May 4, 2016

DRAFT FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
May 4, 2016

Present: John Allen, Dean Astumian, Erik Blomberg, Jason Bolton, Dick Brucher, Mauricio da Cunha, Farahad Dastoor, Paula Drewniany, Michael Grillo, Zhihe Jin, Scott Johnson, Leonard Kass, Sara Lindsay, Grant Miles, Patti Miles, William Nichols, Thomas Sandford, Michael Scott, Howard Segal, Kathryn Slott, Andrew Thomas, David Townsend, Shihfen Tu, Clayton Wheeler, President Susan Hunter, Jeff Hecker, Carol Kim, Jen Bonnet (PEAC), Piper Black (Grad Stud Gov)

Absent: Bob Bayer, Tony Brinkley, Sandy Butler, Sudarshan Chawathe, Laura Cowan, Scott Dunning (sabbatical), Thane Fremouw, Amy Fried, Jason Harkins, Jordan LaBouff (away spring), Robert Lilieholm, David Marcinkowski, Sidney Mitchell, Brian Olsen, Michael Peterson, Clint Relyea, Deborah Rogers, Charles Rote, Jonathan Rubin, Mary Shea, Allan Smith, Owen Smith, Mona Therrien, Tim Waring, Mark Wells, Peter C. Altmann (CEAC), Austin Madden (Stud. Gov.)

The meeting was called to order at 3:20 pm

I. Welcome, Announcements and Comments:

Mike Scott reminded members that President Hunter was sponsoring a reception immediately following today’s meeting.

II. Approval of Minutes

April 6, 2016 Minutes Approved as amended: “II. Approval of Minutes of March 2, 2015” should read “II. Approval of Minutes of March 2, 2016.”

III. Committee Reports
BOT Rep – Patti Miles
No report. Patti mentioned UMaine’s tuition is 3% lower than other states, UMaine has gone down 2% where other institutions have gone up. She mentioned the IT budget and what will be done with the $21 million: $2 million for MaineStreet updates, $14 million in wireless, and a $4.795 million investment in classrooms.

Academic Affairs – Michael Grillo
There are three motions under New Business. Michael Grillo thanked those that worked with the committee this year.

Constitution & Bylaws – David Townsend
No report. The Honors College will be contacted regarding representation in Faculty Senate.

Research & Scholarship – Scott Johnson & Mauricio de Cunha
No report. VP Carol Kim will report on the Student Research Expo.

Finance & Institutional Planning – Grant Miles & Jonathan Rubin
No report.

University Environment – Tom Sandford & David Townsend
The committee has a motion under New Business.

Library Advisory – Robert Rice & Howard Segal
No report.

Service & Outreach – Jason Bolton
No report.

Committee on Committees – Michael Grillo
No report.

Program Creation & Reorganization Review – Sid Mitchell
No report.

General Education – David Townsend
There is a motion under New Business.

Ad Hoc IT – Michael Scott & Patti Miles
No report. The committee will be a meeting with IT and Finance next week.

Ad Hoc Shared Governance – Michael Grillo
No report. Michael thanked the committee members for their work this year. He did ask Provost Hecker how things were moving with college bylaws. The Provost commented that Honors, NSFA, and MBS have drafts, Engineering should have something in the fall, CLAS has bylaws. Looking for things to be completed in the fall.

Reports of Faculty Members on Committees of the Administration
No report.

IV. Announcements and Updates from the Administration

President Hunter stated that the next budget meeting won’t take place until June due to a scheduling issue.

Carol Kim commented on the Research Symposium, a combination of Graduate and Undergraduates, held at the Cross Center in Bangor. There are some things that can be improved but feedback was good with positive reviews. More than 500 students participated, double from past years. The cost was $33 per student in years past but this year it was $23; $12,000 in community sponsorship helped offset costs. Media covered was also up. Attending were state and federal legislators, more this year than in past years. Maine Technology Institute, Target Technology Business Incubator and Maine Career Connect held their business meetings at the Cross Center during the Research Symposium.

Q. How many students that weren’t presenting were able to attend?
A. Not sure.

Q. Were school groups able to attend?
A. Yes, several high schools attended.

Q. Is it possible to phrase the survey on whether someone attended or not? It’s currently phrased as if you did attend.
A. Don’t have that as a survey question but it could be added.

Q. Having the organizations hold meetings at the same time, is that a one time event or will it happen in the future?
A. Should be able to do it in the future.

Q. How did students benefit and how many nonparticipating students attended?
A. More students and faculty participated this year.
Comment: In the future, it may be beneficial to have a research day so more students and faculty could attend.

Provost Hecker asked Joel Wincowski, Interim VP of Enrollment Management, to give an update on enrollment. VP Wincowski stated that the numbers, as of now, are 2500 freshman with 519 Massachusetts, 123 Connecticut, 104 New Hampshire, 73 New Jersey, etc., 1137 from out-of-state and 1351 in-state. Currently developing plans for next year but anticipate applications to be up again. Provost Hecker spoke about the waiting list, there was a decision made that after a certain date prospective students went on a waiting list and many wanted to remain on the list. One student was admitted, an in-state student, all others were out-of-state. UMaine is now trying to negotiate with other campuses to see if the students that send things in now will be accepted at those campuses, like the waiting list students.

