******************************************************************
Page 3677 Minutes of Senate Meeting 193 9 Dec 1992
The Senate of Michigan Technological University
Minutes of Meeting No.193
I. Call to Order
President Sharik called the meeting to order at 6:06 pm on
Wednesday, 9 December 1992, in Ballroom B of the Memorial
Union Building.
II. Roll Call of Regular Members
22 Senators or alternates were present. Representatives from
the following units were absent: AF ROTC, Army ROTC, IWR,
KRC, Metallurgical & Materials Engineering, Physical
Education, Graduate Student Council. Absent Senator-at-large:
Roblee.
III. Recognition of Visitors
K. Lipman (MTU Lode), P. Joyce (Business Administration),
Janis Coleman-Plouff (Senate Secretary Asst.).
IV. Minutes
The minutes of Meeting No. 192 were accepted, corrected, and
approved as corrected.
V. Senate President's Report
A. Senate Constituency: A petition for a referendum for a
Faculty Senate was introduced at the previous Senate meeting
and was amended by the Senate. On 5 November 1992 the
petition was withdrawn by the petitioners in a phone call to
Sharik from T. Snyder (Biological Sciences). At the Cabinet
meeting of 1 December 1992, President Tompkins stated that he
intended to refer to the Senate all petitions to amend the
Senate Constituency. (This statement was quoted in the 4
December issue of Tech Topics.) President Tompkins also
stated that it was his intent that any constituencies excluded
from a reconstituted Senate would be represented in university
affairs in some alternative way. Sharik stated that his own
remarks concerning constituency quoted in the same Tech Topics
were not meant to trivialize the issue.
B. Shared Governance: In a meeting of Senators with the Michigan
Tech Board of Control on 20 November 1992, Board members
expressed concern over a lack of clarity in the decision-
making processes of the University. The processes involve
the Senate, the Cabinet, the central administration, and the
Board of Control. The Board suggested that the Senate
explicitly formulate the processes, and put them in
diagrammatic or flow-chart form.
Bornhorst displayed a current flow-chart for academic
programs used by the Provost's Office. Vilmann explained
that the Board does not want to deal with multiple and perhaps
conflicting proposals from various groups within the
University; they prefer that proposals come to them after some
consensus has been reached in some university-wide forum.
Vilmann stated that President Tompkins had then stated that
the Cabinet was now that forum. Julien said that past
procedure has been for the University President to forward
Senate proposals to the Board with his approval, but that
President Tompkins has not wanted to use that procedure.
Thus, the Board wants to know what are the current lines for
decisions about proposals from the university community.
Heuvers asked what committee should handle the preparation of
such a flow-chart. Sharik said that this along with other
matters of shared governance should be handled by the
Institutional Evaluation Committee and the Constitution &
Constituency Committee. Whitt asked where a proposal about
lines of decision would go. Sharik thought it first would go
to the President, then the Cabinet, then back to the Senate
for revisions, and then to the President and Cabinet for final
approval before going to the Board. Leifer asked what was
wrong with the previous procedure, with proposals from the
Senate going to the President, to be forwarded to the Board
if the President approved them. He inquired about the
specific role of the Cabinet? Sharik and Julien said that
President Tompkins does not forward proposals to the Board
without Cabinet discussion and approval. Whitt questioned
whether the Cabinet needs to be in the flow charts, because
the President's prerogative is to consult with whom he will.
Leifer asked whether Senate-proposed decision-making
procedures would be reviewed by the Cabinet, even if the
Cabinet might be excluded from the procedures. Julien replied
that the proposals would be certainly be reviewed by the
Cabinet. Sharik commented that the Board may insist that the
Cabinet be included on the flow charts. Vable questioned
whether the Cabinet was a recognized body like the Senate.
Sharik replied that it was not. Boutilier said that Sharik's
previous comments implied that it was certainly functioning
as one, and that its current role was demeaning to the Senate.
Sharik ended the discussion, saying that the Board wanted the
procedures formalized and that the Senate was responsible for
the task.
C. Office Space: Sharik reported no office space has been found
for the Senate Secretarial Office. President Tompkins had
suggested to Sharik that the Senate assist in the process of
finding an office. Sharik reported the Library is not
available, and asked that suggestions to be brought forward
to him.
D. In-House Committees: There is a need to form a
Financial Planning & Policy Committee because the
University Financial Advisory Committee is defunct,
leaving no avenue for Senate involvement in financial
decisions. The Senate Financial Liaison Officer is thus
liaison to a non-existent body. President Tompkins wants
the university's new Chief Financial Officer and Provost
to meet with the Senate Financial Committee.
Numerous concerns about tenure and promotion policies have
been communicated to the Senate President; lack of a committee
has prohibited the Senate from working in this area.
