******************************************************************
Page 4020 Minutes of Senate Meeting 201 6 Oct 1993
THE SENATE OF MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
Minutes of Meeting No. 201
6 October 1993
Synopsis: The Senate
(1) discussed a proposed university policy on special hiring;
(2) adopted a standing-committee structure for the Senate;
(3) approved a Senate policy expecting all senators and alternates
to serve on one standing committee;
(4) sent Proposal 2-94 (Supplemental Health Benefits) to the
Finance Committee for further review.
_______________________________________
I. Call to Order
President Bornhorst called the meeting to order at 5:32 pm on
Wednesday, 6 October 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. IWR was represented by Peter Laks and KRC by Scott
Greuenberg. Senators or alternate representatives from the
following units were absent: Physical Education, Non-Academic
Groups 1, 2, & 3. Absent Senator-at-large: Boutilier. Absent
liaison persons: Dean of Engineering, Computer Technology Services,
Undergraduate Student Council, Graduate Student Council, Staff
Council.
III. Recognition of Visitors
Recognized visitors were Fredrick Dobney (Provost), Walter
McCoy (Provosts Office), and Nancy Byers-Sprague (Affirmative
Action Office).
IV. Agenda Adjustments
Bornhorst referred to the circulated agenda [Appendix A of
these minutes], and announced that a report from the Research
Policy Committee should be added to Committee Reports, and that
consideration of Proposal 3-94 should be added to New Business.
Bornhorst asked if there were objections to discussion of the
Special Hiring Initiative early in the meeting; there were none.
Hubbard MOVED to approve the adjusted agenda and Kawatra seconded
the motion. The MOTION PASSED without opposition.
V. Approval of Minutes
Bornhorst said that there were no minutes of previous meetings
yet available for approval.
VI. Discussion of Special Hiring Initiative
Bornhorst asked whether Senators had copies of the new draft
of the Special Hiring document. Glime distributed copies titled
"Special Initiative for Hiring Under-Represented Faculty" [Appen-
dix B of these minutes]. Bornhorst said the document was mistitled
and was not a Senate Proposal.
Bornhorst asked the Senate for discussion of the subject and
particularly for a determination of the document's readiness for
presentation to the Senate as a proposal.
Bulleit asked for clarification of "work force analysis" under
the heading "Selection Policy 1". He said that in civil
engineering such analysis typically indicates the percentage of the
minority or gender group in the entire profession, which is six
percent women, for example. Bulleit said that basing hiring on
this percentage would not allow his department to be a leader in
hiring, but would only allow it to maintain a bad status quo.
Glime said that the meaning of "work force analysis" depended
on which group, gender or minorities, was being discussed; it
generally referred to which group was available at the PhD level.
The university percentage is based on tenure-track faculty in the
departments. Glime added that these were guidelines in setting
five-year-plan priorities. McCoy said that the guidelines were
written with flexibility to minimize constraints on the five-year
plans that the deans were to submit.
Bornhorst said that his constituency's comments centered on
the lack of understanding in this plan that black and hispanic
minorities were truly rare in engineering and science disciplines.
McCoy said that there are people available, but that recruiting
efforts have been lacking. He stated that local perceptions are
formed on the basis of regional, but not national experience. He
added that he has available a log of minority graduates in
engineering, and that some are available.
Bornhorst said that departments should be encouraged to have
more than the numbers dictated by the available work force.
Hubbard said that percentage available needs to be spelled out
clearly so departments know what to aim for.
Grzelak said he had a copy of the 1992 MTU Faculty Utilization
Analysis and that of 26 Electrical Engineering faculty, two were
females. This makes the percentage in EE higher than the
percentage available, which prevents the EE department from hiring
new faculty under this program. He also cited the Humanities
Department as having 17 females of 36 faculty, or 47.2 percent.
The availability index for humanities is 49.3 percent, which
permits Humanities to recruit another female under this program.
