THE university SENATE OF
MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

Minutes of Meeting 427

14 September 2005

Synopsis:

(1) The Senate heard a presentation by Dean Warrington on the recommendations of the Tuition and Financial Aid Advisory Team.

(2) The Senate Secretary and President met with President Mroz and Provost Reed to discuss the status of the AAUP negotiations regarding shared governance, especially regarding the Senate and Charters.

(3) The Senate heard a report from Patty Sotirin and Owen Mills on the Senate Task Force on Career Opportunities for Professional Staff (STFCOPS).

(4) The Senate elected Patricia Gotschalk to serve as Senate representative on the ombudsperson selection committee.

1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

President Sloan called the University Senate Meeting 427 to order at 5:30 pm on Wednesday, 14 September 2005, in Room B45 EERC.

Secretary Glime called roll. Absent were at-large Senators Don Beck and Brenda Helminen and representatives from Education, Mathematical Sciences, Academic Services C, and Student Affairs. Liaisons in attendance were Becky Christianson (Staff Council) and Liz Van Heusden (USG). Academic Services – Engineering, Army/Air Force ROTC, and Auxiliary Enterprises currently have no elected representatives.

2. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS

Guests included Ellen Horsch (VP for Administration), Dave Reed (Provost), Bob Warrington (Dean of Engineering), Ibrahim Miskioglu (MEEM), Kurt Hauglie (Daily Mining Gazette), Michele Miller (ME-EM), Owen Mills (MSE), Patty Sotirin (HU), Bruce Barna (Chem Eng), and Madhu Vable (ME-EM).

3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

President Sloan requested a modification of the agenda to permit Dean Warrington to present the report on Financial Aid Policy and Procedure, Summary of Recommendations for the BOC, immediately after approval of the agenda because he needed to attend an awards banquet.

Maplethorpe MOVED and Boschetto-Sandoval seconded the motion to approve the agenda as modified. The motion to approve PASSED on voice vote with no dissent. [Appendix A. NOTE: Only senate and library archival copies of minutes will have a full complement of appendices.]

6a, Tuition and Financial Aid Advisory Team Presentation, Bob Warrington

This Team consisted of Bob Warrington (chair), Bruce Seely, Deb Lassila, Sharron Paris, Scott Amos, Bill Roberts (rotated off), Les Cook (ex officio), Rob Forget, Tim Malette, John Lehman, and Suzanne Sanregret, with Mark Heffron of Noel-Levitt as consultant. They focused on the Board of Control Scholarships and the Academic Excellence Award. They were charged with a review of the MTU financial aid policies and procedures and making recommendations that are necessary to the successful pursuit of our enrollment/revenue goals. These recommendations must be consistent with the strategic goals of the University and must enhance access for a socially and economically diverse student body of exceptional ability. They reviewed the historical data, conducted a tuition/revenue analysis, analyzed and reviewed the state and national practices/trends for financial aid, studied the Noel-Levitz Report and Spreadsheet Revenue Estimates (April 22, 2005). These recommendations will go to the Board of Control.

The guiding principles were that financial aid processes cannot be practiced in isolation – there must be a campus-wide effort involving recruiting, marketing, and admissions processes. Michigan Tech needs to adopt an integrated and holistic approach to developing and managing its financial aid budget on an on-going, real-time basis.

They recommended that the structure for the AEA should change and become a scholarship based on academic performance rather than in-state rates. Warrington pointed out that few students pay out-of-state tuition because of financial aid programs. The Advisory Team used the ‘04 profile to see the effect proposed changes in the financial aid package would have made. They changed aid from an out-of-state tuition waiver to a scholarship. The top tier of students would receive more than the difference in tuition, the second tier somewhat less than that difference, and the third group about $6000. A fourth group of students would have no tuition waiver. These scholarships would be limited to four years (with some exceptions such as international studies). Recipients have to maintain a GPA of 2.5. Specific changes for the Board of Control and Academic Excellence Awards include 1) moving to a single method of evaluation based on an index score of the student’s GPA, class rank, and test scores; 2) considering a new naming structure that specifically delineates the prestige; 3) providing differing amounts of awards based on index level – the top students would receive more, middle about the same, and the lower students less.

The Board of Control scholarship has the same three tiers, but the dollar award is not changed much. This award is now called the Presidential Scholarship.

The Advisory Team felt it would be easier to market the scholarship than a waiver, would add revenue to the University, provide more prestige for the programs and the University, align better with the Strategic Plan by bringing better and more diverse students to the University, and be a better value for the state of Michigan.

Senator Janners asked when the scholarship would go into effect. Warrington responded that it is in place now for students applying for fall 2006.

Senator Wood stated that the plan seems pretty good; what are the benefits to us? Warrington responded that the revenue would be higher even if we lose 3% of the students from this group, and we will attract more qualified students.

