******************************************************************
Page 6028 Minutes of Senate Meeting 248 10 Jan 1996
THE SENATE OF MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
Minutes of Meeting No. 248
10 January 1996
Synopsis: The Senate
(1) heard a report from Bruce Seely on Conflict of Interest.
(2) requested that someone with expertise representing opposition
to charter schools be part of the workshop.
(3) heard that the University will purchase Wesley House for use
as a Career Center.
(4) heard a report from Freydoon Arbabi on the fringe benefits
survey.
(5) heard a report from Don Beck on the budget.
(6) passed a resolution that the Provost should request of the
Board of Control a 3% average salary increase for faculty
and staff.
(7) heard a report from Bob Keen, chair of the Instructional
Policy Committee, that the committee supports the decision
to eliminate the classroom bells.
(8) approved Proposal 10-96 to establish the MS Degree in
Environmental Policy.
_______________________________________
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
President Bornhorst called the Senate meeting to order at 5:32 p.m.
on Wednesday, 10 January 1996, in Room B37 of the Electrical Energy
Resources Center.
Secretary Glime called roll. Absent were representatives from
Mining Engineering and Finance/Advancement. Liaisons in attendance were
Ted Soldan (Staff Council) and Max Seel (Dean, College of Sciences and
Arts).
2. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS
Guests included Marcia Goodrich (Tech Topics), Brian Whitman (GSC),
Fred Dobney (Provost), Freydoon Arbabi (Civil Engineering), Terry
Reynolds (Social Sciences), Brad Baltensperger (Social Sciences), Mary
Durfee (Social Sciences), Elizabeth Flynn (Humanities), Ellen Horsch
(Human Resources) and Barry Solomon (Social Sciences).
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
President Bornhorst suggested amending the agenda to move item 8,
New Business, before item 5, Report from Senate President, to give Bruce
Seely a chance to answer questions on Proposal 11-96. Caspary MOVED and
Heyman seconded the motion to accept the agenda as modified. 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.]
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Proposal 11-96, Conflict of Interest Procedures [Appendix B]
Bruce Seely provided a one-page "roadmap" [Appendix C] of the
proposal and highlighted the changes made since the last presentation
to the Senate. Item 4.5 has minor changes in wording based on two
months of experience with the policy. Item 4.5.3 on Routine Testing has
been added to the policy; this provision avoids the need for repeated
disclosure when there is repeated testing of the same kind. Item 6.2.1
points out that the preferred procedure is to avoid consulting that
results in self-recommendation; exceptions were made for construction
because part of the responsibility of contractors is to make
recommendations throughout the process of construction. The Committee
also discussed cases in which the cost of getting a different party to
carry out a recommendation may cost more than hiring the party that
recommended, but the Committee felt that in most cases, avoidance of
conflict should be preferred in spite of cost. Item 7.3.3 has wording
identical to the Scientific Misconduct Procedure and may need to be
changed to conform to new wording proposed for that policy.
Senator Mroz asked who would grant permission for hiring and Seely
answered that the Board of Control did that by doing the hiring.
Senator Thayer asked if the Board could then violate the procedure and
Seely responded that the Board is not bound by the procedure; the
procedure is not given to the Board for approval. The Board cannot
delegate their rule-making authority. Senator Leifer asked what kind
of Board would make policy that says Bruce Seely must abide by it but
the Board does not have to follow it. Seely responded that we cannot
make policy for the Board. Senator Caspary asked about volunteers and
whether this applied only where there is pecuniary consideration. Seely
responded that the Senate and the Board had approved the language
regarding consultants to the university. The upper Administration did
not approve some of the original language related to consulting, and the
procedure was a way to bring that language back in (without requiring
Board approval). Caspary commented that the procedure is then more
restrictive than the policy. Seely agreed that this was due to the
attempt to bring back the language of the original proposal. Caspary
asked why this is only a "suggested" procedure. Seely responded that
this permitted flexibility when we cannot imagine all the possible
cases; it provides guidelines; it is better not to be overly stringent
in our first attempt. Caspary commented that this could give too much
latitude to the administration and could work against an employee.
Seely responded that such an action would violate the whole spirit of
the procedure.
