The possibility of a potential ice arena recently mentioned in the news came about after the City of Auburn Hills approached the University and asked if it would be possible to work with OU and to place the arena on the campus. A consultant, jointly funded by Auburn Hills and the University, has been hired to look into the question of: a) whether or not an arena should be placed on campus and b) to consider the implications of a joint city- university venture with a sports facility. A university committee, chaired by Mr. Mehl, has been appointed to consider what we should do if we had such a facility. Members of this committee include G. Brieger (Campus Development and Environment Committee), B. Macauley (intercollegiate Athletic Advisory Council), J. Russell (Senate Planning Review Committee), G. McIntosh (Office of Equity), K. Kazarian (Business Administration), R. Olson (Health Sciences), P.Cooke (Administrative Affairs), D. Herman (Student Affairs), P. Hovland (Athletics), students B. Green and M. Bauman, B. Karas (alumna), W.Coyro (community representative).

Mr. Russi also reported on the trees that were cut down in the area of Hannah Hall. It was the unfortunate result of a miscommunication, formal apologies have been made and steps have been taken to ensure that it will never happen again without appropriate consultation.

Calling the Senate's attention then to the handout detailing the establishment of the Center for Family Business, Mr. Russi commended the School of Business Administration for their initiative. Mr. Tower explained that the Center, one of 70-80 around the country, will bring together people with skills and expertise to assist family businesses grow and move to the next generation.

Enrollments are up, with over 13,400 students enrolled for the fall semester and FYES are expected to be up also. Mr. Russi promised a full report at the next Senate meeting and noted that not many other schools are experiencing growth, that we may be I of only 3 schools in Michigan that is still growing.

Mr. Russi then turned to the implementation of the Strategic Plan, systematically going through the Strategic Plan notebooks that had been distributed to all Senators. He called attention a change in the order of the priorities, with #5 moving ahead of #4. He then explained the three levels of implementation for each strategy, emphasizing that this is a working document and that changes and modifications are to be expected. Level I is the strategy itself, level 2 is a list of tactics that may be used to implement the strategy, level 3 is an attempt to outline indicators of success and is an addition to the existing plan.

He emphasized that the Cabinet and Deans will play a crucial role in the implementation and that the statements listed in section 5 provide insight regarding how each academic unit plans on addressing the plan. He assured the Senate that he would report regularly on the progress being made to implement the plan.

He reminded the Senate that last year the university community was invited to submit proposals for strategic initiatives and that funding of $400,000 was available. In consultation with the Deans and selected Directors, these proposals were assigned priorities and three were funded: 1) a Center for Biomedical Research ($154,000); 2) a proposal from the School of Engineering and Computer Sciences to upgrade the undergraduate teaching laboratories ($42,000); and 3) a proposal from the Eye Research Institute to strategically position the ERI for continued funding ($50,000). One characteristic of all these proposals is that matching funds were available. Copies of the proposals are available from Sharon Wilhelm (2193) for anyone who is interested in having a copy.

Mr. Russi then reported that he and others have been aggressively trying to position Oakland in the minds of state government officials for increased state funding.  Last year OU's efforts resulted in an increase of $700,000.  This year the position OU is taking with the state legislature and governor is that OU has had the lowest percentage increase over the past five years of any of the state universities.  The same is true if you look at it over a 15 year period. We are also trying to make the case that, of all the institutions below average net change in state support, only Oakland is growing.  

We have not been effective in Lansing in the past and now must move as vigorously as possible to influence the governor and the legislators. We have already been in contact with the various offices in Lansing and are the first to talk to them this year about our allocation. There will be an allocation for higher education but the question is, how will it be distributed among the 15 institutions. We have been told it will not be on an even percentage basis but we don't know how it will be spread. our goal is to influence that decision and to end a period of benign neglect of OU. In addition, we have the argument that Oakland is functioning as a doctoral institution. We have been told by the Office of Management and Budget that, if the state spreads the money according to the Carnegie Classification, they will re-look at the numbers of doctorates given and place institutions in their appropriate categories. If they do that we stand to win big, a minimum of 5 million dollars.

Oakland has hired Rochelle Black as our Government Affairs officer to assist in these efforts and will also have a multi- client lobbying firm working for us in Lansing. If anyone wants to see the Strategic Lobbying document that has been compiled, again, please call Sharon at 2193. He asked that Senators read the document and then suggest ways to improve it, ways to send the message more forcefully to improve our chances for success. Having concluded his remarks he opened the floor for questions. In reply to a query regarding the enrollment for part time or full time, he responded it was a combination of both; the direct- from-high-school-students are up 30% even though the student pool was up only 2%; transfers are up around 2-3%; even in the face of a decline in enrollment in community college students; graduate students are also up. The spread between part time and full time is relatively even at this point.

New business items began with the election of a new Steering Committee. The Elections Committee, Mr. Doane, Mr.Schochetman and Mr. Botsas, opened the floor for nominations after detailing the election guidelines.  Nominees included Mr. Dillon, Ms. Briggs-Bunting, Mr. Christina, Ms. Reynolds, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Brieger, Mr. Dahlgren, Mr. Garfinkle.  Ms. Kulwicki (withdrew) and Ms. Rice. Hearing no further names, the nominations were closed by general consent, paper ballots distributed and then collected and the Elections Committee went off to count the ballots.

Moving to the next item, Ms. Benson reminded the Senate that last spring we had not completed the staffing of all the Senate Standing Committees. Reading the names listed in the agenda, she moved the appointment of the specified individuals, a motion quickly seconded by Mr. Andrews and approved by the Senate with no discussion.

The last item on the agenda was a motion from the Academic Standing and Honors Committee proposing a change in the probation and dismissal policy of the University. Because of concerns that had arisen concerning this proposal, the motion was withdrawn from the agenda and will be sent back to the Committee for further study.

The Elections Committee returned and reported on the results (Dillon, Christina, Brieger, Dahlgren and Rice) and the need for a run-off. The result of the run-off election was that Mr. Andrews was also elected to the Steering Committee.

There being no further business, a motion to adjourn was made and a general exodus ensued.

Respectfully submitted,
Linda L. Hildebrand
Secretary to the University Senate