University Libraries Logo University Archives of Virginia Tech

Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes Archive

February 12, 1991

                   Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

                                     Faculty Senate


                                    February 12, 1991


                                     32 Pamplin Hall


                                        7:30 p.m.


 Present:    Senators Batie, Baumgartner, Brown, Bunce, Canestaro, Clowes,

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

             Farkas, Feret, Geyer, Hicks, Hillison, Kingston, Kriz, Marriott,

             McDaniels, Miller, Murray, Parsons, Rakes, Scanlon, Simmons,

             Snoke, Sorrentino, Thompson, Tideman, Price for Walker, Webster.


 Absent:     Senators Barker, Flick, Saunders, Ventre, Wang.


 Visitors:   Jane Asche                 Extension and Public Service

             John Ashby                 Spectrum

             D. Hasselman               Materials Engineering

             Roy Jones                  Extension and Public Service

             Pamela Orcutt              Classified Staff Affairs Committee

             Peter Rony                 Chemical Engineering




       Visitors were welcomed and identified to the Senate.




       The officers met with the Provost on January 14.  Topics included the

       review of the library, plans for Upper Quad and backfill, Reconciliation

       Committee, and, of course, budget.


       The officers traveled to Richmond on January 22-23 for the annual

       meeting of the Association of Virginia Colleges and Universities.

       During this meeting, the Governor met with presidents, faculty senate

       officers, student leaders, and others to present his views on campus

       climate/civility.  We also took advantage of this trip to speak with

       legislators about the impact of the budget cuts on higher education.


       Secretary of Education Dyke will be on campus February 27 and has

       agreed to meet with the Faculty Senate while he is here.  Interested

       Senators and other faculty are invited to meet with him in Davidson

       308, 2:30-3:30 PM.


       Mr. Wayland Winstead is asking for comments on planning and the library.

       April 9 will be the first meeting for new senators.  Please alert your

       Faculty Associations.




       The agenda was adopted as provided.


 4.    PROGRAM


       Address by Patrick F. Scanlon, Faculty Senate President 1989/90


       Fellow senators, I am here to present the annual report on the

       accomplishments of the Faculty Senate for the academic year 1989/90.


       The objectives of the Faculty Senate for the year revolved around a

       theme of faculty development.  More specifically, the objectives were


       -  increase faculty involvement in University governance

       -  improve communication throughout the University

       -  involve faculty in budget deliberations

       -  involve faculty in leadership evaluation

       -  conduct forums on departmental governance and on budget development

      Further objectives were to complete some "housekeeping" matters.  Among

      these were ratification of the Faculty Senate Constitution by the

      faculty and to follow up on remaining self-study recommendations not the

      least of which were discussion of the University Council function and of

      departmental governance issues.


       As with any endeavor there were successes and failures.  Following a

       precedent set by my predecessor, David Conn, I'll start with the

       failures.  We did not hold either forum. The forum on budget development

       seemed redundant towards the end of a year where so many revisions of

       the existing budget and scenarios for future budgets had to be

       considered. In retrospect, the year seemed to be a prolonged seminar

       on budgets.  The forum on departmental governance was superseded in

       part by enactment of relevant legislation and in part by distribution

       of a philosophical document on departmental governance by the Provost.


       There were many successes during 1989-90.

       -  The strong working relationships of the Faculty Senate officers

          with the President and the Senior Vice-Presidents were continued.

       -  The Faculty Senate played its part in the selection and recruitment

          of the New Senior Vice President and Provost.

       -  The Faculty Senate endorsed and participated heavily in the new

          planning process.

       -  Legislation was enacted which limited the terms of department and

          division leaders with accompanying provision for evaluation

          procedures for those leaders.

       -  A Budget Advisory Committee was formed and the President selected

          members from faculty nominated by the Faculty Senate.

       -  An increase was made in the Supplementary Grant Program Funds.

       -  There was improved reporting of the financial operations of such

          entities as the Virginia Tech Foundation.