B. Proposal 12-96, Academic Calendar: K-Day [Appendix D]
President Bornhorst introduced the proposal.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MEETING 247
Senator Pegg asked that the word "tripping" in the second paragraph
of 6A (line 6) be changed to "trip chaining."
******************************************************************
Page 6029 Minutes of Senate Meeting 248 10 Jan 1996
Carstens MOVED and Soldan seconded the motion to accept the minutes
of Meeting 247 as amended. The motion PASSED by voice vote with no
dissent.
5. REPORT FROM SENATE PRESIDENT
President Bornhorst reported that the Provost has rescinded his
change to a 10-day appeal for academic dismissal in Policy 26-95,
Undergraduate Academic Progress, and will let the 5-day appeal time
stand as passed by the Senate. This completes proposal 26-95. [Appendix
E]
Bornhorst reported that President Tompkins has approved proposals
10-94 (Final Exam Policy), 33-95 (Research Statement), and 5-96 (Center
for Teaching, Learning, and Faculty Development). [Appendices F, G and
H]
Bornhorst reminded the Senate that there will be a Charter School
Workshop next Monday (15 January). Senator Leifer requested that this
workshop be discussed on the floor of the Senate and that Vice President
Walck would initiate the discussion. Walck stated that all the invited
presenters are pro on charter schools and that it would be useful to
have a counter voice. Bornhorst stated that Tompkins had been invited
to speak to the Senate on this issue and Tompkins had wanted to have
this workshop before he came to the Senate. Senator Whitt stated that
if the President is serious about educating the campus, he should bring
experts representing both points of view to the discussion. Provost
Dobney stated that several of the speakers are not proponents, although
they cannot be considered opponents. Walck stated that there should be
an expert to pose questions and provide a dialog. Whitt stated that we
should ask the President to invite someone and consider bringing our own
person as well. Brokaw asked what type of opposition we wanted.
Senator Carstens stated that Governor Engler has a political stance and
that we need to see the opposition. Dobney suggested that the NEA might
be able to provide someone with a contrary point of view on short
notice. Carstens agreed that Engler's approach was trying to destroy
the NEA. Whitt said that several voices are better than one. Bornhorst
will speak to the President and try to get one or two persons with
opposing points of view.
Bornhorst announced that a proposal for an Associate of Applied
Science Degree in Chemical Engineering has been designated as Proposal
13-96 and has been sent to the Curricular Policy Committee for Review
and recommendations. [Appendix I]
The issue of a dual BS and MS degree has been sent to the Research
Policy Committee for review. [Appendix J]
The committee on shared governance will consist of Laurie Whitt,
Carol MacLennan, John Flynn, Bill Bulleit, Adrene Remali, and Bob Keen.
Bornhorst will draft a charge memo to the committee and appoint an
interim chair. He questioned whether the committee should be given a
time limit. Senator Whitt asked if this means the committee would
disband at that time and Bornhorst answered "no." Vice President Walck
suggested that the committee should report by the year end and Bornhorst
said he would ask the committee to do that.
On 19 December, the officers met with the Provost. The Provost
reported that we are close to a decision on the new Senior Vice
President for Advancement and University Relations.
The University will purchase the Wesley House. Provost Dobney
stated that the Wesley house has gone out of business. The building is
in good condition and has recently undergone $100,000 in renovations.
Barbara Filer (Director of the Career Center) proposed use of the
building for a career center, arguing that several employers who
interview here consider ours to be the worst facilities anywhere they
interview. The Board of Wesley House has agreed to sell the house to
us at the assessed price and then give us that money for financial aid.
Filer is trying to raise $200,000 for renovations from corporations that
interview here. The building is reasonable at $20 per square foot; it
will take three years to raise the money. The present Career Center
Space will be converted to a welcome area for the Admissions Office.
We still need zoning approval to use the Wesley House as a Career
Center.
Bill Blumhardt needs our responses to the parking problem ideas,
but we will receive a recommendation from the committee and can respond
to that. Senator Beck pointed out that the heavy usage on parking is
10-2 MWF when we have the heaviest classroom usage; if we could move
large, introductory courses to distribute the time better, we could not
build a parking deck and save $6 million. Senator Filer stated that
moving classes to T Th could cause scheduling problems with labs.
