The University Senate
of Michigan
Technological University
Minutes of Meeting 481
21 October
2009
Synopsis:
The
Senate:
1. Call to order and roll call. President Rudy Luck called the University Senate Meeting 481
to order at 5:30 pm on Wednesday, October 21, 2009. The Senate Secretary
Marilyn Cooper called roll. Absent were representatives of Army/Air Force ROTC,
Geological Mining and Engineering Science, the Library, Academic Services A,
Academic Services B, Academic Services C, Auxiliaries, and Research.
2. Recognition of visitors. Guests included Max Seel
(Provost), Bill Kennedy (Center for Learning and Faculty Development), Dean
Johnson (School of Business and Economics), and Alex Mayer (Civil and
Environmental Engineering).
3. Approval of agenda. L. Davis moved approval of the agenda; Hamlin seconded the motion; and it passed on a voice vote with no dissent.
4. Presentation by the 2008-09 Michigan Tech Teaching Award
Winner, Dean Johnson
Bill Kennedy introduced Dean Johnson, from
the School of Business and Economics, who is the fourth faculty member to have
won the teaching award in both the divisions, the others being Mary Ann
Beckwith, Peck Cho, and Ashok Ambardar. Johnson’s
class offerings include derivative securities, principles of finance, and
applied portfolio management, in which students get the practical experience of
managing a real portfolio with money in it. Students in this course have
excelled in managing a million dollar fund contributed by a pool of outside
donors and have won the national RISE national stock investment competition in
the value category three times in the past eight years. The course has given
the University tremendous public relations benefit and has benefitted our
students a great deal. Dean Radson says that we have had students come to Michigan Tech
just to study in this program and that Johnson’s unique teaching style has allowed
him to convey difficult principles in an applied manner while giving students
the experience of being successful financial analysts and investors.
Johnson
said that he is teaching applied advanced courses in small sections so that
what he does may not be applicable to every teacher’s situation. He said he likes to spend some
time in constructively thinking about his teaching philosophy. He said that
what he finds important is to treat students as adults (especially if you teach
upper level students), to express a genuine interest in each student as an individual
(ask them individually about how things are going when you see them on campus),
to gain their trust (make them realize
you have their best interests at heart), to challenge them (push them with more
advanced material), to connect to the “real world” (connect to current events,
bring in outside speakers from the “real world”), to provide a variety of
learning experiences (recognizing that students have diverse learning styles; Johnson
gave an example of how to explain the concept of net present value [NPV] in
different ways).
Johnson
applauded the fact that Michigan Tech is unique in having a variety and number
of experiential learning programs (Enterprise, Ford Center, Applied Portfolio Management,
Senior Design, Performing Arts, and many more), especially given the small size
of the student population.
He
proposed questions about teaching from the perspective of the University and
from the personal perspective that he believes faculty need to have honest and
open discussions about. From the University perspective, why should we expect
faculty to be good teachers? There are synergies between research and teaching,
but they are very different skill sets. Most doctoral programs spend very little
time training students to be good teachers. How can the University encourage
and reward teaching? There are lots of good teachers across the University.
What priority does the University place on teaching? The payoff for good
teaching is hidden; the students have already paid their tuition. But the
payoff is down the road. Nobility aside, is teaching a positive net present
value project? Are teaching and research mutually exclusive projects? No, we
should do both; there doesn’t have to be a tension between the two.
From
the personal perspective, he said that if teaching is just a job for you,
learning will be a job for your students. If you are genuinely sincere,
students will sense that and they will enjoy the class. Every class period is
an hour to have a major influence in our students’ lives. Faculty
have an ethical responsibility to provide students with tools to be
successful.
Moran
asked whether Johnson considers high quality teaching at Michigan Tech a
positive NPV project for a Michigan Tech faculty, and whether the reason
Johnson is a high quality teacher is that it is a positive NPV project for him.
