Faculty Senate

Meeting, December 4, 2008
Gallagher Business Building, Room 123

DRAFT

Members Present:	B. Allen, D. Allington, C. Anderson, T. Atkins, L. Barnes, D. Beck, R. Bendick-Kier N. Bradley-Browning, J. Burroughs, K. Canty, B. Cochran, D. Dalenberg, A. Delaney,  L. Dybdal, L. Eagle Heart-Thomas, J. Eglin, D. Freeman, L. Frey, J. Glendening, A. Golbeck, S. Gordon, B. Halfpap, L. Hayes, J. Herbold, E. Hines, N. Hinman, W. Holben, D. Hollist, B. Larson, J. Lopach, J. Luckowski, M. Mayer, S. McCann,  N. Moisey, E. Moore, N. Nickerson, M. Patterson, D. Potts, B. Reider, J. Renz, E. Rosenberg, T. Seekins, D. Shively, R. Skelton, G. Smith, D. Spencer, D. Stolle, S. Stiff, R. Stubblefield, H. Thompson, G. Twigg, E. Uchimoto, N. Vonessen, A. Ware, G. Weix, P. Williams, C. Work
Members Excused	B. Brown, J. Carter, B. Douma, N. Hadad, J. Halfpap, J. Henry, B. Ikeda, M. McHugh, K. Uhlenbruck
Members Absent	A. Carpoca, A. Duwell, D. Six, M. Valentin
Ex-Officio Present:	President Dennison, Provost Engstrom, Associate Provost Walker-Andrews, Assistant Registrar Holzworth, ASUM President Hunter
Guests:	C. Brewer, J. Crepeau - President of COT Faculty Association, J. Hirstein,

Chair Ware called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m.  

The Faculty Senate Administrative Associate called role.

The 11/13/08 minutes were amended and approved.

Communications:

President Dennison

 

President Dennison
President Dennison provided an update on the budgeting process. Over the last eighteen months the administration has been working with the governor's staff on a budget that would replicate last biennium's College Affordability Plan (CAP) - 0% tuition increase for resident students.  During the last three months the revenue picture has worsened.  The ending fund balance has declined to $500 million.  With predictions of the recession continuing for the next two years law makers intend to put $250 million into reserve.  This leaves $250 million to fund state government.  The Governor's budget proposal in November provided $35 million of new money for higher education.  State appropriations cover 43% of the university's funding.  However, it requires $24 million to cover this year's expenditures (FY 2009 carried into FY 2010 and FY 2011), so there is really only $11.5 million.  The Governor's December budget eliminated the additional $11.5 million, thus covering none of the present law adjustments for the coming biennium.  Taking into account present law adjustments requires $24 million to cover the same number of students with the current level of service.   The difference will have to be covered by tuition increases or reductions.

Pay plan (House Bill 13) negotiations are still pending and will also be funded by state appropriations of 43%.  Given this picture there will be no funding for campus initiatives.  Now the administration is trying to figure out how to maintain programs and enrollments.  A tuition increase of 1.5 % provides $7 million.  So you can figure out the math.  

The administration will try to negotiate with the Legislature the best budget possible.  There is a chance that the ending fund balance may be below the $500 million prediction, in which case budgets will be cut more.  The administration will make a case for the Legislature to maintain the investment in higher education during the decline.

In a recent report by the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, Montana received an ‘F' in Affordability.  California was the only state that did not receive an ‘F'.  A major factor in Montana is that average incomes are low.  The report also indicated that college enrollment is declining.  This is not a good indicator.

Provost Engstrom
The Board of Regents had a conference earlier today to vote on whether or not to recommend the proposed Community College in Ravalli County.  The vote was 6 to 0 not to recommend.

Graduation Lists
The Provost presented the revised graduation lists for approval.  The list was approved.     

College of Technology Rank
Provost Engstrom responded to ECOS' concerns regarding the changes to College of Technology instructors ranks.

• The process creates equivalent ranks at the College of Technology without oversight by the joint faculty governing body.
  - According to the UFA Unit Standards are reviewed and approved by the Unit Standards Committee prior to approval by the Provost's Office.  There is not a similar process for the College of Technology.   This could be addressed by either negotiating with the UFA so that the existing Unit Standards Committee also reviews College of Technology Unit Standards or negotiating with the College of Technology Faculty Association to establish a Unit Standards Committee.
• There will be inequity of the ranks given that faculty teaching equivalent courses at UM-COT and UM- Missoula, Mountain Campus are subject to different review and promotion processes.
  - The expectations are defined in every unit's approved unit standards.
• Adjunct faculty at UM-Missoula, Mountain campus are not afforded opportunities for advancement through the same mechanism as faculty at UM-CT, yet the requirements for the position are similar. 
  -The memo outlining COT Rank was not intended to imply a different review process for adjunct faculty.  Adjunct faculty are treated the same on the two campuses.
• The rank advertised should be the rank hired.  The way the memo is written it sounds like the rank is determined at the time of hire rather than the time of authorization.  
  -Typically faculty are hired at the rank of assistant professor.  The practice will be the same on the two campuses.  

