2002-2003 Motions

September 25, 2002 Motions

No motions

October 24, 2002 Motions

Motion regarding seven year rotating calendar.

Preamble

The Faculty Senate adopted a seven-year rotating calendar in April of 1992. Since then, the calendar has been modified at least three times. First, the winter break between the final exam period and the commencement of classes for the Spring semester was extended with the adoption of a “Winter Term” that began in January, 1998.  Second, the final exam period was changed from a four-day schedule to a five-day schedule. Finally, a holiday in honor of Martin Luther King Jr. was added on the third Monday in January.  Two of these changes have created difficulties for some students.

First, the extension of the winter break resulted in complaints from a number of students who were required to take classes or to perform internships during “May term”. Those complaints centered on the extension of May term activities into June and made summer employment difficult.  Some also complained that the extended winter break was a waste of time for those not attending classes. Second, the extension of the exam schedule, while advantageous for most students, resulted in the last day of final exams being December 24th in 2004 and 2010, making travel difficult during the holiday period.

The proposed calendar returns to the seven year rotating calendar of 1992 and results in May term beginning at least one week earlier. Second, the calendar proposes that classes  begin on August 30 in 2004 and 2010 avoiding the Christmas Eve exam problem.

Motion

The seven year rotating calendar, outlined below, should be adopted by the University.

Seven Year Rotating Calendar

Approved by Faculty Senate 4/1992

Changes since then are in italics.

I. When Labor Day is September 1:

II. When Labor Day is September 2:

III. When Labor Day is September 3:

IV. When Labor Day is September 4:

V.  When Labor Day is September 5:

VI. When Labor Day is September 6:

VII. When Labor Day is September 7:

Motion to amend the Constitution of the Faculty Senate regarding the composition of the Committee on Committees.

Preamble

It is difficult to find ten faculty members to take an active part in the Committee on Committees.  As a result, the Committee on Committees frequently operates without a full complement of members.  The purpose of this motion is to bring the constitution into alignment with current practice.

Motion

To amend Article VII. Section 2 of the Constitution of the Faculty Senate as shown below:

Section 2. The Committee on Committees. Except for the Committee on Committee, in consultation with the appointed Chair, the Senate President will appoint the members of each standing committee. In appointing members, the Senate President will consider the need to balance membership continuity with new members in a given year. Committee membership is for one year, with the possibility of reappointment. The Committee on Committees, elected by the Senate, will consist of ten one faculty Senate member from each college, one faculty Senate member from the University of Maine Cooperative Extension and the Graduate Student Association Representative to the Faculty Senate. The faculty members shall reflect the proportional representation to each college on the Senate, with provision that each participating college and CES shall have at least one member. It shall be the responsibility of the President, Vice President/President-elect, and the Secretary to determine the number of positions to be allocated to each college. The Committee on Committees shall, at the request of the University President or designee, recommend faculty members to standing and ad hoc administrative committees or shall provide a list to the President or designee of faculty members who have agreed to serve on a specific committee.

NOTE:  Additions are shown in bold and deletions as strike outs.  The current version is shown below for reference.

The proposed change will align the membership of the Committee with existing and past practice.

In accord with the provisions of the Constitution of the Faculty Senate, 45 days advance notification is needed for changes to the Constitution.  It will then require a 2/3 vote to go forward.  The motion will be on the agenda for the November 20 Senate meeting.  10 days after publication of the minutes, the vote goes to the entire faculty.  If 2/3 of the responses received are for the motion, it passes.  Any comments to the committee for amendments must be done 15 days before the vote.

 

November 20, 2002 Motions

Preamble:

The Interdisciplinary Studies Committee presents the following revised guidelines from a motion approved by the Faculty Senate during its meeting on May 8, 2002 . The Interdisciplinary Studies Committee developed the guidelines in close cooperation with the Provost and the committee strongly urges the Senate to adopt the motion. Changes from the previously approved guidelines are underlined only for clarity.

Motion and Guidelines:

Interdisciplinary groups are self-governing bodies in which membership is based on scholarly interest in a particular field or discipline, regardless of departmental affiliation. These guidelines are intended to apply to interdisciplinary groups that involve faculty and resources from more than one College.

An interdisciplinary group may be formed by an ad hoc committee of the faculty or by a steering committee appointed by the Executive Vice President and Provost. Faculty membership in interdisciplinary groups is voluntary unless a joint-appointment was part of the faulty member’s initial appointment to the University of Maine . Workload reassignments, joint evaluation procedures, and compensation for the faculty member and/or home departments of faculty members joining interdisciplinary groups may be subject to renegotiation at the time the faculty member joins the interdisciplinary group. All changes must be approved by the home department, the Dean of the home College, and the Provost. If a joint appointment between a department and an interdisciplinary group is part of a faculty member’s job description when they are hired, then such negotiations should take place at the time of appointment. Some appointments may be joint, with a partial salary line.

Group members shall adopt bylaws that are subject to review and approved by the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs and/or the Graduate School depending on the nature and purpose of the group and which shall spell out the official reporting structure for the group. An Executive Committee selected from the group’s membership shall oversee the administration of the program. The Executive Committee shall nominate members to serve on various standing committees for the group (e.g. Curriculum Committee, Membership Committee).

