FACULTY SENATE

February 17, 2016

346 LEON JOHNSON

4:10 PM – 5:00 PM

MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY-BOZEMAN, MONTANA

Minutes

 

Members Present: Adams (Art), Anderson (Film & Photo), Arnold (Ag Ed), Berry (CE), Babbitt (Chair), Babcock (Chair-elect), Bolte (Music), Brown (JJCBE), Burrows (Ext), Cantalupo (Ext), Downs (English), Gannon (ChBE), Geyer (Math), Greenwood (Math), Herbeck (Ed), Larson (MIE), Lawrence (Bio Chem), Lu (PSPP), Martin (Mod Lang), McMahon (Ecology), Meyer (Hist & Phil), Neeley for Swinford (Soc/Anthro), Olson for Mosley (ARS), Repasky (ECE), O’Neill (Arts & Arch), Rossmann (Library), Running (Nursing), Scott (Psych), Smith (HHD), Sterman (Library), Vorontsov (Physics), Wiedenheft (MBI), Wilmer (Poli Sci), Zabinski (LRES)

 

Others Present: David Singel, Ron Larsen, Kellie Peterson, Kenning Arlitsch, Gail Schontzler, Jeff Key, Bob Lashaway, Candace Mastel, Steve Cherry, Helen Melland, Terry Leist, Ian Godwin

 

Chair Babbitt called the meeting to order at 4:10 pm, and a quorum was present. The February 10, 2016 Faculty Senate minutes were approved.

Courses and Programs – Chair-elect Babcock

  • The following undergraduate courses were approved in the FS Steering Committee on February 16, 2016:

o   UNDERGRADUATE COURSES

  • EDEC 453; P-3 STEAM
  • EDEC 455: P-3 English Language Arts and Social Studies
  • LIT 202 CS: The Environmental Imagination
  • LIT 203 IH: Great Books
  • The following undergraduate programs will discussed in a future FS meeting:

o   UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS

  • BSCD-BS: Bachelor of Science in Early Childhood Education and Child Services-Child Development Option
    • State of Montana adopted a new early childhood education teaching endorsement;
    • The option will appeal to students seeking teaching careers in Head start, child care, preschool, and K-3 public school classrooms;
    • Linked to two courses already:
      • EDEC 453; P-3 STEAM
      • EDEC 455: P-3 English Language Arts and Social Studies
    • FCSI-BS: Bachelor of Science in Family and Consumer Sciences-Human Development and Family Science-Option
      • Renaming and adding one new class (FSC 260: Middle Childhood and Adolescent Development) are the only modifications to this

Announcements – Chair Babbitt

  • Bern Kohler’s (STEM) membership on the Research Council needs to be filled; senators are asked to canvas their depts. and provide suggestions to Chair

 

  • Representatives from the three President’s Task Forces were asked to present updates to senate on 2/24.

 

MSU Parking and Transportation Master Plan – Bob Lashaway/Jeff Key

  • Lashaway provided an introduction to the presentation:
    • Bozeman has a transportation coordinating and an area transportation plan that is updated periodically;
    • Key is a consultant with Peccia and who the city has hired to update the transportation plan; they did the original trans plan in early 2000’s as well as one previous update;
    • MSU-Bozeman, as a single entity, would be the 8th largest “city” in Montana and therefore has a large influence on Bozeman transportation issues;
    • Lashaway asked Peccia to produce an MSU-centric traffic plan in concert with the city’s.
  • This is MSU’s first stand-alone parking and transportation sustainable plan that interfaces with other campus plans; goals and objectives of this plan come from those established plans:
    • Goal 1: Enhance mobility for MSU’s employees, faculty, students and
    • Goal 2: Protect existing parking facility investments, and identify future parking needs and locations based on projected
    • Goal 3: Improve multi‐modal connectivity between the campus and off‐campus destinations.
    • Goal 4: Reduce the number of single occupant vehicles on and around
  • Sometime in late summer/early fall a draft plan and recommendations will be
  • Outreach includes conferring with other committees and
  • Parking:
    • Peccia canvassed 26 existing campus parking lots; conducted a utilization study to establish a baseline from a snapshot in time to determine where issues of concern might be:
      • Done in late September; snow was
      • Nothing done west of 19th or family housing,
      • Parking was observed every hour (on every lot) of every week day (early in am to 6 pm) and produced an existing average parking utilization data
      • Identified, in addition to 26 parking lots, other areas on campus;
      • Count # of spaces available and cars parked;
    • Campus core shows the lots are fully utilized;
    • Peripheral locations shows excess capacity;
    • Reserved spaces are not fully utilized even though all spaces are sold as not all are used every
      • Peak hour is the one-hour period over the course of the average weekday where the demand is highest and utilization gets more compromised; lots that were used less than 80% are now 100%.
    • This changes on a daily/weekly basis predicated on snow (which

