THE SENATE OF MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL
UNIVERSITY
Minutes of Meeting 269
5 February 1997
Synopsis: The Senate
(1) Rejected Proposal 3-97, Establishment of the MTU
Research Foundation.
(2) Heard that the Administration has rejected Senate
Proposal 32-96, Policies and Procedures Regarding
Tenure Track Appointments [regarding spousal
hiring].
(3) Heard that Bill Francis has been elected for a 3-year
term, Carl Vilmann for a 2-year term, and Sandra
Boschetto-Sandoval as alternate for the Faculty
Review Committee. Sheryl Sorby was elected to the
Academic Tenure Committee.
(4) Heard Provost Dobney present the results of the
benefits/budget survey and the TIAA/CREF
retirement health benefits and contributions plan as
he had presented it to the Board of Control on 24
January (already reported in Tech Topics).
(5) Approved petitions to be Senate constituents from
John Flynn (3/4-time faculty), Sylvia Matthews
(3/4-time professional staff), and Pamela Wehr
(3/4-time professional staff).
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
President Bornhorst called the Senate Meeting 269 to
order at 5:35 p.m. on Wednesday, 5 February 1997, in
Room B45 of the Electrical Energy Resources Center.
Secretary Glime called roll. Absent were at-large
senators Harold Evensen, and representatives from
Army/Air Force ROTC, and Student
Affairs/Educational Opportunities. Liaisons in
attendance were Max Seel (Dean, Sci & Arts), Geoff
Roelant (USG), and Ted Soldan (Staff Council).
2. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS
Guests included Fred Dobney (Provost), Sung Lee
(Vice Provost), Kurt Pregitzer (Forestry), Bob Baillod
(Civil & Env Eng), Mike Gretz (Biol Sci), Dick Heckel
(Professor Emeritus, Met and Mat Eng), Marcia Goodrich
(Tech Topics), and Ellen Horsch (Human Resources).
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
President Bornhorst requested the addition of item
7C, Administrative Structure, to be presented by Fred
Dobney. Mroz MOVED and McKimpson 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 MEETING 268
Carstens MOVED and Nesbitt seconded the motion
to approve the minutes of Meeting 268. The motion
PASSED on voice vote with no dissent.
5. OPEN MOTION TO APPROVE PROPOSAL 3-97:
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MTU RESEARCH
FOUNDATION [See minutes, page 6724, for a copy of
this proposal.]
Senator Gruenberg asked if Senator McKimpson had
been able to get some information on which units were
intended as the research units to be represented.
McKimpson responded that he could not get a definitive
answer yet but understood that it would mean those not
in academic units (IMP, IWR, KRC). This was confirmed
by Senator Reed and Vice Provost Lee, assuming the
present reporting structure [to the Vice Provost for
Research] for the directors is continued.
Baillod (Civil and Env Eng) stated that he has
written two responses to the committee. The proposal
has good goals. However, he doesn't believe that a
foundation will move us toward them. Rather, we need
to build a research culture into the academic units. He is
concerned that the foundation will work against the
goals. It will separate research even further from the
academic programs. Researchers would be responsible
to two administrations, one for teaching and another for
research. Instead, he feels schools, institutes, and
colleges should be vested in both functions.
Departments are not recognized in the organizational
chart proposed. While the proposal is supposed to speed
up decision-making and policy change, his experience is
that the structure would inhibit timeliness. The Kansas
legislature mandated that research should be separated;
this resulted in the formation of the foundation there.
Research at MTU is mostly aided by the administration,
and sometimes in spite of it. It has no such mandate.
Dean Seel (Sci & Arts) stated that the goals discussed
by Baillod and those stated by the Task Force were the
same; only the methods differed. Both agreed that it
would be better to integrate teaching and research. The
Heads [Chairs] and Deans on the Board would help to
integrate.
