******************************************************************
Page 4102 Minutes of Senate Meeting 205 1 Dec 1993
THE SENATE OF MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
Minutes of Meeting No. 205
1 December 1993
Synopsis: The Senate
(1) corrected and approved minutes of Meeting 201;
(2) heard that a 1992 Proposal on Final Exam Policy had been
transmitted to the Provost;
(3) suspended temporarily Proposal 5-76 Midterm Grade Policy;
(4) heard that a chemical purchasing proposal has been
designated Senate Proposal 6-94;
(5) learned that G. Dewey had been appointed to the Memorial
Union Board;
(6) selected Tomas Co to serve on the Ad Hoc Committee on
Minority & Women Programs;
(7) reviewed a draft Scientific Misconduct Policy;
(8) recommended a redraft of Proposal 2-89, and start of a
full administrative evaluation in the spring quarter;
(9) reviewed the charge to the Ad Hoc Committee on Search
Guidelines for Major University Administrators;
(10) elected S. Beske-Diehl and G. Lewis to the Affirmative
Action Officer Search Committee;
(11) reappointed the four Senate representatives to the Presi-
dential Commission on Diversity.
_______________________________________
I. Call to Order
President Bornhorst called the meeting to order at 5:32 pm on
Wednesday, 1 December 1993, in Room B37 of the Electrical Energy
Resources Center.
II. Roll Call of Members
Secretary Keen called the roll. 30 senators or alternates were
present. Senators or alternate representatives from AF ROTC, and
the Library were absent. Absent senators-at-large: Grimm. Absent
liaison members: Dean of Engineering, Dean of Sciences & Arts,
Computer Technology Services, Grad Student Council, Staff Council.
III. Recognition of Visitors
Recognized visitors were F. Dobney (Provost), S. Beske-Diehl
(Geology), G. K. Podila (Biology), E. Horsch (Human Resources).
IV. Agenda Adjustments
Bornhorst referred to the published agenda [Appendix A of these
minutes], and proposed two additions: a report by the
Administrative Policy Committee, and selection of a representative
to the Presidential Commission on Diversity. Bornhorst asked 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 201 circulated
with the Agenda to Senators, and called for corrections. Hubbard
and Grzelak noted corrections. Roblee MOVED that the minutes be
approved as corrected. Heyman seconded the motion, which PASSED
without opposition in a voice vote.
VI. Report of Senate President
1. The referendum on Proposal 16-92, Departmental Governance, is
in progress. A copy of the ballot would be entered into the
minutes [Appendix B of these minutes].
2. The 1992 Proposal on Final Examination Policy was transmitted
to the Provost on November 30 [Appendix C of these minutes].
The Senate officers had discussed with the Provost methods of
publicizing the policy; policy enforcement is to be left to
the administration.
3. The Senate officers had heard a presentation from Galetto
asking that Senate Proposal 5-76, Midterm Grade Reports, be
suspended temporarily for the winter and spring quarters.
There are problems generating these reports with the Banner
system, they arrive too late to help the students, and only
50 percent of the faculty return the reports.
The Instructional Policy Committee is instructed to review
completely the midterm grade policy [Appendix D of these
minutes].
(Bornhorst asked for objections from the floor to the
temporary suspension of the policy. There were none, and
Bornhorst said the policy stood suspended temporarily.)
4. Senate officers had met recently with the officers of Staff
Council. The meeting had been productive, and should be
scheduled regularly.
Such meetings would promote cooperation and help clear up
misconceptions, for example, the Sick Leave Pool. Staff
Council had been told that the Senate would not accept some
proposed provisions in the pool, when in fact neither body had
formally approved any form of the Pool.
(Leifer asked which provisions were not understood. Born-
horst replied that Staff Council had been told the Senate
would not accept a 20-day waiting period for the Pool, but
would require a 30-day period. In fact, the Senate had never
voted on any Sick Leave Pool proposal. Leifer said that the
Sick Leave Pool had been discussed by a representative
committee that included himself from the Senate, Cheney,
Little, Rickard, and Garrow from Staff Council. All groups
were represented and informed of everything. Bornhorst again
said that the Senate had never had an opportunity to vote on
the policy for a Sick Leave Pool.)
