2016-2017 Motions

September 21, 2016

October 19, 2016

November 16, 2016
Motion to Improve the Responsiveness of the Current Course Fee System
Academic Affairs Committee, November 2016

Introduction:
Since around 1999, course fees have been part of the Unified Fee, distributed out to departments in relation to the Student Credit Hours they generate, plus an adjustment figure for those departments with particularly material intensive classes. Each department then divides its allotted funds according to programmatic needs. Unfortunately, however, the current system has little flexibility for departments to meet rising material costs, for the allotted amount per SCH has remained relatively fixed according to the 1999 schedule. To meet rising material costs, departments typically have to draw from other, already scarce, internal sources, or else have students individually buy supplies that would cost less when shared as a class.

Motion:
The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine asks in the spirit of shared governance for the Administration to work with the Senate to develop a more equitable, flexible, and responsive system so that departments can deliver classes more effectively and ultimately, with a goal of a lower cost to students.

Vote: Approved

December 14, 2016

Motion in Support of UMaine Research and Creative Activity Day
Research and Scholarship Committee
December 13, 2016

The University of Maine Research Day provides a high profile opportunity for graduate and undergraduate students to present their research to the broader university and surrounding communities. The Faculty Senate also recognizes this event as an excellent mechanism to promote the breadth and depth of the research enterprise and creative activity at the University of Maine, and to showcase UMaine leadership in the state. The event aims at increasing the participation of the general public, business people, members of city council and the legislature. The Faculty Senate encourages student participation and also encourages faculty to utilize this showcase as a resource to be incorporated where possible into the learning experience in their courses. To facilitate these activities, the Faculty Senate encourages the office of the Vice President for Research to optimize the logistics to best accommodate teaching and research schedules during that day, and to communicate the schedule of talks and events well in advance of the event. The Faculty Senate looks forward to working with the Vice President for Research in future planning of the University of Maine Research and Creative Activity Day.

Vote: Approved

Motion to Align General Education Courses with Faculty Senate Approved Criteria
General Education Committee, December 2016

Introduction:
In April 2012, Faculty Senate adopted criteria broadly describing the essential components of the different General Education categories.

All General Education courses introduced since 2012 have been required to satisfy these attributes. To date, no mechanism to evaluate alignment of courses that existed before 2012 has been developed. This has led to a de facto grandfathering of some courses while courses created after 2012 have been required to meet new general Education criteria. In order to provide a valuable and consistent General Education experience to all UMaine students, all of our General Education courses should be encouraged to satisfy the Senate approved criteria.

Motion:
The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine ask in the spirit of shared governance and academic integrity for the Administration to work with the Senate to develop a feasible and timely mechanism to periodically review all UMaine General Education courses such that all these courses reflect current expectations.

Vote: Approved

February 1, 2017
Commitment to Global Scholarship Resolution
Academic Affairs Committee
1 February, 2017

Where the pursuit of knowledge is a universal human right, and scholarship historically has and continues to best advance through open, global collaboration, the Faculty of the University of Maine joins with our colleagues across the globe in condemning the “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” order issued by US President Donald Trump. The presidential dictate runs counter to three vital aspects of the University of Maine: 1) our equal opportunity for all, non-discrimination policies, 2) our commitment to making our students global citizens, ready for the future, and 3) our pragmatic need for drawing students in a globally competitive market. Beyond the obvious call for universal human compassion and how this decree will cause global instability lie beyond the scope of this resolution, given our constitutional purview, we need look specifically to how this dictate affects our ability to meet our responsibilities as a Faculty as described by University policies.

Equal Opportunity
The University of Maine has a strong commitment to fairness and inclusiveness. Our Office of Equal Opportunity states on its website: “The University of Maine does not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, including transgender status and gender expression, national origin, citizenship status, age, disability, genetic information or veteran status in employment, education, and all other programs and activities.” (https://umaine.edu/eo/) The University requires all institutional publications to include at minimum the statement “The University of Maine is an equal opportunity/affirmative action institution.” The Trump presidential dictate, particularly in targeting Muslim peoples, distinctly transgresses our policy, making it impossible for us to fulfill our mission properly.

Global Futures
The University of Maine Mission Statement notes that “The University of Maine advances learning and discovery through excellence and innovation in undergraduate and graduate academic programs while addressing the complex challenges and opportunities of the 21^St Century through research-based knowledge.” (https://umaine.edu/facultysenate/home/mission-statement/) Rather than retreating from these “complex challenges and opportunities” through a decree of exclusion, the University of Maine needs continue to engage with these concerns directly through full inclusiveness of populations from across the globe.

Our Blue Sky Plan notes the importance of a collaborative approach to education “… we can learn and do more together than on our own. Working across structural and cultural barriers is one of the greatest challenges higher education faces.” (p. 13) We can only transcend these barriers by making sure that a full range of diverse cultural perspectives participate in the our academic pursuits.

