******************************************************************
Page 3652 Minutes of Senate Meeting 192 4 Nov 1992
The Senate of Michigan Technological University
Minutes of Meeting No.192
I. Call to Order
President Sharik called the meeting to order at 7:05pm on 4
November 1992 in Room 105, Memorial Union Building.
II. Roll Call of Regular Members
19 Senators or alternates were present. Representatives from
the following units were absent: AF ROTC, Army ROTC, Chemical
Engineering, IWR, Mining Engineering, Graduate Student
Council, Undergraduate Student Council.
Absent Senators-at-large: Thomas Grimm, Davis Hubbard, John
Lukowski, Madhukar Vable.
III. Recognition of Visitors
K. Lipman (Lode), J. Waber (Physics), E. Frederich (Omicron
Delta Kappa), M. Goodrich (Tech Topics), D. Williams
(Counseling Services), K. Farrell-Perrini (Housing), T. Snyder
(Bio Sciences), W. Shapton (E.S.I.), J. Coleman-Plouff (Senate
Secretary Asst.).
IV. Minutes
The minutes of Meeting No. 191 were accepted, corrected, and
approved as corrected.
V. Senate President's Report
A. The increased activity within the University implies a lot
of work for the Senate.
B. Janis Coleman-Plouff was introduced as the new Secretarial
Assistant for the Senate. The Provost is very close to
finding an office space for the Senate and the Secretarial
Assistant.
C. President Tompkins increased the Senate budget from $3,300
to $5,000 for 92-93. The increase will pay for correspondence
and the Secretarial Assistant's salary.
D. State of the University Address: Sharik expressed
appreciation for the opportunity to sponsor the event, and
thanked the Chairs for preparing lists of goals and objectives
for 1992-93. The lists had been compiled and edited, and were
distributed to the Senate (Appendix A of these minutes).
Sharik said and many agreed that the introductions of Senators
by name was cumbersome. J. Waber commented that it would be
better to print names in a program next year.
E. Sharik recommended a policy that every Senator serve on at
least one Senate Committee; opportunities for committee
service will be available.
F. Creation of New Committees: The Senate does not have a
committee to provide input on problems of tenure and
promotion, nor is there a Senate committee participating in
the University's financial planning process. The Senate
should consider establishing such committees.
G. ESI/Ventures: Sharik is a member of the ESI/Ventures Faculty
Review Committee which has produced a final report. The
document was distributed to the Senate as its first official
public release (Appendix B of these minutes). William
Shapton, Vice President of ESI, was invited to give a synopsis
of the final report.
William Shapton addressed the Senate: The final report was
distributed to the MTU Board of Control and Trustees of ESI
earlier in the week. The three major recommendations from the
Faculty Review Committee were:
(1) Orderly divestiture of all assets of ESI/Ventures. (2)
To review whether or not MTU needs an external entity to
support its technology transfer efforts. (3) That, while ESI
continues to operate, its members commit themselves to work
in an open manner with the public and university. The
committee identified two lessons learned from problems of ESI
and Ventures: (a) Accountability is critical in the management
of public entities. (b) All University policies and
initiatives should be formulated only after extensive
opportunity for faculty input and public comment.
Three operating companies are left to be sold: Horner
Flooring, Pelletech, and Erickson Saw Mill. The sale of
Horner should be finalized within 30 days. The situation
involving Pelletech is summarized in a recent issue of the
Lode. ESI is concerned about the responsibility of possible
buyers. Selling to the highest bidder is not the only
consideration in disposing of these properties. The
availability of Erickson Saw Mill has been advertised, and the
property should be sold by January 1, 1993.
Vilmann asked whether there would be income at this point
to pay taxes on Ventures land holdings. Shapton said much of
the land owned by Ventures has been made valuable by the
creation of the National Park, and that ESI hopes to retain
ownership in order to place these holdings in the park.
