FACULTY SENATE MEETING MINUTES
February 12, 2014, 3:10 P.M. Skaggs Building, Room 169
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Lodmell called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m.
The Interim Registrar Joe Hickman called roll.
Members Present: B. Allred, L. Ametsbichler, J. Banville, A. Becker, T. Beed A. Belcourt, B.
Borrie, M. Bowman, S. Bradford, M. Brooke, J. Bunch, J. Carter, A. Chatterjee, T. Crowford, J.
DeBoer, M. DeGrandpre, H. Eggert, D. Erickson, L. Frey, E. Gagliardi, S. Galipeau, S. Gordon,
L. Gray, M. Horejsi, L. Hart-Paulson, L. Howell, U. Kamp, H. Kim, A. Kinney, C. Kirkpatrick, C.
Knight, A. Larson, B. Larson, G. Larson, B. Layton, S. Lodmell, P.Lukacs, D. MacDonald, M.
Mayor, M. McGirl, S. Richter, D. Schuldberg, J. Sears, S. Shen, D. Shepherd, D. Sherman, A.
Sondag, S. Stan, K. Swift, A. Szalda-Petree, E. Uchimoto, N. Vonessen, A. Ware, K. Wu, K.
Zoellner
Members Excused: J. Bardsley, L. Gillison, W. Holben, K. Harris, S. Hines, R. LaPier, J.
Laskin, J. Montauban, C. Palmer, M. Raymond
Members Absent: J. Cavanaugh, J. Glendening, M. Hamon, M. Kia, N. McCrady, K. McKay, S.
Tillerman
Ex-Officio Present: Provost Brown, VP Whittenburg, Interim Associate Provost Lindsay
Guests:
Deputy Commissioner Neil Moisey
Minutes: The minutes from December 4th were approved.
COMMUNICATIONS:
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEIL MOISEY
The Office of the Commissioner of Higher Education (OCHE) would like system input at an
earlier stage for level II curriculum proposals. Deputy Commissioner Neil Moisey explained the
draft policy. There is lots of involvement of faculty during the development stage of the proposal
from the proposing institution, but little involvement of faculty at other campuses. The Board of
Regents has a fiscal responsibility to the state to avoid duplication and encourage sharing of
campus resources. OCHE recognizes that the expertise lies with the faculty, but there needs
to be communication between campuses to collaborate rather than compete. Currently
campuses are required to submit three year program plans to signal intent. These plans notify
the Board and are available on the website but are not circulated widely for consideration. The
draft policy clarifies that the roll of the Chief Academic Officer (CAO) is the conduit to the faculty
at the various campuses. All campuses need to be aware of new proposals that could have an
impact on them.
Proposals for new programs or centers also need to involve review by the system’s Vice
Presidents of Research because academics and research are closely related. The policy is
intended to honor the individual processes on campuses and include system- wide
consideration that is more efficient and timely. This should provide for more collaboration and
flesh out competitive pressures before a lot of time is put into fully developing proposals.
Step 1, 2 and 3 make sure there is system-wide communication of new program’s or center’s
intent. So that everyone is aware of what is being considered. The new requirement includes
the submission of a two-page notice of intent to OCHE. It explains the nature of the program
and how it fits within the institutions’ mission. The notice of intent is reviewed by OCHE for
completion, approved, and then posted to the website and shared with the CAOs. This is the
step that is currently missing. It involves feedback (opportunities for collaboration or duplication
concerns). The CAOs share proposals with faculty at this step to allow feedback. The CAOs
meet monthly to discuss.
Deputy Commissioner Moisey asked for questions. He is presenting to the Senate to get input.
The policy should assure that everyone’s interest is valued. The policy does not include
revisions to the timeline currently under consideration. These include accepting level 1
proposals on an ongoing basis, separate from Board of Regents meetings. The guidelines will
go to the Board of Regents for vote in May. Comments should be sent as soon as possible.
