April 29, 2015
FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
April 29, 2015
Present: John Allen, Steve Barkan, Jason Bolton, Dick Brucher (sub attended), Sudarshan Chawathe, Stephen Coghlan, George Criner, Paula Drewniany, Thane Fremouw, Gordon Hamilton, Jason Harkins, Zhihe Jin, Scott Johnson, Leonard Kass, Irving Kornfield, Jordan LaBouff, Mary Ellin Logue, Robert Milardo, Grant Miles, Patti Miles, Martha Novy-Broderick, Harlan Onsrud, Michael Peterson, Andrew Reeve, Jonathan Rubin, Thomas Sandford, Michael Scott, Howard Segal, Mary Shea, Kathryn Slott, Allan Smith, Owen Smith, David Townsend, Shihfen Tu, Gail Werrbach, Bob Rice, President Susan Hunter, Jeff St. John for Jeff Hecker, Carol Kim, Ryan Low, Peter C. Altmann (CEAC)
Absent: Bob Bayer, Ian Bricknell, Mauricio da Cunha, Charlsye Diaz, Scott Dunning, Robert Gundersen, Marie Hayes, Dorothy Klimis-Zacas, Robert Lilieholm, David Marcinkowski, Sidney Mitchell, Jennifer Moore, Brian Robinson, Deborah Rogers, Clayton Wheeler, David Yarborough, Robert Strong, Charles Rote, Deans Council Rep, Bonita Grindle (PEAC), Lindsay Nutter (Stud. Gov.), Meghan Sills (Grad Stud Gov.)
The meeting was called to order at 3:20 pm
I. Welcome, Announcements and Comments:
On May 5, 12:00, Professor Dick Hill will be giving a presentation.
II. Approval of Minutes
February 25 minutes – Approved
April 1 minutes – Approved with a correction (add Shihfen Tu as present).
III. Committee Reports
BOT Rep – Robert Rice –
May 4, the Finance and Facilities Committees will meet and the second unified budget will be seen. UMaine is still in good shape. The unified financial structure will be presented for a System COO and CFO. There will be an update to the food procurement policy to include more local. The agenda lists Academic Affairs and Student Affairs MS in Spatial Infomatics and Law Conservation at UMaine Fort Kent. There is also the Cybersecurity degree for UMaine, Fort Kent, and USM, the center needs to be at UMaine in order to move forward. The BOT will also be discussing the policy on sexual harassment, Irv Kornfield will be speaking at the public meeting. The Student Conduct Code is also being amended. NEASC accreditation will be discussed sometime in June.
A comment was made that several people have added their name as a candidate for BOT Rep since Bob Rice is stepping down. Irv Kornfield acknowledged the time and effort Bob has put in to being the BOT Rep and thanked him.
Scott Johnson made a motion to eliminate committee reports due to the amount of New Business today.
Seconded.
Vote: Approved
Academic Affairs – Marie Hayes
No report.
Constitution & Bylaws – Martha Novy-Broderick
No report.
Research & Scholarship – Scott Johnson & Mauricio de Cunha
No report.
Finance & Institutional Planning – Tom Sandford
No report.
University Environment – Mike Scott
No Report.
Library Advisory – Robert Rice & Howard Segal
No report.
Service & Outreach – David Yarborough & Jason Bolton
No report.
Committee on Committees – Executive Committee
No report.
Program Creation & Reorganization Review – Brian Robinson
No report.
General Education – Harlan Onsrud
No report.
Ad Hoc IT – Michael Scott
No report.
Committees of the Administration Reports
No report.
IV.Questions of the Administration
Q. Is the sexual assault policy still in effect as it was before, do we add it to the syllabus or not? A new handout came in the mail that had the exact policy as before. If there’s a new policy why was this one mailed out?
A. President Hunter stated that Faculty Senate cannot counter BOT policy. Work can be done with the BOT to change things but they make the policy. Adding a statement to the syllabus was a best practice at the time. If there’s a proposal it can be discussed.
Q. The Research & Scholarship Committee passed a motion and presented a letter to the president. Will that be sent to the Chancellor?
