******************************************************************
Page 4040 Minutes of Senate Meeting 202 20 Oct 1993
THE SENATE OF MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
Minutes of Meeting No. 202
20 October 1993
Synopsis: The Senate
(1) heard a presentation on revision of the Faculty Handbook,
(2) approved two amendments to the responsibilities list of
Senate standing committees,
(3) approved a procedure for the constitutional limitation
of voting to subsets of senators,
(4) received a provisional list of committee assignments for
senators and alternates,
(5) approved Proposal 3-94, Establishment of a Department of
Fine Arts,
(6) elected a Senate representative to the SBEA Dean Search
Committee.
_______________________________________
I. Call to Order
President Bornhorst called Meeting 202 to order at 5:35 pm on
Wednesday, 20 October 1993, in Room B37 EERC.
II. Roll Call of Members
Secretary Keen called the roll. 28 senators or alternates were
present. Senators or alternate representatives from the following
units were absent: AF ROTC, Library, Mining Engineering, Non-
Academic Group 2. Liaison members Max Seel (Dean of Sciences and
Arts) and Eric Little (GSC) were present. Absent liaison members:
Dean of Engineering, Undergraduate Student Government, CTS, Staff
Council.
III. Introductions
President Bornhorst introduced the new Senate Assistant,
Marilyn Hay, and said that Marilyn would be in the Senate office
each morning and that she could be reached at ext. 3331. Fynewever
commented that campus phone operators do not have the Senate phone
number. Bornhorst added that the mailroom was sending Senate mail
to a former Senate president, and that both problems will be
corrected.
IV. Recognition of Visitors
The following visitors were recognized: Linda Ott (Computer
Science), Milton Olsson (Humanities), Cynthia Selfe (Humanities).
V. Agenda Adjustments
Bornhorst said he had no adjustments for the agenda [Appendix
A of these minutes] and asked for adjustments from the floor; there
were none. Bornhorst asked for objections to approving the agenda;
there were none.
VI. Presentation on Academic Faculty Handbook
Bornhorst said that in his first meeting with Provost Dobney,
revision of the Academic Faculty Handbook was set as a business
item of high priority. The current Handbook is dated October 16,
1989, and urgently needs revising. Provost Dobney had given the
Senate officers an outline for a democratic and stepwise procedure
for revision, and had proposed that the changes should go through
the Senate.
Bornhorst said that the revised Handbook would be in looseleaf
form to make it easy to revise and update. To identify the areas
needing work, Provost Dobney had appointed a Steering Committee,
consisting of Linda Ott (chair), Ellen Horsch and Debbie Lassila
as representatives of the administration, and three faculty. The
Provost had asked Bornhorst to appoint the three faculty members.
Following the Provost's suggestions, Bornhorst had appointed
himself as Senate President, Keen as Senate Secretary, and the
Chair of the Academic Policy Committee because that Committee would
deal with most of the policy changes. As Interim Chair of the
Committee, Bulleit would serve at least temporarily on the Steering
Committee. Bornhorst then introduced Linda Ott for a presentation
on the Faculty Handbook's revision.
Ott said that the Provost is interested in revising the Faculty
Handbook this year and had asked her to chair the Steering
Committee for the revision. The Committee has representatives from
the administration and the faculty. Ellen Horsch, the Director of
Human Relations, is familiar with employment policies, and Debbie
Lassila from the Provost's office is familiar with faculty
procedures. The Committee will determine which policies in the
Handbook need revision, and will appoint task forces to do the
revision. These task forces will act as subcommittees of
appropriate Senate committees. Policy recommendations will go to
Senate committees and then to the Senate. The Steering Committee
is to oversee the progress of the revision, keeping track of policy
overlap and consistency. Any group on campus may bring suggestions
for revision to the Steering Committee or to the appropriate Senate
committee.
Ott said the revised Faculty Handbook is intended to be a
living document in notebook form so that updates can be sent out
periodically. It may also be on-line for easy access in updated
form. Ott emphasized that the Committee is a steering committee
and not a policy setting committee.
