******************************************************************
Page 4168 Minutes of Senate Meeting 207 5 Jan 1994
THE SENATE OF MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
Minutes of Meeting No. 207
5 January 1994
Synopsis: The Senate
(1) received Proposal 8-94 and heard a presentation about
it;
(2) corrected and approved minutes of Meeting 202;
(3) learned that Proposal 16-92 had been transmitted to the
Provost;
(4) heard a presentation on the new environmental sciences
building;
(5) selected Marilyn Cooper as Senate representative to the
SBEA Dean Search Committee;
(6) selected Chuck Nelson as temporary appointee to the
Sabbatical Leave Search Committee;
(7) discussed the administrative rejection of Proposal 4-94.
_______________________________________
I. Call to Order
President Bornhorst called the meeting to order at 5:31 pm on
Wednesday, 5 January 1994, in Room B37 of the Electrical Energy
Resources Center.
II. Roll Call of Members
Secretary Keen called the roll. 29 senators or alternates were
present. Duane Thayer was present as the representative of
Metallurgy & Materials Engineering. Senators or alternate
representatives from AF ROTC, IMP, IWR and KRC were absent. Absent
liaison members: Dean of Engineering, Dean of Sciences & Arts, and
Staff Council.
III. Introductions and Recognition of Visitors
Recognized visitors were F. Dobney (Provost), Wm. McGarry
(Treasurer & CFO), S. Lee (Vice-Provost) and Marcia Goodrich (Tech
Topics).
IV. Agenda Adjustments
Bornhorst referred to the published agenda [Appendix A of these
minutes], and proposed letting the building presentation be a
floating item because of Predebon's late arrival. He also proposed
moving the discussion of Proposal 8-94. Bornhorst asked for agenda
adjustments from the floor; there were none. Bornhorst asked for
objections to the proposed adjustments. There were no objections,
and Bornhorst declared the agenda approved as adjusted.
V. New Business (Part 1 of 2)
A. Proposal 8-94. Copies of Proposal 8-94, Graduate and Teaching
Assistantships: Creation, Funding and Allocation [Appendix B of
these minutes] were distributed to the Senate. Bornhorst
introduced Vice-Provost & Dean of the Graduate School Lee for a
presentation on the proposal.
Lee said that currently there were 126 GTAs in the university
which were allocated to departments by his office. Few departments
were happy with the allocation. A Graduate Council subcommittee
had produced the proposal to change the method of allocating GTAs.
GTAs would be divided into two categories, GAs and TAs.
Departments using GTAs principally to fill teaching needs would
receive funding for TAs from the Provost by way of the deans. The
primary function of GAs would also be teaching; however, they would
be allocated to promote research.
Leifer asked if a GA was a more advanced student than a TA.
Lee replied that this was not necessarily so; they would be
allocated to departments to give strongly research-oriented faculty
more time to do their research. Funding for GAs would be
distributed by the Graduate Dean, with the advice of the Graduate
Council. Lee said that the Graduate Council was also asking for
an increase in support for 85 additional graduate students, with
50 TAs and 35 GAs. The rationale for these numbers was given in
the statement accompanying the proposal; these numbers should be
sufficient for a stable undergraduate population.
Bornhorst said the proposal had been put into Senate proposal
format by cutting and pasting the subcommittee report. The
budgetary components had been isolated from the section of the
report dealing with the policy of separating GAs from TAs.
Bornhorst called for questions.
Leifer asked for further explanation of the distinction between
GAs and TAs. He said he doubted whether an entering graduate
student could be used to relieve a researcher by teaching an
advanced course in quantum mechanics, for example. Lee said that
a GA might be sufficiently qualified to teach an advanced course.
However, the plan calls for GAs to be requested and to be assigned
to relieve the total teaching contact of faculty. Requests for GAs
would be justified on the basis of proposals to promote growth of
departmental research programs.
Glime asked if GAs would necessarily teach, or if they could
maintain equipment or perform other faculty duties. Lee said that
the proposed primary function of the GA would be teaching, but that
they might be used for grading, lab instruction, and other current
GTA functions. Requests for GAs for assignments other than
teaching would have to contain justification.
Little (GSC liaison) referred to the statement in the proposal
that departments would not need to hire graduate students to meet
their teaching obligations if the proposal were adopted. He asked
whether the university had any idea of the number of TAs that were
required for this, and whether funds were available to support this
number. Lee said that the subcommittee had produced an estimate
of a reasonable number of GAs plus TAs to accomplish this goal.
