The University Senate
of Michigan Technological University
Minutes of
Meeting 509
21 September
2011
Synopsis:
The Senate
·
Presentation of the Carl Walker
Report on Parking
·
Presentation by Dr. Brian Barkdoll, 2011
Teaching Award Winner
1. Call to order and roll call. President Rudy Luck called the University Senate Meeting 509
to order at 5:30 pm on Wednesday, September 21, 2011. The Senate Secretary
Marty Thompson called roll. Absent were representatives of Biomedical
Engineering, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Physics, Auxiliaries and
Cultural Enrichment, IT and Staff Council.
2. Recognition of visitors. Guests included Max Seel (Provost
Office), Matthew Inman (Carl Walker, Inc.), Anita Quinn (Human Resources), Jacqueline
Huntoon (Graduate School), William Kennedy (CTFLD), Margo Woller-Carter
(Graduate Student Government) and Maria Schutte (School of Business).
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 Meetings 508. Luck
asked if there were any changes; there being none Luck declared the minutes for
meeting 508 stood approved.
5. Presentation: “Carl Walker Report on Parking”
Rudiger, Institutional Planning Committee,
introduced Matthew Inman of Carl Walker, Inc. who presented a draft of their
report on parking. Inman discussed the scope, future needs and planning
elements of the report. He discussed the strengths and weaknesses of the
university’s current parking situation and provided a cost-revenue analysis of
the current parking system. Bulleit stated that employee parking for a business
is a cost of doing business, whereas universities seem to want to charge their
employees. Inman responded by discussing parking costs at other universities.
Mullins noted that the Colorado School of Mines pays for $250 for parking but nothing
for healthcare, which is giving your employees a perk. He noted that with no
raises in three years and none in sight, combined with increases in healthcare
and benefit costs, it would be a considerate act for the administration to
provide a modest benefit of free parking in light of multiple benefit changes.
Mullins asked what snow removal costs. Inman estimated costs for different
parking schemes. Luck noted that Carl Walker, Inc. was also hired in 2001, had
produced a report based on visiting the campus last Spring which concluded that
we needed to hire 6 more people to staff a parking office and buy new parking
meters which would add an additional $300,000 to the parking costs, only raise
$100,000 in revenue, had several months to examine the issue and now the
consultant had returned looking for more comments before issuing a final report.
Luck inquired as to if the Parking consultant was being paid to providing
psychological advice to the campus. Storer asked if the recommendation was to establish
parking fees and increase those fees until costs balance. Inman affirmed this
and said his initial recommendation was $120 per permit and escalating the fee until
the break-even point. He added that the long-term goal was to generate a
surplus from parking fees to establishing a reserve fund for future costs,
constructions, etc. Onder noted the parking problem is an allocation and location
problem, yet the recommendations do not seem to address this. Inman examined
the allocation and recommended a lot specific plan, where a person buys the
space. He noted that faculty and staff strongly preferred flexibility rather
than being limited to a single lot, whereas students would have lot-specific
parking. Caneba asked if we could come up with a smart system for parking.
Inman described some new technologies, but noted they all come with undesired
and unwanted cost increases. Luck thanked Inman.
6. Presentation: “2011 Michigan Tech Teaching Award Winner -
Dr. Brian Barkdoll”
Kennedy introduced Barkdoll, who
proceeded to give a brief presentation about the elements of effective
teaching. He then proceeded to give a true-false quiz to the senate with
insightful and entertaining anecdotes. Barkdoll concluded the informal
discussion by asking the senate if we accomplished our learning objectives.
Luck thanked Barkdoll.
6. Report from the Senate President
Luck informed the senate of an
upcoming Board of Control presentation noting that all presentations are
archived on the senate website. He gave a brief overview of the upcoming
presentation and asked for input. Luck noted the senate blog contains multiple responses
to his request for suggestions on what might make the senate better. He
addressed each response. Luck discussed the current list of proposals under
consideration or up for committee action. Mullins clarified that Proposal 1-12
was a modification of a proposal from last year. Luck addressed a comment about
‘fluff’ in the senate agenda. He stated that inviting teaching and research awardees
is a primary duty of the senate, which is defined by the sums of the
reputations of the faculty and staff that comprise our institution. Luck
concluded by noting some of the issues being considered by the benefits liaison
group, including sick leave and parking fees.
