******************************************************************
Page 4349 Minutes of Senate Meeting 212 23 Mar 1994
THE SENATE OF MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
Minutes of Meeting No. 212
23 March 1994
Synopsis: The Senate
(1) corrected and approved minutes of Meeting 211;
(2) learned that the administration had formally rejected
Proposal 1-92 Parts B & C;
(3) learned that Proposal 16-92 had been approved by the
Board of Control;
(4) learned that there were correctable administrative
problems with implementing Proposal 8-94 Creation,
Funding & Allocation of GAs & RAs;
(5) approved Proposal 12-94 Plant Sciences Option;
(6) amended and approved Proposal 14-94 Recommendation on
ESTR Program;
(7) revised Section B.2 of the Bylaws to include the Fine
Arts Dept;
(8) received a retirement benefits proposal from the adminis-
tration;
(9) received Proposal 16-94 Smoke-Free Campus.
_______________________________________
I. Call to Order
President Bornhorst called the meeting to order at 5:31 pm on
Wednesday, 23 March 1994, in Room B37 of the Electrical Energy
Resources Center.
II. Roll Call of Members
Secretary Keen called the roll. 28 senators or alternates were
present. Present as non-elected representatives: J. Pilling for
Metallurgy, S. Gruenberg for KRC, and G. Neumann for Non-Academic
Group 3. Senators or alternate representatives from AF ROTC, and
IMP were absent. Absent liaison members: Dean of Engineering, USG,
GSC and Staff Council.
III. Introductions and Recognition of Visitors
Recognized visitors were E. Carlson (BL), I. Cheney (Human
Resources), F. Dobney (Exec. VP & Provost), M. Goodrich (Tech
Topics), G. Lewis (MA), and D. Reed (FR).
IV. Agenda Adjustments
Bornhorst referred to the published agenda [Appendix A of these
minutes], and proposed adding reports from the Affirmative Action
Officer Search Committee and the Faculty Handbook Steering
Committee. He asked for agenda adjustments from the floor; there
were none. Vanek MOVED to approve the 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 noted that the minutes of Meeting 211 were delayed
in being circulated to senators, and asked for requests to defer
corrections. There were none, and Bornhorst called for correc-
tions. Grzelak noted several typographical errors. Arici MOVED
to approve the corrected minutes. Grzelak seconded the motion,
which PASSED without dissent in a voice vote.
VI. Report of Senate President
1. On March 15, a lunch discussion with President Tompkins
covered topics including shared governance.
2. On March 22 the administration sent to the Senate a formal
rejection of Senate Proposal 1-92, Parts B and C [Appendix B
of these minutes]. Action on this proposal is now finished.
3. On March 22, Provost Dobney, D. Lassila (Provost's Office),
E. Horsch (Human Resources), I. Cheney (Human Resources), M.
Abbott (Finance Office), J. Pickens (FR), L. Leifer (CH), D.
Thayer (MY), E. Carlson (BL), and Bornhorst met to discuss an
optional retirement furlough. Results of the meeting will be
covered in New Business.
4. A memo from Vice-Provost and Dean of the Graduate School Lee
[Appendix C of these minutes] describes changes in the make-
up of the Graduate Council. The council will be made up of
one representative from each graduate degree-granting program
plus an ex officio member from the Senate. The memo also
notes that the Council's role is that of an advisory body to
the Graduate Dean, and not a policy-making body.
5. Dean of the Graduate School Lee has allocated 20 GA positions
[Appendix D of these minutes].
6. On March 22 the Senate officers met with the Provost and
discussed departmental governance, GA/TAs, fringe benefits,
draft policy on administrator evaluation, conflict of
interest, co-ordination of wellness programs, and the need for
a Professional Staff Handbook.
7. A proposal has been received for a non-departmental PhD
program in computational science and engineering as a new
option of the existing PhD in Engineering. The proposal will
go to the Curricular Policy Committee for review.
