Skip Navigation

2004-2005 - November 17, 2004

Faculty Senate Minutes

NOVEMBER 17, 2004

Present:  Jim Acheson, Aria Amirbahman, Eisso Atzema, Bob Bayer, Carla Billitteri, Mary Brakey, Sandy Caron, Joe Carr, Robert Cashon, Laura Cowan, John Daigle, Raphael DiLuzio, Marcia Douglas, Todd Gabe, James Gilbert, Stephen Gilson, Alex Grab, Michael Greenwood, Michael Grillo, Robert Gundersen, Ludlow Hallman, William Halteman, Marie Hayes, Jim Horan, Dana Humphrey, John Jemison, Mel Johnson, Scott Johnson, Len Kass, Robert Kennedy, Dennis King, David Lambert, John Maddaus, Deirdre Mageean, Kathleen March, Jim McClymer, Jessica Miller, Harlan Onsrud, Howard Patterson, Mick Peterson, Alan Rosenwasser, Linda Rottman, Douglas Ruthven, Thomas Sandford, Ann Schonberger, JulieAnn Scott, Michael Scott, Denise Skonberg, Touradj Solouki, Claire Strickland, Mario Teisl, Janet Waldron, Gregory White

Absent:  Peggy Agouris, Dean Astumian, Richard Borgman, Rod Bushway, Nellie Cyr, Mahmoud El-Begearmi, Amy Fried, Nancy Hall, Dianne Hoff, David Kotecki, Stephen Marks, Paul Rawson, Liam Riordan, Stellos Tavantzis, Roy Turner, Michael Vayda, Bob Whelan

Meeting was called to order at 3:20 pm.

Minutes from September 22 and October 20 meetings approved.

President Howard Patterson gave an update on the Presidential Search Committee: the search consultants will be on campus December 1.  Two open meetings with faculty will be held.  They need input from faculty about what we are looking for in a president. Please put any concerns in writing and send to the Faculty Senate office.

Stephen Gilson pointed out that in the Committee on Committees meetings for faculty representatives to the search committee, they stressed that these proceedings be kept open and transparent.  All agreed to participate in an open and ongoing dialogue.  These representatives will give periodic reports about the search to Faculty Senate.

Howard will keep in touch with the Chancellor’s Office in Bangor for updates on the search committee meetings also.

Questions for Administrators (Provost Mahon is out of state, President Kennedy is present).

There were no questions for the administration.

Committee Reports:

Academic Affairs, Michael Grillo

Academic Affairs will be bringing three motions to the floor today.

Interdisciplinary Programs, Kathleen March

No Report.

University Environment, Scott Johnson

Scott Johnson introduced himself as the new Chair of the Committee.  The committee met and will focus on graduate education and the challenges in the Strategic Plan.

Research & Public Service, Douglas Ruthven

The research committee will be meeting in the next day or two, with Mike Hastings, the new director of Research & Sponsored Programs.

Constitution & Bylaws, Marie Hayes

They are discussing a research document on faculty governance and hope to have recommendations for the faculty senate regarding governance.

Library Advisory Committee, Dianne Hoff

Senator Hoff was absent but had contacted Howard and said that there was no report.

Workload Committee, Thomas Sandford

They are looking at the areas that have been listed in the Strategic Plan regarding student to faculty ratios and graduation rates.

Committee on Committees, Stephen Gilson

Stephen pointed out that  handouts today included a list of committees that still need people to serve. Faculty Senate authorized the Student Evaluation Committee and the Committee on General Education, but they cannot find enough people to serve.  He needs more people to serve on the Director of Student Records search.  Self-nominations are welcome.  When nominating someone for a committee, that person should be aware of the nomination and be willing to serve.

Board of Trustees Representative, Dana Humphrey

The BOT met in Lewiston/Auburn this past weekend. BOT passed the motion that allows UM to grant degrees this May.  The System’s financial report was released at the meeting and is on the UMS web-site.  A tourism initiative was passed.  A presentation was given on our medical costs.  The system expects our medical costs to increase 11% in this fiscal year.  Enrollment numbers are up; UM is up 131 students.  At lunch, the Chancellor and the BOT Reps from other campuses continued discussion of faculty governance.

Finance & Institutional Planning, Todd Gabe (report to be given later in the meeting)

DISCUSSION:

Howard Patterson asked Robert Kennedy to give an update on the Strategic Plan.

