THE SENATE OF MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL
UNIVERSITY
Minutes of Meeting 271
12 March 1997
Synopsis: The Senate
(1) heard that charters from Fine Arts and the School of
Technology have been approved.
(2) voted to extend the terms of office of Senators and
alternates from non-academic units until
September/October because the new Constitution
will not be ratified in time for spring elections.
(3) heard Provost Dobney's "final, best offer" for a
scaled phase-out of retiree health care benefits and
implementation of a 2+2 TIAA-CREF benefit.
(4) discussed a draft of the revisions to the Constitution.
(5) heard from Chair Bob Keen that the Instructional
Policy Committee would like to poll the faculty
again on the issue of semesters vs quarters.
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
President Bornhorst called Senate Meeting 271 to
order at 5:32 p.m. on Wednesday, 12 March 1997, in
Room B45 of the Electrical Energy Resources Center.
Secretary Glime called roll. Absent were
representatives from Army/Air Force ROTC, Fine Arts,
and KRC. Liaisons in attendance were Geoff Roelant
(USG), Evan Schemm (GSC), and Ted Soldan (Staff
Council).
2. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS
Guests included Freydoon Arbabi (Civil & Env Eng),
Les Leifer (Chemistry), Fred Dobney (Provost), Indrajith
Wijayaratne (School of Technology), and Marcia
Goodrich (Tech Topics).
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
President Bornhorst requested the addition of item
6D, Report from the Instructional Policy Committee, by
Bob Keen (5 minutes). Vichich MOVED and Carstens
seconded the motion to approve the agenda as modified.
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 270
Senator Suryanarayana stated that on page 6828 of
the minutes he was referenced as asking if other persons
could handle the responsibility to the undergraduate
program. The minutes should state that he had asked if
other people could handle some of the responsibilities now
handled by the provost [leaving the provost more time
for undergraduate instruction].
Richter MOVED and Sandberg seconded the motion
to approve the minutes of meeting 270 as amended. The
motion PASSED on voice vote with no dissent.
5. REPORT FROM SENATE PRESIDENT
President Bornhorst reported that the officers
decided to cancel the meeting on 26 March, making the
next meeting on 2 April.
Bornhorst sent to the Administration Proposal 6-97:
Recommendation to Change the Retirement Medical
Benefits Plan, and Proposal 8-97: Recommended
Amendment to Proposed New TIAA-CREF Retiree
Health Care Benefits. [Appendices B and C]
He has sent Proposal 9-97, B.S. in Wood Science, to
the Curricular Policy Committee. [Appendix D]
President Tompkins has approved department
charters for the Fine Arts Department and the School of
Technology.
Bornhorst reminded the Senate that spring elections
are imminent. Senators will receive, from the Senate
Assistant, an outline of the election cycle and a form for
nominations. Departments that need to elect a senator
are being notified.
There is a problem in election of senators to
represent the designated non-academic units and in
selecting a Vice President because the new Constitution
has not been ratified. The officers have two suggestions
for the Senate to consider: 1. extend the terms of current
non-academic senators and alternates for one more year.
2. extend the terms of current non-academic senators
and alternates until September and extend the Vice
President's term until September.
Senator Suryanarayana asked what would happen
if we extended the term for one year and the constitution
does not pass. Bornhorst replied that it becomes a moot
point and those non-academic units still represented
would have to re-elect [because their constituency would
change].
Vice President Soldan stated that having a one-year
extension would prevent turmoil on committees. Senator
McKimpson stated that some people would not want one
more year; it is difficult to elect in September; October
would be better - committees don't do that much until
October. Bornhorst responded that persons could always
resign if they did not want to continue.
Senator Lambert stated that he would prefer an
extension to September; Vichich agreed that September
or October would be best.
Senator Melton asked if the Senate would meet in
September before the terms end. Bornhorst responded
that it would.
Senator Walck asked if Senators normally serve 3-year terms, implying that if so, it should solve the
problem. Bornhorst replied that all staff had the same
beginning date and had not been given staggered terms
because the Constitution had not been approved. Each
was given a one-year term.
Lambert MOVED and Carstens seconded the motion
to extend the terms of non-academic representatives to
September /October. The motion PASSED on voice vote
with dissent.
6. COMMITTEE BUSINESS/REPORTS
A. TIAA-CREF Retirement Program Provost
Dobney [Appendix E]
Provost Dobney reported his "final, best offer"
retirement benefit plan as he will present it to the Board
of Control. It represents the combined efforts of the
Senate, the Senate Fringe Benefits Committee, and the
Provost's Office to continue the affordability of the
benefits. The faculty didn't like the 60% matching and
the Board of Control didn't like giving a choice because
it was taxable. This program will include a phased in
matching program and a phased out health care
premium subsidy. MTU is currently contributing 10.55%
to TIAA-CREF. In 1997-98, he proposes to match up to
1% and in 1998-99 to match up to 2% contribution to
TIAA-CREF. The 1% phase in is due to budget
constraints in the Governor's proposed 1997-98 budget
for the University. He will request that the Board
endorse guaranteed insurability at the group rate upon
retirement. All new employees will be placed in the
matching program because all will be in TIAA-CREF.
