MINUTES OF MEETING NUMBER 50
OF The
sENATE OF mICHIGAN tECHNOLOGical university

18 February 1970

(Senate Minute pages: 498-509)

Meeting No. 50 was called to order on Wednesday February 18, at 7:05 p.m. in the Faculty Lounge by President M.W. Bredekamp presiding.

The roster was checked by the Secretary. Twenty-seven members and several observers were present. Absent were: A Kennedy (IMR); F. Erbisch (BL) and D. Wyble (AL), all with explanation; and G. Caspary (AT).

 

Minutes of Meeting No. 49

Minutes of meeting No. 49 were approved with the following corrections: (1) p. 460, in words attributed to Keeling, to lines 3 and 4 add the words underlined: "it robs the exceptional student of the chance to excel in a group, and the average student of the interplay of competition." (2) In the preceding paragraph (p. 460) change "Keeling was challenged by DelliQuadri" to "Keeling was requested by DelliQuadri . . ."

 

Senate President's Report

  1. It was pointed out that five days are often insufficient to prepare the agenda for mailing and to get it into the hands of the faculty. Committees are urged either to give 380 copies of the proposals to the Secretary 15 days before meetings or to provide fair copies 20 days before meetings. Also, from this point on, the agenda will be a matter of record. Pagination will include it, and reference may be made to proposals found only in the agenda.

  2. President Smith has appointed Ed Vandette as the administrative representative to the committee for selection of an Ombudsman.

  3. The Chair reported on a trip to Lansing, where the subject of collective bargaining was explored. There it was reported that one of the state universities is using its faculty senate as a bargaining agent; another is using an AAUP chapter; another is using the MAHE; at another the Teaching Fellows are organizing. Also, many local colleges have bargaining arrangements.

  4. A memorandum from Vice President Stebbins requests the Senate to propose a means for the selection of a nominee for the Danforth Foundation awards. (See New Business).

  5. Proposed changes in the thesis policy for the Master's Degree in Engineering are being considered and have been circulated to the Engineering Faculty for their comment.

  6. The Chair expressed dissatisfaction with the new six-weeks' drop policy, particularly in its apparent effect upon enrollment in elective courses. (In one such section, thirty percent withdrew, reputedly from too much pressure being exerted in required courses.)

 

Appointments to the Committee on Evaluation of the Faculty were ratified as follows: Chairman, H. Sachs, V. Johnson, S. Nordeng, H. Lord, C. Gale, R. Hennessy, D. Boutilier

 

Committee Reports

  1. Election Committee

    Patterson reported that Gerald Caspary had been elected to represent the General Faculty on the Committee to select an Ombudsman.

  2. Curricular Policy Committee

    Freyberger moved the adoption of Proposal 10-70 "for the purpose of establishing procedures for developing significant changes in the academic program of the University." The motion was seconded.

    Supporting statements stressed that the purpose of this policy is to keep the Faculty informed. It purports no veto power, but it enables proposals for change to reach the Faculty as soon as they do the Administration, so that the Faculty can voice an opinion before a final decision is made. The proposal describes what is already being done for graduate programs, covering perhaps 200 students. But there is no arrangement for Faculty involvement in the programs for 4500 undergraduates. If there are competing programs, the Faculty should be allowed to express an opinion on priorities. But there is no conflict with the University Curriculum Committee; this proposal has nothing to do with individual courses. "We relinquish academic responsibility if we say that curricular development is none of our affair."

    QUESTION: Does this proposal provide a means for the removal of existing programs without the approval of those who offer them?

    Freyberger: No; the Dean of the given school would always be involved.

    On a show of hands, Proposal 10-70 passed 23 to 1.


    Freyberger than moved the adoption of Proposal 7-70 "for the purpose of establishing a policy regarding implementation of approved course and curricula changes in existing academic programs." The motion was seconded.

    Bredekamp (after surrender of the chair to Krueger): Moved to amend by adding the following:

    3.  

