******************************************************************
Page 3741 Minutes of Senate Meeting 195 10 Feb 1993
The Senate of Michigan Technological University
Minutes of Meeting No. 195
I. Call to Order
At 7:06 pm on Wednesday, 10 February 1993, President Sharik
called the meeting to order in Room 105, Memorial Union
Building.
II. Roll Call of Regular Members
25 Senators or alternates were present. Representatives from
the following units were absent: AF ROTC, Chemical
Engineering, Metallurgy and Materials Engineering, Graduate
Student Council, Undergraduate Student Council. D. Nelson
represented Mechanical Engineering; K. Johnson represented
KRC. Absent Senators-at-large: Roblee and Grimm. Also
present: Continuing Member Powers.
III. Recognition of Visitors
J. Coleman-Plouff (Senate Secretary Asst.), G. Fox (Comp.
Tech. Svcs.), J. Galetto (Enrollment Mgmt.), J. Glime (Biol.
Sci.), M. Goodrich (MTU Tech Topics), V. Gougeon (Registrar),
K. Lipmann (MTU Lode), T. Malette (Financial Aid), W. J.
McGarry (Finance Office), R. Nuottila (Accounting Svcs.), D.
Ouillette (Registrar), S. Paris (Enrollment Mgmt.), D. Vincent
(Comp. Tech. Svcs.), C. White (Metal. & Matls. Eng.), G.
Whiteman (Comp. Tech. Svcs.).
IV. Special Report on Banner System
President Sharik said that two special reports would be
presented before passing on to the regular Senate business.
Sharik introduced George Fox, who was appearing at the request
of the Senate to discuss the Banner computer software system
for administrative computing.
Fox's presentation emphasized cost as the major factor in
choosing to implement the Banner system from among the
possible alternatives (Appendix A of these minutes). Fox
stated that alterations to the Banner system were certainly
possible, but were likely to be expensive. To discuss the
Senate's specific concerns about implementing the academic
module of the Banner system, Fox introduced Joe Galetto,
Director of Enrollment Management.
Galetto described the Banner Academic Issues Committee and
its activities in implementing the new system. He indicated
that the scheduling of the Fall 1993 term will take place on
the Banner system. Nelson inquired about significant and
apparently regressive changes in course scheduling. That is,
the current system bases course offerings on student
preregistration requests, while the Banner system only
presents students with a list of available courses. Nelson
commented that this new method neither optimizes faculty
resources nor satisfies the students. Galetto agreed that the
system is a great change and that Banner does not permit
scheduling to meet student demand. He noted however that the
current system encourages students to overload their course
requests which artificially inflates demand. It also results
in tens of thousands of course change requests after students
receive their schedules (Appendix B of these minutes). There
has been an effort to help departments anticipate demand based
on accumulated enrollment history.
Boutilier stated that "service departments" like math will
have real problems with the new system, and noted with dismay
that the Issues Committee did not include members from the two
largest service departments, math and chemistry. She said
that enrollment history by itself was not a sufficient guide
to predicting demand, and that faculty resources were unlikely
to be utilized as effectively with the new system. She
compared the inefficiency of the current course change problem
with the prospective problem of faculty members who are more
likely to find their upper division courses cancelled due to
lack of enrollment. V. Gougeon replied that few upper
division courses were likely to be cancelled for low
enrollment. Boutilier said she was afraid that it would in
fact be a problem. Heuvers asked whether there was a policy
requiring a department at its own expense to notify students
by mail when a class was cancelled. Galetto said that a
definite decision has not been made on this policy. Heuvers
stated that the lack of good information about the size of
the freshman class made it difficult to schedule math classes
in advance, and he asked whether sections could be added
during registration. Gougeon said that the problem was
finding rooms on short notice, and Galetto said that adding
sections or creating waiting lists with Banner was not
difficult. Heuvers asked about the availability of
departmental grade point averages under the new system,
because some dismissal policies are based on this GPA.
Galetto said that the system would not find departmental GPA
for the transcript, but that it would be sent to the
department as part of degree compliance reports.
Galetto said that the real problem is to get through the
initial change from the old software system to the new system.
