2002-2003 - April 16, 2003
Faculty Senate Minutes
April 16, 2003
PRESENT: Peggy Agouris, David Batuski, Darlene Bay, Thomas Brann, Phyllis Brazee, Martha Broderick, Kathrine Carter, Robert Cashon, Thomas Christensen, Laura Cowan, Eugene Del Vecchio, Richard Eason, Ed Ferguson, Todd Gabe, Gail Garthwait, Michael Grillo, Paul Grosswiler, Ludlow Hallman, Don Hayes, Marie Hayes, Dianne Hoff, Peter Hoff, Jim Horan, Mike Howard, Jim McConnon for John Jemison, Melvin Johnson, Joseph Kelley, Robert Kennedy, Carol Kim, Dennis King, Roger King, Dorothy Klimis-Zacas, David Lambert, Jenny Londot, Ngo Vinh Long, Daniel Lux, John Maddaus, Kathleen March, Larryl Matthews, Jim McClymer, Kim McKeage, Charles Moody, Howard Patterson, Bryan Pearce, Judith Rhymer, Robert Rice, Matthew Rodrigue, Linda Rottmann, Douglas Ruthven, Thomas Sandford, Christa Schwintzer, Bruce Segee, Phillip Silver, Mary Ellen Symanski, Stylianos Tavantzis, Jim Warhola, Gregory White, Dave Yarborough
ABSENT: Jim Acheson, Eisso Atzema, Robert Causey, Alla Gamarnik, Sandy Gardner, Michael Greenwood, Dana Humphrey, Irv Kornfield, Bjorn Lake, Stephen Marks, Michael McCauley, Martha McNamara, Jane Smith, Andrew Thomas, Ken Tudor, Roy Turner, Bob Whelan
I. Welcome and Sign in
The meeting was called to order at 3:15
II. Approval of Minutes from the March 26, 2003 meeting
Christa Schwintzer moved and Howard Patterson seconded. The minutes as amended were unanimously approved.
III. Announcements of the Senate President
Admissions as of April 11 are down 3% from last year. There are a total of 918 confirmed first year students. Of that amount, 758 are instate. Out of state confirmed are down by 14%.
IV. Questions to Administrators
Bryan Pearce asked Janet Waldron for an update on the budget. The system needs to come up with $3 million to return to the state in order to close the fiscal year. The system is hoping to find this amount without causing any impact on the campuses. The University of Maine will have a $1.3 million budget shortage for next year. Tentative amounts have been allocated to the areas with the request that they inform the administration how they would save that amount. There will be public meetings on the budget during the last week of April.
Jim Horan asked if the $3 million relates to the supplemental budget. There is an overall general fund shortfall for the state of $48 million. Horan asked why USM received $2.5 million more than flat funding. President Hoff stated it might only be $1 million.
Thomas Brann stated that in 27 years he has seen the grounds look bad, but that now they are better. However, Facilities Management should not allow its vehicles to drive on the walkways, breaking up the blacktop. Janet Waldron replied that she would have a conversation with Facilities about that.
Bryan Pearce relayed a comment from one of his constituents: three dorms have been converted into administrative offices, while we have less administrators. This is just one example of a potential faculty versus administration issue. It could be solved with more transparent budgeting. President Hoff responded that he is always trying to improve communication. He also noted that not all administrative offices are occupied by administrators. Some are occupied by professionals. Pearce suggested that the information should be made public and Hoff replied AMEN.
V. Committee reports
A. Academic Affairs – Howard Patterson
The Change of Major Motion, while it may have met some resistance from administrators, has been strongly supported by students and faculty.
B. Research and Public Service – David Batuski
The committee will be meeting with Jake Ward to discuss the Office of Sponsored Programs and will have a report next meeting.