Huang said that his department was also concerned about the
same problem. Grimm said that departments should hire the best
qualified candidates, and that this program is a needed initiative
designed to correct historical deficiencies.
Kawatra said that members of his department were concerned
about the legalities of the program. Glime said that the initial
input for this program came from a group of female lawyers who
visited the campus for a day, but that the document has not gone
back to a lawyer for an opinion.
Beck said that the proposal needed to address the problem of
set-up costs for research; if the program only provided salary
money, it would result in hiring faculty who could not do research
and who would then be useless. McCoy said that the deans would
have to negotiate the costs of set-up with the Provost for these
positions. He stated that the flexibility of the document was
designed to permit these negotiations. Seel said when priority
departments were identified, then the normal procedures for hiring
faculty will be followed, including the problem of set-up costs.
Beck said that the proposal was very specific about the salary
issue, but that the issue of research support was omitted entirely.
Beck said that the support problem needed to be addressed in the
proposal, at least generally. McCoy said the point was well taken,
and that the Committee would be happy to add support funding to the
document.
Grzelak said that "under-represented groups" needed definition.
Byers-Sprague said that the Provost is concentrating on the four
categories that the Federal government calls "protected classes",
including Asians, Hispanics, Native Americans, and African-
Americans. She added that other groups might be added, for example
disabled individuals. The lack of specificity was intentional
therefore. She added that the definition of "availability
percentage" was based on Federal guidelines, which were based on
three- or four-year running averages of PhD recipients. Byers-
Sprague said that temporary positions would not be used in
determining the current status of departments relative to the
availability index.
Heuvers asked whether American citizenship was required for
the program. Byers-Sprague said it was not required. Heyman said
he understood that membership in a Federal protected class required
US citizenship. Byers-Sprague said this was not so. Dobney said
that the preference in hiring was for American citizens but that
the primary goal was to increase diversity and that hiring outside
the US may be the only way to accomplish this
******************************************************************
Page 4021 Minutes of Senate Meeting 201 6 Oct 1993
in some circumstances. Dobney added that one of the persons hired
in the past year under this program was an African. Dobney said
that there was difficulty in attracting individuals from under-
represented groups to the campus, and that he was looking to the
Committee for recommendations on this matter. Dobney said that
the limitation to American citizenship was open to discussion.
Jobst asked about the source of funds being set aside for the
program. He also asked whether other schools were using similar
guidelines; if so, then we would be back in the same position.
Dobney said the funds would be a separate amount requested from
the Board of Control each year specifically for the program.
Byers-Sprague said that the writing of this policy was based on
documents from other schools, including West Virginia and the
University of Michigan. She said the current document was both
more and less specific in some areas, and that this addressed the
issue of legality because some of these had been standing policies
for some time.
Bornhorst said that a current problem was a lack of available
persons when a position was open, so that a search for under-
represented faculty should be continuous. He said the
administration needed to be flexible, to permit continuous searches
and hiring when a qualified minority person becomes available.
Seel said that flexibility in the program was important and that
all departments needed to be encouraged to search for under-
represented individuals. He said that searches were expensive, so
that some compromise was needed between flexibility and structure
in hiring. Bornhorst replied that larger universities searched
more frequently, so that they were always at a comparative
advantage. McCoy said that the Committee did not disagree with
Bornhorst's thinking, and that the development of a 5-year plan
would involve both standards to be implemented and flexibility to
meet these in the departments. Grimm said that searches needed to
be continuous, and that one way is to identify and recruit
candidates while they are still in the university pipelines.
Dobney said the administration was looking to the Senate for
a reasonable approach in accomplishing the goal of diversity,
particularly without inviting second-class citizenship for persons
hired under the program. Continuous searches for minorities or
women that are not for an open position may be both illegal and
offensive.
