Meeting Minutes
Faculty Senate Minutes
March 27, 2002
Present:
Jim Acheson, Darlene Bay, Thomas Brann,
Steve Cohn, Richard Cook, Paul Creasman, Richard Eason, Ed Ferguson,
Sandy Gardner, Paul Grosswiler, Don Hayes, Peter Hoff, Mike Howard,
Keith Hutchison, John Jemison, Robert Kennedy, Carol Kim, Dennis
King, Roger King, Dorothy Klimis-Zacas, Irv Kornfield, Judy Kuhns-Hastings,
Phil Locke, Ngo Vinh Long, John Maddaus, Kathleen March, Stephen
Marks, Jim McClymer, Kim McKeage, Charles Moody, Howard Patterson,
Bryan Pearce, Glenn Reif, Robert Rice, Linda Rottmann, Douglass
Ruthven, Christa Schwintzer, Bruce Segee, Frederick Servello,
Phillip Silver, Owen Smith, Andrew Thomas, Roy Turner, Sarah Vidito,
Gregory White
Absent:
Seanna Annis, Robin Arnold, David
Batuski, Douglas Bousfield, Martha Broderick, Kathrine Carter, Scott
Dunning, Daniel Dwyer, Bill Farthing, Charles Forshee, Matthew
Gagnon, Alla Gamarnik, Dianne Hoff, Dana Humphrey, Edward Jadallah,
Richard Jagels, Melvin Johnson, Harvey Kail, Joseph Kelley, Diana
Lawson, Daniel Lux, Chuck Maguire, Ivan Manev, Ali Ozluk, Dan
Sandweiss, Jim Warhola, Dave Yarborough
I. Welcome and Signing in
The meeting was called to order at
3:21 pm.
II. Approval of minutes from the
February 27, 2002 meeting
Bob Rice moved, Howard Patterson
seconded; passed.
III. Announcements of the President
Elections for next year:
There is currently one nominee for vice president/president-elect:
Bryan Pearce. We need two according to the by-laws, so if anyone is
interested, let John Maddaus know. Jane Smith has volunteered to
return to the position of secretary from last year. (Only one
nominee is needed, but if anyone else is interested, let John know.)
Carol Kim has volunteered to serve as chair of the Committee on
Committees. This committee needs 10 members, two from each college
and two from Cooperative Extension; let John know if you are
interested in serving.
Tenure homes:
Last time, information about tenure homes was circulated and
discussed. This was also discussed with Pres. Hoff and Provost
Kennedy on Monday. The Provost will pursue this with the affected
departments.
Peer committees for joint
appointments: The Executive
Committee raised the issue of the home department having the
majority voice on the committee, and this is being worked on.
Faculty status of coaches:
On hold, pending discussion with System.
University's mission statement:
A copy of this is available at the University Web site. [A copy was
passed around; see http://www.umaine.edu/mission.htm.]
Evaluation of administrators:
Work continues on this, with the hope of having something next month
or May at the latest.
Proposal to amend the by-laws:
This is on the agenda. This motion came out of the General Education
Review Committee. It needed to be distributed 45 days before it
could be voted on, so the members are now notified. It will be voted
on at the May 8 meeting. (No discussion today.)
Martha Broderick (Parliamentarian):
Martha was involved in accident last night, so is not present.
[Announcement from Pres. Hoff:]
Oscar Remick died of cancer. Pres. Hoff requested a moment of
silence.
IV. Questions to the Administrators
[Q: Christa Schwintzer to Mark
Anderson] About the March 22 update on the budget: can you explain
the Children's Center changes, and could you explain under Academic
Affairs, what is the intention of faculty workload across units [see
the budget]?
[A:] Children's Center: the cut
went from $122,000 to $60,000. VP Chapman was asked to suspend the
rent for the two buildings used by the Center. Alan Boggs and
Interim VP Anderson have been working with Gary Quimby to make sure
the balance can be made up and maintain services. He thinks they
have accomplished that. He met with parents and others on Monday to
talk about it.
