MINUTES OF MEETING NUMBER 91
OF The
Senate OF mICHIGAN tECHNOLOGical university

8 December 1976

(Senate Minute pages: 1224-1243)

Meeting No. 91 was called to order on Wednesday, December 8, 1976 at 7:05 p.m. in the Faculty Lounge by President P.A. Nelson.

The roll was called by Sachs, Vice President of the Senate, on behalf of the Secretary, E. Erickson, who was out of town on University business and unable to attend this meeting. Twenty-three members or alternates were present. Absent were Carter, J.L. (AL), Davis, L.L. (AROTC), Evenson, H.A. (ME-EM), Kraft, K.J. (BL), Olson, C.K. (MG), Schultz, C.W. (IMR), Smith, R.L. (President)

Acknowledgement of Visitors: The following visitor attended: Zaburunov, S. (Lode reporter). Members of the Student Council attended part of New Business portion of the meeting for discussion of Proposal 5-77.

The Minutes of Meeting No. 90 were approved after a comment on the Report of the Academic Council and after L. Rakestraw indicated reasons for his resignation from the Institutional Evaluation Committee.

Institutional Evaluation Committee Report. The Senate President and Senate Secretary received a memo dated December 1, 1976 from L. Rakestraw, concerning his resignation from the Institutional Evaluation Committee. In his memo, Rakestraw said, "In order to set the record straight, I request that the text of my letter of resignation be read at your meeting, and made part of the record." Vice President Sachs read Rakestraw's letter of resignation from the Institutional Evaluation Committee to the Senate as Rakestraw requested. (See Appendix A - Available by Request from the Senate Office).

President's Report

Committee Reports

A. Curricular Policy

C. Institutional Evaluation

Vice President Sachs, chairman, gave the report. The Committee is in the process of preparing an Evaluation Form for the evaluation of Michigan Tech as an Institution and wants to receive input from the Senate on the make-up of the evaluation form itself. Thus, Sachs passed out Proposed Evaluation Forms to each Senator, asking each to evaluate the form and to write his/her comments on these forms and to return them to him; he asked each Senator to "please check those entries you feel should be eliminated; space is provided for you to add additional entries for consideration."

The intention of the form is indicated on the form: "This form is organized according to management levels, from department to Board of Control. It is intended to reveal those areas within and functions of the University the faculty believes are being performed poorly, satisfactorily, or in an outstanding manner . . ."

After Sachs had discussed the form, one Senator asked, "Should not the faculty and students also be evaluated? Sachs asked the Senator to present this idea in writing and said that the Committee "will be glad to consider it."

(Individuals wishing to see copies of the proposed evaluation form are instructed to contact Harley Sachs, Humanities Department. Individuals who have many ideas on this subject and would like to meet with the Institutional Evaluation Committee may send their names and phone numbers to Sachs).

F. Smoking Committee

2. Proposal 4-77, Smoking Policy

Hauge moved that the Proposal be adopted. The Proposal was seconded. President Nelson asked for discussion.

Recommendations for the restriction of smoking to designated areas/sections of an environment. (This is the first recommendation from 4-77). Miller said that he does not think that this is administratively practical or could ever be enforced.

Recommendations for the prohibition of smoking in an environment. Recommendation concerning implementation of these proposals. (These are the second and third recommendations from 4-77). Booy spoke out against making these two items official Senate policy. She is against prohibiting smoking in the Finnish Room because many recruiters eat there; she does not care if recruiters smoke "as long as they hire my people."

We recommend that smoking should be prohibited wherever conditions warrant (Item no. 4, Recommendations for the prohibition of smoking in an environment). Booy said, "The same question arises again. Who is going to determine the legitimacy of these conditions?"

Hauge said that he had expressed his sentiments on this Proposal earlier. "I think it would be incumbent on those who voted against the prior motion not to vote yes on this one."

President Nelson asked for a vote on Proposal 4-77 and it was defeated.

