November 15, 2017

FACULTY SENATE MINUTES

November 15, 2017

Present: Susan Bennett-Armistead, Erik Blomberg, Rick Borgman, Emmanuel Boss, Tony Brinkley, Alice Bruce, Dick Brucher, Mauricio da Cunha, Farahad Dastoor, Paula Drewniany, Phil Dunn, Thane Fremouw, Mark Haggerty, Torsten Hahmann, Nancy Hall, Sam Hanes, Valerie Herbert, Anil Raj Kizha, Robson Machado, Robert Meulenberg, Grant Miles, Patti Miles, William Nichols, Christopher Nightingale, Nigel Pitt, Paul Grosswiler for Laura Rickard, Deborah Saber, Michael Scott, Howard Segal, Kathryn Slott, Andrew Thomas, David Townsend, Phil Trostel, Seth Tyler, Stephanie Welcomer, Mark Wells, Gail Werrbach, Clayton Wheeler, President Susan Hunter, Provost Jeff Hecker, VP Research Kody Varahramyan, Jen Bonnet (PEAC), Bentley Simpson (Undergrad Rep)

Absent: Dean Astumian, Jason Bolton, Julie DellaMattera, Scott Dunning, Nuri Emanetoglu, Per Garder, Leonard Kass, Margaret Killinger, Peter Koons, Michael Montgomery, Renae Moran, John Singer, Mona Therrien, Xudong Zheng, Brian Preziosi (Grad Stud Gov),

The meeting was called to order at 3:20 pm

I. Welcome, Announcements and Comments
No announcements.

II. Approval of Minutes
October 18, 2017
Approved

III. Committee Reports
BOT – Patti Miles
No report.

Academic Affairs – William “Dee” Nichols
— Academic Affairs subcommittee – General Education – Farahad Dastoor
The committee met yesterday, there is a motion under New Business. Shannon McCoy presented at the last meeting regarding evaluation instruments. The information was informative and the committee would like her invited to a future Faculty Senate meeting.

Constitution & Bylaws – David Townsend
The committee met today to discuss adjusting vague language in the Faculty Senate Constitution.

Q. The Academic Affairs Committee would like clarification on how changes to the Faculty Handbook are handled.
A. The committee may look at the issue to see if it should be addressed in Constitution and Bylaws.

Research & Scholarship – Deborah Saber & Peter Koons
The committee discussed creating an agenda for upcoming meetings. The next meeting is November 20 and another meeting is scheduled for December.

Finance & Institutional Planning – Mauricio da Cunha
The committee met with Claire Strickland in November. The committee has an agenda and some points to discuss and clarify for the next meeting in December.

University Environment – Stephanie Welcomer
The committee will meet with Dr. Dana to discuss the recent power outage, procedures for any outages in the future, and changes needed.

Service & Outreach – Susan Bennett-Armistead
No report.

Committee on Committees – Rick Borgman
All requests from the Administration for committee volunteers have been filled.

Program Creation & Reorganization Review – Clayton Wheeler
The committee has a motion under New Business. Phase 3 review of the Maine Business School reorganization is complete.

Library Committee – Howard Segal
No report.

Ad Hoc IT – Patti Miles
There will be a proposal at future meeting to have Ad Hoc IT become the Faculty IT committee. The committee is working on a mission and function statement for the next Faculty Senate meeting.

Ad Hoc Shared Governance – Grant Miles
No report.

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

IV. Announcements and Updates from the Administration
Provost Hecker mentioned an upcoming information session for UMaine Gold, an online graduate degree program. The meeting will be November 16, 1:00 pm in Stoddard Hall.
Q. How will this fit with the initiative of the UMaine System online?
A. This is separate from Unified Online, this is a UMaine initiative.

Q. Online goes through the Division of Lifelong Learning, what about UMaine Gold?
A. UMaine Gold will go through each college since academic programs come from colleges.

V. Questions of the Administration
Q. Regarding Financial Aid and the new structuring of 15 cr. hr. per semester and prorated funds if under 15, what if a program curriculum doesn’t always have 15 credits per semester? Students end up looking for any one-credit course.
A. Provost Hecker said he’s aware of the issue and they’re assessing the initiative. The Financial Aid portion, if a student is awarded money for 15-cr hr and only takes 13-cr hr the money moves forward. Students have one year to use those funds. Financial aid is dictated at the Federal level.

