******************************************************************
Page 3694 Minutes of Senate Meeting 194 13 Jan 1993
The Senate of Michigan Technological University
Minutes of Meeting No. 194
I. Call to Order
At 7:10 pm on Wednesday, 13 January 1993, President Sharik
called the meeting to order in Room 105, Memorial Union
Building.
II. Roll Call of Regular Members
26 Senators or alternates were present. Representatives from
the following units were absent: AF ROTC, Computer Science,
IWR, KRC, Graduate Student Council. Absent Senator-at-large:
Vable.
III. Recognition of Visitors
J. Coleman-Plouff (Senate Secretary Asst.), J. Glime
(Biological Sciences), M. Goodrich (MTU Tech Topics), K.
Lipman (MTU Lode), V. Dorweiler (School of Business), C. Selfe
(Humanities), J. Waber (Physics).
IV. Minutes
The minutes of Meeting No. 193 were accepted, corrected, and
approved as corrected.
V. Senate President's Report
A. Senate Office: Sharik reported that two possible spaces have
been identified and in the near future the Senate will have
an office.
B. Senate Constituency: Sharik reported on the Open Forum
concerning the Senate Constituency held on 6 January 1993.
Only 16 people attended, including 8 Senators and 1 Alternate
Senator. Sharik said that as many Senators as possible should
attend open forums, so they can hear the opinion of
constituents. Otherwise it sends out a negative message of
not being concerned. There were significant contributions to
the overall discussion at the forum, including the proposal
of a third alternative for an inclusive body that would have
almost everyone in the university as a constituent, with an
academic faculty senate nested within such a senate.
Sharik remarked that problems of constituency will not be
solved until the Senate defines its authority and
responsibilities; shared governance is closely intertwined
with the issue of constituency. If the Senate should decide
that it wishes to deal primarily with academic matters then
it should be a faculty senate, but if the Senate is to deal
with broader issues the constituency should be broader.
Currently the Senate does deal with broad issues impacting the
whole university, such as fringe benefits. The Senate must
deal with the issues of constituency, responsibility and
authority, and bring the results forward to the administration
and the Board of Control.
C. Service: Sharik reported that he has discussed the issue of
formal recognition for University service with the President.
Formal recognition might be handled by release time, salary
structure, and awards for service. Sharik stated that the
Senate should push the service recognition policy along with
other changes being made in the Senate structure.
D. Shared Governance: The Board of Control has directed the
Senate to develop a system for shared governance for the
entire University. This is interconnected with the problems
of authority and responsibility. The Senate has an
opportunity for making great progress in this area, if it can
develop a plan to take to the President and Cabinet for
forwarding to the Board of Control.
VI. Vice-President's Report
No report of activity.
VII. Committee Reports
A. Curricular Policy Committee: Chair Bornhorst reported on two
items. (1) The committee has discussed the matter of honors
programs, and has decided that it is inappropriate for the
committee to originate a proposal. It is the committee's
place to review proposals brought to them. The committee
recognizes the importance of student input on any honors
proposal and will consider it in their decision. (2) The
committee has received and begun to discuss the proposal for
a four-year Bachelor's program in the School of Technology.
B. Constitution & Constituency Committee: Chair Heuvers
distributed a 16-page committee report (Appendix A of these
minutes), dated 1/13/93. He also referred to the 11-page
variously dated committee reports (Appendix B of these
minutes) distributed with the agenda .
The initial item involved definitions of academic faculty.
Various definitions were used during the recent Open Forum.
The definition in the Faculty Handbook is based on a
definition from the Board of Control. Heuvers read the
definitions from Appendix A, p.2. The committee produced a
functional definition of "academic faculty", based on listings
in the Senate Faculty List that is used for faculty-only
voting, and is maintained by the University's Human Resources
Office. Heuvers read the functional definition from Appendix
A. He noted that the current exclusion of the Dean of
Forestry, Dean of Business, and Director of the School of
Technology is an artifact of the computer maintenance of the
lists, and these three individuals should be on the Senate
Faculty List. Heuvers continued reading the committee's
recommendation for the proper format and maintenance of the
listing, and noted the required revisions of the committee
proposals 2-93 and 3-93 (Appendix A, p.3; Appendix B, p.11).
Heuvers began to read the report (Appendix A, p.1)
prepared by the committee during its meeting of 12 January
1993. The discussion of the vague pronoun "its" of paragraph
1 is based on the Senate constitution; the relevant passage
is copied on p.3 of Appendix B. Heuvers asked the Senate to
define and vote on the antecedent of the pronoun. Sharik
commented that this issue should wait until New Business.
Heuvers continued with his reading of the report, noting in
connection with paragraph 3 that the Human Resources Office
has a "constituency list" which does not appear relevant
******************************************************************
Page 3695 Minutes of Senate Meeting 194 13 Jan 1993
to any Senate function. Heyman suggested it was a mailing
list. Heuvers said that the lack of a valid list of
constituents would prevent holding an accurate and valid
referendum. He continued reading the report.
