The University Senate
of Michigan
Technological University
Minutes of
Meeting 496
13 October 2010
Synopsis:
The Senate
·
Presentation
of the Start-up Task Force Report
·
Presentation
of the Sabbatical Leave Committee’s Annual Report
1. Call to order and roll call. President Rudy Luck called the University Senate Meeting 496
to order at 5:30 pm on Wednesday, October 13, 2010. The Senate Secretary Marty
Thompson called roll. Absent were Senators Marilyn Cooper, Nick Koszykowski and representatives of Army/Air Force ROTC, Academic
Services A, Academic Services B, Auxiliaries and
Cultural Enrichment and IT.
2. Recognition of visitors. Guests included Max Seel (Provost
Office), Will Cantrell (Physics), Mary Durfee and Anita Quinn (Human resources).
3. Approval of agenda. Storer moved approval of
the agenda; Hyslop seconded the motion; it passed unanimously on a voice vote.
4. Approval of minutes from Meeting 495. Storer requested that indirect costs (IRAD) be changed. Seel clarified his statements referring to IRAD, which were
incorporated into the minutes. Luck sought additional changes. There being none,
Luck declared the minutes stood approved.
5. Presentation: “Start-up Task Force Report” by Dr. Will Cantrell
Barkdoll, chair of the Research Policy Committee, introduced Will
Cantrell who presented a report from the startup task force. Cantrell noted
that the start-up task force came out of a recommendation from the incentive
return task force. Members of the Startup Task Force were:
Will Cantrell, co-chair
Mike Gibson, co-chair
Peg Gale
David Reed
Tim Schultz
Max Seel
Cantrell focused the discussion on
addressing three key questions: [1] Is the University
losing or not attracting high quality potential faculty as a result of
inadequate startup support? [2] Are faculty struggling
once they are here because of inadequate startup? [3] Is the emphasis on startup
the best use of IRAD funds? (is startup detracting
from other initiatives). He presented data including; the sources of startup
funds, the dollar amounts and number of startup packages, and comparisons with
other R1 Public Universities. Cantrell noted that the startup support
allocation data only included those startup packages that went through the Vice-President
for Research Office. The task force concluded the answer to the first question
was that the amount of startup was not adversely impacting a candidate’s
decision to come to Tech. The task force concluded the answer to the second
question was that the amount of startup was not hindering the success of new
faculty. The two caveats to that conclusion are associated with existing infrastructure
(e.g. major equipment) and availability of personnel (e.g. post-docs and
technicians). The task force concluded the answer to the third question was
that all entities that can convert IRAD funds to startup funds are already
doing it. Cantrell concluded by summarizing the recommendations of the task
force (Table 3 in presentation), which included; tracking startup funds, retaining
diversification of startup fund sources and maintaining stakeholder
responsibility, incentivizing supporting graduate students by returning tuition
to departments, and the Vice-President for Research Office should explore
possibilities to fund postdoctoral scholars for new faculty. Barkdoll asked how the university could be more competitive
with other R1 institutions in terms of providing more money for startup.
Cantrell stated that startups could be enhanced through endowments. Seel noted the startup costs from other institutions may include
difficult to define amounts, such as release time. Mullins asked what the task
force included in the startup cost data. Cantrell stated the number definitely
includes cash and graduate students, but noted the difficulty in tracking
exactly what comprise the numbers given for startup costs. He added that
release time should be included, but he was not entirely sure which cases
included this figure and which did not. Mullins asked if it was known if
release time was included in the costs. Cantrell could not say definitively
whether release time is included. Seel stated that
release time was not included in the amounts listed, but the figures do include
instruments and GRAs. He added that we need a better tracking system to get all
the data. Mullins asked REF money was included. Seel said
no, but the data does include faculty salary. Cantrell said the numbers are
taken from the D startup accounts setup for new faculty. Barkdoll
asked what role centers and institutes will have in hiring if they contribute
to the startup costs. Cantrell, noting his role as an institute director, disclosed
that he has made contributions to startup and prefers to meet the interviewee
in advance of making a hiring decision. He felt directors should have a say in whether
or not they will contribute to startup costs. Seel
pointed out the contributions to startup funds from all sources, noting that
most centers and institutes make contributions to faculty after they arrive on
campus and have become members of the given center or institute. Barkdoll asked for clarification as to what is meant by startup
being the responsibility of stakeholders. Seel stated
that $6 million dollars has been returned from the general fund to incentivize centers
and institutes. He then referred past discussions of whether to retain the
funds centrally to simplify negotiating startup funds or whether to
redistribute the funds. Seel noted that more
negotiation is involved if startup funds come from multiple stakeholders, but
he felt this results in a better startup package. Barkdoll
asked if the department is the primary stakeholder in the hiring of a new
faculty member, wouldn’t it make more sense to give the general fund moneys to
the department so they can prepare an offer. Seel
stated that the university is the primary stakeholder. Moran clarified the
question by stating that the department chair is responsible for recruiting faculty
and finding startup funds. He added that putting more stakeholders into this process
is a greater impediment to hiring research active faculty. Seel
said the question of distribution of IRAD funds is intimately connected with
who are the stakeholders. Moran expressed concern about the mechanism in which
the IRAD funds come back to the departments. Seel said
there is still some question about what is the best use of IRAD funds. Moran
noted we are not offering as much as our competitors were ten years ago, but
the task force concluded that we were not losing people as a result of this. He
sought clarification how this conclusion was derived from the data. Cantrell noted
the data contains significant error. Moran felt the data was not good enough to
draw a conclusion, but rather the committee is expressing an opinion. Cantrell
stated that we are not losing people based solely on the amount of startup being
offered. He added there is a certain degree of selection by search committees
to direct recruiting efforts to those candidates we can afford. Moran stated
that we are not spending as much per faculty as top research universities and those
people who require higher startup costs usually bring in more research dollars.
