Faculty Senate

December 15, 2021

FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
December 15, 2021 

Present: Henri Akono, Elizabeth Armstrong, Catharine Biddle, Carla Billitteri, Amy Booth, Debbie Bouchard, Alice Bruce, Mauricio da Cunha, Paula Drewniany, Phil Dunn, Nuri Emanetoglu, Allison Gardner, Michael Grillo, Mark Haggerty, Emily Haigh, Heather Hamlin, Sam Hanes, Andre Khalil, Anil Raj Kizha, Amanda Klemmer, Sara Lello, Sarah Lindahl, Ivan Manev, Derek Michaud, William Nichols, Harlan Onsrud, Robert Rice, Deborah Rogers, Deborah Rooks-Ellis, Michael Scott, Mary “MJ” Sedlock, Kathryn Slott, Rosemary Smith, Sean Smith, David Townsend, Peter Van Walsum, Matthew Wallhead, Todd Zoroya, President Joan Ferrini-Mundy, John Volin Provost, VP Research Kody Varahramyan, Robert Dana, Joanne Yestramski, Jen Bonnet (PEAC) 

Absent: David Barrett, David Batuski, Donald Beith, Susan Bennett-Armistead, Tim Bowden, Stephanie Burnett, Kristina Cammen, Ana Chatenever, Margo Lukens (sabbatical), Natalie Machamer, Dmitri Markovitch, Renae Moran, Elizabeth Payne (sabbatical), Amber Roth, Deborah Saber, Mohsen Shahinpoor, Tim Waring, Peter Altmann (CEAC), Hannah Holbrook (Grad Rep), Jacob Chaplin (Undergrad Rep) 

I would like to open our meeting today, by acknowledging our presence on Marsh Island, which is the traditional homeland of the Penobscot Nation, where issues of water and territorial rights, and encroachment upon sacred sites, are ongoing. This Penobscot homeland is connected to the other Wabanaki Tribal Nations—the Passamaquoddy, Maliseet, and Micmac—through kinship, alliances, and diplomacy, and the University of Maine recognizes that the Penobscot Nation and the other Wabanaki Tribal Nations are distinct, sovereign, legal and political entities with their own powers of self-governance and self-determination. As we conduct our business this afternoon, I invite us all to consider how we live and work on this land, and to attend carefully to the roles we play as elected faculty senators in shaping future relationships with the land and among people. 

 

I.  Welcome, Announcements and Comments
None.  

II.  Approval of Minutes
Kathryn asked about a question at the end of the October meeting regarding a statement that retention data showed students that took RLE’s were two times higher to remain in school than those that did not. How is it possible to know this result if this was the first semester for RLE’s? 

Provost Volin stated that as of that date they could compare similar students and withdrawals. It was just for the fall and “correlated within the RLE’s.” It could be coincidence, but dropout numbers were lower. 

Q.  How many withdrew during that time?
A.  He said he did not have the numbers here but would get back with them.

October 20, 2021
Approved  

November 17, 2021 

Approved 

Provost Volin said, regarding the November minutes, all motions to President Ferrini-Mundy had been returned to Faculty Senate.  

 

III.  Announcements and Updates from the Administration  

President Ferrini-Mundy said, being close to the end of the semester, she wanted to thank all faculty for working through difficult circumstances with relatively good health records on campus. She also said that in the next couple of weeks there may be news on the pandemic. The current focus was working on budgets for FY22 and FY23. Things are a little behind schedule with FY23 budgets. 

 

Provost Volin said they had been thinking about having two half-day workshops for RLE’s but based on feedback, there will be only one half-day on January 14, 2022. There are about 50 RLE’s for fall currently, not including other campuses. He also commented that Sam Hanes and Brian Olsen are doing a great job on the Gen Eds. There have been forums and there are videos on the Provost’s website that are very well done. Enrollment numbers for spring 22: first-year student numbers are up 35% with transfers up 41%. For next fall first-year students are up 6% and up almost 14% for transfers. 

  

1. IV.  Questions of the Administration 

1. Members of the English department were disappointed with response rates for Online Student Evaluations, even when students were given time in class to do them. Is there any data on response rates?
2. Provost Volin said they are looking at that but the UMaine numbers are high. Paper evaluation response rates were around 75% and current online response rates are 53% up from 50% last year; the numbers are above the national rate. Jessica Miller is currently looking at other data. Provost Volin stated that numbers are good compared to other universities. William “Dee” Nichols said this topic came up in the Executive Committee meeting and they will continue the discussion about online evaluations and how to improve response rates.

