|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveNovember 30, 1990
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Senate Cabinet Meeting November 30, 1990 Members Present: Senators Eng, Wang, Kriz, Farkas, Eiss, Geyer. Guests: Carol Burch-Brown, Assistant Provost, and Professor Henry Bauer. 1. DISCUSSION OF THE CORE-Carol Burch-Brown. Assistant Provost and Chair of the University Forum on a Liberal Education, Carol Burch Brown presented the Senate Cabinet with data on the impact of the budget on class sizes in the core and type of instructors teaching in the core. She also informed the cabinet of the status of the Forum progress. To date, the Forum has focused on gathering perceptions of students, faculty who teach in the core, other faculty and administrators, and information on "core" at other Universities. Concern to date has been the perception of the core as distributional; problems of access to classes in humanities; access to students "choice" versus available class; size of classes; and lack of writing in some of the core classes, primarily in the social sciences. Ms. Burch-Brown expressed a desire to inform the faculty (and Faculty Senate) of the progress of the Forum as appropriate and to participate in the governance process as appropriate. After discussion, it was decided that she would provide information on the Forum in our February packet and possibly present a discussion for the Senate on findings of the core in March. 2. DISCUSSION OF BUDGET ISSUES-Prof. Henry Bauer A discussion of the Senate's role in budget and the current handling of the budget by the administration was undertaken by Prof. Bauer and the cabinet. The following is a list of concerns that were generated for discussion and possible pursuit by the Faculty Senate. 1. How are items labeled in the budget and how does this determine how the budget crisis is "Managed"? i.e., are there items in 208 that should be paid out of 231, 230 or other budgets, allowing more funds for instruction? 2. What percentage of Education Foundation is earmarked, and what is the rest being used for? 3. Why should faculty not sit on the Foundation Board? 4. How are decisions made to let faculty members go under budget reduction and yet advertize in Spectrum for a new position in same department? 5. Why were some individuals under 208 laid off at the same time advertisements were had for non- instructional deans and administrative positions? 6. How many deanlets are needed in instructional/non- instructional positions? Can these positions and monies be shifted to teaching and support staff and monies follow to departments? (Bauer-Main problem is outside the Colleges.) 7. A request should be made to ask for the aggregate payroll and budget of colleges, the aggregate of 208, 230, 231 and then make a comparison of how it is spent between colleges and administration. 8. What is the need for the rapid growth in positions and expenditures in the research division? Can it be justified? 9. Who pays for Athletics? 10. What is paid for out of the Provost Office and is it appropriate and necessary? 11. Why are phones as expensive with "savings of CNS" than with AT+T? Other examples of "savings" promised and not delivered should be pursued. Professor Bauer argued for trust between faculty and administrators to review and carefully look at ways to reduce non-academic cost to assure adequate funding for instructional need. Faculty would have to spend a lot of time to find "the facts and figures." Where the University should economize and how should it be reviewed. Efforts to shift non-instructional expense when accrued by individuals paid out of 208 should be undertaken. The conversation left the Senate with a challenge to decide how and if it is willing to ask hard questions like the ones above. 3. Reconciliation Committee A discussion of pending reconciliation cases resulted in the following concerns: 1. Although Tech has tried to follow the Faculty Handbook, concern over whether University Counsel understands, supports and follows the handbook was raised. Are decisions being advised on the basis of "legal" interpretations or management advice from University Counsel without resort to the process of the handbook? 2. Is there support for the reconciliation process in the Provost Office? Senate Officers were instructed to review the reconciliation process with the Provost and determine his support of the process. 3. Do we need a new process and new procedures for the Reconciliation Committee. What steps should be taken to make reconciliation work? What issues are appropriate for reconciliation and what issues are only appropriate for the Faculty Review Committee? 4. Concern over Deans' and Vice Presidents understanding of the reconciliation process was explored. Senate officers should be invited to Deans Council to inform them of role and encourage support of the process. Cabinet was in consensus that Reconciliation can and has served a useful role as mediator of disputes. Procedural and jurisdictional reform of the process may be appropriate. These would include defined support by the University to include support for the Reconciliation Committee and the Faculty Review Committee by providing legal counsel and paying for appropriate legal fees, should any of its members be involved in a lawsuit arising from a Committee case. Furthermore, the University will assume all financial liabilities from a judgement against any individual who has served on either Committee if it is based on the action of the Committee. Several reconciliation cases have resulted from untimely and questionable involuntary transfers of faculty duty stations. The issue of involuntary transfer of faculty is under review by the Commission on Faculty Affairs. Dan Farkas, chair of the Reconciliation Committee, resigned effective January 1, 1991. 4. Fall Break letter from SGA The Student Government Association reported student dissatisfaction with the current fall calendar and for faculty input into the revision of the calendar. Selected excerpts from the letter follow: (The SGA finds)...discontent among the student body with the length of time between the beginning of the fall term and the Thanksgiving break. We would like to propose alternate formats to the University's scheduling and registration committee, most likely with the intention of retaining the entire Thanksgiving break and adding a fall break of about two days earlier in the semester. Due to the school calendar being a joint endeavor of administration, students, and especially faculty, we would like to ask the Faculty Senate to develop guidelines, if possible, on what characteristics of the school's schedule are most important to retain or add." 5. Nominee for Emergency/Disaster Plan Committee Said committee has asked for a nominee from Faculty Senate. 6. Campus Climate Committee Said committee has asked for a list of planned programs of the Senate on cultural diversity. President Eng to respond. 7. Faculty Support Survey Senators are requested to urge faculty participation in the Faculty Support Survey. Respectively submitted, L. Leon Geyer
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/fcb/1990/November+30++1990.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:37 EDT