2000-2001 - May 9, 2001
Faculty Senate Minutes
May 9, 2001
Present: Mark Anderson, Bruce Barber, David Batuski, Paul Bauschatz, Willem Brusaert, Hsiang-Tai Cheng, Steve Cohn, Richard Cook, Chris Cronan, Shirley Lee Davis, George Elliott, Ed Ferguson, Michael Grillo, Diane Haslett, Peter Hoff, Jim Horan, Dana Humphrey, Keith Hutchison, Edward Jadallah, Mike Greenwood for Richard Jagels, Richard Judd, Harvey Kail, Mel Kelley, Robert Kennedy, Dennis King, Dorothy Klimis-Zacas, Jan Kristo, Judy Kuhns-Hastings, Daniel Lux, John Maddaus, Ivan Manev, Kathleen March, Kyriacos Markides, Jim McClymer, Jim McConnon, Mohamad Musavi, Fred Odera, Harlan Onsrud, Ali Ozluk, Howard Patterson, Eric Peterson, Robert Rice, Kamal Shannak, Jane Smith, Owen Smith, Roy Turner, Gloria Vollmers, James Wilson
Absent: Eric Brucker, Daniel Dwyer, Ray Fort, Bill Farthing, Marc Girard, John Jemison, Melvin Johnson, Leonard Kass, Carol Kim, Phil Locke, Chuck Maguire, Bruce Nicholson, Raymond O’Connor, Glenn Reif, 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 25 April Meeting
J. Maddaus moved that the minutes be approved. R. Rice seconded the motion, and the minutes were unanimously approved.
A.) Domestic Partner Update: J. Kuhns-Hastings reported that the University Environment Committee had its meeting and thanked Eliz McKillen, who will be chair of the committee, Dorothy Klimas-Zakis, Alan Boggs, Doug Gelinas, and Evelyn Silver. J. Kuhns-Hastings will be ad hoc.
B.) M. Grillo thanked Senate members for their service to the university and the State as its only fully comprehensive university, in particular those rotating off the Senate, the individual members of the Executive Committee, the chairs of the Special Committees, the parliamentarians, and the Administrative Assistant. He also thanked President Hoff for working with the Senate. The text of the speech follows:
Let me first of all thank the Senate members for a wonderfully productive year. In representing the faculty at large, you have contributed well to the University’s serving its mission to people of Maine as it alone uniquely can, namely, as the state’s only truly comprehensive university. The culture of this University never ceases to impress me, for the faculty continually rises above the scopes of each individual discipline to look honestly at what will benefit the University and State as a whole, which underscores a distinct and universal awareness of our common goals.
This year the Senate retires many members, whom I’d like to thank as they rotate off: from Business, Public Policy and Health, Gloria Volmers, and James Horan, from Education and Human Development, Jan Kristo, from Liberal Arts and Sciences, Paul Bauschatz, Steve Cohn, Richard Judd, Kyriacos Markides, Eric Peterson, Paula Petrik, Jim McClymer, Jane Smith, Judy Walker, and Anatole Weick, and from Engineering, Knud Hermansen, Mohamad Musavi, Marc Girard (who also retires from seventeen? years from the military this year), Willem Brusaert, and Harlan Onsrud, and from Cooperative Extension, James McConnon. They have all contributed to enriching our diverse conversations over the year.
