The University Senate

of Michigan Technological University

 

Minutes of Meeting 489

17 March 2010

 

Synopsis:

The Senate

·         Report from Parking Task Force

·         Proposal 12-10, Modification to Professional Leave Policy passed.

 

1. Call to order and roll call. President Rudy Luck called the University Senate Meeting 489 to order at 5:30 pm on Wednesday, March 17, 2010. The Senate Secretary Marty Thompson called roll. Absent were Senators Nick Koszykowski, and representatives of Biomedical Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Materials Science and Engineering, Academic Services A, Academic Services B, IT, Research, USG and the Graduate Student Council.

 

2. Recognition of visitors. Guests included Anita Quinn (Human Resources), Greg Waite (Geological and Mining Engineering and Sciences), Patrick Martin (Social Sciences), Bill Sproule (Civil and Environmental Engineering), Katie Valenzuela (Inter-Residence Hall Council), Ellen Horsch (Administration) and John Gierke (Geological and Mining Engineering and Sciences).

 

3. Approval of agenda. Luck asked if there was approval of the agenda. No changes were requested. President Luck declared that the agenda stood approved.

 

4. Approval of minutes from Meeting 488. Hamlin moved approval of the minutes; Storer seconded the motion; it passed unanimously on a voice vote.

 

5. Report from the Parking Task Force

Rudiger and Sproule presented the key findings of the Parking Task Force (PTF). Members include:

 

Daniel Bennett, Public Safety and Police Services

Andre Bonen, Housing and Residential Life

John Bramble, Dining Service

Nik Chaphalkar, Student Body

Katie Elicerio, Student Body

David Fritz, Graduate Student Government

Randal Harrison, Graduate Student Government

Ellen Horsch, Administration  (Chair)

Jarrod Karau, Information Technology

Andy Niemi, Facilities Management

John Rovano, Facilities Management

Brenda Rudiger, Senate Representative

Mindy Saxton, Undergraduate Student Government

Bill Sproule, Civil and Environmental Engineering

 

The PTF was charged with by the University President to review and evaluate the parking registration and enforcement system. Concerning parking enforcement, Hamlin inquired about the number of appeals to parking tickets that occur in a given year. Horsch said that there were various ways the appeals were handled. Hamlin was concerned that the proposed appeals board would be overwhelmed. Horsch said the process would be electronic. Sproule introduced the preliminary recommendations the task force came up with. Hamlin asked about an annual driver registration rather than an annual vehicle registration, because like others, he has multiple cars with tags, but can only drive one at a time. Sproule felt this was an interesting idea. Wood asked what problems in our current parking system that motivated the formation of this task force. Horsch said the motivating factors were complaints from faculty and students. Hamlin asked if the change in Lot 14 was a factor. Horsch felt solving problems in the parking system was an ongoing issue. Luck noted the century of parking satisfaction at Tech and cited the actions of the newly hired police chief, who has foregone the previous approach of maintaining a waiting list for access to certain lots to control the number of permits. He added that the obvious result of which is to cause congestion where it previously did not exist. Luck then expressed some confusion about the proposed recommendation to charge faculty and staff for parking, as a way of making up the revenue shortfall, which in fact, it fails to do. Sproule cited the list of expenditures from the slides, adding that snow removal is a major cost. Hamlin noted a lot of spaces are vacant and asked if these were counted in the cost estimate. Rudiger stated that all parking spots were counted. Snyder, responding to the preliminary recommendations, felt implementing an ‘open parking’ approach would come with problems. Rudiger mentioned that removing the gates makes parking much more flexible and permits those who need to go to different buildings to access multiple parking lots. She added that taking the gates down would have a cost advantage. Snyder felt that university dollars are spent in indirect ways with an open parking system. Hamlin felt that once parking changes are implemented, people will adapt to whatever the change. Snyder gave an example in which open parking might be a problem. Luck asked about the additional costs associated with hiring a parking consultant. Sproule said it depends on what the consultant is contracted to do. Scarlett inquired as to why a civil engineering department would hire an outside consultant to solve parking problems. Sproule felt a consultant would have a broader understanding of parking issues and how to solve problems effectively.

 

6. Report from the President

Luck started by mentioning that President Mroz will visit the Senate on 4/21, the final meeting of the year. He stressed that we should inquire about the role of the Senate at MTU, as envisioned by the president. He listed the charges of the Senate. Luck described the University Senate allegorically by comparing it to Ralph Ellison’s book entitled, ‘Invisible Man’. He sought to raise the profile of the Senate and flashed the governing chart noting that the University Senate is not listed anywhere in the governing chart of the University. Luck cited the Operating Procedures Manual and noted that multiple approved policies being issued which indicate no Senate involvement. Luck cited Proposal 6-99, University Webpage Policy, which he used to illustrate the point that a Senate and administrative policy are in conflict, raising the question of which is legally binding. He declared a need to reconcile these issues with the administration and restated the overarching concern is the low profile of the Senate.

