April 19, 2000
Faculty Senate Minutes
April 19, 2000
Present: Bruce Barber, Darlene Bay, Richard Brucher, Tom Byther, Steve Cohn, Chris Cronan, Shirley Lee Davis, Rebecca Eilers, George Elliott, Ed Ferguson, Marc Girard, Michael Grillo, Theresa Grove, Diane Haslett, Knud Hermansen, Peter Hoff, Jim Horan, Keith Hutchison, Richard Jagels, Melvin Johnson, Harvey Kail, Roger King, Dorothy Klimis-Zacas, Irv Kornfield, Jan Kristo, Judy Kuhns-Hastings, John Maddaus, Chuck Maguire Ivan Manev, C. Bauschatz for Kathleen March, Kyriacos Markides, Jim McClymer, Jim McConnon, Bruce Nicholson, Harlan Onsrud, Howard Patterson, Eric Peterson, Paula Petrik, Robert Rice, Donijo Robbins, Steve Sader, Thomas Sandford, Jane Smith, Owen Smith, Gloria Vollmers, Ione Hunt von Herbing, James Wilson, Don Zillman
Absent: Paul Bauschatz, Phyl Brazee, Hsiang-Tai Cheng, Ted Coladarci, Richard Cook, Daniel Dwyer, Bill Farthing, Ray Fort, Michael Greenwood, Timothy Griffin, Dana Humphrey, Richard Judd, Leonard Kass, Justin Kelleher, Cynthia Mahmood, Chris Moody, Alan Rosenwasser, Judy Walker, Lynn West, Anatole Wieck,
I. Welcome
The meeting was called to order at 3:15.
II. Steve Cohn moved and Paula Petrik seconded that the minutes from the last meeting be approved. The motion passed.
III. Announcements
Fill out self-assessment survey. It is important that as many members as possible fill out the survey in order to provide feedback that can be used to improve the way faculty senate operates. Members were urged to take this obligation seriously.
Election of Vice President/President Elect. John Maddaus has agreed to run for Faculty Senate President. He was elected by a clear majority. He will serve as Vice-President next year, and as President the following year.
Election of Committee on Committees. The committee will consist of the following people: Richard Cook (College of Natural Sciences, Forestry and Agriculture), Howard Patterson (College of Liberal Arts and Sciences), Jim Horan (College of Business, Public Policy and Health), Marc Girard (College of Engineering), and Janice Kristo (College of Education and Human Development).
Report and Update on University-Wide Promotion and Tenure Standards—Don Zillman. According to Article 10 of the AFUM agreement, faculty at the department level and the President share responsibility for making tenure and promotion decisions. The President is in the process of developing a document that will clearly state the standards that will be applied on his part. It is hoped that the Faculty Senate will respond with feedback and assist in developing a campus-wide document. One reason this is important is for the President’s use in explaining these issues to outside stakeholders. There was a good deal of concern about how this initiative corresponds to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. Several members stressed that each department sets its own standard, and that the President only has the power to accept or reject. President Hoff stressed that the point of the document is to encourage discussion and to make public the standards that will be applied, thus preventing the process from appearing arbitrary and capricious.
Report on Post Tenure Merit Pay Awards—Don Zillman (Article 19 of the AFUM agreement). Each campus can elect to participate in this process. The election is effective for at least 4 years. The committee has established the process as follows: each department, at the end of its regular annual assessment procedure, will send forward nominees for merit pay awards to a campus-wide committee. The committee can choose no more than 20% of all eligible faculty to be granted awards.
Congratulations were noted to members who had received promotions: Ted Coladarci, Knud Hermansen, Keith Hutchinson and Roger King
The last elected members meeting will be on May 3, and the last full meeting will be on May 10.
IV. Questions of Administrators
There were none.
V. Karen Boucias—presentation on International Programs
Each year, University of Maine sends 130-140 students to study abroad. Karen Boucias would like to increase this number. Many methods have been tried, and she is appealing to the faculty senate for help in identifying better ways to encourage students to take advantage of this opportunity. In addition, the program is now responsible for the National Student Exchange, which sends students to study at other U.S. universities. Only 60-70 students participate each year. Material explaining the program was passed to attendees.
VI. Committee Reports
University Environment—Ed Fergusen
No report.
