September 18, 2013 – Faculty Senate Meeting
RESOLUTION FROM THE FACULTY SENATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MAINE TO PRESIDENT FERGUSON
The University of Maine System (UMS) Information Technology (IT) Transformation Plan, “A Redesign of Information Technology Service Delivery,” was approved by the UMS Board of Trustees, January 2013. “A Redesign of Information Technology Service Delivery” is in its first phase of implementation, directed by UMS Chief Information Officer (CIO) Richard Thompson, by explicit instruction of Chancellor James Page. The plan was developed in response to the Chancellor’s December 2012 revised charter, after his rejection of the recommendations of an administrative IT review committee representing all campuses, formed by charter of the Chancellor May 2012. The vision of the approved plan, authored by the CIO, is “[t]o deliver seamless, high-quality and effective information technology infrastructure and services that matter to students, faculty and administrative users.” (“Administrative Review: Information Technology Services,” 2). The approved plan proposes “transformational change that establishes an accountable person within a framework that provides high engagement and oversight from campus leadership, as well as a commitment to efficiencies, savings, and a greater focus on academic programs and activities” (ibid, 4) a “new focus on academic technology” with the planned outcome of “a seamless information technology delivery system which is responsive to the needs of leadership, faculty, students and administrators” (10). The plan identifies “change of governance, development of communication, accountability and oversight,” as key factors for achieving “a streamlined and efficient system of service delivery and asset management” (15) securing “efficiencies resulting in savings of at least 10% of current operating budgets” (7) by Fiscal 2016. The plan calls for modernization and transformation by systematically reassigning campus-level responsibilities for IT management, growth and delivery to system-level administration (the Office of the CIO), centralizing and standardizing services, procurement and funding, and policies and practices; by consolidating to system-level the management and delivery of campus and system infrastructure, support, data center operations, and communications systems; by unifying delivery of end-user technology across campuses; and by centrally organizing academic IT, web development services and learning management systems through a shared services model, all to be achieved by applying best practices (Appendix 3—Recommendations, 25-29). The plan is to be fully implemented by April 2015.
WHEREAS the University of Maine System (“The System”) Information Technology (IT) Transformation Plan, A Redesign of Information Technology Service Delivery (“The Plan”), is currently in its initial phase of implementation; and
WHEREAS aspects of The Plan implemented since inception have included establishment of a multi-campus IT Director, an Academic Information Technology Service Management Committee, a CIO council, a communications plan for leaders, administrators, technical staff and innovators, a campus commonalities report for identifying, reviewing and organizing IT services into a shared services model with campus IT management, and establishment in part of a new organizational structure; and
WHEREAS aspects of The Plan implemented since May 2013 have included governance changes impacting oversight at the campus level; and
WHEREAS aspects of The Plan implemented since May 2013 have included changes to infrastructure impacting or potentially impacting academic IT at the campus level; and
WHEREAS aspects of The Plan implemented since May 2013 impacting campus oversight and/or academic IT have been enacted without either soliciting input from or informing in a timely fashion University of Maine faculty representatives to the Academic Information Technology Service Management Committee;
WHEREAS The Plan systemically removes autonomy and authority over development, management and delivery of academic IT infrastructure and services from University of Maine vests such autonomy and authority in The System;
WHEREAS The Plan does not quantify or otherwise consider consequences of cost-management decision-making on the effectiveness of academic IT use and development, nor the potentially mitigating effects on proposed cost-savings due to academic IT-educational services solutions mismatches; and
WHEREAS The Plan is not informed by any study or review of current academic IT practices and needs of faculty at University of Maine and other campuses; and
WHEREAS The Plan is without mechanism for shared, direct communication between system-level administrators of The Plan and campus faculty, despite recommendation from the May 2012 review committee to “Form constituent-based advisory opportunities for consumers of IT services. These should include formally assembled groups of students, faculty, and administrative staff to have the ability for their needs to be heard and to provide priority and voice to their ideas and input” (“Administrative Review,” 10); and
WHEREAS academic IT network and digital communications supporting are today integrated into daily classroom activities of more than 50% of University of Maine campus-based courses; and
WHEREAS The Plan makes no acknowledgement of the deep daily integration of academic IT in daily classroom activities; and
WHEREAS seamless, high-quality and effective information technology infrastructure and services via campus-based network and digital communications are further relied upon by University of Maine students in their daily and academic lives and equally by University of Maine faculty in their daily and professional lives; and
WHEREAS the vision of The Plan is precisely to deliver seamless, high-quality and effective information technology infrastructure and services that matter to students, faculty and administrative users; and
WHEREAS disruption of access to academic IT resources and services implies immediate disruption of delivery of educational materials and services for both campus-based and distance-learning courses; and
WHEREAS such disruption of services compromises the effectiveness of the teaching faculty, the reputation of affected campuses, and faith in The System’s ability to effectively oversee and manage IT centrally;
WHEREAS repeated disruption of IT infrastructure network services occurred throughout the University of Maine campus during the first two weeks of the Fall 2013 semester; and
WHEREAS such disruptions severely negatively impacted hundreds of classes and distance-learning offerings, some repeatedly, during the first two weeks of the Fall 2013 semester; and
WHEREAS no organized system-level communication about or response to issues was evident to UM faculty or other campus-level IT stakeholders during the first two weeks of the Fall 2013 semester; and
WHEREAS System-level response to campus-wide disruptions in IT infrastructure network services was slow and inadequate, appeared to have insufficient direct knowledge of campus-level events with a concomitant lack of urgency in responsiveness, appeared inaccessible to general end-users seeking remedy from the consequences of disruptions in service, and appeared slow to acknowledge the scope of campus-level disruptions; and
WHEREAS these recent events have made superabundantly evident the need for robust mechanisms whereby faculty and other campus-level stakeholders can provide continuous input and receive timely feedback to System-level administrators implementing The Plan throughout all phases, in formats best promoting effective communication of stakeholder and end-user needs, issues, solutions and innovations;
WHEREAS this Body has previously brought to the attention of the University of Maine administration, specifically the Office of Administration & Finance, and the Office of the Provost, concerns about lack of process and communication with regard to implementation of The Plan, and received assurances from University of Maine administration that faculty would be duly included and informed through conduits to be instituted as a campus-level priority; and
WHEREAS it has been the experience to date among UM faculty that campus-level administrative assurances of input & inform have not been adequately realized in practice;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the University of Maine Faculty Senate prevail upon the Office of the President to 1. Immediately convene an open meeting of campus-wide academic IT stakeholders before October 1 to discuss concerns with current implementation strategies and timelines of The Plan; and, 2. Begin co-development of a process for creating a proper, permanent communications mechanism between faculty campus administration and System-level administrators of The Plan, to maximize benefit and positive impact of technology integration and transformation of the “Redesign of Information Technology Service Delivery” on the teaching and research missions of the University of Maine.
