Present:
Jim Acheson, David Batuski, Kathrine Carter, Steve Cohn, Eric
Conrad, Richard Cook, Richard Eason, Bill Farthing, Ed Ferguson,
Sandy Gardner, Alla Gamarnik, Virginia Gibson, Paul Grosswiler,
Brett Hall, Don Hayes, Peter Hoff, Mike Howard, Dana Humphrey,
Edward Jadallah, Richard Jagels, Melvin Johnson, Harvey Kail,
Robert Kennedy, Carol Kim, Dennis King, Irv Kornfield, Judy
Kuhns-Hastings, Diana Lawson, Ngo Vinh Long, John Maddaus, Chuck
Maguire, Ivan Manev, Kathleen March, Jim McClymer, Kim McKeage,
Charles Moody, Suneeti Nathani, Ali Ozluk, Howard Patterson,
Bryan Pearce, Robert Rice, Linda Rottmann, Douglas Ruthven, Dan
Sandweiss, Christa Schwintzer, Bruce Segee, Frederick Servello,
Phillip Silver, Owen Smith, Sylianos Tavantzis, Roy Turner,
Sarah Vidito, Jim Warhola, Gregory White, John Peckenham
Absent:
Robin Arnold, Douglas Bousfield, Thomas Brann, Scott Dunning,
Daniel Dwyer, Charles Forshee, Diane Haslett, Dianne Hoff, Keith
Hutchison, John Jemison, Joseph Kelley, Roger King, Dorothy
Klimis-Zacas, Phil Locke, Daniel Lux, Stephen Marks, Glenn Reif,
Andrew Thomas, Dave Yarborough
I. Welcome and Signing in
The meeting was called to order
at 3:20pm.
II. Approval of minutes from
the September 26, 2001 meeting
Steve Cohn moved that the
minutes be accepted. The motion was seconded and approved.
III. Memorials
A. Shawn Walsh (presented by
Suzanne Tyler)
A memorial statement in honor
of Shawn Walsh (attached at end) was read into the record by Suzanne
Tyler.
B. Richard Emerick (presented
by Sandy Ives)
A memorial statement in honor
of Richard Emerick (attached at end) was read into the record by
Sandy Ives
C. Motion
Dan Sandweiss moved that the
Senate accept these memorial statements as part of the record of the
Senate meeting, and that the Secretary be directed to send a copy to
the families. Seconded by Owen Smith. The motion passed unanimously.
IV. Announcements
A. Board of Visitors on campus
(Oct. 11 and 12)
John Maddaus discussed the
Board of Visitors meeting on October 11 and 12, which several
members of the Senate attended. The meeting was a valuable exchange,
although with no particular conclusions. The Board is interested in
hearing from us. He has requested that President Hoff convey to the
Board the Senate’s desire to have an opportunity to meet with
representatives of the Board about what they concluded and where we
go from here. Peter has passed this request to the Board and will
notify us of their response.
Question: Owen Smith asked what
concerns and issues the Board had.
Answer (J. Maddaus): A major
concern was visibility of the University state-wide and the things
that can be done and the ways the faculty can contribute to enhance
the visibility. There were some suggestions that the Board might
propose developing a marketing plan. They said that there were a
great many good things going on—in particular, they commented on the
students and their positive comments about their experience and
about teaching. The Board thought this was a message that needed to
get out. John commented that this is not something that one person
can do, so we need to see what the Senate can do.
There was a comment by a
senator that the Board thought there seemed to be a perception that
this is the University of Northern Maine.
Jim Warhola mentioned that
there was a discussion of the vagaries of funding at the meeting.
B. Faculty evaluations of
administrators
John Maddaus reported on the
Executive Committee’s recent meeting with Vice President and Provost
Kennedy and President Hoff, at which one of the topics was the
faculty evaluations of administrators. The upshot of the meeting was
that there will be a small working group formed, consisting of two
people appointed by Vice President Kennedy and two by John, to
develop a proposal to present to the Executive Committee, then
ultimately to the full Senate and to the Provost’s Council. This
proposal will specifically regard the evaluation of deans. In due
course, this will be extended to a discussion of evaluating vice
presidents as well.