Johnson said he believes teaching is a noble profession and he would be willing
to incur some cost if it wasn’t a positive NPV project for him at a personal
level. But, he said, as a faculty we need to make sure that teaching is a
positive NPV project at the personal level and at the University level. Moran asked
whether it is one now. Johnson replied that many people end up doing a marginal
analysis about how to spend the next hour, in research or in teaching, but that
ignores the fact that the benefits from teaching are longer term than the
benefits of doing research. If we put all the incentives on the research side
we’re ignoring the positive long-term benefits on the teaching side.
Onder asked about using an alternative model to compare
projects: if you have two projects and pursue them together, you have something
larger than just the combined NPV of both; research and teaching should be considered
this way, not as mutually exclusive. Johnson says that the point he was trying
to make is that research and teaching are not mutually exclusive; there’s a
positive synergy between the two.
5. Approval of Minutes from Meetings 479 and 480. Moran moved to
approve the minutes of meeting 479; Onder seconded
the motion. Cooper supplied a missing word in Storer’s
report of the work of the Curricular Policy Committee: the last phrase of his
report should read “discussing methods of requiring residency requirements for
certificate programs.” The motion to approve the minutes as amended passed on a voice vote with no dissent.
Allen moved to approve the minutes of meeting
480; Hamlin seconded the motion, and it passed
on a voice vote with no dissent.
6. Report of the President and Senate Committees
President Luck reported that the
administration approved Proposal 1-10 Revised Academic Policy. He also reported
that the charters for Cognitive and Learning Sciences and for Exercise Science,
Health, and Physical Education were both approved by President Mroz, Provost Max Seel, and Dean
Bruce Seely at their meeting on February 19, 2009. He
noted that the administration this year has indicated a pronounced willingness
to investigate and move forward with the issue of charters.
Luck
explained the process by which the survey of Senate constituents’ response to
the changes in health care and retirement benefits was constructed. The Senate
Executive Committee discussed on email the questions to be included. Variations
of seven questions were discussed; Luck removed three questions and sent the
rest to Senator Smith for review; Smith produced five questions; the final
survey, which consisted of four questions and an introductory sheet with
instructions, was prepared. An email was sent to all those who suggested
questions with a brief description of how the survey was constructed. Most, but
not all, appeared pleased by the final survey questions. The survey was
distributed earlier today (October 21) with instructions that it be mailed in by October 28, and the results will be discussed
at the November 4 meeting. He thanked everyone for their hard work, in
particular Judi Smigowski for preparing and
distributing the survey, Smith for phrasing the questions, and the Senate
Elections Committee who will help count the ballots. He explained the balloting
process and the tabulating process. It is a paper ballot, to be marked and then
enclosed first in an unmarked envelope and then within a larger envelope which
is signed by the constituent. When ballots are received, names on the larger
envelope will be checked off the list of constituents and the smaller envelopes
will be extracted, to be opened and tabulated later. He noted that there has
been some comment on question 3, which reads, “Do you SUPPORT the current
communication process of the benefit plans: announcements, informational
meetings, and then choose the available plans all within 2 weeks?” Some
objected that the information and enrollment period (from October 19 to
November 25) is not two weeks, but Luck noted that depending on when an
employee goes to an informational forum they would have between six weeks and
one day to choose. He said that the issue is not the exact time to choose but
rather the communication process. He said that these four questions will allow
us to arrive at some important conclusions about the response of Senate
constituents to the changes in total compensation and the process of
communicating the changes.
Mullins
asked about the process of rejection of questions. Luck said the criterion he
used was the purpose of the survey as stated in the proposal, which was to discover
constituents’ responses to the changes in health care and retirement benefits;
other suggested questions might have been better asked by other organizations
and distracted from the purpose of the survey.
Johnson
asked what we will do with the results, especially if the response rate is overwhelming
and the responses are largely in agreement. Luck reminded the Senate that
Snyder, who proposed the survey, said that that the results might be of
interest to the Board of Control. Luck said that it will also help us draft
more effective surveys in the future, and that we and the administration will find
out what Senate constituents think about the total compensation changes. The
results will be posted on the Senate website. Johnson asked what changes it
could bring about. Luck said he cannot predict the results, but the survey will
allow the Senate to be more active next year when more changes can be expected.
