******************************************************************
Page 5861 Minutes of Senate Meeting 246 29 Nov 1995
THE SENATE OF MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
Minutes of Meeting No. 246
29 November 1995
Synopsis: The Senate
(1) voted to form an ad hoc committee to learn more about shared
governance.
(2) heard a report from Jim Riehl on campus safety and
environmental health.
(3) heard a report from Paul Nelson on progress of administrative
evaluation.
(4) selected Barry Kunz, Mike Irish, and Ann Maclean as the three
Senate nominees from which President Tompkins will select one
for the Committee on Academic Tenure.
(5) defeated the motion to accept the administrative amendment to
Proposal 26-95, Undergraduate Academic Progress, that would
have extended the appeals period from 5 days to 10 business
days.
(6) approved Proposal 32-95, Ph.D. Program in Mathematical
Sciences.
(7) defeated the motion to accept the administrative amendment to
Proposal 36-95, Scientific Misconduct Policy Statement, that
would strike the due process clause.
_______________________________________
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
President Bornhorst called the Senate meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
on Wednesday, 29 November 1995, in Room B37 of the Electrical Energy
Resources Center.
Secretary Glime called roll. Absent were representatives from
Electrical Engineering, Army/Air Force ROTC, and Student
Affairs/Educational Opportunities. Liaisons in attendance were Max Seel
(Dean, Sciences & Arts), Steve Batzer (GSC), David Henke (USG), and Ted
Soldan (Staff Council).
2. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS
Guests included Fred Dobney (Executive Vice President and Provost),
Al Baartmans (Chair, Mathematical Sciences), Anant Godbole (Mathematical
Sciences), Donald Kreher (Mathematical Sciences), Paul Nelson (School
of Business), Jim Riehl (Chair, Chemistry), and Marcia Goodrich (Tech
Topics).
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Soldan MOVED and Caspary seconded the motion to accept the agenda.
The motion PASSED by voice vote with no dissent. [Appendix A. NOTE:
only official Senate and Library archival copies of the minutes will
contain a full complement of appendices.]
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MEETINGS 244 and 245
Mroz MOVED and McKimpson seconded the motion to accept the minutes
of Meeting 244. The motion PASSED on voice vote.
Secretary Glime stated that the minutes of Meeting 245 should have
an insertion on p. 5811 after New Business item C to read: "Whitt moved
and Lutzke seconded the motion that the appropriate Senate committees
re-visit issues of membership of committees when the University
President chooses any committee members. The motion CARRIED by voice
vote with no dissent." Senator Heyman asked that the wording of Agenda
item 8E, paragraph beginning "Senator Arici," line 5 be amended to read
"stated that MTU has 2 issues:" instead of 2 problems. Senator Whitt
stated that item 8E, column 2, line 7, beginning "Whitt stated that the
committee" should be changed from "it won't be effective without
administrative input" to "nothing in the proposal rules out
administrative input." Lutzke MOVED and Soldan seconded the motion to
approve the minutes of Meeting 245 as corrected. The motion PASSED on
voice vote with no dissent.
5. OPEN MOTION ON FORMING AN AD HOC COMMITTEE DEALING WITH SHARED
GOVERNANCE
Discussion opened on the open motion from Meeting 245, "to
establish an ad hoc committee on shared governance." Senator Leifer
stated that he wanted to see what shared governance is at other
universities and study it. Senator Bradley asked what is the goal of
the committee. Senator Whitt stated that its goal is to understand
better what shared governance is. Senator Soldan stated that the motion
needed more definition than just to establish a committee on shared
governance; the charge "to find out what it means" should be clarified.
Senator Filer stated that it is early to do this - we have only had
shared governance for a short time. Whitt said that we can learn from
others. Senator Bradley stated that this is a time of limited resources
and time should be spent elsewhere for research, better teaching, etc.
