Meeting Minutes, February 13, 2013
Skaggs Building, Room 169
Members
Present:
L. Ametsbichler, J. Bardsley, D. Beck, A. Belcourt, K. Bell, B. Borrie,
M. Bowman, S. Bradford, G. Burns, A. Chatterjee, M. Chin, W. Chung,
T. Crawford, M. DeGrandpre, H. Eggert, R. Fanning, L. Frey, E.
Gagliardi, C. Galipeau, L. Gillison, J. Glendening, S. Gordon, L. Gray,
C. Hahn, K. Harris, C. Henderson, J. Hirstein, W. Holben, H. Kim, A.
Kinny, C. Knight, A. Larson, B. Layton, S. Lodmell, D. MacDonald, M.
Mayer, N. McCrady, K. McKay, C. Merriman, J. Montauban, P.
Muench, H. Naughton, C. Palmer, R. Premuroso, E. Putnam, M.
Raymond, S. Richter, D. Schuldberg J. Sears, S. Shen, D. Shepherd,
D. Shively, D. Sloan, M. Stark, A. Szalda-Petree, S. Tillerman, E.
Uchimoto, R. Vanita, K. Wu, K. Zoellner
Members
Excused
J. Cavanaugh, M. Horejsi, N. Greymorning, J. Laskin, M. Neilson, E.
Plant, A. Sondag
Members
Absent
D. Hollist, P. Silverman
Ex-Officio
Present:
President Engstrom, Provost Brown, Associate Provosts Hinman and
Walker-Andrews, Interim Registrar Hickman, Deans Comer, Zhang,
ASUM Vice President Williams
L. Franz, D. Bulling, J. Sedgely, B. Seekins, M. Zentz
Guest:
Chair Putnam called the meeting to order at 3:10p.m. Interim Registrar Hickman
called roll.
The meeting began with an Executive Session.
Lori Morin, Assistant Dean for Student Affairs, College of Health Professions and
Biomedical Sciences presented a request to grant Cody Yuhas a Doctor of
Pharmacy degree posthumously. The Senate unanimously approved the
request.
President Engstrom presented two candidates for Honorary Degrees. Dean
Gianchetta and Good also commented on the candidates. The Senate approved
the candidates. They will be voted on by the Board of Regents at the March
meeting. The identities of the candidates remain confidential until after approval
by the BOR. The candidates are then invited to accept their degrees at the May
graduation ceremony. Senators should start to think about possible nominations
for next year.
Guests were invited to join the meeting.
The minutes from 12/5/13 were approved.
As part of the UM minute Chair Putnam congratulated Senator Layton who will
receive the John Ruffatto Memorial Award at tonight’s Charter Day
Ceremony. The award is given to faculty who bring practical, applicable
business principles into the classroom.
Communication:

President Royce Engstrom
The University is celebrating its 121st birthday today in honor of the hard work
and dedication of generations of faculty and staff. The Charter Day
Ceremony will commence at 5:30 p.m. this evening. This morning the
University announced the creation of the Blackstone LaunchPad, a project
funded by a Blackstone Foundation grant, in partnership with MSU, aimed at
developing student and alumni entrepreneurial skills and interest. An Office
will be opening soon in the University Center.
The University needs to look at its academic portfolio in a broad sense. We
need to consider whether we have the appropriate academic portfolio for a
Liberal Arts Research University with professional education in today’s
world. President Engstrom asked the Faculty Senate to lead an effort in
cooperation with the Provost and Academic Deans to design a process to
evaluate the academic offerings in a broad sense with the following questions
in mind. Are there programs that are challenged by enrollment, interest, or
relevance in today’s world? What can we do to strengthen those
programs? The process is not about identifying programs to eliminate, it is
about looking for ways to strengthen our academic portfolio. How do we
make programs relevant for today’s students, to bolster enrollment and quality
of students? What are the programs that present opportunities for real growth
or strength? We have many programs with enrollment caps that may have
waiting lists. Could these programs be expanded strategically? What new
opportunities might exist?