 

1. (To the Provost) Faculty Senate has had conversations about cluster hires with committees getting feedback from you. Can you share that feedback here today?
2. Provost Volin said he shared with Financial and Institutional Planning Committee (FIPC) and the Executive Committee, that there was a university-wide RFP for cluster hire; 30 proposals were submitted. Shortly after an assessment of those proposals was done. The group gave recommendations and then some budget info came out for FY22 that influenced decisions on how to afford cluster hires. Also, as the proposals were due, deans were putting their priority in for faculty hiring. So, he met with deans to see, with their priority for hiring and the cluster hires, if they could work together to possibly move forward with some cluster hires. They met and came back with four proposals but said they liked five so decided to move ahead with five. The fifth is a combination of three proposals. The provost said he communicated with those accepted, and those not, but said he needs to send communication to the whole university community. Since four other proposals were similar, it was thought that they could work together, however, once budgets became clear he decided not to do that. 

 

1. This may come up in the FIPC report but Joanne (Yestramski), can you talk a little about budgets this year and next?
2. Joanne said, preliminary details were given to FIPC, there was a $7 million gap but that has grown to $9 million. They did not expect that when they presented to the BOT in June. The change is due to collective bargaining along with no tuition increase. Now that the gap is known, it will be solved using surplus funds from last year and some from the Cares Act, but that is a one-time solution.

 

1. Will there be cuts?
2. No, not to solve the budget, positions have been looked at but that is routine. She said FY23 will have carryover and next year’s collective bargaining added to that also. The estimated gap will be about $25 million. They have looked at different strategies to help offset that gap like enhancing revenue and a possible impact on tuition. The BOT will be notified in January and in February start with the Finance, Facilities, Technology (FFT) meetings to discuss solutions. There will be a Town Hall in early January.

Comments: FIPC could be at the table during the discussions on budgets. Also, we would like to invite Joanne to the March Faculty Senate elected members meeting. 

 

1. With the deficit and budgets, we keep hearing “rise of compensation” of faculty. Shouldn’t those be anticipated as salaries do go up? At the same time, we see high paid positions but those are not commented on. Can the BOT be surprised that people want to be paid?
2. Raising pay was raising the lowest wage earners because positions could not be filled. The increases started there and went up more than 3%. A lot was pandemic related also.

Comment: This language was pre-pandemic.  

 

1. Will there be any retirement incentives?
2. The UMaine System and leadership are talking about all options.

Comment: It was stated during the update at the FIPC meeting that there are long-term gaps from on- time monies every year. Part of this new budget is getting things built into the budgets to help in the future. Joanne said $25 million didn’t just appear, they hope to work on it over a couple of years. 

 

1. Someone commented that they wanted to support Michael Grillo’s comments about the budget being from compensations; can we use different language? Most places anticipate compensation increases. “Out of the structural deficit, is UMaine Machias contributing?”
2. They are contributing very little; they are so small that it does not impact the $25 million. They may contribute half a million.

 

President Ferrini-Mundy said she appreciates the conversations. The solutions being looked at all include revenue generation. Deeper discussions will take place in the next several months about what revenue generation will look like  and how to promote what is done here and choosing things that are most practical. It can be figured out by coming together around entrepreneurial innovative approaches. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

V.  New Business  

Motion to Change the Bylaws for Article VII Standing Committees; Section 12: Faculty Information Technology Committee
December 15, 2021    

Motion:
The Faculty Information Technology Committee requests that the Senate approve the following changes to the bylaws for Article VII: Standing Committees; Section 12: Faculty Information Technology Committee.  

  

Proposed bylaws:   

1. Function. The Faculty Information Technology Committee will review and make recommendations to the Senate in regard to Information Technology matters impacting faculty. The purview of the committee includes, but is not limited to, technology applied to teaching, research and service. There will be a standing agenda item of instructional technology topics. 

  

1. Membership. The Faculty Information Technology Committee shall consist, as much as possible, of at least one faculty senator from each college and Cooperative Extension. Additional ex-officio, non-voting members of the committee include the Director of the Center for Innovation in Teaching and Learning or designee, the UM/UMM campus IT officer, the Chair of the IT Strategic Council, the ETAC faculty representative, one graduate student representative, and one undergraduate student representative. 

