OVERVIEW
There were five (5) major areas of concern expressed by the 1990
NASC Evaluation Committee: funding, planning, administration, library, and facilities.
In an effort to provide the context for a current response, these original
concerns are listed and detailed. Included are the modifying actions taken
by MSU, the follow-up 1995 NASC Interim Report, and MSU's 1999 Update.
Further evidence of MSU's updated responses can be found in
the Self-Study, in accompanying appendices, and in supporting exhibits. In addition, the 1990 NASC Evaluation
Committee Report can be found as Exhibit 0.04, the 1995 MSU Interim Report for
Reaffirmation of Accreditation can be found as Exhibit 0.05, and the 1995 NASC
Interim Report for Reaffirmation of Accreditation can be found as Exhibit 0.06.
CONCERN 1 - STATE FUNDING
1990 NASC CONCERN
Instability and
inadequate levels of state funding since the mid-1980's. The fact of this support problem is
indisputable by any comparative measure one chooses to make. What may be less apparent is the enormity of
the negative consequences. They are pervasive,
affecting virtually all of the institution's programs from
facilities, to on-campus and off-campus instruction, and to outreach services
to the agencies and citizens of the state. In short, the ability of the institution to achieve its stated mission
and objective is jeopardized.
1995 MSU ACTION
MSU's headcount enrollment in Fall 1990 was 10,392, and
dropped to 10,111 the following year when the University converted to the
semester system. Headcount enrollment
has increased annually since that time and is presently at 11,267 in Fall
1995. Concurrently, the University's
state support has declined by 9.1%. During the same five (5)-year period, the Board of Regents approved
tuition increases which have resulted in a revenue increase of 91.1%. The University expects state support to
remain at approximately its current level for the near future. See accompanying "Overview of Funding Changes
from FY 1991 to FY 1995" in Appendix "A" [found in Exhibit 0.05].
1995 NASC RESPONSE
MSU has effectively and creatively found alternative sources
of revenue to counter the serious decline in state funds, a decline that is
dramatic by any reasonable standard. By
contrast, the institution has increased its tuition revenue by 91.12% from FY91
to FY95 and increased funding per FTE during the same period by 84.40% while
the state funding per FTE dropped by 12.30%. In addition, funded research more than doubled from the $17,000,000 reported
in 1990 to $36,200,000 in FY95; this has been accompanied by good recovery of
indirect costs. Other alternative
revenue sources have included new fees for equipment, computing, and athletics
with still another new fee for the library under consideration. A special legislative appropriation for
engineering accreditation equipment needs was secured. There have also been
increases in revenue from a variety of activities such as conferences, and
allowing for programs such as professional development workshops in areas of
need, e.g., expertise in distance delivery via telecommunication and a grant
for various electrical conservation projects. Private gifts have increased, and they are used for programs within
colleges, as well as overall University needs. Some areas receiving these gifts
have been the library, portions of construction costs (e.g., the Burns
Communication Center), and campus beautification. At least five (5) colleges are now using professional development
personnel. The institution has also
been successful in securing foundation challenge grants.
The increased tuition revenue has enabled MSU to begin to
address the seriously low faculty salaries cited in the 1990 report, and to
avoid a proposed $100,000 loss in purchasing power. The evaluator heard from department heads about their strategies
to recommend raises. A major
development concerning salaries - and other issues - occurred just at the time
MSU was preparing its fifth year interim report, and so the pertinent
information was sent separately to the evaluator before the site visit. After nearly a year of what the Commissioner of
Higher Education calls "shared governance discussions," an agreement was
reached by the governor, the commissioner, the Board of Regents, and MSU on a Productivity,
Quality and Outcomes Agreement, hereafter called the PQ&O Plan, that
includes a commitment to raising faculty salaries to competitive market levels
contingent upon fulfillment by MSU of certain quality and outcome requirements
and specific productivity goals, e.g., in teaching and funded research.
Alongside revenue generating actions, MSU has taken other
non-fiscal measures. For example, the core curriculum has been revised both to reduce the
time-to-graduation and the state. s cost per undergraduate degree granted.
