OAKLAND UNIVERSITY SENATE
Thursday, 15 April 1993
Sixth Meeting
MINUTES
Senators Present: Abiko, Andersen, Bennett, Benson, Braunstein, Chipman, Cowlishaw, Dahlgren, Downing, Dunphy, Eberwein, Eckart, Edgerton, Fish, Frankie, Gamboa, L. Gerulaitis, R. Gerulaitis, Goslin, Grossman, Hamilton, Hartzer, Hormozi, Horwitz, Hovanesian, Kevern, Mabee, Masters, McKay, Mittelstaedt, Olson, Packard, Pipan, Reddy, Rush, Schultz, Shepherd, Stamps, Stano, Stevens, Urice, Wilczynski, Witt, Yates, Zenas.
Senators Absent: Appleton, Burdick, Cramer, Halsted, Hough, Jackson, Kheir Kim, Moore, Otto, Peterson, Pierson, Pine, Porter, Wood.
Summary of Actions
1. Minutes of 18 March 1993. Approved.
2. Amendment to item 4 below, adding "private offices" to areas where smoking would be allowed (L. Gerulaitis; Hovanesian). Defeated.
3. Amendment to item 4 below, deleting "student rooms in the residence halls" from listed areas where smoking would be permitted (Fish; Eckart). Approved.
4. Motion from the Campus Development and Environment Committee to modify the university's smoking policy (Rush; Stamps). Approved, as amended.
5. Motion from the Steering Committee regarding the future of the Honors College (Edgerton; Hough). Tabled.
6. Committee reports related to the future of the Center for International Programs.
7. Motion to waive requirement of a second reading for item 8 below (Downing; Olson). Approved.
8. Motion from the School of Engineering and Computer Science to approve a revised constitution (Witt; Hovanesian). Approved.
9. Motion to waive requirement of a second reading for item 10 below (Kevern; Olson). Approved.
10. Motion from the Admissions and Financial Aid Committee to increase committee membership (Rush; Kevern). Approved.
11. Motion from the Steering Committee to staff standing committees of the Senate (Grossman; R. Gerulaitis). Approved.
12. Open discussion of Senate practices
Mr. Horwitz called the meeting to order at 3:14 p.m., calling attention to additional copies of Senate materials and other informational handouts at the front of the room. He proceeded at once to invite responses to the minutes of 18 March 1993, which received clarification on several points. Mr. Chipman asked that the record be modified on pages 3 and 4 with respect to discussion of the Honors College. Although Mr. Horwitz's question about interactions of the Senate's two new committees had been clear, he did not think he had responded clearly enough. The Senate Planning Review Committee, which he chairs, has agreed with the Senate Budget Review Committee that they will report independently to the Senate but will try to report together to the President as representatives of this body. Ms. Frankie then offered a correction for page 7 with respect to the Strategic Planning process, pointing out that the Steering Committee rather than the Authorship Committee would prepare the final report. Mr. Horwitz declared himself happy to hear that. With no other questions or corrections, the minutes then won approval as corrected.
The first item of old business was a motion from the Campus Development and Environment Committee to modify the university's smoking policy to provide a virtually smoke-free environment within campus buildings, with only a few exceptions (Moved, Ms. Rush; seconded, Mr. Stamps). Mr. Gerulaitis, seconded by Mr. Hovanesian, promptly proposed an amendment to add "private offices" to the listing in 2a. of areas where smoking would be permitted. When Mr. Horwitz inquired whether that applied to faculty and staff offices, Mr. Gerulaitis said it meant "all offices." Mr. Olson objected that the amendment weakened the legislation and that it would have the effect of exposing neighbors along a hallway to dangers of second-hand smoke. Ms. Mittelstaedt concurred, pointing out that smoke within O'Dowd Hall penetrates many doors down the corridors. When Mr. Urice asked whether he had understood correctly from discussion at the March meeting that the university's ventilation system cannot protect against smoke penetration beyond private offices, Mr. Gamboa affirmed that this was the case. Mr. Gerulaitis then protested that the whole policy-change operation smelled of political correctness, with the community overreacting to pressures. He argued that there was little documented risk of heart disease traceable to second-hand smoke, however great the displeasure people feel. Mr. Gamboa responded that evidence of cancer risk was much greater. Mr. Wilczynski opposed the amendment on the basis that this really is a health matter. He did not regard offices as purely private spaces. With no further discussion, the chair called for a vote on the amendment, which failed.