Other piece ``more complex''. He
referred to Michael Grillo's ``farewell address'' to the Senate last
year regarding inequities of workload across campus. He feels these
remarks were fairly accurate. The $500,000 savings is a revenue
increase for the first part of the process. In April, the second
part will marry CED issues with workload issues. This comes out of
questions this fall about why, if we have more students, do we have
less money? There has been a leaking of tuition money from regular
tuition to CED accounts as it's become more a section-funding sort
of activity. The budget process is trying to correct this; he thinks
it's at least a $500,000 problem.
[A: Doug Gelinas] He is working
with the associate deans to have a way to account for teaching
workload that's comparable from one college to another. They are
trying to base this on student credit hours (weighted by such things
as whether the course is upper level, writing intensive, or
graduate, and by course enrollment). Goal is to have some way that
Provost can compare colleges, deans can compare departments, and
chairs can compare faculty. They are using 9 credit hours/semester
as the starting point, (This is before any sort of buy-out, etc.)
even though System-wide it's 12 hrs/sem. No one at the Provost's
level will be trying to set anyone's teaching load; that's done at
dean and chair level.
[Q: Bryan Pearce] A question about
the budget item on ambulance service. He looked into it and found
something disconcerting. In past, ALS (advanced life support) was
provided by Orono, but in the Fall, this switched to Bangor. Campus
UVAC can't do this - they're EMTs, not paramedics. (He related an
incident in fall in which someone died; the response time from
Bangor was 11 minutes, and Orono wasn't called.) Associate Director
of Police Department asked via letter that calls from campus be
diverted from regional center back to campus; the regional center
would call closest ALS, with patient choice. Orono response averages
3 min, Capital averages 14 minutes. The question is, what's going
on? There is also an issue of University/community relations; it's
also unclear how savings are effected using for-profit rather than
non-profit.
[A: Interim VP Mark Anderson]
Clarification - the person who died, died many hours later in
hospital and a review showed that care was appropriate.
Under the protocols, all the local
ambulance services have mutual support. UVAC made decision about who
their primary backup would be last summer. This decision did not
have to do with the budget. The budget line to Orono has to do with
payments in lieu of taxes, which doesn't have anything directly to
do with the issue, although Orono did raise this when fire service
was added. VP Chapman has detail on the ambulance decision.
[Q: Pearce]Do we get the 3 minute
option or the 14 minute option?
[A: Anderson] It's a technical
question that he can't answer.
[Steve Cohn] He would like a report
on this.
[Q: Howard Patterson] How much does
the University save by using Capital?
[A: Anderson] Capital doesn't
charge UVAC.
[Q: Howard] So no money saved by
going to Capital?
[A: Anderson] That's correct.
[Q: Sarah Knight, Paul Creasman's
proxy] Can you explain combining all the student fees under one
category?
[A: VP Anderson] In response to
parents' and students' comments about bills going out, they
requested that the System allow consolidation of most fees into a
``universal fee''. They are doing this in part to create a
competitive advantage. Some parents say bill as currently
implemented is offensive and confusing. Depending on number of
credit hours you take, it is slightly more or less expensive.
[Knight] She and other she's talked
to would rather know what they're paying for and where it's going,
so ``offend me, please''.
[Comment: Sarah Knight] Student
Senate has its meetings in a classroom in Little, and there the
members see grade posting by full Social Security Numbers. Student
Senate has been researching it and planning to make the issue public
to the students. She would like stress that posting this way is
illegal, and it's exposing students to a security threat.
[Q: John Maddaus] Is there anything
the Administration is going to do to address this?
[A: VP Robert Kennedy] The
Administration will try to make deans and chairs aware that this is
a problem. [Pres. Hoff] Asks any student finding this sort of thing
to let Doug Gelinas know.
[Q: Douglas Ruthven] Would students
prefer not to have results posted? People tend to use SSN as one way
of doing it.