Pregitzer (Forestry) stated that it was not the intent
to micro manage, but to bring all the functional lines
together. Changes need to be codified; the details need
to be worked out. The Senate committee that reviewed
the Task Force proposal had made good suggestions of
more faculty and the addition of chairs.
Lee (Vice Provost for Research and Dean of the
Graduate School) shares Baillod's concern IF there is
really any basis for diluting instruction and research
integration, but he doesn't see that dilution. He views
the proposal as able to solve several problems. 1) It
improves the way our research endeavors are viewed
outside the university. 2) When the university can
submit only 2 or 3 equipment grant proposals, often
many groups start the proposals and he only learns
about them later when he must make a decision of which
to forward. He needs the advice of a group such as this;
some of these proposals might be appropriate for
foundations. 3) This group could help to eliminate some
of the administrative duplication among lots of small
units. 4) Although the foundation may appear to be
bureaucratic, the intention is to bring together all those
involved in research decisions. The outside evaluators of
the graduate program said that the foundation
organization had too much turf interest; it should have
a contingent of outside members.
Senator Williams asked why not make an accounting
maneuver instead of creating such an administrative
body. Lee responded that the outside body had also
expressed concern that the board was too heavily loaded
with administrators. Seel responded that the President
and Provost were considered to be ex officio [rather than
voting] members.
Senator Gale stated that he likes a decentralized
structure, a check and balance. The audit function
should be independent; an outside party should be
looking at the cost recovery of the research.
Lee stated that the foundation would dilute the focus
from his office and have an overseeing function. There
is no systematic way to review the research focus for the
university; it is whoever comes in front of his desk and
will not leave until getting what he/she wants. It is
tough for him to choose and he knows nothing about
most proposals until the last minute. He must make all
the decisions about matching money.
Williams asked how this proposal would ensure that
a wider group decides on a proposal.
Lee responded that he doesn't know what is going
on out there. President Bornhorst asked if the
foundation would know any more about what is going
on. Lee responded that we would put in a system that
would require a means of finding out sooner.
Reed added that the chairs would be involved. The
emphasis of the foundation should be on the concerns of
individual researchers. Part of the recommendation is to
find ways of recognizing "show case" attempts to
combine teaching and research. Faculty have problems
with research accounting - this is an attempt to bring
together the various arms of personnel concerned with
research so they can try to address these problems and
address the questions of organizational structure.
Baillod stated that we should try to strengthen the
research functions in the departments; this proposal
makes them less important. The foundation board
would be the same people in a new form or organization.
Gale stated that research accounting should not be
under the foundation. Reed responded that the group
should look at the way research and accounting interact,
not necessarily be the group to oversee it. Dobney
responded that the main complaint from faculty has
been that accounting is not sufficiently responsive; it
currently is not part of the research office.
Pregitzer stated that scholarship comes from
individuals and groups of researchers who want to work
together. The reorganization and growth will bring
growing pains, but we need a mechanism to improve.
We need to provide a mechanism to give all faculty
access. The board will meet four times a year. The
report includes a number of other important aspects
besides the foundation.
Senator Walck stated that the main emphasis seems
to be centralization. The arguments for this are to reduce
redundancies and to make informed decisions and
reconcile conflicts when there are competing needs. She
questions why it must be a foundation to do this. Why
can't it be done through the Research Office? What
evidence is there from institutions that have a foundation
that a foundation improves the conditions that concern
us?
Pregitzer stated that most foundations have been
formed to cross an administrative barrier. You can find
virtually any structure you want at universities. The
foundation sets policy, raises visibility, and raises the
focus on research.
Senator Suryanarayana stated that MTU once had a
Director of Research. That position is now merged with
the Dean of the Graduate School. If there is a board, the
decision-making process will be distributed - it will be
harder to fight a Board. Will the rewards for combined
teaching and research be taken out of the department?
Reed responded that there is currently no
recognition of people who are good at both; salary and
promotion and tenure rewards should remain
departmental, but other kinds of rewards might be
added.
