THE SENATE OF MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL
UNIVERSITY
Minutes of Meeting 274
16 April 1997
Synopsis: The Senate
(1) approved an amended Proposal 30-95, Revision of
Proposal 17-94, Policy on Academic Freedom.
(2) unanimously approved an amended Proposal 10-97,
Amendment of the Senate Constitution and Bylaws.
(3) heard from President Bornhorst that he sent a
proposal for a BS in Computer Engineering and one
for an Earth Science Education Option to the
Curricular Policy Committee.
(4) heard that the officers had decided to hold a special
meeting, following the regular meeting, at 7:35 p.m.
on 30 April to hear a report on the budget from
Provost Dobney and to discuss the budget.
(5) approved the resolution from the Research Policy
Committee to establish a research advisory board.
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
President Bornhorst called the Senate Meeting 274 to
order at 5:32 p.m. on Wednesday, 16 April 1997, in Room
B45 of the Electrical Energy Resources Center.
Secretary Glime called roll. Absent were at-large
senator Christa Walck, and representatives from Civil &
Env Eng, School of Technology, Army/Air Force ROTC,
and IMP. Liaisons in attendance were Geoff Roelant
(USG), Evan Schemm (GSC), and Ted Soldan (Staff
Council).
2. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS
Guests included Marcia Goodrich (Tech Topics), and
Les Leifer (Chemistry).
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Pegg MOVED and McKilligan seconded the motion
to approve the agenda. 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 271-273
Williams MOVED and Nesbitt seconded the motion
to approve the minutes of meeting 271. The motion
PASSED on voice vote with no dissent.
Seely MOVED and Reed seconded the motion to
approve the minutes of meeting 272. The motion
PASSED on voice vote with no dissent.
Regarding the minutes of Meeting 273, Senator
Whitt asked that the wording in the second column on
page 6835 be modified to reflect the emphasis that the
Senate is THE representative body, and to change the
word "reiterated." Paragraph 7 of that column will be
amended to read "Whitt stated that the intent is to
designate this as THE representative body."
Nesbitt MOVED and Sweany seconded the motion
to approve the minutes of Meeting 273 as amended. The
motion PASSED on voice vote with no dissent.
5. A. OPEN MOTION TO APPROVE PROPOSAL
30-95: REVISION OF PROPOSAL 17-94, POLICY ON
ACADEMIC FREEDOM [Appendix B]
Senator Keen reported that his constituents were
concerned about the wording of paragraph 3. Keen
MOVED and Whitt seconded the motion to delete the
words "consideration of the opinions and circumstances
of others." He indicated that it could eliminate all
discussion because it might offend.
Vice President Soldan responded that it doesn't
mean that you can't discuss, just consider; it seems much
weaker if that wording is removed.
Senator Nordberg agreed that to consider other
opinions doesn't mean you must cow tow to them.
Senator Whitt responded that this very discussion
indicates the danger of that kind of vague language that
could be interpreted in a variety of different ways and
this will in some instances be used in a legal context; we
want to be sure that the vague language is not going to
work against us or the people we represent.
Nordberg responded that we continue to be vexed
by the litigation issue. Although lawyers do ultimately
interpret documents, if we go down that road, where do
we stop.
Keen stated that President Bornhorst could rule
everyone who spoke out of order because they disagree
with his opinion.
Whitt stated that this IS a legal document, so we
can't ignore that fact.
Soldan stated that he finds himself in this position
very often where we are trying to second guess lawyers;
having no legal background, he always has difficulty
with that. We should do the best we can as a Senate to
try to express how WE feel. Lawyers will disagree no
matter how careful we are; he feels we should forget all
that.
Whitt responded that we can't do that; we are elected
to represent and to reflect on policy. This wording could
be used against people we represent.
Senator Shonnard stated that this wording is not
inconsistent with our roles; we must consider and listen
to other opinions.
Senator Pegg stated that we must do the best we can
do with the legal language and this wording has legal
implications.
Senator Seely stated that the Senate seems to be in
agreement with the spirit of the wording and asked if the
people who don't like the wording could suggest new
wording.
Keen responded that the last part of the sentence
really covers the same issue: "and support of high
standards of ethical and professional behavior." He
added that biologists discuss topics such as evolution
that are offensive to some people, but that these topics
should still be permitted in the classroom.
