Skip Navigation

Motions Passed - 2001-2002 Motions

September 26, 2001 Motions

No motions

October 24, 2001 Motions

Assignment of issues to committees

Preamble:

A number of issues have proposed for consideration and action in 2001-2002, including several issues on which the Senate took some action in 2000-2001 and on which follow-up action is deemed to be required. Following discussion at the September 2001 meetings of the Elected Members Committee and the Senate, the Executive Committee sought the guidance of the members of the Senate by asking members to prioritize a list of issues. Based on consideration of the responses received, the Executive Committee moves to assign issues to committees as follows:

Motion:

The following issues are assigned to the designated committees:

• Honors College Commission report – to Academic Affairs

• Math and writing competencies – to Academic Affairs

• Campus sustainability, energy and environment – to Finance and Institutional Planning

• Budget and capital projects – to Finance and Institutional Planning

• Faculty workloads – to Finance and Institutional Planning

• Academic space and facilities – to Finance and Institutional Planning

• Student course evaluations – to University Environment

• Student retention – to University Environment

• CED faculty advisory council – to Research and Public Service

• AA degree equivalent to general education? – to General Education Review

• Process for faculty evaluations of administrators – to Executive Committee

• Definitions of faculty, units and programs of study – to Executive Committee

• “Coaches” as a separate faculty category – to Executive Committee

Bob Rice was called upon to move motion as written; it was seconded by Howard Patterson.

Kathleen March offered a friendly amendment: That the Academic Affairs Committee consider the issue of coverage of classes when faculty are absent.

John Maddaus asked for unanimous consent. Steve Cohn asked for clarification of the amendment, at which point the parliamentarian advised seeking a second for the amendment and proceeding with discussion. The amendment was seconded by Doug Ruthven.

Discussion of amendment:

K. March said that there are times when a faculty member cannot be in class, and the issue of how the class is to be covered, or if it is covered, is vague. The committee may need to consider how this is to be done.

B. Rice asked if this would be a policy that would be included in the Faculty Handbook. K. March said that she certainly sees it as appropriate for the Handbook so that the faculty will know to do the right thing.

H. Patterson asked if she could cite an example of why we are considering this now. She responded that if a faculty member must be away for professional or health reasons, it is unclear how these courses are to be covered. It may be that there are different requirements for faculty in different colleges or departments. Whether the class needs to be taught, whether assignments can be given, whether the Internet can be used to maintain communication during absence, or a VCR can be wheeled in… There are so many variations, and there may have been people who have been perceived as not teaching their classes.

D. Ruthven indicated that this is currently handled at the department level, and that he would hate to see additional bureaucracy added when the current system seems to handle it. J. Maddaus reminded the senators that this amendment is just to send the issue to committee. D. Ruthven indicated that the issue seems to be more substantive than should be covered in an amendment. B. Pearce indicated he shared D. Ruthven’s concerns, and that this might make rules that might haunt us in the end.

O. Smith said he did not think that the request has to do with legislation, but rather with a topic to be considered, and so it is appropriate to send to Academic Affairs.

I. Kornfield called the question.

Vote on calling the question: 33 in favor, 5 opposed.

Vote on amendment: 21 in favor, 23 opposed. Amendment failed.

Discussion on main motion:

No further discussion

Vote: Unanimous save two abstentions. Motion carried.

 

Reauthorization of Ad Hoc Committee on Interdisciplinary Studies

Preamble:

The Senate created an ad hoc committee on Interdisciplinary Studies at its January 2001 meeting (see below). Raymond O’Connor conducted a number of discussions with faculty and administrators during the Spring ’01 semester to seek input on the scope and mission of the committee. This work should be continued.

Motion:

To continue the work begun in Spring semester ’01 on issues related to interdisciplinary programs, the Senate re-authorizes the ad hoc Committee on Interdisciplinary Studies for the 2001-02 academic year. The committee will look at programs involving teaching and/or research, both current and projected, in light of the University’s Strategic Plan. This committee will seek to foster interdisciplinary programs campus-wide.

Jim Warhola was asked to introduce motion, which he did. He mentioned that Raymond O’Connor (on sabbatical) has promised a report on the committee’s notes from last spring.

Second by Owen Smith.

No discussion.

Vote: passed unanimously.