Senator Richter asked if IWR could ever be
represented since it is within the School of Forestry.
Reed responded that the Director of IWR has direct
report to the Provost for the Institute, so he/she would
not be excluded. Lee stated that if IWR is part of the
academic department, then it would be excluded, but in
the current structure it is included because it has its own
director. Discussion ended.
President Bornhorst stated that the voting units are
academic-degree-granting departments and research
units, there were no objections. Proposal 3-97 FAILED
on roll call vote with 10 yes, 12 no, and 2 abstentions.
The roll call vote was as follows:
Glime - yes Mroz (Forestry) - yes
Reed - yes Pegg (HU) - abstain
Santeford - no Gopal (Math Sci) - yes
Walck - no Suryanarayana (ME-EM) - no
Whitt - no Nesbitt (Met & Mat Eng) - no
Keen (Biol Sci) - no Greuer (Mining Eng) - no
Gale (Business) - no Nadgorny (Physics) - yes
Williams (Chemistry) - no Melton (Soc Sci) - yes
Shonnard (Chem Eng) - no Carstens (Technology) -
abstain
Sandberg (Civil/Env Eng) - no McKimpson (IMP) - yes
Sweany (Computer Sci) - yes Richter (IWR) - yes
Sloan (Elec Eng) - no Gruenberg (KRC) - yes
6. REPORT FROM SENATE PRESIDENT
President Bornhorst reported that the
Administration has rejected Senate Proposal 32-96,
Policies and Procedures Regarding Tenure Track
Appointments. He read a letter from Provost Dobney
[Appendix B] in which the Administration agrees to
follow the guidelines ordinarily, except in extraordinary
times; the President needs flexibility. If there is to be an
exception, the President will consult with the department
concerned.
Proposal 2-97, Trial Usage of Alternative Student
Evaluation Instruments: Amendment of Senate Proposal
2-87, Teaching Effectiveness Policy, has been forwarded
to the Administration. [Appendix C]
President Bornhorst has referred Proposal 1-97,
Policy on Threatening or Violent Behavior, to the
Institutional Planning Committee; referred Proposal 5-97, Certificate in Industrial Forestry, to the Curricular
Policy Committee; and referred the University Closure
Policy to the Academic Policy Committee for review.
The latter referral has resulted from numerous
complaints to Provost Dobney and the Senate President
after the recent closing and weather advisories.
[Appendices D-F]
President Bornhorst reported the results of the recent
university committee elections. Bill Francis was elected
for a 3-year term, Carl Vilmann for a 2-year term, and
Sandra Boschetto-Sandoval as alternate for the Faculty
Review Committee. Sheryl Sorby was elected to the
Academic Tenure Committee.
President Bornhorst reported that there are still not
enough nominees for the committee to work on the
policy on separation. He stated that at present there are
lots of NCA committees. Therefore, it is difficult to get
committee members. The officers have discussed the
matter and offer several alternatives. President
Bornhorst could solicit members now but not ask them to
start work until fall, or he could let it sit for the new
Senate president to form the committee in the fall.
Secretary Glime suggested that many people make their
commitments to committees and other responsibilities in
the spring and by fall may feel they do not have time to
contribute to another committee; therefore it might be
better to appoint the committee now.
President Bornhorst added that there have been a
task force and a Senate committee that have done much
work already. Senator Pegg asked how he could get a
copy of the groundwork; Bornhorst responded that the
Senate Assistant would send a copy. Senator Leifer also
requested a copy.
Senator Walck stated that she agreed with Glime; we
have waited long enough on this issue and need to get
moving. That seemed to be the consensus. Without
objection, the Senate President will move forward
soliciting nominees.
President Bornhorst announced that he has received
three petition requests to be Senate constituents. The
Executive Committee met and reviewed these and
recommend that they be approved. Copies of the
petitions were distributed by Jeanne Meyers (Senate
Assistant). Petitions are from John Flynn (part-time
faculty), Sylvia Matthews (part-time professional staff),
and Pamela Wehr (part-time professional staff), all of
Humanities. Bornhorst ruled that Senators could read
them during the remainder of the meeting and vote at
7:25, there were no objections.
