2002-2003 - January 29, 2003
Faculty Senate Minutes
January 29, 2003
PRESENT: Jim Acheson, Peggy Agouris, David Batuski, Darlene Bay, Douglas Bousfield, Phyllis Brazee, Martha Broderick, Robert Cashon, Laura Cowan, Eugene Del Vecchio, Richard Eason, Ed Ferguson, Todd Gabe, Alla Gamarnik, Gail Garthwait, Michael Grillo, Paul Grosswiler, Ludlow Hallman, Marie Hayes, Dianne Hoff, Peter Hoff, Jim Horan, Mike Howard, Dana Humphrey, John Jemison, Robert Kennedy, Carol Kim, Dennis King, Roger King, Dorothy Klimis-Zacas, Irv Kornfield, Bjorn Lake, David Lambert, Jenny Londot, Ngo Vinh Long, Daniel Lux, John Maddaus, Kathleen March, Stephen Marks, Larryl Matthews, Michael McCauley, Jim McClymer, Kim McKeage, Charles Moody, Howard Patterson, Bryan Pearce, Judith Rhymer, Robert Rice, Matthew Rodrigue, Linda Rottmann, Thomas Sandford, Christa Schwintzer, Bruce Segee, Phillip Silver, Jane Smith, Mary Ellen Symanski, Andrew Thomas, Jim Warhola, Gregory White
ABSENT: Eisso Atzema, Thomas Brann, Kathrine Carter, Robert Causey, Thomas Christensen, Sandy Gardner, Michael Greenwood, Don Hayes, Melvin Johnson, Joseph Kelley, Martha McNamara, Douglas Ruthven, Stylianos Tavantzis, Ken Tudor, Roy Turner, Bob Whelan, Dave Yarborough
I. Welcome and Signing In
The meeting was called to order at 3:15 p.m.
II. Approval of Minutes from the December 18, 2002 , Meeting.
The minutes from the December 18 meeting were unanimously approved.
President Rice reported that, at the last meeting of the Provost’s Council, John Beacon said that a Campus Events Survey (2002) indicates that 62% of incoming students chose UM as a result of meeting with faculty. In 2001, this figure was only 56%, and Bob congratulated faculty on their recruitment efforts.
The field of 61 candidates for LAS dean has been narrowed to nine, plus four alternates. One of the nine is an internal candidate.
There are 27 applicants for Vice President of Research, none of whom is internal. The field will be narrowed in early February.
With regard to the position announcement for Associate Vice President for Personnel and Academic Services, President Rice stated that the majority of comments from faculty expressed concern over what they believed would give that individual policy-making authority over promotion and tenure. These concerns were conveyed to Provost Kennedy, who indicated that the description would be reworded to reflect that, in fact, no such policy-making authority exists as part of this position.
IV. Update on Student Enrollment
Alison Cox reported on enrollment statistics for this year. Overall enrollment is up 6.5% over last spring (8.8% graduate, 5.6% undergraduate) with notable increases in in-state grad students and out-of-state undergrads. Credit hours are also way up. The Academic Standing Committee is dealing with issues surrounding how to handle all these new students. Any concerns faculty might have in this regard should be conveyed to the associate deans.
V. Questions to the Administrators
President Hoff was asked to provide an update regarding UM’s place in the University of Maine System . He stated that Chancellor Westphal requested a presentation from each of the System campuses about mission, plans for the future, and immediate future budget planning. President Hoff’s presentation included organizational charts and budget info, and he stressed points of uniqueness that distinguish UM from the other campuses. He believes it was an effective and productive session because the chancellor received the information well and university representatives were invited back to make a longer presentation.
In response to a request for an update on budget matters, President Hoff said that the university had dodged another bullet: a request for an additional $600,000 had been postponed. Mark Anderson added that the recent, second curtailment of $923,000 from the current budget also represents a cut from next year’s base budget. It lessens the positive impact of implementing the Incentivized Budget Committee’s recommendations regarding credit hours. They are just beginning the ‘04 budget process, and the primary concerns are healthcare (the current Anthem BCBS contract ends in 12/03 and premium increases are likely) and the state appropriation, which is up in the air. In addition, $1.6 million in base cuts need to be made up, which raises the question of tuition increases. He pointed out that one percentage point of salary increase is tied to two percentage points of tuition (increase).
Michael Grillo asked Alison Cox if the printed class lists could be restored. She replied that the decision to eliminate them had been made and announced in September. The decision was in response to budget cuts (forms are costly) and to encourage faculty to make use of the most recent information available on computer 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Faculty should talk to the associate deans if they feel the class lists are a must, though paying for them again would be problematic.
John Maddaus inquired about the status of the Diversity Action Plan. Provost Kennedy replied, saying that the plan had been signed and could be made available online almost immediately.
Returning to the issue of class lists, Howard Patterson stated that the Academic Affairs Committee is very worried about student retention and is concerned that such (clerical) tasks take faculty time away from teaching and research. Alison Cox replied that there used to be a liaison between the Academic Standing and Academic Affairs Committees.
