THE
university SENATE OF
MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
Minutes of Meeting 421
30 March 2005
Synopsis:
(1) President Monson announced that the Faculty Distinguished Service Award Committee has decided not to give an award this year.
(2) President Monson announced a new configuration of professional staff units.
(3) The Senate heard a report from Shea McGrew on the Michigan Tech Fund operation.
(4) The Senate heard a report from Scott Amos on changes in the Distance Learning Activities
(5) The Senate passed Proposal 24-05 to redefine the Senate quorum to be a simple majority of existing Senators.
(6) The Senate passed Proposal 25-05 to amend the by-laws regarding the determination of professional staff.
(7) The Senate tabled Proposal 20-05, Transfer of Tenure and Rank between Academic Units.
1. CALL TO
ORDER AND ROLL CALL
President Monson called the University Senate Meeting 421 to order at 5:30 pm on Wednesday, 30 March 2005, in Room B45 EERC.
Secretary Glime called roll. Absent were representatives from Army/Air Force ROTC, Geological and Mining Engineering & Sciences, ME-EM, KRC, and Enrollment Management/OSRR. Liaisons in attendance were Becky Christianson (Staff Council), Wayne Bell (USG), and David Forel (GSC). Academic Services – Engineering, and Finance and Management currently have no elected representatives.
2. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS
Guests included Shea McGrew (MTU Fund), Ellen Horsch (Administration), Scott Amos (School of Technology/Distance Learning), and Beth Wagner (Student Affairs; Pat Gotschalk was acting as Senator).
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
President Monson added Proposals 27-05, 28-05, 29-05, 30-05, and 31-05 to the agenda under New Business.
C. Selfe MOVED and Clancey seconded the motion to approve the agenda as amended. The motion to approve PASSED on voice vote with no dissent.
4. approval of minutes from meetings 419 and 420
Bruch MOVED and Nordberg seconded the motion to approve the minutes of Meeting 419. The motion PASSED on voice vote with no dissent.
Senator Waddell requested that item 7 of the minutes for Meeting 420 be amended to specify both proposal numbers referenced. The first three sentences under 7.A. should read "Senator Waddell reminded the Senate of two proposals passed last year. One was to encourage new degrees (Proposal 8-04). Another was to enhance the campus community to attract more students (Proposal 9-04)."
Boschetto-Sandoval MOVED and D. Selfe seconded the motion to approve the minutes of Meeting 420 as amended. The motion PASSED on voice vote with no dissent.
5. Committee business/reports
President’s
Report
1. Kathy Halvorsen, the Chair of the Faculty Distinguished Service Award Committee, has informed the Senate President that the committee only received one nomination this year and that it has decided not to give the award to the nominee because the nominee was a clearer fit for the Instructional Innovation Award for which the nominee was also nominated. Further, the Senate will also need to nominate two Senators and elect two faculty at-large members for the Committee next year.
2. There has been some confusion concerning the terms of members of the University Committee on Academic Tenure. The new proposal recently approved by the Board of Control changed the terms to calendar year. Two members completed their terms in December and no one was elected as their replacements. Provost Reed and President Monson agreed that we could continue the terms of the two members whose terms expired until such time as replacements are found next fall. There will be openings for four new members for January, 2006.
3. The Professional Staff Committee and Professional Staff Senators met Monday to discuss changes in the professional staff constituencies. These will be discussed briefly under new business.
4. President Monson discussed the compensation arrangements for the Senate President with President Mroz on Monday. He agreed with Monson's suggestion that the incoming President be given one-half month’s salary in the summer prior to assuming office and one-half month’s salary in the summer after his/her term expires. This arrangement will provide an incentive for the incoming President to work on Senate activities that need to be accomplished early in the academic year.
Senator Flaspohler pointed out that there would be different pay depending on different primary jobs within the university. Senator Glime added that this division of time would mean that the President would receive less pay before the academic year than he/she would receive the following summer if raises occur that year.
5. The Provost Search Committee is making progress. It will publish a tentative position description and host a faculty forum next week to discuss the job description. It plans to advertise for the position in the next month or two and begin reviewing applications in mid-late June and, by mid-August, plans to identify a short list of candidates to invite to campus early in the fall semester. There will be no interviews before the start of school.
Senator D. Selfe asked how many faculty are on the committee. President Monson responded that there are 7 faculty appointed by the Senate, a chair, a dean, and other representatives. D. Selfe expressed concern that many faculty might not be here in the summer. Monson responded that once the ad goes out it will be 1-2 months before any action can be taken on candidates and this time period is likely to occupy most of the summer.
6. Please send any nominations for next year’s officers and for Professional Staff Senators At-Large to Erik Nordberg, the Chair of the Senate Elections Committee. We hope to hold elections prior to the next Senate meeting.
