|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveMarch 18, 1994
Minutes Commission on Faculty Affairs March 18, 1994 400-D Burruss Hall Present: L. Shumsky, D. Creamer, W. Williams, R. Sumichrast, P. Hyer, A. Swiger, M. Norstedt, F. Pierce Guests: D. DeWolf, D. Martin, P. Shelton. J. Knight, W. Snizek 1. Shumsky called the meeting to order at 1pm. 2. Announcements: Distribution of the revised Faculty Handbook was noted. Shumsky thanked Pat Hyer for her work on this project. 3. Minutes of February 18 were approved. Minutes of February 25 were approved. 4. The published agenda was adopted. 5. Old Business: a. Resolution 93-94D submitted by the Academy of Teaching Excellence was discussed. The principal intent of the resolution was to make permissible an appeal to the University Promotion and Tenure Committee by an individual who had previously received an research, teaching, or service award but was not recommended for tenure and promotion to the rank of Associate Professor in a mandatory tenure year by departmental and/or college Promotion and Tenure Committees. Academy teaching awards include the Alumni Teaching Award, the Wine Award, and the Sporn Award. Concerns about the resolution centered on whether the resolution might undermine the existing promotion and tenure procedures. Support for the resolution centered on the symbolism of magnifying the importance of teaching in the University. Opinions were voiced that the Resolution might be more palatable if it focused solely on teaching. Others wondered whether there really is something about the current promotion and tenure processes that need to be fixed and, if so, that these flaws should be fixed rather than approving a process to flank the existing processes. Supporters argued that the current system may be unfair to award winners. In the end, the motion to adopt the Resolution was defeated with four members opposing and three favoring. b. The Individual Transition Option Plan (ITO) was discussed. Hyer presented the plan and told of its evolution. She was joined by Doug Martin and Phil Shelton who assisted in responding to questions by Commission members. The key aspects of the plan were outlined in a memorandum to CFA from Pat Hyer dated March 10, 1994. Hyer emphasized that this plan is funded by the University and is intended as a tool of Phase II enforcement. It is, therefore, limited in choices and benefits. It is intended to encourage voluntary retirement in some specific instances--those shown as conditions A, B, or C under Participation Eligibility of the plan. Work to this point has centered on drafting a proposal that conforms to legal constraints of the Code of Virginia, Sec 23-9.2:3.1.D. Hyer currently is seeking input from faculty and others before finalizing the plan which still must be submitted for approval to the Attorney General and to the Board of Visitors. Hyer emphasized that the plan is not intended to appeal to many people; rather, it is intended to help those either (a) who are very close to retirement and/or (b) who are casualties of a reduction in force from program discontinuation or restructuring. Discussion focused on the benefits of the plan, whether the plan may encourage the very best people to leave the University, whether the mutual agreement clause is entirely clear, whether the salary limit might be raised from 100% of salary to 150%, whether all conditions described in the plan should be based upon mutual agreement, and whether each college might have different priorities (concerning conditions A, B, and C of plan). c. The RIF policy proposals were discussed. Shumsky has circulated two versions of the proposal--a consult version and a request version. All discussion focused on the consult version and particularly on some proposed wording submitted by Hyer. Some discussion spotlighted lingering concerns about whether the RIF policy should be changed at all and whether the University Council on Budgeting and Planning should be in the process at all, but such issues seemed largely settled in the Commission in favor of changing the policy and including the Council in the process. Discussion therefore highlighted selective words that needed to express precise intent. For example, Hyer wanted the word "academic" to designate what kind of program would come under the purview of this policy. Norstedt wanted the concept to be expanded to "academic and academic support" programs. Pierce was to delete "expeditiously" from the sentence referring to the Budget and Planning Committee deliberations. In the end, Hyer agreed to circulate the policy proposal including all agreed upon word changes to the Commission. A motion was made to accepted the final wording of the RIF policy and was passed. d. A brief discussion was held about the status of the EEOA sexual harassment policy revisions that are underway to bring the University's policy in compliance with federal law. Hyer requested that CFA meet to act upon the proposals prior to its next regularly scheduled meeting on April 1. She and others concerned with the revisions are scheduled to be in another meeting during most of the CFA meeting time on the 8th. Shumsky agreed to place the item on the CFA agenda for 3:30pm on April 8, but not to reschedule the meeting. e. The continuing issue about which committees of the University governance system should report to CFA was discussed. The members easily agreed that the Commencement Committee should report to some other commission than CFA, that the EEOA Committee should continue to report to CFA, and that the Honorifics Committee should continue to report to CFA. The discussion was extended about the appropriate reporting process for the Employee Benefits Committee. Most members agreed that it should report to CFA and to the Commission on Staff Affairs. Some wondered whether there should be two benefits committees--one for faculty benefits and one for staff benefits. Swiger agreed to discuss these options with members of his staff who are actively involved in staff benefits. Shumsky also will continue to pursue the matter. 6. The meeting was adjourned at 4:05pm. Respectfully Submitted, 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/March+18++1994.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:17 EDT