Skip Navigation

2011-2012 - September 21, 2011

FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
SEPTEMBER21, 2011

Present: Douglas Bousfield, Dick Brucher, Joe Carr, Sudarshan Chawathe, Robert Dana, David Dvorak, Janet Fairman, Robert Franzosa, Michael Grillo, Robert Gundersen, Ramesh Gupta, Gordon Hamilton, Sue Hunter, Dennis King, Irv Kornfield, Judy Kuhns-Hastings, Bill Livingston, Stuart Marrs, James McClymer, Robert Milardo, Martha Novy-Broderick, Harlan Onsrud, Anne Pooler, Paul Rawson, Andrew Reeve, Steve Reiling, Scott See, Phillip Silver, Kathryn Slott, Shihfen Tu, Claire Sullivan, Shihfen Tu, Roy Turner, Bob Rice, Howard Segal, Janet Waldron, Vivian Wu

Absent: Emmanuel Boss, Ian Bricknell, William Congleton, Dylan Dryer, Eric Gallandt, Duane Hanselman, Dan Harrison, Samuel Helmke, Clarissa Henry, Deborah Killam, Kurt Klappenbach, David Marcincowski, Jennifer Moxley, Tina Passman, Michael Peterson, Thomas Sanford, Michael Scott, Mark Wells, Robert Strong, Melvin Johnson, Molly MacLean

The meeting was called to order at 3:17 pm.

I. Announcements:
Michael Grillo welcomed everyone to the first full senate meeting of the year. There will be a presentation by President Paul Ferguson after today’s committee reports.

Amend the Agenda to include approval of March and April 2011 meeting minutes.

Ia. Approval of the Minutes:
The minutes of March 30, 2011 and April 27, 2011 were approved.

II. Committee Reports:

BOT Rep – Robert Rice
Trustees met Monday, a few topics pertained to UMaine.
Structure of BOT has changed, Governor appointed three to the.
Detailed Enrollment Management plan rolled out, targets set for each campus.
New Enrollment Management position for UMaine campus

Strategic Program Alignment:

Emphasis on specific programs
12 students per undergraduate class
graduate students per class

Distance Education:

Some campuses concerned
Some issues of concern are quality, oversight, and fairness among campuses.
Initiative with China, So. Korea, and India. Jim Breece looking to forge partnership but needs a good University contact in India.

Three potential revenue opportunities, two important to UMaine

One for $20 million
One for $19 million to do major renovations to labs

New Challenges New Direction

Calendar

Governor wants to see productivity, urged to focus on job production.
Health Plan – if unions agree we’ll all fill out the forms like last year ($100 back) and it will reduce insurance costs by 15-20%.
Presidents to meet with BOT to talk quality metrics; how to evaluate, quality of instruction, classroom. Need to meet quality and peer review standards.

Academic Affairs – Judy Kuhns-Hastings
No report.
Two motions under New Business

Constitution & Bylaws – Harlan Onsrud
No report.

Research & Scholarship – Janet Fairman
Held first meeting today and will met again in October.

Finance & Institutional Planning – James McClymer
Meeting on the 29th.

University Environment – Mike Scott
No report. Committee needs more members.

Library Advisory – Howard Segal
Motion under New Business.
Would like to acknowledge the work and strong support of Joyce Rummery and Susan Hunter for an Institutional Repository.

Service & Outreach – Deborah Killam & Claire Sullivan
Met on the 14th and will meet again on the 26th. Working on definitions of “service.”

Committee on Committees – Roy Turner
Still need a few members.

Program Creation & Reorganization Review –Scott See
Met last week.
Two proposals carried from last year; one in stage 8 and the other in stage 2. They can be viewed on the Faculty Senate website.

General Education – Tina Passman
Tina not present but it was stated that the committee welcomes more members and that work will continue this year on learning outcomes.

Committees of the Administration Representatives
No reports.

