Meeting Minutes, October 10, 2013
Skaggs Building, Room 169
Members
Present:
L. Ametsbichler, J. Bardsley, D. Beck, B. Borrie, S. Bradford, J.
Cavanaugh, A. Chatterjee, M. Chin, M. DeGrandpre, H. Eggert, L.
Frey, E. Gagliardi, C. Galipeau, S. Gordon, L. Gray, N. Greymorning,
K. Harris, J. Hirstein, W. Holben, H. Kim, A. Kinny, C. Knight, A.
Larson, J. Laskin, B. Layton, S. Lodmell, D. MacDonald, M. Mayer, N.
McCrady, K. McKay, C. Merriman, J. Montauban, P. Muench C.
Palmer, R. Premuroso, E. Putnam, M. Raymond, S. Richter, D.
Schuldberg J. Sears, S. Shen, D. Shepherd, D. Shively, A. Sondag, M.
Stark, S. Tillerman, E. Uchimoto, R. Vanita, K. Wu, K. Zoellner
Members
Excused
A. Belcourt, L. Gillison, M. Neilson, E. Plant
Members
Absent
M. Bowman, W. Chung, J. Crepeau, T. Crawford, J. Eglin, R. Fanning,
J. Glendening, C. Hahn, D. Hollist, M. Horejsi, P. Silverman, D. Sloan,
A. Szalda-Petree
Ex-Officio
Present:
President Engstrom, Provost Brown, Interim Associate Provost
Hinman, Interim Registrar Hickman, Associate Provost Walker
Andrews, Associate V.P. O’hare
B. Brown, B. Chin, L. Franz, A. Ratto-Parks, D. Russel, K. Webster, G.
Weix
Guest:
Chair Putnam called the meeting to order at 3:10p.m. Interim Registrar Hickman called
roll. The meeting started with the UM minute. Chair Putnam reminded presenters of the
time allocations.
The minutes from 9/12/13 were approved.
Communication:

President Royce Engstrom
Missoula College
The decision has been made to put the Missoula College building on the East
Broadway location. The opportunity for a high visibility building with connections to
the business community was important, but many factors were considered in making
the decision. The University will now progress with the environmental impact
analysis, architectural drawings, and then the actual construction. It will probably be
at least two years to completion. The University must raise an additional $3 million
to add to the $29 million allocated by the legislature.
Enrollment Management
The University hasn’t been very effective connecting academic excellence to student
recruitment efforts. A structural change has been made. Enrollment Services now
reports to Assistant VP Sharon O’Hare in Academic Affairs. This change integrates
all enrollment management activities and increases communication between
recruiting, enrollment, and academic success. It does not impact jobs. There will be
increased opportunities for faculty involvement in recruitment efforts. It’s important
for recruiters to know the University’s academic accomplishment stories.
Resolution Agreement with the Department of Justice / Education Process
The administration listened to the concerns expressed at the last Faculty Senate
meeting and are working with the DOJ to get some the language changed. The
President asked the University’s Legal Counsel, Lucy Franz to outline the items in
discussion with the DOJ.
One concern was the summary sexual harassment definition in the tutorial. The new
policy uses the full definition which reflects the law. The tutorial has been revised to
reflect the full definition to assure clarity. This change is not substantive, so does not
require those who have already taken the tutorial to retake it. The agreement
requires a refresher every three years.
Another issue is in the section of the policy (taken from Michigan’s policy) that states
the University may take appropriate action if it does not find discrimination or
harassment occurred. This language is not intended to allow for disciplinary action
against employees cleared during an investigation. It refers to other findings
discovered during the investigation. The University is working with the DOJ and DOE
on the language.
A big concern is the requirement to provide names of employees who have or have
not taking the training to the DOJ. The University is working with the DOJ and DOE
to remove the requirement. The University still needs to demonstrate that
employees have been informed and engaged with the new policies. This reporting
will include data but not individual names.
The Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Office is working on alternatives to the
tutorial due to faculty comments. This may include a departmental or a one-one one
discussion with the Title 9 Coordinator, Eric Guitierrez.
Please continue to send your questions and concerns so they may be addressed.
The University is working with the agencies to assure compliance in a way that works
for our campus.
PETSA is required of new students. Students who are opposed to completing the
program have the option to meet with the Title 9 Coordinator, Eric Gutierrez. There
has been less opposition to PETSA.

