******************************************************************
Page 6501 Minutes of Senate Meeting 257 8 May 1996
THE SENATE OF MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
Minutes of Meeting No. 257
8 May 1996
Synopsis: The Senate
(1) Approved Proposal 23-96 on Faculty Availability.
(2) Approved Proposal 32-96 on Policies and Procedures Regarding
Tenure-track Appointments, as an emergency proposal.
(3) Heard that policies regarding use of social security numbers for
identification would be revised.
(4) Thanked Senator Thayer (Metallurgy and Materials Engineering) for
his many years of service to MTU [he is retiring].
(5) Heard that President Tompkins has approved the Associate Degree
in Chemical Engineering (Proposal 13-96).
(6) Heard that President Tompkins will ask the Board of Control to
suspend prefunding of TIAA/CREF for another year.
(7) Referred Proposal 22-96 on Childcare Benefits back to the Fringe
Benefits Committee.
(8) Requested Senators to make their committee choices for 1996-97.
(9) Gave President Bornhorst the authority to write a letter to
Bresnan Communications, on behalf of the Senate, requesting that
Senate meetings be televised.
(10) Heard a report from Shalini Rudak on the Staff Handbook.
(11) Heard a report from Linda Ott on the Faculty Handbook and learned
that it would go to the Board of Control in July.
(12) Heard a year-end report on Shared Governance, given by Carol
MacLennan.
(13) Amended Proposal 20-96 on Campus Activities Benefit to eliminate
the SDC Box Office and Bookstore and sent the proposal back to the
Fringe Benefits Committee.
(14) Passed Proposal 24-96 on Health Insurance Benefits, recommending
continuation of 80 points or 65 years for eligibility.
(15) Approved as an emergency proposal an amended Proposal 25-96,
Recommendation on Retirement Income Program.
_______________________________________
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
President Bornhorst called the Senate Meeting 257 to order at 5:45
p.m. on Wednesday, 8 May 1996, in Room B37 of the Electrical Energy
Resources Center.
Secretary Glime called roll. Absent were at-large senators Robert
Filer and Harold Evensen, and representatives from Army/AF ROTC, Student
Affairs/Educational Opportunity, and Academic Services/Engineering.
Liaison in attendance was Geoff Roelant (USG) and Ted Soldan (Staff
Council).
2. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS
Guests included Fred Dobney (Provost), Debbie Lassila (Provost's
Office), Dennis Walikainen (Tech Topics), Freydoon Arbabi (Civil &
Environmental Engineering), Carol MacLennan (Social Sciences), Linda Ott
(Computer Science), Shalini Rudak (Educational Opportunity), N. V.
Suryanarayna (ME-EM), Carl Nesbitt (Met and Mat Eng), Dave Ouillette
(Enrollment Management), and Ellen Horsch (Human Resources).
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mroz MOVED and Sweany seconded the motion to approve the agenda.
The motion to approve 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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MEETING 254
Senator Beck asked that the wording in item 5, paragraph 2,
sentences 4-6, be changed to read "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]."
Beck asked that the first full sentence on page 6378, column 2, be
changed to read, "Senator Beck suggested that there needs to be an
independent outside organization to substantiate the financial
difficulties."
Beck asked that the 9th paragraph on page 6380 be clarified to
read, "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."
Senator Flynn corrected the fifth full paragraph on page 6379 to
read Northern Michigan University instead of Northern University.
Leifer stated that any proposal that the provost saw, he had seen.
The only person who would get $50,000 is a person who has been here for
40 years and will retire after 45 years. That person would get $50,000.
There is no one in that category, so it becomes a null set.
Walck MOVED and Mroz seconded the motion to approve the minutes as
corrected. The motion to approve PASSED on voice vote with one dissent.
5. OPEN MOTION TO APPROVE PROPOSAL 23-96: POLICY ON FACULTY
AVAILABILITY. [Appendix B]
Senator Arici asked if the proposal implies that faculty must be
here at all times or only during office hours. Senator Keen responded
that he is not sure what is implied by the change in wording to "will."
