******************************************************************
Page 4923 Minutes of Senate Meeting 229 25 Jan 1995
THE SENATE OF MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
Minutes of Meeting No. 229
25 January 1995
Synopsis: The Senate
(1) Heard a report from the Senate Finance Committee on the funding for
the new Environmental Sciences Building
(2) Passed Proposal 17-95: Certificate in Mine Environmental Engineering
(3) Passed Proposal 18-95: Revision of Senate Bylaws
(4) Passed Proposal 4-95: Definition of Academic Appointments
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
President Bornhorst called the meeting to order at 5:34 pm on Wednesday,
January 25, 1995 in Room B37 of the Electrical Energy Resources Center.
Secretary Jobst called the roll. Absent were representatives from
both ROTC units and NaGrp 3. Liaisons attending were Brian Whitman and
Aaron Dufrane.
RECOGNITION OF VISITORS
Visitors included Francis Otuonye (MG), Ellen Horsch (Human Resources),
Sue Beske-Diehl (GE), Beth Flynn and Ruthann Ruehr (HU), Bruce Seely
(SS), Eric Obermeyer (ME-EM Grad Student), Jim Pickens (Forestry/Wood
Products), and Marcia Goodrich (Tech Topics).
3. AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS
President Bornhorst made only two agenda adjustments: Under "6.
Committee Business/Reports," raise "D" to the top of the list of items;
and under "7. Old Business," lower "B. Proposal 13-95" to the end of this
section. [Appendix A. NOTE: only official Senate and Library archival
copies of the Minutes will contain a full complement of appendices.]
Leifer MOVED to approve the agenda adjustments; Arici seconded.
Since there was no discussion, and no one from the floor offered any
further adjustments, Bornhorst said he would consider the adjustments
approved if no one objected. No objections came from the floor, and
Bornhorst declared the agenda approved as adjusted.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Meeting 227
Keen asked why several sections contain the statement "See pg. Xxx for a
copy of this proposal." Jobst explained that keeping track of appendices'
pages is problematic during the time frame while the Minutes are being
generated, and the "x's" substitute until the Senate office staff can
determine exactly what the numbers are.
Whitt called attention to a problem on the last page of the Minutes.
The word "there" was missing from the sentence reading "Glime asked for
a show of hands, but Bornhorst said [there] would be a roll call . . . ."
Carstens MOVED with Keen's second to approve the minutes from Meeting
227. Without discussion, and on a voice vote, the Senate approved the
amended Minutes: motion CARRIED unanimously.
5. REPORT FROM SENATE PRESIDENT
A. Proposals approved by President Tompkins:
1. Proposal 13-94: Atmospheric Science Option within the BS in Geology
[Appendix B].
2. Proposal 9-95: Absence from Regularly Scheduled Class Meetings
[Appendix C].
B. PROGRAM NAME CHANGE IN BIOLOGY DEPARTMENT
Bornhorst announced that the Biology Department has requested and
President Tompkins has approved the name of their B. S. degree in Medical
Technology degree be changed to a B. S. in Clinical Laboratory Science.
The program itself would not be changed. Bornhorst asked if anyone had
any objections, and there were none. [Appendix D.]
C. ACADEMIC CALENDAR
Bornhorst said that apparently different drafts of next year's academic
calendar are afloat since several people have questioned the ostensible
short vacation period of only 11 days over Christmas 1995. In fact,
Bornhorst declared, this vacation period remains the traditional two
weeks. An accurate calendar, he said, will be distributed with the next
Senate agenda.
D. PROPOSAL 1-95: SABBATICAL LEAVE POLICY
Bornhorst announced that this proposal had not been sent to the President
because the additional data from Mullins (Chem Eng) is still forthcoming.
6. COMMITTEE BUSINESS / REPORTS
A. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION OFFICER (AAO) SEARCH COMMITTEE
Sue Beske-Diehl reported that the AAO committee identified four candidates
who were interviewed on campus. Two of these individuals accepted
positions with other schools soon after their MTU interviews, a third was
deemed unacceptable, and the remaining candidate's name was sent to the
President, who chose not to hire for two reasons: the candidate had no
college-level experience, and the committee had not sent him three
candidates from which to choose. The President then disbanded the
committee and asked Sherri Kauppi to continue as AAO for two more years,
until a new committee could begin a new search.
Moore (Library) asked why two years, and Beske-Diehl said the committee
was exhausted, that a significant amount of money had been spent on the
search, and that the University needed time to provide "distance" from this
first attempt to find a permanent AAO. Bornhorst asked for the vote on the
candidate who was recommended. Horsch (Human Resources) said the student
representatives did not support the candidate, and others were also
unsupportive. To Bradley's question about original pool size, Beske-Diehl
said "60." [Appendix E.]
B. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DRAFT DOCUMENT
Bornhorst said he was sure the Senate would like to see this draft placed
finally in proposal form, and he felt no need to send it to a Senate
committee since the Conflict of Interest committee has already done the
work. Bruce Seely said that he hopes to send a final draft to the Senate
Officers by February 3. Since his last appearance, Seely told the
Senate, he had received numerous questions and comments, and he gave
several examples: the issue that seems of most interest deals with
faculty-authored textbooks,
******************************************************************
Page 4924 Minutes of Senate Meeting 229 25 Jan 1995
and someone suggested departmental committees decide on possible
conflicts of interest in this area.
Seely also discussed the potential for problems if an individual is
involved in the selection of a supplier, say of lab equipment, and the
same individual has some stake in a particular company.
Leifer gave an example which contrasted the size of a possible
faculty conflict of interest with that of an individual working with the
administration. He said to consider a hypothetical textbook written by
and used in a course by Senate Vice President Glime. "Even if she enrolled
several hundred students in the class," Leifer said at the meeting, "she
might make a hundred dollars in royalties. How," Leifer asked, "does that
compare to the Conflict of Interest occasioned by a University attorney
deciding on whether Tech should continue with a lawsuit, thus assisting
that same attorney in generating hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees
for himself?"
Seely said he was asked what would be the course of action if someone
believed a conflict of interest occurred by a department head. Seely
said his committee did not want to place the Conflict of Interest
Coordinator in a position of conducting investigations, and he said such
an individual could ask the coordinator to conduct an inquiry to determine
if there was cause for concern.
Seely said the Coordinator role could be handled by an acting
administrator; thus the University's bureaucracy would not increase. The
individual should enjoy some background in research and relevant
experience, Seely said, expressing his concern that the tasks would not
be given to a file clerk.
Seely then described a Conflict of Interest problem on the University
of Michigan campus: the administration sued a contractor on the quality
of steel girders in a new building. The contractor came to court with
expert witnesses--all professors at the University.
Sloan discussed an issue raised at Seely's previous visit to the
Senate: Tech professors not taking Houghton-area consulting jobs when
local talent was sufficient. Seely argued that Tech faculty, unlike
local people, enjoy the use of state-supported facilities and thus should
not be in the competition. Sloan argued that by not offering their
services Tech faculty could be doing a disservice to Houghton people
looking for expertise. Seely said the faculty should then offer their
services for free.
He said his committee promotes a system whereby no decision would be
controlled by personal gain.
Seely was asked about procedures in the final document, and he said
some will remain in the final draft, the better to show the policies
expressed. He felt, however, that detailed procedures would be another
issue not covered by his committee's mandate.
Bornhorst called attention to the document's length, explaining that
the Board of Control (BoC) did not like to vote on lengthy documents, and
he asked rhetorically who would supply the abstract for the document.
Seely replied that the committee had sent an early draft to the BoC through
the Administration. Few comments came back, other than that a special
committee would not be a viable solution to the problem.
Bornhorst said that the document will return to the Senate at the
next meeting, for review by Senators and constituents, with a vote later
in the year.
C. FINANCE COMMITTEE RESPONSE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES BUILDING
PROPOSAL
Pickens distributed a report [Appendix F] discussing numerous issues
raised by the President's report on funding for the new building.
Pickens said the Senate should have been consulted earlier in the decision
making. Beck concurred, pointing out that the State often distributes a
request for proposals on capital expenditures, but with a one week
deadline. Beck called for the preparation of potential proposals in
advance, well before the State's request.
Leifer said the administration had offered a ten plus year timetable
of projects which did not include the Environmental Building and the
Forestry addition, and the costs were projected at $105 million. The
Administration had said they hoped to receive $95 million from the state,
thus leaving a balance of $10 million, assuming no overruns. Leifer
asked rhetorically what would happen if the state does not produce that
amount, and even if they do, how will the University produce the extra
funding?
Roblee told Bornhorst to mention the Finance Committee's concerns on
bonding for the new building when he attends the BoC meeting on Friday,
January 27.
Heyman said the bonding under discussion is for a building that is a
foregone conclusion, and this financial arrangement will hurt the
University.
D. ADMINISTRATIVE EVALUATION COMMISSION
Bornhorst read the list of individuals who had been recently elected for
this commission:
T. Monson (BA) R. Brown (CH)
W. Weingarten (Sch/Tech) T. Drummer (MA)
M. Pruner (IWR) M. Jurgensen (FOR)
D. Bezotte (Libr) B. Pegg (HU)
B. Sandberg (CE) C. Young (GE)
Bornhorst reminded the Senate that according to rules passed last year,
the Senate must now select the chair, a representative from the Senate.
This individual is needed by February 8. Beck said the committe should
elect its own chair, whom the Senate can then appoint as its
representative. Keen said the original proposal called for someone to
ramrod the evaluation through, someone accountable to the Senate.
