|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveMarch 5, 1991
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Faculty Senate March 5, 1991 32 Pamplin Hall 7:30 p.m. Present: Senators Barker, Baumgartner, Brown, Bunce, Canestaro, Clowes, Crittenden, deWolf, Eiss, Eng, Etgen, Falkinham, Farkas, Feret, Geyer, Hillison, Kingston, Kriz, Marriott, McDaniels, Miller, Murray, Rakes, Saunders, Scanlon, Simmons, Snoke, Thompson, Tideman, Wang, Webster. Absent: Senators Batie, Diesenroth, Flick, Hicks, Landen, Parsons, Sorrentino, Ventre, Walker. Visitors: Jane Asche Extension and Public Service John Ashby Spectrum Roy Jones Extension and Public Service Pamela Orcutt Classified Staff Affairs Committee Gary Hooper Vice President--Research Scott Sink Industrial and System Engineering James McComas University President Bill Tietz V.P. Steger's Office-Public Service Forrest Thye Human Nutrition and Foods Brian Storrie Biochemistry 1. CALL TO ORDER Visitors were welcomed and identified to the Senate. 2. ANNOUNCEMENTS President Eng and Vice-President Hillison met with the Provost on February 28. The officers discussed the issue of furloughs--if, when, how. We do not yet know if furloughs will be required. If they are required, the Provost promised that the faculty and staff would be consulted on method and timing of furloughs. The future membership of the Budget and Planning Committee was discussed without resolution. Public Service was discussed. Dean Charles Steger will address the Faculty Senate on Public Service. The officers expressed their concern to the provost over the increase in out-of-state tuition increases. Provost shared the concern and the public relations problem related to this increase. 3. ADOPTION OF AGENDA The agenda was adopted with movement of the PPI discussion to follow the President's remarks and the addition of nominations for officers under new business. 4. PROGRAM Remarks of President James D. McComas Express appreciation for those in Faculty Senate for leadership for Secretary Dyke's visit. We will continue to build bridges to policy makers ... and faculty plays a major role in that building. I hope you can recognize the level of understanding that exists regarding the nature and purpose of a major research university. Thankfully, we are also rebuilding. Certainly a new $7.3 million tuition authorization, in the final budget, makes more rebuilding and progress possible. I can tell you that this authorization was not automatic. This university owes a debt of gratitude to student leadership that supported the increase ... to Minnis Ridenour and Ralph Byers who made the case for it in Richmond ... and to a university community determined that students will see clear and direct benefits from this progress. Progress was made also in avoiding state-imposed furloughs. The projected imposition of up to 15 days of forced furloughs was becoming a morale issue statewide. The final budget offered encouragement that this approach can be avoided. The Alumni Association merger on January 1, 1991 was a major accomplishment. I recognize that when we reach the month of March we feel that the worst of winter is over ... and that we've weathered the storm. Whether or not the fiscal storm affecting Virginia is over is not clear yet. Education in general, and higher education in particular, has faced challenges that have few precedents. Those challenges have been met, to the best degree possible, with effective teamwork and dedication. We will continue to use the Budget Steering Group to review and recommend answers for recurrent state budget impacts. As you know, we have been asked to prepare contingency plans for Round 4 for a 6.5% reduction; the imposition of additional new reductions will be directly related to the economic recovery of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Contact by the university with all branches of government is ongoing and essential. There are many who recognize that higher education has paid a very high price; a number will listen ... and some will hear. Huxley has stated that facts do not cease to exist because they are unrecognized. We have seen responsiveness in the past several months; we will work for responsiveness in the months ahead. Various surveys make clear that the faculty has led Virginia Tech to recognition among the nation's leading universities. Yet we know that leadership and recognition must involve continued investment ... of resources and commitment and clarity of purpose. By definition, land grant universities have several missions ... that fact alone makes our life here both more interesting and more challenging. We can all take pride that, despite the current times, Virginia Tech with all out efforts is meeting well many of the challenges facing higher education today. There are a number of specific examples. Here are a few: 1. As of last month, freshman applications here had reached a new record high ... to almost 16,000. This is despite