Questions/ comments:
The research component will be different than the main campus considering the heavier teaching obligations of COT faculty.

There was concern that faculty in certain areas would be at a disadvantage because there are not advanced degrees offered in those specialties.  The faculty should be recognized for background, training and performance.   The change will give preference to candidates with a degree and two years experience over a candidate with 15 years experience.   In many COT programs the real skills come from experience. The change is attempting to make an equivalency that does not exist.

COT Faculty Association President Josef Crepeau:  The rank proposal was drafted by the COT faculty including the Director of Diesel Mechanics, who has a master's degree.  The College of Technology is aware of the qualifications needed for new faculty to be successful.  It is not uncommon for candidates to have degrees.

ASUM President Hunter
ASUM President Hunter spoke in favor of the proposed cumulative Grade Point Average Policy.  UM is the only university in the Montana University System that has a two tiered system, all others use the last grade to calculate the grade point average.   This is a national trend. The students on ASCRC looked at the policies of UM's peers - there were only 3 out of 45 schools that averaged grades.  Averaging disadvantages students' competitiveness for graduate school and employment.

Students with disabilities risk losing financing aid if they drop courses. Consequently they remain in courses even if they are doing poorly.   Averaging alone encourages repeating courses because it takes longer to bring grades up.   Students that retake courses have to earn the grade.  The grade received indicates whether the student has mastered the material.  All grades will remain on the transcript, so a history of the students' performance is still available.

ASUM would like to see the electronic add/ drop dates realigned in the proposed change to the Add / Drop Policy.  It appreciates ECOS reconsidering allowing students to add a course by an approved form up until 45^th day.  

Jim Hirstein, Chair, NWCCU Accreditation Steering Committee
The committee is moving forward.  There will be a news letter coming out soon.  Subcommittee member lists are available on the website at: http://www.umt.edu/asc/committees.html

Standards one and two are critical, so please continue to be responsive for requests for involvement.  

Carol Brewer, Chair, Academic Strategic Planning Committee update
The committee has articulated aspirations for academic affairs, conducted an extensive environmental scan, and identified strategic issues that influence UM's ability to realize aspirations.   Senators were provided with a handout that outlined the aspirations and strategic issues.

The following aspirations were identified:  
      In five years....

• UM will be well along the path to becoming a major university with an entrepreneurial spirit, and will be a major force in the evolution of Montana's economy and culture
• UM will achieve/maintain an optimum intellectual and real world blend of the arts, sciences, and cultural experiences for a truly interdisciplinary and collaborative campus
• UM will be recognized as a leader and innovator in key disciplinary areas, capitalizing on our unique environment and location
• UM will be known for having an exciting and stimulating intellectual atmosphere for undergraduates, graduate students, faculty and staff
• UM will be the leader in Montana in diversity and will be a major force in the diversification of both the workforce and student body
• UM will have an all-encompassing, seamless information technology environment for all aspects of teaching, learning, and research

The following strategic issues must be addressed to achieve aspirations:

• The Undergraduate Experience
• Development of College of Technology / Community Colleges in Montana
• Articulation between k-12 and Higher Education in Montana
• Enabling technology for Teaching and Scholarship
• Perceptions and reality of cost of education versus value of education at UM
• A coherent vision for research, creativity and scholarship
• Strengthening communication and transparency
• Workplace conditions
• Cultivate graduate programs
• Diversity
• The changing world around us
• Achieving optimal enrollment

The next step will be campus-wide town hall meetings, visits to departments, discussions, and surveys.  Then subcommittees will work to develop action plans to address strategic issues.  Volunteers will be needed to serve on the subcommittees.  Faculty should be prepared to engage when they return from winter break. Any comments may be sent to Associate Dean Brewer via email.

Chair Ware would like to know whether time should be set aside at the February or March Faculty Senate meetings to discuss the aspirations and strategic issues.  He hopes that the Senate is an engaged representation of the faculty.

Chair's Report:
The Board of Regents meeting went well.  There was a lot of discussion regarding the proposed Community College in Ravalli County.   Professor Jacki Morr was granted Regents Professor status.

The Montana University System Faculty Association Representatives (MUSFAR) has requested a meeting with the Commissioner's Office on the transferability initiative.  This will take place at the January Board of Regents meeting in Helena. Better communication is needed regarding the project. 

