******************************************************************
Page 4085 Minutes of Senate Meeting 204 17 Nov 1993
THE SENATE OF MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
Minutes of Meeting No. 204
17 November 1993
Synopsis: The Senate
(1) corrected and approved Minutes of Meeting 200;
(2) heard that a reworded and amended final exam policy from
1992 was to be forwarded to the administration;
(3) heard that Proposal 4-94, Suspension of 3-Year-&-Out
Policy, had been sent to the administration;
(4) heard that Proposals 2-92 and 3-92 had been accepted by
the administration;
(5) heard a report from the Presidential Commission on Women;
(6) learned that Proposal 7-92, Dean Search Procedures, would
be rejected in its present form by the administration;
(7) created and appointed an Ad Hoc Committee on Adminis-
trator Searches;
(8) gave the Senate president the authority to appoint a
faculty representative to the Memorial Union Board;
(9) defeated a motion requiring at least one male nominee
for Senate representative on the Search Committee for
Affirmative Action Officer;
(10) referred to committee the nomination of a Senate
representative to an administrative Ad Hoc Committee on
Minority and Women Programs.
_______________________________________
I. Call to Order
President Bornhorst called the meeting to order at 5:31 pm on
Wednesday, 17 November 1993, in Room B37 of the Electrical Energy
Resources Center.
II. Roll Call of Members
Secretary Keen called the roll. 28 senators or alternates were
present. Senators or alternate representatives from AF ROTC, Army
ROTC, and Metallurgy were absent. Absent senators-at-large:
Boutilier and Filer. Absent liaison members: 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 Fredrick Dobney (Provost), Ruthann
Ruehr (Humanities), Marcia Goodrich (Tech Topics).
IV. Agenda Adjustments
Bornhorst referred to the published agenda [Appendix A of these
minutes], and proposed several alterations, including the delay of
a financial report by McGarry, and the additions of a report by the
Board of Control Relations Committee, an election to the
Affirmative Action Officer Search Committee, and an election to the
Ad Hoc University Committee on Minority & Women Programs.
Bornhorst called for agenda adjustments from the floor; there were
none. Bornhorst asked for objections to the proposed adjustments;
there were no objections.
V. Approval of Minutes
Bornhorst referred to the Minutes of Meeting 200 circulated
with the Agenda to Senators, and called for corrections. A
correction was noted by Glime. Hubbard MOVED that the minutes be
approved as corrected. Melton seconded the motion, which PASSED
without opposition in a voice vote.
Bornhorst said that Heuvers had found an error in Appendix B of
the Minutes of Senate Special Meeting 3 of 1992-93. In that
meeting the Senate had approved a reworded final exam policy, but
had voted [Minutes, p.3376] to delete a paragraph exempting seniors
from final exams. However, the deletion had not been made in the
Appendix.
Heuvers distributed annotated photocopies [Appendix B of these
minutes] of pages 3376 and 3383 of the Minutes of that meeting,
showing the necessary corrections. Bornhorst said that this
proposal would be sent to the administration for implementation,
and commented that similar Senate proposals may be found during the
remainder of the year. Bornhorst asked for objections to making
this correction. There were no objections.
VI. Report of Senate President
1. Proposal 4-94, Suspension of 3-Year-&-Out Policy, was
transmitted to the Provost on November 4th.
2. The Provost has given written notice [Appendix C of these
minutes] of the acceptance of Proposals 2-92 and 3-92, Term
Limits for Heads\Chairs and Deans.
3. The degree of B.S. in Engineering Administration is to be
renamed B.S. in Engineering Management at the next meeting of
the Board of Control. Bornhorst said that he had been
contacted about the change, and had decided the change was
editorial, not substantive, and did not require approval by
the Senate.
4. Chemistry Stores submitted a proposal dealing with purchase
of chemicals on campus. The proposal has legal implications,
and has been sent to the Senate's Research Policy Committee.
5. The Sick Leave Pool requires donating 3 days of sick leave,
which can be earned back. When the Pool is depleted, another
request for donations will be made.
Heuvers said the Notice about the Pool indicated that the
3-day donation could not be earned back. Bornhorst said that
he had noticed the same thing, and had obtained clarification
verbally from Ingrid Cheney, the Benefits Coordinator.