The motion to amend PASSED on voice vote with no
dissent.
Bornhorst ruled that this constitutes more than an
editorial change. Whitt MOVED and Sloan seconded the
motion to treat this as an emergency proposal. Bornhorst
ruled that the voting units would be academic degree-granting departments. There was no objection. The
motion to consider this as an emergency proposal
PASSED 16 yes to 4 no by secret ballot.
The motion to approve proposal 30-95 as amended
PASSED on voice vote with no dissent.
5. B. OPEN MOTION TO APPROVE PROPOSAL 10-97: AMENDMENT OF SENATE CONSTITUTION
AND BYLAWS [Appendix C. See minutes, page 6873,
for a copy of this proposal.]
Nordberg MOVED and Pegg seconded the motion to
add the library to the list of Academic Departments
under II.A. of the Bylaws. (It would therefore be double-listed as both academic and non-academic).
Senator Keen responded that this would have a
curious result on page 2/9 (IIB1a). There are now only
two members of the library with academic titles and
when they are no longer on the library staff, the Senator
would represent a unit that had no constituents.
Nordberg stated that the creation of the "other
course-offering units" was to acknowledge that the
library had an academic role in the institution.
Senator Whitt mentioned that several weeks ago we
had discussed the issue and she stated that the library
and Department of Physical Education could go either
way, giving them votes in both categories.
Vice President Soldan stated that we need to vote on
the Constitution first or we could have conflicting
Bylaws.
Senator Reed stated that other units (PE, etc.) don't
have academic titles and asked how the library differed.
Keen responded that the Committee had spent
several hours discussing how to treat the PE department.
That department generates more credit hours than many
academic departments. Many persons have
appointments as staff, so clearly that unit represents both
concerns.
Bornhorst added that currently IWR is under
academic degree-granting units and other research units.
That same Senator represents only the instructors if the
issue is an instructional issue.
Secretary Glime questioned how the library could
represent two people if they were not one of those two
people.
Bornhorst responded that that was another issue, but
that if a person were the elected representative that
person would represent those two just like IWR.
Senator Nordberg suggested that section IIB1a
should be changed to reflect that the academic units are
listed in the Bylaws.
Bornhorst responded that it is not necessary to
change Article II of the Constitution because it would
operate like it does for the IWR and Physical Education.
Keen asked Soldan how many instructors are in IT.
Soldan responded that many teach but that their
academic appointments are all in other departments.
Senator Kitalong pointed out that she holds the title
of Lecturer in Humanities, but that as Senator she
represents staff in several units.
Whitt stated that we are trying to impose fairly rigid
limits on the representation, but that there are a number
of groups that are in between the academic and staff
with respect to issues. It should be more flexible.
Bornhorst stated that if we add the library, all the
units with mixed roles will be double-listed if applicable.
There was no further discussion. The motion to
amend the proposed Bylaws by adding the library to the
academic units PASSED on voice vote with dissent.
There was no further discussion. Bornhorst ruled
that the amendment was not editorial. Nordberg
MOVED and Mroz seconded the motion to treat this as
an emergency proposal. The motion to treat the
amended Proposal 10-97 as an emergency proposal
PASSED by secret ballot, 30 yes to 4 no.
The Constitution vote required the original voting
units that were designated when the Constitution went
into effect. This included the academic degree-granting,
other course-offering, other research units, plus the three
designated non-academic units. The designated
representatives of those units are Senators Betty Chavis,
Ted Soldan, and Karla Kitalong.
Proposal 10-97 to revise the Constitution and Bylaws
as amended PASSED on voice vote with no dissent. It
will be on the top of the agenda for the next meeting to
meet the requirement of a second vote by the Senate; if
passed, it will go to the constituents.
6. REPORT FROM SENATE PRESIDENT
President Bornhorst reminded the Senators that at-large ballots are due on 18 April and the Calendar
survey is due 23 April. Several units have completed
the survey.
