******************************************************************
Page 3910 Minutes of Senate Meeting 198 5 May 1993
The Senate of Michigan Technological University
Minutes of Meeting No. 198
5 May 1993
Synopsis: The Senate
(1) heard a presentation on TQM/TQE,
(2) approved minutes of Meeting 197,
(3) received a report on faculty salary equity at MTU,
(4) deferred an administrative evaluation until next fall,
(5) defeated a resolution to publish the teaching honor roll in
Tech Topics and the MTU Lode,
(6) passed a motion to award honor roll teachers a certificate,
(7) heard a report on hiring "exceptional" faculty,
(8) agreed to defer Proposal 2-82 on academic garb to a meeting
between Senate officers and the Provost,
(9) tabled a supplemental health benefits proposal,
(10) reworded Proposals 2-92 and 3-92 on faculty governance in
response to a request for clarification from the Provost's
office,
(11) modified and approved Proposal 2?-93, a flow-chart of the MTU
decision-making process,
(12) reviewed Proposal 16-92 on faculty governance,
(13) heard a proposal from the Graduate Student Council for medical
coverage for graduate teaching assistants and voted to support
the efforts of the GSC in working with the Senate.
_______________________________________
I. Call to Order
At 7:04 pm on Wednesday, 5 May 1993, President Sharik called
the meeting to order in Room B37, Electrical Energy Resources
Center.
II. Roll Call of Regular Members
29 Senators or alternates were present. Provost Dobney was
present. Senators or alternate representatives from the following
units were absent: IMP, Met & Mat Eng, Undergrad Student Govt.
Absent Senator-at-large: Vable.
III. Recognition of Visitors
The following visitors were recognized: J. Coleman-Plouff
(Senate Assistant), J. Glime (Bio Sciences), B. Richter (Grad
Student Council), Rebecca Christianson (TQE), W. Predebon (ME-EM).
IV. Agenda Adjustments
Sharik referred to the agenda [Appendix A of these minutes],
and said that the scheduled presentation by the Provost would be
replaced with a presentation on Fringe Benefits by Financial
Officer McGarry, an additional item of New Business would be sched-
uling of Senate meetings, and W. Predebon would address the Senate
under Agenda Item 8-b. Leifer announced that McGarry had told him
there would be no presentation because some recent information on
benefits was incorrect.
V. Presentation on Total Quality Education
President Sharik introduced Rebecca Christianson, coordinator
of MTU's Total Quality Management/Total Quality Education program.
Christianson described TQE as a philosophy and a process differing
from traditional top-down management. TQE requires a common
understanding of quality, but not necessarily a common definition.
Defining "customer" is a problem with TQM in university management.
TQE does not provide a stepwise approach to management. MTU
started with an industrial model provided under contract with 3M
Quality Management Services; this model has not proven appropriate
for university situations. MTU will work with 3M in a summer
workshop on bringing TQE into the classroom.
Heuvers asked what other universities were involved in TQM
programs. Christianson said that Stamford University in Alabama
has been moving TQM into the classroom. Provost Dobney cited Texas
A&M as another example.
Sharik stated that there was widespread concern that TQM was
being implemented from the top down; he asked Christianson to
address this point and also to comment on the role of the Senate
in TQE at MTU. Christianson replied that TQM had to start
someplace, and that administrative commitment to the process was
important. She described two current TQM projects mandated by the
administration, and said the Senate role in TQE was unclear. Whitt
stated that the message from TQE was contradictory: the idea behind
TQM is self-involvement, but the program originates from the upper
administration. Whitt asked for an explanation of the "common
understanding of quality". Christianson said that TQM would be at
MTU as long as President Tompkins was on campus. She noted that
the usual TQM definition of quality as "consistent conformance to
customer expectation" was a problem in universities. Sharik
suggested that Senate involvement could begin with the summer 3M
workshop, and said that the idea of empowerment of individuals
within the university is the important issue.
Whitt said that, speaking as a philosopher, TQM does not
qualify as a philosophy, but is a management technique. Jambekar
said that he had taught TQM for 20 years, that it was indeed a
philosophy, and that it was an excellent program. Grimm said that
the identification of campus needs must come from all levels, and
that TQM is a process of common sense involvement of people.
Provost Dobney said that he would like to see a more humane
environment emerge from TQM; the petty bitterness and mistrust in
human relations at MTU is unique in his experience. Hubbard said
that the TQM session he attended was valuable. Heyman said that
procedures enacted recently by the Senate for administrative
evaluation were extraordinary, and expressed his concern that TQM
would bypass these procedures. Julien suggested that Christianson
should present TQM to faculty as an opportunity to participate and
not as a mandated program. Carstens said that top-down TQM was
impossible. Boutilier said that TQM requires patience to work
well, usually over a period of years. Dobney said that 50%
participation at MTU in 5 years would be good progress toward TQM.
Sharik thanked Christianson for her presentation.
VI. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of Meeting 197, held on 13 March 1993, were
accepted and corrected. Leifer moved that the minutes be approved
as corrected; Grzelak seconded the motion. The motion was approved
without opposition.
VII. Report of the Senate President
Sharik commented on the activities of the 92-93 academic year.
He noted that the increase in numbers of standing and ad hoc
committees indicated a significant increase in Senate activity,
particularly in the areas of research and financial planning. He
said that the revised constitution and the 4-year Technology
Program would be important to the university, as would the revised
departmental governance proposal.
Sharik thanked Janis Coleman-Plouff, the Senate assistant,
Secretary Keen, and Vice-President Vilmann for their assistance
during the year. Sharik also thanked the committee chairs for
their work, and said that a memo would soon be sent asking for
their year-end reports.
VIII. Report of the Senate Vice-President
Vice-President Vilmann said he had no report.
