The University Senate
of Michigan
Technological University
Minutes of
Meeting 490
31 March 2010
Synopsis:
The Senate
·
Proposal 8-10, Ph.D. Program in
Environmental and Energy Policy passed.
·
Proposal 13-10, Doctor of Philosophy
in Geophysics passed.
·
Proposal 14-10, Amendment to
Proposal 4-10 passed.
·
Proposal 15-10, Academic Calendar
2011-12 and Provisional Academic Calendar 2012-13 passed.
·
Proposal 16-10, Current Policy and Procedures
passed.
·
Proposal 17-10, Modifications to
Syllabus Requirement was rejected.
1. Call to order and roll call. President Rudy Luck called the University Senate Meeting 490
to order at 5:30 pm on Wednesday, March 31, 2010. The Senate Secretary Marty
Thompson called roll. Absent were Senators Nick Koszykowski, and
representatives of Materials Science and Engineering, Mechanical Engineering
and Engineering Mechanics, Academic Services A, Advancement, IT, Research, USG
and the Graduate Student Council.
2. Recognition of visitors. Guests included Anita Quinn (Human Resources), Patrick
Martin (Social Sciences), Antonio Donati (Inter-Residence Hall Council), Max Seel (Provost
Office), Joe Herbig (Accounting Services), Bob Keen (Biological Sciences), Bruce
Seely (College of Sciences and Arts), Alex Mayer (Geological
and Mining Engineering and Sciences), Jackie Huntoon (Graduate School) and Pat
Joyce (School of Business and Economics).
3. Approval of agenda. Hamlin moved approval of the minutes; LDavis
seconded the motion; it passed unanimously
on a voice vote.
4. Approval of minutes
from Meeting 489. Luck
asked if there was approval of the agenda. No changes were requested. President
Luck declared that the agenda stood approved.
5. Presentation: “Michigan Tech’s Athletic Program”
presented by Pat Joyce
Joyce spoke about the things that make
Michigan Tech athletics special. He highlighted the enhancement of
institutional diversity and academic success attributed to the athletic program.
The graduation rate of MTU athletes is among the best in the nation. LDavis
asked how the graduation rate was measured. Joyce stated the graduation rate is
calculated based on five years. He added that due to the excellent academic
achievement of athletes, athletes benefit from both athletic and academic
scholarships. Hamlin asked about the academic scholarship cited in the
presentation. Joyce noted that academic and athletic scholarships are separate
and because of the high GPA of Tech students, this provides an advantage.
LDavis commented on the nature of financial aid disbursement. Joyce stated that
financial aid should be a benefit and used strategically. Vogler asked if the value
of the 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 grants disbursed are given in constant dollars. Joyce
said they were not. Scarlett inquired if the tuition and academic aid
announcement timing common to all Michigan schools or just at Tech. Herbig
thought it was common to all Michigan schools due to the timing of the state
appropriations. Mullins stated that several elite schools have early admits,
most of which are athletes and asked if enrollment of domestic nonresident
students was adversely impacted by this. Joyce recalled that the numbers are
below the 2008 number. Seely mentioned this year was the first year showing a
student decrease. Caneba asked if prospective students have an obligation once
admitted and wondered if there is a mechanism to get commitments from students.
Joyce felt the major difference was that tuition and aid have not been decided
prior to the recruiting process and consequently these
amounts are not known. He felt this was a disadvantage considering that
competing schools have that information and can make specific offers, whereas
Tech cannot.
6. The Nature of Michigan Tech’s Self Insurance presented by
Larry Davis
LDavis described the differences in self-insured
versus fully-insured healthcare. Mullins asked about the charges of the consultant
Aon. LDavis deferred to a later point in his presentation where he planned to
address that point. Pierce asked about negotiated rates of insurance companies
versus the rates Tech gets from service providers. LDavis commented that the
rates are typically lower than for self-coverage. Luck commented that the administrative
fee is 10-15%. Wood asked how much choice we as employees have with these
companies. Quinn stated that insurers cover the provider’s fees, whereas
companies like Aetna are customer oriented. Wood stated these are not really
insurance companies, but third party administrators. Caneba commented the size
of the risk is overlooked. Herbig stated that Tech is buying for a pool called
MTU employees. Vogler said that self-insuring is a negative for recruiting graduate
students because it would increase the size of the pool. Quinn felt the Benefits
Liaison Group (BLG) could look into this issue. She added that in a consortium with
other universities, we would lose flexibility in cost and coverage. LDavis agreed
that self-insuring provided more flexibility, and the potential for greater
coverage and lower cost. He added this may not be realized by the employees but
we have the ability to do so. Mullins asked about fees paid to Aon. Quinn did not
know what those fees were. Joe mentioned that Aon is a consultant that acts as
a bridge between Aetna and MTU. He thought the fee was paid by the insurer and
not Tech, although the true cost is probably within our existing costs paid to
Aetna. LDavis and Quinn approximated the amount Tech pays to Aetna at $18 million
for healthcare in the last period. Snyder said that Aon acts as an actuary. Joe
added that the fee is within the insurance costs.
