From left: University of Michigan regent Julia Darlow talks with UM president Mary Sue Coleman after the April 2 special meeting of the board. Darlow was the only regent physically present for the meeting. All other regents participated via conference call. (Photos by the writer.)

Dissenting in the 5-3 vote were the board’s two Republican regents – Andy Richner and Andrea Fischer Newman – as well as Democrat Libby Maynard. Richner and Newman objected vigorously to the action. Richner said it was inappropriate to intervene in a “political spat,” and worried that the vote could have long-term implications that the regents may regret. Newman said the issue involved House procedural rules that Democrats and Republicans have both used in the past.

Denise Ilitch, who voted with the Democratic majority, said the view of Richner and Newman was hypocritical. She said that they had testified at legislative hearings in support of legislation that had the effect of preventing GSRAs from unionizing. Maynard said her opposition was for very different reasons than those given by Richner and Newman, and indicated that she wasn’t comfortable in general with the university filing amicus briefs.

Except for Julia Darlow, all other regents participated in the meeting via conference call.

A hearing on the lawsuit took place earlier in the day at Ingham County Circuit Court, where judge Clinton Canady III ruled in favor of the Democrats and issued a stay on legislation that had been given immediate effect, including the GSRA legislation. That law – which regents had voted to oppose at a Feb. 21 special meeting – made explicit that GSRAs are not entitled to collective bargaining rights under Michigan’s Act 336 of 1947. There are more than 2,000 GSRAs at the university.

Republicans are expected to appeal Canady’s ruling. The motion that was passed by a majority of regents on Monday directed UM administrators to file an amicus “friend of the court” brief in any appeal as well. Jeff Irwin, a Democrat from Ann Arbor’s District 53, is one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

Background: GSRA Law, Legislative Actions

In April 2011, the Graduate Employees Organization (GEO) and the American Federation of Teachers/Michigan (AFT/MI) filed a petition with the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) to become the representative of graduate student research assistants (GSRAs) under the state’s Public Employment Relations Act.

At their May 19, 2011 meeting, UM regents debated and ultimately passed a resolution supporting the rights of GSRAs to decide whether to organize and be represented by a labor union. The resolution was introduced near the beginning of that meeting by Julia Darlow, who at that time served as the board’s chair. It stated:

Consistent with the University of Michigan’s proud history of strong positive and mutually productive labor relations, the Board of Regents supports the rights of university Graduate Student Research Assistants, whom we recognize as employees, to determine for themselves whether they choose to organize.

During that meeting, UM president Mary Sue Coleman spoke against the resolution in a statement she read aloud prior to the vote. [.pdf file of Coleman's full statement]

Hearings were subsequently held before administrative law judge Julia Stern, who was expected to make a recommendation to MERC in March of 2012. The purpose was for MERC to determine whether GSRAs are employees. MERC had previously ruled in 1981 that GSRAs were not employees.

But before MERC acted, in mid-February 2012 Republican state Sen. Randy Richardville introduced Senate Bill 971. The bill made explicit that GSRAs are not entitled to collective bargaining rights under Michigan’s Act 336 of 1947. The senate government operations committee, which Richardville chairs, held a hearing on the legislation on the morning of Feb. 21. That same morning, UM regents held a special meeting to discuss a response to the legislation.

After a contentious debate that pitted the two Republican regents against the Democratic majority on the board, regents voted 6-2 to formally oppose the bill. The committee later in the day voted to recommend the bill for passage by the full Senate, and the bill was ultimately passed by both the Senate and the House (HB 4246), and signed into law by Gov. Rick Snyder on March 13.

Under normal circumstances, the legislation would have become law 90 days after the end of a legislative session. However, the legislature’s GOP majority used an “immediate effect” maneuver to enact the law as soon as it was signed by the governor. According to Article IV, Section 27 of the Michigan Constitution, the legislature can give immediate effect to an act by a two-thirds vote of the members in each house. The recent “immediate effect” votes in the House were taken by voice vote, not by roll call, leaving some question about whether the action achieved the required number of votes.

House Democrats – including Rep. Jeff Irwin of Ann Arbor’s District 53 – have demanded roll-calls for “immediate effect” votes, on this and other legislation. According to Article IV, Section 18 of the state Constitution, a roll-call vote must be taken if requested by one-fifth of the members of either the House or Senate. With 110 House representatives, 22 representatives would be constitute one-fifth of the House. There are currently 47 Democratic representatives in the House.

House Democrats have said they presented sufficient signatures to force roll-call votes on immediate effect, but that those attempts were ignored by the House Republican majority. So on March 27, the House Democratic leadership announced that they were filing a lawsuit against their Republican counterparts over the refusal by the GOP majority to hold recorded roll-call votes. Irwin is one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which was filed in Ingham County Circuit Court. [Lansing is located in Ingham County.]

On April 2, Judge Clinton Canady III held a “show cause” hearing, which concluded prior to the UM regents’ special meeting that afternoon. At the conclusion of the hearing, Canady granted the Democrats’ request for a preliminary injunction, preventing House Republicans from using voice votes to give legislation immediate effect. Canady also enjoined the enactment of immediate effect on three House bills: HB 4246, related to banning the unionization of GSRAs; HB 4929, which banned public schools from collecting dues for teachers unions; and HB 5063, which required future ballot proposals to be approved by the Board of State Canvassers before being circulated. HB 5063 has not yet passed the Senate.

HB 4246 directly affects UM’s 2,000-plus GSRAs.

Pre-Meeting Exchanges

Unlike the previous special meeting on Feb. 21, which was sparsely attended by executive officers, the April 2 meeting drew several UM executives to the boardroom, including provost Phil Hanlon, CFO Tim Slottow, vice president and secretary Sally Churchill, and Cynthia Wilbanks, vice president for government relations. UM president Mary Sue Coleman, who participated in the last special meeting via conference call, was in the room as well this time to chair the session.

Suellyn Scarnecchia, UM’s general counsel, attended the meeting in person. Also attending in person were Ora Pescovitz, UM’s executive vice president for medical affairs, and Doug Strong, CEO of the UM Hospitals and Health Centers.

All regents – with the exception of Julia Darlow – participated via conference call. Before the official start of the meeting, Libby Maynard asked about an email that regents had received from Nancy Asin, assistant secretary of the university, regarding an issue related to the UM hospital. Coleman told her that wasn’t the topic of this meeting, and Churchill quickly added that Maynard was speaking at a public meeting with others in the room. Churchill said there would be an “informal discussion” with regents on the topic that Maynard had broached, following the public meeting.

Maynard asked who was in the room, and Coleman replied that several executive officers, the media, and “other interested parties” were there. [In addition to The Chronicle, other media included representatives from the Detroit News, Detroit Free Press, AnnArbor.com and the Michigan Daily.]

Also prior to the meeting’s start, regent Martin Taylor  – speaking via conference phone – noted that the judge had already issued a decision in the case. Denise Ilitch, the board’s chair, said she still thought they should proceed, and Taylor agreed. The case will likely be heard in appeals, he said. “Exactly,” Ilitch replied.

Special Meeting: Amicus Brief

Mary Sue Coleman called the meeting to order and turned to Suellyn Scarnecchia, UM’s general counsel, who said it was her understanding that the meeting had been called to determine if the university would take an official position regarding the legal challenge to the legislature’s “immediate effect” actions. She reported that the judge had issued a decision earlier in the day – she noted that she had already emailed this information to UM executives and regents.

The judge’s ruling from the bench was in favor of the Democratic legislators, Scarnecchia said, and stayed the “immediate effect” enactment of recent legislation but did not address the substance of the legislation.

The question is whether to file an amicus brief with the court, Scarnecchia said – the judge had indicated that he would allow it – and also whether to file if the judge’s decision is appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals. She noted that David Fink and Darryl Bressack – with the Bloomfield Hills law firm Fink + Associates – were acting as outside counsel for UM and were on the conference call. Bressack had been in the courtroom earlier in the day when the judge made his ruling, she said.

Noting that he was actually out of the country, Fink told regents that he and Bressack were there to answer questions. As far as procedural moves, it’s inevitable that the case will be appealed, he said. The ruling that day was of particular relevance, he added, because it stayed the immediate effect of Public Act 45. [The law is also known as the Public Employment Relations Act, and states that graduate student research assistants (GSRAs) are not public employees.]

