The University of Montana's Higher Education Center Proposal

     On Wednesday, May 30, 2007, University of Montana (UM) President George Dennison informed the Montana State Board of Regents of Higher Education that the UM has initiated plans to establish a Higher Education Center in Hamilton, Montana.  Dennison's announcement came in the form of an information item during the meeting of the Regents' Academic and Student Affairs Committee in conjunction with the Regents' May meeting in Miles City.  The Higher Education Center item was also briefly introduced and discussed during the Regents' full board meeting the following day, Thursday, May 31, 2007, at which time Dennison also announced the designation of Hamilton resident Frank Laurence as the Higher Education Center's local coordinator.
     The written text of Dennison's Higher Education Center information item stated that a Hamilton Higher Education Center is being pursued as the result of a Spring 2007 UM telephone survey conducted in "the region south of Missoula" from which it was determined that the population was interested in evening classes in the postsecondary fields of business, education, and health care.  The ultimate goal of the Hamilton Higher Education Center was purported to be to offer coursework via the University of Montana, Missoula which would:

be applicable to Certificate, Certificate of Applied Science (CAS), Applied Science (AS), Associate of Applied Science (A.A.S.), Bachelor of Applied Science (B.A.S.), Associate of Arts (AA), Associate of Science (AS), Bachelor of Arts (BA), Bachelor of Science (BS), and other appropriate degrees.  Other course, seminar, and workshop offerings will respond to regional and community workforce needs.  Additional offerings could include, based upon identified need, college preparatory courses; dual credit – i.e., for high school as well as college -- for high school students; developmental coursework in reading, writing, and mathematics; adult basic education; professional development and continuing education; community education non-credit offerings; and selected graduate program offerings.  Courses will be offered during time periods identified as traditional, evening, weekend, and summer. (Information Item:  Higher Education Center, p. 2)

     Dennison was careful to note in both his spoken and written statement that the establishment of a Hamilton Higher Education Center was compatible with the recent, local effort on the part of Bitterroot Valley residents to establish a public community college.  On this topic the information item read:

The two initiatives do not conflict.  The University proposal to establish a Higher Education Center has the capacity to accommodate the contributions of a locally funded and controlled community [college] and those of all other higher education institutions in Montana wishing to participate.  The design of a MUS [Montana University System] Higher Education Center calls for collaboration as the most appropriate and efficient means to respond to the range of local needs.  Therefore, the University proposes to establish a Center that will welcome all institutions that wish to and can contribute, much as the existing Centers in Great Falls and Helena do. (Information Item:  Higher Education Center, p. 1)

     Finally, with regards to time frame, Dennison noted that the UM has already requested a substantive change in accreditation to the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities in order for the UM to provide services at a remote site.  Moreover, Dennison stated that the UM has entered into an agreement with the Hamilton School District for the use of facilities through June of 2009.  Notably, the text of the information item concludes with the following, "At the appropriate time, following the initial start-up but no later than May 2008, the University will request authorization by the Board of Regents of the Hamilton Higher Education Center" (Information Item:  Higher Education Center, p. 2).

Click here for the full text of the UM's Information Item: Higher Education Center [pdf]

Regents' Response to the UM's Higher Education Center Proposal

     During the May 2007 Board of Regents meeting in Miles City only Regent Lynn Morrison-Hamilton (who is also the current Chair of the Board of Regents) commented on the UM's Hamilton Higher Education Center proposal.  Regent Morrison-Hamilton noted during the Academic and Student Affairs Committee meeting that successful Higher Education Centers already exist in Great Falls and Helena in conjunction with local Colleges of Technology and that an independent Higher Education Center exists in Lewistown.  Regarding the situation between Bitterroot Valley Community College advocates and the UM, she suggested continued collaboration.  Too, she indicated that the people of the Bitterroot ought to be grateful for the UM's willingness in the past to hire a part-time outreach coordinator for Ravalli County, for the residents of Lewistown had no such offer and had to hire such a coordinator on their own.