    IV: Such changes as outlined above should not inconvenience students' plans to graduate under an existing program."

 

The proposed amendment was seconded.

Bredekamp: The amendment seems advisable for the sake of students who meticulously plan a degree schedule, then have the rug pulled out from under them when changes are made in the curriculum. Waiving or substituting courses is no real answer to this problem.

D. Boutilier: Doesn't the student always have the option to continue under the old catalog under which he began?

Stebbins: This tradition is not a matter of record.

Nordeng: Sometimes courses are discontinued; and departments have been known to discontinue without notice courses they give which are required by other departments. Substitution is often the only way out.

Freyberger: The amendment seems acceptable.

The amendment passed 25 to 0.

Discussion continued briefly on Proposal 7-70 as now amended. The proposal was then approved by an affirmative vote of 25-0 for inclusion in the agenda for the next meeting as amended.

At the suggestion of the chair, Freyberger acknowledged that he will resign from the Senate at the end of Winter Term and assume his duties as head of the Institute of Mineral Research. He thanked members of his committee for their efforts and indicated that Dr. Alexander would replace him as chairman of the committee.

The Chair invited a member of the Senate to volunteer for service on the committee.

 

  1. Instructional Policy Committee -- No Report


  2. Student-Faculty-Senate Committee

    D. Boutilier moved the adoption of Proposal 8-70.
    3.  

    Resolved, that the province of the office of Ombudsman created at the recommendation of the Senate, be expanded to include the processing of student complaints when other recourse has been exhausted.

 

The motion was seconded.

Questions about the proposal focused on whether existing student services do not already carry out Ombudsman functions; and conversely, whether such a one-fourth time functionary, originally designed to serve the faculty, would not be swamped by student appeals.

Alexander: From the students' standpoint, the existing establishment is no answer to the need for an Ombudsman. This will provide a trial run for both areas of operation.

Boutilier: Both the University of Michigan and Michigan State have Ombudsmen for students. If ours proves to be overworked, let the job be expanded.

DelliQuadri: In 34 schools there are Ombudsmen. Their chief function is to cut some of the red tape for students.

On being brought to a vote, Proposal 8-70 passed 14 Yes,and 9 No.

  1. Honors Program

    Hamilton moved the adoption of Proposal 6-70, a revision of the Honors Program Proposal of December 23, 1969. The motion was seconded.

    Discussion was spirited and protracted. Questions turned on the size of the appropriation required and the source thereof; the feasibility of using funds instead for re-establishing bona-fide scholarships granted without regard for financial need; the apparent unwieldiness of the honors council and its anomalous position in the organizational structure of the University; whether each option in a department would require the designation of a separate honors professor; whether we have adequate honors programs now; whether siphoning off the top students from a class would remove an essential source of stimulation; how class size and teaching loads tend to make teaching disillusioning and humdrum; whether some of the tactics of an honors program are adaptable to average students as well; whether the program would not in fact draw from operating funds.

    Responses were to the effect that initially 97 percent of the cost should be defrayed by Foundation support (Carnegie, Ford), and as this figure drops in three years to 60 percent, increases in tuition from the additional students recruited would tend to offset this factor. Recruiting top students is specialized work and should be left to specialists. The director is not made directly responsible to an administrator because of the possibility that in the course of time an administrator might come on the scene who would be opposed to it and hamstring it. The program would be open to qualified students; some departments might already have satisfactory programs. Individual attention and small sections are essential to the program, but ordinarily students in the program will take a substantial part of their work in regular classes.

    The incredulity of some that this purports to be a something-for-nothing deal was allayed by the assurance from Dr. Stebbins that the honors program would not be financed from the operating budget but would be contingent upon securing outside funds.

    A vote was called for and Proposal 6-70 passed, 15 to 5.

