April 27, 2011

FACULTY SENATE MINUTES

April 27, 2011

Present:   Ian Bricknell, Sudarshan Chawathe, Susan Erich, Robert Franzosa, Michael Grillo, Gordon Hamilton, Sue Hunter,  Kirsten Jacobson, Melvin Johnson, Robert Kennedy, Deborah Killam,  Dennis King, Kurt Klappenbach, Irv Kornfield,  Judy Kuhns-Hastings, David Marcincowski, James McClymer, David Morrison, Tina Passman, Mik Peterson for Justin Poland, Anne Pooler, Claire Strickland, Andrew Reeve, Bob Rice, Michael Scott, Scott  See, Kathryn Slott, Claire Sullivan,  Shihfen Tu,  Roy Turner, Janet Waldron, Chuck Wallace, Mark Wells.

Absent:  Douglas Bousfield, Tony Brinkley, Chris Campbell, David Dvorak, Cynthia Erdley, Janet Fairman, Todd Gabe, Eric Gallandt, Robert Gundersen, Duane Hanselman, Brian Harris Dan Harrison, Samuel Helmke, Clarissa Henry, Bill Livingston, Molly MacLean, Stuart Marrs, Sid Mitchell, Martha Novy-Broderick, Harlan Onsrud, Howard Patterson, Paul Rawson,  Thomas Sandford,  Howard Segal, Phillip Silver, Susan Lambrecht  Smith, Robert  Strong,  Touradj Solouki, James Warhola, Ross Wolland, Vivian Wu, Huijie Xue.

The meeting was called to order at 3:20 pm.

Announcements

Michael Grillo announced the meeting will be recorded because there will be a guest session with questions.

“Thank you President Kennedy” for the last decade, September 2000 – 2005 as Provost and 2005 – 2011 as President of the University.  He has worked on UM 150,  Campaign Maine has raised $152 million, there has been an increase in administrators coming from the faculty, there has been a close working relationship with the faculty, state, and public and private industry. “Welcome” for returning to the faculty.

Update on possible future meeting dates: May 4 & May 11 instead of May 11 & May 25.

Faculty Senate website is being updated.

A reception will follow today’s meeting and is hosted by President Kennedy and Provost Hunter.

Guests will speak at 4 p.m. regarding IT security.

Approval of the Minutes

The February minutes handed out will need a spelling correction:  the spelling of “Slott” should be corrected on pages 1, 3, and 4. The motion to accept the corrected minutes was seconded and  approved.

Committee Reports

BOT Rep – Robert Rice 

The Board of Trustees will meet May 22-23, 2011. Tuition/fee increases will be discussed and will probably be about 4.5% . The System is reviewing discretionary funds.

Academic Affairs – Judy Kuhns-Hastings

No report.

Constitution & Bylaws — Harlan Onsrud

Motion on the agenda.

Research & Scholarship – Janet Fairman

No report.

 

Finance & Institutional Planning – James McClymer

Meeting canceled until mid-May.

Ad hoc Committee – What has been happening to faculty positions? A committee of Judy Kuhns-Hastings, Mike and James talked to deans. There was a written policy under Provost Kennedy that vacant faculty positions went back to Alumni Hall.  Under Provost Symanski, some of these positions went back to the colleges. Currently the primary reason for the loss of positions is so that budget cuts can be dealt with at the college level. So essentially vacant faculty positions stay in their colleges. President Kennedy stated there’s no policy that returns positions to the administration, they stay at the college.  Salary lines have been used to fund shortfall in budgets. The committee will continue working on this next year.

University Environment – Mike Scott

No report

Library Advisory – Robert Rice for Howard Segal

Motion on the agenda.

Service & Outreach – Deborah Killam & Claire Sullivan

They are setting the  agenda for next year. Service learning: looking at the report from the Service Learning Committee to Faculty Senate from May 2007 to see which recommendations we need to move on.

Committee on Committees – Roy Turner

There are positions that need to be filled, for example, Athletic Advisory Board. Let Roy know if you’re interested.

Program Creation & Reorganization Review – Harlan Onsrud

Motion on the agenda.

General Education – Tina Passman

Two resolutions on the agenda.