3. Proposal 5-77, To Change the Winter Quarter 1976-77 Academic Calendar .

It was moved and seconded that Proposal 5-77 be adopted. President Nelson asked for discussion.

Hauge was in favor of passage of the Proposal recommending cancellation of classes, Monday, January 3, 1977, because a number of students have homes over 1,000 miles away from Tech and because of the danger of New Year's Eve driving conditions.

Hauge referred to the objections on the part of some to the loss of a Monday from the calendar. he suggested that this could be rectified by treating the Tuesday of return as a Monday for scheduling purposes. He said that the students would go to their Monday classes on Tuesday, and the next day to the Wednesday classes. Hauge moved that proposal 5-77 be amended and the motion was seconded.

The following is Proposal 5-77 as amended:

The Senate recommends that the 1976-77 Christmas-New Year recess extend through January 3, 1977, and that classes resume the morning of Tuesday, January 4, 1977. January 4 shall be considered a Monday for scheduling purposes. The classes which have been scheduled for January 4 should be cancelled. (NOTE: The words which have been added are underlined. In the last sentence, January 3 has been changed to January 4).

A lengthy discussion followed introduction of the amendment to Proposal 5-77.

Hennessy said, "I think there's too much involved to get casual about making Tuesday, Monday. That deserves separate study. The main issue is, are they going to come back to class on Monday or not? When we settle that issue, then we can go on to the next one." He said that he was not sure that the Senate was equipped to decide what should be done about the cancelled Monday (such as making a Tuesday a Monday.).

Hauge said that the reason for the amendment to 5-77 was that there might be votes against the Proposal as it is presently stated. He also said that the Senate only recommends and that the decision will be made by the President.

Baillod repeated the fact that presently there are 10 Mondays, 11 Tuesdays, 11 Wednesdays, 9 Thursdays, and 9 Fridays in the Winter Quarter (as he stated in his committee report earlier in the meeting). He said that if Hauge's amendment is passed, there will be 10 Mondays, 10 Tuesdays, 11 Wednesdays, but still 9 Thursdays and 9 Fridays. He said, "If we're going to make the missing day into anything, it would be better to make it into a Thursday or Friday."

P. Nelson said that it might be possible not to approve the proposed amendment but to pass 5-77 as written in the agenda, and leave the implementation of 5-77 to the administration.

Baillod said, "It was indicated to me rather indirectly that Mr. Dix was rather reluctant to declare a Monday a Wednesday or something of that order without action from the Senate."

One Senator asked Baillod whether the amendment to the Proposal would influence the feelings of reservation expressed by the Instructional Policy Committee regarding passage of 5-77. Baillod replied that the Committee's main objection to the Proposal was giving up another instructional day in the winter term. Instructional days in the winter term had already been given up for the Winter Carnival extension. He also said, "Since all other state supported schools in the state of Michigan are in session on January 3, Monday, we felt there was no real justification for us not to be in session."

One Senator said that the argument that the other universities meet classes on January 3 does not seem to be a legitimate argument. Tech is geographically isolated. New Year's is the kind of holiday that is a late evening affair, and there is danger and risk of the driving conditions, and of having to make the drive after an all-night party. If it is at all possible to change a schedule around, who cares if other state institutions do it or not.

Heldt said that if the concern was only safety, then perhaps the Monday classes could meet on the following Saturday.

At this point in the discussion, President Nelson ruled that according to the Senate Constitution the amendment to 5-77 was a major change and that to be acted on at this meeting, it would have to be considered as an emergency submission. Hauge moved that this be considered an emergency submission, and Givens seconded the motion.

(At this time the Michigan Tech Student Council entered the faculty lounge, and stayed during the remainder of the discussion of 5-77 until the Proposal was voted on.)

One Senator said that the first week after Christmas break would be a poor time for changing around days. "Things are disorganized enough after a period like that. So it would seem that if we are going to do any readjusting of days of the week it should be done later on, after people get back here and get organized."

Daavettila supported Heldt's idea to make Saturday a Monday.