On the basis of that discussion, Mr. Fish (seconded by Ms. Eckart) ventured to propose another amendment that excluded "student rooms in the residence halls" from the list of private residences in section 2a. where smoking would still be allowed. If office neighbors cannot be protected from smoke, he reasoned, neither can residence-hall neighbors. If the ventilation system cannot provide effective defense against health dangers, then he--as the father of a daughter living on campus--preferred that smoking be forbidden in student rooms. When Mr. Horwitz remarked that Mr. Fish seemed to have no objections to smoking in the President's residence, the senator responded that he had received sufficient assurances from her at the March meeting. Mr. Olson, sympathetic to the amendment, wondered whether the Senate's jurisdiction extended to the residence halls. President Packard answered that students living there would make their own recommendations through the Residence Halls Council, but the Senate has a right to make its wishes known to the Board. Mr. Kevern, asked for his advice on this matter by the chair, agreed with Ms. Packard's statements. He pointed out, however, that students who sign leases regard their rooms as private spaces. They are allowed to choose between smoking and non-smoking rooms and are likely to oppose limitations on their freedoms. Nonetheless, Mr. Fish maintained that the same argument held for those rooms as for private offices. When the vote was called, the amendment carried by a hand vote of 23 in favor, 13 opposed. The main motion, as amended, then carried by voice vote with some opposition:
MOVED that the Senate recommend to the President that the Oakland University Smoking Policy of January 1, 1987 be replaced with the following policy:
1. Smoking is prohibited in all enclosed areas of Oakland University except as provided below. The University shall take appropriate action to publicize and enforce this policy.
2. Smoking is permitted in the following areas, provided such areas are clearly separated from public areas such as corridors and lounges and are kept closed during smoking use.
a. Private residences (i.e. houses or apartments under the University's control, such as married student housing, other rental housing on campus, Meadow Brook Hall housing, and the President's residence).
b . Spaces specifically designated by the President or designee at the time of use for such purposes as special or private functions, research, or performances where smoking is part of the performance.
President Packard informed the Senate that she would advance this proposal to the Board's University Affairs Committee this month. It should reach the Board soon thereafter.
Mr. Horwitz then interrupted business to introduce "with great delight" the incoming Vice President for Academic Affairs, Gary Russi, who had just entered the room with Mr. Stevens. Mr. Russi, visiting campus for a few days, was getting a preview of coming attractions--including a Senate meeting. The Senate welcomed him with applause before turning to several items of old business that depend to some extent on developments within his office.
The first such item of business was the second reading of a motion from the Steering Committee regarding the future of the Honors College (Moved, Mr. Edgerton; seconded, Mr. Hough):
MOVED that the Senate
a) endorses the "Proposal for a University Based Honors College" presented by its ad hoc Committee on the Honors College;
b) urges the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the President to implement the committee's recommendations; and
c) recommends that the Honors College be administered directly by the office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs.
Dean Urice introduced discussion by observing that, in recent weeks, various university committees have issued reports on both the Honors College and the Center for International Programs. He applauded the serious university-wide reflection that was taking place and that should continue as the community considers the implications of moving these units out of the College of Arts and Sciences and placing them in the Academic Affairs Office. While the search for a new Vice President for Academic Affairs continued, an inevitable air of abstraction clouded this discussion, but it can now advance toward resolution with Mr. Russi"s appointment. It should soon be possible to consider administrative adjustments in greater detail. He would, therefore, prefer to delay Senate action on the Honors College until this process of deliberation reaches a more concrete stage. Meanwhile, the Dean reiterated his College's firm commitment to honors education and international programs, assuring the Senate that Arts and Sciences would continue offering HC and IS courses and that it would administer these programs until alternative arrangements might eventually be put in place. Requesting more time for constructive reflection, he proposed tabling the motion then on the floor (seconded by Ms. Gerulaitis). When Mr. Horwitz asked whether the tabling motion referred to item A.3. on the agenda also, Mr. Urice pointed out that committee reports did not constitute a motion. Mr. Eberwein then supported Mr. Urice's motion in behalf of the University Committee on Undergraduate Instruction, which would appreciate more time to deal with the complex issues associated with possible relocation of the Honors College. So advised, the Senate voted to table the motion.