SUBMITTED BY: Faculty Senate Executive Committee and Ad Hoc IT Committee of Faculty Senate of the University of Maine.
This resolution came from faculty frustration, disruption to classes during the first week, and no reporting method when there’s a disruption. There needs to be reliable communications when IT disruptions are coming. President Ferguson didn’t believe a resolution was necessary but agrees there has been frustration and will be meeting as soon as possible with Dick Thompson. There were assurances that something like this would not happen but it did. The System needs to come have a conversation about the issues. Janet Waldron agreed, clear communication is needed and so far it’s not acceptable. UMaine Strategic Plan will guide the campus direction, IT Governance Council and IT Effectiveness Council. The Councils have been generated and will need to work with UMaine to enforce that campus is driving the technology needs. John Gregory stated that communication is a serious issue but not sure the outage could have been avoided since they were not tied to the restructuring. PeopleSoft and other services were already here but we do need better communication moving forward.
It was stated that the Resolution was a stronger tool if it’s not passed today. If postponed, while waiting to see how a meeting with the System Office goes, the Resolution becomes stronger.
Vote: Resolution Approved
Response to Motion by the Administration OR Responses to Motions by
October 16, 2013 – Faculty Senate Meeting
Motion to support the proposed Departmental Structure for the College of Education and Human Development. Program Creation & Reorganization Review Committee
COEHD does not have departments. Three new departments are proposed, including A) Exercise Science and STEM Education; B) Teacher and Counselor Education; and C): Educational Leadership, Higher Education and Human Development. The COEHD proposal was posted on the PCRRC website on August 21, and the open meeting was held on October 4, 2013, attended by Dean Nichols and seven faculty including the new chairs, and four PCRRC committee members. Everyone at the meeting was in favor of the new departmental organization. Concern was raised regarding departmental names to assure that the disciplines are clear to students. It was agreed that naming and content of the departments was an ongoing project, but that the number of departments and their makeup took into consideration existing programs and faculty. The PCRRC committee voted to recommend that the Faculty Senate support the full proposal for the creation of new departments in the College of Education and Human Development
The Full Faculty Senate supports the full proposal for the creation of new departments in the College of Education and Human Development.
MOTION ON SHARED GOVERNANCE FROM THE FACULTY SENATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MAINE TO PRESIDENT FERGUSON
Motion of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee
In April, 2009, the Faculty Senate of the University of Maine and the President of the University and its administration agreed to share governance in all academic affairs. The principles of shared governance are documented in the University of Maine Shared Governance Policy (available at <http://umaine.edu/facultysenate/files/2010/12/SharedGovernanceUMaine.pdf>http://umaine.edu/facultysenate/ files/2010/12/SharedGovernanceUMaine.pdf). The sense of trust and collaboration captured in this policy is emphasized by terms such as “shared confidence,” “mutual respect,” “mutual desire to collaborate,” “collaborative process.”
Due to a perceived need to move quickly, both administrators and faculty agree that during the summer of 2013 a number of administrative searches were not performed in full accordance with the agreed-on shared governance policies. This motion should not be interpreted as a statement for or against any individual appointed to a position. The failure to follow the Shared Governance Policy did not provide the faculty sufficient input or information to make a determination of the appropriateness of appointments. The Shared Governance Policy must be followed in order to ensure a fair, open, and collaborative process.
THEREFORE IT IS MOVED that the Faculty Senate requires that the principles of shared governance detailed in the University of Maine Shared Governance Policy be followed in the future. There is no emergency or expediency justifying circumvention of these core principles, no matter the time of year.
The sections of the Shared Governance Policy relevant to the selection of deans, provost, associate provost and other vice presidents and appended as part of this motion are as follows:
From Section II E (a) which states:
The faculty and administration will collaborate in the recruitment and selection of deans, the provost, associate provosts, and other vice presidents. Administrative searches are normally competitive and include open sessions to allow faculty members and other appropriate sectors within the university community to meet and give input regarding candidates. Search committees for administrators will include faculty chosen by accepted faculty governance procedures, as specified in Section A. Faculty representatives shall comprise at least half of each search committee for deans and associate provosts.
Section A in the above paragraph refers to Section II A which states:
Representation of the faculty at all levels of University shared governance will be: a) chosen by direct election by the faculty to the Faculty Senate; b) appointed by an elected faculty officer; or c) appointed by an administrator from a list of several nominated by the Committee on Committees of the Senate. For some committees, faculty members may be appointed directly by the administration or other representative body, as long as there are also faculty representatives on these committees appointed according to a, b, or c above.
