|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveMarch 28, 1991
Senate Cabinet Minutes March 28, 1991 Present: Senators Kriz, Eng, Hillison, Farkas, Eiss, Canestero, Geyer Guests: Charles Steger, Senator Snoke. 1. Vice President Charles Steger presented information to the cabinet on what Public Service at Virginia Tech is about. To date, Public Service has been created by rearranging the extension division 231 budget and cooperative extension budget. The CED, CVD, and CRD extension programs have been relabeled under Public Service. Agriculture, Human Resources and Veterinary extension are under cooperative extension and Jim Johnson. A budget oversight board reviews the latter budget. This change was made because education in general is under pressure. The President wanted to reaffirm our Public Service role. The focus of Public Service has been on working with localities on capital improvement plans, capital budgeting and land use needs. Over 200 projects are in a queue waiting for assistance. Public Service is working with extension to split up the work projects. Our competitor institutions have Vice Presidents or similar positions for public service. These groups are providing service to the legislature. We must be competitive. Public Service is an attempt to combat a perceived "de-emphasizing" of the land-grant mission of Tech and pressure towards a "regionalization" of the University. Is Richmond concerned over the land-grant mission? Other institutions are to asking for money to support infrastructure and economic development. Public Service allows us to protect and project. $34 million 231 (Extension) dollars come to Tech. Continuing Education budget generates 2.3 from the hotel (slight profit) and 2.6 from Continuing Education programs. [University of Georgia receives a $4 line item for Continuing education. We are self-sufficient. U.Va. has 24 people in the Center for Public Service.] Not all CEC programs make a profit. CEC supports socially constructive programs. The CEC has had a 15% increase in programs. The CEC has returned $278,000 to faculty, $124,000 to Colleges/Departments. 53,000 participated in CEC programs. Public Service is working to inform the State of a wide range of services it provides. V.P. Steger hopes to stabilize the budget and make announcements about reorganization soon. People are teaching full time and still working Public Service. An Academy of Public Service would encourage participation in Public Service type activities. We need to tap the broader skills of the faculty. We must reward the extra effort by "acknowledging" Public Service. Question: Extension/Public Service is competing for resources. It seems not to be integrated into the University as it functions as an independent entity. The $34 million seems to return little to faculty. Separate budgeting leads to lack of respect by faculty. Perhaps that is why public service and extension don't seem to count as much for promotion and tenure. Answer: Will propose a public policy institute that would have everyone in public service with an adjunct faculty appointment. Need to integrate and need to deliver resources to the faculty. Question: It is clear where faculty have input into teaching and research. What is faculty role into input decision making in area of Public Service? Answer: Faculty within the Colleges are to develop a plan as to how Colleges can address Public Service. Steger (contd.) There have not been a lot of policy decisions about public service made as of now. Policy questions to address include: 1. Creation of Economic Development Council for the University. Must not make promises to the State and localities that we cannot deliver on. 2. Continuing Education. Only 43% of University programs run through CEC even though all are supposed to for money management. Programming and hotel needs are not met. The financial structure of CEC needs to be changed to return direct benefit to faculty and departments. CEC programmers may need to be moved into the Colleges to deliver better services. Hotel Roanoke--Is this something the faculty are committed to make work? A discussion was undertaken concerning the appropriateness of having non-degree candidates sitting in the classroom as a method of increasing revenues. Concern over what constitutes being a faculty member was reviewed. We are now trying to put Public Service together and stabilize the budget. Then, we shall work on the policy. Discussion: Need clear explanation to faculty of what it is and how it advances the role of VPI and SU. Besides advancing economic development in Western Virginia, what else would it do for Tech? Through Spectrum and other areas, a dialogue on what Public Service is should be developed. How can the field organization of extension be better tapped into and used. Cabinet: Policy issues need to be brought to the faculty. Error should be made on the side of discussing issues with faculty if they are policy in nature, even if perceived to be administrative/policy. Issues should not be dictated to the faculty. 