Research and Public Service—Harlan Onsrud
No report
Academic Affairs—Owen Smith
Besides the two motions to be discussed later in the meeting, the activities of two subcommittees were notes. The Class Book committee will announce its decision for the next two years in about 2 weeks. The Gen-Ed Review committee has begun discussions about the philosophy of general educations requirement. Meetings will be held every Friday from 12-1 at the Lynch Room. Those interested in providing input are welcomed.
Finance and institutional Planning—Bob Rice
No report
Constitution and Bylaws—Michael Grillo
No report
Committee on Committees—Jane Smith
There are still openings on three committees.
Faculty Representative to the BOT—Dana Humphrey
No report
VII. Old Business
No old business
VIII. New Business
Motion to Form and Charge a Special Committee for the Study of University of Maine General Education Requirements
Presented by Knud Hermansen. Seconded by Owen Smith.
The Academic Affairs Committee was charged with reviewing and making recommendations to modify the current University general education requirements. In October, the motion was made and approved to
[C]harge the Academic Affairs Committee to study the status, effectiveness, benefits, and problems with the general education requirements and the procedures related to the approval of courses. The Committee shall make recommendation(s) to the Senate. In particular the Committee shall examine, report, and make recommendations regarding:
Whether the general education requirements should be eliminated, kept, or modified.
What modifications are appropriate if the general education requirements or the procedure for adoption of courses should be modified.
The committee shall have such power as necessary to investigate and make recommendations regarding the general education requirements. The Academic Affairs Committee chair or his designate shall have the authority to seek information from the administration and coordinate efforts with the administration in the name of and on behalf of the Senate.
The task of a proper review, analysis, and recommending changes to the general education requirements is complex and takes some time and effort. The collective wisdom on this topic, residing with the Academic Affairs Committee (through its subcommittee), could be lost with the next Faculty Senate with the reconstruction of the Academic Affairs Committee. Therefore a motion is made to withdraw the general education consideration from the Academic Affairs Committee and reconstitute the current subcommittee of the Academic Affairs Committee as a special committee of the Faculty Senate that will remain in effect during the next session of the Faculty Senate. Accordingly
Motion
The motion is made to withdraw from the Academic Affairs Committee the charge to study the status, effectiveness, benefits, and problems with the general education requirements, the procedures related to the approval of courses, and all other general education considerations charged to the Academic Affairs committee by a motion adopted by the Faculty Senate.
The present general education sub-committee of the Academic Affairs Committee shall be discharged and be reconstituted as a special committee of the Faculty Senate known as the General Education Review Committee. The committee shall be charged to study the status, effectiveness, benefits, and problems with the general education requirements and the procedures related to the approval of courses. In particular the Committee shall examine, report, and make recommendations regarding:
Whether the general education requirements should be eliminated, kept, or modified.
What modifications are appropriate if the general education requirements or the procedure for adoption of courses should be modified.
The committee shall have such power as necessary to investigate and make recommendations regarding the general education requirements.
The Committee shall be constituted with one faculty from each college and one representative from the administration.
The Committee shall remain in effect during the next session of the Faculty Senate.
The chair of the Committee shall be Owen Smith, unless otherwise directed by the President of the Faculty Senate.
The Committee shall report to the Faculty Senate as such time as directed by the President of the Faculty Senate or when a final report has been prepared.
Discussion
The reason for this motion is to ensure that continuity on this committee is maintained. The project is expected to take some time, and membership on the committee should not be changed each academic year, as membership on the Academic Affairs committee is changed. In addition, currently only 2 members of the committee can vote. This narrows actual representation achieved by the committee. A friendly amendment was proposed that Charlie Slavin, Director of the Honors Program, be added to the committee.
The motion, including the friendly amendment, passed by clear majority.
Report of the Academic Affairs Committee on the Charge to Study the Evaluation of Administrators—Owen Smith
In September 1999, the Academic Affairs Committee was charged to investigate and make recommendations regarding the evaluation of administrators. After investigation, discussion, and revision, it is the opinion of the Academic Affairs Committee that:
1. Faculty members should have an opportunity to evaluate and comment on the work of the President, Provost and Vice-Presidents, and the College Deans. (Department Chairs are faculty members who have temporarily taken on administrative duties. They serve short terms and are subject to evaluation annually by their Deans and by their faculty upon re-appointment. The Committee believes that any further issues concerning evaluation of Chairs should be handled at the College and Department levels.)
