******************************************************************
Page 4386 Minutes of Senate Meeting 213 6 Apr 1994
THE SENATE OF MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
Minutes of Meeting No. 213
6 April 1994
Synopsis: The Senate
(1) learned that Proposal 2-94 had been approved for funding
by the administration;
(2) learned that Proposals 12-94 and 14-94 had been submitted
to the administration;
(3) heard a presentation from the Conflict of Interest
Committee;
(4) amended and approved Proposal 16-94 Smoke Free Campus;
(5) approved a petition for constituency status for M.
Lambert in Non-Academic Unit Group 3;
(6) interpreted the constitutional provision of Terms of
Office for senators and alternates;
(7) received Proposal 21-94 and approved it for consideration
as an emergency proposal;
(8) approved Proposal 21-94 Recommendation for a Professional
Staff Handbook;
(9) received Proposal 19-94 Attendance Policy;
(10) received Proposal 20-94 Optional Retirement Furlough;
(11) received Proposal 22-94 University Senate Administrative
Evaluation.
_______________________________________
I. Call to Order
President Bornhorst called the meeting to order at 5:32 pm on
Wednesday, 6 April 1994, in Room B37 of the Electrical Energy
Resources Center.
II. Roll Call of Members
Secretary Keen called the roll. 29 senators or alternates were
present. S. Gruenberg was present as the representative of KRC.
AF ROTC was unrepresented. Absent senator at-large: T. Grimm.
Absent liaison members: Dean of Engineering, Dean of Sciences &
Arts, Grad Student Council, and Staff Council.
III. Introductions and Recognition of Visitors
Recognized visitors were R. Christianson (Human Resources), T.
Collins (Technology), E. Horsch (Human Resources), and B. Seely
(Soc Sci).
IV. Agenda Adjustments
Bornhorst referred to the circulated agenda [Appendix A of
these minutes], and asked to postpone correction and approval of
the minutes of Meeting 212. He noted that election progress would
be reported, but not by the Elections Committee. He proposed
considering Proposal 21-94 as the first item of New Business.
Bornhorst asked for adjustment proposals from the floor; there were
none. Irish MOVED to approve the adjusted agenda. Grzelak
seconded the motion. The motion PASSED without dissent in a voice
vote.
V. Report of Senate President
1. A copy of a memo from Provost Dobney to President Tompkins
concerning Proposal 2-94 Supplemental Health Benefits has been
received [Appendix B of these minutes]. The funding of the
proposal will be considered during next year's budget
deliberations.
2. Proposal 12-94 Plant Sciences Option for the BS in Biological
Sciences has been submitted to the administration [Appendix
C of these minutes].
3. Proposal 14-94 Recommendation on ESTR Program has been sent
to the administration [Appendix D of these minutes]. As a
recommendation, the administration does not need to approve
or reject it.
4. A proposal for a non-departmental PhD Program in Computer
Science & Engineering has been received and has been sent to
the Curricular Policy Committee for review.
5. The provost has informed the deans that President Tompkins
expects departments and schools to have charters established
by the end of the 1994-95 academic year. He also informed
them that D. Beck is the chair of a Senate committee that will
provide aid in developing charters.
6. The Graduate Council has been reconstituted, and the Senate
will have an ex-officio member. Selection of one of the
Senate officers for this position may be appropriate.
7. The proposal for the BS in Engineering Technology was approved
unanimously by the State Academic Officers on March 30, 1994.
The proposal will go to the Board of Control for final
approval in May.
8. The Senate officers met with Provost Dobney on April 5.
Important informational items: (a) MTU is now classed as
Carnegie Doctoral II [Appendix E of these minutes]. (b) The
Harassment Policy was discussed further. (c) Candidates for
the Dean of SBEA are being interviewed.
9. The Committee on Academic Tenure has informed the Senate that
there is a potential need for alternate members of the
Committee, to avoid conflict of interest with current members
on several cases. Individuals nominated last year but not
selected might be used as alternates: M. Cooper, E. Flynn, G.
Lewis, and J. Wood.
(Bornhorst asked the Senate for discussion of his proposed
solution. Heyman suggested that the alternates be selected
in the order of descending vote. Bornhorst called for
objections to the suggestion. There were none.)
Bornhorst asked for questions on his report. Heuvers asked
how long the alternates on the Committee on Academic Tenure would
serve. Bornhorst replied that they would serve only for one case.