Senator Carstens agreed that we should be careful about moving course
times; course scheduling seems to be cast in stone. Bernie Alkire is
the Senate representative to the Parking Committee.
Bornhorst has sent a memo to the Provost stating that there is no
need for any change in the Senate budget for supplies or staff for
96-97. [Appendix K]
Bornhorst reminded the Senate that we are required a 7/8 vote of
the Senate to change the time of voting on inclusion of professional
staff in the Senate. There will be a proposal to that effect so that
we can decide on staff membership in time for election of staff
representatives and officers when faculty elections are held.
Bornhorst encouraged all to participate in Martin Luther King, Jr.
Day activities.
6. COMMITTEE BUSINESS/REPORTS
A. Fringe Benefits Committee
Alternate Arbabi, Chair, reported on the faculty and staff
response to the committee's survey on benefits. The volume of response
was good. Listed by importance, the following were most mentioned:
retirement: medical benefits
parity in TIAA/CREF & MPSERS
life insurance
******************************************************************
Page 6030 Minutes of Senate Meeting 248 10 Jan 1996
health: glasses, optometry
dental improvements
flexible benefits (being worked on currently)
on campus: free or reduced SDC membership
reduced tuition for children at MTU & elsewhere
child care
other unused vacation compensation
staff sabbatical
Senator Heyman asked what is meant by parity of TIAA/CREF and
MPSERS. Horsch (Human Relations) responded that there are legal
problems and that some people are required by law to be in MPSERS.
Provost Dobney asked about number of responses, but Arbabi said that the
committee could not determine that because they only received the
summaries from senators and these often did not indicate numbers.
Senator Soldan stated that flexible benefits should be the priority
because people know what they need for themselves and this would give
the most people the most benefits useful to them. Senator McKilligan
asked what was meant by unused vacation compensation and Arbabi
responded that it referred to unused vacation at time of retirement.
Soldan commented that staff were interested in converting unused sick
time to vacation time. Jeanne Meyers (Senate Assistant) will put the
list on email to the Senators.
B. Finance Committee
Senator Beck reported for the Finance Committee. The primary
concern is raises. The committee supports a presentation to the Board
of Control for 3% raises for next year. The Board may not accept a
tuition rise of more than 3% ($1.4 million). Beck identified possible
cuts to provide the needed money [NOTE: Figures presented are Senator
Beck's and not the administration's]: 10% cut in library journals (only
provides $100,000), a freeze in hires (only saves for 1 year; salaries
continue). A 3% salary increase would = 44% of a 3% tuition increase,
1% giveback, and $.75 million rainy day giveback. The 3% would
represent an inflation increase only. We are considered a best buy and
have good financial aid; we have several short-term improvements in
faculty, buildings and maintenance, and computing. We all need to be
concerned with recruiting undergraduates to bring enrollment to 6900.
Investing in advancement and recruitment should pay off.
Beck presented a resolution to the Senate for consideration: Be
it resolved that the MTU Senate requests the Provost present a Budget
Scenario to the Board of Control that includes a 3% average raise for
faculty/staff, and that we do not support any scenario that includes no
(average) faculty/staff raises.
Beck MOVED and Mroz seconded the motion to accept the resolution.
Senator Soldan cautioned that the wording is dangerous in that it could
lead to layoffs if there are budget constraints. Beck said that he had
identified $500,000 in possible cuts; there had been 0% pay raise only
once in 15 years, and the administration has laid no ground work for 0%
raises. Senator Whitt stated that no mechanism is specified for
achieving the cuts and it would be poor if the faculty recommended a cut
in the library budget. Vice President Walck stated that the wording of
the resolution does not say that we are voting for a cut in the library.
Beck pointed out that we did not seem willing to make a no-cost change
in the class schedule that would save $6 million in parking costs.
Senator Carstens corrected Beck's interpretation of his comment and said
that we should consider the problems that would arise in changing the
scheduling. Senator Chavis asked what other areas might be cut. Beck
suggested travel, replacing positions vacated by senior faculty with
junior faculty, freezing new positions like the Director of the Center
for Teaching, Learning, and Faculty Development, and it has been
suggested that we don't need a Dean of Engineering since we have gotten
along so often without one. Dobney said that he would present a number
of scenarios, including 0-3% salary increases; the resolution would mean
that the Senate join Staff Council in supporting a 3% salary increase
as the highest budget priority; he does not anticipate any cut in the
library; a 3% increase in state appropriation and 5.8% increase in
tuition would provide enough for a 3% salary increase. Soldan asked if
any of the scenarios include possible layoffs and the Provost responded
"no." Discussion ended and the motion PASSED by show of hands with 31
for and 0 opposed.
