THE SENATE OF MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL
UNIVERSITY
Minutes of Meeting 268
22 January 1997
Synopsis: The Senate
(1) approved Proposal 2-97, Trial Usage of Alternative
Student Evaluation Instruments: Amendment of
Senate Proposal 2-87 Teaching Effectiveness Policy.
(2) referred Proposal 1-97, Policy on Threatening or
Violent Behavior, to an appropriate Senate
committee.
(3) heard the Executive Committee decision on
constituents who are in administrative positions or
who work closely with administrators.
(4) heard the results of the Senate constituent survey on
retiree fringe benefits.
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
President Bornhorst called the Senate Meeting 268 to
order at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, 22 January 1997, in
Room B45 of the Electrical Energy Resources Center.
Secretary Glime called roll. Absent were at-large
senators Santeford and Whitt, and representatives from
Army/Air Force ROTC, Fine Arts, IWR, Enrollment
Management, Research/University Relations
/Administrative Offices, Finance/Advancement, and
Academic Services/Non-Engineering. Liaisons in
attendance were Evan Schemm (GSC), Geoff Roelant
(USG), and Ted Soldan (Staff Council).
2. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS
Guests included Dick Heckel (Met and Mat Eng),
Freydoon Arbabi (Civil & Eng. Eng.), Ingrid Cheney
(Human Relations), Marcia Goodrich (Tech Topics), and
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Bornhorst requested that item 9A be moved to follow
item 4 in the agenda. Seely MOVED and Mroz seconded
the motion to approve the agenda as amended. 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
264-267
Vichich MOVED and Mroz seconded the motion to
approve the minutes of meeting 264. The motion
PASSED on voice vote with no dissent.
Senator Keen stated that the University legal firm is
Butzel Long, not Butzel and Long. Williams MOVED
and Seely seconded the motion to approve the minutes
of Meeting 265 as corrected. The motion to approve
PASSED on voice vote with no dissent.
McKimpson MOVED and Vichich seconded the
motion to approve the minutes of Meeting 266. The
motion to approve PASSED on voice vote with no
opposition.
Secretary Glime asked that the minutes of Meeting
267 be amended to reflect that Geoff Roelant (USG) was
present. Sandberg MOVED and Williams seconded the
motion to approve the minutes of Meeting 267 as
corrected. The motion carried on voice vote with no
dissent.
9A. OLD BUSINESS - PROPOSAL 2-97: TRIAL
USAGE OF ALTERNATIVE STUDENT
EVALUATION INSTRUMENTS: AMENDMENT OF
SENATE PROPOSAL 2-87 TEACHING
EFFECTIVENESS POLICY [See minutes, page 6723, for
a copy of this proposal.]
Walck MOVED and Sandberg seconded the motion
to approve Proposal 2-97. Walck stated that the Kansas
State teacher evaluation instrument to be used for the
trial evaluation was an improved instrument over the
one we currently use, with a data base already available
from other schools. Bornhorst added that there were 55
faculty volunteers, covering 90 course sections.
Senator Reed asked if we approve the trial use of the
Kansas State instrument, must we approve another
proposal in order to keep using it. President Bornhorst
responded that we would.
Senator Leifer asked if anyone has seen the
instrument. Bornhorst responded that he and the
members of the instructional Policy Committee have
seen it. Senator Seely added that the forms have arrived
so that it should be possible for anyone to see the
instrument.
Leifer asked if we were to vote for this instrument
when we have never seen it. Bornhorst responded that
such was the case. Senator Keen added that the trial
instrument would include our present core items so that
comparisons could be made for promotion and tenure
purposes.
Seely added that a crucial point is to allow data to be
released to Bill Kennedy (Director of the Center for
Teaching, Learning, and Faculty Development).
Bornhorst added that the prior Senate policy (Proposal 2-87) does not allow use of another instrument, so the
Senate has to give faculty permission to use the Kansas
State form. Senator Suryanarayana asked the purpose of
the trial and how we could evaluate whether it is a better
instrument. Keen responded that the instrument can test
specifically on the objectives of a course; it comes with a
large data base; instructor feedback on their satisfaction
will be an important factor in the evaluation.
