Meeting Minutes
Full Faculty Senate Meeting
March 31, 2004
Present: Jim
Acheson, Darlene Bay, Bob Bayer, Douglas Bousfield, Mary Brakey,
Thomas Brann, Tony Brinkley (for R. Whelan), Joe Carr, Robert Cashon,
Thomas Christensen, Robert Cobb, Laura Cowan, Scott Delcourt,
Michael Eckhardt, Mahmoud El-Begearmi, Todd Gabe, Alla Gamarnik,
Michael Greenwood, Michael Grillo, Paul Grosswiler, Vince Guiseppe,
Nancy Hall, Ludlow Hallman, Marie Hayes, Cortlynn Hepler Dianne
Hoff, Peter Hoff, James Horan, Mike Howard, Dana Humphrey, Dan Innis,
George Jacobson, Mel Johnson, Scott Johnson, Robert Kennedy, Al
Kezis, Dennis King, Irv Kornfield, John Maddaus, Deirdre Mageean,
Chuck Maguire, Kathleen March, Stephen Marks, Jim McClymer, Charles
Moody, Bryan Pearce, Robert Rice, Linda Rottmann, Joyce Rumery,
Thomas Sandford, David Scheidt, Evelyn Silver, Stellos Tavantzis,
Roy Turner, Michael Vayda, Gloria Vollmers, Janet Waldron, Gregory
White, Robert White, Dave Yarborough.
Absent:
Peggy Agouris, Dean Astumian, Eisso Atzema,
Richard Eason, Sandy Gardner, Stephen Gilson, Alexander Grab, Robert
Gundersen, Carlos Islam, Joseph Kelley, Martha McNamara, Howard
Patterson, Dan Sandweiss, Christa Schwintzer, Bruce Segee, Janet
Spector, Andrew Thomas, Jim Warhola.
I. Welcome and
Signing In
The Meeting was
called to order at 3:19 P.M.
II. Approval
of Minutes
The minutes from
the February 25, 2004, meeting were approved unanimously.
III.
Announcements
Senate President
Bryan Pearce announced that the next elected member meeting would be
at the University Club on April 14 and the next full member meeting
would be in the main dining room at Wells.
President Peter
Hoff presented the following statement:
“First, I would
like to thank the many, many people who have called, written, and
spoken to me in the past several weeks, complimenting the
university’s achievement, expressing a desire for the university to
continue moving ahead, and offering to help. These people are
significant in number, they are spread across many occupations and
roles at the university and in the community, and they are strong in
their feelings for our university. Some of you are here this
afternoon, and I thank you. And I beg your indulgence while I
address a few topics too important to ignore.
Seven years ago
you asked me to come to UMaine, to help you—in your words—“turn the
university around.” You asked me to provide stable and lasting
leadership after several decades of short-term leaders and a
somewhat fragmented campus.
Together we have
achieved those things. We increased the size of the entering class
by 50%. We added more than two thousand students to our
enrollment. We reclaimed bragging rights as “the largest university
in Maine.” We did all that while increasing our standards and
expectations. We hired outstanding new faculty members. We tripled
the external funding for research. Before the recent budget cuts,
we had gained a remarkable series of budget increases, plus
successful bond referenda. Private gifts to the university have
never been more generous and plentiful. More than $150 million of
renovation or new construction is complete or underway. We achieved
the highest level classification in the new Carnegie system. All
that and more have been part of our record of achievement for the
past seven years.
Now we are
experiencing a phenomenon that seems to come up every time a major
milestone is reached. Before the year 1000, many people were
deathly afraid that God would certainly bring the world to an end on
January 1. The day came and went without any cataclysms. We
inflicted the same fears on ourselves with Y2K, except that God had
become the computer, and we feared that Microsoft would end the
world on that date. Again we somehow got past it.
Now our
university faces a milestone specific to my presidency. On
September 30, 2004, I will become the longest serving president
since Arthur Hauck (1934-1958)
Like Y1K and Y2K
fears, rumors of my imminent departure have been rampant. They
started at least two years ago; they resurfaced one year ago. Now
there appear to be daily rumors. Last Friday at 5pm was a popular
guess. It didn’t happen, did it? I have no plans or expectations
of leaving. So enough already! If you have a particular date in
mind for the office pool, don’t bet your mortgage on it.
