The Bitterroot College Program of The University of Montana
Meeting Minutes: Tuesday, May 25, 2010
The Steering Committee of the Bitterroot College Program (BCP) of The University of Montana met on
Tuesday, May 25, 2010 from 3 – 5:10 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 (lost conference call
connection at start of meeting), Patricia Meakin, Kimberley Mills, Rick O’Brien, John Robinson, Dixie
Stark, and Lynn Stocking (via conference call). Committees members excused were Katelyn Andersen,
Royce Engstrom, Mary Moe, and Deb Morris. Also present was BCP Interim Director Victoria Clark.
No members of the public or the press were present.
Taking meeting minutes was Bruce Weide.
The meeting opened with Chair Robinson calling the committee to order and conducting roll call,
followed by Robinson deciding not to read his prepared introductory remarks, but rather, for the sake of
brevity, summarizing his remarks and then asking that the full text of his prepared remarks be put in the
minutes (see following text). The substance of Robinson’s remarks concerned the need for rethinking
two-year education in Montana, the need for the two-year entity in the Bitterroot to have autonomy (in
order to maximize responsiveness and funding opportunities), and the need for action now.
PICKING THE BONES
Right after the Senate Committee voted not to allow the Bitterroot Valley Community College, in the
hallway outside the Senate Chamber, the people who had just testified against its formation began
requesting that we form this steering committee to get two-year higher education down in the valley.
Everyone who supported the formation of the community college knew how badly we needed twoyear higher education and adult education in the valley, so we agreed to be part of the steering
committee. I did so reluctantly. Victoria Clark’s enthusiasm, knowledge and hard work acted as a gad fly
for me. I have never been very important in the scheme of this college, but whatever abilities I might
possess I have willingly put at Victoria’s disposal.
I was pleased that Montana was given the two million dollar grant to study the state’s two-year
higher education system. It is supposed to come up with a stable form of two-year higher education for
Montana. You don’t need to be an education expert to realize that the present system is a cobbled
together mess when it comes to actually serving the people who need two-year higher education or adult
certification courses.
With the two million dollar grant Montana should resolve the problem. We should be able to come up
with a formula for how two-year higher education should be packaged and incorporate our cobbled
together mess under one roof. We should strongly lobby the legislature to adopt an education policy that
will support the two million dollar findings.
That’s my pitch. What I would like to know is where are we going with our program? Unless we are
able to induce a legislature, that is not educationally oriented, to become deeply involved in the
educational problems, ready to pass the necessary legislation, and there is a strong commitment from the
Universities, the Commissioner of Higher Education’s Office and the Board of Regents, I don’t think there
will be any substantial change in Montana’s two-year higher education system.
When I was serving on the Bitterroot Community College committee I was one of several who
investigated how other states were handling this educational problem. Nearly all of the states that are
having substantial success are working under a community college system.
In Illinois, where I come from, they have a lot of community colleges. Clusters of community colleges
have a parent state university that they work with. The colleges are all locally managed and administered.
The Bitterroot College Program of The University of Montana
Meeting Minutes: Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Page 2 of 6
The local people have a monetary stake in the colleges. We collected a number of catalogs and they all
offer a vast array of educational opportunity to the local population. This is what we believe two-year
higher education should do.
When I was going to college, many years ago, they were called Junior Colleges and a number of my
high school friends went to Wright Junior College on the west side of Chicago. Why? Because they didn’t
have the finances to go off to a university. Wright Junior College was handling more than 3000 students. It
operated day and night. A positive sign that education was eagerly sought after.
Currently everything we do here in our present program as an educational unit has to pass the muster
of the Missoula COT and the University. It is impossible for us not to be in competition with both of those
institutions in reaching out for students to be educated. Therefore all of the decisions that they make for
us are going to be somewhat biased against our success. This structure is not a workable situation.
The COT hires all of the instructors. We have no say in the hiring of the faculty. This leaves our faculty
in a difficult position. They work for us, but the COT is their boss and the University pays them.
We have a math instructor who has established great rapport with the students in his several classes.
We would like to have had the instructor teach our summer schedule. The COT replaced him with another
instructor. When the students he had taught found out he wasn’t going to teach they decided not to
register for summer school. This type of scheduling mix-up causes disruption in our enrollment.
We need healthcare science courses down here. The COT has thwarted every suggestion we have
made to have such courses offered down here. I think it’s called turf protection, and it is hampering our
efforts to succeed in offering responsive programming.
As a beginning educational institution we have to build consistency. We have observed that the flood
of people enrolling are all highly motivated and want to learn. We have to launch a Community College
into these educational waters to take advantage of this steadily increasing flow of students. Now is the
time for us to make a big move.
The thoughts of Shakespeare may be of help.