BVCC Steering Committee's Response to the UM's Higher Education Center Proposal

     Bitterroot Valley Community College Steering Committee (BVCC-SC) members Victoria Clark and Dixie Stark were present at the May Board of Regents meeting in Miles City .  The BVCC advocates raised several issues with respect to the details of the proposal as well as the general intent of the proposal.  BVCC-SC members also raised concerns as to whether Board of Regent Policy on Higher Education Centers was being followed both in letter and in spirit by UM administrators.
     As preliminarily expressed during the meeting of the Regents' Academic and Student Affairs Committee and as more fully elaborated herein, the following account details the BVCC-SC's concerns with respect to the UM's Hamilton Higher Education Center proposal.

Issues of Accuracy and the UM's Higher Education Center Proposal

1.  The telephone survey referenced by the UM as its supporting documentation for pursuing a Higher Education Center in Hamilton was actually conducted in the Spring of 2006, not in the Spring of 2007 as referenced in the UM's information item document.  A copy of this survey document was given to the BVCC Exploratory Committee (precursor to the BVCC-SC) in August of 2006 by UM administrators, and at that time was being used as justification for the establishment of an UM-COT extension facility in Hamilton.  This same survey was referenced by the UM during the September 2006 Board of Regents meeting in Butte, once again, as justification for a UM-COT extension facility in Hamilton.
     After reviewing the UM survey documentation in August of 2006, BVCC Exploratory Committee (BVCC-EC) members Victoria Clark, Patti Furniss, and Dixie Stark concluded that the survey had in no way been designed to address the adult learning needs of Bitterroot Valley residents, but rather that it had targeted working residents of the greater Missoula area with respect to whether or not such residents would be interested in taking for-credit evening or weekend courses at the UM-COT Missoula campus, and if so, what types of coursework would most interest them.  The number of Ravalli County residents who actually responded was minimal, especially when compared to the number of survey respondents living in Missoula County (see table below).  Clark, Furniss, and Stark all found the survey lacked relevance to the adult learning needs of Bitterroot Valley residents.  During a December 2006 meeting in Hamilton with Higher Education Commissioner Sheila Stearns, Clark and Stark made their dissatisfaction with the survey known, giving one of their copies of the UM survey to Stearns—thereby allowing Stearns to draw her own conclusions.

UM Night and Weekend Degree Program Survey (actual survey title)
Survey method:  Telephone (landlines only)

    The BVCC-SC finds it of considerable interest that the UM is now touting this same survey as justification for a UM Higher Education Center in Hamilton.  Although BVCC-EC  research strongly indicates that Hamilton and its surrounding communities are in need of comprehensive adult learning services, the UM's telephone survey can hardly be taken as valid or reliable research with respect to this issue.

2.  The UM's Higher Education Center proposal document reads the UM "has submitted a substantive change proposal to the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities requesting authorization for the delivery of coursework to a new remote site."  This statement confuses the BVCC Steering Committee on one particular account.
     According to an article about accreditation in the Ravalli Republic dated April 10, 2007, UM Executive Vice President Jim Foley indicated that in order for the UM to establish an UM-COT extension facility in Ravalli County, accreditation was essentially a non-issue, with a "new off-campus site usually fall[ing] under the definition of a minor change so [the only necessary paperwork] would be a simple piece of correspondence."  Foley's statement in the Ravalli Republic seems to conflict with what is presented in the UM's Higher Education Center proposal, whereby the need for a substantive accreditation change, presumably requiring some time to earn, is deemed necessary to provide programming at a "remote site."  The BVCC-SC wonders where the truth lies with respect to this issue.

3.  The UM's Higher Education Center proposal finds no conflict between the establishment of a Higher Education Center in Hamilton and the local community's current effort to establish a public community college.  Following this assertion, the UM's Higher Education Center document then proceeds to list the programming scope of the center, which includes certificates, associates degrees, bachelor degrees, selected graduate offerings, professional development and continuing education, developmental education, and adult basic education.
     Barring bachelor degrees and selected graduate offerings, the services of a comprehensive community college exactly duplicate the offerings of the UM's proposed Hamilton Higher Education Center.  The UM statement that the two institutions do not conflict is inexplicable and begs clarification.

