MINUTES OF MEETING NUMBER 47
OF The
sENATE OF mICHIGAN tECHNOLOGical university

8 October 1969

(Senate Minute pages: 435-449)

Meeting No. 47 was called to order at 7:05 p.m., Wednesday October 8, 1969, in the Faculty Lounge of the Memorial Union, with President M.W. Bredekamp presiding.

The roster was checked by the Secretary. Twenty-six members were present including two replacements: RS. Horvath for J.A. Oswald (EE), who had resigned from the Senate October 3 and C.A. Matrosic for V.J. Polich (Army ROTC). G.J. Caspary was present as representative of the newly created Department of Applied Technology. R. Bayer represented the Mechanical Engineering - Engineering Mechanics Department. Absent were Hollad (Air Force ROTC), J.A. Johnson (Ford Forestry), E. Vandette (SS), W. Freyberger (MY).

Minutes of Meeting No. 46

The minutes of Meeting No. 46 were accepted as previously distributed.

Senate President's Report

1. President Bredekamp briefly summarized administrative action taken on the latest Senate recommendations. (President Smith's responses are to be found following p. 21 of the "Report to the Faculty" for the year ending September, 1969)
   
   
2. A report of the University Parking Committee was read. (See Appendix A - Available by Request from the Senate Office)
   
   
3. The Chair summarized some of the developments in the Management Advisory Committee, on which he represents the Senate by invitation.
   
   
4. Under changes in membership, mention was made of those cited above. In addition, the Chair announced that by decision of the Executive Council of the Senate, the Division of Public Services will no longer be entitled to representation on the Senate, because it cannot be classified as a teaching department.
   
   
5. The Chair also mentioned the Faculty meeting of October 8, at which the Senate reported to the Faculty. He estimated the attendance to be about 50, from all areas of the University, and expressed general satisfaction with the meeting, which was a new departure at Michigan Tech.
   
   
6. A question was posed by Senator DelliQuadri as to when the recommendations of the Senate which had been accepted and approved by the Administration or the Board of Control presumably are put into effect. At once, was the reply of the Chair.
   
   

Election of Officers

The nominating committee (G.E. Bahrman, chairman) submitted the following slate of nominees for office for 1969-70:
President: O.D. Boutilier and M.W. Bredekamp
Vice President: W.L. Freyberger and G.P. Krueger
Secretary: S.C. Nordeng and S.R. Price

Ballots were collected and tallied with the following results:
President: M.W. Bredekamp
Vice President: G.P. Krueger
Secretary: S.R. Price

Committee Reports

1. Curricular Policy Committee
   
   Several members on this committee, including the chairman, will be replaced at their request. Appointments will be announced at the next meeting.
   
   
   
2. Instructional Policy Committee
   
   The same applies to this committee.
   
   
   
3. Student-Faculty-Senate Relations Committee
   
   Senator O.D. Boutilier moved the adoption of Proposal 1-70.
   
   It is recommended that the Senate create a standing committee to be known as the Student-Faculty-Senate Relations Committee.
   
   PURPOSE: This standing committee of the Senate shall be concerned with equity relating to academic affairs.
   
   COMPOSITION:
   
   
   1. The committee shall be composed of ten (10) members; five (5) faculty members appointed by the Senate and five (5) students elected by the Student Council.
   2. The Senate shall designate one of the five faculty members as chairman.
      

   PROCEDURE:

   1. The committee shall act as a clearing house for student grievances pertaining to academic affairs.
   2. The committee shall establish and publicize early in the Fall term the time, dates, and location of all regular meetings of the committee for that academic year.
   3. The committee shall hold regular meetings twice each term. These meetings shall be scheduled so that the committee may report on its activities at each regularly scheduled meeting of the Senate. Special meetings shall be held as required.

   Professor Halkola called the attention of the Senate to the fact that the proposal calls for the creation of a new standing committee of the Senate. Discussion was desultory. Two Senators (DelliQuadri and Alexander) questioned the meaning of the term "equity" in the proposal. "Fairness in dealing" was the reply. Alexander also questioned the nature of the relationship of the committee to the present structure of the University. Price acknowledged difficulty in imagining just how the committee would function, and wondered about the lack of provision for administrators on the committee, by means of whom its findings might sooner be brought home to the faculty. He expressed fear that the students might interpret the setup as a means of giving them the runaround.
   
