The Bitterroot College Program of The University of Montana
Meeting Minutes: Tuesday, April 27, 2010
The Steering Committee of the Bitterroot College Program (BCP) of The University of Montana met on
Tuesday, April 27, 2010 from 3 – 5 PM at the Ravalli County Commissioners Meeting Room in Hamilton.
The meeting was chaired by John Robinson. In alphabetical order, committee attendees included:
Sharon Alexander, Tim Bronk, Carlotta Grandstaff, Chuck Jensen (via conference call), Patricia Meakin,
Kimberley Mills, Deb Morris, Rick O’Brien, John Robinson, and Dixie Stark. Committees members
excused were Katelyn Andersen, Royce Engstrom, Mary Moe, and Lynn Stocking. Also present was BCP
Interim Director Victoria Clark.
Members of the public in attendance included William (Bill) T. McDonald.
Taking meeting minutes was Bruce Weide.
The meeting opened with Chair Robinson calling the committee to order and conducting roll call,
followed by Robinson making an introductory speech with respect to the purpose of the Steering
Committee and the related problems of the BCP’s growth; the full text of Chair Robinson’s speech:
FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER
This is from our 3/15/2009 meeting. Steering Committee Purpose
The primary purpose of the Bitterroot College Program (BCP) Steering Committee is to develop
an innovative model for the delivery of responsive and sustainable adult and higher education
opportunity to the residents of Ravalli County, Montana. The committee is charged with
completing a master plan for the new model by August of 2010.
Everyone deserves a great hand. We have exceeded our wildest expectations, and certainly those of our
gracious partner The University of Montana. The reason we have exceeded expectations is the steady
hand of Royce Engstrom, the great direction of Victoria Clark, the intense effort and cooperation of Lynn
Stocking and Sharon Alexander and the dedicated work of the steering committee.
According to our mission statement our primary purpose is to complete a master plan for two year
higher education by August of 2010. My assumption is that this master plan will be enacted all over
Montana. As of today I don’t remember the steering committee taking any steps in the direction of
creating a master plan. The Bitterroot Valley Community College effort thoroughly looked into the needs of
the Bitterroot community. It was decided, and I think rightly so, that the community college system was
the proper solution for our educational problem.
The community college system satisfies the two year higher education and adult education problem. It
requires the community to participate in partially funding the educational effort, which this community
voted to do. It voted to allow the community college taxing authority. This gives the community a stake in
two year higher education. It gives autonomy to the educational institution, and would place it under the
supervision and oversight of the Commissioner of Higher Education Office and the Board of Regents. It
would require the Montana legislature to formula fund its existence as it does all higher education. Having
a higher educational institution locally controlled would throw open the gates of educational opportunity
to what our current experiment has shown is a vast horde of eager, highly motivated learning seekers.
A locally controlled community college would instill community pride. It would tend to unite the area
which is now sort of educationally cooperatively dysfunctional.
When I was practicing law one of my lay awake at night exercises was mentally working on client’s
problems to come up with the best solution in each case. I’ve been retired and hadn’t done that kind of
thinking in several years, until I got involved with the effort to bring higher education to the Bitterroot
The Bitterroot College Program of The University of Montana
Meeting Minutes: Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Page 2 of 6
Valley. Now, when I can’t fall asleep at night, I search out what I perceive to be the problems of the
Bitterroot College Program, and try to think of solutions.
PROBLEM: We have come to a point where we are in an unprecedented expanding position. From the
data that comes pouring into Victoria’s office we can be certain there will be a very large increase in
student enrolment this summer and fall. We are going to need a lot more space to handle the increased
enrollment. What do we need for this great expansion? Why of course, the mother’s milk of education —
MONEY.
Currently we are under the legitimate budget restraints of the University. The money to run this show all
comes from the University, and we are eternally thankful for their great support. However, we need a lot
more money, and we are not going to obtain it through the University. The University has been requested
to cut expenditures 5%, so they are not going to be able to service the Bitterroot College Program with the
increased funding we are going to need to be able to handle the students we are attracting. I think that’s a
given.