Sharik indicated that the list would require careful
construction and updating to ensure that persons functioning
as academicians would have the appropriate title. Vilmann
noted that the appeal process would permit addition to the
list. Whitt said this related to the Open Forum problem of
determining constituency by titles versus other criteria.
Heuvers continued reading the report, commenting favorably on
Glime's proposal for a senate in which only academic faculty
vote on matters defined as academic.
Whitt asked whether it was likely that there might be
issues on which non-academic faculty might vote independently
of the academic faculty. Sharik said that such issues would
be dealt with on an individual basis. Heuvers finished
reading the report, and then read Proposal 2-93 (Appendix A,
p.3), noting that it had been revised in line with the recent
definitions generated by the committee. Roblee said that a
problem with listing constituency by title is that new titles
are being continually generated. Heuvers said the list would
be updated continually by the Senate Constituency Committee.
Sharik said a problem exists with persons who move in and out
of various titles on a yearly basis. Heuvers said there was
a mechanism for working with the functional basis for a
faculty, and then finished reading the text of the proposal.
Heuvers turned next to the attachments to the committee's
report (Appendix A), and read pertinent passages about
definitions of the faculty from pages 5 and 7. He noted that
degree status does not determine rank, either for academic
faculty (p.9), or librarians and research faculty (p.10).
Heuvers then referred to three other attachments consisting
of a proposal by J. Glime (BioSciences), a memo (p.13) from
the librarians, and an open letter (p.14-15) from B. Filer
(Career Center). Glime summarized her proposal for a senate
with separate voting on academic matters (Appendix A, p.11-
12). Sharik asked for her definition of "administrators", who
were to be excluded from senate membership under her proposal.
Glime replied that this included the president and vice-
presidents, but the inclusion of deans, heads and chairs might
be possible or desireable. Leifer asked whether they should
be voting members. Glime replied that the point needed
discussion.
Sharik read a memo sent to him by T. Courtney (Met. & Mat.
Eng.), dated 11 Jan 1993: "According to one proposal relative
to the senate constituency currently under consideration, as
a department chair I am not considered a `constituent' of the
senate. Yet part-time and visiting faculty, who probably
teach less than I, and research staff, who probably research
less than I and my graduate students, are. I consider this
posture insulting, degrading, discriminatory and divisive.
I consider myself a faculty member first and foremost. To
that end I maintain an active teaching role and supervise
graduate students, four of them currently. Rationales for
excluding chairs from the senate constituency seem to me
mainly `smokescreens' which tend to propagate a `we versus
them' attitude towards `administrators'. The dividing line
seems to be propagating downward. Are associate chairs to be
next on this hit list?".
Leifer elaborated on his previous question of the
inclusion of heads and chairs. Heuvers said that the
evening's agenda included a Senate vote on the inclusion of
heads and chairs as constituents, and on their eligibility for
election as senators. Sharik noted that recent proposals on
governance called for chairs to be peers representing the
faculty to the higher administration. Leifer asked about
heads versus chairs as constituents. Sharik replied that it
would depend on future development of these positions. Glime
commented that heads or chairs should be part of the
constituency of a university senate, but that the senate might
want to exclude them from the group voting on particular
issues in a referendum. Whitt asked whether heads and chairs
should be represented individually, or if they might elect a
representative.
Pilling indicated that heads and chairs are now Senate
constituents by definition, and that nothing can now prevent
them from being elected as a Senator from their department.
Selfe said that the revised proposal suggests that heads and
chairs will be excluded. Heuvers said again that the Senate
will vote on whether heads and chairs as a part of the
constituency. Waber said that the principal function of heads
or chairs is administrative, and that their presence has had
a negative impact on the Senate's deliberations. He added
that heads and chairs have ways other than the Senate for
providing input to the administration, their views are not
necessary for Senate votes, and their presence is not
desirable during votes. Roblee said that three years ago,
among those voting on a Senate censure of Ventures were three
administrators, and their votes were pivotal in defeating the
motion for censure. Sharik said that intimidation was the
Senate's problem as much as the administration's, and that
written ballots would solve such problems. Bornhorst said
that heads and chairs should be a part of the constituency,
but being a Senator is a different matter. Leifer commented
that heads and chairs are represented by their department's
Senator; that Pilling was in fact Courtney's representative,
for example. Pilling replied that if heads and chairs were
to be excluded from voting on particular academic issues, they
would in effect be disenfranchised members of the faculty.
Heuvers referred to the committee report of 18 December
1992 (Appendix B, p.4) and read the middle paragraph. He next
referred to the committee's proposition for a vote on the
by-laws involving the constituency of department heads/chairs
(Appendix B, p.6). Sharik asked for clarification of the
previously mentioned Deans of Forestry and Business, and
Director of the School of Technology. Heuvers replied that
the Faculty Handbook considered them equivalent to
heads/chairs.
