2018 – 2019 Motions

September 19, 2018

 

October 17, 2018

 

November 14, 2018

 

December 12, 2018

Motions from Academic Affairs and General Education
Student Accessibility Services Test Proctoring Guidelines for Faculty
12-05-2018

Introduction
For over 30 years Student Accessibility Services (SAS), formerly Disability Support Services, has aided faculty and students at the University of Maine by providing a location where students approved for testing accommodations can take proctored quizzes, tests and exams. Examples of approved testing accommodations include extra time (usually time and one half), low distraction test environment, the ability to have tests read aloud either by a hired proctor who reads the test or use of a screen reader that reads the test aloud on a computer, a scribe for tests in cases when a student cannot write answers to test questions, and alternate format tests such as enlarged print exams.

The number of students with disabilities seeking accommodations has grown significantly. There has been a 95% increase in the number of students with disabilities seeking accommodations at the University of Maine in the past decade. The corresponding 103% increase in the number of tests proctored is one of the ways the Office of Student Accessibility Services has been impacted by the growing enrollment and number of student with disabilities. During the 2017-18 academic year SAS proctored over 2600 quizzes, tests and exams for over 600 students and 276 faculty.

Currently the Office of Student Accessibility Services has a single staff member who oversees test proctoring. This staff member is an Administrative Specialist CL-2 who also oversees, production of accommodation letters, is the front-line desk person for Student Accessibility Services, and oversees the Access Van. While the position description allocates 40% time to test proctoring the reality has been that responsibilities related to test proctoring take approximately 60% of the employee’s time during the academic year. SAS has a total of 2 professional and 2 administrative employees and serves over 625 students with documented disabilities. As a result, it is difficult to accommodate all of the student needs across campus and until additional resources for the office can be attained the Office of Student Accessibility Services is recommending the following guidelines (See attached Appendix.

The faculty senate recognizes the importance of providing student accommodations in order to promote a diverse and inclusive university environment. However, the current resources available to SAS are insufficient to meet demands, and it is not the sole responsibility of faculty to compensate for the difference. Therefore, we ask that the administration prioritize providing SAS with the resources needed to accommodate current and future demands, and that faculty provide support to the attached recommendations/guidelines as an interim measure while additional resources are identified and secured.

Motion 1:

The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine requests that the administration increase resource allocations to SAS so that support available to students in need of accommodations keeps pace with the demands of a growing and changing student body. We further ask that the Administration of the University report back to faculty senate regarding progress in this area.

Motion 2:

Faculty senate endorses the recommendations described in the appendix, and encourages faculty to follow SAS protocols whenever possible, in order to temporarily alleviate demands placed on this office while additional resources are being secured and implemented.

Appendix

Student Accessibility Services Test Proctoring Guidelines for Faculty

  • A test proctoring form should be completed and returned to SAS at least 3 business days prior to a regular semester quiz or exam and one week before a final exam by either the student or faculty member. If there are multiple students in the class who need test accommodations a multi-student form is available so the proctoring form only needs to be filled out once.
  • Tests and exams should be dropped off at East Annex 2 business days, a minimum of 48 hours Monday through Friday, prior to the test administration. In the rare case that the course instructor is not able to drop of the test it can be emailed 2 business days, a minimum of 48 hours Monday through Friday, before the test date and SAS will print the test. If the instructor cannot comply with this deadline we ask that faculty arrange for proctored testing within the department.
  • Faculty are asked to pick up exams at Student Accessibility Services 121 East Annex when possible.
  • If a class has over 5 students in a section who need test accommodations we ask that the professor consider arranging for proctored testing within the department.
  • SAS exam proctoring finishes at 4:30. Faculty teaching classes that have tests that go past 4:30 will need to make arrangements for accommodating students who need test accommodations.
  • Completed exams will not be delivered after 4:30. The last delivery scheduled will be between 4:10 – 4:30.

