******************************************************************
Page 4420       Minutes of Senate Meeting 214        20 Apr 1994


         THE SENATE OF MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

                   Minutes of Meeting No. 214
                          20 April 1994


Synopsis:  The Senate
  (1)     corrected and approved minutes of Meeting 212;
  (2)     learned that Proposals 16-94 and 21-94 had been sent to
          the provost;
  (3)     decided to hold an election for senators at-large with
          the two nominees on the ballot for the two positions;
  (4)     editorially amended and passed Proposal 19-94 Attendance
          Policy;
  (5)     passed Proposal 20-94 Recommendation for an Optional
          Retirement Furlough Program;
  (6)     editorially amended and passed Proposal 22-94 University
          Senate Administrative Evaluation Procedure;
  (7)     received Proposal 23-94 Scientific Misconduct Policy;
  (8)     received Proposal 18-94 PhD Program in Computational
          Science & Engineering within the PhD in Engineering;
  (9)     received Proposal 17-94 Policy on Academic Freedom.

_______________________________________


I. Call to Order
    President Bornhorst called the meeting to order at 5:34 pm on
Wednesday, 20 April 1994, in Room B37 of the Electrical Energy
Resources Center.

II. Roll Call of Members
    Secretary Keen called the roll.  27 senators or alternates were
present.  Senators or alternate representatives from AF ROTC, Fine
Arts, Phys Ed, KRC, and Non-Academic Unit Group 2 were absent. 
Absent liaison members: Dean of Engineering, Dean of Sciences &
Arts, Undergrad Student Govt, and Staff Council.  Keen noted the
presence of Brian Whitman, the new liaison from the Graduate
Student Council.

III. Introductions and Recognition of Visitors
    Recognized visitors were E. Carlson (BL), I. Cheney (Human
Resources), K. Lipman (MTU Lode), A. Melton (CS), S. Miner
(Residence Cnslr), and D. Thayer (MY).

IV. Agenda Adjustments
    Bornhorst referred to the published agenda [Appendix A of these
minutes], and proposed deletion of the report of the Faculty
Handbook Steering Committee.  Bornhorst asked for agenda
adjustments from the floor; there were none.  Heyman MOVED to
approve the adjusted agenda, and Sewell seconded the motion.
Bornhorst called for objections to the motion.  There were no
objections, and Bornhorst declared the agenda approved.

V. Approval of Minutes
    Bornhorst called for corrections to the minutes of Meeting 212,
circulated with senators' agenda.  Glime and Grzelak each noted
one typographical error.  Hubbard MOVED to approve the corrected
minutes; Grzelak seconded the motion.  The motion PASSED with no
objection in a voice vote.

VI. Report of Senate President
 1.  Proposal 16-94 Recommendation for a Smoke-Free Campus, has
     been sent to Provost Dobney (Appendix B of these minutes).
 2.  Proposal 21-94 Recommendation for a Professional Staff
     Handbook has been sent to Provost Dobney (Appendix C of these
     minutes).
 3.  The Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Charters has communicated to
     departments the need to form charter committees and to write
     charters.
 4.  The Senate President met recently with President Tompkins and
     discussed particularly the issues of communication between
     administration and faculty, and the continued progress of
     shared governance.
 5.  There has been no recent meeting of the Provost with the
     Senate officers.

Bornhorst opened the floor to questions.  There were none.