2. The goal of faculty evaluation of administrators is to draw attention to positive achievements as well as areas for administrative improvement. In addition, the goal is to alert the upper administration to faculty reactions both to individual administrators and to specific administrative initiatives.
3. Faculty members should be invited to provide annual evaluations as part of the administrative review of each administrator.
4. The President of the Faculty Senate, together with the Executive Committee of the Senate, should serve as a clearinghouse and monitoring body for the process of faculty evaluation of administrators. This mechanism is proposed in order to provide for accountability, while protecting confidentiality and privacy. Two copies of each evaluation should be forwarded by the faculty member to the President of the Faculty Senate. The President should then forward one copy to the President of the University or, in the case of review of the President, to the Chancellor of the University of Maine System. The Senate President should then review the remaining copy in consultation with the Senate Executive Committee.
5. The Senate President and Executive Committee should have the responsibility to identify significant problems raised in the evaluations, to request feedback from the President or Chancellor about how these problems will be addressed, and to monitor the outcome.
6. Faculty evaluations should remain confidential except in those cases where the Senate President and Executive Committee, in consultation with the President of the University or the Chancellor, deem that a particular issue has not been satisfactorily addressed and must therefore be reported to the full Faculty Senate for discussion and action. This decision should be made by a two-thirds vote among the Senate President and Executive Committee as a consequence of their role in monitoring the process of administrative evaluation by the Faculty. (The Senate Constitution should be revised to institutionalize this role of the Executive Committee.)
7. Evaluation forms should be made available on First Class as an attachment to be downloaded by those faculty members who wish to print them out for submission. The Senate President should send such a First Class message to multiple bulletin boards and include the names of those administrators to be evaluated, the name and address of the Senate President, and the deadline for submission to the Senate President.
8. All faculty, except adjunct faculty, should be eligible to evaluate administrators (including non-tenured faculty).
Accordingly, the Academic Affairs Committee makes the following recommendations for adoption by the Faculty Senate:
Recommendations
Scope: Faculty members should evaluate the University President, Provost, Vice-Presidents and Directors, and Deans. College Deans should be evaluated only by the faculty members in their Colleges, while the University President and other administrators should be subject to evaluation by all eligible faculty members.
Eligible Faculty: All tenured, tenure-track, contract, and part-time faculty members teaching 6 credits or more in the year that the evaluation is to take place should be eligible to evaluate administrators.
Procedure: The President of the University should provide the Senate President with a list of administrators to be evaluated in a given year, and a deadline for submission of evaluations, at least two months before that deadline. The Senate President will post this list, together with the evaluation form, at multiple sites on First Class. Faculty members who wish to evaluate the appropriate administrators should download the form, fill it out, and mail two copies per evaluation to the Senate President. The Senate President will forward one copy to the President of the University and retain one copy to be reviewed by the Senate Executive Committee. In the case of evaluation of the University President, evaluations should be forwarded to the Chancellor or his or her designee. The University President will forward a copy of their faculty evaluations to the administrators being evaluated. The University President, or Chancellor, will report back to the Senate Executive Committee concerning any actions taken as a result of faculty comments.
All evaluations shall be anonymous and their contents will be held confidential by the Senate Executive Committee and the Administration, except as specified below.
If the Senate President and Executive Committee believe and agree that a serious complaint has been raised against a particular administrator and, after consultation with the University President, or Chancellor, believe and vote by a two-thirds majority that the administration has not taken appropriate steps to address the concern, then the Senate President may bring the concern to the Faculty Senate for discussion and possible action.
Evaluation Form
Name of Administrator:
Date:
College of Faculty Member:
Part A. Please rank the administrator being evaluated in the following four areas:
1. Leadership: Please consider the number and quality of the administrator’s initiatives, their resolve to carry through ideas, the example they set for others, their professionalism, and the working environment they establish. The results of leadership in developing trust, integrity, and commitment in staff and faculty should also be considered.
