University Libraries Logo University Archives of Virginia Tech

Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes Archive

December 11, 1990

               Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

                                 Faculty Senate


                                December 11, 1990


                                 32 Pamplin Hall


  Present:    Senators Allen for Batie, Baumgartner, Bunce, Clowes,

              Crittenden, deWolf, Diesenroth, Eiss, Etgen, Falkinham,

              Farkas, Feret, Geyer, Hillison, Kingston, Kriz, Landen,

              McDaniels, Miller, Murray, Parsons, Saunders, Scanlon,

              Simmons, Snoke, Thompson, Tideman, Wang.


  Absent:     Senators Barker, Brown, Canestaro, Eng, Flick, Marriott,

              O'Neil, Rakes, Sorrentino (on leave), Ventre, Walker,



  Visitors:   Roy Jones                    Extension and Public Service

              Jane Asche                   Extension and Public Service

              Pam Orcutt                   CSAC (College of Veterinary


              Kay Heidbreder               General Counsel's Office

              Cornel N. Morton             Director, Equal

                                           Opportunity/Affirmative Action

              Patricia Hyer                Assistant Provost




        Visitors were welcomed and identified to the Senate.  Vice

        President John Hillison presided.




        Nicolaus Tidemann is the new senator from the College of Arts

        and Sciences.


        Senate officers met with Provost Carlisle on November 29.  The

        main topic was Reconciliation and Grievance.


        Fall Commencement will be held Saturday Morning at 10:00 AM in

        Burruss Auditorium.


        There will be a meeting of the Credentials and Elections

        Committee immediately following the senate meeting.


        Senate officers met with two SGA officers on December 7 and

        discussed advisement, teaching and fall semester break.


        Please complete the Faculty Support Survey


        Voluntary dues of $5.00 should be paid if they have not

        already been paid.



        The agenda was amended to include 1) the replacement elections

        for Senator O'Neil to the cabinet, Credentials and Election

        Committee and Commission on Graduate Affairs and 2) a

        discussion of the prior Senate Resolution on Planning.


  4.    PROGRAM


        No Program




        Minutes of the Faculty Senate meeting of November 13, 1990

        were approved, as were the minutes of the Faculty Senate

        Cabinet meeting of November 30, 1990.


        There was a discussion on the budget issues presented in the

        cabinet minutes of November 30.  President Eng will follow up

        with a letter to the Provost asking for the appropriate data.




        Senator Eng, representing the Senate, had requested that the

        EO/AA Sexual Harassment policy revision be reviewed by the

        Senate.  Assistant Provost Pat Hyer and Cornell Morton, the

        Director of EO/AA,  reviewed the proposed changes as embodied

        in University Committee on Equal Opportunity Affirmative

        Action Resolution 1990-91 A.


        The revised policy includes new statements concerning

        consensual relations between faculty and students, graduate

        teaching assistants and students, and same sex sexual

        harassment.  Examples include:  1) submission to such conduct

        is made implicitly or explicitly as a condition of an

        individuals employment or academic status, 2) submission to or

        rejection of such conduct is used to determine academic or

        employment status or 3) such action unreasonably interferes

        with a persons employment or academic status.  Procedures in

        the previous statement were too legalistic and not adequate

        for members of community to use.


        Although it is recommended that complaints be brought to the

        EO/AA office, any appropriate member of the University

        Community--faculty, advisors or administrators could counsel

        a complainant as to options available.  The accused would not

        be informed unless the complainant consented.  Many complaints

        can be handled at the informal level.


        Formal complaints against students can be filed with the Dean

        of Students.  Formal complaints against faculty would be filed

        with the EO/AA.  A written complaint will be investigated by

        EO/AA Office.  Supervisors will be involved and the person

        accused will be informed.  Possible outcomes of the

        investigation will include:

              1) Finding of no facts to support the charge.  Parties

                 will be informed and complainant may appeal to

                 provost office.

