******************************************************************
Page XXXX Minutes of Senate Meeting 262 2 Oct 1996
THE SENATE OF MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
Minutes of Meeting No. 262
2 October 1996
Synopsis: The Senate
(1) approved Proposal 29-96, Sabbatical Leave Recommendations.
(2) approved the 1996-97 Senate committee membership.
(3) heard a report from Christa Walck on the procedure for preparing
for the 1998 NCA accreditation process.
(4) referred Proposal 31-96, Social Security Numbers as Student
Identification Numbers, to the appropriate Senate committee.
_______________________________________
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
President Bornhorst called Senate Meeting 262 to order at 5:30 PM
on Wednesday, 2 October 1996, in Room B45 of the Electrical Energy
Resources Center.
Secretary Glime called roll. Absent were at-large senators Harold
Evensen and William Shapton, and representatives from Chemical
Engineering, KRC, and Finance and Advancement. Liaison in attendance
was Ted Soldan (Staff Council).
2. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS
Guests included Marcia Goodrich (Tech Topics), Tim Malette
(Financial Aid) and Sharron Paris (Enrollment Management).
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mroz MOVED and Williams 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. OPEN MOTION TO APPROVE PROPOSAL 29-96: SABBATICAL LEAVE
RECOMMENDATIONS [Appendix B]
Senator Gale expressed concern about the pool of funds referred to
in A.2. He felt that we shouldn't establish funding for so few people
at the expense of many. This would also cause more work for the
Sabbatical Leave Committee. Gale MOVED to amend the proposal to delete
A.2., Recommendations which require funding. There was no second.
Senator Kitalong objected to A.2.6. because it gave faculty spouses
privileges not available to other staff; she presented the wording of
the Procedures Manual regarding staff leave, which indicates that a
person returning from leave would be placed in the former job or one of
like pay unless circumstances prevent it. She contended that it is too
easy to make circumstances prevent it. She suggested that the leave
policy should be changed to have stronger wording to provide equivalence
to that stated for faculty spouses in the proposed sabbatical leave
policy.
Pegg MOVED and Arici seconded the motion to change the wording of
A.2.6. to read "Implement a policy so that employees on any approved
leave, including 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 equivalent
job and salary rate when their spouse's sabbatical is completed."
Senator Seely commented that the sabbatical leave policy was not
the place to put such a policy for staff. Senator Mroz added that there
might be problems of conflict with bargaining units. Senator Whitt
agreed that the policy would be more beneficial if it were separate; the
committee on staff issues should take up the issue.
Senator Walck stated that the amendment would go beyond the purpose
of the proposal. Pegg stated that he would recommend deletion of item
A.2.6. if the amendment failed (all covered or no one covered). Walck
argued that keeping this statement in would introduce the issue.
Senator Reed reminded the Senate that this is only a recommendation and
can be ignored or carried out for all staff as we have discussed.
Senator Chavis stated that the reinstatement after a leave was not
likely to come up as an issue for staff. If it is not stated here, the
issue is likely to be lost for staff.
Marcia Goodrich (Tech Topics) stated that item A.2.6. could open
the chance for a unit to force a disliked person to go to another unit.
Senator Shonnard countered that it might result in the person working
for someone who was happier to have them.
Whitt questioned the inclusion of the words "or equivalent."
Kitalong responded that it would make this policy wording more like that
of the current staff policy. President Bornhorst added that it is his
understanding from comments by Ellen Horsch at the last meeting that the
present wording is consistent with the language used for the bargaining
unit employees.
Senator Nordberg commented that the spouse position could be at any
level within the university. Senator Vichich added that fixed term
positions are created all the time and could be used to fill positions
vacated during a leave.
Keen wondered if anyone else was concerned that an inequity was
created for anyone whose spouse works outside the university. Walck
countered these arguments by reminding the Senate that one of the major
reasons given for not taking a sabbatical leave was spouse employment.
Nordberg stated that we need to consider the purpose of a sabbatical -
if it is to take the spouse along, we need to provide for their return
to employment; if it is to do research, then the spouse shouldn't be a
consideration. Discussion ended.
The voting units are academic-degree-granting departments and other
course-offering units. The motion to amend FAILED on voice vote with
some assenting votes.
