2001-2002 - March 27, 2002
Faculty Senate Minutes
March 27, 2002
Present: Jim Acheson, Darlene Bay, Thomas Brann, Steve Cohn, Richard Cook, Paul Creasman, Richard Eason, Ed Ferguson, Sandy Gardner, Paul Grosswiler, Don Hayes, Peter Hoff, Mike Howard, Keith Hutchison, John Jemison, Robert Kennedy, Carol Kim, Dennis King, Roger King, Dorothy Klimis-Zacas, Irv Kornfield, Judy Kuhns-Hastings, Phil Locke, Ngo Vinh Long, John Maddaus, Kathleen March, Stephen Marks, Jim McClymer, Kim McKeage, Charles Moody, Howard Patterson, Bryan Pearce, Glenn Reif, Robert Rice, Linda Rottmann, Douglass Ruthven, Christa Schwintzer, Bruce Segee, Frederick Servello, Phillip Silver, Owen Smith, Andrew Thomas, Roy Turner, Sarah Vidito, Gregory White
Absent: Seanna Annis, Robin Arnold, David Batuski, Douglas Bousfield, Martha Broderick, Kathrine Carter, Scott Dunning, Daniel Dwyer, Bill Farthing, Charles Forshee, Matthew Gagnon, Alla Gamarnik, Dianne Hoff, Dana Humphrey, Edward Jadallah, Richard Jagels, Melvin Johnson, Harvey Kail, Joseph Kelley, Diana Lawson, Daniel Lux, Chuck Maguire, Ivan Manev, Ali Ozluk, Dan Sandweiss, Jim Warhola, Dave Yarborough
I. Welcome and Signing in
The meeting was called to order at 3:21 pm.
II. Approval of minutes from the February 27, 2002 meeting
Bob Rice moved, Howard Patterson seconded; passed.
III. Announcements of the President
Elections for next year: There is currently one nominee for vice president/president-elect: Bryan Pearce. We need two according to the by-laws, so if anyone is interested, let John Maddaus know. Jane Smith has volunteered to return to the position of secretary from last year. (Only one nominee is needed, but if anyone else is interested, let John know.) Carol Kim has volunteered to serve as chair of the Committee on Committees. This committee needs 10 members, two from each college and two from Cooperative Extension; let John know if you are interested in serving.
Tenure homes: Last time, information about tenure homes was circulated and discussed. This was also discussed with Pres. Hoff and Provost Kennedy on Monday. The Provost will pursue this with the affected departments.
Peer committees for joint appointments: The Executive Committee raised the issue of the home department having the majority voice on the committee, and this is being worked on.
Faculty status of coaches: On hold, pending discussion with System.
University’s mission statement: A copy of this is available at the University Web site. [A copy was passed around; see http://www.umaine.edu/mission.htm.]
Evaluation of administrators: Work continues on this, with the hope of having something next month or May at the latest.
Proposal to amend the by-laws: This is on the agenda. This motion came out of the General Education Review Committee. It needed to be distributed 45 days before it could be voted on, so the members are now notified. It will be voted on at the May 8 meeting. (No discussion today.)
Martha Broderick (Parliamentarian): Martha was involved in accident last night, so is not present.
[Announcement from Pres. Hoff:] Oscar Remick died of cancer. Pres. Hoff requested a moment of silence.
IV. Questions to the Administrators
[Q: Christa Schwintzer to Mark Anderson] About the March 22 update on the budget: can you explain the Children’s Center changes, and could you explain under Academic Affairs, what is the intention of faculty workload across units [see the budget]?
[A:] Children’s Center: the cut went from $122,000 to $60,000. VP Chapman was asked to suspend the rent for the two buildings used by the Center. Alan Boggs and Interim VP Anderson have been working with Gary Quimby to make sure the balance can be made up and maintain services. He thinks they have accomplished that. He met with parents and others on Monday to talk about it.
Other piece “more complex”. He referred to Michael Grillo’s “farewell address” to the Senate last year regarding inequities of workload across campus. He feels these remarks were fairly accurate. The $500,000 savings is a revenue increase for the first part of the process. In April, the second part will marry CED issues with workload issues. This comes out of questions this fall about why, if we have more students, do we have less money? There has been a leaking of tuition money from regular tuition to CED accounts as it’s become more a section-funding sort of activity. The budget process is trying to correct this; he thinks it’s at least a $500,000 problem.