Senator Sloan asked what the estimate is for undergraduate
enrollment for next year. Dobney responded that we had estimated a
decline of 150 overall, but we are 150 behind acceptance for last year,
which would change the projection to a decline of 230 and a loss of ca.
$800,000. Sloan stated that 1976 was the lowest birth year and asked
when the demographics for the university will catch up. Dobney
responded that the numbers for higher education are going up, but very
slowly; it would take until 1999 to catch up. However, the demand for
engineering is going down and numbers are relatively stable in sciences
and arts. There are more minorities and single parents, but these
increases don't help us because of our distance. Alternate Flynn asked
if we are turning away engineering students; the Provost responded that
we are turning away some, but that is a faculty matter; departments are
being more liberal than in the past few years; no programs are closed.
Senator Leifer asked how come with the enrollment decreasing we need
more buildings. Dobney responded that the need was for research and
graduate education requirements; if we had only undergraduates, we would
have enough.
C. Instructional Policy Committee
Keen reported for the committee on the issue of the classroom bell,
which the Provost eliminated, but which falls under the responsibilities
of this committee. He listed five points: The committee has no
objection to the discontinuance of the bell ringing; the issue is
sufficiently trivial to be within the competency of the Provost; it is
so trivial that the Senate cannot be trusted with it; the Provost, in
the future, ought to pass similar proposed
******************************************************************
Page 6031 Minutes of Senate Meeting 248 10 Jan 1996
actions past the Senate since they might conceivably fall within the
Senate's jurisdiction; the problem was not with the action that the
Provost took, but with the Provost's taking the action; if another
committee considers it important, that committee should take it up.
7. OLD BUSINESS
A. Proposal 10-96: MS Degree in Environmental Policy [See minutes, page
5996, for a copy of this proposal]
Heyman MOVED and Mroz seconded the motion to approve Proposal
10-96. Senator Thayer asked if we could assume this was a no-cost
proposal. Dean Seel (Sci. & Arts) responded that the college would
provide $2000 for the library needs and money to support one TA. The
other budgetary needs would be part of the normal ongoing budget
process, i.e., the program would be self-funded.
Baltensperger (Social Sciences) stated that there would be no added
faculty positions and that only 1-2 TA's would be needed. Senator Arici
stated that if there would be 8 new courses, then this suggests that two
current faculty are not needed. Reynolds (chair, Social Sciences)
stated that a faculty position was available to be filled next year and
that teaching for these new courses would piggy back on the
undergraduate courses. Seel stated that the department of Social
Sciences has the highest student to faculty ratio in the University, so
more faculty are justified in the normal budgeting. Senator Leifer
questioned why there seemed to be nothing in the program to require any
environmental engineering. Baltensperger responded that they had worked
with faculty from other departments, including environmental
engineering, and that Dr. Auer would help to provide internships for
students in the program. The program will take advantage of courses and
expertise that already exist in other departments. Reynolds stated that
there is no course requirement in environmental engineering; the program
concentrates on policy and human interactions; students are expected to
have a background in ecology, statistics, and economics when they enter
the program. Durfee (Social Sciences) stated that students in the
program can take their second-year concentration in environmental
engineering or ecological science if they choose. Senator Heyman stated
that the program is aimed at students with an undergraduate technical
degree (ecology, engineering); the problem with courses outside the
department is that they are geared to those departmental sequences and
have a long list of prerequisites. Thayer pointed out that the budget
includes a computer upgrade of $10-20,000; Seel responded that this
would be part of the normal annual budget request. Alternate Arbabi
commented that most departments have undergraduate courses that could
be taken. Baltensperger stated that if the students came from an
engineering field, they could make use of existing courses to expand
their engineering background and biology students could expand their
biology background. Senator Caspary stated his concern with the
financial obligation; it is the undergraduates who pay the bills, so we
should not support this proposal. Senator Whitt stated that this
program could draw more undergraduate students. Durfee stated that one
of the MTU grads in engineering went to another school for an MS in this
area. Arbabi stated that good graduate programs draw good
undergraduates. Senator Shonnard asked if the undergraduates would
provide the support to keep the program viable. Baltensperger said
there are several ways these programs are funded. At Boston University,
no graduate students get funding; MTU hopes that by providing initial
TA support, and some external funding, they will find out how many
students will spend their own money to get the degree. Members of the
department are already seeking external funds. Discussion ended.