A. President Hunter stated she had no problem sending it forward, “happy to do it.”
Q. Where does accreditation stand?
A. In mid-March there were discussions, prior to Vice Chancellor Wyke’s meeting with NEASC, about a single accreditation to encompass all campuses. There is work being done and a brief document to frame the discussion. There will be a meeting with a commission to see if they are agreeable to the proposal.
Penn State has one accreditation with one diploma that doesn’t distinguish a campus. They have a Land Grant campus and their commonwealth campuses. Half of their degrees are awarded as 2+2, last two years at the Land Grant.
Q. Is there a plan to approach the Legislature to change the current structure of the campuses and does it appear they’re in favor?
A. Not yet. The discussion of standards covers all parts of the university function. There is political support and political opposition.
V. Old Business
None
VI. New Business
Election of Officer: Bob Rice stated there needs to be a Teller’s Committee for positions that are contested. Volunteers: George Criner, Scott Johnson, and Mary Ellin Logue.
Slate of Officers:
President: Mick Peterson
Vice President: Mike Scott
Secretary: Kathryn Slott
BOT Rep: Mick Peterson (removed his name), Patti Miles, Rick Borgman
After a tie between Patti Miles and Rick Borgman a revote was conducted. Second vote, Patti Miles was elected as BOT Rep.
Motion: IT Support for Cloud-Based Secure Storage to Students, Faculty and Staff
Background:
Recent events have shed light on the University of Maine’s lack of current policy statements regarding secure network storage of archival and ongoing departmental and student work. Secure storage of student work is needed by University of Maine faculty to support pedagogy, otherwise enhance student education and to serve as references for graduates. Faculty have no secure location to save unlimited amounts of files containing sensitive data. Faculty have two options: (1) Save a limited amount of data to First-Class (250Mb); or (2) Save an unlimited amount of data to an unsecured Google Drive[1]. Also, the University of Maine System does not provide backup or security to administrative assistants and other departmental personnel in any systematic fashion. Not only are current provisions inadequate but current policies and training do not provide administrative staff adequate guidance for proper handling of information. Finally, policies concerning student use of such resources have yet to be determined.
Motion:
Motion: The Faculty Senate calls on the University of Maine and the University of Maine System to provide:
- Updated security policies and guidance for file storage enabling students, faculty and staff to safely store necessary information on university provided network drives; and
- Cloud-based secure storage and retrieval (with backup) for all data and local files produced, especially those containing sensitive data, to ensure the safety and security of student and administrative information, and accessible at any time though a secure network connection.
To ensure the safety and security of information and provide timely support to students and staff, this program must be in place prior to the start of the 2015-16 academic year.
Discussion: Would research data, large amounts of data, use the cloud? Mike said there should be an option for that. Someone mentioned that there is an option for federally funded research storage on campus. Any idea what this may cost? No. Patti Miles discussed checking into a Texas university that implemented this technology with a $25 fee. They ended up refunding the fee because it was so much cheaper.
Comment: Should be careful about asking for more policy.
Current allowable storage for student data is PeopleSoft or your email.
Vote: Approved
Motion: IT Support for Departmental Administrative Staff
Background:
The University of Maine System (UMS) IT Strategic Plan has no comprehensive vision for managing computers provided to University of Maine (UM) departmental personnel. Typically purchased by individual departments, these computers operate basic business software and other software provided by the UMS IT. Though central IT is charged to support these computers, there is no mechanism or schedule in the System’s IT Plan for hardware/software update or replacement. Further, the System’s IT Plan does not give adequate weight to providing as-needed software training to non-faculty, especially administrative assistants and other departmental personnel whose workflow is critical to the well-functioning of administrations throughout campus in support of UM’s academic and research missions. Anecdotally, outdated software/hardware, combined with inadequate training opportunities, has caused disruptions in personnel work, from hardware failures to inability to effectively use key software deployed throughout the System. Such issues have also raised security concerns. However, to date, no systematic study has been performed to determine the state of non-academic computing on campus.
