Skip Navigation

1999-2000 - November 17, 1999

Faculty Senate Minutes

November 17, 1999

Present: Paul Bauschatz, Darlene Bay, Phyl Brazee, Richard Brucher, Tom Byther, Hsiang-Tai Cheng, Ted Coladarci, Richard Cook, Chris Cronan, Shirley Lee Davis, Daniel Dwyer, Rebecca Eilers, George Elliott, Bill Farthing, Ed Ferguson, Michael Greenwood, Timothy Griffin, Michael Grillo, Knud Hermansen, Peter Hoff, Jim Horan, Dana Humphrey, Richard Jagels, Melvin Johnson, Harvey Kail, Leonard Kass, Justin Kelleher, Roger King, Irv Kornfield, Judy Kuhns-Hastings, John Maddaus, Cynthia Mahmood, Ivan Manev, Kathleen March, Jim McClymer, Jim McConnon, Bruce Nicholson, Harlan Onsrud, Howard Patterson, Eric Peterson, Paula Petrik, Robert Rice, Donijo Robbins, Alan Rosenwasser, Steve Sader, Thomas Sandford, Jane Smith, Owen Smith, Gloria Vollmers, Ione Hunt von Herbing, Anatole Wieck, Don Zillman

Absent: Bruce Barber, Steve Cohn, Ray Fort, Marc Girard, Theresa Grove, Duane Hanselman, Diane Haslett, Keith Hutchison, Richard Judd, Kyriacos Markides, Wesley Petteway, Andrew Reeve, David Townsend, Judy Walker, James Wilson

I. Welcome:

The meeting was called to order at 3:15.

II. Approval of Minutes:

Owen Smith moved that the minutes for last month’s meeting be approved. The motion passed.


Elaine Albright spoke about the Lynch Room. The room is a dedicated room to be used by students to listen to music. However, the room is currently not being used as was envisioned by the donator, Mr. Lynch. It is being used by some committees and community groups as a meeting place. Mr. Lynch is willing to have the room converted to a meeting place for faculty, in the vein of a faculty club. Since the room would be converted from student use to faculty use, Elaine Albright felt that any amenities offered to faculty, such as catering, should also be offered to students in the Oak room. No use of library funds is required for this project. Mr. Lynch will provide $80,000 for remodeling.

A search is currently being conducted for the Director of the new Belfast Center. Volunteers are being sought to serve on the search committee.

Volunteers are needed to serve two subcommittees of the Academic Affairs Committee: the class book committee and the gen-ed requirements committee. Members are asked to find interested faculty in their units.

Michael Grillo reported that the provost search has resulted in a list of 10 finalists. Campus visits will not take place until January. This means that Don Zillman will continue for one more semester as interim provost.

Hoff announced that a student had died as a result of a fall from a dorm window. All are saddened by this event.

IV. Questions of Administrators:


V. Committee Reports:

Academic Affairs—Owen Smith

The committee members are in the process of polling faculty about Maine Day. Preliminary results indicate that Maine Day, as a service day, should be supported. Scheduling remains an issue with two possibilities: 1) Saturday or 2) Wednesday, with classes meeting only once a week allowed to hold the meeting.

The committee presented the following report about the proposed letter to students regarding academic standards:

- On the Question of an Open Letter to Students
On Academic Standards

Opinions of the Committee

The Academic Affairs Committee has considered the proposal for an open letter on academic standards presented by the Vice-provost for Undergraduate Education. Despite the concerns of many administrators and faculty members about the degree of academic commitment and achievement to be found in some students at the University of Maine, the Committee believes that neither the Senate, nor the Administration, should publish an open letter on academic standards. Our reasons are as follows:

In the areas of class attendance, writing, library use, reading, homework, field experience, and cooperative learning, there is nothing general to be said to the student body as a whole. Expectations and requirements in all of these areas are the prerogative of the individual faculty member and should be left to their specification as appropriate for each individual course.