  

Current bylaws: 

Section 13: INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE 

1. 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). 

1. 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). 

 

1. Wasn’t there an undergraduate student part to this before?
2. That was taken out because undergraduate students would not be doing any type of teaching.

Comment: The FIT committee deals with more than technology and instruction, can the undergraduate student be reconsidered and added back in? 

Mike Scott asked if he could add a friendly amendment to reinstate the undergraduate student? 

Dee said if the FIT committee would like to add it back, they can do that. 

 

Vote: Approved 

 

Motion to Ratify Final Draft of FGC Charge 06-28-2021 – All Campus Feedback Considered10-6- 2021: University of Maine (Tabled)Revised 11-16-2021 (Tabled)Revised 12-2- 2021 

Rationale
The University of Maine System (UMS) Faculty Governance Council (FGC) was established by Chancellor Malloy in January 2020 as an assembly of the Faculty Senate/Assembly Presidents/Chairs. The Council was formed to address unique system-level faculty governance issues and provide guidance on matters of new multi-university program proposals and initiatives that relate to the support of system-wide academic programming and unified accreditation. The Council will function in addition to already existing mechanisms for shared governance at the campus level and does not supplant them.  

Composition of the Faculty Governance Council
Membership of the Faculty Governance Council is composed of a delegation from each of the following campuses: UMA, UMF, UMFK, UMM, UM, UMPI, USM, and the UM School of Law. 

Each campus delegation will consist of one to four members to include:
1) The Chair/President of the campus faculty governance body, and the following optional members as determined by the individual campuses:
a) the Vice Chair/President of the campus faculty governance body; if a Vice Chair/President is unable or unwilling to serve, a campus may, if they so wish, substitute another representative by appointment of the campus faculty governance body, 

1. b) an FGC Representative provided by election or by faculty governance body appointment and serving a term of three years
2. c) a past Chair/President of the campus faculty governance body who a) previously served on the FGC, and b) continues to hold a faculty position at their respective campus; in the event that the past Chair/President is either unable or unwilling to serve, a campus may, if they so wish, fill a one-year term by election from the faculty at-large. 

On all matters, each campus delegation shall reflect their respective campus governance input as outlined in the Charge of the Faculty Governance Council. 

The Council will also include the following ex-officio members in advisory capacity:
1) An AFUM Executive Board member
2) A member of the UMS VCAA office 

Charge of the Faculty Governance Council
The Council shall concern itself with System-wide faculty governance and shall provide guidance on matters of new multi-university programs1 proposals or initiatives that relate to the support or creation of System-wide academic programming. In a facilitative, rather than directive, nature, the Council’s primary functions are to: 

Serve as conduit to share information with, and from, local faculty governance bodies with the UMS administration.  

Ensure multi-university program governance, as follows:
a. Ensure faculty involvement in the formulation of policies and standards concerning multi-university programming and initiatives prior to UMS or Board approval and implementation.
b. Review and constructively critique multi-campus proposals received from the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs (VCAA) Office, in accordance with APL X-P.1. The process for new or modified multi-university academic programs normally initiates with the participating programs from the collaborating universities. Individual university level processes will be followed for individual university approval. The quality of curricular components of multi-university programs has been, and will continue to be, reviewed by the university-level curriculum committees and the faculty senate/assembly of the home universities of the collaborating departments. Participating universities will then work together to complete a single collaborative multi-university proposal submission. The VCAA will notify the FGC of all multi-campus program intent-to-plan submissions. The FGC may, if warranted, offer suggestions regarding issues needing to be addressed in the final program proposal submission. To ensure institutional-level consistency in the review of the curricular suitability of new multi-university programs, the Faculty Governance Council will provide a final overall review of the collaborative program proposals. The Council will offer feedback on final program proposals received between Sept 1 and April 1 to the participating campuses within 30 days, and, if necessary, continue to work with proposal sponsors to clarify any questions. Upon completion of the proposal review, the Council will forward a recommendation of action to the VCAA.
c. Discuss and provide recommendations to the VCAA Office on issues relating to multi-university collaborations.
d. For review of on-going program quality, the Council, or a sub-committee, will act as the receiving body for assessment reports from multi-university programs. The Faculty Governance Council recognizes the need for a multi-university assessment committee in the future which will, when formed, assume the responsibility of reviewing the multi-university assessment reports.
e. In accordance with Administrative Practice Letters (APL) X-P.1, the VCAA will notify the Faculty Governance Council of single-university program proposals. The notification is for informational purposes only, no action is required of the Council.  