Response to Motion by the Administration OR Responses to Motions by
November 13, 2013 – Faculty Senate Meeting
Motion to Update the Policy on Requirements for a University of Maine Undergraduate Degree
The Faculty Senate Constitution, Section 1, Article 3 on Jurisdiction states as follows:
Degree requirements. Subject to other provisions of this Constitution, the Senate shall have the authority to act in behalf of the faculty in establishing University-wide degree requirements.
As the Faculty Senate revises and updates the Faculty Handbook, it intends to adopt and reaffirm policies related to degree requirement and curriculum matters that are already in place subject to minor revisions and updates. Among the policies found in the existing Student Handbook published at http://www.umaine.edu/handbook/ (including but not limited to the section on Awarding of Degrees found at http://umaine.edu/handbook/academics/awarding-of-degrees/) are those that relate to the granting of University of Maine undergraduate degrees.
The Faculty Senate moves that the policies on granting University of Maine undergraduate degrees are hereby adopted and reconfirmed with minor changes as follows:
Policy on Requirements for a University of Maine Undergraduate Degree
The faculty of the University of Maine determines the requirements for all degrees awarded by the University. The faculty determines that an undergraduate baccalaureate degree requires all of the following:
The student must accumulate a minimum of 120 credit hours. The program in which the student is registered may have additional requirements.
The student must receive acceptable grades in all courses required by his or her academic major.
The student must achieve an accumulative average of not less than 2.0 in University of Maine courses. The program in which the student is registered may have additional requirements.
A minimum of 30 credits originating from the University of Maine Campus is required for the attainment of any bachelor’s degree. This policy can be fulfilled in one of two ways: 1) by taking 30 credits in the senior year, or 2) by taking 30 credits at the 300 to 400 level during any year of study.
There are two exceptions to this policy:
Exception 1. Students who have already completed three or more years at the University of Maine (minimum of 90 credits of University of Maine courses) when, in the opinion of the student’s academic program faculty in consultation with the student’s dean, there is sufficient and valid reason to complete the senior year elsewhere.
Exception 2. Students who have completed a minimum of three years of work at the University of Maine and who have been admitted to an accredited professional school of medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine, or divinity. With the approval of the student’s dean in consultation with the student’s program faculty, these students may qualify for the appropriate bachelor’s degree at the University of Maine upon receipt of the professional degree.
Transfer credits applicable to the granting of a University of Maine undergraduate degree normally must be from a school accredited by one of the following regional accrediting bodies:
Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools
North Central Association of Colleges and Schools
New England Association of Schools and Colleges
Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools
Western Association of Schools and Colleges
For international colleges or universities, the international equivalent of regional accreditation or Ministry of Education recognition will be considered.
If course work was completed at a school not regionally accredited, a student may specifically request that their course work be considered for transfer. These recommendations include, but are not limited to:
See Transfer Credit Policy for details on transferring in credits from other schools or for courses taken while in the military service.
This policy is on the books but periodically revised. It’s a common policy across the US but UMaine’s policy didn’t appear to have ever been looked at by UMaine faculty. The transfer credits from accredited schools has been tightened to the big 6 accreditations since several schools cite accreditation but bodies granting those are unknown.
Noticing that a lot of schools claim “membership” but not accreditations.
Exception 2 came from the BOT back in the 70’s and probably has only been used once, if ever.
Does this affect students that travel abroad, and how would that work?
Comment: Any student wanting to Study Abroad has to go through the preapproval process anyway.
Provost Hecker asked, if the Motion vetted by Faculty or the Academic Affairs Committee, and why Senate wants this done so quickly?
There have been discussions on what constitutes a degree from outside the University so Faculty Senate discussed adopting a policy. The motion went to Executive Committee but not active Academic Affairs Committee. Individuals can put forth a motion, which is then discussed, on the floor. These policies have changed over time and it’s not known by who or when. This gives ownership to the Faculty and Senate.
Comment: This issue has come up in discussion at the BOT level. There is a policy in the Student Handbook but it’s unclear who wrote that policy. The topic was discussed at an Elected Members meeting.
The Student Catalog needs be updated so should there be a date added to this?
Also this should follow the State Department of Education policy?
The catalog comes out in September and is on a yearly calendar, correct? Students under the previous catalog follow that catalog. This new policy would apply to those incoming students once it’s in the catalog.
This is an existing policy that does not change just reiterates what constitutes a degree from UMaine.
Motion to Amend the Motion on the floor from:
A minimum of 30 credits originating from the University of Maine Campus is required for the attainment of any bachelor’s degree. This policy can be fulfilled in one of two ways: 1) by taking 30 credits in the senior year, or 2) by taking 30 credits at the 300 to 400 level during any year of study.
A minimum of 30 credits originating from the University of Maine Campus is required for the attainment of any bachelor’s degree. This policy can be fulfilled by taking 30 credits at the 300 or higher level over any year of study.
Not seeing the need for the change.
This is how things come to the Senate, taking a 20-year policy and putting it back on the floor. Instead of having someone change the policy at will the faculty is taking ownership. There have been discussions regarding this issue so there’s a need for the policy.
Comment: Not sure this is something that needs Administration approval per Faculty Senate By-laws. That should be double-checked but pretty sure that’s the case.
