DATE: November 14, 2002
PRESENT: George Benedict Doug Brown
Sandie Rietz Audrey ConnerRosberg
Paul Bauer George Madden
Keith Edgerton Randall Gloege
Alan Davis Mark Hardt
Connie Landis Matt Redinger
Janie Park Dan Zirker
ABSENT: John Cech (ex-officio) Joe Michels (ex-officio)
Randy Rhine (ex-officio) George White (ex-officio)
Terrie Iverson (ex-officio) Nichole Alley (ex-officio) Curt Kochner (ex-officio)
GUESTS: Ron Sexton Lisa Kemmerer
Mary Susan Fishbaugh
PRESIDING: Keith Edgerton, Chair
Keith Edgerton called the meeting to order at 3:32 p.m. on November 14, 2002, in the Chancellor’s Conference Room.
The October 31, 2002, meeting minutes were approved.
I. Gamble Visit – November 18
Geoff Gamble, President of MSU, will be here on Monday, November 18, at 1:30 p.m. for a one-hour meeting with faculty and Dr. Sexton in the Beartooth Lounge.
Dr. Sexton, Chancellor, thanked the Senate for the opportunity to work with them on this meeting. Dr. Gamble is coming to Billings to talk with the health care community on the nursing shortage, and the conflict between two- and four-year degrees in nursing.
There are also upcoming budget concerns. Friday, November 15, the Governor will release her budget plan. There will be, most likely, no additional funding, and significant cuts for all state agencies including the University System. What was going to be asked for will be put aside, and we will attempt to minimize the cuts. What do we want legislators to hear?
The Allocation Model may be an issue. There is now some recognition that the smaller campuses are significantly disadvantaged by the model. Regent Hamilton’s Tuition Task Force has been working on a multi-tiered tuition system. There will, however, be no sharing of non-resident tuition. The key issue here is the distribution of general fund dollars and resident tuition. Resident tuition goes into the general fund, and those funds are the only ones subject to the allocation model.
Dr. Sexton also noted a proposal in which, if tuition were higher at Bozeman or Missoula, the funds in the difference would be redistributed to the other smaller campuses. It was noted that the two campuses would most likely stand in strong opposition to such a proposal. Dr. Sexton noted they may not have a choice if the Regents decide in favor of that proposal.
Dr. Sexton also noted the U of M covered all their campus cuts out of their own funds, and none of the cuts were passed on to their smaller campuses. The students at Missoula were not keen on that idea.
What is needed, Dr. Sexton stated, is more flexibility from the Regents. If we could adjust more quickly to changes in our market, we would be more competitive and save money as well. Tech and Northern have begun to give Canadians a break on tuition, and the Regents have liked the idea. We could do the same here, but with other states. Every campus is so different, it is impossible to form one policy for all of them.
The question was raised as to Gamble’s and the Board’s support for COTs. Dr. Sexton stated that the upcoming Board of Regents meeting (November 21-22) will be important in that area. Key board members are interested in two-year programs and part of the nursing shortage struggle has been the clash between two- and four-year nursing programs. The Task Force on Two-Year Education will make a presentation to the Board of Regents at the November meeting.
A question to ask Gamble was suggested: Define for us the relationship between MSU-Billings and MSU-Bozeman. How have we benefited from becoming part of MSU? What is his vision for this campus?
It was also noted we have an unusual set-up compared to other states. Most states with multiple campuses of the same University have a president of the whole University, and chancellors at each unit. In the MSU system, Dr. Gamble is both President of MSU-Bozeman—and so he must do what is best for that University—and also preside over all the other MSU campuses. There is a conflict of interest issue.
Dr. Sexton also stated that the Senate may also want to get Dr. Gamble’s thoughts on the allocation model and the legislator’s positions. What does he think the Regents will do on tuition and budget cuts? It would be beneficial to have a second perspective on the possible outcomes of the legislative session.
