******************************************************************
Page 3808 Minutes of Senate Meeting 197 7 Apr 1993
The Senate of Michigan Technological University
Minutes of Meeting No. 197
I. Call to Order
At 7:04 pm on Wednesday, 7 April 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. Senators or alternates
from the following units were absent: AF ROTC, Computer Sciences,
Graduate Student Council. Absent Senator-at-large: Vable. KRC
was represented by C. Green. President Sharik welcomed the return
of P. Boutilier to the Senate.
III. Recognition of Visitors
J. Coleman-Plouff (Senate Secretary Asst.), T. Collins (Sch of
Tech), J. Glime (Bio Sciences), M. Goodrich (MTU Tech Topics), R.
Heckel (Met & Matls Eng), M. Kilpela (Sch of Tech), J. Jamar (Sch
of Tech), P. Johnson (Van Pelt Library), K. Lipmann (MTU Lode), D.
Poplawski (Ctr Exp Comp), P. Tampas (Sch of Tech), J. Waber
(Physics), W. Weingarten (Sch of Tech).
IV. Agenda Adjustments
Sharik referred to the Agenda (Appendix A of these minutes) and
noted that Item 11.A should include "other related matters", and
that there should be added a new item, "11.C Senate appointee to
computer executive committee". Sharik also indicated that Item
III, Approval of Minutes, would be omitted because the minutes of
Meeting 196 had not been distributed.
V. Message from the Provost
Sharik invited the new University Provost, Fredrick Dobney, to
address the Senate. Dobney said that if shared governance were to
become a reality, relationships between the administration and the
Senate would have to be closer than in the past, requiring goodwill
and open lines of communication from both parties. Dobney said he
had initiated biweekly meetings with the Senate officers and
administrators as part of this effort. Citing a need to expose the
Senate to the campus and community to help them understand its
significance, Dobney suggested that the Senate videotape its
meetings and broadcast them on a public access cable channel.
Dobney said this was done at Washington State University, where the
audience was surprisingly diverse and numerous. He said he would
be willing to underwrite the cost of the project, and that it would
be a valuable means of communicating with the Senate's
constituency.
Asked if he planned to attend Senate meetings regularly, Dobney
replied that it was not likely, unless the Senate wanted to ask him
about specific plans.
VI. Special Report on the Library
Sharik introduced Phyllis Johnson, Director of the Van Pelt
Library, for a presentation about the library. Johnson discussed
the library's automation project, which has objectives of bringing
the on-line catalog into conformity with the rest of the campus
system and of increasing functionality. The opportunity for this
is a product of the removal of the IBM main-frame computer. From
four options the library selected a move to the Unix-based NOTIS
system, requiring purchase of appropriate hardware. This option
will allow access to the full library facility from the campus
network. MTU will be an early-release site for the NOTIS software,
resulting in increased support during installation. The software
is used at many major universities in Michigan, and conforms to
ANSI standard Z39.58. Functionality will be improved with an
ability to access not only the MTU library's holdings list, but
various on-line databases and external library systems.
Installation and switching to the new system will occur in January
1994.
Initial questions and answers involved the possibility and the
mechanics of accessing various databases, including catalogs of
other Michigan libraries, Chemical Abstracts, Science Citation
Index, etc. In response to a question about the cost of
conversion, the budget for the new system was distributed (Appendix
B of these minutes). Johnson explained that most of the expenses
were going to be only continuation of current spending. Provost
Dobney also responded to the question, saying that some of the
expenditure was a one-time expense, and would be paid with some
funds that were available on a one-time basis as a result of
conservative estimates of the university's budget. Dobney also
explained that the University does not have a good budget control
system, but it appears that there is a slight surplus that can be
used for the library. Johnson said that the budget for book
acquisitions is $90,000, but that journal subscriptions represent
93% of the total acquisitions budget. Other questions involved the
library's plans for purchasing various databases.
Sharik thanked Johnson for her presentation and called for a
5-minute break.
VII. Senate President's Report
A. Sharik said that as Senate President he was a member of the
Steering Committee for the Total Quality Management (TQM)
program. Rebecca Christianson had been scheduled to make a
presentation about the program to the Senate, but was out of
town and would speak at the next Senate meeting. Sharik said
the program is not intended to change the vision of the
University, but to use the techniques of TQM to realize the
vision. Sharik listed the items on which the Committee had
focused in prioritizing TQM objectives: (1) establish
enrollment management; (2) develop a performance-appraisal
system for all MTU employees based on TQM considerations; (3)
develop a five-year plan incorporating all Total Quality
******************************************************************
Page 3809 Minutes of Senate Meeting 197 7 Apr 1993
Education (TQE) goals, objectives and measures; (4) improve
governance and decision-making; (5) develop a professional-
development program for all MTU employees; (6) coordinate
departmental graduate program administration for improved
efficiency. Sharik said that each member of the Steering
Committee had been assigned one of these objectives as a
sponsor; the Committee consisted of the MTU vice presidents,
the Senate President, and the Chair of the University Planning
Committee. Sharik said he was the sponsor for the fourth
objective, and that one of the first activities with the TQE
approach is to put together a project team to consider the
area of governance.
B. Sharik said that on March 29, he and Vilmann had met with Dr.
Ken Rowe, a new member of the Board of Control from the local
area. Besides opening up avenues of communication with the
Board, the purpose of the meeting was to obtain feedback on
the revised constitution. Rowe indicated he had not received
any major criticism of the revision, based on initial readings
by the Board.
C. Sharik said that the Senate Council was beginning to meet
regularly with Provost Dobney at his request, with the agenda
for these meetings open. A. Jambekar, chair of the Senate
Financial Planning & Policy Committee, has been asked by the
Provost to join these meetings. Other committee chairs may
be brought in as the agenda warrants. At the initial meeting,
topics included (1) the budget & long-term planning of the
budget, including the need for early Senate involvement; (2)
the revised Constitution & Bylaws, and the Provost's concerns
with these; (3) fringe benefits, with further meetings planned
between the Provost, the Fringe Benefits Committee, and the
Senate Financial Planning Committee; and (4) the four-year
technology program.