November 26, 2001 Motions

No motions – meeting cancelled

December 12, 2001 Motions

1. Motion on maintenance of technology classrooms

Submitted by the Finance and Institutional Planning Committee

Preamble

Many of the larger classrooms on campus have been equipped with technology to assist in the creative and efficient presentation of lectures. Others have been outfitted as computer classrooms. The largest classrooms such as DPC 100 are used to teach several thousand students each week. Faculty spend hours preparing presentations that rely on the technology in the room – projectors, computers, microphones, etc. Staff and technicians from Information Technologies, Office of Student Records, and Facilities Management have worked hard to keep these facilities in good condition. However, at times projectors and computers fail and projectors have historically required long periods (weeks) to repair. When this has happened there have been extended periods when faculty have been frustrated in their efforts to present quality lectures and large numbers of students have not received the quality education they deserve. Many faculty have not known where to report problems or how to get them solved. Some equipment users leave the equipment so it cannot be used by those who follow. Faculty are not given advance warning of malfunctioning equipment and so cannot alter their lecture plans accordingly.

The following campus organizations share responsibility for maintenance of these facilities:

1. Information Technologies (John Gregory, Executive Director). Responsible for computers (Campus Networking, Andrew Moody, Manager) and projectors and microphones (AudioVisual Services, David Bagley, Multi-Media Specialist).

2. Faculty. Responsible for proper use of the equipment and reporting problems promptly when they occur.

3. Office of Student Records (Alison Cox, Director). Schedules classes in the lecture halls and classrooms. Also schedules other events when the rooms are not being used for classes. Responsible for making the rooms available for repairs.

4. Facilities Management (Anita Wihry, Executive Director of Institutional and Facilities Planning). Responsible for lights in the lecture halls and classrooms, for erecting and removing scaffolding (if needed for work on the projectors), and for unlocking buildings in the morning.

Motion

The overall goal will be to keep our technology-equipped teaching facilities (lecture halls, classrooms, and computer classrooms) in excellent working condition. This means that all equipment is fully functional and repairs, when needed, are made quickly (within minutes, hours, or a few days depending on the difficulty of the repair). To this end the Senate recommends that:

Information Technologies

1) Designate a single individual or office where problems can be reported. This person/office will quickly contact Audio Visual Services and/or Campus Networking as needed.

2) Place information cards on the podium with instructions for whom to call about problems and specific instructions to turn off the projectors as appropriate. Check, as needed, to ensure that the cards are still there.

3) Make repairs quickly. When computers malfunction a qualified technician will respond within minutes to minimize loss of valuable class time.

4) Keep sufficient spare parts on hand so projector bulbs and other frequently needed parts do not take weeks to obtain while the equipment cannot be used.

5) If a particular system cannot be repaired before the next class scheduled in the room, faculty will be notified so they can make adjustments to their lecture plans. Faculty who are scheduled in the room within three hours will be notified by telephone and e-mail. Faculty who are scheduled at a later time will be notified by e-mail.

6) Train faculty and other users of the equipment in the particular systems in the room they will use.

7) Develop step by step written instructions for the use of the equipment in each room. These instructions will be handed to everyone who receives instruction in the use of the equipment. They will include the name of the person/office where problems are to be reported.

8) In any lecture halls that were used over the weekend, qualified technicians will check the teaching technology and replace items on the stage (podium etc.) in their proper places on Monday morning prior to the first class.

9) Install a telephone in Neville 101 and other lecture halls used to teach hundreds of students to allow faculty to efficiently report problems in these large auditoriums.

10) Check overhead projectors on a regular basis and maintain as needed.

11) Include significant faculty input into the design of new classroom facilities to ensure that these facilities are easily used by ordinary faculty as well as those with advanced knowledge of technology.

12) Involve the Academic Computing Advisory Committee (ACAC) or its successor in a review of existing facilities and the design of new facilities in line with their responsibility for “helping to develop short and long range plans for the maintenance and enhancement of academic computing technologies on campus.”

Faculty

1) Obtain training in the proper use of the equipment in the rooms in which they teach.

2) Return any computer or other settings that they changed during their class to the standard settings.

3) Report any problems promptly so they can be solved before others use the room.

The Office of Student Records

Designate an individual/office to receive requests for making lecture halls and classrooms available for repairs. Making the room available may involve moving or canceling one or more scheduled events. Repairs have a very high priority because the primary function of these rooms is teaching.

Facilities Management

1) Designate an individual/office to receive requests for help with repairs and to arrange for the needed scaffolding.

