THE
university SENATE OF
MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
Minutes of Meeting 443
25 October 2006
Synopsis:
The Senate
(1) Heard a sabbatical leave report by Sonia Goltz and Kurt Paterson.
(2) Heard a summary of the student success task force by Brad Baltensperger.
(3) Approved Proposal 4-07, Proposal for Changes in Non-Tenure-Track Instructor and Lecturer Appointments.
(4) Defeated Proposal 5-07, Michigan Technological University Faculty External Funding Incentive Program.
(5) Elected Paul Charlesworth to the Academic Integrity Committee, Chelley Vician to the Distance Learning Implementation Committee, Debra Bruch to the Public Safety Oversight Committee, Joanne Scillitoe to the Conflict of Interest Committee, Susan Martin to the Presidential Commission for Women, and Mahesh Gupta to the Inquiry Committee (Scientific Misconduct).
(6) Introduced Proposal 6-07, Proposal for an Undergraduate Certificate in International Sustainable Development Engineering.
(7) Introduced Proposal 7-07, Ph. D. Program in Atmospheric Sciences.
(8) Introduced Proposal 8-07, Departmental Name Change from Department of Fine Arts to Department of Visual and Performing Arts.
(9) Established an ad hoc committee on Tenure Grievance Procedures.
1. CALL TO
ORDER AND ROLL CALL
President Sloan called the University Senate Meeting 443 to order at 5:30 pm on Wednesday, 25 October 2006, in Room B45 EERC.
Secretary Glime called roll. Absent were representatives from Army/Air Force ROTC and Enrollment Management. Liaison in attendance was Nick Nanninga (GSC). Academic Services C, Unit 7 (HR, Facilities, Communications), and Auxiliaries currently have no elected representatives.
2. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS
Guests included Richard Honrath (Civil/Environmental Engineering/Atmospheric Science Program), Raymond Shaw (Physics/Atmospheric Science Program), Dave Reed (Provost), Max Seel (Sciences and Arts), Kurt Paterson (Civil & Environmental Engineering), Sonia Goltz (School of Business & Economics), Sheryl Sorby (Engineering Fundamentals), and Brad Baltensperger (Soc. Sci/Education).
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
President Sloan added item 9E to the agenda, formation of an ad hoc committee on tenure grievance procedures.
Waddell MOVED and Pollins seconded the motion to approve the agenda as amended. The motion to approve PASSED on voice vote with no dissent. [Appendix A. NOTE: Only official Senate and library archival copies of the minutes will contain a full complement of appendices].
4. Annual Sabbatical Leave Report – Sonia Goltz and Kurt Paterson
A copy of the report from the Sabbatical Leave Committee is included with the agenda packet [Appendix B] for the meeting and will be available on the web. Goltz reported that her term on the committee has expired and Sue Martin will replace her.
The Committee met with President Mroz and Provost Reed to clarify some issues. The committee has developed a new form [Appendix C] that will be used this year. A copy was provided to Senators. The committee felt that the statements from chairs often did not have enough information, especially on issues such as how research obligations would be covered. Some proposals seemed to involve conflict of interest, and there needs to be a way to evaluate those potential conflicts without involving the Sabbatical Leave Committee. The new form will be on the web and is currently available from Kurt Paterson. Proposals that have already been submitted on the old forms will be acceptable, but new ones should use the new forms.
5. Summary of student success task force -
Brad baltensperger
Baltensperger presented the Report on Recommendation from the Student Success Task Force, Academic Forum, 4 October 2006.
Task
Force Membership: Brad Baltensperger (Chair; Department
of Education), Nancy Grimm (Associate Professor Humanities, Director of Writing
Center), Brett Hamlin (Assistant Department Chair, Engineering Fundamentals),
Gloria Melton (Dean of Student Affairs), Mark Plichta (Chair, Materials Science
and Engineering), Kerri Sleeman (Director of ExSEL Program), and Shari Stockero
(Director of First-Year Mathematics).
Baltensperger added that Mark Plichta has been on the task force for the
last 15 years.
