The University Senate of Michigan Technological University
Minutes
of Meeting 528
23
January 2013
Synopsis: Open
Discussion: “The Role of the Senate at Michigan Tech”
1. Call to order
and roll call. President
Bill Bulleit called the University Senate Meeting 528 to order at 5:30 pm on
Wednesday, January 23, 2013. The Senate Secretary Brian Barkdoll called roll.
Absent was a representative of the Army/Air Force ROTC, Physics, Auxiliaries,
Student Affairs, and Technology.
Recognition of
visitors. Guests
included Max Seel (Provost’s Office), Bonnie Gorman (Dean
of Students Office), Jackie Huntoon (Graduate School), and Mark Gockenbach
(Mathematics).
2.
Approval of agenda. Bulleit
asked if there were any changes; the agenda passed on a voice vote.
3.
Approval of minutes from Meeting 527. Bulleit asked if there were any
changes. There being no additional suggestions, the minutes were passed on a
voice vote.
4.
Open Discussion: “The Role of the Senate at Michigan Tech” led by Bill Bulleit
Bulleit asked what
the role of the Senate should be since it was not asked beforehand about the
tobacco-free campus. He said to the BOC
that he doesn’t feel that the senate is being listened to. He mentioned examples of the tobacco-free
policy and the university learning goals.
The BOC did not say much but did agree.
The BOC made changes to issues that were original Senate policies
without asking the Senate so now some BOC and Senate policies don’t agree. Moran stated that the perception among
faculty and staff is that we are purely advisory and at the pleasure of the
administration. This perception of
irrelevance limits the time senators want to spend on senate matters. He stated that we need a list of things that
MUST pass the Senate. Bulleit said we do
have List A in the Senate Constitution and bylaws that deal with academic
affairs. Barr asked if we can look at
the constitution or bylaws to see the role of the Senate. List A and B were put up on the front screen. Vable suggested that any university policy
that changes will be introduced in one BOC meeting and then the Senate should
get the constituents opinions and give them to the BOC for the next meeting. Seel said that some issues take several years
to be resolved. He said that the university
learning goals were presented at 2 Senate meetings, but not voted on by the
Senate Curricular Policy Committee and that any oversight on this was
unintentional. Each year the faculty
handbook is gone over for inconsistencies and relevant sections are sent to
constituents and the Senate. The BOC
wants some direct interaction with the senate for academic affairs. Mullins said that accreditation was done
without Senate consultation, but the Senate needs to be proactive. Teaching evaluation is another example of
where we need to be more involved.
Bulleit said that would require more work for the senate. Seel said that a Senate committee is involved
in teaching evaluations. Moran said we should
be proactive but it will require work. He
suggested that the Senate don’t work on B list issues unless we are asked to by
the administration or if the issue is important enough to get our input even if
not asked. It was mentioned that the tobacco-free
policy should have been asked since the Senate has a policy already. Mullins stated that fringe benefits are
important. Onder was disappointed by
Mroz’s decision to go ahead with a tobacco-free policy. Academic members are important and the Senate
represents us, but B list issues dealing with workplace quality are equally
important. Scarlett stated that the Senate
mission charge is to be the principle venue of debate on campus life. Now the Senate seems like just a stamp of
approval to what the administration and the BOC wants. Froese said that the Senate should act on the
BOC tobacco-free policy and provide information to the constituents and the
administration. Onder said that the university
task force representative should go to the Senate and the Senate should send their
recommendation together with the administration’s recommendation to the BOC. Barr asked how the Senate can avoid being bypassed. Bulleit stated that it is the BOC who approved
the Senate constitution. Ong suggested
adding language that the policy will not be official without Senate
approval. Hungwe asked when the
administration and the BOC stopped consulting the Senate. Bulleit stated that there was no distinct
point, but the BOC changed many policies in 2010 without consulting the
Senate. Riehl asked if the BOC will allow
us to add that all BOC ideas must be shared with the senate. Bulleit said that sometimes senators are put
on university task committees. Moran
stated that the Senate cannot approve every policy due to time
constraints. Onder stated that being on
a committee does not truly represent the senate. Bulleit said that our choices are to either
change the Senate constitution or get the BOC to change its constitution. Bulleit offered that the Senate has a cognitive
diversity that helps make better decisions.