IX. Committee Reports
A. Curricular Policy Committee. No report.
******************************************************************
Page 3911 Minutes of Senate Meeting 198 5 May 1993
B. Constitution & Constituency Committee. Sharik commented that
the referendum vote on the revised constitution [Appendix B of
these minutes] was scheduled for 6-13 May. The early deadline
would allow the vote to be completed before the May 14 meeting of
the University President's Cabinet. Review of the amended
constitution at this meeting would allow the revision to be placed
on the agenda for the Board of Control meeting for May 21. Heyman
asked whether it was realistic to expect ballots to be returned on
such a tight schedule. Sharik said that the original schedule had
a May 14 deadline, and asked whether one day less would be
critical. Heyman asked for volunteers to help count the ballots
on the evening of May 14.
Sharik said that some departments had raised serious questions
about the proposed constitution. Sharik introduced Bill Predebon,
an involved non-member of the committee, who had talked with these
departments. Predebon said that three issues emerged from the
departmental discussions. A first concern was whether any
university actions or policies contradicted the proposed
constitution. Heuvers said that there were no policies that went
counter to the proposed constitution. Predebon replied that the
concern was with possible contradictions of previous Senate
proposals and constitutional provisions for precedence. Sharik
said the constitution was written with due attention to the
governance proposals. Whitt said the new constitution could be
amended if necessary.
Predebon said a second question involved the statement in
III-F-2-a regarding the establishment of policy in the distribution
of resources for research: Why was there not a corresponding
statement for allocation of resources in academic matters under
III-F-1-a and III-F-1-b? Heyman said that there was general
agreement that the problem could be handled in the bylaws. Dobney
said that his initial understanding was that Board of Control
policy prohibited discussion of resource distribution with the
Senate. The current administration is working to change this
policy, but this policy may explain its absence from the proposed
constitution. Heuvers said that this point had been raised in
committee discussion, and the provision regarding academic
resources had been omitted from the proposed constitution because
it was a direct violation of Board policy. Predebon said that it
still did seem odd to him personally, that the statement was
included in the research portion, but not in the academic part.
Dobney pointed out the allocation of resources in fact was covered
in III-F-3-b-3, and hence the allocation of resources was to be the
concern of the entire senate, not just the academic portion.
Predebon said the final concern was with the grey areas between
the defined regions of responsibility in Section III-F, and which
group would be responsible for the assignment of proposals to the
various areas. Sharik said that the full senate would hold that
responsibility, and cited the example of the Senate last year
voting to submit the governance proposals to a referendum of the
academic faculty only. Sharik thanked Predebon for his efforts on
behalf of the Senate.
Heuvers said that in similar departmental discussions, a
question had been raised about the constituency of the academic
deans, who cannot be senators. The Constitution and Constituency
Committee was of the opinion that the academic deans would not be
constituents. Heuvers asked whether the referendum would be for
the proposed constitution and bylaws or only for the proposed
constitution. Keen said that Heuvers' original motion was for the
Senate to accept the proposed constitution and bylaws as amendments
to the current constitution, but that there had been no motion for
submission of the amended constitution to the constituency.
Heuvers said the wording of the ballot had been worked out in a
meeting of the Senate officers after the special Senate meeting.
Keen said the wording on the referendum ballot would indicate that
only the proposed constitution was being approved.
Heuvers said that the title of affirmative action officer
needed to be added to the list of constituent titles in paragraph
C-2-c of the proposed bylaws. Sharik asked about the inclusion as
constituents of the several positions with the title of
"coordinator", including Rebecca Christianson for example. Heuvers
said the listings could be changed after the adoption of the
proposed constitution. Heuvers noted further that the phrasing of
the Bylaws Section B-5 might be clarified by adding the phrase "who
are also not constituents of the Senate", to include clearly the
two academic deans in the list of non-constituents along with the
central administrators mentioned in Section II-A of the proposed
constitution. Sharik noted that these changes in the bylaws could
be voted after acceptance of the proposed constitution.
C. Elections Committee. Chair Heyman announced that Robert Filer
and Janice Glime had been elected as Senators-at-large by the
academic faculty, and that James Gale was elected to the Committee
on Academic Tenure [Appendix C of these minutes]. Chair Heyman
then distributed ballots for selection of Senate nominees of three
faculty to each of three university committees: the Sabbatical
Leave Committee, the General Education Committee, and the Athletic
Council. He asked for additional nominations from the floor; there
were none. Heyman called for Senators to submit their ballots to
him.
Keen announced that the administrative records office in charge
of the constituent mailing list had altered the list unexpectedly
and inexplicably. A list of constituents who were scheduled to
receive ballots for the constitutional referendum had been
distributed to each Senator just before the call to order. Keen
asked that the lists be checked carefully, and said that the Senate
would maintain its own voting lists in the future.
D. Financial Planning & Policy Committee. Chair Jambekar reported
that Chief Financial Officer McGarry had asked for names of faculty
for membership in the investment committee being formed. The
Committee intended to submit the names of two of its members, James
Gale and Jim Pickens; Jambekar called for other volunteers.
Jambekar said he had received a Report on Faculty Salary Equity
at MTU by Paul Nelson [Appendix D of these minutes]. Jambekar
asked for instructions on its disposal. Sharik commented that as
President of the Senate he had received a copy of the document, and
had forwarded it to the Committee. The report was an interesting
analysis of faculty salary equity at MTU, and was produced by Prof.
Nelson under contract with the central administration. Sharik said
that perhaps the best disposition was to provide a copy to each
Senator for distribution to the constituency. Leifer asked about
the source of the document. Dobney said that his office had
received the report from Paul Nelson under contract from MTU, for
which Nelson had refused payment. The report addressed the
question of whether women faculty members were discriminated
against in salary at Michigan Tech. Dobney said that the report
indicated that being female was not a significant factor in salary
discrimination and that salary differentials were explained by
other variables. Dobney said however that Nelson was rerunning
some analyses in cooperation with women's groups on campus, and a
couple of departments may have problems. Beske-Diehl said that the
problem is difficult to define with the small number of women in
engineering departments. Whitt asked whether Nelson volunteered
or was asked specifically to do the analysis. Dobney said that the
Office of Human Resources had asked Nelson for the analysis on the
basis of Nelson's expertise in this type of analysis. Jambekar
read from the report that Nelson had been requested to proceed with
the analysis in October 1992. Boutilier commented that some
statisticians on campus were questioning some of the procedures
used in the report. Dobney said that Nelson seemed willing to work
with various groups in discussing the report.
