May 3, 2023

FACULTY SENATE

Minutes


May 3, 2023

 

Present:

SENATORS: Susan Bennett-Armistead, Carla Billitteri, Emmanuel Boss, Debbie Bouchard, Tim Bowden, Ian Bricknell, Alice Bruce, Ana Chatenever, Sabrina DeTurk, Paula Drewniany, Allison Gardner, Michael Grillo, Nancy Hall, Matt Hawkyard, Liliana Herakova, Jesse Kaye-Schiess, Andre Khalil, Amanda Klemmer, Eric Landis, Sara Lello, Sarah Lindahl, Ivan Manev, Eric Martin, William Nichols, Elizabeth Payne, Brain Pitman, Deborah Rogers, Amber Roth, Michael Scott, MJ Sedlock, Kathryn Slott, Rosemary Smith, Sean Smith, David Townsend, Tim Waring, Todd Zoroya

GUESTS: Dean Robert Dana, Dean Emily Haddad, President Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Memphis Peterson (UMSG), Anosha Raziq (GSG Rep)Vice President Kelly Sparks, Vice President Kody Varahramyan, Provost John Volin, 

Absent: 

SENATORS: Henri Akono, Elizabeth Armstrong, Catahrine Biddle, Stephanie Burnett, Kristina Cammen, Phil Dunn, Mark Haggerty, Cynthia Isenhour, Stephen Jurich, Steven Kimball, Anil Raj Kizha, Danielle Levesque, Margo Lukens, Dmitri Markovitch, Shannon McCoy, Derek Michaud, Renae Moran, Peter Van Walsum, Matthew Wallhead

 

I. Welcome, Announcements, Approval of Minutes

March 8, 2023 Minutes: APPROVED

 April 5, 2023 Minutes:

MJ Sedlock proposed an amendment to remove vote tallies from the election of Senate officers section of the April 5th minutes leaving just the outcomes of the vote, due to some confusion around disparity in vote numbers. The disparity stemmed from a technical difficulty with online voting during the March 8th meeting. Dee Nichols made a motion to amend the minutes as proposed.

APPROVED with vote tally amendment

 

II. Announcements and Updates from Administration

President Ferrini-Mundy opened announcements:

  • 17 projects, totaling $88.1 million have been proposed by US Senators King and Collins for inclusion in FY24 federal budget. Many of these projects come from work of faculty in responding to a call for ideas relative internal funding, external funding and earmarks. If approved, these projects will impact UMaine substantially– new facilities, new centers, new initiatives, etc.

Provost Volin:

  • Quickly thanked everyone for a great year
  • Encouraged faculty to attend commencements, emphasizing the impact that faculty attendance has for graduating students. 

 

III. UMSG Statement on Funding for CUGR Student Symposium

Memphis Peterson, UMSG senator, read a statement on current CUGR student symposium motion which was written by UMSG VP of Financial Affairs, Paige Allen.

  • CUGR Student Symposium is funded entirely by UMSG, GSG, and outside funders
  • This event should continue, but should have been central support, so that the student activity fee can be used for events, travel, and other things more authentic to its purpose.
  • Student governments have been asked to cover the venue, catering, facilities, marketing, and printing costs of the event in the past few years (among other costs). Student governments also cover monetary awards given to students.
  • Limited communication has occurred between CUGR and the student governments during the planning of the event even though they fund ⅔ of the costs.
  • CUGR symposium is a capstone/graduation requirement for many students and a condition of many fellowships. It is also a component of the R1 distinction received by the university.  All more reasons why the student activity fee is not the appropriate funding source.
  • UMSG and GSG have sent a co-authored letter to the President outlining their concerns. Letter has been acknowledged and President Ferrini-Mundy has said she is seeking more information from Vice President Varahramyan.

The full statement was distributed to Senators as part of the May 3 meeting materials.

Mike Scott: Has CUGR student symposium always been funded as described?

  • Vice President Varahramyan:
    • Disputed that Symposium is fully funded by student government/student fees
    •  History– Grad Expo started around 1997 as a collaboration between Graduate School and GSG. GSG covered operational costs and University covered costs of awards. In 2010– “CUGR Showcase” started under the umbrella of Honors College. Both continued to grow until they were combined in 2016. Funding has also evolved over that time.
    •  Funding from 2023 symposium:
      • Total cost: $36,846
      • UMSG provided: $9,836
      • GSG provided: $7,300
      • Remaining: $26,494 covered by CUGR and other internal and external sponsors
    • Students have been involved in the planning as students from many different groups are on the planning committee.

