******************************************************************
Page 4859 Minutes of Senate Meeting 225 7 Dec 1994
THE SENATE OF MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
Minutes of Meeting No. 225
7 December 1994
Synopsis: The Senate
(1) Rejected Proposal 14-95, which would have nullified Proposal 3-95
(restricting to Senators and Alternates voting rights on Senate
standing committees).
(2) Heard that the Administration had rejected Proposal 7-95: Grading
Change
(3) Made numerous changes to Proposal 6-95: Policy on Discrimination and
Prohibited Conduct. It will be reconsidered later.
-----------------------------------
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
President Bornhorst called the meeting to order at 5:33 pm on Wednesday,
December 7, 1994 in Room B37 of the Electrical Energy Resources Center.
Secretary Jobst called the roll. Absent were Senators-at-Large Filer
and Grimm; representatives from Computer Science, the School of
Technology, AFROTC, IWR, and NAGrp 3. Absent Liaison members were Deans
Lumsdaine and Seel; CTS Director Cross and a representative from Staff
Council.
2. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS
The Senate was blessed with numerous visitors: Patty Kyllonen and Ellen
Horsch (Human Resources), Bruce Seely (SS), Ted Grzelak (EE), Bill
Predebon (ME-EM), and Eric Obermeyer (ME-EM grad student). Traditional
visitors were F. Dobney (Provost and Executive Vice President), and M.
Goodrich (Tech Topics).
3. AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS
[Appendix A. NOTE: only official Senate and Library archival copies of
the Minutes will contain a full complement of appendices.] President
Bornhorst asked for one agenda adjustments: Under "6. Committee
Business/Reports" add a "C. New Senate Representatives Request."
PROPOSAL 14-95
Senator Leifer then asked to move 8. B: Proposal 14-95: Rescinding
Proposal 3-95 [Appendix B] to "New Business." No one objected. Brokaw
then MOVED and Leifer seconded to approve the agenda adjustments. Keen
said that 14-95 is not new business, and he has not had the fourteen day
opportunity to show this proposal to his constituents as stated in the
constitution. "Moving this is unconstitutional," he concluded. The
Senate Secretary then called the roll for the vote on approving the two
agenda adjustments: thirteen to thirteen; the motion FAILED for lack of a
majority.
Leifer then MOVED and Arici seconded to consider 14-95 as an
emergency proposal. Bornhorst added that if the motion were approved,
proposal 14-95 would be considered immediately. Arici argued that
immediately after the Senate meeting the Finance Committee would be
meeting, and they needed to know the status of 14-95 and who could vote
on Senate standing committees. The Senate voted via written ballot on
whether to accept the proposal as an emergency: the motion CARRIED
fourteen to twelve.
Bornhorst asked if there were objections to the voting units: the
full Senate. There were none. He then explained his ruling on why the
proposal called for a 2/3 vote, stating that the constitution does not
address the issue of rescinding proposals, which means the issue passes
to Robert's Rules of Order, which identifies the 2/3 rule. Bulleit
objected to the ruling, and Leifer said he did not use the word "rescind"
when he called for a reconsideration of Proposal 3-95. Bornhorst called
for a voice vote on whether to overrule the Senate President and consider
the proposal by a simple majority. The Senate overruled the President
and CARRIED the decision to use a simple majority .
Leifer then MOVED and Arici seconded to approve Proposal 14-95.
Bulleit asked for a clarification, and Bornhorst explained that a vote
for the proposal would rescind Proposal 3-95, and thus individuals need
not be Senators nor Alternates to serve and vote on any Senate standing
committee. Reed asked if the By-Laws referred to this concern, and
Bornhorst said "no." Irish compared the situation to the Federal
Government, which allows lobbyists to try swaying representatives, but
the lobbyists themselves may not vote.
Leifer argued that the issue of Proposal 3-95 must be reconsidered
because of the effect made on the Senate by the e-mail distributed at an
earlier Senate meeting. It had undue influence, Leifer said, on the vote
for 3-95. Whitt said the situation gave the appearance of a lack of
fairness. Roblee CALLED THE QUESTION, and his motion to end discussion
CARRIED on a voice vote. By written ballot the Senate voted twenty to 6,
with 1 abstention against Proposal 14-95, which FAILED, and Proposal 3-95
stands, calling for voting members of Senate standing committees to be
reserved solely for Senators and Alternates.
AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS
Bornhorst then repeated the earlier agenda adjustment: adding a "C" to
section 6. Mroz MOVED and Irish seconded to approve the one agenda
adjustment. The motion CARRIED on a voice vote.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Meeting 223
Brokaw MOVED with Bulleit's second to approve the minutes of meeting
223. The motion CARRIED on a voice vote.
5. REPORT FROM SENATE PRESIDENT
A. Proposal 7-95: Grading Change
[Appendix C]. Bornhorst said the administration had informed him the
proposal was rejected because it would take time and money to implement
and may not have the desired effect anyway. Instead, the Provost
suggested that the Registrar's Office would place a written explanation
on the front of transcripts identifying the grading system of MTU
students. Keen objected, stating that the Instructional Policy Committee
had received approval from student representatives, and the
administration implies that the Deans and Directors are running the
University. "This inane rejection [of 7-95] shows the Senate lacks
impact," Keen said.