Motion:
Motion: The Faculty Senate calls on the University of Maine and the University of Maine System to:
- Determine and implement policies and procedures for managing computers supported by central IT staff, including mechanisms and schedules for update and replacement;
- Provide as-needed training support for software used by administrative assistants and other departmental staff; and
- Charge IT to first perform an inventory of hardware/software used by UM admin staff and then undertake an analysis of the data to establish the state of non-academic computing at UM, both its hardware and software.
To ensure timely support of administrative staff, and by extension students and faculty, this program must be implemented prior to the start of the 2015-16 academic year.
Amendment: In consultation with the Ad Hoc IT Advisory committee and appropriate committees of the Administration representative of the faculty and staff.
Discussion: Owen Smith, are we giving the System opportunity to create policy? He was asked to make a friendly amendment, see above.
A question came up about update and replacement, Patti thought they’d listed every 3 years. One issue was the elimination of XP and several staff having old operating systems.
Vote: Approved
IT Support for the Academic Mission
Background:
Between 2005-2014 the University of Maine and the University of Maine System spent tens of millions of dollars on information technology (IT) with a focus on accounting, human resources, fundraising, marketing and NCAA compliance. During that same period the Unified Fee (established in 2004, previously levied as a Technology Fee) collected some $1.5 million annually in instruction- related technology fees.[2] Few corresponding funds have been given to support academic IT at UM in its mission to enhance student education. Evidence of the negative effects of such disparity in commitment over the past decade can be seen in the deteriorating and/or inadequate technology- integration of many campus classrooms. Classrooms that enable education to thousands of students each week lack computers (for instruction), adequate hard-wired network access, and computer display technology. Faculty must bring computers (laptops) into their classrooms as well as any speakers, document cameras, or other classroom technology they need. Faculty wishing to access the Internet to enhance teaching must use a wireless network[3] at speeds across campus ranging 2- 10 Mbit/s (download) and 1-7Mbit/s (upload), depending on network traffic and congestion. These speeds do not meet the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) definition of “High Speed Internet.”[4] Furthermore, although a majority of classrooms have display technologies, many of these are unreliable, insufficient for class size, or too dated to process sufficient information.
Motion:
The Faculty Senate calls on the University of Maine and the University of Maine System to prioritize proper financial support of academic IT at UM by directing appropriate resources to meet the teaching mission of UM, including directing technology funds collected under the Unified Fee, to provide and tri-annually update:
1) Networked computers in classrooms for teaching;
2) Dedicated technology-enhanced classrooms supporting technology-intensive teaching;
3) A high-speed (FCC’s current definition) wireless campus network system that provides
reliable access for students and faculty in any size classroom;
4) Updated and modern display technologies in large classrooms and rooms identified for technology-intensive teaching;
5) Hardware and site-licensed software sufficient to facilitate research, teaching and student learning; and
6) Short- and mid-term plans for technology migration into classrooms, to be developed and annually updated jointly by the Faculty Development Office and IT and presented to the Faculty Senate each spring semester, with progress reports to be presented to the Senate each fall semester.
To ensure timely support to students and faculty this program must be in place prior to the start of the 2015-2016 academic year.
Discussion: A question earlier regarding students having too much technological access and being distracted. It was stated that it’s not an issue, they have phones and any number of ways to be distracted.
Tri-annually, is that at the very most?
Patti stated, there are 102 classrooms, 98 projectors, 10 cameras. The age of the projectors varies so some won’t work with computers.
One issue with academic use of IT, is service and support considered, is that in with these points? Mike said right now there isn’t a clear answer to who is responsible for what. This is an intent to get that.
Vote: Approved
Background and Motions from PCRRC regarding the new B.S. in Cybersecurity Program.
April 27, 2015.
Background: The PCRRC considered two proposals for a new bachelor of science degree in cybersecurity, one from the University of Maine System and one from the School of Computing & Information Sciences (CIS) at the University of Maine. An open meeting was held on April 22 with eleven faculty members in attendance. The background for both proposals is summarized here while motions for the two proposals are presented separately. The University of Maine System (UMS) Program Proposal for a B.S. degree in Cybersecurity is “offered by UMS Partnering Institutions as defined by a ‘Bachelor of Science in Cybersecurity Online Consortium-Memorandum of Understanding’ (MOU).” It is a seven campus initiative with each campus submitting its own proposal for the degree to be administered by the individual campuses. We agree that this can be a high quality degree for which there is immediate need. The MOU is in draft form with details left to be worked out by the Leadership Committee, which is comprised of “one faculty representative selected by each institution’s Vice President for Academic Affairs (VPAA) and chaired by a VPAA from one of the Consortium Institutions,” as described in the MOU.
