October 21, 2015
DRAFT FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
October 21, 2015
Present: John Allen, Dean Astumian, Eisso Atzema (for Paula Drewniany), Erik Blomberg, Jason Bolton, Tony Brinkley, Sudarshan Chawathe, Laura Cowan, Farahad Dastoor, Thane Fremouw, Amy Fried, Michael Grillo, Marie Hayes, Leonard Kass, Jordan LaBouff, Sara Lindsay, Patti Miles, Sidney Mitchell, William Nichols, Charles Rote, Thomas Sandford, Michael Scott, Mary Shea, Kathryn Slott, Mona Therrien, David Townsend, Shihfen Tu, Clayton Wheeler, President Susan Hunter, Jeff Hecker, Carol Kim, Piper Black (Grad Stud Gov)
Absent: Bob Bayer, Dick Brucher, Sandy Butler, Mauricio da Cunha, Scott Dunning, Jason Harkins, Zhihe Jin, Scott Johnson, Robert Lilieholm, David Marcinkowski, Grant Miles, Brian Olsen, Michael Peterson, Deborah Rogers, Jonathan Rubin, Howard Segal, Allan Smith, Owen Smith, Andrew Thomas, Mark Wells, Robert Strong, Bonita Grindle (PEAC), Peter C. Altmann (CEAC), Austin Madden (Stud. Gov.)
The meeting was called to order at 3:20 pm
I. Welcome, Announcements and Comments
No announcements.
II. Approval of Minutes
September 16, 2015 minutes – Approved
III. Committee Reports
BOT Rep – Patti Miles
No report.
Academic Affairs – Marie Hayes
The committee met last week, Associate Provost Monique LaRocque attended as well as Associate Provost Jeff St. John. The committee focus will be creating an online presence and looking at it carefully, also concerns about meeting current residency requirements with online courses. There is a proposed study for online student evaluations. Regarding learning objectives and program assessment, there will be a meeting tomorrow 12-4. There’s a new publication for online courses that will be discussed at the October 28th committee meeting. The deadline for responses to the report is October 29th, there’s not ample time to really comment on the report.
Jeff Hecker commented about the short timeframe for feedback, he will be contacting Rebecca Wyke to ask for an extended deadline, there are campus groups that need to have the discussions also; those groups need time to meet and create a response.
Michael Grillo commented that the system-wide Distance Learning Committee is meeting October 27th and is another place to raise the issue.
Constitution & Bylaws – Mike Scott
No report.
Research & Scholarship – Scott Johnson & Mauricio de Cunha
Our plans are to modify the research section of the Faculty Handbook.
Finance & Institutional Planning – Grant Miles & Jonathan Rubin
No report.
University Environment – Tom Sandford & David Townsend
The committee will be talking to the Office of Student Records regarding room scheduling and Facilities Management about upgrade procedures.
Library Advisory – Robert Rice & Howard Segal
The committee met on Monday and will meet monthly. The Open University event had substantial participation. One statistic, the Library measures traffic between Sunday and Wednesday and they average 6,000 people during that time. The committee and NEASC Librarians are concerned with the draft document; it reduces the library standing further. There’s barely mention of Libraries in the document. Also discussed, the library of the future and what it might look like to serve faculty and students. Any thoughts would be welcome.
Service & Outreach – Jason Bolton
No report.
Committee on Committees – Executive Committee
No report.
Program Creation & Reorganization Review – Sid Mitchell
No report.
General Education – David Townsend
The committee hasn’t met but it’s unclear what should be worked on at this point. The Associate Dean of NSFA would like to see work from last year continued; take block transfers and do the same for all of the community colleges. Currently not sure how that would be done. David will speak to Harlan Onsrud and George Criner for an update on work done last year and what can be continued this year.
Comment: President Hunter thought block transfers were complete for the UMaine System and that the Community College System had already been agreed to. Community colleges wouldn’t fully meet requirements because they don’t take as many courses. Consult Harlan to find out where they were in the process.
There is an outcomes assessment process going on now per Provost Hecker. It was mentioned that it appeared the Community Colleges were hesitant about assessing learning outcomes.
Brian Doore said he’d be happy to work with any group from Faculty Senate. Jeff St. John said Associate Deans have been discussing technical issues; he also spoke with Marie regarding the issue.