Lack Sufficient ( ) 1 ( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( ) 5 ( )
Information Excellent Satisfactory Poor
Written Comments on #1:
2. Responsiveness: Please consider the administrator’s ability to respond effectively to problems in a timely fashion, and the timeliness and quality of help and support provided to faculty members and staff.
Lack Sufficient ( ) 1 ( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( ) 5 ( )
Information Excellent Satisfactory Poor
Written Comments on #2:
3. Overall Management: Please consider the administrator’s ability to handle ordinary and reasonable tasks expected from their office. Please also consider the scope of the administrator’s involvement both on and off campus, including: openness to a faculty role in governance, handling of personnel problems, maintaining effective lines of communication with appropriate constituencies, respect accorded to faculty views, and accessibility to faculty members. The continuity of support to faculty and programs and the ability of the administrator to further the mission of the campus should also be considered.
Lack Sufficient ( ) 1 ( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( ) 5 ( )
Information Excellent Satisfactory Poor
Written Comments on #3:
4. Fiscal Responsibility: If the adminstrator is in charge of a budget affecting institutions or programs beyond the administrator’s immediate staff, please consider the fiscal responsibility of the adminstrator. Fiscal responsibility may include the ability to allocate limited funds in a fair and equitable manner, the ability to develop and maintain a budget, the ability to obtain or increase funds available for faculty and staff projects, and the ability to prevent or resolve budget problems in a fair and equitable manner.
Lack Sufficient ( ) 1 ( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( ) 5 ( )
Information Excellent Satisfactory Poor
Written Comments on #4:
B. Please provide any additional summative comments you believe will help to provide a more complete evaluation of this administrator. Please be specific.
Knud Hermansen moved and Roger King seconded that the recommendation be adopted. The motion passed with 33 for and 2 opposed.
Some concerns about the recommendation were expressed by Rebecca Eilers. Ed Ferguson moved that the motion be reconsidered. That motion failed with 16 for and 18 against.
Faculty Senate Research and Public Service Committee—Harlan Onsrud
Seconded by Paula Petrik
4/18/00
Faculty Senate Research and Public Service Committee
Subject: Incentives to Increase the Revenue Stream to the University from Indirect Cost Charges on Grants and Contracts
Conclusion: The University of Maine currently does not distribute indirect cost charges generated through research grants back to sub-units of the university in a manner that provides sufficient incentives to the university community to increase flows of indirect research funds to the university.
Summary Recommendation: The faculty senate should pass a motion that reads approximately as follows:
“The faculty senate fully supports the expressed intent of the administration to increase the flow of revenues into the Research and Creativity Fund Account to 50% of all revenues flowing into the university from indirect cost charges on external research grants and contracts submitted through the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs. The UMaine administration indicates that the funds within this account will be distributed among four general pools as discussed below. The faculty senate suggests the addition of a fifth pool. Further, the first funds flowing into the university each year from indirect charges on research grants and contracts should be disbursed immediately to the Research and Creativity Fund and distributed immediately to pools 2, 3 and 5 as indicated through the process indicated below. These funds shall be considered spent or encumbered by the university such that this minimum base level of funding for pools 2, 3 and 5 of the Research and Creativity Fund may be relied upon by the units. Further any funds distributed to pool 2 should be distributed by formula among the college, department and originating investigator as specified below such that identifiable links between research success and substantive administrative support are established on a university-wide basis. Further, the UMaine Administration with the assistance of the Faculty Senate should seek to increase the proportion of indirect cost charges that are returned to the campus from the University of Maine System (UMS) ”
Background:
The overall annual university budget receives revenues from essentially three sources: state support, student tuition, and indirect charges on research grants. This document discusses the need to provide incentives to increase campus revenues from the third of these, indirect charges on research grants.
Those faculty who generate indirect cost funds for the university typically receive no directly linked use of those funds for administrative or other support of their research activity. As a result, this university generates a far smaller ratio of indirect charges to overall research funding than most other universities. Not only is there a lack of incentive to generate indirect cost charges but there are substantial disincentives for faculty to increase such funds for the university. If a faculty member triples her indirect revenue to the university, she typically triples the research workload on herself with no increase in the ability to administratively support the increased workload. Many administrative and maintenance expenses incurred by the units in supporting research may not be charged directly to research grants because they are purportedly covered by the indirect charges. Therefore it makes sense to funnel some of those indirect revenues back to the units. Because no directly linked proportion is returned to the units, there is widespread avoidance of imposing indirect charges on grant and contract work by faculty on this campus. Incentive structures similar to those used at many other leading research universities need to be instituted.