Interdisciplinary faculty groups may develop academic programs in accordance with available resources. With the exception of new concentrations offered under the existing Interdisciplinary Doctor of Philosophy program, a program proposed by a new interdisciplinary group is subject to the same review and approval process, both campus and system-wide, as a program proposed by a department. Existing group programs are also subject to the same review process as departmentally based programs to assure that program quality is maintained or improved. Groups may or may not formally sponsor courses, but do not receive support for the direct expenses of instruction. Instructional support for the group program shall be supplied by the department or departments providing the instructors. Departments receive workload credit for group course offerings just as for any other course.

Establishment of Interdisciplinary Graduate Faculty Groups.

In accordance with the appointment of Graduate Faculty at the University of Maine as outlined in the Constitution, the Graduate School may establish interdisciplinary groups of the Graduate Faculty. Each interdisciplinary group must develop its own bylaws describing the purpose of the group, the graduate degree program(s) to be offered by the faculty, and governance processes to be implemented. The faculty bylaws shall be reviewed by the Graduate Board, and upon approval of the Board, the interdisciplinary graduate group will be recognized by the Graduate School .

Interdisciplinary graduate faculty groups may develop new graduate certificate programs, master’s degree programs, or doctoral programs or may develop concentrations within the existing Interdisciplinary Doctor of Philosophy program. Such programs will be reviewed by the Graduate Board periodically to ensure that they are meeting their stated goals. With the recommendation of the Graduate Board, the Executive Vice President and Provost may terminate any concentration offered under the Interdisciplinary Doctor of Philosophy program.

Roger King moved and Jim McClymer seconded.
The motion passed unanimously.

 

December 18, 2002 Motions

Motion on Homeless Faculty

Motion

Effective immediately, all regular, tenure-track faculty appointments must be made in an existing academic department or school.  In the case of theCollege of Education and Human Development where there are no departments, appointments are made in the College.  Further, the standard procedures for formulating a peer committee, as addressed in departmental promotion and tenure criteria and, if appropriate, criteria for joint appointment, need to be followed for all faculty appointments.  The department, or a designated committee must approve the appointment by a majority vote.

The Executive Vice President/Provost will begin discussions immediately with the appropriate deans to secure regular departmental affiliations for all tenure-track faculty currently holding interdisciplinary appointments. The department, or a designated committee must approve the appointment by a majority vote.

Motion on Peer Committees for Joint Appointments

Motion

For tenure and promotion of faculty with joint appointments, peer committees consisting of peers from the department(s) and/or unit(s) in which the faculty member holds the appointment must be appointed by the home academic department chair in consultation with the other department chair(s) or center director(s).  The Peer Committee selects its chair annually from among the committee membership.  For the purposes of this policy, the College of Education and Human Development, the Cooperative Extension, and all Schools are equivalent to an academic unit/department.  Except as noted below¹, equal number of faculty members from each unit participating in the joint appointment shall be selected to form the joint peer committee, but tenure resides only in academic departments.  The peer committee makes its recommendation to the chair of the home academic department and the chair(s) or director(s) of the other department or center.  The chair of the academic department and/or center forwards her/his recommendation to the appropriate dean(s).  Research center directors forward recommendations to the Dean(s) and Associate Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School who send their recommendations to the Executive Vice President and Provost.  After review and discussion by the Administrative Promotion and Tenure Review Committee, the Executive Vice President and Provost forwards his/her recommendation to the President for action.

For joint appointments between the College of Natural Sciences , Forestry, and Agriculture and the University of Maine Cooperative Extension , join peer committee membership will continue to be proportional to the percentage appointment in the two units.

Motion to amend the Constitution of the Faculty Senate regarding the composition of the Committee on Committees.

Preamble

It is difficult to find ten faculty members to take an active part in the Committee on Committees.  As a result, the Committee on Committees frequently operates without a full complement of members.  The purpose of this motion is to bring the constitution into alignment with current practice.

Motion

To amend Article VII. Section 2 of the Constitution of the Faculty Senate as shown below:

Section 2. The Committee on Committees. Except for the Committee on Committee, in consultation with the appointed Chair, the Senate President will appoint the members of each standing committee. In appointing members, the Senate President will consider the need to balance membership continuity with new members in a given year. Committee membership is for one year, with the possibility of reappointment. The Committee on Committees, elected by the Senate, will consist of ten onefaculty Senate member from each college, one faculty Senate member from the University ofMaine Cooperative Extension and the Graduate Student Association Representative to the faculty Senate. The faculty members shall reflect the proportional representation to each college on the Senate, with provision that each participating college and CES shall have at least one member. It shall be the responsibility of the President, Vice President/President-elect, and the Secretary to determine the number of positions to be allocated to each college. The Committee on Committees shall, at the request of the University President or designee, recommend faculty members to standing and ad hoc administrative committees or shall provide a list to the President or designee of faculty members who have agreed to serve on a specific committee.

NOTE:  Suggested changes to the text are shown in bold for reference. Existing wording, shown as a redaction, are for reference only.

Motion on Graduate Students’ Child Care Subsidies

Preface

The Department of Human Services (DHS) provides money to theUniversity of Maine Children ’s Center for childcare subsidies, which they make available to all undergraduate students, faculty, and employees of the University – everyone, except graduate students. The DHS rule allows people to get multiple baccalaureate degrees and still remain eligible for the DHS subsidies; however, upon entry into the graduate level, eligibility ceases.  Furthermore, employees of the University ofMaine who would otherwise be eligible for these subsidies, but whose spouse or partner are Graduate Students are ineligible.

