 5 faculty from the College of Arts of Science, with at least one from the sciences, humanities, and social sciences, and no more than two from each area, with the same allowance for two student and ex-officio members.  This may require a subsequent bylaw amendment, even though ECOS has since appointed the additional faculty to the committee.

 

Graduate Council Chair Rick Hughes

The curriculum motion was approved unanimously.

 

 Graduate Council’s Yearend Report
The procedure for Bertha Morton Scholarships was discussed in an effort to make the process as fair as possible for students.  Program review procedures were also discussed and it was determined to change the timeline so that all the materials for review will be put on Blackboard for members in the spring to complete the review first thing in the fall.  This should be much more efficient considering that materials were being received late in the spring which did not provide enough time for a thorough review.  The proposal for a water resources program is the only pending curricular item and the Council has made recommendations to further the development of the proposal. Subcommittees did a tremendous amount of work and he thanked all the members of Graduate Council.

 

Graduate Council Chair Rick Hughes was presented with a certificate of appreciation.

 

 

Library Committee Member Andrew Ware
The Library Committee Chair Tom Stanton had a family emergency and couldn’t be at the meeting. Senator Ware provided a brief synopsis of the items the committee has covered since the last Senate update.  With regard to the approval plan, the committee found that there is a variety of ways departments order books, some use the paper slips and others do not.

 

Communication continues to be a concern of the committee.  The report lists  several avenues that are available.  There was only one faculty member who brought forward issues to the committee, and the Library’s comments related to these are amended in the report.  The committee would like to encourage faculty to utilize the committee if they feel things need to be addressed.

 

The committee talked about plagiarism, specifically the possibility of the use of the “Turn-it in” software program. While the committee did feel plagiarism needs to be addressed on campus it does not believe the cost for acquiring the software, maintaining it and training the faculty in its successful use is a cost properly shouldered by the library.

The results of the LibQUAL survey were pretty favorable for the Library.  One of the findings that was a bit humorous was that out of all the user groups the UM faculty experience the most difficulty navigating the library’s website

 

In terms of library news what is apparent is that fund raising is increasing.

 

 

Old Business
The revised recommendations for implementation of the Electronic Theses and Dissertations were approved unanimously.

 

Members of the outgoing Executive Committee of the Senate, Ralph Judd, Liz Ametsbichler, and Mike Monsos in absentia were presented with a certificate of appreciation.  The outgoing chair, Celia Winkler was also presented with a certificate of appreciation and a gift for her service.

 

Elections

§    Liz Ametsbichler was nominated for chair-elect.  There were no other nominations.  The Senate unanimously voted to approve Senator Ametsbichler as chair-elect. 

§    The professional schools’ caucus nominated Don Potts, College of Forestry and Conservation to the Executive Committee of the Senate, and the College of Arts and Sciences’ caucus nominated Jim Gannon, Division of Biological Sciences and Linda Frey, Department of History.  The Senate unanimously approved of the nominations.

 

Good and Welfare – None

 

The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 PM.