THE SENATE OF MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL
UNIVERSITY
Minutes of Meeting 273
2 April 1997
Synopsis: The Senate
(1) passed several amendments to the Provost's changes
to Proposal 30-95, Policy on Academic Freedom,
reinstating its link with tenure and removing
ambiguous language regarding their behavior as
citizens.
(2) heard President Bornhorst report that the Board had
concurred on the Provost's TIAA-CREF retiree
health care plan and that the Administration is
moving forward with it.
(3) approved the slate of nominees for Senator-at-Large:
Barna, Flynn, Santeford, Reed, and Drummer.
(4) agreed to let the Instructional Policy Committee
survey the faculty regarding semesters vs quarters.
(5) heard a report from Bruce Seely regarding school
closing and weather advisories.
(6) made editorial changes to the proposed revisions of
the Constitution.
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
President Bornhorst called the Senate Meeting 273 to
order at 5:32 p.m. on Wednesday, 2 April 1997, in Room
B45 of the Electrical Energy Resources Center.
Secretary Glime called roll. Absent were at-large
Senator Henry Santeford and representatives from ME-EM, Army/Air Force ROTC, and KRC. Liaisons in
attendance were Geoff Roelant (USG) and Ted Soldan
(Staff Council).
2. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS
Guests included Marcia Goodrich (Tech Topics).
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
President Bornhorst requested that items 7 and 8 be
renumbered to 8 and 9 and that a new item 7 be inserted
in the agenda. The new item 7, New Business, would
introduce Proposals 11-97 and 12-97.
Pegg MOVED and Vichich 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. OPEN MOTION TO APPROVE PROPOSAL 30-95:
REVISION OF PROPOSAL 17-94, POLICY ON
ACADEMIC FREEDOM [See minutes, pages 5718 and
6727, for a copy of this proposal.]
Discussion continued on the modifications of
Proposal 30-95 requested by the Provost, dated
12/10/97.
President Bornhorst reminded the Senate that the
voting units were Academic Departments. There is an
open motion on the floor to amend the proposal by
striking the last sentence in the third paragraph of the
revision, which reads "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 Whitt raised concern that the language is
vague and could be construed by a lawyer in a way that
would not favor the faculty member.
After discussion ended, the motion to amend
PASSED on voice vote with no dissent.
Whitt expressed concern that the Provost had
dropped the last paragraph of the original proposal
where academic freedom is linked to tenure. Whitt
MOVED and Sandberg seconded the motion to retain the
last paragraph from Proposal 30-95 by adding it to the
end of the document of 12/10/96. That paragraph states
"The system of tenure should be designed to be
compatible with the concept of academic freedom for
faculty. In the event of a conflict between the policy on
academic freedom and the tenure policy, the policy on
academic freedom takes precedence. Moreover, the
tenure policy shall be construed to promote academic
freedom."
Senator Gale expressed concern that it is not clear if
this policy protects untenured faculty. It should protect
both tenured and untenured people, and it is unclear if
this paragraph protects untenured faculty. Pegg
expressed agreement with Whitt to include the
paragraph; we need to protect academic tenure because
it is being threatened in many universities.
Discussion ended. The motion to amend by adding
the last paragraph from the original Proposal 30-95
PASSED on voice vote with no dissent.
Senator Leifer asked for a copy of the new Academic
Freedom Statement. Bornhorst responded that it could
be sent to the Senators.
Senator Walck inquired whether we are officers, as
stated in paragraph 4. Senator Seely responded that it is
the language used by Harvard. Walck responded that at
Harvard all faculty are designated as officers.
Whitt suggested substituting the word
"representatives" for "officers." Walck suggested
"employees" instead.
Vice President Soldan countered that the sense of the
sentence is that we are MORE than employees. Whitt
responded that if we can't speak for the institution, it
reinforces the point that we are not acting in our role as
an employee. Senator Sandberg argued that the whole
community is part of the university community.
