The University Senate
of Michigan
Technological University
Minutes of
Meeting 499
8 December 2010
Synopsis:
The Senate
·
Presentation: “Changes to Federal
Conflict of Interest Regulations”
·
Proposals 3-11 and 4-11 passed
·
Proposals 5-11 and 6-11 were referred back to committee
1. Call to order and roll call. President Rudy Luck called the University Senate Meeting 499
to order at 5:30 pm on Wednesday, December 8, 2010. The Senate Secretary Marty
Thompson called roll. Absent were Senators Koszykowski,
Caneba and Kangas, and representatives
of Army/Air Force ROTC, Academic Services B, Auxiliaries and Cultural
Enrichment, Advancement, IT, Research and USG.
2. Recognition of visitors. Guests included Max Seel
(Provost Office), Anita Quinn (Human Resources), Keshon Moorehead (USG), Dave Reed
(Vice President for Research Office), Joe Herbig
(Accounting Services), Katie Russell (COMPASS), and Jackie Huntoon
(Graduate School).
3. Approval of agenda. Luck
added an item to the agenda. He asked if there was approval of the agenda; it passed unanimously on a voice vote.
4. Approval of minutes from Meeting 498. Luck asked if there were any changes; there being none Luck
declared the minutes stood approved.
5. Presentation: “Changes to
Federal Conflict of Interest Regulations” by Dr David Reed
Barkdoll introduced Reed, Vice President for Research, who provided
background on factors leading to the revisions in federal regulations as they
pertain to conflicts of interest (COI). Reed cited the Grassley Hearings which
identified numerous discrepancies in COI disclosures. Reed listed the goals of
COI changes and stated what, specifically, was going to change. He stated the
implications of these changes as financial disclosures required of
investigators. Reed also defined what he expects the impending reporting
requirements to consist of. He listed a university site that is already
beginning this process as an example of the direction Tech needs to be moving
in, in order to be in compliance with the new regulations. Reed suggested a
timeline for the initial implementation of developing policies and procedures
for compliance. He expected implementation to be late 2012 or early 2013, but
the date ultimately depends on when the policy is finally issued. Scarlett
asked how these changes will impact graduate students. Reed indicated those students
mentioned in a project by name would most likely be required to be in
compliance. He added that until the rules are written, he cannot say
explicitly. Moran noted that we will not have to redo reporting prior to 2011.
Reed affirmed this, but if an entity, such as a business exists beyond 2011 it
will need to be in compliant with the new rules. Moran clarified that these
rules do not apply to an individual’s complete investment portfolio, but
specific investments. Reed stated that this would not apply to a broad
retirement fund where the investigator has no control over investment choices. Herbig asked if the rules distinguished between individual
stocks versus a mutual fund. Reed said the answer to that question is unclear
right now. Moran asked if Tech will be meeting the minimum disclosure
requirements to be in compliance. Reed said it was premature to definitively
answer that until the regulations are passed. Snyder gave an example where a
COI would exist in teaching. Reed acknowledged that as a potential issue to be
addressed. Barkdoll concluded the discussion and
thanked Reed.
6. Report from the Senate President
Luck reminded everyone about the agenda
approval mechanism. Luck informed the senate that if an administrator changes a
senate approved proposal that it is effectively a new proposal requiring senate
approval. He stated an example from the recently approved Proposal 2-11, which
had several modest word changes. He asked the Instructional Policy Committee to
consider the administrative changes made to Proposal 2-11, post-Senate
approval, to be accepted. Snyder moved approval of the Proposal; Scarlett
seconded the motion; it passed unanimously
on a voice vote. Luck also reminded the senate of the
upcoming Board of Control meeting. He concluded by asking who among the senate
constituency is permitted to vote on which proposals. He then cited the Bylaws
pertaining to the appropriate business relating to each voting unit. He also asked
that the program approval deadlines by put into the minutes so those senators
submitting proposals requiring state approval have adequate preparation time.
7. Report from Senate Standing Committees
Onder, Elections Committee, reported that Heiden
and Cooper were elected to CATPR. Luck asked if the chair of the Elections
Committee would handle the election needed for Senate Vice-President. Onder sought nominations from the senators present. Barkdoll asked if the duties of the vice-president could be
described. Luck said the vice-president steps in for the president in his
absence to preside over senate meetings. Pierce nominated Kangas
for vice-president. Lacking any official confirmation that Kangas wanted to be the vice-president, Luck referred any nominations to the Elections Committee
and declared a vote will take place at the next senate meeting. Seel, Provost, thanked Pierce for his service as vice-president
and wished everyone happy holidays.