President Kennedy handed out a chart regarding the implementation committees being formed for the SP.  This was initiated by Dr. Mahon a few weeks ago.  There are four subcommittees each pertaining to specific items in the SP.  There will be one main SP committee.  Kennedy has presented this to the Chancellor and other campus presidents.  He said the UM has the most comprehensive and organized plan in the system. The system’s strategic plan calls for participation from everyone, students, staff, faculty and administration.  For the overall SP Implementation committee there will be 16 to 18 people.  He hopes for a lot of dialogue across campus regarding the implementation of the SP.  Quotes from the SP that are included on the chart of implementation committees.  The overall charge of this primary group is to establish our priorities for this campus.  The tactical committees’ will address specific directions mentioned in the SP.  The Higher Education Park tactical committee is an example.  (The plan calls for the University College at Bangor to become part of UM by July 1, 2005.) The Fogler Library tactical committee will address that direction of the SP.  The directive of Fogler Library as the State’s research library for UMS was written by all of the librarians at the other campuses.  He is concerned about the SP direction regarding limited graduate programs at other campuses. UM has a major stake in graduate education in this State. UM and USM are the only campuses with graduate programs.  We need to be proactive, prepare our own plan and present it to the system.  We can work cooperatively with USM regarding graduate education. Implementation will start once the committees are formed.

Stephen Gilson stated that as has been done in the past with other committee formations, he would like nominations for these tactical committees as soon as possible. Committee on Committees will put forward names to the President’s Office.  He thinks there will be a couple of faculty members per committee.

President Kennedy was asked whether the Higher Education Park in Bangor would become part of this campus and whether people receiving two-year degrees would graduate with the 4 year students here.  He responded that the Chancellor’s office has assured him that Orono will not be offering any two-year degree programs.  There are many complex elements involved with UCB.  We haven’t had much direction regarding the budget issues involved in UCB. He said he has spoken with Charlie Lyons, President of UMA, regarding the Higher Education Park. If UM becomes the campus for UCB , students who are already in the two-year programs may be contracted out to UMA until they finish their degrees, which will be given by UMA.

Regarding UM “taking over” UCB.  President Kennedy said that according to Vice Chancellor Núñez it will be our decision as to which buildings, etc., UM will keep. The Chancellor’s office will decide what to do with the rest of the buildings. There has been conversation between EMCC, UCB, UM and the Chancellor’s office regarding some of the buildings on the Bangor campus.  Kennedy said that when he speaks of “taking over” the Bangor campus he means limited buildings, and limited programs.  He still has questions regarding the budget for this.

Regarding the faculty at UCB,  Kennedy said that would be up to us to decide. We can make a proposal to UMS. John Maddaus stated that for the tactical committees, each committee should have more than two faculty members.  Kennedy said that the makeup of the committees would be flexible: the tactical committees would have 6 to 8 members, and the Implementation Committee would have 16 to 18 members. There will be communication between all the tactical committees and the core committee.

Ann Schonberger noted that many students at UCB come to UM to complete a four-year degree. UM receives many excellent students from UCB.  She pointed out that a lot of money has been invested on the UCB campus; it would be a shame to lose those resources.

Kathleen March asked if the name “Higher Education Park” was etched in stone.  Kennedy said that he didn’t think so.  If we come up with another name, it would need approval by the UMS.

Ad Hoc Committee Report, Kathleen March

Kathleen gave the names of the people who are serving on the Ad Hoc Committee:

Dean Astumian, Jim Acheson, Tony Brinkley, Habib Dagher, Mike Greenwood, Marie Hayes, Jim Horan, George Jacobson, Bill Livingston, Jim McClymer, Bob Rice, Mary Ellen Symanski, Stellos Tavantzis, Marie Teisl, and herself. The Committee has met twice and is discussing events that occurred in the summer 2004, specifically the removal of the UM President and also the Strategic Plan.  The committee will meet on Friday, November 19.  They are discussing the process the chancellor undergoes when making decisions regarding campus affairs, such as the evaluation of the president and other administrators.   They are also looking at the campus response to the strategic plan, to ensure it is something everyone wants, that exchanges of information are meaningful and there is a transparency of process.

Dr. Robert Dana gave an update on the Retention Advising Program.