8. The Provost has discharged the Space Committee. A new Space
Committee has been created with membership of the Chief
Financial Officer (chair), Provost, Dean of Engineering, Dean
of S&A, Dir of Facilities Mgt, Dir of Enrollment Mgt, and the
Senate President as the Senate representative.
(Bornhorst asked for objections to his serving as the
Senate representative. There were none. Leifer asked what
would be the Committee's function. Dobney said that the
Committee would evaluate use of space, reassign space, and
recommend the assignment of new space.)
Bornhorst opened the floor to questions on his report. There were
no questions.
VII. Committee Reports
A. Affirmative Action Officer Search Committee. Bornhorst noted
that the Senate had two representatives on the Committee: S. Beske-
Diehl (GE) and G. Lewis (MA). Bornhorst introduced Lewis for the
report. Lewis distributed a job description for the position of
Affirmative Action Officer [Appendix E of these minutes], and noted
that it contained some changes from the position description that
had been distributed to senators earlier in the week. Lewis said
that questions, comments and suggestions should be sent to himself
or to Beske-Diehl.
Arici asked who the current AAO was. Lewis replied that S.
Kauppi is serving as interim AAO. Glime asked whether legal
counsel would be available for the office, and if this were part
of the position description. Lewis said that if the hired person
were a lawyer, there would be no need for another lawyer. If the
person were not a lawyer, the Committee now thinks that a list of
local lawyers would be available to the AAO. Sewell commented that
another option was for MTU to have a lawyer available. Heuvers
said that S. Kauppi had agreed to serve for only one year.
B. Board of Control Relations Committee. As Committee Chair,
Bornhorst reported that in the morning sessions of the March 18
meeting of the Board, B. Seely had reported on development of a
conflict of interest policy. Bornhorst said his own presentation
on departmental governance had followed Seely's.
In the afternoon session the Board acted on a draft budget,
minor degree title changes, approval of an external auditor. The
Senate was credited by CFO McGarry for its involvement in financial
issues.
Bornhorst called for questions. There were none.
C. Research Policy Committee. Bornhorst introduced Committee
member D. Reed (FR), who reported in the absence of Committee Chair
McKimpson. Reed said that he would report on fringe
******************************************************************
Page 4350 Minutes of Senate Meeting 212 23 Mar 1994
benefit rates charged by the university on externally funded
grants, and that he had served as chair of the subcommittee
examining the rates (Appendix F of these minutes).
Reed said these rates affect MTU in competition for funds, and
in the budgeting of grant monies. The committee assumed that rates
should reflect actual benefits received by employees. Particular
issues were (1) appropriate summer rates for 9-mo faculty, rates
for 9-mo faculty and grad students in research institutes, and
rates for research staff housed in academic departments; (2)
refusal of sponsoring agencies to fund tuition remission as a
fringe benefit for grad students; (3) policy implications of the
rates' impact on ability of MTU to reach research goals.
Reed said that the subcommittee had discussed the problems with
CFO McGarry and with Vice-Provost for Research Lee. Some
adjustments: 9-mo faculty summer rates will be reduced from 38% to
25%; there will be a move to position-based rates in January 1995;
grad student fringe benefits may be cost shared by the university
rather than departments, on a individual-case basis.
Arici asked about the meaning of position-based rates. Reed
replied that currently grad students rates in research institutes
are 46%, and 38% in academic departments. Position-based rates
would be uniform.
Beck said that the benefits that were paid for with the 25%
should be more widely publicized, and asked what the faculty got
for the 25% rate in the summer. Cheney replied that it covered
TIAA/CREF, some Social Security, increased life insurance, and
workers compensation.
Bornhorst thanked Reed for his presentation.
D. Faculty Handbook Steering Committee. Bornhorst reported the
Committee continued to hold weekly meetings. Some of the text had
been assembled, and more policy statements had been sent to Senate
committees. The revision process obviously will continue through
the Fall Quarter, although several policies may be reviewed before
the end of Spring Quarter. The Committee has also discussed the
need for a Professional Staff Handbook, and would support the
concept of its development.