Heuvers read the final paragraph of the 18 December report
and then the first paragraph (Appendix B, p.4). At the
request of President Sharik, Heuvers summarized the report of
9 December 1992 (Appendix B, p.1-2), saying that report was
based on the incorrect assumption that amending the current
constitution would be difficult, and that it should be
possible to produce an amended constitution by the end of the
year. Heuvers distributed a memo asking each Senator to
solicit for the committee ideas from the constituency about
the future Senate constituency; the ideas are needed for
writing a new constitution.
Grzelak commented that the constituents in general would
know little about the constitution, and that the current
proposals were pretty confusing. Heuvers replied that
constituents should examine the constitution in the Faculty
Handbook. Sharik wondered if the constituents should use as
a framework for comments the committee's three models:
Glime's; Snyder's, and the committee's broad ideas. Heuvers
said that comments were being requested in areas of
governance, constituency, and authority. Sharik asked whether
the committee intended to produce a single document for Senate
consideration. Heuvers said that was the committee's
objective. Vilmann indicated that a proposal should appear
before asking for comments. Sharik said that the Glime model
would be a good model to critique. Heuvers said
******************************************************************
Page 3696 Minutes of Senate Meeting 194 13 Jan 1993
that this model was the one toward which the committee was
leaning. Sharik said the critique of a single proposal would
be most productive and least confusing. Grzelak indicated
that a straw poll on a couple of different proposals would be
useful. Heuvers said this was a good idea. Bulleit commented
that his Department was frustrated with the current progress
and would not produce much more feedback.
Jambekar commented that his department feels this issue
has been dragged out, and that the committee needs a deadline.
Sharik said he asked the committee for a deadline. Heuvers
replied that the comment request does have a deadline.
Vilmann said the deadline should be for finishing the
business. Sharik asked Heuvers to recall their agreed upon
deadline for voting on the constituency. Whitt commented that
to vote on whether chairs or heads should be part of the
constituency seems irrational, when the constituency itself
hasn't been defined.
Heyman said the constituency problem could be decided by
a University referendum with a well constructed ballot
involving a series of options. Pilling said that Senators
already know what their departments want. Heyman replied that
voting could be done as a referendum or in the Senate, but
that a single document was needed with linked options placed
in logical sequence. Sharik asked whether the committee
should be directed to produce this document. Heuvers replied
that the Senate needed to make a decision now so that the
committee would know whether to include or exclude the heads
and chairs. Whitt said uniform criteria are needed so that
the results of a vote can be applied across the board.
Vilmann commented that Chairs need separate consideration
because they are represented in the administration already.
Heavers indicated that the issue of department heads involves
a major change, and the issue should be decided by the Senate,
not by the committee. Pilling commented that the entire issue
of who should be part of the constituency could be voted on
immediately in the Senate. Glime said that if the Senate
takes on added responsibilities, then the chairs might lose
their avenues of communication, and their senate constituency
would be important. Vilmann commented that the issue of
whether first to revise the constitution or the constituency
is circular; people are getting frustrated with the Senate on
this issue. Mullins commented that the entire constituency
issue could be voted on this at this meeting. Heyman again
suggested that there could be a clear structure for voting on
this issue. Sharik asked if there was a consensus for
submitting the formation of such a ballot to the committee;
the consensus was not present. Heuvers replied that the issue
required a vote.
Mullins proposed a straw vote to see if the committee
should include heads and chairs. After a brief discussion,
Sharik said that the vote on the issue would take place as
indicated on the agenda under New Business. Selfe commented
that during her service in the Senate she noted the influence
of heads; however, not to include the President and Provost
on this vote was unacceptable. Further, her current position
as chair with membership in the "mob" does not provide
sufficient representation as a faculty member. McKimpson said
that the new information about the amendment process implies
it is possible to redo the constitution without first
addressing the constituency issue. The input to the committee
about excluding administrators was also informative.
McKimpson suggested the constituency vote be formally tabled,
and that a straw vote be held on directing the committee to
first amend the constitution. Grzelak said he had looked
forward to a vote on the issues. Boutilier said that the
constituency issue had to be settled first. Vilmann agreed.
Sharik asked the Senate to stand briefly before proceeding
with the agenda.
