The University Senate
of Michigan
Technological University
Minutes of Meeting 471
21 January 2009
Synopsis:
The
Senate
1. Call to order and roll call. President Sloan called the University Senate Meeting 471 to
order at 5:32 pm on Wednesday, January 21, 2009, in room B45 EERC. She asked
the Senators and guests to observe a moment of silence in respect of Bill
Gregg. Secretary Cooper called roll. Absent were Senators Koszykowski, and
representative of Army/Air Force ROTC, Cognitive and Learning Sciences, the
Library, the School of Forestry, Visual and Performing Arts, and Academic
Services C. Liaisons Anna Pereira (GSC)
and Daniel Freeman (USG) were in attendance. Mechanical Engineering–Engineering
Mechanics, Academic Services A, and Auxiliaries and Cultural Enrichment
currently have no elected representatives.
2. Recognition of visitors. Guests included Shea McGrew (Advancement), Lesley
Lovett-Doust (Provost), Jackie Huntoon (Graduate School), and Theresa Jacques
(Registrar’s Office).
3. Approval of agenda. President Sloan announced that Proposal 8-09 (item 9.d on
the agenda) is being withdrawn at the request of the Instructional Policy
Committee for further consideration. B. Davis moved approval of the agenda as amended and Johnson seconded. The
motion to approve passed on a voice
vote with no dissent.
4. Presentation: “Fundraising Campaign
Progress Report” by Shea McGrew.
What
we really need to be thinking about is how to draw private resources to
Michigan Tech over time and consistently in ever-growing amounts. Right now in
the fundraising campaign, two-and-a-half years in, we have $93.72 million of
gifts and pledges. What’s been going on in the financial situation at Michigan
Tech is a dramatic change in the funding formula. This past year, Michigan Tech
received $49 million from the state. Before I came, Michigan Tech’s operating
budget was a little over $100 million; now it is $200 million and some. The
scope of the university has grown dramatically. The general trend is that in
the percentage contributed to income by the individual components of the budget
support from the state is down 23 percent, tuition is up 36 percent, research
is up 21 percent, fundraising is up 4 percent, auxiliary income is up 13
percent, and miscellaneous funding is up 3 percent.
The Michigan Tech Fund until about two years ago was in
charge of raising money for the university and also received and processed gifts and
managed gift assets. Funds now managed by the Tech Fund amount to $90 some
million. A couple of years ago we made a significant change: we decided it was
important to make fundraising a university-run function, that
it was too important to leave to volunteers. So we pulled out the fundraising
responsibilities from the Tech Fund and put them in the Advancement unit which
also has responsibilities for marketing and communication and alumni relations.
That means that fundraising is managed or scrutinized no
differently than enrollment is, or financial aid, by the Board of Control.
A fundraising campaign seeks private resources — support
from alumni, friends, corporations, and private foundations. It runs for a
defined time period, has an announced goal and specific priorities, has an
associated marketing effort, and involves volunteers who help to guide and
advise it and raise money.
Why do we need a fundraising campaign? To fund the strategic
plan, build a substantial endowment, establish a stronger, permanent
fundraising operation, and help create a culture of philanthropy. We have an
inadequate endowment. Today, Michigan Tech’s endowment market value is about
$66 million, but a few months ago it was $84 million. The good news is that of
all endowment investment performance of all universities, public and private,
in the United States, our total return in the last quarter of calendar year
2008 puts it in the top quartile. We beat the University of Michigan by
nearly10 percentage points.
Klooster asked if Michigan Tech just didn’t have as many
risky investments as other universities. McGrew said we do some aggressive
things, but with a smaller proportion of the portfolio. Other universities have
been more speculative; we’re a bit more conservative than that. Maybe if we had
more money, we would be more aggressive.
Michigan Tech does not have a culture of giving like the University
of Michigan and other prestigious schools do. What do great universities, like
Harvard, Carnegie Mellon, Stanford, the University of Michigan, MIT, and
Northwestern have in common: world class talent (faculty, students, staff), strategic focus, resources (funds), and a history of
significant philanthropy and an expectation among their constituents of giving.
Michigan Tech has about 20 percent of alumni who give an annual gift, which
puts us in the top 20 of public universities.
The preliminary fundraising campaign goals are to triple
Michigan Tech’s endowment to $200 million and get at least $225 million by 30
June 2012. The objectives are to raise dollars, increase endowment, fund
priority projects, elevate constituents’ perception of Michigan Tech’s
direction and quality, and emerge with a strong development infrastructure. We
want to make Michigan Tech better known and better perceived.
We feel that the way to move toward becoming a stronger
institution is to have more faculty supported by endowments, more endowed
financial undergraduate scholarships and graduate fellowships, more endowed
programs, fulfill academic unit priorities (generally not buildings, except for
the Great Lakes Research Center and perhaps a large expansion of Fisher), and
more annual giving, as annual gifts go right into the operating budget. The
target financial objectives for six years include getting $125 million for the
endowment, $50 million for non-endowed program and student support, $40 million
for facilities, and $10 million in unrestricted annual giving.
The original timetable for the campaign was to start 1 July
2006, followed by a quiet phase through 30 June 2009 (but we might extend that
for a year because of the current financial situation and because we keep
surfacing more and more good fundraising prospects, particularly alumni of
significant means), and a public phase lasting through 30 June 2012. Typically
in a campaign, you try to raise the largest gifts first; that’s the quiet phase.
And then you announce the campaign publicly and invite everyone to give, and
that’s usually small gifts. An operating principle of fundraising is that 80
percent of the funds will come from 20 percent of donors. The trend now is for
90 percent of the money to come from 10 percent of the gifts.