VIII. Old Business
A. Proposal 16-92 Departmental Governance. Bornhorst said the
Board of Control had discussed departmental governance at its
meeting on March 18. Bornhorst said that he and the other Senators
attending the meeting thought the Board's feedback was positive.
Accordingly, their actions were assenting actions; thus, according
to the agreement between the Provost and the Senate President, the
proposal has been accepted by the Board. Bornhorst asked Dobney
to comment on the issue.
Dobney said that he had discussed the issue of departmental
governance with a subcommittee of the Board prior to the meeting.
They appeared to support departmental governance, with the proviso
that had been attached concerning presidential approval of the
charters.
Bornhorst asked for objections to considering the proposal
finalized. There were none, and Bornhorst declared that Proposal
16-92 was finalized and approved.
Beck said that President Tompkins had told the Board that the
first few charters would be examined carefully. Hubbard asked
about the time-line for writing charters. Bornhorst said that the
Senate officers had discussed this with the Provost on March 22.
The logical deadline for charter completion was the end of Spring
Quarter of the next academic year, including presidential review.
Mroz asked whether the deadline included Presidential approval.
Bornhorst said that it should at least be in the President's hands
by that time.
Filer asked how departments would be notified. Beck said the
ad hoc Committee on Charters would notify departments. Bornhorst
noted that the proposal was now university policy, and the
administration should help with the establishment of charters. A
list of charter requirements should be sent to the departments.
B. Proposal 8-94 GAs & TAs. Bornhorst said that some problems had
arisen in allocating GAs and TAs this first year, and asked Dobney
for comments. Dobney said that the policy had been put in place
late in the year, and that the distribution of the TAs had been put
in the Deans' hands. The distribution of GAs had taken place
before that of TAs. Distribution of TAs by the deans based on
knowledge of GA distribution defeats the policy's distinction
between GAs and TAs. Dobney said this was an administrative
problem, and a procedure would be developed for the next year to
assure that TAs would be allocated before GAs are announced.
Leifer said that the original discussions in the Senate
included estimates of 126 GTAs which were to be apportioned as 74
TAs and 52 GAs. Bornhorst said that the number of 126 was correct,
but the 74/52 apportioning was only the recommendation of the
Graduate Council subcommittee. Leifer asked what the final
distribution was. Dobney said it was 133 TAs and 20 GAs. Leifer
inquired about the funding of the increased total number. Dobney
said that, as announced previously, 16 new GAs had been derived
from reallocating money within the administration. Eleven other
positions had been temporarily funded for at least two years, and
their funding had been formalized, giving the total of 27
additional positions.
Leifer asked whether the number would be frozen at that level,
because the Senate had not voted for any funding recommendations.
Bornhorst said that the Senate vote had covered only the concept
of GAs and TAs.
Bornhorst asked for further comments. There were none.
C. Proposal 12-94 Plant Sciences Option for the BS in Biological
Sciences. Glime MOVED to approve Proposal 12-94 (Minutes, p.4301).
Bulleit seconded the motion. Bornhorst called for discussion.
Arici said that he served on the Curriculum Committee, and that the
proposal was excellent. Bornhorst called for further discussion.
There was none. The motion PASSED without dissent in a voice vote.
D. Proposal 14-94 Recommendation on ESTR. Bornhorst said that
discussion of this proposal had been halted when the previous
meeting had been adjourned. Mroz MOVED to take up consideration
of the proposal. Grzelak seconded the motion. Bornhorst called
for discussion. There was none, and the motion PASSED without
dissent in a voice vote. Bornhorst called for discussion.