Suryanarayana asked if instructors would be polled and
Keen responded that they would.
Senator Shonnard questioned how it would be
workable if the instrument were customized to every
professor. Keen responded that the core questions
would be used to do that. Bornhorst added that the
overall evaluation is a compiled number instead of a
single number. Discussion ended.
Bornhorst stated that the voting units are the
academic-degree-granting departments and other
course-offering units. There was no objection. The motion to approve Proposal 2-97 PASSED on
voice vote with no dissent.
5. OPEN MOTION TO APPROVE PROPOSAL 1-97:
POLICY ON THREATENING OR VIOLENT
BEHAVIOR [See minutes, page 6763, for a copy of this
proposal.]
President Bornhorst reviewed that Senator Keen was
concerned over the wording of the original proposal, so
he (Keen) re-wrote it to re-structure it and make it
clearer.
Keen stated that based on further discussions with
Senators he recommended combining the first and
second sentences to read, "Michigan Technological
University is a diverse community that requires an
environment of trust, openness, and physical safety
where productive work, teaching, and learning can
thrive." Bornhorst ruled this change to be editorial; there
was no objection.
Bornhorst explained that the policy needs a
procedure to be workable.
Senator Gale suggested changing the affected parties
to employees; he questioned what would happen if two
students do something down state.
Keen questioned what would happen if someone
were convicted of spouse abuse. Senator Walck
responded that the original proposal stated "on MTU
property;" it was designed to protect freedom of
expression as well as freedom from harm.
Bornhorst responded that the proposal won't protect
anyone from this type of behavior happening.
Senator Pegg questioned what protection was
afforded by the proposal that the law doesn't cover.
Bornhorst responded that there is no policy now that
defines discipline or permits the University to put
information concerning such behavior in anyone's file.
Senator Leifer stated that the tenure guidelines state
that if you bring discredit to the university, you can be
dismissed.
Secretary Glime reminded the Senate that the law
does not protect anyone from threats and that someone
may be willing to register a complaint with the
university against threatening or violent behavior but be
unwilling to take it to a court of law. Bornhorst
responded that such a system would necessitate that
MTU have a court of law.
Goodrich (Tech Topics) asked why we need a policy;
in other places of employment she found that one need
only talk to the supervisor who would then talk to the
offender and make the behavior stop.
Cheney (Human Resources) stated that if such a
policy is passed there would have to be a procedural
structure. Bornhorst added that the university or person
can still be sued.
Senator Shonnard stated that such a policy would
not be timely financially with all the other activities that
currently are occupying the time of faculty and staff.
Senator Pegg stated that the policy should not
prevent access to the court system.
Senator Mroz suggested that the proposal be sent to
an appropriate Senate committee. Senator Sandberg
agreed with Mroz and added that if someone points a
gun at him, he would call the cops, not the university.
Walck stated that if the handbook doesn't already
make clear that the behavior is inappropriate, it should.
It could be a policy, a statement, or a resolution, but ours
is becoming an increasingly violent society and we need
to make clear that such behavior is unacceptable to us.
Cheney stated that there were several members of
the Senate on the committee. Bornhorst stated that this
could go to a Senate Committee and the Senate
Committee could invite members of the original
committee.
Leifer stated that we could simply extend the tenure
statement to include all employees. Bornhorst argued
that it is a case-by-case issue.
Shonnard stated that we already seem to have
policies to cover these issues.
Pegg MOVED and Williams seconded the motion to
send Proposal 1-97 to an appropriate Senate Committee.
Keen responded that Ellen Horsch (Human
Resources) had implied that there was some urgency to
get a policy in place; she had indicated that she would be
happy to have it passed as amended; there is a current
court case related to this issue. There was a case in
which the administration of another university dismissed
a case with the statement "boys will be boys" and the
threatened person took it to court and won half the
university.
Senator Seely stated that if we refer the proposal to
a committee he hopes the committee will look for
duplication with other policies and determine if there is
a basis for an additional policy; he is concerned more
about an increasingly legalistic society than about an
increasingly violent society; every inappropriate act
must be listed or it provides a loophole, even if it is
clearly inappropriate by any standard.