Mullins asked for the date and compiler of the last Faculty
Handbook. Ott replied that it came out in 1989, apparently from
the 5th Floor of the Ad Bldg, and that it contained policy
revisions not reviewed by the faculty. Bornhorst noted that it
contained editorial revisions of the Senate constitution.
Grzelak said that there had been a Senate committee for the
Faculty Handbook, and asked about its involvement in the 1989
revision. Ott said she thought there had been no Senate
involvement. Bornhorst said he understood that this time the
Senate will deal not only with individual policies, but also with
the entire document. Boutilier said that a Senate committee on the
faculty handbook existed in 1989. Heuvers said that Allen Hambley
was chair of that Senate committee.
Bornhorst said that Debbie Lassila recently had attended a
conference on faculty handbooks, and the Provost's office now has
outlines and models of good faculty handbooks. Ott said that
Lassila also is gathering handbooks from peer institutions for
comparison. Mullins asked if the finalized handbook would come to
the Senate for approval. Ott replied that the Committee had not
yet met, but her idea was that policies and procedures will go to
Senate committees and the Senate individually, and then come to the
Senate as a completed handbook. McKimpson asked whether a
timetable had been set. Ott replied that the goal for completion
is the end of the academic year. Bornhorst commented that some
policy changes may carry over to next year, but that major changes
should be completed this year. Ott said the advantage of a living
document is that changes may be incorporated as they are made.
Heuvers said that the Senate minutes should be checked to find
recently revised policies. Ott replied that this was to be one of
the Steering Committee's first steps.
There were no further questions. Bornhorst thanked Ott for
her presentation. He commented that the revision would be a major
task for the Senate, so the process should be understood and
generally agreed to early.
VII. Approval of Minutes
Keen said there had been difficulties in obtaining an assistant
to handle routine Senate work, and the officers had decided that
Senate memos had priority over minutes. Keen said that minutes of
several meetings would be available soon, and that a synopsis would
be added to the minutes of each meeting.
******************************************************************
Page 4041 Minutes of Senate Meeting 202 20 Oct 1993
VIII. Report of the Senate President
1. Proposal 4-93, Flow Chart for Policy Decisions, has been sent
to the Provost for approval and transmittal to the Board of
Control.
2. The current Affirmative Action Officer will step down at the
end of October. The Provost has assembled a Search Committee
for an Interim Affirmative Action Officer, with Bornhorst
representing the Senate.
3. The University President's Cabinet met on October 7, with
Bornhorst present as the Senate representative. A major topic
of that meeting was a joint retreat by the Board of Control
and administration. The Board cares about Michigan Tech and
wishes to improve it. The Board and administration now appear
mutually supportive. Dale Tahtinen had reported that there
was some movement in Lansing to rethink University funding and
the reasons why universities exist. The Cabinet learned that
the catalog will appear before November 15th. Its delay was
caused by a switch to desk top publishing, which should save
money in the future.
4. Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer McGarry has appointed
a University Investment Committee. The Senate is represented
on the Committee by Jim Gale and Jim Pickens.
Leifer asked whether Jim Gale was a Senator. Bornhorst
replied that Gale was not a Senator but that he could repre-
sent the Senate, just as there are Senate representatives on
numerous campus committees. Current policy of the Board of
Control also requires Senate representation on the University
Investment Committee.
Boutilier asked what the Committee was supposed to do.
Bornhorst replied that the Committee was charged by the Board
of Control with overseeing all investments of university
endowment funds and other monies. The university took a loss
during the 1987 stock market crash, and Board policy since
then had prevented investments in stocks. Now the Board will
allow the university to invest in mutual funds but not in
individual stocks. The Committee is to oversee that process.
The university has hired an investment council to put together
a portfolio for the university. Pickens reports the
investments are conservative. The purpose of this Committee
is to advise McGarry and to oversee the investment process.
Leifer asked for the names of the Committee members.
Bornhorst said the Committee consisted of Gale and Pickens
from the Senate, Dan Farrell from IDS [an investment company],
Dale Zschoche from the Michigan Tech Fund, Acting MTU
Comptroller Mike Abbott, and Barry Fay from the School of
Business. Boutilier asked why IDS should be on the committee.
