***************************************************************
Page 3309
The Senate of
Michigan Technological University
Minutes of Meeting No. 186
Meeting No. 186 was called to order on December 18, 1991 at 7:04
p.m. in room 325 of Fisher Hall by President Julien.
I. Roll call of regulary members
Twenty-nine members and alternates were present at this
meeting. Absent: Peter Tampas, John Daavettila,
Marvin McKimpson, Curtis Tompkins, and William Powers.
II. Recognition of visitors
Sixteen visitors were present: Walter Olson, Kris
Lipman, Patrick Martin, Larry Lankton, Terry Reynolds,
Allen Solomon, Jim Lutzke, Ed Vandette, Sam Marshall,
Lynn Colombe, Scott Doelling, Don Daavettila, Dave
Sikarskie, John Ligon, Richard Brown, and Frank Monasa.
III. Minutes of Special Meeting No. 4
The minutes of special meeting No. 4 were not yet
available.
IV. President's Report
Items were brought up as the need arose in the agenda.
No separate report was given.
V. Vice President't Report
The Governor's representative requested a copy of the
report of the Board of Control Liaison Task Force which
was presented at the Board of Control meeting of
November 30, 1991. This report has been sent.
VI. Committee Reports
A. Elections
1. The results of the vote of confidence were
presented. The report is attached as Appendix A.
The comments have been sent to the individuals
named.
It was moved by Bruce Seely and seconded by Carl
Vilmann to preserve the ballots for one month and
then destroy them. Passed.
2. Gay Pliska-Matyshak reported that the Graduate
Student Council also held a vote of confidence.
The results are available from the Graduate
Student Council representative or Andrew Kline.
***************************************************************
Page 3310
B. Budget Liaison Officer
The Financial Advisory Committee report was read by
James Gale. This report is attached as Appendix B.
A copy of this report will be sent to all faculty
cabinet members.
C. Curricular Policy
No report from the Curricular Policy Committee.
D. Faculty Handbook
No report from the Faculty Handbook Committee.
E. Fringe Benefits
A proposal about an augmented retirement plan was
submitted. The report is attached as Appendix C.
Several aspects of the report were discussed by Les
Leifer. The proposal will be new business for the
Senate meeting on January 15, 1992.
F. Institutional Evaluation
1. Motions were presented to be considered under Old
Business.
2. There was a discussion of the legal aspects of
releasing evaluation comments or summaries of
comments for public viewing. Vernon Watwood had
sent a memo to the Institutional Evaluation
Committee stating that no comments could be
released. The Committee does not have a complete
understanding of the basis for this. The MTU
attorney recommended that comments not be released
because of the need to avoid libel litigation.
The opinion of outside counsel is needed about two
points:
a. Would having the evaluation procedure as part
of a position description affect the legal
aspects of releasing comments?
b. Will MTU protect the members of any evaluation
committee from legal action?
At this point in the meeting, the Old Business item
related to the motions presented by the Committee
were acted upon. Voting was by show of hands.
Motion 1 was made by Madhukar Vable and seconded by
Davis Hubbard.
Moved by Konrad Heuvers and seconded by Robert
Keen to delete the sentence "This includes....and
all faculty." Passed.
The Instructional Policy Committee is assigned the
task of investigating whether or not to publish
the results of instructor evaluations.
The amended motion was passed--19 yes, 5 no. The
text of the amended motion is as follows:
***************************************************************
Page 3311
Motion 1:
The tabulated results of the questionnaire for all
evaluations of administrators will be made public.
In addition the synopsis made by the evaluation
committee of the individual comments and the
result of ballot on reappointment of
administrators will be made public.
The individual comments on the questionnaire for
the administrator will be seen only by the
evaluating committee.
Motion 2(b) was made by Konrad Heuvers and seconded
by Davis Hubbard. The motion was passed--16 yes,
2 no. The text of the motion is as follows:
Motion 2:
(a) The evaluation will be conducted every year.
The synopsis of comments and balloting on
reappointment will be conducted in the final
year of the term unless:
(1) the evaluation committee or the person
above the supervisor recommends it on the
basis of the evaluation results.
(2) the administrator is on yearly appointment
for reasons described later.
(3) the supervisor requests it.
or
(b) The evaluation committee will be formed every
three years to conduct the evaluation and
balloting. The individual supervisors may
conduct their own evaluation by sending out
the questionnaire for purpose of feedback.
