2003-2004 Motions
September 24, 2003 Motions
No motions
October 22, 2003 Motions
No motions
November 19, 2003 Motions
EMERGENCY FUNDING FOR FOGLER LIBRARY MOTION
The Library Committee, Emergency Funding for Fogler Library Motion
Faculty Senate, November 2003
Introduction:
Due to escalating journal costs and flat funding for the library_s base budget, Fogler Library faced a $650,000 deficit in its acquisitions budget last summer. The Provost was able to redirect $300,000 to this problem, but that still left a huge deficit, resulting in 901 academic journals being cut or changed to electronic-only versions. This was done with only minimal communication and input from the faculty, and it negatively affected both the teaching and research capabilities of the faculty and students of this university. There is another $350,000 dollars set aside for acquiring new journals in order to allow those programs and professors who have no materials in their field to acquire core journals. Although this is a worthy cause, there is still no process in place for how this money will be allocated or for how to balance equity issues across campus. The Library Task Force and the Faculty Senate Library Committee are working on this issue, but it will take some time to develop a process, particularly if the input from constituents throughout the university is sought. In the meantime, many core journals are being lost from our collection.
Motion:
Recognizing that the cuts to journals this summer affected core journals in many disciplines, the Faculty Senate asks the Provost of the University to release the $350,000 earmarked for purchasing new journals and redirect it for the most needed journals, including reinstatements. We are requesting this allocation for just one year in order to give the Library Task Force and the Faculty Senate time to develop a process that is fair to all departments for acquiring new journals, replacing existing journals, and/or for culling journals as necessary.
Vote on motion: Thirty one in favor, 2 abstentions. Motion passed.
ESTABLISHING A CLEAR PROCESS FOR DETERMINING FACULTY POSITIONS
The Environment Committee, Faculty Senate, November 2003
Introduction:
Over the past year, the process for determining new faculty positions and the replacement of faculty members in existing positions vacated by retirements, departures, and terminations, has changed substantially. Currently, all determinations now reside in the Office of the Provost, who apportions funding according to the general guidelines set forth by the Strategic Plan and the Incentivized Budget Plan. Unfortunately, the faculty perceive themselves as becoming increasingly alienated from the process, which in this distancing, makes it increasingly difficult for departments and colleges to plan for the future as their disciplines change and grow.
Motion:
The Faculty Senate asks that the Office of the Provost write a clear policy for determining decisions about the creation of new faculty positions and retention of vacated positions that departments and colleges deem as needing replacement. We ask that the Office of Provost include faculty representatives of the five colleges in their draughting of these policies, that they have these guidelines in place by January, 2004, and that they publish them permanently through ready access in the University’s web pages.
Provost Kennedy suggested two amendments: 1) …that they have these guidelines in place by 15 February 2004, and 2) …faculty representatives of the five colleges and Cooperative Extension in their draughting of these policies…
Jim Horan offered another friendly amendment: …the office of the Provost in conjunction with faculty representatives of the five colleges as elected by faculty of these colleges…
Vote on amendments: Twenty nine in favor, 3 opposed, and one abstained. The amendments passed.
ASSOCIATE VICE-PRESIDENT FOR LIBRARIES MOTION
The Library Committee, The Library Head Motion
Faculty Senate, November 2003
Introduction:
Upon the retirement of Dr. Elaine Albright as the Dean of Cultural Affairs and Libraries, the University of Maine has sought to replace her with someone in a lesser position, the Head of Libraries. As a Dean, Dr. Albright reported directly to the Provost, a placement which included her in all major University discussions on funding, academic planning, and assessment. The proposed Head of Libraries would report to the Associate Vice-President of Academic Affairs, which would remove this vital Library representative from these important discussions. A search of other Carnegie Doctoral Research Intensive Universities reveals that the position is most typically defined as a dean or associate vice-president, reporting directly to the equivalent of our Provost.
Motion:
Recognizing that the Library is the heart of the University, in its providing vital services to all disciplines, the Faculty Senate asks that the President of the University redefine the Head of Libraries position to an Associate Vice-President of Libraries, reporting directly to the Provost and included in funding, academic planning, and assessment meetings.
Vote on motion: Thirty in favor, 3 abstentions. Motion passed.
December 17, 2003 Motions
Inclusion of the Section on “Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary Programs and Endeavors” in the Undergraduate Catalog at the University of Maine
The Interdisciplinary Studies Committee
December 17, 2003.
