November 17, 2021

FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
November 17, 2021

Present: Henri Akono, Elizabeth Armstrong, David Barrett, Amy Booth, Debbie Bouchard, Tim Bowden, Alice Bruce, Mauricio da Cunha, Paula Drewniany, Phil Dunn, Nuri Emanetoglu, Allison Gardner, Michael Grillo, Emily Haigh, Heather Hamlin, Andre Khalil, Anil Raj Kizha, Amanda Klemmer, Sara Lello, Sarah Lindahl, Natalie Machamer, Ivan Manev, Dmitri Markovitch, Derek Michaud, William Nichols, Harlan Onsrud, Robert Rice, Elizabeth Rooks-Ellis, Deborah Saber, Michael Scott, Mary “MJ” Sedlock, Kathryn Slott, Rosemary Smith, Sean Smith, David Townsend, Todd Zoroya, President Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Robert Dana, John Volin Provost, VP Research Kody Varahramyan, Joanne Yestramski, Chris Lindstrom, Emily Haddad, Jamie Moreira (Machais), Jen Bonnet (PEAC)

Absent: David Batuski, Donald Beith, Susan Bennett-Armistead, Catharine Biddle, Carla Billitteri, Kristina Cammen, Ana Chatenever, Mark Haggerty, Sam Hanes, Eric Landis, Margo Lukens (sabbatical), Sid Mitchell, Renae Moran, Elizabeth Payne, Deborah Rogers, Amber Roth, Mohsen Shahinpoor, Matthew Wallhead, Tim Waring, Peter Van Walsum, Ken Ralph, Peter Altmann (CEAC), Karina Iskandaro (Grad Rep), Jacob Chaplin (Undergrad Rep)

I’d 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

William “Dee” Nichols announced that the PCRRC needs a chair. Sid Mitchell has a class conflict with Faculty Senate meetings so is stepping down. Contact Heather Hamlin if you, or you know someone, that would interested in chairing the committee. Dee also stated Faculty Senate may want to investigate forming an Ad Hoc Committee to look at the NECHE report. With everyone being so busy they may not have had an opportunity to look at it closely.

II. Approval of Minutes
October 20, 2021
Tabled

III. Announcements and Updates from the Administration
Provost Volin said President Ferrini-Mundy was in Portland giving a presentation with the UMaine Foundation. He commented on hiring and how the goal is to be contacting people this week. He’s hoping things move quickly, or quicker than in the past. The Research Learning Experience (RLE) RFP were due last Friday. Thirty proposals came in for next fall, half from current RLE courses and half were new. There will be a system-wide workshop January 13 in the morning and January 14 in the afternoon. The second day will be for people interested in creating RLE’s in the UMaine System. There are three RLE’s from UMaine Machias this round, they had one last time. There has been positive press lately for UMaine regarding the highest enrollment.

IV. Questions of the Administration
Q. It was mentioned that the RLE deadline concluded last week but you just mentioned there is a workshop in January for those interested in creating RLEs for next fall.
A. That was for other campuses in the system but if UMaine people would like to come to the workshops they can.

Comment: Mike Scott said some faculty think they missed the deadline; it would have been good to have workshops so UMaine faculty could have a better understanding. Provost Volin said, “that’s why we’re going to open it up…”
A. Dr. Dana said four students showed up as not compliant and it is now down to two, campus started with 3,900. There are 60 part-time faculty who are not completely compliant and approximately 25 full-time faculty or staff that have not registered. It appears many students had been vaccinated but hadn’t registered. January 4th is the deadline. There have been flu clinics on campus but there are other places in the area that may be easier to get into. The booster clinic today had a long line. There are many places to get those in the area if campus doesn’t schedule more.

Comments: If people get a booster shot, do they need to register it? No. Regarding students registering for spring classes and they see a hold on their account, what is that? Dean Haddad said it is not happening to current students but those that were not registered for fall and/or returning to campus in the spring. As soon as they register for in person classes they’re flagged until compliance is documented with the vaccination policy.

A lot of students are going to the asymptomatic testing for colds etc., most do not have covid but they are being responsible by getting tested. A majority of those are negative.

It was stated that anyone symptomatic can be tested at Eastabrooke. It’s a PCR test so the results are generally back the same day. Students have been encouraged to get tested prior to leaving for Thanksgiving break.

