2000-2001 - October 25, 2000
Faculty Senate Minutes
October 25, 2000
Present: Mark Anderson, Bruce Barber, David Batuski, Paul Bauschatz, Willem Brusaert, Hsiang-Tai Cheng, Steve Cohn, Richard Cook, Chris Cronan, Shirley Lee Davis, Ed Ferguson, Marc Girard, Michael Grillo, Diane Haslett, Knud Hermansen, Peter Hoff, Jim Horan, Dana Humphrey, Keith Hutchison, John Jemison, Melvin Johnson, Harvey Kail, Mel Kelley, 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, Bruce Nicholson, Raymond O’Connor, Ali Ozluk, Howard Patterson, Eric Peterson, Paula Petrik, Glenn Reif, Robert Rice, Jane Smith, Roy Turner, James Wilson
Absent: Daniel Dwyer, George Elliott, Bill Farthing, Ray Fort, Edward Jadallah, Richard Jagels, Richard Judd, Leonard Kass, Justin Kelleher, Robert Kennedy, Cynthia Mahmood, Chris Moody, Harlan Onsrud, Owen Smith (sabbatical), Gloria Vollmers, Ione Hunt von herbing, Judy Walker, Anatole Wieck
I. Welcome and Signing in:
The meeting was called to order at 3:16 p.m.
II. Approval of Minutes from 17 May and 20 September Meetings:
The minutes for the May 17 and September 20, 2000 meetings were approved.
A. Evaluation of administrators: A list of administrators to be evaluated is currently being coded into a PDF file for the senate web page. Availability of the forms on First Class will allow a large segment of the population to evaluate them. One copy of the form is to go to the administration and one copy to the Faculty Senate.
B. The faculty handbook is up and ready for suggestions and comments. The deadline for review of the section currently posted is Friday, November 3. A systematic e-mail reminder
to look at the handbook was requested and will be sent out as new sections are posted for comment.
IV. Questions to Administrators:
Q: Has the bid for a consultant on the parking situation been responded to?
A: (The answer to this question was inadvertently deleted from the secretary’s notes.)
Question regarding airfare and travel agents: Why is it necessary to go through a travel agency?
Answer from Durringer: We’re consistently getting a very good value from the three agencies now being used. Please go ahead and get tickets if you can get a better deal on the web.
Question from J. Horan: There is a car parked in front of the Maine Center for the Arts that has been there all day and has the Quirk dealer name on it. Is this an advertisement?
Answer from P. Hoff (?): Don’t know.
Question from R. Rice: Will the area in front of the union always be asphalt or will there eventually be something else there?
Answer from Durringer: The end result will include grass and shrubs, but the walkway is uncertain.
Question from K. March: Is there currently any policy at the university for the quality of publications and correctness of language?
Answer from P. Hoff: The MLA style sheet applies. This is a good question. He notices problems occasionally and encourages anyone to call the print shop if errors are found, though they usually copy verbatim what they receive.
Question from M. Grillo: A year and a half ago the senate passed a library resolution. What is the administration’s response in terms of looking closely at library funding?
Answer from P. Hoff: A number of things have been done. The library task force headed by George Jacobson, looks at holdings, technological needs and buildings, and a response from them is expected. In budgeting for the last three or four years, the library has been one of the better-treated areas. E&G funding increased to $5.2 million, an increase of 44%. There has been a steadily increasing percentage over the years: some significant one-time monies of $2.5 million bond with $825,000 remaining and an additional $125,000 from the state of which $112,000 remain. There is currently a request for a $25 million package of which $17 million would be state money. Any additional requests for holdings will come through the provost’s office.
R. Kennedy: The budget is very complex and there is some disparity as to what the true figures are and these need to be ferreted out. The college deans are concerned that the budget favors the library over the colleges.
M. Grillo: If so, why does the library seem impoverished from the user end? Most have seen a distinct fall-off in book acquisitions.
P. Hoff: All universities are facing this. Journal inflation is the largest single factor jacking up operating costs. They’re trying to get a handle on it now.
