Oakland University Senate

Thursday, October 9, 1980
Second Meeting
128-130 Oakland Center

MINUTES

Senators Present: Arnold, Beardman, Berger, Burke, Caligiuri, Chipman, Christina, J. Eberwein, R. Eberwein, Evarts, Fullmer, Gardiner, Gerulaitis, Ghausi, Griffith, Hetenyi, Heubel, Hirschfeld-Medalia, Hitchingham, Horwitz, Jones Karasch, Kingstrom, Kleckner, Matthews, McMahan, Mittra, Moeller, Pine, Scherer, Shantz, Somerville, Stevens, Strauss, Tower, Wilson
Senators Absent: Bertocci, Bieryla, Boulos, Brown, Butterworth, Edgerton Feeman, Felton, Garcia, Hammerle, Jaymes, Johnson, Lent Liboff, Miller, Mourant, Obear, Otto, Pak, Pettengill, Pierson, Riley, Schmidt, Shepherd

Interim President George T. Matthews called the meeting to order at 3:15 p.m. offering a brief addendum to last week's colloquium remarks on the budget. Although his office has no detailed information on Governor Milliken's speech of October 8, evidence suggests that another cut probably looms in the University's projected allocation. Our Adjusted Preliminary Budget, as approved by the Board, may be whittled down still further, although not necessarily below the zero-increase budget we have informally adopted while awaiting post-election news from Lansing. Any radical change in tax structure as a result of the General Election referenda, however, will almost surely cause a significant fiscal decrease. Even without the Tisch amendment, State revenues have already been lowered by prolonged economic decline. In response to Mr. Burke's inquiry about Board Chairman Headlee's support for the Tisch amendment, Mr. Matthews indicated that Mr. Headlee supports Proposition D personally but not officially as a spokesman for the University; he preferred to let that gentleman speak for himself.

Following this interchange of future conjectures, the Senate ratified its collective memory of the recent past by approving the minutes of its September 11, 1980, meeting without opposition (Moved, Mr. Hetenyi; Seconded Mr. Beardman).

A. Old Business: Motion from the Steering Committee (Moved Mr. Feeman; Seconded, Mr. Christina). Item B.3. from the Agenda of September 11,1980. Unamended.

THAT THE CHARGE TO THE FINANCIAL AIDS COMMITTEE BE MODIFIED TO READ: "To consider, recommend, evaluate, and review all policies and procedures relative to the operation of the financial aid system and to function as an appeals board which will hear disputes between the Office of Financial Aid and applicants for and recipients of financial aid and render advisory opinions thereon."

With no discussion or opposition, the motion was unanimously approved by voice vote.

 B. New Business:

1. Motion from the Steering Committee (Moved, Ms. Hitchingham; Seconded, Mr. Heubel)

Moved that Richard Pettengill (Library) replace Barry Johnson (Library) on the Academic Computing Committee for a one-year term.

Ms. Hitchingham attributed this proposed change of committee membership to Mr. Johnson's resignation from the University. Satisfied with her explanation, the Senate approved Mr. Pettengill's nomination unanimously.

2. Motion from the Steering Committee (Moved, Ms. Hitchingham; Seconded Mr. Jones).

Moved that William Bryant (Modern Languages) replace Barry Johnson (Library) on the Financial Aids Committee for a one-year term.

This resolution, too, passed without dissent.

3. Motion from the Admissions Committee (Moved, Mr. Strauss; Seconded Mr. Jones).

Moved that the membership specifications for the Admissions Committee be amended to include one (1) representative of the Alumni Association.

Mr. Strauss explained, in response to Ms. Berger's query, that the Admissions Committee reviews the functioning of the admissions process and considers policies more regularly than it participates in particular decisions about applicants; although it occasionally admits a student whose special competence overrides deficiencies in normal college preparation. When Ms. Eberwein asked whether "include" meant add or substitute,  Mr. Strauss said that the intent of the motion was to increase committee membership by welcoming an alumni representative to join the existing group; he willingly accepted Mr. Hetenyi's stylistic emendation by which the motion to be voted upon at the next Senate meeting now reads: "Moved that the membership specifications for the Admissions Committee be amended to add one (1) representative of the Alumni Association."