Ad Hoc IT Advisory – Irving Kornfield & Mike Scott

Motions on the agenda.

Committees of the Administration Reports

No reports.

Graduate Student Representative — Kurt Klappenbach

No report.

Questions for Administrators

— Mik Peterson:  Where is the issue of faculty governance going? What is the faculty’s role in shared governance, especially since not all colleges function the same way with respect to faculty participation at each level?  Who determines the areas of research for new hires, and who determines the research/teaching balance?  A vacant faculty position was filled with a non-tenure-stream  faculty member. A faculty member was unable to teach labs but came up with a novel idea to use TA’s so nine labs could run instead of seven.  This faculty member was told no and was not involved in the decision, so where’s the shared governance? In reply, President Kennedy stated the decision had been made in the college and that it had never been presented to the administration. Not all colleges have academic councils so such issues are not dealt with the same way across colleges. There is a rumor that engineering gave up TA’s to save a program,  but is that fact or fiction? The faculty were told that the President and Provost denied the request. President Kennedy and Provost Hunter responded again that the plan had never reached them and that  they were unaware of it.

—  Kathryn Slott asked about the “shared governance” document.  Sue Hunter replied that Tom Longin had worked on the shared governance issue and had produced a shared governance document, which had been signed in 2009 by President Kennedy and then Senate President Dianne Hoff.

Some colleges, such as CLAS, have shared governance;  it is worth looking into for equity across colleges. Next year we should look at new structures with new policies.

Elections

Election of officers for Faculty Senate:   Ballots were handed out for the approval of the current slate of officers for President, Vice-President , Secretary, and BOT  Representative.  It was also possible to do write-in votes. See election results below.

New Business

A.)  Constitution and By-Laws Committee:

The Motion to Approve Amendments to the University of Maine Faculty Senate Constitution had its first review in the Full Senate on March 30, 2011,  its second review by Elected Members on April 12, 2011.  The motion is being brought to the Full Senate for a vote today, April 27, 2011:

Motion to Approve Amendments to the University of Maine Faculty Senate Constitution

Background

The Constitution and Bylaws Committee has assessed the wording of the current Constitution and

believes that certain terms need to be updated, existing wording needs to be clarified to ensure that voting by electronic means is clearly allowable for Referendums, and new wording is suggested to allow Faculty Senate related voting at the Department and College levels to occur through electronic vote whereby only one vote per faculty member is reasonably ensured. Paper ballots remain an option. Other minor clarification language is proposed as shown. There is no intent to change any substantive policies through the proposed amendments. The current University of Maine Faculty Senate Constitution may be found at http://umaine.edu/facultysenate/constitution/

Motion:

The Constitution and Bylaws Committee moves that the following proposed amendments to the

University of Maine Faculty Senate Constitution be approved.

Proposed Amendments to the University of Maine Faculty Senate Constitution

1. Article III, section 6:

Change “Faculty Assembly” to “Faculty Senate”

2. Article IV, section 1B. 2. Change the sentence that currently reads as follows:

“A special election conducted by the applicable college at a faculty meeting or through a mail ballot shall be held to fill an unexpired vacant position on the Faculty Senate.”

The sentence will now read instead:

“A special election conducted by the applicable college at a faculty meeting or through a paper mail ballot or through electronic vote whereby only one vote per faculty member is reasonably ensured shall be held to fill an unexpired vacant position on the Faculty Senate.”

3. Article IV, section 3:

Change “Vice Provost for Research and Graduate Studies” to “Vice President for Research”.

4. Article VI, section 4: “Agenda”, intro: Change “Vice President/President-elect” to “Vice-President”.

5. Article VI, section 4: “Agenda”, paragraph B:

Change the time for advance distribution of the agenda from seven days to three days so the requirement reads:

“The Secretary shall distribute the agenda at least 72 hours prior to each regular meeting.”

6. Article VI, section 9: “Distribution of Minutes”:

Change “CES” to “Cooperative Extension.”

Add the sentence: “Posting the minutes on the Faculty Senate web site shall constitute such a

distribution.”

