Full transcript of event

Man 1: First of all, thank you so much to Jenny and the whole finance team for all the work that you’ve been doing. This cannot be easy, and so just thank you so much. I know it’s a lot of work, and you guys have been thinking very creatively about how to solve this crisis, which you inherited. Thank you.

I had a couple of questions. Maybe I just missed this information, so apologies if that’s the case. Is the plan to raise tuition for in-state students and out-of-state students, or is it just to raise it for in-state?

Jenny Boyden: It is for both in-state and out-of-state.

Man 1: Thank you. I was wondering if the finance office has taken into consideration potential differences in the price elasticity of demand between those two populations, and if the tuition is being raised proportionally for both, or if it takes into account that difference.

Jenny Boyden: The tuition is being raised approximately four percent…

Man 1: For both.

Jenny Boyden: …for both in-state and out-of-state. I can say that we’ve had conversations with enrollment management about what the impact could be on elasticity if the tuition rate were higher, but we’re at four percent.

Man 1: Interesting. It occurs to me that it seems like one of the major reasons for the structural gap with the difference in revenue versus expenses is that we have a different proportion now of in-state students than we had previously.

I wonder if not raising the out-of-state tuition would actually result in more out-of-state students attending 91±¬ÁÏ, and therefore, maybe we wouldn’t have such a big structural gap. Just a thought for consideration. Obviously, I’m not an expert in this, but that’s been a thought that’s been going through my mind.

My final question, and then I’ll let others step up if they have any questions, is was there a strategic reason behind an across-the-board cut of seven percent for all units?

Jenny Boyden: That was the target. As I mentioned, we started with a target of seven percent, and there were some units that did not meet the seven percent. I’ll say within my group, I did not achieve seven percent in facilities. I couldn’t figure out with my team how we could do that, where we’re not really meeting the current needs of the campus, if we cut seven percent, how we would function.

There were some entities that had put forth a seven percent reduction that we felt would be more detrimental than the cut itself would be worth. We had to evaluate if the $300,000 cut was enough in order to meet that seven percent number. If that was so important, we would be willing to take a two-million-dollar loss in revenue, and that just didn’t make sense.

We were making those evaluations as we were going through the process.

Man 1: Absolutely. Thank you very much.

Gabe Paquette: William, want to add to that two points.

First is you’ve asked a couple of very good questions about enrollment management strategies. This is probably not the time to go into depth in that way, but I know that Kevin and the team would be very happy to describe in greater depth the various strategies we use to discount rate to maximize our use of financial aid, all of which take into account elasticity, essentially.

They can go into greater details, and I think probably we’ll build that into the budget 101 at the appropriate time. That’s a great question. Thank you.

The other one I wanted to clarify has to do with the seven percent. In academic affairs, we proposed actually more than an eight percent cut. In some units that was not as feasible. The key thing to say, and here I’m thinking mainly about academic affairs, is that the seven-percent expenditure reduction was given to an individual unit, like a college.

It was not to say that every single subunit within that unit should receive a seven percent cut. We have to rely on those who know those units well, in that case, the deans, but obviously beyond academic affairs as well. That’s an important distinction to be made. Thank you.

Will Biberstein: Kevin, please step up to the mic. If you can provide your name and the department you’re with as well.

Kevin Coughlin: [inaudible 4:53] anonymous.

Hi, I’m Kevin Coughlin. I’m the vice president for enrollment. It’s not necessarily a question. It’s just to add some nuance to the answer. When Jenny works…I’m sorry. When the interim CBO works with us to come up with some answer to a question, what would be the impact of certain levels of increases to in-state and out-of-state tuition?

We worked with several partners to come up with an estimate, for example, four or five percent. We’ve been looking at countervailing pressures to find out what would be the overall impact if we were to increase by four percent. Yes, we’re placing negative pressure on some out-of-state enrollments.

Out-of-state students tend to be less price sensitive than in-state. The four percent in-state was something that was also concerning us. Then you take all of the negative impacts and all the positive impacts, you sum them up to see what is the overall impact. In this case, it was not negative.

Am I super happy about saying, “Hey, let’s punch up tuition and, oh, by the way, while we’re at it, let’s add some costs to room and board?” No, I’m probably not. There are certain realities with which we must contend. This is what that looks like. Welcome to making the sausage. It is a little messy.

Now, the idea of overcoming some of the sizable portions of the budget with changes in the mix of students — of course, we’re full. How many more out-of-state students do you think that are coming to a rural R1 traditional excellent education, excellent opportunity? We’re going to bring all of them in that we can.

Ultimately, I think the question that the president was starting to approach and starting to push is in the SRE, we have to evolve. There are new markets of different types of learners we’re going to have to go and pursue in ways that historically we have not. Now I’m going to go away before I get in more trouble.

[laughter]

Will Biberstein: Thank you, Kevin. Other questions from the room?

MacKenzie Stetzer: Yeah. Hi. I’m MacKenzie Stetzer from the Department of Physics and Astronomy.

I had a question about how you’re modeling these budget cuts, because when I’m thinking about student support programs and proposals to cut them, I feel like, especially if they’re impacting retention, you also have to model further out and think about what are the potential losses in tuition etc., because I know that that’s been a critical factor in many of these programs.

I was wondering if anyone could comment on that? I recognize sometimes it’s hard to know these numbers, but it seems critical.

Gabe Paquette: Absolutely. Obviously those are considerations that are taken very seriously and in-depth conversations occur, for example, in academic affairs I have with the deans, I would have with other leaders. We have to take that very seriously.

For example, you’re talking about student support services, but perhaps the thing I would just mention is some proposals that we received have to do with cutting the instructional budget by a certain amount, but we knew that actually the loss in revenue would not only obviate those gains, which is not acceptable, given our revenue targets. Those had to be rethought.

Similarly, we want to take it into account when we think about various expenditure reductions to student support services. We’re desperately trying not to do that and certainly desperately trying not to do that in the area of personnel. We do need to make our targets.

I think the Vice President and CBO did a really excellent job of showing how the expenditure reductions that we’re currently making are going to have downstream impacts that are going to reduce the overall size of our deficit moving forward.

I appreciate you saying that. It’s definitely the forefront of my mind, and I know that it’s on the forefront of the minds of deans and others. Thank you.

[crosstalk]

Joan Ferrini-Mundy: It’s a great question. I would add that we have a number of very interesting pilots or relatively newly introduced approaches to student advising. For example, I would cite the Maine College of Engineering and Computing, which has created new space and new approaches to doing this. Those two become a part of that modeling.

How well is that working? I would add to that the outstanding work that’s been done by Scott Marzilli and his team on the student success pieces of the UMS Transforms activity, because ultimately the parts of those experiments that are showing progress and improvement will need to be built in then to our overall structure. Many moving parts, but it’s a great question.

MacKenzie: Thank you. Because I just recognize that it’s so hard to understand what all goes in that umbrella, like it’s things that impact classes, it’s advising centers, etc. Thank you.

Keegan Tripp: Hi, guys. My name’s Keegan Tripp. I’m now the outgoing student body president. I’m glad I could make it today. Mine’s just more about logistics in terms of how we’re going to get the word out about what the future of the university is to students.

Uniquely, right now, students are tuned into this question, and maybe this is a further conversation we should have in our upcoming admin meeting. The two things that I would like to look into is how we can…I see that the decision ultimately will happen after graduation, so a lot of it will be projected until we get to there.

Perhaps an address to the general student senate is in order. Maybe a more abridged simplified version of this to get that word out, but also what we can expect for a broader student outreach and while, like we’ve talked about, there are some students that are more tuned in than others, something that is bite-sized and consumable.

Joan Ferrini-Mundy: Thank you for being here, and absolutely eager to discuss that. A piece of that, too, maybe we can tie back to the various versions of student advisory boards that we have in the colleges, because a piece of it has to do with, as I mentioned earlier, in the academic portfolio review part of the work.

We want to be very sure we are hearing student voices going forward in terms of relevance, needs for certain programs, needs for certain kinds of instructional innovations. I’d like to figure out a way with you and your team to make that a part of the conversation as well. We’ll figure it out.

Keegan: Great. I want to put that on everybody’s minds, maybe before our meeting, so we can talk about it. Cool.

Will Biberstein: Thank you, Keegan. Kelly, did you have an online question?

Kelly STraub: Yes. I have some of the online questions here, so I’m going to relay a few of them, some of them in more general terms. The first is it’s clear that there is more work to do as we think beyond FY ’27. What are the next steps as we look towards future budget years?

Jenny Boyden: That’s work that we will start at the cabinet level right away, because, as I said, we know what our anticipated gap is for fiscal ’28. If we are going to follow our shared governance processes to address any of that, then we need to start that work now. I’ll be anticipating that work starts relatively immediately within cabinet.

Joan Ferrini-Mundy: Of course, our first step is to be sure that the board is OK with ’27, and that we have the work in place to move that ahead. Jenny’s right. ’28 needs to begin. There are always three budgets being worked on at any time in the university, including the current fiscal year, which we need to conclude.

Let me say that in addition to work in the cabinet, we’re very open to conversations with the Senate FIPC group with the president’s budget committee that Jenny chairs and leads, and student organizations to the extent that they’re interested as well, mostly at the high level what will strategy look like and what’s the place of SRE continuing to go forward as those analyses become more solidified.

It’s ongoing, but I’m happy to begin that discussion soon. I always am interested in a more robust focus on revenue generation. The wiser budget-related people say to me, “Yeah, no, yes, good. Thank you, president for that,” but we really need to be sure that we’re able…

I actually had a faculty member in the business school — I won’t identify them — who said, “You can’t make these reductions based on projections about revenue generation. You have to be able to see them in concrete ways,” which, of course, makes sense.

However, I believe now is we are ready as a campus to more robustly and in a more organized way develop revenue generation strategies and find ways to incentivize the work that it sometimes takes to get from where we are to implementing a strategy. I’m very interested in that conversation going forward as we have found some resources and gift funds that can help us to do that.

At the same time, it’s going to require really, when I keep saying robust, I do mean where the projections are pretty plausible. Where we will be able to say very likely that if we do X, that will lead to Y. If you’re starting to think about this, please think in those directions as well.

Will Biberstein: Anybody else have questions in the room? Otherwise, we’ll go to another online question. Kelly, please.

Kelly Straub: Yes. We’ve got a question about retrenchment. To what extent does it look like it’s going to happen in FY ’27? What items are being planned in ’27 going forward as we look further out in the budget?

Jenny Boyden: There are no faculty retrenchments as proposed as part of the FY ’27 budget. There are eliminations of some vacant positions, elimination of some positions where the incumbent is retiring or resigning, but there are no faculty retrenchments. We do anticipate fewer than 10 staff layoffs.

We are partnering with HR to move forward on those workforce management actions in compliance with our collective bargaining agreements, and approaching every decision with care and respect for the employees impacted, and that they’ll be provided support throughout the transition.

Kelly Straub: A follow-up that goes with that is the critical hire process. What percentage ballpark of positions put forward for the critical hire review process get rejected? Do you feel the extra administrative burden coming from the critical hire process is worth the cost savings and is seeing the results that you want to see?

Gabe Paquette: I just want to say something about ’28 because, while they’re not faculty retrenchments or layoffs, retrenchments are for tenured faculty. ’28, the situation cannot yet be predicted. In that, I mean Vice President Boyden showed how we have essentially exhausted our use of reserves.

As many of you know, because you’ve been part of this process, many operational expenses that could have been cut have been proposed to be cut, and so, since much of our budget is personnel-related, it’s inevitable.

Unfortunately, there will be significant personnel considerations that will go into the ’28 budget, much as I lament that. I know everyone else does. That seems unavoidable at the moment, unfortunately.

Joan Ferrini-Mundy: Thank you. I’ll start in on the critical hire and turn it to Vice President Ward to give more detail if you’re interested. It’s a good question. It’s a fairly labor-intensive process at all levels because the request needs to originate with the unit and then be reviewed at another level, and so forth.

Increasingly over the period that we’ve been doing this work, the descriptions of the need for the position, the data that would typically, in the old days, earlier on, we would have needed to ask for the data, that’s coming in now with these requests. The process has become more streamlined.

By the time they reach my desk, there have been so many layers that I can’t answer that question about the percentage that we decline because it’s fairly small. I might have one more question, but even less and less of that because they’re getting filtered out and decided at other levels on the way in, with a very careful look.

The questions that I typically raise have to do often with, would there be a way to partner with this unit that I just saw last week that was looking for a position here on this one? Would there be a way to delay the start, would there be a way to try something a little bit different?

They are fairly specific types of questions and much less of the mass rejection positions. There’s not much of that now.

Jake, any more to add?

Jake Ward: Yeah. I would just add that really there’s been an evolution of the critical hire review over the last year. Certainly, when it started early on, we had the federal transition at the same time. You’re looking at positions that were either E&G or grant-funded, gift-funded, and blended.

At the same time, the targets for overall budgets were less well understood. Over specifically the last few months, anyways, we’re seeing less and less things actually come to the Critical Hire Committee that need anything other than verifying that funds are there and that the needs to fill at the dean’s level have been decided before they come there. Many of the other positions, same thing.

Based on a conversation that we had with the Faculty Senate a couple of weeks ago, the Critical Hire Committee has looked at the process and looked at cohorts of positions that may no longer need to come through there. We’re still in the process of trying to streamline and eliminate some of those.

I would add that building in the information upfront, the request for information upfront, has made it easier to make those decisions, especially positions that are crossing multiple sources of funds, E&G, gift, grant, etc.

Jenny Boyden: I would just add one more thing about Critical Hire, and that is, it’s one of the areas that came up during our President’s Advisory Committee on Administrative Excellence.

Some of the feedback that we received was, there are two sets of forms that people have to fill out. They have to fill out the Critical Hire form, and then much of that same information gets submitted on the other hiring form, the ORC form that comes after that.

Our group, which included Simon Ferland and MJ Cedric, that suggested that there could be a way to combine those forms, reduce the administrative work of the people who are submitting them, while still providing the same level of information to those who are making the decisions, and we agree.

They met with HR and finance last week to talk about what that process could be, and that will be part of the recommendation that we move forward to the president on what can we do? This is something that we can do to reduce the administrative burden of the hiring process on all levels of the organization, so we will advance that as a suggestion.

Will Biberstein: Kelly, if you would.

Kelly Straub: There have been several questions related to what is driving the decrease in student credit hours, and specifically, if we think the free two years of community college might have anything to do with it.

Gabe Paquette: Thank you. It’s a great question. I may have to invite Vice President Coughlin to come up again and say a few words that will be more granular than mine there. It’s no mystery that we are, as a state, and also as a region, facing what’s known as the demographic cliff. We’re graduating fewer high school students, and therefore, we have fewer incoming in-state students.

We’re also struggling to compete for students regionally, because those other states in our region are similarly struggling to maintain their enrollments. We’ve seen some unexpected declines in out-of-state students from the region, which have adversely affected our own position. That’s obviously a broad brush.

I don’t know if Vice President Coughlin would wish to say anything more to add more detail, or perhaps not, but he’s making his way to the mic.

Kevin Coughlin: It is something worth a great deal of internal study that we’re going to start. In some instances, what we’re trying to do is overcome barriers that continuing students may be encountering as they begin registering for credit hours. This is not new, but a little bit more organized, a little bit more aggressive over the past two terms and for upcoming terms than we have in the past.

A decent hypothesis to put forward is as we begin tying all of our aid, optimizing scholarship money as we had described, as we begin prorating that based on credit hour, cost becomes more of an issue for students as they encounter a term.

We would need to interrogate that type of a question more rigorously than a feeling I might have or a thing that we might see in an AACRAO report or something like that.

I’m sorry, AACRAO, American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, often enough does these general studies. Whether they’re applicable here or not is something to be seen. I would think cost would play a bit of a factor.

Gabe Paquette: Thank you, Kevin. I think this speaks to the need to incorporate enrollment management into a budget 101 session that we may have eventually.

Jenny Boyden: I would say that the budget 101 is scheduled. Thank you to William, and thank you to Amanda and Henry for suggesting a budget 101. I like budgets, so I appreciate that Faculty Senate and FIPC are interested in learning more of what goes into making the budget itself and what drives some of the numbers.

I’m looking forward to it. It is scheduled for April 22nd from 12:00 to 1:00 in the Memorial Union. I believe an invitation went out to all of Faculty Senate and all of 91±¬ÁÏ faculty this morning.

Will Biberstein: Kelly, do you have another question, please?

Kelly Straub: Another more general topic of conversation based on several questions we’ve gotten is, what actions can be taken to address current employees’ reducing salary, whether it’s retirement incentives, whether it’s higher salaries being adjusted to be lower? Are there any mechanisms in place to try to address that as opposed to the critical hire side of things?

Joan Ferrini-Mundy: We have spent some time enumerating those possibilities and discussing them among ourselves as leaders, as well as in some initial conversations with the Board of Trustees and system personnel.

There are system implications for pretty much any of those solutions, although we are seeing some various kinds of voluntary approaches to addressing that very kind of matter, including individuals requesting that their schedule go back to an 11-month schedule, for instance, where they’re able to support the rest of their time as needed in other ways.

Very live conversation about that topic with our trustees and our system leadership.

Will Biberstein: Any more questions from the room? If not, Kelly, do you have another online one?

Kelly Straub: People are curious, again, about FY28 and going forward and what things look like. What should they be doing now to prepare, in terms of if they’re negotiating contracts, if they’re looking ahead at their own budgets and longer-term plans? Is there any general guidance that can be given as people start adjusting towards the future?

Joan Ferrini-Mundy: I’ll start and turn that to Jenny. I think all of those kinds of things are wise to be doing all the time, anytime, but we’re certainly conducting a review of all contracts at this point that are run out of central administration to see where there may be savings or adjustments or off-ramps or different ways to do some savings there.

At the same time, I think we could, and I’m assuming this would be fine with Jenny, we could do, as soon as we’re through the board approval of this budget, we could plan an open session on getting ready for ’28 and taking a look at the possibilities.

By that time, we will be a little further along with some of the SRE work, some of the review work that’s been done so very carefully and thoroughly at the college level and within research centers and institutes where we would have a bit more direction and data that might be more suitable for folks to work from to say, “What could we do with a little bit more time in getting ready for the ’28 budget?”

Those numbers aren’t likely to be due to the system any earlier than they were for ’27. It’ll be January, and February, March. Happy to try to look at an early start on that. That work will need to be as strategic as we can possibly make it so that we are putting in place the kinds of changes that will continue to knock this structural deficit down further.

We’ve made very good progress. Want to commend all of the people who have made difficult cuts to the base, because that’s what starts to move us toward that reduction. At the same time, we have more to go. I’m encouraged by the interest in ’28 and the willingness to put our heads together early on to do what we can with that.

Giovanna Guidoboni: Can I add something, tailing on what you were saying? For what concerns the research side, I also would like to point out that the office on the base budget side of the house took a 9 percent reduction last year and a 7.6 reduction this year.

By the way, that was done with the priority, though, to support those services that are university-wide, specifically ORA, ORC, and so on, to support the whole research enterprise.

One way to engage in the process moving forward, especially for FY28, is to participate in the research community post tomorrow, and also in what will come next, because there will be an opportunity for the whole research community.

Community is in the title of the event tomorrow, because it is meant to be as inclusive as you want it to be, basically your participation, to provide inputs on how we want the evaluation process for research centers and institutes to look like.

As the President said, one of the main outcomes of the SRE research portfolio review is that we are not currently set up to gather and curate and monitor the data that are necessary to reform in a transparent and systematic way the evaluation of the resource allocations to various centers and institutes, so this is what we are working on to actually set up that process together with you.

Again, one way to work proactively for an FY28 that looks reasonable and feasible is to engage in the process.

Will Biberstein: Kelly, one more question, maybe, and then we’ll wrap things up.

Kelly Straub: This question is, are there any thoughts of strategically selecting capital projects to slow down or stop in order to make financial space for critical needs?

Jenny Boyden: That’s a tough question, because the majority of our capital projects are not funded with our E&G dollars or our auxiliary dollars. Really, what we’re funding out of our operating budgets are maintenance-type projects. Our large capital projects are really funded with external funds, either Alfond funds, gift funds, CDS awards…

Jake Ward: Maine Jobs and Recovery.

Jenny Boyden …maine Jobs and Recovery. Those are really the funding streams that are funding the large capital projects, and they can’t be redirected to support other activities. I understand the question, and I appreciate it, but it’s just not really feasible to redirect those funding sources to support other operations.

Jenny Boyden: Absolutely. The funds do have deadlines. For example, the Maine Jobs and Recovery Plan funds must be fully expended by December 31st of this year on what they were obligated to be spent on.

Joan Ferrini-Mundy: I’m not sure if you mentioned donors as well…

Jenny Boyden Donors, yes.

Joan Ferrini-Mundy…part of that.

Will Biberstein: Thank you, everyone, for attending in person or online. We apologize for any audio-visual disruptions that we had. This is being recorded, so if you’d like to go back and review any of the slides, we appreciate it. Please take the opportunity to join in the many sessions that we have coming up through the spring. Thank you, and have a nice day.

Due to technical difficulties, there are segments of the recording where audio is not available.

Full transcript of event:

Giovanna Guidoboni:
Thank you for making the time and being here. You see here President Ferrini-Mundy, Provost Paquette, CBO Jenny Boyden, and senior advisor to the president, Jason Charland.

We have a few slides for you to discuss together. These are the major topics we will cover, not necessarily in this order. You will not be overwhelmed with slides. The goal is to leave ample time for questions and discussions.

This is research forum. Let us just remind ourselves where we are with the R1 endeavor, which as you know now, basically boils down to two major metrics, achieving $50 million or more of annual expenditures for research and development and graduating 70 doctoral research students per year or more.

We are very well on track on that. Just as an FYI, we recently submitted our report to HERT. This is provisional for FY ’25 because it has not been approved by the NSF yet, but we are reporting $217 millions, which is then way above the $50 millions and higher than last year. We are on track for the doctoral degrees, projecting around 80 for the upcoming year.

What did I do? [laughs] Yes, sorry. This is a summary of what I just said, and here you have the number. In the interest of time, I move forward and I pass it to the president.

Joan Ferrini-Mundy:
I’m about to pass this to Jason Charland, but just to say that this event is offered in the spirit of the town halls that we held with the research community last year. When the new administration came in, everyone had lots of questions about how we were handling things.

Would it be better if I stood someplace and people…You can hear me. That’s fine. OK. Henry said no, so I won’t. Basically, to bring together our research community, and our full research community, of course, is a part of this discussion. It’s great to see you, and I’m trusting there are folks out there on Zoom.

A lot has changed in a year, and Jason will take a moment now to tell us a snapshot about the state of federal research funding. Of course, we’ll be wanting to take questions, so we’ll try to keep presentation to a minimum, but Jason?

Jason Charland:
Thank you, President Ferrini-Mundy. Much of 91±¬ÁÏ’s research enterprise is fueled by federal funding. We’re paying very close attention to the federal budget.

This chart is very extensive, but really, the point is to show you what’s happened over the last couple of years and comparing FY ’25 four numbers to what just landed in FY ’26. I’m not going to go through each agency only to say that there are some changes.

Then you’ll see on the far-right column is 91±¬ÁÏ’s history over the last five fiscal years. Not focusing on the top line numbers necessarily at each of these agencies, but what are they communicating to the research community as far as priorities? Then how do we stay competitive, staying true to what we have a great track record with?

Our partnerships, whether they’re in the state around the country or around the world, and then thinking how we can adapt to changing RFPs or changing priorities within agencies.

We do have a DC consulting firm, Cornerstone, who we’ve had for the last three years. They’re helping keep tabs on things that are coming through, whether it’s solicitations, requests for information, or major reports from agencies.

We are, again, paying very close attention because the federal funding is so important to our research enterprise. I’ll turn it back to the president.

Joan Ferrini-Mundy:
Thank you. I’ll just add a little bit to this. First, I want to thank Jason as well as Jake Ward, who couldn’t be here, as well as many, many of you who are a part of watching this closely. I’ll explain it in a little bit more depth.

You see there, ’24 enacted, which was the last year that there was an actual federal budget up until ’26. Then you see what the president proposed for fiscal year ’26, and those were major reductions. If you look at that agency by agency, you will see what the administration’s initial intention was.

Then when you see ’26 enacted, that’s the result of the work of Congress, where a lot of different voices are at the table in helping the Congress to understand the value of the federal investment. You see big differences there.

That’s the first thing I want to point out, that that’s an extraordinary set of activities that happens as that goes forward. Then finally, if you look down through, you will see the agencies that have had fairly large reductions from ’24, which is the last year we had this budget passed, until ’26.

That affects us and our research community, those at least who access these federal funds, in serious ways. Jason was just bringing me up to speed. The RFP volume, so the RFPs, RFIs, NOFOs that are coming out of the federal government right now are at about 50 percent of their numbers last year.

The agencies are still in different places in terms of their spending and their spend plans for ’26. Folks who have proposals pending right now, I think it’s going to be a bit of a wait, my sense, just because the agencies are still getting ready to lay out these budgets, but the work for ’27 at the federal level is well underway.

This is constant work. I wanted to also acknowledge Cornerstone as well as APLU, which does a very, very good job of tracking where things stand and to assure you that there’s a lot of engagement there.

This does not speak to another big piece of our work, which is the congressionally-directed spending or the earmarks part of the work, or appropriations requests that are another part of the work, and we could go into more depth on both of those.

One piece of very, very good news that I believe everyone has heard — and a lot of people in this room will be affected by this — will be the $45 million earmark secured by Senator Collins in her role as Chair of Appropriations for a new health and life sciences complex. Those dollars are in the ’26 budget and will be forthcoming.

We have some very good news, but the strategies around seeking funding right now are needing all of our collective attention. More on that shortly. I think I have the next one. Yes.

Many of you are tracking closely on F&A. I’m just curious how many are. I’m always interested in it. This is essentially the reimbursement for…its cost recovery for the cost of doing research that for decades now, the government has funded.

You know this, when dollars come to universities to do the direct work of research, there is additional money added in to pay for what it costs to do the, essentially, facilities and administration part of that work. There has been a big set of discussions going on since the new administration came in about the negotiated F&A rates.

Every system, every university has a rate that’s agreed to, an audited rate agreed to with the government that’s renegotiated periodically. This past year, there’s been quite a lot of interesting activity.

There’s been government guidance and decision-making with agencies to lower their rates substantially.

There has been work by the academic and research communities to create what’s called the fair model, which is an alternative for consideration by the government that would not reduce to the 15 percent that has been proposed by the administration, but indeed would result in a reduction and a somewhat major change in how the work would be done.

All of that has been in serious discussion at lots of different places, lots of different levels. Finally, what happened in the ’26 appropriation — and there’s detail on this slide if you care to look at it — is blocking language to block F&A rate changes of any kind until an alternative model can be developed which the entire university community can agree on.

It won’t surprise you to know that the FAIR model, which is the one that’s been worked on in the past year, although there’s widespread support and agreement, it’s not really unanimous agreement among universities as to whether that model is workable.

That work will presumably continue, but it varies a little tiny bit by agency. Then of course, USDA has a separate arrangement completely. F&A is very much up in the air right now. We’re confident about ’26, but all of this ends at the end of September, and then we go back into what will happen with F&A.

I wanted people to know that you have people here very, very actively engaged in understanding and tracking being a part of these F&A discussions.

The next slide, just very quickly, and you can see it, some of you, at a distance. Basically, the green is the dollar value of new awards, the light blue is the F&A budget for those new awards, and the dark blue is grant expenditures.

You see what that’s looking like, and you see where we are in ’26. We’re down because fewer grants are coming in. Probably people have been very busy doing many things, and so maybe the spending isn’t at the same rate, but we are tracking where that all stands.

These are pretty serious pieces of our budget for ’26 and for ’27 and well beyond. I’ll let Jenny go to the next slide.

Jenny Boyden:
Thank you. As all of you know, research has expenses and overhead costs that are part of our budget. The federal F&A recovery is how we pay for some of the lights, the labs, and the administrative support for our scientists and student researchers.

We’re projecting a $1 million reduction in F&A recoveries next year. For FY ’26, the current year, we have a budget of $24 million, and we are on track to achieve our budget for this year. For FY ’27, we’re projecting $23 million. Again, a reduction of a million dollars.

This means that we must be even more efficient in our grant management to ensure that our research infrastructure remains self-sufficient. We are monitoring all of the things that the president has mentioned, including the number of grant awards that are available, the budgets at the federal agency level, what’s happening with the F&A rates.

We’re trying to factor all of that into our going forward forecasts to monitor and track what our F&A will be in the future. As we have talked about in the past, last month, we talked about our FY ’26 budget. I’ve mentioned that we are on track to achieve our F&A budgeted revenue for FY ’26.

However, our overall FY ’26 budget, we are trending about $9 million short. We are pursuing multiple avenues to balance the FY ’26 budget. First and most substantially, I’ll just run through all of them since we’re here.

We are going to pull back attrition savings, so savings from vacant positions will be pulled back centrally. We think that will cover slightly more than half of the $9 million shortfall. We’re also looking at other dedicated funding sources to move appropriate E&G expenses to those funding sources.

We’re reviewing financial aid distributions. If we have lower tuition coming in, if we have fewer students, we’re looking to see if there are fewer financial aid awards being made and if we can adjust that budget number.

Then the final piece is the F&A distribution plan that we talked about some last month. There were a few parts of that discussion that didn’t seem as challenging as others. We talked about pulling back balances for faculty who are no longer here at the university. That’s about $269,000.

Another $43,000 associated with transfers from this year for faculty who are no longer here. Then the last item on this list is staff in large centers would no longer receive their own return of indirects if the center itself receives a portion of their indirect.

What we talked about last month was pulling back portions of balances depending how far away from the median that balance was. People had a strong reaction to that, and we listened to you.

Giovanna and I met with a variety of groups. Jen and I met with the research faculty senate group, and what we are coming forward with now is a revised plan based on the conversations that we had.

For FY ’26 and FY ’27, we’ll be returning two percent of indirect to the faculty instead of what was four percent. This will become part of our budget process from here on out to review what we’re budgeting each year to determine what is financially sustainable based on where we are with federal grants at that time.

Jason Charland:
Do you want to say anything further? Hi, everyone. Just to add that as with any approach, any policy, there are going to be specific situations and unique circumstances that will have to be considered on a case by case basis.

There will be an opportunity for reconsideration in particular cases. You should know that not only is my door open for that, but I know that Giovanna and Jenny’s is as well. Giovanna, I don’t know if there’s anything else you want to add on that.

Giovanna Guidoboni:
Another thing that we are working on together with the OVPR office is a policy that we can post on the website that describes what this ICR return is about and how it is implemented.

Another thing that was discussed in various meetings that we had with multiple constituents of the community was to make sure that the two percent, or four percent, or whatever percent is agreed upon is reviewed annually based on the federal landscape, the budget as Jenny was saying.

The language of the policy anyway is forthcoming. Understanding that the policy per se, as I said, will not include a specific number, but the language that the percent return will be reviewed and approved on an annual basis based on all the factors that were considered.

Joan Ferrini-Mundy:
We can go to the next slide then to talk about a range of other ways that we’re considering as we think of ways that we’re looking at as we think about…

Man 1:
A major milestone for this university this year is the historic agreement, the Graduate Workers Union on a contract, which is a first university as a way that our graduate workers will be supported as peripheral [inaudible] .

There has been concern that we’ve heard from you about where the source of funding come from for the other spends. Anyway, the source of funding for the graduate worker ratification bonus for workers who are covered are [inaudible] awards or state awards.

