2011-2012 - October 19, 2011
FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2011
Present: Richard Borgman, Dick Brucher, Sudarshan Chawathe, William Congleton, Robert Dana, Marcia Douglas, Paul W. Ferguson, Michael Grillo, Gordon Hamilton, Dan Harrison, Melvin Johnson, Deborah Killam, Dennis King, Irv Kornfield, Bill Livingston, Stuart Marrs, Robert Milardo, Harlan Onsrud, Anne Pooler, Paul Rawson, Andrew Reeve, Steve Reiling, Bob Rice, Michael Scott, Scott See, Howard Segal, Kathryn Slott, Claire Sullivan, Howard Segal, Janet Waldron
Absent: Emmanuel Boss, Douglas Bousfield, Ian Bricknell, Benildo de los Reyes, Dylan Dryer, David Dvorak, Janet Fairman, Eric Gallandt, Robert Gundersen, Ramesh Gupta, Duane Hanselman, Samuel Helmke, Clarissa Henry, Sue Hunter, Steven Kimball, Kurt Klappenbach, Judy Kuhns-Hastings, David Marcincowski, James McClymer, Jennifer Moxley, Martha Novy-Broderick, Tina Passman, Michael Peterson, Thomas Sanford, Phillip Silver, Shihfen Tu, Roy Turner, Mark Wells, Vivian Wu Robert Strong, Melvin Johnson, Molly MacLean
The meeting was called to order at 3:18 pm.
Michael Grillo announced the Convocation at 3:00pm on Thursday, October 27, 2011 in Hauck Auditorium. It was mentioned that the Convocation had been referred to as Convocation and also Conversation. President Ferguson said it can be called either.
II. Approval of the Minutes:
The minutes for September 19, 2011 were approved with the correct spelling of Sudarshan Chawathe, listed among those present at the meeting.
III. Committee Reports:
BOT Rep – Robert Rice
The next Board of Trustee meeting will be November 13-14 at USM. The official enrollment figures were expected October 15 but Jim Breece was delayed traveling. There are approximately 30,000 – 32,000 students system wide with 11,100+ at UMaine. The community college system has approximately 15,000 – 17,000students. Matriculation between the community college and university system is about 12% that attempt a four- year degree. At UMaine approximately 100-120students a year matriculate with 54% obtaining a four-year degree.
Academic Affairs – Judy Kuhns-Hastings
Constitution & Bylaws – Harlan Onsrud
Research & Scholarship – Janet Fairman
The UMaine Advisory Panel is moving forward with UMapIt.
Finance & Institutional Planning –James McClymer
University Environment – Mike Scott
Mike is meeting with the administration to discuss the state of classrooms and progress on that issue.
Library Advisory – Howard Segal
Four departments have been chosen to jumpstart the Repository. Faculty member can upload material but the four departments selected will have assistance.
Service & Outreach – Deborah Killam & Claire Sullivan
Meeting on Friday from 10:00 – 11:00.
Motion under New Business.
Committee on Committees – Roy Turner
Program Creation & Reorganization Review –Scott See
Working on two proposals; 1) BS in Climate Change, and 2) PhD in Communications. The committee is in the process of drafting recommendations. All materials are on the Faculty Senate website.
General Education – Tina Passman
Committees of the Administration Representatives
Ad Hoc IT Advisory — Irving Kornfield & Mike Scott
Meeting regularly and moving along. Richard Powell was appointed as UM’s faculty representative to the new System IT Committee. Plans forthcoming; 1) UMaine Chief Information Officer, and 2) IT leadership
III. Questions to Administrators
Q. President Ferguson was asked how the meeting with the Governor went.
A. There hasn’t been a meeting yet, the Governor was on campus to open the Health Care Summit.
Q. Is there an update on the Active Learning Classroom? Is there an opportunity for faculty to be involved?
A. It’s moving forward. Study in progress for estimates on cost to renovate Estabrook Hall.
There is opportunity for faculty to be involved, it’s for faculty so they should be involved with proposals for courses, use of space, etc. There’s a website with information, it will be sent to add to the Faculty Senate website.
Q. Janet Waldron was asked how the numbers Bob Rice presented compare to projected.
A. On target with a little more.
Q. Maine Heritage Foundation reported last decade increases of UMaine System salaries and employees making over $100,000. College of Liberal Arts and Sciences is actually down with full professors actually making below the 20th percentile. Are any administrators coming to the defense?
A. There is communication between the Board of Trustees, System, and Maine Heritage Foundation. Conversation is currently going on in how best to respond.
Q. Have he Distance Learning Advisory met?
A. Formed but haven’t met yet.
IV. New Business
Motion: General definition for service-learning
Service and Outreach Committee Recommendation – October 2011
The Service and Outreach Committee of the Faculty Senate is recommending passage of the following motion, which includes a general definition for service learning at UMaine. We are recommending this definition for service-learning because it was one of several that were referenced in the Service and Outreach Committee report to the Faculty Senate in May 2007, was taken from the National Service-Learning Clearinghouse site then and is still in use on their site today[http://www.servicelearning.org/what-is-service-learning, accessed 9/27/2011],and it is more inclusive of all the service-learning type of activities that might be engaged in or through a land grant institution like UMaine.
