|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveSeptember 9, 1992
Minutes COMMISSION ON RESEARCH September 23, 1992 206 Sandy Hall 3:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Brandon, H. Doswald, J. Eaton, P. Edwards, P. Eyre, J. Johnson, H. Kriz, J. Lee, R. Lytton, A. McNabb, R. Olin, P. Rasnick, J. Tank, T. Wildman MEMBERS ABSENT: C. Flora, E. McNeil, M. O'Brien, J. Pinkerton, R. Reneau, P. Scanlon, E. Stout, J. Wightman INVITED GUESTS: M. D. Shelton, S. Trulove 1. ANNOUNCEMENTS. Dr. McNabb asked everyone to introduce themselves. She said that some of the items on the agenda might be ones the membership could talk about and decide where they want to go with them during the year. 2. AGENDA. Agenda was adopted as presented. 3. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1992. Dr. Eyre motioned approval of the Min- utes. Dr. Lytton seconded. Minutes were approved as distributed. 4. GRADUATE STUDENT FUNDING UPDATE. Dr. Eaton stated that in the 1990-92 biennium a request was made to go into the governor's budget to provide some sort of tuition relief. Clearly, the financial crisis hit the state before that budget was ever approved and that proposal did not go any further. In 1990-91 we had 1.15M in state money for instructional fee scholarships. In 1991-92, in response to increased tuition and the recognition that we were not going to be getting any relief directly from the state, the university put additional dollars in to bring us up to 3.5M in instructional fee scholarship dollars. In this fiscal year the university and the state put a little more money into the basic pool and we increased the total amount to 4M that we now have available for instructional fee scholarships. That has been distributed to de- partments and colleges and a small amount has been retained by the Graduate School to support graduate students in governance organiza- tions, to facilitate and support minority students, and a couple of other uses that the Graduate School is interested in. Dr. Eaton stated in the budget meeting held by Dr. Carlisle and Mr. Ridenour there was nothing about additional support for graduate students. Based on that discussion, it is unlikely that we will have another major tuition in- crease this year. Although there will probably be some increase. It also is unlikely that we will see large increases in instructional fee scholarships. That doesn't mean that we should not make a request. He stated that he and Dr. Stout would appreciate the support of the Com- mission in making this request. As far as anything going back to the state is concerned, Provost Carlisle and Mr. Ridenour believe that we are not going back to the good old days. We are in a different envi- ronment now and we are all going to have to work in it. He said that he did not see recommendations to the state as likely but that he would not discourage this group from recommending that the proposal go back in next biennium. Dr. McNabb asked Dr. Eaton about coordinated efforts of graduate deans at Virginia colleges and universities. Dr. Eaton responded that Dr. Hooper tried to organize the deans but that the apathy about having an organized effort resulted in no progress. The group will meet in- formally in November and the issue will be addressed again. Dr. Eaton does not see these deans as an effective group. He feels that we need the leadership of the universities. Hopefully other institutions will follow. Dr. Eyre asked about the apathy. Dr. Eaton responded that the apathy was for organization and not for the support of students. Dr. Eyre stated that he could not imagine graduate school deans not being supportive of anything that would enhance the graduate school program. Dr. Edwards asked if the deans have similar kinds of goals in terms of what they want to achieve. Dr. Eaton responded no. He said we are dealing with five doctoral institutions and another five or six masters institutions and they have very different goals and objectives. There is fear on the part of the masters institutions of being subservient to the goals of the doctoral institutions. Dr. Lee asked if there is a set agenda for the annual meeting in November. Dr. Eaton indicated there is an agenda and that one of the things gained by being organized is a sense of continuity. The various institutions in the state host the meeting on an annual basis. The host school puts together an agenda and it is whatever piques their interest that year. The gradu- ate students in the state have organized somewhat and they are setting an agenda for the state graduate deans. He stated that that might be one of the best things to come along in some time. Dr. Edwards asked if there are data about how Virginia fares with respect to other states in terms of graduate school tuition and about how many states waive tu- ition for graduate students. Dr. Eaton responded as of two years ago about half of benchmark institutions waive tuition and about half do not, but tuition waivers usually are associated with much lower gradu- ate stipends. Dr. McNabb stated that it used to be more common to waive tuition than it is now and that is one of the ways cuts have hurt. Ms. Tank stated that in a recent survey done by a biology com- mittee a number of departments have individually paid tuition as they try to work through the problem. She stated that if you make $13,000-$14,000 a year and you have to pay tuition versus $8,000 and you don't have to pay tuition, when we adjusted for all the basic take- home things Virginia Tech was at the very bottom of the pile in terms of our peer institutions for the Biology program. Dr. Edwards stated that Biology isn't waiving tuition but that they are paying it out of overhead or grants. They do not have the power to waive