[A: Doug Gelinas] He is working with the associate deans to have a way to account for teaching workload that’s comparable from one college to another. They are trying to base this on student credit hours (weighted by such things as whether the course is upper level, writing intensive, or graduate, and by course enrollment). Goal is to have some way that Provost can compare colleges, deans can compare departments, and chairs can compare faculty. They are using 9 credit hours/semester as the starting point, (This is before any sort of buy-out, etc.) even though System-wide it’s 12 hrs/sem. No one at the Provost’s level will be trying to set anyone’s teaching load; that’s done at dean and chair level.
[Q: Bryan Pearce] A question about the budget item on ambulance service. He looked into it and found something disconcerting. In past, ALS (advanced life support) was provided by Orono, but in the Fall, this switched to Bangor. Campus UVAC can’t do this – they’re EMTs, not paramedics. (He related an incident in fall in which someone died; the response time from Bangor was 11 minutes, and Orono wasn’t called.) Associate Director of Police Department asked via letter that calls from campus be diverted from regional center back to campus; the regional center would call closest ALS, with patient choice. Orono response averages 3 min, Capital averages 14 minutes. The question is, what’s going on? There is also an issue of University/community relations; it’s also unclear how savings are effected using for-profit rather than non-profit.
[A: Interim VP Mark Anderson] Clarification – the person who died, died many hours later in hospital and a review showed that care was appropriate.
Under the protocols, all the local ambulance services have mutual support. UVAC made decision about who their primary backup would be last summer. This decision did not have to do with the budget. The budget line to Orono has to do with payments in lieu of taxes, which doesn’t have anything directly to do with the issue, although Orono did raise this when fire service was added. VP Chapman has detail on the ambulance decision.
[Q: Pearce]Do we get the 3 minute option or the 14 minute option?
[A: Anderson] It’s a technical question that he can’t answer.
[Steve Cohn] He would like a report on this.
[Q: Howard Patterson] How much does the University save by using Capital?
[A: Anderson] Capital doesn’t charge UVAC.
[Q: Howard] So no money saved by going to Capital?
[A: Anderson] That’s correct.
[Q: Sarah Knight, Paul Creasman's proxy] Can you explain combining all the student fees under one category?
[A: VP Anderson] In response to parents’ and students’ comments about bills going out, they requested that the System allow consolidation of most fees into a “universal fee”. They are doing this in part to create a competitive advantage. Some parents say bill as currently implemented is offensive and confusing. Depending on number of credit hours you take, it is slightly more or less expensive.
[Knight] She and other she’s talked to would rather know what they’re paying for and where it’s going, so “offend me, please”.
[Comment: Sarah Knight] Student Senate has its meetings in a classroom in Little, and there the members see grade posting by full Social Security Numbers. Student Senate has been researching it and planning to make the issue public to the students. She would like stress that posting this way is illegal, and it’s exposing students to a security threat.
[Q: John Maddaus] Is there anything the Administration is going to do to address this?
[A: VP Robert Kennedy] The Administration will try to make deans and chairs aware that this is a problem. [Pres. Hoff] Asks any student finding this sort of thing to let Doug Gelinas know.
[Q: Douglas Ruthven] Would students prefer not to have results posted? People tend to use SSN as one way of doing it.
[A: Knight] Students would rather have them posted. The legal way to do it is not to have full SSN posted, but rather last 4 or 5 digits.
[Doug Gelinas] A student can’t find out grades for exams and papers, but can find out final grade from Registrar.
[Q: Kim McKeage] Is there an office to train faculty how to use the very simple mechanisms of Excel and Word to do this?
[A: Thomas Brann] Supposedly the new computer system could generate randomized lists for students to be used for this.
[Hoff] It’s too soon to say if this can be done in the new system. The system could generate a new permanent number.
[McClymer] This shouldn’t be too hard to generate and use another number.
[Anderson] Student Records [?] will generate new, randomly assigned number to use as their ID on request.
[Knight] The only problem with randomly-assigned number is that financial aid is matched to students via SSN.
[Richard Cook] We were already told about what to do with this: use the last 4 digits, scramble.
[Roy Turner] It’s a real problem, not just an annoyance. It exposes students to the risk of identity theft, which is on the rise.
[Q: Douglas Ruthven] Another question on SSN. The new travel expense claim form requires a SSN. So could Mark Anderson answer if this is for good purpose or to promote identity theft?
[A: Anderson] No answer yet, will look into it.
[Q: Bob Rice to Doug Gelinas] We will be talking about General Education requirements. From the Administration’s standpoint, can you give us summary of what the accrediting body wanted?
