University Committee Year-End Communication
Unit Standards Committee
Committee Name
2012-2013
4 plus emails
Academic Year
Number of Meetings
Committee Members (available at http://www.umt.edu/committees/) 
Megan Stark, Mansfield Library (Chair)
Kimberly James, Music
Lee Banville, Journalism
Jean Carter, Pharmacy Practice
Casey Charles, English
Nate McCrady, Physics and Astronomy
Stephen Lodmell, DBS
Eric Hines, Political Science
Steve Schwarze, Communication Studies
Julie Biando Edwards, Mansfield Library
Please describe your experience on the committee (What information would you share
with a faculty member who is considering service on this committee?)
The Committee piloted use of Moodle for tracking the documents sent between the units, the
committee and the Provost’s office. The success was limited but the pilot will be continued next
year.
As with previous years, “the Committee split into two teams of reviewers whose charges were to
review the submitted documents for clarity and consistency with campus (CBA) standards. The
reviewers made margin notes on the documents and completed the review checklist provided by
the Provost’s Office. The whole committee then met and reviewed comments and prepared
suggestions for the units.” (2010-2011 report)
The committee met four times, and occasionally via email. The first meeting was designed to
discuss the work of the committee and to divide the standards into review pairs. As in the past,
more experienced committee members served as primary reviewers and first-year members
worked as secondary reviewers. The last two meetings in early February were used to discuss
the findings of the subcommittees and to finalize the recommendations being sent to the units.
Email was used to communicate and share findings between meetings. Camie Foos and Jasmine
Zink were copied on email messages.
Sociology was not reviewed due to the committee not receiving a signature page from the Dean.
The standards were submitted, but the committee was asked to refrain from review until the
proper signatures came from the Dean, which did not materialize. This unit was informed that
their review would be delayed until 2013-2014.
Steve Lodmell has volunteered to serve as chair next year.
Topics Addressed (agenda items)
Continued the ongoing review of new and updated unit standards for six of the seven units due to
submit documents this year. Standards were reviewed for clarity of content and consistency with
the CBA.
Actions Taken (resolutions, proposals, recommendations)
Unit Standards
Subcommittee
Assigned*
Action Taken
Accounting and
Finance
J Edwards (P)
L Banville (S)
3/15/13
Ecosystem and
Conservation Science
S Lodmell (P)
E Hines (S)
Society and
Conservation
J Carter (P)
S Schwarze (S)
Sociology
NOT REVIEWED DUE
TO MISSED
DEADLINE
M Stark (P)
C Charles (S)
Reviewed, Suggestions
for revisions returned to
unit
Reviewed, Suggestions
for revisions returned to
unit
Reviewed, Suggestions
for revisions made to
unit
NA
Reviewed, Suggestions
for revisions made to
unit
Reviewed, Suggestions
for revisions made to
unit
Reviewed, Suggestions
for revisions made to
unit
3/15/13
Physics and
Astronomy
Political Science
S Lodmell (P)
N McCrady (S)
Music
M Stark (P)
J Edwards (S)

Signature page
3/15/13
3/15/13
NA
3/15/13
3/15/13
Only the Primary (P) and secondary (S) reviewers are listed, but all documents were
discussed by the entire committee after the initial review and checklist preparation were
completed.
Unresolved Issues 
There was some concern from units about confusion arising from the checklist and its intended
departmental use. It would be beneficial for next year’s committee to re-examine its role and use.
One significant suggestion for the coming year is to make a recommendation to the UFA
Bargaining Team to clarify the phrase “general education” in CBA 10.120, sec. 3.
There continues to be delay in receiving standards from units, which makes it difficult to
maintain the timeline of the committee’s schedule. Units should be reminded very early of the
upcoming deadline and advised on the documents unnecessary for the committee’s review.
Examples may include departmental policy/handbook material regarding such issues as
mentoring, mission statements, office rotation, IPR templates, etc.