This week, I
turned down three invitations to put my name in for jobs that would
make me the head of a major state university system or statewide
governing board. Two of these were not just candidacies, but offers
to move immediately to the search’s short list. My refusal to
participate is not the behavior of someone who thinks his days are
numbered.
Still the rumors
persist. It has reached the point where people are getting
distracted, some people seem tempted to look elsewhere for
leadership, and some people even seem to feel they would prefer not
to have campus unity and common direction. To the extent these
problems exist, we must all come together and extinguish them for
the good of the university. What is at stake is all the significant
progress the university has made.
We must not let
anyone reverse our course now. We must not let our own anxieties
reverse that course.
So what’s next?
First, our
Trustees have announced a new strategic plan. For us it is an
excellent plan, because it reaffirms our role as the premier
university in the state—the flagship, the leader, the research
university, the only doctoral-research-extensive university in the
state. How could we possibly quarrel with that vision for UMaine?
How could we not embrace that vision?
As with all plans
of this kind, the devil—if there is one—is in the details. We
certainly want to know where the resources are going to come from to
finance our great leap forward. No one has said—not in print
anyway—that the money is going to come from savings at other
campuses. Nor would we want to impoverish our partner campuses in
the University of Maine System in order to fund UMaine. The draft
plan says that the funds will come from “new revenue sources” and
from “internal reallocation.”
We would
certainly like to know what “new revenue sources” the trustees have
in mind. And anyone who faces the words “internal reallocation” has
to worry which of our services and programs will suffer or be
eliminated in order to finance the greatness of others. While it is
too early to stress over details, questions like these are not in
themselves minor details. They lie at the core of the plan and its
prospects for success.
The essence of
our response must be that, if the plan calls for the university
again to pull itself up by its own bootstraps, that is exactly what
we will do, given sufficient autonomy and responsibility for
charting our destiny though our own ongoing strategic planning
process.
And while the
Trustees’ plan speaks of the greatness of The University of Maine,
remarks in last Friday’s Bangor Daily News, and attributed
to Chancellor Westphal, appear to be quite negative and critical
about UMaine’s current state of affairs. Having been quoted out of
context and misquoted myself on occasion, let me say that I am
certain that Chancellor Westphal did not say the things that were
attributed to him in this regard. I am, however, concerned that
these negative perceptions were circulated in the media, and I hope
the record can be corrected.
One quotation,
for example, claimed that we take the brunt of budget cuts and
“spread them throughout the campus instead of strategically
investing in the future.” Since the chancellor regularly reviews
our budget with us, and he knows that we have specifically tied our
budgeting to our strategic plan, and we have protected and invested
in key priorities, such as the library, the honors program, and
graduate education, he could not have been the source of such a
quotation. Without question, such priorities (and many others) need
greater resources. But we have done much to direct what funds we
have to strategic areas.
The article said
that “UM needs reform and change . . . in its culture and
direction.” In fact we have come incredibly far since the most
difficult days of the 1990’s. Our culture and direction have been
responsible for the progress in all areas that I cited at the
beginning of my remarks.
We also read,
“people need to be excited about the place, and we need to give them
the tools to get vitality back into the institution.” Yet
everywhere I go—on and off campus—I hear from people who have been
following this premier university. They recognize the vitality and
excitement that characterizes us. It has made us the state’s
university of choice and the university most engaged with the entire
state—helping it move forward socially, economically, and
culturally. If the people of Maine would like to give us tools for
vitality, let them respond with better pay for our employees, who
have devoted themselves to UMaine, seldom complaining, and working
long and hard for its success.
Finally, the
article continued, “the issue is how good is the faculty, how
productive is the faculty, and how strong is UM in performing its
mission.” And of course we all know the very affirmative answers to
those questions. Every legislator, governor, business leader, and
citizen who has come to Orono to see our teaching and learning
vitality and our vast research enterprise, has come away with a deep
appreciation for what we do here. So I say to anyone who doubts our
faculty quality, productivity, and strength: “let them come to Orono!”
Does all this
mean we are perfect, and all is well at UMaine? Of course not.
Every major university in America is currently facing challenges
almost unparalleled in history. Public disinvestment in higher
education has generated a crisis that will take all of our ingenuity
to resolve. Old approaches cannot be counted on to work any more.
However, we must discover and embrace new approaches together
and in unity and harmony. They cannot be imposed from without or
from above with any hope of success.
