The University Senate
of Michigan
Technological University
Minutes of Meeting 476
15 April 2009
Synopsis:
The
Senate
1. Call to order and roll call. President Sloan called the University Senate Meeting 476 to
order at 5:41 pm on Wednesday, April 15, 2009, in room B45 EERC. Secretary
Cooper called roll. Absent were Senators Vable and Koszykowski and
representatives of Army/Air Force ROTC, Civil and Environmental Engineering,
the Library, Materials Sciences and Engineering, and Academic Services B. Liaison
Anna Pereira (GSC) was also 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 Max Seel (Interim Provost), Brad
Baltensperger (Chair, Cognitive and Learning Sciences), Robert Keen (Chair,
Curricular Policy Committee), Jason Keith (Chemical Engineering), Darrell
Radson (School of Business and Economics), Chris Brill (Cognitive and Learning
Sciences), Theresa Jacques (Registrar’s Office), Tom Merz (School of Business
and Economics), Troy Cogan (USG), and Jimmy Diehl (Geological and Mining
Engineering and Sciences).
3. Approval of agenda.
Storer moved approval of the agenda; Christiansen seconded the motion; it
passed unanimously on a voice vote.
4. Presentation: “Summary of 2009 Presidential Survey” presented by Gerard Caneba
The same online format for the
evaluation was used this year as last year. The survey window was announced in
Tech Today and emails. Responses dropped by one-third from last year evenly
across all categories. Possible reasons for the drop included that there was no
pressing issue this year; last year the issue was the AAUP. Also the time given
for responses was longer last year (2 weeks opposed to 10 days). Overall, the
response rate was 18 percent. Of faculty, 20 percent responded; 21 percent of
staff represented on the Senate responded; and 33 percent of the remaining
staff responded. Historically, the response rate has been 12 to 19 percent.
Question
1: How would you rate the President’s performance over the last year? This year
the mean was 3.97 on scale of 5; the mean last year was higher. Most responses
were in the above average range, and this was consistent across all categories
of respondents. Comments on this question addressed changes in benefits/health
care, especially that the effect of the changes fall most heavily on the lowest
paid employees; the provost position downgrade and problems with the last
provost search; concerns about the effect of the economic downturn on Michigan
Tech, although the university seems to be well-positioned financially; the
president who is perceived as doing a good job in maintaining visibility on
campus and a strong executive team, with some concerns.
Question
5: The President maintains an effective senior administrative team. This year
the mean was 3.66 on a scale of 5; it was probably lower than last year. Luck
asked what was the scale for faculty compared to staff.
Caneba said he didn’t have the figures but estimated that the mean was about
the same.
Question
6: The President provides effective leadership in addressing compensation
issues, working conditions, and career opportunities for faculty and
staff. The mean was 3.61, lower than
last year.
Question
7: The President clearly communicates University priorities and policies. The
mean was 4, lower than last year.
Question
8: The President invites and incorporates input on University priorities and
policies from faculty, staff and students. The mean was 3.75, lower than last
year.
Question
9: Rate the President’s leadership in addressing diversity issues on campus.
The mean was 3.58, but significant numbers of faculty rated the performance as
below average or poor.
Question
10: Have you read the University’s strategic plan? Most said
yes.
Question
11: Do you feel that you had input to the University’s strategic plan? More
said no.
Question
12: Does the University’s strategic plan influence or guide your daily work
decisions? The staff said yes; faculty were evenly divided between yes and no.
Comments
on the survey focused on the need for an average rating in questions 5 through
8; positive comments about the survey; requests for more focused questions to
fit the issues of the times; and a few concerns about confidentiality of the
survey.
Caneba
thanked the members of the committee (George Dewey, Pat Gotschalk, Larry
Lankton, Ranjit Pati, and Brenda Rudiger), Judi Smigowski for putting out the
survey, and Brenda Helminen, the 2007–08 committee chair.
Boschetto-Sandoval
asked why less time was allotted for the survey this year. Caneba said that the
committee felt that going from two weeks to ten days would not make a
significant difference in the response rate. Also they wanted to get the data
as early as possible to present to the Senate. Last year the report was
presented some time in May.
Hamlin
noted the comments on the difference between fixed-cost health insurance and
the percent salary payback and asked whether this is an issue that could picked up by the Senate and sent to the benefits committee.
Johnson, chair of the benefits committee, said that the committee has talked
about this issue but hasn’t yet come up with a proposal. Hamlin said that he
would like to have it discussed.
5. Approval of Minutes from Meeting #474.
Cooper reported an emendation to the
minutes suggested by Storer. In the discussion of Proposal 18-09, Storer’s
comment in response to Miller’s question about whether the minor is to be
restricted to Pavlis scholars should read “Storer said that the proposal is not
restricted.” Hamlin moved that the
minutes be approved as emended; L. Davis seconded; the motion passed on a voice vote with no dissent.