Fink said the intent is now to ask the the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) to move forward with its own ruling on whether GSRAs are employees. Fink also reported that the judge had said there’s nothing precluding the legislature from taking a vote on immediate effect – it would pass if it received a two-thirds majority. “I don’t know if they would do that,” Fink said. Regardless, he added that his firm will anticipate taking the university’s position to the appeals court.

Regent Martin Taylor said he was ready to make a motion directing counsel to file a friend-of-the-court brief in this lawsuit. Although the judge has issued an opinion, Taylor noted, briefs can still be filed. Taylor moved to file an amicus brief in the Ingham County Circuit Court and any other court through the appeals process. The motion was seconded by Denise Ilitch.

Libby Maynard said she didn’t want anyone to be surprised by her vote, but she didn’t feel good about the university filing an amicus brief so she wouldn’t support this motion. She indicated that she didn’t want to go into further detail about her decision, but later said that it’s for totally different reasons than the ones cited by other regents – Andy Richner and Andrea Fischer Newman – who also opposed it.

UM president Mary Sue Coleman at the April 2 special regents meeting.

Richner asked Coleman what her views are on the matter. Coleman replied that she had made her comments last year, and that she wouldn’t comment on this case. It’s something the board needs to decide, she said.

Coleman was referring to remarks she made at the May 2011 regents meeting. At that meeting on a 6-2 vote, regents passed a resolution supporting the rights of GSRAs to decide whether to organize and be represented by a labor union. Before the vote, Coleman had spoken out against the move, describing the relationship between graduate researchers and faculty as a special one that was fundamentally different than an employee-employer relationship. Changing the nature of that interaction could affect the university in significant ways, which she said caused her deep concern. Richner and Newman, the only two Republican regents, had voted against the resolution.

At the April 2 meeting, Richner asked whether the university had done anything like this in the past, in terms of filing an amicus brief: “Isn’t this unprecedented?” Scarnecchia replied that it hadn’t happened during her tenure as general counsel. [She was appointed in June of 2008.]

Larry Deitch pointed out that the board had been fully behind the UM administration during the affirmative action lawsuit against the university, which was appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Newman observed that the case didn’t involved the board moving to file an amicus brief, however.

Richner asked Coleman what her view was regarding the amicus brief. She replied that it’s certainly within the board’s purview to do this, and she wouldn’t question it. However, she added, it’s a rare action to take.

Richner wondered whether the administration would be filing an amicus brief, if the board didn’t direct them to do so.  That determination hadn’t been made, Coleman replied. Those discussions haven’t taken place among the executive staff.

Newman said she didn’t think it was appropriate to file an amicus brief. The university’s interest is only tangential at best, she said, and the board shouldn’t get involved in legislative procedural issues. It doesn’t do the university any good to take sides on a procedural move that both Democrats and Republicans have used over the years, she said.

Newman then said she found the circumstances of this meeting to be troubling. She noted that she had expressed these same views regarding the previous special meeting in February. She understood that public notice of the meeting had been given. [An email message regarding the Monday afternoon meeting had been sent to media on Saturday, March 31. The state’s Open Meetings Act states that notice of a special meeting for a public entity must be posted at least 18 hours in advance of the meeting. And a Michigan attorney general opinion issued by Frank Kelley in 1980 interprets that part of the OMA statute to require that the notice be accessible to the public continuously for the 18 hours preceding the meeting.]

But Newman observed that no topic had been indicated in the meeting notice – she felt the topics should be included in all such notices.

There’s nothing to be gained by not having public commentary on this issue, Newman said. [No agenda was made available, and there was no opportunity for public commentary during the meeting.] She said the regents tend not to share information on this topic, unlike anything else they do at the institution. She repeated that she found it troubling.

Richner agreed with Newman. Weighing in on a political spat between political parties is unprecedented and could have long-term implications that the regents may regret. In the past, he noted, the university has taken a position on certain legislation that it wanted to take immediate effect. He said he understood the passion on the issue –  presumably referring to the GSRA law – but this lawsuit goes well beyond that, and he didn’t think they should take a position on it.

Ilitch said she deeply disagreed with some of the observations that had been made. With respect to noticing meetings, she said the board has conducted itself as it always has. She supported Taylor’s motion, saying that it’s important to the values of the university. It’s scary to her when legislation is passed that takes immediate effect. Historically, there have been awful laws passed, she said.

Ilitch also said it was hypocritical to talk about not taking political positions, when Richner and Newman had testified in support of the GSRA legislation. “You can’t have it both ways,” she said.

Deitch said that Ilitch had articulated the reasons why he also supported Taylor’s motion. The university is an institution that’s about free speech, and about the right of the minority to be heard, he said. The rules of due process were not followed by the legislature. There were written requests for a roll-call vote, he noted, but those requests were ignored.

The university is an institution that’s about upholding certain values, Deitch said, and the actions of the GOP legislators are inconsistent with those values, in his judgment.

Newman responded by saying that she hadn’t seen the brief filed by Republicans in this case, but she didn’t believe the lawsuit had anything to do with the rules of due process. These are House rules, she said, and both Democrats and Republicans have used them. It’s not the board’s business to intervene. It has nothing to do with the principles of free and open speech. In the future when meetings like this are called, she hoped that the topic would be provided in advance and that people would have the chance to speak during public commentary. She hoped the future meetings would allow the kind of free speech “that we all cherish so dearly.”

Outcome: On a 5-3 roll-call vote, the board passed a resolution directing the administration to file an amicus brief in support of the state House Democrats’ lawsuit. Dissenting were Libby Maynard, Andrea Fischer Newman and Andy Richner.

Present: Mary Sue Coleman (ex officio), Julia Darlow. Also present via conference call: Larry Deitch, Denise Ilitch, Olivia (Libby) Maynard, Andrea Fischer Newman, Andy Richner, Martin Taylor, Kathy White.

Next regular board meeting: Thursday, April 19, 2012 at 3 p.m. at the Fleming administration building on UM’s central campus. [confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the University of Michigan board of regents. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

By way of background, last month state House Democrats sued Republicans over the refusal by the GOP majority to hold recorded roll-call votes when super-majorities are required to pass a bill. The strategy results in bills taking effect immediately after being signed by Republican Gov. Rick Snyder, rather than becoming law 90 days after the end of a legislative session. Jeff Irwin, a Democrat from Ann Arbor’s District 53, is one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

A hearing in the case took place earlier today at Ingham County Circuit Court, where judge Clinton Canady III ruled in favor of the Democrats and issued a stay on legislation that had taken immediate effect, including the GSRA legislation. That law made explicit that GSRAs are not entitled to collective bargaining rights under Michigan’s Act 336 of 1947.

Republicans are expected to appeal the ruling. The motion that was passed by a majority of regents directed UM administrators to file an amicus “friend of the court” brief in any appeal as well.

At the April 2 regents meeting, some of the same themes were voiced that had been raised at another special regents meeting on Feb. 21, when the board voted 6-2 formally to oppose Senate Bill 971 – the GSRA legislation that was subsequently enacted. Newman and Richner dissented in that vote too, with Newman questioning whether the meeting conformed to the state’s Open Meetings Act. At Monday’s meeting she again objected to the way in which the meeting was called, arguing that its topic should have been announced in advance and that the meeting should have provided opportunity for public input.

Richner questioned the appropriateness of the board directing UM administrators to take this kind of action, wondering whether it was setting a precedent. Both Richner and Newman said it was inappropriate to intervene in the legislature’s procedures and to get involved in a political spat. Denise Ilitch, who voted with the majority, called that view hypocritical, noting that Richner and Newman had testified at committee hearings in support of Senate Bill 971 the legislation.

Maynard did not disclose why she also opposed the motion at the April 2 meeting, but she said it was for very different reasons than those given by Richner and Newman. More coverage of the meeting: [link]

Members of student groups at the Feb. 16 UM regents meeting stood in support of a speaker during public commentary who was advocating for tuition equality for students who are undocumented immigrants. (Photos by the writer.)