Motion: The Faculty Senate proposes that the Undergraduate Catalog include a section on “Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary Programs and Endeavors”, and that the substance of that section be the following description and categorization of programs and endeavors currently operating at the University of Maine. The IDS Committee proposes that this list be included in the current on-line catalog as soon as practically possible, and in the next printed version.
Undergraduate Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary Programs and Endeavors at the University of Maine
The University of Maine boasts a vibrant array of interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary programs and endeavors. Such activities have become the hallmark of intellectual vitality and excellence in contemporary higher education. The University of Maine offers an exceptionally wide range of opportunities for all members of the University community—undergraduate students, graduate students, faculty members, staff members, and administrators—to participate in scholarly undertakings that involve multiple academic disciplines. The categories below provide a schematic outline of the range of such opportunities currently available to undergraduate students at the University of Maine; other endeavors may be in the planning stages, and the University actively fosters the expansion of this critical aspect of its overall mission of teaching, research, and public service.
I. Matrix for Undergraduate Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary Programs
The University of Maine has 4 types of interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary programs at the undergraduate level: Majors, Minors, Certificate Programs, and Curriculum Concentrations. Each of the last three of these types supplements but does not replace an academic major. Multidisciplinary Studies Programs are courses of study which require course work in more than one of the traditional disciplines (defined at the University of Maine by named departments), but do not have formally constituted, required course work or student research / scholarship that integrates multiple disciplines. Interdisciplinary Studies Programs are courses of study which require course work in more than one of the traditional disciplines (defined at the University of Maine by named departments), and have formally constituted course work or student research / scholarship that integrates multiple disciplines.
The matrix below indicates the program in each type.
Majors:
Interdisciplinary Program Multidisciplinary Programs B.A. in Interdisciplinary Studies Financial Economics (B.A.)Ecology and Environmental Science (B.S.) International Affairs (B.A.)Engineering Physics (B.S.) Landscape Horticulture (B.S.)
New Media (B.A.)
Resource and Agribusiness Management
Sustainable Agriculture (B.S.)
Women’s Studies (B.A.)
Minors:
Bio-Medical Engineering (B.S.)
Canadian Studies Classical Studies*
Franco-American Studies* Film and Video
Linguistics Fisheries Minor
Museum Studies Marxist and Socialist Studies*
Museum Education
Medieval and Renaissance Studies*
Native American Studies Pre-Medical Studies
Religious Studies*
Pre-Professional Health Studies
Public Relations
(*also offered as a Curriculum Concentration)
Certificate Programs:
Maine Studies Certificate Classical Studies Certificate
Museum Studies Certificate
Curriculum Concentrations:
Disability Studies Adventure Recreation Business
Equine Business Management (B.S.) Management (B.A.)
Franco-American Studies* Classical Studies*
Peace Studies Criminal Justice Administration
Religious Studies* Geography
Latin American Studies
Legal Studies
Marxist and Socialist Studies*
Medieval and Renaissance Studies*
(*also offered as a Minor)
II. Other Interdisciplinary Endeavors at the University of Maine:
Academy of Public Service (joint endeavor of UM Dept. of Public Administration; M.C.Smith Center, and the Muskie Institute of USM)
Advanced Engineered Wood Composites Center
Bureau of Labor Education
Canadian-American Center
Center for Community Inclusion and Disability Studies
Center on Aging
Cooperative Extension Service
Franco-American Center
Honors College
Institute for Quaternary and Climate Studies
Laboratory for Surface Science and Technology
Maine Folklife Center
Margaret Chase Smith Center for Public Policy
Peace Studies Office
Pulp and Paper Process Development Center
Research Collaborative on Violence Against Women
Senator George J. Mitchell Center for Environmental and Watershed Research
Solar Vehicle Team (College of Engineering)
Wabanaki Center
William Cohen Center for Public Policy and Commerce
Women’s Resource Center
The above motion was amended to include the certificate “Teaching English Speakers of Other Languages.”
The amendment was accepted and the motion carried unanimously.
January 28, 2004 Motions
Doing Business in Iraq
Michael Howard presented the following motion on behalf of the Academic Affairs Committee:
PREAMBLE
Whereas President Hoff has presented the following principles as guidelines for involvement in the College of Business, Public Policy, and Health’s conference on Doing Business in Iraq, co-sponsored with the US-Iraq Business Alliance:
“The conference must remain true to its core purpose – examination of the appropriate role in Iraq for U.S. businesses, and instruction in effective and ethical ways to do business in Iraq. It should not become a vehicle for advocating a political perspective regarding our country’s military or geopolitical role in Iraq.