might occupy some spaces);

  • Colder weather encourages people to
    • Peripheral lots might be structured to accommodate shuttling in the

 

  • Parking ratios:
    • Commonly referred to as the parking ratio/enrolled student; also see it as student/faculty/staff but closely mimic each

 

  • As population grows, discussions must address more or less
  • Dense urban areas parking ratios are .20 - .25, which means 1 parking space for every 5 students which encourages the populace to take public transportation, walk, ride bikes,
    • Peccia will make recommendations/suggestions for the why and what parking ratios are intended to
    • Peccia compared MSU to other institutions and it was determined that MSU currently provides a 0.39 (variable due to construction and other infrastructure projects) parking comparison; i.e., one parking spot for every

2.5 students.

  • New Mexico State has a 0.73. This metric is due to the fact that a large parking lot is on the periphery of campus, allowing students/faculty to park free with a shuttle running every 5 minutes, bringing people to the
  • Transportation:
    • Peccia counted existing peak volumes of traffic at major campus intersections which included a combination of city commuter traffic and campus
      • It identified mode share, how intersections are operating, what the percentage of pedestrians and bicyclists were, etc. Analyzed all data and did a level of service
      • Where are people coming to campus from?
    • 33% are using Kagy Blvd; 32% are using College; 24% are coming across from Lincoln; 11% from the east; 11th and 8th Street intersections weren’t counted as they do not capture much traffic due to their T-intersection
    • Data shows Kagy, College, and Lincoln as the highest corridors of traffic and data will be used as recommendations go
      • Intersection Level of Service is a grading system that is an industry standard across the country and means the same thing: ABC – good; DEF –
    • C’s depicted in the presentation are borderline D’s; if there is a D,E

or F it is of concern.

  • Individual turning movements contribute to poor level of service when commuters wait for long periods of time, get frustrated, and accidents happen.
    • Queries were made in the field about loading and service locations to assess their
    • Analyses have been made of the existing bicycle facilities and Peccia’s analysis is a companion plan to MSU’s master
    • A basic pedestrian analyses indicate, in some instances, that students/faculty have been using the same pathways for decades. Peccia is investigating why they continue to be
  • The Future:
    • Based on the precept that the City of Bozeman will continue to grow, Peccia will present low/mid/high growth
      • Low growth would be .61% AAGR and occurred from 1995 – 2007; medium growth is 1.5% and indicative of the last 26 years; high growth is 9%.
      • Peccia will present scenarios that address parking and transportation predicated on the different growth
    • Next Steps:

 

  • Establish future conditions;
  • Develop recommendations;
  • Develop implementation; and,
  • Develop PTMP
  • Discussions ensued:
    • Re: intersection level of service on 13th coming out of a parking lot, there is sometimes a 15 minute wait to take a left. Why hasn’t that been included in your data collection?
      • Budgetary constraints due to limited resources; Peccia is trying to focus on intersections involved in commuter traffic; however, it will still be examined. Since there is a roundabout in close proximity, it is encouraged that commuters take a right onto College and go around the roundabout, as it is faster than waiting 15 minutes to take a
    • Parking lot off Lincoln and 19th – will it be maintained and accessible for parking?
      • Parking regulations allow campers to park in that area, and it is used for snow storage
      • Peccia is looking at the lot differently and not just in terms of maintenance; they see the lot as a potential space for campus
    • Re: the new engineering building/parking structure, the new travel and entrance corridor (7th from Kagy) will have an adverse effect on traffic
      • The NAIC is developing the project, has the site layout and it is very clear how that layout will
      • A parking garage introduces more traffic. However, the garage is adding 150

spaces. Peccia has not seen traffic reports or initial studies of this project.

