The University Senate
of Michigan Technological University
Minutes of
Meeting 513
16 November 2011
Synopsis:
The Senate
·
Report by Associate Provost Christa
Walck
·
Presentation on changes to benefits
by Renee Hiller
·
Presentation on graduate students
fees by Dr. David Reed
·
Proposal 8-12 passed
1. Call to order and roll call. President Rudy Luck called the University Senate Meeting 513
to order at 5:30 pm on Wednesday, November 16, 2011. The Senate Secretary Marty
Thompson called roll. Absent were representatives of Biomedical Engineering, Library,
Mathematical Sciences, Admissions, IT, Advancement, USG, GFC and Staff Council
and Senators Sha and Koszykowski.
2. Recognition of visitors. Guests included Max Seel (Provost
Office), Christa Walck (Provost Office), Renee Hiller (Benefits Office), Hasan
Sapci (School of Technology), Guy Hembroff (School of Technology), Anita Quinn
(Human Resources), Dave Reed (Vice-President for Research Office), Chad Arney
(Library), Erin Smith (Humanities), Mike Meyer (Physics), Bruce Seely (College
of Sciences and Arts), Karen Hext (Human Resources), Jim Frendeway (School of
Technology), Ellen Horsch (Administration), Darrell Radson (School of Business
and Economics) and Jeff Toorongian (eLearning).
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 512. Luck
asked if there were any changes; there being none Luck declared the minutes
stood approved.
5. Presentation:
“Report by Technology-Rich Teaching/Learning Environment and Campus Support Systems
Task Force” by Associate Provost Christa Walck
Walck introduced members of the Teaching/Learning
Environment and Support Systems task force Radson started by describing the
charges to the task force. Arney discussed the trends in teaching and learning
environments and expectations of global collaboration. He noted that all
changes result in increased demands on faculty time. Meyers and Toorongian
discussed benchmarks and noted that there is no clear definition of blended
learning. Toorongian said that coordination efforts from the support systems
need to be maximized. Meyer noted there are a number of websites for faculty to
discuss and develop ideas and topics. Toorongian said that no central entity
organizes the e-learning efforts as most of this is done through the department
or unit. Radson read a draft vision statement. Smith defined the key goals of
the task force as student centered with centralized coordination. Radson
identified the immediate challenges to implementing such a system, referring
everyone to a blog (WEBSITE) the task
force is using to share information and reports. Mullins asked what
infrastructure is needed and the associated costs. Radson said that is not being
done at this stage of the process. Mullins noted benchmarking can be amorphous.
Radson said the benchmarking is more based on finding institutions that have
good programs. Meyer said that right now the focus is to make it work more than to establish benchmarks.
Vable asked how learning assessment is taking place. Radson said learning
assessment is done through the Provost’s Office. Smith said several private
foundations have similar initiatives. Barkdoll asked how blended learning
relates to distance learning. Radson said blended is for resident students.
Meyer provided an example from another institution which has replaced a physics
course with an online vehicle. Radson said there is still some discussion as to
how to develop resources. Onder asked about the increased demand on faculty
time, which is immensely underestimated. Radson agreed on the increased demands
on faculty and described how faculty should be supported to maximize efforts.
Onder felt technology, like email, will take up more faculty time as it
integrates into mainstream usage. Caneba was concerned about the quality of
learning and problem-solving skills developed using such e-learning systems.
Smith encouraged people to look up current research in the area of blended
learning. Luck asked if this is part of AQIP. Walck said no, but it isn’t
completely independent.
6. Presentation: “2012 Health Benefit Changes” by Renee Hiller
Hiller discussed the healthcare
changes for 2012, wellness initiatives and changes to the medical leave policy.
She listed the members of the Benefits Liaison Group (BLG). Hiller projected an
$833,000 net increase (corresponding to a 5.8% increase) in healthcare costs
for 2012. Mullins said it should be noted that the BLG recommended a $250,000
overage and the executive team decided to go with a $750,000 cost overage.
Hiller discussed the reduced benefit to employees and increased costs to
employees for the 2012 healthcare for both PPO and HSA plans. She listed
several wellness initiatives implemented for 2011 and 2012. Mullins noted the
regressive nature of the cost increases to benefits relative to the
compensation increases. Hiller provided the rationale and discussed the changes
to Medical Leave for 2012. Barkdoll asked who pays for family medical leave.
