THE SENATE OF MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL
UNIVERSITY
Minutes of Meeting 267
8 January 1997
Synopsis: The Senate
(1) heard that President Tompkins has approved the
charter for the Department of Mechanical
Engineering and Engineering Mechanics.
(2) accepted the slate of nominees for the Faculty
Review Committee (grievance).
(3) accepted the slate of nominees for the University
Committee on Academic Tenure.
(4) approved, as amended, the constituent survey on
retiree health benefits.
(5) passed a motion to thank the Board of Control for
establishing and maintaining a medical benefits
program for retirees covered by TIAA/CREF.
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
President Bornhorst called the Senate Meeting 267 to
order at 5:35 p.m. on Wednesday, 8 January 1997, in
Room B45 of the Electrical Energy Resources Center.
Secretary Glime called roll. Absent were At-large
senators Harold Evensen and Laurie Whitt, and
representatives from Chemical Engineering and
Army/Air Force ROTC. Liaisons in attendance were
Geoff Roelant (USG) and Ted Soldan (Staff Council).
2. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS
Guests included Ingrid Cheney (Human Resources),
Marcia Goodrich (Tech Topics), Duane Thayer (Met &Mat
Eng), Les Leifer (Chemistry), Beth Flynn (Humanities),
and Freydoon Arbabi (Civil & Environmental
Engineering).
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Santeford MOVED and Seely seconded the motion
to approve the agenda. Reed MOVED and Mroz
seconded the motion to move item 6A (Proposal 1-96,
Policy on Threatening or Violent Behavior) before item
5 (Discussion of Constituent Survey on retiree health
benefits) and put a 30-minute time limit on it. The
motion to amend PASSED on voice vote with no dissent.
The amended agenda was APPROVED by voice vote
with 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 has forwarded Proposal 36-95
(Scientific Misconduct Policy Statement) and Proposal
23-94 (Scientific Misconduct Policy), with Senate
approval of the Provost's amendments, to the Provost.
[Appendix B]
President Bornhorst had lunch with President
Tompkins on 17 December and discussed several recent
Senate issues.
President Tompkins has approved the charter for the
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Engineering
Mechanics.
President Bornhorst presented a slate of nominees
for the University Committees on Grievance and Tenure.
Two committee members are needed for the Faculty
Review Committee (Grievance); nominees are Sandra
Boschetto-Sandoval (Humanities), Bill Francis
(Mathematical Sciences), Steve Hackney (Metallurgical
and Materials Engineering), Anil Jambekar (Business
and Economics), Bob Keen (Biological Sciences), Carol
MacLennan (Social Sciences), Carl Vilmann (ME-EM),
John Williams (Chemistry). Mroz MOVED and Pegg
seconded the motion to forward the list of nominees to
the faculty for vote. The motion PASSED on voice vote
with no dissent.
One committee member is needed for the University
Committee on Academic Tenure Committee; Darrell
Hicks (Mathematical Sciences), Wayne Pennington
(Geological Engineering and Sciences), Mark Roberts
(Business and Economics), Tom Snyder (Biological
Sciences), Sheryl Sorby (Civil and Environmental
Engineering), Pete Tampas (Technology) have agreed to
be nominees. Williams MOVED and Seely seconded the
motion to forward the list of nominees to the faculty for
vote. The motion PASSED on voice vote with no dissent.
6. OLD BUSINESS
A. Proposal 1-97: Policy on Threatening or Violent
Behavior. [See minutes, page 6697, for a copy of this
proposal.]
Mroz MOVED and Walck seconded the motion to
approve Proposal 1-97. Senator Keen objected that there
were problems in the organization and clarity of the
proposal. The zero tolerance suggested by the proposal
bothers him; for example, when one student shot another
in the leg, this proposal would mean that the student
would be gone instead of the lesser action that permits
that student to continue toward graduation. After citing
several other problems with the proposal, he provided a
copy of a proposed amendment that would replace the
original proposal in its entirety; Keen MOVED to amend
by replacement his rewritten version. [Appendix C]
Senator Beck raised concerns about the list of
examples; it could include physical contact in sports or
yelling to call for help.
Sloan seconded the motion.
Senator Walck asked why Keen had dropped the
item "verbal, written, or electronic harassment." Keen
responded that these are already part of the approved
Board of Control policy on harassment.
Senator Reed asked if the Harassment Policy covers
harassment of a faculty member by a student over a
grade. Keen responded that he assumed it does. Walck
interjected that it wouldn't hurt to repeat it here.
Senator Arbabi stated that we could precede the list
with the statement "with the intent to cause harm or
insult."
