******************************************************************
Page 6377 Minutes of Senate Meeting 254 17 Apr 1996
THE SENATE OF MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
Minutes of Meeting No. 254
17 April 1996
Synopsis: The Senate
(1) Learned that Bresnan would no longer carry the Senate meetings.
(2) Heard that the Instructional Policy Committee recommends no change
in the drop policy for another year.
(3) decided that petitioners for Senate constituency would be
requested to provide a narrative if they wish.
(4) heard that Glime and Shapton were elected for Senator-at-large.
(5) heard a budget presentation from Provost Dobney.
_______________________________________
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
President Bornhorst called the Senate Meeting 254 to order at 5:30
p.m. on Wednesday, 17 April 1996, in Room B37 of the Electrical Energy
Resources Center.
Secretary Glime called roll. Absent were at-large senator Robert
Filer, and representatives from Business & Engineering Administration,
Chemical Engineering, Student Affairs/Educational Opportunities, and
Human Resources/Facilities Management. Liaisons in attendance were
Steve Hellmann (USG) , Yadu Dar (GSC), and Ted Soldan (Staff Council).
2. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS
Guests included Fred Dobney (Provost), Debbie Lassila (Provost's
Office), Mike Gilles (Research/Communications Services/Administrative
Offices), Dennis Walikainen (Communication Services), and Ellen Horsch
(Human Resources).
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
President Bornhorst announced a correction to the agenda. Bresnan
will not broadcast the Senate meeting. Dobney added that this meeting
was not broadcast; our channel has been turned into a travel channel.
Bresnan claims that MTU has deprived Bresnan of revenue by creating its
own campus channel. Bresnan would continue us for $60,000 a year. We
need to impress on them the need for community access, particularly for
Senate meetings and the convocation. It would be helpful to have a
resolution from the Senate to ask Bresnan to reconsider.
Vice president Pro Tem Soldan asked what individuals can do.
Dobney suggested people can write to Kestner and to Bresnan. The
administration has already written to our state senators. Senator Beck
asked how the Hancock City Council gets on channel 5 and Dobney
responded that Bresnan is mad at the University for providing their own
services and hopes to put similar pressures on other universities as
well.
Leifer MOVED and Carstens seconded the motion to approve the
agenda. The motion PASSED on 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. NEW BUSINESS
New business proposals were introduced, including Proposal 23-96,
Policy on Faculty Availability; Proposal 24-96, Recommendation on Health
Insurance Benefits; Proposal 25-96, Recommendation on Retirement Income
Programs; Proposal 26-96, Recommendation on Life Insurance. [Appendices
B-E]
5. PRESIDENT'S REPORT
President Bornhorst reported that two memos from Chief Financial
Officer McGarry were attached to the agenda. [Appendices F and G] One
is a report from the Graduate Student TuitionTask Force and one is a
report from the TIAA/CREF Retirement Health Benefits Task Force. The
Senate needs to decide what to do with these recommendations - concur
or send to a Senate committee.
The statement from Anita Quinn, distributed campus-wide, indicating
that the graduate student tuition increase has been approved, is in
error. It is an estimate of the new tuition rates. The Provost has
assured us that the recommendation for increase will come to the Senate
for input. Senator Beck stated that the implications of the wrong memo
are that if we can estimate a 4% increase in stipends for graduate
students, we should do no less for the faculty and staff salaries. It
also implies a 5% increase in tuition for undergraduates. Dobney
commented that the administration is actually using an estimate of 5%
for faculty and staff salaries.
Senator Leifer recommended that what the Senate voted on the last
time is what we should do. The Senate referred the Graduate Student
Tuition Task Force report to the Research Policy Committee and the TIAA
/CREF Retirement Health Benefits Task Force report to the Fringe
Benefits Committee.
A memo from Bob Keen regarding the current drop policy is attached
to the agenda; the Instructional Policy Committee recommends no change
for another year, at which time we should re-evaluate the effect of
moving the W grade ahead from week 6 to week 4. [Appendix H]
The Faculty Handbook will be ready to come to the Senate to examine
on 1 or 8 May. The Professional Staff Handbook will be ready by the end
of May or early fall term. Senator Pegg asked if the work on the
handbook is just from the Administration. Bornhorst replied that it has
been put together by the faculty and administration. The
non-information (policy) items are either existing Board of Control or
University policies and procedures or policies and procedures recently
approved by the Senate. The information items are being handled by the
Administration and the committee. Pegg asked if we can see the handbook
now; Debbie Lassila and Provost Dobney responded that we can.
