University Libraries Logo University Archives of Virginia Tech

Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes Archive

November 20, 1992

                         Commission on Faculty Affairs

                                    Minutes

                               November 20, 1992

 

  Present:  J. Buffer, D. de Wolf, P. Hyer (for F. Carlisle), R. Martin, M.

  Murray, M. Norstedt, F. Pierce, S. Ritchey, N. Shumsky, W. Williams

 

  Visitor: L. Geyer

 

  The meeting was called to order at 1:15 by David de Wolf, the chair of the

  committee.

 

  Announcements: D. de Wolf reminded the Commission about the meetings of

  December 4 and December 18. He also said that alternative arrangements

  might have to be made for the meeting on December 18 and to anticipate a

  memo on December 17.

 

  Agenda: the agenda was adopted

 

  Minutes: the minutes of November 6 were read, amended, and approved.

 

  Old Business: the Commission discussed the status of the revised faculty

  handbook and whether it should be printed before the revised faculty

  grievance procedures have been approved by University Council. It was

  decided that the handbook should not be printed before the grievance

  procedures have been approved if approval is likely to be soon.

 

  New Business: the Commission discussed faculty grievance procedures.

 

  L. Geyer recounted the history of the revisions and explained that state

  law mandates a grievance procedure. He also explained that the current

  discussion applies only to "teaching faculty" and not to field staff,

  faculty on research appointments, or administrative and professional

  faculty. He also passed out a new revision of the grievance procedure that

  had been negotiated by himself, D. de Wolf, P. Hyer, and K.  Heidbreder.

  Because the previous version had been referred back to the Commission, any

  revised procedure will have to be sent to University Council for first

  reading.

 

  A lively discussion of the revisions ensued which generally focused on the

  interpretation of specific elements in the resolution.  For grammatical

  reasons, the parenthetical element in lines 31 to 33 was amended to read

  "(for example, sexual harassment complaints or appeal of promotion, tenure

  and reappointment decisions)".  Discussion then turned to the length of

  time within which a faculty member should file a grievance. The issue was

  the potential conflict between giving a faculty member every opportunity to

  file a grievance and the need to resolve grievances in a timely manner. The

  Commission accepted 30 days as an appropriate time within which grievances

  should be filed and also modified the resolution to read, "No grievance

  need be accepted ... after this thirty (30) day period" rather than "No

  grievance shall be accepted ... after this thirty (30) day period" (lines

  59 to 61). The Commission also discussed the clause (or date when he/she

  should have discovered the event or action). Although some members feared

  that this wording would limit the time within which a faculty member could

  file a grievance, the consensus of the Commission was that this clause

  protected and actually extended the time within which a grievance could be

  filed, i.e., if a faculty member should NOT have discovered an event or

  action within 30 days of its occurrence, he/she had additional time to file

  a grievance.

 

  The Commission then discussed the need to provide flexibility to

  administrators who (for legitimate reasons) could not respond to a

  grievance within the mandated time period. The members asked P. Hyer to

  write a new paragraph relating to administrators analogous to that for

  faculty members between lines 279 and 289.

 

  The Commission took up the topic of appropriate grievance procedures for

  administrative/professional faculty and research faculty, as well as for

  those who fall under none of the generally-recognized categories. It

  concluded that at least two separate procedures and policies will need to

  be established. Because of the need to have grievance procedures in place

  for all faculty as soon as possible, the Commission added the following

  paragraph to the resolution. "These procedures will also be applicable for

  administrative and professional faculty and research faculty on special

  faculty appointments until separate grievance procedures have been passed

  by University Council."

 

  The Commission then discussed whether the resolution should now be

  transmitted to University Council. It considered waiting until February

  when a new procedure relating to administrative and professional faculty

  should have arrived and both procedures could then be forwarded together.

  However, it decided that the addition of the paragraph relating to

  administrative/professional faculty and research faculty on special faculty

  appointments enabled immediate forwarding.

 

  Adjournment: there being no further business, the Commission adjourned at

  2:45 p.m.

 

  Respectfully submitted,

 

  Neil L. Shumsky

  Secretary

Current Virginia Tech Governance Minutes Archive

Return to Virginia Tech Governance Minutes Archive


VT History | Digital Library and Archives | Special Collections | University Archives


Send questions or comments to:

Tamara Kennelly, University Archivist
University Libraries
Virginia Tech
P.O. Box 90001
Blacksburg, VA, 24062-9001

URL: http://spec.lib.vt.edu/minutes/cfa/1992/November+20++1992.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:17 EDT