Senator McKimpson asked if the community was
defined clearly for the university. Keen responded that
he was not sure, but that the wording was verbatim from
the harassment policy, which was approved by the
University lawyer.
Discussion ended. President Bornhorst pointed out
that the voting units are the full Senate. The motion to
amend PASSED on voice vote with no dissent.
Arbabi MOVED and Glime seconded the motion to
amend paragraph 3 to read "At Michigan Technological
University there is no place for threatening or violent
behavior that is forbidden by law and that is intended to
cause harm or insult, including such actions as:"
Keen argued that this addition of wording would
require the University to prove intent. Santeford added
that the words "forbidden by law" removes things like
football.
Senator Beck stated that he would like to see action
by the University be based on a conviction through the
court system. Senator Gilles stated that the policy was
designed to cover cases that don't go to court. Threats
are not forbidden by law. Cheney (Human Resources)
added that this is only a policy; framing the procedures
will be the hard part. Secretary Glime added that
someone may not want to take an issue such as stalking
to court to get it stopped but might appeal to the
University for protection.
Senator Suryanarayana asked if someone can bring
action under this policy if the event occurs outside the
University [but involves a person associated with the
University].
Senator Leifer suggested that we should make use of
the University lawyer to get advice on what is legal.
Bornhorst responded that the original proposal had
already been subjected to two lawyers who thought it
was fine.
Keen MOVED and McKimpson seconded the motion
to call the question on the amendment to the amended
proposal. The motion to call the question PASSED by
voice vote with dissent. The amendment FAILED on
voice vote with some assent.
Beck re-stated his concern about extending beyond
the law. Keen responded that the third paragraph
(questioned by Beck) was taken almost verbatim from
the already approved harassment and discrimination
policy. The policy offers protection when someone
doesn't want to take legal action. Gilles added that the
law does not protect us against threats; only the
President of the United States is protected from threats.
President Bornhorst ended the discussion because
the 30-minute time limit was reached.
5. COMMITTEE BUSINESS/REPORTS
Discussion of Constituent Survey.
The Senate, at the suggestion of the officers, agreed
to proceed by making a motion to approve the survey as
presented, then making amendments by consensus
through rulings by President Bornhorst before voting for
approval on the survey.
Arbabi MOVED and Carstens seconded the motion
to approve the survey to send to the faculty and
professional staff. The plan is to put these in the mail by
Friday and get them back next week. The Senate can
vote on what to do with survey results at the next
meeting and send the results to the Board of Control
before the Board's next meeting.
Senator Gale pointed out that the age groups should
read "60 and over," not "over 60." The wording was
changed to 60 or over by ruling by President Bornhorst
without objection.
Cheney (Human Relations) pointed out that one
cannot retire under MPSERS with full benefits at 55; you
must be 60 to get full benefits.
Senator Gilles stated that we want to ask if people
want to retain the 80 points.
Senator Walck suggested that we change the
wording to "Should retiree health care benefit eligibility
requirements for TIAA/CREF participants remain at 80
points (age plus years of service at MTU)? There was no
objection to this change.
Cheney asked if the note could be omitted because
it was misleading. There was no objection to this change.
Cheney stated that there were problems with #3.
Flynn (Humanities) suggested removing the last part of
item 3, starting with "while." This change was made by
ruling by President Bornhorst without objection.
Senator Lambert asked why number 3 was being
asked when the choice was obvious. Gilles responded
that the constituents need to be informed of other issues
involved in making their choice. Vice President Soldan
added that the Provost wanted to make the proposal
palatable to the Board. Senator Reed questioned why we
should ask question three when it was likely to reduce
credibility to the Board. Secretary Glime summarized
that what we seem to want to know is whether
employees are willing to pay for additional benefits
during medigap. Thayer added that we need to inform
the Board of Control how the faculty feel; it is a
disincentive to retire early if we must cover 60% of
medical benefits.
Bornhorst suggested removing the last five words of
the note because contributions might not remain the
same. There was no objection.
Gilles pointed out that this is a survey on how we
feel. We are not making demands.
Senator Santeford asked if we should ask if the
copay should be the same as that for MPSERS. Flynn
responded that the two plans are too different. Senator
Leifer stated that a year ago Dobney said you pay all if
you are under 65; then Dobney changed our contribution
to 60% during medigap; the Fringe Benefits Committee
was unanimously against the 60%.