D. Sharik said that if any Senate committee is missing numbers or
diversity, its chair should contact the officers.
VIII. Vice-President's Report
Vice-President Vilmann said he had nothing to report.
IX. Committee Reports
A. Curricular Policy Committee. Chair Bornhorst referred to the
Committee report (Appendix C of these minutes) distributed
with the agenda, and said the Committee was recommending that
the full Senate approve the Proposal for the Bachelor of
Science Degree in Engineering Technology. Bornhorst noted
that the proposal had generated a lot of rumors. An early
version had been reviewed by the University Direction &
Planning Committee. Bornhorst said the proposal received in
December 1992 had since been rewritten, and that the current
proposal was in fact new and much different. The issues of
need, resources, linkage, and approach had been examined
carefully in the original proposal, and the Curricular Policy
Committee had asked the School of Technology to make major
revisions of the proposal. The Committee had passed the
revised proposal with a 7-2 vote.
Bornhorst said that controversy about the proposal turned
on two basic issues. The first involved the need of the State
of Michigan for the proposed program, and the merit of the
program. Bornhorst said the seven positive votes in effect
affirmed the need and merit. The second issue involved
questions about the appropriateness of the proposed program
to the mission of Michigan Tech, including the emphasis on
graduate education. These considerations had provoked the
two negative votes. The persons voting negatively had written
a minority report. Bornhorst distributed copies of the
proposal (Appendix D of these minutes) and of the minority
report (Appendix E of these minutes).
Sharik called for general questions about the proposal.
Mullins asked if the "mission" mentioned by Bornhorst referred
to the "vision statement". Bornhorst replied that the vision
statement was pretty broad, and that he had implied not only
the statement itself, but also connotations invoked in
individual imaginations. Roblee said that the vision
statement was so broad that it could be interpreted to suit
any individual's purpose. Sharik asked about the preferred
timetable for handling the proposal. Bornhorst replied that
a discussion and vote on the proposal should occur at the next
meeting; if approved, the proposal would be implemented in
Fall 1994. Mullins asked if there were a written majority
report of the Committee. Bornhorst replied there was not, but
that the minutes of the meetings were available, and that the
proposal itself represents the majority opinion. Bulleit said
the usual practice was for proposals to come from committees
merely with a report recommending approval or disapproval, and
that the minority report is the unusual feature of this
Committee report. Mullins said there ought to be a majority
report. Roblee suggested that Mullins read the report.
Bornhorst said that the general approach in the revised
proposal had been recommended by the Committee, and that the
Committee had even edited the wording of the original
proposal. Mullins said he would like to see more information
about the favorable decision. Bornhorst replied that he could
send Mullins copies of the Committee minutes.
Heyman asked for a five-year projection in the enrollment
in the proposed program. Collins said they were proposing a
no-growth limit of 25 students per year per program, or a
total of about 100 students. Heyman asked about the no-growth
assumption. Bornhorst said the Committee had asked for and
received a detailed analysis of teaching loads in the School
of Technology. Heyman asked whether the analysis included the
impact outside of the School of Technology, and said that the
projected increase of 50 students per cohort would have
minimal impact on his department. Bornhorst said that the
projected impact depended heavily on the total enrollment in
the University.
B. Constitution and Constituency Committee. Chair Heuvers
reported that a Third Draft of the revised constitution
(Appendix F of these minutes) had been circulated to the
Senate with a cover memo from President Sharik. The memo
indicated that the full Senate ought to decide the location
in the proposed revision of some important sections concerning
which subset of the proposed senate was to have authority over
certain matters. Sharik commented that these sections had
been left in the same position in the Third Draft as in
earlier drafts. However, a majority of the Committee now
thought they should be relocated. Sharik called for a motion
concerning the shifting of the indicated sections.
Roblee moved that items III-F-1-a-5 and III-F-1-a-6 be
shifted to fall under part III-F-3-a [i.e., admissions and the
academic calendar be shifted from academic to general
concerns]. Vilmann seconded the motion. Bulleit asked what
the
******************************************************************
Page 3810 Minutes of Senate Meeting 197 7 Apr 1993
phrase "and prerequisites" meant in item 5. Vilmann said he
assumed it meant high school preparation. Grzelak said he
supported the present location of both items as exclusively
matters belonging to the academic faculty. Heyman said that
part of the concern with the academic calendar lies in
previously proposed changes to the semester system. Whitt
said that she had read "prerequisites" as meaning course
prerequisites within the University.
Whitt said she wanted to hear the committee's reasons for
moving these items. Heuvers said the committee did not
unanimously favor moving these items. Glime said that
admission standards are now set outside of the academic
faculty by the administration, and that the shift to
consideration by the full senate would maintain the experience
and provide for the input of those now handling the problem.
She also said the shift in the calendar item would allow for
the input of persons concerned with co-op programs and
athletics. Whitt said the shift of these items involved two
different issues: the first is associated with the input of
information needed to make a decision, and the second is
involved with the normative question of what should the
standards or calendar be. Whitt said the latter may be an
exclusively faculty issue.
Sharik asked Roblee if he would accept a friendly
amendment that the items be considered and voted on
separately. Roblee said he would. Sharik called for comment
on the admissions issue only. Vilmann asked if the item could
be clarified by rewording to read "prerequisites for
admission", or just deleting "and prerequisites". Roblee
accepted a friendly amendment by Vilmann to delete "and
prerequisites". The amended motion to shift item III-F-1-a-5
(admission standards) to III-F-3-a passed with a show-of-hands
vote, 15-10.
The amended motion to shift item III-F-1-a-6 (academic
calendar) to III-F-3-a failed with a show-of-hands vote, 6-16.
Heyman moved to shift items III-F-1-b-2, -3, -4, -5 & -6
to fall under III-F-3-b, with separate votes on each item.
