December 17, 2014

December 17, 2014

Present: Steve Barkan, George Criner, Mauricio da Cunha, Thane Fremouw, Robert Gundersen, Jason Harkins, Zhihe Jin, Irving Kornfield, Mary Ellin Logue, Robert Milardo, Patti Miles, Michael Peterson, Brian Robinson, Thomas Sandford, Michael Scott, Howard Segal, Mary Shea, Kathryn Slott, Allan Smith, David Townsend, Shihfen Tu, Gail Werrbach, Clayton Wheeler, David Yarborough, Bob Rice, President Susan Hunter, Jeff Hecker, Carol Kim, William “Dee” Nichols, Ryan Low, Bonita Grindle, Peter C. Altmann,

Absent: John Allen, Jason Bolton, Ian Bricknell, Dick Brucher, Sudarshan Chawathe, Stephen Coghlan, Charlsye Diaz, Paula Drewniany (giving final), Scott Dunning, Gordon Hamilton, Marie Hayes, Scott Johnson, Leonard Kass, Dorothy Klimis-Zacas, Jordan LaBouff, Robert Lilieholm, David Marcinkowski, Grant Miles, Sidney Mitchell, Jennifer Moore, Martha Novy-Broderick, Harlan Onsrud, Andrew Reeve, Deborah Rogers, Jonathan Rubin, Owen Smith, Charles Wallace, Robert Strong, Charles Rote, Lindsay Nutter (Stud. Gov), Meghan Sills (Grad Stud Gov)

The meeting was called to order at 3:15 pm

I. Welcome and Announcements

II. Approval of Minutes
November 12, 2014
Vote: Approved

III. Questions of the Administration
Questions of the Administration is being moved up to accommodate schedule constraints.

President Hunter thanked all faculty for input regarding the budget, “it’s appreciated.” The original timeline for the budget was mid December but the UMaine System has adjusted that to mid January. Today is an update of where things stand, not a formal presentation because of the adjusted timeline. There will be a campus wide presentation on January 14, 3:00 ñ 4:30. The budget will be submitted at that time but things can change, “it’s a work in progress.”

Ryan Low stated that the schedule is unchanged since October with the exception of a couple small adjustments. The budget process was started early so there’s been more input as well as working with the System, there continues to be campus discussion regarding the budget proposal. There have been discussions with the governor regarding investing an additional 3.4%, nearly $6 million. It’s a lot of money but not when compared to other Universities across the country.

The budget shortfall is up from a projected $7 million in October, to $8.5 million in December. Part of the shortfall is ongoing initiatives funded by one-time dollars and the increase in compensation, financial aid, etc. Currently, nothing on the UMaine campus has increased the shortfall. The changes are System initiatives and it was known ahead of time that the numbers would change.

In October fully funded depreciation was discussed. Would like to have a conversation of investments that should be made in facilities, pros and cons, etc. There are opportunities, an example of that are IT items budgeted twice due to centralization. Currently looking for those duplications, which will save money.

President Hunter talked about changes in the organization of Development. The role of Development, fund raising, is very important and can be substantial. While there may be cuts, preserving student center/focused, Academic Affairs, research and Student Affairs. Exploring a plan to roll Development in to UMaine Foundation, eliminating a parallel structure. A lot of donors find the structure confusing; combining them would eliminate that confusion. Looking to create a board to work on how to move forward with merging Development and the Foundation and eliminate the duplication. There have been discussions with other university presidents regarding their success with a similar process. The goal is a more efficient process.

Provost Hecker stated that back in October, looking at the cuts, they aren’t proportional. Deans were asked to prepare plans and impact statements, which were reviewed and showed where to change cuts. They looked at eliminating the cut to Honors College, Library, and small investment in Enrollment Management. The reality, it contributes to a deficit but working with deans on faculty lines and those investments. Looking at areas where colleges want to hire.

Q. A couple soft money faculty positions are being funded then turned in to regular positions, are those counted in the changes?
The January 14 meeting will discuss these things further.

Q. How is it decided to open a position as tenure track or lecturer?
Chairs, Deans and Provost discuss that.

Q. Development and the Foundation are currently separate; will Development employees become Foundation employees?
Some employees will roll in to Foundation.

The Foundation exists to raise money for UMaine. Merging the two will have a review built in to make any change needed.

