Skip Navigation

2013-2014 - April 2, 2014

April 2, 2014

Present: Steve Barkan, Richard Borgman, Emmanuel Boss, Ian Bricknell, Dick Brucher, Stephen Coghlan, Micheal Montgomery for George Criner, Mauricio da Cunha, Scott Dunning, Janet Fairman, Michael Grillo, Gordon Hamilton, Dennis King, Judy Kuhns-Hastings, Mary Ellin Logue, James McClymer, Robert Milardo, Martha Novy-Broderick, Harlan Onsrud, Michael Peterson, Brian Robinson, Jonathan Rubin, Thomas Sandford, Michael Scott, Howard Segal, David Townsend, Mark Wells, Susan Wheaton, David Yarborough, Bob Rice, Kathryn Slott, William Dee Nichols, Paul W. Ferguson, Jeff Hecker, Carol Kim, Janet Waldron, Melvin Johnson, Charles Rote, Linsay Nutter (Stud. Gov), Abilgail Jones (Grad Stud Gov).

Absent: John Allen, Jason Bolton, William Congleton, Benildo de los Reyes, Charlsye Diaz (class conflict), Marcia Douglas, Dylan Dryer, Thane Fremouw, Robert Gundersen, Ramesh Gupta, Steven Kimball, Dorothy Klimis-Zacas, Paul Myer, Ray Pelletier, Jay Rasaiah, Andrew Reeve, Gail Werrbach Clayton Wheeler, Peter C. Altmann,

The meeting was called to order at 3:15 pm

Harlan Welcomed Chancellor Page and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Susan Hunter.

Chancellor Page stated he would not repeat his talk from yesterdays campus wide meeting but would emphasize a couple things from that meeting focusing on two themes, related but independent. One is the “immediacy” of the budget issues, structural gap. The gap is large, a problem, but not new. Cuts can be made in the short term but that’s not a strategy that can be continued over time. Cuts over the last ten years were difficult but there’s still a problem.

Working with the President’s Council on the issues, knowing what they are.  There’s strong agreement that the old model and approach won’t serve the state, students or institutions, there needs to be a new way.  There may be comments regarding, this campus or that gets too much, no fairness, can’t compromise the mission. The challenge is to look at a new way to deal with the issues.

Second is how is the model changed in order to meet concerns and meet the mission?  “Integration” is a term used by the Chancellor; he discussed collaboration that currently goes on but to look at how best to cooperate/collaborate as a “key principle”.  He, purposefully, left the Vice Chancellor position open so he could see where that position could go. He said, Vice Chancellor Hunter has a vision on how to work together without compromising the mission. So what is the reaction of the financial issue and how to organize in the future to eliminate those?

The Board of Trustees will be updating the Goals and Actions in the next month or two. There will be some directives from the BOT to eliminate the gap, as it’s understood now. The gaps should be eliminated by FY19.

The Chancellor commended President Ferguson and his staff for the hard work done on the budget and preserving the core items. The decisions appear to be made in a creative/caring way.

A meeting with a group of research faculty is up coming. They initiated a discussion to reallocate savings approved from administrative review towards supporting research tied to the Maine economy. This should move fast, there is no number yet, and wants to ask the Trustees to make a multi year commitment. Thanks expressed to Jeff Hecker and Carol Kim for setting this meeting up.  The University of Maine is the Research Flagship and core, wants to ask the Trustees to make a multi-year commitment for research, research with a direct impact to the state.

Q.  Michael Grillo – Given extreme shortages let’s consider possibly a radical proposal. The question was asked in a BDN article recently “do we need a Chancellors Office” and would like to pose that question today. The System Office costs $20 million with that money coming from the campuses. There have been redundancies due to centralization, “taking away our staff and administrators but our needing to replace them because the centralized system cannot do everything that our resident staff and administrators did…” There are seven Presidents, seven Provost’s, seven CFO’s etc. He initially believed $10 to $15 million could be saved by eliminating the System Office but after consideration it may be $25 million. Do you think the System Office could be eliminated rather quickly?