Hubbard seconded the motion. Sharik called for separate
debate on each item, with admissions procedures to be
considered first. Hubbard asked how "procedures" were
distinct from "standards", which the Senate had already voted
to shift. Grzelak said that the two should be grouped
together. Vilmann said that the item covering "standards"
involves the establishment of policy, while the item about
"procedures" involves only recommendation of policy. Glime
said that the problems with procedures are typified by the
experience this year with the School of Technology's drop in
enrollment. Grimm said that he did not favor having differing
responsibilities and voting rights for different members of
the Senate, and that the judgement, intelligence, and
interests of Senators should be trusted regardless of the
individual affiliation. The motion to shift item III-F-1-b-2
on admission procedures passed 20-3 with a show-of-hands vote.
Sharik asked for discussion of shifting item III-F-1-b-3,
"student financial aid and scholarship". Grzelak inquired
whether it should read "scholarships". Heuvers said that it
should. Sharik asked whether it was necessary to include "and
scholarships" and Heyman accepted the deletion as a friendly
amendment. The motion to shift the amended item passed 16-4,
with a showing of hands.
Heyman said that he was opposed to shifting any of items
III-F-1-b-4, -5, and -6, because these are concerned with
direct administrators; the academic tenured faculty are a
collegial body, who stand aside from these administrators in
a different way than the hired staff. Glime said that moving
item III-F-1-b-3 would bring the constitution in line with
current hiring practices for these positions. Heuvers said
that these items were put into the academic faculty list to
bring the constitution into line with the recent faculty
governance proposals. Sharik said the search procedures had
been broadened from the governance proposals. Moore said that
as a librarian, falling outside of the defined academic
faculty, she would like the items to be considered by the
whole senate, so that she could have input into who her boss,
the Provost, would be. Whitt said that any arguments for
confining these items to the academic faculty would have to
be based on a presumed special expertise of the faculty.
Whitt said she failed to see that the faculty have any such
expertise in selecting administrators. Heyman said that he
was basing his position not on grounds of expertise but on
relative independence. He said that tenure-track and
especially tenured faculty have historically had the ability
to stand aside from the administration as other groups of
employees have not. Julien said the location of the item made
no difference, that the discussion concerned selection of the
candidates who were to represent the Senate on search
committees for administrative positions. Whitt asked if the
current location precluded the representatives who were not
academic faculty from making recommendations. Sharik said
that it did. Bornhorst said that the current location keeps
one group from being represented on these matters, because
Staff Council will have their input apart from the Senate.
McKimpson said the recommendations should come from a group
as broad as possible, that is, the full Senate.
Sharik said that Ken Rowe and the Provost found the new
constitution attractive because it did have a broader
constituency with less partitioning of the decision-making
process. The motion to shift item III-F-1-b-4, selection of
university-wide administrators, passed 17-4 with a show-of-
hands vote.
Sharik called for discussion of the motion to shift item
III-F-1-b-5 on administrative procedures. There was no
further discussion. The motion to shift item III-F-1-b-5
passed 20-3 with a show-of-hands vote.
Sharik called for discussion of the motion to shift item
III-F-1-b-6 on evaluation of administrators procedures.
Bulleit asked if the item meant "university-wide" or "all"
administrators, including department heads. Sharik asked the
Committee to comment. Moore said she thought it meant
university-wide administrators, and proposed a friendly
amendment to reword or clarify the item in this way. Heyman
said this would require another item to provide for evaluation
of administrators who were not university-wide, for example
the college deans. Heuvers said the item was based on the
governance proposals. Sharik said the item concerned not the
process itself, but review of the procedures for evaluation,
and that the intent of the committee was to include all
administrators. Grzelak said it appeared that evaluations
based on the governance procedures distinguished between
different levels of administration. Sharik said they did, but
that the range of governance procedures covered all
administrators. The motion to shift item III-F-1-b-6 passed
19-5 with a show-of-hands vote.
Sharik asked for further comments on the revised
constitution. Whitt asked about the input Sharik had received
from
******************************************************************
Page 3811 Minutes of Senate Meeting 197 7 Apr 1993
a lawyer consultant and from the Provost. Sharik said the
Provost was concerned with item III-F-1-a-14 (page 6), which
weakened all the previous statements. That is, it is such a
general statement that it means anything anyhow, so why
specify the other items. Whitt said she did not see the
reason for that thinking, that item 14 merely says there might
be other matters that the faculty has not thought of that need
to be brought up. Sharik said that this appeared to be the
intent of the Committee. Keeble said that he wished to
propose an amendment, and asked if this was the appropriate
time for it. Sharik said amendments should be deferred to Old
Business, but that the floor was open for general discussion
of the revised constitution.
Referring to item 14, Hubbard said the first 12 items were
specific items, that item 13 allowed the Board of Control to
give further authority to the Senate. Item 14 gives the
academic portion of the Senate authority to give itself
authority, which gets pretty far afield from kinds of
authority established in the previous items. Whitt agreed
that the item leaves things open, but said she felt strongly
that it should remain in place. Without it the senate is
relying on the imaginative powers of the Committee to list
everything over which the senate would like to have authority;
the item allows the senate to add such things to the list.
Bulleit said he agreed with Whitt, that our predictive
capabilities are limited. Julien suggested changing "other"
to "additional to these". Heuvers said that the item might
be reworded to allow matters normally handled in the
department to be brought before the senate. Grzelak suggested
rewording to read "other appropriate matters referred to it
by the academic faculty". Jambekar said the document would
not remain static, but would evolve. Sharik said the bylaws
would certainly change.
