The University Senate

of Michigan Technological University

Minutes of Meeting 494

15 September 2010

Synopsis:

The Senate

· Presentation by 2010 Distinguished Teaching Award winner Blair Orr

· The Vice President for Research discussed technology transfer

· Proposal 1-11, Parking Policy was discussed

1. Call to order and roll call. President Rudy Luck called the University Senate Meeting 494 to order at 5:30 pm on Wednesday, September 15, 2010. The Senate Secretary Marty Thompson called roll. Absent were representatives of Army/Air Force ROTC, Materials Science and Engineering, Academic Services B and the Graduate Student Council.

2. Recognition of visitors. Guests included Max Seel (Provost Office), Joe Herbig (Accounting Services), Benjamin Depew (Graduate Student Government), Erik Riutta (Undergraduate Student Government), Dave Reed (Vice-President for Research Office), Bill Kennedy (CTIFD), Blair Orr (School of Forestry), Allyson Jabusch (Computer Science) and Anita Quinn (Human Resources).

3. Approval of agenda. Hamlin moved approval of the agenda; Malette seconded the motion; it passed unanimously on a voice vote.

4. Approval of minutes from Meeting 491. Hamlin moved approval of the minutes; Scarlett seconded the motion; it passed unanimously on a voice vote.

5. Approval of minutes from Meeting 492. Snyder moved approval of the minutes; Hamlin seconded the motion; it passed unanimously on a voice vote.

6. Approval of minutes from Meeting 493. Onder moved approval of the minutes; Storer seconded the motion; Malette requested a textual change to clarify the date when the BOC will set tuition rates. This was accepted. There being no other comments the motion was voted on; it passed unanimously on a voice vote.

7. Presentation: “2010 Distinguished Teaching Award Winner” by Dr. Blair Orr

Bill Kennedy introduced Dr. Blair Orr, the winner of the Distinguished Teaching Award. Orr discussed his perspective on the teaching-research relationship. He provided background on himself and cited Pierre-Joseph Proudhon as a source of inspiration. He concluded that most studies do not show a positive link between research and teaching and some find a negative correlation. Nationally, faculty salaries are positively correlated with research and negatively related to time spent teaching undergraduates, even when other variables are included in estimated equations. Luck inquired about the methodology used in the Australian research study cited in the presentation. Orr elaborated on the notion that the teaching-research relationship deviates from the vision had by most academics. Onder asked how the data in the aforementioned study was quantified. Orr noted the challenge of assessing student outcomes. He added that most students are unable to properly determine the importance of the information being taught while undergraduates and only later realize what is important. Mullins noted the ABET accreditation that is underway and discussed the relation between educational objectives and what is being done to meet those objectives. Orr stated that accreditation is evaluated based on the goals of a given department as opposed to comparisons to equivalent departments at other institutions that may have different sets of objectives. He concluded by stating that the Australian study examined the individual, department and institutional levels in its study. Luck thanked Orr for his visit to the Senate

8. Presentation: “Corp/Technology Transfer Support” by Dr. Dave Reed

Reed presented information about mechanisms being developed to enhance commercializing technology. He stated the key question being addressed, as ‘What can the VPR office do to help move the technologies developed in the lab to market?’ He focused on the pathway to a start-up company, as very little support exists to go from idea development to start-up. Reed cited examples of Entrepreneurial Support Corporations (ESCs) from other institutions. Barkdoll asked how an ESC would be funded. Reed cited licensed technology coming from Tech and private investments. He added that the ESC will not consume university resources, except to get started and ongoing management. Caneba asked about the university’s equity stake in such a company. Reed said there was no required equity stake, although there are examples of such. Mullins asked what type of support ESC would provide. Reed said some of this infrastructure already exists and noted none of this activity will compete with or replace the Smartzone. Mullins asked about assistance with an SBIR. Reed affirmed there would be some assistance in proposal preparation. Mullins asked if there were financial assistance or resources that would be made available. Reed affirmed there would be pre-seed money available on a competitive basis. He added that the REF would have a mechanism to fund such activities in the near future. Barkdoll asked how far an idea would have to be developed for it to move onto the next step. Reed said it was unique to the situation and depends where one starts in the process and provided some examples.

