March 7, 2018

FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
March 7, 2018

Present: Susan Bennett-Armistead, Erik Blomberg, Alice Bruce, Dick Brucher, Mauricio da Cunha, Farahad Dastoor, Julie DellaMattera, Paula Drewniany, Phil Dunn, Nuri Emanetoglu, Per Garder, Mark Haggerty, Torsten Hahmann, Sam Hanes, Robson Machado, Robert Meulenberg, Grant Miles, Patti Miles, William Nichols, Christopher Nightingale, Laura Rickard, Deborah Saber, Michael Scott, Howard Segal, Kathryn Slott, Mona Therrien, Andrew Thomas, David Townsend, Phil Trostel, Clayton Wheeler, Xudong Zheng, Provost Jeff Hecker, VP Research Kody Varahramyan, Jen Bonnet (PEAC),

Absent: Dean Astumian, Jason Bolton, Rick Borgman, Emmanuel Boss, Tony Brinkley, Scott Dunning, Thane Fremouw, Nancy Hall, Valerie Herbert, Leonard Kass, Margaret Killinger, Anil Raj Kizha, Peter Koons, Michael Montgomery, Renae Moran, Nigel Pitt, John Singer, Seth Tyler, Stephanie Welcomer, Mark Wells, Gail Werrbach, President Susan Hunter, Bentley Simpson (Undergrad Rep), Brian Preziosi (Grad Stud Gov),

The meeting was called to order at 3:20 pm

I. Welcome, Announcements and Comments:
President Hunter is traveling so won’t be at today’s meeting.

A committee looking into Infosilem will need volunteers to serve on that committee. A call will go out to all faculty on campus.

II. Approval of Minutes
December 13, 2017 (Note that there was no February meeting because of a weather closure)
Approved

III. Committee Reports
BOT – Patti Miles
The Academic and Student Affairs Committee – head count and credit hours are up at UMaine. Early college and online enrollment gets a lot of attention by the committee, there’s a push for early enrollment of high school students. Online enrollment is being pushed, Patti emphasized it requires IT infrastructure.

BOT reps asked that Board Policy on political activity be pushed off to a May vote.

If they don’t push the vote off until May it will take place at the BOT meeting Sunday and Monday at the end of spring break.

Finance, Facilities, and Technologies Committee – Classes of the Future will renovate twenty-one rooms this summer. MaineStreet did an HR and Finance upgrade, next upgrade is the student system.

The latest Sightline report contained the age of buildings and amount of carbon in the UMaine System. UMaine uses a small amount is biomass.

Q. When BOT pushes for early college, do they anticipate the cost of remediation?
A. No
Comment: When students arrive unprepared faculty need to remediate. At a recent meeting Vice Chancellor Neely told everyone that to teach requires at least a Masters.

Academic Affairs – William “Dee” Nichols
The committee met on February 27 to discuss upcoming motions. Two motions today, Religious Observation and some discussion regarding having a reminder sent out from the Provost office regarding holidays.

There is an online link that exists for required syllabus language.

Regarding the calendar, it is done 18 months in advance and was recommended Faculty Senate review the 2019-2020 calendar.

There was a recent pilot program regarding a move to online student evaluations. The return rate currently is approximately 66%, paper evaluations is 80%. There are email reminders as well as popups on Blackboard as a reminder to students to do evaluations.

— Academic Affairs subcommittee – General Education – Farahad Dastoor
Update for Gen Ed Assessment, this year doing Western Culture and Traditions. Faculty have been selected and agreed to participate. There’s a need for additional people to score and analyze data. May 16, a half-day event, need approximately 50 volunteers, contact Farahad Dastoor if you’re willing to volunteer.

Constitution & Bylaws – David Townsend
No report. Motion under New Business

Research & Scholarship – Deborah Saber & Peter Koons
Met with the Vice President for Research on March 2, regarding MEIF and ENG funding swaps. There’s a need to make sure UMaine is meeting commitments of MEIF. One concern was if PEER committees could change due to MEIF, those changes would have to go through HR.

Q. MEIF and ENG funding, can they be switched?
A. They can be switched but it needs to done be under certain conditions.

Finance & Institutional Planning – Mauricio da Cunha
The committee met last Friday and yesterday regarding the Unified Fee. The meeting was positive and Provost Hecker presented what leads to creating the UMaine budget. It would be helpful to have a meeting with faculty during the planning period. There is a concern that suggestions not come from individuals but instead reflect general faculty concerns.

