******************************************************************
Page 4200 Minutes of Senate Meeting 208 26 Jan 1994
THE SENATE OF MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
Minutes of Meeting No. 208
26 January 1994
Synopsis: The Senate
(1) corrected and approved minutes of Meetings 203 and 204;
(2) returned to committee Proposal 7-94, Evening Exam Policy;
(3) passed Proposal 8-94, GAs & TAs: Creation, Funding, &
Allocation;
(4) returned to committee Proposal 10-94, Amendment of Final
Exam Policy;
(5) received Proposal 9-94, New Option for the MS Degree in
Mathematical Sciences;
(6) supported a memo asking for notification of exemptions
under the 3-Year-&-Out Policy.
_______________________________________
I. Call to Order
President Bornhorst called the meeting to order at 5:32 pm on
Wednesday, 26 January 1994, 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. David Nelson was present as the representative of
Mechanical Engineering-Engineering Mechanics. Senators or
alternate representatives from Chemical Engineering, AF ROTC, and
Army ROTC were absent. Absent senator-at-large: Roblee. Absent
liaison members: Dean of Engineering, Dean of Sciences & Arts,
Undergraduate Student Government, and Staff Council.
III. Introductions and Recognition of Visitors
Recognized visitors were F. Dobney (Provost), S. Lee (Vice-
Provost), Faith Morrison (Chem Eng), S. Beske-Diehl (Geol), and
Marcia Goodrich (Tech Topics).
IV. Agenda Adjustments
Bornhorst referred to the published agenda [Appendix A of these
minutes], and proposed moving Proposals 7-94, 8-94 and 10-94 for
early consideration in the meeting. Bornhorst asked for agenda
adjustments from the floor; there were none. Vanek MOVED to accept
the adjusted agenda. Heuvers seconded the motion. Bornhorst asked
for objections to the motion; there were none, and Bornhorst
declared the agenda APPROVED as adjusted.
V. Approval of Minutes
Bornhorst referred to the Minutes of Meeting 203 attached to
the agenda sent to senators, and called for corrections. Hubbard
noted a typographical error. Mroz MOVED to approve the corrected
minutes; Heuvers seconded. The motion PASSED with no dissent in
a voice vote.
Bornhorst called for corrections to the Minutes of Meeting 204,
also circulated with the agenda. There were none. Sewell MOVED
to approve the minutes; Carstens seconded the motion. The motion
PASSED with no dissent in a voice vote.
VI. Report of Senate President
1. President Tompkin's Cabinet met on January 14. The cabinet
heard reports on the ski hill and the environmental sciences
building. The cabinet discussed semesters vs quarters, and
heard alternatives to these, including the 4-4-1 plan, a
winter-quarter delay, and the late-start quarter plan. The
Instructional Policy Subcommittee on the Academic Calendar
should look at all alternatives to the present calendar.
2. Associate Registrar Ouilette has asked the Senate to review
Senate Proposal 4-76, policy on distribution of information
on grading practices of academic faculty. This proposal
requires the registrar every year to publish a listing of the
average GPA by level of class and by department. The request
has been forwarded to the Instructional Policy Committee.
3. A memo received from S. Beske-Diehl, the Senate representative
to the Affirmative Action Officer Search Committee, has asked
for input to the job description for the Affirmative Action
Officer.
4. Some constituents have complained about the extension of the
drop date by Dean Janners, and have said that "the Senate
should have been consulted before a major change was made in
policies that it has approved".
(Bornhorst said that the administration should have the
ability to deal with extenuating circumstances; perhaps the
Senate should have been contacted in advance. Bornhorst
suggested that perhaps a protocol needs to be established for
dealing with such circumstances, although he preferred to
maintain an informal arrangement. He called for comments on
the issue.
(Filer said he preferred an informal arrangement; the
extreme cold had shut down all the schools and universities
in several states. MTU's closure interfered with examinations
and prevented students from obtaining information needed to
decide on dropping courses. Filer said such decisions did not
need to come to the Senate.
(Nelson asked for the rationale behind a one-day closure
requiring a two-week delay in the drop period. Dobney said
that students who were scheduled for Thursday morning exams
would not have been able to take them until the next Tuesday.
Winter Carnival would have interfered with the following week.
Dobney said he did not favor the current drop policy which
encourages students to quit if they are not doing well;
however, the two-week delay appeared necessary to accommodate
it. Nelson asked how results of Thursday exams were expected
to be posted by Friday.