C. Elections Committee: No report.
D. Fringe Benefits Committee: Chair Leifer reported that feed-
back on the Sick Leave Pool proposal (Minutes, p.3682-3687)
centered on concerns about "abusers" and how they would be
handled. Leifer indicated two ways the problem might be
handled. Other concerns were with the replenishment of the
pool; replenishment schemes are available. Leifer asked for
a Senate vote favoring the Sick Leave Pool proposal. Sharik
pointed out that the agenda under Old Business called for
scheduling of an open forum to discuss the proposal. Leifer
said that the open forum was only Sharik's suggestion. Keen
pointed out that the Minutes (p.3677) showed a Senate vote in
favor of the open meeting. Sharik said setting up a sick
leave pool would be complex, and the open forum was needed to
clarify the problems. Leifer said that he would soon attend
a meeting to further discuss the proposal with staff and other
group representatives. Grzelak asked whether the pool would
be replenished by the pool itself earning sick leave. Leifer
replied that it would. Hubbard commented that this method of
replenishment was a major aspect of the proposal, but was not
specified in the text of the proposal. Heuvers said that a
major change would delay a vote. Leifer said he needed an
indication of general support for the pool in order to proceed
with planning. Bulleit said that his department favored the
concept and would not attend a forum. Sharik commented that
a forum would delay the vote only one meeting. Bornhorst,
Jambekar and Pilling also said that their constituents would
not attend a forum. Sharik asked if there were motion to vote
on the proposal immediately. Leifer said that if the Senate
favored the proposal, they could address the issues of
concern. Vilmann suggested a straw vote to support the
concept of a sick leave pool, without supporting a particular
proposal. The majority of the straw vote favored the concept.
Leifer distributed a copy of pages 62-63 of the "Northern
Michigan University Contract Book" (Appendix C of these
minutes). He said that NMU annual retirement benefits as of
1 July 1993 will be almost 5% more than MTU, resulting in a
retirement income 3 to 4 times greater. Even with the annuity
request that the Senate sent to the Board last year, MTU
retirees would still be at 40% of NMU's.
Leifer reported that he met on 12 January with the Provost
and Chief Financial Officer, and that he raised the issue of
getting the rest of the fringe benefits package submitted last
year. Leifer said that Powers wanted him to go back to the
Senate to see if the Senate wanted the rest of the package.
Leifer then told Powers that the Senate voted 19-3 in favor
of the package in January 1992. Powers had asked whether the
faculty was willing to trade off the two percent salary
restoration against an increase in retirement contributions.
Leifer said the budget contained a lot of smoke and mirrors,
and pungently commented further about the state and management
of the university's finances.
Sharik said that in the Cabinet meeting, when the issue
was raised, the administration response was that the package
had to be considered against alternative expenditures. Sharik
pointed out that the Senate had not been involved in the
budgeting and so it could not effectively discuss trade-offs,
but that there was opportunity still to be involved in this
year's budgetary process. Leifer asked for a unanimous Senate
vote on the fringe benefits package. Sharik said that the
administration would still argue about trade-offs, which is
why the Senate's initial involvement is critical. Boutilier
asked about the vehicle in the budget making process? Sharik
said there was none because the University Financial Planning
and Policy Committee had been dissolved; such a committee
needs to be reformed.
Leifer again asked for a unanimous vote in favor of the
remainder of the fringe benefits package. Sharik indicated
that a motion asking for this would be appropriate under Old
Business.
******************************************************************
Page 3697 Minutes of Senate Meeting 194 13 Jan 1993
E. Institutional Evaluation Committee: Chair Hubbard
distributed a report on the committee's activities (Appendix
D of these minutes), and summarized Proposal 16-92 and the
flow chart on which they are working.
Sharik asked whether the three governance proposals
approved last year were to be brought forward along with those
currently being considered by the committee. Hubbard replied
that the committee had not discussed this but was
concentrating on revising the proposals for departmental
governance; the other proposals could be sent forward at any
time. Mullins said that the committee had intended that the
approved proposals should have a one-year trial period so
recommendations could be made, before permanent adoption in
the procedures manual. Sharik said that M. Vable, the
previous committee chair, had expected the approved proposals
to be forwarded to the President for implementation. Mullins
said that was indeed the previous committee's intent. Vilmann
said the implementing the approved proposals for one year was
not really possible, except for the dean's search procedure.
Sharik said the conclusion was to go forward with asking
approval of the Board of Control for the three proposals.
Sharik indicated that the approved proposals were 2-92 (3-year
appointments for department supervisors), 3-92 (4-year
appointments for deans), and 7-92 (search procedures for
deans). Sharik said he would take those proposals forward to
the President.
F. Instructional Policy Committee: Chair Heuvers distributed
and then read the report of the committee (Appendix E of these
minutes). Sharik said that at the last Senate meeting the
Senate had decided that George Fox, overseer of the program,
should have an open forum for the whole university concerning
the changeover. Carstens commented that, based on his
experience as a scheduler for the School of Technology, the
item of "frozen time slots" was a real problem and a stopgap
measure since the new system would not generate the "conflict
matrix" of the present system. Boutilier indicated that they
are refusing to make any adjustments to the purchased Banner
system; that there is to be no pre-registration; that faculty
are going to be committed to classes that might have to be
cancelled because of low enrollments, and that faculty
responsible for cancelled classes might have a vacation.
Grzelak said EE would take any such faculty. Carstens said
that any new courses would have to be scheduled with no idea
of conflicts. Boutilier said that each department's
schedulers will have to get together and hand check these
classes. Heyman suggested that George Fox meet with the
Senate instead of holding an open forum. Selfe suggested that
each Senator invite the departmental scheduler to be at the
next Senate meeting. The Senate agreed to invite George Fox
to appear at the next meeting to address the problems that had
been raised.
