Skip Navigation

2002-2003 - November 20, 2002

Faculty Senate Minutes

November 20, 2002

PRESENT: David Batuski, Darlene Bay, Doug Bousfield, Thomas Brann, Phyllis Brazee, Richard Brucher (for Jim Horan) Kathrine Carter, Robert Causey, Thomas Christensen, Laura Cowan, Eugene Del Vecchio, Richard Eason, Ed Ferguson, Todd Gabe, Alla Gamarnik, Gail Garthwait, Michael Greenwood, Michael Grillo, Ludlow Hallman, Don Hayes, Marie Hayes, Dianne Hoff, Peter Hoff, Mike Howard, Dana Humphrey, Mel Johnson, Joseph Kelley, Robert Kennedy, Carol Kim, Dennis King, Roger King, Dorothy Klimis-Zacas, Irv Kornfield, David Lambert, Jenny Londot, Ngo Vinh Long, John Maddaus, Shannon Martin, Larryl Matthews, Mike McCauley, Jim McClymer, Martha McNamara, Howard Patterson, Bryan Pearce, Scott Reynolds, Robert Rice, Linda Rottmann, Doug Ruthven, Thomas Sandford, Christa Schwintzer, Bruce Segee, Phillip Silver, Mary Ellen Symanski, Stylianos Tavantzis, Ken Tudor, Roy Turner, Jim Warhola, Bob Whelan, Gregory White, Dave Yarborough.

ABSENT: Jim Acheson, Peggy Agouris, Eisso Atzema, Martha Broderick, Robert Cashon, Sandy Gardner, John Jemison, Peter Koons, Bjorn Lake, Daniel Lux, Kathleen March (for Dan Sandweiss), Stephen Marks, Charles Moody, Raymond O’Connor, Bob Strong, Andrew Thomas.

I. Address by Chancellor Joseph Westphal

Chancellor Westphal began by complimenting the University of Maine and its leadership on its performance. He called attention to issues faced by the System, including budget deficits at the state level. He believes that the incoming governor will be an advocate for higher education and that we must work to convince the legislature that we are the future. While he believes in positive thinking, there are several tough choices to be made regarding the allocation of money and strategic planning. However, these challenges will only make us better.

Jim McClymer pointed out that salaries for faculty at the University of Maine are the 11th lowest of 202 PhD granting institutions and that we have a below average benefits packages. Chancellor Westphal responded that he is in favor of increases for faculty salaries but that money is scarce and he believes the benefit package to be fair.

MaryEllen Symanski asked how the Chancellor felt about the uniqueness of UM compared to other campuses in the System. The Chancellor replied that he will be focusing on this issue next year when he undertakes a reexamination of programs. He believes that the current allocation formula does not serve as an incentive for cooperation between the campuses and he intends to implement a more strategic formula and to redesign the system.

John Maddaus asked if any changes were being envisioned in the interface of the University with the K – 12 programs. The Chancellor replied that the Vice Chancellor for academic affairs would be coordinating these efforts. It is important to recognize that teacher education goes beyond the College of Education .

Richard Eason stated that internal allocations are also a problem. More money should be allocated to instruction. The Chancellor replied that a set of meeting would be held in which each campus would be asked to defend its budget. One of the questions to be addressed at these meetings will be the allocation of funds to instruction. We need more endowed chairs. However, he does not want to micromanage—he believes in our leadership.

The regular meeting was called to order at 3:47 .

II. John Maddaus moved and Michael Grillo seconded that the minutes of the October 25 meeting be approved. The motion passed unanimously.

III. Announcements

· The next elected members meeting is December 4.

· Cassie Stevens has been appointed to be special assistant to President Hoff.

· Students need to see President Rice regarding committee work.

IV. Question to the Administrators

Roy Turner asked about the status of the hiring freeze, especially as regards Computer Science searches. Robert Kennedy replied that the current uncertainty regarding the budget is causing a slow down. Each case is being looked at carefully. Doug Gelinas added that teaching positions are getting priority, but this is not a long term policy.

Jim McClymer asked why research faculty are not included in the directory. Peter Hoff replied that he hopes to fix this oversight.

Bob Rice asked about further budget cuts. Peter Hoff replied that this campus will have to absorb about $9 million. Mark Anderson added that we will have a base budget cut of between $900,000 and $1.4 million.

V. Update on Strategic Directions/Planning for Umaine: Progress, Plans and Possibilities, by Robert Kennedy.

Provost Kennedy stated that the strategic plan was developed with input from the Faculty Senate and that he still refers to it often and regards it as a roadmap. Commissions have also been formed for specific areas.

He regards the successes to be the Honors College , which has already begun to help with recruiting and fund raising, the establishment of the University Research Council and the Research Initiative, and the appointment of an Associate Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School to integrate graduate education with research. Improvements to the University infrastructure in terms of the library, the IT commission and the incentivized budget plan have also been accomplished. Improved fiscal responsibility has been achieved by coordinating the budget with the mission and strategic plan. Some steps have been taken to improve diversity, but there is a serious need to do more. We have made much progress in interdisciplinary programs and are cooperating with other campuses in inter-institutional partnerships.