       -  There were increases in frequency of the appearance of Spectrum

          (the University weekly newspaper).  Some issues now appear during

          summer break. However, aspects of communication have been hampered

          by reduction of the mail service to once-a-day deliveries.  There is

          less than total satisfaction with the effectiveness of Spectrum

          itself as a means of serving the University community.

       -  In conjunction with the Student Government Association, the Faculty

          Senate produced a report on Academic Advising.

       -  A major success during the year was the ratification of the new

          Faculty Senate Constitution by the Faculty - the efforts of Jack

          Dudley were most appreciated.

       -  The Faculty Senate continues to work on the University Council

          Constitution. Among the efforts being stressed are that the

          Constitution be philosophically sound, that such items as planning

          and budget be addressed in the governance system, and that there

          be a reporting system for the many committees which exist on campus.

       -  The Faculty Senate met with the Student Government Association

          officers and the officers of the Graduate Student Assembly regularly

          and supported them in their reaching their objectives when

          appropriate.  The Faculty Senate also supported the Classified Staff

          in their formation of an organization.


       There is much work to be continued.


       -  The University Council Constitution revision is proving to be a

          formidable task.

       -  Means have to be found to cope with budget cutbacks.

       -  Data from a survey conducted by Art Snoke et al. to determine faculty

          perceptions of their working resources needs will be interpreted in

          the near future.



       The successes listed above are real indeed.

       -  Faculty input in planning and budget matters were welcomed and proved


       -  Communications are better between faculty leaders and senior

          administrators--means of communication with the general faculty

          need improvement.

       -  The Faculty knows more about budget matters--probably to its chagrin.

       -  Faculty seem to have done a remarkable job of coping with the

          effects of budget setbacks and in husbanding collective morale.

          There are major concerns among faculty about many aspects of the

          future of the University.  The collective ability to instruct, to

          conduct scholarship, and to serve has been compromised. Faculty are

          generally very concerned about the undergraduate instruction

          mission, about their ability to conduct pro bono research and

          scholarship, to continue as competitors in contract research, to

          support a competitive graduate program, and to provide a high level

          of public service. Further, they are concerned about the ability of

          the University to retain faculty.



       I would like to thank the conscientious and hard working President and

       Senior Vice-Presidents of the University for their openness in dealing

       with the Faculty Senate officers. They inspire confidence in the future

       of the University. They were open to faculty opinions and had respect

       for faculty involvement in governance.  The members of the Faculty

       Senate worked hard and represented their constituencies well.  The

       other officers Ludeman Eng and Rosemary Goss were perceptive,

       supportive, and hard working.  The cabinet was inspiring and effective.

       The fine officers serving the Senate this year will continue the

       progress made by the Senate.




       Minutes of January 8 were approved subject to correction of several

       typing errors. Minutes of Senate Cabinet were approved.




       UNIVERSITY COUNCIL--Senator Hillison--5 Feb. 91


       The reading has been held on a CUS proposal permitting students on

       academic probation may enroll in either the following summer session

       or the fall session.


       The sexual harassment policy was deferred.


       The words sexual orientation were added to the Virginia Tech Equal

       Opportunity/Affirmative Action statement.


       COMMISSION ON EXTENSION--Senator Marriott--5 Feb. 91


       Gary Hooper reported on planned activities of the proposed Professional

       Practices Institute and appealed for support of the Commission on

       Extension for this organization.


       Two presentations on extension/public service projects were given.

       Jerry Robinson reported on the College of Business goal attainment

       plans for faculty service.  A report on community service in Appomattox

       County was given by Shirley Walton. A highlight of this program is the

       involvement of youth in the decision making process of local government,

       schools, churches and other leadership organizations.

       The youth are required to give back 25 hours service to the community

       for this leadership training.

       Norman Marriott presented a resolution on the creation of an Academy

       for Public Service Excellence.  The Commission voted to send this

       resolution through the governance process.  A draft policy statement on

       the role of the commission was also reviewed.


