Minutes of 16 February 2004
Circulated 17
February 2004
Approved 15
March 2004
16 FEBRUARY 2004
ATTENDANCE
Present:
Andersen,
Barsky, Ben-Shahar, Berent, Bradley, Brown, Byosiere, Carlisle, Cebulski, Combi,
Ensminger, Giordani, Goldman, Gull, Hu, Jackson, Kim,
Alternates:
Abecasis
(Public Health - Johnson), Cimprich (Nursing – Pohl),
Gordon (Dearborn – Elenbogen), Simpson (Medicine – Ohye)
Absent:
Akerlof,
Alfred, Bartlett, Boyd, Cho, Clarkson, Colas, Fishman, Frier, Gould, Green,
Hall, G.R. Holland, M. Holland, Huntley, Hutchinson, Keller-Cohen, Norris, Orr,
Page, Pritchard, Robertson, Ross, Rush, Sahiner, Seyhun, Thornton, Tropman,
Watkins, Wechsler, Whatley
MATERIALS
DISTRIBUTED
2.
Draft minutes of the Senate Assembly meeting of 16 November 2003
3.
SACUA/Senate Assembly Planning Schedule, updated 13 February 2003
4.
Senate Assembly Committee Volunteer Form 2004
5.
Athletic Directors and Professors Find More to Agree on Than Expected, by
B. Pennington. The New York Times,
dated 9 February 2003
6.
Rules of the University Senate, the Senate Assembly and the Senate
Advisory Committee on University Affairs, dated April
1997
7.
Preliminary AdvancePCS Opinion Poll Results, undated
8.
Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs (SACUA) Election
Procedures Guidelines, dated 9 February 2004
9.
Proposed amendment to Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs
(SACUA) Election Procedures Guidelines, dated 16 February 2004
Chair
Koopmann convened the meeting at 3:20 P.M.
The proposed agenda was adopted.
CONSIDERATION
OF THE MINUTES OF 16 NOVEMBER 2003
The minutes of 16 November 2003 were approved as submitted.
ANNOUNCEMENTS/UPDATES
Chair Koopmann announced:
1.
The new chair of SACUA and Senate Assembly for 2004-2005 will be
Professor Berent, and the new vice-chair will be Professor Pedraza.
2.
Seven individuals have agreed to stand for election to 3 seats on SACUA.
Eight others are still considering.
Identities of the candidates are being withheld until all candidates have
responded. Eventually a list will
be distributed to the Assembly and articles will appear in the University
Record.
3.
Preliminary interviews for candidates for a University-wide ombuds have
been completed by the office of provost and a short list is being constructed.
SACUA will be consulted on the short list.
4.
Only two members of the football team were required to be evaluated by
the academic standards committee before spring practice; academic tutors are
doing a good job.
5.
Distributed article 5 describes issues of common ground between faculty
and athletic directors.
6.
Election of University Senate Secretary is slated for the March meeting
of the University Senate. The Rules
stipulate formation of a nominating committee.
Professors Gull and Zorn have agreed to serve, but volunteers from Senate
Assembly are welcome. Professor
Meerkov volunteered to serve on the nominating committee.
7.
CESF has been trying to acquire additional data for its analyses.
Professor Askari, chair of CESF, attended the SACUA meeting of 9 February
2004 along with the provost and M. Knepp from the provost’s office. Agreement was achieved regarding data that will be supplied
to CESF from the central administration over the next 3 years.
8.
Information assembled and used by the provost’s committee on health
insurance premium design has been passed to the Budget Study Committee with
exception of materials from other institutions that are regarded to be
confidential.
9.
A volunteer form for committees is provided as distributed item 4.
Professor Raisler asked that the form be distributed to Assembly members
in electronic form so that it could be circulated further inside units.
The chair agreed to do so. Professor
Berent remarked that there is no better way to have influence on the institution
than through the committees.
CHILDCARE
TASK FORCE UPDATE
Professor
Yeo provided an update on the status of the Childcare Task Force opinion poll.
She said that over 600 faculty responses have been identified based on
uniquename, and that many people filled out the comment box.
She said that the task force would meet later in the week and that
additional volunteers were welcome.
Secretary
Lehman pointed out that identification of respondents by uniquename raises an
question about on-line dean evaluations posed to him by a number of faculty.
Faculty have complained that their responses were not anonymous by the
electronic method employed because they are linked to uniquename.
Dr. Leu from the Senate Office responded on behalf of Professor Yeo.
She said that only the staff people in the U-M Lessons office know the
identities of the individual respondents, and that they did not supply those
names to her.
A
member of the Assembly remarked that she had responded to the survey but
wondered if it was merely a “feel good effort” rather than an attempt by the
U-M to improve the situation. Professor
Yeo replied that the opinion poll was a faculty initiative.
She said that faculty as a group must work to improve conditions in the
future.
AdvancePCS
OPINION POLL UPDATE
Professor
Riebesell reported that Dr. Leu in the Senate Office has assisted in data
processing for the opinion poll conducted last fall. He referred to graphical summaries of some of the results
(distributed item 7). He noted that
active faculty report they are paying more or much more than last year, and that
they are unsatisfied with the program. Retirees,
on the other hand, report paying less and that they are satisfied.
He explained that there seems to be a confounding influence with Blue
Cross Blue Shield (BCBS). He said
it appears that people with BCBS benefited.
Professor Pedraza pointed out that gender turned out not to be a
significant factor. Chair Koopmann
remarked that the provost’s CHiPD committee has urged that the U-M find a
competitor to BCBS.