Heuvers said that a policy should be developed for the selection
of alternates as part of the election process for members of the
Committee.
Arici asked whether the Ad Hoc Committee on Charters was to
inform departments officially that charters were needed. Bornhorst
replied that the official announcement would come from the deans.
Beck said that the Committee would attempt to circulate information
soon.
VI. Reports from Committees
A. Faculty Handbook Steering Committee. Bornhorst reported that
the Lab and Classroom Safety Policy has been sent to the Research
Policy Committee. The policies on grievances and on separation are
nearing completion by their respective task forces, and will be
forwarded to the appropriate Senate committees. The revision of
the tenure and promotion policy will not be completed by the task
force until fall.
Heuvers asked whether that task force could provide a report
to the Senate. Bornhorst said that he would ask D. Nelson to give
a short report to the Senate at a meeting soon.
B. Committee on Conflict of Interest. Bornhorst introduced Bruce
Seely (SS) for a presentation on the progress of the Committee.
Seely said that he had given the Senate a statement of
operating principles in December. Since then the Committee had
worked on draft policies for several areas. Financial disclosure
will be important. NIH and NSF soon will issue requirements for
conflict of interest policies for universities and agencies
receiving their funds. These requirements will impose reporting
guidelines and thresholds, including reviews by a conflict-of-
interest committee for any proposal.
Seely said the Committee's principles of action were:
1) Individuals are responsible for disclosing any difficulty that
might be, or might appear to be, a conflict of interest.
2) The intent is not to police, but to lay out guidelines for
******************************************************************
Page 4387 Minutes of Senate Meeting 213 6 Apr 1994
individuals.
3) Clearer guidelines will require changes from current practice
in some areas at MTU.
4) Guidelines will provide protection for individuals.
A major concern is conflict in the commitment of faculty time.
All faculty are expected to engage in professional service
activities and research activities. Responsibilities are divided
among students, professional organizations, and outside funding
agencies. Individuals are vulnerable to alteration of guidelines
that may be changed at one individual's whim. Clear, fixed
guidelines protect faculty, and protect the university from actions
of individuals.
Specific guidelines will be developed for textbook adoption,
supervision of relatives, purchasing, etc. The Committee hopes to
bring a set of recommendations to the Senate by the end of Spring
Quarter.
The recent meeting with the Board involved some specific areas
of concern. One of these is the disclosure of financial relation-
ships. Other universities have rigid requirements for disclosure;
MTU has none now. Any policy must be based on public disclosure
of relationships. In most cases of conflict, disclosure is
sufficient. The Committee believes that if the Board does not
accept a policy, the University as a whole cannot be expected to
accept it. The Board's position about public disclosure is not yet
clear. The Committee is proceeding without Board clarification of
this issue, and will follow the normal channels for policy
approval; final approval will rest with the Board.
The Committee would like to provide guidelines, not policy
details, but some areas will require more specifics. Where
individuals chose not to follow the guidelines, there will be more
rigorous standards, including reviews. Reviews should occur at
the lowest levels possible, but there will be federal requirements
for a university-level review. Establishment of a standing
committee is probable. Departmental charters might well include
provisions on conflict of interest.
Although the guidelines are not intended to be restrictive,
some individuals may discover they cannot proceed as they have
been. The objective is to protect individuals. An important
Committee activity is education; there is little understanding of
conflict of interest on campus. MTU's recent history has confused
the issues; e.g. a Board member believing it is acceptable to bid
on campus construction while serving on the body making final
decisions on construction. Conflicts are probably unavoidable,
including commitments of effort not best serving the University.
There will be disagreements about the guidelines that will be
included in the policy to be forwarded to the Senate. However,
these disagreements will serve an educational purpose.
Heuvers asked what the policies were at other universities,
like the University of Michigan. Seely replied that other
universities were ahead of MTU with policies in place, but that the
policies were very diverse. The policy at the Univ of Minnesota
was the Committee's principal model. Michigan State and Wayne
State have policies that have been also useful. Univ of Missouri-
Rolla has a list of thou-shalt-nots, to prevent conflict; this
seems not feasible. Seely noted that the other Committee members
are S. Kauppi (interim AAO), W. Melton (SS), R. Peterson (FR), J.
Soper (EE), C. Selfe (HU), K. Pelc (BA), and T. Collins (TC).
