******************************************************************
Page 5603 Minutes of Senate Meeting 238 3 May 1995
THE SENATE OF MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
Minutes of Meeting No. 238
3 May 1995
Synopsis: The Senate
(1) Passed Proposal 22-95: Revision of Senate Bylaws
(2) Rejected Proposal 35-95: Support of Continuing Financing of Self-
Funding for the TIAA-CREF Retiree Medical Coverage
(3) Passed Proposal 36-95: Scientific Misconduct Policy.
(4) Passed Proposal 30-95: A revision of 17-94: Policy on Academic Freedom.
----------------------------------------------------------------
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
President Bornhorst called the Senate meeting to order at 6:10 pm on
Wednesday, May 3, 1995 in Room B37 of the Electrical Energy Resources
Center.
Secretary Jobst called the roll. Absent were representatives from
Chemical Engineering and Math Science. Liaisons in attendance were Brian
Whitman (Grad Student Association), Aaron Dufrane (USG), and Ted Soldan
(Staff Council).
2. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS
Visitors included Marie Ryding (Registra's Office); Harold Evensen and Dave
Nelson (ME-EM); Rebecca Christianson (TQE); Mike Gilles and Anita Quinn
(Research Services); Dee Vincent (IT); Phyllis Johnson (Library); and David
Henke, Jennifer Klein, Gordon Erdelean, and Nicole Wertime (USG); along
with M. Goodrich (Tech Topics); and F. Dobney (Provost and Executive Vice
President).
3. AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS
President Bornhorst added to "6." a "C. Sabbatical Leave Survey Results"
offered by the Provost. He also recommended we move item "7.A. Proposal
22-95" to the next item on the agenda after adjustments. [Appendix A.
NOTE: only official Senate and Library archival copies of the Minutes will
contain a full complement of appendices.]
Vanek MOVED to accept the adjustments, with Roblee's second. Bornhorst
said if there were no objections the agenda would stand as adjusted. There
were none.
----------------------------------------------------------------
[Section moved by Agenda Adjustment]
7. A. Proposal 22-95: Revision of Senate Bylaws
Wells MOVED to change "ROTC" to "Army/Air Force ROTC," and Bornhorst said
in his opinion this was an editorial change, and he asked if anyone
objected; no one did.
Keen MOVED to amend 22-95, adding the statement from a memo sent to
Senators [Appendix B]. Beck seconded. The amendment stated that Proposal
22-95, if passed by both the Senate and affected staff, would be
reconsidered in a year. Grimm spoke against the amendment, and Beck said
it would satisfy those with reservations about the proposal. Grimm replied
that the Senate should make changes when a system proves unworkable, not
beforehand. Glime said the one year allows time to work out the plan and
allows staff to make any necessary adjustments. Heyman said that if the
amendment helps the new constituency to work together, then he supports it.
Next year, Heyman continued, the Senate will see that the Staff has made
major contributions.
The Senate voted on the amendment to 22-95 by secret ballot: 14 yes to
17 no, the motion FAILS.
Keen argued that Proposal 22-95 is unconstitutional, and he quoted
Article II which lists constituents. "The proposal," Keen said, "drops
them from the list."
Beck called for a referendum on the Proposal. Grimm said the proposal
will enrich the Senate, but Beck argued that the proposal would allow
voting by staff who could be swayed by the administration. He said that
there was no necessity for the Senate to join with staff since special
meetings could be arranged to debate issues of common concerns, such as
health.
Filer said that at present we have an us versus them situation, but
with the proposal passed, we will have only us.
Keen said the proposal violates the compromise which established the
current Senate. Vanek MOVED to reintroduce the amendment to 22-95, asking
for a reconsideration after one year. Bradley seconded. Bornhorst asked
Keen about the challenge on grounds of unconstitutionality, and Keen
replied that he would not raise the issue, but in a year, the Constitution
would have to be changed to accommodate the proposal.
With discussion at an end the Senate by written ballot voted for a
second time on the amendment to 22-95: with 16 votes for and 14 against,
the motion CARRIED.
