Minutes waiting to be approved by Faculty Senate

Printable PDF

Slide Presentaion

Faculty Senate Meeting

Leon Johnson Hall 346

Sept. 30, 2026

3:15pm-4:30pm

I.       Call to Order  

a.      Meeting was called to order at 3:16pm

II.      Approval of FS Minutes from Sept. 16, 2026 

a.      Hayes Goosey moves to approve. Maggie Thorsen seconds. None opposed. No abstentions. Approved.

III.     Approval of Consent Agenda 

Please review second-reading courses and programs in particular prior to the meeting. Individual courses or programs may be removed from the consent agenda by any Senator’s request, to be considered individually. All items remaining on the agenda will be approved when the consent agenda is approved. 

Christine Verhille moves to approve. Marg Hammersla seconds. None opposed. No abstentions. Approved.

a.      New Undergrad Courses-Second Read

i.        ANSC 275 : Large Animal Physiology

ii.       ANSC 276 : Large Animal Physiology Lab

iii.      COLS 112 : Introduction to Durable Skills

iv.      HONR 221 : Current Conversations

b.      New Undergrad Courses-First Read

i.        FILM 416 : Analog Process Workshop: 16mm Film

ii.       FILM 451 : Writing for Serialized Drama

iii.      SOCI 302 : Criminology in Practice: Careers, Ethics, and Professional Leadership

c.       Undergrad Course Reactivation-First Read

i.        HORT 338 : Fruit Production

d.       New Undergrad Program-Second Read

i.       -BS : Bachelor of Science in Biological Sciences (Ecology, Conservation, and Fish and Wildlife                     Biology Option)

e.      Undergrad Program Changes-First Read

i.        ARTH-BFA : Bachelor of Fine Arts in Art History

1.       Changed from Bachelor of Arts in Art History

f.        Graduate Course Changes-First Read

i.        MSSE 506 : Crime Scene Investigators: Forensic Science for Teachers

           1.       Changes to learning outcomes

IV.     FYI Items

a.      Thanks to all who responded to the survey on Provost qualities for the provost search

b.      Be sure to RSVP for the Senate lunch with the President Oct. 14. Link (also in your email):                                     https://forms.gle/GGqctsV2MeLAXUuU8 

c.       The Future of AI Symposium – Thurs/Fri. Oct. 1-2 RSVP at https://www.montana.edu/ai/the-future-of-ai/ 

V.       Information Updates

a.       Seeking committee representatives—please contact Doug with your interest in serving:

i.        CORE Committee: meetings up to biweekly, currently scheduled Oct. 6, Nov. 3, Dec. 8

ii.       Computer Fee Allocation Committee: Meets in April to review proposals. 

iii.      Other committees?

b.       Digital Accessibility update: Tracy Dougher and Shannon Willoughby. See additional Digital Accessibility            updates and tools at https://www.montana.edu/accessibility/digital/

i.        See slide presentation

ii.       Go to Center for Faculty Excellence website for list of trainings

iii.      Question

1.      Is the number or color on Canvas the final say on if we are in compliance?

a.      Yes. 80% is our target

i.       Who needs 80%? Each person? A department? 

1.      Your classes should work to meet this 80% threshold 

ii.      The little “green man” is what you want to go by 

2.      For literature courses, it’s nearly impossible to get rid of PDFs altogether.

a.      It is possible

b.      Through the Library you can link to Library resources. You have to get the students              to click through. 

i.       You can remediate your PDF and get it to 80%. Pull it into Adobe Pro to do this.           You can also look for another resource. 

3.      In Organic Chemistry it is very difficult since the Alt Text wouldn’t make sense unless they             were already a chemist.

a.      This is exactly why the provost is looking for feedback, so we can troubleshoot these situations.

b.      What is wrong with doing the accommodation on a case-by-case basis?

i.       The mandate is access for all. They shouldn’t have to ask.

4.      Courses that you have taught previously do not need to be remediated until they are                      taught again. This is forward facing, not retroactive. A solution could be to put fewer                        materials in Canvas. 

a.      That is up to you and your philosophy.

i.       Faculty will probably start putting less info online. How does the university feel           about that? The class could become less successful because of this.