With over sixty Faculty and Staff members representing twenty-three foreign nations, including those on the presidential dictates exclusion list, we cannot expect to fulfill our academic missions under such decrees. Currently we include as vital members of our scholastic community around forty students from seven nations on the exclusion list, and another eighty students from other Muslim countries. Two of the nations on the exclusion list, Iran and Iraq, are in the top six nations from which we draw students.

Given the Trump presidential dictate, how are we to “Encourage and value diversity through our uniquely diverse community members by tangible programming of UMaine multicultural groups, including international programs.” and “Make international and/or cross-cultural opportunities central to the undergraduate experience.” as our Blue Sky Plan guides us? (pp. 29 & 32) Needless to say, we all understand that in preparing our students for a sustainable future has at its core their readiness to engage productively as global citizens, knowledgeable and at ease with a broad diversity of international cultures. With pride in its definition as a nation of immigrants, the United States can look to its own, ever increasing diversity and predict assuredly that in the centuries to come that other nations will likewise grow and benefit from increasing multi-cultural inclusion with their citizens participatory in productive global interactions.

Economic Sustainability
The American Association of Universities issued a statement voicing a need “to make clear to the world that the United States continues to welcome the most talented individuals from all countries to study, teach, and carry out research and scholarship at our universities. It is vital to our economy and the national interest that we continue to attract the best students, scientists, engineers, and scholars.” (https://www.aau.edu/news/article.aspx?id=18366) Our own Blue Sky Plan echoes this point, in noting the importance of hiring and retaining “… world-class faculty who further these boundaries and provide the best possible education to future leaders.” (p. 28) As Soumya Raychaudhuri, a Harvard Medical School professor, noted in the New York Times on Sunday, 29 January, 2017, “Immigration into the United States is tremendously important to science,” particularly as “There are other countries competing for this talent pool, and walking away from that jeopardizes our standing.” We cannot expect to attract and retain the best Faculty and most promising, internationally competitive students under such a national exclusion.

Given Maine’s demographics, the Blue Sky Plan also states a goal for achieving economic sustainability that sensibly directs us to “Increase enrollment of out-of-state students ranging up to 25%–30%, drawing primarily from New England and international locations.” That the immigration ban appeared through a sudden presidential dictate, and not an inclusive, democratic process involving all three branches of government, has sent a clear signal to other nations that they cannot depend on predictable, stabile policies within the United States, and so should look elsewhere for study, investment, and growth. This observation has also been made by numerous industries sharing this concern. Immigration policies by decree can only destabilize our futures, as a University and as a nation.

The Faculty Senate calls for the Office of the President of the University of Maine to join us in placing the University on record as protesting the US Presidential Order “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” issued by Donald Trump. We stand proudly with our colleagues at the many other colleges and universities who have taken a stand on the folly of this White House decree, and much appreciate our president’s joining her peers at these institutions by extending her recent reaffirmation of the University’s commitment to diversity and inclusion, as well as the undergraduate and graduate student governments’ statements to the same effect.

Vote: Passed
5 No
0 Abstentions

March 1, 2017

Motion to begin the process of amending the University of Maine Faculty Senate Constitution to clarify Article IV: Membership

Constitution and Bylaws Committee, March 1, 2017

Introduction:

This motion addresses two issues:

First, the University Teaching Council has informally asked the Faculty Senate to consider membership on the Senate for Adjunct Faculty; and

Second, it has been pointed out that there is no formal recognition of the Honors College in the Faculty Senate Constitution with respect Senate representation.

During, and following, a meeting of the Constitution and Bylaws Committee on October 26, 2016, it was noted that current wording in the Constitution, Article IV: Membership, is vague but nonetheless implies that Faculty Senate membership is limited to full-time UM faculty, thus precluding membership of Adjuncts who are not full time. At a subsequent discussion of this issue at a members only meeting of Senators, it was agreed that the intent of language in the Constitution was to limit membership on the Senate to full time faculty. The Constitution and Bylaws Committee felt that part-time Adjuncts, while not eligible for election to the Senate, may be assumed to be affiliated with departments and/or colleges, and are therefore already represented in the Senate.

The Constitution and Bylaws Committee also found that wording in the Constitution is similarly vague with respect to apportionment of Senate representation among the colleges.

The proposed changes in the following motion are an attempt to clarify these two issues, and can be summarized as:

The Constitution is re-worded to state more clearly that only full time faculty members are eligible to serve as Senators, thereby clarifying what is only alluded to in the present wording in Article IV. Section 1.A.2. as “…one Senator will be elected for each ten full time faculty members.”
Because there currently are, and may be in the future, colleges with fewer than 10 faculty, we have changed Article IV. Section 1.A.1. that states: “Each college shall have at least four Senators.” To “Each college shall have at least four Senators, except colleges with fewer than 10 faculty, which shall have two Senators.”
We have clarified membership for The Maine Business School, which by its title is not explicitly a “college”, by recognizing it as a college.
We formally recognize the Honors College, which will be represented the same as the other colleges, with one Senator for every ten full time faculty members, or a minimum of two Senators, whichever is greater.