Irish asked for arguments against 22-95: "Why is this [legislative
body] called the 'University Senate?'" he asked, "rather than the 'mostly
faculty Senate?'" Bornhorst replied that the correct name is "'Senate,'
not 'University Senate.'"
Bradley stated that his constituents were opposed to the proposal
because it places the staff in a second class position.
Discussion ended, and on a written ballot, the Senate, which needed a
2/3 vote or 21 votes in favor of the constitutional change, voted 23 to 8
in favor of the proposal: 22-95 CARRIED.
Bradley MOVED to send the vote to referendum with current constituents.
Keen seconded. This proposed vote would occur at the same time as the
vote among the staff. Glime argued against this measure, suggesting that
the Senate wait a year and see what problems needed to be worked out. The
Senate voted ten in favor and 21 opposed; the motion for a referendum
FAILED.
----------------------------------------------------------------
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Meeting 234
Page 5448 contains the sentence: "Glime suggested Bert Whitten be invited
to discuss this issue since he was on the original committee which
suggested the pre-pay method." The phrase in italics should read "worked
with the Board of Control..."
Leifer said that his remarks about the retirement health pre-pay plan
did not appear in the Minutes. [Checking revealed that his comments
actually occurred at a later Senate meeting, and they will appear in the
Minutes to Meeting 236.]
Heyman MOVED, with Mroz' second, to approve the Minutes of Meeting 234,
as amended. On a voice vote, approval of the Minutes CARRIED with dissent.
5. REPORT FROM SENATE PRESIDENT
A. GENERAL ACTIVITIES
Proposals 13-95 and 34-95 have been sent to the administration
[Appendix C].
Bornhorst has responded to the Presidential Commission for Women
Climate Study [Appendix D].
******************************************************************
Page 5604 Minutes of Senate Meeting 238 3 May 1995
The Executive Committee held a one hour discussion regarding the Senate
interaction with the University attorney, and they decided to avoid
discussing any issues not already discussed previously by Senate
committees. Bornhorst read a memo outlining the committee's decision
[Appendix E].
B. REQUESTS FOR SENATE ACTION
1. Distance education requirements have been sent to Curricular Policy
[Appendix F].
2. Student Conduct in Classroom, and Drop Fee have both been sent to
Instructional Policy [Appendices G and H].
C. COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS
The Executive Committee will meet on Thursday next week to pull together a
preliminary list. The committee will make assignments as in the past,
giving first priority to personal choice, and avoiding the placement of
members from the same unit on the same committee.
F. FINANCE COMMITTEE RESIGNATIONS
Committee chair Pickens has resigned from the committee, and Bornhorst read
his resignation memo [Appendix I]. Brokaw and Kawatra have also resigned.
Bornhorst read a memo from Brokaw [Appendix J]. The resigning group said
that the committee is unable to function because of factionalism; it cannot
respond to the administration with its present membership. A faction of
the committee, they said, should not be able to undercut issues. They
recommended that the Senate reconstitute the committee.
Roblee MOVED to reconstitute the Senate Finance Committee so that no
current members or volunteers are members next year; Bradley seconded.
Sloan said that one of the committee members wrote the memo of resignation
during a period of major stress, and replacing everyone will produce a
committee of all new people who must begin from scratch, without guidance.
Arguments for keeping selected committee members were discounted, and
with discussion at an end the Senate voted 21 to ten in favor; the motion
CARRIED.
6. COMMITTEE BUSINESS / REPORTS
A. UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT GOVERNMENT
(USG)--INSTRUCTOR EVALUATION BOOKLET
Visitors Henke, Klein, Erdelean, and Wertime from USG made a presentation
on the recently-published Instructor Evaluation Booklets, stating that it
had three purposes: to promote a change in the system with a publicized
version of teaching evaluations; to emphasize teaching as an important part
of campus life; and to allow students an opportunity to express to other
students their opinions of campus teachers. The USG leaders explained how
they collected and evaluated the feedback [Appendix K].
Bulleit said that Senate policy currently forbids regular evaluations
from being made public, but the committee on teaching, which he heads, will
offer proposals next year on this issue.
