Skip Navigation

2001-2002 - May 8, 2002

Faculty Senate Minutes

May 8, 2002

Present: Robin Arnold, David Batuski, Darlene Bay, Thomas Brann, Martha Broderick, Kathrine Carter, Richard Cook, Paul Creasman, Richard Eason, Bill Farthing, Ed Ferguson, Alla Gamarnik, Paul Grosswiler, Peter Hoff, Mike Howard, Dana Humphrey, Keith Hutchison, Edward Jadallah, Richard Jagels, John Jemison, Joseph Kelley, Robert Kennedy, Roger King, Dorothy Klimis-Zacas, Irv Kornfield, Judy Kuhns-Hastings, Diana Lawson, Daniel Lux, John Maddaus, Kathleen March, Jim McClymer, Kim McKeage, Charles Moody, Howard Patterson, Glenn Reif, Robert Rice, Linda Rottmann, Dan Sandweiss, Christa Schwintzer, Frederick Servello, Phillip Silver, Owen Smith, Andrew Thomas, Roy Turner, Jim Warhola, Gregory White, Dave Yarborough

Absent: Jim Acheson, Seanna Annis, Douglas Bousfield, Steve Cohn, Scott Dunning, Daniel Dwyer, Charles Forshee, Sandy Gardner, Don Hayes, Dianne Hoff, Melvin Johnson, Harvey Kail, Carol Kim, Dennis King, Phil Locke, Ngo Vinh Long, Chuck Maguire, Ivan Manev, Stephen Marks, Ali Ozluk, Bryan Pearce, Douglass Ruthven, Bruce Segee, Sarah Vidito

I. Welcome and Signing in

The meeting was called to order at 3:17pm.

II. Approval of minutes from the 4/24 meeting

Moved by Roger King; seconded by David Batuski. Approved.

III. Announcements of the President

A) Reflections on 2001-2002

[Report from John Maddaus, President:]

I’ve had a running joke with Bob Rice all year. He’s told me repeatedly that the Senate should conclude all its business by the end of this academic year, so that the only issue he has to deal with next year is parking! Some of you may think that the agenda for today’s meeting is my attempt to accomplish just that. But actually, you’d be wrong. If I were really trying to do that, we’d have to publish the agenda as a book, and we’d be here until the wee hours of the morning trying to get through it. Having been a staff member in the New York State legislature for a year, I know what that end of session crunch felt like. I would like to spare you any semblance of that experience!

By Bob Rice’s standard, the Senate this year has been a miserable failure. By any realistic standard, however, I think we’ve accomplished a substantial amount. We began the year with a long list of carry-over issues from the previous year, as well as some new ones. Among the issues we’ve already addressed this year have been: tenure homes for homeless faculty, health insurance for graduate assistants, the funding of the Children’s Center, the maintenance of technology classrooms, the employment of domestic partners, the replacement of the library steps, a library endowment, and a solid waste minimization committee. We have several more issues on today’s agenda. And we’ve contributed to discussions on other issues, such as the faculty handbook and the Honors College. We’ll end the year with many issues remaining for the future, and I am confident that in the coming year the Senate, under Bob Rice’s leadership, is well prepared to deal with those. If my colleagues in the College of Education and Human Development are willing, I will be back next year to assist in any way that I can. Beyond today’s meeting, I have one personal goal for the remainder of my term of office, and that is to develop a description of the tasks of President of the Senate for future reference by my successors and by anyone else who may be interested.

I think that a major reason we’ve been able to achieve as much as we have is that shared governance has actually worked this year. I must admit that shared governance didn’t mean much to me before I joined the Faculty Senate. But over the past three years that I’ve been on the Senate, I’ve had the opportunity to experience what shared governance means in practice. To me, shared governance means that all the various participants in decision-making on campus would approach our responsibilities in a spirit of collaboration. Specifically, all concerned parties could discuss issues, be heard, and contribute to the identification of solutions that everyone could feel comfortable with, and that would serve the best interests of the campus community as a whole. I think that is a good description of what has actually happened this year, and I sincerely hope that we can continue to work in a spirit of shared governance and collaboration in future years.

In conclusion, I would like to thank all of the people who have made a productive year possible:

• The members of the Senate, for being here and sharing your ideas;

• The members of committees, for addressing the issues on behalf of the membership, and presenting the products of your labor in the form of motions;

• The committee chairs, for leading the committees in their work, and for your advice and counsel on the Executive Committee;

• Students from the General Student Senate and the Association of Graduate Students, for sharing your concerns and inviting me to speak to your respective governing bodies;

• Members of the administration, for answering our questions to the best of your ability, both at the monthly Senate meetings and on other occasions when needed;

• President Hoff and Provost Kennedy, for meeting regularly with the Executive Committee to share ideas and seek solutions to problems, in a spirit of shared governance;

• Rose Weller, for all your behind-the-scenes work that keeps the Senate running smoothly;

• Roy Turner, for the excellent minutes, in spite of your wife’s illness;

• Ginny Gibson and Martha Broderick, for advice on Robert’s Rules of Order; and

• Bob Rice, for being available for countless telephone calls to discuss how to proceed on various issues.

It’s been a pleasure, as well as a learning experience, to serve as President of the Senate, and I hope there are some among you here today who will consider the opportunity to serve in this capacity in the future.