The subcommittee had planned for the additional 85 positions to be
implemented over a 3-year period.
Mullins asked whether GTAs currently are figured into the
calculation of full time equivalent faculty, and whether the
proposed plan would change the calculations for a department. Lee
said he did not know whether GTAs were included in these
calculations, but that determinations of departmental teaching
loads would be part of the negotiations between departments, deans
and the provost. Mullins said he thought that GTAs were part of
departmental teaching staff for purposes of calculating teaching
loads, and asked whether the division between GAs and TAs would
affect the calculation of the departmental loads. Lee said that
if the proposal were adopted, TA allocation would not be part of
his responsibilities.
Boutilier asked who would assign additional graduate students
to meet heavy teaching loads in service departments if the deans
failed to provide sufficient numbers. Lee said this would not be
his problem under the proposal. Dobney said that it would be the
deans responsibility to meet the requirements; if sufficient
graduate students could not be obtained, hiring part-time faculty
with the funds would be an option.
Leifer asked how many total GAs and TAs were called for in the
proposal, beyond the current 126 GTAs. Lee said that the same
number was planned for next year, with 52 of the 126 to be
converted into GAs, and the remaining 74 to be TAs. Over three
years, numbers of TAs would be increased by 50 and GAs by 35.
Jobst said the proposal's background statement indicated the
85 new positions were to be obtained for 93-94. Bornhorst said
that the subcommittee report had called for the new positions next
year, but a memo of implementation from Lee to Dobney had called
for funding the new positions over a 3-year period.
Brokaw said that the proposal as written did not include the
numbers, but was a plan for dividing GAs and TAs. Senate approval
was requested only for the division, not the funding. Bornhorst
said that Brokaw was correct.
Roblee said the proposal would increase the role of graduate
students in classrooms, and that while support of graduate and
research programs is important, a major goal of the university is
******************************************************************
Page 4169 Minutes of Senate Meeting 207 5 Jan 1994
a quality undergraduate education. Roblee said he could not accept
the idea that graduate assistants provided the same quality of
classroom education as faculty. Heuvers replied that GTAs with MS
degrees working toward PhDs would be equivalent to faculty with the
rank of instructor, and that quality of classroom instruction does
not necessarily decrease with the use of GTAs.
Bornhorst asked for an end to the discussion of the proposal,
and stated that senators should obtain the input of their consti-
tuencies because the proposal would be on the agenda of the next
Senate meeting. Lee asked that a decision on the proposal not be
delayed more than two weeks, because departments need to know the
numbers of assistantships they could expect for next year.
Bornhorst thanked Lee for his presentation.
VI. Approval of Minutes
Bornhorst referred to the minutes of Meeting 202 attached to
the agenda sent to senators, and called for corrections. Beck,
Hubbard and Grzelak noted several typographical errors.
Jobst asked about the fate of corrections. Bornhorst said that
the corrections would be made to copies maintained in the Senate
office and in the University Archives, and that corrected copies
would be sent to the offices of the President, Provost, and Board
of Control. Keen said that corrected versions eventually would be
maintained somewhere on the university computer network.
Heyman MOVED to approve the corrected minutes; Grzelak
seconded. Bornhorst asked for objections to the motion. There
were none, and Bornhorst declared the minutes to be approved.
VII. Report of Senate President
1. Proposal 16-92, Departmental Governance, has been forwarded
to the administration for their action [Appendix C of these
minutes].
2. All memos of transmission of Senate proposals will be put into
the minutes. The new constitution requires the administration
to approve or reject proposals within three months; recording
the date of submittal is therefore important. The memos of
administrative responses to the proposals will also be entered
into the minutes to provide a complete record of action on
proposals.
3. The Provost has set up a committee to recruit persons to
attend the Bryn Mawr Summer Institute for Women.
4. The Senate officers and the Provost had a long discussion on
January 4 concerning the current process for changing courses.
The current procedure requires the Provost's assistant to
check each submitted course change. Over 250 changes were
submitted this year. There are occasional problems with
submissions. This year one proposal indicated no other
departments were affected by the change, but in fact five were
affected. Also, it is not necessary to indicate whether
general education requirements are affected by any change.
The current process, which requires one person to be
knowledgeable about all curricula on campus, clearly needs
revamping. The provost is open to suggestions for change, and
has asked that a new process be developed.
The Curricular Policy Committee has been asked to address
the problem and to come up with a new procedure for course
changes. The provost and his assistant should be consulted
about the problem.
5. The Senate officers and the Provost had a discussion on
December 14 concerning the relationship between the Graduate
Council and the Senate. The discussion will be continued.