it. She stated that Ms. Tank is doing better than other programs where you can't get a great deal of overhead. Dr. McNabb stated that that is not true. She stated that Biology has not been paying graduate student tu- ition from grants or overhead. Dr. Edwards stated that the stipend levels are higher because they are on level b or c. Ms. Tank stated that she was talking compared to other schools polled in the Biology Department. Maybe at the university level there has never been a study of how our students compare to others. A lot of departments have con- ducted their own studies by calling and asking the department secre- taries. Dr. Eaton stated that he did not think there is any debate that no mat- ter how you study the issue or which department you look at you are go- ing to find us near the bottom on a fairly regular basis. Dr. McNabb stated that was not true about ten years ago. Dr. Eaton stated that tuition has really taken off over the last ten years. Ms. Tank asked if there is anything going on with the University of Virginia on the thing that came up last year at the Commission about the lower tuition for students that are just working on research. Dr. Eaton responded that was briefly examined last year and that our budget office informed Dr. Hooper that it was not workable. It is back as an agenda item for the Commission on Graduate Studies this year. The bottom line is that there is a minimum amount of tuition that the university has to col- lect, and we can manipulate the formula, but ultimately there is only so much money they have to have and cannot operate without. Dr. Eaton stated that one issue related to that and one which he plans to bring before the Commission on Graduate Studies is the issue of students on assistantships versus students on wage for summer. He stated that he would like to find a solution that brings some fairness. The early data shows that it is indeed unfair. Ms. Tank asked Dr. Eaton if he had any indication of which way will be fair. He responded that he wants the cost to be the same to all students. It comes back to the same issue; there is a minimal amount of tuition. But if students are on wage then his view is they are co-opting costs onto those students who are on assistantships and by spreading those costs out it should reduce the cost to everyone. Dr. Lee suggested that perhaps one re- search credit should be required of students on wage during the summer session. Dr. McNabb stated that that would require a change in the rules so that students didn't need to be fully enrolled in order to qualify for a TA or RA. Dr. Edwards asked what full enrollment is for the summer. Dr. Eaton responded that is three hours for holding an assistantship; maximum enrollment is six hours. Dr. McNabb stated it really cuts into assistantships. Dr. Eaton stated that they recognize that but they would like to find a way to make it equitable. Dr. McNabb asked if there are other initiatives by the Graduate Commission that would require coordination with the Commission on Research. Dr. Eaton responded that there is an ongoing joint committee of both com- missions carried over from last year. Dr. McNabb asked if the member- ship would want to have some group from the Commission on Research try to collect data that might be helpful, or to work with any other group to try and find strategies to make our case better to the state. Dr. Eaton stated that perhaps a resolution from this commission to ask the University Provost and Budget Office to reexamine the issue of tuition for students on assistantships. Dr. McNabb asked if Dr. Eaton felt that it needs to be backed up by additional data. Dr. Eaton responded that these issues came forward about the time that he came to the Grad- uate School and he does not know the history. He suggested that per- haps Dr. Stout or Dr. Wolfe might know. Dr. Lee asked if the Graduate Commission would prepare a draft to send to the Provost this year. Dr. Eaton stated that they are not discussing this issue. He said it could be if the membership wished to have it there. Dr. Eaton said that he plans to resolve the graduate wage issue this year in the Commission on Graduate Studies. Ms. Tank asked that if the issue about lowering tui- tion for students just doing research is not feasible then how could putting up the resolution to actually waive tuition for assistantship be positive. Dr. Eaton responded that that one would have to be done with our money and the other with state taxpayer dollars. It would re- quire some sort of an appropriation of additional dollars to offset that loss in tuition. Dr. Eaton said that graduate students are al- ready being subsidized considerably by our undergraduates, especially our out of state undergraduates. The graduate students pay about $3,000 in-state and about $5,000 out of state per year. Those on assistantships don't pay out of state. The reason they don't is be- cause of what is called the unfunded scholarship monies which come from tuition dollars which we collect from out of state students who pay $8,000 per year. Thus, our graduate students are subsidized and we would like to subsidize them more. Dr. McNabb stated that a lot of this relates to a number of years when graduate students could get by on stipends without having to go in debt. Undergraduates expect to go into debt. We have had a history of graduate students hoping they would not have to incur any more debts and so it feels like a penalty as it gets worse economically. Dr. Olin stated that it gets harder and harder to recruit the top 40% of prospective graduate students. The bottom line he receives from students is that it is just not worth it. Dr. McNabb asked what type of action the membership would like to take on this. Ms. Tank asked about