May 8, 2019

FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
May 8, 2019

Present: Seanna Annis, Erik Blomberg, Alice Bruce, Dick Brucher, Sandy Butler, Mauricio da Cunha, Paula Drewniany, Per Garder, Mark Haggerty, Torsten Hahmann, Sam Hanes, Leonard Kass, Margo Lukens, Robson Machado, Molly MacLean, Grant Miles, William Nichols, Christopher Nightingale, Laura Rickard, Michael Scott, Howard Segal, Andrew Thomas, David Townsend, Phil Trostel, Clayton Wheeler, Tora Johnson UMM, President Joan Ferrini-Mundy, VP Research Kody Varahramyan, Claire Strickland CBO, Robert Dana, Ken Ralph, Jen Bonnet (PEAC), Jennifer Chiarell (CEAC), Jaqulin Wallace (Grad Stud Gov) Harrison Ransley (Undergrad Rep)

Absent: Emmanuel Boss, Stephanie Burnett, Julie DellaMattera, Phil Dunn, Scott Dunning, Nuri Emanetoglu, Nancy Hall, Valerie Herbert, Margaret Killinger, Anil Raj Kizha, Colt Knight, Peter Koons, Robert Meulenberg, Patti Miles, Renae Moran, Nigel Pitt, Deborah Rogers, Deborah Saber, John Singer, Kathryn Slott, Sean Smith, Mona Therrien, Stephanie Welcomer, Mark Wells, Xudong Zheng, Provost Jeff Hecker,

The meeting was called to order at 3:15 pm

I. Welcome, Announcements and Comments
A reception will immediately follow the Faculty Senate meeting today. It was announced that this is Dick Bruchers last senate meeting of his career. There will be a Faculty Forum on May 14, 3 pm for an update on the First Year Student Success Initiative. Also, in the process of updating committees of the administration, will be looking for names to fill vacant positions. Dr. Dana stated Maine Day had over 2,000 student volunteers totaling 6,000 +/- service hours. Claire Strickland stated paving is starting on campus. Ken Ralph, Athletic Director, said it’s possible the baseball series with Hartford will be in Orono.

II. Approval of Minutes
March 13, 2019
April 10, 2019
Approved

III. Committee Reports
BOT – Patti Miles
The budget has gone to the BOT for a vote at the May meeting. There has been an increase in revenue and additional faculty hired. It was asked if enrollment projections are good regarding the budget projections, Claire Strickland said she is waiting since students are still being admitted.

Academic Affairs – William “Dee” Nichols
The Committee of the Administration for Infosilem submitted a report to the Provost this week. A date has been set for the Research and Creative Activity Day for next year, Friday, April 17. A subcommittee of Academic Affairs is looking at the Academic Integrity Policy and comparing it to UMaine’s policy and Student Conduct Code. Over the summer the committee will look over the Prior Learning Assessment, need to see what the implications are.

Gen Ed – Subcommittee of Academic Affairs – Sam Hanes
The assessment session with be May 17, 8:30 am to 12:00. Email Sam if interested.

Constitution & Bylaws – Grant Miles
No report but will work over the summer to bring changes in the fall.

Comment: Dave said he had looked at the Faculty Handbook and there were broken links. He’d like the committee to take a look at the handbook for changes that may need to be made. Also, Dave received communication from the BOT General Counsel regarding Policy 214, the restriction of free speech. The policy is actually a restriction on the University President’s and Chancellor. The BOT passed the policy quickly so it was asked that there be a meeting to discuss the issue, no response. Dave sent another letter regarding free speech and a right to hear what the President thinks. The two memos have been included for the BOT’s upcoming discussions.

Research & Scholarship – Deborah Saber & Nuri Emanetoglu
The committee met yesterday and has a motion under New Business.

Finance & Institutional Planning – Mauricio da Cunha
A reminder to everyone, please respond to the survey sent out a few weeks ago so feedback can be relayed back to the Provost for a June deadline.

University Environment – Erik Blomberg
Erik had a request from the Presidents Office to serve on the Childcare Taskforce Implementation Committee. Action should be taken over the summer.

Service & Outreach – Colt Knight
No report.

Committee on Committees –
No report but a call to fill committees will be coming soon.

Program Creation & Reorganization Review – Clayton Wheeler
There’s a motion under New Business

Library Committee – Howard Segal
Canopy hasn’t been eliminated but it’s costly. It previously cost $4,350, went up to $9,450 and then to $17,400 and is currently set up for curriculum only.