[A: Gelinas] The survey [he wrote] was administered to the first class graduated under new requirements. Recollection was that students had a hard time figuring out the connection between courses and general education – that was also the response from the accrediting body.
All that is required is that we have general education requirements, that they be 1/3 of the hours of the curriculum, and that we enunciate what the learning outcomes are meant to be for programs and how that will be assessed. Since the requirements come from the Senate, there’s no dept or college that’s responsible for this by itself. We’re not any further behind than the other NE institutions. The body wants to hear about this in a couple of years.
[Q: Owen Smith to Provost Kennedy] What about the hiring moratorium?
[A: Kennedy] It has been lifted.
V. Committee reports
A) Judy Kuhns-Hastings, University Environment
The Committee will be bringing forth the motion for graduate student health insurance.
B) Keith Hutchison, Research and Public Service
He met earlier this afternoon with VP Dan Dwyer. Research dollars continue to go up each year, in terms of applications, total dollars, and indirect costs recovered. ICR is approaching $6 million. On the order of 1/2 of the faculty are funded in some way or another by grants. R&D funds coming from the State ($10 million to System, $8 million to the University) are to go up by 10% each of the next two years. At some point, there needs to be some indirect cost return back to investigators to stimulate research.
With respect to the establishment of a research advisory committee: Dwyer is in discussion with the Provost and President about this now.
[Q: Bob Rice] There was a report in the paper about joining with another university to put together a center for the testing of materials and so forth – is that out of Dwyer’s office?
[A: Jim McClymer] He thinks it is from a bond. [Hutchinson] He doesn’t have any more details other than that there’s a bond issue being put together. [Anderson] The genesis is the Advanced Manufacturing Center (College of Engineering); they are partnering with USM on the engineering/manufacturing program they have. [Hoff] It’s not a new concept, though it’s a good one. It had gone to Legislature to fund as part of the R&D II initiative. When R&D II didn’t fly, it went to the Economic Development Committee. [Rice] What’s its potential to go forward? [Hoff] It’s still alive. [Hutchison] There was a name from Committee on Business and Economic Development to the Committee on Business, Research, and Economic Development.
C) Christa Schwintzer, Finance and Institutional Planning
The Committee has started to look at sustainability issues, will report later.
D) Bryan Pearce, Academic Affairs
The Committee is working on math and writing competency. They scheduled a series of meetings with Tony Brinkley [English Dept. Chair] and Jennifer Pixley in English Dept. Everyone was encouraged, and there was general agreement on how to go about it. Next meeting will be with George Markowsky [Chair of Computer Science Dept. and of the Mathematics Dept.] and others in Math Department. Final meeting will draft motion about this. By its nature, there’s overlap with General Education Committee, particularly the outcomes assessment part.
E) Howard Patterson, Committee on Committees
Let him know if anyone would like to be involved.
F) Bob Rice, Constitution and By-laws
No meetings, but there is the issue that is coming forward to amend the constitution to create General Education Outcomes Committee. This would be a special committee under the by-laws. The Committee will be working on that over the next month to month and a half.
G) Kathleen March, Library Advisory
No report. Next meeting will be next Wednesday.
H) Owen Smith, General Education Review
A By-laws amendment will be discussed later. The committee has met several times and has decided to move forward on two tracks. In the short term, they will begin to look at and develop outcomes for current General Education requirements, maybe slightly modified. The Committee isn’t willing to let go of more fundamental changes, however, so will be bringing forward in near future a second motion to authorize the Committee to look at broader change of General Education requirements and a year-long test case for a limited number of students.
I) Jim Warhola, Interdisciplinary Programs
The Committee has not met since last Senate meeting. They do anticipate meeting on Friday about proposed guidelines for developing interdisciplinary faculty groups. The Committee has received two documents from Delcourt. One is set of guidelines for interdisciplinary groups; these will be considered on Friday and a report will be made to Senate. The other was set of draft by-laws for the functional genomics group that is being formed–this was presented as an example. The Committee will consider these, as well.
J) Dana Humphrey, Board of Trustees Representative
Not present, no report.
VI. New Business:
A) Proposed policy for vote: POLICY ON PARTNER ACCOMMODATION
[Submitted by Peter Hoff (distributed at the full Senate meeting on 2/27/02)]
Moved by Judy Kuhns-Hastings; Owen Smith seconded.
Introduction by Peter Hoff: I have received the draft forwarded by the Domestic Partner Facilitation Committee, and I appreciate their thoughtful and conscientious work very much. Having reviewed that draft, I find it essentially acceptable, with a few edits that I applied to the draft that I am forwarding to you attached to this message. Unless the Senate objects to the attached version, I am prepared to implement it as official university policy.