the fact that the number of high school seniors is down by 5%. Virginia Tech's increase is the reverse of national trends ... and speaks very well of the caliber of the university ... of the results of our student Expo programs ... of the leadership of Dave Bousquet and our admissions program ... and of the efforts of faculty, staff and students. We have also received to date some 335 applications from National Merit Semi-finalists and 90 National Achievement Semi-finalists. That last figure means that one out of every 20 Achievement semi-finalists in the nation has applied to this university. We are grateful to the admissions staff, faculty, students and administrators who have helped (this past week and at Expos). Applications from black students have now virtually doubled in the past two years. We are, in fact, becoming a university that welcomes diversity. A real challenge is to create a supportive climate once students are here. We still have too many signs of racism. 2. The Fulbright Commission has approved three students as Fulbright Scholars for the next academic year. And SCHEV selected four graduate students as Commonwealth Fellows. 3. Seven separate patents were awarded in 1990, to Virginia Tech faculty, staff, and student teams. 4. The diversity of research leadership is evident. For example, in the first month of 1991 we received the following: - $400,000+ from Alko Ltd. to develop biodegradable plastics - $400,000 for Senegal Reforestation - $90,000 from NSF to study Aristotelianism in Paris in the 1600's - $240,000 from the Education Department for Upward Bound - $777,388 from NASA Langley for the NASA materials science and engineering program - $50,000 from Fairfax County's human development department to support the Department of Social Services reorganization program. - $1,000,000 from NSF to encourage women, minorities and students with disabilities to pursue doctoral studies in the College of Engineering - Over 1 million dollars from the Kellogg Foundation to fund critical training for African-American leaders in Virginia and in 5 other southern states 5. Annual research spending in this university now surpasses 120 million dollars, representing an increase of over 50% since 1987. Given recent economic trends, this makes a compelling statement about the capability of our university. This also represents an investment in tomorrow that should not go unnoted by Virginia policy makers. 6. During the 1989-90 fiscal year, some 18,000 donors contributed to the Virginia Tech Annual Fund. Again, this also represents record participation. One anecdote from our giving program was a call to an alumnus who had degrees from three universities. The alumnus said to us: "You're the only one who has called me." The result of that call and of the follow up by the collegiate development director was a check for some $125,000. 7. Over 1,000 corporations and foundations contributed some 12 million dollars. This includes a December gift by the DuPont Company to support educational programs in four colleges. That gift will total 1 million dollars. 8. I recognize that numbers and dollars do not tell the whole story. They are, though, one very positive indicator. There are other positive indicators as well: A. Student morale - we are all learning from their enthusiasm and motivation B. Expanded partnerships ... from a new research agreement with Norfolk State ... to a research partnership with one of Europe's leading universities in Barcelona, Spain. C. Classroom dedication ... reflected by professors and instructors willing to go "an extra mile" when classes are crowded ... teachers who see individuals - and not just numbers .... Fred Carlisle, Minnis Ridenour, Darrel Martin, Dwight Shelton and Carole Nickerson are teaching undergraduates, and Tom Goodale graduate students. D. General dedication ... reflected by our recognition that our students are at a stressful age in a time of stress. Newsweek called this "the era of anxiety." Anxiety, fear, worry, and frustration can take a toll that is very serious. Not more than a week ago we had two students who attempted to take their own lives and a third was emotionally disturbed and had to be hospitalized. Even outstanding students have a fear of failure - academically and often in relationships with their parents and significant others. (See letter from parents.) There are a number of challenges that should shape this university's agenda in the months to come. They include: ^ early retirement ^ graduate support issues ^ operational funding in research and extension - we have few ways to avoid the full range of cuts for them ^ building on the excellent progress of the honors program - progress made in concert with the Academy of Teaching Excellence - Jack Dudley ^ finishing a strategic plan that can provide coherence and direction for years to come ^ continued progress in affirmative action .... We do have concerns about racism on the campus and must continue to make