Meeting Minutes, December 5, 2013
Skaggs Building, Room 169
Members
Present:
L. Ametsbichler, J. Bardsley, D. Beck, A. Belcourt, B. Borrie, M.
Bowman, S. Bradford, G. Burns, A. Chatterjee, M. Chin, T. Crawford,
R. Fanning, C. Galipeau, L. Gillison, J. Glendening, L. Gray, N.
Greymorning, C. Hahn, K. Harris, W. Holben, D. Hollist, M. Horejsi, H.
Kim, C. Knight, A. Larson, J. Laskin, S. Lodmell, D. MacDonald, M.
Mayer, N. McCrady, C. Merriman, J. Montauban, P. Muench, M.
Neilson, E. Plant, R. Premuroso, E. Putnam, M. Raymond, S. Richter,
D. Schuldberg J. Sears, S. Shen, D. Shively, A. Sondag, M. Stark, A.
Szalda-Petree, S. Tillerman, E. Uchimoto, R. Vanita, K. Wu, K.
Zoellner
Members
Excused
W. Chung, J. Cavanaugh, M. DeGrandpre, L. Frey, E. Gagliardi, S.
Gordon, A. Kinny, B. Layton, C. Palmer, K. McKay, D. Shepherd, P.
Silverman
Members
Absent
H. Eggert, J. Hirstein, D. Sloan
Ex-Officio
Present:
President Engstrom, Vice President Reid, Associate Provosts Hinman
and Walker-Andrews, Interim Registrar Hickman, Deans Comer,
Maclean, Zhang, ASUM President Hohman, ASUM Vice President
Williams
B. Brown, R. Bridges, L. Franz, C. Fiore, V. Grund, R. Hughes, R.
Humprey, J. Loftus, A. Vernon, N. White
Guest:
Chair Putnam called the meeting to order at 3:10p.m. Interim Registrar Hickman called
roll.
The meeting began with the UM minute and the minutes from 11/14/13 were approved.
Communication:

Provost Perry Brown provided an update on efforts related to undergraduate
recruitment. The marketing material mailings have been completely revised. There
has also been an increase in the number of mailings to prospective students and
parents. The materials include pamphlets on the academic programs titled Learn.
Other pamphlets are titled Thrive and Live, which describe students’ successes and
lives in Missoula. The next pamphlet will be about money and is intended for parents.
There was also a card sent to all faculty and staff requesting the names of potential
students to be added to the mailing list. Students of alumni were mailed materials as
well. In addition, the University sent scholarship offers out sooner in accordance with
the consultant’s recommendation.
There are teams working on improving the process and results, one focused on data
analysis and reporting, so that we can be more evidence based, analytical, and
strategic in the way we approach things. Financial Aid is now involved with recruiting
as well. There are other teams working on recruitment and retention for the Mountain
Campus (both undergraduate and graduate students) and the Missoula College
students.

ASUM President Asa Hohman and Vice President Mariah Williams
ASUM discussed the General Education language motion at last night’s meeting.
The students are hoping that the Faculty Senate will not change the current
requirement. The majority believes departments should decide whether language is
required. There were concerns about the time and cost of 10 language credits, not
having access to the preferred language, and the impact on students with double
majors. Students did express support for the study and teaching of language for
appropriate majors.
Mario Schulzke, Assistant Vice President for Marketing provided students with
recruitment materials to distribute to their hometown high schools. Please contact
him if you would like materials to distribute.

UFA President David Shively
The CBA was ratified by the Board of Regents and will become effective on
December 11th. The CBA will be posted on the UFA website (ufa4um.org). Pay
raises should be processed by January 2nd, which would include the increase
prorated from October as well as merits and promotions. The chair’s report for
faculty evaluation must be completed by December 15th. Chairs must take into
account the ratings across service, teaching, and research in their promotion / merit
rankings. Please pay attention to this to avoid unnecessary appeals. The UFA has
been visiting with VP Reid and Dean Comer to try to understand the budget situation
and the impact on instruction.
Questions:
There have been no changes to the appeals or FEC process. Department chairs do
not rank themselves. The deans rank them prior to sending the list to the Provost’s
Office. Language to specify this process should be added to the CBA in the future.

