THE SENATE OF MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL
UNIVERSITY
Minutes of Meeting 264
6 November 1996
Synopsis: The Senate
(1) heard that Henry Santeford was appointed as
Senator At-large to replace Bill Shapton who is on
leave.
(2) heard that Proposal 31-96, Social Security Numbers
as Student Identification Numbers was referred to
the FERPA Committee for review.
(3) heard that President Tompkins has approved the
charters for Physics and Electrical Engineering.
(4) heard a report from Bill Kennedy, Director of the
Center for Teaching, Learning, and Faculty
Developments.
(5) heard a report from the Senate Fringe Benefits
Committee.
(6) approved Proposal 27-96, MS in Environmental
Engineering Degree.
(7) approved Proposal 28-96, BS in Applied Ecology and
Environmental Sciences Degree.
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
President Bornhorst called the Senate Meeting 264 to
order at 5:33 p.m. on Wednesday, November 6, 1996, in
room B45 of the Electrical Energy Resources Center.
Acting Secretary Soldan called roll. Absent was a
representative from Metallurgical and Materials
Engineering. Liaisons in attendance were Geoff Roelant
(USG), Andy Londo (GSC), and Ted Soldan (Staff
Council).
2. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS
Guests included Marcia Goodrich (Tech Topics), Rolf
Peterson, Kurt Pregitzer, Ed Frayer (School of Forestry
and Wood Products), Bob Baillod, Kurt Paterson (Civil
and Environmental Engineering), William Kennedy
(Center for Teaching, Learning and Faculty
Development), and Kim Maxwell (Advancement).
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Carstens MOVED and Williams seconded the motion to
approve the agenda as presented. The motion to
approved PASSED on a 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. REPORT FROM SENATE PRESIDENT
President Bornhorst reported that he had sent several
memos; one appointing Henry Santeford as Senator
At-large to replace Bill Shapton while he is away, one to
Joe Galetto referring Senate Proposal 31-96, Social
Security Numbers as Student Identification Numbers to
the FERPA committee for review. President Bornhorst
also reported that Terry Monson has provided a draft
memo outlining a proposed Faculty Distinguished Service
Award that was sent to the Academic Policy Committee
for review. [Appendices B-D] President Tompkins
approved charters for the Departments of Physics and
Electrical Engineering. President Bornhorst also said he
had investigated the issue of the two year delay of
retirement benefits to new faculty and staff and has asked
the Provost for more information.
President Bornhorst reported nominees for two
committees: Academic Integrity and Sabbatical Leave.
He displayed the list of nominees for the Academic
Integrity Committee on an overhead, and called for
nominations from the floor. There being none, the Senate
Assistant passed out ballots. Ballots were collected and
counted by Election Committee members Christa Walck,
Dan Rypma and Mark Perrott. Fred Williams received
the most votes and was declared the winner. Dallas Bates
was the next highest vote-getter, followed by Mary Ann
Beckwith and David Sprague. Next, the overhead
showing the nominees for the Sabbatical Leave
Committee was displayed, and nominations were called
for from the floor. There being none, ballots were handed
out by the Senate Assistant. They were again collected
and counted. The three top vote-getters were Larry
Lankton, Ann McLean, and Sigrid Weinmann. These
names will be forwarded to President Tompkins for
selection to the committee.
5. NEW BUSINESS
Proposal 1-97: Policy on Threatening or Violent Behavior
was introduced. [Appendix E]
6. COMMITTEE BUSINESS/REPORTS
A. Teacher Evaluations Bill Kennedy [Appendix F]
President Bornhorst introduced Dr. William
Kennedy, Director of the newly formed Center for
Teaching, Learning, and Faculty Development.
Kennedy said that the teaching evaluation system at
MTU needs to be addressed. The evaluation instrument
is crude and used only for summative evaluation. The
instrument gives those being evaluated insufficient
information to help people improve. Since the data are
limited to chairs and the faculty themselves, the center
does not keep or see the results, and therefore can not
help faculty that need it.
Kennedy noted that about 50% of the departments
use the core items in merit increase algorithms.
Kennedy said some common concerns expressed by
faculty are:
1) Students are not effective evaluators. In fact,
student and peer evaluations correlate highly.
2) Faculty evaluations are just popularity contests.
In
fact, studies have shown that students can assess good
teaching both during and after the teaching ends.
Are teaching evaluations useful? Kennedy said that
they are only if there is follow up and help from the
teaching center.
In order to improve the process at MTU, Kennedy
says several things are necessary:
1) MTU needs to move to a nationally normed
evaluation instrument
2) The instrument should be useful for both
summative and formative evaluations
3) The instrument should be adaptable to different
teaching styles
4) Should allow the instructor input into learning
outcomes.
Kennedy said he reviewed eight instruments, and
found the Instructional Development and Effectiveness
Assessment System from KSU looks best. It has 10
instructional objectives developed to allow instructors to
assess themselves. Evaluees can choose from the list prior
to the evaluation process. Kennedy said the KSU system
is currently being used by 141 institutions of higher
education. He believes the program causes faculty to
focus on learning outcomes.