The University of Maine recognizes the importance of accommodating dual career partners in attracting and retaining a quality workforce. The University community also recognizes the ways in which dual career partners can enrich the campus culture. Because dual-career partnerships often involve employment needs or opportunities across units, University-level policy is required. The following guidelines govern domestic partner accommodations at The University of Maine.
1. All candidates in a job search as well as University employees have a right to inquire about opportunities and procedures for partner hires. Equal opportunity policy dictates that such inquiries will not influence hiring or promotion decisions.
2. When any candidate or employee inquires about employment opportunities for a partner, the Chair/Director of his or her unit will request a copy of the partner’s curriculum vitae and other relevant materials. This information will then be forwarded to the appropriate administrator and department/unit in which the accompanying partner is seeking employment. The Office of Equal Opportunity may also be contacted for information and assistance.
3. An accompanying partner, like any other candidate, must be systematically reviewed by the hiring department or academic unit. If that unit believes the accompanying partner has appropriate credentials and has skills that are compatible with the department’s needs and mission, they may request that the accompanying partner be considered for the University’s Opportunity Hire Program.
4. University policy ordinarily requires a national search for faculty and professional appointments of more than five months. The Opportunity Hire Program, however, includes a process for requesting a search waiver and/or single or multi-year financial support for highly qualified individuals who can make a unique contribution to the University and its strategic plan. Criteria for granting waiver and funding requests include:
• Qualifications of the individual proposed, including likelihood of future success (promotion and tenure, where applicable)
• Relevance of the hire to the university’s strategic priorities
• Agreement of the hiring unit for the requested appointment
• Degree to which department/college funds will support the position over time
• Rationale for waiving the normal search requirement, including the employment of partners of prospective and current employees.
5. Questions about the Opportunity Hire Program should be directed to Evelyn Silver, Director of Equal Opportunity.
6. Other alternatives for partners include the following:
• A partner of a finalist in a University search may request an interview for another open University position as long as they meet the published qualifications. If a search committee chair receives such a request, the Office of Equal Opportunity should be contacted.
• Faculty partners in the same academic discipline may ask to be considered for a joint appointment. The University of Maine now has several partners who are successfully sharing one or one and one-half positions. In such cases, the concerned department must determine whether both individuals have appropriate credentials and have the potential to become tenured members of the department.
• This appointment sharing policy (see www.maine.edu/sharedappoint.html) also applies to professional employees and administrators.
• Partners of candidates who have received tentative job offers may seek the services of the (Career Center/Human Resources/ Equal Opportunity/ the Alumni Association) in searching for appropriate employment opportunities off campus.
7. While The University of Maine recognizes the value of promoting opportunities for dual career partners, and has established these policies to help secure this value, it cannot guarantee employment to anyone simply on the basis of the policy.
[Q: Jim Warhola] On point 4, are the bullets ordered by importance?
[A: Hoff] They’re in the order the committee gave them to him.
[Q: Douglass Ruthven] How does this differ from current policy? Seems to be much the same.
[A: Kuhns-Hastings] She doesn’t know if there ever was a policy. [Hoff] Reflects current practice, and request was for a policy.
In favor: 35 Opposed: none; Abstained: 4
B) Motion for vote: HEALTH INSURANCE FOR FULL-TIME GRADUATE RESEARCH AND TEACHING ASSISTANTS
[Submitted by the University Environment Committee, Judy Kuhns-Hastings, Chair]
Moved by Judy Kuhns-Hastings, seconded by Bob Rice.
Full-time graduate students who are appointed as graduate assistants make important contributions to the University of Maine in the areas of teaching and research. Most research programs on campus depend heavily on the work of graduate students. The minimum graduate assistant’s stipend at this time is about $9,000 for the academic year. The cost of health insurance for graduate students is $1,100, which amounts to over 10% of their stipends. The percentage of graduate assistants who have no health insurance is 36%.The University of Maine assumes no part of the cost of health insurance as it does for other part-time employees.
The Faculty Senate moves that the University of Maine develop a policy that covers 80% of the cost of health insurance for full-time graduate students holding graduate assistantships. Cost of Graduate Assistant health insurance should be written into grants whenever conditions of granting agencies permit.
[Sarah Vidito] GSA passed around information about insurance for grad students for background.
[Q: Jim McClymer] If it’s not required, can we put it into grants to most Federal agencies?
[A: Scott Delcourt] He has discussed it with Jake Ward – to write into grants, it has to be required.
