MINUTES OF MEETING NUMBER twenty
OF THE
sENATE OF the mICHIGAN tECHNOLOGical university

 10 November 1964

(Senate Minute pages: 191-201)

The meeting opened at 7:09 p.m., Tuesday November 10, 1964, in the Faculty Lounge. President Van Pelt presiding.

The roll was taken. Present were: Group I - Van Pelt, Sermon, Howard, Wagner, Seale, Krenitsky, Yerg, Williams. Group II - Boyd, Boutilier, DelliQuadri, Hellman, Hooker, Ward, Keeling, Niemi, Price, Romig, Tidwell. Group III - Young, Clark, Work, Hesterberg, Snelgrove, Fitch, Stebbins, Bovard. Group IV - Schnelle, Brown, R., Robert, Anderson, W.T., Dobell, Halkola, Anderson H.B., Frea, Hall, Hendrickson, Wyble.

Absent were: Group I - Kerekes, Meese, Townsend, Crawford, Garland, Bourdo, Volin, Myers, Noble. II - Bahrman, Berry, Champion, Sawezak, Wiedenhoefer. Group III - Smith, T.N., Spain, Hein, Fryxell, Byers, Been, Smith, R.L. Group IV - Bredekamp, Johnson, V.W., McInnes.

A quorum being present the meeting proceeded.

The minutes of meeting No.19 were approved as previously distributed.

 

Committee Reports and action on same. Old Business

Proposal 1-62 -- Professor J. Romig, chairman of the constitution revision committee, presented the following report and proposed constitution.

Professor Romig's Report:

This will be a brief report, and I shall at its close distribute copies of a proposed constitution to the members of the Senate here tonight.

This draft was finally agreed to at a meeting Friday night of last week with Mr. Niemi, Mr. Hooker, Mr. Price, and Mr. Romig present. Mr. Been and Mr. Kemp of the Sault Branch, were not present, and cannot, therefore, be held to the details of the present draft. We had not really spent any time on these drafts since last spring until last Friday night.

Mr. Price of our committee has some basic reservations with regard to this proposed constitution and some exceptions to make to it. At the outset of a long discussion last Friday night, we found ourselves still in strong disagreement on some fundamentals, but were finally able to come to substantial agreement on the draft we are submitting.

I hope that the compromise was an honorable one.

Certain things are proposed by this draft for a new Senate Constitution:

1. A much smaller Senate - 21 elected members and the President and four administrators appointed by the President for a total of 26.
2. Senate to be elected from and by faculty at large. No distinction is made between teaching, research, or administrative faculty for these elected senators though senators must have tenure.
3. Sufficient representation in the Senate for the administration so that information will be available for proper decisions.
4. Senate to elect its own officers but the President and four administrators whom he may appoint are not eligible to be officers of the Senate.
5. Senate to establish its own procedures.
6. A somewhat broader range of subjects to be discussed, but with the emphasis still essentially academic.

I share some of Mr. Price's reservations, but hope this will be a workable document.

Some possible shortcomings in this document are that no real attention has been paid to the Sault Branch. The committee had grave doubts that, from a practical viewpoint, the Sault could adequately be represented in our Senate. Since the power of the Senate is still a recommending power to the President, it may be better to have a separate body at the Sault.

The general faculty may not be adequately recognized by the present document, but they do have the power of election and attendance at most meetings of the Senate.

I do not intend to make any motion this evening, but rather suggest that you look over the document presented and make suggestions at some later date to the committee as to your wishes. We found it very difficult to come to agreement in the committee, and I am sure that many of you will have suggestions to make.

PROPOSED CONSTITUTION

PREAMBLE: In recognition of the desirability of faculty participation in university government, the Board of Control and the faculty of Michigan Technological University do hereby establish this constitution for the Faculty Senate.

ARTICLE I: NAME: The name of this organization shall be the Senate of Michigan Technological University.

ARTICLE II: FUNCTIONS: The functions of the Senate shall be to conduct studies in matters affecting the academic policy and performance at all levels and to prepare recommendations thereon for submittal to the President for appropriate action or for reference by the President to the Board of Control of the University.

ARTICLE II: MEMBERSHIP:

A. Number and Composition - There shall be twenty-one members elected at large from and by the General Faculty. In addition the President of the University and not more than four other chief administrative officers of the University, appointed by the President, shall be members.

B. Terms of Office - The term of office of an elected member shall be three years. He may be re-elected for an additional term of three years, but after serving two terms in succession will be ineligible for re-election for a term of three years. Officers appointed by the President shall serve for not less than three years if still holding the same administrative post as when appointed.