7. Report from Senate Standing Committees
None.
8. Old Business
None.
9. New Business
Proposal 1-12 : “Proposal to Modify Senate Policy
413.1: Accelerated Master’s Programs”
Storer, Curricular Policy Committee,
noted this was a modification of last years accelerated masters programs. The key change being to add research degrees to the accelerated
master's program. Specific changes include, applying up to three
research credits taken in the senior year applicable to the graduate degree, programs
may set their own entry standards, so long as certain minimum standards are met
and modifies the reporting requirements of the dean of the graduate school. Storer
added that students can enroll in the program in their sophomore year. He noted
the finance committee had a question regarding how many students this program will
impact. Current data indicate that the policy resulted in a revenue loss of
$495K and to compensate for this loss an additional 33 students are needed. The
data assumes that each of the 132 Tech students accepted into graduate programs
took the 24 credits rather than 30, and did not separate students based on coursework
only or research-based degree. Mullins clarified that by expanding the
accelerated program to include both research and coursework only options, it
would increase the likelihood of getting the additional 33 students. Storer
affirmed that presumption. Onder asked about the enrollment numbers for the
accelerated option. Storer said the accelerated degrees apply to existing
programs already approved by the graduate school and that he was not aware of
any that have been approved. Luck asked about the financial impact of students
taking the accelerated programs. Storer affirmed that we would need to increase
the number of students to approximately 165 to compensate for the revenue loss.
Luck asked for enrollment numbers from recent years. Storer
said 2010 enrollment of our own undergraduates was down by 16 from the previous
year. Mullins felt the added option would increase the likelihood of making up
the revenue loss.
Proposal 2-12: “Graduate Appeals of Suspension or Dismissal”
Kampe, Instructional Policy
Committee, noted that proposals 2-12 through 4-12 were received from the
graduate faculty council and reflect existing procedures that have no formal
policy in place. Kampe described how appeals will be implemented and
administered.
Proposal 3-12: “Graduate Good Academic Standing and
Dismissal”
Kampe, Instructional Policy
Committee, said this proposal defines good academic standing for graduate
students. Students still need to maintain 3.0 GPA to remain in good standing or
be subject to dismissal.
Proposal 4-12: “Graduate Scholastic Standards”
Kampe, Instructional Policy
Committee, formalizes into policy existing procedures. This will define the
standard that students need a B or better to be in good standing.
Proposal 5-12 :
“Graduate Grievances”
Kampe, Instructional Policy
Committee, noted this was the only new proposal, in the sense that it does not
reflect a formalization of an existing process. He discussed the criteria and how
it will be implemented. Luck asked if different departments have their own
procedures, then how will handling grievances be standardized. Huntoon said
exclusions to this policy would be those existing policies designated for
specific issues. Siegel clarified that graduate students must have exhausted
other avenues before approaching the graduate school. Barkdoll asked if approved
these would be senate policies. Luck clarified that if approved by the senate,
these proposals would be formalized into procedures, which is then sent back to
the committee for final approval. Scarlett asked if graduate students are not
currently covered by a grievance policy. Huntoon said no grievance process exists
right now. Seel said the current grievance policies only apply to undergraduates
and this new policy addresses situations unique to graduate students. Luck
asked how many grievances are filed. Huntoon estimated about five per year. Bulleit
noted that Proposal 3-12 allows a student to be on probation for 2 semesters yet
one semester to return to good-standing. Huntoon noted the policies reflect
existing procedures. She stated that exceptions might be made if the department
has a plan in place and the student is making progress. Bulleit noted that was
not specifically stated. Herbig noted that the term ‘makes good progress’ can be interpreted differently. Huntoon said
this proposal leaves in interpretive flexibility to individual programs. Herbig
asked if these ideas should be stated specifically, rather than written in such
vague terms. Huntoon asked Kampe if we could clarify such terms or provide
examples. Kampe said the committee will make some clarifications. Luck noted
that the student will still be on probation under the academic suspension and
asked how many students fit this category. Huntoon estimated about 15 per year.
Luck asked the senate to discuss the new proposals amongst constituents.
10. Adjournment. Onder moved to
adjourn; Storer seconded the motion.
President Luck adjourned the meeting at 6:45pm
Respectfully submitted
by Marty Thompson
Secretary of the University Senate