       The Commission voted to request Jim Wolfe to arrange for proposed

       changes in the faculty handbook to be put on the Commission of Faculty

       Affairs agenda.  A brief update on the proposed furloughs of state

       employees was given by Charles Steger.


       COMMISSION ON FACULTY AFFAIRS--Senator Kriz--18 Jan. 91


       Involuntary Transfer of Faculty:  During the discussion of involuntary

       transfer of faculty the following points were raised.

          1) Though the definition of transfer could include a change in job

             responsibilities, the Commission limited its discussion to a

             policy for involuntary transfer of geographical location.

          2) Involuntary transfers could be the consequence of disciplinary

             actions or programmatic changes.  The former could be handled

             through the University's grievance policy.  In the latter, there

             would be no evidence that a transfer involved disciplinary

             issues.  The grievance policy could be changed to include

             the latter as grievable issues.

          3) The faculty member's first and second level administrators

             should agree to the necessity of an involuntary transfer.  A

             faculty member would be notified by their immediate supervisor

             and if the proposed transfer would be involuntary, the second

             level administrator would need to review and agree to the

             necessity of the transfer.

          4) Both tenured and untenured faculty members should covered by an

             involuntary transfer policy.  The period of time between

             notifying an individual of a transfer and the effective date

             of the transfer should follow a language concerning notification

             of non-reappointment in the Faculty Handbook (Section 2.9.3).

             5)   Involuntarily transferred faculty members should be

                  compensated. Expenses subject to compensation should at

                  least include those moving expenses recognized by the

                  Internal Revenue Service.

             6)   A policy for involuntary transfer of faculty should be

                  placed in Section 2.12 of the Faculty Handbook (Terms of



       Definition of "Contract" for Faculty:  The Provost identified an

       individual faculty member's letter of appointment and the Faculty

       Handbook as documents which could be used to describe the nature of

       the relationship between a faculty member and the University.


       COMMISSION ON GRADUATE STUDIES--Senator Snoke--16 Jan., 6 Feb. 91


             The CGS met twice since the last Senate meeting, on 16 January

       and 6 February 1991.  Mostly groundwork was laid on issues for which

       decisions will be made at future meetings.  These include the proposal

       for the Virginia Tech Professional Practices Institute, a review of

       the policy regarding minimum required TOEFL scores for admission, and

       a draft of a Statement of Rights and Responsibilities of Graduate


             The "I" grade was discussed at both meetings.  At the 16

       January meeting the Commission endorsed the Senate resolution that

       states that the "I" grade should not affect the QCA at either the

       undergraduate or graduate level.  (While there is apparent unanimity

       that this should be the case for graduate students, some members

       of the commission were hesitant to dictate how undergraduates

       should be treated.) At the 6 February meeting the point was made

       that there is considerable abuse by faculty in the awarding of "I"

       grades.  If the Senate resolution survives CUS, it should be revised

       to emphasize the need to enforce strictly the policies regarding the

       awarding and removal of the "I" grade.

             Two issues that are to be on the agenda of the next meeting

       but which are timely and deserve comments are the implications of

       furloughs on graduate students on support and graduate students

       and taxes.

             If there are to be furloughs on, say, a 1 day per month

       basis for several months, how does this affect faculty on 9 month

       appointments (my logic suggests that such employees should have

       only 3/4 the numbers of days)?  TAs for 2 semesters or who have

       appointments for only one semester or for one summer session or ... ?

       RAs who are not paid by state funds?  students on hourly wages?




             Last year graduate students on support were encouraged to

       deduct tuition on their income tax returns.  This year they are

       not encouraged to do so.  The difference is that last year the

       University was in the process of putting in place a tuition

       remission process so that tuition paid by students on support

       would never appear on their W2 forms.  If a student who claimed a

       deduction were challenged, the University would support him or her.