Athletic Director Kent Haslam And Senior Associate Athletic Director,
Jean Gee –NCAA Correction Action Plan
The plan outlining steps to address the NCAA penalty and the timeline was provided
to senators in advance of the meeting. Several corrective actions are required due
to the infraction case. The plan focuses on education and monitoring. Additional
education efforts are primarily focused on groups outside of athletics – the campus
community, faculty, staff, and boosters. This is the reason for today’s presentation.
Monitoring is also required of the campus community, boosters and coaches. Please
contact Jean Gee with any questions regarding the plan or clarification regarding
appropriate support of boosters.
Questions:
The infraction case and corrective action is completely separate from the DOJ’s
investigation. It was simply a case of coincidence that they both started at the same
time.
Annual reports are required as part of the three-year probation. These are required
in June. A compliance review is also required from an outside entity.

Professor Wendy Walker, Digital Initiatives Librarian, Mansfield
Library – Scholar Works
Professor Walker provided a brief demonstration of Scholar Works, a new service
designed to centralize, showcase, preserve and provide free online access to the
scholarship of the UM community. Brochures were available. The home page is at:
http://scholarworks.umt.edu/. It’s a place where you can make available your
previously published or unpublished materials such as journal articles, white papers,
reports, and etc. There is a list of possible contributions under the FAQ tab. Scholar
Works accepts any type of discrete format, so you can include images, audio, or
video. There are many benefits to using Scholar Works such as long term
preservation and access, enhanced sharing of your scholarship with built in social
media links and a consistent url, and tracking of the usage of your work. The author
dashboard will provide download counts for each item in real-time. It will also track
what search words were used, and where the individuals downloading your materials
are located. You will receive monthly updates with this information. This can help you
understand the potential impact of your work.
Scholar Works is optimized for discovery and makes your work widely available. It
has been up for three months and has 2700 items uploaded. There have already
been 1600 items downloaded and access has been from over 40 countries. During
the first three months the library reached out to 10 departments. It is now open to
everyone. Please contact Professor Walker, 243-6004, or scholarworks@mail.lib.umt.edu
if you are interested in uploading your work. You can email digital copies of your CV
and scholarship. The Library will do the work of checking rights and uploading the
content for you.
Questions:
There are other repositories offering the same services that are well established.
Some are discipline specific such as Social Science Research Network. The
advantage of Scholar Works is the institutional commitment. The Library is
committed to long-term preservation, which is extremely important given the rapid
rate of changes in technology. It would be beneficial to have scholarship in discipline
specific repositories as well as Scholar Works.
The library will check publisher’s policies for materials previously published. In some
cases the materials may not be uploaded to Scholar Works. However, many
publishers are starting to allow this type of “green archiving.”
Student work such as thesis and dissertations will be included on a selective basis.
The scholarship should be of enduring value and be endorsed by a faculty member
for inclusion in Scholar Works.
It might be possible to include awards in Scholar Works if they are attached to
content. All items uploaded include descriptive metadata. An award could be added
to this.

Associate Dean Charlie Jansen – Global Leadership Initiative
The Global Leadership Initiative is an enrichment program that aligns with the
strategic plan. It is cumulative over 4 years that incorporates multiple educational
best practices. In particular there are freshman seminars, a junior year experimental
component, and senior capstone project mentored by faculty. The experiment is now
in its third year. It is currently supported by private philanthropy.
One of the goals of the initiative is to increase retention of the average student, thus
it is specifically not selective. Students are selected randomly from those that
express an interest. The seminars have been taught as experimental courses and
thus have not been approved as permanent courses by ASCRC, although they have
been reviewed by the General Education Committee for one-time-only general
education designations.
The GLI Taskforce estimates that the experiment will need to continue for
approximately 6 years before any credible statements can be made about how it
works and whether it can be sustained.
Various demographic statistics were presented as well as campus impact figures.
Details are included in the notes posted to the agenda. GLI students are retained at
10-16% higher than comparable ‘average’ UM students. The most expensive part of
the program is the mini grants for the experiential component.
The retention rate within the program and a slow start to participation in the
experiential component are a challenge.
Questions:
All freshmen are sent information about the Global Leadership Initiative. If they
express an interest they are entered into the list from which 250 names are randomly
selected.
There are a handful of transfer students in the GLI that did not enter as freshman.
This is because their transfer credits were not yet processed when they expressed
an interest. The program is working through these issues, but trying to be as flexible
as possible. There are also majors that have intense senior years, which makes the
senior capstone difficult. A three year option is being considered to allow the
students to stay in the program.
There also has been some disjuncture with the GLI seminars fitting within the
General Education framework. The Taskforce is considering whether it is necessary
for the seminars to have general education designations. The General Education
Committee also submitted comments that are posted under ASCRC’s report.
Senators were encouraged to offer GLI seminar from a fellow senator who found it a
very rewarding experience. Your department receives a buyout, you receive funding
to develop the course and students are receptive. It provides the opportunity to
perhaps teach something different if it meets the goals of the program. Proposals
will be accepted again in the spring for fall 2015. The feedback from students
enrolled in the freshman seminars has been very positive. Ninety-two percent would
recommend the seminar to fellow students.
Many majors have very little flexibility, so additional requirements are difficult for
students. It may be necessary to find a better way to blend with major requirements.
This is another area the committee is discussing.
Originally the program was intended to provide a pathway through general
education. This has been difficult because often students’ selection of general
education courses has as much to do with what fits into their schedule as the content
of the course. This continues to be a challenge.
Chair Putnam postponed the Chair’s report to allow plenty of time for committee
reports.
Committee Reports