Hiller said no one because it is an unpaid leave. She defined the current sick
leave policy and discussed university statistics to illustrate the lack of
employee leave protection. Hiller defined the new three tier system for sick
leave. Barkdoll asked about the maximum of currently accrued sick days. Hiller
said up to 60 days can be carried over. Barkdoll asked if the 70% salary
benefit could be raised for short or long-term leave. Hiller said there might
be an 80% buy-up available in future years. She discussed the rationale for the
Short-Term Disability and Maternity Leave policy changes, and concluded by
listing the benefits forums occurring over the next few weeks. Mullins asked what
the recommendations from the BLG were. Barr recommended the 80% salary benefit
and that if there were greater than 60 days of sick leave it would be kept. Reid
asked if an employee could opt out of STD and use sick leave for family
members. Hiller said that STD cannot be used for family members. Scarlett asked
about the projected healthcare cost increases and the nature of the decision
made by the executive team. Horsch affirmed the decision is based on increasing
costs. Luck thanked Hiller.
7. Presentation: “Graduate
Student Fee Differential” by Dr. David
Reed
Luck introduced Reed, Vice-President
for Research, who provided information about graduate student fees. Reed raised
the question as to why the grad rate is $702/SCH. He compared the percentage of
unsupported graduate students for masters and doctoral degrees. Mullins asked
what percent of the tuition for graduate students comes from the university. Reed
said the numbers do not make much sense. He commented on the dramatic increase
in unsupported master’s students over the past four years. Reed defined
unsupported students as those not getting any money from Tech. He discussed the
findings from a report on undergraduate and graduate costs and revenues. Mullins
stated that on the graduate side indirect cost return was considered 100%
positive in the report. Reed said a question is; for how much longer are we
going to charge in/out of state tuition. He then discussed the changes in
revenue sources for Tech, nothing state appropriations have gone down as a
percentage of total revenue. Barkdoll expressed a concern about raising graduate
student tuition as it will impact proposals and the number of graduate students
in our labs. Reed said it was complex interplay and not a simple decision.
Mullins said our graduate tuition is in the lowest 1% in the USA. Barr asked if
there are universities that charge different graduate credit rates depending on
which program you are in. Reed affirmed this and cited several examples of such
phenomenon. Vable said the University of Michigan’s graduate tuition varies
between schools. Onder noted many research universities offer support for graduate
students. Reed agreed that tuition changes are complicated and impact several
areas. Barkdoll asked how our overhead rate compares to other universities.
Reed said some universities are higher and some are lower. He noted that
overhead rates are negotiated with Health and Human Services or Office of Naval
Research (ONR). Barr asked which schools are included in the ONR group. Reed
gave multiple examples. Luck thanked Reed.
8. Report from the Senate President
Luck discussed the status of
Proposals 6-12 and 7-12, the recent charter submissions from Biomedical
Engineering and the School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science and
where reports from senate committees can be found. He then announced the
senate’s esteemed secretary will be going on sabbatical in the spring and
requested we nominate and vote on his replacement at the next senate meeting.
9. Report from Senate Standing Committees
Barkdoll, Research Committee, requested
everyone fill out a survey focused on enhancing research productivity.