Vote: Approved

 

Research & Scholarship Committee
12/12/2018

Motion for Amending the Faculty Handbook Statement on Plagiarism to Include Self-Plagiarism, a.k.a. Duplicate Publication or Text Recycling

  1. Background:

On Sept. 4th, VPR Varahramyan, who is also UMaine’s Scientific Misconduct Officer, requested that the Faculty Senate investigate the practice of “self-plagiarism” (also known as duplicate publication) and how it can be addressed at UMaine. This request was initiated due to a recent case at UMaine. Neither the UMaine nor the federal policy on research misconduct define self-plagiarism as research misconduct. However, most professional societies and publishers have policies that define the practice and discourage it. A number of universities have statements on “self-plagiarism”.

The Research and Scholarship Committee has discussed this issue, and believes that to ensure ethical practices in research and scholarship at the University of Maine the Faculty Senate should establish a clear statement prohibiting duplicate publication. The committee looked at the definition of “self-plagiarism” as given by professional societies and publishers, as well as publicly available university policies. The Committee has liked the approach by Virginia Tech, which defines “self-plagiarism” as an unethical behavior, but realizes that standard practice in the author’s discipline should be used to identify “self-plagiarism.” Example policies, including Virginia Tech’s policy, are attached. The current UMaine Faculty Handbook addresses plagiarism in Chapter 2 “Faculty Privileges, Professional Ethics, and Responsibilities”, Section 2.3 “Professional Ethics and Plagiarism” as follows:

“4. Plagiarism. Scholars must give full and fair recognition to sources both for the substance and for the formulation of their findings and interpretations. Using the ideas, methods, or written words of others without acknowledgment is plagiarism.”

The Research and Scholarship Committee drafted a proposed amendment to this statement to include self-plagiarism. This proposed statement was discussed twice by the elected members of the Faculty Senate, and this feedback was incorporated to the statement in the motion below.

  1. Motion

The Faculty Senate moves to amend the Faculty Handbook’s Section 2.3 “Professional Ethics and Plagiarism” to include self-plagiarism, also known as duplicate publication or text recycling, as follows:

“4. Plagiarism. Scholars must give full and fair recognition to sources both for the substance and for the formulation of their findings and interpretations. Using the ideas, methods, or written words of others without acknowledgment is plagiarism. Equally unethical is the practice of self-plagiarism, or duplicate publication, where authors re-publish substantial portions of their own previously published work as new without providing appropriate references, and in doing so deviating from the standard practices in their fields.”

Exhibit A. Statements on Plagiarism at Other Universities

  1. University of Miami: http://uresearch.miami.edu/regulatory-compliance-services/research-integrity

“Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. Plagiarism is the theft of intellectual property and is not unlike stealing from a commercial business. A special case of plagiarism is the unacceptable practice of “self-plagiarism” in which an author will use segments of his/her own published material (e.g., the methods section of a scientific paper) in a new publication without reference.

Although the University of Miami has established strict policies against plagiarism by students, there are currently no web-based courses on plagiarism available.”

  1. James Madison University: https://www.jmu.edu/JMUpolicy/policies/2205.shtml

“The appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results or words without giving appropriate credit, including self-plagiarism (multiple publication of the same content with different titles and/or in different journals).

  1. Virginia Tech: Section 2.7 Professional Responsibilities and Conduct https://www.provost.vt.edu/who_we_are/faculty_affairs/faculty_handbook/chapter02.html

“Scholarship. Guided by a deep conviction of the worth and dignity of the advancement of knowledge, we recognize our primary responsibility to our disciplines is to seek and to state the truth. To this end, we devote our energies to developing and improving our scholarly competence. We accept the obligation to exercise critical self-discipline and judgment in using, extending, and transmitting knowledge. We practice intellectual honesty and do not compromise our freedom of inquiry. At Virginia Tech, self-plagiarism is considered unethical behavior. Self-plagiarism occurs when authors reuse substantial parts of their own published work as new without providing appropriate references to the previous work if this reuse deviates materially from standard practice in the field.”