With regard to the UMS proposal, there was concern regarding the financial consideration that “No additional costs are required to support first-year and subsequent year operations as courses are part of existing curricula and are regularly offered by existing faculty resources.” Quoting the University of Maine (CIS) proposal, “this does not seem possible in the absence of mechanisms for intercampus cooperation. These are not in place at this time and this proposal is put forward in the hopes of getting the University of Maine B. S. in Cybersecurity started, with the understanding that the program will evolve as intercampus cooperation questions are answered. This topic is pursued further in Section 7, where it is shown that the additional resources needed would be modest before Fall 2019” (University of Maine B.S. in Cybersecurity, Version 2.0). Existing programs are already stressed due to increasing students and decreasing faculty. It is also noted that some categories listed under consortium oversight (MOU) may necessarily be campus responsibilities such as accreditation and certification. The value of the program to students and the University of Maine and the UMS is recognized, as well as the effort to move the program forward.
The University of Maine proposal was prepared by George Markowsky of the School of Computing & Information Sciences (CIS). The proposal places particular emphasis on educational requirements of the University, the UMS Cybersecurity Program and the National Security Agency (NAS) which is currently the highest level of approval for cybersecurity programs. Given the desire to move the program forward, the attached motion is conditioned upon resolving financial concerns. The department is anxious to pursue the program but cannot jeopardize the quality of education for the already large number of majors.
Discussion: Most courses already exist except one. With popularity, sections of current courses may need to be added.
Is it common to put a motion forward with a financial model. Harlan stated that it is part of the requirement. Will the college pay or someone else? It’s not addressed, since it’s a System initiative it’s for them to say.
The original proposal said this could be done at no cost, this is the response to that.
Is this motion an “in your face” to the System? Doesn’t the BOT have to approve? It was stated that this isn’t an “in your face”. It’s an attempt to get a program started in a very short amount of time.
President Hunter stated that she thought the plan was for a four-campus degree. She said she didn’t understand the motion.
It was stated, there aren’t any rules that were given except to be up and running in September.
Going forward then students could take courses at other campuses that count towards their degree? Yes
One issue is that it was presented in the news as a System Degree. Dr. Hunter stated that the System doesn’t grant degrees it’s a System initiative.
Academic content is good, a good idea.
The proposal is about mapping a plan not one-upping other campuses.
Are other campuses doing the same thing? UMaine Fort Kent, USM, UMaine Augusta but feel other campuses will get something going also.
On the financial consideration, is that an official addendum? Yes
It’s a little frustrating to have the System put forth initiatives but not provide money.
It’s possible some courses may be through the Division of Lifelong Learning.
Motion 1: The Faculty Senate supports the recommendation of the PCRRC, in support of the University of Maine System (UMS) B. S. in Cybersecurity Program Proposal, while questioning the premise that this can necessarily be accomplished at no additional costs.
Vote: Approved
Motion 2: The Faculty Senate supports the recommendation of the PCRRC, in support of the University of Maine B.S. in Cybersecurity, as presented by the School of Computing & Information Sciences (CIS), if financial needs are met (see below). Mechanisms of intercampus cooperation and costs of long-term addition of course sections need to be considered. PCRRC supports the proposal contingent on resolving financial issues.
Financial Consideration
The B.S. in Cybersecurity will require additional faculty resources in order to teach computer science courses that are part of the Cybersecurity curriculum. A total of twelve COS courses are part of the required courses. While most of these courses are existing courses, several are not offered on a regular basis. The School of Computing and Information Science does not have the faculty in order to offer these additional courses.
The following resources are needed:
– Academic Year 2016: Section money to offer COS 221 in Spring 2016.
– Academic Year 2017: Section money to offer (1) COS 221 in Spring 2017 and (2) COS 336 in Fall 2016, and (3) for COS 140 in Fall 2016 in case it’s enrollment exceeds 100 students.