President Nelson called for a vote on suspending the rules, considering the amendment to 5-77 an emergency submission; 13 Senators, constituting a majority, voting in favor of suspending the rules. Discussion of the amendment continued.

Allison said, "I feel Monday really is a problem as far as the lower level courses are concerned, and I think we do have to consider some way of dealing with it."

Stanulis said, "If it is possible to make Monday another day of the week, the suggestion to make it a Saturday is nothing but a bit of sadism - to say students are just looking for a way to get out of classes and we are going to punish them for that kind of thing is a mistaken notion. There is a legitimate reason for having Monday lifted for this particular kind of holiday for reasons of isolation and safety. We can absorb it in one way or another if we set our minds to it. We should put this in the hands of the administration, to figure out the best possible day that we can make this up. Not to impose some kind of pseduo sadistic (attitude) or we'll get you attitude for this messing up our schedule. I really object very much to the implication that it is just a way of getting a free ride."

One Senator objected to the objection. He said, "I don't see why this is any more sadistic for the students than for the faculty. The sole concern is safety and there is no breach of safety in meeting classes on Saturday."

Hennessy suggested that if Saturday is to be used to replace the lost day then everything should be moved back, and that Tuesday become Monday, Wednesday become Tuesday, and Saturday become Friday.

President Nelson asked for a vote on the amendment to Proposal 5-77. The amendment was defeated: 12 Against, 5 For.

Then President Nelson asked for a vote on Proposal 5-77 as originally written in the agenda. The Proposal was approved; 14 in favor, 8 opposed.

Sachs directed a comment to the Student Council before they left. He said that Proposal 5-77 is only a recommendation, that "the Senate has no authority to act upon the calendar; it only recommends. What happens now is up to higher levels of the administration."

4. Proposal 6-77, Response to Houghton County Board of Commissioners .

Sachs moved adoption of Proposal 6-77 and the motion was seconded. President Nelson asked for discussion.

Miller said, "I believe that if we pass this Proposal that we are lowering ourselves to the level of the Houghton County Board of Commissioners."

Hennessy said, "I agree that there are certain arguments that you should not dignify by replying too. What hurts a man most is to ignore him and those people don't bother me."

Sachs said that Julius Harwood, Chairman of the Board of Control has replied to the Board of Commissioners and that he had felt it was worthy of a reply. "I feel that since this has been sent to the Governor and the County Board is making an issue to the government that we are obliged to respond."

Daavettila said he would hate to see this Proposal defeated or passed by a split vote. He suggested tabling the Proposal and ignoring the Board of Commissioners. The motion was seconded. President Nelson asked for discussion.

One Senator asked if the Senate communicated with the County Board. Sachs replied that the Senate did not communicate with the County Board. He said, "I wrote the County Board a letter as a private individual which was also printed in the newspaper and I invited the chairman of the County Board to come to our meeting tonight."

One Senator suggested that since Sachs spoke as a private individual before, that he speak as a private individual again.

Sachs replied, "I intend to do that, but I think that this is an issue of academic freedom and I feel that if we do not stand up for our rights we will be abused by these local politicians."

Hauge said that it seemed that the appropriate term would be "libel" and not "slander" in the last sentence of the Proposal. He questioned whether even libel would apply.

(At this time it was pointed out that the discussion had to be on tabling the motion and not the motion itself.)

President Nelson asked for a vote on tabling the proposal. The motion was defeated: 10 Against, 7 For.

One Senator moved that the word "libel" be substituted for "slander" in the last sentence of the Proposal. The motion was seconded. President Nelson ruled that this was an editorial change and asked for discussion.

Hennessy said "A public official, while in session, cannot commit libel or slander. He can say anything he wants to. You cannot sue him; it is not legally a basis for taking action against him. There is none. So you are firing blanks using either of those words."

President Nelson asked for a vote on the editorial change. The motion did not carry.

President Nelson asked for further discussion. Brown said that he was against passage of the Proposal, that he chose not to compete with the County Board on their level.