       Since then, several problems with the tuition remission policy have

       come to the attention of the administration. Although there is the

       hope that things can be worked out in the future, the University

       is not willing to support challenges to students this year.  It is

       my understanding that the University at present is "neutral" in

       that it will officially neither encourage nor discourage students

       from applying for a tax deduction.  If the student is challenged

       by the IRS, the student is on his/her own.





       COMMISSION ON RESEARCH--Senator Bunce--23 Jan. 91


       1.  Special Faculty Appointments.


           Five categories were defined consisting of Research Associate,

       Senior Research Associate, Postdoctoral Associate, Research

       Scientist, and Senior Research Scientist. Definitions of each rank

       are attached.  The designation of these ranks is intended to

       promote and expedite the research activities of the University.

       These are all faculty appointments and normal processes for

       advertising, interviewing and selection must be followed.  After

       discussion and some changes in wording, the document was

       approved.  (Definitions are attached to minutes.)


       2.  Revised Intellectual Property Policy.


           The new policy document was discussed and approved.  The new

       policy incorporates changes in three areas.  The revised policy

       makes a distinction between the results of traditional scholarship,

       such as textbooks and the novel results of research such as products,

       processes, machines, software, biological technology and the like

       in which the University can exercise ownership.


       3.  Professional Practices Institute (PPI).


          The creation of this entity would provide an institutional

       format under which faculty could engage in directed projects

       requiring the application of professional expertise but which fall

       outside the present forms of research grants and contracts.

       These projects would be of limited objectives and duration.  The

       Institute would be funded 100% from its own overhead.  While such

       an Institute may be perceived as being in conflict with private

       industry, the proposal is supported by the private sector.

       They see it as a means for rapid solution of specific and limited

       problems.  The Waste Policy Institute would probably be one of the

       first groups to be incorporated into the PPI.  After discussion,

       the motion to approve was tabled and will be taken up at the next



       COMMISSION ON STUDENT AFFAIRS--Senator Miller--17 Jan., 7 Feb. 91


       17 Jan.


       Much of the meeting was concerned with proposed changes in the

       governance system and in the composition and structure of CSA.  By

       resolution the CSA rejected suggestions of a noticeably smaller

       Commission with larger graduate and undergraduate committees

       reporting to it.  It went on record supporting a unitary CSA a bit

       larger than the present one, with increased graduate student

       representatives, to include a representative from Master's

       candidates and one from doctoral students.

       A motion providing for stipends for eight student leaders, to be

       paid $2,250 for remaining in Blacksburg over the summer, was made

       and adopted.  The student leaders are those of the SGA, the

       Graduate Student Assembly, the Residence Hall Federation, the

       (undergraduate) Honor System, the Virginia Tech Union, the

       Interfraternity Council, the Panhellenic Council, the Black

       Organizations Council, and the Corps of Cadets.  A motion to

       remove the heads of the fraternity and sorority groups from this

       list was defeated.


       Guidelines for Security at Student Events were endorsed.  They

       prescribe criteria for requiring security officers at an event,

       and call for an increase in University Police staffing.


       7 Feb.


       The Commission noted with pleasure the adoption of the expanded

       non-discrimination resolution it had forwarded from the SGA.

       Commission members were brought up to date on the many capital

       projects underway or being planned in the student affairs area,

       including the rebuilding of Squires (still expected to be ready

       for Fall, 1991), the new dormitory to be built behind the gym (270

       beds, final plans nearly complete), renovations of Pritchard Hall,

       extensive external work in the Prairie Quad open (to begin this

       Spring), the continuing very extensive remodeling of Owens dining

       hall (work on A and C rooms will begin in late Spring), design

       work for the large commuter parking lot (drainage first, then

       paving, shuttle buses will be needed when the lot is closed for

       paving), and consideration of alternatives for parking at Squires.


       There was fairly extensive discussion of the Student Media Board

       and the general question of the connection of the various student

       publications and stations to student government and to the

       university as a whole.  An subcommittee of CSA will try to

       sort out the distinct issues in this area and make some

       recommendations at a later date.


