******************************************************************
Page 3996    Minutes of Senate Meeting 200   29 Sept 1993



         THE SENATE OF MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
                   Minutes of Meeting No. 200
                        29 September 1993


Synopsis:  The Senate
 (1) approved a Resolution of Respect for Past President Sharik,
 (2) designated the three Senate officers as the new Board-of-
     Control Relations Committee,
 (3) amended Proposal 4-93, Policy Flow Chart, to include
     "normally" for consistency with the constitution,
 (4) amended and approved Proposal 16-92, Departmental Governance,
 (5) voted to submit Proposal 16-92 to a referendum of Senate
     constituents,
 (6) postponed selection of a representative to the SBEA Dean
     Search Committee
 (7) decided not to replace a representative position on the Search
     Committee for a Director of Information Technology,
 (8) agreed to discuss a Special Hiring Initiative plan,
 (9) consented to the reformation of Senate committee structure by
     the Executive Committee*. 
_______________________________________



I. Call to Order
    President Bornhorst called the meeting to order at 5:30 pm on
Wednesday, 29 September 1993, in Room B37 of the  Electrical Energy
Resources Center.

II. Roll Call of Members
    Secretary Keen called the roll.  26 Senators or alternates were
present.  Senators or alternate representatives from the following
units were absent: Army ROTC, Humanities, Non-Academic Groups 1,
2, & 3.  Absent Senators-at-large: Boutilier.  Absent liaison
persons: Dean of Engineering, Dean of Sciences & Arts, Computer
Technology Services, Undergraduate Student Council, Graduate
Student Council, Staff Council.

III. Introduction of New Senators
    Keen referred to a list of senators [Appendix B of these
minutes] circulated with the agenda, and noted some recent
additions from elections and from the constitutional
reorganization.

IV.  Recognition of Visitors
    Recognized visitors were Provost Dobney and Marcia Goodrich of
Tech Topics.

V. Agenda Adjustments
    Bornhorst announced that meetings would be held to two hours,
which required tight control over the agenda.  Senators should
notify the officers when they wished to appear on the agenda, and
committee reports would be placed on the agenda selectively. 
Referring to the circulated agenda [Appendix A of these minutes],
Bornhorst announced that Old Business would also include a short
report on special hiring.


VI. Report of the Senate President
A.  Resolution of Commendation.  Bornhorst said the Senate owed
Past President Terry Sharik a formal recognition of his service,
and asked Vice-President Moore to read a resolution prepared by the
new officers:

     "Whereas Professor Terry L. Sharik has provided service
     to Michigan Technological University as President of the
     Senate for the year 1992-1993, above and beyond the call
     of duty through countless hours of unstinting devotion
     to Senate responsibilities; and
     Whereas, as a result of his efforts in undertaking the
     roll of self-appointed watchdog to the myriad Senate
     committees, the Senate can point with pride to a year of
     accomplishment; and
     Whereas through all this Professor Sharik never lost his
     sense of purpose, his sense of grace, and his sense of
     humor;
     Be It Resolved: That we, the new University Senate,
     accord to Professor Sharik this record of respect, and
     enter into the minutes a permanent reminder for
     generations to come of an acknowledgement of his
     achievements and recognition of the new heights to which
     he raised the office of University Senate President.  The
     University Senate and its constituents offer forth their
     most profound thanks."

Heyman moved that the resolution be adopted, and Glime seconded the
motion.  The motion was adopted without objection.

B. Comments.  Bornhorst said that as the new president, he would
try to facilitate open debate in the Senate, and to represent the
Senate fairly.  He said that the new constitution expands the
Senate's role in shared governance, and that the administration is
serious about that role.  Some recent signs of this: (1) the Senate
president was invited to share the platform at the Fall Convocation
with administrators; (2) actions at the recent Board of Control
meeting; (3) a recent meeting with Provost Dobney.
    Bornhorst said the Senate should be serious about its role
also, to be effective and respected.  Bornhorst promised to help
the Senate exercise its responsibilities and authority.  As a part
of this, the committee structure of the Senate needs to be revised
in light of the new constitution, and each Senator and Alternate
should serve on at least one standing committee.