Vote: Approved

 

Finance & Institutional Planning Committee
Motion
December 12, 2018

PREAMBLE
Departments and faculty are keenly aware of the continuing problems of supporting courses that have significant delivery/material expenses associated with them, especially without access to Unified Fee funds. A May 1, 2018 report to Provost Hecker from the Unified Fee Review Committee attempts to address the issue by proposing alternative models for distributing Unified Fee, including proposals to (quoting from report)

  • Make funds available to faculty— individually or in groups or units— to support the creation of new courses, revision of existing courses, and/or periodic review of course costs at the unit level. This recommendation envisions a “request for funds” option on the UPCC’s New Course and Course Modification forms, as well as the option to apply for funds formerly used to support sunsetted courses.
  • Charge the deans with creating a mechanism for surveying chairs and faculty in their colleges about their course delivery costs on a periodic basis.
  • Identify a “curriculum fee” portion of the colleges’ fee allocation to be applied exclusively to instructional support (i.e. course delivery costs).

As is known to Faculty Senate and the faculty generally, the lack of such a mechanism has generated an ongoing deterrence to faculty to modify/create courses to ensure curricular delivery of the highest value to students. Existing UPCC’s New Course and Course Modification forms require applicants to identify funding sources whenever indicating a need for resources and listing additional resources required; it is the applicant’s responsibility and obligation to secure resource funding. Faculty are effectively discouraged from creating courses with significant delivery/material needs, even as the educational, professional and research domains continue to require increasingly advanced materials and technologies at intermediate and introductory course levels.

What is needed is a way, when applying for an existing or new/modified course, for faculty to request implementation of a lab fee by identifying and justifying the need for the proposed course/lab fee. If an applicant’s case is convincing, the course fee would be implemented, whether allocated from the Unified Fee or levied directly.

MOTION
The University of Maine Faculty Senate requests that the administration institute this academic year proper mechanisms whereby faculty can request with justification the implementation of a fee for lab/course delivery.

Vote: Approved

 

Motion to Improve Understanding & Reporting of Distribution of
Unified Fee Monies

Preamble
In November 2016, the University of Maine Faculty Senate approved a motion “to Improve the Responsiveness of the Current Course Fee System.” The motion requested, “in the spirit of shared governance for the Administration to work with the Senate to develop a more equitable, flexible, and responsive system so that departments can deliver classes more effectively and ultimately, with a goal of a lower cost to students.”

A Unified Fee Review Committee was subsequently formed and charged by Provost Hecker to “address three facets of the Unified Fee: its history, current system for distribution, and proposed alternative model(s) for distribution.” In its May 1, 2018 report to Provost Hecker, the Unified Fee Review Committee described how the Unified Fee is

currently assessed as a tiered fee based on the number of credit hours students carry. The Unified Fee has grown in proportion to tuition increases, and has most recently increased in FY18 and FY19. The university now collects about $16M per year in Unified Fee revenue. As described on the UMaine Bursar’s site:

The Unified Fee is used to cover fixed costs of providing educational services that may not be directly related to the number of credit hours for which a student is enrolled. This fee supports activities such as student services, the operation of facilities such as student centers, and student-utilized, instruction-related technologies.

The report notes that the “degree-granting colleges continue to receive Unified Fee monies as part of their base allocation. The distribution of those dollars within the colleges, and the purposes to which they are applied, differ markedly.” Furthermore, based on the committee’s “review of colleges’ use of fee allocation dollars… it is clear that “fixed costs of providing educational services” should be construed broadly.”

The committee did not “trace the exact uses, over a period of more than 15 years, of funds allocated from what were formerly individual fees and are now part of the allocation to the colleges,” instead providing “[e]xamples of the colleges’ recent or current use of Unified Fee monies.” Indeed, careful review of the report shows that it does not actually respond to the three questions the Provost asked the committee to investigate.