A.  The Chancellor stated it was a fair question and “there can be no sacred cows in looking at our situations and we need to look at the central office as well.” The central office has +/- 12-14 who govern and implement the BOT. If the System Office were to close that wouldn’t get rid of all 14, some positions are still needed, legal counsel etc. There would be a cost to take it over. The dollars to underwrite the research is savings from the Administrative Review. If campuses are forced into redundancy of services it needs to be examined.  The seven campuses are proscribed by statute, as well as seven campus heads. Currently, there are two campuses experimenting with sharing a CFO, to see how it goes. Historically, there’s been a culture of competition for resources. If the System Office were moved there would be cultural barriers. The Chancellor stated he was in favor of putting items on the table for discussion.


Dr. Hunter stated she was not the Vice Chancellor during Chancellor Page’s first year. She chaired a committee of CAOs and it was soon realized that there needed to be a Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, someone to make decisions that were removed from each campus. If there could be an integrated academic program, still having seven campuses with their identities, but UMS can still coordinate.

Q. A spokesperson for the UMS administration stated that there are too many faculty, that our population is fat and we are inefficient. On what basis are these claims made? We believe the overall evidence shows them to be patently false. Such statements by your office let the legislature off the hook when they cut funding or fail to increase funding for higher education.

They now have the argument that it is not the role of the legislature to give the University more money to waste. Will you be correcting such messages emanating from your office? If so, how and when?

A. The Chancellor was unclear on who made the comment, or the context, but he couldn’t say there are too many or too little staff and stated he’d need specifics.
Comment: the instructional budget is 21.8% where most research universities have 28%.

He questioned whether the comment was made regarding UMaine or the UMaine System. There needs to be a discussion on how public education is going to be funded. Level funding would be nice but the System is still looking at a cut, there is strong bipartisan support. In the future there needs to be reality concerning the situation.

The System as a whole is approximately 8% administration. That’s too high but if we shift to 6% it isn’t much savings, a shift from many sources is required. Facilities costs are too high, about 20+%. The facilities footprint is too large.

Q. The public statement from Vice Chancellor Wyke doesn’t fit our campus and there was no data supplied to support that statement. The general message appears directed at UMaine. When prospective students are on campus it’s difficult when there are 50-70 students per class and they see a statement like that. They want to know, how many more students will be in a class?
A. The Chancellor looked to Provost Hecker for data on this campus. The Provost stated that enrollment is down System-wide but up at UMaine. Assume that maybe it was stated UMaine when maybe system-wide was meant.

Q. A. The purpose of Outcomes Based Funding as supported by your office and the Board of Trustees is obviously to achieve the outcome of transferring resources from the Orono campus to the other campuses. The formula has no straight-faced relation to productivity or measuring improvement over time. The UMaine campus loses under every conceivable variation of the formula. Why play this game? Why can’t the Board and System be honest and make it clear that the goal and objective of Outcomes Based funding is to move resources away from this campus to help address failing finances on the other campuses?
B. What’s the rationale behind the Outcomes Assessment formula in giving much greater weight to UMaine Law School degrees than graduate degrees from Orono and other campuses? How does this revised “mertrix” contribute to the basic mission of the System today to advance Maine’s economy and to create jobs?
C. The UMS Outcomes – Based funding model has been in operation more than a semester. Will UMS post on its website measurable assessments of the outcomes changes at each institution related to the funding redistribution changes at each institution? Are there any current preliminary results?
D. Request access to the formula and to the electronic database supporting the formula.

A. I reject the premise. The goal is not a simple redistribution of funds. The BOT have outcomes they want. One is to increase production of four-year degrees to maintain costs and the Outcomes Based funding model is geared to meeting that goal. It is cheaper to earn degrees on the other campuses. President Ferguson has done a wonderful job explaining and asking questions that this campus is at a significant disadvantage based on that outcome model. UMaine is very different from other campuses in the system and the missions are different. With UMaine’s research, extension, etc. it’s very different from other campuses. If you expand the issue, i.e., UMaine has a research mission, it’s very successful and requires an expensive infrastructure. So how do funds get allocated? The research summit taking place on Friday is to explore funding from the system to make sure some of the distribution of resources are here. Look at the individual pieces, in total, and are resources better allocated?