VII. Reports from Committees
   Elections  Bornhorst said that the forms soliciting nominations
for the Committee on Academic Tenure, Athletic Council, Sabbatical
Leave Committee, and General Education Committee had been sent to
Senators for distribution to constituents.  Bornhorst asked
Secretary Keen to report on the progress of elections for senators
at-large.  Keen noted that the form soliciting committee
nominations (Appendix D of these minutes) was incorrect; members
of the Committee on Academic Tenure could serve more than one term. 
Keen also noted that members of the Sabbatical Leave Committee
serve staggered five-year terms, and that some miscue had resulted
in the election of two representatives in 1993.  Keen said that
Jobst had agreed to serve a four-year term expiring in 1997,
restoring the sequence of election.
    Keen said that only two nominations had been submitted for the
two positions of senator at-large.  Bornhorst asked whether there
were objections to considering the two nominees as elected without
a constituency election.  Brokaw asked about the possibility of
write-in candidates.  Keen said that nominations required five
signatures.  Bornhorst said that for election a write-in candidate
would require at least five votes.  Roblee said that the two
nominees should be declared the senators at-large.  Grzelak said
that an election should be held, that otherwise the individuals
could not be considered to be elected.  Hubbard said a vote was
required to meet the constitutional provision for election. 
Bornhorst said that the vote could be held immediately in the
Senate.  Heyman asked whether a mailing to the constituency would
be carried out anyhow.  Keen said that a mailing was planned for
the elections to university committees, but that a mailing for
electing senators at-large would delay the process of electing
Senate officers.  Heuvers said that he remembered elections being
held with the ballot having a separate line for write-in
candidates.
    Heuvers MOVED that an election be held for senators at-large
with a blank line available for write-in candidates.  McKimpson
said that he supported the motion, saying that the Senate should
avoid the perception of assigning or choosing the senators at-
large.  Grimm seconded the motion.  Bornhorst called for
discussion.
    Roblee asked Heuvers whether the remembered ballot was for
senator at-large.  Heuvers said he did not remember.  Hubbard said
the requirement for five signatures was a problem, and suggested
extending the deadline for submitting nominations.  Heuvers said
that a winning write-in candidate would have more than five votes;
the signatures of the voters would be on the balloting envelopes. 
Bulleit said it was inconsistent to have the possibility of a
write-in candidate, when there was a requirement for five
nominating signatures.  McKimpson asked whether it would be
inconsistent to require a write-in candidate to have five votes to
be elected.
    McKimpson MOVED to amend the motion by adding a requirement for
at least five votes for the election of a write-in candidate. 
Heuvers seconded the motion.  Hubbard said that the amendment was
a good one.
    Brokaw said that the nominated people would get elected, and
the whole problem was about nothing.  Grimm said an election would
give people a choice if they did not like the two nominees. 
Bornhorst called for further discussion of the amendment.  There
was none.  The motion to amend PASSED in a voice vote.


******************************************************************
Page 4421       Minutes of Senate Meeting 214        20 Apr 1994


    Bornhorst called for further discussion of the amended motion. 
There was none.  The motion PASSED in a voice vote.
    Bornhorst said that a special meeting of the Senate might be
needed during finals week for the purpose of electing Senate
officers.  He noted that a quorum was necessary for the election. 
Leifer asked whether lack of a quorum would mean that the current
officers would continue into the fall quarter.  Keen said that
meetings would be called until a quorum was obtained.  Bornhorst
said that balloting with proxy votes was another possibility.

VIII. Old Business
A. Proposal 19-94 Attendance Policy.  Bornhorst referred to the
copy of the proposal attached to the circulated agenda, and called
attention to the editorial change [Appendix E of these minutes]. 
He asked whether there were objections to considering the changes
to be editorial.  There were none.
    Heuvers MOVED that Proposal 19-94 be approved.  Grzelak
seconded the motion.
    Bornhorst asked for objections to the recommended voting units. 
Sewell said that the policy extends beyond the classroom, and that
the Dean of Students office and Counseling Services are involved
in defining extenuating circumstances.  Heuvers said he agreed.
    Roblee MOVED that the voting unit be extended to the whole
Senate.  Glime seconded the motion.  Bornhorst called for
discussion.  There was none.  The motion PASSED without opposition
in a voice vote.
    Bornhorst called for discussion of the proposal.  Mullins asked
for the source of the editorial change.  Heuvers said that it came
from Dean Martha Janners, who serves on the Instructional Policy
Committee.
    Glime MOVED to amend the proposal by changing "should" to 
"must" in the second and third sentences of Part A.  Vanek seconded
the motion.  Glime said the amended wording clarified the
responsibility for sending a notice of absence.  Bornhorst called
for further discussion.  There was none.  The motion to amend the
proposal PASSED without dissent in a voice vote.
    Bornhorst asked whether there were objections to considering
the change to be only editorial.  There were none.
    Brokaw MOVED that the material after the first paragraph be
stricken, and to stand in its place the sentence "Specific
attendance policies and requirements are set by the instructor". 
Daavettila seconded the motion.  Bornhorst called for discussion
of the amendment.
    Mullins said the amendment defeats the purpose of the proposal,
and would permit instructors to be arbitrary and capricious. 
Roblee said that the amendment would aggravate such problems as low
attendance just before Xmas break.  Bornhorst asked for more
discussion.  There was none.  The motion to amend the proposal
FAILED in a voice vote.
    Bornhorst asked for discussion of the original motion as
amended.  Arici said that his faculty did not want to police the
students, and asked for the motivation behind the statement that
students are expected to come to class.  Mullins said that classes
were designed with the expectation that students would attend. 
Heyman said that the policy helps with the problems mentioned by
Roblee.  Heuvers said the wording of the proposal comes directly
from the Student Handbook.
    Bornhorst called for further discussion.  There was none.  The
motion to approve Proposal 19-94 PASSED in a voice vote.