Ad Hoc IT – Michael Scott & Patti Miles
The committee met two weeks ago. There is a concern with a report going to the BOT on the state of IT and the committee has not been allowed to see the report before it’s turned over. It’s difficult to assess a report you can’t see. Jeff Hecker stated that he talked to Cindy Mitchell and expressed that concern. President Hunter stated that she didn’t realize it couldn’t be seen. It’s a concern that a report is not going out for comment before sending it to the BOT.
Once the BOT gets the report will they act on it or will there be time for comment?
Jeff Hecker said he didn’t know how it will work and hasn’t seen an agenda at this point.
Ad Hoc Shared Governance – Michael Grillo
The committee met today and the issue of college bylaws will be the focus, it’s something the committee hopes to encourage all colleges to generate. As the Chancellor comments about substantial administrative changes, it’s important that faculty have a voice and that appointments are not made without a search. Also looking into professionalized administrators, i.e., administrators that have no faculty background.
Jeff Hecker, bylaws are a great idea. A month ago it was discussed at the Dean’s Council and all seemed very interested. One college does have bylaws currently and others want to work with faculty on creating their own.
Michael asked that one person from each college join the committee so all are represented.
IV. Questions of the Administration
Q. Recently, there was a meeting with the Chancellor who presented One University to the university at large and one with the management team. Was anything covered with management that wasn’t in the other meeting?
A. President Hunter said the presentations to each meeting were essentially the same. The discussion with the leadership group was more “robust”. Jeff Hecker stated there were various ways questions were asked to get a clearer destination and process. It was stated that there is lack of a clear end point.
Q. How will online classes affect teaching load and class size? In the summer if you teach, with more than 60 students you get a TA, additional funds, etc. How will it work with online teaching?
A. The report won’t give those answers; it deals with organizational functions. There should be a process for faculty input.
Q. During the meeting, someone referred to the duplication of courses, who makes the decision on who can offer online courses?
A. There have been many conversations about the report but the answer doesn’t appear to be in it. There is need for academic input as well as administrators. It’s not going to be each separate university making the decision and the idea is that it’s done in a thoughtful way with input from faculty.
Q. Will consideration be given to accreditation?
A. Of course it will, surprised if it’s not considered.
Q. It was asked what the cost of PeopleSoft is within a 10% margin of error? There hasn’t been an answer in the four or five years I’ve asked.
A. Claire said she’d get an answer.
Comment: Can you add Blackboard to that list too? Claire said she didn’t have an answer for Blackboard.
Jeff Hecker asked for clarification regarding the PeopleSoft question. It was stated that faculty are being asked to worry more about financial matters. If faculty are being asked to help with the financial situation then all financial aspects should be looked at. If the cost is less than 1% fine but I’d guess that it’s not. For instance, Harvard University got rid of PeopleSoft, it was in the news before the UMaine System signed up for it. It seems like a fair question to ask.
Jeff Hecker stated, it’s more complicated than saying we should get rid of it because Harvard did.
Q. There’s a sense that we’re losing control of our finances i.e., grants and tuition are controlled by the System Office.
A. In many ways, we never had total control. Finance is now centralized at the University of Maine System. Claire is the campus budget officer but she reports to Ryan Low, as do all system-wide budget officers. The FY17 budget is a transition year budget that is being built now. When FY18 starts next fall it will be a true unified budget. There is no way around grant dollars; they are awarded to individuals therefore stay on this campus. Indirect is the same. At this point it seems like reserves will stay on this campus at least through FY17.
It’s a concern that if UMaine runs well, but other campuses don’t, our reserves could be used on other campuses. Carol Kim stated that Indirect Costs stay on this campus. It was mentioned that when it’s time to dole out money they could reduce UMaine’s budget by the amount of reserves.
Q. Reportedly, there will be a huge deficit. Will we see things unique to this campus cut?
A. President Hunter said we can only go forward, being as public as possible
Comment: November 9 there will be a budget meeting.
Q. What about gifts that come to this campus, do they stay here? Will there be fewer allocations if larger gifts come in?
A. President Hunter said donors ask those questions also, gifts stay on this campus. Donors also like to know that if they donate an amount that the allocation isn’t swapped away.
Q. Regarding Unified Online, there are differences in courses taught. It can have the same title but still be very different. Concerning that, if courses have the same title and number they’re considered the same.
A. The Chancellor mentions Psych 100 often saying why are there five online. After sitting with Psych faculty it becomes clear, to me, that three of the five are very different. One University implies unity across all campuses but that is not the case.
Q. Unified Online is guaranteeing any course from any campus will count on any campus. Courses are totally different on other campuses than at UMaine.