Bornhorst replied that McGarry wanted an advisor from outside
the university, and that IDS will handle none of the
investments. Davutyan asked who selected the Committee.
Bornhorst said that it had been selected by McGarry. Grzelak
commented that Farrell was serving also as an alumnus member.
5. The Senate needs to select a faculty member to serve as a full
voting member of the Memorial Union Board. The membership of
a faculty member is required by the MUB Constitution.
Bornhorst called for the Senate to find a volunteer.
6. A proposal for a new option in the MS program of the Math
Department has been sent to the Curricular Policy Committee
for consideration.
7. The Senate procedure for changes in an academic program is
based on Senate Proposal 10-70. This is relevant to the
proposal for a 4-year program in the School of Technology.
It appears the Senate only votes once on such items and makes
its recommendation to the administration; the administration
is then to report to the Senate on the disposition and
implementation of the proposal. The Senate is not to vote
again unless the Board of Control or the academic officers
downstate change the proposal. The administration has been
notified that their current flow chart does not conform to
this procedure.
8. A handbook for senators should be assembled to include such
things as the Senate constitution, the responsibilities and
membership of Senate standing committees, responsibilities
and members of other committees, lists of representatives on
various committees and boards, and perhaps other items. An
important part of such a handbook would be a list of committee
priorities and activities in progress. All senators and their
constituents need to understand what the Senate is doing. The
activities list should be updated regularly, perhaps
quarterly.
Heuvers said that it would be excellent to have the
handbook put online for senators, so that it could be updated
and printed out easily.
IX. Reports of Committees
A. Executive Committee. The report was given by Committee Chair
Bornhorst.
1. Bornhorst distributed a list of Senate standing committees
[Appendix B of these minutes], and noted that it was the list
approved at the previous meeting. Bornhorst said that the
Senate Executive Committee recommended two amendments to the
list.
Heyman MOVED that the responsibilities of the Election
Committee be amended to read "Ballot initiatives, Senate and
university wide elections". Roblee seconded the motion.
There was no discussion; the motion PASSED by voice vote
without dissent.
Heyman MOVED that the Academic Policy Committee Item 5 -
All matters pertaining to the academic calendar, be shifted
to the Instructional Policy Committee. Roblee seconded the
motion. Bornhorst commented that the Executive Committee felt
that it was more appropriate to have this item as the
responsibility of the Instructional Policy Committee, although
the calendar did affect responsibilities of most standing
committees. There was no discussion. The motion PASSED in
a voice vote with no opposition.
Bornhorst distributed a second list of Senate standing
committees and responsibilities [Appendix C of these minutes],
noting that this list had been prepared anticipating passage
of the two amendments.
2. Bornhorst said the Executive Committee had recommended that
the Senate President employ the following operating procedure
during Senate meetings: The Full Senate will vote on all
issues unless any senator or alternate requests the vote be
limited to a subset of Senators under the constitution. The
request need not be seconded. The request for a subset vote
will be debated and voted on by the Full Senate, before any
vote on the main motion.
Bornhorst said there had been no close votes to date, but
there may be votes in the future in which a limited subset
would make a difference.
Beck said that the constitution identified some areas as
the business of the academic side only, and in these cases the
constitution had precedence and there should be no vote on a
request. Bornhorst replied that the chair faces the problem
of deciding whether a limited vote is appropriate. Bornhorst
said that he did not want to make the decision himself, but
wanted the Senate to decide. Beck said the constitution
clearly identified certain issues as belonging to the academic
side, and these should be not be open to a vote on limiting
the vote. Bornhorst said he was trying to get a sense of how
the chair should operate.
Hubbard said the same point had been covered during debate
over at-large senators when the constitution was being
approved. Hubbard asked whether there was any time when the
non-academic persons would like to vote by themselves.
Bornhorst replied that this was not in the constitution.
Heuvers commented that the operating procedure was fine,
but where the constitution specifically indicates an area is
limited, then it should be sufficient for a senator to point
this
******************************************************************
Page 4042 Minutes of Senate Meeting 202 20 Oct 1993
this out. McKimpson suggested that the same procedure be used
for research issues as defined by the constitution. Grzelak
said that he agreed with Beck's view, that the constitution
should be clear on this as well. Bornhorst said it was
apparent that the Senate wanted the chair to make a
recommendation on the voting units before voting on an issue.