I just want to assure you that through a series of conversations, [inaudible] these that will not get awards. If it has, [inaudible] . That is a one time where these [inaudible] to be able to help back.

The other piece that I would mention that’s not here on the slide is that several of you have expressed your concern about understanding tales of maybe [inaudible] the agreement so that you’re able to respond appropriately in your day-to-day work with graduate students. The labor relations team will have [inaudible] .

The labor relations team at the system is working with us to prepare appropriate FAQs and training materials. I realize that many of you are writing proposals right now, and you want guidance and advice about exactly how to put in fringe benefit costs, how to put in stipend costs, and guidance is forthcoming on that.

It’s not only 91±¬ÁÏ where we have to make this work out, but Chris Boynton has graciously said, because voluntold him to be available directly for your questions as you prepare your budgets if you’re putting proposals together now. He can give you the range of information you would need. Right, Chris? Just say yes. Thank you.

The second point I wish to make is that through the partnership that we have with the leadership of the system, we agreed that there would be a $2 million request that would go forward to the administration of the state of Maine, to the legislature and then governor, of course, as a part of the supplemental budget that is being considered right now in Augusta.

So far, we’ve had very good effectiveness with a request for a one-time $2 million research increase, infusion of dollars into our system, which would, of course, largely be here to help with the fact that the federal directions are shifting substantially.

Not everyone sitting in this room, and I’m looking at our star researchers here, not everyone will be able to seek and effectively get funding for the things that they’ve been doing. There will need to be some shifts in direction, and that doesn’t happen overnight.

There are needs for bridge funds. There are needs for seed funds. There are needs for dollars to help create new partnerships to get to places to work with colleagues that may be new.

Those $2 million, if they come through fully, will be available through a process of request and so forth for people to have some seed funding. We’re very optimistic because the reception in the education committee thus far has been very, very positive. I testified on this a couple of weeks ago. You can read that if you really can’t fall asleep.

Then finally, just fairly briefly, our 91±¬ÁÏ Foundation has stepped up and has provided a variety of different kinds of funds — they’re listed here on the slide — where they are soliciting donors directly to provide dollars that have some flexibility for us at the university level on the research front.

We have every intention of trying to support all of you in every way that we can in a very rapidly-changing federal context, and I wanted you to be aware of that. Giovanna’s next.

Giovanna Guidoboni: This is the reality of where we are right now. You can see two graphs here, the total dollar value of the proposal submitted and the total dollar value of the awards received. The current year is the spaghetti line that doesn’t arrive till the end, so the thick gray line as you see.

Basically, in terms of total dollar value of proposals submitted, we are trending similarly to FY ’21. For what concerns the total dollar value of the awards received, when compared with other years at the same time, we are somewhere in between ’21 and ’22.

Now, things are going to improve as we move towards the end of the year. There are several awards that are in the pipeline that are under review. Also, this includes all the volume of the proposals and the words that go through ORA, including, for example, the proposals that go in response to approve the CDS.

Those, even though approved, have not necessarily translated into an application and a submitted proposal. We expect the trend to go up, but it is important to bring in where we are right now.

Why it is important that as we think about how we support our research enterprise across the whole institution, we need to realize that we need to be agile on both the creative side of submitting proposals and responding to the national priorities, as well as internally to support that ideation and also the submission of those proposals.

How can we do that? This is just one example, but it is an important one. A few weeks ago, myself and President Ferrini-Mundy participated in a national summit for the launch of this Genesis Mission.

This has the goal to really leverage AI and support AI for the advancements of science, technology across a very wide variety of different applications. You see on the left, even if you cannot read all the details, but these are the 26 lighthouse challenges that are part of this Genesis Mission.

If you look through, you will see that there are several items or several of these lighthouse challenges in which we are already very strong. For example, in advanced manufacturing, or for example, the operations of building and building science, energy, and power grid and more.

The discussions that were happening at the summit were from how can we educate and train the workforce of the future that will enable such a revolution to how do we support the energy and data science hubs.

On the side of supporting the deployment of AI to design labs in science, in chemistry, in biology that can run 24/7 in an autonomous manner leveraging AI.

This specific mission is an example of something that is clearly a national priority. It is championed by the DOE, and present at the summit were the secretary and the undersecretary of the DOE, but it is meant to span across various agencies.

It is also something for which right now, there is only an RFI that was sent out to gather information from the institutions. Support in forms that are not clear yet has been promised with the intent of having a call for application coming out in the next month or so with teams possibly formed during the summer.

We are closely monitoring that and already preparing on our side to be able to submit proposals as soon as the calls come out. However, so I encourage everyone to keep an eye on that, to get informed, and to think about responding to this. How do we do that?

I would like to emphasize two things. One, the fact that beyond the specific content of this Genesis Mission, I was particularly excited by the shift in paradigm in support of R&D that was championed at the summit.

Basically, a fourfold partnership including academia and education more in general, so universities, but also community colleges, high schools and so on, so this bucket. Industry, from large industry to spin offs or startups, the impact in the economy, both as supporters and partners as well as an outcome of the research.

National laboratories expected to be critical partners again in this new paradigm, and private philanthropy. At the summit, there were indeed various representatives from different foundations.

One thing that really excited me was the fact that when divided into various work groups and people from different institutions were talking about how to think about this paradigm, the 91±¬ÁÏ is already doing it.

If you think about the various partnerships with industry, with philanthropy, including the Harold Alfond Foundation that supports various parts of our institution, not limited to that.

I feel like we have an advantage with respect to many other institutions, meaning the fact that for us, this paradigm is part of who we are. We want to have an impact on what we do because it is part of our mission.

In the next weeks, we are investing time to actually capitalize on what we are already doing, making sure that the stories that we put out there represent these partnerships and make them known.

Please feel free to reach out as you read more about these initiatives and feed us, in a sense, with information and ideas. One practical manner to do that is to be part of this COFFEE and Concept initiative, so Sol, Alan, and Danielle O’Neil are the contacts here.

Basically, the idea is to help fast ideation of concepts, but also ruling out those that have no legs and try to coalesce those that could be addressed in teams by developing quick quote charts one pagers before investing in the writing of a whole 20-page proposal.

Hopefully, by having this kind of fast mindset of idea generation, but also concrete in the sense that it translates in one pagers that others can look at across the university, we will position ourselves to be agile in a sense in creating teams across the universities as new calls come up.

Joan Ferrini-Mundy:
Thanks. Thank you, Giovanna. I think that the Genesis Mission with its coherence and clarity and getting out pretty early in this administration with a plan is something that we will see as both an anchor for other agencies and for where funding will come, as well as a model for other agencies that will be looking to be clear about where they’re going.

Nothing unusual about this with the change of presidential administration. I do want to point that out. There have been several other priority areas, which all map into Genesis as it happens pretty much, but that have been laid out by this administration.

Those are AI, as you would expect, plus workforce development in the context of AI, advanced manufacturing, polar studies, critical minerals, nuclear energy-related and facilities-related questions, quantum, health and biotech, and national security and cyber.

We do pretty well in our already funded research portfolios in these kinds of areas. I think what Giovanna is explaining is that she’s put in place a mechanism to try to offer focus both for the Genesis work, but for any areas that are of interest going forward.

I would add that our emphasis here is heavily on federally-funded work, but we are also stepping up our efforts with philanthropy and corporate philanthropy, corporate foundations for those whose work is more amenable to those kinds of funding sources.

If in the COFFEE and Concepts, some of the ideas that come up are better-suited to corporate philanthropy, we’re putting in place the mechanisms for how to seek that kind of funding. I believe that’s it.

Giovanna Guidoboni:
I would just like to add a few things about the COFFEE and Concepts so that I anticipate some of the questions. This idea came before the Genesis Mission.

We, together with the director of ORD, we originally thought to run a pilot this semester, so it was basically started upon invitation on two particular themes. One, AI manufacturing and materials, and the second one on health and life sciences.

Some of the invitees have not been very responsive, some have been very enthusiastic. I am now opening the call to everyone also because now that this idea seems to be helpful in being agile moving forward, this will be followed up with an email again expanding the cohort with the specific invitations.

Anyway, so just in case you are wondering why that was the case, well, here it is.

Again, even if we are not able as a university to work on this COFFEE and Concepts all at the same time, what I would be very happy to work also individually with center directors and institutes and with deans is maybe something more targeted towards priorities that you identified that are aligned with some of the national priorities.

The important thing is alignment. The goal is to try to be as responsive as we can as fast as we can.

Joan Ferrini-Mundy:
Let’s open this up now to questions. I believe we’re well set up to take questions from this audience, and let’s begin there. There is a mic over here if you’d like to step there. Yes, Ben.

Benjamin L. King:
I had a question about this. This is a question about the graduate student bonus. A few weeks ago, I had heard, and it was a rumor, that the 91±¬ÁÏ system would only fund that bonus for students that were covered by E&G funds but not research funds. That’s been changed, so it’s all students?

Joan Ferrini-Mundy:
Thank you for that. There was a lot flying around at that time about what was going to happen, including, I heard that, what Ben describes. I also heard that that bonus would be funded for all graduate workers, but that for those who are on research grants, it would be funded by their research grants versus from any other E&G sources.

That’s what I was trying to explain here, which is to say, first of all, the collective bargaining agreement requires that, and double check it with Scott, but that the ratification bonus would go to all graduate workers, yes?

Scott:
Graduate workers employed at the time of the grant.

Joan Ferrini-Mundy:
It would go to all, but for those that are funded on grants, it will not be that the grants are the source of that funding. We’ve negotiated that with the system, that it will be other funds that will cover that. That won’t affect us.

Benjamin L. King:
Thank you.

Heather Leslie:
Hi.

Joan Ferrini-Mundy:
Hi.

Heather Leslie:
Heather Leslie. School of Marine Sciences at Darling Marine Center. I just wanted to echo Ben’s thanks for that negotiation, and also thank you for holding this forum and for listening to the comments that he’s telling about [inaudible] .

Joan Ferrini-Mundy:
I’m still waiting for the question, Heather, but thank you. Suggestions, too, folks. We are all in this together, and it’s a very challenging time. If you have ideas or ways that you feel that we could be doing this even more effectively as we navigate through.

I will say that for those of us who are watching this really closely, we’re seeing a bit of a shift. The grant review task force isn’t needing to meet every day anymore. We’ve been through that wave of terminations, suspensions, individual PIs facing a number of questions, and I want to thank all the people who’ve been a part of that.

FAST, which is the Federal Action Stakeholder Team that I’ve convened that was meeting, what, weekly? Twice a week. That’s meeting now less frequently, about once a month. We’re looking at a wide, wide range of federal issues as they come up and engaging general counsel and others and so forth.

The need for focus has shifted to watching the funding priorities for the federal government, at least as one big piece of where we’re putting attention now, and we all need to be doing that. More questions?

Do we have a means of bringing in questions from the Zoom? Good. I haven’t gotten a text that the power is back on yet.

Jenny Boyden:
I can say it was confirmed to be a Versant issue, not a 91±¬ÁÏ issue, which makes me happy. Should be a lower cost issue for us.

Joan Ferrini-Mundy:
Yes, William.

William Gramlich:
Maybe it’s on now. I think it’s on. Good. I will echo the appreciation of listening about the indirect cost return changes. One thing is also good to hear about the aspect that there’s going to be a little bit more clarity given on how those are determined going forward. I haven’t been here long enough.

I remember when it didn’t happen, and then there was an original discussion of description of there’s this much money that we need to have, we have to keep aside. Anything over that, we’ll be giving back.

Was it actually proposed in the past that departments and colleges would actually get some of this money back? As a clarification question, when it comes to determining the amount of indirect cost returned, it sounds like there’s a methodology for doing that.

Is there a target amount of indirect cost or F&A that the university must get to maintain everything? Then beyond that, we’re trying to get money back to folks? Or is it more we’re going to look at what we end up getting for indirect costs and then determine how to distribute that to people? I’m just trying to get a little bit more clarification regarding that.

Joan Ferrini-Mundy:
I’m going to start an answer to give Jen time to chime in, but Will accurately describes what happened because I inherited that when I first got here. There was this number, and Cody explained it to me, that the plan at the time was if we get above that number, then we’ll try to distribute it back out. A couple of the people who were here then are nodding.

That is an unusual approach to doing this because it assumes that we can predict in a given year what we would need to recover even when the research landscape is changing quite a lot, and the costs of that research change.

We did go with that for a while, but that was never very popular, as far as I know, in the research office. I’ll turn to Jen before I go any further and get myself in trouble. I think actually, what you’ve raised speaks to the fact that, as the provost mentioned, we will have a review process. We’ll need to look at this every year.

We need to do some benchmarking to what other places do. It’s all over the map in what other universities do. The real point is to be sure that we’re able to afford the research that we are doing.

I think Jen can say more, but I heard at least one volunteer, perhaps for a committee to look with us every year to think about what will make sense when we take a look at all those metrics. Jen?

Jenny Boyden:
There has been two different versions that were used. One was a fixed pool, and that the more competitive we got and the more indirect we gained, the smaller that sliver was for everybody. It had the reverse effect because it was a fixed pool, and so your more successful research got that bigger fix.

That’s when we said, “OK, we got to do across the board.” There have been versions where we talked about giving it out to a greater population, that being departments, but unfortunately, about the time that we want to implement it was when we saw the budget challenges that we’re facing now.

In order to do that, you have to carve that out of our regular E&G distribution, and we weren’t able to make that change. Did I address?

William Gramlich:
My question is mostly about how going forward, of how is this going to be figured out? What are the metrics essentially going to be used to determine what balance comes in? There’s a bunch of different ways to doing it. Is there a best way, a good way to do that?

Jenny Boyden:
We’re talking about is to bring a group together to look at it with the budget-building procedure, is what is the cost of us doing this indirect cost of this research, what is the projection for indirect recovery, and what can we portion off?

The more that we portion off to return to departments or faculty means that — and I’m overstudying my bounds here — but is a larger cut to the departments. There’s only so much E&G.

That’s why we’re saying we need to bring people together during that budget build analysis and process to determine what is that indirect cost of the research, what is that projected recovery, and what can fairly be portioned off without a larger impact somewhere else?

Joan Ferrini-Mundy:
I think that’s a perfect answer. Giovanna is going to speak and I’m going to speak, so obviously, we’ve all got a lot of thoughts on this. I would just add that another factor, so lots of variables here, the rising costs of compliance and reporting around research have been quite significant over the last few years, and that has to get picked up this way.

In the very big, big picture, if there’s a cap at 15 percent and indirects become part of direct costs as well as other very project-specific costs, which could be how this could go. If your project is going to require that you build a new zebrafish lab or something, then here’s how that gets costed, very tightly tied to the specific projects. We just don’t know what that will look like.

For those who are interested in this very, very deep and interesting piece of research administration, we’ll need to pull people together.

Giovanna Guidoboni:
Just wanted to clarify that the policy that I was talking about that we will post on the website describes how things are currently now.

I just wanted to clarify that there has not been other decision-making done for a change. The change is in the percentage. The two percent for this year’s return that have yet to be distributed, so not what is currently in the account, as well as the year after, Jenny, if I…

Joan Ferrini-Mundy:
26.

Jenny Boyden:
26.

Joan Ferrini-Mundy:
Yeah, we did.

Giovanna Guidoboni:
I just wanted to verify. Anyway. Then moving forward, we will discuss.

Joan Ferrini-Mundy:
The landscape could be very different by that time.

Giovanna Guidoboni:
Also, another thing that I wanted to add is it was interesting how in listening to various people in the community, some were very aware of the amounts in their accounts and others did not know about that.

If nothing else, one positive outcome of these lively discussions has been raising awareness that there are some funds in the accounts, and so I would like to encourage everyone to consider these funds as incentives for their own research.

I know that some have been accumulated over time, maybe with the intent of supporting a piece of equipment or maybe students. Basically, I am encouraging to utilizing those funds.

I know it is difficult to do especially when the situations are tough, but I think that continue to support research, and creativity, and activities, it is crucial to make sure that we steer even more upward our trajectory.

Joan Ferrini-Mundy:
More questions?

Woman:
If you don’t mind, I have a couple from online that I’ll cut in with. These are kind of historical.

Joan Ferrini-Mundy:
One second. Let’s get one from online.

Woman:
The first is from Justin Demmel, and this was from earlier in the presentation. “Do we know whether the enacted funds for 2026 are being spent as directed by Congress?

Joan Ferrini-Mundy:
Jason can answer that one.

Jason Charland:
The short answer is the spend plans on ’26 are not yet public. We’ll be monitoring that for sure.

Woman:
As a follow-up then, what does it mean for EHR that $600 million more were enacted than what was requested? How will these funds be awarded given the drastic reductions in programs, e.g., STEM K-12 replacing six-plus programs, and funding limits, e.g., $750,000 for STEM K-12 compared to $5 million plus for DRK-12 alone?

Joan Ferrini-Mundy:
This is a very inside agency question. How many even know what this is about? I actually do, but kind of. I’m going to turn it to Jason to give a general answer, but it’s a great question. First of all, the director at NSF that he’s referring to has a new name now. It’s not any longer EHR. It’s EDU.

Jason, can you give a general from what you can tell so far about how this will go? It’ll be different, folks. It’s just different.

Jason Charland:
Sure. I think the president had mentioned this when that chart was originally up. You have what’s proposed by the president, and then you have what action is taken by Congress. What we’re seeing on those different levels, ’24 was the last budget that we’re comparing to.

You may recall FY ’25 was a full continuing resolution. ’26 now is a solid budget. Those numbers change based on what Congress is able to finally put through in the appropriations. I think on the agency by agency, it’s important to keep track of the levels from year to year and what these changes mean.

I think for agencies now, absent a spend plan, it’s hard to speculate. The pace of RFPs is also down, but I think a clear signal of institutional priorities within an agency is reflected in what RFPs hit the streets.

Some of those will be what we’ve seen in the past, and others will be more than likely the new priorities that come through the science administration.

Joan Ferrini-Mundy:
We’re seeing fewer in general. Imagine ways that agencies might also be trying to think about how to perhaps do fewer.

Then the last thing I would say, and I’m sure Justin does this, but for others who are interested, NSF has an excellent subscription service where you can basically check off every single part of NSF that you care about, and you’ll get a daily or regular reminder of what they’re doing.

They post RFIs. We need to be responding to those, in my opinion, RFPs, of course, but also other webinars and places where we can stay abreast of where they are.

Audience Member:
I wanted to change the conversation to the new life sciences building. It’s fantastic that we have that congressionally-directed spending amount, but the building is going to be expensive, I would imagine. What’s the vision for finding the rest of the funds? Is there a timeline as well?

Joan Ferrini-Mundy:
We’re very thrilled to have this. This is the anchor funding, of course, for what would be a substantially larger complex, ideally.

We will soon be naming two different committees with also a kind of overarching group, one that will have the major responsibility of trying to look at programmatic themes and inclusion within that complex.

The other that in tandem, will be looking at the space, the numbers of buildings, the actual costs, the ways that we will get started as soon as we possibly can on the $45 million piece and make the plan for the capital investment that will likely include multiple kinds of sources of funding as we go.

That’s this week if we get there. Not all figured out by any means, but we’re very interested in folks thinking on this.

Audience Member:
Another question. To go back to some of the charts that were presented with the number of proposals and the amounts that Giovanna, you had shown, I assume those were all new proposals.

I was wondering if this would be quite a task, but to somehow project with current awards when they’re going to end. Also for new awards that are awarded, what’s their timeline? Having a better idea of, especially looking into the future, a year down the road, how many of these currently active awards are still going to be active?

Because otherwise, we might be able to anticipate some major some major dips. That would be really critical to know well in advance rather than just hoping it would work out.

Joan Ferrini-Mundy:
I think Giovanna and Jenny probably can speak to that.

Jenny Boyden:
We do try to do some of that modeling in the finance office. It’s one of the main areas that we were looking at last year when we were also talking about going to a 15 percent cap.

We were looking at the very reduced president’s budget submission, coupled with a potential 15 percent cap. With our current spend rates, where would that put our F&A out over the time of our multi-year forecast?

It was pretty alarming, really. It was bringing it down from 25 to 26 million down to probably 15. Col and Corey can nod if I’m on the right track.

Man 2:
[inaudible] 15 percent, right?

Jenny Boyden:
Yeah. With the 15 percent and the reduced federal budgets, it was getting substantially lower than it is now. We do monitor that on a regular basis, and we…   

, as well as .

The recording of the Town Hall meeting began late, the video commences with interim executive vice president for academic affairs and provost Gabriel Paquette’s presentation on the Strategic Re-envisioning (SRE) initiative.

Transcript

Gabe Paquette:

…fellows got together to address a number of areas that were understood to be of absolute critical importance. Those working groups have now given way to four smaller implementation groups that have taken this earlier work. That is the town halls, the various work products developed by the working groups led by the provost fellows, and tried to take those to the next level.

I just wanted to say parenthetically that I’ve been really honored to work very closely with many of the leaders of the working groups, as well as obviously serve on the implementation group.

I can say that all employees and students associated with this university will be very pleased, I think, by the creativity, the esprit de corps, and the absence of cynicism that all of the individuals involved in these processes have demonstrated. It’s made me very proud to work at this university as we drive things forward.

This slide shows the challenges as well as the opportunities and the ways in which the SRE is beginning to address those. I do want to emphasize that the SRE is not only about teaching and learning and research, but actually about other parts of the university as well.

Every part of the institution must be examined, since the solutions that we’re going to develop, the responses to problems and challenges, are, of necessity, integrated ones. I would just mention here two of the implementation groups, let’s say, and the challenges they face.

The Workforce Alignment Group, for example, we’re trying to strive to ensure that the 91±¬ÁÏ, the offerings that we have, are aligned with workforce needs. We’re trying to ensure that our graduates are prepared for the future job market through strong industry connections. Fortunately, the manufacturing, materials, and workforce acceleration is doing precisely that.

Similarly, we’re trying to ensure, given our scarce resources, that we are efficient, especially as we allocate resources. Here, the Administrative Business Services Group has evolved to now becoming a President’s Advisory Committee on Administrative Excellence that was just launched recently. This is, I think, very exciting.

I’ll spend a little bit of time now, though, talking about the Academic Portfolio Review and then the Research Portfolio Review. I think that we are now very well poised to take advantage of the fruitful and insightful contributions and data collection analysis that have occurred since May 2024 and begin to move towards action.

On this slide, you will see the current state of play for two of the implementation groups, the Academic Program Portfolio as well as the Research Portfolio Review Group. I’d just like to, here, thank Deb Allen and her team in OIRA because the APR data in particular has been very difficult to compile and analyze, and her group has led the way there and deserves great appreciation and recognition for that.

We’re finally in a place where we’re actually able to ask the question, where do the various academic programs at the 91±¬ÁÏ stack up against important metrics as well, as how do they stack up relative to each other in this particular moment in time? We’re using both quantitative measures as well as qualitative ones.

I just want to emphasize here that we’ve been incredibly transparent, especially of late, in sharing the data that has been developed by the groups. Various composite metrics were shared with the Faculty Senate executive committee in early September.

Then, more recently, we shared a data workbook as well as a methodological appendix document with both the Senate and also with the deans to share with their faculty. I encourage those of you who have not yet seen those documents, to reach out either to your faculty senators from your college or to your dean or, indeed, write directly to me. I’d be happy to share those documents with you.

Something very similar is happening with the Research Portfolio Review Group. There, an assessment framework for centers and institutes has been developed, as well as a tool for strategic action planning.

I won’t say very much about that, except for that the APR Group and the Research Portfolio Review Group have been working in concert very closely. I would like to acknowledge the leadership of Jason Charland and Sandra De Urioste‑Stone in that work and also being such great collaborators with us.

I mentioned data collection and analysis. I now want to dive into that just a little bit more. First, thanks to Deb and her team, we were able to collect data related to quantitative metrics. Those are listed on the slide. I’ll just mention a few of them just to give you a flavor.

We’re looking at enrollment in major, student credit hours generated, job growth capability, doctoral degrees awarded, and others. Those important quantitative metrics are displayed here on this slide.

We then sorted programs into three categories. The first were programs of distinction, that is, those programs that are doing extraordinarily well according to various metrics.

Programs that are in a steady state, that is, they’re making good contributions, credit hours are being generated, graduates are succeeding, but perhaps haven’t quite risen to that level of excellence. Then programs in need of review, which, according to a range of quantitative metrics are not performing as well vis‑‡‑vis other programs at the university.

After those categorizations were made, deans were then asked to either confirm or recategorize programs based on their detailed local knowledge. Detailed local knowledge, of course, is not just their own experience, but also working with their chairs and directors to find out whether or not, essentially, the metrics were misleading in some way.

Give you one example. If, for example, a particular program had two faculty retire very recently, they might be generating fewer credit hours, because we’re only looking at a snapshot, particular moment in time, as opposed to looking across a longer period of time.

Deans will be aware of that program, department chairs and school directors will be aware of that, and their local information helped to inform that either confirmation or recategorization.

Now, I’m happy to say that deans are in the midst of college‑wide discussion. Not only with their chairs and directors, but actually with their entire faculty and staff.

In discussing programs of distinction and programs in need of review, how can we potentially build on areas of excellence and distinction? How should we approach programs in need of review? How can we position them from positions of weakness to positions of strength?

It’s in that context that we’re applying a qualitative rubric. I’ve just spoken before about the data that had been collected and then analyzed, and the metrics that were created, including the composite metric. Now what we’re doing is we’re applying a qualitative rubric.

That is essentially a way of assessing whether or not programs are truly those of distinction or in need of review. That work is taking place right now, led by the deans in conjunction with their faculty. Of course Faculty Senate is involved in that at every step along the way.

Now, as a result of that work, as a result of the application of that qualitative rubric ‑‑ here, I’ve provided an example of several of the rubric criteria ‑‑ we’re going to be in a much better position to determine whether or not a program that we offer at the university should be grown or maintained, or perhaps modified significantly, and, in extreme cases, closed or eliminated altogether.

I realize that this particular slide has small type. I should say also that, renew my invitation to write to me and I’ll provide you with the workbook as well as the methodological appendix document that I referred to before.

Essentially, you can look at a number of the different criteria. One, for example, would be reputational risk.

Of course, there’s a certain degree of subjectivity here, but I think that when you look at programs holistically, using a range of quantitative as well as qualitative data, it’s possible to reach conclusions, to guide action, to determine whether or not investments should be made, programs should expand, or whether or not they should be reconfigured and, in some cases, eliminated.

As I’ve said, deans are now working very closely with faculty and staff in their colleges to apply this qualitative rubric to the programs that have been identified, either as those of distinction and perhaps worthy of further expansion, new investments, or those programs that have been determined to be, according to quantitative as well as qualitative data, ripe for reconsideration, if not, elimination.

Here on this slide, we see, essentially, some of the potential outcomes of this work, the work that’s taking place right now, and some of the recommendations that will be made by December 15th by deans, obviously in close collaboration with their colleagues, with their faculty colleagues.

There are a whole range of different actions that are possible in the short, medium, and long term. Some of these are listed here.

I do want to emphasize, however, that program closure is a last resort. At the same time, our analysis as a result of collaboration shows that the status quo is not viable for reasons that I think you’ll understand even better after my colleague Jenny Boyden speaks and tells us about the current budget situation.

We need to align our resources with our priorities, and that is an imperative that we must follow at the university now. This slide, as I’ve said, suggests several of the possibilities, several of the recommendations that might come out of this phase of the SRE process by the middle of December.

I mentioned earlier that the Research Portfolio Review Group has also been engaged in a parallel and comparable effort. Perhaps I shouldn’t say parallel, because, as I mentioned before, Jason and Sandra have made sure that they’ve been working very closely with the Academic Portfolio Review group.

Under their leadership, they’ve developed a framework for the RPR, and they’re asking, “How do research centers and institutes contribute to and advance our university’s mission?” Here, I can draw your attention to the various dimensions on this slide.

They’re looking at the contribution to learner‑focus research activities, research expenditure and funding productivity, the level of internal collaboration at the university, as well as the level of external collaboration and engagement.

I’ve already spoiled the ending, which is to say that what happens next. The steps that the deans are currently undertaking will be completed by December 15th, and that’s very exciting, as I anticipate receiving those recommendations.

The RPR’s analysis and planning continues apace. The Administrative Business Services Group’s work will inform the newly formed presidential advisory committee that I have mentioned before. The manufacturing materials and workforce accelerator group will establish stronger coordination across colleges and research centers as well as public‑private partnerships.

Here we stand at a exciting, if somewhat daunting, juncture. If we work collectively and do this right, as I expect we will, based on what I’ve seen since May 2024, I believe that the 91±¬ÁÏ will be set up for success in both the short and the long term.

That success means that our learners will be better taken care of, that students will be able to succeed, not just at the university but as they leave the university to pursue professional opportunities, and that our university as a whole is making contributions that the state and, indeed, the nation expect of us.

I look forward to fielding questions later on after all the presentations are finished, but I appreciate your time now.

[pause]

Gabe: Sorry, Jenny. I should have introduced you. Jenny Boyden.

Jenny Boyden:

Thank you. Thank you, President Ferrini‑Mundy and Provost Paquette for the opportunity to talk a bit about budget today. I’ll probably start with, I’m a budget nerd, so I apologize in advance, and somebody can give me the honk if I go on too long. Let’s start with just some basic information about what we mean when we talk about our budget.

Each year, each campus within the system presents a balanced budget to the board of trustees. When we talk about that, we’re talking about our education in general funding and our auxiliary funding. Those are the two funds that we present to the board. We also budget for certain designated operations, including MAFES, Cooperative Extension, and MEIF.

What really drives the budget? It’s the revenue and expenses, obviously. Revenue is enrollment in student credit hours, tuition and fees, the state appropriation, financial aid, the percentage of our residential students versus our out‑of‑state students, research revenue, F&A cost recovery.

Our expenses, as you’ll see when we get to some later slides, are really driven by our compensation and benefit costs. We try to encompass some inflationary increases in our budgets when that’s possible, investments in strategic priorities, capital expenditures, including debt service, and contractual commitments.

Our role is unlike any other in the state. We are Maine’s R1 research university with a D1 athletics program, and it’s land, sea, and space grant flagship. This is a profound, multifaceted responsibility that includes our vital coastal regional campus in Machias.

We are, as stated here, a cornerstone of Maine’s heritage and its future, driving cultural enrichment, leading academic advancement, and ensuring community impact from every corner of Maine. Our budget is a blueprint of how we do that.

Let’s start by looking back at fiscal ’25. We did better than budget. We had budgeted to use just over four million dollars’ worth of reserves to balance our budget, and we did not use any. We actually ended up transferring over a million dollars into reserves at the end of the fiscal year.

Some things that contributed to that were higher‑than‑anticipated F&A recoveries and the efforts of everyone here and all of our financial managers to control costs. We implemented some things last year that are continuing. The critical hire review process, I feel, was very successful for this university to be able to evaluate which positions are hired and when.

We’re using that even more now as we evaluate the grant funding and whether or not that grant funding is dependable at this point on if we should fill a position.

Our approved FY ’26 budget also includes the planned use of reserves. Let me take a second to walk you through ‑‑ Oh, one of my numbers slid over ‑‑ to walk you through a little bit about the FY ’26 budget.

If we start with the revenue pie chart, net tuition and fees are budgeted at $129.7 million. That’s about 47 percent of our revenue. We receive $109 million in state appropriation. Indirect cost recoveries, we have budgeted at 24 million, and sales, services, and other is 15 million.