  1. What is the history of the unified fee?

The report states that the Unified Fee was developed in 2003 and then provides only a few broad examples of the wide range of fees (fees in Colleges, the Collins Center, the Planetarium and Athletics) which existed prior to the unified fee. This is not entirely accurate. In the late 1990’s the university created a comprehensive fee, which was later called the unified fee. This is more than a timeline inaccuracy; the report ignores the historical fact that lab fees used to be associated with the unified fee. The report does not present any data about what fees were combined into the unified fee and ignores the fact that a process was never instituted for increasing fees related to course delivery and/or creating new fees as courses are developed. The conclusion that one would make by reading this report is that any fees that used to exist or might be needed in the future are now taken care of by the Colleges. This is unrealistic since the Colleges get a small portion of the unified fee to begin with (~10%, see below) and the amount has not increased since FY11-12.

  1. What is the current system for distribution?

The report states that $16M/year in unified fees were collected by UMaine in FY 18-19. About half of that ($7.9M) is currently base-budgeted to the “degree granting colleges and other units”. The other units are not specified; in fact the report states “our report does not address Unified Fee allocation to non-academic units.”

The report discusses how fees are distributed by the Colleges in a general way. A total dollar amount is only provided for NSFA ($350K/yr). If we assume the Colleges each receive about the same amount then this accounts for about $1.75M ($350K x 5). That leaves about $6.2M of the base-budgeted amount and another $8.1M/yr from the $16M/yr that are unaccounted for. Unless Business, Education and Engineering each receive a lot more than CLAS and NSFA, the report appears to be addressing only about 10% of the total unified fees collected each year. Clearly the report falls far short of explaining the current system for distribution of the unified fees. 

  1. What are some possible alternative models of distribution?

The proposed alternative models for distribution appear to focus on ways to redistribute the funds that are currently allocated to the Colleges. The money the Colleges receive from the unified fees is already inadequate. Examining ways to redistribute this small portion of the unified fees will be ineffective and will not lead to solutions for existing problems of supporting courses that have significant expenses associated with them.

From the perspective of the Faculty Senate, the question of precisely how Unified Fee monies are distributed throughout the University, allocated therein, and ultimately expended, has not been adequately addressed. Furthermore, the purpose of the 2016 Faculty Senate motion to “Improve the Responsiveness of the Current Course Fee System,” namely, “to develop a more equitable, flexible, and responsive system so that departments can deliver classes more effectively and ultimately, with a goal of a lower cost to students,” is not addressed in the committee’s report and has yet to be addressed by the Administration. As these are fees charged directly to students, the Faculty Senate seeks assurances these fees wholly support students’ educational needs, whether course related or as “ fixed costs of providing educational services.”

Motion
The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine requests that the Administration work with the Financial and Institutional Planning Committee of the Faculty Senate to acquire the information necessary to understand the current system of distribution of the Unified Fee, and to provide an annual report of distribution and expenditures of annual Unified Fee monies, to commence this academic year.

Vote: Approved 23
Opposed 2
Abstention 1

 

February 13, 2019

No meeting, snow day

March 13, 2019

Research and Scholarship Committee
March 7, 2019
Motion in Support of UMaine Research and Creative Activity Day

History: In 2016, the Research and Scholarship Committee was asked to propose a motion to encourage support from faculty for UMaine Research and Creative Activity Day. The motion was approved, however, overall support from faculty was not strong (i.e., students were not encouraged to attend by all faculty). The 2019 motion requests unified, ongoing, strong support for student attendance and participation in UMaine Research and Creative Activity Day.