Heyman said that the Senate should be guided by the
constitution, but for ambiguous cases there should exist some
decision-making mechanism and the suggested one seems fair.
Roblee said that most issues that come to the Senate floor
will be in the grey area. Beck said that if the constitution
is completely gray, then it is a poor document. Beck also
said that records should be kept of decisions made on this
point, to set precedent and maintain consistency of treatment
of similar policies in the future. Bornhorst said he had
brought this problem to the Executive Committee because there
had already been a vote or two that arguably should have been
limited, although nobody objected and the votes were
unanimous. Bornhorst said he needed to know how to proceed
when a limited vote might make a difference.
Roblee MOVED to accept the suggested procedure of the
Executive Committee. Jobst seconded the motion. Heuvers said
the motion should be amended so that the constitution is
followed when the area is clearly defined. Beck asked that
the motion be amended so that a historical record be kept to
establish precedent for future consistency. Bornhorst stated
the motion with amendments and asked for discussion.
Grzelak said the procedure should consider the
constitution first, and then if the issue is not clear there
would be a vote on limited voting; the constitution should
take precedence. Bornhorst asked if the present wording did
not do this. Grzelak said the current reading of the motion
did not appear to give precedence to the constitution.
Bradley said that a vote would be necessary to decide whether
the issue was clear in the constitution.
Keen re-read the motion at Bornhorst's request: The Full
Senate will vote on all proposals unless there is a request
from the floor or the matter is clearly defined by the
Constitution. The limited vote will be debated and voted upon
and then the matter will be voted upon. A historical record
of all such actions will be kept.
Bradley said the big question was who decides what is
clear in this constitution? Bornhorst said that Senate has
to decide, and that this is the problem. Bulleit said a
prospective example of the difficulty may arise in considering
a switch to semesters; the constitution reserves matters of
the academic calendar to the academic degree-granting
departments, but allocation of human, fiscal and physical
resources are the purview of the Full Senate. Bulleit added
that changing to semesters would fall within both areas, and
the Senate would then have to decide who are the eligible
voters.
Heyman said that parts of the constitutional list can be
played off against other parts, but the standard reading of
legal documents is that the more specific clause takes
precedence over the less specific clause; in this case the
politics of writing the constitution required inserting the
specific clauses. Heyman added that he had flowcharted the
logic of the motion as it had been read, and it was clear that
it is not possible for a request from the floor to override
clear constitutional provision. The motion does not allow a
vote against a clear constitutional provision. It is always
possible to vote contrary to the constitution, and only
embarrassment prevents this.
Heuvers said the entire motion was implicit in the
constitution, because certain items were clearly listed as
belonging to the academic faculty, and the whole Senate was
to vote on other items. Heuvers added that the whole motion
was unnecessary. There was no further discussion. The motion
PASSED without opposition in a voice vote.
3. Bornhorst said the Executive Committee had agreed on a
procedure for handling proposals when they come to the Senate
officers: When the disposition of a proposal is clear to the
Senate President or officers, the proposal will be sent to
the proper committee; when the disposition is unclear the
proposal will be circulated to the Executive Committee for a
recommendation either to send it to committee or to the floor
of the Senate.
4. Bornhorst said he wanted to make several points before any
discussion of the preliminary committee assignment list
[Appendix D of these minutes].
First, there was no intent to exclude anyone who wants to
work on academic policy or other Senate business, and suff-
icient work existed to keep everyone busy all the time. The
Executive Committee envisioned the formation of subcommittees
to handle the necessary committee work. Senate subcommittees
could draw widely from the constituency and the university
community. Bornhorst said that, for example, work on a
scientific misconduct policy should continue with the same
personnel working as a subcommittee of the Research Policy
Committee, and that a campus-wide benefits committee proposed
recently by the administration could work as a subcommittee
of the Financial Policy Committee.