In general, this evaluator concludes that MSU is effectively addressing
the 1990 report's concern about funding levels. This conclusion, however, assumes that the
3% state funding increases that are projected in the PQ&O Plan will
materialize and that no new policy that will prevent future growth in tuition
revenue will be adopted by the Board of Regents or the legislature. The tuition rates today remain competitive
(enrollment has increased this year), and they are within the middle third of
peer institutions. The deputy
commissioner indicated during the site visit that he expected the campuses to
use market factors and he did not anticipate any cap on rates. Nonetheless, since a significant factor in
the increased tuition is due to the higher non-resident rates, any type of
action that limits non-resident student growth could be worrisome. Other actions with potential for adverse impact
on tuition revenue include a cap on the number of credit hours per student
that the state would subsidize (this also has serious academic quality implications).
More details of the tuition strategy appear in Part B, No. 10 of the
institution's report [found in Exhibit 0.05].
1999 MSU UPDATE
MSU continues to effectively address the impacts of minimal
state funding growth over the last several years by various means. These initiatives include: substantive
increases in tuition rates while maintaining overall enrollment growth;
significantly increased revenues associated with research grants and contracts
activities; and improved external fundraising efforts, including college-based
development work and enhanced budgetary planning which has become more
comprehensive.
In recent years, priority has been given to raising faculty
and professional salaries to competitive market levels. Despite the substantial financial obligation
of this effort and other fiscal commitments, MSU has been able to fundamentally
achieve its stated mission and objectives by continuing to diversify its
revenue sources and placing increased emphasis upon entrepreneurial activities.
CONCERN 2 - PLANNING AND PRIORITIZATION
1990 NASC CONCERN
Planning and
Prioritization. Little evidence
exists of university-wide planning and prioritization for the future. This should be instituted as soon as
possible since it impacts not only the instructional programs, but the physical
facilities that support them and the morale of faculty and staff as well. The institution needs to have a clearer
sense of, and commitment to, where it is going and why.
1995 MSU ACTION
In response to this criticism, the university administration,
in concert with the Faculty Council, created the Long Range Planning Committee
(largely constituted of faculty members, but also including the Provost, the
Vice President for Research, classified and professional staff representatives,
and an ASMSU student) that drafted a Long Range Plan which was accepted by the
campus community. (The Plan is available
under "Reports" on the MSU Info Web page.)
The effectiveness of that document has been clouded, if not altogether
obscured, by the Commissioner of Higher Education's mandate to
restructure the Montana University System into two (2) subsystems centered
around the two (2) universities (Montana State University and University of
Montana). Concurrently, Montana State University - Bozeman has
been intensely involved in drafting the "Productivity, Quality,
and Outcomes Agreement" and in negotiating its acceptance by the Commissioner,
the Board of Regents, and the Governor's Office.
As the Long Range Planning Committee began its work, a newly
established University Budget Committee was charged with oversight for
short-range planning and prioritization within the current budget period. Thus, recommendations of the Long Range
Planning Committee might be implemented (or not) by the University Budget
Committee within the context of the current budget period. The
University Budget Committee is comprised of
the members of the Provost's Council (chiefly vice presidents, deans,
mid-level administrators, and an ASMSU student representative) and the members
of the Faculty Council Steering Committee. The membership, charge, and other details about these committees are
available on MSU Info.
1995 NASC RESPONSE
Since 1990, MSU has developed a Long Range Plan which will
soon be annualized. In view of
subsequent actions that impact the campus plan, e.g., the PQ&O Plan, the
institution has taken steps to link the two (2) efforts; for example, the chair
of the campus plan will participate in the implementation committee for the
PQ&O. In addition, the campus will
need to tie certain physical facilities planning with the above efforts. For example, if the goal for smaller classes
is to be achieved, there will need to be suitable classrooms. Currently, an assessment is underway of
space utilization which will form part of the basis for facilities
planning. Another recent development to
be incorporated into comprehensive planning is the recent restructuring of the
Montana Univesity System into two (2) subsystems including one (1) centered
around MSU. Found in both the campus
plan, as well as the PQ&O Plan, is the objective of increased use by MSU in
course delivery via telecommunication. Other planning activities that are linked with the Long Range Plan and
the PQ&O include the Outcomes and Assessment Committee which is developing
a university-wide system [see Part B, No. 1 in Exhibit 0.05]. In this effort, retention information is
already being secured which will help achieve certain PQ&O Plan objectives;
the evaluator was assured that this information is or will be shared with
appropriate campus groups.
In short, the planning and priority setting that was missing
in 1990 is either in place or is being reshaped to accommodate new and critical
developments.