The charter for the Mining Department has been accepted by
President Tompkins. [Appendix I]
The three elected representatives on the Charter School Committee
drew lots to determine the length of their terms. Gary Agin will be a
member for 6 years, Dallas Bates for 4, and Faith Morrison for 2.
******************************************************************
Page 6378 Minutes of Senate Meeting 254 17 Apr 1996
President Bornhorst reported that the officers felt that a petition
for Senate Constituency should state reasons for becoming constituents,
not just state that the person meets the minimum requirements, and he
asked for comments from the floor. Senator Sloan asked why there needs
to be any more information; Bornhorst replied that these are guidelines,
not criteria. Senator Pegg stated that any change in constituency
status should be up to the Senate, not the Executive Committee. Senator
McKimpson stated that the Senate had significant concern over the
criterion of long-term commitment to the university, so if no narrative
is provided with the petition, the Officers should ask for more.
Senator Moore asked what we would do if some were short and some were
long. Senator Whitt asked what else was discussed regarding this issue.
Bornhorst stated that we should probably throw out the guidelines.
Moore stated that other officers might decide differently on the same
petition. Bornhorst reminded the Senate that the entire Senate would
decide on who was to be admitted [the officers could send petitions back
for more information].
Senator Carstens asked what we are looking for. Pegg asked if
those two minimal guidelines are enough, why should we ask for more
information. Vice President Walck stated that we have criteria in the
bylaws; some people may fall through the cracks; this is a mechanism to
permit them consideration; these are not criteria; if these were
criteria, there would be no need to require a petition at all and we
could put the criteria in the bylaws.
Senator Leifer questioned what committee might be appropriate and
recommended that the Executive Committee come back to the Senate with
a statement of what is sufficient. Whitt asked if these were presented
singly as requirements or were they intended as the kind of thing we
could argue. Bornhorst responded that they were presented as something
that the Senate could argue. McKimpson suggested that the Senate
consider the requirement of a short narrative to accompany the request.
Bornhorst stated that we will request petitioners to provide a narrative
if they wish and the Executive Committee will move the petition forward.
There were no objections to that ruling, so that will be the procedure.
President Bornhorst announced the nominees for the Senate Ad Hoc
Committee for Separation of Faculty. These are Mary Ann Beckwith (Fine
Arts), Jim Carstens (Technology), Bill McKilligan (Operations), Bruce
Pletka (Metallurgy & Materials), George Trevino (ME-EM), ID Wijayaratne
(Technology), and Dae Young (Mining). The committee especially needs
to address cases of program elimination and financial exigency, since
there currently are no policies for these events. Senator Soldan
recommended that the Senate accept the slate as the committee members.
Senator Pegg asked about the charge; would they recommend a proposal to
the Senate, then the proposal would go to the administration and the
Board of Control; what exists now? Senator Bornhorst responded that
nothing exists now; in the mid 70's a proposal was rejected by the
University President. Senator Beck suggested that there needs to be an
independent outside organization to substantiate the financial
difficulties. Provost Dobney commented that the committee can look
just at single faculty or address the larger issue of a programmatic
shift; the University needs a way to deal with the larger issue.
Senator Whitt questioned whether the policy should include staff;
Horsch (Human Resources) responded that the staff are dealing with this
issue in their own handbook.
Senator Lutzke pointed out that a woman at another major university
had sued the university and won; the university claimed financial
problems; the court found that the university had a contingency fund
that had not been depleted and that others who were kept got raises.
Dobney stated that there would be no sense to have a different
policy for the faculty and staff - there needs to be a joint task force,
including administrators. Senator Carstens asked what is meant by
reconfiguration and Dobney responded by saying that it is a nice way of
saying we are changing the shape of the University. Senator Mroz
supported Dobney by saying that the policy would come to closure sooner
with Dobney's suggestion for joint efforts. Bornhorst stated that he
would bring the issue up again at the next meeting; the officers will
discuss it and get names of the staff committee members.
President Bornhorst announced the results of the election for
Senators-at-large: Glime (154) and Shapton (141) are the new
Senators-at-large. First runner-up is Kunz (100) and second is Flynn
(89).
President Bornhorst announced that he would run for President again
if someone nominates him.
