The University Senate
of Michigan Technological University
Minutes of
Meeting 492
14 April 2010
Synopsis:
The Senate
·
Proposal 18-10, Amendment to Proposal 02-07: Search Procedure for University
Administrators passed.
·
Proposal 19-10, Increase Membership of Academic Integrity Committee by
Amendment of Proposal 27-95 passed.
·
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 passed.
·
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 passed.
·
Proposal 22-10, Amendment of
Proposals on Minors in Degree Programs passed.
·
Proposal 23-10, Amendment to
Proposal 11-01: Requirements for Graduation (Board of Control Policy 85)
passed.
·
Proposal 24-10, International Dual Graduate Degrees passed.
·
Proposal 25-10, Procedures to Prepare and Submit a Thesis or Dissertation to
Michigan Technological University’s Graduate School passed.
·
Proposal 26-10, Certificate in
Hybrid Electric Drive Vehicle Engineering passed.
·
Proposal 27-10, Graduate Certificate
in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Engineering passed.
·
Proposal 28-10, Departmental
Governance: Combining, Amending, and Revising Senate Proposals 22-08, 11-06,
9-05, 20-02, 23-00, 10-98, 13-95, and 16-92
1. Call to order and roll call. President Rudy Luck called the University Senate Meeting 492
to order at 5:47 pm on Wednesday, April 14, 2010. The Senate Secretary Marty
Thompson called roll. Absent were Senators Barry Solomon, Marilyn Vogler, and
representatives of Army/Air Force ROTC, Mechanical Engineering and Engineering
Mechanics, School of Business, Auxiliaries and Cultural Enrichment,
Advancement, USG and the Graduate Student Council.
2. Recognition of visitors. Guests included Max Seel (Provost Office), Carl
Anderson (Dean of Engineering), Jackie Huntoon
(Graduate School), Ellen Horsch (Administration), Debra Charlesworth (Graduate
School) and Benjamin Depew (Graduate Student Government).
3. Approval of agenda. Hamlin moved to change the title of his
presentation to the BLG Annual Report to the Senate. Provost Seel yielded his
time to the Senate standing committee presentations. Luck asked if there were
any additional changes. There being none he asked for approval of the agenda;
it passed unanimously on a voice
vote.
4. Approval of minutes from Meeting 490. Luck asked if there was approval of the minutes. No changes
were requested. President Luck declared that the minutes stood approved.
5. Presentation: “Annual Report of CATPR Committee”
presented by Bob Keen
Keen noted that the Committee for
Academic Tenure, Promotion and Reappointment (CATPR) is required by Sections
8.2 and 8.3 of the Faculty Handbook, Appendix I to provide a report to the
faculty each year. He noted that as representatives of the faculty, it was
decided to make this report to the University Senate. Keen asked that his report be put
into the minutes and be available online. He then ended his report and did not
entertain questions. Seel expressed his gratitude on behalf of Michigan Tech to
the work of Keen and the CATPR Committee. Keen then noted that the Provost is
similarly required to report to the faculty the activities of the
administration in regards to promotion, tenure and reappointment.
6. Presentation: “Annual Report of
BLG Committee: Health and Wellness” presented by Brett Hamlin
Hamlin first listed the members of
the Benefits Liaison Group (BLG). He expressed a great interest in developing a
wellness program at Tech. Hamlin focused on enrollment numbers, costs
comparison between health care plans, retirement plans and what the next steps
in developing a wellness program might be. He pointed out a trend from 2009 to
2010 of a shift from PPO to HSA. Total medical costs for CY2009 were $13.79
million and $14 million is estimated for similar costs in CY2010. Cost per
employee has gone down slightly. Retirement plan contributions were briefly discussed.
