The University Senate

of Michigan Technological University

 

Minutes of Meeting 472

11 February 2009

 

Synopsis:

The Senate

 

1. Call to order and roll call. President Sloan called the University Senate Meeting 472 to order at 5:31 pm on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 in room B45 EERC. Secretary Cooper called roll. Absent were representatives of Civil and Environmental Engineering and of Mathematics.    Liaison Daniel Freeman (USG) was 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 Yogini Deshpande (Civil Engineering), Theresa Jacques (Registrar’s Office), Tim Schulz (College of Engineering), and Max Seel (Interim Provost).

 

3. Approval of agenda.

Hamlin moved approval of the agenda; Malette seconded the motion; it passed unanimously on a voice vote.

 

4. Presentation: “Provost 101” by Max Seel

 

If things go smoothly we will have a search committee by the end of the semester, the ad can go out in August and hopefully we will have a new provost by the summer of 2010. At this point, I have no present interest in applying for the position. I am happy to be here. I believe in shared governance: we might not always agree on things but I hope we can keep open communication channels and I think that’s all we can ask for.

In my mind, the Provost  and Vice President for Academic Affairs is the chief academic officer of the university. The university is defined by the unity of teaching and research, and the reputation of the university is defined by its faculty and students. I don't mean to leave out the good work the staff do, which is also important. Moving from the sublime to the practical now, without dollars we can’t do anything no matter what our intentions are. Teaching and research is a large portion of the budget: revenue from these two sources are the first and third largest core revenue of the current fund budget. In fiscal year 2007, tuition and fees amounted to $67 million, and from grants and contracts $42 million. The Provost working with the five deans of the schools and colleges spent $60 million, half of the general fund expenditure.

That defines for me for the next year and a half my top priorities and responsibilities. We need to get the best faculty. Between now and May is when we do our hiring and tenure and promotion. I want to be very clear that all our hiring is strategic, not just that associated with the Strategic Hiring Initiative. We need to have innovative academic programs: the deans working with the Senate, the library, and the Center for Teaching Excellence. I want to express my appreciation of the Senate. I worked very well with the Senate during the 19 years I was Dean of the College of Sciences and Arts. The Provost works also with the Vice President for Student Services. We need to have cutting edge research: sponsored research, scholarship, artistic expression — it has to be good. That’s where the Provost interacts with the Vice President for Research. This is actually the strategic plan.

We need a sound budget, and the provost needs to be a member of the executive and budget team, as he is responsible for teaching and research, the core activities of the university.

I want to show you a slide that shows the intrinsic dynamics between colleges and schools at Michigan Tech. These figures are based on the 2007-08 compendium numbers and the research expenditure figures for 2006-07.

These diagrams show how the different colleges and schools contribute to the university, and how the different contributions define different stresses and tensions for the colleges and schools. The first diagram shows total headcount undergraduate majors, and engineering has the biggest role. About 55 percent are engineering majors, followed by Sciences and Arts majors, now approaching 25 percent, followed by majors in the School of Technology, the School of Business and Economics, and the School of Forestry. The next shows total student credit hours, which adds up to $51 million income in tuition dollars. Here we see that the largest chunk comes from Sciences and Arts, followed by the College of Engineering, the School of Business and Economics, the School of Technology, and the School of Forestry. The next diagram shows external research expenditures. Here you see the large contribution of the School of Forestry, second to the College of Engineering, and followed by Sciences and Arts and the School of Technology. This is not a value statement that nonfunded research doesn’t mean anything. I’m just trying to point out that different schools and colleges have different stresses to deal with. In the last diagram, we see the Tech Fund balances, which reflects the alumni base over the last one hundred years, with Engineering with the greatest balance and much smaller balances for the School of Business and Economics, the School of Forestry, the College of Sciences and Arts, and the School of Technology.

Dynamics puts things into perspective: dynamics is a branch of physics that deals with forces and their relation primarily to the motion but sometimes also to the equilibrium of bodies. You replace bodies with schools, colleges, faculty members, and as long as the different forces add up to a positive direction we’re just fine.

Hoagland asked if he would be on the executive and budget team this coming year and a half. Seel answered yes, that he would not have taken the job without it because he knows the importance of money.

In response to recent concerns expressed in the Senate, Seel then explained why the recent 2.1 percent decrease in benefits meant a 1.45 percent increase in salary. He gave an example of a faculty member who makes $100,000. At the old benefit rate of 45.2 percent, the total compensation is $145,200. With the adjustment of 1.45 percent, the salary becomes $101,450, and with the 2.1 percent reduction in benefits, the new rate is 43.1 percent, which amounts to $43,750, and the total compensation is again $145,200. It’s math; it’s very simple. You divide a smaller number by a larger number and this is what you get. He then showed that the calculation also works for any salary X.

            Luck asked how seriously the current economic situation will affect the university finances for the future and for this year. Seel replied that we are one of the few universities still hiring. The current budget situation looks much more stable than it was 5 or 6 years ago. He said he went through three budget cuts as dean, and that he doesn’t want to start with major budget cuts as provost. So far it looks good: we wouldn’t be still hiring if it didn’t. He said he talked today with the Chronicle of Higher Education and most universities have frozen positions or cut positions.

