******************************************************************
Page 3772 Minutes of Senate Meeting 196 17 Mar 1993
The Senate of Michigan Technological University
Minutes of Meeting No. 196
I. Call to Order
At 7:08 pm on Wednesday, 17 March 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 Sciences,
KRC, Graduate Student Council. Absent Senator-at-large:
Boutilier.
III. Recognition of Visitors
J. Coleman-Plouff (Senate Secretary Asst.), J. Caron
(President of MTU Undergraduate Student Government), J. Glime
(Biol. Sci.), M. Goodrich (MTU Tech Topics), K. Lipmann (MTU
Lode), W. Scheuerman (State University of New York-Oswego).
IV. Special Report on Faculty Unionization
President Sharik announced that a special report would be
presented before passing on to the regular Senate business.
Sharik introduced William Scheuerman, who was appearing as a
result of the Senate's request for a union representative to
discuss relationships between faculty unions and university
senates.
In his presentation, Scheuerman pointed out that faculty
are unionized at first-rate universities, that the job of
administration is to serve the faculty, and that unions insure
that this occurs. He reviewed his personal experiences with
unions, saying that unions strengthen faculty governance, and
that union contracts may include senate by-laws, which can put
teeth into senate decisions.
Hubbard asked about the organization of the SUNY union.
Scheuerman replied that the SUNY system is unusual, with a
single union having chapters on each campus with autonomous
leadership; some union leaders are elected statewide.
Carstens asked whether Scheuerman's turn toward unionization
was gradual or the product of an administrative "atrocity".
Scheuerman said that it was combination of the two. Glime
asked whether unions resulted in improved relationships
between administrators and faculty. Scheuerman said that it
did, providing examples from his personal experience at SUNY.
He said a faculty union was a craft union, not an industrial
union.
Sharik asked about salary structure and unionization.
Scheuerman described the procedures for the SUNY system,
including across-the-board raises, merit raises, various
awards, and union participation in the budgeting process.
Whitt asked Scheuerman to address concerns about local union
autonomy and affiliation with national union groups.
Scheuerman replied that the local unions are autonomous,
although the SUNY situation is somewhat unusual with its 32
local chapters. He said their national group, the American
Federation of Teachers, obtains a percentage of local dues and
operates on issues at the national level. Glime asked how
merit pay worked under the union, to permit department heads
flexibility. Scheuerman replied that the issue of merit pay
would be the subject of local bargaining, and that if the
status quo was satisfactory, it could be continued.
Mullins asked how the SUNY unions handled the problems of
salary contraction like that occurring at MTU, and whether the
SUNY unions had ever gone on strike. Scheuerman replied that
the concept of a strike in higher education was absurd; other
methods are more effective. He said also that tight budgetary
periods had occurred in New York, that the administrative
response before unionization was to cut faculty, that the
current procedure for layoffs requires due process, and that
the administrations cooperate with the unions in maintaining
job security. Sharik asked whether the unions in SUNY had
worked with Total Quality Management (TQM). Scheuerman
replied that they had, although the faculty helped set the
goals of the program through their unions. Leifer asked
whether the unions had any input in setting salaries of
administrators. Scheuerman replied that the unions did not
have such input, and did not want to have it; however, the
unions did make note of large administrative salary increases,
and made these a point of future negotiation or of local
publicity.
Sharik thanked Scheuerman for his report, and called a 5-
minute recess.
V. Minutes
The minutes of Meeting No. 195 were accepted and corrected.
Keen noted that pagination of the minutes of Meeting 195 were
incorrect as distributed, but would be corrected for the
official record. Leifer moved that the minutes be approved
as corrected; Grzelak second the motion. The motion was
approved without opposition.
VI. Senate President's Report
A. Senate Office: Sharik reported that the University Senate
phone number was 487-3331, with office hours approximately
from 2 to 4 pm.
B. Sharik conferred recently with President Tompkins. Tompkins
was concerned that the faculty had yet to evaluate his
performance, even though he had specifically requested such
evaluations every six months. Hubbard mentioned that
institutional evaluations last spring only included deans and
department heads.
