******************************************************************
Page 4256       Minutes of Senate Meeting 210        16 Feb 1994


         THE SENATE OF MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

                   Minutes of Meeting No. 210
                        16 February 1994


Synopsis:  The Senate
  (1) corrected and approved minutes of Meetings 207 and 208;
  (2) learned Proposals 8-94 and 9-94 had been approved by the
      administration;
  (3) learned the administration had followed the Senate's
      recommendation on Proposal 4-94;
  (4) approved Proposal 11-94 Revision of Faculty Handbook;
  (5) approved an administrative proviso for the acceptance of
      Proposal 16-92 Departmental Governance;
  (6) established an ad hoc Charter Committee;
  (7) discussed budget priorities.
_______________________________________


I. Call to Order
    President Bornhorst called the meeting to order at 5:33 pm on
Wednesday, 16 February 1994, in Room B37 of the Electrical Energy
Resources Center.

II. Roll Call of Members
    Secretary Keen called the roll.  32 senators or alternates were
present.  Senators or alternate representatives from AF ROTC and
Metallurgy were absent.  Absent liaison members: Dean of
Engineering, Dean of Sciences & Arts, USG and Staff Council. The
GSC liaison reported that former liaison Little had been replaced.

III. Introductions and Recognition of Visitors
    Recognized visitors were F. Dobney (Provost), Wm. McGarry
(Treasurer & CFO), and Marcia Goodrich (Tech Topics).

IV. Agenda Adjustments
    Bornhorst referred to the published agenda [Appendix A of these
minutes], and proposed adding a report from the Instructional
Policy Committee.  Bornhorst asked for agenda adjustments from the
floor; there were none.  Leifer moved to approve the adjusted
agenda, and Heyman seconded the motion.  Bornhorst asked for
objections to the motion.  There were no objections, and Bornhorst
declared the agenda approved as adjusted.

V. Approval of Minutes
    Bornhorst called for corrections to the Minutes of Meeting 207
attached to the agenda sent to senators.  Arici and Hubbard
discussed the meaning of a statement of Vice-Provost Lee.  Hubbard
MOVED to approve the minutes as submitted and Glime seconded.  The
motion PASSED without dissent in a voice vote.
    Bornhorst called for corrections to the Minutes of Meeting 208
also attached to the agenda sent to senators.  Corrections were
noted by Glime, Hubbard, Heuvers and Galetto.  Mroz MOVED to
approve the minutes as corrected; Jobst seconded.  The motion
PASSED without dissent in a voice vote.

VI. Report of Senate President
 1.  Proposal 8-94 Teaching and Graduate Assistantships: Creation,
     Funding and Allocation, was approved on February 7 by
     President Tompkins [Appendix B of these minutes].  The Policy
     will be implemented effective Fall quarter 1994.
 2.  Proposal 9-94 New Option in Discrete Mathematics for the M.S.
     Degree in Mathematical Sciences, was submitted to the Provost
     on February 3.  It was approved by President Tompkins on
     February 7 [Appendix C of these minutes].
 3.  The administration has followed the Senate's recommendation
     in acting on Proposal 4-94 Suspension of 3-year-&-out Policy.
     A letter explaining procedures for requesting exceptions to
     the policy has been sent to all affected persons [Appendix D
     of these minutes].
     (Bornhorst called for questions.  There were none, and
     Bornhorst declared Proposal 4-94 completed.)
 4.  Provost Dobney, CFO McGarry, Jim Pickens (Chair, Senate
     Finance Committee), Les Leifer (Chair, Senate Subcommittee on
     Fringe Benefits), Darrell Smith, Eunice Carlson (Chair, Senate
     Subcommittee on Budget Oversight) and Bornhorst (as
     facilitator/observer) met on February 10 to discuss retirement
     benefits.  Provost Dobney agreed to consider approving
     Proposal 2-94.  The Provost also agreed to consider a group
     life insurance plan for retirees if the retiree pays the
     premium.  The Provost said that the lump sum severance plan
     was not acceptable now or in the future; however, he did agree
     to work with the Senate to develop a phased retirement plan
     for faculty.
 5.  The Senate officers met with Provost Dobney on February 15
     and discussed the issues of fringe benefits, departmental
     governance, and budget priorities.  Jim Cross of Longwood
     College has accepted the offer to be Director of Information
     Technology.
 6.  The Senate office is now electronic.  With thanks to the
     Provost's office, the Senate office now has a computer
     attached to the campus network.
         The Senate email address is .  Marilyn
     Hay, Senate Assistant, may be contacted directly at
     .  The Senate office will attempt to distribute
     the next agenda by email.  All senators and alternates will
     continue to get a paper copy.
Bornhorst opened the floor to questions on his report.  There were
none.