R. Kennedy: In the future, the task force will be critical for how funds are allocated.
Cook/ Grillo: The information (put forth at elected members meeting) regarding no book acquisitions is wrong. Books may be ordered but…
J. Maddaus: Are there any figures available about books vs. journals?
R. Kennedy: The number of books normally purchased was about $12,000 per year, but that amount will be considerably less this year. Journal subscriptions were cut by 65 titles – severe inflationary pressures on journals. No new requests will be entertained at this time.
M. Grillo: What about the requests for new ones that we were requested to give last year?
R. Kennedy: The process of deciding what might be cut is a critical one and now the least common denominator of one/two people objecting to a journal’s being cut has been the determining factor. Suggestions for a better process are welcome.
Is it true that access to the stacks is to be closed?
P. Hoff: Various plans for renovation have been suggested, and he believes the one that has been adopted excludes closing the stacks.
M. Johnson: A word about journal cancellations: We currently have about 5,200 subscriptions which is absolutely inadequate. We ought to be in the range of 8-9,000 subscriptions, including overall coverage in print and electronic and back-files.
D. Klimis-Zacas says that she is currently being billed for more than five copies of a journal obtained through ILL. Can we look into this?
M. Grillo: What definition of “faculty of the university” is used in determining that courses originating from the University of Maine are taught by University of Maine faculty?
P. Hoff: He is sure he applied the narrow definition, which would not include part-timers or adjuncts. The process for approval of adjunct faculty comes from within the departments or colleges.
V. Committees Reports:
A.) R. Rice, Financial and Institutional Planning: There is a motion coming forward, comment deferred until then.
B.) P. Bauschatz, Academic Affairs: There are two motions coming forward today. The committee’s plate is full and needs to fill committees of the administration that must be appointed by the Academic Affairs committee. No action yet pending clarification from P. Hoff’s office.
C.) J. Kristo, Committee on Committees: Every Committee of the Administration has been filled. There are two new committees: Library and Scientific Misconduct, which needs three more faculties from Engineering, Natural Sciences, Forestry and Agriculture. One more faculty member is needed from Education for the Library Committee.
M. Grillo: This is a lifeblood issue.
D.) J. Maddaus, Constitution and Bylaws: No report.
E.) H. Onsrud, Research and Public Service: No report.
F.) J. Kuhns-Hastings, University Environment: In reference to DSIS’ being made more user-friendly: Program requirements and future changes in general education requirements make keeping such a program current impossible and impractical. With regard to the university’s advertising policy: A letter to B. Durringer is forthcoming. Regarding academic advising evaluation: This might be sent to a subcommittee of the Academic Affairs Committee. The committee will also be looking into Domestic Partner Accommodation depending on the results of a senate report. P. Petrik suggested looking at the Painter report about administrative matters on the web site.
G.) The next Board of Trustees meeting will be November 12 and 13 at Machias. There is a substantial budget request for $17 million of state request; $5 million for library technology, an R&D request, a standard inflationary request. Please ask state representatives how they feel. This is ambitious – let’s raise the importance of this issue by pursuing every avenue open to us. The presidential task force on libraries has three subcommittees: collections, technology, and buildings. There is a prevalent misconception that this is only about buildings, but this is not so. A request for input/feedback is to be mailed out, placed on First Class and the faculty web site and shared with focus groups both on and off campus.
J. Horan asked if the B.O.T. would consider that faculty salaries are in the 35th percentile as the request goes forward.
VI. Special Committees:
A.) J. Maddaus: The General Education Requirement committee will meet again on November 8, from 9:00 to 11:00 a.m. in the Ham Room of the union. The Gen. Eds. need to be re-conceptualized according to our accrediting body’s (New England Association of Schools and Colleges) requirements. Outcome assessment is necessary and will be used in evaluation of the quality of the Gen. Eds. The committee is looking at broader outcome statements, developing the Gen. Eds. using the Maine Learning Results as a starting point, and at the possibility of a Gen. Ed. advisor for each student based in a college other than his/her own. Different possibilities for outcome assessment currently under consideration include a portfolio and testing.