Second, inclusion of all senators and alternates insures
broad participation in Senate activities, and minimizes the
possibility of over-influence of a few people who might serve
on several Senate committees. Bornhorst said it was necessary
that everybody should be aware that there is broad partici-
pation in discussion of all issues.
Third, committee members should elect a senator or
alternate as committee chair and report the results to the
president between October 28 and November 2.
Fourth, the Executive Committee is scheduled to meet on
November 2.
Fifth, to increase awareness of committee activities among
all the senators, copies of committee documents and memos
should all be copied to the Senate president. These copies
will be sent immediately to the Senate Office and filed there.
These will be available for anyone in the constituencies or
the university community.
Bornhorst referred to the list, saying that the names of
Kawatra and Bradley should be swapped between the Finance and
Research Policy Committees. Bornhorst opened the floor for
discussion.
Arici asked whether service on two committees would be a
problem, and if a trade was required to accomplish this.
Bornhorst said that a trade was not necessary, but the
Committee had suggested trades to keep number of members
balanced to avoid having one committee with twenty people and
another with two. He added that the trading and the election
of chairs should be accomplished within a week or two, and
that the interim chairs should be informed of trades.
Carstens MOVED that the preliminary committee assignments
stand as written in the document. The motion was seconded.
Leifer asked how the motion will affect the trades. Bornhorst
replied that it would have no effect. Several senators asked
why a motion was needed. Bornhorst replied that the motion
was not necessary, but it was on the floor. Carstens said he
wished to WITHDRAW the motion. Bornhorst asked for objections
to withdrawal of the motion; there were none.
B. Ad Hoc Committee for the Fine Arts Department Proposal.
Bornhorst referred to the agenda attachments for Proposal 3-94,
Formation of a Fine Arts Department [Appendices E, F, and G of
these minutes]. Bornhorst said that the former Curriculum
Committee had been dissolved, but had been reformed as an Ad Hoc
Committee to deal specifically with the proposal for a Department
of Fine Arts.
Committee Chair Bulleit said the Committee had voted to report
the proposal to the Senate, with six in favor of the proposal
******************************************************************
Page 4043 Minutes of Senate Meeting 202 20 Oct 1993
and one ambivalent. Bulleit added that the Committee felt the
proposal was a good one, but had agreed to the limitation of
approximately $20,000 given in Dean Seel's accompanying memo.
Boutilier asked whether the committee accepted the $20,000 as an
initial expense, or as a continuing expense. Bulleit replied that
it would be an annual expense. Leifer said that the proposal filed
in the library indicated a $450,000 budget. Bulleit said there
were four budget scenarios appended to the original proposal, but
the accompanying memo from Seel indicated that only the $20,000
scenario was acceptable; the Committee had passed the proposal
based on the $20,000 scenario. There was no further discussion of
the Committee report.
X. Old Business.
A. Proposal 3-94, Establishment of a Fine Arts Department.
Bulleit MOVED that Senate Proposal 3-94, Establishment of a Fine
Arts Department, be approved. Jobst seconded the motion.
Heuvers said that in item F-1-b of the new constitution, the
motion should be voted on only by academic degree-granting
departments. Carstens asked whether the new department was to be
a degree-granting department. Bornhorst said it was not, that
under the new constitution the proposed department is an other
course-offering unit, like Physical Education.
Boutilier asked whether the proposal had been discussed with
the heads of departments in the College of Sciences and Arts. Seel
replied that the proposal had been endorsed by the College Council,
which is made up of the department heads.
Carstens said that the $20,000 for the annual operation of the
new department was coming from somewhere, and asked who was going
to be short the $20,000. Seel replied it was necessary to review
the background of the proposal to understand the funding of the new
department. The Humanities Department had evolved into a PhD-
granting unit, with a Division of Fine Arts that played an
important role for the full campus. There were continual budget
conflicts within the department over hiring of temporary help for
fine arts performances. Some of the $20,000 was to be used for a
tenth month plus incentive pay for the department head. The rest
will be for SS&E, including part-time help that has come from the
Humanities Department previously.