C. Sharik reported that the SPIN system, a tool to search for
funding sources for research and other academic projects, was
******************************************************************
Page 3773 Minutes of Senate Meeting 196 17 Mar 1993
not being repurchased by the Research Office because it was
little used. Sharik indicated that he had information on less
expensive alternate plans for maintaining the system.
D. Sharik had received a note of thanks from Ellen Horsch for
distributing the minutes to a wider audience.
E. Board of Control matters: Sharik noted that the Board of
Control now has a local representative, Dr. Kenneth Rowe.
Sharik spent 1.5 days with Rowe in a workshop. Sharik had
asked Rowe to transmit the Senate's regrets at not being able
to attend this week's Board meeting in Detroit. Sharik also
asked Rowe to invite the Board's opinion on the draft
constitution.
F. Sharik indicated that as Senate president he was appointed
a member of the TQM/TQE Steering Committee, along with the
vice-presidents and S. Bowen, chair of the University's
Planning and Vision Committee. The Steering Committee has
participated in a workshop conducted by the 3M Corporation.
Sharik said that a TQE representative will be invited to
address the Senate to clarify the concept of TQE.
Sharik said that he has warned the Steering Committee that
TQE must not be seen as being a top-down imposition on the
faculty. Whitt asked whether the process was in fact a top-
down decision, because the Senate was never consulted about
whether the program should be instituted. Sharik replied that
her statement was correct, and that if people did not
participate in TQE, then it does not work.
G. The Senate has had $500 added to its budget to deal with
printing the mailings about the constitutional revision. The
source of the funds is President Tompkins.
H. Sharik announced that in the spirit of collegiality, the
Senate meeting would adjourn to the Ambassador Restaurant.
VII. Vice-President's Report
Vice-President Vilmann reported that he was not going to
attend the meeting of the Board of Control in Detroit because
of lack of funding. He said that he had looked through their
agenda, and had found two interesting items. The first was
a recommendation that retirement medical co-payment not be
reduced from 20 percent to 15 percent; Vilmann had forwarded
a copy of their documentation to Leifer, Chair of the Senate
Fringe Benefits Committee. The second item was a report on
University finances. No supporting documentation was attached
to the agenda.
Leifer said that the document on the medical program
recommended continuation of the program.
VIII. Committee Reports
A. Curricular Policy Committee. S. Beske-Diehl read a report
from Chair Bornhorst: "The Committee expects to soon receive
a revised proposal from the School of Technology on
establishment of a B.S. degree. Upon receipt of the revised
proposal the committee will continue its review."
B. Constitution and Constituency Committee. Chair Heuvers
reported that copies of a draft revised constitution (Appendix
A of these minutes) had been circulated to all constituents,
to prospective constituents, to the administration, and to the
Board of Control. He stated that the proposed constitution
would expand the constituency and authority of the Senate,
and summarized the main points of the revision. Heuvers
announced that an Open Forum on the revision would be held on
April 24.
C. Elections Committee. Chair Heyman said petitions would be
circulated for nominations for Senators-at-large, the
Committee on Academic Tenure, the Athletic Council, the
Sabbatical Leave Committee, and the General Education
Committee.
D. Fringe Benefits Committee. Chair Leifer reported that after
the Senate's unanimous vote in January favoring the retirement
benefits package, the Committee sent a letter to Provost
Powers with copies to the other vice-presidents, requesting
a meeting to incorporate the remainder of the benefits package
in the 1993-94 budget. The administration is costing out the
package with various insurance and actuarial companies; the
Committee hopes to have their report by 1 April.
Leifer also commented that there was an inaccuracy in
Provost Powers statement at the previous Senate meeting that
the health benefits package at Northern Michigan University
was not as good as MTU's. Leifer said that MTU personnel can
accrue 132 days of sick leave but that NMU personnel can
accrue 195 days, with 50 percent of the unused sick leave paid
at retirement.