Yesterday discussions with Jeff St. John centered around which fees are grouped under the Unified Fees and how they’re distributed; who makes the decision, how to get money back from courses. The current policy is 15 years old, which fees are still listed under Unified Fees from that time, distribution is approximately 50% kept by administration the other half to colleges. Distribution of funds by colleges is discretionary. The committee may recommend a review based on enrollment, program fees, and an examination of lab-based courses where costs could be higher, and a unit-by-unit review.

Q. Do some courses still have course fees?
A. Provost Hecker stated there are program fees not course fees.

Q. Did you say there was difficulty defining what the Unified Fee is supposed to be?
A. During the meeting we asked to be given an idea of whether fees go to the same things as 15 years ago. It would be helpful to have a list.
Comment: In May a report will be released giving more detail, intent of fee, how fees are used now, gaps, and recommendations by the committee.

University Environment – Stephanie Welcomer
The committee will have a motion at the next meeting regarding access to childcare on campus and waitlists due to lack of space.

Q. Was there an indication regarding impact on young faculty?
A. There is an impact due to lack of space available.

Q. Does this committee deal with structures on campus? If so, the Grove Street light posts are in bad repair, falling apart, and wires exposed.
A. The committee will check in to it.

Service & Outreach – Susan Bennett-Armistead
No report.

Committee on Committees – Nancy Hall
There was a call for faculty to participate in Cooperative Extension Director search. That search is complete. The committee is also responsible for the next Faculty Senate election of officers. The election will be at the April 4, Full Senate meeting.

Program Creation & Reorganization Review – Clayton Wheeler
No report.

Library Committee – Howard Segal
No report.

Ad Hoc IT – Patti Miles
There is a motion under New Business.

Ad Hoc Shared Governance – Grant Miles
Only has a question regarding receiving input from the faculty. Grant said he’s not always sure if he speaks for faculty, what is the best method to represent others.
Comment: Provost Hecker stated, for instance, FIPC is also planning and budget. It’s not the committee member’s issue but a campus issue. For instance, strategic planning the administration wants to know it’s representative views not one member of a committee. Getting organized information that consists of views from faculty.

IV. Reports of Faculty Members on Committees of the Administration
No report.

V. Announcements and Updates from the Administration
David Townsend congratulated Jim Settele on being appointed Interim Athletic Director. Jim announced Kim Jenkins would be the new Chief of Staff.

There will be a budget presentation on March 22, 11:00 – 12:20 in Murray Hall. Provost Hecker said things are in good shape.

Regarding the reorganization of the Maine Business School. It has moved forward to include a Graduate School of Business and an Undergraduate School of Business. An Interim Graduate Dean has been hired; Dean Simpson and Niclas Erhardt will be Interim Undergraduate Dean. The accreditation agencies have been notified. Dean Simpson will need to determine graduate faculty, who may be interested and qualified at USM. He and faculty will work on curriculum, any curriculum changes go through the MBS for review and follow UMaine Faculty Governance. There is a search ongoing for the Graduate Dean.

Q. What about the other MBS Dean.
A. That position no longer exists, there’s a Dean of Graduate School of Business and Dean of Undergraduate School of Business.

Q. Wasn’t there language that no internal candidates for the position?
A. Provost Hecker stated he wasn’t aware of that.

Announcement regarding the Political Statement, it appears the BOT is going ahead with a March vote.

VI. Questions of the Administration
Q. Regarding the USM business program, is it still there?
A. Plan is to terminate the current program and accept no more admissions.

Q. Does the Political Policy allow our president to comment on climate change?
A. Provost Hecker said that’s how he’d interpret it with his limited insight.

Q. Regarding Gen Ed relying on faculty to volunteer time, is there a method to compensate adjuncts faculty and graduate students?
A. Yes, we can think about it. One item being worked on with the University Teaching Council is looking at adjunct recruiting and teaching. It’s a good time to look at the issue.

Q. Our Department Chair notified faculty that rooms and classrooms in Little Hall would be taken over by UMaine Augusta. How is it that UMA can take instruction rooms and offices?
A. Jeff St. John said the Chair was not required to give offices or space. There is a pilot program to have UMA students live and take classes at UMaine for three semesters. UMA asked for space centrally located, close to the Library and Memorial Union. He offered to repaint a suite of offices in Little Hall, public spaces, and classrooms if a few rooms were allowed for the program. He also said he’d prioritize Paint and Polish requests in the coming year. The Department Chair was not required to give up space; it was done after a request.