Davutyan asked whether there was a presumption that women or
minorities would be discriminated against in normal hiring. McCoy
said that this was true. Dobney said that looking at the past
record of the university, there seemed to be a pattern of
discrimination. Davutyan said that the business school two years
ago identified a female as its first choice in a position search;
she declined the offer, and the position was filled by a male.
Davutyan asked if this hiring indicated the department was anti-
female.
Glime said that the record of hiring at MTU has not provided
a balance, and that the program provides an incentive to work to
attract minorities and women and to keep them. Leifer said that
Glime did not answer Davutyan's question, that an offer had been
made and freely rejected, and that the department could not be
faulted. Carstens said that perhaps the offer was below minimum.
Leifer agreed that such an offer would have been discriminatory.
Grimm said that identifying one best candidate for any position is
difficult, that 20 of 300 may be best. The program is designed to
increase the consciousness of a situation that could be improved.
McCoy said the business school example needed clarification, that
the school had been advised by the EEO that the next position had
to be filled by a female.
Mullins asked whether the university was competitive in hiring
anybody. Some departments are below national salary norms, and
many departments were reluctant to make offers for assistant
professors that are higher than salaries of full professors in the
same department. This makes it hard to be competitive nationally
for qualified minorities or other under-represented groups.
Mullins cited the example of a female candidate who was offered
$50,000 in start-up funds at MTU; she had received an offer of
$275,000 from another state university. Mullins said that if this
program is to be successful, it will have to be funded at a
nationally competitive rate.
McKimpson asked how the policy would apply to a position that
involves a joint appointment between an academic department and a
research institute. McCoy said that this involves the specifics
of implementation, and that the policy does not address hiring at
that level of specification.
Dobney said he wanted to correct Mullins statement, and that
it is not "some" departments which are underpaid, but that every
department is underpaid. Heyman said that small departments should
be supported in efforts to identify individuals at the ABD level,
that blind searches will not produce the desired results
particularly for small departments, and that this will require
funding. Byers-Sprague said that the proposed policy was not the
only on-going effort, that there were other, less formal plans
being made by the Provost and deans.
Bornhorst thanked the visitors for their participation in the
discussion.
VII. Report of the Senate President
Bornhorst said that the issue of committee structure dominated
the activities of the Senate officers since the previous meeting.
Bornhorst said that his use of the term "Executive Committee" in
the previous meeting referred to the Senate officers [Minutes,
p.3996-4000]. He noted that according to the new constitution the
Executive Committee is made up of the officers plus the chairs of
standing committees. In the interval between adoption of the
constitution and committee formation, only the officers are
available to make up an Executive Committee.
Copies of the approved constitution and of Proposal 4-93
(Policy Flow Chart) were distributed to the Senate [Appendices C
and D of these minutes].
Bornhorst said he had put in a request for a select number of
senators to interact with the Board of Control at the Board's
November meeting, and the Senate would have to decide who would
participate. He added that it was important for the Senate
President to be aware of committee activities, and asked that
copies of all committee correspondence be sent to the Senate
President. These copies would be put in the Senate office, and
would be available to all senators and constituents.
Bornhorst said that preparation of minutes and other materials
were being hampered by a lack of a Senate Assistant; however, an
assistant had just been hired.
VIII. Reports of Committees
A. Institutional Evaluation Committee. Chair Hubbard reported
that college governance was the major item of Committee business
for the remainder of the year.
B. Curricular Policy Committee. Bulleit said that the discussion
of the Proposal for a Fine Arts Department was to occur under New
Business.
C. Instructional Policy Committee. Chair Heuvers said he had no
report.
D. Fringe Benefits Committee. Chair Leifer said that the
Committee had a large number of items under consideration, but that
these would wait pending removal of the item on the table under New
Business.
D. Research Policy Committee. Chair McKimpson said that the major
item under consideration was review of the scientific misconduct
policy. The Committee has completed a preliminary draft of the
policy, with some major changes in the selection of the
investigating committee and in the mechanisms of the policy.