Provost Hecker asked if faculty couldn’t look at curriculum and see where it may be adjusted to accommodate the initiative of 15-cr hrs.

Q. When Financial Aid is decreased for 1 cr hr is the money decreased more than 1 cr hr?
A. If 14-cr hr are taken, instead of 15, the decrease is not proportionate. There are levels; 15 cr hr, 14-11, etc.
So at 14 cr hr a student would lose more than 1 cr hr financially? Yes

Comment: Academic Affairs has invited Provost Hecker and Jeff St. John to meet regarding the 15 cr. hr initiative.

Q. What was the reaction on misogynistic signs outside campus on move in day and homecoming weekend?
A. It’s difficult because it wasn’t on campus or property owned by campus. Dr. Dana did meet with students involved, landlords, and parents. Two students were suspended, the other students were educated on the subject of sexual assault, and all responded well. Dr. Dana is confident those involved won’t do this again.

Provost Hecker said the Rising Tides also had a panel discussion on the topic.
Q. That’s great but has there been a public denouncement so the Maine community knows something was done?
A. Dr. Dana said yes, there were discussions with news organizations.

Comment: I understand the current budget in the House allows for graduate students tuition to be charged as income.
President Hunter said they’re monitoring it and have spoken to the Grad and Undergrad Government leaders. Letters are being writing from all over regarding this issue.
VI. Old Business
No report.

VII. New Business

PCRRC Recommendation Regarding the Proposal to Reorganize the Maine Business School November 15, 2017

Background:A pre-proposal to reorganize the Maine Business School was submitted by Provost Hecker to the PCRRC on September 11, 2017. After a two-week period for comments from UMaine faculty and staff, eight responses were received. Based on concerns of the PCRRC and respondents, the committee recommended moving the issue to formal review. A full proposal was submitted to the PCRRC on October 6, and Clayton Wheeler, PCRRC Chair, asked the Provost to clarify the relationships between the various faculty groups, the proposed undergraduate and graduate Deans and the Provost. A revised proposal was submitted, along with an organization diagram, on October 9. These documents were posted on the PCRRC website, and written comments were solicited from UMaine faculty members and administrators. One written comment was received. A public meeting was held on October 25 in which the Provost presented the proposal, and five MBS faculty members presented arguments opposing the proposal. The speakers were Richard Borgman, Nory Jones, Stephanie Welcomer, John Mahon, and Martha Broderick. Almost all the comments were opposed to the proposal.

Summary of potential positive impacts in the proposal and expressed by the Provost:

● Aligns with UMS “One University” concept by eliminating competition between UMaine and all UMS campuses for MBA students and involving collaboration between UMaine and

USM.
● Maintains positive relationships with external donors (Alfond Foundation).

● Broadens UMaine’s impact, presence, and accessibility across the state which is in fulf illment of our Land grant mission.

● Establishes infrastructure in Portland and Orono to facilitate synchronous delivery of curriculum in either direction.

● Increases number of faculty in MBS. Summary of concerns from written and oral responses submitted to the PCRRC:

● The proposal must be viewed in conjunction with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), a legal document between the Chancellor and the Alfond Foundation which defines the program and the role of the Foundation.

● Curricular decisions belong to faculty, and the proposal does not seem to be in line with this shared governance process. The memorandum of understanding suggests that faculty governance of curriculum is at risk.

● Hiring faculty, as well as tenure and promotion process must belong to the shared governance process that UMaine currently follows. This is unclear in current proposal.

● The two-dean structure that is currently being proposed separates undergraduate from graduate programs. Emphasis is placed on the Portland MBA, but negative effects on the Orono business undergraduate program are ignored. Faculty are integrally engaged in both graduate and undergraduate studies and feel this administrative structure would likely lead to competition for faculty and resources and degrade the rapidly growing undergraduate program. Furthermore, this structure could endanger AACSB accreditation.

PCRRC Recommendation Regarding the Proposal to Reorganize the Maine Business School November 15, 2017

● The two-dean structure is costly and inefficient. The business faculties of UMaine and USM are willing to work together to develop a joint MBA offering in Portland under one dean situated in Orono.

● UMaine’s MBA is already accessible to Portland students via online offerings and conti nues to show significant growth in enrollment.

● The proposed reorganization/expansion with a focus on full-time residential education is not supported by a market analysis of the future for such programs, which are declining nationwide.