Vable mentioned that he thought that people don’t want to serve on the
Senate since they are not effective. Hendrickson
stated that many don’t want to be on any Senate committees. Vable remembered that people were involved
when it made a difference. Bullet said
he will approach the BOC at their February meeting. Mullins said that the BOC has stood behind the
senate about academic issues historically, but recently some issues have gone
through without Senate consultation, like accreditation and university learning
goals. Seel reminded him that some university
committees have senators on them and that the university learning goals were
shown at a past senate meeting. The Gen
Ed Committee (developed by the Senate) developed them. Plummer asked about the status of
accreditation, to which Seel said that recommendations will be given to senate
when available.
5. Reports
a. Senate President
Bulleit introduced
Mirchi who asked for support of the Graduate Research Colloquium by serving as
judges and sponsoring of refreshments.
b. Senate Standing Committees
Gierke said that
the Curricular Policy Committee was working on new programs. Caneba asked for ideas for a new set of
survey questions on specific issues.
6. Old Business:
Proposal
7-13: “Tobacco-Free Campus”
Vable suggested
that we put in the present Senate policy that the BOC has negated this
proposal. Moran asked if we should
challenge the new policy. Onder said
that we cannot vote again since we already ran a referendum. Froese said that we should decide something
if we want to be relevant. Nooshabadi
said that the referendum was not conclusive.
Moran disagreed. Seel thought
that adding language to the present Senate policy was a good idea. Riehl thought that a vote on the BOC policy
should be taken and then we should act accordingly. Barr said that we need to decide now. Nooshabadi said that we should include the referendum
results on the present Senate policy.
Mullins called the question.
Bulleit called for a vote on the BOC tobacco-free campus. The results were 10 for YES and 14 for NO
with 2 abstentions. It was decided that
the current Senate policy should be removed since it is over-ridden by the BOC
policy.
7. New Business
a. Proposal 11-13: “Proposal to Shelve a Degree
Program: B.S. in Operations and Systems Management” presented by Curricular Policy
Committee
Gierke introduced
it by saying that since the replacement program was approved, this program can
be shelved.
b.
Proposal 12-13: “Modification to Search Procedures for College Deans” presented by Administrative
Policy Committee
Bulleit informed
the group that there were issues in the last dean search regarding due
diligence on all candidates that visited campus. Since this caused objections, it is suggested
that it only be performed on serious candidates. Hyslop added a friendly amendment stating
that the words ‘at least’ be added before ‘one staff member’.
c.
Proposal 14-13: “Modification to Early Tenure Policy” presented by Academic Policy
Committee
Scarlett asked for
feedback from constituents since this proposal would allow a candidate to
forward the application past the department and department chair and adds a
vote of appeal. Gockenbach added that
maternity leave can stop the tenure clock, but some candidates may want to go
up for tenure at the normal time. Moran
said that the department and Chair should not be allowed to be bypassed. Froese stated that only the BOC can approve
so any impediment should be removed.
d. Proposal 15-13: “Proposal for a New
Concentration in Business Analytics”
presented by Curricular Policy Committee
Gockenbach stated
that this is in response to industry demand.
e. Proposal 16-13: “Proposal for a New
Certificate in Business Analytics”
presented by Curricular Policy Committee.
Gockenbach stated
that this is for SBE students. Breffle
said that SBE had issues with this that were not dealt with, but Gockenbach
said that SBE Dean did approve the current version.
Mullins said that
the Senate Finance Committee had not discussed this yet, but that they need
more information, including numbers of students expected. He reiterated that there is a cost to
offering courses. It will be sent back
to the Math Department for more numbers on finances.
f. Proposal 17-13: “Proposal to Amend University
Senate Policy 418.1: Graduate Scholastic Standards” presented by Instructional
Policy Committee.
Riehl stated for
Hamlin that this would state that each graduate program will decide if grades
lower than a ‘B’ in the major field of study will be counted.
8. Adjournment.
President
Bulleit adjourned the meeting at 7:25pm.
by Brian Barkdoll
Secretary of the
University Senate