       The rules governing participation in 'student' organizations by

       non-students were reviewed and generally found both reasonable and



       A resolution from the SGA urging approval of Virginia Senate bill

       778, which would set a referendum on construction bonds (including

       a number of projects at Virginia Tech) was endorsed with some

       abstentions.  (No one expressed opposition but some doubted the

       propriety of an organ of the University's governance system

       endorsing an appeal to the legislature.)


       Senators expressed concern over outside participation in student

       activities and potential liability for faculty advisors.  Are

       faculty adequately protected?  It was suggested that faculty have

       letters of appointment from the University or Department as

       advisors and that the handbook be changed to include appropriate



       COMMISSION ON UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES--Senator Etgen--14 Jan., 28 Jan.,

       14 Feb. 91


       14 Jan.


             The faculty senate resolution concerning "Review of Special

       Admissions Procedures" passed by the faculty senate on 2-9-88 and

       tabled by C.U.S. on 3-14-88 was removed from the table and passed

       by C.U.S.

             The faculty senate resolution concerning "Monitoring Academic

       Success of Scholarship Athletes" passed by the faculty senate 2-9-88

       and tabled by C.U.S. on 3-14-88 was removed from the table and

       defeated.  Most C.U.S. members felt the purpose of the resolution

       had already been achieved.

             The course criteria report passed with record reading for

       revised math minor requirements, MGT and HNF checklists, a Program

       of Study for students seeking to graduate "In Honors," the addition

       of the following new courses:  CHEM 1064; CS 2064, 4004, 4304;

       COMM 2044, 4364; BIOL 4774; MGT 3304, 3334, 3344, 4334; and

       dropping COMM 3044, BIOL 4774, MGT 4354, EE 4344, 4384; and

       changing EDHL 2564 to P-F only.

             A resolution temporarily (until Feb. 18) rescinding the

       moratorium on core courses passed.  Implementation will allow

       expansion of humanities core courses beginning fall 1991.


       28 Jan.


             Resolution 90-91 D, Policy Pertaining to Internal Transfer

       of Students, was presented for first reading and discussed.  The

       resolution defined a procedure for approval of restriction of

       internal transfers of students to a program.  Steps include

       approval by department/program, college, 30-day review, Course

       Criteria Committee of the C.U.S., C.U.S., and University Council.

       Continuation of the restriction would depend on rejustification

       via this same procedure every four years.

             Problems with "I" grades for students called to active duty

       were discussed and colleges were encouraged to identify these

       students and be prepared to assist them with re-admission to the


             Options for Outdoor Recreation (F&W), Physical Therapy (BIOL),

       and CHEM degree checksheets 1992 and later were presented for first

       reading.  The following new or revised courses were also presented

       for first reading. The following new or revised courses also were

       presented for first reading: HIST 4145, 4146 (new); WS 4114

       (Feminist Theory, revised); GEOL 3404 (revised); COMM 3184 (revised

       and concurrent drop of COMM 3185 & 3186), COMM 4145, 4146 (new), and

       EE 3105-3106 (revised).


       11 Feb.


             Resolution 90-91 D concerning procedure of restriction of

       internal transfers was amended to include approval of the college

       curriculum committee and the college dean to better assess the

       impact on other college programs and resource allocation.  The

       amendment and amended resolution passed.

             A revised procedure for special admissions was presented as

       an operating procedure for questions and comments.  Major changes

       in the procedure were to increase the membership of the Admissions

       Advisory Committee from five to six. Currently, the committee

       consists of the Director of Admissions (non-voting), a

       representative the appealing department, an assistant or associate

       dean, and two faculty members, one a faculty senate representative

       on the C.U.S..  The proposed committee would be composed of the

       Dean of Admissions (non-voting), a member of the appealing

       department (non-voting), one assistant or associate dean, and

       three faculty members, one a faculty senate representative on the


             A restriction of 1.0 percent of the entering class replaced

       the former restriction of 0.5 percent.  During the discussion, it

       was emphasized that the "Procedures of Special Admission" was an

       operating procedure, not an academic policy.

