October 15, 2014
FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
October 15, 2014
Present: John Allen, Steve Barkan, Jason Bolton,Dick Brucher, Stephen Coghlan, Mauricio da Cunha, Paula Drewniany, Gordon Hamilton, Jason Harkins, Zhihe Jin, Scott Johnson, Leonard Kass, Dorothy Klimis-Zacas, Irving Kornfield, Robert Lilieholm, Mary Ellin Logue, Robert Milardo, Patti Miles, Jennifer Moore, Martha Novy-Broderick, Harlan Onsrud, Michael Peterson, Brian Robinson, Jonathan Rubin, Thomas Sandford, Michael Scott, Mary Shea (for Susan Wheaton), Allan Smith, Shihfen Tu, Clayton Wheeler, David Yarborough, Bob Rice, Jeff Hecker, Joyce Rumery for William “Dee” Nichols, Ryan Low, Robert Strong, Melvin Johnson, Meghan Sills (Grad Stud Gov).
Absent: Ian Bricknell, Sudarshan Chawathe, George Criner, Charlsye Diaz, Dylan Dryer, Scott Dunning, Thane Fremouw, Robert Gundersen, Marie Hayes, Jordan LaBouff, Laura Lindenfeld, David Marcinkowski, Grant Miles, Sidney Mitchell, Andrew Reeve, Deborah Rogers, Howard Segal, Kathryn Slott, Owen Smith, David Townsend, Charles Wallace, Gail Werrbach, President Susan Hunter, Carol Kim, Charles Rote, Peter C. Altmann, Lindsay Nutter (Stud. Gov)
The meeting was called to order at 3:15 pm
I. Welcome and Announcements
II. Open Comments from the Administration
Q. With the Vice President of Enrollment Management leaving, who’s in charge of aggressive recruiting of in state and out of state recruitment?
A. Right now Jeff St. John will have the responsibility, we’ve met with all direct reports to Enrollment Management and have a plan that the previous VP for Enrollment Management created. Jeff is handling things in the short term but there is a recruiting process to fill the position temporarily for now.
Q. Is Study Group still around?
A. Yes, this is year 3 of 5. There are currently 40 students on campus.
Q. If Enrollment Management can be handled without a VP for Enrollment Management, will the savings be put back in to instruction?
A. No, there is a plan to fill the position, currently working with a short-term solution but there is a need for a VP for Enrollment Management.
Q. With the Vice President for Research not being here, do you know the status of the external review of Research and Sponsored Programs?
A. The review took place during the summer months, a draft report was sent, and we received the final report a couple weeks ago. There were 86 recommendations. The next step is to review the University Research Council, making the report public and exploring how to implement the recommendations.
Ryan Low, Interim Vice President for Administration and Finance introduced himself to Faculty Senate; he’s been on campus for about six weeks. He, most recently, was Executive Director of Governmental and External Affairs for the University of Maine System. Previously, he was CFO at the University of Maine at Farmington and also worked in state government.
Q. There are a number of financial models with the UMaine System; where does the administration or does the administration have an opinion on where financial decisions should be made?
A. Not specifically and the models aren’t specific yet. Some plans call for complete centralization while others do not. Budget assumptions and planning, he feels, can be done better on campuses. Doesn’t believe this job can be done elsewhere.
Q. Does President Hunter support your position?
A. I believe she does. Board of Visitors meeting is coming up and they’re an advocate for UMaine.
Q. Is there any support from the BOT with regards to different models?
A. Some public support at the BOT meeting comment were for the far right proposal but most didn’t comment.
The problem is that we’re looking at concepts right now, details are needed.
Q. Under President Ferguson, the preview grants, what’s the plan for continuation of those grants?
A. Provost Hecker said he believes President Hunter is in favor of the three initiatives continuing, without speaking for her. Initially the funds were available for three years and then it stopped. There are plans to discuss how to continue, parts, and what was learned from the three year trial.