Pegg MOVED and Keen seconded the motion to delete A.2.6. Whitt
asked if this would be seen as a wedge to provide better leave benefits
for staff. Chavis commented that the University would be unable to get
someone locally to fill her position; if there is a job transfer to a
new location in industry, the spouse has to move too; nothing seems to
work unless we eliminate statement A.2.6. Lutzke responded that it
depends on the individual situation. Some jobs you can't allow the
person to leave. In the military, there are some locations where the
spouse is not permitted to go. Mroz added that he agreed with these
comments and that someone could challenge the use of the word "spouse"
instead of "lover."
Walck reminded the Senate that they supported helping dual career
faculty couples, but now don't seem to want to support helping if the
spouse is a staff member. She stated that this is not the military and
that the purpose of the sabbatical leave is to broaden experience.
Sharron Paris (Enrollment Management) stated that the staff
handbook committee is dealing with the issue of reinstatement after
returning from leaves. Lutzke pointed out that the staff handbook is
only advisory; however, the issue won't be lost, but they [staff] would
appreciate any help.
Reed reminded the Senate that this is only a recommendation. Whitt
stated that if we could create something comparable for all staff
returning from leave, we would be taking a first step [toward making
staff leaves possible].
Senator Beck asked if staff could accrue vacation days; Vice
President Soldan responded that they could accumulate up to 32 days.
Chavis asked if the staff handbook would guarantee something when
a person returns from leave. Lutzke responded that the handbook only
serves as guidelines.
Soldan stated that A.2.6. only slightly strengthens what is now in
the procedures manual; this is not an unreasonable request. This is a
small community and many spouses work for MTU.
Senator Sandberg stated that if the spouse has a job off campus,
that person has to take a permanent leave; why couldn't we extend this
provision to guarantee these people jobs at MTU when they return?
Soldan stated that we need to solve one problem at a time; there are
other problems such as children to move; spouses returning to a position
at MTU is one problem we can solve. Sandberg repeated that we could
hire all the off-campus spouses. Walck responded that we should do what
we can do.
Keen moved to end the debate, there was no second and discussion
ended. The motion to delete item A.2.6. FAILED on voice vote, with some
assenting votes.
Keen questioned how item A.2.7., which provides for appointing an
individual to assist with relocation housing problems, could be
implemented without requiring funding. Walck responded that it would
be added to someone's existing duties; we had someone to do this until
a few years ago, and this was a recommendation to reinstate that
assistance.
Reed stated that the Office of International Programs does not fund
faculty foreign travel. Reed MOVED and Glime seconded the motion to
delete from A.2. the statement, "Supplementary funding for foreign
travel should be made available through the Office for International
Programs."
Nordberg reminded the Senate that the spirit of section A.2. is one
of recommendation and that this might encourage funding from this
office. Senator Carstens agreed and asked if this had been discussed
with the Office of International Programs. It had not.
Walck felt that the statement regarding funding travel would
encourage that office to seek more funding for that purpose, that the
committee felt the Office of International Programs was not doing enough
for faculty. Discussion ended. The motion to delete A.2. FAILED on
voice vote with some assenting votes.
Shonnard MOVED and Nesbitt seconded the motion to increase the
supplementary funding from $50K to $150K in A.2.1. and increase the
award per faculty member from $5k to $15K in A.2.1.1. Shonnard argued
that housing is so much more expensive elsewhere.
Gale countered that this would require sizable funds and questioned
where they would come from; what would be cut. Faculty have been able
to get outside funds; the extra expenses should be worked out in
negotiating with people where the person is going for the sabbatical.
Shonnard stated that there might be other sources for funding and might
not require cuts in other parts of the budget. For example, some might
be obtained through the Capital Campaign.
Senator Arici reminded the Senate that they would not spend a small
amount for retirement benefits, but they are talking about $150K for
sabbatical leaves.
Walck stated that the Task Force had recommended a small amount to
see if the added funding would induce people to take a sabbatical leave.
Shonnard reminded us that this is only a recommendation and that if we
feel this amount is important, that is what we should recommend. Mroz
asked if the survey showed that people did not go on sabbatical leave
because of not enough money. Walck responded that the number one reason
given was money. The Senate had passed a proposal to increase the
percentage of salary, but the Administration had rejected it. The
expense funding would not be taxable and would therefore be more cost
effective.
Keen stated that he went on sabbatical leave without any extra
university support. It sounds like people would take the sabbatical
leave for the money, not to educate themselves. We should stick to the
original proposal; people should find supplementary funds themselves.
Offering $15K would be 20-25% of the salary.
