2000-2001 - February 28, 2001
Faculty Senate Minutes
28 February 2001
Present: Mark Anderson, Bruce Barber, David Batuski, Paul Bauschatz, Eric Brucker, Willem Brusaert, Hsiang-Tai Cheng, Richard Cook, Chris Cronan, George Elliott, Bill Farthing, Ed Ferguson, Marc Girard, Michael Grillo, Peter Hoff, Jim Horan, Dana Humphrey, Edward Jadallah, Richard Jagels, Richard Judd, Harvey Kail, Mel Kelley, Robert Kennedy, Carol Kim, Dennis King, Dorothy Klimis-Zacas, Jan Kristo, Judy Kuhns-Hastings, Phil Locke, Daniel Lux, John Maddaus, Chuck Maguire Ivan Manev, Kathleen March, Kyriacos Markides, Jim McClymer, Jim McConnon, Mohamad Musavi, Bruce Nicholson, Raymond O’Connor, Fred Odera, Harlan Onsrud, Ali Ozluk, Howard Patterson, Eric Peterson, Glenn Reif, Robert Rice, Jane Smith, Roy Turner, Gloria Vollmers, James Wilson
Absent: Steve Cohn, Shirley Lee Davis, Daniel Dwyer, Ray Fort, Diane Haslett, Keith Hutchison, John Jemison, Melvin Johnson, Leonard Kass, Cynthia Mahmood Paula Petrik, Kamal Shannak(excused), Owen Smith, Ione Hunt von herbing, Judy Walker, Anatole Wieck,
I. Welcome and Signing in
The meeting was called to order at 3:20 p.m.
II. Approval of Minutes from 31 January, 2001 meeting
J. Maddaus moved that the minutes from the 31 January meeting be approved. R. Rice seconded the motion and the minutes were passed.
A.) Administrator Evaluations Update: The evaluations have been reviewed by the Executive Committee and President Hoff. Discussion as to how to proceed will begin soon and a letter to President Hoff drafted.
B.) Strategic Plan Update: The period for public comment is drawing to a close and there has been a lot of communication and discussion about assessment and implementation. The next four to six weeks will be heavily occupied with editing and recreating of all comments. Provost Kennedy expressed his appreciation to the faculty for their time and comments in this process.
C.) Other: Jeff Mills, President and Executive Director of the Alumni Association announced that a forthcoming bill in the state legislature will offer a Black Bear license plate for scholarships for this campus. This endeavor requires 2000 people to sign up ahead of time to make the plate go through, and this can be done through the Alumni office. He will let us know the price soon but it will probably be the same as the current System plate. He views this as a good marketing tool for the University. A prototype of the plate should be available soon.
In response to the Senate’s motion from the last meeting, President Hoff wrote a letter to the Chancellor in support of UMPSA. M. Grillo read the letter to the Senate and thanked President Hoff for his response. The letter, dated February 7, 2001, reads as follows:
Our faculty senate, at its January meeting, adopted the attached resolution and called on me to urge the University System to reach an “immediate, fair, and equitable” settlement with the professional employees union. This is an easy request for me to comply with, since of course I recognize the enormous contribution our professional staff makes every day to the success of the university.
I have no qualms about urging a professional employee’s settlement that is just as generous as those settlements that were agreed on by our other organized bargaining units. I have never doubted that your own intentions in this matter were the same, and I am confident that a new contract can be achieved soon.
Peter S. Hoff
H. Kail announced that James McBride, author of this year’s class book, The Color of Water, will be on campus on March 28 for two public presentations: 12:30 -1:45 in the Bangor Lounge (student panel); 4:00 Meditation on Race in 100 Corbett Hall.
J. Maddaus welcomed Mohamad Musavi to the Senate, who replaces Knud Hermansen from Engineering.
IV. Questions to Administrators
There were none.
V. Presentation from the Board of Visitors
Patricia Riley, Chair, Cynthia Murray-Belliveau, and Jeff Jeter of the Board of Visitors made a brief presentation and answered questions from faculty about the B.O.V.