President Bornhorst stated that the proposed voting units are
academic-degree-granting departments. There were no objections, so the
voting units stood. The motion to approve Proposal 10-96 PASSED by
voice vote with no dissent.
B. Proposal 13-95: Faculty Grievance Policy and Procedures [See minutes,
page 6022, for a copy of this proposal]
The administration has proposed several amendments to Proposal
13-95 as passed by the Senate. Provost Dobney responded to the
objections raised by the Senate in Meeting 247; the Human Resources
representative would give protection to faculty and staff, especially
on personnel issues (faculty have expertise on promotion and tenure
issues because each has been through the process). Senator Beck asked
why promotion and tenure was excluded and Dobney commented that the
University Lawyer offered to train all members of all committees.
Senator Whitt stated that guidance was appropriate and needed, but that
there was no reason why an HR representative would be needed on all
committees and in all deliberations. Horsch (Director of Human
Resources) responded that we want to make sure committee members and
others involved are protected; many committees don't need the help of
HR. Alternate Williams stated that he agreed with Horsch. Senator
Caspary pointed out the wording just states ex officio. Senator Thayer
responded that ex officio means a permanent member. Alternate Flynn
commented that it means a voting member. However, the proposed
amendment specifies non-voting. Whitt stated that the committee should
be encouraged to consult with HR. Beck stated that HR shouldn't have
the right to be in every meeting; the proposal needs a language change.
Dobney stated that a committee may not know when it needs advice.
Senator Mroz said perhaps the wording should indicate that an HR
representative will be appointed to serve as a resource person for each
grievance committee. Bornhorst reminded the Senate that since this in
an amendment from the Administration, it is easiest for them to propose
a new amendment. Horsch stated that it would be most helpful if the
wording established some sort of formal relationship between Human
Resources and the committee chair. Beck suggested that the chair be
required to notify Human
******************************************************************
Page 6032 Minutes of Senate Meeting 248 10 Jan 1996
Resources when the department has a grievance issue. Dobney suggested
that someone from Human Resources should be at the first meeting to
discuss potential legal issues. Whitt stated that the first meeting may
not be enough, that it may be necessary to train the chair or committee.
Senator Leifer stated that we don't want to blow every grievance to the
moon. If the chair of a departmental committee meets with HR or sees
a training video before the first grievance occurs, then it is possible
to settle some grievances amicably and HR would not be needed. Whitt
said she would like some things in writing and that all members should
have some written documents. Horsch responded that personnel issues are
tricky; every case is different. The chair and representative from HR
need to establish a relationship for each case. Keen asked if we had
resolved the amendment on page 4. Heyman stated that we had discussed
that there should be some sort of written formal report. Dobney
responded that he understood that the President will provide a written
response on the decision and that if the decision is contrary to the
committee recommendation, then the President is encouraged to meet with
the committee to discuss the decision.
C. Proposal 36-95: Scientific Misconduct Policy [Appendix L]
President Bornhorst suggested we table Proposal 36-95 because there
is a chance to get wording more like the original Senate version.
Senator Caspary asked if we could define what we mean by "due process."
Dobney responded that it referred to providing a process instead of "at
will." Horsch added that after 1986 the stipulation of "at will" has
been added to staff contracts; therefore, employees hired before 1986
have legal entitlement, but those hired later do not; union employees
have a contract that provides for reasonable or just cause. Brokaw
MOVED and Sandberg seconded the motion to table Proposal 36-95 until the
first Senate meeting of Fall Quarter 1996. There was no discussion and
the motion PASSED by voice vote with no dissent.
Brokaw MOVED and Caspary seconded the motion to adjourn. The meeting
adjourned at 7:31 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by Janice M. Glime
Secretary of the Senate
.