University Libraries Logo University Archives of Virginia Tech

Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes Archive

February 1, 1991

          VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE & STATE UNIVERSITY

 

                           FACULTY SENATE

 

                           Meeting Agenda

                          February 1, 1991

                      200 Human Resources Annex

 

  Present:  Senators Wang, Kriz, Farkas, Eng, Geyer, Canestero,

            Rakes, Eiss

            Guests:  Provost Fred Carlisle, Wayland Winstead, Office

            of University Planning, and Phil Shelton, Institutional

            Research

 

  1.  Announcements.

 

      a. Senator Joseph Falkinham has agreed to chair the Senate

         Reconciliation Committee.

 

      b. The library has recently undergone an outside management

         review.  The report to Robert Heterick will be completed

         soon.  Concern was expressed over whether the report would

         be reviewed at the appropriate level of administration.  The

         Provost assured us that he will receive the report and take

         appropriate action.

 

      c. Education Secretary Dyke met with senate officers at the

         recent meetings of the Virginia Association of Colleges and

         Universities.  He promised to meet with university faculty

         at a meeting hosted by the senate on April 11th or 12th.

         (It has since been set for 2:30 February 27.)

 

  2.  Update on Faculty Senate and University Council Constitutions.

 

      a. President Eng announced that the Faculty Senate Constitution

         will be before the BOV for approval at its February meeting.

 

      b. Senator Farkas presented a review of the proposed University

         Governance System with a review of the philosophy behind

         shared governance.  The first concern was to make sure all

         major university activities are represented in university

         governance.  Such areas as university development,

         admissions, central budget formulation, and planning have

         not had a well-defined place in the governance system.

         Hence, a reformulation of new commissions are under

         consideration.

            Shared governance requires informed and knowledgeable

         members of the university community.  Appropriate

         internships are proposed for faculty and staff.

         Communications would be improved with all committees

         reporting to appropriate commissions and then to the

         council.

            Senator Farkas asked the senate cabinet to respond to

         several issues:

 

            1. Larger commissions will require more faculty

               participation.  Should the committee on revised

               governance determine how many are senators or should

               that be left to the bylaws.  With an increase of

               commissions, can we keep the number of members down?

 

            2. Faculty may need to commit to twelve months service on

               some committees such as budget planning, are faculty

               willing to do so?

 

            3. Is there dissatisfaction with EO/AA focus at this

               time?  There has been a push for a human relations

               committee on campus climate because of concern over

               broader issues that may not be being addressed by the

               EO/AA committee.

 

         Discussion followed from the above questions.

         Observations include the following:

 

         1. Revised governance should have the EO/AA committee

            reporting to the appropriate commission.

 

         2. Faculty would/should be willing to participate on a

            twelve month basis in the governance process.

 

         3. Commission size should be kept small.  Concern over the

            proposed make up of several of the commissions was

            discussed in great detail.  The lack of a majority of

            faculty membership on selected commissions,

            representation that might not be necessary, and

            opposition to proliferation of commissions were

            discussed.  Concern was expressed over where to place

            university library resources needs in the governance

            process.

 

  3.  Report of Credentials and Elections Committee.

 

      Senator Kriz reported on the results of the tabulation of

      senators under the new constitution.  Although the new

      constitution has not been approved by the BOV, it was the

      consensus of the cabinet that colleges and other units be

      informed of the number to elect for the next year based on the

      new constitution.  This will provide colleges and other units

      ample time to prepare for election.  If the BOV rejects the

      constitution, fewer individuals will be needed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Constituency   Current   # New     Terms Expiring Number to

                 Senators  Senators                      Elect

 

  Agriculture       8         9           5                 6

  Architecture      2         3           0                 1

  Arts & Sciences  13        14           3                 4

  Business          3         3           1                 1

 

  Education         3         3           0                 0

  Engineering       6         8           2                 4

  Extension         0         2           0                 2

  Human Resources   2         3           0                 1

  Library           1         2           1                 2

  Veterinary Med.   2         3           0                 1

  ------------------------------------------------------------

  Total            40        51          12                23

 

  4.  Planning.

 

      Provost Carlisle and Planners Shelton and Winstead presented an

      update on the Second Draft of the University Plan 1991-1996.

      The comments from this discussion follow.

 

     Provost:    This plan is to be presented to the BOV by April.

               Provost will discuss the plan with the Interim Budget

               and Planning Committee.  The plan is a basic statement

               of what the university has become and the direction it

               wants to over the next five years.  It is not an empty

               statement.  It is the first of several plans.  Action

               plans are to come from the colleges and departments

               and can be attached to the university plan.

                 Once the University and Colleges have dollars, we

               can allocate and make the plan work.

