March 9, 2022 Minutes

Faculty Senate Meeting (Leon Johnson 346)

03.09.2022

3:15pm – 4:30pm

Please wear a mask.

I.            Call to Order

a.       Meeting called to order at 3:15pm

II.            Attendance Reminder

III.            Approval of FS Minutes from February 23, 2022

a.       Tomas Gedeon moves to approve. Clemente Izurieta seconds. None opposed. No abstentions. Approved.

IV.            FYI items

a.       MyInfo Rolling Upgrades

i.      https://www.montana.edu/uit/pmo/currentprojects/myinfoupgrade/ 

b.       Winter Traction Aid Program – Free Pair every Three Years

i.      https://www.montana.edu/srm/programs/icegrippers.html 

c.       Box Migration, no longer available in March 2022

i.      https://www.montana.edu/uit/boxtransition/

ii.      Trainings available - https://www.montana.edu/uit/boxtransition/boxqasessions.html

d.       Outreach & Engagement See Grant Program, due April 11, 2022

i.      Up to $5,000 available

ii.      https://www.montana.edu/calendar/events/40821

e.       Senator Hour, Monday 11:30-12:30 and Thursday 10:30-11:30 via WebEx

f.        Bradford and Michael headed out to Dillion to the Board of Regents meeting after the Faculty Senate meeting. 

V.            Information Updates: 

a.       Sustainability Summit

i.      https://www.montana.edu/sustainability/summit/summit.html    

ii.      Call for Student Posters

A.      https://www.montana.edu/sustainability/summit/poster-submission.html 

iii.      If you are working with students who are doing something on this, please reach out to them and have them submit a poster

iv.      Afternoon: Romney Hall-workshop, call to action

v.      Are there incentives for student participation?

A.      No

B.      MSU covers the price of printing the poster

C.      Poster becomes a CV item for student

b.       Scope 3 Emissions – Office of Sustainability

i.      EJ Hook, Director of Facilities

A.      Three Pillars

1.       Economics

2.       Societal

3.       Environmental

ii.      Paul Lachapelle, Senator Political Science

iii.                          

A.      Snapshot of greenhouse gas usage

B.      Scope 1: Heat plant biggest contributor

C.      Scope 2: Purchased

D.      Scope 3: Everything else 

iv.        

A.      Look at existing data

1.       Waste Management

i.      Everyone does it, we are all contributing

2.       Commuting

i.      Everyone does it, we are all contributing

3.       Education

B.      Problem statement

C.      Develop solutions

D.      Put them into actions

E.       Rinse and repeat

 v.        

A.      12 years of data

B.      See the problem

C.      Develop solutions

D.      Want to cut it by 50% in five years

E.       How can we change our behavior?

vi.      Travel-Students doing research on MSU Commuting and Air Travel

A.      Task Force

1.       Paul Lachapelle

2.       I want to start by introducing and thanking our students who will be presenting on aspects of our Scope 3 Task Force (S3) work.   

i.      Alex Musar is working with Jonas Shannon-Webster who not able to attend.  Alex will be talking about commuting which is 34% of our S3 emissions.  The data includes faculty, staff, and student commuting and that 34% is a best guess based on 3 different commuter surveys over the course of last approx. 12 years.

ii.      Zach Knoll will be talking about air travel which accounts for a total of 47% of scope 3; 42% from faculty, staff, admin, student athletics air travel and we are not sure of the allocation between these groups and 5% from student study abroad.

iii.      Andrew Nosler will discuss education.  

3.       All students are earning independent study credits for their work.   I asked the students to find peer universities and inventory their policies related to S3 emissions.  These will be detailed in our S3 report for the Climate Action Plan and the April 19 Sustainability Summit.

4.       Our Scope 3 Task Force has been open to anyone and we’ve taken detailed minutes of every meeting.  EJ Hook and I view these as learning opportunities for our students and I appreciate his willingness to keep these meetings open when it would be very easy to close them like the Scope 1 and 2 Task Force meetings.  

