University Libraries Logo University Archives of Virginia Tech

Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes Archive

December 10, 1991

           Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

 

                            Faculty Senate

 

                               Minutes

                          10 December 1991

                          32 Pamplin Hall

 

  1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM and visitors introduced:

           Peggy Rasnick, Staff Senate

           John Ashby, Spectrum

           Ralph Byers, Director, Government Relations

  2. Announcements by the President:

      a. The Senate Officers will meet with Senator Madison Marye and

           Delegate Joan Munford on December 13th to discuss the upcoming

           legislative session.

      b. The Senate needs individuals to serve on the Ethics Committee.

      c. There are plans for a Faculty Appreciation Day being developed.

      d. The President made a presentation to the Academic Affairs

           Subcommittee of the Board of Visitors.

      e. The President attended the UVa - VPI&SU football game.

      f. The President will attend and urged faculty to attend the Fall

           Commencement, December 14th.

 

  3. Program:

      a. Gordon Davies, Director, SCHEV (1977-present)

           (1) Mr. Davies reviewed the state's budget process:

                -SCHEV reviews and makes recommendations twice on budget

                -2/3 of $ 491 million VPI&SU budget are from general fund

                    1/3 from tuition

           (2) Mr. Davies reviewed the prospects for VPI&SU:

                -Possible 5% cut for 1992 budget

                -No faculty salary increase

                -Only budget increases through increase in tuition

                -no growth in enrollment

           (3) Mr. Davies then responded to questions:

 

      Question: What will happen to the Research and Extension Divisions

                which can't be supported by tuition?

      Answer: Research is self-supporting and unfortunately Extension has

                little other support. That is not to say that Faculty are

                not working hard (as demonstrated by the Faculty Workload

                Survey) and commited to teaching. Further it is clear that

                research and teaching are inextricably bound.

      Question: What is the possibility for a tax increase?

      Answer: Rather than make a stand, a discussion of alternatives (e.g.,

                tuition increases) should be made. The University

                Presidents group is carrying out a program to inform

                business leaders of these alternatives.

      Question: What will happen to out-of-state graduate students who pay

                full tuition?

      Answer: First, GRAs and GTAs are not considered out-of-state and

                second, proposals are being offered to proved scholarship

                funds to offset tuition increases.

      Question: What efforts are being made to reduce the duplication of

                effort required by the state?

      Answer: As Universities act more like private institutions upon

                authorization from the state, the state in turn ought to

                grant them more autonomy. It is estimated that there are

                significant savings to be gained.

 

      b. Minnis Ridenour (Executive Vice President, VPI&SU)

           (1) Mr. Ridenour reviewed the cuts in the University's budget.

                -at the start of 1992, there is $ 40 million less than 1991

                -building projects, to be funded by lottery income are lost

                -though there will be no layoffs, furloughs or tuition

                     surcharges in spring semester, 1992

                -tuition is up 44.6% from 1989 and out-of-state students

                     who will pay full cost of education will see

                     substantial tuition increases

           (2) Mr. Ridenour and Dr. E. Fred Carlisle (Senior Vice President

                     and Provost) responded to questions:

 

      Question: Will tuition increases affect the quality of applicants?

      Answer (MER): At present that is unknown. If fewer out-of-state

                     students apply, there is a loss of $ 5,000 for each

      Answer (EFC): We may judge from the numbers and profiles of

                     out-of-state applicants

      Answer (MER): We must justify increases in tuition and couple that

                     with meeting staffing guidelines and consolidate our

                     operations to achieve savings

      Question: What has been the impact of early retirement?

      Answer (MER): VPI&SU is in good shape because the targets from the

                     state ($ 1.3 million in 91 and $ 0.7 million in 92)

                     were easily met.

      Answer (EFC): Now, the question is what do we do with the $ 4 million

                     saved? How do we allocate savings and poistions?

      Question: Is there a perception that out-of-state students are

                     parasites?

      Answer (GKD): Yes, though there some exceptions

      Answer (MER): There is little understanding of research and its

                     contribution to education

      Question: Should we document the students we are losing?