Kennedy asked the Senate to approve a pilot testing
of the KSU IDEA system with tenured faculty as the test
group, and to approve releasing the results to his office.
Senator Beck expressed concern that only 33 of the
141 institutions currently using KSU IDEA offer Ph.D.
degrees. Beck wondered if there would be questions on
the instrument pertaining to Ph.D. degree granting
institutions such as Michigan Tech.
Senator Leifer asked Kennedy what the cost of the
program would be. Kennedy said the current program
costs $8,000 - $9,000 per year, and involves MTU
performing the scanning and data analysis in house. The
KSU program would cost about $16,000, and all scanning
and reports would be handled by the vendor.
Senator Shonnard asked what the pilot would cost.
Kennedy said the cost would be minimal.
Senator Nordberg asked if the results would be
made
available to the students. Kennedy said that should be a
faculty decision, but that he personally favored making
the
data available to students. The results might be able to be
phased in over time, he said.
Senator Sweeney asked how quickly faculty could
expect to receive feedback. Kennedy said reports would
still come out quarterly.
Senator Santeford commented that he found the
comments on the back of the form valuable and wondered
if such a mechanism existed with the new system.
Kennedy said it does allow for that, but that the comments
should remain confidential as they are now.
Sweeney wondered if we should switch from a
summative to formative evaluation system. Kennedy said
the proposed IDEA system is capable of both.
President Bornhorst commented that Department
chairs would possibly only see selected information from
the evaluation reports. It could be up to the faculty to
decide what their chairs will see. The ideal situation
would be to have volunteer faculty from each department
to administer the program.
Senator Keen said his committee had looked at
several evaluation instruments and came to the same
conclusion as Kennedy that the KSU IDEA system seemed
best suited to MTU.
B. Fringe Benefits Committee [Appendix G]
President Bornhorst introduced Freydoon Arbabi,
chair of the Fringe Benefits Committee. Arbabi talked
about the plan Provost Dobney plans to propose to the
Board of Control at the November meeting regarding
health benefits for TIAA/CREF retirees. Arbabi said the
Fringe Benefits Committee looked at both plans and said
there is agreement between the faculty and the
administration that there must be a plan. The plan must
be viable, affordable, and secure (prefunded). Arbabi
noted that he had heard the argument that the money that
is put away could be used for other things by the
administration. The Fringe Benefits Committee did not
think this was a good argument, he said.
The committee wished to propose an alternative plan
that would prefund the benefit. The necessary annual
contribution to this plan would be about $500,000 per
year. The alternative, pay as you go plan starts out fairly
inexpensive, but balloons to a large cost after about 10
years. It was mentioned that health care costs are hard to
predict 20 years in the future. Arbabi said that
prefunding
provides separate funds for benefits, provided that costs
do
not get out of control.
Vice President Soldan asked if the numbers were
calculated for a strictly medigap coverage. Arbabi
answered that the calculations included benefits for 80
point retirees at the 60% co-pay level.
Arbabi continued to say that the plan was based on
a base funding of 2.6 million.
Senator Lutzke asked if the co-pay was for the
premium, or for the cost of the care. Arbabi answered
that it was for the premium.
Lutzke then wondered about the 20 year projection
for health care costs. Isn't it a little unreasonable to think
we can predict the costs of health care that far in the
future? Might there not be some form of national health
care by then, or if not, how can we predict how expensive
health care will be?
Arbabi answered that if there is a national program
by then, the money that had been put aside for the benefit
could be used for something else.
Senator Vichich noted that the rate of increase of
health care costs is currently slowing down.
Leifer commented that in 1992, when the
TIAA/CREF retiree health benefits program was passed,
the Board mandated prefunding. Their logic was to not
burden future administrations with the costs of
maintaining the program during the out years. The Board
also mandated an outside study by the Wyatt Corp. The
board abandoned prefunding on Provost Dobney's
recommendation in 1995. Leifer said that the cost of
health care for retirees would increase, but that the
returns from the endowment would cover it. The Board
could cancel the program in case of a financial exigency.
He said that lack of prefunding could cause the Board to
balk at the $3 million dollar cost during the out years.
Leifer said that pay as you go is cheaper in the first
years of the program. Provost Dobney will be gone in 5
years, and so he doesn't care what happens after that.
Whitt asked if the task force reported to the Senate.
Bornhorst responded yes. Whitt then asked if the task
force had achieved a consensus for their
recommendation? Leifer responded it was unanimous.
Jim Gale wondered what the cost of a 1% salary
increase is. Leifer responded about a half a million.
Reed asked if the senate will be asked to vote on one
of these programs? Leifer answered that you now have
two things: a report from Provost Dobney, and the report
from the Benefits Committee.
Arbabi reported that he had received a large number
of responses to the survey that the committee had sent out
to all faculty and staff.
Beck said he couldn't see any difference between the
two plans if the money couldn't be put away so it can't be
touched. He suggested that the money be transferred to
a reliable group to administer. Vichich said he would
support this.
President Bornhorst said that he would be
addressing the Board of Control on this issue at the
November meeting, and that he thought they planned to
vote on it at this meeting. How should he proceed?
