******************************************************************
Page 6112 Minutes of Senate Meeting 250 7 Feb 1996
THE SENATE OF MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
Minutes of Meeting No. 250
7 February 1996
Synopsis: The Senate
(1) heard presentations on enrollments, finances and budget
planning;
(1) approved Proposal 11-96, conflict of interest.
(2) agreed by consensus to accept the guidelines suggested by
President Tompkins and President Bornhorst for processing charter
school applications.
(3) requested nominees for the charter school committee.
(4) heard space committee space allocation guidelines from President
Bornhorst.
(5) approved Proposal 14-96 to permit voting on the constituency
issue (Proposal 22-95) anytime from 1 April to 8 May 1996 instead
of one year from approval of 22-95.
(6) heard a report from Provost Dobney on budget projections.
_______________________________________
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
President Bornhorst called the Senate Meeting 250 to order at 5:30
p.m. on Wednesday, 7 February 1996, in Room B37 of the Electrical Energy
Resources Center.
Secretary Glime called roll. Absent were at-large Senators Laurie
Whitt and Dave Reed, and representatives from Business and Engineering
Administration, Army/AF ROTC, Enrollment Management, and Academic
Services/Engineering. Liaisons in attendance were Steve Batzer (GSC),
James Dietrick (USG), and Ted Soldan (Staff Council).
2. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS
Guests included Fred Dobney (Provost), Marcia Goodrich (Tech
Topics), Mike Gilles (Research Services), Debbie Lassila (Provost's
Office), and Ellen Horsch (Human Resources).
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Soldan MOVED and Mroz 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 MEETING 249
Carstens MOVED and Sandberg seconded the motion to approve the
minutes of Meeting 249. The motion PASSED by voice vote with no
dissent.
5. OPEN MOTION ON PROPOSAL 11-96 [See minutes, page 6034, for a copy of
this proposal.]
Discussion continued on the open motion on Proposal 11-96, Conflict
of Interest Procedures. President Bornhorst raised a question submitted
by a constituent, asking why only the coordinator can sign
conflict-of-interest forms. Senator Heyman (acting coordinator)
responded that most proposals have come to him (as coordinator) with
three days of lead time, and accessibility does not seem to be a
problem; Anita Quinn from Research Services can also sign the form if
the coordinator is not available. Provost Dobney added that the
procedure is a response to NSF to be sure there is no conflict of
interest and that it is needed by other agencies as well. Senator
Bradley commented that this will only catch the honest people. Heyman
responded that it helps to resolve complex conflicts. Several senators
from research units stated that sometimes they must complete a contract
signing in a day and Senator Hein asked if the conflict of interest
statement can be done ahead of time. Heyman responded that if
expenditures are clear so that potential for conflict of interest can
be determined, then the forms can be signed ahead of time.
Senator McKilligan stated that item 6.2.1.1.4 of the guidelines has
conflicting statements: "the University should accept greater expense
or complexity as the necessary cost of avoiding conflicts of interest;"
and "Exceptions to these rules shall be made... Such exceptions shall
include, but are not limited to... c. Cases where significant economic
costs would be incurred by separating functions." Heyman responded that
we can't write the procedure exactly; we have to consider the
ramifications of the conflicts; we may accept the conflict if it permits
us to avoid a major cost.
Senator Beck asked what was to be done about the administrative
objection to "due process" as outlined in the proposal. Heyman
responded that we will wait until we get suggestions back from the
administration. Dobney added that there was a problem with the footnote
on page 1; the Senate cannot bind the Board of Control or other agents
outside the University. Senator Thayer asked that if the leaders are
not bound by these rules, what does that make us? Dobney responded that
the administration is bound, but not the Board of Control. Senator Keen
stated that there was a grammar problem in 7.3.3. The first sentence
was changed to make two sentences, to read, "7.3.3. When a violation
of University policy is alleged, a thorough and timely process shall
take place within the university to provide adequate opportunity for
reaching valid conclusions. It is imperative that due process be
followed and protection be afforded to the rights and reputation of both
accuser and accused, those investigating the allegations, any sponsoring
agency, and the University." President Bornhorst ruled that it was an
editorial change and there were no objections, so the change stood.
Senator Mroz stated that we should invite the Board of Control to
follow our guidelines. He also questioned what "hammer" we could use
on unpaid advisors. Heyman responded that we could only effect policy
on them insofar as it relates to the university. Dobney cited the
example that adjunct faculty may have allegiance elsewhere. Dobney also
stated that it might be appropriate to invite the Board to adopt our
policy in their own University business. Thayer suggested that we
should accept the procedure as it is and work out details later; he
called for the question. Bradley seconded the call for question. The
call for question PASSED on voice vote with two dissents. The motion
to approve Proposal
******************************************************************
Page 6113 Minutes of Senate Meeting 250 7 Feb 1996
11-96, Conflict of Interest Procedures, PASSED on voice vote with no
dissent.