  • Peccia is involved in the following way with the project, although it is not directly affiliated with the project or its design:
  • Does the garage adversely impact the roadway and the intersections

along that roadway, and does it fall within the purview of what Peccia is trying to accomplish?

  • Impact and access point - does it adversely affect 7th and/or Kagy?
    • Without including the garage, Peccia’s plan is outdated before it is completed,
      • Life span of the plan is a ten-year horizon, but with intersections and roadway treatment, Peccia is extending it further out because it takes time to develop projects and recommend infrastructure. There is no ideal time. The city’s transportation plan is very extensive and we must keep moving forward.
    • What are the bicycle transportation plans?
      • Campus has been preparing a bicycle master plan for the past twelve months. A benefactor has provided funding and there are very robust visions to provide trails, parking in good spots and identifying where gaps are. Peccia will be pulling the plan into theirs and capturing it in the transportation
      • We have a nationally acclaimed bicycle planner on the team and he has identified mode share, which MSU should strive to be at 15% or more; MSU should increase their mode share by incentivizing students/faculty to get out of their
    • Two thoughts about reducing the need of parking on campus: 1. Has Peccia looked into MSU having a specific policy for students living on campus, allowing them to only park on the periphery of campus? 2. Has MSU looked to coordinate with

 

Streamline and provide a shuttle service so MSU employees would not have to drive to campus?

  • Peccia examined other universities and found that they have parking restrictions for students and who are only allowed to park on the periphery of campus. Pricing structure have also been implemented that incentivize students to not bring or use their car on
  • Trend nationally is to provide reliable shuttle service and MSU is examining that
  • Peccia is developing a map that will show where a 5-minute walk will get you. If you can walk to your destination in 5 minutes, that is
  • Intersection of 7th and Kagy is dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians. What are you r plans to correct these problems?
    • Purposely left out Kagy out of the plan because it is a key feature of the university and community and is the #1 priority of the City of Bozeman. There is currently a design team working with the city to try to understand what the best mitigation for that roadway is. There is a debate going on for an enhanced three-lane roadway or a five-lane roadway with signals, roundabouts, etc.
    • The speed limit on Kagy also needs

 

Faculty Review of Deans/DH – Chair Babbitt

  • Deans have approved a formative review process for this year; next year it may be a policy and may be
  • Faculty Senate voted to entrust the Steering Committee to be in charge of the
  • Overview of Process developed by Steering Committee and Deans:
    • Review will take place after Spring Break;
    • Objective of formative reviews will be to 1) provide faculty input to the Reviewed on successful practices, on areas of current

importance, and on concerns in the functioning of the university, college, or department; and 2) to stimulate a discussion between faculty and the reviewed related to strategies or plans to address the faculty input provided in the review.

  • Deans and department heads will be reviewed in early (mid this year) Spring Semester. The president, provost, and vice presidents will be evaluated late Spring Semester.
  • The review will be implemented in such a way to assure the anonymity of reviewers and to respect the personnel rights of the
  • For the reviews of the president, provost, and vice presidents, the reviewers will be all TT, NTT,, and research faculty, .5 FTE and
    • For the reviews of the Dean of the Graduate School and the Dean of the Honors College, the reviewers will be faculty across campus with an association with either the Graduate School or the Honors College,
    • For all other deans, the reviewers will consist of faculty within the college or unit of the
    • Reviewers for department heads or directors will consist of faculty within that department or
  • The Faculty Senate Steering Committee, in consultation with senator(s) from each college, will develop a questionnaire for the reviews. One third of the questions will be asked of all Deans. One third of the questions will be specific to the college of the Reviewed. Up to one third of the questions will be provided by the Reviewed after viewing the questions developed by FS Steering

 

