University Libraries Logo University Archives of Virginia Tech

Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes Archive

November 6, 1992

                         Commission on Faculty Affairs


                               November 6, 1992


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

  Carlisle), C. McDaniels, M. Murray, M. Norstedt, S. Ritchey, N. Shumsky, J.

  Smith, W. Williams,


  Visitor: M. Farmer


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





  Announcements: the CFA will need to act once again on the Faculty Grievance

  Procedure, and a resolution will need to be passed before the Grievance

  Procedure can be sent back to University Council.


  Agenda: the agenda was adopted.


  Minutes: the minutes of October 23 were approved with the revision that P.

  Hyer was attending as a visitor, not a member of the commission.


  Old Business: P. Hyer reported that the resolution modifying membership of

  the EO/AA committee had been modified in accordance with the resolution of

  the CFA. The commission then discussed the membership of the EO/AA

  committee and whether some of the proposed committee members could be

  combined to diminish the size of the committee and still represent all of

  its constituencies. After some discussion, the commission asked P. Hyer to

  combine some memberships and report back again.


  New Business: the commission discussed its relationship to the university

  committees which are under its oversight and exactly how to fulfill its

  responsibility. D. de Wolf suggested that there are three important issues:

  how a committee report to the commission, the nature of committee

  resolutions and whether a committee reports to the commission or sends its

  resolutions directly to University Council, and whether a committee sets

  its own agenda or if the commission determines committee agenda. He also

  asked whether there should be a commission member sitting on each



  L. Eng pointed out that the new constitution mandates that each committee

  have a commission member as one of its own members. He also said that the

  intent of the constitution was to prevent unsupervised committee autonomy

  and the setting of DE FACTO policy. The object was to provide general

  oversight. Therefore, committee resolutions should be sent to the

  commission for approval before being sent to university council.


  After some discussion, the commission decided that all committee

  resolutions should be sent to it for approval and not just be assumed in

  the approval of minutes. There is a need to be explicit. M. Murray pointed

  out that this was the procedure followed by the core curriculum committee

  and the commission on undergraduate studies.


  Discussion now centered on the need to understand what the committees are

  doing and approve their actions but not appear to be policing the



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



  Respectfully submitted,


  Neil L. Shumsky


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

Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:17 EDT