He reminded the Senate of the current negotiations at Northern Michigan University
on these issues. He said that if we have a reasonable response it would be
reasonable to discuss that something should be done differently. We could possibly
effect some change in the thinking of the administration.
Luck
introduced Alex Mayer, chair of the Provost Search Committee, to report on the
progress of the search. Luck commented that, as the previous Senate President
Martha Sloan has pointed out, four of the past five upper administrators were
hired without following the stipulated procedure, but he assured us that in this
search the procedures are being followed.
Alex
Mayer said that the search committee was formed in March 2009. The committee developed
an advertisement and a position description from April to May, including
distributing the position description to the University for comment
and holding an open meeting to receive more comments. The description was
finalized in early May. The President hired a consultant from Academic Search
Incorporated, Robert Lawless, to assist in the search, and he has been working
with the committee from the beginning. Over the summer, a prospectus was prepared
for candidates and for those nominating candidates to describe the position and
Michigan Tech in such a way as to attract high quality candidates.
Advertisements were placed in 11 different venues in early September. Academic
Search contacted 928 sitting provosts, vice presidents, and deans and asked
them to apply. Academic Search also contacted 49 university presidents and
asked them for nominations. The committee also invited nominations from the University
community. As of October 15, the date advertised as the cut-off date for full
consideration of applications, the committee received 40 applications, and this
week they selected 7 of these candidates for neutral site interviews by
committee members; 6 candidates are still interested in the position. The
committee is checking the references of these candidates. Interviews will be
held in early to mid November, and 3 finalists will be invited to campus to
meet with the University community. Up until that point the names of the
applicants will be held in confidence. The committee is hopeful they will be
able to make a decision before the end of the calendar year. The advertisement
for the position states that the new provost could start as early as January
2010.
Senator
Scarlett reported that the Academic Policy Committee is collecting background
information on departmental governance and doing comparisons on how these key
issues are handled at peer institutions and hope to have something to the Senate
for everyone to consider soon. The committee has also been charged to look at
possible changes to the leave policy, which they will not do until their work
on the governance issue is completed.
7. Old Business:
Proposal 16-09 Double Majors at Michigan Tech
Keen explained that this proposal was
introduced by the Curricular Policy Committee last year and sent back to the
committee to find a resolution to a problem raised about bullet 4, which states
“Students may only earn an additional major if that major is offered under the
same degree type (Bachelor of Science or Bachelor of Arts) as the primary
major. If the degree types for the majors are different then the student must
pursue a second degree.” The problem is with the way the second major is
recorded; for example, a diploma might read “Bachelor of Science in
Mathematical Sciences with an additional major in Liberal Arts,” but Michigan
Tech does not offer a BS in Liberal Arts. On that reading the University is
awarding a degree that the state does not permit us to award. The principal
counterargument is that the University is simply awarding one degree. The
committee sought the advice of the Provost and of Rich Elenich
of Institutional Analysis to see if by not distinguishing the different types,
the University was running counter to state regulations; both said the
University was in violation of state regulations, and Elenich
added that the University could be fined for doing so. The committee is thus
returning the proposal to the Senate unchanged. The committee recommends
approval. Keen noted that it will affect
8. New Business:
Proposal 6-10 Graduate Certificate in Sustainable Water Resources
Systems
Keen explained that the Curricular
Policy Committee received this proposal last spring, too late to be considered.
The committee considers this a superior graduate certificate proposal produced
under direction of Alex Mayer. The committee unanimously and strongly
recommends its approval.
Luck
asked how the certificate compares to certificates at other universities. Mayer
says Michigan Tech’s certificate will cover both the biophysical and the social
science aspects of water, while others don’t.
9. Adjournment.
Hamlin moved that the meeting be
adjourned; Onder
seconded the motion; and President Luck adjourned the meeting at 6:30 pm.
Respectfully submitted
by Marilyn Cooper
Secretary of the University Senate