C. Announcements.  Bornhorst said the officers had been busy since
their election and had met several times.  The officers also had
met recently with Provost Dobney, CFO McGarry, and Linda Ott,
Assistant to the Provost.  Bornhorst said that certain items from
these meetings, and also some other matters should be presented to
the whole Senate:
(1) Tenure and promotion policies need revision.  Provost Dobney
     has said that he intended to submit to the Senate any changes
     of tenure policy from the Committee on Academic Tenure. 
     Bornhorst said that the Senate Executive Committee will work
     with the Academic Tenure Committee on a mechanism for joint
     review of the current policy.
(2) Revision is also needed in Board of Control Policy 16.6 which
     prohibits faculty input on issues of university finance.  The
     Provost and the CFO have said they will work to have this
     policy amended.
(3) The Provost will implement Senate Proposals 2-92 and 3-92 on
     terms of appointments for directors of departments, schools
     and colleges.
(4) A proposal to create a Department of Fine Arts has been
     referred to the Curricular Policy Committee of the Senate,
     with copies to be available at the Reserve Desk in the Van
     Pelt Library.
(5) There has been progress toward hiring a half-time Senate
     Assistant.  Bornhorst said that several well-qualified
     candidates had been interviewed, and recommendations would go
     soon to the Affirmative Action Office.
(6) Bornhorst said that because of the Banner System change-over,
     midterm grade report forms would not be available this Fall
     Term.

D. Committees.  Bornhorst announced that the Constitution and Con-
stituency Committee was discharged.  He also asked the chairs of
the active committees to be prepared to report on the plans for
committee activities at the next meeting.


******************************************************************
Page 3997    Minutes of Senate Meeting 200   29 Sept 1993


VII. Reports of Affiliated, Standing and Ad Hoc Committees
A.  President's Cabinet.  Bornhorst said that as Senate President
he was the Senate representative to the University President's
Cabinet.  The Cabinet met this term before Bornhorst was elected. 
However, Bornhorst had received material handed out at the latest
cabinet meeting.  This material [Appendix C of these minutes] had
been distributed to the Senate with the agenda.  Bornhorst drew
attention particularly to the material on the budgeting process.

B. Board of Control Liaison Task Force.  Bornhorst referred to the
notes [Appendix D of these minutes] on the May and July Board
meetings prepared by former Senate V-P Vilmann, and distributed
with the Senate agenda.  Bornhorst said the Board met on September
24 and he had represented the Senate at that meeting.  Bornhorst
summarized some significant points of the meeting:
(1) One of President Tompkins' first statements to the Board was
     the introduction of Bornhorst as the new Senate President.
(2) Dobney told the Board that the new Senate constitution was in
     effect, and acknowledged the new officers.
(3) Dobney noted the need for numerous policy actions by the
     Senate, including revision of the faculty handbook.
(4) The Board passed the proposal for a 4-year program for the
     School of Technology; it next goes to the academic officers
     of the State of Michigan before coming back to the university.
(5) The financial status of the university was reviewed - the
     balance sheets show improvement.
(6) The Board approved a sick-leave-pool proposal, and a change in
     accrual of vacation time for non-exempt employees.
(7) The Board approved a modified investment policy for endowment
     funds and retirement health-care funds.  Among other changes,
     it mandates a campus investment group with Senate repre-
     sentation.
Bornhorst stated that the Board of Control Liaison is very
important.  Bornhorst said the current Executive Committee*
therefore recommends that the Board of Control Liaison Task Force
be dissolved, and that it be replaced with a new standing
committee.  The committee is to be called the Board of Control
Relations Committee, and is to be composed of the Senate President
as chair, with the Vice-President and Secretary as members. 
Bornhorst asked if there were objections to this change in policy.
    Heyman said that the change could be in the form of a motion. 
Hubbard asked if this would be the whole committee.  Bornhorst said
it was his intent.  Hubbard said that the Task Force previously had
included the chairpersons of the other committees.  Bornhorst said
that he did not object to including more people, but that most
functions would be performed by one person.  However, this did not
preclude other senators meeting with the Board.  Glime commented
that the function was mostly to report on Board actions, because
the individual merely attended as a reporter for the Senate. 
Bornhorst said that there were two functions: reporting to the
Senate, and speaking as a Senate representative.
    Bornhorst asked whether a motion was needed.  Hubbard said it
could be placed under New Business.  Bulleit said that the Task
Force in the past had breakfast with the Board, and suggested that
such activities might include other members of the Senate. 
Bornhorst said that the Committee would be responsible for ensuring
that a Senate representative was at Board meetings.
    Heyman moved that the Board of Control Relations Committee
consist of the three officers.  Bulleit seconded the motion.  The
motion passed in a voice vote without opposition.