Heuvers distributed a photocopy [Appendix H of these minutes] of
a page from the undergraduate catalog, and said it described the
Athletic Department. Heuvers said there was an analogy between
athletics and the proposed fine arts division, that only structural
changes were needed for fine arts, and that creating a new
department would not solve their problems. Fine arts needed to be
separated from academic departments and given status equivalent to
that of the athletic department, possibly with a separate budget.
The academic course-offering part of fine arts should stay in
Humanities, with ticketed performances handled possibly through a
fine arts center, possibly housed in the Walker center. Heuvers
said the proposal needed to be rethought and some further committee
work done before jumping into forming a new department.
Olsson said that Heuvers' proposal already had been considered
thoroughly, and had been rejected because the fine arts are part
of the academic community at almost every university. The fine
arts personnel would be faculty members with terminal degrees,
active in creativity and research. The academic component is a
vital part of fine arts, which is more than performance. Bornhorst
asked if the proposed department anticipated becoming a degree-
granting department in the future. Olsson said this was a
possibility, but the group was making one step at a time.
Seel said he wanted to clear up a misconception about the
Athletic Department and the Department of Physical Education.
Physical Education is an academic department just as Mathematics.
Seel said he did not understand Heuvers' point that fine arts had
become like the Athletic Department. Heuvers said that almost all
the coaches in athletics have appointments in PE as instructors,
teaching courses offered through PE. The teams and other
activities involved with the Athletic Department are separate.
This is how the performance part of fine arts might be viewed.
Academic credit might be given for performance, just as people that
play hockey or football get credit. Heuvers added that the
proposed funding might help fine arts more if it went directly into
fine arts, instead of enhancing salary for a department head.
Olsson replied that the purposes, goals and objectives of the
fine arts division were separate and unique from the purposes and
goals of the Humanities Department. The Humanities Department is
committed to a graduate program and to one of the largest STC
programs in the country, with support for the fine arts necessarily
diminishing. If the fine arts are to continue contributing to this
campus, their governance must be separate from the Humanities
Department.
Seel said he wished to clear up the analogy with athletics and
physical education. Coaches do have part-time appointments, and
part of their duties is teaching for PE. However, there are
tenure-track and tenured faculty and a department head in PE. Seel
said he was not sure why Heuvers was drawing a parallel to
Athletics' coaches rather than to PE where they have tenured
faculty.
Fynewever said that after next year there will be only one
tenured faculty in PE. Further, it was very clear that no one
would ever again be hired in PE on the tenure track, and the only
reason tenure existed was because of grandfather clauses. Seel
said that there was a department head and a tenured assistant or
associate professor in PE, and he did not know if one of them would
retire or step down a year from now. Fynewever said it was clear
that no one would be hired on a tenure track in the future.
Bornhorst asked Seel to comment on the budget of the proposed
department. Seel said that the information on salaries in Tech
Topics was confusing, but that little of the $20,000 would be used
to enhance Olsson's salary as head of the new department.
Jobst said he could not see a strong correlation between PE
and the fine arts program, that traditionally on other campuses
fine arts was an academic program. Individuals in these depart-
ments have pressures like those in other academic departments: they
are critiqued, they go before promotion and tenure committees, etc.
Jobst said pressures on individuals in PE programs were different,
although still considerable. Jobst added that there were
difficulties in defining appropriate criteria for evaluating
individuals in fine arts, which contributed to the desire of the
fine arts to split off.
Selfe said that the proposal that had been considered carefully
by the entire faculty of both Humanities and the Division of Fine
Arts. Fine Arts had operated to an extent as a separate division
for a long time, with their own tenure and promotion guidelines.
Their curriculum included both academic and performance components,
and some courses would be shared with Humanities. Selfe said the
Senate should be aware that this was a happy proposal, with the
Department and the Division separating on good terms and wishing
each other well. Self said the Department of Humanities very much
recommended this proposal to the Senate.
Boutilier said the problems with tenure and promotion were
understandable, but that there was concern with the future of the
proposed department and the mission of Michigan Tech. Forming a
non-degree department now could lead in several years to a proposal
for a degree-granting Department of Fine Arts of questionable value
to the State of Michigan and to Michigan Tech.
Arici asked whether the Senate's decision on the proposal's
budget would be binding on the administration. Bornhorst said that
nothing prevented the administration from increasing the proposed
budget. The Senate did have the constitutional ability to make
recommendations to the administration, but the final decisions
rested with them.
Arici said that he resented the statement in the accompanying
memo from Seel, that there was a need to prevent education from
becoming one dimensional. Arici said he did not think that
Michigan Tech was a one-dimensional university, and that he did
not see himself as being one-dimensional, even though he was in
******************************************************************
Page 4044 Minutes of Senate Meeting 202 20 Oct 1993
the College of Engineering. Seel replied that he had not intended
to imply that our education was one-dimensional, but had wanted to
say that fine arts has a very important role at Michigan Tech, and
that the proposal would make the arts more effective.
Replying to Boutilier's statement, Seel said that the proposal
now asks for a non-degree-granting department. However, any
department on campus could come forward with proposals for
curriculum enhancement. The proposal does not imply that a fine
arts major is needed, but the future cannot be foreseen for any
department. Seel added that the $20,000 figure is not a guaranteed
amount, but will be included in College budget proposals and in
discussions with the Provost. A vote for the proposal is not a
vote for the $20,000 budget.
Bulleit said that formation of the department should be
separated from the possibility of granting a degree, because any
proposal for a degree would have to be approved by the Senate.
Heuvers said that part of the reason for his handout was that
the Athletic Department was granted a full page in the catalog,
but that fine arts was mentioned as part of a paragraph somewhere.
Creation of a performing fine arts center would strengthen
recruiting of students and faculty, and enhance the community.
Heuvers added that each of the four budget scenarios involved three
new positions, and it was clear that the new department intended
to ask for these.
Heuvers asked whether a degree in fine arts could be
accomplished under the current general liberal arts degree program
in the Humanities Department. Olsson said this was not possible
because the course structure was not there, and that a new group
of courses in fine arts would have to be developed. Bornhorst said
that the requests for new positions could be made now through the
Humanities Department.
Mroz said that fine arts needed a campus identity, and that the
new department would increase diversity at Michigan Tech.
Fynewever said that using the PE and Athletic Departments as an
alternative to the proposal was not clear, because PE and Athletics
were two separate departments with two separate budgets, which was
of considerable benefit.
Mullins asked about current staffing of the division and the
staffing of the proposed department. Olsson explained the current
and proposed staffing. Bradley asked why the questions were
necessary. Mullins said that he wanted to be sure the new
department consisted of separate staff, not shared staff.
Bornhorst said that the picture was complicated further because
faculty from humanities would teach some of the proposed fine arts
courses.
Glime asked whether the financial needs given in the proposal
would exist even if the new department were not formed. Olsson
said that without the monies requested in the proposal, programs
would have to be cut, with or without a new department. Glime
asked whether the main benefit of the proposal was to enhance
visibility of the fine arts, and to avoid the distractions of
funding problems with humanities. Olsson said this was correct,
and that the separation would allow Humanities to pursue its own
programs. Selfe said that the proposed department had plans to
increase its cooperation with the regional performance center, and
that the two units now shared committee work.
Fynewever inquired about the tenure guidelines for the new
department, and suggested that the faculty of the proposed
department should have to earn tenure in another academic
department. Seel replied that the Division of Fine Arts has had
separate guidelines since 1991; the teaching and service components
were the same for all departments, but the research component was
replaced by performing criteria. He added that of the 8.5 persons
in the proposed department, 6 were tenured already, and 2 were
tenure-track assistant professors. Sewell asked where the faculty
would have tenure under the proposal. Seel replied that tenure
would be transferred to the Department of Fine Arts if it was
formed.
Mullins asked whether Senate approval of the proposal was an
approval of the request for four new faculty positions. Seel
replied that each department yearly made proposals to their deans
and the Provost. Mullins said that these were not in the form of
proposals to the Senate. Bulleit said that last year the proposal
from the School of Technology for a 4-year program had arrived
initially in the Curricular Policy Committee with no budget. That
proposal had been sent back with a demand for budget scenarios.
