Skip Navigation

2001-2002 - January 30, 2002

Faculty Senate Minutes

January 30, 2002

Present: David Batuski, Darlene Bay, Douglas Bousfield, Thomas Brann, Martha Broderick, Paul Creasman, Richard Eason, Bill Farthing, Ed Ferguson, Sandy Gardner, Dianne Hoff, Peter Hoff, Mike Howard, Keith Hutchison, Robert Kennedy, Carol Kim, Dennis King, Dorothy Klimis-Zacas, Judy Kuhns-Hastings, Diana Lawson, Ngo Vinh Long, John Maddaus, Chuck Maguire, Kathleen March, Stephen Marks, Jim McClymer, Kim McKeage, Charles Moody, Ali Ozluk, Howard Patterson, Bryan Pearce, Glenn Reif, Robert Rice, Linda Rottmann, Dan Sandweiss, Christa Schwintzer, Bruce Segee, Frederick Servello, Phillip Silver, Andrew Thomas, Roy Turner, Sarah Vidito, Jim Warhola, Gregory White

Absent: Jim Acheson, Seanna Annis, Robin Arnold, Kathrine Carter, Steve Cohn, Richard Cook, Scott Dunning, Daniel Dwyer, Charles Forshee, Alla Gamarnik, Pall Grosswiler, Don Hayes, Dana Humphrey, Richard Jagels, John Jemison, Melvin Johnson, Harvey Kail, Joseph Kelley, Roger King, Irv Kornfield, Phil Locke, Daniel Lux, Ivan Manev, Douglass Ruthven, Owen Smith, Dave Yarborough

Welcome and Signing in

The meeting was called to order at 3:22pm. Introduction of Martha Broderick, our new parliamentarian.

Approval of minutes from the December 12, 2001, meeting

Motion by Christa Schwintzer, second by Howard Patterson. Approved.

Announcements

John Maddaus noted that the third candidate for Chancellor was on campus just prior to the meeting. There was an interesting discussion of the politics of higher education in South Dakota as compared to Maine. The process of interviewing Chancellor candidates is now complete. There is a form available for comments on the candidates. Provost Kennedy suggested that Senators give feedback quickly, as the Trustees will vote on 2/5.

J. Maddaus discussed work on and status of the faculty tenure homes motion. The history of the motion is: it was passed last April and given to the president, who gave it to the Provost Council, ,which felt that some aspects would create new problems. Monday’s Provost Council meeting had a productive discussion, and now there is an oral agreement to the principle that all faculty who are hired into colleges that are departmentalized will be assigned to departments. Everyone who was present at the Council meeting agreed. Provost Kennedy will draft a concise polity statement to that effect and forward it to President Hoff. It will come back to the Senate, possibly as early as the next meeting. In addition, there are 8-10 faculty who are not currently in departments, and the Provost has made a commitment to make sure that that is resolved as quickly as possible. President Hoff said that the situation is pretty straight-forward, and that he doesn’t see any points of disagreement that will hang us up.

J. Maddaus also discussed the issue of faculty involvement in the evaluation of administrators. In April, 2000, the Senate adopted a motion for conducting evaluations in cooperation with the President. We went through the process last year. There were some concerns after the fact, and now those are being cleaned up. A revision to the current Dean evaluation procedure has been drafted, the major provision of which is that the Senate would be involved in the appointment of faculty representatives to review committees for administrators. It is envisioned that this will be extended to other high-ranking administrators. The evaluation form is also being looked at. The new policy would rescind the prior motion. There would then be 4-year reviews with interim, less extensive 2-year reviews. The Senate constitution was modified last year because of this issue, and we will have to modify it again this year. (This is in process.) We should get a written version in the form of a motion in the near future. Provost Kennedy said that John summarized it well, and commented that they have agreed to change one of the 14 points of the procedure and added two other points (points 15 and 16) that the administration was doing anyway.