Bornhorst reported that he has received Proposal 13-97, BS in Computer Engineering, which he sent to the
Curricular Policy Committee on 7 April. The department
has requested that it be at the top of the agenda of the
last Senate meeting if it is recommended by the
Curricular Policy Committee. [Appendix D]
Bornhorst reported that Proposal 17-97 for an Earth
Science Education option in the BS Degree in Geology
was forwarded to the Curricular Policy Committee on 14
April. [Appendix E]
Questions regarding the Academic Integrity
proposal were sent to the Instructional Policy Committee
on 7 April. [Appendix F]
A memo regarding the SS&E budgets has been
forwarded to the Budget Subcommittee of the Finance
Committee. The memo will come to the Senators by E-mail tomorrow. [Appendix G]
On 10 April President Bornhorst had lunch with
President Tompkins and devoted 45 minutes of
discussion to the topic of the 1% realignment.
The next Senate meeting will be held 30 April. The
officers have discussed the agenda and decided that
rather than have an additional meeting, the 30 April
meeting will be held 5:30 to 7:30 p.m., then be followed
by a special budget meeting to begin at 7:35. Provost
Dobney will present the budget at the special meeting,
followed by discussion. Since no proposals are
anticipated, discussion can continue as long as needed,
even if there is no longer a quorum.
Senator Suryanarayana asked what was the
President's thinking on the 1% realignment.
Bornhorst responded that the President expressed
that the hoped-for behavior had not occurred. He felt
that some sort of re-allocation was necessary, but there
was no conclusion as to how that should be handled.
Suryanarayana asked what behavioral change had
been expected. Bornhorst responded that the President
had been expecting some hard personnel decisions.
Senator Leifer suggested that they should re-allocate
some of the administrators.
7. COMMITTEE BUSINESS/REPORTS
Senator Reed, chair of the Research Policy
Committee, reported on the resolution (attached to
agenda 274) from the Research Policy Committee.
[Appendix H] The committee met with Sung Lee in
development of the resolution. MTU now has over $20
million per year in research activity, which is nearly as
much as is generated by tuition. The funding has tripled
in the last 10 years. Policies and procedures are lagging
behind. Therefore, there are lots of emergency decisions.
This group could provide a forum for discussion.
In addition to setting up an advisory committee, the
resolution makes six requests, based on the original
recommendations of the task force and the discussions of
that proposal in the Senate. The resolution eliminates
the Foundation and instead recommends the
establishment of an Advisory Board consisting of faculty
who do research and external advisors.
Senator Shonnard asked what would be the
assurance of any action if the Senate were to forward the
resolution.
Bornhorst responded that there would be none.
Mroz MOVED and Seely seconded the motion to
forward the resolution to the Administration. Mroz
stated that passing the resolution doesn't preclude doing
something more formal later.
Senator Leifer raised concern that the proposal from
the task force had been defeated and this resolution
seems to be an attempt to circumvent the earlier decision.
Bornhorst responded that the major objection to the
proposal had been the creation of a foundation; there is
no foundation in the resolution. No one complained
about any of the ideas that have been retained in the
resolution.
Secretary Glime added that the resolution comes
from a different committee, the Senate Research Policy
Committee.
Senator Whitt asked if there is any significance in
calling it a Board instead of a Committee. Reed
responded that it would function in a role similar to that
of the departmental advisory boards.
Senator Suryanarayana asked if this resolution
resulted from discontent to some research units.
Bornhorst responded that President Tompkins
formed the committee because he had received a number
of complaints. The task force worked two years on the
proposal.
Suryanarayana stated that the committee had
identified weaknesses in the existing structure.
Discussion ended. Bornhorst ruled that the voting
units were academic and other research units. There
were no objections. The motion PASSED on voice vote
with dissent.
8. NEW BUSINESS
President Bornhorst introduced Proposal 14-97:
Policy on Correcting Student Grades and Retention of
Student Work; Proposal 15-97: Recommendation for a
Marketing Survey on the Academic Calendar; and
Proposal 16-97: Minor Degrees. [Appendices I-K]
9. OLD BUSINESS
A. Proposal 4-97: Recommendation to Change
Administrative Procedures. [See minutes, page 6782,
for a copy of this proposal.]
Lutzke MOVED and Richter seconded the motion to
accept Proposal 4-97.
Senator Seely stated that removal of the "at will"
wording [on job applications] will not change the
philosophy of the institution. It could still go in the letter
of tender. We need to change the statement of
philosophy, which only the Board can change. We need
to treat all employees as "just cause" employees.
