******************************************************************
Page 3882 Minutes of Senate Spec Mtng #1 (92-3) 21 Apr 1993
The Senate of Michigan Technological University
Minutes of Special Meeting No. 1 (1992-93)
I. Call to Order
At 7:09 pm on Wednesday, 21 April 1993, President Sharik called
the meeting to order in Room 113, Metallurgy & Materials Science
Building.
II. Roll Call of Regular Members
22 Senators or alternates were present. Senators or alternates
from the following units were absent: AF ROTC, Army ROTC, Chemical
Engineering, Computer Sciences, Humanities, IMP, KRC, Physical
Education, Graduate Student Council, Undergraduate Student Govt.
Absent Senator-at-large: Vable. Chem Eng was represented by Tomas
Co, and Humanities by Eric Freedman. Provost Dobney was present.
III. Recognition of Visitors
J. Coleman-Plouff (Senate Assistant), S. Chalmers (Sch of
Tech), T. Collins (Sch of Tech), J. Glime (Bio Sciences), J. Golm
(Sch of Tech), K. Harder (Sch of Tech), M. Kilpela (Sch of Tech),
J. Jamar (Sch of Tech), M. Janners (Dean of Students), P. Johnson
(Van Pelt Library), K. Lipmann (MTU Lode), W. McGarry (Treas &
CFO), B. Nelson (Sch of Tech), M. Schroeder (Sch of Tech), P.
Tampas (Sch of Tech), W. Weingarten (Sch of Tech).
IV. Agenda Adjustments
Sharik referred to the Agenda (Appendix A of these minutes),
and said that Provost Dobney and Chief Financial Officer McGarry
would make a presentation on the budget before the Senate proceeded
with other business. Under New Business, Elections Committee Chair
Heyman would make an announcement concerning elections.
Institutional Analysis Committee Chair Hubbard announced that
proposals from his committee had been prepared.
V. Message from the Provost
Provost Dobney presented an overview of the University's
budget, emphasizing that it was still in draft form. The operating
budget goals include (1) building a reserve in case the State did
not make a payment, (2) improving salaries, (3) reducing dependence
on tuition, and (4) preparing for new faculty positions.
Dobney presented the latest version of the budget, based on his
discussions with members of the Board of Control. The position of
the Board on tuition increase is not clear; the last figure was 9
percent. The budget was based on a 7 percent increase, with a 1
percent surcharge for students in the exceptional category from WI,
IL, and MN. This 1 percent is in response to legislative pressure,
and the revenue will be applied to financial aid for Michigan
students. The administration is beginning to discuss differential
tuition rates for juniors, seniors and graduate students. Dobney
said the average cost for grad students per year is $24,000, while
the average student (graduate and undergraduate) costs $8800; MTU
is the only institution known that charges the same tuition for
undergraduate and graduate students. If the tuition increase is
less than 7 percent, the loss in income will come out of the
deficit reduction line item.
The retirement enhancement item at $500,000, with $600,000 next
year, is to fund the reserve for the retirement medical benefits.
Currently the program is being funded from the operating budget.
Mentioning the funds allocated for minority/gender improvements,
Dobney said he has reconstituted the committee that devised the
original program, and broadened its representation; he has asked
it to adopt a more thoughtful and planful outlook, so the program
is implemented in a way that does not reflect unfavorably on women
and minorities hired through the normal process. Dobney emphasized
that the budget has been altered as a result of the presentations
of the initial drafts. More money has been put into program
development and into library computerization. He said that MTU is
actually in pretty good financial shape, comparatively; schools in
many states are facing large financial cuts. MTU also has fewer
administrative personnel than many state universities, because
Michigan has less onerous reporting laws.
Heyman suggested that future budget presentations might include
more detail, both in the meaning of headings, and in breaking down
the larger sums. McGarry said the numbers might be gathered.
Jambekar wondered whether the Board of Control would allow such
presentations. Dobney said he thought they would, and that he had
discussed this with President Tompkins. He also had talked with
Tompkins about the Senate's revision of its constitution; both were
prepared to support it, with the exception of the "blank check"
provision, number 14. Dobney suggested a rewording of the
provision. Sharik said that this would be discussed. Dobney said
that he thought the Board would ultimately follow the
recommendations of the Provost and President.