[McClymer] Friendly amendment to reflect that?
[Keith Hutchinson] Development of policy to provide universal insurance should do it.
[Delcourt] He provided a historical perspective. The University has raised minimum stipend from $7236 to $9010. Also there was recommendation to provide at least partial health insurance coverage; health costs have close to doubled in same period of time, so that’s eroded the stipend increase.
Of the 550 assistants, about 300 supported by University funds, 250-275 funded by grants.
[McClymer] If they tell us they can do it, that’s fine.
[Kunhs-Hastings] About 25% of grants are non-Federal, and wouldn’t pay it.
[Q: Owen Smith, to Mark Anderson] What is the nature of the financial impact of this motion?
[A: Anderson] He hasn’t assessed the impact yet.
[Vidito asked another student to comment] It will cost about $240K/year.
[Owen Smith] He asked the question because we need to know the ramifications of what we’re asking. He supports the motion, just wants the ramifications to be known.
[Hoff] Everyone in room supports the concept, he’s sure, but the answer about the financial impact, it’s zero – resolution doesn’t mean that it will be implemented. If it is implemented, the $240,000 impact is reasonable to look at. It goes into the “wish list” for next year’s budget, whether or not we pass this; this just gives it some support.
[Q: Bob Rice] He asked about the grant part.
[A: Hoff] Would be insane if the administration doesn’t go with this, so they’ll insist that it is written into grants if this is implemented.
[Q: Douglass Ruthven] Seems that if this is passed and implemented, still have situation we have now with some having insurance and others not.
[A: John Maddaus] Intent is for this to apply to everyone.
[Ruthven] The grant portion is confusing.
[Q: Warhola] How was the 80% arrived at? Or is it acknowldgement of the financial reality?
[A: Kunhs-Hastings] Graduate students asked for 50%, the committee suggested 80%.
[Keith Hutchinson] He doesn’t see any reason why when writing a grant you wouldn’t put down 100% coverage, where you can. Becomes a recruiting tool.
For: 35; no opposed, 2 abstentions.
VII. Proposed Amendment to the Faculty Senate By-laws
[Received from the ad hoc General Education Review Committee, submitted to the Secretary of the Senate on March 21, 2002, and forwarded by him to the Chair of the Constitution and By-laws Committee, and announced in this agenda, in accordance with the By-laws, Article VI AMENDMENT]
MOTION TO AMEND THE BY-LAWS TO CREATE A SPECIAL COMMITTEE, TO BE CALLED THE GENERAL EDUCATION OUTCOMES COMMITTEE
The New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC), which is the accreditation agency for the University of Maine, announced in Fall, 1998, that the post-secondary institutions it accredits will be required to develop student outcomes assessment plans for general education. Since then, a number of committees at the University of Maine have examined this issue, but little progress has been made. Many university faculty are familiar with outcomes assessment through professional programs accreditation procedures and/or work with K-12 schools, so the expertise exists among the faculty to make the necessary changes. Strong faculty leadership, guided by a committee of the Faculty Senate, is needed to make significant progress on this issue in time for future accreditation actions. Since the development and monitoring of student outcomes and assessments will be a long-term process, and since NEASC is seeking institutionalization of the outcomes assessment process, the creation of a Special Committee of the Senate is an appropriate organizational change. The Special Committee will work in consultation with the Undergraduate Program Curriculum Committee and the Center for Teaching Excellence.
The Faculty Senate By-laws, Article V, Special Committees, is hereby amended by the addition of a new section 2:
Section 2 General Education Outcomes Committee
A. Function: The General Education Outcomes Committee reviews and makes recommendations to the Senate regarding the assessment of student outcomes and related issues of general education. It works in consultation with other appropriate campus committees to develop, monitor and revise as needed statements of student outcomes and assessment procedures for the general education requirements. In addition, the committee promotes the use of such outcomes statements and assessment procedures among faculty teaching courses that meet general education requirements.
B. Membership: The members of the General Education Outcomes Committee are one faculty member from each college, the Director of the Honors College (or his/her designee), the Executive Vice President and Provost (or his/her designee), and a representative of undergraduate student government. The chair of the committee shall be chosen by the President of the Senate. At least one member of the committee shall be a member of the Senate.
This proposed amendment, including any revisions, along with the recommendation of the Constitution and By-laws Committee, will be included in the April 24th agenda for information purposes, and in the agenda of May 8th for a vote, in accordance with the By-laws, Article VI AMENDMENT.
Adjourned at 4:44 pm.