6. Proposal 4-94, Formation of a Fine Arts Department, will be
voted upon by the Board of Control in its November meeting.
7. The general approach of the current Senate President: The
Senate is a legislative body; it enacts and amends policy but
does not enforce it. The administration's role is carrying
out and enforcing policy. Committees that are independent of
the Senate may propose policy for Senate approval, and may
also administer policy. The Senate may propose establishment
of such committees. Bornhorst asked that senators let him
know if they disagreed with this approach.
8. Proposals submitted to the administration should be worded
for easy inclusion in the university manuals on policy and
procedures. Otherwise the administration will have to
interpret and rewrite the proposals.
Heuvers commented that Senate proposals should be
included in university policy. Bornhorst said that the
administration has agreed to incorporate past and current
Senate proposals in appropriate policy, procedures, and
operating manuals, and in Faculty and Student Handbooks.
There will not be a separate Senate procedures manual.
Bradley asked whether a general format had been or should
be established. Bornhorst said there was no general format,
but the current procedures manual used a logical style that
could be imitated.
9. Ballots for the referendum on Proposal 16-92 would be mailed
to arrive on the first day of the winter term.
VII. Reports from Committees
A. Presidential Commission for Women. Bornhorst said that the
Commission had two representatives from the Senate, Ruthann Ruehr
and Jim Mihelcic. Bornhorst introduced Ruehr for a report on the
activities and recommendations of the Commission.
Ruehr said the Commission was set up in May 1992. President
Tompkins charged the Commission with improving the environment for
women on campus. The membership of the Commission includes
representatives from AWC, PWC, UAW, AFSCME, University Senate,
Staff Council, USG, and GSC. Recent activities included
participating in interviews of upper
******************************************************************
Page 4086 Minutes of Senate Meeting 204 17 Nov 1993
administrators, and sponsorship of several campus educational
activities. Some policy proposals dealing with staff issues had
been sent to the administration. The Commission had reviewed other
proposals on discriminatory harassment, targeted hiring, and sexual
assault, and had developed other proposals including Senate
Proposal 4-94. The Commission had sponsored the Take-Your-
Daughter-to-Work Day.
The Commission was performing a Climate Study based on an
opinion survey of female alumni, undergraduates, grad students,
faculty and staff. The survey had been designed and scored by
graduate students. The results were not yet complete, but a formal
report was expected in May 1994. Preliminary results indicated
women's concerns with MTU included lack of female role models, lack
of respect, feelings of insecurity, low salaries, unfairness in
hiring and promotion, lack of allowances made for family, and a
lack of positive institutional response to problems.
Glime asked whether the problem areas were broken out by
category such as staff, faculty, alumni, etc. Julien asked what
had been used as criteria to define a problem. Ruehr said that the
survey was based on questions with a 1-5 ranking, plus open-ended
questions. Julien asked whether the problems could be ranked.
Ruehr said that her preliminary list was based on problems that
seemed near the top for each group. Sewell said that some of the
problems were of higher priority for staff and grad students than
for faculty and students.
Julien said that it would be difficult to evaluate these
results. Similar questions are asked in student evaluations of
classes where results can be compared to averages; here there is
no standard. Ruehr said that results are available for other
universities. Glime asked whether the questionnaire was similar
to those used at other universities. Ruehr said that the
Commission had looked at other questionnaires, but that the MTU
questionnaire was made up separately. Mroz asked whether the
Commission had considered sending similar surveys to men as a
control group. Ruehr said that such a study would be interesting,
but that the Commission's time was limited, and that their focus
was determining how women feel they are treated.
B. Steering Committee on Academic Faculty Handbook. Bornhorst said
this Committee had met, and that Handbook revision would be an open
process requiring a lot of Senate action. Policy changes are to
be approved by the Senate, and the Senate is to approve the entire
handbook. Bornhorst said that the Steering Committee has
considered several matters of procedure, including the following
items.
1. Development of a new organizational outline for the Handbook:
Several model outlines are available to the Steering
Committee.
2. Identification of major/most important areas needing revision
or formulation of policy: For each of these areas task forces
are to be created, each reporting to appropriate Senate
committees and to the Steering Committee. Members of these
committees are to be on each task force to facilitate this
communication. Other members are to be selected to provide
diversity.