J. Maddaus reported on the status of discussions about the Honors College. The upshot of discussions between Charlie Slavin (Honors Program Director) and the Senate (full Senate, Executive Committee, Academic Affairs Committee, etc.) is that some elements in the Honors College Commission report will be modified; the Honors Council has made some specific suggestions. They have identified ways the College can be institutionalized within the current set of policies in force on campus. For example, with respect to having an Honors faculty, instead of a process similar to appointment to the Graduate Faculty, after a meeting last Friday of several people (C. Slavin, Doug Gelinas, Steve Cohn, Bryan Pearce, and J. Maddaus), it was determined that a process of appointment using the PAF form can accomplish the same thing. With respect to the issue of blanket General Education Requirement waivers for those completing the Honors courses, it has been concluded that a course-by-course review as for other course on campus will work. New courses will be submitted to the Curriculum Committee and the UPCC as other courses are. The Honors College discussion will only come to the Senate if the goals can’t be achieved. The Honors Council discussed the Honors in the major issue in December and broadened the suggested means of doing this to include other options, including courses in related majors, other experiences above and beyond the requirements of the major. The Honors College budget does remain a concern, but will be worked on through normal budget channels. John doesn’t expect there to be any particular actions needed from the Senate.

Questions to the Administrators

Q: Jim McClymer to Provost Kennedy: We’re in the third of four years for faculty to be nominated for one-time funds. Would you send us the proper procedures to send out?

A: Provost Kennedy: Yes. It is obtuse process, so the more generally-understood it is the better.

Q: Christa Scwintzer to (Interim Chief Financial Officer) Mark Anderson: Could you walk us through how to read the budget sheet? [A budget sheet was handed out at the meeting.]

A: Mark Anderson: There is still a lot of ambiguity in the budget, but less so than before. Now we have better educated guesses about some things. Some of the collective bargaining agreements have been resolved. For FY ’02, if unresolved agreements follow the pattern of those resolved, then this year’s overall budget is about $150,000 in deficit in the aggregate, which is not a problem. The number at the top of the column, $3.9 million, assumes that the Legislature will approve the Governor’s current budget. It assumes a base increase of $7 million this year, and an increase for next year. It also assumes that we get the traditional UM proportion of the UMS budget. We start with a $3.9M shortfall. Employee health benefits overwhelm everything else. Next year, this will be in the neighborhood of $7.5 million. Only Anthem bid on the insurance option. All three of the bidders will allow us to self-insure through them. The System is still working with a consultant about that, and should choose in February. Probably a $15 million increase for the system, with $7 million our share. The implicit understanding is that if the Governor and the Legislature comes through with this budget, we’ll keep tuition increases in the 3.5% range.

The third line ($1 million negative) reflects the change in the over-aggressive way our tuition estimates are figured. Last three years, we have fallen short. This year, there was growth in students, but that was all in-state; out-of-state was flat. The structural problems in this estimate is probably more than $1 million, but we’re trying to deal with part of it this year.

There are a number of places in the budget where some funds can be applied to the base. $627 thousand was added back. Last year, $795 thousand was taken out of Research and Academic Affairs to cover the increased energy costs, but since this is an institute-wide problem, it’s coming out of the whole budget now. The deferred maintenance dept service, $160 thousand, is for service for the internal System loan that was used for maintenance. There are several other base commitments–e.g., Disability Services, which was historically covered by grant money, but should be from E&G funds.

The allocation of the problem across areas is not quite proportional; for example, it is smaller for Academic Affairs. Effort is being made to find ways to do budget reductions in each area without having to lay people off; they are trying to keep programs intact. It’s about a 3% reduction of the total budget, but about 4% of effective operating budget.

Q: Christa Schwintzer to Mark Anderson: How about Academic Affairs–what is the percent damage there?

A: Mark Anderson: About 2.5% of the budget. $2.056 million is the effective cut (from the $80 million total budget.

Q: Bryan Pearce to Mark Anderson: What is the difference between being self-insured and the other options?

A: Mark Anderson: It’s more expensive when you buy the insurance versus being self-insured. Anthem is a private corporation, so there’s some profit to be made. The real thing is risk: Anthem has to build in risk. If we self-insure, we assume the risk. The System will buy a risk policy to deal with catastrophic costs, so there is still a cap to the total cost. No vendor was willing to do more than one year. The System is looking at self-insurance very seriously.