Provost Perry Brown
Last week there was an open forum focused on academic matters. There was a
good conversation about a wide variety of topics. There is another forum scheduled
on November 18th from 9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.
There is an increase interest in 2 + 2 programs. This involves a more formalized
transfer program where students take the first two years at a community college. For
example the Business School and Helena College have worked out a program where
students take all the necessary prerequisite courses at the Helena College to
transition to the Business Program at the upper-division level. Helena College has
also worked out a program for qualified honors students to be accepted into the third
year Honors College program at UM. These programs are attractive to students
interested in furthering their education and help with recruiting. Geography is working
on a program with BYU Idaho. The Provost is encouraging Missoula College to work
on such programs. The programs assure that students are prepared for the transfer
with quality course work. The details of the programs are worked out with the faculty
at both institutions and may include the Chief Academic Officer.
There is also a 2+2 program in Social Work with Flathead Valley College that
includes online course work. The program has been operating for three years and is
very successful.
Questions
An article in the Missoulian indicated this year’s budget cuts were permanent, is this
true? President Engstrom responded that Vice President Reed comments were
correct in that the University’s budget is adjusted to expenses every year.

Dean Roger Maclean, School of Extended and Life Long Learning
Dean Maclean would like help and guidance on how we might initiate a faculty
discussion of online education and digital technology. The University needs to think
about pedagogy for the 21st century. The President’s Academic Planning Advisory
Group identified online education as an area that requires attention. The term online
refers to the use of digital tools and digital technology to improve and enhance
teaching and learning. This could be a fully online course, blended course, or just
using technology in the classroom. The Innovation Studio works with faculty
individually because each faculty member’s or program’s needs are unique. The
purpose of enhanced technology is to help and complement faculty efforts to reach
students in multiple ways.
Recent studies indicate the need for change. The first study is of high school
graduate projections for the next decade. Montana will see a decline (below 10,000
per year) in the total number of students graduating from high school. This will create
a smaller number of traditional students, but in addition there will be greater
competition for students not only in the state, but also the nation and the world. The
other study projects the age of college students enrolled over the next decade.
There will be a 20-25% growth in students 25 or older. So the University will have a
different mix of students. The older students will likely need more flexibility than a
Monday through Friday 9-3 schedule. Digital technology will need to play a role in
addressing this. Online instruction also provides flexibility for faculty.
The staff at the School of Extended and Life Long Learning are available for input,
but believe the discussion and decision making process needs to originate with the
faculty.
Questions
The School of Extended and Life Long Learning is working with Blackboard
Collaborate in combination with Moodle to live streams video to multiple locations.
Several Communicative Sciences courses have had good results with the system. A
benefit of the system is that it is assessable in terms of ADA requirements. Faculty
can contact Sell staff for help with the system and to get information about specific
technical requirements for remote students. They will meet with you individually to
find a technical solution to your course needs.
The budget allocation for online courses has been static for several years. There are
not enough funds to increase course offerings in the current financial model so
there have not been requests for the development of new online courses. The
budget model is part of the discussion that needs to take place. How do we
transition? How do we initiate new opportunities? Individual courses work well for
campus students but will not reach a larger audience. We need to look at new
opportunities from a programmatic perspective (perhaps a certificate or focus content
area).

ASUM Vice President Mariah Williams
ASUM discussed extending its’ student loan program at last night’s meeting. ASUM
provides 30 day short term loans to students. Generally the risk is managed by not
loaning to first semester freshmen or seniors close to graduation. There is about
$85,000 available to loan. Loans are capped at $500. Students who are veterans
have not received their benefit checks due to the government shut down, so the loan
has been opened to freshmen and seniors, and the duration has been extended to
60 days.
Senators are encouraged to attend ASUM meetings or stop by the office with any
questions related to student issues. ASUM also has two faculty advisors, Garon
Smith and Megan Stark who can be contacted about issues.
Matt Hopkins, the ASUM Business Manager was introduced as the third member of
the ASUM management team.