Jambekar said that the Committee had also received a copy of
the Auditor General's report on the university and was unsure of
its proper disposition. He commented that it was 30 pages long
and made agonizing but interesting reading. Mullins asked whether
the report was available. Jambekar said the report was
******************************************************************
Page 3912 Minutes of Senate Meeting 198 5 May 1993
a public document, but was not sure where copies were available.
Sharik said that copies should be in the Library.
E. Fringe Benefits Committee. Chair Leifer reported receipt of
the initial documents from the Wyatt Corporation and from Alexander
& Alexander, but that corrections were evidently going to be made
to these. The university's cheif financial officer, Bill McGarry,
had toald Leifer that these corrections would be available in a
week. The Committee expected to analyze these, and hoped to
produce a decent benefits package soon. Leifer said that his
statement on the sick leave pool was in the previous minutes.
F. Institutional Evaluation Committee. Chair Hubbard said that
Senators had received a package of documents from the Committee.
These included a revised proposal on departmental governance,
Proposal 16-92 [Appendix E of these minutes], to replace the
proposals that had not passed in the spring referendum. The
revision was a single proposal, simplifying and combining several
of the referendum proposals, including depart-mental charters,
search procedures, and leadership evaluation. Hubbard said that
a separate proposal would be produced later for college governance.
Hubbard also presented the Committee's material that had been
attached to the agenda, including the informational flow chart
[Appendix F], a letter regarding the referendum Proposals 2-92 and
3-92 from Provost Powers [Appendix G] and a memo of response
[Appendix H], and a memo from the Committee on evaluation
procedures for the Administration [Appendix I of these minutes].
Sharik said that these items would be considered under old
business.
Hubbard said that the Committee considered evaluation of senior
administrators to be important, and that their self-evaluations
should be performed and published before the evaluation occurred.
The self-evaluations should address the goals formulated by the
trade-off committees and the long-range planning committees.
Sharik asked when the Committee thought the requested evaluation
of the President might take place. Hubbard said that a perfunctory
evaluation of the department heads and deans had been performed
last year, and the mechanism was in place to perform further
evaluations. Heuvers commented that the College of Sciences & Arts
was following the evaluation procedures already. Glime said that
the self-evaluation with respect to goals was needed because heads
have been given various charges when they were appointed, and that
evaluators needed to be aware of the administrators' priorities.
Julien said that the Department of Chemistry had followed
successfully the recommended governance procedures in evaluating
their head and searching for a new one.
G. Instructional Policy Committee. Chair Heuvers reported that
the Committee had gathered the necessary materials for the teaching
excellence honor roll [Appendix J of these minutes]. Heuvers
distributed these to the Senate, stating that the Committee had
decided to ask the Senate how the results were to be made public.
Sharik said that the original motion for the honor roll had made
it clear that the Center for Teaching Excellence was to distribute
the results. However, the Center's director said the honor roll
was sufficiently controversial to require more feedback on the
distribution mechanism. Sharik said possibilities included
publication in Tech Topics or the Lode, or display in the Library.
Heyman said that his department had received a memo from the Center
stating that the honor roll calculations would not be compiled for
the Spring quarter because the program was a Senate experiment.
Sharik said that the problems of distribution and of continuation
should be handled separately. Fynewever said that the program
should be extended to teachers not on tenure track. Heuvers said
that the listing covered all persons for whom evaluations had been
received by the Center. Bulleit said that the listing covered
those persons who had submitted their evaluations to the Center for
inclusion on the honor roll. Predebon said that the Center was
performing the selection without waiting for the submission,
following Senate instructions. Several senators said that
resubmission of evaluations was required. Sharik said that there
was initial confusion because the Center said it did not have the
resources for compiling the honor roll. Predebon said that the
Center now understood that it was to compile the information
without the cooperation of the instructors. Heuvers said the
original Senate motion was for the Center to identify qualified
instructors as class evaluations were received and to notify
eligible instructors by letter. Unless the instructors responded
negatively, they would be listed. Heuvers said that the Center had
originally said the honor roll identification would be easy, but
had then discovered that it would require a lot of resources. The
honor roll for the Winter Term was developed with stop-gap
procedures. The Center had asked departments for assistance, but
this had been refused by some. Dobney said he had asked Bill
Powers to put together a committee on instructional effectiveness,
which would work with the Center on this problem as well as a range
of other issues. Sharik said the problem was a lack of resources
at the Center.
Heyman said that he was concerned that the honor roll
procedures glorifies or reifies the class evaluation scores. His
concern was that hard, demanding, and skillful instructors were
unlikely to be recognized by the current evaluation procedures with
the 4.5 barrier. Sharik said that the mechanism had been voted by
the Senate after similar points had been made in debate. Julien
said that ratings appeared to be independent of class size.
Sharik asked about the issue of publishing the honor roll.
Heuvers moved that the list be released to the Lode and to Tech
Topics, and that the list be placed in the Library. Julien
seconded the motion. Predebon asked whether the listing was of
persons agreeing to be listed. Heuvers replied that the list
included only those who submitted their scores for the roll.
Predebon said that the listing should be published with a statement
that others may have qualified for the listing, but had chosen not
to be listed. Vilmann said that the publication of the honor roll
was asking for trouble, and that it oversimplified the evaluation
of good teaching, and that persons not on the list might be
construed by students as not such good teachers. This might affect
student attitudes, which would provide negative feedback into the
teaching and evaluation process. Vilmann said that the best move
would be to send certificates to the teachers on the honor roll,
and not to release the list to the public domain. Vilmann said he
favored putting all evaluations into the public domain, but not
discrete lists. Grzelak said that the honor roll made too much of
single question on a multi-question form. Sharik said that the
publication of the list must be accompanied by a statement of its
development. Richter commented that student evaluations may
identify poor teachers, but may not distinguish between good and
excellent teachers. The motion was defeated 11-15 in a show-of-
hands vote.