Grzelak noted that the proposal would include the children of
alumni who are MTU graduates. He asked whether this would include
the children of persons who attended Michigan Tech but did not
graduate. Dobney noted that Dr. Ken Rowe, a member of the Board
of Control, had attended MTU but had not graduated before going on
to medical school, and yet considered himself an alumnus. Neumann
said that there was a possibility of persons paying for one credit
and qualifying their children for the program.
Mroz said that opening the program to more than the adjacent
states would allow the university to think beyond regional
boundaries.
Leifer said that the issue of the 1-credit person was weird in
the extreme, and could be discounted. Grzelak said the problem
might arise with persons having children of college age; taking one
credit would make their children eligible. Boutilier said that she
knew two persons who took courses only as local high-school
students, and who get alumni mail now. She said she did not know
where to make the cut-off, but it seemed inappropriate to allow a
person to take one course in order to qualify for a large reduction
in fees.
Brokaw said that there was little cost to the university of
allowing the children of non-graduating persons to qualify. The
downside was minimal. Mullins said that the percentage of students
qualifying for the ESTR program as children of alumni was small.
******************************************************************
Page 4351 Minutes of Senate Meeting 212 23 Mar 1994
Pilling asked whether the in/out-of-state distinction might be
dropped in favor of a flat rate for tuition. Mullins said the
Michigan legislature would not like the idea.
Sewell asked whether more staff would have to be hired for
marketing and mailing if the program were expanded to all 50
states. Neumann said that a larger budget would be necessary to
promote the program in all 50 states. Bornhorst asked if a larger
budget would be needed if the expansion were not promoted. Neumann
said that there was not much value in expanding the program if it
were not promoted.
Mullins said that the committee's deliberations favored the
current regional limits, because most of the students came from
adjoining states. The expansion to include all 50 states or all
the NAFTA countries was disingenuous. Beck said his impression was
that recruiters could be put into the contiguous states, and that
additional costs would be incurred only if there was recruiting in
the added states. Enrollments from the other states would be
minimal unless alumni were used as recruiters.
Leifer said that administrators might be used as recruiters
when they go out with the dog-&-pony shows for alumni. Sewell said
that the administrators going to alumni functions were not trained
to do recruiting, and that the admissions and financial aid offices
are understaffed and overworked.
Mroz MOVED to amend the proposal by extending the affected area
to all 50 states and the Canadian provinces. Diebel seconded the
motion.
Sewell said that information on the cost of the extension was
needed; there had to be some increase in the administrative
workload. She asked also whether the extension should be made if
the program were to be only minimal. Mullins said that if one were
to have a program, then one should be serious about it.
Heuvers said that the committee should examine the extension
if the amendment was serious. Mroz said that the current program
was disingenuous; for example, Chicago was targeted currently, but
not Carbondale or the St. Louis area. Neumann said that posters
were sent every year to all the high schools in the contiguous
states affected by the current program. The marketing effort
includes not only recruiters, but phone and mail contacts also.
Diebel said that informal contacts were not a cost, and that
recruiting can be done on an ad hoc basis. Bulleit said that the
extension need not alter the current recruiting practices, and that
the extension could evolve slowly, taking advantage of
opportunities as they arise.
Glime said that the rating of Michigan Tech as a Best Buy in
the media would act as publicity for the program, and help to
recruit good students. Grzelak said the extension should be
approached a little at a time, rather than the whole country at
once. Heuvers said that the program could be inserted into
statements in publications like Peterson's Guides.
Bulleit asked whether the extension would cause political
problems in Lansing. Dobney replied that it may cause
difficulties, both in Lansing and with the Board of Control.
However, this would not be known until the extension was proposed.
Mullins said that the current proposal involves the addition of two
more states, so the program has been evolving.
Leifer said that an intelligent inquiry needed to be based on
the costs involved, and MOVED to send the amendment back to
committee for an estimate of the cost of extension. Heuvers
seconded the motion. Boutilier noted the new restrictions on
student performance, and said that the proposed extension does not
mention recruiting.