              2) Finding to support the charge and resolution is

                 reached not requiring a sanction.  A report covering

                 facts and resolution will be reported to the Provost

                 or Executive Vice-President as appropriate.  An

                 example might be a faculty member who makes sexist

                 "jokes" in class.  An appropriate resolution to the

                 problem might be when the faculty member stops making

                 the "jokes".

              3) EO/AA finds facts to support the charge and

                 recommends university sanctions or discipline.

                 Provost or Executive Vice President will approve

                 final disciplinary action to be administered by

                 supervisor.  Disciplinary action may be appealed by

                 the accused through the appropriate Handbook



        The faculty Senators raised the following issues and concerns:

              1) Why is one person both the investigator and the


              2) Why is there no peer review procedure as is generally

                 available to faculty?


              Answers-Mechanism needs to be open as to how

              investigations actually occur.  Investigations often

              involve several individuals.

                    Peer review is available if faculty member chooses

              to pursue the issue.  The goal is to make it similar to

              how other disciplinary procedures are handled.


              3) Why not handle all disciplinary issues the same and

                 broaden the process for all?  A future director might

                 not handle the same way.

              4) What were the problems with the old review procedure

                 where each party appointed one and the Provost

                 appointed the third?


              Answers-Third stage review committee never met as no one

              wanted to go to this step.  No one wanted to go through

              the process.  Some complaints are informal, some formal.

              Doesn't change the seriousness of the process.  Would a

              Senate peer review panel be appropriate?


              5) Several faculty expressed concern over Judge and Jury

                 (Judge and Prosecutor) role of the EO/AA office.

                 Maybe investigation should be presented to peer



              Answer-This is not a court of law and to act like a court

              would add problems.  The University has an obligation

              under the law to act on these types of complaints.

              (Administrative process not court process).


              6) Concern that the Provost does not have time to make

                 detailed analyses of situation.

              7) Why are the line people-heads, deans-not part of the



              Answer-They are involved and informed but they abhor

              involvement and do not want to investigate within

              departments.  Therefore, they are involved in discipline

              and operational level only.


              8) Process now can be handled informally.  Are there

                 better methods to informally solve the problem after

                 complaint is filed?  It may be a problem of innuendo.

              9) How can it be made clear that strict confidentiality

                 must be maintained at all times?  No statement of

                 confidentiality, no record keeping policy and no

                 method to seal records are included in the process.

              10) Why is it inappropriate to have a three person panel

                  when appropriate to act as a buffer.


                    Answer-When would the panel be put in the process?


              11) Concern over the definition of faculty was raised

                  and whether it was related to faculty as defined in

                  the Faculty Handbook.


              Answer-There are three groups at the university--wage

              employees, classified, and faculty.  There are different

              classes of faculty--administrative, extra collegiate, and



              12) Some graduate students are both students and

                  graduate teachers. How are their complaints to be



              Answer-It depends on what capacity the person is in.


              13) How would the problem of a "constant" complainer be


              14) What protection does the accused have when the

                  Provost makes the decision?  Who is the grievance

                  against--the Provost?


              Answer-Follow the handbook process and then grieve to the



              15) Who are the parties that would raise the issue in a

                  consensual relationship?


              Answer-A third party may perceive a preference in



        After discussion about whether it had been reviewed by CFA and

        concern over a need to make changes, it was agreed that CFA

        would meet with the appropriate individuals.  CFA would report

        to the Senate at the next meeting.  (See Agenda for Jan 8,

        1991 meeting for CFA's resolution of the issue.)


        It was reported that CSA Resolution 90-91 A on sexual

        orientation was rejected by the EO/AA Committee today.  An

        inquiry was made as to why it was voted down by the committee.

        The EO/AA committee was concerned over how far reaching the

        resolution would go, how it would affect the university's

        goals and time tables on other affirmative action issues, and

        how it would impact upon University's contracts with outside

        groups.  It was requested that this resolution be placed on

        the agenda for the next faculty Senate meeting.  (Resolution

        is attached to agenda for January 8 Senate meeting.)