Walck stated that she is more afraid of violence than
of lawyers; she would like the committee to come back
with a clear explanation of the reasons for having the
policy and a comparison of our policy proposal with
examples of policies at other universities.
Bornhorst stated that he would like to use the
essence of Seely's and Walck's comments for the
committee to review the proposal.
Senator Arbabi stated that this is the second session
the Senate has spent on this and it is getting nowhere.
Discussion ended.
The motion to send Proposal 1-97 to a Senate
Committee PASSED on voice vote with no dissent.
6. REPORT FROM SENATE PRESIDENT
President Bornhorst met with President Tompkins
and spent half an hour discussing the violence policy.
He added that the President stated this is a great issue
for the Senate to debate if the Senate wants to use up a
lot of time.
The Constitution Committee is making progress. The Executive Committee met on 20 January to
decide on eligibility of constituents. There are three
categories: constituents who are eligible to be Senators,
constituents who are not eligible to be Senators, and
those who are not constituents. Senators asked that the
list be included with the minutes. [Appendix B]
Bornhorst stated that the list needs to be reviewed
annually.
Shonnard asked why middle administrators are not
eligible to be Senators. Bornhorst responded that they
already have a major influence in decision-making in the
University.
7. COMMITTEE BUSINESS/REPORTS
President Bornhorst showed a copy of the
presentation prepared for the Board of Control and read
the results of the survey. [Appendix C] The presentation
will include:
1. copy of the resolution
2. appreciation for postponing decision on retiree
health benefits and violence proposal
3. survey results
4. summary statements
Senator Vichich stated that the survey illustrates that
some folks just put together stuff and go with it. Shared
governance should mean that when people consider an
issue important, they discuss it and make informed
decisions.
As expected, most of those survey respondents
affected prefer to have the copay remain as it is, but
about half of the respondents feel that other budget
concerns should get equal weight to that of benefit
concerns; 69% of the respondents favored continuation
of prefunding based on a new, independent actuarial
study.
Bornhorst sought suggestions on what to present to
the Board, stating that he could present the table of
responses to each question.
Senator Sandberg suggested that such detail might
obscure the message. Senator Nordberg stated that the
tables should be available if the Board members want to
see them. Senator Pegg agreed.
Sandberg suggested that the tables be included in
the packet given to the board but that they should not be
part of the presentation. Vichich agreed. Heckel
(Professor Emeritus, Met and Mat Eng) agreed that the
presentation should only be the conclusion.
Bornhorst took a straw poll on whether to put the
information in the packets. The majority (with some
dissent) favored that approach.
Senator Reed was concerned about the lack of
randomness in the method of polling the faculty and
staff and suggested that we could get the percent of
employees who responded in each way. Nordberg stated
that we need to present the results fast. Senator Arbabi
provided a summary from the Fringe Benefits
Committee.
Reed stated that instead of 91.3% it would be more
appropriate to state the number of people who want the
same or greater weight placed on salary. The consensus
was to list separately the numbers who voted for greater
weight on salary and benefits and those who preferred
equal weight with other budget items. Senators
suggested that we should clarify the number of
respondents versus the employees in TIAA/CREF and
MPSERS.
Bornhorst stated that he felt the last statement in the
suggested presentation from the Committee is
threatening and he does not want to present it.
Senator Gopal stated that many younger faculty
didn't participate in the survey because they didn't
understand what they were voting on.
Vice President Soldan stated that the first sentence of
the last paragraph from the Committee is wrong. The
statement should refer to the respondents and not to
employees. President Bornhorst stated that he would
prefer not to present the last paragraph. Instead he will
state something to the effect that this is presented in the
spirit of shared governance.
Arbabi stated that one benefit of the survey is that
now more people are aware of the issues of retirement
benefits. Vichich added that younger people are not
concerned with retirement.
Senator Suryanarayana stated that his concern is
with the way the program will be administered in the
future. Bornhorst responded that the Fringe Benefits
Committee will look at the section of the policy on
decisions on individuals [an issue brought to the Senate
by Dick Heckel] and make recommendations. Heckel
stated that the loopholes are being used now as changes
are made to the benefits.