The conference should address and help delineate the difference between sound business practices that strengthen the country of Iraq vs. practices that one might consider “war profiteering.”
UMaine professors must participate in the conference, not only as members of the audience but also as featured speakers. Their role should include addressing not only sound and profitable business practices, but the ethical and cultural considerations that attend doing business in other countries.
The issue of Iraqi national stability vis-a-vis business involvement in the country needs to be seriously addressed by the conference. What are the pros and cons of attempting to do business in a country where bullets are still flying? How much stabilization is necessary before it is advisable to enter a war-torn country and engage in business enterprises?
Lastly, UMaine should not be a member of an organization that will not publicly divulge the names of its members. If the University or any of its units have advertently or inadvertently joined such an organization, it should immediately withdraw its membership.”
MOTION
Be it resolved that:
The Faculty Senate endorses President Hoff’s five principles for a conference on Doing Business in Iraq, adds that the conference should include a diversity of perspectives on the ethics of doing business in Iraq, and advises that the College of BPPH withdraw from the conference and withdraw from the US-Iraq Business Alliance if it is not possible to revise the agenda and Alliance policy in conformity with these principles.
Establishing a Clear Process for Determining Faculty Positions
The Environment Committee, The Faculty Senate, January, 2004
Introduction:
Over the past year, the process for determining new faculty positions and the replacement of faculty members in existing positions vacated by retirements, departures, and terminations, has changed substantially. Currently, all determinations now reside in the Office of the Provost, who apportions funding according to the general guidelines set forth by the Strategic Plan and the Incentivized Budget Plan. The Faculty Senate appreciates the Provost’s willingness to return decisions on positions to each College, and hopes that the current financial constraints, in further necessitating a clear, open policy, will help expedite this return.
Motion:
The Faculty Senate asks that the Office of the Provost write a clear policy for determining decisions about the creation of new faculty positions and retention of vacated positions that departments and colleges deem as needing replacement. We ask that the Office of Provost work in conjunction with a faculty representative from each of the five Colleges and Cooperative Extension (each representative directly elected by that unit’s faculty) in their draughting of these policies, that they have these guidelines in place by 28 February, 2004, and that they publish them permanently through ready access in the University’s web-pages.
February 25, 2004 Motions
Motion on General Education
John Maddaus presented the motion on behalf of the Academic Affairs Committee.
PREAMBLE:
The Faculty Senate adopted general education course requirements for all undergraduate degree students at the University of Maine in 1995. When the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) continued the University’s accreditation in 1999, it requested that our five-year interim report (Spring 2004), include a review of the University’s efforts towards assessment of student learning outcomes with respect to general education. NEASC believes that outcomes assessment will provide data that can be used to promote program improvement and enhance student learning. The Faculty Senate adopted a resolution in January, 2003, calling for cooperative efforts to develop outcomes assessment for general education. During 2003, the Center for Teaching Excellence organized faculty workshops that identified potential outcomes for general education requirements and sample procedures for assessing those outcomes. On December 4, 2003, Virginia Nees-Hatlen, Interim Director of the Center for Teaching Excellence, submitted a detailed report to the Faculty Senate and the Administration describing the progress made and offering six (6) recommendations for further action, which form the primary basis for the following motion.
MOTION:
1) The Faculty Senate thanks the staff of the Center for Teaching Excellence and all faculty and administrators who have participated in discussions of outcomes assessment in general education for their efforts.
2) The Faculty Senate endorses the plans made by the Center for Teaching Excellence for an expanded dialogue on outcomes assessment in general education, and encourages all faculty members to attend those sessions. It encourages the CTE to continue its work regarding assessment through the 2004-2005 academic year. It encourages the use of the Bird and Bird Fund to support the development of faculty expertise in assessment of student outcomes in general education.
3) The Faculty Senate hereby creates an ad hoc Committee on General Education (Constitution, Article VII, Section 3). This committee will serve through the end of the Spring 2005 semester. It will monitor progress and develop policies on general education, as described in section 4) of this motion. The chair of this committee shall be appointed by the President of the Faculty Senate and shall be a member of Faculty Senate. One member of the committee shall be selected by the Committee on Committees for each general education requirement, from among the faculty teaching courses that qualify for that requirement. Additional faculty members shall be added, if necessary, to ensure that each College (including the Honors College) is represented. The Director of the Center for Teaching Excellence, the Chair of the Undergraduate Program Curriculum Committee, and the Director of Institutional Studies (or their designees) shall serve ex officio on the Committee.