He would like the Faculty Senate to lead this discussion, to develop whatever
indicators /metrics that are appropriate to determine what changes should be
made to the portfolio. Chair Putnam asked senators to think about these
issues, to consider serving on a subcommittee or to send their ideas to ECOS
for consideration.

Provost Perry Brown
Several Celebrate Academics activities were held today in conjunction with
the Charter Day Ceremony. The University Center Atrium had a number of
student presentations and displays highlighting a variety of exciting
programs. There was also a video conference titled Technology’s Role in
Learning moderated by Daphne Koller, CEO and Co-founder of Coursera
from Stanford University. Teachers for the Global Century discussion session
took place yesterday with approximately 70 faculty members. It focused on
expanding the conversation of innovative teaching and learning. The day will
conclude with the award ceremony.
The Senate leadership requested that the Provost provide information about
two new policies / procedures were posted to the agenda as information to
senators. The driver for the Extra Compensation Policy was alignment with
the UFA contract language. It defines when extra compensation is
appropriate compared to other payment options such as stipends. Human
Resource Services and academic units were also very interested in
eliminating the pink cards.
The Research Base Salaries Policy was developed because of questions
regarding the appropriateness of additional compensation for research
oriented activity for faculty that also had a teaching contract with the
university. MSU’s process raised some questions which in turn raised
questions about how UM was dealing with the issue. UM solicited opinions
from attorneys familiar with the process. They recommended refining the
process to be more defensible within federal guidelines. The UFA helped
with developing the policy. There was also an open forum with faculty that
provided valuable input for revisions. In particular language was added to
include lecturers.
Questions:
The policy will not be implemented retroactively.
A provision has now been added for increases in correlation to academic
salaries. Human Resource Services has always adjusted the research
salary according to the percentage of increase, but there are other increases
such as merits that needed to be included. This language was added just
last week, so may not have been in the draft posted.
The Deans should have the starting base budget by next Tuesday. It is
hoped that funds will be added to this over time. The figure will be very
conservative to start.

ASUM Vice President Mariah Williams
One item of interest from last night’s meeting is student interest in a
“divestment campaign.” This would involve reinvesting foundation funds
currently in the fossil fuel industry into other types of funds. A resolution
worked through the senate with many changes. It calls for a committee to
assess the possibility of this action and the impact on the University.
The ASUM Leadership met with ASCRC and discussed its concerns
regarding the general education language motion. ASUM does not feel that
these have been adequately addressed or that possible repercussions have
been fully considered. ASUM urges senators to vote against the motion. The
ASUM senate voted down the motion on two separate occasions with well
over a 2/3 majority vote. The senator from Missoula College voted against
the motion.

Associate Vice President Dawn Ressel – Budget Model
(Vice President Mike Reid asked to address the Faculty Senate, but
unfortunately was called to a legislative committee meeting in Helena, so
assigned Associate Vice President Ressel to speak on his behalf.)
There are two parallel paths taking place with regard to funding. First we
must figure out FY 2015’s budget. There is no way given the situation and
the timeline to adopt a new model to accomplish this. So the budget process
for FY 2015 is the same as last year. The new model is a tool to enable the
university to think strategically about setting budgets; it is not being used to
set the 2015 budget. Hopefully the model will be ready to help build the 2016
budget. The methodology has not yet been officially adopted by the Budget or
the Planning Committee. Administration and Finance is in the process of
meeting with various stakeholders to collect feedback on the model.
The model is a BASE Budget. It will only identify the bare necessities to
function. The model identifies funds to cover personnel and essential
operating costs (telephone, computer, minimal travel). The idea is to create
pools of money for strategic allocations. The pools will allow the campus to
make decisions about what to do with limited funds. Overtime requests for
funds have become ongoing campus commitments. The campus needs to
discuss how to prioritize its spending. The model is a tool or mechanism that
is mathematically based. It will never tell units how much money is in budget
lines. It should provide the sector heads with the figure needed to teach a
given number of students and that is all.
