Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes
September 25, 2014, 3:10 P.M. Skaggs Building, Room 169
Call to Order
Chair Lodmell called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m.
Seeing that over half of the senate was not in attendance, roll was not called. The
attendance roster was completed by the Faculty Senate Administrative Associate by
memory.
Members Present: L. Ametsbichler, J. Banville, A. Becker, T. Beed, B. Borrie, S.
Bradford, M. Brooke, J. Bunch, J. Carter, J. DeBoer, D. Erickson, S. Galipeau, L.
Gillison, J. Glendening, S. Gordon, L. Hart-Paulson, W. Holben, C. Knight, R. LaPier, J.
Laskin, S. Lodmell, M. Mayor, M. McGirl, J. Montauban, C. Palmer, M. Raymond, S.
Richter, D. Schuldberg, J. Sears, S. Shen, D. Sherman, A. Sondag, S. Stan, K. Swift, A.
Szalda-Petree, E. Uchimoto, R. Vanita, N. Vonessen, K. Zoellner
Members Excused: A. Belcourt, M. Bowman, A. Chatterjee, M. DeGrandpre, E.
Gagliardi, L. Gray, K. Harris, S. Hines, U. Kamp, A. Kinney, B. Larson, B. Layton, D.
MacDonald, M. Nielson, D. Shepherd
Members Absent: J. Bardsley, A. Carpoca, J. Cavanaugh, T. Crowford, H. Eggert, L.
Frey, M. Hamon, M. Horejsi, L. Howell, M. Kia, H. Kim, C. Kirkpatrick, A. Larson, G.
Larson, S. Tillerman, K. Wu
Ex-Officio Present: Provost Brown, ASUM President Hollman, and Vice President
McQuillan
Guests: Brian Bates (GM, Managed Services), Carina Gamble (Director, Campus
Services), Nathan Gamble (Product Management)- Rafter
Minutes: Approval of the minutes was postponed.
Communications:
Given the various discussions taking place on campus regarding the affordable book
plan idea, the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate agreed that it would be
worthwhile to hold a special meeting to allow faculty to voice their opinions. The issue is
not up for a vote. The goal of the meeting is to gather additional information. Senators
and guests (representatives from Rafter) were thanked for attending.
Chair Lodmell prefaced the discussion with why he believes this is an important topic to
discuss. There are multiple perspectives. ASUM deliberated for five hours at last night’s
meeting, but is not ready to take a position. The Bookstore and Rafter have a
perspective. What should inform the perspective of faculty? Anecdotally, students are
buying course materials in smaller numbers. This is likely because materials are too
expensive and faculty would agree that students perform better when they have
materials when courses begin. Therefore, this is an important issue because it relates to
student success. Faculty members are also interested in alleviating financial pain.
The plan sounds complicated to implement. So we need to ask will it improve student
success and if so, will this be in a way that does not cause harm (does the maximum
good for the maximum number of students.)
There have been many comments about what this might do in terms of unintended
consequence, and that it would be skewed or unfair to some students. The floor was
opened for discussion.
A statement of the proposal seemed to be missing. This would be helpful for a starting
point. It would be helpful to know some of the details of the contract as well.
Rafter: The plan requires the company that would provide the services to do a
comprehensive study about the buying habits and requirements of our student body. So
Rafter did a study in collaboration with the Bookstore. The overall idea is that the
company would have access to the registration records of students, know which classes
they are taking, and what materials are required, so that before the course begins
students go to the bookstore to pick up their required books. The fee for this would be
included in the students’ tuition and fee bill. There are several scenarios. One would be
a flat fee (430 dollars per year) for all students. Another option may be for various flat
fees depending on major or year. The nuances make it difficult to offer a formal proposal
statement.
Has a proposal like this ever been accepted by another university? And if so how is it
going?
Rafter: Our Company works with several hundred colleges and institution across the
country. All of the schools use a component of its software and services. Schreiner
University and Thomas More College are using the new affordable book plan. Both
schools are smaller than UM with a student body of approximately 3500 students. UM
currently uses a component of Rafter’s service as well. In total Rafter is managing a
million students. Essentially the affordable book plan packages more services. There are
several universities of similar size to UM using Rafter’s software.