C.  Financial Planning and Policy Committee.  Bornhorst referred
to the June report of the Committee [Appendix E of these minutes]
attached to the agenda.  Mullins commented that Jambekar was no
longer a Senator, and that a new chair of the Committee would have
to be elected.  Bornhorst said that this would be considered under
New Business with an item on Senate committee structure.  Heyman
said that this raised the general problem of getting new senators
onto committees.  Bornhorst agreed, and said that this would be
considered in detail later.


VIII. Old Business
A. Proposal 4-93: Policy Flow Chart.  Bornhorst called attention
to the Policy Flow Chart [Appendix F of these minutes] attached to
the agenda.  Bornhorst said that a motion was needed to amend it,
to make the heading sentence consistent with the new constitution. 
Specifically, the word "normally" needed to be inserted to
correspond to the wording of Article III, Section C, which had been
approved at the previous meeting.  Hubbard moved that the word
"normally" be inserted to make the sentence read "All policies
relevant to the MTU Senate constituency, as specified in its
constitution and bylaws, must normally be approved by the Senate." 
Heyman seconded the motion.  Hubbard asked what the sentence meant.
Bornhorst replied that Hubbard had made the motion.  Heuvers said
it now agreed with the constitution.  Hubbard said it meant nothing
there either.  Bornhorst said at least it was consistent.  There
was no further discussion and the motion passed without opposition
in a voice vote.
    Mullins said that the Senate Executive Council was now
identical with the Board of Control Liaison Committee, which could
make the chart confusing if the arrows were redrawn.  Bornhorst
noted the Board of Control Task Force is now called the Board of
Control Relations Committee, and said that the flow chart might
best be left without specifying the identity of the Senate Council
and the Board of Control Relations Committee; the Senate might wish
to separate these again.  Hubbard said the work load for these
individuals might be too heavy.  Heyman said it should be left as
it stand, because the role of the Board of Control Relations
Committee is only advisory, and not part of the flow of authority.

B. Proposal 16-92: Departmental Governance.  Bornhorst referred to
the copy of Proposal 16-92 [see Minutes p.3949-3960 (Mtng 198,
Appendix E)] attached to the agenda, and asked for a motion. 
Hubbard moved that Proposal 16-92 be adopted, and Mullins seconded
the motion.
    Arici asked about the meaning of "dean senior from outside" on
p.3 under Item 1, Search Committee.  Hubbard said the sentence
should read "One member ... from outside the department is
appointed by the dean."  Arici next referred to the evaluation
procedure described on p.6, specifically the "...meeting of all
members of the department..." following distribution of the report,
and asked if "all members" included the chairperson.  Hubbard said
this would be up to the individual department, because this is part
of procedural guidelines.  Bornhorst said it would be appropriate
for the department chair to be present for clarification and
questions.
    Roblee asked whether chairperson included directors, for
example of the School of Technology.  Hubbard said this was covered
in the second paragraph of page 1, in which schools were equated
with departments.  Hubbard said that the person in the leadership
position of these units were regarded at the same level as a
departmental chairperson.  Mullins said that the only substantive,
well-defined part of the proposal were the first three paragraphs,
and the remainder was made up of general guidelines to help model
the charter.  Hubbard said the charter for the School of Technology
would refer to "director" rather than "chairperson".
    Mullins said that the proposals submitted to the referendum in
Spring 1992 were very specific, and that this proposal represents
a remolding, without specificity other than having a charter for
governance, for searches, etc.  Bulleit said that everything after
the Guidelines heading seems like an example.  Hubbard agreed.
    Heyman asked whether there was any way to know when a


******************************************************************
Page 3998    Minutes of Senate Meeting 200   29 Sept 1993