Hamlin also discussed the future directions of the BLG, which included
reviewing healthcare plans, implementing a wellness plan and changing/increasing
retirement vendors. Snyder inquired about prior attempts to implement wellness
programs. Hamlin cited the direction towards wellness by other institutions and
the long-term cost savings. Snyder noted the cost in time and money of
implementing these plans and expressed concern over unsuccessful attempts in
the past. Moran asked in our current program has been examined to see if it is
effective. Horsh said small steps should be taken to implement a new program
and sought to mimic other higher education institutions. Hamlin noted the
importance of incentivizing it. Dewey asked if removing the barriers to SDC
membership would be discussed. Hamlin agreed that the SDC should be made more
available to employees. Luck wondered why it would take years to implement
wellness programs. Hamlin noted the need to implement key steps to ensure
success of the program. He added that the four year timeline is to reflect
commitment to wellness programs. Dewey cited the shift from benefits to salary
was not cost neutral to employees as evidenced by the decrease in those taking
advantage of the retirement changes. Horsh stated the BLG did not have numbers
compiled yet. Dewey noted a similar salary shift for healthcare a few years back
and wondered if data was available to assess the impact. Horsch said there was
one full year of data available on the healthcare changes. Dewey noted
difficulty in projecting numbers from a single year. Hamlin discussed the per
contract cost for the PPO and HAS from the presentation noting the number
presented does not include university deposits. He proceeded to define the demographic
breakdown and how Tech compares to comparable institutions. Moran asked if the BLG
could determine healthcare costs to provide graduate students with the same plan
as faculty and staff. Hamlin noted the cost will go up as participants go up.
Huntoon noted that graduate student healthcare is an issue being discussed.
Moran asked if graduate students would be brought into our plan or a separate
plan. Huntoon said bids are coming in from various healthcare providers. Onder
stated that national healthcare costs increased by 10% whereas Tech stayed the
same and asked for an explanation. Hamlin said we were lucky and cited several
possible examples as to what kept costs down. Luck thanked Hamlin and sought
input by the Senate at the next BLG meeting.
7. Report from the President
Luck thanked the Senate Assistant
Judi Smigowski for her diligent efforts over the last year, the Senate Vice
President and Secretary for their assistance, in particular Marty Thompson for
taking over in such a short time to keep the minutes, which is a very important
function for the memory of the Senate, and all the committees and senators for
their work during the year. Members of the Senate Executive Committee also
proved very useful and constructive in “steering the Senate”. The new Provost
also deserves some accolades but since he mentioned during the last Senate
meeting that he received both retention and signing bonuses, those alone should
suffice to comfort him. Luck added that there is always something distasteful
about competing for an elected position. This is because you have to assume
that you would be able to offer something that no one else available could.
Within the confines of
a democratic organization, such a
justification is always difficult to make and, further, it would probably not
be true. In some cases, to run or not to run is itself the issue. Being the
argumentative type, Luck noted that last year he ran on a whim to engage in a
debate. At that time he did not have any idea as to how much work this position
entailed. One certainly appreciates how difficult it is to run an institution
and keep all the various factions united and heading in the same direction
towards ultimately realizing some of the goals of the Strategic Plan. Luck
unambiguously stated that it was a privilege serving in this capacity, noting
he did not think he abused it much. He noted the Board of Control (BOC) report
is due today and will be making his report at the BOC meeting. Questions for
next week’s meeting with President Mroz should be directed to Judi. He ended by
thanking LDavis and all departing Senators for their service to the University.
8. Report of Senate Committees
Caneba, Administrative Policy
Committee discussed the presidential
survey results. Hamlin made a motion to defer presenting the online results
until the paper responses have been completed. Storer seconded. Luck felt this
would not impact the survey results. Caneba recalled only five additional
survey forms online but did not know how many submitted the paper survey. Luck
noted the response rate was not high and ways should be developed to increase
the response rate. Kozowski added that the number of surveys released at one
time confused people and people ignored them. Also, there was an auto-reply
upon completion of the survey raising concern about anonymity. Luck cited the
committee who worked diligently on this online survey but agreed the auto-reply
had people concerned. Kozowski noted the irony of Michigan Tech using paper
rather than technology. Fernandez has been doing surveys on paper to get
responses as opposed to via email where people readily delete it. He reminded
everyone that the response rate is the important factor and not necessarily the
use of technology. Luck acknowledged Hamlin’s motion and sought to proceed with
it. Williams asked how the results will be disclosed if it is not done now. Luck
replied that it would be done at the first meeting in September. Luck restated
the question to be voted upon - the presidential survey results not be
disclosed tonight. The result of the voice vote was not discernible so a
clicker vote was taken. The result of the clicker vote was to hear the presidential
survey results tonight by simple majority. Caneba defined the terms of the
survey and noted the increase in the response rate from last year. He then presented
the results of each question. Luck inquired as to the meaning of ‘non-exempt’.