Q. These are students admitted but didn’t get their check in by May 1?
A. Yes

Q. Students on the waiting list will be admitted to one of the other campuses? How much of a choice do they have on which campus?
A. They have a choice of any campus except Farmington, which didn’t want to participate.

Q. Do other campuses have a May 1 deadline? If students missed the UMaine deadline will they be able to go to the other campuses?
A. There’s always been a May 1 deadline but it wasn’t enforced. We are working on finding out about the deadline on other campuses.

Q. Does this include transfers?
A. No

Q. What is the process for students disappointed they didn’t get in to the University of Maine: attend somewhere else and then reapply?
A. They’ll follow the transfer policy.

Q. Have you developed spreadsheets regarding out-of-state students paying a lower rate?
A. No, most won’t. Discount rate last year was 38.7%; Flagship Match cost less than recruiting last year.

Many will think you’re getting more students at a lesser cost. VP Wincowski said that is not the case.

Q. If costs are down 1% for out-of-state, is that the overall cost?
A. Down 4/10^th of 1% right now.

Q. Is there infrastructure for the additional students accepted?
A. That’s why there was a cutoff and if projections come in as expected housing will be covered. We are expecting that 2300 of the 2500 will actually attend.

Q. Has anyone gone to the schools these students would have gone to and checked on technology?
A. Having been on different campuses, I can say that some have nice classrooms and some don’t. The goal is to make sure the students have a “high quality experience”.

Q. There were discussions today that 20 students were offered spots at Machias but three were Bio majors and UMaine needs to set up a plan so that when they transfer back to UMaine they’ll be successful.
A. Provost Hecker stated there was a miscommunication, 26+ students were offered admission to Machias and most programs have one, some two or three, but view these as problems to solve. Because of the letter that went out, we need to honor those commitments. We need to set and follow criteria.

Q. If a student decides to transfer we want them to succeed.
A. This is not a precedence going forward. It was an instance that needs to be adjusted for a few students in a few programs. UMaine Machias has an additional 16 out-of-state students.
What is the potential of inviting prospective students to the Research Symposium? Joel Wincowski said it could be done on a accepted student day but it’s held in late April, not the best timing because students have made their decisions by that time. Invitations do go out to high schools.

Q. Students given admission to other campuses, those on waiting lists, will there be a means to track them to see if they end up at Orono?
A. Yes

Q. Patti Miles asked about the $21 million IT bond: does the UMaine administration have input into how that money is spent?
A. President Hunter said that will be discussed at the President’s Council this week. Provost Hecker said the breakdown he has is different than what Patti stated. Feedback was more questioning than asking for input.

Q. Concerning program integration, is the UMSystem responsible for the One University and Unified Online costs?
A. It appears it’s less about updating classrooms but more for Unified Online. There’s money for MaineStreet, classrooms, etc.
Comment: Unified Online isn’t being paid for from the IT Bond.

Q. Michael Grillo asked for a NEASC update?
A. A report was just submitted. President Hunter said there have been discussions because of the partnership with UMaine Machias and that there will be NEASC implications but there’s not enough known about the partnership at this point.
Provost Hecker said there’s been no decision, or effort, for a single accreditation. There needs to be a process to analyze all seven campuses. Jeff St. John said the 2016 report was just done but prior to launch with Machias NEASC will be contacted. NEASC did a site visit of Machias a few weeks ago and called President Hunter to review partnership etc.

Q. I’ve heard discussions about a university that lost NEASC accreditation because the campus president didn’t have financial control. Have you heard that?
A. President Hunter said she hadn’t heard that. There are ongoing discussions but never anything mentioned about losing accreditation because of loss of financial control. Usually, a university loses accreditation because financials won’t support the institution not because of a change in reporting structure.

Dean Dana updated Maine Day; 103 projects, 4300 hours of service completed, over 1,000 participated in the parade, raised $18,000, and 270+ bone marrow donors were registered.

Q. Regarding the concert last night, the parking lot was closed yesterday and created major issues with parking. Was that the only place they could have a concert?
A. Parking did put up the usual notification and directed people to available parking spots. There is a system but that may need better advertising to direct people to available spots.

V. Questions of the Administration [see IV above]

VI. Old Business
None

VII. New Business

University of Maine Faculty Senate Motion on
Multi-Campus Degree Program Curricula

Introduction
The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine supports the University of Maine System’s efforts to increase access to high-quality, affordable university education for all in Maine. In a thinly populated state with seven UMSystem campuses, we believe that we can strengthen our academic offerings and research capacities state-wide through programmatic collaboration developed through the stabilizing processes of shared governance. Working to these goals, the Chief Academic Officers of the seven campuses have begun to develop Multi-Campus Degree Programs, in which the campuses share courses and faculty in a shared curriculum, with students in the program receiving their degree from their participating home campus. Accompanying this motion, please find the Proposed Model for Faculty Governance from the UMSystem CAOs which has been given to the Senate by the Provost’s Office.