Dr. Sexton also stated that we have been told that there may not be a long-range building plan. Only the most critical repairs will be done (deferred maintenance the priority).
Drs. Sexton and Park then had to leave for another meeting.
II. ITEMS FOR INFORMATION
Item 5 Bachelor of Arts in English - Program of Study in Creative Writing. Modification of an existing program.
It was noted that the changes to the program would include more literature in the Creative Writing Minor. It would not, however, be redundant. It was noted that in the change, the minor would go from 9 required credits to 12, and there are now 2 elective categories: writing and literature.
Ž Motion by Matt Redinger, seconded by Randall Gloege to approve Item 5.
Ž Motion carried.
Ž Motion by Matt Redinger, seconded by Randall Gloege to waive second reading of Item 5.
Ž Motion carried.
Item 5.a HUM 220 Global Humanities. Delete course.
Item 5.b PHIL 221 Introduction to Logic. Change title and catalog description.
Item 5.c PHIL 233 Philosophies and Religions of India & Tibet. Change title and catalog description.
Item 5.d PHIL 234 Philosophies and Religions of China & Japan. Change title and catalog description.
Item 5.e PHIL 292 Seminar. Change catalog description.
Item 5.f PHIL 303 Comparative Mythology. Change title and catalog description.
Item 5.g PHIL 360 Great Figures in Philosophy and Religion. Change catalog description.
Item 5.i PHIL 492 Seminar. Change catalog description.
Dr. Lisa Kemmerer, new faculty member in the Philosophy Department, stated that the changes in the above items were mostly minor. The department was adjusting to a new faculty member, and also adding more women into the curriculum.
It was also noted that HUM 220 has not been offered in some time.
It was also noted that there will be a mountain of items coming from the UCC at the next Senate meeting. Rather than drag out the Senate meeting, Senators should take a look at the items to see if there are any problems that need discussion. If not, the items can simply be passed on, as it is the UCC’s job to work out all the difficulties.
Ž Motion by Matt Redinger, seconded by Sandie Rietz to accept Items 5.a, 5.b, 5.c, 5.d, 5.e, 5.f, 5.g, and 5.i for information.
Ž Motion carried.
It was noted that we no longer offer a “Great Books” course. Dan Zirker, Dean of Arts and Sciences, that many of those courses are in the Honors Program, and changes in that Program will be coming forth soon. The main change to the Honors Program is moving from a three-semester cycle to a two-semester cycle.
III. NEW BUSINESS
A. Revision of Academic Senate Forms. Keith Edgerton stated that he has been reviewing the forms, but is not yet ready to make a formal presentation to the Senate.
B. General Education Status Report. Mark Hardt, Chair of the General Education Committee, stated that they took the comments gathered from the Senators and put them into categories and cut some that did not seem to fit.
Sandie Rietz, member of the Committee, stated that they have designed a Human Development chart with four categories that have listed outcomes. They are now working on fitting performances that prove those outcomes.
Mark Hardt also noted that North West does not seem to know what it wants, so we can just tell them what they want.
It was noted that the Committee should have something to the Senate in early December.
C. Program Evaluation Matrix, Sandie Rietz. Dr. Rietz stated at the last Senate meeting that Dr. Park stated she needed a matrix of some sort to help her evaluate programs, since it is her contractual mandate to eliminate programs. Dr. Rietz stated that this looks a lot like Performance-Based Funding, but we have to be very careful that it does not become exactly that. She stated that we need some sort of software that we can plug all our programs into, and then cut one and see what happens to the other programs. It was noted that we must take into account the influence of a program regardless of its FTE production.
Dr. Reitz also stated that none of the criteria in this matrix can stand alone; they are all interactive. It was noted that software that could show the results of a cut would cost a great deal of money. However, we could make a flowchart that would show the same results, because a computer cannot qualitatively gauge data anyway.
The meeting adjourned at 5:03 p.m.
The next Senate meeting will be November 21, 2002.