             All options, new, revised, and dropped courses presented for

       first reading on Jan. 28 were presented for second reading and

       approval.  Presented for first reading were:  checksheets for Agric.

       Technology and CSES minor; new course HIDM 1104; revised courses

       HIDM 1114, EE 3305-3306, 3254, 3714, 4205-4206, and 4334; dropped

       courses CSES 3304, EE 3364 and 4344.


       Senators undertook an extended discussion on procedure and policy

       relating to admissions.  The following points were made.


       Admissions is an academic issue and should be a part of the

       governance system.


       How do faculty have input into admission standards?


       We do not vote on entrance requirements, we do not have essays as

       an admission requirement.  Setting of admissions procedures is a

       serious matter of faculty obligation and should not be outside the

       governance procedure.


       President Eng added the issue to new business for the Senate.



       ATHLETIC COMMITTEE--Senator Baumgartner--7 Feb. 91


       Mr. Bourne reported on Tech's new affiliation with the Big East

       Conference in football.  He stated that the demise of the Metro

       Conference appeared likely, but the athletic Department didn't

       regard that as a major setback for Tech.  The Atlantic Ten

       Conference would appear to be the best possibility for basketball,

       since 4 members of it are also in the Big East football conference.

       On the 23 football recruits who have signed, three still need to

       meet the minimum SAT scores, but they were very close and are

       waiting for their scores from the January exam.


       A report on the NCAA convention of last month revealed that Tech

       would be little affected by the new limits on number of coaches

       for all sports.  Only football would lose an assistant coach.  The

       new limits on number of scholarships would affect football,

       basketball, and baseball.


       A proposal that the Committee request the provost to initiate a

       change in admissions requirements, counting Earth Science as a lab

       science and allowing the taking of Algebra II after admission but

       before taking any courses in the math core requirements, was

       discussed and returned to the subcommittee for rewriting.  The

       number of student-athletes who are on the AD's honor roll (3.0 or

       better) reached 131 last semester.  Of the 530 students involved

       in athletics, only one was deemed as not making "progress to

       degree" in core requirements.


       Senators:  i)  How many student's on the AD's honor roll were

                  "scholarship" athletes?  ANS. Not available.


                  ii)  Can you explain prop. 48 and why we do not accept

                  Prop. 48 athletes?  ANS. We have a higher SAT standard

                  than Prop. 48.


                  iii)  Is there a fee to join new football conference?

                  ANS.  No fee to join, but there is a "hefty" fee to get out.


       BUILDING COMMITTEE--Senator Wang--22 Jan. 91


       The primary purpose of the meeting was to review the University's

       1992-94 capital outlay budget submission which would be presented

       to the Board of Visitors' Executive and Building & Grounds Committee

       in Richmond on January 24. Katherine Johnston presented the

       proposed 1992-94 Capital Outlay Request and its schedule.  The

       request included the re-stated needs of projects previously approved

       but have since been "frozen" due to economic downfall of the state.


       Other items on the agenda included a report by Wayland Winstead on the

       chronology of major events in the capital outlay planning process;

       a request by David Kingston for funding support of Chemistry

       Infill Phase II and a discussion on the role of the Building





       COMPUTER COMMITTEE--Senator Webster--9 Jan., 6 Feb. 91


       1.  Computing Center Announcements:


           The walk-in consulting facility in Newman Library has been



           PROFS has been enhanced to allow for E-mail addresses longer

           than 8 characters.


           The Center has acquired a TCP/IP package for MS/DOS machines.

           This package can be used for communication via Internet,

           Ethernet, Telnet.


       2.  Personal Computer Subcommittee Report.  The subcommittee has

           written a proposal for the Bookstore's policy on computer

           pricing.  This proposal is currently being reviewed by

           Bookstore management.


       3.  Computer Capacity and Planning Subcommittee Report.  The

       subcommittee has developed a survey, which is being sent to key

       mainframe computer users on campus. The primary purpose of this

       survey is to determine future mainframe computer needs.