Q. Is there an MBS undergraduate plan at this time?
A. Provost Hecker stated he’d involve faculty.

Q. Is there a Blue Sky strategic plan review update?
A. The assessment was completed, five Pathway reports came in, there is a draft report that is with Marketing and Communications now. He’d like to have it by May, President Hunter will present it to the BOT at the May meeting, anticipate a draft to the steering committee after March break.

Q. Any NEASC updates?
A. The nine pathway chairs have submitted drafts, all compiled into a rough draft. It next goes to Kay Kimball at UMaine Machias. NEASC asked to include UMM as well as UMaine data since the campuses are now linked. In June a full draft will be sent to NEASC. Currently on track to meet target date of November 1, and campus visits are scheduled for March/April 2019.

Q. Any thoughts on the four motions to be presented.
A. Not sure about the Resolution and if it’s the actual document that will go to the BOT.

VI. Old Business
None.

VII. New Business
Teaching Evaluations
Motions from Academic Affairs and General Education
March 7, 2018

“No evaluative judgment of a faculty member’s teaching, either formative or summative, should be based on Student Evaluations of Teaching alone. Evaluation should be based on multiple measures”.

Introduction

Drawing on published, peer reviewed literature, data from UMaine teaching evaluations, and committee discussions a set of recommendations were proposed by the Gender and Teaching Evaluations Committee. The conclusions of the committee’s findings were shared with the sub-committees of Faculty Senate for General Education and Academic Affairs.

Academic Affairs and General Education recommend that as units revise their promotion and tenure guidelines that they consider including the recommendations presented by the Gender and Teaching Evaluations Committee. Specifically, we recommend that the evaluation of teaching should draw on multiple measures and not be based solely on Student Evaluations of Teaching (SET). Departments/units are strongly encouraged to review these recommendations and to develop explicit guidelines for evaluating teaching. Our committee feels it is up to the individual academic units to determine the number or amount of these measures of teaching.

Departments/units should develop criteria standardizing how SETS are administered.

a. How SETs are introduced may influence student ratings. A script describing why SETs are important, how they are used, and the need to sign comments for the faculty’s record could address this issue.

b. Additional considerations are the presence of the instructor during SETs and timing of SETs relative to exams and the end of the semester.

2. When interpreting SETs, consideration of both central tendency and variability is recommended.

a. While mean scores must be included when interpreting SET scores, in cases of small class size or response rate, the median, which is less influenced by extreme scores should also be included.

b. Variability in responses (distribution across response options) should be considered in addition to central tendency. For example, a rating of 4.5 with many 1’s and 2’s tells a decidedly different story that the same average with all 4’s and 5’s.

3. Interpretation of SETs should be based on a clear standard.

a. SETs should be interpreted relative to a clearly articulated and publicly available departmental standard.

b. Departments/units should determine when SET values signal concern (e.g., specific absolute SET value; number of SET scores below value; pattern of SETs).

c. Caution should be exercised when comparing item SETs for a particular instructor within a specific course or across courses. Small differences should not be given significant weight. Is the change (or difference) in SET values statistically unlikely or practically important?

4. SETs should be considered in full view of relevant contextual information regarding the course. For example:

a. Class size

b. Course difficulty

c. Required or elective course

d. Instructors experience with the course

e. Demographics of the course (e.g. students primarily of one gender/race/ethnicity and faculty member of a different race/gender/ethnicity).

f. Extenuating life circumstances of the instructor.

5. Signed student comments directly relevant to teaching may be considered.

a. Departments/units, Chairs, and peer committees may only have access to signed student comments on SETs for evaluating faculty (per AFUM contract).

b. Comments relevant to teaching should be emphasized over comments not relevant to teaching (e.g. appearance, warmth, personality). Evaluators should be vigilant for evidence that irrelevant comments disproportionately appear as a function of gender, ethnicity, nationality, or any other demographic consideration.