B. Proposal 20-94 Recommendation for an Optional Retirement
Furlough.  Bornhorst referred to the Proposal as introduced at the
previous meeting [Appendix F of these minutes] and then distributed
copies of the proposed furlough program [Appendix G of these
minutes].  Bornhorst stated that it contained the revisions that
had been indicated when the proposal was distributed at the
previous meeting [Minutes of Meeting 213, p.4390].  In addition,
the procedural part of the original proposal had been stricken in
the revision because the recommendation was intended to involve
policy only.  Cheney listed the changes in response to a question
from Leifer.
    Bornhorst asked for objections to considering the changes to
be editorial.  Heuvers asked whether the changes had been brought
up on the floor at the previous meeting.  Bornhorst said that all
but the striking of the procedures had been noted then.
    Leifer said that no provision for a life insurance pool was
included in the proposal.  Bornhorst said that Proposal 20-94
concerned only the furlough, and that life insurance would have to
be another proposal.  Cheney said that she had been discussing the
life insurance options with Travelers Insurance, and that she had
obtained rates for retirees in their own separate pool.
    Boutilier asked what the proposal would add to a department
head's options that are not now present.  Bornhorst said that it
may add nothing, and restated his call for objections to
considering the changes to be editorial.  Roblee said the changes
were only clarifying, not substantial.  Leifer said that the life
insurance provisions were not included.  Bornhorst asked for a vote
to determine whether the changes were editorial.  In a voice vote,
the changes were approved as editorial.
    Glime MOVED that Proposal 20-94 be approved.  Bulleit seconded
the motion.
    Bornhorst called for objections to the recommendation of voting
units.  Diebel MOVED to expand the vote to the entire Senate. 
Vanek seconded the motion.  Bornhorst said that the proposal
appeared to fall under the constitutional provisions for fringe
benefits, which require the vote of the full Senate.  Bornhorst
called for discussion of the motion.
    Heyman said that numbers of tenured faculty were in departments
such as Fine Arts, the Library, and Physical Education, which were
outside of the category of academic degree-granting departments. 
Bornhorst said that the constitution restricted the responsibility
of faculty leaves to degree-granting departments.  If the proposal
were interpreted as a faculty leave, then voting would be
restricted constitutionally to senators from academic degree-
granting departments.  Bornhorst said that under the Interim
Protocol of Proposal 5-94, the motion to expand the voting units
could be voted upon only by senators from academic degree-granting
departments.
    Mullins said that Proposal 20-94 was clearly a sabbatical-type
leave, and the vote should be confined to the academic faculty. 
Pickens noted that the furlough requirements differed somewhat from
sabbatical requirements.  Heuvers said that tenured faculty were
located in departments classed as Other Course-offering Units. 
Sewell said that one person in Counseling Services was a tenured
faculty member.  Bornhorst called for further discussion. There was
none.  The motion to expand the voting units FAILED in a show-of-
hands vote, 9-10.
    Heuvers MOVED to extend the vote to senators representing Other
Course-offering Units.  Grzelak seconded the motion.  Bornhorst
called for discussion.  Roblee asked how the motion affected the
constitution.  Bornhorst replied that the constitution was not
affected, but that the Senate was following the interim protocol
designed to minimize confusion associated with subdividing the
Senate vote on various issues.  Bulleit said that the other course-
offering units included groups such as ROTC that did not have
tenured faculty, and that the logical options were either the full
Senate or the academic degree-granting departments.  Heyman said
that the group of Other Course-offering Units was the closest
approximation to inclusion of all tenured faculty.  Bornhorst said
the issue also would arise next fall when the Senate voted on
tenure policy, that the protocol was perhaps defective, and that
the subsets might be redefined around tenured faculty.
    Diebel said he had moved to expand the vote to the whole Senate
because the proposal had been originally a retiree fringe-benefit
enhancement program.  The revision had restricted the proposal to
tenured faculty.  Diebel said he objected to one group being
offered a benefit not available to the whole group.  Heuvers said
the tenured faculty were affected because they would have to