VII. Reports from Committees
A. Steering Committee on Academic Faculty Handbook.  Bornhorst
reported that the Committee tentatively has decided that "academic"
is redundant and inappropriate; the new handbook would be better
titled "Faculty Handbook".  The Committee has nearly completed its
initial review, and has sent sections to appropriate groups for
review before Senate action.  Bornhorst said that the section on
Student Integrity and Honesty has been sent to the Instructional
Policy Committee.  He stated that Senate committees working on
handbook revision should proceed promptly.
    Bornhorst asked for Senate input on the handling of inform-
ational, non-policy sections of the handbook, including sections
on the Credit Union, how to get i.d's, etc.  He suggested that the
Senate wait to review or approve the non-policy sections until the
final draft of the handbook.
    Grzelak commented that in the past there were several different
classifications of faculty, which might explain the use of
"Academic Faculty" in the title.  He asked how many different kinds
of faculty would be defined in the new handbook.  Provost Dobney
commented that the handbook is intended to cover both research and
instructional faculty; a definition of faculty will be in the
handbook.  Heuvers asked if professional staff were to be included
in the handbook.  Bornhorst replied they would not be included.
    Mroz asked if non-policy sections needed to be in the handbook.
Bornhorst responded that the non-policy sections were left in the
handbook because it's something given to new faculty before they
even get on campus. Heuvers suggested that the handbook be placed
in a public file on-line so senators can make suggestions or
comments as the handbook is developed.  Keen responded that the
Senate Gopher system should be ready in a couple of weeks, and the
handbook could be included.
    Bornhorst said that since there were no objections, the
informational items would wait until the end of the revision
process before being reviewed by the Senate.


******************************************************************
Page 4257      Minutes of Senate Meeting 210        16 Feb 1994


B. Institutional Planning Committee.  Committee Chair Mullins said
that most of the Committee items would be covered under New
Business.  The Committee will soon make recommendations on a campus
building smoking policy.  The Code of Ethics section of the Faculty
Handbook will be discussed at the Committee's next meeting.  The
Committee has also been asked to supply a Senate representative for
the Wellness Committee; Mullins called for volunteers.
    Tuition Policy at Michigan Tech has been the principal item of
Committee business, including issues of tiered tuition and the
Exceptional Student Tuition Program.  The Exceptional Student
Tuition Program will be considered under New Business.
    Bornhorst called for questions; there were none.

C. Finance Committee.  Committee Chair Pickens said that the
Committee recently had a lively discussion about the meeting
mentioned in the president's report.  The Committee had voted to
bring to the Senate floor those fringe benefit proposals not likely
to receive administrative approval.  A timeframe for this had not
been decided.
    Leifer said the Committee does want to move forward with
Proposal 2-94 Supplemental Health Care Program.  Bringing it to
the floor now would allow the proposal to be included in this
year's budget.  Dobney commented that he was not opposed to having
Proposal 2-94 and the retirement-related proposals brought to him
separately.  Proposal 2-94 has some possibility of being funded in
the current regular budgeting process.  The timing is not critical
on the other two proposals that the Committee insists on bringing
forward; they will not fit into the budget process because they are
not affordable.
    Grzelak asked whether the proposal for a lump sum retirement
payment differed from the proposal for a 2% annuity at retirement.
Bornhorst responded that these were two versions of the same
proposal, neither of which were acceptable to the administration.
    Bornhorst opened the floor to further questions.  There were
none.