The Provost and officers met on 3 February and
discussed the list of existing proposals.
The Senate officers have prepared the NCA report,
as directed by the Senate. [Appendix G]
7. COMMITTEE BUSINESS/REPORTS
A. Board of Control Relations Committee
President Bornhorst reported that, at the 24 January
1997 meeting of the Board of Control, he had thanked the
Board for waiting on the violence and TIAA/CREF
proposals. He read the Senate resolution word for word
to them and presented the survey report as it had been
given to him by the Senate at its last meeting and then
responded to their comments.
Provost Dobney presented his benefits proposal to
the Board. That was followed by a heated discussion.
Bornhorst had been recognized several times to respond
to Board discussion on the proposal. The proposal and
subsequent discussion have been presented in the 30
January issue of Tech Topics.
Senator Suryanarayana asked what kind of
comments had been made. Bornhorst responded that
Vercruysse had responded to the Provost's proposal by
suggesting that we should force all eligible faculty to
decide before 1 July to retire and get retiree health
benefits or take the 2+2 plan. Under that plan, many
who did not wish to retire would have only a few years
of increased retirement benefits (2+2) that would not
permit them to accumulate enough money to self-fund
health care protection. Suryanarayana asked if the
survey had any influence on the Board. Bornhorst stated
that they had expressed appreciation for the input.
Senator Leifer inquired regarding the proposal that
had been rejected by the Provost (32-96), asking which
hires Dobney considered extraordinary. Leifer wanted
to know about the half dozen that already existed.
Dobney asked what cases Leifer thought had not
followed normal procedures so he could respond to
them. Leifer preferred not to name names, so Dobney
reported that Jill Dobney had been hired following a
search; Seller's wife had been an extraordinary case.
Dobney was unaware of any others. Leifer said he
would be happy to inform the Provost.
B. TIAA-CREF Retirement Proposals -- Provost
Dobney
Provost Dobney presented the weighted results of
the budget survey, as already reported in Tech Topics
[Appendix H]. The results were fairly close. The most
points accrued for the 2+2 plan (1346) with the second
highest for a 1% salary increase (1300); prefunding
received 1271 points. Dobney reviewed his philosophy
for benefits, developed in 1995 in conjunction with the
Fringe Benefits Committee, and with Alexander and
Alexander, emphasizing the need to provide a choice for
benefits. We want to offer opportunities to enhance this
package so that each family can address its particular
needs. We need to help employees be better informed of
the changing needs and rising costs so that they can best
plan for their needs. He listed three principles used in
developing his benefits proposal: 1) that retirement
benefits be adequate; 2) that retirees have the
wherewithal to acquire post-retirement health care; 3)
that the university's liability is limited to ensure the
continuation of the benefits. The Provost proposed that
the present plan should be discontinued by 1 July 1997
for all future retirees. The program would no longer be
reviewed by the Board every six months, but would be
part of the University's annual budget process. The
Provost proposed a new program be instituted. Under
the new program, current employees must decide by 1
July whether they want a TIAA/CREF 2+2 plan or want
an employee health care premium reimbursement
program. New employees would all be given a 2+2 plan
and would not have the option to elect the retiree health
benefits. All individuals, at the time of retirement,
would be guaranteed insurability through the
University. They can elect to join the MTU group plan or
they can apply to an outside firm for health benefits.
Retirees electing the outside firm health plan would be
reimbursed for the cost of purchasing health insurance
not to exceed the amount of the MTU health care plan.
The 20% copay would be waived in recognition of the
taxable status of the benefit. Retirees electing the 2+2
plan would pay for their own health care premiums
either from MTU or an outside firm. Failure to elect
either plan by the stated date would result in being
placed in the 2+2 plan.
