Address to
the Board of Control on February 24, 2011
Chair Richardson and members of
the board; distinguished audience
On behalf of the University
Senate, I would like to compliment President Mroz on
the speech of stability that he delivered three days ago. Please interrupt me during this presentation
if you have any questions. Members of
the Senate Executive Committee were very pleased to be informed of our
breakfast meeting in late April and we are all looking forward to that
occasion. Today I would like to apprise
you of the Senate’s accomplishments to date and I will start with this Reader’s
Digest suitable quote that a candidate for one of the strategic
hiring positions had at the end of their talk.
As I read this during that seminar, I had to point out that I disagreed
with this contention completely. Anyone
who has ever supervised a graduate student and who has had to suggest
corrections to a thesis would know that there are times when in trying to
discover the best in others, we do not use our best language. Maybe it is. My message here is that any action that
results in a change in people’s circumstance is viewed, initially and
reflexively, negatively.
In the Senate, one mechanism used
to bring out the best is shown in the attached illustration on attendance at
our senate meetings. By this I mean just
making public the record of attendance. With
the notable exception of the Army/Air Force ROTC whose representative is AWOL,
there is also a dividing line between the attendances on this slide as
compared to the next slide. This cannot be attributed to bad
weather. In any case the Senate
continues to move forward and we have rendered judgment on several proposals;
two which I will describe to you in some detail. I do this not to belabor you with the minutia
of everyday life at our university but to establish the fact that the
University Senate is deeply concerned with the running of this institution and
has worked with the intention of trying to make Tech a more efficient and
better institution for all under the latitude that both you and President Mroz allow. I should note that in addition to these slides
being stored in your agenda, this actual address and the slides are available
on the Senate website as shown here.
Since
my last presentation on December 10, 2010 and at the time these slides were
prepared, we have had three meetings to date with three presentations the
details of which are on this slide. Conflict of Interest by VP Reed was very informative
as it pertained to new requirements from the US government. The CATPR presentation is easily addressed
since this committee had no business last year.
Provost Seel presented an account of the statistics regarding
tenure. However, this aspect of “Centralized
Computing Services” is one that the quotation and my message of analysis describe
adequately. Here we heard about resistance
on all fronts to a change which on the surface seems very reasonable. We will save money, offer better service and
also strive for equality in service, yet there remains an undercurrent of
suspicion regarding the motives behind these procedures. Unfortunately, many past occurrences are responsible
for the tendency to view this amalgamation with suspicion. Interestingly, CIO Milligan mentioned in the
senate that he was trying to accomplish something of this nature since the
early 1990’s. It would appear that the
university needs to be more affirmative in quickly recognizing the merits of
intelligent suggestions and implementing them.
As
of February 4, 2011, the Senate has worked on 22 proposals of which the Senate
has already passed judgment on 15 of these with 7 being considered at varying
stages of deliberation. We have evolved numerical and
lettering systems to differentiate between proposals that are introduced on the
senate floor and those that are under committee consideration. Therefore, this slide
shows the numerical scheme with the results obtained by the Senate and the
Administration. In the case of proposal
1-11, i.e., the first proposal in the 2010-2011academic period, which failed to
pass the Senate, there is no reason for the administration to spend time on
this, unless they are interested. This
next slide
depicts new degree options, changes in titles and modification to the sick
leave policy submitted by the Fringe Benefits Committee. Incidentally, the Chair of this committee
Patti Luokkanen from the Library was recently elected
to be the Vice-President of the Senate. When these slides were prepared these
proposals were approved by the Senate and we were pleased to be informed a few
days ago that the administration has also approved all except for the two that
I will discuss for which we still await a response. Next
we see a series of degrees labeled as b-11, c-11 and d-11 approved by the
Senate Curricular Policy Committee in accord with the dictates of an approved
procedure. I had alluded to this in a previous
address as a mechanism by which the Senate can speed up deliberation on these
proposals. This Committee still has tons
of work to do and one on this committee, who I will not name but is among our
most distinguished members from an engineering field, has recently publicly
complained that the Chair of this committee, Senator Andrew Storer
from Forestry, had insisted on them working during the Christmas Break.