Q: Howard Patterson to Mark Anderson: Could say something about how to take care of the Academic Affairs reduction?

A: Provost Kennedy: On Monday and Tuesday (1/28 and 1/29), the budget was sent to the President’s cabinet, the Provost Council. The deans are now working through the process. They are still working with the best guess, and the current budget reflects the rosy project that the Governor’s budget will pass.

Q: Gregory White: We have a number of part-time, non-tenure-track faculty–will we see any cuts there?

A: Provost Kennedy: It’s a little too early to say. Each of the deans have been looking at their budgets, mostly analyzing open positions. This is a better short-term, opportunistic way of handling it. The Provost Council has been trying to look at it as a two- or three-year process. We all appreciate the part-time, non-tenure-track people’s contributions. The Provost can’t speak for the Deans. It is his hope that there will be extensive discussions at the college/department level.

Q: Dianne Hoff: You’ve said these are proportional cuts, but shouldn’t we be looking at this differently for institutional health?

A: Provost Kennedy: Look at the notification to colleges as a first cut. He’s asked the Strategic Planning Committee to look for ways to make adjustments that might be more strategic than opportunistic. The budget won’t be set in stone for another month or two. He hopes there’s a lot of dialog over next few weeks about this.

A: Mark Anderson: The way the cuts are considered is ordered to minimize effects on Academic Affairs, for example, so the way they’ve been accounted for has been somewhat protective of the core mission.

A: President Hoff: The conversations which took place were along lines of how we do this while still preserving the Strategic Plan.

A: Provost Kennedy: Some units, such as Admissions, were protected from the beginning.

Q: Jim McClymer: The System is planning to upgrade software–is this the time to do this?

A: Mark Anderson: The cost is $10 million for an ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) system. That will be the subject of a bond issue that will be proposed this summer. It is time to do it. The system is basically patched 70′s technology. The student information, Admissions, Financial, Development, Financial Aid, and Purchasing systems are all separate with some patches between them. The expectation is that there will be efficiencies from making the transition, and the quality of information will be better. They have heard from other universities that have done it that a lot of the services offices see up to a 50% turnover as a result. Some people say they just can’t do it [learn the new systems], and the other half leave basically because they’ve gained experience. So the process is “Potentially life-transforming.” He doesn’t want us to do what the University of Massachusetts did: start, fail, then start again with a different vendor. The System has hired a consultant to help choose the vendor, and it will hire a full-time implementation director for the duration. Each campus will have an implementation committee.

V. Committee reports

A) Judy Kuhns-Hastings, University Environment

No report.

B) Keith Hutchison, Research and Public Service

The Research Sub-committee has been meeting regularly with V. P. of Research Dan Dwyer. First couple of meetings have looked at increased grant dollars and increased indirect recovery. It is going up (13-14% per year). Last year, there was $0.9 million indirect cost recovery. It is hard to project, given the way indirect funds are paid to the University. It depends on how much money is being spent out of the grants, rather than being given to the University up front. Another issue is that D. Dwyer would like to establish a research advisory council to set priorities and coordinate research activities on campus. The committee is trying to help with the charge, who would be on it (and how that is decided), etc.

C) Christa Schwintzer, Finance and Institutional Planning

No report.

D) Bryan Pearce, Academic Affairs

Officially nothing to report. They have been working on the Honors College, and John Maddaus made a good summary. The opinions from people were to make sure that incoming students know what they’re going to get with respect to the Honors College.

E) Howard Patterson, Committee on Committees

The Radiation Safety Committee has five faculty, all of whose terms of office are up. If you have interest or know who might be interested, contact him. Only criteria are that you do research and have some involvement in that area.

F) Bob Rice, Constitution and By-laws

Committee met over break, and a representative of the Faculty Handbook committee joined them. One issue was evaluation of administrators and changes to the constitution. They will put forward constitution changes as they come to them from Provost Kennedy. Another issue was the faculty handbook. Some sections were sent to Doug Gelinas for review at end of the last academic year. The history of the handbook is that we are currently operating under the 1983 version. D. Gelinas sent to us a request that we assist in revision. It has all of our academic and some administrative policies – many out of date in current version. The revised handbook was sent to D. Gelinas, who said it looked like it was put together by committee. It was sent back to him with similar comments about his version. Provost Kennedy has agreed that we can find a professional editor for it. The committee will take it a section at a time with Doug and the professional editor. If you know a good editor, let them know.