President Nelson asked for a vote on Proposal 6-77 as originally printed in the agenda. The Proposal was defeated: 15 Against, 3 For.

5. Proposal 7-77, Industrial Forestry Option.

P. Nelson, Chairman of the Curricular Policy Committee, moved adoption of Proposal 7-77, and Booy seconded the motion. Nelson moved that an editorial correction to the Proposal be made; in the first sentence of the Proposal, the word "approves" is to be changed to "recommends." Nelson said that the administration can approve or disapprove a new program or an option; the Senate can only recommend.

The Senate of Michigan Technological University recommends the establishment of an Industrial Forestry Option in the Bachelor of Science in Forestry degree program. A description of the program follows. (NOTE: The word which has been changed is underlined.)

The motion to amend the Proposal was seconded and approved, 22-0. President Nelson asked for discussion.

Baillod asked whether the words "Industrial Option" would appear on the student's degree.

Miller replied that at the present time one option may be designated on any student's degree schedule (such as) Bachelor of Science in Forestry (Industrial Forestry Option).

One Senator asked if it is on the diploma itself. Nelson replied that in the School of Business the various options do not appear on the actual diploma.

Baillod said, "I know our options are not on the degree and the reason was always understood that they were not because it would appear as a new degree program if we were to do that."

P. Nelson said that in discussing this with the chairman of the Department of Forestry that it was certainly intended to be an option in the sense that the student takes the same core curriculum and other degree requirements that all the other options take and that the only difference is the name of the option, plus the option requirements.

Baillod said, "I think it is very significant if it is just an option appearing on the transcript or if it is an option appearing on the degree that makes it a degree program. I think that requires a little more in-depth look than an option."

P. Nelson said that Senate Policy 10-70, under which the Curricular Policy Committee is handling the Industrial Forestry Option is the same policy which would also include the development of a new degree program. But he said he thinks that from everything the Committee has looked at, that this is an option in the same sense that several other forestry programs are options or that several other business programs are really options. He said he does not see much of a basis for viewing it as something other than an option.

Hennessy said, "I have nothing against that curriculum as curriculum. What does bother me is that this appears to be a curriculum that was designed to meet the needs of a specific industry as opposed to what we might say (are) general educational objectives."

P. Nelson said that it is true that there was great interest expressed by an industry trade association, the American Pulpwood Association. The curriculum development process took a period of years. There were many, many other considerations which entered into this curriculum. The trade association gave the department a list of some 400 credits worth of courses it wanted the students to take. He said that it was his understanding that even though there were some suggestions made by this outside association, it was the forestry department that put the curriculum together. The first version of this, which was given to the Senate Curricular Policy Committee by the Office of the Vice President of Academic Affairs, was itself modified substantially in the negotiations with the Curricular Policy Committee. He said, "I think the end result really does reflect a curriculum that was designed with a variety of objectives in mind, most of which were matters of education and educational policy rather than industrial pressure."

President Nelson asked for a vote on Proposal 7-77. The Proposal passed: 15 in favor, 0 against.

6. Proposal 8-77, Faculty Office Space.

P. Nelson moved that Proposal 8-77 be adopted; the motion was seconded.

Booy asked why 8-77 has been introduced as a Senate Proposal. Nelson answered. In a number of departments there are faculty members who have to share office space, and in some cases, in their opinion, this interferes with the conduct of their role as members of the faculty. In the School of Business there are a number of faculty members who are currently sharing offices. Nelson asked the Senate whether there were other departments where offices were shared. A number of Senators indicated departments in which office space is shared.

One Senator asked what the difference is between a resolution and a proposal. He said that 8-77 seems to be something that should be resolved and not proposed. Baillod responded that according to the Senate Constitution and/or Bylaws all Senate actions which will require some response from the administration shall be proposals. The Senate can make resolutions but they will not necessarily get any action from the administration.

Hauge favored adoption of 8-77. He said that when the office situation is bad enough that faculty are driven to do their work at home; there are complaints from the administration that the faculty are never around when the students want them. The fault lies with the inadequate facilities. He said that he thinks that most faculty do the vast majority of their work on campus if at all possible, because that is the most efficient way to do it.