Grzelak said that NMU's faculty enjoyed a larger
contribution to TIAA-CREF retirement, and suggested that over
the long term this was important. Leifer replied that the
Committee was looking at this.
E. Institutional Evaluation Committee. Chair Hubbard said that
the Committee's report (Appendix B of these minutes) was
attached to the agenda, and showed how policy might be
established at Michigan Tech under the proposed constitution.
Sharik asked whether the document answered the expressed
concerns of the Board of Control about the flow of proposals
through the University, or whether it dealt only with flow
through the Senate. He asked whether the Committee was
concerned with some sort of higher group like an executive
council that brought together aspects of Senate decision-
making with the Student and Staff Councils for example.
Hubbard replied that the flow-chart showed how the input of
these groups interacted with Senate committees. He said that
the expanded Senate was envisaged as the central body in the
decision-making process.
F. Instructional Policy Committee. Chair Heuvers said there was
no report. Vilmann asked about the status of the teaching
honor roll that the Senate approved some time ago. Heuvers
replied that the Center for Teaching Excellence had at first
said the development of the honor roll was a minor item, but
now reported it to be a major problem involving much
paperwork.
Heuvers said that the Center was now asking individual
faculty to submit photocopies of their evaluations if they
******************************************************************
Page 3774 Minutes of Senate Meeting 196 17 Mar 1993
qualified for inclusion on the Honor Roll. Sharik commented
that S. Bowen, head of Biological Sciences, had informed the
Center in a memo that departments and individual faculty
should not be involved with Honor Roll identification, that
faculty would be reluctant to reveal their evaluations.
Heuvers said that the Center has a severe shortage of
resources. Glime commented that Bowen had refused on
principle to handle even the paperwork the Center was asking
of the departments. Whitt asked whether the faculty were
going to be notified of the proposal for self-identification.
Sharik said the entire problem needs elaboration.
G. Research Policy Committee. Chair McKimpson said the
Committee was continuing to review the scientific misconduct
policy, and would report to the Senate with its
recommendations. The Committee is still expanding, and is
looking for a member from the College of Engineering.
McKimpson distributed a letter (Appendix C of these minutes)
asking Senators and constituents to provide the Committee with
input on areas of concern. McKimpson specifically asked for
feedback about the problems created by removal of the
mainframe computer.
Whitt asked whether the Committee was or should be
involved in the problem with scientific misconduct in the
University recently reported by the student newspaper.
McKimpson replied that the Committee's input would be confined
to a review of the procedures with which such cases would be
managed in the future. He said that the case was being dealt
with by a separate committee not connected with the Senate,
which was appropriate.
Moore said that a major problem with removal of the large
computer was that the library will not be able to operate its
catalog, and that finding and funding a replacement system has
been a problem. Sharik said that he had received a letter
from Phyllis Johnson of the Library, asking to make a
presentation to the Senate on the subject of its choice of
replacement.
H. Financial Planning & Policy Committee. Chair Jambekar said
the Committee was still looking for members, because only four
were currently serving. He referred to the request for
members (Appendix D of these minutes) circulated with the
agenda.
Whitt inquired about the diversion of academic funds as
a part of the retirement package approved last year. It seems
that departments with MPSERS retirees have been losing six
months of the retirees' position salaries, and the diversion
of academic funds to support non-academic activities like
retirement seems extraordinarily bad precedent and practice.
Jambekar said he would bring up the issue with the
University's Financial Officer in an upcoming meeting. Leifer
referred to the recent Board of Control document that
explained the situation. Whitt read the passage: "The
assumption was made that the MPSERS lump sum payout on
retirement would be paid from departmental funds realized by
not filling vacant positions for a period of six months."
Whitt wondered whether the Board of Control had made that
assumption. Leifer said the assumption had been made by the
now-defunct University Financial Advisory Committee and by
Bert Whitten, and that the charge of the Fringe Benefits
Committee is to develop a satisfactory fringe benefits
program, while the charge of the Financial Planning and Policy
Committee is to implement it in an adequate way, and if they
do not consider this adequate then they can make whatever
funding arrangements they want.
