******************************************************************
Page XXXX Minutes of Senate Meeting 260 11 Sep 1996
THE SENATE OF MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
Minutes of Meeting No. 260
11 September 1996
Synopsis: The Senate
(1) approved the schedule of meeting dates.
(2) heard that Proposal 13-96, Associate in Applied Science Degree
in Chemical Engineering Technology, and Proposal 23-96, Policy
on Faculty Availability, have been approved by the
Administration.
(3) heard that the Board of Control has approved Proposal 32-95,
Ph.D. Program in Mathematical Sciences, and Proposal 10-96, M.S.
Program in Environmental Policy.
(4) was invited to submit nominees for the Ad Hoc Committee on
Separation, Academic Tenure Committee, Faculty Review Committee
(Grievance), Academic Integrity Committee, Inquiry Committee
(Scientific Misconduct), General Education Committee, and
Sabbatical Leave Committee.
(5) heard Kurt Pregitzer summarize the report from the Research
Organization Task Force.
(6) amended Proposal 29-96, Sabbatical Leave Recommendations, to
strike the statement giving extra funding priority to faculty
requesting multiple-term sabbatical leaves.
_______________________________________
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
President Bornhorst called the Senate Meeting 260 to order at 5:31
p.m. on Wednesday, 11 September 1996, in Room B45 of the Electrical
Energy Resources Center.
Secretary Glime called roll. Absent were at-large senators William
Shapton and Laurie Whitt, and representatives from Army/Air Force ROTC,
KRC, and Finance and Advancement. Liaisons in attendance were Max Seel,
(Dean, College of Sciences and Arts) and Ted Soldan (Staff Council).
2. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS
Guests included Fred Dobney (Provost), Ingrid Cheney (Benefits &
Human Resources), Marcia Goodrich (Tech Topics), Freydoon Arbabi (Civil
& Environmental Engineering), Kurt Pregitzer (School of Forestry), and
Ellen Horsch (Human Resources).
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mroz MOVED and McKilligan seconded the motion to approve the agenda
as presented. 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 MEETINGS 255-259
Carstens MOVED and Williams seconded the motion to approve the
minutes of meeting 255. The motion PASSED on voice vote with no
dissent.
McKimpson MOVED and Richter seconded the motion to approve the
minutes of meeting 256. The motion PASSED on voice vote with no
dissent.
Senator Beck asked if item 6 in the Synopsis of meeting 257 should
read President Tompkins or Provost Dobney instead of President
Bornhorst. President Bornhorst agreed.
Beck stated that item 15 of the synopsis of meeting 257 was
confusing. He interprets that it looks as though there is a limit of
$15,000 (5 x $1000 + $10,000 for up to five years) to be paid over five
years. Leifer responded that this was inaccurate; however, it would
require being here 45 years to get $.25 million. This needs to be
clarified.
Beck MOVED and Sandberg seconded the motion to approve the minutes
of meeting 257 with the noted clarification. The motion PASSED on voice
vote with no dissent.
[NOTE: Secretary Glime has subsequently checked with Les Leifer
and Provost Dobney for clarification. The part of the proposal that was
eliminated by amendment would have provided, for example, that a person
who served MTU for 25 years would get a raise of $25,000 for prior
service ($1000 per year of service) plus $10,000, which would become
part of the base pay for five more years of service, after which the
faculty member must retire. Thus, if a person currently earns $60,000,
that person would, under plan B, earn $60,000 plus $25,000 plus $10,000,
or $95,000 per year until retirement five years later, totaling $175,000
supplemental income. The issue of prefunding such a plan has not been
settled.]
Carstens MOVED and McKimpson seconded the motion to approve the
minutes of meeting 258. The motion PASSED on voice vote with no
dissent.
Sweany MOVED and Richter seconded the motion to approve the minutes
of meeting 259. Senator Keen stated that there had been a good bit of
discussion but he did not know if it occurred before or after the
meeting. President Bornhorst clarified that if there is not a quorum
the meeting is immediately adjourned after roll call. Secretary Glime
added that there are notes for the discussions that followed. The
motion to approve PASSED on voice vote with no dissent.
