Professor Bahrman outlined the history of Proposal 1-62 as follows:

Before I begin the committee report on the proposed Senate Constitution, I should like to review, for a few minutes, the history behind the reasons for this attempt to write a new Constitution. The present Constitution was prepared by a joint committee of the Faculty and Administration over a two year period, 1957 - 1958, and after faculty adoption and Board of Control ratification, took effect on September 1, 1958. During the next four years, the accomplishments of the Senate were quite limited and most agreed that about the only major accomplishment of the Senate was its own survival. And so, with this dismal record in mind, in meeting #13 of the Senate held on May 17, 1962, a panel discussion of the MCMT Senate was held. The panel consisted of Dr. E.T. Williams as moderator, together with Professor Bredekamp, Hellman, Price, and Schnelle. At the conclusion of this discussion, it was suggested that an ad hoc committee be established for Senate revision. The Senate voted unanimously to have the Committee on Committees appoint this ad hoc committee whose purpose was the devising of recommendations to improve the Senate.

On May 21, 1962, Professor Boyd, Secretary of the Senate, sent a memorandum to Dean Kerekes, Chairman of the Committee on Committees, instructing him to appoint such a committee. In compliance with these instructions, the Committee on Committees met on May 22 and designated the following members to serve on the Senate Evaluation Committee: Professors Boyd, Niemi, Romig and Schnelle representing the General Faculty; Professor Otis representing the Sault Branch; Professor Hellman representing the Administrative Council and Professor Been representing the Executive Committee and who also acted as chairman.

The Committee on Senate Evaluation made its report available to the Senate at meeting #14 held on November 19, 1962. In its report, the committee stated that inasmuch as many of the suggestions it was making to improve the Senate were incapable of being incorporated into the present Constitution without excessive amendments, the committee recommended that a revised Constitution be compiled and submitted to the Senate at the earliest possible date.

On April 13, 1963, President J.R. Van Pelt sent a memorandum to the Committee on Committees instructing them to appoint a Constitution Revision Committee. As a result, the following were nominated to this committee: Professor Romig, Chairman, with Professors Been, Hooker, Niemi, Price and Kemp.

On November 16, 1963, at Senate meeting #17, Professor Romig gave a preliminary progress report for his committee on the following items: Plans to simplify the Senate procedure, to have Senate members elected, to have membership of faculty with tenure and to eliminate departmental representatives.

At meeting #18, held on February 24, 1964, Romig stated that he hoped to have the final draft of the proposed new Constitution ready for the Spring Senate meeting.

At meeting #19, held on May 12, 1964, Professor Price, in the absence of Professor Romig, read a statement in the form of a progress report on the three drafts (A, B, and C) of the new Constitution as reported out of the Senate Constitution Revision Committee.

At meeting #20, held on November 10, 1964, Professor Romig reported on the final draft of the proposed Constitution as agreed upon by the following members of his committee: Niemi, Hooker, Price and Romig. Members Been and Kemp were absent from the meeting at which the final draft was agreed to. It was stated that Professor Price had some basic reservations with regard to this proposed Constitution and some exceptions to make to it. Professor Romig discussed the new proposed Constitution and stated he did not intend to make any motion concerning it that evening but rather that the Senate members look it over and make suggestions at some later date to the Committee.

At meeting #21, held on March 2, 1965, Professor Romig reported that no suggestions had been received nor changes made in the proposed Constitution as presented at meeting #20. At this time Professor Romig stated that the present Senate can be made to work. At this meeting Dr. Schnelle presented for consideration a different version of the Senate Constitution, one modeled from AAUP documents, and distributed copies to the Senate. A motion was made and supported to refer both proposed Constitutions and the present Constitution to a committee to study and consolidate the best parts of the three versions and to come up with a new Constitution. The motion passed by a vote of 30 to 7 to refer the three Constitutions to a committee. The Committee on Committees was requested to appoint a new committee to do this job.

On March 4, 1965, the Committee on Committees met and appointed the following members to another committee to revise the Constitution: Professors Ward (Sault), Young, Halkola, Keeling, Pollack, and Bahrman as Chairman. I might say that, quite understandably, Professor Ward did not participate in any of our meetings.

This is the background leading up to the organization of this committee. None of us volunteered to do this work. We wrote this new proposal because you asked us to do it for you and it represents our best efforts.

All constitutions have been considered. The old (present) Constitution, Professor Romig's version, Professor Price's minority report on the Romig version and Dr. Schnelle's version. Each of these were broken down into parts and compared part by part. The final result is the form distributed to the Senate members on October 13, 1965 and presented here this evening.