A. It is a concern; it appears the report reads that things be fair.
Old Business
None
New Business
Motion: Syllabus Language
Faculty Senate Executive Committee
For Faculty Senate
October 21, 2015
Background: The syllabus has been selected by the administration as a vehicle for a wide range of institutional communications to students about rights [aka e.g., disability services], faculty responsibilities [aka e.g., mandatory reporting], and needs for rescheduling classes in case of emergencies and unplanned closures. While the faculty recognizes that these communications are important to the functioning of the university the syllabus is a tool that is not well suited to communicating legalistic disclaimers and instead should be focused on the educational goals of the class and communication between the faculty member and the students. Clarifying the source of the text and maintaining consistency in these legal documents will both serve to protect the institution while clarifying the function of the syllabus.
Motion: The faculty senate asks that the administration provide to all faculty at least one month prior to the start of each term a legal statement from the administration to the students which includes any disclaimers or required language for the syllabus. This section of the syllabus will be included at the end of in each syllabus and will be clearly identified as “legal and administrative syllabus required language” University of Maine policies. Each section will be clearly marked with supporting contact information for the students. Content of the class and topics to be covered will be the sole responsibility of the faculty and independent of administrative language and will be related to pedagogical rather than legal requirements.
Discussion: I’d like to support the motion but why wasn’t a different mechanism recommended? Could there be consideration to have the University have a contract that could be signed while students register for classes? It was commented that students get the policies in writing at least once a semester. Dr. Dana stated that they email policy to every student once a year, at least a lot of the same information. Students will email questions all the time and can be told “…it’s on the syllabus…”.
Knowing exactly what has to be in the syllabus would be helpful, in one document.
Vote: Motion Approved the 2 Amendment
Amendment 1 Motion: change “at the end of each syllabus” to “in each syllabus”
Amendment 2 Motion: change “legal and administrative syllabus required language” to University of Maine policies.
Vote: Background to Motion Approved with one Amendment to Background: “aka” to e.g.
Vote: Approved
Motion: Academic Calendar
Academic Affairs Committee
October 21, 2015
Motion:
Whereas, three models of calendar have been offered by the administration (attached), and whereas, the student government has endorsed calendar 2 with two weeks in March for break the main difference, we, the Faculty Senate are in favor of calendar 2 for pedagogical reasons, e.g. related to student participation in research, and in support of our students’ preference.
Discussion: There should be the right amount of weeks here. The proposal from the UMaine System is one week and three days. Is it important to have a reason like research in here? It seems the more important issue is having students thrown out of the dorms twice in a semester. There is also Alternative Spring Break that travel for service projects; one week wouldn’t work for them.
Vote: Approved
Motion: Pedagogical Innovation and Information Technology
Whereas information technology is an important component of the pedagogical design of a class.
Whereas pedagogical innovations using information technology have potentially transformative impacts on education, both in the small and in the large.
Whereas information technology is notoriously difficult to forecast and a poor candidate for long-term commitments based on a top-down decision-making.
Whereas the faculty teaching a class are in the best position to determine the needs of that class, and effective means of meeting those needs, for tasks such as course data management, messaging among students and instructors, homework submissions, online and hybrid testing, and many others.
Whereas the faculty must have the freedom of pedagogical design as it pertains to information technology used in courses in order to continue innovating in educational matters.
Whereas the selection of information technology resources is very similar to the selection of other pedagogical resources, such as textbooks, reference material, and testing instruments, and should be done by faculty for many of the same reasons.
Therefore, be it resolved moved that the decisions on which information technologies and systems to use for a class, based on pedagogical needs and the overall class design, must be made by the faculty teaching the class.
Vote: Approved – Amendment to revise resolved to moved
Vote: Approved
Faculty Senate Resolution on the Unified Online Report to the President and Provost
The Unified Online Report contains recommendations for structural changes system-wide which could have a momentous effect on the curricula, courses, online environment, and means of delivery. For the faculty of the University of Maine, who offer the largest percentage of online courses and curricula, to review the document carefully, assess its possible impacts on our numerous programs, and work in unity with the administration to offer meaningful input to the system-wide initiative, we need a full month for discussions to coordinate what will best serve students here and across the system. We need your leadership in asking the Chancellor’s Office to agree to a more tenable dead-line, 30 November.
The Senate
Vote: Approved
Adjourned at 5:00 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Kathryn Slott
Prepared by Kim Junkins