MINUTES OF MEETING NUMBER thirty-five
OF THE
sENATE OF the mICHIGAN tECHNOLOGical university
11 October 1967
(Senate Minute pages: 305-311)
The meeting opened at 7:06 p.m., Wednesday October 11, 1967, in the Faculty Lounge, Senate President G.E. Bahrman presiding. President Bahrman announced that Dr. Bredekamp was unable to attend so item IV C to be removed from the agenda.
The roll was taken. Present (22) were: Bahrman, Boutilier, Johnson, J.A., Johnson, V.W., Noble, Pollock, Yerg, Barstow, Boyd, Halkola, Hamilton, Brown, Brylla, Kennedy, Kenny, Ortner, Oswald, Patterson, Price, Wyble, Smith, R.L., Stebbins.
Absent (8) were: Heldt, Sheedy, Bayer, Been, Bovard, Bredekamp, Hennessy, Keeling.
Guests present were: Bourdo, Dawson, Ellis, Niemi, Spahn.
Election of Officers of the Senate for 1967-68 followed. Prof. J.A. Oswald presented the report of the nominating committee consisting of the names of two Senate members for each office who had been informed of their nomination by the committee and had agreed to serve if elected. If a tie vote resulted for any office, it was agreed that a coin toss by the Secretary would decide the winner. The nominees were: For President: D.T. Halkola; R.L. Hennessy. Vice President: R. Bayer; O.D. Boutilier. Secretary: G.W. Boyd, A.D. Kennedy. These names were printed on a ballot for voting. Elected were D.T. Halkola, President; O.D. Boutilier, Vice President; G.W. Boyd, Secretary.
After the election, Prof. Halkola took the chair and complimented Prof. Bahrman on his excellent work as Senate President. He also stated that his own election was remarkable since he is not from an engineering department. Since he is a Professor of Humanities, he stated a probable need for assistance from the engineering members of the Senate when engineering terminology is employed.
The minutes of Meetings #34 were approved as previously distributed.
Old Business - Committee Reports
A. Election Procedure Committee. W.E. Barstow, Chairman, distributed a revised form of the proposal which was shown in minutes pp. 281-83; 294. This revised form provides for problems noted in the previous one concerning (1) General Faculty definition; (2) Vacation of office by Senators; (3) Departmental internal election procedures; (4) Eligibility of Senators. This revised version is presented here. Prof. Barstow proposed adoption at the next Senate meeting of this proposal.
ELECTION PROCEDURE - MTU SENATE
Senate Election Committee
Eligibility of Electors and Candidates
Election of Senators-at-Large
Election of Senators - Representatives
Election Schedule
Unscheduled Senator-Representative Vacancies
B. Conflict of Interest Policy. Prof. J.A. Oswald after mentioning the history of this proposal moved its adoption. Prof. Barstow seconded and the Senate approved by majority vote the adoption.
C. Faculty Definition. Postponed to next meeting.
D. Academic Rank Committee, D.W. Stebbins, Chairman. Dr. Stebbins stated that copies of a revised version of the previous proposal will be distributed to Senate members well in advance of the next Senate meeting at which time action can be taken. Relatively little change has been made in the revised form.
E. University Academic and Research Organization, M. Krenitsky, former chairman,. Action on this old business was delayed pending the arrival of Dr. Heldt. Other business was conducted as described later in the minutes to preserve consistency. At 7:50 Prof. Barstow, also a member of the committee, acting for it, stated:
Prof. Barstow moved, Mr. Kennedy seconded, that the Senate accept the five school approach as shown by Chart I, but not the subdivisions under each school, as the consensus.
Discussion followed. Somewhat abstracted, it was:
Prof. Noble stated his concern since his division (Continuing Education) involved. He pointed out the C. Ed. has presented degree programs since 1957 and not limited to engineering. Summer sessions are involved also. Progress is being made under the present arrangement. He recommended separate school status for C. Ed. and asked why the committee wished to change the present arrangement.
Prof. Barstow: The Committee questioned the academic standards as compared to the basic structure. The consensus was that association of research with related academic areas desirable. Actual organization is an administrative problem. This report is a broad recommendation.
Prof. Oswald stated a preference for Chart II organization.
Major Brylla: All engineering departments should be under Engineering. Recommend Chart II.
Prof. Hamilton: IWR works for industrial development. Feel that Chart II best.
Prof. Barstow: All this discussion is irrelevant to the motion.
Senate President Halkola: That is true but too closely related to ignore.
Prof. Dawson (guest) was invited to speak. He feels that Chart I would delay, Chart II, enhance, MTU action on research proposals.