Heyman said that the issue is important, and that small
departments especially can be significantly impacted in
personnel, finances, and union problems. Whitt said the issue
was one of principle and of dangerous precedent. Hubbard said
the policy was the result of an attempt to make MPSERS and
TIAA-CREF retirement plans equitable, which was very
difficult. Sharik said the problem was not one of disparity,
but of fund diversion. Heyman said the issue was one of
trying to do it cheaply. Diebel said the current policy can
lead to a department head considering age as a factor in lay-
off. Leifer said that Heads/Chairs were asked by Bert Whitten
if they could accommodate this method of funding; they had
replied that replacement of faculty would take at least six
months, and that temporary replacements could be hired to
cover other positions. Leifer agreed in principle that the
funds should not come from academic areas. Moore said that
the Library was hurt particularly because three-fourths of its
personnel was covered by the MPSERS plan, and that numerous
retirements were going to occur soon.
Heyman said that the Senate should consider going on
record as opposing having academic and similar units pay for
MPSERS retirements out of their budgets. Jambekar said the
money had to come from somewhere. Heyman said that the issue
of principle needed to be considered immediately, and the
study of the source of money could be taken up later. Roblee
asked from where the money was to come for the health plan.
Leifer said it was to come from funds set aside for that
purpose. Roblee asked why the MPSERS funds could not be
covered the same way. Leifer replied that particular question
would have to go to the administration. Leifer said that the
problem should be thought through well, and the motion written
out. Sharik said the spirit of the motion could be an
expression of Senate concern, that the Senate had no input to
the decision to divert academic funds.
Whitt moved that the Senate express its concern about the
diversion of academic funds to cover the MPSERS retirement
benefits and that the Financial Planning & Policy Committee
propose a motion addressing the issue. Leifer seconded the
motion. Sharik said the motion was a long one. Jambekar said
that the Committee could do little more than report back to
the Senate about the issue, because the decision has already
been made. Keen read the motion from notes, "that the Senate
expresses its concern about the diversion of academic funds
to cover the MPSERS retirement and that the Financial Planning
and Policy Committee is to study and report back to the Senate
on the problem." Whitt said the latter part of the reading
made the motion more general than her original statement, but
that it was appropriate. Jambekar expressed satisfaction with
the reading. The motion carried by voice vote without
opposition.
IX. Reports from Affiliated and Ad Hoc Committees
A. President's Cabinet. Sharik reported that President
Tompkins' cabinet met on February 23rd. There were two items
of interest to the Senate.
First, Provost Powers told the Cabinet that he had
presented the budget at a number of open forums and now it is
******************************************************************
Page 3775 Minutes of Senate Meeting 196 17 Mar 1993
ready to go to the Board of Control on March 19. He stated
that the draft will be discussed at the Board meeting and will
come back to campus for further discussion.
Sharik said that the Cabinet had taken no vote on the
budget, and that he was asking Jambekar to obtain some
documentation of the changes that had occurred in the budget
as a result of all the discussions. Jambekar said that
without comments from the forums, there could be no changes.
Sharik said that some pretty strong comments had been made in
the Senate relative to the balance in academic spending, but
that had not resulted in any changes in the budget presented
in the Cabinet.
Second, J. Galetto presented a report to the Cabinet on
enrollment management and the relationship between general
engineering program and engineering technology. Galetto had
said he will be getting together with T. Collins, and will be
sending a letter to rejected engineering applicants asking
them to consider the option of engineering technology.
In addition, the Cabinet had discussed the vice-
presidential car allowances. Some Cabinet members had pointed
out that the amount about equalled the total of new
acquisitions for the library. Employee recognition awards had
been given a budget of $36,000. The Cabinet had discussed
whether faculty should be included in the award program.
Sharik had agreed to bring the question back to the Senate.
Sharik said the question fell between the cracks of existing
committee areas, and asked the Financial Planning & Policy
Committee, and the Fringe Benefits Committee to decide among
themselves which committee ought to deal with the question.