We look forwards to working with our faculty, professional, administrative colleagues here and at other campuses to build sustainable academic programs that improve the educational and research opportunities for all while strengthening our academic quality in as effective, efficient, and responsible a manner possible.

Motion
The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine can support developing Multi-Campus Degree Programs only if all multi-campus agreements use courses and curricula approved through established protocols that have been approved through each individual campus’ shared governance processes. Developing new multi-campus programs and partnerships need engage the Chief Academic Officers and representative Faculty Senates to establish a sponsoring campus, with the approvals from each of the academic departments involved in the proposed partnership.

Any multi-campus degrees needing new programs developed at the campus level here need follow the established fourteen step approval processes honouring our shared governance agreements. For us to work collaboratively with the other campuses, we need them to follow their equivalent established processes for any Multi-Campus Degrees originating from their campus.

The structure of Multi-Campus Degree Programs needs approval through each participating campus’ established processes of shared-governance.

All new Faculty hires that stem from the needs of a Multi-Campus Degree Program need be weighed in terms of the programmatic priorities at the Department level of the participating campus identified as the appropriate home for the possible hire.

Where each participating campus issues its own degree to students in Multi-Campus Degree Programs, students at UMaine need meet established degree residency requirements.

Proposed Model for Faculty Governance
of Multi-Campus Programs offered through Unified Online
Department structure and operations

a. A steering committee will be established to include one faculty member from each participating campus. Faculty from each participating campus will make a recommendation for the steering committee appointment from their campus. Such recommendation shall be sent to their campus Provost / Vice President for Academic Affairs who will consider the recommendation and make the final decision for appointment.

b. A chairperson will be elected from the steering committee membership, and that position will rotate among the campuses as appropriate.

c. Members of the steering committee will also serve as program coordinators on their respective campuses.

d. The chairperson is responsible for convening the steering committee on a monthly basis and coordinating the schedule and delivery of program course requirements on a year-to-year basis.

e. The chief academic and student officers from chairperson’s home campus will be responsible for representing and supporting the program, as needed, at the System level.

f. Individual instructors will continue to function as employees of their respective campuses with regard to all aspects of BOT policy, campus policy, and relevant collective bargaining agreement (e.g., compensation, performance evaluation, etc.)

g. Primary responsibility for faculty hires remains at the individual campus level. Search committees are encouraged to consider allowing a member or members of the program steering committee—from another campus—to participate in the search process in some manner and provide input and thoughts to the search committee for the search committee’s consideration.

III. Curriculum

a. Any alterations to the program curriculum, including significant revision to individual course syllabi that result from significant changes in curriculum, must be initially approved by the program steering committee. After such approval is granted, the change must then be vetted and approved through the appropriate faculty process at each participating campus.

Vote: Approved

University of Maine Faculty Senate Motion on
Committee Memberships and Lines of Reporting

Introduction
As the University of Maine System has pursued centralization, its direct representatives have increasingly been included as active members on Committees of the Administration of the University of Maine. This mix of membership has the potential to confuse committee foci and reporting, for it conflates the UMSystem and the University of Maine as being one and the same.

Motion
The University of Maine Faculty Senate asks that Committees of the Administration include only members from the University of Maine community as voting participants. Committees may, of course, include non-University of Maine community members at the discretion of the Administrator who has formed the committee, but these members would be non-voting. Similarly, the committee may invite in specialists from across the community and the UMSystem as non-voting discussants. Where the UMSystem has changed the reporting lines of several University of Maine Administrators to answer directly to the UMSystem, this motion asks that we define the University of Maine community as including administrators and professionals whose purview remains focused on University of Maine responsibilities.

There was a motion to bring the motion back to the floor from being tabled, seconded.

Vote: Approved

University of Maine Faculty Senate Resolution on the UMSystem’s
Chief Academic Officers’ Council Recommendations on Unified On-Line

Introduction
In response to a request from the University of Maine System’s Board of Trustees, the Chief Academic Officers’ of the seven UMSystem campuses have written a draft recommendation to the Presidents’ Council responding to the Unified On-Line proposal from October, 2015, approved as a concept by the BoT in November, 2016. The CAOs’ recommendations, accompanying this resolution, reiterate strongly the need for any UMSystem proposal to include significant Faculty participation in the spirit of shared governance.

Resolution
The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine supports the collaborative intent of the Chief Academic Officers of the UMSystem proposed recommendations to the Presidents’ Council and will continue to work very willingly with our Administration to participate in an effective, responsible, accessible, supported, and efficient on-line coordination of our courses and programs with other UMSystem campuses, as appropriate to the responsible teaching, research, and community outreach in our fields. We agree fully with the Chief Academic Officers that: “As the Unified Online, Portfolio Review, and Program Integration initiatives advance, new challenges with respect to academic oversight and shared governance will undoubtedly arise. It will be the responsibility of the Chief Academic Officers to assure that these issues are appropriately processed with their campus faculty governance bodies.”