(Keen said that several classes in his department had
scheduled combined lab exams for Wednesday evening. Exam
rules for Winter Carnival prevented making up these cancelled
exams the next week. The two-week delay in the drop date was
required because the one-day closure resulted in a two-week
delay in the exams. Galetto said that Keen's scenario was
correct, and that the Senate also should consider the impact
on the Dean's office of not extending the drop date.
(Hubbard said that a Senate policy could not be written
to provide for all possible contingencies. Dobney said that
passing policy to cover once-in-ten-year occurrences would be
counter-productive. Bornhorst said that he had to air issues
brought up by constituents.
(Heuvers asked why the exams could not be scheduled at a
different time. Boutilier said that it was almost impossible
to get another set of rooms for a night exam on short notice,
and that a mountain was being made out of a molehill.)
5. The Senate has a limited budget for copying and circulating
minutes and proposals. Making copies for committees and
handouts at Senate meetings has to be the responsibility of
individual senators.
6. The Senate Assistant position is a part-time secretarial
position, not a salaried staff or faculty position. Hence,
it is inappropriate to phone the Senate Assistant at home
about Senate business.
7. A statement about Shared Governance and the Senate
Constitution: On all issues, the Senate and administration
must share ideas with trust and mutual respect. However, the
Constitution clearly distinguishes two levels of Senate
action.
In academic matters, the Senate has "the authority to
review and establish policies and procedures". In these
matters, when the Senate and the administration do not agree,
the Senate can take the issue to the Board of Control.
In other areas, including such matters as finances and
******************************************************************
Page 4201 Minutes of Senate Meeting 208 26 Jan 1994
fringe benefits for example, the Senate has "the
responsibility to review, make recommendations, and
initiate/participate in the formulation of policies and
procedures". In these areas, the administration establishes
policy. The Senate can submit proposals to the administration
in these area, but does not have the right to go directly to
the Board of Control. In these areas it is important to get
advance administrative input, because an administrative veto
is final.
VII. Old Business (Part 1 of 2)
A. Proposal 8-94 (Part 1 of 2). Bornhorst called for consideration
of Proposal 8-94, GAs and TAs: Creation, Funding and Allocation
[Minutes, Meeting 207, p.4173-4175]; copies of the proposal had
been circulated with the agenda.
Hubbard MOVED that Proposal 8-94 be approved; the motion was
seconded. Bornhorst called for objections to the recommendation
of voting units. There were none, and Bornhorst declared the
recommendation to be approved. Boutilier inquired about senators-
at-large. Bornhorst said that senators-at-large from academic
degree-granting departments could vote.
Beck said some constituents were concerned about the cost of
the program. The proposal calls for 85 new graduate assistant-
ships; at a cost of $20,000 each, the total is $1.7M. The phasing
in of the positions is a short-term view. Once these are phased
in, they are locked in. More justification is needed before this
amount is spent. Some financial compensation must be indicated.
Bornhorst said that the proposal itself contained nothing about
the number of positions. The discussion of 85 positions was
contained in an attachment to the actual proposal the Senate was
considering.
Leifer commented that there were two parts to the proposal.
The first was the conversion of GTAs to GAs allocated by the
Graduate Dean, and TAs, allocated by the Provost and Deans. This
part adds no additional cost. The second part was the 85
additional positions. Leifer said that the second part should be
tabled and sent to the Finance Committee for review.
Brokaw said that funding of additional positions was not part
of Proposal 8-94. This seemed clear. Only the division of GTAs
was being considered, and a vote for the proposal was in no way a
vote for additional positions. Bornhorst said that Brokaw was
correct. The first page contained the proposal, and the remainder
was supplemental material. Hubbard said a budget reallocation was
contained in the proposal. Bornhorst said that this involved no
additional funds.
Nelson said there should be concern about the method of
allocating GAs. Allocation "to meet graduate school and research
goals" was vague and unclear, and more detail needed to be
provided. Bornhorst invited Dean Lee to reply.
Lee said that if the allocation method were adopted, the same
subcommittee that produced the proposal provide him with
recommendations about the allocation of GAs. The actual mechanism
is as vague as the current allocation of GTAs. The guiding
principle would be to obtain departmental proposals on the need for
GAs to relieve faculty members from some teaching obligations to
develop their research and graduate programs. The details on
percentages of GAs allocated to various departments would be based
on committee recommendations.