President Tompkins has indicated that the Senate should come
forward to address these problems. Bulleit said that the
current University Tenure Committee is reviewing procedures,
and its proposals must pass through the Senate.
E. Sharik said that there needs to be an increase in
participation in committees, with committees open to the
constituency generally. For example there is a need for an
ad hoc committee to deal with the problems of remuneration for
University service.
******************************************************************
Page 3678 Minutes of Senate Meeting 193 9 Dec 1992
F. Concerning the Senate Research Policy Committee: Sharik
reported that there now exists a University Scientific
Misconduct Committee. The Senate Research Policy Committee
should interact with this committee in some fashion.
G. Concerning hiring of minorities: Sharik reported that there
is an evident University priority for hiring minorities, but
the processes for such hiring are not well developed.
Positions are available for qualified minority faculty in an
unclear way. For example, it appears that an individual
faculty member could submit a candidate's name, and the
candidate could be hired without the departmental faculty ever
approving the hiring. Positions appear to be available on a
first come - first served basis. Sharik asked whether the
Senate should be involved, perhaps through the Institutional
Evaluation Committee. Vilmann commented that there doesn't
seem to be enough interest in the problem to warrant committee
action. Grzelak commented that if minority hiring is being
conducted in this way, it is a violation of University
guidelines. Sharik suggested the problem be referred to New
Business.
H. Sharik asked whether the Senate should be represented on the
University Executive Council, which consists of the academic
deans, and directors of all units. Julien commented that the
Senate at some former time was represented on a similar body,
but that the senators asked embarrassing questions, so the
group was reformed in its current state, without Senate
representation. The consensus of the Senate was that the
Senate should have representation on this council; Sharik
indicated that he would take the matter up with President
Tompkins.
VI. Vice-Presidents Report
Vilmann reported that the Board of Control voted to arm the
MTU Public Safety division.
VII. Committee Reports
A. Budget Liaison Officer: Jambekar reported that there is no
body to which he may serve as liaison.
B. Curricular Policy Committee: Chair Bornhorst reported on
three items: (1) As directed, Bornhorst met with the
Undergraduate Student Government and discussed the Honors
Program with these students. The next issue of the Lode will
carry an article about the Honors Program. (2) The committee
has officially received the proposal for a B.S. in Engineering
Technology. The proposal has been distributed to committee
members. (3) The Committee recommends that the Senate pass
the proposed certificate in Municipal Management (Appendix A
of these minutes). Bornhorst moved that the Senate approve
the proposed Certificate; Julien seconded the motion. Whitt
recommended that there be some additions and deletions to the
listed courses in Humanities. The motion for approval was
unanimously passed by voice vote.
B. Elections Committee: Chair Heyman reported that the
following results of recent elections: Phyllis Boutilier
(Senator-at-Large, term expiring 1994), Susan Bagley (Faculty
Alternate to the President's Cabinet, term expiring 8/95),
Davis Hubbard (Faculty Alternate to the President's Cabinet,
term expiring 8/94), and Jesse Tatum (Faculty Alternate to the
President's Cabinet, term expiring 8/93).
D. Fringe Benefits Committee: Chair Leifer submitted to the
Senate a proposal for a sick leave pool (Appendix B of these
minutes). He summarized the proposal and recommended that the
proposal be examined and discussed within the departments.
He suggested that the Senate consider the proposal at it
January meeting. Discussion of the proposal concerned the
possibility of the pool's exhaustion, and the permanent loss
of sick leave donated to the pool. Sharik suggested having
an open meeting to discuss the various questions connected
with this issue. A show of hands favored having an open
meeting.
Leifer informed the Senate of an error in the 20 percent
co-payment of retirement health benefits; it should be 15
percent. Leifer also informed the Senate that since 1 October
1992, the University's contribution to the Michigan State
Retirement Fund has been 12.03%, but only 10.55% to TIAA-CREF;
this inequity needs to be addressed.
E. Institutional Evaluation Committee: Chair Hubbard indicated
there was no report.
F. Instructional Policy Committee: Chair Heuvers distributed
a joint report of the Committee and the Center for Teaching
Excellence (Appendix C of these minutes). He also distributed
a proposal for the Establishment of a Teaching Excellence
Honor Roll (Appendix D of these minutes); the distributed
proposal included slight modifications of the proposal
distributed with the agenda. Heuvers summarized the Teaching
Excellence proposal, and moved that the Senate approve the
proposal. There were several seconds to the motion. Vilmann
said that there is a committee on campus currently revamping
teacher recognition. He also said that some of his
constituents felt that this proposal would infringe on the
confidentiality of their teaching evaluations, and that there
is a general feeling that grades impact heavily on teaching
evaluations, and that the result of such an award would be
further grade inflation. Other comments were: that the
proposal was relying too heavily on a single number from the
current evaluation process; that this reward process would
discourage methods of teaching that challenge students; that
teachers would pander to the students to obtain the proposed
awards. Bulleit commented that the proposal is not ideal, but
the University needs to start rewarding teaching and this
provides a starting point. Bornhorst commented that the
current methods of rewarding teaching are biased also. Julien
said that published analyses of teaching evaluation have
indicated that students were the best judges of a teacher's
quality. Keeble questioned the sources of these analyses.