B) Remarks by Robert Rice

Throughout his presidency of the Senate, John Maddaus has been both thorough, and democratic in his leadership. He has taken the time and made the effort to be well prepared for the issues confronted by the Senate. He has been tough when needed and he has been willing to continue the efforts of his predecessors.

His efforts have allowed a number of important issues to be brought forth such as:

• General education requirements

• Technology in the Classroom

• Library fund for excellence

• Health insurance for graduate students

• Homeless faculty

• Domestic partner accommodation procedure

• And the revamping of the evaluation of administrators procedure

He has even been willing to tackle the dreaded University Calendar.

For these actions, your leadership and your diligent efforts throughout the year, the Faculty Senate thanks you.

R. Rice for the Executive Committee

IV. Remarks by invited guest: Chancellor Joseph Westphal

[The following are the Secretary’s interpretation of Dr. Westphal’s remarks.]

Dr. Westphal has been on the job about a month. He has visited with almost every sector of the Maine economy, and he feels he is beginning to understand the state. He is learning that the state has had radical change in a short period of time in recent times. It is something to remember when one tends to lose patience with the state. He has learned about all the good things as well as the problems. He has met with the Executive Committee of the Senate and learned about positive contributions UMaine is making. It is a story we need to tell, a story he is going to tell. He advocates a forward-looking, long-term approach to building and strengthening the University.

He grouped his remarks into categories:

• Long-term priorities. We all want a quality education system, even though we have different opinions about how to get there (faculty salaries, good environment, etc.) He is committed to this.

• Budget. He comes from politics and the government, where the budget was the most critical document; the budget was a policy document. He has already put together a budget for ’03. In September, he will submit the budget for the biennium. It is a little more complex, and he doesn’t quite understand how it works; for instance, there is a lack of synchronization between the budget and labor agreements for ’03. It is a budget scenario where no one seems to know what is going to happen. He talked to the Governor a couple of days ago, and the Governor was fairly optimistic about riding out this year, but he didn’t know about next year. But a lot has happened in the last two days (e.g., a special session may be called). A special session might protect education, but probably it will be K–12, not us. The budget will reflect policy for priorities.

• Students. At the top of his list is what we need to do for students. Need to prioritize quality of life (study, work, living), and he will. There needs to be a focus on endowments, which are very low in Maine. The System is going to do this. There are plenty of sources for money; we just have to be organized and aggressive, and he needs the faculty’s help.

• He is going to go after more R&D money. This affects this university more than others, as it is the flagship. He thinks it is important to continue to invest in our university, without undue concern for equity around the state.

• He is going to work on how we tell our story. Many things are going on that people don’t know about or understand. There are lots of statistics out there, but rather than focus on them, focus on telling our story. He discussed the community college system proposal. The System has remained silent on that so far. It is to be assessed internally, without assumptions of who should control the community colleges (System, or new System, etc.). There are about 120 sites around the state where higher education is delivered. What do we need, what do we have? The Governor assures him that no decision will be made on this issue until the System’s report is given to him. The System is going to be informed and moderate on the issue—trying to be a team player. He is trying to project this to the legislature, too. We need their support, and we also have to give them our support.

• Faculty. He’s been faculty member most of his professional life—never dean, provost, or president. He knows what it’s like to be paid a low salary, to thirst for more resources, better classrooms, travel budgets, etc. He will help us as much as he can in those areas. He understands our jobs—we don’t have a chancellor who isn’t sensitive to that. This is not to say that the picture is rosy, but we must begin to use our budget as a policy instrument. We must fight for faculty support as much as we can.

Irv Kornfield asked how the faculty can assist him in his job.

He answered that he hopes to be able to open some doors based on his contacts. On the research side, he can make some connections and open some doors for us to walk through, but he has to know who’s interested, etc., and have the faculty walk through the doors. We can help him by letting him know about issues that a chancellor needs to know about, e.g., diversity. He doesn’t know much about it in Maine, and he wants to know what we’re doing about it, were we stand, etc. E.g., faculty development: It is important for him to know how different disciplines stack up, how to connect with others at other universities—basically, how he can help President Hoff help us.

Jim Warhola mentioned that AFUM would be happy to work with him on faculty salaries and the other wonderful goals.

V. Questions to the Administrators

[Mike Howard] At the elected members meeting, we received some information on the budget. What came out in the discussion was that there is a standard practice of over-budgeting expenditures and under-budgeting revenue, so that something like $12M ends up being not targeted to anything in particular. He was wondering, given $5M shortfall, why this can’t be dealt with via this.

[President Hoff] With respect to year-end balances, he thinks there was a year in which [past CFO] Duringer allowed departments to keep YE balances, but now it has reverted to 80%. He has nothing against using this for addressing shortfall.

[Darlene Bay] She has a different take on the question. In going back over the past 5 years, revenue in total has been underestimated by > 3%, expenditures overestimated by an average of 10%. So there was $12M in, but no line item. What happens to it? There is lots of concern about loss of accountability for this, and we can’t assess if the expenditures are estimated accurately or not.

[Pres. Hoff] He said he can’t agree with her take on that, though it will need the CFO to really answer the question. Money not used is rolled over into next year, with 80% staying in the departments’ budgets and the rest to deferred maintenance and things like that. To some extent, it’s in the departments’ coffers.

[Jim McClymer] AFUM has looked into this, too, and there seems to be about a $10M surplus every year, and it essentially disappears.

[Dana Smith] The last word from Mark was that the 80% rule was suspended. As a department chair, he would like to know if the administration has flip-flopped back to reinstating it.