7. Article VIII, section 1: “Veto by colleges”:

Add electronic voting by changing the first sentence to read: “Any academic policy recommendation by the Senate may be vetoed by a majority of the colleges, voting in their separate college meetings, or by a paper mail ballot of the college or by electronic voting that reasonably ensures only one vote per faculty member if a regular college meeting cannot be scheduled during the time limit allowed for a veto.”

8. Article VIII, section 2: “Referendum on veto”:

Add campus-wide electronic referendum voting by changing the paragraph to read: “The veto of a majority of the Senate by a majority of colleges shall become effective only if it is supported by a majority of the faculties of the colleges voting by paper mail ballot or by electronic voting that reasonably ensures only one vote per faculty member. If paper, ballots shall be mailed by the Secretary to all faculty members of the colleges within fifteen days following a veto. The secretary shall count such ballots fifteen days after mailing them. Electronic votes shall be counted five days after the electronic mailing of the ballot or electronic notification of the call to vote.

9. Change Article IX. Amendment, Section 2. That section currently reads as follows:

Section 2. Adoption of the amendment. If the proposed amendment received a two-thirds majority of the votes cast in the Senate, it shall be submitted to members of the faculties of the participating colleges and CES for ratification. The Secretary shall conduct a suitable referendum by mail within fifteen days after publication in the minutes of the Senate indicating a favorable action on the amendment by the Senate. The Secretary shall count the votes fifteen days after the mailing of the ballot to all members of the participating colleges and CES. A two-thirds majority of the ballots cast in the referendum shall be necessary for adoption of the amendment.

The paragraph will now read instead:

Section 2. Adoption of the amendment. If the proposed amendment received a two-thirds majority of the votes cast in the Senate, it shall be submitted to all university faculty members for ratification. The Secretary or the Secretary’s designee shall conduct a suitable referendum within fifteen days after publication in the minutes of the Senate indicating a favorable action on the amendment by the Senate.

The referendum may be accomplished using one of the following methods:

(a) by hard copy mail with the Secretary counting the votes fifteen days after the mailing of the ballot to all faculty members or

(b) by electronic vote using an electronic announcement that reasonably reaches all faculty members individually and that reasonably ensures that no more than one ballot may be cast by any one faculty member with the counting of votes by the Secretary to occur five days after the electronic mailing of the ballot or after electronic notification of the electronic means of voting.

A two-thirds majority of the ballots cast in the referendum shall be necessary for adoption of the amendment. Any challenge based on process that contests a Constitutional amendment vote shall be deemed null and void unless transmitted to the President of the Senate within fourteen days of the ballot count.

Passed unanimously:  23 for, 0 against, 0 abstentions.

B.)  General Education Committee:

1.)  Resolution in support of the recommendations of the writing consultants regarding the University of Maine Writing Program and a renewed effort on behalf of Writing across the Curriculum.

Background: In January 2011, with the support of the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the Consultant-Evaluator Service of the Council of Writing Program Administrators made a site visit to the University of Maine to evaluate the writing curriculum at the University of Maine. Writing is a crucial aspect of undergraduate and graduate education, and stakeholders across the University were involved and gave input to this process. The General Education Committee, in the process of deeply reviewing the writing requirement for General Education, was represented by the chair of the committee, Tina Passman.

The report, available upon request electronically, contains crucial recommendations to improve writing at the University of Maine, both within the writing curriculum and across all academic programs. They are as follows:

1. Improve the coherence and integrity of English Department writing courses.

2. Conduct an immediate ethnographic study of the status of student writing instruction at the University of Maine.

3. Create a Writing Across the Curriculum network that distributes writing responsibility across the campus and provides students the opportunity to graduate as confident thinkers and writers.

4. Recruit an associate or preferably a full professor as Director of Campus Writing and designate leaders for various components of the Writing across the Curriculum network.

5. Gain the agreement that deans and faculty members within each college will assume responsibilities for Writing across the Curriculum.

 

6. Offer professional development for all faculty, including full-time faculty members, part-time faculty members, and teaching assistants, so that writing becomes an integral part of all curricula at the university.

7. Expand the capacity and outreach of the Writing Center as a hub of the Writing across the Curriculum network.

8. Recognize writing and assessing as integral parts of learning through the development of eportfolios for all UMaine students.

