The Bitterroot College Program of The University of Montana
UNAPPROVED Meeting Minutes: Wednesday, July 20, 2011
The Steering Committee of the Bitterroot College Program (BCP) of The University of Montana (UM) met
on Wednesday, July 20, 2011 from 3:00 – 5:00 PM at the Human Resource Council Conference Room in
Hamilton. The meeting was chaired by John Robinson. In alphabetical order, committee attendees
included: Terry Duncan, Roger Maclean, Patricia Meakin, Kimberly Mills, Deb Morris, Rick O’Brien, Lynn
Stocking, and Dixie Stark. Committee members absent were Katelyn Andersen, Perry Brown, John Cech,
Suzy Foss, Chuck Jensen, and Bobbie Roos. Also present was BCP Interim Director Victoria Clark.
Members of the public present included Chris Love and Ron Skinner.
Taking meeting minutes was Kathleen O’Leary, BCP Program Assistant.
The meeting was called to order at 3:10 pm. Chair Robinson opened by reading aloud a letter he had
received from Commissioner of Higher Education, Sheila Stearns. Stearns’ letter was in response to a
letter Robinson had sent the Commissioner several weeks back (see BCP Steering Committee minutes of
May 2011). The full text of Stearns’ letter to Robinson was as follows:
[add Stearns’ letter]
After reading Stearns’ letter Robinson read aloud a statement he had prepared which he titled Where
Are We Going?:
More than five years ago a group of people in the Bitterroot Valley began investigating the
commencement of a two year college here in the valley. They performed a great deal of research, found the
legislative statutes, and came up with the proper procedure to establish a community college. A lot of hard
work was put into the effort. They formed a district, held and election, the people of the valley voted in favor of
a college, the voters knew they were subjecting themselves to a five mill tax levy, but they wanted a college.
The group did everything the laws of Montana required of them to establish the community college. The
final hurdle was to have the legislature approve the formation of the college and to fund it. The group
appeared before the interim education committee of the Senate several times and though the committee kept
holding the hoop higher the group managed to jump through all of their hoops. The last hoop was the full
Senate Education Committee and though they made a great presentation, the committee voted five to four not
to allow them to form a community college. They found the legislature was not educational oriented.
The reason I give this little background is because I am positive if the group had not endeavored to start a
community college, the matter of any change in two-year college education in Montana would have lain
dormant for many years. As a result of the group’s effort a new office of Deputy Commissioner of Two-Year
Higher Education was created. Mary Moe was appointed the first commissioner. As a further result of those
efforts to form a community college this steering committee was formed. Through the efforts of all of the
people involved in this committee it has been firmly established that a two-year college is necessary, vital and
sustainable in this community.
Through the educational grapevine I heard that national experts on two-year higher education were called
to a meeting about Montana’s two-year program. Rumor has it that the experts’ opinions were that Montana’s
two-year higher education program bordered on disaster.
Mary Moe, the first commissioner of two-year higher education, told us the good news about the grant to
study two-year colleges. The large grant was obtained to study and revise Montana’s two-year higher
education system. Mary Moe was on this steering committee. The impression I received from her was that
what this committee accomplished was to be an important part of the new two-year structure. The grant has
The Bitterroot College Program of The University of Montana
UNAPPROVED Meeting Minutes: Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Page 2 of 5
been in force for more than a year now, and this steering committee has not had more than minimal input into
Montana’s two-year higher education system.
We have five COTs, three of them are embedded in Universities. We have three Community Colleges -Glendive, Miles City and Flathead Valley Community College. All of them are operating efficiently and Flathead
Valley Community College is doing exceptional. I think we have six two-year Tribal colleges and one four-year
Tribal College. Beside this conglomeration of institutions we have several places where two-year college
programs are offered under the oversight of one of the universities. We have also recently established an
institution in Bozeman, similar to what we have in Ravalli County, except it is constructed a little different. It is
under the mantle of Montana State University. The City of Bozeman has agreed to tax one and a half mills for
two years to contribute to its existence. There may be more higher education institutions hiding in the
mountains or in the vast open areas of eastern Montana, but I have yet to discover them.
The point of all this is that we have not been involved in contributing to what is the best solution for
Montana’s two-year higher education.
From the little bit I have put forth I am sure you all realize that our present construction of two-year higher
education is going to lead to many confrontations between the several different kinds of two-year institutions.
Change is always difficult. All of the various institutions will battle valiantly to maintain their current status.
After a year of committees working on two-year higher education we have not had any inkling of the goal
we are trying to attain. Is it going to be extremely difficult to un-embed the three COTs from the Universities?
My guess is yes. Is it going to be difficult to direct the stand alone COT’s into a new system? My guess is yes. Is
it going to be difficult to incorporate the three community colleges into a different structure? My guess is yes.
