******************************************************************
Page 5165 Minutes of Senate Meeting 231 8 Mar 1995
THE SENATE OF MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
Minutes of Meeting No. 231
8 March 1995
Synopsis: The Senate
(1) Heard a report from President Tompkins on his presentation to the
House State Appropriations Committee, and the impact of Bill 237.
(2) Sent to committee the calendar for the 1995-96 academic year.
(3) Established a simple majority as necessary for approving revisions of
formerly-passed proposals.
(4) Passed Proposal 20-95, revision of 19-94: Policy on Class Attendance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
President Bornhorst called the meeting to order at 5:30 pm on
Wednesday, March 8, 1995, in Room B37 of the Electrical Energy Resources
Center.
Secretary Jobst called the roll. Absent was a representative from
Chemical Engineering. Liaisons present included Brian Whitman (Graduate
Student Association), Aaron Dufrane (USG), and Ted Soldan (Staff Council).
2. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS
Visitors included Curt Tompkins (President of the University), Debbie
Lassila (Provost's Office), Ellen Horsch (Human Resources), Linda Ott (CS),
Dave Ouillette (Registrar's Office), Erik Obermeyer (MTU Lode), F. Dobney
(Provost and Executive Vice President), and M. Goodrich (Tech Topics).
3. AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS
President Bornhorst made several agenda adjustments: Move "6A. Legislative
Report--President Tompkins" to immediately after the Agenda Adjustments;
after "B. Faculty Handbook Steering Committee" add "Scientific Misconduct
Inquiry Committee," and under "7. Old Business" move "A. Proposal 13-95" to
the end of the list, adjusting the letter designations of the other
proposals upward. [Appendix A. NOTE: only official Senate and Library
archival copies of the Minutes will contain a full complement of
appendices.]
Vanek MOVED to approve the agenda adjustments, with Mroz's second. No
discussion. On a voice vote without dissent the motion CARRIED.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
6.A. LEGISLATIVE REPORT - PRESIDENT TOMPKINS
[Section moved by agenda adjustment.]
President Tompkins distributed two packets of materials [Appendix B]
relating to his presentation before the State Appropriations Committee of
the House at the State Capitol. He called the Senate's attention to the
graphics in the handouts, which supported his request for a higher budget
increase. Tompkins said the House would probably ratify the Governor's
budget allotment of 3%, while the state senate, he believes, may vote for
an across the board allotment of 6%.
Tompkins discussed the implications of Senate Bill 237, which prevents
state-supported colleges and universities from raising tuition beyond the
Consumer Price Index (2.7% this year). The bill would run in perpetuity.
It is presently on the governor's desk, awaiting his signature.
Heyman asked about appointments to fill vacancies on the Board of
Control (BoC), and President Tompkins deferred to Provost Dobney, who said
he had learned that the names would not be released until the end of the
month.
Tech was not identified in the graphics among the state's "Research
Universities" and Tompkins explained that the State organized the
presentations by each school's Carnegie rating, beginning with those
identified as Doctoral I. Tech was included with Western, although Tech
produces more research doctorates than the Kalamazoo school. Dobney
pointed out that Tech is moving towards the Doctoral I ranking, "with
fifteen PhD's so far this year." Tompkins said Tech should reach this
Research University goal around 2003.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Meeting 230
All amendments focused on page 5010. Whitt pointed to section 7.B which
mentions her question for Bornhorst on how the BoC responded to his
presentation, rather than how the BoC responded to the Three Year and Out
policy, which is what the minutes indicate. Leifer suggested inserting
"TIAA/CREF" at the end of section 6, which should read "Dobney said each
TIAA/CREF retirement percentage point costs the University about $250,000."
Beck corrected the meaning of his question to the Provost in the next to
last paragraph under 7.D, to read "Beck asked what percentage of graduate
students are foreign, and how this number compared to other schools."
Carstens MOVED to approve the minutes of Meeting 230, as amended.
Arici seconded. On a voice vote without dissent the motion CARRIED.
5. REPORT FROM SENATE PRESIDENT
A. PROPOSALS APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT
1. Proposal 7-95: Amendment of Proposal 86-5 (Grading System Changes)
[Appendix C].
2. Proposal 17-95: Certificate in Mining and Environmental Engineering.
[Appendix D].
B. OTHER ACTIVITIES
1. Proposal 21-95. The Institutional Planning Committee has withdrawn this
proposal for further work [Appendix E].
2. Bornhorst reminded the Senate that nominees were needed for the spring
election of At-Large Senators.
3. Bornhorst identified several BoC agenda items which might be of interest
to the Senate, including the discussion of several proposals passed by the
Senate, including Emeritus Definition and an additional bereavement leave
added to fringe benefits.