Arici asked
******************************************************************
Page 6502 Minutes of Senate Meeting 257 8 May 1996
who would enforce the requirement. Provost Dobney responded
"no one." Arici stated that we all do what this proposal requires
already; if someone is not available, the student can go to the faculty
member or department head or dean. He will vote against the proposal
because it seems to accomplish nothing.
Senator Sandberg responded that this is a reason to vote for the
proposal because now there is no policy. Senator Thayer added that the
policy just says "should," so it adds nothing new. Senator Soldan said
that as a student it was frustrating to go to a person's office and find
no one there during office hours. There should be an enforceable
policy. Thayer stated that he tells students to leave a message and he
will call them; 50% of the students do not show up for the appointments.
Senator Fynewever stated that we are here for the students; the
proposal lacks a statement that ensures that availability is carried
out. Arici asked what she would do if someone did not care and did not
do this. Fynewever responded that a chair could give a person a lower
raise or no raise as a means of enforcement; it should be part of the
annual review.
Senator Leifer argued that the proposal background states that
there is a widespread perception that a policy exists; this is
inaccurate. This proposal does not provide policy, so it doesn't really
do anything.
Vice President Walck countered that it does set a policy that
faculty will be available; it just doesn't state the way they will be
available.
Arici stated that faculty can post office hours; he is available
at all times for the convenience of the students; he does not need a
stick to make him maintain availability.
Suryanarayna (ME-EM) added that if faculty don't want to see
students, they can be obnoxious so students won't bother them. A policy
won't change that.
Sandberg MOVED and Mroz seconded the motion to call the question.
The voting units are academic degree and course offering units. The
motion to call the question PASSED on voice vote with no dissent. The
motion to approve Proposal 23-96 PASSED on voice vote with dissent.
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. Proposal 30-96: Ad Hoc Committees. [Appendix C]
There was no discussion.
B. Proposal 31-96: Social Security Numbers as Student Identification
Numbers. [Appendix D]
There was no discussion.
C. Proposal 32-96: Policies and Procedures Regarding Tenure-track
Appointments. [Appendix E]
Vice President Walck stated that the Senate had already seen this
proposal [as a recommendation] the previous week and that this was a
very important policy. There had been two cases already this year in
which such a policy would have been helpful. Therefore, she MOVED and
Soldan seconded the motion to treat Proposal 32-96 as an emergency
proposal.
Dobney commented that the situation in Forestry mentioned last week
had been resolved to the satisfaction of Forestry and asked Forestry
Senator Mroz if that was accurate. Mroz responded "pretty accurate."
Senator Bradley stated that he had not had time to see examine the
proposal and it differs somewhat from the report.
While ballots on treating it as an emergency proposal were being
counted, Senator Pegg commented that Proposal 31-96 seemed to have
strange wording, "it is so resolved that...." Keen responded that the
strange wording was part of the Background, not of the proposal. Pegg
suggested that the proposal should address what should be done, not what
should not be done, like the suggestion in the Background. Bornhorst
responded that he had talked to Sharron Paris (Enrollment Management)
and that there are many issues we need to understand relative to the
social security number proposal and we will address these in the fall.
The motion to treat Proposal 32-96 as an emergency proposal PASSED
by secret ballot with 22 yes and 10 no.
Secretary Glime stated that she could not support the 4th point
of the proposal because she did not know the rest of the spousal policy
to be developed in a forthcoming proposal and how the restriction to
follow "all University guidelines" might prevent us from coming up with
a flexible but fair procedure. She argued that the proposal assumes
there is no alternative that could possibly be better, but she felt that
it could be better. More women are becoming highly educated
professional people, and both male and female hires are likely to have
highly trained professional spouses. The community lacks other
professional job opportunities, thus narrowing our pool of potential
hires, in many cases, to people who do not have spouses needing
employment, or we will lose them at the first opportunity they have to
get a job for both. This will not provide some of the needed role
models for our students and will give us an unbalanced representation
of intellectual society. Although we might ultimately decide that we
can provide a good plan within current hiring guidelines, she would like
to see that whole plan before restricting it.
