May 5, 2021

FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
May 5, 2021

Zoom Meeting

Present: Henri Akono, David Barrett, David Batuski, Donald Beith, Susan Bennett-Armistead, Erik Blomberg, Amy Booth, Debbie Bouchard, Alice Bruce, Stephanie Burnett, Sandra Butler, Kristina Cammen, Mauricio da Cunha, Phil Dunn, Per Garder, Allison Gardner, Jacquelyn Gill, Michael Grillo, Mark Haggerty, Emily Haigh, Heather Hamlin, Sam Hanes, Amanda Klemmer, Andre Khalil, Anil Raj Kizha, Sara Lello, Colt Knight, Margo Lukens, Natalie Machamer, Jim McConnon, Derek Michaud, Sid Mitchell, William Nichols, Harlan Onsrud, Elizabeth Payne, Robert Rice, Deborah Rogers, Deborah Saber, Michael Scott, Mary “MJ” Sedlock, Asli Sezen-Barrie, Kathryn Slott, Sean Smith, Andrew Thomas, David Townsend, Peter Van Walsum, Mark Wells, Todd Zoroya, President Joan Ferrini-Mundy, John Volin Provost, VP Research Kody Varahramyan, Robert Dana, Chris Lindstrom, Joanne Yestramski, Jen Bonnet (PEAC), Peter Altmann (CEAC)

Absent: Nuri Emanetoglu, Ivan Manev, Dmitri Markovitch, Renae Moran, Mohsen Shahinpoor, Ken Ralph, Rebecca Bragg (UMM), Karina Iskandaro (Grad Rep), Kylie Trawick (Undergrad Rep)

I. Welcome, Announcements and Comments
William “Dee” Nichols welcomed everyone to the final meeting of the year. The current plan for fall is a return to in person meetings.

Guest: Jeff St. John talked about the Unified Catalog that should improve course searches for students and faculty. These searches can be done now but it is difficult; the Unified Catalog will offer courses in one place listed by campus. There is a plan to redo MaineStreet over a few years, looking to fix “barriers” in the system. A Unified Catalog is one way to reduce advisor time to track multi-campus activity. This is not to merge catalogs but to simplify course searches; students will not be encouraged to take courses at other campuses. There is a Project Management Team partnering with IT; UMaine is well represented on that team. May 19, 2021 will be the kickoff, one meeting this spring, and beginning in September they will be looking for faculty input.

Q. Will there be any data collection to track where students are taking courses? Can Faculty Senate receive that data for each semester?
A. Jeff said System Institutional Research already tracks that information and he is willing to share it throughout the process.

Q. Advisors have ideas on courses students should take. Is there a way they can be guided to those courses instead of shopping by cost or choosing those that transfer but are not as academically preferred? Can advisors guide to courses that are more appropriate?
A. Yes, it is already being thought of and will be worked on as part of the faculty input in the fall.
Comment: When a student decides to take a course, it is usually signed off on by the advisor. If barriers are removed it could be a financial issue for this campus.

Q. It was mentioned that faculty are participating in every stage, but I don’t see any participating now. Can faculty participate now?
A. The Faculty Governance Council is sending two people to the first meeting, the names have not been received yet. This will need the involvement of everyone for it to work.
Comment: Dee said that request had not been mentioned at the Faculty Governance Council (FGC). Dee said he would check on it and on why it has not been mentioned at FGC. Jeff St. John said he has shared several updates with FGC.

Q. What is the number of courses that can be taken at different campuses in a year?
A. No idea.
Comment: Making courses easy to find also makes access available. Jeff said, one check in the system is if a faculty member’s student is interested in a course offered elsewhere in the system, not online, they probably would not take that course. Not every course at other campuses will be available to every student.

Comment: How can a department steer a student when there is a unified catalog? Jeff said that is already done now with degree programs.

Comment: There is a way to list accepted courses on a department website, but is it true that there is no way to list them in a Unified Catalog? Courses change all the time, so they need to be evaluated at each campus.