Further, some of the properties may have some environmental
liability connected with them; ESI does not intend to dissolve
itself and pass the liability on to MTU. Income derives from
the note from the sale of the hotel, and royalties from the
sale of Zimpro. Lands that remain furnish lease income. In
addition, lands currently are being sold; ESI plans to
increase the rate of disposal responsibly, without dumping it
on the market. Artifacts from mining activity are being
conserved. Most of "Ventures" will be gone by June 1993.
Julien commented that several early recommendations by the
Review Committee had been implemented by the ESI board,
including providing of information regularly about
ESI/Ventures activities. Julien commended Shapton for
informing the Faculty Review Committee. Sharik expressed
Senate appreciation for Bruce Seely's work on the Faculty
Review Committee.
H. Banner System: Sharik reported that George Fox, Manager of
Administrative Computing, had volunteered to explain the new
"Banner System" to the Senate at the next meeting. Roblee
suggested that the presentation be scheduled for the public
as a broader forum, rather than the Senate alone. Heuvers
suggested a Tech Tea Time presentation.
I. Sharik reported on the discussion of several topics in his
monthly meeting with President Tompkins.
1. Opportunities for Senate action and activities are
numerous.
******************************************************************
Page 3653 Minutes of Senate Meeting 192 4 Nov 1992
2. Concerning the annuity and life insurance retirement
benefits which were not approved by the Board of Control:
President Tompkins said the Provost's office will furnish
pertinent budgeting and long-range planning information
to the Senate Fringe Benefits Committee. In turn,
President Tompkins would appreciate these proposals being
brought to the Cabinet for discussion there prior to
finalization by the Senate.
3. President Tompkins suggested that other important
proposals be submitted in draft form for consideration
by the Cabinet. (Previous examples of this include the
Senate guidelines for selection of the chief financial
officer and the provost, and the governance policies
considered last year.) This procedure increases the
probability of support from the Board of Control.
4. The involvement of the Senate in long-range planning is
a problem. This was evident during the Cabinet meeting
of 12 October, when Sharik presented Senate Goals and
Objectives for 1992-93, while the Provost presented a
draft of the 1993-94 budget and a 1993-98 Financial Plan.
An institutional timing problem is partly involved.
Senate officers and committee chairs are installed in the
spring, but do not function until fall, which puts them
two months behind in University decisions.
Constitutional revisions should consider timing of
elections.
5. President Tompkins suggests that the Senate take the
lead in the process of considering the proposal for a
four-year program in the School of Technology, and also
in the analysis of balance between undergraduate and
graduate education. Sharik has referred these two
matters to the Curricular Policy Committee.
6. Along with more involvement and responsibility in
University governance comes more time spent in these
activities. There are often negative rewards associated
with time spent in University service. President
Tompkins suggested that the Senate develop some policy
of remuneration for University Service, including
possible release time to departments. Creating an ad hoc
committee on remuneration for involvement in University
activities was suggested. President Tompkins indicated
that if this committee were formed it might want to meet
with Deans and Department Heads to discuss policy in
these matters.
7. Luncheon meetings with President Tompkins were
discussed. If the Senate favors these, Sharik proposes
to set up such meetings on a quarterly basis.
8. Plans on spousal tuition is being discussed by the Staff
Council, and President Tompkins said the Senate Fringe
Benefits Committee might want to contact them on this and
on plans for tuition breaks for children.
9. Similarly, Tompkins suggested that a small Senate ad hoc
committee might want to contact Bob Hauswirth, SDC
manager, regarding the implications of free membership
in the SDC for faculty and other employees.
J. Debbie Lassila, Coordinator of Academic Affairs in the
Provost's Office, contacted Sharik about the Faculty Handbook,
which their office feels badly needs revision in both style
and content. The matter has been referred to Curricular
Policy Committee, because the Handbook Committee is inactive
and without membership.