offering an alternative. She said she was thinking about the unfunded scholarship that goes to out of state students. She asked if you could ask students to become in-state resi- dents as soon as they come. Dr. Eaton said that helps but in relation to the total graduate population, he said that they encourage students to become state residents. Dr. McNabb asked Dr. Eaton if a large frac- tion of the tuition scholarships still must be given to in-state stu- dents. Dr. Eaton said that it is true that about 1.5M of the money must be used that way. The other part must be given to students on assistantships. Dr. Eyre asked if it is the business of this commis- sion or the Commission on Graduate Studies to work on this issue. He asked if the membership could not simply write to the chair of the Com- mission on Graduate Studies with some kind of resolution giving them our support. Dr. Lytton said that part of the history of this commis- sion was there was a need felt to support graduate students more in terms of supporting the overall research mission of the university. Dr. Eyre stated that he felt it should be the other commissions busi- ness to make a ruling on this. Dr. Edwards stated we should point out how important it is to the research mission to have quality graduate students. Dr. Eaton stated that the quality issue is out there and is a real problem. The Cunningham Fellowship is a response to that but it only gets us about 10 students per year. Dr. Eyre made a motion that Dr. McNabb write a letter to the chair on the Commission on Graduate Studies supporting this initiative, pointing out how important it is and hopefully it will have our unanimous support. Dr. Edwards sec- onded. Motion passed unanimously. Dr. McNabb stated she would draft a letter and bring it back to the Commission at the next meeting. 5. COMMONWEALTH CENTER PREPROPOSAL SCREENING COMMITTEE ELECTION. Dr. McNabb announced that the Provost's Office has decided that two members from the membership are to be elected to the committee. Dr. McNabb asked Dr. Johnson if she knew more about the decision. Dr. Johnson stated that the proposals are due in the Provost's Office October 5 and that they will be returned to the PI's by October 12. Dr. McNabb asked if she knew how many proposals there will be or what the demands will be like. Dr. Johnson responded that they did not know; the antic- ipation is 6-8 proposals. Dr. Lee asked if the Commonwealth Centers is a live program. Dr. Johnson responded that they had received a notice from SCHEV and requesting that proposals be submitted. The University will submit some proposals to the legislature. The question is what will happen at the legislature. Certainly there will never be anything coming from the legislature if the University doesn't submit proposals. Dr. Doswald asked if the original committee remains intact. Dr. Johnson responded yes. Dr. Doswald stated that he felt that the two committee members should be faculty, since the committee is already heavily stacked with administrators. Dr. Johnson responded that was the idea behind the request for two representatives from the Commis- sion. Dr. Edwards nominated Dr. Scanlon. Dr. Eyre seconded. Dr. Doswald nominated Dr. Olin. Dr. Eyre seconded. Dr. Eyre moved that nominations be closed. Dr. Wildman seconded. Drs. Scanlon and Olin were elected to the committee. 6. OWNERSHIP OF DATA. Dr. Olin reported to the membership on the status of ownership of data. He stated that this originally came to the Com- mission in a memo from Dr. Hasselman last year. There were some other faculty who shared similar concerns about people working in their labs, generating data and then at the time of their leaving the university removing their notebooks with them because they regarded the notebooks as personal property and not belonging to the university. A subcommittee of Dr. Knox, Dr. Boyle, Dr. Stout and Dr. Olin wrote the "ownership rights to data". After a lot of discussion the document is not as strong as some faculty might want but it is as strong as the committee felt was needed. Basically the university owns the data, no ifs, ands or buts. If it is generated at the university, then the uni- versity owns it. It states what should be done to preserve this data and who should preserve the data. If it is going to be destroyed in any form, it states what exactly should be done. It states what re- course the university has if it is not followed. Dr. Olin stated that it should go to the membership to take and read and discuss at the next meeting. Dr. McNabb asked if anyone had questions on the document. Dr. Lee expressed concern over the responsibility of each department to store and preserve such memos indefinitely. Dr. Olin responded that the previous paragraph gave instructions on how to destroy data. If the department questions whether data should remain stored, then the department needs to reassess the data's usefulness. How long should you hold on to the notebooks generated in a lab? Dr. Lee stated that mention had been made of 7 years although some had said 3 years. Dr. Olin stated that if the department head and investigator agree to de- stroy data, and they say this is the customary way for that field, then they just get rid of it. With somethings that can't be recreated, there is concern from the university's point of view that we keep the data around so that the lab books can be looked over and verified. That is the reason for having a set procedure. Dr. Olin said that in one area it might be traditional to keep data two years, in another field it would be ten years. It is a function of the area and that is why a time limit could not be set. Dr. Olin stated that they all agreed that once the work is published or out in the open then there is