The NECHE visit is coming up next week, May 11 and 12. The open meeting for faculty, students and staff will be at 12:30 on May 11.

Q. Have students on each campus been surveyed to see how they feel about the Unified Catalog?
A. They will be, but they have been surveyed for the IT portion.

Jeff said he could share more in the fall with Faculty Senate.

The FGC met yesterday and is not moving forward to ratify the council because there is more work that is needed. Information was just emailed to senators for written input by May 17. The UMaine System is looking at all Admirative Practice Letters (APL) and organizing them for any possible changes. The first APL being looked at is Program Proposals and Approvals.

Q. The group is going to review programs that are not multi-campus but “singular to the campus.” Why?
A. The council does not review single campus programs unless it comes back as a revision saying it should be multi-campus.

II. Approval of Minutes
April 7, 2021
Approved

III. Announcements and Updates from the Administration
Kimberly Whitehead gave an update on Commencement. Stage walks were recorded for 2020 and 2021 graduates that will be included in the Virtual Commencement for broadcast later in the month. One thousand students separated by academic colleges and the Graduate School walked on April 23, 26, 29 and May 3. Videos of those walking are now being completed and will include speakers and those that would be included in an in-person graduation. Students’ names were called, and photos were taken as part of the ceremony to be included in the virtual piece.

President Ferrini-Mundy said the Town Hall for the FY22 budget took place yesterday and is posted on the President’s website. They have a good idea of where things stand for FY22. She mentioned a notice that came out today regarding the Darling Marine Center shutdown for improvements. Provost Volin said there are power issues on the lower campus; the primary cable had issues but generators are being hooked up on Friday so work can continue for summer. The work will go out for bid, hoping for of a 3–4-month timeline to replace the cable.

Enrollment numbers are normally looked at on May 1 by universities. Currently, enrollment is up over 10% for the 2^nd largest class. Transfers are up 17% which is good news, but we still need to stay the course, so students are not “poached.” Work will continue to keep the numbers up.

The Dean search finalist lists are out. The College of Education and Human Development is completed and moving forward, Honor’s College has four finalists, NSFA has four, and MBS has three finalists. Dianne Avery is running all four searches.

There are 34 Research Learning Experience (RLE) courses moving forward with some multi sections. There will, hopefully, be a website up next week with the 34 courses including one by President Ferrini-Mundy. We are also working with the Bridge Week that is connected to the RLE’s.

Dr. Robert Dana stated that they have more issues this year as things catch up to students so more anxiety, depression, etc. and more crisis issues. Please show kindness as you come across students. Covid management on campus is pretty much 0% with no one currently in quarantine.

IV. Questions of the Administration
This is for President Ferrini-Mundy: normally the last meeting of year the President hosts a wine and cheese gathering, is that scheduled for today?

President Ferrini-Mundy said, come on over but bring a mask or we can do it outside. She thanked everyone for all the work done this year. “And yes Michael, we will get to the wine and cheese.”

Q. the fall plan for face-to-face instruction, how much trouble will faculty be in if they require students to wear a mask in class?
A. President Ferrini-Mundy said no trouble unless there are drastic changes, level of vaccine and vaccine efficacy.

Comments: Dr. Dana said he would advise faculty to put it on their syllabus, so it is in writing.

Q. With the vaccine, are there any updates or guidelines for fieldwork or research work?
A. The research proposals are going through the VPR and gathering limits have changed, so work with the VPR office.

V. New Business
A Motion for consideration by the University of Maine Faculty Senate May 5, 2021

Background: As of this writing (April 29, 2021) more than 117 colleges and universities have mandated Covid-19 vaccinations for the Fall Semester – for their students, and in many cases, faculty and staff (see continuously updated list published by the Chronicle of Higher Education; April 29 article and list are appended here).