ASUM was asked to summarize and share the nature of its debate regarding the
proposal.
The majority of students were supportive of the idea of having a tuition based book
buying method. They were very interested in having the details, such as would graduate
students be included, or how would the price be calculated for students taking fewer
than 6 credits. Senators wanted to communicate more with the student body before
voting on the support resolution.
The plan is mostly to rent the materials, so when it is compared to the current setting, we
need to consider students who buy books and then sell them at the end of the year. The
average UM student pays $225 per semester and the Rafter proposal would cost $215.
This is only a $10 difference. Since the student would not actually own the book at the
end of the semester there is not much of a financial gain.
Rafter: In the affordability report the price referenced does not apply to every student on
campus. It refers to students who choose to shop entirely online, which most students
do not. The online comparison reflects the least expensive cost.
Students who wish to purchase the book can buy it at 50% of market value. The
semester rental fee is $225 and does not apply to purchases. So the plan assumes that
most students get rid of their books.
Rafter: They have been hearing from their University clients that students are making
choices of whether to purchase books or not and going to great lengths to find
alternatives to save money. Over the past thirty years the average cost of text books
has increased by 812% as compared to a 250% rise in the consumer price index.
According to national surveys 16% of students will purchase books entirely online, but
many students don’t have that choice. Some required materials are not available through
a third party so students are forced to buy from the store. Campuses are realizing that
they have invested a great deal in faculty to teach students, and resources to bring
students to campus and enhance their experience on campus, but somewhere along the
line we forgot to include the book. Do we believe the book is important to their success
in the classroom, so why don’t we provide that as part of the educational experience?
Essentially this program is about that concept.
There are three things that matter most to students. Price is always first, but selection
and service also matter. Students want to know that they have the right (quality)
materials and they do not want to jump through hoops to get them. Therefore, the other
components of the program should be considered. Such as all students will have the
materials the first day of class. And the students will have a better experience because
of this. The process for picking up books is designed to be an improvement from
students’ current experiences. Their books are prepackaged and ready for their
scheduled pickup time.
The plan is designed like a library model. It is not Rafter’s intent to make money on
students who desire to purchase the book. That is why the purchase price is 50% of the
publishers listed price; this would be at least a 25-30% discount from the retail price.
Can students opt out? And can they elect to have new rather than used books?
Rafter: The “opt out” option would be up to the campus to decide whether it wants to
allow. There is talk of establishing a Steering Committee that would have broad
representation to determine what would work best for the campus. These type of
questions are best answered by the campus, because Rafter does not know what would
work best for UM’s student body. It is like a library model with respect to the conditions
of the books so in many cases they will be brand new or a high quality used book (a
general practice across the industry). In some cases the material may be a workbook
intended for one use, so would be new.
The price analysis was done using online sources of acceptable condition books and it
didn’t filter out international additions, best copies, or evaluation copies that sometimes
make it into the online market place. All materials in this program would be the same or
better than what Rafter provides to the Bookstore today.
There doesn’t seem to be any advantage to UM being the first large school to adopt the
plan. Everyone has questions. Wouldn’t it make more sense to wait to talk with a
University the size of UM that has done this and worked through the problems? If this
gets implemented and there are problems, the burden falls on the faculty because we
are the ones facing the students. It is not clear why we are in such a big hurry. It is too
early to make a decision because there are too many unknowns.
Chair Lodmell clarified that we are not being pressured and are not in a hurry. This is a
fresh idea that has spired a lot of interest and excitement one way or the other. The
Senate Leadership has not been informed about the formation of a Steering Committee
to further explore this idea.
Is there another competitor to Rafter proposing similar ideas to other universities? Have
we looked at other potential companies doing the same thing?
Rafter: Right now Rafter is blazing a new trail with this idea. Blazing a new trail is part of
the company’s heritage. The company started in 2006 as a book rental company. The
founder was the first to launch a website to rent text books. In 2010 it moved into
helping institutions manage textbook rentals. It has enhanced these services to help
institution bookstores to manage relationships with students and faculty. In each case
there have been competitors that followed Rafter into the market.