5. PROPOSED MEETING DATES
There was no discussion on the suggested meeting dates. Seely
MOVED and Sandberg seconded the motion to approve the meeting dates as
proposed. The motion PASSED on voice vote with no dissent. Scheduled
meeting dates will be 11 & 18 Sept, 2 & 16 Oct, 6 Nov, 11 Dec, 8 & 22
Jan, 5 & 19 Feb, 12 & 26 Mar, 2, 16, & 30 Apr, and 14 May.
6. REPORT FROM SENATE PRESIDENT
President Bornhorst reported that the Administration has approved
Proposal 13-96, Associate in Applied Science Degree in Chemical
Engineering Technology and Proposal 23-96, Policy on Faculty
Availability. President Bornhorst has transmitted all proposals passed
by the Senate at the end of last year, including Proposal 23-96, Policy
on Faculty Availability (approved); Proposal 24-96, Recommendation on
Health Insurance Benefits; Proposal 25-96, Recommendation on Retirement
Income Program; Proposal 32-96, Policies and Procedures Regarding
Tenure-track Appointments. Provost Dobney is still considering Proposal
18-96, Basic Benefits Package, Proposal 24-96, Health Insurance
Benefits, and Proposal 25-96, Retirement income Program; he has referred
these proposals to the University Benefits Committee for further
deliberation. [Appendices B-G]
President Tompkins has approved more departmental charters:
Computer Science, School of Business and Engineering Administration,
Chemical Engineering, Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, Social
Sciences, Civil and Environmental Engineering, and Humanities.
During the summer everyone on campus received a copy of the
Administrative Evaluation Commission Report, as specified in the Senate
proposal. [Appendix H] Bornhorst requested permission to send a thank
you letter on behalf of the Senate to the Commission for all their hard
work. There was no objection.
The Board of Control has approved Proposal 32-95, Ph. D. Program
in Mathematical Sciences, and Proposal 10-96, M. S. Program in
Environmental Policy. [Appendices I-J]
Last spring, the Senate agreed to form an Ad Hoc Committee on
Separation; that committee needed to do work on retrenchment. The
Senate agreed that this committee would include both faculty and
professional staff, not necessarily on the Senate. The Senate Assistant
will gather the current status of the policy and all documents
available. Senators are encouraged to gather volunteers.
The Senate previously authorized the President of the Senate to
send a letter to Bresnan regarding televising Senate meetings; this
letter is being held while the Administration continues to negotiate.
Senate Officers met on 3 September and discussed agenda and
committee assignments. The Senate Officers met with the Provost on 3
September and discussed the status of Senate Proposals.
Two proposals on degree programs remain from last year: Proposal
27-96, M.S. in Environmental Engineering Degree; Proposal 28-96, B. S.
in Applied Ecology and Environmental Sciences degree. These proposals
have been transmitted to the interim chair of the Curricular Policy
Committee for discussion at their first meeting. [Appendix K]
Proposal 30-96 on Ad Hoc Committees, put together by the Officers,
has been withdrawn and the issue has been sent to the Constitution
Committee. The Constitution Committee is going to propose some major
rewrites and clarification of the introductory language. [Appendix L]
Applications are available for the Visiting Women Lecturers Series
and the Visiting Women and Minority Scholar Series. Applications are
available from Educational Opportunity and are due 7 October 1996.
The Senate needs to fill University Committee Vacancies as follows:
Elected by Faculty-
Academic Tenure Committee, 1 tenured faculty member
(3-year term)
Faculty Review Committee (Faculty Grievance), 2 faculty
members (3-year term)
Elected by Senate-
Academic Integrity Committee, 1 faculty member
(3-year term)
Inquiry Committee (Scientific Misconduct), 1 faculty
member (3-year term)
List of Nominees to President Tompkins-
General Education Committee, 1 faculty member (4-year term)
Sabbatical Leave Committee, 1 faculty member (5-year term)
(3 nominees are forwarded to President Tompkins; Senate
elects 3 nominees from list of all persons nominated)
Names of nominees with evidence that they agree to be nominated should
be sent to the Senate Assistant. The Senate Assistant will E-mail a
list of committee needs to all Senators and Alternates.
Senator Walck reported that the last university accreditation was
in 1988. The evaluation team will come to accredit us in January 1998;
we must go through a self-study process this year. Walck will report
to the Senate on this process at the 18 September Senate meeting.