Nelson asked whether the basis of GA allocation would be
research productivity or need for relief from teaching. Lee said
that awards would be made to enhance research productivity. The
basis would not necessarily be what departments have done, but were
development was needed.
Morrison commented that she had chaired the subcommittee that
produced the proposal. She said the Graduate Council advises the
Graduate Dean on the allocation of GTAs. Departments request GTAs
to support both departmental teaching and graduate programs. The
Council felt unable to advise on teaching needs. The proposal is
intended to separate teaching concerns from graduate program
development. GAs and TAs are to have the same duties; they will
both be supported from the GTA fund; the allocation will differ.
Leifer asked if the difference between a GA and TA is only in
the allocation. Bornhorst said this was correct. Heuvers asked
how in a department a GA could be distinguished from a TA.
Morrison said this was irrelevant.
Grzelak said GTAs were used in his department for normal lab
teaching. His constituency worried about the reduction in numbers
of TAs available to meet these obligations. They also thought that
graduate assistants to support research should be funded from
research contracts.
Jobst said that his concerns were like those of Nelson; the
Senate was being asked to vote on the proposal and would be
informed later of the details of its operation. His constituents
were concerned that they would be penalized because the graduate
program in Humanities was less traditional; large amounts of
funding are not available. A criterion for awarding GAs based on
funding would discriminate against the department. Jobst asked
whether there was any assurance that the GAs would be allotted
fairly. Morrison said that the same person making the decision
now would be making it under the proposed plan. The Humanities
department should not lose out therefore.
Bulleit said his constituency thought the proposal to be better
than the existing method of allocation. Heuvers said that the Math
Department made heavy use of GTAs in teaching, and he was concerned
that all the money for the TAs would have to come from the teaching
budget, and they would get no GAs at all. He asked what would
happen under those circumstances. Bornhorst referred the question
to Provost Dobney.
Dobney said that if the graduate program were to grow in
accordance with the 5-year plan, there would have to be an
investment in graduate students, and that 85 new positions was not
an unreasonable goal over a period of years. The number of TAs
would become equal to the number of GTAs currently; departments
like Humanities and Mathematics would not lose positions. The
proposal is philosophically sound, with all teaching resources
allocated from the deans. GAs would be allocated in response to
departmental proposals for increasing research productivity based
on release from faculty teaching. Further allocation would be
based on results from the program, not history.
Nelson asked whether 85 new GTAs would be the most productive
use of the $1M-$2M needed for their support. If departments are
to be held accountable for improvement in research programs,
departments ought to be able to have some discretion in spending
the extra funds rather than having them specified for use with GAs.
For the same amount, graduate graders might provide a greater
release of faculty time than GAs. Nelson said he found the
proposal confusing, because if teaching loads were to be covered
with TAs, what would the GAs be doing? Funds might be used more
efficiently hiring graduate students to grade papers at $6/hr,
rather than a GA at $20,000 per year. Lee replied that the
departments would have some flexibility in use of the TA funds from
the deans; they could be used for graders or temporary faculty.
Morrison said that departments had been surveyed for GTA duties and
needs. The diversity of work is broad. The intent of the GA is
to free up faculty time for faculty research. Lab teaching falls
onto the faculty when GTAs are not available.
Dobney said that the purpose of the GA is to allow release time
for faculty. Viewed in this way, the connotation is different than
if their allocation is merely another way to get a GTA. Obtaining
a GA would permit the department to reallocate faculty time, and
permit the faculty to pursue the research that was the basis of the
award. Viewed in this way, the GA is an award of free time to the
faculty to do research.
Leifer said that he was no longer clear that GAs and TAs were
the same. Further, he wanted reassurance that the requested
increase in numbers of GAs (35) and TAs (50) was not part of the
proposal. Bornhorst said that he had a copy of a memo from Lee to
Dobney [Appendix I of these minutes], which was a budget
******************************************************************
Page 4202 Minutes of Senate Meeting 208 26 Jan 1994
request for the new positions at the numbers Leifer indicated. He
also said that the upper division labs in his department were
covered mostly by faculty, and that GAs would free up faculty time
in these circumstances.
Beck said that some departments already have a tiered system
for their faculty, so research faculty don't do as much teaching.
