•
•
•
C E N T R A L .III I CHI G A NUN I V 8 R SIT Y
8 0 A ROO P T R U S T H H S
Special Meeting
Augus t 15 . 1984
• •
• •
• •
Cen tral Michigan University Board of Trustees
Special Meeting August 15, 1984
Mt . Pleasant, Mi c hLgan
Members present: Mr. Alfred J. Porti no, Chair;
Dr . Be r nadine N. Denning; Mr. Raymond A. LABounty;
Dr. Go rdon N. Lambie; Ms. Rachael E. Moreno; Mr. William C.
Odykirk ; Mrs . Allee Tomboul1an; Dr . Harold Abel , President .
Member s absent: Mrs . Ma rgaret Ann Rtecker.
Also attendi ng: Dr. John E. Cantelon. Provost; Mr. Arthur E.
El11s, Vice President tor Public Affairs; Mr . James L. Hill ,
Vice President for Student Affairs; Mr. Ri chard L. Miller,
Secretary to the Board of Trustees; Mr . Je rry R. Tubbs,
Treasurer of t he Board of Tru s tees and Vice President tor
Busi ness and Plna nce .
The Chair o pened the meeting at 3:30 p . m. noting that this
specia l meeting of the Board of Trustees had been convened by
Mr. Raymond LaBounty, Dr . Go rdon Lambie, Ms . Rachael Mo ren o ,
Mr. Will iam Odykirk and himself (a copy of the meeting notice
is at t ached) . The subject of the meeting, he reported, is a
review of the ci r cums tances of the vetoes of app r opri ations
for the CW U- M~I affiliation a nd for the lET Building .
Mr. Po rti no said that barring objections the meeting would be
an open forum and questions would be entertained f r om a ny
Trustee.
Mr. Odykirk noted that he had requested this special meeting
to discuss the line item veto of the MMI and of the l ET
Building . He sa id furthe r that the meeting was ca lled with
the assurance that at least si~ Trustees could participate.
He then asked how the veto of the MMI approp riation had
happened and whether there was a chance of saving MMJ .
Mr. Portino said that the veto by the Governor came as a
su rpr ise and shock to everyone . He reported that the
President had gone to Ann Arbor to attend the signing o f the
a ppropriations btll and on l y minutes after arriving there was
told that the Governor had ve t oed this pr oject . Mr. Fortino
th en directed the Board's attent ion t o a letter from
Mr . Robert Hefner dated August 10 , 1984. He said further that
2046
no one in the University administration had any idea that the
MMI appropriation would be vetoed .
Ms . Moreno then inquired as to the sequence of events leading
up to the veto. Once the MMJ was proposed, how was the
initial contact made in Lansing? What was the nature of
ongoing negotiations and process from the initial contact
through the presentlltLon to the Board? What were the
communications that gave the administration assurances that
the MMt appropriations would be approved?
President Abel responded that there were two legislative aides
in attendance and that they could report on contacts in
Lansing .
Mr. Miller reported that he had first contacted legislators in
Lansing regarding the MMf in January 1984. He said that he
had talked with several legislators at that time to let them
know that the University was in the process of negotiating
.ith the MMI for some sort of merger of the two institutions .
He said he gave legislators as much information as he had at
the time and informed them that negotiations might not be far
enough along by budget hearing time to present something
concrete. lie reported further that the purpose of his visits
with legislators was to fami liarize them with the negotia_
tions so that they would not be caught by surprlse if the
matter came up at the budget hearing .
Mr . Ellis sald that shortly after these early contacts we
ente red into the time frame of the recall elections and the
reorganization of the Senate . The CMU House budget hearing
was on ~ar ch 6. At that hearing in the routine walking
through we included as an item in ou r b\ldget presentation Iln
update on the MMI proposal. Mr . Hefner accompanied the
University officials . The meeting was chai red by
Representative Hood. It was an informational presentation at
that point and the President alerted the commi ttee that we
would be asking for money later.
In response to Ms . ~ oreno ' s question as to whether any dollar
figures were mentioned Mr. Ellis said that $750,000 was
mentioned as a range of funding . Dr. Cantelon added that CMU
had asked for $4 . 2 million over the next five years with
$:150,000 of 1 t for 1984.
Mr. LaBounty noted that the Board had never seen nor been
privy to any r equest tor funding the M~I project .
Or . Abel snld that the $350,000 fi!;ure was determin<>d by negotiations,
as we were seekIng as m~ch as wp could get over a
2047
•
•
•
•
•
•
three_year period with the aid of the thr~e major foundations .
The figures were $350,000 the Hrst year, $700,000 the second
year and $1,050,000 for each of the fInal three years. These
figures were changed as a result ot a ca ll from the Chairman
o f th~ Senate Appropriations Subcommittee offe ring to revise
the fIve_year schedule to $600,000 each for the first t.o
years and $1,000,000 each year for thp last three .
Dr . Lambie inquired whether there had been any legtimate contact
with the Governor's Office d\lring that period .