The
charges to the Task Force were to delineate what has been accomplished and what might remain to
be addressed from previous Retention Task Force recommendations (1995, 1998),
examine the role of on-campus advising in relation to retention and make
suggestions for improvement, examine the role of admissions criteria in
relation to retention, study the 2nd and 3rd year attrition factors, make
recommendations to address factors that negatively impact student success, and
provide suggestions for supporting and improving what we are already doing.
Recommendations
1. Increase our
first-year retention rate to 84.5%, up from 81%. One standard deviation above the mean would
be 88%; the goal is to reach half that distance in three years.
2. Do not
impose more stringent admissions criteria at this time.
These first
two recommendations were based on the following graphs and the realization that
elevating the admissions requirements would have negligible effect (<1%) on
the expected retention rate. At the same
time, it would deny access to the 50% of students at the low end who would be
expected to succeed. Students with an
ACT score of 15 still have a 70% retention rate, at 21 it is 83%, and a 90%
retention has only been attained among students with an ACT score of 35.
3. Increase support
for and coordination of successful academic support and student life programs.
4. Establish a standing
committee to monitor and evaluate continually the retention activities.
5. Build a strong,
shared information base on retention and student success.
6. Implement an
extended orientation focused on academic habits.
7. Develop a more
uniform structure and consistent performance expectations for
"Perspectives."
8. Develop a clearer
advising structure and related efforts to improve the advising process.
9. Emphasize that
class attendance is critical to student success.
10. Emphasize high
expectations in all first-year courses.
11. Build a climate
that values teaching, learning, community, and diversity.
Senator Luck asked why students leave. Baltensperger responded that about half leave for academic reasons and half for other reasons. His sense is it is more like 1/3 for academic reasons, 1/3 for non-academic reasons, and 1/3 for some mix of these.
Senator Gorman asked if there is any difference by schools and departments. Baltensperger responded that it is difficult to make that connection. In some majors students don't take any courses in their own departments the first year.
Senator Jambekar asked if there was any information from students who were "near misses" – students who nearly left but chose to stay.
Senator Mattila asked if there were academic indications of students who were more likely to leave. Baltensperger replied that students with higher math scores were more likely to return for a second year.
Secretary Glime asked if there was any analysis of the retention data based on diversity categories. Baltensperger responded that there was slightly more attrition in under-represented minorities and that female retention was higher than that of males.
Senator Gotschalk stated that some students leave and return later. She asked if the retention statistics are adjusted for these cases. Some students are better off if they take some time off and return to school later.
Baltensperger responded that the data look at the retention from year 1 to year 2. Those who return are probably treated as new when they return. He added that at this time in the semester stress levels are very high.
Mattila suggested that students should have time off mid-semester. If they are given Monday and Tuesday off they could have just Wednesday through Friday on Thanksgiving week to make up for that. Kern commented that students fought hard to get and keep the full week off for Thanksgiving.
Senator Miller asked who the recommendations went to. Baltensperger responded that Provost Reed and Les Cook received the report. They had accepted or responded "maybe" on all the recommendations.
Senator Johnson stated that it would be helpful to have a perspective on who was not successful and why.
Baltensperger stated that the full report is posted on the reports page of the President's website <http://www.mtu.edu/mtuonly/reports/SSTFSumm.pdf >.
6. approval of minutes from meeting 442
President Sloan asked for additions or corrections to the minutes. Mattila stated that it was he, not Senator Janners, who had asked if the program in Proposal 5-07 had increased research productivity in SFRES. He also felt that the last sentence of that paragraph was misleading. Therefore, the next to last paragraph of item 7 should read:
"Mattila asked if it had increased research productivity in SFRES. Reed responded that most wouldn't take this option unless they had full summer funding as well. Research has increased in SFRES since 1992 when the incentive began, but that it is not clear if the incentive had any effect on it." Reed agreed with the change.
Glime added a change requested by Senator Flynn in the next to last paragraph of item 4. It should read: "Flynn added that at the University of Minnesota-Duluth, students in the top fourth of their class can get in-state tuition."
Miller MOVED and Mattila seconded the motion to approve the minutes of Meeting 442 as modified. The motion PASSED on voice vote with no dissent.