V. New Business
University of Main Faculty Senate
Motion to Change Bylaws by Addition of Article VII, Section 13
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee November 1, 2021

Preamble
On May 5, 2021, the Faculty Senate approved a motion to establish a standing Committee on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. This is the first time that the UMaine Faculty Senate has had a DEI Committee, though many other public universities have had committees for this purpose since the 1970s. Our administration needs the perspective of faculty in examining policy, and status quo practices that affect protected classes of people specifically, as well as the diversity of the campus generally. Faculty elected to the Senate want to know they can make progress toward justice through this work. For these reasons, the ad hoc Committee on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion proposed a motion to make the DEI Committee a standing committee within the Faculty Senate. The motion was approved unanimously. [Text Wrapping Break][Text Wrapping Break]Within DEI committee meetings in the Fall 2021 semester, the proposed language establishing the function and membership of the committee was revised to be more congruent with the format of other committee descriptions, and to reflect a broader, long-term vision for the committee’s work[Text Wrapping Break][Text Wrapping Break]To finalize the establishment of the standing committee, this motion amends the Bylaws to add the function and membership details of the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee.

Motion:
To finalize the establishment of a standing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee, the Faculty Senate moves that the following descriptions of committee function and membership be added to the Faculty Senate Bylaws as Article VII, Section 13.

ARTICLE VII: STANDING COMMITTEES

Section 13. DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION COMMITTEE

Function. The Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee sustains and supports the University’s commitment to equity, inclusion, and justice for people of protected classes or marginalized groups. It collaboratively reviews, researches, and makes recommendations to the Senate regarding issues, policies, and practices having impact on equity, inclusion, and justice on campus. Motions to the Administration focus on advocacy for representation of people of protected groups, identification and elimination of policies and practices that contribute to structural racism or other kinds of inequity, and creating a more diverse, inclusive campus and workplace. Non-faculty members of the University community, such as the Associate Provost for Academic Excellence and Faculty Development, the Vice President for Student Life and Inclusive Excellence, or other provost-level diversity/equity officer shall be consulted on committee business whenever possible and where relevant.

Membership. Members of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee shall be drawn from all colleges, and UMaine Cooperative Extension. One member shall be from the part-time faculty, and one member shall be from either the graduate or undergraduate student body. The Chair shall be appointed by

the Senate President.

Vote: Approved

Dee, to Provost Volin, commented that most motions this year have been Faculty Senate governing documents. He asked if the friendly amendment to the Constitution has gone from President Ferrini-Mundy to the Chancellor? Provost Volin said they just received those documents so they’re with the president. Dee also mentioned there have been several motions relating to the Faculty Senate Bylaws and whether those need to move to President Ferrini-Mundy or also go to the Chancellor. Provost Volin said those go only to the president. There was one motion from Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion regarding meetings being scheduled on holidays that hasn’t come back. Dee said just a reminder that there is a thirty-day turnaround for motions to come back from President Ferrini-Mundy. Provost Volin said they follow the thirty-days, but he’ll check on them.

It is important that as issues are brought to committees and concerns come up, bring them to Faculty Senate. It was mentioned that motions passed in Faculty Senate are published on the Faculty Senate website. It’s a way to communicate with campus. The business of senate is reflected in motions published. By not publishing motions it gives the appearance Facutly Senate is not being productive. Motions are a flow of faculty governance between senate and the administration. It is an opportunity for the administration to respond to those; either supporting or clarification why it is not supported.

Continued and Tabled Business – Motion to Ratify Faculty Governance Council
University of Maine System
SHARED GOVERNANCE POLICY

Shared Governance Philosophy

This policy, agreed to by The Faculty Governance bodies of the Universities System Universities administration, outlines the principles of shared governance at The University of Maine System and is entered into freely by a system faculty and the UMS administration committed to a common vision of the mission of the University Maine System. As intended by this policy, the tenets of shared governance or collaborative decision-making are felt most strongly with regard to academic policies. The tenets of system shared governance extend beyond oversight of academic policies to participative roles in the selection of administrators and faculty members, peer evaluation, and programmatic decisions.

In an era of significant educational change and fiscal challenges, the success of the University and the positive morale of the faculty and administration are 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.

Consultation with faculty members by UMS administration can take many forms and involve many different faculty members, depending on the issue at hand. The administration may choose to weigh the counsel of various faculty members or faculty groups differently, depending on the circumstances.

However, the primary body with which the UMS administration must be expected routinely to consult, is the shared Faculty Governance Council.

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 individual Faculty governances, and any other the appropriate overarching shared governance body for the issue in question.

General acceptance means that (1) the Faculty 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), (or designee) of each Faculty governance body; 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 decision is necessary in the best interests of the University Maine System. In this circumstance, the President or designee is expected to explain the position taken.