This is really the mix of our revenue picture. Again, about 47 percent from tuition, 39 percent from state appropriation, 8.5 from indirect cost, and 5 from other sales and services.

If we look at our expense side, that’s what the $279.9 is, supposed to be over there on the right, 67 percent of our costs are compensation and benefits. 33 percent is operating, so that’s everything else. I can say 10 to 11 of that is fuel and utilities. I’m looking back for a head nod. I’m close on that number.

Once we start to peel out some of those facilities costs that are more difficult to manage, that are driven by weather, the amount of funding that is operating, that is not discretionary but is changeable, it starts to diminish.

Let’s talk a little bit about where we are right now. We just had census, and we’ve probably all been hearing since the start of the semester that enrollment and credit hours have come in below what we budgeted.

Our student credit hours at fall census are 3,199 under budget on the undergraduate side, and 216 below budget on the graduate side. The estimated net fiscal impact of this is six million dollars. This is just on the revenue side.

We’re going to assume everyone stays on budget on their expenses. That’s part of our strategy. We have to address a six‑million‑dollar revenue shortfall in the next eight months. We’ll talk a little bit more as we go forward. We will have to adjust our spending to reflect this decrease.

We’re actively working with the provost and the vice president of research and dean of the graduate school to strengthen our spring ’26 enrollment and to maximize fall‑to‑spring retention. The FY ’27 budget process is going to be based on some of this information.

I’ll say thank you to Deb Allen also for providing me with some nice enrollment slides. This is a bit of an enrollment history for undergraduate enrollment at 91±¬ÁÏ. Our in‑state enrollment is at the highest level since the fall of 2020. We have seen a bit of a decline in out‑of‑state enrollment, and that includes international students.

Machias has leveled up. There was quite a sharp decline for a while, but their enrollment from ’24 to ’25 is leveling. What stands out to me about the Machias enrollment is the percentage of out‑of‑state students. They have 64 percent of their degree‑seeking enrollees are from out of state.

[pause]

Jenny:

This slide offers some different comparisons based on where we were in fall of 2024 and what we projected for fall of ’25. If we start at the top, fall of ’24 for 91±¬ÁÏ in‑state undergrads, we were at 5,333. At that time, we were projecting for our budget to be at 5,525.

What we’ve actually come in at in the fall of ’25 is 5,433. From our projected number, we are 92 students below budget. It’s a little more stark on the out‑of‑state side, and that really is why the financial impact is so large, because of the mix of students.

[pause]

Jenny:

On graduate, we are pretty steady. There is an increase in in‑state graduate enrollment and a slight decrease in out‑of‑state. Again, another look at graduate comparisons. What I will highlight here is the record‑breaking number of doctoral‑seeking enrollees.

[pause]

Jenny:

We talked about enrollment and the student credit hour changes that are driving the six‑million‑dollar shortfall. Let’s talk about some strategies on how we can close that, or at least hope to mitigate as much as we can.

We need to maintain our sales and services revenue. That is certainly helped by our strong athletics that are happening right now. We appreciate that, as well as other sales…Lost my place. Apologies.

Reducing our compensation costs, this is through the critical hire review process as we look at what positions are being filled, what needs to be filled, and when. We are evaluating that twice a week. We meet to review hiring requests.

Also, the provost’s office will be looking at low‑enrolled courses, managing part‑time overload, and we’ll all be managing additional compensation costs. As I started with, we really need all of you to help us keep this at a six‑million‑dollar shortfall by staying within your budgets.

If that means things may have to go to gift funds or some things may not be able to happen, reach out to finance. Talk to us. If you need help brainstorming how to manage something, we are here to help you however we can.

My team in the back, they will do whatever they can to be helpful and assist as we work through this, but it really will come down to managing the expenses so that we only have to deal with the six‑million‑dollar revenue shortfall.

The last point isn’t a way to close the gap, but it’s almost a bit of one more risk. President Ferrini‑Mundy mentioned the F&A revenues. We’re obviously continuing to watch the grant receipts that we come in, changes that are made to terms and conditions, what’s going on with the different models that are being proposed.

We’re also watching what’s happening at the state level with our state appropriations. There is an approved budget for fiscal year ’26 and fiscal year ’27, but I also know that the state will face other challenges as they work to present their fiscal ’27 budget and decide what portions of the federal budget reconciliation bill they will comply with on the tax changes.

The last projection I had seen was that full conformity could be $400 million a year. That will be something that the state has to wrestle with this winter, and how that is implemented could impact us. I just think it’s important for us to be aware that that’s a risk out in the future.

As we begin the FY ’27 budget build, here are some more risks and challenges and some revenue potential. Our student credit hours are currently declining, especially in non‑state residents.

Our state appropriation and F&A recoveries, as I just mentioned, those are affected by government decisions. We don’t have a lot of say. We do what we can to influence and provide as much information as possible to the decision‑makers, but some of that is a bit out of our control.

Our residence hall capacity is at a maximum, limiting our ability to attract more non‑resident students. One of the things that we did this fall that I think was very successful was we held an enrollment summit.

We had a meeting with finance, enrollment management, academic affairs, auxiliary services. How many people were there? Probably, 30 people? 30 people. We all met together in a way that I don’t think has happened before to talk about some of the opportunities to increase enrollment and some of the constraints that we face.

One of our constraints is our ability to house students. If we only have the capacity for 1,950 freshmen, we are going to be challenged if we try to recruit 2,100, and then not be able to provide them housing. We need to talk together about what our strategies are and how we adapt to make sure we’re making the best choices for the university.

We also have capacity challenges in sales and services. If we’re selling out the Alfond for hockey, we are not going to be able to sell more than capacity.

Compensation and benefit costs continue to rise in a highly competitive talent market. Absolutely. We, I think, have current contracts for all of our bargaining units, and that’s helpful for this point in time because we know what the increases will be for next year. We’ve been told by the system to budget four percent for compensation increases.

For next year, our fringe benefit rate at this point is staying the same, 48.6 percent for full‑time employees, 8.2, part‑time. Those percentages are staying the same. The compensation number is budgeted to increase by four percent.

We have inflationary pressures that are driving cost increases. I know the inclination is, we just need to increase our budget by that percent or by CPI. That’s not often what’s happening at this university or any place, because there’s just not the capacity for that.

When that doesn’t happen, but your costs continue to increase, you have a service contract for a piece of IT software that increases by five percent a year, and your budget’s not increasing, we have to make some choices.

I’ve already said we have to stay on budget. What’s not going to happen in order for you to fund that additional five percent cost on the technology increase, or are we not going to do that? We’re going to have to make those choices.

We have an aging infrastructure that drives additional maintenance, capital expenditures, and debt and interest payments. The sign, the sign is great. I should put up that sign.

[laughter]

Jenny:

I appreciate everyone’s patience. We’re doing great work in facilities. We’re getting a lot of things done. We’re fixing the steam traps that have failed. We’re putting up barriers where we think there could be a problem. We’re building new buildings.

We also have some, like the steam pits, some things that are less exciting and visible. A lot of the road work that’s been disrupted this year is because we’ve been doing electrical infrastructure underground. That’s not an exciting…Nobody’s going to go to a ribbon cutting because we put in a new underground electrical conduit.

[laughter]

Jenny:

That’s just not going to be a fun thing to have, but they’re things we have to do. The other big, not fun thing will be when we figure out what we do with UMEC and how we make sure our steam plant is sustainable going forward to provide heat for the campus. Those all relate to our additional maintenance, capital, and debt and interest payments.

Where we have opportunities. From our summit that we had, definitely people thought we could build more online offerings and programs. We should encourage the marketing and promotion of programs with growth potential.

That’s things like criminal justice program, the survey engineering and technology program, the MBA. Those are areas that are growing and have high demand. How can we market and promote those programs with growth potential?

We should expand programs for learning in the workplace and meeting the needs of Maine employers. Three years ago, we committed to the board that we would balance the FY ’27 budget without using reserves.

I’m going to go to the next slide and I’m going to show you where we’re starting from to get to that commitment. These are just initial numbers. This is like status quo.

Based on enrollment and student credit hours this year, we would project initial revenues of $274 million. Based on current staffing and current operating costs, expenses would be $294 million.

At this very early stage, and I can’t stress that enough, we haven’t even sent out expense templates to all of the departments yet, this is our very early analysis, we would have a gap of $19.8 million. That’s what we have to address. Over the next few months, that’s what we’ll be working to close to zero. It’s pretty stark.

Let me walk through the timeline a little bit. In November, we’ll hope to finalize some strategic plans for our FY ’27 budget templates to be sent out to all of the departments.

December and January, we’ll work with the unit and department levels to identify any opportunities for revenue generations and savings, as well as departments ‑‑ I probably should have flipped those ‑‑ departments and units will be submitting budget templates. The finance office will review those submissions and ensure all targets are met.

Starting in February is where we start to engage with FFT and the Board about our budgets. In February, we have a preliminary presentation to the system leadership. In March, our full budget is due and we do our first presentation to FFT. In April, we do our second public reading. In May, the board takes up the budget and approves it.

That’s where we are. I’ll just flip back to this one for a second. This is where we’re starting. This is a path forward. We have lots of ways that we’re going to engage.

We have a meeting tomorrow with [indecipherable 33:20] . We have the President’s Advisory Committee on budget. We will have regular conversation with all of our departments and our partners in the academic affairs and research as we move forward and develop a plan on how to close that gap. That is it for my slides.

[pause]

Amanda Klemmer:

Thank you, Jenny. Now we’ve move to the Q&A portion of the town hall. We do have a question online to begin. Can I ask for a volunteer to help with the microphone, if that’s at all possible? Thank you, Daisy.

I’ll start with an online question just to get them rolling, but then we can go back and forth between questions online and questions in the room. Just a reminder to all 176 folks online, please submit questions as you think of them. The first question is, what are the primary causes behind the recent decline in out‑of‑state student enrollment? Kevin.

Kevin Coughlin:

We have several hypotheses and there are several factors that we’re looking at. One, we did very well in fall 2024 at the expense of many competing institutions that have more levers that they can push.

For example, some of the flagships in and around the Northeast are able to push well into their wait lists to go get students that normally they wouldn’t enroll at those institutions to make up for some of the pressures that they’re facing. That has a negative impact on the students.

Where our natural draw is, we placed a lot of negative pressure on our discount rates. Perhaps, we were thinking we put in one or two more controls on our discount rate than we actually needed to, thereby making it slightly more expensive for out‑of‑state students to join us than it had been in the previous year.

In February and March of 2025, things were looking very positive. I was asked, is there any reason that we wouldn’t adjust what we were looking for as far as our base budget number in headcount and student credit hour?

I didn’t have the evidence to tell someone ‑‑ who is in a position to fire me, actually ‑‑ and say, “Don’t do that,” when all the evidence would suggest that I would be being disingenuous for me to say that, so we adjusted upward expectations.

Those three things combined to have an impact on our comparison with the budget projections.

To be fair, given some of the constraints that we had run into, the fall 2024 performance was always going to be a difficult hurdle to get over, and we are still trying. In spite of what the budget thresholds are going to be, there’s going to be the starting point for where we have aspirational goals. Did that address the question?

Amanda: Thank you, Kevin. Any questions from the room? Joan, you have a question?

Joan Ferrini‑Mundy: [inaudible 37:11] Thank you [inaudible 37:14] Kevin, or perhaps Provost Paquette. It would be good at this moment to say a little bit about what we’re doing to mitigate this, what we can say in this kind of a setting at least.

Kevin: Can I take a crack at it?

Gabe: Sure.

Amanda:

Yeah.

[off‑mic speech]

Kevin:

Based on our discussion in October, the summit that Jenny had highlighted, we have begun all sorts of non‑traditional and traditional ways of pushing the enrollment machine.

Some of the traditional ways ‑‑ we are reexamining the way we manage our discount rate to moderate some of the controls that we put in place. We’ve opened up a lot of new avenues where we do full‑on national searches across multiple programs that historically we might not have.

We are putting counselors into places where we have not been able to in the past. For example, Florida. We will be doing a critical hire search for an admission recruiter in Florida, where we had one for a good chunk of fall 2024, we did not have any out‑of‑state. We, in fact, used those as when they became open, we cut them as budget control measures for the entirety of the fall 2025 cycle.

We will be putting a person in Massachusetts. Here’s where the biggest loss was in Massachusetts. Massachusetts is facing some of the same type of demographic pressures that we are facing. They will be getting very aggressive, though. There are a lot of institutions there, as I said, with many more levers to push than we have.

They are still our largest source of out‑of‑state first year students by far outside of Maine. We cannot afford to give up on Massachusetts, so we are committing an entire staff member to go pursue first year and undergraduate transferring students in Massachusetts exclusively.

We will be working with Scott Marzilli and the rest of the provost team to build a proposal for a re‑up program to go get stop‑outs that have been stopped out for more than two or three years. We’ll be working to push Finish Strong and Black Bear Advantage programs to bring in students that aren’t necessarily traditional but are undergraduate transferring students.

The president has had, what, one or two pretty fantastic ideas. I have to admit that we’re going to be pushing some of those programs where we think about high value majors in survey engineering, technology, and industrial partners that we perhaps not have optimized to the greatest extent we conceivably could.

These are just some of those things. We will be pushing more and new things.

I think at this point the marketplace is so unstable because, as I highlighted, February, March of last year looked like we were going to beat the daylights out of fall 2024, and we did not. Some of our statistical models will be failing. The idea is fail, fail quickly and cheaply, learn, and start something else. Thank you.

Amanda: Thank you, Kevin, any questions from the room, besides the president?

Joan: Sorry.

Daisy: None.

Amanda:

OK. I’ll go to another online.

The question is, with the SRE review of academic programs and overall assessment process, has the potential growth of academic programs by either moving to a fully online modality or adding more flexible modalities online been factored into the rubric? Will a change of delivery modality be considered in determining overall program growth and new revenue potential?

Gabe:

Thank you. That’s a great question. I think that that’s exactly where we are. Those are the questions that should be asked. That’s happening as part of the application of the qualitative rubric.

Where are there potential for growth? Would a modality change be important? Are there certain unexplored avenues in terms of areas of strength that would be responsive to student demand? Yes, yes, and yes. That’s a great question. That’s exactly the point we are in the process.

[pause]

Amanda: Eric.

Eric: That’s…

Amanda: Microphone.

Eric: One of the things that struck me, and again today with the presentation of the SRE metrics, is the partitioning of academics and research, but under the umbrella of promoting a learner‑centered R1, where those two areas necessarily need to be integrated. I’m wondering if you could speak a little bit towards the vision for integration of those two areas under the SRE?

Joan:

I’ll start that one and then others may wish to…

If there were two or three key messages that I took from the work that we did over the last year around SRE, one would be the one you’ve just expressed, Eric, that we can never be a learner‑centered R1 unless we have deep integration and, I would call it, conceptual and programmatic integration between the academic work of the university and the research and graduate school work of the university.

There have been a lot of very concrete operational suggestions coming through SRE, as you’re well aware, about organizational structures and so forth. I’m very, very heartened now by what I’m hearing about the collaborations between the two groups that the provost mentioned, the APR group and the Research Portfolio Review Group. They’re meeting together, as I understand it.

They are looking at solutions that would cross so that, although, the original data for each was within the specific domain over which they sit, the solutions that are possible now can cut across, can involve work that centers and institutes might be engaged with, that would bear upon the academic program decisions that get made, and vice versa.

We already have some very nice examples. I would point to ASCC and commend Habib and Giovanna and others who’ve thought hard about how we build up academic opportunities in the context of R&D situations with the kinds of credentials and potential new majors and things that are being discussed there.

It’s a work in progress, for sure, but it’s happening in a new way, I would say, over the last several months. I would ask that Gabe or whoever worked on…Jason add more if you wish, or if Sandra’s here.

More to say, or is that enough?

[crosstalk]

Joan: Yeah. It’s very high on the surface here.

Amanda: Stay there for a second, might have a question.

Joan: Sure.

Amanda: The question is, can you give us…I need a microphone. Can you give us a very high‑level overview of what the 91±¬ÁÏ system is looking at in the future and how we can expect that change?

Joan:

I can do my version of that, for sure.

I can also tell you that there are a lot of good opportunities to learn about what the system is doing by watching the public portions of board meetings of FFT, the Finance, Facilities, and Technology Committee. Those meetings, as well as Academic and Student Affairs are very, very instructive to get a feel for how the system is moving and what’s being prioritized.

I’ll mention a few things. AI is front and center in a very, very big way. As you may know. Vice Chancellor Low had additional responsibility added to his title. I believe he’s called the Chief AI Officer for the system now.

If you’re not aware, he is offering a variety of courses and professional development options. Has anybody here done one of the $25 lunch hour things? I took his course, so Jason and I get to raise our hands for that.

He has decided to just make himself a national expert because he finds it interesting, I believe. Some groups on campus have had him in to visit to help them think about how AI plays a role. It’s clearly a system priority. There’s a new AI Task Force report that has been released, I believe, to the board. I served on that group. It’s all about getting out a bit ahead.

One of the most interesting parts of working on the report was that I made a call to a number of you for examples from research that are AI dependent, and they’re making their way into the report now because that’s a piece that sometimes gets left out of the discussion and all the very complex issues around instructional uses with AI. Peter is here and he’s very much out in the front on that.

AI is one. Alternative…How to think about it? Alternative audiences beyond our traditional audiences of learners for higher ed are very central for this system leadership right now.

You see their foray into 90‑credit degree programs, and we’re still awaiting final NECHE approval. The 91±¬ÁÏ at Machias stepped up, and Megan and team have put forward a 90‑credit degree offering.

These are very particular. They need to be aimed at returning adult audiences, and so there are some fairly high bars to cross. I think we need to do more of that. We’ll see how it goes with Machias.

The concept of direct admissions is something that this kind of inclusion and making sure that people really do know that this system is a resource to everybody. That’s very, very high on the list. Are we able to get students in earlier because we can make it easy for them to apply?

Related to that would be what we have in the form of Finish Strong, a program that is meant to help people who have some college but who haven’t finished to enable them to finish conveniently and easily. The online is going to be very central, and it’s coming through in almost every discussion.

Finally, if you take a look at the 91±¬ÁÏ at Presque Isle, their work in CBE and their YourPace programs are doing extraordinarily well internationally. These are programs attracting students in large numbers, and their numbers are increasing regularly.

These efforts to be as inclusive and accessible as we can as the state’s public higher education system, to as wide a range of learners as we can seem to be dominating the discussion at the system level. As the flagship, there’s a fair bit of pressure upon us to be in the lead when we can in these areas. We have some good opportunities.

Amanda: Thank you. There is online a follow up to Eric’s question, just for some more clarification.

Joan: Can we make somebody else stand up here? No. I will till it’s not me.

Amanda: How exactly? Because we are moving forward with the academic portfolio review and those metrics, whether qualitative or quantitative, but they do not include research metrics for those academic units.

Joan: I’ll leave that to the provost.

Gabe:

Thanks very much. It’s a good point that’s been raised. There have been efforts to create what we’ve called a holistic contribution margin or holistic set of metrics that would incorporate research into them. That’s certainly a long‑term goal. It’s obviously complicated to do technically.

In addition to that, my feeling is that the qualitative rubric that we have can, at least in a somewhat crude way, try to combine or at least take into account contributions to research which are not captured in many of the quantitative metrics that tend to be focused on things that can be easily counted.

This is something that we’re aware of, something that we’re actively working to address, but, certainly, at least in my view, not something that should impede the progress we’re already making. We’re not ignoring it, it’s being taken into account, but perhaps not as perfectly as we’d like it to be.

Joan: Perhaps we could put Deb Allen a little bit on the spot to, just off the top of her head, tell us how you might think that challenge going forward and how we might actually try to incorporate some sort of a research measure? It is not a straightforward question.

Debra Allen:

One of the challenges we ran into last fall was we don’t have as much research data available to us. There’s a lot of data, but it’s not compiled in the same way that the academic data are. I’m looking at the research data people here, too. It’s more complicated.

One of the things that we talked about last fall and I think we talked about a little bit, too, in our last meeting of the Academic and the Research Portfolio groups was to create a team that would come together, to work together to develop these metrics. I think the goal is we have this goal, and we just need to take action on that.

I’m hoping we can just move ahead and start doing that as part of that collaboration of the two groups. I don’t know if you want anything more specific, but that’s…

[crosstalk]

Joan: …get your insights.

Debra: Yeah. That’s what I’m hoping. It definitely was one of the things we talked about last fall in the SRE.

Amanda:

Thank you, Deb. Any questions from the room?

[pause]

Audience Member:

Thank you, Deb. I just have a follow up, being a bit of a data geek myself. Can you give an example of ‑‑ you don’t have to say how you’re going to calculate ‑‑ what metrics are you thinking of on the research side?

I’m thinking like we collect all this information for everyone who goes up for promotion or tenure or review, if they have a research appointment, they spit out lots of stuff. I know that’s not consistent, but is that the type of stuff? Or things like publications, grants, applied for, that type of stuff?

Debra: Yes.

Joan: Can I interrupt?

Debra: I just wanted to mention. Gabe, do you want to start?

Amanda: One second. One second. One second. One second. One second.

Debra: Should we talk about the [inaudible 52:14] that you mentioned at the Faculty Center?

Gabe: Sure.

Debra:

Yes, that is exactly what we’re thinking about. One of the challenges we’ve run into is the faculty activity reporting database. That is very challenging. It’s really hard to get data out. We’ve been trying to solve that issue. There’s been challenges with it more recently where there’s components that are starting to break.

There is an RFP out right now, and that was mentioned at Faculty Senate last week. We’re hoping, too, that that will also give us additional data.

What we’re seeking is more having APIs get the data in. That will put us in a much better position because the data will be all in one place. That is exactly the kind of data that we’ve talked about, as well as research expenditure and other data that we currently have.

Joan: I’ll just add that, what I like about the discussion, particularly the suggestions that you made, Adam, are we can be careful to recognize that we say research and we have a broad meaning of research. It includes scholarly work, it includes creative production. All of that needs to get picked up.

Amanda:

Thank you. Any questions from the room before I move to some of the online questions?

[pause]

Amanda: OK. This is a hard question for you to answer, Joan, and I acknowledge that, but I think it’s on everyone’s mind right now. That is around Anthem Healthcare and the extreme difficulty that’s going to pose to most employees on this campus.

Joan:

Yes, I anticipated this question. Although, I’m not at all expert in this process. This is a system‑level process. I do know that the system has been pretty forthcoming in holding town halls and Q&As. I don’t know if they have anything upcoming and scheduled, but I certainly have been a part of conversations where I’ve carried forward this concern that we’re hearing here.

I will speak to a related concern, too. As we see in the shutdown of the federal government, as we see SNAP benefits ending, that’s a concern for our community as well. I might call on Andrea to speak to that. I don’t have much that I can say on the Anthem. I really am not expert, but it is a system move.

We need to be sure to get our questions, your questions to Amie Parker, the CHRO, and to look at their Q&A materials and see what we’re able to learn and to watch what unfolds over the coming weeks.

I know the timing is also getting to be pretty challenging, so understand the concerns. Don’t have much that I can say to that, unless we’d like to hear from Andrea about a separate, but also critical, well‑being matters. Just briefly on SNAP.

Andrea:

Thank you. Actually, this whole semester, I’ve a seen a large increase in financial concerns for a lot of students for a variety of reasons. The SNAP benefits, we’re anticipating within the next week we’ll start seeing a barrage of students and staff who are going to be impacted by this.

The SNAP benefits are usually distributed on the 11th of each month. Starting with November 11th, those will be terminated at the moment until the government can open back up again.

We are prepared. From a student perspective, we have a couple of options. Sodexo is very, very kind and generous in giving us an allotment of meal swipes that we can award to students who don’t have meal plans. We do have an emergency fund that has donated dollars from very kind people off campus.

We’re working with the foundation to make sure that those give annual dollars to the Black Bear Exchange, which is our food pantry, are lined up to make their annual commitments so we can continue to keep the exchange stocked for those people who will have that need.

Then we have, obviously, in Student Life, if you have students who are approaching you individually, we are happy to meet with them and have some creative mechanisms depending on what the situation is.

In addition to that, which is not getting as much publicity, but it is a true fact, there’s been some glitches in our GI Bill recipients and they have not received their living stipends. Some of them, some chapters have been impacted for, actually, the month of October. They are without support as well.

Amanda:

I just wanted to say, at Machias, that we did have a food pantry that closed actually three years ago, and we are restarting that now. That’s made possible through a donation from an external entity. We’re excited to see that and are putting that in the Student Success Center.

[pause]

Amanda:

This is a long question, so I have to read the paragraph. Recognizing that this is an easy question to raise and a harder one to answer, is there a thread through the SRE process that emphasizes a willingness to be different and resist isomorphic pressures, whether from a PLU or higher ed more broadly?

The concern is that if we do what everyone does, we aren’t in a resource or demographic position to compete effectively. Are there Maine‑specific educational pathways, research areas, and program offerings that maintain a future distinctive character for the university in a world where state flagship R1 isn’t a guaranteed‑to‑survive?

Joan:

I’d like to propose that I’ll just start it and I’m going to call on two people, Gabe and Jake, to hear responses so Amanda can re‑read the question as needed.

That’s a very wise and interesting question. The board of trustees held a retreat recently, and I was in discussions there where I raised our uniqueness. I said, even among systems, most don’t have a single R1 research university.

I mean, the big systems that often become popular in the press SUNY or UC system, any number of places, where we stand out in a very different way. With that comes a lot of responsibility and, I think, opportunity to be very clear about our value in the state of Maine.

I think there were some metrics that I saw a little bit that could get closer to helping us think about uniqueness and ways that we can market to the state of Maine. At the same time, we face so many of the same kinds of problems that many other institutions face that I’m not sure uniqueness alone will solve our problems, but it could be a major factor. It really could.

I don’t know if Jake or Gabe wishes to, I can’t really make you do this, but you’re welcome to. Yeah. Show them the question if you want.

Gabe:

Thanks so much. Really good question.

One of the things that would have been easy at the beginning of the SRE process ‑‑ thanks, President Ferrini‑Mundy, for giving us the time to actually engage in a longer‑term deliberative process ‑‑ is to take ways of evaluating programs that were developed without any of sort of institutional specificity, without any knowledge of the state, our own history as an institution, and to apply those and to then make decisions whether or not those are investments or eliminations.

I think we’ve actually resisted that and, quite importantly, tried to develop, according to our own lights, ways of understanding, assessing our program so that we can make appropriate decisions.

I think that we face, as the president said, challenges that all other institutions face. The answers that we can arrive at are probably going to be ones, hopefully, that are better informed by our own circumstances and history than they would have been otherwise.

That’s one thing really in favor of the way we’ve approached SRE. It hasn’t been to simply think about cookie cutter forms of valuation and then answers that would have been easy, but certainly would have missed many of the specific strengths that we have as an institution.

Jake:

I might take it from just a little different angle, which is a little bit more about the uniqueness of Maine relative to our size of our state, our connectivity, the type of industry, the type of K‑12 education systems that we have, and be aware that with so many direct connections we have, we always talk about being one or two steps away from any one person.

Many other states, many other systems may not have that same type of thing. Are there ways to think about how we market and develop and attract students that could be really unique to Maine and small rural states, our pathways to engage kids and families and companies from K‑12 levels on and things like that?

I think we have great pilots where we’ve done this. How do we turn those into scalable opportunities for the institution in ways that the national organizations and things aren’t just paying attention to?

I really don’t believe we should be following the top 10 institutions in the country. I think that is much the value proposition of what higher ed is to any individual and to this state different than what has been for the last 30 or 40 years. I mean, I think we went back to 1865. We were in great shape.

Amanda:

The cows in the picture?

[off‑mic speech]

Amanda:

Any questions from the room?

[pause]

Amanda: There is a question online because you made the amazing announcement today that Giovanna and Scott are going to be taking over the Vice President of Research and Dean of Graduate School roles. There was a question just clarifying more about the splitting of those positions and how it will fit into our future direction as a university and the SRE work.

Joan:

Sure. Much of this has happened, and the decisions and the conversations have happened in really just the last couple of weeks. At this point, we’ve announced exactly what we have to announce at this point, that Giovanna will serve as the Vice President for Research, Scott will serve as the Dean of the Graduate School.

Both are in short‑term appointments of slightly different types due to their own personnel and personal circumstances. I hope you’ve seen, though, that you’ve had presentations by two interim leaders here. People in interim jobs are in this job full force. I don’t want there to be any misgivings about people’s commitments to the work.

We will be having the dean of the Graduate School in this period report to the provost, which has been a part of some of the organizational changes that have been proposed in SRE. We are in a period of time where we have a little bit of an opportunity to step back and continue to look at organizational possibilities with this arrangement.

We’re very grateful to Giovanna and to Scott for being willing to jump in at this moment in a process that I’m confident will continue to build on and further the strength of both our research mission and our graduate mission.

Again, the collaborations right now between the OVPRDGS and the EVPAAA offices are extremely strong. The expectation is that that all continues, that there’s appropriate integration and consultation as we go forward. We’re in a short‑term moment where we also can step back and take a look at how things are going.

Amanda: We have about four minutes left. Are there any last questions from the room?

Joan:

Can I ask one?

[crosstalk]

Joan:

It’s not really a question, it’s just a comment. I want to be sure that we acknowledge the outstanding job that Jenny did on…Everybody was fine, but Jenny did a great job really laying out, and I hope you all appreciate the clarity of that budget presentation and the challenges that we face.

I would underscore her point that that big scary number for 2027 is what we’re diving into right now to take a look at how we can use our strategic re‑envisioning ideas, both for revenue generation and for other kinds of rearrangements to solve that problem.

I don’t want people to go away from here at all with any sort of hopelessness. We can address this and we have year after year we managed to figure this all out, but we’ll need everybody’s engagement and we’ll need everybody’s best ideas.

Over the next few weeks, you will see opportunities to work at the college level, of course, with your deans and leaders and more university‑wide also. Really want to tell you that that’s our next big work is to get the ’27 budget in order. Thank you all for that. It’s not a question, I guess. I asked and answered my own question. Sorry.

Amanda: I don’t know if you want to wrap up. It’s about that time.

Joan:

Sure. I just thank you everybody. These sessions are very, very important for our campus. I believe we could do them perhaps with more frequency. At the same time, there’s a fair bit of preparation to them. I appreciate that you all took an hour and a half out of very busy days with a lot going on here to come together and show your commitment to this university.

I appreciate directly hearing from people and want to know what you think, want to hear ideas, want to hear your worries. Let’s continue to be the connected community that we are and move forward into fiscal ’26 and ’27. Thank you.

(background sounds only)

Transcript:

Joan Ferrini‑Mundy: with SRE before we go into a fairly detailed budget discussion. This was a slide that I used in the budget presentation with the board because I wanted to be clear that the way to really develop budgets, of course, is to have a strategic vision that guides that work. It’s hard to do that in challenging budget times.

It seems that the 91±¬ÁÏ always has challenging budget times, but nonetheless, because we have SRE, because so many people have come together to try to give shape to our vision, we have been able to say with more certainty really that the strategic vision for the university must drive our budget planning, but there are some other factors.

We still need to reduce our long-standing structural gap and we are chipping away at that in good ways and in productive ways, but through the very hard work that everyone has been undertaking in the last year. We have a BOT plan and Kelly will speak to that.