2) Set up scaffolding when needed to repair projectors. This will need to be done when classes are not in session (late afternoon, early morning, or weekends).

3) Make sure that the buildings are unlocked in the morning.

2. Motion concerning the replacement or repair of the library steps

Submitted by the Finance and Institutional Planning Committee

Preamble

The north face of Fogler Library and its massive limestone-framed steps serve as a focal point for the entire campus of the University of Maine. The steps also function as a stage for gatherings on the mall and are among the most widely photographed items at the University for promotion and recruiting.

Unfortunately, the limestone framing the steps is in a state of obvious decay, is shedding large chunks of stone, and has become visually unattractive. Moreover, the steps may be reaching the point where they pose a safety threat and/or are in danger of accelerated disintegration.

Motion

The steps of Fogler Library should be replaced within the next two years. If this is not possible for financial reasons, the University should make any and all reasonable efforts to protect the library steps from further decay, to mitigate hazards to the University community, and to restore their aesthetic appeal until such time as they can be replaced.

January 30, 2002 Motions

Resolution from the Library Advisory Committee on Fogler Library: Kathleen March

Preamble

The faculty, graduate students, and general university community, feeling an urgent need to improve dramatically the funding for collections of Fogler Library, have established an endowment that will demonstrate to the legislature and the State of Maine the importance of the library to the research, teaching, and service mission of the University. This fund is called the Library Fund for Excellence (hereafter LIFE). Collections are defined as books, journals, and media in any format. The Library Advisory Committee of the Faculty Senate seeks full participation of the university community in contributing to the LIFE. Details on the campaign and procedures for contribution are forthcoming.

Be it resolved that

Faculty Senate champions the Library Fund for Excellence (LIFE) initiative and encourages participation.

February 27, 2002 Motions

Resolution to Protect On-Campus Child Care Provided by the Children’s Center

Preamble

The University of Maine Children’s Center provides high-quality child care for the campus community, including faculty, staff, graduate students, and undergraduates. The University provides $243,165 of the Center’s total $718,094 (2001–2002) budget, or 33.9%, with the rest coming from fees paid by parents (33.6%), government subsidies for low-income parents (26.7%), the USDA Food Program (4.1%), the Department of Human Services funds for quality improvement (1.6%), and miscellaneous other sources (0.1%).

The recent round of budget cuts proposed by the Administration includes a 50% cut in the University’s funding for the Children’s Center, or 17% of the Center’s total budget. This cut is much higher than the average cut to the University’s funding of other programs on campus, which seem generally to be in the 2–5% range. Indeed, the Interim Chief Financial Officer recently publicly stated that he was unaware of any other program on campus whose budget the Administration proposes to cut to this extent.

The proposed cut puts the Children’s Center at risk of closing, even allowing for increased fees charged to the parents. Closing or reducing the quality of the Children’s Center obviously directly affects the children and parents who are associated with the Center. However, the Children’s Center serves more than just those stakeholders. Much as the fire department serves the needs of more of the community than just those who require its services, so the Children’s Center serves the entire campus community. Its existence serves those who might have children in the future. It serves those departments that have faculty, staff, graduate students, or undergraduates with children in the Center, since it frees those individuals from worry that impacts their performance and from lost time that they might otherwise have. It allows professors to teach classes in the summer and to meet with their graduate and undergraduate students then. It allows those researchers with children to spend their productive summer time working instead of needing to be home. Consequently, since much of the grant writing done on campus takes place during summer or is supported by research that occurs then, the Children’s Center significantly contributes to the University’s ability to generate external funding and high-quality research. Indeed, it is unclear if the supposed savings obtained by cutting the Center’s budget outweigh the loss of indirect cost money from grants that would be lost as researchers are forced to give up grant writing in the summer. The Center is also a powerful recruiting and retention tool for the campus, both for faculty and staff and for students.

In addition, child care is widely seen, rightly or wrongly, as a women’sissue. The presence or absence of high-quality, affordable child care on campus says a lot about the friendliness of the University and administration to families and women. It is extremely ill-advised from the standpoint of public opinion for the University to cut child care, especially at a time when the University needs the good will of the citizens of Maine to weather bad economic times.