● The increase in faculty resources is only directed toward graduate education. As pointed out by accreditation agencies the undergraduate program at UMaine has seen significant growth with student to faculty ratios which were recognized at the extreme high range of peer institutions. There are no resources proposed to mitigate this related issue and there is concern that this new program may compete with already needed and documented resources. AACSB accreditation is threatened due to faculty insufficiency.

● The proposed organizational structure develops a “class” of faculty members who only participate in graduate education and will be isolated from the undergraduate education mission. Similarly, a group of undergraduate-only faculty will be developed. This division will hurt retention and recruitment of quality faculty.

● The Business School faculty are concerned about the future of the MBA program in Orono. The MOU indicates that it will be closed. The Provost, in his presentation, states it will not be in jeopardy of being closed and indicates it can keep its current curriculum. PCRRC’s Analysis:

● The PCRRC does not object to the premise of the proposal which would establish UMaine as the leader, and sole provider, of business graduate education in the University of Maine System in collaboration with the USM business faculty.

● The proposal has been compromised by an inability to reconcile the details of the proposal with the Memorandum of Understanding between Chancellor Page and the Alfond Foundation. The MOU is a legal agreement between the system (Chancellor) and
the Alfond Foundation. It appears to be “binding on all parties.” It is the PCRRC’s analysis that UMaine cannot fully comply with the MOU, since it violates the Faculty Senate constitution which was approved by the Chancellor of the University of Maine

System pursuant to Board of Trustees’ Policies; furthermore, it is unclear what can and cannot, or will and will not, be followed in the MOU, which is of serious concern. For example, the proposed two-dean structure is directly out of the MOU.

● The Business School faculty believe that having two deans is inefficient, expensive and will lead to competition for scarce resources. Our analysis is that this proposed structure is not necessary, since the two business faculties from UMaine and USM came to an agreement to offer a combined UMaine MBA in Portland under one MBS dean (See “The Twelve Points,” which were presented on March 24, 2017).

● The PCRRC’s analysis is that this reorganization is a major restructuring, involving an additional dean and the division of the current Maine Business School into two parts. It proposes major curriculum changes, even if no details are currently known. The Business School faculty members have expressed concerns that the transfer of faculty

PCRRC Recommendation Regarding the Proposal to Reorganize the Maine Business School November 15, 2017to the Portland MBA will have ramifications for the MBS undergraduate program that are not explored in the proposal; the committee is uncertain as to the extent of these ramifications.

● The MOU includes the creation of a private entity (Maine Center Ventures), which will also share the initial $7.5 million proposed grant; the proposal is silent on the role of this entity. The PCRRC’s analysis of these concerns is that, in the spirit of shared governance, the faculty would need to see much more detail than the proposal contains with regard to budget and accounting of staff, faculty, and other resources before we could support the proposal.

● The proposal is silent on the issues of curriculum development, hiring, tenure and promotion. The MOU clearly infringes on the principles of shared governance in its treatment of these matters and violates our constitution. Consequently, the proposal should be adjusted to acknowledge the primacy of our established procedures in these matters.

● The PCRRC feels that the decision of the faculty senate is important because this is an issue that resonates beyond the Business School. This is clearly a decision about faculty governance and donor influence upon curricula and structure. In a time of decreased state allocations, the University faculty welcome university giving and value the Alfond Foundation contributions; however, fiscal contributions cannot come with donor control and must follow the due diligence of shared governance.

PCRRC Recommendation to the Faculty Senate: While greatly appreciating
the Alfond Foundation’s continued support of higher education in the state of Maine, the PCRRC recommends against the approval of the proposal.

Motion: The Faculty Senate rejects the proposal for the reorganization of the Maine Business School.

Statement by President Hunter and Provost Hecker:

President Hunter stated this issue is regarding an extension of the UMaine MBA program into Portland. She feels it’s a positive move for students, the state and it’s common to have a center in large population areas. The extension also allows for more student internships. Adding faculty promotes growth and will develop over time. She said this is a way for the MBA program to be a leader in the state. The Alfond Foundation is only interested in the degree being a UMaine degree. Higher Education is changing, need to explore ways to be seen as a positive change. The Maine Business School (MBS) program could attract students in both areas, Orono and Portland. Flexibility is needed with outside organizations willing to partner with UMaine.