There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.
Such is the current of the Bitterroot educational sea on which we are now floating. The rushing serge of
eager students has raised the educational sea to high tide in the Bitterroot Valley. We must take advantage of
our good fortune. Now is certainly the time, the hour is here.
We need autonomy. We have to be able to make decisions without filtering all of them through the COT
and the University. We have to have a strong degree of local control. If we are going to continue to operate the
way we are at present, no matter how hard we work, this institution is going to be bound for the shallows and
miseries.
I don’t know how we can accomplish this because the Montana legislature is not oriented friendly to
education. I think we need to get the legislature to pass some legislation that will create a uniform two-year
higher education format to put all of Montana’s varied two-year higher educational units on the same footing.
We need funding diversity. Where does the money come from? Federal funds, i.e., grants etc., State funds
(according to formulas the legislature devises), local funds, bonds, and local levies, Tuition and fund raising.
Unless we are an entity, we cannot participate in obtaining these funds.
The legislature would not have to follow the present statutes for forming community colleges. We tried
that. The closer you sail toward the sea of positive legislation in Montana you are confronted with larger and
longer reefs preventing your entrance into the safe educational harbor. Without the total cooperation of the
Universities, the Office of the Commissioner of Higher Education, the Board of Regents and educating the
legislature to understanding the importance of education to Montana’s future success, it will not happen. We
The Bitterroot College Program of The University of Montana
Meeting Minutes: Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Page 3 of 6
tried it. We did not incur cooperation; we were continually confronted with unfounded resistance by the
educational authorities. Our effort to establish a community college under the statutes of Montana failed.
New two-year higher educational institutions could be formed by the legislature without granting the
institutions local taxing authority. The legislature could give the institutions the power to request local bond
issues or levies for the local population to vote on. Each college would be funded one half by the state and the
other half by tuition, what the local community might vote by way of bonds or levies, and what could be raised
through fund raising and grants.
The local community could decide that the college should all be funded by tuition or they could decide to
pass any number of different kinds of bond issues or levies that would allow long range planning for the
college. It would involve the local community by giving them a say and a presence in providing two-year higher
education for their community. The trustees of the college would be elected by the local community giving the
community further control over how their two-year higher education program was operated.
Our mission is to find a new format for two-year higher education. So far we haven’t take the first step.
We need to get much more aggressive in our efforts to achieve the success of our important mission.
A number of Steering Committee members commented on Robinson’s summary remarks. Rick O’Brien
urged the maintenance of the relationship with The UM. Robinson concurred but noted that “we must
be able to move [forward].” Patricia Meakin expressed frustration at the BCP not being eligible for a
range of grants because the BCP was “not a two-year school or a four-year school.” Tim Bronk was
concerned that the Committee might try to move too fast, that “there is a greater plan within the State
for two-year colleges but it may be two years out. We’re growing faster than the State can incorporate.”
Sharon Alexander pointed out that the Committee needed to remember that “we’re building a model,
there are other areas in the state that would like to have a program like this. I don’t think we should lose
sight of that.” Robinson reminded the group that “we are growing now.” Dixie Stark suggested that
establishing a separate non-profit organization to raise money and apply for grants on behalf of the BCP
might be a way to by-pass some funding obstacles. Carlotta Grandstaff agreed with Stark’s suggestion,
noting that a number of local professionals had spoken to her about the need for locally available
professional certification and that perhaps just such a non-profit could initiate professional certification
programming. Meakin noted that most colleges have such foundations, but that establishing such a
non-profit was not going to solve the issue of the BCP not having a local 2-year identity because of its
embedded structure within the UM and the UM-COT. Bronk again warned against “outpacing
ourselves.” The discussion concluded with Robinson mentioning that he had spoken with Harold
Mildenberger about moving into the Bitterroot Forest Service building and that Mildenberger had
weighed the idea and then countered with adding space for the BCP into the plans of a building he was
soon to begin construction on.