Motion:

The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine recommends that the Constitution and Bylaws Committee formally submit the following revision of Article IV: Membership to the Secretary of the Senate in order that procedures detailed in Article IX: Amendment commence to amend the Constitution accordingly.

Proposed changes to Article IV follow. Omitted text is indicated by strikethrough and added text indicated by underlining.

Article IV: Membership

Section 1. Faculty members. The faculty members of the University of Maine shall elect faculty Senators as follows:

A. Eligibility

Only full-time faculty of the University of Maine are eligible to serve on the Faculty Senate.

A. B. Apportionment.

Each college shall have at least four Senators except colleges with fewer than 10 faculty, which shall have two Senators. Faculty senators will be distributed across the colleges so that one Senator will be elected for each ten full time faculty members, rounded upward. The Maine Business School and the Honors College are hereby formally recognized as colleges.
Faculty senators will be distributed across the colleges so that one Senator will be elected for each ten full time faculty members. For purposes of apportionment, full-time members of each college shall be designated by the dean of that college. The criteria used will be subject to approval of the Senate. Each February, the deans of various colleges shall send the Senate Secretary a list of full-time faculty. Using the above rules, the Secretary, subject to the approval of the Executive Committee of the Senate, shall determine the number of faculty representatives to the Senate to which each college is entitled and shall so inform the deans. Departmental chairpersons shall be eligible for election as faculty Senators.
The Cooperative Extension faculty, who are not represented as part of a college, shall be represented by two Senators. These representatives shall be elected in the manner described in Article IV, Section 1.8. [note that there is no Article IV, Section 1.8]
In the event of changes in the composition of colleges or distribution of faculty across colleges, the Executive Committee of the Senate shall formulate a plan to phase in the adjustments to apportionment of Senators resulting from such changes. Such a plan must include the provision that elected Senators shall have the option to complete their term even if the resulting number of total Senators is temporarily greater than forty.

[With subsequent sections numbered accordingly]

The revised text would now read as follows:

Article IV: Membership

Section 1. Faculty members. The faculty members of the University of Maine shall elect faculty Senators as follows:

A. Eligibility

Only full-time faculty of the University of Maine are eligible to serve on the Faculty Senate

B. Apportionment.

Each college shall have at least four Senators except colleges with fewer than 10 faculty, which shall have two Senators. Faculty senators will be distributed across the colleges so that one Senator will be elected for each ten full time faculty members, rounded upward. The Maine Business School and the Honors College are hereby formally recognized as colleges.
For purposes of apportionment, full-time members of each college shall be designated by the dean of that college. The criteria used will be subject to approval of the Senate. Each February, the deans of various colleges shall send the Senate Secretary a list of full-time faculty. Using the above rules, the Secretary, subject to the approval of the Executive Committee of the Senate, shall determine the number of faculty representatives to the Senate to which each college is entitled and shall so inform the deans. Departmental chairpersons shall be eligible for election as faculty Senators.
The Cooperative Extension faculty, who are not represented as part of a college, shall be represented by two Senators.
In the event of changes in the composition of colleges or distribution of faculty across colleges, the Executive Committee of the Senate shall formulate a plan to phase in the adjustments to apportionment of Senators resulting from such changes. Such a plan must include the provision that elected Senators shall have the option to complete their term even if the resulting number of total Senators is temporarily greater than forty.

Vote: Approved 1 Against

April 5, 2017

Motion for the University of Administration to react to the results of a survey conducted by the Faculty Senate Committee on Research and Scholarship
April 5, 2017

Introduction:
The Faculty Senate Committee on Research and Scholarship conducted a survey of UMaine faculty on aspects of the university’s research infrastructure, with the intent of identifying ways in which the research infrastructure may be enhanced to encourage broader participation and success in obtaining external research funds. The survey was distributed to all UM faculty on 11/29/16. That survey and its results as compiled by the Committee on Research and Scholarship are presented below.

Motion:
The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine requests the Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School, and other members of the upper UM administration, read the issues raised in a survey conducted by the Senate Committee on Research and Scholarship, and the possible solutions suggested, and report back about actions considered to the Faculty Senate at the first full Senate meeting of the fall semester, 2017.

The survey:
Dear UMaine faculty:
The faculty senate committee on Research & Scholarship is requesting input regarding where infrastructure in research is limiting, for example in the following aspect:

Purchasing.
Research proposals.
Travel.
Support available to do research in your department/college.

+ Anything else you would like to voice.

As much as possible, please provide us with concrete examples.

We will compile the information and share it with the faculty senate and the vice president for research. If you would NOT like us to share your name please tell us and we will keep your name confidential.

Survey Results:
The following is a Table listing concerns and suggestions voiced by respondents to the Research and Scholarship Committee’s survey, which the Committee feels will help to improve UMaine research infrastructure and national status. The responses are opinions and observations of currently active researchers, and by no means represent a statistical survey of the faculty (there were 18 responses + edits and entries from the six Senate Committee members).