D. Instructional Policy Committee.  Committee Chair Heuvers
distributed copies of a memo from Fynewever [Appendix E of these
minutes] about shifting the evening exam times, and a memo from
Ouilette [Appendix F of these minutes] regarding grade summaries
required by Proposal 4-76.  Heuvers asked senators to provide him
with feedback from the departments on these issues.
    Heuvers said that the Committee will probably recommend that
Proposal 4-76 be dropped unless favorable comments are received.
    Heuvers stated that Rick DeVisch, the USG liaison, has
requested all Senators to send the Committee information about
accreditation required in each of the academic degree departments.
DeVisch said that the information will be used in a study of
academic calendars and how requirements are met at other schools.
    Leifer asked in which quarter the Athletic Department wanted
to begin the new times for evening exams.  Fynewever said that the
policy should be changed before the Fall quarter.  Bornhorst said
he hoped a new final exam and evening exam policy could be brought
to the Senate before the end of the year.
    Bornhorst opened the floor to further questions.  There were
none.

VIII.  Old Business (Part 1 of 2 parts)
A. Proposal 11-94 Revision of Faculty Handbook.  Bornhorst noted
that the proposal was attached to the agenda, and that copies of
the proposal had been distributed at the previous meeting [Minutes,
p.4226].
    Bornhorst said that 11-94 is the first proposal involving the
new Faculty Handbook, and that it would set up the framework for
future revisions of the Handbook.  The last sentence in the
proposal is designed to insure that unilateral changes in the
Faculty Handbook cannot be made in the future.
    Heyman MOVED that Proposal 11-94 be approved.  Grzelak seconded
the motion.  Bornhorst asked for objections to the voting units
stated on the proposal.  There were none.  Bornhorst declared the
voting units would stand as given, and opened the floor for
discussion of Proposal 11-94.
    Sewell said that she had never seen the Faculty Handbook but
assumed that there were some issues such as a Code of Ethics that
involved professional staff as well as faculty.  She asked if it
was appropriate that a section for professional staff be included
in the Handbook.  Heuvers stated that he thought it might be
appropriate since the Senate does have professional representation.
    Bornhorst said that inclusion of professional staff issues
would complicate the Faculty Handbook greatly, and he suggested
that a separate handbook for professional staff might be
appropriate.  Dobney said that the waters would be muddied
considerably if Senate representation were the criterion for being
included in the Faculty Handbook.  The Faculty Handbook should be
for faculty.  If something similar is needed for professional staff
or for staff in general, it might be developed with Human
Resources.  Heuvers said the Senate could look at the matter also
because the Senate does have professional staff representation.
    Bornhorst called for further discussion.  There was none.
Proposal 11-94 PASSED without dissent in a voice vote.

B. Proposal 16-92 Departmental Governance.  Bornhorst said that
departmental governance was one of the most important to be
addressed by the Senate this year, and made the following
statement:
    "It was apparent soon after approval and before formal
submission to the administration that technical difficulties
existed with the proposal.  Upon presentation to the Deans &
Directors and to the Academic Forum (consisting of the Department
Heads/Chairs and some Deans and Directors) by the Provost, more
technical difficulties were apparent.
    "Thus, I entered discussions with Provost Dobney using three
guiding principles: (1) the philosophical intent of Proposal 16-92
on Departmental Governance must be maintained; (2) the proposal
could be strengthened but could not be weakened; and, (3)
administration concerns needed to be addressed in the framework of
shared governance.  The Provost and I met privately on several
occasions and agreed to a possible amendment for the proposal.  The
Provost asked that I assemble a group of senators to attend the
Academic Forum to hear the administration concerns.  Don Beck, Bill
Bulleit, Janice Glime, Davis Hubbard, Glen Mroz and myself attended
the Academic Forum on Tuesday, February 8th, last week.  At that
time the Provost put forward the potential amendment as part of the
discussion.  The amendment satisfied the administration concerns.
    "On February 15, 1994, President Tompkins approved Senate
Proposal 16-92 with the proviso that Departmental Charters will be
considered as though they are Senate proposals which, by definition
in the Senate constitution, require approval of the President.
    "I believe that (1) the philosophical intent of Proposal 16-92
is maintained; (2) the proposal is strengthened by making
Departmental Charters official university policy and accepted by
the administration; and, (3) administration concerns are addressed.
I can assure you that the entire process was in the spirit of
shared governance.
    "I recommend that the Senate accept the proviso.  If an impasse
occurs between a department and the administration the charter can
be brought forward to the Senate as a proposal.  The Senate can
then mediate and, if it so chooses, can send forward the charter
to the administration as a Senate Proposal.  If then rejected by
the administration, we can then send it forward to the Board of
Control under our constitutional authority since it would fall
under List A.  I think a system of checks and balances exists as
it should in shared governance."
    Bornhorst distributed copies of a memo [Appendix G of these
minutes] from the Provost to the President recommending


