April 5, 2017
DRAFT FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
April 5, 2017
Present: John Allen, Erik Blomberg, Emmanuel Boss, Laura Cowan, Farahad Dastoor, Paula Drewniany, Scott Dunning, Per Garder, Michael Grillo, Chris Grindrod for Nancy Hall, Zhihe Jin, Leonard Kass, David Kress, David Marcinkowski, George Markowsky, Grant Miles, Patti Miles, Sidney Mitchell, William Nichols, Bob Rice, Deborah Rogers, Deborah Saber, Michael Scott, Howard Segal, Kathryn Slott, Mona Therrien, Andrew Thomas, David Townsend, Shihfen Tu, Mark Wells, Gail Werrbach, Clayton Wheeler, President Susan Hunter, Provost Jeff Hecker, Jen Bonnet (PEAC), Brian Preziosi (Grad Stud Gov)
Absent: Dean Astumian, Bob Bayer, Jason Bolton, Tony Brinkley, Sudarshan Chawathe, Mauricio da Cunha, Thane Fremouw, Amy Fried (resigned), Sam Hanes, Jason Harkins, Peter Koons, Jordan LaBouff, Brian McGill, Brian Olsen, Clint Relyea, John Singer, Owen Smith, Carol Kim, Peter C. Altmann (CEAC), Hashim Allah (Stud. Gov.)
The meeting was called to order at 3:20 pm
I. Welcome, Announcements and Comments:
Mike stated a long time UMaine faculty and Faculty Senate member, Irving Kornfiled, passed away.
II. Approval of Minutes
February 1, 2017 and March 1, 2017 Minutes
Approved
III. Committee Reports
BOT Rep – Patti Miles
Patti stated faculty from UMaine and USM Business Schools met with the BOT Reps to discuss the Alfond Foundation proposal of a business school in southern Maine. Both UMaine and USM said they couldn’t accommodate the plan as is.
Academic Affairs – Michael Grillo
The committee met last Friday with Shannon McCoy from Rising Tide to discuss the process of student evaluations. Michael Grillo suggested Faculty Senate have her speak to Faculty Senate on the subject and a process for better evaluations. The committee will look at the issue next year. Grant Miles asked about the amount of weight placed on teaching evaluations by students. Provost Hecker said there will be a pilot program using online and data soon to bring to the discussion. He said the issue of how forms are distributed, collected, etc. is being discussed.
Constitution & Bylaws – David Townsend
A motion passed at the last full senate meeting was handed to the Senate Secretary for a full faculty vote.
Research & Scholarship – Emmanuel Boss & Mauricio de Cunha
The committee has a motion under New Business. The committee met on Friday and discussed communication issues on campus. The committee is looking to have monthly meetings and encourage administrators to join.
Finance & Institutional Planning – Grant Miles
The committee is planning one more meeting with Claire Stickland and another with Ryan Low.
Service & Outreach – Jason Bolton
No report.
Committee on Committees – Michael Grillo
Committee on Committees will be presenting the election for Faculty Senate Officers. There is a slate to be presented under New Business.
Program Creation & Reorganization Review – Sid Mitchell
The Math Department is looking to create a BS in Finance and a BA in Statistics. They have the resources for both degrees; one is a continuation of a current program. PCRRC will be meeting to discuss the proposal. Dean Regean from the College of Education and Human Development has met with Peace Studies regarding a move from DLL to EDHD.
General Education – Farahad Dastoor & David Townsend
The committee hasn’t met but working groups have been set up, seven of nine have met. They will be looking at Gen Ed descriptions and rubrics to narrow Gen Ed.
Ad Hoc IT – Michael Scott & Patti Miles
No report.
Ad Hoc Shared Governance – Jason Harkins
The committee is getting close to finalizing a survey regarding Shared Governance. They’d like to distribute it before the end of the semester.
University Environment – Kathryn Slott & Clint Relyea
The committee has three motions under New Business.
Reports of Faculty Members on Committees of the Administration
No reports.
IV. Announcements and Updates from the Administration
Evaluations of the Strategic Plan will have at least two faculty on each pathway.
Invitations will be sent to some faculty next week asking they participate on the nine NEASC teams. The letter will go out on Monday. The NEASC review will be spring 2019.
President Hunter stated she’d visited UMaine Machias today to announce Kay Kimball as Executive Dean at Machias for a one-year appointment. There will be a national search for an Executive Dean this year.