Mullins said that this preliminary and crude test of the system
should not be widely publicized. Hubbard moved that each person
on the honor roll be sent a certificate of acknowledgement.
Richter seconded the motion. Bulleit said that he was on the list,
but did not want a certificate. Carstens asked who would pay for
the certificate. The discussion of this question was confused.
Whitt asked whether the Senate could prevent publication of the
honor roll, because it had been distributed. Sharik said that it
probably could not. Dobney reminded the Senate that its
proceedings would be televised next year. The motion was passed
by a show-of-hands, 19-5.
Heuvers asked whether the Senate should consider continuing
the policy. Sharik said that this was the next issue for
consideration: whether the procedure should be followed in the
spring term. Hubbard said that some stigma would be attached to
faculty whose names were not on the list. Beske-Diehl said that
no stigma was attached to non-appearance on the list. Carstens
asked whether the concept of an honor roll, or any
******************************************************************
Page 3913 Minutes of Senate Meeting 198 5 May 1993
of a public or peer-group award or reward, was compatible with TQE.
Jambekar said that the reward was anti-TQE, in a way. Roblee said
he had doubts about the process, but that anything that emphasizes
the importance of good teaching is a positive action. Bulleit said
that proper reply to arguments against selective publication is to
release all the evaluations. Julien said that arguments against
universal release of evaluations paralleled those against the
universal release of salary information a few years ago. In
practice, few look at the information after it is released.
Bulleit said that if all evaluations were released, the students
would realize that the only significant numbers were those below
1 and above 4.9. Grimm said that the evaluation topics needed re-
examination, that Georgia Tech's evaluations were more
comprehensive, for example. Predebon mentioned the history of the
current evaluation, with five common questions used for promotion
and tenure decisions, and with the majority of the evaluation used
for feedback to the instructor. Predebon added that any revision
should consider the purpose of the evaluation.
Sharik suggested that the Committee allow the honor roll
process to continue through the Spring Term, and then revisit the
issue in the Fall. Heuvers agreed.
H. Research Policy Committee. In the absence of Chair McKimpson,
Keeble reported the Committee's activities. The Committee had been
discussing the university's scientific misconduct policy, had dealt
with the Inquiry Committee, had looked at details with the
Investigating Committee, and was to meet with the Ad Hoc
Investigating Committee to discuss the operation of that part of
the policy. No conclusion was expected before summer. The
Committee had been charged with naming individuals to the search
committee for CTS, and was submitting the names of Don Leuking of
BioSciences, and Panos Charalambides of ME-EM. The Committee was
submitting the name of David Reed in Forestry for the Computer
Executive Committee.
Sharik called a five-minute break in the meeting.
X. Reports of Affiliated and Ad Hoc Committees
A. University President's Cabinet. As a member of the Cabinet,
Sharik reported on its April 23rd meeting. Dobney had made a
budget presentation similar to that given the Senate at the May
Special Meeting, and had discussed the employee's educational
assistance program. Sharik had given the Cabinet a presentation
on the Senate's proposed constitution and bylaws, and on the four-
year Technology program. Sharik said that both these items were
to be discussed at the Cabinet Meeting on May 14th, and that some
members of both the Curriculum Committee and the Constitution &
Constituency Committee of the Senate should be present for the
Cabinet's discussion.
Sharik added that it was made clear in the Cabinet meeting that
the Cabinet was not an executive committee, but was a body advisory
to the university's president. It does not vote on issues. All
cabinet members could speak on the issues.
B. Ad Hoc Committee on Enrollment Policy. Lukowski said that two
proposals were being discussed around the university. Dean Watwood
of Engineering had submitted a proposal to Powers on March 15th,
suggesting that engineering departments limit their incoming
freshman to a number less than their carrying capacity. The
proposed mechanism was a cutoff limit of an ACT score of 30 and the
top five percent of the graduating class. All the rest of the
applicants were to be invited to enroll in general engineering.
Lukowski said this was the dean's effort to force General
Engineering to become a first-year program.
Lukowski said the second proposal by Tom Ellis and Jim Kerr
was submitted directly to President Tompkins. The proposal was
that no one be accepted to engineering departments who had less
than an ACT math score of 27 and an overall ACT score of 27. The
students below this standard were to be directed to attend their
local two-year colleges, and were to be invited to reapply when
they had enough engineering credits for evaluation. Lukowski said
the main point is that enrollment policy is not established by any
one person or committee. There exists a 25-member admissions
liaison committee, which meets infrequently with poor attendance.
Lukowski reiterated that there is not a single admissions policy
source, and cited Board of Control Policy 16-6 that the Senate is
to make recommendations on enrollment policy at both the
undergraduate and graduate levels.
Sharik asked Provost Dobney about the current admission
policies. Dobney said that he was unclear about the mechanism of
current decisions, but that he planned to defer policy decisions
to the Senate. He said he had seen one fairly hare-brained scheme,
and asked whether the Senate wanted to be the campus receptacle for
such schemes. Mullins asked for more detail about the Board
policy. Lukowski said that Policy 16-6 stated that one of the
functions of the Senate was to prepare suitable recommendations on
the standards of admission on both the undergraduate and graduate
levels. Dobney said it was incumbent on the administration to seek
the Senate's advice. Lukowski said that the problem stems from
most enrollment management policies being set during the summer,
when the Senate does not meet. Dobney said that the Senate needs
to interact with Joe Galetto and with departmental representatives
to develop suitable goals, and then to leave the implementation to
the admissions office.
C. Ad Hoc Committee on Discussion of Unionization. Chair Julien
said that the latest information was that the election could not
be held until October. Whitt said that the judge's decision on the
determination of the faculty unit was expected in June, which would
mean an early fall election.
D. Public Safety Advisory Board Liaison Person. Fynewever reported
that the MTU Public Safety Department will retain that name; the
Senate's comments were important in this decision. The Advisory
Board is now working on a policy governing when weapons can be
drawn; the current premise is that situations must be life-
threatening to the officers or others. The training of officers
will include scenarios to help officers make the proper judgements.