   On a vote by show of hands, the measure was defeated by a vote of 11 to 9 , with 6 abstaining.
   
   At the request of the Chair, it was moved that the committee be discharged. It was so ordered on the basis of a voice vote.
   
   

4. Honors Program
   
   Senator J.F. Hamilton read a progress report of this committee. It is attached to these minutes as Appendix B (Available by Request from the Senate Office).
   
   
5. Change of Status Committee
   
   Senator Nordeng, chairman, requested the appointment of a new committee member to replace D.W. Pollock.
   
   
6. Accommodation Programs Committee
   
   Senator Price, chairman, moved the adoption of the following proposal: (Proposal 2-70)
   
   Resolved,
   
   That the MTU Faculty Senate support increased effort throughout the University to bring promising disadvantaged students the benefits of University training and education, and that to this end specifically, the Faculty be encouraged to contribute a scholarship fund and to support the concept of a teacher exchange program with other institutions.
   
   
   Price asserted that the committee felt that much of its purpose had already been fulfilled through the response to and feedback from its report of last spring (Senate Minutes pp. 428-433) by the Admissions office and the Office of the Dean of Students.
   
   To a question from Senator Ortner about the appropriateness of including in the resolution a proposal for the creation of a teacher exchange program, Price replied that the committee had forborne to include (as too far afield) a suggested proposal for a Community College setup, even though a Community College would undoubtedly provide the greatest boost to a program for disadvantaged students on the campus. But a school in the West, similar to Tech, has reportedly already made overtures to Tech for a teacher exchange program. If this concept would be expanded to include, say, schools elsewhere where minority-group students predominate, some of our staff could no doubt make real contributions to the education of disadvantaged or minority-group students on other such campuses (which would be consistent with the proposal), and they could also learn first hand some of the problems posed by teaching in such circumstances. At the same time, the exchange program would bring to the MTU campus faculty members from such schools who might profit from an experience on the Tech campus. The possibility of some kind of tie-in with the Sabbatical program was also mentioned.
   
   Since Price had referred to the local climate as one of the apparent hindrances to recruiting black students, Senator Horvath pointed out that bringing black faculty members and their families to the community even on a temporary basis might have an important influence on what, to his knowledge, is an even more important factor than the climate: the entire local environment, especially off the campus, where acceptance of black students leaves something to be desired.
   
   Price also mentioned the enthusiastic response of the office of the Dean of Students to a suggestion of a Faculty-sponsored scholarship program, in view of the stringent grade-point requirements of most government-aid programs for what are essentially high-risk students.
   
   Brought to a show of hands, Proposal 2-70 passed by a vote of 19 Yes, 0 No, with 7 Abstentions.
   
   At the invitation of the Chair, it was moved by Caspary that the committee be continued so as to bring to the Senate some concrete suggestions for implementation of its proposal. Senator Heldt conveyed a suggestion from his department that the faculty be solicited through the development office for funds for the scholarship program for disadvantaged students. The motion carried by voice vote.
   
   
7. Sick Leave Committee
   
   Senator Ortner reported that no progress has been made so far by this committee.
   
   
8. Senate Coordinating Committee
   
   Senator D. Thayer presented the attached (Appendix C - Available by Request from the Senate Office) as the report of the chairman of the committee. As indicated at the end of the report, the committee has not yet arrived at a consensus.
   
   
9. University Parking Study
   
   With the report of the Chair, the duties of the Senate members of this committee were declared terminated (without prejudice).
   
   
10. Retirement System Investigation
    
    Now that the Faculty has been given a choice between TIAA and the Michigan retirement system, the work of this committee was also declared finished.
    
    
11. Student Behavior Policy
    
    With the endorsement of the policy adopted by the Student Council and the Senate (Minutes p. 421, Proposal 18-69), this committee was also discharged.
    
    
12. Sabbatical Leave Committee
    
    Senator Heldt gave the report of this, a University (or an administrative rather than a Senate) committee.
    
    Four Faculty members applied for Sabbatical leave this year. Three applications were later withdrawn, and the fourth was rejected. Thus no one is on Sabbatical leave during the current academic year.
    