V. Questions to the
Administrators
Q [Christa Schwintzer, for
Mark Anderson]: Does the Governor’s 2% across-the-board cut apply
to us for this year?
A: It does, but not in ways
that look like 2%. There are cuts that do not directly affect us.
For example, there is a hiring freeze affecting all State
agencies, which is the primary way the State is effecting their
savings. However, he said that at the System level, it affects us
by about $2.6 million. It is in essence a cut in the increase we
expected this year. It translates to roughly $1.3 million for us
in this year’s budget. We were already facing significant budget
problems from health care increases, and scenarios for next year
had budget shortfalls of between $2.5 and $5 million. The "deappropriation"
adds to that, and we do not know if it is a base cut or a one-time
cut; most people expect a base cut. We also do not know if there’s
another deappropriation coming or not. If we are pessimistic, the
cut for next year may be as much as $6 million. The President has
put into effect a hiring moratorium for E&G funded positions,
although there is a mechanism to ask for exceptions. By the end of
November, he feels that we should know the likely size of the
health care increase. Once the picture is clarified, he indicated
that they will remove the moratorium.
Q [follow-up by C. Schwintzer]:
Any particular things cut?
A: Mark Anderson said that
the only thing excepted in the Governor’s order was debt service
for R&D.
Q: Owen Smith indicated that
he had understood that there was to be a surplus for next year,
and asked if that would be applied to this cut.
A: Mark Anderson answered
that there was between $500,000 and $1 million surplus in the
budget this year, depending on some assumptions. It could have
been applied to next year. He does expect some carry-forward from
this year, but the scary thing is that the health care premiums
may increase in the following years.
Q [Owen Smith]: Any
discussion about getting health care taken care of in same way as
the State is doing?
A: Mark Anderson said that
there have been some misconceptions about that. He expects the
premium will increase about 47% per employee next year, but that
will still be lower than State employees’ premiums—so tying into
the State contract might disadvantage us. Historically, Blue
Cross/Blue Shield was very anxious to get our business, and so
gave us a three-year contract on which they ended up losing money.
We probably will not be able to get multiple year contracts from
insurers again. There are only three insurers in Maine able to
handle our business, due to our size.
Q [Melvin Johnson]: The
experience with Blue Cross is similar to what we had with NYLCare—is
there some other way to approach this problem?
A: Mark Anderson remarked
that another model is to go back to self-insurance, which was the
model before NYLCare. In fact, there’s a request in the current
bidding process to place a bid for self-insurance (administered by
one of the insurance companies), but there is no reason to believe
that it will save us money.
Q: Christa Schwintzer asked
Mark Anderson if he could tell us something about the new dorm
being constructed behind DTAV.
A: He showed a drawing of
what the dorm will look like. It is a 200-bed, suite-style dorm,
with 2/3 single rooms and 1/3 double rooms in a suite arrangement.
Oak Hall was renovated into singles, which have been popular, and
has handled some of the increased demand. The new dorm will handle
more of the increased demand, or, if demand levels off, then York
Village can be demolished. The new dorm will be ready for
occupancy in January 2003 (construction will be complete in Fall
2002).
Q: Steve Cohn remarked that
the computer repair center appears to be understaffed and that
computers needing repair sit there for some period of time.
A: Vice President Kennedy
said that the center reports to John Gregory [IT Director], and
that he will talk to him and get back to us.
VI. Committee reports
A. Judy Kuhns-Hastings,
University Environment
The committee has met, but
there is no real report yet. She said there was a lively discussion
about student retention.
B. Bob Rice, Constitution and
By-laws
No report.
C. Keith Hutchison, Research
and Public Service
Douglas Ruthven reported that
Keith Hutchison is out of town. The committee has not met yet,
although Vice President Dan Dwyer did request a meeting that was not
scheduled.