The discussions had included the need to ensure that all
employees of the university were represented by either the
Senate or Staff Council. Staff Council officers were being
given copies of the Senate constituency list to check for
membership overlap. The new constitution has resulted in some
positions moving from Staff Council to the Senate.
(Sewell asked whether it would be possible to include the
senators from the non-academic units when membership is
discussed with Staff Council. Bornhorst asked why this was
necessary, because the Senate constitution defined clearly who
was represented by the Senate. Sewell replied that the Senate
was not representing the professional staff on some issues
that were pertinent to professional staff.)
The discussion with Staff Council officers had included
topics on which there should be cooperation between the two
groups, including the issues of constituency, smoking policy,
administrator evaluations, and the planning and allocation of
space on campus. The Institutional Planning Committee should
consider the formation of a joint sub-committee on smoke-free
buildings.
Policies submitted to the administration as unified
proposals from the Senate and Staff Council would strengthen
the position of both groups and maximize the possibility of
acceptance of the proposal.
5. The proposal on chemical purchasing has been designated as
Proposal 6-94. Action on this proposal is important from a
legal standpoint.
6. A change to the semester system is favored by the current
administration for pedagogical and other reasons. The Provost
has suggested that any proposal for semesters should have the
change scheduled for four or five years in the future. The
Provost asked that proposals for change be given high priority
in the Instructional Policy Committee.
(Bornhorst called for discussion of this request. Heuvers
said that the most recent proposal had failed by one vote in
the Senate. Leifer asked that the trimester system of the
University of Michigan be considered along with any semester
******************************************************************
Page 4103 Minutes of Senate Meeting 205 1 Dec 1993
proposals. Arici said that most of the research faculty in
his department favored a semester system. Roblee asked what
was the rush in considering the change if it was not to be
implemented for 5-6 years. Bornhorst commented that any delay
would be added to that period. Boutilier said the proposal
should have a high priority, that such proposals come up
regularly, and that the students' noise against the change
scared the Senate in the last vote.
(Mroz said that if the Senate keeps revisiting dead
issues, it will not make much progress. Heuvers said that the
Instructional Policy Committee already was considering the
issue. Bulleit asked whether the issue would return in two
years if it were voted down again. Sewell said that the issue
was of high priority, and that information gathered in
previous discussions would contribute to understanding the
issue.
(Bornhorst said that many universities had switched
recently to the semester system, and that their experience
would be valuable. Grzelak said that Michigan Tech was the
last Michigan university on the quarter system. Davutyan said
transfer students had difficulties with the two systems.
(Bradley asked what issues would be reduced in priority
if the semester issue were made highest priority. Heuvers
replied that a subcommittee would be formed to consider the
semester issue, with no significant impact on current
priorities.)
7. George Dewey of Civil Eng has accepted an appointment as the
faculty representative on the Memorial Union Board.
8. The 1992-93 Annual Report of the Michigan Tech Fund carried
a message from President Tompkins about the Senate:
"Yet another example of progress is the reformation of our
University Senate to foster shared governance of MTU in
meaningful ways. This is an important indicator to our major
stakeholders of the strong intention of the faculty and
administration to work together to make Michigan Tech one of
the best technological universities in the world."
9. A restatement of the Senate President's approach to dealing
with the administration and other committees: It is
appropriate for other committees on campus to initiate policy
matters that will pass through the Senate. Although the
Senate may develop university-wide policy, it is not
appropriate for the Senate to develop policies that involve
only a college or a department. The Senate should review and
approve such major college or departmental policies from a
university-wide perspective. This includes matters such as
the first-year engineering program.
10. A memo [Appendix E of these minutes] will be sent to
department heads and directors about the duties of senators.
