University Libraries Logo University Archives of Virginia Tech

Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes Archive

January 8, 1991

             Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

                               Faculty Senate


                               January 8, 1991


                               32 Pamplin Hall


                                  7:30 p.m.


  Present:  Senators Batie, Baumgartner, Price for Brown, Allen for Bunce,

          Canestaro, Crittenden, deWolf, Eiss, Eng, Etgen, Farkas, Geyer,

          Hillison, Kingston, Kriz, Marriott, Miller, Murray, Parsons, Scanlon,

          Snoke, Sorrentino, Thompson, Tideman, Wade for Ventre, Walker,

          Wang, Webster.


  Absent:   Senators Barker, Clowes, Diesenroth, Falkinham, Feret, Flick, Hicks,

          McDaniels, Rakes, Saunders, Simmons.


  Visitors:   John Ashby                     Spectrum

              Jane Asche                     Extension and Public Service

              Patricia Hyer                  Assistant Provost

              Wayland Winstead               Office of University Planning

              Goldie Holtzeman               Department of Statistics




    Visitors were welcomed and identified to the Senate.




        Faculty Senate Officers and David Conn met with Delegate Joan

    Munford and Senator Madison Mayre in separate meetings to convey the

    needs and concerns of the faculty this past week.

        Senate officers will be traveling to Richmond as a part of the

    Association of Virginia Colleges and Universities annual meeting and

    legislative contact session on January 22 and 23.

        Proposed revision of the Faculty Grievance Procedures (Section 2.11

    of the Faculty Handbook) and Procedures of the Faculty Review Committee

    were distributed for consideration at the next Senate meeting.

        There will be a meeting of the Election and Credentials Committee

    after this meeting.




    The agenda was adopted as provided.




    Wayland Winstead, Office of University Planning


        Planning is something the University is not good at but is getting

    better at.  Planning is a process and a continued process that will be

    changed.  The planning process is to keep doing it.  He asked for a

    commitment to process.  The plan was to provide for goals for Vice-

    Presidents, Deans, and Departments to meet when dollars are available.

    The University will use the process to guide the appropriations process.

        Winstead reviewed how the plan was developed including Community

    participation in development.  There is a continued effort to evaluate

    the planning process to make sure students, faculty, alumni, staff and

    administration have input.  The sense of Senate resolution that only

    faculty should review will not be.  The process will encourage continued

    participation.  For example, Senator Walker's constructive comments on

    facilities resulted in the inclusion of facilities in the plan and

    subsequent university dialogue on the issue.  Constructive suggestions

    by the Faculty Association and others will be rewarded by inclusion

    into the plan.

        The Interim Budget and Planning Advisory Committee will review the

    plan and forward to BOV in February or April.  The plan will be used to

    drive the 1992-94 Budget of the University.  Capital outlay plan--two

    positions papers have been distributed.

        Decisions on Turner Office Building, McBryde Backfill and conversion

    of the Upper Quad will need to be made in the next two or three weeks.

    Decisions on occupancy will take several months.

        Dr. Carlisle wants one Budget and Planning Commission.  This should

    work its way through the governance system.

        "If we are planning five years from now as we are now, the process

    is a failure.  Planning process must evolve."

        We also have subsequent planning in Colleges and Departments.

    There should be a program review to determine how department and

    colleges are contributing to the University Plan.


    Question and Answer


    Q:  Planning Documents are most useful and should be encouraged.  How

    are prioritization of needs in capital outlays made?


    A:  We are still looking at it.  We have been delayed 60-90 days because

    of budget issues.  The capital outlays will need to be in Richmond on the

    first of February instead of the first of March.  Historically, only

    plans for one biennium are submitted at a time, but now we must submit

    for priorities for 1994-96, 1996-98 biennium.


    Q:  You are brave to come after two senate resolutions as faculty were

    highly critical of the process!!  The document was too long.  Statements

    to improve capital outlay plan did not include how to do it.  The document

    would be short if remove all statements with "improvements" on them.


