ASCRC Minutes 3/27/12
GBB 202, 2:10
Members Present: B. Borrie, G. Coon, D. Dalenberg, W. Davies, N. Greymorning, M. Grimes, C. Henderson,
C. Knight, D. Molgaard, C. Springmeyer, L. Tangedahl
Members Absent/Excused: B. Holzworth, S. O’Hare, Z. Patten, J. Staub, D. Stolle
Ex-Officio Present: E. Johnson, A. Walker-Andrews
Chair Tangedahl called the meeting to order at 2:10 p.m.
The minutes from 3/20/12 were approved
Communication Items:

New Student member Dan Molgaard was welcomed to the Committee and members introduced themselves.

Student member Gwen Coon introduced a resolution regarding degree audit that will be presented to
ASUM. The resolution resulted from her serving on the Graduation Appeals Committee. It is apparent that
students are not aware of requirements. A degree audit system would provide students with a better
resource so fewer slip through the cracks. Gwen met with Associate Provost Walker Andrews to discuss the
resolution. Associate Provost Walker-Andrews would like ASCRC to consider simplifying the current
practice of allowing students to graduate under six different catalogs. This is very confusing for students
and advisors and would be difficult to manage in a degree audit system. Registrar Johnson is supportive of
the motion’s intent. It could also involve an increase in graduation fees to pay for the system. UM’s current
fee is $33, Montana Tech’s is $70. The administration is looking into options. Purchasing a system or
making modifications to current systems could cost between $300,000-500,000 plus maintenance.
Academic Planner is releasing a new version that enhances the functionality for advisors, but it lacks the
capability of Degree Works (24/7, 365 days – and “what if” scenarios). Implementation of a new or
modified system would still take at least a year and a half. The process would involve an evaluation of
current policies by ASCRC. Any system would not be perfect and would be tied to resources allocation.
Added benefits could be a faster review of graduation materials by the Registrar’s Office and quicker inhouse printing of diplomas. There would be a shift of when the work occurs.
ASCRC unanimously voted to sponsor the resolution (appended below).
Business Items:

Workgroup 2 presented the draft Common Course Numbering procedure. It recommends that unique
courses be entered into the master matrix of courses without system-wide vetting and that an annual audit of
courses be conduced to catch any courses that may have overlaping learning outcomes. This would involve
follow-up only for courses where issues are found and not involve a system-level review of all unique
courses. This seems like a more efficient self-correcting mechanism. The draft procedure will be sent to
members for further consideration.

ASCRC discussed the changes made to the Academic Oversight Working Paper. The language was again
revised (appended below) and will be submitted to ECOS for consideration.

