The University Senate
of Michigan Technological University
Minutes of
Meeting 501
2 February 2011
Synopsis:
The Senate
·
Presentation: “Annual Report from
the Committee on Tenure, Promotion, and Reappointment (CATPR)” by Dr. Robert
Keen
·
Proposals 5-11 passed
·
Proposals 6-11 passed
·
Proposals 8-11 passed
·
Proposals 9-11 passed
·
Proposals 10-11 passed
·
Proposals 11-11 passed
·
Proposals 12-11 passed
1. Call to order and roll call. President Rudy Luck called the University Senate Meeting 501
to order at 5:30 pm on Wednesday, February 2, 2011. The Senate Secretary Marty
Thompson called roll. Absent were Senators Koszykowski, Kangas and Sha and representatives
of Army/Air Force ROTC, Mathematical Sciences, Physics, Auxiliaries and
Cultural Enrichment, Admissions, Advancement, IT, Research, and USG.
2. Recognition of visitors. Guests included Max Seel (Provost Office), Bob Keen (Department
of Biological Sciences), Patty Sotirin (Humanities
Department), Joe Herbig (Accounting Services), Rhianna Williams (Library), and
Jackie Huntoon (Graduate School).
3. Approval of agenda. Luck
made a change to the agenda. He asked if there were any changes; there being
none Luck declared the agenda stood approved.
4. Approval of minutes from Meeting 500. Onder motioned to approve the minutes;
Hamlin seconded; it passed unanimously on a voice vote.
5. Election for Senate Vice President
Onder, Elections Committee, stated
the nominees for Senate Vice-President were John Velat and Pattie Luokkanen. Luokkanen
and Velat both made brief biographical statements. Luokkanen won the position
of Senate Vice-President by a majority vote.
6. Presentation: “Annual Report from the Committee on Tenure,
Promotion, and Reappointment (CATPR)” by Dr. Robert Keen
Keen, Chair of the Committee on
Academic Tenure, Promotion and Reappointment (CATPR), read the rules on the
duties and reporting requirements of the committee and the provost. He noted the
committee received no appeals to tenure, promotion or reappointment
recommendations in the 2010 calendar year. Keen provided the CATPR membership
for 2010 and 2011. He concluded by citing the mechanism to submit appeals of
denial of tenure, promotion and reappointment.
7. Report from the Senate President
Luck welcomed the new senators and
newly elected vice-president. He informed the senate of administrative approval
of proposal 7-11. Luck informed the senate that Michigan Governor Snyder
appointed two new Board of Control (BoC) members, Julie Fream and Terry Woychowski.
Luck noted the date of the next BoC meeting was February 24th and
requested that those wishing to add items to his report submit them by February
8th. Luck, in setting a precedent for awarding committee chairs for
their hard work, presented the chairs of the Administrative and Academic Policy
Committees with gifts for their work.
8. Report from Senate Standing Committees
There were no reports.
9. Old Business
Proposal 5-11: “Redefining Departmental Governance”
Scarlett, Academic Policy Committee,
noted that at this time and after multiple discussions in the senate everyone
should be quite familiar with this proposal. Luck asked for discussion; there
being none, he called for a voice vote. The proposal passed with a majority vote.
Proposal 6-11: “Proposal to Establish University-wide
Procedures to Search for, Hire, and Evaluate the Performance of a Departmental
Chair or School Dean”
Caneba, Administrative Policy
Committee, noted several editorial clarifications including the events that
will trigger a review of a School Dean. He clarified the evaluation procedures
for School Deans and search procedure for the Dean of the Graduate School.
Moran reported that in Section 2.a.5. regarding search committees, the
procedure does not reflect common practices and it should be clarified as to why
it is required. Caneba, defined the intent of the verbiage as ‘should attempt’
and is not a mandate. Luck said that it was not required and asked Moran if
rewording the section would be helpful. Scarlett proposed a restatement to
address concerns of confidentiality. Moran deferred on making exact wording changes
but asked that the final wording reflect that it is not a requirement. Snyder
noted the limitations of confidentiality for candidates and that candidates
usually agree to what information is publicly available. Moran felt that such
statements addressed the issue. Christianson noted that the candidate approves
of what information is made public. Moran inquired as to whether candidate
information was confidential. Seel noted the limitations of confidentiality and
the search committee’s requirements to notify and seek permission of the
candidate. Moran asked if seeking permission from candidate is standard
practice. Seel affirmed that it was. Moran agreed on the proposed rewording.
Christianson noted that, at the time of interview the information will be made public.
Luck made the wording changes at the suggestion of Scarlett and Moran.