Ad Hoc IT Advisory — Irving Kornfield & Mike Scott
Motion to re-establish the committee.
Worked over the summer and appreciates all the work done.

III. Presentation by President Paul Ferguson

Sincere appreciation of the Faculty Senate

Truly partnered for a smooth transition
Thanks to Michael Grillo and Bob Rice for their assistance

First impressions

Students, undergraduate and graduate, Faculty student interaction
immeasurable

Quality of scholarship and research is stunning: per capita output, grants, and publications is extraordinary.

There’s an affection for UMaine despite the challenges faced
Tremendous qualities

Disconnect – Challenges

There is a real sense of misunderstanding; loss of sense of place of role that UMaine has as the Land Grant University of the state. We need to articulate better what it means for UMaine to be the flagship campus of the system. We have an incredible opportunity to define ourselves. We need to determine where UMaine is in its leadership role in the state. We need to protect and reinforce our recruitment stream.

We should challenge each other to define our strengths:

How?
Be very strategic and entrepreneurial in recruiting
Next couple of years be aggressive to bring entrepreneurial
quality
Primary concern: erosion of faculty lines: need to explore ways
to rebuild the faculty. Key initiatives: roles of faculty; recreate faculty lines; refill strategic faculty lines.

Main concerns:

Leading research University, how to reinvigorate for the 21st
century land grant?
Strong liberal arts and sciences university
Balance commitment to research and quality teaching.
UMaine to be the model of the concept of the “teacher-scholar” and how that enhances our ability to be strong
Communication building; visiting around the state and campuses.
Rebuild on where UMaine should be
Different climate – strategic on cost savings
Consider next year as a pivotal time and decide where we want to be in the next 1-10 years and after that.
BOT and Governor looking at UMaine to come to the table and show
who UMaine is.

What are the practical ways of getting there?

Margaret Chase Smith Center will probably conduct focus groups.

We want to define UMaine; what can we say we do that no one else does.
The challenge: embrace the tradition already here and then build on that to create a working model for a vision.

Hope to share ideas at the October convocation.

There will be more formal discussions between the faculty and the president in order to build a consensus bridge.

Questions:

Q. You talk about how others define us, is anyone willing to listen to what we say?
A: They’re willing but need a clear statement, for instance, some in
Portland responded with “I didn’t know that.” People are receptive
Education prepares students in areas other than science and technology
Bring role of UMaine to the table
Q: How to get others to listen better?
A: We aren’t the University of Maine in Orono, we’re The University
of Maine
Bring guidance councilors to campus
Q: What is the sense of our autonomy in System? One Chancellor
referred to campuses as University of Southern Maine and the
University in Northern Maine.
A: It’s not just semantics, our response may argue style partnering
but not in what we do
Encouraged to lead as flagship but preserve and not compromise
Q: How to help or partner with USM and other campuses without losing
status?
A: Need to be aggressive in Enrollment Management
System is pushing enrollment

IV. Questions to Administrators
No questions.

V. Old Business
None.

VI. New Business

A. Motion Title: Re-Establishment of Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Advisory IT Committee
Motion: The Faculty Senate Executive Committee recommends that the Ad Hoc Faculty Senate IT Advisory Committee be re-established for academic year 2011/2012.

Rationale: The Instructional Technology plan is within the purview of the faculty by virtue of the fact that it is integral to the academic mission of the University. The faculty need to be active in the evolution of the IT plan. This committee had organized faculty representation so that the interests of faculty and UM were coordinated and prioritized; and is necessary for the University of Maine, to aggressively identify the structure, composition, and organization at the System level.

Passed unanimously 29 for, 0 against, 0 abstentions

B. Motion to Urge the President of the University of Maine to sign the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities

Background:
In furtherance of a faculty motion submitted by the Library Committee on 2 April 2008, the University of Maine is currently acquiring institutional repository capabilities that are being instituted through Fogler Library. (See Preamble and Motion to Support an Institutional Repository, Motion Passed on April 2, 2008, http://umaine.edu/facultysenate/motions-passed-2/2007-2008-motions/) With a functional institutional repository now in the process of being instituted, it makes sense to revisit and pursue the specific further actions outlined in the 2008 motion that should be taken to create appropriate incentives for faculty and students to contribute to the repository.