Walck stated that funding limitations limited where people could
go. Gale countered that $150K is almost equivalent to the cost of a 1%
salary increase. Discussion ended.
The motion to amend FAILED on voice vote with dissent.
There was no further discussion. The motion to approve Proposal
29-96 PASSED on voice vote with dissent. Gale added that Al Brokaw, who had chaired the Sabbatical Leave
Committee, recommended that faculty receive their funds after they
return and have submitted their sabbatical leave report. Walck argued
that people have to cover extra expenses as they occur and that any
expenditures have to go through the university as they are spent.
5. REPORT FROM SENATE PRESIDENT
President Bornhorst reported that the report from the Research Task
Force has been sent to the Senate Research Policy Committee. [Appendix
C]
President Bornhorst has sent letters, on behalf of the Senate, to
thank those who worked on the Administrative Evaluation for their many
hours of hard work.
The Provost has forwarded a report advocating an interdisciplinary
minor in remote sensing and asked the Senate to review the issue of
minors on campus.
Only five people have volunteered for the university committees.
Bornhorst asked for permission to make phone calls to invite people to
be members of these committees. Senator Seely stated that we will need
the President to do this because everyone has too many other committee
responsibilities to volunteer. Bornhorst asked which committees should
be prioritized. Senator Pegg suggested the committee dealing with
separation should have priority.
Bornhorst reported that At-Large Senator Bill Shapton is on leave
at Ford for the year. The Constitution gives the President the right
to appoint a temporary replacement, so Bornhorst asked for suggestions.
Senator Walck suggested looking at the list of others who ran for the
position of Senator-At-Large.
6. COMMITTEE BUSINESS/REPORTS
A. 1996-97 Committee Assignments. [Appendix D]
President Bornhorst reported that the assignments remained as
previously published except that Barry Pegg had asked to switch from the
Finance Committee to the Fringe Benefits Committee, trading with Rudi
Greuer. Bornhorst pointed out that this would put two members of the
Humanities department on the Fringe Benefits Committee, violating the
precedent used to assign committee membership. Vichich MOVED and
Williams seconded the motion to approve the committee assignments as
presented (including the Pegg/Greuer switch).
Senator Whitt asked why the Administrative Policy Committee was so
small and Bornhorst responded that the committee had little work and had
not met at all last year.
Senator Shonnard stated that in view of the policy we should have
a compelling reason why Pegg should be put on the Fringe Benefits
Committee. Pegg had requested it because he had been the liaison from
the Finance Committee to the Fringe Benefits Committee and now
understood fringe benefits and wanted to work on it. Senator Soldan
stated that if he wants to be on that committee, we should allow him.
Senator Lutzke asked how much time was to be given to units who had
no representatives yet to choose those representatives. President
Bornhorst stated that we had been trying to get them to select someone.
The motion to approve the committee assignments as presented PASSED on
voice vote with no dissent.
President Bornhorst reported that the Fringe Benefits Committee had
selected a chair already, but that the selection was not legitimate
because the committee membership had not yet been approved by the
Senate. He RULED that the committee would have to hold that election
again. There was no objection to the ruling.
B. North Central Association Accreditation Process [Appendix E].
Christa Walck reported on the procedures we will follow relative
to re-accreditation. The last accreditation was in 1988, when we were
accredited for the maximum of 10 years. This accreditation will be done
by members of peer institutions who will evaluate and make
recommendations. Prior to that evaluation, we are required to have a
self-study. Five criteria must be used in the evaluation:
1. Clear and publicly stated purposes consistent with the mission.
2. Evidence we have organized to accomplish these purposes.
3. Evidence of accomplishing these purposes.
4. Evidence we can continue to accomplish these purposes.
5. Demonstration of integrity.
Senator Arici stated that these all relate to education and asked
about research. Walck responded that research is part of our purpose.
Walck pointed out that Minnesota got only a 2-year accreditation,
but NCA would not relay any information. Many schools get the maximum
accreditation, but she does not know the percent.
Pegg asked how this accreditation related to ABET accreditation.
Walck pointed out that NCA accreditation had to precede ABET
accreditation, but that ABET would come the same year. NCA
accreditation is required for ABET accreditation.
Walck continued that our self-study centers around our 8 strategic
goals. There will be general participation in the self-study, which
will be organized through 10 committees, each charged with one goal or
subgoal. She completed her presentation by outlining the process,
requirements, and timeline.