  2. Change of Status Committee

    Nordeng reported minimal response to the Committee's tentative proposal (Minutes, Meeting No. 49, Appendix D, pp. 476-477). He indicated that a committee proposal would be on the agenda for meeting 51. There was some discussion of the committee's trial proposal.

  3. Senate Coordinating Committee

    Krueger reported that as an outgrowth of the recommendations of D. Thayer, former committee chairman, a letter has been received from Vice President Stebbins inviting a representative of the Senate to meetings of the Academic Council.

    Krueger also reported on inquiries he had made in response to a request calling for improved communications between the Faculty and the Deans' Councils. Indications are, he said, that a Faculty member in any of the colleges could upon request have access to minutes of meetings of his Dean's Council.

    Of another suggestion made to him that the Senate send a representative to public meetings of the Board of Control, Krueger commented that this would appear to be action after the fact.

    A motion was made and seconded to accept the invitation of Dr. Stebbins to send a delegate from the Senate to meetings of the Academic Council. He would be appointed by the President of the Senate and expected to give reports periodically to the Senate. Ruled a matter of internal business of the Senate, the motion was passed.

    At Krueger's request, the Coordinating Committee, by an appropriate motion, was discharged as having fulfilled its function.

  4. Accommodations Committee

    Horvath moved the adoption of Proposal 9-70 (see Agenda for meeting 50, pp. 486-487) as a means of implementing Proposal 2-70 (Minutes of meeting 47, p. 438). The motion was seconded.

    In reply to a question about the seeming inadequacy of a grant of $800, Horvath explained that this was to be supplemented by a loan of $200 and then the total doubled (to $2,000) from matching funds under a governmental grant.

    The role of the Michigan Tech Development Fund in the program was discussed. It was suggested that the Development Fund be only the nominal repository for contributions, but that the administrative details be handled by someone designated by the Senate. It was pointed out that in view of the fact that the contributions will be earmarked, they will be deductible for Federal Income Tax purposes but not for State Income Tax.

    An amendment was then moved by Freyberger, to the effect that donations be made to the University Development Fund, and that the scholarships be administered by appropriate arrangements acceptable to the Development Fund. The amendment was seconded and adopted 23 to 0.

    Proposal 9-70 as amended was then accepted 21 to 0 for the agenda for meeting no. 51.


Old Business:

Proposal 5-70, calling for the election of alternates, with vote, for departmental representatives, an addition of Article II, A., 2. of the Constitution, (see Minutes, Meeting 49, p. 458): Second vote. Proposal 5-70 passed with 25 affirmative votes, 0 negative. This amendment must now be approved by a two-thirds majority of those voting among the General Faculty, or among the Academic Faculty, should Proposal 19-69 first be endorsed by the Board of Control, (minutes, Meeting 47, p. 441).


New Business

Krueger moved to discharge the Honors Committee with special thanks; it was so ordered by acclamation.

Sachs was given permission to distribute a questionnaire on teacher evaluation as grist for the mill of the Teacher Evaluation Committee.

Bahrman requested the Chair to appoint a chairman for the committee to select an Ombudsman. The Chair declined, asserting that the members must choose their own chairman. He promised to designate a time and place for the meeting.

Price moved that the Senate send a representative to the meetings of the Board of Control and that he report to the Senate on matters of interest to the Senate. The motion was seconded and passed without dissenting vote.

The question of lead time for proposals for inclusion in the Agenda was again brought up. After some discussion, the Chair announced that the Senate Council would make a recommendation on the matter.

It was moved, seconded, and passed that the Senate recommend that the Distinguished Teacher Award Committee be the one to select a nominee for the Danforth Award (Item III, D, above).

Dr. Stebbins conveyed a request from students calling for the Faculty to support the activities of Environmental Teach-In Week, April 19-25, and to refrain from giving examinations during that week. The Senate approved a motion that the Senate and University support the idea of Environmental Teach-In Week.

Adjournment came at 10:17 p.m..

 

S.R. Price
Secretary