******************************************************************
Page 4258      Minutes of Senate Meeting 210        16 Feb 1994


acceptance of Proposal 16-92.
    Bornhorst called for discussion.  Bradley asked if the proposal
applied to the research institutes.  Bornhorst said that this was
unclear.  McKimpson said that the proposal did cover the
institutes, but that some parts of the guidelines clearly did not
apply to the institutes.  The institutes were expected to write
charters, but these might look very different from charters from
academic departments.  Bornhorst said that the ROTC departments
were in the same situation.
    Leifer noted that "though" was misspelled in the memo.  Born-
horst asked for a motion to accept the proviso as stated in the
memo.
    Mroz MOVED that the Senate accept the proviso regarding
Proposal 16-92 given in the memo from the provost and approved by
President Tompkins.  Beck seconded the motion.  Bornhorst
recommended that the motion be voted upon by the full Senate, and
called for objections to the recommendation.  There were no
objections.  Bornhorst called for discussion of the motion.
    Bradley asked whether the guidelines formed part of the
proposal.  Mullins said that the guidelines only accompanied the
proposal, and were not part of it.  Bornhorst said that only the
proposal had been accepted, not the guidelines.
    Heuvers said that the proviso is consistent with the proposal
and even strengthens it.  Bornhorst called for further discussion.
There was none.  The motion to accept the proviso PASSED 27-0 in
a show-of-hands vote.
    Bornhorst distributed copies [Appendix H of these minutes] of
the transmittal memo for Proposal 16-92 from himself to the
Provost, and asked the Senate to particularly note the fifth
paragraph with the statement that "The Senate will interpret
`adoption' to be any assenting Board action."  Bornhorst said
current plans are for the Departmental Governance Proposal to be
presented on March 18 to the Board of Control.  Bornhorst is to
make the presentation as an agenda item for information and
discussion.  Lack of objection by the Board of Control will be
interpreted as assenting action and thus adoption.
    Beck noted that the date on the memo should be 1994, not 1993.
Leifer asked why Bornhorst had taken this approach to Board
approval.  Bornhorst said that it was a question of the Board
micro-managing the university; adoption of the proposal should be
done at the level of the administration.  Leifer asked why the
Board was involved.  Bornhorst replied that the requirement for
Board approval was in the text of the proposal.
    Bornhorst summarized parts of a email message from D. Beck,
written after the meeting with the Academic Forum.  "The Senate
must make sure that a real improvement in university governance
emerges from the proposal.  (1) Each senator should make it their
job to be current about their unit's progress towards writing a
charter, and should be prepared to act as a goad.  Periodically
each senator should report back to the appropriate Senate committee
as to their unit's progress.  (2) The Senate should provide
information flow to the departmental charter committees;
specifically, sample charters collected from outside sources should
be made available.  (3) The Senate should stimulate interaction of
charter committees, particularly those within a college, to come
up with good, reasonably uniform charters.  Thus, I recommend that
the Senate create a new standing committee called the Charter
Committee.  Its responsibility will be `requirements and criteria
for unit charters for each academic degree-granting department or
course-offering unit'.  This is directly out of the constitution,
but is yet to be assigned to any other standing committee."
    Bornhorst said that charters were the only "A-list"
responsibility that had no designated committee.  He called for a
motion to establish a standing Charter Committee.
    Heuvers MOVED that the Senate establish a standing Charter
Committee to have responsibility for the requirements and criteria
for unit charters for each academic degree-granting department or
course-offering unit.  Huang and Beck seconded the motion.
Bornhorst called for discussion.
    Bulleit asked why the committee had to be a standing committee,
because its work would be concluded at the end of a year.
Bornhorst replied that unit charters can be revised at any time.
Heuvers said that the committee might mediate disputes that arise
during charter writing.  Brokaw said that a big workload would
exist only initially.  The duties might be given to another
committee to avoid proliferating committees.  Bornhorst said that
the committee might wish also to consider college governance, which
remains from the old faculty governance list of issues.  Mullins
said that forming an ad hoc committee would be a better solution
than giving the problem to a current committee.  Bulleit said that
an ad hoc committee would be preferable for the first year; the
followup work of altering charters could be assigned to a current
standing committee.
    Bulleit MOVED to amend the motion to establish the Charter
Committee as an ad hoc committee.  Mullins seconded the motion.
Bornhorst called for discussion on the amendment.  There was none.
The motion to amend PASSED with no dissent in a voice vote.
    The motion to establish an ad hoc committee PASSED with no
dissent in a voice vote.
    Bornhorst recommended the committee members: Beck (interim
chair), Bulleit, Glime, Mroz, and Hubbard.  Bulleit asked to be
removed based on his chairing the Academic Policy Committee.
Bornhorst said the membership of the committee could be discussed
at a later date; the committee would have no work until after March
18th.