Motion to Ratify Final Draft of FGC Charge 06-28-2021 – All Campus Feedback Considered 10-6-2021: University of Maine (Tabled)
Revised 11-16-2021

Rationale:
The University of Maine System (UMS) Faculty Governance Council (FGC) was created by the assembly of the Faculty Senate/Assembly Presidents/Chairs by Chancellor Malloy in late January 2020. This was a watershed moment in the governance history of the System and was a rare convening of all of the System’s Faculty Senate/Assembly leaders to provide council for the system.

The Council was formed to address System-wide faculty governance issues and provide guidance on matters of new multi-university program proposals or initiatives that relate to the support of System-wide academic programming and unification.

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:

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,
b. an FGC Representative provided by election or by faculty governance body appointment and serving a term of three years,
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 determined by vote 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 non-voting ex-officio members:

An AFUM Executive Board member
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 conduits to share information with, and from, local faculty governance bodies with the UMS system administration.
Multi-university program governance.
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 VCAA’s 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. 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.

In accordance with 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.

Discuss and provide recommendations to the VCAA Office on issues relating to multi-university collaborations.

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:

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

2. 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)

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

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

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

Continued Functions of the University Council

Consider the broad issues of productive system-wide shared academic governance.
As part of the UMS Administrative Practice Letters (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, 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.
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. 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 to 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 to the Faculty might rethink Council’s ability to meet its intended purpose.

Discussion: Dee received and included feedback from four senators to be included in the Faculty Governance Council (FGC) document. The amended version is being discussed today. A preamble was suggested and included in the document. The composition of the FGC was agreed on when Ivan was elected. Dee said the primary purpose is recommendation but there are times when the FGC could have a vote. For instance, a multi-campus proposal for a campus to know they are included. Later there is a place, after campus PCRRC, before it goes to the Chief Academic Officers it then goes back to the FGC. There may be a point where a vote was taken and a record of that vote.

Q. It was mentioned that the rational is understood but UMaine has a PCRRC so where does UMaine fall into?
A. Dee said it is under 5A Participating University Evaluation, it is in the APL Flowchart not this document.

Comments: Should this have been vetted by the UMaine PCRRC? It could be stated that voting would occur under Step 7, that then assumes Steps 1-6 have been done.

Is there a way to make sure voting for one thing cannot lead to votes for other issues? There is nothing in the charge that gives the FGC the ability to with the BOT to write APL’s. Dee said he organized the charge by priority from one to four. Everything is the same except the order.

Q. David Townsend said he is not sure this can be voted on because the edits don’t make sense, at least to him. It was decided to communicate to the President’s not the UMaine System administration. The motion comes after philosophy, isn’t philosophy part of what is being voted on? He thought it should be tabled for another month and make sure it is done right.
A. Dee said he included changes discussed at the last meeting. The reorganization was for flow, nothing was changed. The motion was drafted by the Executive Committee based on suggestion there be a two-year review cycle which is included.

Comments: All motions should go back to the Elected Faculty Senate and this document has not. There is no way to develop policy with the Chancellor’s Office. At a meeting with the Vice Chancellor he was surprised there was a vote mechanism for FGC because he thought it was for communication and less governance issue. How do we have oversight? It was stated that we don’t have oversight, we have feedback. There’s input on new degree programs not oversight. FGC should also not have oversight over degree programs. Do I understand that we don’t want a FGC? It was stated, not this one. Michael Grillo said he’s willing to consider this but not in a “non-participatory role.”

Vote: Tabled

Yes 13
No 10
Abstain 5

VI. Committee Reports
BOT – Mike Scott
The BOT met last Monday. There were four students that spoke against fossil fuel divestment during the citizen comment section. Three USM faculty spoke about concerns with the search committee for a new President. Trustee Martin, Chair of a Divestment Committee announced divestment has gone from 6.5 down to 2% of the portfolio. There is a search for presidents of USM and UMaine Augusta. Vice President Aceto discussed enrollment at UMaine, so far, down 0.5% across the UMaine System, undergraduate 2.6% and graduate students up 10%. UMaine has obtained about 14.6% of the population potential university students in the state. The entire UMaine System has approximately 31 % and Community Colleges 23%.

The BOT highlighted faculty activity. This meeting highlighted two UMaine Farmington first year program they are working on. President Ferrini-Mundy discussed the activity of promoting research across the system. She is also looking at how to get faculty to combined teach and research. There is an initiative by the BOT to develop a Systemwide Strategic Plan. An RFP has been developed and they will be looking for a consultant. There are eight proposals now. Once there is a plan they will put it out to campuses for input and will run parallel with the unified accreditation.