The way you solve a budget problem is that really has only two pieces. You can reduce and become more efficient and you can bring in revenue. And what we are focusing on are defensible revenue generation ideas.

That is to say, not just pie in the sky ideas, which are easy to offer and very hard sometimes to execute, but through SRE, ideas that will actually enable us to generate revenue in a pretty concrete way.

We are working daily to anticipate the ongoing impact of changes at the federal level, and I’ll tell you more about that later. It is time to replenish our E&G reserves, and we are starting a plan for doing so.

I really wanted to end with this one. All of this is guided by retaining the core of what we are as a university, who we are, what we value, and what we do, and not letting that slip, but recognizing the way that we do that will need to change for all of the reasons that we’re talking about today, for what SRE is doing with us, for us, for the budget challenges and for the federal context.

We started with the question, almost a year ago now, “What would humane look like if we were designing it today?” We talked about things that are still relevant even today, although they’re different in terms of the content, but the higher education landscape is indeed changing, has been forever, really, but more recently with lots of different kinds of factors influencing that.

The workforce and the needs of the workforce and also what constitutes a college experience for students are changing. In fact, who the students are is a changing factor as well.

SRE is acknowledging that this kind of transformational change is what we must do. We launched that, again, almost about a year ago now. There’s a lot going on with that. We’ve talked about that in other settings.

There’s the web page that you can review, but I wanted to just remind you of some guiding principles that were part of SRE from the start and have remained central for us.

I’ll pick out a couple of these to mention, premier land grant and first‑rate R1 public research university where students are the focus. We’re getting to be able to say that really well, this learner‑focused R1, but where we need to go next is to enact that more broadly.

We have examples all across this university of extraordinary instruction going on in classrooms where inquiry and new creation and creative endeavors are at the core even the very beginning of undergraduate instruction, but we don’t have that in a widespread way, nor are we really able to support and celebrate it when we do have it in ways that we should going forward.

That becomes, I think, a major focus of SRE and much of what will come of it. It’s tied, of course, to the integration of teaching and research, especially, frankly, in a time where we need to diversify our research funding.

We need to be looking at agencies, perhaps, that we’ve not looked at before. We need to look at private funders and foundations and philanthropy and figure out a way that the kinds of things that we care about doing at this university can get supported going forward.

Then finally, I want to emphasize the need to remain a supportive, inclusive community that prioritizes the mental, physical, and emotional well‑being of our faculty, staff, and students. That’s the responsibility of all of us. I would say that what I have written there is absolutely the case.

I will also say that, that right now, particularly this time of year, as we come close to graduation and all that goes with that, keeping our students at the center, focusing on them is especially important right now and we need to be financially sustainable.

There are four SRE implementation groups that have been working over the last several weeks, and here are their titles and their focal areas and their leaders. They have just in the last week or so provided their final sets of recommendations.

Nothing is really final with SRE. It’s all iterative, but this last round has come in. We’ve been reviewing them and we’ll say a little bit more about some of that later.

Now we’ll go more specifically to the budget presentation. Again, this is what we would normally do this time of year. This has already been posted for the board’s FFT, the finance facilities and technology committee.

We will be, walking through pieces of what we did in that presentation. If you would like to see the entire presentation, feel free, of course, to take a look at it on the 91±¬ÁÏ System website. With that, I will introduce, Kelly Sparks. You’ve got your own? OK.

Kelly Sparks: Good morning. Fix that up. Little tall person, woe is here. I’m going to move this forward.

First of all, understand how did we start by building our budget. We started with if we do all of the same things we are today, a pre‑SRE lens. If we continue on with our current enrollment trajectory, our consistent retention that we have, our state appropriations remain relatively flat.

Our expense base. All the people who are here today continue to be here in the same way. We’re continuing to hire at the same rate, and we looked and said, “OK, that’s our baseline.” Then we said, “What upside potential is there in the overall budget?”

We were very fortunate that with the great success of our deans, Scott Marzilli, the provost office, at large to see pretty incredible success around retention in collaboration with the student affairs team. We built a two percent increase. That was the weighted average of the last three years change in enrollment. We built that. We layered in some additional enrollment into it.

The incredible success of our financial aid and enrollment management team and helping us build out our enrollment strategy. We’re seeing greater successes, a turnaround story, if you will.

While we have some larger graduating classes, we have some larger classes coming in to offset that. That helped out with the enrollment the top‑line numbers.

We also have had incredible success in our residence halls. We’ve seen a hundred percent occupancy in the fall. Of course, that always dips a little bit as a part of the standard process. We’ve seen high occupancy rates, which also drives meal pan rates in our auxiliaries. Lots of success.

We’ve seen lots of success in the research side as well. We’ve seen increased research productivity grants contracts, congressionally directed spending, which result not only in that research productivity and the opportunities it provides for our faculty graduate students, students at large.

It also has the F&A, or the facilities and administration overhead that comes into our E&G budget. That has grown in the millions over the last couple of years.

Now I want to say our little caveat here is that while we’ve seen strong research, there is federal uncertainty. We still are planning to have strong research activity happening at the university, and we still have those in a budget.

We just need to watch that carefully, which is the why we have it highlighted here in in in yellow. We just need to be aware, watch, looking at the trends, understanding, and working very closely with Jake and Kody, and understanding how that might impact our budget going into next year.

However, we’ve also had a couple of other trends that are some headwinds, if you will. We are seeing declining out‑of‑state enrollments. We saw some peaks, and it’s coming down a little bit. Our students are taking fewer student credit hours per student. That’s all built into the budget.

We have rising compensation. We want to acknowledge and value our incredible faculty and staff, and we have bargained rates, so we are building those into the budgets. They are growing a little bit faster than our overall baseline, so we’ve just got to manage to that.

We have the changing federal landscape, so that will have an impact potentially on our F&A. That may have a potential impact on capacity grants, MAFIS, MEIA, and cooperative extension. We’re probably pretty nimble and ready to respond to that if changes do happen at this point.

Then we have ongoing deferred maintenance. We need to figure out how we fund that to make sure that we’re adequately supporting our facilities operations as a part of our overall operating budget and starting to make some improvements where possible.

With that said, what are the numbers look like? We presented to the board of trustees in FY24. We said, “Give us three years, and we will provide you a balanced budget. We won’t ask for system reserves.

We will strategically use our unrestricted E&G Reserves in order to buy us a little bit of time to work our way through strategically and re envisioning to think strategically as an organization of what a balanced budget would look like. By FY27, the out year will present to you a balanced budget.”

What we also committed to is if you look at that strategic reserves across the bottom line, we committed that we would use no more than $14.5 million total over the course of three years.

Very, very proud to say that in collaboration with our cabinet, with our deans, with our research centers and institutes with our other administrative offices across campus, we are presenting a budget and we presented a budget to the finance facilities technology committee of the board of trustees last week.

A budget that is in line and underneath that are the picture of me with my finger pointing at it is 2.1 million use of strategic reserves. [laughs] Verify that number for me. I can see it here on my little piece of paper, so I validate that that’s what’s on the screen. Very excited about that budget.

Now does the tuition line identical to what we presented three years ago? No, because we’ve seen some successes that we didn’t anticipate, so we’ve grown that line. We also have seen some successes in hockey that show right up here in this line in the other revenue line with increased sales and service activity.

Lots of good things happening across campus. I’m going to flip and talk a little bit about how we got to all of this. Again, I said that we started with this baseline budget. That baseline budget was business as usual.

Then we made a number of changes, tuition and fees. We’re able to add $3 million to the top line with those changes. Additional state appropriation. We initially planned for a certain amount of state appropriations. We were able to increase.

Now again, that’s a little bit of a question right now. Any of you who are tracking the state budget, we are lots of good work happening at the system office in support of continuing to advocate for that. We’re holding true to that in our budget right now, but we’ll be watching closely what happens with the state’s budget.

F&A cost return. Right now, that number, just so you know, is equivalent to where we think we’re going to end FY24, that increase in next year’s budget. There is potential risk there. I want to acknowledge that. I don’t know how much that risk is because we don’t have any specific, we’ve already embedded anything that we know to be certain for next year. There’s lots of unknowns.

What we’re trying to do is put that range of unknowns together and track it and be ready to respond if it does happen, but we don’t want to overreact by inappropriately reducing our overall revenue budget.

Sales service. That’s a combination of things in athletics and other areas as well that we feel very confident will come to fruition next year. Again, defensible revenue increases.

On the other side, how are we looking at reducing our overall expenses? I know the hiring pause has been difficult on a lot of areas. Through that good work, it’s allowing us to go through the strategic reinvesting the implementation working group recommendation piece, but we have saved dollars in terms of ongoing attrition savings due to the hiring pause.

Reduction in campus‑shared services. This is the allocation that we received from the system office. What they did is they absorbed one hundred percent of their compensation increases as well as a hundred percent of the change in the benefits rate. There was a pretty significant change in the benefits rate.

They presented to us a flat budget this year, and that is a million‑dollar savings for us that we had anticipated that our budget would grow by that amount.

I want to just acknowledge that that has been hard work. They have essentially taken budget reductions at the system office, and they have transferred those budget reductions through to the 91±¬ÁÏ, 91±¬ÁÏ at Machias.

We also are looking at the UMEC project or the steam plant replacement project. This right now, it’s a delay in when we would start the debt service of that so we can do a little bit more due diligence to determine if we have the right funding source or if we could use a third‑party funding source as a potential for that project.

It’s really just a timing delay right now. It may change the numbers further. Hutchison Center closure, when we close that, we are still covering operating costs associated with that. I love snow plowing for an unoccupied facility, and making sure that the oil stays filled so we can keep the temperature on. Can’t wait to transition that one off of our books.

Then increased net transfer. That F&A cost return, we also transfer dollars out to units as a part of the F&A revenue sharing that we do. It’s just a net to that $2.4 million. We also would transfer additional dollars out to units if those dollars came to fruition.

Part of how we’re getting there are tuition and fee changes. We are going to increase our in‑state and out‑of‑state by three percent, as well as all of our graduate tuition with the exception of the MBA. The MBA went through some market changes last year in terms of the overall rate structure, so we’re going to go ahead and hold that flat.

In addition to that, we’ll also be increasing the graduate differential, but not the undergraduate differential for this coming year. Students through their shared governance process have voted to increase the student activity fee by $22 a semester.

They’re a 501(c)(3). For those of you aren’t aware, we will flow those dollars directly into their student activities budget, and they manage that through their processes.

Same thing for Machias. The only thing I’ll call out here is that their students have not made a recommended increase in their overall activities fees, so that will remain flat for the 91±¬ÁÏ at Machias.

Auxiliaries. Really excited to share a budget that not only is breakeven, but will also now start to contribute a little bit back to the auxiliary reserves so that we can maintain those facilities. Great work in terms of housing occupancy. This also includes 40 additional beds that we’ll be leasing off‑site at Orchard Trails in order to accommodate the increased demand.

Then it includes good work and in collaboration with Sodexo around really getting to a balanced budget with our dining enterprise.

For those of you who haven’t been up to Hilltop, some improvements into the physical space, I encourage you to take a look. Pretty fun to see the improvements that are happening across campus. Then later this spring, we’ll see the outdoor space outside of Wells come to fruition as well.

We talked at the very beginning about strategic use of reserve reserves. When I am talking about reserves in this case, there’s this little blue bar there. A couple of years ago, we started at $39 million, and it’s now down to $5.2 million.

There’s a number of things that we’re doing. We have a planned use or a budgeted use. If the board of trustees is to approve that here in May of $2.1 million of the $5.2 million.

We are doing a strategic review of everything that’s in that orange bar, the $57.5 million. Some of those things are untouchable. I’ll say funds functioning as endowments. That’s essentially the endowment, and we have a payover off of that.

It also includes projects that we have decided to fund over time. We are looking at some of those in that designated bucket. What might be usable instead of the $2.1 million of our unrestricted, how might we use some of those other funds as an offset that to retain as much in our unrestricted reserves?

Regardless of all of this, having healthy reserves is not only required by the system through APL or administrative practice letter. It’s also really important for the ratios that we have.

If we think about our composite ratio externally, that will drive our ability and the cost of capital for us to borrow to do some of those important projects like UMEC or other projects.

We really want to be mindful of these ratios or of our reserves because they drive the ratios and our ability to do the things on campus that we want to do to improve the both the physical footprint, and other things that we may want to do strategically.

I think I am passing it back to my colleague, Gabe, to talk a little bit about our enrollment picture.

Gabe Paquette: Good morning, everyone. Hope everyone’s doing well. I’m going to speak to some of our admissions and enrollment‑related slides, but I do want to give credit where credit’s due. Vice President Coughlin, his team are in the audience. Definitely, I’m here reporting good news.

The main thing that I want to say is that our aging, which is the time between receipt of an application and an admissions decision, has increased pretty significantly over the years. Over the last couple of years. Now it’s down to 1.6 days over 3.6 days before, and we expect that that will decrease even more to hopefully zero, Kevin, is that right, by next year.

We also should say that our admissions our applications are up slightly, but not all that significantly over last year. I believe Megan is online?

Megan Walsh: I am online. Can you hear me?

Kelly: Yes.

Megan: Yes?

Gabe: Yes. Sorry.

Megan. That’s OK. Sorry. Our applications are also up at 91±¬ÁÏ at Machias, and we have quite a bit of overlap with 91±¬ÁÏ. Thanks, Gabe.

Gabe: Thanks, Megan. I’m really delighted to share this next slide, which is good news. Some of you might be familiar with this already. Hopefully, you are, which is that our first to second year retention has increased quite dramatically.

For a long time, over a decade or just about a decade, we were steady about 75 percent from first to second year. This past year, we’ve now gone up to 83 percent.

The question is what are some of the drivers? I’d say there are at least two. The first is that the major reinvestments that have been or the major investments that have been made in through the Alfond gift, particularly research learning experiences, pathways to career, etc. have now started to show their benefits. That’s very exciting.

Another thing that has to be pointed to are the various process improvements that have been made. Many of these are led by my colleague, Associate Provost Scott Marzilli, including Black Bear early alerts.

This is where, in Scott’s words, we make the faculty into the eyes and ears on the ground, and we’re able to identify students who are having difficulty early on in a given semester, and then bring out all of our resources, all the wrap‑around services relate to student success, advisors, and others in order to ensure that those students have the best chance of succeeding.

I think we are now seeing the benefits quite significantly. Undergraduate student credit hours have, of course, over the last ten years declined quite significantly overall. There are a couple of different drivers that have resulted in this. The first is, of course, competition from other regional flagships.

The second, however, is the free community college program that also has had a significant impact. Fortunately, it appears that our credit hours at the undergraduate level are leveling out, and that’s a very exciting development. I believe Megan now I’m speaking into the mic. Megan, I think you’re also to share some ULM updates.

Megan: Thank you, Gabe. I just wanted to say that our credit hours are up this year. We are currently this semester up 23 percent in credit hours over spring 2024, and most of that is in our online undergraduate sections of introductory level courses. Thank you.

Gabe: Thanks, Megan. Got it right that time. Now I believe we’re going to go to graduate student credit hours. I believe Kody’s out there in cyberspace.

Kody Varahramyan: Yes. I’m here. Good morning, everyone. The next slide, if we can get to it.

Gabe: Oops. Sorry.

Kody: Thank you. This also shows the graduate credit hour over the past ten years. As you can see, the trend overall has been growth in the credit hours, and we can also say that in recent years things have become more or less constant.

However, having said that, if you look at the out‑of‑state portion of of the credit hour, that has been growing steadily and almost by about close to 50 percent over the past ten years. At the same time, we are doing the best we can with respect to the in state credit hours for with respect to growth. Thank you.

Gabe: Thank you, Kody. This slide shows that our credit hours are going to be flat going into next year. We are graduating a very large class which is exciting, which is good news. We expect that our incoming class will be slightly greater than this past year.

We do expect to continue to our gains related to retention, in particular, especially from first to second year. This is all, I think, good news, even though our credit hours will remain flat going into next year. I can now turn things over to Kody again. Thank you.

Kody: Thank you. With respect to being a learner center, our one university also, we have been already doing quite a bit of good work and advancement thanks to the entire university community and the research enterprise.

In fiscal year 24, with respect to R&D expenditures generated it was around $249.3 million. R&D expenditures consist of internal funds that were invested in research as well as external funds that were invested in research.

Out of $249.3 million., the external funds portion was $171.4 million. Which means that the internal funds invested by about $77 million.

If you divide the two numbers, then for every internal dollar that was spent in support of the research enterprise, essentially, $2.2 were generated and were brought in from the outside world to support our research with respect to supporting faculty, staff, students, laboratory enhancements, and all of that comes with it.

Overall, our university as the flagship university of the state of Maine has been doing 89 percent of all university research in the state of Maine, and about over 16 percent of our undergraduate students have been directly involved in research experiential learning.

This number does not include those students who go through RLEs and through the courses that they get exposed to the research experiential learning.

Also, of course, there has been very much focus on in R&D areas that are relevant in and how or impactful and meet the needs of the state of Maine. As part of that, we have also been diversifying and expanding our funding sources.

Finally, with respect to doctoral degree programs, we have 31 degree programs, and roughly on average, in recent years, over 70 doctoral students have been graduating. As part of that, also, some innovations have been taking place in doctoral education. Thank you.

Jake Ward: Hi. I’m Jake Ward, vice president for strategic partnerships and innovation at 91±¬ÁÏ. I want to dive in a little bit on our industry commercialization and economic improvement activities. I feel like I’m looking in the wrong direction, so sorry.

In particular, our industry and commercialization projects. I mean, anything I talk about here is really the work of the institution. Many of you are involved in those faculty, staff, centers, departments, colleges, etc.

Over the last few years, we’ve really tried to accelerate some of the work in commercialization and entrepreneurship innovation. Over the last five years, about 750 projects specifically in that space.

It’s really about translating the work, the results of our work, but also making our facilities and expertise available to companies and communities in Maine who are looking to solve problems extends from the smallest companies in Maine to some of the largest companies in the world.

We have such a broad activity in that space. A lot of that is stimulated by the Maine economic improvement fund. The Maine economic improvement fund is a state appropriation dedicated to doing applied research and development in the seven targeted sectors.

We get about $16 million a year from the state for that. It’s distributed across the institution and in so many different places. We’ve seen over the last few years a continued growth in the leverage of that. Using those funds to invest in faculty, staff, facilities, technicians, equipment.

The last year, FY24, we saw a $6.45 for every dollar invested in that space. Over the last few years we’ve been expanding that more into the, the workforce development, the R1 activities including a lot of more internships, undergrad and graduate level are being more and more incorporated into the use of those resources. Now I’m passing it back to whoever. Kelly.

Kelly: Feel like I should say, “Tag. You’re it.” A little bit about our housing. I definitely want to call out Dick Young and the team. They have done extraordinary work this last year as we found that we had exceeded, thanks to Kevin, our growth in enrollment. We had more students to house on campus than we thought.

There was a lot of gymnastics that happened coming into the summer months to try and accommodate those students, leasing space off‑site, triples, lounges creative solutions to accommodate students. This year, we’ve been able to get out ahead of that with an intentional leasing plan in advance.

What this number doesn’t show is we have 3500 beds on campus. We will also be leasing 40 beds off‑site in order to accommodate our students. By the end of the year, we anticipate being at 90 percent occupancy, but that means we’ll start at a a hundred percent and work our way down. A lot of good work to support both undergraduate and graduate students with on campus housing.

A similar story of growth in Machias, and I’m going to turn over to my colleague, Megan, to talk a little bit about what’s happening down there.

Megan: Thank you, Kelly. We are seeing the numbers go in the right direction. Although, of course, we’d like to see Dorward Hall full. You see that sign there is green, but it is shortly to be blue. We are doing a number of upgrades to that building as well including bathrooms and lounge areas. I did also want to shout out to Dick Young for all of his help, and also to Sodexo.

I’m pleased to say I don’t know if this is the time, Kelly, but I’m quite pleased to say that 91±¬ÁÏ Machias ranks in the top five for students at student and customer satisfaction of all Sodexo serving institutions in the Northeast.

Kelly: That is an incredible turnaround story that may not have been how students felt about Sodexo when we first launched down there. Great, great collaboration for Sodexo.

Over the last year, we’ve also been studying how we can consider making some improvements to our housing for students and really focusing on developmentally appropriate safe housing adding in some privacy into spaces, bathroom privacy, kitchens. How can we can start considering improvements to our facilities over time?

One of those is to start to increase our rates just a little bit so that we can start to build a reserve so that we can do some major improvements or major renovations. This is the first year that we’ll make that increase. We’re planning to increase our room rates by approximately 4.25 percent here in Orono in order to start that.

We’ll start to see some renovations happening in the following years as the outcome of that change. Similarly, we’ll be working to increase our rates in Machias. In Machias, we have been running at a deficit. This year, we’re really working to restructure those rates so that that program breaks even down there.

We understand and acknowledge that it’s a little bit higher of an increase and a potential burden on students, but necessary in order to make that program really come to breakeven. Do you want to add anything to that, Megan?

Megan: No. I don’t. Well, I guess I would say that we do have an exemption for students who live 35 miles from campus. Otherwise first year students are required to live on campus. Similar, but not exact to there. That’s it. Thank you.

Kelly: Thank you, Megan. Then as of board rates or what, we are charging for meal plans, this will bring our meal program with Sodexo to fully break even. Lots of exciting improvements, as I mentioned earlier, happening across campus to expand offerings for students as well as physical locations or places for students to gather outside of the traditional dining hall.

I’m going to turn it over here back to my colleague, Gabe.

Gabe: Hello again, everyone. This slide shows our discount rate. Our discount rate has remained steady over the last few years. We do discount more than other New England land grants, but we do that very strategically.

First, scholarships make it much more likely that students will actually come to the 91±¬ÁÏ. Also, we are trying to recognize our students’ outstanding academic accomplishments. Those are two of the chief reasons why we discount.

The other thing to say is that our undergraduate tuition rate remains really the lowest among New England land grants by some measure, about $4,000 less, whereas our out‑of‑state tuition is really just on par with the University of Rhode Island, but significantly lower than all the other New England land grants.

Then finally, this slide shows tuition relative to median household income. While we are more or less at the same level as the state of Massachusetts, of course, our median income is significantly lower. That deserves to be pointed out. Now, turn back to my colleagues related to the federal landscape. President Ferrini‑Mundy.

Joan: This is our last section, and then we can turn to conversation and questions. The federal landscape changing by the day. A couple of things to say first, extraordinary uncertainties right now relative to budget.

You’ve seen that worked in a little bit to the budget presentation, not fully because it’s actually very difficult to project. We’re doing a lot of work with scenario planning to try to get a sense of what this could mean for us. As I say, it changes daily.

Then the actual specifics of research funding and grants. Grants that we already have, grants that we have been sure we would get, and grants for which we are applying. That’s a very dynamic landscape right now. Many of the folks in the room, and I’m assuming on the call, are very engaged in that work. I’ll say a bit more about how we’re trying to address it right now.

Then, the federal actions and guidance may be, of course, overarching for all of this, and that may be some of the most difficult and challenging activity that we face at the moment. I was struck by the headlines in the “Bangor Daily News” in the Saturday paper, I guess. There were two, and I meant to bring it and rushed out without it.

One spoke about a grant that had actually been paused that had to do with STEM engagement of, I believe, young women, as a part of the work.

The other spoke about worries about scientists in the INBRE project, which is a statewide funding activity funded by NIH about what was happening. I was thinking how differently those two articles conveyed what was happening. They’re both fine articles. They were accurate.

The INBRE was all about a worry as I read it. Like, what if the F&A cap is created? What could that mean? The other was a grant that we are actually working right now with the funder to try to understand what the issues may be. One caution that I would give to everybody is it’s really easy to be extremely worried with every one of these headlines. I appreciate that.

I am and you are and and we we know that. At the same time, I’m trying to stay focused on what has actually happened to us? Like, what do we actually need to do to resolve this grant, to resolve the Sea Grant situation, to resolve the USDA threat on unfunding of what we had?

There’s a lot happening and it changes daily. I’ll tell you a little bit about what we are doing here in this rapidly changing environment. We can concentrate on what we can control. That is our own programs, our own research, the well‑being of our students. Those are the things to focus on, I think, in this moment.

Know that the responses are going to vary, frankly, almost daily depending on what happens. Here are some of the groups that we have working just to be sure that people are aware that this is all happening. If people have questions, we can figure out how to help plug you in.

There’s a grant review team. That group meets every day. Well, not weekends, maybe weekends. I don’t know. No, not yet. The grant review team meeting every day to take up specific questions coming in from our grantees, whatever their question might be.

“Should I stop work on this piece of the grant? Should I continue going ahead with this submission? What about the language? What’s your advice on what I might do relative to DEI language or climate language or any number of other topics? How does it look for whether this funding will continue?”

Then very specific queries that come in because an agency representative has written to the grantee. They’re a little bit different. There might be worries and concerns and what ifs. Then there is, “Oh my goodness. I just got this letter today. What do I do now?”

The grant review team looks at whatever has come in since the day before and tries to address that queue. Curious, just sorry to put people on the spot, about how many have we looked at so far now in the grant review team?

Jake: [indecipherable] .

Jake: 90‑95 coming in. What Jake just said was if you also look at HR‑related and purchasing‑related, because if there’s some threat that your grant may stop, the HR issues are very obvious. Whether or not to buy the new piece of equipment is another question. Whether to continue with the subcontract is another question. All of that has to be looked at pretty closely.

Then we have the Federal Actions Stakeholder Team, FAST. We are meeting three times a week. That’s a group of people from across the cabinet. The GRT is much more, that team is about grant specialists. That’s about people who deal with grants every day and understand those implications as well as talking to our government relations teams and so forth.

FAST is a sample of folks from across the cabinet and other leadership roles. What we do is look at whatever has come up in the two days before the last meeting. What are the new issues? What’s in the news? What have we noticed? Very important to that group are our system general counsel attorneys.

They sit in those meetings and they help us talk about what we may need to do. If we took this action, what might the consequences be? If we fail to take action, what could we consider? A lot of risk assessment at, I think, a more general level there.

Kody is convening an alternative funding team, and that will continue to be an expanded conversation, not only among the small set of researchers that he has assembled already to start to look at where there might be additional resources, but that will grow into a bigger discussion in the coming weeks for the entire university.

There are a couple of different contingency planning efforts. Kelly and team are working regularly on their scenarios, on risk assessments, on trying to refine exactly what this situation could mean for us fiscally.

That one is very fiscally focused, and Kevin is helping us to shape a plan for a wider, longer term, wider range. What would happen if our university had to be reshaped in this way or that way or another way? Both of those getting going.

Michelle Rogers chairs an ad hoc communications team that is simply looking at all the different frameworks for communication that we need to be worrying about and paying attention to. I would say that this meeting is one example of our next wave of trying to be as communicative as we can be in this very changing world.

The chancellor holds an executive orders check‑in twice a week with different groups of people where we talk system wide about the implications. As you may guess, the news about the US Department of Education is prompting discussion that goes way beyond the research funding or the very specific DEI discussions or the immigration discussions that we are all engaged in or the tariff discussions.

It goes all the way to student financial aid and what could that mean and what might the implications be. Other programs funded by the US Department of Ed that are not research programs, but trio and others that might be student support. That’s getting discussed at the chancellor’s level.

Then several of us are very active and in leadership roles and organizations like NECHE, which is our accreditor, APLU, the Association of Public, and Land Grant Universities, and other organizations at the professional society level where I know that deans and faculty members have leadership roles.

There’s a lot of calibrating going on, at least from where I sit with peers across the nation. Like, what are you doing about this? How are you reacting to that? What do you think about this? Can you share that? That’s going on rather constantly because there isn’t a well‑defined pathway through this and major universities are being affected as well.

That’s a useful thing I’m finding. The version of it that I described here on campus is useful because it puts together people who care about this university, who care about our students, faculty, and staff to really come up with what is a sensible way to balance everything that has to get balanced as we try to move ahead.

The congressional delegation, particularly Senator Collins, has just been amazing. They are there. There are conversations with their staff. I’m in regular conversation with the four members of the delegation and their teams. They are, of course, watching all of this really closely, as well as our governor and her administration.

There’s a lot of new communicating going on and new messaging really for the 91±¬ÁÏ. “Here’s what we care about. Here’s what we must protect. Here is what we also feel is critical for the state of Maine,” and so forth. It’s pretty comprehensive.

If there are people who are interested in knowing more about some of that, I’m always happy to answer your questions. I’d offer special thanks to a few people: Chancellor Malloy, Paul Chan, who serves now as special counsel to the chancellor, Eamonn Purrington, who is acting general counsel, Lisa Landry, who is associate general counsel.

We really are, and this isn’t meant to be anything other than acknowledgment. We are really on daily speed dial with these folks because of things that come across our desks where maybe a decision by 91±¬ÁÏ could impact the whole system or a decision by the system could impact 91±¬ÁÏ and so forth.

Samantha Warren, who is the 91±¬ÁÏ System Director of Government and Community Relations, is our lead for the system on communication. Jake Ward, whom you’ve met, VP for Spire, is the lead coordinator for FAST and for all of the incoming everything, trying to keep an eye on all of that and keep track of it.

Michelle Rogers has been amazing on all fronts, particularly in keeping things moving forward. The members of FAST. A special shout out to Chris Boynton, who is Director of the Office of Research Administration and the 91±¬ÁÏ’s authorized institutional representative, meaning he signs things.

He’s especially attentive to everything that is going on and knows, now reading what terms and conditions are included in grants and whether those are changing. Very, very technical and important work for us.

There’s a lot happening. It is not easy. We will do our best to keep people informed of decisions as we make them. I will announce a few specifics today. As I was looking at my list, I was thinking some of these are budget‑related. Some of them are coming out of the current financial uncertainty at the federal level, and some are SRE.

That’s a pretty good mix. We said the talk was about all three areas. They come together really for us. A few points that we’ll get into writing some of this that’s unfamiliar as soon as we can. We are continuing the strategic hiring pause that was initiated last December, but we’re expanding the critical hiring review process.

How many of you know about that process? I’m seeing deans and PIs and people raising their hands. Yes, we have a pause, but we also have a mechanism for people to put forward what’s considered a critical hire. That’s why you’re seeing some positions are still being posted.

There is an argument to be made for the criticality of the hire, a timing matter, budget‑related issues. The critical hiring review process will now expand to include all hiring on external funds. With quick turnarounds, we’re trying to do those in the same day.

For now, we need to take a very careful step back to look at risk across our portfolio, and this is the most straightforward way to do it. The lead for that is our Vice President for Human Resources, Nicole Lawrence. We will be pausing new financial offers to incoming graduate students, while we at the same time continue to accept students.

This one, we’ve not announced the details of this. However, this pause has already happened in some colleges. We will use the pause period, which we hope will be fairly short. This is very similar to what other universities are doing, so there’s nothing particularly radical about this.

We’ll use that pause period to get as close an analysis as we can of risk areas and then come back with next steps after a fairly short period of time. We’ll give more details about that. It’s a big team working on that, but the leads are Provost Volin and VPR DGS, Kody Varahramyan.

The third thing I wanted to mention, and this is coming out of SRE, and we’ve been talking about this for a long time, is that we’ll launch very shortly, an academic portfolio review process. This is a recommendation that’s come from multiple groups in SRE.

This will assess possibilities for program closure, mergers, consolidations, redesign, meta majors, new directions and this will be led by Associate Provost Gabe Paquette. We are looking at a couple of, I guess the language we’ve been using is semi‑centralized or semi‑decentralized reorganizations.