The recommended program has an 80-point eligibility,
assumes Medigap coverage for those eligible for
Medicare, and requires a 20% co-pay for participants
who retire prior to 1 July 1999; starting 1 July 1999, the
co-pay will increase by 10% per year so that by 2006
retirees will be paying 100% of the premium. This is a
pay-as-you-go plan because it is part of the current
operations budget. It will gradually eliminate the MTU
payment of premiums so that co-pay goes to 100%.
The benefit to retirees is guaranteed to continue at
the scheduled co-pay while this program is in place.
The average salary of those age 55 or with 70 points
is $65,511. At 2% matching, in 6 years you would
generate the $20,000 necessary to pay the continued cost
of medical benefits premiums. Medical benefit costs are
likely to go up, but the increase in salaries has not been
figured into this either.
By 2014, we will reach a cost of $322,645, the peak
cost of the new health care plan. The 2+2 plan will
continue to increase in cost, reaching $1.6 million by
2024. Under the November plan, total cost will reach
$107 million; under the February plan it will reach $124
million; and by this (March) plan it will reach $118
million by 2057. The $118 million is guaranteed in
faculty pockets.
Senator Suryanarayana asked for clarification that if
one retires with 30% co-pay that the 30% would be the
continued cost for the rest of retirement. Dobney
confirmed it.
Senator Gilles asked if the $118 million included the
cost of the health care plan. Dobney responded that it
was only the 2+2 cost; the total health care costs are $5
million.
Vice President Soldan asked if these costs assume
that 100% of those eligible will participate. Dobney
responded that it assumes 100%, but that in industry
usually only 70-80% participate.
Gilles asked why he chose the 55 years and $65,000
as the basis of his calculations. Dobney responded that
one must have 80 points in 2006 to be eligible.
Gilles expressed concern that the annuities fall
drastically short of the premium costs. Dobney
responded that the 8% estimated annuity was based on
a 35-year average, but that TIAA-CREF had done
considerably better than that recently.
Gilles stated that one would almost break even if the
money were invested for 30 years; the plan should not be
a disincentive to retire, but the annuity and premium are
very far apart.
Senator Sandberg stated that Gilles' scenario
assumes that only the annuity is being used. We would
still have the extra principal from the TIAA-CREF
contributions.
Senator Mroz stated that we don't need health care
after we die; we have a base as well as the annuity.
Dobney stated that he is basing these figures on
averages; we will probably have to pay some additional
money to meet the costs of health care insurance. Gilles
countered that the annuity will be fixed, but Mroz
reminded him that we would still have a $20,000
principal to use.
Leifer (Chemistry) stated that no matter how good
the program is, it is not worth anything if the verbiage is
the same in the "plan." What is being done to expunge
the "plan?"
Dobney responded that if his proposal is approved,
he will go back to the Board in May with new language
instead so we can guarantee this benefit in so far as the
Board is willing to guarantee anything. The Board of
Control will not approve expunging the "plan," so it is
better to write new language to accompany this
proposal; this would supersede the "plan."
Senator Shonnard stated that we don't know the rate
of salary increase or health care cost increase and asked
if we could avoid having this new program "cast in
stone." Bornhorst responded that the Provost has never
ruled out a 3+3 plan; this isn't a final solution. The
Provost agreed.
Senator Santeford stated that this is only intended as
a Medigap coverage, but the age of Medicare eligibility
is being pushed back, so we could lose our coverage; we
must plan to cover costs of an additional $1-2000.
Senator Gale asked if the Provost was saying that the
Board would not approve expunging the "plan." Did he
have any assurance that his proposal would be
approved? Dobney stated that he thinks he can get the
Board approval, based on conversations he has had with
individual Board members. Then he will write the
language to guarantee its provisions.
Gilles expressed concern that the scenario presented
was based on an annual salary of $65,000, but lots of
people don't earn that much and won't have enough
money even with the added 4%.
Senator Arbabi stated that this proposal addresses
the concern that all the dollars be kept with MTU, but he
is concerned that the Fringe Benefits Committee has not
had a chance to examine the proposal and its
implications. Dobney acknowledged that the proposal
would not have reached this point had it not been for the
help from the Fringe Benefits Committee. Arbabi
agreed, but was concerned that there has been no dialog
on this final proposal. Dobney responded that he
already knows what the questions are and that he wants
to get on with this.