Heuvers commented that the 4.5 value was a reliable indicator
of excellence. Vable said that students are good judges of
which teacher is doing a good job. Vilmann noted that lower
course levels are associated with lower evaluations. Heuvers
said that students are tired of filling out evaluations and
not seeing results. Bornhorst noted that major Universities
publish all evaluations. In a show-of-hands vote, the
proposal passed 13-9.
G. Research Policy Committee: No report.
VIII. Reports of Affiliated and Ad Hoc Committees
A. President's Cabinet: Sharik reported the main issue of
direct relevancy to the Senate that had been discussed in the
Cabinet dealt with the Senate Constituency.
******************************************************************
Page 3679 Minutes of Senate Meeting 193 9 Dec 1992
B. Board of Control Liaison Task Force: Vilmann reported that
the meeting with the Board of Control on 20 November went
well. The Board of Control now has a better understanding of
what is happening in the University, and chances of
misunderstanding seem less. The Committee is also working to
inform the Board of faculty activities directly, rather than
having information conveyed to the Board through
administrators.
C. Ad Hoc Committee for Discussion of Unionization: Julien
reported that before meetings or forums can be scheduled, a
date needs to be set for the union election.
D. Ad Hoc Committee on Provost Search Forums: Sharik reported
that the first forum went well. Sharik thanked the panel
members who are participating in the forum: Brad
Baltensperger, Bill Bulleit, Marilyn Cooper, and Linda Ott.
IX. Old Business
No old business was brought to the floor.
X. New Business
From the Agenda:
A. Addition of the title "Research Professor" to the Senate
constituency: K. Heuvers indicated that the position is
occupied by a single person, whose position title was changed
at age 65. Heuvers moved that persons with the title
"Research Professor" be added to the Senate constituency. The
motion was seconded, and passed unanimously by voice vote.
B. Senate appointments to University Committee on Academic
Tenure: Sharik indicated that the subject was placed on the
agenda as a result of a request from M. Cooper, coordinator
of the Academic Women's Caucus. Sharik read the following
statement from Cooper, dated 1 December 1992: "As you may
know, we are concerned that the University Committee on
Academic Tenure this year has no women members. Since this
committee not only rules on procedural matters concerning
tenure, but also adjudicates formal complaints of sexual
discrimination and harassment concerning tenured faculty
members, it is especially important this its make up be as
fully representative of faculty members as possible. We would
like to ask that the Senate reconsider its nomination of Sam
Marshall to the Committee, and nominate a woman to the
Committee in his place. Let us be clear that we are not
assuming that Sam Marshall or any of the other committee
members would intentionally discriminate against women in
their deliberations. We simply want to assure that women
faculty perspectives and experiences, which do differ from
those of men faculty, are represented on the committee."
Sharik reviewed the case background, saying the
appointment of Marshall as a replacement for MacLennan was
based on Marshall's receiving the second highest number of
votes in the recent election to the committee. Sharik said
he had asked Marshall if he would resign in order to allow the
appointment of a woman to the committee; Marshall had
indicated his willingness to do this. Sharik had asked
MacLennan if she wanted to return to the committee; she had
replied that she could not serve on the committee.
Julien said that the request for replacement also ought
to be directed to the administration, which is responsible for
appointing two of the five committee members. Heuvers pointed
out that the missing member had been one of the committee that
was appointed by the Senate. Boutilier said she had a request
by a woman faculty member not to remove Marshall from the
committee. Julien reiterated his suggestion that the
administration, rather than the Senate, should be asked to
select a woman as one of their appointees to the committee,
considering his experiences with the administration
appointees. Whitt asked whether this was passing the buck,
and said that the spirit of the letter was that a woman ought
to be on the committee, but that the fairness of current
members of the committee was not in any way impugned. Bulleit
volunteered to resign his own current position on the
committee, but said that the recent Senate appointee was the
logical point to suggest replacement with a woman. Further
discussion concerned procedures for restructuring the
committee, the representation of other minorities on the
committee, and whether there was a motion on the floor.
XI. Recess and Adjournment
At this point in the discussion, a motion was made and
seconded to recess the meeting to permit the presentation of
the Senate Forum for a Provost Candidate. The motion passed
without opposition. President Sharik declared the meeting
recessed at 8 pm.
The meeting was not reconvened at the close of the Forum
because of the lack of a quorum. At 10:10 pm, President
Sharik declared the meeting adjourned.
Submitted by Robert Keen
Senate Secretary
.