President Ferrini-Mundy: Has received Vice President Varahramyan analysis and will be making a recommendation quickly. MJ Sedlock asks that the response sent to the students also be shared with the Faculty Senate and reiterates appreciation for UMSG’s interest in engaging with the Faculty Senate this year.

Todd shared a final comment from online, reiterating that funding should come from the University if the symposium is a graduation requirement.

 

IV. Presentation of New SAS Platform – Sara Henry

Sara Henry, Director of Student Accessibility Services (SAS)

  • SAS is part of the Division of Student Life, with 4 full-time staff
  • The number of students with disabilities at UMaine has increased exponentially over the last 15 years
    • From 350 in 2009 to 1200 students this year
  • Biggest impact of the new SAS platform is for those who utilized test proctoring services
    • Fall 2022 – Over 1400 hours of test proctoring; 500 hours in final exams alone.
  • New disability/accommodation management system for UMS: Accommodate
    • Can access from single-sign-on through MaineStreet launch pad
    • Each faculty will have their own portal with all information/communications in one place

Sara showed a mock faculty portal and mock student portal in Accommodate and demonstrated their use.

  • Faculty are asked to acknowledge that they have seen accommodation letters through the portal.
  • Multiple functions and options for viewing information were demonstrated
  • Working on streamlining the process as much as possible and meeting the parameters of instructors as much as possible

Sara asked for folks to reach out if they have feedback or have interest in being beta testers over the summer. 

Dee Nichols: Will this be available in the fall?

  • Sara Henry: Yes, going live for soft launch on summer courses to be ready for official launch  in the fall. Open training will occur in fall, both in-person and on Zoom, for faculty and students.

Dee Nichols: Do faculty just have to go look on the MaineStreet launch pad, or will there be emails to remind faculty to check?

  • Sara Henry: Emails will be sent, but faculty can also jump straight in from the launch pad.

Lily Herakova (online): Wanted to clarify that statistics represent the number of students seeking accommodations, not necessarily the number of students who have disabilities. Also, wanting to know if Accommodate eliminates the need for students to provide accommodation letters directly to faculty. If so, will policies be changed?

  • Sara Henry: Confirms that yes, numbers are for students who have sought an accommodation for a disability. Students submit accommodation requests through Accommodate and then, once approved, the accommodation letter is sent through the platform to faculty automatically.

Lily Herakova (online): Current syllabus says that students who have an approved accommodation need to meet with faculty privately. Will this change?

  • Sara Henry: Has not considered a syllabus language change. It is always considered a best practice for students to meet with their instructors, but would probably need to meet with the Provost’s office to discuss possible changes in the context of this new platform. 

Emmanuel Boss: Described an example situation where a student had an accommodation allowing them to come late to class, and did come late each time by about 30 minutes. He tried to move them to another lab group and still came late.

  • Sara Henry: First asked if Emmanuel called SAS (Emmanuel responds No) If there is ever a time when the accommodation does not fit with the pedagogical approach, faculty should call SAS to discuss. SAS will talk with students and change accommodations as needed. 

Amber Roth (online): Is Accommodate connected to Brightspace for quizzes and tests offered entirely through that platform?

  • Sara Henry: Most students taking quizzes/tests through Brightspace are not coming to SAS, unless the test is proctored.
  • MJ Sedlock: Clarifies that using Brightspace features to give accommodations to individual students on non-proctored quizzes/tests is still appropriate. Sara Henry confirms.

Brian Pitman (online): Can instructors and students communicate through the Accommodate platform?

  • Sara Henry: Yes, there is capability for communication between students, faculty, and SAS.


V. Athletics Engagement with Campus Community – Jude Killy

Sue Myrden was listed on the agenda, but not able to attend.