Senator Boschetto-Sandoval asked how these scholarships would affect diversity. Warrington responded that these are not designed to encourage diversity and shouldn't change much; they are strictly merit. However, the enrollment management team is looking at the other ways of providing funding to target those groups. The Ambassadors Scholarship will help international students.

Senator Nitz expressed concern over implementation, using GPA, test scores, and class rank in a way that avoids bias. He pointed out that we want the best students, not the ones who figure out how to beat the system. Warrington responded that they had used the “best practice” advice of the consulting firm Noel-Levitz. Nitz questioned how missing scores were weighted. Warrington pointed out that they had applied the new formulas to the fall '04 and '05 classes using both the old and new method to see how they would differ. He will provide Nitz with the data. Reed added that the question may be addressed in the Noel-Levitz report.

Senator Turnquist asked if there was any advice from Noel-Levitz on marketing. Warrington responded that they had not provided any; Les Cook’s group will do that.

Senator Pollins expressed a timing concern. We are looking for a new marketing position and there is no director of enrollment. We need to monitor the implementation of the plan, look at the yield, and we may have to spend more because we get more students in the top tier. Warrington responded that the team felt the risk would be minimal.

Janners asked if there was an increase or decrease in the university budget for financial aid. Warrington responded that aid had increased when the tuition took a sharp increase, but that aid had been cut back over the last two years, so that effect has already been seen; it did not seem to have deterred students.

Warrington added that the average family income of this group of students is $80,000-112,000. Few of these students are taking out loans.

4. approval of minutes from meeting 426

Jambekar MOVED and Clancey seconded the motion to approve the minutes of Meeting 426. The motion PASSED on voice vote with no dissent.

5. Committee business/reports

President’s Report

We have not yet heard from the administration on the status of Proposal 1-06,   2006-2007 Academic Calendar, which we approved at our last meeting.

The Senate Secretary, Janice Glime, and President Sloan met, at her initiative, with President Glenn Mroz and Provost Dave Reed Monday to discuss aspects of the negotiations between the administration and the AAUP. If you care to stay for the optional session after the Senate adjourns tonight, you should learn more about these negotiations.

The Senate officers met with Provost Dave Reed Monday. He reported that this fall looks good with undergraduate and graduate enrollment and funded research all increasing. He noted that 12 employees committed to the RSVP program this summer for retirement next year.

President Sloan thanked all who volunteered to run for the Ombudsman Selection Committee after her e-mail request. We now have a few candidates from whom to elect two representatives plus three others who volunteered if no one else had volunteered.

Our Senate committees are slowly gearing up. If your committee has not yet had an organizational committee meeting, please try to do so next week so we can hold an executive committee meeting before the next Senate meeting and can get started on the work assigned to these committees.

6. New Business

B. Report by the Senate Task Force on Career Opportunities for Professional Staff – Patty Sotirin and Owen Mills

The Senate Task Force on Career Opportunities for Professional Staff (STFCOPS) was initiated through Senate Proposal 23-02 and charged with developing proposals in response to the following issues:

opportunities for promotion

rewards or recognition for activities related to instruction

rewards or recognition for contributions to research

rewards or recognition for professional development

rewards or recognition for development of university policy

Senate composition & original members: 2 faculty members: Larry Sutter (faculty, School of Technology), Patty Sotirin (faculty, Humanities); 3 professional staff members elected by the Senate (one a Professional Staff Policy Committee member) and 3 professional staff members selected by the President: Rebecca Christianson (professional staff, Human Resources), Pamela Long (professional staff, Chemistry), Julie Bingham (professional staff, Engineering), Owen Mills (professional staff, Materials Science), Steve Kangas (Senior Software Engineer with TDG/LTAP), Jim Moore (professional staff, Forestry); 1 ex officio member knowledgeable about classification/compensation systems, appointed by the President: Ellen Horsch (Director of Human Resources).

The approach included researching staff policies at comparable and peer academic institutions, interviewing appropriate MTU staff, administrators, and faculty, tapping the experience and knowledge of Task Force members, generating and passing along proposals to the Senate as they were developed, writing a final report from the Task Force for the Senate.

Staff input was facilitated by a Best Practices Contest (March 2003), gaining visibility for Task Force presence & work, and keeping a positive focus during a difficult period during proposals for University restructuring. There were 3 winners.

During the period of activity on proposals for restructuring the University, the Task Force issued a statement to then Senate President, Bob Keen: “The members of the Senate Task Force on Career Opportunities for Professional Staff are concerned about the way the state of the University impacts the work of the committee. We have been developing proposals as we were charged but we feel that the Senate and the rest of the university are rightly focused on budget and reorganization issues, some of which might well affect the very proposals we are developing. We therefore request that the Task Force be granted a 5-month hiatus. We believe by the beginning of Fall semester, the university will be in a different state and we will have a more receptive climate for our proposals.”

In spring 2004 the task force drafted eight proposals, written by Co-chairs Mills & Sotirin and revised by the remaining committee members.