Christianson noted the underlying assumption is that a short list of candidate
will come to campus for an interview. The changes were accepted. Moran then noted
that three year terms are too short for a chair and that a five year term is
more appropriate. He suggested that be considered for a future proposal. Seel
noted the national average was three to four years for chairs and four to five
years for deans in arts and sciences. Gierke requested the opportunity for a
faculty initiated evaluation of chair to occur in any year if requested. Moran
asked if that could be done by individual departments. Luck said no and noted
that an interim review of chair has never been requested and he discussed the
development of the evaluation process as it appears in the current proposal. He
said the intent is to help chairs be successful. Gierke noted that, opposed to
the department chair, in the school dean situation an evaluation can be
requested at any time. Luck added that there was a mechanism to initiate a
review, but it was so extensive that it was recrafted to have an interim
review. John noted his constituents would like to be able to initiate a review in
any year. Scarlett said the proposal wording does not prohibit an evaluation,
but that it would not be required or reported through the formal administrative
structure. Moran agreed that it was not required of all department chairs on
campus, but that individual departments could initiate such events. Luck noted
the difficulty with having annual evaluations written into the proposal. Gierke
noted that their charter has a no confidence provision and this proposal would
preclude that. Luck noted the scenario required to have a no confidence vote. Scarlett
clarified that a no confidence vote and a reevaluation review are very
different and the individual charter documents can address that issue. He added
that a no confidence vote is not a feedback mechanism, which this section of
the proposal is specifically addressing. Gierke sought information as to
whether a no confidence vote would be in conflict with the wording of the
current proposal. Luck noted it was ultimately up to the dean and department
faculty to recommend a chair be removed. Gierke clarified he was not asking for
a no confidence vote, but that if the faculty in a unit asks for an evaluation
outside the year three evaluation that one would be performed in any year.
Moran thought this was a veiled threat for chairs who have to make tough
decisions. Luck suggested that language be put in individual charters. Scarlett
added that departments would have the option of preserving that language and
cited item #8, which details items not addressed in this proposal. Gierke asked
about which document would supersede the other. Luck denoted the difference on
the departmental charter issues in this proposal versus the departmental
operating documents. Gierke asked if these differences put us back to
individual department charters. Moran said this preserves the right for various
departments to address issues unique to that unit. Scarlett noted the shared
responsibility. Gierke asked how he could be assured this ability would be
preserved if he votes in support of this proposal. Luck said that any senator
can make an argument for or against the proposal or for future changes in this
proposal here in the senate. Snyder noted that there is nothing that says no
confidence in evaluation for the university president, but we have done it and
it had impact. He added that departments could probably do the same regardless
of whether it appears in the charter. Gierke asked that we include in the
current proposal text detailing that year three evaluations can be implemented
in years four and five if requested by a majority of faculty. Luck restated the
proposal and asked for a vote. Luck asked for discussion; there being none, he
called for a voice vote. The amendment to the proposal was not approved. Barkdoll noted his constituents expressed concerns
for chair votes near 50%. He asked the
language for faculty chair votes require at least 2/3 approval of the faculty
and only those names be put forward for selection by the dean. Luck asked for
discussion. Scarlett noted that proposal item II.A.7.c would be removed to
accommodate Barkdoll’s proposal and that no additional language changes were
needed. Luck asked what Civil
& Environmental Engineering’s
charter says. Barkdoll said the charter says the faculty decides which name(s)
are submitted to the dean. Onder seconded
the motion. Luck asked for discussion to remove item II.A.7.c. Moran said
he felt this was a bad idea and risks a failed search. Barkdoll noted that
there have been votes near 50/50 and sometimes the chair gains the support of
the majority of the faculty. Moran asked if the chair would know the results of
a faculty vote. Barkdoll affirmed according to their current charter that the
chair would know the voting results. Scarlett noted that repeated searches are
time consuming and expensive and hesitated to remove item II.A.7.c. Caneba
noted that a polarized department can communicate their concerns about the
chair with the dean. Gierke asked if 2/3 refers to eligible voters or votes
cast, meaning nonvoters are essentially no. Scarlett said the voting
constituency should be defined in the departmental charter. Luck said it meant
of all eligible voters. Hamlin expressed a dislike in defining 2/3 vote as
meaning only those who show up to vote and not of all eligible voters. Moran
felt that a non vote should not be equated with a no vote. Luck suggested that
be defined by the department. Plummer suggested rewording item II.A.7.c. Barkdoll
asked if the dean would know the voting results. Snyder said yes. Luck stated the
name and the voting results should be known to the dean to facilitate the
decision. Onder said his department only forwards the name to the dean. Snyder
said the names and voting results were submitted to the dean. Moran said their department
communicated the names and results to the dean, but not the chair candidate. Luck
asked for a vote on the changes to the proposal. The changes to the proposal
were not approved. Moran asked
eligible voters not be considered. Snyder agreed that eligible should be
removed and a non vote not be considered a no vote. Luck restated the request
that in referring to a 2/3 vote that eligible voters be changed to votes cast. Christianson
said the voting mechanism can vary and include paper ballots, email, etc. Moran
said the voting method should be left to the departments and added that
departments should also decide what defines a quorum and voting procedures.