The General Education Committee of the Faculty Senate supports these recommendations made by the consultants.  To this end, we are bringing forward this resolution in support of the recommendations of the January 2011 Report on the Writing Curriculum at the University of Maine.

Resolution: The General Education Committee of the Faculty Senate supports the recommendations of the Consultant-Evaluator Service of the Council of Writing Program Administrators in the January 2011 Report on the Writing Curriculum at the University of Maine. We urge the administration to prioritize the implementation of the recommendations of the January 2011 report as being in the best interests of strengthening writing, the foundation of education, across the curriculum and on all levels.

Passed unanimously:  24 for, 0 against, 0 abstentions.

2.)  Resolution to adopt updated General Education Student Learning Outcomes for Human Values and Social Contexts: Western Cultural Tradition.

Original statement: From the General Education Implementation Guidelines for Western Cultural Tradition (ratified by Faculty Senate 1996). Courses included in the Western Cultural Tradition category have as their primary focus the historical and/or philosophical examination of the basis of Western culture. Courses may be discipline specific [e.g., the history of economic thought, the history of education] while others may touch on subjects [e.g., the Platonic or Aristotelian traditions] that cut across disciplinary boundaries. Subject areas may include, but are not limited to, artistic, economic, educational, historical, linguistic, literary, performative, philosophical, political, rhetorical, scientific, and social dimensions of the Western cultural tradition.

The General Education Committee recommends the Faculty Senate adopt and ratify the following updated and streamlined set of student learning outcomes for the Western Cultural Tradition general education sub-category. This change creates student learning outcomes that are clear, assessable, and understandable by students.

Proposed student learning outcomes and preamble: General Education Student Learning Outcomes Human Values and Social Contexts:  Western Cultural Tradition

Preamble

The Western Cultural Tradition involves the historical and/or philosophical examination of the basis of Western culture. Subject areas may include, but are not limited to, artistic, economic, educational, historical, legal, linguistic, literary, performative, philosophical, political, rhetorical, scientific, and social dimensions of the Western cultural tradition and its impact.

Student Learning Outcomes Students completing the General education area of the Western Cultural Tradition will be able to:

Examine the sources, transmission, development and outcomes among ideas, institutions, artifacts, and values within the traditions of the West.

1. Recognize and explore the complexity and variety among ideas, traditions, institutions, archaeological and historical texts and artifacts and values that inform the cultural traditions of the West.
2. Analyze and think critically about how societies are or have been defined by such cultural traditions.
3. This change goes into effect for the entering class of September  2012 and the specific dates for implementation are being discussed with Student Records.

Passed unanimously:  24 for, 0 against, 0 abstentions.

C.)  IT Advisory Council:

Motions to Create Faculty Oversight of   Information Security Policy Implementation

from the IT Advisory Committee

27 April 2011

Introduction

The University of Maine System has approved and is in the process of implementing an Information Security Policy that has far-reaching implications for all members of the campus community, but especially for the way faculty teach and conduct research and scholarly work. The Policy, as written, has the potential to give the System authority over all information and computing devices on campus, including the authority to dictate how (or if) the information is disseminated, stored, and accessed. This includes information that is owned by faculty members (e.g., teaching materials, research/scholarly papers, data), and it includes all computing devices on campus, even if they are not owned by the System, for example, a faculty member’s personal laptop, tablet, or smart phone.

The Policy provides for a Governance Council to oversee the Policy and to develop the standards and procedures to implement it. The Policy, as written and approved, does not provide for faculty representation on this Council. The Information Security Committee (a mostly faculty committee convened by VP Janet Waldron and Provost Susan Hunter to provide a campus response to the policy) has received verbal agreement from the System’s previous Chief Information Officer and acting Chief Information Security Officer that faculty representation could be included, and the Committee is pressing hard for faculty representation from each campus. The Committee appreciates the willingness of the CIO and CISO to include faculty representation, but would like the Senate to both endorse this and to formalize the process whereby faculty representation from the University of Maine is selected.

Furthermore, the Committee urges the Faculty Senate, through its committee structure, is the appropriate body to provide continuing oversight of the Policy and its effect on the University after the Committee’s work is done. Consequently, the following three motions are offered.