In
2009, then interim-Provost Seel initiated a
discussion with members of the appropriate Senate Committees regarding
reformation of Unit Governance. As you
are aware, all departments and school at the university operate under Charters
defined following Senate proposal 16-92, each of which individually lays out
policies and procedures for governance designed by each unit and approved by
our President. Since 1992, the
University Senate has amended and expanded the issues that units should address
in their Charter. The different departments
and, in these matters, according to a Senate’s By-Law, Schools are considered
as equivalent to Departments, have all derived charters in one form or
another. Some Charters are not in
compliance with these requirements. They
vary in the numbers of pages as shown here
and a similar trend is maintained for the number of words and lines as
illustrated here,
though there is not an exact correlation.
Specifically, the Forestry School requires more page space for the words
in their charter.
During
the period 2006 to 2009 and specifically referring to Proposals 11-06 and
22-08, the Senate attempted on two separate occasions to revise and reform
Charters. Eventually after a period of some debate, the
Senate did approve both proposals but these were not viewed favorably by the
administration. In the Fall of 2009, interim-Provost Seel
signaled that the administration was interested to once again discuss reforms
to the system. The charters were too
long and detailed, he explained. The
documents should be paired down to minimal requirements. In addition, the Administration felt that
since Departmental Chairs and School Deans were administrative officers,
recommended for service by their units, and serving at the pleasure of the
President, Michigan Tech should adopt a uniform system that covered searching
for, hiring and evaluating chairs and deans of schools.
Two
Senate committees spent a great deal of time meeting with different units on
campus and formulating proposals 5-11 and 6-11 which were recently approved by
the Senate. These documents represent
compromise to reform the charter system.
Of the items
proposal 5-11 requires for unit Charters, seven are required by other Senate
policies and were identified by Provost Seel as
essential. In order to assure broad
acceptance among the university’s constituents, 5-11 also allows individual
units to keep already approved items from their current charters, if these
departments wish to do so. Therefore,
proposal 5-11 can be regarded as an evolutionary step towards one charter for
all departments, which at this stage is perhaps not to be advised, given the
peculiarities that remain among these departments. These perhaps extraneous items can be regarded,
if I use some biochemical parlance, as junk DNA,
whereby the essential genes to run a Department are in items 1-7 and other
material can also be included, specifically material that is outside of points
1-7 but in approved charters. Any
further material could be placed in a separate operations manual which would
not require administrative review. However,
it should be noted that similar to junk DNA, this additional material may prove
useful on occasion.
The
removal of the procedures to search for, hire and evaluate Chairs and School
Deans from Charters meant that a separate proposal with these details is
required. The policy, proposal 6-11, was
assembled using sections from currently approved charters, particularly those of
the Chemical Engineering department and the Schools of Forest Resources and
Environmental Sciences and Technology.
The policy dictates the way by which academic units form search
committees to sort through applicants, determine the best candidates and
recommend those to the administration. The
administration then makes the final decision and chooses from this list of
candidates. A cycle of evaluation then
begins. These evaluations are meant to
provide useful feedback to deans or chairs in a timely manner so that they can
institute improvements before their term ends or they enter a major performance
review. These administrative officers
will only be evaluated in the second and third years of each three year term in
contrast to the annual evaluation of our President.
Summing
up, under the guidance of Provost Seel, two
committees in the Senate worked to craft these two proposals. This involved the extrication of the most
meritorious language in existing approved charters, meetings with interested
Departments or Schools, and numerous discussions within these committees and on
the Senate floor. This is in part
illustrated on the bottom of this slide
and these proposals accomplish the streamlining of Charters and the Centralization
of the Search and Evaluating Procedures for Departmental Chairs and School
Deans. I would like to recognize the
contributions of the Chairs of the Senate’s Academic and Administrative Policy
Committees, Senator Timothy Scarlett from Social Sciences and the at-large
Senator Gerard Caneba who is in Chemical Engineering,
respectively, who worked to establish these two proposals and to get them
through the Senate. The merits of these
proposals are obvious to anyone reading them.
Thanks
for listening.