MICHIGAN
TECHNOLOGICAL
UNIVERSITY University Senate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TO: University Community DATE: February 8, 1995
FROM: Theodore J. Bornhorst, President of the University Senate
Janice M. Glime, Vice President of the University Senate
John W. Jobst, Secretary of the University Senate
SUBJECT: Constituency of the University Senate
The Executive Committee of the University Senate, consisting of the
Officers and the Chairs of Standing Committees, unanimously recommends
that the Senate approve Proposal 22-95, Revision of Senate Bylaws.
INTRODUCTION
Last year at several meetings, the Senate discussed various aspects of
the constituency, especially the appropriate division between those
professional staff whom the Senate represents, and those whom the Senate
does not represent. Since then the Officers have discussed this issue at
great length with professional staff and faculty. Inasmuch as the
Executive Committee is charged in the Senate Constitution with making
recommendations on constituency, towards the end of last spring this
group agreed to carefully review the constituency issue and bring
recommendations to the full Senate. This major review by the Officers
and Executive Committee began this past fall term and was recently
completed.
The purpose of the University Senate is to provide a mechanism through
which its constituency, via duly-elected representatives, may offer input
on policy decisions, and thus play a central role in shared governance.
It provides a forum where informed decision making may occur. The Senate
currently represents all faculty and research units, as well as selected
professional staff. The current structure of Senate voting distinguishes
between two major groups: academic units, and the remaining units,
primarily but not exclusively professional staff. Both are charged with
debating all issues, but only academic units may vote on academic issues.
No matter what structure of governance is chosen, professional staff
cannot make academic policy. Nevertheless, the input from professional
units, on whatever topic, offers the Senate an opportunity to be more
informed and better able to vote from a knowledgeable perspective. This
system of allowing only academic units to vote on academic issues would
not change with Proposal 22-95.
PREREQUISITES FOR CHANGE
Before considering any change in the Senate constituency, the Executive
Committee agreed upon several prerequisites. These prerequisites set
forth goals and pre-conditions for change, including:
1. The current voting structure, which distinguishes between academic,
research and other issues, must be maintained.
2. The effectiveness of the University Senate in dealing with the
Administration must not decrease. Recommendations on University
policy-making come from the Senate and the Staff Council. President
Tompkins called for a vote on whether to change the health care
system. If the Senate had rejected the proposed change, and the Staff
Council had voted for it, then the administration could have moved
forward over the Senatežs objections. Similarly, the situation could
have been reversed. Clearly, anyone can see that if the Senate and
Staff Council could somehow be divided on an issue, they could easily
be conquered. A strong Senate will diminish this possibility.
3. The tenured faculty should be a majority in the University Senate.
Professional staff, without the protection of tenure, are less free to
express opinions, and they could be subject to administrative
pressure, such as during the recent staff layoffs or Ventures affair.
Professional staff gain by being with tenured faculty while faculty
gain by the increased magnitude of the Senate constituency. A secret
ballot vote can protect professional staff only if tenured faculty are
in the majority and if the numbers of votes are not revealed.
4. The Senate leadership must be capable of significant interaction with
the administration and free from administrative pressure.
5. All Senators and Liaisons enjoy the right to debate any issue.
6. Members of the administration should not be constituents of the
Senate.
COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL 22-95
What is about to be described is a package proposal. Parts within this
package are balanced to provide a solid framework for a stronger
University Senate. The Executive Committee considered the tradeoffs and
implications of each part of the proposal. Their deliberations were
completed in closed session because of the potential implications for the
entire University community and because outside discussion of isolated
segments could have been divisive. The package is now ready to be
presented to the University community based on the full support of the
Executive Committee.
The Executive Committee unanimously recommends that the Senate approve
the following changes to the Bylaws of the University Senate
Constitution:
1. The President and Secretary of the Senate shall have tenure. This
insures protected Senate leadership.
2. The Vice President of the Senate shall be from a unit other than an
academic degree-granting department. This provides remaining units
with a guaranteed role in the Senate leadership.
3. All Senate constituents will vote for At-large Senators, who shall be
from academic degree-granting departments. This insures a majority of
academic faculty in the Senate but at the same time gives all
constituents a voice in who is selected.
4. Any Dean/Director reporting directly to the President, Executive Vice
President and Provost, Treasurer/Chief Financial Officer, Vice Provost
and Dean, Vice President for Advancement, Secretary to the Board/Vice
President for Governmental Relations or the Board of Control shall not
be a constituent of the Senate. These individuals are considered to be
part of the administration and already enjoy significant influence in
decision making.