K. Bill Predebon, Chair of the Provost Search Committee, has
informed Sharik that the three to five finalists for the
position will be on campus in December. That committee would
like the Senate to host an open forum focusing on the academic
concerns of the Senate constituency. Sharik suggests that an
ad hoc committee conduct the forum. Snyder commented that the
Search Committee already has the forum scheduled.
L. Sung Lee, Vice-President for Research, has contacted Sharik
about the formulation of a university policy on scientific
misconduct. This will be important in research funding.
Sharik suggested that the Senate needs a Research Policy
Committee as an analog of the Instructional Policy Committee.
M. University policy on "shared governance": This has created
a dilemma, because such shared responsibility has not carried
with it shared authority. There needs to be a formalization
of this model within the university, so that both
responsibility and authority are shared. The pattern of the
U.S. Constituion for division of power has been suggested,
e.g. veto power. Sharik referred these matters to the
Senate's Institutional Evaluation Committee. Heuvers
commented that this is being considered by the Constitution
and Constituency Committee.
VI. Senate Vice-President's Report
Senate VP Vilmann asked that the members of the Board of
Control Liaison Committee contact him to activate the
committee. Vilmann announced that Omicron Delta Kappa, a
student leadership-&-scholarship fraternity, is sponsoring a
forum on effective teaching. He introduced Elaine Frederich,
ODK member, who described the forum to be held 9 Dec, and
asked for Senate endorsement of the letter of invitation to
the forum.
Grzelak moved that the Senate endorse the concept of the
ODK teaching forum; motion seconded by Jambekar and Heuvers;
passed unanimously. Fynewever suggested that the forum be
videotaped and kept on file at the Center for Teaching
Excellence.
VII. Committee Reports
A. Election Committee: Chair Heyman distributed a list
(Appendix C of these minutes) of nominees of faculty members,
for the Presidential Commission on Diversity. The nominations
for cabinet alternates and for the vacant at-large Senate seat
have been solicited and closed. Balloting will begin soon.
The Senate has been mandated to appoint the members of the
Commission on Diversity, one faculty member for each college
and school. Because only one nomination had been received for
each unit, Heyman moved that the Senate appoint the nominees
by acclamation. Julien seconded the motion; it passed without
opposition.
Heyman thanked the Senators for their work in
communicating election information to their constituents.
Heuvers asked about the timing of elections for Cabinet
alternates and the at-large Senator. Heyman said the ballots
would be distributed in a few days.
B. Budget Liaison Officer: A. Jambekar reported that the search
for a Chief Financial Officer is continuing on schedule.
Julien inquired whether it would be appropriate for the
Senate to ask Ron Blevins, the current financial officer, to
give a report to the Senate, regarding the status of accounts
and the cash-flow problem. Jambekar agreed to invite Blevins.
C. Curricular Policy Committee: Chair T. Bornhorst reported
that the committee has unanimously approved a Certificate
******************************************************************
Page 3654 Minutes of Senate Meeting 192 4 Nov 1992
in Municipal Management, which will be submitted to the Senate
for approval at the next meeting.
Bornhorst referred to Sharik's list of goals (Appendix A).
The committee has considered an honors program, and has
temporarily tabled the issue until student input has been
obtained. Bornhorst will address the student governing body,
requesting student input on an honors program.
The committee has not yet received the official paperwork
on the proposal for a four-year program in the School of
Technology. President Tompkins has not only suggested that
the committee take the lead in considering this proposal, but
has offered funding to support advice and study of the
proposal by experts outside of the university. Informal
polling indicates that the committee will want authorization
to perform its study deliberately, with "experts" of its own
selection. Involvement of the whole university community,
including alumni, is important.
Bornhorst expressed concern about whether or not
recommendations of the committee would be followed by the
upper administration, considering the effort of such a program
review. Heuvers commented that committee reports approved by
the Senate go to the President for appropriate action and
consideration by the Board of Control. Carstens commented
that all committees on campus serve only in an advisory
capacity. Sharik commented that this emphasizes the need for
a policy on shared governance. Julien commented that the
Cabinet is only a sounding board and information dissemination
point, and that even the old Academic Council only served in
an advisory capacity.