      Answer (GKD): There are 5,000 more students in Community Colleges,

                     suggesting a redistribution of students

 

  4. Roll Call: Present: Vinson (for Batie), Bunce, Feret, Geyer, Marriott,

           Wright, Poole, Wang, Barker, Falkinham, Ficenec, Holtzman, Hult,

           Miller, Murray, Olin, Webster, Williams, Hillison, McDaniels,

           Hardel (for Brown), Crittenden, deWolf, Hasselman, Michelsen,

           Neu, Walker, Godon (for Asche), Jones, Barbeau, Parsons,

           Beamish, Norstedt, Richardson, Shires (for Carrig and Saunders),

           and Eng.

 

  5. Agenda: The agenda was adopted as presented.

 

  6. Approval of Minutes: The Senate minutes of 12 Nov 91 were approved

                          The Cabinet minutes of 1 Nov and 2 Dec 91 were

                               approved as corrected

 

  7. Council, Commission and Committee Reports:

      University Council: The policy on geographic transfer was approved.

 

  8. Unfinished Business:

      None

 

  9. New Business:

      a. Elections:

           -Ken Diehl (Ag Econ) was elected to the Benefits Committee

           -For the following elections there was unanimous consent for the

                Senate to act as the Nominations Committee

           -Leon Geyer was elected Senate President

           -Joe Falkinham was elected Senate Vice President

           -Marilyn Norstedt was elected Secretary

           -Margaret Murray was elected to Commission on Faculty Affairs

           -Carl McDaniels was elected College of Education representative

               to the Senate Cabinet

 

  10. Following a round of applause in appreciation of the service by John

           Hillison as Faculty Senate President, the meeting was adjourned

           at 9:30 PM.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                     Commission on Faculty Affairs

                                 Minutes

                    December 13, 1991, 1:00-3:00 P.M.

                            400-D Burruss Hall

 

  Present: J. Buffer, D. de Wolf, J. Falkinham, L. L. Geyer,

  L. Richarson, C. Schwertz, R. Sorensen, W. Williams, J. Wolfe

 

  Agenda was adopted as circulated.

 

  Minutes of November 22, 1991, were approved as corrected.

  Minutes of the previous meeting of November 8 had been

  incorrectly designated as the minutes of November 25.

 

  Commission on Research Resolution 90-91A, Special Research Faculty

  Appointments (see Attachments).  The resolution, which modifies

  the descriptions of Research Associate, Research Scientist, and Senior

  Research Scientist in the Faculty Handbook and proposes new positions of

  Senior Research Associate and Postdoctoral Associate, calls for changes

  in Sections 2.4.2 - 2.4.4 of the Handbook and renumbering of

  Sections 2.4.5 - 2.4.7.  Associate Provost E. Stout reviewed the

  resolution.  In the course of discussion two changes to the resolution

  were suggested: (1) that the last sentence of the introductory paragraph

  be changed to read "The processes of advertising, interviewing, and

  selection, as appropriate, to the position, should be followed.", (2)

  that content common to the proposed revised Sections 2.4.2 - 2.4.6

  regarding benefits (e.g. sick leave and annual leave) be excised from

  those sections and consolidated in a new Section 2.4.7 and a concluding

  sentence be added to each of 2.4.2 - 2.4.6: "Position benefits are

  outlined in Section 2.4.7."  It was moved and seconded that Commission

  on Research Resolution 90-91A be approved subject to those changes.  The

  motion carried.

 

  Proposed amendment of Faculty Handbook 2.6.3, Appointment of

  Deans (see Attachment).  The proposed amendment concerns

  appointment of Associate and Assistant Deans, Directors, and Assistant

  and Associate Directors.  L. Geyer stated that he was introducing the

  proposal in order to initiate discussion of the appropriate faculty role

  in determining creation of and appointment to these positions.  J. Buffer

  suggested that determination of the function of such positions is an

  administrative rather than a faculty concern and that authority for the

  allocation of such positions belongs to the Provost.  R. Sorensen agreed

  but stressed that these are administrative concerns for which a process

  of faculty consultation is stipulated.  Sorensen briefly reviewed the

  consultative process in the College of Business, adding that it is

  possible that faculty consultation in these decisions should be

  strengthened.  He suggested that the proposed amendment be rewritten,

  stressing consultation but leaving stipulation of the process general.

