|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveDecember 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, Webster. Visitors: Roy Jones Extension and Public Service Jane Asche Extension and Public Service Pam Orcutt CSAC (College of Veterinary Medicine) Kay Heidbreder General Counsel's Office Cornel N. Morton Director, Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Patricia Hyer Assistant Provost 1. CALL TO ORDER Visitors were welcomed and identified to the Senate. Vice President John Hillison presided. 2. ANNOUNCEMENTS 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. 3. ADOPTION OF AGENDA 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 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 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. 6. NEW BUSINESS 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 procedures. The faculty Senators raised the following issues and concerns: 1) Why is one person both the investigator and the judge? 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 review. 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 process? 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 instructional. 12) Some graduate students are both students and graduate teachers. How are their complaints to be handled? Answer-It depends on what capacity the person is in. 13) How would the problem of a "constant" complainer be handled? 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 President. 15) Who are the parties that would raise the issue in a consensual relationship? Answer-A third party may perceive a preference in assignments. 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. 7. COUNCIL, COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS 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 Commission. 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 resources. 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 semester. 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 "probation." 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 reasons. 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 COMMUNICATION RESOURCE COMMISSION--G. Tront--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 Tech. 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 list. 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 "difference". 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. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES COMMITTEE PATENTS--Senator Falkinham-- 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 SCHOLARSHIP & FINANCIAL AID COMMITTEE--R. Goss--no report SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS COMMITTEE--Senator Barker--no report PARKING/TRANSPORTATION TASK FORCE--C. Polan--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 building. 3. Will there be discussion on other budget alternatives? CLASSIFIED STAFF AFFAIRS COMMITTEE--Senator Canestaro--no report 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 VIRGINIA TECH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES--Senator Eiss--no report OTHER COMMITTEE REPORTS--none 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS--none 9. NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED) 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 Tuesday. 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 Committee. 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. 10. ADJOURNMENT
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/fsm/1990/December+11++1990.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:39 EDT