Chair Lodmell informed the Senate of the items in the draft that are different than the current
practice. Sharing information about pending proposals system wide is a good thing. However,
in the draft guidelines there will be scrutiny of the two page synopsis by CIOs and MUS
leadership. The approval vote at this stage is dramatically different than the current practice.
The intent is not to say yes or no to the proposal at this stage, but rather to make
recommendations and identify collaborative opportunities or duplication concerns so they get
worked out before a lot of time and energy has been spent on the proposal. Proposals should
have agreement and collaboration system-wide before they reach the Board of Regents for final
approval.
The draft guidelines are being proposed because there have been past conflicts related to
competition. It is better to have faculty discussions to work out any issues long before the
proposal is voted on at the Board of Regents meeting.
It will be important that the right faculty members are aware of the proposals. The notice of
intent will be available on the website and the CAOs will be notified. Campuses will need to
create internal mechanisms to assure faculty are notified. Communication is the key
component. Moisey is asking for input with how to make this happen. One suggestion was to
have the CAO document which departments were notified.
Please send your comments to the Senate leadership to incorporate into the final draft. It will be
shared with the Senate before it goes to the Board of Regents. Moisey wants to make sure all
parties are involved in developing the guidelines.
PRESIDENT ENGSTROM
The University was founded 122 years ago today. The Charter Day Awards Ceremony and
reception will begin in the UC ball room at 5:30 p.m.
Legislative update
We are a third of the way through the Legislative Session. Things are going well. The
Education Appropriation Subcommittee passed to the full Appropriations Committee all the
University items intact. HB 2, the main funding bill for higher education, includes a number of
objectives including present law adjustment (the calculated cost of doing the same level of
business as this year next year), a total of $44 million. Keeping this intact is a key step in the
process and is credited to the hard work of many people. Bill Johnston, UM’s lobbyist in
particular is appreciated.
There is a $15 million research Initiative included in HB 2 to help bolster economic
development. This is what the Governor and the Legislature wanted. It was passed out of
Committee as well.
The full present law adjustment has the same tuition freeze condition as last year. This applies
to resident tuition only. There is also a performance based funding caveat for money that the
system would not receive without the condition.
Chair Lodmell, President Engstrom, Kevin Krebsbach, Associate Director of Facility Services,
and a few students spent time with the governor lobbying for the long-range building plan (HB
5). The biggest priority is the $10 million renovation of the Clapp Building. This is still working
through the process. All and all it is turning out to be a good session with quality
communication. The Legislators have congratulated the Montana University System on
accountability and transparency. There is still a long way to go to get to the ending fund
balance and revenue projections.
Rafter Book Plan
Rafter is back on campus talking about a book plan. The basic idea is that students pay a fee
as part of their tuition bill that covers course materials. This is a way to ensure that students
have materials. It would be more cost effective for the average student. The University now
needs to see the actual proposal. A committee chaired by Associate Provost Lindsay has been
put together to work on this. It should be ready in a couple of weeks for vetting across campus.
The President is not advocating that UM adopt a book plan. He only wishes that we consider it
as an alternative approach. ASUM and the Faculty Senate would need to approve the proposal
before the administration takes any action. Rafter will be on campus for an open forum at 10:00
AM tomorrow in GBB 201. .
Questions / Comments:
Options in the plan may include tablets, lap tops or fact packs.
It might be helpful for the Committee to come up with a number of proposals that would be
reflective of some participation (inclusive of certain units) rather than a blanket approach.
According to Rafter there needs to be a certain scale in order to pass on the cost savings.
PROVOST BROWN
Search updates
As soon as the Provost hears back from OCHE, he will enter into negotiations for the Registrar
position.
The search for the Missoula College Dean is progressing to skype interviews to reduce the
candidate pool.
The search for the Honors College Dean is in the early stage of accepting applications.