Vilmann said the item in previous drafts included "other
matters as defined in the Bylaws", and wondered what had
happened to that statement. Heuvers said that this item was
originally in the bylaws, and had been reworded in moving to
the body of the constitution. Glime suggested that the
meaning of item 14 might be clarified by simply swapping
places with items 13 and 14, with the clear intent of
confining the authority to matters similar to those of the
first 12 items. Bornhorst said that the item might be
reworded to include "other matters usually decided at the
department or college level"; this would coincide with the
Committee's intent, and would be different from the present
open-ended statement. Keen said that a Board of Control
lawyer would be insane to recommend approval of a constitution
with a provision allowing the faculty to establish policy on
any matter whatsoever. He said that the statement guarantees
that the document will not be approved by the Board, and that
the statement should be deleted if the Senate wants the
revised constitution to be approved by the Board. Whitt said
this would be caving in to their criticism before there was
reason to, and that the elimination of the item would severely
limit the areas over which the senate would have authority.
Heyman said that even if the senate were able to act on any
matter, it does not assume the final authority, which rests
with the President and the Board of Control; the proposed
authority merely holds them to a more formal structure than
the present. Heyman also said that the item could be worded
more acceptably, and suggested an alternative. Sharik said
new wording as an amendment would have to wait for Old
Business on the Agenda.
Heuvers moved that item III-F-1-a-14 be reworded to read
"Other matters normally under the jurisdiction of the
department referred to the Senate by the academic faculty of
the department", and that items 13 and 14 (as reworded) be
interchanged. Bornhorst seconded the motion. Mullins said
he thought this was a somewhat arcane way to do it, and that
the wording used in previous drafts was preferable. Hubbard
asked whether this amendment should be proposed under Old
Business. Sharik said that it should be.
Hubbard also referred to Section II-D (page 2), concerning
election of senators-at-large, and said that senators-at-large
should be elected at-large by the whole constituency, not just
the academic faculty. Sharik said that the wording is taken
from the current constitution. Heuvers said it reflects
current practice. Hubbard said that this did not mean that
it is correct. McKimpson said that the designation is
incorrect and should properly be "faculty senators-at-large"
to be consistent. Hubbard said that everybody should be
eligible to be a senator-at-large and that everybody should
be able to vote for them.
Sharik introduced some comments about the revision made
the day before by Provost Dobney in a meeting with Senate
officers. Sharik said that the President, the Provost, and
the Board of Control had been given a draft of the revision
two weeks before the Senate's meeting in March, and that these
comments are the first feedback, negative or otherwise.
Sharik said that Dobney was concerned with the addition of
authority, which could create confrontation with the Board of
Control. The request for authority could put the Board in an
awkward situation. Sharik said the officers argued vehemently
against this position, and reminded the Provost that the
current constitution only allows the Senate to make
recommendations on academic matters, and that the Senate is
ineffective under such conditions. Sharik said that the
Provost seemed to come to appreciate the Senate's position,
including the provisions for the president to veto proposals
and for the Senate to go directly to the Board. The Provost
and the officers had disagreed whether the proposed revision
was true shared governance.
Vilmann noted that the Provost had said finally that the
revision was something he could live with. Vilmann also said
that the Provost was concerned that the authority provision
would cause the Board to reject the revision, furthering the
confrontational attitude between the Senate and the Board.
Whitt said that without the authority, we really didn't have
anything. Vilmann said that this was what the officers had
told the Provost. Sharik said that the officers also reminded
the Provost that the Board retained ultimate authority.
Sharik read from parts of a letter (Appendix G of these
minutes) faxed on April 6 to Sharik by attorney Mark Cousens.
The Constitution & Constituency Committee had decided to seek
a legal opinion of the revised constitution, and Sharik had
sent a copy to Cousens, who had agreed to review it without
charge to the Senate. Sharik said that the Senate should
realize that Mark Cousens had been approached through the
American Federation of Teachers, and that Cousens advises on
union matters. Hubbard said the lawyer's opinion, that the
Board may not be able to delegate authority, leaves open the
possibility that the law can be changed; that is, the
legislature might allow the Board such delegation.
******************************************************************
Page 3812 Minutes of Senate Meeting 197 7 Apr 1993
Sharik said that the Committee did in fact realize that
the Board retained ultimate authority, that the revision
represented a compromise between a contract and the ability
merely to recommend on only academic matters, and that it was
written in the spirit of community and of shared governance
and shared responsibility. Heuvers said that he agreed with
Sharik's assessment. Waber said that it was desirable to have
the document outlining the authority, that otherwise we are
left with the former situation where we only talk about
things, and that without the ability to approach the Board we
are left with almost nothing. Whitt said that the alternative
to the revision is the status quo, but that the Senate should
have no illusions about the legal standing of the revised
constitution. Fynewever asked how the document might be
affected by the future possibility of unionization. Hubbard
said that the constitution could be made part of a union
contract. Whitt said that this had occurred at other
institutions. Sharik said that the letter from attorney Mark
Cousens argued this point exactly. Heyman said that if there
were any conflict between a Senate policy and union contract
with the Board, the contract would be a much stronger legal
document than the Senate policy, which is essentially a
recommendation to the Board of Control. Julien said that
inclusion of a Senate constitution in a union contract makes
the constitution a much stronger document. Heyman said the
Senate is not legally capable of interfering with a union
contract. Boutilier said that inclusion of a constitution in
a union contract would have to be bargained.
Sharik called for a 10-minute break at 9:40 pm.
C. Elections Committee. Chair Heyman reminded the Senators that
he had sent out nominating forms for Senator-at-large and for
membership on the University Committees on Academic Tenure,
Sabbatical Leave, and General Education. Heyman said that
Sharik had been notified by Sam Marshall that Marshall intends
to leave the Committee on Academic Tenure, and a replacement
is needed. Heyman reminded the Senate that Marshall had been
appointed to serve in place of MacLennan, who had resigned.
Heyman had talked with MacLennan, who said that her initial
letter of resignation (Appendix H of these minutes) had
requested replacement for the 1992-93 academic year, and that
she would like to return to serve her third year, 1993-94.
Heyman suggested that the Senate ask MacLennan to serve.
Sharik said that if there were no objections, MacLennan would
be considered a Senate appointee to the Committee on Academic
Tenure.
D. Fringe Benefits Committee. Chair Leifer announced four items
for discussion. First, the cost analysis is late for the
remaining two-thirds of the retirement benefits package. As
soon as the analysis arrives, the Committee will meet, analyze
the results, and report to the Senate.