Recommendations for the Implementation of Academic Oversight
Related to the Unified Online Implementation Plan
Revised 4-17-2016

Following are the recommendations of the Chief Academic Officers on the implementation of academic oversight and a process for honoring campus-based shared governance of online programs pursuant to the November 2015 Board of Trustees resolution:

That the existing campus policies and procedures, pursuant to the policies of the Board of Trustees, related to shared governance are adequate for all academic programs that emanate from a single campus.

That shared governance of academic programs that emanate from more than one campus will be as follows:

Academic Program Governance

b. Appointment to the Steering committees will be for three-years terms with an unlimited number of consecutive terms possible. However, reappointment at the conclusion of a three year term will follow process outline in a.

c. A chairperson will be elected from the steering committee membership, and that position may rotate among the campuses as deemed appropriate by the steering committee.

d. Members of the steering committee will also serve as program coordinators on their respective campuses.

e. The chairperson is responsible for convening the steering committee on a monthly basis and coordinating the schedule and delivery of program course requirements on a year-to-year basis.

f. The chief academic and student officers from chairperson’s home campus will be responsible for representing and supporting the program, as needed, at the System level.

g. Individual instructors will continue to function as faculty members of their respective campuses with regard to all aspects of BOT policy, campus policy, and relevant collective bargaining agreement (e.g., compensation, performance evaluation, etc.)

h. Primary responsibility for faculty hires remains at the individual campus level. Search committees are encouraged to consider allowing a member or members of the program steering committee—from another campus—to participate in the search process in some manner and provide input and thoughts to the search committee for the search committee’s consideration.

i. Faculty members participating in the collaborative program will be reviewed for reappointment, promotion, tenure, post-tenure review, etc. by the peer committee of their home department. The peer committee is expected to consider the faculty members work in the collaborative program in their evaluations and to solicit input from other participating campuses as appropriate.

j. Academic programs that emanate from more that one campus will undergo program review following the normal review schedule and procedures. The UMS campus or campuses that award the degree will be responsible for conducting the program review. For those collaborative programs for which more than one university offers the degree (e.g., the current cybersecurity collaboration), it is expected that the participating universities will coordinate scheduling of the review.

Curriculum

a. Proposals to alter the program curriculum, including significant revisions to individual course syllabi, may be initiated by any of the participating campuses or the program steering committee. When this occurs the proposed alteration will be considered by the program steering committee. If agreed upon, the change must then be vetted and approved through the appropriate faculty process at each participating campus, before implementation.

That a step-wise, graduated approach be followed for implementation of the larger set of recommendations included in the Unified Online Report, as follows:

a. That the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs will play a central role and have the authority to shape the collaborative approach to online within the broad parameters outlined in the Unified Online Report;

b. That the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs will assure that the Portfolio Review, Program Integration, and Unified Online initiatives are integrated and that resources allocated to one initiative serves the others to the extent possible;

c. That the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs will work closely with the Chief Academic Officers, and pursuant to guidance from the Presidents Council, to coordinate the Portfolio Review, Program Integration, and Unified Online initiatives with the goal of filling key positions and launching specific initiatives by January 2017;

d. That the initial investment for FY2017 be reduced to $550,000 and timed to coincide with implementation by January 2017, and that the Vice Chancellor have the authority to strategically allocate these funds to advance Unified Online; and

e. That it is the responsibility of the Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs working with the Chief Academic Officers to assure emerging issues with respect to academic oversight and shared governance are appropriately processed with campus faculty governance bodies.

DRAFT

Chief Academic Officer’s Council
Recommendations to President’s Council Regarding Unified Online

At its November, 2015 meeting, the UMS BOT approved the concept of a collaborative approach to online course/program offerings and charged the UMS CAOs “to seek further input from the faculties of the 7 universities and provide recommendations to the PC on the implementation of academic oversight and a process for honoring campus-based shared governance of online programs. A report back with final recommendations from the PC is due to the BOT at its March meeting.”

The Chief Academic Officers have worked with their respective campus faculty governance bodies to develop guidelines for appropriate shared governance of online programs. The scope of the faculty governance discussion was limited to the oversight and management of degree programs that emanate from more than one campus. The attached guidelines reflect the input received from the seven campuses and are recommended for adoption by the Chief Academic Officers Council. For academic programs that emanate from a single campus there already exists adequate policies and procedures related to shared governance. The attached recommendations should be considered a living document that will need to be revisited frequently as the collaborative approach to online course and program offerings develops.

With respect to the larger set of specific recommendations included in the Unified Online report, the CAO Council recommends a step-wise, graduated approach. UMS is currently searching for a Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and that person will play a central role in shaping the collaborative approach to online. With responsibility for Portfolio Review, Program Integration, and Unified Online, it will be the VCAA’s responsibility to assure that these three initiative are integrated and that resources allocated to one initiative serves the others as much as possible. Therefore, it is our recommendation that the Unified Online report be considered a set of guidelines for the VCAA rather than a specific template for specific actions and investments.