C. Finance and Institutional Planning – Christa Schwintzer
The committee will be bringing forward a motion regarding making the UMaine campus an arboretum. This will give our landscaping a standing of their own to promote their preservation. The committee met with Anita Wihry regarding the building-cleanliness issue. There was an exchange of information. President Hoff stated that he would welcome a clause in the upcoming motion requiring the planting of three trees for every one removed.
D. University Environment – Michael Grillo
The committee is bringing three motions today. In addition Marie Hayes provided an update on the workload formula committee. The committee has spent many hours reviewing the relevant literature and talking to Doug Gelinas. One point of discussion is quadrennial reviews that could lead to improvements in base salary. These would be individual reviews rather than acceptance of a unit. Departments should begin to decide which criteria they believe are relevant for their particular needs to be included in the workload rubric. For example, the Psychology department has developed a rubric including mentoring and working with honors students. A new book has been published on the subject of workload formulas and how other institutions use them.
E. Committee On Committee – Carol Kim
A volunteer is needed to serve on the committee working with the new PeopleSoft software. The committee meets from 8 to 9 every Friday and is associated with Doug Gelinas’ office. The Chair of the Committee for next academic year is Jim Acheson (LAS). Other members will be Gail Garthwait (EHD), Tom Christensen (ENG), Jim Horan (BPPH) and Mike Greenwood (NSFA).
F. Constitution and By-laws – Bryan Pearce
A motion is being brought forward today.
G. Board of Trustees Representative – Dana Humphrey
Dana Humphrey was not here.
H. Library Advisory Committee – Dianne Hoff
The committee continues attempts to protect the library, particularly collections. The library has received some grants. Two new databases—Encompass and Lexus/Nexus have been acquired. Jeff Mills has gotten gifts from alumni from class reunions enough to repair the library steps. President Hoff noted that the bid for the steps has been out, but last time all bids were too high.
I. Interdisciplinary Programs – Jim Warhola
The committee is bringing forward a motion today. Also, a list of interdisciplinary programs on campus will be included in both the graduate and undergraduate catalogs.
VI. Old Business
No old business
VII. New Business
Motion: Reauthorization Of The Interdisciplinary Studies Committee For The Academic Year 2003–2004 As An Ad Hoc Committee Of The Faculty Senate
Whereas interdisciplinary endeavors in teaching, research, and service have become an integral aspect of the University of Maine’s activity in all three stated missions of teaching, research, and public service, and
Whereas the current 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 and welcomes an expansion of interdisciplinary endeavors at the University of Maine, and
Whereas the Faculty Senate foresees an increasing role for itself in the encouragement, guidance, 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 2003 – 2004, and
Be it further moved that the Faculty Senate recommends that the incoming Faculty Senate for academic year 2003-2004 take the necessary steps to change status of the Interdisciplinary Studies Committee to a Standing Committee of the Faculty Senate.
Phyllis Brazee moved and John Maddaus seconded. Martha Broderick suggested that the two parts of the motion be decoupled. The second part of the motion was thus deleted and left to be enacted by next year’s faculty senate. The motion, as amended passed unanimously.
Motion to Reauthorize the Workload Evaluation Committee
Over this year, the Administration has begun to examine workloads across the campus. The Faculty Senate, after raising several issues about the needs for, the means of conducting, the means of evaluating the outcomes of, the legal ramifications of, and the consistency across different campus units of such an analysis, asked that the Administration work with the Faculty by authorizing a Workload Evaluation Committee. This faculty committee has been recently organized and just begun to undertake its work.
The Faculty Senate reauthorizes the Workload Evaluation Committee for continuation through the coming 2003-2004 academic year, so that they may continue in their exploration of workload issues with the Administration and prescribe implementations of their well-reasoned findings.