The amount of indirect funds generated from research grants by UMaine faculty reaching the UMaine campus has gone from approximately $1.5 million in fiscal year (FY) 1993 to $3.7 million in FY 2000. Yet the amount distributed to the Office of Vice President for Research has gone from $1.1 million in FY 1993 to 0.9 million in FY 2000 (See Attachment #1). The vast majority of the revenue generated from indirect costs on research now flows into the general university budget to support a host of general purpose needs on campus. There is justification for supporting some general campus needs from revenues flowing in from indirect charges on research grants but it is surely unwise and detrimental to the long term economic well being of the university’s research enterprises and to the university as a whole to do so to the extent currently being witnessed.
There is a desire by the UMaine administration and faculty that a larger proportion of indirect costs flowing into the university be placed into the account of the Vice President for Research; that is, the Research and Creativity Fund account. A proposed distribution plan from the Research and Creativity Fund account has already been developed that would allocate funds to four pools: (1) Funds to Support Central Research Administration, (2) Percentage Return of Funds to Units, (3) Funds to Support Scholarship in the Arts and Humanities, and (4) Faculty Research Funds. A fifth pool is further suggested: (5) Funds to Support Research Initiation by New Faculty.
While such plans look promising, similar plans have been promised in the past and the current plan to date has resulted in only minimal funds being distributed. Distributions to pools 2 and 3 have been particularly lacking. Because only a very limited proportion of the funds generated from indirect costs on grants are actually distributed to the Office of the Vice President for Research, those funds must be spent on administration of that office and as matches to grants with little left over.
Recommendations
Reommendation 1. Indirect costs from research grants are justified to funding agencies through indications that the funds are spent on facilities and administrative expenses necessitated by accomplishing research activities for the funding agency at the campus. The Faculty Senate urges that a realistic distribution that would better meet our obligations to funding agencies is that far smaller proportions should be distributed to the UMS system chief financial officer and the UMaine chief financial officer and a far larger proportion should be distributed to the Research and Creativity Fund account in the office of the Vice President for Research. The UMaine administration with the assistance of the Faculty Senate should pursue these overall objectives.
Recommendation 2. For indirect costs received on research grants generated by UMaine faculty, a formula automatically diverts so much money to the University of Maine System and so much to the University of Maine campus. A similar formula should be applied to the amount arriving at the University of Maine campus so that a certain proportion is automatically placed in the Research and Creativity Fund account and the remainder (up to a capped limit) would apply to the amount flowing to the general university budget. Thus, a certain proportion of indirect revenues coming into the university would not be pooled with the other general income streams.
Recommendation 3. Of the amount of indirect revenues received by the University of Maine, the UMaine administration has expressed a desire to increase the distribution to the Research and Creativity Fund in the Office of Vice President for Research to the following amounts over the next five years: 25% – 2001, 30% – 2002, 35% – 2003, 40% – 2004, 50% – 2005. The Faculty Senate fully and strongly supports this plan.
The recommended five pools within the Research and Creativity Fund are as follows:
(1) Funds to Support Central Research Administration
These funds are used to support the administration and various needed functions of the Office of Vice President for Research.
(2) Percentage Return of Funds to Units
The purpose of these funds is (a) to provide a directly linked incentive to increase research funding, particularly funding that carries indirect cost returns, and (b) to help support the expenses of those units that have increased administrative needs due to their successes in generating funded research work.
(3) Funds to Support Scholarship in the Arts and Humanities
Some academic areas have far less opportunity for external funding support than others. The purpose of this pool of funds is to support a campus funded program of scholarly research in those academic areas lacking substantial opportunities for external funding, such as the traditional arts and humanities. Some funds would be used to support actual research while other funds might be used for “seed grants” to support the writing of proposals for externally funded grants.
(4) Faculty Research Funds
The purpose of this pool is to provide matching funds for those research proposals to external agencies that require matches or for those proposals that are much more likely to be funded if they have a match.
