President Adler called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. on May 2, 1990 in rooms 105A and B of the Memorial Union Building.

Roll: Twenty seven members/alternates were present. Absent were Peter Laks, Dave Poplawski and Terry Monson. Continuing member President Stein was not present.

Visitors: Bill Predebon, Larry Julien, Mark Osborne, Richard Fosgitt, Stephen Dresch, Kris Lipman, Carol Schotzko, Lloyd Heldt, C.L. White, Jennifer Daryl Slack, Michael Gilpin, E.K. Stanek, A.B. Kunz, Duane Abata, John Caron, Michelle Mattson, Brigette Goold, and R. Roblee.

Minutes of Meeting No. 173 (March 14, 1990) were accepted with a correction on page 3024. The second sentence of item VIII-E should read "There has been input from several individuals and departments." -- not "department."

A. Resolution on Senate Observers

After some discussion about instructions to the Senate observer to the Board of Control and Academic Council meetings, the following resolution was passed unopposed:

The Senate resolves that the observer representing the Senate be allowed to speak for the Senate at Board of Control and Academic Council meetings.

Provost Powers stated that he did not believe that the Senate observer should be not allowed to participate in discussions as the Senate representative at Academic Council meetings, and should receive the agenda and all distributed materials. He could not speak for the Board of Control.

B. Student Vote of Confidence in President Stein

John Caron, Chair of the ESI/Ventures Committee of the Undergraduate Student Government, presented the background for the USG perspective leading up to the student vote of confidence for President Stein. The controversy from the USG perspective started with a request for information about a) the investment in Great Lakes Capital Investment I, and b) an estimated loss of $17 million (resulting from an accounting change) at the Board of Control meeting February 2, 1990. Undergraduate Student Government representatives did not understand the answers they received in response to their inquiries. This committee was formed to study ESI and provide information to USG. Public information was so scattered and/or not available that freedom on information act requests were filed with MTU, ESI and Ventures Group Inc. MTU and ESI have responded; Ventures Group has not responded beyond providing articles of incorporation. The basis of filing the freedom on information requests with Ventures Group, Inc. was that if a group is created by, or is primarily funded by, a public authority then that group can be considered to be treated as a public authority under the Freedom of Information Act.

Ultimately a petition signed by over 10% of the student body was presented to the USG calling for a vote of confidence for President Stein and the Administration. The USG constitution requires that the petitions signed by at least 10% of the student body be acted upon. A vote is currently being conducted. The Administration includes President Stein and the four vice presidents. The results will be presented to the press, President Stein, Dean Janners, Vice President Whitten, and the Board of Control.

C. Committee to Investigation Questions Surrounding ESI/Ventures

President Adler initiated a discussion on a request by President Stein that a committee be formed to investigate questions surrounding ESI/Ventures operations to provide a more open exchange of information. The committee might oversee operations on a continuing basis. It was suggested that the Institutional Evaluation Committee might be the logical group to investigate, evaluate and open communications concerning ESI and Ventures Group operations. Professor Julien stated that the original charge to the Institutional Evaluations Committee was to perform an evaluation of the institution from the faulty level up through the administration. An evaluation of the administration has never been performed. There was some discussion about periodic evaluation of the performance of the administration. It was suggested that undergraduate and graduate student representatives be included in any evaluation process.

A statement was made that there is dissatisfaction on the part of the faculty with the mode in which administration is operating. The ESI/Ventures controversy has only brought this dissatisfaction into the open. What is required are measures to prevent any recurrence of this kind and level of dissatisfaction among the faculty and university community. The Senate and Board of Control should act now to institute a procedure whereby faculty can express their concerns about the administration and their policies.

Senator Plichta introduced some background material from Carnegie-Mellon University about evaluation of their president and a proposal to institute a similar process at Michigan Tech (Appendix N - Available by Request from the Senate Office). The summary "Commission to Evaluate the President" was condensed from the first ten pages of the report by that Commission which was formed at the request of Carnegie-Mellon's president. This proposal and background material generated substantial discussion. The chief points of the discussion were the current lack of faculty input or evaluation of administration policies and performance, and the timeliness and frequency of any evaluation procedure.

The motion was made to forward this study (Commission to Evaluate the President at Carnegie-Mellon University) to the Institutional Evaluation Committee for study and that the Committee report back to the Senate at the next meeting with a mechanism for an evaluation of the administration. During the discussion it was suggested that a) the procedure be expedited, b) the Board of Control be informed that study of administration evaluation was underway, c) the Board of Control be involved in the process of developing an administration evaluation procedure, d) the administration be informed of this study, and e) that deans and department heads be included in the evaluation.

The motion as passed in the first sentence of the preceding paragraph was passed unopposed. Further discussion recommended that student representatives work with the Institutional Evaluation Committee to develop a proposed evaluation mechanism.