Questions that remain for the future include research directions (we have not analyzed where research money is spent and what benefits or return is being received on the expenditure), undergraduate enrollment issues (capacity constraints and the possibility of enrollment caps), graduate enrollment issues (at the current time, the campus may not truly qualify as a research intensive Carnegie University), the role of liberal arts at Umaine, direction in terms of the international/global/environmental education, and faculty roles in outreach, communication and economic development.

In conclusion, Provost Kennedy called for protecting the quality of our campus, doing strategic planning, being creative and maintaining a close working relationship between faculty and the administration.

Doug Ruthven commented that no health care is being provided for graduate assistants and yet a new administrative position has been funded. The Provost replied that health care is important. Two years ago, a 6% increase in the stipend for graduate students was agreed to. We must consider the trade-off between new assistantships or addressing health care.

Michael Grillo asked why liberal arts are even still a question. Provost Kennedy stated that he hears the question all the time.

Alla Gamarnik reminded the Provost that we did pass a resolution regarding health care for graduate students. Why was there no impact? Provost Kennedy stated that it would cost $250,000 for partial funding. Is that the best use of our limited funding?

Roger King asked about the mission of the Research Council and the make-up of its membership, particularly as regards representatives from arts and humanities. The Provost answered that the mission has not yet been clearly defined and that one of the current goals of the Council is to define its mission and determine what its membership should be. The council does intend to seek broader representation.

Dana Humphrey asked why the Provost had not addressed the need to increase the economic development of the state. A strong economy is the only way to make the University stronger. Provost Kennedy replied that economic development is at the core of the research program, which is a central part of the university. Humphrey asked about the role of undergraduate education. Kennedy replied that research is approximately (though not completely) equal to economic development and that undergraduate education is essential.

VI. Committee Reports

A) University Environment – Michael Grille

The committee will be bringing forward a motion in December. They continue to cultivate the administration from within regarding shared governance.

Don Hayes asked who makes the final decisions regarding workload? Grillo replied that is a matter of great concern to everyone. Robert Kennedy stated that decisions will be made at the department/college level. Doug Gelinas stated that the metric was developed to be used in all departments. Marie Hayes believes that prep time for undergraduate courses is undervalued in the metric. Gelinas stated that the metric is not perfect, but it is a start. Input is still possible. Jim McClymer noted that there is a lot of concern regarding the workload formula and that informational meeting should be held.

B) Research and Public Service—David Batuski and Roy Turner

The committee has received some helpful comments, but still needs more. They intend to discuss research within the framework of the strategic plan. The ad is out for the Vice President of Research. Interviews will be held in late spring, hiring should take place in early summer.

C) Finance and Institutional Planning – Christa Schwintzer

The committee will be bringing a motion in December

D) Academic Affairs – Howard Patterson

The committee is concentrating on retention. Patterson encouraged everyone to reply to the email questionnaire. The General Education task force has also produced an outline of a possible direction.

Jim Warhola asked if the students that leave are the good students or not. Patterson replied that has not yet been determined.

E) Committee on Committee – Carol Kim

No report

F) Constitution and By Laws – Bryan Pearce

The committee has been working on the faculty handbook. The current version is quite different from the earlier faculty senate version. There is some thought that it may conflict with the collective bargaining agreement.

G) Board of Trustees Representation – Dana Humphrey

There was no BOT meeting in November due to weather. At the next meeting, priorities will be established for capital renewal. In the proposed budget, the largest single allocation is $17.2 million to USM for Bailey Hall and Library renewal. $9 million is proposed to be allocated to UMaine for renovations. Our library is not on the list.

H) Library Advisory Committee – Dianne Hoff

Journals are a priority for the committee. A short-term solution has been found which has the potential to become long-term. There will be reports in mid-January. The cuts that were made before December stand, but there will be no new round of cuts yet.

I) Interdisciplinary Programs – Jim Warhola

The committee has met with the administration regarding revised wording of the guidelines. Warhola urges approval of the motion. A comprehensive list of interdisciplinary programs will be ready for the new catalog.

VII. Old Business

No old business.

VIII. New Business:

Preamble:

The Interdisciplinary Studies Committee presents the following revised guidelines from a motion approved by the Faculty Senate during its meeting on May 8, 2002 . The Interdisciplinary Studies Committee developed the guidelines in close cooperation with the Provost and the committee strongly urges the Senate to adopt the motion. Changes from the previously approved guidelines are underlined only for clarity.

Motion and Guidelines:

Interdisciplinary groups are self-governing 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 faulty 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. Some appointments may be joint, with a partial salary line.

Group members shall adopt bylaws that are subject to review and approved by the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs and/or the Graduate School depending on the nature and purpose of the group and which shall spell out the official reporting structure for 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 academic programs in accordance with available resources. 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 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.

Roger King moved and Jim McClymer seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

IX. The meeting adjourned at 4:55 .

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