[A: Knight] Students would rather
have them posted. The legal way to do it is not to have full SSN
posted, but rather last 4 or 5 digits.
[Doug Gelinas] A student can't find
out grades for exams and papers, but can find out final grade from
Registrar.
[Q: Kim McKeage] Is there an office
to train faculty how to use the very simple mechanisms of Excel and
Word to do this?
[A: Thomas Brann] Supposedly the
new computer system could generate randomized lists for students to
be used for this.
[Hoff] It's too soon to say if this
can be done in the new system. The system could generate a new
permanent number.
[McClymer] This shouldn't be too
hard to generate and use another number.
[Anderson] Student Records [?] will
generate new, randomly assigned number to use as their ID on
request.
[Knight] The only problem with
randomly-assigned number is that financial aid is matched to
students via SSN.
[Richard Cook] We were already told
about what to do with this: use the last 4 digits, scramble.
[Roy Turner] It's a real problem,
not just an annoyance. It exposes students to the risk of identity
theft, which is on the rise.
[Q: Douglas Ruthven] Another
question on SSN. The new travel expense claim form requires a SSN.
So could Mark Anderson answer if this is for good purpose or to
promote identity theft?
[A: Anderson] No answer yet, will
look into it.
[Q: Bob Rice to Doug Gelinas] We
will be talking about General Education requirements. From the
Administration's standpoint, can you give us summary of what the
accrediting body wanted?
[A: Gelinas] The survey [he wrote]
was administered to the first class graduated under new
requirements. Recollection was that students had a hard time
figuring out the connection between courses and general education -
that was also the response from the accrediting body.
All that is required is that we
have general education requirements, that they be 1/3 of the hours
of the curriculum, and that we enunciate what the learning outcomes
are meant to be for programs and how that will be assessed. Since
the requirements come from the Senate, there's no dept or college
that's responsible for this by itself. We're not any further behind
than the other NE institutions. The body wants to hear about this in
a couple of years.
[Q: Owen Smith to Provost Kennedy]
What about the hiring moratorium?
[A: Kennedy] It has been lifted.
V. Committee reports
A) Judy Kuhns-Hastings, University
Environment
The Committee will be bringing
forth the motion for graduate student health insurance.
B) Keith Hutchison, Research and
Public Service
He met earlier this afternoon with
VP Dan Dwyer. Research dollars continue to go up each year, in terms
of applications, total dollars, and indirect costs recovered. ICR is
approaching $6 million. On the order of 1/2 of the faculty are
funded in some way or another by grants. R&D funds coming from the
State ($10 million to System, $8 million to the University) are to
go up by 10% each of the next two years. At some point, there needs
to be some indirect cost return back to investigators to stimulate
research.
With respect to the establishment
of a research advisory committee: Dwyer is in discussion with the
Provost and President about this now.
[Q: Bob Rice] There was a report in
the paper about joining with another university to put together a
center for the testing of materials and so forth - is that out of
Dwyer's office?
[A: Jim McClymer] He thinks it is
from a bond. [Hutchinson] He doesn't have any more details other
than that there's a bond issue being put together. [Anderson] The
genesis is the Advanced Manufacturing Center (College of
Engineering); they are partnering with USM on the
engineering/manufacturing program they have. [Hoff] It's not a new
concept, though it's a good one. It had gone to Legislature to fund
as part of the R&D II initiative. When R&D II didn't fly, it went to
the Economic Development Committee. [Rice] What's its potential to
go forward? [Hoff] It's still alive. [Hutchison] There was a name
from Committee on Business and Economic Development to the Committee
on Business, Research, and Economic Development.
C) Christa Schwintzer, Finance and
Institutional Planning
The Committee has started to look
at sustainability issues, will report later.
D) Bryan Pearce, Academic Affairs
The Committee is working on math
and writing competency. They scheduled a series of meetings with
Tony Brinkley [English Dept. Chair] and Jennifer Pixley in English
Dept. Everyone was encouraged, and there was general agreement on
how to go about it. Next meeting will be with George Markowsky
[Chair of Computer Science Dept. and of the Mathematics Dept.] and
others in Math Department. Final meeting will draft motion about
this. By its nature, there's overlap with General Education
Committee, particularly the outcomes assessment part.