  He also questioned whether we can effectively distinguish between those

  subordinate deans or directors who do and those who do not have input

  into tenure and promotion decisions.  There appeared to be wide

  agreement with Sorensen on these points, but doubt was expressed that

  the consultative process he had outlined was one generally followed

  throughout the University.  J. Falkinham said that he intends to raise

  in the Faculty Senate the question of present practice with regard to

  faculty consultation in these matters.  It was generally agreed that the

  question should be raised together with the question whether present

  policy should be changed so as to strengthen the consultative process.

 

  CFA meetings for Spring Semester 1992: The circulated

  proposed schedule of Friday afternoon meetings (see Attachments) was

  tentatively approved with one change (the deletion of Februrary 21).

 

  David de Wolf moved that the Commission express its gratitude to Leon

  Geyer for his service as chair.  Motion passed unanimously.

 

  The meeting adjourned at 2:55 P.M.

 

                                William H. Williams

                                Secretary

 

  Attachments:

  Commission on Research Resolution 90-91A

  Proposed Amendment of Faculty Handbook 2.6.3

  Tentative Schedule of CFA meetings, Spring 1992

       January 10, 1:15-3:00 P.M.

       January 24, 1:15-3:00 P.M.

       February 7, 1:15-3:00 P.M.

       March 6, 1:15-3:00 P.M.

       March 20, 1:15-3:00 P.M.

       April 10, 1:15-3:00 P.M.

       April 24, 1:15-3:00 P.M.

 

 

  Report of Commission on Student Affairs

  meeting of 5 December 1991

 

  At the start of this meeting Barbara Pendergrass reported that Tom

  Goodale had received the Distinguished Service Award from the National

  Association of Student Personnel Administrators.

 

  Vice President Goodale reported on the continuing saga of budget cutback

  mandates and plans.  Extensive discussion followed, touching on the joint

  SGA/GSA letter-writing initiative and liaison by those groups with other

  student groups across the state.

 

  The report of the ad hoc University Committee on Bicycle Concerns was

  circulated and discussed.

 

  The continuing issue of the (re)classification of student organizations

  and reorganization of funding mechanisms was brought a step nearer to

  closure by the reconstitution of a subcommittee to reconcile the various

  proposals and report back to the Commission in early February.

 

  The last matter of discussion was fan misbehavior at football games.

  Complaints from visitors have called attention to this continuing

  problem.

                               Harlan B. Miller

                               Faculty Senate Reporter

 

 

                   Commission on Extension Report

                          By N.G. Marriott

 

 

       The Commission on Extension met on January 7, 1992.  Most of

  the meeting was devoted to updates.

 

       Doug McAlister provided a brief update on the University

  Council meetings and his responsibilities in Community and Economic

  Development.  Ned Lester gave a brief report on the Continuing

  Education Programs.  Charles Steger gave an overview and philosophy

  of the Public Service mission and an update on the Hotel Roanoke

  Conference Center.  He indicated that an agreement with a developer

  has not been signed.  David Britt provided a brief report on the

  Reynolds Homestead.  This facility, which serves approximately

  16,000 people per year, will soon receive a 70% expansion.

 

       Kay Burke identified the lack of extension field staff rep-

  resentation within the new university constitution.  It was agreed

  that Kay would prepare a memo which outlines the current arrange-

  ment so that Charles Steger could discuss the issue with top admin-

  istration and CFA to determine the mechanics needed to correct this

  arrangement.

 

  REPORT OF UNIVERSITY COMPUTER COMMITTEE MEETING

  4 December 1991

  Computing Center Announcements

  The Computing Center will be following its usual  practice  of  lowering

  interactive  computing  rates  during the Christmas holidays in order to

  encourage use when activity is normally low.