Motions

    1.)  Motion 1: Resolution to support faculty representation on the Information Security Policy  Governance Council

Whereas the implementation of the System Information Security Policy may affect academic policy, including academic freedom and free speech which are under the oversight of the faculty (Article III, section 2 of the Constitution), the Senate resolves that it shall be represented on the Information Security Policy Governance Council.

Passed unanimously:  26 for, 0 against, 0 abstentions.

2.)  Motion 2: Selection of faculty representation to the Information Security Policy Governance Council

The Faculty Senate requests that the President of the University of Maine solicit from the Senate the names of one or more faculty members to be appointed to the System’s Information Security Policy Governance Council, as the President deems appropriate.

Passed unanimously:  26 for, 0 against, 0 abstentions.

3.)  Motion 3: Establishing faculty oversight of the Information Security Policy at the University of Maine via the Senate

Whereas an open environment in which academic and other information is created and disseminated freely is central to the academic mission of the University, and whereas the System Information Security Policy has the potential for far-reaching effects on such an environment, the Senate, as the representative body of the faculty charged with setting academic policy, including policies regarding matters of academic freedom and free speech (under Article III, section 2 of the Constitution), will assist the President of the University of Maine oversee the Policy, its implementation, and its effects at the University of Maine with respect to these and any future matters arising that are under the Senate’s purview.

Passed:  25 for,  0 against, 1 abstention.

4.)  Motion to Clarify the Scope of Information Covered by the System Information Security Policy

Introduction

The definition of the term “information asset” is key to understanding and implementing the University of Maine System’s Information Security Policy. Unfortunately, as written, the Policy lends itself to an interpretation of the term that is maximally inclusive.  Indeed, portions of the policy strongly imply that all information on campus, whether electronic, in hardcopy form, or otherwise, is covered under the term, and, hence, under the Policy.

This is unacceptable, given the nature and needs of the University’s mission. Although such an inclusive definition might be appropriate for a business or government entity in which most or all of its information is proprietary or sensitive, the vast majority of information at a university does not have this character. Indeed, the primary purpose of a university is to create and freely disseminate information.  Research and scholarship generate new knowledge, and that knowledge must be freely circulated informally and formally in order for it to advance the state of the field to which it pertains. Teaching is information transfer, not only in the classroom, but also through the creation and distribution of course materials via handouts, e-mail, Web sites, BlackBoard, and so forth. Service often requires the transfer of information from experts to users of the information, for example, when Cooperative Extension gives advice to a blueberry farmer.

A broad definition such as found in the newly-created Security Policy also cannot be reconciled with traditional and existing ideas and practices of ownership of intellectual property. Professors own the materials they develop for courses, textbooks they write, media and artistic works they create, and so forth. Research and scholarly papers and results are also the property of the investigator, unless other contractual agreements exist (e.g., with funding agencies).

In addition, such a broad definition leads to control by the Policy of all information on campus, which is incommensurate with the atmosphere and culture of a university. Universities need an atmosphere that fosters openness and experimentation. The Policy, if it applies to all information on campus, has the potential to impose draconian strictures on information access and interchange that would preclude such an atmosphere.

Finally, if “information asset” is defined broadly, then the result will be a policy that is needlessly onerous for information producers and consumers. If the Policy is taken at its word, then compliance would entail drastic changes to how everyone on campus does their work. Everything from central administration of passwords for all computing devices containing information assets (thus, all information devices) to removal of information from faculty and student desks (and, when carried to the extreme, books from bookshelves) to adhere to a “clean desk” policy could potentially be required by the policy, depending on the standards and procedures yet to be developed. The necessity and legality of procedures such as keystroke logs for all computers using University servers is highly questionable. Even if there is clarification in the specifications of which types of information are not covered under those sections of the Policy, it still would require all individuals on campus, including students, to be aware of each standard and policy and how it applies to each kind of information. A better idea would be to exclude from the Policy’s purview most information generated and used by campus community in the first place.