Motion

Whereas the proposed cut to the University’s contribution to the budget of theChildren’s Center is disproportionately larger than the cuts proposed for other programs on campus; and

whereas the proposed cut will harm and potentially eliminate the Children’sCenter; and

whereas harming the Children’s Center directly harms those members of theUniversity community with children in the Center; and

whereas harming the Children’s Center indirectly harms the University’s coreteaching and research missions; and

whereas harming the Children’s Center indirectly harms the University’sability to generate external grant funding; and

whereas harming the Children’s Center contributes to a chilly climate forwomen and young families on campus; and

whereas harming the Children’s Center will signal to the citizens of Maine that the University is indifferent to the needs of women and families in the campus community:

Be it resolved that the Faculty Senate of the University of Maine stronglydisapproves of the amount of the proposed cuts to the Children’s Center budget and hereby urges the Administration to do all in its power to ensure that any reduction in the University’s contribution to the Center’s budget be no more than the average reduction, on a percent basis, to the University’scontribution to other programs on campus.

 

March 27, 2002 Motions

Proposed policy for vote: Policy on Partner Accommodation – Submitted by Peter Hoff (distributed at the full Senate meeting on 2/27/02)

Introduction by Peter Hoff: I have received the draft forwarded by the Domestic Partner Facilitation Committee, and I appreciate their thoughtful and conscientious work very much. Having reviewed that draft, I find it essentially acceptable, with a few edits that I applied to the draft that I am forwarding to you attached to this message .Unless the Senate objects to the attached version, I am prepared to implement it as official university policy.

The University of Maine recognizes the importance of accommodating dual career partners in attracting and retaining a quality workforce. The University community also recognizes the ways in which dual career partners can enrich the campus culture. Because dual-career partnerships often involve employment needs or opportunities across units, University-level policy is required. The following guidelines govern domestic partner accommodations at The University of Maine.

1. All candidates in a job search as well as University employees have a right to inquire about opportunities and procedures for partner hires. Equal opportunity policy dictates that such inquiries will not influence hiring or promotion decisions.

2. When any candidate or employee inquires about employment opportunities for a partner, the Chair/Director of his or her unit will request a copy of the partner’s curriculum vitae and other relevant materials. This information will then be forwarded to the appropriate administrator and department/unit in which the accompanying partner is seeking employment. The Office of Equal Opportunity may also be contacted for information and assistance.

3. An accompanying partner, like any other candidate, must be systematically reviewed by the hiring department or academic unit. If that unit believes the accompanying partner has appropriate credentials and has skills that are compatible with the department’s needs and mission, they may request that the accompanying partner be considered for the University’s Opportunity Hire Program.

4. University policy ordinarily requires a national search for faculty and professional appointments of more than five months. The Opportunity Hire Program, however, includes a process for requesting a search waiver and/or single or multi-year financial support for highly qualified individuals who can make a unique contribution to the University and its strategic plan. Criteria for granting waiver and funding requests include:

• Qualifications of the individual proposed, including likelihood of future success (promotion and tenure, where applicable)

• Relevance of the hire to the university’s strategic priorities

• Agreement of the hiring unit for the requested appointment

• Degree to which department/college funds will support the position over time

• Rationale for waiving the normal search requirement, including the employment of partners of prospective and current employees.

5. Questions about the Opportunity Hire Program should be directed to Evelyn Silver, Director of Equal Opportunity.

6. Other alternatives for partners include the following:

• A partner of a finalist in a University search may request an interview for another open University position as long as they meet the published qualifications. If a search committee chair receives such a request, the Office of Equal Opportunity should be contacted.

• Faculty partners in the same academic discipline may ask to be considered for a joint appointment. The University of Maine now has several partners who are successfully sharing one or one and one-half positions. In such cases, the concerned department must determine whether both individuals have appropriate credentials and have the potential to become tenured members of the department.

• This appointment sharing policy (see www.maine.edu/sharedappoint.html ) also applies to professional employees and administrators.

• Partners of candidates who have received tentative job offers may seek the services of the (Career Center/Human Resources/ Equal Opportunity/ the Alumni Association) in searching for appropriate employment opportunities off campus.

7. While The University of Maine recognizes the value of promoting opportunities for dual career partners, and has established these policies to help secure this value, it cannot guarantee employment to anyone simply on the basis of the policy.

