******************************************************************
Page 4679 Minutes of Senate Meeting 220 5 Oct 1994
THE SENATE OF MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
Minutes of Meeting No. 220
5 Oct 1994
Synopsis: The Senate
(1) Approved the minutes for meetings 218 and 219.
(2) Learned that Bornhorst declared a vote invalid in a Senate Standing
Committee because non-committee members had erroneously voted.
(3) Discussed again a possible change from quarters to semesters but
reached no conclusion on how to proceed.
(4) Reached no conclusion on 24-94: Faculty Grievance Policy, then sent
this proposal and a related proposal (5-95) back to committee.
(5) Approved 17-94: Policy on Academic Freedom with editorial changes.
(6) Continued discussion of 1-95: Sabbatical Leave Policy, but time ran
out before a vote was possible.
-----------------------------------------------------
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
President Bornhorst called the meeting to order at 5:32 pm on Wednesday,
October 5, 1994 in Room B37 of the Electrical Energy Resources Center.
Secretary Jobst called the roll. Absent were representatives from
Chem Eng., AFROTC, Army ROTC, Education, IWR, and NAGrp 3; two liaison
non-voting members; and a rep from Staff Council.
2. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS
The only visitor was I. Cheney (Employee Relations).
3. AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS
President Bornhorst made several agenda adjustments: Under "8: Old
Business," add 24-94: Faculty Grievance Policy and Procedure. Change
remaining items to "B" and "C". Add to "9. New Business," a "D. 5-95:
Recommendations for Grievance Committee." Finally, move 9D to be
considered after 8A since the two items are related. Arici MOVED and
Kawatra seconded to approve agenda adjustments. There was no discussion,
and motion CARRIED on a voice vote. [Appendix A.] NOTE: only official
Senate and Library archival copies of the Minutes will contain a full
complement of appendices.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. MEETING 218
Beck called attention to the large number of "Appendices attached" phrases
in the minutes, but none was in fact attached. Bornhorst explained that
the majority of these were already in the hands of the Senate but were
left off the minutes to save paper and copying costs. Appendices,
however, would be attached to the minutes destined for the archives. Beck
suggested a sentence in future to explain this policy.
MOVED by Heyman, second by Huang to approve minutes of Meeting 218.
Motion CARRIED on voice vote.
B. MEETING 219
Leifer argued that the minutes referring to the new Sabbatical Leave
proposal should reflect his suggestion to allow a single, extended
sabbatical for faculty who had not previously taken them. In effect, this
would be an accumulation of several sabbatical leaves. This plan, Leifer
explained, would "take me out of the Provost's hair for five years."
Leifer then MOVED and Hein seconded to approve the minutes of meeting 219,
as amended. Motion CARRIED on a voice vote.
5. RULING BY SENATE PRESIDENT
Bornhorst read the following statement invalidating a vote for the chair
of the Senate Finance Committee, a Senate Standing Committee, because the
vote included several individuals who were not in fact Senate-approved
members of the committee. "The Senate must operate on democratic
principles and hold itself to high ethical standards. In the Minutes of
Meeting 219, which we just approved, the finalized committee appointments
were distributed and there were no objections from the floor. Any changes
to this list must be approved by the full Senate as was done last year.
Late last week the Finance Committee held an election where three persons
not on this list voted in an election of the Chair. This is not
acceptable under democratic procedures. I have no interest in controlling
who is elected Chair, but I expect fairness. Thus, I hereby rule that the
recent election of the Chair of the Finance Committee is NOT valid.
Further, I now direct [Senate] VP Glime to convene a meeting of ALL
members of the Senate approved Finance Committee for the purpose of
electing a Chair. In the case that a tie occurs within this eight person
committee, the full Senate will be asked to select the Chair by secret
ballot.
"I wish to close by saying that Proposal 3-95 was drafted by the
officers before this incident occurred. The officers believe the Senate
must control its Standing Committees."