6. COMMITTEE/BUSINESS REPORTS
MTU Budget Update - Provost Dobney [Appendix J]
Provost Dobney presented the MTU Budget Update. We anticipate a
150-200 student decline in 96-97. The percent of students choosing
engineering is declining on a national basis, from a high of 12% to the
present 7%. MTU follows the national trend. The University of Michigan
is not falling as much. Other Michigan schools are fairly stable. MTU
could be affected by the three institutions that have added ABET
accredited programs, and Ferris is adding more engineering programs.
There is an inverse correlation between the required ACT score and
enrollment. The MTU average is 25.9 whereas schools with an average of
23.3 have a higher enrollment. Studies indicate that the likelihood of
success is the same for 23 as for 27. When departments limit the ACT
scores, the enrollment is low. We are still suffering the reputation
of turning away very good students such as valedictorians; one student
was turned down by MTU and went to MIT. We need to have people
spreading the message that you can succeed to get in and graduate.
Assistant Dean Bowen is using novel recruiting techniques for Sciences
and Arts - giving coffee cups to high school counselors. We are
increasing recruiting efforts in the UP. Forestry has a TQE team that
has implemented new recruiting
******************************************************************
Page 6379 Minutes of Senate Meeting 254 17 Apr 1996
methods. We are holding Tech Nights downstate and recruiting fairs
in New York, New Jersey, Boston, and Pittsburgh. We are using Gold
Carpet alumni recruiting where alumni go to high school award cere-
monies and talk to awardees.
The exceptional student award has been extended to all states and
provinces. Thirty Wisconsin high school counselors are being hosted.
Better financial aid packaging should attract better students and get
us the most for the money.
The number of high school graduates is increasing faster in New
England and is slow in Michigan. However, Michigan is fourth in
engineering enrollment, after California, Texas, and New York.
Dobney addressed the tuition question. If the increment drives
away students, it defeats its purpose. We need to consider
access/affordability, market value, return of educational investment,
and financial need. Possible structures include different undergraduate
and graduate tuitions, but only 20% of the graduate students are
unsupported; others are supported internally, so the increase would be
a wash and might drive away the unsupported students. We could change
the charges to non-resident students to cover costs, but 70% of the
non-resident students are in the exceptional student program. Neither
the Provost nor the Comprehensive Tuition Committee supports charging
different tuition for lower and upper division students; lab fees help
to pay the greater cost of upper division courses; financial aid would
be more complicated.
Currently, enrollments come mostly from Michigan (4728), Wisconsin
(599), Minnesota (259), and Illinois (123).
Northern Michigan University charges $1000 per year less tuition
than MTU. Ours is approximately the same as at Wayne State.
The state appropriation to MTU should increase by about 6%.
Indirect cost return should increase about 10%; Auxiliaries should be
able to contribute $1.5 million; and the state's appropriation to
deferred maintenance should contribute $750,000.
Expenditures for faculty and staff include a 3% increase in fringe
benefit costs, 4% for salaries and wages, a continued moratorium on
prefunding TIAA/CREF, enhancement of the advancement effort, and the 1%
realignment. Supplies and services include $1,000,000 one-time
appropriation from the state for technology upgrades. Financial aid
will increase consistent with tuition increase and has a $350,000
shortfall from this year. Lab fees will increase 5% and there will be
return on overhead.
Senator Lutzke asked what will happen if there is no state budget
approved by the time of the Board of Control meeting. Dobney responded
that there would be a special meeting in June in that case. The state
money is premised on the federal budget going through.
Senator Pegg stated that we need to explain the internal
investment to students and parents; approximately 90% of the students
are employed by graduation and have high starting salaries - there is
a good return on the investment. Dobney said we can sell them on the
average starting salary - the freshmen already know what to expect in
the job salaries; Engler has stated that we're 10,000 to 12,000 short
on needed engineers, so student interest in that field should increase.
Senator Heyman asked if the $1,000,000 for technology will be for
"stuff." Dobney responded that it would, but that it could free some
of the money that should have been used for other things in the past but
needed to be used for that "stuff." Heyman responded that computerizing
has a huge overhead and we need support for existing equipment. Dobney
stated that we need start-up money for new faculty and would probably
not use the money for computers; money is available through computer
awards to faculty and student fees.
Senator Whitt asked what is covered in the base budgets. Dobney
responded that it includes administrative and departmental budgets;
these were made available to the finance committee.
Senator Beck asked if any golden parachutes are still unopened.
Dobney responded that none have been cut since he arrived and no more
previous commitments are known.