McKimpson said that a policy should be reported to the Senate in
about a month.
IX. Old Business
A. Structure of Senate Committees. Bornhorst referred to a list
of committees [Appendix E of these minutes] circulated with the
******************************************************************
Page 4022 Minutes of Senate Meeting 201 6 Oct 1993
agenda. Bornhorst said that the officers had selected committee
names and responsibilities based on the authority list of Article
III of the new constitution. He noted that all the committees had
major items on their agendas for the coming year, and said that
many committees would need sub-committees for all their work.
Glime asked whether all the listed ad hoc committees could be
staffed only by academic degree-granting departments. Bornhorst
replied that the listing followed the constitution, and that the
responsibilities given under the ad-hoc heading were confined to
these departments. Bulleit said that ad hoc committees could exist
that were staffed differently. Bornhorst said that these ad hoc
committees represented standing Senate committees that dealt with
the areas listed. Jobst said that this seemed like a contradiction
in terms. Bornhorst replied that issues concerning the three
listed areas did not occur every year, so that having a standing
committee for them seemed unnecessary.
Glime said that issues listed under the instructional policy
committee, for example probation, would need representation wider
than just academic degree-granting departments. Bornhorst replied
that the staffing requirement followed the constitution. Heuvers
said that the constitution listed admission procedures under the
responsibility of the full Senate. Bornhorst replied that
admissions procedures were listed under the Institutional Planning
Committee, with staffing from the full Senate.
Heyman asked whether the proposed separation of Curricular
Policy Committee and Instructional Policy Committee was necessary.
Bornhorst said that the separation followed previous Senate
practice. Bulleit asked whether staffing meant voting members of
the committee. Bornhorst said that it did, as defined by the
constitution. Bulleit asked whether the committee might have
additional non-voting members. Bornhorst replied that they could.
Carstens MOVED that the proposed committee structure be
accepted as presented. Kawatra seconded the motion. There was no
further discussion. In a voice vote, the MOTION PASSED without
opposition.
Bornhorst named the interim chairs of the standing committees:
Grimm-Curricular Policy, Heuvers-Instructional Policy, Bulleit-
Academic Policy, McKimpson-Research Policy, Pickens-Finance Policy,
Mullins-Institutional Planning, Heyman-Administrative Policy,
Greuer-Elections. Bornhorst thanked the individuals for
volunteering, commenting that he had not had any refusals to his
requests. Bornhorst said that the Executive Committee, consisting
of the officers plus the interim chairs, would meet immediately
after adjournment, to discuss staffing.
B. Staffing of Senate Committees. Bornhorst said that his
proposal for staffing committees would be based on the expectation
that all senators and alternates would be expected to serve on a
standing committee, and that the commitment to being a senator
involved a commitment to shared governance. Bornhorst asked for
the Senate to endorse this concept. He promised to write all the
department heads, deans, vice-presidents and the president
explaining that these senatorial duties should be considered part
of the individual's departmental load.
Heuvers MOVED that all senators and alternates be expected to
serve on one standing committee. Mullins said that the required
numbers should be discussed among the committee chairs. Bornhorst
said that the officers had a preliminary plan ready to present to
the Executive Committee that fully staffs each committee with
senators and alternates. Mullins said that this was jumping the
gun, and needed further discussion by the interim chairs.
Bornhorst said that the plan was not final, and that it could be
rejected completely by the interim chairs. Arici seconded the
motion.
Mullins said that the interim chairs needed to meet to discuss
and to decide the numbers of members needed on each committee, and
the numbers of outside members. Grzelak asked whether Bornhorst
had pre-staffed the committees. Bornhorst replied that he had only
prepared an idea list, and that the Senate could do as it liked.