Issues of Intent and the UM's Higher Education Center Proposal

     Given the UM's past and most recent history regarding the provision of higher education services in the Bitterroot Valley, it is hard for the BVCC-SC not to view this latest proposal without a degree of skepticism and cynicism.  As the following summary attests, the UM's involvement in the delivery of adult learning services in Ravalli County has been variously marked by a sense of entitlement, unmet promises, apathy, and  low priority—none of which has resulted in accountable or committed local adult programming.
     During the 1970s an effort to establish a community college in the Bitterroot (led by Rocky Mountain Laboratory scientist, Dr. Bob Smith) was suspended after assurances from the UM that services would be forthcoming.  However, after a few years of hit or miss classes, the UM's presence in the Bitterroot Valley evaporated.
     Next, in the 1980s, the UM initiated an extension campaign.  Representatives from communities surrounding Missoula were assembled to discuss the delivery of local postsecondary services.  Corvallis resident Allen Bjergo was selected to represent the Bitterroot.  During a recent interview with Bjergo, who still resides in the Corvallis area, Bjergo remarked that once the UM received funding for an extension building on the UM campus in Missoula the meetings of regional representatives became fewer and farther between, until at last the council no longer met at all.  No services in Ravalli County ever resulted from the UM extension campaign of the 1980s.
     A review of the 1990s reveals no significant effort on the part of the UM to bring adult learning services to the Bitterroot.  Notably, the 1990s was a period of considerable economic restructuring and demographic growth in the Bitterroot Valley. 
     By the turn of the millennium employment and educational professionals in Ravalli County were awakening to the fact that the absence of adult learning services, specifically with respect to workforce development and continuing education, was negatively affecting the area's economic and social infrastructure.  Starting in 2001 and continuing through the summer of 2005 local leaders from the Hamilton School District and the Bitterroot Job Service met with UM-COT officials requesting local access to for-credit programming.  A series of ineffective and inadequate attempts at delivering services (wherein sufficient enrollment minimums were never reached) followed – four UM-COT courses offered in Hamilton in 2001, a part-time UM-COT Ravalli County outreach coordinator lasting from 2003 to 2005 (with the position then left vacant for nearly a year), and outreach which consisted primarily of the limited promotion of online course offerings (UM's Virtual College).
     To an emerging group of concerned Ravalli County professionals it was becoming clear that the UM was either unwilling or unable to commit resources, energy, and personnel to the Bitterroot.  Moreover, it was becoming clear as well that Ravalli County residents had no leverage with the UM in order to secure, let alone guarantee, the delivery of services.  At this juncture (August 2005), the group of concerned Ravalli County professionals began exploring other options for the local delivery of adult learning services.  The end result of this exploration was the group's decision to advocate for the establishment of a local public community college.  By the spring of 2006, the group, now organized as the Bitterroot Valley Community College Exploratory Committee (BVCC-EC), was recognized as an initiative of the Bitterroot Workforce System.
     Interestingly, and much to the surprise of BVCC-EC members, the UM, having full knowledge of the growing community college effort, announced at the end of May 2006 that it had plans to establish an UM-COT extension facility in Hamilton.  The timing of this decision was unmistakably at odds with the local community college initiative. However, as the BVCC-EC was foremost dedicated to the provision of local adult learning services, the BVCC-EC spent much of the summer learning more about the UM's COT proposal and weighing the pros and cons of the two institutional options.  By mid-August of 2006,  the BVCC-EC concluded that the community college option was in fact the superior long-term institutional model for the Bitterroot Valley.
     The committee based its decision on a comparative framework (see chart below) which is summarized by four descriptors—affordable, comprehensive, accountable, and committed.  Namely, in comparison to a UM-COT extension facility, because a community college district had local taxing authority, was managed and controlled by a locally elected board of trustees, and had permanence as a legally recognized educational district, a community college in the Bitterroot Valley would be able to provide comprehensive adult learning services at affordable rates (advantage of taxing authority) and would be accountable and committed to the people it served (advantages of a locally elected board and a legally recognized district).

