2009-2010 Motions
September 23, 2009 Faculty Senate Meeting
MOTION TITLE: Proposed Change to the Constitution of the Faculty Senate
MOTION BY: Constitution and Bylaws Committee
MOTION: (The 60 day period having been observed, this is the final senate vote on the changes to the Constitution and Bylaws.)
Old Version
Section 1. Officers. At a meeting in April of each year, the Senate shall elect, from among the faculty members, the following two officers for a term of one year: Vice President/President-elect, and Secretary. Any tenure-track or continuing appointment faculty member, who has been on the University of Maine faculty for at least two years, is eligible for election to these offices. Newly elected officers shall begin their duties on July 1 following their election.
Section 2. Succession of officers. The Vice President/President-elect shall succeed to the office of President. The President and Vice President/President-elect may not succeed to the same office but the Secretary may succeed to the same office.
NEW Version
Section 1. Officers. At a meeting in April of each year, the Senate shall elect, from among the faculty members, the following three officers for a term of one year: President, Vice President, and Secretary. Any tenure-track or continuing appointment faculty member, who has been on the University of Maine faculty for at least two years, is eligible for election to these offices. Newly elected officers shall begin their duties on July 1 following their election.
Section 2. Term limits. The President and Vice President may not serve more than two consecutive terms in the same office.
Proposed Change to the Bylaws of the Faculty Senate
Old Version
ARTICLE I. ELECTION OF SENATE OFFICERS At the March meeting, the Committee on Committees shall present candidates for Vice President/ President- elect, at least one candidate for Secretary and Board of Trustees Representative and at least one candidate for each position on the committee on Committees. The agenda for the April meeting shall include the names of those nominated. There shall be an opportunity for nominations from the floor at the time of the election in April. Each office shall be voted on separately by secret ballot, where there is a contest, and a majority of the votes cast shall be necessary for election. In the event that no candidate receives a majority, a second vote shall be taken between the two highest candidates. In the event the Vice President ‘s office becomes vacant prior to the expiration of the term, the Senate shall hold a special election. At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Senate, the President shall inform the members of the vacancy, ask the Committee on Committees to secure nominations, and set the time for the election at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the full Senate. At the time of election, the procedure shall be as outlined in the paragraph- above. In the event the Secretary’s office becomes vacant prior to the expiration of the term, the President shall in consultation with the Executive Committee, appoint a replacement to serve the remainder of the term.
NEW Version
ARTICLE I. ELECTION OF SENATE OFFICERS At the March meeting, the Committee on Committees shall present candidates for President, Vice President, Secretary, and Board of Trustees Representative and at least one candidate for each position on the committee on Committees. The agenda for the April meeting shall include the names of those nominated. . . . In the event the President’s office become vacant prior to the expiration of the term, the Vice President automatically becomes President of the Faculty Senate. In the event the Vice President ‘s office becomes vacant prior to the expiration of the term, the Senate shall hold a special election.
VOTING RESULTS: The motion passed. The vote was:
Favor: 24
Against: 1
In Absentia: 2
October 21, 2009 Faculty Senate Meeting
– no motions made
November 18, 2009 Faculty Senate Meeting
– no motions made
December 12, 2009 Faculty Senate Meeting
MOTION TITLE: PCRRC response to the new BA/BS in Climate Change and Culture
MOTION BY:
MOTION:
Dr. Onsrud reported that this is the first time the PCRRC has looked at a proposal for a new program. The committee decided not to hold a campus meeting but would offer constructive questions to inform the program’s intent to plan. The committee’s recommendation is not to object to the intent to plan but to offer constructive feedback.
Dr. Kris Sobolik spoke on behalf of the proposed new degree. She explained that this is a new program involving a human and scientific approach to climate change. It is interdisciplinary, draws on existing faculty, and uses no new resources. It is unique – there is no other program on campus like it.
Dr. Belknap noted that he felt the PCRRC process was flawed in that the proposing unit could have answered questions directly had it been included as part of the process. The comments directed to the proposal seemed to be overly negative.
Dr. Onsrud said that the committee expected detailed and comprehensive documentation and that it appeared there was a rush to move this proposal forward. For instance the proposal states that the program will attract students from out-of-state, but where is the evidence that it will? Clearly this is a compelling area for a degree but we want the PCRRC process to be taken seriously. Recall that this committee recommends to the full senate and that the senate can make whatever recommendation it wants.
Dr. Sobolik noted that it did not feel rushed to those involved in formulating the proposal.
Dr. Grillo said that though he supports this particular program proposal, the PCRRC process must be taken seriously because we don’t want to put new unneeded programs up at a time of budget shortfalls.
Dr. Killam noted that she is on the PCRRC and the committee was supportive of the plan and that the committee’s intent was to signal some areas for further development and that there was no sense that the proposal should be scuttled.
Dr. Kornfield noted that saying it is cost neutral is probably incorrect if enrollments go up.