Suryanarayana asked if someone is already putting
the maximum amount into an SRA, must that person
then move 2% from the SRA contribution into the TIAA-CREF to get the matching money. Dobney responded
they must.
Senator Chavis asked if someone earning under
$65,000 would need to put in more money to cover
health care costs. Dobney responded that, yes, these
people are at a disadvantage. If you earn more than
$65,000 you get more than the scenario; if you earn less
than that, you get less.
Dobney stated that in his presentation to the Board
he will point out two considerations that make the plan
financially sound: 1. it limits liability to a maximum of
$6 million (down from $118 million) and 2. it is financed
in the salary pool. Board members are reasonable and
will see the advantages of this proposal.
Suryanarayana asked why the Provost is requiring
matching money. Dobney responded that fewer than
half of those eligible are contributing to SRA's; this
requirement makes people do what is right.
B. Discussion of Proposed New Constitution and
Bylaws
President Bornhorst stated that the only concern
conveyed to him regarding the proposed Constitution
was that regarding the status of the Library.
Senator Nordberg stated that the members of the
Library have an interest in curricular issues. They spend
$1.5 million each year to support academic programs.
Although members of the library do not generate many
credit hours, they spend lots of time in one-on-one
instruction with students. They have more than 3000
student contacts in formal instruction per term, with over
100 sections of students represented, especially in
chemistry, physical sciences, and forestry. Their staff
mostly have higher degrees, whereas only half the staff
in Physical Education (included in the academic group
in the Constitution) have more than a B.S. degree.
Therefore, the members of the Library are asking to be
double-listed like the members of the Physical Education
Department. Vice President Soldan pointed out that
members of IT would have a similar role. Nordberg
countered that members of IT do not contribute in a
subject-specific way. Senator Walck pointed out that
personnel in Student Affairs have a similar role and we
must draw the line somewhere. The issue relates to who
can vote on particular issues. Academic units vote on
everything but the non-academic issues; if they are also
non-academic, they can vote on both.
Senator Vichich stated that if some units are double-listed, then the library should be because it believes it
should be, unless we can give a good reason why it
should not be.
Senator Whitt asked if there can be subgroups within
a unit for voting purposes. Bornhorst responded that
such a subgrouping was not covered in the Constitution.
Nordberg stated that the Executive Committee will
classify each proposal, so the Constitution does in fact
rule out subgrouping.
Senator Reed asked if the Senate still would have the
option to change the recommended voting units on a
proposal. Bornhorst responded that it would be the
burden of the floor to object to a ruling, but the objection
must be based on constitutional interpretation.
Reed asked if academic units could vote on staff only
issues. Bornhorst responded that they could not.
Senator Pegg stated that it makes no sense to include
Physical Education and ROTC but not include the
Library. Senator Keen responded that the distinction
was based on academic title. Pegg responded that
maybe we should use different criteria. Keen responded
that if we used other criteria, we could make a strong
argument to include members of IT and other units on
campus.
Whitt stated that there is often a clash between titles
and what people actually do; she asked if any thought
had been given to more selective categories for groups.
She admitted that it would cause more arguments on the
floor of the Senate, but if a group is clearly a part of and
affected by an issue, we could let that group vote on the
issue. Bornhorst stated that some of the language and
restrictions were based on the compromise made four
years ago.
Senator Melton asked if a unit could petition to vote
on an item. Bornhorst responded that they could not.
Keen added that the nature of the proposal would
determine who could vote, but the voting units included
must be based on the list set forth in the Constitution.
Pegg stated that in the old Constitution the President
suggested the units and we would vote on those units;
we need to continue that flexibility.
Whitt stated that we can design the Constitution
based on the worst case scenario or we can be optimistic.
We should avoid being too restrictive.
Secretary Glime stated that some things are the
responsibility of the tenure-track faculty, whereas others
include responsibilities of other course-offering units.
Perhaps there are issues where a grouping of course-offering units is appropriate.
C. Academic Policy Committee Bruce Seely
The report was canceled because Bruce Seely could
not be at the meeting.
D. Report from the Instructional Policy Committee
Bob Keen
Senator Keen reported that the issue of the Academic
Calendar has arisen again. He sees two issues that need
to be settled: 1. How do faculty feel about it. 2. What
effect does it have on students. He stated that the
response of 60% of the faculty that we usually get is not
acceptable for such an important issue; the committee
would consider a 95% response to be acceptable and
would ask Senators to help in achieving this.
The committee envisions a 2-part questionnaire.