Beck said the Committee should examine purchaser-vendor
relationships, which range from meals to consultancies resulting
from major purchases. Seely replied that the Committee is close
to having a policy in this area, based on the code of ethics of the
National Association of Purchasing Employees. A requirement may
be that each purchase order will require a check-off indicating
relationships between purchaser and vendor. Seely said that the
responsibility must be individual; a policing apparatus cannot be
established.
Leifer said that a textbook written for a particular course is
a problem if the author requires it to be purchased for that
course. The author appears to make money on the adoption.
However, the instructor-author really cannot be expected to adopt
a text written by another author. Seely said that the Committee
was considering a review procedure so the choice is not the
author's alone. Another requirement may be donating royalties to
the Tech Fund so that the author receives no financial gain for
requiring the text in MTU classes. Glime commented that there is
a state law requiring a review of an author's textbook adoption by
two members of the department. Seely said the Committee's concern
is to protect the faculty member from charges of profiting by
adoption of the text, and to protect the faculty member from the
appearance of conflict.
Heuvers said the Faculty Handbook has rules regarding an
author's adoption of his or her own text. Seely said the Committee
has had problems with the dispersion of MTU policies among
different locations and with an out-of-date handbook. The
reporting of conflicts is divided among several officers. The
Committee hopes to consolidate the location of policy, and the
reporting of conflicts.
Sewell said the professional staff welcomed the work of the
Committee. She added that the situation of the staff was
different, with their possible conflicts involving contracting with
hospitals, private practice, and teaching. She asked whether the
Committee needed more staff input. Seely replied that the
Committee was being served by Sherri Kauppi in this area, and that
the Committee intends to create the policy for the university, not
just for faculty. Carstens commented that the appearance of
conflict in textbook adoption far outweighs any financial gain.
McKimpson asked whether the US Dept of Defense, in addition to
NSF and NIH, might impose regulations on universities. Conflict
of interest was a major area of concern for DoD. Seely said that
no information had been received about this, but did not seem to
be a source of concern. McKimpson said he was concerned with
provisions in DoD contracts. Seely said that the publicity of the
$700 hammer already had made DoD adopt rigorous reporting
guidelines.
Bornhorst thanked Seely for his presentation.
C. Executive Committee. Committee Chair Bornhorst said that the
Committee had met on March 28, and had voted to send Proposal 20-94
directly to the Senate floor. If time to discuss this proposal at
the next meeting is not sufficient, a special meeting would be
called for April 27. The Committee had voted also to send Proposal
21-94 directly to the Senate. The Committee had discussed terms
of office, and the procedures for election of officers.
Bornhorst called for questions. There were none.
D. Elections. Bornhorst referred to the Election Memo distributed
at the previous meeting (Minutes, p.4374), and noted that the first
four items had been completed. The notification of departments
about election or re-election of Senators was delayed pending
determination of the constitutional meaning of terms of office.
Bornhorst said the Elections Committee needed to gather the
information necessary for election of members of various university
committees.
Bornhorst called for questions. There were none.
VII. Old Business
A. Proposal 16-94 Smoke-Free Campus. Bornhorst called for
consideration of Proposal 16-94 circulated with the agenda of
Meeting 211 [Minutes, p.4383]. Heuvers asked if there were
constitutional problems with a ban on smoking. Heyman said that
there had been no Supreme Court decision regarding smoking bans by
a variety of municipalities and corporations. Heuvers asked about
visitors on campus. Heyman said that advertisement of cigarettes
was prohibited on TV. Sewell said that smoking and the sale of
smoking tobacco was banned in most hospitals, even for visitors.
Boutilier MOVED the adoption of Proposal 16-94. Sewell
seconded the motion. Bornhorst called for objections to the
recommendation on voting units. There were none. Bornhorst called
for discussion.
******************************************************************
Page 4388 Minutes of Senate Meeting 213 6 Apr 1994
DeVisch asked whether the designation of residence halls
included individuals rooms. Boutilier said the Institutional
Policy Committee intended to ban smoking in the residence halls
unless there were separately ventilated rooms. Bulleit asked if
married student housing were covered. Sewell said the housing
units were separately ventilated.
Brokaw said the School of Business seemed opposed to the
proposal because of the ban on sales of a legal product. Only two
of his constituents favored the proposal. Bulleit said the
proposal seemed close to infringing on the rights of smokers,
particularly when students pay rent for the dorm rooms. Banning
a legal activity in a private room seemed extreme. Arici said that
drinking was also prohibited. Miner said that 21-year-olds can
drink in the residence halls. He added that the University can
make rules and regulations that go beyond strict provisions of
state law. Drinking could be banned from campus, for example.
