MINUTES OF MEETING NUMBER 65
OF The
sENATE OF mICHIGAN tECHNOLOGical university

11 October 1972

(Senate Minute pages: 779-791)

Meeting No. 65 was called to order on Wednesday, October 11, 1972 at 7:00 p.m. in the Faculty Lounge by President W.E. Barstow.

The roll was called by the Secretary. Twenty-five members or alternates were present. Absent were: Crowther (FR), Hodek (CE), Meteer (FF), Nordeng (GE), Stebbins, and the Student Council Representative.

The Minutes of Meeting No. 64 were approved.



Senate President's Report

President Barstow commented on the actions of the Senate in the 1971-72 academic year. He felt that the major accomplishments were the finalization of student representation, the academic calendar change, and the promotion policy. He passed on to his successor correspondence concerning Proposal 1-72 with his thoughts on the matter.

President Barstow stated that there were several problems which arose during the year and which will have to be solved if the Senate is to be a workable organization. In particular he cited the difficulty he had in finding committee chairmen who were willing to work on assignments. He also pointed out that he had inadvertently violated a bylaw by appointing Dick Mason, who is not a Senator, to chair a committee. This problem he passed on to his successor. The second problem he mentioned was the large amount of criticism on campus regarding the slowness of Senate proceedings. He blamed this on a misinterpretation of the role of the Senate and on a lack of communication between many individual Senators and their constituents. He pointed out that the Senate serves simply to recommend action and no more. He also urged that each Senator make an effort to communicate both Senate procedures and Senate actions to the members of his department.

President Barstow then pointed out that the Senate seems to suffer from a lack of status on this campus. When he assumed his office, he expected that he would be involved in numerous ceremonial functions of one sort or another as "President of the Senate." He was surprised to receive no calls for any such thing. He stated that as meaningless as these functions and activities seem to appear, they do represent at least the image of cooperation between the Senate and the Administration. He felt that some consideration should be given to such matters in the future.

 

Election of Officers

Senator Thayer, Chairman of the Nominating Committee, presented the following slate as candidates for officers of the Senate:

 

President:              A.S. Weaver
Vice-President:     D.T. Farrell
Secretary:               R.S. Horvath

Nominations from the floor were then requested. At this point DelliQuadri asked why the committee had nominated only a single slate. He stated that past policy has been for the committee to nominate at least two people for each office. He also asked how the selection had been made -- what qualifications were considered, etc. Thayer responded that the committee had made an attempt to select more than one candidate but that they had difficulty in finding people who would accept a nomination and who the committee felt were qualified. He also pointed out that the bylaws do not require more than a single slate and that in other organizations a single slate is not uncommon.

DelliQuadri then moved that the slate be returned to the committee and the committee be directed to nominate at least two persons for each office at the next meeting. The motion was seconded and failed to pass by a vote of 9 yes, 11 No.

At this point Spain nominated a Senator for the office of President. The nominee declined for personal reasons and pointed out that his embarrassment in having to decline before an audience was just the sort of thing that a nominating committee serves to avoid.

There being no further nominations, the nomination were closed and the three nominees were elected to office individually. Thus, the officers for the 1972-73 Senate are:

President             A.S. Weaver
Vice-President    D.T. Farrell
Secretary              R.S. Horvath

 


Report on Meetings of the Academic Council and Board of Control

  1. Halkola reported on topics discussed at three Academic Council meetings. His reported is included here as Appendix A (Available by Request from the Senate Office).

  2. Weaver reported on the June and August meetings of the Board of Control. His report is included here as Appendix B (Available by Request from the Senate Office). Included in his report was the passage of the Promotion Policy in nearly the same form as that of Proposal 6-72. The final form, with changes underlined, is included as Appendix C (Available by Request from the Senate Office).The Retirement Policy adopted by the Board of Control is included as Appendix D (Available by Request from the Senate Office).


Committee Reports

A. Elections - No Report

B. Curricular Policy - No Report

C. Instructional Policy - No Report

D. Elections Procedure - No Report

E. Joint Faculty Association - No Report

F. Sick Leave - No Report

G. Instructional Evaluation

 

Liba reported as follows: "The Instructional Evaluation Committee has not yet met during this quarter. However, it will be working on statements giving recommendations for policy with general focus on the positive purposes of teacher evaluation. It hopes to establish a standing committee of the Faculty Senate to encourage, assist, and advise departments on the development and use of teacher evaulation procedures. The appointment of one or two additional members and the continuing inclusion of a student member or student members would be appreciated."

In response, President Weaver explained that the chairman of any committee should feel free to name whomever he pleases to his committee. There is no restriction that the members need be Senators or even faculty members.

 

 

Old Business

Spain asked what had happened to the calendar. He recalled that the sample calendars we saw had starting dates near Labor Day; yet, the new calendar starts classes on August 29. A lengthy discussion followed in which it was pointed out that the fall quarter starting date depends on the date of Thanksgiving and that the new calendar does meet the guidelines approved by the Senate in Proposal 7-72. It is now too late to change the new calendar, but we should all watchdog it and bring any problems to the attention of the Senate for further action.

Ortner then asked what had happened to the Computer Science and Engineering Programs. The consensus of the three recent chairmen of the Curricular Policy committee is that the committee had certain questions concerning the programs. The programs, together with the questions, were returned to the departments for clarification. No further action has been taken since that time. Weaver suggested that the present Chairman contact the department heads involved and explain the situation so that they will know where to start searching. Another program which the Senate had turned down, because of some uncertainty and unanswered questions, was mentioned -- The Associate Degree in General Studies. The hope was expressed that this progrram would not be allowed to slip into limbo in a similar fashion.

 

New Business and Voluntary Remarks

President Smith commented on Barstow's remarks in his report concerning the involvement of the Senate President in various cerremonial functions of University life. He thought this was a point well taken and promised to give more consideration to that sort of thing in the future.

President Weaver then discussed what he considered to be a major stumbling block in the operation of the Senate -- communication or the lack of it regarding Senate policies. We must devise a way of communicating these policies to the faculty and the students.

Horvath then mentioned that Elvira Brown, who provides secretarial help to the Senate, has been compiling a complete cross-reference of Senate policies for distribution at a future date.

Following a brief discussion the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.

 

Ralph S. Horvath
Secretary