Martin Taylor, who introduced the resolution at the start of the meeting, described the situation as “one that is unacceptable to the regents and that we, the regents, feel we must do everything within our power to ensure that it is not repeated.” There had been a six-month lag between the time the incident was initially reported in May of 2011, and action taken by university officials to investigate. A former medical resident, Stephen Jenson, was arrested in mid-December. [.pdf of Taylor's statement]

The university administration had issued its own report on an internal audit earlier this month, with recommendations to improve security and communications. [.pdf of UM report] But regents felt more needed to be done, and have asked UM president Mary Sue Coleman to work with board chair Denise Ilitch to make recommendations for outside consultants who could be hired to carry out an additional investigation.

During public commentary at the meeting, Coleman was sharply criticized for her handling of the situation. One speaker accused her of a repeated pattern of attacking whistleblowers. The remarks prompted some regents to come to Coleman’s defense, calling the accusations unfair.

The ongoing debate about whether to allow graduate student research assistants (GSRAs) to unionize also emerged during the Feb. 16 meeting, when three students spoke about the topic during public commentary. The same issue was the focus of an unusual special meeting that regents held the following week, on Feb. 21. At that meeting – which included heated debate among regents over whether the meeting had been called in conformity with the state’s Open Meetings Act – the board voted 6-2 to oppose Michigan senate bill 197. The bill would prohibit GSRAs from collective bargaining. It was subsequently passed by the Republican-controlled state senate on a 26-12 party-line vote.

Regents acted on a range of other issues during their Feb. 16 meeting. There was no mention of the Feb. 8 special meeting that had been called to approve the use of Michigan Stadium for the National Hockey League’s Winter Classic, scheduled for Jan. 1, 2013. However, one item on the Feb. 16 agenda did relate to UM athletics: a vote to rename the basketball player development center at Crisler in honor of William Davidson, who died in 2009. His family, via the William Davidson Foundation, recently donated $7.5 million to the University of Michigan athletics department.

Another renaming was also approved – for the Computer Science and Engineering Building, in honor of Bob and Betty Beyster. Bob Beyster, who received multiple degrees from UM and founded Science Applications International Corp., recently gave a $15 million gift to the College of Engineering.

In other business, regents voted to revise the board’s bylaws, including a change that eliminated a previous requirement that executives retire after their 70th birthday. Coleman will be 70 when her current contract expires in 2014, but regent Martin Taylor said the change wasn’t being made to accommodate her – it’s to comply with the law, he said. Regents also authorized the appointment of six Thurnau professorships, and took votes that moved forward several previously approved projects, including major renovations at East Quad and the residences in the Lawyers’ Club.

Two presentations were given during the meeting – by Martin Philbert, dean of the School of Public Health, and Doug Engel, chair and professor of cell and developmental biology. Engel’s presentation highlighted recent news that the U.S. National Institutes of Health has authorized an embryonic stem cell line developed by UM researchers to be eligible for federally funded research.

The meeting concluded with public commentary on a variety of issues, including (1) better access to a childcare subsidy available to parents who are UM students; (2) equity for students who are charged out-of-state tuition because they are undocumented immigrants; and (3) criticism of the university’s relationship with China.

Security Investigation: Child Pornography Incident

At the start of the Feb. 16 meeting, president Mary Sue Coleman began her introductory remarks by giving an update on the investigation regarding a former UM medical resident who is charged with possession of child pornography. The former medical resident, Stephen Jenson, is accused of viewing child pornography on a UM health system computer, via a thumb drive that was discovered on the computer by another medical resident. The incident was reported in May of 2011 but was not acted on by university officials until November. Jenson was arrested in mid-December, and the case is now being handled by federal investigators.

On Feb. 10, the university issued a report of its internal investigation, which included recommendations for changes to ensure better security and communication. A statement was also issued by Coleman, who called the six-month delay in responding to the allegations “a serious failure on the part of our institution – there is simply no other way to describe it.” [.pdf of UM report] [.pdf of Coleman's statement] The university’s office of the vice president for communications has set up a website with documents related to the incident.

At the Feb. 16 regents’ meeting, Coleman said the UM leadership and regents have discussed the internal audit in detail. It was a frank, difficult and necessary assessment of the institution, she said, and of the safety and security of the health system as well as the entire campus.

Regent Martin Taylor.

Regent Martin Taylor then read a resolution – one that he introduced from the floor – calling for an external investigation of the situation. The resolution described the incident as “one that is unacceptable to the regents and that we, the regents, feel we must do everything within our power to ensure that it is not repeated.” [.pdf of Taylor's statement]

The resolution called for the board chair, Denise Ilitch, to work with Coleman and others to make recommendations to the board for outside consultants who could be hired to carry out an investigation. The aim would be to (1) determine individual accountability and whether further action must be taken: and (2) examine the current organizational structure for campus law enforcement and investigations, and to provide options with regard to that structure. The resolution also stated that “911 must be fixed ASAP. When people call, it should be clear who they are talking to, and under what authority.” The resolution did not specify a timeframe for these actions to occur.

Outcome: Without discussion, regents unanimously approved the resolution calling for an external investigation.

After the vote, Coleman said she shared these concerns and appreciated the board’s deep commitment. She said she’d work with Ilitch to launch quickly the actions called for by the board. The incident and the underlying issues it revealed are unacceptable, she said. Coleman vowed to take any additional steps needed in the coming weeks.

Security Investigation: Public Commentary

During public commentary at the end of the meeting, two people addressed the board on this issue, harshly criticizing the university in general and Coleman specifically for failing to deal with the situation in a timely way.

Douglas Smith, who has regularly spoken at previous meetings on issues related to campus security, told regents that this situation is another example of Coleman’s administration reacting to a scandal by attacking the whistleblower. The phrase “Punish the whistleblower” is as much a Michigan slogan as “Go Blue,” he said. Smith cited several examples, including one in which he said a university attorney threatened him with arrest because he brought forward information about grant fraud.

Smith noted that he had appeared before the board at its Nov. 17, 2011 meeting, reporting a cover up of the arrest of UM athlete Brendan Gibbons for allegedly raping an 18-year-old freshman. Smith said he wanted Coleman to have a picture of the freshman to put by her bedside so that she could apologize to her every night. Smith wished he had a photo of the girl on Jenson’s thumb drive so that Coleman could apologize to her, too. Smith also raised questions about the “mysterious” resignation of former UM police chief Greg O’Dell, who returned abruptly to his previous job at Eastern Michigan University last year and committed suicide soon after that. Coleman refused to be interviewed by detectives investigating O’Dell’s death, Smith claimed, and the state police should be asked to investigate “this obstruction of justice.”

“This is the tip of the iceberg,” Smith said. “Don’t bury your head in the sand. No whistleblower will be safe until Mary Sue Coleman is gone.”

Regent Andrea Fischer Newman immediately responded to Smith’s remarks, calling them “unfair and uncalled for.”

The next speaker was Victoria Powell, a pediatrician, who also addressed this issue and called the case abhorrent. The issue of defending the children hasn’t been mentioned, she said. If the university had reported this incident to the police, there would have been an immediate investigation that would have looked into the safety of the children whose pornographic pictures were found, as well as the safety of children in the new pediatric hospital that UM recently opened. [UM's new C.S. Mott Children's Hospital opened in late 2011.] Powell said she’d never refer a patient to UM and she’ll tell her colleagues in the medical profession how this case was handled. UM has made children the victims, she said, while protecting a man who’s been charged by the FBI with having pictures and videos of sexually abused children. “This is absolutely shameful,” Powell concluded.

After all of the public commentary was concluded (see below for additional remarks on other topics), board chair Denise Ilitch defended Coleman, saying the personal attacks against Coleman were very unfair. Coleman works tirelessly on behalf of young people, Ilitch said. Coleman and the regents are extremely disturbed and unhappy, Ilitch said. The disdain and anger that people feel should be directed toward Jenson, she concluded, not Coleman.

GSRA Debate

The issue of unionizing graduate student research assistants (GSRAs) emerged during the Feb. 16 meeting, when three students spoke on the topic during public commentary to oppose the board’s majority view that GSRAs should be recognized as employees.