Senator Reed pointed out that in Question 1, the
10.55% for TIAA/CREF does not include the health care
cost; MPSERS includes contributions from the state plus
15.17% from MTU. Leifer wanted to know if the
contribution from the university should be the same in
both plans. Senator Arbabi stated that the benefits differ
and are impossible to compare between MPSERS and
TIAA/CREF. MPSERS has a fixed income; TIAA/CREF
has a fixed contribution.
Senator Sloan stated that the figure for the MTU
contribution to TIAA/CREF health care is available for
last year and should be added. Soldan stated that last
year the contribution toward MPSERS health care was
4.5%.
Senator Suryanarayana pointed out that #1 should
refer to "retirement," not "retiree." This was changed by
ruling without objection.
Sloan repeated that we can get the figure for current
TIAA/CREF percent and add it. The first sentence of the
note was reworded to read "MTU now contributes
10.55% of an employee's salary toward TIAA/CREF
retirement benefits plus the University contribution to
health care for retirees (currently x%) [x to be supplied
based on figures from the past year] and 15.17% toward
MPSERS. This change was accepted by ruling without
objection.
Cheney stated that we should remove the word
"only" from the last sentence of the note. There were no
objections to this change.
Sloan stated that MPSERS used pay-as-you-go and
now has problems. Vice President Soldan added that it
also had used prefunding but the governor had raided
the funds.
Senator Wang asked where the money would come
from if we increase the benefits and if it would affect
salary raises. Arbabi responded that the budget is
decided separately every year, so it is not easy to say.
Suryanarayana stated that the Provost says if we fund
this we can't give a 3% raise, only 2%. Gale agreed that
these issues are not independent.
Beck stated that we have spent $300,000 for new
spousal hires, $1.5 million for the Meese Center, and $1
million for the Dean of Engineering. There has been no
talk of raises.
Reed stated that in #4, the note should include the
dollar amount. Bornhorst responded that it is given in
the background section.
Arbabi stated that the previous actuarial report was
unrealistic because there was no MTU history on which
to base it. The Provost wanted to change the plan;
therefore, there was no independent actuarial study.
Leifer added that in 1992 the actuarial study took the
worst case scenario; they projected a prefunding of 40-50
million by 2011. The interest would pay for the baby
boomers. However, the costs didn't increase as much as
expected. The Provost's Task Force estimated that
$550,000/year would cover benefits until 2023.
Senator Vichich suggested that we add to number 4,
"as directed June 1995 by the Board of Control." Cheney
suggested that we end question 4 after the word
continued. Sloan countered that we do not want the
prepayment re-instated as it was; we want a new
estimate. The consensus was to maintain the original
wording for #4.
Senator Beck suggested that we should separate the
list of alternatives into individual choices in question 5.
Arbabi responded that we don't want to duplicate the
Provost's survey; we want to know if we want to spend
money on the faculty or on other things; a complete list
would be too long.
Senator Mroz reminded the Senate that the Board
would not be the only ones to see the survey; students
will see it as well and the results could present the
faculty as being self-serving. The consensus was to keep
#5 as it was presented.
Walck suggested several changes to paragraph three
of the background. In the second sentence, the word
sentiments should be changed to opinions. The
abbreviations RHB (Retiree Health Benefits) and PAYG
(Pay as You Go) should be spelled out. These
suggestions were accepted by ruling without objection.
Senator McKimpson pointed out that nothing was
presented about prefunding to cover a year with high
expenses. Flynn responded that the committee is trying
to be neutral; they will send a bulletin before the
questionnaire goes out, presenting some of the issues.
The motion to approve the survey PASSED on voice
vote with dissent.
Bornhorst moved the discussion to the statement
provided at the end of the survey handout. This
statement expresses appreciation to the Board of Control
for establishing and maintaining a medical benefits
program for retirees covered by TIAA/CREF. Bornhorst
requested that the last paragraph be removed, since he
would automatically take the statement to the Board of
Control if it passes. There was no objection.
Flynn suggested that the words "Michigan Tech" be
moved in front of the word "retirees" in the last sentence
of the first paragraph, to read "We also appreciate the
subsequent deliberations and actions of the Board
intended to insure a stable and secure program for the
benefit of Michigan Tech retirees, employees young and
old, and spouses." No one objected to the ruling.
Mroz MOVED and Carstens seconded the motion to
accept the printed statement with the modification of
moving the words "Michigan Tech." The motion
PASSED on voice vote with no dissent.
Vichich MOVED and Nesbitt seconded the motion to
adjourn.
The meeting adjourned at 7:33 p.m. with an open
motion on Proposal 1-97 on the floor.
Respectfully Submitted by Janice M. Glime
Secretary of the Senate