The original 2016 motion approved by the Faculty senate:

Motion in Support of UMaine Research and Creative Activity Day
Research and Scholarship Committee
December 13, 2016

The University of Maine Research Day provides a high profile opportunity for graduate and undergraduate students to present their research to the broader university and surrounding communities. The Faculty Senate also recognizes this event as an excellent mechanism to promote the breadth and depth of the research enterprise and creative activity at the University of Maine, and to showcase UMaine leadership in the state. The event aims at increasing the participation of the general public, business people, members of city council and the legislature. The Faculty Senate encourages student participation and also encourages faculty to utilize this showcase as a resource to be incorporated where possible into the learning experience in their courses. To facilitate these activities, the Faculty Senate encourages the office of the Vice President for Research to optimize the logistics to best accommodate teaching and research schedules during that day, and to communicate the schedule of talks and events well in advance of the event. The Faculty Senate looks forward to working with the Vice President for Research in future planning of the University of Maine Research and Creative Activity Day.

Motion in Support of UMaine Research and Creative Activity Day
March 7, 2019

The University of Maine Research and Creative Activity Day and its associated University of Maine Student Symposium provide a high profile opportunity for graduate and undergraduate students to showcase their research, scholarship and creative activities. The Faculty Senate recognizes that this event also is an excellent mechanism to promote the breadth and depth of the research enterprise and creative activity at the University of Maine, and to demonstrate the University’s leadership in the State. The event aims to increase awareness of this leadership in the general public, business community, and the Maine Legislature. The Faculty Senate encourages student participation, and also encourages faculty to organize their course planning to utilize this resource by incorporating it into the student learning experience. To advance these activities, the Faculty Senate requests that the office of the Provost and the office of the Vice President for Research work together to optimize the logistics of the event day to best accommodate essential on-campus teaching and research schedules and to communicate the program of talks and events well in advance of the event. The Faculty Senate encourages faculty to: (a) accommodate student absences if students attend the Symposium (e.g., alternate exam time); (b) refrain from scheduling major course events (e.g.,

exam, presentation) on the Symposium day to accommodate students who are absent due to participation in the Symposium; and (c) cancel class—if possible—and encourage student participation in Symposium events by linking student attendance to an assignment grade. The Faculty Senate looks forward to working with the Provost and the Vice President for Research in future planning of the University of Maine Research and Creative Activity Day.

Vote: Approved

 

Motions to Improve Equity Among Faculty Through Enhancing Options for Paid Family Leave
Environment Committee,
2/27/2019
Background. The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine believes in equity as a core value of our institution, and as such, University policies should strive to promote equity within the institution.   For University faculty, this means that existing policies should unequivocally avoid bias against faculty members based on gender or career stage.

For many faculty, the beginning of their careers coincides with starting or growing their families through birth or adoption of children. Unfortunately, the decision to start or grow a family has a disproportionate negative impact on the academic careers of women relative to men. Having children is the single most consistent predictor of women dropping out of academia at all levels, while for men having a family is positively associated with career advancement (Chronicles of Higher Ed; www.chronicle.com/article/The-Baby-Penalty/140813). Thus a University’s policies related to family leave are a critical component of promoting equity among faculty and ensuring that women faculty in particular are not adversely impacted by inequitable policy.

Rationale. Federal law, under the Family and Medical Leave Act, mandates that full-time employees with a calendar year of employment are entitled to twelve weeks of unpaid leave following birth or adoption of a child. University of Maine System policy allows full-time employees to use six-to-eight weeks of accrued disability leave (sick days) for paid family leave following the birth or adoption of a child. The UMS-AFUM Agreement provides that full-time faculty members may use an additional 30 (business) days of accrued sick days which can amount to twelve weeks of paid family leave for faculty members who have accrued a sufficient number of sick days. In addition, tenure-stream faculty members who have exhausted their disability leave after the birth or adoption of child may be assigned alternative work responsibilities to teaching for a semester (or balance of a semester).