Multi-University Program Criteria and Characteristics
Multi-university programming is characterized by, but not limited to, the following: 

Pertains to new collaborative programs between and among universities. 

Is fully accessible to students at all collaborating universities. 

Multi-University Program Policies
Universities can also continue to partner via memorandums of understanding (MOUs) for collaborations involving less than a full program or credential. 

They would complement current MOUs, but could take precedence over revising those MOUs depending on agreement among current university partners (e.g. adding a new partner or significantly changing the curriculum may require moving through the multi-university program approval process; renewing the MOU without major changes may not) 

Students will matriculate at and be identified as having graduated from one university. 

Students must meet the residency requirement of their identified home institution. 

The multi-university credential may be considered a program offering by one or more universities collaborating.  

 

 

Continued Functions of the Faculty Governance Council 

Consider the broad issues of productive system-wide shared academic governance.  

As part of the UMS APL review workflow diagram, the FGC will receive timely communication from the VCAA regarding proposed new or revised academic policies with institutional impact. Council members will review materials, inform respective university faculty, and gather campus level feedback for consideration.  

In consultation with each other and their respective faculties, the FGC would contribute constructive critiques of the policy proposals brought by the VCAA. The System leadership will notify the Council in writing of all decisions subsequently reached regarding the proposed policy changes.  

The FGC would discuss issues of concern that individual council members may bring to the council which have been raised by the faculty on their respective campuses. The council will consult and bring issues of merit with system-wide impact to the UMS administration for response. The FGC would establish specialized subcommittees as warranted.  

Where the charge, purview, responsibilities, and lines of reporting of the Faculty Governance Council are still currently fluid and most likely will continue to evolve over the next few years, the University of Maine System Faculty Senate and Assemblies would like to commit to a two-year approval process. 

That approval of the Faculty Governance Council by the Faculty Senates and their equivalent bodies across the University of Maine System be for a limited to a two year review cycle and voted on during April of the second year, to determine continued participation. In the months leading up to the review cycle, each of the Faculty Senates and Assemblies need to review the Council’s effectiveness, to assess whether the Council in its current structure and functions has supported or undermined any of the university’s fulfilment of its mission. After that review, the Faculty Senates can then consider reapproving the Council’s continuation, with recommendations on how the Faculty might rethink Council’s ability to meet its intended purpose. 

Motion
Therefore, the President of the University of Maine’s Faculty Senate presents the motion to ratify the composition and charge for the University of Maine System’s Faculty Governance Council and that approval of the Faculty Governance Council by the Faculty Senates and Assemblies across the University of Maine System be reviewed on a two-year cycle for continued participation in the Faculty Governance Council. In April of year two, each of the Faculty Senates and Assemblies will review the Council’s effectiveness, to assess whether the Council in its structure and functions has supported or undermined any of the university’s fulfilment of its mission. After that review, the Faculty Senates can then consider reapproving continuation in the Faculty Governance Council, with recommendations on how the Faculty might rethink Council’s ability to meet its intended purpose. 

Appendix for Further Discussion: Shared Governance at the University of Maine System Level
In an era of significant educational change and fiscal challenges, the success of the University is dependent upon continued use of the collective intelligence of the university communities across the system in planning and decision-making. Shared governance involves mutual participation in the development of policy decisions by both faculty and administration, and requires shared confidence between faculty members and administrators. This requires extensive sharing of information and a common understanding that faculty representatives and administrators will strive for informed mutual support through shared governance dialogue. 

Within shared governance, a decision on a change in any policies, procedures, or protocols under the jurisdiction of this document should normally be reached only after there is general acceptance of the policy proposal in either its original or modified form by both the UMS and Universities administrator(s), the Faculty governance bodies of the individual campuses that are involved, and any other appropriate overarching shared governance body for the issue in question.  

General acceptance means that (1) the Faculty governance bodies and any other appropriate shared governance body have been properly consulted; (2) they have communicated support for the initiative to the UMS Chancellor or designee(s); and (3) the tenets of the initiative have been distributed broadly. In this process, there is an expectation that both the UMS and campus administrator(s) and faculty will take each other’s positions into serious consideration in a spirit of mutual respect. The UMS Chancellor or designee(s), however, can make and announce a final decision without “general acceptance” provided he or she believes that every reasonable effort has been made to reach a common position through consultation and responsiveness, and that such a decision is necessary in the best interests of the University of Maine System. In this circumstance, the President or designee is expected to explain the position taken. 