Senator Lutzke responded that the proposal has two
points; the second is to establish a committee to work on
a policy and guarantee in writing the right to a fair
hearing. Apparently the "at will" wording was added by
the attorney. We are not asking the University to give up
any rights or retain incompetent people. He said this is
a moral issue and he doesn't care what is being done at
other universities.
Senator Mroz asked if the language is in the letter
employees sign.
Lutzke responded that the language was new in
1987; prospective employees must relinquish their rights
before they can be employed.
Senator Dietlin, who came from employment where
anyone could be fired at will, stated that she found it
hard to accept the concept that people were entitled to a
job for life.
Lutzke responded that there is no guarantee of a job
for life; all the professional staff wanted was simple fair
treatment.
Senator Nordberg agreed.
Senator Richter agreed that under the proposed
change people could still be dismissed for just cause.
Senator Leifer stated that "at will" is offensive; it
could mean that someone could be fired for not wearing
a tie; we should ask the Senate President to take this
proposal to the Board of Control and ask the Board to
expunge the "at will" phrase.
Seely restated that he is not disagreeing with what
Lutzke is saying, but he reiterated that passing this
would not accomplish the goal. It will require direction
from the Board to change the philosophy.
Senator Whitt agreed that this proposal is not
adequate, but that its inadequacy is not an argument not
to pass it. If it doesn't work, then the Senate can consider
something more direct.
Vice President Soldan reported that the Staff Council
had discussed the Proposal and had suggested
modifying the first sentence to read "It is recommended
that the MTU Administration adopt the philosophy of just
cause and provide due process in instances of job security and
educational pursuits and direct the Human Resources
Department to delete the words, ..."
Senator Vichich stated that although some
individuals on campus do subscribe to "at will," the
Board of Control did not make that change.
Seely countered that the legal default would be "at
will" if nothing is specified.
Senator Keen stated that he was uncomfortable with
the proposal. He agreed that the language of "at will" is
atrocious, but that this would be like a stray pot shot at
the relationship between the Board and the lawyer. It is
like the saying that if you want to shoot the king, don't
miss because you probably won't get a second chance.
Lutzke agreed that the language is an abomination
and he is willing to do whatever is necessary to
accomplish the goal.
Leifer stated that at the last Board of Control
meeting, the Board lawyer Vercruysse stated that no
Board can guarantee for future Boards; he was called on
it because tenure is guaranteed, so the lawyer lied.
Leifer would fire a lawyer who lied. He re-emphasized
that President Bornhorst should go to the Board and tell
them that the wording is offensive. If the lawyer
recommends retaining it, then don't follow his advice.
Senator Santeford asked who in the upper
Administration favored keeping the wording as it is.
Seely stated that his sense is that no one does, but he
raised concern that if the language is changed without a
change in philosophy by the Board, then people will
believe that the philosophy is guaranteed. The present
administration seems to operate as if the language is
already "just cause," but that might not be the case in the
future.
Senator Kitalong agreed that if we take out the
language and do not change the philosophy, then people
will be misled.
Senator Vichich stated that until 1987 the
employment had been considered as just cause with due
process.
Soldan suggested we should vote on getting rid of
the "at will" wording, then consider the philosophy
change.
Senator Green stated that the states are divided
between "at will" states and "just cause" states; Michigan
is an "at will" state, so we might not be able to change
anything.
Vichich added that some people think there is a
property right to the employment as well. We can talk
about many issues, but the issue here is to get rid of this
wording.
Senator Whitt asked what happens next; she
assumed it would not need to go to the Board.
Bornhorst responded that it would go to the
Administration as a recommendation.
Senator Suryanarayana stated that there is already
a large segment of the University that can't be dismissed
"at will." That reflects the philosophy of the university
and the wording should be expunged to provide this
protection for everyone.
Secretary Glime responded to Green's statement that
Michigan is an "at will" state by saying that she finds
THAT to be one of the most compelling reasons to tell
them that we don't think that's right.
Seely stated that the wording Soldan had suggested
seemed to deal with the philosophy issue and requested
that it be read again.
Vichich MOVED and Seely seconded the motion to
modify the first sentence as read by Soldan from Staff
Council, "It is recommended that the MTU
Administration adopt the philosophy of just cause and
provide due process in instances of job security and
educational pursuits and direct the Human Resources
Department to delete the words, ..."