Michael Grillo moved and Thomas Brann seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
Motion to Adopt the Faculty Handbook dated April 2003
The last version of the Faculty Handbook, that the Constitution and Bylaws Committee(C&BLC) could find, was published in July 1983. Those of youon the faculty then who can still remember anything, might recall that this is about the same time as the beginning of AFUM. Thus, for all practical purposes, the collective bargaining agreement became the Faculty Handbook. And, for all practical purposes, it is still the de facto handbook. Presumably, that is why no one bothered to update the handbook for twenty years. We will not ask the question, “Why, after twenty years, do we suddenly need a handbook”?
The New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEAS&C) is the university’s accrediting body and section 5.10 of their Standards for Accreditation state:
“In a faculty handbook or in other written documents that are current and readily available, the institution clearly defines the responsibilities of faculty and the criteria for their recruitment, appointment, evaluation, and promotion. Such policies are equitable and compatible with the mission and purposes of the institution; they provide for the fair redress of grievances, and they are consistently applied and periodically reviewed.”
The issues described in section 5.10 by NEAS&C are largely covered by the AFUM collective bargaining agreement. Nevertheless, the C&BLC has undertaken to prepare a Faculty Handbook that will provide useful information to the faculty, primarily new faculty members. Whenever a topic, such as grievances, is either not covered in or is in conflict with the collective bargaining agreement, the new faculty handbook defers in a disclaimer.
The handbook is intended as a “living” electronic document. The C&BLC will be charged with updating the handbook on a once-per-semester basis. Minor changes such as typos or updating URL’s will be made on an ad hoc basis whereas substantive changes will be brought to the attention of the senate. The handbook will be placed on the University Policy Website.
The handbook in question is the version labeled, “Faculty handbookFinal_2.pdf”, which has been distributed, via email, to all senate members labeled.
The faculty senate adopts as a Faculty Handbook the document “Faculty handbookFinal_2.pdf” that has been distributed to all facultysenate members. This handbook will be a “living” electronic document and is intended to be a useful reference for faculty members. The Constitution and Bylaws Committee will be charged with updating the handbook on a once-per-semester basis. Minor changes such as typos or updating URL’s will be made on an ad hoc basiswhereas substantive changes will be brought to the attention of the senate. The handbook will be placed on the University Policy Website.
This handbook is not intended to replace the AFUM collective bargaining agreement. Furthermore, it is the understanding of all involved that the AFUM collective bargaining agreement takes precedence whenever a topic is either not covered in or is in conflict with the new faculty handbook.
Jim Horan moved and Jim McClymer seconded. It was noted that this motion may require that the constitution be updated to reflect the new responsibility of the Constitution and Bylaws Committee. Jim Horan stressed that the collective bargaining agreement and the handbook are two different documents. The motion passed with 48 for and 1 abstention.
Motion on University of Maine Conflict of Interest Policy
Kassie Stevens Walker’s memo of 13 March, 2003, to all employees of the University on the University’s Conflict of Interest Policy has occasioned concern that, unless clarified, it will have a chilling effect on freedom of speech of University employees.
The Faculty Senate asks the President to reaffirm the University’s academic freedom and free speech policies as articulated in the Faculty Handbook and in the rules governing electronic communication, and to concur that the conflict of interest memo of 13 March, 2003, is not intended to restrict use of electronic media for non-commercial communications or expression of opinion, on or off campus, and that all members of the University community are encouraged to continue to engage in free, public expression of their views on any subject, in electronic and other media, consistent with Article 2 of the AFUM contract.*
*Unit members as citizens are entitled to the rights of citizenship in their roles as citizens. Because of their special status in the community, unit members have a responsibility and an obligation to indicate when expressing personal opinions that they are not institutional representatives unless specifically authorized as such.
Mike Howard moved and Roger King seconded. Mike Howard stressed that it needs to be made clear that the University administration has no intention of restricting freedom or speech and expression of the faculty and staff as citizens. The motion passed unanimously.
Motion: Administrative Training for the Faculty
Established in their long-term commitment to the University, the faculty offer a deep, historical knowledge of the University’s strengths and potentials for improvement. To promote greater institutional continuity and stability, the University of Maine should offer the opportunity to prepare interested faculty members for positions in its administration.