Faculty in Chemistry have two fundamental concerns: how committed is the University
to Rafter and how realistic is the price point considering the variety of material needs,
such as lab packs, art supplies, research notebooks, or sheet music. These types of
non-returnable materials could not have been included in the analysis. Are the few
going to be supporting the many or the many supporting the few? Students taking
primarily research credits do not need books, but would they still be required to pay the
material fee? There is concern that this is a blanket approach for all students. It seems it
would be more favorable to conduct a pilot program where courses could opt in, or pilot
the program for three years for freshmen students giving them a choice to either rent the
material for a year or purchase (opt-out).
Rafter: If a Steering Committee were formed, these issues could be deliberated and
decided by the Committee. There seems to be three themes that hearing consistently.
One has to do with equitable billing- how does this get applied? Second, is this going to
be manageable for the institution? Third, would this system have an impact on academic
freedom?
The proposal as it stands now is for three years. There is an opportunity to opt out.
The materials included in the plan would include hard- back books, paper-back books,
E-book access codes – essentially items that have an ISBN code that are published and
assigned by faculty member for course. Something like sheet music that is intended for
an individual performance would not be covered. The plan is not intended to cover
things that are covered in other course fees such as art supplies. It is really intended to
cover the out-of-pocket expenses for assigned reading/ course work. It is designed to
provide a predictable cost for the materials.
How is the cost-per-student calculated since it varies widely depending on the courses a
student is taking?
Rafter: This relates to the equitability question and is something the University needs to
decide. There is a great deal of flexibility with regard to the materials that can be
included. These are decisions the University would need to consider. What was quoted
was a flat fee, but the University needs to determine that this is the most equitable way
to manage the program for its students. The pricing quoted is strictly a starting point
based on UM’s historical purchasing data. Universities will often take this data and
conduct further analysis to determine which cohorts and book choices to include.
Wondering what the charge would be for students to keep all their books- 50% more
than $215? Would there be a price break to keep all the books.
Rafter: The analysis that determined the price was based on UM’s adoption patterns
over the past three years, including which materials are likely to be reused and by what
frequency. This creates a utility for the assets of each adoption. This option would
require additional analysis. If the University is interested in this option then Rafter can
provide the service. The 50% price reduction is also a starting point and can be
negotiated.
If a faculty member wishes students to use the new edition for his/her course, is Rafter
obligated to provide this?
Rafter: We do not interfere with faculty members’ academic freedom. What they have
looked at is the past patterns which accounts for 16% use of early additions. If the
buying patterns change, or the University decides more early additions are needed than
the price point would change. The price point is based on “guardrails” (i.e. books per
course, % new edition, % consumable, and average list price) are applied in aggregate
based on the overall, historic adoption patterns of faculty, plus a threshold to allow for a
higher variance from that historic pattern. The data showed that the average book per
course is one, and the percentage of new additions is 16%. Consumables are one-timeuse materials. Rafter does not take a position on what type or quality of books faculty
should require. The only time the company would take a position is when it can’t
validate the adequate supply. If this occurs Rafter would notify the faculty member of the
difficulty and inquire whether they have a resource for the materials. Rafter will work
with local authors. The catalog of materials is really what is available on the market. It
is not restricted.
We appreciate the Bookstore’s recognition that there is a crisis with the price of
textbooks and looking for new models. It would be dangerous for the university to move
forward without considering other new models. So perhaps a committee to look into this
further might be in order. Is it correct that can get books from any publisher?
Rafter: Rafter works directly with publishers, with other distributers, with Amazon, and
etc. The company is very efficient at procuring materials.
As a faculty member, it is sometimes discomforting knowing that the book assigned
requires students to spend money. One thing that provides some solace is that
ultimately the student may decide not to spend their money on purchasing the book and
borrow their roommates, or just work off course lecture material. The one-size fits all
plan is concerning because we would decide the best way to allocate across the student
body, particularly if it is tied to tuition and the student would have to pay to attend.
Students are in the best position to determine what text books they need for the learning
goals they have, and how they should spend their money.
ASUM President Hohman responded that as a student, he doesn’t think students are in
the best position to decide what they need. Often they do not make good decisions with
regard to purchasing materials. This may lead to dropping out of classes and leaving the
university. This is a problem we need to move away from.
We need to acknowledge that this plan may have an impact on enrollment, specifically
given it disadvantages students in the humanities. In the humanities students have
options to keep the cost down if they wish. To have a sir charge for materials would
likely dissuade students and their parents from UM.
