SYNOPSIS:
President Robert Keen called University Senate Meeting 402 to order at 5:35 p.m., Wednesday, 10 March 2004, in Room B45 EERC.
1. ROLL CALL OF SENATORS
Secretary Terry Monson called roll. Absent were
Alan Brokaw (At-large) and representatives from
Army/Air Force ROTC, Humanities, School of
Technology, the Keweenaw Research Center,
Academic Services - Engineering, Auxiliary Enterprises, Finance and
Advancement, and Student Affairs and Educational
Opportunity. Liaisons in attendance were Brandon Richards (USG)
and Becky Christianson (Staff Council).
2. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS
Visitors included Harold Evensen (ME-EM),
Marcia Goodrich (Tech Topics), Kent Wray (Provost),
Sharron Paris (OSRR), and the following Michigan
Tech students: David Johnson, Joseph Bartell, Joel
Hansen, Robert Green, Jon Grandstrom, Donald
Misson, Victor Stevens, Matt Merlo, Mark Addy, Molly
Crouch, Kim Erickson, Natalie Flynn, Lacey Sirdenis,
Bill Dehlin, Matt Walsh, Nick Putnam, Pat Butterfield,
Todd Brauer, Aaron Scherwinski, and Steph Kajpust.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
President Keen presented the agenda and asked
for modifications or additions. He noted one addition,
namely there will be a report from the Curricular Policy
Committee under Committee Reports. There were no
other modifications or additions and there were no
objections to the agenda. [Appendix A. NOTE: Only
official senate and library archival copies of the
minutes will contain a full complement of appendices.]
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MEETING 401
President Keen presented the minutes from
Meeting 401 and asked if there were any additions or
corrections to these minutes. Senate Secretary
Monson reported that Provost W. Kent Wray had sent
him a correction of the acronym of the Indian university
cited in the second full paragraph of the second
column of page 10663. It should be IIHE or the ILLM
Academy of Higher Education. This correction will be
made to the minutes. Senator Bill Gregg presented
corrections related to his presentation of Proposal 21-04, Suspension of the BS Degree in Mining
Engineering and Proposal 22-04, Amendment to
Proposal 16-97 Minors in Degree Programs at meeting
401. His corrections, as described below, will
also be made to the minutes.
The first correction for Proposal 21-04 is found on
page 10661, second column, first paragraph, third
sentence under Proposal 21-04, which should read.
"The Provost asked the Senate to consider this
suspension, upon recommendation from the College of
Engineering. The College of Engineering
recommendation did include suggestions to change
had implications for the university's obligations
under the MTU Charter (Public Act 70 of 1885), which
includes language directing MTU to provide the
inhabitants of Michigan with the means of acquiring a
"thorough knowledge of the mineral industry in its
various phases"" (strikethrough indicates deletion and
bold indicates revision). The second correction is
found in the last sentence of the same paragraph,
which should read "He further commented that the
Curricular Policy Committee does not support the
entire proposal since some parts are not relevant to
the MTU curriculum. Hence, he only recommended
adoption of the committee approved only the first
paragraph of this proposal. The third correction is
found in the second sentence of the next paragraph,
which should read The Committee His report
concluded that the loss of the BS in Mineral
Processing Option and the BS in Mining Engineering
will substantially decrease, but not eliminate, MTU's
ability to fulfill its obligations under Public Act 70 since
the BS programs in Geology, Applied Geophysics, and
Geological Engineering provide bachelor degree
programs that cover the mineral exploration and
prospect evaluation and mine planning and
development phases of the mineral industry." The
fourth correction occurs at the top left incomplete
paragraph on page 10662, which should read
"student was several times higher that that of educating most other engineering students. He
presented data from a study done under Edward
Lumsdaine, then Dean of the College of Engineering,
that supported this conclusion. He noted that there are
only two Mining Engineering faculty members is only
one mining engineer on campus at this time. Dean
Warrington pointed out that there was an additional
mining engineer on campus, who will be leaving
next fall. Gregg said that and that provisions have
been made to ensure that current Mining Engineering
students will be able to complete their degrees. The
next correction is in second sentence of the paragraph
beginning "Senator Rogers inquired …" in the same
column, which should read "Robert Warrington (Dean
of the College of Engineering) responded that there is
an ABET accredited mineral processing option minor
but the mineral processing degree program
concentration has been eliminated. Gregg
commented that on-site beneficiation makes mineral
processing a phase of the mineral industry but that off-site beneficiation is not always considered a phase of
the mineral industry."