Of course, I particularly thank the members of the Executive Committee, who have had to put up with more hours of me than the Senate at large has! We’ve covered a lot of ground this year, as any review of our year reveals, so let me thank them each. Paul Bauschatz has led Academic Affairs through a particularly sensitive issue, in clarifying Peer Committee responsibilities in hires and faculty reviews, and guaranteeing faculty members suitable tenure homes. Judy Kuhns-Hastings has likewise guided through the development of another sensitive motion, in the establishment of a University Committee to examine Domestic Partner employment Opportunities. Bob Rice has served as chair of Financial and Institutional Planning in one of the most taxing positions, in constantly chasing down information on our developing budgetary situation. Harlan Onsrud has led Research and Public Service in addressing two central issues, of Recovered Costs Distributions, and Intellectual Property rights. Jan Kristo has had one of the most thankless jobs, in leading the Committee on Committees in their calls for members of the numerous vital University wide committees. John Maddaus and the Constitution and By-Laws Committee has further clarified the process of Administrator Evaluations, which will continue to evolve as an important voice for the faculty. Dana Humphrey, our presence on the Board of Trustees, has kept us well apprised of their actions, and represented us actively there. The four additional committees that have come out of the Senate’s actions also deserve thanks, as do their chairpersons, namely, Owen Smith of the General-Education Committee, Howard Patterson of the Library Committee, Kathleen March of the Faculty Handbook Committee, and Raymond O’Connor of the Interdisciplinary Committee, all central to our development as a vigorous University. We’ve burned through two parliamentarians this year, which might say something about my relationship with the law. Let me thank Knud Hermansen in particular, for his guidance in preparing me for the Presidency. I hope I haven’t bollixed up his advice too badly, but then again, that might have been a good thing actually. I also thank Jim Horan, who has also helped us all work through our ideas effectively within the parliamentary framework. No assembly can function as a genuine institution without recording a clear history, so we all owe thanks to Jane Smith, who has worked so diligently as Secretary. Finally, the Senate simply could not function without Rosaline Weller, whose constant attention to the details and daily mechanics has made it all possible.
We have had a charmed year as a Senate, in working to goals of our own definition, instead of our having to react to brush fires. I thank the Administration for working closely with us, especially President Hoff and Provost Kennedy, who have included our voices in the major discussions throughout the year. Not to take too unfair an advantage of the moment, I would like looking to the future a bit, something easy enough for me to do as I leave the Senate and waltz off to Italy. This year we have passed motions that, while useful in themselves, should provide the foundations for longer-term goals. Beyond securing that the faculty teach all university credit courses, and that they work within units whose integrity is guaranteed by faculty peer committees, we need start a process of looking to comparative work loads of faculty members in different departments, units, and colleges. These metrics will contribute to our developing interdisciplinary studies, which will uniquely foster collaborations that will allow us to lead in the future, and not just respond to current stimuli. The faculty also needs look further into the relationship between Continuing Education and the Colleges, for greater coordination of these groups especially through faculty leadership will more effectively address how the University serves its mission. Needless to say, other areas will continue to demand our attention, such as General Education and the development of Interdisciplinary Studies. I hope that we’ll continue to culture our relationship with the Board of Visitors, for they need know the close functioning of university life to help us better coordinate our interests with those of the community. I hesitate to mention the Strategic Plan here and its continuing need for our attention, for in doing so I sound as if I am shamelessly putting in a plug for our passing its Key Goals and Implementation Plan, which I am; but here as well, we have contributed to creating a document which, if passed, will give us the framework in which we all can work collaboratively in developing opportunities across the University through focussing resources to our academic responsibilities. Simply put, the Faculty must remain active in determining the course of the University, which I suspect it will under John’s leadership this coming year.
Too often we lose sight of what our contributions might mean, given the frustrations that the slow process of institutional change precipitate. Might I recommend a little perspective, however, for what most intrigues me in the study of history, is that intentions never play out as they had been imagined by their creators. This year has not been one of momentous decisions, thunderous proclamations, and mighty deeds that typically make up the gesta of heroic tales; it might not even appear very memorable at all, but if I may, I’d like to share my understanding of the true worth of this year’s Senate, in its subtle but lasting effects, by appropriating the last paragraph of George Elliot’s Middlemarch in its description of its protagonist:
Her finely-touched spirit had still its fine issues, though they were not widely visible. Her full nature, like that river of which Cyrus broke the strength, spent itself in channels which had no great name on the earth. But the effect of her being on those around her was incalculably diffusive: for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistorical acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.” (George Elliot, Middlemarch, 1871-72, New York: Penguin Books, 1994, p. 838.)
The Senate applauded the speech.