Currently as I see the solution to the problem, we are going to have to raise the money ourselves. My
instincts lead me to believe we are capable of raising a lot of money.
PROBLEM: We are not an independent entity. We do not have our own bank account, and we only have
two places to put contributed money. One place is the RC&D account we have established, and the other is
the U of M account. In these two places donors can take the gift off as a tax deduction.
These are both great places to store funds, but they are not easy access for the Bitterroot College
Program. Maybe we should form our own non-profit organization which would make us more
independent.
Operating this college is a little cumbersome because of our tiered entry to the University. We are
controlled in a large part by the College of Technology which is controlled by the University. Both the COT
and the Bitterroot College Program depend on their funding from the University. We are both seeking
funds from the same source. In many ways it makes us competitors.
If we begin soliciting funds in Ravalli County we are moving into an area where the University also seeks
funding. We don’t want to make the University upset, but if we actively seek funding from the local
population we may be cutting into a University source. The problem is if we are going to continue to be
successful we need more money, and we have to get it somewhere, and local funding seems to be the
likely place.
If we are to establish a new model institution of two year higher learning in the valley I think this is
our area of solicitation also. The University can continue to work the area, but I think we will end up being
more effective. I understand the problem, and I think we are both entitled to solicit the valley for funding.
The University is already six mills ahead of us. We are going to be competitors in the local arena. We will
end up sharing the educational funds available for solicitation.
PROBLEM: Seeking grant money. Since we are not an entity and do not have a Federal Tax ID number
we use the University’s number. However the COT uses that number also, and two submissions from the
same number would most likely get both applications thrown out, i.e. we started an application, but found
that the COT was also applying. We decided to cease our attempt so as not to interfere with the COT’s
application. Then we found out, since we are both under the University, we were not eligible to apply in
the first place. In order to apply for most grants we need to be a separate entity.
We had a faculty meeting that I felt was very productive. I was impressed with the strong energetic
presentation and questions by the seven faculty members in attendance. There was one thing that they
were in unison about. They were all impressed with the high motivation of their students. That is a strong
indication that these are people who came to learn.
PROBLEM: One of the small faults about the faculty is that the Bitterroot College Program has little or
no input into their selection. It was all done through the COT. Since those of us involved with the college
effort down in the valley are holding the wrist of the college in our hands, and can feel the pulse of the
college, we should have active input in the hiring of instructors.
Another part of the problem is wages for the instructors. There appears to be a wide spread in what is
paid to instructors over the whole University system: from $550 to $1,000 a credit hour. The faculty was
united in the fact they believed the COT scale of $550 a credit hour was not sufficient for the work
The Bitterroot College Program of The University of Montana
Meeting Minutes: Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Page 3 of 6
involved. Our scale for the first year was higher. For institutional harmony we have cut back to the COT
figure for the second year. It will create more difficulty in hiring viable instructors.
PROBLEM: After looking at it carefully I have come to the conclusion that the three tiered management
of the Bitterroot College Program is not the best way to manage two year adult and higher education.
Local autonomy needs to be granted to the Bitterroot College Program. I recognize this problem, and I
have no solution right at hand. I think the Office of Commissioner of Higher Education, the Board of
Regents, the University of Montana and the Bitterroot College Steering Committee, and the Legislature,
need to cooperate in finding the solution to local autonomy. Without local autonomy the Bitterroot
College Program will not achieve full fruition, nor will like structured institutions anywhere else in the state
be successful.
I could go on, but I expect I have exposed enough problems needing solution for today.
Next, Chair Robinson asked for comments or corrections to the meeting minutes from March 23, 2010.
There were none, and the minutes were unanimously approved as is.