Is there any data with regard to how this impacts student success? This is the heart of
the issue.
Rafter: According to a national survey 93% of students think they will do better when
they have course materials and 95% of faculty members believe the students will
perform better when they have the materials. But nobody really knows. Anecdotally
Missoula College faculty participating in the pilot believe the performance on learning
outcomes will improve when students have the course materials. Rafter would love to
have the answer to the question.
Graduate Students and undergraduate students should be separated because their
behavior is quite different. Graduate students are more responsible, there is not a big
issue with them not having materials, typically wish to keep their text books, take fewer
courses per semester, and have research credits. If the University moves forward with
the plan it should be limited outright to undergraduate students.
Again this is a decision the University must make. Schreiner decided to include all
programs after considering the feedback. Their plan has separate pricing for graduate
students.
Rafter: The more successful this model becomes, the more students’ access to other
resources to purchase books will be limited, because Rafter will be buying the bulk of the
materials on the market.
The case study of Chaffey College on the Rafter Website indicates the services provided
by Rafter allows students to get materials four ways (new, used, rental, and E-books).
The premise of the Rafter Supply Network is to find the cheapest available option for
students. That’s what we want. This seems to make way more sense than the plan
being considered.
There are current student fees that not all students benefit from, such as the Athletic Fee
or the Fitness Center Fee. If we talk about fairness in fees, we may need to review the
entire fee structure in terms of equitability. Students may wish to go to the Missoula
Athletic Club rather than Campus Rec but they do not get the option to opt-out of the fee.
Right now there are instances when there is a mistake and books are not available. If
that were to happen in this environment it would be catastrophic. This potential for
disaster argues against jumping in first.
What about long term costs? One component of text book inflation is the used book
market. They were introduced as reducing the cost to students, but had the net effect of
spiraling book costs because previously history books on a five- year cycle are now on a
three –year cycle. Have you given any thought on the mega effect on text book pricing?
Rafter: There are a lot of interesting economic considerations moving into the future of
the materials market. One of the things Rafter believes will happen over time is that the
plan will establish market power for the university and the students together to
collectively have a conversation with publishers about bringing the demand to them in
order to bring the cost down. This could be particularly useful in brokering agreements
as the format of materials evolves to digital format access that could be permanent or
temporary. As a distributer Rafter will be able to facilitate these agreements.
With regard to order mistakes, Rafter is able to mitigate these faster by placing rush
orders and communicating to the professor exactly when the books will arrive.
According to a national survey over 40% of students who purchased materials online
reported shipping issues primarily delays.
One of the advantages to students buying books when it is convenient for them is that
1300 students don’t show up at the Bookstore at the same time. There would have to be
some type of scheduled distribution to avoid lines.
Rafter: Materials arrive two weeks prior to the start of the semester and Rafter works
with the Bookstore to prepackage student materials. Rafter also communicates with the
various campus entities (Athletics, Residence Life, and etc.) to know the groups of
students on campus early in order to prepare these materials first. The company
conducted studies on line behavior and developed a process that is quick, so students’
experiences are positive.
The Graduate Student Association President Ryder Delaloye spoke to Senator Erickson
on the way to the meeting and asked that he inform the Senate that the GSA is not in
favor of model for many of the reasons mentioned earlier.
Part of the college experience is going into the Bookstore looking through books to
decide which one to choose based on the notes from the previous owner. The plan
would not allow for this experience. What if the student wants choices? Why couldn’t
our own bookstore put materials together for our students?
How would accommodate students who would like to get the books weeks or even a
semester in advance?
Rafter: The faculty adoption dates / practice would not change from the current
procedure. There will be a set date when all the books should be available. If having
books earlier is something desired by the University Rafter is willing to discuss how to
make this happen.
How well are the plans working at Schreiner and Thomas More?
Rafter: Both campuses launched the program August. This service plan has only been
available this academic year. Rafter wanted to launch with a small group of campuses
to ensure success. The feedback from the campuses has been very positive from all
cohorts. Rafter has met with the various groups to ask about the experience. At
freshmen orientation the parents applauded when it was announced that the book fees
were paid with the tuition bill. The Admissions Offices are also pleased with the program
and are using the predictability as a selling point. Both schools are willing to talk with
others schools about the experience from the faculty, business, and the students’
perspective.