    A:  We used improved versus enhanced.  Many items were placed in

    because they were in Self Study and have not been resolved.  Concern

    that areas be left in to see that they are improved upon.


    Q:  People may not have attended the second planning session because of

    complaints from the first session.


    A:  Possible, but evaluations were positive.


    Q:  The budget is more important than the planning process.  Are you

    placing the blame on the budget rather than the planning process?


    A:  Subsequent Planning at the Department and College levels would be

    useful.  Ideas did come forward from college plans.


    Q:  When will next plan be available and will it show impact from the



    A:  Second draft will contain changes because of comments from the first



    Q:  Planning process had several sources of irritation:

        a) Unhappy with who were at initial session.  To many deanlets and

           Department Heads and not enough faculty.

        b) The draft was an indigestible mass wanting a reply yesterday.


    A:  We are open to constructive suggestions on the approval process.  We

    will get better at planning.


    Q:  Comments on the Upper Quad Conversion and Planning Process:

        a) Not all departments were not consulted or given a chance for

           input at the beginning stage of the "planning" process for Upper


        b) Although a Mathematical Sciences Building is indeed a recognized

           long-term objective in Arts and Sciences, that is not the same

           as having all the mathematical science departments in McBryde.

           It is my understanding that statistics could have moved into

           McBryde when it was first built but chose not to.

        c) Planning process must speak to more than Deans and Deanlets.


    A:  Cannot dictate the planning process to Deans.  Work with colleges and

    their planning process.  Balance needs of the colleges at the University

    level.  Cannot do anything about the college level planning process.

    Deans must solve that.  Not appropriate to go around Deans and planning

    process at college level.


    Q:  Should we have more papers with fewer topics and more focused to

    urge greater feed back?


    A:  You are positive to such things as short position papers on conversion

    that can be responded to by the faculty.  The Arts and Sciences planning

    facilities are the most advanced and long standing.  Thought Departments

    had substantial input into the process.


    Q:  How do we bring planning to a  closure?  Suggest that we convene

    committee of faculty to review as faculty has a major role in carrying out

    the plan.


    A:  It is the intent of planning to bring the Planning and Interim Budget

    Committees into the review process.


    Q:  Who did the December 3 information on the Upper Quad go to?


    A:  Members of the Faculty Senate, Presidents' of Faculty Association,

    College Deans and Vice Presidents with suggestion that it should be

    shared.  Earlier plan was not released because it had not been reviewed

    by College and University Planning Committees.


    Q:  Will faculty have a chance to review priorities that are going to

    Richmond on the first of February?

    A:  The priorities go to Richmond on the first, and they are not ready yet.

    Therefore, we will not have a chance to have consultation with faculty on

    Capital Outlays because of the tight schedule.  We had hoped that they

    could have had input.


    Q:  This is particularly worrisome from faculty standpoint.  Cabinet and

    Faculty Association Presidents could meet to have input on the priorities.


    A:  Confident that Interim Budget and Planning Committee will review.


    Q:  Outside forces often drive capital budgets.


    A:  That is a problem in some instances.  Overall, one third of facilities

    deficient of senior institution is at Virginia Tech.  But we don't get one

    third of the construction dollars.  They are "shared" in the state.


    Q:  You may have institutionalized a "waiving" of faculty input.


    A:  In past, we did not even come to faculty.  We are working to improve

    the system.


    Q:  We should make the process right and encourage more faculty input.

    Provost should push on Deans.  Faculty should push from bottom and then

    more participation of faculty will result.


    A:  Best way to accomplish is by example.  The objective is to increase

    opportunities for consultation with and participation of all levels of the

    University community.  One comment was I don't need any help in decision

    making.  Rude and destructive comments are not helpful with this process.

    There are differences between decision making and policy making.


    Q:  Decisions are often interdisciplinary, therefore may need to go to

    departments because of cross pollination of ideas.


    Q:  Has the Provost signed off on conversion on Upper Quad?