Scheduling
The administration is curious whether there might be sentiment or strong objections to starting
classes and meetings on the hour. This would adhere to the commonly accepted schedule of
most of the world and could synchronize starting times. Courses would be the same increment
of time, ending at 10 minutes till the hour for transition time. There is not a proposal at this time,
Winterbreak
A winterbreak option was put together for consideration and feedback. It takes advantage of
most of the points brought up in discussions. Spring semester would start and end one week
earlier. The primary focus of winterbreak will be courses not typically offered. The other
emphasis will be on research and creative activity. Under this model special courses that
involve traveling will have the option to make use of the week of December 26th. From year to
year the start of the fall semester would be adjusted so that there is a minimum of one week
between the end of fall semester and December 25th. Commencement should not be
scheduled on the same day as MSU. The details of how the semester will be bundled have not
been worked out. The Provost Office is happy to take feedback on the proposal.
Questions/comments:
Spring break would still be coordinated with K-12.
Any changes to summer session will need to consider the schedules of teachers looking to take
continuing education credits.
Travel to Europe from December 26th through January 1st is problematic because most
businesses are closed.
Traditional 3 credit courses will not be the emphasis of winterbreak, but they can still be offered.
INTERIM DEAN LIZ PUTNAM AND ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT DAWN RESSEL - PERFORMANCE
BASED FUNDING
The charge of the Workgroup was to come up with a workable model that will allow the system
to observe the spirit of the legislative wish to distribute present-law-adjustments according to a
performance model. Mistakes were made in the short term. Rather than use the same metrics
for all campuses, the campuses were divided into three groups: the two flagships together, the
four year colleges, and then the two year schools.
The spreadsheet for the flagship institutions was projected as an example. The Flagship
institution uses the undergraduate degrees and certificates, retention rates, graduate degrees
and certificates and research expenditures as metrics. There will be open forums later this
month to allow faculty to weigh-in regarding the weighting of the elements. The weighting of
graduate degrees was reduced from the original model because many of the programs have
enrollment caps. Research expenditures were also reduced because there is not a consistent
way to measure scholarly activity across campus. This metric does not consider books
published, performances, media creations, or journalistic awards.
There has to be consistent, reliable, reproducible, verifiable data to put into the models. The
metrics were approved by the Board of Regents last spring, but the weighting has not been
finalized. Each of the measures is compared to the average of the last three years. The model
gives campuses credit for the trying to meet their goal. The goal in the model is that we will
have a 1% increase every year. All of the metrics are indexed to add up to 1000 points. If the
1000 point goal is met the campus would get 100% of its funding. If the campus comes within 2
standard deviations of 5 years of data the campus would get a percentage of funding. Real
data from previous years has been put into the model.
The model is available on the website for faculty to explore and enter various weighting and
performance scenarios. There are a lot of moving pieces that can impact the results. The
purpose is to satisfy the intent of the legislators by measuring performance that is quantifiable
but minimizes the damages to all the campuses. The Committee wanted to make sure that
campuses had the opportunity to earn back money that was lost in the previous year. However,
because of the way the law is written money cannot be carried over from year to year. So the
committee is requesting that any residual funds be put into accounts for scholarships.
Questions /Comments
The model seems to promote failure if increases by percentage. It should have a target number
and a plateau.
One of the ways this is addressed is by indexing everything to 1000 points. So a retention rate
of 70% would be 700 points, so a 1% increase is actually a smaller percent increase that the
number. At some point the model will reach a limit. But the limit will be much farther off using
this model than under the old method. Campuses have to beat the three–year –average by
1%.
The model does not apply to the entire state appropriation; it only applies to a certain percent of
the present-law-adjustment (last year it was 5%, the Governor is recommending 10% this year).
Campuses are only measured against themselves. There is a certain fixed number that each
campus is eligible to receive.
It is concerning that the Metrics only measure throughput not quality. The issue is how do you
measure quality so that it is consistent across the system.
This could be an opportunity to communicate what our performance is to the Legislature, even if
it cannot be easily measured. This was a concern when designing the metrics. The metrics
use data that is readily available. There is a condition that the metrics will be reviewed every
biennium, so that we can start strategizing about ways to collect information on quality.