1999 MSU UPDATE
The Strategic Planning and Budget Committee, formed in 1998,
represents the institution-wide effort to address planning and prioritization
issues for the near future. Work of
this committee has resulted in a draft document that articulates a vision for
MSU, and this document is now being discussed among various campus
constituencies. The effectiveness of
this Committee's work will likely be assessed once implementation of the action
items proceeds.
Efforts continue to integrate existing planning efforts,
including the Long Range Plan and the Productivity, Quality and Outcomes
Agreement. Additionally, given the
restructuring of the Montana University System, an MSU-campuses planning
document was developed and presented to the Board of Regents in January
1999. This work represents a guidepost
for the future of Montana State University and serves as an evolving prospectus
for its many constituents.
CONCERN 3 - ADMINISTRATIVE TURNOVER
1990 NASC CONCERN
Administrative Turnover. After more than a decade of effective
and vigorous administrative leadership, the University is faced with changes in
many major offices, including the presidency. This comes at a crucial time in its history, marked by current efforts
to centralize governance of higher education at the state level. The caliber and timeliness of new
administrative appointments is particularly important.
1995 MSU ACTION
President Malone and Vice President Swenson are the only
remaining members of the top administrative team which was in place during the
1990 NASC site visit, and President Malone was then Vice President for Academic
Affairs. The current Provost and Vice
Provost are both interim; a search for a permanent provost is in progress. The Executive
Council (the President and Vice Presidents) which was selected to manage
the affairs of the state's land-grant university suddenly found itself (as
a result of the Commissioner of Higher Education's desire to restructure
the Montana University System) in charge of a system that
includes two (2) four (4)-year colleges (MSU - Billings and MSU -
Northern) and two (2) colleges of technology (Great Falls College of Technology
and the other associated with the MSU. Billings campus).
1995 NASC RESPONSE
The administration at MSU is as stable today as other similar
public universities. At present, a
search is underway for a permanent Provost (the previous Provost, appointed
after the 1990 report, accepted another position at a much larger
institution.) Previous post-1990
searches led to good appointments; so should this one.
The campus is accommodating the current search. The Outcomes and Assessment Committee, for
example, selected its strategy in appropriate stages in order to allow the
permanent provost opportunity to shape the core curriculum assessment;
meanwhile, assessment of majors is well underway.
Attention is also being given to the implications for administrative
leadership that the restructuring will require. The president has elected, appropriately, to address this issue
directly.
1999 MSU UPDATE
MSU is currently searching for two (2) Vice President
positions: the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, and the Vice
President for Administration and Finance. Central administration is likely, however, to be as stable as other
similar public institutions. The President,
nearing his tenth year in office, provides effective campus leadership and
continuity within the top administrative team. Turnover in the administration of the Office of the Commissioner of
Higher Education has complicated the management of the Montana University
System.
CONCERN 4 - LIBRARY
1990 NASC CONCERN
Library. The library's financial situation is
significantly poorer now than it was ten (10) years ago with specific reference
to the materials budget. The collection
is barely adequate, if that, to support undergraduate curriculum and is
alarmingly deficient in its support of graduate programs and research. This deficiency threatens achievement of the
University's stated Mission and objectives.
1995 MSU ACTION
Despite decreasing funding, The Libraries manages to provide
nearly state-of-the-art electronic retrieval of information, but has moved to
more reliance on document delivery from other libraries and commercial sources
to provide journal articles to its clientele. Increased emphasis on extramural support will be critically important
for the long-term success of The Libraries.
1995 NASC RESPONSE
The entire University is concerned about the library and, as a
consequence, many actions have been taken since 1990 to address certain
concerns. At the open forum, the
evaluator heard an extreme view calling for abolishing athletics, beautification
of the grounds, or construction of the utility tunnels. Mostly, however, the comments heard during
the visit reflected customary tensions over traditional print materials versus
alternative means of accessing materials, including advancing technology. It is clear to this evaluator that any library
such as MSU's that began this decade with insufficient holdings will
have a significant catch up (backlog) to address. A library will not be
successful when state support of higher education is relatively declining,
unless there is a major single dramatic reversal or a single one (1)-time major
catch up appropriation. This is unlikely,
and thus, in the evaluator's view, MSU is addressing the library
concerns to the extent its financial realities permit. Here are major actions being taken:
· Funds are allocated to the library from increases in
tuition revenue. In fact, a proposed
cut was avoided this year because a portion of the increased tuition revenue
was allocated to the library.
· The library has begun a major private fund raising
effort.
· Each dean is giving to the library a portion of the
private funds raised, and seems pleased to do so.
