The University Senate
of Michigan Technological University
Minutes of
Meeting 520
18 April
2012
Synopsis:
·
Presentation: “Enrollment Outlook” by Vice President for Student Affairs Les
Cook Election of Senate Officers
·
Proposal
15-12 passed
·
Proposal
16-12 postponed until Fall
·
Proposal
17-12 passed
·
Proposal
18-12 passed
·
Proposal
19-12 passed
·
Proposal
20-12 passed
·
Proposal
21-12 passed
·
Proposal
22-12 passed with friendly amendment
·
Proposal
23-12 withdrawn
1.
Roll Call of
Senators.
The roll of the current
Senators was called by Secretary Barkdoll.
Absent were Senators from ROTC, Materials Science and Engineering,
Physics, School of Technology, Advancement, and IT. Senators at Large Thompson and Koszykowski
were absent. Liaisons from Staff Council, and Graduate Faculty Council were
also absent.
Recognition of visitors. Guests included
Provost Max Seel and Assoc Provost Christa Walck (Provost Office), VP Les Cook
(Student Affairs), Dean Bruce Seely (Sciences and Arts), Chair Brad Baltensperger
(Cognitive and Learning Sciences), Eli Korttuen (Undergraduate Student
Government), and Director Ellen Marks (Library).
2. Approval of agenda. Luck
asked if there were any changes; there being none Luck declared the agenda
stood approved.
3. Approval of Minutes.
Luck asked if there were any
changes; there being none Luck declared the minutes stood approved.
4. Presentation: “Enrollment
Outlook” by Vice President for Student Affairs Les Cook
Cook
gave enrollment details, stating that there are a high number of applications
so far as well as increases in the numbers of admissions, paid deposits, underrepresented
minorities, women, transfers, and graduate applications, both MS and PhD. There is some decrease in student numbers due
to an unusually large graduating class this year. He also stated that there is not a shortage
of on-campus housing this year.
5. Reports
a. Senate President
Luck
stated that the Minor of Global Business was signed by the administration, that
the Board of Control meeting was coming up, and that in Proposal 6-11 both of
the sections (search procedures and unit evaluation procedures) have been
applied successfully recently. He wished
the new senate good luck and thanked the senate for a chance to serve the senate
as President. As well as thanking the
Senate Assistant for her hard work. Seel
thanked Luck for his service.
b. Senate Standing Committees:
1.
Elections Committee:
Riehl reported results of elections already held in which Sproule and Shoos
were elected to the Faculty Distinguished Service Award Committee and Goldman
was elected to the Faculty Review Committee.
Geirke and Kampe (only candidates) were approved as the slate sent to
the President for the Athletic Council.
The names of Hodek, Kampe, and Merz were approved as the slate sent to the President for the MTEC Board,
Flaspohler was approved as the only name on the slate sent to the President for
the Sabbatical Leave Committee, Johnson and Vitton were elected for the Academic
Integrity Committee (Winter, Hamlin, DeWinter, and Hamlin also ran), and Tang was
elected for the Conflict Of Interest Committee (Vitton also ran). For the Misconduct in Research, Scholarly
& Creative Endeavors Integrity Committee: Charlesworth was elected as the full
member and Hamlin as the alternate. For
the Public Safety Oversight Committee Rudiger was elected over Raymond.
6. Old Business.
a. Proposal 15-12 revised: “Proposal to Revise General Education
Requirements” (Voting Units: Academic)
presented by Curricular Policy and Finance Committees
Breffle gave concerns from Business and
Economics regarding the loss of choice by units. Baltensperger gave response based on common
practice at other universities. Luck
called the vote and the proposal was approved.
b. Proposal 16-12: “Proposal to Ratify the Final Version of
Proposal 25-10: Guide to Completing a
Graduate Degree and Preparing and Submitting a Dissertation, Thesis, or Report
at Michigan Technological University”
(Voting Units: Academic)
presented by Instructional Policy Committee
Bulleit asked if Reports were to be left
out as discussed previously. Luck did
not know and Huntoon was not present to comment. Bulleit moved to postpone the vote until next
fall. Mullins seconded. The motion to
postpone was passed.
c. Proposal 17-12: “Proposal to Amend Senate Procedures 101.1.1:
Guidelines for an Academic Calendar of 14 Instructional Weeks” (Voting Units: Academic) presented by Instructional Policy Committee
Luck called the vote and the proposal
was approved.
d. Proposal 18-12: “Proposal to Amend Senate Policy 301.1:
Course Add and Drop Policy” (Voting
Units: Academic) presented by Instructional Policy Committee
Luck
called the vote and the proposal was approved.