UFA President Dave Shively
The University Faculty Association, UM Administration, and the Commissioner of
Higher Education concluded bargaining on September 30th. The agreement is being
compiled to be reviewed and approved by the Executive Board. They will then be
sent to faculty in ratify the contract. Faculty can expect to have access to the
documents in another week and a half. Paper ballots will be sent shortly after. He
cannot disclose the specifics of the tentative agreements until the Board approves
them. Once the information is available the UFA will hold a general meeting to
discuss the agreements and address any questions. The UFA bargaining team was
quite pleased with the process.
The UFA Communications Committee is working on revisions to the website. Please
take a look at the current website ( UFA4UM.org ) and provide suggestions for a
more accessible site. It is feasible that the UFA could have a much more userfriendly site that perhaps incorporates social media.
Questions:
Because the UFA is not actually a university organization, it cannot use the same
electronic voting system as ASUM or the Faculty Senate. The website is not
maintained on the University’s server. The UFA is hoping to work out an electronic
voting system.
Chair Putnam informed the Senate that the Chairs Report is being delayed to allow
for a timely consideration of the writing assessment motion.
Committee Reports

ASCRC Chair Henderson
The Writing Assessment motion to eliminate the UDWPA and implement a Programlevel Assessment of Writing was presented in October for senators to consider.
ASCRC Chair Henderson and Writing Committee Chair, Beverly Chin addressed
several questions. The courses involved in the program–level assessment are
approved writing courses (listed in the catalog). Many are lower division but there
are a few 300 / 400 level courses. The upper-division writing required by the major is
not included in this assessment.
For the past two years the Writing Committee has been engaged in a pilot study to
determine whether this type of assessment was feasible and sustainable. The rubric
was developed and refined, training papers were identified, and student papers were
collected for two Writing Assessment Retreats. The assessment is a work in
progress. Future efforts will involve the collection of data, synthesis, and sharing of
data on a larger scale. The use of Moodle allows for the inclusion of students’ class,
major, gender and etc. The procedures for dissemination of data still need to be
developed, but will certainly allow for programs to use data in their assessment
reports.
PowerPoint slides were presented to clarify the functions and process of the
Program-level Assessment. Writing Instructors will usually determine which paper
(one that demonstrates the learning goals of approved writing course) should be
submitted to Moodle by students. Some instructors may give students the option to
choose which paper to submit. It is hoped that 100% of approved writing course
instructors and all of their students will participate. A representative random sample
of papers will be scored at the Writing Assessment Retreat. Papers will be stripped
of all identifiers. The attendees will include instructors of approved writing courses,
as well as other professors, professional staff, and teaching assistants involved with
teaching and tutoring students to write. Anyone is welcome to attend the retreat. It is
hoped that there will be representation across disciplines. The data will be analyzed
and reported based on the groups needing the assessment data. This will not
involve an analysis of individual courses, faculty or students. It does not serve a
gating function. It assesses whether the writing program is serving students in the
context of approved writing courses.
There is not a university-wide assessment of WRIT 101. Students are assessed by
their grade in the course. Last year the Director of Composition provided a report to
the Writing Committee detailing current assessment practices in WRIT 101. It is
appended to the Writing Committee’s 2012 Annual Report.
Senator Holben recently put together a grant proposal for undergraduate STEM
(Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education and was astounded
to discover that there are only 2 writing courses out of 13 STEM units on campus.
The proposal had to address the adequacy of lower-division science writing.
Academic Affairs should address the shortage by offering incentives for faculty to
teach courses necessary for the University to meet standards required for funding
STEM opportunities. The issue of whether there are enough 200 level courses to
meet the need is not a part of the motion, but is an issue that the Writing Committee
is discussing.
The data will indicate the percentage of students at the various levels of proficiency.
It might be further analyzed by declared majors’ or a particular class of students’
percentage of proficiency, or strengths and weaknesses. Currently we do not get this
type of information from the UDWPA. The type of data generated from the UDWPA
indicates how many students pass at first attempt, second attempt, and so on. It is
hoped that the data analysis from program- level assessment will empower faculty to
look at curriculum and instruction, and perhaps use or adapt the rubric and or
compare with their rubrics.
The transition to program-level assessment is not economically driven. At first
Associate Provost Walker Andrews was against the Writing Committee’s
recommendation because there was already a writing assessment in place to report
data to accreditors. Since then she has been convinced of the value of programlevel assessment. Currently on average 86% of students pass the UDWPA on the
first attempt. But no information is gathered that actually helps to improve writing