The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine adopts the following general definition for service-learning. This definition will serve as a guide in the development of service-learning opportunities and partnerships between students, University of Maine faculty and staff, and communities throughout the State of Maine. Service-learning at the University of Maine is defined as “a teaching and learning strategy that integrates meaningful community service with instruction and reflection to enrich the learning experience, teach civic responsibility, and strengthen communities” (National Service-Learning Clearinghouse).
Voting Results: 23 for, 0 against, 1 abstention
Motion: B.S in Climate Change and Culture
PCRRC Assessment and Recommendation
15 October 2011
Background and Committee Process: [for Stage 8sequence]
9/21/11: Information on proposal distributed to Faculty Senate for review and comments.
9/28/11: Meeting with PCRRC and proponents [Kristin Sobolik, Jim Roscoe, Joseph Kelley, Scott Johnson].
10/7/11: Campus-wide hearing; included the proposal’s proponents, members of the PCRRC, and members of the campus community.
10/13/11: PCRRC meeting to discuss proposal and draft recommendation for Faculty Senate’s approval.
10/19/11: PCRRC recommendation on Faculty Senate agenda.
Overview of the Proposal:
Members of the PCRRC and people who attended the campus-wide hearing generally agreed on the following strengths and advantages of the proposal:
It is well crafted, comprehensive, and closely follows the guidelines for new program proposals.
If implemented, it will improve connections between departments and colleges; it will bridge social and environmental sciences; this adheres closely to one of the University of Maine’s goals: to improve interdisciplinary teaching and research.
It relies on established and productive departments and programs at the University of Maine that enjoy international reputations: Earth Sciences, Anthropology, and Climate Change; it identifies a broad range of personnel who are prepared to contribute to the major.
It includes a modest requirement of adding a single new courses: ANT 110 Climate Change and Culture Seminar; the rest of the degree requirements will come from existing or easily modified courses.
As the proposal notes, “the core of the program is already largely in place.” It makes use of existing library resources, equipment, and space, with perhaps additional support from grants for equipment.
Questions Raised by PCRRC and Members of the University of Maine Community:
The inclusion of a faculty line in the proposal was discussed at length. Questions included whether the program could exist without the line, and if the line could be added in the future after the program is introduced and students matriculate. In sum, the proponents argued that a new faculty line would be crucial for the creation of the program and to ensure its success. The proposal PCRRC reviewed did not include the “fiscal note” that is required when a proposed program requires new resources.
Similarly, the proposal for two teaching assistants – one in Anthropology and one in Sciences – triggered significant discussion. Members of PCRRC noted that the addition of two teaching assistants to those departments would probably come out of a defined and limited pool of teaching assistants at the University that are determined by the Graduate School.
The nature of the impact of teaching loads in both Anthropology and Earth Sciences was discussed. Questions were raised about the newly designed Ph.D. in Anthropology and Environmental Policy and its impact on teaching loads to implement and sustain the B.S. degree in Climate Change and Culture. Moreover, the question of the level and frequency of teaching support among faculty with contracts that stipulate a high percentage of research time (75%, for example) will have to be addressed in order make sure that the large number of “faculty involved in the program”(Appendix I) are actually engaged in undergraduate instruction described in the BS program.
The feasibility of having students who are already matriculated at the University of Maine transition to the program, or whether it would be exclusively designed around a selected pool of applicants (given the target for a limited number of majors) was discussed at length. Proponents suggested that both cohorts could be accommodated.
PCRRC raised questions about the viability of the program should the goals of attracting a large number of out-of-state students fall short of the anticipated numbers. Proponents responded that the program should attract a large number of students from outside Maine because it will be unique among New England’s universities and colleges. The PCRRC notes that more attention will have to be paid to advertising strategies to accomplish the goal of matriculating out-of-state students. Proponents argued that the central themes of climate change and its impact on humans should be enormously attractive for university undergraduates in the twenty-first century.
PCRRC requested fuller articulation of the skill sets that would be developed for students, and the proponents added language clarifying specific student learning outcomes (see II, C).
The question of double counting majors to credit both Anthropology and Earth Sciences was raised and discussed. PCRRC notes that although it acknowledges the issue, is not responsible for the resolution of this question and its implementation. We recommend immediate administrative attention to the matter of double counting majors, should the B.S. be approved.
Questions were raised at the campus-wide hearing on the challenges of having students navigate the program’s requirements given its location in two departments from different colleges. Those challenges need to be addressed should the degree be approved.
PCRRC Deliberations (10/13/11) and Summary Comments:
The proposal is timely and problem oriented; it articulates an undergraduate concentration that should have great appeal to students in the twenty-first century; students would improve their understanding of the impact that climate change is having on humans and learn strategies for coping with those changes. It will be a unique program in the nation; this will be especially important for attracting out-of-state students to the University of Maine as a “first choice” school; it pays close attention to recruitment.
PCRRC notes that it is not the committee’s mandate to evaluate or verify the Total Financial Consideration (VI) component of the proposal.
PCRRC notes that the fiscal note from the Office of the Vice President for Administration and Finance, as stipulated in Stage 7 of the PCRRC Policy and Procedures Manual, is not included in the proposal.
PCRRC recommends moving the proposal to Stage 9 of the Full Program Proposal sequence, based on the findings expressed above.
Q. What is Stage 9?
A. That’s when it is sent to the Provost for approval. It is either approved or returned to the unit with questions or revisions. If the Provost gives approval it is then sent to the President for approval.
Voting Results: 21 in favor, 1 against, 1abstention.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:42 pm
Kathryn Slott, Secretary