V. Questions of the Administration
Q. Does the Executive Dean position replace the Provost?
A. No, the campus will have an Executive Dean, no on campus President or Provost.
Q. Can you clarify the announcement regarding the VP of Research moving to a new position and what that means for her current position?
A. There will be an announcement on Friday.
Q. Is this a new position or old?
A. New
Q. Over the years there’s frustration trying to find information, information on campus is getting more difficult to find, and notices don’t get to most colleges or faculty. Also, the UMaine Student Symposium notice recently distributed said the day is, “…a class free day…”.
A. Provost Hecker said the communication issue is a good point, and a problem, but he’s unsure how to correct it. Some information from the Chancellors office may, or may not, be distributed through the Provost Office. Some things have a short turnaround but he couldn’t explain the day off for the symposium notice.
President Hunter stated there’s also an issue with two talks on campus overlapping.
Q. Can you clarify why there is a search for a Vice President of Human Resources when HR is part of the System?
A. Yes, the hire will be for the UMaine campus but part of the UMaine System. The title of Vice President is to attract quality candidates.
Q. How can it be a Vice President of Human Resources for Orono if they work for the UMaine System?
A. It’s a UMaine System person for the UMaine campus.
VI. Old Business
None
VII. New Business
Motion for the University Administration to react to the results of a survey conducted by the Faculty Senate Committee on Research and Scholarship
April 5, 2017
Introduction:
The Faculty Senate Committee on Research and Scholarship conducted a survey of UMaine faculty on aspects of the university’s research infrastructure, with the intent of identifying ways in which the research infrastructure may be enhanced to encourage broader participation and success in obtaining external research funds. The survey was distributed to all UM faculty on 11/29/16. That survey and its results as compiled by the Committee on Research and Scholarship are presented below.
Motion:
The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine requests the Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School, and other members of the upper UM administration, read the issues raised in a survey conducted by the Senate Committee on Research and Scholarship, and the possible solutions suggested, and report back about actions considered to the Faculty Senate at the first full Senate meeting of the fall semester, 2017.
The survey:
Dear UMaine faculty:
The faculty senate committee on Research & Scholarship is requesting input regarding where infrastructure in research is limiting, for example in the following aspect:
- Purchasing.
- Research proposals.
- Travel.
- Support available to do research in your department/college.
+ Anything else you would like to voice.
As much as possible, please provide us with concrete examples.
We will compile the information and share it with the faculty senate and the vice president for research. If you would NOT like us to share your name please tell us and we will keep your name confidential.
Survey Results:
The following is a Table listing concerns and suggestions voiced by respondents to the Research and Scholarship Committee’s survey, which the Committee feels will help to improve UMaine research infrastructure and national status. The responses are opinions and observations of currently active researchers, and by no means represent a statistical survey of the faculty (there were 18 responses + edits and entries from the six Senate Committee members).
General:
| Issue: | Possible solution: |
| ● Faculty time is misspent dealing with operational burden (travel, purchasing, safety training, reporting and bookkeeping). | ● Lower cost employees could handle administrative operations more efficiently. |
| ● Teaching loads can be too high for one to engage in research. | ● Teaching loads could be reduced through a transparent mechanism to buy out research time. |
| ● The research culture is non-existent in some departments with missed opportunity for funding. | ● Those departments with low research culture can be targeted by UMaine and supported to build a research program.
● Inter-departmental hires can promote a culture of research in all departments |
| ● There is a lack of funds (shared) for facilities and student support. | ● UMaine should be devoting much more effort to fundraise from private donors for programs that specifically support research and scholarship on our campus. |
Purchasing:
| ● There is excessive time wasted on purchasing and the process is sometimes too long to be effective.
● There is a need to expand vendors and purchasing procedures (paypal) without the need for special treatment (e.g. individual negotiations). ● Faculty time is misspent with placing, tracking, following up on orders. Email communication can be excessive with this process. |
● Purchasing authority could be expanded at laboratory level for fast procurements associated with field work.
● Purchasing could/should be handled by lower cost employees.
● Faculty conducting research should be given both PCards and TCards. |
| ● The inefficient pre- and post approval process is time consuming and faculty time is misspent.
● The current constraints on purchasing are very difficult, and the PCard limits are too low especially in instances when vendors are not yet on Marketplace and orders are urgent |
● Purchases for less than $500 should undergo a rapid approval process.