Part 1 would ask what would be the best possible
academic calendar if there were no cost involved. Part 2
would ask what would be the preferred calendar, given
the "significant" cost in time and dollars to implement
change. Keen acknowledged the help of Willie Melton
(Social Sciences) in drafting the survey presented.
Senator Walck stated that the questionnaire was cast
in negative language and that it should be reworked to
be positive.
Leifer (Chemistry) stated that "significant cost" is
vague language.
Secretary Glime stated that the impetus for changing
is that semesters are supposed to be better educationally;
we need data on ways semesters are better. Lacking
data, people will make their own judgment of which is
better based primarily on their own experience in schools
where they have been previously compared to here and
most will select the system under which they learned
because they try to fit their courses into that familiar
format.
Senator Suryanarayana asked what the purpose is
for asking part 1 when the decision must be based on
part 2.
Senator Sandberg stated that the decision will never
be based on anything rational; if 80% of the faculty want
semesters, then we should know that.
Senator Mroz said we should "let the survey fly."
We are the only public institution in the state still on
quarters; quarters are a real headache for students when
they want to transfer credits.
Walck agreed that the questionnaire should provide
information on the benefits of semesters.
President Bornhorst asked Senators to send their
comments to Keen.
Senator Vichich asked if the survey would go only to
the academic faculty; changing would have significant
impacts on the registrar's office and housing.
Keen responded that the calendar is clearly stated as
a faculty responsibility.
Bornhorst added that it wouldn't hurt to survey
everybody.
7. OLD BUSINESS
A. Proposal 30-95: Revision of Proposal 17-94, Policy
on Academic Freedom [See minutes, pages 5718 and
6727, for a copy of this proposal.]
Gale MOVED and Shonnard seconded the motion to
accept the revision dated 12/10/96.
Gale MOVED and Mroz seconded the motion to
delete the last sentence of paragraph 3 which states, "In
the classroom, faculty are entitled to freedom of
discussion in their areas of expertise, but have the
responsibility to avoid introducing controversial material
which has no relation to classroom subject matter."
Senator Pegg asked why we needed to delete the
entire sentence and not just the last part.
Mroz stated that the previous sentence covered it.
Walck stated that she would prefer to have the sentence
stop after "discussion" and exclude the words "in their
areas of expertise." Why can they have freedom of
discussion only in their areas of expertise?
Senator Chavis stated that a university should be
open for discussion in all areas because that is part of
learning.
Roelant (USG) responded that he had a professor
who spent two days in an SS course discussing politics
that were not related to the course.
Senator Sandberg stated that we must strike a
balance between the idea that we can't say anything
controversial and giving someone the right to spend ten
weeks talking about duck hunting and muzzle loaders in
a computer science class; students deserve something
better.
Senator Shonnard stated that if we restrict discussion
to that pertaining to the class, we could eliminate a lot of
useful discussion. If students do not like the political
discussion, they don't need to partake in it; the
discussion will soon end if students don't participate.
Furthermore, students evaluate professors, and
professors will soon get the message that students
consider this inappropriate. Restricting what professors
can say will do more harm than allowing the freedom to
open up the discussion. We don't restrict what students
can ask in class, but we are asking the faculty to be
restricted.
Even a statistics class could discuss the application
of a particular statistical test to the issue of abortion.
Carstens stated that if he gets off the subject, the
students are not getting what they want and paid for.
Nevertheless, this morning he asked how many had seen
the comet. He would not want to be restricted from such
discussions.
Senator Suryanarayana stated that he was not happy
with the terminology "freedom of discussion in their
areas of expertise." He felt it would be better to change
it to "freedom to discuss topics of relevance to course
objectives."
Schemm (GSC) stated that his concern is that if we
strike this language, he, now as a GTA, can not only
bring up abortion in his 4th term programming class, but
he can espouse his views without allowing any
opportunity for discussion; it can become a political
forum. Sure, his students can write really nasty
evaluations at the end of the term, and his department
head will see them and maybe something will even be
done, but the damage has already been done and their
tuition dollars have been wasted.
Whitt asked if the 12/10/96 version was from the
Provost or from Jim Gale. Bornhorst responded that the
two of them had worked on it together and the Provost
had approved it. Whitt expressed concern about the
exclusion, based on the Provost's memo of 27 November
1996, of the last paragraph of Proposal 30-95, which ties
academic freedom with the system of tenure. The
Provost, in that memo, viewed the tie between academic
freedom and tenure as unnecessary.
Sandberg agreed that Whitt's concern was a really
important issue, but that a different motion was on the
floor.
Keen MOVED and Sloan seconded the motion to
adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:31 p.m. with an
open motion on the floor to amend the motion to accept
revisions dated 12/10/96 to Proposal 30-95, Policy on
Academic Freedom.
Respectfully Submitted by Janice M. Glime
Secretary of the Senate