******************************************************************
Page 4070  Minutes of Senate Meeting 203   3 Nov 1993


         THE SENATE OF MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

                   Minutes of Meeting No. 203
                         3 November 1993


Synopsis:  The Senate
  (1)     heard a report from the Committee on Conflict of
          Interest;
  (2)     approved minutes of Meetings 198 and 199;
  (3)     approved a constituency petition from A. Hein;
  (4)     approved constituency status for the position of
          Affirmative Action Officer;
  (5)     approved the emergency status of Proposal 5-94;
  (6)     amended and adopted Proposal 5-94, Interim Protocol:
          Designating Eligible Senators for a Limited Vote;
  (7)     approved Proposal 4-94, Temporary Suspension of the
          3-Year-and-Out Policy.
_______________________________________



I. Call to Order
    President Bornhorst called the meeting to order at 5:30 pm on
Wednesday, 3 November 1993, in Room B37 of the  Electrical Energy
Resources Center.

II. Roll Call of Members
    Secretary Keen called the roll.  32 senators or alternates were
present.  A senator or alternate representative from AF ROTC was
absent.  These liaison members were absent: Dean of Engineering,
Dean of Sciences & Arts, Computer Technology Services,
Undergraduate Student Government, Graduate Student Council, Staff
Council.

III.  Recognition of Visitors
    Recognized visitors were Bruce Seely (Social Sciences), Terry
Reynolds (Social Sciences), Fredrick Dobney (Provost), Ruthann
Ruehr (Humanities).

IV. Agenda Adjustments
    Bornhorst referred to the circulated agenda [Appendix A of
these minutes], and announced that a presentation from the Conflict
of Interest Committee would be heard before approval of the
minutes, and that New Business would be considered before Old
Business.  Bornhorst asked for objections to the adjustments; there
were none.

V. Presentation on Conflict of Interest
    Bornhorst said the Senate officers and Provost Dobney had
agreed that proposals or other matters could be submitted to the
Senate by any campus committee and by any group or individual from
the students, faculty, or administrators.  Bornhorst said the
Provost had agreed further that any matter that falls within the
range of responsibilities and authority of the Senate must come
through the Senate.  Bornhorst introduced Bruce Seely, Chair of
the University Conflict of Interest Committee.
    Seely distributed copies of the "Third Draft: Working
Principles Concerning Conflict of Interest" [Appendix B of these
minutes] and said his intent was to make the Senate aware of on-
going work.  Seely said that Provost Dobney had reconvened the Con-
flict of Interest Committee which previously had been convened by
Provost Powers to examine issues related to Ventures.  The Board
of Control had directed the assembly of the Committee after seeing
the Auditor General's report on Ventures; the report contained a
strong indictment of the university for failure to have a conflict
of interest policy with any teeth in it.
    Seely said the group was assembled originally for reasons other
than dealing with conflict of interest.  One of the committee's
first actions in May was to confer with Senate President Sharik;
the Committee intends to submit any proposal it develops to the
Senate.  The Committee members are T. Collins, S. Kauppi, W.
Melton, K. Pelc, C. Selfe, J. Soper and Chair B. Seely; L. Julien
is currently a non-active member.  The Committee has prepared a set
of working principles on conflict of interest, has gathered
information from a number of universities, and is preparing to
disseminate the information through the Lode, Tech Topics, and a
Tech Tea.  The Committee seeks reactions about the areas identified
as needing attention in terms of conflict of interest.
    Seely asked the Senate to consider the representative balance
of the Committee, with only one individual from the Engineering
College.  Seely said the Committee's major task is education about
the issues.  The previous administration at least encouraged if not
condoned conflict of interest.  Seely said he intended to report
periodically to the Senate.
    Heuvers asked whether issues like faculty dating of students
would be considered by the Committee.  Seely replied that the
Committee was resisting efforts to become an ethics committee, and
was mainly concerned with policies of research and consulting.
    Bornhorst thanked Seely for his presentation.

VI.  Approval of Minutes
    Bornhorst said that copies of the minutes of Senate meetings
were being distributed only to Senators to reduce costs, that
copies of approved minutes would be sent to the administration,
and that eventually Senate minutes would be available on-line even
in draft form.  The minutes of Meeting 198 held 5 May 1993, and of
Meeting 199 held 16 September 1993 were accepted and approved
without correction.