Prof. DelliQuadri asked whether this work is considered a new Constitution or amendment to the old.

President Smith stated it to be an amendment and asked Parliamentarian Fryxell for a ruling.

Prof. DelliQuadri pointed out that procedure will be determined by this decision.

Dr. Fryxell quoted page 159, Parliamentary Procedure by Emma A. Fox:

When a general revision of a constitution or by-laws has been submitted, the motion to bring the proposed revision before the assembly for consideration is in effect that the constitution (or by-laws as the case may be) now in force be amended by substituting the constitution or by-laws presented.

 

Prof. Bahrman partially read the proposed constitution pointing out important aspects of it.

Name - doesn't include the Soo because they need their own Senate.

Article II - Functions not pin-pointed. Only a framework provided. After start-up of the new Senate, by-laws will be provided.

Article III - Membership of eighteen not sacred. Chosen since divisible by three for term rotation. Nine departments at least will be represented. Six years maximum incumbency provides for new memberships and ideas. The University President desired present. If not possible then his representative shall be present appointed for this purpose to provide essential data on the business at hand and possibly for one meeting only.

Other sections were read by Prof. Bahrman.

Dr. Schnelle stated that he approves much of the constitution but disagrees with Article II - Functions. These should be unrestricted, not limited to academic policy and performance. This limitation has always blocked Senate performance and caused arbitrary elimination of important things from discussion at previous Senate meetings. The AAUP version of Senate constitutions gives complete freedom. Early completion of this new constitution was recommended by Dr. Schnelle who further stated that he can't see the need for Board of Control approval in Article VIII since the Senate only recommends action, therefore, the last sentence in Article VIII should be struck.

Prof. Bahrman read the Board of Control statement made at the time the old constitution was adopted. This statement is reproduced here. He asked how the Faculty can be expert in certain fields?

 

STATEMENT BY BOARD OF CONTROL

The following resolution was adopted by the Board of Control on June 14, 1958 in connection with the Board's ratification of the Constitution:

Academic Policy Functions of the Faculty

WHEREAS, it is of the utmost importance to the welfare and effectiveness of the College that its academic policy should at all time reflect the most enlightened professional opinion, and

WHEREAS, this enlightened opinion should take into consideration not only the mature judgment of department heads and administrators but also the variety of opinions and outlook of all members of the faculty,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,

That the Board of Control extends a cordial invitation to the faculty to express its opinions and recommendations on matters of academic policy, through the regularly established channels therefore;

That in order to provide such channels, the proposed Constitution of the Senate dated April 16, 1958, as amended, be ratified, to take effect on September 1, 1958; and

That the function of the Senate is hereby defined to be that of preparing suitable recommendations on the curriculum, the methods of instruction and testing, and the standards for admission, promotion, and graduation, both at the undergraduate and the graduate level; and that such function shall not include recommendations on administrative matters such as those of finance and personnel, which are in the nature of machinery to implement academic policy. The Board welcomes the establishment of the Senate as a major forward step in the evolution of the College's guidance of academic policy, and looks forward to many years of effective cooperative relations with it, and through it with the General Faculty.

 

Dr. Schnelle: Other recommendations should be deserving of attention by the Board of Control.

Prof. Bahrman: To succeed we must stick to academic policy.

Dr. Keeling: Can't all recommendations be included if they are an aid to academic policy?

Dr. Schnelle: Desire all ideas be permissible to Senate discussion.

Dr. Young: Hates to see the committee forced to defend this Constitution. All Senate members should discuss it. The committee presents it as their best effort. Suggests that the committee explain only.

President Smith: Let's have free discussion!

Dr. Fryxell: Quoting Robert's Rules -- "Decisions made by the chairman can be appealed."

Prof. DelliQuadri: Am disturbed by references to the Board of Control. Hopeful that a new President and a new constitution will give new freedom.

Dr. Yerg: Who decides what is or is not academic policy?

Prof. Bahrman: The chairman decides this.

Dr. Schnelle: The chair must not be autocratic.

President Smith: The chairman is be changed. Not to be the President of the University.

Dr. Snelgrove: Do you want the Senate to be a study or debating group? Suggests that the Senate share with the Dean of the Faculty responsibility for all matters of an academic character including policy and standards and in an advisory capacity, make recommendations thereon to the President.