 

5. Approval of Minutes from Meeting 471. Cooper said that she couldn’t attribute a question that was asked after the President’s report and asked if anyone remembered who said it. No one could, and the speaker will be identified as “a senator.” Dewey asked about the statement in Shea McGrew’s report that support from the state was down 23 percent. Sloan explained that if you look at the whole budget and look at the percentage that the state income is of the whole budget, that percentage is down 23 percent. Johnson moved that the minutes be approved as amended; Hamlin seconded the motion, and it passed on a voice vote with no opposition.

 

6. President’s Report. We welcome interim provost Max Seel to our meeting. The Senate officers have met with him and will continue regular meetings with him.

The Benefits Liaison Group met with the Compensation Task Force, the president, and several other top administrators last Friday. The president charged the BLG with recommending continuing compensation changes involving swapping benefits for salary and in developing alternative retiree health care plans.

 

 

 

7. Endorsement of Slate for Athletic Council position. Sloan noted that the Senate has electronic clickers to use to vote, and reminded the Senate that only senators or alternates can vote and that only one vote per unit  is allowed. Senator Luck, chair of the Elections Committee, asked if there were any further nominees for the Athletic Council position. Drelich said he had nominated Steve Kampe by email, and his name was added to the slate, which consisted then of ten names: Dallas Bates, Gopal Jayaraman, Steve Kampe, Jason Keith, Donna Michalek, Michael Mullins, William Sproule, Larry Sutter, Charles VanKarsen, and Carl Vilmann. By voice vote, the Senate endorsed the slate.

 

8. Election: Provost Search Committee

Luck reviewed the rules for the Senate’s election of members to the Provost Search Committee: the Senate is asked to elect four faculty representatives, one from the College of Engineering, one from the College of Sciences and Arts, one from outside the two colleges, and one at-large member; and the Senate is asked to elect one member of the search committee from the professional staff. The members must be elected by a majority vote of the quorum of the Senate (18 votes).

            Nominees for the professional staff position were Ruth Archer (SBE), Erik Nordberg (Library), Joanne Polzien (Research), Ellen Seidel (Library), and Jonathan Stone (OSH). Pat Gotschalk (Student Affairs) was then nominated by Senator Hamlin. Erik Nordberg was elected.

            Nominees from the College of Engineering were Dan Crowl (Chem Eng), Alex Mayer (Geo & Mining), Tony Rogers (Chem Eng), and Zhanping You (Civil & Environ). There were no further nominees. Alex Mayer was elected.

            Nominees from the College of Sciences and Arts were Jason Carter (Exercise Sci), Nancy Grimm (Humanities), and Roger Held (VPA). There were no further nominees.

Keen asked how many people among these nominees are department chairs. Luck said two of them are. Keen asked if department chairs have a separate representative on the provost search committee. Luck said that chairs can run as faculty. Hoagland asked for a run down of the stipulated members of the committee. Luck said there are 15 people, 4 faculty elected by the Senate, 1 professional staff elected by the Senate, 1 department chair, 1 dean, 2 staff selected by the Staff Council, 1 graduate student from the Graduate Student Council, 1 undergraduate student from USG, three at-large members selected by the President, and the President of the Senate. Keen asked if department chairs are eligible to serve in the Senate. Sloan said no. L. Davis raised the issue that this constitutes a conflict of interest. Keen said he just wanted the Senate to consider the issue in an open discussion. Nancy Grimm was elected.

Nominees for a faculty member not in the College of Engineering or the College of Sciences and Arts were Mari Buche (SBE), David Flaspohler (SFRES), Dana Johnson (SBE), and Mark Johnson (School of Technology). Robert Froese (SFRES) was then nominated by Nagel. Mari Buche was elected.

Nominees for the at-large faculty position were all those faculty previously nominated who were not elected for one of the other positions. Luck reminded the Senate that we need to consider the diversity of the members. David Flaspohler was elected.

 

9. Old Business

 

  1. Proposal 5-09: “Proposal for a Masters Degree Program in Computer Engineering” presented by the Curricular Policy Committee.

Hamlin moved approval of the proposal, and Keen seconded. There was no discussion, and the proposal was approved by voice vote with no dissent.

  1. Proposal 6-09: “Proposal for a Doctor of Philosophy Degree Program in Computer Engineering” presented by the Curricular Policy Committee.

Hamlin moved approval of the proposal, and Hoagland Kim seconded. There was no discussion, and the proposal was approved by voice vote with no dissent.

  1. Proposal 7-09: “Definition of Similar Repeats” presented by the Instructional Policy Committee.

Malette moved approval of the proposal, and Diehl seconded. Keen asks whether the proposal represents curricular policy or instructional policy. L. Davis asked what the difference was. Keen said that instructional policy would be concerned with the faculty interaction with the students. There was agreement that it is a matter of curricular policy, and Sloan explained that the registrar brought this proposal to instructional policy committee so it was mistakenly considered there. Keen moved that the proposal be referred to the curricular policy committee, and L. Davis seconded the motion. On the voice vote, Sloan rules that the ayes had it.

 

10. New Business

 

There was no new business.

 

11. Adjournment.

President Sloan adjourned the meeting at 6:35  pm.

 

Respectfully submitted

by Marilyn Cooper

Secretary of the University Senate