To position the VCAA for success we recommend an investment of $700,000 for FY2017 (approximately 50% of the proposed FY2017 budget included in the Unified Online report) to be used to launch the Unified Online initiative. This will allow the VCAA six-months to work with the CAO Council to coordinate the Portfolio Review, Program Integration and Unified Online initiatives with the goal of filling key positions and launching specific initiatives in January 2017.

As the Unified Online, Portfolio Review, and Program Integration initiatives advance, new challenges with respect to academic oversight and shared governance will undoubtedly arise. It will be the responsibility of the Chief Academic Officers to assure that these issues are appropriately processed with their campus faculty governance bodies.

Comments: This not saying do what you want but stating what the CAO’s came up with for guidelines.

Vote: Approved

University of Maine Faculty Senate Motion on
UMSystem – MCCS General Education Block Transfer Approval

Introduction/Background
In 2014, the seven University of Maine System (UMS) campuses approved a General Education block transfer agreement, written by an ad hoc committee with representation from each campus. The agreement became operative in the Fall of 2015. Since then, the UMSystem ad hoc committee has worked with representatives from the Maine Community College System (MCCS) to create a similar General Education block transfer agreement between MCCS and UMS, based on a general framework articulated by the Association of American Colleges & Universities’ LEAP Essential Learning Outcomes https://www.aacu.org/leap and their VALUE rubrics, https://www.aacu.org/value, and based on the UMSystem Block Transfer Agreement agreed upon by the seven universities.

As stated in the accompanying document “UMS-MCCS General Education Transfer Block”, as revised on 18 January, 2016, by the UMSystem ad hoc committee, “Students who have completed the UMS-MCCS General Education Transfer Block at any UMS or MCCS institution currently accredited by NEASC will be regarded as having completed the General Education requirements at every other UMS or MCCS institution, except for up to eleven credits of additional General Education coursework to be specified by the receiving institution.” The document acknowledges that each campus’ Faculty Senate or their designee shall determine which additional credits students would need for transferring the General Education Transfer Block successfully. The document also points out that: “Thus, the MCCS has adopted the same block of general education requirements that formed the basis of the UMS block transfer agreement approved by all UMS campuses in 2014.”

For the UMS-MCCS General Education Transfer Block agreement to take effect, the accompanying document needs to be approved by each UMS campus’ Faculty Senate.

Motion
The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine recommends approval in principle the UMS-MCCS General Education Transfer Block Agreement document dated January 18, 2016 (the “Agreement”), given the following assumptions: 1) As the Community Colleges assemble their lists of classes that meet each of the eight General Education content areas (identified in the Agreement as: “Creative/Arts; Natural Science; Writing; Quantitative Literacy; Diversity/Cultural Knowledge; Humanities; Social Sciences; and, Ethical Reasoning”), those lists will be distributed to the Chief Academic Officers of each UMS campus and in turn be forwarded to each Faculty Senate to review and approve prior to implementation of the Agreement; 2) The General Education ad hoc UMS committee (authors of the Agreement) and representatives from the MCCS will clarify details in that draft document, including, but not limited to, the timeline for implementation and review; 3) UMS and MCCS faculty will be directly involved in the assessment process and the third-year review of the Agreement; and 4) we reiterate the statement in the January 18, 2016, draft Agreement, that “By the end of the third year, each faculty senate or other governing body will vote regarding whether to continue, revise, or terminate the block transfer agreement. If any faculty senate does not vote on this issue, that senate will be regarded as having voted for termination of the agreement at their campus.”

REVISED 1.18.16

UMS-MCCS General Education Transfer Block

A. Background
The University of Maine System Credit Transfer/General Education Workgroup (an ad hoc group with representation from all seven campuses) developed a UMS General Education transfer block to facilitate transfer within the University of Maine System. This block transfer agreement was adopted by all 7 campuses in the UMS during 2014 and became effective in fall 2015.

Throughout 2014-2015, the UMS Credit Transfer/General Education Workgroup has worked extensively with our Maine Community College System counterparts to define a comparable general education transfer block facilitating student transfer from the MCCS to the UMS campuses. Much like the UMS block transfer work, our collaborations with the MCCS have focused on review and alignment of learning outcomes. The UMS-MCCS project employs AAC&U’s LEAP Essential Learning Outcomes[1] as articulated in the VALUE rubrics[2] as the general framework for outcomes review and alignment. The LEAP ELOs thus provide the framework and common language for identifying the points of alignment in the general education outcomes of both the UMS and the MCCS, while the LEAP VALUE rubrics provide a more specific articulation of the level of performance expected for each general education area.

The most significant result of this review and alignment work was the adoption by the entire MCCS of the UMS’ General Education Transfer Block as the basis of the MCCS’ own general education curriculum and as the focus of its own assessment plans. Thus, the MCCS has adopted the same block of general education requirements that formed the basis of the UMS block transfer agreement approved at all UMS campuses in 2014.

In sum, through collaborative conversations and important decision-making by MCCS faculty and leadership, we are now at a point where the UMS and MCCS have a shared conception of the essential shared components of general education, a common set of essential learning outcomes, and are preparing broad assessment principles which will guide future work on collaborative assessment approaches.