Christianson said it refers to hourly staff. Storer felt the wording on Q16 was
inverted from the others in the way it was asked, so a negative result is in
fact favorable. Williams noted the wording was flipped between the online and
the paper surveys. Luck acknowledged this variation in one the versions. Storer
requested 0-1 be removed in the plotted data prior to publication because the
lowest response is a 1. Williams noted the last three questions were submitted
by Mroz and are of the Yes/No type and separate from the graphed responses.
Hamlin asked what the percentage response for Q22 represented considering what
is being asked for is in regard to respondents’ vision for Tech. Caneba stated
the responses were grouped into a few common themes. Williams added this was a
comment response. Scarlett asked if a final version would be made available for
constituents. Luck added that Senators should encourage constituents who have not
completed the survey to do so online. Snyder declared these results were public
knowledge. Luck stated the results of the presidential survey results will be
available in the minutes. Scarlett added that some statistical breakdown in the
final report would be useful. Luck referred comments on publication of these
results be sent to the APC. Friedrich requested the presentation be made
clearer and have a list of questions in the presentation for inclusion in the
minutes. Luck cited the APC as where comments should be directed. Friedrich
noted the difficulty in viewing the presentation and asked it be made more
visible. Williams said it will be edited for clarity and put as such into the
minutes. Caneba stated a few modifications for future presidential surveys to
evolve and improve the process. Snyder stated his support for the effectiveness
of the survey and ease of use.
9. Old business.
Proposal 18-10, Amendment to Proposal 02-07: Search
Procedure for University Administrators
Caneba, Administrative Policy
Committee, described the streamlined procedure which is proposed to be used to
hire administrators. He added that this proposal was supported by President
Mroz and members of the recent provost search committee. Caneba highlighted the
composition of the committee as a key area of concern. The principle of
openness, whereby members of the University community can attend meetings, where
confidentiality is not in question, will be retained in this proposal. Caneba
added that the APC would also participate in the search. Luck moved to vote on the amendment to
reinstate the principle of openness (Section 3.6) to the proposal. Hamlin seconded. The amendment to the proposal
passed unanimously on a voice vote. Caneba
described the next amendment, to add ‘Vice-President for Administration’ to
Section 2.1. Hamlin moved to vote on
the amendment. Onder seconded. The
second amendment to the proposal passed
unanimously on a voice vote. Christianson sought to add a third amendment to
the proposal stating that staff be specifically mentioned as such, and not be referenced
under the term Senate constituency. Pierce clarified that the statement read,
the search committee ‘includes both faculty and staff’ from the Senate
constituency. Christianson moved to
vote on the amendment. Hamlin seconded.
Moran felt this hamstrings the Senate executive committee and prevents biasing
staff or faculty for a given hire that may be more relevant to one or the other
group. The third amendment to the proposal passed
unanimously on a voice vote. Luck sought other comments or amendments to
Proposal 18-10. There being none he asks for a vote. The proposal passed unanimously on a voice vote.
Proposal 19-10, Increase Membership of Academic Integrity
Committee by Amendment of Proposal 27-95
Snyder, Instructional Policy
Committee, stated that more members are needed to accomplish the workload
increase. Luck asked why this does not include professional staff. Snyder
stated the issues that arise are almost exclusively academic. Luck noted this proposal
came from staff, so why should they not be in the pool of potential committee
members. Pierce noted there was already two staff on the committee. Snyder
noted that grades are assigned by faculty. Hamlin noted the dean of students’
office would participate in finding committee members. Luck asked if there were
any additional comments. There being none, he asked for a vote. The proposal passed unanimously on a voice vote.
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, stated
the support of this proposal by the committee. Luck asked if there were any
additional comments. There being none, he asked for a vote. The proposal passed unanimously on a voice vote.
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 has no record of implementation and it is reasonable
to pass it now. Luck asked if there were any additional comments. There being
none, he asked for a vote. The proposal passed
unanimously on a voice vote.