The model does not factor in designated, auxiliary, or restricted fees. It
strictly looks at state appropriated general funds. The model will not control
the budgeting; it only provides additional information to help make better
transparent decisions. Diagrams showed the difference of the current base
plus model and the new model. The new model looks much more complex.
The metric used to identify funding for instruction is student credit
hours. Another area for funding is identified as central. This areas funding
will be decided strategically through the Planning Assessment Continuum.
The process will be to bring the central items to the Planning Committee for
discussion. All these items (such as sabbatical pool, special software
requirements, and etc.) will be brought to the Planning Committee to establish
central items listed in the next year.
The Planning Committee, which has broad campus representation, passes
the list of prioritized central items to the Budget Committee. The Budget
Committee decides to fund items with approval from the Vice Presidents and
the President to create the yearly budget. The Planning Assessment
Continuum will be used to track items through the process. It will be painful to
come up with the first list. Subcommittees are currently working to assure
everything is included on the central items list. A very important part of this is
closing the planning assessment loop by evaluating whether the funding
allocations were effective. Items are re-evaluated at this point to determine
whether they go into the budget the next year.
Questions:
The model does not use national benchmark standards. It is based on your
department’s average credit hours from the past three years. Programs are
compared to themselves using their data. The total number of credit hours
may be based on tenure to non- tenure ratio. For example: Department x
generated 2000 credit hours that is typically based on a 75/25 split of tenure
track to non-tenured faculty teaching a typical credit load of 15 instructional
hours. This will determine how many faculty are needed to generate the
credit hours based on the historic pattern. This FTE is then multiplied by your
disciplines average salary.
The model looks at how to continue operating at the current level. Data have
been entered that produce figures pretty close to the current budget. A hold
harmless provision is included given the disparity within some departments.
Research was accounted for by using a reduced teaching load ratio.
Questions:
The University must submit a balanced budget to OCHE at the end of the
year. Deficit spending is not allowed. The budget is built on our best guess
for revenue. When we don’t get the revenue, spending has to be adjusted
midyear to account for the shortage.
The intent of the model is to show how much money is needed to generate
credit hours. The model provides a base. There is concern about chronic
vacant lines which result in courses not being taught. This issue would need
to be addressed in the requests for strategic initiatives. If courses are taught
through resources other than general funds the department gets credit for the
instructional hours which would be reflected in the model. Some targets (28
for undergraduate for example) will be set with the model in order to
guarantee departments funding to teach average sized courses. If there are
waiting lists for courses with target numbers another section will be
approved.
It seems that departments could get stuck in a downward spiral due to past
vacancy savings practices. Many programs are currently operating on base
budgets. The request the President made to the Senate to evaluate
programs that could be bolstered and make arguments for strategic initiates
could address this problem.
A metric that only considers student credit hours does not account for student
success. It seems that graduation rates should be a factor. This would lead
to performance based funding and would change the dynamic of what the
administration is trying to accomplish. The model is based on having faculty
to teach courses that have students enrolled.
The Missoula College data are included in the model. We will need to
consider how much of the history we want to use to drive the allocations of
the future. Right now parameters have been entered into the model to give
us our current budget. So the Missoula Colleges’ split between non-tenure
and tenure and its average credit load is much different than the mountain
campus. Once the methodology has been accepted, we can start looking at
the parameters that need to change to create equity.
The model seems like a lot of work when most units are operating close to
base. There would only be a small pool to go towards strategic initiatives. It
will be this way to start, simply because we are on tight budgets right
now. Over time, it will be helpful to make strategic decisions as more funding
is available. The model can help give information when we have to make
reductions. For example we can determine how large a class should be in
order to have money to function. It provides tools that can work both ways.