7. Bruce Barna, President of the MTU AAUP Chapter, asked that Proposal 20-05 be withdrawn from today’s agenda since transfer of tenure is a negotiable item in the current collective bargaining negotiations. President Mroz has asked him to have the AAUP consider the proposal as a basis for its negotiations on this matter.
Senator Rogers commented that AAUP President Barna had intended this as an observation, rather than a request, since it is a negotiable item.
6. presentations
Shea McGrew reported on MTU Fund Activities, discussing recent changes and their implications for fund raising. His message was that the way MTU is funded is changing rapidly and will never return to the way it was. Therefore the way to operate will never be the same. The funding formula for MTU should and must include a significant percent from outside sources. The state will continue to regulate tuition.
This is a top notch institution. There is a lot of sustained good will from alumni and corporations. However, we don't have a sustained ongoing fund-raising history. We don't have name recognition outside the region. And we don't have a culture of philanthropy. Less than 25% of our alumni contribute each year. While this is consistent with institutions of our type, it is not consistent with a goodwill relationship like ours.
A frequent question is where did the money go from the campaign that ended in 2002. It was used for capital projects and endowments. It is no surprise that the endowment is only $54 million. A typical expectation is $3 for the endowment for every $1 of operating budget. Our operating budget is more than $100 million. We only raised $10 million in the capital Campaign of 2002. We ramped up for the campaign, them "fell off the cliff."
McGrew considers himself to have two responsibilities: to raise and administer money for the university, and to raise money for the endowment fun.
The key objectives are to help sustain and improve the academic program of the university and to help MTU make the transition to a different funding formula. We must be able to tell our investors "Here's where we're going."
We need to do a few simple things. We need to articulate a strategic direction. He has asked the Board of Control to endorse and support the MTU fund. It's a MUST DO. A few years ago we managed to raise $146 million in five years. McGrew wants to raise $300 million in the next campaign, starting in July of 2007.
The MTU Fund is currently gearing up for the next campaign. They are hiring more fund raisers, improving the website, and providing better communication. The direction and priorities of the university are not decisions to be made by the fund raisers.
The final message is one of optimism.
Senator Bruch stated that VP Sellers had hired a whole mess of people who had raised enough money to sustain their own existence. What would be different this time?
McGrew responded that they are hiring as good as they can find. Personnel are mostly paid by the Tech Fund. $2.5 million of the support money is from the money raised as unrestricted gifts. The contribution from the endowment earnings has recently been lowered to 2%. Some of the previous hires have left and others have been let go. The downstate office space has been shut down, saving $50,000. Accountability will be very clear. There will be goals and a reward system.
Bruch asked if McGrew would be the one to supervise this. He responded that he would; he would both lead and be a fund raiser. We have a list of top names who could contribute $100 million.
Senator D. Selfe asked what process would be used to determined the top things to work on. McGrew responded that President Mroz is looking at the strategic plan to set priorities.
Senator Boschetto-Sandoval asked if we could see the list of potential donors on line. McGrew responded that we don't want to make such a list public but would be willing to share some information with individuals. There are two donors who could give $100 million. Quite a number could give $10 million.
Senator Nordberg observed that there seems to be a medley of who pays Tech Fund Officers. McGrew responded that most fund raisers are paid by the Tech Fund. He doesn't want units to have to find funds to hire fund raisers. Forestry has hired one person to work on recruitment and fund raising. The fund will need University support for its capital campaign in a few years.
Maroste (mgr. golf course; subst. Aux. Ent.) asked if giving fundraisers a commission would help. McGrew responded that the professional statement of ethics does not support giving a commission to fund-raisers in higher education. Doing so gives personnel an incentive to put pressure on donors, and this is not the presence we want to have. We want these donors to remain donors 25 years from now.
Scott Amos reported on distance learning. The program is basing its charge on Senate Proposal 06-01. The program is responsible for developing business processes, monitoring, and approving programs. Current programs are dictated by corporate programs. The delivery of courses may be two decades behind – not using web-based technology that is available on campus.
In 2001, the distinction between distance and on-campus learning was becoming blurred. Now it is totally blurred. The DLIC spent the fall term looking at how other schools ran their distance learning program. We need to quit looking at it as distance. Teaching like it is done in a live classroom doesn't work much of the time.
We also need to address the residency requirement. MTU requires that 30 of the last 36 hours must be at MTU. However, many distance learning students take 20 of these credits somewhere else.
There are also intellectual property questions.
Senator Sloan stated that there are lots of online programs. Amos agreed that MTU is not the only one doing them. As it is set up, it still requires a lot of paper and phone calls instead of doing these things online. We should be adopting webCT as a standard for delivery. The Academic disciplines should be responsible for the delivery of their programs.