● Increase the $500 limit, particularly for researchers with significant research funds. |
| ● The Buying is more expensive and less convenient than it used to be. | ● Work with faculty to improve the system. |
IT support:
| ● Support has worsened with complex IT questions. Easy to get answer on simple matters. | ● Provide a list of resources (specific help numbers) to aid with specific issues (e.g., Matlab license, supercomputer facility). |
Communication:
| ● The restrictions around website approval and getting permanent IP addresses for support make it difficult to be create and update research-oriented websites to share data/information with fellow researchers. | ● Create a venue or help center for website development and maintenance for researchers |
Support for Research at the University Level:
| ● At the DMC, the lab maintenance infrastructure is insufficient. | ● Overhead return funds and bonds should be used to maintain facilities. |
| ● RAs and TAs providing internal research support are chronically limited in many if not all departments. These targeted students receive training and career development when they conduct research with faculty. | ● Increase funds for RA/TAs. |
| ● Student travel for research or to attend research conferences is a critical aspect of graduate education, enables effective networking and helps to position themselves for future jobs and career development.
● Faculty travel is essential in many cases for research, for productive research communication, and to facilitate the interaction with other scientists that improves U Maine’s competitiveness for funding. Funds for faculty travel have been reduced in recent years. ● Departmental funds for research have been reduced. |
● Stronger support for student travel is needed from the University, VPR’s office, or the System Office to ensure that all students can attend at least one conference in their field during their studies.
● Flexibility in funding for seed projects and early career scientists should be encouraged and supported at Departmental and School levels.
|
| ● Support of student research is not strong in the form of publicity (e.g., social media) to our community (CIS; CLAS; R&S Committee). | ● Improved media support will help the university gain support from our community, leaders, and stakeholders.
● PR on campus needs to be proactive. ● Develop a public website with total external research funding. |
| ● There is a tremendous need for small seed funding for junior faculty. Small seed grants can make a huge difference in supporting career advancement by generating data, publications, grant proposals, and new collaborations. | ● Transparent mechanisms for seed grant should be advertised and created with focus on junior faculty and faculty with little or no funded research experience.
● provide colleges with research budgets. That way, colleges could form review and selection committees, which would streamline and decentralize seed funding. |
| ● There is a need to offer funding opportunities for non-tenure track faculty members whose primary responsibilities are teaching but would like to conduct research. This will increase the numbers of faculty involved in the research endeavor and potentially help get them be externally funded research faculty. | ● Campus grants for non-tenured-track faculty members should be made available. |
| ● When decisions are to be made about the lead institution in a collaborative proposal, UMaine is at a disadvantage with our increased submission period of ~ 15 days. UMaine has fallen behind other research institutions, both relative to its previous performance and relative to the performance of collaborating institutions. | ● Proposal preparation schedules and deadlines are critical parameters for faculty who, generally, also have deadlines associated with teaching, outreach, administration and other existing proposals. If we are to be competitive with other institutions, the schedule for submission of research proposals should be revised to be equivalent to that of our collaborating institutions. |
| ● Inherent inefficiencies arising from increased demands on faculty in research grant preparation, management, reporting reduces the potential for faculty to successfully compete for external research funds. | ● More secretarial support should be made available. |
| ● Further assistance is needed in identifying potential, on-campus research collaborators with the intention of enhancing intra-campus research programs which could generate increased external funding. | ● Identify research opportunities to faculty and to identify and encourage cooperative, on-campus research links.
|
| ● Post award delays are excessive and opaque and can seriously impact time-sensitive research programs. Process needs to be made more transparent. | ● Provide more support at ORSP is needed. |
| ● Inability to rollover research funds across fiscal year boundaries, imposes significant financial obstacles to laboratory operation and is a major impediment in the development of sustainable and efficient research programs.
● A funding model that restricts carry over of financial resources from one fiscal year to the next needlessly imposes severe obstacles to successful research operations.
● PIs do make mistakes and the new procedure of not allowing any budget adjustments/transfers due to PI error is counter-productive. ORSP personnel also make mistakes. |
● Provide a mechanism to rollover funds as available at other universities.
● Amend this funding model to reward rather than discourage efficiencies and flexibility in financial operation.