Comments: A letter from NECHE was received last week but dated May, not sure why the delay. In the letter the NECHE team discussed issues and the concerns of faculty that FGC could be used to bypass shared governance. There was a benchmark example from Georgia State University, where they have an advisory committee to resolve shared governance issues. Also, it was asked if this should be the FGC or an advisory council. 

Ivan said he recommends approval. 

1. I see there is length of term for members but not for the chair. Is that because the Faculty Senate Chair has a two-year term?
2. Dee said it depends on each campus. The Faculty Senate President or Assembly Chairs are members by default, then there are the Vice President and one elected member, currently Ivan.
   Comment:  The part about governance or advisory council was from senate feedback shared with the NECHE team. Also, this senate is voting on something different from what other campuses voted on. Dee was not sure where this would go or if it was the end of the discussion. The FGC liked the two-year addition, but the vote will be discussed.

Thanks to Ivan for listening to senate and doing due diligence on the motion. 

Vote: Yes 21 

Yes Online 15 

No 0 

Abstain 1 

 

1. With discussion about the Maine College of Engineering and Computer Science as a UMaine entity, is this something that would come before the unique system level faculty governance group?
2. Dee said he believed so. It would go to the FGC and Faculty Senate.
3. Is there a timeframe when Maine Engineering Computer and Information Science (MECIS) will be more defined?
4. Dean Humphrey is the lead of MESIS with three co-leads. They have been working with a vision for the college, proposals, and governance plans. President Ferrini-Mundy said they need to meet with Dean Humphrey at the beginning of the semester to see where the timeline is with all the input that has come in. This new proposed structure will also need to go to the BOT.

 

Mike Scott stated that during BOT meetings there is a citizen comment section where a lot of students have participated. Other campuses have raised an issue that comments are dialed in, not in the Zoom session. This Faculty Senate wanted to lend support to other campuses, so Dee wrote a letter of support asking that citizen comments be allowed during the Zoom session. They heard back from Chair Gardner that he supported this and that all future virtual meetings will include citizen comments in the Zoom session.  

 

Dee said he originally wanted Faculty Senate to endorse the letter from Presque Isle but since BOT Chair Gardner already commented there does not seem to be a need to take it up now. He did, however, want senate to be aware that Executive Committee had supported the original letter from the UMaine Presque Isle representative. 

 

VI. Committee Reports
BOT – Mike Scott
There will be an Academic and Student Affairs Committee meeting on January 3, 2022, and on January 5 there is a Finance, Facilities, Technology meeting. At that meeting UMaine may be presenting the plan for the structural deficit. Joanne Yestramski said the treasurer will give an overview of the whole UMaine System, not UMaine.  

Academic Affairs – Michael Grillo
The committee met at the end of November and continued the discussion regarding student success. They asked Deb Allen for one more data set to see when students transfer out or come into majors. The committee also received a clarification from Jessica Miller on how faculty can query back beyond limits of MaineStreet. She also sent a patch; the instructions will be added to the OSR website. The committee will also look at how the Registrar makes determinations on the data available to faculty. Development of the common catalogue will still be watched to see how it progresses and what faculty involvement will be. 

Comment: Advisees are asking about switching to a P/F option for classes. So, heads up that many second years may think they can do P/F until finals.  

Michael Grillo said that is clarified on the Student Records website.  

Q.  Regarding BrightSpace, is it posted how to download material and the date that it goes away?
A.  If a student gets an incomplete there is a link that allows access.

Q.  To the provost, would it be good to have legal explain the parameters and what other workarounds may be available to open BrightSpace in the future?
A.  Yes, and he said he will look into it again, but it is under Federal copyright law. He said there is not a lot of hope, but faculty can still connect.

Comment: The timing of when students cannot go back in is concerning. If they receive a grade on December 29th then they cannot get back in if they want to verify that grade. Provost Volin said correct, but that he has talked to Jessica Miller, and she will be looking into that. Students should be able to look at that. 

Comment: The UMaine Machias Taskforce report should be coming out sometime at the end of December, correct? Emily Haddad said they are behind but hope the report will go to President Ferrini-Mundy by the end of December. UMaine Machias is also waiting for the report.   