Q.  One source of income being reallocated is referred to as system resources and yet the system has no income. All income generation services are provided on the campuses.
A. All the money going in to the research effort are dollars that came from demonstrated savings from the Administrative reviews.  If there are no savings there wouldn’t be dollars for the effort. Outcomes Based funding is a different source.

The Chancellor ended by saying it’s always better to talk than not.

I.          Welcome and Announcements:

The Graduate School is having an open house today. Tomorrow and Friday is the GradExpo, held at the Innovative Media Research and Commercialization Center. There is also a Student Art Exhibit opening.

Vice President for Enrollment Management and the Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost will be at the May 14, 2014 meeting of Faculty Senate.

Elections will be held at the next full senate meeting. If anyone is interested, or know someone who is, please present the names to Harlan Onsrud.

II.        Approval of February 26, 2014 Minutes

Vote: Motion carried.

III.        Committee Reports

BOT Rep – Robert Rice 
The BOT met on March 23 and 24. The Chancellors briefing stated that there will be $65-90 million gap, about 45% of that is in buildings. R&D efforts must tie to the Maine economy. There were 2 resolutions on the floor from USM, one from the faculty and one from the students denouncing the process used for cuts.

Academic Affairs, seven campuses needs action with fiscal reductions and need overall management of programs and restructuring. Block transfers of credit are being completed.

Academic Affairs –Richard Borgman & Judy Kuhns-Hastings
No report.

Constitution & Bylaws – Mick Peterson
Motions today.

Research & Scholarship – Emmanuel Boss & Mauricio da Cunha
Met with Janet Waldron and will have another meeting upcoming. There will be a report at a meeting in the future.

Finance & Institutional Planning – James McClymer & Tom Sandford
Will be meeting with Janet Waldron in the future.

University Environment –Mike Scott & David Townsend
No meeting but about to meet with the Classroom Committee.

Library Advisory – Robert Rice & Howard Segal
Results of the motion last month of donating journals has resulted in the library working on a process.

Service & Outreach – Martha Broderick & David Yarborough
Motion today.

Committee on Committees – OPEN
No report.

Program Creation & Reorganization Review – Brian Robinson & Mick Peterson
March 28, 2014 held meetings on the BS in Aquaculture in the School of Marine Sciences and the BS in Wood Science and Technology, all present were in favor of the eliminations. There are motions regarding the proposed elimination of the BA in Latin and German and one supporting the MS Spatial Informatics. April 21 and 25 there will be a meeting regarding the MS in Public Administration and MS in Public Management along with the MS in Music Conducting.

General Education  — Harlan Onsrud
Very active at the campus and system level with meetings every two weeks. No proposed actions to report at this point.

Ad Hoc IT – Michael Scott
No report.

Committee of the Administration
No report.

IV. Open Comments from the Administration
Q.  On the Signature and Emerging Program Proposals, could those applications be posted on the web?
A.  Provost Hecker said he’d be happy to ask about posting since people may be interested in the work.

Q. Of those that have been approved to move forward, do you have an estimate of how many will ultimately be approved?
A.  Is the question do I have an idea of how many? Yes I do but let’s let the process work.

Q. Regarding Dean Sandweiss’ position, there’s a concern the position will be eliminated and what that will do to the Graduate School?
A. Met Monday with faculty regarding a model for reorganizing. There is a PowerPoint presentation posted on the Provost website under Academic Forum.

President Ferguson stated that he, and his cabinet, wanted to express their appreciation for the professionalism of those attending meetings beginning with the budget discussions and Chancellor Page’s campus visit and today with Faculty Senate. He also thanked the leadership of Faculty Senate. Discussions will be forthcoming and how to partner on those is important.

V.        Old Business

VI.       New Business

Motion Concerning a Course Designator for Community Engagement/Service-Learning
Submitted by the Service and Outreach Committee


Community Engagement/Service-Learning Designator

UMaine received the Carnegie Classification for Community Engagement in 2008. A reclassification application will be submitted April 15, 2015.