E) Howard Patterson, Committee on
Committees
Let him know if anyone would like
to be involved.
F) Bob Rice, Constitution and
By-laws
No meetings, but there is the issue
that is coming forward to amend the constitution to create General
Education Outcomes Committee. This would be a special committee
under the by-laws. The Committee will be working on that over the
next month to month and a half.
G) Kathleen March, Library Advisory
No report. Next meeting will be
next Wednesday.
H) Owen Smith, General Education
Review
A By-laws amendment will be
discussed later. The committee has met several times and has decided
to move forward on two tracks. In the short term, they will begin to
look at and develop outcomes for current General Education
requirements, maybe slightly modified. The Committee isn't willing
to let go of more fundamental changes, however, so will be bringing
forward in near future a second motion to authorize the Committee to
look at broader change of General Education requirements and a
year-long test case for a limited number of students.
I) Jim Warhola, Interdisciplinary
Programs
The Committee has not met since
last Senate meeting. They do anticipate meeting on Friday about
proposed guidelines for developing interdisciplinary faculty groups.
The Committee has received two documents from Delcourt. One is set
of guidelines for interdisciplinary groups; these will be considered
on Friday and a report will be made to Senate. The other was set of
draft by-laws for the functional genomics group that is being
formed--this was presented as an example. The Committee will
consider these, as well.
J) Dana Humphrey, Board of Trustees
Representative
Not present, no report.
VI. New Business:
A) Proposed policy for vote: POLICY
ON PARTNER ACCOMMODATION
[Submitted by Peter Hoff
(distributed at the full Senate meeting on 2/27/02)]
Moved by Judy Kuhns-Hastings; Owen
Smith seconded.
Introduction by Peter Hoff: I have
received the draft forwarded by the Domestic Partner Facilitation
Committee, and I appreciate their thoughtful and conscientious work
very much. Having reviewed that draft, I find it essentially
acceptable, with a few edits that I applied to the draft that I am
forwarding to you attached to this message. Unless the Senate
objects to the attached version, I am prepared to implement it as
official university policy.
The University of Maine recognizes
the importance of accommodating dual career partners in attracting
and retaining a quality workforce. The University community also
recognizes the ways in which dual career partners can enrich the
campus culture. Because dual-career partnerships often involve
employment needs or opportunities across units, University-level
policy is required. The following guidelines govern domestic partner
accommodations at The University of Maine.
1. All candidates in a job search
as well as University employees have a right to inquire about
opportunities and procedures for partner hires. Equal opportunity
policy dictates that such inquiries will not influence hiring or
promotion decisions.
2. When any candidate or employee
inquires about employment opportunities for a partner, the
Chair/Director of his or her unit will request a copy of the
partner's curriculum vitae and other relevant materials. This
information will then be forwarded to the appropriate administrator
and department/unit in which the accompanying partner is seeking
employment. The Office of Equal Opportunity may also be contacted
for information and assistance.
3. An accompanying partner, like
any other candidate, must be systematically reviewed by the hiring
department or academic unit. If that unit believes the accompanying
partner has appropriate credentials and has skills that are
compatible with the department’s needs and mission, they may request
that the accompanying partner be considered for the University’s
Opportunity Hire Program.
4. University policy ordinarily
requires a national search for faculty and professional appointments
of more than five months. The Opportunity Hire Program, however,
includes a process for requesting a search waiver and/or single or
multi-year financial support for highly qualified individuals who
can make a unique contribution to the University and its strategic
plan. Criteria for granting waiver and funding requests include:
•
Qualifications of the individual
proposed, including likelihood of future success (promotion and
tenure, where applicable)
•
Relevance of the hire to the
university’s strategic priorities
•
Agreement of the hiring unit for the
requested appointment
•
Degree to which department/college
funds will support the position over time
•
Rationale for waiving the normal
search requirement, including the employment of partners of
prospective and current employees.