The first of these that we’ll dive into in a deeper way will be within marketing and communications functions university‑wide to be led by John Diamond, who is our Chief Marketing and Communications Officer. He’s been working for several weeks now with Marcom leaders across the campus and more to come on that.

Then several of the recommendations coming from the SRE groups include new organizations for various kinds of units, a center to be combined within a couple of colleges, for example, or two centers to merge in some sense and so forth.

I’d like to establish a task force, a new task force, to look at all of those recommendations that have come in the last couple of weeks and to pick the ones that we should start on now, keeping things in mind that are crucial to us. What’s our working charter about a healthy planet, about being fiscally sustainable, serving the state of Maine, being inclusive, building inclusive communities?

We’ll look at every one of those potential reorgs from those perspectives, but we will also get started on deciding how quickly and how we actually would move into them.

Then finally, and I’m a little leery to introduce this because I haven’t fully worked it all out. This is accurate. I’m going to look at Dean Haddad to check me. I’ve had a first conversation with most of the deans collectively to discuss what we would do to…

Being R1 is clear. We know what that means. It’s very clear criteria. It signifies a certain level of excellence in research and so forth. There isn’t really a comparable teaching or learning designator.

We can make the case for ourselves at this university that we are an extraordinary university for teaching and learning, that we have innovation, that we support and will perhaps find ways to grow our support for that heart of our mission in modern ways.

I’ve approached with the deans the idea, watching Emily and Diane, the idea that we put together a prospectus for how we would make that a major focal piece of our work going forward. That’s beginning. I think we will soon have more to say about what that even looks like.

This is an extraordinary university for its instructional portfolio. We have innovation going on. We have strong focus on student learning. We’ve already heard today about student success and retention in general kinds of ways.

Within particular subject matter areas and disciplinary foci and interdisciplinary areas, we can boast about strengths here, and we need to be able to categorize that more fully and describe it more intentionally and then grow it. That will be coming as well.

Just to conclude, a reminder: we are still Maine’s R1 D1 Land, Sea, and Space Grant Flagship University. We are a community that, as Robert Dana used to say, is kind, caring, and compassionate. We have to continue, I believe, to figure out how to do that.

We will have differences. People will remain worried and concerned, and we collectively need to do our best to help folks address those worries and concerns and to keep moving forward.

I am so appreciative that this community is here and all the people online as well being a part of figuring out how we ensure that Maine has another 160 good years going forward at a time that is admittedly very challenging, very difficult, but I see some optimism too.

Thank you for that, and I’m sure we now have some questions. We’ll turn to Amanda to help us with that. I’ll turn to Amanda to help us with questions. This time, I’m not monitoring the questions in real‑time, so it’s probably better.

Amanda: Thank you, everyone. Can we put the slide back up that had the QR link for the questions? It’s at the very beginning. [laughs]

There we go. We’ve already been receiving some questions online, and we’ll try to go back and forth between questions in the room and questions online. I do have a bunch online, but if anyone has any questions in the room, we could start there. There’s also a microphone up there.

I’ll start with one online. The first question is, how can we support our students while they’re expressing their own fears about the job market, student loans, and other things?

Joan: This is a question that I think actually warrants a little bit of a discussion, because people in this room will have ideas. The question says, how can we support them while they are expressing their own fears about the job market, about student loans, and other things? I think those have slightly different questions, really, behind them.

Questions and fears about the job market. I am interested in responses from the audience about what you are doing to help your students explore their possibilities and prospects. What we are seeing, if anyone has any data, about the changes in the job market in Maine.

Again, as much as we can be factual with people, I think it’s helpful. I don’t have that information handy. I don’t know if anyone here does. Yes, and please introduce yourself. We’re going to give you a mic, Crisanne.

Crisanne Blackie: Hi. I’m Crisanne Blackie. I’m the Director of the Career Center here on campus. We service our students here on at Orono as well as Machias and I would encourage any students who are concerned about their next steps to please come visit us.

We are in the Union on the third floor. We’re happy to meet with students in person or online. We have many events that are upcoming to help them. In fact, tomorrow is the Class of ’25 Day in the Union that we will be there. We also have alumni helping us to prepare students for interviews. We continue on.

Our website has lots of events, and we are happy to meet with any student who has concerns and help them develop their job search or graduate school plans.

Joan: I would add and then go to Kevin. I would add our alums and donors are extraordinarily interested in how they can help us right now. When we think just about alums, and I saw Jason Harkins before someplace, does a fantastic job with the Maine Business School of helping seniors learn to network and bringing them to events where there are large groups of alums and so forth.

Certainly, we have that as a tool and I think good ideas for how to bridge the connections really between our alumni base and our current graduating students who are job hunting is something we can do more broadly. There are many other good examples of that in the university.

The Pulp and Paper Foundation is extraordinary in helping its participants network together and seek positions, and there may be other good examples. How do we do more of that if that’s of help to students? Kevin was going to comment too.

Kevin: Oh, yes. You hit some of it, the way that we want to provide students with information concerning the diversity and archetypes of support. I also wanted to focus on our co‑curricular participation, especially with student workers.

When we get a student worker, we want them to understand not only they are one of the frontline service people gaining experience that other people spend years post‑graduation developing that experience.

They are also gaining experiences from some of the largest technical platforms people encounter just in profession. Oracle, PeopleSoft Oracle with two CRMs, and they get to see the ambiguity of a tough deployment of CRMs and of things like perceptive content or document imaging and even optical character recognition.

We want students to understand how they put that into a resume or portfolio, and then we want to make sure that we’re continuously evolving so that not only do we harness better technology that our student workers can experience that is lucrative.

Joan: I’ll just add and then go to Kevin. I would add that some of the recommendations coming in from the SRE implementation groups include a stepping up of the numbers of credentials and certificates and special, essentially, stackable credentials that our students may have access to.

That, I believe, is some place where we can actually do something quite concrete. We could take what Kevin just said and turn that into a three‑credit something, perhaps, and look for ways to help our students be able to put a well‑defined credential onto their resume. Of course, there are many national models for how to do this.

There’s quite a lot of interest coming out of the SRE in increasing what we offer in those categories.

Amanda: Angela, did you have something to say regarding that question?

Angela Fileccia: Hi, everyone. I’m Angela Fileccia, the Director of the Counseling Center. That was a really fantastic question. I like that we started with that question in terms of what we can do to support our students. I also appreciate President Ferrini‑Mundy led with a focus on facts.

There’s a lot of information going out. The best model for helping students and, frankly, all of us when we’re dealing with crises is around facts. Focus on facts and then action. What can we do to help our students?

As much as we can focus on facts, helping our students, that’s going to go a long way for their emotional, mental, physical well‑being. Also, anytime I can plug the Counseling Center, please send students who are in distress or even just worried. Send them our way. We have no wait list. We have openings. We have crisis appointments.

Amanda: Thank you, Angela. Any questions from the room?

Oren Teal: Throughout this presentation, you were talking about how it’s sorry…I’m really far away from this. Throughout the presentation, you were talking about how…

Amanda: Sorry. Would you mind introducing yourself?

Oren: Do I have to?

Amanda: Sure.

Oren: I’m an undergraduate student here. My name is Oren Teal. You were talking about how it’s important to maintain support of all of our students, faculty, and staff, especially with everything that’s been going on with the federal government and with funding for 91±¬ÁÏ.

However, recently the USDA released a statement saying that you guys are complying with the federal mandate to exclude trans kids from sports here. What are your actual plans to protect people here at 91±¬ÁÏ, like all of our students, faculty and staff with the increasing attacks on marginalized groups? Like, where do you draw the line in compliance with those demands?

Joan: There’s a bit more background that might be of interest to you and we’ll make sure that you can find that online. One site I would refer everyone to is the 91±¬ÁÏ system. What is it called? Federal Actions Site, Federal Updates. It’s updating pretty much daily.

What you’re referring to has to do with the inquiry that was conducted by the USDA through their Office of Civil Rights around Title IX compliance in NCAA sports, which we follow the NCAA regulations on that matter, and our Athletic Director can tell us more about what those are.

That’s then reported out in the piece that you mentioned where USDA essentially reports that we are compliant with NCAA. Now, the question you ask about support for students, that’s different. This is about following NCAA rules to remain a NCAA institution.

Our support for students, in my view, and I’m looking for Andrea. There she is, and I may ask her to chime in as well. We haven’t wavered on that.

The groups that we have may be having some, we’ve had one name change and we’re aware of that, but the services that we offer, the opportunities that we offer, the time and support that comes from Student Life has not changed, and if anything perhaps has increased. I think it’s important for our faculty and staff to hear that as well. Andrea, would you like to add?

Andrea: Yes. I would say we definitely in Student Life have stepped up to some of the offerings that we’re having. Particularly, I’ll give a shout out if anybody is here to our Residents Life team who are there in the trenches every day with our 3,400 students that live on campus and supporting them.

We did have a name change. You’re all very aware of that. My door is open for discussion of anything, any opinions, any questions you have about that.

There will be some added services to those three lounges that you are probably familiar with, including some mentoring, professional mentoring that will be happening, some academic supports that will happen in those areas to really highlight the work that those lounges have been doing, will continue to do, and provide support for a much broader student population.

Oren: Can I have a follow‑up?

Man 1: [indecipherable]

Man 1: in charge of questions. I would say yes.

Oren: Is that all right? Is it all right if I follow up? OK. Alongside that, I was wondering there’s been a lot of talk about grants being canceled due to language and vocabulary and stuff like that, especially with things about climate or, honestly, just science in general.

How are you planning on dealing with that in the future, and are you going to be supporting undergraduate research in climate?

Joan: You have excellent questions. I’m going to start, and I’m going to turn to Jake to help me with that.

[laughter]

Joan: It’s always good when you get to phone a friend here. Anyway, excellent question. Again, multiple pieces to the question. I lost you. Oh, there you are. OK. Having undergraduates involved in research, in inquiry, in creative endeavors, that is a part of the 91±¬ÁÏ.

It has been for quite a long time, and we’ve stepped that up not just this past couple of years with our RLE’s, but in general over the years with CUGR, with the student symposium, with work that goes on in every college to engage students in the work of inquiry. It’s what distinguishes us.

From what I understand in all my conversations with deans, with faculty, with research center directors, no backing away from that. How we do that, with what names? That’s a little less clear.

There would be some areas where I think we can just zero in where we know it will be clear that that work will continue. We’re watching not only the executive orders and the guidance coming from the federal government, but I’m getting quite interested now in the federal fiscal year ’26 budget.

That’s going to be really key on the research front because when we see what the president’s request looks like, we will be able to tell which agencies and therefore which emphases are going to be most important.

That happens with every change in federal administration. It may be more dramatic with some than with others, but sometimes it’s a full shift where things that were popular in one administration are no longer popular or funded in a new one, and I expect we will see a lot of examples like that with this one.

We’ve got researchers already well ahead of the game and watching and looking and talking to their colleagues. Relative to climate, I think that one is really quite complicated. I’m going to look to Jake. I think there will be ways there have to be ways to continue work that has been critical and is important here at the 91±¬ÁÏ.

It may need to speak about its kinds of outcomes and with new language. A little soon to tell. We’ll hear what Jake thinks. Then, of course, with DEI, that has been a very major focus with the federal government.

You’re seeing, you read the press every single day, you see what they are asking of Columbia, you see what their complaints are with the University of Pennsylvania, you see all kinds of examples.

At this point, we are staying very focused on doing the very best work that we can, caring about what we care about, and using different language when we think we have to. Jake, do you have anything to add?

Jake: Yeah. I’d just say that, from my perspective, and I want to share again that we have a grant review team which has members form ORA, Office of Research Administration, Office of Research Development, Spire team, federal relations as well as legal.

I think everybody who actually gets funding understands you write the proposal to get the funding. You respond to the RFP. Many of the existing grants we have, people responded to the RFPs over the last several years. That definitely had language requirements or deliverable requirements that were objectives of the previous administration.

This transition is, to some extent, new administration, new ideas of things that are important. That doesn’t necessarily mean stop doing the work. A lot of it has to do with making sure it aligns with those priorities if you want that federal funding.

What I think we’re going to start seeing is the next generation of RFPs coming out that are not going to ask for that same kind of language. They’re going to ask for different things. Too much reliance on buzzwords and press is really where it starts to get gray relevant to the science you’re proposing and you being very specific.

If you’re talking about the increases in temperature that increase the viability of tick population, then you just say that. You don’t say it’s because of something else. The more and more you can be very specific about your science, that’s what we’re seeing in the feedback we’re getting.

When a grant is paused, they offered a chance to rewrite some of it. It’s not saying change the scope of work per se. It’s not saying that. It is trying to get to what are you specifically doing, and how is that valuable to what the state, the country, nation needs. I think that’s the best way we can approach it from the mechanics of grant funding.

The overall philosophy of the background of science that connects all these pieces really gets much deeper and beyond what a program manager in an institute or an agency is giving guidance on how to select.

Joan: You know what? That’s a great comment, Jake. I would just add to that as has happened again in previous administrations, there will be new areas of science that are heavily emphasized that are important.

If we’re going to be successful in getting grants, which we have been a lot in the last decade, we will need to also engage in that new science, new engineering, in those new emphases. Particularly for earlier career faculty keeping an eye on all of that. Those signals are already coming. I mean, we’re already hearing what the major areas may be.

We will need, for example, to help folks consider slight shifts in their own research programs and plans to enlarge or expand or move in a slightly different direction and what professional development and support can we offer to folks as they need to do that.

At least that would be relevant in areas that require external funding. Much of our research does require it. If you want to get it, it’s true. You need to write to those RFPs.

Amanda: There are a couple groups of questions online that I think talk to some of the new announcements that were made today. There are some around graduate students, and there’s a theme around how we’re supporting our current students, including efficient communication to them.

Then also a question about the funding graduate student pause for new students and if there’s going to be an exception process and how that’s going to work.

Joan: Thank you and appreciate hearing the questions, of course. Communications with our current graduate students in general, communications in general. I am understanding the importance of stepping up what we do there.

We’re using today as a first attempt at not just doing a straight budget presentation, which we could have also filled a lot of time with, but trying to open up a conversation with folks and to explain some of the issues that are current.

One thing that I have been doing and encouraging members of the cabinet and the deans and others to do is to actually meet with groups of people, with groups who bring specific kinds of topics and issues, and that has been fruitful, both to find out how we can improve our communication and how we can hear people’s issues and concerns.

Relative to the pause in offers that I mentioned today, the details and the execution of that will be forthcoming we hope today. We are an R1 institution. The work that we do at the doctoral level is crucial. The work that our graduate workers do to support that, of course, also crucial. We understand all of that.

What we’re doing with this pause is assessing the risk in a general way and then applying it to where we might be headed in the future. More to come and always happy to speak with students as we learn more and can understand what this looks like.

Again, I appoint you to other major universities who are not only pausing offers, they are pausing admissions. We don’t want to need to go to that step yet, but we need to understand where we are. We need to have a sense for grant‑related funding for students, how that might look in the next five years. That’s like trying to predict the future.

Jake spoke to it a little bit in what he just said when it has to do with what will these RFPs look like? Will we be successful in getting grants from them? There’s a pretty big scenario here, but obviously trying to handle this with sensitivity and appreciation of all of the anxiety that this brings with it.

Continue to ask the questions and continue to comment as our communications come out. If you feel they’re not sufficient, then you need to let us know. Thanks.

Amanda: Any questions in the room? There is a question about the timeline for the upcoming academic portfolio review and plans for sharing information during that process. I think I saw something about how open that process is going to be in terms of sharing the information with all of campus.

Gabe: Thanks, everyone. I guess that the first thing to say is that there has been a lot of work in this area already. The first three phases of SRE were an effort to try to, first, collect information and, second, to analyze it.

I don’t know the exact number of people who were involved in SRE at this point, but many hundreds have been involved in talking about academic programs and other aspects of campus life.

The process that the president announced is going to build on the SRE work that’s already underway. With regard to timeline, there are a number of different factors. One is the availability of essentially of the data we have and the ability to analyze it properly and to make recommendations that are sensible.

Of course, all of this takes place in the context of shared governance. We are governed by APLs. There are several different union contracts, including AFUM contract. There are norms of working together with faculty through defined mechanisms.

It’s difficult to say that to give a precise date when will this work be completed or when will it even be launched beyond the SRE process and the implementation groups that the president referred to. I assure you that all that work will take place not only in concert with the deans, but with the various organs of faculty governance, especially the senate. Thanks very much.

Amanda: I think I’m not overstepping with saying that you’ll hear more information about that as it develops. Any questions in the room while I read these online questions? It’s very quiet.

[pause]

Amanda: There’s a question again about graduate students. It says, “Graduate student admissions are plummeting this year in disciplines where most students are grant supported. I’m also concerned about how the impacts of the federal actions on admissions could further be compounded by potential wage increases associated with the graduate student collective bargaining.

I’m wondering whether or how the university is planning to address the impacts that is likely to have on our teaching capacity such a since TAs have such a vital role to our instruction.” It’s a very complicated question. [laughs]

Joan: It’s a great question. It’s not a question that we have an answer to, really. I don’t have the data about by discipline. That will be helpful to see soon. The data about what the enrollment pressure looks like by discipline. I suspect what the person asking the question said is accurate, that that may be down a bit depending on areas of scholarly interests.

That’s the first step is to understand that, to look at it, to look at all of our resources, to try to think about the ways in which research continues, the ways in which teaching continues, the ways in which our students are adequately supported.

There are many, many factors here, and then if you think about different scenarios, they will play out differently by scenario. If the first scenario is really just what has already happened to us, what can we know for sure, what are the what is known about what our funding will look like next year based on things that have already happened this year, that’s one set of numbers, essentially.

If we look a little bit further out to what looks pretty likely, and that’s where it becomes extremely subjective. We’re looking at other universities, then it gets more serious. Then, of course, absolute worst‑case scenarios, including major shifts and F&A caps and so forth, that’s yet a whole different matter.

We’re trying to stay disciplined to looking at those nearer scenarios and doing all that we can to preserve what we have. It’s very uncertain right now, and that’s my honest answer. Having the data about enrollment pressure would be actually helpful to this. We’ll make sure we have that. Thank you.

Amanda: There are a few questions online about Sodexo. [laughs]

They have to do with the fact that things like catering prices have increase dramatically and that means that a lot of units are now spending their dollars at outside the organizations instead of Sodexo, and wouldn’t it be better if Sodexo changed their prices so then we spend the money there opposed to going to and spending our money outside?

Kelly: I think the first thing to remember with Sodexo is that the cost of Sodexo is not just the cost of a box of food. It’s also the cost of the really high‑quality staff and the catering team that are bringing to set that up to decorate the room to deliver it and have it ready for an event to happen on campus.

We’re often doing, we’ve done pretty consistent price comparisons for all of our whether it’s pizza delivery off‑campus, other activities off‑campus. If you compare the food to the food, that’s one thing.

If you’re comparing the food against the food plus the service that you’re asking for with catering, the price is very is different. We are paying the folks to set them up to do it.

If you’re doing it in your unit, you’re paying your own staff the time equivalent for that. It may not feel like an incremental expense, but that’s activity that they could be doing elsewhere on‑site. We’ve done price comparisons. They are very competitive with the local market.

If you have specific questions around specific events or activities our Sodexo team, Ted Stone, along with Dick Young are always happy to dive in and say what is it exactly that you’re trying to do and to come up with a plan for your specific unit to unpack that to make it affordable in house? I caution us to not compare food against food plus service.

Amanda: There’s one last very specific question that I think a lot of people are wondering about, and then maybe we could go to anything you want to say to close. It is about undergraduate student workers and whether they’re affected by either the hiring pauses and reviews or the graduate student exceptions.

Joan: Another good question that affects a lot of people. Undergraduates are employed in a wide variety of capacities here at the university, and so I don’t think there’s a one‑size‑fits‑all answer to this.

For those who are employed on research grants, then the answer is yes. Of course, in all of this analysis, we need to look at whether grants are likely to be canceled. We also need to look at which grants and check them off are likely to continue because there are a lot of those.

We are also getting new grants, by the way, coming in and as the federal agencies have the staffing, we’re even seeing those start to have money flowing. I think that is a bit unknown, but that’s one portion of our undergraduate student worker situation.

Then beyond that, that’s going to vary pretty widely. Of course, undergraduate workers are a key part of this university as well, and those are key experiences. What Kevin described earlier are also educational experiences.

Certainly, we are committed to trying to keep our focus there and keep that as broadened and supported as we are able to. Again, quite an uncertain time.

With that, I would like to say thank you for being here. I really appreciate everybody’s attention. I don’t know if the online crew stayed with us the whole time, but it doesn’t matter. [laughs] Some of them did, I’m sure.

Know that I’m very interested in hearing from you directly with your ideas, with your solutions, with your ongoing concerns, with things that you would like more fully explained, and we’ll do our best.

I do appreciate this community, as I said at the earlier moment, and what you do, and I know that our students do, and that’s really what’s at the center. Thank you all for being here. Have a good day, and don’t forget to keep an eye on the weather. Thank you.

   

Transcript:

Alright everyone. I think we’re gonna get started.

Yeah, can everyone hear me in the back? We have a tight agenda. We want to get lots of opinions and feedback. So we wanna kick this off welcome to today’s humane and humane Matthias Town Hall on the strategic re envisioning. I’m Amanda Klemmer, the faculty Senate President. And today I’m going to start with our land acknowledgement.

We recognize that the 91±¬ÁÏ recognizes that it is located on Marsh Island in the homeland of the Penobscot Nation, where issues of water and territorial rights, and encroachment upon sacred sites, are ongoing. Penobscot homeland is connected to the other Wabanaki Tribal Nations — the Passamaquoddy, Maliseet, and Mi’kmaq — through kinship, alliances and diplomacy. The university also recognizes that the Penobscot Nation and the other Wabanaki Tribal Nations are distinct, sovereign, legal and political entities with their own powers of self-governance and self-determination.

So today’s Town Hall will provide updates on the strategic re envisioning initiative and lead into a Q. And a session throughout the presentation. You’ll see on all the slides a. QR. Code to collect your questions, and I’m going to be sitting up here monitoring those questions. I believe Michelle, and maybe a few others are going to be doing the same. We will be answering your questions during the Q. And a session at the end of the presentation, and you will also have an opportunity to scan the QR code at the end and continue to add questions and thoughts.

Now, I’m pleased to introduce Joan Ferrini-Mundy, President of the same of the 91±¬ÁÏ and the 91±¬ÁÏ, Machias and Vice Chancellor of Research and Innovation for the 91±¬ÁÏ System.

I really think about it.

Good morning, everybody. Good morning. It’s not getting any better. I keep trying this. Good morning. Lukewarm responses. But anyway, let me start by just saying, Hello, many of you I’ve not seen in the last several weeks, and I’m glad that we’re all back. What a vibrant beginning to the academic year with good enrollment numbers, with all kinds of building and activity on campus, with

new venues coming into online, and lots of tremendous work, particularly by our faculty and staff, who have this semester up and running.

And I appreciate that the work that that takes is significant. And so I just want to thank everybody for all that you do. I don’t know about you, but walking around the campus there’s a different feel a little bit different of a feel. I don’t think I don’t know what that is. Robert. Dana has his thoughts about it. What do you say? We’re sort of post Covid. The students aren’t coveted his language, you know. I think         there’s a vibrancy that’s really quite exciting. I also want to particularly focus on the faculty a bit. I know that many of you have been very busy in the summer with a variety of pursuits. Your research, your creative work, your rethinking of courses and your interactions with students. And that work is greatly appreciated, too, for all who are a part of it. So here we are back again to talk about the strategic re-envisioning initiative and to get into some detail. And you are going to be, I hope, very, very pleased with the amount of activity and inclusion that we’ve been able to achieve even across the summer, where folks are very busy with many things, and that’s due to an outstanding team of leaders who are doing the day-to-day driving of the SRE effort. So Vice President for finance and administration, Kelly Sparks, executive Vice Provost for academic executive

Vice President for academic affairs, and Provost John Colin, and then Sabrina Duterte and James au Pray, who have been leading the groups as we move forward, so that that crowd has been fantastic, and then the faculty members who are the provost, faculty and staff, who are the provost fellows. So we have a number of colleagues who’ve just been fully immersed in this work over the past several weeks, and I want to thank them for that.

So.

Oops?

Oh, I’m sure I’ve gone forward, too.

Okay? So why strategic re envision? We’ve talked about this a number of times. We’ve written about it more documents coming out shortly, a sort of a more comprehensive discussion, but just as a bit of a grounding and a reminder for everybody in talks that I’ve given. Previously I’ve been trying to frame this activity, this strategic re envisioning as exactly that. It’s a re envisioning of our university as we approach 160 years of being the 91±¬ÁÏ, and we look forward confidently to 160 more. borrowing from my friend Nabib, who talks about his own term here in those kinds of terms. So I think it’s important to take stock every now and then of why, we are a university where we are going as a university, what we want to be in the future, and that needs to drive a wide range of activity in what we do all kinds of planning, all kinds of thinking about programmatic emphasis, all kinds of efforts in terms of where we put dollars in, where we don’t. And it needs to drive budgeting. A budget is always, in my view, a planning exercise.

So my way of thinking about this activity is it’s a collective effort to come together and decide what might be some priorities. How do we envision ourselves? 5 years from now, 10 years from now? Because moves that we make today will set the groundwork for that going forward. So you’ve heard me talk before about how dynamic higher education is as an enterprise, and there’s a lot to say about that.

It is also a sector that is relatively slow to change over time and over the scope of the endeavor. And yet the world around us changes constantly, of course, and in other talks I’ve highlighted 1st of all, the role of higher Ed in the future of society. We are the place that educates those who will follow us, those who will be the leaders of tomorrow, those who will be the problem solvers of tomorrow, and the community members and the family members and the people of tomorrow.

We are the institution that has perhaps the biggest influence on how that goes. And we need to be intentional about how we want to do that, and who we want to be going forward as we think about our responsibilities towards social mobility, our responsibilities toward shaping a world that can engage in civic discourse and social justice. So we think about all of this, I think, from time to time. But right now, I think, is a good moment for us to just take stock would point to a few areas where the world is changing very rapidly around us, and these are not surprises to us at the 91±¬ÁÏ. These are things we all think about.

The climate is changing, and that is making a difference in every aspect of life across this planet, and in particular regions of the world, especially challenging right here in the State of Maine, with our coastline, for example, and our fisheries, and our forestry and our agriculture. So the role of the changing climate, and how a university like this, which has leading research and instruction going on across the domains of climate, science, and climate change needs to, I believe, consider whether a part of our re-envisioning is to bring to the foreground much more fully our commitment to understanding and making a difference in the climate domain. At the same time across the world widespread wars and violence, social unrest and injustice.

Those factors just continue to grow. Are we preparing our learners to play the roles that they may be needing to play in that world. And how does that happen in our education experience with them? And so and so, as we think about change, we need to consider the world around us. And I urge you to be doing that this year the 91±¬ÁÏ enrolls students from 91 countries outside of the United States.

We are a global university. And so we need to think of ourselves that way. And I know that we do at the same time programmatically, research, wise vision wise are we making that clear?

And we have our land grant roots that we need to stay. True to. We were founded as a part of the Land Grant movement through the Moral act.

Land-grant universities are meant to be problem focused, regionally oriented, and maybe most significantly to democratize education. So we are a place that needs to, I believe, adhere to our land-grant roots, and imagine and enact what it means to be a modern land-grant university. And so all of that is part of what is the basis and the foundation for thinking about.

I’ve been calling them visions of what we might be.

How people will describe this university. You see our new brand campaign with the blue horizons theme, and I think that gives us some possibilities at the same time. Can we be more clear? I just saw, and I only saw it on my watch as a LinkedIn thing, so I don’t really know much more about it than I can tell you, but I saw it 5 min ago. The State of Nevada has posted something that they’re calling a portrait of a Nevada learner.

And I think this is probably a K-12 initiative. But this concept of having an image or a representation, or a vision of who we are, what we are. What our learners are, I think, is a part of this strategic re envisioning work, because the more clear that we can be about that, the more able we are frankly to make budget decisions and choices and have guidelines that can help us strategically prioritize moving toward whatever those images are or strengthening the ones that we already have, which is, of course, a piece of this.

So there are just a few groundings that I’d like to be sure to remind everyone of. And again, we have a lot of information about this available in lots of places. Our situation currently is is worth staying very aware of as we do, the strategic re-envisioning work. The drivers that we have for revenue are largely tuition and fees.

And you see some data here about them. It’s 46.5% of our total revenues. And we are, we are an institution that needs to balance our budget. And so this is where we have one place that that we can pay attention to. Another source of revenue is indirect cost recovery, which is up since fiscal 21, thanks to the great work of our researchers and faculty and staff and students who are engaged in seeking external funding and the great support from the office of the Vice President for research. At the same time, research costs money to do. And so those incoming E&G dollars in indirect cost recovery need to be helping to do all of the things that make it possible for us to run research labs, to keep the electricity on, to continue repairs and so forth so.

And the other big revenue driver is, of course, our state appropriation.

Enrollment, and retention really is taking a turn, we think cautiously for the better, absolutely with retention, no question, congratulations to academic affairs and to everybody, including students. For now what is it today, John? 83.7% retention 1st year to second year. And what was it last year at the end? It was 76.6. Yeah, so just I think that’s probably a round of applause for everybody, all of us

So many rooms.

And it’s the work of people here in the room, on the video and across the campus to make sure that our students, that we meet our students where they are as they come to us and help them to be successful. So that’s been extraordinary, and that makes a difference in really the vision of who we are.

A  place where students can succeed and can find their pathways to what they hope and aspire to do student credit hours have been relatively flat. We will have more solid results. Post census. But we’re looking. We’re looking positive, I guess. Certainly the head count, numbers are good, the dorms are overflowing, numbers are good. It’s all about how many students take, how many courses, and whether they’re in state or out of state. There’s a lot to consider with that, but we’re looking at all of it, and being affordable is a value for us. And so I think, as we imagine, what our vision or visions include, that might be a part of it.

We also should point out that people work hard here, and compensation costs, of course, also continue to increase. Our deferred maintenance is extraordinary here, and I do want to congratulate facilities management and and the operations that have supported that work. A tremendous amount got done this summer to improve the campus, to bring on the staff, and experts who can help us continue to improve the campus and great thanks there, but with 61% of our buildings having had no major renovations in more than 50 years. That’s quite significant. And the deferred maintenance costs exceed a billion. Kelly could probably give us a bigger number than that, you know. So technology is changing around us. The world is changing the needs of education by our learners are changing. The potential audiences of learners continue to change. It’s a moment that we’re taking, and we’re taking it in a fairly compressed way, and we’ll talk much more about the details. But the basic question driving SRE is, what would the university may look like if we were designing it today.

And that’s kind of an alarming question sometimes for people, because, of course, we are not designing it today. It exists. It has deep roots, deep foundations. Excuse me deep accomplishments, and yet at the same time, this is our moment. To take a look for tomorrow and think about where we want to be, where we want to go. And I’m just delighted at the expansive involvement across our campus in people who are trying to do that work, who are trying to come together from very, very different perspectives, with very different levels of knowledge and depth. On some of these fiscal matters in particular, and roll up their sleeves and say, Who do we want to be as a university? What are we going to be as a university.