● PIs should be allowed to make a mistake such as purchasing something on the wrong grant with the ability to find non-complicated solutions. |
| ● ORSP serves a critical role in facilitating successful grant submission. Structural changes in grant submission mechanisms (PARS) have substantially streamlined and improved the grant preparation process, but the introduction of requirements arising from within the University of Maine as well as from external sponsors have placed significant demands on ORSP resources. | ● We strongly recommend that the University of Maine meet these increased demands by supporting ORSP with sufficient resources to maintain rough parity with collaborating institutions. |
| ● Requirement for multiple quotes for large equipment is extremely cumbersome when technology is required to do the job. | ● Identify these cases clearly and simplify the process in such cases. |
| ● ORSP is understaffed to do the job effectively. In particular, young faculty that do not know procedure find minimal support and frustration.
● There is minimal support available for annual and final reports.
|
● Increase staffing at ORSP ASAP. |
| ● To be a 21st century biomedical cell/molecular research institute UMaine, we require 384-well qPCR machine, a staffed FACS sorter, and more microscopy capabilities.
● There is inequity in care and upkeep of labs ● We are sorely behind our peer institutions in terms of Research Cores. We only have a sequencing facility that is limited to providing only Sanger sequencing and not modern methods. ● The UMaine campus has specialty equipment that is available for people to use. However, frequently learning to use these instruments is an enormous time investment. ● User fees for facilities cannot be saved year to year. If we cannot bank user fees then we have no way to deal with an objective on a microscope breaking, etc. |
● Increase support for shared facilities and treat all research animal facilities equitably
● The small animal facility should be treated in a manner that is similar to all other live animal facilities (covered by overheads/indirects). ● UMaine needs a core for assays, histology, etc. and more technological advancements.
● Shared resource rooms like 262 Hitchner should be centrally supported to cover costs associated with equipment upkeep and maintenance, general supply refurbishment, etc. ● UMaine should be supported by a technician (or two) to run different machines. Then, PIs could pay to have their samples run. For example, if one person were trained in all the different types of microscopy on campus, then it would be much easier for individual labs to leverage the advantages of different microscopes. ● Develop a procedure that carry over user fees from year to year within federal guidelines |
| ● There is no training/help for PIs with different approaches for budgeting, planning, and balancing different grants. would love to get guidance on how to plan more effectively with grants – | ● Provide training to faculty
● ORSP could develop a spreadsheet that incorporated overhead, benefits, etc that one could adjust monthly. Peoplesoft can give monthly balances, however, that doesn’t really help determine needs such as the number of students that can be supported through a grant |
Travel infrastructure:
| ● CONCUR is not working well for many faculty who do not have local support to deal with its complicated procedures. The webinars are not working. | ● Increase human support for CONCUR on campus. A paper manual covering typical travel is needed. |
| ● CONCUR does not speed up the reimbursement process for many faculty. | |
| ● CONCUR adds a major burden to faculty productivity, with it taking 4-5 times longer to file reimbursements (meaning an extra 1-2 h per trip). | ● Increase human support for CONCUR on campus |
| ● The CONCUR program is quirky, with multiple steps to accomplish simple tasks, steps are counterintuitive, and no protocols exist for “non-experts”. | ● Work to simplify the software and make it more user friendly |
| ● Online courses are of little assistance because multiple repetition of submissions over a short learning period are necessary to remember the vast number of obtuse steps — individual faculty travel is not sufficiently frequently for them to achieve the necessary level of understanding. | ● Provide access to a user-friendly procedure manual that discusses typical travel |
| ● The use of CONCUR results in lost faculty and staff productivity. Some faculty have given up resubmitting their reimbursement requests, instead using staff in their departments to sit with them to complete the submission, which still takes longer than the previous approach. | ● University needs to consider discontinuing the use of CONCUR or improve the usability of the program. |
| ● The problems with CONCUR are so extremely felt that some faculty have chosen not to travel rather than deal with submitting reimbursement requests. This degrades their service to the State, the University, and their research. | ● University needs to consider discontinuing the use of CONCUR or improve the usability of the program. |
| ● Faculty with IGERT funding that are responsible for submitting student travel reimbursements feel CONCUR would be a major reason that they would not seek IGERT funding in the future | ● University needs to consider discontinuing the use of CONCUR or improve the usability of the program. |
| ● CONCUR “experts” (staff people) run into major problems with the system, requiring lengthy communications with CONCUR representatives in an attempt to overcome the problems. In some cases, even the representatives cannot solve problems, so the request is deleted and everything has be to re-entered, which results in more than double loss of productivity. | ● University needs to consider discontinuing the use of CONCUR or improve the usability of the program. |
| ● There are no financial benefits of pre-purchasing flights through CONCUR. It is a disadvantage to do so because the process requires the user to problematically interface with the program twice: once to pre-purchase the flight and once to file the reimbursement afterwards. | ● University needs to consider discontinuing the use of CONCUR or improve the usability of the program. |
Vote: Approved
Environmental Committee Motion
April 5, 2017
Motion 1: Classroom Maintenance
In accordance with NEASC Standards and policies, standard 5.17 (Student Services and Co-Curricular Experiences), Standard 7.23 (Information, Physical, and Technological Resources) and Standard 9.12 (Transparency) the Environmental committee of the Faculty Senate recommends the following:
- Annually, classrooms and the University of Maine be completely inspected, cleaned and appropriately updated
annually. - Annually, classroom fixtures such as: student desks, chairs, white and chalk boards, clocks, teaching podiums, window blinds, doors, windows, heaters and ventilation are in working order and repaired/replaced as needed.