Mr. Newell Augur from DHS left an explanation of the DHS rule on a graduate student’s voice mail on 21 November 2002 .  The transcribed explanation states: “there are many people who need the subsidy that have not had the privilege of obtaining a GED, much less a Bachelor or Masters Degree.”  Mr. Auger went on to say: “People fortunate enough to obtain a college education should be out in the work force taking advantage of their earning potential.”  It appears Mr. Auger, as representative of the DHS, is unaware of the economic contribution that graduate work, through Research and Development, has to the State ofMaine .

The Association of Graduate Students (AGS) is outraged by this unfair rule that singles out and discriminates against one segment of the population.  The AGS has passed a resolution asking that the rule be changed.  Eligibility should be distributed based on financial need rather than some arbitrary definition of “privilege”.

Motion

The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine , in support of the Association of Graduate Students, requests that President Hoff write a letter to the appropriate State Legislative officials, to request that the Department of Human Services change its rules, to make graduate students and their partners eligible to apply for childcare subsidies.

Motion On Faculty Input Into The Budgeting Process

Preamble

The budget is a primary document of planning and accountability for theUniversity of Maine .   Input into the budgeting process by affected stakeholders allows for more effective budgeting, and better buy-in.  While faculty do not have direct budgetary responsibility, they are directly and significantly impacted by decisions that are reflected in the budget.  In addition, in the spirit of shared governance, faculty have a responsibility to monitor institutional progress toward stated goals.

Motion

Faculty at the University of Maine will be given the opportunity to review the budget before it becomes final to state concerns, ask questions and make suggestions.  This will be accomplished by the following process

• A copy of the proposed budget will be made available to faculty on the Faculty Conference in FirstClass at least one month prior to the time it is due at the system.
• In the week following the week in which the proposed budget became available, at least one meeting will be scheduled so interested faculty will have the opportunity to discuss the budget with the Vice President for Administration.
• The time and place of the meeting will be widely announced at least five days prior to the meeting.  At a minimum an announcement will be posted on the Faculty Conference in FirstClass  and the President of the Faculty Senate will be notified.  It will be the President’s responsibility to further notify faculty via e-mail and/or an announcement in Faculty Senate.
• The budget in its finalized form will also be made available to faculty on the Faculty Conference in FirstClass.

Motion on Workload Evaluation

Preamble:

The Faculty Senate welcomes the Administration’s attention to Workload Evaluation, but has serious concerns about how it has taken form, and also how the metric looks only at teaching hours without any consideration of the total mission of the University and its faculty, in particular, in research and service.  The composition of the formula itself raises many questions of oversights in recognizing teaching loads, and of how it weighs courses with no attention to the specific needs of disciplines in structuring them.  The numbers run on this metric have raised concerns themselves, for they do not match those run by several departments and other academic units.  Linked issues, such as the new permission forms for teaching overload courses have likewise caused distrust of the faculty towards this implementation.

Motion:

The Faculty Senate requests that the Administration work with the Faculty to discuss the following issues before taking any further actions on Workload Evaluation.

1.)  The need for clearly stated, mission based goals driving Workload Evaluation.

2.)  The need for clarification of how Workload formulations will coordinate within current budgets, changes ensuing from the Incentivized Budget, and the objectives of the Strategic Plan.

3.)  The need to ensure that Workload formulations will support disciplines in defining and effectively implementing their curricula.

4.)  The need for Workload formulations to match the criteria of faculty member evaluation by his or her Peer Committee.

5.)  The need to ensure that teaching Workloads truly complement research and service components.

6.)  The need for open, public records of faculty Workload assignments.

7.)  The need to identify how the University will assess the outcomes of its Workload Evaluations, particularly in relation to the expected outcomes of the University.

8.)  The need to scrutinize University commitments outside of academic programs for the contribution to the University mission, since the academic programs constitute only one-quarter of the University’s budget, yet generate most tuition and significant research, which comprise the principal reason for the state’s funding of the University.

9.)  The need for other means of Workload evaluation, such as accreditation recommendations and comparisons to the effectiveness of like academic units at other universities, to assess performance and reallocate resources.

January 29, 2003 Motions

Motion on Outcomes Assessment

Preamble

The New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC), our campus’ accrediting body, directed President Hoff on October 19, 1999, to prepare a 5^th year interim report for consideration in Spring 2004.  In this report, the University of Maine must “give emphasis to” four specific goals, one of which is “implementing measures to assess student learning outcomes in both general education and the undergraduate major, and using the resulting findings for the improvement of academic programs.”  In short, NEASC requires that the University of Maine conduct a data-driven process of instructional improvement.  The following motion calls on the administration and faculty to work together to carry out this mandate.

Motion

The Faculty Senate recommends that the University Administration, in cooperation with the Faculty Senate’s Academic Affairs Committee, the Undergraduate program Curriculum Committee (UPCC), the Center for Teaching Excellence, other appropriate campus bodies, and the individual faculty members who teach courses approved for general education requirements, undertake a process to assess student learning outcomes in general education with the greater goal of improving teaching and learning on our campus.  The Faculty Senate’s Academic Affairs Committee is charged to monitor actions taken with respect to this task and prepare a progress report to be submitted to the Faculty Senate no later than December 2003.