Next came committee reports concerning proposed administrative changes affecting the Center for International Programs in the event of its relocation from the College to the Academic Affairs Vice President's domain. Mr. Chipman introduced this process by saying that, in light of the action the Senate had just taken in tabling the Honors College motion, his Senate Planning Review Committee would appreciate more time to deal with the onslaught of information then reaching it. That committee also wants to consult with Mr. Russi. They are hard at work on this matter and are not yet done with it. Mr. McKay reported that the Senate Budget Review Committee had not yet begun its deliberations on the International Programs issue because no formal proposal had reached it. In the spirit of what Dean Urice had just said, he hoped that time and opportunity would be afforded that committee to participate in the discussion. Mr. Eberwein requested additional time for the University Committee on Undergraduate Instruction as well. When Mr. Stamps asked what the purpose of delay might be and Mr. Edgerton reminded his colleagues of the need to make progress, Mr. Bertocci reassured the Senate that the ad hoc Committee on International Programs, which he chairs on behalf of this body, fully intended to keep working on its charge. He welcomed Mr. Urice's assurances and the opportunity now afforded to "liquefy" this process. Mr. Horwitz suggested that the Senate be provided a schedule of anticipated developments. Mr. Urice then drew the discussion to a close by declaring that everything remains on hold at the College level while the new Vice President makes his decisions, informed by multiple Senate committees. All Honors College and International Studies courses are being offered on their regular schedules.
With old business thus either completed or put on hold, the Senate turned its attention to the first item of new business: a motion from the School of Engineering and Computer Science to approve a new constitution (Moved, Mr. Witt; seconded, Mr. Hovanesian):
MOVED that the Senate recommend to the President and the Board approval of the proposed "Constitution: School of Engineering and Computer Science, Oakland University."
Mr. Horwitz offered copies of the new constitution and a summary of major changes to anyone not provided with these documents through the Senate mailing. Mr. Witt then provided background on April 1992 changes in the proposed constitution, which he described as "really a dynamic document, since it goes back to 1985." An earlier version won Senate approval in fall 1986 before beginning a long process of gradual refinement as it passed back and forth among the Provost's office, the School office, and the Legal Affairs office. It has also been modified to bring it into accord with the Faculty Agreement. No discussion ensued, so Mr. Downing (seconded by Mr. Olson) offered a motion to waive the requirement of a second reading for this legislation. This being the last scheduled Senate meeting of the 1992-93 academic year, holding to the usual schedule of deliberation would force another long interlude or a special spring Senate meeting. Since this work had been in progress since 1986, with the blessing of the Senate, Mr. Downing doubted that this body wished to delay its implementation. His colleagues supported his judgment by agreeing to dispense with the second reading and then unanimously approving the revised constitution, which now proceeds to the Board.
Ms. Rush, seconded by Mr. Kevern, then introduced the second item of new business: a motion from the Admissions and Financial Aid Committee to expand its membership:
MOVED that the membership of the Admissions and Financial Aid Committee be increased by one faculty member.
She indicated that the committee's experience with its drastically streamlined membership had proven the need for slightly expanded faculty membership. The committee's acting chair had asked the Steering Committee to initiate this expansion. When no discussion ensued, Mr. Kevern (seconded by Mr. Olson) moved that the second reading be waived. Mr. Cowlishaw wondered whether it would be more sensible to waive the first reading, since the second is the one associated with a vote. Mr. Downing suggested that the motion parallel the one he had just offered to expedite constitutional approval: "MOVED that the Senate waive the requirement of a second reading." The Senate promptly endorsed that motion before giving its unanimous approval to the original motion.
Mr. Grossman, seconded by Ms. Gerulaitis, then introduced the final item of,new business, a procedural motion from the Steering Committee to staff Senate committees in accord with the extensive list published in the April agenda. Mr. Horwitz noted that, in response to a senator's request at an earlier meeting' academic titles and venues had been provided by way of identification for faculty nominees. Mr. Goslin then inquired why no terms had been specified for members of the new University Committee on Assessment, which he had been recruited to chair. Mr. Horwitz acknowledged the Steering Committee's oversight in not establishing one and two-year terms to provide for staggered membership, and he promised that the Steering Committee would complete its responsibilities. When asked whether he had any preference for his own term of service, Mr. Goslin declared himself content to leave that decision to the Steering Committee. Mr. Horwitz immediately sentenced him to two years. On that note, the Senate approved the full roster of nominees.