Bornhorst said that the two issues, balance between
undergraduate and graduate education, and revision of the
Faculty Handbook, are important and should be considered by
a separate committee rather than by the Curricular Policy
Committee.
D. Fringe Benefits Committee: No report was given in the
absence of Chair L. Leifer.
E. Institutional Evaluation Committeee: Chair D. Hubbard was
absent. Keeble reported that the committee had met and had
written a draft proposal on departmental governance, which was
distributed to the Senate (Appendix D of these minutes). No
model charter was attached to the draft proposal.
F. Instructional Policy Committee: Chair C. Heuvers had no
report.
G. Constitution & Constituency Committee: Chair C. Heuvers
referred to the report of the committee (Appendix E of these
minutes), and summarized the committee's work on the
constituency.
Pilling suggested that the Senate should also now consider
New Business Item F, "Petition for Referendum", because the
proposed referendum affects discussion of constitutional
revisions. The suggestion was discussed. Heuvers completed
his summary of the committee's work, including its proposal
for a Research Policy Committee. Heuvers also read a letter
from the Graduate Student Council, indicating that the
Graduate Student Council wished to resign from the Senate.
Grzelak asked about the two lists of constituents; Heuvers
replied the two lists are a product of the current voting
procedures, and will be combined under the proposed revisions
of the constitution. Julien indicated that the Senate can
define its own constituency; the constitution only requires
a representative of each academic and research department,
along with the university President and Provost.
Keen noted that under the current Senate constituion, the
Graduate Student Council is also required to elect a
representative, and that it cannot simply resign its
membership. Fynewever noted that counseling and advising
personnel would be included because of their contacts with
students; Heuvers replied that this would have to be
considered by the constituency appeal board. Fynewever
replied that the committee had explicitly included counselors,
and Heuvers replied that the item was not settled.
In summary, Heuvers indicated that the committee was now
asking for Senate advice: should they proceed through the
usual Senate proposal route, or should the committee prepare
a referendum for the constituency. J. Waber asked whether the
constituency list was tentative or final; Heuvers indicated
the list was tentative. Vilmann reiterated the request for
advice before proceeding. Waber questioned the status of
coaches in the constituency. Fynewever replied that all
coaches are teachers; Vilmann indicated coaches would be part
of the proposed definition of faculty. Heuvers indicated that
there may be problems with Research Assistants, some of whom
may have contact with students. A. Hein indicated that
changes in titles may obviate the difficulty.
Bulleit indicated that the problems of constituency need
to be discussed relative to the proposed referendum in New
Business Item F. Pilling moved that the Senate alter the
agenda and consider the item immediately. Jambekar seconded
the motion, which was approved.
Keen explained that the item was placed on the agenda by
a presentation to him of 80+ faculty signatures on a ballot
initiative proposition. The proposition asks that the
proposal be submitted to faculty as defined in the
proposition. Bornhorst indicated that the Senate rules for
a referendum call for a submission to the entire Senate
constituency. Keen replied that the faculty governance
referendum in the Spring of 1992 was submitted only to the
faculty. Heuvers noted that the Senate does have a faculty
constituent list, and that this referendum should be sent to
that list, not the narrower list defined by the referendum.
Sharik called for a supporter of the referendum to address
the Senate. T. Snyder referred to the document (Appendix F
of these minutes), and called for the Senate to conduct the
referendum. Bulleit asked why librarians and research faculty
were not included in the proposal. Snyder indicated that
these persons have different job descriptions than academic
faculty; in addition the call is for a constitution committee,
which may include librarians and persons in physical education
that have academic appointments. Roblee indicated that he had
never seen the initiative before. Snyder said that the
initiative had not gone to every department because of time
constraints. Roblee suggested that the supporters of the
referendum should work with the current Constitution and
Constituency Committee. Julien commented that a Constitution
Committee already exists, and questioned the need for another.
