The University Senate
of Michigan Technological University
Minutes of Meeting 487
10 February 2010
Synopsis:
The
Senate
·
Heard
and responded to report from Provost
·
Passed
Proposal 4-11, Entrepreneurial Leave
·
Passed
Proposal 10-10, Additional Baccalaureate Degrees
·
Discussion
of 11-10, Graduate Certificates
1. Call to order and roll call. President Rudy Luck
called the University Senate Meeting 487 to order at 5:30 pm on Wednesday,
February 10, 2010. Luck requested a moment of silence for Tacy Rae Richardson. The
Senate Secretary Marty Thompson called roll. Absent were Senators Barry
Solomon, Nick Koszykowski and representatives of Materials Science and
Engineering, Physics, Visual and Performing Arts, Academic Services A,
Research, USG and the Graduate Student Council.
2. Recognition of
visitors. Guests
included Max Seel (Provost Office), Joe Herbig (Accounting Services), Dave Hand
(COI Coordinator) and Bob Keen (Biological Sciences).
3. Approval
of agenda. Hamlin moved approval of the agenda; Storer
seconded the motion; it passed unanimously
on a voice vote.
4. Approval of minutes from Meeting 485. Scarlett moved approval
of the minutes; Christianson seconded the motion; it passed unanimously on a voice vote.
5. Approval of minutes from Meeting 486. B.Davis moved approval
of the minutes; Onder seconded the motion; it passed unanimously on a voice vote.
6. Report from the Provost
Seel
discussed aspects of the Maternity Leave Policy document that outlines implementation
within our existing policy 6.2.3.1, Approved Absences with Pay. The policy
allows the President to approve a leave of absence with pay for specific
occasions for faculty and staff. Seel provided background regarding policy development
and implementation. He stated that members of the WISE (Women in Science and
Engineering) group sought a specific maternity leave policy in addition to the
12 weeks of unpaid leave. Delegates from the group came up with a proposal, met
with human resources and completed their proposal around the end of November of
2009. He noted that the group wanted the proposed policy available for the
recent round of hiring. Seel stated the policy can be used with the existing
policy 6.2.3.1 and that President Mroz put the new policy in place as of
January 1, 2010. Seel cited an email communication with Senate President Luck in
mid-December 2009, detailing the proposed policy, explaining the reason for
making the change to the existing policy. He noted that all new policies under
the category of Leaves of Academic
Faculty fall in the class of a-list items of Senate responsibilities and this
policy can be in effect, giving the Senate time to have a deliberate discussion
to form a comprehensive maternity leave policy. Snyder declared that the policy
should have been brought to the Senate to determine whether the Senate agrees
with this interim policy until the Senate can come up with a permanent policy
change. Seel noted that the policy changes came from faculty not administration.
Snyder felt it did not matter where the proposal originated, it should have
been brought before the Senate for recommendation because such items are a-list
items under Senate purview. Seel stated it was a modification of an existing
policy already approved by the Senate, rather than a new policy requiring
Senate approval. He noted that changes to existing policies can be made by the president
of the university. LDavis was quick to note that although this may be true, the
spirit of shared governance means that this document should have involved the Senate.
Snyder agreed and clarified that it was not the policy itself, as there was
some agreement on the need for such a policy, but the principle of not
involving the Senate that runs against the grains of shared governance. Luck interjects,
mentioning that he forwarded the email sent by the provost containing the proposed
maternity leave policy to the appropriate committee rather than the Senate
website. He added that Seel originally stated this was not an item for the
Senate to discuss and was being issued under Part D, Other special occasions
specifically approved by the President. Seel clarified the perceived need for urgency
due to hiring female faculty candidates and that it was never meant to bypass
the University Senate. Hamlin asked what would be the next step for the Senate
in this matter. Seel stated that a more in-depth policy can be examined by the
appropriate Senate committee. He added that human resources is
also looking into the issue of maternity leave. Snyder urged members of the
academic policy committee to interact with human resources as it pertains to policy
development. Seel agreed and recommended the academic policy committee chair be
involved. Vogler inquired as to whether this policy extends to staff. Seel affirmed
that it does. Vogler requested that a
staff member also be involved in the process. Pierce asked if staff are on the committee that would examine the policy.
Scarlett indicated that something can be worked out to include a staff member
for this specific policy. Luck keenly noted that the new policy does nothing to
address paternity leave. Seel restated the goal of WISE in writing this policy
and the urgency in its implementation.