Glime MOVED and Thayer seconded the motion to replace item 4 of the
proposal with "A policy regarding spousal hiring should be created.
Until that policy is established, university guidelines for tenure-track
hiring should be followed."
Walck countered the motion to amend by stating that it would create
internal inconsistencies within the proposal. The first item in the
proposal states that university procedures should be followed in all
hires. She stated that if a professional position is needed for the
spouse, the usual procedure would be to give the person a temporary
appointment. Then an ad would go out nationwide and the person would
compete for that
******************************************************************
Page 6503 Minutes of Senate Meeting 257 8 May 1996
position. Usually the incumbent has a good chance of
getting that position. If the department has a plan in place that
establishes need for that kind of appointment, a shorter search could
occur.
Senator Flynn stated that the university policy and procedures are
also flexible and could be changed.
Vice President Pro Tem Soldan stated that this proposed policy
seems to preclude a policy on spousal hiring. Glime stated that Walck's
suggestion to carry out a shorter search would also seem to violate the
policy. Senator Mroz stated that if someone is good and you want them,
you don't want to bring them in at half a load or into a lecture
position. That is a half-hearted attempt. Walck suggested that it
could be a "visiting" position but not tenure-track.
Senator Brokaw stated that he felt the amendment was better wording
and was really a clarification of the procedure. Item 4 of the original
proposal seems to be redundant. The amendment says that if we develop
a spousal policy, we need to think carefully about how to do it.
Senator Flynn stated that if the spousal policy is different, it
violates university policy.
Walck stated that if #4 is redundant, she would be happy to accept
the interpretation that the policy regarding spousal hiring must follow
point #1. Her interpretation of the amendment is that the spousal
hiring policy could be different from the university guidelines, and
that is unacceptable to her. Bornhorst stated that the university
guidelines could be changed to be consistent with any new spousal hiring
policy developed.
Bornhorst interpreted that this was a full Senate issue because of
the allocation and utilization of the university's human, fiscal, and
physical resources. Flynn stated that the committee talked about staff
issues and decided that they should not be considered because the charge
was tenure-track. Bornhorst considered this an objection to the voting
units. Bradley stated that the wording says "all hires." Bornhorst
stated that the intended interpretation was "all hires of tenure-track
appointments." The objection was over-ruled by a roll call vote of 22
in favor of the full Senate and 10 opposed. Those voting to support the
ruling of the full Senate were as follows:
Glime no Beck no
Flynn no Heyman yes
Walck yes Carstens yes
Whitt yes Goldstein yes
Keen yes Moore yes
Brokaw yes Fynewever yes
Leifer no McKimpson yes
Shonnard no Diebel yes
Sandberg yes Bradley yes
Sweany no Lambert yes
Sloan no Lutzke yes
Mroz yes McKilligan yes
Pegg no Soldan yes
Gopal yes Little abstain
Arici no Ekdahl yes
Thayer no Kitalong yes
Greuer yes
The amendment to change item #4 was defeated 18:13 by roll call
vote:
Glime yes Beck no
Flynn no Heyman no
Walck no Carstens no
Whitt no Goldstein no
Keen no Moore no
Brokaw yes Fynewever no
Leifer no McKimpson yes
Shonnard no Diebel yes
Sandberg abstain Bradley no
Sweany no Lambert yes
Sloan yes Lutzke no
Mroz yes McKilligan yes
Pegg no Soldan yes
Gopal no Little abstain
Arici no Ekdahl yes
Thayer yes Kitalong yes
Greuer yes
Senator Keen asked for a sense from the ad hoc committee on item # 4 as
to whether they intended it to mean all current guidelines should be
followed. This would focus on the issue of whether or not the new
spousal hiring procedures could also bring to us a revision of the
current university guidelines and procedures to make them fit the new
spousal hiring policy. Walck responded that the intent was that the
spousal hiring policy and procedures should follow the guidelines at any
given time. If the spousal hiring committee wants to change the spousal
hiring policy and procedures, then the university hiring policy should
change for all hires to be consistent. The goal was to be consistent.