6. President’s Report.
Proposals: Proposal
9-09: Academic Calendar for 2010–11 and 2011–12 was approved by the
administration on April 7.
Finances: The
chair of the Senate Finance committee and the Senate president met with the
CFO, vice president for student affairs, vice president for research and the
budget director on April 3 to discuss Tech finances, especially as they concern
the proposed new residence apartment. All of these except the CFO and budget
director will have a conference call on the subject with long-time Board of
Control member Ruth Reck tomorrow. The Senate executive committee has discussed
university finances several times and has asked the Senate president to include
financial concerns in her report to the Board of Control.
Thanks: I thank all of you
who have contributed so much to the Senate. You have made my job easier and I
hope you will continue to contribute in the future. I wish Rudy Luck the best
in working with you for the better future of Michigan Tech.
Cooper
thanked Sloan for all of her good work over the past three years. Seel, on behalf
of the administration, also thanked Sloan very much.
7. Elections for Senator at Large and University Committees.
Sloan said we were not able to find
nominees for all the open positions, but we do have a few more candidates. She
announced that Mark Johnson is a nominee for Senator at Large, and she asked
for any further nominations. Caneba nominated himself. L. Davis moved that the Senate approve the two
nominees to fill the two positions; Fick seconded the motion; the motion passed on a voice vote with no dissent.
Sloan announced that Paul Charlesworth is a candidate for one of the two open
positions on the Faculty Distinguished Service Award Committee. There were no
other nominations. Hamlin moved to
approve Charlesworth for one of the positions; Caneba seconded the motion; the
motion passed on a voice vote with
no dissent. Sloan announced that there were four openings (three members and an
alternate) on the Faculty Review Committee, a very important committee that
reviews grievances after they come out of the unit. Sloan nominated herself to
the committee, and Johnson seconded the nomination. Storer nominated himself,
and Hamlin seconded the nomination. Caneba nominated himself, and Givens
seconded the nomination. Vogler nominated Miller, but she declined. Johnson moved to approve Sloan, Storer, and
Caneba as members of the committee; Christiansen seconded the motion; the
motion passed on a voice vote with
no dissent. The three positions have different terms: one ending in 2010, one
in 2011, and one in 2012. Snyder moved
that terms on the committee be filled in descending order from the order of
nomination, the person nominated first serving the shortest term, and so on;
Hamlin seconded the motion; the motion passed
on a voice vote with one dissenting vote. Sloan announced that the remaining
positions on committees will be filled in the fall.
8. Old Business.
a. Proposal 10-09: A Proposal for a Name Change in an
Academic Program from “B.S. in Business Administration with a Concentration in
Management” to “B.S. in Management” presented
by the Curricular Policy Committee
b. Proposal 11-09: A Proposal for a Name Change in an
Academic Program from “B.S. in Business Administration with a Concentration in
Operations and Systems Management” to “B.S. in Operations and Systems
Management” presented by the Curricular Policy
Committee
c. Proposal 12-09: A Proposal for a Name Change in an
Academic Program from “B.S. in Business Administration with a Concentration in
Finance” to B.S.
in Finance” presented by the Curricular Policy
Committee
d. Proposal 13-09 A Proposal for a Name Change in an
Academic Program from “B.S. in Business Administration with a Concentration in
Marketing” to “B.S. in Marketing” presented
by the Curricular Policy Committee
e. Proposal 14-09 A Proposal for a Name Change in an
Academic Program from “B.S. in Business Administration with a Concentration in
Management Information Systems” to B.S. in Management Information Systems” presented by the Curricular Policy Committee
f. Proposal 15-09: A Proposal for a Name Change in an
Academic Program from “B.S. in Business Administration with a Concentration in
Accounting” to “B.S. in Accounting” presented
by the Curricular Policy Committee
Keen said that all six of these
proposals constitute a name change with no change in required resources, simply
designating what are currently concentrations or options as majors, and that
they come to the floor with full support of the Curricular Policy Committee.
Hamlin moved the approval of
Proposal 10-09; Fick seconded the motion; the motion passed on a voice vote with no dissent. Hamlin moved the approval of Proposal 11-09; Fick seconded; the motion
passed on a voice vote with no dissent. Hamlin moved the approval of Proposal 12-09; Fick seconded; the motion passed on a voice vote with no dissent.