        Since Kay Heidbreder of the general counsel's office was

        present, the question was raised about the view of the general

        counsels office on the relationship of the Handbook to faculty

        members' contractual relationships to the University.  This

        issue has been discussed in cabinet.  The issue will be

        addressed by CFA.




        UNIVERSITY COUNCIL--Senator Eng for Hillison--3 Dec 90


        First reading of CSA Resolution 1990-91A, amending the

        university's non-discrimination policy statement to include

        sexual orientation.  Referred to EO/AA Committee.  Other

        interested groups were invited to review concurrently.


        First reading of EO/AA Committee Resolution 1990-91A, revising

        the university's policy and procedures on sexual harassment.

        L. Eng requested review by Faculty Senate.


        Second reading of CGS Resolution 1990-91A, reinstating the "D"

        grades for graduate credit.  The resolution was moved,

        seconded, voted, and adopted.


        Second reading of CGS Resolution 1990-91A, changing the

        undergraduate residency requirement.  The resolution was

        moved, seconded, voted, and adopted.


        Second reading of Faculty Senate Constitution.  The item was

        moved, seconded, voted, and adopted.


        COMMISSION ON EXTENSION--Senator Marriott--4 Dec 90


        Charles Steger provided an update on progress of the

        remodeling of Hotel Roanoke and asked the Commission members

        for their perceptions of this project.  He indicated that the

        request for proposal format had been revised to incorporate

        the latest requirements and that a study was being conducted

        on comparable continuing education facilities throughout the

        United States.


        Dr. Steger reported that Dr. Carlisle was receptive to the

        establishment of an Academy of Public Service Excellence.  Dr.

        Carlisle indicated that he would put this subject on the

        agenda for the Council of Deans.


        A draft policy statement on the role of the Commission as

        prepared by Jim Johnson was discussed.  The Commission members

        were requested to submit appropriate responses to the

        University Strategic Plan.


        Douglas McAlister submitted four recommendations related to

        public service that will be sent to the University Council.

        Another recommendation will be studied further by the



        Starting in 1991, two different members will report at each

        Commission meeting on what they are doing and what needs that

        they have which should be addressed by the Commission.  The

        Commission decided to request further follow-up from Jim Wolfe

        on faculty handbook changes.


        COMMISSION ON FACULTY AFFAIRS--Senator Kriz--7 Dec 90


        Revision of Grievance Procedure:  Professor Eng reviewed the

        changes in the Procedures for the Faculty Review Committee.

        It was moved, seconded and passed to accept the changes.

        Next, the proposed revisions of the Faculty Grievance

        Procedures in Section 2.11 of the Faculty Handbook were

        reviewed.  Additional changes were suggested by the Commission

        and it was moved, seconded and passed to accept the modified,

        proposed revisions to the Faculty Grievance Procedures in

        Section 2.11 of the Faculty Handbook and direct Senate

        President Lud Eng to forward both the Procedures and Faculty

        Handbook revisions to the Faculty Senate.


        Involuntary Transfer of Faculty:  A discussion of the

        involuntary transfer of faculty raised several questions,

        including:  (1) is involuntary transfer to be considered a

        faculty "grievance" and (2) does the University need a policy

        on involuntary transfer?  The Commission decided to form a

        subcommittee consisting of J.H. Hillison, Harry Kriz and two

        faculty from the College of Business (R. Madigan and J.

        Robinson) to investigate the possibility of preparing a policy

        on involuntary transfer of faculty.


        COMMISSION ON GRADUATE STUDIES--Senator Snoke--5 Dec 90


        The Commission approved the policy that an "I" grade should

        not count as an "F" in calculations of the QCA.  This,

        however, is inconsistent with the written policy for

        undergraduates.  CUS is being invited to join with CGS in the

        writing of a resolution stating that "I" should not count as

        an "F" for any student.  Review needed for automatic

        conversion of I to F grade.


        The proposed policies against sexual harassment were reviewed.

        CGS members were urged to pay particular attention to the fact

        that the proposed document does not recognize the dual role of

        graduate students as both students and faculty/staff members.