By way of background, regents passed a resolution on May 19, 2011 supporting the right of GSRAs to determine whether to organize. The resolution passed over the objection of UM president Mary Sue Coleman and with dissenting votes from the board’s two Republican regents, Andy Richner and Andrea Fischer Newman. At the board’s Jan. 19, 2012 meeting, three faculty members and one student spoke during public commentary, voicing objections to the effort to unionize GSRAs.

Then on Feb. 21, regents held a special meeting where they debated and passed a resolution – on a 6-2 vote – that opposed senate bill 971. The bill would make explicit that graduate student research assistants (GSRAs) are not entitled to collective bargaining rights under Michigan’s Act 336 of 1947. A committee hearing was held later that same morning, followed by a committee vote to send it to the entire senate. On Feb. 22, the senate voted 26-12 to approve the bill, which will next be taken up by the house of representatives.

GSRA Debate: Public Commentary

At the board’s Feb. 16 meeting, Melinda Day told regents that they had overstepped their authority by forcing faculty to remain neutral on the issue – that’s like trying to overturn the First Amendment. Higher education is about debate and the free flow of information. The GSRA issue is complex, she said, and now is the time to have free and open debate about it, from all parties, including faculty.

UM president Mary Sue Coleman, and regent Larry Deitch.

The relationship between a GSRA and faculty is more like a mentor/mentee than an employer/employee, Day said. The faculty is part of the equation – they have rights, and are true guardians of the university. As for the regents, she said, ”you are merely the overseers, and temporary as well.” If the regents choose to silence the faculty, students will speak even louder, she said. Day noted that prospective students will soon be visiting campus. Don’t make current students tell them that at Michigan, professors no longer have the right to be mentors, she told the regents.

Anna Belak, a PhD candidate and GSRA, presented regents with a letter signed by over 800 graduate students and faculty expressing strong disagreement with the board’s decision to recognize GSRAs as employees. The letter outlines rationale for considering GSRAs as students, not employees, and concludes by stating that the signers look forward to a ruling by the administrative law judge who’ll be making a recommendation in March to the Michigan Employment Relations Commission – a ruling “that relegates your ill-advised action in favor of GSRA unionization to history.”

The final speaker during public commentary was Michael Slootsky, a member of Students Against GSRA Unionization. He argued that the activities of a GSRA – even things like grant writing and repairing lab equipment – are educational in nature. To view educational activities only as those that relate directly to your thesis is like studying for a test, then complaining that not everything was tested. The university has an obligation to ensure that every GSRA is fully a student, he said.

Regent Larry Deitch asked Slootsky if he was a student in LSA – the College of Literature, Science and the Arts. Slootsky, a graduate student in physics, said that he was. Deitch then read from an LSA policy guide for hiring GSRAs, which stated that ”Whenever there is an expectation of a certain effort level or outcome in exchange for pay, an employment relationship exists – especially for, but not limited to, work supported by a grant.” Deitch said these are facts that the board was presented, and they should be part of the record.

Regent Andrea Fischer Newman objected, saying that any official policy would have to be approved by the board. She said she didn’t want to have this debate now. Deitch replied that he was just matching free speech with free speech.

Slootsky said he wasn’t familiar with the document that Deitch had read, but that he didn’t feel he was performing his GSRA for pay – the work was for academic purposes, he said. Deitch replied that if that’s the case, when there’s an election to unionize GSRAs, Slootsky should just vote no.

GSRA Debate: Special Regents Meeting & Vote

The following week, a special regents meeting was called for the morning of Feb. 21. [See Chronicle coverage: "UM Regents Debate Opposition"] The 30-minute meeting included a fractious debate over whether the meeting itself was legal – regent Andrea Fischer Newman questioned whether it conformed with the Michigan Open Meetings Act, because it apparently had not been publicly noticed 18 hours in advance, as the OMA requires.

UM president Mary Sue Coleman said the meeting – which she and all the regents conducted via conference call – had been called to consider emergency action, as allowed by regental bylaw 1.01. The bylaw states: ”Emergency action may be taken by the board between meetings if and when any matter arises which, in the opinion of the president, or any three members of the board, requires official action by the board prior to the next meeting. An affirmative vote by telephone, email, or facsimile from five members is required for action.” Newman questioned whether there was actually any emergency in this case.

The business of the meeting focused on a resolution proposed by regent Larry Deitch to oppose senate bill 971. The bill, which was introduced on Feb. 15 by state Senate majority leader Randy Richardville (R-Monroe), states: “An individual serving as a graduate student research assistant or in an equivalent position and any individual whose position does not have sufficient indicia of an employment relationship is not a public employee entitled to representation or collective bargaining rights under this act.” A senate hearing on the bill was scheduled for 11 a.m. in Lansing, a few hours after the regents special meeting that same day.

The resolution proposed by regent Larry Deitch stated opposition to the bill, and directed Cynthia Wilbanks, UM vice president for government relations, to take “all available action” and to articulate UM’s opposition to legislators and, if necessary, the governor’s office. That action could include testimony, the development of position papers, or the hiring of lobbyists. The resolution also stated that Wilbanks should report to the chair of the board or a designee on progress related to the legislation.

At the Feb. 21 meeting of the senate government operations committee, Wilbanks was one of the nine people who testified about the bill. Wilbanks told the committee that the bill would ”interfere in the internal decision-making of the university,” according to a report in the Michigan Information & Research Service (MIRS).

According to minutes of the committee meeting, four others testified in opposition to the bill. They included Samantha Montgomery, president of UM’s Graduate Employees Organization (GEO), and GEO member Jeremy Moore.

Three people testified in support of the bill: Regent Andrew Richner, UM professor Fawwaz Ulaby, and UM graduate student Melinda Day, who had spoken during public commentary at the Feb. 16 regents’ meeting.

Michael Benson, president of UM’s graduate student body, also testified but took a neutral position.

The committee – in a 3-2 party line vote – recommended the bill for passage by the full senate. The following day, on Feb. 22, it was passed by the state senate on a 26-12 party-line vote. [.pdf of senate bill 197] It will next be taken up by the Republican-controlled house of representatives.

Player Center Named for Davidson

Regents addressed a raft of other items during their Feb. 16 meeting. Following a donation of $7.5 million from the William Davidson Foundation to the University of Michigan athletics department, the board was asked to approve renaming the basketball player development center at Crisler in honor of William Davidson, who died in 2009. The resolution was added during the meeting as a supplemental agenda item.

Denise Ilitch, chair of the board of regents, praised the family of Bill Davidson for their contribution to the university. She said she spoke as a member of a fellow sports family – her family owns the Detroit Red Wings and Detroit Tigers.

Davidson, a UM graduate and businessman who owned the Detroit Pistons and other teams, had been a major donor to the university over the past several decades. The William Davidson Institute at UM’s Ross School of Business was founded in 1992 through a gift from Davidson’s business, Guardian Industries.

UM president Mary Sue Coleman described Davidson as a beloved man who had been very generous to the university. She said she regretted that he wasn’t here to see how well the UM basketball team is doing this season. [The team, coached by John Beilein, subsequently beat Ohio State 56-51 on Saturday – they remain undefeated this season at Crisler, and have a 20-7 overall record.]

Jerry May, UM’s vice president of development, said it was tremendous that the Davidson family has stepped forward to do this in memory of a sports icon and one of the smartest UM alums May said he’s ever met. He also thanked the athletic department for its vision, in particular citing athletic director David Brandon.

Board chair Denise Ilitch, whose family owns the Detroit Red Wings and Detroit Tigers, said she spoke as a member of a fellow sports family in thanking Davison’s family for their contribution. She said Davidson left a tremendous legacy, and that he’s sorely missed.

The new basketball player development center at Crisler is a two-story, $23.2 million addition to the basketball arena that regents initially approved in September 2009. According to a press release from the university, the athletics department will honor Davidson at halftime of the final home men’s basketball game on Saturday, Feb. 25.

Outcome: Regents unanimously approved naming the basketball player development center in honor of Bill Davidson.

Building Renamed for Beysters

Another renaming item was on the Feb. 16 agenda – to name the Computer Science and Engineering Building in honor of Bob and Betty Beyster. The building is located at 2260 Hayward Street, on UM’s north campus.