Jude Killy, Athletics Director:

  • Faculty Liaison Program has been around for a while, but recently has been revamped.
  • Looking for faculty who want to liaise with specific teams to mentor, provide input, promote, and get to know students (and vice versa)– bridging the academic/athletic gap
  •  Athletes recently put on an event called “The Main Event” — Faculty Senator Jesse Kaye-Schiess was voted best campus support member by all 450 student-athletes
  • All student-athletes collectively carry 3.31 GPA
  • Currently in the recruitment phase for faculty liaisons and planning to incorporate those liaisons more fully into the department in the fall.

Jesse Kaye-Schiess: Emphasizes the value of the program; helps him bond with teams and many students who are his academic advisees

Dee Nichols: Are there going to be term-limits, and would faculty need to reapply after a certain time?

  • Jude Killy: Yes, current faculty liaisons and new folks will have a two-year term limit. 

Nancy Hall: offered a plug for women being faculty liaisons, and not just for women’s teams. 

Jude Killy: Athletics is trying to meet people where they’re at and find ways to engage. Student Athletes are here to get degrees first and foremost and so they would like them to be as integrated between their academics and athletics as possible.

MJ Sedlock: Jude has been at most of our Senate meetings since he joined the University. Senate can be an appropriate forum in the future to bring ideas about athletics/campus engagement forward.

 

VI. Motion to Approve the Campus Zero Carbon Vision

Tim Waring, Chair of Zero Carbon Subcommittee of Environment Committee: Introduced the motion, including written feedback to the draft motion that was provided along with the motion.

Dan Dixon, Director of Sustainability: Added comments on how the process of working with the committee brought the content of this motion from aspirational goals to things that are actually achievable.

Kelly Sparks, VP of Finance/CBO: Already using the document as a lens to talk about some infrastructure projects, even though not formally passed yet. This will be really important for the future of UMaine.

Motion: APPROVED

 

VII. Motion to Recommend the Adoption of Inclusivity and Compassion Language in Syllabi and/or Other Course Materials        

MJ Sedlock: No comment/discussion on draft motion at prior elected senate meeting, nor at executive committee, so current motion remains as-written. UMSG requested to provide a statement on the motion.

Memphis Peterson read a statement from UMSG urging support for the motion.

No further discussion.

Motion: APPROVED

Dee Nichols: If this is approved through administration as well, will this be something that appears on the Provost’s website with other syllabus language?

  • Provost John Volin: Yes.

 

VIII. Discussion: Draft Letter to General Counsel & BoT Regarding Policy 214

After lengthy discussion at previous meetings, DEI committee felt not going forward with a formal motion on BOT policy 214 was the correct course of action. Instead,  MJ Sedlock drafted a  letter to be sent to the BOT and UMS general counsel. Letter is framed as asking the general counsel to recommend review of the policy, based on UMS policies on how policies are brought to the BOT for review.

MJ shared the letter with the Faculty Governance Council. They are also in support of this policy being reviewed or rescinded, however there was no commitment to sending a similar letter from other campuses, primarily due to the semester ending and a lack of time remaining to take up the issue.

No further comments were offered. No vote is needed as this is a letter from MJ Sedlock (FS President), not a formal motion.

Dee Nichols: Shared that the executive committee feels this is a first step. If we receive no response back, putting more formal motioning behind it next year may be appropriate. 

MJ Sedlock: In a separate conversation with BOT Chair Riley, she indicated that following a letter like this, a timeline for review could be provided.  Timeline could be used for leverage in a future motion, if not met.

David Townsend: Reminds everyone that a motion was passed exactly 5 years ago urging action on this issue, but nothing has been done since.


IX. Updates from General Education Stewardship Committee

Sam Haynes, Chair of General Education Stewardship Committee:

