********************************************************************
Page 3621
The Senate
Michigan Technological University
Minutes of Special Meeting No. 6 of 1992
Special Meeting No. 6 of 1992 of the Michigan Technological
University Senate was called to order by Senate President Julien at
5:00 pm on Tuesday May 19, 1992 in Room 105 of the Memorial Union
Building.
I. Roll Call
16 Senators or alternates were present.
Absent: J. Daavetila, J. Pilling, T. Shipley, R. Freisinger,
D. Poplawski, W. Shapton, T. Bornhorst, J.
Fynewever, J. Lukowski, P. Laks, J. Ellis, K.
Heuvers, C. Selfe
II. Visitors
J. Ahola
III. Minutes
No minutes from previous meetings were ready for approval.
IV. President's Report
A. As directed by the Senate at the meeting of May 6, 1992,
the Institutional Evaluation committee has distributed
an analysis of the results of the referendum on Proposals
2-92, 3-92, 4-92, 5-92, 6-92, 7-92, 8-92, and 9-92. A
copy of this analysis is attached as Appendix A.
There was a discussion about the results of the
referendum focussing on the following questions.
1) Should there be a recount of the referendum ballots
to eliminate those people who were gone from the
campus?
2) Should the list of those eligible to vote in
referendum be revised?
3) What should be the procedure for voting in
referenda?
Two written comments were received.
D. Poplawski: Do not do a recount.
D. Hubbard: Honor the procedures set before the election,
and do not do a recount. The list could be
adjusted for future referenda, but all people
on the present list should be consulted. There
are 46 people on the list who are not involved
in classroom instruction in any obvious way.
They might be deleted from a list of eligible
voters if they were represented by some other
body.
There were no other comments about a recount.
********************************************************************
Page 3622
The consensus is that a recount should not be done. The
governance issues will be addressed again in the Fall.
There were other comments about different aspects of the
referendum question and why the results turned out as they
did.
T. Grezlak: Supports revising the voting roll.
C. Walck: She polled faculty and found a number of people
were indifferent to the referendum. She believes
the structure of the voting should be changed.
B. Seely: Supports revising the voting roll.
P. Tampas: People may not have understood the point about
requiring a majority of constituents rather than
a majority of votes cast.
M. Vable: Perhaps each unit should define its own voting
membership.
R. Keen: The method proposed by M. Vable for establishing
voting rolls could give too much power to senators
and is undesirable.
The Committee on Constitution and Constituency is charged
with developing a proposal about referenda. They are to
deal with two questions.
1) Who is on the voting roll (or constituency)?
2) What should be the rule for a question being passed
or accepted?
B. President Julien announced that Senate meetings next
year would be held in room 105 of the Memorial Union
rather than in the Ballroom.
C. J. Ahola gave a report about the Public Safety
Department and about public safety officers carrying
weapons (side arms). He made several points.
1) Public Safety Department wants to limit liability.
If an attack should occur at MTU, we should be able
to prove that we have done everything possible--
including having sidearms available-- to prevent
the attack.
2) Public Safety officers are concerned about their
personal safety. If they are injured in the line of
duty, they will sue if they are not authorized to
carry side arms.
3) Public Safety Department should meet the standards
of Federal and State law enforcement organizations.
This includes carrying side arms and receiving
proper training in using and protecting the weapon.
The discussion addressed the need for side arms.
Senators questioned the need.
1) There have been no incidents of legal action being
brought against universities in the Upper Peninsula.
********************************************************************
Page 3623
2) There have been a few incidents at MTU when a back-
up unit from the Houghton Police Department has been
needed.
3) MTU public safety officers are familiar with the
campus and the students. Local police officers may
not be.
Moved by P. Tampas and seconded by C. Vilmann:
If armed officers are needed, they should be MTU public
safety officers.
Passed: 14 yes; 2 no
D. The question of summer meetings was discussed. The
consensus was that there should be no meetings unless
absolutely necessary.
V. Vice-President's Report
No report
VI. Committee Reports
A. Elections
Memos from P. Tampas giving the results of elections
held recently are attached as Appendix B.
B. Institutional Evaluation
The evaluation of supervisors is proceeding.
Some forms are still being received.
The compilation should begin next week.
C. Board of Control Liaison Task Force
A memo from this group is attached as Appendix C.
There was no other business to be transacted at this meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 6:16 pm.
********************************************************************
Pages
3624 Appendix A Institutional evaluation committee report
3625
3626 Appendix B Elections committee report
3627
3628 Appendix C Board of Control liaison committee report
3629
3630
These pages are available to be read at the MTU Library.
.