Administration’s Response to Senate Motions 2605-09
From: Joan Ferrini-Mundy
President, University of Maine
To: Henri Akono-Ada, President of the Faculty Senate
CC: William Biberstein, Chief of Staff
Kelly Straub, Executive Assistant to the President
Gabriel Paquette, Executive Vice President for Faculty Affairs and Provost
William Somes, Senior Administrative Coordinator
RE: Response to Motions SM2605, SM2606, SM2607 and Acknowledgement of receipt of Motions SM2608 and SM2609
On motion SM2605: Resolution Regarding Evaluation of a Per-Credit-Hour Fee Model or Artificial Intelligence Tools
Following discussion with Provost Gabe Paquette, I hereby respond by supporting the motion with the provisos outlined in his response (attached).
On motion SM2606: Resolution Regarding Use of Ally for Title If Compliance and Protection of Faculty Intellectual Property
After discussion with Provost Gabe Paquette, I hereby respond by supporting the resolution in its entirety and express my appreciation for the ongoing collaboration with faculty, which remains essential to the success of the work.
On motion SM2607: Motion to Request Administrative Guidance and Fiscal Support for Graduate Worker Contract Implementation
After discussion with Provost Gabe Paquette I am sharing the Provost’s response to each of the sub-resolutions (attached) regarding these Faculty Senate resolutions. I agree with this perspective. I also note that we will continue to provide additional information regarding implementation of the GWU contract to the Senate and to faculty PIs as it becomes available.
Acknowledgement is hereby made of the Faculty Senate Motions SM2608 and SM 2609, which received approval from the Senate and subsequent support from the Chief Academic Officers’ Council in March 19, 2026.
Attachments:
- Action for Decision Memo from Provost Paquette to the President (Date: April 8, 2026)
- SM2605: Resolution Regarding Evaluation of a Per-Credit-Hour Fee Model for Artificial Intelligence Tools
- SM2606: Resolution Regarding Use of Ally for Title Il Compliance and Protection of Faculty Intellectual Property
- Action for Decision Memo from Provost Paquette to the President (Date: April 8, 2026)
- SM2607: Motion to Request Administrative Guidance and Fiscal Support for Graduate Worker Contract Implementation
Memorandum for the President
April 8, 2026
Action for Decision
From: Gabriel Paquette, Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost
CC: William Biberstein, Interim Chief of Staff
Kelly Straub, Executive Assistant to the President
Subject: SM2605: Resolution Regarding Evaluation of a Per-Credit-Hour Fee Model for Artificial Intelligence Tools
SM2606: Resolution Regarding Use of Ally for Title II Compliance and Protection of Faculty Intellectual Property
Purpose:
We received the attached memo from the Faculty Senate entitled, “Motions Approved at the University of March Open Senate Meeting.” There were five motions approved by the Faculty Senate at the March 11, 2026 meeting, received for action on March 13, 2026. The purpose of this memo is to provide my feedback and recommendations for your actions on SM 2605 and SM2606. My recommendation for motion SM2607 will be submitted in a separate decision memo. A response is due to the Faculty Senate by April 10, 2026.
SM2608 and SM2609 do not require formal responses. Following the Senate’s vote in favor, the suspension of the Bachelor of Science in Medical Laboratory Sciences and elimination of Master of Arts in Teaching Spanish were brought to the Chief Academic Officers’ Council (CAOC) on March 19, 2026, where they also received support.
Background or Context:
SM2605: Resolution Regarding Evaluation of a Per-Credit-Hour Fee Model for Artificial Intelligence Tools
This resolution is directed toward the University of Maine System (and ultimately the Board of Trustees). It is preemptive, concerning a potential action that could be taken but has not yet been taken. The hypothetical nature of the resolution complicates any response to the resolution.
With regards to an AI fee, a number of possibilities were discussed and explored by the UMS AI Taskforce, which issued a report in September 2025. […] This is a rapidly evolving landscape and numerous models (including fee models) are being explored by universities, including UMS. In order to understand the landscape, including associated costs, UMS issued a RFP and proposals from providers have been submitted by vendors but not yet evaluated by UMS. It is likely that these proposals will be shared with the UMS AI Taskforce, among others, for feedback. No action, it should be emphasized, could be taken until a formal proposal were brought to the BoT’s FFT committee and subsequently approved by the BoT. There would be, then, many opportunities for faculty (and staff and students) throughout UMS to understand and comment on any AI-related fee proposal that might be brought forward. [Link to Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) – Guidance on Use]
The resolution contains six sub-resolutions. The main thrust of the resolution is contained in the first sub-resolution (and to a degree in the second sub-resolution): a request for a “deliberate, transparent, and faculty-informed evaluation of any proposed per-credit-hour fee model for AI tools.” While being fully supportive of the principles enumerated, as previously noted, UMS has well-defined, established procurement, sourcing, and contracting policies and processes. These would be followed as in any other case. AI tools would be evaluated according to existing standards. Furthermore, a student fee of this type would ultimately be approved by the Board of Trustees, which would follow pertinent Administrative Practice Letters (APLs).