[Pres. Hoff] Not to his knowledge.

[Provost Kennedy] Mark Anderson and Claire [Pratt] looked into the missing $12M. He (Mark) sent Christa Schwintzer e-mail saying he’s happy to work with Christa and the Senate to reconcile this.

[Christa Schwintzer] She faxed the numbers from Darlene to Mark; he e-mailed back saying he has yet to be able to work through them. He raised some small points about the ’02-’03 budgets.

VI. Committee reports

A) Judy Kuhns-Hastings, University Environment – No Report

B) Keith Hutchison, Research and Public Service

Nothing to report; he thanked the committee.

C) Christa Schwintzer, Finance and Institutional Planning

She thanked the committee, especially Glenn Reif for keeping track of Hudson Museum and Darlene Bay for working on the budget.

D) Bryan Pearce, Academic Affairs

Not present. John Maddaus reported that they have been working on Writing and Math skills for undergraduates.

E) Howard Patterson, Committee on Committees

No report. He thanked the committee members.

F) Bob Rice, Constitution and By-laws

Issue coming up later to discuss. He thanked members of committee for help and guidance.

G) Kathleen March, Library Advisory

She thanked members of committee.

LIFE (Library endowment): It has slowed down, but it does exist. It’s small, but you can expect to see it in the fall.

They looked at possibility of indirect cost recovery going back to the Library. They discussed this with the administration.

Library newsletter is e-mailed weekly faculty. It is done for free by Library.

Serials Project: We have until May 14th to respond.

Summary: The Library budget has not kept pace with journals cost. The issue of e-journals vs. paper is complex. Fogler needs to be the flagship library if it is to fit the University. The committee expresses its sincere concern about funding, and hopes that the administration will be receptive to working on this. “A good library is the heart of a good university.”

[Owen Smith] With respect to the “serials death list” – on the general list, the highest listed periodical was about $6000. That one journal would pay for every journal in art, art history, music, and theatre. So has there been any discussion about distribution of funding?

[Kathleen] The committee didn’t get into specifics of that, precisely because the list came at the end of semester. Good question.

[Owen] He doesn’t think there is a good answer, but it does bring up issue of how we support the different areas and how we allocate the funds to the different disciplines. Some key periodicals in art, they don’t have.

[Kathleen] No matter where you look within the library budget, anything you want to cut is drawing blood. A lot of problems would be solved if there was more base budget.

[Kim McKeage] Did you get a deadline extension?

[Kathleen] No. We can still try.

H) Owen Smith, General Education Review

The committee has not met since the last time we’ve met. Motions are coming up. He thanked the members of the committee for their work during the last two years.

I) Jim Warhola, Interdisciplinary Programs

He thanked the members of the committee. He also thanked Provost Kennedy and Scott Delcourt.

The committee hasn’t met since the last meeting, but two motions are on the floor. He encourages us to support the motions. The committee believes the guidelines represent the interests of all parties concerned.

J) Dana Humphrey, Board of Trustees Representative

Update on Bond Referendums #1 and #2

Homework assignment: You, family, everyone – vote June 11th primary. Two bond issues are on the ballot: (1) funds to install fire sprinklers in some of our dorms. About $3M to this campus. (2) Item 2 on ballot, Economic Development and Research and Development Bond package. $9M to System, $5M to here to support advanced manufacturing center. This will strengthen State economy, which will bring in more tax revenue, which will benefit all of us. This is a sleeper – primary turnout will be very low, and what will turn the tide is who actually goes out and votes.

VII. New Business:



The Senate adopted a motion on April 19, 2000 entitled “Report of the Academic Affairs Committee on the Charge to study the Evaluation of Administrators,” which set up an evaluation process conducted by the Faculty Senate. This procedure was followed during the 2000-2001 academic year, but was challenged as contrary to state public employees law. In order to ensure faculty input into the evaluation of administrators, the Faculty Senate Executive committee has conducted discussions with Provost Robert Kennedy and President Peter Hoff to include faculty participation in the evaluation processes which they conduct of the administrators who report to each of them.


The Faculty Senate rescinds its motion of April 19, 2000 regarding evaluation of administrators, and endorses and agrees to participate in the revised policies for administrators reporting to the Provost and President respectively, as follows:


Process to be used in conducting reviews for reappointment of deans and directors reporting to the Executive Vice President/Provost Add: or the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs. This process should take place early in the last year of the individual’s current appointment.

1. Notify the individual being reviewed of initiation of the review. [Provost]

2. Set date for submission of final report to Provost [Provost]

3. Send letter to faculty/staff/stakeholders of college/unit notifying them that the process is beginning [Provost]

4. Identify review committee chair [Provost]

5. Delete: Identify proposed committee members and discuss them with the individual being reviewed [Provost] and substitute: a) Submit names of six faculty members within college and three from outside of college to Provost for consideration as committee members [Faculty Senate President, in consultation with the Faculty Senate’s Executive Committee and Committee on Committees]; b) choose two faculty members from within college and one from outside of college, from lists submitted, or request additional names as needed [Provost] c) choose a dean or director to chair the committee, a department chair to serve on the committee, and one or more people outside the unit to serve on the committee, [Provost] and d) discuss committee composition with person being reviewed [Provost].