ASCRC Chair Colin Henderson
The General Education Committee asked that its concerns regarding the fit of GLI
seminars with general education criteria be presented to contribute to the
conversation. Many of the GLI seminars are very specialized and do not meet the
intent of general education. The Committee struggled to approve the one-time-only
designations. It supports the program and the seminars, but is skeptical of its fit
within the current general education framework.
The general education rolling review (Mathematics, Historical and Cultural, and
Natural Science) report was approved. The deadline for the next rolling review
(Literary & Artistic Studies, American & European, and Indigenous & Global) is
February 21st. Courses approved after fall 2011 are exempt from the review.
The disapproval of CHEM 302E was removed from the General Education consent
agenda with one senator opposed. The General Education Consent agenda was
then approved.
The ASCRC Curriculum consent agenda and Writing Course (Humanities and Fine
Arts) Rolling Review was approved.
Discussion and vote on the General Education language motion was postponed with
one senator opposed. The motion will be considered at the next Faculty Senate
meeting. Several correspondences require follow-up consideration and responses.
There was also concern that more time is needed to debate the issue than was
allowed at today’s meeting. Catalog language is now available for senators to
consider.
ASCRC was briefed on the efforts of the Registrar’s Office and Information
technology to prepare for implementing an automated degree audit system. This
involves a departmental review of degree requirements. There needs to be
consistency in catalog presentation and storage of degree requirements in order for
a degree audit system to work. To this end the degree builder system was created.
Departments will be using the system to enter requirements by the end of February
for the next catalog. The system has fields that allow for flexibility. The results
should be more transparent requirements that are easier for students to understand.
Eventually the system will be integrated with academic planner, which was designed
by the same programmer. Academic Planner does not have a degree audit function.