department had adopted a charter.  Hubbard said that something
like this ought to be included.  Bulleit said that nothing in the
proposal prevented a department head from writing a charter and
saying "We're done".  He said this does not seem like faculty
governance.  Mullins said that the version submitted to the refer-
endum spelled this out.   Beck asked whether there was a provision
for filing the charter in the library, because this was one
mechanism for knowing when a charter has been written.  Heyman
asked whether a line might be inserted, reading "The departmental
charter shall be valid after it is approved by a simple majority
of Senate constituents in the department."  Bornhorst asked whether
adoption should be reported to the Senate.  Heyman said it should
be, and asked whether "Senate constituents" was the desired
wording.  Heuvers wondered whether deans and the provost should
receive a copy, just as they do for promotion and tenure guide-
lines.  Glime said that the departments should decide who votes
for the charter.  Beck said that somebody would have to make the
initial determination about who decides; this could be the head. 
Glime said that it might be at least the Senate constituency. 
Hubbard pointed out that this is covered in the guidelines. 
Bornhorst said that these were only guidelines and covered future
charters, but that the initial choice is unclear.  Beck said that
there should be a minimum group specified in the proposal itself,
and that the minimal group could decide to include others in the
department if appropriate.  The point is to avoid a one-person
initial decision.  Diebel said that the full constituency would be
appropriate in IWR, which is one of the unusual units.
    Heyman moved an amendment to the motion, to insert a second
paragraph: "The departmental charter shall be valid after it is
approved by a simple majority of the Senate constituency of that
department."  Beck seconded the motion, but said he would like to
see some sort of filing of the charter.  Heyman said he wished to
add to his amendment, "A copy will be on file in the library. 
Passage of the charter will be reported to the Senate, the Dean and
the Provost."  Glime suggested that the motion read "... and any
others as determined by that constituency."  Heyman said this was
acceptable.  
    Keen read the entire amendment:  "The departmental charter
shall be valid after it is approved by a simple majority of the
Senate constituency of that unit, and any other members as
determined by that constituency.  A copy of the departmental
charter shall be placed on file in the library.  The Senate, dean
and provost shall be notified."  There was no further discussion;
the amendment passed without opposition in a voice vote.
    Lowther asked about the extent of the guidelines.  Bornhorst
said that all the materials after the first (now) four paragraphs
were guidelines.  Lowther asked whether this might be made more
apparent.  Bornhorst suggested that the guidelines might begin on
a separate page.  Hubbard said that the separateness of the
guidelines seemed adequate from the wording of the proposal. 
Dobney said that the intent would be clearer if "suggested" or
"recommended" were attached to "guidelines", because guidelines
might be more strictly interpreted than just recommendations.
    Heuvers moved that the proposal be amended to read "suggested
guidelines".  Arici seconded the motion.  There was no discussion,
and the amendment passed without opposition in a voice vote.
    Keen asked whether the Committee intended the "Name" blank on
page 10 to be filled with the evaluator or with the evaluated
person.  Hubbard said this was not clear, and that the evaluatee's
name was to be inserted.  Bornhorst suggested that the reading be
"chair".
    Glime asked whether a deadline for the development of a charter
needed to be recommended.  Bulleit said the deadline was up to the
department.  Leifer said it might be appropriate to suggest that
the deadline be one academic year or quarter.  Keen asked what
would be the consequences if the departments do not follow the
recommended deadline.  Bornhorst said that it was possible
theoretically for a blank charter to be submitted.  Mullins said
that if true faculty governance was desired, a deadline would have
to be set instead of leaving it open-ended.  The enforcement of the
deadline would be up to the administration.  Roblee said that if
a department decided it did not want to be involved in governance,
they would not write a charter.  Hubbard said that if the Board of
Control accepts the proposal and implements it, then each
department will be required to write a charter; the Board could set
whatever deadline it pleased.  Bornhorst suggested a deadline of
one year after adoption of the proposal by the Board.  Heuvers said
that if the Senate does not set a guideline, then the
administration might.
    Leifer moved that the proposal be amended to begin "Within one
year after adoption of this proposal by the Board of Control, ..." 
Grzelak seconded the motion.  Fynewever asked why a deadline needed
to be set if a blank sheet might be submitted.  Bornhorst said that
the proposal did not specify the form of a charter, nor did it say
that it had to be 500 words or any arbitrary length.  Bornhorst
expressed doubt that the administration would accept a blank
charter.  Fynewever said that if the Senate did not mandate
something, some departments would do nothing.  Bulleit said that
the proposal stated the charters could be as simple as the
department wanted.  Bornhorst said the guidelines were to make the
departments' job easy.  There was no further discussion, and the
amendment passed without opposition in a voice vote.
    Bornhorst asked for further discussion of the amended motion. 
There was none, and the motion for adopting the amended Proposal
16-92 passed without opposition in a voice vote.
    Bornhorst asked whether the proposal needed to be sent to the
faculty as a referendum.  Hubbard said that it did; otherwise the
Senate would be seen as pulling a fast one, having previously
submitted similar proposals to referendum in which they were
defeated.  Mullins said they were not exactly defeated.  Hubbard
said they were defeated under the rules the Senate set for the
referendum (majority of eligible voters).
    Hubbard moved that Proposal 16-92 should be submitted to the
faculty as a referendum issue and that the issue be decided by a
simple majority of those voting.  Heuvers seconded the motion. 
Roblee asked whether the motion should be sent to the Senate
constituency rather than only the faculty.  Hubbard said that it
should.  Goodrich asked whether the issue was to be submitted to
the academic Senate constituency, or the entire constituency. 
Bornhorst said it was to go to the constituency as now defined. 
Heuvers said the statement of the decision of a simple majority was
not needed because the referendum procedure was now defined in the
constitution.  Bornhorst said that this change constituted an
editorial change.  Without further discussion, the motion passed
without opposition in a voice vote.
    Keen asked when the referendum was to be held.  Bornhorst said
it should be sent out as soon as possible, but that it should not
occur before senators have an opportunity to inform their
constituents.  Bornhorst said that the Executive* and Elections
Committee will schedule the referendum.  Keen said that senators
would be responsible for distributing copies of the proposal and
guidelines to their constituencies.  Lowther asked whether there
was provision for making electronic copies of the material, for
example on the Gopher System.  Bornhorst replied that this was a
goal of the Senate office, and that the candidates for Senate
Assistant had been asked about their familiarity with e-mail.