       4.  An ad hoc "Vision" subcommittee has been formed and charged

       with writing a draft plan for the future of computer facilities at

       Virginia Tech.  Members of this committee are from the Computer

       Committee, the Library Committee, and the Communication Resources



       5.  VTCoSy is an electronic bulletin board that has been available

       to students and supported by Communications Resources.  CR will no

       longer support this service and alternate support is being sought.


       6.  Two aspects of the ethical use of computers were discussed.

       The Computing Center has prepared a draft policy concerning

       security of electronic access privilege (i.e., passwords).  Also,

       the Computer Committee will be working with the Communications

       Resources Committee to develop a more general policy on ethical

       and appropriate use of computer systems.


       Senators:  Concern was expressed over the proposal to charge

       faculty for off campus access to the computer.  Rumor has it that

       access IDs would cost $20 to $50 per month.  Departments could

       purchase group IDs to share.  Why should we pay to have access to


           Why charge different for voice or electronic transmission

           access to campus?

           Why is this item to be "metered" and not other items?

           Senate is disenfranchised on Communication Resources Committee.

           Why is cost recovery being mandated in this area?

           Many professors use access late at night and early in the morning

           from home to save on computer center charges.  This policy

           would discourage this use. Somebody has to pay.  Access was

           moved from computer center to CNN.  CNN is on cost recovery.

           But it becomes circular in terms of money. Why is there a limit

           to 2400 when other places are at 9600.

       Senate officers were directed to raise the issue with Mr. Ridenour.

       This discussion is to be forwarded to the Senate representative on

       CRC (Mr. Tront).


       EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE--Senator Thompson--no report


       EO/AA COMMITTEE--Senator Simmons--12 Feb. 91


       Announcements:  The next classroom climate workshops, focusing on

       the situation of blacks and women, will be 6 & 7 May.  Another

       workshop, on recruitment of minorities and women faculty and

       administrators, is being planned.


       The new Affirmative Action Grants Program elicited 29 proposals, 9

       of which were funded for a total of $18,168.00.  Most of the funded

       projects target student recruitment.  The next deadline for

       proposals is 15 April; the committee hopes to receive more proposals

       aimed at minority faculty recruitment, improvement of campus climate

       for faculty and staff, and development of faculty, staff, and



       The committee also heard a report on the Sexual Harrassment Policy,

       whose second reading before University Council has been deferred;

       a committee met this morning to consider revisions suggested by

       CFA and others and hope to return the document to University Council

       for its second reading soon.  A second report concerning the

       reception of the state Affirmative Action plan filed this summer;

       the EO/AA office is currently working on the federal AA plan.





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




       SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS COMMITTEE--Senator Barker--no report




       Dr. Gary Hooper presented his views regarding parking privileges

       for graduate students.  His major point was that graduate students

       contribute materially to the quality of teaching and research at

       this University and in many instances are employees, but in parking

       matters they are treated the same as undergraduates.  This

       matter will be considered further by the Committee.


       The Committee discussed options for next years parking permits.

       The suction cup has created a problem for PEO's to Locate because

       it gives too many options for location in addition to the rear view

       mirror.  There was concurrence that a permit that can be transferred

       among vehicles is still needed.  An optional permanent affixed permit

       will probably be available for those who prefer it and use only one



       The speed grooves by Engel Hall were discussed.  They were placed

       there after discussion with the State Highway Engineers.  The

       appropriate University officials will discuss further with them any

       alternative to control traffic on West Campus Drive.


       FACULTY SENATE OF VIRGINIA--Senator Scanlon--no report


       INTERIM BUDGET COMMITTEE--Senator Eng--23 Jan., 6 Feb. 91


       CLASSIFIED STAFF AFFAIRS COMMITTEE--Senator Canestaro--7 Feb. 91


       CSAC is discussing supporting a Virginia Governmental Employees

       Association membership drive on campus.  VGEA is open to faculty

       and administrators, as well as staff.  Membership in the lobbying

       group has grown recently from 200 to 1000 members.  Concerning the

       organization of a Staff Senate, there are eight administrative areas.

