Skip Navigation

2002-2003 - December 18, 2002

PRESENT:  Darlene Bay, Martha Broderick, Kathrine Carter, June Carter (for Linda Rottmann), Robert Cashon, Robert Causey, Thomas Christensen, Laura Cowan, Richard Eason, Todd Gabe, Alla Gamarnik, Sandy Gardner, Michael Greenwood, Michael Grillo, Ludlow Hallman, Don Hayes, Marie Hayes, Jim Horan, Mike Howard, Dana Humphrey, John Jemison, Mel Johnson, Robert Kennedy, Dennis King, Dorothy Klimis-Zacas, Peter Koons, , Bjorn Lake, John Maddaus, Kathleen March (for Dan Sandweiss), Shannon Martin, Larryl Matthews, Jim McClymer, Charles Moody, Raymond O’Connor, Howard Patterson, Bryan Pearce, Robert Rice, Matthew Rodrigues (for Scott Reynolds), Doug Ruthven, Thomas Sandford, Christa Schwintzer, Phillip Silver, Jane Smith, Bob Strong, Stylianos Tavantzis, Ken Tudor, Roy Turner, Kassie Stevens Walker (Presidents Office), Jim Warhola, Dave Yarborough.

ABSENT: Jim Acheson, Peggy Agouris, Eisso Atzema, David Batuski, Doug Bousfield, Thomas Brann, Phyllis Brazee, Eugene Del Vecchio, Ed Ferguson, Gail Garthwait, Dianne Hoff, Peter Hoff, Joseph Kelley, Carol Kim, Roger King, Irv Kornfield, David Lambert, Jenny Londot, Ngo Vinh Long, Daniel Lux, Stephen Marks, Mike McCauley, Martha McNamara, Bruce Segee, Mary Ellen Symanski, Andrew Thomas, Bob Whelan, Gregory White.

I.  Welcome and Signing in

The meeting was called to order at 3:10 .

II. Approval of minutes from the November 20 meeting

John Maddaus moved and Philip Silver seconded that the minutes be accepted.  The motion passed unanimously.

III. Memorial for Professor Vince Hartgen.

Michael Lewis read a memorial statement with the members of the senate standing.  Michael Grillo moved and Mike Howard seconded that the memorial be added to the record:

From the time that Vincent Hartgen arrived at the University ofMaine in 1946, it was quite clear that things were going to change.  “I was trying to create a revolution here,” he said later.  “I wanted to teach and encourage people to enjoy art, particularly modern art.”  To do that, Vincent founded the Department of Art as an academic unit, and nurtured its growth into a degree program offering opportunities in studio art, art history, and art education.  He also founded the University’s exhibition program, established and built an impressive permanent art collection, and continue painting and exhibiting his work on a regular basis at important venues across the United States .  It is amazing to look back on the scope of such an ambitious agenda and realize that it has been so fully and richly accomplished.

Vincent was a one-person art department for the first ten years of its existence.  He developed the curriculum and taught a full load of courses.  His teaching was legendary.  He was dramatic.  But, when his students talk about what they remember, drama isn’t the first thing that they mention.  They say things like…he helped me to understand and love art, he changed my life, he was a kind, generous, and thoughtful man, he made me feel that he cared about me as an individual.  What better testimony to his effectiveness as a teacher than the fact that some thirty to fifty years after having been in his class, students were still stopping by to see him, phoning, and vividly recalling the influences he had on their lives.

Vincent set a tone for the Art Department of high energy and high expectations.  Programs were supposed to grow so that they could better serve student needs.  This attitude was clearly communicated in 1966 when we became a four-person department with twelve majors, and it remains the attitude that underlies the vigorous twenty-person department that we have become today, with more than two-hundred majors.

Vincent established the importance of making the visual arts a part of the everyday life of the university community.  He ran an exhibition program in seven different galleries on campus…bringing the richness and excitement of different materials, different expressive styles, and different ideas to students, faculty, staff, and members of the local community.  For students it was both an opportunity to see expressive concepts put into action, and an opportunity to put the work that they themselves created on display as part of the education as artists.

Vincent also worked hard to extend interest beyond the galleries.  He saw the growing permanent collection as an essential resource and hung work from it in offices and public spaces on campus so that people would feel the influences of art every day.