After the minutes’ vote, Chair Robinson gave the floor to Interim Director Victoria Clark for the
presentation of the Director’s Report. Clark’s report began with a breakdown of current operational
issues, with Clark noting at the onset that BCP operations were now consuming 100 percent of her time
as well as a good portion of Lynn Stocking’s time, and that such an arrangement was not sustainable for
much longer. Clark’s operational comments included: 1) enrollment update—spring: 13 courses
underway with 141 duplicated students; summer: 7 courses with enrollment currently at 54; fall: 18
courses with enrollment currently at 68; 2) issues with Fall 2010 course planning—UM/MUS general
education core in place with the exception of the UM foreign language requirement (due to multiplicity
of foreign language options/substitutions depending on 4-year major), Observation 1: majority of COT
courses meet for one hour during the day three times a week; this does not favor the commuting
student who needs evening courses which meet once or twice per week; if COT is to serve nontraditional commuting students from Ravalli County scheduling changes will need to be considered;
Observation 2: another piece of the 2010-11 academic plan was to have all healthcare related degree
prerequisites available at the BCP (43% of Ravalli County UM-COT students are in healthcare related
degrees); to this end nearly all was achieved with the significant exception of bringing Anatomy and
Physiology (A&P) to the BCP; notably A&P is a three credit lecture course tied to a one credit lab course
which requires four trips a week to Missoula for a Ravalli County student (all healthcare degrees require
at least A&P I); not having this course available in Hamilton is a true hardship on Bitterroot students and
an outright barrier to potential Bitterroot students; moreover, with A&P being an anchor course which
students build their schedule around, by not having the course in Hamilton enrollments in a range of
BCP courses suffer (if students are going to drive four times a week to Missoula for one class, they might
as well take all their classes in Missoula); the UM-COT A&P instructor (in a prior meeting with Clark,
Stocking, and Cathy Corr [UM-COT Gen Ed Department Chair]) stated the following as obstacles to
having A&P offered at the BCP:
Need to offer Intro to Chemistry concurrently with A&P
o However, Clark notes that this is only true for those on the nursing trajectory
Concerns about pedagogy consistency when having a separate A&P offering down in the
Bitterroot
Concerns that having the lab down in Hamilton would be difficult – need cadaver parts
o Clark had then suggested having only the lecture in Hamilton while keeping lab in
Missoula
The Bitterroot College Program of The University of Montana
Meeting Minutes: Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Page 4 of 6

A&P instructor responded that the lab is not just a one day affair, students
revisit lab all week, so they will still end up commuting more than one day a
week just for the lab
The short term A&P solution was to offer SCN 115 (Anatomy) this fall (recommended prep for A&P), and
work to bring A&P and Intro to Chemistry down to the BCP for Spring 2011. At this point Clark
expressed the need for others beside just her and Stocking to be involved in the discussion to bring A&P
and Chemistry to Hamilton; that there appeared to be ownership issues and that she and Stocking could
not resolve this without additional UM/UM-COT support. Clark stressed that the commuting hardship
on Ravalli County students (money and time spent on the road) was likely to affect student success and
retention. Moreover, in terms of cost, it was cheaper to hire one instructor than it was to ask 20 or
more students to commute.
Several Steering Committee members then added comments. Dixie Stark asked about the possibility of
providing the lectures via interactive television (ITV) or, if the UM-COT A&P instructor was not
interested in this, asking Flathead Valley Community College if they could provide the lectures via ITV.
Deb Morris commented that she found this discussion very frustrating, as the A&P course in Missoula
seems overly difficult with students often having to repeat it. Morris mentioned that a number of
Marcus Daly Hospital employees had gone the on-line route rather than deal with all the UM-COT A&P
course obstacles. Clark pointed out that colleges in both North Dakota and Utah offered online A&P
courses (with online lecture and lab). Tim Bronk asked if these courses were considered legitimate.
Morris replied in the affirmative. Bronk thought that providing a full service lab would be expensive.
Kimberley Mills commented that she currently takes a biology course in Missoula which also has a lab.