7. Report from the President
Luck unveiled the BLG binder he
needs to read through and goes on to provide an update regarding Proposal
17-10. He mentioned that the Academic Policy Committee was provided with the
proposal and had an ample opportunity to examine it prior to the previous
meeting. Luck then provided a list of departments that need to provide Judi
with their selection for Senator for the coming academic year.
8. Report of Senate Committees
Caneba (Administrative Policy
Committee) mentioned the survey of President Mroz begins today. He added that
survey questions will be on the website and everyone should be receiving their
electronic tokens in the next few days. Fernandez added that the token (i.e.
the ballot) is used to enter survey answers. He added the point of the token is
to avoid repeat surveys and it does not compromise anonymity. Luck requested
that the manner in which the survey results will be discussed should be
provided so Senators can disseminate the information to their constituents.
Fernandez clarified the timeline of survey availability and the existence of
the token. Luck asked if the function of the token were to be posted on the
website and requested it be so posted.
Keen (Curricular Policy Committee)
added five more proposals for consideration by the Senate to ensure they can be
voted on prior to the April deadline. The proposals are:
1.
Amendment of Proposal 11-01, "Requirements
for Graduation" (Board of Control Policy 8.5)"
2.
International Dual Graduate Degree
3.
Approval of "Procedures to
prepare and submit a thesis or dissertation to Michigan Technological
University’s Graduate School"
4.
Certificate In Hybrid Electric Drive
Vehicle Engineering
5.
Graduate Certificate In Hybrid
Electric Drive Vehicle Engineering
Seel noted the international dual
degree programs are popular and sought clarity of this type of degree from two
institutions versus dual graduate degrees from a single institution. Wood asked
if dual means two universities or two degrees. Keen clarified this by stating
that one would get a degree in their major area from both Tech and the associated
university. Keen referred everyone to the Senate website to read the exact text
of each proposal and sought a vote on the April 14th Senate meeting.
Seel proposed that a discussion take place to spread out the workload of the Curricular
Policy Committee (CPC). Luck echoed the provost’s sentiments and added that to
ensure meaningful discussions on each proposal, the distribution of the CPC
workload should be examined.
9. Report from the Provost
Seel provided more information on
‘Extra Compensation’ from his prior report on ‘Effort Reporting’ (Senate
Meeting #487). He proceeded to define the terms corresponding to additional and
supplemental compensation. Seel commented that bonuses come in different types
and defined signing, retention and performance bonuses. Snyder asked if there
were any examples of a faculty member getting a signing bonus. Seely stated
there were currently two outstanding offers for faculty that include signing
bonuses. Seel concluded by describing Sponsored Funding Bonuses. Snyder felt
the problem with bonuses is the negative appearance these financial incentives
have for a public institution in a state suffering an economic crisis.
10. Old business.
Proposal 8-10, Ph.D. Program in Environmental and Energy
Policy
Keen stated that this proposal has
the full support of the CPC. He felt the proposal was well-prepared and
logical. Luck sought questions. LDavis, on behalf of the Finance Committee,
brought forward some calculations of the short-term cost of the program.
Projections were based on eight students, state appropriations, financial aid
and operating costs, ultimately showing a net loss of $69,136 per year. He surmised
that the university has added several new programs with low enrollment that
lose money. Hamlin asked if this was for the first three years and how these
numbers change over time. Martin (Chair, Social Sciences) stated what he
considers to be flaws in the calculations being presented by the Finance
Committee. First, the support being discussed was requested and has not yet
been granted. Second, that the calculation being
presented does not factor in student tuition income. Finally, Martin disagreed
with the idea that university programs should be viewed from a profit-loss
perspective as is done with a business. LDavis stated the assumption that
people teaching these courses were graduate students. Wood asked how much money
is made or lost if we keep adding these programs. LDavis felt losses were not
implicit. Seel stated the costs of a program and the university, in general, are
complex, expensive and do not make money. He compared the amount of money
coming from and going to different departments, citing Social Sciences as generating
a positive cash flow. Seel stated his support of the new program regardless of
the costs and that it fits in with the strategic goals of the university. Luck
interjected to say that our objective to support it does not preclude the
surrounding and necessary financial discussions. It is supported by the chair,
dean and the provost and these entities are the ones ultimately responsible for
the costs. He reminded the Senate of the need to be aware of program costs and
thanked the Finance Committee. LDavis expressed his concern for the continued
passage of programs that lose money. Martin added that this program builds on
an existing Masters program that requires expansion to a Doctoral program to be
competitive. He felt strongly that this change would facilitate the acquisition
of external funding. Luck
asked if there were any other comments. There being none, he called for a vote. It passed
unanimously on a voice vote.
Proposal 13-10, Doctor of Philosophy in Geophysics
Keen described the proposal, which
had unanimous committee support. He added that the infrastructure in the
department was already in place for this degree. Luck asked if there were any other
comments. There being none, he called
for a vote. It passed unanimously on
a voice vote.
Proposal 14-10, Amendment to Proposal 4-10
Scarlett
restated the language changes that were previously discussed. Luck asked if there
were any other comments. There being none, he called for a voice vote. It passed
unanimously.