C. Classification of Members - Vacancies - Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be by lot into three classes. The seats of the senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the first year, of the second class at the expiration of the second year, and of the third class at the expiration of the third year, so that one third may be chosen every second year; and if vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the interim between annual election periods, the Chairman of the Senate may make temporary appointments until the next annual election.

D. Elections and Appointments - Elections shall be held in May of each year, the term of office to commence the following September. Candidates for election must have tenure. Appointments to the Senate by the President of the University shall be made at the same time.

ARTICLE IV. OFFICERS

A. The Senate shall determine and elect its own officers. The President of the University and administrative officers appointed by him shall not hold office in the Senate.

ARTICLE V. POWERS: The Senate shall have the following powers:

1. To make recommendations to the President on any matter affecting academic policy and performance of the University.
2. To request reports on any plan for creation or abolition of new degrees, new departments, or new schools.
3. To request summarized reports on the annual budget for the University.
4. To request annual reports from the President on the implementation of policies recommended by either the Senate or the General Faculty.
5. To make all recommendations appropriate for the implementation of the foregoing powers.
6. To advise, when requested, on the election of administrative officers.
7. To prescribe regulations for its own government.

ARTICLE VI. MEETINGS: Regular meetings of the Senate shall be held twice a quarter. Special meetings may be called by the Chairman of the Senate upon due notice. Regular meetings shall be open to members of the General Faculty.

ARTICLE VII. AMENDMENTS: Amendments to this constitution may be proposed at any meeting and may be passed at any subsequent meeting after a lapse of one month from the first passage with adequate notice to the faculty. Both passages may be by a simple majority, the amendments to become effective after approval by the Board of Control.

 

Following the report, Professor Price stated that he is convinced that the Faculty will be pleased with this new document but that it will need amending since 1) it fails to provide for faculty participation in the Senate work, and 2) The definition of Senate powers and coverage is not adequate.

Dr. Van Pelt stated that no motion concerning this document is needed now. Study and discussion by the faculty of the document is necessary for possible clarification. Precise definitions are necessary. The present Senate constitution is a clear document and defines its terms precisely.

PROPOSAL 8-63: The history and Senate minutes references of this proposal are recounted by the Senate Secretary. Having previously given approval by vote, the Senate next made the final written vote on this proposal which passed, 30 yes, to 3 no, votes. The two parts of this proposal, Resolutions 1 & 2 follow.

Resolution Number One

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED in the light of all these studies that the Administration be urged to give careful consideration to the request of any appropriate disciplines such as those within the Humanities and Social Studies to be granted departmental status if and when the curricula and the number and scholarly standing of the staff of a particular discipline, as well as student demand therein, shall justify such status, and as soon as the Administration shall determine that personnel and budgetary problems can be solved.

Resolution Number One

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the University administration be requested to encourage the Sault Ste. Marie branch, through appropriate investigation comparable to that being undertaken by the Long-Range Planning Committee at Houghton, to evolve proposals for the kind of departmental organization and the curricula which are best suited to meet the needs of the staff and the students at Sault Ste. Marie.

 

Proposal 1-64: Professor Price discussed the proposal briefly pointing out that academic freedom is recognized as within the purlieu of constitutional justification. No real connection exists between academic freedom and tenure. The Michigan State Board of Education has adopted the AAUP statements in this matter. Our Board of Control has stated its willingness to accept a policy satisfactory to the faculty. The University catalog was quoted in this respect also.

The proposal was then read by the Senate secretary as it appears on pages 177 and 178 of the Senate minutes of meeting #19 of 5/12/64.

Professor Delliquadri moved, Professor Price seconded adoption of the proposal by written ballot. It passed 30 yes to 3 no. The second and final vote on it will occur at the next meeting.

 

Proposal 9-63, Dr. Work of the Faculty Professional Development Committee made an interim report as follows:

Proposal 9-63 - As a result of a delay in getting letters out, returns from inquiries to other campuses regarding experience with other forms of appointment of department heads are not yet available. Therefore, we cannot make our recommendation to the Senate until a later meeting.

Professional Society Participation - The findings from two surveys conducted last spring are being studied with the intention of recommending a travel policy for consideration of the Senate. A summary of some of the findings of the surveys are appended as a part of this report.

In interpreting this information, it should be emphasized that the committee inquiry was intended to involve only travel to professional society meetings or for professional development, not travel of an administrative nature. However, the two are budgeted together and some trips involve both. Therefore, some difficulty was encountered in distinguishing between the two in reporting travel expenses.

Some further refinement in the figures reported could be attained by follow-up of individuals missed and by reclassification of some entries in the "other" category. Since the members of the committee have many other demands on their time,it was decided that additional refinement of the data would not provide enough new light on the subject to justify the time it would require.