    Bornhorst asked for a motion to alter the agenda to consider
next Proposal 14-94, an item of New Business.  Heuvers MOVED to
consider Proposal 14-94 as the next item of business.  Sewell
seconded the motion.  Bornhorst asked for objections to the motion.
There were none, and the motion was declared approved.

IX. New Business
A. Proposal 14-94 Recommendation on ESTR.  Bornhorst distributed
copies of Proposal 14-94 [Appendix I of these minutes] and copies
of background material [Appendix J of these minutes].  Bornhorst
introduced Tim Malette to discuss Proposal 14-94 Recommendation on
Exceptional Student Tuition Rates.
    Malette said that about a year ago the Provost had asked him
to set up an administrative committee to review tuition policies
and rates.  The Exceptional Student Tuition Rate program seemed to
be a policy that could be examined separately, and was examined
first.  Malette reviewed the development of the policy and
described the increase in enrollment from the states affected by
the ESTR program [Appendix J, p.1-3].  He then described the
current numbers of participants in the program, both for specific
states, and for alumni children [Appendix J, p.4-5].
    Heyman noted that numbers of nonresident alumni children have
little impact on the program.  Leifer asked whether the data were
confined to undergraduates.  Malette said it included all students.
Heuvers asked if the support were extended for the full four years.
Malette responded that there is currently no limit to the number
of years.
    Malette said the proposed changes in the program were developed
by an administrative committee, and sent to the Provost.  The
Provost forwarded the recommendations to the Institutional Planning
Committee for Senate input.  Malette said that Senators and others
should send their comments and recommendations to the Senate
Institutional Planning Committee.
     Malette reviewed the provisions of Proposal 14-94.  For Item
2 [Appendix I], Malette said that Student Marketing and Admissions
are recommending the starting date be 1996 so there is time to
communicate to other states the changes in the policy. The
rationale for requiring a 2.50 CGPA (item 3a) is that this is the
minimum now for scholarship support.
    Heuvers asked whether the reason for eliminating the
requirement for a 3.25 CGPA (item 3c) was to admit more of these
students.  Malette replied that it was to avert problems with
students out of state students who enroll expecting easily to earn