G. Research Policy Committee: Chair Pilling said he would have
to resign from the committee, because he was leaving the
university. McKimpson volunteered to convene the committee;
Keeble and Waber volunteered to serve on the committee.
VIII. Reports of Affiliated and Ad Hoc Committees
A. President's Cabinet: Sharik reported that the meeting on
January 11, 1993, dealt with minority hiring, fringe benefits
(including the 15/20% co-pay problem of medical retirement
benefits and the retirement package), and a problem with
admissions procedures for the Engineering Technology program
brought to Sharik's attention by P. Tampas.
The latter problem involves a decrease from last year of
85% in projected enrollment in Engineering Technology, due
partly to admissions increase in the General Engineering
program. This change in admissions practice happened without
consultation with the School of Technology. The problem will
be discussed in the next Cabinet meeting. Sharik asked if the
Senate felt it should deal with this issue. Lukowski
commented that the implications were broader than the
specifics of the situation. The problem stemmed from a summer
meeting among only 4 persons: 2 vice-presidents (Student
Services and Academic Affairs) and two deans (Engineering and
Sciences & Arts). These individuals set admissions standards
to levels needed for efficient operation of the university
with caps on engineering programs.
Sharik said that the Institutional Evaluation Committee
should handle this matter, perhaps with the creation of a sub-
committee of the persons directly involved. Carstens and
Roblee volunteered to serve on the sub-committee. Sharik
asked if an ad hoc committee might focus on the issue more
directly. Roblee moved that the Senate form an Ad Hoc
Committee on Enrollment Policy to address this issue; Carstens
seconded the motion. The motion passed by voice vote without
opposition.
Sharik said the other key issue involved the university
budget. He distributed a copy of the proposed budget for
1993-94 and a budget projection for the next 5 years (Appendix
F of these minutes). Sharik said the Provost had agreed to
attend the next Senate meeting to discuss the budget. He
indicated much of the controversy concerned the 1% reduction
in base budgets and the 2% "making whole" of salary
adjustments under new continuing expenditures. Hubbard and
Vilmann asked about the 2% making whole versus the "unmet
salary increment" amount. Hubbard also said the base budget
was an unexplained figure. Selfe asked (1) who decides what
money is spent on program development and how it is allocated
within the University, (2) where does the Senate have input
into these expenditures, (3) what is the $100,000
infrastructure expenditure, and (4) does the 2% making whole
mean "almost whole"? Sharik replied that the program
development suggestions came from the deans, and that
infrastructure is a networking expenditure. Pilling asked
whether the budget might be broken down further, particularly
the base budget? Sharik commented that the Senate needs to
be involved in budgeting. The Board of Control will see the
budget first in the March meeting and vote on the final budget
in May, so the Senate has time to make input. Vilmann
commented that typically not many changes are made after
March. Hubbard said that detail is needed on the base budget.
Moore asked whether a month wait was needed before the
Provost's visit. Sharik said he had thought the one month
period would allow time to formulate questions and still
permit input for budget revision before the March Board
meeting. Jambekar asked whether simply asking for an
explanation would influence anything. Sharik said that a
critique was worth a try, but that the Senate would have to
be involved earlier in the next go-round.
Selfe asked whether the Senate had ever made a statement
that the current budget process is unacceptable and that the
Senate would like to be involved earlier in the process.
Sharik commented that several meetings ago he suggested the
******************************************************************
Page 3698 Minutes of Senate Meeting 194 13 Jan 1993
creation of a financial planning committee, and that he had
submitted a proposal for its formation to the Chief Financial
Officer and the Fringe Benefits Committee. However, his
proposal had the Fringe Benefits Committee nested within the
proposed committee, and the Fringe Benefits Committee had
tabled the proposal. Boutilier moved that the Senate declare
that the lack of Senate involvement in the budget process is
unacceptable. The motion was seconded, and was approved by
voice vote without opposition. Heuvers asked whether a memo
should be sent to President Tompkins indicating this
particular motion had been passed. Sharik said that he would
merely tell the Senate to get involved in the process.
Vilmann said that it was not the Senate's responsibility to
form the university's budgeting committee, but that the
administration should form a committee in which the Senate
would participate. Boutilier suggested that the Senate form
a committee and tell the administration that the committee is
to be part of the budgeting process. Jambekar noted that the
Board of Control Policy Manual says the functions of the
Senate shall not include recommendations on administrative
matters such as finances and personnel. Sharik pointed out
that the entire matter of fringe benefits violates that
policy, and that the Senate itself now needs to define what
is to be within its jurisdiction.