6. No evaluative judgment of a faculty member’s teaching, either formative or summative should be based on SETs alone. While this is always important, it will become increasing important as the university considers moving toward electronic SETs. It is imperative that teaching evaluations include other evaluative measures. It is up to the Departments/Units to decide how often additional measures beyond the SET are utilized. For example, departments and units may consider to include 3 peer evaluations prior to promotion and tenure, 1 review of course materials, but expect to see SETs and Self Evaluation of teaching annually. The above is just an example and the amount of peer observations, review of course materials and Self Evaluations should be determined by the unit.

a. Evaluations should be based on multiple measures beyond the SET including, but not limited to the following:

i. Peer Evaluation: periodic evaluations by a teaching and/or subject expert.

ii. Assessment of Course Materials: course syllabi, graded student work, online resources, etc.

iii. Self-Evaluation: self-appraisal of teaching performance.

7. Evaluation of teaching should be considered with a developmental context, particularly for pre-tenure faculty. Is their evidence of improvement in SETs and other measures of teaching? Is there a relationship between SET data and teaching innovation? Is there a relationship between teaching evaluation data and a professional development plan?

Motion:

The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine would like to support the findings of the Gender and Teaching Evaluations Committee and move to endorse the recommendations described above in order to more equitably evaluate faculty teaching and further recommend that these guidelines be included when revising Promotion and Tenure Collegial Review Documents.

Vote: Approved

Observation of Religious Holidays and Events and the Academic Calendar
By Academic Affairs
March 7, 2018

Introduction
The sub-committees of Faculty Senate (Academic Affairs and General Education) have reviewed the recommendation from Judaic Studies Advisory Board and agree with and value the proposal from Judaic Studies and agree that the following language should be included as an addendum to the system wide calendar and that dates should be highlighted to recognize religious holidays or events. While we support the proposal, the main concern revolves around already bloated syllabi that require a wide range of university policy. The overwhelming recommendation of the committee is that a web link is established by the university administration that include up to date information regarding university academic policy. This link should be presented when covering the syllabus and faculty should walk students through the link. This link would include the recent motion and language from Judaic Affairs Committee.

Language for Syllabi
The University of Maine recognizes that when students are observing significant religious
holidays, some may be unable to attend classes or labs, study, take tests, or
work on other assignments. If they provide adequate notice (at least one week and
longer if at all possible), these students are allowed to make up course requirements as
long as this effort does not create an unreasonable burden upon the instructor,
department or University. At the discretion of the instructor, such coursework could be
due before or after the examination or assignment. No adverse or prejudicial effects
shall result to a student’s grade for the examination, study, or course requirement on the
day of religious observance. The student shall not be marked absent from the class
due to observing a significant religious holiday. In the case of an internship or clinical,
students should refer to the applicable policy in place by the employer or site.

Motions:

The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine, move to include the above statement in syllabi that includes the observation of religious holidays without academic penalty. Furthermore, we move that all required syllabi language be placed on a web page created by UMaine administration and to which syllabi can be linked.

https://umaine.edu/citl/teaching-resources-2/required-syllabus-information/

Vote: Approved, 1 no

2. The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine, move to include a University of Maine addendum to the University of Maine System calendar that highlights recognized religious holidays and events as well as other important dates specific to the University of Maine.

Vote: Approved, 1 abstention

Motion to begin the process of amending the University of Maine Faculty Senate Bylaws Article IV: Standing Committees

Introduction:

The Ad Hoc IT committee has been in existence since about: 2008. The bylaws state: Section 3. Ad hoc committees. The Senate may create ad hoc committees to address specific short term issues as deemed appropriate and expedient at the time. Such ad hoc committees will report to the Senate at appropriate intervals and in writing at the conclusion of their charge. Such ad hoc committees will disband at the conclusion of their charge.

Since 2015 the following IT initiatives have been drafted:

Proposal and implementation of consistent IT in classrooms, student platforms and clear classroom instructions- HDMI chords and projectors in all classrooms (less than 5 years old).
Survey of faculty about LMS, and email systems- behind the final resting place of FirstClass.
Proposal for a method which allows for tracking technology in classrooms (if something is not working right- it can be reported) that can be viewed by faculty using the rooms.
Proposal to make IT leave a note when they come fix something in classrooms; and to offer the idea that IT fix faculty office computers in faculty offices.
Proposal and implementation of wireless printing.

To continue the committees efforts, the IT AdHoc committee request to be transitioned into a standing committee of Faculty Senate.

The Proposed standing committee of information technology shall 1) Monitor and assess proposals and ongoing Information Technology systems, with respect to the impact on faculty scholarship (defined as: teaching, research and service). 2) Represent the Faculty Senate to committees of the University of Maine administration and to University of Maine System committees pertaining to Information Technology. 3) Periodically survey the faculty at the close of each academic year to identify pressing IT issues to work on the following academic year.

