2000-2001 Motions

September 20, 2000 Motions

Motion to Renew Senate Recommendation for Recovered Costs Distribution was made H. Onsrud and seconded by K. Hermansen.

Last year, the Faculty Senate proposed a long-term plan for the redistribution of recovered costs, which the University of Maine Administration neither adopted nor responded to in detail. Instead, the Administration retained the earlier draught plan from which the Senate’s Committee on Research and Public Service had begun its deliberations. The Administration’s plan was viewed inadequate in addressing how the University of Maine distributes indirect cost charges generated through research grants back to sub-units of the University in a manner that provides sufficient incentives to the university community to increase flows of indirect research funds to the University. The core substance of our previous Faculty Senate motion was not addressed.

Therefore, the Senate asks the Committee on Research and Public Service to renew their study to develop a plan that will distribute indirect cost charges generated through research grants back to sub-units of the University in a manner that provides sufficient incentives to the university community to substantially increase flows of indirect research funds to the University. The Senate asks that the Committee on Research and Public Service report back by 13 December meeting.

Discussion: None

Motion passed as stated.

Motion to Request Significant Participation in the Reassessment of Intellectual Property Rights Policies at the University of Maine System Level made by H. Onsrud and seconded by K. Hermansen.

Last spring, the Faculty Senate became apprised of a document issued by the University of Maine System Office that spelled out an Intellectual Property Rights Policy that affects the faculty directly. The committee creating this document had little input from the Orono campus, which, as the flagship campus of the system, produces the most research and originates the greatest number of distance education courses via the combination of ITV and the World-Wide Web.

Therefore, the Faculty Senate asks the Committee on Research and Public Service to study the question of Intellectual Property Rights, to explore creation of a policy document for the University of Maine that might be used as an exemplar for the University of Maine System policy, and to request significant representation on the University of Maine System committee writing the system-wide policy. The Senate

asks that the Committee on Research and Public Service report back by 13 December meeting.

Discussion: None

Motion passed as stated.

Motion to Assess and Explore Continuing the Class Book Project made by P. Bauschatz and seconded by K. Hermansen.

The Class Book Project of the University of Maine is presently in its ninth year. It will conclude in its tenth year, academic 2001-02. Since the project was initiated by a resolution of the Faculty Senate, it is appropriate that the project be evaluated by the senate prior to its conclusion, if the project is to be continued beyond the tenth year. Since books are regularly chosen two years before their utilization, the decision to continue or discontinue the project must be made in academic 2000-01. Propaedeutic to this decision, a consideration of the value of the project should be completed in the fall semester of 2000. To this end, IT IS MOVED that the Academic Affairs Committee of the Faculty Senate undertake an evaluation of the Class Book Project and make a recommendation to the full senate for termination or continuation before the end of Fall 2000.

Discussion: None

Motion passed as stated.

October 25, 2000 Motions

Definitions of Suspension and Dismissal

The definitions of suspension and dismissal have been revised to bring them into conformity with the University of Maine System’s definitions. P. Bauschatz moved that they are adopted, and the motion was seconded by E. Peterson.

Academic Dismissal

Dismissal action is normally the final action taken when students are not making satisfactory progress toward a degree or when students readmitted after suspension show no improvement in their grade point average or otherwise fail to meet conditions set by the college.

a. The student is not normally allowed to apply for readmission.

b. The action is posted to the official academic record.

c. A hold is placed on the student record to preclude enrollment at all UMS institutions.

Academic Suspension

Academic suspension indicates that a student is separated from the University for a minimum of one semester. A student must file an application for readmission. Suspension is the usual action when a student fails to make normal progress toward graduation. Situations that lead to academic suspension are any one of the following:

a. Students receive a semester grade-point average at or below 1.0;

b. Students continued on academic probation fail to meet conditions as defined by the college dean, program director, or school director;

c. First-year students (0-23 hrs) acquire an accumulative average less than 1.50 at the end of the first two semesters; Sophomores (24-53 his) acquire an accumulative average of 1.7 or less; Juniors (54-83 his) acquire an accumulative average of 1.8 or less; Seniors (84+ hrs) acquire an accumulative average of 1.9 or less.