General:

Issue:		Possible solution:
● Faculty time is misspent dealing with operational burden (travel, purchasing, safety training, reporting and bookkeeping).		● Lower cost employees could handle administrative operations more efficiently.
● Teaching loads can be too high for one to engage in research.		● Teaching loads could be reduced through a transparent mechanism to buy out research time.
● The research culture is non-existent in some departments with missed opportunity for funding.		● Those departments with low research culture can be targeted by UMaine and supported to build a research program. ● Inter-departmental hires can promote a culture of research in all departments
● There is a lack of funds (shared) for facilities and student support.		● UMaine should be devoting much more effort to fundraise from private donors for programs that specifically support research and scholarship on our campus.

Purchasing:

● There is excessive time wasted on purchasing and the process is sometimes too long to be effective.

● There is a need to expand vendors and purchasing procedures (paypal) without the need for special treatment (e.g. individual negotiations).

● Faculty time is misspent with placing, tracking, following up on orders. Email communication can be excessive with this process.

● Purchasing authority could be expanded at laboratory level for fast procurements associated with field work.

● Purchasing could/should be handled by lower cost employees.

● Faculty conducting research should be given both PCards and TCards.

● The inefficient pre- and post approval process is time consuming and faculty time is misspent.

● The current constraints on purchasing are very difficult, and the PCard limits are too low especially in instances when vendors are not yet on Marketplace and orders are urgent

● Purchases for less than $500 should undergo a rapid approval process.

● Increase the $500 limit, particularly for researchers with significant research funds.

● The Buying is more expensive and less convenient than it used to be.

● Work with faculty to improve the system.

IT support:

● Support has worsened with complex IT questions. Easy to get answer on simple matters.

● Provide a list of resources (specific help numbers) to aid with specific issues (e.g., Matlab license, supercomputer facility).

Communication:

● The restrictions around website approval and getting permanent IP addresses for support make it difficult to be create and update research-oriented websites to share data/information with fellow researchers.

● Create a venue or help center for website development and maintenance for researchers

Support for Research at the University Level:

● At the DMC, the lab maintenance infrastructure is insufficient.		● Overhead return funds and bonds should be used to maintain facilities.
● RAs and TAs providing internal research support are chronically limited in many if not all departments. These targeted students receive training and career development when they conduct research with faculty.		● Increase funds for RA/TAs.
● Student travel for research or to attend research conferences is a critical aspect of graduate education, enables effective networking and helps to position themselves for future jobs and career development. ● Faculty travel is essential in many cases for research, for productive research communication, and to facilitate the interaction with other scientists that improves U Maine’s competitiveness for funding. Funds for faculty travel have been reduced in recent years. ● Departmental funds for research have been reduced.		● Stronger support for student travel is needed from the University, VPR’s office, or the System Office to ensure that all students can attend at least one conference in their field during their studies. ● Flexibility in funding for seed projects and early career scientists should be encouraged and supported at Departmental and School levels.
● Support of student research is not strong in the form of publicity (e.g., social media) to our community (CIS; CLAS; R&S Committee).		● Improved media support will help the university gain support from our community, leaders, and stakeholders. ● PR on campus needs to be proactive. ● Develop a public website with total external research funding.
● There is a tremendous need for small seed funding for junior faculty. Small seed grants can make a huge difference in supporting career advancement by generating data, publications, grant proposals, and new collaborations.		● Transparent mechanisms for seed grant should be advertised and created with focus on junior faculty and faculty with little or no funded research experience. ● provide colleges with research budgets. That way, colleges could form review and selection committees, which would streamline and decentralize seed funding.
● There is a need to offer funding opportunities for non-tenure track faculty members whose primary responsibilities are teaching but would like to conduct research. This will increase the numbers of faculty involved in the research endeavor and potentially help get them be externally funded research faculty.		● Campus grants for non-tenured-track faculty members should be made available.
● When decisions are to be made about the lead institution in a collaborative proposal, UMaine is at a disadvantage with our increased submission period of ~ 15 days. UMaine has fallen behind other research institutions, both relative to its previous performance and relative to the performance of collaborating institutions.		● Proposal preparation schedules and deadlines are critical parameters for faculty who, generally, also have deadlines associated with teaching, outreach, administration and other existing proposals. If we are to be competitive with other institutions, the schedule for submission of research proposals should be revised to be equivalent to that of our collaborating institutions.
● Inherent inefficiencies arising from increased demands on faculty in research grant preparation, management, reporting reduces the potential for faculty to successfully compete for external research funds.		● More secretarial support should be made available.
● Further assistance is needed in identifying potential, on-campus research collaborators with the intention of enhancing intra-campus research programs which could generate increased external funding.		● Identify research opportunities to faculty and to identify and encourage cooperative, on-campus research links.
● Post award delays are excessive and opaque and can seriously impact time-sensitive research programs. Process needs to be made more transparent.		● Provide more support at ORSP is needed.
● Inability to rollover research funds across fiscal year boundaries, imposes significant financial obstacles to laboratory operation and is a major impediment in the development of sustainable and efficient research programs. ● A funding model that restricts carry over of financial resources from one fiscal year to the next needlessly imposes severe obstacles to successful research operations. ● PIs do make mistakes and the new procedure of not allowing any budget adjustments/transfers due to PI error is counter-productive. ORSP personnel also make mistakes.		● Provide a mechanism to rollover funds as available at other universities. ● Amend this funding model to reward rather than discourage efficiencies and flexibility in financial operation. ● PIs should be allowed to make a mistake such as purchasing something on the wrong grant with the ability to find non-complicated solutions.
● ORSP serves a critical role in facilitating successful grant submission. Structural changes in grant submission mechanisms (PARS) have substantially streamlined and improved the grant preparation process, but the introduction of requirements arising from within the University of Maine as well as from external sponsors have placed significant demands on ORSP resources.		● We strongly recommend that the University of Maine meet these increased demands by supporting ORSP with sufficient resources to maintain rough parity with collaborating institutions.
● Requirement for multiple quotes for large equipment is extremely cumbersome when technology is required to do the job.		● Identify these cases clearly and simplify the process in such cases.
● ORSP is understaffed to do the job effectively. In particular, young faculty that do not know procedure find minimal support and frustration. ● There is minimal support available for annual and final reports.		● Increase staffing at ORSP ASAP.
● To be a 21^st century biomedical cell/molecular research institute UMaine, we require 384-well qPCR machine, a staffed FACS sorter, and more microscopy capabilities. ● There is inequity in care and upkeep of labs ● We are sorely behind our peer institutions in terms of Research Cores. We only have a sequencing facility that is limited to providing only Sanger sequencing and not modern methods. ● The UMaine campus has specialty equipment that is available for people to use. However, frequently learning to use these instruments is an enormous time investment. ● User fees for facilities cannot be saved year to year. If we cannot bank user fees then we have no way to deal with an objective on a microscope breaking, etc.		● Increase support for shared facilities and treat all research animal facilities equitably ● The small animal facility should be treated in a manner that is similar to all other live animal facilities (covered by overheads/indirects). ● UMaine needs a core for assays, histology, etc. and more technological advancements. ● Shared resource rooms like 262 Hitchner should be centrally supported to cover costs associated with equipment upkeep and maintenance, general supply refurbishment, etc. ● UMaine should be supported by a technician (or two) to run different machines. Then, PIs could pay to have their samples run. For example, if one person were trained in all the different types of microscopy on campus, then it would be much easier for individual labs to leverage the advantages of different microscopes. ● Develop a procedure that carry over user fees from year to year within federal guidelines
● There is no training/help for PIs with different approaches for budgeting, planning, and balancing different grants. would love to get guidance on how to plan more effectively with grants –		● Provide training to faculty ● ORSP could develop a spreadsheet that incorporated overhead, benefits, etc that one could adjust monthly. Peoplesoft can give monthly balances, however, that doesn’t really help determine needs such as the number of students that can be supported through a grant

Travel infrastructure:

● CONCUR is not working well for many faculty who do not have local support to deal with its complicated procedures. The webinars are not working.		● Increase human support for CONCUR on campus. A paper manual covering typical travel is needed.
● CONCUR does not speed up the reimbursement process for many faculty.
● CONCUR adds a major burden to faculty productivity, with it taking 4-5 times longer to file reimbursements (meaning an extra 1-2 h per trip).		● Increase human support for CONCUR on campus
● The CONCUR program is quirky, with multiple steps to accomplish simple tasks, steps are counterintuitive, and no protocols exist for “non-experts”.		● Work to simplify the software and make it more user friendly
● Online courses are of little assistance because multiple repetition of submissions over a short learning period are necessary to remember the vast number of obtuse steps — individual faculty travel is not sufficiently frequently for them to achieve the necessary level of understanding.		● Provide access to a user-friendly procedure manual that discusses typical travel
● The use of CONCUR results in lost faculty and staff productivity. Some faculty have given up resubmitting their reimbursement requests, instead using staff in their departments to sit with them to complete the submission, which still takes longer than the previous approach.		● University needs to consider discontinuing the use of CONCUR or improve the usability of the program.
● The problems with CONCUR are so extremely felt that some faculty have chosen not to travel rather than deal with submitting reimbursement requests. This degrades their service to the State, the University, and their research.		● University needs to consider discontinuing the use of CONCUR or improve the usability of the program.
● Faculty with IGERT funding that are responsible for submitting student travel reimbursements feel CONCUR would be a major reason that they would not seek IGERT funding in the future		● University needs to consider discontinuing the use of CONCUR or improve the usability of the program.
● CONCUR “experts” (staff people) run into major problems with the system, requiring lengthy communications with CONCUR representatives in an attempt to overcome the problems. In some cases, even the representatives cannot solve problems, so the request is deleted and everything has be to re-entered, which results in more than double loss of productivity.		● University needs to consider discontinuing the use of CONCUR or improve the usability of the program.
● There are no financial benefits of pre-purchasing flights through CONCUR. It is a disadvantage to do so because the process requires the user to problematically interface with the program twice: once to pre-purchase the flight and once to file the reimbursement afterwards.		● University needs to consider discontinuing the use of CONCUR or improve the usability of the program.