Pilling suggested that the Senate obtain some power in
picking members for the Board of Control. Sharik said that
the Board had sent out a clear call for the Senate to
establish the lines of authority in the university. Carstens
commented that you will not find academia on the boards of a
corporation and so it does not seem right there is not
academia on the University board. Pilling said that the
Cabinet, inserted in the decision-making process without
comment, should be removed because it is not a part of
official procedures. Vilmann commented the President merely
seeks advice from the Cabinet. Sharik commented that the
Cabinet is not a "doing" body, but rather reacts to issues
that are presented to it; the Senate is the doing body.
Vilmann commented that Cabinet is in fact a doing body because
it may reject a proposal; the Cabinet should not appear in any
flow chart of authority, although the President can seek
advice where he wants. Mullins said the university is run by
the Policy and Procedures Manual; the Senate needs therefore
to have a place in the Manual, although it is out of date and
needs revision. The Senate needs to be a part of the
mechanism of producing revisions in the manual. Sharik said
that there does not exist in writing a sense of what the
Senate should be. Vilmann said this is an example of why the
Senate needs to proceed with the adoption of a constitution.
Heuvers commented that there is no longer a university
procedures manual; the updating process stopped three years
ago. Only the Board of Control manual has been maintained.
Sharik commented that the flow chart begun by Hubbard's
committee needs to be finished.
B. Board of Control Liaison Task Force: Chair Vilmann reported
that the Board of Control will not be touring departments on
campus unless they get on the Board's agenda tomorrow.
Vilmann added that anyone having anything to bring to the
Board should bring it to his attention immediately. Leifer
suggested that a policy should be established for having a
meeting every January between the Board of Control and Senate
officers and committee chairs. Sharik said that they had met
with the Board at their last meeting and explained to them
what the Senate was doing, and that the Board had asked the
Senate to structure the flow of information and decision
making through the University.
Vilmann recalled Sharik's statement "that the Cabinet is
not a doing body", and stated that President Tompkins had told
the Board that the Cabinet was the forum for developing a
widespread consensus for proposals being presented to the
Board. Vilmann commented that he found that statement
disturbing. Sharik replied that we now have the opportunity
to build the flow chart to determine the decision-making
process for shared governance.
Selfe said the Board of Control are given many tours with
happy faculty showing them things that work; she said it would
be more profitable for the Board to experience a day in the
life of a faculty member trying to prepare for a class with
the phone ringing and 12 students at the door. Vilmann said
the reason for the proposed faculty tour was to show the Board
that faculty are the individuals making things happen, not the
administrators who usually give the tours. Boutilier
suggested that the Senate consider returning to having a
faculty luncheon with the Board. Sharik said he had suggested
to the Board that they meet with the Senate, but that Dale
Tahtinen said the Board only wanted to meet with about 12
people. Boutilier questioned whether Tahtinen was relaying
what the Board members really wanted. Sharik said Tahtinen
has made himself the liaison between the Board and Senate.
Boutilier said that Lucier had done the same thing, until that
barrier had been broken down.
C. Ad Hoc Committee for Discussion of Unionization: Committee
member Whitt reported that the committee had not met and the
chair assumes that it cannot meet until the date of the
election has been set. Sharik suggested that perhaps the
Senate could obtain and publish statements from individuals
at other universities about how unions have impacted them;
waiting until the election date is set may not allow
sufficient time for such communication. Leifer said that it
should be easy for faculty to come from NMU or other state
universities with unions. Sharik said he was hoping for
statements that could be published. Vilmann commented that
such presentations would need to provide both negative and
positive views of having a union, and that would require a
large number of statements. Whitt commented that Julien was
construing the committee's charge narrowly, and planned to
have an open forum shortly before the election. Sharik said
that Julien indicated that it would be easy to obtain pro-
union information, but that it would be difficult to generate
views critical of a union. Mullins stated that there does not
seem to be a strong flow of information from the people who
are trying to form a union to the Senate; for example, where
does the Senate fit if a union is organized, and what is the
relationship between a Senate constituency and union
membership? Whitt asked whether this indicated that the
Senate wanted representatives from UPPSA to make a
presentation at a Senate meeting. Whitt moved that the Senate
invite a union representative to make a presentation. Sharik
said the union had notified him of their willingness to
address the Senate, but that the sense of the current
discussion was to have a balanced presentation from both sides
of the issue. Bulleit noted that there was no organized
anti-union group. Whitt said that the problem being discussed
was the relationship between a union and the Senate, which a
union representative could address. Mullins said that such
a presentation would be instructive, and moved that the Senate
have a union representative or even someone from the other
side come to give a short presentation on union-Senate
relationships. This was not to be an open forum. Sharik said
the relationship between a union and the Senate was very
important, and asked whether the representatives could address
this critical issue. Whitt said that the issue was being
discussed among the union supporters currently. Sharik
suggested this presentation be made at the March meeting;
Mullins agreed to the suggestion. Whitt agreed to transmit
the request to the union organization.
D. Ad Hoc Committee on Provost Search Forum: Sharik reported
the Senate had sponsored evening forums at which five
******************************************************************
Page 3699 Minutes of Senate Meeting 194 13 Jan 1993
candidates had appeared, and individuals were encouraged to
submit comments on the candidates to the Search Committee by
14 January. Glime commented that the committee will go
through the material and meet with the President on 19 January
if the committee can come to a consensus on the final 3 or
more candidates in rank order.
IX. Old Business
A. Agenda Item - Senate Appointments to the Committee on
Academic Tenure: Sharik inquired about the status of the
committee. Bulleit reported that he had officially resigned,
so that the President could appoint a more appropriate person
to fill his chair. The Senate can therefore run an election
to fill their vacant chair or allow Sam Marshall to continue
to fill it. In response to questions, Bulleit explained that
Sam Marshall was chosen by the Senate to replace MacLennan who
had resigned, and that his own resignation was to enable
President Tompkins to appoint a woman to the committee, as a
response to a furor.
Sharik reported that the Academic Women's Caucus had
suggested two women for the position; both declined, so they
are still looking for a person to fill the appointed position.
Selfe commented that the difficulty in finding a female was
caused by overworked female faculty members having to
represent women on too many committees.
B. Leifer asked for the Senate to confirm its request for the
fringe benefits retirement package. Leifer moved that the
Senate reauthorize the university administration to put in
motion the remaining two-thirds of the fringe benefits program
that was passed by the Senate on January 15, 1992. Vilmann
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by voice
vote.
C. Sharik stated in answer to questions from the floor that an
open forum on the sick leave pool would be held after details
on the package were complete.
D. Agenda Item - Minority Hiring Procedures: Sharik reported
that this item was placed on the agenda as a result of Cabinet
meetings in which minority hiring was discussed. In mid-
December Sharik sent a letter to Provost Powers expressing
concern about a lack of policies and procedures for the hiring
of minorities, including the first-come-first-served policy
and problems involving normal protocols for faculty hiring.
Sharik also included some suggestions for making the process
work more effectively. Sharik did not argue against parity
or diversity, which he favors and about which he feels
strongly, but was concerned about a lack of clarity in policy.
Provost Powers replied with a statement that is policy (as of
the 11 January Cabinet meeting) about what can and cannot be
done in minority hiring. Also bearing on the interpretation
of the policy are issues raised by V. Dorweiler (School of
Business), including questions of legality of the affirmative
action plan put forward by President Tompkins. Sharik
distributed copies of the memo by Provost Powers (Appendix G
of these minutes), and said the Senate should decide whether
it wished to accept the contents as university policy. The
memo indicated that $100,000 has been allocated for minority
hiring. Sharik quoted from the memo some details involved in
minority recruitment.
Dorweiler referred to correspondence bearing on this issue
(Appendix H of these minutes). He said this correspondence
dealt with two issues in the affirmative action plan: first,
underrepresentation on the faculty brought up by Mr. Powers,
and secondly, the issue of role models introduced by Mr.
Tompkins in the State of the University address. The
University is a public employer and the 1974 Supreme Court
decision ruled these cannot be used as a basis for
preferential hiring of minorities. Mr. Power's memo mentions
two other points. Point number two indicates that employment
decisions will be made purely on a racial basis. Dorweiler
noted that the City of Cleveland in 1986 used arguments like
Power's in hiring high school teachers, and was held to be in
violation of the Civil Rights Act. Point number one indicates
that the affirmative action policy is being concealed in a
national hiring search. The overall proposition is that an
employer cannot increase the representation of minorities or
women on the basis of underrepresentation. Role models cannot
be used as a reason for preferential hiring of minorities.
The only reason a public employer can have an affirmative
action plan is to correct past discrimination. Power's memo
makes it recognizable that the university is not really
following the current law of the Civil Rights Act.
Sharik responded that Dorweiler's letter was brought to
the Board of Control and looked at by their lawyer. It was
determined that the current university policy is legal.
Dorweiler replied that the Board is taking a risk position,
that the first item indicates that "as long as we can hide
what we are doing, we will not be exposed", perhaps to the
Equal Opportunity Commission in Detroit. The Board has been
notified that they are taking such a position. Sharik
commented that this is why he had said that an effort to hire
a minority should be open, but that position was in fact
forbidden. Dorweiler noted that there is a factor of
concealment in the current policy; further, federal courts are
now authorized to go after the organizations involved, not
just the individual or officer in the organization who might
have been practicing discrimination. This is not a resolved
issue at the university, and the opinion of the university's
counsel is based on a risk basis.
Sharik referred to an article in The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 16 December 1992, which reported that the law
schools at Stanford and the University of Michigan scaled back
their affirmative action plans because of scrutiny by the
federal education department. The University of California
at Berkeley was found to have violated antibias laws with
its affirmative action plans. Sharik said it was important
that our policy be correct. Whitt said that the legal issue
are complex, and that affirmative action plans differ from
social justice plans such as that announced by President
Tompkins. She said she was uneasy with the Senate having to
rely on the administration's lawyer for this information, and
said the Senate should consider seeking its own counsel.
Glime asked whether a position advertisement could ask for
mentors to serve as role models for minorities. Sharik
commented that he had asked about this and it cannot it be
done. Glime said that her idea involved no mention of the
minority position of applicants.
Whitt commented that she has seen advertisements for
minorities in her field, so that the question of legality
needs to be pursued. Pilling said that a job should be
advertised in the least biased way and should go to the person
who is best qualified regardless of who it is. The problem
is that the President has made available extra positions for
a minority person who might not be the best qualified.
Mullins said this provides a mechanism to ensure that search
committees will search for qualified minorities. Boutilier
said as a math department member she was delighted with the
policy, because the inclusion of gender in the list would
allow them to hire some very well qualified individuals.
Selfe commented that the policy only indicates that the extra
position may be filled; the policy needs to be clearer.
Dorweiler said the decision cannot be based on race. Selfe
said that Glime's idea of minority mentor in the advertisement
avoids the problem of race
******************************************************************
Page 3700 Minutes of Senate Meeting 194 13 Jan 1993
or gender because the minority person is obviously the best
qualified individual. Sharik said the administration was
uneasy with this idea. Glime said Sharik had suggested openly
advertising for a minority, but that her idea was to open the
position to all. Dorweiler indicated that this is concealment
of what you are doing, if you are running the funding program
specifically to hire minorities. Grzelak said that his
department is understaffed and has asked for additional
positions with no success, so that it is bothersome to be
suddenly told that "we happen to have a position for you if
it's a minority or a woman". The $100,000 money is being
taken from department and unit allocations where it should be
available to hire the best qualified person for the job.
Boutilier said she has watched this money go to the white male
for years. Whitt commented that there is a legal issue that
needs to be addressed, apart from the moral issues about what
should happen. A second legal opinion would clarify the other
alternatives. Whitt moved that the Senate take measures to
seek a second legal counsel's opinion on the hiring for
minority positions. Mullins seconded the motion. It was
approved by voice vote. Sharik said that he would ask for
more funding from the President for this matter. Glime
suggested that free legal advice might be available from the
NAACP or some of the other offices in Washington. Whitt
volunteered to find sources of legal advice and their costs.
X. New Business
A. Agenda Item - Information on loss of mainframe computer:
Sharik said that the informational presentation on the loss
of the mainframe computer will be held off until the next
meeting.
B. Agenda Item - Appointment of a representative to the Public
Safety Advisory Board. Sharik reported that John Ahola,
Director of Public Safety, had called Sharik inviting the
Senate to provide a member for that Board. This membership
is important because Public Safety now has been authorized to
carry firearms. Sharik asked for a volunteer to serve on this
committee, with the first meeting 14 January at 8:15 a.m.
Boutilier moved that the Senate select a representative for
the Public Safety Advisory Board. Vilmann seconded the
motion, which passed by voice vote without opposition. No
person volunteered for the position, so Sharik said he would
go to the first meeting to represent the Senate. He hoped
that a person not now on a committee would volunteer to be the
Senate representative in the future.
C. Agenda Item - Votes on questions from Constitution and
Constituency Committee: Heuvers called first for a vote on
the interpretation of "its" in the constitution, (Appendix B,
p.3). Hubbard moved that: The antecedent for "its" be
established as "the constitution". Mullins seconded the
motion, which passed by voice vote without opposition.
Heuvers called for the second vote to be on the
constituency of department heads and chairs (Appendix B, p.6).
Vilmann moved that department chairs and heads continue to be
constituents of the Senate. Sharik stated that this group
included the deans of forestry and business, and the director
of the School of Technology. The motion was seconded, and
passed by voice vote.
Heuvers called for the third vote to decide whether heads
and chairs could serve as senators or alternates. Heyman
clarified the motion: that heads and chairs shall be excluded
from serving as departmental senators or representing the
Senate on elected committees. Jambekar seconded the motion.
Roblee said the issue might be important only once every five
years, but on those occasions it is likely to be really
important. A confused discussion occurred about the academic
classification of college deans. Grzelak wondered whether
department heads could run for Senator-at-large. A friendly
amendment was accepted removing the word "department" from the
motion. The motion for exclusion passed by a show of hands,
13-9.
Heuvers called for a vote on the clarification of rules
and procedures for ballot initiatives. He read the
proposition (Appendix b, p.5). Heuvers moved that the
clarification be approved as read. Vilmann seconded the
motion. Grimm asked about the definition of "as soon as
possible". Heuvers said the intention was to be as soon as
physically possible. The motion was passed by voice vote
without opposition.
XI. Adjournment
Leifer moved that the meeting be adjourned. Carstens seconded
the motion which passed without opposition. President Sharik
declared the meeting adjourned at 11:10 pm.
Submitted by Robert Keen
Senate Secretary
.