Many colleges and universities have not followed suit, citing legal issues surrounding the FDA’s current authorization being “Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)” and not “Full Authorization”. Most childhood vaccines (e.g., against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella, polio and varicella) have Full FDA authorization and are required by law in most states

The policy of the University of Maine adheres to Maine State Law for all entering students (https://studentrecords.umaine.edu/home/records/immunizations-information/).

Maine State Law requires:

… all degree-seeking students and full-time, non-degree students born after December 31, 1956 to provide the following proof of immunization:

One (1) dose of Tetanus/Diphtheria (Td or Tdap) received within the last ten (10) years.
Two (2) doses of Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) received after (not on) the first birthday. If measles immunization was done prior to 1968, students must provide proof it was done with a live virus.

Currently, the Chancellor of the University of Maine System has elected not to stipulate a Covid-19 vaccination mandate for UMS, presumably because of the EUA status of Covid-19 vaccines.

Because it is anticipated that the FDA will, by summer, give Full Authorization to the currently available Covid-19 vaccines, when UM Faculty are off-contract and the Faculty Senate is recessed, it would be wise for the Senate to state its position now.

Motion:
Should the FDA, in the near future, grant Full Authorization of the suite of Covid-19 vaccines, which are currently available only by Emergency Use Authorization, the University of Maine will require all students, faculty and staff who will be present on campus, to be fully vaccinated prior to the start of the Fall Semester, recognizing current exceptions allowed by law or University of Maine health and safety policies.

Comments: President Ferrini-Mundy said there was a briefing regarding approvals yesterday. To get full approval of vaccines requires 6 months of clinical data. Late summer approvals could be possible. She also said if the World Health Organization changes pandemic status, it would also make a difference in this. She said she is in favor of the recommendation and said there was a similar recommendation from Student Government.

Vote: Approved

Ad Hoc Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee
May 5, 2021
Motion to amend the Faculty Senate Bylaws to establish a standing Committee on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Background and Rationale:
It may feel, because the white majority in Maine is so overwhelming, that UMaine is exempt from the need to address issues of racial equity. However, recent events have made long-existing inequities and their consequences undeniable, even at the University of Maine. In September 2020 President Joan Ferrini-Mundy established a standing Council for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI). Simultaneously, colleges and individual units formed committees and groups to address equity and justice issues within their purview. The Faculty Senate responded with an ad hoc Committee on DEI established at the start of AY 2020-2021. During the year, the ad hoc DEI Committee’s collaborative work with the University Environment Committee provided evidence of the need to establish this committee: the Environment Committee description was capacious and diffuse enough that their work had come to include not only learning, workplace, and physical environments, but attendant matters of campus culture specifically related to equity, such as the bias literacy and inclusive classroom training, lost when Rising Tide Center activities were suspended. On the basis of such meetings, research, and consultation with the current and former Provosts, the ad hoc Committee on DEI recommends that the Faculty Senate establish a permanent standing committee to address these issues.

UMaine Faculty Senate has never established a DEI committee, yet many public universities throughout the country have had committees for this purpose since the 1970s. Our administration needs the perspective of faculty in examining policy, and status quo practices that affect protected classes of people specifically and the diversity of the campus generally. Faculty elected to the Senate want to know they can make progress toward justice through this work. Therefore, the ad hoc Committee on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion proposes amending the Faculty Senate Bylaws to establish a standing Senate DEI Committee.

Diversity is a fact.
Inclusion is a practice.
Belonging is an outcome.
Equity is the goal.

Activities of the committee might include:

1. presenting recommendations to the Senate, the Senate’s committees, and the administration to:

promote activities that encourage a balanced and multi-pronged approach to the reduction of barriers to equity, diversity, and inclusion in hiring, support, mentoring, retention, and advancement, such as establishing relationships with Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and investing in cohort hires.
increase access to leadership positions for faculty from protected and marginalized groups;

2. encouraging inclusive training and learning opportunities across campus that focus upon the experiences and perspectives of people from protected and marginalized groups in order to transform and improve teaching, curriculum, and instruction;

3. promoting support for faculty in areas of global engagement and cultural competency, and encouraging a sustained investment in deeper understanding of systems of inequality and power, both historical and ongoing;

3. seeking feedback actively about the experience of faculty from protected and marginalized groups and responding appropriately to concerns or opportunities brought to the Committee’s attention; and

4. communicating the Committee’s areas of engagement to other committees and councils and collaborating with them on projects of mutual concern.

