******************************************************************
Page 6523 Minutes of Senate Meeting 258 30 May 1996
THE SENATE OF MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
Minutes of Meeting No. 258
30 May 1996
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
President Bornhorst called the emergency Senate Meeting 258 to
order at 6:40 p.m. on Wednesday, 30 May 1996, in Room U113 of the
Mineral and Materials Engineering Building.
Secretary Glime called roll. Absent were at-large senators Robert
Filer and Laurie Whitt, and representatives from Biological Sciences,
Business and Engineering Administration, Chemical Engineering, Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Forestry and Wood Products, ME-EM, Social
Sciences, Technology, Army/AF ROTC, Fine Arts, Physical Education,
Enrollment Management, Finance/Advancement, and Academic
Services/Engineering. No Liaisons were present. Only 23 Senators were
present; 26 were needed for a quorum, so the quorum failed and the
meeting was adjourned.
Visitors were Laura Alexander (Human Resources), Mike Gilles
(Research/Communication Services/Administrative Offices), and Marcia
Goodrich.
Respectfully submitted by Janice M. Glime
Secretary of the Senate
******************************************************************
Page 6524 Minutes of Senate Meeting 258 30 May 1996
INFORMAL DISCUSSION: 2+2
An informal discussion followed, following the agenda that had been
set for the meeting.
Senator Leifer stated that on 16 May, Provost Dobney met with the
department Chairs and asked them to find out if faculty wanted to take
the 2+2 option and if so, they would get a 1% decrease in salary raise.
The way Dobney phrased it, it would be 1+3. Senator Beck stated that
Dobney had said there would not be enough money to fund 2+2 the first
year and he suggested 1+1 the first year with nothing out of the salary
raise. The next year we could look forward to the second increment.
Senator Gilles stated that Dobney had admitted the $130 parking
allowance was coming from our salary increment. We have heard for many
years that salaries and benefits are the number one priority, but they
are always on the bottom of the agenda. If industry fails to meet its
number one priority, they would be looking for new jobs. Money at MTU
is never an object except for salaries.
Senator Pegg responded to Beck, that if we suggest less now and
more later, later never comes. We should go on record that we don't
want to back off.
Leifer stated that the administrators are not reluctant to hire
other administrators such as the Director for Center for Teaching
Excellence, Director for Wellness, Director for International Relations,
and Vice President for Government Relations.
Senator Thayer stated that if you look at the budgeting, it is not
Fred's money. They have been sandbagging half a million dollars per
year for building programs. Who is concerned? We can't attract quality
people. Senators say we can't afford things when they haven't looked
at the budget. Shared governance is only shared blame. Thayer can't
believe that Senators could go along with this.
Senator Bradley asked if there had been an official response.
President Bornhorst stated that there had been none and that the Provost
had no intention of giving one, at least not before fall quarter.
Senator Beck stated that if individual faculty communicate what we
want, there is no telling what we will get. We need an open discussion;
there has been none in departments so far. This discussion is the only
mechanism we have, and we should take this back to the departments.
Bornhorst responded that he also needs to hear this discussion to take
to the Provost. He will tell the Provost that we want the 2+2 we voted
on.
Vice President Walck stated that we did not vote to take the 2+2
out of our salaries. This would hurt us when we compete for new
faculty, but new faculty get market rates [creating disparity among
those already here].
Senator Leifer agreed. Faculty don't have enough [money] to
retire. We need the Leifer plan - work until we drop dead in the
classroom; therefore we would get the benefits until death. Tompkins
has an edifice complex and Leifer doesn't want it on his back.
Bradley stated that the way the 2+2 passed, it doesn't say where
it comes from.
Leifer asked if we could take a straw vote and Bornhorst responded
that we could.
Senator Sweany stated that we can't talk about money coming from
someplace else because the raise pool is what is left over.
Senator Diebel stated that salaries for new faculty is causing
dissension in the ranks because of inequity in salaries of senior
faculty. We can't satisfy this out of the existing salary pool.
Senator Thayer stated that administrative people start with the
salary of the previous person and work up. Their salaries are like
those of the University of Michigan and Michigan State University.
Senator Chavis asked if anyone is addressing losing students.
Leifer stated that 2 years ago the Finance Committee issued a
report on the cost of the decline in enrollment; he will send a copy to
Chavis. Another problem is funding graduate programs - you shouldn't
fund graduate programs from the general fund. Funding should be
external, using industrial funded fellowships, and a large endowment.
Another problem is the cost of legal fees. The Bracco case costs over
$500,000. There has also been a pyramiding of administrative offices.
Senator Flynn asked what the estimated cost is to fund graduate
students. Beck responded $4 million. He presented the Provost with a
page and a half of new hires. They spent money on the treats and sweets
- a new interview center, retooling the 5th floor [of the Administration
Building]. All faculty are asking for are cost-of-living raises.
Leifer stated that the University is getting a 6.1% increase in
state money. But the governor might have a recision bill in January,
so the administration wants to give you a raise in January. Leifer
wants the raises now; if there is a problem in January, we will deal
with it in January. Bradley responded that that is one way to put
salaries first.
Thayer stated that there has been an adversarial relationship with
the Administration for 37 years [his tenure at MTU]. We are funding
graduate students from the general fund. Sweany asked about the effect
this would have on GTA's. Leifer responded that he is not talking about
the GTA funding; the GRA's are funded from the general fund and should
not be.
Flynn stated that there might be a counter argument that the status
achieved by graduating Ph.D.'s is directly related to the money the
state will give MTU. Bornhorst responded that it is not that simple.
Beck added that the University is close to the number of Ph.D.'s needed;
we need to be more efficient and graduate these students sooner. There
should be no more expansion at the expense of the general fund.
