30The University Senate
of Michigan Technological University
Minutes of
Meeting 507
20 April 2011
Synopsis:
The Senate
·
Proposal 39-11 passed
·
Proposal 40-11 passed
·
Proposal 42-11 through 46-11 passed
·
Proposal 47-11 passed
1. Call to order and roll call. President Rudy Luck called the University Senate Meeting 507
to order at 5:36 pm on Wednesday, April 20, 2011. The Senate Secretary Marty
Thompson called roll. Absent were representatives of Army/Air Force ROTC,
Cognitive and Learning Sciences, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Materials
Science and Engineering, Mathematical Sciences, Auxiliaries and Cultural
Enrichment, Admissions, Advancement, IT and Senator Koszykowski.
2. Recognition of visitors. Guests included Max Seel (Provost), Glenn Mroz (President), Dan Greenlee (CFO), Eli Kattunen (USG), Bruce Seely
(College of Sciences and Arts and Jim Frendeway (School of Technology).
3. Approval of agenda. Luck
asked if there were any changes; there being none Luck declared the agenda
stood approved.
4. Approval of minutes from Meeting 505. Luck
asked if there were any changes; there being none Luck declared the minutes
stood approved.
5. Presentation: “Presidential Address to the Senate” presented by President
Glenn Mroz
Mroz, President of Michigan Tech, thanked
the Administrative Policy Committee for performing the presidential survey. He started
by discussing the concern over moving some of the administrative offices
off-campus. Mroz discussed the details of the UPPCO building acquisition and
usage. He noted that the survey comments were helpful to get a sense of what
the different groups of people at Tech were concerned with. Mroz noted that the
employee suggestions will be reviewed and addressed, emphasizing that the
comments are taken seriously. He then discussed the Michigan State budget and the
impact on Tech. Mroz met with the governor and discussed the decrease in
appropriations to higher education and reimbursement associated with tuition
restraint. He suspects the tuition restraint language will get softened or
removed when the different bills are discussed in the legislature. He discussed
a few specific issues coming from the state, including; commercialization,
protecting the rights of Christians and the makeup of the state legislature. Mroz
said he will bring a budget forward at the next Board of Control meeting. He
noted the hiring initiatives from several companies and has impressed upon
representatives from these companies the importance of supporting higher
education in the state of Michigan. Mroz concluded by noting that Norman Augustine,
will be commencement speaker. Luck thanked Mroz.
6. Presentation:
“Results of the President’s Evaluation” presented by Dr. Gerry Caneba
Caneba, Administrative Policy
Committee, noted the executive team survey was tied to the presidential
evaluation, and was performed to satisfy Proposal 500.1. He proceeded to
present the survey timeline and noted that 518 respondents or 34% of all surveys
sent out were completed (previous year was 18%). Caneba described the survey
layout, including performance, issues, executive team performance and
additional questions suggested by President Mroz. He noted that the senate
executive committee decided to excise questions 26 through 33 pertaining to
individual executive team members. Caneba then presented the results of the
survey going over the scores and most prominent comment for each question. Breffle
asked about the term majority in referring to the comments, whether this
referred to a majority of respondents or a majority of the comments received.
Caneba affirmed the latter. Breffle felt this may not reflect the overall
sentiment as content people are less likely to make a comment. Caneba noted
that the committee based their data on the comments they received and felt it
represented the university as a whole. He summarized the survey and comments
and mentioned the fate of the survey results. Luck thanked Caneba.