Information Technology Committee – Patti Miles
MaineStreet upgrades are close to being complete. There may be a short outage when the upgrade takes place in June. Upcoming, the Blackboard change since it is outdated, looking at three systems, Blackboard, Canvas and Desire to Learn. There will be presentations in Augusta, if anyone can go, if not there will be videos available. There are scenarios to watch to compare the three options. Each campus has two votes on the committee.

Comments: When will the change take place? It’s a one-year transition. UMaine has one voice out of seven campuses yet has the majority of users.

Also David Townsend asked if anyone had trouble with student evaluations reverting to online SET this year. It appears that because his class had a remote delivery it triggered online SET even though it wasn’t an online course. Jeff St. John stated he will get an answer but assumes it was because it was a remote class it triggered the change to online SET.

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

IV. Announcements and Updates from the Administration
President Ferrini-Mundy said she’s excited being at the end of her first year and watching the good work everyone does to get to commencement. Some are aware of the plan for Strategic Research and Development for the UMaine System. The BOT will look at it during their next meeting. The Executive Summary is available online. One finding, double MEIF money allowing for priorities of the state and economic development. A student has made a request for discussion on renaming Little Hall. Michigan State dropped the name last year.

Q. When the report is final by the BOT is it shared with Student Government?
A. President Ferrini-Mundy said yes.

V. Questions of the Administration

Q. I’ve heard there may be interest in mental health services, can you elaborate?
A. Dr. Dana stated the American Psychological accreditation has been completed. The Counseling Center has had increased funds but information needs to get out better, campus is doing okay but can do better. Psychology Services on campus is working with an agreement with the Counseling Center to see clients and working with the Mabel Wadsworth Center. There are a lot of pieces in play.

Q. Is there a way to pull all the information together and have it on a website as a resource?
A. Possibly presenting to the senate would be one way.

Comment: Is there a way for faculty to know resources to refer to? Dr. Dana said they would figure out the best places to have all the information.

Q. Recently saw a list of classroom upgrades but it was listed as Classrooms of the Future. Is that separate from Paint and Polish or the same thing?
A. Dollars unspent from Classrooms of the Future went to Paint and Polish. There are a few major upgrades but minor upgrades as well.

Q. At the last meeting of the Institutional Planning Committee the Provost said a group from the President’s office was going to put together goals, has that been done?
A. Yes, but they’re two different plans. R&D is the whole UMaine System, Strategic Vision and Values is what the Provost is working on. There are also goals and strategies under those.

Comments: Jeff St. John said the preliminary report goes to the President and then to the BOT Strategic Vision and Values. President Ferrini-Mundy said the first look looks great with a long list of goals. The strategies will look at outcomes. Sample goals and values to become campus projects from suggestions.

Tora Johnson, UMaine Machias Faculty Assembly, stated she has been charged by Provost Hecker to form a committee of faculty and relevant staff to make a plan for the partnership on the academic side. It seems like a good time to get thoughts of UMaine Machias faculty and feedback from UMaine faculty along with those who may sit on the committee. A lot of effort has gone into academic planning but hasn’t moved forward. UMaine Machias welcomes an “overarching plan” but want to make sure of outcomes, building value for both campuses and managing workload since the partnership. Moving forward with planning, a couple things came up; 1) it’s crucial to determine who from UMaine will be on the committee, someone who sees benefits of the partnership. There are only 30 faculty at UMaine Machias compared to many Orono.

Q. Can you specify academic partnership and how it has or may be worked out?
A. Programs with 2+2 starting at UMaine Machias then transferring to UMaine but the other direction also. The GIS lab has a lot of undergrad teaching and UMaine students take the UMaine Machias classes. Engineering’s 2+2 to take excess freshman that may then transfer to UMaine or some may decide to stay at UMaine Machias.

Q. You want a focused selection based on outcomes?
A. Yes. Provost Hecker would have a better explanation but seems overarching goals and recommendations for academic partnerships and specific programs that should go forward as academic initiatives for both campuses.

President Ferrini-Mundy said UMaine Machias is a regional campus of UMaine so the first step is to look at administration and operations in place. Academic arrangements between campuses will impact students, UMaine Machias being a small campus, part of the community and research that’s integrated in the community. The question is what’s next, what are the big goals. Finding a few people from Orono that want to partner with UMaine Machias, are there people already excited by Machias and the partnership.

Q. Is the UMaine Machias Faculty Assembly on May 9 and what time?
A. Tora stated she would contact William Nichols soon with the time.