Motion

Whereas the free and open interchange of information is critical to the academic mission of the University of Maine, the Faculty Senate under its mandate to set policy pertaining to academics, recognizes “information” and “information assets “as used in the University of Maine System’s Information Security Policy, to exclude materials defined as intellectual property in the University of Maine System Statement of Policy Governing Patents and Copyrights (2/22/02). Such assets include traditional works of scholarship as well as information associated with incidental use of University resources.

UNIVERSITY OF MAINE SYSTEM STATEMENT OF POLICY GOVERNING PATENTS AND COPYRIGHTS (2/22/02):  http://www.maine.edu/pdf/intprop.pdf

Discussion: Irv stated the committee made an effort to refine verbiage so motion ended up better.  Assured verbally, the System will accommodate concerns.

Passed unanimously:  26 for, 0 against, 0 abstentions.

D.)  Library Committee:

Motion in Support of a Systemwide Institutional Repository Faculty Senate Library Committee, April, 2011

Preamble

In April, 2008, the Faculty Senate moved forward with a motion in support of an Institutional Repository at the University of Maine. An Institutional Repository is an online locus for collecting, preserving, and disseminating information in digital form.¹  The content of an Institutional Repository typically includes, or may include, the intellectual output of an institution including research journal articles, preprints, documents undergoing peer review, digital versions of theses and dissertations, administrative documents, course notes, student projects etc.

On advice of the Senate, the Dean of Libraries moved forward and engaged the University of Maine Information Technologies (UMS IT) administrators about the formation of an IR that would be Systemwide. The System has been receptive to the concept and the initiative is now at a critical stage where support is needed from the campuses as well as the UMS to move forward and complete the steps necessary to further develop and to fund the initiative. The purpose of this motion is to reaffirm support by the senate of an Institutional Repository and to request that the Dean of Libraries and other UM administrators continue efforts to bring the initiative to fruition.

Motion

The Faculty Senate, on behalf of the faculty at the University of Maine, requests that the Dean of Libraries and other administrators move forward with the UMS in developing a Systemwide Institutional Repository. Further, it is suggested that the University of Maine administration move forward with the administration of other campuses within the System to procure ongoing funding from the University of Maine System.

____________________

¹Berkeley Electronic Press http://www.bepress.com/ir

 

Bob Rice mentioned that the other BOT representatives and the other libraries in the state were in support.

Passed unanimously:  26 for, 0 against, 0 abstentions

E.)  PCRRC:

Faculty Senate Support of a Reorganization to Create a School of Computing and Information Science

Motion by the Program Creation and Reorganization Review Committee (PCRRC) of the UMaine Faculty Senate

Whereas, the reorganization proposal to create a School of Computing and Information Science has undergone extensive development, review and editing over the past year, has the support of the faculty of the academic units to be brought under the new school, has the support of the University of Maine Administration, has received no major critiques from other faculty, students or alumni in oral or written comments since the publication of the formal proposal, and the reorganization proposal has completed the PCRRC Review process

• the PCRRC fully supports the reorganization proposal as posted on the PCRRC web site at https://umaine.edu/facultysenate/wp-content/uploads/sites/218/2011/04/SchoolOfComputingPCRRC1.pdf ,

• the PCRRC moves that the proposal as written be supported by the Faculty Senate, and

• the PCRRC moves that the Faculty Senate recommends to the Administration the expedient creation of the School.

Discussion:  The last Full Senate meeting had a lot of unsatisfactory comments regarding the proposal, but the faculty wasn’t opposed. There was a meeting held Monday, April 25, 2011 to discuss this latest version of the motion, which removes the Computer Engineering program from the School of Computing and Information Science.

Passed:  23 for,  0 against, 3 abstentions.

Election Results:

There were 25 votes cast for the slate as presented:

BOT Representative: Robert Rice

Secretary: Kathryn Slott

Vice-President: Harlan Onsrud

President: Michael Grillo

Old Business

None.

Presentation by and discussion with guests on IT Security:

— George Dolicker,  IT Security; CISO contractor working on security breach

— Ralph Caruso,  CIO (stepping down to retire)

— Dick Thompson (replacement) former State CIO retired

— John Portner, CIO University of Systems Office

George – make it work in an effective way

John – new to role, military background – security, IT background, he looks forward to a balanced approach.