Second, the sick leave pool proposal was presented to
Provost Dobney on April 7. The Provost seemed to be in favor
of the proposal, and was giving it to CFO McGarry for a rapid
analysis. The Provost said it might be presented to the Board
by their May meeting and implemented as soon as June or July.
Third, Leifer referred to a proposal for supplemental
health benefits package (Appendix I of these minutes)
distributed to the Senate. Leifer said that the package put
together last year unintentionally excluded two classes of
TIAA-CREF participants who are not covered now. The number
of these individuals are few, so the proposal is a low-cost
item. As an illustration of the first class, Leifer cited the
example of Harold Lord, who died last year with a total of 79
retirement points. His spouse would not have been able to
obtain retirement health benefits. The second class includes
individuals on long-term disability who have used up their
allotment of sick leave. The supplemental benefits package
would pay their health care; the cost is probably low, in any
individual case, because the individual is likely to either
die or return to work. Leifer said that this benefit also
addresses the needs of younger faculty, not retirees.
Fourth, Leifer addressed some comments he had heard that
Bill McGarry had made. Leifer said that McGarry's estimates
of "millions of dollars" for the costs of certain programs
does not mean an up-front cost. Rather, the requirements of
the FASB, the Federal Accounting Standards Board, are that the
funds for the program be set aside yearly, so that over time
a considerable sum will be built up and may become a self-
sustaining program. Hence, an announced $20 million cost
estimate for a program does not indicate an up-front or an
annual cost.
Heuvers asked about the "Patient Advocate" brochure and
new imprint on the pocket card recently distributed by
Traveler's to MTU employees. Leifer said that it represented
no change in the MTU program, despite the imprint on the
Traveler's card. Leifer explained that the program was
mandatory for all Traveler's participants except MTU, and that
using the standard cards saved the University the cost of
printing special cards with a different message. The brochure
circulated with the new cards indicated the program was not
mandatory.
Roblee asked to address a comment to Leifer. Roblee said
that what had happened with fringe benefits was not quite fair
to individuals on the MPSERS retirement plan. The particular
issue was the two percent given in lieu of the MPSERS
retirement health package. Roblee said that Leifer's
statement, that employees with MPSERS have health insurance
coverage at retirement, is not necessarily true. Roblee said
MPSERS works by allowing health benefits to accumulate at 10%
per year after 20 years on MPSERS; after 30 years of
employment an individual would have 90% coverage. Thus the
statement's last comment, that "the above request is already
met by MPSERS participants", is not quite accurate. Roblee
said Leifer should look into the MPSERS plan a little bit
more. Leifer replied that the Committee had looked at this,
that MPSERS individuals with 10 or 15 years of service have
this coverage, and that this can be checked with Ingrid
Cheney. Sharik said that Roblee should bring the problem to
the Committee if it does exist.
E. Institutional Evaluation Committee. Chair Hubbard said the
Committee is still working on the departmental governance
problem, and will have a proposal ready soon. Sharik
commented that the governance proposals passed by the faculty
last year had been submitted to the administration, and had
been returned to the Senate for clarification. Hubbard said
the matter was one of terminology connected with deans and
directors.
F. Instructional Policy Committee. Chair Heuvers said the
Committee had no report.
G. Research Policy Committee. Chair McKimpson said that the
Committee had been asked to look into the fringe benefit rate
increases. The recent increases should not affect current
projects funded at the old rates, but project managers should
check their accounting statements closely.
******************************************************************
Page 3813 Minutes of Senate Meeting 197 7 Apr 1993
McKimpson also called upon Senators to report negative
impacts of the removal of the mainframe computer to the
Committee. Vilmann said these problems are also being
considered by the Computer Advisory Committee.
H. Financial Planning & Policy Committee. Chair Jambekar said the
Committee had been formed, with members Baillod, Boschetto,
Gale and Pickens. The Committee is likely to become involved
in the discussion of funding of the proposals of the Fringe
Benefits Committee. Jambekar said he had met with McGarry
three times, and had discussed three issues. The first was
the automobile allowance for the President and Vice-
Presidents. These allowances were written into employment
contracts, based on cost estimates from a AAA consultant.
Whitt asked for a clarification: were the individuals not
actually provided with an automobile, but with extra salary
to cover the expense? Jambekar said that was correct. The
allowance was a policy established by the Board of Control.
Sharik said that changing the allowance would require a change
in policy structure. Vilmann suggested that they all be
furnished with Escorts. Jambekar replied that perhaps a
second-hand car might be appropriate.
The second issue discussed with the administration was
diversion of academic funds to support obligations to retiring
personnel on the MPSERS plan. Jambekar said the
administration told the Committee that every unit was affected
by this, not just academic units. The plan had been presented
to the Board as a no-cost item and accepted as such, based on
6-months non-replacement of the retiring individual; the plan
had been developed by Bert Whitten. Jambekar said that
McGarry was trying to identify the long-term financial
obligations of the University, and that auditors from the
Michigan Attorney General's office were auditing MTU's books.
As soon as McGarry has a firm picture of the long-term
obligations, he will make a presentation to the Senate.
The third issue had been raised in the meeting of the
Senate officers with the Provost and CFO McGarry, and related
to the involvement of the Senate in financial planning, an
infraction of Board policy. As far as Dobney and McGarry are
concerned, Senate involvement is permissible. Carstens posed
a general question: who makes policy for the Board of Control
and why can't they be changed? Jambekar referred to the page
from the Board's Procedure Manual he circulated at previous
meetings regarding the possible conflict with Board policy
[Meeting 195, Appendix I]; Jambekar said that page had been
signed by Bill Lucier. Sharik said the single source of
proposals to the Board has been through the administration,
and that is what the constitutional revision attempts to
change. Julien said that during the change in titles last
year, the Board by acclamation changed more policy in a half-
hour than in several previous years; the Board changes policy
when it wants to.