Bulleit said that requiring all senators and alternates to serve
did not prevent anybody from serving on a committee. Bornhorst
said that he would have to enter the debate, since it apparently
centered on his proposal. Davutyan asked about the current
composition of the committees. Bornhorst said that committees were
composed now only of the interim chairs, that committee assignments
might begin if the motion were approved, and that it was possible
to staff the committees with senators and alternates.
Carstens asked whether Bornhorst had considered the carry-over
from old committees. Davutyan said that this had been his
question. Bornhorst said that membership was really up to the
Executive Committee and to the Senate. Heuvers said that sub-
committees might exist, and that a lot of the work might be farmed
out to subcommittees under the oversight of standing committees
made up of senators and alternates. Leifer said that if well-
functioning committees existed, they should not be destroyed merely
to fit a preconceived structure. Mullins said that overlap in the
membership of some committees would have to be taken into account.
Bornhorst said that in the past year some people were on too many
committees so that some work did not get done, and his bias was
that each senator should serve on a single standing committee with
subcommittee work as an option.
Wells noted the committee staffing requirements for academic
degree-granting departments, and asked whether this would eliminate
from committee service those senators from other course-offering
units like ROTC. Bornhorst replied that the constitution would
prohibit service as voting members. Heuvers said that committees
in the past had included non-senators who had given input, and that
the committees had given recommendations that had been voted on by
the Senate. Bornhorst said they could not vote in committee.
Heuvers said that there was nothing in the constitution to prohibit
their voting in committee. Bornhorst said that they could not vote
when the issue came to the whole Senate, and that it would seem odd
to have a committee of mostly non-academic persons making
recommendations on matters to be voted on only by the academic part
of the Senate. Glime said the Special Hiring Committee was an
example of a committee with half non-senators, and that only on the
floor of the Senate would the voting be restricted. Bornhorst said
that the committee structure list could be modified by striking the
staffing line.
Glime said the motion should be modified to allow major
responsibilities as an alternative to service on standing
committees. Mullins said that such a modification was not needed,
because in past years the ad hoc committees had done more work than
standing committees. Bulleit asked why service on a standing
committee precludes individuals from other work. Heuvers said that
staffing some standing committees had been a problem in previous
years. Mullins said that this encouraged a wider university
commitment, that the requirement would result in over-extension of
senators, and prevent work on ad hoc committees where the real work
was done. Bulleit said that under the new structure fewer ad hoc
committees would be required.
Laks asked whether the motion read "must serve" or "should
serve". Bornhorst said it was "expected to serve", like the word
"normally" the Board of Control insisted be in the constitution.
Heyman MOVED to close debate. The motion was seconded. There was
no discussion and the MOTION PASSED without opposition. The MOTION
[that all senators and alternates are expected to serve on one
standing committee] PASSED in a show-of-hands vote, 15-9.
Bornhorst asked whether there should be a limit on terms of
committee service of non-senators. He said he had received a
suggestion that non-senators serving on committees should be
limited to three years, with the Senate approving any renewal.
Leifer said that the Senate had experienced difficulty getting
people to serve on committees, and that volunteer work should not
be discouraged.
Bulleit MOVED that the lines on committee staffing be
******************************************************************
Page 4023 Minutes of Senate Meeting 201 6 Oct 1993
removed from the committee listing [Appendix E of these minutes].
Hubbard seconded the motion. There was no discussion. The MOTION
PASSED without opposition in a voice vote.
Bornhorst asked that the Senate provide some direction to the
Executive Committee concerning the size of the standing committees.
Leifer said the committee size should be left to the committee
chairs. With no opposing viewpoints being presented, Bornhorst
said that size would be left to committee chairs.
C. Proposal 16-92, Departmental Governance. Bornhorst referred to
the memo [Appendix F of these minutes] on Proposal 16-92 attached
to the agenda, and said that the were some minor difficulties with
the Proposal as passed by the Senate. Bornhorst noted that some
units included in the proposal, such as ROTC and the Library, had
no control over the selection of their heads, and he asked whether
the proposal should be limited to academic degree-granting
departments. He also asked whether the referendum vote should be
limited to academic faculty.