  Betty Hillis, sole buyer in the Computer Purchasing Department, will  be

  retiring at the end of December. Replacing her is currently impossible

  with the hiring freeze.  Cooperation and patience will be required on the

  part of departments  making  computer  purchases.

  The Personal Computer Subcommittee met twice last month.

  The subcommittee  set its first priority on investigation of how they

  might facilitate the use of PCs in the classroom.

  Issues remaining from last year, particularly the administration of

  site licenses, will continue to be pursued and other questions, such

  as the obsolescence of equipment, will be investigated if time permits.

  The  subcommittee  also  met  with  John Moore from the Learning

  Resources Center (LRC) to learn more about multimedia equipment and

  software, as well as services provided by the LRC.

  The Workstations Subcommittee will send a letter to department heads

  asking for names of individuals who are familiar with or have an interest

  in workstations.  A survey asking about hardware, software, and support

  will be developed and sent to individuals identified through the letter.

  Other subcommittee activities may follow, depending on the results of the

  survey.

  The User Services Subcommittee was assigned the responsibility of

  reviewing academic versus administrative needs. Representatives from

  Communications Resources will be invited to join the discussions.

  A question was raised about the responsibilities of User Services for PC

  software support. Support is available for packages that directly

  relate to central computing, such as communications packages, Kedit,

  and PC SAS.  While  other software is not explicitly supported, User

  Services will attempt to answer questions if expertise is available in

  the department and time permits.  Questions relating to the purchase of

  software should be addressed to Joe Kelley, the consultant in computer

  purchasing.

  Jack Webster

 

              Report from the Bicycle Committee

 

  The University Committee on Bicycle Concerns was appointed and

  chaired by Richard S. Alvarez, Director of Public Safety, Health

  and Transportation.  The Committee included representatives of the

  Graduate Student Assembly, the Student Government Association, student

  cycling clubs, the Blacksburg and University police, the Blacksburg

  Bikeway and Walking Committee, Facilities Planning and Construction,

  Parking Services, the Dean of Students office, the Student Affairs

  office, and one member each from CSAC and the Faculty Senate.

 

  The Committee had four meetings in October and November.  In addition

  there were two public fora sponsored by the Committee and advertised

  in Spectrum and the Collegiate Times.  Mr. Alvarez made every effort

  to solicit comments, suggestions, and complaints from all interested

  members of the university community.

 

  By letter to the Vice-President for Business affairs dated November 21,

  1991, Mr. Alvarez forwarded the Committee's recommendations.  These are

  of two sorts: long-range strategies and immediate concerns.

 

  The immediate concerns, on which action is suggested as soon as resources

  permit, are three:

   1. Install more bike racks, especially around the Drill Field.

   2. Step up enforcement, especially in re not using lights at night,

       wrong-way travel, riding on sidewalks, and hazarding pedestrians.

   3. Consider marking bike lanes on the plazas, across the Drill

       Field, and in other problem areas.

 

  The long-term strategies are six:

   1. Prepare an information booklet with maps, University, Town, and

       State laws and regulations, and courtesy tips.

   2. Establish a formal bicycle regulation system to identify bicycles,

       facilitate enforcement, and distribute information.

   3. Have a formal traffic plan developed to maximize traffic flow,

       improve bicycle parking, mark discrete paths, eliminate safety

       hazards, work to decrease automobile parking on the Drill Field

       and establish a bicycle lane, and eventually eliminate most motor

       vehicle traffic and parking from the Drill Field.

   4. Appoint a standing committee to oversee bicycle matters.

   5. Continually evaluate and revise the University's traffic

       enforcement policies.

   6. Develop and implement an educational program for the whole

       University community to improve safety and convenience for all,

       including motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and especially the

       handicapped.

 

  Any Senator who wishes a complete copy of the report should contact me.

                                  Harlan B. Miller

                                  Faculty Senate Representative

 

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/1991/December+10++1991.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:40 EDT