Seel
discussed summer appointments and the growing interest in effort reporting by
federal auditors. He cited the reporting requirements according to university
accounting procedures and the risks of being penalized if errors are made. He
presents data showing several examples of large research universities and the rather
large fines assessed to them for errors in reporting percent effort. Mullins stated
that the schools listed have one billion dollars in research funding. Seel made
it clear that we are under more scrutiny by auditors and the university gets
fined not the faculty member. He cited the NSF, which has a maximum of two
months effort in the summer. Allen asked whether this is per grant or
cumulative for all grants. Seel stated that this is for NSF grants, but does
not prohibit working on a non-NSF grant. LDavis asked if this meant working or
getting paid. Seel said there is some question about what is 100% effort and
how many hours per week. Mullins cited an NSF program manager as having said
100% effort is based on a 40 hour per week basis. Christianson disagreed and
stated that it is based on the percent effort. Seel noted that summer comes
with a maximum of 14 weeks and anything in excess requires approval. Mullins
wanted to know the number of faculty this issue impacts. Seel approximated that
number to be 10-15 faculty, but the university needs to protect itself from the
excessive fines by ensuring we are in compliance. Mullins thought this could be
carefully audited due to the small number of people impacted. Seel clarified
his position as protecting the university from fines, rather than defending
policy. Mullins agreed this is being done to carefully audit percent effort, but
for very few people at MTU. He compared this to a place like Harvard, where
there would be several hundred faculty the policy applies
to, and would have staff to accurately monitor the percent effort. Seel provided
an example of what information would be necessary to ensure we are in
compliance. Mullins interpreted this as a simple form that would need to be
filled out by individual faculty. Seel affirmed this should be adequate.
Mullins would like to see the numbers of hours come from a federal not
university source. Seel reiterated that we must meet federal requirements.
Mullins felt a follow-up meeting would be helpful.
Seel
presented information regarding the cash flow from tuition relative to tuition
dollars for all Michigan universities spanning each of the three academic years
from 2006-2009. He discussed the numbers for MTU in terms of student financial
aid as a percentage of tuition and fee revenue. Scarlett asked if the change in
student tuition has had an impact on enrollment. Seel noted that after going up
in the past few years, undergraduate enrollment was down last year. Scarlett asked
if it was known how much our undergraduate enrollment changed as a result of
state cuts. Seel said the freshman class was 150 students less than the year
before, but the increase in graduate students offset that, so there was a small
net increase in students. Scarlett asked if students were lost over winter
break due to changes in the Promise scholarship. Snyder thought it will be hard
to sort out students lost due to changes in a given scholarship program against
a background of normal student population changes. Seel postulated that there
may also be economic factors complicating data interpretation. LDavis noted
that student numbers in his department are down from the previous year.
8. Report from the
President
Luck
highlighted a link to the administrative handbook. Referencing a comment from a
past Senate meeting, where he noted the risks to document integrity by not
having a hard copy of the handbook, Luck notes that a hard copy of the document
has been made. Luck is confident this move will ensure the integrity of the
content found in the faculty and staff handbooks.
Luck
raised the question about the different retirement contribution plans that were
offered as options during the recent change to compensation. He informed the
Senate that all new hires will automatically be put on the 7.5% retirement
plan. He adds that although there is no minimum matching contribution, the
maximum will be 7.5%. Seel confirmed that the other retirement options are no
longer available for new hires.
Provost
search committee meets tomorrow and will meet with university President Mroz on
Friday. Luck trolled for information about the significance of the Senate’s
role in the interview process. He further inquired whether members thought it
was beneficial and whether the Senate should be involved from the start rather
than in the middle of the process. Wood felt the process was useful, but the
questions should be impromptu rather than organized. Luck stated it was necessary
due to fairness. Snyder felt this was a good forum for the comparison of
candidates because the faculty forum is a very different venue and different
topics arise. Wood agreed, but felt more time for informal questions would be
useful. LDavis said the timing of the interview was an issue, noting the
candidates were somewhat fatigued by 5.30 pm. Luck acknowledged the scheduling
issues, but re-centered the discussion in order to get a sense of whether the Senate
should expand its involvement in future provost searches. Wood inquired as to
the availability of the video of the Senate discussions with the provost
candidates. Luck clarified the details of the in-house only televised content.
Luck
ended his report by requesting that suggestions for the March 4th
Board of Control meeting be brought to him by February 17th.
9. Report of Senate Committees
Caneba,
Chair of the Administrative Policy Committee discussed the purpose and the
methods used for the 2009-2010 presidential evaluation survey. He first acknowledged
members of the committee involved in composing the survey and noted he and the
committee will go over the survey questions after the Senate meeting. Javier
clarified the use of tokens. Vogler asked if the issue of confidentiality kept
response rate down. Smith mentioned the concern expressed by faculty and staff
in retaining anonymity. Caneba yielded floor to Smith, who noted
that in order to get the response rate up, the survey was shortened. He
reassured everyone that this did not detract from the breadth of the survey and
that comments can be made. He elaborated on details of the survey and encouraged
everyone to stay after meeting to examine questions. Luck inquired about whether
the president will be asked some specific questions and be asked to provide a
report. Smith indicated that will be requested. Luck reminded everyone to stay
behind if interested.
Onder,
Chair of the Elections Committee is still seeking nominations for both faculty
and staff Senators-at-Large. He is also seeking nominations for the Faculty
Distinguished Service Award Committee and Sabbatical Leave Committee. Onder noted that once the nominations have
been completed there will be an election for the positions.