So this really is a visioning exercise. It will flow into budget work for the fiscal year 2026, which begins really beginning at the system level now, and it will begin here. But one thing I would like to emphasis, I’m so heartened by the great involvement and great response to this SRE that I don’t think we imagine this as somehow being concluded. When phase 2 or phase 3 ends. This will need to be ongoing. We’ll have staging really of the ideas that are coming through, and of the expression of the vision that we’re trying to create over the next many months. This 1st budget step will, of course, be important, and we’d like to be able to do that with some clear guidelines and guard rails criteria for how we think about things coming out of the discussion so far, but at the same time I’m excited by these discussions, and we need to continue them. I believe so with that. I believe it’s my now ask to turn this over to vice President for finance administration, Kelly Sparks.

We’re a little unclear on choreography. but I’m going the wrong direction.

So, as the President mentioned, the strategic re-envisioning process will inform our multi-year financial plan. So we want to make sure that we get through the phase one and phase 2 of this process. So we have that context to put in place. We are in year 2. As the President mentioned upfront. I’m going to show you the numbers in just a moment for context of where we’re at. So next year, this year, and next year we will continue to strategically use our reserves so that we can make good strategic decisions through the envisioning process. And then in year 3 we will start to rebalance our overall budget.

So I’m going to just jump to the numbers so that you all know these are the same numbers you saw last April. If you were with us at the Town Hall. There they’re the same numbers we’ve communicated to the board of trustees, and, thanks to the incredible work of the enrollment team the incredible work of retention. We are coming in right in on budget for FY25 and for those of you who’ve been around for a couple of years. That’s not what we said last year, and that’s not what we said year before. So we planned for it. We achieved the goals that we have our revenues, our financial aid. Everything is looking nice and tidy on the top line. So now our job for the rest of the year is to manage. Keep those students here for the spring and to manage our expenses so that we achieve our budget for year end.

We will use reserves so that number that 4.8 million for FY25.

That’s a negative number. That means we’re taking from reserves. Okay, so we’ve been very intentional in saying, we don’t want to pull back too much. We don’t want to make decisions that aren’t strategic until we are informed by the University that we want to be, and then next year we’ll continue to do that will continue to use another 2.1 million dollars in reserves in FY26.

But how we get to that. 276 million 279 million dollars and expenses will be informed by this process. So there’s no specific plan yet.

There’s no secret plan yet. There’s no specific strategies that will be implemented. So the work that the provost fellows are going to talk about today will inform what will happen in Phase 3. As we start to work with our deans, our directors, our other Cabinet members on specific strategies, that we can implement in years 1, 2, 3. So I really think of this as a multi-year financial plan, so multiple years will be will have evolution over time.

So that’s I’m gonna add, I’m gonna leave it there and I can come back to questions. As we move forward. I am now turning this over to oh, I did want to just say one last that we do have a Budget committee. We will bring the presidential budget Advisory Committee. We. I think we’re meeting in 2 weeks. For the 1st time this year this group will come into, and it will be the group that will be in the details of the number as we get into the process. This is the group from last year. We do need to make sure that we edit the students for participation. Next year we had some graduate. We have some returning, but note your representation for your various bodies. These are your advocates in the budget in the budget process over the next year.

And with that I’m turning it back over to. I’m trying to get to the Provost. Sorry I don’t have my script.

Good morning, everyone. I think everyone has seen this Venn diagram. President introduced it last year. These are 3 major foci of the university that really came out of the 2025 Inhumane Commission that had 9 major recommendations. If you will, you can still see that up on the website. And but very important, this is actually guiding a lot of the work that we’re all involved in so integrating research and teaching for tomorrow’s innovators growing and thriving, inclusive community of learners. And then this really specific one, but certainly part of our core DNA here at the 91±¬ÁÏ university health of our planet and confronting climate change very contemporary as well and interesting work that we’ve been doing a very long time. You know. We’re not jumping on the bandwagon. This is this is work that we’ve been doing for more than half a century.

And we do have the strategic re envisioning, guiding principles, if you will, which are, you know, guiding principles help us make decisions right that are aligned with our mission.

With our values, you know, with our overall vision. And so, as you can see. And the President mentioned this earlier, you know, we are the Land Grant University. We’re a research intensive university. These are part of our guiding principles to again integrate teaching and research. That’s if you look at the committees, the 13 working groups right now. And there’s adjacent projects that will be coming, you know, off of this work you’ll see a lot of integration, of teaching and research throughout. We have to be financially sustainable. Right? That’s a key. So we often get that question is budget exercise. No, it’s not just a budget exercise, but certainly the financial sustainability. Long term. Well, short term and long term is critical.

This is this is 4^th. The 4th point is important. We’re saying, this is one of our guiding principles. Yes, we are a residential community. We see ourselves being a residential community in the coming, you know, decades at the same time, if you remember the strategic Enrollment management recruitment retention, action plan that many in this room and online have been a part of. And it’s been really.  You know, worked at for the last couple of years. It’s focused on all learners, right? You see, very strong things like this that have come out lack their advantage focusing on all learners and robust online offerings as well. So we’re really trying to. Actually, I would say, double down on the Land Grant Mission to make sure that we get education to everyone in the State.

We’re foster supporting inclusive community course. And you saw last year, with the with Amanda glimmer. That was, you know, the faculty Senate, President Robert Dana, and myself kicked off that wonderful task force that that worked on student faculty and staff. Mental health and well-being task force that work that didn’t end up on a shelf. A lot of work has been moving forward in that space because it is definitely one of our guiding principles and hats off to Angela Felicia, who’s really been one of the great leaders on that.

And finally, as we talked about before. You know that we are a community that’s committed to transaction research, prioritizing and education and prioritizing responsible stewardship of our natural resources, part of our part of our heritage here at the 91±¬ÁÏ.

This is on the website. If you haven’t been to the President’s site on strategic envisioning. I really, there’s a lot of wonderful information there that you can really dive in. And we’ve kind of said this all along. This is, you know, May 9th to June 1st is that phase, one period that led to right. Now we’re in phase 2 and phase 2 is the 1.st One is reflection and revisioning. The second phase really is focused in on prioritization and assessment. This is going on through September here, and that funnel is all these ideas coming together, but like a tornado, and something’s gonna pop back up. But eventually the idea is that we come together as a community with the best thinking that we can to be, and that phase 3 as we’ll be entering here, will be a refining and executing phase. You just heard the President say, we will be kicking, you know. It’s going to start in October, and some may take, you know, longer a few months, perhaps, but this is the work, the hard work that we’re all committed to doing.

And I believe I turn this over to Sabrina. Thank you.

So hi, everybody and those online as well. I want to really take a minute to acknowledge the hard work that’s been going on by this group of folks here. Fellows, and what we’re referring to as team leads. So when we ended up with 13 of these themes that emerged from the really good ideas that came out of the retreat last spring, the Town Hall from cabinet and deans and directors, and so on. We had identified that there would be the 10 faculty and staff fellows, and then needed to bring in 3 extra folks who very kindly stepped in and are leading some of the groups on things like generative AI and student success and athletics that got added a little bit later. So I think actually, if I can, a round of applause for these folks and their hard work.

And then many of you, I’m sure, have seen these on the website or in other communications, but these are the themes that we’ve been really diving into. And I want to be really clear that that does not in any way mean that these are the only things that we think are important in this process, but they are ones. And I said this yesterday in a Senate meeting I do feel very strongly. These are ones that came through so loud and clear from the feedback that we were getting in those early stages. So I do think that we can all feel confident that there is a lot of really good information and potential ideas for change that can be brought out here.

I’m gonna ask James to come up and talk through a little bit, particularly with one specific way that you all can get involved in providing information. I just want to emphasize that this engagement is so critical to the process. And I think it’s extraordinary how many people we’ve already had that have stepped up to become involved in the SRE. And we’re not done.

Yeah. So we have opportunities throughout this month, and probably heading into October to be talking with other groups through the Senate, through student government, through the Umm Faculty Assembly, etc., and we are also still looking for your very specific ideas, suggestions, things that you think are worth further consideration. So, James, you want to talk a little bit about the online tool here.

Thank you, Sabrina. So, as the Provost noted, we would need to engage the thinking of the entire community on campus. We’ve been working on doing that through the activities that you see listed here. But one way that we can continue to do that and help is still needed. As the process is still ongoing to develop the assessment opportunities to understand the priorities and the ideas that exist in a community, we gotta collect information. So rather than going out and having a meeting with every single one of our faculty, staff and students are on campus, we devised an idea collection prototype tool.

So the SRE idea prototype tool is the QR code that you have here. It’s the only different QR code through the entire presentation. So snap it with your phone now. But if you don’t catch it right now, it’s also available on the Sre Project website as well as every communication. The President has been sending out to leverage the opportunity for our community to say, Hey, I have a great idea. We all have knowledge, experience, and passion for this institution. We want you to be able to communicate where those opportunities exist to re envision the University from your perspective.

So if you were to click that your QR code and go into there. You’ve seen ability to enter your idea or your ideas. Please feel free to send as many as you’d like. But it’s very simple criteria. Of what’s the name of this thing? What does it do? Who is it going to impact? What are the concerns that you have. What are the opportunities with it to to take that information and bring it back into our working groups, to be able to evaluate and understand what it means to re envision the university around, not just the thoughts that the 13 fellows have and 180 people in the working groups have them. But the entire community has, as we continue to engage in this process.

If anything looks sideways, you have any trouble understanding what the form is, send us an email, feel free to email Sabrina and say, couldn’t figure out the form. But here’s what I want you to think about. We can work that into the process and leverage the tools from there.

So with that, I’d like to hand off to the 1st of our fellows who has a chance to walk through the theme. There’s 13 of these themes. There’s only so many hours in the day. We have only so many events for the Town Hall. Here we identified 4. That kind of spread the gamut of what the themes are where the work is today. So with that, I’d like to hand off to Andy Pinkham to walk into the 1st theme around space allocation.

Thank you, James.

Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for having me. I’m happy to share with you the work that we have been conducting for the Space Allocation Project, and, as you can see on the board here, these are the working group members that I have been working with. And what is the charge for the space allocation that has been presented to me? Optimize space allocation with awareness to our carbon footprint reduce operational costs and enhance student experience, learning outcomes and research productivity while meeting our organizational needs.

And what I’m happy to share with is through the summer. Through the past few weeks I have been able to engage with our working groups from our working groups. I’ve had some wonderful feedback, thoughtful feedback from our staff and our faculty, and who we can identify for one-on-one meetings, and what data that we have available to us with regards to analyzing our space, and how the 91±¬ÁÏ, as well as University of Machias, are utilizing those spaces.

The topic of space is very broad and very encompassing whether it’s classrooms that we’re looking at the facilities, fields for farmlands and so forth. Office space.

And so we had a new charge brought for us when we tried to focus down to perform an opportunity assessment for both of the campuses and understand the gaps that are potentially.

Facing this system we would like to look at, what could we tear down if we need to reduce? But then also, what can we rebuild? If space is an a need as we grow, and I’m working with them. As far as I will be working with my working groups to rank these ideas and assess the positive, and the negatives to ensure that we capture all of the positives and negatives towards that from my working groups. I they thoughtfully identified, like I said, various departments, and this isn’t all inclusive. I’m sure there will be other areas of opportunities that I can have included within this.

But I have looked at the space and capital management where we’re looking at the buildings that we have on campus and their ratings, and how we can best utilize the buildings that are in better shape. I’ve also looked at events in hospitality when we face space and events on campus and energy and the utilization management, and what are the buildings costing us to remain online? So those buildings that are in need of demolish or gut renovations. How much is it the cost of keeping them online. And how much is the savings if we do take them offline?

And then looking at the design and the architect space management? And are we maximizing those buildings that are in better shape in the spaces and the opportunities that are available.

I’ve also worked with the registrar’s office, and in order to identify that we need to know. How. How are we utilizing those spaces, and how are they being scheduled? Are we in? Are we optimizing them?

Good news?

That’s where we’re asked for this particular theme on this SRE project, and I will go ahead and turn over.

Laura was. I think she’s

Thank you.

Good morning. I’m happy to have the opportunity to talk about the work that this working group has put into the topic of optimizing our humane online offerings.

Our charge broaden our audience by optimizing structure and offerings.

But before we started into that charge, our working group wanted to focus in on understanding who are our online learners. So we started looking at the data that we have. And it’s we have thriving online programs degree programs with learners who are completing everything online. But more and more. We also have residential campus based learners who are using online courses to round out their schedule. Those needs for those residential learners need to be accounted for in any structure or offerings that we have, as well as those fully online degree seeking students. So we talked about the equity issues involved in our optimization, on our re envisioning of the 91±¬ÁÏ and all of our online programs getting to our charge.

We also were able to dig in and look at how other universities across the country are approaching this issue. And there’s such a variety of structures and formats and spin offs and different kinds of structures there that we determined that what we wanted to focus on as a group was quality, 1^st maintaining our identity meeting accreditation needs, of course, but also back to those guiding principles, meeting our learner needs. So in our investigation of different types of structures, we had Richard Roberts come in from humane online and give us a presentation on some of the data that he’s collected on how learners want to access and what learners are looking for as far as online programs and online degrees, we learned a lot. Some of it is as simple as learners wanting a really quick turnaround from the time they decide that maybe they want to explore a degree program to be able to start that program.

That’s a structure issue that we have started talking about.

We are also looking at different course timing what’s appropriate for different courses, and how we can offer potential shorter courses. Maybe if they’re appropriate and they still maintain that quality of instruction and quality for the learner. And, as Tanya said, we’re looking at pros and cons of these different administrative and faculty structures that we’re teasing out from this investigation the 3rd part of our charge well, the 3rd the 3rd bullet it’s the second part of our charge is also to investigate. Where are those opportunities? Where are those market growth places where we can be that leader? And we’re diving into that now as a team. But we’ve been given a lot of great information on market growth job growth area and also what students are interested in. So while we’re not making recommendations, we’ll be able to tease out and pull out some of our areas where we could potentially offer online programs that meet the needs of learners across Maine, but also beyond the beyond the boundaries of the State.

So next, Dr. Ellen Weinauer is going to come up and talk about the work of the working group where she is a member of. Thank you so much.

I am not Jessica Riccardier. I’m a member of the working group. The group focused on developing a learner focused. R1. Jessica can’t be with us today. So I’m representing the work of that group, both really from the perspective of a working group member. And what I’m going to try to do just in a few minutes. Here is provide a window into some of our group’s conversation about what it might mean to become or be an R1 institution that focuses on undergraduate learners.

So importantly, this idea challenges, I think, a truism, a truism that’s been around for a long time, and that we have not really fully challenged. I think in higher education that an institution is either research focused or teaching focused. So the idea is to challenge that bifurcation. A learner focused r. 1 university would intentionally leverage 91±¬ÁÏ’s research profile to enhance in particular the undergraduate experience explicitly incorporating undergraduates into the University’s Research and Land Grant Mission and providing them with enhanced opportunities to engage in critical thinking and problem solving in applied context. Would our group believes, garner many benefits to students, to our student success and retention efforts. We know this, the literature tells us this to faculty and to the university at large.

So for our group, the question has been less. Should we try to become a learner? Focused? R1 and more, we’ve been asking, What does it mean to be a learner focused? R1 What does this look like? And how do we become such an institution?

The what does it mean? Question has generated a great deal of conversation from the group, from terminology to conceptual models.

As an English Ph.D. I’m particularly keen on this 1st point. For example, we have discussed the very definition of research, and expressed the importance of being fully inclusive and comprehensive in that definition. In short, we must recognize that research takes many forms from traditional lab and field research to humanity, scholarship, creative activity, community engagement, and so much more we’ve discussed whether, being a learner focused R1 means ensuring that all undergraduates engage in research, broadly defined in all courses, in some select courses or programs, in a developmental progression or in some other way.

And we’ve discussed what it means to center undergraduate learning in light of the new metrics for maintaining our one designation metrics that clearly prioritize Ph.D. production as we contemplate these and other questions. We have been looking at areas on campus where this work is already happening. For example, this is not an exhaustive list, RLEs and pathways to careers, the Honors college including honors, in brief, the center for undergraduate research, the 91±¬ÁÏ Sea phase program. Among others.

What can we learn from these programs and their approach to undergraduate research learning. And how can we both deepen this work and extend it to other areas?

Finally, as the slide indicates a major topic of conversation has been around capacity and return on investment.

At whatever scale. This approach to undergraduate learning is costly.

We do believe that there are significant potential recruitment and retention benefits. And we’re working on gathering data from the RLEs and other areas about that.

But we also know that institutional and especially faculty capacity already stretched, would be stretched further. Under this initiative we are, by all accounts, a sort of an open university, readying students, all students for this kind of learning is challenging matters like workload and tenure and promotion standards would have to be recalibrated. Innovative ideas will require new investments or identifying new sources of funding.

So as we move into the next phase of the SRE, these are the kinds of issues that the working group will be focusing on.

And I think I’m now going to turn it over to Matthew Curtis.

Who’s the provost fellow for the working group focused on athletics.

Good morning, everybody. As Ellen alluded to, my name is Matt Curtis. I’m leading the SRE committee that is focused on the themes evolving around athletics. Behind me you can see the committee members that we’ve been working with and also our theme. And just to share that theme states as the only division one college athletic program in the State. We will optimize our investment facilities and strategic approach in ways that positively impact student success, equity, access and opportunity as well as the institution’s brand.

Just like all the other themes. That is a lot to come back. So, looking at Bullet Point one, how do we lift the 91±¬ÁÏ up and build off the recent success of 91±¬ÁÏ athletics. You know we recognize that we have a great opportunity in front of us, with the recent success mentioned. And of course, the new facilities that are already online. We’re coming online shortly, thanks to the generous support of the Harold Alpha Foundation.

Our group has met several times and early on face the challenge of determining if this is a budget exercise, or if this is a higher level, strategic analysis. And like you’ve kind of heard it, it’s both not wanting to dismiss any ideas or proposals that could possibly impact our university. We began categorizing things and ideas into shorter term buckets and longer term approaches.

Meaning that these ideas in the shorter term buckets could be implemented more quickly, perhaps even FY26 would be placed in that shorter term bucket, as I mentioned, and ideas that are bigger in scope, and that take more time to implement, are placed in that longer term bucket category. The Provost alluded to. We have adjacent ideas that are stemming from these conversations. We’ve been able to generate a list of these items meaning ideas that could be implemented much quicker and don’t necessarily need to go through the formal SRE process. They could be approaches categories, ideas that an individual on campus or the appropriate department could take on and simply move forward and push forward and not have to necessarily stick to that sre process.

So now that we’ve received feedback from campus leadership, we’re taking a deeper dive into the research from some of these proposals to clearly understand what we’re talking about, and just be that directional force that gives campus leadership information that they need.

I know that’s pretty big. We’re very excited to see where these conversations going. We’re just trying to get into that data and research piece down. And like, I said, very excited to see that what the next step consists of. So now I think I’m ending up this spring. Thank you.

Back to me again. I do really want to thank the four folks who just came up to give kind of a window into what they’re doing. So when we were conceiving, you know, sort of the agenda for the Town Hall. I mean, we thought it was really important that you should all get sort of a glimpse into what these working groups are all about

One of the challenges there is that they are very much still in the midst of everything. So again, really appreciative that I contacted all these folks at the end of last week and said, I know you’re still in the middle of a work in progress. But can you somehow condense that into a single slide and present it to a large group of people next week, and they all stepped up, and I think, did that effectively.

And again, I want to emphasize that this is very fluid, and, as Kelly said earlier, like, there is no sort of plan in the background that these things are driving to. And I think you got a sense here as well, of the very different approaches that the groups are taking. And that’s intentional. We didn’t go into this thinking, like everyone, has to have exactly the same blueprint for how they are doing this work. And so there’s a lot of flexibility there.

I want to just briefly talk about kind of bringing to an end phase 2 which, as I alluded to earlier, is sort of scheduled to end at the end of September, although we realize that these phases are a little bit fluid in terms of timing, and then I’ll just talk a little bit about moving into Phase 3. And then we have plenty of time for Q&A, which is certainly where we wanted to focus a lot of attention.

So, as I mentioned earlier. Over the next few weeks we will be continuing to solicit feedback. Both kind of concrete ideas that you all think should be put into the mix to be considered, and then more generally feedback around these questions of what are positive and negative impacts of choices that we might make as an institution, and also what are criteria that folks feel would be important for decision makers to take into account, as they might be evaluating a very concrete idea or change or possibility. So that’s a lot of what we’ll be looking at. The working groups are certainly a part of that. And I really want to reiterate that I know that not just the 4 folks you heard from today, but all 13 people would be happy to hear from anybody with specific thoughts, specific feedback specific issues or criteria that you feel need to be considered. Just reach out. Everybody is on the website. You can find them. You can figure out which theme you’re interested in and send things directly to them. James and I, of course, are also happy to take that feedback.

By September 30th we’re hoping that most of the groups will be in a position where they’re delivering some kind of a summary document. Again, we are very aware that that might look different, depending on the theme, but something that is going to give us some of that sense of positive and negative impacts, and a kind of set of criteria for continuing to evaluate ideas around those themes that is being delivered, of course, to the President, members of Cabinet, etc. And as we move into Phase 3.

And Kelly alluded to this earlier. I mean, there, we’re really kind of making a transition to say, all right, out of all of this that came forward. What are some things that we really want to do? A deeper dive on, that we think we could have either more immediate or within sort of the next 2 to 3 years financial budgetary implications that we want to take more of a look at. This is where we’ll also be, I think, transitioning and bringing in folks like the Deans and directors, members of Cabinet who have specific areas of responsibility that begin to dovetail with these themes to say, ok, what does this really look like? If we were to drive down this path, so to speak. And so I think in October you’ll be hearing more about kind of you know what’s coming up to the top. As you know, things that we’re going to consider further, perhaps other opportunities to solicit more detailed feedback around certain ideas. But really, you know, kind of trying to refine a bit there.

I believe that is it, unless any of my colleagues have other points that we want to make? Or shall we just move to? QA. Is that okay? So, Amanda, what makes the most sense? Do you want to come up and share.

So we’ve got the QR code so people could still use that we also have a mic in the room. But maybe if some things have come online, we could start there and then. Okay, I’ll trade with you.

I think this this 1st question kind of leads directly to the process from here on out that Sabrina was just mentioning. But it was, Will the University executive leadership and the SRE team be directly involved in implementing the changes decided upon? Or will they simply task these changes to the departments and then check in periodically, I envision a wonderful plan, but struggle with trusting implementation and growth that will come to fruition across the board.

Well, I’ll start with this one looking at it here, too. Question about will sort of what happens when we have these ideas. And as Sabrina just really clearly explained what the groups are delivering at the end of the month will be. Think of them more like criteria, perhaps guidelines considerations to keep in mind, as some of these ideas are then really taken to the next level. You know it’s partly going to. What happens next will partly depend on what comes in at the end of September.

And, as you’ve heard, there are many different leadership groups that will have to be involved in this. The Cabinet represents the major departments of the University, and so they will be key. I do want to pick up on another question. Sorry that the 91±¬ÁÏ at Machias, of course, is a central part of all of this work, and is represented on the Cabinet by Dean Megan Walsh. So the ideas will come to Cabinet. They will come to the Dean’s group. They will come to the Research and institute university level directors. They will then, of course, be continued in discussion through those groups with those groups, and then priorities will make their way into departments and units at a variety of levels. So it’s our usual distributed decision making. But it will start with an analysis of what’s coming in.

And I’m going to add one thing that I think I’d like to introduce into the process, and apologies to all for a bit of a surprise here. But these ideas are outstanding, and some of them to be budget related are revenue generating ideas that will take some investment that might take some time, and some are savings or efficiency ideas, and we’ve used language about consolidation and about restructuring and so forth. I think those ideas are coming as well.

But part of what we need. To be sure, we have in hand in a clear way that has consensus behind. It is what I’ve been calling this set of visions. So if we could just go back to the slide, the Provost showed the slide. It’s a slide of guiding principles, or something sorry.

10 or 1110 or 11.

Think it might be interesting to propose an additional group or process to take a look at this list of 6 ideas and work together to see if they serve, serve as a basis for and span the entire set of visions. We might like to propose at this time. And then work on crafting language that moves them from being guidelines to actually being statements of what we will be. So imagine in 5 years. Somebody looks at this University, they say, oh, that’s the universe, that is me, premier Land Grant, Space Grant, Sea Grant, and so forth. I think there’s a bit of a distance between what is here not a lot, but some re-crafting, so that they come across as more powerful vision statements. So this is a starting set that we can work from. I think these have been oops.

These have been out and around now for some time. Those could be the possible. A piece of the starting set, and they intersect with the next slide. But would there be interest? And I’ll just ask in the room sort of rough show of hands. If we put together a group charged with, let’s see if we can get some articulation, at least an intermediate version of what we claim our visions of ourselves to be just with. You know you’re not volunteering now you’re just giving me a reading. You might be. You’re just giving me a reading of whether you think that’s a fruitful piece of this work as we go forward.

Just kind of a show of hands.

Okay, there’s enough for a group. Good. I’m just kidding. I think, team we maybe want to try to do that. So that that’s happening in parallel. And all of this has to remain fluid. None of this suddenly gets stamped as complete. So, anyway, thank you.

Great, thank you, Joe, and I will just say that this came up in my SRE working group. And we have started working on our own visions regarding the 3 circles, and I know there are some from the Budget Advisory Committee as well. So maybe this could all intersect. I’m just going to reach to a question that was put into the

Online chat from the zoom. Because I’ve heard this from a bunch of faculty as well as faculty. Senate President, it says, can you please assure faculty that any new initiatives and changes will take into considerations the impact on faculty workload mental health and include close collaboration with AFM. As the contract is renegotiated.

So as each of the provost fellows talked about. They’re looking at the positive and negative impacts of any decisions. I think that is really key to answering that question. So we’re really asking the working groups to help us understand how both faculty and staff will respond to potential ideas as they might be implemented so that can be used as a decision making criteria. And those would absolutely be impacted on faculty well-being impact on staff well-being impact on workloads. So I think that’s really important for us to consider in the process. And it’s built into the way that the working groups are designed in terms of the ATM and the bargaining contract. Of course, any decision-making process will need to follow our faculty Senate, our bylaws, how we make decisions as well as what’s embedded in all of our bargaining unit contracts.

Of which we have of multiple. So yes, that is, that will be built into the process. We don’t have a specific plan for those yet, because no recommendations at this point are being vetted for decision making. But we are aware that as we move forward into specific ideas in phase 3. That we’ll need to be very, very mindful and considerate, and consider those impacts.

Should we pause and see if there’s any questions in the room.

I’ll do my best. So I I guess my question is the timeline of phase 3 October till February, and I believe that I recall from previous conversations, Kelly, that’s usually time we start submitting the budget for the next cycle. So off the phase. 3 implementation. Or will you be keeping that in mind. Will you be looking at things that could really assist with helping develop that and plan the budget looking for again, as you said revenue growth, but also other efficiencies.

I think that’s my question.

I’m gonna actually borrow a term from Matt Curtis as he described it. So I think the answer is yes. So that we have a budget that we have to submit. That’s a very, that’s a very discrete activity with a very specific timeline, and the 1st submission of that is in February. But this is bigger than one year cycle. It’s a multiyear cycle. So yes, we do want to have some concrete ideas for both revenue generation. Short term ideas. That can be built into FY26.

But, more importantly, I think we want to build it into the multiyear. Look so as we look out. FY26-27. Over the next 5 years. How do we layer in these ideas over time. There may be 15 really great ideas, but I’m going to go back to the previous question. We only have so many people. We only have so much energy, so much capacity, so much time to be able to implement new ideas. So we need to layer them on over a period of time, or there may be opportunities for reduction consolidation. And we also want to be mindful of the impact that that has. So it’s also unwinding processes, unwinding ways that we do things unwinding work that’s happening so that we can do it differently. That also takes time. So yes, there is a very concrete FY25.  Some of these will be built at our FY26. Some of these will be built into it. But we’ll also layer it on over time.

And I and I think just for each idea, we’ll need to build a very concrete implementation plan with ownership accountabilities and the ability to track and measure are we getting the successes out of it that we anticipate from it? Because we may have a great idea, and we think it’s great part way through the implementation. We may not realize we’re not getting that benefit, and we should stop. We should fail fast and let it go away.

Yes.

Thank you, Kelly?

There is a question on here about particular academic programs already kind of being in part of one of their own re envisioning processes do from 5 year reviews, etc. And so the question is, should they pause that and wait until the results of the SRE come out, or should they organ.

So that’s a great question.

The usual plan that you do for acting programming should continue. You know, we work on. We’re working on one proposal right now. That’s been 3 years in the making. Right? And some, you know, go more quickly than that. Certainly, if you are thinking, you know, interdisciplinary in a way, on some of your activating programs. That’s great. You should continue working toward those. And you know, these processes are done in parallel.

And so we definitely don’t want to slow down the innovation of academic programming. Thanks.

Alright. Is there any more in the room?

Yeah.

Yeah. I was just wondering if, we could speak to the role of graduate education in the SRE, specifically sort of noting that there wasn’t a specific theme associated with graduate education per se.

Okay? Well, so on one hand, actually, to some of the thematic areas of SRE, you know, the graduate education essentially comes in, you know.

But, on the other hand. You know, there will also be some conversation going on

university wide at different levels, different stakeholders, in other words, asking questions like, you know, what is the future of graduate education, you know, and just in general, I mean the way things are happening in this world in the nation, and then map that into what’s going on at the 91±¬ÁÏ, and how we can essentially develop a good strategic plan to kind of meet those kind of goals and objectives, you know. But under that big umbrella I would also say, you know, there are sort of sub areas of real interest, you know, for example, looking at but you know, I mean, we have master level programs. We have doctor level programs. All of them are important like at the master level of you know, from a strategic point of view the provisional degree programs. You know, you know, are very important, at least 2 key reasons for them. One 1st and foremost those are the kind of programs that the State of Maine has a lot of needs for and even beyond the state of main, you know. So that’s an important part of our mission to me.

But at the same time, oh, by the way, those are the programs that generally driven, you know, they’re not like research oriented master’s programs that actually, we have to generally provide assistanceships and things of that nature, you know.

But of course, then, at the doctoral level, you know, I don’t have to convince you at this point as an all one university, you know. I mean, it’s extremely important that we further grow our doctoral programs.

Not only in terms of number of students coming in and graduating every year. But also look at opportunities, you know, I mean going back to saying the future of graduate education. What kind of programs you need to have at the doctoral level, looking at the existing ones? If some of them needs to be sort of you know, a little bit changed, or a new track added to an existing one or not, but also at the same time looking at maybe development of some new programs, particularly in some interdisciplinary areas where you can really then address some brand challenges are happening in this world. So anyway, that that’s in a nutshell. I don’t know if I answer your question, but more or less, that’s where we are. Thank you.

I can also add in my group, which is Group 2. We have been coming up with our own values, as we see, for teaching, learning, and engaging with the community, and one of those that was brought up in our group is making sure that we maintain a distinct graduate education here at the 91±¬ÁÏ, and it doesn’t just get shunted into a part of the undergraduate education in terms of, you know, co-counting 411 classes for graduate degrees and things like that. So there are other groups that are thinking about it as well.

Okay, there’s a question online about the SRE value 5 and supporting an inclusive community. But the fact that there is not a specific SRE group focused on a supportive and inclusive community. I don’t know who would like to address that

I will address that to you. Sure

little super fees that would help.

No?

Oh, it’s you! You see it in 2 places. You see it here. You see it here again.