Next, Chair Robinson asked for comments or corrections to the meeting minutes from April 27, 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: 1) enrollment update—summer: 5 courses with enrollment currently at 57; fall: 18 courses with
enrollment currently at 105; observations about summer – enrollments lowered than anticipated,
dropped two higher level math courses, why? math courses falling in early afternoon meeting four times
a week were not convenient for many non-traditional students, also, with the computer course
overlapping with the college writing course and with the computer course only being two credits, some
students were having trouble arranging their BCP summer schedules to total 6 credits [needed for
loans], we need to add or identify an appropriate one credit course for these students, we need to
The Bitterroot College Program of The University of Montana
Meeting Minutes: Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Page 4 of 6
schedule the classes to maximize potential for enrollment; observations about fall – Missoula students
are signing up for the Intro to American Government course, these students need to be identified and
contacted; 2) issues with Fall 2010 course planning—still waiting to have SCN 115 Anatomy added to
the BCP fall schedule, rethinking Anatomy and Physiology for the fall, considering a video link between
Hamilton and Missoula for the lecture portion, thereby saving Ravalli County residents three trips a
week to Missoula, lab would continue to be in Missoula; UM has identified an instructor for the BCP’s
PSCI course, there is concern about low salary and about travel to Hamilton, wants us to consider an
accelerated 12 week format for PSCI course; 3) new student information sessions—attendance
numbers are picking up (about 20 attendees in May), with the majority looking to enroll in the fall; 4)
non-credit courses—need to present non-credit programming as a coherent whole for marketing clarity
and programming predictability, would like to start advertising all the non-credit offerings under one
umbrella, need a Designated Fund to handle the non-credit offerings as a “unit,” including Building
Bitterroot Business courses, CE’s Lifelong Learning in the Bitterroot, Outreach’s CNA courses, and the
pending Veterans Upward Bound courses; 5) hiring administrative associate—this is underway but have
decided to re-evaluate position; want someone who will stay in the job, want compensation to be more
than $10 per hour, $10 hour wage is a “resentment wage”—a good person will be looking for another
job at this salary; 6) facility issues—furniture has been ordered, will be about three weeks until delivery,
Patricia Meakin is working on a grant to secure another whiteboard, have put in a request for a vending
machine; REC wants to change our entrance to the rear of the building, we are running too much traffic
through Job Service, too much hallway congestion and noise, Ravalli Entrepreneurship Center (REC) will
put in rear glass entrance doors, we will need new signage, lobby furniture, some outside entrance
furniture, outside trash and cigarette receptacles; also issues with our students smoking, looking to
assign a designated outside smoking area.
A number of Steering Committee members commented on the facility issues topic. Sharon Alexander
believed the UM could help with the new signage. Meakin suggested buying outside furniture now while
it was in season. Tim Bronk mentioned that Trapper Creek Job Corps made sturdy, outside cement
furniture. Bronk also wondered if the BCP was exceeding the capacity of the building, and if there might
be safety concerns. Lynn Stocking wondered about the arrangement with the Job Service to use their
copying machine and if this might also be causing friction. Rick O’Brien asked about the terms of the
lease. Clark responded that the BCP had a five-year lease with the REC. Bronk wondered if some space
could be rented from Falcon AMG [other REC tenant] for the short-term. Dixie Stark noted that the new
entrance should be fully handicapped accessible.
Clark then moved onto educational planning issues: 1) data analysis—Maas draft is expected at the end
of the month; Stark asked if the Maas report was proprietary, Clark responded that it was public
document and that once it was in final form it would be posted on the BCP website; 2) community
input—Stevensville—two people attended, would like courses on administering a non-profit
organization and landscaping, also felt the COT should be separated from the UM for more flexibility;
Stark noted that there was an online certificate for non-profit administration, Clark said she would put a
link up on the BCP website to the program; Lone Rock—attendees were with the school district (five+),
wanted a TRIO program where the college reached out to younger students to show them the value of
college, also wanted the college to interact in a manner that showed students the relevance of a college
education in their community, in terms of programming wanted training in green technologies;
Hamilton—the floor was given to Carlotta Grandstaff to summarize the Hamilton conversation,
Grandstaff said that five people attended the Hamilton conversation, the themes that emerged were:
people don’t want to leave the valley for jobs, larger employers need to be inventoried for job demand
The Bitterroot College Program of The University of Montana
Meeting Minutes: Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Page 5 of 6
and then provide courses to meet those jobs, people don’t want to travel for continuing professional
education, people are interested in online courses, don’t want new buildings constructed when other
public buildings are empty—such as school buildings in evenings—noted that the college might be more
likely to pass an operating levy if existing buildings were being used. At this point, Bronk pointed out
that there are more obstacles to using school district buildings than one initially thinks—can’t mix
underage students with adults, can’t have smoking on campuses. Clark added that rent would be
expected from the districts and that certain classroom space like laboratories is difficult to “share.”
Grandstaff concluded with “I think the real issue is that there are buildings available and people don’t
want to pay for a new one;” Trapper Creek Job Corps—Clark summarized the TCJC conversation, noting
that the Job Corps was interested in medical billing and coding and in starting students down the college
path, wanting enrollment services followed by general education courses, barriers were that 70 percent
of the TCJC students were from out-of-state and that in terms of online courses, TCJC needed improved
connectivity, TCJC staff had remarked that the Kicking Horse Job Corps had made an arrangement with
Salish Kootenia College to admit their students, so maybe we could learn from that experience;
Pinesdale—Clark still had not scheduled a conversation in Pinesdale, Grandstaff mentioned that she had
been to the Pinesdale Town Council meeting in January and given a presentation.