At the request of President Smith, a letter from Dr. Work was read by the secretary since Dr. Work could not attend the meeting. The communication follows:

 

Membership of the Senate

The proposed new Senate Constitution specifies that a major part of its membership shall be elected at large from the General Faculty. The definition of General Faculty excludes professional staff members from groups such as Continuing Education, Offices of the Dean of Students, Controller, Registrar, Physical Plant, and several others even though some of these individuals do hold faculty rank. Presumably this exclusion is intentional and any representation of their views is to be through the four members appointed by the President.

Election of the "Faculty" senators on a strictly at-large basis leaves much to be desired. The limitation that no more than two of these shall be from one "department" is not a convincing assurance of adequate representation of the diversity of points of view of the faculty as a whole. The term "department" is not defined. There are 15 recognized academic departments which seem clearly to fit the term. Which of the other six groups listed below are to be classified as departments for the purposes of the 2 per department limitation?

Ford Forestry Center
Institute of Mineral Research
Library
Air Force ROTC
Army ROTC
Institute of Wood Research
Keweenaw Field Station

Because there is such a variety of sizes of departments (from 4 to about 25) one member per department is not necessarily the best representation for the Senate. Neither is the entirely at-large scheme in which senators could conceivably come from 9 departments leaving 6 to 13 with no direct contact with Senate decisions.

Assuming the total membership of 23 is about right, an alternative which makes sense to me would be to provide elected representation from every department with at least 10 (or perhaps 12) faculty members and 8 senators elected at large, no more than 3 of which could be from departments with departmental senators. Five representatives from administrative divisions would still be appropriate. As the various departments grow and more are added, the numbers suggested above should be changed by Senate action.

 

Dr. Yerg: Senators are qualified to hear complaints, etc. If information is needed the appropriate sources can be obtained.

Prof. Hennessy: Why not say that the Senate will study anything?

Dr. Schnelle: My final comment. Faculty people will recommend what they please and shouldn't be limited. Article II should be changed.

Prof. DelliQuadri: The membership of the new Senate totals 23. Control vote is 12. Are 12 non-administrators (not department heads) to be elected to balance this?

Prof. Bahrman: All 18 elected members (possibly including department heads) are elected at large.

Prof. DelliQuadri: The Senate would not be representative unless 12 faculty, non-administrators, elected.

Dr. Yerg: The Graduate Council faced the same problem but balanced its election procedure. The trend is to elect department heads since they are apt to be better known.

Dr. Young: How many department heads are now on the council?

Dr. Yerg: The membership is balanced - 3 department heads, 3 not department heads.

Dr. Young: Complaints about the present Senate include arbitrary elimination of items from Senate business by the chairman. The new Senate chairman will not be so empowered. How then can academic policy be limited? Anything at all can be discussed. No amount of rules but only the people and chairman will make the Senate a success.

Dr. Yerg: Will the president's appointees have a term of office?

President Smith: A certain time in an office has merit.

Prof. Bahrman: The President can appoint anyone. Not necessary that they be administrators.

Dr. Yerg: Administrators are not limited to action by the Senate. They can go to other authority.

President Smith: Part of the Executive Committee, hereafter called the Dean's Council consisting of Department Heads, will report to Dean Stebbins in the future.

Prof. DelliQuadri: What is the procedure to amend?

Dr. Fryxell: The old Constitution is relevant. It makes provision to amend.

This provision is as follows:

ARTICLE VIII - AMENDMENTS

Amendments to this Constitution may be initiated by any ten members of the Senate or by the President. If and as approved by a majority vote for further processing, they shall be incorporated in the minutes, and shall be finally voted on at a Senate meeting at least two weeks after distribution of such minutes. For final approval, a two-thirds vote of the entire membership of the Senate shall be required. Adoption of the amendment shall be effective upon the approval of the Board of Control of the College.

 

Prof. J.F. Hamilton, President of the Faculty Association, reported on a poll taken by the Faculty Association comparing the merits of the new proposed constitution, reported in these minutes, and the constitution proposed to the Senate by Dr. Schnelle, reported in the minutes of Senate meeting #21, March 2, 1965, pp. 202-203. This report in the form of the poll with the votes cast is included here:

TO:               MTU Faculty

FROM:         The Faculty Association Council

SUBJECT:  Proposed Senate Constitution

The MTU Senate will discuss the proposed new Senate Constitution on Friday, November 5. Copies of the proposed constitution have been made available to Senate members, and through them to many of the General Faculty.