Heyman asked the group if it was fair to obtain classroom evaluations
outside the class from a small number of people. The group responded that
they wanted participation from a large number of classes, and not every
teacher participated by distributing forms in class. Bornhorst suggested
that Senators with suggestions for improvement send e-mail to USG.
B. LIBRARY
Phyllis Johnson reported on the Electronic Library Project. She said the
Library is currently testing a new computer software system, under Patricia
Moore's leadership. The target date of completion is June 12. Department
computer servers must be reconfigured before they can access the library
cardfile.
C. SABBATICAL LEAVE SURVEY
Provost Dobney said the major issue on why faculty have not taken
sabbaticals was clearly financial, and he also acknowledged that many
responses contained useful suggestions, such as continue TIAA at 100% of
salary while a faculty member takes a sabbatical. He also noted the
different plans people suggested, such as a 6-4-2 or 9-6-3, which means
that the longer one waits to take a sabbatical, the higher the salary
offered during the sabbatical [Appendix L].
The Provost said he did not think the Board of Control (BoC) would
accept a more expensive sabbatical leave plan, but the other feedback on
revising sabbaticals are helpful and deserve further consideration. He
will forward the proposed policy at the current compensation schedule (50/
75/ 100%) and eliminate the March 15 deadline.
7. OLD BUSINESS
B. PROPOSAL 35-95: SUPPORT OF CONTINUING FINANCING OF SELF-FUNDING FOR THE
TIAA-CREF RETIREE MEDICAL COVERAGE [See Minutes, p.5585.]
The Provost, using prepared transparencies [Appendix M], announced that
everyone who retires under the current TIAA-CREF medical plan should be
guaranteed a future in it. He then outlined two options: the first is to
continue as is, agreeing to Proposal 35-95 and placing large blocks of
funds into the plan. Among the drawbacks here is that salary increases
next year could not exceed 2% because a sizable portion of available funds
must instead go into the pre-funding pot.
A second option is to discontinue the prefunding and consider a more
comprehensive retirement medical plan. Furthermore, if the allotted moneys
are not spent on the pre-funding, the University could consider a raise of
3 1/2 to 4%.
Bornhorst asked how other schools were faring with the 2.6 % ceiling on
tuition increases. The Provost said that apparently only those schools
which had received the higher-than-inflation increase from the state were
going to keep their tuition increases at the State-recommended ceiling
rate.
Beck asked about the $1.9 million currently in the pre-funding pot, and
Dobney said it would remain there as a standby for emergency use.
Keen MOVED to delete from 35-95 those words indicating the proposal is
relevant only to the Finance Committee, and instead he suggested changing
this to the "Senate." The proposal's first line thus should read "The ...
Senate unanimously supports continuation of the retiree health benefit
self-funding plan . . ." In paragraph 2 the words "Finance Committee"
would be deleted, but "Senate" would be retained. In Paragraph 3 the word
"committee" would be changed to "Senate." Bornhorst said he would rule
these changes editorial unless someone objected; no one did.
With discussion at an end the Senate voted on Proposal 35-95. The vote
was 13 Yes to 17 No; the proposal FAILED, and thus the Senate makes no
recommendation on whether or not to end the pre-funding method.
******************************************************************
Page 5605 Minutes of Senate Meeting 238 3 May 1995
----------------------------------------------------------------
[NOTE: The Senate considered the following two proposal in the order they
appear below.]
D. PROPOSAL 36-95: SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT POLICY STATEMENT [Minutes p.5583]
Huang MOVED to approve 36-95, with Keen's second. Without discussion, and
on a voice vote, the motion CARRIED without dissent.
C. PROPOSAL 30-95: REVISION OF PROPOSAL 17-94: POLICY ON ACADEMIC FREEDOM
[Appendix N]
This proposal is virtually the same as 17-94 but with a sentence added
which extends the concept of academic freedom to students as well as
faculty.
Keen MOVED to approve 30-95; Heyman seconded. Without discussion and
on a voice vote the proposal passed with dissent.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Miner MOVED and Huang seconded to adjourn. Motion CARRIED. Bornhorst
declared the meeting adjourned at 7:35 pm.
Submitted by Jack Jobst
Secretary of the University Senate
.