University Libraries Logo University Archives of Virginia Tech

Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes Archive

September 11, 1990

              Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

                                Faculty Senate

 

                              September 11, 1990

                                     DRAFT

 

                                32 Pamplin Hall

 

                                   7:30 p.m.

 

  PRESENT:    Senators Batie, Baumgartner, Bunce, Canestaro, Clowes,

              Crittenden, deWolf, Eiss, Eng, Etgen, Falkinham, Farkas, Feret,

              Geyer, Hillison, Kingston, Kriz, Landen, Mandelstamm, Marriott,

              McDaniels, Miller, Murray, O'Neil, Parsons, Rakes, Saunders,

              Scanlon, Simmons, Snoke, Thompson, Wade for Ventre, Walker,

              Wang.

 

  ABSENT:     Senators Barker, Brown, Diesenroth, Flick, Sorrentino, Ventre,

              Webster.

 

  VISITORS:   Ms. Jane Asche (Extension), Ms. Marleen Burr (English), Mr.

              John Ashby (Spectrum), Ms. Pamela Orcutt (Classified Staff Af-

              fairs Committee), and Mr. Roy Jones (Extension).

 

  President Eng called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and welcomed guests

  and new Senators.

 

  1.  Program

 

      Dr. E. Fred Carlisle, Senior Vice President and Provost, and Mr.

      Minnis Ridenour, Executive Vice President and Chief Business Officer,

      spoke on the budget crisis.  The speakers distributed two budget docu-

      ments entitled, "Chronological Events Affecting 1990-91 Budget" and

      "General Funds Reductions."  In response to the discussion, Provost

      Carlisle sent a September 13, 1990, memorandum on salaries to faculty

      senators.  All documents are incorporated by reference and made a part

      of the permanent minutes, but not distributed with these minutes.

 

      Principles followed in Round #1 and #2 of the budget reductions were

      discussed. The University will attempt to meet its contractual obli-

      gations to faculty.  The process of meeting with ad hoc Faculty Budget

      Committee and administrators was reviewed.  A line by line review of

      the handouts was undertaken to explain the totality of and the impor-

      tance of permanent budget reductions of the 208, 230 and 231 missions.

      The import of a surcharge on the 208 budget was reviewed. The March re-

      ductions (Round #1) and the reductions required by July are permanent

      reductions and not reversions of funds.  Student financial aid has been

      exempted from the reduction.  The budget reduction from Round #2 is

      likely to be a little more than the 5% explained on the budget sheets.

 

      The University submitted a plan to include a $1.3 million assessment to

      auxiliary to offset general fund reduction.  This is not likely to be

      accepted in Richmond. Round #2 is a general fund reduction, new initi-

      ative reduction, and contains no classified/faculty salary raise for

      December.  These have been permanent reductions from the University's

      base budget.

 

      Budget reductions are to be made with as little impact as possible on

      people.  The University is concerned over loss of jobs in the New River

      Valley.  Round #1 saw the loss of 274 positions (130 faculty) through

      attrition--people leaving or nonreappointment.

 

      The Governor asked for 1, 3, 5% plan for Round #2.  It is likely to be

      greater than 5, but the Governor's plan is not to be released until

      Friday. Adjustments in spending on waste disposal, utilities and equip-

      ment funds were made in the budget. A tuition surcharge would protect

      208 positions but not 230 and 231 position reductions.

      Capital funding has been reduced by 27.1 million due to the removal of

      capital funding from the lottery proceeds.  The reserve maintenance

      funds were preserved and the funding of ongoing capital projects from

      lottery money like Human Resources will continue.

 

      Question and Answer:

 

      a.  Have rate charges for CNS increased?  No rate increase beyond July

          1 scheduled increases.  There is to be no shifting of costs by rate

          increases or new fees.

 

      b.  Are more cuts to come?  Depends on State revenue growth currently

          projected at 2-3%.  Concern over why the University (higher educa-

          tion) was bearing a disproportionate share of State budget cuts--no

          resolution of issue. Governor must balance the budget by law.  Re-

          venue projections were overly optimistic. State budget personnel

          believe we are only taking our share of the State budget cuts, ig-

          noring the greater share of Round #1.