5. Questions about the Opportunity
Hire Program should be directed to Evelyn Silver, Director of Equal
Opportunity.
6. Other alternatives for partners
include the following:
•
A partner of a finalist in a
University search may request an interview for another open
University position as long as they meet the published
qualifications. If a search committee chair receives such a request,
the Office of Equal Opportunity should be contacted.
•
Faculty partners in the same academic
discipline may ask to be considered for a joint appointment. The
University of Maine now has several partners who are successfully
sharing one or one and one-half positions. In such cases, the
concerned department must determine whether both individuals have
appropriate credentials and have the potential to become tenured
members of the department.
•
This appointment sharing policy (see
www.maine.edu/sharedappoint.html) also applies to professional
employees and administrators.
•
Partners of candidates who have
received tentative job offers may seek the services of the (Career
Center/Human Resources/ Equal Opportunity/ the Alumni Association)
in searching for appropriate employment opportunities off campus.
7. While The University of Maine
recognizes the value of promoting opportunities for dual career
partners, and has established these policies to help secure this
value, it cannot guarantee employment to anyone simply on the basis
of the policy.
Discussion:
[Q: Jim Warhola] On point 4, are
the bullets ordered by importance?
[A: Hoff] They're in the order the
committee gave them to him.
[Q: Douglass Ruthven] How does this
differ from current policy? Seems to be much the same.
[A: Kuhns-Hastings] She doesn't
know if there ever was a policy. [Hoff] Reflects current practice,
and request was for a policy.
Vote:
In favor: 35 Opposed: none;
Abstained: 4
B) Motion for vote: HEALTH
INSURANCE FOR FULL-TIME GRADUATE RESEARCH AND TEACHING ASSISTANTS
[Submitted by the University
Environment Committee, Judy Kuhns-Hastings, Chair]
Moved by Judy Kuhns-Hastings,
seconded by Bob Rice.
PREAMBLE
Full-time graduate students who are
appointed as graduate assistants make important contributions to the
University of Maine in the areas of teaching and research. Most
research programs on campus depend heavily on the work of graduate
students. The minimum graduate assistant's stipend at this time is
about $9,000 for the academic year. The cost of health insurance for
graduate students is $1,100, which amounts to over 10% of their
stipends. The percentage of graduate assistants who have no health
insurance is 36%.The University of Maine assumes no part of the cost
of health insurance as it does for other part-time employees.
MOTION
The Faculty Senate moves that the
University of Maine develop a policy that covers 80% of the cost of
health insurance for full-time graduate students holding graduate
assistantships. Cost of Graduate Assistant health insurance should
be written into grants whenever conditions of granting agencies
permit.
Discussion:
[Sarah Vidito] GSA passed around
information about insurance for grad students for background.
[Q: Jim McClymer] If it's not
required, can we put it into grants to most Federal agencies?
[A: Scott Delcourt] He has
discussed it with Jake Ward - to write into grants, it has to be
required.
[McClymer] Friendly amendment to
reflect that?
[Keith Hutchinson] Development of
policy to provide universal insurance should do it.
[Delcourt] He provided a historical
perspective. The University has raised minimum stipend from $7236 to
$9010. Also there was recommendation to provide at least partial
health insurance coverage; health costs have close to doubled in
same period of time, so that's eroded the stipend increase.
Of the 550 assistants, about 300
supported by University funds, 250-275 funded by grants.
[McClymer] If they tell us they can
do it, that's fine.
[Kunhs-Hastings] About 25% of
grants are non-Federal, and wouldn't pay it.
[Q: Owen Smith, to Mark Anderson]
What is the nature of the financial impact of this motion?
[A: Anderson] He hasn't assessed
the impact yet.
[Vidito asked another student to
comment] It will cost about $240K/year.