Another issue of concern is how credit is calculated for labs which essentially
under report teaching loads. The Committee has been alerted to this problem
and is working on how to factor this into the model.
The Faculty Senate Chair serves on the Planning and Budget Committees
and the Chair-elect serves on the Assessment Committee. Associate Vice
President Ressel would be happy to meet with departments to go over the
model in more detail. Senators should send any additional questions or
concerns to either Dawn Ressel or the Senate Chair, who will do her best to
represent faculty interest on the various committees. Keep in mind that
these committee meetings are open, so you are welcome to attend.

Lucy France, General Council – Electronic and Information Technology
Accessibility (EITA)
The Office for Civil Rights with the Department of Education notified the
University that a complaint had been filed in August 2012. Members of EITA
Taskforce: Dan Bowling, Barb Seekins, Marlene Zentz, and Janet Sedgley
worked hard to respond to the items in the complaint and were in attendance
to answer questions. The allegations were that our electronics and
information technology, and learning technology systems, clickers, websites,
library systems were not accessible to students with disabilities. The
University responded by saying that it wanted to make everything accessible
and will work with the Office of Civil Rights. The EITA Taskforce has been
working on policies, procedures, and strategies to make sure our Electronic
and Information Technology is Assessable. The resolution agreement with
the Office of Civil Rights was posted to the agenda for senators to review in
order to voice any concerns.
Janet Sedgely coordinated the self-study to identify areas where we don’t
have accessible technology and to develop strategies. She and others will be
going to departments to discover what’s out there and what can be worked on
first. On almost every web page there is an accessibility link on the bottom of
the page. This will take you to a web page that list a variety of resources
related to accessibility. There are guidelines for making electronic information
assessable. The EITA Taskforce’s goal is to find ways to help the University
become compliant with the resolution agreement.
Marlene Zentz has a process in place to improve Moodle. There are IT short
courses available and IT is happy to tailor training to meet the needs for
departments.
Question
Subtitles should be included in video presentations. The law is that materials
must be accessible and classes are offered where students can get to
them. Students should not have to ask. It is recommended that faculty
include a statement on their syllabi to contact them with any accessibility
difficulties with course content. There are some sample statements on the
accessibility website.
If a professor wants to show a current event news video in class, but has a
student with accessibility issues in class, should the video not be
shown? The law is not intended to interfere with academic freedom. If it is
not practical or technically feasible to make content accessible then there can
be an exception. However, most of the time there is a way to make the
material accessible and this is what will be outlined in the policies and
procedures. The EITA Workgroup is creating support options and a
reasonable timeline for creating accessible materials. Faculty should try to be
proactive in thinking of accessibility for course materials.
IT is happy to audit your online courses so that you are assured they are
accessible. This is also available for face-to-face courses.
 Chair’s Report
The Performance Based Funding Steering Committee is now working on the metrics
for long term distribution. Tony Crawford has been added to the Committee because
of his expertise. The Committee will have a video meeting with MSU to work on the
metrics specific for 4-year research intensive institutions. Anyone with ideas about
the metrics should contact Professor Putnam or one of the other members to provide
input.
Several Committees are in need of members. Please consider serving or ask your
colleagues. ASCRC needs two members, one from the humanities and one from the
professional schools. Both the General Education Committee and the Research and
Creative Committee need a member from the Sciences.
The Chair and Chair –elect will be going to the Board of Regents meeting in
March. If you have concerns you would like brought forward please let them
know. The Board lost Angela MacLean as Chair because of her new position as
Lieutenant Governor. Her advocacy and fairness will be missed.
Committee Reports

ASCRC Chair Colin Henderson
The Curriculum Consent agenda was approved. It mostly consisted of items
approved last fall that were missing from the agenda in December.
The Rubric Guideline Procedure was approved. Rubrics are the prefix that is
assigned to a group of courses under a certain content area. The procedure
provides guidelines for proposing new rubrics given common course
numbering constraints.
