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