Administrative Procedures Manual
Section 301 Mission Statements
Effective: 9/23/91
Last Revised: 3/98
Procedures for Submission of Mission Statements
Mission statements will normally be brought to the Board for approval in July, on a five-year cycle (for example, 1996, 2001, 2006, 2111). However, the Board, in consultation with the Chancellor, may call for review and revision of a mission at any time outside the normal cycle.
Mission statements and/or revisions result from the following process:
1. Campus-wide discussion and deliberation led by the president and/or his/her designees.
2. Discussion with the Chancellor and his/her designees at the System level.
3. Approval of the draft mission and/or revisions at the campus level.
4. Approval of the draft mission and/or revisions by the Chancellor.
5. Approval of the draft mission and/or revisions by the Board of Trustees at their July meeting.
6. Inclusion of the approved mission and/or revisions in all appropriate campus and system publications.
See: Policy Manual Section 104: University of Maine System Charter Section 1-A
Policy Manual Section 301 through 301.8: Mission Statements
Section 302 Academic Calendars
Effective: 4/8/71
Last Revised: 7/88; 3/98
Procedures for Submission of Academic Calendars
At least six months prior to implementation, each institution's academic calendar shall be forwarded to the Chancellor for review and approval. Academic calendars for the following academic year are submitted by the Chancellor to the Board of Trustees for the Board's information each January.
Departure from an approved calendar must be reported to the Chancellor for information.
See: Policy Manual Section 302: Academic Calendars
Section 303 Academic Degrees
Effective: 7/22/69
Last Revised: 1/14/08
Procedures for Awarding of Academic Degrees:
Degrees in course are awarded by means of a blanket resolution as follows:
Recommended that: the Board of Trustees award degrees in course at the appropriate commencement exercise for the (semester) to those students fully recommended by the appropriate faculties and Presidents of the respective institutions and/or divisions of the University of Maine System, whose names appear in the appropriate commencement programs.
The names of all students receiving degrees in course are appended to the minutes of the Board of Trustees.
Diplomas will be prepared in the following manner:
a. The name of the individual unit at which the degree is awarded will appear in the diploma heading and in the perimeter ring of the University seal which is imprinted in the lower center of the certificate.
b. The text will read:
Be it known that on recommendation of the Faculty, with the concurrence of the President and the Chancellor, and in recognition of the successful completion of the requisite course of study, the Trustees of the University of Maine System have conferred upon
the degree of
with all the rights, privileges and honors thereto appertaining. In testimony whereof, this diploma is granted at on the day of in the year .
c. The diploma will be signed by the Chair of the Board of Trustees, the Chancellor of the University of Maine System, and the President of the University.
See: Policy Manual Section 303: Academic Degrees
Section 304 Transfer of Academic Credit
Effective: 5/18/81
Last Revised: 9/24/84; 3/98; 11/17/03
Procedures for Transfer of Academic Credit
Board of Trustees policy provides the maximum opportunity for transfer within the University of Maine System. To effect successful transfer experiences for UMS students, the following transfer practices are endorsed and followed by University of Maine System institutions.
1. Generally, course grades do not transfer from institution to institution. Semester and cumulative grade point averages reflect only those courses taken at the home institution. Exceptions to this policy are approved by the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Students in external degree programs and/or taking courses at distant sites and centers should inquire about any exceptions which may apply.
2. Grades of C- or better in courses taken within the University of Maine System and accepted for transfer credit will be recorded on the student's transcript although not computed into the cumulative grade point average.
3. All undergraduate courses successfully completed with a C- or better at one University of Maine System institution will transfer to another.
4. Each student must meet the established requirements of the academic program or college into which s/he is transferring. Transfer credits do not necessarily count toward such requirements.
5. Transfer students must consult the individual institution catalog to determine requirements regarding the number of degree credits that must be taken through the degree-granting institution.
6. Transferring students will be expected to provide official transcripts reflecting all previous postsecondary coursework.
7. Each accepted transfer student will receive a written evaluation of transfer credit. The transfer student should then meet with program faculty/advisors at the receiving institution to review how the transfer credit will be applied.
8. Course credit will be transferred only for coursework delivered by regionally accredited institutions, through AP or CLEP, or through life experience (i.e. prior learning or other learning such as military training, etc.) when validated through the approved campus processes.
9. Course credit from international institutions will be accepted for transfer consistent with established institutional policies.
10. If a student disagrees with a decision made in regard to the transfer of his/her credits from one institution to another, the student may appeal through the regular academic appeals process at the receiving institution.
See Policy Manual Section 304: Transfer of Academic Credit
Section 304.1 Uniform Course Numbering
Effective: 9/24/84
Last Revised:
Procedures for Uniform Course Numbering:
The Basic Structure. The course identifier has two components: (1) an alphabetic-subject-area identifier that has three characters, and (2) a three-digit course number .
The alphabetic-subject-area identifier is determined using logic developed by the Inter-Institutional Cooperation Committee of the Florida Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (see Appendix A).
Course Numbering Guide. The first of the three numbers indicates whether or not a course carriers credit, what type of credit, and the level of the course offering.
X = Non-credit community service courses.
0 = Associate degree, vocational courses, or other courses not normally transferable toward a baccalaureate degree.
1,2 = Associate and/or lower-level baccalaureate degree courses.
3 = Upper-level baccalaureate courses.
4 = Upper-level baccalaureate courses; with appropriate qualification and permission, may be taken for graduate credit.
5 = Graduate-level courses; with appropriate qualifications and permission, may be taken for undergraduate credit.
6 = Doctoral and professional courses.
7,8,9 = Reserve levels for future assignments.
The second and third positions of the numeric segment of the course number are designations within each department. These numbers are assigned sequentially, and consideration should be given to series courses (examples: Calculus = MAT 101, MAT 102).
00 - 89 Developmental designations
90 - 99 Reserved for special studies
90 - Reserved for future assignment
91 - Reserved for future assignment
92 - Reserved for future assignment
93 - Reserved for future assignment
94 - Cooperative education
95 - Internship
96 - Field experience
97 - Independent study
98 - Directed study
99 - Thesis
To illustrate the three alpha and three numeric portions of the course number:
Discipline sector
Course Section
B I O 3 2 2
Identifies departmental designations and course sequence.
Identifies whether or not a course carries credit and what type of credit.
Identified to establish uniqueness and visual and/or phonemic relationship with the name of the discipline.
Should correspond to the initial letter of the discipline to be identified.
APPENDIX A
The following logic is utilized for establishing prefixes that will avoid duplication and offer a usable three-letter system.
Rule #1. The prefix will contain no more or less than three alpha characters.
Rule #2. To establish the prefix in single-word departmental titles, use:
A. The first three alpha characters of the word (e.g., English, ENG).
B. Where conflicts exist, if the title is a compound word combination, use the first two letters of the first word and the first letter of the second word (e.g., Astrophysics, ASP; Biochemistry, BIC; Floriculture, FLC; Psychotherapy, PST).
C. If the first two options (A and B above) have been exhausted and a conflict still exists, use the first two letters and the last letter of the word to establish the three-letter prefix (e.g., English, ENH).
D. If the first three options have been exhausted and a conflict remains, use the first letter of the first syllable, the first letter of second syllable, and the last letter of the word (e.g., Engineering, EGG).
E. If another option is necessary, use the first letter in each of the first three syllables.
Rule #3. In dual-word titles, use:
A. The first two alpha characters in the first word and the first alpha character in the second word (e.g., Animal Husbandry, ANH).
B. If a duplication exists, use the first character of the first word and the first two characters of the second word (e.g., Animal Husbandry, AHU).
C. If a conflict still exists, use the first character of the first word and the first and last characters of the second word (e.g., Animal Husbandry, AHY).
D. If a need exists for another combination, use the first and last characters of the first word and the first character of the second word (e.g., Animal Husbandry, ALH).
E. If a further extension is necessary and one of the words in the title is a compound-word combination, the compound may be treated as separate words to develop a suitable designation.
Rule #4. In triple-word titles, use:
A. The first alpha character in each word (e.g., East Asian Studies, EAS).
B. If another combination is necessary, use the alpha combination which most clearly designates the discipline without duplicating another prefix.