Vincent also established a traveling exhibition program that sent packaged shows crisscrossing the State so that they could be exhibited in public schools, most of which had no formal galleries.  It was extremely time intensive work putting the art together and tracing the movement of boxes all year, but with the help of Ken Matthews, Margaret Russell, and student assistants, it was wildly successful.  Vincent commented often about how proud he was to be able to bring original art to places where people did not have the opportunity to see a lot of it.  He wanted to start to build awareness, even in very young children, about the many roles that art can play in our lives.

Vincent’s vision and confident ability to put ideas into action have built the solid foundation from which the Museum of Art and Department of Art exhibition programs flourish.

Throughout his life, in addition to all these other activities, Vincent created moving and sensitive works of art.  His commitment to the creative process as a way of intensifying and investigating his experience of nature and his own emotional and spiritual nature was absolute.  He loved the complex process by which idea and feeling are turned into visual poetry.  His love of this process never diminished.  He was still experimenting, still trying new things, still learning.

Vincent’s exhibition record is truly exemplary.  His work has been shown in major venues across the country…prestigious museums like the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, The Wadsworth Atheneum in Hartford, the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis, the Museum of Contemporary Art in Houston, the Phoenix Art Museum and many others.  His work has also been shown at important Maine venues such as the Portland Museum of Art, Colby College Museum of Art, the Farnsworth Museum, Maine Coast Artists Gallery, and others.  It is an enviable record of accomplishment.

It is probably not much of an exaggeration to say that Vincent did enough work and leaves a large enough legacy for three lifetimes.  He has given us so much and left us so much richer.  His contributions to the University of Maine , upon which we continue to build, and his remarkable paintings and drawings assure Vincent a lasting and honored place in our history.

IV. Announcements of the Senate President

·  The motion on changes to the academic calendar has been approved by President Hoff.

·  We are still awaiting responses to the motion on the solid waste minimization committee and the motion on interdisciplinary studies.

·        Kathleen March conveyed an invitation to attend the open house for the Center for                             Teaching Excellence immediately following the Faculty Senate meeting.

V.  Questions to the Administrators

Michael Grillo inquired about the search for the Associate Vice President for Personnel and Academic Services.  The search has been advertised only internally.  Is that legal?  Robert Kennedy replied that the matter has been run by both EEO and the system.

Jim Horan noted that many positions lately have been filled without a full search.  Why is the process not being followed?  Provost Kennedy replied that when there is a need to fill a position quickly, one must weight the cost of waiting against the additional talent to be gained by a national search.  There is a benefit to keeping the process moving.

Alla Gamarnik noted that in the case of spousal accommodations and opportunity hires an exception is made to a full search.  Howard Patterson wondered if qualified individuals are not skipped over if an incompletely advertised internal search is done.  Robert Kennedy replied that the position is open and has been publicized.  In addition, there will be faculty on the review committee.

Bob Rice asked about the status of the budget.  Mark Anderson replied that there have been no changes since last month.  We are still awaiting determination of an expected shortfall that may cost the University between $975,000 and $1.5 million.  Since the state may have deficits of between $40 and $45 million, other curtailments may come.  On January 10, the budget for fiscal year 04 will be presented.  The final budget is due in the system on March 28.  Salary and wage increases, state appropriations and health care costs are still unknown.  There is even more ambiguity than last year.

Bob Rice asked about potential program cuts.  Robert Kennedy replied that for fiscal year 02, the deans have received 100% of their budgets.  The allocations based on incentivized budgeting have been pared back, but the net effect has been an increase to academic units.  Thus, no program cuts should be necessary.

VI.    Committee Reports

A.     University Environment – Michael Grillo

The committee is bringing forward two motions today.

B.  Research and Public Service – Roy Turner

The committee has determined that overhead return to the system is capped at $707,000.  This money goes into the general fund.   With respect to the issues of the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs, KMPG has recently completed a consultation which did include a small amount of faculty input.  The conclusions of the firm correspond to the conclusions of the committee:  the staff does a heroic job and the problems that exist are systemic: there is no director.  The unit works as a line organization rather than as staff—researchers are expected to submit a proposal and then do as told.  Recommendations are that the current form should be moved to electronic format, communication should be improved, responsibilities should be clearly delineated and feedback improved.  The committee still wants more discussion from faculty and will be bringing a motion in February.  Robert Kennedy agreed that the KMPG report had been helpful—he will share it with the research council.

Jim McClymer asked if there is any evidence how the system uses its share of returned overhead.  There is not.