5. Any Staff person who by nature of appointment has significant
influence with the President, Executive Vice President and Provost,
Treasurer/Chief Financial Officer, Vice Provost and Dean, Vice
President for Advancement, Secretary to the Board/Vice President for
Governmental Relations or the Board of Control shall not serve as
Senator or Alternate as determined by the Executive Committee. These
individuals are considered analogous to department chairs and may be
constituents but not Senators or Alternates.
6. ROTC shall be considered a single course-offering unit with one
senator and one alternate.
7. Representation for Education and Public Services is eliminated, but
the two affected constituents will be placed into another course-
offering unit. This unit, although defined in the Senate Bylaws, has
not been counted for a quorum.
8. All professional staff (non-faculty) now in academic units will be
placed into a designated non-academic group. This will focus academic
decision-making on faculty in degree-granting departments, and is
consistent with voting rights on academic issues.
Last, but most significantly,
9. Everyone identified as non-faculty, non-union, non-temporary, and non-
part-time University employees, not currently represented by the
Senate, will be a constituent of the Senate, except those of the
administration. These individuals will be placed into one of nine
designated non-academic groups or an existing unit. In essence, under
Proposal 22-95, all non-union employees will be constituents of the
University Senate. The addition of six newly-designated non-academic
groups will leave a majority vote in the hands of the faculty, while
at the same time providing a significant vote for professional staff
(see attached proposed structure). The number of groups was given
careful consideration to maintain balance in numbers and provide
adequate representation. While groups vary in size, and individuals
may report to more than one administrator, and some groups are more
diverse than others, the Senate, nevertheless, will gain strength when
discussing non-academic issues by providing one, unified, non-union
opinion representing a major segment of Michigan Tech employees.
Furthermore, professional staff who have been represented in the
debate will more clearly understand and be more supportive in carrying
out the decisions of the Senate. The structure described here
increases the credibility of the Senate and maximizes the ability of
the Senate to influence the administration.
RAMIFICATIONS
The ramifications of this proposal are significant with respect to Staff
Council, which represents those employees not represented by the Senate.
If this proposal is adopted, Staff Council will become a union council.
Why should professional staff wish to leave Staff Council and join the
Senate? The Staff Council is legally prevented from debating union-
mediated issues, such as wages, hours, and working conditions. In
effect, this prevents non-union staff from discussing issues important to
them. Professional staff have never had a choice in these areas; these
issues have been decided for them without their representation. The
Senate, however, is not bound by such restrictions. Last year, for
example, the University Senate passed Proposal 21-94, Recommendation for
a Professional Staff Handbook. This publication will focus on
professional staff and codify methods of dealing with their concerns.
Faculty and professional staff currently represented by the University
Senate want a better Michigan Tech for everyone, including employees and
students. The University Senate will provide an effective forum for
professional staff as well as faculty.
By representing the non-academic concerns of the professional staff as
well as their academic concerns, the Senate will increase its workload.
However, most of the time will be spent on committee work where
professional staff will bear the bulk of the burden.
The current structure, with its division of voting rights, has worked
well. The present constitution was crafted to make an expansion, such as
the one proposed here, possible through Bylaws changes without altering
the rights and responsibilities of the Senate. Faculty need staff input
to make informed decisions on academic issues. The staff need a forum to
express their concerns on controversial issues. Nevertheless, faculty
alone, across the nation, have the responsibility for academic issues;
this responsibility cannot be placed in the purview of non-academic
personnel.
Should the expanded Senate fail to play an effective central role in
shared governance of Michigan Tech, the faculty or staff always have the
right to secede and go their own way. That right always remains,
regardless of the eventual disposition of Proposal 22-95.
CONCLUSION
The Executive Committee unanimously recommends approval of Senate
Proposal 22-95, Revision of Senate Bylaws, as a complete package which
would strengthen the Senate as the legislative branch of shared
University governance because its constituency would then truly represent
the Universityžs diversity and interests, while still allowing the
academic segment its appropriate dominion over academic concerns. In
addition to Senate approval, the Executive Committee recommends that the
proposal not be considered adopted until approved by a majority vote of
the affected staff personnel. This allows affected staff to decide
democratically their place in University governance. Proposal 22-95 will
be eligible for a vote at the March 8 meeting of the University Senate.
While the decision should not be rushed, we should decide by no later
than the end of spring quarter. This proposal will be on the agenda
until the Senate decides.
Proposal 22-95 is attached for review and debate.
.