Fynewever said there were no current plans for the department to
use horses or dogs.
E. Policies & Procedures Committee for the Selection of Exceptional
Faculty. Glime reported as one of the Senate's selected
representatives to this Committee. She said the Committee's
initial discussion had focused on defining and identifying the
category of "exceptional" faculty. Glime had proposed a lengthy
document that had not yet been discussed. One proposal involved
awarding positions to departments who needed faculty from under-
represented groups. A position would be funded by the program
until an opening occurred in the department in the usual course of
events; at that point the department would begin to support the
person hired under the program. This procedure would avoid long-
term university commitments for supporting any individuals hired
initially with these funds.
Sharik asked whether a document on policy would be produced
for Senate review. Glime replied that there should be, adding that
at the start of the program the guidelines had been very unclear.
The Committee had discussed the qualifications of the departments;
it seemed unfair that departments that had been discriminating
against minorities or women in the past should be "rewarded" with
extra positions. Whitt said that at some point the policy on
hiring would need to be reviewed by legal counsel and suggested
that the Committee not use university counsel at that point. Whitt
said that the curriculum might be enhanced to encourage the
recruiting of exceptional faculty, for example by instituting
courses in Afro-American studies.
Sharik said that the Senate had asked for a legal opinion on
the MTU minority hiring policy and guidelines from Attorney Bill
******************************************************************
Page 3914 Minutes of Senate Meeting 198 5 May 1993
Goodman of the Detroit firm of Goodman, Eden, Millender and
Bedrosian. Sharik had received a note from Attorney Goodman that
an opinion would be produced in mid-May. Sharik also said that
both Glime and Grimm had been accepted as Senate appointees to this
Committee.
Heyman asked about the rationale for requiring that the
additional positions under this program be self-extinguishing, with
departments eventually assuming the cost. Glime replied that this
prevented the university from having to absorb costs of extra
positions forever. Julien said that during a position search in
his department, the search committee had discovered a university
list that showed the proportion of women in several departments
were out of line with the proportion of women available in the
field, and that positions in these departments were available.
Further, some of these departments were filling these positions
although their availability was not known generally, even to
department heads. Julien said this constituted a non-level playing
field. Sharik asked whether the Senate could have access to the
list. Dobney acknowledged that the list was available in the
Affirmative Action office. Julien commented that his department
could have three new positions immediately according to the list.
Dobney said that a criticism of the program is that departments
are hiring exceptional persons just because the funds are
available, which means they may be taking people who are not fully
qualified for a position at MTU. The approach described by the
Committee forces departments eventually to assume ownership of the
positions. It also prevents departments from taking the money for
the position, getting it entrenched as a line in the departmental
budget, and then firing the person after six years and hiring a
white male. Whitt commented that once the policies and procedures
are adopted, they have to be presented carefully to the community.
She recommended that the Committee look carefully at the literature
on preferential hiring when they reach that point. It is
especially important because recent presentations of the the
program to the university community have been done badly.
F. Board of Control Liaison Task Force. Vice-President Vilmann
said that the objective of the Task Force is to maintain contact
with the Board, with the most important issue being the proposed
constitution. Vilmann asked Dobney about the best way of selling
the proposed constitution to the Board. Dobney replied that it
was important to be at the Board meeting, and that he had been
trying to convince the Board members that the proposed constitution
was a reasonable document. Dobney said that it was likely the
Board would eventually approve it, especially with the support of
both President Tompkins and himself.
XI. Old Business
A. Evaluation of Administration. Hubbard referred to the memo from
the Institutional Evaluation Committee [Appendix I of these
minutes]. He said the self-evaluation of the administrator is an
important part of the procedure, and added that the process needs
to be organized, which is probably not possible in the time
remaining in the Spring Term. Hubbard said an evaluation of the
senior administration had been performed in the Spring of 1990
based on Proposal 2-89, with the results compiled over the summer;
the task was formidable. A perfunctory evaluation would not be
useful, but a thorough evaluation required an initial self-
evaluation. Hubbard said his Committee had no guidance, except
the request from President Tompkins to be evaluated.
B. Videotaping of Senate Meetings. Sharik said that Provost Dobney
had proposed videotaping and cablecasting of Senate meetings. He
invited Patty Lins to address the Senate on the subject. Lins said
that the present meeting in the studio was a rehearsal for the
taping, and commented on the room arrangement and possible changes.
She said only the first two hours of the current meeting had been
taped; the tape was available for senators to review. Sharik said
one of the issues was cost; the projected cost was $280 per
meeting. Sharik asked for a straw vote for those thinking the
studio environment was acceptable. Julien commented that the tiers
of rows was stifling, and asked whether a round table format was
possible. Sharik thanked Lins for her comments.
C. Proposal 5-82 on Academic Costume. Sharik said that the
previous deliberation had concluded with a recommendation that the
Senate officers discuss the proposal with the administration.
Sharik said that the scheduled meeting had been canceled, and
suggested that the proposal be tabled. Roblee said that the point
was trivial, and asked why it was occupying Senate time. Sharik
said this was the reason the problem had been referred to an
officers-administration meeting. Mullins said that consideration
of the problem was appropriate and that considerable discussion
had occurred in departmental meetings. Sharik said that the
problem would be considered in a meeting with the administration.
D. Supplemental Health Benefits Package. Sharik called for
discussion of the proposed benefits. Boutilier referred to the
proposal prepared by the Fringe Benefits Committee [Senate Minutes,
p.3879], saying that the intent of the proposal is to cover two
groups of people on the TIAA-CREF plan that fall through the cracks
in current packages. Bulleit asked whether the costs of these
programs had been examined. Boutilier said she did not have the
actual cost, but that very few people would qualify for coverage
under the proposal, so that the cost should be minimal. Bulleit
said that the impact of the whole series of benefits packages
should be made clear. Vilmann said that the last sentence, "the
above requests are already met for MTU MPSERS participants", was
relevant if it was true, and made the proposal an equity issue.