Senator Thayer stated that we do not have shared governance, only shared
blame. Senator Mroz stated that time, energy, and focus are valuable
commodities. Senator Heyman suggested that the commission to evaluate
the upper administration could ask these questions of other schools as
part of the evaluation of the success of the administration in
accomplishing shared governance. Soldan and other senators expressed
surprise that anyone would not want to set up this committee and
suggested that if people are interested in doing it, we should do it.
Whitt stated that the administrative evaluation committee has enough to
do and that assigning this to them would overburden them. Senator
Greuer stated that accreditation parties require a summation of the
success of shared governance.
******************************************************************
Page 5862 Minutes of Senate Meeting 246 29 Nov 1995
Senator Leifer requested a roll call vote. The motion PASSED by
roll call vote with 26 yes, 6 no, and 2 abstentions.
Evensen - no Filer - no
Glime - yes Reed - abstain
Walck - yes Whitt - yes
Keen - yes Brokaw - no
Leifer - yes Shonnard - yes
Ott - yes Mroz - no
Pegg - yes Gopal - yes
Arici - yes Thayer - yes
Greuer - yes Beck - yes
Heyman - yes Carstens - abstain
Goldstein - yes Moore - yes
Fynewever - yes McKimpson - yes
Diebel - no Bradley - no
Remali - yes Lutzke - yes
Ouellette - yes Soldan - yes
Little - yes Vichich - yes
Caspary - yes Kitalong - yes
The President asked that senators who wish to serve on this shared
governance committee so indicate by email.
6. REPORT FROM SENATE PRESIDENT
President Bornhorst reported that the following proposals were
submitted to the Administration on 27 October 1995: 7-94, Scheduling
of Evening Examinations, 10-94, Amendments to Final Exam Policy, 33-95,
Research Statement, 5-96, Center for Teaching, Learning, and Faculty
Development. [Appendices B, C, D, and E]
President Tompkins approved Proposal 29-95, Department of
Education. The President also enthusiastically approved Proposal 37-95,
Statement of the Value of Interdisciplinary Scholarship and Teaching.
[Appendices F and G]
The Senate has received a proposal for an MS degree in
Environmental Policy now designated as Proposal 10-96; this proposal is
in review by the Curricular Policy Committee.
Last year the Athletic Council changed its structure. Recently,
with the help of the Senate Assistant, the President has determined that
the role of the Senate in selecting faculty members was inadvertently
changed. This will be corrected so that the Senate will again select
faculty members.
The Space Committee of the University has met several times this
term. President Bornhorst represents the Senate.
The Conflict of Interest procedures are nearly ready for Senate
review, according to Bruce Seely.
The Provost and Officers met on 20 November and discussed the
status of the pending proposals and work in progress on Separation and
on Promotion and Tenure.
The Senate office computer is being upgraded. This may result in
a carry over expense into next year's SS&E for the Senate.
7. COMMITTEE BUSINESS/REPORTS
A. Presidential Committee on University Safety and Environmental
Health - Jim Riehl
Jim Riehl, Chair, reported on their charge and topics they have
considered, including such items as safety at the ski hill and walking
across campus. He stated that the students had been particularly
influential in suggesting improvements for safety in walking around the
university. Student Jennifer Klein had suggested placing one phone on
every floor of every building; this has been approved by President
Tompkins with money to come from what is left from a senior gift several
years ago dedicated to campus safety issues. One goal of the committee
is to make concern for safety a part of the MTU culture. The safety
program for teaching and research labs has been approved and will come
to the faculty soon. The committee is working on training. An
incentive program for cleanup of hazardous waste is being discussed,
with the possibility of offering a one-time free disposal of hazardous
waste materials; subsequently, that cost must be built into the
departmental structure. Another concern is making everyone aware of the
number to call (123) about safety issues. For any emergency or safety
hazard, a team of trained personnel will be on call if you dial 123.