1.      This is your class and your philosophy. It’s up to you what you put up to help guide your students

5.      Are digital textbooks that are published right now accessible? Do they need this type of                 access?

a.      It would be worth it for you to go over your textbook and check that. 

6.      Can you use AI to make something accessible? Is AI doing that right now?

a.      There are pieces of this that could be automated, but there are somethings that still need a human eye. 

b.      AI is not good at formatting documents. 

7.      What about physical textbooks? Are we forbidden from using those?

a.      Whatever you’ve made digitally available must be accessible, not physical textbooks. 

8.      80% is the “letter of the law”, but not the “spirit of the law”.

a.      Whose choice was this 80%?

i.       Does every class have to meet that?

1.      We are allowing flexibility. It is not a hard and fast rule. It is a benchmark to try and achieve. 

9.      Are increased paper costs a potential unexpected consequence to this federal mandate                 and will departmental and college funding across campus be supported for this?

a.      There will be many unexpected consequences, that is normal with behavioral                       changes, and we will address them as they come up.

VI.    Guidelines for Review of Center Proposals – First Reading. Attached track-change draft is revised from prior               draft posted at                                                                                                                                                                                   https://www.montana.edu/facultysenate/final_interim_center_review_guidelines_1_29_20_draft.html 

a.      B and C of the designation:

i.       Where does Senate weigh in on where our responsibilities lie?

1.      Do we need to define it more tightly?

a.      Language alludes to the positives and seems to ignore the negative.

2.      “Support all members of MSU.” 

a.      Doubt it will hit all of the departments at MSU.

i.       The philosophy is inclusion. 

3.      Maybe a language needs to change to explain that it is those who are interested can be a               part of it. Not everyone HAS to. 

ii.      What are the implications of not meeting expectations?

iii.     There is a chance of reputational damage if a Center folds. Do we care? They are trying to                          support themselves. 

1.      Faculty Senate is approving to RECOMMEND a Center approval, not the final approval                     itself. 

a.      They will need to do assessment just like an academic program would. 

2.      We could add “realistic” or a similar word into the plan.

3.      Do we care to police for the BOR or do we want another process in place?

a.      This is a good starting list, but as faculty members, are there other things, beyond                what they BOR wants, that we care about? 

i.      The list could never be completely comprehensive because all centers are                    going to be different. 

1.      Don’t want to overcomplicate a checklist. 

2.      What else could be relevant? There may be considerations not in the                 checklist that could be brought up by senators. 

b.      If we say we don’t think it is good enough to go forward, what happens next?

i.       We don’t want to send things to the BOR that faculty do not support. 

ii.      What is likely to happen is the university will work with the Center on making changes to the proposal. 

1.      For big things, not wording, etc. 

2.      Possible shelving of proposal

3.      Regents would be concerned if it came to them without faculty approval. 

VII.    Council and Committee Updates-See slide presentation

a.      Graduate Council

b.      Montana University System Faculty Association Representatives (MUSFAR) committee

i.       Who do we go to when we have a dual enrollment student who needs advising if they want a certificate from Gallatin College? Do they have to pay both MSU and Gallatin College?

1.      They would need to enroll in Gallatin College and they would get charged. Gallatin College has cheaper tuition.

a.      Scholarships have different rules, so you would want to talk to Financial Aid office.

c.       Provost search committee

d.      Other committee reports? 

VIII.   Faculty Discussion Sessions-off-weeks to Senate meetings, same time/place

a.      Weds Oct. 7: Faculty experiences with benefits-access, FMD, and related HR functions

b.      Call for future topics of discussion

i.       Policy within a department that announcements only go out on Mondays. Can we do this earlier in advance?

1.      Yes

IX.     Senators’ Open Conversation  

a.      None

X.      Public Comment  

a.      None

XI.     Adjourn  

a.      Susanne Cowanne moves to adjourn. Carrie Myers seconds. Meeting adjourned at 4:30pm.