Bornhorst called for further discussion of the motion to send
the amendment to committee. There was none. The motion FAILED in
a voice vote. Bornhorst called for further discussion of the
amendment.
Bulleit said that Leifer's point was valid, and that it might
be better to consider only the possibility of an extension.
Neumann said that the objective of the extension should be
considered. It might cause the university to lose money by
allowing a tuition reduction to students in AZ or CA who already
are planning to come. Neumann noted that the proposal also would
decrease the amount of awards and affect abilities to recruit from
WI and MN.
Brokaw said that the proposal was purely advisory, and that if
the administrative and political costs are low, then the extension
should be favored. As opportunities for recruiting extension
arise, they can be met with administrative decisions. Bornhorst
said that the administration can add or subtract recruiting effort
as it thinks appropriate.
Bornhorst called for further discussion of the amendment.
There was none. The amendment PASSED 17-7 in a show-of-hands vote.
Bornhorst called for discussion of the amended proposal. There
was none. The motion to approve PASSED in a show-of-hands vote,
27-2 with 1 abstention.
IX. New Business
A. Elections. Bornhorst said that it was time to consider the
election of new senators and alternates as well as members of
various university committees. As a first step according to the
constitution, Section B of the By-Laws had to be updated. Born-
horst noted that the only change needed was the addition of the
Fine Arts Dept to the list of other Course-Offering Units, making
the number n=6.
Heuvers MOVED to add the Fine Arts Dept to Section B.2 of the
Bylaws. Mroz seconded the motion. Bornhorst called for
discussion. There was none. The motion PASSED with no dissent in
a voice vote.
Bornhorst distributed a memo [Appendix G of these minutes] and
summarized the timing of election events.
B. New Fringe Benefits Options from the Administration. Bornhorst
noted that there had been several recent meetings concerning
retirement benefits, and introduced Provost Dobney for the
administration's response.
Dobney distributed copies of a memo to Bornhorst [Appendix H
of these minutes], stating that it summarized his comments from the
previous meeting on the subject of Senate Proposal 1-92, with some
added information. He also distributed copies of a draft proposed
retirement furlough program [Appendix I of these minutes], along
with copies of a list of changes to that draft [Appendix J of these
minutes].
Dobney summarized the proposed policy, saying that the only
way retirement can be enhanced currently is with a program that
does not require pre-funding. Dobney said the program provides a
final year off with half pay for those with at least 78 points, and
that the other sabbatical options would also be allowed. The
furlough benefit would be funded like sabbaticals, with the faculty
picking up the extra workload. The furlough would have to be
agreed to by heads/chairs and deans. Dobney summarized the recent
changes [Appendix J] in the proposed policy, noting that they were
written in response to recent meetings with faculty groups.
Roblee asked whether the program would work for the MPSERS
retirees, because their retirement benefit is based on the last
year's salary. Cheney said that the MPSERS benefit is based on the
best salary for the last 3 or 5 years before retirement, so the
proposed program would not adversely affect this group.
Sewell asked whether professional staff would be covered under
the proposal. Dobney said that it would not, because it was funded
like a sabbatical.
Mroz asked whether each dean and department had to approve the
program separately. Dobney said they would have to approve it
separately, under the current language of the proposal. He added
that these administrators would probably go along with the proposal
under the pressure of Senate approval.
Beck said that faculty have no input into the sabbatical leave
process at the departmental level; they have to share the workload,
but do not share in the decision. Dobney suggested that this
process might go into departmental charters.
******************************************************************
Page 4352 Minutes of Senate Meeting 212 23 Mar 1994
Leifer said that when the meeting with the Fringe Benefit Sub-
committee was called, he had been the only member contacted. He
said that the proposal was being seen for the first time, and
suggested that it be sent to the Fringe Benefit Subcommittee, to
the Budget Oversight Subcommittee, and to the Finance Committee for
study, discussion, and reporting of recommendations. Leifer said
that the presentation of a plan without options is not shared
governance.