Regulations under c. above also apply to transfer students. Exceptions may be made for students who have earned a semester average of at least 2.0 while on probation but have not achieved the required minimum accumulative average (Faculty Senate 3/31/93).

Provisional Continuation

First-semester students who are experiencing academic difficulties may be placed in a provisional continuation status. This intermediate status requires the student to discuss her or his academic record with the associate dean of the college, program director, or school director to determine whether the student will be placed on academic probation, suspension, or dismissal.

Academic Activity during Suspension/Dismissal

Students under dismissal or suspension may not be admitted as matriculated students at any university in the University of Maine System.

Students may request permission from their associate dean or program or school director to take one or two courses as a non-degree candidate at any UMS institution while they are under suspension.

The motion was passed.

November 29, 2000 Motions

Definitions of Suspension and Dismissal

Academic Dismissal

a. The student is not normally allowed to apply for readmission.

b. The action is posted to the official academic record.

c. A hold is placed on the student record to preclude enrollment at all UMS institutions.

Academic Suspension

a. Students receive a semester grade-point average at or below 1.0;

b. Students continued on academic probation fail to meet conditions as defined by the college dean, program director, or school director;

Provisional Continuation

Academic Activity during Suspension/Dismissal

Students under dismissal or suspension may not be admitted as matriculated students at any university in the University of Maine System.

Students may request permission from their associate dean or program or school director to take one or two courses as a non-degree candidate at any UMS institution while they are under suspension.

The motion was passed.

December 13, 2000 Motions

No Motions voted on

January xx, 2001 Motions

UMPSA Contract Negotiations Support: J. Maddaus made the motion as written, pointing out that there were three fact finders appointed through the Maine Labor Relations Board. Seconded by J. Horan.

Preamble

Professional staff of the university perform very important functions at the University of Maine , but are not being adequately and equitably recognized for their contributions in contract negotiations. The University of Maine Professional Staff Association (UMPSA) represents 1158 employees system-wide, and over 500 on this campus, as of December 2000. Negotiations between UMS and UMPSA have dragged since April 7, 1999 , over what was to have been a two-year contract, and still the contract issues have not been resolved. Fact finders have made recommendations which UMPSA has agreed to accept, but which UMS has refused. UMS persists in offering UMPSA less than what has been negotiated for other units and for state employees, despite a special legislative appropriation of $4 million to settle outstanding contracts (see comparisons below). The ability of the university to attract and retain highly qualified people for professional positions may be compromised by the failure of UMS to agree to an equitable contract.

Salary increase:

UMS offer to UMPSA: 7.5%

UMPSA position prior to fact finding: 9.0%

Fact finder recommendation: 8.5%

AFUM settlement: 8.0%

ACSUM settlement: 7.875%

Service & Maintenance settlement: 7.5%-10.5% depending on steps

Non-represented: 7.5%

State employee settlement: 9.0%

Technical college settlement: 9.0%

Health insurance premiums:

Single Single+1 Family

UMS offer:                                               379.92 581.64 790.56
UMPSA position:                                          332.64 433.00 593.00
Fact finder recommendation:                             332.64 510.00 750.00
AFUM settlement:                                        332.64 499.20 739.20
ACSUM settlement:                                       332.00 364.82 445.32
Service & Maintenance settlement:                   332.00 364.82 445.32

Note: UMPSA believes the fact finders’ recommendations of health insurance premiums were based on inaccurate information provided by UMS and that is why they are being asked to pay as much as they are–more than any other unit.

Salary Equity:

UMS offer: Nothing
UMPSA position: Find and fix equity problems
Fact finder recommendation: Fix equity problems by 12/31/02

Salary system:

UMS offer: Do a study
UMPSA position: Implement a system
Fact finder recommendation: Study other systems with UMPSA

input, report by 12/31/01 , negotiate, implement

Motion

The Faculty Senate endorses an immediate, fair and equitable settlement of the UMPSA contract in accordance with the fact finders’ recommendations, and asks the President of the University of Maine to represent the University in support of such a settlement.

Discussion: This was headed toward arbitration – is it there yet? No.

The motion was passed.