VII. Report of the Senate President
    Bornhorst reported that Provost Dobney had been notified that
the Senate had approved Proposal 3-94 for the formation of a Fine
Arts Department.  The administration had been given the list of
Senate standing committees.
    Several issues had been referred to Senate standing committees,
including (1) Senate representation on a fringe benefits committee,
(2) a request by G. Mroz to establish a flexible spending account,
(3) a request by G. Mroz to investigate fringe benefit rates on
summer compensation for faculty, and (4) some memoranda on smoking
policy sent from the campus Occupational Health & Safety Office to
the Provost and from the Provost to the Senate.  The Senate's
Institutional Planning Committee had been asked to consult with
Staff Council on the issue of smoking on campus.
    The Staff Council had been contacted about smoking policy and
evaluation of administrators.  Coordination with Staff Council was
important to ensure that all individuals on campus had some group
representation.
    According to the Provost, Proposals 2-92 and 3-92, Terms of
Office for Department Heads/Chairs and for College Deans, were in
effect.
    The Provost has asked the Senate to re-address Proposal 7-92,
Search Committees for Deans, because (1) it is inappropriate to
permit an untenured faculty member to chair a search committee for
a dean, and (2) resources for managing a search are more likely to
be available to a head/chair or dean than to an assistant
professor.  Davutyan asked if the issue concerned the possibility
of his chairing the search committee for the SBEA dean.  Bornhorst
said it did not.  Hubbard said the issue might be taken care of if
a proposal for college governance were approved.
    The Provost has obtained a new legal opinion about Board of
Control Policy 16.6.  Jambekar had pointed out last year [Minutes,
Meeting 195, p.3746] that this policy excluded the Senate from
acting on financial issues in the university.  The new legal
opinion is that faculty can interact with the administration on
such issues, but not with the Board of Control.  The new policy
allows faculty to serve on investment committees, etc.  Further
modifications to the policy may occur as part of the revision of
the Faculty Handbook.  Leifer asked whether this policy statement
conflicted with the constitution's statement that the Senate might
approach the Board of Control on any issue which had been vetoed
by the


******************************************************************
Page 4071  Minutes of Senate Meeting 203   3 Nov 1993


administration.  Bornhorst said that perhaps there was a conflict,
but the Board's policy evidently did not prevent faculty from
serving on a finance committee mandated by the Board of Control. 
Heuvers said the new constitution listed the specific areas in
which the Senate might approach the Board, and that matters of
finance were not on the list.
    The Flow Chart (Proposal 4-93) [Appendix C of these minutes]
would be provided to the Board of Control.  Some minor editorial
changes had been made to the chart since its approval, including
substitution of "Senate Executive Committee" for "Senate Executive
Council", and of "Deans & Directors" for "Academic Council".
    The Provost had assured the Senate officers that any policy
changes produced during the revision of the Faculty Handbook would
be sent to the Senate for approval.
    The officers had discussed with the Provost and with the Senate
Executive committee the proper "home" for approved Senate
proposals.  The administrative decision is that they be
incorporated in the University Policies and Procedures Manual. 
This will require a review of all past Senate proposals.
    S. Kauppi recently was named Interim Affirmative Action
Officer.  Bornhorst had represented the Senate on the search
committee.
    Senators were asked to inform the Senate Assistant of any
committees on which they served as Senate representatives.  The
Senate needs a list of all the pies in which it has its fingers.
    Bornhorst asked for questions from the floor.  Davutyan asked
about the case of the assistant professor chairing a search
committee for a dean.  Bornhorst said the specific case was the
search committee for the Dean of Engineering chaired by F.
Morrison.  Provost Dobney commented that his concern was not
Morrison's performance, but rather the fairness of putting such a
work load on any untenured assistant professor.