And in order to
move forward with unity and harmony, we must get our house in
order. To start, the rumor mill I mentioned at the outset needs to
slow down and quiet down. Communication must be in the open and not
consist of whispers passed along one by one, where they inevitably
become jumbled.
We need to
acknowledge that members of the faculty, staff, and administration
of this university have raised valid questions about the way we
operate. These concerns hit me especially hard, because what they
imply runs counter to everything I believe in and have—as a
professor and leader—devoted my career to: academic values and
standards, shared governance, openness, accessible information,
orderly and fair processes for hiring and promoting personnel, a
level playing field for everyone in our academic community. I still
believe we have those things. But I worry about the possibility
that, in spite of the best intentions, we may occasionally have
strayed. If so, I find it unacceptable.
These are some of
the concerns I am hearing:
Some searches may
not have been sufficiently open or procedurally sound.
Some persons have
questioned the process by which we judge candidates for tenure—and
the results of those processes.
Some vacant
positions have not been filled as quickly as we would have wished.
There are
questions as to whether funds expected or promised have been
delivered.
I have to say to
you in all honesty that I believe the record shows that these
worries have been exaggerated in some people’s minds. People are
again concerned because they hear rumors and repeat them.
Nevertheless, the very existence of these perceptions and beliefs is
reason enough to stop, examine the record, and examine our
process—openly and in the light of day so that all can participate
in judging whether the university’s direction is the right one.
I am therefore
taking the following steps:
I am asking the
provost to suspend the search for a Dean of the Graduate School,
while we review the search process. Our interim dean has
accomplished a great deal, and there is no urgency to rush to the
selection of a new dean, since questions about process have been
raised.
I am also asking
the provost to move quickly toward starting a national search for
someone to head our library and information resources operations.
It is important for this search to move ahead, using agreed upon
procedures, and find someone to lead the Fogler Library and related
statewide services into the future.
I am asking the
University Community to go into “BearWorks mode” to address the
questions and concerns that have been raised. By that, I mean I
would like to organize an academic retreat where we could openly
discuss a variety of concerns as academic equals—no ranks, no
titles, no constituencies other than the university as a whole, with
an external and neutral facilitator to run the meeting. Since Maine
Day is traditionally the day when we clean up the campus, I suggest
we hold our retreat on Maine Day.
This retreat
could lead to task forces to address specific areas that need
further attention, including one that would address the requirements
and implications of the System’s Strategic Plan.
At the end of the
proverbial day, I am still the president, the Faculty Senate is
still the Faculty Senate, the deans are still the deans, etc. We
all have different roles and responsibilities. I intend to play my
role fully, not abdicating responsibilities to anyone. I expect all
of you to do the same. If we work together in this way, with no one
worrying about who gets the credit, it will be amazing what we can
achieve.
As I said before,
anyone who thinks this university needs to be revitalized is, in my
view, missing an enormous amount of the vitality all around us.
What we need to address is actually a byproduct of our own
vitality. Because we have started to move faster, stresses and
strains have materialized. People have new uncertainties, and they
worry that things might be happening without their knowledge.
I want to allay
those anxieties by convening a better conversation and better
communication. I have given this university the most energetic and
most enjoyable seven years of my entire career, and I have come to
love it immensely. I would hate more than anything to see us step
backward. I intend to be here as long as you want me, and to do
everything I can to help the university advance. Please join me in
this commitment.
Thank you for
your attention”.
Vice President
and Provost Robert Kennedy gave the following update on the P & T
decisions:
“I want to give
you an update—and address as much as I can—concerns about this
year’s promotion and tenure decisions, specifically those raised in
the Faculty Senate Resolution passed in February. Many important
concerns were raised in that resolution.
Although I can’t
be specific, I can say that there is a grievance process now
underway that will include gathering information from many people,
including the faculty members and peer committees involved.
The process of
responding to the grievances has been intentionally modified to
include the concerns expressed by the Faculty Senate, namely that
peer committees have an opportunity to meet with those who advised
me.
I hope you
understand that I cannot provide any additional information because
of the confidentiality of the grievance process, including the
identification of grievants and the specific allegations contained
in a grievance.
Beyond the
concern about decisions made this year, there is a broader concern
about the promotion and tenure process itself—I share many of those
concerns. I am proposing the formation of 2-3 groups to deal with
different aspects of these concerns:
First, I hope
that I can work with the AFUM leadership on the process for
developing and approving departmental promotion and tenure criteria.