3. Formation of task forces: The process is to begin early in the
winter quarter.
4. Examination of current policy: After the task forces are set
up, the rest of the procedures and policies in the Faculty
Handobook will be reviewed to identify other policies needing
revision or development.
5. Modification of the Handbook: The revision of the Handbook
is to be continual, so it will be published as a living
document, probably in loose-leaf form.
Bornhorst asked for questions. Jobst inquired how the Steering
Committee was getting input on areas that need revision. Bornhorst
said the Committee had identified four areas from the current
Handbook that seemed obviously to need work. He cited the example
of grievances not related to tenure, which are not mentioned in the
Faculty Handbook.
Bornhorst said that a list of issues would be distributed to
the Senate soon, and emphasized that the Steering Committee is only
an organizing group for the revision.
C. Board of Control Relations Committee. Bornhorst said that the
Committee of Senate officers, along with senators selected at the
last meeting, would meet with the Board of Control at breakfast on
November 19.
VIII. Old Business
A. Guidelines for Search Committees. Referring to the guidelines
[Appendix D of these minutes] for the Search Committees for the
Chief Financial Officer and for the Provost, Bornhorst said that
these search procedures were not formal policy. President Tompkins
had expressed his approval of the search process, and had agreed
with Bornhorst that the search procedures should become part of the
university policy manual by way of a Senate proposal. Formal
adoption of the guidelines as policy would ensure that the
procedures would be followed in the future.
Bornhorst said that the only real difficulty with the
guidelines was in Section 3.2. This section requires the election
of the search committee chairs by ballot. Bornhorst said that it
might be wise to require the chairpersons to be tenured faculty.
Bornhorst asked the Senate for input on the issue of adopting the
guidelines as policy.
Carstens asked about the Senate approval indicated on the
guidelines. Bornhorst said that these were approved only as
guidelines, not as policy, so the university president was not
obliged to follow them. Bulleit said the chairs of the Provost and
CFO Search Committees should comment on the guidelines, because
they would know whether the guidelines were workable. Carstens
asked whether an ad hoc committee should be put together to write
the procedures. Glime said any committee should look also at
positions that have university-wide impact, for example the
Affirmative Action Officer and Director of Information Technology.
Carstens asked whether a motion to establish an ad hoc policy
committee was in order. Bornhorst said it might wait until the
next item on the agenda.
Melton said the various policies could be combined into a
general policy for positions in the upper administration.
Bornhorst agreed, stating the only real difference in the two
guidelines was in committee composition. Glime said the suggested
requirement of tenure might exclude well-qualified persons, for
example newly-hired senior faculty. Julien said that qualified but
non-faculty persons from alumni or community groups would be
excluded by the tenure requirement. Melton said that the issue of
tenured chairs should be considered by the committee writing the
policy.
B. Discussion of Proposal 7-92, Dean Search Procedures. Bornhorst
referred to the text of Proposal 7-92 [Appendix E of these minutes]
attached to the agenda, and said that the Proposal had been passed
both in the Senate and in a referendum of the faculty. The
Proposal involves searches for only two positions: the Deans of
Engineering and of Sciences & Arts. Bornhorst said the Senate
officers had discussed the Proposal with Provost Dobney, and had
agreed that there were problems with the wording of the Proposal.
The principles were acceptable, but the organization needed work.
Bornhorst said the officers were suggesting to the Senate that
the Proposal be rewritten to be consistent with the guidelines for
the Provost and CFO. The rewritten proposal would be included in
the university policies manual. Bornhorst said that the rewritten
proposal need not be returned to the faculty for a referendum, and
that the matter was not currently pressing.
Heuvers suggested that some subset of members of each of the
recent search committees should form an ad hoc committee to write
the search policy. Beck said that one or two senators should
******************************************************************
Page 4087 Minutes of Senate Meeting 204 17 Nov 1993
be included on the ad hoc committee. Hubbard said an alternative
plan would be the development of a college governance proposal to
parallel the departmental governance proposal. Search procedures
for college deans would be included in such a proposal.
Mullins said any ad hoc committee must be very sensitive to
the fact that Proposal 7-92 had been approved by the faculty, to
avoid the appearance of making a mockery of the referendum.