5.       I’d like to say a few words about the need for benchmarks; I appreciate the work that EJ has done in the past with waste reduction and his goal of further reduction of 50% in next 5 years. These benchmarks are critical and as I stressed at our last Faculty Senate meeting, this is going to huge push, probably the biggest challenge the university has ever faced and in my opinion we won’t be able to identify, let alone reach our benchmarks if “keep our heads down” as we were instructed by Pres Cruzado in Oct. 2020 before the legislative session began when we were developing the detailed sustainability plan and were told to delay the plan.  We can’t do it by providing “less public facing detail,” as we were told when the detailed sustainability plan came out and was shelved in favor of a vague one-page framework.  We can’t do it unless faculty and students and citizens are encouraged to participate and have access to information.  

6.       The Bozeman Daily Chronicle editorial board summarized this situation in their op-ed on Dec. 14 (https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/opinions/editorials/editorial-montana-states-sustainability-goals-noble-but-short-on-detail/article_321d7d22-422e-57c8-b95f-ba490021f6f8.html) stated “the keys to success lie in the details, and there’s a lot of work yet to be done on that score. A framework adopted by the office and included on its website lists a lot of general plans for buildings, grounds, and transportation, among other things. But it offers little in terms of how progress will be achieved. … definitive benchmarks need to be established with concrete numbers, and deadlines must be set for reaching those benchmarks. And those responsible for reaching those benchmarks must be held accountable for making progress.”

Just over a week ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released their latest report, noting that if drastic action is not take now and the 1.5 C limit is breached, some changes will be irreversible for hundreds — if not thousands — of years. And some changes may be permanent, even if the planet cools back down.  UN Secretary-General António Guterres, called the report a “damning indictment of failed climate leadership, …delay means death …The facts are undeniable. “

7.       This body passed a climate emergency resolution last semester which in my opinion is the most important resolution of our careers.  Now, let’s show our students and the citizens of this state that we can and will be climate leaders.  

B.      Travel-Alex Musar

1.       Using Parking lot fill to better estimate the amount of car commuting

2.       Use in conjunction with parking pass data to calculate emissions  from commuting

3.       Using Network analysis to  optimize snow removal emissions  & costs

C.      Commuter-Goals

1.       Improve data collection

2.       Expand incentives for alternative mode of  transportation

3.       Improve infrastructure for bikes, pedestrians, and mass transit

4.       Improve awareness of current programs

5.       Streamline https://streamlinebus.com/ 

i.      New Routes Maps in 2021

ii.      Free Fare

iii.      WTI Go Gallatin Commuter  Challenge April 2022

iv.      Guaranteed Ride Home Program  through Go Gallatin

v.      Bicycle Challenge Month May  2022

vi.      2022 Commuter Survey in April

D.      Cornel University

1.       20 individual parking passes each year for those using transportation means other than single-occupant vehicles.

2.       Parking is limited and permit fees are intended to discourage on-campus parking.

3.       Carpool that discounts parking permit fees depending on the size of the carpooling group and the distance commuted.

4.         

5.       MSU Commuter

i.      48% of students, faculty and staff typical trips to campus use sustainable commuting options of Bus, Bike, Walk and Carpool

6.       Cornel Commuter

i.      83% of students and 32% of faculty and staff participate in sustainable commuting options 

E.       Kansas State University

1.       Intra- Campus public transportation routes

2.       Transit and Bike shelters

3.       Bike Lanes

4.         

vii.      Air Travel-Zack Knoll

A.        

B.      Reduction Strategies

1.       Elimination of same-day return flights

2.       Reducing flying for one-night  stays

3.       Reducing group travel

4.       Favoring direct flights over layovers

5.       Requiring Economy Class travel for university personnel

6.       Expanding and favoring virtual conferences

7.         

C.      Air Travel Mitigation Charge

1.       Carbon offsets

i.      Carbon Sink and Learning  Forest (living laboratory)

ii.      Solar Panel Arrays

iii.      Student Research, I.e.,  Solar Wall at Norm & Jabs

iv.      Funding Student  Collaboration with  partner organizations

2.       Utah State University

i.      $10 per trip on all university- sponsored airline flights.

ii.      The President’s Office will pay all fees for the first year, and academic units will transition over the next decade to paying  those fees for their own travel.

iii.      Utah State University LED retrofits paid for by Air Travel Mitigation Charge Policy.

3.       Arizona State University

i.      $15 for a round-trip  flight for both domestic and international flights

ii.      Applies to all University sponsored travel.