Senator Gregg also pointed out a correction in the
discussion of the minutes for Proposal 22-04. This
correction is found in the right column of page 10662.
The third sentence of the first paragraph under
Proposal 22-04 should read " Other amendments: (1)
limited granting of minors only to students in
Bachelors' degree programs, (2) noted that made
minors are listed noted on diplomas, (3), allowed
minors with more than 16 credits to allow additional
credits beyond 16 to be at any level, (4) made it clear
that the minimum GPA of 2.0 in a minor is a
cumulative GPA, and (5) required prerequisites to
minor courses to be included in the minor program or
as a footnote to the proposal."
There were no other corrections, and, with no objections, these minutes were approved as corrected.
5. PRESIDENT'S REPORT
President Keen reported that the following
proposals were sent to and approved (on 3 March
2004) by the Administration: 19-04, Suspension of the
AAS Degree in Chemical Engineering Technology; 20-04, Graduate Certificates; 21-04, Suspension of the BS
Degree in Mining Engineering; 22-04, Amendments to
Proposal 16-97 Minors in Degree Programs; and 23-04, Graduate Certificate in Sustainability. He also
reported that the Administration approved the following
proposals on February 29, 2004: 15-04, Master of
Engineering-Civil Engineering and Master of
Engineering - Environmental Engineering; 16-04, PhD
Program in Industrial Archeology; and 17-04, Minor in
Polymer Science and Engineering - Department of
Chemical Engineering. [Appendices B-N]
President Keen received information from Dan Greenlee (MTU's CFO) at the last meeting on academic programs' share of salaries, wages, and fringes requested by Senator John Pilling and on the 31 Department of Mathematical Sciences faculty members who restored their salaries following the initiation of the furlough system requested by Senator Susan Amato-Henderson [Appendices O and P]. Salaries, wages, and fringes in academic areas ($44,961,400) represented 66.4% of the University's total salaries, wages, and fringes ($67,747,415) in FY03. Information on the Mathematical Sciences faculty came from via email from Deborah Lassila (Human Resources) at the request of Dan Greenlee. The email stated: "The accounts were primarily designated fund accounts with most faculty only partially restored." President Keen asked Senator Amato-Henderson if this information satisfied her. She responded 'yes.' He then asked if the Senate if this matter should be pursued further. Senator Jacek Borysow requested further information. Senator Amato-Henderson commented that she was pretty sure that these funds came from D-accounts related to distance education. This explanation satisfied Senator Borysow and the issue will not be pursued further.
President Keen next summarized items of Senate interest that occurred at the last Board of Control Meeting (5 March 2004).
Accounting consultant Nathan Dickmeyer presented his preliminary report on University budgeting practices. President Keen asked that a copy of the final report be sent to the Senate for its review. The final report is expected in the next two weeks. Board Chair David Brule asked President Keen if this report satisfied Senate concerns expressed in Proposal 10-04. President Keen responded that the Senate's answer would need to wait until it had studied the final report and that he would report on the Senate's wishes at the next Board meeting. He further commented that the report contains a great deal more than requested in Proposal 10-04, which should provide an interesting Senate discussion of MTU's budgetary process.