The next Student Leadership Conference is scheduled for February 28^th.  The Center for Leadership Development requests that faculty encourage their students to participate.  There will be a guest to answer questions at the February Senate meeting.

Faculty volunteers are needed to serve on the Extended Learning Services Advisory Committee. Extended Learning Services encompasses online learning, summer, winter, off campus programs and professional development offerings. Please inform the Faculty Senate Office if you are interested in this service opportunity.

Committee Reports:

 

Academic Standards and Curriculum Review Committee Chair G.G. Weix
The curriculum and service learning consent agendas were approved.

The preliminary general education course review list was amended and approved after discussion (one senator apposed).  The symbolic systems sequence at the College of Technology was removed from the approved list.   Several courses are pending further follow-up or were not approved. A communication will go out to department chairs and instructors identifying these courses with specific information and instructions for appeal. 

There is confusion regarding the symbolic systems sequence approval process.  On Tuesday, 12/2/08 academic chairs were notified that programs requiring symbolic systems request approval by submitting current catalog language and a pedagogical justification for the requirement.  According to the revised general education framework students may substitute for the Modern and Classical Language requirement a symbolic systems sequence required by their major and approved by ASCRC.  Students no longer have the choice between symbolic systems and foreign language.  The default requirement is a foreign language.    This will have to be made clear by the catalog language and advising.

The approved framework specifies that:

All General Education courses must be at least 3 credits, must be introductory and foundational, and have no more than one pre-requisite.  ASCRC may allow exceptions for upper-division courses, courses fewer than three credits, and for courses with more than one-prerequisite.

Several courses were not approved because they had hidden pre-requisites- the pre-requisite course had a prerequisite, the course required senior standing or was restricted to majors.  These courses will require a rationale to be granted an exception.  

The framework does not exclude upper-division courses from general education.  The instructor simply has to justify that the course is introductory and foundational.  Many students take general education courses in their junior or senior year and should be able to choose upper-division courses.  Often majors are very prescriptive with pre-requisites and requirements and do not have room for general education courses until the junior or senior year.  Also transfer students may need upper-division credits to fulfill the 39 credit requirement.  There was concern that eliminating the upper-division general education offerings will lower the quality of the general education program.

It seems the Ethics and Human Values Subcommittee had a different understanding of the criteria.  Instructors teaching courses not approved for the Ethics and Human Values group received letters that included a check list and a list of classic texts identified with the traditions (Western, Eastern, and Native American).  The Native American Faculty strongly disagree with one of the texts identified in the list for the Native American tradition. 

The Senate approved a motion that directs ASCRC to inform the Ethics and Human Values Subcommittee not to micro-manage course content and to re-review courses rejected according to the approved criteria.

Graduate Council Chair Neil Moisey
The curriculum consent agenda was approved.

 

Writing Committee Chair Nancy Hinman
The deadline for the submission of writing courses is February 6^th.  The deadline memo was posted for information and will be sent to all faculty tomorrow.

There were comments that the deadline was too early. 

 

Faculty Library Committee Chair Nikolaus Vonessen
The Faculty Library Committee has been asked to contribute to the information gathered for accreditation pertaining to standard 5.B.4 "Opportunities are provided for faculty, staff, and students to participate in the planning and development of the library and information resources and services."  In order to do this effectively the Committee needs to hear from faculty regarding any issues with the library.

 

Unfinished Business

The Cumulative Grade Point Average Policy
After debate the policy was approved with 21 in favor, 13 opposed and 1 abstention.  Several Senators spoke against the policy.   It was argued that grade point average (GPA) is an issue of credibility and transparency.  The change is the result of diminishing expectation and will encourage grade inflation.  Students need to understand that there are consequences of poor performance.  A GPA should be a truthful reflection of performance.  If approved, the GPA will no longer be a true average, but rather a calculation.  A true GPA is the summary of a students' performance.  It is not the same if it takes a student three tries to earn an ‘A'. It is not honest.  UM should have a higher standard. The change in policy does not provide equity for students who perform well.  If passed, there should be a limit on how many times a course can be repeated and the recalculated GPAs should be flagged.

The current two tier system is inequitable especially for students that do not have the financial resources to pay the fee.   A study was conducted by Academic Affairs that indicates the majority of students only repeat one course. Having to retake a course is the consequence for poor performance.  Students should not be punished for a bad semester. Faculty give grades based on students' knowledge.  The grade reflects the students' mastery of the material.  All previous grades will remain on the transcript and the course is marked as repeated.  If UM's peers are using the last grade to calculate the GPA then our current averaging practice puts our students at a disadvantage.

Drop/ Add Policy Revision

Given that the late hour, discussion and vote on the Drop/ Add Policy Revision was postponed.   

 

 

Good and Welfare: Chair Ware thanked senators for staying late to vote on unfinished business.  

The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 pm.