The IT committee will work with appropriate organizations to provide awareness to all faculty about:

Present and future technology platforms available for scholarship.
Technology changes, and updates that will impact scholarship.
Changes to, or potential issues with Learning Management Systems, classroom technology and logistics.
Changes to or potential impact of changes to media services, classroom technology support and lab support.

The IT committee will also provide critical interface between faculty and committees of the administration with respect to IT, specifically but not limited to:

Learning Management Systems (LMS), On-line and distance learning applications; video conferencing and recording.
Information and communication platforms (e.g., Gmail, Google Drive, Box, Mainestreet, myCampus Portal) utilized by faculty in their assigned duties.
Determine potential impacts on teaching workload and student evaluations of changes to IT, and classroom technology, per the AFUM contract.
Provide insights to faculty about campus wireless network and bandwidth capacity.
Provide insights to faculty about hardware and software selections that impact faculty.
IT-related issues such as security, privacy, intellectual property, and IT-related policies relevant to faculty’s duties.

Motion:

The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine recommends that the Constitution and Bylaws Committee formally submit the following addition to the Faculty Senate Bylaws Article IV: Standing Committees.

Proposed changes to Article IV follow:

ARTICLE IV. STANDING COMMITTEES

Section 13: Information Technology Committee

Function: The Information Technology Committee will review and make recommendations to the Senate in regard to academic Information Technology matters impacting faculty. Specifically, but not limited to: the planning, use and availability of technologies in support of classroom and distance education, monitor and assess proposals and ongoing Information Technology systems with respect to the impact on faculty scholarship (defined as teaching, research, and service).

Membership: The members of the IT Committee are at least one Faculty Senator from each college and cooperative extension, and one Undergraduate and Graduate Student, the head of Campus IT and Chair of the ITSC (or future campus wide Technology Committee).

Vote: Approved, 2 abstentions

For the University of Maine Faculty Senate: A resolution from the Executive Committee
Faculty Senate meeting, March 7, 2018

Full Document available at: https://umaine.edu/facultysenate/wp-content/uploads/sites/218/2018/03/Resolution-re-Institutional-Authority-on-Political-Matters.pdf

Resolution:
The University of Maine Faculty Senate rejects as unnecessary and unreasonable the UMS Board of Trustees “Proposed New Board Policy [214] – Institutional Authority on Political Matters”[1], which places new restrictions on free speech and academic freedom. We accept no exceptions to university employees’ free speech and academic freedom.

Background:
Following a January 12, 2018, meeting between members of the University of Maine Faculty Senate Executive Committee and UM System Counsel James Thelen, an earlier draft of the above-referenced policy No. 214, Institutional Authority on Political Matters, was modified by Mr. Thelen and a copy of the revised document was distributed to faculty. Mr. Thelen explained at the January 12 meeting that the purpose of the new policy was to restrict politically sensitive communications or comments by the UM System chancellor and campus presidents, and that it was not intended to restrict the free speech or academic freedom of faculty, staff or students at any University of Maine System campus.

Specific concerns that have prompted this Faculty Senate Resolution follow:

Issue No. 1:
The reason(s) for a new free speech policy are not explained. That is, it is not made clear why the current policy, UM System Policy Section 212: Policy Manual – Free Speech, Academic Freedom, and Civility (Effective 11/21/67; last revised 1/23/74 and 3/27/17), is inadequate or insufficient.

Issue No. 2:
Policy 212, about which Policy 214 is to “be read, interpreted, and administered in conjunction with”, appears to be internally inconsistent. That is, the first two sentences of Policy 212, para #1, under FREE SPEECH, read: The Board of Trustees is committed to protecting the rights all University community members share to free speech, which includes free expression and assembly, as enshrined in the U.S. and Maine State Constitutions. There shall be no restriction at any System institutions on these fundamental rights [emphases added], although the University may prohibit speech that violates the law, defames specific individuals, genuinely threatens or harasses others, or violates privacy or confidentiality requirements or interests.

But the next sentence does indeed seem to “restrict … these fundamental rights”. It reads: The University may also reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner of the exercise of these rights to preserve order for the System’s universities to function as institutions of higher learning. (We do not know if this sentence was added when the policy was last revised in 2017.)