our campus more sensitive and more supportive. The climate we provide for women on the campus, both faculty and support staff, is at times disappointing to them and to us. I hope you will make efforts to have their views shared with you. ^ conveying to our classified staff our understanding of a simple and yet profound reality: that their work, loyalty, and dedication has helped make Virginia Tech what it is today ... and that they will help shape our potential of a new century .... They are under much stress too. ^ study to see if we can further streamline the administrative staff of the university. ^ Forestry and related issues: When I first arrived, I was approached about this issue. School has not suffered in College. Director is 2nd highest paid of Deans/Director of Forestry in the nation. The school is over staffed under appendix M. Provost reviewed and did not recommend severance. He found a high quality program within the college and was concerned that a separation would create two small units at this time. Both would suffer. He also opposed the creation of a Vice-President for Agriculture. - Legislative study is an intrusion on the internal affairs of the university - a biased panel of mainly forestry interest. - We have indicated the reasons why we do not want to separate Forestry from Agriculture and Life Sciences. - Faculty Senate may wish to study this issue and communicate with other senators as this study could set a dangerous precedent - SCHEV's Study of Faculty Efforts and the Importance of SCHEV to Higher Education - Teaching and Research at Stanford - The best way to secure strong support for research is to do an outstanding job with undergraduates. SUMMARY 1. Must continue to look at our successes and achievements both of individuals and the university. 2. Must look for visible ways of showing both undergraduates and graduates that they will benefit directly from the $7.3 million increase in fees. 3. Student morale is high - students feel positive about you and the university. Together we need to try to maintain that attitude. Special credit goes to Tom Goodale and his staff. 4. Our support staff is challenged and stressed too - showing our appreciation for them will make a difference. 5. We need to look for ways together to rebuild support for higher education - legislative - corporate - parents - general public You are the third Faculty Senate I have been privileged to work with here at Virginia Tech. Any progress we have made is a result of your understanding and your strong support throughout the university. I realize that faculty members are teaching more, with fewer materials and less logistical support. Our support staff members are fewer in number and are serving more people and caring for more facilities. And our administrative staff including department heads, deans, vice presidents and others are working as a team. Fred Carlisle and Minnis Ridenour have especially invested long hours, evenings and weekends as we move through these difficult times. I am very grateful to all of you. I neglected to mention the survey which will be conducted on faculty roles in the Commonwealth. (A copy is available from the Secretary of the Faculty Senate, as is a copy of the Washington Post Article on teaching at Stanford.) Question: Do you have an estimate of the dollar figure for increase on the cost of education for the coming year? Answer: Information not available yet. We may be able to allow more out of state students if they are paying for their own way. Could go above 25% of enrollment. We are competitive to the states north of us, but not with the states to the south. There is money in the budget to buffer families with income under $35,000-45,000. Question: What can be done for out of state graduate students and out of state tuition? Answer: Concern must be had for out of state fees for graduate students. Would like to waive out of state graduate fees if we can. Vice-President Hooper said that there is no change contemplated in current policy of waiving differential in fees for out of state graduate students if they earn $4,000 or more on assistantship. Question: What will be the impact on the reduction in funding on Public Service? Answer: Cannot do more unless we get more money from the legislature or from conferences. It depends whether or not we have an increase in institutional funds to spend. For example, legislature proposed six more extension positions while more are taken away. Question: Faculty are concerned over shortfalls and whether we would take furloughs or take layoffs. Answer: If it is necessary we must come back and discuss. If round four will be required the issue will have to be discussed. Your representatives will be involved. The Governor may still have power to or he may allow the institutions to develop their own policy on furloughs not withstanding the legislature's attempt to remove the furloughs. Maryland is looking at furloughs. Of 35 states in financial