2. Governance. The cabinet anticipated the report of the Joint Task Force on University Council, Commissions, and Committees Recommended Constitution Revision. [It has since been learned that the document will be reviewed by University Council for potential approval yet this academic year. A copy of the proposal is in Senators' package.] Cabinet discussed the following areas of concern: A sufficient number of faculty should be on all appropriate committees. A second issue is the appropriate role of the "Academy" at Tech. 3. Report on the Budget Committee-- Senator Eiss reported on recent activities of the budget committee. [See reports of last two meetings following the April 9th meeting agenda.] Concern was expressed over how to participate in budget events that might take place over the summer. Senator Eng reported that most if not all higher education amendments were not signed by the Governor. The University must submit an incremental plan of up to a 6% cut for a potential round 4. "Faculty" are encouraged to participate in round 4 contingency planning. 4. A discussion about the alternative of VSRS and other ORP programs was discussed. Correspondence from Douglas Martin, Employee Relations, and Senator Thompson of the Employee Benefits Committee follow. From: Douglas D. Martin Employee Relations To: SENATE Date: Tue, 02 Apr 91 16:11 EST 1. Individuals can now switch from VRS to ORPs, among ORPSs, or from TIAA to VRS between now and 6/30/91. 2. The 10.4 contribution rate is not a bad rate comparatively. However, the 10.4 does represent about a 17% cut in contributions. My calculations show that it takes about 12.5% for the plans to equal over a 30 year period. Over a 20 year period the plans are close at the 10.4% rate. From: Thompson To: GEYER Subject: Re: TIAA cuts First, anyone can change to VRS between 4-1-91 and 6-30-91, if they choose... I consider myself to be reasonably well informed and I am sticking with TIAA-CREF. I prefer to place my political risk with my contribution, rather than with my benefit. There is, as you well know, no way to assure equality between a defined contribution and a defined benefit program.... 5. Coverage of Special Faculty Appointments under Senate Committees on Reconciliation, Faculty Review and Ethics. Currently, cases are or can be brought to these committees by individuals with a type of faculty status which does not allow the faculty member's "peers" to serve on said committees. This is particularly true of the recent franchisement of 348 field extension personnel as faculty lecturers. This issue will be reviewed in the future. 6. Furloughs--the "F" word. The Senate has previously opposed "furloughs" absent of any other plan. Alternatives including a bridge loan from the Foundation should be explored first. The College of Human Resources Faculty Association is planning to place a resolution before the Senate at the Senate's next meeting on furloughs. 7. Update on Faculty Needs Survey--Senator Snoke The recently completed survey is in the first stage of analysis. Senator Canestero is analyzing the written comments. Senator Snoke will work with Institutional Research and others on the analysis of the data. An interim report is planned for April 23 with a final report next academic year. 8. Meeting of Virginia Faculty Senates/Councils with Secretary Dyke on April 23. Colleges and Universities will need to sell/make know the strengths of their programs to the State. As a follow-up to our recent meeting with Dyke, President Eng has initiated a meeting with Secretary Dyke and Faculty Senate officers of other State institutions to discuss faculty concern in the area of higher education. A fringe benefit will be Senate officers from the various institutions meeting together. Items on the agenda include getting the importance of research/extension/public service on Secretary Dyke's agenda. SCHEV should also be encouraged to do more public education about "Public Education" and making available information on the strengths of the State universities. 9. Agenda for April 9th meeting. A) Officer Elections Nominees should draft a paragraph about themselves and qualifications to serve as Officer of Senate and prepare brief remarks for presentation to the Senate. B) Presentation of proposed policy on University calendar. C) Information on upper quad can be distributed to the Senate. D) If Senators wish to vote for, against or pass on PPI, that would be appropriate. Concern over the use of academic name was reviewed. PPI proponents would appreciate a debate now, not opposition later.
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/1991/March+28++1991.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:37 EDT