Grimm asked about provisions in the budget for physical plant
maintenance. Dobney said that the budget had a line for deferred
maintenance, and that Physical Plant should be approached about
specific items.
Dobney said that McGarry had done well in budget investigation
and preparation, given the available resources; University
budgeting essentially had been done by one person prior to
McGarry's arrival. The personnel to do budgetary analyses do not
exist.
Dobney said that auxiliary enterprises would contribute
significantly to the budget; previously it had been budgeted
separately. Dobney added that there are on campus about 300 full-
time employees earning less than $20,000/year. This is a problem:
95% of these are women, many sole support of households. Vilmann
asked about the projected increase in the auxiliary enterprises
income. McGarry replied that it was in the 4.7þ6 percent range.
Hubbard said that information about
******************************************************************
Page 3883 Minutes of Senate Spec Mtng #1 (92-3) 21 Apr 1993
the base amount could be obtained from departments for next years
budgeting process. Dobney agreed it could be done, but that
McGarry's office might need some additional support. Sharik said
that the spirit in creating the Senate's Financial Planning &
Policy Committee was to put in place a mechanism for providing
input to the budgeting process. Dobney said that additional
evidence of cooperation was his own commitment to provide release
time of one course per quarter for the Senate President next year.
Heuvers asked if Dobney were planning to stay for discussion
of the constitutional revision. Dobney agreed if it were to be
considered next. Sharik asked if there were any objection to
altering the agenda. There was none.
VI. Old Business þ Constitutional Revision
Sharik reminded the Senate that it was in the middle of the
amendment procedure which required a second Senate approval of the
draft constitution and bylaws. Sharik noted that the revisions
made before the vote in the previous meeting had been incorporated
in a fourth draft distributed to the Senate. This fourth draft was
accompanied by a listing of the changes to the third draft, and by
a memo describing a wording problem (Appendix B of these minutes).
He also said that a memo had been sent to the administration and
to the Board of Control giving the rationale for the revisions
(Appendix C of these minutes). Sharik called for a motion to adopt
the revised constitution. Roblee moved that Draft 4 be accepted
as an amendment to the current constitution. Carstens seconded the
motion.
Heuvers proposed (Appendix D of these minutes) to replace the
two statements of general senatorial authority, item III-F-1-a-13
and item III-F-3-a-4, with a single statement following Section
III-F. Heuvers said the reason was editorial, because a disclaimer
should precede the list. Heuvers moved that his change be adopted.
Roblee seconded the motion. The motion passed without opposition
with a show-of-hands vote.
Heuvers invited Provost Dobney to comment on the item. Dobney
said he did not want to tell the Senate what to put into the
revision. He said that when he made his recommendation to the
Board, it would be that they not approve this provision. Hubbard
asked what wording would be acceptable. Dobney said that the
problem is the blank-check nature of the statement -- "We've listed
all the things we can think of right now that we're going to
establish policy on, but if we think there's something else, we'll
establish policy on that too." Dobney said that was not
reasonable, and that no reasonable group of people would accept
that latitude in authority. Dobney suggested a rewording of the
statement that would allow the Senate to approach the Board to add
new items to the list. Dobney said that once the Board has
accepted the list, it would not be difficult to approach them for
additional items. Heuvers moved to make an editorial change,
adding the phrase "subject to the approval by the Board of
Control". The motion was seconded.
Roblee said this addition would severely limit the senate, and
would require the Board to approve senate policy if it were not in
the list of items. He said it would result in the senate going to
the Board more frequently than either the Board or senate might
wish. Dobney said that this does not pertain to the internal
operating procedures of the senate. Heuvers asked whether the
phrasing "in the Bylaws" was appropriate. Heyman said that the
reason for the bylaws phrase was to permit a quicker response than
amending the constitution. Grimm said an advantage to this
procedure is that it permits establishment of a working
relationship between the senate and the Board. Heuvers said that
the listing in the draft of areas of authority was derived from the
constitution of the Senate at the University of Vermont.