Proposed description for inclusion in Senate Bylaws:
ARTICLE XXX. STANDING COMMITTEES
Section XX. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee

Function. The Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee sustains and supports the University’s commitment to equity, inclusion, and justice for people of protected classes or marginalized groups. It collaboratively reviews, researches, and makes recommendations to the Senate regarding issues, policies, and practices having impact on equity, inclusion, and justice on campus. Motions to the Administration focus on advocacy for representation of people of protected groups, identification and elimination of policies and practices that contribute to structural racism or other kinds of inequity, and creating a more diverse, inclusive campus and workplace.
Membership. Members of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee may be drawn from all colleges and from UMaine Cooperative Extension, as well as from part-time faculty, graduate, and undergraduate students. Non-faculty members of the University community, such as the Associate Provost for Academic Excellence and Faculty Development, the Vice President for Student Life and Inclusive Excellence, or another provost-level diversity/equity officer shall be consulted on committee business whenever possible and where relevant.

Motion:
In recognition of the need to advance the rights of protected groups and to work against oppression in all its forms at the University of Maine, the Faculty Senate hereby moves an amendment of the Faculty Senate Bylaws to establish a standing committee on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and offers the committee description above to be added to the Bylaws of the Faculty Senate.

Vote: Approved

Approved but should go to Constitution & Bylaws to bring forward.

Motion to Place the Current Process for Assessing General Education Under Review
Academic Affairs and General Education Committees
April, 2021

Purpose
The General Education Committee recommends we place our current process for assessing general education under review. The committee has asked the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment (OIRA) to give us a short report on alternative assessment methods used by other Gen Ed programs. We would like to use this information to modify our current assessment.

Background
Faculty Senate created learning outcomes for each Gen Ed category in 2012. Faculty Senate worked closely with the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment (OIRA) to create rubrics and an assessment process in 2017. The Ged Ed Committee recruited faculty from across campus, and these faculty teams designed our current rubrics and assessment process. They based the rubrics on the Association of American Colleges and Universities’ VALUE rubrics. The learning outcomes and rubrics/assessment required motions, which are on Faculty Senate’s webpage.

We assessed Western Cultural Tradition in spring 2018, Social Contexts and Institutions in spring 2019, and Cultural Diversity or International Perspectives in fall 2019/2020 (we needed a second session due to low participation in the first). Reports from these are on the Gen Ed Committee’s Faculty Senate webpage.

Description of current assessment method
The 2017 motion mandated that we conduct assessment of one Gen Ed category per semester. There are nine categories so we should assess them all in one five-year cycle. OIRA randomly selects 20 classes that teach the category we are assessing and asks faculty to submit samples of work from 10 students that OIRA randomly selects. OIRA removes student and class identities from these papers. The Gen Ed Committee chair recruits volunteers to assess these papers. Assessors use rubrics to do the scoring at an end-of-semester assessment session. The rubrics score five or six criteria from 0-4, so the output from an entire assessment session is the aggregate of these scores: one Gen Ed category scored from 0-4 along the five or six criteria. A sample rubric appears at the end of this report.

Drawbacks of our current assessment method
There are two major drawbacks:

Results are less useable than desired
Recruitment difficult/high effort level required for limited results

The list below enumerates these drawbacks in more detail:

1.) Rubrics do not always fit Gen Ed category: Faculty at the assessment sessions have noted that the rubrics do not always match the learning outcomes and they do not always fit what we assume the category should teach. In particular, the rubric for Cultural Diversity or International Perspectives never assesses anything about understanding another culture’s viewpoint. Others, especially science and math, look as though they will be hard to apply to what students actually produce in these classes.

