ITEM No.1 – Approval of February 12, 2025, Meeting Minutes

The minutes from the February 12, 2025, Classroom Committee meeting were unanimously approved.

ITEM No.2 – RECOMMENDATION – Committee Member Appointments

The appointment of Mac Burgess, Paul Edlund, and Jacqueline Frank to the Classroom Committee was unanimously approved.

ITEM No.3 – RECOMMENDATION – Reid 453 Whiteboard Additions

Robert Stockdale stated that the developmental math instructors using Reid 435 have requested that additional whiteboards be installed in the room for students to use for classwork. Richard Rudnicki added that the current pricing for whiteboards in the the room would be between $500 and $800 apiece, depending on their size.

Michael Babcock asked what funding would be used for the new whiteboards. Richard Rudnicki noted that the Office of the Registrar previously paid for additional whiteboards in another room. Tony Campeau, University Registrar, replied that he did not have a funding source immediately available, but that it may be possible to transfer funds prior to the end of the financial year. Richard stated that Facility Services has whiteboards ready to be installed and that the funds would be used to replenish the backstock.

Mac Burgess asked whether the classroom’s projector would impact the use of whiteboards along the room’s back wall. Richard Rudnicki replied that the position of the whiteboards on the wall should prevent any interference. Bill Freese and Tony Campeau both stated that there are some foreign language classes that use that room, but that the primary occupants are math courses, so the existing whiteboards are highly utilized. Mac offered the fact that adding whiteboards to the rear wall would also allow for a more flexible instructional space.

Michael Babcock motioned to approve the installation of whiteboards in Reid 436.
Mac Burgess seconded the motion.
The motion was unanimously approved.

ITEM No.4 – RECOMMENDATION – Leon Johnson 346 Summer Renovation Discussion

Richard Rudnicki introduced the next item by explaining how the backlog of classroom renovations is addressed through a two-year cycle that has prioritized the broad improvement of numerous classrooms over the extensive improvement of a singular room. However, Richard noted, for the previous round of renovations, the Classroom Committee decided to provide a higher level of finish detailing on Roberts 101, with the other selected classrooms being renovated to a slightly lower level of finish detail. Richard added that the design process for the renovations is informed by the Classroom Design Guidelines, which have not been updated since 2008.

Carter Dorsett asked why the Classroom Design Guidelines have not been updated, and whether there is a plan to update them. Richard Rudnicki explained that there had been a high turnover for the University Architect position, which is tasked with updating the Design Guidelines, plus COVID had interrupted the classroom renovation cycle. Richard stated that Jennisse Waters has begun an internal review of the Design Guidelines as part of the current classroom renovation cycle and that the Committee will be updated as that work progresses. Tony Campeau asked whether the faculty is involved in developing changes to the Design Guidelines. Jennisse replied that faculty feedback is collected throughout the design process and is being considered as they review the Design Guidelines. Jennisse added that the Design Guidelines must integrate with fire and building codes, which themselves often change, so there is the challenge of developing guidelines that align with evidence-based pedagogical design, while also adhering to those codes.

Richard Rudnicki explained that the designs for the current cycle of classroom renovations were previously brought to the Committee for approval due to some aspects not aligning with the Design Guidelines. Richard stated that the design process followed procedures and was maximizing the impact of the provided budget, but that the current issues regarding Leon Johnson 346 risked jeopardizing the construction timeline.

Richard Rudnicki described how Leon Johnson 346 currently has a functional capacity of 88 seats, but that nine of those seats have their view of the classroom screen obscured by either their position in relation to the screen or the placement of the lectern. Richard noted that the room also features ADA accessibility issues and outdated technology. Richard outlined how the renovation designs for Leon Johnson 346 incorporate a new seating arrangement and the installation of additional screens to address these issues. Richard then asked Carter Dorsett to express the concerns that Brad Haderlie has regarding the renovation designs for the room. Carter explained that he and Brad have the opinion that the proposed viewing distances, screen sizes, and angles will make it difficult for certain students to see the classroom screens. Carter stated that even with the additional screens and rearranged seating, a portion of the seats would not be within the recommended viewing distance at an angle conducive to seeing the content on the screens. Carter stated that Brad’s proposed solution is to install even larger screens which would allow for a wider recommended viewing area.

In response to the problems and solution offered by Carter Dorsett, Richard Rudnicki outlined three options for renovating Leon Johnson 346: the first would be to proceed with the current design, the second option would have the ceiling raised four inches to allow for slightly larger screens at a cost of $10,000 to $20,000, and the third option would involve the exposure of the ceiling structure to allow for even larger screens, a process which would cost between $200,000 and $250,000 and would require the classroom to be closed during the Fall 2025 semester. Richard then presented a diagram depicting the recommended viewing distances that would result from Option 1 and Option 2. Carter Dorsett expressed his and Brad Haderlie’s opinion that the proposed passive viewing distances, as well as the seating along the sides of the classroom, would still make it difficult for students to view the screens.