Rule #5. In multi-word titles, use:
A. The first alpha character of the first three words (e.g., Aviation Maintenance Management Studies, AMM).
B. The first alpha character of the three most prominent or root words (e.g., Classical Civilization and Literature, CCL).
Rule #6. In the case of subject titles which are fields within a discipline (e.g., Agriculture, Education, Engineering, etc.) a common set of root characters is used. All fields with AAgriculture@ in the title begin with AA.@ All with AEducation@ or AEngineering@ begin with AE.@
1. a. EDS = Education Secondary
b. ESS = Education Social Studies
c. ESL = Education Special
d. ESE = Education Science
e. EST = Education Statistics
f. ESU = Education Supervision
2. a. EAD = Engineering Administration
b. EAE = Engineering Aerospace
c. EAG = Engineering Agriculture
d. EBE = Engineering Bioenvironmental
3. a. CHI = Chinese Language
b. CZE = Czech Language
c. The word Alanguage@ is added to distinguish from Chinese History, or Chinese Studies, but not incorporated in the prefix.
See: Policy Manual Section 304.1: Uniform Course Numbering
Section 304.2 Standard University of Maine System Grading Designations
Effective: 9/2000
Procedures for Standard Grading Designations
Standard grading designations were adopted in September 1999. The following menu of common designations is available to all faculty and will simplify implementation of a single academic record throughout the University of Maine System. A single academic record with standard designations will be easy to interpret by academic advisors, especially for multi-campus distance students or those who attend more than one UMS institution. Faculty prerogatives in assigning grades are not affected by these standard designations, although faculty now have more options than previously.
Individual institutions may use and publish a subset of the standard grading designations listed below, but they may not change the meaning of the grades or add additional grades unless they are formally added to the designations by the Chief Academic Officers. The standard designations are effective with the Fall 2000 semester grading.
| Grade Definition | Grade | Quality Points |
| A | 4.0 | |
| A- | 3.67 | |
| B+ | 3.33 | |
| B | 3.0 | |
| B- | 2.67 | |
| C+ | 2.33 | |
| C | 2.0 | |
| C- | 1.67 | |
| D+ | 1.33 | |
| D | 1.0 | |
| D- | 0.67 | |
| fail | F | 0.0 |
| audit | AU | None |
| deferred grade - multi-semester course | DG | None |
| dropout - punitive | L | 0.0 |
| honors - pass/fail course | H | None |
| incomplete - temporary | I | None |
| incomplete - permanent non-punitive | INC | None |
| incomplete - permanent punitive | *I | 0.0 |
| laboratory | LAB | None |
| low pass (UM School of Law) | LP | None |
| missing grade | MG | None |
| missing grade - permanent punitive | *M | 0.0 |
| pass/fail course - pass | P | None |
| pass/fail course - fail | *F | None |
| undergraduate thesis - deferred | T | None |
| withdraw passing | W | None |
| withdraw failing - punitive | WF | 0.0 |
| graduate thesis - acceptable | ACC | None |
| graduate thesis - deferred | R | None |
| Symbols used to address non-traditional functionality of grading | ||
| When the symbols listed below precede any of the grades above, they are used when grades are not treated in the traditional method of grading. They include, but are not limited to, grading for developmental courses, academic "forgiveness" of previous grades, and special circumstances where a student on academic suspension is readmitted. (Example: *A - the grade is used to determine quality points and is computed into the grade point average but no degree hours are earned for the course). | ||
| * | Grade counts in GPA; no credits are earned. | |
| ~ | Grade does not count in GPA; credits are earned. | |
| # | Grade does not count in GPA; no credits are earned. | |
Section 304.3 Standard Definitions of Academic & Administrative Terms
Effective: 9/2000
Procedures for Standard Definitions of Academic & Administrative Terms
Although each university in the University of Maine System (UMS) develops specific implementation practices and procedures for many academic and administrative actions, a standard definition of terms exists to facilitate cross-institutional enrollments, transfer within the UMS and production of UMS student transcripts. Each university will include the definitions in catalogs and other appropriate institutional publications.
1. Academic Terms
A. Academic Dismissal - When a degree student is not making satisfactory progress toward a degree, an appropriate official/committee at each university takes dismissal action against the student and (s)he is not allowed to take any courses at any university in the UMS.
1) The student is not normally allowed to apply for readmission.
2) The action is posted to the official academic record.
3) A hold is placed on the student record to preclude enrollment at all UMS institutions.
B. Academic Probation/Warning - The degree student whose grade point average indicates that (s)he will have difficulty achieving the required minimum GPA to graduate will be notified of this possibility.
1) Academic probation/warning may have an impact on financial aid awards.
2) Posting probation/warning on transcripts varies with each institution.
C. Academic Suspension - When a degree student is not making satisfactory academic progress toward a degree, an appropriate official/committee at each university may take suspension action against the student.
1) The student shall not be admitted as a matriculated student by the same or another institution for the next academic semester nor thereafter until the conditions established for termination of that suspension have been met.
2) The action is posted to the official academic record.
3) A hold is placed on the student record to preclude enrollment as a matriculated student at all UMS institutions until the conditions of the suspension have been met.
4) The student may enroll as a non-degree student at another UMS institution.
D. Repeat Grades - With one exception, institutions allow students to repeat courses that result in only one grade being computed into the GPA and the earned hours accruing only once. The method used to recompute the GPA varies with each institution.
E. Satisfactory Academic Progress - In keeping with Title IV Federal Financial Aid Regulations continued eligibility for financial aid depends on a student making satisfactory academic progress (SAP) toward completion of degree requirements. The guidelines require the policy to include both qualitative (GPA) and quantitative (attempted versus earned hours) measures. The maximum time for receipt of aid may not exceed 150% of the published length of the program as measured in academic semesters. The practices at each university are being reviewed to determine the possibility of developing a single educational progress scale that incorporates both the federal and university requirements.
1) Financial Aid Probation - If a student fails to meet the minimum requirements, (s)he will be placed on financial aid probation. The student may receive financial aid for the probationary term(s) but must complete the designated number of credits with the corresponding GPA by the end of the probationary period.
2) Financial Aid Suspension - Suspension results from failure to meet the minimum GPA and to attain the required minimum earned credits at the end of the probationary semester. Financial aid is not available.
F. Transfer Credit Evaluations Within the UMS - Board of Trustees policy is to provide the maximum opportunity for transfer within the System. When a student is accepted for transfer, all undergraduate degree credits obtained at any institution of the University of Maine System will be transferable to any other institution but may not be automatically applied to the specific academic degree program to which the student has transferred.
2. Administrative Terms
Students in violation of the Student Conduct Code may be subject to disciplinary action by the University pursuant to the Code.
A. Administrative Suspension - The suspension may be separation from the University for a specific period of time or until other conditions have been met.
1) The student shall not be admitted as a matriculated student by the same or another institution for the next academic semester nor thereafter until the conditions established for termination of that suspension have been met.
2) The student may enroll as a non-degree student at another UMS institution.
3) The action is not posted to the academic record.
4) An administrative hold is placed on the student record to preclude enrollment at all UMS institutions.
B. Administrative Dismissal - The UMS Student Conduct Code contains sanctions for students that include dismissal from the University.
1) The student is not entitled to apply for readmission.
2) An administrative hold is placed on the student record to preclude enrollment at all UMS institutions.
3) The action is not posted to the student record.
3. Hold Types
Several hold actions are posted to student records to preclude student enrollments and other appropriate university services. A cross-institutional hold facility with the Student Information System applies to the areas listed below.
A. Academic - as a result of academic suspension or dismissal
B. Administrative - as a result of an administrative suspension or dismissal
C. Financial - as a result of a student who is in arrears to the UMS
1) Student receivables = >$100
2) Student loans >$0
4. Hold Actions
Cross-institutional hold actions taken against the student are dependent on the hold type.
A. Registration as a matriculated student - Registration is not allowed at any university as a result of any or all of the hold types listed below.
1) Academic suspension
2) Administrative suspension
3) Academic dismissal
4) Administrative dismissal
5) Financial
B. Registration as a non-degree student - Registration is not allowed at any university as a result of the hold type listed below.
1) Financial
2) Academic dismissal
3) Administrative dismissal
C. Transcript requests - Student transcript requests will not be honored by any university as a result of the hold type listed below.
1) Financial
D. Diploma - Attendance at the commencement exercises is allowed but no diploma is released to the student as a result of the hold type listed below.