 

Motion for vote: Health Insurance for Full-Time Graduate Research and Teaching Assistants – submitted by the University Environment Committee, Judy Kuhns-Hastings, Chair

Preamble

Full-time graduate students who are appointed as graduate assistants make important contributions to the University of Maine in the areas of teaching and research. Most research programs on campus depend heavily on the work of graduate students. The minimum graduate assistant’s stipend at this time is about $9,000 for the academic year. The cost of health insurance for graduate students is $1,100, which amounts to over 10% of their stipends. The percentage of graduate assistants who have no health insurance is 36%.The University of Maine assumes no part of the cost of health insurance as it does for other part-time employees.

Motion

The Faculty Senate moves that the University of Maine develop a policy that covers 80% of the cost of health insurance for full-time graduate students holding graduate assistantships. Cost of Graduate Assistant health insurance should be written into grants whenever conditions of granting agencies permit.

VII. Proposed Amendment to the Faculty Senate By-laws, received from the ad hoc General Education Review Committee, submitted to the Secretary of the Senate on March 21, 2002, and forwarded by him to the Chair of the Constitution and By-laws Committee, and announced in this agenda, in accordance with the By-laws, Article VI amendment:

Motion to amend the by-laws to create a special committee, to be called the General Education Outcomes Committee

Preamble

The New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC), which is the accreditation agency for the University of Maine, announced in Fall, 1998, that the post-secondary institutions it accredits will be required to develop student outcomes assessment plans for general education. Since then, a number of committees at the University of Maine have examined this issue, but little progress has been made. Many university faculty are familiar with outcomes assessment through professional programs accreditation procedures and/or work with K-12 schools, so the expertise exists among the faculty to make the necessary changes. Strong faculty leadership, guided by a committee of the Faculty Senate, is needed to make significant progress on this issue in time for future accreditation actions. Since the development and monitoring of student outcomes and assessments will be a long-term process, and since NEASC is seeking institutionalization of the outcomes assessment process, the creation of a Special Committee of the Senate is an appropriate organizational change. The Special Committee will work in consultation with the Undergraduate Program Curriculum Committee and the Center for Teaching Excellence.

 

April 24, 2002 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: 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: 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 8, 2002 Motions

Motion for a vote: REAUTHORIZATION OF THE AD HOC INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES COMMITTEE FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2002-2003

Preamble

Whereas interdisciplinary endeavors in teaching, research, and service continue to grow in significance in post-secondary education, and

Whereas the Strategic Plan of the University of Maine places particularly strong emphasis on the further development of interdisciplinary endeavors at the University of Maine, and

Whereas the Faculty Senate anticipates both the expansion of interdisciplinary endeavors, and an increasing role of the Faculty Senate in the encouragement and development of those endeavors,

Motion

Be it moved that the Faculty Senate re-authorize the Interdisciplinary Studies Committee to continue as an Ad Hoc Committee of the Faculty Senate for academic year 2002 – 2003.

Bob Rice moved, Dan Sandweiss seconded.

VOTE: 34 in favor, none opposed, 2 abstentions. Motion is approved.

 

Policy for Vote: GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERDISCIPLINARY FACULTY GROUPS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MAINE (Report of the ad hoc Interdisciplinary Studies Committee)

Preamble

The Interdisciplinary Studies Committee of the Faculty Senate has worked with the Provost and the Graduate School Director in developing a set of guidelines for the establishment of interdisciplinary endeavors at the University of Maine. The committee’s work has been guided by the charge given to the committee to encourage the development of interdisciplinary initiatives at the University of Maine, by the Strategic Plan’s considerable emphasis devoted to the expansion of interdisciplinary endeavors, and by the fact that no cross-College guidelines currently are in place to facilitate the establishment of such endeavors. The proposed Guidelines have been specifically crafted to allow a sufficient degree of flexibility in the conception and implementation of a broad array of interdisciplinary endeavors, yet also provide a framework within which the interests of all participants are safeguarded.

Motion

Whereas an expansion of interdisciplinary endeavors in teaching, research, and service are acknowledged by the Faculty Senate and the Office of the Provost to be of increasing significance for the academic vitality of the University of Maine, and

Whereas the Strategic Plan of the University of Maine specifically calls in numerous places for the further development of interdisciplinary endeavors, and

Whereas the Faculty Senate considers its role in the encouragement and development of interdisciplinary endeavors to be fully consistent with the Senate’s mission,

Be it moved that the document below, “General Guidelines for the Development of Interdisciplinary Faculty Groups at the University of Maine” be recommended for approval by the University of Maine administration.