The Vice Chancellor for Fianance discussed the forecast. Last May shortfalls were projected, 1.5 million for UMaine but that is now, due to union negotiations, it is at $5.56 million or $7 million shortfall. The $7 million shortfall is being met with reserves at UMaine. Other campuses have shortfalls and are being met by the Federal Relief Funds.

Awards of Tenure were grant to an Associate Professor of English, who is also the Honor’s Dean, and the NSFA Dean. USM has been authorized to spend up to $23 million for a parking garage.

There was acknowledgment and support for partnership with a private group to turn Holmes and Coburn Halls into a boutique hotel along with a new building between Holmes and Alumni Hall. There will be a $30,000 lease payment on the land with 5% increase every 5 years. There is a $1.5 million tax credit stipulation, if that doesn’t come about UMaine will be responsible for $400,000 per year. The current Holmes and Coburn Hall costs to maintain are $100,000. Another building is at USM for Arts. Allocated is $2.3 million with funds being raised. The total cost of the building is $65 million. The last expenditure was for campus IT to replace the old equipment in administrative buildings.

Q. It was asked how much the lease is costing $30K versus the cost for tax.
A. For the use of the land UMaine will get $30,000 annual fee from the partnership. If the tax credit doesn’t come through there will be $400,000. If this venture isn’t profitable UMaine will be responsible for what isn’t profit.

Comment: If they are profitable the university will receive some of that profit.

Q. Is there oversight for this?
It is possible Facilities Management could come in to do a presentation like they did for the Town of Orono.
Q. It would be nice to get a system level fiancial report expecially on shared services. Would that come to Mike or a motion from
A. Mike thought FIPC needs to request a motion.

Academic Affairs – Michael Grillo
The committee met on the 27th. The committee is still working on helping student select majors to help with retention. This also links with Gen Ed. MIchael also thanked to Deb Allen for all the material she has provided.
Also looking at MaineStreet support services and enrolloment data used for planning.
Cluster Hires, support and interested in. How will it affect departments, maybe look at data to help.
RLEs, how they work with majors, is it support for majors, and building within departments and majors.
The common catalog is moving along quickly and will have a direct effect. The committee is hoping to get a report on UMaine Machis and how their catalog relates to UMaine’s.

Q. There have been emails coming through regarding MaineStreet and advising concerns. Academic Affairs could work on this maybe?
A. Technical support, how are they helping with daily work like planning and advising.

Comments: The unified catalog has been reported that faculty have no concerns. If anyone does have a concern let Michael Grillo know so faculty voices are heard. Michael said it would be nice to have more information regarding the unified catalog. Mike Scott said Jeff St. John reported that they sent 6700 emails to faculty, staff and administration and received 36 comments back. He also said they’d be meeting with a web developer after Thanksgiving to begin the process of the Unified Catalog.

Gen Ed – Subcommittee of Academic Affairs – Sam Hanes
The General Education Sub-committee met and are working on modifying the Gen Ed assessment. There will be a motion regarding guidelines to continue modifying in the future. The Ad Hoc committee for Gen Ed is purpose to desing ways to improve Gen Ed. There waas a survey with 200 responses and public forums will be upcoming. One early on December 9th and December 13th.

Q. An issue came up during advising, if a Gen Ed is approved is it retroactive if someone already took it?
A. Courses would need to be compared to see if they are the same.

Comment: Is there any move to get rid of some Gen Ed, restricting new ones, etc. If departments put through courses as Gen Ed. Is that bypassing the spirit of Gen Ed, getting students to take Gen Ed outside of their major.

Constitution & Bylaws – Amanda Klemmer & Kathryn Slott
No report.

Research & Scholarship – Sean Smith
The committee met at the end of October with the Vice President of Research (VPR) on November 3. The focus was on IT and delays in purchaseing. Also delays in temporary hiring. Delays of the Office of Research Administration (ORA) Kody mentioned an increase of proposals to the office without capacity to cause delays. Kody said there is a Need for more staffing but there is a national shortage in people to hire. Right now there is a shortage in the office because some of them are on leave. He said they’re doing the best they can to hire.

Comments: FIPC had that discussion regarding Research, Sponsorship, ORA, etc.

The committee is trying to compile a list of issues and see what has been addressed and what needs to be done.

The University Research Council meeting the issue of ad power outages came up and the affect equipment. The next meeting will be December 7 with the VPR.

Q. Is there a way for better communication between IT and faculty?
A. We hope to have clarity on in the future but don’t have specifics currently.

