September 20, 2006 Faculty Senate Meeting
October 18, 2006 Faculty Senate Meeting
Motion on Policy and Procedures for Program Creation and Reorganization
Whereas the Constitution of the Faculty Senate establishes its jurisdiction and responsibility to make recommendations regarding academic matters, including program creation and reorganization, and
Whereas the President of the University of Maine, in his letter of August 14, 2006, to the Faculty Senate, invited the Faculty Senate, in the spirit of shared governance, to provide guiding principles for considering reorganization proposals
The Committee of the Elected Members moves that the University of Maine Policy on Program Creation and Reorganization be approved by the Faculty Senate and recommended to the President for implementation.
Voting Result: motion passed, 42 for, none opposed, 1 abstention.
November 15, 2006 Faculty Senate Meeting
Motion to Approve the Posthumous Degree Policy for Undergraduate, Master’s and PhD Degrees
Preamble: The University of Maine ordinarily awards undergraduate and graduate degrees only to those candidates who have completed all course work and other requirements necessary to earn the degree. However, given the somewhat extended nature of a graduate student’s dissertation preparation, occasions may arise in which a student passes away just prior to completing the final
doctoral degree requirements. This policy permits the University of Maine to confer a doctoral degree to a deceased graduate student who has been admitted to candidacy and has completed all work except submission of the final dissertation, and who would likely have finished the remaining degree requirements within a year of the death.
Procedure: Upon receiving signed approval from the student’s dissertation committee, the graduate program coordinator and/or department chair forwards a nomination letter to the Dean of the Graduate School expressing support for the conferral of the posthumous doctoral degree. The letter should address how close the student was to completing the dissertation at the time of his/her death. The nomination packet should also include the student’s C.V. and may also contain letters of support from other faculty members. The Dean of the Graduate School will confer with the Executive Committee of the Graduate Board about awarding the degree posthumously. If the review is favorable, the Dean will forward a recommendation to the Provost and the President that the doctoral degree be conferred posthumously. The President will then inform the Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs of the University’s decision.
Undergraduate and Master’s Degrees
The following policy is to govern the awarding of degrees posthumously at The University of Maine:
A posthumous degree may be awarded if:
At the time of death the student had completed all requirements of their degree program and would have qualified for graduation; or
At the time of death the student was enrolled in their final semester, was taking the necessary courses to complete their degree requirements, and their instructors and/or advisor can show that the student was likely to complete the coursework satisfactorily.
A request for a posthumous degree is made to the chair of the student’s department by family, friends, or faculty members who have worked with the student. A death certificate and proof of their relationship to the student must be made available:
If the above requirements have been met, the request will go to the Associate Dean of the college/Graduate School for approval;
Provost reviews and makes recommendation to the President;
President has final approval;
The approved request is forwarded to the Office of Student Records.
Awarding of Posthumous Degree:
The student’s diploma and transcript will note that the degree was awarded posthumously;
The student’s name will appear in the commencement program, along with their hometown and a note that the degree was awarded posthumously;
The President, Provost or their designee(s) will hold a private reception with the family and friends of the deceased and present the degree at the reception.
The Academic Affairs Committee presented the motion. The motion was seconded.
A question was asked as to how often this happens. Dr. Kennedy said that it doesn’t happen very often, but it happened twice last year.
Voting Results: A vote was called. The motion passed 33 for, none opposed.
December 14, 2006 Faculty Senate Meeting
Motion by: Academic Affairs Committee
Motion: Both matriculated and non-matriculated part-time undergraduate students who take at least 12 credits over two semesters are eligible to be on the Dean’s list, provided that they have a grade point average of at least 3.33.
The motion was seconded.
Some discussion ensued regarding undergraduate students and graduate students. A friendly amendment was suggested that “undergraduate” be added before “…students” in the motion. This was accepted.
A question was asked whether PeopleSoft could be programmed to only include matriculated and full-time students. It cannot.
Another person stated that as more and more students are attending part-time, many due to the fact that they also work full-time jobs, it would be appropriate to recognize these students in this way. Non-traditional students should be eligible for this.
Another question was asked if this also pertains to summer session. Dr. Hunter felt that this does not pertain to summer credits, but she stated she would check on this after the meeting.
A motion was made to call the question. The motion failed to be seconded.
A vote was taken on the motion.
Voting Results: 22 for, 9 opposed, 3 abstentions. The motion passed.
January 31, 2007 Faculty Senate Meeting
Proposed Amendment to Bylaws:
That the bylaws be amended to include, following Article IV, Section 7:
Section 8. Program Creation and Reorganization Review Committee.
A. Function. The committee has the responsibility to receive and review proposals for the creation and reorganization of academic programs. Once the information is gathered and evaluated, the committee will present a recommendation to the faculty senate for its approval.
B. Membership. This committee will consist of a minimum of ten faculty senators, including two from each college. Members of this committee may be members of other standing senate committee.
Senator Gilbert said the only business was to change the by-laws to add another committee – the amendments to art. 4 sec. 7 and art. 4 sec. 8 – review committee with function of receiving and reviewing proposals for creation and reorganization of academic programs. Once evaluated, the committee would present that program to Faculty Senate for approval.
One senator asked for clarification on the number of 10 members for the committee. Vice President Gilbert said they would be 10 faculty senators.
Senator Hoff moved to approve the motion and it was put up for discussion.
Senator Wihry asked about status of proposal for reevaluation of programs.
Senator Gilbert said this relates directly – He and President Kass met with Provost Szymanski last Monday. As a result, he drafted minutes of our understanding of procedure – Len agreed w/Jim’s minutes. Len passed on to Provost. Admin does have some difficulties as it is now stated. Jim thinks it will happen, but question is how and when. Once Provost returns her response, Jim will share everything with Faculty Senate. The document is an understanding of what was discussed in the Monday meeting of the Provost, President Kass, and Vice President Gilbert.
President Kass said that at the next members only meeting this will be a topic of discussion. He wants to keep this short, but his impression is that the administration is earnest and wants a plan that is workable. Their thinking is that we should have a trial period of maybe 6 months. The interest is in seeing how it works in practice. President Kass says he and Senator Gilbert thought perhaps by January of 08 we could have a permanent document.
Senator McClymer commented that this started with no consultation w/senate. We were just told. We’re partly to blame because we’re letting it happen.
Senator Slott mentioned the trial period and the committee. If it’s just on trial period, how binding will the decision be? Point of order from Senator Halteman: Are we discussing motion on the floor?
President Kass: yes. The motion on floor is to create a special subcommittee to deal with these issues.
Senator Ferland –noted that whatever the negotiations, it is a good idea to create a committee that will fully inform FS of negotiations with the administration.
Senator Halteman said the committee could be formed almost immediately. Vice President Gilbert said the committee must report to all – and needs to be accountable to Faculty Senate.
President Kass asked if there were any further discussion. If not, we would bring the motion to a vote.
Senator Schonberger asked if we would start and staff the committee immediately. President Kass replied that we would do so as soon as legally possible – as soon as we enact it and it becomes part of by-laws. Schonberger said there are some fairly big changes in the works now so it is advantageous to have this.
Voting Result: The vote was: 25 yes 0 no 1 abstention
February 28, 2007 Faculty Senate Meeting
Policy and Procedures for Program Creation and Reorganization Document presented by Dr. Jim Gilbert
The University of Maine Policy and Procedures for
Program Creation and Reorganization
This document states the general principles and procedures that guide reorganization of academic units. These general principles and procedures are meant to affirm the University’s commitment to shared governance, academic freedom, affirmative action, and accountability; to assure faculty members that their concerns and ideas are incorporated to the extent possible as decisions are made; and to ensure that the overall academic quality of the University’s programs is maintained as reorganization takes place.
As the University of Maine responds to changing resources and the changing needs of Maine’s citizens, it may find that reorganizing programs is necessary or desirable to achieve its goals. Any proposed reorganization should maximize the University’s resources and better serve our students and faculty.
Reorganization of programs takes place through a process of shared governance. Shared governance recognizes value and necessity of faculty input and knowledge in academic decision making. The faculty’s involvement is provided for in the Constitution of the Faculty Senate, which provides for faculty jurisdiction and advice on academic issues.
We recognize that such reorganizations are also governed by the University of Maine System Policy and Procedures for Reorganization of Programs (Section 309). At the University of Maine, the primary responsibility for ensuring appropriate consultation with the faculty rests with the President, the Provost, and the Faculty Senate.
The Faculty Senate’s Program Creation and Reorganization Review Committee (PCRRC) will be responsible for receiving comments and drafting a response in support of or in opposition to any reorganization proposal deemed by the Committee to be subject to a full review by the committee and the Faculty Senate.
This review process will be applied to all proposals required to be approved by the Chancellor’s Office or the Board of Trustees, regardless of whether the Board’s authority or Chancellor’s Office authority has been waived. Proposals that involve any of the following would normally be subject to academic review by the Faculty Senate:
The review procedure will consist of 1) a discussion phase, 2) an informal phase and 3) a formal phase. The discussion phase will be a verbal information exchange and a discussion of a potential plan. The informal phase will be a broad-based information exchange of a brief written proposal. The formal phase is initiated by the Faculty Senate and its PCRRC for those informal proposals deemed by the PCRRC to have significant academic implications.
1) The discussion phase normally will involve the Provost and the Senate President. If mutually agreeable, the information will be made available to the faculty.
2) The informal phase of review is normally initiated by a two-page written pre-proposal from the administration to the Faculty Senate that summarizes the proposed change, its resource costs and benefits, and its impact on academic programs. This pre-proposal will be posted and widely disseminated by the Senate to solicit comments from the faculty. If the Senate’s review committee determines that there is insignificant academic impact from the proposed reorganization, there will be no formal review process. If the review committee determines that the proposed reorganization has potentially significant academic impacts, it will request additional information in preparation of a formal review phase.
3) The formal review phase will require a written proposal that shall include a rationale and substantiated justification, with appropriate data, to support the proposed reorganization. Any proposal will include:
The PCRRC will post the proposal and widely circulate it on campus. Written comments in support of and in opposition to the proposal will be solicited. A public hearing will be held to gather additional information. Following this, the review committee will write an opinion on the proposal.
While normally a proposal will be initiated by the administration, the senate may initiate this process if they believe program revision falls within the jurisdiction of this policy. In
such cases, the Faculty Senate will request discussion of the proposal with the administration.
The review process for a proposed program creation or reorganization should be initiated sufficiently early that meaningful input is possible. The Faculty Senate and its review committee normally will have two months to solicit comments, hold a hearing, and make a recommendation in support or opposition to the proposal. If the proposal is amended, additional time may be required for the Faculty Senate to reach a consensus. While the Faculty Senate needs the flexibility and time to investigate situations brought before it in order to attain adequate understanding of the issue, it is expected that the Faculty Senate, in special circumstances, will act on a request within an expedited time frame that is consistent with university and external constraints defining the context for change.
This policy is subject to review and revision one year from implementation. It is expected that as the Administration and the Faculty Senate gain experience with reviews of program creations and reorganization, changes to improve the policy will become apparent.
Appendix A. Criteria for Reorganization
a. On a national or international level, the profession or discipline has changed.
b. Reorganization will better serve the strategic focus of The University of Maine.
c. The proposed reorganization provides a competitive advantage to the unit.
d. The viability of the unit is at risk without refocus of direction.
e. The program’s scope is too narrowly focused and needs broader, perhaps interdisciplinary, focus or conversely the program scope is too broadly focused and needs tighter focus.
f. Two or more programs have a substantial similarity or affinity of objectives such that economics of operation or improvement in quality may reasonable be expected from their consolidation.
g. The clarity of the program’s identity and function will be increased by transfer to or consolidation with another program.
h. The program’s contribution to The University of Maine missions of teaching, research, and service does not justify maintenance of its present size.
i. Budgetary constraints require reorganization of a program within a department, school, or college.