– Starting in Fall 2017, we will need a full-time faculty.
Vote: Approved
Motion from the General Education Committee
Subject: Motion on Statement of Principle in Regard to Block Transfer of General Education Courses from campuses of the Maine Community College System
Background: The General Education Committee recommends the following statement be supported by affirmative vote of the UMaine full Faculty Senate in order to indicate the willingness of our faculty and campus to work reasonably with the campuses of the Maine Community College System to allow block transfers of general education courses from those campuses to the University of Maine.
Motion: The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine supports in principle the concept of developing a General Education Block agreement with the colleges of the Maine Community College System – an agreement to be modeled on the UMS General Education Transfer Block, which would in addition include an assessment framework to ensure that community college students who made use of the transfer block would have completed general education courses at the 100 and 200-level that meet the expectations of all participating institutions and provide a good foundation for student success throughout the state of Maine.
Discussion: In principle, what about in practice? With time constraints did a principle but a proposal will be addressed in the future.
Vote: Approved
Harlan stated that he had another motion in the form of a resolution. Steve Coghlan asked for a point of information to clarify parliamentary procedure. Steve moved to discuss the Fossil Fuel Resolution first. Harlan said the point of information is that the Fossil Fuel Resolution would need a 2/3 vote from the floor to bring it back since the motion was tabled during this session of Faculty Senate.
Harlan Onsrud presented:
Resolution to Enhance University of Maine’s leadership in furtherance of Greater Energy and Environmental Sustainability
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the University of Maine Faculty Senate calls upon the undergraduate student government, the graduate student government and the Faculty Senate at the University of Maine to each appoint an ad hoc committee to work with each other to develop a common motion that their representative bodies might all mutually and strongly support with the goal of placing the University of Maine in a national leadership position towards expanding investment in renewable energy sources by the campus and our State, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, exploring and developing means to eliminate or reduce the adverse consequences of renewable energy generation, and exploring and developing means to adapt to climate change.
Discussion: Harlan stated that, full disclosure, he previously taught graduate level Environmental Law, his daughter is Manager of Maine Green Power and he believes in the scientific method. He agrees that climate change should be addressed and UMaine should be a strong advocate to move away from fossil fuels. Since the Divestiture group has reached an impasse with the Environment Committee he thought he’d present a resolution.
The floor was given to Sharon Tisher. She thought the whereas clauses should have been read in this resolution. The resolution seems diversionary, complicated, and implausible. The first two clauses have issues.
It was stated by one member that they weren’t a climate change expert and didn’t want to be seen as a climate change denier if they voted against this resolution.
It was stated that Harlan’s resolution has many good points.
Faculty Senate doesn’t have a right to dictate divestiture, per the Constitution. Another senator disagreed. The BOT can’t be directed but an opinion can be expressed in a strong way.
Vote: Approved
For the full motion see under April 29, 2015: http://umaine.edu/facultysenate/motions-passed-2/motions-passed-2014-2015/
Resolution introduced by Steve Coghlan. Point of order, a vote was taken to bring the resolution to the table.
Vote: Approved
A Resolution from the University of Maine Faculty Senate calling upon the Administration and Board of Trustees to Support Divestment from the Top 200 Publicly Traded Fossil Fuel Companies
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the University of Maine Faculty Senate, in support of Divest UMaine, calls upon the University of Maine System’s Board of Trustees to stop any new investment in fossil fuel companies and to set a goal of full divestment within 5 years.
Discussion: Harlan asked several questions regarding using nonfossil fuels for heat, who uses solar power, who walks, bikes or uses the bus instead of using a car, who’s divested retirement funds? Not many raised their hands.
One concern was that UMaine uses fossil fuels. An investment can be used to protect a rise in cost until those fuels are no longer used.
Vote: Approved (Yay 14, Nay 8, Abstain 3)
For the full motion see under April 29, 2015: http://umaine.edu/facultysenate/motions-passed-2/motions-passed-2014-2015/
Irv Kornfield recognized Mick Peterson for all of his work this past year.
Adjourned at 4:48 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Kathryn Slott
Prepared by Kim Junkins