Add: For non-college units that do not have faculty or department chairs, there shall be appropriate representation of all constituencies served by the unit. The Person being reviewed will submit the names of constituent groups and the Faculty Senate will nominate no less than six and no more than 9 people. The committee will have at least six members chosen by the Provost.

6. Following finalization of committee members, contact them to determine their interest and availability [Provost]

7. Send letter to committee members officially appointing them [Provost]

8. Schedule meetings [Provost’s Office Staff Person] a. Committee meetings b. Meeting with the individual being reviewed c. Interviews with appropriate stakeholders [identified by committee, with suggestions from reviewee] d. Other meetings as necessary, determined by committee

9. Review questionnaire to be used and send out to faculty/staff/stakeholders of college/unit [Committee]

10. Request the individual prepare a self-review for discussion with Committee [Committee Chair]

11. Meet with individual being reviewed [Committee]

12. Hold interviews with appropriate stakeholders [Committee]

13. Review and carefully analyze returned questionnaires and write summary evaluation of questionnaire results [Committee]

14. Prepare final analytical report, including separate summaries of questionnaire, interviews, interview with reviewee, discussion of how these vary (if appropriate) and committees’ general comments and submit to Provost by previously identified deadline [Committee Chair]

15. Read report and all evidence collected [Provost]

16. Meeting to discuss report and evidence [Provost with committee members]

17. If necessary, additional review, including outside evaluation/consultation, may be pursued [Provost]

18. Discuss results with President [Provost]

19. Discuss and review the report with the person being evaluated [Provost]

20. Review the report and respond to the Provost if desired, within a period of two weeks [Person being reviewed]

21. Take appropriate action [Provost]

22. Inform university community as appropriate [Provost]

8/28/01 [proposed changes in bold, 3/4/02, by ad hoc committee of Robert Kennedy, Douglas Gelinas, Larryl Matthews, Robert Rice and John Maddaus]

Note: This process calls for a change in contract length from 5 years to 4 years, as well as a less extensive review in the second year of the contract, and meetings between the Provost and the person being reviewed in the first and third years.

Reviewed by Provost’s Council 4/10/02 — see additions in green [sic]. 4/29/02

Fifth-year review of Administrators reporting to the President

The following procedures will apply to administrators reporting to the president, applicable in the fifth year of each administrator’s current appointment, or in the fifth-year since the administrator was last reviewed, whichever is the later date.

1. The administrator will be notified of the review and informed of the process. 2. A date will be established for the president to receive the review committee’s report. 3. The campus community will be informed that the review is scheduled. 4. A review committee and chair will be appointed by the president, consisting of 5 to 9 members, at least one of whom shall be a faculty member appointed from a slate of candidates supplied by the Faculty Senate. It will be chaired by a person of equal or greater rank than the reviewee. 5. At the president’s discretion, an external consultant may be engaged to take part in the review. 6. The committee will establish and carry out its schedule, including: a. Committee meetings b. Initial meeting with the reviewee c. Interviews with stakeholders identified by the committee in consultation with the reviewee d. Other meetings as necessary 7. The committee will request that the reviewee prepare and submit a self-evaluation. 8. The committee will collect responses to a stakeholder questionnaire. 9. The committee will review and analyze all responses, along with materials submitted by the reviewee, and submit a comprehensive report to the president. 10. The president will share the report with the reviewee and take it into account when considering the continued employment, compensation, and other relevant personnel actions regarding the reviewee.

Moved: Bob Rice. Seconded: Christa Schwintzer.


[Representative for the professional employees] Any discussion on developing standardized questionnaire form used for each evaluation?

[Bob Rice] No; there is a suggested form, but since the role is different, will probably be customized.

[Rep.] Will that allow a fair evaluation? E.g., there is the same basic job description for Deans.

[Provost Kennedy] Item 9 of procedure refers to the review questionnaire. They do have a standardized questionnaire that was reviewed by the Margaret Chase Smith center. It does allow for the form to be tweaked if there are different duties. So the answer, he thinks, is that there is a standardized form.

[Rep.] But isn’t it up to committee members as to which questions will be used for any particular dean?

[Kennedy] Yes, but in the past, the questions are run past the person being reviewed.


Paul Creasman: Motion to amend to add one student representative to committee, added by the Student Government Incorporated Executive Body. Second by Sarah Knight.

[Owen Smith to Provost Kennedy] What is your feeling about this?

[Kennedy] We tried to standardize this for all deans and directors, and not all directors have the same student input. If the Faculty Senate passes this, Provost’s Council has accepted this, but it would also be run past System Counsel – and there could be personnel issues with respect to this amendment. The Counsel takes a very conservative view.

[Pres. Hoff] Would Mr. Creasman also incorporate same procedure to the P&T committees?

[Creasman] Not a bad idea to do it, but nominee would have to be involved within the department.

[Bob Rice to Kennedy] Don’t these committees require a great time commitment?

[Kennedy] Yes, and there are three to five a year. Student involvement is already included at a fairly substantial level


For: 11; Against: 25 against. Abstain: 4. Amendment fails.

Creasman: moved for a roll call vote.

Was told that that requires 25% present to have roll call; only 2 were in favor. Call fails.


Kim McKeage: Change Kim McKeage: 8C to read “Interviews with appropriate stakeholders, especially students”. Second by McClymer.


Creasman thanked her.


Peter Hoff: substitute “including” for “especially”. Second: Jim Warhola.


Virtually unanimous.


38 in favor, none abstaining, 3 abstentions. Amendment passed.