 

      c.  Impact on junior faculty as to process and faculty participation?

          Faculty handbook will be followed, most only have one or two year

          contracts, decisions made by Departments and Deans and the ad hoc

          (now Interim) Budget Committee will be a part of the process.

 

      d.  Does Richmond understand the long term impacts on higher education?

          President has been making this point, pressing funding according to

          Appendix M, and maintaining status with our peer group.  Work is

          under way to look at other ways to finance capital projects frozen

          because of switch in use of lottery funds.

 

      e.  What is the process for classified layoffs?  There will be layoffs

          in Round #2, mostly in research and extension.  Office of Personnel

          on policy to be out later this week.  Layoffs by program, by sen-

          iority with bumping privileges. University will pay unemployment

          benefits, employees will have recall privileges and benefits will

          be continued for a short time.

 

      f.  Will granting of tenure be affected?  A discussion on readjustment

          to reduced budget was undertaken.  Few laid off on Round #1, but

          still hurt by loss of positions.  As a follow-up to the question,

          the following E-mail message sought clarification and resulted in

          the answer below.

 

              Date:  Thu, 13 Sep 90  14:57:29 EDT

              From:  "J. Arthur Snoke" <SNOKE@VTVM2>

              To:  "E. Fred Carlisle"

 

 

              At the Faculty Senate meeting Tuesday night I (Snoke) asked you

              about the implications the potential loss of positions might

              have on tenure decisions. Afterwards a fellow Senator pointed

              out that there was some miscommunication in the discussion.  I

              want to clarify the issue....

 

              From: "E. Fred Carlisle University Provost Virginia Tech"

 

              It is possible that tenure-track positions could be eliminated

              over the next few years.  Many that were vacant already have

              been.  IF faculty were not reappointed because a position was

              being eliminated or reallocated, the action would be taken ac-

              cording to the Faculty Handbook.  It is possible that tenure

              decisions might be influenced by a desire to protect a position

              or a program.  I would like to think that would happen rarely,

              since the program or department, not I, would have to live with

              its decision.  I am also realistic.  I have indicated to the

              deans that any time a department elects not to grant tenure or

              chooses not to reappoint someone, that position would remain in

              the college. It would not be subject to withdrawal.  That could

              encourage programs and departments to make good decisions.

 

      g.  Is there an early retirement plan available?  If local, it would

          cost the University increased money.  Would cost University 1+-2

          year salary for buyoff. Therefore, University is urging the State

          to explore such a plan.  There would be longrun benefits, too.

 

      h.  There has been decreased morale and faculty concern over long term

          effect. $20 million will have an impact.  We are still a strong

          university. We must look at the good items going on on campus.

          Thirty-three other states are having similar problems.  During the

          last 10-12 years, we have had a strong state commitment.  We be-

          lieve there is a long-term commitment to higher education in this

          state.

 

      i.  Why did we not forego the pay increase and save positions?  We

          probably would have lost the second raise amount anyway.  By taking

          Round #1 by attrition, we preserved long-term competitiveness of

          faculty salaries.

 

      j.  What is the possibility of losing accreditation in programs? Only

          short-term delay in building expected and therefore no accredi-

          tation problems expected. Accreditation line doesn't play well in

          Richmond.  May solve problem in other ways.  Possible to get some

          programs on short review.

 

      k.  Concern was expressed over why faculty were not informed of the

          thier raise. Why was this not made clear to faculty?  A form para-

          graph was sent to Deans. Perhaps the message was not properly con-

          veyed to all faculty.  The pay reduction is following a soon to be

          released executive order from Richmond. Richmond made the December

          1 salary decision.

 

      l.  Could a rolling leave/furlough be adopted to protect jobs? This is

          discouraged by Richmond.

 

      Dr.Carlisle expressed a willingness to continue to meet with the Senate

      informally on University concerns and matters.

 

  2.  Announcements

 

      Senator Eng encouraged more use of electronic mail.  The Senate's

      userid is SENATE at VTVM1.

 

      Dues are $5.00 and due now.