4) The ad hoc Committee on General Education shall work with the Provost or designee to investigate policies and practices regarding outcomes assessment at other universities and to develop and submit to the Faculty Senate a University policy statement(s) on the following issues:
1) how and when outcomes assessment data will be collected
2) the management and appropriate use of outcomes assessment data.
3) procedures for future revisions of the list of courses that qualify for each general education requirement, as well as of the categories themselves.
To the extent possible, decisions about general education should be based on analysis of data from existing general education courses.
5) The Director of the Center for Teaching Excellence shall report to the Chair of the ad hoc Committee on General Education and to the Provost or the Provost’s designee by no later than February 15, 2005, on progress made with respect to outcomes assessment in general education. The ad hoc Committee on General Education shall report to the Faculty Senate no later than March 15, 2005.
Motion to approve the Process for Reviewing and Updating The Fogler Library Journal Collection
Dr. Sue Sullivan introduced the motion on behalf of the Library Committee.
INTRODUCTION:
In fall semester, 2003, Executive Vice President and Provost Robert Kennedy appointed a Task Force to make recommendations on how best to make adjustments in the Fogler journal collection in light of substantially increasing cost of journals, the increased number and specialization of journals, and Fogler Library storage issues. The Task Force approached this assignment with the following five postulates guiding its deliberations:
1) The Fogler acquisitions base budget must increase annually.
2) No increase that the University can sustain will be sufficient to allow business to continue as it has in the past. Hard decisions will need to be made often, if not annually.
3) A static journal collection, or one that changes only by attrition, is not acceptable. The collection needs to be reflective of the changing needs of the students and the faculty, which requires a continuing reassessment of the titles in the collection.
4) The monograph budget must not be starved to support an increasingly ravenous journal budget.
5) The problem of maintaining and improving access to information through the Fogler Library is not an issue internal to the University of Maine, to be dealt with by this institution alone. Fogler is Maine’s only research library and serves a statewide clientele. Its resources must be available to all who need them, and this means the responsibility of maintaining them has to be shared more broadly by the UMS and the State of Maine.
The Task Force recognized that there had not been a well-articulated, inclusive process
for culling, changing, or adding journals to Fogler Library. It recommended that a new process be devised that will give faculty members a more direct voice in the decision-making, provide equity across disciplines, and include a communication component that will help keep the university community informed and involved. Because the Faculty Senate represents the faculty of the University as a whole, the Library Committee of the Senate was charged with the task of developing a recommendation for such a process.
MOTION:
In light of the substantially increasing cost of scholarly journals and the essential nature of these journals to the research and pedagogy of the faculty, the Faculty Senate supports the following inclusive process for reviewing and updating the Fogler Library journal collection each year:
By February 1 Each Year: The faculty will submit any requests for new journals (using the Fogler Library website), including information as to whether this request is to be held in case additional funds become available or whether this new journal should replace an existing one.
By February 15 Each Year: The Faculty Senate will inform all faculty that the annual review of scholarly journals will be conducted in March and encourage their participation in the process.
By March 1 Each Year: The Fogler Library Staff will provide information to the faculty, including:
· The estimated annual library collections budget, and the impact this will have on the journal collection;
· A list of all journals to which the library subscribes; and
· A list of the journals that are on the library’s “Watch List” for possible cancellation and the reason, which might include:
o The journal is duplicated within the collection
o The journal is rarely used
o The journal has had a dramatic price increase
o Feedback that a journal is dated, no longer needed, etc.
By March 15 Each Year: The faculty will review the Watch List and respond to the library staff in writing if they feel a journal on the list is critical to their program or research.
By Mid April (Prior to the April Faculty Senate Members’ Meeting) : Library staff will review the faculty responses and revise the “Watch List” as appropriate and feasible.
By April 30: The Faculty Senate will review the revised Watch List and respond if necessary. The Library Staff will use the feedback from the Faculty Senate to formulate the final “Watch List,” which will form the basis for cuts if necessitated by the budget.
By the First Faculty Senate Members’ Meeting of the Fall Semester: Since many actual acquisitions and cuts are made during the summer, the Library Staff will provide an update to the faculty about the status of the collection each fall.
It was mentioned that the March 15 deadline was to be pushed back because of spring break. The date will be changed to late March. No one was opposed to changing the date.
March 31, 2004 Motions
Inclusion of the Section on “Graduate Interdisciplinary Endeavors at The University of Maine” in the Graduate Catalog at The University of Maine.
The Interdisciplinary Studies Committee
March 31, 2004
Motion: The Faculty Senate proposes that the Graduate Catalog include a section on “Graduate Interdisciplinary Endeavors”, and that the substance of that section be the following description and categorization of programs and endeavors currently operating at the University of Maine. The IDS Committee proposes that this list be included in the current on-line catalog as soon as practically possible, and in the next printed version.