Dobney said he thought no one felt strongly about this proposal but
Senator Keen. Bornhorst pointed out that the Senate has the power to
take this issue to the Board of Control if the Senate, by a 2/3 vote,
expresses the need. He asked the Instructional Policy Committee to
consider this issue and provide a recommendation to the Senate.
******************************************************************
Page 4860 Minutes of Senate Meeting 225 7 Dec 1994
B. Bornhorst said he had met with the GSC to discuss improved
communication between the GSC and the Senate.
C. He has also talked to the Chair of the Computer Advisory Committee,
Dave Poplawski (CS). Bornhorst will keep the Senate informed of
activities here.
D. The Research Policy Committee has been asked to look into an internal
faculty development grants program [Appendix D]
E. Proposal 6-94: Chemstores Proposal has been withdrawn. This proposal,
from last year, originated outside the Senate. To avoid outside
proposals from being lost, Bornhorst explained, the Senate Officers
immediately assign a proposal number to them whether they are sent to
committee or the Senate. Proposals from Senate committees, on the other
hand, are not assigned a number until they are ready for presentation to
the full Senate. The sponsors of 6-94 no longer wished the Senate to
consider their proposal.
F. Proposal 8-95: University Health Care.
This proposal was formally transmitted to the Administration. Bornhorst
mentioned that the Houghton Daily Mining Gazette had publicly announced
the University Administration had accepted this proposal, so there was no
need for the Administration to notify the Senate.
6. COMMITTEE BUSINESS / REPORTS
A. CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
Bornhorst introduced Bruce Seely (SS), chair of the committee which
worked on this proposal, then solicited comments or questions for Seely.
Brokaw asked for a clarification on the committee's view of "consulting."
Seely said the committee would be meeting soon to discuss this topic.
Bulleit said the proposal was "overkill" and said if a Director were
hired in the future and required to sign off on research proposals, the
paperwork won't be mailed in time. Seely said the committee expects a
uniform policy for everyone, and a coordinator should not generate more
difficulties than the present system.
Dobney and Seely discussed the attorneys' report on the Conflict of
Interest statement (the University selected outside attorneys rather than
those currently on retainer). Their report dealt primarily with category
4 "inconsistencies" and problems with consultants hired by the
University. The consultants' advice might affect their future contracts
with the University, the Senate learned.
Seely said he was checking on possible state laws prohibiting
instructors from receiving royalties paid on textbooks assigned in their
classes. The committee hopes to meet again with the Senate, then
complete a final draft.
McKimpson asked why the proposal calls for an ad hoc committee rather
than a standing committee to deal with possible conflicts of interest.
He asked if the committee won't have trouble locating members. Seely
replied that any potential conflict issues need to be studied on a
case-by-case basis.
Bradley asked why the Research Policy Committee did not receive the
proposal before it appeared before the entire Senate. Bornhorst said the
issue covers the terrain of numerous committees, and the Senate was
offering advice now on drafts, as a committee would do.
Bradley said the outlined procedures were vague, and Seely responded
by saying "This is a policy document; procedures will come later. The
latter issues are not the concern of our committee." McKimpson asked who
would generate the procedures, and Dobney said he hoped the Senate and
the Administration might work on them together.
B. BOARD OF CONTROL RELATIONS
Bornhorst noted that the Senate Officers plus Senators Keen and Bulleit
discussed the topic of "teaching" at a breakfast with the Board on
November 18th. Bornhorst made a formal presentation to the BoC on the
afternoon of the 19th.
C. SENATE REPRESENTATIVES ON COMMITTEES
1. Max Seel, Dean of Sciences and Arts, requires a formal review since he
is in his fourth year. The Administration needs by December 19th a
representative from someone not in the College of Sciences and Arts.
[Appendix E].
2. Bornhorst said he will ask Bill Predebon (ME-EM) to continue through
this academic year as chair of the Distinguished Teaching Award
committee. Next year, with changes recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee
on Teaching, the Senate will concern itself with a new chair.
7. OLD BUSINESS
A. PROPOSAL 6-95: POLICY ON DISCRIMINATION AND PROHIBITED CONDUCT
[See Minutes, pg. 4693 for a copy of this proposal.] Whitt read a
prepared statement [Appendix F], then MOVED that her amendment from the
previous Senate meeting [Appendix G] be tabled until the Senate decided
which of the two current versions will be under consideration. Leifer
seconded. There was no discussion, and the motion to table CARRIED on a
voice vote.
Discussion then focused on Keen's amendment, a rewriting of the
initial proposal. Bulleit said Keen's amendment was clearer [than the
original], but he wondered why we needed this proposal at all. Bornhorst
reminded the Senate that the topic under consideration was not whether
the proposal was necessary, but whether to accept the Keen version.
