The University Senate

of Michigan Technological University

 

Minutes of Meeting 505

6 April 2011

 

Synopsis:

The Senate

·         Proposal 20-11 passed

·         Proposal 21-11 through 33-11 passed

·         Proposal 34-11 through 37-11 passed

·         Proposal 38-11 passed

 

1. Call to order and roll call. President Rudy Luck called the University Senate Meeting 505 to order at 5:30 pm on Wednesday, April 6, 2011. The Senate Secretary Marty Thompson called roll. Absent were representatives of Army/Air Force ROTC, Academic Services A, Auxiliaries and Cultural Enrichment, Admissions, Research and Student Affairs, and Senators Caneba, Koszykowski, Cooper and Kangas.

 

2. Recognition of visitors. Guests included Max Seel (Provost Office), Christa Walck (Provost Office), Joanne Polzien (Compliance) and Eugene Levin (School of Technology).

 

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 504.  Luck asked if there were any changes; there being none Luck declared the minutes stood approved.

 

5. Presentation: “AQIP Update” presented by Christa Walck

Walck, Assistant Provost, defined the Academic Quality Improvement Program (AQIP), and provided a timeline of past accomplishments and future objectives covering the time period of 2005 through 2012. She summarized the action projects, including; increasing diversity among faculty and students, international experiences, academic advising, and professional development. Walck discussed the tasks and desired outcomes for each project. She then discussed assessment of student learning, the associated goals and next steps to be taken. Walck concluded by listing university AQIP forum dates and providing a demonstration of the AQIP website. Barkdoll asked where the resources are coming from to carry our AQIP goals. Walck stated that recommendations are made to the provost for funding. Luck asked what qualifications were sought for international experiences coordinator. Walck stated international experience. Storer said faculty members who have been involved with study abroad, have international experience, and who understand the issues involved. Walck noted that they have had success with study abroad and the current coordinator is studying abroad. Scarlett asked about assessment of student learning timeframes for alumni. Walck said they have not planned for that yet. Moran said they do learning outcome assessments on a department level as part of the accreditation process. Walck noted the difference between direct and indirect measures and how to effectively use data from both approaches.

 

6. Presentation: “Michigan Tech Finances” presented by Dr. Michael Mullins

Mullins, Finance Committee (FC), discussed the implementation of proposal 51-04. He noted that since approval of 51-04; 11 baccalaureate, 3 masters and 6 doctoral degree programs have been approved, yet only three had the information requested in 51-04. Mullins requested that the senate executive not permit degrees and new programs be put on the agenda until the proposals have gone through the FC. A net of approximately 170 new courses and 30 FTE faculty since the proposal was passed, yet no additional resources. He noted that in 1988 the state contributed 72% of the cost to educate a student and in 2010 that figure drops to 42% with the remaining amount coming from tuition. Consequently, tuition alone does not generate an adequate amount of money to pay for a student’s education. Mullins felt the senate was not adequately evaluating the financial consequences of new programs. He noted that during the next senate meeting he and Mr. Greenlee will discuss more of Tech’s financials. Luck noted that the FC has authority to decline proposals. Mullins said that sometimes new business is discussed prior to the FC reviewing the financial information. Luck asked at which stage the FC would reject a proposal. Mullins said the FC would prefer all the information for a new degree program would be submitted together for Curricular Policy Committee (CPC) and FC review. Storer, CPC, stated that the process which a proposal undergoes by the time it gets to the senate has gone through the chairs and deans. He added that waiting until near the end of the process to implement 51-04 is counterproductive. Storer noted that information requested in 51-04 may be difficult to address and details of the financial requirements of a new degree proposal should be reassessed. Mullins said the process needs to be streamlined and probably blended with proposal submission itself. Seel agreed that 51-04 needs streamlining. Mullins said 51-04 is not being used and will be brought as new business in the fall. Luck said 51-04 is important but it is not used adequately and it needs to be enforced by the FC. Mullins reminded the senate that the FC will present at the next senate meeting.

 

7. Report from the Senate President

Luck noted that the next senate meeting will be composed of two meetings. The first is an election of officers, approval of meeting dates and approval of standing committees. The second meeting will be a standard meeting. He noted the administration has approved proposals 5-11, 6-11 and 17-11 through 19-11. Luck demonstrated the website highlighting the means to locate newly implemented proposals. He then discussed the charters and public display of all charters on the senate website. Luck reminded the senate of the BOC breakfast and upcoming BOC meeting. He then announced the dean search committee for the College of Engineering has been formed and listed the members. Seel and Barkdoll provided the names of two additional members of the committee.

 

8. Report from Senate Standing Committees

There were no reports.

 

9. Old Business

Proposal 20-11: “Academic Calendar 2012-2013 and Provisional Calendar 2013-2014”

Luck asked for comments; there being none he called for a vote; the proposal passed unanimously on a voice vote.

 

Proposal 21-11 thru 33-11: “Proposals to Eliminate Degree Programs”

Luck asked if any individual proposal needs to be removed for individual discussion. Hamlin asked about differentiating an active pre-med degree program with those being eliminated. Storer said they are different programs. Seel affirmed that there are several pre-med programs and although the names have some overlap that the specific degrees are different. Luck asked for comments; there being none he called for a vote; the proposal passed unanimously on a voice vote.