Motion to accept a General Definition for Community Engagement Service and Outreach Committee Recommendation, November 2013
The Service and Outreach Committee of the Faculty Senate is recommending passage of the following motion, which includes a general definition for Community Engagement at the University of Maine. We are recommending this definition for Community Engagement because the new report from the President’s roundtable mentions the Carnegie definition and it is more inclusive of all the types of Community Engagement activities that might be engaged in or through a land grant institution like the University of Maine. The definition can be found below and at the Carnegie website:
Community Engagement describes the collaboration between institutions of higher education and their larger communities (local, regional/state, national, global) for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partnership and reciprocity (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching). http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/community_engagement.php?key=1213
The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine adopts the following general definition for Community Engagement. This definition will serve as a guide in the development of Community Engagement opportunities and partnerships between students, University of Maine faculty and staff, and communities throughout the State of Maine and beyond. Community Engagement at the University of Maine is defined as the collaboration between institutions of higher education and their larger communities (local, regional/state, national, global) for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partnership and reciprocity (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching).
Response to Motion by the Administration OR Responses to Motions by
December 18, 2013 – Faculty Senate Meeting
To: Faculty Senate Date: April 3, 2013
Below please find a motion to accept revised wording for a change of grade. The current policy can be found below in the discussion.
Motion: The Faculty Senate approves the following language for the Undergraduate Catalog and, when revised, the faculty Handbook:
The Change of Grade Policy
Instructors desiring to change a grade after official posting should submit a grade change request to the MaineStreet Grade Roster. Normally, grade changes are a result of clerical errors or errors of omission. Grade changes made beyond six months of the end of a semester require approval from the Associate Dean or designee. The decision of the Associate Dean may be appealed to the faculty of the Curriculum Committee of the faculty member’s college (or equivalent academic unit) which shall be the final authority.
When entering the grade change on MaineStreet, the instructor should enter a brief written rationale containing their reasons for wanting to change the grade.
If a student wishes to improve a grade, then the option to repeat the course should be considered. For policy regarding incomplete grades, please see the incomplete grade policy in this catalog.
Discussion and Notes
Existing policy as cited in the 1988 Faculty Handbook:
“All grades changed by an instructor should state the reason for the change, and must be approved by the Dean of the College. The only exception to this change is a change from an Incomplete to a letter grade (see section on change of Incomplete grades which follows.)
The purpose of this procedure is to assure that grade changes are clearly justified for academic reasons. A change of grade should be a rarity, made only when legitimate mistakes such as computational errors, cause the initial grade to be incorrect. Change of Grade cards (YELLOW CARDS) are available in the Dean’s Office. After the card has all the appropriate signatures, it is forwarded by the Dean’s Office to the Registrar’s Office.”
The policy has to be changed to reflect the move from cards to MaineStreet. But the new policy also allows a six-month window for a grade change by the professor with no required approval. After six months the grade change will be reviewed, but a potential denial by an Associate Dean can be appealed to a faculty group—the faculty of the College Curriculum Committee.
Was this initiated by Stuart Marrs?
Yes but think it originated from Student Records.
Provost Hecker commented that he heard from four Deans with concerns regarding the policy. 1. Rationale for the 6-months, 2. Yellow cards previously used had a place for the Deans signature not the Assoc. Dean, 3. May be out of the scope of work for some College Curriculum Committee’s, 4. What if there’s a disagreement by the Assoc Dean and then goes to a Curriculum Committee, will the committee overrule the Assoc Dean? 5. Responsibility should rest with the individual, 6. Rare case of disagreement may be unpopular decision. Administrators/Deans get paid to take the heat.
Six months was based on some students that may not mention the issue until the next semester, that can be three or four months. Sometimes it’s a matter of recording a grade incorrectly. Rick Borgman commented that if a student doesn’t like a grade they can present it to a dean immediately, you don’t need a policy for that.
Comment: this should be a peer issues.
Motion: The motion was tabled.
Motion: Military Credit: Policy Adjustment From: The Academic Affairs Committee
Date: April 3, 2013
Below please find a motion to accept revised wording for policy re. Military Credit. This language has been revised to reflect faculty Senate concerns. The current policy can be found below in the discussion.
Motion: The Faculty Senate approves the following language for the Undergraduate Catalog: Military Credit:
Credit allowed will be based on recommendations of the American Council on Education (ACE) and National College Credit Recommendation Service (National CCRS, formerly National PONSI) and will correspond to subject areas offered at the University of Maine. Only courses recommended at the upper or lower baccalaureate level will be considered for transfer credit. A maximum of 15 credits will be allowed as military transfer credit (not including prior experiential learning and credit for standardized tests) and the courses will count as elective credit only unless an exception is made. The process for an exception is as follows: the student should contact his or her college or school Associate Dean who will forward the material to the appropriate department chair, unit director, or faculty member who will make the appropriate decision.
Credit for military experience: credit for learning due to duties or a position in the military is considered prior learning and will be considered in the same way as other prior experiential learning. See subsection “Prior Learning Credit” in this section.
Discussion and Notes
Credit for military experience or corporate training programs: Normally will be allowed according to the recommendations of the American Council on Education (ACE) and National Program on Noncollegiate Sponsored Instruction (PONSI). Credit allowed in this way normally counts for elective credit only. Courses considered to be at the upper baccalaureate level will be the only courses considered for transfer credit. All military students will receive 2 credits of KPE 100X for basics/recruit training.
The revised wording removes any reference to corporate training programs, limits credit to 15 credits, and now allows for both upper and lower baccalaureate level courses to be accepted.
The credit limit protects the students in this way: these credits come in as free electives in most all cases. Having too many free electives only increases overall credits without moving a student toward graduation. This has financial aid implications.
As always, and as is now clearly stated, credits must correspond to subject areas offered at the University of Maine. This policy refers only to coursework. Credit for work experience is covered through the university’s prior experiential learning policy.
Who or what is doing the reviewing and recommending? ACE (The American Council on Education) is a nationally known and accepted organization that reviews courses to see if they are at a level of rigor and content equal to a college course and then recommends appropriate college credit. National CCRS is a similar organization developed by the Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York.