C. Good and Welfare: Private Resolutions

1. Mr. Heubel (Seconded by Messrs. Strauss, Ghausi, et al) proposed the following resolution for the preservation of the order:

RESOLVED that Oakland University take a stand against Proposition D (the Tisch ballot proposal); that all efforts be made to communicate to students, parents, and alumni the likely effects of the passage of this proposal on the future of Oakland University and that every effort be made to have this resolution discussed at the next Board of Trustees meeting.

Distributing information about Governor Milliken's projected budget in the event that Proposition D should go into effect, Mr. Heubel warned the Senate of the urgent need to mobilize opposition to the Tisch amendment by educating the public about the threat massive losses of State revenue would pose to essential State services. Oakland University could conceivably lose all State funding and thereby be forced to close. He quoted Senator Huffman's opinion that university people themselves must take a strong public stand against the Tisch referendum, as the University of Michigan, Wayne State, and other public institutions have already done. He called on the Senate to exert influence on the Board at its October 15 meeting to initiate action in defense of faculty careers and student opportunities to complete degree programs. As this would be the last Senate meeting before the General Election Mr. Heubel asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended to allow an immediate vote on this private resolution. Upon a motion by Mr. Hetenyi, seconded by Mr. Beardman, the Senate suspended its ordinary practice and agreed to deliberate at once on the Heubel resolution.

Mr. Burke raised a question about a Free Press survey of voter opinion on the Tisch proposal, wondering what explanatory wording caused public support for Proposition D to rise from 35% to 60%. Mr. Shantz mentioned that the same study which showed a public inclination to endorse a massive tax cut also demonstrated that a deeper drink at the Pierian spring might offset the dangerous influence of the proverbial little learning. Both he and Mr. Heubel endorsed an educational campaign to inform voters about the probable effects of the Tisch tax cut.

Mr. Matthews, although concurring personally with opposition to Proposition D, pointed out that the Senate may speak for itself but not for the University. He suggested that the wording be revised to clarify the Senate's role in making a recommendation to the Board. Mr. Heubel willingly agreed to such revision, noting that the main idea behind his resolution was precisely the desire to get the Board to take a public stand. Mr. Matthews admitted discomfiture at the idea of the University's taking a stand on a political issue, but Mr. Shantz and Mr. Heubel argued that this is simply a redirection of the lobbying effort normally and properly waged by University representatives in Lansing. Now that the power to determine an issue of such crucial importance to the University has been transferred from the legislature back to the citizens, we must shift our lobbying efforts directly to the people. Should Proposition D pass, we may anticipate electoral lobbying for all major fiscal decisions, including tuition increases.

Mr. McMahan raised a question about the University's image in the legislature if it should fail to defend its interests publicly. He expected that the University Congress would adopt a parallel resolution against the Tisch proposal.

As the sole voice against the Heubel resolution, Mr. Caligiuri affirmed his personal support for Proposition D. He felt that even more radical referenda might eventually be adopted, if the legislature continues to ignore citizen demands for tax reform. After due deliberation, the following revised resolution was approved by the Senate, with one dissenting vote:

RESOLVED that the Senate recommend to the President and the Board that the Board adopt a resolution to condemn Proposition D (Tisch II) on the 1980 General Election ballot; that the Board direct the President to make every effort to communicate to students, parents, and alumni the likely effects of the passage of Proposition D on the future of Oakland University.

Mr. Matthews committed himself to present this resolution to the Board on Wednesday, October 15, and Mr. Heubel urged his colleagues to attend the meeting in large numbers as evidence of their concern

 2. Mr. Beardman, eagerly seconded by Ms. Berger, offered a private resolution opposing the new University logo displayed in the Oakland Sail:

Whereas it is felt that the design for the new logo for Oakland University is not appropriate as a visual symbol for this institution, be it resolved that the Senate hereby express its displeasure with the same and recommend to the President and the Board that this logo not be used.