Keen stated that it needs to be clear in the charge that it is in the
purview of the committee to consider all tenure-track hiring in
developing new guidelines.
Bornhorst stated that we will put in the charge that the university
tenure-track hiring policy could change to be consistent with any new
policies and procedures developed for spousal hiring.
Mroz pointed out that in #1, the President is bound only by US law.
He would like the spousal guidelines developed so that the President
can't do as he/she feels. Bornhorst stated that we need to try to write
a policy that the Board of Control and President could agree with. Mroz
also would like to see a policy that the President and Board of Control
would agree with.
There was no further discussion. The motion to approve Proposal
32-96 on procedures regarding tenure-track appointments PASSED on voice
vote with no dissent.
******************************************************************
Page 6504 Minutes of Senate Meeting 257 8 May 1996
7. REPORT FROM SENATE PRESIDENT
President Bornhorst asked the Senate to recognize Senator Thayer
for his many years of service to the University and to the Senate. This
was Thayer's last Senate meeting because he was retiring. The Senate
applauded Thayer in appreciation for his service.
Bornhorst reported that Proposal 18-96 on Basic Benefits has been
forwarded to the Administration. Proposal 13-96, Associate Degree in
Chemical Engineering, has been approved by President Tompkins.
[Appendices F and G]
The administrative Evaluation Commission is scheduled to complete
its report by the end of finals week. The report will go to all Senate
constituents.
Bornhorst read from a memo. [Appendix H] At its 16 June 1995
meeting, the Board of Control suspended the prefunding of TIAA/CREF for
one year. On 1 November a task force was formed and on 12 April 1996
the task force recommended several changes. In order to provide
adequate time for discussion of these recommended changes, Dobney is
recommending that the Board continue the moratorium on prefunding for
a period of one year, and President Tompkins has approved this
recommendation.
Proposal 22-96, Recommendation on Childcare Benefits, was tabled
at our last meeting. Therefore, according to Robert's Rules, that
proposal is dead unless it is brought off the table at this meeting.
Leifer MOVED and McKimpson seconded the motion to bring the motion off
the table. The motion to bring it off the table PASSED on voice vote
with no dissent. Mroz MOVED and McKimpson seconded the motion to refer
Proposal 22-96 back to the Fringe Benefits Committee for further review.
The motion PASSED on voice vote with no dissent.
Bornhorst informed the Senate that it is time for Senators to make
their choices for 1996-97 committee membership. He will request first,
second and third choices, which he will need back by 31 May. The
Officers will prepare a draft list and will try to bring it to the
Executive Committee before the beginning of fall quarter. The list will
be presented at the first Senate meeting in the fall. He would like to
have the committee assignments approved by the second meeting.
Bornhorst asked the Senate for authority to send a letter to
Bresnan requesting that they televise the Senate meetings. There were
no objections.
8. COMMITTEE BUSINESS/REPORTS
A. Staff Handbook - Shalini Rudak
Rudak (Educational Opportunity) presented the progress on the Staff
Handbook. There will be more detail in the fall. In November of 1994,
they surveyed the staff to determine if staff want a handbook and asked
who would be interested in serving on a committee to develop one. More
than 90% of the staff said they did want a handbook. The provost
appointed a committee representing staff, academic, and administrative
interests. Sharron Paris, Jim Heikkinen, Karen Salo, Patty Kyllonen,
Marianne Brokaw, and Shalini Rudak (Chair) comprised the committee. The
Handbook is not a contract or procedures manual. It is a reference
guide, a resource guide. It is basically a restatement of existing
policy. There were a few areas with no current policy, so three task
forces were formed to deal with these: leaves, discipline, and
grievance. In preparing the handbook, the committee met with the Senate
Committee for Staff Issues, the Staff Council, and the university
lawyer. The Handbook has a casual approach with lots of information
such as things you can get involved with, how to get time away from your
job, K-day, the culture of the university, involvement with United Way.