Roblee said that there had always been an equity issue between the
TIAA-CREF and MPSERS plans. The initial choice between the plans
involved a number of trade-offs. Dobney cautioned the Senate
against passage of any proposal before the cost was known, and
cited the current and future costs of the benefits package that was
recently passed. Whitt said that the issue of the department's
being expected to pick up costs of benefits needed to be explored.
In the absence of a motion to adopt the proposal Sharik asked
for a sense of the Senate: that the Fringe Benefits Committee
should work with CFO McGarry to address the issue of costs, and to
bring forward the motion with cost information. There was no
objection to this proposal.
E. Sick Leave Plan. Sharik asked whether Boutilier was ready to
speak to the proposed sick leave plan. Boutilier replied that she
had no information on it. Dobney said that he supported the
concept, although he had not been informed of the costs involved.
Keen said that the item had been put on the agenda because the
Senate in a previous meeting had approved Leifer's request to
pursue a sick leave plan. However, the Senate had not voted a
blank check of approval of whatever Leifer managed to negotiate,
nor had a sick leave plan ever been presented to the Senate for a
vote. Grzelak said that a plan was being looked at by other groups
on campus. Dobney said he had assumed the Senate had passed a
proposal. Several plans were possible, and he said he needed to
know the Senate's ideas on the plan. Sharik said the matter needed
to be referred to the Fringe Benefits Committee.
F. Proposal 2-92 on Faculty Governance. Hubbard referred to the
memo from Provost Powers [Appendix G of these minutes]. Hubbard
said the memo concerned two proposals on faculty governance that
were approved by a constituency referendum last year. Before
implementing the proposals, Powers was asking for clarification of
the status of some Deans and Directors. Sharik noted a
typographical error in the Senate memo [Appendix H of these
minutes], that 2-92 as passed should include the words "and
schools". Hubbard noted the possible rewordings indicated on the
******************************************************************
Page 3915 Minutes of Senate Meeting 198 5 May 1993
Senate memo. Hubbard said that the Institute of Materials
Processing (IMP), the Keweenaw Research Center, and the Library are
not covered under the proposed rewording of Proposal 2-92. Hubbard
said the Institutional Evaluation Committee was seeking the
Senate's guidance on this problem, and asked whether these units
should be included in Proposal 3-92. Vilmann said that the
original proposal made no distinction, and clearly included these
units. Moore said that Provost Powers had given the director of
the Library a choice of being considered an academic director, or
an administrative director and hence not covered by this proposal.
Vilmann said that the proposal did not give the Provost that
discretion. Provost Dobney said that there were many directors who
were not "academic" and who had administrative appointments and
served at the pleasure of the higher administration without term
appointments. Vilmann said this was the point of the referendum-
that these directors should have term appointments. Dobney asked
whether the Director of Financial Aid should have a term
appointment. Vilmann said the Committee had considered the Dean
of Students, and had decided a four-year appointment was
appropriate. Heuvers said that the proposed constitution listed
a number of directors of small units, and asked if the intent was
to include all of these positions within the provisions of Proposal
3-92.
Hubbard said that the Senate needed to instruct Sharik on the
reply to Powers memo, and asked if the proposed rewording of 2-92
were acceptable. Provost Dobney said he was really confused by all
the clarification, and asked if the Senate intended to distinguish
deans of schools from deans of colleges. Sharik said this was
correct, that the proposed constitution treated deans of schools
as department heads. Vilmann said that the deans of schools
function much like department heads. Heuvers said that the
treatment originated in the current Handbook for Academic Faculty.
Sharik asked if the insertion of "academic" made the proposal
unclear. Hubbard replied that it did not. Grzelak said he was a
member of the ad hoc committee that originally wrote the proposal,
and that the only concern was with academic department heads.
Sharik asked if there were any objection to the inclusion of the
word "academic" in the proposal. Carstens asked whether directors
were included in 2-92. Sharik said that 2-92 dealt with department
heads and with deans and directors of schools. Hubbard said
"supervisor" was taken to mean department heads and the Deans of
the Schools of Forestry and of Business, and the Director of the
School of Technology. Thus, the Director of the School of
Technology is a supervisor of an academic department. Diebel
stated that the Director of the Institute of Wood Research, who
functions under a Dean as an academic department head of the Wood
Science program, in addition to his research responsibilities.
Diebel asked if this person were included in Proposal 2-92.
Hubbard said the Committee's opinion was that a unit functioning
as a college ought to be called a college, and that Forestry & Wood
Products should be named a college to be consistent with university
practice. Keen said that IWR was not an academic department.
Diebel said that in fact the director of IWR supervised several
academic faculty. Sharik said that such hybrids would have to be
treated individually. Heuvers moved to accept the proposed
rewording of Proposal 2-92. Roblee seconded the motion, which
passed without opposition with a show-of-hands vote.
G. Proposal 3-92 on Faculty Governance. Sharik called for
discussion of Proposal 3-92. Mullins said he was not comfortable
with the omission of "directors" from the proposed rewording, and
he did not understand why the Dean of Students or other directors
should be exempt from the term limit. Heuvers said the small size
of some of the units precluded use of the evaluation procedure.
Mullins said that the proposal addressed the term of appointment
only. Dobney said he hoped that terms of appointment would not be
applicable to administrative directors. He suggested that secure
4-year terms might hamper efficient functioning of administrative
officers. Sharik said that tenure modified the security of
academic deans. Mullins said he conceded the argument for
administrative directors.
Vilmann said the concept of regular evaluation coupled with
term appointment was important, even for administrative directors.
Dobney replied that regular evaluation of administrative directors
was possible and desirable, but need not be tied to term
appointments; these directors serve at the pleasure of supervisors.
Vilmann said that this would still be the case with term
appointments. Dobney replied that the legal grounds were shaky for
early firing of an individual with a term appointment. He
explained that administrative directors have no tenure in their
position, but get two weeks termination notice.