Heyman asked where the Institute for Wood Research would be
placed, because it is under the School of Forestry, but is not an
academic degree-granting unit. Laks said that IWR is a degree-
granting unit, but it has a director, not a department head. Wells
said that his unit was the Department of Military Science, and
wondered why they should be considered separately. Bornhorst asked
whether his unit had any control over selection of the department
head. Wells said it did not. Jobst said that if the Fine Arts
Department is created, it will not be a degree-granting department.
Matkin said that the university approves the appointment of the
heads of the Air Force and Army ROTC departments. Bulleit said
that the existence of a Fine Arts Department would pose some
difficulties for both the proposal and the Senate constitution.
Seel said the Physical Education Department is similar, because it
is an academic department but does not grant degrees.
Hubbard said that the committee devising the proposal did not
discuss discriminating against any departments, and that the
proposal was intended to apply to all units whether or not they
granted degrees. He stated that if a unit cannot control the
selection of their chairperson, it would have to be taken care of
in the charter, and that units do not have to follow the suggested
guidelines for selecting a chairperson. Keen said members of his
constituency were concerned that persons not affected by the
proposal were to vote on the proposal. Hubbard said that the
committee had discussed this point, and had decided to recommend
submission to the entire constituency. Bulleit asked whether the
referendum could be limited to the affected departments. Bornhorst
said that it could.
Heyman asked whether Physical Education had any influence on
selection of their department head. Seel replied that the PE
department was treated as every other department. Heyman said the
other ambiguous case was the proposed Fine Arts department, and
that the Senate Bylaws might have to include a line saying that the
Fine Arts Department was considered to be equivalent to an academic
degree-granting department. Seel asked why there was a concern
with the term "degree-granting". Bornhorst said that it was in the
constitution. Heyman said that if the term was omitted, then the
proposal would include the ROTC departments, for which a charter
did not make sense. Roblee asked why ROTC should be excluded.
Heyman said that it would be unusual for a military unit to set up
its own governing structure. Glime said that the military units
might be restricted on the kinds of items that might be included
in a charter, but this does not preclude writing a charter. The
charter might include the procedures for selecting their senator,
for example. Bulleit said that some points of the charter apply
to the Library as well. Moore said the proposal describes
evaluating and reappointing the chairperson or director. Hubbard
said a clause in the charter might say the points are not
applicable.
Bornhorst said that if there was no further discussion or
objection, the proposal would stand as originally approved.
D. Election of Representative to Search Committee for SBEA Dean.
Bornhorst asked for nominations to the Search Committee. There
were none. Bornhorst stated that he would attempt to find nominees
to stand for an election to the committee to be held at the next
meeting.
E. Proposal 2-94, Supplemental Health Benefits. Bornhorst referred
to Proposal 2-94 [Appendix G of these minutes] attached to the
agenda, and stated that the motion to adopt the proposal had been
tabled at the previous meeting. Grzelak MOVED that the motion to
adopt Proposal 2-94 be brought to the floor. Carstens seconded the
motion. The MOTION PASSED without opposition in a voice vote.
Leifer said that there were three basic questions raised about
the proposal. The first question concerned the co-pay provision.
Leifer said the co-pay was 20 percent, just like the health benefit
passed in October 1992, and that this was included in the actuarial
cost calculations circulated with the agenda [Appendix H of these
minutes].
Leifer said that the second question had been raised by Roblee
and concerned equality of the TIAA-CREF and MPSERS plans. Leifer
distributed a handout [Appendix I of these minutes] which compared
the contributions of the two plans. He noted the university
contributes more toward the retirement of the personnel on the
MPSERS plan versus TIAA-CREF plan, and that co-pay amounts for
medical coverage are less for MPSERS than for TIAA-CREF.