One member of each task force serves as a liaison to the Senate
Committee for Staff Issues.
Senator McKimpson asked what the staff group has done on the
retrenchment policy. Rudak stated that representatives on the new
committee on retrenchment would be from faculty, staff, and
administration; the Staff Handbook Committee has not done much on that
issue yet.
B. Faculty Handbook Committee - Linda Ott
Ott reported that the Faculty handbook would contain only policies
now in existence, either previously existing or those recently passed
as Senate proposals that have become Board Policy. Senator Flynn asked
why non-tenure track policies were not included and Ott responded that
those would go in a separate handbook. The last handbook was updated
in 1989. As the steering committee worked on the handbook, they found
that several policies or procedures needed revision. These were
referred to task forces. Four task forces were needed: tenure-track
task force, non-tenure-track task force, separation task force, and
grievance task force. These task forces resulted in the new rank
definitions and the grievance policy that came to the Senate.
Ott presented the table of contents:
1. Mission Vision,
2. Appointment,
3. Faculty Rights and Responsibilities,
4. Faculty Development,
5. Compensation Policies,
6. Fringe Benefits,
7. Separation,
8. Grievance,
9. University Policies and Services,
Appendices (such as complex procedures, Senate Constitution,
Senate Standing Committees).
The Handbook, as presented, plus a more complete index with more
synonyms, will go to the Board of Control for their acceptance in July.
The Board does not need to approve the Handbook since they have already
approved all the policies that are in it. The final Handbook will be
looseleaf and will go on line, where it will be updated periodically.
Ott gave copies of the Handbook to all tenure-track faculty at the
Senate meeting.
The new Handbook includes the Senate proposal number and indicates
what is Board of Control policy so that everyone will know the process
needed to revise it.
******************************************************************
Page 6505 Minutes of Senate Meeting 257 8 May 1996
Ott needs comments and editorial corrections by 15 June so that any
corrections can be made before it goes to press for the Board of
Control.
A few topics in the Handbook are different than the proposals
passed by the Senate. These include the weather policy change. The
current wording is not legal because it requires professional staff to
take a day of vacation if school is closed or there is a weather
advisory. The second area is that the wording of "due process" in the
misconduct policy needs to be changed and approved in the Senate, then
go to the Board of Control; "due process" has a particular legal
meaning, whereas the intention within the policy was that the process
outlined in the procedures should be followed. Provost Dobney stated
that even if the Handbook has new wording, it is not binding until it
has been approved by the Board of Control as policy [which would be
preceded by Senate approval].
Senator Pegg asked what the purpose is for the Handbook. Dobney
responded that it is so every faculty member knows what is expected,
what is available, the rules, policies, and procedures that govern their
employment. It is a tool, not a contract. You can be in violation of
a policy, but not in violation of the Handbook. Lassila (Provost's
Office) added that the procedures manual needs to be updated. Flynn
asked if the Handbook has the old promotion and tenure guidelines.
Bornhorst responded that it does; we hope to see the new ones in the
fall. Ott added that the Handbook will be updated by providing new or
replacement pages.
C. Ad Hoc Committee on Shared Governance - Carol MacLennan substituting
for Laurie Whitt.
MacLennan provided the Senators with a copy of the committee's
Year-end Report [Appendix I] . She stated that the Committee began by
investigating other universities (including discussions with people at
UC Berkeley), using the World Wide Web, and contacting the AAUP. They
first concentrated on the origin of the idea (Berkeley claims to have
developed this idea in 1868). They paid attention to the different
strategies by which shared governance was instituted and to the features
of shared governance. In some places, students are very much a part of
the shared governance; in other places, only faculty are involved. The
report of these findings will be on reserve in the library. The
committee has several recommendations they feel should be considered.
These involve the degree to which students should be involved and the
interaction between the Senate and Board of Control (there is little
information on that topic).