She noted that while she did need to attend lab once a week, she did not have access to the lab outside
of the scheduled time, so she was unsure what the UM-COT A&P instructor meant when he said
students needed to come up more than once a week for lab. Mills said there were outside study groups
which met regarding labs, but that these meetings could take place anywhere, not just at the UM-COT
campus and not just in Missoula. Robinson wondered if a local entity like GSK could fund the outfitting
of lab space, thereby addressing Bronk’s concerns about cost. Patricia Meakin mentioned that when she
took A&P, the course was spread out over three semesters, offering students a more graduated
academic load and leading to greater student success. Mills suggested having the lab meet only every
other week to cut down on drive time. Sharon Alexander provided summary comments on the
discussion, stating that “what troubles me most is [the idea] that ‘here’s the package’ and there’s no
changing that package. I think we should talk to others about the options we’ve heard here today. We
need to explore things that will work for the students here.” Last to be heard was member of the public
William McDonald, who identified himself as the BCP College Algebra instructor, and who noted that he
felt curriculum adjustments were needed in nursing, for he could not understand why nurses needed a
majority of the topics covered by College Algebra.
Clark then returned to the remainder of her operational issues briefing, with 3) new student
orientations—new student orientations had been renamed new student information sessions so as not
to be confused with orientations held for newly admitted students in late August; twice monthly day
sessions were still drawing five to 10 participants, with the first evening session attracting four people,
despite limited advertising; 4) faculty meeting—faculty were well spoken at the March faculty meeting,
with primary concerns being the downward change in the pay scale, inadequate furniture, and distance
from academic departments; some faculty were going weekly to Missoula to borrow materials for
classes; a courier service was suggested. Steering Committee members Stark and Meakin reminded the
committee of the interlibrary loan agreements between the three Bitterroot libraries and the UM
The Bitterroot College Program of The University of Montana
Meeting Minutes: Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Page 5 of 6
Mansfield Library, noting that this service might well solve the courier problem. Clark said she had
forgotten about this, thought it was a good idea, and would follow through on it; 5) partnership with
CE—Global Perspectives series was underway, though not as well attended as the music appreciation
series, 30 students to date; reasons may have been less advertising (not in the local newspaper),
increase in price, and possibly day change from Friday to Wednesday; high school students have been
invited for the next lecture, perhaps their attendance will help get the word out; 6) hiring
administrative associate—this is just getting underway.
Clark then moved onto educational planning issues: 1) data analysis—final draft of data analysis
document expected from Maas by next meeting; pleased with online survey participation, 755
respondents; Maas has begun to run the survey numbers, with interim fact sheet provided (see
supplemental document). At this point Stark thanked Bronk for Darby Schools’ participation in the
survey. Bronk noted that he had good staff; 2) community input—community conversations in
Florence, Stevensville, and Lone Rock were not well attended; Clark blames the lack of participation at
the community meetings on her limited time spent promoting the meetings and the community’s
weariness of the topic; community has been asked what they want in terms of adult learning services for
almost five years, they now just want services, enough with the “planning,” so to speak. Carlotta
Grandstaff mentioned that she has put together a Hamilton Community Conversation for May 6 at the
old Banque Club, enticing people with wine and beer; she hopes for a strong turnout. Grandstaff also
spoke of partnering with the Trapper Creek Job Corps. Grandstaff noted that the job corps wants to
expand beyond basic office administration training, to add healthcare support training, and to offer a
path for students to start college. Main obstacle to partnering with job corps will be dealing with nonresident students (over half of job corps population); in-state tuition waivers may be needed. Clark
mentioned that she had joined the Trapper Creek Job Corps Community Council and was looking
forward to initiating a partnership dialogue with the job corps. Grandstaff also reported that she had
been randomly asking local individuals what they wanted in terms of local adult learning services. A
contractor working in Grandstaff’s house remarked that he wanted an education that led to a good local
job, possibly something with the hospital or GSK.