Keen said that this addition, if adopted, would represent a
significant change in the proposed constitution and that the
amendment process would have to be restarted. Heuvers asked the
chair to rule whether the addition constituted an editorial change
or an amendment. Sharik asked for a vote to determine whether this
was an editorial change. A show-of-hands vote favored a
determination as an editorial change, 16-1. A show of hands vote
to adopt the change passed, 21-0.
Keen referred to the memo (Appendix B of these minutes) from
the Senate Council that accompanied the fourth draft, and moved
that "It is the sense of the Senate that senators-at-large are to
vote as if they were representatives of academic degree-granting
departments." Boutilier seconded the motion. Keen said that if
the motion passes, Draft 4 would need to be rewritten in several
places, requiring the two-vote cycle of Senate approval to be
restarted; if it fails, the effect is to rescind the "Hubbard
amendment". Hubbard said he had made what he thought was a simple
amendment, that at-large senators should be elected at-large, with
the understanding that they would vote on everything. This would
give persons who are not members of the various subdivisions voice
in all senate matters. Sharik asked if this included academic
matters. Hubbard said it did; the senators-at-large would vote on
everything regardless of which subgroup they originated from.
Heuvers said that every constituent of the senate would belong to
some sub-group, and cited section II-B of the fourth draft.
Heuvers said that senators-at-large might be considered
representatives of degree-granting departments if subsection
III-E-1 were altered by deleting "senators-at-large". Sharik said
that the current structure of the document is confusing because
senators-at-large are mentioned on page 2, and are not defined
until page 5. Hubbard said that Heuvers' proposed deletion was not
in accord with the intent of his original amendment. Hubbard
suggested that perhaps the Senate had not understood that senators-
at-large were to vote on all matters when it voted to approve his
amendment. Bornhorst said that he had seconded the amendment with
an interpretation like Hubbard's. Keen said that senators-at-large
might not be academic faculty and might be derived from non-
academic units; if they are to vote on academic matters, the
constitution is internally inconsistent because it limits voting
on academic matters to representatives of the academic faculty.
Hubbard said that senators-at-large would elected by the academic
faculty. Keen said they in fact would be elected at-large under
the Hubbard amendment, but that the proposed constitution required
academic matters to be the jurisdiction only of the academic
faculty. He added that if Hubbard's amendment were to be
incorporated as intended, several sections of the proposed
constitution would have to be rewritten. Keen said internal
consistency was important, because the proposed constitution would
be examined closely by lawyers hired by the Board of Control.
Roblee said that the problem might not be as large as Hubbard
perceived it, because senators-at-large always had been faculty.
Given this, they will be able to vote on academic issues. Grimm
said this was another example of the difficulties with a
constitution having separate-but-not-equal groups.
******************************************************************
Page 3884 Minutes of Senate Spec Mtng #1 (92-3) 21 Apr 1993
Bornhorst asked whether the original wording allowed senators-
at-large to vote on research matters. Heyman said that it did.
Heyman said he understood the logic of Keen's motion, that if
senators-at-large were to vote on everything, a series of changes
would have to be made in the draft. Heyman asked for Keen's
opinion-- would he rather have the motion voted down so that
senators-at-large would be elected from the academic faculty, or
have the motion approved so that the constitution could be changed
to embody Hubbard's intention. Keen said the point of the motion
was to show that Hubbard's amendment was not a simple change, and
that the document would need further work to be clarified.
Vilmann said that the changes suggested by the memo would be
clear, that senators-at-large from academic units would vote as
academic faculty and senators-at-large not from academic units
would not vote as academic faculty. Keen asked if this meant that
they were to vote as academic faculty. Vilmann said only if they
were from academic units. Keen said this would require an
extensive rewrite. Heuvers said it would not. Hubbard said that
the rewording suggested in the memo would be an acceptable
compromise, and would be only an editorial change. Vilmann said
that Keen's motion was essentially the original intent of Hubbard's
amendment. The motion failed 3-17, in a show-of-hands vote.