Bob Beyster, who received multiple degrees from UM, is founder and retired chairman of Science Applications International Corp., a research and engineering company. He recently gave a $15 million gift to the College of Engineering, which will be used in part to create the J. Robert Beyster Computational Innovation Graduate Fellows program. The effort will fund research in several fields that link high-performance computing, networking, and storage to applications of importance to society, according to a staff memo.

In presenting the item for consideration, Tim Slottow – UM’s chief financial officer – described the gift as very generous. Jerry May, vice president of development, also praised the Beysters for their contribution.

Outcome: Regents voted unanimously to rename the north campus building the Bob and Betty Beyster Building.

Building Projects: East Quad, Lawyers’ Club, Cardio Center

Three resolutions on the Feb. 16 agenda related to moving ahead on building projects on the Ann Arbor campus – including two major housing renovations initially approved last year.

Regents were asked to authorize staff to issue bids and award construction contracts for the $116 million renovation of East Quad. The overall project had been approved at the board’s July 21, 2011 meeting. Subsequently, regents signed off on a schematic design at the Nov. 17, 2011 meeting.  The 300,000-square-foot residence hall – located at 701 E. University, between Hill and Willard – houses about 860 students and the Residential College. The renovation is expected to be finished by the summer of 2013.

Authorization for issuing bids and awarding construction contracts was also on the agenda for a renovation of The Charles T. Munger Residences in the Lawyers’ Club and the John P. Cook Building. A schematic design for that $39 million project had been approved at the regents Dec. 15, 2011 meeting, with the initial authorization given in March 2011. The building is part of the Law School campus at South State Street, between South University and Monroe streets. The project is also scheduled for completion in the summer of 2013.

Tim Slottow, UM’s chief financial officer, introduced the resolution by describing the project as very challenging, but one that the university is “ready to roll on.” Regent Andy Richner, who graduated from the UM law school, said he has fond memories of his time there and knows that the project will preserve the building’s character.

Also on the agenda was a resolution related to a smaller $2.1 million project to install an uninterruptible power supply at UM’s Cardiovascular Center, located in the medical campus at 1500 E. Medical Center Drive. Slottow jokingly referred to it as a “another sexy project.”

Outcome: In separate votes, regents approved the resolutions related to projects at East Quad, the Lawyers’s Club and John P. Cook Building, and the Cardiovascular Center.

Changes to Bylaws

Sally Churchill, vice president and secretary of the university, introduced a resolution with changes to regents’ bylaws as mostly a housekeeping item, updating the bylaws to conform with current practices or statutes.

One of the changes removed a provision requiring the president and executive officers to end their service no later than the end of the fiscal year in which their 70th birthday occurs. UM legal staff determined that the provision violated protections against age discrimination contained in the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.

UM president Mary Sue Coleman.

UM president Mary Sue Coleman will turn 69 in October of 2012. In November 2010, regents voted to extend her contract through July 31, 2014. If the retirement cap had remained in place, she would not have been eligible for additional contract extensions.

That change to the bylaws was one of seven proposed in the resolution. Other revisions included changing the title and expanding the responsibilities for the vice president of communications – now the vice president for global communications and strategic initiatives. That position is held by Lisa Rudgers. Another change clarified that the provost is involved in recommending the appointment and promotion of tenured professors to the regents. [.pdf of complete set of bylaw revisions]

Before the vote, regent Martin Taylor said there had been rumors about what motivated one of the bylaw revisions, but it’s not about any one individual whatsoever, he said. UM’s legal counsel has advised the board that the bylaw isn’t legal, he said: “It’s as simple as that.” Regent Andy Richner clarified that Taylor was referring to the retirement-age bylaw.

Outcome: Regents unanimously approved revisions to the bylaws.

Thurnau Professors

Provost Phil Hanlon highlighted the resolution awarding the Arthur F. Thurnau professorships to six UM faculty members. The professorships honor outstanding contributions to undergraduate education, and it’s the highest honor that the university can bestow for teaching excellence, he said. Hanlon noted that he has served on the selection committee for several years, and it’s a hard decision to choose from so many qualified candidates.

This year the professorships were all given to male faculty. They are: Joe Bull, associate professor of biomedical engineering; Michael Haithcock, professor of music; Sadashi Inuzuka, professor of art; Brad Orr, professor of physics and chair of the physics department; Brian Porter-Szucs, professor of history; and Steve Skerlos, associate professor of mechanical engineering and associate professor of civil and environmental engineering.

The award includes $20,000 to support teaching activities. The faculty will be honored this year at a March 18 ceremony at Hill Auditorium, Hanlon said.

Outcome: As part of the board’s consent agenda, regents approved the awarding of six Thurnau professorships.

Conflict of Interest Items

Regents were asked to authorize five items that required disclosure under the state’s Conflict of Interest statute. The law requires that regents vote on potential conflict-of-interest disclosures related to university staff, faculty or students.

The items often involve technology licensing agreements or leases. This month, the items related to the following businesses: Structured Microsystems LLC, H3D Inc., ImBio LLC, OncoMed Pharmaceuticals Inc., and OcuSciences Inc.

Outcome: Without comment, regents approved the five conflict-of-interest items in one vote.

Presentations: Public Health, Stem Cell Research

Toward the start of the Feb. 16 meeting, regents heard two health-related presentations – from Martin Philbert, dean of the School of Public Health; and Doug Engel, chair and professor of cell and developmental biology.

From left: Doug Engel, professor of cell and developmental biology, and Martin Philbert, dean of the School of Public Health.

Philbert gave an overview of the School of Public Health, calling it one of the not-so-well-known jewels of the university. The field of public health looks at health issues from a population perspective, at the local, state, national and international levels, he said. The school’s vision is to be the premier academic institution in public health, integrating research, teaching, service and practice to find effective solutions to public health problems.

Philbert noted that the school recently moved up from 5th to 4th place in a U.S. News & World Report ranking. It’s one of two public schools in the top 6 – the other is the University of North Carolina, which recently received a large endowment, he said.

There are 975 students enrolled in UM School of Public Health graduate degree programs. The school also offers a variety of dual-degree programs with other units, including the Ross School of Business, the School of Medicine, and the School of Social Work, among others. Their work is heavily interdisciplinary, Philbert said, and there are funded research endeavors with every school and college except for the School of Music. However, he added, the UM School of Public Health is the only one he knows of with its own pipe organ.

In other examples of interdisciplinary work, Philbert highlighted the 33 centers and initiatives that are associated with the school. He also noted that the school has also offered executive education programs for more than 40 years.

Philbert reviewed a variety of other aspects related to the school, including student achievements and faculty research, funding and publications. He concluded by inviting regents to visit.

In response to a question from regent Larry Deitch about Philbert’s own academic background, Philbert replied that he was “neither fish nor fowl,” reflecting the field’s convergence of disciplines. He was born and bred in England – though he noted that he’s losing his accent – and studied neurochemistry and experimental neurpathology. His more recent work focused on using nanomaterials for the targeting and treatment of brain tumors. At this point, he joked, he’s a bench jockey.

UM president Mary Sue Coleman noted that the database management conducted by some UM public health researchers is exciting work, allowing researchers to sort through huge databases to answer questions about diseases. The work couldn’t have been imagined even 10 years ago, she said.

Presentations: Stem Cell Research

In introducing Doug Engel, chair and professor of cell and developmental biology, Coleman noted that he joined UM about the same time she did – 10 years ago. She highlighted the recent news that the U.S. National Institutes of Health has authorized an embryonic stem cell line developed by UM researchers as eligible for federally funded research. The line – known as UM4-6 and cultivated by Gary Smith, co-director of the UM Consortium for Stem Cell Therapies – is now listed as the 147th stem cell line in the NIH registry. Coleman said the work is possible because Michigan voters, in a 2008 statewide referendum, approved the use of embryonic stem cells in research.

Engel began by reviewing the timeline of UM’s stem cell initiative, starting with a program he and Sue O’Shea initiated in 2003. Their goal was to establish a center of excellence in stem cell biology, and they were able to achieve it with a variety of support and funding, including an NIH award and support from Coleman’s office for the retention of Sean Morrison. [Morrison, a leader in stem cell research, was a vocal advocate for Michigan's 2008 voter referendum. In 2011 he took a post at the University of Texas.]