    Senator Heldt explained that although only a general description of the proposed activity was expected in the applications, those which were turned in lacked even this. He thought that perhaps the form being used might be partially to blame, since it invited just "fill-ins." He pointed out that last May, President Smith had issued a new guide for Sabbatical proposals, which was distributed to the faculty.
    
    Upon request, Heldt read from the policy, as adopted by the Board of Control. The leave is to be devoted to a period of "creative activity for furthering professional competence."
    
    Senator Bredekamp, a member of the committee, indicated that the fourth proposal had not really been rejected; it had simply not been positively recommended. All of the authors of the proposals had been requested to rewrite them.
    
    Thayer: This still leaves my question unanswered. What is creative activity?
    Sachs: Yes, how about taking a year off to write a book? Is that creative activity?
    Bredekamp: No; that could be done while one is engaging in full-time teaching.
    
    
    
    At this point, Senator Krueger rose to express his disappointment over the discharge of the Student-Faculty-Senate Relations Committee. He moved to reestablish the committee; the motion was seconded.
    
    The Chair then invited comment from David Halkola, committee chairman.
    
    Halkola: As I look about me, I feel that I am confronting the establishment. The Senate has taken the trouble to establish an Ombudsman committee to handle the grievances of the Faculty; it has approved a resolution on student disorders that will give considerable clout to the school to handle those students who do not conform. Though in that policy MTU "pledges itself to maintain open channels of communication through which those who have grievances, suggestions, questions, or who are dissatisfied with the status quo may express themselves in a meaningful manner and through which they may bring about orderly change," nevertheless, the Senate has turned down the attempt of the Student-Faculty-Senate Committee to develop a means of accomplishing this objective.
    
    Boutilier: Few students were willing to volunteer for this committee because they feared it would all be wasted effort; they were convinced that the Senate is not interested in developing an avenue for students to air their grievances.
    
    Nordeng: What devices exist now for students to present complaints?
    
    Alexander: I have no desire to close off means for student communications. I should like the mechanism to be better defined; the jurisdiction to be spelled out; the functions to be more clearly delineated; and the relationship to the existing structure of the University indicated.
    
    Thayer: Department heads and department counselors are charged with the responsibility for hearing complaints pertaining to academic matters.
    
    CHAIR: Remember the Senate can amend any motion.
    
    Krueger: (in effect) called for question.
    
    The motion was passed with 25 affirmative votes (one abstention).

Old Business

Proposal 19-69: Constitutional Amendment

"General Faculty" -- Second Vote

CHAIR: The aim of the amendment is to substitute the term "Academic Faculty" for "General Faculty" wherever the latter appears in the Senate Constitution. If now approved by two-thirds of those present, this change will be sent to the general faculty for approval, where again approval by two-thirds (of those voting) will be required for adoption. The effect of this change will be to restrict the Senate concerns to the academic groups on the campus -- those engaged in research, teaching in the graduate and undergraduate schools, and the administration involved in academic affairs. The self-liquidating agencies and the building and groups personnel, for example, would no longer vote on Senate affairs.

The measure was passed 25 to 0 (1 abstention). A vote on the matter will now be taken among the general faculty.

New Business

1. Procedure for Election of the Ombudsman Committee
   
   CHAIR: With the adoption of the proposal for the creation of a committee for the selection of an Ombudsman and the approval of the Proposal by the Board of Control, it is necessary for the Senate to elect a member for the selection committee. Shall we nominate and vote for a delegate now; nominate and vote at the next meeting; or appoint a committee to select nominees?
   
   Senator LaJeunesse moved that a committee be appointed to nominate Senators to fill this post. The motion passed 21 to 0. The Chair then requested all members of the Senate who would refuse to accept the office of Ombudsman if it were offered them to let him know this writing. Any one of them would thus be eligible for election to the post of Senate delegate to the three-man committee charged with the responsibility of selecting an Ombudsman.
   
   Senator Stebbins: Is the Ombudsman proposal designed to cover just problems arising among the academic faculty, or does it cover the general faculty?
   
   Keeling: It covers the general faculty.
   
   
2. Mechanical Engineering Department Co-op Plans
   
   Senator Bayer read to the Senate a statement concerning the decision of the Department of Mechanical Engineering to embark upon a cooperative education program (Appendix D -- Available by Request from the Senate Office).
   

The Chair then adjourned the meeting.

S.R. Price
Secretary