University Libraries Logo University Archives of Virginia Tech

Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes Archive

February 9, 1994

  Faculty Senate Cabinet Minutes

  9 February 1994

  Accepted by the Faculty Senate:  15 February 1994

 

  Present:  William E. Barbeau, David R. Beagle, Don G. Creamer,

            David A. de Wolf, N. Larry Shumsky

            Robert T. Sumichrast

 

  David de Wolf began with a report of a meeting between Provost Carlisle,

  Larry Shumsky, and himself concerning changes proposed in the

  University's policy on "Reduction in Force Associated with

  Discontinuance or Reorganization of Programs" (RIF) as contained in the

  Faculty Handbook Section 2.10.3. and related issues.

 

  President de Wolf said that he proposed de-coupling the changes in the

  RIF policy from funding reductions planned for the College of Education.

  While the Provost did not agree that such changes in the RIF policy made

  at the same time as a reorganization of the College of Education

  constituted a violation of due process, he agreed to consider allowing

  the College of Education to use the existing procedures.  No final

  commitment was made.

 

  The Senate officers expressed concern, to the Provost, over the lack of

  consultation between the University Administration and the faculty about

  the recently announced funding reduction for the College of Education.

  Dr. de Wolf suggested that it would have been appropriate for the matter

  to be brought before the University Advisory Council on Strategic

  Planning and Budgeting and asked the Provost how the decision had been

  reached.  The Provost explained that he had decided months ago to take a

  leadership position in the matter and explained that he was trying to be

  consultative on the matter by inviting the faculty in the College of

  Education to form their own re-organization plan.  President de Wolf

  expressed to the Cabinet, his belief that the Provost will consult with

  the Advisory Council on such matters in the future.

 

  In response to questions from Senator Creamer and others, the following

  points were made.  The rationale for the decision, the process used to

  determine the amount of the cut, and other details of the decision were

  not explained.  The Provost indicated that he was responsible for the

  decision rather than President Torgersen and he said that the funding

  reduction for the College of Education is meant to send a message to

  other colleges.  More reallocation through Phase II is likely.

  Questions and comments made by Cabinet members indicated concern over

  the process followed by the Provost on this matter.  Provost Carlisle

  encouraged Dr. de Wolf and Dr.  Shumsky to bring the matter before the

  Advisory Council.

 

  Specific objections were raised concerning the mission statement

  provided to the College of Education by the Provost.  Senator Creamer

  said that the College was trying to determine if the Provost would

  accept a statement which is more consistent with the beliefs of the

  faculty.

 

  Finally, President de Wolf distributed a newly revised policy on

  "Reduction in Force Associated with Discontinuance or Reorganization of

  Programs" which Senator Shumsky and he wrote to address concerns raised

  by the faculty.  He and Senator Shumsky explained major features

  including the use of the Advisory Council in the review, primarily for

  resource and coordination purposes.  A second level of review by an Ad

  Hoc Committee is included for the purpose of assuring personnel are

  fairly treated.  The changes make the process more consistent with

  current university governance structures, clarifies the process, reduces

  potentential redundancy in the review, and protects faculty rights.

 

  The Cabinet discussed the proposed policy.  Senator Creamer suggested

  that other means of creating the re-organizational proposal should be

  considered.  Specifically, the importance of input from affected units

  should be addressed.  Others expressed concern that the proposed

  language did not explicitly recognize Commission members added to the

  Advisory Council as voting members of the augmented body.  The

  procedures which must be followed by the University President in forming

  the Ad Hoc Committee were discussed.  Advantages to avoiding changes to

  the last four paragraphs, dealing with guarantees to affected faculty,

  were discussed.  Senator Creamer said that many of the concerns of the

  College of Education had been addressed.  He stated that he was

  convinced that the change in policy was not malicious.  Senator Beagle

  noted the vagueness of the term program in the policy.

 

  In response to suggestions of the Cabinet, President de Wolf promised

  to revise the proposed policy and bring it before the full Senate.

 

 

  Respectfully submitted,

 

  Robert T. Sumichrast

  Secretary, Faculty Senate

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/1994/February+9++1994.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:38 EDT