R. Turner: Does each faculty member take on Gen.Ed. Advisees?
J. Maddaus: This has yet to be decided. Advising centers are a possibility, with a potential redistribution of responsibilities.
K. March: Committee meetings are open to all who are interested in participating in the process.
D. Humphrey takes great care in advising students and objects to a separate Gen. Ed. advisor unless the program is so complex that it is not interpretable. P. Petrik said the history department is against the portfolio idea and suggests instead the Quantitative Literacy Document, which D. Gelinas should have.
B.) Mark Anderson, Campus Planning: This is a new committee, so please refer to the handout. The committee’s charge is to develop a master plan for the campus similar to that of peer institutions. The goal is to develop community values and planning principles to be used in planning and to make it all transparent and easy to follow. The committee will be looking at a couple of proposed building projects and will hold public hearings as a means to begin to reveal the principles and values that will drive decision making in the future and get away from trivial decisions such as brick color. He expects this to be a long process that will translate into a product in which we can have some confidence.
VII. Old Business:
There is none.
VIII. New Business:
A.) Suspension and Dismissal Policy Revisions
The office of Vice Provost for Academic Affairs has prepared a revision to the policy on suspension and dismissal for the University of Maine. This is necessitated by a redefinition of these procedures by the University of Maine System.
Move the Academic Affairs committee of the Faculty Senate review the proposed and revised policy on suspension and dismissal prepared by the Vice Provost’s office and report back tot he Senate by the November meeting with recommendations for its implementation, modification, or rejection.
The motion was made by P. Bauschatz and seconded by K. Hermansen.
B. Barber asked what the specific revisions are. P. Bauschatz answered that in the new version, suspension will be for any separation not intended to be permanent. Dismissal will be permanent. Currently, suspension is used for previous good academic standing and then a first dismissal and then a second dismissal. First dismissal will be eliminated and/or renamed.
B. Barber asked if we ever have students who go semester after semester and are continually let back in. It is P. Bauschatz’s impression that the university doesn’t permanently dismiss students. Any change in wording must be approved by the Faculty Senate.
R. Rice asked about statistics showing that some students retake courses multiple times – will they be part of the review process? P. Bauschatz replied that this would be a separate issue but that the committee could take it up.
The motion passes.
B.) Class Book Motion:
Resolve, the University of Maine will continue the class book project after the 2001-2002 academic year only if one or more proposals for continued use of the class book, including revised policies of selection and implementation of the book in University activities, have been submitted to the Faculty Senate and one of these proposals has been approved by the Senate. In addition, all proposals for continuation must include discussions of the funding necessary to implement the project in ways in which these financial necessities are to be met. Projects for Academic 2002-2003 must be submitted before the end of spring semester 2001. If no proposal has been submitted or accepted before the start of academic year 2003-2004, the Class Book project will be terminated.
P. Bauschatz stated that an informal group is also discussing this issue. A formal decision as to its fate must be made by the Faculty Senate in time to allow for the review process because the program will end soon.
H. Kail suggests a modification and objects to the preamble that implies a formal review has already taken place, since some who would care to voice an opinion have not been able to do so. No formal evaluation of the mechanisms, processes, facts of the class book has ever been evaluated since 1994, and so the preamble is not a part of these minutes. He also suggests a friendly amendment to remove the word “revised” from the motion.
The amended motion passes.
C.) Domestic Partner Accommodation:
Although the University of Maine has offered domestic partner accommodations on a select basis, it has no stated policy. A stated Domestic Partner Accommodation policy would provide an extremely useful took for recruiting and retaining a stable faculty, in particular women and minority faculty members, according to local anecdotal evidence and national studies that the Office of Equal Opportunity has made available.
Therefore, the Faculty Senate asks the Environmental Committee to research and explore crafting an effective formal Domestic Partner Accommodation Policy for the University of Maine. The Committee will report back to the Full Senate by the 31 January 2001 meeting.