We have begun deliberations which will lead to formulation of a travel policy to recommend to the Senate.

It is believed that attendance and participation in professional society meetings enhances the professional development of individual faculty members as well as contributing to University prestige and to the excellence of teaching and research programs. The committee (1) has obtained statements of policy from various University deans and division heads regarding faculty travel to such meetings and (2) has conducted a survey to ascertain who went to what meetings in 1963, where, at what cost, and at whose expense. The findings are summarized below: (Available from the Senate Office upon request).

Policies:

1. The time to attend off-campus meetings is granted freely.
2. The cost of transportation, and sometimes more, is available.
3. There is more money available and policies are more generous in research agencies than in academic departments.
4. State funds have consistently been insufficient to provide support considered justifiable.

Following the report some discussion occurred:

Dr. Van Pelt: This problem needs further study. Request for money for professional travel always made as part of the budget. We are isolated and compared to the metropolitan schools, our travel cost is much higher. There have been some budget improvements in this regard, however. Some of the faculty don't want to travel even though beneficial to themselves and the University.

Proposal 10-63: As stated in the Senate minutes page 161 this proposal is:

It is proposed that the College adopt a trimester academic calendar consisting of three trimesters of approximately 16 weeks duration and concurrently the curricula be revised and consolidated so that all courses, except courses such as PE and ROTC, carry 5 credits and be offered every trimester (except courses such as surveying, forestry summer camp, and geological field trips which require warmer weather); a student to carry a normal load of 3 courses plus PE, ROTC, and other such extra courses.

Reporting for the Curricular Policy Committee, Professor H.B. Anderson, chairman, gave the following account of his committee's study of the matter:

1. Year-round operation of a full academic calendar is not generally opposed on the Tech Campus provided that:
   a) the staff is not required to teach year round
   b) staff salary be based on year-round employment with no salary cut being taken for summer work
   c) that the overriding consideration be that of providing a stronger, better staffed program so that academic performance is enhanced, not impaired.
2. Based on response from departments reporting so far, a full four quarter calendar with 3 to 5 hours of class per course per week is preferable for most departments. Perhaps a full-time staff man should be hired to provide a fully coordinated scheduling system so that courses would not be oversubscribed or undersubscribed and conflicts be reduced to a minimum.
3. We should investigate various schemes designed to prevent built in obsolescence. Perhaps one quarter out of five or one trimester out of four, full-time staff members should be encouraged to spend time in industry or on another campus in work specifically designed to update their specialty. Something like this needs to be part of year-round operations.
4. Nearly full utilization of campus facilities is important from the standpoint of achieving maximum economy and makes it possible for a student to earn a baccalaureate degree in three years if he takes no time off.

Obtaining the maximum rate of processing of student bodies should not be of first importance in selecting a plan. Enrollment pressure is on the not too distant horizon but this should not force us into an ill-considered speed-up program which could result in a poor academic performance by both students and staff.

The following is a summary to date (11-7-64) of returns on the questionnaire dated October 27, 1964. Reasons for choices are not yet completed but will be made available at a later date. Estimate of "best plan" and "alternate preference" is based on moments about the point "least desirable = 0."

Summary of suggested plans of year-round operation.

a) Trimesters with straight 5 credit hour courses
b) Trimesters with 3 to 5 credit hour courses
c) Quarters with 5 credit hour courses
d) Quarters with 3 to 5 credit hour courses

Department	Year-Round Yes	Year Round No	Preferred Plan Best	Preferred Plan Alternate
Self-liquidating	x		No preference	No preference
Engineering Graphics	x		a	c
Civil Engineering	x		d	c
Mathematics	x		b	d
Geology		x	a	b
ROTC	x		b	a
Biological Sciences	x		d	c
Humanities		x	No answer	No answer
Engineering Mechanics	x		b	d
Mechanical Engineering	x		b	d

*Moments were b=31 and d=30, indicating a toss-up for plans b and d.

Preliminary reports indicate that departments would approve year-round operation only if staff problems can be solved in such a way as to provide for a strong academic program, year-round pay for year-round teaching load, and provision for equitable distribution of quarters or trimesters of non-teaching activity for the purpose of "recharging the battery."

Discussion followed the report:

Dr. Brown: What about hours per term limit?

Dr. Fitch: Recompilation of ME department vote needed. Our votes were mostly no.

Professor Bovard: When does the trimester begin and end? It will completely wreck our intramural program. We like the 4 quarter system. The Trimester system will knock Tech out of intercollegiate athletics.