Q. Will there be a new call for those grants?
A. Yes, some competitive, some funds for foundation areas, retention and graduation, etc.
Q. Most national universities engage in national searches for faculty and administrators. Are there any searches planned or going on now at UMaine?
A. There isn’t a current plan but there is a position that will be discussed with Faculty Senate later and how to proceed.
Q. Where do current searches stand that were previously put on hold?
A. Hoping to pick those up after October 22.
Q. Last year the time was extended from October 15 to March 15. Will that be replicated this time too?
A. No
Q. Is there any word on the services for students on the weekend?
A. Ryan Low stated that he spoke with dining services, he asked for numbers behind the decision on hours. Essentially, it came down to a volume issue, less than 30 people using the Marketplace during those hours. He plans to follow-up on weekend issue.
It closes at 4 pm on most days and the signage was an issue.
A. The signage is better now.
III. Committee Reports
BOT Rep – Robert Rice
Regarding the current models on the floor, appears to have an eight to eight split. The Academic Affairs Committee had a surprise session. The one topic on the agenda was cuts at USM of $6 million, academic consolidation. The current USM Provost indicated that two of six criteria, they outlined, were followed. He stated that if it wasn’t Medical Science and French cut it would be two other programs. The next series of cuts will be $8 million in restructuring and an additional $2 million incremental revenue. There will be a cut in December or January. Preliminary proposals on the floor will come up for a vote on October 22. A special BOT meeting will be held on October 24 to vote on the final package. They didn’t allow any input from faculty or students at the meeting. The Presidents question at the BOT was if academic realignment should be in place before the financial realignment. The question was asked again yesterday and the answer was that it would resort to contract approaches. The AFUM contract says if retrenched and another position opens in the system there is a preference given to that faculty member. VP Wyke said she’d follow the contract.
Academic Affairs – Marie Hayes
The committee hasn’t met.
Constitution & Bylaws – Martha Novy-Broderick
No report.
Research & Scholarship – Scott Johnson & Mauricio de Cunha
There will be a Doodle poll sent to get a meeting scheduled week after next.
Finance & Institutional Planning – Tom Sandford
Met recently and starting to analyze salary data. The committee will have a report at the next meeting.
University Environment –Mike Scott
The committee will meet Friday or Monday.
Library Advisory – Robert Rice & Howard Segal
Met with VP Low. The committee was asked a few years ago to put together a list of what they do. The committee reviewed that list with Vice President for Administration and Finance Low; it’s an impressive list. It can be viewed on the Faculty Senate website.
Service & Outreach –David Yarborough & Jason Bolton
The committee met earlier today. Last year the concentration was on the Carnegie foundation application, this year we’ll define the mission as, “facilitating, gathering and recording information of service and outreach in Maine and how we affect other parts of the United States.” Also, working with University Relations to help with Service and Outreach success stories.
Committee on Committees – Executive Committee
There are currently three requests out for Committees of the Administration.
Program Creation & Reorganization Review – Brian Robinson
There’s a motion coming up under New Business.
General Education — Harlan Onsrud
There is a new Gen Ed Block Transfer proposal to come up for a vote in December. There will be a briefing with the Academic Affairs Committee, hopefully before the next elected members meeting.
Ad Hoc IT
There will be a meeting on Monday at 11:00 with Richard Thompson and Dick Gregory. There is a motion coming up under New Business.
Committees of the Administration Reports
Clayton Wheeler reported on the STEM Committee. There was an $11 million bond with $5.5 million to UMaine. Four projects: Bennett Hall, Little Hall, Aubert, and Boardman. Bennett Hall is completed, $450,000 budget, finished on time and on budget. Aubert will have two general chemistry labs and two classrooms. One class will have about 40 seats and the other a lecture hall, the project will maintain the 210-seat count. The total for the project is $2.7 million and should be completed by fall 2015. Little Hall will have two rooms renovated, 130 with a new layout and 140 with a complete renovation. The cost of that project is $1.7 million, mostly mechanical costs. Boardman will renovate the Concrete Lab and will cost approximately $640,000 and should be done by next summer.