Ms. Riley began the presentation and distributed a list of B.O.V. members and a book of quick facts about UMAINE. She gave a brief history of the origin of the B.O.V. Each campus has one, and they were created in response to concern about homogenization within the University of Maine System. They are a citizen voice, and the eyes and ears for President Hoff and the University. They offer perspectives from communities outside Orono and the University and a reality check of the activities here. The members are deeply devoted to their work. The B.O.V. is also a voice in the communities and to the media for the institution and all the work we do here.
Ms. Riley continued by recounting an anecdote. When introducing her to a group to which she was about to give a speech, the president of Bowdoin College said that although she took both her degrees from the University of Maine, she has nonetheless had a distinguished career. He is now a member of the B.O.V. for UMAINE and is one of its fiercest advocates in Brunswick, where UMAINE is not known or understood. She spoke of the importance of endowment, calling attention to the fact that the state needs a quality institution like this one. The resources that are here make Bowdoin work.
She pointed out that while UMAINE is not well understood in southern Maine, the University of Southern Maine does a good job communicating with the business community there about its needs. The difficulty stems in part from the north/south distinction and from the fact that southern Mainers don’t see enough of UMAINE faculty. We need to work harder to make ourselves known and to make the connection with the media in southern Maine. She wants to hear UMAINE faculty quoted in the Portland Press Herald and to see UMAINE faculty at Maine Humanities Council weekends.
The B.O.V. has written op-ed pieces that U.S.M. should be a strong regional campus but that it should not be UMAINE-Lite, and it should not diffuse the funding. The B.O.V. would like our guidance about what our successes are. They know that this is the largest liberal arts program and that the SAT scores for engineering are second only to M.I.T. There must be, however, a simpler way to tell our story of a distinctly different mission and distinctly different needs.
H. Kail asked how the B.O.V. perceives its role with regard to the rest of the state. T. Riley responded by saying that it sees its responsibility as statewide, but the media outlet and energy need in southern Maine is pressing. She wants to fight the notion of UMAINE as the “University of Northern Maine.”
Ms. Murray-Beliveau added that this particular board has a pretty good knowledge of UMAINE and does a pretty good job representing us all over the state.
H. Patterson inquired about the B.O.V.’s relationship with the B.O.T. Answer: Interaction with the B.O.T. is informal. In large measure, members of the B.O.V. can talk easily to the B.O.T., the governor and the legislature. Some see the B.O.V.s as mini-B.O.T.s or as farm teams for the B.O.T. In some ways, the B.O.V. can speak better about our campus than the B.O.T., because they’re not required to have the global perspective.
An inquiry was made about some of the B.O.V.’s activities. Answer: They lead tours, hold small groups meetings, and make presentations about the Hutchinson Center and the Darling Center. They toured the Orono campus and have heard presentations from various heads of departments. They would like to be even better informed about the campus.
R. Cook commented that it’s almost impossible to get away from the southern Maine notion that U.S.M. is also a university.
J. McClymer asked if legislators care about research, scholarship, and publications. Answer: No. They need triggers like the Coulee Dam, yet newer. The R&D work was very important; the Margaret Chase Smith Center is important, but they won’t read our papers. Our work needs to be translated into a format that legislators will read, such as letters to the editor and op-ed pieces.
J. Maddaus pointed out that we’re all doing something in one way or another in the community and asked if there are things that the Faculty Senate should be doing as a body, such as meeting with the B.O.V. when they meet with administrators or set its own regular meetings. Answer from Ms. Riley: Get the Faculty Senate minutes to the B.O.V. Meetings would be good, too, if possible.
When asked by R. O’Connor what is our biggest failing in getting us known, Ms. Riley responded, “Lack of a clear voice.” It is well respected, but not well known. We must do more to get the word out.
M. Grillo observed that frequently we are perceived as training students for specific niches. How do we let people know that we do broad training/education? Ms. Riley: This is the answer to your question. That may be how we get it out: It’s not a teacher training program only, it’s not an R&D program only. This is one of Maine’s most diverse areas.
K. March asked how faculty could contact B.O.V. members. Answer: E-mail addresses are in the fact sheet, and a list of them will be sent to M. Grillo.