e. Proposal 19-12: “Academic Calendar 2013-14 and Provisional
Calendar 2014-15” (Voting Units: Academic)
presented by Instructional Policy Committee
Mullins
said Track A starts too early for students external to Michigan Tech to take
Track A summer classes in some years. He
proposed a larger gap between spring and Track A summer term. The Proposal was approved without amendment.
f. Proposal 20-12
revised: “Proposal to Amend Senate Policy 304.1 and
311.1” (Voting Units: Academic)
presented by Instructional Policy Committee
Luck
stated that amendments had been made based on past Senate discussion. Onder said that the first paragraph is
confusing. He proposed a friendly
amendment to clarify language regarding when grades are submitted to “All
grades are to be submitted by the Tuesday after finals week” Johnson clarified. The Proposal was approved without amendment.
g. Proposal 21-12: “Amendment to the Senate Bylaws” (Voting Units: Full Senate)
presented by Professional Staff Policy Committee
Luck
called the vote and the proposal was approved
unanimously by 31 senators in attendance out of 39 senators on the full senate. Any amendments to the bylaws must be approved
by a 2/3 majority vote of the full Senate according to Article XI A. of the
Senate Constitution.
h. Proposal 22-12: “Proposal to Establish Committees to
Recommend Guidelines for Communication Intensive and Global Learning Content of
Courses” (Voting Units: Academic) presented by Curricular Policy Committee
Seel
discussed membership issues and suggested a change to “at least 5 members”
since many units are involved. Mullins
moved, Onder seconded, and the amendment passed. Mullins asked if this committee will use data
to drive the decision of the proposed committees. Baltensperger replied that the committees
should develop data for their decisions.
Seely stated that these committees will assess criteria using already-identified
learning goals. Mullins suggested that
the proposal include that in the charge of these committees. Seely confirmed
that these committees will align courses with goals to generate data. He also pointed out that under ABET, HASS
courses were not able to be assessed.
Walck added that ABET goals (among others) were used in forming the
university learning goals and that the committees will define how these goals
are met. Also, she pointed out that these
2 committees will be under the Gen Ed Council.
Baltensperger added that these committees will bring about proposals to
the senate for their approval. Seely
also pointed out that this is the beginning of a qualitative process that will
allow broad patterns that facilitate future quantitative data. Breffle reminded them that the Business and
Economics Department wants more latitude to provide different writing courses
for each unit. Baltensberger replied that
other universities have writing in each major associated to that discipline and
that his proposal simply creates committees and doesn’t decide these specific
issues. Plummer reiterated that these
committees will give proposals that the Senate could change.
Luck called for the vote and the
proposal was approved.
i.
Proposal
23-12: “Proposal
to Establish and Empower a Committee to Improve Performance, Reduce Costs, and
Recommend a Broad Set of Reforms and Changes to Achieve These Goals” (Voting Units: Full Senate) presented by Finance Committee
Velat
expressed concern that the Senate already has committees for cost issues and
that another committee was not needed. A
new committee may reduce Senate power.
Mullins replied that this proposal requests the administration to create
a 4-month ad hoc committee only. It
would be a clearing house for economic savings that should include union staff
for their ideas also. Bulleit expressed
concern that 4 months may be too short and that the proposal does not say that the
committee will report to the Senate.
Velat stated that it may be similar to the BLG committee that does not
report to the Senate. Constituents will
be confused as to where to take ideas.
Luck stated that this committee will use expertise of other universities
to get ideas to save money. He pointed
out that the Senate has never talked about funding issues and that this is needed
for financial emergency conditions. An
example of financial issues that the Senate does not address is tuition. Velat replied that the Senate Finance Committee
should bring these issues forward. Luck
stated that it could be required that the committee be comprised of senate
members, but that the Senate Finance Committee does not have union staff on
it. Bulleit pointed out that the Senate is
disconnected from the committee in this proposal. Luck reiterated that we could have members be
from the Senate on the committee.
Mullins considered that to be a friendly amendment. Scarlett agreed that
the Senate should be the foremost body for concerns and proposed the addition
of language stating that “the Senate recommends an ad hoc subcommittee within
the Finance Committee…” Luck stated that
the Senate is proposing this, not the administration. Seel thought that clarification is needed, that
Reed did not suggest this directly, and that we do not need another
committee. Mullins stated that this
could be out of the Finance Committee’s purview and that the Graduate Dean is
looking at tuition rates, the BLG is
looking at benefits, and the Provost is
looking at teaching loads. He stated
that this committee could breach many various areas. He stated that it could be a charge from the
Senate President to the Finance Committee.
Bulleit indicated that he would be amenable to this as the incoming
President.
The
proposal was withdrawn and therefore,
not voted
on.
7. New Business: none
8. Adjournment.
Onder moved to adjourn. President Luck adjourned the meeting at 7:09 pm.
Respectfully submitted
by Brian Barkdoll
Secretary of the University Senate