6. REPORT FROM SENATE PRESIDENT
The President has submitted Proposal 10-96, MS Degree in
Environmental Policy, and Proposal 12-96, Academic Calendar: K-Day, to
the administration. [Appendices B and C]
President Tompkins has approved Proposal 32-95, Ph. D. Program in
Mathematical Sciences. [Appendix D] Provost Dobney alerted the President
to the financial concerns voiced by the Senate and that Dean Seel had
stated that the cost coverage will come from internal re-alignment.
As requested, the Senate Assistant has sent the MTU Charter School
statement to all Senators.
President Bornhorst met with President Tompkins on 5 February to
discuss several issues, including charter schools and the role of the
Senate in chartering a school. They agreed on several guidelines.
Tompkins will initiate a committee consisting of Bill McGarry as chair,
three persons selected by President Tompkins, and three persons selected
by the President of the Senate. The charge of the committee will be to
develop criteria and process details and to present these to the Senate
for recommendation.
When a proposal is received, the committee must inform the Senate
of its submission. If the committee unanimously recommends supporting
a charter school proposal, then the recommendation will be forwarded to
the Provost, President, and Board of Control. If a proposal passes but
lacks unanimous support, the proposal will come to the Senate for its
recommendation.
Bornhorst will bring his list of committee members to the Senate
for concurrence. Provost Dobney pointed out that President Bornhorst
has been instrumental in having the faculty involved in the decisions
about charter schools.
Senator Thayer stated that he is not in favor of our involvement
in charter schools, but that we should look seriously at proposals
because they need good up front funding. Bornhorst added that there is
also a liability issue. Senator Carstens added that the Milwaukee
Journal has reported that some choice schools have folded due to
disappearance of funding and corruption. Sandberg commented that there
is also corruption in public school systems. Senator Mroz stated that
the proposed process is good. Sandberg stated that all proposals should
go to the Senate. Bornhorst stated that he would ask President Tompkins
for such a change.
Based on consensus, the Senate agreed to accept the guidelines for
charter school decisions as described regardless of whether or not the
Senate gets to make a recommendation on proposals passed unanimously by
the Review Committee. Bornhorst asked Senators to send nominees for the
committee to him.
The Senate officers met with the Provost on 6 February. The
Provost reported that the Senate can expect a new amendment on the
grievance policy and on the evening exam policy (due to confusion in
interpreting it).
Bornhorst reported that the staff have made excellent progress
toward producing a professional staff handbook, due to the hard work of
the steering committee, chaired by Shalini Rudak, and the task forces.
In the future we may see some votes in the Senate that do not include
the academic-degree-granting departments.
The University procedures manual is being updated.
The officers are preparing guidelines for reviewing petitions to
become Senate constituents.
The University Space Committee has developed principles regarding
allocation of vacated space when departments move to the new
Environmental Sciences and Engineering Building. All space will revert
to university space. The committee will make the allocations in a
competitive process based on proposals. One consideration will be the
ability to raise funds to renovate. [Appendix E]
The position of Director of the Center for Teaching, Learning, and
Faculty Development has been posted.
Senators are asked to remind their constituents that the deadline
for the administrative evaluation questionnaire is Friday, 9 February.
Bornhorst reported new budget information. The Governor's proposal
is predicated on Federal Government reform. It provides first for 4%
to all universities. In addition, there would be special allocations
for graduate programs at the big three (U of M, Wayne, MSU), and MSU
would get a special allocation to bring it to the level of the others.
MTU will get an additional approximately 2.1% because of its high
percentage of technological programs. If the tax credit is repealed
because its implementation was faulted, the money saved would go back
to the universities. Together, MTU could get about 6.6% increase from
state funding.
7. COMMITTEE BUSINESS/REPORTS
President Bornhorst reported on the January 26 Board of Control
Meeting. He presented a report on the progress of the Administrative
Evaluation Commission and announced that the Board was seriously
interested in knowing our results to complement their own concurrent
evaluation of President Tompkins. Bornhorst presented the Senate
resolution on salary increases to the Board.
Board of Control action included authorization of an escrow of
$3,772,000 for the Environmental Sciences and Engineering Building.
They discussed the TIAA/CREF retiree health care pay-as-you-go,
prefunding, level of funding, and guarantee for people once they retire
so that retirees would not lose benefits that were in place when they
retired. They modified the policy on scholastic standards, including
academic progress, clarified the employee education program, approved
purchase of Wesley House, and discussed the 96-97 budget.