instruction or students’ writing. An enormous amount of Writing Center staff time is
currently devoted to conducting the UDWPA. Money is spent on proctors, scorers,
and computer labs. The elimination of the exam will free-up Writing Center staff time
so that they can spend more time on tutoring students and addressing weaknesses
identified in the program –level assessment through its various outreach initiatives.
The UDWPA is broken and is a waste of money. It has morphed into something that
was not intended or anticipated. It has become a senior exit exam not a gating exam
into upper-division course work. Some faculty teaching upper-division courses
continue to express concern about students’ inadequate writing proficiency.
Students that don’t pass the UDWPA do not receive guidance on how to improve
their writing. With this motion, the Writing Committee is trying to return the
assessment back to the faculty. Instructors involved in the assessment process will
be part of the feedback loop. Professor Weix, a member of the Writing Committee,
was reticent to attend the retreat, but admits that it has improved her teaching. Her
understanding of and use of the rubric in her mid-level writing course has improved
students’ understanding of expectations and thus improved student performance. If
faculty members participate, improvements in instruction and student writing will take
place over time.
Professor Chin, the Writing Committee Chair, has participated in large-scale writing
assessment both at the national and state level. It involves training of the scorers to
agree on scores of papers at various levels regardless of the discipline. People
collaborate and discuss papers to reach consensus. It is a professional development
opportunity that broadens and enriches our perspective on what constitutes effective
writing.
At the start of the semester, approved writing course instructors will inform students
about the submission requirement for assessment. There should also be a statement
on the syllabus. Submissions to Moodle can be tracked by the assessment
coordinator or the instructor. During the pilot, some instructors sent student papers
electronically to the coordinator to upload into Moodle. Guidelines and procedures
dealing with logistics will be developed and refined if the program level assessment
is approved.
Interim Associate Provost Hinman participated in the retreat last year. It was fun.
Everyone talked about something they cared deeply about – student writing. It
provided the opportunity for participants to review their perceptions, biases, ways of
grading writing and giving feedback on assignments. It was a beneficial investment
of her time. It is hoped that faculty will want to participate, but it will be up to
departments and colleges to encourage participation.
The question was called. The motion passed with 2 against and 2 abstentions.
Communications Continued
 Chair’s Report
Last month the Provost presented the Non-tenurable Faculty Report. It was posted
to the agenda for Senators to review if so inclined.
Board of Regents Update
Board of Regents Policy 406- Ownership of Electronic Course Material was revised.
A link to the revised policy was posted to the agenda. It specifies that any online
course material created by the employees of the Montana University System shall
remain the property of the creator. There are some exceptions specified in the policy.
Instructors should clarify which part of the course is considered intellectual property
and which part is considered the mechanics of offering that is referred to in the policy
as the use of substantial university resources. Faculty members have been and will
be able to negotiate an individual contract for a course. MUSFAR has been working
on this issue for quite some time. Chair Putnam will need to find out whether the
policy is retroactive and whom Faculty should contact to work out an agreement.
Performance Based Funding
Please participate in the survey on Performance Based Funding recently sent be the
President’s Office. It will only be open for one week. Its purpose is to gage
awareness and understand campus-wide concerns. The more responses received
the more the faculty voice is heard. The other way for your voice to be heard is
through participation in on-site focus groups on October 31stat either 8:30 am, 10:00
am, and 3:00 pm. Please let the Faculty Senate Office know whether you would like
to participate. This is the next step in determining the rubrics / metrics used to
implement performance based funding.
There is a joint University Planning and University Budget Committee on October
21st in the UC Theater. The summer Workgroups will report their recommendations
for campus to address the budget situation. The Planning and Budget Committees
will make recommendations to the President with regard to any action taken based
on the reports.
Senators were invited to tonight’s reception at Chair Putnam’s home.
Unfinished Business

The amendment to the bylaws was postponed.
Good and Welfare

The Day of Dialog is November 6th. There will be some exciting events on campus
including the Black Violin music performance on November 5th. Please attend the
sessions and remind your students to participate.

The Missoula Symphony Chorale is performing on Sunday October 7th at 3:00p.m. in
the Dennison Theatre.

It is demoralizing to read about administrative raises and then read about major
University budget cuts 10 days later.

Given our current congressional situation, we as educators and concerned citizens
should take up these issues in our courses, and facilitate student discussions, so
perhaps when they take leadership positions, they will know how to do so.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:40 pm.