ASCRC Minutes 2/8/11
Members Present: B. Borrie, M. Beebe-Frankenberger, K. Hoggatt, C. Knight, M.
Grimes, P. Muench, E. Uchimoto, K. Spika, J. Staub, A. Williams, K. Zoellner
Members Absent/Excused: D. Dalenberg, C. Henderson, L. Higgins, S. Greymorning, J.
Sanders, L. Sims
Ex-Officio Present: B. Holzworth, E. Johnson, S. O’Hare, A. Walker-Andrews
Chair Knight called the meeting to order at 2:10 p.m.
The minutes from 2/1/11 were approved.
Business Items:
Academic Forgiveness Policy
 The draft Academic Forgiveness-Clean Slate Policy was presented by Executive
Director O’Hare for Associate Provost Walker-Andrews, who was attending the
University Council meeting until 3:00 PM. The rationale for the policy is to give
students who have proven they can do better an opportunity to start over. This will
allow returning students to remove their previous academic record and start a new
GPA. Compared to other institutions the policy is more restrictive.
The committee discussed the various aspects of the policy. It was recommended that
students be allowed to return after 3 years rather than 5. It should be noted that the
student must use the catalog effective when they are re-admitted . Students should be
allowed to choose which semesters should be removed from the GPA calculation.
This will allow them to keep credits for semesters in which they performed well. The
policy should reference the retroactive withdrawal available to current students, so it
is clear that it does not discriminate.
There were concerns that retaining record of the courses erased from the GPA on the
students’ transcripts is punitive. The record is a matter of academic integrity and
standard practice.
Executive Director O’Hare will revise the policy for ASCRC to review next week.
200/300 course equivalency issue

Registrar Johnson drafted language for ASCRC to consider related to the 200/300
course equivalency issue. In cases where there are advertised articulation agreements
between Montana two-year institutions and UM, transferring students may count the
course determined to be equivalent to a UM 300-level course toward the upperdivision requirement. It was suggested that a complete list of these courses be
included in the motion. The exception language will be provided to admissions and
advisors:
Official university communications, including web sites and individual
student academic transcripts, have indicated that specific 200-level
coursework from Montana two-year schools meets 300-level course
requirements at UM. Therefore, it is moved that ASCRC approve that
students in these specific circumstances be granted a ONE TIME exception to
use those transfer credits to help satisfy the minimum 39 credit upper-division
requirement for a baccalaureate degree. This exception is in place ONLY for
those 200-level courses taken from a Montana two-year institution that have
been evaluated and categorized by UM as meeting the 300-level
requirements. This exception sunsets the first term that the new common
course numbering is implemented.
Cross listing Issue
 Associate Provost Walker-Andrews notified ASCRC that a fall out from common
course numbering is the elimination of cross-listing. She will inform the Faculty
Senate of the situation at the March meeting. She addressed the frequently asked
questions:
o How will students find courses? The administration looked at Banner
functionality. Currently Banner does not have the functionality needed and
programming requires resources. Therefore, the translation guide will be
updated to include all the courses and their past cross-listings.
o How will courses be listed in the catalog? Rather than have the courses listed
in the departmental sections, there will be a main dictionary that houses
courses.
o How will departments submit paperwork for courses that are accepted in other
departments? Rather than have a sign off for cross-listing, forms will have to
indicate whether courses are accepted by other majors.
o Who gets credit for the course? The credit is attached to the instructor
/department teaching the course and follows.
o How will course schedules be accurate when rubrics do not follow
departments? Chairs will have to communicate regarding courses that are
taught in other departments that share rubrics.
o How can we ensure students are aware of opportunities in other disciplines?
Cross-listing has functioned as a mechanism to increase enrollment in courses
from other disciplines. Departments will need to use other forms of
advertising to interest students. This may include advising information and
other areas (web sites) where recommended courses are listed.
The Registrar’s office will update course numbers in departmental requirements
after programs have implemented common-course numbers. Departments should
check this information for accuracy when the catalog copy is sent for review.
Courses that are currently referenced with the cross-listed number in the
department requirements will have a “formerly cross-listed as ….” statement.
Program Review Discussion

Members looked over the sample program review materials and considered whether
ASCRC should be involved in undergraduate program review similar to Graduate
Council’s involvement in graduate program review. There were concerns regarding
the workload and whether the effort would add value to the process. The purpose of
the review is not clear. If the purpose is to compare programs, then committee
members may not have the expertise, and a lengthier summary document would be
necessary.
Input from ASCRC would provide a University point of view in addition to the
external reviewer and self-study. Faculty involvement in program review is
representative of faculty oversight of programs. It would also provide the opportunity
for faculty to learn about other programs and share ideas for best practices. The
external reviewers are chosen from names the program submits to Academic Affairs.
Program review will be linked to resources at some point given the current focus on
the budget planning assessment cycle.
ASCRC might think about where in the process it would like to be involved. A
possibility would be for ASCRC, or a subcommittee of ASCRC, to review the selfstudy and identify issues of concern for the external reviewer. There is a practical
matter to consider in terms of timing.
It was questioned whether it is necessary for faculty to be involved. Administrators
are capable of making decisions. There does not seem to be a problem that faculty
involvement is fixing; it is more a matter of ideology. The Board of Regents
program-review mainly looks at productivity numbers. It benefits the faculty to take
ownership of program quality and to explain the value to the Board of Regents.
The discussion will continue next week.
Good and Welfare:

Many students walk away from lower division courses and do not drop. ASCRC may
need to consider this issue in the future. The current repeat fee is $25 for the first
repeat, $35 for the second, and $50 for the third. The money collected from the fees
is designated for student success initiatives.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:02 PM.