One of the factors in determining the plan is that the
University cannot offer a choice between a taxable and
a non-taxable benefit because then the IRS will interpret
the non-taxable benefit as constructive receipt and it
becomes taxable. If we impose a bifurcation of benefits
based on age or other factor, then it is not taxable. The
Board of Control liked that option because the plan
proposed by the Provost alternative plan would give
money to the IRS that would otherwise be in the hands
of the University. The plan ultimately gets the Board out
of the long-term health care business and limits the
Boards liability for its cost. Dobney estimated that 20-25% of the faculty would probably elect the premium
reimbursement. The estimated greatest liability in a
given year is less than $600,000 (in 2014). If we were to
continue the current program, it would continue until
2058; the maximum cost would be in the year 2034 at $4
million assuming no new employees are allowed in the
program. When asked by the Board about the cost of the
2+2 plan, Dobney contended that it was something he
had wanted to do for several years as an enhancement to
the total compensation package; it could serve as a
recruiting tool because it would be higher than that
offered by most other schools; we would be leaders. The
University of Michigan and Michigan State University
contribute only 10% to retirement and employees
contribute 5%. Thus, our proposed plan would be better.
Faculty could put up to 2% into retirement or elect to
begin contributing later.
When asked why faculty need be required to
contribute before they could get the University
contribution, Dobney responded that he wanted to force
people to do the right thing. That would give them a
14.55% contribution, which should be adequate.
Dobney reported that the Board would make a
decision on health care at the March meeting. Younger
faculty are concerned that University money put away
now for prefunding the current plan won't be here when
they retire. Some of the Board members suggested that
MTU should not contribute until the faculty member
achieves the 80 points.
President Bornhorst stated that the Board would
probably approve either the Provost's plan or a
bifurcated plan (e.g. if you are over 55, you get the health
care; if you are 55 or less, you get the 2+2 plan). Provost
Dobney stated that TIAA/CREF says that they can do
the 2+2 after someone earns 80 points, but it would be
difficult to administer.
Dobney commented that President Bornhorst had
provided major contributions at the Board meeting and
been instrumental in helping to persuade the Board to be
fair, particularly when the lawyer suggested that those
wanting the health care benefit should retire by August.
Bornhorst reported that President Tompkins had
several times approached the lawyer's suggestion to
make it clear that the Board was through with that idea
and would not pursue it.
Senator Shonnard stated that the 2+2 plan might not
be sufficient for new faculty by the time they retire.
Dobney responded that the 2+2 plan still permits the
retiree to purchase health care at the university rate and
they would have 14.55% TIAA/CREF accumulating.
That money is tax-sheltered until they retire at 65 and it
would require $1800/year for medicare supplement or
about $20,000 accumulation [under current rates]; before
65, the health premium would cost $4800.
Senator Leifer made two points: 1) If the Board says
that faculty must take the 2+2 plan or health care
benefits at a specific age, then there would be no tax. 2)
We still have the punitive document produced in 1992
and the wording of the proposal indicates we are still
using it.
Dobney responded that he could probably get the
Board to eliminate the 1992 "punitive" portion, but that
he did not want to confuse this issue with the issue of the
benefits - this was the wrong time to ask for the change.
However, he will do everything in his power to get rid of
the language.
Mroz asked if the 2% faculty contribution to the 2+2
benefit reduce the SRA contribution. Dobney responded
yes if someone is at their maximum for SRA's, that
person will have to reduce the SRA's by 2% to get the
2+2 benefit.
Baillod (Civil & Env Eng) asked what happens if a
person has another job that covers the benefit. Dobney
responded that it had not been worked out yet. To get
the reimbursement, one must submit the bills. Heckel (Met & Mat Eng) stated that there is a cap on
personal contributions but not on the University
contribution. He stated that we need effective
communication of the benefits programs. Dobney
responded that even those retired under the 1992 plan
had never seen it.