8. OLD BUSINESS
President Bornhorst explained Proposal 14-96, Revision of Senate
Bylaws. [Appendix F] Proposal 22-95, approved last year, modified the
constitution to require a vote on the constituency 1 year later. That
would occur
******************************************************************
Page 6114 Minutes of Senate Meeting 250 7 Feb 1996
in May, and would not allow enough time (less than 1 week) for staff to
elect Senators before Senate officer elections must occur. Proposal
11-95 required a 7/8 vote to change its provisions. Therefore, it
requires a roll call vote. Senator Soldan asked if we couldn't try a
voice vote. Someone asked why 7/8 was selected and Senator Keen
explained that it was set to make it difficult to change the intent of
Proposal 22-95. Keen clarified that it was 7/8 of those voting. Soldan
asked if the voting units were the full Senate and Bornhorst answered
"yes." The Senate voted "yes" on a voice vote with no dissent, but the
vote was invalidated because there was no motion on the floor. Carstens
MOVED and Mroz seconded the motion to approve Proposal 14-96 to permit
voting on the constituency (Proposal 22-95) anytime from 1 April to 8
May 1996. The voice vote had one dissent, so it was put to a roll call
vote. Motion 14-96 PASSED on roll call vote with 29 for, 1 opposed, and
2 abstentions. Two additional votes were illegitimate.
Evensen - yes Beck - abstain
Filer - yes Heyman - yes
Glime - yes Carstens - yes
Walck - yes Goldstein - yes
Keen - yes Moore - yes
Leifer - no Fynewever - yes
Shonnard - yes Hein - yes
Sandberg - yes Diebel - yes
Ott - yes Bradley - yes
Sloan - abstain Chavis - yes
Mroz - yes Lutzke - yes
Pegg - yes McKilligan - yes
Olson - yes Soldan - yes
Arici - yes Little - yes
Thayer - yes Vichich - yes
Greuer - yes McLean - yes
9. OTHER BUSINESS
Provost Dobney presented a draft of the 1996-97 budget. [Appendix
G] The Governor's budget proposal should be released the next day. The
budget scenario is subject to approval of the Federal Budget Reform Act.
The state anticipates a $62.7 million increase in higher education.
MTU (and Ferris) will receive a special allocation because it is
technology-intensive. He compared MTU to other universities, using the
criteria reported in US News and World Report: retention 25%,
reputation 25%, faculty resources 20%, selectivity 15%, financial
resources 10%, and alumni satisfaction 5%.
MTU's first-year retention is 84%, whereas U of M has 94%; our
graduation rate is 62%, which is significantly below schools in the
first tier (Research I universities). Our reputation rank was 149, the
same as for Wayne State; U of M ranked 8. Senator Beck stated that MTU
is not doing anything as a whole to promote reputations; it depends on
individuals to do it. Dobney responded that a lot could be done at the
department level. Senator Heyman stated that weighting retention 25%
was too much weight. Dobney added that we do not admit students who are
not capable of succeeding, but we don't know the reasons our students
leave; they leave for many reasons. Senator Ott pointed out that we
can't retain students who decide they want a degree that we don't offer.
Regarding faculty resources, Dobney said that the report rated us
with a 16:1 student:faculty ratio, which is higher than our internal
calculations. We are about in the middle compared to other schools.
Faculty with terminal degrees comprise 92.5% of the faculty (Carnegie
Mellon has 97.9%, Lehigh has 99%). We do well in class size with 8.9%
of our classes >50 and 48.7% <20. Senator Pegg asked how we compare on
% of part-time faculty and Dobney stated that we had no numbers for
comparison but that we do better than urban schools.
Selectivity was measured by SAT/ACT scores. MTU accepts students
mostly with scores of 24-29, MSU with 21-26. Our acceptance rate is
92%, which is one of the highest numbers, but our students often
self-select. Our yield (enter/acceptance) is 45%, one of the highest.
Carnegie Mellon spends $25,000 per student; we spend $8,433.
Western Michigan was the only school in the comparison chart that spent
less.
Alumni satisfaction was based on the percentage of living alumni
who gave to the 1993 and 1994 fund drives. MTU had 20% compared to 14%
at MSU and U of M, but 52% at Lehigh and 34% at Georgia Tech. We need
to nurture our future alumni.
Our BS in Technology has caused an increase in the enrollment in
the School of Technology at a time when enrollments in this field are
dropping elsewhere.
The prospects for 1996-97 revenue include a decline of 150
undergrads, stable graduate enrollment, tuition increase of 3-5.8%,
indirect cost recovery of 10%, Auxiliary Activities Use charge of
$1.1-1.2 million, department lab fee increase of 5%, and $1.5 million
one-time revenue from Auxiliary reserves. State appropriations had been
expected at 0 to 3%, but the Governor's proposal would increase that to
over 6%.