The MCCS has already reached key milestones in aligning their curriculum with the UMS learning domains and outcomes. For example, they revised their curricular outcomes in fall 2015 and will be using those revised and expanded outcomes to increase their liberal studies curriculum to include a 34+ credit hour block during spring 2016. This curricular modification across the MCCS will bring their general education requirements into full alignment with the UMS block.

The UMS-MCCS General Education Transfer Block proposed here is based on the bock transfer policy adopted by all UMS campuses in 2014.

B. UMS-MCCS General Education Transfer Block Process, Applicability and Definition
Students who have completed the UMS-MCCS General Education Transfer Block at any UMS or MCCS institution currently accredited by NEASC will be regarded as having completed the General Education requirements at every other UMS or MCCS institution, except for up to eleven credits of additional General Education coursework to be specified by the receiving institution.

Each faculty Senate (or that Senate’s designee) in the University of Maine System will be responsible for determining which additional credits, if any will be required for students transferring within the UMS-MCCS general education transfer block agreement to their campus, with a maximum limit of 11 additional credits. UMS institutions which require any additional credits will be responsible for publishing information about these specified credits in a manner that is accessible and clear to the appropriate audiences (e.g., students, advisors, etc.).

Similarly, the appropriate governing body at each Maine Community College System campus will be responsible for determining which additional credits, if any will be required for students transferring within the UMS-MCCS general education transfer block agreement, with a maximum limit of 11 additional credits. MCCS institutions which require any additional credits will be responsible for publishing information about these specified credits in a manner that is accessible and clear to the appropriate audiences (e.g., students, advisors, etc.).

As nearly as possible, policies should be arranged so that transfer students satisfy the same outcomes and proficiencies as native students. The limitation of eleven credits of additional coursework does not include major program of study requirements (if any) that would normally be satisfied by specific general education courses.

When the registrar at a “sending” MCCS or UMS institution certifies that a transferring student has completed the block at the sending institution, the “receiving” UMS or MCCS institution will accept the block as degree credit, with at least 34 credits counting as General Education credits, as described above. While individual course equivalents will continue to be assigned to each transferable course for students not eligible for the block, equivalents will be applied as a block to the general education portion of an eligible student’s degree audit.

The Faculty Senates of the UMS and the governing bodies of the MCCS campuses will reconsider this agreement on a regular basis, as described below, and will either continue, revise, or terminate the agreement, as it seems best based on the assessment and recommendations of a representative group similar to the group which created this proposal.

The UMS-MCCS General Education Transfer Block is defined as follows:

It includes at least 34 credits of course work, with grades of C- or better in all courses.
Its outcomes align closely with the LEAP Essential Learning Outcomes.
Its outcomes include all of the following content (although not necessarily using this language) with the understanding that each institution’s general education will undoubtedly contain many more outcomes. These outcomes are common to all University of Maine System and Maine Community College System campuses, and are expected to be included in each institution’s transfer-out block:

1. Creative/Arts:
Students will experience a sustained engagement with at least one of the creative or performing arts, and will be able to participate in, identify, or evaluate artistic and creative forms of expression.

2. Natural Science:
Students will demonstrate both conceptual and practical understanding of scientific method, including the abilities of hypothesis development and testing through observation or experiment, and evaluation of results. Students will engage in laboratory or field work at a level consistent with standard college laboratory and field courses.

Students will demonstrate the ability to work with both qualitative and quantitative information in applying the scientific process.

3. Writing:
Students will be able to write clear, coherent texts with adherence to proper mechanics. Students will be able to adapt their writing appropriately for different disciplinary contexts or audiences. Students will be able to effectively use writing as a means to engage in and communicate processes of critical inquiry, including analysis, synthesis, and argumentation.

4. Quantitative Literacy:
Students will be able to reliably perform mathematical operations at the college level. Students will be able to understand and evaluate quantitative information both in their college work and in broader public discourses. Students will be able to apply mathematical concepts and techniques in practical situations, to solve problems.

5. Diversity/Cultural Knowledge:
Students will demonstrate knowledge of cultural differences.

6. Humanities:
Students will be able to analyze or interpret significant texts or other cultural artifacts. Students will be able to understand or think critically about meaning (significance) and value, from either an aesthetic, philosophical, literary, or multidisciplinary perspective.

7. Social Sciences:
Students will be able to analyze or explain causal forces which shape social structures, institutions, or behavior. Students will demonstrate knowledge of multiple cultures.

8. Ethical Reasoning:
Students will demonstrate the ability to do one or more of the following:

understand social and cultural value systems;
understand and evaluate ethical perspectives on environmental issues;
understand and critically evaluate ethical theories or concepts;
work effectively with ethical issues and theories through analysis and evaluation of the theoretical, literary, historical or artistic texts through which fundamental ethical ideas and problems are presented.
critically evaluate disciplinary claims in the context of ethical, social, and environmental issues.