1) Financial
NOTE: Italicized items indicated that varying policies/procedures exist.
See: Policy Manual Section 304: Transfer of Academic Credit
Policy Manual Section 307: Admission or Readmission of Students
Academic Affairs Administrative Procedures Manual Section 304: Transfer of Academic Credit
Academic Affairs Administrative Procedures Manual Section 307: Admission or Readmission of Students
Administrative Practice Letter 18
Student Loan Fund Procedures Manual, Section D, Subsection 2.1
Section 304.4 Academic Record and Transcripts
Effective: with implementation of new student information system
Procedures for the Academic Record and Transcripts
In March 1998 the Chief Academic Officers of the University of Maine System voted to adopt a single academic record. The academic record will be the source for all transcripts and will contain:
1. all courses taken within the University of Maine System
2. the view of the academic record will be from the home campus
3. transfer credit will be posted as evaluated by the home campus
4. the imprinted signatures of all seven registrars
5. the imprinted seal of the University of Maine System
6. a common key that defines the grading system and other appropriate University of Maine System academic record features
Students will be able to obtain a transcript from any University of Maine System institution.
See: Academic Affairs Administrative Procedures Manual Section 304.2: Standard University of Maine System Grading Designations
Section 305 Program Inventory
Effective: 3/28/79
Last Revised:
Procedures for Submission of Program Inventory
Board of Trustees policy states that the Academic Program Inventory is the definitive list of all academic degree programs offered by the institutions or units of the University of Maine System. An academic program is defined as a course of study identified by a specific degree title and a specific subject matter area with a prescribed set of requirements which a student must complete.
The Academic Program Inventory is maintained by the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Each summer the institutions are requested to update their portions of the Inventory. The completed document is submitted to the Board of Trustees for the Board's information each September.
See: Policy Manual Section 305: Program Inventory
Section 305.1 Academic Program Approval
Effective: 1/29/87
Last Revised: 1/14/08
Academic Program Approval
The approval process requires the following sequential steps:
1. Faculty/staff initiation on campus with appropriate consultation with the campus administration in order to prepare an Intent to Plan.
2. The Intent to Plan, when approved by the campus President, will be submitted to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs who will acknowledge receipt of the document. The Vice Chancellor will make copies of the Intent to Plan available to the President and the Chief Academic Officer of each campus for their information.
3. All Intent to Plan documents will be submitted to the University of Maine System Chief Academic Officers who will review submissions and decide upon one of four actions:
a. Intent to Plan accepted.
b. Intent to Plan accepted with qualifications.
c. Intent to Plan returned with suggestions for revision.
d. Intent to Plan rejected with rationale to substantiate decision.
Intent to Plan Statements will be considered by the Chief Academic Officers at regular business meetings or at other special meetings called by the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. The submission deadline is 30 days prior to the meeting of the Chief Academic Officers at which the Intent to Plan is to be considered, to provide adequate time for individuals to prepare and distribute written statements in support of or in opposition to the Plan. Those submitting Plan statements, who so request, as well as other interested parties, will be invited to attend the Chief Academic Officers meeting. Items not submitted within the time frame established will not receive consideration until the next meeting at which Intent to Plan Statements are scheduled for discussion.
In their review of Intent to Plan statements, the Chief Academic Officers will take into consideration the appropriateness of the program to the mission and goals of the submitting campus, the need for the program and the rationale for any duplication, and the availability of adequate resources to support the program.
The Chief Academic Officers will recommend approval of an intent to plan during regular business meetings and if necessary, will postpone approval to work toward consensus. In order to determine how best to provide statewide delivery of a needed program, intent to plan proposals should specify the statewide need and corresponding interest, the mode of delivery, and the potential catchment area from which students would be drawn.
The Chief Academic Officers will make their recommendation(s) on an Intent to Plan to the Vice Chancellor who in turn will make his/her recommendation concerning an Intent to Plan to the Chancellor. The minutes of the Chief Academic Officers will be the record of action on an Intent to Plan. If the Intent to Plan is approved, the Vice Chancellor will notify the Chief Academic Officer of the originating campus in writing that the development of a full proposal may proceed, with copies of the action to all other campuses. The Board of Trustees will be informed when Intent to Plan Statements have been approved by the Chancellor.
4. Once an Intent to Plan has been approved, a status report must be filed in the Vice Chancellor’s Office at the end of a six-month period in order to keep the plan active if a program proposal has not yet been submitted. An approved Intent to Plan which is not followed by the submission of a program proposal within one year from the time of initial acceptance will be automatically voided unless a specific request for an extension of time has ben received and approved by the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
5. Approval of an Intent to Plan is to be followed by a program proposal development on campus through the appropriate faculty units and committees. The campus administration will review the progress and may elect to share, for informational purposes, an early draft or preliminary program proposal with other campuses and the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. The completed proposal, with the approval of the campus President, will be submitted to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs 100 days before the Board meeting at which the proposal is to be considered, to permit careful internal and external review of the proposal.
6. The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs will acknowledge receipt of the proposal and distribute copies to the Chief Academic Officers. The Vice Chancellor, in consultation with the Chief Academic Officers and those most closely involved with the proposed program on the originating campus, will appoint an ad hoc review committee, when appropriate, to provide an independent assessment of the proposal. The ad hoc review committee will report in writing its findings and recommendations to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
7. The Vice Chancellor has three action options:
a. forward the proposal with a recommendation for approval to the Chancellor.
b. return the proposal to the originating campus with specific critiques and suggestions for revision.
c. return the proposal to the initiating campus with specific written rationale for its rejection.
8. The Chancellor will recommend program proposals to the Board of Trustees for its review and approval. Notice of final approval of program proposals will be transmitted to all campuses.
Section 305.2 Substantive Changes to Existing Academic Programs
Effective: 1/14/08
Last Revised:1/14/08
When a university plans to make substantive changes to a previously-approved academic program, the program should be brought to a regular business meeting of the Chief Academic Officers for review and discussion.
Substantive changes to an existing academic program (degree, certificate, or other form of academic recognition) include:
-
a significant departure in terms of either the content or method of delivery from those that were offered when the academic program was most recently evaluated, such as distance learning or correspondence courses;
-
changes in the geographic area in which a degree program is being offered, either physically or through distance learning technologies
The Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs will make a decision, based on the recommendation of the Chief Academic Officers, whether to approve or reject the proposed changes to academic programs.
Section 305.3 Academic Program Review
Effective: 1/29/87
Last Revised: 1/14/08
Academic program review must be institution-based and reflect an institution’s mission and capacity. Program review should focus on student outcomes and should support a systematic and broad-based approach to the assessment of student learning focused on educational improvement through understanding how and what students are learning in their academic program.
Regular program assessment will improve the program review process. Specific identification of program goals and student learning objectives is a critical first step.
1. All academic degree programs are to be reviewed within an established time frame. The schedule of academic program reviews is to be revised biennially in concert with the review and revision of the university operational plan of which it becomes a part. Academic program review schedules are to be submitted to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and any deviations from these review schedules must be approved by the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
Program review should be undertaken within five years for new programs and at least every seven years for continuing programs, unless a shorter interval is deemed necessary for specified conditions resulting from a review. The schedule should allow for flexibility and can change to coordinate with the timing of reviews by specialized accrediting bodies. University-level processes should be developed for programs less than degree-level.
2. Academic program review should ensure broad institutional and community representation in the process, including but not limited to appropriate faculty and program alumni. Structures and mechanisms that blend academic affairs and student affairs in a constructive fashion should be encouraged.
3. The program review process on each university should include:
a. a self-study by the unit being reviewed.
The self-study should include:
• rationale for the program
• five-year summary of program enrollment (number of majors and number of graduates)
• course section enrollments
• number of full-time faculty equivalents
• budgets
• an assessment of progress made in relation to the recommendations of previous program reviews.
The self-study should address the quality of the faculty and the methods used to ensure that quality (such as post-tenure review practices). The quality and appropriateness of the curriculum should be examined, with attention to such matters as student outcomes assessment and pluralistic perspectives. In addition, the self-study should discuss the relation of the program to the university mission.
b. a report by external reviewers based on a review of the self-study, additional materials as required, and a site visit.
c. a final report by the university, endorsed by the President.