C. Proposal 2-94: Supplemental Health Benefits.  Bornhorst drew
attention to the proposal [Appendix G of these minutes] attached
to the agenda.  He asked Leifer, Chair of the Fringe Benefits
Committee, for his comments.  Leifer pointed out that the Sick
Leave Pool adopted by the Board, and this proposal, are not
retirement benefits.  Leifer said that Proposal 2-94, which was
tabled at the May Senate meeting, was needed because two categories
of employees were overlooked when the health benefits proposal was
adopted the previous year.  Leifer said that the Committee had
obtained the cost estimates from the university's accounting and
actuarial consultants in July.  The estimates were based on a self-
funding model required by the Federal


******************************************************************
Page 3999    Minutes of Senate Meeting 200   29 Sept 1993


government.  Leifer distributed copies of these estimates [Appendix
H of these minutes].  Leifer said that the model results in the
proposal being self-funding in 20 years from the amounts set aside
annually for that period.  Leifer said the two amounts initially
were one-tenth of one percent of the university's budget, and the
percentage will decrease.  Leifer said the proposal was humane and
affordable.  He proposed that a codicil be added to make the plan
retroactive to the time of adoption of the health benefits plan,
which was October 1992.
    Arici moved to adopt the proposal, and Carstens seconded it. 
Bornhorst asked Provost Dobney to comment on the larger funding
picture involved in adopting the proposal.  Dobney said that the
health benefits package was $600,000 this year, and the
supplemental proposal is more modest at $117,000 in the first year.
Dobney said that Leifer was correct in the estimates of 0.1 percent
of the budget, but said that these funds for benefits would come
off the top of any new monies for new faculty or salary increases. 
Dobney said that he agreed with the intent of the proposal and that
if the policies are not approved, he would make exceptions and
cover the people who would have fallen under these policies. 
Dobney said one of the ways of looking at the proposal is that it
costs two faculty positions.  Leifer replied that, if the
university cannot take care of the faculty already here, then what
is the point in bringing in new faculty.
    Roblee said that Leifer had made the assumption that a person
on long-term disability would get well or die; however, a third and
much more expensive alternative is that the person could remain on
disability for a long time.  Roblee also pointed out that the
proposal covered only persons participating in the TIAA-CREF
option, and that MPSERS personnel are not included.  While persons
covered with MPSERS already have the benefits included in the
proposal, they also lack some of the other benefits enjoyed by
employees covered under TIAA-CREF.  Roblee noted that MPSERS
persons were also omitted from last year's significant increase in
retirement benefits.  Roblee said that the proposal's statement is
true, that MPSERS participants already have these benefits;
however, they have given up others.  The persons selecting MPSERS
at the start of employment gave up some retirement benefits;
however, other benefits would be greater.  Roblee said that the
proposal now asks the university to supplement the TIAA-CREF plan
to make up the difference between MPSERS and TIAA-CREF in some
other areas.
    Leifer said that this was not a retirement plan.  Roblee said
that it involved differences in benefits packages.  Leifer said
that TIAA-CREF was chosen because the benefits were portable. 
Roblee said that this was a benefit that MPSERS participants do not
have.  Leifer said that the proposal only covered individuals after
10 or 15 years of service.  He added that faculty should not
present the administration with a MPSERS versus TIAA-CREF argument.
Leifer said that the proposal was developed by a Committee with
MPSERS personnel on it.  He said the two programs differ
fundamentally, one having a defined contribution, the other having
defined benefits.
    Grzelak said that the comparison becomes more difficult because