Whitt said that the problems of sensitivity to student
interests and of faculty efficiency were quite important, and
asked about the cost of modifying the system to accommodate
preregistration. Fox replied that such an excursion into the
basic logic of the system would cost about $100,000 per year.
Gougeon said that MTU is unique among Michigan state-
supported schools in its course request system. All the other
schools offer an array of courses in a schedule. Students
enroll in the scheduled courses. This system of scheduling
and enrollment is in fact independent of the Banner system.
The Banner system just follows the usual scheduling practices.
Heyman stated that the Senate's concern is with the
rigidity with which the Banner system is being imposed on the
academic departments, and suggested that the issue of
scheduling should prompt the Senate to begin asking
fundamental questions about enrollment, including drop dates
and costs of tuition. Heyman asked why, given the power and
flexibility
******************************************************************
Page 3742 Minutes of Senate Meeting 195 10 Feb 1993
of the new software, departments were being required to freeze
in their course and faculty schedules in February, a lead time
of six months? Galetto said that the February deadline was
needed if student scheduling were to take place in April, but
that the deadline should be extended in future years. He also
said that the point of drop dates and tuition structure is
extremely important to the efficiency of the scheduling
process. Vable stated that enrollment history should be an
adequate guide to the scheduling of classes. Boutilier said
that it was not adequate in the case of freshman math courses,
in which small tweaks of enrollment policy could have drastic
effects in demand for different levels of math; however, the
math department is now locked into their scheduled offerings
with the Banner system. Galetto replied that the concerned
departments would have to talk to each other to solve the
problems; that engineering would have to let math know about
the math ACT requirements. Glime asked about the timing of
notification of enrollment levels; sufficient lead time is
needed to schedule teaching assistants and alter teaching
methods. Gougeon replied that such enrollment information
would be available instantaneously during enrollment. Galetto
commented that such information would also be available
instantaneously to students as they sign up for courses.
Julien asked whether the Banner system could generate
reports on faculty work loads. Gougeon replied that it could
generate a report on teaching loads of individuals, but not
a summary report on the work load of the faculty as a whole.
Sharik asked about the timing of information on under-enrolled
upper-division courses, specifically when will faculty or
students learn of the possible cancellation of such courses?
Galetto said that such information would be available
immediately upon the closing of enrollment. Heyman asked
whether it would be possible for an extra calculation to be
run after and outside of Banner's enrollment process to allow
matching of faculty and enrollment. Gougeon said that it
depended on whether the question concerned current students
enrolling in April, or new students enrolling in the fall,
and that adjustments could be made in class schedules between
the April and fall enrollments, based on enrollment
statistics. Galetto noted that the old system depended
extensively on fine-tuning by the schedulers. Boutilier asked
if summer freshman orientation had been cancelled. Galetto
replied that it was. Julien asked when grades would be
reportable by e-mail. Galetto said that the new system would
allow this. Sharik thanked the presenters and called for a
5-minute break.
V. Special Report on the Budget
President Sharik gave the floor to Provost Powers for a
report on the budget proposed for the University. Powers
introduced William McGarry for a report on the financial
status of the University. McGarry said the financial position
was strong; the cash position was weak; the turnaround
strategy was working; the State should not impose any budget
cuts this year.
Provost Powers presented the proposed budget (Appendix C
of these minutes). A draft of the budget will be presented
to the Board of Control in March; a final budget will be
presented to the Board in May. Powers explained the
terminology of the budget and assumptions basic to the
budget's development. Sharik opened the floor for questions.
Julien asked about the 1 percent reduction in base budgets
coupled with a 2% return in salaries, stating that in his
department the 1% reduction would almost certainly have to
include some salary money. Powers said that the 1 percent
refers to the allocations to the deans, so that all
departments need not return 1 percent. Some reduction in
number of positions was anticipated particularly in
administrative areas. Heuvers asked about the library budget.
Powers replied that there was $50,000 of new money in the
budget for the library. However, the priority set by all
units was for salary restoration. Coupled with the
requirement for deficit reduction, funds are limited for new
expenditures like library development. Glime commented that
some departments will find it easier to meet the 1% reduction
than others, because different proportions of their budgets
are committed to salary. Powers agreed with this.