Q. The Foundation helps with financial aid and scholarships will the financial aid structure change at all?

Q. If the Vice Chancellor wants control of budgets, will that affect the Foundation, will they also raise money for other campuses?
The Foundation is not part of the System and money raised for the University of Maine is for this campus only. They won’t raise money for other campuses but may have the opportunity to manage investment accounts for other campuses but not raise money for them.
When a gift is made a fund description is created, the System cannot detour those funds to other campuses. Making sure the Foundation is maintained as a separate entity is key; other universities are set up that way for their fundraising.

Q. As a donor, if fundraising is increased, and the System controls the budget line, the fear is that if money is donated the budgets will then be reduced by that amount. Why would a donor want to donate more?
It’s one of many questions that have been asked and trying to make sure that doesn’t happen.

Q. As a donor, if funding is increased can the System cut the base budget by that amount? No one has stated that as an option.
Comment: there are universities that have become dependent on gift dollars because budgets were cut by the amount of gifts.

Q. Robert Milardo asked, about the policy on assault, violence, etc. The Spring Syllabi must now have a statement “If you tell a teacher about an experience of sexual assault .… your teacher is required to report the information to the Sexual Assault office or to OEO”. How was this developed, what faculty were consulted, and was Faculty Senate consulted.
A. This is a Federal Policy on how to handle the issue. Karen Kemble, OEO, worked on this and how to handle issues of sexual assault. Not sure all those involved but believe other campuses were involved. This issue has been discussed since 2011, several faculty were consulted and then the System entered the discussion to change UMaine System policy. The statement on the syllabus is so faculty is informed that they are mandated reporters.

Q. How were faculty members chosen and was Faculty Senate involved?
Faculty Senate was not consulted for faculty representation on the committee which addressed this issue.

Discussion: This speaks to a governance issue and communication problem.
Many national organizations have policies on sexual assault, appears this policy, as written, is contrary to those national recommendations. With the questions being asked there should be a meeting with those involved for answers. Provost Hecker said he wanted to be sure the policy was understood and on the syllabus. He’d like to discuss it further while taking responsibility for a lack of communication with Faculty Senate.

Changes to the Syllabus need to be conveyed. The policy, now worded, is contrary to Federal policy.

Q. What national policy was consulted?
If a student mentions abuse what is the process, contact OEO? As a faculty, we don’t want to revictimize students; they should have control of where the information goes. This undermines the relationship and trust between faculty and student. The policy only applies if all parties are on campus; someone off campus commits assault on a student and it appears that doesn’t need to be reported.

Mick suggested this be moved in to committee for further discussion.

Q. Will Karen Kemble develop a policy for faculty, appears to be conflicting issues here?
There is a System Mandate based on a federal law.
Q. Is there a document for faculty to be informed?
We can work on that.

IV. Committee Reports
BOT Rep – Robert Rice
One comment regarding the Sexual Assault Training, this came up a month ago and was dictated by the BOT. The policy far exceeds the law but is mandatory.

The Finance Committee is meeting this Friday. Professor Ed Grew gifted a total of $250,000 for a professorship to be given in amounts of $50,000 in each of the next five years, if approved by the BOT. The consolidation of HR is moving fast. The Finance and Technology agenda has a $25 million technology proposal with a number of things included. January, looking at the new financial structure, a proposal on the floor for March to call for a COO and a CFO at the system, and all financial operations report to the System.

Academic Affairs – Marie Hayes
Motion under New Business.

Constitution & Bylaws – Martha Novy-Broderick
No report.

Research & Scholarship – Scott Johnson & Mauricio de Cunha
The committee met last week. There were some decisions regarding a survey to faculty.

Finance & Institutional Planning – Tom Sandford
The committee met to discuss depreciation. Summary, if we’re able to continue as VP Low mentioned or what the impact on the budget will be if required to go to 100% next year. Auxiliary Services are currently at 100%.

University Environment – Mike Scott
No report.

Library Advisory – Robert Rice & Howard Segal
No report.

Service & Outreach – David Yarborough & Jason Bolton
No report.

Committee on Committees – Executive Committee
There will be items sent to the Executive Committee shortly.

Program Creation & Reorganization Review – Brian Robinson

General Education – Harlan Onsrud
There is a motion under New Business.

Ad Hoc IT – Michael Scott
The committee met with the head of Division of Lifelong Learning and will meet with Dick Thompson and John Gregory after break.