Chair Robinson then recognized Clark to conclude her Director’s Report with an update on fiscal issues.
Clark briefly reviewed the current BCP financial statement, noting that office supplies such as bulletin
boards had recently been purchased. With respect to funding larger projects, Clark reiterated Chair
Robinson’s opening comments that it appeared that the BCP would be ineligible for two-year grants
since the BCP was tied to the UM’s taxpayer identification number. Moreover, even in cases where the
BCP might be eligible for a two-year grant, it would likely be internally competing with the UM-COT to
author such a grant. Clark commented that “resource sharing is good but competition for funding is bad
for us and the COT.” Bronk concluded the fiscal discussion mentioning that “regarding supplies, [he
found] the [BCP] website to be topnotch.” Stark gave the credit to Clark, and Clark thanked Bronk,
stating that the website was important to her because it is “our window to the public and a way to
provide information that takes the pressure off of me.”
Chair Robinson then recognized Kimberley Mills to provide the Student Issues Update. Mills said that
she was very pleased with the breadth of Fall 2010 course offerings. Mills also thanked Lynn Stocking
for her tireless advising efforts in Hamilton. Mills then mentioned that Clark had forwarded her
information about a two-year honor society—Phi Theta Kappa—which Mills was now investigating in
conjunction with the reactivation of the PTK chapter at the UM-COT. Mills was excited about the
prospects of having PTK chapter membership available to BCP students, noting scholarship benefits in
The Bitterroot College Program of The University of Montana
Meeting Minutes: Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Page 6 of 6
particular. Mills promised more on the topic once she had touch based with the UM-COT PTK contact.
Stark and Alexander both expressed interest in the honor society, with Stark offering to pay any initial
membership fees to open a local chapter.
Chair Robinson then introduced Old Business—Purchasing Furniture. Clark stated that she and office
volunteer Candy Lubansky had reopened and renewed research on purchasing classroom furniture so as
to increase course enrollment capacity to 20 students per BCP course while also improving the BCP
learning environment. Appropriate furniture had been found at a reasonable price (see supplemental
document) and that the cost of purchasing the furniture would soon be offset and surpassed by the
revenue gain in increasing the number of students served per instructor/course. Alexander voiced
support of the purchase. Meakin mentioned that a local grant for $5000 might be written to cover the
cost. Stark commented that she knew of the grant in question and that rarely was more than $1000
given per award. Clark mentioned that she preferred the UM to pick up the cost as grant money would
be a while in arriving and that the furniture was needed for the summer semester. Alexander believed
the needed money could be found. Robinson called for a motion to purchase the furniture. Rick O’Brien
so moved, Mills seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.
Steering Committee member Sharon Alexander then excused herself from the remainder of the meeting
citing a lately overlapping commitment.
Chair Robinson introduced New Business—BCP Director position FY2011. Clark stated that her contract
was up in August, and that if a candidate search needed to commence for an August hire, that the
search should probably begin in May to have a new person on board by August. Alternatively, if the
committee/UM was interested in having Clark return for another year, Clark did believe her letter of
appointment could be renewed. Clark noted that if the committee wished to discuss its options without
her present, she was happy to leave the room. Chair Robinson asked for a motion to recommend to the
UM that Clark be retained for another year as the BCP Interim Director. Meakin so moved, Stark
seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. Stark asked whether Clark had been promised a
performance evaluation. Clark said she would check. Stark asked that the committee have a voice in
the evaluation. Bronk asked that the committee at some point shortly review its original goals especially
with respect to organizational planning. Grandstaff agreed. Robinson made note to put this on next
month’s agenda. Grandstaff then mentioned that people had been asking her how they could become
instructors with the BCP. Clark directed Grandstaff to the Employment link on the BCP website.
No members of the public were any longer present. Public comment was passed over.
Chair Robinson moved to adjourn the meeting, and all agreed. The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 PM.
Minutes subscribed by Bruce Weide (with Victoria Clark summarizing)