VIII.  Reports of Committees
A.  Executive Committee.  Bornhorst reported that the Executive
Committee had discussed procedures for proposals based on the
constitution.  Bornhorst said that the Executive Committee would
review proposals originating outside the Senate, and decide whether
these proposals would go to a Senate committee or go directly to
the Senate floor for immediate action.  Ideas for Senate action
should go to the Executive Committee for referral to Senate
committees for consideration.  Further, the Committee recommends
that all proposals sent to the Senate floor have attached a
"tracking history", including receipt date, origination, committee
action, etc.
    Janners asked how frequently the Executive Committee met. 
Bornhorst replied that the Committee met as necessary, and that
the Committee had given the Senate officers the option of making
initial choices of proposal disposition when these seemed clear.
    Bornhorst distributed a provisional listing of membership of
Senate standing committees [Appendix D of these minutes].  Correc-
tions to the list included the election of McKimpson as chair of
the Research Policy Committee, and that Kawatra and Bradley should
be exchanged between the Finance and Research Committees.
    Bornhorst noted that the Finance Committee had voted to allow
the inclusion of Akin, Thayer and Gale as non-Senate members, and
the Executive Committee had recommended the Senate approve this. 
Hubbard noted that several members of the same department were
serving on the Finance Committee and asked whether this was
appropriate.  Bornhorst said that composition of all committees was
subject to Senate approval.  Heuvers said that all committees
depended on the expertise of the members, and there was no reason
not to include members as needed.  Bornhorst said that the Senate
had to insure that no committee was stacked by any department. 
Grzelak said that the Finance Committee welcomed having several
members from the Business School.
    Heuvers suggested that the non-senators serving on committees
should have a term limit of one year renewable.  Leifer said the
history of committee service indicates volunteer service should be
welcomed.  Bornhorst said that the increased prominence of the
Senate should attract members to committees.  McKimpson said that
non-senators D. Reed, G. Podila, and G. Jayaraman wanted to
continue on the Research Policy Committee.  Bornhorst asked how the
Senate wished to handle such requests.  Roblee suggested that
committee chairs should merely inquire of the Senate if there were
objections.  Bornhorst said this was acceptable.  Bulleit asked if
the Research Policy Committee had objections to the three
applicants.  McKimpson replied that it did not.  The Senate raised
no objections to their inclusion.
    Bornhorst distributed a list of issues [Appendix E of these
minutes] under consideration by the standing committees of the
Senate, and noted that the list would be revised continually.  He
pointed out that revision of the Faculty Handbook is listed under
the Academic Policy Committee, but that various issues to be
considered in the revision would logically have to be considered
by other standing committees.  Bornhorst stated that subcommittee
formation and membership would be determined by the committees, and
would not necessarily have to come to the Senate floor.
    Arici asked if the committees would set the priority of issues.
Bornhorst replied that the priorities should be set by each
committee in consultation with the Executive Committee.  Leifer
said that the Fringe Benefit list of issues was shown as various,
but that he had given Bornhorst a list.  Bornhorst replied that
Leifer's list was so long that it would have taken another page.

B.  Board of Control Relations Committee.  Bornhorst said that the
Senate needed to decide what type of forum should take place at the
next Board meeting, when it would occur and who would be involved. 
Bornhorst said that he had requested a meeting of senators with the
Board at the November meeting.  Hubbard, Heuvers, Glime, Mroz,
Sewell, and Kawatra volunteered to meet with the Board.


IX. New Business
A.  Senate Constituency.  Bornhorst said that the new constitution
defines the constituency, but that the task of listing constituent
names is incomplete.  The Senate is now maintaining its own list
rather than relying on the administration.  Bornhorst said that
memos had been prepared with a listing of constituents for each
senator to check.
    Heuvers said that according to the Minutes of Meeting 198
[Minutes, p.3911], he had stated that the title of Affirmative
Action Officer needed to be added to the list.  Bornhorst said that
the Senate determines its own constituency, and that McKimpson had
petitioned the Senate to add Allison Hein to its list [Appendix F
of these minutes].  He added that the Executive Committee had
considered the petition and recommended approval by the full
Senate.  Bornhorst said that Hein was a Research Engineer/-
Scientist-1, a title that is not on the listing of constituents in
the By-Laws of the Senate.  Bornhorst said that the addition of the
Affirmative Action Officer could also be considered.
     Heyman MOVED that Allison Hein be added to the list of
constituents.  Glime seconded the motion.  Beck asked whether all
the other Research Engineer/Scientist-1s wanted to be considered
as constituents.  Bradley said it would be ridiculous if the Senate
would have to consider individual petitions from each member of
this group.  Bornhorst said that a group of petitions might be
considered simultaneously.
    Leifer said that admitting one individual with this title was
setting a precedent, and would make it difficult to refuse another
individual with the same title in the future.  Bornhorst said that
successful petitioners might use their Senate constituency status
as leverage in applying for position reclassification and
promotion.  Carstens said that the Senate should stick to its guns
in the classification, and that departments should reclassify
individuals