UMaine’s Definitions:

Community Engagement describes the collaboration between institutions of higher education and their larger communities (local, regional/state, national, global) for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partnership and reciprocity (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching; Approved by Faculty Senate, 2013). Service-learning is defined at the at the University of Maine 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; Approved by Faculty Senate, October, 2011)

Why should UMaine have a service-learning designator?
Helps to meet the vision of the Blue Sky Strategic Plan and land grant mission

In line with other land-grant universities

  • Other Engaged Universities (Carnegie Classified) use a service-learning designator

Carnegie Reclassification for Community Engagement

  • Having a process to identify a service-learning course will aid in the reclassification process in the future.

The Carnegie Classification for Community Engagement application asks for the number of service- learning courses taught; number of departments; number of faculty; number of students; as well as questions related to general education; core courses; courses in the major; capstone; internships/co-ops, study abroad, student research, student leadership courses, first year experience courses; graduate courses in service-learning.


  • A designator would aid in tracking students’ participation and assessing learning outcomes as well as helping to determine impact on students, faculty, community and institution.

Assessment and tracking are needed for:

  • Carnegie Reclassification
  • NESAC accreditation (learning outcomes)
  • Association of Public Land-Grant Universities Innovation & Economic Prosperity Designation (OIED)
  • Grant writing/reports.

Locate courses

  • A designator will help students locate these courses during registration. Many students are interested in working with the community on real-world issues.
  • Students will know that they are signing up for a service-learning course when they register and that the course has a set of expectations.


  • Provides recognition of the service-learning experience on student transcripts (work with student records)

Faculty Development

  • Facilitates faculty development and community partner professional development opportunities


  • Advisors can locate and communicate about service-learning courses with students

Rewards and Recognition

  • Facilitates faculty, student and community partner rewards, recognition and PR.


  • Aid in the identification of resources and networks to further support service-learning efforts on campus. Identification and Best Practices
  • Carnegie Reclassification: 77 courses were viewed as being community engaged/service-learning courses in 2012-13
  • Helps to ensure that the course meets recognized best practices, criteria, and definition

A course would be designated SL when it meets the following criteria:

  • Graduate or undergraduate course
  • Integrates meaningful service with and course content.
  • The service addresses a community need.
  • Demonstrates one or more collaborative partnerships: Mutual benefits for the community partner and the 
students. Follows processes that are agreed upon by the partner and the instructor.
  • Student assessment and academic credit are based upon the demonstration of student learning, not on the 
service hours.
  • Critical reflection is part of the assessment process.
  • Public dissemination of project, products or findings

Motion: The Service and Outreach Committee of the Faculty Senate moves that:
The undergraduate and graduate course approval and updating processes be revised to incorporate assessment of whether a course meets the above stated service learning criteria and, if so, the course should be designated as such within the undergraduate or graduate catalogs.

Discussion: If approved it asks the Provost office to revamp, correct? Yes

Was the Administration, Grad Board, etc. included in discussion? Yes

Motion Approved

 PCRRC Recommendation Regarding the Proposal to Eliminate the BA in Latin

Background: The proposal for program elimination of the BA in Latin originated with the 2009-2010 Academic Program, Prioritization Working Group (APPWG). Efforts to sustain the program are documented in the PCRRC archives. The open meeting to consider the program elimination of the BA degrees in German and Latin was held on Feb. 3, 2014. Jane Smith, Chair of the Department of Modern Languages and Classics, introduced the two program eliminations. Multiple people spoke of the importance of German to modern languages, while emphasizing the importance of Latin to the Classics and for training teachers in high schools where it remains an important language. It was acknowledged that enrollments are low and that the program has been maintained by teaching efforts beyond the call of duty by individual professors. Given low enrollment and current financial problems across disciplines, the importance of Latin, as a major, needs to be weighed against continued Latin instruction and its importance to a variety of classical studies and to students who choose to pursue Latin further at another institution. We emphasize the importance of Latin training and the potential for development through cross disciplinary pursuits in multiple fields of classical study, in art, history, philosophy and languages, but (by a divided vote) we accept the proposal to eliminate the major in Latin.