Larry Davis, Senate Finance Committee Co-Chair, presented the report of the so-called Kershner Committee at the Board meeting, of which some results will be publicly disseminated. The Committee has to decide what will be circulated and how it will be presented to the University community.
President Keen formally presented the results of the referendum of the Senate constituency relative to confidence in President Tompkins, expressed reluctant support for suspension of the BS in Mining Engineering and AAS in Chemical Technology degrees, expressed Senate support for the new degrees (BS in Psychology and PhD in Industrial Archeology) to be added to MTU's curricula, thanked the Board for establishing the Kershner Committee, and noted that it was almost without precedent to have a Committee consisting of members from the Board of Control and MTU faculty and staff working on University problems.
Senator Dickie Selfe thanked President Keen for his recommendation that the Board should not sweep carryforwards on lab accounts. President Keen responded that, at a breakfast prior to the Board meeting, he and, especially, Senate Finance Committee Co-Chairs Larry Davis and Jim Pickens made a strong case for excluding lab accounts from swept carryforwards because the University had promised students that their lab fees would support student activity in the labs. They told the Board that sweeping carryforwards would have broken a promise to students and made students and faculty skeptical about the disposition of student lab fees.
Senator Borysow asked for more details about the Board's unwillingness to restore salaries because of continuing financial problems at MTU. President Keen responded that he will explain what he heard at the Board meeting. The Administration proposed that the Board rescind the salary reductions. However, the Board thought that it would be irresponsible to restore the salary reductions, given the projected $1.8-$2.1 million deficit this fiscal year and the Chief Financial Officer's and the Kershner Committee's projections of a $4 million deficit for FY05. Senator Borysow asked if there was any explanation why the projected $4 million deficit next year and $2 million this year differed from the $10 million estimate made several months ago. Senator Pickens commented that one time transfers and incomplete use of financial aid were causes of the lower deficit projected for this year, both of which are unlikely to occur in the future. However, the larger deficit needs to be dealt with at some time. President Keen remarked that the estimate of a $4 million deficit was a lot harder and more reliable value than the earlier projected $10 million since it was developed independently by the CFO and the Kershner Committee.
6. COMMITTEE REPORTS
Curricular Policy Committee
Senator Bill Gregg, Chair of the Curricular Policy
Committee, presented a brief history of the Mineral
Processing degree at MTU, based upon information
given him by Provost W. Kent Wray. From 1954-2000,
the mineral processing engineering degree program
was an option under the BS degree in Metallurgical
and Materials Engineering. Prior to 2000, most
programs like mineral processing were referred to as
options. Because of Banner technicalities, the title of
option was changed to concentration in 2000. In
summer 2002, the mineral processing engineering
concentration was eliminated. Meanwhile, a mineral
processing minor was approved when the original
proposal to develop minor programs was approved.
That minor too was temporarily ended in summer
2002. This year, the Department of Chemical
Engineering picked up the mineral processing minor as
part of its curriculum; however, this timing did not allow
it to be re-evaluated and included in the most recent
University catalog.
Senator Scott Pollins asked if the University had not converted to Banner in 1991; hence the change from an option to a concentration should have occurred earlier. Senator Gregg responded that it was his understanding that the change from option to concentration was due to a subprogram under Banner. Provost Wray indicated that the Banner conversion occurred in 1993-4 and he was uncertain as to why the name change from option to concentration did not occur earlier. Sharron Paris (Office of Student Records and Registration) commented that the name change actually occurred during the conversion from quarters to semesters in 2000 and was not a Banner conversion issue. Senator Gregg responded that he thought the name change had something to do with Banner programs that break programs into concentrations rather than options. Ms. Paris added that the semester conversion was an apt time to change terminology and that a decision was made to reference them as concentrations rather than options. Senator Gregg commented that the change also affected what was reported on students' diploma; the title option was changed to concentration as a result of the Banner program. President Keen commented that this issue has some importance given the wording of the MTU Charter and what might be possible reactions downstate when the suspension of the BS in Mining Engineering degree is communicated.