[Subsequent to the meeting Glime received an email statement from Senator Sutter (mailed before the meeting) suggesting changes that provided clarification of the discussion on Proposal 5-07. These changes are included here (in bold), including corrections made during meeting 443 (above) by Mattila, and acceptance of them will be accomplished by acceptance of the minutes of meeting 443.
Sutter Corrections to minutes of Meeting 442:
"C. Proposal 5-07, Michigan Technological University Faculty External Funding Incentive Program.
Sutter presented the proposal on behalf of the Research Policy Committee. Currently the bonus to faculty who have academic salary in research grants is only available to SFRES faculty. This is an incentive to include a portion of the academic year salary in the contract. No release time would be granted; expectation of workload would be the same. It will help to support the University budget.
The basic concepts of the proposal are to create savings in the general fund and, in return for those efforts, reward faculty. The general fund budget of the department would retain 25% of the savings created by bringing in academic salary from an external source and the faculty member would get the other 75% of the savings as a bonus. The faculty member would also receive TIAA/CREF contributions on the bonus.
The External Funding Incentive Program (EFIP) differs from the existing SFRES program by including the Senate in changes proposed by the Administration.
For example, a scholarly activity could be to develop a new course and a faculty member might get a grant to develop the course, thus paying for part of the salary through external funding.
Nitz stated that he has serious problems with the proposal. It states that there is no release time, but the sponsor provides faculty funding to get more of the faculty member's time. This would seem to violate A21 on the federally sponsored research. It seems unethical.
Sutter responded that NSF has looked at plans like this one and considers them legal. The sponsor still gets what was promised.
Nitz stated that the grant recipient would have done that anyway; his agency frowns on his doing anything that increases his salary.
Sutter responded that the academic salary in the project pays part of the faculty member’s academic year salary so that the general fund has to pay less.
Melton stated that this is not release time from teaching; somebody outside the University is paying for the 40% research that is expected from a faculty member.
Jambekar viewed it differently. He stated if he is expected to do a 40:40:20 ratio of research, teaching, and service, then when he gets a grant he may be doing 60:40:20. The sponsor may want to negotiate lower support dollars because not as much time is available for the research.
Nitz asked why not just give raises for persons who get grants.
Senator Miller stated that the finance committee had similar concerns. They considered it to be compensation for faculty working overtime. They have no problems with the cost of the program. However, they consider there to be ethical issues. Faculty are being compensated two times. It raises issues with constituencies.
Luck stated that it seems like less money is coming to the faculty. Sutter responded that this is a bonus on top of salary.
Secretary Glime asked what would happen if someone were to get three grants and needed to teach less to get it all done. Sutter explained that the faculty member would have a choice to take additional salary or release time.
Kern stated that a faculty member might want to use it for release time but the chair might not want to grant it.
Smith asked how the general fund saved money. Sutter responded that it is created by bringing in academic year salary from external sources. However, the incentive only applies to academic year salary.
Smith asked if summer support is from the general fund, could the faculty member get additional salary. Sutter responded they could not.
Mattila asked why this proposal originated. Sutter responded that a number of faculty had asked him why only one unit had this incentive. He asked himself the same question and didn't have any answer.
Mattila asked if it had increased research productivity in SFRES. Reed responded that most wouldn't take this option unless they had full summer funding as well. Research has increased in SFRES since 1992 when the incentive began, but that it is not clear if the incentive had any effect on it. Reed agreed with the change.
Mattila raised the legality question again. Sutter responded that Anita Quinn looked at the proposal and said that it is the method of administration that makes it legal. "]
7. President’s Report
President Sloan stated that Vice President Joanne Polzien is at a conference and cannot be with us tonight.
Four proposals approved by the Senate in April are approaching
the end of the three-month window for administrative action. The Provost has assured us that proposals 2-07
and 3-07 have been approved but have not yet reached the Senate office.
The Senate officers and the Provost are working together on a plan to get the other proposals reviewed before the deadline. The Executive Committee is considering bylaws on the procedure to extend the three-month window on a case-by-case basis.