    A:  No.  Decision to convert one building of upper quad was made prior to

    Carlisle's time as a trade off for building one new residence hall.  The

    rest of the Upper Quad decision has not been made.  Because of cost and

    other considerations it is most likely that the Upper Quad will be

    converted and the decision may be made in the next few weeks.




    Minutes of the Faculty Senate meeting of December 11, 1990 were approved

    with the addition of Senator Brown to those in attendance and changing

    the CGS report given by Senator Murray in minutes by changing the

    sentence starting "Review needed for conversion..." by, "It was

    recommended that an "I" grade that is not removed in the prescribed time

    be removed by converting it directly to an "F"."; and changing the last

    sentence, "Onewll will soon be departing the Commission" (not committee).






    UNIVERSITY COUNCIL--Senator Hillison--no report


    COMMISSION ON EXTENSION--Senator Marriott--8 Jan 91


    Gary Larrowe, Extension Unit Director from Carroll County, presented a

    report about on-line global and trade intelligence and how the information

    benefits Virginia industry.


    The Chairman presented an appeal to Commission members to provide future

    input on potential off-campus meeting sites and other business related to

    the commission.  Charles Steger projected a 5% budget reduction to be

    implemented beginning July 1, 1991.


    Ned Lester reported that the Continuing Education Center is suffering more

    than usual from the economy slow down.  Follow-up prior to the next

    meeting was requested by the Chairman for the Continuing Education

    Center study, proposed Academy of Public Service Excellence,

    recommendations related to scholarly activity, and the policy statement on

    the role of the Commission.


    COMMISSION ON FACULTY AFFAIRS--Senator Kriz--12 Dec 90


    Please see discussion under unfinished business.


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


    COMMISSION ON RESEARCH--Senator Scanlon for Bunce--


    The recent meeting discussed the proposed Professional Practices Institute

    (PPI of VPI).  CFA should address the issue of the appropriate rank for

    Post Doctoral fellows, should it carry a "faculty rank" or is it

    "continued training."  Concern was over how reports of interdisciplinary

    centers are handled.  Should annual reports be required, how can they be

    closed, are existing centers grandfathered?


    President Eng reported that the Senate Officers met with Vice President

    Hooper on PPI on the Friday before Christmas.  PPI is on the agenda for

    the next cabinet meeting.  (The PPI proposal was sent to all Faculty

    Senate members in mid January).


    COMMISSION ON STUDENT AFFAIRS--Senator Miller--no report




    ATHLETIC COMMITTEE--Senator Baumgartner--13 Dec 90


    Athletic Director David Braine announced that just before the meeting, he

    had received a phone call from the commissioner of the Big East Conference

    telling him that the Big East was organizing a football conference with

    eight members.  Mr. Braine expressed his confidence that Tech would be

    invited to join in early 1991.


    Drs. Carlisle and Wolfe of the Provost's Office were present to

    participate in a review of the special admissions process.  They announced

    that the cap for special admissions has been raised to 1% from .5% of

    freshman class.  The reason given was to provide a broader scope besides

    athletics and the performing arts for consideration for special admissions.

    Dr. Carlisle emphasized that it was an upper limit, not a quota; he didn't

    expect to see it reached every year.  In respect to the proposed change

    in admissions requirements - Tech's requirement of 3 math courses and

    refusal to accept Earth science as a lab science, Carlisle is willing to

    support the acceptance of earth science because SCHEV does list it as

    meeting high school graduation requirements.  Resolutions to be presented

    at the NCAA convention in January were reviewed.


    On the proposed reductions in the length of the competition seasons for

    most sports, especially baseball, the athletic administrators haven't

    decided on which of several options to support.


    BUILDING COMMITTEE--Senator Wang--no report




    The Communications Resources Committee will meet on the last Wednesday

    of the month.  It was reported that the charge of the committee was to

    make recommendations to director and vice-president level personnel

    regarding pertinent matters.  Additionally, items considered University

    issues would be submitted to University Council as resolutions.