C.) J. Maddaus made a motion to thank Michael Grillo for his outstanding Leadership
Motion to Thank Michael Grillo for His Outstanding Leadership of Faculty Senate in the 2000-2001 Academic Year
Whereas: Michael Grillo has led the Senate through a lengthy process of consideration of the university’s five-year strategic plan; and
Whereas: Michael Grillo has led the Senate and especially the Executive Committee through the first ever campus-wide faculty evaluations of UMaine administrators, following procedures newly adopted in April 2000, and dealing with significant concerns in several cases; and
Whereas: Michael Grillo has established and pursued an agenda of addressing complex and unresolved issues related to the definitions of faculty and related issues; and
Whereas: Michael Grillo has established direct communication between the Senate and the University’s Board of Visitors; and
Whereas: Michael Grillo has encouraged and supported a variety of other actions to come to and be addressed by the Senate, such as: clarifying faculty intellectual property rights, updating of the Faculty Handbook, strengthening first year experience courses, reconsidering general education requirements, extending the class book project, clarifying the minimum class enrollment policy, finding an alternative location for display of Hudson Museum artifacts, monitoring university finances, supporting a fair and equitable resolution of the UMPSA contract deadlock, and creating committees to examine interdisciplinary programs and university policy with respect to employment of domestic partners; and
Whereas: Michael Grillo has demonstrated clear direction, persistence, good humor and positive working relationships with colleagues and administrators throughout the process of addressing these important issues;
Therefore, through this motion,
The Faculty Senate thanks Michael Grillo for his outstanding leadership of Senate meetings and Executive Committee meetings, as well as on countless other occasions during the 2000-2001 academic year. Michael Grillo has carried on the traditions of his predecessors in an exemplary manner, and has truly left the Senate and the university a better place through his efforts.
The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
IV. Questions to the Administrators
J. McClymer asked how the ball game went today. President Hoff said that it went extremely well.
M. Grillo brought up the rumor that the current budgetary problem jeopardizes new hires. President Hoff responded, saying that any new hires in the pipeline before the budgetary cut are being considered on a case-by-case basis. A verbal offer is not sufficient, and an offer is not official until the provost, the president, and the B.O.T. give their approval. R. Kennedy added that, based on the projected budget for next year, we will not be able to accommodate all the positions originally planned for next year. The administration will approach the problem in a rational way through a series of meetings to put in place a programmatically oriented process for deciding which positions will not be filled at this time.
S. Cohn asked if the departments involved have been informed if their position is being considered for not being filled. In most cases, yes, according to R. Kennedy. Some positions are still under discussion, in which case, he doesn’t think the departments have been notified.
H. Patterson asked how many positions are in question. R. Kennedy said there are about half a dozen. When asked if the chair informs candidates that it’s not official until they get the letter, he replied that they should be told that, but perhaps have not been. He stated that this situation is very complex and potentially damaging if offers have to be withdrawn.
J. Maddaus asked if it’s true that the Center for Teaching Excellence position won’t be filled? Yes.
J. McClymer believes that this situation is very troubling. When a candidate has been approved all the way along, reneging is a horrible thing to do and it damages the University’s reputation.
R. Cook asked if the different colleges have different policies. There is no uniform, university-wide policy. Candidates are talking things out with department chairs, and different individuals are involved at different times. Ground rules need to be set and needs prioritized.
H. Patterson: Is it possible to set out guidelines for future use? Yes.
F. Odera wondered whether the position for recycling coordinator at the depot is one that might not be filled. R. Duringer responded that the position has been expanded to sustainability officer and it will be filled.
M. Grillo asked if this is a hiring pause and if so, what exactly does that mean? Can faculty positions be considered to be the most valuable in this situation? The administration feels that would be an extremely strong position to take and it would be more accurate to say that they will take the best interests of the University to heart and will recognize the centrality of the faculty to the university in its deliberations.
On another subject, O. Smith raised the issue of events, real or rumored, about Bumstock for stopping, searching, handcuffing and later letting go. F. Odera indicated that students will be having a Bumstock wrap-up on Wednesday and will be compiling reports from staff and students. A lot of complaints came from female partygoers, who said that there was no female police officer available to frisk them, and they felt violated. He will let those interested in attending know both the time and the place. P. Hoff stated that no complaints of this nature have been brought to his attention. If they were, they would be investigated thoroughly. Reports to him indicate that it was one of the best Bumstocks ever, with fewer arrests and disruptions.