7. Presentation:
“Michigan Tech Finances” presented by CFO Daniel Greenlee
Greenlee, Chief Financial Officer,
provided a financial review based on the 2nd quarter and projected
for the remainder of the year. The general and current fund FY11 Income Statement
Budget and Projections were discussed. He noted the differences between the
projections and actual budget items. Greenlee specifically noted the difference
of roughly $2 million in tuition and fees, which was due to students taking an
average of 14.1 credit hours, whereas projections were made based on 14.3
credit hours per semester. Greenlee defined the meaning of the terms Current
Fund which includes, five different funds; the General fund, Retirement & Insurance
fund, Designated fund, Auxiliary Activities and Expendable Restricted fund, versus
the General fund which includes 2/3 of revenue and, most faculty and
administration salaries. He noted that 60% of indirect F&A (about $6.7
million) goes back into designated research incentives fund. Grant and contract
revenue is up about $1.8 million, which also includes $7 million in Pell
grants. Greenlee noted that salaries and fringe benefits costs are down. He
discussed each item comparing the actual and projected values for the general
and current funds. The biggest transfers out are $6.7 million for research, $3
million for retirement and insurance/MPSER, $1 million insurance and athletic
money. Debt service will cost Tech $4.3 million this year. The state
appropriation is categorized as non-operating revenue as there is considered to
be no transfer back to the state of goods or services. Misc revenues include
gain on securities. He defined the source of the securities and the method
which they are used. Luck asked what this was in invested in. Greenlee noted investments
are in 20% short-term money market fund
and 80% is in the stock market, which itself is 25% Wilshire 3500 Fund and 75%
is in the S&P500. The $9.8 million is to ensure medical billings and
vacation accrual is covered. Scarlett noted this was assuming the stock market
does not crash. Greenlee affirmed this and noted the loss of $7.2 million of
state appropriations. Barkdoll noted this showed a negative balance sheet.
Greenlee noted the 0.1% variance on the $250 million budget is close but any
negative is not good. Barkdoll asked about the decrease in state
appropriations. Greenlee said this needs to be offset. Plummer asked about the
difference in projections in tuition and fees. Greenlee noted the difference
reflects fees going into the auxiliaries income statement. Plummer noted there
were fees that differ between funds. Greenlee said the bulk of the tuition goes
into the general fund. Barkdoll asked how much debt Tech is currently holding.
Greenlee said $80 million in bond issues, noting that $50 of the $80 million in
debt went towards residence halls. Seel noted the Great Lakes Research Center
added $6.8 million. Mroz noted the Dow building is a part of the debt. Greenlee
noted the average rate is about 4% for the 30 year bonds. Mroz noted it was not
operating debt. Mullins asked what accounted for the other percent of the total
of $100 million in liabilities. Greenlee said included in the remaining $20
million were sick leave, health care and short term items. He said the
unrestricted fund balance is $12 million. Mullins asked if that reflects cash
on hand. Greenlee noted that the credit line was not included in the cash flow
statement. He correlated the shape of the cash flow curve as a function of
calendar date noting fall and spring tuition. Tech spends $800K per day. Greenlee
concluded by noting that the cash flow statement shows an average of $20 million
right now, whereas in 2001 it was $5 million. Luck thanked Greenlee.
8. Presentation:
“Tuition” by Dr. Michael Mullins
Mullins, Finance Committee, started
by showing a graph comparing tuition revenues and state appropriations over a
22 year span. Mroz noted the increase in students on campus which drove up
tuition revenues and the loss of the Promise grant. Mullins said that we are
running towards the high end of other in-state institutions. Mroz noted Indian
tuition waivers contributed to this observation. Mullins noted the trends in
state and tuition revenue percentages. He noted annual tuition going from $13,007
to $13,900 if a 7% tuition increase is implemented. He noted the sensitivity in
the number of student credit hours being taken to the total tuition revenue. He
compared the out of state tuition at Tech with the in-state tuition at the less
technically challenging University of Arizona. Mullins noted the additional
staff, administrators, and faculty as the source of the cost increase rather
than raises. He noted the retirement obligations of $4.7 and $7.2 million for MPSER
and TIAA-CREF, respectively. Mroz noted 1996 was the last year MPSER was
offered and 2036 is he last year Tech is obligated to MPSER. Mullins noted the total
liability increase from $14 to $100 million from 1990 to 2010. Greenlee noted $4.3
million in bond payments this year. Mullins noted institutional support is
currently $2237 per student, reflecting a total cost increase from 2006 to 2011
from $12 million to $20 million, which is the highest in the state. IT is a
rapidly increasing cost that might be impacting tuition rates. He compared
internal versus external research expenditures. Greenlee said MTRI started
contributing to research expenditures as of 2006. Mullins noted external
research increased with addition of MTRI. Internal research expenditures consist
of indirect cost return, faculty salaries, and recirculating research dollars.