Leifer stated that if he wants 12 Ph.D.'s and has a million
dollars, no one will complain if they are funded from his grant. If
these are funded from the general fund, there is no 1% in TIAA/CREF.
Beck asked if anyone preferred to wait until January to receive a
raise. Sweany responded that he had polled faculty and some prefer not
to have to give back money. Leifer stated that he prefers to have the
raise start in September. If there is a recision, then lower the salary
in January. Sweany responded that some of his faculty consider this as
a pay cut in January and don't want it.
Bornhorst stated that it would depend on how it was taken away.
It could result in pay that is less than the previous year. Bradley
asked why only cut salaries when [the Administration] could cut
elsewhere. Do all departments go over their budgets? Thayer agreed
that gravy is built into the budget. Bornhorst added that some
departments save money and roll it over to the next year. Vichich
stated that if people are important, then salaries should be put first.
Soldan suggested that people could ask payroll to hold back part of
their pay so they would have less shock in January if there is a
cutback.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION: LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Senator Leifer stated that Dr. Logan has the right to write what
she chooses. He totally agrees with Sury [Dr. Suryanarayana wrote a
letter to the Mining Gazette], but a response shouldn't have to come
from the faculty. Why has there been no response from any
administrator, chair on up? Their silence reinforces this point of view
in a public forum so that the public think they were right [in believing
the kinds of things in Logan's letter]. Leifer quoted part of a
commencement address to the United States Naval Academy, that defined
leadership as consisting of three things: competence, caring, and
character. Leifer has asked Duane Thayer and Martha Sloan if they would
be willing to serve on a committee to respond to Dr. Logan's letter and
they agreed. We should respond.
Senator Flynn asked if the response letter would go to the Gazette
and when. Leifer responded it would go to the Gazette, and the sooner
the better.
Goodrich (Tech Topics) suggested that we get a "million" people to
sign the letter. Glime suggested showing Logan's letter to students so
that they could respond if they chose; her class read the letter and
were appalled to think a member of the Board could be so naive about the
responsibilities of a faculty member. Dr. Logan provided her address
and invited responses from faculty, staff, students, and parents.
Senator Bradley asked why the Administration had not responded.
Lutzke stated that the administration never publicly responds; some of
them have stated that they disagree. Senator Beck stated that the World
Trade Organization is above the Supreme Court; we could take it there.
Senator Thayer stated that the letter would be innocuous if the
fourth paragraph were taken out. He recalls that when he came to MTU
the tuition was $0.00.
Vice President Walck stated that the Senate should write the letter
and it should be signed by the Senate. Tuition should be addressed;
starting salaries for our students have gone up too. Senator Vichich
added that most starting salaries for our students are above those of
many faculty.
Leifer asked if we could have a committee. Bornhorst responded
that we could form a committee; it just would not be a Senate committee.
The letter could not be official if not passed by the Senate, even if
26 people [number needed for a quorum] signed it. Soldan suggested we
could meet for 15 minutes just to approve the letter. Senator McKimpson
agreed that we would be more likely to get people to such a short
meeting.
Senator Flynn asked if there was any way to conduct Senate business
without a meeting. Bornhorst responded there was not.
Senator Vichich suggested we meet before the Board meeting and then
present the letter to the Board.
Leifer suggested that Thayer and Sloan and anyone else who wants
to contribute should draft a letter.
Sweany reminded the group that Leifer had stated two things: A
response was needed, and the Administration had failed to respond. Do
we want to do something about the Administration?
Flynn stated that it appeared the Administration had responded; the
Board meeting was cancelled for lack of a quorum. This appears to have
been a cover to provide more time to respond to Dr. Logan's letter.
Goodrich responded that they knew that there would not be a quorum
before the letter became public; the publication had been timed to be
right before the meeting; cancellation of Board meetings for lack of a
quorum is not uncommon.
Sweany stated that we ought to write to the Administration. They
have shown an appalling lack of leadership. Pegg suggested mentioning
in the letter to the Administration that someone has to fill the gap.
Leifer said let the Administration sink of their own weight because
they will look bad. Lutzke asked "look bad to who?" Leifer responded
"us."
Senator Chavis stated that the news will go beyond this community
and the results of this situation could escalate.
Thayer stated that the letter should not bash, it should be
informative. It should be polite and be done with integrity and
honesty.
Bornhorst stated that to expedite it, a draft could go out with
time to get input, then have a meeting. Leifer suggested meeting 12
June. Bradley suggested that we have a time strategy. This depends on
when Sloan will be back; after that it could be drafted in 3 days.
Senator Soldan suggested a small committee with a small second
tier.
Leifer suggested that the draft committee put the letter together
and have the officers review it. Senator Bradley asked if we will
present it to the Board with the Senate report. Thayer responded that
it should go to the Board and the Newspaper at the same time.
Bornhorst responded that the Board gets an official agenda; the
letter could be put with the agenda. It would be needed on Tuesday to
take it to Detroit for the Board meeting on 21 June.
Bradley suggested we meet on 17 June. Chavis asked if the letter
is addressing the Board or Dr. Logan.
Senator Diebel responded that the bigger problem is that someone
could be on the Board and understand so little. We need a "take a Board
member to work day."
Thayer stated that the Administration has made an effort to
insulate the Board from the faculty. The Senate is the voice of the
faculty and staff. We would be remiss if we didn't answer. Senator
Vichich supported that statement.
Vice President Walck stated that the letter is important and must
be drafted carefully. Dr. Logan's letter represents the larger public
sentiment.
Senator Nordberg stated that this is cyclical about every 4 years
- from boards, legislators, and the public. It needs to be addressed,
but to whom do we send suggestions?
The discussion ended at approximately 7:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted by Janice M. Glime
Secretary of the Senate
.