trouble, Virginia revenues were down 14%. Ohio is reducing the state budget of education by the amount we reduced at Virginia Tech alone. Business is ailing due to less demand. But our demand is increasing. We need to get this information out to the public. Question: Personal objection is raised to the nature of selective tax. Concern over the value of the SCHEV survey if no one asked about the number of hours faculty work. What value is the percentage of hours spent if the number of hours is unknown? Answer: Each respondent is to tell how budget cuts have impacted upon them. President will provide a copy to President Eng to distribute. The survey is about teaching load and the time spent in the classroom. Surveys show faculty work an average of 60 hours a week. Not optional if survey is done. If SCHEVS doesn't, legislature likely to do so. People are not aware of what faculty do. Comment: Survey showing faculty work 60 hours a week should be sent to the Chief Executive. Comment: Concern was expressed over the PR problem of, "What do faculty do all day?" We are considering urging this issue to be reviewed by the press. PPI Presentation Vice President Hooper presented the proposal for Professional Practices Institute (herein after PPI) at Virginia Tech. The mission of PPI would include providing for a greater freedom to engage in the effective transfer of technological discoveries of the to practice. PPI could generate funds for use in augmenting contributions to facilities, programs in academic departments and colleges, and enhance the academic environment through increased student and faculty support. The project has had a 3 year period of gestation. It is a method to bring in projects that do not belong in the Office of Sponsored Programs (herein after OSP) but could benefit students and faculty. PPI should go through university governance and receive the support of the university if it has merit. It will be a resolution of the Research Commission to University Council. It is not a proposal of the Research Division, but the Research Division has interest in the proposal. The proposal was discussed in detail. The material was previously distributed to the Senate and will be referenced to here. Figure 3 of the proposal outlines the types of activities that would be appropriate for PPI. Figure 4 shows how OSP and PPI can increase the total number of money flowing into the university. This would allow for announcement of further/continued funding, rather than to have the dollars go somewhere else. The answers to questions were provided by Vice-President Hooper and Scott Sink of Industrial and System Engineering. Question: What would be the impact on overhead on OSP? Answers: Hooper: OSP best guess is that a slight dip in revenues might result for OSP initially. Sink: Waste Policy Institute is a pilot. WPI has increased OSP funding. Industry often came with task to Tech that includes OSP research tasks as well as non-research task to be preferred on a project. PPI would do the better project. Believes there will be a synergistic improvement in total funding to the University. Hooper: There would be no impact on current OSP awards as we could not move any OSP projects to PPI. New awards might be screened and some sent to PPI. Industry may want to do both research and reduction to practice at Tech and therefore, there might be more opportunities. Question: What other benefits of PPI other than that previously outlined? Answer: Sink: Would be able to change a market rate greater than University charges for OSP. Greater money could be charged under PPI. This would be like teaching hospital role. Question: Why not consult outside of the University rather than through a "University Consulting Service"? Answers: Sink: Better to build institution with a "clean mechanism" to support graduate student and university research in a stable environment than ad hoc like we do now. Consulting is often gifted back. Hooper: There would be an area of opportunity for gain. We can attract funding in an area that we do not now attract. Industry relies on us for basic research. Industry does implementation and OSP doesn't. PPI would allow us to capture the work in between. Research ____________________________________________ Implementation Question: Should safeguards be built into the PPI to make the institution self supporting? Hooper: From day one, it would be self sufficient. Sink: No university and no state funds. Question: What is the Ruffner Institute? Answer: That is the name Harold Kurstedt would give to the money in the Management Systems laboratories which should be in PPI. Would be more appropriate items from research side to applications (Ruffner). Question: PPI would be applied and not basic research? Answer: Sink: That is correct. An individual could stay on basic and post doc and others could be built into the PPI. PPI could hire faculty under professional limits. Recently, we were forced to go to another university because