· A portion of the indirect cost recovery funds is
allocated to the library.
· A new library fee is being considered.
In other actions, the library has acted to improve
interlibrary loan service and to increase the use of technology to provide
alternative sources of materials.
1999 MSU UPDATE
MSU continues to implement the actions described in the
aforementioned 1995 NASC response with respect to The Libraries. Several major items have positively impacted
The Library's financial situation in 1999. As a part of the budgeting process for fiscal year 2000, an increase of
$100,000 was allocated to The Libraries in support of its serials budget. Additional enhancement of these funds is
planned, contingent upon the University meeting revenue targets for the
year. Fund raising efforts on behalf of
The Libraries have also improved in recent years.
The 1999 Montana Legislature approved a $7,500,000 bonding
package to provide renovation and new construction associated with the Renne
Library building. This funding will
provide much-needed additional shelf and public space, as well as improve
access to The Libraries' resources.
CONCERN 5 - FACILITIES
1990 NASC CONCERN
Facilities. The backlog of deferred maintenance has
reached a crisis state, affecting the integrity and safety of certain
structures. If these facilities are to
remain functional, and if the state is to protect its capital investment, these
problems must be taken care of in the near future.
1995 MSU ACTION
Facilities Services has implemented a Facilities Condition Inventory
(FCI) process which provides a systematic evaluation of the condition of
the institution's physical assets. The FCI, which utilizes nationally standardized cost data, prioritizes building maintenance deficiencies,
and quantifies the total campus deferred maintenance liability, has
documented a deferred maintenance backlog in excess of $56,000,000 for
all of Montana State University - Bozeman's academic
facilities and supporting infrastructure.
The University has been able to address the problem of the
supporting facilities infrastructure and heating plant which were identified in
the 1990 NASC report as serious. It has
spent over $7,000,000 in state and auxiliary funds for steam and condensate
systems repairs, replacement, and the first of two (2) phases of a campus
utility tunnel system. Phase Three (3)
of the tunnel system will be constructed in 1996, at a cost of $6,000,000. In the Heating Plant, Boiler #3 was renovated
in 1994, at a cost of $1,000,000, and Phase Two (2) of the Heating Plant
Renovation Project will be completed in 1997, at a cost of $5,200,000 which
will result in additional capacity and increased reliability. During the summer of 1995, an extensive
outdoor lighting replacement project was completed.
Facilities Services has acquired over $300,000 in grants from
the Montana Power Company for various electrical conservation projects. The cogeneration turbine, installed in 1991,
has already produced over $300,000 in avoided electricity costs, and Facilities
Services is evaluating cogeneration capacity upgrades for the existing system.
Portions of the Facilities Services
maintenance budget have been specifically allocated for preventive maintenance,
as well as classroom maintenance which will concentrate on maintaining and
upgrading classroom lighting, finishes, and seating.
1995 NASC RESPONSE
Since 1990 an integrated strategy has been adopted which will
address four (4) critical capital project needs: deferred maintenance, ADA
requirements, renewals, and code corrections. By linking these areas, the institution can be more cost effective in
critical projects and plan better. Facilities Services has implemented an inventory process providing
systematic evaluation of the condition of the physical assets and has
categorized them by priorities.
A major success last year in meeting a serious need identified
by the 1990 team resulted from legislative approval of general obligation
bonds. Construction of the badly needed utility
tunnel system has started, and the evaluator's tour provided evidence
of careful planning so that not only current, but long term future needs can be
met.
Unlike some universities that face both backlog of deferred
maintenance and yearly slippage due to lack of annual increases in the
maintenance budget, MSU benefits from an annual increase. This increase
constitutes a separate item from the legislature. In addition, the maintenance costs for the new $24,000,000.
Engineering-Physical Sciences building were provided by new state funds. The new costs of another new building will
be shared by new funds and MSU jointly.
Some annual progress in addressing deferred maintenance is
also achieved by the use of end-of-year funds. Some federal funding has been secured for building retrofitting.
In sum, much progress has been made since the 1990 report.
1999 MSU UPDATE
Since the interim visit of 1995, two (2) major infrastructure
projects have been completed: the campus utility tunnel system was finished in
1998, and the heating plant renovation project has also been recently
completed. While deferred maintenance
continues to be problematic in some areas, MSU has made significant progress in
addressing critical issues of structural integrity and safety by means of
utilizing a combination of various funding sources and prioritization of its
facility maintenance needs.