Hamlin moved the approval of
Proposal 13-09; L. Davis seconded; the motion passed on a voice vote with no dissent. Hamlin moved the approval of Proposal 14-09; L. Davis seconded; the motion
passed on a voice vote with no
dissent. Hamlin moved the approval
of Proposal 15-09; L. Davis seconded; the motion passed on a voice vote with no dissent. Dean Radson thanked the
Senate and the committee for moving things along quickly.
g. Proposal 16-09: “Double Majors at MTU” presented by the Curricular Policy Committee
Keen said the proposal is an effort to
clean up a possible problem with awarding diplomas for double majors with
different degrees (BA and BS), and it is supported by the Curricular Policy
Committee. He said that Theresa Jacques from the registrar’s office was present
to answer any questions. Storer moved
approval of Proposition 16-09; L. Davis seconded. Kern asked whether it
requires more hours to complete a dual degree compared to a double major.
Jacques said that a dual degree requires 32 credits. Vogler asked what a second
major is. Snyder explained that a double major does not require any additional
hours. Vogler asked about how many students this would affect. Jacques said
currently two, who would not be penalized. Kern asked whether the proposal
would require a student completing two BS degrees to complete the extra 32
credits. Jacques said no, that students can complete a BS with two majors.
Hamlin asked Snyder to repeat his comments from the last meeting on this
proposal. Snyder said that he felt the problem was moot as the diploma seems to
clearly grant a degree in one field and a second major (not another degree) in
another field. Jacques said that we don’t award majors, we award degrees, and
that the state does not allow us to award degrees that have not been approved.
She said the concern was that we could be audited and found in violation. The
number of students it impacts is very minimal. Most of the other Michigan
colleges and universities allow either BS or BA in any major, but not ours.
Snyder commented that non– Michigan schools vary in how they handle this. For
example, Cal Poly only lists the primary major on the diploma and notes second
major on the transcript. This would allow those students to do a double major
without having to take the extra 32 credits. Lankton said this procedure sounds
more reasonable, as it would seem we would want to make it easier for students
to complete a double major. Kern said it would be a heavy penalty to require that
many additional hours to complete a double major. Lankton said if one degree
was listed on the diploma and the additional major on the transcript, they
could claim it, and that this would be a better solution to the problem. Keen
suggested that the Senate could move to refer the proposal back to committee to
accomplish this. Boschetto-Sandoval moved
the proposal be referred back to the Curricular Policy Committee; Kern seconded
the motion; the motion passed on a
voice vote with no dissent.
h. Proposal 17-09: “Interdisciplinary Minor in Hydrogen
Technology” presented by the Curricular Policy
Committee
Keen said that the proposal was
redrafted and recirculated and is supported by the Curricular Policy Committee.
Snyder moved the approval of
Proposal 17-09; L. Davis seconded. Luck asked which course would teach about
the structure and properties of metal-organic frameworks for the storage of
hydrogen. Jason Keith said the fuel cells course covers storage of hydrogen in
general, but if there is a specific course Chemistry would like to add to the
list of elective courses, it would be welcome. Luck said there is no course
that does that. The motion passed on
a voice vote with no dissent.
i. Proposal 19-09: “Ph.D. Program in Applied Cognitive
Science and Human Factors and M.S. in Applied Cognitive Science and Human
Factors” presented by Senate Officers
Hamlin moved approval of Proposal 19-09; Christianson seconded the motion. Keen said the Curricular Policy
Committee did not have time to consider this proposal. They have forwarded some
of our comments to the proposers, who did not respond because the proposal had
already been introduced in the Senate. Baltensperger
said he had received the comments from the committee and has made some
revisions to address the key concerns: MTU has been replaced by Michigan Tech;
the masters degree is noted explicitly in the title of the proposal and
described in the proposal; the effective dates have been moved to 2010; a
statement on page 8 that a student who failed all sections of the comprehensive
exam upon retaking it would be asked to withdraw has been deleted; and a course
description for PSY 5910 has been added on page 10.
L.
Davis said he met with provost about the question of space for the new program
and is now convinced that there is space on campus, but he is still concerned
that there are no space costs in the proposal. It is a custom for the
University not to hold programs accountable for space costs, but having been on
the Finance Committee for 13 years, he feels this is not appropriate as these
costs do exist. The Finance Committee is comfortable with the other financial
figures listed in the proposal. He commented that this is a graduate program,
and graduate programs don’t make money; they have another role to play in the
University.