McClymer points out that AFUM’s position was that old version had no legal problems. AFUM is in favor of current one, too.


36 in favor, none opposed, 3 abstentions. Amended motion approved.



Whereas interdisciplinary endeavors in teaching, research, and service continue to grow in significance in post-secondary education, and

Whereas the Strategic Plan of the University of Maine places particularly strong emphasis on the further development of interdisciplinary endeavors at the University of Maine, and

Whereas the Faculty Senate anticipates both the expansion of interdisciplinary endeavors, and an increasing role of the Faculty Senate in the encouragement and development of those endeavors,


Be it moved that the Faculty Senate re-authorize the Interdisciplinary Studies Committee to continue as an Ad Hoc Committee of the Faculty Senate for academic year 2002 – 2003.

Bob Rice moved, Dan Sandweiss seconded.


34 in favor, none opposed, 2 abstentions. Motion is approved.



The Interdisciplinary Studies Committee of the Faculty Senate has worked with the Provost and the Graduate School Director in developing a set of guidelines for the establishment of interdisciplinary endeavors at the University of Maine. The committee’s work has been guided by the charge given to the committee to encourage the development of interdisciplinary initiatives at the University of Maine, by the Strategic Plan’s considerable emphasis devoted to the expansion of interdisciplinary endeavors, and by the fact that no cross-College guidelines currently are in place to facilitate the establishment of such endeavors. The proposed Guidelines have been specifically crafted to allow a sufficient degree of flexibility in the conception and implementation of a broad array of interdisciplinary endeavors, yet also provide a framework within which the interests of all participants are safeguarded.


Whereas an expansion of interdisciplinary endeavors in teaching, research, and service are acknowledged by the Faculty Senate and the Office of the Provost to be of increasing significance for the academic vitality of the University of Maine, and

Whereas the Strategic Plan of the University of Maine specifically calls in numerous places for the further development of interdisciplinary endeavors, and

Whereas the Faculty Senate considers its role in the encouragement and development of interdisciplinary endeavors to be fully consistent with the Senate’s mission,

Be it moved that the document below, “General Guidelines for the Development of Interdisciplinary Faculty Groups at the University of Maine” be recommended for approval by the University of Maine administration.

General Guidelines for the Development of Interdisciplinary Faculty Groups at the University of Maine

Interdisciplinary groups are self-governing faculty bodies in which membership is based on scholarly interest in a particular field or discipline, regardless of departmental affiliation. These guidelines are intended to apply to interdisciplinary groups that involve faculty and resources from more than one College.

An interdisciplinary group may be formed by an ad hoc committee of the faculty or by a steering committee appointed by the Executive Vice President and Provost. Faculty membership in interdisciplinary groups is voluntary unless a joint-appointment was part of the faculty member’s initial appointment to the University of Maine. Workload reassignments, joint evaluation procedures, and compensation for the faculty member and/or home departments of faculty members joining interdisciplinary groups may be subject to renegotiation at the time the faculty member joins the interdisciplinary group. All changes must be approved by the home department, the Dean of the home College, and the Provost. If a joint appointment between a department and an interdisciplinary group is part of a faculty member’s job description when they are hired, then such negotiations should take place at the time of appointment.

Group members shall adopt bylaws that are subject to review and approval by the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs and/or the Graduate School depending on the nature and purpose of the group. An Executive Committee selected from the group’s membership shall oversee the administration of the program. The Executive Committee shall nominate members to serve on various standing committees for the group (e.g. Curriculum Committee, Membership Committee).

Interdisciplinary faculty groups may develop undergraduate programs, graduate programs, or both. With the exception of new concentrations offered under the existing Interdisciplinary Doctor of Philosophy program, a program proposed by a new interdisciplinary group is subject to the same review and approval process, both campus and system-wide, as a program proposed by a department. Existing group programs are also subject to the same review process as departmentally based programs to assure that program quality is maintained or improved. Groups may or may not formally sponsor courses, but do not receive support for the direct expenses of instruction. Instructional support for the group program shall be supplied by the department or departments providing the instructors. Departments receive workload credit for group course offerings just as for any other course.

Establishment of Interdisciplinary Graduate Faculty Groups

In accordance with the appointment of Graduate Faculty at the University of Maine as outlined in the Constitution, the Graduate School may establish interdisciplinary groups of the Graduate Faculty. Each interdisciplinary group must develop its own bylaws describing the purpose of the group, the graduate degree program(s) to be offered by the faculty, and the governance processes to be implemented. The faculty bylaws shall be reviewed by the Graduate Board, and upon approval of the Board, the interdisciplinary graduate group will be recognized by the Graduate School.

Interdisciplinary graduate faculty groups may develop new graduate certificate programs, master’s degree programs, or doctoral programs or may develop concentrations within the existing Interdisciplinary Doctor of Philosophy program. Such programs will be reviewed by the Graduate Board periodically to ensure that they are meeting their stated goals. With the recommendation of the Graduate Board, the Executive Vice President and Provost may terminate any concentration offered under the Interdisciplinary Doctor of Philosophy program.

Moved by Dan Sandweiss, seconded by Bob Rice.


[Owen Smith] In principle, great idea, but he is wondering what are the potential budgetary implications, potential implications to degree programs, etc.

[Jim Warhola] Some faculty envision that some interdisciplinary aspect would put faculty in stronger position to seek external funds, so they don’t view it as zero-sum game. No guarantee that funding would be sought, but hard to imagine that.