It is ineffective to make general and abstract statements to the student body as a whole to the effect that they should go to class, read, write well, use the library, or do their homework. These things are either obvious to the student or they are issues that need to be clarified within the context of specific courses by the responsible faculty member.

We believe that many students know what is required of them, even though they may not act on this knowledge or may not know how to do what is required of them. An open letter to students will not remedy this situation.

Many students clearly do not understand what it means to be a good student. However, we believe that these are precisely the students who will not read or benefit from an open letter of the sort proposed.

It is the responsibility of the faculty to set the standards expected in their courses and to find ways to hold students accountable for those standards. This faculty responsibility is compromised by publication of vague general University standards, and our task is made no easier by the proposed Open Letter.

We believe that there is greater potential for a public relations problem here than there is potential for benefits to students. It is undesirable for the University to publish a document that effectively admits that we need to tell students – officially – to do something so obvious and basic as their homework!


The Academic Affairs Committee recommends that the Administration discontinue further development of the proposal to publish an open letter on academic standards.

The Academic Affairs Committee further recommends that the Senate establish an ad hoc committee to organize and moderate a series of discussion sessions for faculty, with the purpose of heightening faculty awareness of our responsibility for setting academic standards and expectations. Specific topics of concern are:

Should there be a common understanding of the meaning of grades A-E? If so, how should these grades be defined?

How should performance expectations in different kinds of course be defined, and how might these expectations be promulgated to the faculty? (E.g. should faculty members expect grammatical English from their students and enforce the expectation?)

How should “high academic standards” be interpreted in different kinds of course and discipline? What strategies might be useful for increasing student accountability for achieving these standards?

The goal of the proposed discussion sessions is to create an opportunity for concentrated faculty discussion of academic expectations and to consider ways to support faculty-generated initiatives. The ad hoc committee should report back to the Senate with a summary of these discussions by April 2000.

[Open Letter]


Harvey Kail suggested that the academic standards issue might fall under the purview of the Center for Teaching Excellence. Owen Smith replied that it is the individual faculty member’s responsibility to set and maintain standards and that this is a fundamental of greater import than simply a publicized set of rules for students to follow. Don Zillman stated that new students often do not know what a university is all about, and that the issue can still be addressed, just not via the envisioned letter.

The report was accepted by a clear majority.

The committee presented the following report regarding evaluation of

Administrators by faculty.

Report of the Academic Affairs Committee on the Charge to Study the Evaluation of Administrators
In September, the Academic Affairs Committee was charged the following:

Move that the Academic Affairs Committee examine the necessity, existing mechanism, and protocols for evaluation of administrators by faculty. In particular the committee will report to the senate recommendations addressing the following:

  • protocols already in place for the evaluation of administrators by faculty; and
  • modifications to existing procedures; or
  • creation of new protocols for the evaluation of administrators by faculty.

The committee will report their recommendations to the November senate meeting as one or more motions.

After investigation, analysis, notice to all faculty senators of committee meetings, and open hearings held on _ October 1999, it is the opinion of the committee that:

Administrators should be evaluated by faculty.

The current procedures and protocols for the evaluation of administrators are inadequate.

Evaluations should encourage comments and be relatively simple to complete.

The scope of evaluations should include performance, leadership, responsiveness, management, and fiscal responsibility.

Prior to faculty evaluations, administrators may post a job description and activity report for review of faculty and establishment of performance standards.

The standards for reviewing performance may be based in part by comparing the job description with the activity report of the administrator.

The summary of faculty evaluations should be made public. Publicizing evaluation summaries will help insure administrators will take the evaluations seriously and strive to improve evaluations.

Evaluations should be conducted yearly.

The evaluations should be done on the internet.

The name of the evaluator should not be disclosed on the evaluation.

All faculty, except adjunct faculty, should evaluate administrators (including non-tenured faculty).

Faculty evaluations shall be reviewed by a committee to summarize and codify the evaluations.