C.     Finance and Institutional Planning – Christa Schwintzer

A motion will be presented this meeting.  In addition:

·        A campus planning committee is being formed which will include the chairs of the University Environment and the Finance and Institutional Planning Committees.  Other faculty with the necessary expertise are also invited to participate.

·        Academic Spaces and Facilities have some money to be used to improve classrooms.  Rooms in need should be reported to the Associate Dean.  Big ticket items are being sought, rather than small repairs.

·        Although the janitorial staff is underhanded now, reports of dirty building should be reported to 1-4400.  Reports will be looked into.

·        The commission on IT under Bob White will be sending out questionnaires.  Faculty are requested to fill them out and return them.

Michael Grillo asked if classroom repairs included technology.  It does not, but Doug Gelinas suggested that such needs be reported anyway.

D.     Academic Affairs – Howard Patterson

Faculty responses to the questionnaire regarding retention have been helpful.  The student representatives were asked to get information on the same subject from Student Senate.  Some ideas for action are:

·        A better orientation program where the student will be introduced to his/her advisor.

·        More classes.  It is unacceptable to put a student on a program which includes classes that are filled.

·        More financial aid.  Students that must work have less time to study.

·        Better communication between upperclassmen and lowerclassmen.

The general education motion is almost ready.  It will include a program to assess current general education courses to see how well they fit the intended model.

E.      Committee on Committees – Carol Kim

Carol Kim was not present

F.      Constitution and By-Laws – Bryan Pearce

The committee is still working on a handbook.  We will be required to have one in place by 2004.  A suitable streamlined version has been sent to the Union for comment.  A motion is forthcoming.

Doug Gelinas noted that the New England Association will not visit in 2004, but an interim report must be prepared stating that previous deficiencies (of which the lack of a faculty handbook was one) have been addressed.

G.     Board of Trustees Representative – Dana Humphrey

Matthew Broderick has been appointed as student representative to the board.  It is a two year appointment.  Sarah Knight is the student representative from the UMaine campus.

The capital budget was passed as originally presented.  $17 million went to USM and $9.4 million to this campus.  However, the Chancellor has pledged to find a way to fund improvements to our library.

UMA was given approval to add a 4-year degree in architecture.  The letter in opposition to approval was not distributed.  UMA has developed an articulation agreement with a school in Bostonthat will accept 58 units of the 120 it offers.  Dana Humphrey has asked that copies of new course proposals be distributed to the BOT representatives sooner so that time to review and comment is afforded.

Michael Grillo asked if such programs go through the Provosts council.  Robert Kennedy replied that this particularly program did not go through a peer review in the usual places.

Howard Patterson asked where funds for the library could come from if not from the bond issue.  Dana Humphrey replied that no mechanism had been identified.  He will keep in communication with the Chancellor.  Robert Kennedy noted that both the President and Provost of USM strongly support a statewide research library at Folgler.

H.     Library Advisory – Don Hayes (for Dianne Hoff)

Obviously the report that was sent to the Chancellor was insufficient to change his mind about funding for the library.  The committee feels that it did all the things he had asked for, but did not develop a plan for funding.  The Chancellor later seemed to indicate that was what he had been looking for.

Jim McClymer asked if the bond issue had gone before the legislators.  It has not.

I.        Interdisciplinary Programs – Jim Warhola

A group from a neurosciences consortium project met with the committee for help in forming an interdisciplinary program.  The committee advised them about a mission statement, bylaws, etc as developed in its recent work.

VII.   Very, Very Old Business

Motion on Homeless Faculty

Motion: Effective immediately, all regular, tenure-track faculty appointments must be made in an existing academic department or school.  In the case of the College of Education and Human Development where there are no departments, appointments are made in the College.  Further, the standard procedures for formulating a peer committee, as addressed in departmental promotion and tenure criteria and, if appropriate, criteria for joint appointment, need to be followed for all faculty appointments.  The department, or a designated committee must approve the appointment by a majority vote.

The Executive Vice President/Provost will begin discussions immediately with the appropriate deans to secure regular departmental affiliations for all tenure-track faculty currently holding interdisciplinary appointments. The department, or a   designated committee must approve the appointment by a majority vote.

John Maddaus moved and Jim McClymer seconded.  The motion passed with 35 for and 1 abstention.

