Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes
October 9, 2014, 3:10 P.M. Skaggs Building, Room 169
Call to Order –roll call
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. Bardsley, A. Becker, T. Beed, A.
Belcourt, B. Borrie, S. Bradford, M. Brooke, J. Bunch, A. Carpoca, J. Cavanaugh, J.
Carter, A. Chatterjee, T. Crawford, J. DeBoer, M. DeGrandpre, H. Eggert, D. Erickson, L.
Frey, E. Gagliardi, S. Galipeau,L. Gillison, J. Glendening, S. Gordon, M. Hamon, K.
Harris, L. Hart-Paulson, S. Hines, W. Holben, M. Horejsi, L. Howell, U. Kamp, H. Kim, A.
Kinney, C. Kirkpatrick, C. Knight, R. LaPier, A. Larson, B. Larson, G. Larson, J. Laskin,
B. Layton, S. Lodmell, P.Lucas, M. Mayor, M. McGuirl, M. Nielson, M. Raymond, S.
Richter, S. Shen, D. Shepherd, D. Sherman, S. Stan, K. Swift, A. Szalda-Petree, S.
Tillerman, E. Uchimoto, R. Vanita, N. Vonessen, A. Ware, K. Zoellner
Members Excused: M. Bowman, L. Gray, D. MacDonald, J. Montauban, J. Sears, D.
Schuldberg
Members Absent: J. Banville, T. Crowford, M. Kia, C. Palmer, A. Sondag, K. Wu
Ex-Officio Present: President Engstrom, Provost Brown, Interim Associate Provost
Lindsay
Guests: Clay Christian- Commissioner of Higher Education, Lucy France- UM Legal
Counsel
Minutes: the minutes from September 11th and September 25th were approved.
Communications:
The meeting began with the UM minute.

President Engstrom
President Engstrom congratulated Professor Belcourt on her Harvard Fellowship and
recognized Professor Rosenzwieg’s NASA Grant.
President Engstrom introduced Commissioner Christian and provided some
background information. The Montana University System is governed by the Board
of Regents (7 members appointed by the Governor). The Board has a professional
staff in Helena, the Office of the Commissioner of Higher Education (OCHE).
Clayton Christian has held the Position of the Commissioner of Higher Education for
three years. He was a member and Chair of the Board of Regents before accepting
the Commissioner position. It is very unusual for a Board Member to become
Commissioner. He is a graduate of UM and has been a great advocate for the
University. He also has several family members who have graduated from UM or
are current students.

