MINUTES OF MEETING NUMBER 182
OF The
Senate OF mICHIGAN tECHNOLOGical university

13 March 1991

(Senate Minute pages: 3183-3191)

President's Report

President Julien invited Vice President Stucky to report on the state of the budget (Appendix A - Available by Request from the Senate Office).

Vice President Stucky indicated that State appropriations for next year are very uncertain at this time. The announcement of salary and wage increases will be delayed until next fall because of the uncertainty. The University has changed auditing firms to Arthur Anderson from Ernst & Young. One report that may have caused some confusion is the consolidated statement (first page of Appendix A). Buildings and equipment are included, causing the large fund balances of $157 million and $166 million.

President Julien suggested that the Senate provide a town meeting type of forum at which senior administrators, like Vice President Stucky, could interact with the faculty to explain and discuss reports, such as the budget and policies. Vice President Stucky indicated that he was very willing to participate in such a meeting.

Three Senate members (Randall Freisinger, Christa Walck and Davis Hubbard) were selected to represent the Senate on panels for panel discussions with presidential candidates.

President Julien received a letter from several people in the ME-EM department questioning the appropriateness of prohibiting exams on the Wednesday before Winter Carnival. This will be referred to the Instructional Policy Committee.

Vice President's Report

Vice President Tampas provided a written report on the March 6 and March 13 Academic Council meetings (Appendix B - Available by Request from the Senate Office).

Vice President Tampas offered the observations that Academic Council meetings now include more people and are far more open than they have been in the past. The meetings have evolved into an idea sounding board. However, deans and directors now meet separately without outside representation to make decisions.

Proposals 5-90, 6-90, 7-90, 8-90

Proposals 5-90, 6-90, 7-90, 8-90: Final approval for Ph.D. programs in Civil Engineering, Mining Engineering, Chemical Engineering and Electrical Engineering were moved forward in the agenda to accommodate visitors representing those departments.

All four proposals were adopted on voice votes without opposition.

Committee Reports

A. Budget Liaison Officer - No report.

B. Curricular Policy - No report.

C. Elections

Vice President Tampas indicated that spring elections are coming. Nominations are required for two at-large senators, one member for the Committee on Academic Tenure, one member for the General Education Committee, two members for the Sabbatical Leave Committee, and one member for the Athletic Council.

D. Faculty Handbook - No report.

E. Fringe Benefits - No report.

F. Institutional Evaluation

Senator Hubbard reported that the Committee is working on the question of release time and course loads.

G. Instructional Policy - No report.

 

Reports from Affiliated and/or Ad Hoc Committees

A. University Academic Calendar Committee

This report was taken up under New Business on Proposal 9-90.

B. University Planning Committee - No report.

C. University Computer Executive Committee - No report.

D. University Administration Evaluation Commission

Senator Suryanarayana reported the Commission has met five times during the past few months and has made some progress on the evaluation procedures. The Commission is trying to finalize the mechanics for soliciting the input from the Senate constituents. The questionnaire is being prepared. Also the Commission is in the process of selecting the external member into the Commission.

The Commission is attempting to complete the evaluation by fall of 1991 so that the process will be in place for the new administration.

 

Old Business

Senator Bulleit introduced a proposed wording change to Board of Control Policy 8.5 (Appendix C - Available by Request from the Senate Office). Senator Shapton explained why this change is necessary to support the approved distant programs.

A motion to recommend the proposed wording change of Board of Control Policy 8.5 to the administration and Board of Control was approved on a voice vote without dissent.

New Business

A. Proposal 9-90, Michigan Technological University Should Change to a Semester Academic Calendar by Academic Year 1994-1995.

A motion to adopt Proposal 9-90, Michigan Technological University Should Change to a Semester Academic Calendar by Academic Year 1994-1995 was brought to the floor.

An amendment was proposed to change the wording to "In accordance with the faculty vote, the Senate of Michigan Technological University recommends that Michigan Technological University change to a semester academic calendar by academic year 1994-1995."

Arguments in favor of the amendment included: The faculty has already voted, and the Senate should simply comply with the results of the referendum.

Arguments against the amendment included: The proposed amendment makes the statement much too strong. The faculty was only 51% in favor, 46% opposed with 5% undecided.

The amendment was defeated on a show of hands.

A motion was made to Table Proposal 9-90.

Arguments in favor of the motion to table included: With a new president coming and uncertainty about new budgets, this may not be the best time to change the academic calendar.

Arguments against the motion to table included: A change in the academic calendar is part of the normal flow of university business and should not be influenced by the selection of a president or budget considerations. Budget considerations should be considered by the administration and the Board of Control, but that is a problem with implementation not policy.

The motion to table Proposal 9-90 was defeated on a show of hands.

A motion to amend Proposal 9-90 to "The Michigan Technological University Board of Control should consider changing to semester academic calendar by academic year 1994-1995 in accordance with the Report of the University Committee on the Academic Calendar and the faculty vote therein."

Arguments in favor and against this amendment included: a) This amendment provides a seal of approval to the Committee report. b) This weakens the proposal. c) If this amendment is approved then the Committee report should be rewritten. This would lend additional weight to the recommendations contained in appendices A and B of the report.

The motion was defeated on a show of hands.

A motion to request a roll call vote on Proposal 9-90 was adopted on a voice vote.

Proposal 9-90 was defeated with 10 in favor, 11 against.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,
Gary Lyon, Secretary