Vote: Approved

Environmental Committee Motion
April 5, 2017

Motion 1: Classroom Maintenance

In accordance with NEASC Standards and policies, standard 5.17 (Student Services and Co-Curricular Experiences), Standard 7.23 (Information, Physical, and Technological Resources) and Standard 9.12 (Transparency) the Environmental committee of the Faculty Senate recommends the following:

Annually, classrooms and the University of Maine be completely inspected, cleaned and appropriately updates ~~annually~~.
Annually, classroom fixtures such as: student desks, chairs, white and chalk boards, clocks, teaching podiums, window blinds, doors, windows, heaters and ventilation are in working order and repaired/replaced as needed.
Further, in keeping with NEASC standard 9.12, we request the information specified above about each classroom be maintained in MaineStreet by classroom, and accessible by faculty.

a) Faculty should be able to enter any room problems and date discovered in MaineStreet.
b) This should feed to a work order system.
c) Updates will be visible to all.

4. Each room should have a clear document posted with whom to call if maintenance is required.

Vote: Approve 13
Opposed 7
Abstain 4

Environmental Committee Motion
April 5, 2017

Motion 2: Classroom Technology
In accordance with NEASC standards and policies, standard 5.17 (Student Services and Co-Curricular Experiences) and standard 7.22, 7.24, 7.25 and 7.26 (Information, Physical, and Technological Resources) and 9.12 (Transparency) the Environmental committee of the faculty senate recommends the following:

Annually, classroom technology at the University of Maine be completely inspected, equipment labeled and each piece of equipment tested to ensure the equipment is operational, equipment log per classroom shall be maintained in MaineStreet by classroom. Said equipment:

a) Working Ethernet jack.
b) Sufficient speaker power.
c) Adequate wireless speed documented.
d) Bulb life noted.

2) We request the specifics about usages (bulbs, computers, etc.) be recorded in MaineStreet or some other accessible site by classroom, and accessible by all faculty (same MaineStreet site, as in Motion 1).

Amended to remove the top paragraph. Approved

Amend 2) to: We request the specifics about usages (bulbs, computers etc.) be recorded in MaineStreet or some other accessible site by classroom, and accessible by all faculty (same MaineStreet or some other accessible site as in Motion 1).

Discussion: It was mentioned that this topic would be appropriate for the ITSC, Emily Haddad stated she’d be happy to present it to that committee.

Vote:
Approve 13
Opposed 7
Abstain 4

Environmental Committee Motion

April 5, 2017

Motion 3: Standard Classroom Technology

1) We request that standard computer technology be placed in each classroom, with the priority be given to the larger classrooms (serving 80 or more students). Standard technology defined as:
a) Standard Computer with USB and toggle access for laptops
b) Preconfigured to fully function with Classroom projector, screens and speakers.
c) Ethernet connection.
d) Standard computer is connected to a server that is configured with a log on screen such that when a professor logs on, they have access to the most current version of their documents stored in a specified drive on their office or laptop computer.

2) Each room should have posted a clear document with whom to call if the technology does not work.

Vote: Approve 10
Opposed 11
Abstain 3

May 3, 2017

Motion to Designate an Office to support Faculty in Teaching and Learning
May 3, 2017

PREAMBLE
The University of Maine (UM), the UM System’s flagship and public research institution, has a number of campus- and system-based organizations overseeing classroom environments. However, there is currently no single contact whereby faculty can request, report, or seek assistance in advance of and/or during scheduled classroom instruction. For instance,

Faculty with technology issues might be directed to AV Services or the US:IT Help Center;
Faculty with issues perceived as not being technology issues but rather having to do with the physical room might leave a message in the classroom for the custodian or call Work Control;
If furniture within a classroom is damaged or missing, there is no clear contact to raise this issue.

Such scenarios require faculty to initiate and remain responsible for determining whether issues are addressed. Often class time is lost. And while unexpected issues will occur, an effective way is needed to assure faculty that issues will be addressed by appropriate entities and/or taken into consideration for future redesign of classroom facilities and infrastructure.

Indeed, what is needed is a single point of contact, an organization charged with advocating for the faculty members and responsible for orchestrating a well-designed and supported learning environment maximizing delivery of education to our students.

While US:IT is the organization charged with day-to-day maintenance of classroom technology, it is not responsible for assessing how technology use in classrooms impacts pedagogy and the teaching-learning environment. While Facilities is the organization that maintains the physical plant of our classrooms, it is not responsible for assessing how the physical plant impacts the inherent use of the classroom space as a teaching-learning environment. And while committees such as Paint and Polish are charged with identifying classrooms due for physical and technological upgrades, the design of upgrades is not within the purview of such representative groups of individuals.