******************************************************************
Page 4072  Minutes of Senate Meeting 203   3 Nov 1993


who are performing at higher levels.
    Heyman said that this petition should not be considered in
completely abstract terms; the petition comes from an individual
who has been an active participant in the Senate and its
committees.  Glime said that the classifications across campus were
not uniform, and the constitutional provisions for individual
petitions were designed for such cases.  Grzelak said that the
Senate could not spend its time looking at individual cases. 
McKimpson said that this petition was unusual because Hein had been
active in the Senate, and the admission to constituency would
clarify a personal ambiguity.  Heuvers said that service on
committees did not require constituency status, so that Hein could
continue serving on a committee.  Bornhorst said that Hein was
currently an alternate senator, which required constituency status.
    Hubbard said the Senate was being asked to judge a person's
work, which is not what the Senate should be doing.  Job reclassi-
fication should be done by an individual's supervisor, not be the
Senate.  Heuvers said that the constitution required that the
petition for constituency status be made by the petitioner's
department.  Bornhorst responded that the petition for Hein had
been made by her department.  Kawatra said it should not be the
Senate's job to consider a person's classification, and that it
would take too much time to second guess a supervisor's judgement.
    Mroz said that because this person has been previously active
in the Senate, she might be grandfathered in at this point.  Roblee
said the issue being avoided was that of being inclusive or
exclusive.  Bulleit asked whether Hein would be represented by any
body on campus.  Bornhorst replied that she would be represented
by Staff Council if the petition were denied.
    Heyman said that the Senate was not being asked to decide what
Hein's duties were, nor what her title should be; the Senate was
being asked whether it made sense to grandfather in somebody who
was already serving on the Senate.  He added that the Senate had
no business deciding on the individual's classification, but only
whether this person could continue serving on the Senate.  Heuvers
said that the constitution implied that the petition for
constituency status was to be judged based on the individuals
duties, and that this petition seemed to be a request based on the
individual duties.  Bornhorst read the pertinent sections of the
petition.  Glime said that the provision for petition was inserted
in the constitution because the Senate could not know across the
campus and through time what job titles might fit the criteria for
constituency status.  Glime added that the department could best
determine whether an individual was meeting the criteria.
    Heuvers MOVED that discussion be terminated; Mroz seconded the
motion.  The motion PASSED in a show-of-hands vote.  The motion to
grant Allison Hein constituency status PASSED in a show-of-hands
vote, 22-5.
    Heuvers MOVED that individuals with the title of Affirmative
Action Officer be included as constituents of the Senate.  Glime
seconded the motion.  Heuvers said that the exclusion of the title
from the By-Laws was an accident, as he had stated in Meeting 198. 
Carstens asked if the position had been included previously.  Keen
said the position was not included under the previous constitution.
Sewell asked under which Senate group the position would fall. 
Bornhorst said that one of the groups was appropriate.  Boutilier
asked whether the Affirmative Action Officer was in an oversight
position.  Bornhorst said that currently the office oversees two
individuals.  Boutilier asked whether this was a conflict of
interest.  Bornhorst said that department heads are now considered
Senate constituents.  Heuvers said the office should be part of the
constituency group of important decision-makers.  There was no
further discussion.  The motion PASSED without opposition in a
voice vote.