But therein lies the rub. New faculty members begin their appointment with no sick leave, and accrue it very slowly—one and two-thirds (1 2/3) days of sick leave for each monthly pay period. Consequently, a new faculty member would take about two years to accrue enough sick days to qualify for the UMS policy and about four years to accrue enough sick days to take advantage of the UMS-AFUM Agreement policy. This places newly hired faculty in a difficult position where they may have to choose between their pay check and taking adequate time off following the growth of their family. Furthermore, alternative work responsibilities can vary widely from unit to unit, as can the means for funding alternative work plans. Chairs and directors have sometimes expected faculty members to propose how their work will be covered, which is actually the job of the chair or director. Unit directors may not have previous experience with University family leave policies, and a power imbalance also exists between unit directors and pre-tenure faculty members, which may make untenured faculty hesitant to advocate strongly for themselves.

As a consequence of the above, our newest faculty, who are generally pre-tenure and early career, are placed at a disadvantage by existing policy, and women faculty are at a greater disadvantage than men. We believe that all full-time faculty members should be treated equitably, and an equitable family leave policy would entitle all full-time faculty, from the starting date of employment, to paid family leave for the time period provided under the AFUM agreement (i.e. 60 business days). We believe that modestly generous policy will enhance the University’s ability to recruit and retain faculty members, and will improve equity among faculty at the University of Maine.

Motion 1
The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine moves that the Administration explore ways to improve family leave policy to provide twelve weeks of paid leave, including talking to local AFUM representatives about how to make 60 days of disability leave available to new faculty members for use as paid parental leave at their start of employment.

Vote: Approved

 

Motion 2
The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine moves that the Provost and President work with Deans, Chairs, and Unit Directors to communicate family leave benefits and options to new faculty members, to clarify standards for arranging alternative workloads for faculty members taking family leave, and to determine resources for funding replacement necessitated during leave and by alternative work assignments. As a component of this, it should be made clear to all parties that while faculty may offer input into how their normal responsibilities (e.g. course coverage, maintenance of lab, research, or creative spaces) will be covered during leave, the burden of arranging such work and maintenance of physical spaces during leave rests with the University and should not fall on the faculty member proposing or taking contractual leave.

Vote: Approved

 

Faculty Senate Resolution
Whereas an historic “Memorandum of Understanding Between the Penobscot Nation and the University of Maine System, University of Maine (Orono)” was signed 10 May 2018 by Chief Kirk Francis of the Penobscot Nation and President Susan J. Hunter of the University of Maine; and

Whereas this memorandum states that “The University of Maine recognizes that the Penobscot Nation is a distinct, sovereign, legal and political entity with its own powers of self-governance and self-determination, and recognizes its place on Marsh Island in Penobscot Nation traditional territory”; and

Whereas This declaration is the first signed, official recognition that for the “last 153 years, the University of Maine campus has occupied the traditional territory of the Penobscot Nation” (http://www.mainepublic.org/post/penobscot-nation-and-university-maine-chart-future-documenting-past#stream/0); and

Whereas the memorandum focusses narrowly on efforts to collaborate on curation of and providing access to Penobscot artifacts, and ensuring Penobscot community members a voice in what and how research concerning Penobscot culture and interests is performed, but does not specifically engage the consequences of officially recognizing UM’s occupation of Penobscot territory, so that it remains an open question whether the memorandum will serve as the first of a number of efforts to engage the larger historical and ethical context that defines UM’s de facto relation with the Penobscot Nation;

Therefore be it Resolved that the Faculty Senate hereby (i) recognizes and applauds the former president’s recognition of the status of the UM campus with respect to historic Penobscot territories, and (ii) commits itself to encouraging and supporting all faculty, student, staff and administrative efforts to collaborate appropriately and respectfully with the Penobscot Nation in exploring the consequences and ramifications of the President’s acknowledgement, as a matter of UM’s service to all the peoples within the geographic province of Maine.