VII. Reports from Committees
A. Academic Policy Committee.
Bulleit reported that he had been elected the Committee chair,
and that a subcommittee structure had been developed. The
modification of the Academic Faculty Handbook would keep the
Committee busy.
B. Institutional Planning Committee.
Interim Chair Mullins reported that the Committee was nomi-
nating Tomas Co to serve on the Ad Hoc Committee on Minority and
Women Programs.
Heuvers seconded the nomination. Bornhorst asked for
objections to the selection of Co; there were none. Bornhorst
declared Co to be the Senate's representative to the Ad Hoc
Committee on Minority and Women Programs.
Mullins said that the committee had several matters to deal
with, including the election of a permanent chair, and
consideration of policies on smoking, tuition, admissions, and the
Campus Master Plan.
Heuvers asked what tuition policy was the Committee
considering. Mullins referred the question to Provost Dobney, who
said the question involved differential tuition for upper and lower
division undergraduate courses, and for graduate courses. Dobney
said that MTU was the only school he knew of that charged a flat
rate for all courses. Graduate courses are more expensive, and
graduate tuition pays only about 13 percent of graduate education.
The exceptional student program for students of Wisconsin, Illinois
and Minnesota needs to be re-evaluated, either opening it to all
students outside of Michigan or applying some surcharge to be used
for financial aid for in-state students.
C. Research Policy Committee.
Chair McKimpson said the Committee has worked on a revision of
the scientific misconduct policy. The current policy was put in
place in 1990 with limited input from the faculty, and was based
on an NIH policy. The policy defined misconduct and set up
procedures for investigating alleged misconduct. The Committee
felt that the current policy was flawed: (1) the definition of
misconduct should be expanded to include retaliation against those
making false accusations; (2) the current investigating procedure
is too complex; (3) faculty have little input into selection of
review committees; (4) procedural problems exist that became
obvious in last year's investigation; (5) the question of legal
counsel for those involved has been neglected.
Referring to the Draft Scientific Misconduct Policy and its
accompanying memo [Appendix F of these minutes], McKimpson asked
for Senate input, and input from the constituency of the Senate.
The Committee particularly wants to know whether the proposed
changes are in appropriate directions.
Glime commented that the Committee had worked hard on the
revisions, and had interviewed numerous individuals who were
recently involved in the procedures. Glime expressed concern with
the statement on page 26-65 of the draft policy that required the
"University legal counsel" to "provide advice and counsel through-
out the proceedings". Glime said a less restrictive requirement
would allow the university to provide specialized legal counsel for
the committee if necessary.
Glime asked whether "both committees" referred to on p.26-69
(6th line from page bottom) should be "the three committees".
McKimpson said that Glime was correct.
Leifer said he was concerned with the potential for damage of
reputation because of a large number of persons were to be informed
of allegations before investigation began. McKimpson said the
Committee shared this concern. The proposed revisions decrease the
number of informed persons; only a Dean or Director, the Vice-
Provost, and the 3-member standing committee were to be informed
of the charges initially. This appeared to be a reasonable
minimum. Heyman said that low-level "stoppers" at the departmental
level were not good policy, when they could block a legitimate
complaint. The proposed revisions seemed satisfactory.
Arici referred to page 26-67, and asked who would pay to bring
in the persons "determined necessary by the Inquiry Committee".
McKimpson said that the funds would have to be provided by the
Vice-Provost's office. Beske-Diehl said that the inquiry could be
made by telephone or by deposition; the wording of the proposed
policy might be generalized at this point.
Heuvers asked how the policy would be applied to the Schools
of Business, Forestry and Technology; these three schools have
Deans. McKimpson said the Committee had not considered these
cases.
Bornhorst said that specifics of appointments to the proposed
inquiry committee needed to be considered, including length of
terms and rotation. Heyman said that the policy should state
explicitly that the three committees will have completely separate
memberships. Bornhorst called for further comments; there were
none.