Leifer argued that last year anyone could be on a standing committee.
Bornhorst said that anyone could be on a sub-committee, and anyone could
attend a standing committee meeting, but only Senate-approved members may
vote. Carstens asked if Senate Alternates could chair such committees;
Bornhorst: "yes."
6. REPORT FROM SENATE PRESIDENT
Bornhorst's comments:
A. UNIVERSITY NATIONAL ADVISORY BOARD.
This group met on 9/21-22. Bornhorst led a full morning discussion on
university governance. Senators Bulleit, Heyman, and Patricia Moore were
in attendance as additional representatives.
B. GRADUATE COUNCIL
Met on 9/26. Graduate Students are preparing a Bill of Rights on the
relationship between students and academic advisors. They have requested
a Senate representative, but Bornhorst recommends they work on their own
since a faculty member might dominate the discussion or intimidate merely
by being present. There were no objections from the floor.
C. PRESIDENT'S CABINET
Met on 9/30 and discussed a draft proposal on discrimination and
prohibited conduct; and a Long Range Strategic Plan. The President
informed the cabinet that he has appointed a Presidential Committee on
University Safety and Environmental Health.
Kawatra asked how many people were on the President's Cabinet. Glime
said "about 30," and the cabinet meets sporadically.
******************************************************************
Page 4680 Minutes of Senate Meeting 220 5 Oct 1994
D. PROVOST'S MEETING WITH SENATE OFFICERS
Officers met with the Provosot on 9/30 and discussion covered four items:
(1.) Minor name change for the Foreign Language program in the Humanities
Dept.
(2.) Grievance Proposal.
(3.) Fringe benefits for summer research contracts. Matter sent to
Research Policy Committee.
(4.) Strategic Planning.
(5.) University Health Care (to be discussed at a future Senate meeting).
E. FAMILY FUN DAY
This group is seeking volunteers to help with the event's organization.
F. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DRAFT PROPOSAL
Bruce Seely has sent a 20 page document on this topic. He may appear to
discuss this proposal at the next Senate meeting.
7. COMMITTEE BUSINESS / REPORTS
A. BOARD OF CONTROL (BoC) RELATIONS COMMITTEE. Bornhorst reported that
the BoC met on 9/23. Bornhorst made a presentation on behalf of the
Senate, summarizing reasons for 30-94: Course Drop Policy and updating the
BoC on other issues which will be brought for their approval as the Senate
approves them.
The Course Drop Policy was approved by the BoC unanimously. They
thanked the Senate for its input; they also appreciated student input on
this topic.
B. COMMITTEE NOMINATIONS
Bornhorst reported on names sent to the President as the Senate's
committee nominations.
RETENTION STUDY TASK FORCE. Bornhorst reported that Jeff Bell-Hanson
and Mark Plichta had agreed to be nominees. For the TQE Committee on
Classroom Scheduling Ray Halonen had agreed to be a nominee. The Senate
accepted these individuals.
AD-HOC COMMITTEE ON TEACHING. Dobney and Bornhorst charged this
group, newly formed, to reach conclusions on three issues: Appropriate
methods for evaluating teaching, Function of Center for Teaching
Excellence, and Administration of Teaching Awards. [Appendix B.]
ATHLETIC COUNCIL. Bornhorst said he found no requirement that the
Senate must select a member. Jobst said that Randy Freisinger has
requested to be on this committee, and Jobst recommended his name be
forwarded to the President. The Senate is unsure of the plans for this
committee.
ACADEMIC TENURE. Jim Gale has requested a leave from the committee
for one year. He will reassume his membership in the 95-96 AY if the
Senate wishes. Leifer asked if an alternate was available. Heyman said
de facto alternates in the past have been others running for this office,
but only one person ran last year, Beth Flynn. It was suggested that Gale
find his own replacement, but Leifer said we should find someone with a
strong interest in this committee--someone who wished to serve; then hold
an election by the tenured/tenure track faculty. Bulleit said the person
should, furthermore, serve two full years. The Senate informally agreed
to both suggestions. Bornhorst said the Senate must now locate people to
run for this position.
C. INSTRUCTIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE--UNIVERSITY CALENDAR
Bornhorst asked Keen (Chair of committee) for a report on how to proceed
on this topic, which has been debated for so many years. Keen outlined
possibilities and gave a report on the history of this issue. Beginning
in 1954, forty years ago, the University changed to a quarter plan with
the concept that faculty would teach no MORE courses, but in ten week
terms rather than 15 or 16. Since terms would be shorter, this would free
faculty time for research and contemplation. Over time, however, the
faculty eventually taught the same amount under the new plan.
Prior to 1960 the quarters were of variable length, approximating what
we now call a "late quarter calendar." Then in 1974 the calendar changed
to an early quarter plan to finish the AY by the end of May.
Keen identified two problem areas: 1. A semester, some argue, offers
academic advantages with its longer time period. 2. The winter quarter is
broken up and is difficult for everyone. A senator suggested turning over
the problem to a TQE committee of students and faculty, but Keen said the
decision will involve a value judgment.
Keen reminded the Senate of Fynewever's suggestion of a 10-5-5-10
plan, with the winter quarter similar to a summer, accelerated plan. No
student would have a grade pending after Christmas. Beck asked about
conversion costs: if changes are not economically feasible, then stop
deliberations now. Arici spoke against the five week terms, saying the
plan would not work for graduate classes: insufficient time for projects,
study, etc. Carstens said the five week plan might involve yet a fourth
enrollment period, but Glime said a clear, annual schedule in the fall
could cover this accelerated term.
Cross then spoke at length about the problems experienced by the
University computing staff in updating software and making repairs to
existing software. "We need 3-4 weeks," he argued, for such changes, "and
the proposed [10-5-5-10] calendar would be even worse than we have now,
which is almost impossible on my staff." Cross said his staff has been
asked to work over Thanksgiving, and this is unfair. A lengthy period
extending over Christmas break, however, would allow changes and updates.
Cross called attention to the importance of a well functioning computer
system on campus, and said the system grows more complex every year.
Brokaw speculated on the University commitment to Distance Learning
and said the 10-5-5-10 plan probably would not be compatible. Glime
promoted the 10-5-5-10 plan, pointing out that some departments, such as
HU, could add the five separate weeks to the fall and/or spring, thus
producing two fifteen week terms.
Discussion ended with no clear direction in sight.
8. OLD BUSINESS
A. 24-94: FACULTY GRIEVANCE POLICY & PROCEDURES and 5-95: REQUIREMENTS
FOR GRIEVANCE COMMITTEES IN DEPARTMENT CHARTERS
Bornhorst reported that the Provost has returned proposal 24-94 with a
recommendation that Departments describe in their charters a committee
which would consider grievances rejected by the Chair. [Appendix C.]
Senators argued that some grievances could not be handled effectively by a
department committee, and Bornhorst asked for a listing of topics; all
those
******************************************************************
Page 4681 Minutes of Senate Meeting 220 5 Oct 1994
proffered were covered by other, recognized procedures. Other Senators
argued that people outside the home department might be more objective.
Bornhorst explained that the problem was in allowing faculty freedom to
grieve major concerns, but to keep minor annoyances, such as flies on an
office windowsill, at the department level. Heyman suggested an
ombudsman. Greuer pointed out that current policy lacks time constraints
on administrators in dealing with grievances.
Bulleit MOVED and Arici seconded to send both proposals to the
Academic Policy Committee. Filer mentioned a good policy would mean fewer
law suits for the University. After discussion ended, motion CARRIED on a
voice vote. Bornhorst asked Heyman for a preliminary report at the next
Senate meeting in two weeks.