The committee has been unable to determine a mechanism for insuring all faculty take part in the evaluation of administrators.

Accordingly, the Academic Affairs Committee makes the following recommendations for adoption by the faculty senate:


Scope: College deans will be evaluated by their faculty members, while administrators at the levels of President, Provost, and Vice-President will be subject to evaluation by all members of the University faculty. The question of whether or not faculty members should evaluate department or unit chairs and directors on an annual basis should be left to individual departments and units to determine, in consultation with their dean. Any eligible faculty may evaluate the directors of the athletic department, Maine Center for the Arts, Fogler Library, and other cultural institutions on the campus. Faculty involved in research may evaluate administration personnel in research institutions.

Eligible Faculty: All tenured, tenured tract, contract, and part time faculty teaching 6 credits or more in the immediate previous academic year shall evaluate administrators.

Procedure: Evaluation of administrators by eligible faculty is necessary for effective responsiveness to faculty needs and timely feedback to administrators for their own improvement and improvement over the system they administer. Administrators at or above the level of dean shall be evaluated by eligible faculty each year. Evaluations will occur in May. Evaluations will be done on the internet at a site established and maintained under the direction of the Provost. A job description for each administrator will be posted on the internet. Administrators will be allowed to post an activity report for review by faculty prior to the evaluation period. All evaluations shall be anonymous. At the end of each evaluation period, a committee shall review the evaluations, and a summary of the evaluations shall be made public along with all previous evaluation summaries.

The evaluation of administrators will take place in two stages. First, faculty members will be reminded to and have an opportunity to respond to electronic evaluation forms for their Dean and for members of the upper administration. Second, an evaluation committee will be formed to review the results of the electronic evaluations and to pursue the evaluation in greater depth. The committee will have the authority to interview the administrator and to ask questions based on his or her activity report and on the electronic evaluations received from the faculty. The committee will also have the authority to comment on the results of the electronic evaluation of the faculty. In its final evaluation report, the committee may support, qualify, or reject the conclusions of the electronic evaluation, as it deems appropriate. The evaluation committee for college deans will be composed of tenured faculty members in the college, including chairs or directors of departments or units. The selection of members for the evaluation committee for deans will be done by the peer committee of a department or unit – each unit or department within a college furnishing two members. The evaluation committee(s) for upper administration will be composed of tenured faculty members representing each of the Colleges of the University. The selection of members for the evaluation committee of upper administration will be done by the President of the Faculty Senate.


In evaluating an administrator, the highest favorable evaluation is a “1″ The least favorable evaluation is a “5.” A “3″ is satisfactory. Where the faculty member chooses an evaluation higher or lower than a “3,” the faculty member should provide comments indicating why the faculty member has determined the administrator exceeds or does not meet a satisfactory rating. Where the faculty member is unaware or lacks sufficient information to arrive at an informed opinion, the faculty member should mark “Lack Sufficient Information.”

Performance — In commenting on the performance of the administrator, the faculty member should compare the job description with the activity report provided by the administrator. Based on a fair and reasonable analysis of the job description and activity report, the faculty member should determine whether the administrator falls short of, meets, or exceeds the requirements and responsibilities of the position as set forth in the job description. Where the job description or activity report is vague, the faculty member may rely on their own knowledge and familiarity with the position and the performance of the administrator. In such cases, the faculty member may consider the administrator’s effectiveness in working with others, effectiveness in planning and accomplishing goals, success in achieving department/college/university goals and missions, enthusiasm, competence, and ability.

Lack Sufficient ( )  1 ( )  2 ( )  3 ( )  4 ( )  5 ( )

Information best satisfactory worst


Leadership — In evaluating the administrator on leadership, the faculty member should consider the administrator’s ability to perceive, prevent, solve, or resolve problems. The faculty should consider the number and quality of 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 best satisfactory worst


Responsiveness — In evaluating an administrator’s responsiveness, the faculty member should consider an administrator’s ability to resolve problems in a timely fashion and the timeliness and quality of help provided to others.