Walck MOVED and Whitt seconded the motion to
substitute the word "employees" for "officers" in the first
sentence of the fourth paragraph, to read "Faculty are
citizens, members of a learned profession, and
employees of an educational institution."
Marcia Goodrich (Tech Topics) asked if officer is part
and parcel of the institution, and if so, shouldn't the term
employee be okay. However, if the sense is educator,
then the term employee doesn't do it. Whitt responded
that in the third sentence of paragraph 4, "scholars and
educators" seemed more appropriate than "scholars and
"employees." Walck agreed. Bornhorst ruled this as a
change to the motion. There were no objections.
Senator Reed asked if we really are officers. Seely
responded that Harvard is a corporation, but that in a
state university the officer designation does not fit.
Senator Keen asked if we could substitute "educator"
for "officers of the educational institution." Walck
responded that the intent is to distinguish between
freedom as a citizen and as an MTU employee.
Discussion ended. The amendment to change
"officer" to "employee" in the first sentence of paragraph
4 and to change "educational officers" to "educators" in
the third sentence PASSED on voice vote with dissent.
Walck stated that there were problems with the
whole last paragraph. She recommended that the second
sentence should end after "discipline" to read "When
they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from
institutional censorship or discipline." She felt that the
meaning is not clear for the second part of the sentence,
"but their special position in the community imposes
special obligations." What is special about it? Why do
we need to be reminded in this document that the public
may judge our profession and our institution by our
utterances. She criticized the last sentence, saying, "God
forbid that I could be held to being at all times accurate."
The phrase "should make every effort to indicate that
they are not speaking for the institution" belongs with
the clause "when they speak or write as citizens." Whitt
agreed that the paragraph could be construed in all
kinds of ways that are quite damaging. Whitt MOVED
and Walck seconded the motion to strike the fourth
paragraph after the word "discipline" in the second
sentence.
Senator Shonnard agreed and expressed that the
fourth paragraph seems to restate what is already stated
in paragraph 3 regarding responsibility. The last
paragraph seems to be a repeat.
Senator Gale explained that the added paragraph (4)
had come from the Provost.
Whitt stated that it was important to keep the second
sentence. Goodrich (Tech Topics) explained that letters to
the editor often identify a person as a member of the
faculty and therefore put a "mantle of respect" on what
is written that perhaps doesn't belong there. The
paragraph is intended to avoid misunderstandings such
as this. Keen commented that even the faculty had great
difficulty distinguishing between a letter written by
Denice Logan, Board of Control member, and Denice
Logan, private citizen.
Senator Pegg added that it is not our duty to protect
the citizens who don't understand the difference. Leifer
agreed.
Discussion ended. The motion to amend by striking
all of paragraph 4 after the word "discipline" in the
second sentence PASSED on voice vote with dissent.
There was no further discussion. President
Bornhorst ruled that the changes were more than
editorial so that the main motion had to wait until the
next meeting before voting. It will be at the top of the
agenda of the next meeting. A new, edited copy will be
provided. There was no objection.
5. REPORT FROM SENATE PRESIDENT
President Bornhorst reported that the Board met 14
March through a conference call and that he was just a
listener - he did not make a report. The Board concurred
on the TIAA-CREF retiree health care plan presented by
the Provost, so the Administration is moving forward
with it.
Bornhorst explained that nominations for Senator-at-Large do not officially close until the Senate accepts the
slate of nominees and that the officers have in the past
attempted to provide a slate with multiple choices. The
nominees are Bruce Barna (Chem Eng), Tom Drummer
(Math Sci), Beth Flynn (Humanities), Dave Reed
(Forestry), Henry Santeford (Civil & Env Eng). There
will be two Senators elected.
Mroz MOVED and Seely seconded the motion to
close the nominations. The motion PASSED on voice
vote with no dissent.