4.       University of Toronto

i.      Applies to President, Vice-Presidents,  Deans, & other senior leadership.

ii.      [$11.83 USD] per short/medium haul  round-trip flight (double for business  class at $23.66).

iii.      [$51.25 USD] per long-haul round-trip flight ($102.51 for business  class).

iv.      Short/Medium Haul - less  than 2,299 miles one-way

v.      Long Haul – Over 2,300  miles one-way

viii.      Education and Outreach-Andrew Nosler

A.      Peer Institutions

1.       Colgate University has core curriculum rooted in sustainability

2.       COA has sustainability integrated in general curriculum

3.       Almost 50% of UC Berkley’s general courses have direct sustainability connection, and courses regarding sustainability are in 115 of the 129 departments

B.      STARS

1.       The STARS system accounts for curriculum in sustainability ratings

2.       MSU does not have any solid indicators of how sustainability plays in general curriculum.

C.      Sierra Club Cool Schools

1.       MSU ranked 180th out of 328 in 2021 by the Sierra Club’s standards for sustainable universities.

ix.      MSU Initiatives

A.      Student driven success

1.       It’s important that students and faculty have a vessel for promoting  sustainability

B.      It’s important that  students and faculty have  a vessel for promoting sustainability

1.       MSU is designing new core curriculum – integrating sustainability should be a priority

C.      “Rationale: Contemporary Issues in Science courses develop familiarity with how scientists apply methods to explore scientific questions and real-world problems, identify and reflect on ethical claims regarding scientific research and its applications to contemporary problems or challenges while acknowledging the conflicting values that underlie these claims, and engage constructively in open discussions about contemporary issues and ethical or moral dilemmas in science.”

(MSU course catalogue, description of the CS core)

1.       Feel the curriculum could drive this

x.      Education-EJ Hook

A.      What have we done?

B.      What are we doing?

C.      How is our process toward our goals?

D.      Can we inspire people to care and change their ways?

1.       I think we can. 

2.       Take those things people are “addicted to”, transportation, etc. and start there. 

xi.      Questions/Comments:

A.      What kind of work are we doing with the city?

1.       Connectivity is an issue. Biking in the winter is near impossible. 

2.       Bozeman has made huge strides with their bike lanes, etc. 

B.      What about food consumption?

1.       Uses a lot of resources to prepare meat.

2.       Producing beef causes greenhouse gases

i.      Yes, we are looking at that. 

ii.      Have made some progress.

iii.      Not there yet.

iv.      Need to create awareness

a.       More alternative meats

v.      Needs to be consumer driven

vi.      Need to look at it with a broader lens 

3.       Carbon “labeling”

i.      Looks at upstream and downstream effects of preparing meat/food, etc. 

C.      A lot of people commute from outlying towns.

1.       How do you accommodate that?

i.      What is MSU’s role in the community? 

a.       Provide affordable housing closer to campus.

2.       Urban problems we are bringing rural solutions too

3.       Livingston bus line runs in the winter only

D.      Look at unbiased data regarding beef.

1.       Look at recycling methane gases produced through “cow farts”.

i.      MSU’s footprint based on consumption of beef is fairly low. Trying to get conversations started. 

E.       Carpooling is challenging when you have children who have their own schedules. 

1.       Air travel is required of tenure track faculty.

i.      Can present online, but it’s hard to network virtually.

ii.      It’s about looking for solutions.

F.       Forward any other questions to Bradford and Michael

c.       Sabbatical Evaluation Scoring

i.      Jennifer Thomson – Chair, Faculty Affairs

A.      See attached document from Faculty Affairs

B.      https://www.montana.edu/policy/faculty_handbook/sabbatical_leave.html 

ii.      Sabbatical Review

A.      Issues

1.       Frustration on how sabbaticals were being reviewed. 

2.       Majority weight should be on scholarly merit and not spread out over multiple duplicative categories. 

3.       Want more instruction for those writing letters of support.

4.       Requested that deans/dept heads give more input on their capacity to support multiple sabbaticals

B.      Current Scoring System for Sabbatical Applications 

1.       Scholarly Merit (15 points)

i.      How does the proposed activity contribute to the faculty member’s teaching and/or scholarship activity? (5 points)

ii.      To what extent does the proposed activity explore creative and original concepts? (5 points)

iii.      How qualified is the applicant to conduct the project? (5 points)