The Ad Hoc Committee had been happy to see the fine arts proposal
with a budget, and a proposal without a budget would have been
rejected. Bulleit said that Mullins was putting any proposal in
a double bind. Mullins said he was asking whether a positive
Senate vote implied endorsement of the proposed budgets. Davutyan
said that the Senate was spending too much time discussing the
proposal. Grimm said he favored the proposal, and that budget
allocations would take care of themselves. A healthy department
could be expected to want to expand.
Bornhorst said the time for adjournment was approaching.
Heuvers MOVED to table the motion for adopting the proposal.
Mullins seconded the proposal. The motion to table FAILED in a
show of hands vote, 8-14.
Roblee MOVED to end debate. Hubbard seconded the motion. The
motion PASSED in a show-of-hands vote,20-1.
Heuvers pointed out that according to the constitution, the
issue had to be voted on only by representatives of academic
degree-granting departments. Keen said that 23 persons could vote
on the motion; the excluded representatives were those from AF
ROTC, Army ROTC, IMP, IWR, KRC, Library, Physical Education, and
the three non-academic groups. Wells said that he should be able
to vote because ROTC was part of the College of Sciences and Arts,
according to the first page of the constitution.
Keen said that the Senate Bylaws list of representation units
included 17 academic degree-granting departments. The ROTC
departments were listed as other course-offering units. He said
that the establishment of departments was listed under the
responsibilities and authority of academic degree-granting
departments only. The constitution was extremely clear that only
academic degree-granting departments could vote on this proposal.
Wells said that the bottom of the first page of the
constitution, read "throughout this constitution and bylaws the
term department (like Department of Military Science) shall apply
and should be read as school for the School of Business, etc."
Wells said the two pieces of information in the constitution
appeared contradictory. Glime said that the footnote was written
so that there did not have to be a continual reference to
departments and schools; schools were simply defined as
departments. For the purpose of voting, the units were subdivided
between degree-granting departments versus non-degree-granting
departments. Glime said that ROTC qualified as a department where
that word was used alone, it did not qualify as a degree-granting
department.
The motion to approve Proposal 3-94 was PASSED 13-6 with two
abstentions in a show-of-hands vote. Bornhorst said he would
forward the proposal to the Provost with the Senate's positive
recommendation.
B. Election of Senate Representative to the SBEA Dean Search
Committee. Bornhorst announced that Marilyn Cooper of Humanities
and Pushpalatha Murthy of Chemistry had volunteered to stand for
election as the Senate's representative to the Search Committee.
Bornhorst asked for nominations from the floor; there were none.
Bornhorst declared the nominations closed. Ballots were
distributed to the Senate.
XI. New Business
Proposal 4-94, Suspension of the 3-Year and Out Policy.
Bornhorst referred to the text of Proposal 4-94 [Appendix I of
these minutes], and said that the Executive Committee had decided
to send this directly to the Senate floor. Bornhorst said that it
had been written by the Presidential Commission on
******************************************************************
Page 4045 Minutes of Senate Meeting 202 20 Oct 1993
Women, and noted that the proposal contained their explanation of
the need for suspension of the policy. Bornhorst said that the
suspension was temporary until the Faculty Handbook is revised, at
which time the issue can be looked at in more detail, and that the
Provost would support this suspension if the Senate thinks it is
appropriate. The issue was important and fundamental to the
university's situation.
Beck asked whether suspending the policy would make permanent
any employee who is now temporary. Bornhorst said that nobody
would become permanent if the policy is suspended. He added that
the policy was initiated in 1991 by the Board of Control, and that
it required the administration to discharge personnel after a 3-
year period. Sewell said she was a member of the Presidential
Commission and that the reason the rule should be suspended is that
it is applied inconsistently and unfairly across campus.
XII. Announcements
Keen announced that Murthy had been elected to the SBEA Dean
Search Committee, 15-9.
XIII. Adjournment
Multiple senators simultaneously MOVED to adjourn the meeting.
The motion was seconded massively, and PASSED unanimously. Pres-
ident Bornhorst declared the meeting adjourned at 7:30 pm.
Submitted by Robert Keen
Senate Secretary
.