R. Turner raised the issue of problems with travel agents selected by the University. Someone who had problems and complaints was told the Travel Office didn’t want to hear them. R. Duringer said that any questions about travel should be brought to him. He is on the governor’s commission to improve travel service and fares and what was hoped for has not materialize.
F. Odera raised an issue of concern to students. A number of them have complained that some cases with Public Safety do not warrant being locked up at Penobscot County Jail and that Judicial Affairs should be able to handle minor offenses that are not criminal. Can these be channeled to Judicial Affairs? President Hoff said that this question is beyond his expertise and asked that he follow up with Vice President Chapman. Clarification about University jurisdiction is needed.
President Hoff commented that there is no truth to the rumor that he will be giving up his administrative duties to teach a course. He will be teaching a course with his wife, D. Hoff, as an overload, but only two students have registered for it and so it might be canceled.
V. Committee Reports
A.) H. Onsrud, Research and Public Service: No report.
B.) J. Kuhns-Hastings, University Environment: No report. Conveys her thanks to committee members.
C.) R. Rice, Financial and Institutional Planning: He also thanks the committee members for their help and guidance.
The following budget report prepared by R. Duringer was distributed. It is a snapshot only and is not comprehensive. Broad detail about the budget is available from R. Rice, greater detail from R. Duringer. What is the source for the $400,000 change in the base budget for athletics? R. Duringer needs to consult his notes in order to respond, because this was made without an apportionment from the legislature and it was difficult to get the figures together in the way that the committee had requested. In the past, they have always used student comprehensive fee money for athletics, which was given to them over the course of the year. Now it’s being given as part of the base budget.
Income: Approximate total for 2001-2002:
Tuition, Fees, Waivers, and Indirect Recovery: $ 57,428,367
Anticipated State Support: $ 82,986,448
Projected Expenses $ 140,414,815
VP Student Affairs: $ 12,080,786
Athletics**: $ 7,327,376
VP Research: $ 12,791,915
VP Finance and Administration: $ 13,222,802
Facilities Management: $ 9,334,720
Provost: $ 4,210,087
Cooperative Extension: $ 4,026,003
Library Acq: $ 3,427,358
IT: $ 1,296,229
College BPPH $ 3,591,467
Salaries and Wages: $ 3,315,927
College of NSFA: $ 12,546,614
Salaries and Wages: $ 10,328,355
CLAS: $ 16,182,412
Salaries and Wages: $ 14,863,341
College of Engineering: $ 6,034,557
Salaries and Wages: $ 5,832,854
Div. Of Life Long Learning $ 4,387,901
Salaries and Wages: $ 3,739,672
College of Education: $ 4,187,315
Salaries and Wages: $ 3,827,428
VP for University Advancement: $ 1,612,619
** Includes anticipated income of about $4.6 million
D.) J. Kristo, Committee on Committees: The Committee on Committees had a busy year. A total of 72 faculty answered the call to serve on 31 committees this year. This included both committees of the administration and those of the Faculty Senate.
I wish to thank my committee who responded to the many e-mails to help find the best faculty to serve on these committees:
– Dick Cook from the College of Natural Sciences, Forestry and Agriculture
– Jim Horan from the College of Business, Public Policy and Health
– Marc Girard from Engineering
– Howard Patterson from Liberal Arts and Sciences
E.) P. Bauschatz, Academic Affairs: The committee worked on several issues and almost always reached a consensus, though the Faculty Senate did not.
F.) J. Madders, Constitution and Bylaws: The constitutional amendment regarding faculty evaluation of administrators passed. He thanks his committee members for their service this year.
G.) D. Humphrey, Board of Trustees Representative: Following today’s system-wide meeting at which only very minor wording changes were made, the Intellectual Property Rights policy put forth by this campus will be taken as the system draft policy, which will go through an approval process on the other campuses. At its next meeting, the B.O.T. will act upon a motion that says simply that the System will have an intellectual property rights policy. Adoption of the policy, which was well received by the B.O.T., will have to wait until next year. Thanks go to the committee members, who worked very hard in developing the policy.