Professor
Lehman asked what step was next, given the expressed dissatisfaction by active
faculty. Professor Riebesell
replied that it was up to the Assembly, because the poll was at their
initiative. Dr. Leu, from the
Senate Office, remarked that hundreds of written comments had been received.
SACUA
ELECTION PROCEDURES
At
3:55 P.M. Chair Koopmann called attention to a set of 23 election guidelines
(distributed item 8) that had been drafted by majority vote of SACUA for
Assembly consideration.
MAIN
MOTION
Professor Giardani moved that the guidelines be approved and the motion was
seconded.
AMENDED
MAIN MOTION
Professor Ensminger moved an amendment to the proposed guidelines: distributed
item 9 (Lehman seconded).
Professor
Ensminger stated that he has always regarded the weighted voting procedures
employed historically by the Assembly in its election of SACUA members as
incongruous with ordinary voting procedures.
He said that he regarded this time of codification of voting procedures
as an opportunity for the Assembly to consider reforming a practice that was not
democratic. He pointed out how
under the existing weighted voting system, the top choice of the majority of
Assembly members could be denied the opportunity to represent that majority if
only a relatively small minority did not know the candidate and therefore ranked
him or her low on their ballots. Professor
Lehman pointed out that the reform proposed in the amendment would make voting
conform to the method that is used to elect, for example, judges and members of
the Board of Regents itself.
Professor
Riebesell spoke against the amendment. Riebesell
said that he thought ranked votes would be more efficient and that individuals
with minority opinions might be more likely to win election with ranked voting.
He noted that when Congress organizes itself into committees it does not
do so by majority vote.
Professor
Meerkov stated that he read the procedures for weighted voting several times and
that he did not understand them. He
asked why the Assembly needs to employ a system of election that a relatively
intelligent person cannot understand. He
noted that there are many other committee elections across the university and
that there is no reason why SACUA should continue to be dramatically different.
He asserted that election procedures should avoid be designed to avoid
problems as much as possible.
Professor
Byosiere commented that he carefully read the written statements of candidates
last year and that he based his ranking accordingly. He said the more information, the better.
Professor
Giordani asked if anyone could explain why the existing system was put in place
at all. He said that sometimes we
change things without understanding the system. Chair Koopmann asked if the Rules Committees should be
consulted prior to election, although, he said, the election was scheduled for
the next meeting of the Assembly.
Professor
Pedraza remarked that a weighted voting system perhaps can avoid ties.
Professor Berent suggested that if Assembly members can each vote for
only three candidates, for example, and if seat limits by unit are enforced,
then maybe the open seats will not be filled by the election.
Professor Lehman pointed out that the Assembly itself is the judge of all
matters relating to its own elections and can construct appropriate remedies. He said that in the unlikely event that most candidates
proposed by the nominating committee garner no votes, perhaps the Assembly would
decide that it needs to get new candidates.
Additional
comments concerned the advantages or disadvantages of being able to consciously
vote against some people as well as to vote for others, and the advisability of
structuring the elections to assure fixed numbers of seats per unit.
Vote on the Amendment
Number
Favoring- 29
Number Opposing- 8
Abstentions of Record- 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION OF THE SENATE ASSEMBLY 021604-1
Vote on the Amended Main Motion
The amended main motion regarding election Guidelines was approved with none
opposing and one abstention of record. The
final form of the Election Procedures Guidelines is appended at the end of these
minutes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTI-HAZING
RESOLUTION
Professor Remick offered the following motion (Lehman seconded):
The
Faculty Senate Assembly supports efforts by the University of Michigan to reduce
hazing practices with the potential to result in serious bodily harm.
Assembly
members offered various amendments to the proposed resolution, all of which were
accepted as friendly amendments by Professor Remick.
He said that his aim in bringing the matter forward was to obtain a
“sense of the Assembly” on hazing matters.
Chair
Koopmann reported that student athlete representatives have raised objections to
anti-hazing policy. He asked if
there was a suitable definition of hazing.
He said that athletes feel there is a positive aspect to ‘hazing’
when ‘hazing’ includes merely having students sing their high school song,
or retrieve the football helmets from the practice field.
Professor Raisler suggested that maybe there should be a definition of
hazing at the beginning of the motion, which could include both physical and
psychological effects. Professor Brown suggested that there might be a need for an
analog of the IRB to consider proposed ‘hazing’ practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION OF THE SENATE ASSEMBLY 021604-2
An amended resolution was developed with input from multiple Assembly members:
The
faculty senate assembly supports efforts by the University of Michigan to
eliminate hazing practices with the potential to result in bodily or
psychological harm.
Vote on
the amended main motion-
The amended motion was approved with none opposing and 2 abstentions of record.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OLD
BUSINESS
There was no additional old business.
NEW
BUSINESS
There was no new business.
The
meeting adjourned at 4:54 P.M.
Respectfully
submitted,
John T.
Lehman
Senate Secretary
University
of Michigan Bylaws of the Board of Regents, Sec. 5.02:
Governing
Bodies in Schools and Colleges
In
each school, college, or degree granting division of the University, including
those at the University of Michigan-Dearborn and at the University of
Michigan-Flint, the governing faculty shall be in charge of the affairs of the
school, college, or division, except as delegated to the executive committee,
if any, and except that in the School of Graduate Studies the governing board
shall be the executive board, and in the Medical School shall be the executive
faculty.
Approved by Senate Assembly – February 16, 2004
UNIVERSITY
OF MICHIGAN
SENATE ASSEMBLY
SENATE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY AFFAIRS (SACUA)
ELECTION PROCEDURES GUIDELINES
February
16, 2004
During
the annual election process to replace outgoing or resigning SACUA members, the
following procedures shall be followed: