Motions Passed - 2008-2009 Motions
September 24, 2008 Faculty Senate Meeting
Motion Title: Motion to Establish Faculty Senate Goals for 2008-2009
The faculty of the University of Maine engages in university governance through the Faculty Senate, which is the official governance body of the faculty. As such, it is important for the Senate to work toward goals that move the institution forward and address critical issues as they emerge.
The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine endorses the following goals for the 2008-2009 academic year and encourages each committee to proceed with all due speed to accomplish these goals, while remaining nimble and able to adjust or react as needed.
Academic Affairs Chair – Dr. Daniel Belknap
- Investigate University admission standards and how they are being applied.
- Establish the process for, as well as the rate and occurrences of, faculty attrition, relocation, and strategic planning related to faculty positions, especially in light of rising enrollment
- Establish a process for resolving inter-college disagreements related to joint programs and shared classes
- Make recommendations for equitable compensation of faculty supervising student enrollment, such as thesis writing and independent study credits
- Continue the analysis of General Education requirements (which may fall to a subcommittee)
Committees on Committees Chair – Dr. Shihfen Tu
- Establish which committees of the administration have (or should have) liaisons from the Senate
- Ensure the administration informs the Senate about the final make-up of committees (and that this gets posted on the administration website)
Constitution and Bylaws Chair – Dr. Judy Kuhns-Hastings
- Review the Constitution and Bylaws for any inaccuracies, inconsistencies, or omissions, and suggest necessary revisions
Environment Chair – Dr. Stephanie Welcomer
- Investigate the status of climate issues on campus
- Review the energy audit, which is finished (or nearly finished)
- Be a liaison to the committee investigating the feasibility of better commuter bus service
- Select a ―green‖ goal appropriate for the Senate and then lead this effort
- Investigate the impact of a M/W, T/Th class schedule
Finance Committee Co-Chairs – Dr. Sue Estler, Dr. Bill Halteman
- Work with the administration to develop an annual fiscal report
- Investigate the status of Coke contract and use of funds
- Ask to see and then review the Board of Trustees’ quarterly financial reports for decisions that have an impact on this campus
- Get answers to the questions posed last year about the timing and kind of gifts coming in with the capital campaign, how priorities are being set for this money, the hidden ―costs‖ of gifts (e.g. the athletic bubble), and the apparent emphasis on expenditures for the president’s garden, Carnegie Hall, etc.
Library Chair – Dr. Harlan Onsrud
- Make significant steps toward establishing an Institutional Repository
- Investigate the status of library support in light of increased tuition, increased enrollment, capital campaign efforts, and additional research support for external sources
- Continue to explore ways to improve holdings in scholarly data bases
PCRRC Chair – Dr. James Warhola
- Investigate the status and impact of collaboration, such as with the Vermont Medical School and Husson Pharmacy Program
- Revise Protocols based on past experiences – clarify what falls under PCRRC
- Make recommendations about the scope of this committee in reviewing and making recommendations for program creation
Research Chair – Dr. Touradj Solouki
- Investigate additional site licenses for research programs (e.g. SPSS) and databases
- Make recommendations for further institutional support for research and grant writing
Service and Outreach Chair – Dr. Michael Grillo
- Establish interdisciplinary guidelines – Across campus, online, and cross-campus
- Work with Academic Affairs on a [process for resolving cross-college and cross-institution conflicts
Shared Governance Co-Chairs – Dr. Robert Rice, Dr. Dianne Hoff
- Finish draft of the document of understanding about shared governance on this campus
- Work w/Task Force to complete an agreement between the faculty and administration
- Create a Faculty Handbook
Executive Committee Projects
- Conduct a University Environment survey, modeled after the one used by the Chronicle of Higher Education
- Develop a process for administrative evaluations
- Continue archiving policies and motions
Voting Result: The motion passed.
October 22, 2008 Faculty Senate Meeting
Motion Title: Elimination of Paper Versions of Some Online Journals Available through Fogler Library
Motion By: Library Advisory Committee Motion
September 22, 2008
1. Fogler Library is proposing to go “online only” for many journal subscriptions. That is, paper subscriptions for many journals will now be dropped. Why is this being proposed?
- New publisher pricing models have online format as base subscription, with print format available as a second subscription or added expense
- Lack of sufficient space for bound journals in the library buildings
- Elimination of print format by growing numbers of publishers
- Publisher package licenses that add requested journals but require switch to online format
2. What guarantees do we as faculty and students have that we will have electronic access to back issues if the University drops its electronic subscriptions to particular journals?
- License agreements with publishers provide for post-cancellation access to subscribed content via publisher websites (Fogler Library has already successfully utilized such license agreements)
- Portico, provides post-cancellation access to subscribed content from publishers who have paid Portico to fulfill this function. Portico is a non-profit organization supported by
- The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, Ithaka, The Library of Congress, and JSTOR whose mission is the long-term preservation of scholarly literature published in electronic form. Portico has nearly 500 academic and research library members.
3. If Fogler Library no longer subscribes to an electronic journal and we want to view an online issue to which Fogler did subscribe, will we be able to do this seamlessly through URSUS from a campus office?
4. What happens if Portico ceases to operate?
- Portico agreements with publishers specify that Portico would assign their rights and their content to another appropriate not-for-profit institution, in the unlikely event Portico should cease to operate: http://www.portico.org/about/part_publishers.html
- Hundreds of institutions of higher education around the world have chosen Portico as their “insurance policy” to make sure they will not lose access to their e-journals, even if they discard their print: http://www.portico.org/about/participating_libraries.html
5. What is the extent of current usage of the hard copy (paper) versions that would be eliminated?
- Usage of hard copy academic journals for which we also have online access is low (e.g. Elsevier/ScienceDirect; JSTOR; PsycArticles)
- Interlibrary Loan fulfills more than 1,100 document delivery requests per year for articles from hard copy academic journals that are owned by and shelved in the library, indicating a need for these titles to be online; in-building use is low
- Usage of current issues of most general-interest hard copy magazines and newspapers (e.g. New Yorker, Newsweek, Rolling Stone, Portland Press Herald) is good; these would remain in print format
6. How much money will the library save by switching some journals to online-only?
- The library will use the difference in cost to meet expenses elsewhere, particularly as a realignment to deal with the yearly journal increases. The library may realize about $6000 initially but this amount is not necessarily on-going and will change year to year.
- Future savings on binding will help pay fees for packages such as JSTOR, ScienceDirect, Springer, Taylor & Francis, Project MUSE, and others
7. How will the library and the community benefit from this action?
- Increased access to our subscriptions: at any hour, from any location, by unlimited users
- Access to additional titles requested by faculty in online publisher packages
- More study space in the library as many duplicate back issues in print can be stored off-site and fewer titles will require binding and shelving
- More staff and student hours for content creation and other local projects, such as digitization of unique materials
If you have further questions or comments regarding the planned action, please address them to Harlan Onsrud, Chair, Faculty Senate Library Committee, email@example.com for consideration by the committee.
MOTION: The faculty senate supports the elimination of paper versions of some online journals available through Fogler Library as described above.
Voting Result: The motion passed.
Motion Title: Motion to Create Ad Hoc Committee on General Education
Recent emphasis on learning outcomes across campus, coupled with an ongoing need to evaluate courses that fall under general education, has created time demands on the Academic Affairs Committee, diverting them from other key academic issues. This has pointed to the need for a Senate Committee on General Education, which will work with faculty and the administration on key issues related to general education at the University of Maine.
The Senate will create an Ad Hoc Committee on General Education. This committee will be made up of a chair, who is a Senate Member and appointed by the President of the Senate, and at least five committee members, representing each College. At least half of the faculty membership of the committee must be members of the Faculty Senate. Further, the chair of the Student Learning Outcomes & Assessment Committee (or his/her designee) will automatically serve as an ad hoc member of this committee.