Whitt asked about the nature of Cabinet meetings, and
whether the Cabinet actually made any decisions, or whether
it only discussed decisions that were presented to it. She
expressed concern about the potential for manipulation of such
discussion. Sharik said that the Cabinet never voted on
issues brought to it. Whitt asked whether anybody on the
Cabinet ever asked for a vote. Sharik replied that nobody
had, to his knowledge. Sharik said that the Cabinet served
to provide feedback to other bodies, acting in an advisory
capacity. Whitt said that when serious issues, such as the
automobile allowance, are brought to the Cabinet, apparently
there is no way of expressing the collective concern of the
body, and she found this distressing. Sharik said that it was
possible for the Senate to recommend through his advisory
capacity that the Cabinet function in a specific way, that it
vote on issues, for example. Whitt said that because the
Cabinet was not recognized on the flow-chart proposed by the
Institutional Analysis committee, it might not be wise to
alter its function. Hubbard said the Cabinet was off-line in
the flow-chart, because in making policy the Senate should
have the direct line through the President to the Board of
Control and because the Cabinet was too diffuse to be a
decision-making body. Hubbard also said that the automobile
allowance was a Board of Control policy, and the Cabinet or
any other body could do little about it. Sharik said that the
Cabinet was advisory only, not a decision-making body.
B. Board of Control Liaison Task Force. Chair Vilmann reported
that Sharik had arranged a luncheon with himself and Ken Rowe,
a new member of the Board of Control.
C. Ad Hoc Committee on Enrollment Policy. Lukowski summarized
the report of the Committee (Appendix E of these minutes).
Mullins asked whether this Committee or some other could
follow the long-term effects of the recent enrollment cap.
Bulleit said that Mullin's term "cap" referred to the high GPA
and ACT scores required for admission to various engineering
programs, and the reason for such criteria is to reduce
enrollment in overloaded programs by the only permissible
mechanism. He commented that this was inefficient, but that
a true cap based on numbers was not permitted in the
University, and that a limit to enrollment was needed to
ensure a quality education for students. Whitt asked why caps
based on numbers are not allowed. Bulleit said that he did
not know. J. Caron commented that the reason given in the
Cabinet for the no-cap policy is to avoid discouraging
potential applicants. Grzelak said that part of the problem
is the difficulty of predicting actual enrollment from numbers
of applicants.
Sharik said there is a continuing interest in the problem,
and asked whether enrollment policy should be examined further
by this Ad Hoc Committee or by the Instructional Policy
Committee, for example. Mullins said the Ad Hoc Committee
should be retained, that he was amazed that a major academic
policy has historically had no Senate input, and that this
seemed an obvious area for the Senate to set policy as well
as advise. Sharik said that this Ad Hoc Committee could be
made a standing sub-committee within the Curricular Policy
Committee. Vilmann said that enrollment policy had little to
do with Curricular Policy and that a standing committee was
needed. Mullins said the Senate should be leading the way on
this matter. Sharik asked whether the Ad Hoc Committee would
bring to the next meeting a report on the creation of a new
committee, to be named the Enrollment Management Committee.
Lukowski said that the current method of enrollment capping
is poor policy, because the applicants qualified under
stringent admission guidelines were qualified for much more
prestigious universities, and that a smaller percentage of
such admissions were likely to appear on campus; he suggested
that the effect might be a deficit of three or four hundred
students.
D. Ad Hoc Committee for Discussion of Unionization. In the
absence of Chair Julien, committee member Whitt said that the
visit by Scheuerman was part of the committee's efforts to
promote discussion and that another speaker would be presented
at the next Senate meeting. The Committee has yet to hold a
meeting. Discussion among members has involved formats for
future presentations. Hubbard asked whether it might be
possible to have a representative from an institution more
like Michigan Tech; the SUNY system with 10,000 faculty
members seems atypical. Whitt said she did not know whether
there were any unionized faculties like Michigan Tech, with
a strong engineering program. Bulleit suggested the
University of Maine.