D. Christa Schwintzer, Finance
and Institutional Planning
The committee is meeting, but
no report yet.
E. Bryan Pearce, Academic
Affairs
The committee has met twice. It
has been tasked with the Honors Commission [Provost’s Commission on
an Honor’s College] report and with Math and Writing Competency.
With respect to Honors, the discussion focused on curriculum and
financial issues. He requests that the senators become familiar with
the report by looking at the Honors Program Web site to see how it
will affect their colleges and programs. [The report is available at
http://www.umehon.maine.edu/documents/honorscollege.htm.] He
recommends that Charlie Slavin attend the next meeting to tell the
Senate about it. He would then like senators’ feedback. With respect
to Math and Writing Competency, he reported that Steve Cohn will
take the lead on this with a subcommittee. The subcommittee will
probably work primarily with the Math and English departments.
F. Howard Patterson, Committee
on Committees
Help is needed on three
committees:
• ROTC Committee: one
more member is needed. The people running ROTC are new and do
not know the faculty, so he requests that we e-mail him with
names of people who might be interested. The person doesn’t
have to be a senator.
• Student Conduct Code
Committee: one more member is needed. This does not have to be
a senator, and he requests that we e-mail him names of anyone
who might be interested.
• Post-Tenure Award
Committee: Someone is needed from CLAS and Engineering. There
is a deadline, so he asked senators from these colleges to let
him know of possibilities.
In response to a question, he
reported that ROTC needs someone from the College of Natural
Sciences.
G. Kathleen March, Library
Advisory
The committee is getting close
to finalizing membership. They have had some sharing of agenda items
and have met with Joyce Rumery to preview Library’s perspective on
things this year. General topics are: money; and public relations
and service for Fogler.
H. Owen Smith, General
Education Review
There was no report from
committee. However, he had announcement about the work of the
committee. The committee will have open meetings beginning next
month to get comments on the proposal as drafted last year. There
will be three or four open meetings through November and early
December.
In response to a question, he
indicated that the committee will distribute the proposal as widely
as possible as part of the process.
I. Jim Warhola,
Interdisciplinary Programs
The committee needs someone
from the College of Business, Public Policy, and Health. This person
does not have to be a senator. The committee has met twice and has
begun assessing various interdisciplinary programs on campus. There
are quite a few: 12 undergraduate and 8 graduate programs are listed
in the catalog, then there are some additional ones that might be
construed as interdisciplinary. Some others are being planned as
well, and they will be considered by the committee. The committee
sees itself as reviewing the programs in light of the Strategic
Plan, which stresses interdisciplinary programs.
Owen Smith asked if there was a
representative from the College of Education. Jim Warhola said that
there was not, but that the committee would welcome one.
J) Dana Humphrey, Board of
Trustees Representative
The next meeting of the Board
will be November 4–5 at UM Farmington. Each university gets one
chance per year to make a presentation to the Board, and this is our
turn. The presentation is made by the faculty representative and the
student representative (John Martin, Political Science). He requests
that if we have good news items or concerns that we would like for
him to highlight, we send them to him on FirstClass. He requests
that we keep it short, as he has only five minutes for the
presentation. If he hears nothing, he will talk about the good
things going on involving undergraduates and scholarship efforts,
broadly defined. In response to a question from Owen Smith, he said
that he needs the items on or before November 2.