Heuvers moved that an editorial change be made in subsections
III-E-1 and III-E-2, removing "senators-at-large". Vilmann
seconded the motion. Roblee asked if the editorial change
accomplished what Hubbard had intended. Hubbard said it did not,
that his original intent was that senators-at-large should vote on
everything regardless of their origin. Heuvers said that the
constitution could always be amended later. Moore asked for a
clarification: because senators-at-large not from academic
departments do not vote on academic matters, will senators-at-large
from academic departments also not vote on academic matters?
Sharik said that this was not correct, that the intent was that
only senators-at-large from academic departments would vote on
academic matters. Moore said that senators-at-large were not
representing academic departments. Grzelak said that the senators-
at-large from academic departments could vote their consciences
because they were not representing any department. Grzelak
suggested that the subsections being considered have added the
words "senators-at-large from academic departments" for clarity.
Bornhorst said the meaning was clear without this. Heyman said
that a commentary to accompany the constitution would make the
point clear. Bulleit said the implication of the change suggested
by Heuvers was that senators-at-large are not senators; the wording
should insure that if you are a senator, a senator-at-large, and
are from a degree-granting department, then you should vote on
academic issues. Sharik said that the editorial change is
appropriate, because it removes mention of senators-at-large before
they are defined. The motion for the editorial change passed in
a show-of-hands vote, 19-2.
Keen said that the meaning of Article VIII should be clarified
for the record, and asked who were the constituents of the
senators-at-large. The group consensus was that senators-at-large
represent the entire constituency. Keen said that non-academic
constituents could then submit ballot initiatives on academic
issues. Heyman said that this was appropriate. After further
discussion of several alternative wordings, the consensus of the
Senate was to leave Article VIII as written. Heyman said that as
it stands the article indicates that, if senators-at-large from
academic departments vote on an academic issue, only the academic
constituents of the senators-at-large may initiate a referendum.
Sharik said that this should be on the record as an interpretation.
Roblee's motion that the proposed constitution be adopted as
an amendment was passed with a roll-call vote, 20-1 with one
abstention. Sharik called a 5-minute recess in the meeting.
VII. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of Meeting 196, held on 13 March 1993, were
accepted and corrected. Grzelak moved that the minutes be approved
as corrected; Heyman seconded the motion. The motion was approved
without opposition.
VIII. Old Business þ 4-year Program from the School of Technology
Sharik called for consideration of the proposal for a 4-year
program for the School of Technology, which had been distributed
to the Senate at the previous meeting. Carstens moved that the
Senate approve the proposal. Grimm seconded the motion.
Heuvers said that a letter of agreement had been sent to
Professor Baartmans, Head of Math Sciences, concerning at least
the content of math courses in this curriculum. Sharik asked if
the letter agrees to an accommodation of the proposed program.
Roblee said that the letter involved a difference in the philosophy
of teaching the math courses, and that the proposed math
requirements for students in the School of Technology were those
that are standard across the country for the proposed curriculum.
Roblee said the discussion with the Math Department involved
housing of the courses in that department, taught to meet the needs
of students in technology.
Roblee said that rumors about the cost of the program were
based on a single scenario taken out of context from a planning
committee report. A limit of 50 students assures that no new
resources would be required. Bornhorst said it would be valuable
for the Senate to hear the views of the School of Technology about
the future of the 2-year degree program in light of the initiation
of the 4-year program; will the 2-year program continue or be
replaced by the 4-year program? Roblee said that 2-year programs
vary among institutions; a two-plus-two program is frequently
found, in which a student may plan to complete a two-year degree,
and then stays to complete the four-year program.
Julien said that the program should in fact make money for the
university, to the benefit of those programs supporting graduate
students. Perger said that some departments are actively reducing
the number of students, because they have too many students for the
available faculty now. He suggested allowing these departments to
maintain or increase numbers, which would accomplish the same
financial goal as introducing the 4-year program. Bulleit said
that his department is concerned about the match between the new
program and the university's goals. There is additional concern
about the teaching overload that the school is undertaking. It is
clear that in the future the school will ask for resources to
relieve the overload, and the concern is whether the 4-year program
will be the appropriate place to put the resources. Roblee said
that if the program is
******************************************************************
Page 3885 Minutes of Senate Spec Mtng #1 (92-3) 21 Apr 1993
allowed to grow beyond 50 students, the cost margin will increase.