Instructional Policy Committee. President
Bornhorst reported that the Instructional Policy
Committee had reworked the calendar survey. Senate
Assistant Meyers distributed the new survey form to the
Senators. The committee has incorporated Senate
suggestions and Senator Walck helped in the wording of
the survey. The survey will be printed with machine-scorable forms. It will be given to Faculty Senators to
distribute and collect, then returned to the Senate
Assistant. Senators will be responsible for getting all the
votes of their constituents; the Senate Assistant will be
responsible for "nagging" the Senators and the Senators
will be responsible for "nagging" their constituents.
Senator Mroz asked if any consideration had been
given to a longer January break; there could be
considerable savings on snow removal and other daily
costs. Others reminded him that staff still have to be on
campus. Senator Seely added that MIT has all of January
off and faculty can do other things, including teach
courses that range in duration from one day to the entire
month.
Senator Chavis asked if the staff would also be
polled. Keen responded that the purpose of the survey
is to address the educational aspects of changing to
semesters. Bornhorst added that other aspects would be
considered after the survey, if the faculty supported
change.
Senator Whitt added that she found the January
term to be very valuable.
Whitt suggested interchanging questions 2 and 3 in
both parts so that the questions are in the sequence of
quarter, quarter, semester instead of the semester
question being in the middle.
Senator Pegg asked why there were two sets of
questions when the second set asked the same ones as
the first. Keen responded that the committee wanted to
separate the financial considerations from the
educational ones. Senator Sweany suggested adding a
fourth option of 4-1-4.
Seely commented that some schools on the 4-1-4
calendar have a 14-week semester and end the second or
third week of May.
Senator Nesbitt stated that you can do it with a 16-week semester and end the middle of May.
Walck reminded the Senate that the important
question was to distinguish faculty sentiment toward
quarters vs semesters and if we add other options it
would confuse that issue. Perhaps we should strike the
"early January" part of the question.
Seely stated that the date of the beginning and end
of the academic year are important considerations for
many people [for academic reasons]. Keen responded
that the committee is aiming to find out if there is strong
support for a change. If there is no strong support, then
the other parts of that question are not an option.
Whitt suggested we could add a third part to deal
with options within semesters, assuming semesters were
desirable.
Senator Reed agreed with Keen that the other
versions of the options would confuse the primary
options, but that there should be only two options.
Keen responded that some people really like
quarters but hate the winter break. Reed agreed that it
would then be appropriate to leave the dates in with the
semester as well.
Senator Gale asked if we get a vote of 30-40-30%,
then how would we evaluate it. Keen responded that the
choices would be ranked so that it should make the
preferences clear.
Seely stated that we should leave the proposal as it
is because the committee had obviously considered all
these issues.
Senator Leifer reminded the Senate that we still had
not solved one problem, that the statement it is "costly"
does not indicate how costly it is. We keep hearing we
are in a very tight financial situation.
Keen stated that someone can indicate they like the
change in part 1 but could consider any amount over
$1000 to be too high to support the change, as indicated
in part 2.
Senator McKimpson asked if the questionnaire could
indicate more flexibility in the question on semesters,
such as "most likely to begin..."
Senator Sandberg urged the Senate to let the survey
go as it is.
Senator Vichich suggested rearranging items 2 and
3 with the new question 3 asking about semesters with
no dates given. Bornhorst suggested the committee
consider better wording for item 2 and putting it after
the present item 3.
Bornhorst asked if there were any objections to
letting the Committee go forward with the questionnaire.
There were none.
6. COMMITTEE BUSINESS/REPORTS
Academic Policy Committee Bruce Seely [Appendix
B]
Senator Seely summarized the Committee's
discussions regarding weather advisories. Their overall
conclusion is that the best choice is either to close or
remain open. However, there are conditions in which
closing is not a clear choice. To prepare for such days,
each faculty member should inform students of
expectations should a weather advisory be issued; such
information should be included in the syllabus.