Gen Ed – Subcommittee of Academic Affairs – Sam Hanes 
There were a couple of public forums held. If you missed them the videos are available on the Provost’s website. Please check them out, as there is space for comments. 

The survey done earlier had 221 responses. The Ad Hoc committee will create a draft Gen Ed revision plan. Sam would like comments from this committee, and any senator can participate. He will work with Dee and Amanda Klemmer to work things out.   

Q.  There is structure and framework, which is exciting, but what is the process from here?
A.  They will gather survey information/comments and create a draft plan. They want to reach as many as possible for feedback. Dee said as they continue to explore, eventually the Ad Hoc report will go to the Gen Ed committee and then they will present a plan to the Executive Committee. 

Constitution & Bylaws – Amanda Klemmer & Kathryn Slott
Amanda reminded committees to get their Bylaws descriptions to senate. This committee will also get a description to senate when the Constitution comes back from the Chancellor. 

Research & Scholarship – Sean Smith   
The committee met at the end of November and met with the VPR also. There was a presentation by Christopher Boynton on operations regarding staffing challenges caused by staff losses. One was how the Office of Research Administration (ORA) provides services for the UMaine System and Alfond Fund which increases responsibility in the office. They will see how that relates to research. There was also a comment regarding increased productivity with online staffing, that may predict operations in the future. The second meeting was an overview of the Faculty/Staff database. There is an online database but there is a proposal to redo it. They are looking at two to three months review of software and rollout in 2023 summer.  

The pandemic survey has been turned into a series of reports. Asli Sezen-Barrie gave an overview of findings which included interesting aspects. A report will be presented to the VPR at the end of the week. An abstract was submitted for a conference and a journal publication is being drafted. 

For the committee’s next meeting, they would like to invite President Ferrini-Mundy to discuss shared services with the UMaine System that affect research. Also, the committee is discussing doing a survey on research capacity. 

Comment: There will be a research presentation for the senate at the February meeting. 

Q.  Are we sponsoring a campus wide meeting on research or just for senate?
A.  So far, it is just for the senate.

Finance & Institutional Planning – Mauricio da Cunha & Mike Scott
The committee met with the administration and discussed the financial state of the University as well as FIPC requesting more participation in the budget process. Other topics discussed were shared services and that the faculty survey done last April should be out by January via email from the provost. 

Also discussed were cluster hires and research planning with the VPR and planning with UMaine Machias. 

Comment: One thing that came out talking with the provost was to plan an annual survey. The committee will work with the provost on that.  

University Environment – Amanda Klemmer
There were two meetings last week: one for the zero-carbon initiative and one for the motion on the bylaws description. Since the committee has changed some, the descriptions will be edited. There was a lot of feedback on partner accommodations, and that feedback will be passed on to the Provost Advisory Council on Equity (PACE) Partner Accommodation Committee. Lastly, this can be directed to Joanne Yestramski and Meredith Whitefield, childcare on campus. Due to an outbreak of covid at one children’s center, three teachers and seven children under the age of two tested positive. This highlighted staffing concerns. The director shut down all five buildings, one reason being that student staff travel between those buildings. So, even though one building was involved, all were closed because people travel back and forth. Seventy families were affected by the closure. Many faculty are here not near family, so it impacts the entire campus. Amanda said other accommodations are not always available to the faculty. Also, when it is the last week of classes and you cannot get student material back then ask them for evaluations, it could affect those. Joanne Yestramski was asked about the report on the state of childcare from last year. Meredith said she is also a parent with a two-year-old under quarantine due to her childcare center being shut down due to covid. This is a huge problem, and we hear you and feel it personally. 

Joanne said there is a consultant on the committee to look at the childcare situation. There is a draft final report, but due to everyone’s being busy they have not come back together yet; that will happen at the beginning of the year. They are looking at a larger center. There was a 200-person waiting list this year. It is time and it will be worked on. 

Q.  This goes back four or five years; the system needs to be overhauled. It keeps coming up, so when will it be overhauled?
A.  Joanne said there needs to be a change from the way it is done now. She said things are moving along and the next steps are pretty far along.

Provost Volin said he understands being a father of five and this should be a priority. That is why there is a consultant group working hard on it. Unfortunately, being in a pandemic and having five buildings does not help. 

Q.  Mike Scott asked if capacity is being looked at?
A.  There is a discussion of capacity for two hundred to meet needs. There is a center in Waterville that a group went down to look at last week.