End of Semester Grade Due Date: K. Hutchinson put forward this motion. In terms of rules that are in place (i.e. 1983 faculty handbook), it states that grades are due one week from the final exam. It doesn’t address term papers or art projects or the consequences if you don’t get them in on time. The Faculty Senate has never addressed or changed these rules. This is a timely moment for this discussion, given the current revision process for the faculty handbook. K. Hutchinson contacted Alison Cox and Doug Gelinas, who agreed that we could go back to the one-week timetable from before, now that we have the additional week in December. Seconded by J. McClymer

Preamble

The Faculty of the University of Maine strives to provide its students with the highest quality education possible. There are many elements that go into the educational process that effect its quality, such as attention to detail in class preparation, attention to changes in the discipline, attention to student reactions and questions, attention to students. There are, similarly, many ways by which progress in learning can be measured, such as examinations, discussions, reading assignments, term papers, laboratory reports, creative works. To give the students of The University of Maine a quality education requires time. To give them a fair measure of their progress and success also requires time. It requires not only the time put into a well thought out examination/evaluation procedure but also the time to fairly assess the results of that procedure. To do less would be to do disservice to our students particularly those students who similarly strive to obtain the most of their educational experience.

In recent years, under a directive of questionable authority, faculty has received a memorandum from the administration at the end of semester stating that final grades are due three working days after the final exam for their class or classes. This time interval was apparently set to accommodate the need to inform, in a timely fashion, those students who are to be dismissed from the University. It does not, however, allow for the fair and thorough examination and grading process deserved by all students. This is particularly true for the upper level or advanced courses, the ones most likely to involve more complex exam questions (problem solving and essay questions), creative works, or term papers or writing assignments.

The Faculty Handbook of 1983 states in Section 6.6 Final Grade Reports:“final grade reports are required to be in the Registrar’s Office within one week from the time the final examination is administered.” The Handbook is clearly in need of revision, a process now underway. However, until the Handbook is revised the 1983 version remains the existing rulebook for faculty. There is no evidence of the Faculty senate ever taking action to change the above rule, either on its own or at the request of the administration. It is, then, this rule that is in place and established the time for final grade reports.

It should be noted that even the existing rule, though providing the time for a more complete and fairer examination process, does not address the issue of due date for final grades for those courses in which students are submitting other works, such as term papers, art projects or laboratory reports during or at the end of the final exam week.

Motion

Therefore, in recognition of the desire of faculty to provide students with a process that fairly and completely evaluations their educational experience, and in recognition of the conflicting information faculty have been receiving regarding the due date for final grades, it is moved:

1. That the Faculty Senate, by their vote for this motion, reaffirm both the due date for reporting final grades and their control over the decision process that changes that schedule; and

2. That the Handbook Committee, as part of the handbook amendment process, be directed by the Faculty Senate to re-examine the issue of due date for final grade reports, including providing a schedule for final grade reports for those courses in which students submit final reports, projects, term papers, etc. during the final exam week, either in addition to a final exam or instead of a final exam.

Discussion

K. March: The current draft of the revised handbook does not agree with this one week due date. She read the current draft and cautioned us to keep in mind that this is only a draft and the committee would welcome faculty input on this and will extend its purview to create/suggest new deadline, address gaps in existing policy rather than simply edit existing. D. Gelinas: The whole process of review of documents before sending suspension/dismissal and the right of appeal is lengthy and a lot has to go on before classes begin. Please keep it in mind when deciding how much time to allow for grade due dates. R. Cook feels it’s good to remind people of these requirements, but he doesn’t feel the administration should be responsible if students who are candidates for dismissal or suspension decide to begin the spring semester.

It was a VP for Academic Affairs who set the current deadlines because of the process required. Student records agreed to the terms of this motion. K. March says the Faculty Senate constitution states that the Faculty Senate will consider administration needs when setting policy in this regard.

The motion was passed unanimously.

Ad-Hoc Committee for Fostering Interdisciplinary Studies: O. Smith put forth a motion to form a committee to review interdisciplinary studies.

Motion to form a committee to review interdisciplinary studies initiatives

Preamble

Whereas interdisciplinary initiatives are an increasingly important aspect of developments in post-secondary education in the 21st century.