       These areas will receive presentations within the next month.

       CSAC expects all colleges and administrative areas will be able to

       elect representatives by mid-summer.  The eight areas are:

       Facilities, Business Affairs, Student Affairs, Information Systems,

       General Administration, University Relations/Development, Academic

       Affairs, and Research and Graduate Studies.

       The Policies and Issues Subcommittee handed out a draft of the

       Constitution and By-Laws for the staff membership to discuss.


       BOARD OF VISITORS--Senator Eng--no report.


       COMMENCEMENT--Senator Scanlon--no report.


       HONORIFICS--Senator Scanlon for W.D. Conn--18 Jan. 91.


       Thirteen (13) nomination packages for the SCHEV Outstanding Faculty

       Teaching Awards were considered.  The 13 nominations came from 4

       Colleges.  Seven (from 3 Colleges) were chosen for advancement to

       SCHEV. It was noted that the number of awards has been reduced from

       13 to 11 this year due to budget cuts.


       STUDENT BUDGET BOARD--Senator Clowes--no report.


       Student Budget Board is meeting to discuss funding of student



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




       The VTIP board met January 31, 1991. A current financial report was

       presented and a summary of disclosure activity was discussed.

       During the last 3 months 36 disclosures were received, 17 are in the

       patent process and most of the rest are being evaluated by VTIP or

       CIT.  Resumes of external candidates for the Board were discussed

       and the Board voted to extend invitation to three of the candidates,

       which if accepted, would bring the total number of directors to the

       limit of 13.  The Board meeting was followed by a workshop in which

       the mission, goals, and objectives of VTIP were discussed.






       We have 854 coded replies processed.  We have started to interpret

       the results and look at the individual comments.






       A.  Senator Farkas addressed the senate concerning the work of the

       governance task force and proposed changes in the governance process.

       Senator Farkas asked that the discussion be off the record.  The

       Senate proceeded with a lengthy discussion of the aforesaid matter

       off the record.


       B.  Proposed revision of the Faculty Review Committee (FRC)

       Procedures and proposed changes to Faculty Handbook regarding FRC.


       It was moved and seconded that the Senate adopt the revised

       Procedures of the Faculty Review Committee (distributed at prior

       Senate meeting).


       Guests D. Hasselman and P. Rony were invited to present their

       concerns to the Senate over the operation of the current system.

       Several documents were submitted by Prof. Rony to the Senators.  A

       copy is attached to the Senate's permanent record.


       Senate discussion and action follows.

       Concern was expressed under 3(C) that two working days was an

       inadequate time. Seven would be preferred.  4(A) should require

       interrogatories and depositions to be made available to both

       parties and that both parties not gain more information on the

       phone.  Are the panels investigatory or juries?


       It was suggested that the issue be returned to CFA with written

       comments from Prof. Hasselman and Rony.  Motion to table was made

       and withdrawn.


       It was suggested that it is necessary to streamline the Committee

       process now.  The Senate should pass what is front of us and CFA

       could respond to concerns with future amendments as appropriate.


       The Senate has been operating under both the new and old procedures

       by giving the faculty litigant the litigant's choice of procedure.


       It was moved, seconded, and passed that the Senate postpone

       indefinitely considerations of the matter.


       The Senate then heard comments on the issue by Prof. Rony. Faculty

       must have peace of mind that the faculty judicial procedure is

       administered in a neutral, fair, timely and professional manner.

       Concern over lack of accountability, no time limits on compliance

       with FRC hearings, no penalty for administrators who cause delay and

       different procedures for faculty and staff were outlined to the Senate.


       Motions were made, seconded, and passed to refer both issues to CFA.




                            NEXT SENATE MEETING MARCH 5, 1991

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 13:57:40 EDT