|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveApril 1, 1994
Minutes Commission on Faculty Affairs April 1, 1994 400-D Burruss Hall Present: L. Shumsky, D. Creamer, W. Williams, M. Lambur, S. Riley, M. Norstedt, R. Sumichrast, G. Holtzman, K. Horstman. F. Pierce, A. Swiger Guests: T. Sherman, D. Dewolf, S. Short, A. Spencer, R. Stith, K. Heidbreder 1. The meeting was called to order by L. Shumsky at 2:15pm. 2. Announcements: Shumsky indicated that the order of the meeting would proceed as shown on the agenda but with an intermission between Old and New Business to allow for the late arrival of P. Hyer to lead the discussion of the sexual harassment policy changes. 3. The agenda was adopted with the announced modification. 4. Minutes of the March 18 meeting were approved following a request by Williams for three minor word changes: (a) delete "academy" from line 5 in section 5a; (b) change "and" to "and/or" in line 21 of section 5b; and (c) change "April 8" to "April 1" in line 6 of section 5d. 5. Old Business: a. Reduction in Force Policy and the College of Education was discussed. Shumsky announced that the proposed new policy will go to the University Council for 1st reading on Monday and requested that Williams represent him since he will be unable to attend. Discussion then turned to the question, "Which RIF policy will affect the College of Education--the current one or the proposed one?" Tom Sherman informed the Commission that the College of Education prefers to be able to make the judgment itself about which policy shall apply to its plan to reduce force size. Discussion then turned to perceived ambiguities in the language of the proposed RIF policy. Sherman maintained that the who, what, when questions were unclear in the proposed policy even to the point of not being clear about which plan is to be acted upon. Sherman then raised the question about whether the proposed policy is as explicit as the current one about how tenured faculty will be treated if RIFed. Several members expressed their belief that this issue is clear in the proposed policy; however, Shumsky asked Williams to bring up the wording of this section in the University Council meeting on Monday. Sherman further pointed to the language of the proposed policy regarding the membership of the Budget and Planning Committee when it is expanded to include "those commissions it considers relevant to the review" and wondered whether the commissions should be named in the policy. The Commission thought not. Finally, Riley moved and Creamer seconded a motion that the Commission note its intention to allow the College of Education to have a choice between the old and the new RIF policies if the proposed RIF policy is adopted by the University. The motion passed. b. The Employee Benefits Committee structure was discussed. Shumsky invited Sumichrast, who attended the most recent meeting of EBC, to inform the Commission of EBC's preference for structure. Sumichrast noted that the option of creating two benefits committees, one for faculty and one for classified staff, was rejected by L. Moore; thus, it became the position of EBC that it should report to two Commissions--CFA and CCSA. At the moment, Sumichrast noted, no students are on the EBC, but that they would consider a graduate student representative in the event that health benefits are opened up to graduate students. Shumsky wondered whether only one benefits committee might be problematic for faculty since there are differential benefits between faculty and staff. Sumichrast noted, and Norstedt reinforced, that this is exactly why EBC wants only one committee to guard against inequity between faculty and staff. The recommended new structure of EBC is as follows: 3 ex officio members, including the Associate Vice President for Personnel and Administrative Services, the University Benefits Program Manager, and the Assistant Provost for Administration; 4 faculty, including 3 appointed by the Faculty Senate and 1 CFA representative; 4 Staff Senate representatives; and 1 nominated by the A/P Association. Williams moved and Norstedt seconded a motion to accept the recommended structure of EBC. Motion passed. 6. New Business: a. The Commission recessed from 3:05 to 3:30pm. b. Hyer presented the revised policy on sexual harassment. She noted first the rationale for making the revisions, including (a) the need to make University policy consistent with federal law, (b) the desire to make it incumbent upon the administration to act immediately upon becoming aware of an incident of sexual harassment, and (c) to make clear that responsibility for sexual harassment does not solely reside with the EO/AA Officer, but with each member of the University community, especially the administrators and supervisors. Many concerns were voiced and questions asked such as: "Is one expected to act on rumor?" "Is one expected to act on information that the third and fourth hand?" Most of these type questions were answered simply that the facts should be determined insofar as possible. Questions also were raised about the standard "... knows or should have known ..." Distinctions between conflict of interest and sexual harassment were discussed. Definitions in the proposed policy were criticized. Many concerns about consensual relations were raised. Hyer pointed out that the proposed changes were drafted to take a "narrow slice" perspective; that is, to make the policy conform as precisely as possible to the law. Questions about who is a supervisor were raised in the context of seeking clarity from the language used. Shumsky asked what happens to records of investigations about alleged sexual harassment and the accused is found blameless. Heidbreder was not sure. More discussions about language of the policy followed. Dewolf suggested that the entire policy should be rewritten by someone with excellent language skills. Holtzman presented a motion in writing to the effect that the entire policy proposal should be given wide distribution among members of the community and that efforts to approve it should be postponed until January 1995. The motion received no second. Williams moved and Holtzman seconded a motion to postponed further discussion of the proposed policy on sexual harassment until the next meeting of CFA and that the topic be placed as item #1 on the agenda. Motion passed. 7. The meeting was adjourned at 4:45pm. Respectfully, Don G. Creamer
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, 24062-9001URL: http://spec.lib.vt.edu/minutes/cfa/1994/April+1++1994.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:17 EDT