Motion: The Faculty Senate supports the recommendation of the PCRRC to eliminate the BA in Latin.


Why did the committee vote to eliminate Latin and keeping German open?

There was more action from the language department and recommended eliminating one and suspend the other.

Motion Approved (3 nay)

 PCRRC Recommendation Regarding the Proposal to Eliminate the BA in German

Background: The proposal for program elimination of the BA in German has a long history commencing with recommendation for program suspension in the 2009-2010 Academic Program, Prioritization Working Group (APPWG). Efforts to sustain the program are documented in the PCRRC archives, including the Proposal for Retention of the German Major, dated October 22, 2012, but only recently added to the PCRRC website. By the time the Program Elimination Proposal for the Bachelor of Arts in German was submitted in February 11, 2013 the only two tenure-stream positions had been vacated and left unfilled, and the program was suspended in January 2013. The rationale, as stated, for eliminating the program was largely the loss of the two positions. The open meeting to consider the program elimination of the BA degrees in German and Latin was held on Feb. 3, 2014. Jane Smith, Chair of the Department of Modern Languages and Classics, introduced the two program eliminations. She noted that she was not in favor of their elimination, and emphasized the effort made to creatively redesign the German program. There were six speakers who all stressed the importance of German and foreign languages in general, and a letter from 34 faculty members supporting language major retention.

The 2012 proposal to retain German stated that as of the 2012/2013 academic year, no public University in Maine offers a major in German, and that UMaine is the only flagship University in New England that does not offer a major in German. The Blue Sky Plan proposes to “Make international and/or cross-cultural opportunities central to the undergraduate experience.” Although the BA in German is now suspended, we do not believe that it should be eliminated without further evaluation within the broader context of language needs and availability in the state of Maine.

Motion: The Faculty Senate supports the recommendation of the PCRRC to keep the BA in German in suspension, rather than eliminating it, until May 30, 2015, pending the results of a Faculty-led campus and system review of language needs to support UMaine’s mission.

Motion Approved

 PCRRC Recommendation Regarding the Elimination of the B.S. in Forest Ecosystems

Background: The proposal to eliminate this program was submitted to the PCRRC by the Dean of the College of Natural Sciences, Forestry and Agriculture in October of 2012 and was held up with other program eliminations during the work to rule process. The open meeting was held on March 28, 2014, with all in attendance favoring the elimination of the program.

Motion: The Faculty Senate supports the recommendation of the PCRRC to eliminate the B.S. in Forest Ecosystems in the School of Forest Resources.


The proposals came from NSFA and full agreement. There was some overlap with these.

Motion Approved

 PCRRC Recommendation Regarding the elimination of the B.S. in Wood Science and Technology

Background: The proposal to eliminate this program was submitted to the PCRRC by the Dean of the College of Natural Sciences, Forestry and Agriculture in December of 2012 and was held up with other program

eliminations during the work to rule process. The open meeting was held on March 28, 2014, with all in attendance favoring the elimination of the program.

Motion: The Faculty Senate supports the recommendation of the PCRRC to eliminate the B.S. in Wood Science and Technology in the School of Forest Resources.

Motion Approved

 PCRRC Recommendation Regarding the elimination of the B.S. in Aquaculture in the School of Marine Sciences

Background: The proposal to eliminate this program was submitted to the PCRRC by the Dean of the College of Natural Sciences, Forestry and Agriculture in October of 2012 and was held up with other program eliminations during the work to rule process. The open meeting was held on March 28, 2014, with all in attendance favoring the elimination of the program.

Motion: The Faculty Senate supports the recommendation of the PCRRC to eliminate the B.S. in Aquaculture in the School of Marine Sciences.