        A subcommittee will discuss this and bring recommendations to

        the January 16 meeting of the full commission.


        The proposed merger of CGS and CUS was discussed.  Most

        comments were against such a merger.


        Concern was raised that there are only two female committee

        members (Senator O'Neil will soon be departing the committee).


        COMMISSION ON RESEARCH--Senator Bunce--14 Dec 90


        Mr. Dean Eyman, head of the Waste Policy Institute described

        the activities and function of this organization.  WPI is a

        university affiliated corporation which has been in business

        for 13 months.  It is operating on a grant from the Department

        of Energy at $2 million per year for three more years.  WPI

        acts as a link to connect federal agencies to universities and

        private sector groups in order to promote and conduct the

        formulation and implementation of environmental policy.


        Mr. Ted Kohn spoke on the revised Intellectual Property

        Policy.  There was considerable discussion of various

        hypothetical examples and the interpretations that would be

        applied by the new policy statement.  After one amendment, the

        revised policy statement was approved and will be sent forward

        to the University Council.


        Senator Falkinham reported that a revision in policy was made

        by the Intellectual Properties Committee.  The University

        would claim ownership only if a faculty member used university

        resources and facilities and not just an individual's

        University employed expertise.  Prior to that, it was implied

        that the University would have rights if it was in your area

        of expertise whether or not you used University facilities or



        COMMISSION ON STUDENT AFFAIRS--Senator Miller--6 Dec 90


        A transition procedure for new student leaders elected to

        positions entailing membership on CSA was adopted.  A

        discussion of proposed changes to the membership of CSA,

        including changes in student, faculty, and administrator

        membership, will be continued at the next meeting.


        Mr. Wayland Winstead reviewed the plans for the Upper Quad.

        The University's present academic space deficit is about

        600,000 square feet.  By early next century it could grow to

        900,000 to 1,000,000 square feet.  Extensive new construction

        would be the most desirable solution, but it is obvious that

        capital funds will not be plentiful.  therefore a feasibility

        study is underway of to possible conversion of the entire

        Upper Quad to academic space.  The study will be completed

        during the Spring semester and its results presented to the

        university community.  At least one old dormitory, probably

        Major Williams, will definitely be converted to academic space

        within the next couple of years.  This was part of the

        agreement in which permission was obtained from the State to

        construct a new dormitory behind War Memorial Gym.


        Question-Why do we not just build new faculty space?

        Answer-Cheaper to convert than build new.  See Winstead's memo

        of December 7.


        COMMISSION ON UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES--Senator Etgen--26 Nov and

        10 Dec 90


        26 Nov 90


        Resolution 90-91 C, Academic Eligibility, was presented for

        first reading.  The proposed changes in the University policy

        for academic eligibility, are as follows:


        1) The wording would be changed from "dropped from Virginia

        Tech" to "placed on academic probation" when a student fails

        to meet the academic eligibility schedule after spring



        2) A student on academic probation may enroll "in the summer

        sessions (one or both terms) immediately following the onset

        probation or in the subsequent fall term" to make up the

        deficiency.  A student on academic probation who does not

        raise the QCA to the minimum that was required "at the onset

        of probation is immediately placed on academic suspension" and

        is not eligible for readmission until the summer session one

        year (12 months) after the "onset" of the first academic



        3) A student returning from first academic suspension will

        again be evaluated for academic eligibility at the end of the

        first spring term after return.  Failure to reach to required

        eligibility QCA or to earn a 2.5 QCA from May to May will

        again result in academic probation and the student may enroll

        in either summer (one or both terms) or fall to attempt to

        correct the deficiency.  Failure to correct the deficiency

        will result in a second academic suspension of two years

        duration from the time the student was placed on the most

        recent probation.


        4) A student returning from second academic suspension will be

        evaluated for eligibility at the end of the spring term after

        return.  Failure either to reach the required eligibility QCA

        or to earn a 2.5 QCA from May to May will result in an

        immediate permanent dismissal with no probation.  There is no

        provision for appeal of permanent academic dismissal.