Mullins asked if the undergraduate tuition is subsidizing the graduate program
and if we have overextended our ability to maintain the physical plant. He
noted the dramatic increase in space of approximately 1 million square feet
with little increase in students, some increase in faculty and a modest increase
in research expenditures.
9. Report from the Senate President
Luck thanked all the senators for their
contributions this year, especially the senate assistant. Proposal 38-11 was
approved with friendly amendments. Barkdoll, Research Policy Committee, said
the committee approved the changes. Luck called for a vote of the amended
proposal; it passed unanimously on a
voice vote. He noted the provost requested revisions to the faculty handbook,
including the revision process itself. Luck also noted the variance between the
faculty handbook policy and the senate proposals they reference. He also noted
a senate and university web policy, which differ. Luck cited several examples
of discrepancies between policies in the handbook and senate or university
proposals and policies.
10. Report from Senate Standing Committees
Onder, Elections Committee, noted
there will be senator-at-large elections in the fall, rather than the spring
due to a lack of nominations. He noted Laurie Panian will be replacing Cody
Kangas. Onder moved that the
nominations for Athletic Council be sent to the president; Hamlin seconded the motion; it passed unanimously on a voice vote. Onder moved for approval of a Conflict-of-Interest
committee member; Hamlin seconded
the motion; it passed unanimously on
a voice vote. Onder moved for approval
of Mullins for Faculty Distinguished Awards committee; Hamlin seconded the motion; it passed unanimously on a voice vote. Onder
moved for approval of Peng for
Sabbatical Leave committee; Storer seconded
the motion; it passed unanimously on
a voice vote. Onder moved for approval
of Charlesworth for Public Safety Oversight committee; Hamlin seconded the motion; it passed unanimously on a voice vote.
Onder showed two nominees for Misconduct in Research committee. Nora Allred won
by a clicker vote.
11. Old Business
Proposal 39-11 “Master’s of Science in Geospatial
Technology”
Luck asked for comments; there being
none he called for a vote; the proposal passed
unanimously on a voice vote.
Proposal 40-11 “Departmental Name Change from Department of
Exercise Science, Health and Physical Education to Department of Kinesiology
and Integrative Physiology”
Luck asked for comments; there being
none he called for a vote; the proposal passed
unanimously on a voice vote.
Proposal 42-11 through 46-11 “Proposals to Eliminate Degree
Programs”
Luck asked if any comments regarding
the elimination of the following degree programs:
42-11: "Proposal to Eliminate
Degree Program: M.S. in General Engineering "
43-11: "Proposal to Eliminate
Degree Program: M.S. in Engineering Physics "
44-11: "Proposal to Eliminate
Degree Program: Ph.D. in Engineering Mechanics "
45-11: "Proposal to Eliminate
Degree Program: M.S. in Business Administration"
46-11: "Proposal to Eliminate
Degree Program: Ph.D. in Applied Physics "
There being no discussion he called
for a vote; the proposal passed unanimously on a voice
vote.
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 "
Luck asked for comments; there being
none he called for a vote; the proposal passed
unanimously on a voice vote.
12. New Business
There was no new business
13. Adjournment. Hamlin moved to
adjourn; President Luck adjourned the meeting at 7:28pm.
Respectfully submitted
by Marty Thompson
Secretary of the University Senate