Whereas there are many significant discussions of the nature and form of interdisciplinary studies taking place at a state and national level.

Whereas there are several nascent as well as some established interdisciplinary initiatives at the University of Maine .

Whereas there has been no general consideration of such initiatives and their role and place in the pedagogical and structural frames of the University of Maine .

Be it moved that the Faculty senate establish an ad hoc committee to review current interdisciplinary studies programs and explore how we might encourage future interdisciplinary initiatives at the University of Maine .

The motion was passed.

February 28, 2001 Motions

Motion in Support of Adoption of the document titled “University of Maine System Statement of Policy Governing Patents and Copyrights” H. Onsrud read aloud the proposed motion (below), pointing out that D. Humphrey worked with a committee of the administration in drafting the document, and that the motion comes from the Senate Research & Public Policy Committee.

Background

A committee of the administration of the University of Maine recently completed a draft of a document titled “University of Maine System Statement of Policy Governing Patents and Copyrights” (Version dated2/27/01 ). The document was circulated to all elected members of the University of Maine Faculty Senate and was reviewed explicitly by the Research and Public Service Committee of the Faculty Senate.

Whereas the document appropriately and equitably balances the interests of the public, administration, students, faculty of the University of Maine ,

Whereas the document positions the University, faculty and students for advancing and taking advantage of new media and course delivery opportunities, and

Whereas the policy provides the necessary incentives and protections to encourage the discovery and development of new knowledge and its application for the public benefit,

Be it resolved that,

Motion

The University of Maine Faculty Senate strongly supports the adoption of the policy document in its entirety f or the University of Maine subject to a limited period of further comment and review by faculty, students, and the administration or, if appropriate, supports adoption by the entire University of Maine System .

March 28, 2001 Motions

Domestic Partner Employment Facilitation: J. Kuhns-Hastings brought forward this motion from the University Environment Committee

Preamble: The Faculty Senate recognizes the importance of facilitating dual-career campus community couples. Increasingly, such facilitation is necessary in order for departments and schools to be successful in their recruitment and retention efforts. We, the Faculty Senate, note that dual career couples will enrich the campus milieu. While we recognize the Opportunity Hire Program, we also recognize that it is not adequately publicized for the university community.

Because dual-career partnerships typically involve employment needs and/or opportunities across units, university-level policy is required.

Motion: The Faculty Senate requests that the President of the University of Maine appoint a committee whose membership is comprised of at least half faculty members, to develop and make public a policy relating to the facilitation of employment of dual-career couples in matters of faculty retention and recruitment, and that University resources related to that policy be made equally available to all units on campus.

Proposed Amendment to the Constitution

Section 9. Evaluation of UMaine administrators. The Faculty Senate, acting through the Executive Committee chaired by the President of the Faculty Senate, shall conduct faculty evaluations of UMaine administrators, in consultation with the President of the University.

J. Maddaus made the above motion, pointing out that it requires a 2/3 vote of approval from the Faculty Senate and must then be submitted to the faculty at large, which also requires a 2/3 vote for approval in order for it to be adopted.

The amendment was approved, with 47 votes in favor, zero against, and two abstentions.

Definitions of Faculty, Units, Programs of Study

P. Bauschatz went over wording changes from the draft motion discussed at the elected members meeting. The motion now reads as follows.

Motion: In order to clarify policies for hiring and evaluating faculty, it is MOVED that the University of Maine adopt the following definitions and procedures:

1.) All courses taught at the University of Maine are taught by faculty (or by Teaching Assistants enrolled in advanced degree programs and directly supervised by faculty.)

2.) All faculty teaching courses, full time or part-time, are appointed according to criteria established in the department, division, or appropriate unit in which the faculty member teaches and in which the courses are taught.

3.) An appropriate unit at the University of Maine is a department, division, school, institute, or college, maintaining for the purpose of evaluation, reappointment, and promotion, regular approved procedures for forming peer committees. The unit offers an approved program of study leading to an academic degree or, in the case of support programs or institutes, a program of study leading to matriculation in a degree-granting program.