However, any policy proposals from the Graduate Council will
pass through the Senate.
Bornhorst opened the floor to questions. Arici asked whether the
Course Change Committee still existed to address course change
problems. Bornhorst said that in the past the Course Change
Committee had carefully reviewed all the proposed course changes.
The work load of the committee members was huge, with perhaps 600
course changes per year. Provost Whitten had consolidated the
review process in his office, using the Course Change Committee
only for resolution of problems.
Bornhorst said a new procedure was needed to ensure that
proposed course changes were checked properly. The problems of
sloppy reviewing can become apparent, for example, when students
try to register for required but non-existent courses.
VIII. Reports from Committees (Part 1 of 2)
A. Curriculum Committee. Committee Chair Grimm reported that the
Committee had met, and had elected himself chair. The request by
Mathematical Sciences for establishing a new MS option in discrete
mathematics had been approved and would be sent to the Senate floor
for approval.
The Committee had reviewed a request for a new course in
community help activity, and decided that the course proposal
should be developed by the individual department that would be
responsible for the course. The request by Bornhorst for a
proposal to alter procedures for reviewing course changes had been
deferred to a later meeting.
B. Finance Committee. Committee Chair Pickens distributed three
handouts [Appendices D, E, and F of these minutes], and reviewed
recent committee activities.
The Committee had attracted a lot of interest and volunteer
members. Three subcommittees had been formed: Fringe Benefits with
L. Leifer as chair, Financial Management & Investment with J. Gale
as chair, and Budget Oversight with E. Carlson as chair.
Pickens said that a year ago the Senate had proposed
implementing three separate fringe benefit packages for retiring
faculty: health coverage for TIAA-CREF participants, a lump-sum
payment, and paid-up life insurance. The first had been accepted
by the administration; the other two were not accepted.
Pickens asked CFO McGarry to elaborate on FAS (financial
accounting standards) for funding retirement programs. McGarry
said that the FAS arose out of problems of funding retirement on
a pay-as-you-go basis; FAS is a way of making sure the funds exist
if the corporation should go out of business or be sold, and of
requiring corporations to recognize financial liability for funding
retirement plans. The plans must be funded over a defined period
of time. The university has to be sure the funds will be available
when current personnel retire to support the retirement health care
benefits.
Pickens said fringe benefit rates had been about 25 percent of
salary; at MTU the rate was now 38 percent. Pickens referred to
page 4 of the handout [Appendix D of these minutes] comparing
fringe benefit rates at Michigan universities. Uniform fringe
benefit rates for all faculty was unique to MTU.
Pickens noted that MTU was setting aside money to fund health
benefits for TIAA-CREF retirees, although the amount set aside was
less than FAS guidelines. He referred to p.5 of the handout,
noting that the benefit would amount to about 17 percent of salary
in a few years. MPSERs contributions increased from 12 to 14.4
percent this year; rumors say 18 or 20 percent next year. The
increase is state mandated and is driven by health care costs.
Pickens said that the provost was providing health care
coverage on an individual basis for persons who would have fallen
under Senate Proposal 2-94. The Finance Committee would take up
the issue at its next meeting. Pickens said that the health care
benefit was a significant increase in total faculty compensation.
Pickens introduced Leifer for a presentation from the Fringe
Benefit subcommittee. Leifer said the subcommittee had worked long
and hard for all MTU employees. He acknowledged past and present
subcommittee members [Appendix E of these minutes]. Leifer
reviewed a list of 14 projects of the subcommittee, noting that
only 4 of the 14 were retirement benefits. In discussing item #10,
a proposal to increase current TIAA-CREF contributions, Leifer
referred to pages photocopied [Appendix F of these minutes] from
NMU's contract booklet; he noted their TIAA-CREF contributions were
higher than MTU's. Item #14, the flexible
******************************************************************
Page 4170 Minutes of Senate Meeting 207 5 Jan 1994
spending account, is to allow pre-tax deductions from salaries to
support medical, child-care, and similar allowable expenses.
Leifer referred to the Exhibits distributed in the meeting of
6 October 1993 [Appendix D of these minutes] for supplemental
health and disability benefits, and noted that they followed FAS
requirements. Leifer said that numbers for funding the retirement
life insurance plan [Appendix D of these minutes] were scary only
by comparison. The university had hired 25 new faculty over the
past year at a cost of about $3M. The proposed benefits package
was about half of this amount, was affordable, and would not
bankrupt the university. Leifer said the package would take care
of people who have stuck with the university through hard times.