******************************************************************
Page 4259       Minutes of Senate Meeting 210        16 Feb 1994


a 3.25.  Heuvers asked about some provision for students that might
obtain the 3.25.  Malette responded that those students would
continue at the non-resident rate; however, the scholarship
committee would look closely at those students who do well.
Mullins said that the Institutional Planning Committee had
discussed the possibility of students loading up on easy courses
for the first two quarters to bump up their CGPA to qualify for the
program.  Heuvers asked if this had been a problem in the past.
Malette replied that some students had very unusual class
schedules.  Mullins said it was worth several thousand dollars to
the student.
    Arici asked why these students are given five years to graduate
if they are exceptional.  Malette responded that given the average
number of terms for graduation, five seemed more appropriate than
four.  It also avoided problems of appeals, exceptions and
requests.  Arici said it sent a wrong message, by saying that we
have a four year program but expect graduation to take longer.
Malette said there had been no complaints like this when financial
aid was terminated, but the point may be true.
    Brokaw asked why the program was restricted to specific states.
Malette said that removing this restriction was being considered
as a possibility.  Glime asked if the state funding formula depends
on a student being a Michigan resident.  Dobney replied that it
did not.  Grzelak asked if other schools had similar programs.
Malette responded that other schools have added these programs,
but not too many.  The program is not reciprocal, because nothing
is exchanged with another state or school.
    Heyman asked whether any studies had shown that eliminating
this program might reduce out-of-state enrollment.  The charts seem
to indicate that overall out-of-state enrollments had increased,
not just from the ESTR states.  Malette replied that the
international enrollment had increased significantly.  However,
students do enroll paying the non-resident rate, and that group is
about the same size as before the program began.  Heyman asked if
Enrollment Management assumed that MTU could not make up for lost
students if this program was terminated, by obtaining more students
from Michigan.  Malette said it would be difficult to make up the
number from Michigan.  Galetto commented that the question is also
maintaining quality of the students.
    Sewell said that part of the increase was attributable to
basing an admissions counselor in Wisconsin.  Enrollments from
Minnesota did not increase until there was an admissions counselor
based there.  Galetto stated that the admissions office has
visitation in those states, but not a counselor based there.
Malette said that there was a direct mailing to schools in
Wisconsin and Minnesota when the program first started, but not to
Illinois and Ontario when these were added.  Malette said there was
great potential to increase the number of students if we wanted to
do that.
    Mroz asked if the ESTR is automatic if the student meets the
standards.  Malette said it was.  Mroz asked if the students were
still eligible for need-based aid beyond the ESTR program.  Malette
said they were.
    Boutilier stated that other schools used to have similar
programs in the 70s.  Galetto said that Lake Superior State has a
program with Ontario, and Eastern Michigan has a program with Ohio;
other institutions have similar programs.
    Heyman asked if the two committees had looked at the ESTR in
a strategic way.  For example, emphasizing the program to sell it
more widely to make up for the expected decline of 150 students,
versus thinking that MTU is already overloaded in terms of numbers
of undergraduates per faculty member and that more people should
not be encouraged to enroll?  Malette said that there was potential
for more students from other states, with the most enrollment from
the closest states.  Some enrollment growth is expected from
marketing in those areas.
    Heyman asked if marketing is planned in those areas.  Galetto
said there was definite marketing potential in the program.
Students in the ESTR Program could be recruited into
undersubscribed programs at MTU.  Heuvers said the ESTR Program was
an excellent way to improve and maintain the quality of the
university.
    Dobney said the need to change the current program is the
political perception in Lansing that too many out-of-state students
may be attending at the in-state rate, so that Michigan taxpayers
are subsidizing these students.  The proposal is a statement that
not all non-resident students should pay non-resident tuition, that
a lower rate should be offered to encourage these qualified
students to come, but will still differentiate them from Michigan
residents.  The proposal is politically advisable, and will still
attract top students.  The university's location requires hard work
to attract good students.  The proposal also works to help MTU
become more than just a regional university.
    Jobst said he supported opening the program to any other
states.  Mroz asked if the proposed ESTR of $4,344 is competitive
with in-state tuition of universities in the program states.
Galetto responded that it probably was better than competitive, but
it should be looked at closer.  Mullins said that it was comparable
to the in-state tuition at the Univ of Michigan.
    Bornhorst said that the proposal would be voted on at the next
meeting.  The proposal is a recommendation only, not requiring
administrative action.  It provides additional support for an
administrative request to the Board to change Board policy.
Malette said that related topics were listed on the last page of
the handout [Appendix J, p.8), and asked that comments on these be
sent to the Institutional Planning Committee.

X. Old Business (Part 2 of 2 parts)
C. Discussion of Budget Priorities.  Bornhorst said that the Senate
officers and Provost had agreed that a Senate discussion of budget
priorities would be useful at the scale discussed by Heyman and
Roblee at the previous meeting.  Bornhorst read excerpts from a
newspaper article provided by the Provost from the Western Michigan
News [Appendix K of these minutes].  Bornhorst noted that Carnegie
status can be important in formula funding, so that there is some
political logic behind having improved graduate enrollment at MTU.
Vice-President Tahtinen has emphasized that MTU has high-cost
engineering and science programs compared to the lower cost
programs at Western Michigan, doctoral programs, etc.
    Bornhorst opened the floor for discussion, and asked first for
ideas about whether the discussion should be general or be directed
toward specific recommendations.
    Heyman stated that the highest priority should be adding new
faculty, particularly junior faculty.  This is important for
support of both the undergraduate and the graduate levels because
faculty advise those students and do the research projects that
support students.  In terms of research funding hiring younger
faculty is the best long-term investment.
    Beck said that support for newly-hired faculty must be funded.
Faculty could be doing more if they were better supported.  Funds
in addition to salary should be set aside to assure the new person
can be efficient.  Dobney asked whether Beck was talking about RAs
or equipment or laboratories.  Beck replied that he was talking
about the whole mix of necessary support.  Different things come
up at different times.  Mullins said that support was how good
faculty are attracted.
    Mullins said that investing in faculty and having the means to
attract them well is the key to everything.  Bornhorst asked
Mullins if he felt new faculty were more important than more TAs,
etc. Mullins said that this was his view.
    Grzelak said that faculty were needed to supervise graduate
students.  Graduate students cannot be simply added, with the
expectation that faculty can pick them all up.  Just one graduate
student requires a lot of faculty time.  More faculty are needed
before more graduate students are accepted.
    Irish said that parents of students in research universities
are increasingly concerned about contact with good, full-time
faculty as opposed to a lot of contact with graduate students.  An


******************************************************************
Page 4260       Minutes of Senate Meeting 210        16 Feb 1994