there was no way to buy Tech faculty time. Question: What are the limits to establishing a business on Campus under this approach? Should Vet school establish as a hospital? Answer: Hooper: VTIP and CRC were started like this to help the university and are helping the university. PPI is like many University Medical School operations. I cannot speak for the Vet school. Question: What is the relationship of PPI to Public Service? Answer: Hooper: Do not believe this has anything to do with Public Service in the sense of traditional cooperative extension or other areas. A large continuing education proposal is coming from engineering. It should go to continuing education, not PPI. Sink: I would have concern over proposal if in extension/public service. Could cut ourselves into little firms and use university resources and use to raise money. Hooper: There would not be an allowance for added faculty pay in PPI. Sink: Overhead rate of PPI would be greater than University. University services would be purchased from the University at the University's going rate. Proposal would not allow. Question: Overhead rate would go back to PPI? Answer: Hooper: Not sure I understand the question. PPI would have a skeleton staff. PPI could foster corporations under it. Estimating PPI would have an 80% overhead rate. Intend for corporations to come to university for research like any other group. Sink: Each organization would have to have its overhead. Hooper: A committee would limit what goes in PPI to satisfy business, legal, cooperative extension and others. This would avoid unfair competition or undertake activities not appropriate for the university. Question: Would University Ethics Committee have oversight of arrangements under PPI and Corporations under PPI? How would standards be assured? Answer: Hooper: There exists a standards document for the University to follow on affiliated corporations: Auxiliary services, VTIP, etc.. It would spell out how to handle the affiliations. Not just PPI but corporations under it as well. Question: This hovers between a sponsor or competitor for the University. Answer: Sink: PPI would allow us to service the needs of customers of the University that are not now being met. This allows us to meet some of this market. PPI is not competitive to the University but a method to bring additional resources to the University. PPI must be careful not to compete with the university. Question: Might this be competing with local companies or the private sector? Answer: Hooper: This is always a concern of the University. PPI might also be able to team with local concerns and others to do what can not otherwise be done alone. Question: Concern over complicated nature of how it is managed. We give the name and reputation to PPI that we have but could it reduce the name of VPI & SU? Answer: Hooper: This is why the proposal and the reason the concern has been brought to the Senate. PPI is similar to entities at other institutions. Sink: We should try to make or draft a better document. Propose it to develop a dialogue. Question: What is the next step in the proposal? Answer: Hooper: The Commission on Research says in principle that this is a good idea. We plan to take to University Council in April. It will follow the governance procedure. Other groups might like to ask for a review. PPI can be treated like VTIP in terms of a "working relationship." Question: We have not seen a document that shows how the University can sever this organization from the University. Answer: Hooper: Will provide a copy of the document. (A copy has been provided to the Faculty Senate.) (Senator Geyer will distribute to interested parties on request). 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of Senate February 12 were approved. Minutes of February 22 Senate Cabinet were approved. 6. COUNCIL, COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE REPORTS UNIVERSITY COUNCIL--Senator Hillison--4 Mar 91 The academic eligibility policy was changed to permit a student on academic probation to take courses during the next fall semester to make up the deficiency. It does not mandate summer school attendance. The sexual harassment policy as amended was passed. This included the three changes described at the last Senate meeting: (1) less lecturing on consensual relationships and mention of the aggrieved party filing the complaint, (2) addition of the informal consultation stage without records, and (3) peer review held at an earlier level prior to the Provost determining punishment and at the request of the accused party. COMMISSION ON EXTENSION--Senator Marriott--5 Mar 91 Larry Moore presented a draft proposal for a combined Commission on Research and Public Service and an alternate plan for two separate commissions for these two missions. The commission voted unanimously in opposition to the combined commission, thus supporting two separate bodies. Kathy Parrott presented a report on her extension activities in