E. Public Safety Advisory Board Liaison Person. Fynewever said
the Board has been meeting every two weeks, and has been
addressing the image of Public Safety. The Board's consensus
had been for the officers to improve their communications by
getting to know RAs better for example, and to convey an image
of professionalism and service. The officers are going
through sensitivity and first aid/CPR training. Public Safety
is looking at a name change. The Board's next task will be
development of policy covering when sidearms may be drawn.
******************************************************************
Page 3776 Minutes of Senate Meeting 196 17 Mar 1993
X. Old Business
There were no requests from the floor to consider any old
business. Sharik called for a short break of 5-minutes.
XI. New Business
A. Agenda Item - Discussion of Draft Constitution: Sharik
introduced USG President J. Caron and asked for his comments
on the draft constitution. Caron addressed the subject of
liaison positions. The Draft lists three such positions from
USG, Graduate Student Council, and the Staff Council, all non-
voting members of the Senate. He cited his experience that
such non-voting members rarely work, and rarely become as
involved in the process as voting members. Caron suggested
the creation of a standing Senate committee consisting of the
presidents of the Senate, USG, GSC and Staff Council, who
would meet on a regular basis to provide some coordination
between the groups outside of the Cabinet. Proposals could
be developed jointly among the groups, and each group could
forward proposals to the administration, with a resulting
greater weight.
Glime said that the rationale for including students as
liaison members of the Senate was to permit student input on
issues that occur during Senate deliberations. Caron repeated
his point that the liaison persons do not become involved,
and that there is likely to be little interest in individuals
serving in the position. Sharik said that Caron's comments
were a good example of valuable input from a liaison sort of
position. Caron said that the undergraduate position had not
been used that way in the past. Glime said that the liaison
persons should report at each Senate meeting, just as Senate
committees report. Heuvers said such reports should come at
the beginning of the meetings so the liaison persons did not
have to sit through entire sessions. Glime replied that their
input might be valuable at any time pertinent subjects were
raised on the floor. Heyman said there were two implications
in Caron's proposal, and the first problem was that of the
liaison. The second implication was that initiative would be
forwarded from the meeting of the four groups, possibly
modified from initiative passed by the Senate. This is a
problematic change from the current Draft. Caron replied that
this interpretation was reversed from his idea, which was that
ideas would come from the meeting of each of the four groups,
and be forwarded individually by each of the four groups.
Heyman said he was glad that this had been clarified.
Grzelak said that he and the majority of his constituents
favored an academic faculty senate, that the proposed senate
was too diffuse, and that its deliberations would take too
much time. Glime said that the reasoning for the proposed
structure was to provide the possibility of immediate input
from non-faculty groups, although the faculty will retain the
majority of votes. The service groups are more likely to
follow through with senate proposals because they will be
aware of faculty thinking on the issues. Mullins said that
the proliferation of committees on campus resulted in little
being done as a result of referrals among committees. He said
this was an effective management technique to keep the Senate
from accomplishing anything. Heyman said that two of the
issues considered in the current meeting provided a practical
illustration of the importance of a broader Senate: the impact
of the MPSERS retirement policy on the Library, and the
problems of enrollment. Sharik said that there was a
mechanism for deciding on who would vote on particular issues.
Grzelak said the same mechanism can lead to problems, such as
arguments on who can vote on what issues; the proposed senate
lacks unity of purpose. Heuvers said that academic faculty
would be in the majority in the proposed senate. Hubbard said
that the proposed senate would consist of only two groups, the
whole senate and an academic caucus, and that splintering
within the whole body would not be a problem. Beske-Diehl
said that making the body larger would make it smarter and
stronger, that a broader body would avoid passing proposals
that were vetoed because they were not enforceable.
Whitt said that Grzelak's constituency should attend the
forums on the new constitution, and that problems were
inevitable with any new proposal. However, between the
diffusion that is current and the proposed alternative, the
choice seems clearly to favor the new constitution. Heuvers
said that written comments from Vable included a suggestion
that the broader senate meet at least once per quarter, with
the academic portion of the senate meeting more frequently.