[Via an e-mail to the Senate discussion list dated 15 March 2004, Senator Gregg provided the following clarification of a question that arose during his discussion of the Mineral Processing Minor at this meeting.
" At the time the Banner software was adopted (1993 or something), MTU called all of its top-end degree specializations "Options". Banner called them "Concentrations". This appears on Banner service screens, for example, if you pull up a student record, it has boxes for Major, Concentration, and Minor. From ~1993 to 2000, MTU put up with having two different titles, a potentially confusing situation. When planning for the semester change however, the responsible committee(s) decided to go with Banner's use of the term "Concentration", and the old term "Option" was dropped. No problem, but now we all have to remember that Concentrations are the same as the old Options, and therefore require Senate approval. There are some on the way."]
Elections
President Keen reported that the Senate office
had received one nomination (Senator Becky
Christianson) for the Vice President's position vacated
by Senator Christine Williams. He asked if there were
other nominations. Since no other nominations were
presented, he asked if there were no objections to
closing the nominations. Senator Erik Nordberg then
MOVED (Senator Bruch support) to elect Senator
Christianson by acclamation. The motion passed in a voice vote.
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Proposal 24-04, The Title and Administrative
Position of Dean [See minutes, page 10736, for a
copy of this proposal.]
President Keen stated that there was an open
motion on the floor to approve this proposal at the time
of adjournment of the last Senate meeting.
Commenting further, he indicated that Provost Wray
requested a delay of discussion of this proposal until
the next meeting in order to provide an opportunity for
Dr. James P. Cross (Executive Director of the Center
for International Education) to address the Senate.
Senator Marilyn Cooper asked to comment further on the definition of a dean, which dates to etymology of the 14th century. Her overhead suggested that there is a long-standing definition of a dean that distinguishes academic administrators in charge of operations essential to the educational mission of an institution from other administrators charged with operations not central to the educational mission. It makes a difference in terms of control over activities in which the faculty has control, such as the curriculum, from those that it does not.
Senator Borysow asked if MTU now has more deans than in 1985. Senator Cooper responded that we now have one more dean (distance education) than we had in 1985. President Keen said that MTU had an additional dean (special academic programs) in 1981 until Professor Cal Gale left MTU. This deanship has not been filled since his departure. Hence, MTU lost one dean (special academic programs) between 1981 and 1985 and gained one dean (distance education) since then. We have the same number of deans now as compared to 1981 and one more compared to 1985.
Senator Amato-Henderson MOVED (Senator Dave Hand support) to delay debate on Proposal 24-04 until the next Senate meeting in two weeks. President Keen noted that he needed to correct a previous ruling he had made on the Senate floor concerning a motion to delay until a particular time. That motion is debatable while a motion to delay indefinitely or permanently is not debatable.
Senator Dickie Selfe questioned why discussion should be delayed. President Keen responded that part of the genesis of this proposal was an administrative request to create a Dean of International Education. Faculty involved in a meeting last August expressed some reservations over creating more deans. As a result, this proposal was developed to place restrictions on the title of dean. If it passed and was approved by the Administration, this proposal would preclude the appointment of a Dean of International Education. Dr. Cross has asked to address the Senate on this issue.
Senator Cooper noted that it was unclear if the title change to dean would require MTU to conduct a search for this position. President Keen said presumably, but he was not sure and that he had sent a memo to the Provost on this issue, which the Provost challenged. Further, he noted that there is a single provision in the A-List of the Senate Constitution ["Procedures for the selection of Deans and Department Chairs" (Article III, Section F, Number 10 of the Senate Constitution)] that supposedly gives the Senate control over procedures to select a dean. The issue is whether this provision allows the Senate to participate in the selection of deans. Clearly, it does not limit the creation of deans but does grant the Senate prerogative over the procedures used to select deans. He assumed that if the Senate put forth a proposal on how to search for deans that the Administration approved, then the Administration would be obliged to follow this procedure, but perhaps could limit it to an internal search.