Lack Sufficient ( )  1 ( )  2 ( )  3 ( )  4 ( )  5 ( )

Information best satisfactory worst


Overall Management — In evaluating an administrator’s overall management, the faculty member should consider an administrator’s ability to handle ordinary and reasonable tasks expected or assigned to them or their staff. The faculty member may also consider the extent and scope of the administrator’s involvement on and externally to the campus. This includes involvement of faculty in governance, handling personnel problems, keeping personnel informed, openness to other viewpoints, respect accorded to opinions of faculty, and accessibility. The continuous support to faculty, programs, and institutions may also be considered. The faculty member should all consider the administrator’s ability to carry out the mission of the institution.

Lack Sufficient ( )  1 ( )  2 ( )  3 ( )  4 ( )  5 ( )

Information best satisfactory worst


Fiscal Responsibility —Where the administrator is in charge of a budget affecting institutions and programs beyond her immediate staff, the faculty member should consider the fiscal responsibility of the administrator. Fiscal responsibility may include the ability to allocate limited funds in a fair and equitable manner such that the best interests of the institution are advanced. The ability of the administrator to develop and maintain a budget. The faculty member may also consider the administrator’s ability to obtain or increase their funding. The administrator’s ability to prevent or resolve budget problems should also be considered.

Lack Sufficient ( )  1 ( )  2 ( )  3 ( )  4 ( )  5 ( )

Information best satisfactory worst


Optional: The faculty member is encouraged to provide input to both the administrator and revisions in the job description. Accordingly, the faculty member is asked to provide comments on a job description. The faculty member can begin by answering the following question: “A really good _ [dean, provost, etc.] should…

[Admin Evaluation]

Discussion: Owen Smith emphasized that there was some disagreement between committee members, but that this was the final report. Knud Hermansen stated that the evaluations are a way for the administrators to receive helpful input. The committee requests comments and suggestions. March believed that the definition of administrator should include department chairs and units directors, and that the second sentence of the Scope section should be struck. Paula Petrik suggested that annual evaluations might be unrealistic, that every four years may be sufficient. Also, it should be recognized that in some units, the evaluation committees might be unworkably large. Finally, she recommended that the process provide for some sort of face-to-face conversation.

There was a great deal of concern over the issue of making the evaluations public (the committee envisions that the evaluations will be posted on the web). Owen Smith replied that faculty has no authority over how the evaluations are used, thus the need for a public forum. Cook stated that evaluators might be reluctant to participate even though anonymity is proposed due to concerns over job security in the case of a negative evaluation. President Hoff stated that confidentiality is an issue. He cannot make public his evaluations of employees. The standing of the evaluations will be a function of the method used to conduct them. If they are made public, they will certainly be information that may be used. Alternatively, faculty could attempt to establish a formal relationship within the current evaluation process.

Ed Ferguson moved to recommit the report to the committee. The motion was passed by a clear majority. Members are encouraged to forward their concerns to the committee.

Constitution and Bylaws—Michael Grillo

No report

Research and Public Service—Harlan Onsrud

No report

University Environment—Edward Ferguson

No report

Committee on Committees—Jane Smith

There are vacancies on several committees. Interested faculty should contact Jane Smith

Finance and Institutional Planning—Robert Rice

Report was deferred to later in the meeting.

Faculty Representative to the Board of Trustee—Dana Humphrey

The Board of Trustees has approved a supplemental appropriations request of $28.4 million. It will be used for access (tuition buy down), investment in human capital/health care, information technologies/library, and renovations and improvement. The issue of community colleges was also discussed. No new institutions are envisioned. For the University of Maine, it is important to begin to determine how the courses from the two-year programs will be transferred into our programs. Finally, there needs to be a campus-wide discussion of the Life Work and Stewardship Initiative. An important meeting will be held on January 26.