Graduate Interdisciplinary Endeavors at The University of Maine
The University of Maine is firmly and deeply committed to the expansion of knowledge and understanding by encouraging various forms of interdisciplinary academic endeavor. Such activities have become the hallmark of academic excellence and a clear indicator of the intellectual vitality of modern institutions of higher learning. The University of Maine accordingly boasts a vibrant array of interdisciplinary activities that provide an exceptionally wide range of opportunities for all members of the University community—undergraduate students, graduate students, faculty members, staff members, and administrators—to participate in scholarly undertakings that involve multiple academic disciplines. The following list covers opportunities currently available to graduate students at the University of Maine; other endeavors may be in the planning stages, and the University actively fosters the expansion of this critical aspect of its overall mission of teaching, research, and public service.
I. Interdisciplinary Graduate Programs
Composite Studies (Graduate Certificate in Advanced Engineered Wood Composites) Disability Studies (graduate core)
Ecology and Environmental Science
Financial Economics (M.A.)
Food and Nutrition Sciences (Ph.D. program)
Forestry (MFY{non-thesis}, MS, Ph.D.)
Health Care Administration (grad. certificate)
Historical Archaeology (M.A. option)
Information Systems (MS and graduate certificate)
Interdisciplinary Ph.D. (various concentrations available, e.g., Functional Genomics)
Landscape Horticulture emphasis within the M.S. degree program in Horticulture
Marine Bio-Resources
Master of Arts in Liberal Studies
Master of Science in Teaching (concentrations in Physics, Earth Sciences, Mathematics, ,or Generalist Option)
Plant Science (Ph.D. program; multi-departmental)
Quaternary and Climate Studies
Marine Policy (M.S.)
Marine Sciences and Marine Policy Dual Degree Program (3 years: with an M.S. in Policy and an M.S. in one of the marine sciences)
Water Resources (graduate concentration)
Women’s Studies (graduate concentration)
II. Other interdisciplinary endeavors:
Academy of Public Service (joint endeavor of UM Dept. of Public Administration; M.C.Smith Center, and the Muskie Institute of USM)
Advanced Engineered Wood Composites Center
Canadian-American Center
Center for Community Inclusion
Cooperative Extension
Division of Lifelong Learning
Franco-American Center
Institute for Quaternary and Climate Studies
ITHCRA (Interdisciplinary Training for Health Care for Rural Areas Project)
Laboratory for Surface Science and Technology
Maine Folklife Center
Margaret Chase Smith Center for Public Policy
Pulp and Paper Process Development Center
Research Collaborative on Violence Against Women
Senator George J. Mitchell Center for Environmental and Watershed Research
Solar Vehicle Team (College of Engineering)
University of Maine Center on Aging
Wabanaki Center
William Cohen Center for Public Policy and Commerce
Resolution for the Faculty Senate
Preamble
University of Maine faculty members have expressed to faculty senators and UM-AFUM representatives grave concerns regarding promotion and tenure decision making on this campus. Concerns include the administration’s unilateral attempt to change the process by which promotion and tenure criteria are defined, and the administration’s use of promotion and tenure other than department criteria in its Spring 2004 decisions. Decisions made by the Provost’s office overturning positive recommendations by peer committees, chairs, directors, and deans have caused an unprecedented amount of skepticism among faculty members regarding the academic fairness, consistency, objectivity, and defensibility of the review process in the Provost’s office.
Faculty see evidence of the Provost’s office substituting its own criteria for those defined by peer committees, thus appropriating peer committee authority and diminishing the pre-eminent roles of peers, chairs, directors, and deans in the tenure and promotion process. As well, faculty members question the composition of the Provost’s advisory committee and thus its academic authority in promotion and tenure. The Provost’s advisory committee appears not to be appropriately credentialed to represent the University’s broad range of disciplines or its missions in teaching, service, scholarship, and research. The Provost’s office unprecedented attempt to control the tenure and promotion process and the resulting erosion of shared governance represent an overreaching that is not acceptable to University of Maine faculty.
Resolution
Whereas the Provost’s office appears to have made an unprecedented number of promotion and tenure decisions contrary to department criteria and college review, the Faculty Senate resolves that the decision process be temporarily suspended in those cases in which positive recommendations by peer committees, chairs, directors, and deans have been overturned by the Provost’s office. Those decisions shall be held in abeyance until such time that the Provost’s office can demonstrate that its review process is fair, objective, and informed, and in accordance with peer committee criteria. The Senate further resolves that Provost’s advisory committee should meet with the peer committees and faculty members in the affected cases so that the advisory committee can demonstrate that 1) it based its decision to deny on verifiable and reliable information, and 2) its own membership has the expertise and experience to evaluate the faculty member’s credentials.