In Spring 2004 the Task Force drafted eight proposals. Co-Chairs Mills and Sotirin submitted the proposals and the final report of the Task Force to Bob Keen (outgoing Senate President) and Terry Monson (incoming Senate President). In September 2004, Keen and Monson encouraged the co-chairs to present all eight proposals to the Senate. Keen revised the proposals to meet Senate protocols in August 2005.

A Minority Report (July 2004) was submitted by Rebecca Christianson, raising concerns over resources, responsibilities, raising expectations, and over-reaching the charge:

a. Cost/benefit analyses are not provided nor are number of staff affected by each proposal.

b. Responsible parties are not identified.

c. Career advancement is not possible for all positions.

d. Little visible support from upper administration makes proposals unrealistic.

e. Release time is only applicable for non-exempt employees.

f. Current compensation system is working and is unfairly maligned in this report.

g. Level of the position is determined objectively, not on the basis of an individual.

h. Proposals are not prioritized.

i. Terminology about compensation is inaccurate.

j. Be careful about creating expectations that can’t be fulfilled.

k. Memo re. staff evaluation is beyond the purview of the Task Force.

In September 2005 proposals were submitted to The University Senate of Michigan Technological University to be considered by the Senate Professional Staff Policy Committee:

a. INSTITUTION OF A STAFF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM: Establish and reward educational opportunities for professional staff.

b. INSTITUTION OF COMPENSATION AND RECOGNITION FOR ACTIVITIES RELATED TO RESEARCH PERFORMED BY NON-GENERAL FUND PROFESSIONAL STAFF: Recognize and reward non-general fund professional research staff based on nationally-competitive compensation schedules.

c. PROFESSIONAL STAFF DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD: Recognizes the superior and exceptional service activities of MTU professional staff.

d. PROFESSIONAL STAFF DISTINGUISHED INSTRUCTION AWARD: Awards MTU professional staff for superior and exceptional contributions as an instructor or in the role of instructor with limited instructional activities by MTU professional staff.

e. PROFESSIONAL STAFF DISTINGUISHED RESEARCH AWARD: Awards superior and exceptional research activities by MTU professional staff.

f. MEMO, REVISION OF THE PROFESSIONAL STAFF EVALUATION PROCESS: Recommends a review of the annual professional staff evaluation process and forwarding of proposals to the administration based on that review.

g. MEMO, BIENNIAL SENATE TASK FORCE ON CAREER OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROFESSIONAL STAFF: Convene a biennial Senate Task Force to assess emerging issues and follow-up on recommendations made by previous task force committees (including the 1998 Baillod Committee and the 2002-2004 Joint Task Force). The following issues should be addressed by the 2007 Task Force: opportunities for promotion, rewards and recognition for professional development, and supervision and performance evaluation of professional staff.

CONCLUSIONS of task force from final report: It was never the intention of the members of this group to recommend awards alone. There has always been a strong feeling that concrete measures should be taken to ensure that career opportunities and development for professional staff are marked by consistency, equity, and fairness. –STFCOPS

Mills expressed concern that the proposal passed in 2004 by the Senate regarding the importance of professional staff to the mission of the university still has not appeared in the staff handbook.

C. Report from the Academic Tenure Committee, Michele Miller. The committee consisted of Michele Miller, Suzanne Beske-Diehl, Beth Flynn, Tom Merz, Tom Snyder, and alternate David Flaspohler. In the 2004-05 academic year there were three promotion/tenure/reappointment appeals, one of which the committee recommended for new review. The report summarized the mechanism for submitting proposals, including the procedure that the appeal should be filed within 30 days to the office of the Provost. There are currently three vacancies to be filled on the committee.

7. Old business

a. The ombudsperson selection committee requires one member from the Senate and one chosen by general election by the faculty. Nominees for the Senate position were Patricia Gotschalk and Andrew Storer. Gotschalk was elected 20:8 by secret ballot with one abstention. Nominees for the faculty election are Jim Gale, Cathy Halverson, and Andrew Storer.

b. Approval of the 2005-06 University Senate Committees. President Sloan presented the most recent revision of Senate committee composition, distributed by Senate Assistant Paige Hackney. The name Institutional Policy Committee should be Institutional Planning Committee. Stan LaMuth should be on the Professional Staff Policy Committee, not the Instructional Policy Committee. Tom Co is on sabbatical leave this year and cannot serve on the Academic Policy Committee (or as alternate for Chemical Engineering).

Williams MOVED and Maplethorpe seconded the motion to accept the committee roster as modified. The motion PASSED on voice vote with no opposition.

Senator Wood asked if the presentations by Reed and Vable on the status of shared governance in the AAUP negotiations would be reported. Sloan responded that neither candidate had objected to their being televised or reported by the press. There would be no minutes on the presentations.

8. Adjournment

Clancey MOVED and Chard seconded the motion to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 6:40 pm.

Respectfully Submitted by Janice M. Glime

Secretary of the University Senate