Motion on Shared Governance-Michael Grillo
University Environment

Preface

The spirit of Shared Governance has played a substantial role at theUniversity of Maine in creating major documents such as the Strategic Plan, staffing committees, hiring of administrators, forging new interdisciplinary initiatives, and in the welcome cooperation between the Administration, the Faculty Senate, and other faculty groups in crafting university policies.  Recognizing that only through cooperation among the different branches of the University of Maine can we work effectively to serve our essential mission in teaching, research, and public outreach, as the land-grant university of the State of Maine , the Faculty Senate wishes to formalize discussions and processes ensuring greater Shared Governance.

Motion

In the spirit of its responsibilities defined by its Constitution, the Faculty Senate embraces the notion of Shared Governance at all levels of the University, so that it may continue to refine its goals as the land-grand, comprehensive, doctoral institution of the State of Maine and to fulfill them effectively.  As the representative body of the faculty, we encourage other sectors of the University to engage with us and the Administration in developing Shared Governance, to include the appropriate voices of professional, clerical, and all other members of the University so that we may better address how we meet our challenges as a unified community.

The great longevity of faculty members in their dedication to the University allows us to best ensure the continuity necessary to build upon our historical strengths, and guarantee the lasting success of current and future initiatives.  The Senate recommends that the Administration always include the faculty for full participation in identifying, originating, developing, staffing, and evaluating all University initiatives, academic policies, budgeting decisions, administrative positions, major actions, and policies.  We ask the Administration to commit itself to faculty participation in all of these decisions and actions, and also to work with us in establishing dialogues with representatives of the other members of the University Community to work for their inclusion in these decisions and actions as well.

 

February 26, 2003 Motions

Howard Patterson presented the first motion brought forward by the Academic Affairs Committee.  Advising differs in the different colleges, as does the retention rate for first- and second-year students.  This motion urges the administration and faculty to make student retention a top priority.  Bryan Pearce moved and Michael Grillo seconded the motion.

Motion on Student Retention

PREAMBLE

The University of Maine has the lowest retention rate (First Year students returning for their sophomore and junior years) of any New England Land Grant University.  Some factors contributing to this outcome are beyond our institution’s control (e.g., relatively low income levels of Maine families, relatively small population base within commuting distance, relative geographic isolation from major population centers).  However, other factors are within our control, and we should attempt to address them.  Two major factors are the quality of advising and the level of academic engagement, especially for First Year and sophomore students.

The quality of academic advising students receive varies greatly, especially for First Year and sophomore students.  Students in the first two years of study are frequently uncertain about their choice of major, often switch majors, take relatively few courses in their majors, and take many classes outside their majors with large numbers of students.  All of these situations make it difficult for students to connect with their assigned advisors in their majors.  These students need access to more consistent advising that will help them find and achieve success in the best program of study for them within the university.  The advising center in the College of Education and Human Development, which advises First year and Sophomore students, has been successful in raising the retention rate of students initially enrolled in that college.

The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) has gathered data indicating that full-time students at our university spend an average of 14 hours per week studying outside of class, with the largest number of students reporting that they spent only 6-10 hours per week studying outside of classes.  While these results are similar to findings for doctoral/research universities nationwide, they are still cause for concern.  The Institutional Studies office also reports evidence of a high rate of absenteeism in larger classes.

MOTION

The Faculty Senate urges the administration and faculty to designate increasing the retention rate of students in the first two years of study as a top institutional priority.  Specifically, the Faculty Senate encourages colleges which do not currently have advising centers for their majors to study the need for creation of such centers, targeted to First Year and sophomore students.  Further, the Faculty Senate urges all faculty to make efforts to increase student academic engagement by increasing (a) opportunities for active learning experiences during classes, (b) opportunities for students to engage in small group learning experiences both inside and outside of regular class times, (c) regular homework assignments with clear connections to both classroom instruction and course assessments, and/or (d) opportunities for academic engagement with students beyond the classroom through such activities as field trips, student societies, honor societies, lecture series, colloquia, etc..  Finally, the Faculty Senate urges the administration to adopt a regular schedule for the administration and analysis of NSSE to assist us in monitoring and improving the level of student engagement on our campus.

Discussion:

John Beacon distributed statistics on student retention that show that UMaine does better within the System for both retention and graduate rates.  He pointed out that the retention rate fluctuates within two percent.  One senator asked why U.S.M.’s graduation rate is lower, and President Hoff answered.  He suggested that because of the number of part-time students there, a 6-year graduation rate is unreasonable.  Moreover, that rate is hard to calculate with students’ transferring in and out.  One can count really only those who start and finish here at UMaine.  He is not against the resolution, and no matter what the rate, we can do better.  Howard Patterson said that emails to him show that faculty are in support of this motion.  Darlene Bay expressed concern about having professional advisors because it decreases faculty contact with students.  Howard Patterson clarified the motion, saying that each college has the freedom to improve interaction between faculty and students any way it wants.  Some colleges do very well while others do not.  The issue of rewarding advising was raised.  Darlene Bay feels very strongly that teaching has to be highly valued.  Until it is, we’re not going to improve retention.  It was pointed out that resources for teaching at this campus will need to be increased in order to do (b), (c), and (d) of the motion.

Vote:  28 in favor, 4 opposed, 12 abstentions.  The motion was passed.

Howard Patterson introduced the second motion from the Academic Affairs Committee, which calls for continued printing of the catalog until all, i.e. parents, students, and faculty, are fully comfortable with the electronic form.