Comparative Framework for Weighing Institutional Pros and Cons

     Via a petition drive and then an election effort, the BVCC-EC brought its case before the people of the Bitterroot Valley and, despite an aggressive advertising campaign promoting the "UM in the Bitterroot,"  the community college initiative prevailed at the polls on May 8, 2007.  The majority of BVCC district voters favored establishing a locally controlled community college.  Now, however, rather than respecting the democratic process and the will of the local voters and sitting down with the BVCC Trustees-elect to work together on a successful collaboration strategy, the UM has resurrected the COT option as a Higher Education Center and appears to remain as intent as ever in putting control before cooperation and placed-based initiative.  This latest move by the UM only serves to distract from the local community college effort, further confuse an already wary public, and potentially jeopardize official recommendation and recognition of the proposed BVCC district at both the regent and the legislative levels.  From the BVCC-SC's perspective, the UM's plan at this time to propose the establishment of a Hamilton Higher Education Center (given the intended programming scope) is simply unconscionable.
     As a final comment, the BVCC-SC wonders aloud why exactly the establishment of a local community college appears to be so threatening to the UM.  The creation of a community college is hardly a radical move.  The process has occurred literally hundreds of times across all fifty states with the results inevitably favorable to both local residents and neighboring institutions of higher education.  As a timely example, the BVCC-SC suggests that the UM examine the current situation in Nampa, Idaho wherein the establishment of a local community college is being actively and publicly supported by nearby Boise State University. 
     In the end, the BVCC-SC is troubled and discouraged by the UM's most recent proposition and rather invites the UM to redirect its considerable energy and expertise to partnering and collaborating with local Ravalli County leaders in the expeditious establishment of the Bitterroot Valley Community College, thereby ensuring a mutually beneficial relationship between the two institutions for years to come.

Click here for Boise State University's press release [mht file] concerning its relationship with the Nampa community college advocacy group
Click here for the Nampa community college advocacy's group informational website

Regent Higher Education Policy and the UM's Higher Education Center Proposal

     The BVCC-SC also questions whether the UM's Hamilton Higher Education Center proposal is in compliance, both in letter and in spirit, of Regents policy on higher education centers (Policy 220 – Higher education centers).  Moreover, the BVCC-SC expresses concern with respect to accountability and commitment not to mention comprehensiveness and affordability regarding  higher education centers, as characterized by Regents policy, in comparison to public community colleges.
     Turning first to issues of policy compliance, the BVCC-SC notes that under Regents policy 220, Higher education centers, Board Policy, item 2, the programming objective of higher education centers is for-credit offerings: "Credit courses shall be offered at locations remote from the main campus through . . . an approved higher education center . . ."  Moreover, such credit offerings must lead to a degree:  "A higher education center shall offer a structured, coherent educational program leading to a degree" (Regents policy 220, Higher education centers, Guidelines, item 1).  The BVCC-SC concludes that the UM's intention of offering non-credit programming, from community and continuing education to adult basic literacy services and developmental coursework, does not conform to Regents policy governing the scope of higher education center programming.
     Also pertaining to programming scope is item 1 under Procedures, Regent policy 220, Higher education centers.  Here the text reads, "Any program offered at a higher education center must be within the approved mission and authorized programs of the institution."  Although the mission statement of the UM-Missoula is broad and its list of authorized programs is long, the BVCC-SC finds no evidence that the UM-Missoula currently offers non-credit workforce development courses, community education courses, adult basic education courses, and developmental education courses to the extent, depth, and level of accessibility as is implied by the UM's Higher Education Center proposal for Hamilton.  Again, the BVCC-SC finds the UM proposal to be in violation of Regents policy 220 with respect to the scope of programming it may provide at a higher education center.
     Turning next to the spirit of Regents policy 220, the BVCC-SC is struck by the policy's emphasis on consultation, cooperation, and non-duplication with respect to institutional relations and programming.  Excerpts from the higher education center policy make clear that service duplication is to be avoided and that relationships are critical:

Units of the Montana University System will not offer degree programs that unnecessarily duplicate existing programs offered by a tribal, community or independent college in its immediate community. (Regents policy 220, Higher education centers, Board Policy, item 2)

Prior to proposing a new program at a Center, the MUS campus will consult with the local campus, provide it a written copy of the proposed new program and request input. (Regents policy 220, Higher education centers, Board Policy, item 3)

[proposal's to establish or modify higher education centers shall address:] The center or program's possible significant adverse impact on other Montana postsecondary educational institutions. (Regents policy 220, Higher education centers, Procedures, item 3.e)

Montana University System institutions are encouraged to establish cooperative programs with independent, tribal and community colleges as appropriate. (Regents policy 220, Higher education centers, Guidelines, item 2.c)

Granted, the policy references relations and programming with respect to existing institutions, however it cannot be denied that the UM's proposal comes on the heels of an existing local initiative to establish an alternative institution, namely a public community college.  Given the spirit of the above policy statements, the BVCC-SC wonders why the UM did not pursue input on its higher education center proposal from either the committee advocating the community college or from the community college's newly chosen Trustees-elect?
     From the BVCC-SC's perspective, it appears that the UM is taking advantage of a situation not anticipated by the policy—namely a concurrent effort to establish services via a different (and potentially competing) institutional model—and attempting to push its own proposal through to actualization before the alternative proposal, which should have priority as both a locally driven effort and a voter-approved effort, can run its course, as defined and restricted by statute.  The timing and management of the UM's proposal as well as the sense of urgency expressed in the proposal—authorization requested "no later than May 2008"—is non-collaborative and self-serving, which is incompatible with the BVCC-SC's reading of the intent of Regents policy 220.
     For the record, if UM administrators had asked the community college committee or the Trustees-elect for input on their Hamilton Higher Education Center proposal, both the committee and the Trustees-elect would have embraced the chance to partner with the UM to provide upper division degree offerings, which would compliment rather than duplicate the adult learning services to be offered by the proposed community college.
     Finally, the BVCC-SC, in weighing the pros and cons of a higher education center against those of a community college, applies the same comparative framework which it used in its prior assessment of the UM-COT proposal.  Again issues of comprehensive and affordable services and accountable and committed administration come into play.  Moreover, a new comparative measure—accessibility—is added to the framework. 
     With respect to comprehensive services, it has already been noted that according to Regent policy 220, the objective of a higher education center is to provide for-credit services leading to a degree.  With respect to affordable services, the UM, as was the case with the UM-COT, has no local taxing authority, again leaving tuition wholly at the mercy of the state legislature.  Moreover, in general, tuition at the state's four-year institutions is considerably higher than tuition at the state's two-year institutions.  During the 2006-07 academic year, a full-time lower division semester at the UM-Missoula cost $2489, while the same full-time lower division semester at Flathead Valley Community College cost $1174.