(5) Funds to Support Research Initiation by New Faculty
The purpose of this pool is to support research initiation efforts on a competitive campus-wide basis for tenure-track pre-tenure faculty in their first three years.
Minimum Funding Levels: Although we strongly support this five pool plan, similar plans have failed previously. Therefore, in order to ensure at least minimal incentives to faculty to continually increase external research grant funding and indirect revenues, the first funds flowing into the university each year from indirect charges on research grants and contracts should be disbursed immediately to the Research and Creativity Fund and distributed as follows:
a. as an absolute minimum and regardless of other formulaic distributions, 10% of the indirect costs generated by a researcher from externally funded research grants should be placed in pool 2 and then immediately placed under the control of that individual researcher in order to allow that individual to accommodate increased administrative and support expenses at the individual researcher level (Example: In fiscal year 2000, this would have resulted in a minimum allocation of $368,1901 to the spending control of the individual researchers responsible for originally generating the funds),
b. as an absolute minimum and regardless of other formulaic distributions, $150,000 should be placed in the Research and Creativity Fund to support pool number 3 as indicated above.
c. as an absolute minimum and regardless of other formulaic distributions, $70,000 should be placed in the Research and Creativity Fund to support pool number 5 as indicated above.
These absolute minimum level funds shall be considered spent or encumbered by the university such that this minimum base level of funding for pools 2, 3 and 5 of the Research and Creativity Fund may be relied upon by the units.
Recommendation 4. The UMaine administration has proposed that funds disseminated through the second pool (i.e. Percentage Return of Funds to Units) should be distributed in entirety to college deans and the method by which these funds would be spent would be determined in entirety at the college level. The Research and Public Service Committee of the Faculty Senate believes these funds, beyond the minimum funding level specified above, should be distributed by the following formula: Office of College Dean – 33%, Department Office – 33%, Originating Investigator – 33%. This distribution would provide consistency across the entire campus and would provide much higher incentives for all investigators to generate research funds. This distribution far better ensures that revenue flows from research funds will grow rapidly over time on a campus-wide basis and that such incentives and benefits will accrue to the entire campus community. (Note: In the event that operating budgets for departments on the UMaine campus are raised to much higher levels (i.e. reasonable levels), moving to a split of Dean – 40%, Department – 30%, and Investigator – 30% might then be reasonable.)
Summary
The faculty and administration have been highly effective in dramatically increasing the flow of revenues from indirect charges on research grants to the university over the past several years. We need to keep this trend moving upward so that the entire university benefits from these increased revenues. To do so, the faculty needs far greater “local” rather than “central” control over how the increased income streams they are generating from indirect charges are spent. We in fact may start to see decreases in indirect revenues and decreases in the recent research funding expansion if the situation isn’t corrected soon.
Other universities have addressed this problem by providing substantial incentives to increase research funding and indirect cost revenues on their campuses. By example, at the University of South Carolina an amount is set aside in each year’s budget equal to 100% of the indirect charges generated on research grants in the preceding year. This amount is distributed in equal proportions in budget allocations to the Office of Vice President for Research and to the college responsible for generating the indirect funds (i.e. 50% each). The typical College Dean retains 5% of the amount distributed to it and the remainder is distributed to the Department accounts. A typical Department grants the person responsible for generating the indirect costs discretion on how 50% of the funds delivered to it will be spent. While the near term goal at the University of Maine is to increase the flow of revenues into the Research and Creativity Fund Account to 50% of all revenues flowing into the university from indirect cost charges on external research grants and contracts submitted through the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs, we believe the long term goal of the University of Maine should be much higher and should be similar to that of other universities seeking to substantially increase their external research funding. Thus a cap on the amount of indirect funds flowing into the general university budget is specified in the motion below.
The Research and Public Service Committee recommends that the Faculty Senate pass the following motion:
• The faculty senate fully supports the expressed intent of the administration to increase the flow of revenues into the Research and Creativity Fund Account to 50% of all revenues flowing into the university from indirect charges on research grants and contracts. The funds within this account should be distributed among five general pools as discussed in this document.