President Rice asked Anita Wihry for an update on facilities. She indicated that there have been a lot of retirements and resignations and Facilities Management is working to hire replacements soon. She also said there is a new cleaning program in effect whereby custodians are to perform five different cleaning tasks every night and others are done periodically. It includes monthly audits and scorecards, and she expects we will see considerable improvement in building cleanliness.
When asked about the program regarding office space, she detailed the Attractive View Program. This program is intended to identify public spaces needing cosmetic improvements, for which there is a total of $20,000 available for 14 academic buildings. Students can go online and make suggestions as to which public spaces are most in need of improvement. Beginning in late spring or early summer, there will be a program to improve faculty offices. Departments will have to pay 25% of the costs and FM will pay 75%. Please go to the FM web site to report an office in need of painting.
Jim Warhola asked if it would be possible to canvass faculty before eliminating the printed catalog in order to find out which services are valuable to them. The catalog, in particular, is helpful to prospective students, who like to have something palpable rather than just a web site. Alison Cox said that she would try, but that often there is no time for input and the info is always available on line. She cited, too, the costs of printing. She suggested that faculty go through the associate deans if they want to provide input on these matters.
When asked about the possibility of letting people know about such changes, she pointed out that Student Records issues a newsletter including recent changes and updates in procedures.
VI. Committee Reports
A) Michael Grillo, University Environment: Welcomed to the committee was student representative Matthew Rodrigue. A motion on shared governance will be brought forward under New Business.
B) David Batuski, Research and Public Service: As of January 24, awards for 2003 totaled $24 million as compared to $44 for all of last year.
In response to David’s question about the ICR spreadsheet, Mark Anderson indicated that the system has capped at the FY ’02 level how much they are going to take from our ICR. Should we increase recovery this fiscal year or beyond, we will get 100% of the recovered indirect cost.
Once the UMS takes its 11.8% of indirect costs, the UM share then ‘disappears’ into the overall budget to cover all types of expenses of the University. The net result is that out of $6,000,000 of indirect costs funds from grants & contracts, only about $200,000 goes to the library (its prorated share – applying the 3.4% fraction of the total expenditures of the UM budget that applies to the library), and that would be for support of library operations in general. Only a portion of the $200,000 goes to support research journals, far too small an amount given that supporting research is the intended purpose of indirect costs. The committee is working with the Library Committee on a motion concerning the return of indirect costs.
The committee’s response to the consultants’ report (submitted two years ago) that was received in December from Research and Sponsored Programs is forthcoming. It will highlight what they find to be most important.
Referring to the sheet showing Actual Expenditures & Revenues by Fiscal Year, Bryan Pearce asked if the figure of 51 administrators for 2002 is a real number. Mark Anderson replied that he does not know if the title code used for these figures and the collective bargaining unit title designations on PAFs coincide 100 percent. When asked if department heads, as non represented faculty, are shown as faculty, he replied that faculty are FTE. Jim McClymer pointed out that AFUM believes there are about 550 faculty, not the 716 shown on this sheet.
C) Christa Schwintzer, Finance and Institutional Planning: The Capital Projects handout shows three categories of projects (approved, future capital renewal, and future new & addition projects), estimated figures, and funding source. The current sheet reflects priority ranking as of November 2002. Ranking is dependent upon overall priority and funding source. It is unclear what the far right hand column of numbers refer to, and Anita Wihry, who could answer that question, has already left the meeting.
Darlene Bay asked if the Future State Bond (FSB) is the same for all projects. Mark Anderson stated that there are potentially different bonding mechanisms. Aubert Hall Phase II is funded by R&D II. The library bond is a separate activity. Different interested parties push for various projects.
D) Howard Patterson, Academic Affairs: The committee is looking at retention and graduation rate. They have been working closely with Dean Cobb, Doug Gelinas, Sue Huseman, and others regarding assessment. A motion regarding calculation of student GPAs is forthcoming.
E) Carol Kim, Committee on Committees: The Student Appeals Board is still looking for one faculty member.
F) Bryan Pearce, Constitution and By-laws: The committee is about half way through the faculty handbook and is looking very carefully at wording.
G) Dana Humphrey, Board of Trustees Representative: At its last meeting, the B.O.T. approved the M.S. in Teaching with great accolades. System FY 2002 dollars were distributed as follows: UM $54 million in research and USM $34 million, of which about $27 million were funneled to the Muskie Institute. It is significant that UM’s research dollars are more broadly distributed. USM is planning the following new degree programs: B.A. in Interdisciplinary Studies, a master’s in Women’s Studies, and a Science. (PSY) Doctorate in Psychology and Educational Studies.
Marie Hayes expressed deep concern over duplication of a very popular clinical psychology doctorate here. Provost Kennedy said that a formal understanding between UM and USM needs to be articulated. Future doctorates at USM will be limited to clinical or practical application, while research doctorates will be only at UM. This particular degree program went through the normal channels: first to the Chief Academic Officers, then to the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the College ofEducation , and comments were received. There was no perceived conflict of interest. Marie Hayes pointed out that neither the chair nor the faculty of the Psychology Department was consulted. Dana Humphrey said that future Intent to Plans will also be given to the B.O.T. rep to inform the Faculty Senate in order to get more timely input.