The final report should include:
• a statement on how the program enhances the mission of the university
• a statement on the value of the program to the state and the nation
• a set of recommendations, with rationale, for future action,
• budget implications based on the self-study and the external review, and
• actions taken as a result of previous reviews.
Attention should be given to whether or not a program having had few graduates over a period of years as well as low course section enrollments should be continued. Professional accreditation processes may substitute for appropriate components of this section. The University of Maine System encourages program review and accreditation assessments be held at the same time where possible and appropriate.
4. Program reviews carried out during the previous two years shall become a part of the biennial review and revision of the university operational plan and the recommendations emanating from the review should be taken into consideration in the development of the biennial budget request.
5. Each year, each Chief Academic Officer will submit a report to the Vice Chancellor that summarizes program review activity at the universities. This report should include information on reviews in progress, reviews completed in the past year, an executive summary of the results of completed reviews and actions taken as a result of those reviews.
The Vice Chancellor will review the documents submitted and, based on this review, will recommend that the Chancellor accept the reviews and the recommendations in the final report and initiate any appropriate action(s), or recommend that the Chancellor discuss the review documents with the university President and examine possible future actions.
Institutions and the System should fully vet program reviews and provide adequate responses to programs.
Program review documents will be kept on file in the Chancellor’s Office where they can be reviewed by members of the Board of Trustees.
Section 305.4 Academic Program Suspension
Effective: 1/29/87
Last Revised: 1/14/08
An academic program may be suspended for many reasons, including change in campus mission, low enrollments, and lack of resources. A campus may choose to suspend a program in order to gain time before restructuring the program or eliminating it. The following procedure should be followed in the case of suspending an academic program.
An academic program can be assessed for possible program suspension:
1) as a result of the program review process, or
2) at any time at the initiative of the campus offering the program, or
3) at any time at the initiative of the Chancellor.
A program should not remain in the suspended state for longer than three years. By the end of the third year, a decision should be made to restructure and re-institute the program or to eliminate it. In the case of a decision to eliminate, the formal program elimination process will be initiated.
Academic degree program suspension process shall including the following:
1. The initiation of the Program Suspension Procedure, including notification in writing by the President to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and to the Associated Faculties of the University of Maine System of the intent to develop a Program Suspension Proposal.
2. The development of a Program Suspension Proposal, which shall normally include the following:
a. A five-year summary of program enrollments (number of majors and number of graduates) and number of faculty equivalents (FTEs) associated with the program.
b. The specific rationale for the suspension of the program.
c. The relationship of the program suspension to the institutional mission and to other programs at the institution. Where faculty positions are involved, UMS will follow the AFUM agreement and will consult with the appropriate faculty governance body.
d. A plan for the assignment of faculty during the suspension period.
e. The impact of the program suspension on students, including plans for assisting students to complete an appropriate degree program.
f. A timetable for the program suspension, with date for consideration of the program for reinstatement or elimination.
g. The input obtained from meeting and discussion with the appropriate faculty committees and with the Associated Faculties of the University of Maine System prior to completion of the proposal.
3. Campus submission of the Program Suspension Proposal to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. The Vice Chancellor will make copies of the Program Suspension Proposal available to the Presidents and Chief Academic Officers of each campus for their information.
4. The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs’ recommendation, after consultation with the Chief Academic Officers, to the Chancellor for approval of the Suspension Proposal.
5. The Chancellor’s informing the Board of Trustees of the Suspension at the January or July Board meeting.
Section 305.5 Academic Program Elimination
Effective: 1/29/87
Last Revised: 1/14/08
An academic program can be assessed for possible program elimination
(1) as the result of the program review process as indicated,
(2) at any time at the initiative of the campus offering the program, or
(3) at any time upon the recommendation of the Chancellor based on enrollments and the centrality of the program to the campus mission. In those situations in which the Chancellor believes there is sufficient reason for a campus to consider invoking the program elimination process, he/she will make such a recommendation, accompanied by the rationale for the recommendation, to the campus President. Following receipt of such a recommendation, the campus will either initiate the program elimination process or provide justification for not eliminating the program.
Academic degree program elimination shall include the following:
1. The initiation of the Program Elimination Procedure including notification in writing by the President to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and to the Associated Faculties of the University of Maine System for the programs to which unit members are assigned, of the intent to develop a Program Elimination Proposal.
2. The development of a Program Elimination Proposal which shall include the following:
a. A five-year summary of program enrollments (number of majors and number of graduates), course section enrollments, number of full-time faculty equivalents associated with the program, and budgets.
b. The specific rationale for the elimination of the program including an indication of the campus process used to reach the recommendation.
c. The relationship of the program elimination to the campus mission and to other programs on the campus.
d. A plan for the retrenchment or reassignment of faculty.
e. The impact of the program elimination on students.
f. A timetable for the program elimination.
g. The input obtained from meeting and discussion with the Associated Faculties of the University of Maine System prior to completion of the proposal.
3. Campus submittal of the Program Elimination Proposal to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. The Vice Chancellor will make copies of the Program Elimination Proposal available to the President and Chief Academic Officer of each campus for their information.
4. Program Elimination Proposals submitted to the University of Maine System Chief Academic Officers, who will review all proposals and decide upon one of the following three actions:
a. Program Elimination Proposal accepted.
b. Program Elimination Proposal returned with request for additional information.
c. Program Elimination Proposal rejected with rationale to substantiate decision.
5. The Chief Academic Officers’ recommendation to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, who will in turn make his/her recommendation concerning the Program Elimination Proposal to the Chancellor.
6. The Chancellor’s recommendation of the Program Elimination Proposal to the Board of Trustees for its review and final approval, to come before the Board twice a year at the January and July Board meetings.
See: Policy Manual Section 305.1: Program Approval, Review and Elimination
Section 305.6 Brokering Academic Programs
Effective: 5/19/86
Last Revised: 4/2008
Administrative Procedures for Brokering of Academic Programs:
A brokered program is a collaboration between two universities where one
University (the “provider” institution) allows another university (the “receiver” institution) to offer a curriculum resulting in a degree from the provider institution. The receiver generally admits the students and offers the curriculum based on guidelines set by the provider institution.
A. Letter of Intent. A Letter of Intent signed by the President of the provider institution and the President of the receiver Institution is to be submitted to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs for approval. The Letter of Intent is to include:
1. The name of the proposed brokered program
2. The providing and receiving institutions
3. Rationale (need)
4. Tentative cost and revenue projections
5. Anticipated starting date
Upon receipt of the Letter of Intent the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs will forward a copy for review and comment to each campus president and chief academic officer. Within thirty (30) days thereafter the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs will:
1. Approve the Letter of Intent, with or without qualifications, authorize the
development of a written agreement and notify the Chancellor and the involved campus presidents and chief academic officers of the decision, or;
2. Reject the Letter of Intent and notify the involved presidents and chief academic officers and the Chancellor.
B. Written Agreement.
1. Upon approval of the Letter of Intent by the participating campuses a written agreement between the campuses involved is to be developed.
2. The written agreement signed by the respective campus presidents is to be forwarded to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. The Vice Chancellor will forward a copy of the agreement for review and comment to each campus president and chief academic officer. Within thirty (30) days thereafter, the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs will:
a. Approve the written agreement and notify the Chancellor and each campus
president and chief academic officer, or;
b. Reject the written agreement and notify each campus president and chief
academic officer and forward a copy to the Chancellor.
3. The agreement should specify:
a. the name and description of the program;
b. any variance in the curriculum from the degree-granting, provider institution, and the plan for offering and supporting the curriculum at the receiving institution;
c. arrangements under which faculty at the receiving campus are approved for delivery of the program;
d. who will be responsible for making admissions decisions and advising students admitted into the program;
e. the cohort size and the length of time the program will be available;
f. a plan for how records for students in the program will be managed;
g. that students enrolled in the brokered program will be subject to the rules, regulations and procedures of the receiving campus;
h. program budget;
i. a plan for review and evaluation of the program, and;
j. a plan for resolution of disagreements.
See: Policy Manual Section 305.2: Brokering Academic Programs
See: Policy Manual Section 305.1: Program Approval, Review and Elimination
Section 306 Student Appeals Policy for Academic Affairs
Effective: 6/25/75
Last Revised:
Procedures for Student Appeals Policy for Academic Affairs:
The Student Appeals Policy for Academic Affairs guarantees to each student an objective review of an academic grievance.
