|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveFebruary 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 1. CALL TO ORDER Visitors were welcomed and identified to the Senate. 2. ANNOUNCEMENTS 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. 3. ADOPTION OF AGENDA 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 to: - 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. Conclusions The successes listed above are real indeed. - Faculty input in planning and budget matters were welcomed and proved effective. - 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. Acknowledgements 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. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of January 8 were approved subject to correction of several typing errors. Minutes of Senate Cabinet were approved. 6. COUNCIL, COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE REPORTS 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 Appointment). 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 Students. 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? Taxes 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 meeting. 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 flexible. 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 protection. 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 university. 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 C.U.S. 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 Committee. COMMUNICATION RESOURCE COMMISSION--G. Tront--no report COMPUTER COMMITTEE--Senator Webster--9 Jan., 6 Feb. 91 1. Computing Center Announcements: The walk-in consulting facility in Newman Library has been closed. 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 Committee. 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 campus? 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 administration. 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. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES COMMITTEE PATENTS--Senator Falkinham--no report 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--30 Nov. 90 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 vehicle. 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 activities. VPI FACILITIES BOARD--C. Polan--no report. VIRGINIA TECH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES--Senator Eiss--31 Jan. 91 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. OTHER COMMITTEE REPORTS FACULTY SUPPORT COMMITTEE--Senator Snoke. We have 854 coded replies processed. We have started to interpret the results and look at the individual comments. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS--none. 8. NEW BUSINESS 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. 9. ADJOURNMENT NEXT SENATE MEETING MARCH 5, 1991
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/1991/February+12++1991.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:40 EDT