Mroz commented that the big increase in research
funding reported by Reed earlier in the meeting did not
come just from faculty; staff outnumber faculty almost
2:1 and contribute in many ways that facilitate research
productivity.
Pegg asked for clarification of "educational pursuits."
No one could explain.
Dietlin asked if adopting this language meant we
were inferring that we do not currently have a
philosophy of due process. Bornhorst agreed that that is
the implication. Soldan added that we just want a
guarantee by getting rid of the wording.
Consensus favored dropping the words "and
educational pursuits." President Bornhorst ruled to
strike the wording "and educational pursuits" from the
amendment. There was no objection. There was no
further discussion.
Bornhorst ruled that the full Senate would vote on
this issue; there was no objection.
The amendment to add the wording "adopt the
philosophy of just cause and provide due process in
instances of job security and" PASSED on voice vote with
no dissent.
Bornhorst ruled that the change was not editorial.
Reed stated that he thinks the change is editorial and
that the word "policy" needs to be changed to
"procedures" so that the second sentence would read, "It
is further recommended... to formulate appropriate
procedures to guarantee in writing..." Bornhorst ruled to
accept this editorial change.
Whitt asked how the select committee would be
selected. Lutzke responded that the assumption was the
Senate would select it.
Bornhorst ruled that the words "with a select
committee" be changed to read, "with an ad hoc Senate
committee," as an editorial change. There were no
objections.
Green asked if those who signed the application
with the "at will" statement during the last 10 years were
stuck with it. Bornhorst responded that if the University
and Board of Control adopt the philosophy, it would
change it for everybody.
Chavis asked if that would mean all those folks
would have to sign another contract.
Dietlin stated that if people have signed a legal
document on conditions of work, how does a change in
philosophy change what they have signed?
Bornhorst responded that if the Board of Control
adopts the philosophy, it would change the way the
University operates in all cases.
Bornhorst ruled that the changes were more than
editorial; there was no objection so Proposal 4-97, as
amended, will be near the top of the next agenda.
Vichich requested that a revised copy be included in
the packet for the next meeting. Bornhorst agreed.
B. Proposal 7-97: Recommendation to Change Section
6.3.1 of the Faculty Handbook. [See minutes, page 6844,
for a copy of this proposal.]
Pegg MOVED and Shonnard seconded the motion to
approve Proposal 7-97.
President Bornhorst asked how Proposal 7-97 and
Proposal 12-97 on the change of eligibility conditions of
Section 6.3.1 differed.
Senator Leifer stated that the intent of 12-97 was to
remove the requirement of 2 years employment or more
than 35 years of age.
Senator Reed stated that he had the same concern as
Bornhorst.
Senator Keen responded that Proposal 7-97 deals
with the requirement that a person must have been hired
before 1 January 1996 in order to receive retiree health
benefits.
Senator Sweany stated that this page of the
handbook has two policies on it and one does say that
only those people hired before 1 January 1996 will be
eligible for retiree health benefits and the other one says
only hirees who fit one of the three categories (listed in
Proposal 12-97 background) would receive the TIAA-CREF benefits during the first two years. These benefits
were expunged without our knowledge.
Senator Williams stated that it seems unclear so he
suggested that the Senate complete action on it at the
next meeting.
Bornhorst agreed, so Proposal 7-97 remains as an
open motion to be near the top of the next agenda. There
were no objections.
C. Proposal 11-97: Recommendation on retirement
Health Benefit Fund. [See minutes, page 6889, for a
copy of this proposal.]
Vice President Soldan questioned the use of $2.9
million to include MPSERS equalization.
Senator Leifer stated that moneys for TIAA-CREF
and MPSERS come from the same pot.
Soldan countered that he had understood that
departments had agreed not to fill positions created by
retirements for six months in order to cover MPSERS
retirement costs.
Senator Mroz reported that MPSERS and TIAA-CREF have separate funds. As of 31 December 1996,
MPSERS has a balance of $532,050 and the TIAA-CREF
retirement plan has $2.69 million.
Richter MOVED and Mroz seconded the motion to
adjourn.
The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. with open
motions on amended Proposal 4-97 and Proposal 7-97.
Respectfully Submitted by Janice M. Glime
Secretary of the Senate