     Keeping with the topic of student costs, the BVCC-SC notes that under item 4, Procedures, Regents policy 220, Higher education centers, the text reads, "Programs of study offered through higher education centers are subject to the fiscal practices set forth in the Regents Distributed Learning policy 303.7 under Fiscal practices, items 1-3."  The fiscal practices found under Regents policy 303.7 maintain that higher education centers cannot be run at a loss.  Given this qualification, centers must either generate sufficient enrollment to meet instructional costs via a combination of the state FTE (fulltime equivalent student) subsidy and the sponsoring campus' student tuition/fees, or university administrators can propose a restricted enrollment model whereby a center's instructional costs are met exclusive of state funding via grants, contracts, student tuition, and/or student fees.  The BVCC-SC asks the UM which model it is intending for the proposed Hamilton Higher Education Center, as such would significantly affect the affordability of the center's programs.
     Regarding accountability and commitment, the BVCC-SC also finds higher education centers to be wanting when compared to community colleges.  Accountability at higher education centers is essentially externally controlled with formal local input limited to a local coordinator who is designated by the center's sponsoring institution's president.  The duties of the local coordinator are "to handle administrative arrangements and to act as a contact person" (Regents policy 220, Higher education centers, Procedures, item 2).  Although it is specified that the local coordinator "must be available in the community in which the center is located" (Regents policy 220, Higher education centers, Procedures, item 2), there is no mention of local input on the hiring decision of the coordinator.  The BVCC-SC wonders if Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission (EEOC) law is applicable in the designation of the local coordinator.
     Concerning curricula accountability, decisions of for-credit programming scope are made by the sponsoring institution's president in conjunction with Regent recommendation.  Decisions of programming quality are the responsibility of the Commissioner of Higher Education and the sponsoring institution's president.  Issues of programming timeliness and responsiveness are not addressed by Regents policy 220.
     As to institutional commitment, this factor is also externally controlled and without guarantees.  MUS presidents and chancellors plan and propose centers, Regents authorize centers, and the Commissioner of Higher Education evaluates "higher education center[s] after the third year of operation and periodically thereafter" (Regents policy 220, Higher education centers, Procedures, item 7).  Notably, if the Commissioner of Higher Education finds that a "center is not meeting its original or modified objectives, the Commissioner may recommended to the Regents that it be discontinued" (Regents policy 220, Higher education centers, Procedures, item 7).  When all is said and done, there are no legally recognized, locally-controlled mechanisms to ensure the committed presence of adult learning services with respect to higher education centers.
     The last comparative measure examined is accessibility.  When the BVCC-EC assessed the UM-COT Hamilton extension proposal, the issue of accessibility in terms of admission policy was essentially immaterial, for both the state's COTs and community colleges in effect operate "open door" policies, with admissions requirements minimal at each type of institution.  However, when the institutional comparison is changed to contrast the UM-Missoula with a community college, admissions policy diverges significantly and the accessibility measure become significant.  While traditional student admission at a community college involves a high school or GED diploma, traditional student admission at the UM-Missoula involves ACT/SAT transcripts (with required minimum scores), high school transcripts (with required class ranking), and a minimum writing proficiency prerequisite.  The enrollment barriers for students interested in UM-Missoula programming at the proposed Hamilton Higher Education Center would be considerable in comparison to the "open door" enrollment approach of a community college.  Student accessibility, therefore, is seen as markedly different between a UM-Missoula Hamilton Higher Education Center and a community college.
     For a review of the community college and UM-Missoula higher education center comparison, see the chart below.