A Retention Advising Committee has been formed, the members are:  Denise Skonberg, Michael Grillo, Michael Scott, Sandy Caron, Ann Leffler, Al Kezis, Candace Healy and himself.  They have met once and will continue on an ongoing schedule.  Dr. Dana has been to a meeting on a MELMAC grant for retention and advising.  He is confident they can attract more money for the advising program.  They are also want to create a clear link with academics to address this weakness in the program.  They are creating faculty liaisons, and advisors from faculty and staff.  They are hearing from faculty and staff who are hearing from students about the program.

Marie Hayes stated that retention rates have been a concern for the faculty senate for the last five years or more, and also commented that most faculty have a heavy advising load at present.  She hopes the advising center will gather input from faculty.  She said that there is a lot of literature on this subject and was wondering what the data gathering was for the MELMAC grant.  The MELMAC people wanted a lot of data for the grant.  He is confident that a good, efficient retention and advising program can be designed. Some colleges and departments have excellent advising centers; in these cases his program will be support for them.

A question was asked about what the retention rate over the last 5 years or so for first year students has been and what is their goal for retention.  Dr. Dana said that historically 80% of first year students have been retained.  This number seems fixed. Of the 20% that are not retained he hopes we can retain 10%.  He is not sure the number we should try to retain.  There are students who are leaving who probably should not be here anyway, but we are losing students who should be retained.

JulieAnn Scott, graduate student representative, asked if his office is utilizing grad assistants and research assistants.  Dana said four of his six retentionists are grad students.

Todd Gabe arrived from his class and gave the Finance & Institutional Planning Committee report.

The Finance & institutional Planning met with JulieAnn Scott, Deirdre Mageean, and Scott Delcourt and toured Estabrooke Hall, where grad students reside.  They also had a brief meeting about graduate student housing.  Some of the issues were climate control, the meal plan requirement, building a graduate community, and perhaps moving the graduate school office to Estabrooke Hall.

Old Business:  No old business.

New Business:

Demonstrated Needs Motion, Academic Affairs, presented by Michael Grillo

Introduction:

The majority of discussions deciding where the University should invest its faculty have been driven by plans originating from the Administration at campus and System Office levels.  While such planning in accordance to a centralized vision laudably co-ordinates the efforts of the numerous, diverse programs of the University, for the maximum effectiveness of the University’s meeting its mission, such planning needs balancing by the realities that the faculty face in meeting current and future curricular, research, and outreach responsibilities.

Motion:

The University of Maine Administration will formally canvass the faculty to determine where resources are required to respond to critical teaching, research, and outreach needs.  They will look for indicators that signal dire needs within programs, such as reliance upon a high proportion of adjunct faculty and overload teaching, formal self-assessment, recommendations by external program reviewers, accrediting boards, professional organizations, and state agencies, undergraduate student needs for their majors and general-education requirements, inappropriate class sizes, increased graduate student enrollments, and marked growths in programs.  Once the University of Maine Administration has collected these data, they will distribute it to the Faculty Senate, by 16 March, 2005, and present a plan of how they will address these deficiencies.

Michael said that the Demonstrated Needs Motion has been discussed for more than a year.  It attempts to work as a complement to the Strategic Plan, one which would work as a mode of identification of a variety of factors.  He thinks that if the colleges can identify needs and these can be catalogued it would be helpful to know.  It would also help us identify our strengths.  He said it is not meant to be antagonistic, but rather a realist and pragmatic process.

There was discussion regarding the motion.  Michael stated he felt that the motion would be a platform for faculty voice, and shared governance.  It shows us our shared commonality.  Some of the comments addressed the labor and time involved to the various programs and what will be done with the data collected.  President Kennedy thought it would be difficult if not impossible to collect this data, and this information is being collected for the strategic plan.  Janet Waldron is setting up meetings with the Deans which pertain to these same issues.  Scott Johnson stated that there isn’t a department on campus that doesn’t need something, that the motion would create more bureaucracy and the March 16 date was not reasonable.  There was lengthy and involved discussion from both sides of the issue.  A friendly amendment was suggested “will formally canvass the facultysenators…” as opposed to faculty in general.  Michael preferred “chairs and directors”.

A vote was called, the motion did not pass.

Maine Day Motion, Academic Affairs, presented by Michael Grillo

Introduction:

The tradition of Maine Day goes back to 1935, when then President Author Hauck designated a day for the students, faculty, and staff to work together in cleaning up the campus.  Every four years, the Senate needs re-authorize the institution of Maine Day.