Motion Regarding Printing of the University Catalog

PREAMBLE

Discussions are under way to do away with the printed format of the University Catalog, citing printing expenses and the speed with which the catalog becomes obsolete.  Faculty response encompassed a wide range of concerns.  Primary among these was the perceived difficulty of utilizing electronic formats for promotional purposes, specifically discussions with prospective students and their parents.  Most faculty were not comfortable with the notion of having to gather people around the computer screen to look at the catalog, and many faculty noted that the relevant systems to support electronic access experience frequent outages.  A number of faculty also thought that prospective students and their parents would like a printed copy of the catalog to take with them for reference, and that it is still premature to assume that all families would have convenient access to electronic materials, whether on the internet or on CD.  Finally, the faculty also expressed concern about the idea that the printed catalog to some extent forms a contract with students that is identifiable to some period in time, and the very ease with which online resources can be updated also makes them inconstant in terms of forming a consistent body of expectations and regulation.

MOTION

The Faculty Senate recommends that a limited number of printed copies of the catalog be issued for promotional and reference purposes. The number printed should be based on (1) the number of student requests per year, (2) an additional number to be housed in the primary administrative units for academic reference such as College and Departmental offices and (e) an allotment, based on a complete poll, for individual faculty who need a printed copy.  The Senate further recommends that materials used to solicit inquiries about the University’s programs allow the prospects to indicate whether they would prefer to receive electronic or printed materials, thereby further reducing the demand for printed copies over time.

Discussion:

Matt Rodrigue indicated that ten of the fifteen student leaders are in favor of keeping the printed catalog for advising and individual perusal, though they understand the need to cut costs.  Michael Grillo asked how much the savings would be if printing were discontinued.  John Beacon said that 15,000-16,000 catalogs are printed annually at $3.00 each, plus postage.  The total is anywhere from $50,000 to $70,000 a year.  He added that some guidance counselors prefer to have the printed copy on their desk for easy reference.

Jim Horan expressed concern that if the catalog is cut further and printed copies are given only to faculty, prospective students will not get them, and they should.   Tom Brann pointed out that paper copies allow high school guidance counselors to compare different institutions when they’re advising students.  Michael Grillo reiterated the concern that Web DSIS crashes when the system is taxed.  Will the savings from cutting out the printed catalog guarantee access and computational power?  John Beacon replied, saying that the catalog will still be printed.  Christa Schwintzer raised the issue of ancient computers, which are also a problem if they don’t allow access to Web DSIS.

Jim Warhola made a friendly amendment to the motion to keep class lists accessible.  Michael Grillo seconded the amendment.  Howard Patterson stated the need to take care of this issue first and indicated that the committee would be happy to address class lists and other related documents.  Jim Warhola withdrew the friendly amendment.

Jim Horan indicated that he was going to vote in favor of the motion because it’s half a loaf.  He added, however, that if enrollment goes down, we’ll have lost a lot of what we’ve gained thanks to efforts by faculty, staff, and President Hoff to build enrollment.  Dorothy Klimis-Zacas pointed out that some universities charge for their catalogs.

Voting Result:  45 in favor, 0 opposed, 2 abstentions.  The motion was passed.

 

March 26, 2003 Motions

Request to Continue Important Services

Preamble:

The administration has indicated that they intend to eliminate a number of services as a cost savings measure and replace them by electronic means.  While the faculty generally embraces the use of technology to enhance our work, the technology is not yet to the point where it can replace the printed word.

The decision to stop providing class lists is a shifting of clerical task onto faculty.  Low cost centralized printing is to be replaced with local printing at a much higher cost per page.  Not all teachers have, or should have, access to DSIS and the printing of class lists.  This is a particular issue where classes or laboratories are taught by teaching assistants and adjuncts.

The printed schedule of classes has a higher bandwidth than any electronic form.  It allows students and faculty to work together  efficiently to plan class schedules.

The record of the online versions of the schedule of classes, general education lists and DSIS to handle the loads is poor.  Until such time as the advantages of electronic delivery can be clearly demonstrated, hardcopy of important documents should continue.

Motion:

Request that the administration work with faculty senate (or designated subcommittee) to ensure that useful services, such as delivered hardcopy of class lists and printed copies of schedules of classes, that further the academic mission of the university are maintained and enhanced.

Further more, the administration should solicit faculty input to improve the operation and user friendliness of WEB DSIS and successor software such as PeopleSoft .

Jim McClymer moved and John Maddaus seconded.  Laura Cowan asked if the class schedule for next year would be printed.  It will be available on April 1.

Voting Result: The motion passed 38 for and 1 against.

 

Motion: Creation of a Policy Handbook for the University of Maine

Preamble

Policies, administrative practices and directives are in place that governs various aspects of employment at the University of Maine .  These guidelines can be found in manuals, on web-sites and in handbooks.  Of concern to the faculty senate is that there is no central source for the collection of documents that govern common practices that affect faculty members, the faculty-student interaction, resource allocation and other salient aspects of faculty service to the University.  Although change to our governing policies and practices is, and should be, rare, there is no general protocol by which changes are disseminated through the community, nor are historical records of changes maintained by some offices within the University.  The motion, detailed below, supports the creation of a central repository of policies, practices and directives that govern faculty, the faculty student interaction and resource allocation.  Under the motion, a standardized protocol for the dissemination of changes to policies, practices and directives will be developed and a historical record of changes maintained.