Bulleit asked about the Research Excellence Fund, which
originally was to be new money coming from the State to
support research programs, but which now appears to be a part
of the standard appropriation resulting in a decrease for the
rest of the University. Powers explained that $1.2 million
was originally an additional amount for research, that the
University has to account for the amount to the Legislature,
and that $500,000 taken from the fund during the Fall 1991
budget cut has to be restored. Nelson asked about the planned
size of the student body in 5 years, relative to tuition
revenue. Powers replied that President Tompkins' model from
the fall calls for an enrollment of less than 10,000, with
25-30 percent graduate students. For Fall 1993, the current
projection is for 100 fewer undergraduates, with an increase
in numbers of faculty. For a Ph.D. granting institution,
Michigan Tech currently produces an unusually large number of
undergraduate degrees per faculty member. To correct this and
to develop the graduate program, numbers of faculty must
increase, numbers of undergraduates must decline, and
undergraduate tuition must increase. Boutilier asked about
the enrollment projection, commenting that the enrollment was
supposed to have declined also a year ago, but did not.
Powers replied that the new enrollments did in fact decline,
but that graduate enrollment and retention had kept overall
enrollments up. Boutilier said that increased numbers of
graduate students is a problem because they require more space
and other resources than undergraduates, and that the
university has space problems with its current balance of
undergraduates. Powers replied that this problem is being
addressed with the plans for a new building, and with new
budget categories for equipment.
Sharik asked what features of the budget allow Michigan
Tech to be rated as a "best buy" in undergraduate education;
specifically, what or who is the University sacrificing?
Powers replied that low tuition principally is responsible for
the rating, but that the overall rating process is unclear.
Sharik commented that such information might be useful in the
planning process, relative to student perceptions, and that
the best buy rating might be possible because of low faculty
salaries. Julien asked whether increasing the number or
balance of graduate students produced greater debt. Powers
commented that the academic and research reputation of a
university was correlated with its ability to attract outside
money and to be less dependent on state funding and tuition.
Future development depended on the University's research
******************************************************************
Page 3743 Minutes of Senate Meeting 195 10 Feb 1993
reputation. Julien agreed, but asked what part of the current
budget within departments is given to research, as a way of
finding out the cost of graduate education. Powers replied
that the number was not available. Boutilier commented that
the administration does not look for it. Powers indicated he
would not know where to look for it, but would start with the
variety in teaching loads in departments. Some individuals
evidently are doing more research and less teaching.
Sharik asked about the distribution of positions under
"replacement", "advancement", and "program development".
Powers replied that replacement money was for concluding
current searches for administrative positions in which the
current person has not left the university. The advancement
money is for positions to support the development fund.
Program development is for new faculty positions. Heyman
asked about the ratio between academic and non-academic
portions of the budget. Powers replied that Michigan Tech is
in line with other state universities, with these approximate
percents: instruction, 40; research, 2.5; academic support,
10; student services, 7; institutional support, 15:
scholarships, 10; operations & maintenance, 8; transfers, 7.
However, the numbers are really useful only for year-to-year
comparisons; the proportion for instruction has remained
fairly constant, varying between 46 and 44 percent A drop in
1991-92 to 40.7 percent was caused by a reporting change, with
scholarship funds being reported separately. Heyman said that
the budgeted shift of money to academic areas would result in
only a third on one percent increase in the academic
percentage - an insignificant increase. Heyman also asked for
the timeline in getting the free-standing research institutes
to fund themselves. Powers said that there are two answers.
KRC is now almost self-sufficient. IMP was cut to a $200,000
base budget; there has been no budgeted decrease in this. IWR
has shifted personnel to the general fund, but with no
increase in funding. BID has also been cut to a base budget.
Leifer asked whether the new budget included buildings.