Professor DelliQuadri: Data on the comparative systems might help our decision. An open Faculty meeting might be held.

Professor H.B. Anderson: Such can be held after further study.

Dr. Williams: The Trimester plan makes for convenient drop out and enrollment procedure for students.

Professor H.B. Anderson: This is true unless our program is damaged or the faculty inconvenienced by it. There are many complications involved.

Dr. R. Brown: Are any schools using this plan with 2/3 students in school and 1/3 out?

Dr. Van Pelt: Keep this topic under discussion. Confer with the committee, hold meetings, etc. on it.

 

Proposal 12-63 - Professor H.B. Anderson reported as follows:

Proposal 12-63 as reported on MTU Senate agenda for Meeting #20 gives the impression that reduction of Freshman load to 15 hours and limitation of graduation requirements to 216 hours is a part of Proposal 12.63. Actually, while these limitations were discussed at Senate Meeting #19, the Proposal 12-63 simply recommended that the Freshman load may be reduced by the number of hours listed for the SE courses in the 1961-63 catalog, and that the number of hours required for graduation may be reduced by the same amount.

Since executive action has already reduced Freshman hours and graduation hours, it was moved by Caspary and seconded by Halkola that we recommend adoption of Proposal 12-63 without amendment as presented in the minutes of Senate Meeting #17. Motion carried.

Dr. Van Pelt stated that the Executive Committee had adopted this policy last summer as necessary and with consideration of the first vote (approved) made on it by the Senate.

There was no discussion.

Written ballots passed 12-63 by yes 29, no 5.

 

Proposal 2-64, Professor H.B. Anderson reported the action of the Curricular Policy Committee on this proposal.

Proposal 2-64, page 183, Senate Meeting #19, was written by the Curricular Policy Committee at the suggestion of Dr. Van Pelt. Basis for the request to prohibit Freshmen from enrolling in Principles of Economics was a letter from Dr. Alexander. Subsequent to Senate discussion of the restriction, many degree schedules omitted Principles of Economics from the Freshman year. This has resulted in a substantial reduction in the number of Freshmen enrolled in this course. The Business Administration Department no longer feels any need for restricting Freshmen enrollment in Principles of Economics.

It was moved by Caspary and seconded by Halkola that the Curricular Policy Committee recommend against adoption of Proposal 2-64. Motion carried.

There was no discussion. Professor H.B. Anderson moved and Dr. Steffens seconded that it be dropped. Voice vote was a unanimous yes to drop.

 

Proposal 3-64, Policy on Student absences.

This proposal was discussed at length in detail. Each of the four parts was considered and in some cases amended and/or changed from its original form (Minutes page 184). Each of the four parts was separately approved by voice vote. A final written vote was taken and the proposal passed this first voting 20 yes to 9 no. The revised version follows:

The Committee assumes that final examinations are mandatory for all courses except for laboratory, field, seminar, and other courses exempted by the Dean of the Faculty. We propose that: the University shall not schedule nor shall the student participate in any official function during the scheduled final examination period. Exception to this prohibition occurs for those events the date of which the University cannot control.

No student shall be penalized for participating in an official college function. Participation in an official function shall be considered an excused absence. As stated in the University catalogue, the student shall be allowed to make up work missed during an excused absence.

A. If practical, instructors should report two consecutive absences of any student to the Dean of Students' Office unless the absences are excused prior to their occurrence by the instructor or unless the student has authorization for the absence.

B. All other absences are to be handled according to the instructor's discretion, consistent with departmental policy.

Catalogue designated "inspection trip courses" must be scheduled so as not to preclude the students' attendance in other scheduled courses.

 

Introduction of New Proposals by Senate Members. New Business

Dr. R. Brown addressed a question to Dr. E.T. Williams who had taken the chair, President Van Pelt having departed at 9:00 p.m. Dr. Brown asked about introducing as Senate business a proposal concerning civil rights which could be incorporated into the University regulations.

Dr. Snelgrove: Isn't this the law?

Dr. Williams: We are trying to direct Dr. Brown.

Dr. Brown: This will protect students and others who are not familiar with the statutes.

Prof. Halkola: Does this control fraternities?

Dr. Williams: Are you quoting from the State Constitution?

Dr. Brown: Read the passage from the State Constitution on discrimination.

Prof. Hooker: Isn't this a social rather than a civil right? The courts might embarrass us later.

Dr. Williams: My opinion is that the President and Board of Control should be confronted with this.

 

Senate President's Report: Dr. Van Pelt having departed, no report was given.

Voluntary Remarks of Senate members: None

 

Adjournment took place at 9:36 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
G.W. Boyd, Secretary