Senator Don Beck asked about the procedure used to select the Dean of Distance Education. President Keen said that the Senate waffled a bit on the Dean of Distance Education since it realized that the distance education program was in a delicate situation with Ford and General Motors. The resolution suggested by a study committee on distance education, which was a quasi-Senate committee, was that something like a Dean of Distance Education needed to be appointed in order to define who the MTU contact for distance education clients. That proposal was accepted. The Vice Provost for Instruction (Stephen Bowen) was then named Dean of Distance Education. When Dr. Bowen left, the function was transferred to the Graduate School. Continuing, President Keen observed that, if the proposal passes, then the title of Dean of Distance Education would be rescinded.
Senator Bahne Cornilsen asked if President Keen had answered Senator Selfe's question. President Keen replied that it was so that the Senate could hear Dr. Cross argue against this proposal since more deans needed to be created.
Senator Deb Bruch MOVED (Senator Hand support) to terminate debate and vote on the motion. The motion passed in a voice vote among academic senators.
President Keen returned to the main motion (to delay discussion to the next meeting). This motion passed in a hand vote (13 yes 10 no).
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Proposal 27-04, Amendments to Proposal 17-02
Late Course Add Policy [Appendix Q]
President Keen commented that this proposal
originated from the Instructional Policy Committee.
Since its Chair was absent, he would introduce the
proposal. He indicated that this change does not
change academic procedures with respect to late
adds. Rather, it is due to the change to the 14-week
academic calendar. In the 14-week calendar, the first
week of classes may be short weeks so the proposed
changes satisfy Federal requirements and allow
students more time to add courses. After the first
week of classes, the proposal will require students to
obtain approval of instructors and academic advisors
to add a course; after the second week, they will only
be allowed to add under special circumstances. What
does change is the catalog language that the last day
for adding classes is the Wednesday of the second
week of classes, i.e., it would move the deadline to the
Wednesday of the second week of classes, which
would allow students more time to add courses.
Senator Anil Jambekar MOVED (Senator Pollins support) to approve this proposal. The motion passed in a voice vote among academic senators.
B. Proposal 25-04 Minor in Manufacturing
[Appendix R]
President Keen asked Finance Committee Co-Chair Pickens for the Committee's reaction to the
proposal. He reported that the Committee saw no
adverse financial ramifications.
Senator Gregg, Curricular Policy Committee Chair, indicated that the Committee had spent a fair amount of time examining this proposal. It added verbiage that indicated the origination of the minor (ME-EM), made it clear who its clientele would be (the addition of the sentence "This minor is most suitable for students in ME-EM department." under Catalog Description), and added a list of prerequisites now required in all minor proposals. He further noted that this minor is one of the last to be sent directly to the Senate for action. Henceforth, they must be communicated to the Senate via the Provost.
Senator Pollins MOVED (Senator Selfe support) to approve this proposal. The motion passed in a voice vote among academic senators.
C. Proposal 26-04, Minor in Product Design
[Appendix S]
Senator Gregg observed that his comments on
the previous proposal also apply here. The two
proposals' structures are similar; they now have lists of
prerequisites for courses in the minors and appropriate
catalog descriptions, including statements that the
minor is designed for students within the ME-EM
Department. He recommended approval.
Senator Pickens indicated that the Senate Finance Committee saw no financial ramifications in the proposal.
Senator Monson asked a question about the jargon in the proposal, which Senate visitor Dr. Harold Evensen (ME-EM) answered.
Senator Jambekar MOVED (Senator Bruch support) to approve this proposal. The motion passed in a voice vote among academic senators.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Senator Bruch MOVED (Senator Tim Malette
support) to adjourn. The motion carried and Senate
meeting 402 adjourned at 6:32 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by Terry Monson
Secretary of the University Senate