B. Nicholson remarked that he has seen this problem over the course of the 32 years he has been teaching at UMAINE. The situation mystifies him some, especially in comparison to Penn State, which is known statewide. He pointed out that graduates tend to leave the state, especially from his program, and they become stars outside the state in DC and New York, yet they are unknown in Maine. Ms. Riley countered this point by calling to mind U.S. Senator Olympia Snowe, John Melrose (Commissioner of Transportation), and a large percentage of legislators: UMAINE does provide Maine’s leaders.
G. Elliott asked if the Portland Press Herald and Sunday Telegram favor U.S.M. According to Ms. Riley, the answer is yes. She went on to say that it would be better to have substantive issues of concern that show up in op-ed pieces rather than continuing this battle. Ms. Murray-Beliveau pointed out that the main thing is to get faculty names out there and become known individually. Ms. Riley feels that the Arts Commission and the Humanities Council should always have a UMAINE faculty representative. She suggested that UMAINE faculty could also provide expertise on tax policy change in Augusta.
H. Kail asked whether people in southern Maine see us only as a sports institution, or do they make the connection with UMAINE as a good place to go to school? Ms. Riley and Ms. Murray-Beliveau both stated that sports give the sense of a complete university. All publicity is good. People realize it takes a big school to support sports.
D. Humphrey suggested that we publish a weekly list of faculty who are doing things down in Augusta and Portland. R. O’Connor seconded by saying that it’s not a case of individuals appearing every few years but of a few individuals who are regularly recognized as experts. Would there be merit in having a Faculty 15 to work with the B.O.V. to get UMAINE out there?
M. Grillo thanked Ms. Riley, Ms. Murray-Beliveau and Mr. Jeter.
VI.) Committee Reports
A.) J. Maddaus, Constitution and Bylaws: There is a proposed amendment to the Constitution regarding faculty evaluation of administrators: Add Section 9 to Article 15. We will discuss this at the next elected members meeting, followed by a vote in late March. If approved, the amendment must go out to the faculty at large. It needs an approval of 2/3 from both the Faculty Senate and the faculty at large.
B.) R. Rice, Financial and Institutional Planning: G. Elliott gave a brief report on the Comprehensive Needs Assessment Committee: Several units presented detailed wish lists for the Comprehensive Campaign. Provost Kennedy asked all units to bring finalized printed list of needs to the March meeting. Campus needs will be prioritized and finalized by May. A major guideline for inclusion of an item is whether or not it ties in with the Strategic Plan. It should also be based on academics.
C.) J. Kuhns-Hastings, University Environment: The committee is busy looking at Domestic Partner Accommodation.
D.) H. Onsrud, Research and Public Service: A motion will be presented under Old Business.
E.) D. Humphrey, Board of Trustees Representative: The B.O.T.’s next meeting will be on March 18 and 19 in Augusta.
F.) J. Kristo, Committee on Committees: No report.
G.) P. Bauschatz, Academic Affairs: The committee has been working on the calendar and Veteran’s Day and has been unable to find a way to institute a holiday without radically changing the calendar and lengthening the school year. This has virtually no support on campus, and the committee therefore has no recommendation to make any change now. Those who are concerned about recognition of the holiday should recraft a more public celebration of the day to expand on what the R.O.T.C. currently does. There is a possibility of reconfiguring the fall calendar to eliminate the fall break in early October and lengthen the Thanksgiving break to one full week. Any comments please contact the committee members.
VII.) Special committee Reports
A.) O. Smith, General Education Committee: No report.
B.) K. March, Faculty Handbook Committee: The committee will be submitting its report in the form of a finalized Section 6. No comments have been received requesting changes to that section. J. McClymer said he did make a suggestion, which was apparently not received.
C.) R. O’Connor, Interdisciplinary Committee: He is surprised at the paucity of response. Please let him know by the end of this week and then the committee will get together and be about its work.
D.) H. Patterson, Library Committee: Student use of the library has been decreasing over the last ten years. They will be working with library staff to see if they can’t have students use the library more.