Comparative Framework for Weighing Institutional Pros and Cons

     In summary, an examination of Regents policy on higher education centers indicates that much of the programming the UM is proposing to offer at its Hamilton Higher Education Center does not comply with the programming scope of higher education centers as defined in current policy.  Moreover, in its pursuit of a higher education center in Hamilton, the UM has ignored the higher education center policy directive with respect to local relationships and service duplication.  Finally, after assessing measures of comprehensiveness, affordability, accountability, commitment, and accessibility, the BVCC-SC finds that a community college would better serve the needs of the residents of the Bitterroot Valley than the currently proposed UM Hamilton Higher Education Center.  However, it is noted that a UM Higher Education Center which complimented the mission of the proposed BVCC by offering upper division and graduate level programming would be a most welcomed institutional partnership.

Click here for the full text of the Regents Policy on Higher Education Centers
Click here for the full text of the Regents Policy on Distributed Learning

BVCC Steering Committee Response to Regents' Comments on
UM's Higher Education Center Proposal

     The BVCC-SC agrees with Regent Morrison-Hamilton's comments that due to the success of higher education centers in Helena, Great Falls, and Lewistown that the UM's Hamilton Higher Education Center proposal is worth investigating.  With respect to Helena and Great Falls, the higher education centers in these communities were established to compliment the mission of the communities' already existing colleges of technology.  The UM-Helena and MSU-Great Falls higher education centers represent the type of higher education center which the BVCC-SC would recommend that the UM propose to establish in partnership with the proposed Bitterroot Valley Community College.
     Considering the stand alone Lewistown Higher Education Center (known as the Central Montana Education Center), the BVCC-SC notes that this center was established as the result of a community-initiated effort, with community advocates initially focused on the local delivery of an accredited nursing program.  The Central Montana Education Center is sponsored by MSU-Northern and partners with the local non-profit Educational Opportunities for Central Montana (EOCM).  Offerings at the center include: "general education core requirements, a transferable Associate of Arts degree, an associates or bachelors degree in Nursing and course work leading to a bachelors or masters degree in Education" (Montana Board of Regents, Agenda item, September 21-23, 2005).  Notably, the EOCM has been responsible for obtaining and funding the renovation of the building which is the primary location for the center.
     If the adult learning needs and the related economy and demography of the Bitterroot Valley were identical to those of the Lewistown area, the BVCC-SC would perhaps advocate for a similar stand-alone center in the Hamilton area.  However, such is not the case.  The Bitterroot Valley is home to over 40,000 people, while Fergus County has a population slightly over 11,000.  Moreover, the Bitterroot Valley is comprised of multiple communities, with no single community home to a majority of county residents, while in Fergus County over 50 percent of county residents live in the immediate Lewistown area.  Too, the economy of the Bitterroot is now driven by service and knowledge sector jobs rather than extraction and agricultural jobs, while Fergus County has retained its agricultural heritage.  Due to these factors and others, adult learning needs in Ravalli County are wide-ranging with the gamut of credit and non-credit services required and with affordability, accessibility, and accountability community priorities.  The Bitterroot Valley requires a more substantial and permanent institution under local control and management than is offered by a stand-alone higher education center.  Furthermore, such an institution is what is desired of the local voters.  Just as Lewistown residents ultimately attained the institutional type of their choice, namely a higher education center, so the residents of the Bitterroot Valley should ultimately attain what they have favored, namely a community college.
     As a final note, although the BVCC-SC respects Regent Morrison-Hamilton's comments concerning the UM-COT part-time Ravalli County outreach coordinator and Lewistown's lack of such a coordinator, the BVCC-SC wishes to remind Regent Morrison-Hamilton that it is because the UM-COT part-time Ravalli County outreach coordinator position resulted in the delivery of essentially no local services, that the BVCC-SC came into existence.  Just as Lewistown residents realized that in order to bring services to their area they would have to take the initiative, so it was similarly realized by Bitterroot Valley residents.  Since August of 2005, when the initial members of the now BVCC-SC started to coalesce into an advocacy group, literally dozens of local citizens have donated hundreds of hours of personal time and thousands of dollars of personal and solicited funds in order to bring about the provision of locally available, comprehensive adult learning services.  The BVCC-SC is proud of its grassroots volunteer effort to bring quality and committed adult education to its community, just as the local Lewistown adult education advocates are understandably proud of their efforts.

Press Coverage of the UM's Higher Education Center Proposal

Higher ed options stir up controversy [pdf] by John Halbert, Miles City Star, Thursday, May 31, 2007
Bitterroot Valley/UM plans concern college backers by Betsy Cohen, The Missoulian, Friday, June 8, 2007
UM plans for Hamilton disingenuous by Steven I. Levine, Stevensville (letter to editor), The Missoulian, Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Community college by David D. Werner, Missoula (letter to editor), Ravalli Republic, Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Higher Education by Daryl Cooper, Darby (letter to editor), Ravalli Republic, Thursday, August 23, 2007

For more information call (406) 821-4631 or e-mail us at

BVCC Trustees-elect
P.O. Box 435
Hamilton, Montana 59840

© 2006 Jeannette Neaves. All rights reserved.