VI. Old Business
Motion from April 2017, the motion asked that the Vice President for Research and upper administration to consider points from a survey and report back on actions they’d consider taking. At that point the then Vice President for Research left and so the committee would like to reintroduce the motion. The VPR said he can address it at least partially and President Ferrini-Mundy said revisiting the motion is very timely.

VII. New Business

PCRRC Motion to Support the Intent to Plan a Master of Science in Data Science and Engineering
May 8, 2019

The Faculty Senate Program Creation and Reorganization Review Committee has reviewed the Intent to Plan (ITP) a Master of Science degree in Data Science and Engineering by the School of Computing and Information Science. Some of the program goals as stated in the ITP are:

The objective of the Data Science and Engineering M.S. program is to meet the growing demand for graduates with core skills in managing and analyzing complex data and analytics challenges. The degree will provide a pathway for students from diverse fields to transition to multiple data science career paths by providing them with core graduate level courses across the spectrum of the data lifecycle. In support of the interdisciplinary spirit of data science and engineering, the program is designed to accommodate students from a wide range of undergraduate degrees or other graduate degree backgrounds with options for specialization in different domains.

A collection of hybrid courses with in-class and on-line options will support students in residence as well as meet the needs of people currently in the workforce or otherwise place bound and needing training or retraining in the area of Data Science and Engineering.

Students will develop knowledge and technical skills in a subset of at least four of the following five thematic areas depending on their backgrounds and interests:

Data collection technologies
Data management
Data analytics
Data visualization and human computer interaction
Data security, preservation, and reuse

Students will have an option to complete a 30-credit project-based MS degree, a thesis based MS degree or a 15 credit certificate. Students completing the program will be expected to have familiarity with at least one programming language, data structures and database theory, the concepts for effectively managing data in different systems, (client-server systems, relational and object-oriented databases), have knowledge of statistical and analytical tools (data mining, machine learning), knowledge of effective visualization and presentation of information to different audiences, and knowledge of data security, curation, and preservation strategies.

PCRRC’s comments:
When reviewing the ITP for the proposed program, the PCRRC received feedback that Computer Engineering was not consulted when developing the ITP. There is also a potentially-competing collaboration between UMaine’s ECE faculty and the University of Southern Maine being developed. In addition to ECE interests in the proposed topic, the committee discussed that the Maine Business School might have an interest in this topic in the future. Members of the engineering faculty, who were not aware of this initiative until recently, are interested in participating in this program. Their participation and the inclusion of data topics that need to be addressed by engineering faculty is fundamental to justify the use of “Engineering” in the title of the program. The PCRRC recommends that the faculty senate support moving this ITP forward with the following consideration:

All relevant academic units that might be impacted by the proposed program should be included during development of the full proposal.

Motion: The Faculty Senate supports moving the Intent to Plan forward, along with the PCRRC comments, to Stage 3 review by the Provost.

Discussion: Two members from each college met and now to provide recommendations. We either support the intent to plan, not support or hold more forums. The College of Engineering would like to be included in the proposed program and the committee supports that. The PCRRC supports the plan.

Q. It seems several engineering faculty are already involved with the program so why is it necessary to have language when they’re already involved.
A. Not everyone in each engineering department has heard the plan.

Discussion: These areas don’t have anything to do with engineering. This process is just for an Intent to Plan and move forward. PCRRC is only in an advisory capacity.

The plan comes from CLAS with interdisciplinary faculty. This motion only says the College of Engineering wants to be part of the conversation. This is step two of a 15-step process. There will be an open campus forum.

Vote: Approved, 1 Abstention

A Motion to Promote More-open Employment Postings
Faculty Senate Meeting
May 8, 2019

Presented by the Elected Senators Committee Communicated by Senator Molly MacLean

Background/Rationale: The following motion was discussed at the Elected Senators Meeting on April 24^th and the Executive Committee meeting on April 30^th, 2019.

In recent years, a significant proportion of employment opportunities at the University of Maine posted on Hire Touch, in which possession of a baccalaureate degree is desired, are rigidly stated as “must have baccalaureate degree”, or with similar wording. This restrictive language, stating an absolute requirement of a baccalaureate degree, can result in unintended consequences. First, it automatically disqualifies a large proportion of otherwise superbly qualified applicants thereby unnecessarily limiting the applicant pool. One example: Our military veterans, many of whom volunteered to serve our country immediately after high school, may upon their discharge possess no advanced academic degrees, but may nonetheless bring excellent experience and training to the workforce. Other examples exist, such as with respect to faculty partner accommodations where faculty partners may have decades of experience in a given sector but may not have completed a bachelor’s degree. Faculty retention may be negatively impacted by eliminating otherwise qualified individuals from even applying to UMaine for employment, especially given the relatively limited economic/job opportunities in this part of Maine.