• Further, a specified minimum level of funds flowing into the university each year from indirect charges on research grants and contracts should be disbursed immediately to the Research and Creativity Fund and distributed immediately to pools 2, 3 and 5 as indicated through the minimum distribution process discussed above (i.e., a minimum return of 10% to the researchers responsible for generating the indirect revenues, a minimum of $150,000 for the Fund to Support Scholarship in the Arts and Humanities and a minimum of $70,000 for the Fund to Support Research Initiation by New Faculty .) These funds shall be considered spent or encumbered by the university such that these minimum base levels of funding for pools 2, 3 and 5 of the Research and Creativity Fund may be relied upon by the units.
• Further any funds distributed to pool 2 should be distributed by formula among the college, department and originating investigator as specified above (i.e. equally, subject to the minimum level for investigators) such that identifiable links between research success and substantive administrative support are established.
• Although 50% is the eventual standard amount that should be allowed to flow into the overall campus budget from indirect research grant revenues, this 50% amount should be capped at $3 million. Any further amounts should be distributed exclusively to the Research and Creativity Fund Account and distributed by the means discussed above.
This motion is made in the spirit of seeking highly productive approaches for maintaining increased flows of revenues from indirect charges on research grants in the years ahead. We need the “pie” to grow bigger so that all segments of the University may be nourished from it.
The faculty senate requests within 30 days a response to the individual points made in this motion as well as responses to the more fully articulated recommendations in the body of this document.
Respectfully submitted: Research and Public Service Committee
***************************************
ATTACHMENT #1
Distribution of Indirect Costs
University of Maine – History
Discussion
Bruce Nicholson suggested that it would be better and easier to have set percentages for each party rather than variable rates with a 10% minimum. This would provide an amount for the principle investigator that is comparable to that provided by other institutions.
Rebecca Eilers expressed concern that this recommendation tends to increase the current imbalance between funding levels for those in disciplines which do have access to grant funding and those that do not. Several members replied that it alleviates existing problems in the sciences and other disciplines. Funding agencies will not buy basic equipment, the indirect cost allocations can be used for this purpose. Other institutions have this type of equipment. Harlan Onsrud believes that the intent is not to take funds away from other units, but to encourage those who can to increase grant money so that the overall amount of funding grows, providing benefits to the entire university. Owen Smith stated that the intent is to treat the money in such a manner that it will be used to further academic endeavors rather than disappearing into the general fund. President Hoff stated that in order for the university to be competitive and achieve parity with other institutions, ALL parts of the university must have the funding necessary to remain competitive.
Bob Rice proposed a friendly amendment that would change the name of pool 3 from “Fund to Support Scholarship in the Arts and Humanities” to “Fund to Support Scholarship in Academic Areas that have Less Opportunity for External Funding Support than Others”.
The motion passed by clear majority.
Environmental Planning Motion—Roger King
Seconded by Richard Jagels
PREAMBLE
As a Land and Sea Grant University, the University of Maine has both the responsibility and the opportunity to showcase best practices in its academic programs and in the way it conducts its own institutional affairs. As one of the largest institutions in the state of Maine, the University of Maine has a major impact on the natural environment in which it is situated. It is the responsibility of the University of Maine to model environmentally responsible self management, to adopt effective environmental technologies, and to be a leader in green construction and environmental protection. The University should set an example to other institutions of how to build green buildings; minimize air, water, and soil pollution; conserve energy; control traffic; protect local plant and animal communities; recycle waste products; utilize local and sustainably produced products; store and use toxic materials; and protect the health and safety of the members of the University community and others in its vicinity.
The Faculty Senate has already voiced its support for protecting the legacy of the University’s historic buildings and landscapes. These are important constituents of the campus’ identity. This historical legacy is complemented by an environmental legacy: the fields, forests, and river frontage; the air, water, and soils; the plant and animal life which constitute the natural context of campus life. The integrity of this environmental legacy should also be protected.
The University of Maine is a major consumer of resources. It is also, like everyone else, a polluter and contributor to the wastestream. As society struggles to deal with its environmental problems, the University of Maine has an opportunity to take a leadership role in showing that a major educational institution can adopt environmentally responsible technologies and make decisions that protect its local environment and that of surrounding communities, while enhancing the quality of life and educational opportunities.
A long-term, systematic planning process is needed to take on the task of protecting and enhancing the environmental, as well as historical, legacies of the campus.