Issue No. 3:
It is apparently intended that the new Policy 214 restricts only the free speech of campus presidents and the chancellor, and that faculty, staff and students are to be excluded from the restrictions. But this is inconsistent with Policy 212, which clearly states:

The Board of Trustees of the University of Maine System affirms its commitment to the rights of free speech, free inquiry, and academic freedom. and is committed to protecting the rights all University community members [emphasis added] share to free speech…

Issue No. 4:
The revised UM Policy 214 document has an internal inconsistency that makes it incommiscible with its purported intended meaning, and in fact, the document can be interpreted as stating the opposite.

The new Policy 214 states:
“… so as to respect all UMS community members’ constitutionally protected free speech rights and faculty academic freedom. The Board recognizes its faculty as subject matter experts in their areas of teaching and research and encourages them to responsibly disseminate their research [results] and knowledge.” (from p. 1, 3^rd paragraph, lines 2-15).

The next sentence reads:
“Except [emphasis added] as provided in the sections below titled “Official Legislative Advocacy” and “Authority to Make Institutional Statements,” this policy does not restrict [emphasis added] any UMS faculty, staff or student from speaking on political matters, including testifying before or speaking with legislators or policy makers, about the subjects of their teaching or research expertise or personal experience, provided they not represent that they speak for their campus or the System unless authorized to do so.”

The word “Except” is key here. The exception to the policy – e.g., as provided in the section “Authority to Make Institutional Statements,” (but which has been changed to “Chancellor and Presidential Authority to Make Institutional Statements,”) – states the following:

“This section applies only to the UMS Chancellor and System University Presidents, who:”

This is immediately followed by three bulleted phrases, which indicate whether an issue falls under a Green Light, Yellow Light or Red Light characterization, that prescribes whether, and how, statements are allowed.

Thus, this latest revision of the new Policy 214 seems to contradict itself, which effectively places faculty, staff and students under the same restrictions as placed on the chancellor and campus presidents.

We would expect that this error may already have been caught and corrected, which nonetheless leaves us with the following issue:

Issue No. 5:
Even if the new Policy 214 were re-written to accomplish its intention of applying only to presidents and the chancellor, it is itself unreasonable and should be rejected. Two examples: Mention of “climate change” (a Yellow Light item) by a president or the chancellor must first be adjudicated regarding its “reasonableness” by “A standing rapid response advisory committee of six members…”. This itself is unreasonable. Second example: The brief statement issued by the UM president re: the “Muslim travel ban” was weak and neither supported, nor even mentioned, the University of Maine’s vibrant Muslim community. We question whether this response was adjudicated to be broadly applicable to all UM campuses, and drafted in anticipation of the new policy or to comply with the newest revision of Policy 212.

Moreover, we presume that campus presidents and the chancellor are included under all University community members and therefore must also be exempt, leaving Policy 214 meaningless.

Summary:
The two sequential sentences in Policy 212 that state: “There shall be no restriction … on these fundamental rights”, but that: “The University may also regulate the time, place and manner [emphasis added] of the exercise of these rights” are self-contradictory, or at least inconsistent, and complicate the issue of free speech and academic freedom, potentially making unintended consequences more likely.

Furthermore, the new Policy 214 has apparently made a leap from wording in Policy 212, “regulate [regulating] the time, place and manner of the exercise of these rights”, to restricting the “issue” itself. Policy 214 prescribes a process to determine whether free speech will be allowed (Green Light), restricted (Red Light) or adjudicated (Yellow Light), which itself imposes a restriction on free speech.

That the newest version of Policy 214 available for review confuses which body – faculty, staff and students, or, the chancellor and campus presidents – is affected, is testament to the conclusion we draw, that any new Policy will only serve to contradict the already confusing UM System Policy 212.

We conclude that the new Policy 214 is unnecessary, and that Policy 212 needs to be amended to correct or eliminate the internal inconsistency we identify here.

Discussion:
Q. Who is pushing this policy?
A. The Governor

Q. Has this been brought to candidates?
A. No
Discussion: This Resolution gives Patti something to take to the BOT meeting. The BOT vote will most likely take place the weekend after spring break; it’s still being revised. This policy prevents the University President from speaking. It was asked to make an amendment to the resolution, “We accept no exception to university employees free speech and academic freedoms.”

Amendment Vote: Approved

Vote: Approved, 1 opposed

Adjourned

Respectfully submitted,

Grant Miles

Prepared by Kim Junkins

[1] / Revised draft in pdf format with track changes visible. Date of draft: on or about January 19, 2018.