Library Committee—David Townsend

No report

VI. Old Business:

It was announced that the Motion to establish a committee for preservation of historical buildings is still tabled pending meeting with President Hoff.

a. Motion to Provide Funding to Remediate Certain Problems
Associated with the Hudson Museum and the Bodwell Lounge – Bob Rice


Since its opening in 1986 more than 164,000 people have visited the Hudson Museum. Of those, approximately 10,000 have participated in programs offered by and through the Museum and nearly 43,000 have visited during school field trips. Dozens of scholars have traveled to the museum to study collection pieces and to work with museum personnel. Furthermore, the faculties of several disciplines routinely use the Museum’s collection for teaching purposes. The collection is considered one of the best of its type in the United States and is clearly an asset to the University.

Both chronic and acute problems plague the Museum space and extend to some of the collection. Also affected are the entrance corridors of the Maine Center for the Arts and the Bodwell Lounge/Dining area. The chronic problems result from mold and fungal growth near exterior walls and on the carpet. The carpet, which underlies both the collection spaces and the Bodwell Lounge, has also become infested with carpet beetles. Both the mold and the carpet beetles could destroy the collection or require it to be removed from public display. In view of the Museum’s value as a teaching and research asset, the Finance and Institutional Planning Committee considers removing the collection from public display untenable.

Water vapor related problems rise and fall with both rainfall and humidity conditions. Of immediate concern is the gradual movement of water vapor through the improperly finished brick and masonry block walls. The condition has resulted in the development of mold and fungal growth in certain areas that house the collection and in the Bodwell Lounge, an area totaling approximately 14,000 square feet.

Remediation efforts for the museum collection have been aided by the recent purchase of a large freezer in which collection pieces can be frozen. The freezing acts to cleanse the objects of carpet beetles. However, measurements indicate that the infestation of carpet beetles and other insects injurious to the collection continues to grow exponentially in some areas of the Museum.

The Committee has consulted with Museum personnel, engineers, pest management specialists and administrators regarding possible remediation efforts for the Hudson. In view of limited funds, we believe that the most reasonable approach is the immediate expenditure of $150,000 to replace the carpet in the collection spaces and in the Bodwell Lounge and to seal the bricks on the exterior of the building. Also mandatory is an ongoing treatment program by pest management specialists and the continued monitoring and treatment of sensitive collection objects.

Motion: The Administration of the University will dedicate a minimum of $150,000 to remedy the acute problems of the Hudson Museum within 1.5 years from the date of adoption of this motion. In the first instance, the monies will be used to remediate the wall related moisture problems near the collection areas by sealing the bricks and masonry. Funds will also be dedicated to mitigate problems associated with the carpet in the collection areas and in the Bodwell Lounge by replacement with a more suitable material. It is also suggested that a long term strategy be developed in consultation with the affected parties and campus expertise to address the chronic building related problems with both the Maine Center for the Arts and the Hudson Museum.

Discussion: Bob Rice spoke about the investigation conducted by the committee. The museum could be closed; some parts of the exhibits have already been removed to storage. The mold in the Bodwell Lounge is permanent, it cannot be removed. The potential waste of valuable resources is unconscionable. Immediate action can keep the facility viable and available to students, faculty, and the community. Certainly there are other pressing needs on this campus that require funding. However, we must all recognize the value and important of MCA.

Harlan Onsrud asked if the requested $150,000 will be enough. Bob Rice replied that with constant monitoring, it would CONTROL the damage. Paula Petrik asked which office would provide the funding. President Hoff stated that the administration is not turning a blind eye to the problem. CFO Duringer stated that a bond issue to be conducted in the fall could be used as a source of funding. Owen Smith asked if the system does not have emergency funding that could be used. President Hoff replied that such a resource is available, and that active conversations are being conducted in that vein. Money can be found, but it must be recognized that means a reduction in funding somewhere else.

The motion was put to a vote. 39 voted for and 1 opposed. A letter will be sent to President Hoff, and he will have one month in which to respond.