Engel gave a brief tutorial on three different types of stem cells – human adult stem cells, human embryonic stems cells, and human induced-pluripotent stem cells – and highlighted some of the work being done by UM researchers.

The 2008 Michigan voter referendum was crucial, he noted, because without it, the work being done now at UM would be a felony. The fact that it wasn’t possible to do this kind of work prior to the referendum “distinguished Michigan from all other states,” he said.

Referring to the embryonic stem cell line that’s now listed in the NIH registry, Engel said it allows the line to be used by researchers worldwide. In 2008, UM researchers struggled to identify what type of stem cell work they could do that would be truly unique, compared to research being done elsewhere. Under the leadership of Gary Smith and Sue O’Shea, Engel said, they’ve been able to generate human embryonic stem cell lines from patients that bear specific genetic diseases, including Hemophilia B and Huntington’s disease, among others.

Engel highlighted work by other UM researchers, including Yukiko Yamashita, one of three recent MacArthur Fellows who spoke to regents at their December 2011 board meeting. He concluded by saying ”you can obviously see why I’m so proud to be part of this enterprise.”

Coleman asked how many other institutions are producing stem cell lines. Only about four or five have been successful in doing it, Engel said, although more than a dozen other schools are in production. Coleman noted that the work is difficult, and requires a high degree of technical expertise.

Regent Larry Deitch asked how close researchers are to being able to treat patients using stem cell-based therapies. Engel said he was recently asked in a radio interview if those treatments would be available in the next five years, and it’s safe to say no. It’s fair to be reasonably skeptical until researchers better understand how those cell-based treatments integrate into a patient who’s not healthy. That’s a major difficulty.

In response to another question, Engel said that even though the timeline is long, the thing that motivates researchers on a day-to-day basis is the excitement of discovery – finding something new that no one else on earth has ever seen before.

“We’re happy about your persistence,” Coleman said.

Public Commentary

Ten people had signed up for public commentary at the end of the Feb. 16 meeting. One of them – Linda Martenson – did not appear for her speaking turn. In addition to the public commentary reported above, here is a summary of the speakers’ remarks.

Public Commentary: Student Transcript

Gulala Abraham spoke on behalf of her daughter, Sara Abraham, asking that the university remove a W (withdrawal) from her daughter’s transcript. She described the circumstances that led to the situation. Her daughter did not intend to take the class, and was in Iraq when she discovered that she was still listed on the class roster. An email was sent to the university, Abraham said, but internet service was sporadic and it’s not clear that the email was received. The W on the transcript is unfair, and is affecting her daughter as she applied for medical school. Abraham asked regents to help address the situation.

Regent Andrea Fischer Newman indicated that regents had received email correspondence about this issue, and said she thought they had asked it to be resolved before the board meeting. Regent Andy Richner said he believed the university was in litigation over the matter.

Public Commentary: China

As he has on several occasions at past meetings, William Kauffman, a retired UM engineering professor who is a candidate for the board of regents in the 2012 election, harshly criticized the university’s relationship with China. For nearly three decades, he said, illegal activities – including plagiarism, intellectual property theft and police brutality – have been rampant at the university. UM’s relationship with China is “substantially damaging the economic and military security of the U.S.,” he said, and thousands of Chinese on campus displace American students, “taking home their own little nugget of American assets.”

“As an individual trained concerning national security considerations during the Cold War,” Kauffman said, “it is my opinion that the damage done to our nation via the loss of industrial and military technology to Communist Chinese visitors studying at the UM exceeds all that done by all traitors since Benedict Arnold.”

Public Commentary: Childcare Subsidy

Introducing herself as chair of the parents’ caucus for the Graduate Employees Organization (GEO), Melissa Sanders told regents that issues of parents have emerged prominently during the last few negotiation cycles between the union and the UM administration.

The son of a GEO member attended the regents meeting and helped hold a sign for his mother during public commentary.

[Childcare subsidies are available for eligible students in the following amounts: $2,250 for one child; $3,300 for two children; and $4,350 for three or more children. The subsidy will increase annually based on the annual average tuition increase at UM childcare centers. (.pdf of application for UM childcare subsidy)]

Sanders said the GEO membership is concerned that some students are excluded from access to this subsidy. She gave several examples, including a work/study requirement for spouses to work at least 20 hours per week, and constraints for some international students regarding the amount of time they can work. Sanders expressed frustration that a joint GEO/UM steering committee has made little progress so far in addressing these issues, citing meetings that have been postponed or canceled. She asked regents to urge members of the committee on the administration’s side to actively engage and work toward solutions that both parties can accept.

As Sanders was speaking, another GEO member stood behind her with a small child, holding a sign that stated “Work With Us.” After Sanders’ remarks, regent Denise Ilitch told the boy: “Good job, honey!”

Public Commentary: Tuition Affordability

Daniel Alejandro Morales began by saying that he and his group – the Coalition for Tuition Equality – fully supported the GEO’s efforts. But he was there to talk about how many of the state’s brightest students are prevented from attending UM because they’re required to pay out-of-state tuition, but can’t afford it. He was asking regents to adopt a more inclusive policy regarding undocumented students from Michigan.

Morales recounted his own story, arriving in America when he was one year old. His parents are first-generation immigrants from Mexico, but he has never been back to that country. He went through public schools here, and achieved success as a student leader. The proudest day of his life was receiving a letter of acceptance from UM, he said, but that moment was quickly overshadowed by realizing that his immigration status would jeopardize everything. “Some people would say I was ‘illegal,’” Morales said, “but the only crime I ever committed was that of existing in a xenophobic society.”

He was able to defer his admission while working to secure a green card. When he told the agent with Immigration and Customs Enforcement that his admission to UM was riding on getting the green card, the agent smiled, Morales said – he was a Michigan graduate. Morales got the green card and enrolled at UM in 2011. He joined the Migrant and Immigration Rights Advocacy group, and co-founded the Coalition for Tuition Equality. He asked regents to remedy the injustice of residency classification for undocumented students in the state, saying it was a moral and ethical obligation that will also benefit the university.

At the end of his commentary, Morales asked for other students who were attending the meeting in support of the coalition to stand. More than two dozen stood, many of them holding signs from the organizations they represented, including the Muslim Students’ Association, the American Civil Liberties Union undergraduate chapter, the Latino Students Organization, and the South Asian Awareness Network.

Present: Mary Sue Coleman (ex officio), Julia Darlow (via speaker phone), Larry Deitch, Denise Ilitch, Andrea Fischer Newman, Andy Richner, Martin Taylor, Kathy White.

Absent: Olivia (Libby) Maynard.

Next board meeting: Thursday, March 15, 2012 at 3 p.m. at the Fleming administration building on UM’s central campus. [confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the University of Michigan board of regents. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Suellyn Scarnecchia, UM's general counsel, was one of the few executives in the room at a Feb. 21 special meeting of the board of regents. All regents and UM president Mary Sue Coleman participated via conference call. Scarnecchia was asked by some regents to weigh in on the legality of the meeting, in the context of compliance with Michigan's Open Meetings Act.

Ultimately, the board voted 6-2 to formally oppose the bill, which was to be considered later that morning at a senate committee hearing in Lansing. [The committee later in the day voted to recommend the bill for passage by the full senate.]

The board’s two Republican regents – Andrea Fischer Newman and Andrew Richner – dissented. It was a vote along the same party lines as action taken at the regents’ May 19, 2011 meeting, when the Democratic majority of the board passed a resolution supporting the right of GSRAs to determine whether to organize. Coleman, who chairs the regents’ meeting but is not a voting member, had spoken against the resolution prior to the May vote. At subsequent regents’ meetings, several students and faculty have spoke during public commentary in opposition to the board’s action.

Much of the Feb. 21 special meeting focused on whether the meeting itself was legal. It was convened by invoking a rarely used bylaw that allows either the president or three regents to call a special meeting for emergency action. However, the meeting was apparently not publicly noticed 18 hours in advance, as required by the Michigan Open Meetings Act.

The university’s general counsel, Sue Scarnecchia, was asked by some of the regents to weigh in on the legality of the meeting. She stated that the meeting had been called legally, based on her reading of the regental bylaw. She did not comment explicitly on how compliance with the bylaw might relate to conformance with the OMA. 