Roblee said the proposal might be construed as obligating the
university to provide separately ventilated areas for smokers. He
asked whether the proposal could be amended so the university is
not required to spend any money. DeVisch said that the proposal
infringed upon students' rights to smoke in their own rooms. The
prohibition of tobacco sales also was an overstepping of university
bounds; the sale was legal, and the university profited by the
sales.
Carstens said that the furnishing of special ventilated areas
would be expensive, and that the stench from the ventilated smoking
room in the administration building indicated that separate
ventilation was not effective. Fynewever said that if smoking were
allowed in dorms, some areas ought to be smoke free. Miner said
that smoke free areas exist now in the residence halls, and that
students are asking for more areas. Few students living in
residence halls are smokers, and the halls are moving to a smoke
free status independently of the proposal.
Sewell said that she has talked with several non-smoking
students who want a smoke free policy. Moving out of a dorm room
is always a hassle. Further, the expense of smoking should be
considered as a health issue since the university is self-insured.
Heuvers MOVED to amend the proposal by striking the sentence,
"The university should also prohibit the advertising and sale of
tobacco products and smoking paraphernalia on campus". Bulleit
seconded the motion.
Heyman said that the logic of the amendment was inverted, that
it was easier to discourage smoking in younger people by making it
difficult to buy cigarettes than by prohibiting smoking. A policy
that would be effective in lowering health costs would keep the
sentence in the proposal. Beck said the Committee discussed using
"discourage" rather than "prohibit" in the sentence. Heuvers said
tobacco was sold close to campus, and that a prohibition of on-
campus sales would lead to stocking-up purchases off-campus.
Sewell said that any difficulty placed on continuing the addiction,
the more likely was the discouragement. Filer said that
ventilation need not be included in the proposal, that smoking can
be done outside buildings.
Carstens said that the sentence sends a message to smokers.
Glime said that prohibiting smoking while selling tobacco was
hypocritical. Grzelak said that free distribution of cigarettes
constituted a form of advertizing. Carstens agreed.
Bulleit said that he failed to understand the logic behind a
coupling of a building prohibition and the sale of tobacco.
Boutilier said that the prohibition on sales was sending a message.
Gruenberg said that if the policy was aimed at smoking areas, then
the sentence involving sales was unnecessary. He stated that the
banning of legal substances was perhaps not the message a
university ought to be sending.
Diebel said his concern was university involvement in passing
judgement on products; the Senate should not go this direction.
Sewell said it was not a moral question, but a health question;
there was enough research to support this. Bulleit said that using
health questions as an argument should result in the banning of
all foods on campus with fat content higher than 30% of calories.
DeVisch said he understood the health question for employees, but
students did not fall under the university's health insurance.
Miner said that smoking was the most common complaint in dorms, and
that smoke from closed rooms went throughout a hall.
Galetto asked whether the proposal title of "smoke-free campus"
meant that smoking outside buildings was prohibited. Bornhorst
said that the proposal did not specify this. Heyman said that the
relationship between smoking and health problems was much more
significant than for diet. He added that there are many problems
with governments passing unenforceable laws; the only real
regulation possible would be a prohibition on sales. Carstens said
that the argument on legality was poor because the federal
government was slow in banning harmful substances; the university
should not wait given the strong cause-&-effect link with health.
Bornhorst called for further discussion on the amendment.
There was none. The amendment FAILED in a show-of-hands vote,
10-19.
Bornhorst asked for discussion on the full proposal. Glime
said that MTU might have to make special provisions for entering
student smokers, and permit them to live off campus. Roblee said
that the policy should not restrict the dorm residents. The dorm
administration might do the restricting.
Roblee MOVED to amend the proposal by striking the words
"residence halls and" from the first sentence of the proposal.
Carstens seconded the motion.
Miner said that the residence hall administration would favor
retaining the words. DeVisch said that he had lived in dorms, that
smoking was a problem there, but it should be resolved in the dorms
and not by the Senate. Sewell said that second-hand smoke had an
impact on non-smokers who also could not choose where to live.
Glime asked whether one wing of dorm could be designated a smoking
wing.