Dr. Sobolik said that the units do have quite a lot of room, but maybe some supply costs will increase.
VOTING RESULTS:
Yes: 20
No: 0
Abstain: 3
Motion to move the report forward with Senate support for this proposal:
Yes: 23
January 27, 2010 Faculty Senate Meeting
MOTION TITLE: Amendment to the Proposed Role and Scope Statement
MOTION BY: <who?>
MOTION: The Role and Scope statement was discussed and a friendly amendment was suggested to add the words “undergraduate and graduate” after the phrase, “foundation for all students.”
VOTING RESULTS: Vote on the friendly amendment:
Accept: 17
Opposed: 0
Abstentions: 1
MOTION TITLE: Approval of a Role and Scope Statement for the University of Maine
MOTION BY: <who?>
MOTION: …. INSERT HERE THE ROLE AND SCOPE STATEMENT INCORPORATING THE AMENDMENT
VOTING RESULTS: Vote to accept the role and scope statement as amended:
Accept: 17
Opposed: 0
Abstentions: 1
MOTION TITLE: Recommendation regarding the Smoke-Free Campus
MOTION BY: Environment Committee
MOTION: ……INSERT HERE ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATION
The Senate voted on accepting the Environment Committee’s recommendation to delay the initiative until there is further discussion of the consequences of such a policy in a wider forum.
VOTING RESULTS: The vote was:
Vote to accept Environment Committee’s recommendation:
Accept: 16
Opposed: 1
Abstentions: 1
February 24, 2010 Faculty Senate Meeting
MOTION TITLE: ????
MOTION BY: Program Creation and Reorganization Review Committee
MOTION: The PCRRC recommends and moves that this letter and its attachment be forwarded to the administration for its consideration in assessing the merits of the proposal.
…. INSERT OR LINK HERE THE LETTER AND ATTACHMENT
VOTING RESULTS: The vote on the motion was:
Approve: 24
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
MOTION TITLE: Create an Ad Hoc Committee for Faculty Assessment of University of Maine Educational Technology Mission and Supporting Infrastructure.
MOTION BY: Irv Kornfield SECOND BY:
MOTION: Preamble: Technology is vital to the educational and instructional mission of the University of Maine. The role of technology in education is rapidly evolving with regard to the development of educational tools and delivery systems for traditional classes and those using distance-ed modalities. The availability of technology and students’ expectations concerning the integration of technology into all aspects of their learning experience has increased greatly in the last five years. Further, The University of Maine System has expressed the need to expand distance-educational opportunities while simultaneously mandating resource conservation and consolidation. The University of Maine System has proposed the consolidation of academic and administrative IT Services throughout all campuses to a Hybrid IT Model. It is critical to define a strategic vision for utilization of extant and emerging technologies to support the teaching mission of the University.
Motion: The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine will create a new Ad Hoc Committee, titled Faculty Assessment of the University of Maine Educational Technology Mission and Supporting Infrastructure Ad hoc Committee.
This committee will define a strategic vision for educational technology at the University of Maine. They will consider technology and infrastructure for creation, support and delivery of offerings on-campus and on-line. The committee will meet with various campus groups to acquire a full and unbiased assessment of the educational technology needs, resources, and support at the University.
The committee will explore and form recommendations for best uses of technology resources supporting the institutional vision while identifying cost-saving measures whenever possible.
The committee will produce a report concerning current and future utilization of technology in the academic arena for both classroom and distance education, including issues relevant to faculty support and development serving the educational mission of University of Maine. The committee shall report its findings and recommendations to the full Faculty Senate and to the President of the University of Maine.
Membership: The committee membership will consist of no more than ten faculty members. The chair of this committee shall be appointed by the President of the Faculty Senate and shall be a member of the Faculty Senate. Additional faculty members from Faculty Senate and at large shall be added to ensure that each College, including the Honors College and Co-operative Extension, is represented. Outside members with expertise in the use of technology will be invited to participate along with the Director of the Center for Teaching Excellence.
The hybrid model provides an opportunity for each campus IT organization to develop IT plans and strategies to support the mission and goals of their campus, while taking advantage of consolidated shared services and collaborative efforts that strengthen the overall system-wide delivery of services to end users. This model is designed to take advantage of the best features of centralized and decentralized approaches.
VOTING RESULTS: The vote on the motion was:
Approve: 23
Against: 0
Abstain: 1
MOTION TITLE: Support of General Education Assessment as Outlined by the General Education Committee
MOTION BY: Ad Hoc General Education Committee
MOTION: The Faculty Senate accepts and endorses the process of General Education Assessment outlined in the accompanying document put forward by the General Education Committee. <>The attached process and timeline are constructed to bring the University of Maine into compliance with the NEASC Action letter, dated November 17, 2009, which sets specific dates for progress to be reported illustrating our success in implementing a comprehensive approach to the assessment of student learning in 2012 and 2014.
