******************************************************************
Page 6261 Minutes of Senate Meeting 252 20 Mar 1996
THE SENATE OF MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
Minutes of Meeting No. 252
20 March 1996
Synopsis: The Senate
(1) Heard that the proposal to restrict K-Day to Tuesday or Thursday
will be implemented fall 1996.
(2) Heard that President Tompkins has approved the proposal to divide
the time between classes, giving the classroom to the incoming
person on the hour.
(3) Heard that the Faculty Grievance Policy and Procedures is
approved and effective immediately.
(4) Heard that no action has been taken on University legal counsel.
(5) Set up an ad hoc committee on retrenchment (to complete the work
on the Separation for Faculty, Including Non-reappointment,
Termination for Cause, Due Process for Dismissal with Cause:
Procedures).
(6) Elected Gary Agin, Dallas Bates, and Faith Morrison to the
Charter School Committee. In addition, President Tompkins has
appointed Mike Abbott, Joe Galetto, Dennis Harbour, and Bill
McGarry (chair).
(7) Needs nominees for Senator At-large.
(8) Heard a report from Paul Nelson on administrative evaluations.
(9) Heard a report from Chris Anderson on retention.
(10) Heard arguments regarding the Bylaw change to include
professional staff in the constituency
_______________________________________
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
President Bornhorst called the Senate Meeting 252 to order at 5:32
p.m. on Wednesday, 20 March 1996, in Room B37 of the Electrical Energy
Resources Center.
Secretary Glime called roll. Absent were representatives from
Mechanical Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, Army/AF ROTC, Library,
and Institute of Wood Research. Liaisons in attendance were Steve
Hellmann (USG), Yadu Dar (GSC), and Ted Soldan (Staff Council).
2. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS
Guests included Fred Dobney (Provost), Marcia Goodrich (Tech
Topics), Ellen Horsch (Human Resources), Tim Collins (School of
Technology), Debbie Lassila (Provost's Office), Chris Anderson
(Educational Opportunity), Steve Tyrell (Student Affairs Office), Paul
Nelson (School of Business), Kelly McLean (Staff Council), Richard
Pelto, (Facilities), Renee Marion (IT), Peggy Gorton (Mining
Engineering), and Dee Vincent (IT)
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Scott Bradley stated that there was new business in the form of a
proposal (18-96) from the Benefits Committee regarding fringe benefits.
The proposal was introduced into the agenda so that it could be acted
upon at the next meeting. Les Leifer reported that last Wednesday Fred
Dobney asked Leifer if he was going to give him a present on Friday.
Leifer stated that Friday was the Ides of March and Dobney said it was
the third anniversary of the day he started at Michigan Tech. Leifer
responded "Now you have lent new meaning to the phrase 'Beware the Ides
of March'."
Thayer MOVED and Walck seconded the motion to accept the amended
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 251
Senator Carstens inquired about the meaning of "6a" in item 3 of
the minutes; Secretary Glime responded that it refers to item 6a of the
agenda. Soldan MOVED and Mroz seconded the motion to approve the
minutes of Meeting 251. The motion PASSED on voice vote with no
dissent.
5. REPORT FROM SENATE PRESIDENT
President Bornhorst reported that Proposal 15-96, Sharing of
Interval Between Classroom Use, has been submitted to the
Administration; Proposal 13-95, Faculty Grievance Policy and Procedures,
with editorial change and concurrence with Provost's amendments, has
been submitted to the Administration. [Appendices B and C]
President Tompkins has approved Proposal 12-96, Academic Calendar:
K-Day, for implementation in the 1996-97 academic year. [Appendix D]
President Tompkins has approved Proposal 15-96, Sharing of Interval
Between Classroom Use. [Appendix E]
The Administration has approved Proposal 7-94, Scheduling of
Evening Examinations, with amendments. This amended version will be on
the agenda for the next Senate meeting.