2.) Not all data usable: Given the point above, some of the data seems unusable. If part of the rubric is not relevant, it is hard to see how faculty can use the data to modify courses. This a principal concern. It is also unclear what Faculty Senate, or faculty teaching these classes, should do with the data (see appendix for a sample, see Gen Ed Committee’s website for all three data sets).

3.) No target scores: There is no way of knowing what our target scores are. Is a 2.5 a sign that students are meeting our goals? Or is a 3.5 needed? Not only have we never decided this, it is unclear clear how we would reach such a determination. Scores are higher in 300 and 400 level classes, and perhaps this shows improvement over time, although students taking a Gen Ed class at the 400 level have likely taken more than one class in that category.

4.) Misses large classes: Many students earn Gen Ed credits in large classes that use multiple choice tests. Our process cannot assess these.

5.) Data less reliable than desired: We employ calibration sessions, but inter-scorer reliability is lower than we would prefer. In addition, the scores from Social Context were broadly similar to Cultural Diversity, even though faculty saw much more alignment with the learning outcomes in the latter. This suggests we are scoring based on the rubrics’ predetermined categories rather than on the student texts’ content. We have included these scores after the motion.

6.) Recruitment: The 2017 motion mandates we recruit fifty faculty to a half day assessment session every semester. This has proved difficult; our numbers have shrunk due to faculty fatigue. Numbers dropped each time we ran this, even before COVID. The motion’s level of faculty effort seems unrealistic and unsustainable. We should consider a new motion requiring chairs to send us participants. Prior participants have said that if we could point to improvements driven by the assessment, we would be more likely to recruit faculty at this level. In addition, the math and science assessments will require fifty faculty assessors with knowledge of those fields. Recruitment is a major concern going forward.

7.) Process needs a home: The General Education Committee chair recruits faculty and runs the faculty side of this process. However, Faculty Senate never discussed, to the best of our knowledge, the change this creates in the General Education Committee. It is now engaged in the regular administrative work of assessment. All other Faculty Senate committees make policy recommendation, none administer anything. This is a fundamental change we never discussed. It might be desirable but needs debate.

8.) Faculty do not know the rubrics exist: Who should inform new faculty, or faculty teaching new courses, about the rubrics and assessment process? This is another routine administrative task without a home.

Strengths of our current assessment method

1.) We were able to detect a lack of alignment between learning outcomes and the Social Contexts and Institutions learning outcomes. This was the qualitative evaluation made by scorers in the group discussion after the scoring, and it was borne out by the scores (see end of this document). Our current systems shows us broad patterns of alignment, which is the most important goal of assessment.

2.) Faculty felt the group discussion after the scoring was useful and should be built upon. These sessions have started a culture of assessment around Gen Ed that is necessary and valuable. Faculty told us that the discussion after the scoring was the best part of the assessment.

Motion: In order to build on the culture of General Education assessment created by our 2017 motion, and in order to better align our General Education courses with their learning outcomes, the Faculty Senate of the University of Maine moves to place the current process for assessing General Education under review. Faculty Senate also asks the General Education Subcommittee to work with Office of Institutional Research and Assessment to propose modification of our current system that will help us achieve better alignment between our courses and their learning outcomes.