[Dan Sandweiss] They did consider this. This is why provision for negotiating workload was added, so that these concerns could be considered.

[Warhola] Expressed appreciation for collegial manner in which they were able to work with Delcourt and Kennedy.


34 in favor, none opposed, 1 abstention. Motion approved.

D) Motion for a vote: TO CONTINUE WINTER TERM IN 2003


The following letter was received from Robert Kennedy, addressed to Peter S. Hoff, with copies to the Provost’s Council and Faculty Senate:

This is to request your approval of the unanimous decision made by the Provost’s Council at its February meeting to discontinue the Winter/January Session.

Several deans pointed out that the between-semester session pulls enrollments out of spring and May Term courses and the enrollment in winter session has been going down. This would save on administrative time and expenses as well.

Elimination of the January inter-session would allow adjustments to be made in the spring semester academic calendar as well. Commencement could be held earlier and May Term could be completed entirely within the month of May since it would begin earlier. This, in turn, provides one of the most logical reasons to terminate Winter Session, namely, the “jump on the market” that it would provide to our graduates for summer employment.

If you support this recommendation, please inform the Faculty Senate.

I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Winter Term 2003 classes have already been announced to students and faculty in the Schedule of Classes for Fall 2002 and Spring 2003. Some students have been advised to take such classes, and may even be planning to take Winter Term classes as a means to completing course requirements for graduation in May 2003.


The Senate votes to continue Winter Term for January 2003.

Moved by Kim McKeage, seconded by Darlene Bay.


[Paul Creasman] This was posed to Student Senate last night and received a unanimous vote to continue. Nearly half of the senators had taken advantage of this, and considered it important for meeting the “4-year guarantee”.

[Dick Cook] Could we hear from Bob White about this?

[Bob White] Deferred to Kennedy.

[Provost Kennedy] This question came up last spring semester. Provost Council considered this, since there are budgetary considerations. These were as much as anything the driving force for the decision to try to get rid of it.

[Bob White] Winter Session was created as retention tool in 96–97. It started with 30 courses, 288 students. The high has been 45 courses, with 745 students, in 2001. As this increased, there was a decrease in May Term. In the past year dropped from 45 to 29, and enrollment dropped 14%, too. This represents about 1% of total activity [of CED?]. They looked at courses being mounted for FY ’03 (Winter Term ’03): 23 courses, and of these, 18 (78%) are going to be offered in fall, spring, and summer session. So given enrollment trends and percentage of the total contribution, they considered this as part of their part of the reallocation of the budget. The thinking was that the students who were counting on winter term would be able to shift to summer and other terms. He thinks it’s prudent in terms of the reallocation of resources they were asked to make.

[Bob Rice] He understands that Winter Term schedule for next year has already been published?

[Bob White] What is published is a preliminary schedule – we all know that there is a great deal of changes made.

[Rice] But for planning purposes, they are listed at this point?

[White] [Indicated agreement] Data does not include Hutchinson Center.

[President Hoff] Asked for clarification from student representative: If the student government were presented with a choice of either maintaining winter session or going to a calendar that got students out earlier in Spring – any sense of which way they’d go?

[Creasman] He talked to some senators about that. Companies seem to wait about a month after graduation.

[Hoff] Just to be clear, he was thinking of summer employment.

[Creasman] Didn’t address that.

[Kim McKeage] There was a lot of discussion last meeting that this came at exactly wrong time for advisors. Even though courses in winter are tentative, so are the ones for spring, and they have to think of that when registering, too. Currently we have students planning to graduate in winter ’03 who’ll be all messed up if this happens. Also, sounds like a one-year dip, and there may be several things that could have contributed to this: 9/11, or first year with year-long catalog, and students had a lot of trouble finding the winter term courses. In the business school, students have to plan out a year at a time and submit at the time of advising.

[Kathleen March] Asked for clarification about Bob’s statistics. About a 50% drop, but a 14% drop in number of students. So average number of students/class is better.

[White] He was not saying it’s not working, necessarily, since it has been opportunity for students to expedite their graduation. They were looking at cuts that would least impact their operation, and there are courses that are offered at other times.

[Creasman] When students are being recruited, winter and May term are both touted as ways of shortening the time till graduation.

[Warhola] Called the question.

Need 2/3 majority to close off debate: for 32, 4 against.


In favor: 26; opposed: 5; abstentions: 5. Motion passes.



The Faculty Senate adopted the Seven Year Rotating Calendar (see below) in April, 1992. According to that calendar, the Spring semester began no earlier than Monday, January 11th, and no later than January 17th. In years in which January 15, 16, or 17 fall on a Monday, the 1992 calendar called for classes to begin on those dates. The introduction of Winter Term was accompanied by a one-week delay in the start of Spring semester. In those years in which the Spring semester was scheduled to begin on the third Monday of January, the introduction of Martin Luther King Jr. Day (the third Monday in January) as a university holiday, caused a further delay in the start of Spring semester to the Tuesday of the same week.

The University academic calendar for 2002-2003 has been published in the graduate and undergraduate catalogs for 2001-2002, which are widely available. That calendar shows that the Spring semester will begin on the Tuesday following the third Monday in January 2003 (i.e., January 21). Some members of the University community may already have made plans for January 2003 and for Spring Semester 2003 based on those catalogs. Maintaining the calendar as published would avoid confusion and the possibility of having to change plans already made.