And now we see our themes, and I think what we are coming to here is

there’s been a question about Machias. There’s just now been a question about graduate education. There has been a question about where do we explicitly see our focus on inclusion to me. What that is suggesting is that we need to be sure to pull to the forefront some cross cutting themes that every group is charged to be sure to attend to and in my view, anything in the Dei inclusion, social justice category has to be everybody’s business. And so one approach will be to say, let’s take that through the groups and through the themes. But Sabrina can comment in more detail because she’s tracking more closely. I think that’s helpful. So I mean absolutely. There is an understanding. I think, that everything that was on this list, you know.

Flows through all of them. But I would also say, maybe more specifically. And I’m not going to get into the weeds on some of the documentation that we’ve been given to groups to work with. But we have a number of documents that we’ve given to working groups to help them with building out these kind of criteria and rubrics and evaluative strategies, and on all of those. There are sections that speak to inclusivity impact on students impact on community things like that. So I do think that every one of these themes that the working group is attending to that, as you know, sort of a subsection, if you will, of the things that they’re looking at in figuring out those positive and negative impacts, figuring out where we would have to, you know, be attentive to in developing an idea further. So I can we do better. Yes, we can always do better. Are we doing something in each theme? Yes, I honestly think we are doing that as well. So, but we are also very open to more specific suggestions. If there are places where folks would like to see real attention to that issue and feel like it’s not being clearly reflected in a public way. Let us know, and we’ll pass that along to working groups and get them to really think in that direction any questions in the room.

I think it’s, I think. Oh, sorry.

Sabrina. I think I think you just addressed it. As you were talking about use the word rubric. And so I think, as these ideas come forward from each of the subgroups that are working on the SRE, that at least these guiding principles are attached to a rubric for evaluating those ideas as they come forward, and other guiding principles that we have at the university that may not necessarily be included on this list, but are really important to us.

That’s my observation. Yeah.

Any other questions there.

Yeah, which one online.

The question is: how is athletics going to reduce their deficit, which is quite a significant portion of human structural one, while maintaining equity for men’s and women’s activities? Are they able to increase revenues to cover the costs of operations?

So I’m going to start with. First of all, there was an assumption there that they have a significant deficit. I think that’s something that we haven’t looked at entirely, and we also have to think about all funds. So athletics is more than E&G. They’re also bringing in significant donor related funds for capital improvement on campus that are enhancing the overall campus. So I think we need to talk about what is. What is the definition? We also have to think about that all of our student athletes are student athletes, and that there is an E&G contribution that is necessary and important to support those students as we support all of our students.

So the question so there’s a lot to unpack in that. I also want to call out that they exceeded their budget by over a million dollars this last year. So the new athletic director has brought many, many revenue, enhancing opportunities to the institution through external partnerships as well as through ticket sales and frankly winning teams, and specifically, hockey has not

Hurt the bottom line for athletics in any way. So I think part of the charge of the Athletics group is to continue. How do they play off of that momentum. How do they leverage that? How do we also consider that outside contribution in improving our facilities, reducing our deferred maintenance, enhancing our energy and other infrastructure on campus through some of the projects.

Are doing as well as other pathways, connections, infrastructure, landscape, beautification of our campus that is helping us to attract and retain students, faculty and staff here. So I think there’s a lot of ways to look at athletics that are beyond just what may be the cost benefit of those specific programs, and they are diving into some of that. What it means to have

Athletic programs at the 91±¬ÁÏ as a part of this address, the equity for men’s and women’s sports, equity for men’s and women’s sports. Absolutely. I’m going to talk about hockey to start with what is incredibly exciting to see about the the Harold Alfond donation and the Current Master Plan for athletics is it’s all about equity of our physical facilities.

As well as coaching salaries and a number of coaches that we have in our areas. So men’s and women’s hockey will have a not just equitable, but equal one for one facilities in terms of office spaces in terms of practice, spaces in terms of locker rooms.

They have also increased the staffing. You’ll see that many of the facilities that have been brought on like 1st have been about women’s sports. They’ve been about field hockey. They’ve been about women’s soccer, which is currently underway and softball. So a lot of emphasis is being put on there, and additional staffing. Additional coaching staff are Jude Kelly, our athletic director, has been bringing on coaching staff to supplement and make sure that there’s equity and balance in those teams.

Well there is a question on here about how classified employees are being incorporated into this work and conversation. So far, there’s multiple bargain bargaining units. We’ve looked to see that we have representation from each on the Budget Advisory Committee on the Space Advisory Committee, as well as seeking out to bring staff in on the working groups. If looking at the list. If there are recommendations of additional or adding people every week to these working groups. It’s not a static list. It’s an ongoing process.

We’re also building an engagement plan for the months of October and November to bring out more information to campus, so would welcome ideas for additional engagement. If if there’s an individual I can’t see the names, because I can’t see that with my glasses. Who but if you yourself would like to be included in the process if you would like to recommend specific representation for.

Or more than one of the groups. Please let us know we would be thrilled to further engage our all members of all of our bargaining units in the in the process.

Yeah, please.

Okay.

I also want to add, because the issue of capacity and workload, and so on, has come up a few times, and we are all stretched. We truly get that.

I know we’ve made a lot of invitations that might sound like what we’re saying is like, Oh, can you give us another? You know, 10 HA month of your time to join a working group.

1st of all, that’s probably not the commitment you’re looking at. But also, I really, truly want to say that any of us involved in this process, and I really do think I mean any, probably even including the President, would welcome like a 15 min conversation, a half an hour, a cup of coffee, whatever like, if all you want to do is to be able to say I have something I want to get out in front of this group. I don’t want to join a working group. I don’t want to fill in a form I don’t want. I can’t do one more thing like just reach out to one of us, one of the provost fellows whatever, and get some time with us, and we are happy to just take feedback that way as well not to discount the other option, but I get it. But sometimes that seems like a lot great. Thank you, to Kelly and Serena. Alright. So I’m going to actually, is there any other in the room? I’m sorry. I’m focusing online. That’s where my intention was. Okay.

Okay. As a teacher, you’re supposed to pause for an awkward like minute.

I was trying to do that. Okay, so this question says, our one is focused on doctoral programs. But at the same time. So we’re trying to shift funding from masters to doctoral programs. And they’d like to hear more because the master’s degrees can be direct pipelines for doctoral programs. And I’ll actually add something to that. Often. Are a part of programs that are working directly with State and Federal agencies.

Don’t start your cheek.

Okay? Sure. So everything is true that you mentioned but so essentially, you know, we are still supporting master degree programs. Students who are in research-oriented master programs, you know, and at the same time, you know, we are trying to leverage internal funds, you know, which are limited, you know, with external funds.

And at the same time there are all these essentially needs that we have, you know. I mean, if you want to remain our one, we also have to grow. I mean, where we are. With respect to the classification, expectations, and numbers we need to have. We have to grow or not grow sooner numbers, you know. So then, how one of 9 is like a balancing act, you know.

Support as many as possible, master students with assistantship, support, and all of that internally, at the same time meet the needs and objectives at a doctoral level support.

Also. Wherever we have opportunities, we. We work with our colleagues across campus and remind them that, by the way, for example, there’s the office of research development with staff members there, please go there. We have expertise to help you out as a faculty member and help your students out graduate students out to kind of pursue all sorts of great opportunities nationwide, not just like NSF Fellowships, which, of course, they’re great fellowships and increasing number of our students are pursuing that, but also fellowships from some other Federal agencies, as well as also believe it or not. There are hundreds and hundreds of private foundations, you know, where, as part of their mission and goals and objectives. You know, they want to fund students and also sometimes fund students in specific areas. So anyway, we are trying to do the best we can to kind of meet all of those risks.

I think that was a great answer, Cody. I’m just going to add one other thing, which is, as we pursue both corporate sector partnership, other kinds of engagement, a number of our actual current corporate partners and business partners, and the State have a very big vested interest in 91±¬ÁÏ’s production of doctoral students, because that’s where they come from to work in those companies, in those State agencies from Maine largely coming from us. So we are also stepping up our efforts to make those partnerships more robust and more mutually beneficial, because there are some funds that we can be accessing to be sure that we’re supporting doctoral students who may not go into academia, but who may actually go into other applied kinds of fields. So all of that is happening, and we probably can start to give more regular updates in addition, as the only research university in the 91±¬ÁÏ System. We’ve been making the case over the past several weeks for some of the distinctions that happen for a research university, and some of the additional kinds of expenses. And within that, of course, comes the production of doctoral students. So great question. And we’re really looking at it from multiple dimensions.

We have a question in the back. Can you wait till we get the microphone? Sorry.

Thank you for the wonderful process and inclusive process, and so much engagement throughout campus going back to a doctoral piece and the registered piece. One of the biggest complaints I hear from rescuers is we don’t pay enough. And they can’t live on the on salaries that that they live in. And the health insurance plan is a. It also produced quite a bit of movements.

So I know. The President talked about going out raising some more money from foundations and industry and others, and that would be some of some of the ideas cross cutting ideas. If he wishes, how do we make it more feasible for students to come to humane and be able to live on the, on the graduate students, so salaries and so forth to attract more students.

If I’m guessing his bargaining is still happening that there’s not a lot that can be said about that at this particular moment.

I’ve heard this question a lot, so I’m glad someone brought it up. What role will the Ums system play in the implementation of our SRE initiatives? For example, when we propose new or existing online programs? Will we have to consider what other UMS schools are offering. That might limit what we can do.

Or, John.

So right now, we’re the only university in the system doing anything like this effort I’m speaking to the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees on it on Sunday, and one of the points I intend to make. There is. We are a research university. We’re the r 1. We’re the lance and space grant university. And so when you take as a total our needs and our directions, and so forth. We are distinctive in that way. And so, you know, it’s a very detailed question about how the Caoc works and how approvals and programs work and so forth. But

I’ve been laying as much groundwork along with my colleagues with system leaders that this effort is critical to the health of the 91±¬ÁÏ, and I’m making that case. And so I think, as we. If we run into other kinds of roadblocks or problems. Then we will take those as they come. But I I think we’re doing what we need to do now to make it clear that the health of this university is central to this whole system.

John’s much more in tune with the particulars of how these approvals work, but anything to add.

So there was, there was a follow up online about, you know, the possibility of other campuses right to veto new online programs and developments. So there’s not an outright veto. So there is an Apl process. Many of you in this room and online have involved in trying to get new academic programs approved through whether it’s online or whether it’s an in person, a major.

And you know the easiest ones are like certificates. They go to the caos, and that’s pretty much it but beyond that they do go. You know, if the Ceos recommend, and we come together as provost across the 7. Well, 6 universities, and we agree before it has to go back to the governance counsel to have that looked at as an example.

And right now, FTC doesn’t even meet in the summer. And so that kind of slows down a process. You know, we can’t move forward on certain programs and it. And but all this is always constantly being worked on. Just St. John is working on that to try to see if we can’t streamline those type of things. But every time a major comes up and gets on the CEO agenda week before the meeting.

I look at that immediately, and then I go to the Deans. You know at our university that that proposal from the university is most closely aligned, and say, Can you tell me, is there is there any issues here, you know, etc.? And then, if there’s really big issues, I try to call that provost and say before that meeting? Say, Hey, can we?

Can we actually think about how we would be able to move this together? There hasn’t been an academic program since I’ve been here for over 4 years. Now, going to my 5th year that we have to be collaborative across the system, you know. Certainly we have specific areas that others don’t have. Those are more straightforward. Other programs. You know, we have a board of trustees as looking very closely at this, and we have to show that we have reached out and we’re collaborative, and that we’re not going to be both ways, that that, you know, we’re not being negatively impacted, and vice versa. And you know, how can we look for synergies where, where possible?

And and so I think it’s about right now about a fair process it can be. It certainly doesn’t leave us any of the 7 universities to be nimble, and we all know this. I was talking to the Provost at Albany, who, you, many of you know, killed him, and you know they have over 70 in the Suny system, and they can’t. They actually have to negotiate across all 70. So I actually felt a lot better. But that does give you, you know it. It can be a little clunky, but at the same time. That is the process, and it’s meant to be as fair as possible.

I will just add to that, though, like as provost fellows and working groups. We were all told to not put limitations on our ideas based on what’s happening already in the system. Obviously those negotiations and conversations would have to happen afterwards. But I think, even as you’re thinking of ideas as our community members submit them, it doesn’t matter what’s happening with the rest of the system because we can’t dream big if we’re confounded by what’s already existing.

Okay, there were just a couple of smaller process based questions that I don’t want to ignore. So one of them was, is there a process or repository for any surveys going out? I’m assuming that means the tools that are posted on the SRE website, etc., and then will the slides from today be posted on the website as well?

Yes, to both. Well, there hasn’t really been any like there haven’t been surveys or anything to date, I’m sure if we did do something like that. Yes, we put it on the website. So if you can repeat that if there’s a repository, I think it’s if we, if we submit ideas via like the tool, are they going to be recorded so. Yes, right now that is not public, but we could certainly have a conversation about whether or it should be. Yes, so there is a repository. However, it is not public at the moment. And then what was the second process, please?

So there, I want to be really clear about transparency, and how transparent we can be. So we also, we don’t want to inhibit people’s creativity and limiting ideas. So we don’t want to publish anything that might identify an individual who wants to give an idea. So that that’s something that’s really important. Another part of it is, some of these ideas may impact people.

And they may not go anywhere, so we also don’t want to create unnecessary fear or concern. So someone may we want to. And but it may turn into something else that has less of an impact on people. So we’re not going to publish a list of every single idea in the way that it comes through because they may get thrown out. They may be evaluated and turned into something else.

We will be transparent about the criteria that we’re using. That’s why we’re really asking the groups to focus on that to help us inform the way we’re transparent about decisions. Once we get to that phase, we will engage the community in the process.

But we’re not going to put a specific list out there because it it could be very harmful in a way, institutionally, that that that may not be helpful for the outcomes of the strategic re-envisioning process. I don’t know, President, if you want to add anything to that.

Are there any last questions in the room?

That and I think Sabrina or James said it, but that QR. Code and the link that leads you with the Google Poll is going to remain open. And so if you want to continue to submit questions and ideas, please do so.

So just in conclusion, thank you to all of you here in the room online, those who will be submitting questions going forward. I want to emphasize something that Sabrina said. We’re trying to make a process that’s accessible. Actually, according to all of your different needs and time frames and capabilities and in terms of capacity. So this point about it’s a 15 min phone call. It’s a quick cup of coffee. I really would like to emphasize that people are listening. This is the time to make your ideas heard, and if you have an idea that you think is especially charged or controversial, maybe that’s the best way to do it.

Is it a conversation with somebody to talk through how it might fit. So with that, I would like to thank everyone. We will do these quite regularly. We’ll keep the website updated. I’ll keep messages coming. We’ll have office hours. And as this process moves into the next phases, we’ll need to talk again about what we’re learning and where we’re headed. So thank you all for coming and have a great day.

Guest speakers included Amanda Klemmer, president of the 91±¬ÁÏ Faculty Senate and assistant professor of landscape ecology; Dannel Malloy, 91±¬ÁÏ System chancellor; Keegan Tripp, 91±¬ÁÏ Student Government vice president; Mariam Diallo, 91±¬ÁÏ junior and marketing major and 2023 Innovate for Maine Fellow; BJ Marshall, associate registrar at the 91±¬ÁÏ at Machias; Xander LaComb (Penobscot), 91±¬ÁÏ Machias junior and creative arts major; and Sandra Butler, professor and director of the School of Social Work and 2024 Distinguished Maine Professor. 

An is also available. Below are highlights and a transcript of remarks.

Providing students with timely financial aid awards

Despite federal FAFSA delays, 91±¬ÁÏ Student Financial Services developed an innovative method to build estimated financial aid packages for prospective students, sending estimated aid packages directly to students on March 1. Connie Smith, the executive director of student financial services for 91±¬ÁÏ, spoke with WFVX about the nationwide impact of the delays in financial aid offers.

Facing challenges together

91±¬ÁÏ students discuss coming together to create a connected and compassionate community in the wake of the tragedy that occurred in Lewiston in October 2023.

91±¬ÁÏ researchers involved with $30 million NSF Science and Technology Center

91±¬ÁÏ will serve as the Northeast hub for the new Center for Braiding Indigenous Knowledges and Science (CBIKS) at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. The Northeast hub of CBIKS at 91±¬ÁÏ is one of eight regional hubs spread over different regions of the U.S., as well as in Australia and the Pacific Islands. Read more about the partnership. 

Philanthropic gifts bolster 91±¬ÁÏ Athletics and faculty resources

An from the Harold Alfond Foundation toward facility improvements will benefit all 17 varsity programs at Maine’s only Division I athletic program. A $15.5 million gift from an anonymous 91±¬ÁÏ alum to create two new senior faculty roles will bolster engineering and mathematics instruction and research. This is the largest single gift from an individual the 91±¬ÁÏ Foundation has ever received. 

Research learning experiences

91±¬ÁÏ and the 91±¬ÁÏ Machias are on a mission to engage first-year students with hands-on learning experiences from the first day they step on campus.

91±¬ÁÏ and 91±¬ÁÏ Machias integration

Beginning in the ’24-’25 academic year, 91±¬ÁÏ and 91±¬ÁÏ Machias will have one integrated academic catalog, a result of collaborative work between the flagship institution and its regional campus to continue on its path toward integration.

Full transcript of event

[music]

[off‑mic conversation]

[music]

[off‑mic conversation]

[music]

[background music]

Amanda Klemmer: Good morning, everyone. [inaudible 5:33] . Can you hear me? [laughs]

[background music]

Amanda: Good morning, everyone. [inaudible 5:54] microphones. [laughs]

[whispers] Should I go? Meredith.

Amanda: Good morning, everyone. Can you‑all hear me?

Audience: Yes.

Amanda: OK. [laughs]

Welcome to the 2024 State of the University address. I am Amanda Klemmer, the Faculty Senate President. Will you please rise and join me in welcoming Chana Freedberg, a senior majoring in music performance with vocal concentration. She is from Bangor and currently lives in Orono.

Chana Freedberg: [sings national anthem]

[applause]

[pause]

Amanda: Thank you. Please be seated.

We open today’s event with our land acknowledgement, which recognizes that the 91±¬ÁÏ is located on Marsh Island in the homeland of the Penobscot Nation, and the 91±¬ÁÏ at Machias is sited in the homeland of the Passamaquoddy Nation.

Both of our universities recognize that in these homelands, issues of water and territorial rights and encroachment upon sacred sites are ongoing. Penobscot and Passamaquoddy homelands are connected to other Wabanaki tribal nations, the Maliseet and the Mi’kmaq, through kinship, alliances, and diplomacy.

91±¬ÁÏ and its regional campus also recognize that the Penobscot, Passamaquoddy, and the other Wabanaki tribal nations are distinct, sovereign, legal political entities with their own powers of self‑governance and self‑determination.

I was asked to do a welcome today, and as the faculty senate president, I thought the best way to start that welcome was through highlighting some of the awesome shared governance that has been happening between the faculty and the administration here at the 91±¬ÁÏ.

The faculty senate, acting as faculty representative, representation, has been working closely with the administration on many matters we will be hearing about this morning.

As we get started, I’d like to share one example that I think truly highlights the important relationship we have been building between faculty and administration this academic year and previous academic years.

In January, during the budget hearings, faculty senate was asked to present faculty ideas on the FY25 budget to the president’s cabinet. As far as we know, the faculty senate budget hearing was a historical moment as the first time at 91±¬ÁÏ that faculty input was requested as a part of the larger budget hearings.

As our university continues to grow and adapt, I look forward to strengthening those connections between the faculty and the administration and working towards being a national leader in true shared governance.

It is now my honor to introduce our President, Joan Ferrini‑Mundy. She has been the 21st president of the 91±¬ÁÏ for almost six years. She’s also the president of our regional campus, the 91±¬ÁÏ at Machias.

Since 2021, she has been vice chancellor for research and innovation for the 91±¬ÁÏ System, leading efforts to make the 91±¬ÁÏ’s research infrastructure accessible to and supportive of all universities and faculty in the system.

Prior to joining the university, President Ferrini‑Mundy was the chief operating officer of the National Science Foundation. Her career spans the fields of mathematics education, STEM education and policy, teacher education, and research administration.

She has numerous awards and recognitions and currently chairs and participates in groups at the international, national, and state levels. She is proud to be faculty member in the 91±¬ÁÏ’s Department of Mathematics and Statistics, an honorary member of All Maine Women, and an honorary Maine Master Gardener Volunteer.

President Ferrini‑Mundy holds office hours regularly and has been known to visit a math class, give a guest lecture in education, and definitely roots for the Black Bears even when they play her alma mater, UNH. Please welcome President Ferrini‑Mundy.

[applause]

President Joan Ferrini‑Mundy: Thank you so much, Amanda. Is the mic working? Yeah. Good morning, everybody. Thank you, Hannah, for your beautiful performance, and thank you to the 91±¬ÁÏ Navy ROTC students for joining us this morning.

I’m pleased to introduce the next speaker, Chancellor Dannel Malloy, the Chancellor of the 91±¬ÁÏ System. Chancellor Malloy is completing his fifth year in that role and came to us from having served for eight years as the governor of the state of Connecticut.

Through his time here, Chancellor Malloy has demonstrated his transformative, bold vision for this system, for this state, and especially for our flagship university. Through Chancellor Malloy’s leadership and dedication to making constructive change happen, the system achieved our historic unified accreditation with our regional accreditor, NECHE.

He was pivotal in securing the $320 million investment in the 91±¬ÁÏ System by the Harold Alfond Foundation, more than $170 million of which is directly focused at the 91±¬ÁÏ. Chancellor Malloy is dedicated to making the 91±¬ÁÏ System a destination for excellent and affordable public higher education.

Daily, sometimes hourly, he has new ideas for innovation and approaches to serving our students better. He’s an avid consumer of data, and if there’s any kind of public database anyplace, you can bet he’s watching it and can tell you those numbers at any moment.

I’m very, very grateful, Chancellor, for your colleagueship, your friendship, for your understanding of what it takes to have a great flagship, and for your recognition that the health of the 91±¬ÁÏ is vital to the entire system and to our state. Thank you, Chancellor.

[applause]

Chancellor Dannel Malloy: Joan, thank you very much for the invitation to participate today. I’m deeply honored to once again be asked to say a few words. Someone’s written a whole bunch for me, but I’m going to do what I always do and talk about the things that I think are really important.

I say this on a routine basis to other audiences, but some of you have not heard me say this before. As a system, we can only hope to be considered as good or great as our flagship university. We are so invested in the success of this university, which, after all, represents 50 percent of the system itself.

We couldn’t have a better partner than your president in the efforts to improve all of our universities, to stabilize our smallest universities, and to move forward in a very competitive marketplace and make progress within that marketplace. The people in this room are in some senses what that effort is all about.

We need your concentration, participation, and dedication, all of which is exhibited on a daily basis by everyone in this room. We have an opportunity with the Alfond commitment to reinvent ourselves as well as give this university the facilities it so richly deserves and needs. We are responsible for supporting those efforts.

By the way, the Alfond money, which is $320 million, really is a half billion dollars when you consider the money that we have raised to make the matches already and those commitments which are underway. I would put out to you that this university has not seen that type of investment, your share of that investment, since the early 1960s.

Now, we begin again to reinvent ourselves at a critical time in our nation’s history. Being reminded of the greatness of our ROTC efforts or the arts that were demonstrated in the singing of the Star‑Spangled Banner. We have a mission. It is to make the state of Maine a stronger and better place for our being part of it.

To make sure that the workforce necessary for it to prosper, not just as a state, but as part of a nation, that’s our job. Quite frankly, I want to be very clear, no one could be leading a university, in my opinion, better than your president at this time of challenge and at this time of opportunity.

Thank you for being here. Thank you for being invested. Thank you for doing the jobs that you do. God bless you. May I say, thank you for inviting me.

[applause]

President Ferrini‑Mundy: Thank you so much, Chancellor. Officially, welcome to the 2024 State of the University Address. Thank you to everyone who is here with us in Minsky Hall and to all who are able to observe and participate via livestream.

This event is always an exciting opportunity and a challenging one to try to share in a short time, the many things going on at our university to feature the incredible work and accomplishments of our outstanding students, faculty and staff, and to reflect on our challenges and on our opportunities.

I’d like to welcome the many distinguished guests who are here, I think really that would be everybody in this room is distinguished, but in particular, the members of the cabinet are here if you raise your hands, members of the faculty senate who are here, members of the group of Dean’s of our university are here, members of the community who are directors of research centers and institutes who are here.

Then, there are some areas of the University where I think the whole staff is here. I can see athletics over there. Thank you and welcome marketing and communications as well. Just thank you for taking just this short time to reflect together on where we are.

Last week, I was talking with somebody casually, and he said, “Hey, I see you’re doing the State of the University Address next week. What’s the State of the University?” I said, “Oh, it’s OK,” being diligent answer. I might have said, “It’s good.” Probably I said, “It’s OK,” knowing I’m always moderate.

I immediately realized that in trying to give that brief version, it was a disservice. You can’t answer this question adequately and forwards. I’ve invited many others today to help present the picture of the State of the University.

You’ll hear themes that are always familiar for 91±¬ÁÏ and for 91±¬ÁÏ Machias connection, caring, commitment, convergence, but it will take more than four words. I do believe the State of the University is good, and I hope by the end of this talk that you will agree and also that you will be excited about moving forward with the challenges and opportunities that we face.

I’d like to begin by getting out onto the table a few things that we know are on everyone’s minds ‑‑ budget, enrollment, R1 status, and athletics. Colleges and universities nationwide are facing budget deficits spurred by a variety of internal and external market forces. Those include declining enrollment, increasing competition, rising costs, changing student needs, and aging infrastructure.

The 91±¬ÁÏ is not immune to those challenges. We experience all of them. However, I’m confident, and I’m going to try to explain to you throughout this talk why I’m confident, that we can overcome those challenges together because of our history of connection, caring, commitment, and convergence.

We are on track with our fiscal year ’24 Board‑of‑Trustees‑approved budget that ends this June. This is due to plain hard work undertaken by cabinet members, deans, directors of centers and institutes, department and school leaders across both universities, and maybe more significantly, our faculty, staff, and students.

The plan in fiscal ’24 was to strategically leverage our reserves as we worked towards long‑term solutions, and we are doing just that.

Campus leaders and others have been engaged in budget hearings and planning discussions over the past several months, looking for ways to reduce operational expenses and to generate new revenues. The Board of Trustees will be reviewing our fiscal year ’25 university budget proposals on March 20th.

To balance our budget, we will need to be judicious in replacement and in new hires. We will need to be creative in looking across the university to figure out what open positions might be reconfigured, and to be able to serve multiple units.

We will need to be careful with spending ‑‑ I know that that’s already happening ‑‑ and continue to look for efficiencies, and ‑‑ I think this is perhaps the most important point ‑‑ we need to hear every creative revenue generation idea possible and be nimble in implementing the most promising of them. We need to grow our enrollment and improve retention.

91±¬ÁÏ has a particular challenge of working to correct decades of deferred maintenance. I want to thank the Chancellor for his leadership and expecting that all of the system campuses step up their spending on deferred maintenance as a part of our budget work.

Our estimate today, given that the average age of buildings on this campus is 53 years ‑‑ pause with that, that’s the previous century when they started ‑‑ is that about one billion dollars will be needed over the next decade. We are working with funders, with the state of Maine, with the federal government to try to build the resources that it will take to make those investments.

In fiscal years ’25 and ’26, the challenges will continue and our efforts will need to move to a depth and breadth that is new to us.

That will include reexamining some of our fundamental assumptions as a university, and developing strategic priorities for what might be a bold transformation for 91±¬ÁÏ through a set of widely engaging discussions across our communities that are beginning now with our deans and others. I truly value our growing collaboration with the academic senate that Amanda described.

We will also need to consider possible restructuring options that will both enable more innovation and help resolve some of the structural deficits that have developed organically and with explanation in an university that’s been growing, adding on processes and approaches, and changing emphases over nearly 160 years.

I’m very heartened to see this group of people together in this room, knowing that our conversations on these matters will continue because we care about this place, and we are a community, and we’ll make this work.

We need to be bold and envision a new tomorrow for 91±¬ÁÏ and work toward it together.

I’m very pleased that under Vice President for Finance and Administration and CBO…Got all of that, Kelly? She’s got the second longest title around here. I have the longest one.

Under VPFA Sparks’ leadership, we have now convened two new committees, the Presidential Space Advisory Committee and the Budget Advisory Committee. How many of you are on those committees? A few folks here and some online.

We will be making their work public and visible on the president’s web page soon.

Now, I’ll turn to a quick update on enrollment. We were impressed at the breadth of backgrounds and interests of the more than 16,000 first year applicants for the fall of ’24. If you’re out there, potential Black Bears, please know that we are very excited about what we’re seeing.

More than 670 students have committed to join our universities in the fall of ’24. We are working to get our acceptance letters out rapidly. We’re starting our collaborations to welcome the Class of 2028.

For the upcoming fall ’24 term, we are ahead of last year’s undergraduate effort in applications, admitted applicants, and matriculated students. That’s due to a lot of hard work by a lot of people on the campus under the great leadership of Vice President for Enrollment, Kevin Coughlin and his team.

In particular, we are using new approaches, including listening to prospective and current students, much more intentionally about what factors they consider when enrolling in a university and working to be relevant for the future with our programs and offerings.

Thank you to everybody out there who’s interested in or close to someone who’s interested in attending 91±¬ÁÏ and 91±¬ÁÏ Machias.

We are also committed to helping make sure that students who want to join us have the financial support that they need. We have some very, very sharp people here at 91±¬ÁÏ finding a way to do this in light of the challenges with FAFSA.

Members of the 91±¬ÁÏ financial services team developed a way to build estimated financial aid packages for our prospective students. We began sending those aid packages directly to students and their families on March 1st.

I will add that we helped to support enrollment managers across the 91±¬ÁÏ system with that work.

I’d really like to note that Simon Ferland, who is 91±¬ÁÏ’s Director of Data Systems, was invited to be part of a national task force to create test FAFSA data. Due to his skills and reputation, Simon was chosen as one of only 17 individuals to participate in this task force.

I don’t know if Simon is here. He’s probably busy doing this work, but in any case let’s congratulate Simon.

[applause]

President Ferrini‑Mundy: Now, let me turn to our Carnegie status as an R1 university, awarded in 2022 as acknowledgement of the growth over many years of 91±¬ÁÏ’s research excellence, breadth, and depth. Achieving that status has led to millions of new dollars of delta over where we were headed in research, which benefits the entire university.

A reputational boost that is attracting outstanding students and faculty and much, much more. I believe the benefits of being R1 are both tangible and intangible, but what’s most important is that we are an excellent university where our three missions of teaching, research, and engagement are interwoven in ways that benefit our students and our state.

The outstanding quality of our research enterprise does have national and international recognition.

This status, and this conversation, has led to questions from faculty about what it takes to sustain this status and whether it is good for 91±¬ÁÏ to do so. We are engaged in thoughtful and frank conversations on this topic. I want to thank Amanda for her leadership and for the senate’s leadership in making that happen.

The American Council on Education is changing the R1 criteria for the next categorization in 2025 in the hopes of building a more transparent and equitable methodology for classifying institutions. If you’re interested in that, there’s a lot on their website about it.

R1 will be now based on different criteria, not the eight that used to count, but in 2025, an R1 will be denoted as a very high research‑spending and doctorate production university, two factors now.

We believe that at 91±¬ÁÏ, we are continuing on those two metrics on a positive trajectory for the future thanks to the ongoing great work of our research faculty and staff, as well as our students.