Leifer said that the third question involves points raised by
Provost Dobney in discussions. Leifer said the first point is
Dobney's statement that the health benefits cost the faculty 2
percent in their raises. Leifer asked whether the administrators
get the health benefits. Dobney said that they did. Leifer said
that he had not heard about 2 percent coming from administrators
raises. Leifer said that Dobney's second point was that Proposal
2-94 would cost two faculty positions. Leifer said that it would
only cost a single administrative position. Dobney replied that
this was true only if another executive vice-president were to be
hired.
Bulleit said his constituents had asked about the moneys that
had to be spent to fund the proposal, and that it was important to
know what was to be given up to gain the benefits of the proposal.
Roblee said he wished to reply to Leifer's comments. He said that
Leifer's comments last week were correct, that any comparisons
between the MPSERS and TIAA-CREF plans were difficult. Roblee
said that the three items listed on the handout appeared to favor
MPSERS. However, other items favor TIAA-CREF participants. Roblee
added that the initial choice between the plans involved trade-
offs, and that it was unfair after the selection was made to ask
for equality on specific points.
Davutyan asked the discussants to be less emotional. Roblee
said that the differences in contributions listed in the handout
were correct, but that Leifer had neglected to mention that for
many years previously, the university contributed only 9.55 percent
to MPSERS retirement versus 10.55 percent to TIAA-CREF. Leifer
said that this difference was covered by the annuity given MPSERS
retirees.
Mullins said that the issue was not one of MPSERS against TIAA-
CREF. The proposal was intended to cover a very few individuals
who fall through the cracks of the current plan.
Glime said that a petitioning procedure now exists to extend
coverage in extenuating circumstances, and that Cheney of the
Benefits Office told her that the procedure could handle the
situations covered by Proposal 2-94. Glime said the advantage of
working through the existing procedure is that the university is
not required to set aside money to fund the contingencies. Beck
said that it is desirable to automate the procedure as much as
possible, because a widowed spouse is not likely to petition a
committee. Bulleit said that the goal of the proposal is worthy,
but that the most efficient way of accomplishing the goal is in
******************************************************************
Page 4024 Minutes of Senate Meeting 201 6 Oct 1993
question, and that other options need to be presented. Davutyan
asked whether the current restructuring of the American health-care
system had any bearing on the discussion.
Bornhorst reminded the Senate that preset time for adjournment
was nearing, and that something would have to be done with the
motion on the floor. Leifer MOVED to end debate on the proposal.
Hubbard seconded the motion. The MOTION FAILED to obtain a 2/3
majority in a show-of-hands vote.
Bulleit MOVED to send the proposal to the Finance Committee
for review. The motion was seconded. Mullins asked what further
information was needed regarding the proposal. Bulleit said his
constituents wanted to know whether there was a more cost-effective
method to accomplish the proposal's goals. There was no further
discussion, and the MOTION PASSED in a show-of-hands vote, 15-9.
X. New Business
Proposal 3-94, Establishment of Fine Arts Department. Bulleit
said that the Administrative Policy Committee voted to send the
proposal to the Senate floor for consideration. Bornhorst said
that some urgency was attached to the proposal so that this item
could be placed on the agenda for the November meeting of the Board
of Control. Bornhorst said that copies of the proposal would be
sent minus some appendices to senators with the agenda of
the next meeting. Bornhorst said that full copies of the proposal
were available at the Reserve Desk of the Library, and that copies
were available upon request from Dean Seel.
XI. Announcements
Keen reminded the interim chairs of standing committees that
they would meet immediately after adjournment. He also announced
that department heads and directors would no longer receive copies
of the Senate agendas and minutes, and that it was the obligation
of Senators to keep their departments informed.
XII. Adjournment
Mullins MOVED that the meeting be adjourned. Leifer seconded
the motion, which PASSED without opposition. Bornhorst declared
the meeting adjourned at 7:31 pm.
Submitted by Robert Keen
Senate Secretary
.