- Further, in keeping with NEASC standard 9.12, we request the information specified above about each classroom be maintained in MaineStreet by classroom, and accessible by faculty.
a) Faculty should be able to enter any room problems and date discovered in MaineStreet.
b) This should feed to a work order system.
c) Updates will be visible to all.
4. Each room should have a clear document posted with whom to call if maintenance is required.
Discussion: Amendment to remove annually at the end of sentence one. Approved
Add a sentence 4) Each room should have a clear document posted with whom to call if maintenance is required. Approved
Comments: Provost Hecker stated he had concerns regarding the motion. He said adding NEASC with the standards and policies and they’re listed incorrectly. He also said he doesn’t see a feasibility study on costs listed in the motion. Robin Sherman commented that she thinks a feasibility study should be done also.
It was mentioned that it is embarrassing to teach in rooms that have broken furniture, not swept in weeks, etc.
Jeff St. John stated he doesn’t think senate has gotten an update from the Paint and Polish committee in quite some time regarding the work that has been done. He stated he’d be happy to come give an update on progress and the means of communication set up now.
Grant made a motion to call the question, seconded.
Vote: Approved
Opposed – 2
Vote on Motion:
Approve 13
Opposed 7
Abstain 4
Motion 2: Classroom Technology
In accordance with NEASC standards and policies, standard 5.17 (Student Services and Co-Curricular Experiences) and standard 7.22, 7.24, 7.25 and 7.26 (Information, Physical, and Technological Resources) and 9.12 (Transparency) the Environmental committee of the faculty senate recommends the following:
- Annually, classroom technology at the University of Maine be completely inspected, equipment labeled and each piece of equipment tested to ensure the equipment is operational, equipment log per classroom shall be maintained in MaineStreet by classroom. Said equipment:
a) Working Ethernet jack.
b) Sufficient speaker power.
c) Adequate wireless speed documented.
d) Bulb life noted.
2. We request the specifics about usages (bulbs, computers, etc.) be recorded in MaineStreet or some other accessible site by classroom, and accessible by all faculty (same MaineStreet or some other accessible site, as in Motion 1).
Amended to remove the top paragraph. Approved
Amend 2) to: We request the specifics about usages (bulbs, computers etc.) be recorded in MaineStreet or some other accessible site by classroom, and accessible by all faculty (same MaineStreet or some other accessible site as in Motion 1).
Discussion: It was mentioned that this topic would be appropriate for the ITSC, Emily Haddad stated she’d be happy to present it to that committee.
Vote:
Approve 13
Opposed 7
Abstain 4
Motion 3: Standard Classroom Technology
- We request that standard computer technology be placed in each classroom, with the priority be given to the larger classrooms (serving 80 or more students). Standard technology defined as:
a) Standard Computer with USB and toggle access for laptops
b) Preconfigured to fully function with Classroom projector, screens and speakers.
c) Ethernet connection.
d) Standard computer is connected to a server that is configured with a log on screen such that when a professor logs on, they have access to the most current version of their documents stored in a specified drive on their office or laptop computer.
2. Each room should have a clear document with who to call if the technology does not work.
Motion to Call Question: Approve 19, Opposed 3, Abstain 4
Vote on Motion:
Approve 10
Opposed 11
Abstain 3
Adjourned 4:45 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Grant Miles
Prepared by Kim Junkins