Motion

The purpose of this motion is to create a web-based policy handbook.  Policies, Administrative Practice letters, and directives that govern faculty members, the interaction of faculty members with students and resource allocations that affect faculty members, shall be gathered in a central, accessible repository.  Within the handbook, files will be maintained that allow changes to policies to be monitored.  The campus community will be notified of changes to policies via an agreed upon protocol.

While the content of the central repository is expected to be dynamic, the basic repository shall be developed in a timely manner and complet3d no later than March, 2004.

Michael Grillo moved and Jim McClymer seconded.  Christa Schwintzer asked about the relationship of the faculty handbook to this motion.  Bob Rice replied that the handbook would be a subset of this larger collection.  Dorothy Klimas-Zacas asked who would do that actual work.

Voting Result: The motion passed unanimously.

 

Motion to Support Return of Indirect Cost to Fogler Library

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 costs 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.  We understand that the IRC agreement may not be modified until the next negotiations with the Federal government.

Motion

Be it resolved that:

1. The Faculty Senate fully endorses the Provost’s plan to earmark 1% of the 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, at the time of the next negotiation with the Federal government about indirect costs, negotiates a higher percent of the indirect costs to go to support the Library, and that these funds are so directed.
4. The Administration establish additional “earmarks” from revenue sources (such as the comprehensive fee) to help ensure appropriate future funding of scholarly materials.

John Maddaus moved and Don Hayes seconded.  Dorothy Klimas-Zacas asked what “immediately” means.  David Batuski replied that this plan was formerly in place but was removed during the current budget crunch.  Gregory White wondered if increasing the overhead rate would hamper the ability of researchers to get grants.  David Batuski replied that 1% is insufficient and needs to be rethought.  Robert Kennedy explained that the rate is negotiated at the system level and that the University of Mainemight not be able to impact the negotiations.  Our rate is currently 47%.  Funded research is currently increasing.  Don Hayes asked how our rate compares to that of other research institutions.  Robert Kennedy replied that a rate of 45% to 49% is considered high.  Todd Cole asked what the 1% is applied to.  It is 1% of the total overhead amount.  John Maddaus asked where the rest goes.  Robert Kennedy replied that it is used for equipment, maintenance and utilities and Dana Humphrey noted that the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs maintains an online list.  David Batuski stated that this motion calls for the first firm earmarking of funds for the library.

Voting Result: The motion passed with 38 for and 2 abstentions.

 

Motion on Transfers and Credits

Preamble

There is a discrepancy in University policy with regard to evaluation of internal and external transcripts for transfer purposes.  This discrepancy allows students from other institutions to transfer only courses which meet certain criteria, most notably a grade of C or better.  In contrast, internal transfers are presently limited only to the possibility of losing credit for all work completed, irrespective of level of performance in individual courses.  It is possible that such an all-or-none approach to transcript reevaluation may discourage some students from pursuing or succeeding in a new program or major.  In order to address this present inequity with regard to our own students, we propose the following addition and change to the present policy (present policy in italics).

Motion

The Faculty Senate recommends the following alternative procedure be included in the University policy on transcript evaluation:

Transcript Reevaluation:

Once during a student’s association with the university his or her transcript may be reevaluated if certain conditions are met.  This can only occur following one of the actions listed below:

• Return to the university following suspension or dismissal
• Completing a successful semester on provisional continuation
• Changing academic majors or colleges within the University
• Entering a transitional program
• Returning to the University after withdrawal from it

If one or more of these conditions is met, the student’s dean may exclude from the calculation of the student’s

accumulative grade point average all grades (including passing grades) received during one or more semester(s) immediately prior to the qualifying program change.  For purposes of this policy, any courses taken outside normal term dates (running start or any courses attached to a fall or spring semester) will be treated as part of a separate semester.  When a transcript is reevaluated, the dean may waive required courses in which passing grades were received (so that students need not repeat them) but neither the grades(s) nor the credit(s) for those courses count toward graduation or the computation of the accumulative GPA.

Alternatively, if one or more of the above conditions is met, the student’s dean may elect to exclude from the calculation of the student’s accumulative grade point average and credits only courses and grades which would not be required by the student’s new major or by General Education requirements received during one or more semester(s) immediately prior to the qualifying program change and for which the grade received was less than a C.  Thus, the grades of courses which fulfill major or General Education requirements would continue to be included in the calculation of the accumulative GPA unless they are repeated.

Jim McClymer moved and Phyllis Brazee seconded.  Marie Hayes asked how this policy relates to measures other schools are taking to promote retention.  Howard Patterson replied that this is an attempt to help students to do well.  Alla Gamarnik asked what would happen to students with no declared major who wished to use this policy.  Howard Patterson replied that the motion gives the deans flexibility in how they handle any situation.  Mary Ellen Symanski noted that application of the policy could be expensive for the student.  Matthew Broderick said that student senate has discussed the issue and has considered the possibility of that the result will be a watering down of grades and an erosion of the creditability of the institution.  However, the student senate concluded that the policy provides a valuable opportunity for students and it was passed unanimously.  John Maddaus if courses with acceptable grades can stay on the record and it was confirmed that they can.  Christa Schwintzer noted that a major concern was with student satisfaction.  Bryan Pearce believes that the motion rewards failure—why, then, limit it to changes of major, and why not just throw out any bad grade?  Doug Gelinas noted that the courses would not be completely expunged from the record; they would just be removed from the computation of the GPA.  Christa Schwintzer stated that courses can be repeated to remove a single bad grade.