Motion:

The Faculty Senate re-authorizes Maine Day for the years 2006-2010.  Maine Day will occur on the last Wednesday of the Spring Semester.  Classes will be canceled on that day with the exception of classes, including laboratories, which meet two or fewer times per week.  Within 30 days after Maine Day, the group that has overall responsibility for organizing the event shall submit to the Senate a list of projects that were accomplished and the number of people who participated.  The Faculty Senate will reconsider the policy of Maine Day in the Fall of 2008.

Michael introduced the motion.  There was no discussion.

A vote was called for, the motion passed, 19 for, 7 abstentions.

Program Review Motion, Academic Affairs, presented by Michael Grillo

Introduction:

As the University of Maine addresses how it will shape itself under the new System Strategic Plan, it must ready itself for the possibility of reduced allocations from the System Office and other forms of economic loss.  Discussions by several constituencies, including the Board of Trustees, Board of Visitors, System Office, and the Administration, surrounding these possible changes have included probabilities of program reductions and eliminations, the losses of positions, and other significant changes that would change the essential nature of the University of Maine.  Since the course content, curricular integrity, determination of programs, and pedagogy of the University lies within the purview of the faculty, the Faculty Senate, as its representative body, calls upon the Administration to negotiate with and achieve the Senate’s ultimate approval in all actions that affect the faculty’s fulfilling the University’s academic mission.

Section 305.1 of the University of Maine System Policy Manual covers Program Approval, Review, Suspension and Elimination (Effective: 1/29/87 & Last Revised: 7/12/93; 7/97; 3/99; 10/00) spells out how Administrators might identify a program for change; all faculty members should familiarize themselves with these procedures, which the System has posted electronically at http://www.maine.edu/acadaff.html#Anchor6 .  The motion below adheres to these guidelines, specifically in their stating that any program elimination should include under Program Suspension section 2, subsection “b. The specific rationale for the suspension of the program. … c. The relationship of the program suspension to the institutional mission and to other programs at the institution.   … [&] g.) The input obtained from meeting and discussion with the appropriate faculty committees and with the Associated Faculties of the University of Maine System prior to completion of the proposal.”  Likewise, the document calls for faculty participation in the Program Elimination process section 2, subsections “b.) The specific rationale for the elimination of the program including an indication of the campus process used to reach the recommendation. [&] c. The relationship of the program elimination to the campus mission and to other programs on the campus.”  These quoted sections call for the establishment of clear campus procedures, and also call for open discussions in identifying the relationships among programs.  The following motion provides the necessary framework in which these processes might take specific form on this campus, to best engage the Faculty in such important discussions.  As the representative body of the Faculty of the University of Maine, the Faculty Senate would certainly qualify as the most central of “the appropriate faculty committees” called for by the System Policy Manual.

Finally, the status of the University budget and any projected reallocations may, in part, dictate the levels of potential changes to academic programs.  Early information would be extremely helpful to all participants in review and planning decisions.

Motion:

Before making any decisions about the futures of any academic programs, the Administration will present its criteria for the evaluation of all academic programs to the Faculty Senate for Senate approval.  When the Administration implements these permitted criteria in any manner which affects the future of any academic program, it must return to the Senate for approval of its proposed actions.

As stipulated in the AFUM-UMS Agreement, Article 23, the Administration must prepare an impact study of any program suspension or elimination with the faculty.  This present motion requires the Administration to share that impact study in full with the faculty.  Should the Administration wish to curtail a program, the Administrators must bring this request before the Senate for a vote as the motion of 28 March, 1992 states and the actions of 18 December, 1996 support.

Given the AFUM-UMS Agreement contract dates of the faculty, no decisions or implementations affecting any program may take place over the Summer, when the faculty are off-contract.

In light of the importance of economic planning for all decisions on academic programming, the Administration must present a summary of FY06 funding needs and projected new revenues (showing multiple scenarios based on different levels of tuition increases) to the Faculty Senate by 26 January, 2005.

This motion is being presented due to some sections of the Strategic Plan which pertain to program cuts.  Michael strongly urged senators to read this section of the Strategic Plan.  The motion calls for the spelling out system policy, that there be a criteria for program review.  He feels the faculty should be asked for input when programs are under review or assessment.  The motion also asks that we have a clear relationship between these reviews and the UM budget.