Dick – review

-hacker breach

-led forensic effort

-UM System dodged a large bullet through good luck not planning.

-hacker used system to attack others, no information was stolen

-the downside; effort to contain the breach, see what had been done, cost about $500,000.

-Chancellor did vulnerability scanning, several vulnerable areas

-all but seven areas have been resolved, all seven are on the Orono campus.

– recommend to lead security on rental or permanent

-build structure around security structure. Best structure is the iso 27002, it’s the worldwide standard in security.

-several campuses around the country use the iso 270002

-Concern threat of policy

-does it support environment of great security but also moderate security

-obtain permanent to remove IT assets from campus. IF you usually take your laptop home that will still be okay. If you try to take your co-workers laptop that’s not okay and would require permission.

George — what is the scope of an “information asset”?  It is a very broad definition.  If the information belongs to UMS — any part of it — then it is an information asset.  If it is entrusted to UMS as part of a contract, statute, etc., but it does not belong to UMS, such as  social security numbers and credit card information, then there is a contractual agreement to protect that information.  The purpose of the policy isn’t to make life difficult:  your information is your property.  Standards need to be developed in collaboration with all campuses.  It is believed that the policy will not make what you do difficult;  rather it will make  the system more resilient.

Standards – Security Governance

Campus Rec

HR

CIO

Questions/Answers

Jim McClymer – Did this consider all voices heard, sometimes small campuses dictate to larger ones?  They need to sit down with faculty and discuss the policy rather than just imposing it.

Reply:  Need to support what’s done at UM without crushing smaller campuses just because UM is huge. Intellectual property is not covered under this. Legal and contractual information is covered. Going rate for compromised information is $200, Sony just had thousands compromised.

Mik Peterson – Part of UMaine’s mission is that it is a research institution.  This policy does not take into account that any research done for an agency like NIH is required to be open access. How will that be dealt with? How can we provide research in real time across disciplines?

Reply:  This is not a lockdown policy

Faculty comment — UMaine is the largest research campus, other campuses are not and grant no PhD’s.

Irv Kornfield – The four motions on IT Security passed the Senate.  We are not disagreeing with the need to protect social security numbers and  credit card records but phrases like “working model” are confusing. How will the process go forward? We can take you at your word but prefer to have it in writing that the information described in the intellectual property pdf is exempted from this policy.  There needs to be a recognition of an individual faculty member’s intellectual property.

Reply:  There is a clear definition of what falls in what category. We are headed toward getting draft standards next week.

Faculty comment — We don’t know your timeframe, no information has been provided, we were forced to write a policy to show concern. We need you word that our concerns are being incorporated.

Reply:  The committee is working on a draft and will incorporate UMaine faculty suggestions. We can work and get to where it’s in the best interest of both sides.

Faculty suggestion:   in the name of transparency, is there some way there can be more public involvement during each stage, so people can see progress?

Faculty issues raised:  1) ease of getting work done, i.e. free to do what we want with research machines or will we need to fill out too many forms and jump through hoops to prove what we’re doing?  Need clear acknowledgement of keeping overhead low. Ask too many people for clearance and things don’t get done. Outreach would suffer if too much paperwork goes into it. 2) Information protected, not devices? This needs to be acknowledged because devices need to be protected also, how much is posted on that? 3) Privacy versus security, sometimes these two issues are in sync. This must be acknowledged:   you may acknowledge it but the document does not. We need agreements  on what’s covered and what’s not. We need policy, not standards, because policy dictates “all information and assets shall be owned by UM System.” We need a literal approach —  what’s said is what’s meant.

Mike Scott – what is the penalty for not having a server taken care of, I’m probably 1 of the 7 that’s high risk.  What are we supposed to do if we have equipment which is high risk but which cannot be upgraded?

Cha – We need to be notified when IT Security is doing port scans. Port scans are notified 2-3 days ahead of time But there is no perimeter security.

Tina asked if users’ bank account numbers or passwords could be captured by the security measures.

Reply:  No.

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at  5:07 pm, and we went to the reception hosted by President Kennedy and Provost Hunter.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Kathryn Slott, Secretary