The Senate Executive Committee has scheduled a forum on the changes in tenure policy passed by the Senate last year before conducting a mail election for faculty referendum on these changes. The forum will provide opportunity for questions on the policy changes. It will be at 4:30 pm, Thursday, 9 November, in EERC 214. Please alert your faculty to this forum; more publicity will be provided later.
8. Old Business
A. Proposal 4-07, Proposal for Changes in Non-Tenure-Track Instructor and Lecturer Appointments
Pollins MOVED and Miller seconded the motion to approve Proposal 4-07 (Appendix D).
Senator Clancey expressed concern that if a lecturer is supported by soft money and can't provide the money, the chair could make the position into 50% instruction. Sorby (author of proposal) responded that this is possible now and that this proposal is not designed to deal with that issue; that would take a separate proposal.
Dean Seel stated that the position could be 100% instructor; it need not be only 50%.
Jambekar asked if someone could start on a tenure track, not make it to tenure, and switch to a lecturer track. Sorby stated that there is nothing to prevent it if all affected parties agree to the appointment. A new contract would be drafted so prior agreements on tenure track would not hold.
Jambekar stated that the proposal indicates that Carnegie Mellon, Wisconsin, and Duke have similar lecturer structure. He asked if theirs are all 3-tiered and 2-year rolling contracts. He asked why not just a 2-track plan. Sorby responded that both Carnegie Mellon and Duke have the 3-tier plan and that it provides a better career path.
Senator Boschetto-Sandoval stated that their department has a lecturer who has been hired on a 3-year contract and asked if that would change if the proposal passes. Sorby stated that the current 3-year contract would be honored until it expired and that by then the person would be eligible for promotion to senior lecturer.
Clancey stated that the proposal needs language to prevent a department head from requiring extra duties of a person on an instructor contract. Sorby stated that it could be part of the new contract and that this proposal was not the appropriate place to deal with that issue.
Senator Nitz MOVED and Boschetto-Sandoval seconded the motion to amend the proposal by replacing items 1-5 with those he provided:
1) The Department/School committee makes a written recommendation and forwards with the documentation to the Chair/Dean.
2) The Department Chair (as applicable) makes a written recommendation and forwards with the documentation to the college promotion (and tenure) committee. The School Dean (as applicable) forwards without comment the documentation to the Inter-school promotion (and tenure) committee.
3) The College/Inter-School promotion (and tenure) committee makes a written recommendation and forwards the documentation to the Dean.
4) The College/School Dean makes a written recommendation and forwards all documentation to the Provost.
5) The Provost reviews the documentation and makes a recommendation to the President.
6) The President makes the final promotion decision.
The primary change is in item 2, requiring the college level promotion and tenure committee to review the promotions of Lecturers.
Sorby did not oppose the amendment – she could go either way.
Glime stated that the original proposal submitted to the officers had skipped the department committees and directed the promotion to be evaluated by the college/school level committee. Many people objected to this, arguing that the expectations and roles of lecturers differed so much between units that the college-level committee would not be prepared to give adequate evaluation. She felt that the amendment was a substantial change and she would oppose it. If it were to pass, she would want to go back to her constituents before making a decision on how to vote on the amended proposal.
Mattila brought up a concern that the Engineering Fundamentals Unit does not have a promotion committee. Sorby stated that they are working on setting up a committee and criteria for promotions.
Jambekar stated that his department considers it a nuisance to deal with evaluation for these promotions.
The motion to amend failed with 8 votes for and 11 opposed to the amendment on a show of hands of academic units.
Senator Miskioglu stated that there are no guidelines under which lecturer positions are created, and he raised concerns that the lecturer track could replace tenure track positions in the future.
Sorby responded that there is nothing to prevent that from happening now and this proposal doesn't alter that. Its intent is only to provide a career path for lecturers.
Miskioglu raised further concerns about expectations and the statement that lecturers may be expected to do research. Sorby stated that the proposal carefully states "may" include research. This can be negotiated in the contract.