The Administration has accepted Proposal 13-95, Faculty Grievance
Policy and Procedures, with the Senate's editorial change. This
procedure will be effective immediately through Winter Quarter of
1996-97. [Appendix F]
President Bornhorst was pleased to announce that President Tompkins
has approved the first Departmental Charters for Biological Sciences,
School of Forestry and Wood Products, Chemistry, Geological Engineering
and Sciences, and Physical Education. [Appendices G, H, I, J, and K]
President Bornhorst has referred the report of the Faculty
Development/Sabbatical Leave Policy Task Force to the Academic Policy
Committee for action and urged them to take action so this issue could
be resolved by the end of Spring Quarter. [Appendix L]
President Bornhorst forwarded to the Instructional Policy Committee
a request to investigate [informing faculty of] student athletic
absences from class and exams. [Appendix M]
President Bornhorst had lunch with President Tompkins on 14 March
and discussed various issues, including the University legal counsel and
several topics brought to his attention by the Finance Committee.
The Officers met with the Provost on 18 March. They discussed the
status of Senate approved proposals needing
******************************************************************
Page 6262 Minutes of Senate Meeting 252 20 Mar 1996
Administration approval. The Provost indicated some concerns regarding
thematic studies. The officers agreed to initiate review of the general
education requirements with focus on thematic studies. This issue is
being referred to the Instructional Policy Committee.
Last year the Institutional Planning Committee brought forward a
Policy on Separation for Faculty, Including Non-reappointment,
Termination for Cause, Due Process for Dismissal with Cause:
Procedures. The proposal was withdrawn after it was recognized that it
must include reconfiguration in cases of program elimination or
financial exigency. No progress has been made this year. The Senate
Officers and Faculty Handbook Steering Committee have discussed this
situation. President Bornhorst recommended that the Senate empower the
officers to create an ad hoc committee. Clearly, this cannot be
resolved this year. So to deal with this issue, a committee with
continuity from this to next year seems appropriate. The results from
this Senate ad hoc committee should come directly to the Senate. This
is an important matter which should be of concern to all of us.
Senator Brokaw stated that he remembered a policy that was
developed while Dale Stein was president. President Bornhorst responded
that it was never approved by the administration. Provost Dobney stated
that if there is a crisis and there is no policy, then he and the
President would make decisions; it would be better to have a policy
while faculty are "disinterested," [i.e., while there is no particular
case]. Senator Beck stated that he would like to hear from the
committee that worked on the policy (last year's committee). Horsch
(Human Relations) stated that last year's committee, with Bruce Pletka
as chair, worked hard on non-reappointment and termination for cause.
Vice President Walck asked what the current Chair said about
completing the task; Bornhorst stated that the committee won't meet this
year because the Chair is too busy. Senator Keen asked if the completed
part could come to the Senate as a proposal. The interconnectedness of
the parts made this seem inadvisable. Pro tem Vice President Soldan
stated that the Senate should appoint an ad hoc committee. Senator
Bradley commented that the committee structure changes yearly so that
Senate committees have to re-invent the wheel; he suggested that we
should have a report from out-going committees. Beck stated that if a
policy-making committee is responding to a crisis, they could configure
the proposal so they are the last to be retrenched. Walck asked what
should happen if a committee chooses not to work. Senator Carstens
stated that the committee should tell the Senate if it is not going to
work on its charge.
Senator Thayer suggested appointing a chair who would meet with the
present committee. Walck pointed out that the existing committee will
dissolve at the end of the term; a task force won't dissolve until the
task is complete. Senator Leifer suggested that we ask last year's
committee to report. Mroz MOVED and Soldan seconded the motion to
appoint an ad hoc committee using as many of last year's members as
possible and as many of this year's committee as are interested. The
motion PASSED on voice vote with no dissent.
President Bornhorst reported that the Faculty Handbook Steering
Committee met on 19 March; the current plan is to bring the handbook to
the Senate by the end of spring quarter. Work on the Professional Staff
Handbook is also progressing; President Bornhorst will meet with Ellen
Horsch regarding the Professional Staff Handbook next week.
President Bornhorst has appointed Beth Flynn to substitute for
At-large Senator Dave Reed while Dave is on sabbatical spring term.
President Bornhorst presented the slate of nominees for the Charter
School Committee: Gary Agin, Dallas Bates, Ingrid Cheney, Vernon
Dorweiler, and Faith Morrison. The members chosen by President Tompkins
are Mike Abbott, Joe Galetto, Dennis Harbour (school superintendent),
and Bill McGarry (Chair). The Senate must vote for three
representatives. President Bornhorst called for nominations from the
floor. There were none; Soldan MOVED and Mroz seconded the motion to
close nominations. The motion to close PASSED on voice vote with no
dissent. In the absence of any members of the Elections Committee, Vice
Presidents Walck and Soldan counted the ballots. Those selected to
serve on the Charter School Committee were Morrison (28 votes), Bates
(27), and Agin (25); Cheney will be alternate (16 votes).