Vote: Approved

 

Motion before the University of Maine Faculty Senate
March 13, 2019
Issue: Representation by one University of Maine Faculty Senate member at monthly meetings of the University of Maine at Machais Faculty Assembly, assuming reciprocal representation from the University of Maine at Machais

Background:
On February 4, 2019, at a meeting of the UM Faculty Senate Executive Committee with the president and provost, the president and provost floated the idea of our exchanging, at each other’s monthly meetings, a UM Senate representative with a representative from the University of Maine Machias’ Faculty Assembly.

The Senate Executive Committee discussed the matter at its monthly meeting on February 6 where there was general support for the idea.

On February 15, UMaine Senate President Townsend received a letter from UMaine President Joan Ferrini-Mundy “request[ing] that the UM Faculty Senate discuss representation and participation from the University of Maine at Machias Faculty Assembly on the UMaine Faculty Senate”, and alerting Townsend that UMM’s Faculty Assembly was receiving a similar request.

The Executive Committee discussed the matter again on March 6 (after Townsend’s receipt of the president’s letter) where it was suggested that we begin the process informally, to avoid having to amend our Senate Constitution. A suggestion was made to send one representative to each of the monthly meetings of the UMM Faculty Assembly in Machias, and that we suggest they do the same. This informal arrangement would be for the time being – the remainder of the Spring 2019 semester – to be revisited and/or formalized next fall.

Townsend has spoken with University of Maine at Machais Faculty Assembly (UMMFA) President Dan Qualls, who said that his faculty also thought the idea had merit. However, the UMMFA expressed concern that such an arrangement might jeopardize the continuation of a UM Machias Faculty Representative to the UMS Board of Trustees. While not pretending to represent the UM Faculty Senate, Townsend expressed similar concern and suggested that a motion to exchange Senate-Assembly representatives go forward immediately, with the proviso that doing so cannot be cause for eliminating UMM’s Representative to the UMS Board of Trustees.

Motion:
Recognizing the shared interests of faculty at the University of Maine and the University of Maine at Machias, and in recognition of the need to continue with a BOT Representative from each campus, the University of Maine Faculty Senate (UMFS) hereby recommends that we assign a single representative, to rotate among Senate committee members, to attend monthly meetings of the University of Maine Machias Faculty Assembly, and we invite UMM to reciprocate.

Vote: Approved

 

April 10, 2019

Motion from Academic Affairs and General Education on Residency Requirement and 300 Level and Above Courses

Background: The School of Engineering and Technology serve a unique niche as the only institution in New England offering a four-year degree in Surveying Engineering Technology. The program is highly recognized at the national level due to quality of faculty. The program is currently the largest surveying program in the country. Over the years the school has been contacted by individuals and other states that wanted to become licensed surveyors. Many states require a four-year surveying degree to obtain licensing although their state may not offer the degree. So, some years ago the unit conducted a study to determine the potential market for an online surveying degree. It showed significant demand, so the unit began offering the degree online officially in May, 2018.

As the unit began admitting students into the program a trend was identified. Many students that applied were disappointed to learn that even if they could complete the degree requirements by taking 30-35 credits from UMaine, they might have to take up to an additional 25 credits to meet our policy requirement of 30 credits at the 300 level or higher.

The Surveying Engineering Technology baccalaureate degree requires students to learn technical surveying topics along with topics from multiple areas such as mathematics, physics, business, economics, and general education electives. The degree requires the completion of 126 credit hours, with only 31 credits at the 300+ level. Thus, if a student transfers to UMaine to earn the degree and has taken ANY 300-level course at another institution, those credits must be offset by an equivalent amount of credits at the 300 level at UMaine.

For example, a recent applicant for the online program transferred in credits from Slippery Rock University and Oklahoma State University. To complete the degree requirements, the student would be required to take 34 credits of course work. Unfortunately, only 9 credits of those required courses are at the 300 level. So, the student would need to take an additional 21 credits of generic 300-level courses to earn the degree that are not necessarily applicable to the degree.