Motion Approved (1 nay, 1 abstention)

 PCRRC Recommendation Regarding the creation of the M.S. in Spatial Informatics

Background: The Full Program Proposal for the M.S. in Spatial Informatics (representing stage eight of the University of Maine’s Fifteen Stage Process of New Academic Program Creation) was submitted to the PCRRC on March 11, 2014. An informational meeting was held on March 19. The open meeting was held on March 28, 2014, with five in attendance, all in favor of the new program, and with proceedings and documentation posted on the PCRRC website.

Motion: The Faculty Senate supports the recommendation of the PCRRC to create the M.S. in Spatial Informatics in the School of Computing and Information Science.

Motion Approved

 Constitution and Bylaws Committee Motion to Revise Section 2.1 and 2.2 of the Faculty Handbook


The Faculty Senate on April 16, 2003 by a vote of 48 for and 1 abstention adopted the handbook which has been available since that time on the senate web site. The handbook states, “It is our intent that this will be an electronic document and that it will be updated once per semester by the CABC. “

In order to facilitate updates the handbook sections should be numbered with each section of substance in the chapters containing a subsection number.

The purpose of this motion is to revise and replace the section 2.1 and 2.2 on Academic freedom and Free Speech and Assembly (current language found in the Faculty Handbook of 2003 at to reflect recent consensus and changes in legal precedents:

Whereas we concur in the following reasoning, we replace the older section with clearer language:

And whereas, the long standing tradition and expectations of the faculty of the University of Maine is to fully exercise their Academic Freedom, a clear statement of that right and its corresponding obligation of candor and of personal ownership requires that section 2.1 and 2.2 be revised.

Therefore be it resolved that the following language will replace the current language:

Chapter 2: Faculty Academic Freedom Rights and Responsibilities

Sec 2.1.a Academic Freedom Sources: Members of the faculty individually enjoy and exercise all rights secured to them by the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Maine, and by the principles of academic freedom as they are generally understood in higher education, including professional behavior standards and the expectation of academic due process and just cause, as well as rights specifically granted to them by: Trustee action, University of Maine System rules, these policies and procedures, and relevant practices or established custom of their colleges or schools and departments.

2.1 b. Academic freedom is defined at the University of Maine as the freedom to discuss, meet with others and present scholarly and personal opinions and conclusions regarding all matters in the classroom and in public, to explore all avenues of scholarship, research, and creative expression, and to reach conclusions according to one’s scholarly discernment and according to one’s own conscience on all matters, including university operations, policies and employment practices without any Institutional censure, discipline or restraint.

2.2. Academic Freedom of speech and assembly: Academic freedom also includes the right to speak, meet or write as a private citizen or within the context of one’s activities as an employee of the university without institutional discipline or restraint on matters of public concern as well as on matters related to professional duties, the functioning of the university, and university positions and policies. Academic responsibility implies the faithful performance of professional duties and obligations, the recognition of the demands of the scholarly enterprise, and the candor to make it clear that when one is speaking on matters of public interest or concern, one is speaking on behalf of oneself, not the institution.

Motion: Revision and replacement of the current Faculty Handbook language of section 2.1and 2.2 with the above language is hereby approved by the Faculty Senate.

Motion Approved


Executive Committee Resolution in Support of USM Faculty

We, the members of the Faculty Senate of the University of Maine, offer support to our colleagues, students and staff at the University of Southern Maine (USM).

Faculty Members should be treated as the highest priority asset at any university. Without highly credentialed individuals to credential succeeding generations in society, any campus loses its core purpose. The reputation and relevance of any university depend on the reputation, relevance and diversity of its faculty. Without their core knowledge, compassion and commitment, a campus is merely a collection of expensive hollow buildings.

We call on the USM and the University of Maine System (UMS) administration to support fully the faculty-led core missions of teaching, research and service and treat as their highest priority the retention of a diverse, engaged and highly credentialed faculty; without them no university can survive and thrive.

Resolution Approved

Adjourned at 4:45 pm

Respectfully submitted
Kathryn Slott


Back to 2013-2014

Faculty Senate
Kimberly Junkins, Faculty Senate Office
205 East Annex, Orono, Maine 04469
Phone: (207) 581-1167 | Fax: (207) 581-2640
The University of Maine
Orono, Maine 04469