Bornhorst said the intent was not to change the substance of the
proposal. He added that Proposal 7-92 was likely to be rejected
by the administration in its present form.
Hubbard asked whether a college governance proposal would be
developed. Bornhorst said that in his opinion such a proposal
should wait on acceptance of the departmental governance proposal
in the upcoming referendum.
Bradley asked why Proposal 7-92 would be rejected by the
administration. Bornhorst said that the details would be provided
by the administration when the proposal is rejected. Bradley said
that Bornhorst should have some idea of the reasons for rejection.
Bornhorst asked Provost Dobney if he cared to reply.
Dobney said that some parts of 7-92 seemed not to have been
fully considered when it was developed, and that it should be
compared to the search procedures he instituted for the SBEA Dean.
Some specific problems with 7-92: (1) the student and alumni
representatives do not vote; (2) the chair should be appointed by
the Provost to avoid problems with tenure; (3) the chair should
hold a significant university position to emphasize the importance
of the search; (4) the chair should have a staff available to
handle the search; (5) the negotiation of salary in item 9 of 7-92
should be a statement of principle, because there has to be some
latitude in negotiation to avoid losing good candidates. Dobney
said he did not disagree with the principal idea of the Proposal,
which is that the faculty should have a major role in hiring.
Bornhorst said that the salary formula in the Proposal could
be manipulated to avoid the principle of a reasonable salary when
an administrator gave up a position. Beck said that Dobney's
position on appointing the committee chair was inconsistent with
the CFO and Provost search guidelines. Dobney replied that he did
not agree with the guidelines.
Hubbard said that altering selection of committee chairs in
7-92 would be a substantive change, and would require re-submitting
the proposal to referendum. Bornhorst agreed, and said that the
changes contemplated by the officers had not been along these
lines. Grzelak said that the salary formula could be manipulated
to defeat its purpose. Dobney said it was clear that the intent
of the formula was to avoid the current situation of vice-
presidents returning to a department with 9/11ths of a VP salary.
He added that he would prefer a statement of principle. Grzelak
said the formula was developed to be consistent with the proposals
concerning heads/chairs.
Carstens said the changes seemed substantial, and would require
resubmission in a referendum. Mullins said that the salary item
in 7-92 stated that salary exceptions could be negotiated with the
Provost. Dobney said he was concerned with the perceptions
involved in the procedure. He also said that Bornhorst had
disagreed with the appointment of search committee chairs, and
wondered whether the Senate would volunteer its assistant to serve
as the staff for searches. Bornhorst said that his own preference
was for the Dean of Engineering's staff to support searches for
Deans of S&A, and vice versa.
Grzelak said that some safeguards were needed in the search
process because some searches had been controlled by one committee
member. Melton said the Senate was spending too much time trying
to do the work of an ad hoc committee.
Beck said that written comments on search procedures should be
solicited from the administration and the original proposal should
be rewritten minimally as a reaction to such concerns, before being
sent out for a referendum vote. Bornhorst said that 7-92 was not
as clear as the search guidelines for the CFO and Provost although
the principles were similar, and that development of consistent
guidelines would require rewording of 7-92.
Hubbard MOVED that an ad hoc committee be formed to examine
searches. Grzelak seconded the motion. Bornhorst asked for
objections to the motion. There were none, and Bornhorst declared
the motion to be PASSED.
Bornhorst asked for names of persons to serve on the committee.
Melton suggested that the committee be made up of Senators.
Bornhorst named Greuer, Glime, Grzelak, Hubbard, Melton and Mullins
to the committee. Hubbard agreed to serve as interim chair.
C. Election of Representative to Memorial Union Board. Bornhorst
asked for nominations for a faculty member to serve on the Memorial
Union Board. There were none. Bornhorst asked for authority to
appoint a person to serve.
Heuvers MOVED that Bornhorst be given the authority to appoint
a person to serve. Glime seconded the motion. Bornhorst called
for discussion; there was none. The motion passed without
opposition in a voice vote.
D. Senate Meeting Dates. Bornhorst referred to the list of meeting
dates [Appendix F of these minutes] attached to the agenda, and
said that the dates for the winter and spring quarter had been
approved only tentatively.