Senator Whitt asked if there would be any problem if the purpose
and goals differed. Walck responded that the purpose is in our mission
statement, but that the mission has been broadened by various
presidents, resulting in our goals.
Arici asked about the forthcoming workshops and Walck responded
that these workshops dealt with assessment and were not a direct
function of the accreditation self-study. Schools across the nation are
being asked to develop an assessment plan. Steve Bowen (Assoc. Dean,
Sciences and Arts) is coordinating the assessment effort and could
answer questions about the two forthcoming workshops, one of which is
next week. Whitt asked how the goal of integrity would be addressed. Walck
responded that each committee must address each of the five goals and
consider the kinds of issues related to each goal. For example, does
the catalog reflect what we really offer?
C. Board of Control Relations Committee.
At the Board of Control meeting on 27 September, President
Bornhorst reported on Senate activities, including the efforts to revise
the constitution. He requested reinstatement of direct meetings of
select Senators with the Board. Since the Board meetings will be moved
back to the afternoon, this should again be possible. When the Board
met in the morning, there was no time for them to meet with anyone
before the Board meeting.
Senator Pegg asked what basis was used to select Senators for these
meetings and Bornhorst stated that it depended on the theme of the
meeting. Since none were scheduled, he had given no thought to it.
Senator Whitt asked what the Board has decided regarding future
legal counsel. Bornhorst reported that no formal decision has been
made. The Board continues to use Bob Vercruysse as their legal counsel.
The University is using several lawyers. Bornhorst does not know if the
Board has discussed the issue of legal counsel, but that President
Tompkins has discussed it with some of the individual Board members.
President Tompkins is encouraging the Board to form subcommittees so
that issues such as this can be discussed without a public meeting as
required by a quorum, and recommendations can then be brought to the
Board.
Senator Vichich pointed out that the official counsel is the firm
of Butzel and Long.
Bornhorst added that certain projects had been given to Bob
Vercruysse for completion, but he does not know if any new projects have
been given to him.
Seely asked about the rumor that members of the Board of Control
had proposed arrangements for tenure for the new Dean of Engineering
that violated the Board's own policy. Bornhorst stated that the
violation had been pointed out and that no motion was put on the table.
Vichich MOVED and Mroz seconded the motion to change the agenda to
take up item 7C next because several guests had come to the meeting
specifically to address the Senate about that item. The motion to so
amend the agenda PASSED on voice vote with no dissent.
7. OLD BUSINESS
C. Proposal 31-96: Social Security Numbers as Student Identification
Numbers. [See minutes, page 6552, for a copy of this proposal.]
Tim Malette (Financial Aid) stated that all financial aid forms
require the social security number. This impacts most of the student
body. It is also used for all employees, again impacting many student
records. It is necessary for matching records and being certain of
having the right person when two people have the same name. The social
security number has been removed from the ID card, so Malette suggested
that the proposal was unnecessary.
Sharron Paris (Enrollment Management) spoke that there were
concerns about the posting of student grades by SS numbers or any other
form of identification that other persons might know.
Senator Lutzke asked if this means that you can't post grades.
Paris responded that the number must be unique and known only to the
faculty member and the student. Others questioned whether the last 4
or 5 digits could be used.
Senator Sandberg pointed out that the proposal only prevents
general use of this as an ID number; it does not prevent financial aid
from using this number. It does not ban the use of the number for
legitimate purposes. The new ID card no longer has the SS number, but
we should go on record that this use should not happen again in the
future.
Senator Keen stated that legally one has to shred class lists and
other lists containing SS numbers. The numbers should be removed from
class lists and other generated lists.
Senator Walck asked how other universities handle the number
problem and Paris responded that they use the Social Security number.
Senator Mroz responded that Michigan State University does not.
Malette contributed that all people he had talked to who have
stopped using the SS number advise us not to change; it is much easier
to use the SS number.
Senator Whitt stated that we need clarity on what we mean by
"general purpose identification." Senator Perrott stated that the Air
Force uses social security numbers for administrative ease, but that the
number is shielded from general purpose use. They usually hide the
first three or more digits [which are unique to each state].
Keen MOVED and Mroz seconded the motion to refer this proposal to
the appropriate committee. The motion to refer to committee PASSED with
no dissent.
Arici MOVED and Lutzke seconded the motion to adjourn. The meeting
adjourned at 7:33 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by Janice M. Glime
Secretary of the Senate
.