Dr. Yerg: Supports Prof. Oswald's preference for Chart II. Stated that Mineral Industries are over-rated. Geophysics graduates 1 or 2. Mining fading. Geological Engineering not engineering.
Dr. Smith: The School of Engineering is not formalized. The Dean of Engineering has certain departments now. A state of flux exists here.
Dr. Pollock: Supports Chart I.
Dr. Brown: Is ROTC engineering?
Major Brylla: In most places under Arts and Science as Military Science.
Prof. Hamilton moved, Prof. Noble seconded, tabling the motion. This motion was defeated by vote.
Senate President Halkola: No formal motion made at previous meeting since no specific proposal was evident then.
Prof. Barstow: Names given the five schools are generic, not specific. Subject to change if advisable.
Prof. Niemi (guest) was asked to speak and he indicated that he doubted that the committee consensus was the five school organization supported by Prof. Barstow.
Prof. Price pointed out that if change to be made in the five school naming, no final vote can be made now.
Dr.Yerg: A sixth school is needed - the Graduate School.
The question was called for and Dr. Barstow's motion for Chart I (in part) failed. Vote: 4 yes, 22 no to accept.
Prof. Barstow stated that this organization plan is an administrative problem and no unanimity of opinion is possible. He suggested that a written discussion in the Faculty Forum be used.
Prof. Oswald moved that Chart II, as written, be considered the consensus. Prof. Hamilton seconded.
Discussion followed. Dr. Pollock feels Chart II is not good since departmental research should be under the Department Head.
Prof. Barstow moved amendment to the motion - "And also the Senate recommends Chart I and sends both charts to Administration." Dr. Brown seconded this.
Senate President Halkola ruled this amendment in contrast to the motion and therefore not an amendment but a contrary motion.
The Senate by majority vote approved this ruling.
Prof. Price stated that if Chart II is not accepted by the Senate, then the Senate is not decided. The committee is to be commended on their work, however. The report can be accepted by the Senate.
Dr. Yerg stated that the transmission of the report to Administration is the best the Senate can do. All are willing to live within the framework of Charts I or II.
The question was called for and Prof. Oswald's motion for Chart II as Senate consensus failed. Vote 5 yes, 17 no to accept.
Dr. Yerg moved, Prof. V.W. Johnson seconded, that the Senate accept the committee report and transmit it to the University President for his information without recommendation.
The Senate passed this motion by vote almost unanimously.
New Business
A. Emeritus Rank Committee, O.D. Boutilier, Chairman. Prof. Boutilier discussed the charge given the committee by President Smith and the problems involved such as time of service and age of the retiring person. He read his committee report which he had distributed to the Senate at this meeting. The report follows:
President Halkola asked if the committee moved consideration of the report by the Senate.
Prof. Boutilier moved, Dr. Stebbins seconded, that the Senate consider this report.
Prof. Barstow discussed the 10 day notice required by #5 and #6 of the By-Laws. Although stalling can be practiced through this, it is helpful to avoid snap decisions. A report can be discussed and only straw vote taken when a proposal is first submitted at a meeting.
Senate President Halkola discussed the emergency submission provision (By-Law #6). The Senate showed no feeling that this was an emergency.
Discussion followed.
Dr. Brown: Who determines Emeritus Rank?
Prof. Boutilier: Our Board of Control.
Dr. Smith: This is the policy at Tech and all qualified do receive it.
Prof. Boutilier: Read policy followed at the University of Illinois. Seems much like ours.
Dr. Smith: The question of age is important. It is possible to retire at 52 after 10 years of service.
Dr. Pollock: Can a Committee devise the emeritus policy?
Dr. Smith: Would be happy to have the committee do this.
Prof. Oswald: What can bar selection? Age and future plans are not specified.
Prof. Price: The individual's personal character and characteristics are important and should be considered.
Dr. Yerg: Suggested termination of the discussion. Stated that the committee should do additional work on the proposal.
Prof. Price: Feels that proposal satisfactory now if retirement is defined.
B. Meeting Dates for 1967-68 Senate
Fall Term 1967 Wednesday, October 11 and November 8
Winter Term 1968 Wednesday, January 24 and February 21
Spring Term 1968 Wednesday, April 10 and May 15Time 7:00 p.m. Place to be announced on Agendas mailed 10 days prior to meeting to Senators and on weekly bulletin.
These meeting dates were accepted by the Senate
C. Other New Business
The Senate adjourned at 9:32 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
G.W. Boyd, Senate Secretary