The Senate votes to begin the Spring Semester 2003 on the Tuesday following the third Monday in January 2003 (i.e., January 21).

ADDENDUM: Seven Year Rotating Calendar Approved by Faculty Senate 4/1992 Changes since then are in red and italic [sic]. April 19, 2002

When Labor Day is September 1:

Fall semester (2003, 2008, 2014) Classes begin Tuesday, September 2 Fall break Monday and Tuesday, October 13-14 Thanksgiving Break Begins Wednesday, November 26 Classes end Friday December 12 Final exams December 15-19 (5 days) Spring semester (2004, 2009, 2015) Classes begin Monday, January 12 No classes on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, January 19 7 weeks of classes 2 week spring break 7 weeks of classes Maine Day penultimate Wednesday (approved through 2006) 1 week of final exams

When Labor Day is September 2:

Fall semester (2002, 2013) Classes begin Tuesday, September 3 Fall break Monday and Tuesday, October 14-15 Thanksgiving Break Begins Wednesday, November 27 Classes end Friday, December 13 Final exams December 16-20 (5 days) Spring semester (2014) Classes begin Monday, January 13 No classes on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, January 20 (Same as spring semester above)

When Labor Day is September 3:

Fall semester (2007, 2012) Classes begin Tuesday, September 4 Fall break Monday and Tuesday, October 8-9 Thanksgiving Break Begins Wednesday, November 21 Classes end Friday, December 14 Final exams December 17-21 (5 days) Spring semester (2008, 2013) Classes begin Monday, January 14 No classes on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, January 21 (Same as spring semester above) When Labor Day is September 4:

Fall semester (2006, 2012) Classes begin Tuesday, September 5 Fall break Monday and Tuesday, October 9-10 Thanksgiving Break Begins Wednesday, November 22 Classes end Friday, December 15 Final exams December 18-22 (5 days) Spring semester (2007, 2013) Classes begin Tuesday, January 16 Martin Luther King, Jr., Day (Same as spring semester above)

When Labor Day is September 5:

Fall semester (2005, 2011) Classes begin Tuesday, September 6 Fall break Monday and Tuesday, October 10-11 Thanksgiving Break Begins Wednesday, November 23 Classes end Friday December 16 Final exams December 19-22/23 (4/5 days) new exam format requires 5 days Spring semester (2006, 2012) Classes begin Tuesday, January 17 Martin Luther King, Jr., Day (Same as spring semester above)

When Labor Day is September 6:

Fall semester (2004, 2010) Classes begin Tuesday, September 7 or [Monday, August 30] Fall break Monday and Tuesday, October 11-12 Thanksgiving Break Begins Wednesday, November 24 Classes end Friday December 16 [10] Final exams December 20-23/24 (4/5 days) [13-17 5 days] new exam format requires 5 days Spring semester (2005, 2011) Classes begin Tuesday, January 18 Martin Luther King, Jr., Day (Same as spring semester above)

When Labor Day is September 7:

Fall semester (2009, 2015) Classes begin Monday, August 31 No Classes on Labor Day, Monday September 7 Fall break Monday and Tuesday, October 12-13 Thanksgiving Break Begins Wednesday, November 25 Classes end Friday December 11 Final exams December 14-18 (5 days) Spring semester (2010, 2016) Classes begin Monday, January 11 No classes on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, January 18 (Same as spring semester above)

Moved by Bob Rice. Seconded by Tom Brann.


[Creasman] Was concerned about Labor Day information.

[John Maddaus] That is not part of motion.

[Keith Hutchison] Could have chaos if this doesn’t pass, given the one we just passed.

[Rice Eason] If this passes, calendar will come up in October, so it will come up again.

[Dick Cook] If this passes – when will semester start?

[Maddaus] As published, Jan. 21.

[Kathleen March] Isn’t this moot, since the only reason we brought this up was because the calendar and winter term are separate?

[Jim McClymer] Called the question.


:32 in favor, none opposed, 3 abstentions. Motion approved.

F) Motion for a Vote: AMEND THE FACULTY SENATE BY-LAWS TO CREATE A SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO BE CALLED THE GENERAL EDUCATION OUTCOMES COMMITTEE – submitted by the General Education Review Committee; as required in the By-laws, this motion was included on the agenda of the full Senate meeting of March 27, for information only, referred to the Constitution and By-laws Committee for its recommendation (which follows); and included on the agenda of the full Senate meeting of April 24, for information only.


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, are 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.


April 22, 2002

Dr. John Maddaus, President Faculty Senate 104 Shibles Hall Campus

Dear John,

As required by the By-laws to the Constitution of the Faculty Senate, the Constitution and By-laws Committee met to discuss the proposed motion to modify the By-laws and incorporate a Special Committee of the Senate charged with general education outcomes assessment.

The Committee met and reviewed the history of the General Education Review Committee, discussed the mandate of NEASC and developed a recommendation regarding the proposed motion. Although outcomes assessment must be done, we believe that the motion should not pass and that the function should remain with the Academic Affairs Committee. The vote against the proposed amendment was unanimous. Sincerely,

R. W. Rice President-Elect Chair, Constitution and By-laws Cmte

Moved by Roger King, seconded by Owen Smith.