Senator Ott stated that the Graduate Student Council is concerned
about the lighting and phone access on campus. Riehl commented that the
GSC has not provided a representative to the committee this year and
needs to do that. Senator McKimpson asked about the status of central
purchasing for chemicals. Riehl replied that the chemistry personnel
are not qualified to handle some kinds of toxic materials such as
hazardous bacteria, so instead of one, there would probably be several
centers. He pointed out that the Provost has provided for a bar code
package that permits used chemicals to be returned to a central place
and easily located when needed, saving lots of money by providing more
efficient use of these chemicals. [Appendix H]
B. Board of Control Relations Committee
President Bornhorst reported on his activities as Board of Control
liaison. He reported to the Board of Control on 4 items during the 17
November meeting: administrative evaluation activities, the center for
Teaching, Learning, and Faculty Development, evaluation of teaching, and
the academic calendar and homecoming. The Board of Control approved the
revised faculty definitions and the sabbatical leave policy. President
Tompkins announced a workshop to be held 15 January 1996 on charter
schools, to include representatives from other schools with charter
schools, members of the governor's office, and a discussion of
liability. The Board also discussed the escrow of funds for the new
building.
Senator Leifer asked what the current sabbatical leave policy is
and Bornhorst reported that the percentages (of salary) are the same as
they have been in recent years the remainder is as passed by the Senate
last year.
******************************************************************
Page 5863 Minutes of Senate Meeting 246 29 Nov 1995
C. Administrative Evaluation Commission - Paul Nelson
Paul Nelson, Chair, reported on progress of that group. He
provided a report of background, membership on the commission,
self-evaluations, and use of outside sources for evaluation input.
[Appendix I] The use of outside sources was particularly important for
persons such as the Vice President of Government Relations whose primary
role was off campus and whose effectiveness there could best be
evaluated by those with whom he interacted there. Outside help is also
being used for benchmarks and examining the processes used by other
universities for administrative evaluations.
Nelson requested the help of Senators in getting as many people as
possible to respond to the questionnaire. He stated that credibility
will depend on the response rate. Senators can help by talking up the
evaluation in their units and by serving as a conduit to collect and
funnel questionnaires back to the commission as a means of allaying some
of the fears of retribution if evaluation forms would reach certain
administrators directly. Forms will require identifying yourself with
one of five units which consist of 50-150 people. The Commission hopes
to distribute the questionnaire in January and to publish the report of
the results in May. The Commission is currently considering ways to
prevent one person from submitting multiple copies.
Senator Whitt expressed concern about whether people will know what
a given administrator is really supposed to do. Nelson responded that
each administrator has been asked to provide a brief description of
his/her duties to be included with the questionnaire. Job descriptions
will also be available in the library. There will be categories for not
enough information. The proposal on administrative evaluation states
that the committee is supposed to synthesize information. Nelson stated
that the Commission considered the questionnaire to also have an
educational role relative to job responsibilities and accomplishments.
Senator Ott asked if people can see the self-evaluations prior to
filling out the form because an administrator might say he/she is doing
X, but the evaluator might think that the administrator should be doing
Y. Nelson replied that at least in some cases, that would be a breach
of confidentiality. Senator Bradley asked if the supervisor shouldn't
be writing the description of the job; Nelson responded that the job
descriptions are already public documents. Dobney quipped that a good
question might be to ask if the "idiot" who is doing the job now is
doing a better or worse job than the "idiot" who held that position
before.
D. University Committee Representatives
President Bornhorst reported that President Tompkins has selected
Ashok Goel to serve on the Sabbatical Leave Committee. David Sikarskie
has been selected by the faculty for the Committee on Academic Tenure.
The Senate must submit three names to the President for him to select
one. Senators discussed the possibilities of ballots, sending the whole
list but stating the order of votes, or sending the next three
vote-getters in the faculty election. Senator Soldan asked who could
vote on these choices. Heyman MOVED and Thayer seconded the motion that
voting units would be all units with tenurable faculty, but then
clarified the wording to be all academic degree-granting departments
plus Fine Arts and Institute of Wood Research. The motion PASSED on
show of hands with 18 for and 11 opposed.