President Engstrom: Whenever we have the opportunity to talk about the effectiveness of our
higher education system it requires both quantitative and qualitative information. So when the
University presented to the Education Appropriations Subcommittee we brought in students to
talk about their experiences, the quality of their education, and stories about what they have
been able to accomplish as a result. It is very difficult to capture the quality issue with a metric
so it is important to add a human element to the discussion along with the data.
Performance based funding is also driven partly by the practices across the country. The
PowerPoint linked to the agenda provides some of this background.
The retention metric is of some concern given that it largely includes factors out of our control,
such as the economy. Scholarly activity and the creation of new knowledge is something that
should be included in the metric. The reason this is not included now is because it has not been
tracked. There will likely be an argument to include this for the next biennium when we have
data. But we will need to decide soon so that data can be gathered.
PROFESSOR ANDREW WARE – ACADEMIC ALIGNMENT AND INNOVATION PROGRAM
The Committee has reviewed almost all the programs. It is waiting on two survey responses.
The Committee has identified additional programs that were missed and is making a short list of
programs that are most challenged by enrollment and most ready for growth. There will be
outreach to those programs to find out what is needed to strengthen or make growth possible.
There will be two open forums. The first is next Thursday at 3:00 p.m. in the UC Theatre. The
other is on Wednesday, March 4th at 3:00 p.m. The idea is to get more conversation and take
input. The general theme is what portfolio of programs will help UM thrive. What is the optimal
balance between providing support for current programs and investing in new programs? How
do we do a better job of communicating the value of a liberal arts education in the 21st Century
to parents, students and each other?
ASUM VICE PRESIDENT SEAN MCQUILLAN
ASUM took a handful of representatives from Missoula on a legislative tour of some building
projects at UM in December with the help of Bill Johnston and Kevin Krebsbach. They were
shown the ground being moved at the Missoula College location, the Student Athletic Academic
Center, the Gilkey Center, and then inside the Clapp Building. ASUM also has a lobbyist in
Helena. He is an international student, Harry Haocheng Wang from China. He is doing a great
job along with Mike Hopkins who is the Montana Associated Students lobbyist. ASUM is
following HB 5 and the research initiative.
ASUM has a number of fees on the upcoming ballot, $2.00 for child care (of which $1.50 will go
towards building a new infant care center) and $1.00 for research and creative scholarship
which would go to a ASUM committee to be awarded for graduate and undergraduate student
research and travel.
ASUM Transportation opened a new bus line, the Purple Line. It goes out 5th Street to Russell
down by Osprey Stadium and back by 6th Street. The bus ran for a week with no advertising
and had 140 passengers per day. ASUM is now starting to advertise and hopes to provide 400
rides per day.
There are two students on the Committee fleshing out the Rafter proposal. They report back to
ASUM frequently.
ASUM is going through budgeting. Student groups are currently lobbying for funds. The budget
for next year will be decided the weekend of March 7th and 8th.
ASUM elections are April 28th and 29th.
Question:
Chair Lodmell asked about the decision process with regard to Rafter. The Rafter proposal will
require a student vote. If the Rafter Committee gives the go ahead there will be a question with
an explanation and associated cost on the spring ballot.
UNIVERSITY FACULTY ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT DAVE SHIVELY
Several members of the Executive Board worked with Beckie Christians, Director of Academic
Budgets and Personnel and Administration and Finance to determine the inversion and
compression allocations. There is $150,000 in the contract for allocation this fiscal year. The
faculty were ranked based on the magnitude of inversions and given allocations on the February
2nd payroll. Announcements will be forthcoming.