Miner said that there were not enough smokers to warrant a
whole wing; there are 5 smokers in 600 residents. Brokaw asked
whether the debate was over nothing. Grzelak said the students
should make the decision in the dorms. Bornhorst said that the
proposal was a recommendation only, and that even if passed it
would require no administrative approval or action. Carstens said
there was a lot of smoking in EERC, and asked where the smokers
were coming from. Sewell said that the number of smokers may be
underestimated from the enrollment form check-offs. Bulleit said
that, in the spirit of shared governance, the students should
decide the dorm issue. Bornhorst said it would be appropriate for
Staff Council and USG also to vote on the proposal.
There was no response to Bornhorst's call for further
discussion. The amendment PASSED in a show-of-hands vote, 17-12.
Bornhorst said that the constitution required a two-week interval
between amendment of a proposal and final approval. He asked for
objections to continuing to debate the original motion. There were
no objections.
Heuvers MOVED to amend the proposal by striking the word
"visitors" from the second sentence, and rearranging to read "...
and administration". Kawatra seconded the motion.
Sewell asked whether the amendment meant that a visitor could
enter her office and smoke. Boutilier said that the Univ of
Michigan Hospital banned smoking completely, including visitors.
Vanek said that he did not want 400 recruiters smoking in his
office.
There was no response to Bornhorst's call for further
discussion. The amendment FAILED in a voice vote.
Gruenberg asked about the situation in the Union Ballrooms and
the Wadsworth Dining Hall for wedding receptions. Bornhorst said
that visitors to the Union had to leave the building to smoke.
Miner said he did not know about the policy in the dorm.
McKimpson asked which buildings on campus were smoke free.
Lins said that EERC was smoke free but smoking still continued,
which raised questions of enforceability. Moore said the library
was smoke free. Beck said that the buildings of the College of
Sciences & Arts were smoke free. Keen said that the smoking ban
******************************************************************
Page 4389 Minutes of Senate Meeting 213 6 Apr 1994
written by Dean Seel should be entered into the permanent record
[Appendix F of these minutes].
Bornhorst called for further discussion. There was none. The
motion to adopt Proposal 16-94 as amended PASSED in a voice vote.
B. Constituency. Bornhorst read a petition [Appendix G of these
minutes] received from Vanek requesting constituency status for
Mark Lambert in Non-Academic Unit Group 3.
Vanek MOVED to approve the petition. Sewell seconded the
motion. Vanek said that Lambert did a considerable amount of
teaching, which made him the type of individual who should be
included in the Senate constituency. Heyman asked if Lambert were
moving out of Staff Council. Vanek replied that he was. Keen
asked for Lambert's title. Vanek replied that it was Coordinator.
Bornhorst called for further discussion. There was none. The
motion PASSED without opposition in a voice vote.
Bornhorst said that he had spent much time over two months
considering constituency issues, that he wished to make some
comments, and then ask for guidance from the Senate. He stated
that the issue is clearly complicated. The constitution was a
compromise so that the constituency now includes faculty and
research units and some non-academic units. These latter include
student-related service managers. Bornhorst asked about the
eligibility of people in decision-making roles dealing with
research, and dealing with faculty. He cited the examples of the
current manager of sponsored programs, the current director of
Human Resources, and the managers of Computer Technology Services.
Bornhorst said he had been approached by several individuals
in staff positions, and asked whether he should encourage them to
petition for membership in the Senate constituency. Bornhorst said
he disliked encouraging them to apply if the Senate were to deny
the petitions. Further, the administrative units represented in
the current Senate Non-Academic Groups were likely to be
reorganized in the coming summer. This would require some
reorganization by the Senate.
Carstens asked where the line was to be drawn for representa-
tion. Bornhorst said this is what he wanted to know.
Heyman said that the Non-Academic Units were not very robust.
They had few members, and recruiting senators was likely to be
difficult. Heyman said that if more people were to be included
from the staff area, then they should be kept as three non-academic
groups, to increase their robustness. Sewell said that the
constitution was a good start, but a lot of gaps exist even within
covered areas. A task force of both staff and faculty should be
appointed to review the constituency question and bring
recommendations to the Senate.
Leifer said that Bornhorst's discussion was a good speech
favoring a faculty senate. He added that the impacts of deans and
department heads on faculty were also significant. Bornhorst said
that the heads were constituents now, and that the deans were
liaison members. Leifer said that former debates had included
discussion of the presence of the provost. He asked why Bornhorst
was asking to bring in groups that were excluded previously.