Roblee said that he was still concerned with the academic
departments having to fund part of the retirement of MPSERS
personnel; this can have a significant long-term impact.
Jambekar said that McGarry was merely implementing Board
policy, which McGarry had inherited. Roblee asked if the
Committee could check into how the policy was accepted.
Leifer said the policy was adopted in the July 17, 1992,
meeting. Roblee asked if the policy was adopted on the basis
of the academic and other departments having to make the
payments. Leifer said that this could be checked from the
Board minutes. Leifer added that he understood the concern
being expressed, but that he also understood the
practicalities. Leifer discussed at length the various ways
that departments could recover the cost of MPSERS retirements
of administrative aids and faculty members. Sharik said that
the fundamental policy needed to be addressed. Jambekar said
the Committee will consider it. Whitt said that the issue is
really important, that the diversion of academic funding is
unacceptable, and that for some departments it represents a
serious blow. Whitt added that discussion of the ease with
which the cost might be covered is beside the point; academic
departments cannot be allowed to pick up costs for non-
academic plans of the University. She said the plan may have
been presented as one of no-cost to the Board, but that the
academic units are feeling the cost; the approach is less than
fully honest.
Jambekar said that McGarry should be given a chance to get
his facts together, and that the Senate should appreciate
McGarry's probable current dilemma.
X. Reports of Affiliated and Ad Hoc Committees
A. President's Cabinet. Sharik said the Cabinet had met on March
23. The 4-year program of the School of Technology had been
discussed, with the School of Technology acknowledging the
heavy input of the Senate's Committee to the formulation of
the proposal. A second point concerned the remote computing
labs of Computing and Technology Services. Ted Soldan had
made a presentation about CTS plans that had provoked extended
dialogue. The upshot of the discussion was an announcement
by the Provost that the whole situation made him uncomfortable
in terms of decision-making and that he would like to see
broader campus involvement. Dobney intended to meet with
Collins and Soldan to discuss the problems.
B. Board of Control Liaison Task Force. Vice-President Vilmann
said the Task Force had nothing to report.
C. Ad Hoc Committee on Enrollment Policy. Lukowski reported that
the Committee had met, had decided to remain an ad hoc
committee for the time being, and was looking for more members
to increase its breadth. The Committee was investigating
rumors that the Dean of Engineering was trying to force
General Engineering into a first-year program by certain
manipulations. The Committee had encountered opinions by
policy-makers on campus that the Senate has no authority in
enrollment policy.
D. Ad Hoc Committee for Discussion of Unionization. Chair Julien
said the Committee had not met, and that he was waiting on a
voting date before calling meetings. Whitt said that a union
representative would make a presentation at the Senate meeting
in May.
E. Public Safety Advisory Board Liaison Person. Fynewever
reported that the PSAB was meeting every two weeks. The board
was trying to help Public Safety improve their image and
relate to students. The officers have gone through
sensitivity training, and have participated in a first-aid
course with the residence counselors so that they can
cooperate in case of emergencies. Some of the officers have
completed firearms training; officers will begin wearing
sidearms in the
******************************************************************
Page 3814 Minutes of Senate Meeting 197 7 Apr 1993
summer.
Fynewever reported that Public Safety is considering a
name change that will include "police"; their reasoning is
that the officers are in fact police, and the new name should
increase the respect accorded officers as opposed to being a
security force. They were trying to decide whether the name
change should accompany the carrying of sidearms. Public
Safety was asking for the input of the faculty. Heyman asked
what were the arrest powers of the officers. Fynewever said
they worked on campus, but they had full police powers. Glime
asked why they wanted to be called "police" if they really
desired to reduce the "us versus them" problem. Grimm said
that a name like "campus security" was more appropriate.
Grimm said he was also disturbed by the adoption of 9mm
semiautomatic handguns, which require significantly more
training than other types of sidearms, such as revolvers.
Fynewever said that they were supposed to be competently
trained. In response to other questions, Fynewever said the
decision to carry sidearms was not negotiable or reversible,
and that the officers were making a concerted effort to
interact with the community. Heuvers commented that the
officers ought to consider using patrol dogs to improve
community relations. Another senator suggested that horses
were friendlier. Sharik said that although the hour was late,
the meeting need not go to either the dogs or horses.
XI. Old Business
Agenda Item--Amendment of Senate Constitution: Vilmann asked
Heuvers to define the amendment procedure before considering
the proposed constitutional revision. Heuvers referred to the
Constitution printed in the Academic Faculty Handbook, saying
that there were some problems with the editing of the current
printing of the Constitution. Sharik read Article VIII of the
Constitution, which stated that amendments would be adopted
by two favorable votes in the Senate and ratification by a
two-thirds majority of the general faculty. Heuvers said that
the Constitution & Constituency Committee was recommending
that two votes be required after Senate approval: one by the
academic faculty, and one by the remainder of the
constituency. Vilmann said that the votes would be taken
simultaneously, and counted separately. Heyman asked how this
was to be done; Vilmann suggested different colored ballots.
Heuvers moved that the revised constitution and bylaws be
accepted as rewritten. Vilmann seconded the motion. Sharik
said that discussion had been plentiful, and called for
amendments. Heuvers referred to his motion made during the
report of the Committee, and proposed adoption of his motion
to change the wording of item III-F-1-a-14 and the order of
items 13 and 14. Sharik asked Heuvers if separate votes on
the rewording and reordering were acceptable; Heuvers said
they were. Keen reread Heuvers' motion: that item
III-F-1-a-14 "Other matters...", be changed to read as "Other
matters normally under the jurisdiction of a department
referred to the Senate by the academic faculty of a
department." Whitt said the amendment restricts and narrows
the scope of the Senate, and that she was concerned about
matters that normally might not be under a department's
jurisdiction, but that the Senate might wish to consider.
Mullins said that the wording was bad and conflicted with the
"home unit" statement in the heading of section F. Heyman
said that he intended to propose an amendment to reword item
14 in a rather different way. The motion was defeated 4-14
in a show-of-hands vote.