Powers said that monies would come from private funding for
the performance facility, from State and Federal agencies for
an environmental sciences building, and from State and private
funding for new library construction. Leifer said that the
university cannot afford to support buildings and equipment
at the expense of faculty and staff. He also stated that he
could not understand how the salaries, benefits, and building
facilities of the Chemistry Department at Northern Michigan
University are much higher than those at Michigan Tech, given
similar State appropriations. Powers replied that although
faculty salaries in Chemistry are higher at NMU than MTU,
overall the NMU faculty salaries are lower and their benefits
package is less extensive, and does not include health
benefits for retirees, for example. Leifer said that the NMU
contribution to retirement plans exceeds MTU's, so that
retiring faculty are more than compensated for that specific
difference. Powers agreed that NMU's contribution to TIAA-
CREF exceeds MTU's. Leifer asked whether the departmental
budgeting proposals were the "vision statements". Powers
replied that deans and directors had been asked in the fall
to prepare a set of priorities generated by their personnel;
all divisions submitted salaries as the top priority. Leifer
asked about the composition of the $46 million base budget
figure. Powers showed the distribution of the monies between
about 12 units. Sharik asked about the decision process for
dividing funds among the units. Powers replied that the
process was based on incremental budgeting, with some units
getting an increase, some getting no increase. Decisions
among units were made on the basis of priorities and proposals
submitted by the deans and directors. Leifer asked about the
monies budgeted for "government relations". Powers said this
item included the cost of the Board of Control, funding of
internal auditors, and the salary of former president Stein
and his secretary. Bulleit asked about the discrepancy
between lab fees collected and returned; Powers replied that
this was due to a mistake in collecting and returning fees
previously.
Heyman reiterated his point that the 1 percent re-
alignment for academic areas was in fact only 0.6 percent,
that this amount was not much, and that more should be shifted
from the auxiliary areas, from research institutes, and from
administrative areas. He cited the expense of maintaining the
Ski Hill as an example of money which should have been
shifted. Powers said that plans for shifting funds were
difficult to implement. For example, re-alignment plans
called for only internal hiring only in all support positions,
but this has not worked in practice. The university should
be able to get out of the Ski Hill business, but this is
difficult without closing the hill. It is necessary to find
a new method for re-alignment.
Sharik asked about timing for Senate contributions to the
budgeting process; for example, when should the Senate have
begun to work toward the proposed retirement benefits package.
Powers replied that the work should be continual. Sharik
asked about the discrepancy between "making whole" figures for
salary restoration. Powers explained that the larger figure
is due to a one-time restoration of lost salary, and the lower
figure in the budget aims at a building of the base salary
which will result in higher eventual salary and less shock to
the budget.
Powers discussed the problems associated with the State
failing to make its payments sometime in the future, and the
necessity of building a reserve to meet the contingency.
Julien suggested calling the amount an "incumbrance" rather
than a "reserve". Leifer asked about the total university
budgets size; some of last years figures were in the $100
million range, compared with $75 million in the proposed
budgets. McGarry explained that the larger figure includes
the items over which the University has little direct control,
including sponsored projects, loans, and auxiliary
enterprises.
Sharik thanked the Powers and McGarry for their
presentations and called for another 5-minute break.
VI. Minutes
The minutes of Meeting No. 194 were accepted and corrected.
A motion to approve the minutes as corrected was passed
without opposition.
VII. Senate President's Report
A. Senate Office: Sharik announced that the University Senate
has a new office, located in Room 321 of the M&M Building.
The office was provided by IMP. Sharik acknowledged the
helpful cooperation of IMP Director J. Hwang. A phone is to
be installed in about a week. The tentative office hours are
2 to 4 p.m. weekdays.
******************************************************************
Page 3744 Minutes of Senate Meeting 195 10 Feb 1993
B. Public Safety Liaison Person: Sharik reported that he
attended the first meeting of the Public Safety Advisory Board
to be representative for the Senate. Judy Fynewever has since
volunteered to accept the position as the Public Safety
Liaison Person. Sharik indicated that concerns about the
conduct of Public Safety on campus should be directed to
Fynewever.
C. New Provost: Sharik announced that the new Provost was
Fredrick Dobney, who will begin his position here in mid-
March. William Powers will stay on in an advisory role to the
new Provost until the end of this academic year. Bill
Predebon has sent a note to the Senate expressing his
appreciation for the role of the Senate in the search for the
Provost.