April 28, 2004 Motions
A Motion on Review of the Student Evaluation Form for Faculty Teaching
Academic Affairs Committee
Effective teaching is vital to the accomplishment of the University’s mission of providing quality education to the citizens of Maine. Evaluation of teaching must be conducted in the most appropriate way to reflect this goal.
Student evaluations are mandated in the AFUM agreement as a means of improving instruction. Each department or unit can change its evaluation instrument, in conjunction with administrative review. The student evaluation instrument, which is often used as the default form by the University of Maine community, was introduced on a trial basis over 20 years ago and has not been revised since. It is not clear which aspects of teaching performance the form measures, and the form has never been validated, i.e. compared to other instruments.
Whereas student evaluations are the only way in which many units assess teaching performance for purposes of reappointment, tenure and promotion,
Whereas the non-traditional teaching approaches such as encouragement of active learning and team work, which are vital to the faculty mission to improve retention, are underemphasized by the current default evaluation instrument, and
Whereas the current instrument may negatively impact academic quality by emphasizing instructor qualities rather than performance (for example, question #13), it is proposed that:
Motion
Faculty Senate will establish an ad hoc standing committee to review and revise the current default student evaluation instrument. The committee will work closely with faculty senators, the Center for Teaching Excellence, representatives of the Provost, students, and other groups on campus concerned with this issue. The committee will consult contemporary research studies to recommend revisions to the current student evaluation instrument in a report to the Senate early in 2005.
As a result of these recommendations, departments or units may wish to change to the revised instrument, which may be done without initiating and undergoing administrative review.
Discussion
Alla Gamarnik presented the motion of behalf of a sub-committee of Academic Affairs. She began by explaining that the student evaluation form that is presently used is old and out-dated. It does not reflect what is currently considered important practices for teaching. Article #10 in the AFUM contract outlines general procedures in changing the student evaluation form and also why it is used. Also referenced was a motion passed by the Faculty Senate the previous year regarding student retention. Dr. Gamarnik stated that all faculty care what is written about them on evaluation forms not only faculty who are up for tenure and promotion. In many units this is the only way a faculty member is evaluated. What the motion is proposing is for the ad-hoc committee to produce an alternate form which should be presented to the Faculty Senate in 2005. If it is approved by use by the senate and the administration the units may then decide whether or not they wish to utilize it.
Dean Astumian stated that he is troubled that the student evaluation form would be the only method used by units to evaluate teaching. They are Student Evaluations which should be useful for the feedback the instructor receives, but he thinks a widespread academic tenet is that professors are evaluated by professors. So the evaluations form should be used as a flag for instructors as to what students think, but to take the information unfiltered from the forms and used them in factors of promotion and tenure is an abdication of the responsibility of the peer committee who can find out this information personally than by simply reading evaluation forms.
Alla Gamarnik agreed. The motion as it stands just pertains to the form and the form needs to be changed.
Jim Horan questioned the last paragraph specifically “by emphasizing instructor qualities rather than performance”, he wanted to know what this means.
Question #13 on the evaluation form states “Overall, how would you rate the instructor?” This question is disconnected from the rest of the previous questions asked on the form.
Alla Gamarnik thinks that it is this question that is looked at by the administrators. She gave an example of how she averaged the answers on question #12 and compared that figure to an average of the answers on question #13. She also got permission from another instructor in her department to compare the same two questions. There was a large difference between the two averages for both. She thinks that sometimes a student can use any kind of reason to give a bad answer on 13.
Marie Hayes also wanted to mention that in the study the sub-committee did on this subject which was done in conjunction with the administration over an academic one-year period, one of the issues for many of the people involved is the worry that academic quality may be at stake for either question 13 or the idea of being popular with the students. Because as we know, when we push for higher performance, give more difficulty tests, ask students to do additional assignments, they sometimes to do not get positive feedback from that. In fact those are the activities we should be rewarding. As Dr. Nunez stated, we want to produce a University of Maine graduate that will be recognized as distinctly from this campus. Anything that would improve academic quality without a cost should be taken seriously.