10. Old Business
Proposal 8-12: “ Master of Science in Medical
Informatics”
Luck said the Curricular Policy
Committee (CPC), recommended we move forward with the proposal. Mullins,
Finance Committee (FC), said that all questions asked by the FC have been
answered and only minor questions remain. Luck asked if the FC wanted to review
the financials further. Members of the FC replied no. Onder noted some problems
related his constituents concerns, including; backgrounds of the students being
accepted not mentioned, no prerequisites listed for courses and course
overlaps. Barkdoll asked if we should table the proposal. Seel said that the
authors of the proposal are present and can answer these questions. Hembroff
read a section that addressed student background requirements. Onder asked how
students with such diverse backgrounds will be adequately prepared for the
graduate program. Luck said anyone that meets these requirements should be
prepared. Sapci cited his background and described the diverse background of
students he expects to apply to the program. Onder said the program contains course overlaps. Onder said that for such diverse backgrounds there should be separate tracks. Sapci said backgrounds of students will be taken into account. Onder said these tracks should be part of the proposal and added that the program contains course overlaps. Hembroff said this issue was addressed in the Graduate Faculty
Council. Onder said the program has an undergraduate course that can be taken in
place of a graduate course, which raises the question of the merits of the
graduate course requirements. Frendeway said a lot of discussion occurred
between departments to determine which courses that already exist could be
applied to this program and the result is the development of new courses. Luck
asked the FC about the faculty needed to support the new courses. Mullins said
the proposal indicates that all necessary people are already in place. Luck
asked if the listed courses are all new courses being offered. Frendeway said
no but they are being developed. Luck noted that new courses have to go through
the binder process and the Computer Science Department can address any issues
during the binder process. Onder said the proposal is a good idea, but these
issues should be addressed upon passage rather than later, ensuring a
well-written and well-organized proposal. Mullins said the FC supports the
proposal, although it was initially confusing. Frendeway detailed where the
faculty have come from to fill the needed positions. Mullins said this is a big
new program that requests substantial resources, which have already been
approved by the Provost. Frendeway said he too makes decisions on resource
allocation. Caneba said the issue of topic overlap from courses offered in
different departments is an ongoing one that should be examined for such
proposals. Seely detailed the conversations he had with the departments
involved regarding topic and course overlaps and it was determined, after
significant effort, that these issues were addressed in the best possible
manner. Luck asked if there were any additional comments on the proposal; there
being none he called for a vote; the proposal passed unanimously on a voice vote. the proposal passed on a majority voice vote with Onder abstaining.
.
Proposal 9-12:
“Bachelor of Arts in Physics” and Proposal 10-12: “Bachelor of Arts in Physics with a
Concentration in Secondary Education”
Luck noted that Proposals 9-12 and
10-12 will be deliberated further and voted on at the next senate meeting.
Mullins stated this program is a repackaging of courses currently offered, but
the proposers did not follow the approved proposal format. He said the FC has
several questions. Riehl expressed a concern that an arts degree would dilute
the quality of high school science teachers. He added that student unable to
complete the rigor of science degrees may shift to arts degrees and there is
concern other departments will start to offer arts degrees. Luck said that one
or two people have graduated with the current physics based secondary-education
degree in the past decade and consequently there is a great deficiency in the
physics knowledge of high school teachers. Stockero said that this program
meets all the state criteria for secondary education degree. Luck said the
Department of Chemistry has no plans to develop an arts degree. Seely said
there was no expectation by the proposers that certain courses would determine
students getting arts versus science degrees. He added that the proposers felt
it was very important that more qualified people be put into secondary
education, increase the numbers of females in physics and provide more career
paths in this field. Seel said some of the language was derived from the
American Physics Society but it was removed from the final version of the
proposal. Luck was surprised there were no biology courses in the program.
Cantrell said there are two proposals and additional courses, like a biology
course, may be required by the state but should not be dictate by the physics
department. Stockero said for the secondary education degrees, the state
guidelines are what needs to be followed. She added that students need a second
subject area to be certified to teach. Cantrell said the rationale for the arts
degree was also to build in more flexibility into the degree. Luck reminded
everyone that the vote on this proposal will occur at the next senate meeting.
Sense of the Senate Resolution
Luck asked if there was any
discussion about the resolution. Madhu read a statement from one of his
constituents declaring his disapproval of the resolution. He noted that of five
constituents the majority were in support. Luck referenced the statement that
all men are created equal. Barkdoll asked if it is our job to make political
statements. Luck said this was just a sense of the senate constituents and made
comparisons to the still unseen climate at Tech survey. He also said that the
state proposal is in conflict with Tech’s strategic plan. Scarlett said his
constituents were in favor of the resolution. Huckins asked for a
reorganization of existing wording. Luck said the paragraph could be moved.
Onder said his constituency was mixed. Scarlett called the question. Luck
called for a vote; the proposal passed
unanimously
on a voice vote. Madhu recommended
the resolution be disseminated.
11. New Business
No new business.
12. Adjournment. President Luck adjourned the meeting at 7:29pm
Respectfully submitted
by Marty Thompson
Secretary of the University Senate