1. Booy said that the last sentence in the final paragraph of Item D should read: "She also noted that the 1975-76 school year requires one more week on the campus from faculty members on nine-month contracts.
   
   
2. Boutilier commented that the last line of Item D should read "out of the fields" instead of "out in the fields."

1. The Senate Executive Council has agreed to asked the Academic Calendar-Structure Committee to poll the faculty as to which calendar they would prefer. We hope that committee can complete the polling in time for our next Senate meeting.
   
   
2. Bill Lucier called me to ask what the Senate Executive Council will do about the "Weaver Report" (The Report of the Academic Calendar-Structure Committee accepted by the Senate at Meeting No. 80 on January 29). He also informed me that, in order to meet the printer's deadline, any calendar changes planned for 1976-77 must be finalized by the end of March. I told him that there was no chance the faculty could recommend, and the Administration approve, a major change that soon. Therefore, any change we may propose could not possibly take effect before the 1977-78 school year.
   
   
3. Senator Doane, chairman of the Elections Committee, has informed me that two committee members -- George Bahrman and Mildred Townsend -- have declared themselves ineligible for election as senators-at-large, to avoid any question of conflict of interest. She suggests, and I concur, that, in the future, the Elections Committee should consist only of ineligible senators for such at-large elections.
   
   [At this point, DelliQuadri asked for clarification on senators elected two terms in a row succeeding themselves. Horvath responded that senators who have served two consecutive terms cannot succeed themselves for a third term. Horvath added that, in the future, it would be well to ensure that all members on the Elections Committee are senators either in the beginning of their initial three-year term or those completing their second term, so that there would be no chance that they would be nominated.]
   
   
4. Senator Doane also asked what the status of the Mining Engineering Department is: whether it is part of the Metallurgical Engineering Department, or is separate and thus entitled to its own senator. My interpretation of the Senate Constitution, and the departmental structure as outlined in the new (1975-76) Catalog, is that Mining Engineering is a separate department which happens to have as its head the same individual who is the head of the Metallurgical Engineering Department and so, as such, is entitled to its own departmental senator. If there are any questions from the floor on this matter, or if anyone wants to challenge this decision, we can discuss it at this time. There are three members in the Mining Engineering Department; it has a structure of its own and offers its own courses.
   
   
5. I have received several mailings from Professor George Love concerning the Association of Michigan College Faculties (AMCF). The most recent includes the following resolution:
   

Be it resolved that the Academic Senate endorses changes in the State Retirement Law which would:

1. Give TIAA-CREF members the opportunity to return to MPSER [which I assume, means the Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System]; and
   
   
2. Remove the ceiling, but not the floor, on institutional contributions on behalf of TIAA-CREF members.

The above resolution was recently approved at Central Michigan University, and is the essence of legislation which will be introduced in Lansing soon. The AMCF is urging that we be aware of this and, if we are in support of this sort of thing, to notify our representatives in Lansing. In addition, the AMCF is urging that the academic bodies at member schools adopt such a resolution. I have no strong feelings for this one way or another. Are there any questions or comments from the Senate?

The following discussion ensued: Miller said that we may be faced with the same problem of Senate representation with regard to Applied Technology, now that the latter is a school (School of Technology). President Smith responded that this matter deserves investigation, and that it may be necessary to designate Nursing as a separate department for purposes of such representation.

1. He reported that the Academic Council met twice since the last Senate meeting. Julien was unable to attend the first meeting due to a schedule conflict. Several points were discussed at the second meeting on March 18 as follows:
   
   
   1. On personnel records, and the keeping of such, nothing was decided except that, in the future, it appears we are going to be required to have a centralized form of record keeping for all faculty members. Some departments already have aspects of this procedure in effect; however, the Academic Council would like to see a uniform record system established which would state various things about the faculty members. There are many questions of significance concerning this, including the confidentiality, the utilization of these records, who should maintain them, and where they should be kept. I feel that it would probably be of interest for the Senate to look into this matter, especially if we are to have any contributions to make in the maintenance of such records.
      
      
   2. Doug Rappley brought up the question of Student Placement questionnaires. It seems as though the students are not very good about returning those questionnaires, so Placement cannot tell where all the students have gone for employment after graduation.
      
      
   3. Travel restrictions were mentioned. If money is available, there have been no particular restrictions, at least to the knowledge of the Academic Council.
      
      
   4. There was some discussion about redefining the "faculty assistant:" that is, the job description for graduate research/teaching associates, and the relationships between these people and those who might be hired temporarily, say, on a quarter-basis, to teach certain courses.
      
      The following discussion ensued: President Smith commented that Julien's point about records was well taken and that the Senate should look at this first; then, if the Senate feels the need, form a committee and meet with MTU's legal counsel, Bob Vercruysee, the next time the latter is on campus (expected in April). President Smith said that Joe Romig could set up such a meeting for the Senate President with Vercruysee. What the Administration is attempting to fulfill are some legal requirements as a result of recent policies, and to get control over records to the extent that improper things are not in records. President Smith emphasized that most faculty members would benefit from such greater control. President Smith also suggested that uniformity as to the content of records is important: there should be an agreement as to what is in records; thus, it would be well for the Senate to have its President, Horvath, meet with Vercruysee and then report back to the Senate. Horvath asked if the Administration's effort was two-fold with regard to record keeping: to centralize records and location, and to make the records uniform in content? President Smith said the effort was more than that: to ensure that no improper entries are in the records. DelliQuadri asked what the school's policy would be with regard to faculty members having access to their own records on file centrally. Romig indicated that the Administration had not reached that point as yet. President Smith envisioned no problem over faculty access to records; however, he reiterated the need for centralized control of records.
      