7. COMMITTEE BUSINESS/REPORTS
A. 1996 Committee Assignments
The method of assigning members to committees is detailed in
Appendix M. Senators are asked to notify the Senate Assistant if they
wish to trade or move.
B. Research Organization Task Force [Appendix N].
Kurt Pregitzer summarized the report of this task force, titled
"Research at Michigan Tech University: New Culture, New Practices, New
Organization." The committee consisted of Kurt Pregitzer (chair), John
Crittenden, Michael Gretz, Neil Hutzler, Komar Kawatra, James Rogers,
Maximilian Seel. They examined the structure used at many other
universities and visited West Virginia University to look at their
research structure.
They set the goals of evolving the culture for research and
graduate education through a series of actions designed to improve the
quality and quantity of research, to improve administrative
functionality, and to increase external visibility. The committee
recognized the need for a new culture regarding research at MTU. They
felt that the university must recognize that unity in teaching and
research define the very core of a technological university. MTU needs
to overcome the notion that research and undergraduate education are in
conflict. Research is a prerequisite for excellence in higher education
at a technological university. Scholars have a responsibility to bring
their expertise alive in the classroom. We need to improve the climate
and rewards for interdisciplinary teaching and research, to recognize
the value of postdoctoral scholars and research faculty, and to promote
undergraduate student involvement in every research project. To accomplish the goals, we need to change the reward structure,
establish a program development fund, and integrate the functional path
of the research. To accomplish the latter, the task force recommends
a new structure in the establishment of a single research administrative
umbrella, the MTU Research Foundation.
The committee recommended the formation of an MTU Research
Foundation with the President as the Chair.
Senator Beck commented that he had only heard about the committee
two times and wanted to know how much input there had been from academic
departments. Pregitzer responded that the committee gathered
information and made recommendations that they are now bringing to the
academic faculty for input. The formation of the committee was
announced in Tech Topics.
Senator Leifer asked where we would get the funding for the
proposed changes. Pregitzer responded that the task force did not
expect a need for more funding. Leifer queried if there is more
research, where will money come from? Dean Seel responded that 15% of
the overhead will go to the Vice Provost for Research, an amount
approximately equivalent to what is now spent for matching and start-up
funds. The position of executive secretary would be a new position.
Pregitzer stressed the importance of education AND research.
Vice President Soldan commented that Pregitzer stated that it is
always better to increase research; is there a limit? If we concentrate
on teaching, research, or both, we will reach a point of one at the
expense of the other. Pregitzer responded that this is a
misinterpretation of their intention. One can only do so much. There
is no reason we can't be good at both. Research can enrich the
undergraduate experience. It is important for scientists to be in the
classroom.
Senator Seely stated that the formation of a foundation will
attract the most attention. In the 30's universities didn't accept
contracts from outside the university, so the university set up
foundations to be buffers but retain intellectual control. Financial
needs were the primary reason for establishing foundations. Why do we
need a foundation to tackle issues that are not financial?
Provost Dobney stated that we need to demonstrate that we can
manage large scale projects; Vice Provost Lee says that it doesn't
appear to sponsors that we have the experience of dealing with
large-scale research. Pregitzer added that the purpose is to provide
one umbrella from the sponsor's perspective. Seel stated that Michigan
doesn't have the legal constraints but the problems are exactly what
Dobney has described.
Senator McKimpson asked the status of the recommendations.
Bornhorst clarified that the President would like a sense of how the
Senate feels on these issues. In particular, he is interested in the
changes in indirect cost and in the structural change. We could bring
this to the floor at our next meeting or send it to a Senate Committee.
He asked Senator Reed, as interim chair of the Research Policy
Committee, to respond. Reed felt that the Research Policy Committee
should dig into the entire report. Senator Beck added that he supports
Reed. We shouldn't present the solution before we know what the
problems are for the people "in the trenches."
Seel stated that all members of the task force are active
researchers except himself. Beck responded that the researchers have
problems when a contract ends and money is owed, but accounting can be
at fault when they have not collected the money from the sponsor.
Pregitzer referred to action item 8, which addresses accounting.
The Foundation gives a consistent and coherent policy forum to resolve
issues through time. President Bornhorst added that we do not want to
re-invent the wheel. Senator Keen asked if the Research Integrity
Committee was the same as the Scientific Inquiry Committee; Pregitzer
responded it was.