The Faculty Senate asks that the Administration establish a program that will prepare interested faculty members for current and envisioned administrative positions. To this end, the University should establish a committee of faculty members and administrators who would design an effective training program, select recommended or self-nominated faculty members interested in administrative training, place them in appropriate programs and internships, and monitor the success of their training. In preparation for establishing a formal program for training faculty members for administrative roles, this committee first should survey the diverse models for training faculty members in administrative roles that several of our colleges and other units currently offer, and also look to models at other institutions. The committee should promote its program actively, so that the faculty can stay apprised of the opportunities it offers.
Faculty members most typically enter into an administrative capacity as department chairperson, so the dedicated committee should devote attention specifically to their preparation for this important role. The new committee should also focus on developing faculty members for other leadership positions, for instance, for chairs of committees such as the UPCC and the colleges’ Academic Councils. As the Administration anticipates other positions opening up, either extant or new ones, it should notify the committee so that they can contact appropriately trained candidates from the faculty of the opportunities.
Mary Ellen Symanski moved and Phyllis Brazee seconded. The intention of the motion is to provide the training to interested faculty that will allow them to move to administrative positions. The committee would identify and enlist faculty who are interested and work with the administration to help them develop necessary skills for an administrative position. Doug Ruthven was unclear about what is going to be done. Michael Grillo explained would be prepared for administrative positions before taking them on and before problems develop that need to be addressed on an ad hoc basis. In addition, there is currently no central clearinghouse keeping information about which faculty have administrative skills. This initiative would help put people into the administration that have a long-term commitment to and knowledge of the University. Doug Ruthven asked if everyone was to become an administrator.
Roger King asked if the committee would be serving a gatekeeper function to keep some people out of administration. Michael Grillo stated that it would rather serve as a lens to focus attention on faculty with administrative potential. Stellos Tavantzis asked what effect there would be on a department that is currently electing a new chair. Michael Grillo replied that it would provide the new chair with resources for meeting the new challenge. Christa Schwintzer asked who would do the training. Michael Grillo answered that the committee would look to see what is currently available, would review the national literature to see what has worked on other campuses and would lobby the administration for funding for appropriate programs.
John Maddaus stated that the motion is important and provides an opportunity for those who are interested. Bryan Pearce asked who would decide the participants and if some people who be put on the fast track. Michael Grillo stated that the intention was not to create stars, and that the means of determining who can participate given too much interest would have to be determined by the committee. Don Hayes noted that membership on the committee is rotating so no problem of unfair or limited opportunities would arise. Marie Hayes asked if individuals could self-nominate and was assured they could. Kathleen March asked if this was a mentoring program or an attempt to make the administration aware of interested faculty. Michael replied that both were goals.
Kim McKeage suggested that the Center for Teaching Excellence could be used to provide workshops and mentors. Robert Kennedy stated that mentoring and faculty development were both excellent ideas. He does have some concerns about the committee: we need broader involvement across campus in nominating faculty for national and campus award. Michael Grillo replied that he would prefer not to have the purpose of the motion diluted. Robert Kennedy replied that the motion would not preclude such activities and Michael Grillo replied that it could even be a lever to encourage it. Stellos Tavantzis noted that activists are not always the best leaders, so taking volunteers might not be the best way to recruit potential administrators. Michael Grillo responded that the committee would work to find good people from whatever source.
The motion passed 22 for, 14 against and 10 abstentions.
VIII. Nominations and election of new Faculty Senate Vice President/President Elect,
Senate Secretary, and Committee on Committees.
Bryan Pearce has asked Stellos Tavantzis to be Secretary next year.
Nominations were opened for a vice president/president elect for next year. Dorothy Klimas-Zacas nominated Howard Patterson. Jim Horan moved that nominations cease. Howard was elected with 48 for and 2 abstentions.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:25.