President Bornhorst announced that we need nominees for Senator
At-large. There are two seats open but no nominees. Secretary Glime
has agreed to run for Senator At-large a second term.
Senator Sloan inquired about the results of talking to members of
the Board of Control about the designation of a University lawyer.
Provost Dobney responded that the University will continue its
relationship with Butzel-Long and Board lawyer Vercruysse will still
represent the University on 11 out of 27 open issues. The Board of
Control has not discussed the lawyer issue in open or closed session.
Dobney advised persons needing university legal counsel to use the
services of Butzel-Long or Paul Tomasi. Senator Whitt inquired who
decided to continue using Vercruysse for the eleven cases and Dobney
responded that it was Vice President Tahtinen in consultation with Board
Chair Ruth Reck. Senator Lutzke stated that this is a delicate issue
if the legal counsel is sitting there; the University can't wait until
someone [on the Board] does something; we need to push for action.
6. COMMITTEE BUSINESS/REPORTS
A. Administrative Evaluation Commission - Paul Nelson [Appendix N]
Paul Nelson (chair) reported from the Commission. There was a 41%
response rate, compared to 42% on the last one, on the recent
administrative evaluation questionnaire. However, there were also more
evaluations received after the due date and many more submitted as
comments in lieu of a questionnaire. He pointed out that the
Commission's task was to DO the
******************************************************************
Page 6263 Minutes of Senate Meeting 252 20 Mar 1996
evaluation and that the questionnaire was only part of the input. The
narrative comments have been transcribed, but the Commission has voted
13:0 not to put the transcribed comments in the narrative in the
library, as required by the approved Senate proposal. Before anyone
knew the results of the written comments, lawyer Vercruysse called
Nelson to explain Michigan liability. In Michigan, the University is
liable for any published anonymous derogatory comments. Nelson pointed
out that the Commission could ask the administrators to sign a waiver
permitting them to publish all comments, but many of the comments named
other individuals and groups on campus, involving over 100 entities.
Comments addressed such topics as spouses of the administrators, quality
of degrees from some departments, and cross-cultural efforts. Nelson
concluded with the Commission's arguments for their decision not to make
these public by stating that 1) the purpose of the questionnaire was to
help the Commission, 2) the report will summarize the comments, and 3)
this is a justice issue - if it is viewed by the law as harmful, then
it probably should not be done. The Commission will give all comments
to the Board of Control and the Board can choose to do what they want.
Les Leifer commented that there seemed to be no consequence of a
negative vote for an administrator in the model charter provided by the
Senate. Keen responded that it was only a model and not necessarily a
good one; however, based on conversations related to the charter for
Biological Sciences, Keen determined that if there is a negative vote
against a department chair, the department can't force the dean to
concur.
B. Retention Study Task Force - Chris Anderson [Appendix O]
Chris Anderson (chair) reported from the Task Force. Jeffrey
Bell-Hanson and Mark Plichta were the Senate representatives on the
committee. The Task Force has identified the responsible person(s) or
group(s) for carrying out each aspect of the retention recommendations.
The Task Force gathered information from a wide variety of sources,
including considerable reading about efforts on other campuses, data
from Institutional Analysis, five student panels comprised of a total
of over 50 students, focus groups, phone calls to students who have left
campus for non-academic reasons, panels of faculty, and alumni. In
addition, chairs provided lists of their departmental retention
activities. The phone calls revealed that nearly all students who left
were happy with MTU but left for other reasons such as a girl/boy friend
elsewhere, lack of the curriculum wanted. In addition, the Task Force
had a consultant from Western Michigan University to talk about minority
retention and a video on the program at Chicago State University, where
new retention programs have been very successful.
Michigan Tech statistics indicate that retention is going down
overall and going down faster in the College of Sciences and Arts. The
graduation rate within six years is 62% at MTU, whereas the benchmark
schools range 48-87%. The Task Force recommended retention goals of 95%
after 1 year, 90% after 2, and 85% after 5. The deans thought these
goals were too high, but the Task Force stuck to their recommendation.