The Faculty Association Council would like to canvass members of the General Faculty to ascertain their attitudes toward certain aspects of the proposed constitution. Please fill out the following questionnaire and return it to your Council representative by noon Thursday, Nov. 4, so that the results can be compiled and made available at the Senate meeting on Friday.

I - From the proposed constitution:

A: "The functions of the Senate shall be to conduct studies in matters affecting academic policy and performance at all levels and to prepare recommendations thereon for submittal to the President of the University for appropriate action."

Will such a statement continue the distinction inherent in the old constitution between "academic policy" and "operational procedure"? Under the new document, can such matters as promotional policy, merit or step pay increment policies, research policies, building priorities, admissions policies, granting of honorary degrees be legitimate concerns of the Senate?

Another proposal presented to the Senate last year and endorsed by the Council contained the following statement of functions:

B: "The functions of the Senate shall be to conduct studies and to submit recommendations to the President of the University on all matters which the Senate shall deem appropriate."

This statement confers no more actual power upon the Senate than the previous one, you will note, since the Senate is still authorized merely to recommend to the President.

30 A      80 B      Please mark which one of the above you prefer.
14 C                    Or would you prefer an explicit statement delineating specifically the functions of the Senate?

II. The proposed constitution calls for meetings of the Senate twice a term. If this often enough? 100 Yes     25 No

III. The proposed constitution calls for all elected members of the Senate (a total of 18) to be elected at large from among the Faculty with tenure, with no more than two to come from any one department. (In addition, the Senate is to include the President of MTU or his designated representative and four of his appointees)

In the other proposed constitution referred to earlier, membership was to consist of the President of the University, one elected representative from each department, and six representatives elected at large -- all with tenure (except for the President).

Please indicate your preference for membership as follows:

A. 96   One representative elected by each department
B. 14   None elected at large
C. 63   Some elected at large
D. 21   All elected at large
E. 17   No administrators
F. 57   The President or his representative only
G. 38   Four administrative appointees
H.   2   More administrators (specify _________)

IV - Although the proposed constitution of course allows for elected representatives (but responsible only to the Faculty at Large), it provides no machinery by which the General Faculty can evaluate, question, or even countermand action of the Senate. Last year's alternate proposal contained the following provision:

"At least once each term, at a meeting of the General Faculty convened primarily for that purpose and presided over by the President of the University or his representative, designated members of the Senate and the Administration shall report to the General Faculty on action taken by the Senate since the time of the latest meeting of the General Faculty, and on the implementation thereof by the Administration. At these meetings, any action taken by the Senate may be challenged by any member of the Faculty and that action, may by vote of the Faculty, be amended, revoked, or referred to a committee appointed by the Chairman for study and report at the next meeting. The challenging member will always be designated chairman of any study committee so appointed."

A. Do you favor such a provision?      94 Yes      30 No

B. Should such a Faculty body be limited to those with tenure?      43 Yes      75 No

C. Do you have tenure?      66 Yes      60 No

D. In the event that you preferred in IIIA, a Senate with departmental representation, would the above provision make acceptable to you a Senate whose elected members were all elected at large? (Leave blank if you favor an elected membership all at large as in IIID)

17 Yes      77 No

TOTAL NUMBER OF GENERAL FACULTY MEMBERS REPORTING

128 out of 198, exclusive of these departments:
     Admin: 3 out of 40 reporting
     Phys. Ed. (8) and Geology (7) not reporting because their representatives are ill.

 

Prof. Bahrman: Poll item 1B comes from the AAUP version.

Dr. Schnelle: The framing of this version was a committee action later approved by the AAUP membership, presented to the faculty and approved by the Faculty Association Council before presentation to the Senate.

Prof. Bahrman: A Senate committee should have made the constitution revision.

Dr. Schnelle: AAUP desired to provide a better version than had been presented at that time.

Dr. Williams: Proposed action on the constitution piece by piece.

Dr. Young: Article VIII calls for Board of Control approval of any constitution and amendments. Unless this is true the Senate might override the Board of Control.

Prof. Romig: Yes, but the Board of Control might not get the chance unless President Smith recommends it to them.

Dr. Schnelle: The Senate would then collapse. If this happens then a free organization like the Faculty Association can be utilized.

Dr. Young: Is this Senate a governing body?

Dr. Schnelle: I do not think the Board of Control needs to act on a constitution.

Prof. DelliQuadri: Why was the Board of Control not mentioned in Article II? It should be consistent with VIII.

Prof. Bahrman: Moved to adjourn the meeting to December 8, 1965 at 7:00 p.m. to consider the constitution then since this only a report. The motion was carried.