Bargaining for compensation began in November. There are a couple of sections being
considered as a matter of housekeeping as well. Compensation involves salary increments,
promotion amounts, merits, chair stipends, and inversion and compression. Much of the
bargaining is dependent on how HB 13 works through the legislature. Information on the UFA
webpage will be updated with regard to the HB 13 hearing which was postponed from this
Friday. There is also a link the Bill for your information. The bill has a .50¢ raise for state
employees negotiated by the Governor. It doesn’t appear faculty members are being
differentiated. There is also a proposed increase for the Montana University System health care
plan. The question is what are the cost projections?
On President’s Day there are two buses going to the Legislature organized by Forward
Montana. There are seats available if you are interested in talking with legislators about HB 13
Celia Winkler, the UFA Representative on the Inter-Unit Benefit Committee (IBC) requested the
Senate be notified that the MedVantx prescription mail order will no longer be providing services
as of April 1st. The IBC is looking for a new vender. Ridgeway is still available. Faculty will be
sent a notification of the change.
The UFA Executive Board had a number of concerns about the draft Research Strategic Plan
and met with Professor Sprang. The faculty need to play a role in determining metrics for
research and creative activity. The UFA would also like to see the plan use different
terminology and will make some recommendations. Please take a look at the plan and offer
your comments to the UFA or Professor Sprang.
The Rafter proposal needs a lot of faculty input. A Rafter representative met with the Board.
There are a lot of options available so flexibility can be built into the plan.
CHAIR’S REPORT
There was some erroneous information distributed about Rafter that indicated ECOS had
considered and approved a Rafter proposal. That message was inaccurate and has been
rescinded from the CHS Deans office. ECOS has not made any endorsement what so ever.
The Registrar’s Office will be redesigning the General Education section of the catalog and is
seeking volunteers to help with the effort.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
ASCRC CHAIR JOHN DEBOER

The revisions to Policy 201.3.3 Editorial Catalog Changes was introduced. The change to
allow programs to revise their list of electives was the result of the review of crosslisting
forms. Many of the forms were not approved because they did not meet the criteria.
Programs will need to update their elective course lists to reflect the parent course number.
Listing courses in other programs under electives shows cross-discipline collaboration.


The program modification to create a rubric for the Global Leadership Initiativewas removed
from the consent agenda. It will be postponed until next month. The remaining items on the
Curriculum Consent Agenda were approved.
The General Education and Writing Consent agendas were also approved.
WRITING COMMITTEE CHAIR BEVERLY CHIN

The University-wide Program-Level Writing Assessment had a 30% participation from
students last fall. A summary document was posted to the agenda. The intent is to grow
the participation of both students and faculty. The Writing Retreat will be held on April 20th.
Faculty and Teaching assistants will assess student papers using a rubric. Faculty teaching
writing courses are encouraged to attend. Anyone interested in writing and using rubrics is
welcome to attend. It is an opportunity for professional development and improves shared
ownership of teaching writing. Professor Chin thanked Nancy Clouse, Instructional
Designer-UM Online and Natalie Peeterse, the UPWA Program Assistant who have worked
diligently on sustaining UPWA .
GRADUATE COUNCIL CHAIR KENT SWIFT


The Curriculum Consent Agenda was approved.
The Council supports the administrations adoption of the University of Montana Graduate
Education Merit Award Program (UM-GEMAP). It allows programs to offer an in-state
tuition award for students coming to UM with a merit award. The number of awards would
depend on available funding and would be managed by the Graduate School with final
approval from the Provost.
GOOD AND WELFARE
Jace Laakso, IT Project Manager announced the TedX UMontana event on February 20th. TED
stands for Technology Entertainment and design. The TED talks have evolved into locally
organized communications. This is what the X denotes. The event starts at 4:00 p.m. and
ends at 9:00 p.m. There will be three sessions with a total of 17 speakers and a dinner and
desert break between sessions.. The three themes are Shared Language and shared identities,
Sound and Silence, and Language of Empowerment. Tickets are still available.
Students can download Microsoft Office from the Information Technology home page.
There is free Ice Skating on Valentine’s Day available for UM Employees and their families at
Glacier Ice Rink.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m.