President Bornhorst asked if the Committee intended
to change the language and provide the Senate with a
proposal. Seely responded that the committee is looking
for the sense of the Senate before making a formal
proposal.
Senator Leifer stated that he sees nothing wrong
with a policy that says the university is closed due to
weather or the university is not closed due to weather.
If it is closed, it is closed for students and faculty and
emergency personnel must report for work. Senator
Vichich agreed; he managed to drive to KI Sawyer 100
miles away when students 12 miles away did not make
it.
Secretary Glime stated that a weather advisory tells
students what options they have and that work can be
made up, whereas having classes during bad weather
with no advisory provides students no assurance they
can make up what has been missed and may take a risk
that shouldn't be taken.
Vice President Soldan stated that Staff Council is
also looking at this issue and has proposed that the
advisory section of the policy be deleted.
Senator Walck asked why the committee had
decided to retain the weather advisory. Seely responded
that it retains the same construction as the existing
policy, but that the committee tried to clarify it. The logic
did not seem to fit what had been happening.
Glime added that for her courses there is no lab time
available for 40 students to make up a lab and both
sections meet the same day, but arrangements can be
made for 3-4 students to come to the Learning Center
and someone can be there to help that small number.
Seely stated that some members of the committee
had expressed the same problems as those stated by
Glime.
Senator Kitalong stated that one problem is that the
radio station announces that the weather advisory means
that classes are optional. Senator Pegg countered that
careful language should be provided by the instructor to
explain the policy for that course.
Senator Nordberg expressed that there is concern
about university liability and concern for the other
employees of the university.
Leifer asked how an advisory can help if Kitalong is
right.
Glime responded that her attendance on the day of
an advisory was the same as on other days. Leifer
countered that he had only 12 students there in a class of
100.
Keen stated that clarification and options should be
put in the faculty (and student) handbook.
Bornhorst suggested that the committee provide a
proposal to modify the weather advisory as expressed in
the memo. The issue of whether or not there should be
an advisory at all can be dealt with by the full Senate.
7. NEW BUSINESS
President Bornhorst introduced Proposals 11-97,
Recommendation on Retirement Health Benefit Fund,
and 12-97, Recommendation to Change the Eligibility
Conditions of Section 6.3.1 of the Faculty Handbook.
[Appendices C and D]
8. OLD BUSINESS
A. Proposal 10-97: Amendment of Senate Constitution
and Bylaws [See minutes, page 6873, for a copy of this
proposal.]
President Bornhorst called for a motion to approve
the revised Constitution and announced that we may
need a special meeting to accomplish the second
approval that is required by the Constitution.
Mroz MOVED and Sandberg seconded the motion
to approve the revised Constitution.
Senator Keen pointed out two editorial changes in
the distributed copy. On p. 7, item H.3, it should be
meetings instead of meeting. On p. 8, item K.10.e should
be removed because it is covered in item K.11.a.
Bornhorst ruled these editorial changes to be made and
there were no objections.
Senator Nordberg questioned why Article IV.A.5
does not include the entire constituency as it does now.
Bornhorst responded that the current Senator-at-large is
selected from among the faculty, but that the entire
constituency votes.
Senator Pegg asked for clarification of Article II.A.1.
Bornhorst explained that it admits as a constituent
anyone who has the equivalent of a full-time
appointment, so that a person working 3/4 time for 12
months would be a constituent for that year.
Senator Walck asked for clarification of "coaching
staff" in Article II.A.4. Keen responded that those people
appointed as coach in the Athletic Department may also
instruct, but that even those who do not instruct are
included. Vichich suggested the wording should be
"athletic coaches" [to exclude such titles as learning
center coach]. President Bornhorst ruled it as an editorial
change. There was no objection.
Walck asked where the 11 units in Article II.B.1.c.1
were defined. Secretary Glime suggested adding the
words "as defined in the bylaws."