Bornhorst said that the criterion used to select the Non-Academic
Groups was student-related service, particularly people in
decision-making, managerial positions. However, the boundaries
were not clear, and some answer needed to be given to potential
petitioners.
Bulleit said the decision should be made after the petitions
are submitted, and that Bornhorst should not be expected to predict
the outcome of the petition. The Senate does not lose credibility
should the petitions be denied. Heuvers said that the constitution
requires the Executive Committee to review petitions and make
recommendations to the Senate. Roblee said that the Senate had
become more active and powerful, that more people would be drawn
to it, and that the broader the representation the more effective
the Senate would be. Filer said that the discussion involved fine-
tuning of the represented groups.
Carstens asked whether the Senate were more diverse now than
previously. Bornhorst said that it was less diverse, that
previously it had included a lot of lower-level research personnel.
Currently, the groups included more managerial positions. Carstens
said the Senate now was less a university senate than previously.
Bornhorst said this was true only in some respects.
Heyman said that the Senate had excluded the upper adminis-
tration from its constituency. The Staff Council had emerged as
a body representing some staff, but the remaining professional
staff were unrepresented. He added that it was not necessary to
bring in some person just because they influenced the conduct of
teaching and research; it is easy enough to consult with these
people in the course of Senate deliberations. Bornhorst said that
if two bodies exist, the border between them will always be fuzzy.
Boutilier said that Human Resources had feet in both camps.
The office serves the entire university. She asked if they were
to be represented on both Staff Council and in the Senate.
Leifer said that the inclusion of staff in the Senate made no
difference on the easy issues. On the hard issues, with the
administration and faculty on opposite sides, the presence of
administrators could intimidate staff. People should not be put
in the position of jeopardizing their careers. Bornhorst said that
the constitutional provision for secret ballots would protect such
individuals. Grzelak said that open and honest discussion was
important, not just voting. Sewell said that two issues were
involved. One was the boundary problem; the other was general
housekeeping. In the latter category, the director of counseling
services was not a constituent.
Bornhorst said that his conclusion was that the Executive
Committee would deal with the requests before sending them on to
the Senate.
C. Terms of Office. Bornhorst read from Article IV.A.1 of the
constitution, "One member elected from and by each degree-granting
department...", and from IV.A.4, "An alternate member shall be
elected...". He then read from IV.B, "The term of office of an
elected member shall be three years...".
Bornhorst said that a literal interpretation of the
constitution would mean that service for three years as an
alternate and then three years as a senator would make a person
ineligible for re-election to another term as senator. Bornhorst
asked the Senate to decide whether service as an alternate affected
eligibility for election as a senator. He noted that previous
practice counted only service as a senator.
Heuvers MOVED to continue the practice of counting only service
as a senator in determining eligibility for re-election as a
senator. Glime seconded the motion.
Heyman asked whether the motion would go into the bylaws if
passed. Bornhorst said that the bylaws would need revision
eventually, but that the vote would serve to clarify the current
election process. Keen asked why the constitution included a
provision for a one-year break in Senate service, if an individual
could alternate indefinitely between serving as a senator and an
alternate. Continuous service may mean continued presence on a
committee.
Leifer said that under the old system a person serving as a
senator for six years would have to skip a year before being
elected as an alternate. Bornhorst said that this was not correct.
Heuvers said that committee membership could be adjusted by the
Executive Committee. Heyman said that although he agreed with Keen
that the service load might continue indefinitely, he did not
understand why this would be a problem. The possibility of
obtaining continual service from a limited pool or persons may be
desirable.
Bornhorst called for further discussion. There was none. The
motion PASSED without dissent in a voice vote.
VIII. New Business
A. Proposal 21-94 Recommendation for a Professional Staff
******************************************************************
Page 4390 Minutes of Senate Meeting 213 6 Apr 1994
Handbook. Bornhorst referred to the text of the proposal attached
to the agenda [Appendix H of these minutes], and noted that it was
only a recommendation to the administration. He said the proposal
was the result of numerous discussions with professional staff, and
of deliberations of the Faculty Handbook Steering Committee.
Bornhorst said that Provost Dobney supported the proposal, and had
stated that a staff handbook would begin to be assembled after
completing the Faculty Handbook. Bornhorst asked that the proposal
be considered as an emergency proposal, because the agenda for the
next meeting was full.