Proposal 15-10, Academic Calendar 2011-12 and Provisional
Academic Calendar 2012-13
Snyder
restated the academic calendar is based on the Registrar’s calendar and based
on what day Christmas falls. Luck asked if there were any other comments. There
being none, he called for a vote. It passed unanimously on a voice vote.
Proposal 16-10, Current Policy and Procedures
Luck
restated the numbering change of Senate approved proposals. Luck asked if there
were any other comments. There being none, he called for a voice vote. It passed
on a voice vote with one dissenting vote.
Proposal 17-10, Modifications to Syllabus Requirement -
Senate Policy 312.1
Snyder
explained the streamlined proposal and stated the rationale as making students
and faculty aware of the proposal. He added that the word evaluation needed to
be changed to survey, as it was not the same as the end of the semester
class-evaluation by students. Luck noted that the word must was changed to
should. Donati added that he felt the word change from must to should side-stepped
the problem. Snyder noted that this early-term evaluation was at the discretion
of the instructor and the word change from must to ‘should’ appropriately reflects the optional nature of the proposal.
Pierce understood the proposal as written means putting the statement on the
syllabus would be optional. Snyder affirmed that this is optional. Pierce felt
this still did not require the faculty member to add this information to their
syllabus. Snyder added that this proposal is not the solution to the problem. Pierce
stated that students do not feel like they can bring redress to faculty. Snyder
said if someone requests changing should back to must, he would support voting
on that wording. Mullins requested we table this proposal for future
discussion. Wood asked if one student can trigger this. Several affirmations
were heard. Pierce said this only informs students that the policy exists.
Pierce moved to change should back to must. Scarlett seconded. Luck clarified
that the wording change from must to should means it does not have to be in the
syllabus. Snyder agreed. Mullins felt this proposal should be tabled. Snyder
said this proposal is to make people aware of an existing policy. Pierce asked
that if it passes with should this means nothing to students. Scarlett asked if
there is another means to make students aware of this because in his experience
many students do not read the syllabus. He also asked if there were another
means to make students aware of the proposal than passing this additional
proposal. Hamlin agreed and asked if USG informing the students as their
constituents would be a more appropriate means of making students aware of the
early-term class surveys. Mullins added that incomplete syllabi can or have
been used for action against a faculty member that this issue grows into a
faculty-rights issue. Luck calls for a voice vote of the academic units as to
changing the word ‘should’ to ‘must’ in the proposal. The wording
change is rejected. Pierce requested
that this proposal be rejected as written. Luck calls for a voice vote of the
academic units for passage of the proposal. The proposal is rejected on a voice vote.
11. New business.
Proposal 18-10, Amendment to Proposal 02-07: Search
Procedure for University Administrators
Caneba, Administrative Policy
Committee, introduced the streamlined procedure which is proposed to be used to
hire administrators. Mayer confirmed that the process and committee will be
streamlined. Changes in the composition of the committee are to make the
process more efficient. Caneba requested clarification on what changes were
made. Keen asked if the term ‘executive
team’ defined anywhere and does the term go away with a new president.
LDavis noted this terminology permits circumvention of the hiring process. Luck
noted that some of the many vice-presidents are part of this team and others
are not. LDavis asked if there was any way he Senate could have input if someone
is hired and later added to the executive team. Luck noted that has happened quite
frequently and currently the Senate President is consulted. He concluded that
the Senate participated more than the search committee in the recent provost
search. Caneba added that the size of the committee needs to be of a certain
size because the provost represents the entire university, as compared to other
vice-president positions. Luck added that the time and expense of such a bulky committee
is in part the reason for streamlining the search process.
Proposal 19-10, Increase Membership of Academic Integrity
Committee by Amendment of Proposal 27-95
Snyder,
Instructional Policy Committee, credited Pat Goschalk’s initiation of and contribution
to this proposal. The goal being with the increased
workload, more members are needed to accomplish the work. Pressure is on the Senate
to find three more members for a total of six. Gotschalk said she helps to recruit members for this committee. Hamlin
reinforces the fact that the increased workload requires more people.
Proposal 20-10, Change of Name of an Academic Program from Bachelor
of Arts in Liberal Arts with a Concentration in English to Bachelor of Arts in
English
Keen, Curricular Policy Committee, felt this was a logical development of an
existing program and there is no new costs, as it is a name change only.
Proposal 21-10, Change of Name of an Academic Program from Bachelor
of Arts in Liberal Arts with a Concentration in Interdisciplinary Studies to Bachelor
of Arts in Liberal Arts
Keen, Curricular Policy Committee,
noted that this proposal addresses the particular degree concentration that currently
exists, which has no record of implementation.
Proposal 22-10, Amendment of Proposals on Minors in Degree
Programs
Keen, Curricular Policy Committee, described
the proposal and noted an additional change in special permission is required
to earn a certificate in the same area as a minor. Luck encouraged all Senators
to distribute these proposals to their constituency.
12. Adjournment. Herbig moved to
adjourn; LDavis seconded the motion. President Luck adjourned the meeting at 7:22
pm.
Respectfully submitted
by Marty Thompson
Secretary of the University Senate