Mattila asked if the proposal only refers to those positions supported by the general fund. Sorby responded no, but that only one or two persons are currently supported by funds other than the general fund.
Jambekar MOVED to amend the proposal to eliminate the third category, Principal Lecturer. The motion failed due to lack of a second.
Proposal 4-07 PASSED on voice vote of the academic units with several opposing votes.
B. Proposal 5-07, Michigan Technological University Faculty External Funding Incentive Program
Sutter MOVED and Pollins seconded the motion to approve Proposal 5-07.
Senator Miller stated that she had inquired about the possibility of applying the bonus money to overload situations rather than the large percentage proposed. She found that this would involve a lot of paperwork, required extenuating circumstances, and could only be used for one semester or less. In short, it would not be practical. Rather, this proposal presents a method of reward that is allowable and a lot more practical. However, she feels that 75% seems high and would prefer a smaller number; 75% is too close to 100% and that would be unreasonable.
Miskioglu stated that even if the proposal is legal, it has a moral question associated with it and he is worried what the Detroit Free Press might say.
Sutter responded that the process is clearly legal as the money for the incentive payment would come from the general fund, not any specific project, and that the University can use general fund money any way it wants. Sutter added that a misconception of 5-07 is that it is a new policy on academic year salary that all faculty must follow. It is not. It is a new alternative to existing policies.
Mattila asked if any other Michigan schools do this. Sutter responded that he is not aware of any. West Virginia and Arkansas do it. MTU is trying to build research with few resources and this is one tool to help build it.
Mattila stated that there seems to be no evidence that such programs have succeeded in that goal.
Reed responded that West Virginia University claims that two-thirds of their faculty participate. Sutter added that not everyone in SFRES is taking advantage of the program, which is currently in place there. Not all faculty are aware of its existence. This plan solves a lot of problems that arise with other mechanisms of reward. Paying for overtime is complicated because we don't have a definition of load, the funding has to allow it, and faculty are not known for keeping a record of their time, which is required to document overload. Academic year salary is not funded by all funding agencies and therefore this proposal will not apply to everyone. It provides one more tool to build external funding.
Flaspohler stated that when he inquired about the program in SFRES, he learned that it is used infrequently by a few faculty – three over the last ten years. He questioned several faculty before he found someone who was even aware of the possibility of using grant money in this way.
Luck asked if the granting agency would know that money had been used this way. Sutter responded that the investigator would have to include a budget item for academic year salary, but that this money, once expensed in the project, would create a savings in the general fund, and the granting agency currently does not receive any report of how the general fund money is used and would not receive any report under 5-07.
Helminen asked if a vote on this proposal will affect availability of this program for SFRES faculty. Reed replied that it would not.
Proposal 5-07 FAILED on secret ballot of academic units with 7 supporting and 19 opposing votes.
9. New Business
A. Elections for University Committees (secret ballot)
Paul Charlesworth (Chemistry) was the only candidate for the Academic Integrity Committee and was elected by acclamation of the academic units.
Chelley Vician (School of Business) was the only candidate for the Distance Learning Implementation Committee and was elected by acclamation of the full Senate.
Debra Bruch (Fine Arts) was the only candidate for the Public Safety Oversight Committee and was elected by acclamation of the full Senate.
Lynn Artman (VP for Research Office) and Joanne Scillitoe (School of Business) were nominees for the Conflict of Interest Committee. Joanne Scillitoe was elected by the full Senate.
Mari Buche (School of Business) and Susan Martin (Social Sciences) were nominees for the Presidential Commission for Women. Susan Martin was elected by the full Senate.
Lynn Artman (VP for Research Office) and Mahesh Gupta (ME-EM) were nominees for the Inquiry Committee (Scientific Misconduct). Mahesh Gupta was elected by the full Senate.
Sloan thanked the nominators and nominees for their help and willingness to serve.
B. Proposal 6-07, Proposal for an Undergraduate Certificate in International Sustainable Development Engineering.
Senator Luck stated that he had recently read an article that claimed we would need three Earths to sustain our population by 2050 at a British standard of living <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6077798.stm> and inquired if the program would deal with over population. Paterson responded that the course on technology and society was an elective and that ENG 3530 was required, both of which deal with the population problems.