 

  3.  Agenda

 

      The agenda was adopted as submitted.

 

  4.  Minutes

 

      The minutes of the Faculty Senate meeting of May 8, 1990 were approved.

      The minutes of the Faculty Senate Cabinet meetings of May 24, July 20,

      and August 31, were accepted.

 

      An inquiry was made on the reporting of senate elections and minutes of

      the faculty retreat.  Reminder to senators: when minutes of commis-

      sions, committees, and senate are approved, they are available on line

      on INFO.

 

  5.  Council, Commission, and Committee Reports

 

      UNIVERSITY COUNCIL--Senator Hillison--no report

      Senators and College representatives on University Council will meet on

      Monday before Council at noon in the CEC. (Senate Secretary has noti-

      fied all).

 

      COMMISSION ON EXTENSION--Senator Marriott--no report

 

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

 

      Prof. Rebecca Crittenden Request: Because this request involves Federal

      and State Statutes regarding the learning disabled, Wayne Speer will be

      asked to prepare a one page summary (to be sent to all faculty) and

      make a presentation to CFA.  A letter informing Professor Crittenden of

      CFA action will be sent.

 

      Personnel Involvement in Promotion and Tenure: A preliminary discussion

      raised issues which will be discussed in future meetings.  (1) What

      problems are raised by participation of individuals (e.g. deans, de-

      partment heads or faculty) at two or more levels?  (2) Is it appropri-

      ate that individuals of one rank consider faculty for promotion to a

      higher rank?

 

      Definition of a "Program": An initial discussion of the definition of

      program established its importance in promotion and tenure and re-

      duction in force (RIF) decisions.  There may be a need to identify

      "University Programs".

 

      Calendar Year to Academic Year Conversions: If a CY appointment was ad-

      ministrative, the Commission felt that a CY to AY conversion was appro-

      priate when the individual no longer held the administrative position.

      Problems may exist due to insufficient detail provided in an initial

      letter of appointment.

 

      COMMISSION ON GRADUATE STUDIES--Senator Snoke--no report

 

      COMMISSION ON RESEARCH--Senator Bunce--no report

 

      COMMISSION ON STUDENT AFFAIRS--Senator Miller

 

      A CSA retreat took place on Saturday, 8 September.  Agenda items were

      collected and a subcommittee structure roughed out.  Campus climate

      will be a major topic of discussion this year, especially in light of

      some recent racist, sexist, and homophobic incidents.

 

      COMMISSION ON UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES--Senator Etgen--10 Sept 90

 

      The commission approved in principle Dr. Dudley's proposal for the de-

      velopment of two levels of honors study: the "Commonwealth's Scholars

      Program" and the "In Honors Degree Program," the former for eligible

      freshmen and current students who have a Q.C.A. of 3.4 or better, and

      the latter for students accepted for enhanced and/or advanced study.

      Plans of the Liberal Education Forum were outlined. Academic contin-

      uance policy will be reviewed this academic year and will be studied by

      a committee of administrators, faculty, and students.  Recommendations

      for a change in residency requirements were presented and will be dis-

      cussed at next meeting.

 

      Senator Etgen made an inquiry of Senate as to the distinction between

      approval and acceptance of reports.  He requested that the advisory re-

      port accepted by the Senate last year be brought back to the agenda

      later this year for approval.

 

      ATHLETIC COMMITTEE--Senator Baumgartner--no report

 

      BUILDING COMMITTEE--Senator Wang--no report

 

      UNIVERSITY COMMUNICATION RESOURCE COMM.--J.G. Tront--no report

      COMPUTER COMMITTEE--Senator Webster--Sept 90

 

      Presented by Senator Falkinham for Senator Webster.

 

      Dr. Harlan Miller will chair this committee this year.

 

      Report from Mike Williams, Computer Center Director:

 

      a.  This spring the Center initiated stopgap measures to alleviate

          problems associated with system saturation.  Memory was doubled on

          the 2084 (MVS) and memory was also added to the 3090 (VM1).  These

          additions have improved performance primarily for large jobs.  How-

          ever, usage continues to grow, and 100% utilization of the system

          occurs frequently.