D. Steering Committee for Faculty Handbook.
Bornhorst distributed copies of a draft table of contents
[Appendix G of these minutes] being considered for the revised
Faculty Handbook. Bornhorst asked for comments on the table of
contents. He noted
******************************************************************
Page 4104 Minutes of Senate Meeting 205 1 Dec 1993
that the Handbook would separate clearly the Tenurable and
Untenurable Faculty, and that it was similar to handbooks from
other universities.
Heuvers asked why the Senate was not included in the table of
contents. Bornhorst replied that the outline was very generalized,
and that it would be included under the heading of administrative
structure. Bornhorst said the Handbook was currently planned as
a living document with continual revision. The Steering Committee
has identified four areas needing urgent revision, and four task
forces will be appointed to work with these areas. The four are:
1. Task Force on Tenured & Tenurable Faculty which is to focus
on the four areas: status definition, evaluation, promotion
and tenure.
2. Task Force on Untenurable Faculty is to deal with all areas
listed in the table of contents except fringe benefits,
grievances, and separation. New policies may be needed,
because this is a new section of the Handbook. The first item
of business will be a joint meeting with the Task Force on
Tenured and Tenurable Faculty to clarify faculty status
definitions.
3. Task Force on Separation is to deal with separation of both
groups. A separation policy does not currently exist. Issues
involving tenure are not part of this area.
4. Task Force on Grievances will develop policy to deal with
grievances that do not involve tenure decisions. No policy
currently exists.
Bornhorst said that the revision process will be open, and that
each task force will report to a standing Senate committee. Any
proposed policy changes will be reviewed by appropriate committees,
and reported to the Senate for a vote. Each task force has members
from appropriate Senate standing committees:
-T/F on Tenured & Tenurable: Bulleit (Academic Policy Comm)
-T/F on Untenurable Faculty: Carstens (Academic Policy Comm)
-T/F on Grievance: Julien (Academic Policy Comm)
-T/F on Separation: unnamed (Institutional Planning Comm).
Bornhorst said that the revision process was to be open, and that
there should be no surprises in the revised handbook. Bornhorst
called for comments.
Arici asked whether a task force on benefits had been
considered, or whether the Steering Committee would work with
existing committees. Bornhorst said that he intended to explore
that issue with the Finance Committee before going further.
E. Board of Control Relations Committee.
Referring to the report [Appendix H of these minutes] attached to
the agenda, Committee Chair Bornhorst said it had been prepared by
Senate Vice-President Moore as a summary of the breakfast meeting
between some senators and some members of the Board of Control.
Bornhorst said he had requested another meeting of senators with
the Board of Control at the end of February.
Bornhorst summarized some actions taken by the Board in their
meeting. Senate Proposal 3-94, Fine Arts Department, had been
approved by the Board, 5-0. CFO McGarry had described some
potential problems with next year's finances. (Bornhorst commented
that McGarry and Dobney were due to make a financial report at the
next Senate meeting.) The Board had approved changing the BS in
Engineering Administration to BS in Engineering Management.
Refinancing the Memorial Union debt had been approved.
Bornhorst called for questions. Leifer asked whether Senate
Finance Committee Chair Pickens would be at the next meeting to
hear the administration's financial report. Bornhorst said that
he would be present. Dobney said that Pickens sat in the bi-weekly
meetings between the administration and the Senate officers.
F. Administrative Policy Committee.
Chair Heyman said the Committee had met to consider the formal
evaluation of the administration. Senate Proposal 2-89, passed by
the Senate in 1990, calls for evaluations at the end of the second
academic year of each new presidential administration. This is
therefore the year that an evaluation should take place, but there
are problems with conducting the evaluation.
Proposal 2-89 is specific about some procedures (who should
belong on an evaluating commission), but is vague and incomplete
about other procedures (reporting and confidentiality). Proposal
2-89 was passed by the Senate but was never approved by the
administration or the Board of Control, although an evaluation was
carried out in 1991 under its provisions. The Board of Control had
indicated that it would tolerate the 1991 evaluation; however,
Proposal 2-89 does not appear clearly to be university policy.