 

Proposal 34-11 thru 37-11: “Proposals to Shelve Degree Programs”

Luck asked for comments; there being none he called for a vote; the proposal passed unanimously on a voice vote.

 

Proposal 38-11: “Conflict of Interest Changes”

Luck asked for comments; there being none he called for a vote; the proposal passed unanimously on a voice vote.

 

10. New Business

Proposal 39-11 “Master’s of Science in Geospatial Technology”

Mullins, FC, said the analysis provided attempted to address the aforementioned 51-04. He reiterated that the return on tuition is inadequate to cover the costs of a student’s education but did give FC support for the new degree. Storer, CPC, stated the proposing units are the Schools of Technology and Forestry, and the Michigan Tech Research Institute. He noted the requirement of several new courses and it has the support of the CPC. Herbig asked for clarification of program costs, specifically the two-thirds return of online tuition revenue to pay for adjunct faculty that are needed. Seel said the adjunct faculty being paid for a distance learning course based on a two-thirds/one-third return model being used to allocate tuition revenues. Herbig asked for clarification of the model. Seel described the allocation of tuition revenue used to pay for faculty salaries for online courses during the academic year. Herbig asked where the two-thirds of the tuition revenue goes. Seel said the funds go into the department’s A account to pay faculty and any excess is left to the department. Herbig asked if this is a specific aspect of this new program. Seel affirmed this fact but only for online courses in this program. Moran asked if summer courses fall under this two-thirds/one-third model even if they are not online. Seel affirmed this and noted that because faculty are on a nine month contract, so summer courses fall under this model and are used to pay summer salaries. Moran confirmed with Seel this applied to graduate and undergraduate courses. Seel commented that it seems to work quite well.

 

Proposal 40-11: “Departmental Name Change from Department of Exercise Science, Health, and Physical Education to Department of Kinesiology and Integrated Physiology”

Storer, Curricular Policy Committee, stated it better reflects the scholarly activities of the department and will make it more attractive to students. Luck added that the term kinesiology is gaining a foothold as a departmental title.

 

Proposal 41-11 through 46-11: “Proposal to Shelve and Eliminate Degree Programs”

Storer, Curricular Policy Committee, noted that 41-11 was already shelved earlier in this meeting, so it will be removed. He stated the remaining proposals will eliminate programs cited in 42-11 thru 46-11. Luck, expressing consternation as his record for most proposals in a single year encountered a setback, noted that the numbering of the proposals will change as a result of removing 41-11. Moran asked if elimination of these programs came from departments or the senate. Seel said it came from chairs and deans, as well as goes through the proper process, including the graduate faculty council before being received by the senate CPC.

 

Proposal 47-11: “Degree Name Change from B.S. in Health & Physical Education-Fitness & Sports Management concentration to B.S. in Sports and Fitness Management”

Storer, Curricular Policy Committee, the degree name change will more accurately reflect the nature of the degree.

 

 

11. Discussion of FOIA and campus computing/email

Scarlett cited the recent wave of politically charged freedom of information act (FOIA) requests in Wisconsin and Michigan and sought a clear procedure for how Tech deals with such requests. He cited an article from U. Michigan’s paper the Michigan Daily stating that Michigan laws are different from Wisconsin and noted that Michigan’s state law indicates email content is private, preliminary or advisory thus complicating interpretation. Scarlett asked if the senate would come to an agreement of a policy of how to respond to a FOIA request to ensure compliance with the law. Seel noted a FOIA officer was appointed and this person follows the proper procedure in addressing the requests. Hamlin said these requests seem to be specific to email. Scarlett noted keyword searches are commonly used and asked what are the responsibilities of the faculty in addressing FOIA requests. He sought a better understanding of the procedure. Seel did not know the details but the law is succinctly followed. Snyder said that we all need to know the details of how the law is followed so, for example, confidential information is not made available. Seel said that would not occur. Snyder asked how we would know. Mullins said we need the details of the process. Scarlett asked for the FOIA officer to be invited to the senate to discuss this process. Luck noted a historical perspective that Tech is reluctant to reveal information and cited a 1979 lawsuit. Snyder said a specific procedure should be in place so we know how proprietary information is protected. He noted the procedure should be in effect well in advance of a request being made. Scarlett suggested the law or FIOA is not being challenged here, but we seek a procedure to handle FOIA requests. Seel said FOIA requests are handled according to the law. Luck asked how many requests were made. Hamlin suggested we err on the side of releasing information and provided an example. Seel said certainty in interpreting the law may be difficult. Scarlett said a plan in place prior to a request will be stronger. Seel said that the FOIA law is being followed. Moran was concerned that faculty would be expected to perform extra work in organizing their information. Luck felt U. Michigan was very clear in what they will release to be in compliance with FOIA and that Tech might want a similar disclosure in processing requests.

 

12. Adjournment.  Hamlin moved to adjourn; President Luck adjourned the meeting at 6:41pm

 

Respectfully submitted

by Marty Thompson

Secretary of the University Senate