Each institution has an established written policy on student appeals for academic affairs, and these policies have been reviewed and approved for implementation by the Chancellor.
Any proposed revisions to campus policies should be submitted to the Chancellor for review and approval. The following criteria were applied by the Chancellor in approving the original documents and will also be applied in approving any proposed revisions:
Each institutional policy shall provide for:
1. Purpose of appeals document (general statement of policy).
2. Procedures to be followed in an appeal of a decision on academic affairs:
a. Types of issues which may be appealed.
b. Steps to be taken by the student to appeal a decision on academic affairs.
c. Procedures to be followed by the institution to resolve the issue.
3. Provision for periodic re-evaluation of the policy.
In addition, the campus should indicate how students and faculty were involved in formulating any revisions to the policy, and endorsements by appropriate student and faculty organizations should be noted.
See Policy Manual Section 306: Student Appeals Policy for Academic Affairs
Section 307 Admission or Readmission of Students
Effective: 3/25/85
Last Revised:
Procedures for Admission or Readmission of Students:
A student seeking admission after dismissal, or as an exception to University of Maine System policy as recorded in Section 307 of the University of Maine System Policy Manual, shall file a written petition with, and shall interview with (insert title of the appropriate university officer), after filing an application for admission with the Admissions Office. In the petition and interview, the student shall present clear and convincing reasons to justify admission as a matriculating student to the university that satisfactorily negate the likelihood of any repetition of the conduct or conditions which led to such dismissal or suspension.
The student's transcript will show academic status; and the application form of each university will include the question:
Have you ever been dismissed from, or suspended by, any institution in the University of Maine System or any other college or university for any reason? (Yes or No)
If yes, please explain
See: Policy Manual Section 307: Admission or Readmission of Students
Section 308 Accreditation
Effective:
Last Revised:
Procedures for Accreditation:
No procedures necessary.
Section 309 Organization and Establishment of Major Units
Effective: 1/29/90
Last Revised: 4/25/03
Procedures for Organization and Establishment of Major Units
Proposals for major university reorganization, the establishment of a new unit, or the merger of two or more units should include a rationale that describes how the proposed change or addition will enhance the university's ability to carry out its mission, a projected five-year budget, and a proposed review process.
Proposals for elimination of a unit should provide a rationale and budget and personnel implications.
Proposals should be submitted by the university President to the Chancellor for review and submittal to the Board of Trustees.
The establishment and maintenance of research and public service centers, institutes, laboratories, and bureaus will follow the Policy for Establishing and Maintaining Centers.
See: Policy Manual Section 309: Organization and Establishment of Major Units
Section 310 Tenure
Effective: 6/7/70
Last Revised: 7/9/90
Procedures for Awarding Tenure
The decision to grant or not to grant tenure rests solely with the Board of Trustees. Nothing in these guidelines, or in the criteria developed under these guidelines, or in the approval of the criteria, shall limit or restrict that discretionary authority of the Board.
Guidelines:
1. Each new appointee should receive a letter of appointment that includes, as a minimum, such data as:
a. academic rank and/or title of position;
b. general duties to be performed;
c. beginning and ending dates of appointment;
d. type of appointment - probationary, temporary;
e. indication of amount, if any, or prior service to be counted toward probationary period;
f. salary.
2. The specific assignment of prior credit will be part of the letter received at the time of initial appointment. The time credited as probationary years with regard to service at other institutions of higher education, whether units of the University of Maine System or not, shall not exceed three years.
3. A probationary appointment shall not exceed six consecutive academic years in a full-time position on a single campus. A leave of absence, sabbatical, or teacher improvement assignment shall not constitute a break in continuous service, nor shall it be included in the six-year period without prior written agreement between the faculty member and the President at the time of the request.
4. Individuals on probationary appointments shall normally complete the full term, i.e., the sixth year, before the Board awards tenure.
5. At the time of initial appointment, exceptionally qualified individuals may be awarded tenure at the rank of full professor, with the approval of the appointment by the Trustees. In other cases, as the institutions deem appropriate, full professors may receive an initial appointment without tenure but, with Trustee approval at the time of their appointment, may be given the opportunity to apply for tenure during the second year of their appointment.
6. Tenure shall not be awarded ordinarily below the associate professor level or its equivalent.
7. Each institution shall develop its criteria for promotion and tenure, and, once developed, a statement of such criteria shall be forwarded to the Chancellor and the Trustees for review and approval and thereafter be made available by the campus administration to all faculty members in the institution. These criteria shall include reference to teaching, public service, research, and scholarship activities as are appropriate to the University System and institution missions. Criteria may vary among units or departments, but shall be in accord with the overall campus criteria.
8. Student input is a desirable and meaningful part of faculty evaluation, and the contribution students make to the evaluative process is essential to the improvement of instruction. Student evaluations are to be secured on a regular, systematic, and equitable basis and made part of the official record.
9. Evidence should be obtained from outside the institution and from outside the University of Maine System, as appropriate, regarding the scholarship and research of candidates for tenure.
10. Tenured faculty, as well as nontenured faculty, shall be reviewed on an annual basis. Each institution shall develop its own criteria for faculty evaluation, and, once developed, a statement of such criteria shall be forwarded to the Chancellor and the Trustees for review and approval and thereafter be made available by the campus administration to all faculty members in the institution.
11. The tenure guidelines provide the policy framework for the process to be followed at each institution. Where exceptions are sought, it is necessary that the campus present its request in detail, including the rationale for the exception, to the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees.
12. Tenure may be transferable among the institutions of the University of Maine System at the discretion of the Board of Trustees, consistent with the tenure policies of the institution to which transfer is sought.
13. Senior administrators shall not be awarded tenure as part of their administration contracts. However, the Trustees will consider, on an exceptional basis, a nomination to tenure for an academic dean, when presented under these conditions:
1. the nominee will have been accepted by an appropriate academic department and accorded faculty rank, at the time of appointment as academic dean;
2. the nomination will have been duly evaluated through the campus tenure processes.
14. A chief academic officer or other university employee in a position at the level of vice president may be considered for tenure to be effective upon assuming a full-time faculty appointment after completion of service in the administrative position. The employee must have been accepted by an appropriate academic department and accorded faculty rank at the time of appointment to the administrative position. Evaluation for tenure will occur under the university's tenure process at the time of initial appointment, or, with approval of the President, during the final year of service in the administrative position. The final decision regarding the award of tenure is made by the Board of Trustees. If tenure is granted, it will not be effective until the date the employee assumes the full-time faculty position and the term in the administrative position ends.
See Policy Manual Section 310: Tenure
Section 311 Intra-System Student Exchange
Effective:
Last Revised:
Procedures for Intra-System Student Exchange:
No procedures necessary.
Section 312 University Professor
Effective:
Last Revised:
Procedures for University Professor:
Appointment as a University Professor shall be recommended by the President, nominated by the Chancellor and approved by the Board of Trustees. Each unit shall establish procedures for the selection of nominees.
See Policy Manual Section 312: University Professor
Section 313 Student Evaluation of Faculty
Effective: 3/26/84
Last Revised:
Procedures for Student Evaluation of Faculty:
Each university shall establish procedures for student evaluations of faculty. These procedures shall be in accordance with Board policy mandating such evaluations and, where applicable, in accordance with the current collective bargaining agreement.
See Policy Manual Section 313: Student Evaluation of Faculty
Section 314 Community College Partnership of Maine
Effective: 9/2000
Definitions and Procedures for Identifying and Tracking Students in the Community College Partnership of Maine (CCPM)
Community College Partnership of Maine (CCPM) - The Partnership is a collaborative effort on the part of the University of Maine System and the Maine Technical College System to deliver community college courses and services statewide. The two Systems will collaborate to expand access to associate of arts foundation courses, increase availability of courses statewide, offer ready transfer between the technical colleges and universities, and provide educational access to all Maine's citizens.
CollegeStart: Providing Community College Access Statewide to Maine People is the System's effort to expand access to high quality programs and services for Maine citizens through affordable participation rates. CollegeStart serves as the vehicle for supporting and enhancing the CCPM.