C. UMS-MCCS Block Transfer Evaluation and Revision/Block Transfer Committee
A committee composed primarily of faculty, with representation from every UMS and MCCS system campus, will meet starting at the beginning of the third year in which block transfer is in force to evaluate block transfer and recommend to the system faculty senates whether to continue, revise, or terminate the block transfer agreement. Records will be kept by each campus regarding which students transfer either in or out under the block transfer agreement, so that data regarding those students can be collected and analyzed by the committee. By the end of the third year, each faculty senate or other governing body will vote regarding whether to continue, revise, or terminate the block transfer agreement. If any faculty senate does not vote on this issue, that senate will be regarded as having voted for termination of the agreement at their campus.

In addition to this comprehensive third year review of the transfer impact of this policy, within one year of implementation, the General Education Transfer Work Group will propose to the faculty governance bodies of the UMS and MCCS a plan for collaborative assessment that will give all parties involved clarity regarding appropriate definitions of student mastery at different levels (e.g., rising junior transferring from a Maine community college to a Maine university), and confidence in student preparedness to succeed at our institutions. Any proposed assessment plans will respect assessment processes already in development or in place on each participating campus while ensuring consistency in expectations for student achievement across our systems.

Comments: Two problems, there’s not enough information here to make an informed decision because there are no classes listed and seems to be bad for students? If a student transfers in after two years, say to physics, they probably won’t have courses that make them successful at UMaine or to finish in two years.

It appears that not many students take advantage of block transfers. Mike Scott stated there is nothing in the proposal saying a student needs to be done in two years, it’s not a 2+2 program as read.

This isn’t a recruiting tool but if they happen to complete Gen Eds they could transfer them in. It’s the same agreement made with the other UMaine System campuses.

The College of Engineering has a 2+2 with the community college, those students that transfer in graduate at the same rate as students starting at UMaine.

It doesn’t appear to be intended to work for all departments but each department can protect their majors as needed.

This states that the Community Colleges are assembling their lists and will be sent for approval. Doesn’t that address the concern?

If a student transfers a block, do the courses in the block go through the normal transfer review? Jeff St. John said the sending institution is responsible for organizing and identifying blocks but the department approves the courses coming in.

Vote: Approved (1 vote “No”)

Environmental Committee/Faculty Senate 2015/2016
Motion on Classrooms

Introduction
In September 2015 Michael Peterson, then President of the Faculty Senate, raised the issue that our classrooms had shortcomings that should be addressed on an accelerated schedule. Teaching in the classroom is the principal activity of the faculty as well as a principal academic learning environment for the students. Class tuition is a principal revenue source for the University of Maine, and thus commensurate investment in our principal teaching environment must be considered to promote better learning and encourage future student enrollment. Since the faculty and students are using the classrooms, it is important that they be advocates for accelerated improvements. The Environment Committee of the Faculty Senate (2015/2016) undertook the task of making an assessment of the classroom environment and provide recommendations.

The Environment Committee consisted of:

Thomas C. Sandford, Assoc Professor of Civil and Environmental Eng, chair
David Townsend, Professor of Oceanography, co-chair
Michael Scott, Lecturer in New Media
Charles X. Rote, Professor of Military Science
Senthil Vel, Professor of Mechanical Engineering
Brian Flynn, Undergraduate Senior, Civil and Environmental Engineering

The document below contains the scope of the investigation with our comments and a proposed draft motion containing our recommendations.

Background
There is a significant investment in classrooms on the UM campus. There are 104 classrooms on the UM campus that are outside the departmental control plus a significant number of classrooms under departmental control. The number of classrooms outside departmental control includes 6 seminar rooms, 13 auditorium classrooms, 1 active learning classroom and 84 other classrooms. The 13 auditorium classrooms on campus have capacities from 90 in Little Hall 140 to a capacity of 362 in D P Corbett (DPC) 100. The total student capacity, if all rooms were filled to capacity, is 5728 at a given time.

Certain data is gathered on the classrooms at a regular interval. The Office of Student Records (OSR) conducts a classroom survey each summer of campus classrooms that are assignable by OSR (classrooms under the control of departments are not included). The data on student capacity, auditorium, seminar, computer, or active learning room, Polycom capability, Smartboard, projector capability, and computer (Mac or PC) classrooms are entered into the scheduling software Infosilem. The Infosilem data, which is accessible at the Departmental level, allows faculty to screen rooms based on the recorded data for each room.

The Classroom Technology Team, members of the University of Maine System (UMS), have developed a detailed rating system for each classroom and have rated in 2015 each assignable room throughout the UMS. The ratings will guide future investment in the classrooms. It is the intent to have a rating assessment on a regular basis to keep data current. The detailed rating data (1 – poor to 4- excellent) as well as accompanying photos and assessments are available for each room on campus. The average rating for UM rooms is 2.12, while the goal is to achieve 3.5 average. It is the intention to involve Facilities, faculties, administration stakeholders and students to achieve the goal. The lowest overall rated classrooms are the primary targets for major upgrading or for minor renovations.

For identifying and addressing minor renovations on campus classrooms, the Classroom Paint and Polish Project has been formed. There is a faculty representative appointed by the Faculty Senate as well as representatives from Facilities Management, Information Technology, the Provost’s office and the office of Course Design and Digital Learning. Facilities Management will use the classroom evaluation metric for identifying classrooms to be renovated.