General Guidelines for the Development of Interdisciplinary Faculty Groups at the University of Maine

Interdisciplinary groups are self-governing faculty bodies in which membership is based on scholarly interest in a particular field or discipline, regardless of departmental affiliation. These guidelines are intended to apply to interdisciplinary groups that involve faculty and resources from more than one College.

An interdisciplinary group may be formed by an ad hoc committee of the faculty or by a steering committee appointed by the Executive Vice President and Provost. Faculty membership in interdisciplinary groups is voluntary unless a joint-appointment was part of the faculty member’s initial appointment to the University of Maine. Workload reassignments, joint evaluation procedures, and compensation for the faculty member and/or home departments of faculty members joining interdisciplinary groups may be subject to renegotiation at the time the faculty member joins the interdisciplinary group. All changes must be approved by the home department, the Dean of the home College, and the Provost. If a joint appointment between a department and an interdisciplinary group is part of a faculty member’s job description when they are hired, then such negotiations should take place at the time of appointment.

Group members shall adopt bylaws that are subject to review and approval by the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs and/or the Graduate School depending on the nature and purpose of the group. An Executive Committee selected from the group’s membership shall oversee the administration of the program. The Executive Committee shall nominate members to serve on various standing committees for the group (e.g. Curriculum Committee, Membership Committee).

Interdisciplinary faculty groups may develop undergraduate programs, graduate programs, or both. With the exception of new concentrations offered under the existing Interdisciplinary Doctor of Philosophy program, a program proposed by a new interdisciplinary group is subject to the same review and approval process, both campus and system-wide, as a program proposed by a department. Existing group programs are also subject to the same review process as departmentally based programs to assure that program quality is maintained or improved. Groups may or may not formally sponsor courses, but do not receive support for the direct expenses of instruction. Instructional support for the group program shall be supplied by the department or departments providing the instructors. Departments receive workload credit for group course offerings just as for any other course.

Establishment of Interdisciplinary Graduate Faculty Groups

In accordance with the appointment of Graduate Faculty at the University of Maine as outlined in the Constitution, the Graduate School may establish interdisciplinary groups of the Graduate Faculty. Each interdisciplinary group must develop its own bylaws describing the purpose of the group, the graduate degree program(s) to be offered by the faculty, and the governance processes to be implemented. The faculty bylaws shall be reviewed by the Graduate Board, and upon approval of the Board, the interdisciplinary graduate group will be recognized by the Graduate School.

Interdisciplinary graduate faculty groups may develop new graduate certificate programs, master’s degree programs, or doctoral programs or may develop concentrations within the existing Interdisciplinary Doctor of Philosophy program. Such programs will be reviewed by the Graduate Board periodically to ensure that they are meeting their stated goals. With the recommendation of the Graduate Board, the Executive Vice President and Provost may terminate any concentration offered under the Interdisciplinary Doctor of Philosophy program.

Moved by Dan Sandweiss, seconded by Bob Rice.

Discussion

[Owen Smith] In principle, great idea, but he is wondering what are the potential budgetary implications, potential implications to degree programs, etc.

[Jim Warhola] Some faculty envision that some interdisciplinary aspect would put faculty in stronger position to seek external funds, so they don’t view it as zero-sum game. No guarantee that funding would be sought, but hard to imagine that.

[Dan Sandweiss] They did consider this. This is why provision for negotiating workload was added, so that these concerns could be considered.

[Warhola] Expressed appreciation for collegial manner in which they were able to work with Delcourt and Kennedy.

VOTE: 34 in favor, none opposed, 1 abstention. Motion approved.

 

Motion for a vote: TO CONTINUE WINTER TERM IN 2003

Preamble

The following letter was received from Robert Kennedy, addressed to Peter S. Hoff, with copies to the Provost’s Council and Faculty Senate:

This is to request your approval of the unanimous decision made by the Provost’s Council at its February meeting to discontinue the Winter/January Session.

Several deans pointed out that the between-semester session pulls enrollments out of spring and May Term courses and the enrollment in winter session has been going down. This would save on administrative time and expenses as well.

Elimination of the January inter-session would allow adjustments to be made in the spring semester academic calendar as well. Commencement could be held earlier and May Term could be completed entirely within the month of May since it would begin earlier. This, in turn, provides one of the most logical reasons to terminate Winter Session, namely, the “jump on the market” that it would provide to our graduates for summer employment.

If you support this recommendation, please inform the Faculty Senate.