Heyman said that in other universities administrative evalua-
tions have significant impacts in deliberations of boards of
control. Heyman was uncertain that an evaluation this year was
desireable, given that procedures under Proposal 2-89 are neither
official nor complete. The Administrative Policy Committee will
attempt this year to write a full and adequate set of procedures
for regularly evaluating the administration; these procedures are
to be based as much as possible on Proposal 2-89.
Heyman said the principal question is whether an evaluation
should take place this year under 2-89. An evaluation commission
will have to be selected under restrictive and elaborate nominating
procedures; the Senate does not carry out the evaluation. Further,
the commission must have a member from outside the university.
Heyman said that the logistical problems were difficult; procedures
would have to be written, a commission selected, the evaluation
conducted, and the results compiled, evaluated, written and
published. Heyman said that this year an evaluation somehow might
be put together piecemeal, but that it could be more efficiently
conducted next fall term after all the procedures had been written.
Further, the Provost's office is a significant fraction of the
evaluation, and the current Provost has been on campus for only
eight months. On behalf of the Committee, Heyman asked for a sense
of the Senate on when the evaluation was to occur.
Glime said that President Tompkins has been asking for an
evaluation for several years, and asked whether it was fair to him
to delay the evaluation further. Bornhorst said that the President
on his own could conduct a simple evaluation at any time. Heyman
said he was not certain that a good evaluation, as opposed to a
superficial one, could be done this year.
Carstens asked whether the old Senate constitution stipulated
that all proposals had to be approved by the university President
or Board of Control. He asked if the Senate was duty-bound by
Proposal 2-89. Heyman said that the Senate probably was not bound
by 2-89 because it never became official policy. Further, it was
impossible to follow 2-89 to the letter because a lot of letters
were missing.
Boutilier said that the logistic problems were real ones. In
her experience as a member of the commission, the evaluation
required a lot of time. While there was no official permission,
the feeling on campus was such that the Senate proceeded with the
evaluation anyhow.
Hubbard said that the commission took from January to September
to complete the evaluation and present the report. Hubbard said
that all the pieces of the evaluation seemed then to be in place,
although they may not have been detailed in the proposal. Heyman
said that some appendices to the report were hard to find, and may
have details of the procedure that could help the Committee.
Hubbard and Boutilier volunteered to send Heyman their files on the
1991 evaluation.
Keen read a section from old Senate minutes, "On May 18, 1990,
the Board of Control moved, supported and passed by voice vote
without dissent that the Board encouraged the Senate's proposal for
an evaluation of the administration by the faculty. Dr. Jackie
Jaaskelainen was designated to serve as the Board liaison to the
Senate Institutional Evaluation Committee." Keen asked whether
this had in fact occurred. Boutilier said that it had, and Hubbard
said that Jaaskelainen had attended several
******************************************************************
Page 4105 Minutes of Senate Meeting 205 1 Dec 1993
committee meetings. Keen said that evaluation therefore was Board
policy of some sort, although perhaps only a one-shot policy.
Bornhorst asked whether the Senate wanted to delay the
evaluation, or try to perform one this year. Mullins said that
there was insufficient information, and that there needed to be
further communication between Heyman and members of the previous
Committee. If the procedures were in fact worked out, then an
evaluation should be possible; if not, it should be postponed.
Heyman said that the Committee would pull together a procedure
adhering to 2-89 and the former procedure as far as possible.
Heyman asked whether it was realistic to start the commission in
the middle of an academic year, after Hubbard and Boutilier had
stated that evaluation was a nine-month process. Hubbard said that
Proposal 2-89 left to the commission the details of the procedure,
so the Senate committee did not have to write them. Heyman said
that there were some things absent from 2-89 that needed to be
spelled out by the committee. Mullins said that it was a good idea
to have a parallel track between the writing of procedure and the
process of evaluation.
Sewell said that the evaluations by the staff will take place
in the fall, and that delaying the Senate evaluation would permit
better coordination. Heuvers said that the commission might be
selected in the spring, with the evaluation beginning in the fall.