D. Sharik reported on the Senate's voted request for a Senator
to be appointed by the Provost to the University's Executive
Council. Sharik had communicated the request to the provost,
but after some delay without a reply, had written again asking
for a decision; the Provost replied with a denial of the
request. Sharik read the Provost's note for the record:
"You have asked that the Senate be represented at
meetings of deans and directors. I have attached
an organizational chart illustrating the reporting
structure to this office. You will see that there
are 18 persons reporting directly. The organization
of this group, so as to provide an effective voice
for each area reporting to the executive vice-
president, has been a steady topic since the
position of executive vice-president was conceived
and since its implementation was begun last August.
Several structures have been tried. At present
those areas that directly report to this office now
meet weekly with me. This is a staff meeting. No
persons other than those deans and directors who
head areas reporting directly to the vice-president
participate. It will be inappropriate to extend
participation in this body further for two reasons.
(1) 18 persons is already a larger staff meeting
than is desireable. (2) To extend participation to
a Senate representative should also be accompanied
by a wider extension, including student and staff
representation, thus changing the nature of the
body. To repeat, the deans and directors now meet
weekly in staff meetings. There are 18 of these
persons. This is not an advisory council. It is
the vice-president's staff."
Carstens asked if the Senate could resubmit this request in
four weeks? Sharik responded that the request could be
resubmitted at any time. Julien commented that the Senate
once placed a representative on the old Academic Council,
which was a decision-making body. After the Senate
representative was place on the Council, it became merely a
body for disseminating information.
VIII. Vice-President's Report
Sharik reported that Vice President Vilmann was ill. There
was no report.
IX. Committee Reports
A. Curricular Policy Committee: Chair Bornhorst reported on two
items. (1) The Committee has been meeting regularly to
consider and review the School of Technology's proposal for
creating a four-year program. The committee continues to
analyze the proposal carefully and to advise the School of
Technology on revisions. The School of Technology is
currently revising the proposal based on the Committee's
input. The Committee will continue that process into the
foreseeable future.
(2) Bornhorst moved that the agenda attachment, New Options
in Chemistry, be approved (Appendix D of these minutes).
Julien seconded the motion, which passed by voice vote without
opposition.
B. Constitution & Constituency Committee: Chair Heuvers
distributed and read a short committee report (Appendix E of
these minutes). Sharik asked Heuvers when the committee was
planning to submit a proposal to the Senate. Heuvers stated
that a draft proposal would be prepared for the next Senate
meeting on March 17, and would perhaps be distributed before
that meeting. Two weeks are being allowed for comments, and
a faculty forum is planned for March 31st. A Senate vote on
the constituency issue is planned for the April meeting of the
Senate.
C. Elections Committee: Chair Heyman said there was no report.
D. Fringe Benefits Committee: Chair Leifer reported that a
correction is needed for the first page of the sick leave
proposal, and that the new page would be distributed at the
next Senate meeting. Leifer stated that the change involved
a one time donation of 3 days; for example, at the initial
donation, the 132-day maximum possible sick leave would be
reduced to 129 days. Should the pool become exhausted after
the initial donation, another donation might be made which
could be restored, for example to the 129-day maximum. Leifer
commented that there would be another committee meeting to
finalize the proposal before submitting it to the
administration. The committee has been meeting with the
Provost; the committee is confident the proposal will not
bankrupt the university.
E. Institutional Evaluation Committee: Chair Hubbard reported
that at the next meeting a revised flow sheet and proposals
on governance will be brought to the Senate. Sharik asked
when the revised package of governance proposals would be
brought to the Senate. Hubbard stated that it should be at
the next meeting. Vable asked what had happen to the three
governance proposals that had been passed. Sharik said that
he had sent the three proposals in writing to the President,
indicating the Senate's intent that these become part of
university policy and procedure. President Tompkins has not
responded.