During the 2009-2010 academic year, the establishment of this committee will be reviewed for possible recommendation as a standing committee.
Voting Result: The motion passed with one abstention.
November 19, 2008 Faculty Senate Meeting
December 17, 2008 Faculty Senate Meeting
At this time the Motion to Eliminate the BS Program in Environmental Management and Policy was put on the table for a vote.
Voting Result: The motion passed unanimously.
January 28, 2009 Faculty Senate Meeting
Resolution in Response to the Chancellor’s Plan
The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine applauds the efforts of the Chancellor and Board of Trustees to create a stronger and more stable financial base for the University of Maine System. We understand that transformational change is needed to meet the challenges of the current and future financial realties. We also recognize that we owe the citizens of this state our best efforts to be fiscally responsible, while at the same time, upholding our important role in educating students, creating new knowledge and innovation, providing service, and solving the challenges of our state, our nation, and the world.
While we support the spirit of change outlined in the Chancellor’s plan, we have concerns about the process for determining change and the organizational direction suggested therein. Specifically, we believe that the concept of centralizing “back-room” functions at the system level contains serious flaws, further moving the university system in directions that have already damaged the campuses’ abilities to fulfill their missions. In particular:
1. The proposal violates both the spirit and the language of UMS’s original charter in ways that will undercut the system’s effectiveness in governance. That charter calls for “oversight” of centralized functions. It neither calls for, nor implies, that the system office should carry out these functions for the campuses.
2. Experience to date with centralization of services at the system office has taught us that it does not save money. Just as the efforts in this direction by former Chancellor Westphal were based on promises of savings that never materialized, there appears to be little or no solid evidence or analysis behind claims that these “transformations” will save millions of dollars, as projected.
3. Past history has shown that this path toward centralization and homogenization is not advantageous to the campuses. It weakens their identity and damages their prestige, which negatively affect recruitment of top students and faculty members. It adds a level of bureaucracy that slows efficiency and adds costs. It extracts employees from campuses to serve at the system office at higher salaries, leaving the campuses to back-fill (at additional cost) in order to provide needed services locally that are not provided by the newly centralized services. It treats all campuses as the same, when in fact, the strengths of the different campuses are in their unique missions, strengths and reach around the state. It creates a “majority rules” environment, which has led to overly simplistic solutions, technical inefficiencies, and numerous frustrations for faculty, staff, and students alike. Problematic for all campuses, it specifically undermines the University of Maine, where the complexity of our research, service, and educational programs fits poorly with a one-size-fits-all approach.
We are also concerned that although claiming to lay out a process, many aspects of the “New Challenge, New Directions” plan are well under way and are proceeding before substantive input can be sought.
Therefore, be it resolved:
That, on behalf of the Faculty of the University of Maine, the Faculty Senate supports the commitment of the Chancellor and Board of Trustees to transform the University of Maine System to make it more financially sustainable, but only if such steps focus on the vitality of the campuses, not the growth of the system office. Proposed steps, such as those to centralize services at the system office, are unacceptable, fiscally unjustifiable, and will be opposed. Instead, we suggest the following course of action:
A. Buttress the Land Grant/Sea Grant, doctoral, and research functions of the flagship campus and reaffirm the important metropolitan and regional missions of the others. This should happen within a context of fiscal responsibility, eliminating unnecessary duplication across the system, streamlining operations, and emphasizing the unique roles each campus performs.
B. Where centralization of any operations would actually benefit the system and would be financially justified, designate the centralization of these services to one or another campus suited to the task.
C. Put an end to the practice of making system policy related to centralized services based on each campus having one “vote.” Although not written anywhere in the policy manual, this non-proportional voting is frequently used for system office projects, especially since MaineStreet was introduced. It leads to decisions that do not fit the various campuses well, and it ends up costing money as the campuses scramble to make adjustments to “retro-fit” for their individual campus needs. Instead, decisions related to centralized services should be made through proportional representation on committees, which should be charged to find flexible solutions that will work for each campus.