Tom Sandford reported on Prior Learning Assessment. Prior Learning Assessment is done here, some other campuses will be making decisions and there will be an automatic transfer. There are safeguards in the recommendations presented. The other six campuses all voted to accept the proposal without any qualifications or comment, UMaine still needs to vote on it. Jeff St. John stated that over the summer Tom Sandford and Rick Borgman worked on this with him and have done a great job. There will be a motion that will safeguard faculty governance on this campus while allowing appropriate transfer to go forward.
IV. Approval of September 17, 2014 Minutes
Vote: Motion carried.
Q. Bob Rice asked Robert Strong, Faculty Senate’s Athletic Representative to Faculty Senate, about the Athletic Advisory Group being disbanded.
A. He stated that the new president is restructuring which is a work in progress. He stated that President Hunter believes that having an athletic rep will better advise her and the Athletic Director.
V. Old Business
None
VI. New Business
Ad Hoc IT Motion:
PREAMBLE
The University of Maine, the flagship and System’s public research institution, educates 40-50% of the students in the System. Highly specialized training is required of faculty for determining both pedagogy and research. However, as part of the reorganization of Information Technologies (IT) on a centralized model, System-level decisions have begun to impact faculty’s ability to determine what educational technology and learning management systems are available, despite pedagogical needs. But decisions about pedagogy and curricular delivery methods are key to the faculty’s mission at UM and are too highly specialized to be rendered by central IT administrative functions. Indeed, System IT should not have authority to determine what learning technologies should be incorporated into curriculum or courseware, just as System IT has never had authority to choose traditional curricular materials such as textbooks or course resources. Faculty should have primacy in the determination of the curriculum and the delivery of materials in the classroom and the learning processes associated with the academic experience both on and off-campus, including innovation and research in pedagogy appropriate to their disciplines and selection of learning tools and technologies. Redressing the overreach of the System at the earliest possible moment will both establish a proper precedent for respecting the distinct domains of authority at System and campus levels and protect academic freedoms currently enjoyed by faculty.
Motion
Motion to Create a New Section of the Faculty Handbook Devoted to curriculum and the delivery of materials associated with the academic experience, to read as follows:
2.4 The faculty of the University of Maine have the authority and expertise to determine the curriculum and the delivery of materials in the classroom and the learning processes associated with the academic experience both on campus and in distance education. This primacy and responsibility of the faculty also include the responsibility to innovate and to stay current with research in pedagogy in their disciplines. The broad range of tools used in modern education is an important aspect of current pedagogy and must be appropriate to the material and the educational needs of the students. Educational tools for which the faculty have primary decision-making include, but are not limited to, text books, problems solving guides and software, tutorial materials and software and the interactive learning management systems. Decisions related to these educational tools can only be made by faculty who have specific expertise in the material and pedagogy of the field. The cost of these materials may be passed on to the students but should be covered by course related fees, research funds and other faculty guided money when possible to minimize any additional financial cost to the students while ensuring the highest quality educational experience.
Discussion:
There was a motion amend the wording/correction.
The question was asked if this was regarding FirstClass and Blackboard and if the administration shouldn’t have input in to the platforms used? Mike Scott stated that no, there are faculty that may use other platforms and they should be allowed to do so.
What about the case where something is very expensive?
There is nothing in this saying faculty has control over a budget, it gives the faculty member the decision over what teaching materials they use.
Should campus have all these systems?
Faculty should have the prerogative to say.
What about the students and all the different systems? Shouldn’t this be a university decision?
The complexity of systems available is valid but this is a university and a diversity of systems can be justified.
Harlan commented that none of the systems available worked with his students and students overseas so he used Doodle.
It’s not just communication systems, it’s about specific applications, chemistry has a specific application and they should be able to use that.
This is very specific to faculty being able to use the system they need, same as a text. It’s about curriculum delivery in the classroom.