One Senator said that he would like to object to the continuous knocking down of buildings which are perfectly usable when there is a shortage of office space.

President Nelson asked for a vote on Proposal 8-77; the proposal was adopted: 21 For, 0 Against.

7. Graduate Student Council Asks for Representation on the Senate.

President P. Nelson said that the Graduate Student Council has formally asked the Senate for representation on the Senate, and that this would require a Constitutional Amendment. This will be referred to a Committee or introduced as a Proposal at the next Senate meeting.

8. Instructional Policy Committee Assignments.

President P. Nelson said that there are three problems which he will refer to the Instructional Policy Committee.

1. Which class has a right to the classroom between bells?
2. Textbook shortages and whether or not the last copy available in the bookstore is going to be put into the reserve room of the library.
3. Evening classes held in certain departments now conflict with evening exams held in other departments.

When Nelson asked whether any Senators have experienced textbook shortages in their courses, a lengthy discussion took place.

Shetron said he experienced a textbook shortage last year, checked on it, and found that according to the bookstore, preregistration lists indicating how many students are going to be in a course are checked and the number of books ordered is based on these lists; when ordering books, drops and adds are not considered.

Hennessy said that most of those shortages will occur when a class is run for one quarter only. If a class is going to be repeated the following quarter, then the bookstore is not afraid of ordering a few extra copies of a text. Some publishers will not take books back if a bookstore has ordered too many copies. It might be helpful if faculty would cooperate with the bookstore, using a textbook from a publisher which will take extra copies back. He said that this is not always possible as his department has experienced; sometimes the best text available for a course is published by a company which will not accept extra copies back from the bookstore.

Stanulis said that he has experienced textbook shortages in courses he teaches and that the problem seems to be caused by drop and adds and unrealistic enrollment figures.

Givens said that it is not entirely true that the bookstore is willing to order more books for courses that run in successive terms; there have been shortages of calculus, algebra, and trig books which the department will probably use for years and yet they were large numbers short.

Hauge said that Mr. Murphy, Bookstore Manager, and the Social Sciences Department had an hour long discussion "in which some misunderstandings were ironed out." A number of people perceive that a lot of the difficulties arise from the University's preregistration procedures.

Baillod said that in his experience the best estimate of a course's enrollment is last year's enrollment rather than preregistration figures.

Hennessy said that there is something the departments could do to help the situation. If the departments would list in advance who was going to teach the various subjects a significant percentage of the adding and dropping of courses would be eliminated.

9. Provisional Letter Grade.

Hennessy suggested that the Instructional Policy Committee study the possibility of the need for another new grade. He said that there are two situations in which a provisional grade might be used.

1. Courses in which the student is permitted to run beyond the completion of the normal quarter before he completes the course.
2. Remedial math sequence.

A provisional grade such as P would indicate that this is a provisional grade at this time for purposes of scholarships, athletic eligibility, subject to change when the student finishes the course.

Stanulis said that this is done at other universities where a Y grade indicates that satisfactory progress is being made, but the work might take more than one quarter or is self-paced learning that must be completed.

President Nelson said that the Committee should take a good look at the suggestion.

10. Senate Committee Reports

Hauge requested that those who make Committee Reports to the Senate type them up, have copies made, and distribute the copies at Senate meetings. He said that this would make Senate discussions more complete and the reports could be taken to departmental meetings.

President Nelson said that he would encourage that whenever it is possible that reports to the Senate be typed and duplicated for each Senator; particularly if they are longer reports.

11. 1976-77 Campus Directory

One Senator said that since the 1976-77 Campus Directory is not yet ready, if appropriate, could the MTU Senate recommend that work on this directory cease and work on next year's directory begin?

President Nelson said that he would look into the reason for delay in publication of the directory and report back at the next meeting.

 

The meeting was voted to adjourn at 9:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

E. Erickson
Secretary