C.      Proposed Scoring System and Justification for Changes

1.       Scholarly Merit and Integration (20 points)

i.      How does the proposed activity contribute to the faculty member’s teaching and/or scholarship activity? (10 points)

ii.      To what extent does the proposed activity explore creative and original concepts? (5 points)

iii.      How well does the project contribute to the faculty member’s integration of teaching and scholarship activity? (5 points)

D.      Current Scoring System for Sabbatical Applications 

1.       Planning and Organization (10 points)

i.      How organized is the proposed activity? (4 points)

ii.      Has there been adequate practical planning and intellectual preparation to carry out the project?   (3 points)

iii.      Are there adequate resources to accomplish the project in the allotted time? (3 points)

E.       Proposed Scoring System and Justification for Changes

1.       Planning and Organization (5 points)

i.      Has there been adequate practical planning and intellectual preparation to carry out the project?

F.       Current Scoring System for Sabbatical Applications 

1.       Broader Impacts (10 points)

i.      What impact will this project have for MSU, the State of Montana, and the Rocky Mountain region?  (Will it be disseminated through local/regional publication[s], performance[s], presentation[s], etc.?) (3 points)

ii.      How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within the candidates own field and across different fields? (4 points)

iii.      What impact will the project have nationally or internationally?  (Will it be disseminated through national/international publication[s], performance[s], presentation[s], etc.?) (3 points)

G.      Proposed Scoring System and Justification for Changes

1.       Broader Impacts (10 points)

i.      How does the proposed project integrate/align with the current institutional strategic plan? What are the regional, national, and international impacts of the proposed work?   

H.      Current Scoring System for Sabbatical Applications 

1.       In addition to the criteria listed above, applicants also receive credit based on the following:

i.      Years of service:  ¼ point per year since eligible for sabbatical – i.e., after banking 7 years

ii.      Meritorious performance:  Candidates can receive up to 3 additional points for meritorious performance in 1) Teaching, 2) Scholarship and 3) Service (Up to one point is awarded in each category).

iii.      Meritorious performance can include honors within an applicant’s discipline, University awards, etc.  A record of publication, long-term teaching, or continuous service at MSU are deserving of note but do not, in and of themselves, guarantee that an applicant will receive a full point in any category of merit.

iv.      Academic rank:  Add 2 points for Professor and 1 point for Associate rank.

I.         Proposed Scoring System and Justification for Changes

1.       In addition to the criteria listed above, applicants also receive credit based on the following:

i.      Years of service:  7-12 years from eligibility or last sabbatical – 0 points , > 12 years from eligibility or last sabbatical – 1 point

ii.      Academic rank:  Add 2 points for Professor and 1 point for Associate rank.

J.        Additional proposed changes

1.       Request a minimum of two outside and two internal letters

i.      Ask letter writers to speak to the qualifications of the applicant to perform the proposed work.

ii.      The scholarly merit of the proposal

iii.      The broader impacts of the proposal

2.       Provide guidance to deans and department heads to avoid ranking proposals and to speak to the administrative requirements rather than the individual merits of the proposal.

K.       Questions

1.       How do you come up with the points?

i.      Each is ranked by four committee members

ii.      Modified the points based on what was there previously. Have the same number of points.

2.       The letter writing is new?

i.      No. There just weren’t explicit guidelines for the writers. 

L.       Please share your, and your faculty’s, thoughts on this. Let Bradford and Michael know if you have questions. 

VI.            Undergraduate Courses and Programs

a.       Courses – First Reading

i.      HONR 408 : Wolves in Yellowstone: A Social, Scientific and Visual Journey, Fall 2022

b.       Courses Changes– First Reading

i.      M 063 : Foundations of Mathematics

A.      Credit change from 2 to 1

ii.      ECNS 432R : Economic Policy Evaluation

A.      Title change from Benefit-Cost Analysis

iii.      PHSX 331 : Methods of Computational Physics

A.      Credit change from 1 to 2

1.       Universal agreement by faculty and students those two credits of work is required to meet learning outcomes.

c.       Courses – Second Reading

i.      HONR 407 : Understanding Shakespeare from Folio to Performance, Fall 2022