4.) A peer, as here defined, has full-time faculty status (a unit member according to the AFUM contract) and is tenured or is on a tenure track.

5.) Requests to hire faculty are initiated by the appropriate department, division, or other appropriate unity (as described above) and are approved through regular academic channels, culminating with approval from the Provost. Members of search committees named by the department, division, or other appropriate unit are faculty members as defined in items 2-4, above. Additional members of search committees may be non-faculty members, if such members are approved by the peer committee of the unit.

6.) In some cases, faculty teach courses in more than one program of study and are appointed in more than one department, division, or appropriate unit. Such appointments are approved by all of the interested units and the subsequent academic channels, culminating with approval from the Provost. Such faculty are evaluated by a peer committee whose makeup is determined by the standing peer committees of the interested academic units.

7.) Some faculty have adjunct or cooperating status: that is, they hold non-academic appointments inside or outside the university but have expertise making them qualified to teach. Such faculty are also appointed and evaluated according to the procedures outlined above.

8.) When time constrains the implementation of the hiring procedures outlined in 5.), above, emergency appointments may be made administratively (according to Article 7.3 of the AFUM contract). Such appointments do not normally extend beyond one academic year. Faculty so appointed are evaluated by procedures adopted by the relevant unit’s peer committee.

9.) Appointment of faculty with joint research/teaching status are approved by both the Vice President for Research and the Provost. Such faculty are subject to the procedures outlined in 2.) 5.), above, and they are evaluated by procedures adopted by the relevant unit’s peer committee.

April 25, 2001 Motions

Faculty Appointments: Proposed policy
Original motion:
Proposed policy for a vote: FACULTY APPOINTMENTS – Submitted by Peter Hoff and Robert Kennedy (distributed at the full Senate meeting on 2/27/02, and previously discussed by Elected Members Committee on 3/6/02 and 4/10/02)

Effective immediately, all regular, tenure-track faculty appointments must be made in an existing academic department. In the case of the College of Education and Human Development where there are no departments, appointments are made in the College. Further, the standard procedures for formulating a peer committee, as addressed in departmental promotion and tenure criteria and, if appropriate, criteria for joint appointment, need to be followed for all faculty appointments.

The Executive Vice President/Provost will begin discussions immediately with the appropriate deans to secure regular departmental affiliations for all tenure-track faculty currently holding interdisciplinary appointments.
This was moved by Howard Patterson and seconded by Christa Schwintzer.

Amendment:

An amendment was offered by Bill Farthing to add “new” between “all” and “regular”, and to add a line saying that the department must approve appointment by a majority vote of the tenured and tenure-track faculty. This was seconded by Bryan Pearce.

Discussion of amendment:

[Farthing:] Have already discussed the problem existing in the psych dept. Could avoid this in future by voting when admin might decide to hire someone, then place them in a dept.

Vote on amendment: 23 in favor, 8 opposed, 4 abstained. Amendment passed.

Amendment:

Irving Kornfeld offered another amendment: substitute “department or school” for “department”. Second by Andy Thomas.

Discussion of amendment:

[Dianne Hoff:] Asked about whether voting in departmentless college would be for whole college. John answered that the College of Education and Human Development operates like a department.

[Owen Smith:] Point of discussion: Given amendment language of first paragraph, the second paragraph is inappropriate.

[John Maddaus:] They are two separate issues.

Vote on amendment: 33 in favor, no opposed, 5 abstained. Amendment passed.

The Parliamentarian advised that we need to amend again for the second paragraph.

Bill Farthing so moved, Mike Howard seconded.

Vote: 27 in favor, 7 opposed, 5 abstained. Amendment passed.

Amended motion:
Effective immediately, all new, regular, tenure-track faculty appointments must be made in an existing academic department or school. In the case of the College of Education and Human Development where there are no departments, appointments are made in the College. Further, the standard procedures for formulating a peer committee, as addressed in departmental promotion and tenure criteria and, if appropriate, criteria for joint appointment, need to be followed for all faculty appointments. The department or school must approve the appointment by a majority vote of the tenured and tenure-track faculty.

The Executive Vice President/Provost will begin discussions immediately with the appropriate deans to secure regular departmental affiliations for all tenure-track faculty currently holding interdisciplinary appointments. The department or school must approve the appointment by a majority vote of the tenured and tenure-track faculty.