There are other committees on campus that have a general bearing on classrooms. Faculty are represented on the Campus Planning Committee and the Space Planning and Management Committees (four of them). Facilities Management includes faculty as part of its team for major upgrades of classroom and laboratory facilities.

Classroom Assessment
The Environment Committee visited every classroom, with the exception of computer classrooms, not controlled by departments, and it completed a commentary on the room, furniture, boards, and technology. It became clear to us that many faculty teach in a limited number of classrooms, perhaps less than 20 classrooms over a career. Thus it is important to obtain the input of a diverse group of faculty for feedback on classrooms, since some experience by a given faculty member may be related to a particular set of classrooms.

Some items in classrooms that are not highlighted in current surveys of classrooms by the Office of Student Records (OSR) or the Classroom Technology Team can be important to some faculty members. Some of these items are:

Blackboard or whiteboard. Some faculty prefer whiteboards, but many others prefer to teach with blackboards. It is important to have choices across campus.
Sufficient board space. Some rooms have meager board space in front, especially when the projector screen is lowered. Side boards are often inaccessible since desks are often against the side board.
Desks, especially tablets, are too small for open book exams or use of computers. Tables with a student area greater than 3.5 sf are needed for open book exams.
Adequate ventilation. Rooms that have ceilings only 8 ft high become stuffy quickly. Older buildings with 11 ft ceilings are more comfortable, especially if the upper windows for double hung windows can be cracked open.
Availability of electrical power outlets. Use of laptop computers in the classroom requires more electrical outlets be available.
Availability of upgraded projectors with HDMI capability.
Although it is difficult to quantify, some rooms with wood paneling in older buildings present a classic teaching atmosphere which may promote learning. There are other campus classrooms which are functional but from the users viewpoint are shabby. Teaching atmosphere needs input from the user faculty and students.

Outdated technology in many classrooms presents problems for presentations with newer computers. Also minor technical problems, like loose wiring, sometimes interferes with use of the projector. For large classes or for invited speakers, it is important to have technical assistance available immediately.

Computer and internet access in the teaching process is used at different levels by most faculty in the classroom. Some faculty develop online courses, and thus there must be assistance for development and delivery of online courses. Most faculty can indicate shortcomings with technology in the classroom, but many do not know the best way to address shortcomings. Currently, most decisions for future technology in the classrooms are made at the system level. There is a need for more robust faculty input into the decisions for future technology.

Motion
The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine recommends that:

a. 1. Classrooms currently are at an unacceptable state when it comes to IT capabilities, based on the number of deficiencies identified during recent faculty inspections. A better and more transparent system needs to be developed to track and resolve reported classroom IT shortfalls. Minor deficiencies should take no more than two working days to resolve.”

b. 2. A classroom czar be designated by the administration with a council of faculty and students (both undergraduate and graduate) plus a representative of the Office of Student Records. The chair of the Environment Committee of the Faculty Senate would be a member of this council. Priorities for renovation as well as future classroom evolution would be the focus.

Vote: Tabled until September

Final Resolution of the 2015-2016 University of Maine Faculty Senate

Whereas it is customary and fitting that on this day of the last meeting of the University of Maine Faculty Senate this academic year, that we the Members of the Faculty Senate acknowledge the exceptional services of certain individuals.

And, Whereas today one of our distinguished members of this Faculty Senate will, upon adjournment of this meeting, be concluding his membership on the Senate, and indeed, will shortly be concluding his career as a regular member of the Faculty of the University of Maine (he’s retiring!) we take this moment to acknowledge and express in a formal manner, our gratitude to this individual for his wisdom, his leadership, his friendship, and his selfless service to this body by way of three terms as a Faculty Senator in recent years (there may have been more ─ we don’t have records that go that far back).

Therefore be it Resolved and recorded in the minutes of this meeting, that this proclamation be preserved, that we, the Faculty Senate of the University of Maine formally extend our sincerest thanks and admiration for this Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, who has been a member of our faculty since 1981, Professor Thomas C. Sandford.

Resolution: Passed

Adjourned at 4:55 pm

Respectfully submitted,
Kathryn Slott

Prepared by Kim Junkins

[1] Liberal Education and America’s Promise (LEAP) is a national public advocacy and campus action initiative of the Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U). The project assists campuses with designing, implementing and assessing curricula that help students “acquire the broad knowledge, higher order capacities, and real world experience they need to thrive both in the economy and in a globally engaged democracy.” (https://www.aacu.org/leap) The essential learning outcomes (which have informed general education reform in the UMS and MCCS) provide a framework to guide students’ cumulative progress through college. (https://aacu.org/leap/essential-learning-outcomes)

[2] VALUE (Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education) is a campus-based assessment initiative sponsored by AAC&U as part of its Liberal Education and America’s Promise (LEAP) initiative. Teams of faculty and other educational professionals from institutions across the country developed rubrics for sixteen Essential Learning Outcomes. The rubrics are used by institutions across the country as a basis for designing assessment of student learning. (https://www.aacu.org/value)