Commissioner Clayton Christian
Commissioner Christian shared a few thoughts regarding what is going on in the
system from the Board and his perspective, then opened the floor for questions.
Montana Board of Regents and the Commissioner’s Office are focused on three
priorities included in the Strategic Plan with the goal of quality student success: 1)
Access and Affordability, 2) Economic Development, and 3) Efficiency in the System
Legislators over the past few years to develop a College Affordability Plan (CAP)
which has had the effect of holding tuition for Montana about the lowest in any state
of the nation over the past 8 years. This plan has not held expenses down. There
has been growth both in enrollment and budget, which is apparent in the increased
MUS system budget from $980 Million to $1.5 Billion over the past 10 years. The
Board has been trying to improve the state contribution to the system’s budget.
Other initiatives in this area are time-to-degree, retention, completion, dual credit,
and developmental education reform (such as Ed-Ready).
With regard to Economic Development OCHE has been active in acquiring
collaborative, consortium grants. The System was awarded the Department of Labor
Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training (TAACCCT)
3 and TAACCCT 4 grants, which will ultimately do good things in Montana. We are
working hard to put together a research initiative in hopes of driving new investment
from the State into the research sector of the University enterprise. The Initiative
would tie into the Governor’s Main Street Montana project. The MUS System is one
of the most efficient systems in the country. This is both a topic of pride and
concern. The Board needs to assure the University is provided with the resources
necessary to maintain quality. Performance funding and the long range building plan
legislative initiatives are included in this area.
The top priority for the legislative session is a comprehensive pay plan for the
system. Tuition cap will probably be a part of this. Sometimes this is equated to an
overall freeze, but that is not the case. Expenditures have not been capped.
Commissioner Christian showed a few slides that showed the trend in state
appropriations since 1992. During the tuition freeze era, the state contributed more
funding. The highest state appropriations have occurred in the CAP (full tuition
freeze) years. This year will be the highest state appropriation at 39%. Tuition
dollars are obviously tied to enrollment. Other components of the legislative session
include present-law-adjustments and long term building plan with an emphasis on
deferred maintenance. The Clapp Building and Music Building are high on this
planning list.
Questions
Senator comment: We rely on our quality adjunct faculty, but they usually do not
benefit from negotiated increases or merit increments in pay plan negotiations.
Christian: The separate pay plan for adjunct faculty is a Board choice. The current
approach has been an increase across the board and then creating a pool for
recruitment and retention. This is a tough issue, because there are not enough
resources to fix all the problems. There is no intent to leave any employee category
out of the pay plan. The Board is very committed to finding all the resources it can.
In the last session the Legislature provided funding for about a 1.4% salary increase,
ultimately the increase was a 2.9% with the creation of a recruitment and retention
pool. The Board reallocated funds to be as fair as possible. The Board understands
that the faculty, staff, and administrators are the greatest assets of the institutions. If
we don’t properly fund salaries or can’t recruit and retain them there will be
stagnation. The pool does not go a long way to addressing Montana’s low salary
rankings. There has been some headway, we were ranked 51 out of 50 in salary
level, and are now ranked in the mid-40s. We have a long way to go with regard to
compensation.
Mayer: In terms of the legislative agenda what priority are you giving to equalizing
the state contribution to TIAA-CREF? Over the last couple of legislative sessions
there has been a lot of money put into the states teacher’s retirement system (TRS),
which has widened the disparity between the two retirement systems.
Christian: This item is included with compensation and is the top priority in lobbying
efforts. There’s some cynicism regarding this issue because the university made the
deliberate choice to move from TRS to the ORP. OCHE continues to argue that this
shouldn’t change the state’s contribution. At the system level this is viewed as a
huge barrier to recruitment and retention. It is a significant challenge.
Chair Lodmell: The shrinking state contribution country wide parallels increase
burden of student loan debt. Presumably the anticipated accumulation of debt is a
deterrent for people to engage with higher education. In addition Montana is facing a
significant shortage of individuals with post-secondary education in the workforce.
Could the State strategically work on the problem of reducing students anticipated
debt to arrive at Complete Montana Goals?
Christian: Tuition has risen significantly in many parts of the country but it has not in
Montana. The overall cost of education hasn’t grown any faster than the consumer
price index. What has grown is the portion the student is paying. This is the result of
a funding switch from state paying 80% to 40%. That funding has been absorbed by
students. This can be a deterrent for families, they are interested in value. He is not
convinced that this correlates with student debt. Student debt is a significant issue
that OCHE is tracking and working on. His personal feeling is that the huge rise in
student debt has a lot to do with the Government raising the debt level. Borrowing
has more to do with human behavior than the cost of education.
Martin: Faculty members working in the Clapp building are very supportive of the
emphasis on deferred maintenance. The asbestos in the building is a health
concern.
Christian: OCHE is getting support from the State’s Architectural and Engineering (A
& E) division in this regard. There are some challenges. Anytime work is done on
the Clapp building there are significant cost issues because of the asbestos. He is
not an advocate for advocating for expansion building, the universities already have
2/3rds of the state buildings. He is advocating that we take care of existing buildings.
Defered maintenance in general ($60 million) absolutely has to be addressed.
The College Affordability Plan involved a pledge by the system to try to freeze tuition
if it was fully funded by the state. There was no trade for the funding. The last
agreement provided new money linked to performance funding. The language went
something like, “We are going to give you more money and encourage you to put a
metrics system in place. If you do this, it is entirely up to the university system if you
do. How it is done and how it is monitored is up to the system.” Legislators
understand and respect the constitutional divide between them and the University
System.
The Board of Regents governs the University System and the Legislature
appropriates money. The appropriation of new money for the first time in 20 years
has to do with knowing the system is working on some of the Legislatures objectives
for the University System. The conversations regarding what the University wants to
accomplish and what policy makers want to accomplish are productive.
A few years ago the University moved away from using the terminology of super
tuition to program fee. Program fees have not been frozen with tuition, but as part of
the overall pledge have had very moderate (2-3%) increases. This topic was also
discussed at his lunch with the academic deans in terms of how the program fee
should be handled, what is reasonable, and whether there should be a bifurcated
fee structure system between residents and non-residents. MSU is also looking into
this issue. There is state statute that suggests we cannot use state dollars to
supplement non-resident students. Non-resident students are a good source of
revenue. Non-resident students are approximately 20% of the student population
and pay 50% of the total tuition. This is intentional. There is also the question of
the auxiliary services that run at a less than breakeven point, such as parking or
other provided service. Should the resident and non-resident students pay the same
rate? We also have to consider the right price break point for non-resident students.
It is something that will be investigated further.
Gagliardi: This funding freeze is widening the gap in the Law School in terms of
things we can do for our students.
Christian: What the system really needs is a good solid investment by the state and a
modest tuition and fees increase. It has just never been possible to work both sides.
Had we not gotten the CAP agreement the University of Montana would have seen
an 8% increase in tuition last year and a 5% increase this year.
We have had tremendous fortune in Montana of attracting world class talent even
though we are extremely low on the pay scale, but we can only push our luck so far –
before we start to lose the quality that has made the system what it is. It’s a matter
of balancing the legislative process. The faculty salary discussion is not an easy one
at the legislature because the same salaries which are below the fairness level for
faculty are 2 to 3 times the average Montanan salary.
Knight: Montana State University has a higher tuition that the University of Montana.
Christian: The different campuses were given latitude over the last few decades to
develop pricing strategies with regard to residents and non-residents. The strategies
varied. UM tried to hold increases to resident tuition as low as possible. In the end
this strategy created a $900 gap. This is wrong and it needs to be corrected. There
is no basis for why tuition at one institution in the system is more than the other. This
has been difficult given the CAP. We need to narrow the gap. UM has also been
given a discount for the first two years of lower undergraduate credit. He is not so
sure this is the right strategy. We need to find a way to adjust these to be back on
level playing fields.
A few years ago Dennis Jones, President, National Center for Higher Education
Management Systems was hired to look at the Montana’s cost of education from side
to side within the system. He found that there was less than a half of 1% difference
between the two sides. The tuition variance is at the top of his and President
Engstrom’s list to try to fix.
The disparity has actually grown due to the base plus budgeting model adopted in
2006. The previous model had an FTE component. The last across- the- board
tuition increase increased the disparity.
Commissioner Christian was thanked for visiting with the Faculty Senate.

