The University Senate
of Michigan
Technological University
Minutes of
Meeting 504
23 March 2011
Synopsis:
The Senate
·
Proposal 5-11 passed
·
Proposal 6-11 passed
·
Proposal 17-11 passed
·
Proposal 18-11 passed
·
Proposal 19-11 passed
1. Call to order and roll call. President Rudy Luck called the University Senate Meeting 504
to order at 5:30 pm on Wednesday, March 23, 2011. The Senate Secretary Marty
Thompson called roll. Absent were representatives of Army/Air Force ROTC, Materials
Science and Engineering, Academic Services B, Auxiliaries and Cultural
Enrichment, Admissions, Administrative Services and Student Affairs.
2. Recognition of visitors. Guests included Max Seel (Provost Office), Jackie Huntoon (Graduate School), Bruce Seely (College of
Sciences and Arts), Bob Keen (Biological Sciences), Joe Herbig (Accounting
Services), Ted Bornhorst (Seaman Mineral Museum), Anita Quinn (Human
Resources), Bill Surna (Carl Walker, Inc.) and Matt Inman (Carl Walker, Inc.).
3. Approval of agenda. Luck
presented an update to the agenda; asked for a motion to approve. Hamlin moved
to approve. Luck called for a vote; the agenda passed unanimously on a voice vote.
4. Approval of minutes from Meeting 503. Luck
asked if there were any changes; there being none Luck declared the minutes
stood approved.
5. Presentation: “Parking”
presented by Carl Walker Inc
Kangas, Institutional Planning
Committee, introduced Bill Surna and Matt Inman of Carl Walker, Inc. Inman presented
the Project Team, the approach that will be taken, the scope of the services
they provide and the project schedule. Luck asked if their services were ever implemented
at an institution that had no parking fees. Inman affirmed this but noted there
are always fees whether directly or indirectly administered. Luck asked Inman what
Tech’s parking fee was. Inman said zero. Donohue asked what the cost was for Carl
Walker to perform the stated services. Inman said $35,000 to $135,000 depending
on size of the university and specific requests. Hamlin asked how many comments
were received from faculty and staff. Inman said they are meeting with faculty
and staff while here, but have gotten very little input. Hamlin noted the
previous mismanagement and stated now there are no problems. Inman stated Carl
Walker Inc. is not coming in with preset plans and each institution is unique.
Hamlin noted the lack of comments may be based on the fact that faculty and
staff feel the current system works well. Inman noted they also serve to
organize and administer parking. Storer asked if previous reports are being
considered. He noted the fresh-look report. Inman affirmed they have reviewed that
information. Onder asked about the cost for parking structures. Inman stated
the costs for different structures. Caneba asked about previous recommendations
to academic institutions that did not require fees. Inman said most solutions
have an associated cost and provided several examples. Onder noted the consequences
of the recent parking changes. Inman discussed the challenges and benefits of
parking flexibility. Lemay asked about public transportation and noted the strong
resistance of her constituents to charging employees to park at their place of
work. She added that if employees are charged for parking, it has been
requested that it be implemented in a year with raises. Inman commented on the
challenges of cost and public transportation. Herbig noted that parking costs
have been taken on by the administration under the general fund as an operating
expense. Luck thanked the speaker.
6. Presentation: “Recognizing the Contributions of Dr Robert
“Bob” Keen” Presented by Dr. Theodore Bornhorst, Becky Christianson, Dr Martha
Sloan, and Provost Max Seel”
Luck reminisced about his first
encounter with Keen, noting his encyclopedic knowledge of proposals, bylaws and
senate information. He noted that Keen will be replaced by three search engines
for electronic documents. Bornhorst noted Keen’s role in drafting bylaws and
bringing about the current manifestation of the University Senate. He noted
that Robert’s Rules of Order was introduced to him by Keen. Christianson walked
down memory lane in detailing Keen’s contributions in the University Senate
during a turbulent financial time for Tech. She cited his role in the no
confidence vote of past president Tompkins. Christianson summarized a series of
difficult times navigated by Senate President Keen. She concluded by noting his
ability to recall proposals and expressing an appreciation for his tireless
work for the betterment of MTU. Sloan discussed her senate experiences with
Keen. She noted Keen’s contribution to the perspectives course and wondered
what will become of the website in his absence. Seel offered his personal
thanks and noted the difference Keen made at Tech. Keen proceeded to thank
everyone and offered some retaliatory praise to those who spoke in recognition
of his work. He noted several key turning points including; sabbaticals, shared
governance and release time for senate officers. Keen ended by mentioning the
excitement of reading the minutes and provided some amusing examples. He
concluded by thanking Luck for his thoughtfulness towards him.
