University Archives of Virginia Tech

Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes Archive

September 25, 1992

                         Commission on Faculty Affairs

                                    Minutes

                              September 25, 1992

 

  Present: J. Buffer, F. Carlisle, D. de Wolf, P. Hyer, C. McDaniels, J.

  Moore, M. Norstedt, F. Pierce, N. Shumsky, J. Smith, W. Williams

 

  Visitor: S. MacDonald

 

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

  committee.

 

  Agenda: the agenda for the meeting was adopted

 

  Minutes: the minutes for the meeting of September 11 were approved as

  written.

 

  Old Business: 1.) Consideration of the revised statement of purpose and

  membership of the EO/AA was postponed until a future meeting. 2.) There was

  a brief discussion of the responsibility of standing university committees.

  A problem exists because every committee is supposed to report to the

  commission to which it is responsible, but some committees are responsible

  to more than one commission. No resolution of the problem occurred.

 

  New Business: The new business entirely concerned the revision of the

  Faculty Handbook. S. MacDonald began the discussion by explaining the

  history of the current revision. N. Shumsky then asked whether the handbook

  should be primarily a statement of policy or whether it should also contain

  detailed discussion of procedures. S. MacDonald explained how records of

  university policy are maintained on-line, how the Faculty Handbook is

  embedded in those policies, and the resulting inclusion of procedures in

  the handbook. P. Hyer added that there might be too much detail included in

  some sections of the revisions.

 

  D. de Wolf then asked if we should be considering changing the character of

  the handbook rather than merely revising it. F. Pierce responded by

  suggesting that perhaps two handbooks are needed, one for the faculty and

  one for the university. S. MacDonald replied that different universities

  have different systems and that there are several models.

 

  D. de Wolf asked whether the handbook is a descriptive or a legal document,

  and S. MacDonald and P. Hyer replied that it is a legal document to which

  de Wolf suggested that it is best to have policies and some procedures

  explained in detail.

 

  F. Pierce suggested that faculty need to know relevant procedures and that

  it is convenient for all of them to be readily available in a single

  source. J. Moore asked the precise purpose of the handbook, and S.

  MacDonald said that it has two purposes -- to make the faculty aware of all

  policies directly relevant to them as mandated by state law, and to provide

  an informative guide to the university and inform faculty about all

  university policies that might impinge on them. J. Moore replied that it

  would therefore be wise to include procedures in the handbook so that they

  would be available to faculty. S. MacDonald raised the issue of detail and

  particularly whether procedures might change faster than the handbook could

  be revised, and whether too much detail might make it obsolete quickly. F.

  Pierce suggested that the handbook should be constantly updated on the

  mainframe computer and that faculty should be told how to access it

  on-line. S. MacDonald said that it would be desirable to have an updated

  handbook available in hardcopy.

 

  A discussion about the format of the handbook followed. F. Carlisle

  suggested that a revised version of the handbook should be printed

  regularly and that it should be constantly kept up-to-date and accessible

  on the mainframe. In the meantime, his office would look into the costs of

  different kinds of formats, especially bound or loose-leaf.  S. MacDonald

  would bring this information back to the Commission. The Commission

  unanimously accepted this suggestion.

 

  C. MacDaniels thanked the provost's office for the Faculty Guidebook for

  Students with Disabilities. F. Carlisle thanked him for his comments and

  credited W. Speer with production of the guide. The commission then

  unanimously asked that the provost express its gratitude to Speer.

 

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

  2:15 PM.

 

  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/September+25++1992.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:17 EDT