    The committee heard a report from the University Mail Task Force.  The

    report outlined the need for restructuring the university mail system and

    gave some ideas that might be pursued.  These included:  delivery of mail

    to fewer locations (leaving it to the departments or individual faculty to

    complete the distribution), charging for different levels of mail service,

    and the creation of information service boutiques to include mail, computer

    output, fax, and copy services.  Additionally, the need to use the

    electronic infrastructure was emphasized.


    Committee recommendations from last year were discussed.  These

    concerned Campus Cable Network use, Connection to the campus network,

    and use of the VT channels on the Blacksburg cable TV system.  The first

    two items have already been implemented as policies by the departments

    involved.  A CRC subcommittee has drafted a set of guidelines that will be

    used to address the third item.


    The heavy and increasing use of fax on campus was discussed.  Use of fax

    also relates to ways in which the mail distribution problem may be solved.

    The Communications Resources personnel are looking into ways to improve

    fax access for all of the university.


    The CRC discussed its charge to do long range planning and  decided

    that its charge should be to "develop a 5-year plan to improve and expand

    information access."  As this issue concerns the University Computing

    Committee, a member of that committee will be invited to attend future

    meetings regarding planning.


    COMPUTER COMMITTEE--Senator Webster--no report


    EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE--Senator Thompson--no report


    EO/AA COMMITTEE--Senator Simmons--no report





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




    SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS COMMITTEE--Senator Barker--no report




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


    INTERIM BUDGET COMMITTEE--Senator Eng--no report




    The major focus of the meetings in the near future will address the

    organization of a Staff Senate.  The Communications & Publicity

    sub-committee has suggested that President McComas address the staff

    twice during the next year--one time to the staff only to discuss budget

    related matters, and then again to both faculty and staff in his usual

    "state of the University" speech.  There was some concern of a we/they

    mentality forming between the staff and faculty, and CSAC would like to

    keep that from occurring.  The second item of interest to faculty was a

    request to monitor the impact of doing add/drops on the same day as the

    first day of class.  Faculty may want to monitor any problems in this area

    as well.  The third item was a report by Charlie Stott on the contributions

    to the Virginia Tech Employee Fund.  To date, $12,027 has been received.

    The fund is an on-going project, and contributions continue to be



    BOARD OF VISITORS--Senator Eng--no report


    COMMENCEMENT--Senator Scanlon--no report


    HONORIFICS--W.D. Conn--no report


    STUDENT BUDGET BOARD--Senator Clowes--no report


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










        Senator Hillison presented the findings of the CFA meeting of

    December 12, 1990 on EO/AA Resolution 90-91 A on Sexual Harassment

    Policy.  The discussion on the Sexual Harassment Policy was initiated with

    a review of the questions and comments raised at the Faculty Senate

    meeting.  The revised sexual Harassment policy was reviewed and the

    following changes suggested:  (1) the faculty and faculty-member

    definitions should be consistent with those in the Faculty Handbook, (2)

    graduate students with teaching, advisory and supervisory responsibility

    will be included, (3) records are to be kept in the EO/AA office (though

    the Commission realized that absolute control of records cannot be

    assured), (4) a 3 member review panel whose members will be chosen by

    the Provost in consultation with the President of Faculty or Staff Senate

    has been added.  It was moved, seconded and passed to recommend

    approval of the Sexual Harassment Policy by the Faculty Senate.  It was

    made apparent during the CFA discussion that there exists no policy for

    sanctions against faculty and the Commission will initiate a study of



        It was moved and seconded that the Senate endorse EO/AA Resolution

    90-91 A as reviewed by the Commission on Faculty Affairs and EO/AA

    Committee.  The following concerns were discussed:


    Q:  Why is the issue not grievable?


    A:  The sanction carried out by the appropriate administrator is grievable.

    The review process would not address the issue of whether or not an

    action was sexual harassment, but sanctions imposed would be grievable.


    Q:  Why is the Judge/Jury embodied into EO/AA officer?  Why is the three

    person review not available earlier in the process?


    A:  More involved may make confidentiality more difficult.  The model

    being followed is the administrative model and not Judge/Jury model.