Motion on Peer Committees for Joint Appointments

Motion: For tenure and promotion of faculty with joint appointments, peer committees consisting of peers from the department(s) and/or unit(s) in which the faculty member holds the appointment must be appointed by the home academic department chair in consultation with the other department chair(s) or center director(s).  The Peer Committee selects its chair annually from among the committee membership.  For the purposes of this policy, the College of Education and Human Development, the Cooperative Extension, and all Schools are equivalent to an academic unit/department.  Except as noted below1, equal number of faculty members from each unit participating in the joint appointment shall be selected to form the joint peer committee, but tenure resides only in academic departments.  The peer committee makes its recommendation to the chair of the home academic department and the chair(s) or director(s) of the other department or center.  The chair of the academic department and/or center forwards her/his recommendation to the appropriate dean(s).  Research center directors forward recommendations to the Dean(s) and Associate Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School send their recommendations to the Executive Vice President and Provost.  After review and discussion by the Administrative Promotion and Tenure Review Committee, the Executive Vice President and Provost forwards his/her recommendation to the President for action.

For joint appointments between the College of Natural Sciences , Forestry, and Agriculture and the University of Maine Cooperative Extension , join peer committee membership will continue to be proportional to the percentage appointment in the two units.

Jim McClymer moved and Bryan Pearce seconded.  Robert Kennedy noted that there will be more joint appointments as more interdisciplinary programs are developed.  Michael Grillo asked what would happen if one of the units making the joint appointment were cut.  Robert Kennedy replied that the position would still be a full-time tenured appointment and would be treated as such.

The motion passed unanimously.

VIII. New Business

Motion to amend the Constitution of the Faculty Senate regarding the composition of the Committee on Committees.

Preamble:  It is difficult to find ten faculty members to take an active part in the Committee on Committees.  As a result, the Committee on Committees frequently operates without a full complement of members.  The purpose of this motion is to bring

the constitution into alignment with current practice.

Motion: To amend Article VII. Section 2 of the Constitution of the Faculty Senate as shown below:

Section 2. The Committee on Committees. Except for the Committee on Committee, in consultation with the appointed Chair, the Senate President will appoint the members of each standing committee. In appointing members, the Senate President will consider the need to balance membership continuity with new members in a given year. Committee membership is for one year, with the possibility of reappointment. The Committee on Committees, elected by the Senate, will consist of ten one faculty

Senate member from each college, one faculty Senate member from the University of Maine Cooperative Extension and the Graduate Student Association Representative to the faculty Senate. The faculty members shall reflect the proportional representation to each college on the Senate, with provision that each participating college and CES shall have at least one member. It shall be the responsibility of the President, Vice President/President-elect, and the Secretary to determine the

number of positions to be allocated to each college. The Committee on Committees shall, at the request of the University President or designee, recommend faculty members to standing and ad hoc administrative committees or shall provide a list to the President or designee of faculty members who have agreed to serve on a specific committee.

NOTE:  Suggested changes to the text are shown in bold for reference. Existing wording, shown as a redaction, are for reference only.

John Maddaus moved and Michael Grillo seconded.  The motion passed unanimously.

Motion on Graduate Students’ Child Care Subsidies

Preface:

The Department of Human Services (DHS) provides money to the University of Maine Children‘s Center  for childcare subsidies, which they make available to all undergraduate students, faculty, and employees of the University – everyone, except graduate students (Section VI, Sub-Section B, paragraph 1.10 of the DHS Policy Manual).  The DHS rule allows people to get multiple baccalaureate degrees and still remain eligible for the DHS subsidies; however, upon entry into the graduate level, eligibility ceases.  Furthermore, employees of the University of Maine who would otherwise be eligible for these subsidies, but whose spouse or partner are Graduate Students are ineligible (Section VI, Sub-Section D of the DHS Policy Manual).

Mr. Newell Augur from DHS left an explanation of the DHS rule on a graduate student’s voice mail on 21 November 2002 .  The transcribed explanation states: “there are many people who need the subsidy that have not had the privilege of obtaining a GED, much less a Bachelor or Masters Degree.”  Mr. Auger went on to say: “People fortunate enough to obtain a college education should be out in the work force taking advantage of their earning potential.”  It appears Mr. Auger, as representative of the DHS, is unaware of the economic contribution that graduate work, through Research and Development, has to the State ofMaine .