In order to provide legal clarity to allow all works of faculty and students to be deposited in the long-term university repository on a day forward basis, it would be highly useful for the University of Maine to establish itself as an open access university as many other universities have done. An initial step towards this goal is to request the President of the University of Maine to sign the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities … as over 300 other universities and research institutions have done. The text of the declaration is attached as an appendix to this motion and a link to the signatories is provided.

The University of Maine should also explore the possibility of joining the Coalition of Open Access Policy Institutions (COAPI) which was created in August 2011 and currently numbers 22 North American universities.

The international Berlin Open Access Conference will be in Washington D.C. in November 2011 and COAPI will meet just before that conference. We recommend that the administration send at least one representative to both events and recommend that at least one University of Maine faculty member attend.

Motion:
The University of Maine Faculty Senate requests and urges the President of the University of Maine to sign the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities before the international Berlin Open Access Conference in Washington D.C. in November 2011

Appendix to Motion:
Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities

Preface:
The Internet has fundamentally changed the practical and economic realities of distributing scientific knowledge and cultural heritage. For the first time ever, the Internet now offers the chance to constitute a global and interactive representation of human knowledge, including cultural heritage and the guarantee of worldwide access.

We, the undersigned, feel obliged to address the challenges of the Internet as an emerging functional medium for distributing knowledge. Obviously, these developments will be able to significantly modify the nature of scientific publishing as well as the existing system of quality assurance.

In accordance with the spirit of the Declaration of the Budapest Open Access Initiative, the ECHO Charter and the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing, we have drafted the Berlin Declaration to promote the Internet as a functional instrument for a global scientific knowledge base and human reflection and to specify measures which research policy makers, research institutions, funding agencies, libraries, archives and museums need to consider.

Goals:
Our mission of disseminating knowledge is only half complete if the information is not made widely and readily available to society. New possibilities of knowledge dissemination not only through the classical form but also and increasingly through the open access paradigm via the Internet have to be supported. We define open access as a comprehensive source of human knowledge and cultural heritage that has been approved by the scientific community.

In order to realize the vision of a global and accessible representation of knowledge, the future Web has to be sustainable, interactive, and transparent. Content and software tools must be openly accessible and compatible.

Definition of an Open Access Contribution:
Establishing open access as a worthwhile procedure ideally requires the active commitment of each and every individual producer of scientific knowledge and holder of cultural heritage. Open access contributions include original scientific research results, raw data and metadata, source materials, digital representations of pictorial and graphical materials and scholarly multimedia material.

Open access contributions must satisfy two conditions:
1. The author(s) and right holder(s) of such contributions grant(s) to all users a free, irrevocable, worldwide, right of access to, and a license to copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works, in any digital medium for any responsible purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship (community standards, will continue to provide the mechanism for enforcement of proper attribution and responsible use of the published work, as they do now), as well as the right to make small numbers of printed copies for their personal use.

2. A complete version of the work and all supplemental materials, including a copy of the permission as stated above, in an appropriate standard electronic format is deposited (and thus published) in at least one online repository using suitable technical standards (such as the Open Archive definitions) that is supported and maintained by an academic institution, scholarly society, government agency, or other well established organization that seeks to enable open access, unrestricted distribution, inter operability, and long-term archiving.

Supporting the Transition to the Electronic Open Access Paradigm:
Our organizations are interested in the further promotion of the new open access paradigm to gain the most benefit for science and society. Therefore, we intend to make progress by:
• encouraging our researchers/grant recipients to publish their work according to the principles of the open access paradigm.
• encouraging the holders of cultural heritage to support open access by providing their resources on the Internet.
• developing means and ways to evaluate open access contributions and online journals in order to maintain the standards of quality assurance and good scientific practice.
• advocating that open access publication be recognized in promotion and tenure evaluation.
• advocating the intrinsic merit of contributions to an open access infrastructure by software tool development, content provision, metadata creation, or the publication of individual articles.