CollegeStart students are those who are enrolled in developmental, 100- and 200-level courses offered on-site, through ITV, or asynchronously at:
•UMS Off-campus Centers and Sites
•Lewiston-Auburn College
•University College of Bangor
The students may be degree or non-degree students.
•Degree students may be enrolled in associate degree programs already offered by the UMS institutions.
•Degree students will be eligible to apply for financial aid.
•Degree students may opt to receive a Certificate in Liberal Arts - Level I that will be awarded after successful completion of courses in six liberal arts areas.
Certificate in Liberal Arts - Level I is a certificate awarded to UMS enrolling students at CollegeStart locations who register for and successfully complete six courses, that is, one designated 100- or 200-(introductory) level course in each of the six required liberal arts skill/discipline areas. Fifty percent (50%) of courses for the certificate may be taken outside the University of Maine System. The designated courses will transfer directly into the general education core at all UMS institutions, as well as into the associate of arts in general studies degree programs at the Technical Colleges.
The participating institutions that will award the certificates are:
University of Maine at Augusta
University of Maine at Fort Kent
University of Maine at Machias
University of Maine at Presque Isle
University of Southern Maine
Effective with Fall 2000 the following definitions and procedures will be in effect:
1. ISIS fields identified with each student
a. 'CERTIFICATE' - multiple instance field
b. 'DATE ADMITTED' - multiple instance field
c. 'DATE RECEIVED' - multiple instance field
2. ISIS fields identified with each course section
a. 'CCI' will become a non-maintainable attribute field for sections where 'SITE,' 'location type,' and 'delivery mode' are equal to the appropriate values.
b. 'SITE' - A System table is maintained by the Office of Financial Planning & Budget. When the System table is updated, it spawns the changes to campus tables thus campus tables are copies of the System table. An attribute is attached to each SITE that flags CollegeStart courses (i.e., yes/no).
'LOCATION TYPE' - Within the SITE table, all location types identified as part of CollegeStart have identifiers unique from those of regular institutional offerings. They include UMS off-campus centers, ITV sites and some branch campuses.
c. 'DELIVERY MODE' - All delivery types identified as part of CollegeStart have identifiers unique from those of regular institutional modes of instructional delivery. They include such modes as World Wide Web, interactive television, and asynchronous courses.
3. System reporting.
The Office of Financial Planning & Budget will develop a program that will, through combinations of new fields, enable unique reporting of CollegeStart students.
4. ad hoc reporting.
To assist university reporting of CollegeStart students, UNET developed Natural programs that look at combinations of fields to display and track CollegeStart students. The programs can be found in PRODISIS.
Section 601 Human Subject Research
Effective: 1/29/90
Last Revised:
Procedures for Human Subject Research
A. Responsibilities of the Principal Investigator.
The Principal Investigator or other individual employee, student responsible through an advisor, or agent of the University of Maine System, under the direction of the Principal Investigator, who conducts or directs research with human subjects exercises the following responsibilities:
1. The Principal Investigator shall design and present to the authorized review body a protocol of the research to be conducted. If the Principal Investigator is an employee or student of an organizational unit with an established unit review committee, and if the Principal Investigator further believes that the proposed research will not require action from the Protection of Human Subjects Review Board, the unit review committee is the authorized body of first review. In other cases, the authorized body of first review is the University of Maine System campus Protection of Human Subjects Review Board.
2. If the authorized body of first review does not determine that the research is exempt from further review, the Principal Investigator shall not initiate any research with human subjects until the campus Protection of Human Subjects Review Board has approved the protocol.
3. The Principal Investigator shall make no alterations to the approved protocol without the prior approval of such alterations by the Protection of Human Subjects Review Board.
4. The Principal Investigator shall report at once to the Protection of Human Subjects Review Board any unanticipated harm to human subjects.
5. The Principal Investigator shall report to the Protection of Human Subjects Review Board on the conduct of the research and shall seek approval for continuation of the research at least annually, and more frequently if the Board so requires.
6. The Principal Investigator and research staff shall cooperate fully with the Protection of Human Subjects Review Board in monitoring the progress of the research.
B. The Unit Review Committee (where established).
1. Responsibilities. Colleges or other large organizational units that are part of an individual campus organization in which research with human subjects is regularly conducted may establish a standing review committee responsible for review of research conducted or under the direction of a Principal Investigator and supervised employees or students of the unit. The unit shall provide its committee with adequate secretarial and record-keeping assistance.
In the exercise of its general responsibility, the unit review committee shall:
a. Meet at least monthly to act on protocols submitted by unit members.
b. Advise investigators on improvements to proposed research protocols.
c. Determine for each protocol submitted whether it is exempt from further review or requires action by the Campus Protection of Human Subjects Review Board.
d. Maintain records of its actions.
e. Forward to the Campus Protection of Human Subjects Review Board the minutes of each meeting.
f. At the request of the President, nominate from among the members of its unit who conduct research with human subjects a representative to serve on the Campus Protection of Human Subjects Review Board.
2. Authority. The unit review committee is authorized to:
a. Determine that the research requires further review by the Campus Protection of Human Subjects Review Board.
b. Determine that the research is exempt from further review requirements. The research can be found to be exempt only if it clearly falls into one of the categories of exemption detailed in the Code of Federal Regulations 45 CFR 46, and outlined below. Whenever there is any doubt as to whether the research is exempt, the research should be forwarded to the Campus Protection of Human Subjects Review Board for review.
RESEARCH ACTIVITIES WHICH MAY BE EXEMPT FROM FURTHER REVIEW*
For adult subjects of undiminished autonomy, capable of making a truly voluntary and uncoerced informed decision whether or not to participate as subjects in research, the categories of research exempt from further review requirements are:
*Research involving children, fetuses, pregnant women, or prisoners or other adult subjects of diminished autonomy is subject to special restrictions cited elsewhere in this document.
(1) Research conducted in established or commonly accepted educational settings, involving normal educational practices, such as (i) research on regular and special education instructional strategies, or (ii) research on the effectiveness of or the comparison among instructional techniques, curricula, or classroom management methods.
(2) Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), if information taken from these sources is recorded in such a manner that subjects cannot be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects.
(3) Research involving survey or interview procedures, except where all of the following conditions exist: (I) responses are recorded in such a manner that the human subjects can be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects, (ii) the subject's responses, if they became known outside the research, could reasonably place the subject at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subject's financial standing or employability, and (iii) the research deals with sensitive aspects of the subject's own behavior, such as illegal conduct, drug use, sexual behavior, or use of alcohol. All research involving survey or interview procedures is exempt, without exception, when the respondents are elected or appointed public officials or candidates for public office.
(4) Research involving the observation (including observation by participants) of public behavior, except where all of the following conditions exist: (I) observations are recorded in such a manner that the human subjects can be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects, (ii) the observations recorded about the individual, if they became known outside the research, could reasonably place the subject at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subject's financial standing or employability, and (iii) the research deals with sensitive aspects of the subject's own behavior such as illegal conduct, drug use, sexual behavior, or use of alcohol.
(5) Research involving the collection or study of existing data, documents, records, pathological specimens, or diagnostic specimens, if these sources are publicly available or if the information is recorded by the investigator in such a manner that subjects cannot be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects.
(6) Unless specifically required by statute, research and demonstration projects which are conducted by or subject to the approval of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and which are designed to study, evaluate, or otherwise examine: (I) programs under the Social Security Act, or other public benefit or service programs; (ii) procedures for obtaining benefits or services under those programs; (iii) possible changes in or alternatives to those programs or procedures; or (iv) possible changes in methods or levels of payment for benefits or services under those programs.
3. Membership. Members are appointed to three-year terms by the senior administrative officer of the unit. The committee shall have no fewer than five members, with varying backgrounds to promote complete and adequate review of research activities commonly conducted by the unit. The committee shall always include at least two tenured faculty or other senior members of the unit who conduct research with human subjects, at least one untenured faculty or other junior member of the unit who conducts research with human subjects, one person whose primary concerns are not in research areas, and one member who is not otherwise affiliated with the unit. Alternates may be appointed to serve in the absence of regular members, a practice particularly recommended for members who foresee frequent or lengthy absences from campus. Members elect a Chair for a one-year term.
4. Functions and operations. The unit review committee convenes at least monthly meetings for the purpose of reviewing applications. A quorum consisting of the majority of the membership is necessary for action on applications. Action on an application requires the approval of a majority of the members present at the meeting.