Diebel said that the Institute of Wood Research had worked
hard at blurring the distinction between academic faculty and
research faculty.
Keen said he had a problem with the definitions of
academic faculty in the draft Bylaws, particularly with the
inclusion of the adjectives "visiting" and "adjunct", and said
individuals whose home institution was not Michigan Tech had
no business being constituents of the proposed senate. Heyman
said they were not on the payroll, and hence could not be
considered constituents. Keen replied that point was
irrelevant, since the bylaws did not make such a distinction.
Glime said the intent of the wording was to permit "some
cases" to be members of the constituency. Mullins said that
the word "adjunct" was not on the list of adjectives. Keen
replied that "adjunct" was an adjective and was not excluded
from the sample listing. Mullins said that the designation
"visiting" included full-time faculty on tenure track who had
not received their green card, and that adjunct faculty were
rarely salaried employees. Keen asked how much salary a
faculty member had to earn to be a constituent. Mullins said
that adjuncts frequently were jointly listed among
departments. Beske-Diehl said that the wording should be
taken under advisement to indicate persons clearly
departmental members. Sharik said the point clearly needed
to be addressed.
Beske-Diehl noted that Geology was the incorrect name for
her department. She inquired about the ballot initiatives
described on page 11 and 6 of the Draft, particularly the
wording that "20% of the eligible senators can request a
Ballot Initiative". She said that 20% represented only 8
Senators, and that her department wanted this figure changed
to 50%. Hubbard said that this was an error, and should be
20% of the eligible constituents. Heuvers said that it was
not an error, and the committee was presenting the Senate with
a proposal for 20% of the senators. There was further
confused discussion of the point, then it was agreed to delete
the reference to 20%.
Whitt referred to Section D on page 16 and asked for the
rationale behind the change in wording between subsection
******************************************************************
Page 3777 Minutes of Senate Meeting 196 17 Mar 1993
A, "Responsibilities and Authority" and subsection B, with
omission of "Authority". Sharik said it represented a
division of matters over which the proposed senate was to have
real authority. In one part the senate will "initiate and
establish" policy; in the other part it will "participate in"
the formation of policy. Whitt suggested a rewording, to
which Heuvers agreed.
Diebel referred to Section 2-B on page 18, and asked if
this indicated that only research faculty were to have input
on matters like the allocation of research resources, etc.
Heuvers said that the intent was to include both academic and
research faculty in this listing. Sharik said the wording was
unclear. Heyman said that the document might include comments
indicating legislative intent.
Bulleit referred to page 2, Article III, section A, the
sentence "The Senate is the representative body for its
constituents and speaks for them on all matters of concern to
them or under their jurisdiction", and asked what the latter
part of the sentence meant. Heuvers said that, in the case
of academic departments, it referred to academic matters.
Bulleit said that "matters of concern" included this. Mullins
said that "their" referred to the senators' jurisdiction.
Bulleit said that this interpretation was precluded by the
"or". Mullins said it should be the "Senate's jurisdiction".
Glime said that the sentence might be reworded to read in that
way. Bulleit said it should be reworded to have meaning.
Hubbard said persons had concerns other than academic, for
example personal or marital. Glime said that the items of
concern was intended to refer to those of the whole
constituency. McKimpson asked if it were to be worded "...all
matters of concern to these constituents or under the
jurisdiction of the Senate." Mullins said he did not recall
that this was the committee's intent, and it might better read
"...all matters of concern to them under Senate jurisdiction".
Sharik said his interpretation was that "matters of Senate
jurisdiction" were clearly defined, but that "matters of
concern" were less clear and allowed Senate consideration of
matters they might want to address but which were not clearly
defined. Moore suggested this might include something like
automobile allowances.