We realize that the process of moving to open access changes the dissemination of knowledge with respect to legal and financial aspects. Our organizations aim to find solutions that support further development of the existing legal and financial frameworks in order to facilitate optimal use and access.

Signing Instructions:
Governments, universities, research institutions, funding agencies, foundations, libraries, museums, archives, learned societies and professional associations who share the vision expressed in the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities are therefore invited to join the signatories that have already signed the Declaration.

Please contact:
Prof. Dr. Peter Gruss
President of the Max Planck Society
Hofgartenstraße 8
D-80539 Munich
Germany
praesident@gv.mpg.de

References:
Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities
Text of Statement: http://oa.mpg.de/lang/en-uk/berlin-prozess/berliner-erklarung/ or http://www.zim.mpg.de/openaccess-berlin/berlin_declaration.pdf
Signatory List: http://oa.mpg.de/lang/en-uk/berlin-prozess/signatoren/
Discussion: Not located in Berlin, NH.
Why did the system reject proposal?
Most likely cost.
Concerned about understanding of quality of publication, there’s a capital investment, having personnel, developing software, etc.
There are probably 5+/- publishers that have all the journals published. Go along with the publishers or look at other avenues. Things have taken off in this area in the last few years. Open access journals have helped bring prices down.
Journals fund professional organizations.
Complex issue, has much more to do with private sector rather than organizational publications.

Joining this group to explore and open communication, there’s no obligation.
Didn’t the System turn this down?
System turned down a repository.
Recognizing quality of publications or software is not necessarily in the cost. Some very good quality publications and software are free.

Motion passed: 27 approved; 1 opposed; 1 abstention.

C. Motion: University of Maine Faculty Senate Motion for Principles Governing Distance Learning

I. Introduction:
As a residential campus, the University of Maine must meet its students’ expectations of having up to date and cutting-edge technologies within the traditional classroom structure, including the use of hybrid and innovative modes of delivery. Given the core role of emerging technologies in responsible education, research, and public outreach, distance education must be seen as part of a continuum of offerings, one that cannot afford to undermine on-campus classes, which very successfully continue to serve our students.
Honoring our role as the Land- and Sea-Grant flagship campus, we continue to strive to make our research and teaching openly available to our diverse constituencies across the state. We must strike the balance between providing the highest quality residential program, using the most efficacious course delivery to sustain this quality and be balanced with our responsibility to assist the University of Maine System in providing all constituents the best education possible.
In all questions of teaching, research, and outreach, including questions regarding the delivery of education through distance modalities, it is incumbent on us to reiterate that the primary responsibility for curricular matters lies with the Faculty at the University of Maine. Current proposals from University College staking out the control and oversight of distance education system-wide would potentially infringe upon this established policy at the University of Maine.

We concur with the AAUP (American Association of University Professors) that: As with all other curricular matters, the faculty should have primary responsibility for determining the policies and practices of the institution in regard to distance education. The rules governing distance education and its technologies should be approved by vote of the faculty concerned or of a representative faculty body, officially adopted by the appropriate authority, and published and distributed to all concerned.
The applicable academic unit–usually a department or program–should determine the extent to which the new technologies of distance education will be utilized, and the form and manner of their use. These determinations should conform with institutional policies. (Retrieved 9/3/11

http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/programs/legal/topics/dl-ip-ownership.htm)

Therefore, University of Maine Faculty shall have primary responsibility for all distance education originating from the University of Maine.