        5) A student may not receive credit for course work taken at

        another college or university during any period in which the

        student specifically has been "suspended or on academic

        probation" by Virginia Tech for academic or disciplinary



        6) Under extenuating circumstances, appeals for readmission

        and other exceptions to academic policies may be presented to

        the Virginia Tech Academic Appeals Committee "through their

        Academic Dean.  The Academic Appeals is appointed by the

        Provost and acts on behalf of the Provost in all academic

        appeals cases.


        Several revised courses and changes in requirements for

        department options were approved.


        10 Dec 90


        Resolution 90-91 C, Academic Eligibility, passed.  Enrollment

        statistics for expanded core courses were distributed.  A

        motion to extend the add period by one day (through noon, Jan.

        14) passed.  A subcommittee will be appointed to study the

        "Incomplete" grade policy.


        ATHLETIC COMMITTEE--Senator Baumgartner--no report


        Senator Baumgartner stated that the next meeting was scheduled

        for Thursday.  Concern was expressed over possible conference

        affiliation by the University Athletic Program.  (If you lay

        down with a dog, you can expect to get fleas.)  A league of

        peers is important.  (The Ivy League hasn't asked us.) (humor)


        BUILDING COMMITTEE--Senator Wang--no report




        COMPUTER COMMITTEE--Senator Webster--5 Dec 90


        Senator Miller reported for Senator Webster


        Weekend rates will be charged on interactive systems from 22

        December through 1 January.


        The Personal Computer Subcommittee reaffirmed last year's

        recommendations.  A major focus this year will be continued

        interaction with the Bookstore concerning prices of computers

        and computer software.


        The Computer Capacity and Planning Subcommittee reviewed

        performance statistics for the mainframe computers.  The

        situation is slightly better than predicted last year.  The

        subcommittee plans to survey the one hundred highest mainframe

        users for opinions on current mainframe services.


        The chairman of the Computer Committee presented a list of

        questions that will be used to develop a medium range plan for

        information systems on campus.  These questions will be

        discussed at the next meeting.  Once the plan is developed, it

        will be submitted to University Council.


        EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE--Senator Thompson--7 Dec 90


        The Benefits Committee met to discuss the CommonHealth

        Wellness program.  Ms. Wall (CommonHealth) explained their

        program and how we could start a wellness program here at



        1.    The CommonHealth program would be available to all who

              receive a paycheck from Virginia Tech.

        2.    The charge for membership will be $5.00 for individuals,

              $7.00 for a family.

        3.    The major problem centers around the required "site

              Coordinators."  The CommonHealth model is for these

              people to be volunteers.  Given the size of the

              University and the magnitude of the job, the committee is

              concerned with asking volunteers to be responsible for

              the program.  Further considerations are being discussed

              to establish an alternative model.


        The committee continues to endorse the wellness program but is

        concerned with the problems imposed by the staffing of the

        site Coordinator positions.  We are now paying for this

        program out of our health insurance premiums.


        EO/AA COMMITTEE--Senator Simmons--11 Dec 90


        CSA 90-91 Resolution A, "Equal Opportunity Resolution on

        Sexual Orientation" was presented by student Senator Brian

        McConnell.  The Resolution has come before the University

        Council for a first reading; University Council referred it to

        the EO/AA Committee for discussion and advisement.


        The Resolution seeks to revise the University's statement of

        its Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Policy, which now

        reads as follows:


              Virginia Tech dies not discriminate against employees,

              students or applicants on the basis of race, sex,

              handicap, age, veteran status, national origin, religion,

              or political affiliation.


        The Resolution seeks to add "or sexual orientation" to the



        A second part of the resolution states "that in matters of

        conflicting jurisdiction with the United States Department of

        Defense that this policy not be binding."


        McConnell explained the history of this Resolution and reasons

        for adopting it.  Senator David Kingston presented arguments

        against the Resolution, which he feels would hurt the

        University, could be divisive, and confuses the issues of

        hiring and admissions practices with harassment because of



        Discussion focussed on implications of the Resolution, the

        need for such a statement, and possible legal issues involved.