Bulleit referred to page 3, Section 3, "veto power", and
noted there exist about 8 days at the end of the Spring
quarter and the beginning of Fall quarter, in which
essentially the same conditions exist as in the summer, which
the Draft is trying to avoid. Sharik suggested using the
wording "Summer Session". Hubbard suggested using "academic
year". Discussion generally shifted to the rationale for
using "six months". Whitt suggested that six months was too
long, that three months was sufficient. Glime said that six
months was allowed in case legal studies were needed, so that
the veto could be a final decision. Previous administrative
vetoes had taken much longer than six months. The discussion
settled on "three months of the regular academic year".
Vilmann suggested that the full departmental name be used
rather than ME/EM. Whitt said that the confusion on research
persons originated in Section E-2 on page 4. Hubbard
suggested that items 4-C-2-c and d on page 10 be deleted; the
items appear meaningless. Sharik said that there was
confusion among his constituents about the meaning of titles
of deans and directors of schools as used in the Draft.
Whitt referred to page 12, line 3, and asked about the
reason for limitation to two regularly scheduled meetings.
Heuvers said the limitation was due to the senate time frame.
There was discussion of the continual footnoting of
"Head/Chairs" throughout the document and alternatives.
Sharik reminded the Senate of the open forum on March 24,
and said the committee would meet soon thereafter to redraft
the document for presentation and voting for adoption.
Heuvers reviewed the adoption procedure, which required
submission of a draft constitution as an amendment to the
current constitution. He said the Senate would have to vote
for acceptance at two separate meetings, and then it would be
voted on by the constituency with a two-thirds majority needed
for acceptance. Heuvers said the votes could be completed by
the end of the Spring quarter. Keen asked to which
constituency was the constitution to be submitted. Heuvers
said it would be the full constituency. Keen said the current
constitution required submission to the academic faculty.
Heuvers replied that the current constitution was unclear,
calling for "submission to the academic faculty", with voting
by the "general faculty". Sharik said the spirit called for
submission to the constituency. Heuvers said this meant the
full constituency.
B. As an informational item, Sharik said that all presentations
to the Senate needed to be scheduled through himself.
C. Vilmann distributed copies of a memo (Appendix F of these
minutes) written by Dean Watwood to Heads/Chairs of
engineering departments concerning teaching evaluations.
Vilmann said the sense of the memo is to make any teacher with
an evaluation below 2.5 a "problem teacher". Vilmann said
that the figure is arbitrary, and the entire memo runs counter
to the spirit in which the evaluation program was initiated.
He said the Senate should consider rescinding its approval of
the evaluation system if it is going to be employed in this
fashion.
Whitt asked if the move was unilateral, or if the deans
had been directed to do this. She also asked how this would
be viewed in the light of TQE. Vilmann said the memo
represented an ill-considered position. Heyman said this was
a first step toward putting the numbers of the evaluation in
stone, even though the meaning of the numbers is not clear.
Keen noted that the Senate knows that 4.5 represents a "master
teacher" because it had voted this number. Heyman said he was
suspicious of this fact. Grzelak asked if the memo indicates
a violation of the confidentiality of the evaluation, which
is supposed to go only to the individual faculty and to the
heads/chairs. Heuvers said the data also go to the deans, to
be used in promotion, tenure and salary decisions. Heyman
said that the memo might better have asked for a brief report
on the particular situations.
Sharik asked if the matter should be referred to the
Instructional Policy Committee. Vilmann said the report
should appear quickly, because there was concern that it might
be institutionalized in his department. Mullins said his
concern was with tying the evaluations to TQE.
D. Grimm said that Vable had asked him to inquire whether anything
was being done about the evaluation of administrators.
President Tompkins has requested an evaluation of his own
performance. Hubbard said that the Institutional Evaluation
would handle it.
******************************************************************
Page 3778 Minutes of Senate Meeting 196 17 Mar 1993
XII. Adjournment
Sharik asked for a motion to adjourn. Grimm moved that the
meeting adjourn. There was a majority of seconds. President
Sharik declared the meeting adjourned at 11:10 pm.
Submitted by Robert Keen
Senate Secretary
.