Is it going to be difficult to gather up all the other little two-year education structures and enfold them into a
new system? Again my guess is yes.
From our limited experience with the legislature on education my guess would be they don’t want to be
involved. Article 10 of the State Constitution makes education the legislature’s responsibility. They have to step
up to the plate this time. It’s about money to fund these institutions and that is the responsibility of the
legislature. They are supposed to make available funds to see that the people of Montana are afforded the
opportunity to obtain an education. I know they most often fail to perform that duty, but they are supposed to
provide.
At our last meeting John Cech, the Deputy Commissioner of Two-Year Higher Education, told us that it was
a difficult matter and they were starting with the COT’s. I can envision that taking a number of years. The
Community Colleges and the Tribal Colleges which are also difficult problems might not be worked on for
several years. From those two examples you might envision when the future of the Bitterroot College Program
of The University of Montana is going to be considered.
What we really need is one kind of two-year higher education in Montana, We have to decide what that
should be. Then we have to obtain the political muscle to make it happen. Unless that occurs most of us will
not live to see a well-structured two-year higher education system in the great state of Montana.
The mission of two-year higher education is different from the mission of University Education. The two
cannot be managed under the same umbrella. A new structure for two-year education needs to be worked out
so the two systems can work in harmony and partnership in mutual areas, and they can each work
independently in their particular missions of education.
Following Robinson’s reading of his statement, Victoria Clark related that she was currently part of the
state’s College!Now Implementation Team, and that a document had recently been submitted to and
approved by the Board of Regents outlining the mission of the state’s two-year system. Clark stated
that while she believed the document was sound she did have concerns about how the vision was to be
implemented. Clark mentioned that currently rebranding and dual enrollment were issues the
Implementation Team was taking on. Patricia Meakin noted that she hoped rebranding would allow the
BCP to drop the word “Program,” as this was confusing to students and the community. Dixie Stark
referenced Robinson’s statement and warned that she wasn’t sure a “cookie-cutter approach” to
Montana’s two-year system would be best. She noted that the state’s Adult Basic and Literacy
The Bitterroot College Program of The University of Montana
UNAPPROVED Meeting Minutes: Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Page 3 of 5
Education programs functioned under a varied system. Clark mentioned that her biggest worry under
the varied approach to 2-year units in the state was that funding was not equitably distributed among
communities with respect to 2-year programming.
Next Chair Robinson called for approval of the June 2011 meeting minutes. Clark relayed that the
minutes had not yet been prepared. Robinson asked that approval of the minutes be tabled until the
next meeting.
Chair Robinson then called for New Business. Clark stated that there was none, and that she had
forgotten to take this item off the agenda. Rick O’Brien wondered if he might bring up the “New
Business” of whether or not Clark had been re-hired for the next academic year. Clark responded that
she had met with Provost Brown in June and that she had been offered a contract for another year and
that she had signed it. O’Brien asked if her title remained “Interim Director.” Clark replied that she had
received a new title and that come late August she would officially be titled the “Director.”
Chair Robinson then called for Old Business, Planning Discussion and Advisory Council Nominations.
Clark responded that she still had not found time to write the final segments of the Strategic Plan,
namely the Introduction and the Conclusion. Consequently, there was nothing new on this topic for the
committee to discuss at this point. Clark promised to have the Strategic Plan ready for the committee’s
final review at the August meeting. Regarding the Advisory Council Nominating Committee, Stark noted
that there had been some confusion after the last meeting about the committee (members, deadlines,
etc.) and with no minutes to guide them on what had been decided that the committee had not yet
begun its task. Clark apologized for this confusion and asked that time be spent now on setting
members and goals. It was then decided that the committee members would be Terry Duncan, Dixie
Stark, and Lynn Stocking and that the trio would meet briefly after today’s Steering Committee meeting
and set-up a first Nominating Committee meeting date. Rick O’Brien was also asked if he was interested
on serving on the new Advisory Council and/or the new Business, Industry, and Government Standing
Committee. O’Brien deferred to the larger committee about where he would be most useful. Clark
asked O’Brien to discuss with Stark his options and preferences and then Stark would take their
discussion back to the Nominating Committee. Note that the other Steering Committee members had
been asked their interests with respect to the new council at the June Steering Committee; O’Brien was
being asked now as he had been absent at the June meeting.
Chair Robinson next called on Terri Duncan to give the Student Issues report. Duncan updated the
group on the Student of the Month proposal. Duncan said that she, Kathleen O’Leary, and Lynn Stocking
had met and decided that the process needed to be a bit more codified and formal so as to ensure
equity. They had decided that rather than do a monthly award, three awards would be given in fall and
spring and one in the summer, and that the recognition would be named the “Outstanding Student
Award.” Duncan said the group still had further details to flesh out and more information would be
forthcoming.
