MINUTES OF MEETING NUMBER twenty-seven
OF THE
sENATE OF the mICHIGAN tECHNOLOGical university
27 May 1966
(Senate Minute pages: 246-252)
The meeting opened at 7:05 p.m., Friday May 27, 1966, in the Faculty Lounge President R.L. Smith presiding.
The roll was taken, 64% present: Group I - Smith, R.L., Stebbins, Meese, Townsend, Sermon, Lawrence, Miller, Krenitsky, Yerg, Noble, Williams, Romig. Group II - Bahrman, Boyd, Bredekamp, DelliQuadri, Keeling, Niemi, Pollack, Price, Tidwell, Wiedenhoefer, Wyble. Group III - Hesterberg, Snelgrove, Fryxell, Byers, Been, Guard, Bovard. Group IV - Kraft, Kenny, Johnson, V.W., Halkola, Heldt, Shandley.
Absent 36%: Group I - Howard, Garland, Bourdo, Volin. Group II - Hooker. Group III -Smith, T.N., Spain, Young, Hein, Clark, Work, Fitch. Group IV - Schnelle, Robert, Anderson W.T., Hennessy, Dobell, Frea, Hall, McInnes. No representatives of the Soo were present.
The minutes of meeting No.26 were approved as previously distributed.
Committee Reports and action on same. Old Business
Proposal 1-65, Faculty Attendance at Professional Society Meetings. Minutes pages 238-239. This proposal passed by written ballot (final) and is transmitted to President Smith.
Proposal 3-65, University Retirement Program. Minutes pages 216, 217, 223. The chairman of the special committee, Prof. Tidwell, reported that the study of the problem now in its final stages. Committee will meet again before term ends.
Proposal 4-65, Special Lectures Program. Minutes pages 218, 239. After explanation by Prof. Price that these special lectures are not necessarily those of the Concert Lecture series and that they are of non-course character, final written ballot was taken and the proposal passed and is transmitted to President Smith.
New Business. None was introduced.
Senate President's Report. President Smith reported the action of the Board of Control in approving the new Senate Constitution as follows:
BECAUSE it is of the utmost importance to the welfare and effectiveness of the University that its academic policy should at all times reflect the most enlightened professional opinion;
BECAUSE this enlightened opinion should take into consideration not only the best judgment of department heads and other administrators but also the variety of opinions and outlook of all members of the faculty;
BECAUSE the Constitution of the present Senate of Michigan Technological University, approved by the Board of Control of Michigan Technological University on June 14, 1958, has in practice proven to need revision to accomplish the aforesaid purposes;
BECAUSE revision of the current Constitution has been studied extensively by the Senate for four years, and more recently at two general faculty meetings with a substantial majority of the faculty present and approving the proposed revision, after it had been separately discussed at a series of group meetings of from 20-30 to which all members of the faculty were invited, these meetings being attended by the President of the University and the Chairman of the Senate Constitution Revision Committee; and
BECAUSE this amending revision represents the best collective judgment of the faculty and of the membership of the present Senate;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
That the revised Senate Constitution, as duly passed by the Senate, dated April 5, 1966, which amends and is a substitute for the original Senate Constitution of 1958, be ratified to take effect on the completion of the elections for the new Senate; and
That the function of the Senate is hereby defined to be that of preparing suitable recommendations on academic policy and performance for submission to the President of the University.
It was moved by J.J. Fenlon , Seconded by L.C. Verrette, and passed by voice vote without dissent that the above Senate Constitution be approved and that the above resolution concerning the new Senate Constitution and concerning the Senate be adopted.
Voluntary Remarks by Senate Members
Prof. Price requested permission to send copies of our 1965-66 Senate minutes to the other four schools of the Inter-Faculty Council. He stated that he has a collection of the minutes of their Senates from which he has taken excerpts to be given to our new Senate as suggestions.
Dean Stebbins asked why only 5 of the 10 Michigan schools are in the I.F.C. Unlike us, the other 4 are not primarily engineering schools.
Prof. Price replied that unlike the larger universities which because of the diversities of their curricula feel their own campuses to be self-sufficient, the smaller schools can supplement one another and serve as information sources to all. Even Western Michigan University with 20,000 students has remained a part of I.F.C. All schools are apt to have similar problems such as tenure regulations.
Dr. Yerg stated that the I.F.C. schools are alike in that they are "emerging institutions" and all have similar problems.
It was moved by Dr. Williams, seconded by Major Miller and passed by vote that permission be granted to Prof. Price as requested.
After Dr. Smith had stated his appreciation for the work of the old Senate, it was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Left as unfinished business are two proposals:
Proposal 4-59, Sabbatical Leave - Prof. Rakestraw has submitted a report.
Proposal 3-65, University Retirement
These will be carried over into new Senate business.
NEW SENATE
The new Senate convened at 7:50 p.m., President R.L. Smith presiding.
Prof. G. Bahrman presented the report of the election committee (Available upon request from the Senate Office)
Also members of the Senate by Constitutional provision are: Dr. R.L. Smith, University President; Presidential Representative (acting, J. Romig); Soo Representative (yet to be named).
On the basis of this report the roll call of the new Senate was taken. All were present except R.T. Brown, R.L. Hennessy, J.A. Johnson, Soo Branch representation.
Election of Officers
Nominated and accepting nomination for the office of Senate President were Prof. G. Bahrman and Prof. S. Tidwell. By written ballot, Prof. G. Bahrman was elected.
Nominated and accepting nomination for the office of Senate Vice President were Prof. S. Tidwell and Dr. L. Heldt. By written ballot Prof. S. Tidwell was elected.
Nominated and accepting nomination for the office of Senate Secretary were Prof. G.W. Boyd and Prof. J. Romig. By written ballot Prof. G.W. Boyd was elected.