[Owen Smith] He asked the question
because we need to know the ramifications of what we're asking. He
supports the motion, just wants the ramifications to be known.
[Hoff] Everyone in room supports
the concept, he's sure, but the answer about the financial impact,
it's zero - resolution doesn't mean that it will be implemented. If
it is implemented, the $240,000 impact is reasonable to look at. It
goes into the ``wish list'' for next year's budget, whether or not
we pass this; this just gives it some support.
[Q: Bob Rice] He asked about the
grant part.
[A: Hoff] Would be insane if the
administration doesn't go with this, so they'll insist that it is
written into grants if this is implemented.
[Q: Douglass Ruthven] Seems that if
this is passed and implemented, still have situation we have now
with some having insurance and others not.
[A: John Maddaus] Intent is for
this to apply to everyone.
[Ruthven] The grant portion is
confusing.
[Q: Warhola] How was the 80%
arrived at? Or is it acknowldgement of the financial reality?
[A: Kunhs-Hastings] Graduate
students asked for 50%, the committee suggested 80%.
[Keith Hutchinson] He doesn't see
any reason why when writing a grant you wouldn't put down 100%
coverage, where you can. Becomes a recruiting tool.
Vote:
For: 35; no opposed, 2 abstentions.
VII. Proposed Amendment to the
Faculty Senate By-laws
[Received from the ad hoc General
Education Review Committee, submitted to the Secretary of the Senate
on March 21, 2002, and forwarded by him to the Chair of the
Constitution and By-laws Committee, and announced in this agenda, in
accordance with the By-laws, Article VI AMENDMENT]
MOTION TO AMEND THE BY-LAWS TO
CREATE A SPECIAL COMMITTEE, TO BE CALLED THE GENERAL EDUCATION
OUTCOMES COMMITTEE
PREAMBLE
The New England Association of
Schools and Colleges (NEASC), which is the accreditation agency for
the University of Maine, announced in Fall, 1998, that the
post-secondary institutions it accredits will be required to develop
student outcomes assessment plans for general education. Since then,
a number of committees at the University of Maine have examined this
issue, but little progress has been made. Many university faculty
are familiar with outcomes assessment through professional programs
accreditation procedures and/or work with K-12 schools, so the
expertise exists among the faculty to make the necessary changes.
Strong faculty leadership, guided by a committee of the Faculty
Senate, is needed to make significant progress on this issue in time
for future accreditation actions. Since the development and
monitoring of student outcomes and assessments will be a long-term
process, and since NEASC is seeking institutionalization of the
outcomes assessment process, the creation of a Special Committee of
the Senate is an appropriate organizational change. The Special
Committee will work in consultation with the Undergraduate Program
Curriculum Committee and the Center for Teaching Excellence.
MOTION
The Faculty Senate By-laws, Article
V, Special Committees, is hereby amended by the addition of a new
section 2:
Section 2 General Education
Outcomes Committee
A. Function: The General Education
Outcomes Committee reviews and makes recommendations to the Senate
regarding the assessment of student outcomes and related issues of
general education. It works in consultation with other appropriate
campus committees to develop, monitor and revise as needed
statements of student outcomes and assessment procedures for the
general education requirements. In addition, the committee promotes
the use of such outcomes statements and assessment procedures among
faculty teaching courses that meet general education requirements.
B. Membership: The members of the
General Education Outcomes Committee are one faculty member from
each college, the Director of the Honors College (or his/her
designee), the Executive Vice President and Provost (or his/her
designee), and a representative of undergraduate student government.
The chair of the committee shall be chosen by the President of the
Senate. At least one member of the committee shall be a member of
the Senate.
This proposed amendment, including
any revisions, along with the recommendation of the Constitution and
By-laws Committee, will be included in the April 24th agenda for
information purposes, and in the agenda of May 8th for a vote, in
accordance with the By-laws, Article VI AMENDMENT.
VIII. Adjournment
Adjourned at 4:44 pm.
Return to Meeting
Minutes