F. Instructional Policy Committee: Chair Heuvers distributed
and read the committee's report dated 2-10-93, regarding a
plus-minus grading system for graduate courses (Appendix F of
these minutes). Sharik stated that his reasons for
introducing the proposal was that there was not enough range
of response for evaluating graduate course work, and that most
graduate programs nationally have + grading systems. Because
the graduate program is increasing on this campus such a
system would improve graduate education, because it would
prevent having to award a strong A when a graduate student
deserved an A-. Whitt asked whether the Senate knew how
graduate students might feel about a + grading system? Nelson
asked if there had been a survey of practices in peer
institutions. Julien commented that graduate
******************************************************************
Page 3745 Minutes of Senate Meeting 195 10 Feb 1993
students seem uninterested in grade points. Vable said that
grad students in his department had objected to a proposed
change of the grading system. Heyman asked whether or not the
Banner system could handle a + for graduate students in 400-
level courses. Nelson asked what would be the value of an A-
if the B+ is 3.5. Bulleit stated that he would like a more
refined grading scale; that if there are +'s there should be
-'s also. Sharik commented that the Senate could ask the
committee to revisit this issue and force it to come to a
vote. Carstens said that he also would like to see the system
more uniform, and that the current policy was a result of Tim
Whitten's attempt to inflate grades. Whitt commented that
strong student opposition does not mean the Senate cannot act
on a policy.
Heyman moved that the Instructional Policy Committee
return to the issue of a + grading system for graduate courses
and report a proposition back to the Senate. Heyman accepted
a friendly amendment to alter the motion to a consideration
of an across-the-board + system. Bulleit seconded the motion
which passed by a majority voice vote.
G. Research Policy Committee: Keeble reported that the
committee had met with the Scientific Misconduct Committee.
The Research Policy Committee is currently made up of three
people and is trying to increase that number to five, and
interested persons should contact M. McKimpson at IMP. Whitt
asked what was the charge to the committee. Keeble said the
committee was addressing the current University Scientific
Misconduct Policy, but that any problem with research policy
lay in its purview. Sharik said that several issues had been
brought to his attention: (1) the SPIN system for finding
funding has being discontinued without consultation; (2)
should there be a contingency fund for back-up when funds from
awarded grants are late or ill-timed in arrival; (3) the
recent change in fringe benefit rates were increased to 30%
for graduate students; (4) decommissioning of the main-frame
computer may affect research programs negatively, and will be
especially awkward for programs currently under contract; (5)
increasing the diversity and numbers of this committee.
Heyman commented that shutting down the main frame computer
harms not only research programs, but also small departments
who depend on main-frame processing of e-mail.
X. Reports of Affiliated and Ad Hoc Committees
A. President's Cabinet: Sharik had no report because the
Cabinet has not met since the last Senate meeting.
B. Board of Control Liaison Task Force: With Vilmann absent,
there was no report.
C. Ad Hoc Committee for Discussion of Unionization: Chair
Julien reported that union representatives have held regular
forums to discuss the questions that concern the Senate.
Sharik said that the central question concerning the Senate
was the relationship between the Senate and a union. Whitt
commented that all the Senators had received a letter inviting
them to the hear a speaker who was brought in to address this
issue, but that the organizers are willing to send a
representative to address the Senate's next meeting.
D. Ad Hoc Committee on Enrollment Policy: Carstens reported
that the committee is still gathering information. Lukowski
stated that the committee has identified the policy change
that caused the dramatic enrollment reductions in the School
of Technology. However, reasons for the policy change are not
clear from interviews with attenders at the blue-ribbon
committee meeting where the change was discussed.
XI. Old Business
Agenda Item - Hiring Procedures Regarding Minorities & Women:
Whitt stated that in its previous meeting the Senate had asked
her to look into alternative legal counsel on this issue and
the costs involved. She reported four actions. First, that
President Tompkin's Commission on the Status of Women had
invited two lawyers who are women to an open forum on women's
issues on 11 February; Whitt said she had sent these attorneys
a list of questions and documentation concerning the issue of
hiring procedures. Second, Whitt had obtained the names of
two lawyers from Detroit to address the problems of the MTU
affirmative action plan and social justice program. These
lawyers had agreed to examine the problem free of charge.