Unfinished Business

Chair Putnam reminded senators of Robert’s rules of order to facilitate a
collegial and fair debate on the General Education Language Motion. It was
clarified that the motion did not affect Missoula College students who
complete associate degrees or satisfy their general education using the MUS
transferable core. ASCRC Chair Henderson summarized ASUM concerns
discussed at the committee meeting. ASUM perceives the requirement as an
extra burden (required credits) on the students, narrowing electives within a
major, and increasing the time to degree. ASCRC’s response was that UM
already has a language requirement. The motion is simply a clarification of
the current requirement.
According to ASUM Vice President Williams the most significant objection is
that students may not be able to take their preferred language (language
chosen to increase their employability) at their preferred time. The way
language is taught (5 days week conjugating verbs) does not necessarily
facilitate understanding of another culture. A three credit course that focuses
on the culture and language would be more desirable. ASUM Business
Manager Hopkins would like the University to make the lives of students
easier and not increase requirements which could lead to additional time to
degree which ultimately increases students’ debt.
ASCRC Chair Henderson: The way a department teaches courses is not the
purview of the Faculty Senate and is not a part of the motion being
considered. The motion only clarifies when departments are eligible to be
exempted from the language requirement.
Senator Uchimoto: Most top Liberal Arts Universities require
language. Universities in Europe and Japan require two languages even for
engineering majors. Language is necessary for the University’s global
mission.
Senator Tillerman: There is concern that the impact on majors was not
carefully measured. The additional information circulated did not show a
more detailed analysis. The Business School looked at its majors and found
one that would be required to take a language, which was not included in the
calculation of majors impacted. The five-days-week course offerings make it
difficult for business majors to graduate in four years.
Senator Gillison: There are many ways to fulfill the requirement. The
requirement does not mandate every student to take two semesters of a five
credit language course. The requirement is that students are able to show
proficiency to start a second year course. Students can test out. If students
have language experience in a language not taught by the University, the
Modern and Classical Language Department will work with the student to
certify the appropriate level of proficiency. A university with a global mission
should require its students to have some experience learning another
country’s language. Students in other countries work hard to learn
English. Global Citizens need to understand how much effort is involved.
Senator Frey: We are disadvantaging our students by not requiring them to
learn a language. All world class liberal arts institutions require
language. We should be interested in strengthening the institution.
Senator Bradford: The study of language has been a core of liberal arts
education for centuries. It is not a new requirement, but rather a clarification
of when the symbolic systems exemption is appropriate. Most world class
institutions have a minimum of two years language requirement. This is only
a one year requirement for students who are unable to test out. This is not an
unreasonable expectation for students given UM’s claim as a liberal arts
institution and our mission to prepare students for the 21st “global”
century. Understanding other cultures is relevant. There is also a
humanistic element of learning a language that isn’t necessarily a part of
symbolic systems. Learning that other people communicate differently can
be a valuable experience. Learning another language speaks to mutual
respect and understanding of other people around the world. Learning a
language cultivates intellectual skills. The art of translation cultivates the
understanding of deliberate speech. People become much more consciously
aware of their ability to communicate effectively and logically. Many students
learn grammar for the first time in their language course. High quality speech
and language reflects high quality thinking. It improves the ability of students
to discriminate carefully what they are saying and intending to say- paying
attention to the particular elements, close reading and analysis. These are
21st century transferable skills (communication, collaboration, critical thinking,
problem solving, and innovation). These skills will strengthen our students’
ability to be ready for a challenging career and citizenship. Citizenship in our
country and world will be enhanced by increased, effective communication,
the ability to collaborate with diverse partners, show them respect, and
improve thinking skills. In the spirit of general education the goal is not to tell
departments what to do but rather to achieve consensus among ourselves of
what 21st century citizens need to be able to do in the world. Enhancing
mutual respect of other cultures is a huge component. In general education
we don’t expect fluency from one course in mathematics, but we do expect
basic literacy in order to be competent to navigate through an increasingly
complex world of ideas and opportunities.