4. Bornhorst described his recent meeting with President Tompkins and their
discussion of several topics, including the imminent retirement of Ron
Helman and the process for his replacement with a "Senior Vice president
for Advancement," which would involve representatives from faculty,
students, and the Alumni Board. Bornhorst asked if there were any
objections to the President's proposed search committee. There were none,
although Glime suggested that careful consideration be given to the
availability of members for meetings. She also asked for a definition of
"senior," and Dobney said it's a way of distinguishing between vice
presidents. Beck said the position is one of the most critical for Tech,
especially in light of the tuition freeze.
Bornhorst discussed the meeting of the Senate officers with Provost
Dobney, when the group discussed a possible Capital Outlays Committee,
Ranking Definitions, and the budget.
Finally, Bornhorst said he was calling a special Senate meeting next
Wednesday, March 15, which would use an agenda committed solely to "Old
Business," that is, the proposals on the current agenda, for which there
will not be time tonight. He said this method should expedite proposal
discussion. He also recommended that, in the future, agendas of special
meetings should not follow the regular format.
6. COMMITTEE BUSINESS / REPORTS
B. REPORT ON FACULTY HANDBOOK STEERING COMMITTEE
Linda Ott, as chairperson, reported that the committee has debated two
separate handbooks-one for tenure-track, and another for non tenure-track
faculty. She offered pros and cons for the two handbook; the Senate will
decide this question. Heyman asked if overlap wouldn't occur, and Ott
agreed. Beck asked if this process would not lengthen publication
deadlines, and she said it would not; all should be completed this summer.
Glime pointed out that different handbooks would disallow groups from
knowing the rights and duties of the others. Ott said both would be
on-line, and thus available to anyone. Bradley asked if these two are the
total number of handbooks, and Lassila said no, there will also be a
handbook for professional staff.
C. SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT COMMITTEE
Bornhorst reminded the Senate that last year the Senate passed a policy
establishing a standing committee, but it has never been formed. An issue
is now at hand, and a committee must be formed. He recommended that Vice
President Glime, with the assistance of Secretary Jobst and Senator Bulleit
form a list of potential committee members, from which Glime would appoint
three members plus an alternate until fall term. A new committee member
would be selected for next fall. Heyman MOVED to accept this plan, and
Mroz seconded. There was no discussion, and the motion CARRIED without
dissent.
D. STRATEGIC PLAN
Provost Dobney displayed a packet of transparencies [Appendix F]
illustrating several possible budget scenarios. All ended with deficits.
Dobney said that Auxiliary Enterprises could again provide some extra
support, but this method was increasingly problematic. Salary increases,
he said, would take virtually all extra moneys, leaving nothing for special
projects.
Dobney pointed out that the State will allow increases up to the
Consumer Price Index, but health care costs will increase beyond that, to
4.9%, and Library acquisition will be up 10%.
Options include raising non-resident tuition, increasing enrollment,
decreasing financial aid, and raising outside funds, say from donors.
Obermeyer asked why the transparencies did not reflect the tuition
percentage increases from the past several years, and he recited them.
Lassila said that it took a 2% tuition increase to equal a 1% raise from
the State. Dobney reminded the Senate that the total University budget is
about $74 million, and the percentages being discussed, on State
Appropriations and Tuition, are only on a fraction of this total.
Mroz asked whether Bill 237 could be ignored, and Dobney said that
doing so would penalize parents of Tech students several hundred dollars in
tax rebates.
E. ACADEMIC TENURE COMMITTEE
Bornhorst read a list of new tenure committee members: Mark Plichta and
Bruce Seely, with alternates Willie Melton and Neil Hutzler.
F. HEALTH CARE UPDATE
Ellen Horsch reported that the Benefits Committee recommended that the
University sign an agreement with Wausau Insurance as of May 1. They
selected this date so the committee had time in April to put on forums and
information sessions for employees.
Carstens asked if costs would increase for employees seeking local
health care, and Horsch said they would not as long as the employee sought
participating providers in the PPO plan. Roblee asked how long the
agreement would last with Wausau, and Horsch said three years.
G. ADMINISTRATION EVALUATION COMMISSION
Bornhorst reminded the Senate that they had previously given him the power
to appoint a chair. Paul Nelson has agreed to assume this responsibility.
H. 1995-96 ACADEMIC CALENDAR
[Appendix G.] Leifer pointed out that the calendar identifies Christmas
break beginning at 10 pm on Friday, December 22, a late date, especially
considering travel required by most Tech students.
Sloan said she has concerns for the safety of students rushing to get
home, and pointing out that Tech would resume on January 8. Pre-Christmas
vacation is preferable, she said, to post-Christmas days off. Roblee said
this calendar was trying to avoid breaking up the weeks for vacation.