Dr . Abel responded that he and Dr. Cantelon, along with
President Stein and ~r. Hefner, had met with Robert Naftaly,
Director of the Department of Management and Budget, and had
explained the project to him in April. Mr. Naftaly appreciated
the background information . Mr. ElliS added that he
had passed on background information also to a s taff member in
DMB .
The Chair then suggested that the Board has to move with some
kind of strategy and urKed the Board to give the administration
some guidance before conclusion of the meeting.
Nr . LaBounty asked to see the Budget Request in the form tn
which it was submitted to the State, as the Board was not
involved and did not see it . He expressed conce rn that
political processes took precedence over normal University
processes for approving new programs.
Ms . Moreno observed that it was paradoxical that Board members
were asking questions about the quality of the MMI, the type
of faculty, academic processes, etc . and that not all of the
questions were received in a positive sense by the administration
.
Mr . LaBounty asked it it were not true that at a time when we
could not tell our Chemistry faculty what the degree would be,
we had a PRR pending for a Polymer Science degree? How did it
get in the PRR?
Dr . Abel said the PRR language employed a generic term and,
since polymer science is the more general term, it was used at
a time when the task force was still working out the terms of
the degree .
Ur . Odykirk said that at a r ecen t meeting of the MAGR a representative
of the Governor ' s Commission made it clear there
would be no appropriations until the Commission issued its
final report. The vetoes, therefore , were not surprising .
2048
Mr. Fortino said that he took the Governor at his word. The
veto was 01 appropriation. not of the project itself.
Although we can understand the veto, what we don't have is an
appropriation for this year . We don't know what the
Commission will r eport and d on't know anything that will
happen in the future .
We want to go ahead and try t o keep everyone informed in
Lansing because we f eel we are on the right tra c k. Do we now
set on our hands or con tinue to 'Mo rk on this project?
Or . Abel said that with r egard to ci rcumstances surrounding
the veto it was in hindsight a tactical e rro r o n our part to
have the JoINr appropriation listed as a line item . If the MMI
money had been i nc luded in ou r lump sum appropriation it would
not have been vetoed. He repo rted further that he had
received an invitation on July 20 t o atte nd the Gove rn o r's
signi ng of the appropriation btll on August 21 in Ann Arbor.
At that time funding had been approved by a majority 1n both
houses . lie went to Ann Arbor for the signing and learned of
the veto shortly before the signlng was to take place. In a
private discussion with ~r. Naftaly at that time , Dr . Abel
said , ~r . Nafta1y informed hlm that the decision to veto was
reached very late the night before and for this reason it had
been impossible to so inform him earlier . The Pr esident
r e po rted also that , Since the veto, he ha s written the
Gove rno r reques ting a meeting to provide additional informa_
tion on the benefits of the CMU-MM I affiliation.
Ms . Mo reno said that it is unpalatable to make requests
withou t appropriate planning and discussion t o have the plan
approved .
Mr. LaBounty said it i s the process that is importan t. The
extra $600,000 is not the key. I t is that action is taken
befor e coming to the Board . The President agreed.
Ms . Moreno inquired whether , given the approval of the
affi liation by both CNU and MYI, there had becn any activity
by the ta sk force on the degree, whethe r any staff have been
identified or of fered positions in the MMI and whether the
development of the degree prog ram had c hanged at this
j unct ure.
Dr . Cantelon responded that the Graduate Dean would r e port o n
the progress ot the task fo r ce at the September Board meeting .
tie said the task force has been doing an excellen t job and
has learned a l ot about polymer science .
2049
• •
•
•
1
J
•
•
Ms. Moreno asked if CMU had employed anyone specifically for
the MNI ope ration . Dr .Cantelon reported that no one had been
hired, but that he had Interviewed four candidates f o r the
poSition of Director .
The President reported that the Governor's Chief of Staff
informed him that MMI was vetoed because they had to await the
report of the Governor ' s Commission before moving ahead and
that the merge r is still an open question.
Returnin~ to an ear lier question Dr . Cantelon explai ned that
Dr. David Murphy had been hired as Assistant Vice Provost on a
temporary one-yea r appointment to assist in the integration of
MMI into the state system and to wo rk with the Cadillac
Consortium.
Mr . Fortino then offered the following resolution:
Resolved: The MMI baving approached CMU a lew months
ago to enter into an agreement whereby the two
institutions would continue to expand the work of
this institute in polymer chemistry with the end in
view of creating in Michigan a sound academic
setting for the general field of polymers and at
the same time promoting the advancement ot the
industri~l aspects of polymer chemistry; and
The two institutions having signed aagreements to
carry forward this program because it was felt that
it was an implementation of the announced objectives
of the State to utilize its academic community
to foster new industry in the State; and
It appearing that the Legislature , through the
supportive action of both the House and Senate , has
viewed the prog r am 1n the same light;
However , it appearing that the Office of the
Governor is hesitant to provide funds at this time
because the Commission on Higher Education bas not
yet reported its recommendations;
It is the declared purpose of the Board of Trustees
thtlt llie Presldent and Administrlltion continue in
efforts lO effectuate t he program agreed upon by
CMU and MMI and that the following actions be
taken:
2050
A. Explore with MMI new conditions which will pe rmit
us to go forward while we await the Commission
' s r eport, di scuss ing new time frames and
continued pursuit of NSF and other funding.