UFA President David Shively
The State election is coming up. Please encourage your colleagues to vote. In 2010
only 34% of UM Faculty voted. Faculty were sent a link to the Secretary of State’s
website which provides information about whether you are registered to vote.
Improving the legislature is a long term goal.
The UFA is visiting departments to find out bargaining priorities for your units.
Compensation is the first priority, but the UFA will try to open other items if it hears
there are issues that need to be addressed.
The data to begin the inversion / compression work will not be available until after the
November 1st paycheck. Payroll is currently entering salary increase information into
Banner.
The UFA has made significant progress with OCHE in terms of negotiating
compensation. OCHE understands the inversion and compression problem. The
problem has gotten bigger from the 2010 analysis, but the negotiations have not
been adversarial. Thus far the pool has mostly dealt with the inversion problem.
Last cycle there were maximum awards of $1000 for inversions between ranks. The
ranked inversion was based on percentage differences of faculty within the same
units inverted by rank. There was money left over so the same calculation was
applied to inversion within ranks.
The base salary level of non-tenure track faculty is an important consideration.
Another issue is to consider providing a mechanism for lecturers to be given merit
based increases, since there are not levels (career ladder) within the rank. Nontenure track faculty members are eligible for merits but often there is no money. The
UFA is interested in the possibility of creating a merit pool for non-tenure track
faculty. It is hoped that this would be new money, but this is unknown. This is a
clearly an equity issue. There are several non-tenure track faculty with high
exposure in the community. They deserve some financial recognition.
Senator Gillison: There may be a time when the tenure track faculty will need to
stand in solidarity to perhaps accept less so their non-tenure track colleagues can be
given something to acknowledge their contributions. This is always difficult because
there is only so much money available for the pool.
This is why the UFA is going to work on two levels- the salary floors and merits. We
need to open the door, but it will be a long term project. He thinks OCHE is receptive
to this, but will need to hear the message repeated each year. The bargaining
process is inclusive of non-tenured faculty.