        University General Counsel, Jerry Cain, and Associate Counsel

        Kay Heidbreder were present to answer questions and explore

        these implications.


        CSA Resolution90-91 A on sexual orientation was rejected.



        6 Dec 90


        The Committee approved the transfer of various intellectual

        properties owned by the University to VTIP.


        The Committee accepted the changes in the Policy on

        Intellectual Property made by the Commission on Research.  The

        change concerns the definition of intellectual properties (IP)

        owned by the University.  Deleted from the proposed Policy on

        Intellectual Property is the statement "...that the subject if

        the IP falls outside the area of expertise for which the

        originator has been engaged by the University (e.g. a

        professor of literature develops a football computer

        game)...".  This change means that if the subject IP "...was

        developed without the use of University resources and/or

        facilities", ownership belongs to the individual and not the

        University, even though it is within the "area of expertise"

        of the faculty or staff employee.


        LIBRARY COMMITTEE--J. D. Stahl--no report




        SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS COMMITTEE--Senator Barker--no report




        FACULTY SENATE OF VIRGINIA--Senator Scanlon--17 Nov 90


        Senator Conn, Oliver, and Scanlon represented Virginia Tech.

        Senator Conn was elected Treasurer.  Concern was expressed

        over how to work with the legislature in Richmond.  The

        "current" lobbyist is also the AAUP representative in Richmond

        and this may cause confusion.  Issues of concern include:

        early retirement, C to A for staff, and TIAA-CREF.  Our state

        contribution seems to be better than in the surrounding

        states.  Concern was expressed over decoupling of the state

        system from and payments to TIAA-CREF.  How can the money put

        in be equalized?


        TASK FORCE ON BUDGET--Senator Eng--no report


        Although there has been no meeting of the Budget Task force,

        the following questions were raised.

              1. Why no meeting?

              2. Concern over the letter by Smoot indicating a loan

                 from the Foundation was provided to Tech for a new


              3. Will there be discussion on other budget






        BOARD OF VISITORS--Senator Eng--no report


        COMMENCEMENT--Senator Scanlon


        Winter Commencement is scheduled for Saturday, December 15.


        HONORIFICS--W. D. Conn--no report


        Concern was expressed as to why there was no consultation with

        Chemistry over the recent naming of the new building.  This

        raised resentment in the department.  Senator Conn of the

        Honorifics Committee should be made aware of this assuming

        such issues go through this committee.


        STUDENT BUDGET BOARD--Senator Clowes--29 Nov 90


        Routine business was conducted.


        VPI FACILITIES BOARD--C. Polan--no report










        A. SGA letter to the Senate requesting support for a fall

        break was discussed.  SGA officers have approached the

        Senators in a congenial way.  SGA understands faculty concerns

        over labs and 70 day calander.  SGA indicated a willingness to

        start a week early, would like to retain five days at

        Thanksgiving and would like to hear faculty concerns.  SGA

        argues that the long fall class schedule has increased

        incidence of student problems.


        The following concerns were raised:


        1.  Documentation of the increased incidence of student

            problems should be brought forward.

        2.  Faculty need more input into the calendar as well.

        3.  How do other schools handle longer fall breaks.

        4.  There is a need to resolve problem of poorly scheduled

            labs because of starting on Tuesday and stopping on a


        5.  Starting early could have negative impact on summer

            opportunities and family needs for faculty.

        6.  Students often return less rested, less organized, less

            ready to go to work after breaks and weekends.

        7.  A representative from the scheduling and registration

            committee stated the problem of finding enough days to

            accommodate all needs.

        8.  Several were against starting early but were willing to

            trade two earlier days for three days at Thanksgiving.

        9.  SGA does have representation on University Calendar


        10.   Concern was expressed that "somebody from Waukegon"

              changes the schedule and "we should return to a quarters

              system to create a fall break." (humor)


        Secretary Geyer was instructed to convey the tone of this

        discussion to the SGA.



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 13:57:39 EDT