Bradley MOVED that the published list be accepted as final for
the remainder of the year. Heuvers seconded the motion. Bornhorst
called for discussion; there was none. In a voice vote the motion
PASSED without opposition.
E. Election of Representative to Search Committee for an
Affirmative Action Officer. Bornhorst said the Search Committee
for the interim AAO recently had met with the Provost, and had
determined that the Search Committee for the permanent AAO would
have these duties: (1) Define the position of AAO at Michigan Tech.
(2) Advertize for the position, beginning at the end of January
1994. (3) Begin interviewing for the position in March and April
of 1994. Bornhorst said the Senate needed to select two
representatives, and suggested that nominations be brought to the
next Senate meeting.
Glime MOVED that at least one of the Senate nominees should be
male. Heuvers seconded the motion. Keen asked whether this motion
resembled a quota system. Julien said that a couple of years ago
the Senate tried to ensure that a woman served in such capacities.
Bornhorst referred to the search committee guidelines considered
earlier in the meeting, and cited their provision that "the Senate
should strive for balance of gender, race and disciplinary focus
in its elected committee members". Sewell said that not all the
members of the Search Committee had been selected and it was
premature to conclude that females would numerically dominate the
committee. Glime said that of the 15 committee members, only 2-5
could be males.
Melton MOVED that the motion be amended so that the Senate is
encouraged to elect at least one male representative of the Senate.
Jobst seconded the amendment. Grzelak asked whether this whole
discussion was necessary. Julien said that the Senate had gone
through the discussion 2-3 years ago, and that the Senate would
reasonably to try to maintain a balance in its selection of
representatives.
Bulleit said both the requirement and the amendment were
unnecessary. Bornhorst asked for further discussion; there was
none. In a show-of-hands vote, the amendment FAILED, 8-16.
Glime said the intent of the original motion was to ensure that
there were some male nominees from which the Senate could choose.
The motion FAILED in a show-of-hands vote.
F. Selection of Senate Representative to Ad Hoc Committee on
Minority and Women Programs. Bornhorst said that the Committee had
been formed by the administration with the objective of improving
awareness of minority and women programs
******************************************************************
Page 4088 Minutes of Senate Meeting 204 17 Nov 1993
on campus, and to improve and develop such programs. The
membership consisted of C. Anderson (chair), E. Lumsdaine, M. Seel,
W. McCoy, F. Dobney, M. Janners, G. Melton, J. Galetto, T.
Mallette, and N. Byers-Sprague. Bornhorst said the Committee had
decided that faculty membership was needed, and had asked the
Senate to find an additional committee member.
Melton nominated the Senate President. Bornhorst declined the
nomination. Bulleit asked whether representative might best be a
member of the Senate Institutional Planning Committee.
Mullins inquired about the purpose of the Committee. Dobney
replied that it had been formed as a result of a sudden 20 percent
drop in minority enrollment in the fall term, after 5 years of
modest increases. The Committee is being asked to determine the
reasons for the decline, and also is to look at recruiting of
women. Glime suggested that the decline in minority enrollment was
caused by the primary recruiter of minorities having to remain on
campus to serve on the Provost Search Committee. Dobney said that
a new recruiter for minorities had been hired, but that a review
of overall strategy would be profitable anyhow.
Heuvers asked whether any of the minority students on campus
were involved in minority recruiting. Glime said that minority
students should be on the committee. Dobney agreed with the
suggestion. Mullins said that the Institutional Planning Committee
could try to provide candidates for selection at the next meeting
of the Senate. Bornhorst asked for objections to referring the
matter to that Committee. There were no objections.
IX. Announcements
Bornhorst said that ballots for the referendum of Proposal
16-92 would be distributed on 29 November, and that senators should
encourage their constituents to vote. Hubbard asked whether the
text of the proposal would be distributed with the ballot.
Bornhorst said that the three paragraphs of the proposal itself
would go out with the ballot, but the several pages of charter
guidelines would not go out.
Heuvers asked that one copy of Proposal 16-92 with the
guidelines be supplied to each Senator, for distribution to their
constituents. Keen said this would be done.
X. Adjournment
Grzelak MOVED that the meeting be adjourned. Heuvers seconded
the motion. Without opposition, Bornhorst declared the meeting
adjourned at 7:10 pm.
Submitted by Robert Keen
Secretary of the University Senate
.