Motion: Approved
Ad Hoc IT Petition
Petition for continued support of the University of Maine’s BioMedia Lab and Synapse
Preamble
BioMedia Lab (BML) is a faculty development support group formed in 2004 under the School of Biology and Ecology (SBE); it’s mission is to enhance learning through technology. The BML and its employees are crucial not only to the learning research conducted by the School of Biology and Ecology but also increasingly throughout the University of Maine (UM) community, e.g. Rise Center, CMJ, Computer Science, etc. The BLM’s key learning tool, Synapse, is a digital research tool that enables faculty to deploy, track and assess new learning pedagogies for undergraduate and graduate-level courses. Introduced in 2006, Synapse has significantly enhanced learning at the University of Maine, garnered national recognition, and brought in research dollars (e.g. pedagogy research associated with NSF grants). Synapse continues to operate, pursuant to a Spring 2014 University of Maine System directive implemented by former VP of Administration Janet Waldron, with the understanding that it will not expand, nor be further developed beyond the courses currently being served (as of Spring 2014), nor shall Synapse enlarge its user base or operations.
The University of Maine System mandate limiting growth of BML and Synapse precludes use of Synapse by faculty whose classes may benefit by the incorporation or customization of Synapse.
As the BML’s activities are actively engaged in pedagogy and research into student learning, limiting that unit’s ability to work with UM faculty is a de facto usurpation of faculty’s primacy in the determination of the curriculum and the delivery of materials in the classroom and the learning processes associated with the academic experience both on and off-campus, including innovation and research in pedagogy appropriate to their disciplines and selection of learning tools and technologies. The University of Maine System Information Technology CIO has proposed removing two academic salary lines of BioMedia Lab personnel (including a Research Associate) from the campus to the System because HR identifies these positions as primarily performing IT. However, BML primarily supports faculty development. Furthermore, BML developers do not perform the types of work that central IT performs. Rather, BML developers respond quickly and flexibly to the needs of faculty, pushing the technology envelope in ways central IT is not designed for.
Petition
The Faculty Senate adopts this Petition to the Provost and President of the University of Maine and requires immediate action as follows:
- To rescind the current act to prohibit the expanded use of Synapse in courses throughout the University of Maine;
- To express full support for continued presence and activities of BioMedia Lab at UM and recognize it as serving a unique role in providing technology-based pedagogical and research support of growing significance to the campus through its educational technology, instructional designs, services, supports and products, which are not otherwise available at UM or commercially in its content areas; and recognize it as a model and template for educational technologies adaptation and adoption by faculty throughout campus;
- To recognize that the BioMedia Lab, its services, supports and products are the free and preferred choice of faculty serving significant student populations; that faculty choice of such products and services, as education technology, serve the same role as choice of textbooks and thus fall within the privilege of faculty as content experts whose research includes curricular design and development;
- To recognize the authority of faculty members individually in determining the use of tools and means of educational technology for course instruction.
Discussion:
A School Biology and Ecology faculty has grants and this instrument supports that and is critical to her research. In addition to simple teaching, this is a research tool.
Petition: Approved
Program Creation & Reorganization Review
October 15, 2014
Background:
The University of Maine has no residency requirement and encourages the creation of online programs when appropriate. Associate Provost Jeff St. John suggested an expedited PCRRC process for conversion of face-to-face programs and certificates to online/hybrid format “where no significant curricular changes accompany that conversion.” The PCRRC committee met on Sept. 24, 2014 and approved an option for expedited review, providing that faculty input is sufficiently documented and that the quality of online instruction is not impaired. Applications will be posted on the PCRRC website and faculty will be notified for response. PCRRC will then have the option to expedite the process of approval or to recommend full Faculty Senate review.
Motion:
Motion: The Faculty Senate supports the recommendation that the PCRRC may expedite the review process for conversion from classroom to online/hybrid programs “where no significant curricular changes accompany that conversion,” as proposed by the academic units.
Discussion:
Q. Who makes the decision if it is significant curricular?
A. The Department.
Comment: A motion to amend for clarity.
Motions: Approved
Adjourned at 4:22 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Kathryn Slott
Prepared by Kim Junkins