Why change the policy now? A system-wide group was tasked by the Transfer Steering Committee to look into military credit. That group recommended the expansion to upper and lower baccalaureate courses. But it clearly left all specifics of policy to the campuses. This is totally our wording and our policy.
University of Maine System
General Education and Credit Transfer Working Group Progress Report and Suggested Faculty Motions on the Campuses
All University of Maine System (UMS) Universities are required to meet the accreditation requirements of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC).
The University of Maine System has convened a UMS Credit Transfer and General Education Working Group. The immediate goal of the group’s effort is to better facilitate transparency and ease in the transfer of credit for meeting general education requirements among the UMS campuses. The members of this group are listed below in Appendix A. The group also is actively engaging the registrars and transfer credit administrative staff from each of the UMS campuses.
The group was formed partially to respond to the language of Maine LD 90 that was incorporated within the language of the last Maine budget legislation. The language in part states:
Articulation agreements for general education must be in place no later than January 1, 2014 within the system and the university separately, and by September 1, 2014 between the university and the system. Articulation agreements for the science, technology, engineering and mathematics programs must be in place no later than September 1, 2014.
The meaning of the term “articulation agreement” is unclear in the legislation and thus is left largely up to the University of Maine System and its universities to define. This UMS working group is concerned only with the first sentence in the above quoted legislation while UMS “major-to-major” working groups are responding to the language of the second sentence.
To date, the UMS Credit Transfer and General Education Working Group has documented the general education requirements on each campus. (See the draft document at http://umaine.edu/facultysenate/files/2013/11/UMSGenEdCampusRqrmnts.docx)
The working group has also identified the individual courses and/or groups of courses that meet the general education requirements on each UMS campus (See the spreadsheet document at http://umaine.edu/facultysenate/files/2013/11/UMSGenEdCourseEquivs.xlsx)
At the outset it should be noted that while there are differences in the general education categories across the seven campuses, and while the student learning outcomes for commonly shared requirements may differ, all UMS units have identified student learning outcomes and the campuses are in compliance with the standards for general education defined by NEASC. The group believes it is essential that each campus maintain its own general education curriculum, representative of its specific mission and identity, while also reflecting our shared compliance with accreditation standards. Accordingly, this document reflects both our dedication to transparency among the requirements of our individual general education curricula as well as the greatest possible level of transferability among our campuses at this level.
In the past, determining which undergraduate courses on another campus would be accepted for credit as equivalent to a course on your campus was accomplished on an ad hoc basis, “as needed” when students applied to transfer courses to your campus. Before accepting the course as equivalent, the faculty unit teaching the course would be consulted to ensure that the course would be accepted as equivalent. The courses that have transferred in the past and their equivalencies were listed in Maine Street (See Faculty Center > Advisor Center > Transfer Course Equivalencies)
Rather than continue this ad hoc approach, the registrars and transfer credit administrators have recently looked at every course at every other UMS campus to determine whether those courses at the other campuses would be accepted as equivalents on their home campus and explicitly for which courses, if any. The academic program units are consulted in the instance of questionable equivalent courses.
An immediate goal of each UMS campus is to mark each course within PeopleSoft that meets their general education requirements. Once accomplished, anyone will be able to see whether any course on any other UMS campus meets a general education requirement on that campus and, if so, which specific general education requirement is met. As an example, Appendix B lists the General Education requirements for the University of Maine campus, the explicit UMaine courses that satisfy those requirements, and courses at the other UMS campuses that will transfer as equivalent to the UMaine General Education courses. A similar table has been prepared for each of the UMS campuses.
ASSUMPTION 1: BLOCK TRANSFER IN MEETING GENERAL EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS
All University of Maine System (UMS) Universities meet the accreditation requirements of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC). Therefore, a matriculated student that meets ALL of the general education course requirements at a University of Maine System institution before transferring to another UMS campus is deemed to have fulfilled ALL of the general education requirements for graduation at any of the other campuses.
Thus the student need not take any further courses to fulfill general education requirements. This is true even though general education requirements may differ substantially among the campuses. It is understood that some, many or all of the courses might transfer only as 1xxx courses that perhaps count only as elective courses and would not necessarily substitute directly for another course required for graduation in a specific major. A transferring student might still be required to take some upper level general education courses because the courses are also required by the major degree program. As example, an intensive writing course in the major or a capstone course in the major might often be required by the major degree even though these courses might also qualify as general education courses for non-transfer students.
Therefore, if a matriculated student at any University of Maine System institution has completed 100% of the general education requirements at that institution, the UMS institution to which the student is transferring will consider all general education requirements completed. It will be the student’s responsibility to ask the Registrar’s Office or Office of Student Records at the UMS institution where the general education requirements were completed to verify the completion of these requirements to the appropriate office at the new UMS institution.
Note: The above block transfer practice is little different from the current block transfer practice among the UMS campuses when a student completes a degree on one campus and then transfers to another UMS campus to earn an additional undergraduate degree. Such a student is given full faith and credit for having already completed their general education requirements and need not take meet the general education requirements again assuming that the campus from which they are transferring is NEASC accredited. They need only complete the requirements of the major on the new campus plus acquire the required number of credits for graduation. The only difference with the above block transfer procedure from current practice is that the registrar at the UMS campus from which the student is transferring may now be called upon, in appropriate cases, to verify that all general education requirements of the university have been met by the student if indeed the entire degree has not been completed on that campus.
Experience has shown that very few transfer students currently complete ALL general education course requirements on a single UMS campus prior to transferring to another UMS campus for completion of an undergraduate degree. Thus for many transfer students it is necessary to determine on a course-by-course basis if they have met specific general education requirements that they need not fulfill again.