Comment: Mike Scott said if two hundred is capacity and there are seventy now, that means there will still be seventy short. Meredith said prior institutions she was involved with had faculty running laboratory programs that were innovative for early education opportunities. There needs to be interest from campus to want to offer that relationship with the childcare center but also said she is not aware of what conversations have gone on prior to her being here. 

Harlan Onsrud stated that the Zero Carbon subcommittee met and is addressing the potential end of life on planet earth and what the campus might contribute to help address the challenge. The global science community report says that one and a half to two degrees warming will take place within twenty years or less. If that happens, we will likely see a tipping point to accelerate global warming by four degrees by 2100. Even if half of the predictions are true, it could mean campus carbon taxes will be imposed in years instead of decades which makes carbon fuel offset prices very high. The subcommittee has drafted a white paper and campus survey. They told President Ferrini-Mundy that any motions would be deliberate and thoughtful. Distributing the draft documents will be done within the next several days, and several citations are included. After senate feedback, it will go to other UMaine committees, chairs, deans, undergraduate and graduate governments for feedback. After that it will be revised, and they will consult with the administration for other issues that need to be addressed. They will then send the survey to faculty, graduate and undergraduate students and then motions will be drafted. 

Service & Outreach – Debbie Saber
No report. 

Committee on Committees – Heather Hamlin
No report.  

Program Creation & Reorganization Review – David Townsend
There have been no requests for proposals from the Provost’s Office.  

Q.  Dave asked, where do the proposals come from?
A.  Dee said the preliminary ones, once they get approval, move forward, and a full proposal will come to the campus.

The provost said he had not seen any in a long time but yes, he assumed that is how they would go if there were any. 

Q.  Mike Scott said there were several Intents to Plan that have been approved, correct?
A.  Intents to Plan by single universities.

Comments: They go through all curriculum committees before they go to the Provost’s office. He lets units know informally and then they get the official approval. 

Q.  There is one from last year, Criminal Justice, any idea where that stands?
A.  The provost said he is not sure where that stands but will look into it.

Comment: When something from other universities comes in it is sent to the appropriate dean.  

Library Committee – Deborah Rogers & Robert Rice  

1. Arson investigation: The State Fire Marshall is apparently still investigating the source of the fire in Fogler at the end of last semester. Most of the damage to the collection was due to water damage and most of the holdings that were damaged are replicated elsewhere in the System
2. Databases: Our largest database, Science Direct, has been renewed for five years beginning in January 2022. The database consists of over 2200 journals and we were able to get a substantial discount due to skillful negotiation and flexibility on the part of the publisher Elsevier.  

Also renewed were databases Emerald (business) and Cambridge and Oxford (multiple disciplines). There are approximately 82 other databases that have been renewed or are being negotiated at this time.  

The Maine State library and the other UMS campuses are also renewing a number of databases, such as Business Premium and PsycINFO that are accessible by the UM campus.  

1. Trimming of little used databases continues and messages are sent monthly. We continue to find that some on campus are having a hard time finding particular databases and believe they have been cut from the collection when they have not been cut. Please check with the reference librarians if you cannot find something when searching. 

Faculty Information Technology Committee – Todd Zoroya
Robin Sherman gave the Faculty Laptop Incentive Program (FLIP) Committee to the committee for review. They gave feedback that will be coming out early in January. The website for research technology purchases is up and running but there is still a little work on policy that will be coming soon. 

Elected Members Committee – Ad Hoc System Shared Governance – Ivan Manev
No report.  

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion – M.J. Sedlock
The committee met on December 8th and will continue to talk after the first of the year about incentives for DEI training and to discuss activities with other committees doing the same or similar work. They also plan to talk with Todd Zoroya about the MaineStreet directory and emails. 

Q.  Is there any update on a DEI position budgeted for?
A.  Dr. Dana said no but it will be discussed next Tuesday. 

Reports of Faculty Members on Committees of the Administration – Heather Hamlin
No report. 

Dee said he invited Jeff St. John to come to the February meeting to talk about Unified Accreditation and the catalog. Dee may suggest an elected members presentation day to discuss reports done, childcare, etc. 

Q.  Is there still a University Teaching Council?
A.  Provost Volin said he would check into that. 

Comment: It was commented that it may have been done when Jeff St. John left Provost Volin’s office. 

VII. Old Business
None. 

Adjourned 4:45 pm  

Respectfully submitted,
Kathryn Slott  

Prepared by Kim Junkins