The teaching load can be distributed within the current system.
The advantages of the proposal to such departments is not clear.
Nelson said that the discussion was confusing. He asked if TAs
would be assigned to cover classroom duties based on the requests
to the deans, and the GAs would not be assigned to cover any class.
Morrison said that this was incorrect, because no differences
existed between GAs and TAs under the proposal; the proposal is
designed to maximize flexibility in allowing departments to meet
their teaching needs. Nelson said he agreed with this idea, but
that it would be better to award departments the funds directly,
rather than awarding GAs. Accountability should be based on
maximum flexibility. Morrison said this was a possibility, that
the Vice-Provost could request funds to be used to enhance research
productivity. Morrison added that the provost had met with the
Graduate Council to ask for their input on spending to meet the
university's goals; this proposal was part of the response. The
TAs are not seen as particularly directed toward achieving graduate
school goals; rather they are meeting instructional goals. Whether
to put the money toward GAs or some other means of enhancing
research is the decision of the provost.
Bornhorst asked for discussion of the proposal to be halted
temporarily to permit Galetto to make some statements on Proposal
7-94. Heuvers MOVED to table Proposal 8-94. Grzelak seconded the
motion. The motion passed without dissent in a voice vote.
B. Proposal 7-94. Bornhorst called for consideration of Proposal
7-94, Evening Examinations; the proposal [Appendix B of these
minutes] had been circulated with the agenda of the previous
meeting. Heuvers MOVED to approve Proposal 7-94. Carstens
seconded the motion. Bornhorst asked for objections to the
recommendation for voting units. Sewell said that the issue
covered areas other than academic units. Counseling handles cases
of students trying to cope with exams, and encounters scheduling
difficulties in helping students. Keen said that the
recommendation was based on the constitution's clear definition of
examinations as falling within the jurisdiction of academic
departments. The senators from academic units were obliged to pay
close attention to the concerns of the other units in their
deliberations. Bornhorst said that the academic unit
representatives only would vote on the expansion of the voting
units. Glime MOVED that the non-academic units be added to the
voting units on the proposal. Filer seconded the motion. Glime
said that the scheduling of all events on campus is affected by the
evening exam policy, and all units should have a vote. There was
no further discussion and the motion PASSED in a voice vote.
Galetto distributed a handout about the proposed change. He
said that the registrar and scheduling area could live with the
policy as it is proposed. Marie Ryding, who handles exam
scheduling and conflict, had prepared in response to a question at
the previous meeting a table showing the number of evening exams
and scheduling problems [Appendix C of these minutes]. She had
also proposed some rewording of the Proposal.
Keen MOVED to send Proposal 7-94 back to committee. There were
problems with its wording as suggested by the memo from Ryding.
An instructor could claim that an evening exam is an irregular
evening examination, to keep from falling under policy governing
regular evening examinations. Another problem involved the
recourse available to students when instructors choose to violate
the policy. A mechanism should be provided for students to
complain of policy violation without fear of reprisal. The action
the students might expect should be spelled out if the instructor
goes ahead with the policy violation. Glime seconded the motion.
Heuvers distributed photocopies of sections from the Student
Handbook [Appendix E of these minutes] and from the Academic
Faculty Handbook [Appendix F of these minutes], which indicate the
complaint procedures that are already in effect and available to
students. Heuvers said that a violation of the university
examination policy is a violation of the faculty contract.
Keen said that the problem lies in the channeling of complaints
through the department head; students lack confidence that there
will be an effective response to complaints, and they fear reprisal
from the faculty member.
Glime said that the policy needed careful wording, because it
was not possible logistically to schedule all the exams in the week
when it was most reasonable to have exams. The few number of rooms
holding large numbers of students are over-subscribed. The policy
had to be rewritten so as not to restrict the administration of lab
exams over several hours with several groups of students. The
policy must give priority to the courses with the largest numbers
of students.
Grzelak said that publishing the evening exams in the schedule
booklet was a problem because instructors often did not know their
teaching load when the booklet went to press. Scheduling in the
booklet was an impossibility.
Sewell said that instructors frequently place students in a
untenable positions by refusing to yield to other evening exams.
Also, when students complain to department heads, they often are
told to go back to talk with the faculty person involved.
Consistent guidelines need to exist.