Expenditures will include an increase in financial aid that is
consistent with the tuition adjustment, 1% realignment for program
development, salary and wage increase ranging 0 to 3%, perhaps more with
the proposed gubernatorial budget, increased fringe benefit costs of 3%
commensurate with salary increases, 5% more lab costs, deferred
maintenance of $500,000, ESE planning money of $500,000, and contingency
reserve of $500,000. The moratorium on prefunding TIAA/CREF would be
continued.
A 1% enrollment increase or decrease makes a difference of 62
students and a revenue difference of $238,000. Therefore, a 3% tuition
increase with the projected loss of 150 students is still a financial
loss.
Salary adjustments would cost $490,000, supplies and services
$140,000, and financial aid $100,000 per percentage point.
He listed priorities in order as achieving salary parity by 1998,
new Advancement positions, Director for the Center for Teaching,
Learning, and Faculty Development,
******************************************************************
Page 6115 Minutes of Senate Meeting 250 7 Feb 1996
new Dean of Engineering, increased cost of MPSERS (awaiting the
Musselman decision), library, SS&E budgets, financial aid, new GTA's,
and new faculty.
Senator Sloan asked about the cost for the new Director for the
Center of Teaching, Learning, and Faculty Development. Dobney responded
that the salary would come from the 1% realignment, costing about
$100,000 including support staff and fringes, but that the budget
already has money in it for a half-time position. Senator Arici asked
how we could achieve parity when we are aiming for a moving target.
Dobney agreed that it is a problem. He reported that the faculty are
currently 11.3% behind and staff 7.4% behind. It would cost us $5.5
million if we increased to parity right now.
Senator Mroz asked if the Governor's budget plan implies that if
MTU were to increase the number of graduate students would MTU receive
more money from the state and Lassila (Provost's Office) stated that the
division was based on the Carnegie Research I category, and we aren't
close to that.
Since President Tompkins' justification for getting us more money
was to keep us technologically current, we must spend some of it on
equipment upgrades. Senator Heyman asked if we couldn't gain some in
salary and other areas that had been sacrificed to help pay for
equipment needs in the past. Senator Beck commented that if our aim is
for Research I, the target may change; we have done well (in the budget
plan). Dobney explained that the technology plea has helped. Heyman
asked what the goal is for the capital campaign since its cost was a new
budgeted item of $150,000. Dobney responded that it was to increase
our endowment by $100 million, most of which would go to academic
departments for scholarships and research. Alternate Gilles asked for
an explanation on the drawdown on retiree health money. Dobney
explained that we had been both setting aside and paying as we go; now
we are retaining the set-aside but not adding to it and just using
pay-as-you-go. We are working to establish what amount we need to set
aside.
Dobney asked Senator Leifer to report on the TIAA/CREF Fringe
Benefit Task Force. Leifer stated, "That basically there is this plan
that was proposed, this pay-as-you-go-plan, that has drawbacks in it.
I could talk extensively about it but time is late." Dobney asked if we
are near having a report from the Task Force. Leifer responded, "You
(Dobney) will be at the next Task Force meeting on Monday, as far as I
know, and you're going to be talking to the Benefits Committee on Friday
at 10:00 and I think I would prefer to wait until after that." Dobney
responded that we do not have a recommendation. Leifer responded, "they
have a recommendation, we have a very definite recommendation, and
basically everybody on that Task Force can live with that level of
funding plan. There's no doubt about that and as a matter of fact that
plan is so good that it will fund, as it is right now, everybody on
this campus until the year 2023. With a minor amount of tweaking it
will fund everybody in perpetuity. So I might say that that's a very
good plan." Dobney commented that it should be recorded that Leifer
suggested this plan. Gilles asked if the retirement was set at 80
points and Dobney affirmed that.
Dobney stated that the Governor would announce his capital outlay
plan the next day. It would include $8.7 million for the Forestry
addition, but it will require 25% matching funds (for all new
buildings). We must have $2.3 million; we have $300,000 in the bank
now.
AGENDA ADJUSTMENT
President Bornhorst requested an agenda adjustment to make an
announcement. There were no objections so the agenda was adjusted.
ANNOUNCEMENT
There is no pressing business, so there will be no Senate meeting
next week. The calendar for the Senate includes one additional meeting
each quarter compared to last year to avoid piling up at the end and
this one is not needed.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Thayer MOVED and Arici seconded the motion to adjourn. The meeting
adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by Janice M. Glime
Secretary of the Senate
.