******************************************************************
Page 4422       Minutes of Senate Meeting 214        20 Apr 1994


pick up the teaching load of the furloughed individuals.  Keen
asked Diebel if he objected to tenure not being offered to
everybody.  Diebel said that he would prefer that tenure be offered
to nobody.
    Bornhorst called for further discussion.  There was none.  The
motion to expand the voting to the Other Course-offering Units
PASSED in a voice vote.
    Leifer noted that all senators had been mailed copies of an
analysis of the proposal prepared by the Fringe Benefits
Subcommittee [Appendix H of these minutes].  Leifer said that the
Subcommittee was not opposed to the proposal, because the
administration could propose whatever it liked; however, the
proposal would persuade few persons to retire.
    Heyman said that the requirement for application one year in
advance allowed too much discretion on the part of department heads
and deans; the proposal could permit the reward of one faculty
member and punishment of another.  The proposal lacked a statement
of intent that could be used in an appeal.  Bornhorst said that the
retirement furlough is much like the current sabbatical leave
policy and added that a proposal for a grievance procedure would
be soon introduced to the Senate.
    Heuvers asked why ten years of service was required.  Cheney
said that the provision was copied from the Univ of Michigan
policy.  Pickens asked if 10 years of service was now a requirement
for retirement.  Cheney said that the requirement applied only to
MPSERS personnel.  Grzelak said that the 10 year requirement was
part of the medical retirement benefits.
    Mullins said the program resembled a sabbatical, and asked what
spacing was needed between a sabbatical and the retirement
furlough.  He commented that labelling the program as a benefit
package was disingenuous, because it was only a modified sabbatical
from which one did not have to return.  Roblee said he saw little
advantage in taking half pay for a final year at the university. 
Bornhorst said that if retirement is currently taken in May, full
social security benefits might not be collected for the remainder
of the calendar year.  The proposal would help financially with
this.
    Leifer said that the administration could offer the furlough
with or without Senate approval.  He called attention to the 91.67%
calculation in the Subcommittee's analysis of the furlough, and
said that the administration might be more magnanimous.
    Heyman said the furlough was not an advantage to everybody who
was eligible for retirement, but only those who are ready to
collect social security, who can collect TIAA/CREF benefits, or
who can move to another job.  He asked whether MPSERS retirees
would benefit by the plan.  Cheney said they would not.  Heyman
said that the plan is not unfair; it adds another option to what
is currently available.  Roblee said that the plan has both
benefits and costs; in this case the cost is the same as a
sabbatical.
    Boutilier said that the plan adds nothing to what the
department heads now have the freedom to do.  Carlson said that
the proposal allows everybody to be offered the same plan, as
opposed to a whim of a department head.
    Bornhorst said that the administration would not offer the
retirement furlough without Senate approval.  Daavettila said the
proposal was an improvement over the current situation.  Bulleit
said that the proposal would increase the number of available
retirement options.  Cheney said the proposal offered a half-year
salary for doing nothing.  Leifer said that the payment had already
been earned.  Glime said that the safeguards against departmental
arbitrariness could be built into departmental charters.
    Heuvers said that the furlough provides a benefit for May
retirees that they would not currently obtain.  Leifer said that
the furlough program provides the half-year salary in any calendar
year that the retiree chooses.
    Bornhorst called for further discussion.  There was none. 
Bornhorst said that a secret ballot had been requested.  Ballots
were distributed and the motion PASSED, 14-6 with two abstentions.