C. The Protection of Human Subjects Review Board.
1. Responsibilities. Responsibility for the protection of human subjects of research at the campuses of the University of Maine System is in large part vested in the campus Institutional Review Boards. The Boards are therefore responsible not only for reviewing, regulating, and monitoring such research, but also for educating the University communities in the protection of human subjects. Specific responsibilities of each Board includes the following:
a. Act on applications submitted to it by unit review committees or by faculty or other authorized employees.
b. Monitor the research it has approved.
c. Maintain records of its activities.
d. Report to the appropriate University campus official all actions pertaining to research supported by extramural funding or proposed for such support.
e. Report at once to the appropriate University campus official any action to suspend or terminate approved research.
f. Assist appropriate University campus officials, as requested, in interpreting research with human subjects for any of the University of Maine System constituencies or for the general public.
g. Assist unit review committees, as requested and where applicable.
h. Devise and conduct programs of education in matters relevant to research with human subjects for the benefit of students and employees of the University of Maine System.
I. Review annually the University of Maine System's policies and procedures for the protection of human subjects and report any inadequacies or suggested improvements to the campus Chief Academic Officer or other appropriate campus officer.
j. Report its activities to the campus Chief Academic Officer or other appropriate officer at least annually, or more frequently if so requested.
2. Authority. The Board is authorized to:
a. Approve, disapprove, or require modifications in the research protocols submitted to it.
b. Monitor the research it has approved by any means it deems appropriate, including observation of the consent process and the research, and appointment of a third party to undertake such observation.
c. Suspend or terminate approved research, whenever the research is not being conducted in accordance with the Board's requirements or whenever it has been associated with unexpected harm to human subjects.
3. Membership. The President of the individual University appoints members of the Review Board to three-year terms. Members may be reappointed to further terms. Alternates may be appointed when desirable, and have the same voting privileges as the member for whom they substitute.
The President appoints one member of the Board to serve as Chair for a term of two years. At the beginning of the Chair's second year of service, the President appoints a Chair-Elect to succeed the current Chair. The Chair is nominally a member of the University's tenured faculty who engages in research with human subjects and who has substantial experience in the review of research with human subjects.
The Board shall have no more than nine and no fewer than five members, with varying backgrounds to promote complete and adequate review of research activities commonly conducted by the University. The Board shall be sufficiently qualified through the experience and expertise of its members, the diversity of their backgrounds, and their sensitivity to such issues as community attitudes, to promote respect for its advice and counsel in safeguarding the rights and welfare of human subjects.
In addition to possessing the professional competence necessary to review specific research activities, the Board shall be able to ascertain the acceptability of proposed research in terms of institutional commitments and regulations, applicable law, and standards of professional conduct and practice. The Board shall therefore include persons knowledgeable in these areas, or have access to the counsel of such persons.
Certain populations of human subjects require extra protection because of their diminished autonomy. Diminished autonomy may result, for example, from immaturity, illness, mental disability, or incarceration. Universities regularly conduct research with one such population, children and youth. The Board shall therefore include one or more members who are primarily concerned with the welfare of children and youth. Should the Board determine in the future that another vulnerable population of human subjects is regularly involved in University research, it shall amend its membership requirements to include one or more members who are primarily concerned with the welfare of such subjects.
The Board may not consist entirely of members of one sex or of one profession. The Board shall always include at least one member whose primary concerns are in nonscientific areas, such as lawyers, ethicist, or members of the clergy. The Board shall always include at least one community member who is not otherwise affiliated with the University and who is not part of the immediate family of a person who is affiliated with the University.
A single member of the Board may fill more than one representational role.
No member of the Board may participate in the Board's review of any project in which the member has a conflicting interest, except to provide information requested by the Board.
The Board may, at its discretion, invite individuals with competence in special areas to assist in the review of complex issues. These individuals may not vote with the Board.
4. Functions and operations. The Board convenes at least once a year and within two weeks of receipt of a protocol or monthly for the purpose of reviewing applications for approval of research. Except when an expedited review procedure is used, the Board reviews proposed research only at such meetings. Because members of the Board need to study research protocols before the convened meeting, the Board normally considers only applications that have bene submitted at least two weeks prior to the meeting. In acting on applications for approval of research, the Board follows the written procedures outlined in this document.
A quorum consisting of the majority of the membership, including at least one member whose primary concerns are in nonscientific areas, is necessary for action on applications. Approval of an application requires the approval of a majority of the members present at the meeting.
The Board reports promptly to the Chief Academic Officer or other appropriate campus official any serious or continuing noncompliance by investigators with the Board's requirements and determinations. It also reports such noncompliance to any extramural sponsors of the research in question.
5. Review of research. The Board reviews and acts to approve, require modifications in, or disapprove research activities with human subjects.
The Board requires that information given to subjects as part of informed consent meaningfully adds to the protection of the rights and welfare of subjects, and is in accord with federal regulations, particularly Title 45 Code of Federal Regulations Part 46.116. The Board either requires documentation of informed consent or, in circumstances described in these procedures, explicitly waives documentation.
The Board notifies investigators and the Chief Academic Officer or other appropriate campus official in writing of its decision to approve or disapprove the proposed research activity, or of modifications required to secure the Board's approval. If the Board decides to disapprove a research activity, it includes in its written notification a statement of the reasons for its decision and gives the investigator an opportunity to respond in person or in writing.
The Board conducts continuing review of research it has approved at intervals appropriate to the degree of risk, but not less often than once per year. It may also observe, or appoint a third party to observe, the consent process and the research.
5a. Expedited review. The Principal Investigator may request an expedited review of an application for approval of research in any of the following circumstances:
1) The P.I. belongs to a unit that lacks a unit review committee and believes that the research activities proposed are limited to those in one or more of the categories of exemption described in the Code of Federal Regulations 45 CFR 46.101b.
2) The P.I. proposed only minor changes in previously approved research during the period for which approval is authorized.
3) The P.I. believes that the research activities proposed involve no more than minimal risk to human subjects and that they are limited to one or more of the categories eligible for expedited review established by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and published periodically in the Federal Register:
RESEARCH ACTIVITIES WHICH MAY BE REVIEWED THROUGH EXPEDITED REVIEW PROCEDURES
Research activities involving no more than minimal risk and in which the only involvement of human subjects will be in one or more of the following categories, carried out through standard methods, may be reviewed by the Board through an expedited review procedure:
a. Collection of hair and nail clippings, in a nondisfiguring manner; of deciduous teeth; and of permanent teeth if patient care indicates a need for extraction.
b. Collection of excreta and external secretions including sweat, uncannulated saliva, placenta removed at delivery, and amniotic fluid at the time of rupture of the membrane prior to or during labor.
c. Recording of data from subjects 18 years of age or older using noninvasive procedures routinely employed in clinical practice. This includes the use of physical sensors that are applied either to the surface of the body or at a distance and do not involve input of matter or significant amounts of energy into the subject or an invasion of the subject's privacy. It also includes such procedures as weighing, testing sensory acuity, electrocardiography, electroencephalography, thermography, detection of naturally occurring radioactivity, diagnostic echography, and electroretinography. It does not include exposure to electromagnetic radiation outside the visible range (for example, x-rays, microwaves).
d. Collection of blood samples by venipuncture, in amounts not exceeding 450 milliliters in an eight-week period and no more often than two times per week, from subjects 18 years of age or older who are in good health and not pregnant.
e. Collection of both supra- and subgingival dental plaque and calculus, provided the procedure is not more invasive than routine prophylactic scaling of the teeth and the process is accomplished in accordance with accepted prophylactic techniques.
f. Voice recordings made for research purposes such as investigations of speech defects.
g. Moderate exercise by health volunteers.
h. The study of existing data, documents, records, pathological specimens, or diagnostic specimens.
i. Research on individual or group behavior or characteristics of individuals, such as studies of perception, cognition, game theory, or test development, where the investigator does not manipulate subjects' behavior and the research will not involve stress to subjects.
j. Research on drugs or devices for which an investigational new drug exemption or an investigational device exemption is not required.
The Board attempts to act on a request for expedited review within ten business days. An expedited review is conducted by the Chair or by one or more experienced reviewers designated by the Chair from among the members of the Board.