Appendix I: Cultural Diversity or International Perspective Rubric

Cultural Diversity or International Perspectives Preamble
A course included in the Cultural Diversity or International Perspectives category satisfies one or more of the following criteria: (a) it places primary emphasis on the experiences, perspectives, and cultural work of one or more groups who are not dominant within a particular culture; (b) it has a primary goal encouraging students to become aware of the diversity of American culture and to discover their roles within that diversity; or (c) it places primary emphasis on the relationships among or within different cultures in the past or present; (d) it introduces students to a culture other than their own through an intermediate or advanced course in the language of that culture.
Description	Capstone	Level 3	Level 2	Benchmark
Civic Identity and Commitment	Provides evidence of experience in civic- engagement activities and describes what she/he has learned about her or himself as it relates to a reinforced and clarified sense of civic identity and continued commitment to public action.	Provides evidence of experience in civic-engagement activities and describes what she/he has learned about her or himself as it relates to a growing sense of civic identity and commitment.	Evidence suggests involvement in civic-engagement activities is generated from expectations or course requirements rather than from a sense of civic identity.	Provides little evidence of her/his experience in civic- engagement activities and does not connect experiences to civic identity.
Evidence Selecting and using information to investigate a point of view or conclusion	Information is taken from source(s) with enough interpretation/evaluation to develop a comprehensive analysis or synthesis.	Information is taken from source(s) with enough interpretation/evaluation to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis.	Information is taken from source(s) with some interpretation/evaluation, but not enough to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis.	Information is taken from source(s) without any interpretation/evaluation.
Student’s position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis)	Specific position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) is imaginative, taking into account the complexities of an issue. Limits of position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) are acknowledged. Others’ points of view are synthesized within position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis).	Specific position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) takes into account the complexities of an issue. Others’ points of view are acknowledged within position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis).	Specific position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) acknowledges different sides of an issue.	Specific position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) is stated, but is simplistic and obvious.
Application of Ethical Perspectives/Concepts	Student can independently apply ethical perspectives/concepts to an ethical question, accurately, and is able to consider full implications of the application.	Student can independently apply ethical perspectives/concepts to an ethical question, accurately, but does not consider the specific implications of the application.	Student can apply ethical perspectives/concepts to an ethical question, independently (to a new example) and the application is inaccurate.	Student can apply ethical perspectives/concepts to an ethical question with support (using examples, in a class, in a group, or a fixed-choice setting) but is unable to apply ethical perspectives/concepts independently (to a new example.).
Global Self-Awareness	Effectively addresses significant issues in the natural and human world based on articulating one’s identity in a global context.	Evaluates the global impact of one’s own and others’ specific local actions on the natural and human world.	Analyzes ways that human actions influence the natural and human world.	Identifies some connections between an individual’s personal decision-making and certain local and global issues.
Personal and Social Responsibility	Takes informed and responsible action to address ethical, social, and environmental challenges in global systems and evaluates the local and broader consequences of individual and collective interventions.	Analyzes the ethical, social, and environmental consequences of global systems and identifies a range of actions informed by one’s sense of personal and civic responsibility.	Explains the ethical, social, and environmental consequences of local and national decisions on global systems.	Identifies basic ethical dimensions of some local or national decisions that have global impact.

Appendix II: Selected scores from 2019 and 2020 assessment sessions.

Average scores of Not Applicable (student text does not fit that rubric category at all):

Social Contexts and Institutions: 53.6%

Cultural Diversity or International Perspectives: 22.5%

Full scores from Cultural Diversity of Internal Perspectives (excerpting NA scores):

Vote: Approved

Motion to Form a Committee to Recommend General Education Changes
Academic Affairs and General Education Committees
April, 2021

Background
Faculty Senate created our current General Education requirements between 1995 and 1997. They provide breadth to complement students’ majors and offer valuable exposure to multiple ways of thinking.

General Education, however, suffers from an interrelated set of problems at UMaine. Students have told the General Education committee that too often our requirements are seen as hoops to jump through. They also express that they did not always understand our Gen Ed categories or why they had to take certain classes. Worse, they talk about how Gen Eds lead to alienation and higher dropout rate. A quick perusal of our regional peers and competitors shows that our Gen Ed system is unlikely to recruit students. There is also little stewardship of Gen Ed. Faculty do not always know they are teaching a Gen Ed class or which Gen Eds the class provides. Courses change content but still offer the same Gen Eds. There is no plan for adding new classes, and both CLAS Academic Council and UPCC feel they lack guidance. Without a plan to guide Gen Ed evolution, it becomes a way to increase student numbers for many units. Gen Eds classes have gone from about 450 to 900 since 1997. While this increases choice, it is also the result of having no plan in place; expanding choice became our policy by default.