Senator Arici asked about possible cost savings in switching from
quarters to semesters and Dobney responded about $100,000 could be saved
- it could not be justified on cost savings and should only be
considered on the basis of educational value.
7. OLD BUSINESS
A. Proposal 18-96, Recommendation on Basic Benefits Package
[Appendix K]
Thayer moved and Arici seconded the motion to approve Proposal
18-96. Senator Sweany asked the cost of the proposal. Senator Arbabi
stated that the proposal was developed in response to the survey and
that the committee tried to watch the cost. Only four people had taken
the 80 point option, so there was not much cost to include it. Sweany
responded that the option might give some people an incentive to retire
early.
Provost Dobney stated that 21 people are currently under this
program and at least 12 of these are under the age of 65; the liability
is much greater than for those over 65 [who are eligible for Medicare].
Arbabi stated that these people could have a higher copay rate.
Senator Bradley stated that if the 80 point option were to be dropped,
the decision could drive eligible people to retire before the option was
lost. Horsch (Human Resources) pointed out that we now have the option
of 80 points or age 65. Dobney stated that there is a flaw in the cost
comparison because when people retire early it is possible to replace
them with an assistant professor at a lower salary and this could offset
the cost of retirement benefits.
Senator Gilles stated that we should keep it because it is fair and
other universities have it. There are currently 65 people who are
eligible with 80 points. Why should we force people to stay if they are
unproductive and drawing a high salary?
******************************************************************
Page 6380 Minutes of Senate Meeting 254 17 Apr 1996
President Bornhorst suggested that we could keep the 80 point
retirement but not provide health care until age 65. Dobney said that
the 80 points would be a tradeoff to a guarantee of retirement health
benefits.
Bradley stated that the 80 point system and retirement plan
included the recognition that retiring people need three things: health
benefits, retirement income, and life insurance. Senator Heyman stated
that he does not want to vote for all three in the same package because
it is too expensive. Arbabi stated that the committee wanted to provide
an orderly retirement that guaranteed the three parts. Thayer asked
what's wrong, why would anyone vote against the proposal?
Bradley stated that the proposal provided no details, so it was
possible to meet its requirements with little cost. Dobney stated that
the recommendation had no meaning because it had no financial analysis.
Sweany stated that he is upset because there is no detail; we cannot
assess what we are giving up to obtain this.
Senator Leifer stated that it is interesting to hear the provost
argue both sides of the coin. The Provost said no to a similar proposal
costed out in detail; therefore, they chose to give the philosophy
first. If the philosophy is not accepted, then there is no point in
costing out the program. If the philosophy is supported, then it is
worth costing it out.
Senator Carstens pointed out that people in industry are losing
their benefits; therefore, it is good to support the philosophical
statement.
Dobney pointed out that Leifer's statement is accurate, but he
omitted one part of the previous proposal, that there would be a
retirement payment of $250,000 over salary. Therefore, Dobney had
rejected the proposal. We need to know the cost so we can make a
decision.
Gilles stated that the only reason for including the 80 points in
a new proposal is that there had been discussion of taking that option
away. He is willing to negotiate in a lot of areas. For example,
copayment is not laid out. If no costing is included, the
recommendation should be only philosophical. Bradley compared the
proposal to a baby step. Heyman said there were pieces he could accept
and pieces he could not. There are succeeding proposals in the present
agenda new business and he "doesn't buy" some. Senator Mroz stated that
these are key issues and he doesn't agree with all.
Senator Whitt stated that she is the only philosopher in the room
and she has no objection to voting on a philosophical statement, but the
recommendations are not philosophy. She is interested in understanding
the arguments for and against each.
Beck stated that one of the new proposals suggested an enhanced
salary of $5,000 each year; Dobney corrected him, that it was actually
$50,000 each year for 5 years.
Bradley MOVED and Walck seconded the motion to drop the
recommendations from the proposal. The motion to amend PASSED on voice
vote with dissent.
Bornhorst ruled that the change was not editorial.
Leifer MOVED and Thayer seconded the motion to consider the
proposal as an emergency measure. Secretary Glime stated that it was
pointless to vote on it as an emergency measure because it would be 7:30
before the vote could be counted.
Soldan MOVED and Lutzke seconded the motion to adjourn. The
meeting was adjourned at 7:28 p.m. with the open motion to approve the
amended Proposal 18-96 on the floor.
Respectfully Submitted by Janice M. Glime
Secretary of the Senate
.