Heyman said that this is the purpose of the marginal analysis.
Janners said the program should be viewed from the students'
viewpoint; it should be looked at as a redistribution of students.
Many students do not belong in the traditional engineering
departments, and would be more successful in a technology program.
Carstens replied to Bulleit's question about the future of the
program, saying that the program does plan to expand in the future,
and that nobody had better stand in the way of that expansion.
Sharik asked whether Carstens was fundamentally against downsizing.
Carstens said he was. Roblee said that most of the time in the
Curriculum Committee had been spent with problems of resources and
of the university's image, and that little time had been spent with
concern about the students and their welfare. He said that it is
better to have the students transfer among programs at MTU than go
elsewhere, that most of the students graduating from the 2-year
program did not enter that program, and that student retention
would be increased further with the 4-year program. Grzelak said
that his department has been downsizing student numbers for some
time. Bornhorst said that the program would be clearly good for
students, and would move the school into the university community.
The principal issue seems to be the nature and future of the
university; what should be its direction, a graduate or an
undergraduate institution? Grimm said that good undergraduate
engineering schools were rare, and that the technology program
could and should support engineering graduate programs effectively.
Roblee said that the fundamental nature of undergraduate training
differs if students are being prepared for graduate school. MTU
has had the reputation of training hand-on engineers and this
distinction should not be lost. He added that the State of
Michigan has far more openings for certified engineering
technicians than are trained in the state.
Perger said the proposal had the design sequence in the senior
year, and wondered about the breadth of the program. Roblee said
the breadth comes in the second two years, with much of the
technical training in the first two years. Grzelak said that his
department held a meeting in which this proposal was the sole
topic, and a major concern was the confusion in the proposal over
the distinction between an engineer and an engineering
technologist. Two other concerns were image and competition for
resources. Bulleit said his department had held a similar meeting
in which similar issues were discussed, and the faculty had strong
feelings in both directions. Jambekar said his constituents had
similar feelings. There may well be a demand for persons with this
training, but is it what Michigan Tech should be doing.
Roblee said that the departments that feel threatened by
engineering technology should not feel this way, that they should
grow if they are successful. The graduates of Michigan Tech's
2-year program do well on certification tests. Julien said that
the program would add diversity to the university, that it is not
like setting up a new program, and that it builds on what we
already have. Carstens said that a good model of the 4-year
program was that at Purdue.
Sharik asked for a clarification of the authorship of the
proposal, because the source of the proposal was not indicated on
the cover page nor in the document. Bornhorst said the Senate
committee did not write the proposal; it was written by the School
of Technology with input from the Senate Curriculum Committee.
Sharik asked if that could be indicated on the document. Bornhorst
said that this was not a Senate proposal, but would be forwarded
as a proposal approved by the Senate. Julien said that as an
activity for the new Senate, the proposals should come from the
Senate, regardless of their origin. Roblee said that a new cover
page could be prepared to reflect the origin of the proposal and
the input of the Senate. A student from the School of Technology
commented on the need for the proposal from the undergraduate
viewpoint.
Bulleit said his personal view of the proposal had changed as
a result of his work on the Senate committee, but that he was not
firmly in favor of the proposal. He added that arguments based on
university direction are strong ones, and that the Senate's
decision about this proposal will be important in setting
university direction. Bornhorst said that the arguments on
university direction had been discussed for hours in the committee.
The fundamental decision is what the university wants to be.
Sharik stated that the minority report seemed to be based on the
value of the program to the university. Bornhorst said that the
minority memo was concerned with resource allocation, based on what
direction the Michigan Tech wanted to go.
Janners said that the decision should include a consideration
of the educational development of students, and that many students
need such a program. Hubbard reported that the Chemical
Engineering department does not favor the proposal. He referred
to the April 15 memo from Collins (Appendix E of these minutes) and
said there was no documentation for the figure of $600,000 given
in the memo. Hubbard said the proposal was unimaginative and does
not explain how the engineering and the technology groups will work
together. The proposal simply says that other universities have
such a program and we want one too, which is not a compelling
reason for accepting the program. Grimm said that the arrangements
will have to be worked out after the program is in place; it is too
much to expect this to be done ahead of time. He said that
students in the technology programs with smaller classes have a
better experience than students in engineering programs, and that
the education they receive there is no barrier to graduate study.