Mullins suggested that the wording for Proposal 3-92 be "...all
academic deans and directors...". Sharik asked who were the
academic directors. Dobney replied that the Director of Education
and the Dean of Students were examples. At Hubbard's prompting,
Dobney included the Director of the Library. Moore said that a
memo from the former provost indicated the Library Director was an
administrative director. Dobney said he would have to disagree
with the former provost because the Library is an academic unit
with tenured faculty. Hubbard asked whether the wording
"...academic deans and directors..." would include the directors
of IMP and KRC. Dobney said that these were on soft money, and
performance would be meaningless if the money went away.
Vilmann said that the suggested changes were altering the
substance of the referendum as originally passed by the faculty;
the discussion before the referendum vote included the directors
of the Library, KRC, etc. Hubbard said that the point of the
discussion was to find a response to Power's memo and the Senate
was effectively failing to do this. Mullins said that adding the
word "academic" does not alter the proposal substantially; the
research units would be included just as in the proposed
constitution. Vilmann pointed out that the research groups are
separated from the academic groups in the proposed constitution.
Sharik said that a motion for rewording was needed.
Hubbard moved that the wording remain as originally passed by
referendum. Vilmann seconded the motion. Heyman said that it
should be made clear in the wording or in the record that 3-92
excluded the deans and directors mentioned in 2-92. Mullins asked
if there were a quorum present. A hand-count showed that there
was. Heyman proposed an addition, accepted by Hubbard as a
friendly amendment, to make the proposal read "The term of
appointment for all deans and directors (exclusive of those deans
and directors covered in 2-92), shall be for a maximum of four
years renewable". Whitt said that senators should be sure that
this meaning was shared by the faculty who voted in the referendum.
Grzelak asked if the wording now covered all the deans and
directors, not just the academic ones. Sharik said that it did.
Glime asked if the origin of the proposal in a faculty governance
committee implied to the voting constituency that the issue was an
academic one, and asked further if anybody besides faculty voted
on the proposal. She stated that this made it implicit that the
application was only to academic deans and directors, and that this
was her own understanding when she voted in the referendum. Sharik
stated that the Board of Control would probably not approve a
proposal that included administrative directors. Whitt stated that
the Senate had to consider what the faculty thought when they voted
for approval, and that she thought it applied only to the academic
deans and directors when she voted. Grzelak said that the clear
implication had been these were academic governance issues. Keeble
said that adding the interpretation of administrative directors
would make his constituents upset and angry. Bulleit said that his
constituents would consider him an idiot if he voted to interpret
the proposal to include administrative directors. Mullins said
that the discussion in his department focused on the academic deans
and that it was unfair to administrative directors to include them
in the proposal when they were not allowed to vote in the
referendum. The motion failed in a show-of-hands vote, 4-18.
******************************************************************
Page 3916 Minutes of Senate Meeting 198 5 May 1993
Mullins moved that the wording be "The term of appointment for
all academic deans and directors (exclusive of those deans and
directors covered in 2-92) shall be for a maximum of four years
renewable". Beske-Diehl seconded the motion. Heuvers asked to
whom the proposal referred. Sharik said that the Senate could
leave it in a nebulous state. He also said that if this wording
were a substantive change, as argued by Vilmann, then the proposal
might have to be returned to the constituency for another
referendum vote. Heuvers asked if the proposal now referred only
to the Deans of Engineering and of Sciences and Arts. Hubbard said
it now included the heads of the Library, of Continuing Education,
and the Dean of Students. Vilmann asked if it would be clearer
simply to list these positions. Hubbard said the proposal's
application should be left to the discretion of the administration,
in this case the provost. Mullins said that there would always be
exceptions to any listing.
Roblee asked Provost Dobney what the term of appointment would
be for the new Dean of Engineering and whether the maximum four-
year recommendation from this proposal be followed. Dobney replied
he did not know. Sharik commented that the term of appointment for
the former dean involved several degrees of freedom. Hubbard said
that the former provost had in fact accepted Proposal 3-92 and was
merely seeking clarification; there was no question that the
position of Dean of Engineering was covered by the proposal and
that the search should be proceeding with a maximum term of
appointment of four years. Dobney said the new dean would not be
offered an appointment for more than four years. Vilmann said that
until the proposal was approved by the Board of Control a ten-year
appointment was possible. Dobney promised that such a term would
not be offered. Hubbard commented that Provost Powers had said the
proposal could be implemented without action by the Board. Whitt
said that any future similar proposals should have explicit lists
of positions, because many had voted in the referendum without a
clear idea of their application.
Mullins referred to Power's memo, asking how the Dean of
Students could not be an academic appointment. Provost Dobney said
that he had defined it as academic. The motion passed in a
show-of-hands vote, 20-2.
H. Proposal 2?-93: Developing Academic Policy. Sharik called for
consideration of the flow chart [Appendix F of these minutes]
included with the Agenda. Vilmann moved the acceptance of the
proposal. Heyman seconded the motion. Sharik said the President
and the Provost had suggested the following modifications: (1) that
the Provost/Executive Vice-President be included in the "President
Box", because Senate proposals will go to that person; (2) that a
dashed arrow be provided between the "President/Provost Box" and
the "Senate Executive Council Box" (with the Council representing
the Senate officers and chairs of all the Senate standing
committees), to indicate the possibility of direct communication
between the upper administration and this Senate body; (3) that the
heading be reworded with the addition of the phrase "as specified
in its Constitution and Bylaws".
Whitt asked about the appropriateness of including the Cabinet
on the flow chart. Sharik replied that the Cabinet was only an
advisory body to the President, and that other advisory bodies were
included. Hubbard said that the Cabinet did not originate policy.
Dobney said the box on the chart was informational, to show what
input the President receives before making decisions on policy.
Sharik said the four-year technology degree program was a good
example of policy that is going to be presented to the Cabinet by
the President. Glime said that she was aware of a policy decision
on tuition reduction for part-time staff that was presented
directly to the Cabinet, and was going next to the Board of
Control. Sharik said that the policy did not originate in the
Senate. Glime replied that it originated in the Cabinet, and said
that the Cabinet appears to have some decision-making ability.