I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Winter Term 2003 classes have already been announced to students and faculty in the Schedule of Classes for Fall 2002 and Spring 2003. Some students have been advised to take such classes, and may even be planning to take Winter Term classes as a means to completing course requirements for graduation in May 2003.

Motion

The Senate votes to continue Winter Term for January 2003.

Moved by Kim McKeage, seconded by Darlene Bay.

Discussion

[Paul Creasman] This was posed to Student Senate last night and received a unanimous vote to continue. Nearly half of the senators had taken advantage of this, and considered it important for meeting the “4-year guarantee”.

[Dick Cook] Could we hear from Bob White about this?

[Bob White] Deferred to Kennedy.

[Provost Kennedy] This question came up last spring semester. Provost Council considered this, since there are budgetary considerations. These were as much as anything the driving force for the decision to try to get rid of it.

[Bob White] Winter Session was created as retention tool in 96–97. It started with 30 courses, 288 students. The high has been 45 courses, with 745 students, in 2001. As this increased, there was a decrease in May Term. In the past year dropped from 45 to 29, and enrollment dropped 14%, too. This represents about 1% of total activity [of CED?]. They looked at courses being mounted for FY ’03 (Winter Term ’03): 23 courses, and of these, 18 (78%) are going to be offered in fall, spring, and summer session. So given enrollment trends and percentage of the total contribution, they considered this as part of their part of the reallocation of the budget. The thinking was that the students who were counting on winter term would be able to shift to summer and other terms. He thinks it’s prudent in terms of the reallocation of resources they were asked to make.

[Bob Rice] He understands that Winter Term schedule for next year has already been published?

[Bob White] What is published is a preliminary schedule – we all know that there is a great deal of changes made.

[Rice] But for planning purposes, they are listed at this point?

[White] [Indicated agreement] Data does not include Hutchinson Center.

[President Hoff] Asked for clarification from student representative: If the student government were presented with a choice of either maintaining winter session or going to a calendar that got students out earlier in Spring – any sense of which way they’d go?

[Creasman] He talked to some senators about that. Companies seem to wait about a month after graduation.

[Hoff] Just to be clear, he was thinking of summer employment.

[Creasman] Didn’t address that.

[Kim McKeage] There was a lot of discussion last meeting that this came at exactly wrong time for advisors. Even though courses in winter are tentative, so are the ones for spring, and they have to think of that when registering, too. Currently we have students planning to graduate in winter ’03 who’ll be all messed up if this happens. Also, sounds like a one-year dip, and there may be several things that could have contributed to this: 9/11, or first year with year-long catalog, and students had a lot of trouble finding the winter term courses. In the business school, students have to plan out a year at a time and submit at the time of advising.

[Kathleen March] Asked for clarification about Bob’s statistics. About a 50% drop, but a 14% drop in number of students. So average number of students/class is better.

[White] He was not saying it’s not working, necessarily, since it has been opportunity for students to expedite their graduation. They were looking at cuts that would least impact their operation, and there are courses that are offered at other times.

[Creasman] When students are being recruited, winter and May term are both touted as ways of shortening the time till graduation.

[Warhola] Called the question.

Need 2/3 majority to close off debate: for 32, 4 against.

VOTE: In favor: 26; opposed: 5; abstentions: 5. Motion passes.

 

Motion for a Vote: RETAIN THE ACADEMIC CALENDAR FOR 2002-2003, AS PUBLISHED IN THE GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE UNIVERSITY CATALOGS FOR 2001-2002.

Preamble

The Faculty Senate adopted the Seven Year Rotating Calendar (see below) in April, 1992. According to that calendar, the Spring semester began no earlier than Monday, January 11th, and no later than January 17th. In years in which January 15, 16, or 17 fall on a Monday, the 1992 calendar called for classes to begin on those dates. The introduction of Winter Term was accompanied by a one-week delay in the start of Spring semester. In those years in which the Spring semester was scheduled to begin on the third Monday of January, the introduction of Martin Luther King Jr. Day (the third Monday in January) as a university holiday, caused a further delay in the start of Spring semester to the Tuesday of the same week.

The University academic calendar for 2002-2003 has been published in the graduate and undergraduate catalogs for 2001-2002, which are widely available. That calendar shows that the Spring semester will begin on the Tuesday following the third Monday in January 2003 (i.e., January 21). Some members of the University community may already have made plans for January 2003 and for Spring Semester 2003 based on those catalogs. Maintaining the calendar as published would avoid confusion and the possibility of having to change plans already made.

