University Archives of Virginia Tech

Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes Archive

February 4, 1994

                               Minutes

                    Commission on Faculty Affairs

                          February 4, 1994

                         400-D Burruss Hall

 

  Present:  L. Shumsky, D. Creamer, A. Swiger, S. Riley, W. Williams,

            R. Sumichrast, F. Pierce, M. Lambur, D. Dewolf, P. Hyer,

            G. Holtzman

 

  1.   The meeting was called to order at 2:15pm by L. Shumsky

 

  2.   Announcements:

 

  Shumsky stated that he wanted to revise the published agenda so

  that item 6a, reduction in force policy in cases of programmatic

  reduction, be considered first.  All agreed.

 

  3.   The minutes of January 21, 1994, were approved with one

  change.  On recommendation of G. Holtzman, the following sentence

  is added to section 5a:  "It was mentioned that the availability of

  faculty for consulting is an important service to society, and that

  it affords faculty an opportunity to learn from "real world"

  experience and thereby enrich the educational experience of their

  students, as well as their own research."

 

  4.   (a) Discussion of the proposed reduction in force policy was

  held.  Hyer had distributed a copy of the proposed changes to all

  Commission members prior to the meeting.  First, Shumsky made a

  formal statement in which he detailed events of his involvement in

  discussions with members of the Provost's staff wherein he first

  was convinced that the policy changes were appropriate and with

  various members of the faculty wherein he heard advice that the

  policy should not be changed.  Shumsky's supportive views toward

  the policy changed when the announcement was made by the Provost

  that the College of Education was to restructure itself according

  to several criteria offered by the Provost.  He stated his

  opposition to the proposed change on the grounds that it appears to

  be connected to the restructuring mandate and would in effect

  require that the College of Education be subjected to policies not

  in place at the time of the mandate.  Shumsky concluded by

  suggesting that the Commission might have three options open to it:

  (a) do nothing, (b) request changes to the policy change proposal,

  or (c) separate the restructuring of the College of Education

  mandate from the proposed policy change so that the College of

  Education might be allowed to follow existing policy as its

  restructuring proposal is implemented.

 

  Dewolf made a statement in which he detailed discussions held

  earlier in the day by the Senate Cabinet on this issue.  He

  confirmed Shumsky's version of events leading up to the current

  time, then summarized the position taken by the Cabinet.  First, he

  reported that the Cabinet believes that the drafting of the new

  policy may have violated due process, especially insofar as the

  College of Education is concerned.  Second, he noted that at least

  the approach taken by the formulation of this policy change

  represents a serious departure of the more traditional approach of

  the University administration.  Dewolf stated his belief that the

  College of Education should not be subjected to the new reduction

  in force process.  He further stated that the Cabinet wants to take

  a very careful look at the new policy proposal, including

  possibility altering some of the language, and wants to meet

  personally with Provost Carlisle in an attempt to fully understand

  all actions taken regarding this matter and possibly to head off a

  firestorm of faculty resentment.  Such a meeting is scheduled for

  Tuesday, February 8.  The Senate Cabinet is scheduled to meet again

  on Wednesday, February 9, to consider all evidence available at the

  time about its position on the matter and what recommendations it

  may make to the full Senate.

 

  Creamer reported briefly on a conversation with L. Harris,

  Associate Dean of the College of Education, in which Harris offered

  his view that the changes to the policy were mainly "procedural"

  and that the College did not currently intend to object to the

  changes.  He promised to continue to study the proposals in the

  event that they turn out to be disadvantageous to the College.

 

  All members of the Commission joined in the discussion to explore

  all sides of the matter.  Hyer directed her comments toward the end

  of assuring the Commission that the changes were proposed only to

  place the University Advisory Council on Strategic Budgeting and

  Planning in the review process to replace the ad hoc committee now

  included in the current policy.  The Budget and Planning Committee

  is thought to be the most informed and experienced group at the

  University to make the review decision required in the process.

 

  As the discussion continued, it included consideration of the

  decision-making process used by the Provost to announce the

  restructuring of the College of Education and included such

  questions as, "How was this decision made?" "Why was the College of

  Education targeted?"  "Why 1.6 million dollars?"  "Was this

  decision made in secret?"

 

  As the discussion returned to the policy issue, Hyer suggested that

  perhaps the College of Education could be given a choice of which

  policy it prefers when its restructuring proposal is considered.

  This idea seemed to calm the concerns of some Commission members

  about the motive for making the changes to the policy now.

 

  Shumsky continued to argue his position that if the RIF policy is

  changed, it should not be changed retroactively to apply in cases

  that are already being considered.

 

  Shumsky finally summarized the discussion as follows: (a) the

  Commission seems to agree that the proposed changes to the RIF

  policy were offered in good faith, (b) the current policy does need

  to be revised, (c) new procedures should not be used in the

  restructuring process of the College of Education and/or that the

  College of Education should be given the choice of policy to be

  applied in their case.

 

  (b)  Shumsky announced that a lively discussion was held recently

  in the Advising Network in which he responded to many questions

  about the Commission's proposed changes to the student attendance

  policies.  Most, he reported, seemed to favor the proposals.

 

  5    The meeting was (mercifully) adjourned at 4:55pm.

 

  Respectfully,

 

 

  Don G. Creamer

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/1994/February+4++1994.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:17 EDT