Therefore, the standard processes for procurement and approval of fees, respectively, would address sub-resolutions 3 and 4: “any evaluation include clear justification of educational benefit, disciplinary applicability, cost transparency, and anticipated student use” and “ethical, legal, data privacy, and intellectual property guidelines be established and communicated prior to adoption of institution-wide AI tools funded through student fees.”
Providing a response to sub-resolutions 5 and 6 is more difficult. These sub-resolutions request that the University commit to actions beyond the University’s purview. The sixth sub-resolution asks that the “administration report back to the Faculty Senate regarding findings, proposed models, and governance input prior to final decision-making.” The University can certainly share information and material it possesses in a transparent, inclusive manner, but any final decision concerning a fee would not be the University’s alone to make.
As indicated previously, such decisions would be the outcome of UMS-wide processes in which UMaine is only one of several parties and are governed by policies over which UMaine does not have sole control. The University can pledge that the concerns raised in the resolution are brought to the attention of UMS leadership–which has already occurred–and that the University’s involvement in these processes would be informed by the Faculty Senate’s concerns.
In short, I recommend that you support the resolution with the provisos presented in the previous paragraphs.
SM2606: Resolution Regarding Use of Ally for Title II Compliance and Protection of Faculty Intellectual Property
This is a four-part motion regarding the use of Ally–a tool to facilitate compliance with Title II of the ADA– and its implications for faculty intellectual property (i.e., course materials).
The protection of faculty intellectual property is of paramount importance to the University and UMS. The use of Ally (to assist with Title II of the ADA compliance) does not encroach upon intellectual property. In this sense, the UMS contract with Ally is similar to those it has with other software vendors. The Faculty Senate may not have reviewed the contract (which is publicly available), particularly Section 4.1 of the Blackboard Master Agreement. I recommend that the contract […] be shared with the Senate.
To be clear, this is not a legally novel contract. While granting access to university data, there are standard provisions and safeguards included in all such vendor contracts. Ally scans course material, highlights content which may not be compliant, and provides an option for dynamically remediating files. Ally is one of many ways (admittedly slower) to assess and revise materials in an effort to achieve compliance with Title II. Many of these are available through the following [Center for Innovation in Teaching and Learning] webpage. Other resources have been shared by UMS and by the University’s Campus Title II committee over the past few months.
The standards and expectations with which the UMS and UMaine staff charged with administering and supporting Ally are also similar to the ways they administer and support other online services, such as Brightspace, Kaltura, Zoom, Navigate, Google Docs, Sharepoint, and many others.
These considerations largely address the first two sub-motions and, to a degree, the third and fourth sub-motions. They can be supported because they are consistent with current policies, procedures, practices and contracts.
The parts of sub-motions 3 and 4 that are not addressed explicitly related to the request “that the administration report back to faculty governance bodies regarding contractual safeguards, compliance pathways, and available alternative tools that ensure accessibility while protecting faculty intellectual property.” The University, through the Campus Title II committee, has been working to develop alternative compliance pathways and tools to ensure compliance. Additional pathways and tools will be shared as they are available.
I recommend supporting the resolution in its entirety. Much of it amounts to a request to do something we already do, and have long done. The rest of the resolution is a reasonable request to continue work to reduce the burdens on faculty as they make their course materials compliant with the law. UMS, UMaine’s Campus Title II committee (which includes at least two Senators), and other University entities (e.g., CITL) are actively engaged in this work. The continued partnership with faculty is indispensable to the success of the collective effort.
Timeliness:
A response is due back to the Faculty Senate by April 10, 2026
Recommendation:
RE: SM 2605: Resolution Regarding Evaluation of a Per-Credit-Hour Fee Model or Artificial Intelligence Tools
I recommend that you support the resolution with the provisos presented in the response above.
RE: SM 2606: Resolution Regarding Use of Ally for Title II Compliance and Protection of Faculty Intellectual Property
I recommend supporting the resolution in its entirety.
Approved by:
Gabriel Paquette
Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost
Date: April 8, 2026
Memorandum for the President
April 8, 2026
Action for Decision
From: Gabriel Paquette, Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost
CC: William Biberstein, Interim Chief of Staff
Kelly Straub, Executive Assistant to the President
Subject: SM2607: Motion to Request Administrative Guidance and Fiscal Support for Graduate Worker Contract Implementation
Purpose:
We received the attached memo from the Faculty Senate entitled, “Motions Approved at the University of March Open Senate Meeting.” There were five motions approved by the Faculty Senate at the March 11, 2026 meeting, received for action on March 13, 2026. The purpose of this memo is to provide my feedback and recommendations for your actions on SM 2607. My recommendation for motions SM26065 and SM2606 will be submitted in a separate decision memo. A response is due to the Faculty Senate by April 10, 2026.