no reason to keep the data. Dr. Lee said that there could be a problem in finding room to store all the data. Dr. Eyre said that it does not say that you have to store all the data just the memo which approves the destruction of the data. Dr. Eyre stated that Dr. Lee makes a very important point. He suggested that if there is a misconduct issue, the department head, dean and principal investigator could all conspire to cover it up. Then they could write a memo to cover it. He stated that if you don't have any time limit on that then data could be destroyed in a month. If there was an investigation of misconduct then all the evidence could be destroyed prior to the investigation. He stated that he would be surprised if there wasn't some state or federal guideline covering this. He said that where he came from it was five years and that seven sounds okay with him. He stated we need a legal opinion on that. He felt that that particular paragraph was fraught with poten- tial abuse and that the paragraph will not hold up. He said that his concern was not the time frame; it is the fact that without some time frame it is open-ended. Dr. McNabb asked if the committee had sought any legal opinion on this. Dr. Olin responded that he did not know whether Dr. Stout had consulted with the lawyers or not. Dr. Olin stated that he did not think the committee had considered that the dean would be in on a conspiracy. Dr. Eyre mentioned the ethics consortium which had occurred the previous week. He stated that with the rocket accident such a scenario did in fact occur. Dr. Edwards stated that she was not clear about what form of data the document refers to. It talks about the student's thesis and disserta- tion committee preserving data then the next paragraph says to destroy such data. That suggests the paragraph pertains to student thesis and dissertation data, not necessarily to sponsored projects data or other kinds of data. It doesn't tell her what data that is. Dr. McNabb sug- gested that the word "such" be removed. Everyone seemed to agree. Dr. Olin summarized that the membership wants a time limit put on the sec- ond to last paragraph. Dr. Eyre suggested that Mr. Cain be approached. Mr. Kriz stated that one thing that was not addressed was the possible historical importance of notebooks, etc. He suggested possible review by the Library as an option. Dr. Olin stated the main reason for the document was that the univer- sity asserts its rights to ownership of data. If it has been done at Virginia Tech, then Virginia Tech owns it. Dr. Edwards asked if we have problems with people who take their data with them to another uni- versity. Dr. Olin responded yes they do. Dr. Edwards asked what you do about that and how is that addressed here. Dr. Olin responded that the person is allowed to take copies but that the original data should stay at the university. If the research had been performed here, then it belongs to the university. Mr. Kriz mentioned that the words "such data" are used twice yet, in the fifth paragraph there is no previous reference to data. He suggested that maybe the word data should be in- serted in the third paragraph. Dr. Eyre suggested re-use of the ori- ginal wording - "research results" as in paragraph three. Dr. McNabb stated that would be more inclusive. Dr. Eyre agreed. Dr. Doswald asked if it is more inclusive. Are notebooks research results? Dr. Eyre and Dr. McNabb responded yes. Dr. Doswald stated that they are part of the data that goes into the research product. Dr. Eyre stated that things written in the book are the data. Dr. McNabb suggested that all members take the document home, make suggestions and bring them back to the next meeting. Dr. McNabb asked Dr. Olin if he agreed to approval of document at the next meeting. He responded yes and asked for other suggestions between now and next meeting be sent to him on e-mail. Dr. McNabb asked Dr. Olin if he plans to ask Legal Counsel about the issue of a time frame. Dr. Olin responded yes. 7. MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCE. Dr. Johnson updated the membership on the issue of misconduct in science. The interim response to PHS was distributed with the agenda. It pertains primarily to federally-funded research. The Committee on Faculty Ethics would evaluate any alleged misconduct and would have three options: dismiss, investigate it further or ap- point an expert panel. If they determine that there had indeed been misconduct the faculty review procedure would be followed. The Committee on Faculty Ethics has taken this up as a debate issue. They began it last year and are planning to continue working with it this year. First the university committee on faculty ethics is trying to define misconduct; they would like to see a broader definition than just misconduct in science and this has some basis. In 1990-91 NSF is- sued a much broader definition that would include science and it would include science, engineering and education. It would not allow retali- ation against someone who honesty reported misconduct. The Committee on Faculty Ethics would also like to see sexual harassment added as an- other point, that is within the scope and responsibility of the partic- ular committee. The recognition of misconduct is an issue not only of research with federal funds but also with sponsor supported funds. Another major issue is the accountability of research - the account- ability of funds and how funds are used. Dr. Johnson stated that ap- parently federal scientists are now confronted with whether or not it is ethical for them to belong to scientific societies. They are using federal money and time to support scientific societies. The Committee on Faculty Ethics plans to bring back another report from their subcom- mittee in October. Dr. Johnson stated that if the membership would like to take anything to the Committee on Faculty Ethics that she would be happy to bridge the gap. Dr. McNabb asked if it would be redundant to do anything more than just give input to them. Dr. Johnson re- sponded that yes, that is correct. 