D. Vote of Confidence in President Stein

The resolution "The MTU Senate shall conduct a vote of confidence in President Stein among MTU faculty with results to be circulated no later than May 11, 1990, was brought to the floor.

The resolution generated considerable discussion. Arguments in opposition of the resolution include:

1. A vote of confidence will further damage the reputation of MTU.
2. A vote of confidence does not identify issues or problems which have been festering among the faculty. It is informationless.
3. A vote of confidence is not constructive. The university would be much better off if a regular evaluation of the administration was put in place to open communications and resolve problems before they reach the current state of affairs.

Arguments in favor of the resolution include:

1. A vote of confidence would put the controversy to rest regardless of the outcome of the vote.
2. A vote of confidence is a formal mechanism through which faculty can express their dissatisfaction with the current situation. There is now no other formal mechanism in place.
3. A vote of confidence is necessary to communicate faculty sentiment to President Stein who has admitted a lack of communication with the faculty in the past.
4. By not sponsoring a vote of confidence the Senate may be accused of not listening to the wishes of the Senate constituency.

It was moved that "The MTU Senate shall conduct a vote of confidence in President Dale F. Stein among the MTU Senate constituents, with results to be circulated no later than May 11, 1990."

Statements were made to the effect that ESI/Ventures is not the only or even the main problem: the problem is communications from the faculty to the President or Vice Presidents of the University.

Provost Powers stated that each year President Stein and others in the administration visit different departments around campus, and part of those visits is an open forum where faculty and staff can ask questions. The kinds of questions that are now being asked were never once brought up at those meetings.

One senator indicated that a great deal of what this vote is about is a president who met every year with the faculty and never picked up on the fact that there was a problem.

Professor Predebon indicated that while he was Budget Liaison for the Senate that he asked questions about Ventures and received answers. However, it is apparent that the right questions were not asked.

One Senator recalled that when Ed Koepel addressed a faculty Senate luncheon while he was still Vice President of Operations and Finance, he was asked point blank how the Ventures Group was managing the endowment of the university. His reply was that it was a great year in that they grossed over $30 million. When the attempt was made to ask what was the net, no answer was provided. As it turned out, that was the year that Ventures lost $4 million. Even when you ask the right questions about ESI and Ventures, the answers are not forthcoming.

Dean Dresch stated that people were not prepared to come in an open and forthright manner to the administration with their concerns about Ventures. A faulty member in SBEA raised certain questions about accountability for this branch of university related activity, and used the mode of raising them in the newspaper. Approximately five days before that letter to the editor was published in January 1988, and before a commitment to publish it, the publisher notified the President of the existence of the letter. The President then notified the Provost of the existence of the letter. The Provost at that time said he was aware of the existence of the letter because Dresch had brought it to him a month ago (December 23, 1987), In January Dean Dresch was called into the President's Office along with the Provost. The agenda was Dean Dresch's position with reference to Board of Control enunciated university policy regarding ESI and Ventures. At one point in that discussion the Provost asked how many members of SBEA faculty would agree with the sentiments expressed in the letter to the editor; and further stated that if even one or two should agree, then get rid of the entire School. That is why a faculty member would wisely not have gone forth to the administration with his or her concerns.

Dean Dresch tried to bring his concerns to the Chair of the Board of Control, and the only response has been the question of whether any crimes have been committed.

President Adler summarized that the discussion focused on issues relate to input, governance, policies of the university, and ways in which personnel are handled within that structure.

Further discussion included:

1. The opinion of having the Senate take a strong position with regard to the Administration's handling of ESI/Ventures controversy and issues related to communications in place of a vote of confidence.
2. The possibility of amending the motion to focus on issues rather than having a simple vote of confidence.
3. The efficacy of Senators returning to their constituents to poll them about how to vote on the motion in light of any actions the Senate might take.

Provost Powers stated that this body [The Senate] cannot believe that calling for a vote of confidence does not damage the reputation of this institution.

A motion was made for a roll call vote of the Senate on the motion for a vote of confidence. (The tape record of Senate meeting 174 was terminated at this point due to the length of the session. Three 90 minute cassettes had been filled, and no more were on hand). The motion for a roll call vote was defeated 7 in favor, 15 opposed.

A motion for a secret ballot vote of the Senate on the motion for a vote of confidence was approved by a vote of 15 in favor, 6 opposed.

The Senate recessed for 5 minutes while the secret ballot was conducted. The motion to hold a vote of confidence was defeated 12 in favor, 14 opposed.

A motion to destroy the ballots was approved without opposition.

There was a motion to adopt the following resolution: "The Senate expresses a strong concern regarding communications, handling of the Ventures matters by the Administration and the Board of Control, and University governance. The Senate offers constructive input through the development of an evaluation procedure of the Administration, to be brought forward from the Institutional Evaluation Committee of the Senate, to be recommended to the Administration and Board of Control."

The motion was approved 22 in favor, 0 opposed, 4 abstained or did not vote.