To address these issues, UMaine sent a team to the Association of American Colleges & Universities Institute for General Education and Assessment in summer 2019. That team presented an action plan to Provost Hecker in summer 2019, and Provost Gilbert in fall 2019. We then presented on the need for reform at the Provost’s Faculty Forum in November 2019. Following this, we founded two working groups in spring 2020 but suspended them when we entered lockdown. We learned a lot from these groups but need to restart the reform process now.

Action
We suggest the Faculty Senate form an ad hoc committee to recommend changes to our General Education curriculum, including recommendations on issues such as stewardship and communication. The committee should convene once in May 2021 to set a schedule and agenda for next year. It should deliver recommendations to the Faculty Senate by the end of spring 2022.

Recruitment and selection of committee members shall be made by the Chair of General Education, the Chair of Academic Affairs, the Faculty Senate President, and the Faculty Senate Vice President. These shall include representatives from all colleges and the full breadth of disciplines within colleges as well as representatives from Undergraduate Student Government.

The committee should work closely with the Vice Provost of Student Success and/or Academic Affairs to ensure coordination with administrative initiatives.

Motion
The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine moves to form an ad hoc committee to recommend changes to the General Education curriculum, with recommendations due to the Senate by its final meetings of spring 2022.

Vote: Approved

VI. Committee Reports
Library Committee – Deborah Rogers & Robert Rice
Bob thanked the committee for their work this year. There is a possible problem with interlibrary loans, the issue is being checked now. Journals being cut is concerning, a procedure has been developed to notify departments monthly of those pending cuts. This notification will be sent about a month before the cuts happen. Any concerns should be directed to a reference librarian before cuts are made. The notifications will be a trial over the summer to see how it works. Check the library website for cuts that have been made and those pending.

Update: four new Reference Librarians have been hired.

BOT – Harlan Onsrud
The Academic and Student Affairs and Finance, Facilities and Technology committees each met for three hours today. May 24, 2021 is the next BOT meeting. There was approval to move forward for the BS in Business Administration and Sports Management in collaboration with USM and the MS in Data Science at USM. UMaine’s program is an MS in Data Science and Computer Engineering: the focal points are different. The UMaine focus is Maine industry and workforce development with online graduate courses at UMaine; the USM focus is on-campus workforce development courses for business needs in the Portland area.

Programs for Examination: the UMaine System established procedures for review of all academic programs on a regular basis. Data from the UMaine System is sent to each campus Provost in August, it is reviewed, comments added and a deadline of November for recommendations. This is not an elimination process year after year but a way to have improvement. Some other items covered were FY22, building and infrastructure, and plans for upgrades to MaineStreet.

Q. With the review of all programs, what types of data are being collected?
A. Harlan said he didn’t know; details were not discussed. Provost Volin said it is a large spreadsheet that has input from all colleges. New data are reported in August and a report submitted in November. It used to be referred to as program elimination, but it also shows program strengths. Programs that are down are discussed and plans for how to grow them. That is done with deans. There are no recommendations this year for closing programs.

Q. Will criteria be published on how programs are assessed?
A. Yes. Provost Volin mentioned that this is his first time and there have been a lot of conversations on implementation and how the matrix “was built out.” It is hard to look at a matrix and make sense. He would be happy to share the presentation.

Q. What faculty input is used so faculty perspective is considered?
A. Each dean works with department heads who work with faculty.

Data are requested in August and are is due in November and sent to deans. Dee asked if the Academic Affairs committee could be a part of the conversation. The Provost said yes and the Faculty Governance Council also.

Provost Volin mentioned that the Data Science MS at USM has a focus of face-to-face instruction. If they decide to do more online they need to use UMaine online. This was an agreement between the two Provosts.

Academic Affairs – Michael Grillo
No report. Michael thanked everyone on the committee for all their work this year.

Gen Ed – Subcommittee of Academic Affairs – Sam Hanes
No report.