8. DECENTRALIZATION RELATED TO RESEARCH. Dr. McNabb stated that Mr. Shelton would give a brief report on issues of decentralization and that Mr. Shelton will talk about FRS reporting at a future meeting. Mr. Shelton stated that from the Minutes he felt that the concern was for the time consumption or the amount of effort that goes into pur- chasing and personnel activities. He stated that the payroll function of Personnel reports to him but that the remainder reports to Ms. Spencer. He stated that he talked with Ms. Spencer and that she would be happy to visit with the Commission. Dr. McNabb stated that we had in mind to ask Ms. Spencer to come to another meeting to talk about the personnel considerations. The Purchasing Department places priority emphasis on purchasing trans- actions for the research sector of the university. In addition one of the things that we are doing this year is the equipment trust fund. We have a sizeable equipment trust fund allocation this year. The equip- ment trust fund allocation is throwing havoc to the Purchasing Depart- ment. He stated that they have some vacant positions right now that they are trying to fill. The university, through its central fund, has provided some additional temporary resources for them to try to get back on track. Since a lot of that goes to the research area that is one of the places where they are trying to put some emphasis. Mr. Shelton stated that he had visited this summer with the Director of Purchases Supply in Richmond for which we receive our own decentrali- zation. He asked where Virginia Tech and other universities stand and what are our prospects for doing new things in the purchasing area. His overall reaction was that he was willing to look at other areas but he felt that like we were in pretty good shape. He stated that the di- rector had met with the research community two years ago to take a look at the impediments that the purchasing process was creating in the re- search community. Mr. Shelton stated that we did implement a relaxed procedure then for research and instructional purchases (up to a limit where state law takes over the procedures for purchasing); those areas are now relaxed compared to administrative and other functions. In ad- dition, over 90% of all transactions are at the discretion of the de- partments. We completely decentralized the SPO process with a limit up to $2,000. Many departments have that but some have elected not to take the $2,000 SPOs. We process something over 100,000 purchasing transactions per year. Over 90% of those are SPO transactions, which means that the Purchasing Department itself is processing a small per- centage of all those transactions. One thing adversely impacting the ability to move things through the Purchasing Department faster is sole sources. The research area creates a large percentage of the total sole source procurements. About a year or a year and a half ago in re- sponse to some problems that occurred at other locations in the state, the governor's office issued a directive which said that all sole source transactions over $10,000 must go through the governor's office and be approved by the governor or the chief of staff of the governor's office. We have tried several times to show Richmond that process is not needed. In fact, they have never rejected one of our sole sources. The major universities have sent them hundreds and they have never re- jected one. We did a study which we took to them and it looked like they were going to let us off the hook, but they did not. The Univer- sity of Virginia is now doing another study trying again to get us off the hook. He stated that they informally talk to people in Richmond who say yes they know they should do, that but it hasn't happened yet. Mr. Shelton stated that he did not believe that Purchasing is deliver- ing the service that he would like to see it deliver. He mentioned staffing problems and other problems that are precluding them from do- ing what they should. He stated that they have an effort underway to evaluate new automated systems for the purchasing area. He stated that they have one in mind that would be a very good match for them and that it would improve the operations in the central Purchasing Department and would allow them to allocate more resources to the direct purchas- ing effort. He stated that they are in a bit of a quandary about a current solution to a problem which might be a short term or medium range solution, versus taking a longer range view and building a system which will last a long time into the future. If we choose the long range solution we have to wait a long time to get it. If we choose the short to medium range solution we can deliver some improvements but the benefit will not last as long. It will not last through the 1990's. A final decision has not been made. The systems environment under con- sideration does envision an on-line entry of transactions at the de- partment level for all procurement processes. It envisions the manipulation of data at the department level, an automated linkage of the purchasing process to receive goods and payment transactions to re- lieve administrative processes on the back end of the purchasing dis- bursements cycle. We do not have any other authorization from the state to improve the level of decentralized purchasing to departments at this time. We talk to the state periodically about the levels that they have established and