VIII.) Old Business
A.) Motion in Support of Adoption of the document titled “University of Maine System Statement of Policy Governing Patents and Copyrights” H. Onsrud read aloud the proposed motion (below), pointing out that D. Humphrey worked with a committee of the administration in drafting the document, and that the motion comes from the Senate Research & Public Policy Committee.
A committee of the administration of the University of Maine recently completed a draft of a document titled “University of Maine System Statement of Policy Governing Patents and Copyrights” (Version dated 2/27/01). The document was circulated to all elected members of the University of Maine Faculty Senate and was reviewed explicitly by the Research and Public Service Committee of the Faculty Senate.
Whereas the document appropriately and equitably balances the interests of the public, administration, students, faculty of the University of Maine,
Whereas the document positions the University, faculty and students for advancing and taking advantage of new media and course delivery opportunities, and
Whereas the policy provides the necessary incentives and protections to encourage the discovery and development of new knowledge and its application for the public benefit,
Be it resolved that,
MOTION: The University of Maine Faculty Senate strongly supports the adoption of the policy document in its entirety f or the University of Maine subject to a limited period of further comment and review by faculty, students, and the administration or, if appropriate, supports adoption by the entire University of Maine System.
D. Humphrey listed all those who worked on drafting the document, which required a unique set of talents to draft. This document is actually quite short, since it was originally in a 3-inch, 3-ring binder. He outlined some of the principle premises: patentable material, copyright, scholarly work, distribution of (net) income. The final say on percentages is a union issue, so this body should not delve into it. The Intellectual Property Office and Committee will work to resolve issues. Provost Kennedy is the designated tiebreaker.
R. Rice asked how much in patents UMaine brought in last year. D. Humphrey indicated that the amount was not huge, about $10,000, though we should not discount the future.
H. Patterson asked how UMaine compares with other land grants in New England. D. Humphrey responded by saying that a nationwide search to find comparable institutions had been done. Some are very stingy; a few may be more generous.
P. Hoff asked what are some of the key differences between this document and the one put forth by the System last year. D. Humphrey said the old one was not workable. This document redefines what is copyrightable, the premise being that it belongs to the creator, whereas last year’s document was based on the premise that it belonged to the university and listed certain exceptions. H. Onsrud added that the old document was much more in favor of the System, while this one allows all parties to succeed and suits the needs of this campus better. J. McClymer asked if this document is retroactive. It is not.
R. Kennedy indicated that there will be some discussion before this leaves the campus. It will be taken to the chief academic officers for consideration and adoption and will then go presumably to the B.O.T. The average university generates about 1% of its budget from intellectual property.
D. Humphrey pointed out that the concept of copyleft is in the appendix. H. Onsrud elaborated, saying that this is the current type of copyleft policy, though lawyers are currently working to change it. The Faculty Senate will be advised if this new wording is accepted.
J. Maddaus asked how this policy will mesh with System policy if UMaine prefers this one. P. Hoff answered, saying that we would have to petition the System to have our own policy.
The definition of royalty has gone from gross to net, according to D. Humphrey, and there has not been much change in patentable items.
M. Musavi asked how they came up with the numbers on page 9. D. Humphrey replied that they had looked at other universities and selected a model that was reasonable. If the patent were developed with significant university resources, then the distribution of income outlined in this document would apply.
H. Onsrud pointed out that the definition of “significant use of University resources” would come into play here. He went on to say that the committee is asking that the Faculty Senate strongly support the adoption of this policy in its entirety for the University of Maine, though the B.O.T. might not accept this.
R. Kennedy stated that this document would undoubtedly go out for additional review by the other campuses.
The motion was passed.
B.) K. March, Handbook Committee: She read Section 6 on grade submittal date: five business days from the final exam or from the last day of finals week if final projects or papers are given. D. Gelinas pointed out that it would be a real problem for Student Records if large numbers of grades were submitted in accordance with the second part of this. The committee tried to be aware of this and allow for the staggering of submittal of grades.
Section 6 was approved.
IX.) New Business
There was none.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
Jane S. Smith, Secretary