The University Senate
of Michigan Technological University
Minutes of Meeting 485
25 January 2010
Synopsis:
The
Senate
·
Conversation
with Provost candidate
·
Discussion
of Proposal 4-10
1. Conversation with
Provost Candidate
President
Luck introduced the candidate for Provost who then answered several questions
from Senators. Following the presentation, President Luck thanked the candidate
and reminded everyone that the candidate comment forms passed out prior to the
meeting should be returned to Judi Smigowski.
2. Call to order and
roll call. President
Rudy Luck called the University Senate Meeting 485 to order at 6:24 pm on
Monday, January 25, 2010. The Senate Secretary Marty Thompson called roll.
Absent were Senators Barry Solomon, Marilyn Vogler,
Nick Koszykowski and representatives of Chemical
Engineering, Visual and Performing Arts, Academic Services B, Research, USG and
the Graduate Student Council.
3. Recognition of
visitors. Guests
included Joe Herbig and Anita Quinn (Human
Resources).
4. Approval of
agenda. Snyder moved approval of the agenda; Onder seconded the motion; it passed unanimously on a voice vote.
5. Approval of
minutes from Meeting 484. Scarlett moved approval of the minutes; Hyslop seconded the motion; it passed unanimously on a voice vote.
6. President’s report.
Luck
stated that the Senate Meeting schedule will be getting back to a regular
schedule after the Senate meets with the final provost candidate, also noting
the withdrawal of the candidate the Senate was to meet with later in the week.
He thanked everyone for contributions to the provost search, noting the importance
of the role of the University Senate in this process.
Luck declared that the faculty and staff handbooks are in need of
updating. Luck stated that the handbooks are only available on the web, as far
as he knew. He commented on the relative ease with which substantial changes to
the electronic document could be made with little or no paper record of said
changes being made. He also pointed out that references to
rescinded material on the board of control website (http://www.admin.mtu.edu/admin/boc/policy/index.htm)
will require correcting in the online faculty and perhaps staff handbooks. To address this, he charges the
Senate with updating the handbooks for accuracy and generating hard copies for
accountability. Luck stated that the Senate will investigate this upon completion
of the provost search.
Luck introduced the blog he has integrated
into the Senate website. He
pontificates briefly on the potential corrupting influence of proximity to
power. To ensure the present senate
leadership is not corrupted and to improve communication, the blog permits an
open forum for comments. As a caveat, Luck cited Garcetti v. Ceballos, the essence of which was that professional duties are not
covered by academic freedom. The purpose
of the blog is to improve the Senate, the efficiency of the Senate and impact
the way in which Senate does business. The Senate is only as efficient as those
working in it. He then proceeded to give a brief tutorial on use of blog.
Luck presented two platform
documents from the Michigan State Senate Republicans website. The first regarding
changes in healthcare and the second reductions in compensation for Michigan public
employees. Luck forewarns that healthcare changes are progressively shifting
costs from the employer to the employee at the same time as Republicans want to
put forth a compensation reduction plan for the mid-term elections. Moran asked
if these were proposals or if they were bills under consideration. Luck was
unclear on the mechanism by which these proposals would be implemented or even
if they were currently under discussion, but cited this as a Republican
platform for the upcoming elections. Caneba asks if
we are classified as public employees. Luck affirmed the fact. Christianson
cites that it says ‘universities’ on the document Luck displayed. Hyslop comments that the state constitution needs to be
amended to bring university employees into the two programs cited by Luck. Luck
references the website for further information. Scarlett asked if this would
erase university discretionary power of the universities in budget
implementation. He distinguished a cut in state allocation versus the state
controlling how the universities implement funding changes. Hyslop
stated that this was the reason for the legislation to change the state
constitution – to accomplish this increase in state power over budget
allocation.
7. Report of Senate
Committees
Luck,
on behalf of the Benefits Committee, stated the committee is looking into the
effect of sick leave and paid time off on grants, as well as, developing a
wellness program.
Onder, Chair of the
Elections Committee, reported that Conflict of Interest Committee and Misconduct
in Research and Scholarly Inquiry Committee has vacancies. Send names of
interested persons to Onder. Also there are two open senator-at-large
positions, one for faculty and another for staff. This information will be sent
to Tech-Topics. Christianson asks if this information can be sent to the senate
mailing list. Onder confirmed that it could be.
8. Old business. There was no old
business.
9. New business.
Scarlett,
Chair of Academic Policy Committee, asked everyone to review Proposal 4-10,
"Entrepreneurial Leave Proposal" in the aim of putting it up for a
vote at the next meeting. He calls attention to two variations of the proposals
for consideration. One is to create a new entrepreneurial leave policy, which
is favored by administration, because it portrays the entrepreneurial spirit of
our institution. The other option is to insert a small change into the text of
the existing policy and re-title it the ‘Professional and Entrepreneurial Leave
Policy’. In the time since this proposal was initially brought up, its applicability
to staff has come into question. This means changes would need to be made to
the staff handbook, which introduces additional complexities. Scarlett noted
that these issues are currently under discussion by the committee so all
relevant issues are properly addressed.
Moran
asks about the procedure that will be used to vote on the two options for this
proposal. Scarlett stated that the Senate can discuss this during the next
meeting to decide what changes to make and how to proceed. Wood inquired about
language relating to the payment of benefits. Scarlett felt this issue would be
addressed in committee or discussed during the next Senate meeting. Dewey asked
whether conflict-of-interest issues were anticipated and if so how they were being
addressed by his committee. Scarlett agreed there might be some
conflicts-of-interest and felt that this too would be addressed upon further
discussion in committee. Onder felt that the wording of
the policy does not define what ‘certain….activities’
are, but that they should in some way benefit the university. He felt the
language was vague. Scarlett anticipated that the administrative response to
that comment would be whether said activities stimulate an economic response. He
felt a more precise definition of what constitutes ‘certain professional
development, service, research, and entrepreneurial activities’ could be
addressed in the preamble. Moran commented that the validity of the activity
requires departmental, dean and provost approval, thereby providing
comprehensive and numerous checks. Luck suggested that the two options are
quite different because the second option creates a separate category of entrepreneurial
leave. Scarlett mentioned that flexibility needs to be present and how the
policy is implemented should be left to individual departments. Luck asked about
the voting timeline citing a 10 day review period prior to voting. Scarlett notes
this is the case when considering extensive policy changes but is not necessary
for modest changes. He says the committee will need to implement more changes
prior to examination by academic units. Dewey asks if it will be voted on next
session. Scarlett clarifies the text will be prepared for the next meeting and
then be discussed/voted on at a later time.
Luck, on behalf of the Curricular Policy Committee, read over minor textual changes found in Proposal
10-10, “Additional Baccalaureate Degrees”. He
requested individual Senators bring the document to their respective departments
and bring back any changes to the Curricular Policy.
10. Adjournment. Buche moved that the meeting be adjourned; Malette seconded the motion; it passed
on a voice vote with no dissent, and President Luck adjourned the meeting at 6:59
pm.
Respectfully
submitted
by Marty Thompson
Secretary of the University Senate