MOTION
1. The Faculty Senate reaffirms its support for the preservation of historic structures and landscapes at the University of Maine.
2. The Faculty Senate also affirms its support for the preservation of the campus’ environmental legacy and asks that steps be taken, as an integral part of campus planning efforts, to identify and implement environmentally responsible strategies for energy efficiency, improved water and air quality, preservation of open space, increased recycling, decreased waste, and appropriate use of new environmental technologies and energy sources. Examples of two easy and immediate steps that should be taken include stopping herbicide spraying on University lawns and ensuring that the cleaners and chemicals used by custodians in University buildings are non-toxic and biodegradable.
3. The Faculty Senate requests that President Hoff take steps to consult with the Department of Environmental Protection, or other appropriate consultants, to set up an Environmental Management System to enable the University to engage in a continuous process of improvement of its environmental impacts.
4. The Faculty Senate requests that the President report back to the Senate no later than at its October 2000 meeting to inform the membership of the steps the University has taken to begin making the University of Maine a showcase for environmentally responsible and sustainable management.
Discussion
Knud Hermansen raised two objections. He believes that it may be difficult to work with the Department of Environmental Protection and is not interested in hearing an annual report from the President about the state of environmental issues on campus. Bruce Barber asked for examples of areas of concern. Roger King listed spraying, pollution from the smoke stack and energy consumption. Zillman stated that DEP has approached the campus and does seem to be willing to negotiate and educate rather than simply impose fines. Roger King stated that an annual report is not intended by the motion, but only one report next year.
The motion passed with 24 for and 5 against.
Motion about UMS’s Committee to Write Policies on Intellectual Property—Owen Smith
Seconded by Knud Hermansen
Preamble
The Academic Affairs Committee and the Research and Public Service Committee of the Faculty Senate reviewed the proposed Intellectual Property Policy that was detailed in the Memorandum to Sue Huseman, dated 24 September 1999. While we agree that the current policy needs to be amended and updated, we believe that the suggested changes fail to improve the existing policy while protecting the interests of both the faculty and the university. In particular:
1. The proposed policy substantially extends the present policy to include many new media, besides patents as in the existing policy, as copyrightable material. This is neither in the interest of the faculty nor would it be possible for the university to implement.
2. The change from gross profits to net profits is unacceptable because it can leave the faculty without any remuneration from the proceeds of intellectual property if overhead costs unrelated to the creation of the properties may be allocated against profit. The only costs that should be deducted from revenues are costs directly related to the property itself (e.g. legal fees from registering patents).
Both committees are of the opinion and recommend the policy be rejected until further review and re-writing. We suggest the following three criteria for its further revision: fairness and equity, efficiency, and faculty input.
Fairness and equity. Equity and fairness mean equitable and fair treatment of individual effort, especially remuneration for one’s work. In today’s information society, most organizations, including major for-profit business corporations, consider the people working for them as their most valuable assets. It is inconceivable that a university, of all organizations, would value the input of its faculty in the creation of intellectual property at “15% of the net profit” generated by that property.
Efficiency. Neither the current policy nor the proposed changes mention efficiency, and they are anything but efficient. For example, the current policy stipulates that all copyrightable material should be submitted to a special campus committee for a possible waiver of university interest. Under current law, anything a faculty member writes is copyrightable. There is no estimate of the costs that such a bureaucracy might incur in faculty time and university resources. Further, the proposed policy expands the definition of university resources to “more than incidental use of information resources,” presumably including use of computer, the internet, and library databases on campus. While alternative computer, internet, and library resources are available at low cost elsewhere, it is inefficient to force faculty to duplicate and switch between the university and alternative resources.
Faculty input. The Faculty Senate asserts its right to represent the faculty at The University of Maine in developing university policy. The University of Maine is the flagship campus of the system, in which most research leading to intellectual property is performed. It is unconscionable that a major change in an important policy concerning the University of Maine System should be attempted without any representation by our faculty in its development.
Motion
1. The current proposal for a New Intellectual Property Policy shall be rejected as unacceptable to the faculty of the University of Maine.
2. A new proposal should be developed with appropriate and substantial representation of the University of Maine faculty.
The motion passed by clear majority
IX. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 4:40.