|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveApril 29, 1994
Minutes Commission on Faculty Affairs April 29, 1994 400-D Burruss Hall Present: W. Williams, P. Hyer, M. Norstedt, D. Creamer, F. Pierce, K. Horstman, W. Worner, G. Holtzman Guests: J. Ficenec, D. Beagle, S. Brooker-Gross, C. Burger, S. Short, E. Holford, B. Greenberg 1. The meeting was called to order by W. Williams at 2:20pm. 2. Announcements: a. Williams announced that David Beagle and Bill Greenberg had been elected to CFA. b. Susan Brooker-Gross was invited to describe the faculty rewards reform project. She distributed materials to describe the work of the committee that has brought the project to its current status and asked that the CFA place on its agenda the approval of the principles embodied in the rewards project. She indicated that the details of the project would be negotiated from the many anticipated meetings with faculty throughout the University. A sample of changes necessary to the Faculty Handbook also was distributed. Williams agreed to place the project on the CFA agenda for next year. Greenberg alerted the CFA to his impression that the research faculty likely would not agree with the major tenets of the reform initiative. He also pointed to a possible discrepancy between the mission statement of the project and the bulleted items on the materials distributed. Others on the Commission pointed to the need to clarify the language of the materials regarding service. It was indicated that service to the University, public service, and outreach generally mean different things yet may be interpreted to mean generally the same things in the materials distributed. c. The class notes project was discussed. Williams indicated that he had agreed to pursue some legal matters specifically pertaining to copyright issues associated with the commercial distribution of class notes. He indicated that he had consulted further with Don Williams who sent him an article from the Washington Post describing the legal case at the University of Florida and with Kay Heidbreder who agreed to investigate the issues further. She did indicate to Williams an informal opinion that copyright laws pertain only to the words used and not to ideas used and suggested that the class notes project may not invade protected rights of ideas. CFA was reminded that the University Bookstore proposal does contain safeguards pertaining to these matters, e.g., professors must give their permission to be included in the note taking enterprise. CFA also was reminded that Don Williams agreed to provide an outline of the Bookstore's proposal so that it might be used in a survey of the faculty. Hyer advised that the survey not be conducted by CFA stating that the agenda is already overflowing. Williams agreed to find some other agent to conduct the survey. d. Dean Worner of the College of Education presented an outline of the process used by the College to arrive at its preliminary plan submitted to the Provost on April 15. He detailed the entire process used including which programs are slated for elimination and his plans for restructuring the new College. He also stated no special preference for the old versus the new RIF policy arguing that the changes made mainly deal with University procedures for reviewing decisions. He indicated that he accepts the proposed revisions of CFA. 3. Minutes for the April 15 meeting were revised to correct the spelling of Don Drapeau's name, then approved. 4. The agenda was adopted. 5. Sexual Harassment Policy Discussion continued regarding the proposed revisions to the sexual harassment policy. The most contentious issues resided in the Consensual Relationships (section 2.2), the Responsibilities of Administrators and Supervisors (section 3.0), and the Informal Resolution (section 4.1) parts of the policy. Most of the discussion centered on word choices, not substance, of the policy; yet, considerable attention was given to these sections. Several calls were made for greater clarity of language use though few specific suggestions emerged from the exchanges. Arguments were made that the Consensual Relationship section should not even be in the sexual harassment policy; yet, in the end, it remained. Others wanted greater clarity about the reason for its inclusion--the creation of a hostile environment, for example. Other debates centered on protecting the rights of the accused. When should they be notified if a complaint is filed? What records would be kept, if any? Eventually, it was agreed to add a phrase to require notice be given under item (3), page 6 of revision 7. A motion to add an addition sentence requiring specific notification earlier in the process failed. Other word changes were considered. Some were agreed upon. Discussion then moved to a proposed addition to the statement of professional ethics and responsibilities in the Faculty Handbook. Little discussion followed except to clarify some inconsistent language in items 5 and 6 of the policy. A motion was made my Norstedt and seconded by Creamer to approve the suggested changes. Motion passed. Hyer moved to adopt the revisions to the sexual harassment policy. Williams argued that he would prefer to wait until more regular members of CFA who have been involved in these discussion for several weeks but who could not attend on this occasion are present. Williams' argument prevailed. 6. New Business: Hyer informed the Commission that the Board of Visitors agreed to the Individual Transition Option Plan submitted but asked for a study of the 5-year guarantee for tenured faculty who are RIFed under policy in the Faculty Handbook. 7. The meeting was adjourned at 5:35pm. 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+29++1994.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:17 EDT