Leifer said a good benefits package would allow the university
(1) to plan its program development, (2) to attract good faculty,
(3) to permit dedicated employees to retire with dignity, and (4)
to do the right thing.
Bornhorst asked about the status of the two passed proposals
for life insurance and annuity supplement. Pickens said Dobney
had told the Finance Committee that the proposals would not be
fundable at this time; Leifer was studying them to find ways to
make them more affordable. Because the proposals had been passed,
the Committee needed to know whether the proposals should be
brought to the Senate again, perhaps in modified form, or whether
they should be left with the administration.
Provost Dobney said he was willing to add the proposals to the
list of requests for available funds. They would be put in with
items such as deficit reduction, deferred maintenance, etc. He
would ask the Senate Financial Committee for advice on priorities.
Bornhorst recommended that the Finance Committee return to the next
meeting prepared to discuss priorities in the benefits package.
Roblee asked McGarry about the funding of the current MPSERs
retirement payment. McGarry said that last year the departments
with retirees funded the 2 percent retirement arrangement out of
their own budgets, but the $124K balance-due for building of
reserves came from university's central fringe benefits account.
The payment this year will come entirely from the central account.
The program had been successful, but some departments had been hurt
financially because they had no reserves to replace the funds taken
from them.
IX. Presentation on the New Building
Bornhorst said that at the previous meeting questions had been
raised about the new environmental sciences building. He
introduced the chair of the building planning committee, Bill
Predebon, for a presentation on the building.
Predebon said that the committee, named the MTU Initiative for
the Environment, had begun to meet during the summer. The
committee had to define the focus of the environmental initiative
before determining who would occupy the building. The focus was
defined as "teaching, research and service for a sustainable
future". The Initiative had split up, with part working on
interdisciplinary teaching and research planning. The other part
became the Building Working Group with Predebon as chair.
The Group had discussed many models of occupancy, finally
deciding on biology, geology, environmental engineering and
forestry, with commons areas for interdisciplinary research. The
President and Provost had offered few constraints, except that
space vacated by the units should be maximized. The building would
have about 86,000 assignable sq ft. The occupying units had
requested 260,000. After discussion, Forestry had agreed to pull
out if an addition were added to their present building.
Current plans called for the new building to consist of
research facilities with a wing for teaching. Vacated space would
total 32,000 sq ft, with 14,000 in ME-EM, 13,000 in Chemistry, and
5,000 in Dillman. The units would continue to occupy some space
in ME-EM, Dillman, and a small amount in Chemistry. Several plans
were examined for connecting the new building with existing
buildings. Current plans favored connections with Dillman and M&M,
and included two lecture facilities for 250 and 150 students.
Blumhardt, Predebon, and Tahtinen had met with the MI Dept of
Management and Budget. As part of the $60M package, the state had
supported constructing the new building, adding to the Forestry
Building, and renovating Chemistry, ME-EM and Dillman. $30M would
be supported by the State; MTU would have to raise the other $30M,
which would be mostly for equipment.
Leifer asked about the source of the other $30M. Predebon said
it would not come from the university's general fund, and that
Tahtinen was putting together a $20M federal package for research
equipment. Research related to the Environmental Initiative would
count toward the $30M. The state would allow the amount to be
accumulated through 1998.
Beck asked whether vacated space would benefit departments not
in the environmental program. He said issues of space are
critical, and asked who would decide who gets the 5000 sq ft being
vacated in Dillman. He asked that the decision process be more
open. Predebon said that the issue of vacated space had been
emphasized by President Tompkins and the 32,000 sq ft of vacated
space would be made available to departments that need it.
Predebon said assigning vacated space was not his group's responsi-
bility. Dobney said that none of the space would be reallocated
without input from the Space Committee, chaired by Joe Galetto.
Heyman said that the division of vacated space among three
buildings would not appear to open up large amounts of space usable
by other departments. Predebon said that the committee consciously
tried to maximize the amount of vacated space.
Glime expressed concern about locating major teaching functions
of biology on the 11th floor of ME-EM, while faculty offices would
be located in another building. Predebon said that the biology
committee members had been informed about the plan.
Bornhorst thanked Predebon for his presentation, and said that
the time for adjournment was nearing. He asked for objections to
altering the agenda to dispose quickly of two items of Old and New
Business. There were no objections.