[Bob Rice] The reason that this came before C&BL committee was that it modifies the Constitution. They looked at history of this. It was a mandate from the accrediting body. They recommend that the motion not be approved, and that an ad hoc committee under Academic Affairs take care of this. In either case, you have a committee looking at this. Both of the next two presidents [of the Senate] have committed to continue the work of committee, and within 2 years, the report is needed in any case.

[Owen Smith] History: This came out of the existing apparatus because existing system was unable to deal with the issues – committee structure of Senate couldn’t deal with this along with other ongoing concerns. So saying we can put it back is not recognizing the reality that this is a major issue, and it should be given that status. On a general level, general education is a fundamental part of what we do, and we should recognize this by having ongoing committee. The way to recognize this is to have special committee to deal with it.

[Paul Creasman] This was brought before student Senate last night, and it passed with one abstention. It is one of the most important aspects for students, and it would show the accrediting body the progress we’ve made. It would prevent it from being subsumed back into Academic Affairs.

[Jim McClymer] He was probably was the most favorably inclined of C&BT, but… Academic Affairs is totally under the control of the Senate, and no one is suggesting it be pushed under the table.

[Owen] He didn’t intend to state that it would be pushed under the rug. He hopes that if it remains under Academic Affairs, hopes with all his heart that they can deal with it.

[Rice] Not the Academic Affairs Committee, but one much like the proposed one that reports to that committee.

[McClymer] Why should the director of Honors College be concerned? He [McClymer] has real questions about make-up of committee.

[Smith] Specified in this way so that if Honors College comes into existence, it doesn’t fall into the cracks.

[Christa] Moved to cut off debate.

30 approved, 1 opposed, no abstentions


In favor: 6, opposed: 22; abstentions: 5. Motion fails.



The General Education Review Committee, an ad hoc committee of Faculty Senate, has developed an alternative model for general education requirements at the University of Maine. This model includes requirements in five areas: communication, critical thinking, cultures, connections, and community (see attached document for definitions, rationales and goals for each requirement). This alternative model represents a significant departure from existing general education requirements at the University of Maine. Therefore, the General Education Review Committee proposes a pilot project to provide an opportunity to carefully implement and assess the alternative model and provide the data needed to determine whether such an alternative is viable at the University of Maine. No more than 100 students will be recruited for the pilot project from the Class of 2007, representing a campus-wide cross-section of students in that class at the University of Maine.


The Senate authorizes a pilot project to implement and evaluate an alternative model for satisfying general education requirements at the University of Maine. This model will consist of requirements in the areas of communication, critical thinking, cultures, connections, and community. No more than 100 students in the Class of 2007 may participate in the alternative model. Volunteers will be accepted into the alternative general education pilot program, representing a campus-wide cross-section of students, and subject to the availability of advisers in their majors willing to supervise their general education requirements. The ad hoc General Education Review Committee is renamed the General Education Pilot Project Committee, and is authorized to conduct the pilot project over a period of five years, ending June 30, 2007. The General Education Pilot Project Committee shall develop outcome statements and assessment procedures, and submit these to the General Education Outcomes Committee for its approval. The General Education Pilot Project Committee shall submit a report to the Senate in Spring 2003 containing its implementation plan, and shall report to the Senate annually thereafter on the progress of the pilot project.

Moved by Paul Creasman, seconded by Kim McKeage.


[Creasman] Again, strongly passed by over 3/4 of student senate. What’s the worst-case scenario? A hundred students get personalized/different education.

[Bill Farthing] Why limit to 100 students? Not a very big number. He thinks we should increase the number.


[Farthing] Proposed that we “allow up to 250 students, and let committee decide how many we need”.


In favor: 9, opposed 13. Amendment fails.

[McClymer] Committee has worked on this for a number of years. It asks that we authorize project we don’t understand.

[Tom Brann] Voiced concern that voluntary participation (students and advisors) would bias sample. Favorable or unfavorable, data would be biased.

[Mike Howard] Voiced concern about ethical and maybe legal issues for making it mandatory. His main concern – he went to one of the public forums on this, and seemed that sentiment was that the 5 Cs were not a coherent set of requirements.

[Rice] Call question. (23 in favor, 3 opposed)


In favor: 10. Opposed 16. Abstentions: 3. Motion fails.

H) Proposed Policy for a vote: PEER COMMITTEES FOR JOINT APPOINTMENTS – Submitted by Peter Hoff and Robert Kennedy (distributed at the full Senate meeting on 2/27/02, and previously discussed by Elected Members Committee on 3/6/02 and 4/10/02; sentence in bold added prior to April 24th Senate meeting) – Motion as tabled on 4/24 – Revision requested but not yet received.

All tenure-track faculty with joint appointments must have a home with an academic department. For tenure and promotion of research faculty, joint peer committees consisting of peers from the research unit and the home academic department need to be appointed by the academic department chair in consultation with the center director. No less than 50% of the joint committee shall be from the academic department. The peer committee makes its report to the department chair and the director of the research unit. The director forwards his/her recommendation to the Vice President for research. The department chair forwards his/her recommendation to the dean. In turn, the Dean and the Vice President for Research send their recommendations to the Executive Price President/Provost. After review and discussion by the Administrative Promotion and Tenure Review Committee, the EVP/Provost forwards his/her recommendation to the President for action.

[see old business]

VI. Old Business

Tabled motion from last time: Provost Kennedy didn’t have time to revise it for this meeting.

VII. Adjournment

Meeting was adjourned at 5:20pm.


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
The University of Maine
Orono, Maine 04469