Further discussion ensued. If authorization is challenged at the B.O.T. level, USM will have the burden of proof to demonstrate need and capacity. If UM wants to object, the burden of proof will be on us to demonstrate that we can meet that need. New programs are normally considered at the January and July meetings, but Dana does not know when this one will come before the Board. President Rice indicated that the matter will be taken up by the Academic Affairs Committee.
H) Dianne Hoff, Library Committee: The news is good in that the library’s visibility has been raised. There are large renovation and expansion needs and talk is under way regarding bonding. There has been some progress toward getting the front steps repaired. The most pressing need is scholarly journals. The committee will try diligently to get to all concerned, i.e. various task forces and committees to report back. Subscriptions are not yet being canceled, but she will seek a drop dead date from Dean Albright.
I) Jim Warhola, Interdisciplinary Programs: The committee’s status beyond this year needs to be determined. A plurality of the membership favors special committee status, while a few prefer that it be made a standing committee of the senate. The committee is preparing a comprehensive list of interdisciplinary programs and endeavors that it will deliver to Alison Cox for the catalog. The guidelines for establishment of interdisciplinary committees that were passed at the November 20 senate meeting have been transmitted to the Administration and are now in effect, given that there was no response from the Administration to the contrary.
VII. Old Business
VIII. New Business
Motion on Outcomes Assessment
The New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC), our campus’ accrediting body, directed President Hoff on October 19, 1999, to prepare a 5th year interim report for consideration in Spring 2004. In this report, the University of Maine must “give emphasis to” four specific goals, one of which is “implementing measures to assess student learning outcomes in both general education and the undergraduate major, and using the resulting findings for the improvement of academic programs.” In short, NEASC requires that the University of Maine conduct a data-driven process of instructional improvement. The following motion calls on the administration and faculty to work together to carry out this mandate.
The Faculty Senate recommends that the University Administration, in cooperation with the Faculty Senate’s Academic Affairs Committee, the Undergraduate program Curriculum Committee (UPCC), the Center for Teaching Excellence, other appropriate campus bodies, and the individual faculty members who teach courses approved for general education requirements, undertake a process to assess student learning outcomes in general education with the greater goal of improving teaching and learning on our campus. The Faculty Senate’s Academic Affairs Committee is charged to monitor actions taken with respect to this task and prepare a progress report to be submitted to the Faculty Senate no later than December 2003.
Darlene Bay asked whether it has already been specified what the learning outcomes are. Howard Patterson replied, saying that the details need to be worked out.
Jim McClymer moved and Michael Grillo seconded. The motion was passed with 40 in favor, four opposed, and two abstentions.
Motion on Shared Governance
The spirit of Shared Governance has played a substantial role at the University of Maine in creating major documents such as the Strategic Plan, staffing committees, hiring of administrators, forging new interdisciplinary initiatives, and in the welcome cooperation between the Administration, the Faculty Senate, and other faculty groups in crafting university policies. Recognizing that only through cooperation among the different branches of the University of Maine can we work effectively to serve our essential mission in teaching, research, and public outreach, as the land-grant university of the State of Maine , the Faculty Senate wishes to formalize discussions and processes ensuring greater Shared Governance.
In the spirit of its responsibilities defined by its Constitution, the Faculty Senate embraces the notion of Shared Governance at all levels of the University, so that it may continue to refine its goals as the land-grand, comprehensive, doctoral institution of the State of Maine and to fulfill them effectively. As the representative body of the faculty, we encourage other sectors of the University to engage with us and the Administration in developing Shared Governance, to include the appropriate voices of professional, clerical, and all other members of the University so that we may better address how we meet our challenges as a unified community.
The great longevity of faculty members in their dedication to the University allows us to best ensure the continuity necessary to build upon our historical strengths, and guarantee the lasting success of current and future initiatives. The Senate recommends that the Administration always include the faculty for full participation in identifying, originating, developing, staffing, and evaluating all University initiatives, academic policies, budgeting decisions, administrative positions, major actions, and policies. We ask the Administration to commit itself to faculty participation in all of these decisions and actions, and also to work with us in establishing dialogues with representatives of the other members of the University Community to work for their inclusion in these decisions and actions as well.
Jim Warhola moved and Bryan Pearce seconded. Michael Grillo explained that this motion seeks to harmonize different units of the University and centers on the idea that voices of the faculty should be part of the discussion in origins and directions of the University. He thanked the current Administration for its inclusion of faculty so far.
John Maddaus requested clarification on how this differs from what is currently provided for by the Senate constitution. Michael Grillo stated that “direct academic actions” currently referred to in the constitution is too compartmentalized and puts the Senate in a reactive mode. This motion seeks expansion beyond a limited interpretation of the constitution.
Jim Horan called the question and the motion carried with 37 in favor, seven opposed. The motion was passed with 37 in favor, four opposed, and seven abstaining.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:29 p.m.
Jane Smith, Secretary