Professor Andrew Ware- Academic Alignment and Innovation
Program
There is now a Taskforce consisting of 14 members, including 7 faculty members, 3
administrators, 3 students, and 1 staff member. Several of the members are
Senators. The Taskforce is now meeting weekly and has had three meetings. There
are several components to the charge. The first is to think about how we
communicate the importance of a liberal arts education. Another is to complete a
survey of all the academic programs, identify those that are challenged by low
enrollment or perception of relevance, and offer recommendations for strengthening
them. Identify programs ready for growth and offer recommendations to facilitate
growth. Consider what new programs would help further UM’s mission. Follow-up
on the recommendations of the Academic Planning Workgroup with regard to
identifying new or enhanced online, international, and interdisciplinary opportunities.
The Taskforce is currently working out the details of the questions to ask to
determine which programs are challenged and which are ready for growth.
Department Chairs and Program Directors will be asked to provide information and
invited to meet with the Taskforce for follow-up as appropriate. The Taskforce will be
looking at the return on proposed investment for the programs that are challenged
and ready for growth. The timeline is to finish by the end of the spring semester.
Andrew is available to provide updates and information will be posted on the website
(http://www.umt.edu/aaip/).
Questions / Comments
Is the UM administration working to reframe “liberal arts education” to be more
“modern”?. The Taskforce will meet with the Vice President Kuhr, Sharon O’Hare,
and Mario Schulzke who are involved in recruitment to discuss the branding and
marketing of the University. We want to make sure that what we value about an
education from the University of Montana is inherent in the materials. Their efforts to
increase student enrollment by revising recruitment materials is separate from the
AAIP.
President Engstrom clarified that this is not a budget cutting exercise. If anything it is
a budget growth exercise in financial terms. We need to modernize and make our
curriculum as exciting, attractive, and as relevant as possible. As the committee
does its work and makes recommendations, the hope is that this will be a more
attractive university to students. And more of them will come enhancing our revenue
to do more. This is fundamentally a quality and appropriateness of education
exercise. How can we make our academic portfolio as robust, interesting and
important as possible? A comprehensive review has not been completed in the last
decade. An examination of our portfolio as a whole must be done in order to remain
a leading institution in the State and Country.
Will the evaluation of programs look beyond content to a broader picture to include
instructional methods? The Taskforce will consider appropriate technology for all
courses / instructors and what can be done for enhancement. This was one of the
recommendations from the Academic Programming Workgroup that met last
summer. The Taskforce will not tell faculty how to teach, but if the program identifies
a different teaching format as a strategy for enhancement this will be considered.
What is your primary fact finding, data gathering mechanism? Are there things that
Senators can do to facilitate the process? Vice President for Planning, Budgeting,
and Analysis, Dawn Ressel attended the Taskforce’s meeting this week. Her Office
has various data about enrollment, majors, and the various trends and has provided
some preliminary information from the past five years. The Taskforce will also be
looking externally. For example, how do the department trends compare with our
peer or aspiration institutions? It will be important that the data analysis includes
context in terms of relative comparators. Again the Taskforce will be reaching out to
all departments. Senators can help to encourage discussions regarding the vibrancy
of programs and areas for improvement or opportunities for growth. The Taskforce
would love to hear department’s suggestions in terms of what would facilitate
possible enhancement or growth.