Provost Hecker thanked the PCRRC with the process and the MBS faculty. Regarding some of the concerns: 1) Under summary of concerns – in the proposal written by the Provost it does not include many things in the MOU. It is an agreement with the UMaine System and the Alfond Foundation. It’s likely if points aren’t met the foundation could withhold money or ask for an explanation as to why. 2) Curriculum, he agrees the development of curriculum is up to faculty. 3) Regarding tenure and promotion – regular procedures of UMaine would be followed (not those mentioned in the MOU). 4) it is not his intention, nor has it been, about closing the MBS in Orono. Provost Hecker said he has no intention of that.
5) Having a two Dean structure, he’s stated that if it was his choice he would not do that but it is a condition of the MOU. In order to access funds the two dean system is a requirement. He and President Hunter think it can work. Both Deans will report directly to the Provost. The Alfond Foundation wants a presence in Portland.

Regarding full-time residential students not being realistic, Provost Hecker agrees. He said the business plan has issues but has been endorsed by the Board of Trustees (BOT). The MBS Advisory Board expressed concerns with the proposal to the Chancellor. A letter Provost Hecker received stated the plan is a reference “not a blueprint.”

The point of the undergraduate program being hurt due to funds directed to a graduate program, true that the MOU gives funds only to a graduate program but this won’t take dollars away from the undergrad program in Orono. The program is growing and additional faculty are being added.

A threat to accreditation – the accreditation agency has been contacted, MBS faculty were invited to present questions, offered conference call participation, and notes were included in the proposal. A two Dean proposal can still be accredited. If issues arise the agency always notifies and allows for adjustments to maintain that accreditation.

Discussion:

Q. The MBS thinks a Portland site is a good idea but can’t believe what is stated about the MOU. The biggest issue is a two dean structure.
A. Provost Hecker said it is a problem. The Chancellor and BOT wanted a dean to be in place by now but pushing back because of Shared Governance. Also, the way the MOU is worded regarding a deans ability to hire and fire goes against University policy, it can’t be done as stated.

Q. It seems that very few faculty have seen the MOU, that makes it hard for those that have never seen the document.
A. It’s a problem when the MOU hasn’t been seen and that’s where concerns come from.

Q. This is mostly about money, how long does the $7 million last?
A. When the money is gone the commitment is done. Also, the structure is concerning but need to try it to access funds, if it doesn’t work then go back.

Q. Wasn’t some of the matching fundraising supposed to already be done? A. There are seven benchmarks that must be met to release the money.
Comments: It seems the Alfond Foundation wants to buy a program. The foundation has given millions of dollars to other institutions with no strings, this MOU covers two faculty and one dean for two years, UMaine doesn’t have faculty that only teach graduate courses, they teach both and more faculty are needed, many senior classes have 90 students. The opinion is that this proposal will devastate the MBS undergraduate program.

Provost Hecker said there was mention of a meeting with faculty in March, in May there was a meeting that the 12-point plan was discussed and a consensus on 16 points that were developed in that meeting. There was discussion of another dean and that they will report to the Provost. “Devastating” to the undergraduate program, there is no plan to move resources.

Q. Why two deans?
A. A consultant was brought in and two deans was their recommendation. The consultant pointed out that those deans should report to the Provost, not the President or Chancellor.

Comment: It seems like once the MOU issues are straightened out that’s when a proposal should be brought forward. The proposal wouldn’t exist without the MOU, it also violates the Faculty Senate Constitution. How can we vote for something that violates it?
A. The Provost would like to do this in collaboration with faculty and MBS.
Comment: The Alfond Foundation said the MOU is non negotiable, isn’t it best to fix it and then vote?

Q. It appears Provost Hecker and President Hunter agree with the concerns so shouldn’t a vote be withheld until the MOU is clarified?
Comment: President Hunter stated she appreciated the discussion because it comes from the best place for UMaine. She said this is a complicated issue and complicated beyond this room.

Motion: A motion was made for a secret ballot. Vote: Approved
Vote: 26 Yes
10 No
1 Abstain

Motion to Align General Education Courses with Faculty
Senate Approved Criteria General Education Committee, November 2017
Introduction:

In April 2012, Faculty Senate adopted criteria broadly describing the essential components of the different General Education categories.

All General Education courses introduced since 2012 have been required to satisfy these attributes. To date, no mechanism to evaluate alignment of courses that existed before 2012 has been developed. This has led to a de facto grandfathering of some courses while courses created after 2012 have been required to meet new general Education criteria. In order to provide a valuable and consistent General Education experience to all UMaine students, all of our General Education courses should be encouraged to satisfy the Senate approved criteria.