Luck noted that any issues can be addressed by the senate in the future. Luck
asked for a voice vote of the full proposal; it passed
with
a majority vote.
Proposal 8-11: “Proposal to Change Degree Title”
Gierke, Curricular Policy Committee,
restated the goal of proposals 8-11, 9-11 and 10-11, noting the degrees in
question would be more appealing to students and employers. He added that the
three proposed name changes were unanimously supported by the committee. Luck
asked for discussion; there being none, he called for a voice vote. The
proposal
passed unanimously on a voice vote.
Proposal 9-11: “Proposal to Change Degree Title”
Luck asked for discussion; there
being none, he called for a voice vote. The proposal passed unanimously on a voice vote.
Proposal 10-11: “Proposal to Change Degree Title”
Luck asked for discussion; there
being none, he called for a voice vote. The proposal passed unanimously on a voice vote.
Proposal 11-11: “Electrical Engineering Technology – Minor
in Data Acquisition and Industrial Control” Gierke,
Curricular Policy Committee, briefly restated the goal of the proposal and noted
the unanimous support of the committee. Luck read the results of the finance committee,
which noted that although no financial data was provided, the finance committee
saw very little that would be contentious and gave its approval. Luck asked for
discussion; there being none, he called for a voice vote. The proposal passed unanimously on a voice vote.
Proposal 12-11: “Modification to Sick Leave Policy in
Faculty Handbook”
Luokkanen, Fringe Benefits Committee,
characterized the changes in wording as primarily to update the policy to make
it consistent with other current policies. Luck asked for discussion; there
being none, he called for a voice vote. The proposal passed unanimously on a voice vote.
10. New Business
Proposal 13-11: “Proposal to Establish Guidelines for
Accelerated Master’s Program’s at Michigan Tech”
Gierke, Curricular Policy Committee
(CPC), stated approval of this proposal would establish an integrated BS/MS.
This would be focused on the coursework only master’s degree. Gierke noted that
students could use senior rule and double count up to six credits. The BS/MS would
total at least 150 credits and have a five year time limit, which would start
their junior year. This combined BS/MS applies to existing programs and no new
degree programs can be created through this. Barkdoll asked what would be the
benefits of this proposal. Gierke said goal was to retain the best undergraduates
to go onto MS degrees. He noted a financial incentive. Barkdoll asked about
acceptance to the graduate program. Gierke noted that students have to be
accepted into MS program under the normal mechanism. Barkdoll asked about
financial support of students in this program. Huntoon said there would not be
financial support and that this would be a coursework MS. She noted research
costs should not increase and students would pay their own way. Luck was
confused by the exclusion of research-based masters programs. Huntoon said that
this proposal only applies to plan C and D Master’s degrees, which are coursework
based. Luck asked why this cannot be applied to research Master’s degrees.
Huntoon said the exclusion reflects concerns raised in the CPC. Luck noted that
the Department of Chemistry is under the impression this proposal applies to
research-based Master’s degrees, which are the only type offered in the
department. Huntoon said the GFC would support a research-based plan, but the CPC
would be against it. Huntoon said coursework-based Master’s reflect a professional
focus degree. Onder asked where the 150 credit requirement came from. Huntoon
detailed the approximately 128 credits for a Baccalaureate’s degree and the 30
credits for a Master’s degree, then factored in the six double counting credits
to meet both requirements. Onder asked if his department would work if 135 credits
are required for the BS degree. Huntoon said this is to be set by the
department as total course credits for BS varies. She added the total number
was to not be less than 150 credits for the combined degree. Moran asked what
the rationale for those in the CPC not supporting a research-based/thesis Master’s
degree. Gierke noted the concern centered around taking research credits as
undergraduates and have those apply to their Master’s degree. Moran said the
thesis defense would guarantee they met all criteria. Hamlin said that risks student
failure. Snyder and Moran both stated that the thesis advisor is the one who bears
responsibility to ensure student success. Onder stated that the opposite was
more true and that the coursework only degree is weaker, rather than stronger,
as there is no committee oversight. Moran agreed that the logic seems reversed
and the best students would be directed towards the research-based degree. Huntoon
said the original version passed by the GFC was for all MS degrees. Snyder said
this could be resolved by amending the proposal. Onder said many students do
stay for MS degrees and leave for PhD degrees. Gierke added that some in the
CPC were concerned this was a 24 credit MS. Depew asked how this conflicts with
the senior rule. Huntoon clarified the meaning of the senior rule. Luck
suggested the senators discuss this with their constituents.
11. Adjournment. Onder moved to
adjourn; Hamlin seconded the motion.
President Luck adjourned the meeting at 7:02pm
Respectfully submitted
by Marty Thompson
Secretary of the University Senate