With formal business dispatched, the Senate settled down to an off-the- record, committee-of-the-whole discussion of its current practices and possible constitutional changes. Mr. Horwitz offered copies of the Senate Constitution to anyone interested. He then instructed the secretary to stop recording minutes but promised to take some notes himself. The Steering Committee will meet shortly to consider advice received in this forum. Following lively and courteous discussion, President Packard declared that the Senate's appreciation of Mr. Horwitz's leadership of this body as well as the Academic Affairs Division should be publicly noted. She also suggested that the Senate identify a topic of general interest each year for a one-day retreat that would provide an open forum for free discussion. No Good and Welfare issues emerged, so Mr. Horwitz turned to a number of information items. He began by asking for updates on administrative searches. Mr. Olson reported that seven candidates have been interviewed for the position of Vice President for Financ6 and Administration. The search committee has reported their strengths and weaknesses to the President. He hoped that finalists would be on campus in the next week or so and that a recommendation could be presented to the Board at its May meeting. Mr. Goslin announced that the reopened search for a Vice President for Development, Alumni and Community Engagement had elicited a hundred or so applications. Successive winnowings of that pool should allow campus visits in late May by the most promising candidates. Mr. Horwitz said that six finalists for the deanship of the School of Engineering and Computer Science would be on campus shortly. He regarded the pool of aspirants for that job as unusually strong. The Nursing dean search continues, with invitations for campus visits going out to finalists next week. He expected that all final candidates for decanal office would meet with incoming Vice President Russi .
President Packard then provided information about budgetary prospects. She reported that Governor Engler projects a two-year continuation of the same level of funding that we have received for the past two years. In view of some fixed cost increases such as contracted salary adjustments that have to be figured into our budget matrix, it now seems that double-digit tuition increases would be required to stave off budgetary reductions. Acknowledging that difficult decisions loomed, she said she did not know what the Board would do. The.budget process, in which the Senate Budget Review Committee has been participating, will provide guidance. She has found this budget process informative and helpful. Reminding the Senate that a zero increase in State appropriation (in effect, a reduction of sorts) presents fewer problems than the outright funding cuts faced by many educational institutions elsewhere, she thought that some salary increases could be managed through prudent cuts elsewhere. The President assured the community that Oakland University remains fiscally sound; although, if we want to do anything new these days, we have to give up something else.
On a cheerier note, Ms. Packard conveyed optimistic expectations about prospects for the new Science Building. Expecting ours to be one of the very first buildings authorized by the state, she said she was even beginning to plan for a groundbreaking ceremony. There is a downside to this anticipation, however: Since we do not have our own managers on staff and have chosen to have the state's Office of Management and Budget manage the construction process, we have to allocate money to pay for that service. We also face inflationary costs, even with OMB prudently allocating public funds. Money needed will have to come from the equipment budget. Although efforts will be made to preserve a good part of that budget, the basics of the building have to take priority. When choices exist, faculty members will have input into decisions. She expected to benefit from Mr. Russi's experience with constructing a new science building. Although highly optimistic about our prospects, she cautioned that nobody can be quite sure until the official letter arrives from Lansing. When the President urged senators to thank legislators and trustees for their support with this project, Mr. McKay reciprocated by expressing the Senate's thanks to her as well.
Mr. Horwitz then concluded the meeting--and the two-year term of this particular Senate--by thanking the Steering Committee for its dedicated and time-consuming service. He also thanked all those faculty members, students, and staff who have been serving on this body and its many committees. On that note, he welcomed Mr. Gerulaitis's call for adjournment at 4:43 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Jane D. Eberwein
Secretary to the University Senate
ADDENDUM
University Senate Minutes
Thursday, April 15, 1993
Professor Curt Chipman, chair of the Senate Planning Review Committee, provides this statement in response to Mr. Horwitz's inquiry about how his committee expects to interact with the Senate Budget Review Committee, chaired by Professor Callewaert.
The brief answer to Mr. Horwitz's question is that the SBRC and the SPRC will report independently to the Senate.
The more complete answer is that the charges to these two committees require them to consider many common issues, although from different perspectives. The two committees are also then charged to share their views in various ways (report", "advise", or "recommend") with various parties ("President", "Vice President for Academic Affairs", "Senate", or 'Senate committees"). The arrangement that Mr. Callewaert and I have for this initial year of trying to make this all work is:
For the two Senate committees with the greatest likelihood of interactions with the SBRC and the SPRC, memoranda of understanding have been filed with the Senate Steering Committee from the chairs of the Graduate Council, the SBRC, the SPRC, and UCUI (January 29, 1993).
For discussions and debates before the University Senate, each of the chairs of the SBRC and the SPRC (or their representatives, if either of them are not members of the Senate) would primarily consider it their function to contribute to an informed consideration of the issue(s) before the body. As such, there should be no special obligation for a common committee point of view.
However, in the performance of their committee responsibility to jointly advise the President and also to jointly advise the Vice President for Academic Affairs with regard to priorities for the allocations of university or academic resources, these two committees serve more in a fashion of representing the Senate as a whole and, as such, should make every effort to see that their advice is coordinated.
Mr. Callewaert and I hope that both the Senate and future chairs of these two committees will find this a useful framework for performing the tasks which the Senate has assigned.