VI. Special Committees
A.) R. O’Connor, Interdisciplinary Committee: No report.
J. Smith conveyed information on behalf of Tina Passman, chair of the Interdisciplinary Studies Committee. The senate committee failed to consult with Maureen Smith, Director of Native American Studies and assistant professor of Interdisciplinary Studies, and the Interdisciplinary Studies Committee chaired by Passman in its information gathering.
B.) H. Patterson, Library Committee: Please respond to the letter (forthcoming) requesting needs information for the library. The committee will meet this week.
VII. Old Business
A.) O. Smith brought forward a motion to continue the committee’s work on the General Education requirements.
Motion to continue the study and development of the General Education requirements at the University of Maine.
Whereas the current discussions regarding General Education have raised many points that need further study and consider and,
Whereas the University of Maine must consider and develop effective general equation requirements with stated learning objectives and,
Whereas the University of Maine must develop General Education outcomes and a means of assessing them prior to its next accreditation,
Be it resolved that the General Education Special Committee be authorized to continue the work started this year in the next academic year.
The motion was seconded by J. Maddaus. All who voted were in favor. There were two abstentions.
B.) K. March, Faculty Handbook: Thanks to committee members. All nine sections of the handbook have been revised based on input from faculty across the campus. A copy will be available on/about June 1. The handbook will be posted on First Class for continued consideration and will include actions of the Faculty Senate. The committee plans to upload the final copy to the Senate’s web page by September 1.
The Committee asked for approval of sections 7-9. The motion was seconded by O. Smith. There was no discussion, and the motion for approval was passed unanimously, with three abstentions.
C.) Strategic Plan:
H. Patterson: If we approve this, what does it mean in terms of where we are, is it set in stone? M. Grillo reiterated the document’s most recent history. About a fortnight ago this was released for commentary. What we have agreed to vote on is the key goals and the implementation plan. Over the summer the committee will re-write the other sections (introduction). Final Faculty Senate approval for the final document is slated for September. This document will serve the administration’s needs and the faculty’s needs. If there are questions of language, the committee could look at it within the coming few weeks, but nothing will be rewritten.
S. Delcourt confirmed that this reflects what the committee has agreed upon. R. Kennedy added that recent comments are generally word additions. E. Peterson asked for confirmation that a lot of the comments from recent weeks have not gone before the whole committee. S. Delcourt has edited the document according to these comments and it has gone out before the committee in that way. E. Peterson went on to point out that gender equity shows up well in Key Goal 1 but it does not show up in Key Goal 5. M. Grillo said the committee will discuss it when it rewrites the preamble. The vector of this document is what will remain, and from here on out, it’s all fine-tuning. S. Delcourt: Some changes were recommended that were in conflict with each other, and the committee will discuss them.
P. Hoff remarked that M. Grillo spoke very eloquently with the Board of Visitors about the notion that he wanted this document to be something that would endure and not become outdated in a short time, saying that he would like it to last at least the five years it’s intended for and even longer. P. Hoff suggested, however, that it should be viewed as a working document that is not carved in granite. Consider the key goals as firm statements of where we’d like the institution to be headed. The individual bullets might seem less important down the road and others might be added. Can we, as a Senate, say today that those key goals will be fairly fixed constellations of guidance as we look out on a 5-year horizon?
J. McClymer asked if there is any point at which President Hoff will say that the University will act on specific bullets. P. Hoff replied, saying that prioritization is of utmost importance in the coming months. This document helps prioritize much better than we would be able to do without it, because it reflects the values we hold most important. The faculty will, of course, be consulted throughout the prioritizing process.
O. Smith requested clarification on what exactly the senate is voting on: in principle, in fact, etc.? M. Grillo responded. The motion is to pass this document as it is put before us, including the implementation document that was in the antepenultimate version. The final version will come back in November. There will be no changes to the key goals between now and then, only cleaning up of language.
The motion was made that the Faculty Senate approve the key goals as stated, with the implementation plan, so they may be used over the summer with the understanding that contextualizing material will be rewritten and the whole document approved in the fall.
There were 48 votes in favor, none opposed, and 5 abstentions.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m.
Jane S. Smith, Secretary