The IT Advisory Committee will hold their meetings around campus. Mick Peterson shared a picture from a meeting in DP Corbett during the first week of classes and the preparation for classes was non-existent. Mick stated that this was a mid level classroom, not the worst by far. Patti Miles asked where the $5 fee goes that students pay as part of Unified Fees? Most of the money goes to the Deans office and then allocated to departments. The fees are all rolled in to Unified Fees, it’s not split out, IT is a small part of it. Mike Scott stated that the Unified Fee goes to Deans and Chairs but they aren’t responsible for classrooms.

Dick Thompson stated this was discussed at an Ad Hoc IT meeting. There’s no current plan for update or maintenance but need to be working on it, there are a lot of the dollars and work needed. Prioritized but he didn’t have a lot to say about it at this time.

The room in DPC pictured that wasn’t ready in the fall, isn’t part of the Maine Business School, it falls under IT. It’s unknown if public classrooms will be updated by the university or the System.

Committees of the Administration Reports
No report.

V. Old Business

VI. New Business
PCRRC Motion Regarding Process
For Faculty Senate. December 17, 2014

Motion: The Faculty Senate seeks assurance that standard procedures as detailed in the PCRRC Policy Manual will be adhered to during APRIP and all other proceedings, with the support of the University of Maine Administration and the University of Maine System. To this end the Faculty Senate requires that documents be submitted to the PCRRC at Stage 2 of the Fifteen Stage Process for program creation and reorganization, and at the initiation of the Program Elimination Procedure.

Discussion: a program would go to PCRRC if there are planned eliminations not only reorganization. APRIP sub-teams meet with faculty and create a model for collaboration between campuses. It goes up through the administration and then to the APRIP oversight committee. It’s a question as to when things go to PCRRC. Brian stated that, by going to PCRRC, it’s a way to notify campus and faculty of these changes.

Vote: Approved

Motion: University of Maine Faculty Senate Support of a University of Maine System General Education Transfer Block Process

The University of Maine Faculty Senate hereby:

a) supports the UMS General Education Transfer Block as set forth in Section I of this document;
b) specifies in Section II of this document those UMaine courses that a UMaine student transferring to another UMS campus must complete in order to meet the minimum requirements of the UMS General Education Transfer Block (i.e. the University of Maine General Education Transfer-Out Block);
c) specifies in Section III of this document additional University of Maine General Education Course Requirements that students transferring from another UMS campus must additionally fulfill beyond the courses officially certified by the originating campus as fulfilling the UMS General Education Transfer Block;
d) explicitly recognizes in Section IV of this document that incoming transferring students that have met the UMS General Education Transfer Block may be required to take additional General Education courses required by an academic degree major, and
e) recognizes the authority of the faculty on all other UMS campuses to make similar curriculum matter determinations for their own campuses in a mutually supportive fashion in furthering the best interests of students on each and among the UMS campuses.

Vote: Approved
Additional document on Faculty Senate website.

Academic Affairs Committee (12/10/2014)
prepared by Senators Thomas C. Sandford and Richard Borgman.

Prior Learning Assessment Motion

The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine accepts the “Revised Recommendations and Next Steps for Prior Learning Assessment (PLA) in the University of Maine System” (attached) subject to the following limitations/concerns:

The system schools must agree to a common cut-off score for a test to be accepted in transfer. Until there is a common cutoff score, AP, CLEP and DSST exams are “subject to approval” at the departmental level for them to be accepted as meeting program requirements. If not they will come in as free electives only.

15 credit limitation on credits earned as a result of CLEP/DSST exams.
15 credit limitation on Credential Review credits
15 credit limitation on Military credits
15 credit limitation on Academic Portfolio Assessments

Course credit earned at another system school as a result of prior learning evaluation must be identified in some manner so that UMaine can enforce our 15 credit limitation.
If PLA credit for a course that is transferred is unacceptable to accreditation criteria or state licensing, then the PLA credit may be disallowed for that program or reassess for credit.
The processes and policies of academic portfolio assessment are consistent across all campuses and approved by all campuses before the PLA policy is implemented. Until that time Credit awarded at another system school will be subject to review at the University of Maine before acceptance.

Approved with edits (in bold italics).

Vote: Approved
Additional document on Faculty Senate website.

Adjourned at 4:50 pm

Respectfully submitted,
Kathryn Slott

Prepared by Kim Junkins