P. Hoff asked what is the definition of “accommodation” here. P. Petrik replied that it has purposefully been left vague to allow the committee to work on more precise language. R. O’Connor objects to “domestic partner” because the public could misunderstand and think in terms of bedrooms. K. March asked if this applies to new faculty? P. Petrik reiterated that the language is as broad as possible regarding new hires and domestic partners.
The motion passes.
D.) Policy on Minimum Enrollment in Advanced Undergraduate and Graduate Classes
The University of Maine policy currently requires eight students in an advanced undergraduate course and four in a graduate course. This policy was introduced by John Hitt and then endorsed by the Faculty Senate. It does not represent a system wide policy and so does not let us compete on an equal footing with the other schools in the University of Maine System. Also, anecdotal evidence suggests no uniform application of the policy across the different colleges here at the University of Maine.
The size of the student body, particularly the number of graduate students, is tied to administration decisions such as faculty size and resources, as well as external factors. Independent of these factors, departments must offer a balanced program in order to provide our students with the skills and knowledge of the discipline. Additionally, varied course offerings are required to keep a program attractive so that a demographic slip in student enrolment does not begin a downward spiral from which the program can not easily recover. Given that degrees from the University of Maine originate from the Faculty, these decisions on which classes to offer and enrolment issues should be made at the departmental level.
The Faculty Senate moves that the Academic Affairs Committee considers the minimum enrolment policy at the University of Maine be reconsidered to allow and maintain vibrant course offerings while recognizing the diverse needs of departments. Suggested modifications include:
A: that the minimum enrolment is met on average over a three to five year period, to prevent minor fluctuations in enrolment from driving course offerings and responds instead to demographics.
B: that departments be permitted to use large enrolment courses to offset a few under enrolled courses.
The Academic Affairs Committee will report back to the Senate on this issue by 31 January 2001.
The motion is made by J. McClymer and seconded by K. Hermansen (?). There is no discussion, and the motion passes.
E.) Motion to Provide an Alternate Location for the Display of Artifacts from the Hudson Museum during Building Remediation.
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 as well as 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, carpet beetles, roof and wall leakage, inadequate heating, ventilating and air conditioning and a number of other short and long term problems. To protect a number of valuable artifacts they have been removed from display and placed in cold storage. Plans to remediate the problems with the building are underway but will likely require the Hudson Museum to be closed for an extended period.
The Administration of the University recognizes the value of the facilities and has been active in developing plans and securing funding for the renovation. The Finance and Institutional Planning Committee has been assured that the progress will continue.
In view of the Museum’s value as a teaching and research asset, the Finance and Institutional Planning Committee of the Faculty Senate considers the loss of major collection elements from public display for an extended period to be untenable. This motion requests that an alternate location be found and utilized to display major collection elements so that they may be viewed by students, scholars and the public during the 1-3 year renovation period.
The Faculty Senate requests that the Administration find an alternate location, near or within the boundaries of the Campus, where the major elements of the collection can be displayed. The new facility will be available for use within nine months from the date of adoption of this motion.
The motion was made by R. Rice and seconded.
The question was raised as to whether this includes pre-Columbian, which is so sensitive and valuable and easy to seal. R. Rice said that Steve Whittington will determine what can be sent out. Perhaps certain elements will be rotated.
P. Hoff indicated that the administration will make every attempt to find an alternative display location.
P. Petrik asked if any alternatives been explored such as electronic exhibit and commented that we should be more careful next time. R. Rice responded, saying that the contractor is out of business. The motion does not specify how the collection should be displayed – that will be determined by museum experts. The rugs containing the beetles will be removed in December. The next year will be spent raising monies and then the center will be closed for an additional year.
B. Barber suggests and R. Rice accepts the friendly amendment: Add “for the duration of the renovation”.
M. Anderson stated that this motion is one-sided. We might be setting up another program for displacement – This seems incomplete and a slippery slope for the Faculty Senate. We don’t know what the expense is.
P. Locke suggests and R. Rice accepts the friendly amendment to add the words “attempt to”.
P. Petrik suggested asking the administration to come forward with a couple of options, to which R. Rice indicated that’s exactly what this motion does.
The amended motion passed.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m.
Jane S. Smith, Secretary