Peter Hoff commented that not only as a university officer but also as a person who devoted 10 years to helping work to define the evaluation of teaching and helping people become better teachers. He said that if he had a vote he would vote to approve the motion. He said he would vote for it more enthusiastically if the motion was even broader in its scope. He said that a task force should be formed to look at all the ways we encourage and evaluate teaching at the university, not just the evaluation form. What research that has been done on this subject is strongly supportive of the notion that students are very good judges of teaching. The debate over student evaluations could go on forever. The fact is that we should listen to our students and they can tell us a great deal. He still feels that peer committees should be encouraged to go into the classroom and watch an instructor. The best definition of teaching he’s ever heard is to define teaching as the act of creating circumstances where learning will occur. This is where he comes around to question 13 being the sum of the parts issue. He’s not sure if you added up the sum of all of the parts is any of them really get at the definition of what does this professor do to create circumstances where learning will occur, no matter what the performances are that lead to that point.
Kathleen March gave an example where she discussed the evaluation form with some of her upper level students in her Spanish class. She said, referring to question 1, “How prepared was the instructor for class?”, that some of her students were not sure what “prepared” meant in the question. On question 4, “How clearly did the instructor present ideas and theories?”, she questioned who defines “clearly”, is it clear to the student or the instructor.
Someone mentioned that they will try to include a friendly amendment to the motion to include student representative as part of the group who will work on the new alternate form.
Alla Gamarnik questioned what a student representative would add to the committee. She said the purpose of the motion is not to count the forms as they are used now as less important or more important.
There continued to be some discussion about including student representatives in the process.
Kathleen March clarified the friendly amendment reading the portion of the motion that it would affect as “ The committee will work closely with faculty senators, the Center for Teaching Excellence, representatives of the Provost, students, and other groups on campus concerned with this issue.”
President Pearce called a vote on the amended motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
Motion for Increased Participation in Improving Higher Education in Maine
The Environment Committee
The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine recognize the need for the Draught Strategic Plan released by the University of Maine System on March 26, 2004, and welcomes its call for increasing the effectiveness of the System, particularly in building the “reputation and presence of the University of Maine, the breadth of its programs, and its strengths in research”, and the recognition of the University of Maine as the Morrill Land Grant University and Sea Grant University, with the Fogler Library as the research library for the System.
As discussions of a plan move forward, the Faculty Senate requests elected representative members of the faculty participate with the University of Maine’s Administration, the Chancellor’s Office, and the Board of Trustees in the creation of the System-wide Strategic Plan, its implementations, its funding determinations, and its evaluation. Only through closely working together can these complementary components serve the vital higher educational needs of the people of Maine.
President Pearce gave a little background on this motion by stating that the Chancellor’s Office was concerned because the union had not given the Strategic Plan a vote of approval. They felt that the Orono faculty of all the campuses would approve the plan, but because of the vote they were not so sure of this. Bryan felt that the faculty would probably be better of being a part of the strategic plan process than not having any part at all. So as a result of that, the Executive Committee got together and they came up with this two paragraph motion.
Michael Grillo wanted to clarify that this motion comes from the Environment Committee, who took some direction from the Executive Committee.
There was some discussion on who is presenting the motion. It then was mentioned that a motion could be made to include the Motion presented by the Environment Committee not the Executive Committee be the one voted on. There was a difference in wording in the second paragraph of the motion presented by the Environment Committee which stated the “the Faculty Senate requests elected representative members of faculty participate with the University of Maine’s Administration, the Chancellor’s Office….” The original motion, which was on the agenda did not mention elected representatives. The major theme of both motions was to make sure that faculty are participant in revising the plan, that faculty are participant in implementing the plan, that they are participant in the funding and that they are participant in the assessment of the plan.
Dianne Hoff requested a clarification of how the motion came about. She stated that the intent of the motion wasn’t very clear. She said it sounded to her like the faculty senate put forth this motion to show support for the Strategic Plan.
Bryan said that the purpose of the motion was to show there were things in the strategic plan that the Orono faculty could support.
Jim Acheson moved that the senate support the first motion. He felt it was shorter and clearer.
The motion was seconded.
Dean Astumian requested that the motion included “elected representation” in its wording. Senator Grillo said that he would take that as a friendly amendment and that he would agree to the change if it pertained to the first motion. Jim Acheson agreed to the amendment.
There was discussion about the two motions. There was discussion about the proper process to discuss the two paragraph motion or the four paragraph motion.
Jim Horan commented on the motions, saying that he felt that these motions probably did not represent the opinion of the faculty of the University of Maine. Even though the senate technically represents the faculty, he felt that there would be some faculty who would not be in support of the motion. He felt the wording should say that the “faculty senate” supported the plan, rather than the whole faculty of the university.