Motion 4 was made by Madhukar Vable and seconded by
Davis Hubbard. The motion was passed-- 23 yes, 2
no. The text of the motion is as follows:
Motion 4:
The results of the ballot on reappointment will
be binding if 2/3 of the vote cast is one way and
if the 2/3 vote is greater than or equal to 50%
of the unit voting constituency. This applies to
reappointment and dismissal of the supervisor.
Motion 3 was made by Madhukar Vable and seconded by
Davis Hubbard. The motion was revised by making
some editorial changes. The revised motion was
passed-- 24 yes, 0 no.
***************************************************************
Page 3312
Motion 3:
The person above the supervisor must explain in
writing his/her reasons to the unit if the
supervisor is appointed or dismissed contrary to
a simple majority vote.
Motion 5 was made by Madhukar Vable and seconded by
Davis Hubbard. This motion was revised by making
some editorial changes. The revised motion was
passed--24 yes, 0 no. The text of the revised
motion is as follows:
Motion 5:
If a supervisor is to be reappointed contrary to
a majority vote then:
(1) The term of reappointment will be for one year
renewable for the next two years.
(2) Balloting on reappointment will be conducted
in each of the two years.
(3) The supervisor will be dismissed if he/she is
unable to obtain a simple majority of the vote
cast during one year appointments.
The committee is instructed to clarify the phrase
"simple majority".
The committee report was continued following the
disposition of the motions.
3. The committee is directed to approach Curtis
Tompkins about funding for a legal opinion about
the questions related to releasing comments
obtained during evaluations.
4. The response to the request from Larry Julien for
volunteers to serve on the Institutional
Evaluation Committee was reported. This request
is attached as Appendix D. Ann Marie LaHaie,
Glenn Mroz, and Janice Glime were selected to
serve.
G. Instructional Policy
The student integrity policy is being examined.
H. Board of Control Liaison Task Force
A list of chairpeople and members for all committees
is needed. The chairperson of each committee--
standing or ad hoc--is asked to submit a list of
members to Davis Hubbard.
VIII. Old Business
Not all items listed in the agenda were addressed.
***************************************************************
Page 3313
F. Search committee procedures
The committee presented revised procedures for
selecting members and for screening candidates.
Sections 2.4 and 2.5 were modified.
The first sentence in 2.4 will read--
"The search committee will have fourteen (14)
elected and two (2) appointed members from the
following university constituencies:"
The following sentence will be added to 2.4 after
the list of member constituencies.
"A representative from the council for social
justice will sit on the search committee as a non-
voting member."
The text of the document showing some of these
changes is attached as Appendix E.
It was moved by Bruce Seely and seconded by Michael
Mullins that the alumni and community members be
non-voting. Defeated--6 yes, 16 no.
It was moved by Cynthia Selfe and seconded by Konrad
Heuvers to accept the procedures as amended.
Passed--23 yes, 0 no.
C. Proposal for M.S. degree in Industrial Archaeology
This proposal was introduced at the previous Senate
meeting and was ready to be acted upon.
Moved by Konrad Heuvers and seconded by Davis
Hubbard that the proposal be approved. Passed.
B. Distribution of Senate minutes
The secretary was instructed to begin to use E-mail
to distribute the Senate minutes and other
documents. A public domain file should be
maintained at the Computer Technology Services.
A. Budget for Senate expenses
The secretary was instructed to prepare a budget for
secretarial services, printing and duplicating,
travel, and other administrative expenses.
IX. New Business
It was moved by William Shapton and seconded by Konrad
Heuvers that the Senate report the results of the vote
of confidence and take no specific action related to
the vote. Passed.
***************************************************************
Page 3314
X. Correspondence received
A letter from Allen Solomon related to the letter from
Diana George which was published in the minutes of
Special Meeting No. 4 of 1991 (December 4, 1991). The
letter from Solomon is attached as Appendix F.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:23 p.m.
***************************************************************
Pages
3315 Appendix A Report of the elections committee
3316 Appendix B Budget liaison officer report
3317
3318 Appendix C Fringe benefits committee report
to
3326
3327 Appendix D Memo--Julien to MTU faculty
3328 Appendix E Guidelines for provost search
3330 Appendix F Memo--Solomon to Julien
These pages can be read at the MTU library.
.