Oakland University Senate
Eighth Meeting
Tuesday, April 5, 1977
3:00 p.m.
128 - 150 Oakland Center
MINUTES
Senators Present: Barron, Burke, Cameron, Eberwein, Hammerle, Hampton, Henry, Johnson, Keelin, Ketchum, Kuczynski, Liboff, Lilliston, Matthews, McKay, Obear, O'Dowd, Hetenyi, Pogany, Scherer, Schuldenberg, Stonner, Swanson, Swartz, Torch and Tower
Senators Absent: Allvin, Atlas, Barnard, Bertocci, D. Burdick, H. Burdick, Chapa, Coffman, Coppola, Doane, Felton, Flynn, Freeman, Gardiner, Genyea, Heubel, Hitchingham, Hovanesian, Keegan, McKinley, Moberg, Riley, Ruscio, Russell, Schwartz, Shacklett, Sponseller, Torongeau, Tucker, Warren, White and Witt
Mr. O'Dowd presided.
Mr. O'Dowd commented upon budget prospects and particularly upon questions concerning formula budgeting in which differential funding is based in, part upon differences in subject matter, upon definitions between upper and lower division courses; for example, funding is about 2 to 1 in favor of courses numbered 300 and above compared to 200 and below; and Oakland looks quite bad from this point of view, worse perhaps than other institutions in the state. We are in the first year of a three year period in which we should correct imbalances in this particular.
Meeting was called to order at 3:55 p.m. The minutes of the meeting of March 51 were not ready for distribution and will be made available at the next meeting
April 5.
Old Business:
Mr. Tower wished to restore the Ph.D. in Reading Education motion to the top of the agenda (It was placed second by error) but Mr. McKay indicated he would move to table item I and so render the question moot.
*I. Mr. McKay then moved, seconded by Mr. Hetenyi, that motions A. 1,2, 5, 4, 5, 6, and 7 (Old Business) with amendments be tabled for this meeting but to be taken up again as Old Business and In second reading at the meeting of April 14 next.
Motion carried by voice vote without opposition and so ordered.
II. Attention was then directed to main motion 5 from the agenda of March 31 regarding a Ph.D. program in Reading Education, in second reading. Mr. McKay wanted to know whether the program had a built in "self-destruct" if enrollments did not materialize. Mr. Johnson felt that all programs have self-destruct mechanisms.
Question of State funding arose and Mr. O'Dowd explained that State legislative approval would probably not come until next year. Mr. O'Dowd then elaborated on the great difficulty of working within the legislature's system or lack of systems. It is almost impossible sometimes to tell whether or not a program has been approved for funding. But there are some political signals which we watch for with great interest. Mr. McKay questioned whether the Senate should not attach to every now degree program the provision that it not be implemented until funds were available.
Mr. McKay then moved (seconded by Mr. Hetenyi), to amend the main motion by adding the following sentence:.
* THE DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS PROGRAM SHALL FOLLOW ENDORSEMENT OF THE APPROPRIATE FUNDING AGENCIES OF THE STATE.
Motion to amend approved by voice vote; no opposition.
Mr. Hampton questioned whether a quorum were present. Count of the membership then attending revealed 26 present, not a quorum (which is 30 counting the President).
For lack of a quorum, the meeting was adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
*Motions passed at this meeting.