D. Dramatically downsize the system office and reaffirm its core functions of oversight and governance. The system’s strength depends not on the size of the system office, but on the reputation of the flagship university and the diversity and statewide coverage provided by all of the campuses within the system.
We believe the steps above will streamline operations, save resources, strengthen the campuses, and bring about the kind of positive transformation the Chancellor seeks.
Voting Result: The resolution passed unanimously.
Motion Title: Proposal to Establish Energy Grant Designations for Leading Public Research Universities
Motion By: Submitted by the Faculty of the University of Maine
On behalf of the faculty of the University of Maine, the Faculty Senate has developed an innovative idea to address the critical energy demands of the 21st Century. To accomplish this, we are proposing the creation of Energy Grant Universities, similar to the Land Grant, Sea Grant, and Space Grant designations that have enabled universities to tackle key challenges this country has faced over the past 150 years. It would be important, forward-thinking legislation with the potential to stimulate the economy, enable our country to make huge strides in energy innovation, and leave a lasting ecological legacy for generations to come.
The proposal emerges from the realization that our nation’s dependency on fossil fuels has created numerous problems, including exhaustion of fossil fuel resources, harmful effects on the environment, the real risk that our nation will fall behind other countries in developing alternative energy sources, and the threat to our national security. Our dependence on fossil fuels is so entrenched in our culture, that, until now, society has not felt a sense of urgency to perfect new technologies or test these in real world settings. However, recent world events and the hope inspired by a new President have raised our collective consciousness about the need for change.
Universities are in a unique role to lead the country forward – as they did after Civil War (through Land Grant legislation, 1862) to educate citizens and develop agriculture and mechanical technology; as they did (through Sea Grant legislation, 1966) to explore and find ways of saving and taking advantage of ocean resources; and as they did (through Space Grant legislation, 1989) to assist the exploration and exploitation of space. Universities have the knowledge base and research power to develop new technologies and serve as microenvironments in which to test these innovations. Energy Grant legislation would expand their capacity to conduct this important research and create models of sustainability, the knowledge from which could be transferred to the broader society. It will prepare the Unites States for the future, shift current and future energy demands, reduce emission of green house gasses, and create models of innovation nationwide. It will also serve to create employment and manufacturing capacity, while supporting state and local economies.
The proposal suggests designating Energy Grant status at leading public research universities across the country. This would catapult research and create model sustainability sites across the country. Each state has unique access to various alternative energy sources they might research and develop. The University of Maine, for example, is conducting cutting edge research on on-shore and off-shore wind, geothermal energy, tidal energy, and renewable forest-based energy. Universities across the nation are working on other alternative energy innovations, and a unified focus through Energy Grant Institutions would foster competition, collaboration, and cross-testing that would otherwise be very difficult to achieve. Further, each state would benefit through the creation of research and manufacturing opportunities that the research would engender. The idea is innovative, affordable, and very likely to change the course of our nation.
President Barack Obama has asserted a commitment to doubling alternative energy production during his first two years in office. He declared in his inaugural address, “We will restore science to its rightful place. . . . We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.” This proposal is a cost effective way for the entire country to move in that direction.
Specifically, Energy Grant Universities would:
- Conduct research to discover scientific principles and technologies that would unlock new energy sources and perfect ways of rendering promising energy sources and technologies economically feasible;
- Work on the technologies themselves to bring them from promising concepts to workable ideas;
- Assist private industry in energy technology development;
- Serve as test beds for promising technologies by implementing them campuswide as replacements for old energy sources and old technologies;
- Serve as model communities of sustainability, where energy conservation, energy recycling, computer control of energy use, and application of new energy sources and technologies would be combined to make universities able to operate at high levels of efficiency. Develop such models so that they could be transferred to communities at large;
Participating Universities would benefit with increased enrollment of students interested in being part of transforming the energy landscape for the next century and through building enhancements as facilities are retrofitted to test new energy solutions.