 

      b.  The Center is developing an electronic directory according to na-

          tional standards. The directory will be available in stages begin-

          ning this fall.

 

      c.  The 2-3 tons of paper delivered each week by the Center is just a

          part of the paper movement crisis on campus.  Increased use of

          electronic mail is encouraged.

 

      d.  VTTCV, the new UNIX system, is operating.  The system is currently

          free, but the center expects to begin charging soon.

 

      e.  Budget cuts in the Computing Center mean prospects for a system up-

          grade are slim for three to four years.  Demand for computer time

          already exceeds the supply, work is not getting done, and the prob-

          lem can only get worse. Replacement of old, worn-out equipment will

          have to be postponed, resulting in more frequently failures.

 

      Charge of the Committee:

 

      The Computer Committee's purpose is not operational.  It does not set

      policy, but rather offers the opportunity to examine issues and make

      recommendations.

 

      The committee may pass resolutions and forward them to the University

      Council for action.  Computer Committee minutes are also forwarded to

      the Council, where they are noted and accepted.

 

      Subcommittees:

 

      There are three subcommittees, Personal Computer, Computer Capacity and

      Planning, and User Services.

 

      EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE--Senator Thompson--no report

 

      EO/AA COMMITTEE--Senator Simmons

 

      Informational meeting was held.  Three subcommittees on a) women, b)

      minorities, and c) disabilities were formed.  Secretary Dyke has re-

      quested SCHEV to produce guidelines/statement on sevility.

 

      INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES COMMITTEE--Senator Canestaro--10 Sept 90

 

      The Intellectual Properties Committee (IPC) met through the summer,

      with the exception of July.  In general, most of the disclosures have

      been fairly routine as to ownership.  The IPC has examined 80-90 dis-

      closures so far this year, which is a significant increase over the en-

      tire calendar year of 1989 of 57-58 disclosures.  The IPC, in addition

      to examining disclosures, is working on revising the policy regarding

      intellectual properties, to allow the committee to have more responsi-

      bility than just ownership determination.  At some point in the future,

      the Faculty Senate may be involved in reviewing the new policy.

      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--no report

 

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

 

      CLASSIFIED STAFF AFFAIRS COMMITTEE--Senator Canestaro--9 Sept 90

 

      The Classified Staff Affairs Committee had their first meeting of the

      academic year on Thursday, September 6, 1990.  There were reports from

      three established sub-committees and the establishment of a fourth sub-

      committee to address university governance issues.  The first of the

      established sub-committees, Communication/Publicity, last year ad-

      dressed the issue of improving communications on campus between admin-

      istration and staff.  One result from this group was an all-staff

      meeting that was held in August and drew 1,000 to 1,500 staff from all

      over the university.  This year the sub-committee will monitor communi-

      cation issues at the university from administration to staff and CSAC

      to staff in the various units.  The second sub-committee, Organizing a

      Staff Senate, worked with staff from the eight academic colleges to

      help them decide whether they wanted a staff organization.  All eight

      colleges voted for an organization.  The next step was for the sub-

      committee to help the colleges organize an elected staff group.  This

      year the sub-committee will work to organize staff representative

      groups within the administrative and vice presidential areas.  The sub-

      committee hopes to conclude their work by next year and have a staff

      senate in place by fall of 1991.  The third standing sub-committee,

      Policies and Issues, is looking at ways to provide more focus for CSAC.

      Last year they developed a mission statement and goals and purposes for

      the group.  This year they will draft a constitution and by-laws for

      committee review by January 1991.  The emphasis is to have elected rep-

      resentation from across the university on the staff senate.  The newly

      formed sub-committee on University Council, Commissions, and Commit-

      tees, will look at, among other things, the Report of the Faculty Sen-

      ate Task Force on the University Council Constitution.  In general

      members of the staff senate found it favorable concerning the staff.

      The sub-committee will investigate having an alternate appointed to the

      Committee on Councils, Commissions, and Committees, who will partic-

      ipate on the task force on councils and committees.  This sub-committee

      will also address other reports concerning governance issues that need

      a response.