A memo that
President Hoff and I sent out earlier this year—that we were advised
to send out—needs to be changed.
It is my hope
that—working together—we can clarify the process and come up with
one that works for departmental peer committees and for the
administration.
Second, I have
informally proposed—and talked to Bryan about this preliminarily—a
joint Faculty Senate/administration committee to consider changes in
the promotion and tenure process.
Some examples
might include, the consideration of a broader faculty-based
committee to advise me, and meetings between that committee and a
peer committee in the event of disagreement over a tenure
recommendation (also as recommended in the Senate’s earlier
Resolution).
Third, I have
already announced to the Deans my intention to appoint a Task Force
on the Retention of Women Faculty by the end of this semester.
This Task Force,
staffed by Sharon Barker, Director of the Women’s Resource Center,
is an outgrowth of an informal gender issues group that has been
working with me for two years. I would expect the Task Force to
consider and recommend policies and procedures that can enhance the
success of women faculty members. Of course, I expect the Senate to
be represented on the Task Force”.
IV.
Committee Reports
A. Jim
Acheson (Committee on Committees)
The Provost’s
office needs a faculty member for a committee being formed to
oversee Sabbatical leave requests.
Nominations are
sought for vice president as well as chairs and members of the
various committees of the Faculty Senate for next year.
B. Peggy
Agouris (Research and Public Service)
Peggy was absent,
no report.
C. Darlene Bay
(Finance and Institutional Planning)
No report.
D.
Michael Grillo (University Environment)
No report.
E. Marie Hayes
(Academic Affairs)
The committee has
met with VP Doug Gelinas and they are preparing one more motion for
this year. The report from the NEASC was very favorable.
F.
Dianne Hoff (Library Advisory Committee)
They are
encouraged by President Hoff’s announcement regarding initiation of
the search for the chief librarian’s position. The committee will
review journals on the cancellation list before the summer break.
G. Dana
Humphrey (Board of Trustees Representative)
Sixteen
candidates for Promotion and Tenure have been approved by the BOT.
Expansion of the
Shawn Walsh Hockey Center at Alfond Arena has been approved.
The BOT has
proposed to consolidate some of the “back office” functions here on
campus with the UMS office in Bangor. The campus will be charged
back for the services performed by the UMS office.
Senator Hoff
reminded the senate that when Vice Chancellor Elsa Nunez spoke to
the senate, she said the UMS office will be reduced in size but will
have more responsibility.
Dana Humphrey
encouraged everyone to read the strategic plan carefully. He said
that at a strategic plan briefing, UMS VC Nunez explained that “the
performance driven budget process” will recognize the differences in
costs of various programs. Humphrey hoped that when the budget is
studied, the Chancellor’s office will weigh equally teaching,
research and public service.
Provost Kennedy
announced that the Chancellor, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs,
Elsa Nunez, and some members of the Board of Trustees will be on
campus April 13th to discuss the strategic plan with members of the
campus community.
Senator El-Begearmi
asked as to how the UMS strategic plan would affect UM’s strategic
plan. Provost Kennedy said that UM’s plan already addresses some of
the issues raised in the UMS plan.
Dr. Tony Brinkley
stated that he hopes the university will use its resources more
fully in the developing the plan. One of the problems is that the
people developing the plan are not familiar with the challenges of
the people whom the plan affects. He suggested that department
chairs should be more involved in the process.
H. Jim
Horan, for H. Patterson (Constitution and By-Laws)
A group is
working on the Faculty Handbook. Nominations for Faculty Senate
President-Elect and volunteers for various senate committees should
be sent to either Jim Acheson or Senate Vice President Howard
Patterson.
I. Tom
Sandford (Workload Committee)
No report.
J. Dan
Sandweiss/Jim Warhola (Interdisciplinary Programs)
No report. A
motion will be presented under New Business.
V.
Discussion
On behalf of the
Graduate Board (GB) Executive Committee, Senator (and member of the
GB) Scott Johnson submitted to the senate a response to the Academic
Affairs subcommittee report on the Graduate School. Copies of the
response titled, Graduate Board Executive Committee Response to
Review of the Role of the Graduate School Executive Summary,
were made available to all senators. Vince Guiseppe, President of
the Association of Graduate Students, supported the response of the
GB. He suggested that the academic affairs sub-committee working on
Graduate School matters should include a graduate student
representative.