B. Establish comm unications with the Gove rnor' s
office to keep them advised of our progress and
to conv i nce them of our ability to consummate
the program .
C. Pursue other sources of funding (other than
Stat.e) .
D. Continue studies now under way in the
University t o prepare a doc t oral program in
polyme r sciences, giving the Board of Trustees
information as to academic studies , costs, need
and feasibi lity.
E. Report back to the Board of Trustees as to all
of these matters and the Board will then
authorize the Pr esident to confer with the
Governor's office as well as with the
Legislatu re to see i f we can proceed with the
coope ration of the State .
F. Meanwhile , we have proceeded in acco rdance with
our constitutional prerogatives and responsi_
bilities to guide the academic development of
the University and the general welfare of the
State and those prerogatives and duties compel
us t o continue with this program.
Mr. Fortino explained that there were no general fund dollars
involved in the resolution he had proposed. The intent 15
that we cannot stop what we have already approved . Ie must go
on and show higher education and the Governor that this is a
wo rthwhile venture.
Dr. Abel said there is l ikely to be a supplemental alloca _
tion . Forward funding may be r estored in a lump or periodic
sum. Private tunding is also a possibility, or wait a year
and request state support again.
Ms . Noreno said that if the forward funding is restored , first
priority must go to e xi st ing programs betore the restoration
goes to IoIMt .
2051
• •
•
•
Mrs. Tomboul!an observed that it is not co rrect to think of
the MMI attll1ation as a "growth" of C!.tU . We are talking
about a highly specialized program.
Mr . LaBounty asked the Provost if it were not unusual to
c reate a new Assistant Vice Provost position and fill it with
a one-year appointment . Shouldn't affirmative action guidelines
be followed? Shouldn't the appointment have Board
approval? Dr . Cantelon said that the Murphy appointment was
really a target of opportunity . Dr. Murphy has a doctorate in
educational administration, several years' experience in
higher education budgeting in the Fi scal Agen cy and experience
as head of the COmmunity College ASSociation. Since this is a
one-year inter im appointment, it does not violate affirmative
actlon procedures .
The Chair asked the Board to turn its attention to the
resolution .
MS. Moreno said she was not sure she would vote to support the
resolution because it addressed steps in the planning process
that were six months overdue. The vetoed $600,000 was a small
part of the whole state appropriation that was of benetit to
•
the University . MYI would have been enhanced more by a more
gracious r esponse to the veto.
•
Dr . Lambie otfered several tocusing questions. Where are we
now with regard to M~I? Where are we going? What is our
timetable? How does the NMI react t o all of this?
The Chai r asked it it is the consensus that we will proceed
with the understanding that no money will be taken from
internal programs to fund MMI? There was no objection to the
Chai r's statement of consensus nor to his stated intent to
discuss this matter further at the September Board meeting.
Dr . Abel said that the Board had made it clear that there will
be no part of the appropriation money used for MMI. We must
look for other sources of funding. It may be possible to
raise money outside or there may be a supplemental appropriation
or perhaps MY1 can operate temporarily without
additional money .
The President then reported briefly on the veto at appropriations
for the lET Building . He said that every appropriation
for higher education capltal outlay had been vetoed and that
the lET was not slngled out. The reason tor the veto was the
Governor's wish to await the report of hls commission before
approving any new cap ltal outlay projects .
2052
It was moved by Dr. Denn ing , seconded by
car r ied. that the meetin& be a djour ned.
t he meeting at 5:50 p .m.
Dc. .c.
Richard L. Miller
Lamb i e , a nd
fo rtino ad journed
Sec r e tary to the Board o f Trustees
2053
•
•
•
CENTRAL MICIUGAN UNIVERSITY
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
August 10, 1984
To the Members of the Board of Trustees:
On behalf of the Trustees named below I am writ ing to convene
a special meeting of the Boa rd of Trustees on Wednesday,
August 15, 1984 at 3:00 p.m. i n the Board Room of the Bovee
Unive rsity Center .
This special meeting Is being convened
Section 2 , Article III, of the Central
Board o f Trustees Charter .
~we a r e calling this special
reviewing the circumstances
for the CMU_MMI affiliation
under the provisions
Michigan Unive r si ty
cc: President Abel
meeting for the purpose of
of the vetoes of appropriations
and for the I.E.T. Building .
lsI
to r :
(Wi ll iam C. Ody kirk)
Alfred J . Fo r tino
Raymond A. laBounty
Gordon N. Lambie
Rachael E. Mo reno
William C. Odyki rk
of