B. Emergency Proposal 5-94: Designating Eligible Senators. 
Bornhorst referred to the Proposal [Appendix G of these minutes]
distributed with the agenda and stated that the Senate had to
clarify which senators could vote on a proposal, because the new
constitution lacks clarity about Senate voting.  The interim
protocol is designed to allow inclusion of all affected units in
each vote.
    Bornhorst noted that the full Senate voted on Proposal 16-92,
Departmental Governance, but that according to the constitution
only academic degree-granting departments should have voted.  The
vote might therefore be considered unconstitutional; however, the
discussion of the Senate made it clear that the Library and the
ROTC departments were to be included in the Proposal.  Bornhorst
noted that the constitution gives academic degree-granting
departments the responsibility to determine charter provisions for
these departments or other course-offering units, effectively
forcing charters on units who have no vote on the matter.
    Bornhorst said that the vote on Proposal 3-94, Fine Arts
Department, followed the constitutional provision for voting only
by academic degree-granting departments.  Bornhorst said it was
illogical to create a course-offering unit without allowing the
other course-offering units to vote on the matter.
    Bornhorst said the constitution stated "...senators from
academic degree-granting departments shall vote on matters..." 
Bornhorst said that this statement did not exclude others from
voting on these matters if appropriate.  The Senate officers had
written the protocol of Proposal 5-94 to provide an efficient
mechanism for determining the eligible senators.  Bornhorst
suggested adopting the protocol and amending it as needed, with a
view toward making it part of the By-laws eventually.  Bornhorst
asked for a motion to consider Proposal 5-94 under the conditions
for an emergency proposal.
    Bradley MOVED to consider the proposal under the constitutional
provisions for an emergency proposal.  Carstens seconded the
proposal.  There was no discussion of the motion, which PASSED by
voice vote.
    Heuvers MOVED to adopt Proposal 5-94, and McKimpson seconded
the motion.  Beck said that Protocol Item 7 was an over-ride of the
constitution; the constitution was clear.  Heuvers said that in the
case of Proposal 3-94, the department being formed was in fact
represented by a senator.  Heyman said that in the long run the
Senate would have to include the other course-offering units with
degree-granting departments; they were not research divisions, but
were obviously academic units.  Heyman said that in the short run
the interim protocol was the best way of handling matters.
    Heuvers said the constitution permitted an eligible group to
submit a referendum if the group disagreed with some Senate action,
and only the eligible group would vote in the referendum. 
Bornhorst said that the eligible group would be the obvious group
to decide who would vote.  Heuvers said that a referendum vote
should only be among the group that the constitution allows to
vote.  Bornhorst said the eligible group should be the one to
decide who gets to vote in the referendum.  Heuvers said that even
if the eligible senators voted to enlarge the group voting in the
Senate, a referendum should take place only among the constituents
that the constitution permits.  Bornhorst said the constitution
does not prohibit expanding the eligible group, but that it
guarantees that particular groups do get to vote on some matters. 
Bornhorst said that nowhere does the constitution state that the
minimum group may not decide to expand the voting group.
    Beck MOVED to amend Item 7 of the protocol to read "This
protocol does not prohibit the Eligible Senators from voting to
expand groupwise the subset of Eligible Senators for a vote on any
Proposal."  The motion was seconded.  Hubbard asked for the meaning
of "groupwise".  Keen said it was his own neologism.  He added that
the statement was intended to prohibit the eligible voting group
from adding single departments to the voting subset; for example,
all the research departments could be added to the voting subset,
but IMP could not be added by itself.  Hubbard said the meaning of
the word was not obvious, but that he could not think of a simpler
wording.  Keen said that the Minutes would establish the meaning.
There was no further discussion of the


******************************************************************
Page 4073  Minutes of Senate Meeting 203   3 Nov 1993


amendment, which PASSED by voice vote without opposition.
    There was no further discussion of the Proposal.  The motion
to adopt was PASSED by voice vote with no opposition.