  • Gen. Ed. Assessment– working under directive of a motion passed at this time last year to develop a new way of doing gen. ed. assessment. The new method will still use the same rubric and learning outcomes, but will be less reliant on volunteers, who were hard to recruit. The new method will be folded into departments’ regular 3-year assessment cycles. This will be piloted at the end of the next two semesters. There is also a possibility of using a Davis grant to provide a stipend to a couple of faculty as “General Education Fellows”.
  • Number of gen. ed. courses– Currently have over 900, which  is a lot for a university of our size. They have identified over 300 classes that students rarely take for gen. ed. purposes. It is rare for students to take upper level classes for gen ed purposes, unless they are degree requirements. Considering a motion to limit gen ed to 100-200 levels courses (with necessary exceptions). This will make gen ed easier to navigate and make assessment easier, as we won’t have to assess those rarely-used upper level classes
  • Experiential learning requirement– Planning to bring a motion to Faculty Senate in the fall. The committee will outline the sides of the debate on this and offer the full senate the opportunity to weigh in.
  • Pathways model– A new advising tool that groups gen. eds. around themes to help students explore majors, or accomplish gen. eds. through a lens that they are interested in.
  • Improving communication– Considering a gen. ed. website and other ways to make the gen. ed. curriculum clearer for students
  • An annual report will be provided to senators and there is turnover in the committee next year, so they are actively looking for new members, if there are faculty who are interested in getting involved with this work

Dee Nichols: Reiterates his feeling that there should be more representation from other colleges. CLAS has the majority as many gen. eds. come from there, but other college representation is needed too. He also shared his excitement for the work on the pathways model and the way that it could overlay what we already have to provide context and direction for students navigating gen. ed. choices. 

 

X. Updates Regarding Research Misconduct Policy

MJ Sedlock: Has had a lot of conversations with many constituents about the new policy– AFUM, faculty, admin, etc. The culmination of those conversations has been that we do not have enough time in this last meeting before the summer to try to solve this or give comprehensive feedback from the Senate on this. She proposes holding a special session of the Faculty Senate before the end of May devoted to coalescing feedback on the policy. She would create a draft feedback document prior to the meeting so that it could be talked through point by point and make sure all concerns are encapsulated. President Ferrini-Mundy committed to respond to feedback point by point. President Ferrini-Mundy also shared that, because of the perception that the current policy lacks appropriate detail to fully meet federal regulations, the new policy does need to go into effect sooner than waiting for the senate to review next year. There will be opportunities for  onboardings and training in the fall to get people up to speed, and the administration will accept feedback during those and consider another revision. 

President Ferrini-Mundy: This is typical of what is going on with R1 university. The current policy is silent on details, and much of the detail incorporated in the new policy is about protection for faculty and confidentiality. She is very open to questions and concerns. She wants this to be the healthiest research environment possible and have a policy that mirrors what is typical of other universities.

MJ Sedlock: Are there any objections to using a special session as a process for reviewing and responding to the new draft policy?

Matt Hawkyard: Does this require senate approval to move forward? Would a special session require a minimum number of faculty to have a quorum for approval, if necessary?

  • MJ Sedlock: In conversations with President Ferrini-Mundy, it’s clear that there is genuine interest in our feedback, but the primary responsibility is to meet federal regulations. As such, the short answer of the first question is no. Similarly, because there would be no official vote on approving the policy, the special session would not require a quorum.

Amanda Klemmer: Can feedback be brought from units, or is this strictly held within the Senate at this time?

  • MJ Sedlock: Feedback from units, brought forward through senators is welcome.

Mike Scott: If the policy is implemented this summer, how easy iis it to change it after implementation? Communication with research communities should be something the administration seeks. Trying to change something that has been implemented seems more difficult.

  • President Ferrini-Mundy: This process has really highlighted the needs for better education across campus on both research misconduct and research policies in general. Changes for clarity would not be difficult, but the general shape of it might be harder to overhaul after implementation.

Sabrina DeTurk: Does the Research and Scholarship Committee have a point of view on this?

  • MJ Sedlock: Sean Smith (RSC Chair) has a document that summarizes the RSC feedback and intends to add more detail to it going forward. There will be an effort to tie that feedback to specific lines of policy. MJ will try to take feedback from a lot of different sources and give one Senate letter of feedback as a concise summary of positions and concerns.
  • President Ferrini-Mundy: Suggests adding line numbers to allow for more easy tracking of feedback and responses
  • Sean Smith: RSC developed general responses when the policy was first provided to them and then has been reframed several times. The current feedback is split into categories:
    • How the policy was developed
    • Clarity on the problems/shortcomings of the current policy
    • How is the new policy framed, is guilt implied before due process, etc.

MJ Sedlock: Recurring theme has been to see the things quantified that the old policy was insufficient in. Will continue to follow up on that.

Dee Nichols: There is a past precedent for a May special session and he is in support.