Leifer said that previous policy had indicated "precedence will
be given to the class with the largest size and the lower level
class". The current proposal has dropped the latter phrase; the
issue needs to be clarified in case of a conflict between a larger
second year class and a smaller first year class. Nelson asked
whether the policy applied to take-home examinations. Heuvers said
it did not. Leifer said that a take-home exam was not a regular
exam. Nelson asked whether the policy would apply to an exam to
be given at 6am. Heuvers said that an alternate time would have
to be provided for students with conflicts.
Mroz MOVED to halt discussion of the motion. Glime seconded
the motion. The motion PASSED in a voice vote.
The motion to send Proposal 7-94 back to committee PASSED in
a voice vote.
C. Proposal 8-94 (Part 2 of 2). Bornhorst asked that the matter
of Proposal 8-94 be taken up again. Hubbard MOVED to take from the
table the motion to approve Proposal 8-94. Huang seconded the
motion. The motion PASSED without dissent in a voice vote.
Glime MOVED to amend the motion: to approve Proposal 8-94, but
to send to the Finance Committee consideration of how best to spend
the funds allocated to additional GAs. Leifer asked that this be
changed to GA/TAs. Glime agreed to the alteration of her
amendment, and agreed that the provision should be to send finance
issues to the Finance Committee. Nelson asked whether the proposal
or the motion could be amended. Bornhorst said that in this case
the Proposal itself should be amended.
Jobst seconded the motion. Bornhorst said that the motion
involved the addition of a sentence saying that budgeting of
additional GA/TA positions should be sent to the Senate Finance
Committee for consideration.
Boutilier said that amended or not, a proposal that produces
oscillating confusion and unconfusion could not be a good proposal.
Glime said that the effect of her amendment would be to accept the
division of the allocation of teaching responsibility to the
Provost, and the allocation of the remaining positions by the Vice-
Provost, but would keep separate the budget part of the proposal.
Brokaw said that the increase in funding was not part of the
proposal, so that it did not seem sensible to have an amendment
having the finance committee look at a part of the proposal that
******************************************************************
Page 4203 Minutes of Senate Meeting 208 26 Jan 1994
was not a part of the proposal. Brokaw said the finance committee
should be working with the administration on the distribution of
various additional requests, and that requests for additional GTAs
would be made whether Proposal 8-94 passes or not.
Dobney said that Brokaw had described the way the process would
work, and that he would be coming to the Finance Committee in the
next month with a copy of the budget, to get their input in
prioritizing a variety of budget requests. Heuvers asked what had
been planned financially if the proposal were passed. Dobney said
that the numbers discussed in the Senate were only a proposal from
Dean Lee, and that if no additional allocation were made for
assistantships, the GTAs currently allocated would not be reduced.
The number would be allocated differently, because they would be
allocated by the provost's office to the deans, who would allocate
them in conjunction with the faculty lines to meet the
instructional needs of the colleges. If GTAs are added, they will
go into the GA pool; the number of GAs will depend on the number
added. The current level of support for the TA category will not
be reduced, because it would create problems for departments in
meeting their current teaching obligations.
Heuvers said it appeared that the amendment was not needed
because it would happen anyway. Beck asked Dobney whether there
were now 126 TAs and zero GAs, assuming no increase in funding the
positions. Dobney said that was his current thinking.
Morrison said that the rough division suggested by the
subcommittee was approximately how they are currently allocated
between teaching obligations and support of graduate programs.
Some departments now receiving GTAs, for example Forestry and
Metallurgy, have arguably less need for GTAs than other
departments. The GTAs in these departments are in fact GAs. The
subcommittee, with equal representation from research and teaching
departments, feels that currently there are 74 TAs and 52 GAs.
Dobney said that his misunderstanding of the proposal was the
equal of others.
Keen MOVED to halt discussion on the amendment. Mroz seconded
the motion. The motion PASSED without dissent in a voice vote.
The motion to amend the proposal FAILED in a voice vote.
Heuvers MOVED to table the motion to adopt the proposal.
Leifer seconded the motion. Keen said that a decision was needed
on the proposal so that departments soon could offer assistantships
of some sort to incoming graduate students. Bornhorst ruled Keen's
comment to be out of order. The motion to table FAILED without
dissent in a voice vote.
Mroz MOVED to halt discussion of the motion to approve the
proposal. Jobst seconded the motion. The motion PASSED without
dissent in a voice vote.