VOTE ON MOTION 33 in favor, none opposed, 5 abstained. Motion passed.

Peer Committees for Joint Appointments: Proposed Policy

Proposed Policy for a vote: PEER COMMITTEES FOR JOINT APPOINTMENTS – Submitted by Peter Hoff and Robert Kennedy (distributed at the full Senate meeting on 2/27/02, and previously discussed by Elected Members Committee on 3/6/02 and 4/10/02; new sentence added in bold in the handout)

All tenure-track faculty with joint appointments must have a home with an academic department. For tenure and promotion of research faculty, joint peer committees consisting of peers from the research unit and the home academic department need to be appointed by the academic department chair in consultation with the center director. No less than 50% of the joint committee shall be from the academic department. The peer committee makes its report to the department chair and the director of the research unit. The director forwards his/her recommendation to the Vice President for research. The department chair forwards his/her recommendation to the dean. In turn, the Dean and the Vice President for Research send their recommendations to the Executive Price President/Provost. After review and discussion by the Administrative Promotion and Tenure Review Committee, the EVP/Provost forwards his/her recommendation to the President for action.
Motion was made by Bill Farthing; Kathleen March seconded.

Amendment:

[Farthing:] In view of the changes in previous policy, first sentence should be eliminated. He proposed this as an amendment. Ed Ferguson seconded.

Discussion of amendment:

[Dana Humphrey:] If we eliminate the first sentence, it would start off with “For tenure and promotion of research faculty”, which would make the policy apply to all research faculty, and that was not the intent.

[Provost Kennedy:] There are a couple of operative words in first sentence – if we lose words “joint appointments”, that loses what it applies to.

[Farthing:] Proposed that we change the title, and modify the second line to read “tenure track research faculty”.

[Parliamentarian:] This has to be a separate motion.

[Farthing:] Can the amendment be withdrawn?

[Parliamentarian:] No, it has already been seconded.

Vote on amendment: 2 in favor, 29 opposed, 7 abstained. Amendment fails.

Kim McKeage pointed out (in the form of an amendment) that the third line should read “Vice President” rather than “Price President”. This does not require an amendment, and John Maddaus assured the Senate that the typo will be corrected.

[Ed Ferguson:] We still need to address Dana’s point about research faculty – the first line stands alone, so we still need an amendment to only apply to tenure-track faculty.

Amendment:

[Mike Howard:] Can we include a change to the title as an amendment? [Parliamentarian agreed.] Howard so moved. There was a second by Don Hayes.

Discussion of amendment:

[Bill Farthing:] Is this supposed to apply to everyone with joint appointments?

[Bob Rice:] When this was drafted, it was the operational practice for research faculty, and Dan Dwyer drafted it. It went through many drafts, but the word “research” remained. He thinks it applies to all joint appointments.

[Keith Hutchison:] So if someone has a 25% appointment in one dept, 75% in another, they’d have 50–50 representation in each department?

[Provost Kennedy:] It could be.

[John Maddaus:] There are references to “research” in the document, so there would have to be some changes throughout.

It was pointed out that it could be tabled.

Motion to table:

Bob Rice so moved, Kim McKeage seconded.

Vote on tabling: 32 in favor, no opposed, one abstained. Motion is tabled.

Motion: Solid Waste Minimization Committee
Motion for a vote, TO CREATE A SOLID WASTE MINIMIZATION COMMITTEE, submitted by the Finance and Institutional Planning Committee
Preamble

During recent years earlier advances in waste minimization were lost. Currently the University is recycling only 39% of mixed office paper and magazines (includes newspaper), 54% of cardboard, and 2% of organic cafeteria waste. Since July 1, 2001 the University has had a Sustainability Officer whose responsibilities include waste minimization. However, this one individual cannot do all the work required. At an earlier time the University had an ad hoc committee on Waste Management. In May 1999, the President Symanski sent a letter to President Hoff recommending that the Waste Committee be made permanent although the Senate had not passed a formal motion to that effect. In a letter dated 30 January 2000, President Hoff replied “Solid Waste Committee. Although there was not a formal motion on this, we concur with the sense of the Senate that the Solid Waste Committee should stand as an official committee.” At present this committee does not exist.