7. Report from the Senate President
Luck briefly mentioned the
administration has approved proposals 14-11 through 16-11. He reminded everyone
there will be an open forum on AQIP on April 7th and no executive
committee meeting next week.
8. Report from Senate Standing Committees
Christianson, Staff Council, presented
the professional staff survey results.
The questions focused on the role of staff senators. She read several comments
and discussed the next steps that will be taken.
Onder. Elections Committee, noted the
need remains for one faculty senator-at-large position, and nominations for the
Sabbatical Leave Committee and Faculty Distinguished Service Awards Committee.
9. Old Business
Proposal 5-11: “Redefining Departmental Governance as
Amended by Administration”
Luck asked for comments. Storer moved to include a friendly amendment to
Item #8; ‘units may include other policies or practices if they feel that they
warrant being included in their charter’. Seel noted there was no intent to
remove that type of information and accepted the amendment. Hamlin seconded. Scarlett said this addition reflects
intent of Academic Policy Committee. Luck asked if there were any additional
comments; there being none he called for a vote; the amendment passed unanimously
on a voice vote. Luck asked if there
were any additional comments to the amended proposal; there being none he
called for a vote; the amended proposal passed
unanimously on a voice vote.
Proposal 6-11: “Proposal to Establish University-wide
Procedures to Search for, Hire, and Evaluate School Deans and Departmental
Chairs as Amended by Administration”
Luck asked if there were any
additional comments; there being none he called for a vote; it passed unanimously
on a voice vote.
Proposal 17-11: “Proposal for Shelving and Eliminating
Degree Programs and Certificates”
Luck asked if there were any
additional comments; there being none he called for a vote; it passed unanimously
on a voice vote.
Proposal 18-11: “Amendment to Proposal 21-01: Framework for
Professional Master of Science Degrees: An Interdepartmental Professional
Master of Science Degree With Specific Areas of
Concentration”
Luck asked if there were any
additional comments; there being none he called for a vote; it passed unanimously
on a voice vote.
Proposal 19-11: “Minor in Music Composition”
Luck read an email from the chair of
the finance committee affirming support for the proposal. Luck asked if there
were any additional comments; there being none he called for a vote; it passed unanimously
on a voice vote.
10. New Business
Proposal 20-11: “Academic Calendar 2012-2013 and Provisional
Calendar 2013-2014”
Snyder, Instructional Policy
Committee, presented the 2012-13 academic calendar noting the later spring start
dates, which are based on when Christmas occurs. Gierke asked if Blue Key has been consulted
about the winter carnival date. Snyder explained why the date occurs rather
early and noted the cyclical nature of the academic calendar.
Proposal 21-11 thru 33-11: “Proposals to Eliminate Degree
Programs”
Storer, Curricular Policy Committee,
referenced the passage of proposal 17-11, which permits multiple unused degree
programs to be shelved or eliminated. He noted the requirement to shelve prior
to elimination. Storer explained that grouping the voting of proposals 21-11
thru 33-11 was to expedite the process. Luck noted that if anyone has a
specific comment on a single proposal it would be removed from the list. Barkdoll asked the harm in leaving a degree
program on the books. Storer said it could be shelved and would be examined every
5 years. Seel noted that these programs have not been on the books or on the registrar
list and it is time to clean up the degree offerings. These programs have not
appeared in any official document for many years.
Proposal 34-11 thru 37-11: “Proposals to Shelve Degree
Programs”
Storer, Curricular Policy Committee,
provided a description of shelving, as opposed to the proposals proposed for
elimination, and the five year re-evaluation of shelved degrees. He noted it
has been approved by dean’s council. Seel said it comes from the binder
process. Barkdoll asked if the chairs know about these proposals. Storer said these
proposals come from the departments.
Proposal 38-11: “Conflict of Interest Changes”
Barkdoll, Research Committee, noted
the conflict of interest (COI) and disclosure implementation plans Reed
presented to the Senate on December
8, 2010. He described the tone of the proposal as attempting to be in line
with federal COI and disclosure procedures.
11. Adjournment. Hamlin moved to
adjourn; Storer seconded the motion.
President Luck adjourned the meeting at 6:44pm
Respectfully submitted
by Marty Thompson
Secretary of the University Senate