  • The questions in the review should focus on the desire of all for successful practices to continue, areas of concerns to be addressed, and continuous improvement with sustained benefits being achieved. The question should address the functioning of the administrator’s office and unit, to which many (including associate administrators) contribute, but for which the administrator is ultimately
  • The Faculty Senate Leadership (Faculty Senate Chair and Chair‐Elect) will provide the Reviewed and supervisor a copy of the review form to be used and an explanation of the review process and
    • The Reviewed and supervisor may recommend changes to the proposed review
    • The Reviewed may provide a narrative of their responsibilities, achievements, challenges, and vision and the strategies and plans for their unit, which will be included in or linked to the review
  • Faculty Senate Leadership will not be evaluating the results. They will prepare a summary of the numerical responses and a compilation of the written responses to the review. No summary of the numerical and written responses will be prepared by Faculty Senate
  • For each college, the Reviewed and the College’s senators will come to a mutual agreement as to whether the Faculty Senate Leadership, the Senators from the

Reviewed’s college, or their college representative on the Faculty Senate Steering Committee will meet with the Reviewed to discuss the results of the review and to discuss plans to continue and improve successful practices and/or to address areas of concern or of particular current importance to the college.

  • The Reviewed will report (orally or in writing) to the faculty in the Reviewed’s

college as a whole in a manner of the Reviewed’s choosing to address part or all of the review and plans to continue and improve successful practices and/or to address any areas of concern or of particular current importance to the college.

  • The loop mechanism will be those who have seen the review, may comment and provide
  • DH form this year might be the same form used in the past; VP’s and President will be similar in design to the Dean’s review
  • Discussions ensued:
    • Change is that these will be formative; not substantive and faculty will, therefore, be reviewing the “Dean’s office” and a collective, administrative experience. Since this is a new concept, it would be helpful if that was re- enforced throughout the
    • Those seeing the reviews will be:
  • Faculty Senate Leadership;
  • Member of the College on the FS Steering Committee;
  • Others at the Dean’s discretion.
    • How are these types of reviews done at other universities?
  • Our procedure at MSU is that we are trying to move away from a

“personnel” review; we would like to have an improvement concept- formative review.

  • How will questions be formulated?
  • Scale from 1-5 for each question on perhaps a “disagree/agree” scale or other different

 

Graduate Representative Policy – Chair-elect Babcock

  • Grad Council approved a change in their policy and would like FS
    • Change - Grad Committees will be as they are now, without a Grad
  • Discussions ensued:

 

  • Why the change?
    • Feeling is that it is not accomplishing what it was intended. Eliminate it and observe what happens. Grad School staff has experienced faculty who are, in many instances, too busy to participate.
  • Is there a grievance path someone could take should they disagree with the council findings?
    • Dean gets involved and speak with the committee to try and resolve.
  • Where is the protection for the grad student? The point of having an external grad rep is that they are not affiliated with the organization and they provide an impartial view. Senate suggested an option to the Dean, to have a pool of TT faculty who would be interested in participating, and it doesn’t seem as though those suggestions were taken into account. 
  • Another senator stated that from the perspective of his faculty, they believe it is having a grad rep is an important aspect of the process, and that it seems that the process was more of an administrative burden to the grad office. If that was the case, then examining how to alleviate the burden should be examined so the process runs more efficiently. 
  • If it is eliminated, then there should be a more developed grievance system to take its place rather than nothing. 
  • The existing system is broken as you cannot ask a first year untenured professor to assume the task of reviewing a PhD candidate; that doesn’t provide the student with any protection, either. Definitely the current system, and not replace it with nothing. 
  • Would be helpful to have alternative ideas next week. 
  • Motion to table discussion > seconded > all in favor > unanimously approved. (Note: no motion was on the floor, so motion to table discussion is moot. Thus, subject can be discussed at the next )

 

Prioritization – Chair Babbitt

  • Babbitt asked senators to come with ideas about priorities for discussion next week. 

 

The meeting adjourned at 5:02 pm.

 

Randy Babbitt, Chair

Michael Babcock, Chair-elect

 

A printable PDF of this information can be found here.