Senator Vichich suggested taking out the "eleven" to
allow for re-organization later. Walck responded that
the concern was to maintain the number of eleven non-academic representatives. Keen added that the Senate
would arrange the membership to maintain eleven
representation units; they will not necessarily correspond
to organizational units.
Pegg asked if this meant there would be 11 senators.
Bornhorst responded yes, and that adding to c1 "as
defined in the bylaws" clarifies the intent.
Walck stated that c3 should be first under II.B.1.c,
with c1 and c2 renumbered.
Bornhorst ruled that c3 would be placed first and c1
and c2 renumbered. There were no objections.
Vichich stated that the new c1 should read "There
shall be eleven non-academic units. Two of the units
shall be the Library and Physical Education; the other
nine shall be composed as defined in the bylaws." Walck
stated that c3 should still be stated first. Bornhorst
clarified that then the section would place c3 as c1 and
the present c1 would become c2 and read as stated by
Vichich. Walck asked that the new c2 include a
statement that the units may not correspond with
reporting units. Keen responded that the statement can
be pulled from the bylaws and put here, to read "The
groupings of the non-academic units are only for Senate
representation. The reporting structures of constituents
within any one unit may differ." Bornhorst ruled that
these changes would be made. There were no objections.
Pegg asked for clarification of "composition" in the
new c1. Bornhorst responded that it could be individuals
or groups, as needed to constitute 11 units.
Walck asked why Article III.A. had been changed
from the previous version. Keen responded that the
Senate doesn't speak for the membership, i.e. "it doesn't
speak for me." Glime suggested retaining the first line of
the previous Constitution, to read "The Senate is the
representative body for its constituents."
Keen responded that the Senate does not speak on
all matters and that he will speak for himself. Senator
Sloan agreed that we need to state that we represent.
Walck stated that we speak when we pass proposals.
Pegg added that he understands Keen's concern, but that
he interprets the wording to mean speak for the body,
not the individual.
Keen responded that Article II establishes that the
Senate is representative. Senator Leifer stated that even
if a law is stupid, you must obey it, even if it doesn't
speak for you individually. He respectfully disagreed
with Keen on this constitutional matter. Keen responded
that in passing the law, the body didn't speak for him.
Sloan stated that Article II doesn't call the Senate a
representative body [as stated earlier by Keen].
Senator Kitalong stated that the Senate speaks "on
behalf" of its constituents on matters under its
jurisdiction.
Whitt stated that the intent is to designate this as
THE representative body.
Sandberg stated that the Senate can do something on
his behalf even if he violently disagrees with it.
Bornhorst restated the suggested revision to add at the
beginning of Article III.A "The Senate is the
representative body for its constituents and speaks on
their behalf on matters under the Senate's jurisdiction." Pegg countered that the Senate should be able to
discuss other matters. Mroz MOVED and Leifer
seconded the motion to add "The Senate is the
representative body for its constituents and speaks on
their behalf on matters under the Senate's jurisdiction"
to item III.A.
Senator Gale stated that we should not change the
wording presented in the revised constitution; the
Republicans do not speak for the Democrats.
Goodrich (Tech Topics) asked where this leaves staff
constituents. Leifer responded that they aren't OUR
constituents.
Sloan responded to Gale that we don't have a party
system and she would like to think that representatives
do things on her behalf.
Bornhorst responded to Goodrich that in terms of
University policy the Senate represents the professional
staff.
Glime reiterated Whitt's point that this is THE
representative body for its constituents and that no other
body can take on that role.
Discussion ended. The motion to include at the
beginning of III.A. the statement "The Senate is the
representative body for its constituents and speaks on
their behalf on matters under the Senate's jurisdiction"
from the previous version of the Constitution PASSED
on voice vote with dissent.
Walck suggested that changes only should
accompany the next agenda.
Vichich MOVED and Sandberg seconded the motion
to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by Janice M. Glime
Secretary of the Senate