Chair’s Report
Board of Regents Meeting Report
The Office of the Commissioner of Higher Education received a grant related to
credit for prior experiential learning. Ohio and Texas are also included in the Lumina
foundation-funded grant project. This was the topic discussed by MUSFAR at the
breakfast meeting with the Board of Regents. It is very concerning to shared
governance because it was done without consultation with faculty. In fact the
administration was also unaware of the efforts. The first notice was an article in the
Chronicle of Higher Education. OCHE is now aware that faculty members are
concerned about curriculum matters specifically with regard to what / how students
receive credit.
One issue is the mechanism by which students gain credit. The military has
established a transparent evaluative framework for credit. The Prior Learning
Assessment project is quite different. The student contacts the Council for Adult
and Experiential Learning (CAEL), explains their outside-classroom experiences
such as employment, corporate training, volunteerism, MOOCS and other online
courses. The CAEL then designs an assessment and determines whether or not
they get credit. What happens to these students when they come to campus and
take a course for which they do not have the collegiate foundation?
The other concern is that students enter into two-year colleges, which are feeders
into the four-year colleges, with many experiential credits. They will not have the
opportunity to explore courses with depth and they may bump into financial aid credit
limit issues. So they could be taking on more debt, spending more time in school,
and be less likely to complete. These are all issues MUSFAR brought up at the
meeting.
The Office of the Commissioner has arranged for a representative from CAEL to visit
UM next Friday at 11:00 a.m. Senators were emailed an invitation. If you would like
to participate in this discussion please contact the Faculty Senate Office.
Questions:
Additional information about the grant and the company will be sent to senators.
Chair-elect Lodmell perused the company’s website to try to understand the process.
The potential student makes an appointment to speak with an advisor to talk about
their experience. The advisor will help to organize the student’s experience into a
course (appears to be similar to a correspondence course) offered by CAEL. Then
depending on the performance in the course the credits would be transferable to the
partner institutions. Hopefully a conversation with the representative from the CAEL
will indicate the rigor of the course assessment and how its courses would integrate
with the institution’s curriculum.
It seems that UM already has an internal process (Internships and Independent
Studies) to provide credit for experiential learning. It seems somewhat suspicious.
The focus of the company is credit for entrance into two year programs.
Other items discussed at the Board of Regents meeting included program review
and the career value of degrees. Are we educating students to find a job or to
succeed in their life no matter what their career path? One Regent wanted curriculum
to be prescribed according to the job market. However, another Regent, who was
normally this Regent’s ally, defended the research mission of the Universities.
President Engstrom upheld that the University retains academic rigor.
Budget Meeting Report
The Budget Committee is working on the recommendations from the various
Workgroups. Currently the cuts being worked on are within the administration. There
is a hiring chill across campus. The Budget Committee is trying to find the money
with the least possible damage to instruction. The last thing we should do is cut
courses when we are trying to retain and attract students. There will be one more
meeting before Christmas. Chair Putnam will report back in February.
Performance Based Funding update
All the focus groups have met. The report will be available at tomorrow’s conference
call meeting. Chair Putnam thanked everyone who participated in the focus groups.
It was apparent that UM was not supportive of performance based funding. The
allocation model will also be discussed during tomorrow’s meeting.
Service Award Nominations needed
Please consider nominating your colleagues who have outstanding service records.
It is very simple process. The Senate Office will follow-up with the deadline for
nomination submission. The award is now given at the Employee Recognition Day
in April.
A faculty member from the sciences is needed for the electronic technology
accessibility work group.
Evaluation of the Administration drawing
The President’s and Provost’s Office provided incentives for participating in the
evaluation of the Administration. The $100 dollar certificate to the Red Bird
Restaurant went to Matthew Kaler, a faculty member at the Bitterroot College. The
$100 dollar certificate to the Pearl Restaurant went to Erik Reimer, a faculty member
in English. The President’s Box for the March 8th Lady Griz Game went to Jere
Hodgins, a faculty member in Theatre.
Graduate Council Chair Stephen Sprang
The level II item was removed from Curriculum Consent agenda for further
discussion. The Curriculum Consent agenda was approved.
The level II proposal is a new master’s degree in online learning technologies. The
program is inter-departmental and multi-disciplinary. It involves faculty and
instruction from Media Arts, Business, Curriculum and Instruction, and Computer
Sciences. It would be offered entirely online with the exception of a practicum and 6
credit professional project. The audience primarily would be non-traditional working
professionals. The Graduate Council originally considered the proposal last year. It
made several recommendations at that time. The program is now housed in the
Graduate School similar to the Masters in Interdisciplinary Programs. It now has an
established tenure-line faculty. Nine new courses are included in the program.
There are objectives for the courses but course forms with detailed syllabi have not
yet been submitted. The funding for the program, which has been approved by the
Provost, is based on an experimental revenue sharing model. Some of the tuition
would be diverted back to support the program.
The item was referred back to Graduate Council. Senators have not had sufficient
opportunity to study the proposal and a majority (there were two abstentions) of the
Graduate Council did not vote in support of the proposal. Not housing the program
within an academic unit with unit standards sets faculty up for conflicting
expectations. This could easily be remedied by housing the program within Media
Arts where a majority of the courses are offered. The funding model does not show a
commitment from the administration for the program. It is not clear why this unique
model is necessary. The entrance requirements and/or prerequisites are not clear in
terms of a master’s level program.
Unfinished Business

The amendments to the Articles and Bylaws were approved. The amendment allows
for items to be added to the agenda that need immediate attention in a shorter time
than a full week. If this occurs, ECOS approves the addition and senators are
notified.
Good and Welfare

Nelson Mandela passed away today.

Professor Ausland asked that an item related to Missoulian articles and Campus
Representative Meetings be made public be entered into the record. The specific
language was sent to senators electronically and is attached.

There are some complicating issues with regard to relationship between the fouryear and two–year campus. This includes the fact that faculty from the two-year
campus are the minority in all decision making bodies, a minority that does not feel
that its views are presented or respected effectively. The result is that Missoula
College faculty feel beaten down.
Faculty members on the four-year campus are invited to get to know the two-year
faculty, to check facts and research before reaching conclusions. Faculty members
at the Missoula College have amazing skills and do good work with untrained
students. We need to work together to bridge the gap and collaborate more
effectively.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 pm.