 

    Winstead:    One of the actions of planning has been to help us

               review the University mission.  The Second draft has

               reflected comments received.  Objectives have been

               changed to reflect the changing University and lack of

               money.   The new draft reflects fewer objectives and

               a "better" organization.  For example, because of

               Senator Walker's letter, the physical quality of

               facilities has been added as a goal and other items

               have been rearranged in more appropriate sections.

               The Plan is a compromise of many views and ideas.  One

               goal has been to keep the document focused and a

               number of objectives have been reduced.

                 We will come back to the Senate/Cabinet as needed.

 

         Eng:  Where do we go from here?

 

    Winstead:    This document will be used to drive 92-94 budget

               outlays that will be put together by August.  Arts and

               Sciences are already working to meet the goals and

               objectives of the Plan.

     Provost:  We will use it to address budget and procedure.  If

               tuition or other money is available, we will allocate

               or reallocate positions according to the Plan.  We

               will use it to reallocate resources in 91-92 if there

               are any resources according to the plan.

 

    Winstead:  Colleges can develop college plans consistent with the

               priorities as outlined in the plan.

 

     Provost:  The plan and the budget are to be congruent.  College

               and University plans need not be deduced from

               University plan but the Provost is looking for

               consistency, congruency.

 

    Winstead:  All colleges and departments, Vice Presidents are to

               work with Carlisle and Ridenour to encourage carrying

               out goals as far as possible.

 

     Provost:  Burruss is not a bunker even if it looks like a fort.

               Burruss wants input into the process.

 

      Farkas:  How do we prioritize the goals as to which ones to

               carry out first?  In process of setting priorities,

               what kinds of discussion processes are to be

               undertaken?

 

      Provost:   The Interim Budget and Planning Committee will

               function analogous to a "Commission" and work to plan

               the budget.  The Budget and Planning and Planning

               Coordinating Committee will merge as part of the

               process.  Levels of input include:  a) Deans, b) Vice

               Presidents and c) Colleges and Departments.

                 All need to be working with analogous groups in the

               college to implement goals.  Deans and Heads should

               engage in conversation with Faculty.  So also should

               the Interim Budget and Planning Committee.

 

    Canestero: Facilities are important, but legislators and others

               often see only the outside-not the classroom.

               Physical facilities are important to classroom work.

 

    Winstead:  We are already reviewing facilities with the faculty.

 

   Consensus:  1)  The Second draft will be distributed to the

                   Faculty Senate (attached to these minutes for

                   Senators only) and published in Spectrum for the

                   University community.

               2)  The Second draft was greatly improved and well

                   focused.

               3)  Concern over how and who determines priorities

                   remain a concern of the cabinet.  How this

                   process is integrated into the governance process

                   system should be an ongoing dialogue and concern

                   on the part of the Senate.

 

  5.  The Cabinet decided that reports that are available prior to

      the mailing of the agenda may be attached to the agenda or

      electronically transferred to Senators prior to Senate

      meetings.

 

  6.  Options for future meetings are as follows:

         February 12 - Past Presidents Address - Senator Pat Scanlon

         March 5     - President McComas

         April 9     - Election of Officers

         April 23    - Election of Commission/Committee

                       Discussion of Proposed changes in Governance

                       as needed.

 

  7.  Other

 

       Senator Farkas will provide the Senate with a report on

      proposed governance changes at the next Senate meeting.

 

       Cabinet expressed strong concerns over the composition of

      selected commissions and urged a continued dialogue on this

      issue.

 

       Concern over the process of naming buildings had been raised

       at a previous Senate meeting.  Secretary Geyer reported to the

       Senate that Mr. Charles Forbes has provided the Senate with a

       copy of the Policy and Procedures on Commemorative Tributes.

       The full policy is available from Mr. Forbes or Secretary

       Geyer.  Selected excerpts and membership of the Committee on

       Commemorative Tributes follows:

 

            1) Committee Membership

 

               Vice President for Development and University

                   Relations, chairman

               University Provost

               Vice President for Administration

               President of the Faculty Senate

               Executive Vice President of the Alumni Association

               President of the Senior Class

 

            2) Basic Policy

 

               The Board of Visitors is responsible for the naming of

               all buildings, portions of buildings, and other

               significant physical facilities on the University's

               properties.  The Board also is responsible for

               authorizing the naming of professorships, endowed

               chairs, and major academic components of the

               University.

 

               A Committee on Commemorative Tributes is responsible

               for reviewing proposals for the naming of buildings

               and other physical facilities, and for making

               recommendations to the President for possible further

               recommendation to the Board.  Similarly the Committee

               will review proposals for naming professorships,

               endowed chairs, and major academic units of the

               University and making recommendations to the President

               for possible submission to the Board of Visitors.

 

               The Committee on Commemorative Tributes, with the

               concurrence of the President, will authorize the

               erection of plaques, permanent signs and other

               memorials, and the commissioning and hanging of

               portraits.

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/fcb/1991/February+1++1991.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:37 EDT