At t his point, 8:13 p.m., President Smith relinquished the chair having called a five minute recess.
Senate Membership Classes
At 8:18 p.m., the new Senate reconvened, Prof. Bahrman, Senate President, presiding.
Prof. Bahrman proceeded to divide by lot the elected members into three classes (time in office) as stipulated by the constitution Article III, Section C. To do this the names of the members of each group - 3 research members, 6 at large members, 19 academic department members had been placed on cards in separate envelopes for each group. These cards were then withdrawn, one at a time, from the envelopes to determine the time in office. The first one drawn from research was established as Class 1 (one year in office). The second one drawn became Class 2 (two years in office). The third one drawn became Class 3 (three years in office).
Prof. Bovard was requested and drew as follows:
Research Members
Class 1 A.D. Kennedy - 1 year
Class 2 J.A. Johnson - 2 years
Class 3 J.F. Hamilton - 3 yearsThe six at-large members were drawn, two for each class, by Prof. Bayer as follows:
Class 1 S. Tidwell, E. Niemi - 1 year
Class 2 D. Yerg, G. Bahrman - 2 years
Class 3 M. Bredekamp, G. Boyd - 3 years
The nineteen academic department members were drawn 6-6-7 as follows:
Class 1 Berry, Lee, Oswald, Brown, Krenitsky, H.B. Anderson - 1 year
Class 2 Miller, Pollock, Heldt, Boutilier, V.W. Johnson, Noble - 2 years
Class 3 Bayer, Halkola, Hennessy, Been, Bovard, Keeling, Barstow - 3 years
Other Business
A petition signed by Mr. William Heglund, Student Council President, was submitted to the Senate. This petition was read to the Senate by Prof. Bahrman and is presented herein:
INFORMATION ON SENIOR FINAL EXAM CONFLICT
William Heglund
Resolution for Senior Final Exam ConflictWHEREAS, Commencement exercises are the day after finals; and
WHEREAS, Most graduating seniors' parents are visiting Tech for the first time for graduation; and
WHEREAS, Final exams prevent knowledge of successful completion of required graduation credits, thus allowing students to "commence" without actual knowledge of graduation; therefore,
RESOLVED, that the Student Council of Michigan Technological University recommends the adoption of one of the following proposals:
- Final exams to be optional for graduating seniors with a "C" or better in course work.
- Final exams be eliminated entirely.
- Final exams for seniors be condensed into the first few days of finals week.
- Final exams be left at discretion of instructors
The preceding is the resolution passed unanimously by the Student Council. The resolution lists four (4) alternate plans but because of the nature of the present situation and the small amount of time remaining, I think Plan 1 would be best. This means that finals would still be given but they would be optional to students that have done well during the term.
Why a resolution of this type is necessary to the student:
All of the reasons listed on the resolution would apply here. Also, on June 13, the Monday after graduation, the EIT exam will be given here for many graduating seniors. This test requires much preparation and a relaxed mental state. The seniors' chances of being successful on this test would be greatly improved given some "extra" time to prepare.
Why a resolution of this type is necessary to the school:
Students that leave school at graduation are becoming more and more aware of their personal obligations to the school for this education. This is pointed out by the increased response of these people to contribute to the various funds which, in fact, support the university. This is due, I believe, to the betterment of communication between administration, faculty, and the student. At some schools plans such as the one proposed have actually enhanced this situation.
Students are the best advertisement the university has and they have always had the highest regard for Tech. Perhaps this "break" for the graduating seniors would prejudice the students even more.
The person who is in the position to be graduating, who has only one term to go, certainly couldn't have gotten that far without knowing his "stuff." Generally, speaking, final exams will determine very little concerning final grades but will use a great deal of the senior's most precious time. And at this stage of the game his time is very scarce.
Discussion followed:
Dr. Bredekamp: The Senate should not act on a matter like this in a hurried fashion. The petition should go to the Dean.
Dr. Barstow: Moved rejection of the petition for this year, action on matter for next year. Dr. Pollock seconded.
Dr. Yerg: The Dean's Council has considered this petition.
Dr. Bredekamp: Developing a policy on a matter like this requires time not available to the Senate at this date.
Prof. Bayer: The instructors could not be ready to follow a policy formulated at this late date. Time for adjustment to elimination of the final examination lacking.
Prof. Bovard: The Dean's Council felt this is a Senate matter.
By vote, the motion carried there being only two dissenting.
Senate President Bahrman stated that the appointment of committees could not be done tonight. He requested suggestions and ideas, for example, shall the officers decide the new committees?
Prof. DelliQuadri stated that he was pleased to see the nomination of more than one candidate for the officers who were elected. He also pointed out that the use of the secret ballot, except for officers election, is bad and that all voting should be open.
Senate President Bahrman explained the election of the departmental representatives who are chosen by their departments and through signed affidavit are presented to the Senate as the official spokesmen for their departments.
Dr. Yerg stated his belief that appointment of a committee on by-laws is the first order of business although committee structure as a whole and appointments thereto is very important.
Senate President Bahrman stated that the new constitution provides the flexibility to develop by-laws as needed.
Prof. H.B. Anderson moved, Dr. Berry seconded that the six at-large members work on by-laws for presentation to the Senate next fall.
Dr. Yerg stated that singling out any group such as the "at-large" members is bad.
Vote was taken and the motion failed.
Dr. Yerg moved and Dr. Bredekamp seconded that the Senate President appoint a committee of six to work on by-laws.
Prof. Boutilier recommended the committee size be determined by the Senate President.
Vote was taken and the motion passed 17 to 2.
Dr. Bredekamp pointed out that although department members represent their departments they should always vote for the University welfare where there is a conflicting interest.
On motion the Senate adjourned at 8:54 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
G.W. Boyd, Senate Secretary