Chair Robinson then asked Clark to present her Director’s report. Clark began with a breakdown of
operational issues: 1) courses/enrollment—for Summer 2011—7 courses/85 duplicated students/17
FTE, for Fall 2011—34 sections/283 duplicated students/52.7 FTE, Clark stated that Fall enrollment was
on track with expectations, noting that online registration was down often in June and July so
enrollment had not yet really started to pick up; Clark commented that enrollment in the various
Anatomy classes was strong, suggesting that this discipline could likely support a fulltime faculty
The Bitterroot College Program of The University of Montana
UNAPPROVED Meeting Minutes: Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Page 4 of 5
member in the near future; members of the public Ron Skinner and Chris Love were then given the
opportunity to express some thoughts they had regarding their son’s experience in the BCP’s spring
2011 Anatomy and Physiology I (A&P I) course which had been broadcast from the UM-COT campus via
live videoconferencing, Skinner commented that his son had been very frustrated in the class and that
he had travelled with his son during the spring term to visit with Lynn Stocking about the problems with
the course delivery method, Skinner summarized the problems as threefold: 1) the technology did not
support the interactive component of the class – students were not able to speak to the instructor due
to audio feedback, 2) technical support for the class was not reliable – the technician who came down
from Missoula to assist with the technology was not consistently present, and 3) the instructor did not
acknowledge the BCP students; Skinner was concerned specifically with the instructional quality of the
videoconferencing method as well as generally with the fallout once it were more widely known that the
BCP failed to provide a quality educational experience for Anatomy-related courses (would the BCP
loose students or fail to attract students?), Stocking responded that Skinner’s concerns were being
addressed internally and that improvements were in the works for the fall term, Clark mentioned that
purchasing a videoconferencing system which was specifically designed for classroom delivery was most
likely what was needed, but that such a system cost around $30,000, Stark wondered if a faculty
position in the health sciences could be privately endowed and then videoconferencing delivery could
be by-passed, Mills asked if a discussion section with a face-to-face instructor could be added so that the
Anatomy & Physiology students could have interaction time with an instructor, Stocking said that all the
suggestions would be explored and thanked Skinner for his comments; 2)
admissions/enrollment/academic advising services—Clark stated that O’Leary had processed
admissions paperwork on 70 new students since the start of the summer term and that new students
continued to stop in; Clark was concerned that with so many new students and still no start on the new
construction and no new hire that things were going to get (and already were) very, very hectic for her
and O’Leary; 3) continuing education—Clark commented that the BCP’s summer continuing education
courses were filling and proving sustainable; with respect to the upcoming Business Forum with Rob
Ryan, Joe Graziano, and Dan Floyd, Clark explained that the event was to be held on October 6 with all
proceeds going to the BCP and that the forum would be an afternoon of Lecture and Q&A on launching
a successful business followed by an early evening of business mentoring by Ryan, Graziano, and Floyd;
O’Brien expressed the Chamber of Commerce’s support of the event.
Clark then turned to the fiscal report. Clark told the committee that Provost Brown authorized $300,000
for the BCP for FY2012, with the $300,000 not including the cost of the new lease nor the cost
associated with the new position. Clark said she had asked for $312,000, but was still pleased with the
additional $50,000 over last year’s budget award. With respect to fundraising, Clark related that a
targeted mailing had gone out to 85 individuals the week of July 11 and that each of the 85 letters would
be followed up with a phone call. Callers would be asking individuals to donate $1000 or more to be
eligible for the BCP’s First Fifty group with the other, lesser pledge option being First Friends. The idea
was to raise $50,000 via fifty $1000 pledges. Clark stressed that the University of Montana Foundation
(UMF) had been very helpful with the campaign and that the plan was to do a second mass mailing in
August wherefore the UMF would provide the BCP with a list of all Ravalli County UM alums to target.
Member of the public Chris Love came forward at this point and handed Clark a check for $1000
expressing her wish for her and husband Ron Skinner to be acknowledged in the First Fifty group. It was
also noted that Steering Committee member Patricia Meakin and husband John had earlier in the week
donated $1000 to be part of the First Fifty group. All present thanked the Skinner/Love’s and Meakin’s
for their generosity.
The Bitterroot College Program of The University of Montana
UNAPPROVED Meeting Minutes: Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Page 5 of 5
Chair Robinson then asked for public comment. There was none.
Chair Robinson moved to adjourn the meeting, and all agreed. The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 PM.
Minutes subscribed by Kathleen O’Leary (with Victoria Clark summarizing).