How did UM and Rafter start this conversation?
Rafter: Jon Aliri, General Manager and Eamon Fahey, Chief Operating Officer, UM
Bookstore have been customers of Rafter software for several years. The UM
Bookstore goes out of their way to try to save students money. This is part of their
charter to serve the students. They were in the office a few months ago to talk about the
products and services offered. This program was described as going to market first with
a few small schools. They decided to present the possibility to the administration to be
considered. They then stepped back to allow discussions between Rafter and the
Provost’s Office.
On occasion faculty will acquire books outside of the Bookstore so there is a segment of
market that Rafter does not know about.
Rafter: After the meetings on campus it became clear that additional information
regarding purchasing options and use would need to be collected. However, the plan
does allow for additional adoptions.
Rafter created the survey results document. The statistical analysis is an attempt to
quantify a non-quantifiable survey and categorize the feedback. Rafter offered
clarification with regard to the Bookstore’s role in the program. Incorporated in the fee
are funds for logistics, which the Bookstore will help with. The Bookstore will make less
money from this plan than the current practice. Rafter sources the material.
Is there any data regarding the number of students that purchase the books?
Rafter: They do not yet have data on this program, but of the materials that are rented
90% are returned, 5% are purchased, and a small number do not get returned or are
lost. There are no additional charges for the use of open source materials.
Would Rafter have any role in the production of Fact Pacts because there has been a
systemic problem with accurate pricing?
Rafter: Fact Pacts will continue to be produced on campus using the current practice. If
the University is interested in this service, Rafter could consider this as an item for
product development.
Some English Literature students may resent having to return books after they have paid
a fee. This would work to a disadvantage to the University given the competition with
MSU for students.
Students have to take a lot of general education courses for which they would not want
to keep the book. The fact is that often people Google information that they would have
previously looked for in their saved text books. There is a fundamental change in how
the younger generation use and perceive books. You can put classic books on Kindle
for a third of the cost.
Most students sell back their books, but are frustrated with the buyback price. Students
who are passionate about course material will likely seek digital options rather than keep
their books.
In another year Rafter will have more data from the schools involved in the programs. It
would be nice to have this information before making a decision
Do we want to include a baggage fee as part of our airfare? It would put the institution at
a disadvantage in terms of recruiting students.
Rafter: In speaking with some of the other administrators on campus they saw the plan
as a way to differentiate UM from MSU because the because of the way the cost of
materials are reported. All universities are required to report an estimated cost of books
and supplies as a line item in the cost to attend. The Admissions website estimates this
cost at $950. The program would allow reporting of a much smaller number that would
actually seem to lower the cost of attendance.
It would be very disingenuous to list the $215 as the cost of Books and Supplies when it
is assumed that these are purchased and then owned by the student. There would need
to be clarification that the price is for a rental program.
It sounds like from the comments that this is just too new and too experimental to adopt
for all students. The only students it makes sense for are the freshmen who are taking a
lot of general education courses. She encourages the Senate to consider requesting a
pilot program to see how well it would work on this campus.
It would be helpful to see information about the cost of books based on schools or even
further delineated by departments and by class. Student behavior is likely to vary for
department to department. This data would help us to understand whether some
disciplines would be subsidizing others. It would be informative to understand this cost
deferential and then to consider some equitable options.
The Accounting department has negotiated a lower price with the publisher by
threatening to take their business elsewhere. Could a group like this pressure
publishers lower prices.
Rafter: Rafter does have experience to aggregate the purchase power on behalf of
Universities. It would be Rafter’s intent in future years to work toward a lower flat rate. By
no means is there inflation built into the program. It’s all about what the University
decides to adopt. We can achieve better pricing collectively.
Chair Lodmell Thanked representatives of Rafter and ASUM for attending the meeting
and providing their perspective. Rafter thanked the Senate for allowing them to be part
of the discussion.
Good and Welfare:

Constitution Day is being celebrated a week late with a lecture by Ken Kersh on
Constitutional Law, Constitutional Memory and Constitutional Politics tonight at
7:30p.m. in UM Law School, Room 101.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m.