2. Criteria Contraindicating Reorganization
a. The reorganization is sufficiently uncommon within higher education so as to render difficulty in recruitment and retention of quality students and faculty.
b. The reorganization would endanger the quality and/or accreditation status, where applicable, of one or more of the programs affected.
c. The programs, though dealing with similar subject matter, are substantially different in orientation, objective or clientele.
d. The cost reduction of reorganization would be so modest as to make such reorganization rather pointless if cost savings is the primary objective.
e. The program’s reorganization would have a substantially negative impact on education and societal concerns to Maine.
f. The program’s reorganization would have a substantially negative impact on strategic goals of The University of Maine.
g. The program’s reorganization would result in substantial loss of revenue currently derived from grants, contracts, endowments or gifts.
Dr. Gilbert stated that this is the same document that was presented to the Elected Members two weeks ago with the exception of a change in the Discussion section on page two of the document. He then proceeded to ask the senate to approve the policy so that it may be sent to President Kennedy for approval.
A question was asked as pertains to the statement in item number one under “Procedure” in particular the phrase “If mutually agreeable, the information….”. What happens if it is not mutually agreeable? Dr. Gilbert said that this document is basically the same as the one passed in September, but in this version at least there is a discussion phase of the process, which is a definite improvement.
There were no additional comments or questions.
A vote was called on the policy.
Voting Results: 27 voted to approved. 0 voted against. 2 abstentions.
April 4, 2007 Faculty Senate Meeting
Motion to Approve the 2007-2008 Academic Calendar
The Faculty Senate approves and recommends the adoption of the 2007-2008 Academic Calendar.
A friendly amendment was made to remove the “and recommends the adoption of” from the motion. Agreed.
Voting Results: The motion passed.
Motion to Approve Revised Student Evaluation of Teaching Form.
The Faculty Senate recommends that the revised Student Evaluation of Teaching form (SET) replace the old version of the SET for those colleges, departments, units, etc., that continue to use the old SET form.
Dr. Kornfield introduced the motion. He noted the error that info to be used in P&T decisions. (see p. 3 “The info you provide…” paragraph) A series of committees attempted to revise the form. Faculty Senate charged Academic Affairs to work on the issue, and this committee in turn charged the University Teaching Council to work on the form. There is opportunity to insert further questions. Reference was made to the School of Engineering Technology and its form. This is not an attempt to replace their form, but it is a recommendation that units consider adapting this new SET instead of the old one.
Harland Onsrud commented that he thought the form is excellent and the best he’s seen. However, he encouraged members to vote against the form unless the word “legibly” is added to the instructions which the instructor reads to the students…”unless you sign the form legibly”. A signature is not valid unless it provides identity. If we don’t add this word, we are promoting an unethical practice.
Dr. Onsrud moved that the word LEGIBLY be added, as a friendly amendment. This was seconded. A voted was called, 28 in favor, 2 opposed, no abstentions.
A question was asked why the signature line was removed from the form. The removal of the line was discussed and agreed upon at the elected members meeting.
Voting Results: The motion was then put back on the table. A vote was taken. The motion passed.
Motion to Ensure Security for Faculty Members entering Data in the Electronic Faculty Profile Database System
Scott Johnson introduced the motion for the Executive Committee which represents all of the standing committees of the senate. Dr. Johnson read the preamble and the motion:
The University of Maine is preparing to implement an electronic Faculty Profile Database System near the end of this academic year (spring, 2007). This web-based system will be used by all faculty members at the University of Maine for annual reporting purposes.
This system evolved from a report by the University Research Council’s sub-committee on Research and Scholarship Measures. The Research Council’s sub-committee report was presented to the full Faculty Senate by Dr. Shannon Martin on November 16, 2005.
From Senate Minutes, November, 2005:
“Dr. Shannon Martin, Chair of the Scholarship Measure Committee of the University Research Council
President Hayes introduced Dr. Martin. Dr. Martin has been working on a sub-committee of the University Research Council to develop a university-wide set of procedures to measure our creative activity which is inclusive of all disciplines. Dr. Martin distributed copies of a report that has been produced by the sub-committee (a copy of the report is available upon request).