Heyman said that neither the budget of the university nor the
graduate program could grow without significantly increasing
undergraduate enrollment. He added that the concern over
university direction is one of status, and that the general
perception is that schools with such programs are low in status,
and that high status schools do not have such programs. He said
that talking about status is more honest than talking about the
philosophy of the school. Co said that Grimm's arguments actually
favored the existing 2-year program, not the 4-year proposal.
Boutilier said that the students need the program, and that the
battles over turf being conducted by intelligent people are amazing
to her. Lukowski said that the Michigan Tech needs to do what's
right for Michigan and for the student. The number of jobs open
to individuals with high school education is decreasing; there is
an increasing number of openings for individuals with more than a
high school education, but less than the rigorous mathematical and
theoretical training provided by the typical BS degree in
engineering. Lukowski stated that the 4-year program provides a
basis for technological short-courses to update individuals in
various fields as a part of the university's programs in technology
transfer. Tampas stated that the programs in engineering and in
technology are really complementary, that students may benefit by
moving between the programs. He said that retention of students
may be increased by the 4-year program. Vilmann said that many
******************************************************************
Page 3886 Minutes of Senate Spec Mtng #1 (92-3) 21 Apr 1993
of the points made in the preceding discussion by representatives
of the School of Technology should have been documented in the
proposal itself; the proposal left too many unanswered questions.
Roblee said that the proposal had been prepared for the Board of
Control and the state administration, rather than the faculty.
Keen said that the documentation in the committee's minority report
suffered from arithmetical imprecision. Julien said the issue was
simple, that if this sort of diversity is needed and if the
undergraduates are important, then the vote should favor the
program; otherwise, if the graduate program is favored over the
undergraduate, the vote should be negative. Perger said he took
exception to the notion that a negative vote indicated a lack of
concern for the undergraduate program. Two students from the
School of Technology spoke in favor of the program.
Heuvers asked for a roll-call vote for the approval of the
proposal for a 4-year program in the School of Technology. The
motion passed, 14-7, with 2 abstentions.
Sharik thanked the Curricular Policy Committee for its work on
the proposal.
IX. Announcements
A. Videotaping of Senate Meetings: Sharik said that the Provost
had raised the issue of videotaping and rebroadcasting Senate
meetings. Sharik said that the necessary equipment would be
ready in the fall quarter, and the cost would be born by the
Provost's office. Sharik asked for comments. Grimm said that
the prospect was a good one if the Senate is to become more
active, and that it will increase Senate accountability. He
added that the regular monthly meetings are not adequate, and
more frequent meetings are needed. There was further general
discussion about the channel for broadcasting, opportunities
to see fist-fights, broadcasting versus cable-casting, and the
possibility of videotaping meetings of the Board of Control.
B. Heyman distributed an informative memo (Appendix F of these
minutes) naming the persons nominated for Senate election to
the University Committee on Sabbatical Leave, The University
Athletic Council, and the University General Education
Committee. He announced that the Senate would vote on these
nominees at the next meeting.
C. Sharik urged the Senators to return to their constituencies to
explain and support the new constitution. Vilmann asked when
would be distributed a revised document incorporating all the
changes and revisions to the proposed constitution. Keen said
that the new constitution would be distributed with Tech
Topics, to save paper. The ballots would be distributed
separately. Sharik said that the Constitution & Constituency
Committee had drafted a document giving an overview of the
revision process, to accompany the proposed constitution.
D. Keen announced that the Institutional Evaluation Committee had
recently forwarded documents on faculty governance, and that
these would be included with the agenda for the next meeting.
X. Adjournment
Grimm moved that the meeting be adjourned. Bornhorst seconded
the motion, which passed unanimously. Sharik declared the meeting
adjourned at 10:05 pm.
Submitted by Robert Keen
Senate Secretary
.