 

      U.C.R.C. MEETING--Senator Eng--30 May 90

 

      The policy items prepared by Bruce Harper were discussed.  Of the 4

      policies, 3 were classified as "administrative" and 1 as "university."

      The 3 administrative ones deal with 1) establishing Communications Re-

      sources as the body which installs, maintains, and oversee all central

      networks at VPI&SU, 2) establishing Communications Resources as the

      body which operates the central networks and an access policy, 3) es-

      tablishing a policy and procedure for broadcasting videotapes on the

      campus cable network.  The 1 university policy deals with the use of

      Virginia Tech channels on Blacksburg Cable TV.

 

      Three ongoing projects related to enhancing information services for

      the University community were demonstrated or described.

 

      a.  SSIMail - an electronic mail system whereby individuals can use lo-

          cal, campus, national, and international networks to send and re-

          trieve messages.  A major feature is that the software resides in

          the individual microcomputer or work station rather than on a

          mainframe.  This releases mainframes from this type of task.

 

      b.  X-500 directory - an electronic name, address, phone, and userid

          directory which will allow sending e-mail to a person's name,

          userid, or department without requiring knowledge of userids.

 

      c.  Z39.50 Common Access System - a standard protocol being developed

          so that a user need learn only a single set of commands and proce-

          dures to access information located on different systems and at

          different sites, institutions, or companies.  VPI&SU is one of only

          a handful of sites working on this at the present time.

 

      BOARD OF VISITORS MEETING--Senator Eng--12-13 Aug 90

 

      A report on the status of minority students at Tech was presented.  We

      made some gains in terms of numbers and percentages, but we are still

      way behind the other Virginia doctoral institutions and perhaps getting

      further behind.

 

      University will divest holdings in companies with direct investments in

      South Africa.

 

      Sick leave policy for persons in classified positions moving to regular

      faculty positions: individuals who make this conversion will have the

      option of remaining under their old sick leave policy or convert to the

      1040 plan.  This is the same option that faculty had when they under-

      went the change several years ago.

 

      OTHER COMMITTEE REPORTS

 

      Commencement:  A fall semester commencement is planned for December 15,

      1990. It has been recommended that graduates have a choice of December

      or May graduation.  An agreement with Radford for 1992 and after to

      avoid conflict of graduation exercises on the same weekend has been

      reached.

 

      Reports:  A discussion was held to review the use of electronic mail in

      filing reports, value of reports, and the methods of reporting reports.

      E-mail is encouraged and two copies of written reports are requested at

      Senate meetings.

 

      Heads vs. Chairs:  An inquiry of the status of heads versus chairs was

      made.  No action to date but future action was expected.

 

  6.  Old Business--none

 

  7.  New Business

 

      a.  The election of Senator Feret as Faculty Senate representative to

          CSA was unanimous.

 

      b.  The election of Senator Simmons as Faculty Senate representative to

          Equal Employment/Affirmative Action Committee was unanimous.

 

      c.  The election of Senator Clowes as the faculty representative to the

          Student Budget Board was unanimous.

 

      d.  The status of December raises was discussed.  A resolution and a

          case relating to the issue was distributed to Senators.  This is a

          possible item for the October meeting and will be reviewed by Cabi-

          net.  Resolution attached.

 

      e.  A discussion was undertaken about the problem of the on campus mail

          service, including reports of the mail service losing money and the

 

          discarding of mail.  In response to Senator Eng's inquiry, the fol-

          lowing correspondence was received by the Senate.

 

              To: SENATE

                  *** Reply to note of 09/12/90  14:19

              FROM: P. Lewis Hale, Operations Manager,

                    Communications Resources

 

              Subject: university mail service

 

 

              The only mail being discarded as mentioned in Letter to Deans,

              Directors, and Department Heads, dated 9/7/90, is "Unendorsed

              3rd Class Bulk Rate Sweepstakes." We state in our letter that

              we were depending upon the community to determine what is uni-

              versity business, and what is not.

 

 

  8.  Adjournment

 

  Respectfully submitted,

 

  L. Leon Geyer, Secretary

 

 

 

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/fsm/1990/September+11++1990.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:40 EDT