Senator D. Selfe stated that a lot of the technology that is making this happen is portal technology. This group of personnel needs to be well supported by the university. He hopes the university recognizes what is behind these programs.
Senator Milligan asked what is going on with the program in
Milligan stated that web-based delivery is a lot of work. The model to tape a lecture being delivered on campus does not work. The corporate world now wants a more cost-effective and more global program.
Senator C. Selfe stated that we have not gone anywhere with outfitting our own classrooms with smart podiums.
Senator Amato-Henderson stated that one only needs to try to schedule a class in a room with technology – you will find that all are taken unless you want to teach at night.
Amos responded that the student computing fee is used to equip classrooms at other institutions.
Nordberg stated that there is a class size/capacity issue. There are big classes that don't use technology in those rooms and small classes that use these larger rooms in order to access the technology.
7. old business
A. Proposal 24-05 (revised): Amendment to the By-Laws: Redefinition of a Quorum and Senate Membership.
C. Selfe MOVED and Nordberg seconded the motion to approve Proposal 24-05. The motion PASSED on voice vote with no opposition.
B. Proposal 25-05: Amendment to the By-Laws: Determination of Professional Staff. This amendment is needed to implement the new clause in the Constitution regarding professional staff membership.
D. Selfe MOVED and Bruch seconded the motion to approve Proposal 25-05. The motion PASSED on voice vote with no opposition.
C. Proposal 20-05 (revised): Transfer of Tenure and Rank between Academic Units. Bruch MOVED and Waddell seconded the motion to handle this proposal as a recommendation by the Senate to the AAUP union. D. Selfe stated that the recommendation should go to both parties [administration and union]. Bruch accepted this as a friendly amendment.
Senator Cornilsen stated that since the AAUP will not have a contract, the Senate should go ahead. Horsch (Administration) added that the working administrative philosophy is that it should be business as usual in the absence of the contract, so the Senate could pass the proposal if it chooses.
C. Selfe stated that she would feel conflicted if passing this would undermine the activities of the union. Cornilsen asked how it would undermine the union. C. Selfe responded that then the union can't negotiate.
Senator Mattila asked if the Board would have to approve the proposal if it is passed. Monson stated that they would probably pass it on to the AAUP. He added that the Administration is holding the Sabbatical Leave proposal passed earlier this year because of upcoming AAUP negotiations. [Monson learned after the meeting that the Administration had approved the Sabbatical Leave Proposal and sent the approval to the Senate Assistant earlier in the year.]
Senator Milligan stated that we shouldn't duplicate effort with the AAUP. This would begin a precedent.
Cornilsen responded that we should still pass this proposal.
Milligan MOVED to table the motion and Pollins seconded it. President Monson ruled that the entire Senate should vote on the motion to table. The motion to table PASSED on show of hands with 21 votes in favor out of 29 present.
8. New Business
A. Proposal 27-05: Late Course Add and Drop Policies. Beth Wagner (first year programs) provided background to the proposal as chair of the Instructional Policy Committee. Its intent is to simplify the process of add and drop for first year students so that during the first five days of the term they need only their advisor's signature to drop or add a course. No advisor approval would be needed for section changes. After the third week both the advisor and instructor must sign.
D. Selfe asked if the staff could vote on this issue. Monson ruled that the staff could vote because the proposal impacts many advisors who are staff and who are in a good position to understand the current problem.
B. Proposal 28-05
through 31-05: Proposal for degree
title changes in the
President Monson announced that the Executive Committee had approved a new configuration of professional staff constituents. KRC representation has joined the research and sponsored educational programs and graduate school. International programs has moved to group 12. There are now twelve constituent units. The academic service units have been divided into three groups instead of two. These units include 147 constituents with 80 in engineering. They are not divided by geographic proximity.
Senator Janners asked how individuals are determined as constituents. Monson responded that the staff committee makes informed decisions. Individuals can send questions to the committee. Horsch asked if the committee had worked with HR in arriving at the list. Monson suggested that Horsch should talk to Senator Polzien on that point. Horsch asked if Pollins' part of IT is grouped with IT or with Technology. Monson responded that they are in with Technology and that ETS is in with IT. They had asked Patty Lins where her group wanted to go.
D. Selfe asked where people can send names if they are interested in being senators. Monson responded that at-large senator nominations should go to Erik Nordberg; unit senator nominations should go to the Senate Assistant, Mechelle Normand.
D. Selfe stated that there is no backup [alternate] for at-large Senators, so it is more difficult to get people to be interested in those positions. Monson responded that the officers have been discussing that issue.
9. Adjournment
Clancey MOVED and Waddell seconded the motion to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:15 pm.
Respectfully Submitted by Janice M. Glime
Secretary of the University Senate