Proposal 22-10, Amendment of Proposals on Minors in Degree
Programs
Keen, Curricular Policy Committee,
described the three year cycle to update minors and the award of minors. The
principle change made in this proposal was to prevent awarding a certification
and a minor in the same area. Luck asked if there were any additional comments.
There being none, he asked for a vote. The proposal passed unanimously on a voice vote.
Proposal 23-10, Amendment to Proposal 11-01: Requirements
for Graduation (Board of Control Policy 85)
Keen, Curricular Policy Committee, stated
that this proposal brings into balance the residency requirements for
graduation which now includes both undergraduate and graduate students. He
added an amendment defining the minimum number of credits for a graduate degree
that must be taken through Michigan Tech. Storer moved to approve the amendment. Fabrizio seconded. Amendment carried on voice vote. Luck asked if there were
any additional comments. There being none, he asked for a vote. The proposal passed unanimously on a voice vote.
Proposal 24-10, International Dual Graduate Degrees
Keen, Curricular Policy Committee,
described the proposal. Dewey noted the name of the degree appears three
different ways and sought a single term for consistency. He added that the
wording as to what needs to be completed at Michigan Tech was confusing and
provided clarifying wording. Keen accepted the new language. Moran asked who
will approve the degree. Luck asked if there were any additional comments or
amendments. There being none, he asked for a vote. The amendment passed unanimously on a voice vote. Luck
asked if there were any additional comments on the full proposal. There being
none, he asked for a vote. The proposal passed
on a voice vote with one dissenting vote.
Proposal 25-10, Procedures to Prepare and Submit a Thesis or
Dissertation to Michigan Technological University’s Graduate School
Keen, Curricular Policy Committee,
stated that a new approach has been developed for submission of thesis. Dewey
asked if there was a specific date this procedure will take effect.
Charlesworth stated that these rules will be followed for new submissions and
students in the process will not be impacted. She added that if approved, the
procedure will go in effect in spring. Moran asked if there were a lot of new
requirements. Charlesworth said this document will be to guide students in
thesis writing. Dewey agreed these are needed, but was mainly concerned about
when this will be implemented. Huntoon added that Charlesworth has been training
students in this area in an attempt to phase it in. Moran asked if these
recommendations prevent students from using Latex. Onder felt it would be
helpful if a Latex version could be made. Charlesworth said there is a version
online and could be updated. Dewey asked for clarification on the graduate
school process for amending or changing the process. Huntoon noted if there is
a procedural problem that this is addressed through the Graduate Faculty
Council if minor or Senate if it requires a major change. Luck asked if there
were any additional comments. There being none, he asked for a vote. The
proposal passed unanimously on a
voice vote.
Proposal 26-10, Certificate in Hybrid Electric Drive Vehicle
Engineering
Keen, Curricular Policy Committee,
described the certificate as supported by a grant and is coordinated by four
departments. Luck asked if there were any additional comments. There being
none, he asked for a vote. The proposal passed
unanimously on a voice vote.
Proposal 27-10, Graduate Certificate in Hybrid Electric
Vehicle Engineering
Keen, Curricular Policy Committee,
reiterated his comments from the prior proposal noting this was the analogous graduate
level certification. Luck asked if there were any additional comments. There
being none, he asked for a vote. The proposal passed unanimously on a voice vote.
Proposal 28-10, Departmental Governance: Combining,
Amending, and Revising Senate Proposals 22-08, 11-06, 9-05, 20-02, 23-00,
10-98, 13-95, and 16-92
Scarlett, Academic Policy Committee,
noted that this would not be voted on until procedures for searching for and
evaluation chairs are defined. He suggested that this proposal be postponed
until which time these issues are addressed. Scarlett moved to let this expire. Storer seconded. Scarlett requested that this be discussed by Senators to
their constituents. The proposal was allowed to expire by a unanimously voice vote.
11. New business.
There was no new business.
12. Adjournment. Onder moved to
adjourn; Storer seconded the motion.
President Luck adjourned the meeting at 7:35 pm.
Respectfully submitted
by Marty Thompson
Secretary of the University Senate