Seel
said that the plan is to move this program to the Meese Center; this is an
existing building for which the costs of heating, etc., are already covered. We
need to apply the same, existing accounting strategies to this program. L. Davis
responded that Seel is addressing the equity issue, but financially there will
be costs associated with this program. Johnson asked Keen whether the Senate
has ever had a proposal for two degrees at once and commented that it’s hard to
digest the two degrees in one proposal and make a decision on it. Keen replied
that usually the masters is proposed first. This
proposal is unique, as far as he knows, but the proposers have an argument for
starting with the doctoral degree with the masters
degree as a safety net. Baltensperger
said that his department’s preference was simply to have a PhD program, in line
with programs at other universities. But the Curricular Policy Committee and
the Graduate Faculty Council that we needed to have a back-up if students get a
couple years into the program and find they can’t or don’t want to complete the
PhD. He said that they want a PhD program and they don’t want to disadvantage
students who don’t finish a PhD. The Senate strongly urged them to make masters
degree explicitly part of the proposal and so they did so. He added that he
thinks that Atmospheric Science is an example of a graduate program that
doesn’t offer a masters degree. Snyder commented that Michigan Tech doesn’t
give masters as booby prizes. Most PhD programs, he said, don’t have required
courses, while MS programs do, so in these programs, a PhD student three years
into the program would not have fulfilled the requirements for a masters degree. Johnson said that that’s what she is
concerned about, that the proposal doesn’t specify what is required for a masters degree.
Baltensperger pointed out the section in the proposal on MS degree requirements that states that “students who wish to
terminate their studies after two years may acquire a M.S. degree by completing
the core courses and six credits of required research for a 32-credit master’s
degree.” Snyder said that you can’t have a back-up masters
degree without having a masters degree approved. He also said he didn’t see why
the two degrees couldn’t be proposed in the same document. Luck asked that
since they are projecting for new students to begin in 2010, why couldn’t the
Senate postpone this proposal until fall 2009?
Baltensperger said that they’ve got a core faculty who have
been working hard on this. The proposal has already been held up for two years,
and he would hate to hold it up over what seem to be procedural and technical
issues. Hamlin suggested that the Senate could approve the proposal and amend
it next year. Seel said that since the proposal goes to the Board of Control
and the state, that would not be a good idea. He said that it was clear in the
last meeting that the Senate wanted the masters degree
in the title. Storer asks about the status of the new version of the proposal.
Sloan ruled that the changes in the proposal are editorial changes. Storer moved to approve the amended version of
Proposal 19-09; Onder seconded. Snyder proposed striking the words ‘en route’
in the statement about students who wish to be awarded a master’s degree in
lieu of the doctorate on page 8; Hamlin seconded the motion; the motion passed
on a voice vote with no
dissent. Johnson moved
that mention of the masters degree be added to the
summary section; someone seconded the motion: the motion passed on voice vote with no dissent.
L.
Davis asked Keen what his committee did and didn’t do with this proposal. Keen
said they received this proposal last September and were told two weeks later
that it was no longer up for consideration, so they dropped it. They received
it again on March 11, discussed it very briefly and sent comments to
Baltensperger and Seel. The Senate Officers decided to forward the proposal to
the Senate. The department of Cognitive Science and Human Factors incorporated
changes into the proposal. The Curricular Policy Committee didn’t have time to
engage in the nitpicking polishing they would normally do, but their major
concerns have been addressed. L. Davis asks whether they reviewed the idea of
incorporating a masters into this proposal. Keen said
the committee thought students might decide to quit at the masters level
because the difference in starting salaries between those receiving a masters
and those receiving a doctoral degree is so small. L. Davis asks whether the
proposal for the masters degree has received enough
scrutiny. Keen says the committee was comfortable with offering a masters
degree as described. He said that further changes would be editorial; the
committee considers this proposal adequate. Storer, also a member of the committee,
agreed with this summary. Luck asked Baltensperger why they waited to resubmit
the proposal. Baltensperger replied that they didn’t know it had been
withdrawn. Seel said he resubmitted the proposal as soon as he was aware it was
lingering. Hamlin moved to call the
question; Christianson seconded the motion; the motion to call the question passed on a voice vote with no dissent.
Proposal 19-09 passed on a voice
vote with one dissention.
9. New Business
a. Proposal 20-09: “List of All Academic Programs” presented by the Curricular Policy Committee
Keen said that the only operative part
of the proposal is the first page which says that the provost will maintain a
list of all programs and update it yearly. The proposal comes from provost’s
office and registrar’s office. The list needs continual updating and there have
already been updates to this list. All degrees offered in the past can still be
offered even if they are suspended, so the list is helpful in this regard.
Comments and questions should go to the Curricular Policy Committee and the
provost’s office (Helene Hiner). Sloan encouraged all senators to take the
proposal back to their departments to check the accuracy of the list of
degrees. Hamlin moved that this be
considered an emergency proposal; Christiansen seconded the motion. Johnson
said it would be useful to put all the degree programs listed on the website.
Seel said that list is on the website, but it’s hard to find. The motion to
consider this as an emergency measure passed
on a voice vote with no dissent. Hamlin moved
approval of Proposal 20-09; Johnson seconded the motion; the motion passed on a voice vote with no dissent.
10. Adjournment
President Sloan adjourned the meeting
at 7:10 pm.
Respectfully submitted
by Marilyn Cooper
Secretary of the University Senate