9. Report from the Senate President

Luck thanked everyone for showing up for duty in the Senate and welcomed all the new senators and alternates. He then showed data stating Tech’s ranking in faculty compensation was in the 535^th position nationally. He cited the previous Senate President Martha Sloan as a strong advocate of strengthening the senate. In large part as a result of her concern, the senate leadership last fall raised the question with the Provost as to where exactly the senate stood with respect to the governing structure of the University as exemplified by this chart. Luck stated that President Mroz alluded to this in his address to the senate on April 21 and the current status is that the University Senate is now listed in the university’s organizational chart. He acknowledged the efforts of Provost Seel and thanked President Mroz for placing the senate on this chart. Recall from the address given by President Mroz, that a very high percentage of whatever the senate decides to adopt and promote is eventually approved. Luck estimated the approval rate above 90%. This means that we must continue to render serious, timely and considered judgment on whatever motion or request is before us. Luck then listed the senate vacancies and requested people fill these roles. He informed new senators about their many duties and the operation of the senate. Luck discussed election of the officers. He noted that in 2005 Senate President Monson negotiated a different arrangement with President Mroz to the extent that the senate president can get 1/10 of their salary or $10,000, whichever is higher. Monson’s idea behind this was that strong people would contend for this position if there was a greater sum available. In essence, Monson’s dream would never be realized, if Senators were not aware of it. Luck informed the senate that the executive committee met and he outlined the charges to each committee for the 2010-2011 academic year. He added that the charge of the senate officers is to keep the BOC informed. This occurs by submitting reports to the BOC prior to regular BOC meetings. He noted that Martha Richardson will be the new chair of the BOC.

10. Report from Senate Standing Committees

There were no reports.

11. Report from Provost Max Seel

Seel expressed his appreciation for everyone in the Senate and hoped everyone has a good and productive year.

12. Old Business

There was no old business.

13. New Business

Approval of “Proposed Senate Meeting Dates” for 2010-2011

Snyder moved approval of the proposal; Hamlin seconded the motion; it passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Approval of “Senate Standing Committee List” for 2010-2011

Yang moved to strike Allen from the committee list as he was relinquishing his role as ME-EM senator. Sneeden noted he was a member of the Fringe Benefits Committee but his name did not appear on the list. Such corrections were accepted. Storer moved approval of the proposal; Hamlin seconded the motion; it passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Election for Academic Integrity Committee Members

Onder, Elections Committee, first sought nominations for Committee on Academic Tenure, Promotion and Reappointment and the Athletic Council. The Academic Integrity Committee has three nominees (Charlesworth, Woods, Miller) and sought Senate support to appoint these people to the committee. Scarlett asked if the nominees have accepted this position. Onder affirmed but asked if we should wait and accept more nominees. Hamlin moved that nominations be closed, Pierce seconded. Luck asked if there were any additional comments. There being none, he asked for a vote to close nominations. It passed unanimously on a voice vote. Hamlin moved to accept all the nominees, Pierce seconded. Luck noted the nominees are very accomplished and would serve well. Luck asked if there were any additional comments. There being none, he asked for a vote to accept all three nominees. This passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Proposal 1-11: “Parking Policy”

Kangas, Institutional Policy Committee, introduced Proposal 1-11, which was written to address the growing disorganization of parking on campus. Scarlett asked how date of employment was defined. Hamlin stated that the university has a standard definition for that. Storer asked where this proposal came from. Luck said he brought the proposal to the committee to address the recent parking problems. Storer asked why the number seven was chosen. Specifically, in a lot with only 20 spaces, removing 7 might be excessive. Mullins suggested that we should remove the square root of the number of spaces. Luck stated that if removing 7 resulted in empty spaces, these can be quickly filled up by some of those removed. Storer thought the number of parking spots should be changed by a percent. Luck stated that he had met with the Director of Public Safety (DPS) and the Chair of the Parking Task Force and that this problem was difficult to resolve. Luck noted that DPS needs to temporarily be empowered to make changes to parking lot assignments. Snyder made a recommendation on a wording change from ‘seven’ to ‘up to seven’. Onder felt these suggestions would help the parking problem but wondered about using only seniority as opposed to health issues. Herbig suggested using overflow lots to account for people arriving at various times. Christianson read feedback from coworkers she discussed the proposal with before the meeting. LeMay asked if students were going to be displaced. Pierce noted that parking lot counts were done recently by DPS and more than 100 spots were available on the main campus. Luck suggested that it might not be necessary to move students and that we needed to find a solution to the problem since failure to come up with something will result in a solution being imposed. Cooper noted that people park in lots they do not actually have permits for. Sneeden suggested that if one lot is full, that overflow lots could be used. Luck agreed that was a viable option. Onder suggested assigning people with two parking lots. Luck said that was not an option. Hamlin asserted that the idea of driving around different lots looking for a parking space was not useful and stated that he thought it was far better to be able to park in one assigned lot rather than driving around looking for a spot. He noted the current process is inefficient. Luck asked the senate to discuss this issue with their constituency and send comments to the IPC.

14. Adjournment. Hamlin moved to adjourn; Malette seconded the motion. President Luck adjourned the meeting at 7:02pm

Respectfully submitted

by Marty Thompson

Secretary of the University Senate