Bornhorst asked for recommendations on a timetable: the committee
must complete its interviews and generate a questionnaire. Leifer said a
suggested timetable might be appropriate, with the committee adjusting it
as necessary.
Whitt suggested that the outside representative on the commission
become involved at the beginning for a few meetings, then return at the
end of the commission's work.
7. OLD BUSINESS
A. PROPOSAL 4-95: DEFINITION OF ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS
[Appendix G.]
Bornhorst said the Senate had already moved and seconded a proposal to
pass 4-95, and he called for discussion. Heyman MOVED with Whitt's second
to amend the proposal. In the paragraph devoted to a description of
"Lecturer," insert after "equivalent" the words "professional
qualifications" and strike the remaining words in the sentence. There
was no discussion, and on a voice vote the amendment CARRIED.
Bornhorst said he would consider this an editorial change
unless there were objections; there were none.
Fynewever MOVED with Roblee's second to amend the paragraph describing
Instructors by replacing "Master's Degree" with "Bachelor's Degree."
Bornhorst explained that the task force did not wish to give the impression
that it would commonly allow someone with a bachelor's degree as a
classroom teacher, and the phrase "or equivalent" should cover unusual
situations, such as Physical Education classes. Fynewever said the
interpretation of the word "equivalent" was the key to whether it would
work. Discussion ended, and Bornhorst called for a voice vote on
the amendment. Motion to amend FAILED.
Heyman MOVED, with Fynewever's second to amend the same paragraph, to
read "An appointment requiring a master's degree, or a bachelor's degree
and professional qualifications." No discussion followed, and on a voice
vote the motion CARRIED. Bornhorst said he judged this an editorial
change, and there were no objections.
Brokaw asked about the note at the bottom of page two of the
proposal dealing with a "grandfather clause," speculating on
******************************************************************
Page 4925 Minutes of Senate Meeting 229 25 Jan 1995
what might occur if an employee was "grandfathered" into one job, then
moved to another position. Would this clause still apply to that person?
he asked. Heyman said no, then said the committee could send it forward
for legal consideration.
Glime MOVED with Roblee's second to table 4-95, arguing that the time
was growing short, and the remaining two proposals should be considered.
On a voice vote the motion to table CARRIED.
B. PROPOSAL 17-95: CERTIFICATE IN MINE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
[See pg. 4921 for a copy of this proposal.]
Filer MOVED with Roblee's second to approve Proposal 17-95. Beck asked
if students could get all the credits listed in the certificate plan, and
Otuonye said yes. He offered to show a flow chart. Beck asked if a 2.0
GPA was high enough. "Shouldn't the certificate indicate a higher than
average degree of competence?" he asked. Otuonye said the University
requires only a 2.0 for graduation, and the department felt this should
be the floor for the certificate. Otuonye said he also had a revised
list of courses for the certificate [Appendix H].
With discussion at an end, Bornhorst reminded the Senate that the
voting on this academic proposal would be academic degree-granting units,
and there were no objections. On a voice vote the motion to approve
17-95 CARRIED.
C. PROPOSAL 18-95: REVISION OF SENATE BYLAWS
[Appendix I. See pg. 4925 for the original draft of this proposal.]
Keen MOVED with Miner's second to approve proposal 18-95. Whitt MOVED
with Leifer's second to amend, adding to page 3, section F ("Adoption of
a Proposal"), add a number 4: "When a proposal adopted by the Senate is
accepted with changes by the Administration, it shall be published in
revised form and reconsidered by the Senate in the same manner as a new
proposal." There was no further discussion, and on a voice vote, the
motion to amend CARRIED.
Roblee asked what the Senate would do if the Administration returned
the proposal with changes. Bornhorst explained that if the Senate concurs
with the amended proposal, it would be considered adopted, and if not, then
the proposal is considered equivalent to "rejected."
With discussion on 18-95 at an end, Bornhorst called for a vote. Since
it dealt with the Bylaws, Roberts Rules required a 2/3 vote for approval,
and Jobst read the roll. The vote was 28 for, none against: the motion to
approve Proposal 18-95 CARRIED.
D. PROPOSAL 4-95 (CONTINUED)
Since Glime's earlier motion was to table until after the subsequent two
proposals had been discussed, no motion was needed to bring Proposal 4-95
back on the floor. There was no further discussion, so Bornhorst took
the proposal to a vote, with the following participating units: Academic
Degree-Granting, Other Course-Offering, and Research Units. On a voice
vote the motion CARRIED to approve 4-95.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Bradley MOVED with Carstens' second to adjourn. All stood and left, so
the motion CARRIED. Bornhorst declared the meeting adjourned at 7:30 pm.
Submitted by Jack Jobst
Secretary of the University Senate
.