Barkdoll asked about startup fund centralization. Seel said it was left decentralized. Barkdoll
asked how startup funds are derived from open faculty lines. Seel said that was common practice and to save up for a
startup package when money is tight the funds for the open faculty line are
used. Onder asked if there were any data showing that
someone requiring a large startup brings in more money than someone getting a
smaller startup package. Cantrell was not aware of any examples but noted
several discussions on who is accountable for startup expenditures. He
questioned the measurement of research productivity in terms of dollars. Smith
noted there was no solid survey of why people chose to accept another offer,
nor was it discussed with people why they left Tech. Cantrell noted they did
speak with department heads. Smith agreed, but noted the distinction between
speaking with department heads versus the candidate themselves. Seel stated the people who leave have the option of
speaking with the Ombuds in a neutral environment.
Scarlett asked if spousal accommodations were considered by the task force.
Cantrell noted this can be a big factor but it was not included in startup cost
calculation. He added that it is most likely a major factor in why a person accepts
an offer. Seel noted that contributions to (spousal) salary
were made in the past as long as the person was appropriately qualified and
meets criteria pertaining to tenure-track faculty. Mullins asked if
expenditures from startup accounts are considered internal research expenditures.
Seel said it could be considered internal research support.
Quinn said IRAD was probably considered an internal
research expenditure but startup was not. Seel noted
it was not counted twice, but said he would find out how startup was accounted.
Moran commented that there was a risk of micromanaging startup funds of new faculty.
Seel noted the exception might be in the purchase of
major equipment. Luck concluded by noting the overall critical nature of which
the senators received the data and expressed shock that the university does not
know how many startup funds were given and the cost for each.
6. Presentation: “Annual Report from the Sabbatical Leave Committee”
by Dr. Mary Durfee
Durfee provided the number of sabbaticals applied for last year
and the colleges from which applicants originated. She noted that all fourteen
applicants were approved last year and compared that number with the previous
three years. Durfee noted only one sabbatical leave
report from last year has been filed. Snyder asked how many faculty
in any given year would be eligible for sabbatical. Durfee
estimated that of roughly 224 tenured faculty members, there would be
approximately 32 eligible for sabbatical. She referenced a report from
1990-1995 that estimated 3-4 percent of eligible faculty took sabbatical in any
given year. Smith noted faculty would be eligible again after seven years.
Mullins recalled that in the early 90’s few faculty
took sabbatical. He added that by making it more generous the number of
sabbaticals increased. Seel asked for clarification
of what was more generous. Mullins noted that when Tech was on quarters, the
prorated salary calculation was a disincentive. Caneba
noted pre-screening at the department level was a factor in getting denied
sabbatical. Durfee noted that previously all
sabbaticals were approved by the committee. She noted the balance between
department chair and the committee in making sabbatical decisions. Snyder noted
there are chairs who have stated they will only approve full year sabbaticals. Durfee said that is not policy and that the applications
should be submitted anyways because the department chair will have to explain the
decision. Seel agreed that there should not be a
general rule regarding sabbatical length, but noted that department chairs have
to make certain decisions based on financial constraints. Luck asked when the
deadline was for sabbaticals. Durfee said there was
no set deadline, but noted that March submission gives the committee sufficient
time to respond. Seel noted March 15 was the deadline
for sabbaticals. He noted the need for providing lead-time for scheduling
courses and other decisions for the upcoming academic year. Luck thanked Durfee for the report.
7. Report from the Senate President
Luck summarized the recent changes
to faculty and staff parking. He speculated that in the short-term we should be
able to assess its effectiveness. Luck presented the current formatting
guidelines for proposals submitted to the senate (See Senate Procedure 108.1.1 (Proposal 38-04 and
Proposal 51-04) and the Provost's website at:
http://www.admin.mtu.edu/admin/prov/ProposingNewDegreePrograms.html
for detailed submission information.
8. Report from Senate Standing Committees
Onder, Elections Committee, presented four nominees for the
Athletic Council. He asked to send these names to President Mroz
for selection. Scarlett moved to
send the list of nominees to the president; Malette seconded the motion; it passed unanimously on a voice vote. Onder stated that the Committee on Academics, Tenure,
Promotion and Reappointment (CATPR) has two nominees. Luck noted the importance
of getting engineers to participate in senate activities.
Scarlett, Academic Policy Committee,
said the committee is considering sabbatical issues.
9. Old Business
There was no old business.
10. New Business
There was no new business.
Adjournment. Onder moved to adjourn; Storer seconded
the motion. President Luck adjourned the meeting at
6:41pm
Respectfully submitted
by Marty Thompson
Secretary of the University Senate