Discussion then ended, and the Senate, on a voice vote, CARRIED the
motion to replace the original draft with Keen's amended/rewritten
version.
Dobney responded to concern regarding the proposal's statement
identifying the Provost as arbiter of whether someone had committed a
misdeed against 6-95. "I don't want to make such decisions," he said.
"A committee will do this. The Administration, however, will not bring
before the Board of Control any procedures, only policy, and that's why
this proposal can only include general policy." Bornhorst suggested the
addition of "in consultation with the Senate," which Dobney accepted.
Dobney said the Board wants a "single neck" to hang; that is, only one
person ultimately responsible.
Reed said the list of offenses seemed redundant, considering that
state law also identifies the actions as illegal. Dobney explained that
the proposal gives the University the right to take action against
malefactors in their relationship to the University.
Whitt MOVED and Brokaw seconded to strike paragraph A, but Dobney
said this paragraph was added by an attorney, although he was not sure
why. The document deals with legal issues, Dobney continued, and thus
we needed attorneys' views on it; otherwise the Board would not accept
it.
******************************************************************
Page 4861 Minutes of Senate Meeting 225 7 Dec 1994
With no further discussion on this issue, the Senate, on a voice
vote, CARRIED the striking of paragraph A.
Givens MOVED and Bradley seconded to strike only paragraph B,
although other Senators encouraged him to delete paragraphs B through D.
Bradley complained that the sections contained only partial lists.
Bulleit and Givens gave examples of possible misconduct and asked if the
proposal would cover them. Heyman said no policy could possibly cover
all cases; "the strongest amendments in the Bill of Rights," he said,
"contain the simplest wording." Glime said paragraphs B through E do not
function as policy but rather example. Discussion ended and on a voice
vote the Senate CARRIED the motion to strike B.
Glime MOVED and Arici seconded to strike C and D. No further
discussion, and the Senate CARRIED this motion.
Bornhorst identified the remaining final paragraph as being now
nonsensical since it related to paragraphs since removed, and he
suggested changing the beginning of the sentence from "The following
behaviors" to "These behaviors" and moving the entire sentence to the end
of the previous paragraph. Arici so MOVED and Irish seconded. After
discussion ended, the Senate CARRIED this motion on a voice vote.
Reed MOVED and Mroz seconded to add the phrase "ranging from
reprimand to dismissal" to the end of the new final paragraph. After
discussion ended, the Senate CARRIED this motion on a voice vote.
Brokaw MOVED and Whitt seconded to add "and Board of Control policy"
to immediately after the words "Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act," at the
end of paragraph four. After discussion ended, the motion CARRIED on a
voice vote.
Whitt MOVED and Brokaw seconded to add "in consultation with the
University Senate" to the end of the last sentence. Without discussion,
the motion CARRIED on a voice vote.
Bornhorst told the Senate the motions easily qualified as
"substantial editorial changes" and he would distribute a new copy of the
proposal for consideration at a later meeting. There were no objections.
AGENDA ADJUSTMENT
At this point Bornhorst requested an amended agenda so that a new
proposal, 13-95 [Appendix H], could be discussed at the next Senate
meeting.
Bornhorst also wanted the chair of the committee related to 10-95,
who was a Senate visitor, to speak for her committee's work. Heyman
MOVED and Bulleit seconded to amend the agenda. With no discussion, the
motion CARRIED on a voice vote.
---------------------------------------------
[Section moved by agenda adjustment.]
7 D. PROPOSAL 10-95: RECOMMENDATION ON DISCIPLINARY / DISCHARGE POLICY
The Senate did not make a motion to approve this proposal; the purpose
was merely to discuss it. Additional time was needed before a vote was
allowed under constitutional procedures. Bornhorst introduced Patty
Kyllonen, the chair of the committee.
Kyllonen pointed out that a key point in the proposal is the phrase
"just cause," which applies to union contracts, but some non-represented
staff don't have it. Horsch said that something occurred in 1987 which
provoked the University into introducing the "at will" phrase, and from
that point non-represented staff could be discharged, literally, at the
will of the University, without recourse. Dobney said this change in
wording would be difficult to get past the Board of Control, but it
should be done: "We need to take the high [moral] ground on this one," he
said. Dobney said the difficulty should be lessened if the phrase can be
placed in the staff handbook, and if the administration can obtain
evidence that MTU's benchmark schools have it.
7 B. PROPOSAL 13-94: ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE OPTION IN THE B. S. IN
GEOLOGY DEGREE
No discussion occurred on this proposal.
7 C. PROPOSAL 9-95: ABSENCE FROM REGULARLY SCHEDULED CLASS MEETINGS
Keen requested a review of this proposal by the Faculty Handbook Steering
Committee.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Leifer MOVED with Miner's second to ADJOURN. No one objected, and the
motion CARRIED by everyone leaving.Bornhorst declared the meeting
adjourned at 7:27 pm.
Submitted by Jack Jobst
Secretary of the University Senate
.