8. NEW BUSINESS
Proposal 4-97: Recommendation to Change
Administrative Procedures was introduced so that it
could be acted on at the next meeting. [Appendix D]
9. OLD BUSINESS
B. Proposal 3-97: Establishment of the MTU Research
Foundation. [See minutes, page 6724, for a copy of this
proposal.]
Mroz MOVED and Sweany seconded the motion to
approve Proposal 3-97.
President Bornhorst questioned whether the
foundation board had enough faculty input.
Senator Nordberg asked if the proposal came from
the President's Research Task Force; Bornhorst
responded that it did, but that it had also been reviewed
by the Senate Research Policy Committee.
Senator Gruenberg stated that the voting units
should be the full Senate and that all (KRC, IMP, IWR)
research directors should be members of the Board.
Mroz responded that there are 20 research directors,
making the Foundation membership too large.
Senator Gale questioned if this would really fit the
definition of a foundation. Senator Reed responded that
it was designed to function the same way. Senator Seely
stated that most foundations are independent of the
university and that the one proposed would not operate
outside the university. Its stated purpose is to convince
outside contractors that we can handle large contracts.
Reed responded that it forces the research groups
and administrators to get together four times each year
and creates more openness.
Bornhorst stated that it seems to supplant some of
the authority now in the office of the Vice President for
Research and Dean of the Graduate School; there would
be a body to review changes.
Senator Leifer asked if Reed meant to say that now
we would need 20 signatures instead of the present 3.
Reed responded no, we would need the same ones as
now.
Bornhorst stated that the proposals going out would
say MTU Foundation, not MTU.
Senator Nesbitt stated that the University could
report a larger amount of grant money and could attract
larger grants. Reed responded that it would permit the
University to standardize reporting.
Senator Seely asked if there had been any discussion
of articulation with the Tech Fund. Reed responded that
the issue had not been discussed but that Sellars (Senior
Vice President for Advancement and University
Relations) is a non-voting member of the Foundation
Board.
Senator Sandberg stated that he would vote no on
the proposal for two reasons: his Chair, Baillod, is
strongly opposed; it would develop into another layer of
bureaucracy.
Senator Walck stated that there has been an external
review of the Graduate School and they had commented
on the establishment of a Foundation.
Senator Shonnard stated that the [Foundation] Board
would fail if it added more impediments to research and
that they were likely to be more responsible than that.
He asked what the cost would be.
Reed responded that there would be no new
positions and no up front costs; continuing expenses
should be covered by the indirect cost recovery. In
response to Walck's comment, he stated that one of the
Graduate School reviewers was from Purdue and
endorsed the foundation; the review group had
suggested that there should be some outside
membership from the private sector.
Leifer stated that he agreed with Sandberg.
Reed argued that there now is no one to call on if
there is a problem; the Foundation would provide a
forum in which to discuss problems.
Leifer asked if anyone had done a cost analysis, and
that he would like to see one.
Senator Gale agreed.
Senator Keen wanted to get a sense of the body to
the suggestion of adding item 7 to the proposal: The
continued existence of the Foundation must be approved
in the third year of its existence and every third year
thereafter. Sandberg responded that we couldn't kill the
Foundation if we were in the middle of a $5 million
government contract.
Seely reminded the Senate that currently such things
as waivers on overhead are decisions by one individual.
Currently, the administration of research and accounting
are separated. Such issues as these can be better dealt
with through a Foundation.
Leifer stated that the number of deans, associate
deans, etc has increased and that the sunset clause
doesn't work. They never go away.
Nordberg asked if the Senate could have a supporter
come to defend the proposal. Walck added that it would
also be appropriate to invite Sung Lee (Vice Provost for
Research and Dean of the Graduate School). Sandberg
stated that he will invite Baillod (Chair, Civil & Env
Eng). Shonnard stated that concerns about the cost
need to be addressed - this proposal could be referred to
the Research Policy Committee.
Soldan MOVED and Vichich seconded the motion to
adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:29 p.m. with an
open motion on Proposal 3-97 on the floor.
Respectfully Submitted by Janice M. Glime
Secretary of the Senate