Some concern was shown as to whether the motion would give the campus the appearance of being divided because AFUM voted against the strategic plan due to procedural reasons. Not because they didn’t want change but because of the process. Kathleen March stated that it made her uneasy, not because of one motion, two motions, or four motions being brought to the floor, but because making this statement for the University of Maine, and not having a clear plan, and not bringing the motion before the elected members, which is the normal accepted procedure. She said the strategic plan has a lot of good points, but she could not vote for the motion.
Michael Grillo said that the motion says that we recognize the “need” for a strategic plan.
The discussion continued. There was still concern that the motions had not been brought before the elected members meeting. Dianne Hoff brought up the comparison that in doing this the senate was behaving in much the same manner at the System Office, trying to forego the correct procedure, and not including other people in developing the motion.
Dean Astumian stated that it was the senate’s responsibility to make sure the faculty had some say in the plan, which he thought, was going to go forward. He said that the senate can either participate with the process from this point forward, or not.
Michael Grillo once again tried to explain the purpose of the motion by likening the plan to a train that is leaving the station; we’re not going to stop the train, and it was a question of taking the opportunity and insuring that there is representative faculty at each and every step of the way. Not just in the crafting and implementation, but in the funding and the assessment, and working with the other participants, the administration, the system office, and the BOT.
Kathleen March wanted to make a friendly amendment to the longer motion, the one that was on the table. Michael Grillo did not agree.
The discussion then focused on the first version of the motion.
There was a motion to replace the two-paragraph motion with the four-paragraph motion.
A vote was called, the vote was in favor of the two-paragraph motion (19 to 14).
The motion was modified by friendly amendments.
The question was called. A vote was taken to vote on the two-paragraph motion, including the friendly amendments. Michael Grillo read the final version out loud (see above). The vote passed.
A vote was taken on the motion. The motion carried.
Motion to Support Return of Indirect Cost To Fogler Library
Research and Public Service Committee
Preamble
The University of Maine Fogler Library and its research collections are critical for the success of research in the State of Maine. Currently, the Library is seriously under-funded, and one of the things that are hardest hit by this are the journals, other serials, and books that scientists and other scholars need to support their research.
According to the indirect cost (“overhead”) agreement negotiated with the Federal government, 1% of the indirect cost is to support the Library. Provost Kennedy has recently agreed, in principle, to earmark 1% of the indirect costs recovered (IRC) for the Library above and beyond the amount currently budgeted for the Library, subject to budgetary needs. This is good news indeed, and we applaud the Administration for this initiative, yet it does not go far enough. In the present budgetary climate, this 1% cannot be allocated. Also, 1% of the IRC is insufficient to support the research collections of the Library that support the University’s research efforts.
The Library needs this money as soon as possible, possibly even at the expense of other worthy uses for the IRC. The Library also needs additional funds, and the money generated by grants seems a logical place from which to obtain them.
Motion
Be it resolved that:
1. The Faculty Senate fully endorses the Provost’s plan to earmark a minimum of 1% of the total indirect cost recovered to the Library for acquisitions to support research collections.
2. The Faculty Senate strongly urges that this money be given to the Library immediately.
3. The Administration establish additional “earmarks” from the System’s revenue sources (such as the comprehensive fee) to help ensure appropriate future funding of scholarly materials and relevant IT infrastructure.
4. The Faculty Senate Library Advisory Committee is consulted to provide input towards the allocation of the above funds.
5. The Administration establish a mechanism whereby campuses throughout the UMS participate in earmark support of Fogler Library resources that are deemed or utilized as system-wide resources.
Discussion:
The purpose of the motion was to recognize additional resources for the library. Item #5 in the motion was added at the last elected members meeting. Because the library is recognized as the University of Maine System wide library, that there should be some kind of mechanism whereby campuses thoughout the university system participate in an earmark system of support for the library.
Someone asked how much other campuses use Fogler. Joyce Rumery answered that she didn’t have the data with her at the meeting, but that the library does a lot of work for the other campuses. She also stated that she didn’t know if they had any money to support the library, but that the library does support them.
Provost Kennedy said that he supported the five points in the motion.
Dean Astumian said that in item #4, the wording should be changed to the Library Advisory Committee. (The original wording stated “an appropriate faculty senate committee”). He felt the wording should be specific, after all the senate does have a library advisory committee, and presumably they should be the ones to be consulted. He offered the changed in wording as a friendly amendment.
The motion, with the friendly amendment, was put up for a vote. The motion carried unanimously.