    The three person review as a part of the sexual harassment would be

    available after the probable finding.


    Q:  What happens if the EO/AA director is the party under investigation?


    A:  The Vice President would have to investigate.  Sentencing is done by

    Vice President or Provost on recommendation of the EO/AA director.


    Comment:  There are appropriate safeguards of confidentiality and that is

    important.  A committee of three can make recommendations for changes.


    Comment:  Concern was expressed over the appropriate level of input of

    the committee.


    Comment:  Can follow either administrative model or Judge and Jury model

    and this procedure is the former.


    Comment:  Page 1 Paragraph 1, first sentence should be revised by placing

    a period after "status" and add, "The University also recognizes that

    sexual harassment may occur between persons of the same sex."


    Q:  Last paragraph page 3.  What does specified time period mean?


    A:  This means two weeks.


    The motion was amended to include three friendly changes of:

          a) delete "generally" on third paragraph on page 3.

          b) Add two week period on page 3.

          c) Add reference to "same sex" on page 1, last paragraph by

             placing a period after status and adding, "Sexual

             harassment may also occur among persons of the same sex."


    The motion was passed.


    Pat Hyer will send it with corrections to the Commission in Graduate





    1) Recognition of service of Senator Farkas.  The following resolution

       concerning the outstanding service of Senator Farkas was unanimously



       Whereas, Daniel R. Farkas has served a number of years as an active

       and contributing member of the Faculty Senate, and


       Whereas, Daniel R. Farkas has also given distinguished service for a

       number of years on numerous University commissions and committees,



       Whereas, Daniel R. Farkas has been instrumental in the establishment of

       a number of key University policies and practices of importance to the

       faculty, and,


       Whereas, Daniel R. Farkas has worked untiringly on behalf of faculty

       concerns, including shared governance, and,


       Whereas, Daniel R. Farkas has contributed untold thankless hours to the

       work of the Faculty Senate's Committee on Reconciliation, including

       serving as Chair of that committee,


       Now, Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, that the Faculty Senate, acting on

       behalf of the general faculty, does hereby recognize and thank

       Professor Daniel R. Farkas for his manifold selfless and valued

       contributions to the welfare of the faculty and that of the University,

       both in the past and continuing into the future.


    2) Faculty retirement options--Secretary Dyke's letter of 12/12/90


       The University has recommended that the optional retirement program

       should be established separate from VRS and the rate  should be

       12.5%.  Senators Thompson and Hillison had been consulted by

       Administration prior to the Administrations reply.  Senate Officers

       conveyed this concern to Senator Mayre and Delegate Munford during

       their recent meetings.


    3) Policy on Incomplete Grades, Senate Resolution 1990-1991 A.  The

       following resolution was moved and seconded.


       Whereas The policy for interpreting an "I" (incomplete) grade in

       determination of QCA is different for undergraduate-level and graduate

       level courses:


       *  In the section titled Grades and Quality Credits in the

          Undergraduate Catalog 1990-91 (page 32) it states, ""I" grades and

          "NG" grades are computed as "F" grades in determining QCA."


       *  Although it has not been stated explicitly in the Graduate Catalog,

          it has long been the position of the Graduate School that the QCA

          should be unaffected by an "I" grade.  At its 5 December meeting

          the Commission on Graduate Studies voted in favor of adding a

          clarifying sentence explicitly stating that interpretation in future

          issues of the Graduate Catalog; and


       Whereas, the policy for removing "I" grades has not been implemented

       in a routing manner; therefore


       Let it be resolved that effective the beginning of Fall Semester 1991,

       there be a uniform policy for interpreting the effect of the "I" grade

       in determining QCA, and that the policy for removal of an "I" grade be

       rigorously enforced.  Specifically, in the discussion on "I" grades

       in the section titled Grades and Quality Credits in the Undergraduate

       Catalog and the section titled The Grading System in the Graduate

       Catalog the following sentence be added:  "The QCA is unaffected by

       an "I" grade." Also, in the sentence cited above from the Undergraduate

       Catalog, the words ""I" grades and" should be deleted.