[Hudson Museum]

b. Motion Regarding the Equitable Distribution of Fees Derived from the Sale of Pouring Rights to the Coca Cola Company – Bob Rice

PreambleThe University of Maine has entered into an alliance that allows exclusive rights for the sale of soft drinks on campus to the Coca Cola Company. The ten-year agreement returns approximately $2,675,000 in cash to the University that will be metered through annual payments. An additional $525,000 in non-cash royalties will also be provided by Coke during the life of the contract. The total contract value is approximately 3.2 million dollars of which $600,000 will be paid as an initial payment.

In response to a request for input, the President has received organized petitions and collective responses in support of funding for the Fogler Library (Graduate Board, Provost’s Office, Graduate Student Senate, Undergraduate Student Government) and for classroom refurbishment and technology enhancement (Academic Deans Council, Provost’s Office). Responses from the President’s electronic mail survey have been tallied and are categorized as parking (154), classrooms (124), scholarships (94), a recreation center (79), Fogler Library (57), instructional technology (45) and “other” (82). Support has also been voiced in support of Maine Bound, a fitness center, a recreation center and other uses.

The Finance and Institutional Planning committee believes that these funds should be used for the benefit of the students. The recommendation embodied in this motion is derived from a synthesis of student, administrative and faculty input and the Committee’s collective assessment about where the many needs of the campus can be best served.

By reasoned argument, the Committee has been persuaded that use of “windfall” monies are not appropriate for stipend or scholarship increases. Rather, strategies should be developed that will increase the funding for these important areas using nonvolatile funds. The Committee also believes that issues related to campus parking cannot be solved using these funds and that the parochial interests of Colleges, faculty, administrators and non-representative student groups should be funded from other sources.

Since these funds are offered based on the soft drink purchasing habits of students, the monies should be allocated, primarily, for their benefit. We believe that this allocation should, in the first instance, enhance the academic environment of the University and be followed by the consideration of social needs and issues.

Motion: The funds received from the beverage alliance with the Coca Cola company should be spent to enhance the student experience, first academically and then socially at the University of Maine. To this end, 80 percent of the incoming cash disbursement should be spent for collection development in the Fogler Library and for classroom refurbishment and technology enhancement. The allocation for each initiative should be half of the 80 percent. The remaining 20 percent of the incoming funds should be placed in escrow and apportioned among projects as student needs arise.

Further, the use of funds for both library and classrooms should be evident and demonstrable in the short term, here defined as two years from the date of adoption of this motion. Existing and future allocations for the Fogler Library and for planned classroom refurbishment should not now, nor in the future, be diminished by the allotment of this funding.


Parking and scholarships were ruled out as uses for the money. These two issues cannot be addressed with one-time windfall monies. Eilers asked if additional library funding was not the way, meaning that more money could be allocated to classrooms. Rice replied that the new funding was considered by the committee, and that even with that, the library is in serious need of funding. Jagels suggested that it is easier to secure funding for the library than for classrooms, and that, therefore, these monies would be better applied to classrooms. Rice replied that the library’s needs have been pushed aside for 10 years. Other sources of funding for classrooms are also being pursued.

Nicolson asked how the library would use the money. Rice replied for collection growth. The issue of the need for new journals as opposed to new books was discussed by many.

Justin Kelleher stated that the student government felt that the money should be used for students (since it proceeds from the results of sales to students), and that use for social activities for students was more reflective of the spirit of the agreement. However, the student government, recognizing the critical state of the library, had recommend use of the money for that institution.

Jagels suggested that the impact of purchasing more books might be relatively small, and that a more creative use could be found for the money, such as covering the cost of Interlibrary Loan.

Owen Smith stated that perhaps the coke money could be used for the MCA. This was not offered as a motion or an amendment to any action item, and was not voted on by the faculty.

The motion passed by clear majority.