 

7. Report of Senate Committees

Scarlett (Academic Policy Committee) informed the Senate that he will be meeting with the provost to address departmental charter issues. Wood asked whether the proposed changes are expected to be adopted by all departments. Scarlett stated that these changes represent general guidelines to charters. Luck denoted that the provost raised the issue of standardizing key elements of departmental charters. He speculated that the administration wanted to standardize charter documents and streamline aspects such as, search and evaluation of department chairs. Scarlett stated the objections of the administration were the recommended guidelines and added that these issues would be reconciled before it is brought to the Senate and the constituency.

 

Onder (Elections Committee) requested that all Senators vote on the recent ballot, including positions with only one candidate. Hamlin asked if the committee will be tracking the number of returned ballots. Onder confirmed that the committee will be counting returned ballots.

 

Caneba (Administrative Policy Committee) thanked everyone for helping with the questions and gave the future timeline for the online presidential evaluation. He expected the presidential survey to start March 31st and the results will be presented in the April 14th Senate meeting.

 

8. Old business.

Proposal 12-10, Modification to Professional Leave Policy

Luck highlighted the language change that makes the University’s Professional Leave Policy carry the same meaning as the Entrepreneurial Leave Policy, as previously discussed. Scarlett said the language was outdated and needed to be updated to conform to the new administrative structure of the school. Luck moved for a vote on the proposal; it passed unanimously on a voice vote.

 

9. New business.

Proposal 8-10, Ph.D. Program in Environmental and Energy Policy

Keen (Curricular Policy Committee) described the proposal to the Senate. Snyder asked about the cost, as he was surprised this proposal included funding of graduate teaching assistants. LDavis said the finance committee and Provost are examining this. Luck added the Dean of the College of Sciences and Arts (Bruce Seely) is in favor of this proposal and will be present at a future Senate meeting to answer questions. Scarlett interpreted the proposal as having the flexibility for faculty to teach courses. Solomon confirmed that interpretation. Luck encouraged this proposal to be disseminated to constituents.

 

Proposal 13-10, Doctor of Philosophy in Geophysics

Keen (Curricular Policy Committee) described the proposal to the Senate and stated it had the full support of the Curricular Policy Committee. LDavis added that the finance committee gave it their full support and added that the costs were already accounted for, as the changes being proposed are already in place. BDavis affirmed statements from Keen and LDavis that program is effectively already in place and that this proposal is a name change to more accurately reflect the work being done.

 

Proposal 14-10, Amendment to Proposal 4-10

Luck informed the Senate that the recently approved Entrepreneurial Leave Policy is being updated to make the language consistent with the suggested changes in the Professional Leave Policy (Proposal 12-10). Scarlett said the language was outdated and needed to be updated to conform to the new administrative structure of the school.

 

Proposal 15-10, Academic Calendar 2011-12 and Provisional Academic Calendar 2012-13

Snyder detailed the proposed academic calendar and suggested approval. Hamlin felt the return date of Aug 15th was rather early. Snyder noted that the calendar is dependent on the date of Christmas. Keen noted that the Board of Control insisted that the number of weeks that faculty worked would be the same as when we had a 15 week calendar. Luck requested the Academic Calendar be disseminated amongst units and discussed next time.

 

Proposal 16-10, Current Policy and Procedures

Luck introduced Proposal 16-10 as the incontrovertible destiny for Senate policy organization. He emphasized the usefulness of this method to organize Senate approved policies in a rationale order. He compared the current approach which is organized by date, with the new approach which organizes approved proposals by topic. Luck noted that we will use the existing numbering scheme until the proposal is formally brought to the Senate for implementation. Scarlett added that this was comparable to the administrative numbering scheme. Luck confirmed this observation.

 

Proposal 17-10, Modifications to Syllabus Requirement - Senate Policy 312.1

Luck discussed the current Proposal 17-10 in the context of the previously approved Proposal 13-01 describing Early-Term Class Surveys. He added that every instructor should add this language to every syllabus unless they already offer mid-term evaluations. Luck invited Katie Valenzuela, President of the Inter-Residence Hall Council, who provided a student’s perspective on this issue. Her emphasis was that students do not know of the existence of the policy on Early-Term Evaluations. Storer inquired as to why this was coming from the Executive Committee (EC). Snyder clarified the sequence of events and stated the proposal needs to be brought to the Instructional Policy Committee (IPC). LDavis, as a point of order, stated that the Senate President cannot bring forth proposals but must work through the committees. Luck stated that the proposal was discussed in the EC, but did not originate with the EC. Snyder reiterated that the proposal should be brought to the IPC. Storer moved to refer this to the appropriate committee, Wood seconds. Luck halted the discussion until the IPC can examine the proposal. Vogler noted the existence of the policy requiring early term evaluations, whereas the current proposal targets how to advertise the policy. She felt this meant it was not under the purview of IPC. Snyder noted that all things related to class evaluations and instructional policy are under IPC. Vogler asked that the reviewing committee limit its purview to advertising rather than enforcement of the policy. Luck moved for a vote to move the proposal to committee; it passed unanimously on a voice vote.

 

10. Adjournment.  Hamlin moved to adjourn; BDavis seconded the motion. President Luck adjourned the meeting at 6:49 pm.

 

Respectfully submitted

by Marty Thompson

Secretary of the University Senate