Snyder replied that the new committee would be composed only
of academic faculty. Pilling said many faculty feel that the
current Constitution committee is not representative of the
faculty, and this proposal would provide an opportunity to
establish a true faculty senate. Sharik expressed puzzlement
on the need for another committee, because the Senate
committees are open to any persons wanting to become involved.
George indicated the proposals were clearly distinct. Hein
wondered whether a senate of academic faculty only could view
research and research faculty objectively. Heyman wondered
about the restriction of the referendum to academic faculty
only; the referendum would exclude even individuals on the
Senate's faculty list. He also wondered about the value of
excluding persons who would be affected by the outcome of the
vote. Pilling commented
******************************************************************
Page 3655 Minutes of Senate Meeting 192 4 Nov 1992
that the Senate is now obligated to conduct the referendum
with the entire constituency. Roblee said that he would not
like to be represented by an academic senate as defined by the
referendum proposition. Snyder commented that the university
is moving to a different style of internal governance with a
strong provost and also with "shared governance". Provost
candidates have indicated they would like to work with a
faculty senate whose constituency is clear; the current
Senate's constituency and concerns are diffuse. J. Waber said
that conversations with President Tompkins showed the
president favored a faculty senate that likely would not
include research faculty. W. Shapton commented that academic
faculty have to balance teaching and research
responsibilities, and that research faculty view the
university differently. Vilmann said that a diversity of
opinion was needed to make informed decisions. George
commented that a separation is very serious, that a small body
is not as strong as a large body. Snyder replied that the
academic faculty's concerns are lost in a large senate. Waber
said that university administrations try to dilute strong
faculty senates with addition of other constituencies. Roblee
commented that the strength of a body depends on its activity.
Julien noted that the current Senate has been representative.
Bulleit said that the present issue is who is to vote on
the referendum. Snyder indicated that the precedent set by
last spring's referendum indicated that the Senate could
restrict the eligible voters for referenda. Bornhorst
indicated that the Senate has to decide who is affected by the
results of the referendum, and who must be eligible to vote.
Heyman moved: The Senate shall conduct a referendum based
on the ballot initiative proposition. Wording of the
referendum ballot is to be based on the ballot initiative
proposition: "The faculty of Michigan Technological
University shall form...". The ballot shall be yes or no, and
placed before the entire Senate constituency.
The motion was seconded by Grzelak and Bornhorst. Bulleit
asked about the composition of the list of the constituency.
Heyman replied that there is a list used for electing
senators-at-large, and said that he put forward the motion to
clarify discussion on the constituency, because it is clear
that the Senate must conduct the referendum. Keen asked for
a clarification of the constituency list Heyman was proposing
to use; Heyman replied that he intended the full list be used.
Discussion involved the wording of some of the items on
the ballot. Heyman accepted a friendly amendment to note that
the library was not an academic department. Heyman emphasized
that the import of his motion is the submission of the
referendum to the entire constituency. The motion as amended
was passed by voice vote.
Vilmann suggested that the Senate provide some
accompanying informational material about the proposition.
General discussion focused on the appropriate format for this.
Heyman suggested that the referendum not be rushed, and that
time be allowed for discussion of the proposition. Snyder
indicated that the referendum should be conducted within a
week to 10 days.
Heuvers moved that the documents produced by the
Constitution and Constituency Committee be submitted to the
constituency as a referendum for general approval of the
direction the Constitution Committee was proceeding - yes or
no. Fynewever seconded the motion. Bulleit pointed out that
the documents were not in the form of a referendum. Roblee
suggested new wording. Sharik commented that the documents
were being forced into a role they were not intended to play,
that they were draft documents. Further discussion centered
on which administrators might be excluded from the vote on the
proposed referendum. The motion was defeated in a voice vote.