Meeting Legality: Open Meetings Act vs. Regental Bylaw

The state’s Open Meetings Act states that notice of a special meeting for a public entity must be posted at least 18 hours in advance of the meeting. And a Michigan attorney general opinion issued by Frank Kelley in 1980 interprets that part of the OMA statute to require that the notice be accessible to the public continuously for the 18 hours preceding the meeting.

For the Feb. 21 special meeting of the regents, the media were notified via email at about 11 p.m. on Feb. 20, though the email did not indicate a topic for the meeting or reason for why it was being convened. Regents themselves had been notified of the meeting via an email from UM president Mary Sue Coleman at about 5 p.m. on Feb. 20. It’s not clear that the meeting was otherwise publicly noticed.

Coleman started the meeting by noting that it had been called to consider emergency action, as allowed by regental bylaw 1.01. The bylaw states: ”Emergency action may be taken by the board between meetings if and when any matter arises which, in the opinion of the president, or any three members of the board, requires official action by the board prior to the next meeting. An affirmative vote by telephone, email, or facsimile from five members is required for action.”

Immediately after Coleman called the session to order, regent Andrea Fischer Newman raised the question of the meeting’s legality. She said she didn’t understand how the regental bylaw applied under the Open Meetings Act, and read aloud the relevant sentence from the OMA:

“Nothing in this section shall bar a public body from meeting in emergency session in the event of a severe and imminent threat to the health, safety, or welfare of the public when 2/3 of the members serving on the body decide that delay would be detrimental to efforts to lessen or respond to the threat.”

She asked for an explanation about the need for this “emergency” session.

Board chair Denise Ilitch said it was her understanding that the university’s general counsel believed the meeting was being held legally. When Newman said she hadn’t seen an opinion to that effect, Ilitch replied that the counsel’s opinion had been given verbally. She told Newman that Newman’s objection had been noted.

Suellyn Scarnecchia, UM’s vice president and general counsel, was one of the few executives who were physically present in the Fleming administration building boardroom during the meeting. She reiterated Coleman’s statement that the meeting was convened as permitted under regental bylaw 1.01, and she read aloud the bylaw.

Newman asked how an emergency action is defined. That’s not part of the bylaw, Scarnecchia replied. The bylaw indicates that it’s based on the opinion of the president or three regents.

Andrew Richner asked who had requested the meeting. Coleman said she did not request the meeting, but that three members of the board had requested it. Ilitch said she’d received a phone call from Coleman asking to schedule the meeting, based on discussions that Coleman had with other regents.

One regent suggested that Newman and Richner had been the regents who requested the meeting. Newman responded by saying she had, in fact, wanted to publicly discuss the senate bill and take a position on it, but she assumed that it would be done in a way with sufficient advance notice and detail about the meeting’s purpose. This was not an emergency, she said, and “this is not that meeting.”

Ilitch noted that the senate government operations committee was holding a hearing on the bill later that morning, at 11 a.m. Newman replied that the bill had been introduced on Feb. 15, and that the regents had held their monthly meeting the following day, on Feb. 16. The bill is not moving to a vote today, she said. It’s simply a hearing.

Ilitch again stated that Newman’s concerns had been noted, and said she felt the meeting should move forward. Martin Taylor agreed, saying he believed the meeting was legal but that subsequent determinations can look at whether the meeting is legal or not.

Richner again asked who had requested the meeting – it hadn’t been him.

Larry Deitch replied that the president had told Deitch the meeting would be held. His understanding was that it needed to happen immediately because of the 11 a.m. senate hearing. He said he had previously asked for a discussion to take place at the regents’ regular Feb. 16 meeting, but he had received no response to that request.

Julia Darlow asked whether Scarnecchia was giving the board her legal opinion about the meeting’s legality. Scarnecchia said that based on the information she was given on Monday evening, the meeting is compliant with regental bylaw 1.01. It does require that the meeting be called by either the president or three regents, she said.

Darlow noted that regents received an email from Coleman on Monday evening, which Darlow took to mean that Coleman was calling the meeting. In that case, there’s no need for three regents to call it, she said, asking for confirmation from Scarnecchia. Yes, Scarnecchia said. If the president calls the meeting, that’s compliant with the bylaw.

Is there any other reason to think that the meeting has been called illegally? Darlow asked. Scarnecchia said there are other considerations that could apply under OMA, but based on her reading of the regental bylaw, ”this has been called legally.”

Richner, an attorney, said he thought he’d heard from Coleman that the issue wasn’t an emergency. [The conference call interactions and sound quality sometimes made it difficult to recognize who was speaking.] If the president doesn’t think it’s an emergency, he said, then who are the three regents that do? He told Scarnecchia that he didn’t see how she could declare that the meeting is compliant.

Again Ilitch told Richner and Newman that their concerns were duly noted. Again Richner asked who had called the meeting. Deitch noted that at 4:49 p.m. on Monday, Feb. 20 the board had received an email from Coleman calling the meeting.

Coleman said she had talked with several regents, and it had been clear that there was a desire to call a meeting and that they could legally do it.

Ilitch said it was very hypocritical on Newman’s part to question the meeting now. Newman replied that she didn’t want a meeting held in this way.

Resolution Opposing Senate Bill 971

At this point, Coleman asked whether anyone wanted to make a presentation. Larry Deitch said he’d like to step back from the previous exchange and calmly present the history and context in which this issue arises. He then wanted to present an explanation and rationale for the resolution.

Andrea Fischer Newman asked if Deitch had shared his resolution with other regents. No one else has seen it, Deitch replied. “Amazing,” Newman commented.

Deitch continued. In April 2011, the Graduate Employees Organization (GEO) and the American Federation of Teachers/Michigan (AFT/MI) filed a petition with the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) to become the representative of GSRAs under the state’s Public Employment Relations Act. At their May 2011 meeting, the board adopted this resolution in response, supporting the GEO’s efforts:

Consistent with the University of Michigan’s proud history of strong positive and mutually productive labor relations, the Board of Regents supports the rights of university Graduate Student Research Assistants, whom we recognize as employees, to determine for themselves whether they choose to organize.

In 1981, Deitch continued, MERC had ruled with GSRAs are not employees. The regents’ May 2011 resolution is predicated on the judgment that facts have changed materially since that time, he said. Hearings have been held before administrative law judge Julia Stern, who’ll be making a recommendation to MERC in March. The purpose is for MERC to determine whether GSRAs are employees or not, Deitch said, adding that it’s unknown how MERC will rule.

If MERC rules that GSRAs are employees, then it’s highly likely that there will be an election, Deitch said. GSRAs would vote on whether to be represented by the GEO in collective bargaining with the university. If there is an election, Deitch said, it’s not clear whether a majority of the roughly 2,000 GSRAs will vote for a union.

Regents have not taken a position on whether GSRAs should be represented by a union “and we do not do so today,” Deitch said. The decision is predicated on freedom of choice. Others in the university, including the president, have expressed opposition to the idea of GSRAs as employees, but that opposition has not been inhibited by the regents or anyone else, he said.

Deitch noted that Republican state Sen. Randy Richardville introduced senate bill 971 on Feb. 15, and the senate government operations committee, which Richardville chairs, would be holding a hearing on it later that morning (Feb. 21). The bill states:

An individual serving as a graduate student research assistant or in an equivalent position and any individual whose position does not have sufficient indicia of an employment relationship is not a public employee entitled to representation or collective bargaining rights under this act.

Deitch said he believed strongly that the university should oppose this bill, and gave several reasons for his view. The outcome of MERC’s review is unknown. There is no basis for taking away the jurisdiction from MERC. The bill is also an improper incursion into the internal decision-making of the university. It’s tantamount to changing the rules in the middle of the game, and is a violation of due process, he said.

Deitch then moved a resolution stating that UM opposes the adoption of senate bill 971. It directed Cynthia Wilbanks, UM vice president for government relations, to take “all available action” and to articulate UM’s opposition to legislators and, if necessary, the governor’s office. That action could include – but is not limited to – testimony, the development of position papers, or the hiring of lobbyists. The resolution also stated that Wilbanks should report to the chair of the board or a designee on progress related to the legislation.