VOTING RESULTS: The vote on the motion was:
Approve: 24
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
March 31, 2010 Faculty Senate Meeting
MOTION TITLE: Establish the General Education Committee as a Standing Committee
MOTION BY: <who?>
MOTION: Establish the General Education Committee as a standing committee.
Vote:
Approve: 15
Oppose: 0
Abstain: 0
MOTION TITLE: Nominations of SENATE Officers
MOTION BY: <who?> SECOND BY: ???
MOTION: Nominations for Senate Officers:
Board of Trustees Representative: Bob Rice
President Elect: Jim Warhola
Secretary: Judy Kuhns-Hastings
April 28, 2010 Faculty Senate Meeting
– no motions made
May 26, 2010 Faculty Senate Meeting
MOTION TITLE: Establish the General Education Committee as a Standing Committee
MOTION BY: Ad Hoc General Education Committee
MOTION: Motion to Establish the General Education Committee as a Standing Committee
31 March, & 6 May, 2010
Introduction:
On 22 October, 2008, the Faculty Senate established an Ad Hoc Committee on General Education, as our current By-Laws reflect. The motion stated:
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.
Since then, General Education issues have become even more significant, as we need address the recommendations of NEASC, which focus on outcomes assessment for General Education, and also as the Administration proposes that we consider changes to how we structure our General Education curriculum. Given that these issues will take time to work through, that the curriculum will need long-term monitoring for assessing its effectiveness, and that further issues will most likely arise as the University of Maine continues to address its programmatic needs, the Constitution and By-Laws Committee, in consultation with the Ad Hoc General Education Committee and Chair of the Academic Affairs Committee recommend the proposed motion below.
Turning the Ad Hoc Committee on General Education to a standing committee entails amending the Senate By-Laws. They state in Article VII, Ammendment:
These bylaws may be amended by a two-thirds vote of the Senate Faculty Members present and voting, provided that the proposed amendment has been submitted to the Secretary of the Senate at least forty-five days prior to the vote on the proposed amendment. Upon receipt of the proposed amendment, the Secretary shall forward it to the Chairperson of the Committee on Constitution and Bylaw. The Secretary shall then notify the members of the Senate in the next regular meeting printed agenda that such a proposal has been received and forwarded to the Committee on Constitution and Bylaws in conformance with this section of the bylaws. This committee shall review the proposed amendment and make recommendations. The proposed amendment and the action of the Committee on Constitution and Bylaws shall be distributed by the Secretary to the membership of the Senate at least fifteen days prior to the meeting at which action is to be taken.
At this point, the required steps have proceeded properly, so at the 26 May, 2010 meeting, the By-Laws and Constitution Committee asks the Senate to consider passing:
Motion:
The Faculty Senate will convert the Ad Hoc Committee on General Education to a Standing Committee of the Senate, continuing with its current structure, namely, lead by 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.
VOTING RESULTS: The motion passed.
MOTION TITLE: Transcript Evaluation Policy
MOTION BY: Faculty Senate Academic Affairs Committee
MOTION: Resolution regarding revision of the current Transcript Evaluation policy, including “academic forgiveness” and “fresh start” policies
Rationale:
The University of Maine’s policy on transcript reevaluation has undergone several revisions over the course of its existence. It is far more liberal than current policies at peer institutions. Within the university itself, ambiguous text has led to varying interpretations, resulting in more and less restrictive options for students in the five degree granting colleges. Of greatest concern are the unintended academic and financial consequences created by a policy that forgives selectively across an unlimited number of semesters and without regard to subsequent academic performance. For all of these reasons we recommend moving toward a more restrictive policy, and providing implementation guidelines to facilitate a common interpretation across all administrative units. This recommendation assumes relative ease of movement within the five degree granting colleges, if only as an undeclared major under a clearly articulated contract. Unless this assumption holds, the new policy will exacerbate an already existing problem.
Motion:
The Faculty Senate moves acceptance of the revision of the TRANSCRIPT EVALUATION policy, including “academic forgiveness” and “fresh start” policies, as reviewed by the Academic Affairs committee and vetted thoroughly by the pertinent units of the Administration. We further move acceptance of the catalogue language included with the motion.
Resolution:
The Faculty Senate resolves that the recommendation of the transcript evaluation policy currently in effect at the University of Maine and the accompanying catalogue language be accepted as policy, effective AY 2010-2011.
Revised CATALOG WORDING:
The University of Maine has two separate and distinct policies governing when and under what circumstances a transcript may be reevaluated. Each policy is described below.
Academic Forgiveness
Academic forgiveness refers to the exclusion of an entire fall or spring semester from the calculation of a student’s grade point average and earned credits. All grades remain on the transcript. When academic forgiveness occurs, the associate dean or designee may waive the re-taking of selected courses for which the student has earned sufficient grades. Though the degree credit has been removed, these courses may be used to meet degree requirements and to meet pre-requisite requirements. Students must achieve program minimum requirements to graduate.
VOTING RESULTS: The motion passed.