    Comment:  Currently, there is an inconsistency between graduate and

    undergraduate resolution of the "I" grade.  "I" is counted as "F" in

    undergraduate but not in the graduate catalog.  Without reconciliation of

    the two, a problem for automatic conversion has been created.  Currently,

    it is done (often not done timely) by hand.


    Question:  Can this be abused by a student to retain academic status?


    Comment:  Faculty handbook says "I" should be treated as Incomplete and

              removed by change of grade card during the next semester.


    Answer:  Automatic transition to "F" grade is to be made at the end of the

             next semester.


    Comment:  What is motive for using "I"?  Some faculty might abuse it to

              avoid an "F" and a student might try to abuse, but equity is

              also needed for a Dean's List student.


    Comment:  The "Freshman Rule" is an example of a good rule that by the

              time it became policy, created problems.


    Question:  What is the appropriate timing for CUS and CGS?


    Answer:  This does not force CUS or CGS to make change, this encourages

             CUS and CGS to coordinate and act on this issue.  This will give

             a specific proposal for reaction by CUS and CGS.


    Question:  Is it appropriate to "force the issue on CUS" as we are above



    Answer:  We are not above CUS and CGS.  We are just telling them that

             if they approve it, we support it.


    Comment:  It is useful to keep pressure on students to get the issue



    The motion to accept Resolution 90-91 A was adopted.


    The resolution should be taken to CUS and CGS by our representatives.


    4) CSA Resolution 90-91 A on Sexual Orientation.  This resolution would

       add "sexual orientation" to the University list of classes and groups,

       that will not be discriminated against.


       Background: The resolution is from SCA.  It was accepted 15-0 with 3

                   abstentions.  The resolution would add sexual orientation

                   to the groups that are not to be descriminated against.

                   An exception is granted when this would create conflicts

                   with Department of Defense requierments.


       It was moved and seconded that we support this resolution.


    Question:  Why was it it rejected by EO/AA at its last meeting?


    Answer:  There was concern over whether it is consistent with state

             policy.  EO/AA statement is mandated by state law.  However,

             state law does not progibit its adoption.  There were also

             concerns over potential claims against the Universtiy if adopted.


    Comment:  There is concern that the term "orientation" is ill-defined.


    Comment:  There is concern over the last three items in the current

              statement--religion, political affiliation and veteran status.

              Like sexual orientation, we should not dmow for hiring or

              classroom purposes.


    Question:  Would this require record keeping to assure compliance?


    Answer:  No need to keep information as we are not required to keep

             records on religion, and political affiliation now.


    Comment:  This is not an endorsement of illegal activity or action.

              People differ in a lot of different ways and we think it wrong

              to discriminate against the individual on any basis.


    Comment:  This may adversly impact on the state budget in the general

              assembly.  Another way to express concern is in the statement,

              "or any other reason that does not effect job or academic

              performance."  That is tha goal of all the "protected" groups.

              We must not discriminate against anyone for whatever reason.



    Therefore a motion was made to revise the statement to read as follows:


       Virginia Tech does not discriminate against employees, students or

       applicants on the basis of race, sex, handicap, age, veteran status,

       national origin, religion, political affiliation or for any other

       reason that does not effect job or academic performance.


    Friendly amendment of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University



    Comment:  This removes the resolved clause relative to Department of



    Comment:  Concern over political expediency.  Forty years ago it would not

              have been expedient to have race in there.  The same feelings

              about race, sex, national origin could be removed by the same



    Answer:  State law requires these other statements be printed on

             stationary and other material.


    Comment:  Urge rejection of the ammendment because it is devisive in

              either way.  Sexual orientation should be accorded same

              "suspect jargon" as race, religion, etc.  Can reject same

              category as other categories that have been rejected over time.


    The motion to amend passed 12 to 10 with 2 abstentions.


    The motion to accept the amended resolution was rejected 9 to 10 with 5



    Note:  The resolution as passed by CSA was never voted on.




                    NEXT SENATE MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 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