Matt Hawkyard: One of things that was highlighted in the RSC review was confidentiality and protecting the privacy of those accused but not yet proven guilty, and the way that could affect their career. Matt encouraged attendance at the special session because of the impact that this could have on faculty careers, even if they have done nothing wrong.

Emmanuel Boss: Highlighted the difficulty and frustration of having things like this policy implemented on faculty without being asked for input (with ample time to respond). It seems like this is about protecting the university’s liability, not protecting and enabling faculty to do their work. He hears stories of other universities empowering their faculty and he hears more of the “no you can’t” mentality from this campus.

President Ferrini-Mundy: Bringing the policy to the Senate and RSC, and slowing down the process to allow time for response, is intended to allow that opportunity for input and participation by faculty. This is a constant conversation topic in many spaces where the President is discussing this with other universities and their presidents as well.

Sean Smith: It would be helpful to have clarity on what constitutes “egregious” misconduct and therefore falls under this policy.

President Ferrini-Mundy: Agrees that could be better clarified.

MJ Sedlock: Tentative time for special session would be in two weeks — May 17 at 3pm via Zoom. Will be confirmed via email after checking in with RSC members and ensuring that some other important information can be gathered.


XI. New Motions Not Previously Discussed (may or may not vote)

RSC: Motion on IT Purchases for Research

Sean Smith: There have been many grievances related to shared services and faculty being separated from the decision-making about the types of hardware/software that can be purchased for research policies. The motion asks for a faculty oversight panel to be created to address this.

Amanda Klemmer: Shared an example about a need for a cheap laptop for use in ponds and other wet environments. IT could only get down to an $800 option, so ended up spending own money to get the $300 version that met need but wasn’t as big a loss if damaged by wet conditions.

President Ferrini-Mundy: Expressed support for the motion and shared she was working on issues like this through her own channels as well.

MJ Sedlock: Since IT is a shared service, does this need faculty from the system, or just from campus?

  • Sean Smith: Since this is where the majority of research happens, so therefore the intention is to have an oversight panel of UM faculty that is focused on this issue.

Mike Scott: Reiterated the concerns about the expansion of shared services and how that relates to the distribution of shared costs. How do we evaluate the effectiveness of these services? We should have a major voice as we are a major payer for this.

Dee Nichols: Motion to approve.

Motion: APPROVED

 

FIPC: Motion to Involve a Member of the University of Maine Faculty Senate in the Budgetary Development Process

Henri Akono: Asking for a more formal opportunity for a faculty rep to be integrated into the budget process, primarily for communication purposes.

Mike Scott: Kelly Sparks has been a great partner in this process, and this motion is just a request to formalize the good communication channels that she has started

Dee Nichols: This has been an ongoing issue for the senate and he believes a motion has been made about this before.

Mike Scott: Noted that he went looking for a former motion on the topic and that a lot of motions appear to be missing from the website.

Mike Scott: Moves to postpone motion to the fall.

Kelly Sparks: Very open to process improvement generally and will be happy to discuss more with FIPC to refine motion.

Motion deferred to fall.

 

XII. Questions of the Administration

All Faculty Senators are invited to address a question to any member of the Administration during this time. Respectful questions on any topic of campus business are welcome.

 

Equitable Access Course Materials Program

  • MJ Sedlock: Supplemental information was provided by Kelly Sparks with the meeting materials. One question that came up before the meeting: Does the flat fee course materials allow for perpetual access to materials?
    • Kelly Sparks: Both perpetual and single-semester models exist. It depends on how the instructor sets things up. Price points are different for each model
  • Tim Waring: Is it limited only to Brightspace access?
    • Kelly Sparks: Does not know the answer, but will look into it.
  • Dee Nichols: Do students need to opt in/out every semester?
    • Kelly Sparks: Yes.

Sabrina DeTurk: A plug from the DEI committee to ask administration to send reminders about Jewish high holidays in the fall to faculty during times when they are planning for fall semester.

David Townsend read a letter acknowledging Mike Scott, who is retiring, for his service to the faculty senate and his leadership within it.

Dee Nichols led an acknowledgement and thanks of MJ for her leadership as Senate president this year.

 

XIII. Adjourn

Time adjourned: 4:51