Senator Walck asked if we need to vote. Bornhorst stated that the
President would like our recommendation. Bornhorst recommended that our
Research Policy Committee should take the full report and make a
recommendation. There was no objection to that recommendation.
8. OLD BUSINESS
A. Proposal 36-95: Scientific Misconduct Policy Statement.
[See minutes, page 6085, for a copy of this proposal.]
President Bornhorst requested a motion to remove from the table
Proposal 36-95, which was tabled to the first meeting of this year.
Keen MOVED and Seely seconded the motion to bring the proposal off the
table. The motion to bring from the table PASSED on voice vote with no
dissent. Bornhorst then asked for a motion to table the proposal until
2 October so that the Provost could report on recommended new wording
regarding "due process." Senator Sweany asked what the problem is with
due process and Senator Keen responded that he would try to translate
from the lawyer. "Due process" has many meanings, so the policy should
spell out what is meant. Secretary Glime questioned whether this must
be spelled out in the policy or only in the procedure. Provost Dobney
replied that we want a policy that guarantees protection. Beck MOVED
and Mroz seconded the motion to table the proposal until 2 October. The
motion to table PASSED on voice vote with no dissent.
B. Proposal 26-96: Recommendation on Life Insurance.
[See minutes, page 6385, for a copy of this proposal.]
Arici MOVED and Carstens seconded the motion to approve Proposal
26-96. The recommended voting units were the full Senate. There were
no objections to the voting units so they stood as recommended. Mroz
asked for the expected cost and Leifer stated that it would be $1920 if
there were 10 retirees per year, at the rate of $100,000 insurance per
retiree. Dobney asked if the committee had actuarial figures to support
that; he would like an independent third party to provide it. If the
pool of insured people were expanded to include older people, the rates
would change. Leifer responded that this is only paying what we are now
paying. There are two advantages: the retiree doesn't have to convert
from term to whole life insurance (they can continue on term) and it
would provide them with a group policy, keeping the cost down. It would
otherwise cost the employee $9500 to convert. It costs the university
$.16 per $1000 per month. The university contribution would continue
at the present rate, but anything over that would be born by the
individual. Mroz asked if there is a need for prefunding or if it could
come out of the operating budget. Dobney responded that the legal
question has not been resolved regarding the requirement for prefunding.
Senator Sloan stated that most retirees probably would not want this
plan, but it would let people stay in the pool and pay their own
insurance. Senator Gale stated that people should set their own policy
long before retirement. Ingrid Cheney (Manager, Benefits) stated that
the cost won't just be $1920 because rates will change when the pool of
older people is added. Bidding by insurance companies is now
progressing so that we will soon know the costs if we add the retirees.
Vice President Soldan asked when bids would be available and Cheney
responded that the present contract ends 1 January so we would probably
have these by mid October. Senator Beck stated that there is no longer
a required retirement age, so the pool may be older. Leifer stated that
it is strange to talk about spending millions and then to balk at $1900;
don't be absurd.
Marcia Goodrich (Tech Topics) asked if this program would be
retroactive; Leifer answered no. Glime MOVED and Sweany seconded the
motion to table the motion until we get a quote from the insurance
companies and get that information from Ingrid. The motion to table
PASSED on show of hands vote, 19:7.
C. Proposal 29-96: Sabbatical Leave Recommendations.
[See minutes, page 6426, for a copy of this proposal.]
Walck MOVED and Seely seconded the motion to approve Proposal
29-96. The recommended voting units are academic-degree-granting
departments and other course-offering units. Beck MOVED and Walck
seconded the motion to amend A.1.3 to read "Incentives should be
implemented enabling and encouraging more faculty in units which are
underutilizing sabbatical leaves to take more sabbatical leaves."
Senator Shonnard suggested keeping the proposed named units as examples.
Vice President Soldan stated that the departments needing to be
encouraged could change.
Soldan questioned whether the term unit was clear; the sense of the
body was that it is.
The amendment PASSED on voice vote with no dissent. Senator Beck
asked if the changes could be considered editorial and President
Bornhorst ruled them to be editorial. There were no objections.