Mac Burgess noted that, in his experience, the viewing angles in the room are problematic when there is a full class, but that the tiered design is helpful. Mac asked whether the room is accessible for an instructor who may be in a wheelchair. Richard Rudnicki replied that the lectern area is currently not accessible, but the planned renovation design will fill in the floor to allow for a flat surface that is fully accessible.

Carter Dorsett asked whether further reducing the capacity of the room was an option. Richard Rudnicki answered that the current and planned capacities of the room fill a necessary niche for large class sizes that is desirable to be maintained.

The Committee then discussed the various screen sizes and formats that could be used in the room and the viewing distance required for each. Bill Freese commented that larger screens would benefit all students, not just those seated further away.

Carter Dorsett asked what the implications would be if the renovation of this classroom was delayed to provide for further consideration of alternative options. Richard Rudnicki explained that some materials have already been ordered and that there are liability conditions with the contractor which would require MSU to pay certain fees. Richard noted that any improvements beyond the planned design would require additional funding. Mac Burgess asked whether it would be possible to complete the renovations and then raise the ceiling at a later date. Jennisse Waters replied that it was possible, but that the room would probably then fall to the lower end of the priority list for classroom improvements.

The Committee then broadly discussed the passive viewing distances and sightlines as presented in the design options.

Michael Babcock asked Carter Dorsett whether dual content screens, such as those featured in the renovation designs, are used by faculty. Carter responded that there is not a high demand, but some instructors do prefer dual content screens. Tony Campeau commented that it is necessary for classroom design decisions defer to the faculty using those spaces, and the needs of the faculty are to be expressed in the Classroom Design Guidelines.

Jacqueline Frank proposed that a fourth option be considered which would involve raising the ceiling four inches, as outlined in Option 2, but would use single content screens rather than dual content screens. Richard Rudnicki noted that this option should be possible to undertake within the current schedule and may also allow for the project to remain in budget. Michael Babcock expressed his preference for this fourth option as it did not seem that many instructors use dual content screens.

Jacqueline Frank moved to approve the raising of the ceiling and the installation of single screens in Leon Johnson 346.
Tony Campeau seconds the motion.
The motion passes unanimously.

ITEM No.5 – RECOMMENDATION/INFORMATIONAL – 2025 Classroom Renovations Schematic Review

Richard Rudnicki explained that the capacities of Reid Hall 101 and 102 currently exceed fire code requirements. Richard stated that the project architect has presented two design options for the renovation of those classrooms: Option A would reduce the capacity of the two rooms, while Option B would reduce the capacity of Reid 101 to below 50 persons to meet fire code requirements and would also reduce the capacity of Reid 102 to 58 persons and install second exit to meet fire code requirements allowing for a capacity greater than 50 persons. Option C would combine the two rooms into a single larger classroom that would meet the fire code requirements due to the presence of two exits. Richard asked Tony Campeau whether there would be a greater demand for one large classroom or two smaller classrooms. Tony replied that the construction of Gianforte Hall will alter the existing supply of rooms, so he would need to assess how those changes will impact demand.

Richard Rudnicki then introduced two design options for Reid 103, one with tablet armchairs and the other with fixed tables. Richard explained that the use of tablet armchairs would allow for a room capacity of approximately 107 students, while the fixed tables could accommodate about 83 students. Elizabeth Pritchard added that the tablet armchairs would make it difficult for some students to see the instructor, while the fixed tables would provide better viewing and comfort for all students. Tony Campeau stated that he would also have to assess the demand for the capacity of the two options.

It was decided by the Committee that Robert Stockdale would submit updated staff reports with Tony Campeau’s assessments to committee members and that a vote would then be held by email.

Robert Stockdale submitted staff reports for Reid 101/102 and Reid 103 to committee members on Monday, May 19, and asked that they vote on the provided design options.

Selection and approval of one of the three design options for Reid 101 and Reid 102.

The Vote

Option A: Rob Maher, Bill Freese, Richard Rudnicki, Paul Edlund, Tony Campeau, Michael Babcock, Jacqueline Frank, Jennisse Waters, Mac Burgess

Option B: Katie Ivester

Option C: None


Selection and approval of one of the two design options for Reid 103.

The Vote

Option A: None

Option B: Rob Maher, Katie Ivester, Bill Freese, Richard Rudnicki, Paul Edlund, Tony Campeau, Michael Babcock, Jacqueline Frank, Jennisse Waters, Mac Burgess