Voting Result: The motion passed with 28 for, 2 against and 8 abstentions.

 

April 16, 2003 Motions

Reauthorization Of The Interdisciplinary Studies Committee For The Academic Year 2003–2004  As An Ad Hoc  Committee Of The Faculty Senate

Preamble:

Whereas interdisciplinary endeavors in teaching, research, and service have become an integral aspect of the University of Maine’s activity in all three stated missions of teaching, research, and public service, and

Whereas the current Strategic Plan of the University of Maine places particularly strong emphasis on the further development of interdisciplinary endeavors at the University of Maine, and

Whereas the Faculty Senate anticipates and welcomes an expansion of interdisciplinary endeavors at the University of Maine, and

Whereas the Faculty Senate foresees an increasing role for itself  in the encouragement, guidance, and development of those endeavors,

Motion

Be it moved that the Faculty Senate re-authorize the Interdisciplinary Studies Committee to continue as an Ad Hoc Committee of the Faculty Senate for academic year 2003 – 2004, and

Be it further moved that the Faculty Senate recommends that the incoming Faculty Senate for academic year 2003-2004 take the necessary steps to change status of the Interdisciplinary Studies Committee to a Standing Committee of the Faculty Senate.

Phyllis Brazee moved and John Maddaus seconded.  Martha Broderick suggested that the two parts of the motion be decoupled.  The second part of the motion was thus deleted and left to be enacted by next year’s faculty senate.

Voting Result: The motion, as amended passed unanimously.

 

Motion to Reauthorize the Workload Evaluation Committee

Preface:

Over this year, the Administration has begun to examine workloads across the campus.  The Faculty Senate, after raising several issues about the needs for, the means of conducting, the means of evaluating the outcomes of, the legal ramifications of, and the consistency across different campus units of such an analysis, asked that the Administration work with the Faculty by authorizing a Workload Evaluation Committee.  This faculty committee has been recently organized and just begun to undertake its work.

Motion:

The Faculty Senate reauthorizes the Workload Evaluation Committee for continuation through the coming 2003-2004 academic year, so that they may continue in their exploration of workload issues with the Administration and prescribe implementations of their well-reasoned findings.

Michael Grillo moved and Thomas Brann seconded.

Voting Result: The motion passed unanimously.

 

Motion to Adopt the Faculty Handbook dated April 2003

Preamble

The last version of the Faculty Handbook, that the Constitution and Bylaws Committee (C&BLC) could find, was published in July 1983.  Those of youon the faculty then who can still remember anything, might recall that this is about the same time as the beginning of AFUM.  Thus, for all practical purposes, the collective bargaining agreement became the Faculty Handbook.  And, for all practical purposes, it is still the de facto handbook.  Presumably, that is why no one bothered to update the handbook for twenty years.  We will not ask the question, “Why, after twenty years, do we suddenly need a handbook”?

The New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEAS&C) is the university’s accrediting body and section 5.10 of their Standards for Accreditation state:

“In a faculty handbook or in other written documents that are current and readily available, the institution clearly defines the responsibilities of faculty and the criteria for their recruitment, appointment, evaluation, and promotion.  Such policies are equitable and compatible with the mission and purposes of the institution; they provide for the fair redress of grievances, and they are consistently applied and periodically reviewed.”

The issues described in section 5.10 by NEAS&C are largely covered by the AFUM collective bargaining agreement.  Nevertheless, the C&BLC has undertaken to prepare a Faculty Handbook that will provide useful information to the faculty, primarily new faculty members.  Whenever a topic, such as grievances, is either not covered in or is in conflict with the collective bargaining agreement, the new faculty handbook defers in a disclaimer.

The handbook is intended as a “living” electronic document. The C&BLC will be charged with updating the handbook on a once-per-semester basis.  Minor changes such as typos or updating URL’s will be made on an ad hoc basis whereas substantive changes will be brought to the attention of the senate. The handbook will be placed on the University Policy Website.

The handbook in question is the version labeled, “Faculty handbookFinal_2.pdf”, which has been distributed, via email, to all senate members labeled.

Motion

The faculty senate adopts as a Faculty Handbook the document “Faculty handbookFinal_2.pdf” that has been distributed to all faculty senate members.  This handbook will be a “living” electronic document and is intended to be a useful reference for faculty members.  The Constitution and Bylaws Committee will be charged with updating the handbook on a once-per-semester basis.  Minor changes such as typos or updating URL’s will be made on an ad hoc basis whereas substantive changes will be brought to the attention of the senate. The handbook will be placed on the University Policy Website.

This handbook is not intended to replace the AFUM collective bargaining agreement.  Furthermore, it is the understanding of all involved that the AFUM collective bargaining agreement takes precedence whenever a topic is either not covered in or is in conflict with the new faculty handbook.

Jim Horan moved and Jim McClymer seconded.  It was noted that this motion may require that the constitution be updated to reflect the new responsibility of the Constitution and Bylaws Committee.  Jim Horan stressed that the collective bargaining agreement and the handbook are two different documents.

Voting Result: The motion passed with 48 for and 1 abstention.