She began by describing the committee and its inception. It was organized in January 2005 and was charged with reporting the scholarship measures, research products and creative outcomes thought to meet the standards of our academic faculty at this university. The committee finished its work in April. She gave an outline of their progress and the kinds of work which fell into different categories.”
Following the subcommittee’s work, there were many months of meetings with stakeholders around campus, which generated additional input and ideas. In planning and development the electronic reporting process, the goal was to make the database as inclusive as possible, so that all faculty members would have an opportunity to highlight their work, and so that stakeholders could tap the information for various purposes (development office, media, institutional research, etc).
Because the College of Natural Sciences, Forestry and Agriculture had been using and continually improving an electronic reporting system for several years, a decision was made to use that system as a platform upon which to develop a university-wide system. NSFA faculty completed their FY2006 annual reports using the new, expanded system as a pilot project, and work over the past year has gone into using that experience to refine and debug the system.
In addition, this semester (spring, 2007) the system was made available to Deans, Associate Deans, Faculty Senate Executive Committee members, and many others on campus in order to conduct one final round of modifications before initial launch. Many additional modifications have been made as a result.
Each department and college will have a Unit Administrator who will have access to their unit’s data and be able to generate a variety of reports from it (this feature is still in the process of being refined). The senior administrative leaders at UM, and other designated entities, will have administrative access to all of the information in the system.
No doubt there will be additional modifications to the system over the next few years in order to fully satisfy the range of faculty activities. However, the one question that the Senate Executive Committee felt needed to be resolved now was the issue of data security in the following sense. Each faculty member is solely responsible for the content of their own annual reports, and under no circumstances should any entries in a faculty member’s report be altered without that person’s approval. In addition, a statement to this effect should accompany any instructional text associated with the database so that it is not lost across administrative generations.
The Faculty Senate Executive Committee proposes the following motion to address this issue.
The accuracy of data entered into the Faculty Profile Database System is the sole responsibility of each individual faculty member. Clarification or correction of possible errors can be requested by any who view a faculty member’s data entries. However, editing of, and correction to, any entries can only be done by the faculty member, or by a person who has been authorized in writing by the faculty member. A statement to this effect should be included in any instructional material accompanying the database system.
Voting Results: A vote was called. The motion passed, with 1 abstention.
May 2, 2007 Faculty Senate Meeting
Motion Title: “Rights and Responsibilities related to Academic Advising” Motion by: Aria Amirbahman
RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO ACADEMIC ADVISING
Academic advising is a shared responsibility between advisor and student. It is an educational process designed to facilitate effective navigation of programmatic requirements and instructional resources.
GOALS OF ACADEMIC ADVISING
Help students clarify their academic values, goals and aspirations;
Lead students to understand better the nature and purpose of higher education;
Provide accurate information about educational requirements, policies, and procedures;
Develop an educational program consistent with the student’s interests and abilities;
Assist students in a continual monitoring and evaluation of their educational progress;
Integrate the many resources of the University of Maine to meet the student’s individual educational needs and aspirations.
|IT IS EXPECTED THAT THE ADVISOR WILL:Help the student define and develop realistic goals;
Understand student needs and match those needs with available campus resources, both academic and personal;
Assist students with planning an academic program consistent with their abilities and interests;
Monitor the student’s progress and provide accurate ongoing feedback information;
Discuss linkage between academic preparation and their future career path.
|IT IS EXPECTED THAT THE STUDENT WILL:Take the initiative in arranging timely appointments with his/her advisor;
Participate fully as an active learner in the advising process;
Maintain a personal record of academic progress and achievements;
Accept responsibility for choices, decisions and actions that affect his/her academic success;
Gather all relevant information needed to make informed decisions;
Clarify personal values, goals and aspirations;
Become knowledgeable about the University of Maine’s programs, policies and procedures
Be well prepared for the advising session.
The Faculty Senate approves and recommends the adoption of the Rights and Responsibilities related to Academic Advising, including the stated goals and the expectations from the advisor and the student.
Voting Results: The motion passed.