The motion to approve Proposal 8-94 PASSED in a show-of-hands
vote, 10-9.
D. Proposal 10-94. Bornhorst said that the Provost had asked for
a stronger definition of "final exam week" in the 1992 revision of
the final exam policy. The Instructional Policy Committee had
proposed the clarifying amendments indicated in the text of the
proposal [Appendix F of these minutes], which had been circulated
with the agenda. For clarity, it had been designated Proposal
10-94, Amendments to Final Exam Policy.
Jobst MOVED to approve Proposal 10-94. Bulleit seconded the
motion.
Bornhorst asked for objections to the recommendation of voting
units. Sewell said she had the same objection as in the previous
consideration of Proposal 7-94. Glime MOVED that other course
offering units and the non-academic units be included in the vote.
Bulleit seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. The
motion passed in a voice vote.
Bornhorst called for consideration of the proposal. Glime said
that the third sentence in the second paragraph was vague. It
might be interpreted as allowing courses with laboratory sections
to be exempted from the policy; "them" should read "laboratory
exams". Glime said the last sentence in the second paragraph
needed revision, to allow instructors discretion in scheduling
makeup exams. Scheduling make-ups for a Friday final exam can be
impossible.
Keen MOVED to send Proposal 10-94 to the Instructional Policy
Committee for reconsideration. He said that the policy describes
no acceptable method for students to protest a violation of the
policy, nor is there any specification of penalty for instructors
who choose repeatedly to violate the policy. Sewell seconded the
motion.
Heuvers said that if passed the proposal becomes university
policy, and violations could be reported to the Senate, to the
Undergraduate Student Government, or to the Ombudsman. Heuvers
said the procedure should protect the student, and that the reports
should be anonymous but should be something that could be
investigated.
Jobst said the committee should be informed of all the problems
of the policy so the first revision would be successful. Bornhorst
said that comments should be forwarded to Heuvers. Nelson asked
why the department head or chair was not the appropriate person to
enforce the policy. Keen said that students do not have confidence
in the department heads; the students' perception may be wrong, but
it did exist, and hampered policy enforcement.
Melton said that final exam policy problems were long-term,
and that students could be as manipulative about the policy as
faculty members. A university finals-culture has emerged, which
has resulted in some faculty giving up on finals week. If there
is to be a policy then it should be enforced, and faculty should
not be allowed to take the easy way out, which they are under
pressure to do. The timing of student evaluations and final exams
prompt faculty to cave in to student demands. The university needs
to address the issue that finals week is for final exams, not for
early dismissal.
Boutilier said Melton was correct, that students manipulate
the faculty. She said that Keen was also correct, that students
need somebody to complain to about faculty violations of exam
policy; the perception of backlash is real, even if the backlash
is not. Further, many faculty will find ways not to give a final
that is scheduled on Friday of finals week; this policy violation
has been going on for years. The current policy has no teeth. The
university has to decide that there will be ten weeks of
instruction and a week of final exams.
Sewell said that the previous comments were all correct; a
policy is needed because there is not now a finals week. The
policy needs to include a procedure for waivers because extenuating
circumstances do occur. Sewell said that tenth week is the most
difficult on campus, involving classes plus finals plus report due
dates. Students feel that finals week is a breeze after the tenth
week.
Heuvers asked Dobney about possible solutions. Dobney replied
that one solution might be the designation of a single person, such
as the Dean of Students, for seeing that the policy is enforced.
The Dean might also be required to validate excuses for missing a
final examination; this would remove the pressure from the
instructor.
Carstens said that the discussion showed that the 10-week
quarter system was responsible for a lot of the problems of the
tenth week and finals. Nelson said that he is concerned about
discussions that involve changing the chain of command extending
from the faculty through the chair and dean and provost. Altering
this for final exams or any other matter is a serious breach of
protocol; faculty members should not be answerable to another
designated person. Problems should be brought to the attention of
the appropriate supervisor.
Little said that as a student, he would not feel comfortable
going to the department head; an outside person would be
preferable.
******************************************************************
Page 4204 Minutes of Senate Meeting 208 26 Jan 1994
Bulleit asked whether techniques for complaining should be put
into every policy written by the Senate. The enforcement and
complaint procedures should be separate from the policy itself.
Sewell said that perhaps there should be a grievance policy
developed for students. Heuvers said that the policy should be
put into place, and enforcement could be considered as separate
issue. Glime said that the committee should include students in
their discussion of the policy.