X. Old Business
A.  Proposal 4-94: Suspension of 3-Year-&-Out Policy.  Bornhorst
referred to the Proposal [Minutes, Meeting 202, p.4064-4069], and
asked the senators of the other course-offering units whether any
personnel from their departments would be affected by the policy. 
Fynewever said that perhaps one person listed as an "instructor-
/advisor" might be affected.  Bornhorst asked Provost Dobney to
comment.  Dobney asked for the identification of the person. 
Fynewever said it was herself.  Ruehr said that Jamison was the
name on the list from the Provost's office.  Fynewever said Jamison
was a trainer.
    Bornhorst said the purpose of the question was to determine
who were the eligible senators for voting on the Proposal.  Sewell
said that the question does effect students, and cited the instance
of an instructor of psychology.  Bornhorst said that the humanities
department would be included in the vote.  Heyman said that the
conversation with Fynewever demonstrated that the Proposal is
relevant to the other course-offering units.  Bornhorst said his
recommendation was that, under the interim protocol of Proposal
5-94, senators eligible to vote on Proposal 4-94 were those from
academic degree-granting departments and from other course-offering
units.  He asked for objections to the recommendation; there were
none.
    Hubbard MOVED to adopt Proposal 4-94, Suspension of 3-Year-&-
Out Policy.  Grzelak seconded the motion.  Leifer said that the
fundamental problem was hiring useful but not fully qualified
persons through the back door, and that departments who needed to
hire such persons needed a new employee classification.  He said
that a third reappointment after two three-year appointments
resulted in a tenure situation, and denial of tenure then was a
violation of AAUP guidelines.
    Reynolds said that in the cases of sabbatical or sick leaves,
he had two choices: either not to teach courses (which could delay
graduations) or hire somebody part time.  He stated that the
Greater Houghton-Hancock Metropolitan Area does not have available
a large part-time hiring pool, and that he would have a problem
covering courses next year.  Reynolds urged suspending the policy
for a year until the Faculty Handbook could be rewritten and the
implications and problems could be worked out.  Bulleit said the
Proposal calls for a temporary suspension only.
    Grzelak said that the current Faculty Handbook lists instructor
with the regular faculty ranks, and instructors are not labelled
as temporary faculty.  Bornhorst invited Provost Dobney's comments.
Dobney said that there is confusion now about the roles of
instructors, lecturers and adjunct faculty, and that this confusion
ought to be addressed as part of the revision of the Faculty
Handbook.  Dobney said he would welcome the Proposal, but pointed
out that it may not be possible to suspend Board of Control policy.
Dobney added that instructors currently get letters of appointment
specifying that the term of appointment is for a single year.
    Beske-Diehl said that it was difficult to determine who fell
under the policy, and that a consistent policy for non-tenure-track
positions was needed.  Arici said that his department could not
understand how other departments could have a person in a
temporary position for eight or ten years without moving the person
to a permanent position.  Boutilier said that the 3-year policy
would severely impact departments with heavy service loads such as
math, humanities, and social sciences, and that students would not
graduate if, for example, they could not get the calculus sequence
in time.  Arici said his question was why the temporary people were
not transferred to permanent positions.  Boutilier said that the
math department had tried to do that, and some policy had prevented
it.  Arici asked why the policy could not be changed.  Boutilier
said it should be, but the current Proposal was needed to allow the
change to be made.
    Ruehr said the Proposal was urgent because this was the third
and final year for some persons affected by the policy.  Bornhorst
said that the policy was initiated in 1991.  Heuvers said that the
only problem with the Proposal might come from the administration,
but they seemed to favor it.  Filer said the proposal was a good
idea, that it seemed to be a simple solution to a complex problem. 
Bradley asked whether anybody was against the Proposal.
    Leifer said the problem could be obviated if the temporary
persons had staff appointment, because there would be no problems
with tenure and continuing appointments under AAUP guidelines. 
Difficulties arise when an individual is hired as a temporary
assistant professor.
    Keen asked whether any person would be given tenure de facto
if the current policy were suspended under the Proposal.  Dobney
said that the university attorney had indicated that there would
be no problems, because the letters sent to temporary appointees
indicated that the appointment was temporary and terminal.  Dobney
added that if the attorney was wrong, then a number of instructors
at the university already had de facto tenure.
    Heuvers MOVED to terminate discussion of the motion; Mroz
seconded the motion.  The motion to terminate PASSED without
opposition by voice vote.
    The motion to approve Proposal 4-94 PASSED in a show-of-hands
vote, 25-0 with 1 abstention.

B.  Selection of a Representative to the Memorial Union Board. 
Bornhorst asked for volunteers or nominees to serve on the MUB
Board.  There were none.  Roblee asked whether the MUB Board met
at the same time as the Senate.  Bornhorst said that it did.  He
added that the MUB Board's constitution required it to have a
member of the faculty member as a member of the Board.  Bornhorst
said he would have to find some volunteer.

XII.  Adjournment
    Leifer MOVED that the meeting be adjourned.  Carstens seconded
the motion, which PASSED without opposition.  Bornhorst declared
the meeting adjourned at 7:10 pm.




Submitted by Robert Keen
Senate Secretary
.