that should be evaluated. If they were okay five years ago then they are probably inappropriate now because of price changes and other factors. Sometimes they hear and other times they don't. He stated that he could say some of the same things about Personnel Services. They do some of that same emphasis on research funded positions. Personnel Services is looking at a college now to do trial decentralization for employment screening for jobs and for posi- tion classification for several types of positions where the college would effectively take over the primary duties of doing those tasks. He mentioned that Ms. Spencer is a proponent of more decentralization of the Personnel Services function into the colleges and departments. HRIS, which is Human Resources Information System, is an on-going project involving the Budget Office, the Controllers Office and Person- nel Services that takes a longer range strategy with development of a new system. It will be one that will last longer. He said they are looking at one that will use a lot of different tools, development techniques and results. They also envision a source point data capture and distribution of the data in a different manner and a better manipu- lation by departments in handling personnel transactions. He stated that the biggest thing in processing personnel transactions is the speed to move them along the line, and a new system could do wonders for us in that manner. That system is currently discussed with esti- mates of being 18-24 months away. He stated that components of it may come on-line earlier but whether 18-24 months is realistic he does not know. Dr. Edwards stated that one of the things that they have trouble with is losing personnel transactions. They just kind of disappear into the system and no one knows what happened to them. It doesn't oc- cur when they expect it to on a grant so a charge is not made or a transfer gets lost. She stated that we need to have some way of track- ing these. She said a lot of times it gets stuck on someone's desk be- cause maybe it needs a letter or something else that the initiators were not aware of. Mr. Shelton stated that there are a lot of dis- cussions by lots of people in both the programmatic and administrative areas about how many signatures are required on a document. He stated that they often question whether a signature was really needed and many cases come to the conclusion that it was not. The human resources and purchasing systems do try to envision that the initiator of the trans- action should be the person who can send it all the way to its ultimate destination point and that electronic copies would be sent to people who needed it for informational purposes. Those intervening points would not be a hindrance or a delay process in getting the transaction completed. Mr. Shelton stated that he felt that we would develop a system to do things in that manner. He mentioned that there will be some problems. There are some functions or people in the university who believe they need to see those things before they go through. He mentioned that there might be a college who would want to see what a department is doing or that the Research Division might want to know. Dr. Edwards stated that the delays make it difficult to find out how much money you have in a certain period of time and how much you have left to spend. She thinks that if we do some kind of an analysis and find out how many of those are not approved we would probably find that it is a very small proportion. She stated that it makes her believe that those probably aren't necessary. Mr. Shelton stated that the tra- ditional control environment has been set up to find the 1-2% problem in the front. There are many people who believe that all forms should go through and that the 1-2% should be dealt with after the fact. Our systems are not set up to do that. He said that in the personnel pay- roll process we don't have the automated tracking devices that everyone can get to even know where things are. That is also a big item on the list for the Human Resources Information Systems team is targeting for a drastic improvement. That system is going to evolve in the next cou- ple of years. The purchasing system does a better job of notifying people about the status of their transactions. There is an area on an- other system that we look at on FRS that is a linkage of the payroll process to the accounting system to both encumber salaries on accounts and be able to deliver details of transactions. Mr. Shelton stated that the number one complaint he hears is the inability to encumber or budget salaries in advance. Dr. Lee asked about decentralization of classified positions. Mr. Shelton stated that discussions are occur- ring now with one college. He added that if Ms. Spencer visits that that is a pertinent question for her about career paths and how col- leges can work on career paths for classified staff personnel. He stated that Ms. Spencer had mentioned to him specifically lab techni- cians as one of the types of jobs they would look into decentralizing the position classifications. That is in their target. Dr. McNabb stated that perhaps Ms. Spencer can come next time and continue this discussion to see what else we can do on it. 9. CENTER REVIEWS. Dr. McNabb stated that last time the membership talked about developing an agenda for the order in which the centers would be reviewed, and the procedures for those reviews based on the first set of reviews. Dr. Johnson stated that a meeting has been scheduled for the subcommittee to meet. 10. ADJOURNMENT. Meeting adjourned at 5:00PM. FMAM/php
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/cor/1992/September+9++1992.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:25 EDT