The motion to return the policy to the committee PASSED in a
voice vote.
VIII. New Business
Proposal 9-94. Bornhorst asked to amend the agenda to permit
the introduction of Proposal 9-94. Vanek MOVED to amend the agenda
to go on to New Business. Bulleit seconded the motion. The motion
PASSED without dissent in a voice vote.
Bornhorst referred to Proposal 9-94, New Option in Discrete
Mathematics for the MS Degree in Mathematical Sciences [Appendix
G of these minutes], which was attached to the agenda. Bornhorst
stated that the Proposal would be considered for approval at the
next meeting.
IX. Old Business (Part 2 of 2)
E. Proposal 4-94. Bornhorst reminded the Senate of the memo
[Minutes of Meeting 207, p.4199] received from Provost Dobney in
response to the passage of Proposal 4-94, Suspension of the 3-Year-
&-Out Policy. Bornhorst read a memo [Appendix H of these minutes]
received from the chair of the Presidential Commission for Women.
The memo asked that all persons affected by the policy be notified
in writing of the possible exemption under the policy. Bornhorst
said that no action was necessary, but the PCW suggestion could be
considered in any appropriate way.
Dobney said that every temporary person affected by the policy
had received copies of the policy with their contracts. Leifer
asked for the reasons that Dobney had decided not to implement the
suspension. Dobney said that implementing Proposal 4-94 would be
a violation of Board of Control policy. Suspension of the policy
would require Board approval, which would take until the end of the
academic year. This would be unfair to the people involved.
Dobney said he would prefer to work under the exception clause,
which allowed him to make exceptions to the policy upon
recommendation of the dean or director.
Glime said that distribution of the policy with contracts had
occurred about a year ago, and that most of the affected persons
understood that the contracts were not likely to be renewed after
the third year. The PCW memo asks that the affected persons be
notified that the provost is willing to consider exceptions to the
policy. Dobney replied that it would be inappropriate to say that
he would entertain exceptions; no exceptions would be considered
without the support of the chair and deans.
Beske-Diehl said that the memo was asking for a letter
notifying the affected persons that requests for exemptions could
and should be directed to the chairs and deans, not to the provost.
The persons need to realize that if the chairs want them to be
teaching next year, they could be rehired.
Leifer said the problem of de facto tenure needs to be
addressed. Obtaining tenure by means of annual reappointments as
a temporary person is unfair to the individuals who have to earn
tenure the usual way. Sewell said that the PCW agreed to the
provost's handling of the proposal because a Handbook Revision Task
Force is working on revision of the policy, addressing its
inequities and also the problem raised by Leifer. Beske-Diehl
asked whether Leifer's concerns were applicable under Michigan law.
Melton said that the current Tenure Policy included a provision for
tenure with a reappointment for the seventh year. Nelson said that
Leifer's concerns applied only to tenure-track faculty, which are
well-defined. Visiting or temporary appointees could not acquire
tenure after six years.
Dobney said that he had shared Leifer's concerns when he
arrived at MTU and discovered that there were persons on campus
who had been instructors for 15 or 20 years. When asked whether
these persons had de facto tenure, the university attorney had said
that the letter of tender states that the period of appointment
cannot count toward tenure.
Leifer said that the AAUP could take up the case of a person
reappointed for 15 or 20 years. The court case would result at
least in more legal fees for the university attorney. Whether MTU
won or lost in court, the university could be censured by the AAUP.
AAUP censure is not needed in addition to the adverse publicity of
the last few years.
Bulleit said that a Task Force on Handbook Revision will
present recommendations on this issue, with lots of discussion time
available then. The PCW has a logical suggestion which the Senate
should support.
Bulleit MOVED that the Senate support the memo written by Debra
Forsell of the Presidential Commission for Women. Grzelak seconded
the motion.
Sewell MOVED that discussion of the motion be terminated.
Glime seconded the motion. The motion passed without dissent in
a voice vote.
The motion of support PASSED without dissent in a voice vote.
X. Adjournment
Bornhorst called for a motion to adjourn. Carstens MOVED that
the meeting be adjourned. Kawatra seconded the motion. Without
opposition, Bornhorst declared the meeting adjourned at 7:32 pm.
Submitted by Robert Keen
Secretary of the University Senate
.