George moved: That a single page of pros and cons about
the referendum, be submitted along with the referendum, the
page to be written by Moore and George. The motion was
seconded. Pilling proposed a friendly amendment (accepted),
that additional information "pro" be composed by T. Snyder,
that information "con" be written by Heuvers, and that a
general information sheet be written by Moore and George.
Timing of the writing and the balloting was discussed. Roblee
said he expected all future Senate referenda to be accompanied
by such information sheets. The motion carried without
opposition. Further discussion involved the timing of the
referendum.
VIII. Reports of Affiliated and Ad Hoc Committees
A. President's Cabinet: Sharik reported that the cabinet had
met, and that minutes have been widely distributed. The
university is paying attention to the Act on Americans with
Disability. This underscores the need for more Senate
involvement with the planning process.
B. Board of Control Liaison Task Force: Chair Vilmann had no
report.
IX. Old Business
A. The faculty benefits proposal for spousal tuition was
discussed in President Sharik's report.
B. Salary structure policy: Sharik has asked other universities
to send information about the way they structure salaries.
X. New Business
A. Role of the Senate in unionization effort: Sharik has
received memos of strongly supporting the idea that the Senate
should be involved in educating the constituency about
unionization. Some ideas include sponsoring debates between
persons for and against unionization, and between competing
unions. Julien indicated the Senate has a responsibility to
sponsor some informative debates. Discussion indicated a lack
of information about the "con" side of the union. Carstens
indicated that there should be no problem with Senate
sponsorship of debates.
Julien moved: That the Senate sponsor debates or forums
about unionization, and that they be timely with respect to
election dates. Carstens seconded. The motion passed without
opposition. Sharik called for persons to organize the debates
or forums. Julien volunteered to convene a debate committee,
Bulleit and Jambekar volunteered to serve.
B. Meeting of Senate with Deans and Chairs/Heads: Sharik asked
if the Senate favored such a meeting, based on President
Tompkins concern about remuneration or release for persons
heavily involved in "shared governance". The idea of the
meeting was not supported.
C. Committee Status for Board of Control Liaison Task Force:
Vilmann expressed surprise at the agenda item. After brief
discussion, no motion was offered to change the status of the
Task Force.
D. Formation of a Research Policy Committee: Heuvers referred
to the memo of the Constitution and Constituency
******************************************************************
Page 3656 Minutes of Senate Meeting 192 4 Nov 1992
Committee (Appendix G of these minutes). He noted that
important research decisions had been made without Senate
input, such as the patent agreement all personnel were
required to sign as a condition of their employment. Vilmann
moved that the Senate establish a Research Policy Committee.
Heuvers seconded the motion. Pilling supported the formation
of such a committee. Sharik noted that it would be
appropriate for this committee to consider the scientific
misconduct policy asked for by Vice-President Lee.
The motion was approved by voice vote. Pilling
volunteered to convene the committee. Heuvers indicated that
McKimpson would serve on the committee. Waber and Keeble also
volunteered to serve.
E. Proposed Revision of Bylaws: Heuvers refered to the
distributed memo titled "Proposed Bylaws Revision" (Appendix
H of these minutes). Heuvers moved that the proposed revision
be adopted, with the insertion of "chair" as noted. Roblee
seconded the motion. Pilling moved that the motion be tabled
until results of the referendum are known. Heyman seconded
the motion to table. Motion to table was defeated by show of
hands. The motion to amend the bylaws passed.
XI. Announcements
Sharik announced that the Senate should move rapidly on the
numerous items demanding action, including the filling of
committees newly created. Shapton announced that the sale of
Pelletech and the Erickson Saw Mill were likely to be positive
financial transactions for ESI.
XII. Adjournment
A motion to adjourn was seconded and unanimously approved.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 pm.
Submitted by Robert Keen
Senate Secretary
.