What counts in the total of funds raised: cash, stocks,
bonds, mutual fund shares, corporate matching gifts, some corporate research
grants, real estate and real property, planned gifts, and life insurance.
Hoagland asked why corporate research grants are counted.
McGrew said that it is now standard practice because fundraising is interpreted
as all money that comes from private sources. Hoagland commented that that
money is allocated; it doesn’t go into the endowment. McGrew said, neither do other things like
annual gifts. We’re trying to reflect private source giving. Increasingly,
research opens the door to further giving.
The fundraising campaign leadership includes the Board of
Control, the Campaign Committee (Dave House, Chair, and 8–10 volunteers who
make significant gifts, help seek other significant gifts, and monitor
progress), and the Michigan Tech Fund Board of Trustees.
What’s going well: so far we have 16 gifts/pledges of $1
million plus, the number of endowed chairs and professorships are increasing,
we have 15 new 7-figure prospects, and campaign/university messaging is getting
more effective.
Some of the notable gifts so far include Dave House’s gift of $10 million to
fund endowed professorships, Dick and Bonnie Robbins’ gift of $6 million to
fund three endowed chairs in sustainability, Dick and Liz Henes’ gift of $1
million to fund an endowed professor in mathematics, Bill and Gloria Jackson’s
gift of $1 million to fund an endowed professor in EE/CS entrepreneurship, and
twelve other gifts/pledges of $1 million plus. When I came to Michigan Tech,
there was only one endowed chair, and it wasn’t filled.
The top 10 requests we have are for two individuals giving
$10 million, one individual giving $5 million, a corporation giving $4 million,
two individuals giving $2.5 million, two individuals giving $2 million, and one
individual giving $1 million. The challenges we face include the fact that the
economy is tough, which creates donor uncertainty. We also need another
significant ($5 million plus) gift, and we are seeking prospects who will give
at the level of $1 million plus. McGrew suggested that faculty and staff can
help by sharing their contacts, such as alumni and corporations, and by
promoting Michigan Tech externally.
Vable commented that endowed chairs are visible, but so too are
scholarships for students. He asked how much in scholarship funds are given out
from the Michigan Tech endowment versus how much we give from general funds.
McGrew said that we give out about $1.5 million a year in private scholarships
and around $16 million in scholarships from the general fund. He concluded that
our future is tied to our ability to secure private resources as other
resources go down.
5. Approval of Minutes from Meeting
470. Pierce suggested corrections to the minutes,
and the Provost was asked to provide corrected data offered about the number of
employees who had filled out health plan enrollment forms. Snyder moved approval of the minutes as
corrected (and pending correct data from the Provost), and Vable seconded the
motion, which passed on a voice vote
with no dissent.
6. President’s report.
President Mroz vetoed Proposal 4-09, Request for Open
Enrollment
Extension, but extended the date
slightly and made provision for more information on enrollment.
President Mroz has requested the Senate consider
streamlining the search procedures for the new provost. The Senate executive
committee will consider this issue.
Candidates for Athletic Council to complete the term of David
Karnosky are being sought. We have one volunteer, and we plan to vote on this
at the next Senate meeting. Please ask anyone in your unit who is interested
to contact Martha Sloan or Judi Smigowski.
An
undetermined senator asked how long the term is that is
to be filled. Sloan said it is for the rest of the semester or into the summer,
but we are going to ask President Mroz if he would be willing to make it for
a whole 3-year term plus the few months left in Karnosky’s term.
7. Old Business. There was no old business.
8. New Business
The proposal was reviewed by the Curricular Policy Committee
and they have twice indicated that they favor it in general, but they have not
yet signed off on it. The Finance Committee has reviewed it, and Larry Davis,
the chair of the committee, has sent an email stating the Finance Committee has
reviewed the proposals for the masters and PhD programs in computer engineering
and has no concerns with the programs from a financial perspective.
Unfortunately nobody was able to be here tonight to present
it and answer questions about it. The
chair of ECE is away on business, but he said he would be willing to take
questions by email, and he will be at the meeting next time in case there are
questions.
Senator
Buche, the chair of the Instructional Policy Committee, explained that the
proposal was brought to the committee by the registrar’s office. They have
encountered instances of very dissimilar repeats. They would like a definition
they could use to eliminate obvious grade inflation attempts. We’re just suggesting
an addition to the catalog defining dissimilar repeats.
Vable asked whether repeats are only applicable if the
course is no longer offered. Buche said yes. Lovett-Doust asked whether the
language in the background statement could be toned down since this will be a
public document. She also suggested that in the proposal itself, “covers
similar material” be reworded to read “covers comparable material at a similar
level.”
Theresa Jacques (registrar’s office) explained that the
practice of dissimilar repeats arose when Michigan Tech moved from quarters to
semesters and the courses all changed, so that students who wanted to repeat
courses could only take equivalent but not exactly the same courses. There are
some departments that still use dissimilar repeats a lot but not in the manner
in which they were originally supposed to be used. Sometimes students have been
allowed to take a different course even when the course still exists.
Hamlin said that that did not constitute “widespread abuse,”
and suggested that the background language could be toned down. Jacques agreed.
Sloan said that there seems to be agreement that by next time we will tone that
language down.
Lovett-Doust repeated her suggestion of changing the
language in the proposal, and Sloan explained that the change had been made but
didn’t appear in the copy distributed to the Senate. Jacques said the change
was perfectly fine.
Johnson commented that sometimes equivalent courses are in
other departments, and advisors may not always look for them. Sloan said the
revised copy of the proposal will accompany the agenda for the next meeting.
9. Adjournment: President Sloan adjourned the meeting at 6:22 pm.
Respectfully
submitted
by Marilyn Cooper
Secretary
of the University Senate