Brokaw MOVED and Reed seconded the motion to take the top three
names from the faculty vote. Senator McKimpson said the Senate should
have broader perspectives; the faculty already had provided their
choice. The motion to take the top three names FAILED by show of hands,
6 for and 12 opposed.
Heyman MOVED and Thayer seconded the motion to vote and send
forward the top three vote-getters of a Senate vote for the position on
the Committee on Academic Tenure. The motion PASSED on voice vote with
no dissent. Barry Kunz, Mike Irish, and Ann Maclean were elected by
secret ballot (the same as the top three vote-getters in the faculty
election). Bob Zulinski and Bill Gregg tied for fourth place.
8. OLD BUSINESS
A. Proposal 26-95, Undergraduate Academic Progress [Appendix J]
The proposal was amended by the Administration to allow 10 business
days instead of 5 calendar days to appeal academic dismissal. Senator
Carstens objected to the voting units of academic degree-granting
departments. Reed MOVED and Mroz seconded the motion to expand the
voting to the full Senate. A senator stated that this is a common sense
issue, not an academic one. Senator Soldan stated that it seems to be
clearly academic. Senator Remali stated that it has a strong effect on
some non-academic units such as the Registrar's Office. The motion to
expand voting units to the full Senate PASSED 10 for and 9 opposed.
Carstens MOVED and Filer seconded the motion to accept the change
proposed by the Administration. Senator Remali stated that 10 business
days puts us into the third week of classes before a student can get in
a class; all classes are dropped from a student's schedule when the
student is dismissed. The fifth class day is an important cut-off day
for billing, adds and drops, and giving financial aid. Provost Dobney
stated that the 10 days sets the maximum; five days might penalize the
students who don't recognize the gravity of the problem; this makes it
more flexible. Senator Keen stated that if a student waits 10 days that
student is at a severe disadvantage. Senator Little stated that the
University would get a better enrollment count for reporting purposes
with the 5-day limit. Remali reported that after fall of 1995 there
were 28 dismissals, only 11 of whom had scheduled courses for winter
term, and 5 had appealed by the second day of the term and had gotten
back in. Senator Ott stated that 5 days could be a problem in the
summer. Dobney stated that the letter sent to the student would
encourage a rapid response. Senator Caspary stated that this group was
the wrong group with which to grant leniency; furthermore, we cannot
prove when a student received the letter. Secretary Glime summarized
that what the Senate seemed to favor was giving a limit of five class
days in the next term in which the student wished to be enrolled.
Discussion ended and the motion to approve the Administrative amendment
******************************************************************
Page 5864 Minutes of Senate Meeting 246 29 Nov 1995
FAILED on voice vote with no affirmative votes. The President will be
notified of our lack of affirmation with a suggestion to amend the
proposal to provide for appeal within 5 class days of the term in which
the student wishes to re-enroll.
At the request of the President, Mroz MOVED and Heyman seconded a
motion to move to item 8D in the agenda. The motion PASSED on voice
vote with no dissent.
D. Proposal 32-95, Ph.D. Program in Mathematical Sciences [Appendix K]
Heyman MOVED and Carstens seconded the motion to approve Proposal
32-95. Voting units are academic degree-granting departments. Senator
Bradley objected to the voting units because of the financial implica-
tions. No motion followed so voting units remained as academic
degree-granting departments.
Senator Moore pointed out that the statement of 12,000 serials was
misleading and should more properly be 3,000 printed serials. President
Bornhorst ruled this an editorial change. There were no objections so
the ruling stands. Moore suggested that the number of volumes be
omitted because the number was meaningless. Senator Leifer asked for
the cost to implement the degree and employment record for such persons.
Dean Seel responded that the TA positions were needed to downsize the
section size due to the introduction of the computer lab instruction and
therefore were a cost independent of the Ph.D. program. The faculty
positions requested would be replacements for positions where vacancies
are expected. The library resources would be part of usual library
requests, and while important, are not essential. The degree would be
of a new type that educates students for industry positions, not just
academia as has been traditional in math Ph.D. programs; current
students in math Ph.D. programs are being educated for the wrong job.