Resolution Opposing Senate Bill 971: Board Discussion

Andrea Fischer Newman started the discussion by questioning whether this resolution qualified as an emergency action. In her 17 years on the board, regents have never used this process and never called a meeting that wasn’t given 18-hours notice as required by the Open Meetings Act, she said. To take action without the opportunity for public commentary flies in the face of openness and inclusion. Even the meeting notice itself didn’t indicate a topic, she observed. Newman said she hadn’t planned to participate until she learned that a quorum would be present.

The issue of whether UM is subject to the state’s Public Employment Relations Act (PERA) has been settled, Newman said – the Graduate Employees Organization (GEO) is a reflection of that. The legislature sets broad policy goals, then state agencies create more detailed regulations to carry out legislative mandates. This general principle applies to MERC as well. To say that the legislature should stay out of the issue reflects a misunderstanding of the basic operation of government, she said, and it’s embarrassing.

Newman noted that while six regents have taken the position that GSRAs are employees, two regents – along with the president, provost, deans, and more than 800 students and faculty – disagree, she said. It could fundamentally alter the relationship between faculty and students.

Although she opposed this resolution, Newman asked that all regents be kept informed about action in Lansing. Any information provided to one regent should be provided to all, she said.

Andrew Richner supported Newman’s remarks. The meeting notice was inadequate, he said, and he would have appreciated more public input. He said he hoped they could table he resolution in order to have a more thoughtful and broader discussion. However, he did not make a formal motion to table the resolution.

Like Newman, Richner noted that many UM administrators, faculty, staff and students opposed the view that GSRAs should be treated as employees. In its 1981 ruling, MERC stated that the assistantships are like athletic scholarships, and their essential nature is educational. He believed the board should support the state legislation.

Katherine White weighed in by saying it was her understanding that the president and Newman had wanted this meeting, and that the university’s general counsel said that the meeting was appropriately called. She supported the resolution.

Denise Ilitch spoke next, saying she has a strong belief in freedom of choice – it’s a value of the university. She said the president called the meeting, and that other regents supported it. Under the advice of general counsel, it was an appropriately called meeting, she said.

Libby Maynard described Deitch’s resolution as articulate but more detailed than she would have made it. She felt the university should advocate against the bill. She said she didn’t think they’d be successful, however, because they don’t have control of the legislature or the governor’s office. [She seemed to be referencing the Democratic majority of the board in her statement. The university itself is not an overtly partisan institution.]

When Coleman asked whether Maynard wanted to offer an amendment, Maynard replied that it was difficult to amend something that you can’t see – a reference to the fact that Deitch’s resolution had not been distributed to the regents in written form.

Newman asked for a clarification. The resolution stated that Wilbanks would report to the board chair, not the board. It’s been the practice for university executives to report to the entire board, she noted. Deitch indicated that he would accept it as an amendment – it was his intent for Wilbanks to report to the board. Taylor said if that was Deitch’s intent, there was no need to go through the “rigmarole” of voting on an amendment.

Julia Darlow noted that the context of the senate hearing was relevant to the question of asking for a meeting that morning. She observed that PERA is general legislation that’s not in conflict with the constitutional autonomy of the university. But senate bill 971 specifically picks out the university, and therefore does conflict with UM’s autonomy.

Darlow also clarified with Deitch that his intent for the phrase “all available action” was in the context of what’s appropriate in the changing and “unique” legislative environment.

Coleman took a roll call vote of the regents.

Outcome: By a 6-2 vote, regents approved the resolution opposing senate bill 971 and directing Wilbanks to advocate against it. Dissenting were Andrea Fisher Newman and Andrew Richner.

Outcome of Senate Committee Hearing

Michael Benson, UM graduate student body president, attended the 11 a.m. hearing of the senate government operations committee on Feb. 21. He reported that the committee heard testimony from six people – three who supported the bill, and three who opposed it. Benson said that he spoke on the issue from a neutral platform, while others submitted comment cards voicing their views.

Update after publication: According to a report in the Michigan Information & Research Service (MIRS), Cynthia Wilbanks – UM vice president for government affairs – was one of the people who testified in opposition to the bill. Wilbanks told the committee that the bill would ”interfere in the internal decision-making of the university,” according to MIRS.

After the hearing, committee members – in a 3-2 party line vote – recommended the bill for passage by the full senate, which will take up the bill at a later date.

Present (via conference call): Mary Sue Coleman (ex officio), Julia Darlow, Larry Deitch, Denise Ilitch, Olivia (Libby) Maynard, Andrea Fischer Newman, Andy Richner, Martin Taylor, Kathy White.

Next board meeting: Thursday, March 16, 2012 at 3 p.m. at the Fleming administration building on UM’s central campus. [confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the University of Michigan board of regents. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Opposing the resolution were the board’s two Republican regents, Andrea Fischer Newman and Andrew Richner. The meeting was held via conference call. None of the regents – nor UM president Mary Sue Coleman, who chaired the proceedings – were physically in the boardroom at the Fleming administration building, though several staff and members of the media attended to listen in to the call.

The bill, which was introduced on Feb. 15 by state Senate majority leader Randy Richardville (R-Monroe), states: “An individual serving as a graduate student research assistant or in an equivalent position and any individual whose position does not have sufficient indicia of an employment relationship is not a public employee entitled to representation or collective bargaining rights under this act.” A senate hearing on the bill was scheduled for 11 a.m. in Lansing, a few hours after the regents special meeting that same day.

The resolution proposed by regent Larry Deitch stated opposition to the bill, and directed Cynthia Wilbanks, UM vice president for government relations, to take “all available action” and to articulate UM’s opposition to legislators and, if necessary, the governor’s office. That action could include testimony, the development of position papers, or the hiring of lobbyists. The resolution also stated that Wilbanks should report to the chair of the board or a designee on progress related to the legislation.

The legislation has been introduced in response to an effort to unionize GSRAs at the university. The UM board of regents passed a resolution on May 19, 2011 supporting the right of GSRAs to determine whether to organize. The resolution passed over the objection of Coleman and with dissenting votes from Richner and Newman. At the board’s Jan. 19, 2012 meeting and again at the Feb. 16 meeting, faculty members and students have spoken during public commentary, voicing objections to the effort to unionize GSRAs. Meanwhile, hearings have been held before administrative law judge Julia Stern, who’ll be making a recommendation in March to the Michigan Employment Relations Commission on whether to grant GSRAs the status of employee.

Much of the regents 30-minute meeting on Feb. 21 was spent in somewhat heated debate about whether the meeting was noticed properly in accordance with the Michigan Open Meetings Act, which requires public notice of a special meeting at least 18 hours before it takes place. The meeting had been called late Monday to consider the need for emergency action as permitted by regents bylaw 1.01, with no indication of the meeting’s topic. The bylaw states: ”Emergency action may be taken by the board between meetings if and when any matter arises which, in the opinion of the president, or any three members of the board, requires official action by the board prior to the next meeting. An affirmative vote by telephone, email, or facsimile from five members is required for action.”

It was not initially clear to several regents who had called the meeting, but eventually was determined that Coleman had sent an email to regents calling the meeting. Suellyn Scarnecchia, UM’s general counsel, was asked by regents to confirm that the meeting was appropriately and legally called. She said it complied to regents bylaw 1.01.

Newman objected to the way in which the meeting was called. She acknowledged that she had been interested in holding a meeting, but wanted it to be given the 18-hour public notice as required by OMA, to include public input. She noted that in her 17 years on the board, this kind of meeting for an emergency action has never been used. [See complete coverage of the meeting: "GSRA Bill: Regents Debate Opposition"]

If eventually passed by both the Michigan house and senate and signed into law, the amendment to the bill could resolve the question currently being debated on the University of Michigan campus about the organization of that institution’s graduate student research assistants into a union.

The UM board of regents passed a resolution on May 19, 2011 supporting the right of GSRAs to determine whether to organize. The resolution passed over the objection of UM president Mary Sue Coleman and with dissenting votes from the board’s two Republican regents. At the board’s Jan. 19, 2012 meeting, three faculty members and one student spoke during public commentary, voicing objections to the effort to unionize GSRAs. The regents hold their monthly meeting today (Feb. 16) at 3 p.m. in the Fleming administration building on UM’s central campus.