Whitt had suggested to President Sharik that he would be the
appropriate contact for these people. Third, the American
Federation of Teachers volunteered the use of its lawyer, Mark
Cousens, should the Senate choose to use him. Fourth, Whitt
had obtained a countering legal opinion regarding Vernon
Dorweiler's letters to the Lode editor and to Sharik. The
letter should appear in the MTU Lode; it is found as Appendix
G of these minutes.
Sharik reported that he had contacted lawyer William
Goodman of Detroit by telephone. Goodman was asked for a
legal opinion on MTU's hiring procedures for minorities and
women. Goodman volunteered to render the opinion for no fee,
but said that if he were to lead a workshop at MTU on the
topic, he would need help with his travel expenses. Sharik
said that a full set of information concerning this issue had
been sent to Goodman.
XII. New Business
A. Agenda Item - Report from the Committee on Academic Tenure:
The Chair of the committee, Calvin White, distributed a report
from the committee (Appendix H of these minutes). He
indicated this was the report requested in the spring by
former Senate President Julien, who had asked the Academic
Tenure Committee to make sure University practice was
consistent with University policy. White summarized the
report, noting that the explicit University requirement for
a written annual review is missing from the written
requirements for some departments. Vable asked whether the
committee functioned not only to establish criteria, but also
as an oversight body if something goes wrong? White stated
that the committee is an appellate body, that the policy
allows for explicit appeals based on procedure error. Appeals
for other reasons are not allowed, but are also not
prohibited. White indicated that the faculty member concerned
usually initiated the appeal, but that the Provost could also
bring the appeal.
Sharik asked if there were any reason why the creation of
tenure policy should not be done within the Senate. White
indicated that the Senate now elects the majority of members
of the committee. As a practical matter White believes that
policies have a much greater likelihood of passage by the
Board if the President has some input into the committee.
White stated that there are some serious problems with the
tenure policy that the committee is in the process of
revising.
******************************************************************
Page 3746 Minutes of Senate Meeting 195 10 Feb 1993
One of the problems being addressed is the appeals process for
other than procedural problems. White stated that the Senate
or any other faculty body could come to the committee to
suggest changes in policy. Glime commented there is one other
appeal and that is dismissal for cause and that can be
initiated by the faculty member.
Whitt asked whether it were possible to notify tenure
candidates at every step of the process above the departmental
level. White said that the suggestion was a good one, and
that such proposals should be put in writing to the committee.
Changes in tenure policy need to be voted on by the faculty.
Vable asked if this was a voice vote? White said that it is
by secret ballot. Vable asked why the ballot cannot be sent
out as in a Senate referendum. White replied that it could
use a similar voting mechanism.
B. Agenda Item - Formation of Financial Committee: Jambekar
distributed a copy of a proposal to form a Senate Committee
on Financial Planning and Policy (Appendix I of these
minutes). He noted that attached to the proposal was a copy
of a page from the Board of Control policy manual, which
states that the Senate is not to consider administrative
matters such a finance and personnel. Jambekar said the
Senate should be aware that establishing the committee was a
policy violation. Sharik said that the recommendations of the
Fringe Benefits Committee also violate the policy. Hubbard
moved that a Financial Planning and Policy Committee be
created. Heuvers seconded the motion. Bulleit asked whether
the Budget Liaison Officer should chair the proposed
committee. Jambekar said that once the committee is
established, the job of the Budget Liaison Officer will
disappear. Bulleit replied that this was not evident from the
proposal. Hubbard accepted a friendly amendment to the motion
to dissolve the job of the Liaison Officer.
Jambekar asked whether the Board of Control policy should
be brought to the attention of the Provost or Chief Financial
Officer. Heyman said the committee should go ahead, and let
the administration take the responsibility for forcing the
committee's dissolution. Sharik pointed out that the
administration had dissolved the University Finance Committee,
which left no avenue for inputs to the budgeting process. The
motion was passed with no opposition by voice vote.
XIII. Adjournment
Sharik noted for the record that the Senate actually conducted
its business in about one hour. Heuvers moved that the
meeting be adjourned. The motion was seconded massively.
President Sharik declared the meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
Submitted by Robert Keen
Senate Secretary
.