One aspect of correcting this retention is to do better marketing, i.e.,
concentrate on attracting those students who are most likely to stay at
MTU. They recommended to continue the current programming and to
enhance it. They identified five areas to concentrate on for immediate
impact: academic advising, orientation, course availability, faculty
development with a focus on teaching, and maintenance and promotion of
our current programming. The improved advising program is already being
implemented through the PAL program that trains students as peer
advisors; students surveyed indicated that they got most of their advice
from other students. Another suggestion is to provide an advising
center with release time for faculty to work in the center for several
years.
Senator Whitt asked if the advising center would be only for
academic advising or for broader advising; Anderson responded that it
would only be for academic advising. Provost Dobney and Tyrell (Office
of Student Affairs) added that the peer advising would be broader.
Furthermore, faculty would be able to tell students where to go for
other types of advising.
Dobney commented that we need to get students connected to the
University better and sooner.
Senator Whitt asked about the role of the counselors; Anderson
responded that the people working in the center would know who to refer
students to but no counselors would be in the center.
Senator Beck suggested that to get data on reasons for leaving we
might require students to fill out a questionnaire when they request a
transcript. Anderson responded that the Dean of Students Office claims
students just leave and do not respond to requests for reasons.
Liaison Hellmann (USG) asked if students had any input into
developing the list of questions asked in the surveys; Anderson
responded that they did not because there were no students on the task
force due to its high level of activity and time commitment. Senator
Bradley commented that it was obvious students had no input because one
recommendation was to switch to semesters; Anderson responded that 50%
of the students stated that they needed more time and that semesters
would be better. Senator Melton commented that the benchmark schools
are qualitatively different, making it difficult to compare retention
rates.
President Bornhorst requested an agenda adjustment to move to
discussion on Proposal 17-96 next because the Senate had a number of
guests who had come because of that item on the agenda. The Provost had
agreed to present his report on the budget at the next meeting. Senator
Brokaw asked that we introduce the new business, including Proposal
18-96, so that we can vote on these items at the next meeting;
President Bornhorst declared it done.
******************************************************************
Page 6264 Minutes of Senate Meeting 252 20 Mar 1996
Provost Dobney interjected, in response to an earlier statement by
Paul Nelson, that while he and other administrators may be big and fat,
he, at least, tells the truth.
Bradley MOVED and Carstens seconded the motion to adjust the agenda
as requested by President Bornhorst. The motion to adjust PASSED on
voice vote with no dissent.
7. OLD BUSINESS
Proposal 17-96, Reaffirm Approval of Proposal 22-95 [See minutes, page
6260, for a copy of this proposal.]
President Bornhorst requested a motion to approve Proposal 17-96.
Whitt MOVED and Mroz seconded the motion to approve Proposal 17-96
(regarding constituency and representation).
Senator Leifer stated that the reason to move action on the
proposal up is fallacious because we have computers and E-mail to permit
us to vote in a short period of time. He stated that he voted no on the
proposal to move the date because important issues occur at the end of
the year and we should know the impact of professional staff on deciding
these issues. President Bornhorst responded that we must elect at-large
senators and we need to decide what our constituency is so they can
vote. Pro tem Vice President Soldan asked if any tough issues were
coming up. Senator Whitt countered by stating that Leifer assumes that
staff vote as a block and they don't, nor do faculty.
Bornhorst asked Kelly McLean (Staff Council) to comment on the
position of Staff Council. McLean stated that her comments were the
product of several Staff Council meetings and had been agreed upon by
that group. [Appendix P]
Senator Beck presented his objections. [Appendix Q] Beck contended
that the model we seem to be following is like that of the UN General
Assembly, with possible disbanding of the Security Council; this could
lead to a do-nothing organization. He claimed that currently Staff
Council is able to react more quickly than the Senate, and with impact
(such as the employee raise issue). The Senate can only recommend
policy. He stated that faculty need identity. This bylaw change is a
major change in the Constitution and should go to the entire faculty for
a vote. He pointed out that there are some distinct advantages to
having professional staff input, such as input on committees. Some
staff are dissatisfied because they cannot vote on some issues and feel
the present arrangement was made to satisfy 1-2 dissatisfied faculty.
