October 22, 2003
Members Present: Marlow for Gipp, Stringam for Weaver, Giroux, Johns
for Kommers, Schlotzhauer, Leech, Taylor, Howard, Christopher,
Seymour, Jones, Yoo, Becker, Wells for Conant, Bradley, Taper, Ashley,
Levy, Cherry, Pratt, Neeley, Lynes-Hayes, Prawedzienski, Coon.

Members Absent: Ag Econ, McDermott, Schmidt, Jackson, Monaco, Chem,
Lansverk, Bond, Kevane, Idzerda, Lynch, Knight, Hoffman.

Other's Present: Dooley, McLeod.

The regularly-scheduled meeting was called to order by Chair Warren
Jones at 4:10 PM.  A quorum was present.  The minutes of the October
15, 2003, Faculty Council meeting were approved with the following
correction: UGC Nominating Committee Report, second bullet, the name
should be spelled "Richard Wolff".

Chair's report - Warren Jones.
     - The Board of Regents will hold a special meeting in Helena
     tomorrow.  The published agenda is general in nature.  Chair
     Jones will attend on behalf of all Montana University System
     faculty representatives.
     - Chair Jones is still requesting input on the issue of students
     with high GPAs who may not be connecting with faculty or fellow
     students and so are leaving.  How might faculty work with these
     students to keep them in school?  An immediate goal is to
     increase fall-spring retention.
     - There appears to be some misconception regarding the Short-term
     Professional Development Program.  It is in addition to
     sabbaticals, BEST, and other faculty development opportunities,
     not in place of them.  If a need for additional funding of
     sabbaticals and other programs is demonstrated, a request to
     increase funding will be made to UPBAC.
     - Regent Richard Roehm has been invited to attend Faculty Council
     October 29 to discuss some of the vision of the Board and issues
     regents are working on.
     - Don Mathre, Chair of the MSU Benefits Committee, will attend
     University Governance Council November 12 to discuss questions
     that have come up regarding benefits.

UGC Nominating Committee report - None.

Faculty Affairs Committee report - None.

Faculty Council review of new academic programs.
     - The issue was brought up at last week's Faculty Council
     meeting.  Background and three proposals were presented at that
     time (mailed to members absent).
     - The impetus for discussing the issue at this time is that:
          - Some major new academic programs have recently been
          forwarded to the Provost and to the Board of Regents and
          have moved through the system with little review from
          Faculty Council, the representative faculty body;
          - To do long-term strategic planning, the university needs
          to be able to identify quality and needs of the university
          as a whole, and the faculty need to be involved; and
          - According to the Faculty Council Constitution, Faculty
          Council has the power to develop plans for and/or review and
          make recommendations on proposed administrative actions
          dealing with courses and curricula as well as degree
     - Although Faculty Council has been more involved in approval of
     new academic programs at some times during the past, without a
     formal mechanism in place, there is no consistency in the method
     of making recommendations.  The issue is not review of every
     course change but review of the programs that have major effects
     university-wide, such as Core 2.0 and the Liberal Studies Degree.
     - Does Faculty Council want more input into the approval process?
     An argument can be made that faculty are adequately represented
     in the process by departmental and college approvals and
     Undergraduate Studies Committee (USC)/Graduate Council (GC).
     However, Faculty Council can provide review that is more global
     in nature, rather than focusing on the quality of a given
     proposal.  Although USC/GC have representation from each college,
     Faculty Council is the representative group for all academic
     departments and the faculty that own the curriculum.
     - It was suggested the role of the Faculty Council/USC and
     Faculty Council/GC liaisons be clarified and that a regular
     reporting mechanism from the liaisons be implemented.
     - If Faculty Council chooses to be more involved in the review
     process for new academic programs, possible methods for doing so
     range from an Academic Affairs Committee, similar to Faculty
     Affairs Committee, which would review all proposals for major
     curricular changes to submitting major program changes to Faculty
     Council for review from a more global viewpoint (Does the program
     fit into the curriculum as a whole, are resources available
     without negatively affecting other parts of the university?
     - Provost Dooley stated that he is in favor of Faculty Council
     taking on some type of formal role subject to university-wide
     issues, but only if Faculty Council is willing to follow through.
     A short discussion followed by a straw vote is meaningless.  A
     formal role will result in a significant additional amount of
     work for Faculty Council.
     - The curriculum defines an institution and its direction, and
     new programs impact this direction.  Should Faculty Council know
     where the curriculum is leading the institution?
     - Rich Howard moved Faculty Council take an increased role in the
     review of new academic programs.  The motion was seconded.
     - Further discussion, for and against the motion, took placed.  A
     hand vote was taken, and the motion passed, 14 for and 6 against.
     - Defining Faculty Council's role in the review process will be
     discussed further at the November 5 Faculty Council meeting.

As there was no further business, the meeting adjourned a 5:10 PM.

Joann Amend, Secretary             Warren Jones, Chair