[Coco-Cola Rights]

Motion on the Nature and Procedures of the Academic Appeal of Work and Grades

Preamble: Upon review of the existing procedures for the academic appeal by a student of the evaluation of work and grades the Academic Affairs Committee of the Faculty Senate Finds that the Motion on the Nature and Procedures of the Academic Appeal of Work and Grades procedures are fair and reasonable. They are clearly laid out so as to allow for appropriate appeals by the student of a dispute over a grade or evaluation and are further worded so as to protect and balance both the rights of the student and the ultimate responsibility of the faculty member in the determination of the final grade. The Specific procedures are as follows:

Evaluation of Work and Grades

1. If a dispute arises over a grade or evaluation of a paper or

work, the student should discuss the concern with the appropriate faculty member.

2. If the concern persists, the student may consult with the chairperson of the department (or the dean of the college if there are no departments) who attempts to resolve the complaint.

3. Failing this, the student may request the use of a departmental ad hoc committee composed of three members: (1) faculty member chosen by student; (2) faculty member chosen by the involved faculty member; (3) faculty member chosen by the department chairperson with the agreement of student and involved faculty member. Both the student and faculty member will prepare a written brief and appear before the committee. Any witnesses desired by either person may be called. The student and/or the faculty member may be represented by a person of their own choosing, such person being acceptable to the committee.

4.If the student is not satisfied with the committee decision, he or she may write to the dean of the college where the course is

offered requesting a review of the situation.

5.Following this, and if there is lingering dissatisfaction on the part of the student, the student may make a final appeal in writing to the vice president for academic affairs. However, the faculty member has the ultimate responsibility for determination of grades.

The foregoing steps must be made in order of progression and all information, recommendations, and decisions made available to the next level of appeal. Maximum efforts and attempts should be exerted toward resolution of concerns without the necessity of appeal.

Given the reasonableness of these procedures and that they clearly state “… the faculty member has the ultimate responsibility for determination of grades,” we the members of the Academic Affairs Committee feel that there is no need to alter the stated policy.

Motion: The Academic Affairs Committee moves that the current policy for academic appeal of work and grades be reaffirmed as it states that “the faculty member has the ultimate responsibility for determination of grades” and thus no grade may be changed except by the specific faculty member in question.


Owen Smith stated that the main reason for the motion relates to a concern that faculty be kept apprised during any appeals process. This motion reaffirms that faculty have the final authority with any grade, so no grade can be changed without first informing the faculty member involved.

The motion was seconded by Knud Hermansen and passed by a clear majority.

[Work and Grades]

VII. New Business:

Motion to charge the Academic Affairs Committee to review the 30 credit hour residency requirement – Michael Grillo

Preamble: The current residency requirement at the University of Maine is 30 credit hours in the senior year. There are two exceptions to this (approved by the Trustees in 1978) but they refer to people who have already taken three years of courses at the University of Maine (see Student Handbook, pg 58 or Undergraduate Bulletin, pg 497). One request for an exception has been received by the vice provost and rejected. This was a request to take some of the final 30 hours via distance education courses originating from other UMS institutions. In view of the increased interest in distance education, and the likelihood that more requests of this nature will occur, it may be time to review this policy.

Motion: The Academic Affairs Committee will review the 30 credit hour residency requirement and either reaffirm the current policy or recommend modifications.

[30 Credit Hour Residency]

Horan stated that more distance education and thus more requests to waive the residency requirement is clearly a trend.

The motion passed by a clear majority.

VIII. Adjournment: President Vollmers noted that no time remained to discuss the final agenda item. Hermansen moved and Rice seconded that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting was adjourned at 4:55.

Respectfully Submitted,

Darlene Bay,


Back to 1999-2000

Faculty Senate
Kimberly Junkins, Faculty Senate Office
205 East Annex, Orono, Maine 04469
Phone: (207) 581-1167 | Fax: (207) 581-2640
The University of Maine
Orono, Maine 04469