10. Old business.
a. Proposal 4-11,
Entrepreneurial Leave
Scarlett
noted the proposal is ready in its final form and asked Luck how we should
proceed. Luck mentioned this form of the proposal is final. Scarlett clarified
the modest changes that were made to the supplemental information. Luck opened
the floor for discussion and noted the ten days required by Senate law were not
given because of the protracted availability of this document and the minor
nature of the changes. In spite of that, Luck asked if anyone wanted ten days
to review the proposal, it would be distributed and voted on at the next senate
meeting. No objections were noted. Scarlett stated that the wording had not
changed from the discussion at the previous senate meeting. Luck sought
objections of the 10 day window or a vote. Mullins requested a summary.
Scarlett summarized the proposal and changes that the committee made. To
prolong the discussion, Mullins sought comments from the minority position on
the committee. Scarlett indicated that he was the primary voice of dissent, but
was clear to note that everyone was in favor of the final language. He added
that the key issues, such as conflict-of-interest or budgeting were already
being done for existing leave policies. Luck compared and contrasted the different
types of leave policies, stressing the financial distinction of this
entrepreneurial leave policy. Wood asked who will be paying the benefits.
Scarlett noted there would be no changes to the mechanism currently used. Seel clarified
that currently this is only the case for full time leave. Wood thought the
major change in this new policy versus existing leave policies was the payment
of benefits. Scarlett clarified that existing policy does not address benefits
and that is the reason it was not addressed in the new policy. Seel added that
this allows for part time, as we only have full time leave. Stockero alertly noted
that the professional leave does not address the part- versus full-time issue
whereas the entrepreneurial leave policy does. She stressed a need for
consistency between the two types of leaves. Scarlett said this could be
addressed in an amendment. Seel noted that up to now, leave was all-or-none, whereas
this policy is addressing part-time leave. Scarlett accepted the suggestion to
make part- and full-time options available for both types of leave policies.
Hyslop asked about whether benefits will be paid, citing that the proposed
entrepreneurial leave policy mentions university standards. He added that these
standards mean three-quarter time. Christianson confirmed this. Seel clarified that
this statement is in the proposal to indicate that no changes are being made to
existing university benefits policy. Mullins asked about consecutive leaves.
Scarlett stated that is dealt with at the department level and up the chain.
Luck declared that sabbatical leave has a committee to make determinations and
these other forms of leave do not. Scarlett confirmed this lack of oversight
for all but sabbatical leave. Seel said there is no policy change in that
sense, but renewals need to be examined for special circumstances. Luck mentioned
the promotional value of having a distinct entrepreneurial leave, exclaimed the
usefulness of policy and sought concluding thoughts. Scarlett noted the change is
directed to the faculty, and not staff, handbook. He mentioned that in the
committee’s proposal it is recommended the administrative team direct staff to implement
this policy in the staff handbook. Luck asked faculty to vote for this policy
for incorporation into the faculty handbook and subsequently, the staff can vote
on the staff handbook. Pontius asked if the voting at this time includes the
friendly amendment put forth by Stockero. Stockero reiterated the inclusion of
part- and full-time leave in both the professional and entrepreneurial leave
policies. Scarlett affirmed this and noted the phrase incorporating said
change, “…may be full or part time…”
can simply be cut and pasted into the appropriate section of the policy. Luck
asked if the committee accepts this change. Scarlett said the indicated section
of text will be incorporated to address differences in the two policies. Luck opined
this should not be in the Appendix. Scarlett affirmed Luck’s observation and
noted it is being accepted as a friendly amendment. Pierce asked if this
friendly amendment will be accepted. Snyder added that this is a modification
of current existing policy as opposed to the introduction of a new policy, so
needs to be dealt with separately. Hamlin clarified that the vote will be just
for the entrepreneurial leave policy. Scarlett will bring the separate policy
proposal to the next meeting. Pontius requested that the issue of benefits be
included in that new proposal. Mullins felt that changes to the proposal
required more time. Seel clarified that there are no changes to the proposal,
but to the new policy being dealt with separately. Luck moved for a
vote on the faculty version of the proposal; it passed unanimously on a voice vote. Luck moved for a vote on the staff version of the proposal; it passed unanimously on a voice vote.
b. Proposal 10-10, Additional
Baccalaureate Degrees
Luck
introduced the proposal, noted the minor word changes and opened the floor for
discussion. Keen provided an overview of rationale for changing the wording in
the policy to permit students to take multiple degrees. Mullins noted students
coming in with AP credits have time to get additional majors. Luck moved for a
vote on the proposal; it passed
unanimously on a voice vote.
11. New business.
Proposal 11-10, Amendment
for Proposal 20-04, Graduate Certificates
Luck
introduced Keen who cited the rationale for the proposal. Keen provided an
overview of the proposal changes to accommodate graduate certificate seeking
students. He noted wording changes in the revised policy and requests a text
change for item (c) from “maximum” to
“minimum”. Luck encouraged senators to
distribute the proposal to constituents and the Senate will vote on this in ten
days.
12. Adjournment. Scarlett moved to adjourn; Smith seconded the motion. President Luck adjourned
the meeting at 6:44 pm.
Respectfully
submitted
by Marty Thompson
Secretary
of the University Senate