Senator Janners asked if freshmen could take ENG 3530. Paterson responded that they could.
Senator Givens asked why French and Spanish were the only languages listed for the program. Paterson stated that others could be added, but that at present the field part of the program is held in Bolivia or the Dominican Republic. Others could develop programs.
There was an inquiry if placement would be allowed in place of the language courses. Seel responded that this is the case in other disciplines. It was not clear if that is the intent for this program. [Paterson clarified after the meeting that the proposed certificate would follow existing university rules for certificate programs. Hence, placement would count.]
Mattila expressed concerns about the title of the program because there was not much engineering among the required courses. Paterson responded that the engineering courses would be in the major.
Mattila asked about the name of the graduate certificate (already in place). Paterson responded that it is a graduate certificate in sustainability.
Mattila asked if the certificate would be indicated on the diploma. Paterson responded that it would.
Mattila asked what would happen if students could fit all the courses but could not afford to go to the international site. And could they fit all the requirements within the credits required for an engineering degree. Paterson stated that some will fit in the distribution courses, but that to complete the certificate would require more credits than the usual engineering degree.
C. Proposal 7-07, Ph. D. Program in Atmospheric Sciences.
Gorman introduced the proposal [Appendix F], explaining it would use existing resources. Honrath (Civil & Environmental Engineering/ Atmospheric Science Program) explained that it would be housed in the Graduate School because it crossed colleges, involving seven faculty from Civil and Environmental Engineering, Geological and Mining Engineering and Sciences, and Physics. There are also six affiliated faculty from other departments (Chemistry, ME-EM, Electrical and Computer Engineering, and SFRES). The faculty involved are active researchers with good funding. The program is already somewhat cohesive, but it lacks recognition. Providing it with a name will give it visibility and make it easier for prospective students to find it. This is a more appropriate degree title than that of the individual departments.
There is already a seminar series. Grant money will be used to fund part-time staff. The program will enhance collaboration among faculty and especially among students. The non-departmental approach builds on the models in environmental engineering and computer science.
Senator Wood asked if the application forms would be processed through the Graduate School. Dean Seel responded that they would go to the program director and the program committee.
Luck inquired why should the chemistry department hire faculty for this program (as suggested on page 2 of the proposal) when the chemistry department is not one of the three departments listed as participating in the proposal. Would it not make sense to list chemistry as participating in the proposal so that the chemistry department would see the benefits in hiring someone in this field? Honrath responded that the proposal doesn't require new hires. Chemistry could choose to hire someone in atmospheric science but doesn't have a position in that discipline.
Luck stated that the proposal as written excludes chemistry students from participating. Honrath responded that Chemistry does not currently have anyone on the faculty who wants to focus on atmospheric science.
D. Proposal 8-07, Departmental Name Change from Department of Fine Arts to Department of Visual and Performing Arts.
Senator Bruch stated that the department wanted to change its name [Appendix G]. Seel stated that they have added new majors and that the name doesn't indicate the breadth of what they do. Bruch added that calling it fine and performing arts doesn't reflect what the department does; visual and performing arts does.
E. Establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee on Tenure/Grievance Procedures.
The University Academic Tenure Committee found a number of problems and ambiguities in the current procedures [Appendix H] and has requested a general review. The committee will have all new members this year, so they have requested an ad hoc committee that includes Sue Beske-Diehl and Beth Flynn, both of whom were on the committee when it dealt with a case during the past year. Among the problems is a lack of clarity on which committee is appropriate when a faculty member has a grievance related to tenure procedures.
Boersma MOVED and Wood seconded the motion to form the ad hoc committee.
Senator Gotschalk stated that the faculty review committee may want a representative since they had also been involved in the case of reference. There are gaps in the policy. Perhaps the committee should include some chairs.
Boersma and Wood accepted a friendly amendment to include representatives from the Faculty Review Committee.
The motion PASSED on voice vote of academic units with no dissent.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:27 pm.
Respectfully Submitted by Janice M. Glime
Secretary of the University Senate