Bornhorst said that when the proposal is forwarded officially
by the administration to the Senate officers, a meeting of the
Executive Committee would be convened to decide the disposition of
the proposal, as indicated under the constitution.
Dobney said that the proposal had been heavily modified by the
input of 7 faculty members, and that the plan was not being
presented as a "take-it-or-else" proposal. Leifer asked whether
it was a discussion document. Dobney said that it was a proposal
from the Provost to the Senate, but it was not a Senate proposal.
Carlson asked whether the death-during-furlough paragraph might
be rewritten to specify beneficiaries, rather than spouses. Cheney
suggested that the wording might specify spouse or dependent
children. Carlson said that there were other situations than
spouses and dependent children to be considered.
Bornhorst asked if a new version could be submitted to include
the wording allowing for the other sabbatical options. Dobney said
that he would provide a new version.
Leifer asked about a proposal for phased retirement. Dobney
replied that phased retirement was not in the current proposal,
but that it was a topic for future discussion. Carlson said that
the effect of the proposed 78 points was to drop the retirement age
by a year. Grzelak said that the memo to Bornhorst [Appendix H]
overstated the value of the average faculty TIAA/CREF account. He
suggested that TIAA be contacted to provide more accurate actuarial
numbers.
Bornhorst called for further questions. There were none.
C. Proposal 16-94 Smoke-Free Campus. Bornhorst asked Mullins to
provide background for Proposal 16-94 [Appendix K of these minutes]
which had been circulated with the agenda.
Mullins said the proposal was the result of discussion of
current smoking policies in various buildings, prompted by memos
from Neimi to Dobney. Two key documents had been considered in the
committee. One was "On the Air: A Guide to Creating a Smoke-Free
Workplace" by the American Lung Association; the other was "Smoke-
Free Campus" from the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. A
copy of the N Mich Univ smoking policy was also considered.
Mullins said that the committee had considered three options.
(1) Do nothing, and continue to allow each building to establish
its own policy. (2) Prohibit all smoking in all campus buildings.
(3) Provide separate designated smoking areas in all major
buildings with separate ventilation systems. The committee
attempted to coordinate with staff council, but they had no real
mechanism for considering any proposals.
Mullins said that the recommendation in Proposal 16-94 is
similar to the policy instituted last year at NMU. This is most
like the third option considered above, with smoking allowed in
areas ventilated separately. Residence halls were included because
the exposure to smoke is greater there. The advertising and sale
of smoking materials is forbidden to avoid being hypocritical. The
Sept 1 startup date is arbitrary.
Roblee asked what the installation of separate ventilation
might cost. Mullins said it apparently had cost $50,000 in the
administration building. Keen asked whether the smoking ban
extended to married student housing. Mullins said it did not if
they had separate ventilation.
Sewell asked whether chewing tobacco had been considered.
Heuvers asked whether the policy applied to recruiters on campus.
Mullins said that they would be included. Diebel asked whether all
advertizing coming into the library would have to be censored.
Mullins said that the advertizing ban extended to items like MTU
logos on ash trays.
Mroz asked whether smokers could demand areas with separate
ventilation. Mullins said that the policy was modeled on NMU's
policy, and that an inquiry to them might be useful. Fynewever
said that entry areas should be specifically included in the ban.
Gruenberg asked whether the grounds, or only buildings were
included. He said that the ban on advertizing was protecting
people not from the activities of other people, but from
themselves. Bornhorst called for further comments. There were
none.
X. Adjournment
Bornhorst said that senators should bring the agenda attachment
to the next meeting of the Senate. Bornhorst called for a motion
to adjourn. Leifer MOVED that the meeting be adjourned. Arici
seconded the motion. Without opposition, Bornhorst declared the
meeting adjourned at 7:26 pm.
Submitted by Robert Keen
Secretary of the University Senate
.