In an expedited review, the reviewers may exercise all of the authorities of the Board except that the reviewers may not disapprove the research. If the reviewers find that the application does not meet the criteria of eligibility for expedited review outlined above, or if they fail to approve the application, the application shall be considered at the next meeting of the full Board. If the reviewers approve the application, notice of their action shall be made promptly to the Chair and, at the next meeting, to the full Board.
5b. Criteria of review. The Board approves research only when it has determined that all of the following requirements are satisfied:
1. Risks to subjects are minimized. Procedures used are consistent with sound research design and do not unnecessarily expose subjects to risk. Whenever appropriate, the research uses procedures already being performed on the subjects for other purposes, such as diagnosis or treatment.
2. Risks to subjects are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits, if any, to the subjects, and the importance of the knowledge that may reasonably be expected to result. The Board considers only those risks and benefit that may result from the research. The Board does not consider possible long-range effects of applying knowledge gained in the research as among those research risks that fall within the purview of its responsibility.
3. The selection of subjects is equitable, taking into account the purposes of the research and the setting in which the research will be conducted.
4. Informed consent is sought from each prospective subject or the subject's legally authorized representative. The Board conforms to federal regulations of informed consent procedures and may impose additional requirements.
5. Informed consent is appropriately documented, in accordance with, and to the extent required by, federal regulations. The Board may also impose documentation requirements in addition to those required by federal regulations.
6. Where appropriate, the research protocol makes adequate provision for monitoring the data collected to insure the safety of subjects.
7. Where appropriate, there are adequate provisions to protect the privacy of subjects and to maintain the confidentiality of data.
8. Where some or all of the subjects are likely to be vulnerable to coercion or undue influence, appropriate additional safeguards have been included in the protocol to protect the rights and welfare of these subjects.
5c. Further administrative review. Research that has been approved by the Board may be subject to further review and approval or disapproval by the Chief Academic Officer or other campus officers designated by the President. However, no officer of the University may approve research that has not been approved by the Board.
5d. Evaluation and disposition of applications. The Protection of Human Subjects Review Board evaluates applications for approval of research with human subjects according to its written procedures and review criteria. In doing so, it may call upon the Principal Investigator or appropriate third parties for information and assistance.
It is important for the University community to understand that the Board may not limit its concerns to specific research activities or procedures. In weighing risks and benefits, the Board is of necessity making judgments about the merits of the proposed research plan. In considering the ethical principles that guide the conduct of research with human subjects, the Board must of necessity resolve conflicts posed by the demands of the principles themselves.
For example, it is within the purview of the Board's responsibilities to determine that a research plan does not promise to generate the desired knowledge; or that the knowledge to be gained does not promise to outweigh the risks undergone; or that community attitudes and mores will find certain aspects of the research unacceptable.
The Board communicates its decision to approve, disapprove, or require modifications in the research protocol in writing to the Principal Investigator and to the Chief Academic Officer or other appropriate campus official, who is authorized to inform other interested parties, including extramural sponsors, cooperating organizations, or other University officers, of the Board's decisions.
When the Board approves a research protocol, it stipulates in writing the requirements for continuing review of the research.
When the Board disapproves a research protocol, it states in writing its reasons for disapproval, and invites a response from the Principal Investigator.
When the Board requires modifications in a research protocol, it details those modifications in writing and requires from the Principal Investigator written verification that the modifications have been made, before final approval is granted.
Applications that have been evaluated and all Board correspondence concerning them become part of the Board's records.
6. Suspension or termination of approved research. The Board has authority to suspend or terminate approval of research that is not being conducted in accordance with the Board's requirements or that has been associated with unexpected serious harm to subjects. When the Board exercises this authority, it promptly communicates its action and the reasons for the action in writing to the Principal Investigator, the Chief Academic Officer or other appropriate campus official, and the extramural sponsor of the research, if any.
7. Research undertaken in cooperation with another organization. University research with human subjects may be undertaken in cooperation with another organization, provided the University enters into a written agreement with the other organization that allows the University to have adequate control of project activities for which it is responsible. If such research is funded by an extramural sponsor and if the University is the grantee or prime contractor, that responsibility extends to safeguarding the rights and welfare of human subjects of research conducted by the cooperating organization.
In such cases, the Board may rely upon the review of another qualified institutional review board, may engage in joint review with such a board, or may enter into a similar arrangement to avoid duplication of effort.
8. Board record-keeping and reporting. The University supports the record-keeping requirements of the Board by providing through the office responsible for sponsored programs storage space and staff to maintain records in good order. Records include:
a) Copies of all applications reviewed; scientific evaluations, if any, that accompany the applications; approved sample consent documents; progress reports submitted by Principal Investigators; reports of injuries to subjects; all correspondence pertaining to the application or to the research; and records of monitoring and continuing review activities. These records are maintained as active files for three years after completion of the research.
b) Minutes of Board meetings in sufficient detail to show attendance; actions taken; the vote on these actions, including the number of members voting for, against, and abstaining; the basis for requiring modifications in or for disapproving research; and written summaries of the discussion of controverted issues and their resolution.
c) Annual reports of the Board.
d) Minutes of the meetings of unit review committees, and other reports or correspondence from such committees.
e) Other reports generated by the Board or its subcommittees.
f) Other correspondence of the Board.
g) A list of Board members.
h) Written procedures for the Board.
All records are accessible for inspection and copying, at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, by representatives of governmental agencies responsible for regulating research with human subjects, by representatives of extramural sponsors of research, by members of the Board itself, and by any other person so authorized by the President or by the Chief Academic Officer or other appropriate campus official.
The Board reports to the Chief Academic Officer or other appropriate campus official the actions it takes on all applications for approval of research, and to the campus official responsible for sponsored programs all actions pertaining to research supported by extramural funding or proposed for such support.
The Board reports to the Chief Academic Officer or other appropriate campus official at once any action to suspend or terminate approved research, any unexpected serious harm to human subjects of research, and any serious or continuing non-compliance by investigators with the Board's requirements and determinations. It also reports such incidents to any extramural sponsor of the research in question.
The Board also reports to the Chief Academic Officer or other appropriate campus official at least annually a record of Board activities, including a review of the University of Maine System's policies and procedures for the protection of human subjects and any recommendations for modifications resulting from that review.
D. Application for approval of research with human subjects.
1. General requirements. Application forms and instructions may be obtained from the campus official responsible for sponsored programs or the office of the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. It is essential that all questions be answered fully and in detail. The application must describe the problem or question addressed by the research, the objectives of the research, and the methods to be used in sufficient detail to enable the Board to judge the merits of the research proposed. It must also assess the potential risks and benefits to the subjects, and describe the measures taken to minimize the risks.
In describing risks, the application should indicate the specific nature of potential short- or long-term risks, physical, psychological, social, legal, or other. Risks might include physical discomfort or harm, adverse psychological reaction, invasion of privacy, breach of confidentiality, or any other threat to the dignity, rights, or welfare of human subjects. The application should assess both the likelihood and the seriousness of potential risks, and discuss the relative advantages and disadvantages of alternative procedures.
In describing benefits, the application should consider benefits to the individual subjects, benefits to persons similarly situated, and benefits to society in general.
In describing safety measures, the application should detail all procedures for protecting against or minimizing potential risks. Such measures might include screening procedures, followup procedures, debriefing, separating identifiers from data, and training staff. The likelihood of the effectiveness of such measures should also be assessed.
2. Informed consent. The application for approval of research must describe the procedures for gaining and documenting the informed consent of the human subjects. Except as detailed below, no investigator may involve a human being as a subject in research unless the investigator has obtained the legally effective informed consent of the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative.
An investigator shall seek such consent only under circumstances that provide the prospective subject or the subject's representative sufficient opportunity to consider whether or not to participate, and that minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence. The information that is given to the subject or the representative shall be in language understandable to the subject or the representative. No informed consent, whether oral or written, may include any exculpatory language through which the subject or the representative is made to waive or appear to waive any of the subject's legal rights, or releases or appears to release the investigator, the sponsor, the University, or its agents from liability for negligence.
In seeking informed consent, the following information shall be provided to each subject:
1) A statement that the study involves research, an explanation of the purposes of the research and the expected duration of the subject's participation, a description of the procedures to be followed, and an identification of any procedures which are experimental;
2) A description of any reasonably foreseeable risks or discomforts to the subject;