X. Old Business (Part 1 of 2)
A. Representative to the SBEA Dean Search Committee. Bornhorst
said that Murthy had resigned as Senate representative to the
Search Committee for a new dean of the Business School. He said
Marilyn Cooper, who had been the other nominee considered by the
Senate, had agreed to serve. Jobst MOVED that Cooper be selected
as the Senate representative to the SBEA Dean Search Committee.
Heuvers seconded the motion. Bornhorst asked for discussion; there
was none. The motion PASSED without dissent in a voice vote.
XI. New Business (Part 2 of 2)
B. Temporary Appointment to Sabbatical Leave Committee. Bornhorst
said President Tompkins had asked the Senate to appoint a temporary
replacement on the Sabbatical Leave Committee for Frank Monasa, who
had passed away recently. Monasa's 5-year term was to end July 1,
1994. The position will be filled in the course of the usual
elections in the spring. Bornhorst said that the Senate last year
had submitted three nominees to the President last spring. Chuck
Nelson had not been selected then. Bornhorst said that Nelson had
agreed to serve out the remainder of the term. Grzelak MOVED that
the Senate submit Nelson's name to the President as a replacement
for Monasa. Leifer seconded the motion. Bornhorst called for
discussion. Jobst said that the Senate should be aware that the
selection of Nelson would result in two faculty members from the
Humanities Department serving on the committee. There was no
further discussion. The motion PASSED without dissent in a voice
vote.
XII. Reports from Committees (Part 2 of 2)
C. Steering Committee on Academic Faculty Handbook. Bornhorst
distributed a page of information [Appendix G of these minutes] on
charges and membership of the task forces working on
******************************************************************
Page 4171 Minutes of Senate Meeting 207 5 Jan 1994
revision of the Handbook. Bornhorst said the task forces were to
write draft policies which would go to appropriate Senate standing
committees for consideration. Members of task forces who were also
Senate committee members were responsible for keeping the Senate
committees informed of task force progress. Bornhorst said that
the Steering Committee would only monitor progress, and would not
be involved in the approval process. Draft revisions of policies
from the task forces were to be in the hands of the Senate
committees by mid-March, and the Senate should be able to vote on
the new policies before the end of the Spring quarter. Bornhorst
said that membership of the task forces was balanced among
departments, disciplines, personalities, and interests. He added
that questions could be addressed to himself, Keen, Bulleit, or
Steering Committee Chair Ott.
XIII. Old Business (Part 2 of 2)
B. Proposal 4-94, Suspension of 3-Year-&-Out Policy. Bornhorst
referred to the memo from Provost Dobney attached to the agenda
[Appendix H of these minutes], and offered Dobney the floor for any
further comments. Dobney said the Senate should inform concerned
constituents that the policy allowed for exceptions. Dobney said
that he would approve exceptions only on the recommendations of
chairs and deans, and that those employees for whom the dean would
not request an exception probably would not have been reappointed
anyhow.
Bornhorst said that a careful reading of the memo would
indicate that it is a rejection of Proposal 4-94. He declared the
floor open for discussion and suggestions on what the next Senate
action should be with regard to this proposal. Glime said that the
memo did not really reject the proposal, but was another method of
implementing it without having to go to the Board. Bornhorst said
that the memo in fact was a rejection; the policy was not
suspended. Bulleit said that the proposal was an interim solution,
and the provost's memo was also an interim solution.
Leifer said that if a person has a 3-year appointment and is
reappointed twice, the person has de facto tenure. Failure to
reappoint such a person invites censure by the AAUP. Leifer
suggested calling these positions teaching associates or lab
supervisors rather than temporary assistant professors or other
academic rank. Dobney replied that temporary appointments are for
one year only, that reappointments are for one year only, and that
the appointments are for positions as lecturers, not for
professorial rank. The revision of the faculty handbook should
clarify the distinction between tenure-track and non-tenure-track
faculty. The university's lawyers had offered opinions that the
letters of tender of a temporary position make it clear that the
time is not counted toward tenure.
Sewell said the Presidential Commission on Women had concerns
that numbers of persons were insecure in their jobs, and did not
know where they stood. She said the memo was clearly a rejection,
and that the request to inform constituents was likely to lead to
inconsistency in retaining temporary personnel. The studies of the
Commission had found unbelievable inconsistencies between
departments on campus.
XIV. Adjournment
Bornhorst said that senators should bring the attachments to
the agenda to next meeting of the Senate. Bornhorst called for a
motion to adjourn. Arici MOVED that the meeting be adjourned.
Huang seconded the motion. Without opposition, Bornhorst declared
the meeting adjourned at 7:30 pm.
Submitted by Robert Keen
Secretary of the University Senate
.