Leifer suggested that the program should be approved provisionally and
that we should look at the employment rate in 3-5 years. Seel stated
that we could argue the same thing for any department. Dobney asked if
the faculty will expect lower teaching loads. Baartmans (Chair,
Mathematical Sciences) answered no. Dobney stated that the unemployment
of new Ph.D.'s in mathematics is 14 percent, the highest of any
discipline. Baartmans stated that the advisory Board recommended this
program. One third to one half of the MTU math MS students go on to a
Ph.D. program. Some of our numbers now in MS programs might become part
of the Ph.D. program instead. The department estimates that a critical
mass of 25 graduate students is needed to make the program viable; some
students from other departments also take the graduate courses offered
by the department. Secretary Glime stated that her graduate student,
who had researched mosses, just got a job as an applied statistician
because of his peripheral background in statistics and programming; if
a student with a degree in another discipline can get such a job, one
trained for this purpose should be able to find one. Senator Bradley
stated that the cost question had not really been answered. Seel
responded that basically the requirements would be the same type of
requirements all departments present yearly in the annual budget
process; the program can be started with existing resources. Senator
Caspary questioned why the proposed positions were advertised in Tech
Topics before the program was approved. Seel explained that these
positions were replacements for anticipated resignations. Discussion
ended and the motion to approve the Ph.D. program in mathematics was
APPROVED on voice vote with no dissent.
B. Proposal 36-95, Scientific Misconduct Policy Statement [Appendix L]
Proposal 36-95 was amended by the Administration to strike the last
sentence of the paragraph following D, It is imperative that due process
be followed and protection be afforded to the rights and reputation of
both accuser and accused, collaborators of the accused, those
investigating the allegations, any sponsoring agency, any publisher, and
the University. The concern expressed by the University lawyer was that
this statement afforded due process to persons who are not currently
afforded due process within the University. At the suggestion of the
officers, two statements were added to try to address the desired
protection: to the same paragraph, words were inserted to read "When
scientific misconduct is alleged, a thorough and timely process which
respects the rights and reputations of all individuals shall take place
within the University to provide adequate opportunity for reaching valid
conclusions about the alleged misconduct. Individuals found guilty of
scientific misconduct are subject to discipline up to and including
dismissal." The voting units for the original proposal were academic
degree-granting departments, other course-offering, and research units.
McKimpson MOVED and Carstens seconded the motion to approve the
amended policy. Bornhorst asked for objections to the voting units.
There were no objections, so the voting units remained as in the
original proposal (academic degree-granting departments, other
course-offering units, and other research units).
Senator Brokaw asked who is affected by the lack of a due process
clause. Provost Dobney stated that graduate students, non-tenure track
faculty, and at-will staff have no due process contract. Senator Ott
asked why this policy is a scientific misconduct policy when it also
applies, for example, to cases of plagiarism in humanities. Senator
Beck responded that it was written to satisfy NSF. Senator Reed asked
if this was not already Board Policy and if so, why must we modify a
statement that was approved earlier (referring to the administrative
changes). President Bornhorst responded that the original policy was
never approved by the Board of Control. Senator Heyman stated that the
purpose of the policy should be to protect individuals by due process.
Dobney suggested that instead of striking the last sentence of that
paragraph, instead only the words "due process be followed and" be
removed; thus the sentence would read "It is imperative that protection
be afforded to the rights and reputation of both accuser and accused,
collaborators of the accused, those investigating the allegations, any
sponsoring agency, any publisher, and the University." Discussion
******************************************************************
Page 5865 Minutes of Senate Meeting 246 29 Nov 1995
ended and the motion to approve the Administrative amendment FAILED on
voice vote with no affirmative votes. The President will be notified
of our lack of affirmation with a suggestion to amend the proposal with
that wording change.
Thayer MOVED and Gopal seconded the motion to adjourn. The meeting
adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by Janice M. Glime
Secretary of the Senate
.