Chair’s Report
Program of the Senate
The Program of the Senate was available at the last meeting, but we ran out of time
for presenting. Chair Lodmell touched on a few items. The Faculty Senate should
engage with the Academic Alignment and Innovation Program. As usual the Senate
Leadership participates in accreditation and planning efforts. The Senate should
also be involved with the Administrative and Fiscal Review that the President
outlined in the State of the University address. The special session of the Faculty
Senate was one way to increase meaningful discussion. He invites Senators to
inform ECOS of topics that need to be discussed by the body. If necessary a special
session can be called. ECOS of course keeps the dialog open with the UFA,
ASUM, GSA, and Staff Senate. And the Senate leadership is always engaged with
the other campuses through the Montana University System Faculty Association
Representatives (MUSFAR). MUSFAR has the opportunity to discuss faculty
concerns with the Board of Regents. Chair Lodmell will keep the Senate informed
about Board of Regents initiatives.
A current priority for the Board and OCHE is enhancing Prior Learning Assessment.
This is related to the Governor’s Complete Montana initiative to substantially
increase the number of Montanans with post-secondary education from 40% to 60%.
One tool to enhance involvement with higher education is prior learning assessment.
UM already accepts most of these (AP, CLEP, IB, and credit for Military training
through ACE). The unknown component is portfolio assessment. In turns out that
students who receive credits through prior learning have higher retention and
graduation rates. It seems like this is an opportunity to enhance the pipeline into
higher education. Currently there is a state- wide taskforce, of which Chair Lodmell
is a member, working on procedures. The faculty on the Taskforce are concerned
about quality and want to make sure the students are well prepared for the next
course in the sequence.
Graduate Outcomes Survey
Discussion of the Graduate Outcomes Survey Results was postponed. Chair
Lodmell spoke to Terry Berkhouse, Director of Academic Enrichment and Internship
Services and students will be prompted again so the response rate will change.
Board of Regents update
A lot of the discussion at the last Board of Regents meeting had to do with Prior
Learning Assessment initiatives. There is a lot of engagement with the Main Street
Montana initiative which is designed to recognize what employers in Montana are
looking for and make sure the programs of the University System are producing
graduates with the skills that employers want. There are a lot of OCHE initiatives
designed to coordinate with the Workforce.
Athletics Report
The report was available as an information item. The faculty athletics representative
will be at the Senate next month to answer questions about the report.
Unfinished Business

The revision to the Honorary Doctorate Policy was approved. The revision clarifies
the language and adjusts the dates to fit to correspond with the Board of Regents
timeline.

Lucy France introduced the ‘policy on policies’. There are three reasons for such a
policy: 1) Transparency- understanding what a UM Operating Policy is and how to
create one, 2) Accountability – requires review for accuracy to keep up with any
changes, 3) Spirit of shared governance. Various comments have been incorporated
into the revised draft. The document has been approved by ASUM and the Staff
Senate.
Comments /questions
The record retention section is missing a time period. A Record Retention Policy is
in draft form and will be working its way through the approval process soon.
Currently the University follows standard archival practices.
The approval steps includes faculty governance early in the process, then it is routed
to various administrators and the cabinet for revisions, so it could be substantially
changed from what was approved originally by the Faculty Senate. The Senate does
not have the opportunity to review / approve the final version. The Senate would
have final purview regarding academic policies, but not operational policies. It was
suggested that the final policy draft with revisions come back to the Senate as
information, but not require a vote. The procedure will be revised for consideration at
the next meeting.

The Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate reviewed the Center for the Rocky
Mountain West last spring and received the external review this fall. It recommends
continuation. The recommendation was approved with two senators opposed.
Committee Reports

The curriculum pathway memorandum of understanding between the Department of
Psychology and Missoula College was posted to the agenda as an information item.

ASCRC revised the AP policy to align the floor of the AP credits to be a score a 3
which is equivalent to a grade of C. Some departments prefer a score of 4. There is
a provision for departments to set their own course equivalencies. If the department
no longer wishes to give credit for the course the student will be given elective credit.
This brings UM’s policy in line with the MUS system and national standards for AP
scores.
Comments
Senator Frey: This policy indicates a culture of declining expectations on campus.
We should be moving towards aspirations. Senator Frey graded for AP for a number
of years. She no longer does because she believes the integrity of AP has been
compromised. Twenty years ago a 3 was not a passing score in History and is even
less so now. If we want to be a Flagship institution we should lead the way and go
above the floor.
A number of institutions, Dartmouth for example, no longer accept AP credits. It
states: ”The myth that AP credit is equivalent to college level course is no longer
sustainable.” The University of Washington gives credit only for a 4 or 5.
This is likely happening due to the new culture of the College Board. Approximately
26% of high school students take AP exams. They have adopted a new mentality of
trophies for all. More underprepared students are taking the AP. In some areas the
entire school district takes the AP exam without taking the AP course. Graders are
told to use the whole scale, so it is skewed to give more students 3s. This policy is
a horrible mistake, even elective credit for the diminished AP is not appropriate.
Ware: We don’t want to turn away the gifted students that get AP credits at other
universities. What we do with advising is so important. In Physics the students that
received AP credit are still advised to take the first year course. Anything that
discourages students who took AP courses / exam from coming to UM is a mistake.
Mayer: Really bright students are not getting 3s on the AP exam. Entire school
districts pay for its students to take the AP exam in History. There is absolutely no
selection process for the students taking the exam. Between 55- 70% of these
students receive a 3 or better.
Chair Lodmell: How students perform in subsequent course is really what we should
be concerned about.
Mayer: There is only anecdotal evidence in the History department.
Bradford: Effort and commitment often has more to do with success that an exam.
Teaching to the test puts a lot of pressure on students. The larger landscape of
enrollment is the real rationale behind the revised policy.
It was clarified that the University of Washington in fact accepts AP scores of 3 or a 4
to earn credit, according to their website, where there is a table that lists the
threshold for particular courses.
DeBoer: Students can pass a general education course with a score of C- or better.
Vonessen: For all courses we accept that the Board of Regents established common
course numbering for better or for worse, and courses are deemed equivalent
throughout the entire system. The one thing that stands out is the AP credit which is
not being treated at the system level. It seems that all the other institutions within
the Montana University System accept a 3 as the minimum score for AP. In terms
of transferability these changes are necessary. Students with AP credit are likely to
be the top 10% of our student body.
The motion passed with three senators opposed.
DeBoer: ASCRC will address the removal of course equivalencies from the
program’s the no longer wish to have them.

Grad Council Chair Kent Swift explained the changes proposed to the Council’s
charge. Some of the language was outdated. The old language gave decision
making authority but in reality the Council makes recommendations to the Senate.
There was also a line added to cover the review of scholarship applications which is
one of the Council’s tasks in the spring. The revisions are inline which what the
Council actually does. It was clarified that the Council is not involved with allocating
teaching awards. The revision was approved unanimously.
Good and Welfare:
The discussion of revitalizing a liberal arts education needs to be a larger dialogue
than revising recruitment materials. At some point there should be a public
discussion to think about the citizen side of education, the responsibility to move the
institutions into the 21st century and somehow raise the bar of our educational
discourses. This starts with our own discourse.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 5:08 p.m.