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 in effort to help streamline
access to information, bulletin boards and wall pockets had been bought and installed in the facility’s
hallways. With regard to FY2011 Clark deferred this issue until later in the meeting (under New
Business, Organizational Planning) .
Chair Robinson then recognized Kimberley Mills to provide the Student Issues Update. Mills had
investigated how to establish a Phi Theta Kappa (PTK) Chapter, learning that the UM-COT had a chapter
with 33 members, that if the BCP wanted its own chapter if would need a faculty advisor and $500 for a
charter, thereafter students who qualified would pay $45 for initial individual membership. Mills was
waiting to hear back from the UM-COT PTK Chapter. Stocking suggested that Mills contact her
administrative assistant Brandy Fortier for immediate information. Mills then mentioned that a student
bulletin board had been started and that carpool and study group lists had been posted. Mills next
remarked that she had been approached by a student who had been dissatisfied with a BCP instructor.
Mills was reminded that student input was important when instructors were being selected.
Clark then asked for recognition to speak about an upcoming Governor’s Forum on 2-year education
wherein non-traditional students were being asked to participate. Chair Robinson granted Clark’s
request to speak. Clark proceeded to inform the committee that she had recommended Mills as a
participant. The forum is to be held in August. Mills said she was inclined to participate, but was
awaiting more details. Stark noted that there were some monies in the BCP UM Fund and that if Mills
needed to be compensated for missing a day of work for the forum, that perhaps monies could be
spent. Stark made the motion, Bronk seconded it, and the motion to compensate Mills for lost pay if
she choose to participate in the Forum carried unanimously.
At this point Tim Bronk excused himself from the meeting, citing another previous obligation.
Chair Robinson turned to Old Business – Steering Committee Protocol Review. Clark noted that with
the release shortly of the Maas report, which would be the majority of the educational planning
document, the Steering Committee was not so far off its schedule. No further discussion on this issue
The Bitterroot College Program of The University of Montana
Meeting Minutes: Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Page 6 of 6
took place, as time was getting short and the committee members were interested in pushing on to
New Business.
Chair Robinson then opened up the New Business—Organizational Planning discussion. Clark started
the conversation with some observations about the current BCP organizational structure. She noted
that while academic partnering and resource sharing with the UM/UM-COT was productive, competing
directly with the UM-COT for limited resources was counterproductive, “We have an arranged marriage
with the COT, they see us as funding competition and we see them the same way and this won’t work
towards good resource sharing.” Clark suggested that any new organizational plan needed to maximize
access to funding while minimizing direct competition for funding. Clark noted that under the current
organizational structure the BCP only had access to state funding, however, with an alternative
structure, funding options could open up to include local options as well as expand grant and funding
raising opportunities. Clark also mentioned that the BCP needed a name that matched its services, an
identity that targeted its client, that “we are a community college, people understand that . . . any other
name will confuse.” Robinson put out the idea of a County College rather than a Community College,
thereby allowing for a new organizational model not encumbered by past and present statute. Stark
added that such a new model might have a chance if the focus were workforce development.
Grandstaff noted that potentially what was needed was a “service organization,” where the BCP not
only provided educational programming, but also brokered or facilitated programming opportunities for
students. Clark suggested that there be a funding model whereby the BCP would receive funding for
instructing students and then separate funding for placing students in other institutions. Stark asserted
that the institutions in which the BCP placed students should pay the BCP for that service.
At this juncture, Grandstaff stated that she had to be at another meeting and excused herself from the
meeting. O’Brien asked that the discussion be tabled for the time being. Mills inserted one last question
concerning accreditation if the BCP were to be on its own. Clark responded that the BCP, even if a
standalone community college, would not be on “its own,” that Regent policy was that any new public
postsecondary institution needed to be working towards independent accreditation while under the
initial sponsorship of an accredited institution, that there would never be a time where any new public
institution of higher education in the state would be offering unaccredited college courses. Clark then
asked Lynn Stocking if she had any thoughts to add on the general discussion. Lynn commented that she
was “interested and learning for listening.” Clark noted that it was “a system issue” and “there are
models out there that we haven’t explored, and we can invent a model; we just need to keep talking
about it.” Stark ended with the observation that “the bigger is better model of the business world is not
the best thing for education and our clients.” Clark concluded the discussion with “economies of scale
lose efficiencies at some point.”
No members of the public were present. Public comment was omitted.
Chair Robinson moved to adjourn the meeting, and all agreed. The meeting was adjourned at 5:12 PM.
Minutes subscribed by Bruce Weide (with Victoria Clark summarizing)