ASSUMPTION 2: COURSE-BY-COURSE TRANSFERS TO FULFILL GENERAL EDUCATION CATEGORY REQUIREMENTS
The assumption is made that if a course on the campus to which a student is transferring meets a general education requirement AND the academic unit in consultation with the instructor(s) of the course on the campus to which the student is transferring deems that the course previously taken by the student at another UMS campus is equivalent, the student obtains credit for both the course as being equivalent and gets credit for meeting that general education category requirement on the receiving campus. This is true even if the course did not fulfill a similar general education requirement on the campus from which the student is departing and/or fulfill similar student outcome objectives.
Note: This assumption matches the current practice supported among all of the UMS campuses.
ASSUMPTION 3: COURSE TRANSFER ARTICULATION DATABASE: AUTOMATION TO PROVIDE CLARITY AND TRANSPARENCY
The assumption is made that PeopleSoft and/or MaineStreet will be enabled to allow students, faculty, administrators and the general public to readily see what courses taken on any UMS campus will fulfill the general education requirements on any other UMS campus. An example of all courses taken at other UMS campuses meeting the general education requirements on the University of Maine campus is shown in Appendix B. Similar simple course transfer charts for all of the other campuses are accessible at the General Education links at https://umaine.edu/csit/transfer-of-course-credits-among-the-university-programs/.
While the examples shown at the above link were compiled by hand as examples, the assumption is that similar tables will be generated on the fly by drawing from the up-to-date database for course transfers whenever a member of the public wants to see which courses will transfer to other UMS campuses to meet general education requirements. Thus, general education course transfer tables, whether expressed in html online or as a pdf file for download, will always be up to date. The general public will have the same access to the detailed course transfer information on the web as that provided to a student currently enrolled at a UMS campus, a potential new student or transfer, a parent, a legislator or a faculty member.
Motions Recommended for Faculty Senates on the UMS Campuses to Accommodate the Mandates of the Maine Legislature
The responsibility for the determination of the requirements which students must meet to be eligible for an academic degree rests with the faculties of each of the several units of the University of Maine System. (Board of Trustees of the University of Maine System, Policy Manual, Section 303 Academic Degrees) As with all respected Universities across the nation and globe, credentialed faculty members are involved intimately in credentialing on a course-by-course and curriculum-by-curriculum basis each successive generation of university graduates. In it’s Constitution approved by the Chancellor of the University of Maine System pursuant to Board of Trustees’ Policies, it is clear that in regard to matters concerning student academic standards and performance, recommendations of the Faculty Senate become University policy except when explicitly disapproved by the President of the University.
Motion 1 as listed below is likely to have very little practical effect currently on course transfers at most UMS campuses. The motion will allow however each UMS campus to state that they grant full credit for completion of general education requirements by a student on any other UMS campus. It is very similar to the current practice of granting block transfer credit for fulfilling general education requirements for a student that has completed a degree on another NEASC accredited UMS campus. Motion 2 represents the status quo on how credits for general education courses are accepted for transfer currently to each of the UMS campuses but describes the current practice as one involving course-by-course articulation agreements in order to accommodate the legislative mandate. Motion 3 concerning the course transfer articulation database will allow course-to-course articulation agreements among the UMS campus units to always be up-to-date. Addition of publicly accessible transfer tables to be automatically generated on-the-fly will greatly enhance transparency for students when investigating the transfer of courses among the campuses, allow them to plan ahead and will make transfer processes far more efficient.
Motion 1: Block Transfer in Meeting General Education Requirements
If a matriculated student at another University of Maine System institution has completed 100% of the general education requirements and assuming that the campus from which the student is transferring is accredited by NEASC, our campus will provide 100% reciprocity and acceptance of that student’s completion of the General Education requirements such that the student transferring is deemed to have completed all general education requirements. It will be the student’s responsibility to ask the Registrar’s Office or Office of Student Records at the UMS institution where the general education requirements were completed to verify and certify the completion of these requirements to the appropriate office at our campus. It should be noted that a transfer student might still be required to take some upper level General Education courses because the courses are also required by the student’s major degree program or are required of all students earning a degree at the institution.
Motion 2: Course-by-Course Articulation Agreements for Transfer of General Education Courses
A student completing only some general education requirements on one or several University of Maine System NEASC accredited campus’s before transferring must meet all of the general education requirements on the campus to which they are transferring. However, if a course on the campus to which a student is transferring meets a general education requirement AND the academic unit on the campus to which the student is transferring (in consultation with the instructor(s) of the course) determines that the course previously taken by the student is equivalent, the student obtains credit for both the course as being equivalent and receives credit for meeting that general education category requirement on the receiving campus. Such a determination constitutes a course-by-course articulation agreement for further transfer students until the faculty unit decides otherwise.
Motion 3: Development and Maintenance of a Course Transfer Articulation Database and Generation of User Friendly Course Transfer Tables
Technology shall be enabled by UMS to allow potential and existing students to readily see what courses they may take on any UMS or Maine Community College Campus that will transfer to and fulfill specific general education requirements on any UMS campus to which they might eventually transfer. That is, the table shown in Appendix B should be generated for each UMS campus and then regenerated automatically on-the-fly from the database whenever a user seeks access such that the course transfer tables are always up-to-date.
January 29, 2014 – Faculty Senate Meeting
Resolution concerning Process for Updating the Faculty Handbook
The Faculty Senate on April 16, 2003 by a vote of 48 for and 1 abstention adopted the handbook which has been available since that time on the senate web site. This is the latest version of the faculty handbook which was adopted by the senate and thus serves as the faculty handbook for the University of Maine.