 

Motion on University of Maine Conflict of Interest Policy

Preface:

Kassie Stevens Walker’s  memo of 13 March, 2003, to all employees of the University on the University’s Conflict of Interest Policy has occasioned concern that, unless clarified,  it will have a chilling effect on freedom of speech of University employees.

Motion:

The Faculty Senate asks the President to reaffirm the University’s academic freedom and free speech policies as articulated in the Faculty Handbook and in the rules governing electronic communication, and to concur that the conflict of interest memo of 13 March, 2003, is not intended to restrict use of electronic media for non-commercial communications or expression of opinion, on or off campus, and that all members of the University community are encouraged to continue to engage in free, public expression of their views on any subject, in electronic and other media, consistent with Article 2 of the AFUM contract.*

*Unit members as citizens are entitled to the rights of citizenship in their roles as citizens. Because of their special status in the community, unit members have a responsibility and an obligation to indicate when expressing personal opinions that they are not institutional representatives unless specifically authorized as such.

Mike Howard moved and Roger King seconded.  Mike Howard stressed that it needs to be made clear that the University administration has no intention of restricting freedom or speech and expression of the faculty and staff as citizens.

Voting Result: The motion passed unanimously.

 

Motion: Administrative Training for the Faculty

Preface:

Established in their long-term commitment to the University, the faculty offer a deep, historical knowledge of the University’s strengths and potentials for improvement.  To promote greater institutional continuity and stability, the University of Maine should offer the opportunity to prepare interested faculty members for positions in its administration.  

Motion:

The Faculty Senate asks that the Administration establish a program that will prepare interested faculty members for current and envisioned administrative positions.  To this end, the University should establish a committee of faculty members and administrators who would design an effective training program, select recommended or self-nominated faculty members interested in administrative training, place them in appropriate programs and internships, and monitor the success of their training.  In preparation for establishing a formal program for training faculty members for administrative roles, this committee first should survey the diverse models for training faculty members in administrative roles that several of our colleges and other units currently offer, and also look to models at other institutions.  The committee should promote its program actively, so that the faculty can stay apprised of the opportunities it offers.

Faculty members most typically enter into an administrative capacity as department chairperson, so the dedicated committee should devote attention specifically to their preparation for this important role.  The new committee should also focus on developing faculty members for other leadership positions, for instance, for chairs of committees such as the UPCC and the colleges’ Academic Councils.  As the Administration anticipates other positions opening up, either extant or new ones, it should notify the committee so that they can contact appropriately trained candidates from the faculty of the opportunities.

Mary Ellen Symanski moved and Phyllis Brazee seconded.  The intention of the motion is to provide the training to interested faculty that will allow them to move to administrative positions.  The committee would identify and enlist faculty who are interested and work with the administration to help them develop necessary skills for an administrative position.  Doug Ruthven was unclear about what is going to be done.  Michael Grillo explained would be prepared for administrative positions before taking them on and before problems develop that need to be addressed on an ad hoc basis.  In addition, there is currently no central clearinghouse keeping information about which faculty have administrative skills.  This initiative would help put people into the administration that have a long-term commitment to and knowledge of the University.  Doug Ruthven asked if everyone was to become an administrator.

Roger King asked if the committee would be serving a gatekeeper function to keep some people out of administration.  Michael Grillo stated that it would rather serve as a lens to focus attention on faculty with administrative potential.  Stellos Tavantzis asked what effect there would be on a department that is currently electing a new chair.  Michael Grillo replied that it would provide the new chair with resources for meeting the new challenge.  Christa Schwintzer asked who would do the training.  Michael Grillo answered that the committee would look to see what is currently available, would review the national literature to see what has worked on other campuses and would lobby the administration for funding for appropriate programs.

John Maddaus stated that the motion is important and provides an opportunity for those who are interested.  Bryan Pearce asked who would decide the participants and if some people who be put on the fast track.  Michael Grillo stated that the intention was not to create stars, and that the means of determining who can participate given too much interest would have to be determined by the committee.  Don Hayes noted that membership on the committee is rotating so no problem of unfair or limited opportunities would arise. Marie Hayes asked if individuals could self-nominate and was assured they could.  Kathleen March asked if this was a mentoring program or an attempt to make the administration aware of interested faculty.  Michael replied that both were goals.

Kim McKeage suggested that the Center for Teaching Excellence could be used to provide workshops and mentors.  Robert Kennedy stated that mentoring and faculty development were both excellent ideas.  He does have some concerns about the committee: we need broader involvement across campus in nominating faculty for national and campus award.  Michael Grillo replied that he would prefer not to have the purpose of the motion diluted.  Robert Kennedy replied that the motion would not preclude such activities and Michael Grillo replied that it could even be a lever to encourage it.  Stellos Tavantzis noted that activists are not always the best leaders, so taking volunteers might not be the best way to recruit potential administrators.  Michael Grillo responded that the committee would work to find good people from whatever source.

Voting Result: The motion passed 22 for, 14 against and 10 abstentions.

 

Nominations and election of new Faculty Senate Vice President/President Elect, Senate Secretary, and Committee on Committees.

Bryan Pearce has asked Stellos Tavantzis to be Secretary next year.

Nominations were opened for a vice president/president elect for next year.  Dorothy Klimas-Zacas nominated Howard Patterson.  Jim Horan moved that nominations cease.  Howard was elected wit:

Voting Result: 48 for and 2 abstentions.