The federal government would:
- Provide grants and support to develop projects and underwrite campus model energy programs;
- Enter into agreements with participating universities to provide return on investment by sharing the income from patents and licensed products.
The suggestions in this proposal are consistent with recommendations made by the American Physical Society Energy Efficiency Study Group (http://www.aps.org/energy efficiencyreport/report/aps-energyreport.pdf). The creation of Energy Grant Institutions could also be a key focus for President-elect Obama’s proposed “Agency for Energy Innovation.”
Time is of the essence, and the nation needs big ideas and big initiatives, not incremental nibbling around the edges and imaginary twenty-year goals. The Land Grant movement was the biggest single event in the history of higher education, and its impact was a huge step in the great leap forward America made after the Civil War toward becoming a leading nation. Times call for world leadership again; and the nation(s) that grab hold of their energy policies and transform them to independence, renewability, and sustainability will be the nations that lead the rest of the twenty-first century. This proposal to create Energy Grant-designated universities will lead to improvements in energy creation, storage and use, while training the next generation of scientists, engineers, policy makers, and consumers for rational long and short term energy decisions.
Therefore, Be It Resolved:
That the Faculty Senate, on behalf of the faculty of the University of Maine, supports the Proposal to Establish Energy Grant Designations for Leading Public Research Universities. We further support efforts by Senators and other campus leaders to solicit broad-based national support for the proposal, in order to propel it forward at the federal level.
Voting Result: The Resolution passed unanimously.
Motion Title: to Recommend the Elimination of the Undergraduate Academic Degree in Information Science and Engineerin
Motion By: PCRRC
On the recommendation of the faculty of the Department of Spatial Information Science and Engineering, the PCRRC regretfully recommends the elimination of the Undergraduate Academic Degree in Information Science and Engineering. The PCRRC concurs with the faculty of the Department of Spatial Information Science and Engineering that the elimination of the program represents a lost opportunity for the State of Maine, a loss which could only be remediated through substantive investment in the field. We highly recommend that every member of the UMS Board of Trustees read comprehensively the uncontested full report of the concerned faculty entitled, BS Information Systems Engineering Degree Elimination, publicly accessible at /facultysenate/PCRRC before voting to eliminate this program.
Voting Result: The motion passed unanimously.
February 25, 2009 Faculty Senate Meeting
Motion: Motion to Approve Shared Governance Policy
The Board of Trustees of the University of Maine System has charged each campus to create a Shared Governance Policy to become part of the Bylaws for the Faculty Senate. Representatives from the Faculty Senate and University administration have worked collaboratively for over a year to develop this policy, which has both an enduring philosophy statement and a more fluid implementation section. In the true spirit of shared governance, the implementation section can be revisited, as specified, making it responsive to university change and growth.
The Faculty Senate supports the Shared Governance Policy and recommends that it be turned over to the Secretary of Senate as proposed Bylaw Changes to be voted on 45 days hence.
There was some discussion regarding the Shared Governance motion.
Voting Result: The motion passed with1 abstention after a few friendly amendments.
Motion Title: General Education motion
Motion by: Dan Belknap, Chair, Academic Affairs Committee:
The Academic Affairs Committee of the Faculty Senate moves formal acceptance of the General Education Student Learner Outcomes and Assessments per category, as developed by the General Education Working Groups, Center for Teaching Excellence, and the Ad Hoc Committee for General Education Requirements of the Faculty Senate, as submitted in written form today, February 25, 2009.
Voting Result: Passed with 1 abstention.
April 1, 2009 Faculty Senate Meeting
Motion: Motion to Support ADVANCE Grant brought forward by the Environment Committee.
Voting Result: approved unanimously.
Motion: Motion to Accept the 15 Step Process brought forward by the Program Creation, Review & Reorganization Committee.
Voting Result: carried unanimously.
Motion: Motion to change the reporting schedule for Incomplete grades and to establish a clear and simple reporting form brought forward by the Academic Affairs Committee.
Voting Result: passed, 1 abstention.