investment in good, junior faculty would be a strong investment
for the future.  DeVisch said that as an undergraduate, he thought
additional junior faculty would take some of the load off the
research faculty.  Some research faculty have little time to spend
with undergraduate students.  Class size would also be reduced with
more faculty.
    Heyman said that his statement had been based on the
subdivision of a very small pool of money.  Hiring of junior
faculty should be the first priority.  While increased support for
graduate students would be ideal, the cutting edge in graduate
support comes from younger faculty.  Heuvers said that senior
faculty are needed to help the junior faculty develop.  Heyman said
he was skeptical of a strategy based on buying research superstars.
It can be successful but also can lead to some spectacular
failures.
    Grzelak said that increased numbers of faculty would benefit
undergraduates.  The graduate program has grown despite a constant
faculty number by increasing class sizes.  Increasing faculty
numbers would allow class sizes to decline to more reasonable
levels.  Bulleit said that increasing faculty numbers was
necessary, but that new faculty should go into already strong
programs, and not into increasing new programs.
    Galetto said that the biggest concern of students on this
campus is availability of classes and courses.  Faculty must be
added both in research and teaching side to get some type of
balance.  Undergraduates have problems getting courses they need
and want; they have problems getting through programs in four
years.
    Heuvers said that another drastic need is classroom space.
Galetto said there would be problems with office space for new
faculty.  Glime said that different departments might have
different priorities; in some departments increased graduate
support would provide for a critical mass of graduate students and
it also provide for undergraduates by increasing lab sections.
    Mullins responded that buying a lot of graduate students is
fairly expensive.  If the right faculty members are brought in,
however, they will support these graduate students.  Instead of
being an economic drag the graduate students would add a net
benefit in terms of the amount of money returned to the university.
Graduate students should not be supported in preference to hiring
new faculty.
    Arici asked about the source of the $500K for the 20 new
graduate fellowships announced by Vice-Provost Lee.  Dobney replied
that the fellowships had been budgeted already.  They either were
fellowships that had not yet been provided to anyone or they were
fellowships vacated by graduating students.  Beck said that the
program might result in a shifting of funds with no net increase
in graduate students.  Dobney said that the program is intended to
increase graduation rates of PhDs, not to increase graduate
enrollment.  The goal is to reach Doctoral I status before having
a lot of PhD students becomes a political liability.
    Heyman said that the budget requests [Appendix L of these
minutes] shows $375K for graduate program development, and asked
if this could be made more specific.  Dobney replied that Vice-
Provost Lee had provided a proposal for invigorating research with
requests for funding which amounted to $375K.  Heyman asked if
these fund were different from the Research Excellence Fund, and
Dobney replied that they were.
    Beck said that too much time is spent going to committee
meetings, and that funds for CAs (committee assistants) are needed.
Bulleit said there has been a lot of seed money provided for
research, but much of it has been wasted for lack of time for
follow up.  More faculty may also solve the problem.
    Dobney said that the cost of shared governance is attending
more committee meetings.  Beck replied that he based his proposal
on experiences prior to this year, and that one can only imagine
what will happen after this year.  Dobney said that a return to
autocracy was always an option, but was not his preference.
    Glime asked Dobney to comment on the TQE budget.  Dobney
replied that the current budget is in the base budget, and includes
only one person's salary and some funds for training, travel, etc.
McGarry said some one-time funding had been allocated for 3M
participation was being brought back into the reallocation pool.
    Leifer said that he had listened patiently to the comments,
that money could be spent on a lot of things, and that it was
important to learn about management.  From other universities'
budgets one could learn how they have money available for good
salary raises, good benefits, and modest graduate programs.  Fancy
names like Carnegie I and Doctoral I create problems, and competing
with heavily-endowed universities is not possible.  Leifer said
that during his tenure at MTU, enrollment had not doubled from
3700, but that the number of administrators had increased
exponentially.  Responsible ways of conducting a graduate program
include GTAs to meet teaching needs, and GRAs supported by external
funds.  Developing a graduate program otherwise, without a $500M
endowment, is questionable.  It is important to do well the things
we can afford to do.
    Heyman asked Leifer to be more specific about administrative
waste.  Leifer noted some problems with administrative perceptions
of retirement benefit proposals, but noted that the administration
had gone on "retreats" to fancy resort areas.  He stated that "we
are suffering financially" statements should include
administrators.  Shared governance should include shared hard
times.
    Bornhorst said it was clear from Leifer's statement that
retirement programs needed to be considered on the list of
priorities.  Leifer said that good raises and good benefits should
also be there.  Heyman said that vehicle allowances and retreats
probably had little impact on the overall budget, but they did
detract from the legitimacy of the budgeting process.  Filer said
that some of the other schools did support their faculty well, but
there were often news items about their faculty cutbacks.
    Mullins said that the endowment was small, and needed to be
emphasized in budgeting.  Heuvers said that he had not seen any
notice of MTU's endowments in a recent listing by the Chronicle of
Higher Education.  McGarry said that MTU should have been listed.
The value of the endowment that predates the Michigan Tech Fund is
$1.4M; the Fund value is about $25M, and earned 19 percent last
year.
    Sewell asked whether the discussion should be general or
specific about the budget.  Bornhorst said that it should be kept
above the level of departments and colleges to avoid conflicts of
interest.  He noted that salary had not been mentioned, perhaps
because the Provost was on record as favoring salary increases.
Dobney said that salary increase was his highest priority.
    Sewell asked whether the topic of "Best Buy" was reviewed
regularly.  Dobney said that the classification was a two-edged
sword, and this was recognized by the administration.

XI.  Adjournment
    Bornhorst called for a motion to adjourn.  Heyman MOVED that
the meeting be adjourned.  Many senators seconded the motion.  The
motion PASSED without dissent in a voice vote.  Bornhorst declared
the meeting adjourned at 7:29 pm.



Submitted by Robert Keen
Secretary of the University Senate
.