It is suggested here that more appropriate language in job postings, which would not otherwise impose restrictions on employee selection, but which would allow a larger applicant pool, would be to state something to the effect that preference will be given to individuals with a baccalaureate degree, or equivalent experience. There are exceptions to this guideline, of course; one example: physicians hired at the Cutler Health Center must hold a D.O. or M.D. degree.

Motion:
In order to ensure the broadest pool of qualified applicants, employment opportunities posted at the University of Maine should avoid unnecessarily restrictive language with respect to educational requirements of applicants; rather, postings should include language that honors “relevant, equivalent job experience” and not be restricted to specific academic degrees unless such a restriction is clearly necessary.

Therefore, it is recommended that the University of Maine administration work with The University of Maine System Office of Human Resources to create a mechanism whereby new position postings on Hire Touch address the question:

Does this job require a specific academic degree or level of formal post-secondary education, or can the job be posted with the additional phrase after reference to a desired degree or level of education: “or equivalent experience”?

Discussion: Clarify the last paragraph, if the job requires a specific academic degree, who decides that? The employer should determine it.

Not seeing a need for this since there are minimum qualifications set and those should be trusted. There have been instances when a particular degree was “required” when someone with equivalent experience would be qualified. There are areas on campus that already use this language and others do not. It was suggested that the motion be tabled in order to discuss the issue with Human Resources.

A motion was made to table.

Vote: Approved

Motion to Reinvest Indirect Costs from Extramural Grants and Contracts Back into the Research Enterprise.

Faculty Senate Meeting
May 8, 2019
Presented by the ad hoc Committee on Research Capacity of the Faculty Senate standing committees on
Research & Scholarship (Deborah Saber & Nuri Emanetoglu, co-chairs), and Finance & Institutional Planning (Mauricio Da Cunha, chair).

Background:
Recent initiatives led by the administrations of the University of Maine and the University of Maine System, as evinced by President Ferrini-Mundy’s Strategic Vision and Values plan and the UMS and UM R&D plan, are encouraging and are likely to result in an expansion of research activities at UMaine in the near future. The Faculty Senate recognizes and supports both efforts, specifically as they apply to an expansion of research capacity and activities across UMaine, while acknowledging that such efforts necessitate consideration of a number of issues at several administrative levels. One of those issues is the subject of this motion.

Over the years, in faculty discussions of ways to expand, promote and incentivize research and scholarship at the University of Maine, we invariably come back to a few fundamental issues, one of which is the way the University of Maine allocates indirect costs recovered on extramural grants and contracts.

While in recent years we have witnessed a modest redistribution of indirect costs to principal investigators, those efforts fall short of what is needed to make a meaningful impact. The Senate therefore proposes the following:

Motion:
In order to expand, promote and incentivize research at the University of Maine, the Faculty Senate moves that the University of Maine administration develop a budgetary system that reinvests a significant portion of indirect costs back into the research enterprise, to be allocated as appropriate among the Office of the Vice President for Research, colleges, departments, research centers and principal investigators, via an approach developed by the Vice President for Research in consultation with a faculty advisory group. The immediate goal is to reach a level of reinvestment that in three years approaches one half of the total indirect costs received.

Discussion: Would this allow us to increase indirect rate by documenting this reinvesting in research? Could it become selfsusstaining? The rate currently, compared to other universities, is low. The next time the rate goes up it can only go up by approx. 2%. What would the impact be on the institution if this was done? Removing $4 million, does it then impact research? The amount now is not currently known since it goes into the general fund. This is a good starting point to begin discussions, a good motivator. President Ferrini-Mundy stated that an information session on indirect cost would be a good idea so everyone can understand how it works, where dollars go, etc. Claire Strickland said an informational session would be a good idea. She said usually the indirect costs cover costs that aren’t funded by grants; i.e., electric, utilities, etc. Indirect Costs is a way to reinvest and stimulate more research. It was stated that more information is needed. If there’s a list of beneficiaries could you add Fogler Library as well? Research dollars need to go there also for journals etc. One place dollars are needed is hiring new faculty, money goes to the VPR office to make these decisions, along with an advisory committee. UMaine Machias is also concerned with this issue. It’s a way to support undergraduate research on a larger level.

Vote: Approved

Adjourned 5:00 pm

Respectfully submitted,
Grant Miles

Prepared by Kim Junkins