The senate will use this version of the handbook as the basis for incremental updates. The senate is further resolved that the handbook is in an electronic age a document which must serve as a master resource for policies on the University of Maine campus. Therefore ongoing revisions will be tracked in a revision history and the senate will remain the controlling repository for supporting documents.
The Senate approves the process by which the handbook dated April 2003 will be updated with sections approved as revisions become available.
Motion to Number the Sections of the Faculty Handbook
The Faculty Senate on April 16, 2003 by a vote of 48 for and 1 abstention adopted the handbook which has been available since that time on the senate web site. The handbook states, “It is our intent that this will be an electronic document and that it will be updated once per semester by the CABC. “
In order to facilitate updates the handbook sections should be numbered with each section of substance in the chapters containing a subsection number.
To renumber the chapter now listed as a second chapter 4 as chapter 5 and to adopt the numbering system for the Faculty Handbook as follows:
Chapter 1: An Introduction to the University of Maine and the University of Maine System
1.1 The Roles of the University of Maine
1.2 Governance on Campus
1.3 The University of Maine Faculty Senate
1.4 Faculty Senate – Motion on Shared Governance – 1/29/2003
1.5 Appointment, Retention, Promotion, and Tenure
Chapter 2: Faculty Privileges, Professional Ethics, and Responsibilities
2.1 Academic Freedom
2.2 Free Speech and Assembly
2.3 Professional Ethics and Plagiarism
2.5 Student Evaluation of the Faculty
2.6 Faculty Review of Administrators
Chapter 3: Course Instruction Procedure and Guidelines
3.1 Course/Instruction Procedures and Guidelines
3.1.1 Course Modifications and New Courses
3.1.2 Faculty Office Hours
3.1.3 Advising Students
3.1.4 Course Syllabi
3.1.5 Distribution of the Syllabus
3.2 Class Periods
3.2.1 Class List
3.2.2 Class Attendance
3.3 Disruptive Behavior
3.4 Cheating, Plagiarism, and Academic Integrity
3.5 Tests and Examinations
3.5.1 Types of Examinations
3.5.2 Examination Scheduling
3.5.3 Absence from Final Examinations
3.5.4 Machine Scoring of Examinations
3.5.5 Examination File
3.6 Grades and Grading
3.6.1 Approved Grading Symbols and Definitions
3.6.2 Grading Policies
3.6.3 Transfer Grades
3.7 Academic Achievement Awards
3.8 Textbooks and Academic Supplies
Chapter 4: Policies, Guidelines, and Procedures
4.1 Travel Policies
4.2 Cancellation of Classes Because of Weather
4.3 Alcohol and Drug Policies; Smoking Policy
4.4 Nondiscrimination Policy
4.5 Affirmative Action Policy
4.6 Harassment Policies
4.7 Hazing Policy.
4.8 Complaint Procedure..
4.9 Weapons Policy
4.10 Violence in the Workplace Policy
4.11 Whistleblower Protection Act
4.12 AIDS Policy
4.13 Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)
4.14 Media Communications Policy
4.15 Pet Policy
Chapter 5: Helpful Information and Resources
5.1 Maine Card
5.2 Parking on Campus
5.3 Campus Mail
5.4 Telephone System
5.5 Faculty Pay Schedule
5.6 Childcare Facilities on Campus
5.7 University Housing
5.8 Auditoriums and Performance Spaces
5.8.1 Maine Center for the Arts/Hutchins Concert Hall
5.8.2 Other Auditoriums and Theaters
5.8.3 Minsky Music Recital Hall
5.8.4 Hauck Auditorium
5.8.5 Al Cyrus Pavilion Theater
5.9 Museum of Art
5.10 Recreational Facilities and Athletics
5.11 Grants, Contracts, and Extramural Funding
5.12 University IT
5.12.1 University of Maine Network for Education and Technology (UNET)
5.12.2 Department of Information Technologies (IT)
5.12.3 Networking Services
5.12.4 First Class
5.12.5 Computer Connection
5.12.6 Help Center
5.12.7 Faculty Development Center
5.12.8 Computer Repair Center
5.12.9 Other Information Technologies Services
5.13 Fogler Library
5.13.3 Library Checkout Privileges
5.13.4 Interlibrary Loan
5.15 Presidential Achievement Awards
5.15.1 Presidential Research and Creative Achievement Award
5.15.2 Presidential Outstanding Teaching Award
5.15.3 Presidential Public Service Achievement Award
5.16 Center for Teaching Excellence
Motion to Create a Chapter of the Faculty Handbook Devoted to Research and Scholarly Activity
One of the defining characteristics of the University of Maine as the only research intensive institution in Maine is the role of research in the life of the university. The current faculty handbook fails to separate research in a substantive manner in the document.
To modify the current organization of the handbook adding in a chapter 5 which considers issues related to research and scholarship by moving section 2.4 and 5.11 to become the new sections 5.1 and 5.2. The current chapter 5 will be renumbered as chapter 6. Existing sections 2.4 and 5.11 will be reserved for additional future content in those chapters of the handbook.
February 26, 2014 – Faculty Senate Meeting
Motion to Modify the Preamble to the Faculty Handbook
From the Constitution and Bylaws Committee
The preamble for the faculty handbook that was adopted on April 16, 2003 is out of date and does not properly define the process for modifying the handbook. The modified text addresses these issues.