Heckel stated that the Provost's plan says that
benefits can be adjusted in the future; therefore people
are still planning to use that document in the future.
Dobney responded that if the current employees end up
with greater benefits, then the retirees would get the
same benefits. Heckel countered that 20% was the
original matching contribution, but now it is variable.
Bornhorst stated that the Fringe Benefits Committee
has already prepared a proposal on the [1992] plan,
which we will discuss at the next meeting. That proposal
was then distributed to the Senate by the Senate
Assistant.
Dobney stated that he was trying to convince the
Board that we can afford his proposal. Therefore, he was
trying to provide them with a means of making it
affordable in the future. However, he could set it up that
we would increase the premium rather than the percent.
We will have to adjust the cost in the future based on our
experience because we are self-insured. He is willing to
remove the "subject to adjustment" clause.
Senator Suryanarayana reviewed his understanding
that the premium reimbursement is taxable. The current
plan is not taxable. If we have a choice between a
taxable and non-taxable benefit, the IRS considers it to be
constructive receipt and it is taxable. It would not be
taxable if the university makes the choice for us but not
if they offer a choice.
Senator Pegg asked for clarification of the meaning
of "up to." Dobney clarified that it is "up to" the then
applicable premium; if the premium costs less than that
which is allowable, the reimbursement will cover the
entire cost, but no more.
Suryanarayana asked if prefunding is dead. Dobney
responded that it is unless the Board overrules his plan.
Senator Vichich stated that he would like to see the
new plan disseminated so that the affected persons can
discuss it. Dobney stated that it can be put on the web.
Vice President Soldan reminded the Senate that it has
already been presented in Tech Topics last week.
Soldan expressed concern for those persons who
could not afford to contribute the matching 2%. Dobney
stated that they could select the premium
reimbursement. Soldan stated that it would not be an
option after 1 July and could be a problem for new
people. Horsch (Human Resources) stated that these
people can buy in any time or contribute less than 2%.
Senator Santeford reminded us that we would be
putting in 2% to get 14%.
Suryanarayana asked what the rationale is for
requiring the 2% contribution from the employee.
Dobney responded he believes in forcing people to do
the right thing.
Pegg asked why the University Administration and
Board want out of the benefits business when it would
only be .5-4% of the University budget. Dobney
responded that there is no way to guarantee prefunding
money will be there. With this proposed plan the money
will be there and the University will offer lower cost
health insurance and a choice.
Senator Shonnard stated that it takes away 2% that
could be put into an SRA. Dobney stated that everyone
has the choice of a compensation package enhancement
or health care. It takes away 2% from an SRA and
doubles it.
Senator Gale asked if the people who have elected
2+2 will still always be guaranteed to get their insurance
for that same rate. Dobney responded that he will ask
the Board to guarantee that; it is an option now and there
is no reason to think it would change. Potentially, the
premium will go up if there are more retirees.
Experience shows it is the 50-60-year-olds that cost the
most money. Medicare pays for most of the medical
costs of older retirees.
VOTE ON PETITIONS
At 7:25 p.m. President Bornhorst asked if Senators
wanted to vote on the petitions for constituency or to
wait until the next meeting. Most seemed to want to
wait, Pegg MOVED and Vichich seconded the motion to
decide now. Discussion ended. The motion PASSED on
voice vote with dissent.
Bornhorst asked if there was any objection to voting
by voice. There was none.
Pegg MOVED and Carstens seconded the motion to
approve the petition for John Flynn. Discussion ended.
The motion PASSED on voice vote with no dissent.
Lutzke MOVED and Richter seconded the motion to
approve the petition of Sylvia Matthews. Discussion
ended. The motion PASSED on voice vote with no
dissent.
Vichich MOVED and Sweany seconded the motion
to approve the petition of Pam Wehr. Discussion ended.
The motion PASSED on voice vote with no dissent.
Melton MOVED and Richter seconded the motion to
adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:32 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by Janice M. Glime
Secretary of the Senate