Housing, Interior Design & Resource Management. A report on the 4-H mission and activities was given by David Barrett. The resolution for the Establishment of an Academy for Public Service Excellence was given a final review before being sent through the University governance system. The policy statement on the role of the Commission was reviewed with some suggestions being made prior to a review of the revised statement at the next meeting. The proposed Professional Practices Institute was revisited and it was decided to defer voting on this item until the next meeting so that it could be evaluated further. Question: What is the source of budget for Public Affairs? Is it coming out of extension funding or instructional budget? Answer: Don't know for sure. But some money may be coming out of instructional budget in future. Appears now that reason for 230, 231, and 232 budgets may be blurred and no longer appropriate. This is under discussion by the Budget Committee and the Administration. May provide indirect support by hiring 231 individuals to other parts of the University. COMMISSION ON FACULTY AFFAIRS--Senator Kriz--22 Feb 91 The EO/AA Committee forwarded to the Commission a revision of the Sexual Harassment Policy following suggestions made by the Commission at its meeting on February 8. The Commission endorsed the policy as reworded. R. Bambach was in attendance to discuss the history of the Faculty Grievance Committee and the philosophy behind the procedures used by that Committee. Faculty grievances differ from staff grievances, hence, faculty must have a separate and different procedure. For example, salary is a grievable issue for faculty, but not for staff. Staff members usually grieve personal working conditions or specific implementations of particular policies and procedures which are imposed by an immediate supervisor. Faculty grievances usually involve administrative judgments which have already been reviewed at a level above that of the immediate supervisor. The classified grievance system is by law not available to faculty, for example, intervention by the courts would not be available to faculty. It was noted that levels of review for extension personnel and new faculty groups in Public Services should be resolved by those groups. Dr. Wolfe believes that 1st level review would be by the Director of Cooperative Extension, proceeding to the Dean of Agriculture at the 2nd level, and to the Provost at the 3rd level. Discussion of the grievance procedures will be continued at the next meeting to deal with specific concerns raised by some faculty in regard to the revised procedures. It was noted that the revised procedures are being used this year prior to official adoption by the Senate with the approval of all parties involved. COMMISSION ON GRADUATE STUDIES--Senator Snoke--20 Feb 91 It was announced that two seminars in a new series, "Training the Future Professorate", are to be held on 7 March and 21 March. The one on 21 March will be in room 1870 Litton-Reeves Hall at 4:00 pm and be given by Dr. Jules Lapidus, President of the Council of Graduate Schools. He will be speaking on "A National Perspective of Graduate Study". Three more such seminars are planned for the Fall. There is to be a Graduate Research Symposium on March 19 in the Johnson Student Center at which our graduate students will be showcasing their research. Dr. Alan Berg, of the World Bank, will speak that evening and be hosted at a reception at the University Club. Taxes and furloughs were discussed briefly, but nothing said beyond what was reported last month. Dean Hooper proposed that the Commission work to develop a Policy Memorandum on Training GTAs. This proposal was favorably received. At the 4 March meeting of the University Council, there was some discussion about the sorry state of affairs our graduate students face with regard to financial support. The proposed legislation, which is almost certain to become law, will result in significant increases in tuition for out of state students relative to those who qualify for in-state status. Results from a study done by the Graduate Student Assembly, in preparation for their meeting with Secretary of Education Dyke, comparing our stipend levels with other institutions will be discussed at a future Commission meeting. COMMISSION ON RESEARCH--Senator Bunce--13 Feb 91 The principal item considered was a proposed Professional Practices Institute to be affiliated with this University. A lengthy accounting of the discussion was presented in the Spectrum, Volume 13, Number 23, Thursday, February 28, 1991. After the discussion a motion was passed which recommended the following: that the Commission supports the general concept; that a Charter, By Laws, Affiliation Agreement and specific procedures be drafted; and that these documents be presented for review to a Committee composed of representatives of the Commissions on Research, Extension and Graduate Studies, the Faculty Senate, and