d.       Courses Inactivations – First Reading

i.      ARAB 201D : Intermediate Modern Arabic I

A.      No longer offered

ii.      ARAB 202D : Intermediate Modern Arabic II

A.      No longer offered

iii.      ARTZ 282 : Photographic Image and its Construction

A.      The faculty member who taught the course is no longer at MSU.

e.       Programs

i.      None at this time

f.        Program Inactivation – Second Reading

i.      BSLA-BS : Bachelor of Science in Landscape Architecture

A.      Don't have budget approval to proceed at this time. Will re-activate within the next several years once enrollment and budget situation improve.

ii.      SFLP-BS : Bachelor of Science in Sustainable Food and Bioenergy Systems - Sustainable Livestock Production Option

A.      After discussions with our faculty, and the Deans offices of COA and HHD we intend to sunset this option as we have just 1 student (this being the first student in approx. a year) in the program and, since the program began in Spring 2014, have not typically had more than 2-3 students (our peak was 6 in spring of 2017). Furthermore, our records suggest we have only had one student graduate from the program since it began in 2014. Therefore, we are inactivating the program due to poor enrollment and limited interest.

 VII.            Graduate Courses and Programs 

a.       Courses – First Reading

i.      None at this time

b.       Course Changes – First Reading

i.      ECNS 432R : Economic Policy Evaluation

A.      Title change from Benefit-Cost Analysis

c.       Courses – Second Reading

i.      CHTH 600 : Building a Culture of Wellness (Summer 2022)

ii.      CHTH 601 : Indigenous and Rural Health (Fall 2022)

iii.      HDCO 541 : Introduction to Mental Health Practice (Summer 2022)

d.       Course Changes – Second Reading

i.      EDCI 547 : Inquiry Based Learning for School Librarians

A.      Title changed from Info Inquiry & Ed Change

ii.      HDCO 521 : Counseling Skills Lab

A.      Credits changing from 2 to 3

iii.      HDCO 523 : Theory and Practice of Addiction

A.      Credits changing from 2 to 3

iv.      MEDS 560 : Mind, Brain, and Behavior

A.      Going from 13 credits to 8

1.       University of Washington School of Medicine is undergoing a curriculum renewal in 2022. 

e.        Course Inactivations – Second Reading

i.      MEDS 545 : Ecology of Health & Medicine – Foundations 4

A.      Structure of course being revised and will be included in MEDS 535 as part of University of Washington School of Medicine Curriculum renewal.

ii.      NRSG 615 : Translational Research Adv Pra

A.      This course was part of a 3-course review by the CON graduate faculty in 2019. Elements of NRSG 604, NRSG 605 and NRSG 615 were assessed for content redundancy and redesigned into NRSG 604 and NRSG 605. NRSG 615 was taught out through Fall 2021 to accommodate students' program of study.

f.        Programs / Certificates

i.      None at this time

VIII.            Old Business

a.       None at this time.

IX.            New Business / Senators’ Open Conversation

a.       Priorities for BOR meeting

i.      Cost of living

A.      Discussion occurred regarding the high cost of living in Bozeman, including the high price of housing. 

1.       Discussion of impact on hiring of faculty.

B.      Comments made regarding filling vacant staff positions.

ii.      Gender and Race

iii.      Mental Health

iv.      How do we continue to be successful?

v.      What are the solutions you are going to bring forward?

A.      Shared a series of surveys we have done. Success we’ve had. Things we’ve learned. We don’t have solutions for everything. Some things are system wide. 

1.       Better faculty training/support.

2.       Things across the state are not equal. We all have issues, but they are different across the board. Want to engage in the conversation. How can we collaborate? How can we move the system forward? Have been given more time to speak and collaborate. 

3.       Trying to operate under the idea of shared governance, so we work together on solutions. Part of that is impressing upon the BOR, who has the constitutional authority over all campuses. We need to use that to our advantage. It’s a process. Lucky to have a seat at the table, and that they are listening. It hasn’t always been that way. 

X.            Public Comment

i.            none

XI.            Adjourn

i.             Peter Tillack moves to approve. Tomas Gedeo