      
2. Julien said that the meeting of the Board was reported in the local newspapers; however, he would mention two specific topics of interest from that meeting:
   
   
1. On faculty re-employments: a comment was made by one of the board members that it would be nice to learn how faculty members performed after they were promoted, especially in light of the "glowing reports" used by the department heads and deans to justify such promotions initially.
   
   
2. Two of the board members, Harwood and McGlynn, indicated that about 10 years ago the board had determined to up-grade the physical plant at MTU. Now that such up-grading was proving successful, perhaps it is time to sit down and make a similar plan for the mechanism of the overall curriculum within the university. This latter plan would be aimed at keeping MTU in the forefront, predicting which kinds of needs, directions, and trends the departments should consider in providing an education for our students. [Julien saw this comment as a possible indication of the attitude which the board may take in the near future.]
   
   At this point, Horvath stated that the College of Engineering currently is involved in a long-range plan involving the study of various problems, including some of the above. President Smith said that he had responded in that Board of Control meeting, stressing that MTU had made a very comprehensive study in which all departments developed their respective long-range plans. Those plans are on file in the departments, are updated annually, and the department heads meet periodically to review those plans with the Administration. President Smith also acknowledged that Harwood is an international authority on long-range planning. Booy questioned whether the above discussion was meant to imply that Tech had done so well in the 10-year plan for buildings that a new gymnasium might be in the pipeline, especially as more and more of the incoming students express their interest in such a new facility. President Smith said that there is no money available for a gym at present, with no immediate hope; however, the physical education facility is next in line.

Spain said that there would be no report at this time.

B. Instructional Policy - No Report.

E. Audio-Visual Instructional Material

Danielson referred to Proposal 4-75, Amendments to the Faculty Patent Policy. He reviewed the history of the Patent Policy Subcommittee, including the latter's report to the Senate (page 927 in the Minutes). Briefly, Danielson said that the subcommittee over the past year had studied the patent policies as found at several universities throughout the nation, and surveyed MTU faculty members, through the departmental representatives to the Senate. That committee also discussed the present patent policy at Tech with Tom Evans, the Director of Research. The subcommittee found the following items in need of clarification and, in some cases, modification, with regard to the present patent policy:

1. The waiting period which the inventor must go through once he has submitted the disclosure to the university's Director of Research: there is an unwritten regulation which specifies a 90-day period of waiting; therefore, the inventor has to experience a long, formal proceeding to obtain action on his disclosure.
   
   
2. The present policy makes no distinction between purely research faculty and other faculty members on the Tech campus.
   
   
3. The overall procedures involved in the present patent policy are generally complicated.
   
   
4. The right and opportunity of the inventor to participate in the negotiations concerning the developments for which he is responsible need clarification.
   

Danielson then contrasted the present patent policy at MTU with those recommendations of the committee.

Horvath asked if there was a motion to adopt Proposal 4-75, Amendments to the Faculty Patent Policy. Danielson so moved; Julien seconded. A discussion ensued relative to various parts of the proposal. DelliQuadri asked if there had been any collective bargaining between the subcommittee and the Administration in an effort to compromise on the differences noted in the present patent policy vis-a-vis Proposal 4-75? Professor Harley Sachs responded that he had sent a preliminary minority report of that subcommittee last year to the Director of Research and to the Secretary of the Board of Control; however, no responses had been received from either of those officials. DelliQuadri asked if there had been a majority report? Sachs responded that the minority report was actually a letter from him to the above administrators, summarizing the findings of that subcommittee. DelliQuadri further inquired if the minority report differed from Proposal 4-75 above? Sachs replied that the only difference was in the specific wording of the amendments. Romig said that he did not understand Sachs' letter was a minority report, and he apologized for overlooking the matter. Alexander asked about transferable rights under the old or the new patent policies? DelliQuadri recommended that the Senate and the Administration work jointly on the patent policy rather than the former assuming an adversary position. Danielson said it seemed proper that the committee had submitted the present proposal (4-75) and that further contacts could be made between the committee and the Administration. Mikkola pointed out that the wording regarding patent rights could have an effect on future work in related areas. DelliQuadri proposed to amend the motion so that a committee of three, chosen from the Audio-Visual Instructional Material Committee, should meet with three counterparts in the Administration to hammer out differences in the approaches to the question of patent policies at MTU. Hennessy seconded that motion. The vote carried 25 Yes, 0 No. A vote was then taken on the motion to approve Proposal 4-75. The vote was 24 Yes, 0 No.

F. Dependents Scholarship

H. Elections Procedure

DelliQuadri said that there would be no report until after the next election.

Old Business - None