Should he bring the survey results to the Board?
Whitt asked if they would entertain a presentation?
Bornhorst answered that when he has the floor at the
Board meeting he can present a certain level of this
material. It's up to the Senate what they want him to do.
Williams asked if the Benefits Committee won't also
be on the agenda. Bornhorst said no.
Shonnard asked what the current cost of health care
is for retiring faculty. Someone answered $2-3,000 for
medigap coverage, and $6,000 for 80 point coverage
before medigap.
Vichich said the minimum he would like to see is the
Board not act until they have all the facts.
Sloan said she saw no downside to the Board not
acting on this at this time. If the Senate feels the issue
needs more study, could they delay the decision until
later?
Gilles said that the plan Provost Dobney is bringing
to the Board is totally different than the plan the they
asked for. The intent of the Board was not to eliminate
prefunding. The administration is in favor of eliminating
prefunding. Data are available indicating that 80 point
people tend not to retire. There are currently about 100
MTU employees with over 80 points.
Carstens MOVED and Walck seconded the motion
to petition the Board of Control to postpone any decision
on the TIAA/CREF retiree health benefits issue until the
Senate can offer more input.
Whitt asked what will the senate do in the interim?
Reed asked if the Benefits Committee will come up
with a proposal to present to the Board?
Sweeney asked if we should ask them just to delay?
Carstens said he would like to hear more from his
constituents.
Leifer said that some results were in from the E-mail
survey that was sent out. He said 80% of the people in his
department were in favor of the level payment plan. He
said they were seeing similar numbers in other
departments.
Sandberg said "Let's vote"!
Whitt said we need to provide the Board with more
information so they'll have some information to deal with.
There was no further discussion. The motion
PASSED with no dissent.
7. OLD BUSINESS
A. Proposal 27-96, M.S. in Environmental Engineering
Degree [See minutes, page 6655, for a copy of this
proposal.]
Sandberg MOVED and Arici seconded the motion to
approve Proposal 27-96.
Peg Gale (Chair, Curricular Policy Committee) made
a motion to add 3 courses to the bottom of page 4. They
are: BA461/561, BA463/563, and BA450. Jim Gale
seconded the motion. There was no discussion. The
motion to amend PASSED on a voice vote with no dissent.
President Bornhorst ruled that the changes were editorial.
Shonnard said the proposal should be changed to
reflect the following courses that were out of date:
CM495 should be changed to CM498 - Pollution
Assessment and GE496 should be changed to CM/GE496.
President Bornhorst ruled that this change would be made
and was also editorial. There were no objections so the
ruling stands.
Whitt asked if the courses listed on page 4 were
examples? Kurt Patterson (Civil and Environmental
Engineering) answered yes.
Sandberg suggested that page 2 under Plan B Report
Option, the bulletted item, 9-15 credits of thesis research,
for a, be changed to 3-9 credits of project research, for a.
President Bornhorst ruled that this change would be made
and was also editorial. There were no objections so the
ruling stands.
Nordberg noted that he saw no mention of
additional
funding being required to support this new degree.
Robert Baillod (Civil and Environmental Engineering)
said there was absolutely no need for additional funds for
this degree.
There being no further discussion, President
Bornhorst
called for a voice vote. The motion PASSED on voice vote
with no dissent.
B. Proposal 28-96, B.S. in Applied Ecology and
Environmental Sciences Degree [See minutes, page
6661, for a copy of this proposal.]
Reed MOVED and Arici seconded the motion to approve
Proposal 28-96. There was no discussion. The motion
PASSED on voice vote with no dissent.
C. Proposal 36-95, Scientific Misconduct Policy
Statement. [Appendix H. Also, see minutes, page 6086,
for a copy of this proposal.]
President Bornhorst noted that since the Provost had
made changes to the wording of the proposal, the Senate
will need to vote on it like a new proposal.
Bornhorst commented that the proposed changes by
the Provost were to make the statement as strong or
stronger than the original due process wording. Whitt
disagreed. She made a motion to retain the original
wording of the Senate proposal. There was no second to
her motion.
Keen asked if the wording, "it is imperative that,"
sounded any stronger than "must be followed?"
Vichich said that shall be is stronger than will be.
Pegg asked what we are losing if the phrase due
process is taken out?
Whitt responded that due process makes allowances
that procedures are not comprehensive. Having the
phrase in the document forces the administration to go
beyond procedures.
Sandberg said the Senate had discussed due process
last year. Words have a specific meaning. The intent is to
avoid litigation.
Sweeney asked if it matters that the document says
to follow due process?
Whitt replied that due process constitutes these
procedures where fairness might be breached. We are
here in part to ensure the rights of MTU employees are
protected.
Seely said that it is clear what is driving this. Good
language constitutes what can easily be defended in court.
Nordberg asked if the older proposal is our current
policy.
President Bornhorst said the proposal would amend
the words due process in both proposals (36-95 and 23-94).
Carstens MOVED and Vichich seconded the motion
to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:31 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by Ted Soldan
Acting Secretary of the Senate