Howard asked President Kennedy for his opinion on the motion.  Kennedy said that the motion appeared to be the same as policy that was already in place.  He took issue with some of the wording of the motion.  Michael said that the motion just asks that the Administration provide their criteria for program elimination.  Janet Waldron addressed the last paragraph of the motion and said that the administration will not have a budget prepared by January 26, 2005.  A lot depends on the legislature as to what our appropriation will be.  Until late June or July we will not know what our resources are.  She will share what she has before then, but not by January.  Concern was expressed that this motion was duplicating efforts of the Finance & Institutional Planning committee.  Horan said that the motion seemed redundant.

A vote was called, 8 for, 8 against and 11 abstained.  Howard Patterson cast the deciding vote against the motion.

Motion to Restore Full Funding of External Reviews, Environment Committee, presented by Scott Johnson.

Preamble

According to Section 305.1 of the University of Maine System’sAdministrative Procedures Manual of Academic Affairs, “all academic degree programs are to be reviewed within an established time frame not to exceed ten years.”  This review consists of a program’s self-study and “a report by external reviewers based on a review of the self-study, additional materials as required, and a site visit.” In order to produce their extensive reports, two or three external reviewers typically visit the UM campus for about two days.

This process of external review is provocative in a positive way.  It stimulates self-scrutiny by the departments even before the review happens. The reviewers can be extremely useful catalysts in sniffing out problem areas, suggesting programmatic refinements, additions, and eliminations, and helping departments envision alternative ways of doing things. For these reasons, it is of the utmost importance that highly qualified, experienced, and thoughtful reviewers are selected to conduct the reviews.

According to the System’s “Academic Program Review” item #5, “Funding for external reviews will be provided through a special fund in the budget of the University of Maine System.”  It has been standard practice here for Chief Academic Officers to reimburse reviewers for their travel, food, and lodging, and to pay them honoraria for their professional service. Quite recently (as of a year or so ago), without any consultation with the faculty, this practice was changed into a “no honoraria” policy.  Reviewers are now reimbursed for their expenses, and that is all. Moreover, the administration will now pay only $1500 for the total expenses of up to three reviewers. The remainder of the cost of expenses is supposed to be split between deans’ budgets and departments’ operating budgets. Many departments do not even know of this policy change, because they are not yet scheduled for an external review, and have not yet been subjected to the policy.

The “no honoraria” policy is unprofessional and embarrassing, both to the University of Maine as a whole and to the department who must offer apologies in the process of recruiting reviewers.  It can undermine the quality and credentials of the external reviewers and it may tarnish the review itself.  Not funding these reviews compromises their quality and their value in program improvement.

Motion

We move that the University of Maine System and its central administrative offices at the University of Maine fully fund the expenses and honoraria payments of external reviewers who come here to participate in program reviews.  Further, this return to fair pay for services rendered should begin immediately. “Full funding” of honoraria will typically mean a baseline honorarium of $500 per day for each reviewer, although the fair payment standard may vary from discipline to discipline.  The honorarium is separate from the reviewer’s travel and living expenses.

Scott previewed the motion.  The Academic Affairs manual states that external reviews will be funded by the University of Maine.  He said that most departments have a problem coming up with the funds to pay outside reviews.  Kathleen March stated that she was disturbed that some departments have had their reviews funded and other have not.  She was in favor of this motion.  A question was asked about the financial implications of the motion.  Scott said that the provost said that money must come from somewhere to pay for these reviews, perhaps other programs. President Kennedy stated that UM receives $1,500 from the system for program reviews, but receives nothing for accreditation reviews, so those monies would have to come from other academic program. Kennedy felt that the motion should have been given to the finance committee, which is working with Janet Waldron.  Someone asked how much money is involved.  Scott Johnson answered that reviewers in some program request $500 a day, $10,000 is not an unreasonable figure per review, so $100,000 per year is not unrealistic.  More questions were posed regarding who pays for these reviews.  Howard asked Claire Strickland how much money was estimated.  She said $100,000 was an accurate estimate.  Someone asked if there has been a recent change in the amount of funding from the system office.  Todd Gabe offered to have the finance committee review how much money has been spent in the last few years on these reviews. Other questions were posed to Scott, and he finally decided to withdraw the motion as he did not author it, and felt that the author should be present to answer.  Doug Ruthven suggested that he table the motion instead.

A vote was taken on tabling the motion.  The vote passed.

Meeting adjourned at 5:20 pm.

Respectfully Submitted,

Kathleen March

Secretary

 


Back to 2004-2005

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