SM2608 and SM2609 do not require formal responses. Following the Senate’s vote in favor, the suspension of the Bachelor of Science in Medical Laboratory Sciences and elimination of Master of Arts in Teaching Spanish were brought to the Chief Academic Officers’ Council (CAOC) on March 19, 2026, where they also received support.
Background or Context:
SM2607: Motion to Request Administrative Guidance and Fiscal Support for Graduate Worker Contract Implementation
There are many sub-resolutions contained in this sub-resolution. I have sought guidance from multiple stakeholders and experts in preparing this recommendation.
Sub-resolution: A Comprehensive Implementation Guide:
A formal document detailing how units will meet the requirements of the contract. These requirements range from onboarding graduate students, laptop management, and how the financial aspects of graduate student positions, including the bonus and increased cost of stipends, benefits, and fringe, will be applied and covered across various funding sources (E&G, grant-funded, MAFES, and other lines).
Response:
The collective bargaining agreement is the recommended primary source for information about UMS’ obligations to Graduate Workers and their union. The document provides the details for all terms and conditions of employment, including important deadlines. It is highly recommended to read the new CBA from cover-to-cover. The Agreement is available on the labor relations webpage.
To supplement the CBA, Labor Relations has posted training videos on UMS Academy which provide an overview of the full CBA, broken into 3 sections. Labor Relations is continuing to work on additional tutorials and podcast style videos to cover each article individually for a targeted deep-dive by topic. An email was sent to supervisors of GWs on 3/13/26 with links to the CBA and other resources.
Regarding the financial aspects of graduate worker positions, a separate communication is forthcoming (as it cannot be finalized in time to meet the April 10 deadline for a response to the Senate resolution).
Sub-Resolution: Centralized Gap Funding Mechanism:
The establishment of a dedicated fund to cover the change between previously budgeted and new contract rates for existing multi-year grants that cannot be retroactively adjusted.
Response:
The University does not expect to establish a centralized gap funding mechanism to cover the additional expenses. Departments are expected to make adjustments to their existing grant-funded expenses to offset cost increases or reallocate funds as necessary. As always, alternatives will continue to be explored.
Sub-Resolution: Fiscal Year 2027 Budget Transparency:
Clear communication on whether the University and/or System will subsidize these increases at the college/departmental level or if units and PIs are expected to absorb the new costs through headcount reductions or reallocated research funds.
Response:
Neither the University nor the System are expected to subsidize the cost increases at the college or departmental level. The UMS bargaining team was clear at the table with the GWU bargaining team, that the increased costs related to implementing this CBA could result in fewer GW appointments or other changes needed to offset the increasing costs.
Sub-Resolution: Future Budget Guidance:
Provide guidance and clarification on increases and rates that should be included in proposal budgets for upcoming fiscal years.
Response:
The collective bargaining agreement outlines the increases in compensation and benefit contributions for FY27, FY28, and FY29. It is important to compare your current graduate workers’ stipend levels with the minimum stipend levels in the chart on page 7 of the CBA to understand which graduate workers will be moved to the minimum and which will receive a 3% increase as of July 1, 2026.
The CBA overview presentation available on the UMS labor relations website outlines the 2025/2026 medical and dental premiums on slide 5, which represent a baseline for fiscal year 2027 medical and dental costs. Although fiscal 2027 rates are yet to be finalized, one should assume a minimum 5% premium cost increase to each of these premiums.
As previously mentioned, additional guidance for PIs is forthcoming.
Sub-Resolution: Contact Person(s) and Information Source to Support Transition:
Designate a representative(s) to address faculty questions and provide resources, such as a website with F.A.Q., related to new coverage, requirements, the transition, and how to cover costs.
Response:
A new HR Partner, Branden Mountain, started in late March 2026. Branden will act as the primary point of contact for the Graduate School staff once he has had an opportunity to acclimate to the new position.
[…]
[View the CBA and links to resources like the training videos in UMS Academy.]
Questions about covering costs may be best directed to UM Finance.
Timeliness:
A response is due back to the Faculty Senate by April 10, 2026
Recommendation:
I recommend sharing the response to these Faculty Senate resolutions. They demonstrate that administrative leaders across UMS (including UMaine) are actively working on implementation, even if details concerning some aspects of implementation are forthcoming.
Approved by:
Gabriel Paquette
Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost
Date: April 8, 2026