He suggested that instead of a single body there should be scheduled
joint faculty-staff meetings once or twice per quarter with meetings of
officers more often. Professional staff should have non-voting
membership on Senate committees.
Senator Lutzke stated that the the staff had rejected the idea of
voting as a block because there was too much diversity of opinion and
those present to hear the arguments should be able to make the best
decisions. Staff do not mind being excluded on certain votes because
those units voting on those issues are the best informed.
Bornhorst stated that we need to address whether there should be
some staff only issues. Pro tem Vice President Soldan stated that as
a senator and previously as an observer he had not seen the Senate get
bogged down by staff issues; it seems that all participation by staff
has been positive.
Senator Bradley stated that his experience has been positive; staff
participation has brought new perspectives. Why would we not want the
staff? They have done a good job. Senator Flynn stated that she agrees
with Beck, that the faculty are receding and we may need a faculty
council. President Bornhorst responded that the Staff Council is more
free form. It is not a decision-making body, but rather a discussion
body.
Senator Remali stated that Staff Council was set up by President
Tompkins and staff never voted to create it. When the Professional
Staff joined the Senate, it was by vote.
Senator Reed stated that he won't be here for the vote, but he
wanted to express that he was very happy with the way things were going,
that the contributions of professional staff led to improved decisions.
He could not think of one issue where staff participation caused a worse
decision.
Beck pointed out that some of our votes were as close as 17:13,
that a few votes can swing votes. Faculty are least likely to vote in
a block of any group you can imagine.
Bradley said that it depends on the issue; the staff won't vote on
issues that don't concern them.
Tyrell (Office of Student Affairs) stated that we should consider
how this might be perceived by the Board of Control relative to our
stand on shared governance; it seems that we are being contradictory if
we do not want staff to participate. His experience from a school where
the two groups are separate is that when they are separate, the two
groups go in different directions.
Senator Filer stated that he felt that the Senate was better with
Professional Staff. Senator Whitt stated that for a negative impact,
she sees no empirical evidence whereas for positive impact the faculty
are far better informed when making decisions. The more we speak with
a united voice, the stronger we are.
Senator Carstens reported that the only negative comments he has
heard regarding Senate decisions was on the grading system (which was
decided last year before the current expansion).
Keen stated that he wanted to raise three points and three options.
First, he wanted to make it clear that he was not down on staff - he
lives in a staff neighborhood, some of his best friends are staff, and
he let his daughter marry a staff member. Nevertheless, there are three
problems: 1) the Constitution is Board Policy; 2) the Constitution
defines who is a constituent; 3) the proposed bylaw changes are in
disagreement with the Constitution [which includes professional staff
who are in PRIMARY decision-making positions]. Our three options are:
1) We can retreat to last year's Constitution (before 22-95). 2) We can
affirm the change, but that leads to problems.
******************************************************************
Page 6265 Minutes of Senate Meeting 252 20 Mar 1996
The Bylaws are out of line with the Constitution and Board of Control
policy. We can bring the Constitution in line with the bylaw changes,
but this would require an amendment to the Constitution. 3) If we are
going to change the constitution, we need to do it correctly. The
University of Maryland has 5 Senates - undergraduate, graduate, union
staff, professional staff, and faculty. No proposal can be implemented
without input from all groups. There are extensive committees that
cross all groups.
Senator Chavis stated that resistance to the change indicates that
staff are not wanted; however, the fact that someone brought up this
amendment means that someone must want the staff in the Senate. Lutzke
stated that staff can't dilute faculty impact; the staff have a more
influential voice in the Senate than not in the Senate. Senator Melton
said that he just joined this consideration recently as an alternate and
asked himself what's in it for the staff; the staff will not dilute the
Senate; when the work is being done, if the faculty are on top of it and
doing the work, then they will have their influence. Melton continued
that the problems could come in the dynamics of how we work; that work
is the responsibility of the committees.
Senator Mroz stated that we have worked efficiently this year;
because of our size, we are small enough to act as one unit [unlike the
University of Maryland].
Senator Thayer pointed out that other universities have staff in
their Senates. Senator Whitt added that based on work done by another
committee, it appears that 25% of the university senates have
professional staff in them.
Thayer MOVED and Mroz seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting. The
meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by Janice M. Glime
Secretary of the Senate
.