Senator Shonnard questioned why A.1.2 stated specifically 10-15
years; are there any data from other schools to support this choice of
numbers? Walck responded that the Task Force had recommended a lower
number, but the Senate committee had changed it. Senator McKimpson
suggested that the wording might include "at least" to clarify. Walck
responded that the original wording did have "at least." Senator
Nordberg stated that the wording 10-15 years might be a disincentive to
take a sabbatical leave. Senator Pegg suggested that we could add "up
to 7 years." Dae Young commented that in Mining no one can take a
sabbatical leave for 30 years because the department can't afford it.
Secretary Glime stated that A.1.2 needs to be considered in balance
with A.2.2, which deals with an additional pool of funds to support
departments during the absence of a faculty member. Walck MOVED and
Beck seconded the motion to amend the proposal to read "Incentives
should be implemented encouraging all eligible faculty to take a
sabbatical at least once every 10-15 years." The motion PASSED on voice
vote with 1 dissent. President Bornhorst ruled the change as editorial;
there were no objections.
Regarding A.2.6, Walck stated that it would be almost impossible
to guarantee the same job to returning spouses. Walck moved and Mroz
seconded the motion to change the wording "their present" to "an
equivalent." Ellen Horsch (Human Resources) stated that we may want to
keep both (present or equivalent) because there may not be an equivalent
job. Senator Vichich asked what now happens when someone is on leave
of absence from a staff position. Horsch responded that there is no
guarantee except for that provided by the Family Medical Leave Act. The
position may be filled by a temporary position, but if the person on
leave is replaced, that person can try for an equivalent position or
interview rights.
Walck reminded the Senate that spouse job security was stated as
a significant reason for not taking a sabbatical leave. Senator
Carstens agreed that he would not take one if his wife could not come
back to her job. The motion to amend FAILED on voice vote with no
assent. Walck MOVED and Mroz seconded the motion to change the wording
to read "Implement a policy so that MTU-employed spouses accompanying
faculty on a sabbatical leave would be granted a leave-of-absence from
their present job with a guarantee they would return to their present
or an equivalent job and salary rate when their spouse's sabbatical is
completed." The motion to amend PASSED on voice vote with no dissent.
President Bornhorst ruled the change to be editorial; there was no
objection.
Senator Reed asked why, in A.2.1, priority was given for multi-term
sabbatical leaves in determining recipients of extra funding. Walck
responded that many more people were taking a 1-term sabbatical and the
Task Force wanted to encourage people to take longer leaves. Reed added
that some people want to take only one term because of family. Walck
reminded the Senate that persons on one-term sabbatical leaves already
receive full pay.
Reed MOVED and Mroz seconded the motion to strike the last sentence
of A.2.1. Walck argued that more cost would be incurred during longer
leaves. Reed stated that it is too strong a statement and could have
the effect of having other considerations eliminated. Mroz added that
most of the members in his department have gotten additional salary
outside during the sabbatical; on the other hand, the spouse may work
outside and may be unable to take the longer time off without losing a
job; everyone has a different kind of problem to limit taking a
sabbatical leave. Seely commented that not everyone can get a complete
replacement salary. Walck reminded the Senate that the intent was to
encourage longer sabbaticals. Senator Keen suggested changing the
wording to "some" priority.
Senator Glime stated that item A.2.1 is trying to address two
problems at the same time; one is to encourage longer sabbatical leaves
and the other is to relieve financial constraints. We don't want to
discourage people who want to take only one term and who have a spouse
working who cannot take a longer leave. The motion to amend by striking
the last sentence PASSED by show of hands 12:8. Item A.2.1 now reads
"Generate a competitive pool of funds, administered by the Sabbatical
Leave Committee, for extra expenses, such as travel, housing supplement,
or other costs which clearly might hinder a faculty member's ability to
take a sabbatical."
President Bornhorst ruled that the change was not editorial so that
the entire amended proposal could only be voted on if it were treated
as an emergency proposal. There was no objection to the ruling.
Walck MOVED and Glime seconded the motion to amend the proposal by
adding number A.1.7: "Faculty should be encouraged to take
multiple-term sabbatical leaves." There was no discussion. The motion
to amend PASSED on voice vote with dissent.
Mroz MOVED and Carstens seconded the motion to
adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:27 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by Janice M. Glime
Secretary of the Senate
.