University Libraries Logo University Archives of Virginia Tech

Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes Archive

March 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



   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



        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



   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



   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



   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



   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



   B)   Presentation of proposed policy on University



   C)   Information on upper quad can be distributed to the



   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


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

Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:37 EDT