One mechanism will be the Faculty IT Committee to discuss or talk to Robin Sherman.

Finance & Institutional Planning – Mauricio da Cunha & Mike Scott
The last meeting was with the administration, the committee still has not provided data to the Provost. Results of the survey will be sent, along with the Provost response to the concerns that came up during the survey. FIPC sent the raw data to the Provost.

University Environment – Amanda Klemmer & Harlan Onsrud
Partner accommodation subcommittee is meeting on Monday.

Harlan said the Environment Committee has approximately 25 people on the committee.

There are presentations linked on the Faculty Senate Committee webpage. There are two presentations linked to the webpage. There is a white paper called Achieving the UMiane Committtment to Zero Carbon Emmissions by 2040 and will remain under review and revision until there are actions forth coming. Once they’ve been reviewed by the committee they will Come to faculty senate. Should questions be included, revised, etc.

The idea is once questions are reviewed make sure they are taken to Facilities mgmt, Campus Energy Committee, faculty, students, etc. The Hope is if asking people to read the white paper then answer questions that if will help inform people. There will be a Doodle Poll for upcoming meetings. They will also be doing a descrpiton of the committee for inclusion in the Bylaws.

Q. What’s the intent of spousal accommodations, there used to be a plan in the past. The Provost mentioned spousal accomodations there were a lot of spousal accomodations.
A. Amanda said the purpose is to assess the number of partners in different untis across campus. Also assess partner accommodations programs at other University’s.

Comment: Make sure new and existing faculty understand the process and how to participate.

Q. Does the link on the website also link to Paul Myowski’s survey?
A. Harlan and Amanda said they didn’t think his survey has lauched.

Service and Outreach – Debbie Saber
There was a meeting in October. They send emails to each college dean to request a list of Service and outreach programs sponsored by colleges. Some emails did come back. Dean Humphry said in 2019 the Provost requested large report that wanted a compreshensive service and outreach program from all areas. There is No comprehensive place for faculty service or outreach into the community. Other universities do list service and outreach in different units but there is also a website for campus wide. It’s important for rpeople to see what the university is doing.

Comments: Dan Demerrit would like to join the committee.

Dave and Amanda went to the UMaine Machias Assembly and they were excited about what Debbie is doing. They may mirror something on that campus.
Q. Have you talked to the Chancellors office to see if there is an initiative there?
A. Debbie said no but assumed if Chancellors office had something Dean’s would have it.

Provost Volic said part of this has come up on the key performance indicators. So as those are worked on a big part is outreach.

Committee on Committees – Heather Hamlin
No report.

Program Creation & Reorganization Review –
No report.

Library Committee – Deborah Rogers & Robert Rice
No report.

Faculty Information Technology Committee – Todd Zoroya
No report.

Elected Members Committee – Ad Hoc System Shared Governance – Ivan Manev
The Executive Committee met with the Chancellor and President Ferrini-Mundy and the subject of shared governance at the System level and the FGC. Talk at every meeting thse issues have been voiced. There were good discussion and clarity. The FGC meeting was moved to December. Dee said he is handing the charge over to Ivan Manev and members of the council.

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion – M.J. Sedlock
The committee met a week ago to discuss goals for the year. There is a document in Google Drive if anyone is interested. Smaller, short-term, issues to pursue are possible preferred pronouns on MaineStreet and look at how to change email name. Larger, long-term, goals is for a DEI training on campus. How things can be incentivized, like health and wellness, for DEI training. The committee will meet again on December 8.

Dr. Dana said the President’s Committee on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion has met and have 45 recommendations they are responding to. On the 23rd they will have a signed responsibility for the recommendations, one about training. He will forward who the person, or unit, is after the 23rd.

Q. To Dr. Dana, the former recommendation to form an office of DEI with an upper-level administrator. USM has had that for some time. What is the status?
A. It is on the recommendations and has been discussed with the System HR, Loretta Shields. She will be back to continue the discussion and there is money put aside for it.

Q. How would this position overlap with the Equal Opportunity (EO) office? A. There used to be an EO Diversity and Inclusion office. When the last person left the office became responsible for a lot of campuses. One solution is to revive the DEI piece in the EO office.

Comment: It seems this position being proposed is to coordinate the DEI activities on campus.

Dee asked the Provost and Emily Haddad to talk about the UMaine Machias report. Also, there were a couple surveys on campus environment, could senate get reports on those?

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

VII. Old Business
No report.

Adjourned 4:50 pm

Respectfully submitted,
Kathryn Slott

Prepared by Kim Junkins