Professors Dalenberg and Borrie met with the Chair of Modern and Classical Languages regarding the
encentive approach to encouraging students to take a language. She thought language faculty would want
the extended major status enforced to qualify for the symbolic systems exception. She was not opposed to
encentives, but didn’t think it would be effective. She also thought there would be push back from
departments that offer courses in the general education groups that a language would now satisfy. The
department would also need more sections of 200 level courses so some resource reallocation would be
necessary.
ASCRC declined to approved the motion with a vote of six in favor and one abstention. It would like to see
whether the incentive approach works.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
The Associated Students of The University of Montana
Resolution Regarding Degree Audit Program
March 15, 2012
Senate Bill SB__-11/12
Authored by: Gwendolyn Coon, ASUM Senator
Sponsored by:
Whereas, The Associated Students of The University of Montana (ASUM) is representative of over 15,000
students at the University of Montana Campus;
Whereas, the purpose of students at The University of Montana is to gain an education;
Whereas, The University of Montana requires students to complete all degree and general education
requirements prior to graduation;
Whereas, The University of Montana provides students with numerous resources such as the Undergraduate
Advising Center, Academic Planner, UMAdvising.com, and individual department advisors in order to
encourage fulfillment of all degree and general education requirements, timely graduation, and a well-rounded
education;
Whereas, these resources, as well as policies currently in place may sometimes prove inefficient and/or
ineffective in addressing student’s needs;
Whereas, The Office of the Registrar and The Office of the Provost have expressed desire to acquire a Degree
Audit program that would act as a provision to ensure degree acquisition for hard working students;
Whereas, a Degree Audit program has the potential to help students find the best academic path to complete
their degree, provides academic advice for choosing the most appropriate major as soon as possible, and
provides feedback each semester on academic progress;
Therefore, Let It Be Resolved that the Associated Students of The University of Montana strongly encourage
and will seek ways to support the adoption of a Degree Audit program that benefits the students, faculty, and
staff of The University of Montana.
To:
Academic Standards & Curriculum Review Committee
From:
ASCRC Working Group
Date:
5/29/2016
Re:
Academic Oversight Policy - DRAFT Discussion paper
Introduction
As a working group, we have diligently studied and discussed this issue and from our various campus
conversations it is apparent that there is a uniform concern about Academic Oversight. We hope to initiate a
campus discussion that will involve more faculty, campus leadership, and senior administration. It is not clear
whether an Academic Oversight policy would come from ASCRC, ECOS, or the Provosts Office, but we
wanted to provide a starting point. The goal of this discussion paper, therefore, is to generate initial discussion
within ASCRC.
It is worth noting that we are talking about academic programs (degrees, minors, certificates) and not oversight
of individual courses. We also wish to point out a somewhat natural evolution of academic programs which
may be to begin in, or be adopted by, an existing academic home and then sometimes progress to their own
department or unit, along with the development of attendant unit standards.
Background
The need for this policy grew out of various discussions in Fall 2011 (and previous semesters) around proposals
from the Mansfield Center, the Defense Critical Language Program, Freshman Seminars, MLEA/Police
Sciences, and proposals from administrators or non-tenurable faculty.
There are three inter-related items under the Academic Oversight banner: Standalone minors/certificates,
Interdisciplinary programs, & Non-academic units offering courses. Our task could be summarized as
developing a policy that ensures all academic offerings (minors, certificates, degrees) are housed within
an academic unit, thus allowing faculty oversight of the academic programs of the University.
There are several academic foundations to such a policy.
Firstly, that it is regular faculty who maintain the prerogative to develop, establish, or reorganize curriculum,
as well as requirements for, and the granting of, degrees. These regular faculty engage in the full range of
traditional teaching, research and creative activities and service. (Non-tenurable appointments are used only for
special or specialized purposes and/or limited periods.) (UM Policy 101.2)
Secondly, it is the unit standards of each academic unit which, in conjunction with the collective bargaining
agreement, provide necessary standards and expectations upon the faculty. These unit standards specify
regular channels for the appointment, evaluation and promotion of faculty. (CBA Section 10)
Thirdly, that the various university institutes, bureaus, centers, stations, and labs can either exist to focus
attention on a particular area of strength or critical issue or to facilitate collaborative, multi-disciplinary
endeavors to combine resources and expertise from several programs. These institutes and centers must be
related to the overall institutional mission, including the Departments involved, and must show a contribution to
the academic programs of the University with respect to teaching, research and service. (UM Policy 103)
Program review exists in order to ensure program quality, foster academic excellence at all levels, and
effective stewardship of resources. Those reviews shall include all programs listed in the “degree and program
inventory” maintained by the office of the commissioner of higher education of the Montana University System
(MUS), and shall include options, minors not associated with a major, and certificates of more than 30 credits
listed in the inventory. (Board of Regents Policy 303.3)
An Academic Oversight policy would help bring all academic offerings within a strong system of shared
governance, long-term commitment to institutional activities, as well as open communication and collaboration
between academic units.
Some notable interdisciplinary or standalone academic programs on the University of Montana campus:
 African American Studies
 Climate Change Studies
 Central and Southwest Asian Studies
 East Asian Studies
 Gerontology
 Global Public Health
 International Development Studies
 Military Studies
 Nonprofit Administration
 Resource Conservation
 South and Southeast Asian Studies
 Wilderness Studies
 Wildlife Biology
 Women’s and Gender Studies
Proposal
All educational programs (i.e. degrees, majors, minors, options, and certificates) must be subject, on a seven-year cycle, to
University program review. The program leadership should have an appointment in an academic unit for which unit standards
for faculty evaluation are in place.
Pro’s
 Continuity of regular faculty to establish, evolve and ensure standards of academic programs.
 Ties expectations and responsibilities of faculty to evaluation of faculty.
o Unit standards are the norm on this campus, protecting reasonable expectations & workloads.
 Keeps academic programs within usual faculty governance & communication channels.
 Clear administrative ownership and commitment, from departments through Dean’s office, to Provost’s office.
 Protects programs, students, and faculty from short-term enthusiasms and funding cycles.
o Including when faculty leadership retires or moves to other campus.
 Advisory boards sometimes reflect external rather than university priorities.
 Assures that all academic programs will fall under regular program review.
Con’s
 Difficulty of interdisciplinary programs, which have shared oversight, rotating leadership & governance.
o Both within a particular College/School, or between several Colleges and Schools.
 May be desirable to have short-term academic programs, responsive to short-term external funding.
 Difficulty of defining what is an academic unit.
 Tensions sometimes exist between a program’s steering committee and home academic unit.
 Faculty teaching in 2+ programs need clarity as to which unit standards predominate.
 The CBA appears to control the list of units with unit standards which could slow the process.