II. Statement of Principles regarding Faculty responsibilities with regard to distance delivery of education

Accordingly, in response to the increasing development and use of technological modalities of course delivery, and specifically in response to any attempt on the part of entities other than the Faculty to limit or control any aspect of the curriculum, the Academic Affairs Committee of the Faculty Senate has prepared the following statement of principles to reiterate clearly the scope of these responsibilities with regard to distance delivery of education.
1. The University of Maine Faculty has primary responsibility for all matters pertaining to the undergraduate and graduate curricula, including all courses, modules, majors, minors, degrees, and certificate programs offered by the University of Maine.
2. The Faculty at the University of Maine shall be involved in the oversight of distance-education courses to the same extent as in other courses with regard to factors such as course development and approval, selection of qualified Faculty to teach, pedagogical determinations about appropriate class size, and oversight of course offerings by the appropriate Faculty committee to ensure conformity with previously established traditions of course quality and relevance to programs.
3. The Faculty member (or an appropriate Faculty body) who teaches the course (or adopts a pre-existing course) for use in distance education shall exercise control over the future use, modification, and distribution of recorded instructional material and shall determine whether the material should be revised or withdrawn from use.
4. The Faculty alone will assess any balance among modalities, say, between on-line and traditional classroom offerings, on the basis of their expertise in all curricular matters. Unless stated in the Faculty member’s initial or revised employment letter or contract, no Faculty member will be required to develop or to teach a distance education course.
5. It is well documented that there is a significant increase in demands on Faculty time in the design, creation and delivery of distance education for Faculty members, far more than for comparable traditional courses. For example, the time spent on-line answering student inquiries typically takes more than double the amount of time required in interacting with students in comparable traditional classes. Increasing demands on Faculty time can only undermine sustained excellence in teaching and research, unless it is balanced with adjustments in other responsibilities.
6. Determination of class size shall always be based upon pedagogy, as determined by the Faculty member and her or his immediate unit. Unrealistic class sizes directly work against proven pedagogic excellence, penalizing students in over-loaded courses.
7. In order to carry out their instructional responsibilities, professional development and ongoing and sustained technical support must be provided for all Faculty members who choose to develop distance education courses. The Center for Excellence in Teaching and Assessment and the Faculty Development Center at present provide and coordinate such efforts; other entities tasked with such responsibilities may emerge in future.
8. As a professional within her or his discipline, the Faculty member alone shall determine the technology or technologies employed in the delivery of the courses the Faculty member develops and teaches.
9. The Faculty member (or an appropriate Faculty body) who teaches the course (or adopts a pre-existing course) for use in distance education shall exercise control over the future use, modification, and distribution of recorded instructional material and shall determine whether the material should be revised or withdrawn from use in conformance with the UMS Full Statement of Policy Governing Patents and Copyrights http://www.maine.edu/system/policy_manual/policy_section209.php
10. Information Technology (IT), Continuing Education (CED), Division of Lifelong Learning (DLL), and the Center for Teaching Excellence and Assessment (CETA) shall be collaborative partners in support of the educational mission of the University. Evolving pedagogical best practices in the delivery of distance education shall be supported by all available resources, to cover the development and/or use of course management systems, hard- and software packages, new technologies of communication and delivery, and functions related to the efficient and seamless delivery of education, all fitted appropriately to the content and goals of the course or program.
11. Development and approval of student evaluation tools that are appropriate to course pedagogy and technology continue to lie within the purview of the Faculty. Student evaluation instruments other than those approved by the Faculty are not official evaluation instruments of the University of Maine.

III. The Motion
The Academic Affairs Committee moves approval of these guiding principles by the Faculty Senate and urges the administration and President of the University of Maine to assure that the principles stated above are adopted as policy wherever possible, affirmed and adhered to in all decisions relating to distance delivery of education at, or through, the University of Maine.

Motion passed unanimously: 28 for, 0 against, 0 abstentions.

President Ferguson introduced the new Senior Advisor to the President, Julie Hopwell. She has worked with him for the past 10 years.

VII. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 4:35 pm.

Respectfully submitted,
Kathryn Slott, Secretary

 


Back to 2011-2012

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