C. Proposal 22-94 University Senate Administrative Evaluation.
Bornhorst gave the floor to Administrative Policy Committee Chair
Heyman, who referred to Proposal 22-4 circulated previously
[Minutes, p.4390], and noted that some clarifying editorial changes
were needed.
    Arici MOVED the approval of Proposal 22-94.  Vanek seconded the
motion.
    Bornhorst called for objections to the recommended voting
units.  There were none.
    Heyman MOVED to amend the proposal (A) on Page 1 by inserting
"Education & Public Services" with the Library and Non-Academic
Groups under the heading "Make-up and Selection of an Evaluation
Commission"; and (B) on the last line of Page 2 by striking
"(without appendices)" and inserting "and self evaluations (but no
other appendices)".  Hubbard seconded the motion.
    Heuvers asked whether the report could be distributed by e-mail
to save the expense of photocopying.  Heyman said that it could be,
except for those constituents not receiving e-mail, and that in the
future, the distribution might be completely electronic.
    Bornhorst called for further discussion of the amendment. 
There was none.  The motion PASSED without opposition in a voice
vote.
    Bornhorst called for objections to considering the amendment
to be editorial.  There were no objections.
    Bornhorst called for discussion of the motion to approve the
proposal.  There was no discussion.  The motion PASSED without
dissent in a voice vote.

IX. New Business
A. Proposal 23-94 Scientific Misconduct Policy.  Bornhorst referred
to the copies of the proposal [Appendix I of these minutes]
circulated with the agenda, and asked McKimpson to introduce the
proposal.  McKimpson said the Research Policy Committee had written
the proposal to modify the existing policy.  The administration had
produced the existing policy with minimal input from faculty and
staff.  McKimpson noted that the principal revisions were covered
in the Background statement on the first page of the proposal.  The
proposal had been produced with input from Research Services, from
Vice-Provost for Research Lee, from Human Resources, and from
Provost Dobney.  McKimpson said that the proposal was a consensus
policy from the people who would be involved ultimately in its
operation.
    Bornhorst called for questions.  There were none.

B. Proposal 18-94 PhD Program in Computational Science &
Engineering within the PhD in Engineering.  Bornhorst noted that
copies of the proposal [Appendix J of these minutes] had been
circulated with the agenda, and asked A. Melton for introductory
remarks.
    Melton said that the proposal was for a new option in the
College of Engineering Interdisciplinary PhD Program, and that a
more descriptive title might be Computational Sciences and
Computational Engineering.  Melton noted that nine different
departments would be represented in the program initially.  Melton
noted the national need and demand for researchers who could work
in both an applications area and in computation, citing the
magazine article [Appendix K of these minutes] circulated with the
proposal.
    Hubbard said that he would take exception to the first sentence
under the heading of Teaching Portfolio on p.6; the reading should
be "this PhD program", not "any PhD program".  Heuvers noted that
PhD programs in mathematics had been criticized for failure to
prepare candidates for other than academic careers.  Heuvers said
that more detail on the comprehensive exam and admission
requirements should be provided in the proposal.  Glime said that
the three-month minimum required between research defense and
dissertation defense might be too long for bright students.  Heyman
asked whether the proposal listed any core course


******************************************************************
Page 4423       Minutes of Senate Meeting 214        20 Apr 1994


requirements for the program.  Melton said it did not.
    Kawatra asked about the cost of the program, and the source of
the funds.  Melton said the program would require no new faculty
or equipment.  Kawatra asked whether the students in the program
would be supported during the summer.  Melton said they would be. 
Hubbard noted that no PhD program proposal had ever had any start-
up costs.
    Bornhorst called for further questions.  There were none.

C. Proposal 17-94 Academic Freedom Statement.  Bornhorst referred
to the proposal [Appendix L of these minutes] circulated with the
agenda, and asked Bulleit for introductory comments.  Bulleit said
that the statement would appear under its own heading in the
revised Faculty Handbook.  He noted that the statement had been
through several revisions.
    Heuvers asked how the proposal differed from the current
statement.  Bulleit said the statement was a combination of the
current statement and some ideas from Penn State's statement. 
Bulleit urged senators to compare the current and proposed
wordings.

X. Announcements
    Bornhorst asked the Senate to obtain the input of their
constituents on the three new proposals.  He reminded the Senate
than any new proposals for consideration this year had to be
communicated to the officers by Wednesday, 27 April.  Proposals
may be submitted after this time, and will be considered at the
beginning of the next academic year.
    Bornhorst called for other announcements.  There were none.

XI. Adjournment
    Bornhorst called for a motion to adjourn.  Grzelak MOVED that
the meeting be adjourned.  McKimpson seconded the motion.  Without
opposition, Bornhorst declared the meeting adjourned at 7:10 pm.



Submitted by Robert Keen
Secretary of the University Senate
.