Today, “information is ubiquitous and readily available, and students can pick it up when and where they want….[Hence,] the classroom ought to focus on assimilation and application of knowledge to new contexts. The teacher becomes the guide on the side, instead of the sage on the stage, requiring wholly new learning spaces and teaching techniques.” (Eric Mazur, Balkanski Professor of Physics and Applied Physics, Harvard University). Indeed, “Pedagogical innovation demands a space that enables exploration by both teacher and student” (Stern Neill, Associate Professor, and Rebecca Etheridge, Director of the Teaching and Learning Center, University of Washington). However, “Among the many methods employed to foster student development, the use of the physical environment is perhaps the least understood and the most neglected” [Banning and Canard (1986)]. Yet, “We know too much about how learning occurs to continue to ignore the ways in which learning spaces are planned, constructed, and maintained” (Nancy Van Note Chism, Professor, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis). Indeed, “It is paramount that we not only acquire the latest technology, but also work to thoughtfully integrate it into all levels of our curriculum. How we use these resources is just as important as acquiring them” (Kenneth Ender, President, Harper College).

The University of Maine needs to identify and empower an organization explicitly charged with facilitating and evolving campus classrooms to become and remain pedagogically effective teaching-learning environments, for both today and tomorrow. The Center for Innovation in Teaching and Learning is this campus organization best suited to support UMaine faculty.

The Center for Innovation in Teaching and Learning (CITL) provides support for innovative pedagogical efforts and promote excellent teaching and learning at the University of Maine.

Together with our partner centers and departments on campus, we work to create and sustain a culture of innovation in teaching. To this end, we offer workshops and personalized consulting on curricular and instructional design, educational software, technologies for instruction, and related efforts to support 21st Century information and learning cultures.

MOTION
Motion to Designate the Center for Innovation in Teaching and Learning as the campus entity responsible to be the interface between Faculty and Campus organizations and committees, to assure that classroom spaces are well-designed and maintained.

The Faculty Senate Vision for Classroom Advocacy and Support is to direct the Center for Innovation in Teaching and Learning to:

Advocate on behalf of faculty for improvements in educational infrastructure and resources. Advocate for, lead and oversee support, maintenance, and improvement of classroom spaces.
Provide visioning, leadership and stewardship for maintaining, improving, and supporting classroom and computer lab spaces. Organize and lead campus efforts concerning classroom A/V infrastructure. Organize and lead efforts to support the use of teaching and learning spaces and technologies. Plan future teaching and learning spaces with appropriate college departments.
Serve as bridge between teaching faculty and members of the administration. Collaborate with the Office of the Provost to ensure classrooms support the teaching needs of faculty and the learning needs of students.
Gather and represent faculty, student, and staff perspectives in projects, to improve on-campus classrooms and labs. Convene periodic meetings during the academic year between departments and program representatives. Solicit from each department the concerns and interests of its instructional staff, especially concerning how to help staff maintain and improve the education of our students.
Develop a working group of faculty and staff charged with the ongoing enhancement of teaching and learning spaces and facilitate and implement recommendations from the group. Maintain a positive and professional working relationship with designated faculty and staff members.
Work with appropriate units in directing the management of classrooms and lab computers. Maintain, improve, and coordinate purchase of equipment and supplies for public classrooms and lab spaces. Coordinate efforts with appropriate agencies to ensure that A/V equipment used in classrooms and lab computers work properly. Work with faculty and liaisons for US:IT to ensure appropriate hardware and software is installed. Coordinate a system to inventory existing equipment and supplies, budget for future needs, and purchase necessary equipment. Work with Facilities department and governance groups to ensure furniture in learning spaces adheres to the college standard.
Keep current on best practices in learning space design and presentation technology enhanced teaching trends. Research and evaluate new hardware, software and courseware that enhance teaching and learning.
Collaborate with US:IT to provide training and educational opportunities for users of classroom spaces and instructional technologies.
Coordinate the collection of classroom data, usage and identified issues; facilitate access to this information and provide an annual report on the state of the classroom.
Work with Faculty Senate in developing improved communication channels between faculty and appropriate organizations and committee responsible for maintaining classroom and lab spaces.

Discussion: Provost Hecker said this is improved from the last motion but he still has two concerns; one is that this would become a maintenance center and the other issue is resources. Having one place to contact is good but bullet point six would mean a lot of time for someone. Those are issue that should be under US:IT. After discussions with Dick Thompson, he will place another person on campus with the responsibility of items mentioned above.

It was commented that having a classroom with issues of bulbs burned out and not knowing whom to call is an issue.
Mike Scott pointed out that this doesn’t designate the unit to do this but to coordinate.