Kathleen March added that when the committee completed its work and passed it to the Constitution and By-Laws committee, it was not meant to be the final edited form. The important things were brought up to date as best they could. Stylistic editing wasn’t the committee’s focus.

Bob Rice added that that committee is still extant, and will get the pieces of the Handbook back.

G) Kathleen March, Library Advisory

See motion under new business.

H) Owen Smith, General Education Review

Not present, no report.

I) Jim Warhola, Interdisciplinary Programs

No report.

J) Dana Humphrey, Board of Trustees Representative

Not present, no report received, and nothing else to report from President Hoff.

VI. New Business:

Resolution from the Library Advisory Committee of Faculty Senate:

The motion was introduced by Kathleen March. Its purpose is to show wide-spread campus support for the Library. There are opinions from many faculty on many committees that the Library is under-funded. Thanks to Kim McKeage for the name change.

PREAMBLE:

The faculty, graduate students, and general university community, feeling an urgent need to improve dramatically the funding for collections of Fogler Library (which has not recovered from the budget cuts of the 1990′s), have established an endowment to communicate to the legislature and the State of Maine the importance of the library to the research, teaching, and service mission of the University. This fund is called the Library Fund for Excellence (hereafter LIFE). Collections are defined as books, journals, and media in any format. The Library Advisory Committee of the Faculty Senate seeks full participation of the university community in contributing to the LIFE. Details on the campaign and procedures for contribution are forthcoming.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT

Faculty Senate champions this initiative and encourages participation.

Judy Schwintzer seconded.

Discussion:

Dan Sandweiss: There is some confusion in the preamble about what the funds would be used for–it reads as if the funds could be used to lobby for the Library.

K. March: The intent is not to pay a lobbyist, but to support the Library. It’s intended that supporting the Library would show the Legislators that there is support.

Amendment:

President Hoff moved to amend the preamble to strike the parenthetical phrase (which…1990′s). This was seconded by Jim McClymer. President Hoff says support still strong, and wouldn’t want this to substitute for institutional support. His interpretation is that the administration in the ’90s did a great deal to protect the Library. Mostly it fell behind due to other factors (journal increases, etc.).

Accepted by unanimous consent. [With some discussion about whether or not a preamble can be amended.]

Amendment:

Dan Sandweiss moved to change “to communicate” to “that will demonstrate”.

Gregory White seconded.

Accepted by unanimous consent.

Q: Gregory White: Doesn’t the motion stand alone? [I.e., the wording can't rely on the preamble.]

A: Martha Broderick [Parliamentarian]: Yes.

Amendment:

Gregory White moved to replace “this initiative” in the motion with name of fund.

Second by Dorothy Klimis-Zacas.

This was accepted.

Dan Sandweiss moved to close debate; Kim McKeage seconded.

Vote on the amended motion: Unanimous.

Amended preamble and motion:

PREAMBLE:

The faculty, graduate students, and general university community, feeling an urgent need to improve dramatically the funding for collections of Fogler Library, have established an endowment that will demonstrate to the legislature and the State of Maine the importance of the library to the research, teaching, and service mission of the University. This fund is called the Library Fund for Excellence (hereafter LIFE). Collections are defined as books, journals, and media in any format. The Library Advisory Committee of the Faculty Senate seeks full participation of the university community in contributing to the LIFE. Details on the campaign and procedures for contribution are forthcoming.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT

Faculty Senate champions the Library Fund for Excellence (LIFE) initiative and encourages participation.

VII. Adjournment

Meeting was adjourned at 4:35pm.

[Resp. submitted by Roy Turner, Secretary.]

 


Back to 2001-2002

Faculty Senate
Kimberly Junkins, Faculty Senate Office
205 East Annex, Orono, Maine 04469
Phone: (207) 581-1167 | Fax: (207) 581-2640
E-mail: kimberly.junkins@umit.maine.edu
The University of Maine
Orono, Maine 04469
207.581.1865