Constitution & Bylaws – Debbie Saber & Kathryn Slott
The third meeting was held to go over proposed changes for Constitution and Bylaws. The first revision is scheduled for the Executive Committee meeting on May 19. Changes will be ready to present to Faculty Senate in the fall.

Research & Scholarship – Sean Smith & Nuri Emanetoglu
The committee met with the Vice President for Research regarding standards for rescheduling with covid. The committee is in the process of hiring a graduate research assistant to assist with data from the survey. Another topic; the time delays in hiring research assistants and the flow path of approvals. Sean wondered if there was an interest in addressing those concerns and how to go about it? Dee said they can discuss that after this meeting. The committee will also be participating on both the RLE Strategy Planning Committee and the Graduate Board.

In the fall the committee hopes to recruit someone from humanities and the arts to fill that gap.

Finance & Institutional Planning – Mauricio da Cunha & Mike Scott
No report.

University Environment – Erik Blomberg & Amanda Klemmer
No report.

Service & Outreach – Colt Knight
Dee mentioned fall events that may be upcoming. He hopes Service and Outreach will look at Maine Heritage Day where indigenous people and the contributions by UMaine are celebrated and showcased. Hopefully, the committee can make progress with this.

Q. If everyone in a research group is vaccinated, is it okay to move forward or will that be checked?
A. Follow the guidelines of national and state rules. Last March or April to now there have not been any major problems on the research side. Thank you to faculty and students for doing their part.

Q. Jacqueline said while making a request for fieldwork, forms have not changed since last year. There is no mention of a vaccine and they only mention lab work not field work. Will there be updates to the forms?
A. It was stated that that was a good topic for the Friday morning meeting. The VPR said they are updating their processes. Contact Tammy Crosby and explain what you want to do or contact the VPR directly.

Q. Are there updated guidelines for labs, since summer session starts Monday? Any revised numbers for capacity?
A. No changes yet due to the 6-foot distance requirement.

Committee on Committees – Heather Hamlin
No report but need one nomination for the Unified Catalog Committee. Dee said Sid Mitchell sent him a private message, so he will discuss it with Heather after the meeting.

Program Creation & Reorganization Review – Margo Lukens
Margo mentioned she is on sabbatical in the fall so a new chair will be needed for the committee. The APL is interesting and should be discussed in the fall. Also, APL research proposals are putting pressure on small interdisciplinary programs; it is an ongoing issue. We should consider grant submissions and having PI’s, Chairs and Deans be more vigilant about adding more to programs that do not have faculty.

Faculty Information Technology Committee – Todd Zoroya & Michael Scott
The committee is working with CITL and Peter Schilling about personal response systems. A survey went to faculty. Also, a list of upcoming demos that will be conducted has been distributed. If anyone did not receive notification regarding those demos let Todd know and he will forward it to you.

Ad Hoc System Shared Governance – Renae Moran
A motion to make this a standing committee has been withdrawn. The proposal will be looked at over the summer to be presented again in the fall.

Ad Hoc Diversity, Equity and Inclusion – Margo Lukens
No report.

Reports of Faculty Members on Committees of the Administration – Heather Hamlin
Dave Townsend mentioned that he is the NCAA Athletic Rep and that regarding the vaccine, which prompted his motion, the NCAA has suggested to universities that once athletes are vaccinated there should not be required testing.

VII. Old Business
Dee thanked everyone for the year of work on Faculty Senate. Goals will be planned for fall over the summer. He hopes some can be available if needed.

President Ferrini-Mundy thanked everyone and Faculty Senate on a great job. Faculty Senate has stayed on top of things, done the job of a senate and worked with administration. She looks forward to getting back together in the fall.

Q. Provost Volin was asked about his first year as Provost and attending Faculty Senate.
A. He said it has been tough due to Covid but he’s loved the move to UMaine and looks forward to getting to know everyone. He also looks forward to in-person meetings, hopefully in the fall.

Adjourned 5:00 pm

Respectfully submitted,
Kathryn Slott

Prepared by Kim Junkins