Now to athletics. It says this morning ‑‑ I think actually it might have been last night, but anyway. We asked our athletic director, Jude Killy, about playoffs in Men’s Ice Hockey and Women’s Basketball, and here’s the latest. Again, thank you to the Athletic Department for being here.

First, I’d like…

[applause]

President Ferrini‑Mundy: Yes, let’s thank them. They’re great.

[applause]

President Ferrini‑Mundy: First, congratulations to Women’s Basketball for winning the America East Regular Season Championship this past Saturday. What a fantastic game. If we have anybody from the basketball program, let’s stand up here, please. Great.

[applause]

President Ferrini‑Mundy: Really a great game. The team will host a quarterfinal game tomorrow, Friday, March 8th at 5:00 PM.

In addition, yesterday, March 6th, America East announced that 91±¬ÁÏ guard Anne Simon has been named the America East Player of the Year and Defensive Player of the Year. Coach Amy Vachon has earned the America East Coach of the Year honors for the fifth time, which is the most in the East’s history.

[applause]

President Ferrini‑Mundy: I thought I saw Amy. Is she there? OK. There she is. OK, thank you, and congratulations.

This weekend’s home series for Men’s Ice Hockey ‑‑ and I see Coach Barr and maybe others from hockey, welcome ‑‑ will determine a lot for Hockey East playoffs and the NCAA tournament.

I just want to pause here and say what a wonderful thing it has been to watch this hockey team this season with the kind of excellence and determination that they are showing. I want to thank Coach Barr for his leadership and thank the team for bringing up a level of excitement that we haven’t seen in hockey here for a long time. Thank you, Ben.

[applause]

President Ferrini‑Mundy: We have clinched a bye ‑‑ and I can’t even believe I say these words like I understand what they mean…

[laughter]

President Ferrini‑Mundy: …but I do, actually. We have clinched a bye in the first round of the Hockey East Tournament and will move on to the quarterfinal, which will be held on March 16th.

To highlight another team, this past fall our Women’s Soccer team won the America East Championship for the first time ever, and named Abby Kraemer as its first All American in program history. Congratulations to soccer.

[applause]

President Ferrini‑Mundy: I’d like to acknowledge and thank all of the coaches, athletic staff, and student athletes who are joining us today.

As you can already see, we have more than a four‑word answer to “What is the state of the university?” question. The notion of the state of the university could be construed as local, but in fact, the university is located in a state, a region, a nation, and a world that all have their own current states.

Thinking about the state of 91±¬ÁÏ with our regional campus, the 91±¬ÁÏ at Machias means also embedding the thinking in what’s going on beyond Orono and Machias.

The events that our state faced this year, most notably the unthinkable tragedy of the Lewiston shootings have affected all of us. Soon after the shootings, 91±¬ÁÏ first‑year student Jeremy Collemore, with help from Student Government President Michael Delorge and others, quickly organized a meaningful campus vigil.

91±¬ÁÏ students always take the lead in showing how to come together and how much community matters.

We have a video.

Student 1: We hope to create a platform for our students within the marginalized communities to have a voice, to be able to represent themselves, and to be able to voice their concerns, not only to be a [inaudible 32:27] to student government, but also be [inaudible 32:29] personnel that work within the 91±¬ÁÏ system.

Student 2: What I’ve really been thinking about is how folks have been gathering and more together, different groups coming together.

What I hope and I can’t wait to experience is a continuing mixing of our communities, our cultures, people from all different backgrounds coming to celebrate the things that maybe mean a lot in the celebratory nature, but also during the difficult times so we can lean on each other and build a more connected community.

Student 3: Being in music specifically has kind of given a unique experience in all of this, and the ability to really make an impact on the community in situations like this.

After the tragedies in Lewiston, the marching band completely redid our show the day before the performance. Before our concert for singers the following week, we had orange ribbons on all of our concert attire. Just really being able to support the community in a unique way has been great.

President Ferrini‑Mundy: Maine also experienced some devastating effects of our changing climate. The coastal flooding was dangerous and damaging for our state in January, with high tides, heavy rains, and strong gusts of wind hitting Maine’s coastline, leaving coastal regions like Machias vulnerable to flooding.

The Downeast Coastal Conservancy and Maine Coast Heritage Trust, working together with volunteers from among the 91±¬ÁÏ at Machias community, took height measurements during the highest tide in February and plan to do so again this month. Again, gathering information that is meant to help with our coastal resilience.

This community is incredible in terms of its commitment.

Zooming out a bit from Maine, our university is increasingly globally engaged. Orlina Boteva, director of 91±¬ÁÏ’s Office of International Programs, reports that this year, we had all‑time highs on international statistics.

There are 563 enrolled international students from 86 countries here with us. Additionally, OIP is supporting 27 refugee students representing 12 countries of origin. We are a global community and greatly richer for it.

Zooming out even further, there is a total solar eclipse coming that will be visible from Maine on April 8th, 2024. 91±¬ÁÏ’s Versant Power Astronomy Center is hosting a variety of special programming for the event. Check out all of the great material on their website, and remember to wear glasses if you look at the eclipse.

The “state of a university” phrase conveys sort of a static concept and a point in time, despite the fact that we have a past and a future to consider. We have a rich history here, and I just want to point you toward the publication “Becoming Modern. The 91±¬ÁÏ, 1965‑2015” that just came out with a publication date of 2024.

This volume was edited by the late Howard Segal along with Ann Acheson and Deborah Rogers. It’s a compilation of chapters by faculty, staff, and alums of the university. It’s terrific. I recommend it to you.

There’s always more to learn about our history. I just wanted to point this out in case you missed it. 91±¬ÁÏ Machias student Desmond Gonzalez, who now writes for “The Maine Campus,” wrote a story of the Lion train in The Maine Campus that was published in February 2024. It’s really great to have these stories showing up.

That eight‑car train passed by the 91±¬ÁÏ Machias campus in the late 1800s, carrying ice and lumber from Whitneyville to Machiasport.

91±¬ÁÏ Machias Professor Bernie Vinzani provided great information for Desmond’s article, including that the train was displayed and stored here at 91±¬ÁÏ, another connection with 91±¬ÁÏ Machias, from 1905 to 1975. Not always on display, sometimes it was in a barn, I gather, but it may be viewable again in the Maine State Museum.

Just like there’s a past, there’s always a future. Where’s the world going? What’s the place of higher education generally, and 91±¬ÁÏ, in particular, in not only engaging in and experiencing that change, but indeed in shaping it? I so like the “Define Tomorrow” tagline that serves us well.

As you look at these reports of future trends and mega trends and futuristic outlooks, several themes are in common across them. One is climate change, which shows up on every list.

In last year’s State of the University, Dr. Kirsten Jacobson, from our Department of Philosophy, introduced the work of the 91±¬ÁÏ Compass Project. Since then, we’ve been refining the themes that came out of that project and aligning them with other planning efforts here.

One of those themes is sustaining the health of our planet and confronting climate change. We have lots of milestones here at 91±¬ÁÏ in this important area. I’ll just give one example, but there could be dozens. I want to recognize the work of 91±¬ÁÏ paleoecologist, Dr. Jacquelyn Gill, and her colleagues last fall.

In partnership with the University of Vermont, they brought in a $2.5 million NSF grant to study how alpine plants left behind by glaciers on northeastern US mountaintops about 13,000 years ago, have “endured millennia of extreme seasonal climate changes and several warm periods despite living at the edge of their species range and physiological tolerance in small, isolated population.”

The team is interested in understanding whether these species will survive today’s global warming. Students will be central in the work, including, I understand, creating a podcast titled “Alpine Plant Love Stories,” and a website to bring research to the public. A very strong strength of Professor Gills.

I point this all out as just one example of this university’s engagement and commitment in many things climate, and our recognition that the students who come here and who may wish to come here in the future have a commitment to the planet, and we want to be the place where they can have roles and learn how to be leaders in that work.

We have efforts to diminish our carbon footprint underway through the leadership of the 91±¬ÁÏ Facilities Management team. We are moving along well in plans for the 91±¬ÁÏ Energy Center, a new steam plant that can run on biofuels rather than heating oils.

The other theme I wanted to mention is AI, which shows up, again, on all of these global trend lists, usually just as AI on the list. I really like the way Tom Standage characterized it in “The Economist” as AI gets real. Take a second on that. Artificial intelligence.

[laughter]

President Ferrini‑Mundy: According to Deloitte’s “Generative AI and the Future of Work,” “Generative AI is a true disruptive workforce shift, indicative of a future in which work and technology meld in ways previously unthinkable. Moreover, this is the first time a technological revolution of this magnitude has been so widely accessible to anyone with an Internet connection.”

We are certainly connected. Another one of these reports ‑‑ the ESPAS report ‑‑ predicts that there will be 125 billion devices connected to the Internet by 2030, compared to 27 billion in 2017. That’s a part of the world in which our universities sit and where we, I believe, can embrace our opportunities.

AI pervades all that we do, and with the introduction of generative AI, not used in this talk, by the way ‑‑ Meredith might have used it to time things ‑‑ into wide public use, the responsibilities, opportunities, and challenges for universities now abound.

Did you know that right here at 91±¬ÁÏ, we have in the past years moved broadly into the use and study of AI? In fact, just yesterday in the Senate, there was discussion of generative AI guidelines developed by the UTC Task Force.

Instructional experts in CITL are hosting workshops and sessions and proving resources for faculty to use ChatGPT in their teaching. 91±¬ÁÏ AI, established by Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School, Kody Varahramyan, has a vision of “…making Maine a world‑class hub for artificial intelligence research, education, and application.”

We are well along. Here at 91±¬ÁÏ, we have national and international research leaders working with students on computing ethics, privacy, attack detection, surface contamination, imagery and visualization, virtual reality, forestry, agriculture, 3D printing, and more.

We have faculty investigating the best uses of AI in special education. 91±¬ÁÏ associate professor of special education, Sarah Howorth, has been researching how AI can support students with disabilities through AI tools for text language generation and for the benefits it can provide to both students and teachers.

It’s clear that at 91±¬ÁÏ, even as we look at the state of the university today, we are looking at the future and helping to shape it.

Finally, the concept…Not really finally, sorry.

The concept of the state of the university needs to be situated in a broad context and needs to illustrate the dynamic nature of the institution over time. Despite the many elements that make a university ‑‑ buildings, athletics fields, and facilities, programs, research funding, and so much more ‑‑ it really all comes down to people who collectively define the state of the university.

That said, I can’t speak about the state of the university without taking note of three extraordinary philanthropic gifts that will support our students in different ways.

The first, as the chancellor has mentioned, is the additional $80 million coming from Maine’s Harold Alfond Foundation to extend the $90 million that they had already provided to complete the 91±¬ÁÏ Black Bear Athletic Master Plan. With great thanks to our athletic director, Jude Killy, and all who have been a part of that planning.

The second investment to mention is the $7 million coming to us from New Balance for a new track and field and soccer complex.

The third is a $15.5 million gift from an anonymous 91±¬ÁÏ alum to create two new senior faculty roles, one in engineering and one in mathematics. This is the largest single gift from an individual that the 91±¬ÁÏ Foundation, another fabulous partner, has ever received.

Just think about that extraordinary act of philanthropy. Think about students who are here now, what might be possible for you someday, and and faculty and staff today who are working with students with no idea how they’re making a difference, how they’re making an impact that might show up decades and decades later.

[applause]

President Ferrini‑Mundy: I had lunch recently with our…Again, this is your cue. With our undergraduate student government leaders, Michael Delorge and Keegan Tripp. Keegan is vice president of student government. He said something that struck me, and then he showed up today so I’m going to ask him to say it himself again.

Keegan Tripp: I was at a student government conference in Charleston, South Carolina. We were in a little focus group discussing the ways of…what our role is on campus. One of the leaders, I don’t remember their name or where they were from at all, unfortunately.

What they said is that us, as student leaders in our role as student government, is to make sure that students are the first thought and also the last thought. I think that really does ring true, not just for student government, but it should be permeating through all decision makers on this university and any university because, at the end of the day, that is why we’re here. We’re here for students.

Thank you.

[applause]

President Ferrini‑Mundy: It’s terrific advice, Keegan’s own words. In the people category for us, of course the majority of the people here are students.

Now, let me introduce you to Mariam Diallo from Bamako, Mali. Mariam is a junior at the 91±¬ÁÏ studying marketing, sustainable food systems, and Spanish. She is a 2023 Innovate for Maine Fellow.

Because I’ve had the chance to chat with her, the last time we talked at least, and I’m pretty sure it’s still true, she has great aspirations for how she wants to make a difference as a leader in her country.

Mariam?

[applause]

Mariam Diallo: Hello, everyone. Thank you so much for presenting me.

I am Mariam Diallo. I am an international student from Mali. I’m a third year at the 91±¬ÁÏ studying marketing…Can you hear me?

I’m sorry.

I will start again. I am Mariam Diallo. I’m an international student coming from Mali. Have anyone have an idea where Mali is? Yes!

[laughter]

For those who don’t know, Mali is in West Africa. It’s a beautiful, very large, and very diverse country. I’m very proud of where I’m from.

I’m in third year at the 91±¬ÁÏ studying marketing and I have a minor in sustainable food system and in Spanish.

It’s a very intriguing mix, I know, and I have I’ve had a lot of thought like switching major or deciding. Ultimately today I can say I’m very proud of the decision that I’ve made switching those majors. I would like to talk first, tell you a story, share a little story of how I have decided to invest myself in sustainability.

When I was 11 years old middle school, first year, I hated going to school. I really did not like it. I could tell you there was not a soul who liked going to the school. Not the academic. The school was fine. It was the neighbors. The neighbors were called the mountains of trash and there’s nothing more accurate to describe it to.

To dress your picture. There are open field welcoming about 200,000 to 700,000‑meter cube of trash accumulating from the TV’s from years. If we disregard then sanitary conditions, the high risk of infection, the horrible smell, I can tell that.

The worst would happen around 10:00 to 12:00 PM‑ish, when we’re at school, they would burn those waste of food, plastic, clothes, metal, producing a very thick and highly toxic smoke. Sometimes it would be very hard to see the behind of the scene past 15 feet.

Because of that, many of students, because we are very young, elementary to middle school students, a lot of my friends and students, unfortunately, have respiratory diseases, mostly asthma, because of that.

Growing up with that experience has just teach me how it is important to develop awareness in sustainable agriculture and agriculture sustainability in all domain, matter of fact, because that’s how we can elevate a better and future for this earth, not only this earth, but for the societies.

To that, I would like to present…Sorry. I would to talk about a point of view that I grew through these years. Through my experiences, and one of them being an Innovate for Maine student, I really have understood that it is important to combine, in my perspective, to combine the sustainability and in business.

Because as you notice when there is the process from idea, to innovation, to a sustainable plan that on the long term can run. in the business side of things there has been difficulties elongated the lifetime of businesses.

As the statistics shows, 50 percent and more of businesses struggle to pass and fail through their five first year. Which is a big problem because there’s not a problem of ideas or innovation, that’s not a problem. I feel like that’s somewhere we can address it.

I’m glad to say through my experience last summer with the Innovate for Maine program fellow, it was an amazing experience that I had. Not only I was able to understand the full process of creation of innovation and how to set that in place, but I was able to gather amazing skill in leadership, in decision making, in marketing, in management.

Not even that I’m related to it, computer science even, through the program, through my fellow student, and through mainly my company that I work with ‑‑ Wildwood Oyster. Today, I can say that one of the goals that I’m fighting for would be to improve the creation of business, to improve how we see innovation, and how that can greatly impact our communities.

That’s why I have decided to take the risk, take the bet, and major in marketing business. I choose marketing because it’s something that I really like. It’s just passion, and I feel like it has brought in me to discover more sides of the world, actually, because it just brought in your experience to the communities, to everybody, the culture, and I feel like that’s something that should be highlighted.

We all should be highlighted in how we go through, and I feel like everyone here, not present, everybody on this earth, coming up, deserves to have a better place on this earth. Thank you so much.

[applause]

President Ferrini‑Mundy: Thank you so very much. A second theme that we’re using from the 91±¬ÁÏ 2025 work is advancing research and teaching for tomorrow’s innovators. Actually, as I listened to Mariam, I think all of these ideas come together so well as our students tell us about what their experience is.

We can do all the planning and connecting that we want, but it’s the students who make it happen for themselves by choosing and engaging in such exciting ways. There are lots of examples here too as we look at faculty who construct their own instructional plans to involve students in the fundamentals of discovery.

They generate questions, learn how to reframe messy challenges and wicked problems. They learn how to create new things, understand our world, and more. The Research Learning Experience Program led by Provost Vollen as part of the Alfond funded Student Success and Retention activity is a chance for our first year students to experience research, leading them then to later experiences in programs like the Innovate for Maine Fellows and others to be very grounded in the practice of learning to be innovators from the day they walk in the door.

Let’s hear from them.

[applause]

[background music]

Jasper Makowski: My name is Jasper Makowski. I’m a second year student here at the 91±¬ÁÏ. I’m currently studying microbiology.

Eleanor Carrollton: I’m Eleanor Carrollton. I grew up in I grew up in Bath, Maine. I went to Morris High School.

Jasper: I grew up in Dover Foxcroft, Maine, which is about an hour north of here. I didn’t really think of even about college until I was later in high school. I applied to a bunch of different schools and I wasn’t really sure where I wanted to go.

My high school biology teacher got me set up for the tour in this building. He showed me around, showed me all the labs, showed me what research, what gets done here. That’s what really swayed my opinion was seeing the changes that are going on here. What people are able to accomplish and stuff.

Eleanor: Research experiences were the reason that I chose 91±¬ÁÏ. That I wanted more than anything to be able to positively impact people’s lives while adding to new knowledge, because I’m so passionate about learning more about the world around us. I knew that 91±¬ÁÏ was the best place for me to be able to have that experience.

Jasper: You come into school, deer in headlights, no idea what’s happening, and you’re thrown into a whole new world, expected to change, expected to adapt. You come out on the other side a better learner, a better thinker, a better analyzer of not just what you’re studying but the world around you.

Eleanor: I think that’s one of the biggest things people gain from an RLE experience, is they learn to let go of perfectionism and face failure. Failure can be such a transformative experience, that it’s so important for our growth and learning how to continue benefiting ourselves, even if we face challenges along the way.

Jasper: The second or third day I was here, I asked Dr. Malloy a question. I was like, “What happens if you do this?” She goes, “I don’t know. Figure it out.” I got to come in here and do research about my own question three days into being a college student.

That opened the door for all of these research opportunities that I’ve been presented with so far. I really like Maine and I really like rural Maine. I’m definitely leaning family medicine or emergency medicine, something that’s needed in small‑town Maine.

Eleanor: I really would not be where I am today without The Alley. That being able to have this strong supporting group of both peers, mentors, professors. Obviously, there’s still so much growth left that I can do, but that’s part of what makes life interesting, is knowing that there’s always more that we can do.

Jasper: Every day, I’m reinforced that I made the right decision of where to go to school.

[media playback ends]

President Ferrini‑Mundy: OK.

[applause]

President Ferrini‑Mundy: We’re proud to offer these research experience initiatives and opportunities to engage students the moment they step foot onto the campus, and then to expand access to our nationally acclaimed research and scholarship initiatives for undergraduate and graduate students.

Just a couple of highlights here. Last year, 91±¬ÁÏ received its first‑ever Center of Biomedical Research Excellence, or COBRE, Award, an $11.3 million grant from the National Institutes of Health, led by Clarissa Henry, a professor of biological sciences in the School of Biology and Ecology, together with her outstanding team.

Which by the way you can probably find video and photos of when they took the field to be recognized at 91±¬ÁÏ football game last fall. That will position our university as a training hub and academic leader for the biomedical research industry.

The Maine Business School and Graduate School of Business have a number of interesting projects ‑‑ I’ll just single out Build a Better Maine 2023 ‑‑ for emerging business leaders from some of the state’s most prominent organizations.

Gavin Robinson, who is Vice President of Community Relations for Bangor Savings was excited about the program, and quoting him, “The leadership skills we are learning in Build a Better Maine contribute not just to the growth of our company but to Maine overall,” he said to News Center Maine in an interview.

Again, we have a breadth of activity here, and I can only highlight pieces, but I know that you’re well aware.

The third guiding theme that we are promoting from 91±¬ÁÏ campus is growing a thriving and inclusive community of learners. That really is a way of being for this university. A major piece of our work in inclusion is including our campus at Machias, the 91±¬ÁÏ at Machias.

I’m very pleased that Xander LaComb, a junior from 91±¬ÁÏ Machias from Norway, Maine, who is studying creative arts, is with us to talk about his experience.

[applause]

Xander LaComb: Thank you so much for that lovely introduction. My name is Xander LaComb. I’m a citizen of the Penobscot Nation. I study creative writing with minors in English and zoology. Through the [indecipherable 57:23] combination of studies, I found myself in nation science communications, specifically working with native youth.

In my freshman year, I was invited to apply for the then‑new Kinap Mentorship Program, which has involved everything from assisting with the Wabanaki Voices series at UMM, to going out to after‑school programs, to putting together a physical Native American student lounge space.

Not only have I gained countless skills directly from this program, it’s given me connections with other organizations such as Wabanaki Youth in Science and the Aquaculture Research Institute here at Orono, which continues to build upon my interests. Now I get to do fun stuff like drop [indecipherable 58:01] and to play with animals in touch tanks.

Just as an aside, I cannot be more grateful for the people I’ve had the opportunity to work with through these organizations. I have my own little section over there cheering me on…

[applause]

Xander: …and even the people who are not able to attend in person today sent me such lovely messages and are probably watching right now online, and I just want to think of a short thank you to them for the time and care they’ve put into not only my education, but everyone else I have the opportunity to work with.

As for what I’m currently working on now, I’m continuing to work with the Aquaculture Research Institute, returning to the AquEOUS fellowship as a student mentor to help further support students in the program, as well as continue on my previous projects.

With these connections, with the Keynote Mentorship Program, we are also working on setting up touch tanks, both at Sabaic Elementary and at UMM in the native student lounge. We’re hoping to give students of all ages the opportunities to learn husbandry of these animals, as well as how to educate others.

Most excitingly, with Waze, we’re working with professors at UMM to incorporate indigenous knowledge into our Science Bridge program. That is a two‑week program for freshman STEM students at UMM to gain new skills and tools that they need to succeed.

This new version of the program will hopefully not only be more appealing to native students, but also nonnative students up to be conscious of the world they’re working in.

Thank you so much for your time.

[applause]

President Ferrini‑Mundy: Thank you Xander. Very exciting work. You know our relationship with 91±¬ÁÏ Machias ‑ and welcome to people who came down from Machias, thank you ‑‑ is unique in the 91±¬ÁÏ system and possibly within systems nationwide.

That relationship is also constantly evolving with commitment to honoring the uniqueness of each institution, maintaining 91±¬ÁÏ Machias standing as one of Maine’s seven public universities, and sharing the assets and resources that each institution brings to this partnership to enable a very broad set of options and experiences.

In next year’s State of the University talk, I’d like to be able to report ‑‑ sorry Provost, just thought of this ‑‑ to be able to report a robust and ongoing set of exchanges we’re more faculty, staff, and students from each site are visiting and intentionally gauging the other in a programmatic effort that I think we’re ready to put in place now with 91±¬ÁÏ Machias, so stay tuned.

For both institutions, and in line with what public higher education institutions are undertaking, we are expanding our efforts in enrollment to broaden the learner audiences that we serve. Our universities depend upon diversity. Diversity of ideas, cultures, experiences, points of view, and background.

As the public flagship, we have a responsibility to be accessible and relevant for a wide audience. We have great work underway, and here are some examples. I’d like to introduce BJ Marshall, via video, who is the Associate Registrar at 91±¬ÁÏ Machias.

BJ is a key member of the 91±¬ÁÏ Machias Office of Student Records. From her office on the Machias campus, BJ has led the detailed and time consuming work of bringing the academic catalogs for our two institutions together. An incredible step toward inclusion and partnership.

She’s dedicated the last three years to creating a seamless fall 2024 registration process for students on both of our campuses. With that, BJ.

Thank you, President Ferrini‑Mundy, for giving us the opportunity to talk about the status of the academic alignment between 91±¬ÁÏ and 91±¬ÁÏ Machias. We are very happy to report that after years of hard work, we will be in one catalog beginning in the ’24, ’25 academic year.

Working with a very cross functional team at both the campus and system level, that included faculty members, student records, student financials, student success, admissions, IT, I’m sure I’m forgetting other key players, but everyone was, and still is, important in this process.

91±¬ÁÏ Machias students will enroll through UMS05 beginning in the fall 2024 semester. When the schedule is viewable later today, it will include courses offered at both campuses. There’s still a lot of work to be done, but this is a big moment in the alignment process.

Thank you again for allowing us to highlight the status of this initiative.

President Ferrini‑Mundy: Thank you BJ, we can applaud that.

[applause]

President Ferrini‑Mundy: Did you know that there are about 280,000 people in the state of Maine with college credits who did not complete their four year degree? 91±¬ÁÏ and other system campuses are taking leadership in that area.

91±¬ÁÏ and 91±¬ÁÏ Machias have proudly partnered with 91±¬ÁÏ Fort Kent with system funding that we’re grateful for to offer a new adult degree completion program called Finish Strong, led by Hannah Carter, Associate Provost for Online and Continuing Education.

We’ll offer higher ed opportunities to a wide range of learners with focus on new mainers, and provide adults with the education they need to make a better life for themselves and their families. This is but one example of our broadening of our thinking of who our student audiences are.

Members of our community remind us all in so many ways of how we can be active in fostering inclusion. During this year’s annual Martin Luther King Jr. celebration breakfast supported by the Greater Bangor Area Branch NAACP, we gathered to commemorate and remember and focused on an opportunity to further strengthen our commitment to equity, diversity, inclusion, and social justice.

Many, many people from 91±¬ÁÏ were there and a lot of them are in the audience today as well. Keynote speaker, Dr. Judith Josiah-Martin from the 91±¬ÁÏ School of Social Work made some comments that really stuck with me and I just thought I would include them here.

She said, you came here today to check off, I did my civil rights thing for the year, check. I’m calling you on that. That’s tokenism. If you’re going to make the legacy of Dr. King work, you’ve got to join something, you’ve got to say something, and you’ve got to do something.

All of us need to take that to heart. You’ve got to join something, say something, and do something to really embody our commitment at the 91±¬ÁÏ and 91±¬ÁÏ at Machias to inclusion, to growing a thriving and inclusive community of learners.

I’m proud to now introduce professor and director of the school of social work, Sandy Butler who was recently named the 2024 distinguished Maine professor. Sandy is an outstanding and inspiring educator who has been with the 91±¬ÁÏ for 33 years.

Her research interests and tireless advocacy throughout her work in equity and justice have improved the wellbeing of our community and of our state. Sandy?

[applause]

Sandy Butler: Thank you President Ferrini‑Mundy. I have been asked to weigh in on the concept of inclusion and to consider what factors contribute to students thriving here at the 91±¬ÁÏ and the 91±¬ÁÏ at Machias.

This led me to think of my own college experience nearly 50 years ago. I was a white, professional class, 18‑year‑old attending a predominantly white private college. My parents paid my tuition. I thrived. I felt included. I had found my people.

I worked as a waitress some portion of those four years, but only for spending money. They were not long hours. They did not distract me from my studies or from my fun. Over my 33 years teaching at the school of social work here at 91±¬ÁÏ, most of my students have not fit that profile.

While the large majority have been white at this predominantly white institution, many have been first generation students. Most have had to work while going to school to help pay for their education. Many have had family responsibilities as parents or caregivers of parents. Some have been black, indigenous, and people of color.

Some have been neurodivergent. Some have had mental or physical challenges. A good number have identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or questioning. How do we make sure all these students feel included? How can we assure that they thrive in their 91±¬ÁÏ experience?

I surely don’t have the answers, but I can reflect on strategies I’ve used in my own teaching over the years and some recent changes I’ve made in my approaches. I’ve become more aware of the all‑encompassing, culture of white supremacy in the United States.

My thoughts are constrained by my experience, which has been limited to teaching social work and largely graduate students in classes of just 20 to 30 students, both in person and online. I’ve not taught large lectures to hundreds of first year students, nor popular gen ed classes with students from multiple majors.

I don’t know how to run a lab, direct a theater production, or carry out a field course in forestry. Those formats would all require different approaches. From my personal teaching experience, I offer some thoughts on inclusion that I’ve gained at different points in my career at 91±¬ÁÏ. I will stick to three points, the magic number in teaching of what people can retain.

First is providing lots of feedback. As an introvert and a less than scintillating lecturer, I knew from my first day of teaching that this would be my fallback method of connecting with students and letting them know that they are seen by and important to me.

Developing a dialog with students through comments on their work, whether written or in meetings, builds the student instructor relationship, which I believe contributes to inclusion. Admittedly, the approach for doing this is in truly large classes will be different, but I still think it’s vital and possible.

Second is to be encouraging. I think this approach took some time for me. As a young teacher, I tended to be more critical. Particularly around writing. With time, I’ve learned how important it is to build on strengths and to make that more of a focus.

Encouragement and praise foster a desire and confidence to engage in the learning process, and ultimately contributes to a student thriving in their educational journey. Finally, and much more recently, as I’ve joined my social work faculty colleagues in learning more about anti‑racist teaching, and with guidance from Karen Pelletreau from the Center for Innovation, Teaching, and Learning, I’ve become aware that the focus on the written word over oral communication is one component of white supremacy.

In my teaching these past three plus decades, the written word has been paramount from what I’ve assigned articles and books to what I’ve expected from students, papers, and written reactions. Late in my career, I’ve been mixing it up a bit more, offering more audio and video sources and increasing options for non‑written assignments.

I think over the years, my focus on excellent writing has left some fine and diverse students feeling excluded and thus less likely to thrive. In conclusion, a thriving community of student learning depends on staff and faculty also feeling supported, included, and with resources to do their jobs.

There is no question we are in challenging times. The difficult budgetary decisions currently being made at the 91±¬ÁÏ and at Machias will affect how well we can attain this laudatory and well shared goal that students feel included and empowered as they pursue their academic dreams and degrees. hank you.

[applause]

President Ferrini‑Mundy: Thank you so much, Sandy. In summary, I think I’m OK with what I said in passing to the question that I mentioned at the beginning. Yes, the state of the university is good. It is.

We face challenges in budget, enrollment, and in aging campus. We can do better in protecting our planet, integrating research and teaching, and striving for well‑being and inclusivity. We don’t agree on everything here. Hard to believe, I know, in a university.

I’ve illustrated, I hope, that we have the capabilities, commitments, and compassion to move the 91±¬ÁÏ and the 91±¬ÁÏ at Machias into a future that honors our past, acknowledges our leadership for Maine, the nation, and beyond, and we can always think students first and students last. All of this is for them.

I hope, after hearing what you’ve heard today, you can also understand why I’m optimistic. The state of the university is strong and will only grow stronger through connection, caring, commitment, and convergence.

I’d like to thank you for your attention today. I’d like to thank all of the people who helped put this together. Particularly ‑‑ I don’t see him now ‑‑ but to single out Ron Lisnet and his team, who were working with video until quite late last night.

Thank you all very, very much. Wishing you the best for the day today. Again, I appreciate your coming today. Thank you.

[applause]

President Ferrini‑Mundy: We’ve never learned this very well. We don’t have a very good dismissal process here. You’re excused. Thank you for being here.

[laughter]

.

.