Motion

A Committee of the Administration known as the Solid Waste Minimization Committee should be established as soon as possible, but no later than September 2002, to work with the Sustainability Officer in finding ways to minimize production of solid waste and to maximize recycling of solid waste in a cost effective manner. Such solid waste includes but is not limited to paper, glass, metals, organic cafeteria waste, and other solid waste identified by the Sustainability Officer. The committee membership should include faculty and staff with expertise in relevant areas such as composting. The committee should have six members, one of whom is a member of the Faculty Senate. It should be appointed by the President in consultation with the Sustainability Officer and the President of the Faculty Senate.

Motion was introduced by Christa Schwintzer. Scott Wilkerson, the Campus Sustainability Officer, was introduced. Christa noted that there was such a committee on an ad hoc basis at one point, and Wilkerson would like the advice of a more permanent committee. The intent is that solid waste is only one responsibility of the Sustainability Officer, but it makes sense for this area to have a committee, even though President Hoff is suggesting broader committee in addition.

Motion was seconded by Roger King.

Discussion

[Gregory White:] He questioned restricting this to solid waste management and asked if it is feasible for this committee to look at energy, etc., as well? He does not see a compelling reason to limit the scope.

[Schwintzer:] The logic is that the President is planning to appoint a larger committee (announced yesterday). The idea of this is that this committee would advise on this particular subset of problems.

[White:] Given that this was announced yesterday, is this the best idea?

[Schwintzer:] The Committee did discuss this, and decided to proceed.

[Wilkerson:] He said he could absolutely use the assistance and guidance. He does not know what the makeup of the new committee [that the President announced] will be like. He envisions it will look at energy, green building issues, etc. He sees smaller groups feeding information to the larger group. He does not see them as being competing or overlapping, but more as feeding each other.
Vote: 26 in favor, one opposed, two abstained. Motion passes.

May 9, 2001 Motions

Motion to Thank Michael Grillo for His Outstanding Leadership of Faculty Senate in the 2000-2001 Academic Year

Whereas: Michael Grillo has led the Senate through a lengthy process of consideration of the university’s five-year strategic plan; and

Whereas: Michael Grillo has led the Senate and especially the Executive Committee through the first ever campus-wide faculty evaluations of UMaine administrators, following procedures newly adopted in April 2000, and dealing with significant concerns in several cases; and

Whereas: Michael Grillo has established and pursued an agenda of addressing complex and unresolved issues related to the definitions of faculty and related issues; and

Whereas: Michael Grillo has established direct communication between the Senate and the University’s Board of Visitors; and

Whereas: Michael Grillo has encouraged and supported a variety of other actions to come to and be addressed by the Senate, such as: clarifying faculty intellectual property rights, updating of the Faculty Handbook, strengthening first year experience courses, reconsidering general education requirements, extending the class book project, clarifying the minimum class enrollment policy, finding an alternative location for display of Hudson Museum artifacts, monitoring university finances, supporting a fair and equitable resolution of the UMPSA contract deadlock, and creating committees to examine interdisciplinary programs and university policy with respect to employment of domestic partners; and

Whereas: Michael Grillo has demonstrated clear direction, persistence, good humor and positive working relationships with colleagues and administrators throughout the process of addressing these important issues;

Therefore, through this motion,

The Faculty Senate thanks Michael Grillo for his outstanding leadership of Senate meetings and Executive Committee meetings, as well as on countless other occasions during the 2000-2001 academic year. Michael Grillo has carried on the traditions of his predecessors in an exemplary manner, and has truly left the Senate and the university a better place through his efforts.

Motion to continue the study and development of the General Education requirements at the University of Maine .

Whereas the current discussions regarding General Education have raised many points that need further study and consider and,

Whereas the University of Maine must consider and develop effective general equation requirements with stated learning objectives and,

Whereas the University of Maine must develop General Education outcomes and a means of assessing them prior to its next accreditation,

Be it resolved that the General Education Special Committee be authorized to continue the work started this year in the next academic year.