Senator Belcourt: There are a lot of students who do not have access to
learning languages in high school. Tribal schools in particular are very
impoverished. Native American students are the largest minority on
campus. Many of these students are non-traditional students who are
working and may have children. The current offering of language courses
would be difficult to work into their schedules. This is something that will need
to be addressed with any requirement. It is her understanding that the
paperwork was submitted for the Blackfeet Language. The University has to
be responsive to the people who are from this land when we talk of diversity
and respect for culture. Indigenous languages need to be recognized and it
doesn’t seem that there is the funding to teach them right now.
Senator Naughten is from an occupied country. She was forced to take
Russian for 11 years and she can barely speak it because she was forced to
take it. She loves languages. The desire to become a part of a global
community does not happen through rules and laws. It has to come from
somewhere else. It seems languages should be taught in high school and
middle schools. The understanding of other cultures comes more from
opportunities to travel abroad and to interact with others than a requirement.
There are some innovative things taking place in the K-12 education in
Missoula and the surrounding communities. Looking forward students should
be better prepared and the University needs to set a standard that shows
language is important.
Senator MacDonald’s undergraduate experience is from Brown University
where there is a wider variety of courses and fewer
restrictions. Departments create a program that works best for their
students. The department knows which students would benefit from taking
language courses. He favors eliminating as many restrictions or
requirements as possible.
A liberal Arts education entails exposure to different perspectives and ideas
across the curriculum in the humanities, sciences, arts, and schools. UM is
not a technical college or an engineering school, it is a liberal arts
university. Eliminating general education requirements as a whole is a
fundamental change to what we represent as a university. Language is just
as important to a liberal arts education as the other general education
requirements. He urges the Senate to pass the motion which is not a new
requirement.
ASCRC Chair Henderson: The motion does not add more requirements. It
simply specifies more clearly when language is required and when a symbolic
systems exception is allowed.
Senator Holben sees a lot of students that run up against the credit cap for
financial aid. As a Biology Professor, he does a lot of international
travel. The new international language is computation. We would do better
to train our students in this. College students, including his own are more
interested in getting the training they need as quick as possible especially
when they are not being supported for their education.
Senator Ametsbichler: It is hoped that strengthening the existing requirement
will have the trickledown effect of bolstering language instruction in high
schools, so that our students will have more language experience upon
admission. Students majoring in language do not have the choice not to take
math. The general education requirements are aligned with the University’s
core values. Language is necessary for a university with an international
mission.
Professor Burns: He believes that all students should be exposed to learning
a language, but this motion does not apply to all students. Students in majors
that require over 48 credits do not have to take language. He finds the
language in the motion confusing and incomplete. He’s not sure whether his
program is exempt or not.
ASCRC Chair Henderson: The application for programs to request the
symbolic systems exception will be refined with a form that clearly specifies
how credits are counted.
Senator Stark agrees that it is unfortunate that students don’t get to take the
courses they want. The nature of general education curriculum is that you
get exposed to things you didn’t know you would find interesting or
valuable. General education is intended to be exploratory.
Senator Shively is in Geography. He advises students to take a language
and their program has a symbolic systems exception. Many students change
their majors to Geography and end up taking their symbolic systems course
their sophomore year. Students should have both language and symbolic
systems. If any students have to complete the language requirement, all
should.
The motion passed by a show of hands, 28 in favor and 20 against.
New Business

The bylaw amendment to change the University Library Committee
membership was on the agenda as information and will be voted on next
month.

The Professional Schools caucused and nominated Senator Brad Layton
from Missoula College to serve on ECOS in accordance to the revised
bylaws. The nomination was approved by the full Senate.
Good and Welfare

Please consider attending the Charter Day Ceremony taking place directly
following the meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 pm.