April 22, 2009 Faculty Senate Meeting
Motion Title: Priority Registration for Student Athletes
Motion: The UMaine Athletic Advisory Committee in March, 2009 unanimously approved a motion that modifies the University’s current “Priority Registration Policy” for student athletes. The UMAAC changed it from one that applies only to a single semester, for students busy with their sport that season, to a policy that applies to all student athletes both semesters. The proposed modification stems from today’s more modern student athlete who has an academic-year-long commitment to practices, etc. Also of significance here is that our current policy gives student athletes registration priority essentially equal to Senior Class status, which could conceivably result in displacement of non-student athlete seniors for classes they need to graduate; our proposed policy would eliminate that possibility and give student athletes only Junior Class status (unless they are Seniors, of course). The proposed new policy conforms to that recommended by the NCAA, and it conforms to that of all the other schools in our conference (America East).
University of Maine
Priority Registration Policy for Student-Athletes
Effective May 1, 2009
Whereas University of Maine NCAA Division I student-athletes often face conflicts in the timing of mandatory or required classes and team practices, and
Whereas the current University of Maine policy, which states: “Student-Athletes who will be in outside competition in the upcoming semester may register for classes on the first day of the pre-registration period” [emphasis added], does not account for year-round commitments of student-athletes, and
Whereas all other America East Conference schools permit priority registration every term, and
Whereas the NCAA encourages priority registration for classes for all student-athletes;
The University of Maine Athletic Advisory Board, in order to foster the timely completion of degrees for its student-athletes, recommends the following policy be adopted:
As of May 1, 2009, all University of Maine student-athletes, except Seniors, shall be given priority in the registration for classes equivalent to that of students with Junior class standing.
The Faculty Senate Academic Affairs committee endorses this motion, and recommends full senate approval.
Voting Result: The motion passed.
May 27, 2009 Faculty Senate Meeting
Resolution to Codify Committees of the Administration
Whereas Committees of the Administration serve an important shared governance function, and Whereas the list of the Committees of the Administration has not been updated in several years, and Whereas there is a need for transparency about the Committees of the Administration, including the charge to each committee, and the committee membership transparent on campus.
Therefore, be it resolved that the committees listed below are sanctioned by the Faculty Senate as Committees of the Administration. The list is divided into three sections: 1) Those committees for which membership shall include, in part, faculty members chosen through the Committee on Committees process, as outlined in the Shared Governance understanding of April 2009; 2) Those committees for which there will be a Faculty Senate Representative, who is charged to report back to the Senate on important issues emanating from that committee; and 3) Those committees that at this time do not need faculty membership through a Senate process.
Be it resolved that the charge for each committee be posted on the university website, along with the names of committee members.
Be it resolved that changes to this list, which the Senate recognizes may at times be prudent or necessary, will be brought to the Senate for collaboration.
Section 1 Committees for which membership shall include, in part, faculty members chosen through the Committee on Committees Process:
Academic Policy Planning and Implementation Committee
Academic Standing Committee
Athletic Advisory Board
Campus Budget Committee
Campus Planning Committee
Cultural Affairs Committee
Environmental Health and Safety Committee
Honorary Degree Committee
President’s Council on Disabilities
President’s Council on Women
Presidential Research Award Committee
Presidential Teaching Award Committee
Presidential Service Award Committee
Promotion and Tenure Advisory Committee
Scientific Misconduct Committee
Steve Gould Award Committee
Student Administrative Appeal Board
Student Conduct Code Committee
Student Employment Advisory Committee
Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Improvement Committee
Tenure Advisory Committee
Undergraduate Program Curriculum Committee
Section 2 Committees for which there will be a Faculty Senate Representative, who is charged to report back to the Senate on important issues emanating from that committee:
Bachelor of University Studies Steering Committees
Graduation and Retention Rate Improvement Team
University Research Council
University Teaching Council
Section 3 Committees for which faculty membership is not determined through a Senate
Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee
Institutional Biosafety Committee
Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects
Parking and Safety Committee
Radiation Safety Committee
Voting Result: The motion passed.