Heyman moved that item III-F-1-a-14 be altered to read,
"The above list shall not preclude the Senate from adding
responsibilities for review or establishment of policies in
the Bylaws." Sharik confirmed that Heyman was trying to
follow the wording in part III-F-1-a, and agreed that the
amendment should include "policy and procedure". Vilmann and
Carstens seconded the motion. Glime asked if Heyman had
intended to include "and authority", which was also in part
III-F-1-a. Heyman said he would be happy to include this as
a friendly amendment. Whitt asked for a clarification,
wondering if anything a department brought up would be acted
upon by using the bylaws. Heyman said that was his intention,
and that he wanted the Senate to have to consider whether it
wanted to take action rather than acting in ad hoc fashion
each time. He added that the clause is an "out" for the
entire range of activities that the Senate might consider,
and not just those from academic degree-granting departments.
Sharik commented that the item might well be included in the
itemized list for the full senate, and also asked about the
possibility of a vote on the reversal of the two points.
Heyman said that the current item 13 presented no difficulties
for his amendment. He accepted another friendly amendment,
that the item as amended be included in the listing under part
III-F-3-a. Hubbard said the amendment gives the document a
sense of orderliness that had been lacking. In a show-of-
hands vote, the amendment passed without opposition.
Hubbard moved that paragraph IV-A-5 be reworded to read
"Six members elected at-large by the Senate constituency",
and that the second parenthetical sentence in section II-C be
deleted to conform with the rewording. Bornhorst seconded
the motion. Heuvers said that there may be other places in
the constitution that this amendment affects. Hubbard said
that his amendment should include rewording needed anywhere
else in the document to be consistent with the idea that
senators-at-large are to be elected by the whole constituency.
Mullins asked if the intent were to have the senators-at-large
represent the entire constituency. Hubbard said it was.
Heuvers said there was a mention of representation of
senators-at-large under research. Mullins said the Committee
had discussed this point quite a long time ago, and that the
election of senators-at-large from only the academic faculty
was intended to satisfy concerns of some faculty about the
make-up of the senate. However, the proposed amendment would
satisfy the concern of other groups that the new senate would
be only an academic faculty senate. Heuvers said the original
provision was to satisfy larger departments who were concerned
about an imbalance with purely departmental representatives.
Whitt said that faculty would dominate the senate by weight
of numbers, that this provision only covers nominations, and
that most of the at-large senators would be faculty. Heyman
said that there was early conflict in the senate between
factions wanting a faculty-only senate and those wanting a
broader representation, and that Glime's proposal of
interlocking senate groups represented a breakthrough in
solving this problem. Heyman said that the current draft was
a desirable compromise among the various concerns of both
groups, and his own concern was that this proposed amendment
might upset the compromise. Grimm said there was no need for
a compromise, that there should be no subdivision of
responsibility. In a show-of-hands vote, the amendment passed
13-11.
******************************************************************
Page 3815 Minutes of Senate Meeting 197 7 Apr 1993
Grimm moved to amend the proposed constitution by placing
all of paragraphs III-F-1 and III-F-2 under III-F-3, and
adjusting the remainder of the constitution to reflect a lack
of distinction among voting groups, so that there is no
consideration of who is or is not worthy to vote on particular
issues. The motion was seconded by Kawatra. Glime said that
this would defeat the entire compromise nature of the
revision. Bulleit said that the amendment would take the
entire constitutional revision process back to square one.
Whitt said that the question is not one of who is worthy, but
is rather one of responsibilities, with faculty having
responsibilities in certain areas, and professional staff
having other responsibilities. Whitt said that the document
did not consider any group less worthy, and that she would not
support it if it did so. Grimm said he disagreed, that the
staff had the same interests as faculty, that they were
intelligent and educated people who would vote responsibly in
an academic environment. Julien said that he would like to
agree with Grimm, but that an occurrence in his department
changed his mind: when the head of his department was
evaluated the staff voted favorably 11-0, the faculty 4-11.
Julien said that the position of the staff differs with
respect to the administration, and that they will respond
differently on particular issues. Mullins said that the draft
represents a compromise that is acceptable to the faculty in
its present form, but the proposed amendment would make it
unacceptable. Sharik said the revision will be submitted in
a separate vote to the academic faculty and the non-academic
group, with both having equal opportunity to reject the
revision. Grimm said that in his department, the staff vote
was more to be trusted than the faculty, and the staff had a
healthier perspective overall. Whitt said her earlier
statement did not imply that staff had no place or position
in academic matters. McKimpson said the current revision
represented a viable solution, speaking from his position as
a non-academic faculty member. Diebel said he too supported
the current revision, also from the viewpoint of a non-
academic faculty member representing a non-academic unit. By
show-of-hands, the motion failed, 3-23.
Keeble introduced an amendment written by Waber: the
proposed bylaws should have a new Paragraph 7 added to Section
A to read as follows: "Department Heads/Chairs, despite their
additional status as faculty members, shall not serve as
Senators nor vote, nor shall they be constituents of the
Senate." Roblee seconded the motion. Bulleit said he agreed
that the heads/chairs should not serve as senators, but he
disagreed that they should not vote as constituents. The
University is working toward having departmental chairs rather
than heads, with chairs as advocates for faculty. In this
case, why disenfranchise them? Waber said he would be happy
to have this as a friendly amendment, to delete the pertinent
wording. Waber said his concern was that the revision and
bylaws nowhere mentioned heads/chairs, and that the current
Senate had already passed his proposed amendment as part of
its current bylaws. Mullins said he agreed with Bulleit.
Bornhorst said that in the draft constitution there is implied
a move toward charters for departments. He suggested that
the new report from the Institutional Evaluation Committee
might be included as a bylaw. This would then require only
a single vote from the constituency. Waber said that the
changes might not occur in time. Sharik said that heads still
exist. Whitt asked if the proposed wording belonged under
section II-D of the revised constitution. Heuvers said
placement in the bylaws was preferable because bylaws could
be more easily changed. The amendment reading "Department
Heads/Chairs, despite their additional status as academic
faculty members, shall not serve as Senators", passed with a
show-of-hands vote, 21-2.