8. Old Business
Proposal 3-11: “Amendment to Senate Proposal 24-10:
International Dual Graduate Degrees”
Storer, Curricular Policy Committee, restated the rationale for making
changes to the policy. Luck asked if there were any additional comments; there
being none; it passed unanimously on a voice
vote.
Proposal 4-11: “Amendment of Senate Proposal 11-10: Graduate
Certificates”
Storer, Curricular Policy Committee, described the clarifying
language being added to the policy defining credits that can be applied towards
graduate certificates. He noted the five year limit to avoid people applying
credits acquired greater than five years ago to this certification. Mullins
asked if this proposal was consistent with new changes to the senior rule. Storer said it was written with the senior rule in mind and
it should be consistent. Depew noted that there may be a risk that credits
could by multiply counted. Storer said that it will
need to be compliant with the senior rule. Luck asked if there were any
additional comments; there being none; it passed
unanimously on a voice vote.
Proposal 5-11: “Redefining Departmental Governance” and Proposal 6-11: “Proposal to Establish University-wide Procedures to Search for, Hire, and
Evaluate the Performance of a Departmental Chair or School Dean”
Scarlett, Academic Policy Committee,
thanked all the senators for the energy put into these proposals. He clarified
this will not be voted on tonight, but committed and brought back at the next
senate meeting. Scarlett noted that many of the concerns were similar across
campus and he defined some common concerns. He first noted that the current
grievance policy does not work. Scarlett clarified what defines university
policy versus a departmental operations manual. He noted that grievance will be
dealt with later as it is under the purview of the senate. Processes related to
chairs and deans of schools will be handled differently. Scarlett described the
concerns surrounding formation of the chair search committee and search process
that must be followed. He discussed combining internal and external chair
searches under a single set of criteria encompassing both options. Scarlett described
the method used to vote on chair and by which chair nominees are submitted to
the dean. He proceeded to discuss evaluation and reappointment procedures for
chairs. Storer agreed processes describing search and
evaluation of school deans and chairs should be kept separate. He added that
charters will be weakened if it is an operating manual that has no legal
binding. Scarlett stated that the operating manual can define the terms needed
to change the manual. He referred to grievance as a means where procedure must
be carefully followed. Storer noted that if the
manual is not legally binding such a grievance would hold no weight. Luck noted
that the various charters complicate the grievance process and the proposed
changes would alleviate this. Storer noted that if it
is not official policy it will not be binding. Scarlett noted that grievance
policies would be binding within Tech. Storer asked
why is this proposal was needed. Scarlett noted the complication of various
charters. He noted that the administration only needs to be involved on a few
key aspects and the bulk of the content is at the discretion of the unit. Seel cited the chair search as an example of a university-wide
policy that should be in place. Storer felt the
request for these charter changes was the administration telling units how to
do business. Luck noted the charter committee can work on this question, as it
should be addressed. Scarlett surveyed the senators to get a sense of the level
of support for the existing charter versus an operations manual. He noted this
proposal was the hard work of the committee and was not dictated by the administration.
Plummer noted their charter was changed recently. Cooper noted that some issues
should and should not be listed and cited several examples. Luck asked who
would want to be on a grievance committee noting the complications and
variations in the numerous charters. Cooper noted the grievance committee will
need to read the department charter, but there are some issues that are common
and could be in all charters. Irwin said there are charter differences between
the schools. Scarlett noted the challenge in reconciling those differences in
developing a university-wide procedure. Moran spoke with two departments who
felt this proposal removed shared governance. He suggested that Proposal 6-11
could be referenced as best practices. Scarlett noted the unit forms and runs a
search committee, that there was no practical change. Moran stated the two
units he spoke with felt their current procedures worked and would be in
conflict with much of Proposal 6-11. Snyder asked what is gained by splitting the
chair search policy from the individual charters. Scarlett noted the request
for these changes came from administration, deans and chairs. He added that we
gain a more clear hiring procedure. Snyder said we make the chairs more like administrators.
Scarlett clarified that chairs will be administrators selected from individual
units. Onder described his department’s chair search procedure,
noting the dean makes the ultimate choice. He noted that if this aspect is
clarified university-wide, it could simplify the process. Luck felt the
discrepancies between charters led to unfairness. Scarlett surveyed the
senators to get a sense of whether the committee should continue to work on
this proposal. Scarlett ended with a motion to commit these two proposals back
to the APC; Storer seconded the motion; it passed unanimously on a voice vote.
9. New Business
Proposal 7-11: “Minor in Fish Biology”
Storer, Curricular Policy Committee, stated the interest in the
proposal, noting it required no new courses or costs. It was previously listed
as an area of concentration.
10. Adjournment. Storer 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