VII. Old Business
A. Assignment of issues to
committees
Preamble:
A number of issues have
proposed for consideration and action in 2001-2002, including
several issues on which the Senate took some action in 2000-2001
and on which follow-up action is deemed to be required. Following
discussion at the September 2001 meetings of the Elected Members
Committee and the Senate, the Executive Committee sought the
guidance of the members of the Senate by asking members to
prioritize a list of issues. Based on consideration of the
responses received, the Executive Committee moves to assign issues
to committees as follows:
Motion:
The following issues are
assigned to the designated committees:
• Honors College
Commission report - to Academic Affairs
• Math and writing
competencies - to Academic Affairs
• Campus sustainability,
energy and environment - to Finance and Institutional Planning
• Budget and capital
projects - to Finance and Institutional Planning
• Faculty workloads - to
Finance and Institutional Planning
• Academic space and
facilities - to Finance and Institutional Planning
• Student course
evaluations - to University Environment
• Student retention - to
University Environment
• CED faculty advisory
council - to Research and Public Service
• AA degree equivalent to
general education? - to General Education Review
• Process for faculty
evaluations of administrators - to Executive Committee
• Definitions of faculty,
units and programs of study - to Executive Committee
• "Coaches" as a separate
faculty category - to Executive Committee
Bob Rice was called upon to
move motion as written; it was seconded by Howard Patterson.
Kathleen March offered a
friendly amendment: That the Academic Affairs Committee consider the
issue of coverage of classes when faculty are absent.
John Maddaus asked for
unanimous consent. Steve Cohn asked for clarification of the
amendment, at which point the parliamentarian advised seeking a
second for the amendment and proceeding with discussion. The
amendment was seconded by Doug Ruthven.
Discussion of amendment:
K. March said that there are
times when a faculty member cannot be in class, and the issue of how
the class is to be covered, or if it is covered, is vague. The
committee may need to consider how this is to be done.
B. Rice asked if this would be
a policy that would be included in the Faculty Handbook. K. March
said that she certainly sees it as appropriate for the Handbook so
that the faculty will know to do the right thing.
H. Patterson asked if she could
cite an example of why we are considering this now. She responded
that if a faculty member must be away for professional or health
reasons, it is unclear how these courses are to be covered. It may
be that there are different requirements for faculty in different
colleges or departments. Whether the class needs to be taught,
whether assignments can be given, whether the Internet can be used
to maintain communication during absence, or a VCR can be wheeled
in... There are so many variations, and there may have been people
who have been perceived as not teaching their classes.
D. Ruthven indicated that this
is currently handled at the department level, and that he would hate
to see additional bureaucracy added when the current system seems to
handle it. J. Maddaus reminded the senators that this amendment is
just to send the issue to committee. D. Ruthven indicated that the
issue seems to be more substantive than should be covered in an
amendment. B. Pearce indicated he shared D. Ruthven’s concerns, and
that this might make rules that might haunt us in the end.
O. Smith said he did not think
that the request has to do with legislation, but rather with a topic
to be considered, and so it is appropriate to send to Academic
Affairs.
I. Kornfield called the
question.
Vote on calling the question:
33 in favor, 5 opposed.
Vote on amendment: 21 in favor,
23 opposed. Amendment failed.
Discussion on main motion:
No further discussion
Vote: Unanimous save two
abstentions. Motion carried.
VIII. New Business
A. Reauthorization of Ad Hoc
Committee on Interdisciplinary Studies
Preamble:
The Senate created an ad hoc
committee on Interdisciplinary Studies at its January 2001 meeting
(see below). Raymond O’Connor conducted a number of discussions
with faculty and administrators during the Spring ’01 semester to
seek input on the scope and mission of the committee. This work
should be continued.
Motion:
To continue the work begun in
Spring semester ’01 on issues related to interdisciplinary
programs, the Senate re-authorizes the ad hoc Committee on
Interdisciplinary Studies for the 2001-02 academic year. The
committee will look at programs involving teaching and/or
research, both current and projected, in light of the University’s
Strategic Plan. This committee will seek to foster
interdisciplinary programs campus-wide.
Jim Warhola was asked to
introduce motion, which he did. He mentioned that Raymond O’Connor
(on sabbatical) has promised a report on the committee’s notes from
last spring.
Second by Owen Smith.
No discussion.
Vote: passed unanimously.
IX. Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Steve
Cohn. Meeting adjourned 4:22pm.