Sharik called for further discussion. Keeble asked why
the three separate non-academic units listed in Section C of
the revised bylaws could not be amalgamated into a single
unit. Heuvers replied that they represented three quite
distinct groups. Diebel commented that an editorial change
was needed in part A-4-d, in which Dean of Forestry should be
"Dean of Forestry and Wood Products".
Heuvers said that there remained some necessary changes
in the bylaws, and referred to part C-2-b. Heuvers moved to
delete the titles "financial aid advisor" and "financial aid
officer" from the list of titles. Heyman seconded the motion.
Glime said Joe Galetto had indicated that individuals with
these titles were not in decision-making positions. The
motion passed without opposition in a show-of-hands vote.
The question was called, and Sharik asked for a roll-call
vote. The motion [to accept the proposed Constitution and
Bylaws as amendments to the present Constitution under current
amendment procedures, additionally stipulating that it be
submitted to and approved by 2/3 of the whole constituency]
passed 23-2.
XII. New Business
A. Agenda Item--Representative to a new Committee on Targeted
Hiring, and related matters: Sharik said he had written to
William Goodman of the Detroit law firm of Goodman et al.,
asking for a legal opinion of the Policy on Hiring of
Minorities and Women. Sharik had received a reply, stating
that the firm was working on the matter. Sharik had also
received a request from Walter McCoy for a member for a new
committee, The Policies and Procedures Committee for the
Selection of Exceptional Faculty. The request said that "the
Committee's agenda will include a discussion of innovative
procedures for responding to the challenges and opportunities
as presented by the quest for excellence and diversity within
our community. In short, we will begin to discuss strategies
for recruitment and retention of difficult-to-fill under-
represented groups and positions."
Sharik asked for a volunteer to serve on this committee
as the representative of the Senate. Grimm said he would like
to volunteer, but had a class conflict with the meeting time.
Sharik said that perhaps the Committee would change its
meeting time. Glime also volunteered to serve on the
Committee. Sharik called for the Senate to select one of the
volunteers by ballot. Glime and Grimm made short statements.
The Senate elected Janice Glime as the Senate representative
to the Policies and Procedures Committee for the Selection of
Exceptional Faculty, with Thomas Grimm as the alternate.
Sharik agreed to ask the committee to accept both Glime and
Grimm as Senate representatives.
B. Agenda Item--Appointment to the Computer Advisory Committee:
Sharik introduced David Poplawski of the Computer Science
Department. Poplawski said there existed on campus a Computer
Executive Committee and a Computer Advisory Committee. The
advisory committee makes recommendations to the executive
committee. On the Computer Executive
******************************************************************
Page 3816 Minutes of Senate Meeting 197 7 Apr 1993
Committee there are two at-large positions selected by the
Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee met and decided
that one of these two positions should be filled through the
Senate, for a two-year term. The two current members are W.
Perger and G. Fox. Sharik commented that the Senate's choice
really should be a member of the Senate Research Policy
Committee. Vilmann asked whether the Senate selection should
be a Senator. Poplawski said that the Advisory Committee
wanted the person to be a direct liaison with the Senate; the
position would need to be filled on July 1st. Sharik said the
matter would be considered by the Senate's Research Policy
Committee.
C. Agenda Item--Academic Costume: Referring to a memo he had
received (Appendix J of these minutes), Sharik introduced
Richard Heckel to discuss an item that had been around for a
while. Heckel said the issue is whether MTU should follow
the guidelines of the American Council on Education in regard
to the academic costume worn by its doctoral candidates.
Michigan Tech does adhere to the guidelines in regard to the
costume worn by its master's candidates, and it cites the
guidelines in its printed graduation program. However, the
University departs from the guidelines for the costumes worn
by the Board of Control, and for the hood given to graduating
doctoral candidates. Heckel said the problems with the gowns
worn by the Board are minor. However, the trim on the
doctoral hood is appropriate for a Doctor of Engineering
degree. Heckel thought it inconsistent that MTU confers a PhD
degree with a DEng hood. Heckel said that Proposal 5-82 is
now 11 years old, and the easiest way for the Senate to handle
the problem is simply to forward the proposal again, where it
may receive a better reception with the new administration.
Sharik asked about the timing of the proposal: was it too
late to change the costume for this year's commencement?
Heckel said he had asked about the Board's costume and had
been told it was the same gold-trimmed robe. A general
discussion ensued of differences in academic garb. Sharik
asked if there were any danger in suggesting a change to
conform with the guidelines. Heckel said he would have to
check his pay stubs to establish that. Sharik asked for a
sense of the Senate about the matter. Vilmann said it should
be brought up at the next regular meeting, and also perhaps
mentioned in the officers' meeting with the Provost.
Hubbard asked about changing the wording on diplomas,
which was mentioned in Heckel's memo. Heckel said that this
had occurred as a result of an effort to match the wording on
the diploma with the trim on the hood. The doctoral diploma
simply reads "Doctor of Philosophy" without being "in"
anything. Hubbard said that there had been a unilateral
change resulting in diplomas reading "Doctor of Philosophy in
Something". Heckel said he did not think they were worded in
such a manner. Hubbard said that one of his foreign graduate
students had encountered problems because his MTU diploma was
printed "Doctor of Philosophy in Chemistry".
XIII. Announcements
Sharik announced that the next meeting would be a special
meeting on April 21 to consider only two issues - the
Constitution and the proposal for the four-year program in the
School of Technology. Sharik also announced that the
Institutional Evaluation Committee would introduce a flow-
chart for faculty governance at that meeting.
XIV. Adjournment
Sharik called for a motion to adjourn. Bornhorst moved that
the meeting adjourn. There were many seconds. Sharik
declared the meeting adjourned at 12:08 am.
Submitted by Robert Keen
Senate Secretary
.