Motion

The Senate votes to begin the Spring Semester 2003 on the Tuesday following the third Monday in January 2003 (i.e., January 21).

ADDENDUM: Seven Year Rotating Calendar Approved by Faculty Senate 4/1992 Changes since then are in red and italic [sic]. April 19, 2002

When Labor Day is September 1:

Fall semester (2003, 2008, 2014) Classes begin Tuesday, September 2 Fall break Monday and Tuesday, October 13-14 Thanksgiving Break Begins Wednesday, November 26 Classes end Friday December 12 Final exams December 15-19 (5 days) Spring semester (2004, 2009, 2015) Classes begin Monday, January 12 No classes on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, January 19 7 weeks of classes 2 week spring break 7 weeks of classes Maine Day penultimate Wednesday (approved through 2006) 1 week of final exams

When Labor Day is September 2:

Fall semester (2002, 2013) Classes begin Tuesday, September 3 Fall break Monday and Tuesday, October 14-15 Thanksgiving Break Begins Wednesday, November 27 Classes end Friday, December 13 Final exams December 16-20 (5 days) Spring semester (2014) Classes begin Monday, January 13 No classes on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, January 20 (Same as spring semester above)

When Labor Day is September 3:

Fall semester (2007, 2012) Classes begin Tuesday, September 4 Fall break Monday and Tuesday, October 8-9 Thanksgiving Break Begins Wednesday, November 21 Classes end Friday, December 14 Final exams December 17-21 (5 days) Spring semester (2008, 2013) Classes begin Monday, January 14 No classes on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, January 21 (Same as spring semester above) When Labor Day is September 4:

Fall semester (2006, 2012) Classes begin Tuesday, September 5 Fall break Monday and Tuesday, October 9-10 Thanksgiving Break Begins Wednesday, November 22 Classes end Friday, December 15 Final exams December 18-22 (5 days) Spring semester (2007, 2013) Classes begin Tuesday, January 16 Martin Luther King, Jr., Day (Same as spring semester above)

When Labor Day is September 5:

Fall semester (2005, 2011) Classes begin Tuesday, September 6 Fall break Monday and Tuesday, October 10-11 Thanksgiving Break Begins Wednesday, November 23 Classes end Friday December 16 Final exams December 19-22/23 (4/5 days) new exam format requires 5 days Spring semester (2006, 2012) Classes begin Tuesday, January 17 Martin Luther King, Jr., Day (Same as spring semester above)

When Labor Day is September 6:

Fall semester (2004, 2010) Classes begin Tuesday, September 7 or [Monday, August 30] Fall break Monday and Tuesday, October 11-12 Thanksgiving Break Begins Wednesday, November 24 Classes end Friday December 16 [10] Final exams December 20-23/24 (4/5 days) [13-17 5 days] new exam format requires 5 days Spring semester (2005, 2011) Classes begin Tuesday, January 18 Martin Luther King, Jr., Day (Same as spring semester above)

When Labor Day is September 7:

Fall semester (2009, 2015) Classes begin Monday, August 31 No Classes on Labor Day, Monday September 7 Fall break Monday and Tuesday, October 12-13 Thanksgiving Break Begins Wednesday, November 25 Classes end Friday December 11 Final exams December 14-18 (5 days) Spring semester (2010, 2016) Classes begin Monday, January 11 No classes on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, January 18 (Same as spring semester above)

Moved by Bob Rice. Seconded by Tom Brann.

Discussion

[Creasman] Was concerned about Labor Day information.

[John Maddaus] That is not part of motion.

[Keith Hutchison] Could have chaos if this doesn’t pass, given the one we just passed.

[Rice Eason] If this passes, calendar will come up in October, so it will come up again.

[Dick Cook] If this passes – when will semester start?

[Maddaus] As published, Jan. 21.

[Kathleen March] Isn’t this moot, since the only reason we brought this up was because the calendar and winter term are separate?

[Jim McClymer] Called the question.

VOTE: 32 in favor, none opposed, 3 abstentions. Motion approved.

 


Back to Motions Passed

Faculty Senate
Kimberly Junkins, Faculty Senate Office
205 East Annex, Orono, Maine 04469
Phone: (207) 581-1167 | Fax: (207) 581-2640
E-mail: kimberly.junkins@umit.maine.edu
The University of Maine
Orono, Maine 04469
207.581.1865