A few years ago, Faculty Senate passed the revised transfer requirements and did not foresee this being an issue. At that time, we may not have considered the possible impact on transfer students. We assumed that a typical degree would have 60 credits of 300+ credits so asking for 30 at the 300+ level seemed reasonable based upon that assumption.

The School of Engineering Technology did a quick review of our recent transfer admits to the SVT program. The table below shows each student. Column 1 is their name, Column 2 is the credits needed to complete the degree requirements, and column 3 is the additional credits the student must take to reach 30 credits at the 300 level or higher. You can see that at minimum, all of the students must take at least 9 additional credits with many needing more than 25. This is a real enrollment disincentive and I don’t believe that was our intent with the policy.

The 30 cr. of courses numbered 300+ for transfers

Examples of accepted and potential online BS SVT transfers (a random sample of applicants)

Applicants                               Credits to graduate     # credits needed 300+
Student A                                 34                                10
Student B                                 43                                12
Student C                                 37                                13
Student D                                 58                                21
Student E                                 61                                25
Student F                                 26(1)                           13
Student G                                 35                                21
Student H                                 72                                31
Student I                                  69                                28
Student J                                  41                                28
Student K                                 64                                31
Student L                                 55                                31
Student M                                40                                16
Student N                                 46                                9
Student O                                 59                                24
Student P                                 62                                31
Student Q                                 59                                28
Student R                                 66                                28
Student S                                 53                                31

  1. Would require 30 cr. at U Maine to graduate

The students with less than 20 cr. of 300+ remaining are all transferring in significant amount of surveying courses. It basically shows a cutoff of 60 credits remaining where the 30 cr. of 300+ numbered courses is a very limited issue. For students with less than 45 credits remaining, the 30 cr. of 300+ numbered courses is a major issue to their education. The unit can provide more examples but this should illustrate the trend.

See spread sheet of requirements across degrees.

The current undergraduate residency requirement is: Earn a minimum of 30 credits originating from the University of Maine campus at the 300 level of higher over any year of study.

Proposed new wording:

Motion: In order to complete a degree from the University of Maine, students must earn a minimum of 30 credits originating from the University of Maine with at least 15 of those credits at the 300 level or higher.

We Academic Affairs and General Education committee think this change would provide flexibility for online learners in professional degree programs who already have a B.A or B.S. and are seeking to complete a second degree entailing a mix of 200-, 300-, and 400-level courses. Faculty in the School of Engineering Technology, Distance Learning, and the Senior Associate Provost for Academic Affairs support the flexibility of this motion.

We also believe the new wording would preserve the fundamental intent of the existing residency requirement: To ensure that students earning our degree complete a meaningful portion of that degree here at UMaine in courses in the major.

Vote:   Approved
            1 Opposed

 

May 8, 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

Students will have an option to complete a 30-credit project-based MS degree, a thesis based MS degree or a 15 credit certificate. Students completing the program will be expected to have familiarity with at least one

programming language, data structures and database theory, the concepts for effectively managing data in different systems, (client-server systems, relational and object-oriented databases), have knowledge of statistical and analytical tools (data mining, machine learning), knowledge of effective visualization and presentation of information to different audiences, and knowledge of data security, curation, and preservation strategies.

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

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

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

Vote: Approved, 1 abstention

 

A Motion to Promote More-open Employment Postings
Faculty Senate Meeting
May 8, 2019
Presented by the Elected Senators Committee Communicated by Senator Molly MacLean

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

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

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

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

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

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

A motion was made to table this motion.
Vote: Approved

 

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

Faculty Senate Meeting
May 8, 2019

Presented by the ad hoc Committee on Research Capacity of the Faculty Senate standing committees on

Research & Scholarship (Deborah Saber & Nuri Emanetoglu, co-chairs), and Finance & Institutional Planning (Mauricio Da Cunha, chair).

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

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

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

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

Vote: Approved