Bornhorst stated that we can further discuss these recommendations
at the first meeting in September. The Committee also recommended that
MTU should send someone to the AAUP Conference on Faculty Governance to
be held 6-8 September 1996 in Ann Arbor. Bornhorst agreed to follow up
on this matter.
9. OLD BUSINESS
A. Proposal 20-96: Recommendation on Campus Activities Benefit
[Appendix J ]
Proposal 20-96 was brought to the floor during Meeting 255 but due
to a non-editorial amendment, it could not be voted on at that meeting.
Senator Pegg observed that the intent of the motion was to improve
health and that the SDC Box Office and Bookstore did not provide health
benefits.
Pegg MOVED and, after Bradley's statement, Glime seconded the
motion to remove the SDC Box Office and Bookstore from the proposal.
Senator Bradley stated that the intent of including the SDC Box
Office and Bookstore was to spur university spirit. When the 2/3
coverage provision was part of the proposal, it could have caused
additional revenue because more people might take advantage of these
resources and might bring their families. Senator Sandberg asked to be
put on record that he will use all his share for cigars and Twinkies if
the convenience store is included.
Senator Arici stated that excluding the Bookstore and SDC Box
Office would discriminate against those who were unable to use the
facilities at the SDC.
Secretary Glime stated that because of the amendment to strike the
2/3, the University could no longer anticipate increased revenue, as
stated in the third advantage accompanying the proposal. Instead, it
could suffer a loss of revenue because those who formerly paid for these
privileges no longer would need to. By including credit at the
bookstore, we would further reduce that revenue and in fact inflict a
real cost to the bookstore that would be realized by the University
budget through reduced "one-time revenues" from auxiliary enterprises.
Sales of tickets at the SDC Box Office must be reimbursed by the
University to the organization sponsoring the performance. Furthermore,
inclusion of the bookstore would give students the perception that they
are subsidizing faculty purchases through increased costs of books and
other items, even if that is not the case.
Senator Brokaw asked if the proposal was intended to include all
faculty and staff, including temporary. He said that Bradley said the
SDC was under-utilized, but the weight room was often full. Bradley
countered that the multipurpose room was not in heavy use.
Bradley stated that the cost would come out of the University
budget, but it might spark added membership since the family was not
included. You could buy more books or pay for more performances.
Senator Gilles stated that he agreed with Bradley; if the employee gets
in free, that person is likely to bring along the family.
The proposed voting units were the full Senate; there were no
objections.
A voice vote was taken on the motion to amend; President Bornhorst
ruled that it passed on voice vote with dissent. However, there were
objections, so a show of hands vote was taken. The motion to amend
Proposal 20-
******************************************************************
Page 6506 Minutes of Senate Meeting 257 8 May 1996
96 by striking "SDC Box Office, Bookstore" PASSED by show
of hands, 18 to 12.
To save time, Bornhorst ruled the change to be editorial; there
were no objections. Bornhorst also ruled that the addition of the word
"following" should be inserted before the word "units" so that the
proposal would read "at any of the following units under MTU Auxiliary
Enterprises..." This change was also ruled editorial.
Brokaw MOVED and Mroz seconded the motion to refer the proposal
back to the Fringe Benefits Committee for clarification. Keen asked for
clarification on whether one could buy $135 worth of T-shirts at the SDC
concessions. Provost Dobney asked the committee to address how this
proposal would affect the current wellness program; would we be giving
money to people who take advantage of this benefit? Mroz asked for
inclusion of comments from Auxiliary Enterprises on the anticipated
effects on them. Vice President Pro Tem Soldan stated that we need to
know the anticipated cost and the source of funds. Senator Fynewever
suggested it would be beneficial to look at research on the anticipated
reduction in health costs; the program may pay for itself. Bornhorst
asked that any further recommendations be sent to the Committee. The
motion to send Proposal 20-96 back to committee PASSED on voice vote
with no dissent.
B. Proposal 24-96: Recommendation on Health Insurance Benefits [See
minutes, page 6383, for a copy of this proposal.]