the programs have both changed with time.  Roblee said that the
Committee should consider the legality of supplying benefits to one
group of employees that are not supplied to another.  Hubbard said
that the proposal required funding even if there is no person
receiving benefits.  Dobney said that this is the reason why he has
promised to make exceptions to provide the proposal's benefits
without a formal policy statement, for minimal cost.
    Bornhorst said that the 15-year figure was arbitrary, and
wondered why it was not 14 or 13.  Heyman asked whether the long-
term disability coverage might obligate the university to provide
million-dollar-per-year coverage.  Dobney said that there was a
stop-loss mechanism in the university's insurance coverage.  Leifer
said that these benefits were initiated because the retirement
program before Dobney arrived was atrocious.  If the administration
liked you, you got a golden parachute.  The aim of the retirement
benefits packages was to level the playing fields.
    Fynewever asked how employee was to be defined, and asked about
the 15-year limit.  Leifer said that the definition in the proposal
included full-time employees at 30+ hours per week.  He added that
the proposal was written to exclude the possibility of double
dipping by persons with other coverage.  Bornhorst said this was
irrelevant because the funds had to be accumulated whether or not
they were used.  Heuvers asked whether the proposal would be
affected by establishment of a national health care package. 
Bornhorst said that this problem would be faced with all benefits
packages.
    Grzelak asked whether the university would pay the entire
coverage for the surviving spouse, or should the plan shift to the
retirement plan with a co-pay provision when the deceased faculty
member would have accumulated 80 points, for example.  Leifer said
that they would fall under the prevailing university policy,
including co-payment provisions.
    Bradley said that the proposal needed more discussion, and
moved to table the motion.  Grimm seconded the motion.  Leifer said
that the motion had been tabled at the Senate meeting in May
because of a request for detailed annual costs, and that the
Committee had provided the information.  Roblee said that the
legality of inequality needed to be considered.  Mullins said the
Senate would meet next week and the proposal could be considered
then.  Leifer said that somebody could die before the proposal
could be put into effect.  Bornhorst said that the Board of Control
had established a precedent for making benefits policy retroactive
with their adoption of the vacation accrual proposal.
    The motion to table Proposal 2-94 passed 14-8 in a show-of-
hands vote.

D. Selection of Senate Representative for SBEA Dean Search
Committee.  Bornhorst said that the administration had asked the
Senate to select a representative to serve on the Search Committee
for a new Dean of the School of Business and Engineering
Administration, and that there had been no volunteers or
nominations at the previous meeting.  Glime asked about the gender
distribution on the current committee.  Bornhorst said the
committee was 100 percent male among the faculty.  Dobney said the
alumni representative was female.  Glime asked whether the
individual selected by the Senate needed to be a senator. 
Bornhorst replied that the representative need not be a senator,
and that it would be appropriate if the individual were not. 
Goodrich volunteered to run an notice in Tech Topics requesting a
volunteer.  Hubbard said that the Senate could try again in one
week.
    Lowther asked about the purpose of a Senate representative if
the individual was not a senator.  Bornhorst said this enabled the
Senate to choose how it wanted to be represented.  The individual
selected by the Senate could be asked to report to the Senate on
the activities of the committee.  Heyman said this was moving to
a model in which individuals from outside a unit served on search
committees for the unit leadership, and follows the guidelines of
the departmental governance proposal for search procedures.