To modify the preamble of the faculty handbook to read:
This Handbook is an information guide for University of Maine faculty, and does not supersede any collective bargaining agreements made by the Associated Faculty of the University of Maine (AFUM). The goal of the handbook is to capture key elements of administrative policy and faculty responsibility in a single resource that can provide guidance for all faculty at the University of Maine
This document has been assembled by the Constitution and Bylaws Committee (CABC) of the Faculty Senate. It is our intent that this will be an electronic document and that it will be updated once per semester by the CABC. Minor changes, such as updating a URL associated with policy which does not significantly impact faculty responsibilities or independence will be made on an ad hoc basis. All substantive changes will be required to be brought to the attention of the Faculty Senate and will be subject to a vote on during regular faculty meetings.
Comments of any sort as well as additions or corrections are solicited. For simplicity, please clearly indicate what you wish to add or subtract including the current text and the proposed text. If substantive this information will be presented to the senate in the form of a motion and will be subject to a vote. All corrections should be directed to the chair of the CABC and copied to the president of the faculty senate.
Motion to Modify the Research and Scholarship at UMaine section of the Faculty Handbook From the Research & Scholarship Committee Motion
To modify the Research and Scholarship section of the faculty handbook to read:
Research and Scholarship at UMaine
One of the three missions of the University of Maine is research, and faculty members are expected to conduct research and be involved in scholarly activities. This expectation is reflected in faculty evaluation and promotion procedures. The range of scholarly activities is wide and specific to the discipline; it may include, among others, exhibited artistic creations, book writing and scholarly papers in professional journals.
Faculty members are encouraged to involve both undergraduate and graduate students in research and scholarship activities. The center for undergraduate research (CUGR, http://cugr.umaine.edu/) provides research fellowships and organizes a yearly exhibit of undergraduate research at UMaine. Similarly, the Graduate School (http://www.umaine.edu/graduate/) provides research assistanceships and publishes news regarding research performed by graduate students at UMaine.
The Office of Research and Sponsored Programs (ORSP) assists faculty and staff in seeking and managing research grants, contracts, and other extramural funding. ORSP serves as applicant, contract negotiator, and signatory authority for the University in such matters, and provides grant accounting services once an award is made. A detailed guide to resources for faculty who are currently, or have an interest in, conducting research detailing the different steps associated with research and award applications and management are provided in this document: http://www.orsp.umesp.maine.edu/ORSPDocs/Info/ORSPTraining/ORSP_Resource_Guide.pdf.
Research activities at the University of Maine are governed by federal and state regulations, and University policies which have been instituted to ensure scientific integrity, safeguard the welfare of animal and human subjects, and protect the health and safety of faculty and staff, students, and visitors to campus.
The University of Maine adheres to a strict policy of compliance. All members of the University community are responsible for familiarizing themselves, and complying with all applicable regulations and policies. Failure to do so places not only the University, but also the individual community member at risk for violations which could result in substantial administrative, civil and criminal fines and penalties. The Office of Research and Sponsored Programs (ORSP) website (http://umaine.edu/orsp/compliance/about-compliance/) provides information on key research compliance topics concerning animal and human subjects, hazardous materials,
the responsible conduct of research, fiscal accountability, intellectual property, and export control regulations. ORSP also provides online training in compliance and sponsored project management which those engaged in research and/or pursuing extramural funding are strongly encouraged or are required to complete.
Some research endeavors require specialized equipment (e.g. hazardous materials, lasers) or activities (e.g. diving, human subjects) which are associated with significant risks. Such activities are monitored by UMaine’s Office of Safety and Environmental Management (SEM) and may require specialized training prior to engaging in such research activity. For policies and training requirements, consult the SEM web site (http://sem.umaine.edu/policies-guides-and-reports/).
Motion to Regularly Assess Faculty Satisfaction at the University of Maine
From the UMaine Faculty Senate Environment Committee
Faculty members at the University of Maine have expressed a desire to have a regular and standardized assessment of faculty satisfaction. The Environment Committee would like this regular survey to allow for
establishment of an initial standardized base line assessment of faculty satisfaction, provide a basis for national
comparison with like institutions, and enable longitudinal comparisons over time at our own institution.
After reviewing the various standardized surveys discussed in the Hanover Research document titled Assessing
Faculty and Staff Satisfaction (Feb 2012) and the recent UMaine Rising Tide Survey of Faculty Satisfaction
(2011), we recommend that the survey administered by HERI (http://www.heri.ucla.edu/facoverview.php)
be regularly used to best meet the standardization and comparison goals sought by the faculty.
The Faculty Senate urges the Administration of the University of Maine to arrange for and fund participation by
University of Maine faculty at least once every three years in the core set of questions contained in the HERI
Faculty Survey Instrument. Further, we recommend the University’s participation in the Campus Climate
Module, the Academic Advising Module and the STEM Module. In addition, we recommend that the University of Maine participate in one or more of the HERI student surveys.
Motion to Discard Certain Printed Periodicals
From the UMaine Faculty Senate Library Committee
Background and Rationale:
The Faculty Senate Library Advisory Committee recommends passage of the following motion, which allows Fogler library to discard journals that JSTOR has digitized and archived.
JSTOR (Journal Storage) is a not-for-profit shared digital library created in 1995 to help university and college libraries to free space on their shelves, save costs, and provide greater levels of access to content. By digitizing content to high standards and supporting its long-term preservation, JSTOR aids libraries and publishers of scholarly content transition their collections and publishing activities from print to digital operations.
JSTOR digital content is preserved in Portico (doorway to the resources), a digital repository supported by its publisher and library members, including the University of Maine. Print copies of the materials digitized in JSTOR are preserved in two official “dark archives,” one at Harvard, and one at the University of California.
JSTOR currently includes more than 2,000 academic journals. Fogler Library has print holdings in its collection for nearly half of all titles in JSTOR, and has had most of the bound volumes in storage for several years.
The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine approves library discard of those printed periodical volumes for which there is duplicate content in the JSTOR electronic archives purchased by the library.