President Bornhorst pointed out that the RATIONALE should not be
considered part of the proposal.
Brokaw MOVED and Mroz seconded the motion to adjourn. Bradley
argued that the meeting should continue because it started 20 minutes
late. Vice President Walck stated that she would like the Senate to
decide on the sabbatical leave recommendations (Proposal 29-96) before
adjourning. The motion to adjourn could not be decided on voice vote,
so a roll call vote was taken. The motion to adjourn FAILED on roll
call vote, 14 to 17, with the following votes to adjourn:
Bradley MOVED and Carstens seconded the motion to approve Proposal
24-96 on Health Insurance Benefits.
Bradley argued that 80 points for retirement is an industry
standard for engineering and is also a state standard. If that were to
change, we could only get health benefits when we reach 65. The
assumption made by the Chief Financial Officer was that all 65 people
eligible would retire enmasse in one year. If we were to eliminate the
80-point eligibility, then we would have mass retirement before that
opportunity expired. In the last three years that it has been
available, only 11 people have retired. It is ridiculous to assume that
all eligible people would retire in one year if the 80 points were
continued. Senator Arici asked how could we possibly gain money by
keeping expensive people like Stein here for another 5 years?
There was no further discussion. The suggested voting units were
the full Senate; there was no objection. The motion to approve Proposal
24-96 on Health Insurance Benefits PASSED on voice vote with no dissent.
C. Proposal 25-96: Recommendation on Retirement Income Programs [See
minutes, page 6384, for a copy of this proposal.]
President Bornhorst pointed out that the RATIONALE was not part of
the proposal.
Thayer MOVED and Flynn seconded the motion to approve Proposal
25-96.
Senator Heyman stated that his department disagreed with item B in
the proposal related to the years-of-service retirement bonus. He
stated that the increase in the University policy for TIAA/CREF is a
policy change and can't be retroactive. It is like salary; younger
faculty get more, but we chose that life. He would opt for A only.
Heyman MOVED and Mroz seconded the motion to delete item B and
reword the second sentence of the introductory paragraph appropriately
to read, "In an effort to bring about this adjustment, all TIAA/CREF
participants shall have the following option:"
Senator Carstens asked why this is an option and Heyman responded
that faculty can choose not to contribute 2%. Senator Thayer stated
that he strongly recommended that we don't amend the proposal. It says
nothing about how it would be funded; most of the funding has come from
the departments and it is being divisive of the faculty if it is not
equitable.
Senator Arbabi stated that faculty who have only 10-15 years of
service do not have enough money in retirement, so some cannot afford
to retire. Senator Mroz stated that it should be an administrative
decision whether faculty must contribute 2% to be eligible for the
proposed money. Vice President Walck stated that those with the higher
salaries and who needed the added money least would be the ones who also
could afford the matching 2% the most.
Senator Leifer stated that he sits and listens to those who have
not studied the problem as thoroughly as this committee; the committee
has members aged 35 to 67,
******************************************************************
Page 6507 Minutes of Senate Meeting 257 8 May 1996
and they were unanimous in this proposal. This proposal is equitable.
He calculated that the average age of MTU staff and faculty is 44. If
they work 26 years until they retire, because retirement age for
social security will be 70 years by then, with this 2+2, they will
get close to $400,000 from the University contribution alone. He
assumed a 4% salary increase and 10% TIAA/CREF rate of return on their
money. If the average MTU retiree now has 20 years of service, that
person would get $150,000, which is taxable, reducing it to a little
over $100,000. AAUP guidelines suggest you need to pay 2-3 years of
salary. He claimed it is affordable, but we might have to hire one
less administrator. Those who haven't studied the problem should not
be making changes to a proposal drafted by those who have studied it
carefully.
Heyman agreed that it is equitable but that it is a bad idea; it
is an enormous amount of money going to a limited number of individuals.
Walck stated that having choice A without B makes it inequitable.