Chair of the
Academic Affairs Committee Marie Hayes said that one of the problems
was that people interpreted the report as saying we do not need a
Graduate School or the Graduate School does not fulfill its
mission. She quoted from the report, “These comments are offered to
the administration as suggestions for improvement of current
practices and policies…” She said the report was meant to start a
conversation about how the Graduate School can function more
efficiently. The sub-committee will appear before the Graduate
Board and will have a discussion about issues of concern.
VI. Old
Business
No old business.
VII. New
Business
Senator
Grillo introduced the following motion.
Motion:
Inclusion of the Section on “Graduate
Interdisciplinary Endeavors at The University of Maine”
in the Graduate Catalog at The University of Maine.
The Interdisciplinary Studies
Committee
March 31, 2004
Motion: The Faculty Senate proposes
that the Graduate Catalog include a section on "Graduate
Interdisciplinary Endeavors", and that the substance of that section
be the following description and categorization of programs and
endeavors currently operating at the University of Maine. The IDS
Committee proposes that this list be included in the current on-line
catalog as soon as practically possible, and in the next printed
version.
Graduate Interdisciplinary
Endeavors at The University of Maine
The University of Maine is firmly and deeply
committed to the expansion of knowledge and understanding by
encouraging various forms of interdisciplinary academic endeavor.
Such activities have become the hallmark of academic excellence and
a clear indicator of the intellectual vitality of modern
institutions of higher learning. The University of Maine
accordingly boasts a vibrant array of interdisciplinary activities
that provide an exceptionally wide range of opportunities for all
members of the University community—undergraduate students, graduate
students, faculty members, staff members, and administrators—to
participate in scholarly undertakings that involve multiple academic
disciplines. The following list covers opportunities currently
available to graduate students at the University of Maine; other
endeavors may be in the planning stages, and the University actively
fosters the expansion of this critical aspect of its overall mission
of teaching, research, and public service.
I. Interdisciplinary Graduate Programs
Composite Studies (Graduate Certificate in
Advanced Engineered Wood Composites)
Disability Studies (graduate core)
Ecology and Environmental Science
Financial Economics (M.A.)
Food and Nutrition Sciences (Ph.D. program)
Forestry (MFY{non-thesis}, MS, Ph.D.)
Health Care Administration (grad. certificate)
Historical Archaeology (M.A. option)
Information Systems (MS and graduate
certificate)
Interdisciplinary Ph.D.
(various concentrations available, e.g.,
Functional Genomics)
Landscape
Horticulture
emphasis within the M.S. degree program in Horticulture
Marine Bio-Resources
Master of Arts in Liberal Studies
Master of Science in Teaching (concentrations in Physics, Earth
Sciences, Mathematics, ,or Generalist Option)
Plant Science (Ph.D. program; multi-departmental)
Quaternary and Climate Studies
Marine Policy (M.S.)
Marine Sciences and Marine Policy Dual Degree Program (3 years: with
an M.S. in Policy and an M.S. in one of the marine sciences)
Water Resources (graduate concentration)
Women's Studies (graduate concentration)
II. Other interdisciplinary endeavors:
Academy of Public Service (joint
endeavor of UM Dept. of Public Administration;
M.C.Smith Center,
and the Muskie Institute of USM)
Advanced Engineered Wood Composites Center
Canadian-American Center
Center
for Community Inclusion
Cooperative Extension
Division of Lifelong Learning
Franco-American Center
Institute for Quaternary and Climate Studies
ITHCRA (Interdisciplinary Training for Health Care for Rural Areas
Project)
Laboratory for Surface Science and Technology
Maine Folklife Center
Margaret Chase Smith Center for Public Policy
Pulp and Paper Process Development Center
Research Collaborative on Violence Against Women
Senator George J. Mitchell Center for Environmental and Watershed
Research
Solar Vehicle Team (College of Engineering)
University of Maine Center on Aging
Wabanaki Center
William Cohen Center for Public Policy and Commerce
President Hoff
said that he and VP Doug Gelinas had reviewed the motion and they
were satisfied with the list of programs.
The motion
carried unanimously.
The meeting
adjourned at 4:30 P.M.
Respectfully
submitted,
Stellos
Tavantzis, Secretary
Return to Meeting
Minutes