Vote: Approved, 6 abstentions

Resolution opposing Campus Carry Legislative Bill LD1370
WHEREAS, the current proposed legislation (LD 1370) in the Maine State Legislature would 1) exempt any college or university in the State of Maine from the law that allows a university or college to prohibit a person from carrying a firearm in any building on its grounds if the person holds a license to carry a concealed weapon; 2) Repeal the provision in the administrative policy in which the University of Maine (attached) generally prohibits persons from carrying, possessing, or using any dangerous weapon on university property or in university buildings or facilities, and

WHEREAS, allowing concealed carry permit holders to bring firearms on university grounds, buildings, or into classrooms threatens the progress of education and the expression of ideas and makes the university environment less safe, and

WHEREAS, law enforcement professionals have stated that an essential element of those schools’ safety plans requires prohibiting firearms on college campuses, except by campus police and trained security officers, and

WHEREAS, the Faculty Senate of the University of Maine is responsible for being a voice for students, faculty, and staff on issues relating to campus safety and general well-being, and

WHEREAS, all students, faculty, and staff at the University of Maine have the right to learn and work in a safe environment free from concealed firearms, and

THEREFORE, be it resolved that the University of Maine Faculty Senate strongly opposes any bill put forth by the State of Maine that could prohibit universities from banning the carrying of firearms by non-law enforcement officials in buildings and on campus grounds

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Faculty Senate at the University of Maine strongly urges legislators to stipulate that University rules and regulations relating to campus safety and general well-being follow the recommendations of campus public safety and emergency management.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Faculty Senate at the University of Maine strongly urges legislators to vote against LD1370 or any similar legislation.

Adapted from a similar statement by the faculty and staff at the UW Colleges.

Discussion: Dr. Dana stated it’s a bad idea to have guns on campus. There are situations where firearms being available, or accessible, wouldn’t be a good idea.

Vote: Approved

Motion of the Faculty Senate to Support Achievement of Net Zero Carbon Emissions for the University of Maine by 2040

Whereas the University of Maine is a charter signatory to the 2007 American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment, now the Second Nature Carbon Commitment (Reference 1) and has developed a Climate Action Plan and goal to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2040 (References 2 and 3),

whereas a vast assemblage of multi-disciplinary evidence documented by scientists from across the globe, including nationally and internationally prominent researchers at the University of Maine, show that the planet’s climate system is warming at an unprecedented rate and that “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” (Reference 4)

whereas the University of Maine is currently assessing refurbishment to its central energy infrastructure (Reference 5),

whereas non-renewable power infrastructure options are not likely to allow UMaine to achieve its goal of net zero carbon emissions by 2040, while other options are far more likely to help achieve the goal,

whereas economic calculations typically do not adequately include the external costs of heat, particulate and other pollution that all of us must bear as a result of continuing use of fossil fuels,

whereas the costs of wind, solar and storage technologies have and continue to fall rapidly and promise to be a cost saving option for the University even without consideration of external costs,

whereas there has never been a better time in terms of technological advancements and low costs to invest in renewable energy,

whereas the University of Maine should lead the State in demonstrating energy independence,

whereas University of Maine scientists, engineers and scholars have been and should be leaders in research and development of alternative energy advancements, sustainability practices, and climate prediction tools and applications,

whereas the University of Maine is lagging behind in meeting its commitment to net zero carbon emissions by 2040,

whereas if the University of Maine invests in major infrastructure that continues to depend heavily on oil, natural gas, coal, or other fossil fuels, it will never achieve the goal of net zero carbon emissions by 2040,

Be it hereby resolved that the Faculty of the University of Maine as represented by the Faculty Senate strongly object to support any campus power and heating infrastructure investments that will make it more difficult for assist the campus to in achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2040.

References:

Current Climate Leadership Statement, http://secondnature.org/climate-guidance/the-commitments/#Climate_Leadership_Statement

The University of Maine Climate Action Plan, 2010, http://reporting.secondnature.org/media/uploads/cap/427-cap_1.pdf
Published Progress and Commitment of UMaine, http://reporting.secondnature.org/institution/detail!1906##1906
IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis – Summary for Policymakers, Observed Changes in the Climate

System, p. 15, in IPCC AR5 WG1 2013.

Energy Solutions RFP 43-16, Issue Date: February 12, 2016, http://www.maine.edu/strategic/documentuploads/43-

16_Energy_Solutions.pdf and subsequent addenda, http://www2.maine.edu/strategic/upcoming_bids-detail.php?bid=519

Motion Submitted by: Harlan Onsrud, Professor, Computing and Information Science James Wilson, Professor,
Marine Sciences and Economics
Paul Mayewski, Director, Climate Change Institute
Dan Sandweis, Director, School of Policy and International Affairs

Discussion: Provost Hecker said this is a good idea but would like a friendly amendment to say Faculty Senate “strongly support” in place of “…strongly object…”. Harlan Onsrud didn’t have a problem with the amendment. Andrew Thomas also made a couple additional amendments in wording, which Harlan also agreed with. The changes are italicized and crossed out.

Vote on Andrew Thomas’ amendments approved
Vote: Approved