B. 17-94: POLICY ON ACADEMIC FREEDOM
Bulleit MOVED and Heyman seconded to take this proposal from the floor and
reconsider approving it at this time. No discussion ensued, and the
motion CARRIED on a voice vote.
Whitt MOVED and Bulleit seconded an amendment to the end of the final
paragraph: "In the event of a conflict between the policy on academic
freedom and the tenure policy, the policy on academic freedom takes
precedence. Moreover, the tenure policy shall be construed to promote
academic freedom." After discussion ended, motion CARRIED on a voice
vote.
Whitt then MOVED and Kawatra seconded to delete in the middle of
paragraph 3, the phrase "in accordance with professional standards".
After discussion ended, motion CARRIED on a voice vote.
Arici said some have worried that "distribution of knowledge" means
publishing. Jobst said it could mean any oral transmission of knowledge,
such as teaching. Beck agreed.
Reed asked if the committee, when developing this proposal, considered
scientific misconduct. Bulleit said no. Heyman said such proposals must
cover generally, not specifically, as does the Bill of Rights. Reed
countered that some areas should be explicit, such as plagiarism.
Gruenberg asked whether the proposal should cover students and staff.
Bornhorst said they might be covered in the forthcoming staff handbook.
Discussion ended. Bornhorst asked whether amendments were editorial or
substantive. Mroz argued that they were editorial so the Senate could
vote tonight on the proposal. There were no objections from the floor.
Motion CARRIED on a voice vote.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bornhorst asked to amend the agenda further and introduce items under New
Business so they could be voted on at the next Senate meeting. Brokaw
MOVED and Carstens seconded. After no discussion, motion CARRIED on a
voice vote.
9. NEW BUSINESS
A. 2-95: UNIVERSITY CLOSURE GUIDELINES
Bornhorst called attention to an aspect of the proposal: the excused
absences for students as a result of a weather advisory.
B. 3-95: VOTING ON STANDING COMMITTEES
Leifer asked for clarification. Bornhorst said if this proposal passes,
only Senators and Alternates may vote in the Senate standing committees.
C. 4-95: DEFINITION OF ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS
Bornhorst called attention to the discussion of "three year and out"
plans, which will be unnecessary once the new definitions are passed.
8. C. (moved by agenda adjustment) 1-95: CHANGES TO THE UNIVERSITY
SABBATICAL LEAVE POLICY
Bornhorst showed a table [Appendix D ] obtained from the Administration
listing the numbers of sabbaticals taken by department. School of
Technology was not listed. Leifer noted that the table did not reveal how
many quarters were taken by each person, and he requested this
information.
Bornhorst suggested that the Senate vote on this proposal now and
consider more dramatic changes at a later date. Leifer MOVED and Arici
seconded to return the document to the Academic Policy Committee. During
discussion Glime suggested accepting this document and making changes
later that would encourage more sabbaticals. After discussion ended,
motion FAILS on a voice vote.
Mroz MOVED and Irish seconded to support proposal 1-95. Patricia
Moore asked for the Library to be included in voting units. Keen pointed
out that individual units cannot be included, only groups. Roblee MOVED
and Grimm seconded to allow "Academic degree granting and other course
offering units" to vote on this issue. Without discussion the motion
CARRIED (with dissent) on a voice vote by the Academic Degree Granting
Unit representatives.
Bulleit MOVED and Glime seconded to amend the proposal and delete
"must have tenure" from requirements and add after the phrase "six years"
the word "consecutive." Heyman argued that the proposal needs tightening
not loosening. Glime argued for some kind of leave for long term
lecturers and instructors. After discussion ended, motion FAILS on a
voice vote.
Mroz MOVED and Reed seconded to delete items 1, 2, 4 and 5 in the
guidelines, but time, ever fleeting, had run out during discussion of this
amendment.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Miner MOVED and Keen seconded to adjourn. Motion CARRIED. Bornhorst
declared the meeting adjourned at 7:32 pm.
Submitted by Jack Jobst
Secretary of the University Senate
a