E.  Selection of Replacement for Search Committee for Director of
Information Technology.  Bornhorst said that the Senate had
selected two individuals, one of whom dropped out.  Moore said that
the Committee was in the process of conducting phone interviews of
eight finalists for the position.  Bornhorst asked whether the
position should be filled or left vacant, and commented that Moore
was serving as the representative from the Library, not from the
Senate.
    Lowther asked about the identity of the unit called Information
Technology.  Moore replied that the Director of Information
Technology would be more than the director of the current CTS.  The
Director would also be asked to play a larger role, for example in
making recommendations to the Provost about directions in
computing, information technology, distance learning, etc.  Lowther
asked about the current membership of the Search



******************************************************************
Page 4000    Minutes of Senate Meeting 200   29 Sept 1993


Committee.  Moore listed the members.  Carstens asked what has
happened to CTS, which used to be ACS.  Dobney said it was still
CTS.  Grimm said that there seemed to be sufficient numbers on the
Committee.  Mullins said that the process was so far along that a
new member would find it difficult to catch up.  Bornhorst
recommended that the position would be left unfilled; there were
no objections.

F. Scheduling of Senate Meetings.  Bornhorst referred to the list
of meeting dates [Appendix I of these minutes] attached to the
agenda.  He said the officers were recommending the "Sharik model"
of the first and third Wednesdays of each month, and that the
schedule would hold at least through the Fall quarter.  Roblee said
that he preferred a single meeting of four hours to two meetings
of 2 hours.  Leifer said that the consensus from the previous year
was the bi-weekly schedule.  Grimm said that an active Senate needs
to meet frequently.  Carstens said that the bi-weekly meetings must
be held strictly to the two-hour limit.

G. Special Hiring Initiative.  Glime moved that senators bring to
the next Senate meeting comments and suggestions on the special
hiring proposal (presented at the previous meeting), and that at
least 30 minutes be given to a discussion of the proposal.  Glime
said she would invite other members of the Special Hiring Committee
to the next meeting.  Heyman said he thought there was to be an
open forum on the issue.  Bornhorst said that it was important for
the Senate to provide the initial input into the formation of any
proposal, and that the Senate could recommend a forum.  Arici asked
if Glime would like to see the comments received by some senators. 
Glime said the preference is the open Senate discussion.  Grzelak
asked if visitors would be welcome.  Bornhorst said that visitors
were always welcome.
    Bornhorst said that there was no need for a motion for bringing
comments.  Hubbard asked whether this had a proposal number. 
Bornhorst said it did not.  Keen said that if it is adopted or
involves policy, it will come through the Senate with a number. 
However, no document had been submitted to the Senate officers or
Executive Committee* as a proposal.  Glime said that the matter
needed an open discussion before formal submission of a proposal.


IX. New Business
A. Structure of Senate Committees.  Bornhorst said his personal
view was that the Senate had to take control of its own committees
as outlined in the new constitution.  He said the current system
has some problems, for example that senators may serve a maximum
of six years, but that non-senators may serve without limit on
committees.  He stated that the previous committee system developed
haphazardly.
    Bornhorst suggested (1) that standing committees and their
areas of responsibility be linked to the list of authority given
in the new constitution, (2) that terms of non-senators be defined,
(3) that committee chairs must be senators or alternates elected
by the committees, (4) that there should be elected vice-chairs,
and (5) that there are academic committees based on the
responsibility list and these should have only academic members. 
Bornhorst said the Executive Committee* was requesting Senate
approval to develop a plan for defining committee areas, as
required in the Bylaws A.1.d.  Bornhorst said the plan would be
brought to the Senate for discussion.
    Glime moved that the Senate give approval to the Executive
Committee* to develop committee organization.  Kawatra seconded the
motion, which passed without opposition in a voice vote.
    Bornhorst asked for discussion on the desired number of members
of standing committees.  Bulleit said that this could be determined
best when the number of major standing committees had been set. 
Heyman said the optimal number for a committee was six, but that
five or seven members were needed to avoid tie votes.
    Bornhorst asked for comments about the number of faculty and
staff other than senators and alternates that should be on
committees.  He stated that the Senate should set up a procedure
so that the structure of committees is plain.  Glime said that
number would vary depending on the committee charge.  Leifer said
that committees should have a diverse constituency.  Bornhorst said
that current committee structure is chaotic and based on
volunteerism, and that committees can be stacked instantly with a
group of volunteers.  Heuvers said that technically, the Executive
Committee can prevent this based on the Bylaws.

XIV. Adjournment
    Leifer moved to adjourn.  There were many seconds.  President
Bornhorst declared the meeting adjourned at 7:30 pm.



Submitted by Robert Keen
Senate Secretary

____________

* In the context of this meeting, "Executive Committee" is
synonymous with the Senate officers; cf. minutes of Meeting 201.
.