Leifer questioned the legality of having only A. He stated that
if we were to propose giving raises only to those 55 and over, Ellen
Horsch would be at his throat. The federal government declared illegal
the University contribution to TIAA/CREF when the University's
contribution to social security for employees on higher salaries reached
the limit. The choices in this proposal would be a one-time choice.
This would work its way out of the system in 5-10 years. AAUP suggests
you need 15% to be able to retire at age 65. The committee worked hard
and has done a responsible job. The Provost says that his top priority
is salaries and benefits, but it never seems to be his top priority.
More than 65 people are past 80 points. Heyman stated that cutting
off the 80 points could drive people to retire. He stated that payments
of $150,000-200,000 could induce a lot more people to retire. That is
$6.5 million over a 5-10 year-period. Senator Bradley stated that there
are 24 people with between 75 and 80 points. Senator Carstens stated
that it would be about half a million dollars per year over a 10-year
period. Heyman said that this [B] would be a big inducement for people
to retire. Mroz didn't think the administration would go along with
this. People who are around for a long time would suffer inflation
considerably.
Vice President Walck called the question. Leifer answered Mroz
that he made the calculations with the assumptions as stated before.
Mroz questioned that 4% was not what one might expect as an investment
interest. Sweany seconded the motion to call the question. The motion
to call the question PASSED on voice vote with no dissent.
The suggested voting units were the full senate; there was no
objection so voting units stood.
Keen requested a secret ballot. The motion to amend Proposal 25-96
on retirement benefits by striking option B PASSED by secret ballot, 17
yes to 14 no.
The President ruled that the change was more than editorial; there
was no objection to the ruling, so voting on the proposal will not take
place until fall.
Bradley stated that the last time the committee got no feedback and
he would like to know any other changes now. Bornhorst reminded him
that only voting was postponed - it was not sent back to committee.
Senator Sloan objected to the ruling that it was non-editorial for
the same reason that Bornhorst had ruled the change to Proposal 20-96
to be editorial. Keen stated that the change does not qualify as an
editorial change, so to follow the rules, we should consider it as an
emergency proposal. Senators voted on the ruling to consider the change
as non-editorial; the ruling was SUPPORTED on voice vote. Sloan MOVED
and Bradley seconded the motion to consider Proposal 25-96 as an
emergency proposal. The motion to consider it as an emergency proposal
PASSED by secret ballot, 26 to 5.
Bornhorst ruled that we would strike the letter A preceding the
option as an editorial change. There was no objection. The current
proposal now reads "All TIAA/CREF participants shall have the following
option: A 2% increase in TIAA/CREF contribution by the University
coupled with a 2% participant contribution."
Bradley questioned whether we would be required to match if we only
got 1%. Heyman reminded us that we are only making a recommendation to
the Administration and they can iron out the matching requirement.
Provost Dobney stated that we could not afford to put the full 2% in
immediately, so it would probably be phased in 1% at a time. The
Administration can fix the language.
McKimpson asked what the cost estimate is. Arbabi responded that
they had estimated the cost several years earlier, but that it would no
longer be accurate. McKimpson questioned whether we should vote on this
without any cost estimate.
Leifer stated that he has done the calculations. The plan is
tax-deferred and would cost $250,000 per 1%. Dobney corrected him;
there is a $32 million salary base for TIAA/CREF employees and that
would cost $320,000 per year. Sloan stated that we don't know what
participation would be; in industry it is not likely to go above 75%.
Higher salaried people would be more likely to take the 2%; it is not
likely to be 100% participation. Leifer pointed out that 75% would cost
$240,000 per year. There was no further discussion.
The motion to approve the amended Proposal 25-96 PASSED on voice
vote with no dissent. Soldan MOVED and Sandberg seconded the motion to
adjourn. Bradley objected because we had not yet dealt with Proposal
29-96 on sabbatical leaves. Walck, who had requested that the meeting
be continued so we could act on that proposal, responded "forget it."
The motion to adjourn PASSED on voice vote with dissent. The
meeting adjourned at 8:12 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by Janice M. Glime
Secretary of the Senate
.