Vanek MOVED to take up Proposal 21-94 as an emergency proposal.
Heuvers seconded the motion. Bornhorst called for discussion.
Hubbard said he was against emergency proposals in principle;
all but two PhD proposals had been adopted as emergency proposals.
Bornhorst said that the proposal was only a recommendation, not a
policy needing administrative approval. The motion PASSED without
dissent in a voice vote.
Heuvers MOVED that Proposal 21-94 be approved. Sewell seconded
the motion. Bornhorst asked for objections to the recommended
voting units. There were none.
Roblee asked who would be responsible for the committee work.
Bornhorst replied that the provost would assemble the committee,
and that it would probably be made up of professional staff. The
Faculty Handbook would probably serve as a guide for the committee,
with numerous policies being adapted easily.
Carstens asked for a definition of professional staff. Horsch
replied that it included non-faculty, non-hourly staff. Bornhorst
noted that the subset of employees mentioned in the text of the
proposal was not identical with the definition of professional
staff. The vagueness was intentional, and represented an issue to
be resolved when the professional staff handbook was written.
Bornhorst called for further discussion. There was none. The
motion to approve Proposal 21-94 PASSED in a voice vote without
opposition.
Roblee asked why the proposal was presented to the Senate.
Bornhorst replied that the Senate included three non-academic
groups as representatives, and that research units contained some
personnel that might be affected also. Sewell said that staff had
concerns about policies in the faculty handbook and their
application to the staff.
B. Proposal 19-94 Attendance Policy. Bornhorst referred to the
text of the proposal attached to the agenda [Appendix I of these
minutes] and noted that the proposal would be considered at the
next meeting. He asked Heuvers for comments on the proposal.
Heuvers said that the proposal was based on a revision of the
attendance policy that Dean of Students Janners had prepared
several years ago for the Student Handbook. The Faculty Handbook
was not updated then, although the policy had gone to the Senate's
Instructional Policy Committee. The proposal represents a revision
of the current policy as given in the Student Handbook.
Sewell asked if Dean Janners had been involved in the
discussion of the proposal. Heuvers said she had been. Sewell
said that the proposal as distributed needed other changes based
on current practice. Bornhorst said that modifications should be
brought by the committee to the next meeting. He called for
further discussion. There was none.
C. Proposal 20-94 Optional Retirement Furlough. Bornhorst referred
to the proposal circulated with the agenda [Appendix J of these
minutes] and noted that the proposal would be considered at the
next meeting.
Bornhorst read a memo received from Provost Dobney [Appendix
K of these minutes] stating that the proposed program would apply
only to tenured faculty.
Bornhorst said that Provost Dobney had stated in a meeting with
Senate officers on April 5th that, as a result of discussions with
Leifer, a modified payout schedule was acceptable. Under this
schedule, the entire half-year salary for the furlough could be
paid before December 31 of the furlough year. This would allow
retirement pay and Social Security to be started in January.
Leifer said that Provost Dobney favors a group rate for retiree
life insurance, but that the numbers have not yet been received
from the actuaries. Glime said she was concerned with the
requirement for 10 consecutive years of service. Service with NSF
for a year would benefit the university, but would interrupt the
continuity of university service. Bornhorst said that this was a
special case, along with those of current long-time instructors who
might be given special consideration on a case-by-case basis.
Hubbard said that the phrase "not counted " in II.A.3.a was
ambiguous and unclear. It may mean that approved leaves of absence
without salary are regarded as an interruption in continuity, or
that they are not included in the 10-year count.
D. Proposal 22-94 University Senate Administrative Evaluation.
Bornhorst referred to the Proposal circulated with the agenda
[Appendix L of these minutes]. Bornhorst said that he had met with
Provost Dobney and Administrative Policy Committee Chair Heyman on
March 25 to discuss the proposal. Neither Provost Dobney nor
President Tompkins had objections to the proposal. Bornhorst asked
Heyman for comments.
Heyman said that the proposal should be discussed with
constituents, and that questions should be directed to him. He
thanked the members of the Committee for their help.
X. Adjournment
Bornhorst called for a motion to adjourn. Leifer MOVED that
the meeting be adjourned. Bulleit seconded the motion. Without
opposition, Bornhorst declared the meeting adjourned at 7:28 pm.
Submitted by Robert Keen
Secretary of the University Senate
.