In 2009, our accreditor, the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC), requested that the University emphasize, “implementing a comprehensive approach to the assessment of student learning.” Part of the University’s response was the 2012 refinement of the criteria and new course assessment outlined above for General Education courses. The General Education Course evaluation process described below builds on this by looking at the courses existing prior to 2012.

The General Education Committee of Faculty Senate and University of Maine Administration have together developed a program of General Education Course evaluation as outlined below. This program is intended as part of an ongoing conversation between Faculty, Faculty senate and UMaine Administration pertaining to student outcomes of learning in General Education courses.

Framework:
UMaine faculty will assess the General Education program over the course of four years using samples of student work taken from regularly offered general education courses.

Working groups recruited by the Faculty Senate General Education Assessment Subcommittee have developed 9 rubrics to assess UMaine’s General Education outcomes.* The proposed approach uses these rubrics in an annual scoring session to ensure a more consistent framework through which to view student achievement. Specifically, 1) faculty will collect work as part of their normal class that reflects the general education area being measured (student work might reflect the entire category (if a final paper or exam) or a subset); 2) This work will be uploaded into an online database for scoring; 3) Annually, faculty volunteers with familiarity of particular general education areas will score student work as part of an integrated scoring session/professional development event; 4) Scores will be summarized by the Office of Assessment and reported to Individual Faculty, the Faculty Senate and the Office of the Provost.

Assessment Timeline:
• 9 outcomes assessed in 4 years (schedule repeats in Spring of 2022)
Spring 2018: Western cultural traditions
Fall 2018: Social contexts and institutions
Spring 2019: Artistic and creative expression
Spring 2019: Ethics
Fall 2019: Population and the environment
Spring 2020: Quantitative Literacy
Fall 2020: Writing
Spring 2021: Cultural diversity and international perspectives Fall 2021: Science

Assessment Method (completed by the Assessment Office)

Course sections from a stratified random sample from the Registrar’slist of course sections that include the targeted general education area will be identified. To qualify, courses must have at least 10 students enrolled and satisfy the requirements for the specified general education area. The final selection of courses will include:10 course sections from lower division courses
10 course sections from upper division courses (as possible,
some General Education areas do not have large numbers of course sections offered at the 300-400 level)
From each course, 10 students will be randomly selectedDepartment/Unit/Faculty participation:
Participation in the assessment of the General Education Program is strongly encouraged byFaculty Senate of all Units where General Education courses are taught should their course berandomly selected.
Faculty are welcome to volunteer their courses for evaluation by this process.
Units submit de-identified papers (or other assignments) that are aligned to the specifiedgeneral education area.
Individual faculty will not be asked to participate in more than one learning outcomeassessment per academic year.Data collection:
• Student assignments will be submitted using a simple web interface.
• Instructions for student assignment de-identification and upload will be simple and provided (by the Assessment Office) to all participating Units.

Scoring:

Faculty volunteers familiar with the particular general educationarea will be provided targeted workshops/webinars to examine therubrics, assignment alignment, and data collection.
Faculty will be recruited to score student work as part of an annualprofessional development & scoring session held in May (3-hoursession per learning outcome).
Scoring instructions will be simple and provided (by the AssessmentOffice).Results and reporting:
Course/student level results will be reported back to individualfaculty members.
Aggregate results by General Education area will be reportedthrough the Faculty Senate and Office of Assessment.Ongoing Review:
It is intended that this process will be reviewed annually in order tofine tune or modify student work collection, refine the scoring rubric, faculty scoring ofstudent work, General Education course descriptions.
Faculty may also monitor campus trends and decide that certain General Education coursesare not meeting requirements of the area’s attributes or student learning goals. If such patterns exist, it will be the responsibility of Faculty Senate to develop a response to address them.

* The link to the faculty-developed rubrics is:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B69P9704XdkHRXRkc2g4NTMyUEE

Motion:
The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine, in the spirit of ensuring that General Education courses are in alignment with criteria approved by the Faculty Senate in 2012, move to adopt the mechanism described above in order to periodically review all UMaine General Education courses. After each General Education area review a report on the assessment outcomes will be submitted to the Faculty Senate Academic Affairs and General Education committee.

Vote: Passed (2 abstentions)

Adjourned 4:00 pm

Respectfully submitted, Grant Miles

Prepared by Kim Junkins