Students leave early otherwise, he said. Keen asked why the calendar did
not go to the appropriate committee. Leifer suggested that vacation begin
on December 15, with students returning on January 3. Irish said changes
in the calendar could adversely affect the Cultural Arts Calendar, which
contains important events at that time of year.
Glime said that split weeks worked well this year, but Pletka said his
lab classes had to be canceled for the entire week before Christmas because
the subject matter could not be covered in less than two sessions.
Roblee MOVED to accept the calendar as is. Carstens seconded.
Bornhorst explained that if this motion failed, the calendar would be sent
to the Instructional Policy Committee for review. Grimm asked why Martin
Luther King, Jr. Day was not included in the calendar, and Dobney said the
issue has yet to reach the BoC. On a voice vote the issue was too close,
so Bornhorst called for a roll call: 12 yes, 20 no, the motion FAILED, and
the calendar goes to the Instructional Policy committee for review.
7. OLD BUSINESS
A. PROPOSAL 20-95, REVISION OF PROPOSAL 19-94: POLICY ON CLASS ATTENDANCE
1. Voting on Revisions of Previously-Passed Proposals
Bornhorst announced that his reading of Robert's Rules of Order stipulated
that a 2/3 vote was required for any revision of previously-passed
proposals, and he asked for a motion so the Senate could set a precedent on
this issue. Carstens MOVED, with Arici's second, to establish the 2/3
rule.
Keen said his reading of Robert's Rules indicate that a simple majority
is sufficient for everything except emergency proposals, that is, items not
published in the agenda. These require a 2/3 vote to be considered.
Discussion ended, and the proposal to require a 2/3 vote on revision of
proposals FAILED on a voice vote. Henceforth, passing proposal revisions
will require only a simple majority.
2. Proposal 20-95
[Appendix H.] Bornhorst asked for any objections to the voting units;
there were none. Sloan MOVED, with Filer's second to approve Proposal
20-95. Keen explained that the request for this revision came from
students attending the recent University-sponsored job fair in Minneapolis.
They were penalized for participating in the fair. The discussion ended,
and, on a voice vote of academic degree-granting units, the motion to
accept 20-95 CARRIED without dissent.
B. PROPOSAL 22-95: REVISION OF SENATE BYLAWS
[Appendix I.] Bornhorst said this issue did not yet require a motion, and
he instead would like to hear preliminary discussion. Beck asked for an
explanation of how passage of this proposal would work, considering that
two groups-the Senate, and the Professional Staff, must accept it.
Bornhorst explained that the Senate must first pass the proposal to show
that they wish to allow the Staff to join the Senate; then the Professional
Staff would vote on whether they indeed wished to join. Adding
Professional Staff to the Senate would require approval by both groups.
Bradley asked if Staff Council was informed of this proposal beforehand,
and Bornhorst explained that the Council leadership had participated in
several general discussions relating to the proposal, but the Senate
Executive Committee agreed with Senate officers that leaking parts of the
proposal, before the complete package was published, would lead to rumor
and confusion.
Bradley asked for examples of the Council's response, and Soldan said
the issue was polarizing. Many were supportive, while others were
concerned about the implications. Some staff, he continued, are
intimidated by the Senate: its location with the bright lights, television
cameras, and "professional talkers." The council is more low key, making
it easier for members to participate.
Bornhorst said that when he distributed the proposal he realized the
proposal would potentially anger everyone at once, but that was preferable
to taking sides with one group knowing before the other. Bradley said the
procedure was awkward, but Dobney said in controversial issues someone is
always going to be upset because he or she wasn't consulted.
Beck said the current Senate workload is heavy, and he expressed
concern that more constituents would add significantly to this problem. He
mentioned the United Nations, which has many constituents, talk by a lot of
people, but little work that seems to get done. "Let's wait a year," he
suggested, "and see if the workload goes down."
Roblee said one reason for the heavy workload is the shared governance
of the University, which is what the faculty wished. Soldan said the
workload may increase, "but so would the number of workers." Beck reminded
the Senate that the meetings would still last only two hours. Miner asked
whether the Senate would be willing to spend time on staff issues.
Bornhorst said approval of the proposal would mean that the Senate may wish
to form a new standing committee to deal with staff issues. Steve asked if
a forum would be organized to discuss the issue with the people involved.
Bornhorst said if the proposal passed the Senate he thought a forum would
be useful.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Leifer MOVED, with Malette's second, to adjourn. Motion CARRIED.
Bornhorst declared the meeting adjourned at 7:30 pm.
Submitted by Jack Jobst
Secretary of the University Senate
.