Sharik said this was equivalent to saying the President had
decision-making abilities outside of the Senate, and that any
formal proposals must originate or pass through the Senate. Dobney
said that this was an example of the sort of recommendation that
comes to the President from administrative directors; however, the
Cabinet has no power to decide anything.
Mullins said that the meaning of the dashed and solid arrows
on the flow chart were not intuitively obvious. Hubbard said the
solid arrows represented mainstream decisions, and the dashed
arrows represented advisory functions. Whitt asked whether the
Cabinet could tinker with and change a proposal passed by the
Senate, and would the altered proposal be presented to the Board
of Control. Beske-Diehl said that an altered proposal should be
returned to the Senate. Sharik said that the Senate must look at
any altered proposals, and could in fact go past the President to
the Board if the Senate disagreed with the altered proposal. Whitt
said that it still seemed possible for the Cabinet to alter a
proposal to which the President and Provost had no objection
originally. Sharik said that the President was free to alter his
opinion of a proposal based on the Cabinet's input. Dobney said
that if changes were made in a proposal as a result of Cabinet
input, the proposal had to be returned to the Senate. Sharik said
that the removal of the Cabinet from the flow chart would make no
difference in the flow of proposals, that the President would be
free to consult or ignore his Cabinet. Whitt said its inclusion
in the flow chart in fact acknowledges the Cabinet as part of the
process. Mullins asked again about the dashed and solid lines.
Vilmann, Bulleit, Hubbard, and Mullins agreed that the solid lines
represented mandated paths of proposal flow, and the dashed lines
represented consultation, advice and information flow.
Carstens asked whether the proposal for the 4-year curriculum
in the School of Technology would follow the proposed flow or the
existing path, whatever it may be. Dobney replied that the
existing path resembles the flow chart closely. The motion passed
in a show-of-hands vote, 20-0.
I. Proposal 16-92: Departmental Governance. Sharik called for
discussion of Proposal 16-92 [Appendix E of these minutes], saying
the constituency had not had sufficient time to review the document
and that it should be revisited in the fall. Keen asked if the
vote on the proposal would take place in the Senate, or be sent as
a referendum to the constituency. Hubbard said it should go out
as a referendum, because it replaces three of the faculty
governance proposals submitted for referendum in Spring 1992.
Heuvers said that it need not be sent out as a referendum. Hubbard
said that it probably should go out, to avoid having the faculty
think that the Senate was trying to pull a fast one after the
original proposals were not passed. Vilmann said that the
requirement of a charter is a major issue for departments, and that
a referendum is appropriate.
Carstens that some other questions might be included in the
evaluation questionnaire (p.15), including "How well has your
department head fostered a positive climate for women and
minorities?", and "Has your department head made efforts to improve
diversity in your department?" Vilmann said that some of his
constituents had raised the same questions.
Mullins said that the referendum should take place early in the
fall, and that consideration of important proposals such as this
should occur early in Senate sessions, rather than at 11:30 pm
after a lot of trivial business. Sharik said that the problem of
Senate meetings was fundamental, and that the present consideration
of the proposal was only advisory. Mullins said the proposal
should be sent out as soon as possible. Hubbard asked if the
proposal could be distributed via Tech Topics. Keen replied that
Tech Topics will distribute curriculum changes and constitutions,
but that routine proposals probably were not welcome.
XII. New Business
A. Graduate Student Medical Coverage. Sharik called for Brian
Richter, a representative of the Graduate Student Council, to
address the Senate on the subject of medical coverage for graduate
******************************************************************
Page 3917 Minutes of Senate Meeting 198 5 May 1993
students. Richter distributed a handout [Appendix K of these
minutes].
Richter read from a graduate student petition with more than
300 attached signatures: "We, the undersigned graduate students of
MTU are petitioning the University to provide health insurance for
all graduate students enrolled at MTU. More specifically, we are
asking the University to provide graduate students the same policy
or a comparable policy to the one currently being offered by the
undergraduate student government. We ask that this policy be
provided at no cost to the graduate students, and at a fifty
percent cost to their families. In light of our research into
graduate student health care at other midwestern peer universities,
we feel that the above insurance package and payment system is a
rather meager request to the University."
Richter said the only policy available to graduate students is
the undergraduate policy available at $360 per year, which is
expensive for graduate students. He referred to his handout on
information from other schools' graduate student health care, which
indicated that all MTU's peer institutions provided better health
care plans. Richter asked the Senate for their feedback, their
support, and a vote of support if possible.
Dobney said that he had encouraged Richter to speak to the
Senate because the problem was important, but also because the
faculty needed to consider where the matter fit financial
priorities. Sharik asked about fringe benefit rates at the other
universities, and suggested that this information would be helpful
in making a decision. Heuvers said that in mathematics the
graduate students serve essentially as faculty, and it would make
sense to offer them similar coverage. Vilmann said that the
coverage would be about $200,000 per year. Dobney said that the
university was looking at several options for student health care,
including discussing some options with Portage View Hospital, but
that meantime there was a real problem. Dobney added that the
graduate student report failed to mention that the coverage at most
of the peer institutions was only for people who were on
appointment, such as RAs or TAs. Richter said that treatment
varied among universities. At some, TAs were considered staff.
Richter said that the graduate students without appointments were
the least able to pay for the current student health plan. Dobney
said this would defeat the purpose of insurance, which was to
reward those persons providing service to the institution. Sharik
said that the graduate students could present the plan as a
proposal for Senate consideration, assuming the proposed
constitution is supported in the referendum. Carstens wondered
whether the Senate should provide a vote of support for the health
plan. Sharik thanked Richter for his presentation, and asked for
a vote showing support. The voice vote was unanimous.
XIII. Announcements
Sharik asked for additional feedback for ideas for Senate
meetings. He announced that there was no need for special meetings,
so that the adjournment would be for the summer.
XIV. Adjournment
Several senators moved to adjourn the meeting. President
Sharik declared the meeting adjourned at 12:20 am.
Submitted by Robert Keen
Senate Secretary
.