The Association of Graduate Students (AGS) is outraged by this unfair rule that singles out and discriminates against one segment of the population.  The AGS has passed a resolution asking that the rule be changed.  Eligibility should be distributed

based on financial need rather than some arbitrary definition of “privilege”.

Motion: The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine , in support of the Association of Graduate Students, requests that President Hoff write a letter to the appropriate State Legislative officials, to request that the Department of Human Services change its rules, to make graduate students and their partners eligible to apply for childcare subsidies.

Mike Greenwood moved and Jim Horan seconded.  The motion passed unanimously.

Motion on Faculty Input into the Budgeting Process

Preamble

The budget is a primary document of planning and accountability for theUniversity of Maine .   Input into the budgeting process by affected stakeholders allows for more effective budgeting, and better buy-in.  While faculty do not have direct

budgetary responsibility, they are directly and significantly impacted by decisions that are reflected in the budget.  In addition, in the spirit of shared governance, faculty have a responsibility to monitor institutional progress toward stated goals.

Motion: Faculty at the University of Maine will be given the opportunity to review the budget before it becomes final to state concerns, ask questions and make suggestions.  This will be accomplished by the following process:

·           A copy of the proposed budget will be made available to faculty on the Faculty Conference in First-Class at least one month prior to the time it is due at the system.

·           In the week following the week in which the proposed budget became available, at least one meeting will be scheduled so interested faculty will have the opportunity to discuss the budget with the Vice President for Administration.

·        The time and place of the meeting will be widely announced at least five days prior to the meeting.  At a minimum an announcement will be posted on the Faculty Conference in First-Class and the President of the Faculty Senate will be notified.  It will be the President’s responsibility to further notify faculty via e-mail and/or an announcement in Faculty Senate.

·           The budget in its finalized form will also be made available to faculty on the Faculty Conference in First-Class.

Christa Schwintzer moved and John Maddaus seconded.  The motion passed with 35 for and 1 abstention.

Motion on Workload Evaluation

Preamble:

The Faculty Senate welcomes the Administration’s attention to Workload Evaluation, but has serious concerns about how it has taken form, and also how the metric looks only at teaching hours without any consideration of the total mission of the University and its faculty, in particular, in research and service.  The composition of the formula itself raises many questions of oversights in recognizing teaching loads, and of how it weighs courses with no attention to the specific needs of disciplines in structuring them.  The numbers run on this metric have raised concerns themselves, for they do not match those run by several departments and other academic units.  Linked issues, such as the new permission forms for teaching overload courses have likewise caused distrust of the faculty towards this implementation.

Motion: The Faculty Senate requests that the Administration work with the Faculty to discuss the following issues before taking any further actions on Workload Evaluation.

1.)  The need for clearly stated, mission based goals driving Workload Evaluation.

2.)  The need for clarification of how Workload formulations will coordinate within current budgets, changes ensuing from the Incentivized Budget, and the objectives of the Strategic Plan.

3.)  The need to ensure that Workload formulations will support disciplines in defining and effectively implementing their curricula.

4.)  The need for Workload formulations to match the criteria of faculty member evaluation by his or her Peer Committee.

5.)  The need to ensure that teaching Workloads truly complement research and service components.

6.)  The need for open, public records of faculty Workload assignments.

7.)  The need to identify how the University will assess the outcomes of its Workload Evaluations, particularly in relation to the expected outcomes of the University.

8.)  The need to scrutinize University commitments outside of academic programs for the contribution to the University mission, since the academic programs constitute only one-quarter of the University’s budget, yet generate most tuition and significant research, which comprise the principal reason for the state’s funding of the University.

9.)  The need for other means of Workload evaluation, such as accreditation recommendations and comparisons to the effectiveness of like academic units at other universities, to assess performance and reallocate resources.

Jim McClymer moved and Dennis King seconded.

This is a request for dialog with the administration.  Doug Gelinas sated that the formula is working its way through the colleges.  We need a system of documentation.  Input is welcome.  Jim Horan reminded that this may be a union issue.  John Maddaus stated that supervision of students (such as during practicum) is not included as part of teaching.  Doug Gelinas stated that such things can be added by the colleges where deemed appropriate.  Howard Patterson said that advising needed to be added to the formula.  Doug Gelinas said that some may include it, other may not.

The motion passed unanimously.

IX. Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at 4:25 .

Respectfully submitted,

Darlene Bay

Acting Secretary

 


Back to 2002-2003

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