Hubbard said that the Committee could submit an amendment to 2-89
if they were uncomfortable with it, so the commission could be
selected by the end of the spring term. Heyman said that the
Committee realistically could accomplish this.
Heyman said Hubbard's recommendation would be followed: the
Administrative Policy Committee would complete its writing of
procedures in time to put them in the hands of an evaluating
commission to be selected by the Senate in the spring term, to
begin the evaluation in the fall. Bornhorst asked for objections
to the recommendation. There were none.
VIII. Old Business
A. Ad Hoc Committee on Search Guidelines for Major University
Administrators.
Bornhorst referred to the Committee charge [Appendix I of these
minutes] circulated with the agenda, saying it was developed by
the Senate officers. He also requested the Committee to invite
President Tompkins and Provost Dobney to share their views with
the Committee early in its deliberations. Bornhorst called for
discussion; there was none.
B. Election of Senate Representatives to Affirmative Action
Officer Search Committee.
Bornhorst called for nominations from the floor. Francis
Otuonye, Sue Beske-Diehl, Gil Lewis, and Peck Cho were nominated.
Bornhorst suggested a secret-ballot vote, and asked the Senate
whether the tally should be announced.
Bulleit asked whether the winner should be selected based on
a majority of votes, and noted that the Senate had previously
conducted Roman balloting. Heyman said that tallies had never been
announced, and that it was not usual to do so in campus-wide
elections. Bulleit said that when the Senate had tried to find
individuals to serve on search committees, tallies had been
recorded as part of the Roman balloting procedure. Roblee
commented that this would take a lot of time with secret balloting.
Jobst said he was uncomfortable with announcing tallies, and would
be happy with a plurality.
Mullins MOVED that the secret ballot be conducted without
announcing the tally, and that the winner of a plurality be
considered the representative. Arici seconded the motion.
Bornhorst asked for further discussion; there was none. The motion
PASSED in a voice vote.
Glime commented that Beske-Diehl had wanted the Senate to be
aware of possible conflicts of interest because she had applied
for the position of Associate Dean of Engineering. Glime also said
that Beske-Diehl would be an appropriate member of the committee.
Sewell said that Beske-Diehl had learned over the past two years
the broad parameters of the position of Affirmative Action Officer.
Glime commented that the search committee would have the
responsibility of defining the role of the office in addition to
finding a person.
Ballots were distributed; Bornhorst asked senators to vote for
two of the candidates, because the Senate would have two
representatives on the search committee.
IX. New Business
-Selection of Senate Representative to the Presidential Commission
on Diversity.
Bornhorst said the Commission consists of 25 persons from the
campus community, with four Senate representatives: Nam Kim, Swapan
Sen, Ciro Sandoval, and David Sprague. Bornhorst said these
representatives have a one-year term, and recommended the
reappointment of these individuals.
Bulleit said that he had been on the Senate four years, and had
heard nothing previously about these representatives. Bornhorst
said he had only learned recently about these representatives.
Bulleit said the Senate should get reports from them. Leifer asked
if these persons had agreed to serve. Bornhorst replied that two
had agreed, and that the others could agree to resign if they did
not wish to serve.
Grzelak MOVED that the four individuals be asked to serve for
an additional year. Leifer seconded the motion. Bornhorst called
for discussion; there was none. The motion PASSED in a voice vote
without dissent.
X. Announcements
Bornhorst said that senators should encourage constituents to
vote in the referendum on Faculty Governance. He also said that
senators should tell their constituency that the financial report
at the next Senate meeting would be televised.
Bornhorst announced that Beske-Diehl and Lewis had been elected
to the Affirmative Action Officer Search Committee. Heuvers MOVED
to have the ballots destroyed. Davutyan seconded the motion. The
motion PASSED without opposition in a voice vote.
XI. Adjournment
Leifer MOVED that the meeting be adjourned. Bulleit seconded
the motion. Without opposition, Bornhorst declared the meeting
adjourned at 7:20 pm.
Submitted by Robert Keen
Secretary of the University Senate
.