Mr. Matthews commented that the logo has not yet been officially adopted; although Mr. Llewellyn thought that it had already been put into use. When Mr. Horwitz asked who would, finally, approve it, Mr. Matthews thought the decision a Presidential prerogative. In judging the artistic merits of the symbol, he will no doubt take into consideration Mr. Beardman's denunciation of its uncompromising mediocrity and the likelihood of its inducing instant boredom.

D. Information Items:

1. Report of the ad hoc Committee on Cable Television: Ms. Scherer introduced her elaboration on the Committee report distributed with the Senate agenda by entertaining her colleagues with a televised presentation on cable television. Following this program, she and members of her committee called attention to the likelihood that this technological innovation will influence higher education substantially in the next decades by altering teaching methods, reaching new audiences, and forcing cooperation among educational institutions, television networks, and local franchising groups. She pointed out that local government bodies in Oakland County are already formulating cable television ordinances for the next fifteen years and allocating franchises. If Oakland University wants to maintain even the option of educational telecasting, it must participate actively now in the effort to ensure the reservation of cable television channels for educational use. The two key words in this campaign, she declared, are interaction between instructor and student and interconnection between the University and other institutions. At this point, she reported, the University is trying to keep access to local channels open, whether we eventually broadcast or not. She urged appropriate University groups to begin thinking about teaching-load implications and compensation for televised classes.

Other members of the committee expanded upon Ms. Scherer's statements.   Mr. Doherty reported on technological innovations which allow a student at home to question the instructor directly and transmit their dialogue to the rest of the class. Ms. Marriner reported on efforts the committee has been making since last spring to reach agreement with various local governmental and educational groups to achieve three common goals:

a. potential linkage of educational cable systems in a given community;
b. interactive two-way systems;
c. reservation of six channels for educational use, one of them for Oakland University.

She emphasized the speed with which cable television is coming to Oakland County, pointing out that Waterford will allocate its franchise next month. Mr. Dahlmann called attention to the educational impact of the new medium, which can link home with school and classroom with field site. He urged faculty members to consider possible applications of the new technology.

In response to Ms. Hitchingham's question about whether we need to do anything right away, Ms. Scherer said that our major objective now is to convince local communities to set aside channels for education; one of the franchise contenders in Waterford includes an Oakland University channel in its proposal. Ms. Hitchingham then asked about the level of help we may expect from the television companies in developing programs. Mr. Dahlmann indicated that the television companies are in this business for profit and have relatively little interest in education except as an attraction to franchising agencies. We can hope for equipment and initial technical assistance, therefore, but should not anticipate much help from the cable company once the equipment arrives. Mr. Eberwein reassured his colleagues, however, that the committee takes a strong interest in academic quality; if we go in for televised teaching, we shall commit ourselves to doing it well. He mentioned the need for careful, adequate budget allocation, and Ms. Scherer called for widespread faculty involvement.

Mr. Matthews called attention to the recommendations which conclude the committee's report and indicated that specific issues would be examined by the Steering Committee, APPC, and Teaching and Learning Committee. He has also alerted the Board to developments, as we could possibly be broadcasting programs within a year. The most difficult decision, he suspected, would be to determine exactly what we will broadcast if opportunity arises.

2. Annual Report for 1979-80 of UCUI: Mr. Matthews noted the committee report as received. Mr. Tower then added a footnote to the effect that the controlling school(s) for the Energy concentration should be jointly listed as the College of Arts and Sciences and the School of Engineering.

Having considered, deliberated, and decided to the point of near exhaustion the Senate adjourned at 4:54 p.m. (Moved, Mr. Tower; Seconded, Mr. Eberwein)

Respectfully submitted:
Jane D. Eberwein
Secretary of the University Senate