the offices of Vice Provost for Research and Graduate Studies, Vice President for Public Service and Vice President for Finance. Senator Scanlon reported that there is a working group on misconduct in science. The group is looking for faculty input. COMMISSION ON STUDENT AFFAIRS--Senator Miller--21 Feb 91 The Commission discussed the proposed academic calendars for 1992 through 1998 and upcoming hearings on continuance of the Two Town Trolley. A preliminary report of the Governance subcommittee on the Media Board provoked very extensive discussion. There is widespread unhappiness about the cost of advertisements in the Collegiate Times. In addition concerns were expressed about the difficulty of obtaining news coverage, the absence of linkage or even communication between the media and student government, and the apparent lack of external financial accountability. Many spoke for (and none against) editorial freedom. The subcommittee will consider the matter further and bring recommendations to a later meeting. The Residence Hall Federation presented a resolution calling for VPI Facilities to reimburse Student Housing for utilities and custodial costs attributable to vending machines (including laundry) and to turn over the profits from those machines to Student Housing. A motion to endorse this resolution failed to obtain a majority vote (there were more abstentions than nays). The issue was reconsidered and considered passed with 6 yes, 2 no and 5 abstentions. The last substantial matter was a discussion of the relative weights assigned to teaching and research in faculty promotion and tenure decisions. The student members of the Commission were not overjoyed at what they heard from the faculty and administrators present. COMMISSION ON UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES--Senator Etgen--no report ATHLETIC COMMITTEE--Senator Baumgartner--no report BUILDING COMMITTEE--Senator Wang--14 Feb 91 The Chair asked Facility Planning and Construction (FP&C) to delineate the charges of the Subcommittee, the main issues involved in the project and the immediate tasks facing the subcommittee. The procedure, criteria and the subjective nature of the evaluation of consultants were also explained. The FP&C presented the top five (in their professional opinion) optimally qualified consultants along with their sub-consultants. Motion with second to accept the top five consultants as presented by the FP&C was made. Motion carried after much discussion. Motion made to add another consultant to those five selected. Motion did not receive a second and was not considered. Motion with second made to interview top three ranked consultants with provision to continue interviews to lesser ranked consultants if necessary. Motion carried. Interviews are to be scheduled for March 6, 1991. COMMUNICATION RESOURCE COMMISSION--G. Tront--no report COMPUTER COMMITTEE--Senator Webster--no report Senator Webster will raise the issue at the next meeting of the nondelivery to Burruss on weekends. EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE--Senator Thompson--15 Feb 91 The State's early retirement option was discussed. The University is gathering together the number of employees who are eligible to retire under the guidelines of the program. The exact wording of the program will be available at the end of the legislative session. There was a lengthy discussion of various problems with Blue Cross/Blue Shield. The specific problems centered around the insufficient amount of major medical and the substandard level of service in the claims area. The committee discussed the current status of the wellness program. Discussions are currently underway between the University and CommonHealth with regard to CommonHealth actually placing an employee on campus to administer the program. We discussed the State's contribution to the Optional Retirement Program. Subject to the end of the legislative session, the State has terminated the requirement that contributions to the Virginia Retirement System (VRS) and the optional retirement systems be the same. The expectation is that the optional program will have a contribution level of 10.4%. This will be subject to review in 6 years. Flexible reimbursement accounts were discussed. The need for an extensive educational effort was stressed. Anyone participating in one of these accounts should clearly understand the contract. Doug Martin advised the committee that the long term disability carrier for classified employees is canceling the entire group. Alternative carriers are being sought. Concern that can't sign up for flexible reimbursement plan if you did not attend the seminar. Answer: It is a use it or loose it rule. Don't sign up unless you understand that what you don't use is lost. Should be able to get waiver of having to attend seminar. Concern that it is required. May change account only once a year. EO/AA COMMITTEE--Senator Simmons--no report INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES COMMITTEE--Senator Falkinham--no report Regular meeting but nothing to report. LIBRARY COMMITTEE--J.D. Stahl--6 March 91 The Annual Report 89/90 was handed out. Our rankings in almost all categories have declined in the last 10 to 15 years in comparison with other libraries that are Association of Research Libraries members. In most categories, our rankings are about 75 to 80 out of 106. A question was raised about whether a department can keep the funds saved by periodicals cancellations and apply them to book purchases. Paul Metz responded that money is never allocated for subscriptions by department. He said that all departments will gain by making discretionary funds (now very tight or nonexistent) available. At the conclusion of the cancellation list/discussion/negotiation process, new subscriptions will be possible, he said. Metz emphasized that not all titles on any of these lists will be cut. Our microfilm holdings are near the top (in the ALR rankings), esp. in science. In response to a question about this, Paul Gherman said that it used to be (but no longer is, since he is head of the library) practice to spend year-end funds on expensive microfilm sets. Wayland Winstead of the Office of University Planning discussed the document drafted by his office concerning "Providing Adequate Library Facilities at Virginia Tech." The recommendations of the subcommittee on Capital Outlay started to be implemented last year, he reported. Each dean and vice president was asked to give priorities for his or her college or division for capital outlay, and the plan was developed on the basis of this consultation. High Density Library Storage Facility (HDLSF) was high on the list, partly because the state has put a virtual moratorium on the construction of traditional open-stack space. We now need the equivalent of two Burruss Halls for library space. The HDLSF was at the top of the funding request list; the conversion of Major Williams was right behind it. (At the very top of the list was a dormitory conversion, in an agreement with the state legislature.) The HDLSF will be a regional storage center if that's the only way to get it built, Winstead said. The idea of getting the bookstore building as library space originally came from library staff. The problem of competition with the private sector will be an issue if a new University Bookstore facility is built. Concern over public criticism has kept plans for a move in this direction within certain boundaries; discussion of such a move will be made more public once plans are more firm. The entire decision making process was rushed due to legislative deadlines, which forced the University Planning Office to confront VPI Facilities with a proposal only two days before a decision needed to be made--not ideal conditions, and not the conditions desired by the UPO. At present, budget planning is being conducted for 92-94. Funding decisions for that biennium will be made at the long session of the legislature in January 92. Would the HDLSF solve the library's storage space for the foreseeable future, a committee member asked. Paul Gherman responded that it likely would for the next ten years. However, the ten-year period would be shortened if university records were transferred into the HDLSF or if Radford or other colleges participated. It will be the purpose of the pre-planning study to address such issues. Gherman asserted that the best to be expected is an adequate, not an ideal, solution to the library space problem. Storage in boxes (as Harvard has done at their HDLSF) is much more space-efficient than compact open shelving, which might be preferable for reasons of accessibility and for enabling weeding when desired. Members of the committee suggested to Winstead that his document be amended in the last line to read "address the library's MINIMUM needs for the next ten years" (instead of "for the foreseeable future"). Ed Fox asked how we can become an integral part of the planning process if and when the plan is approved. The conversion of the bookstore space will not be proposed in this biennium, it was made clear, so planning for the conversion is not an urgent priority. The planning for the conversion would only begin in 94-96. However, the committee's advice will be valuable in the areas of what would go into the ex-bookstore space and what would be stored in the HDLSF, Paul Metz said. The interim report of the VTLS Evaluation Task Force was discussed. The convening of another Task Force was considered. One of the issues was whether a Task Force should consider whether to stay with VTLS or go with another system, or limit itself to suggesting improvements to VTLS. The Univ. Lib. System relationship to VTLS is partly conditioned by location, but it is also true that VTLS is responsive mainly to its next client and to the majority of its over a hundred clients, Paul Gherman stated. Therefore VTLS is not necessarily responsive to particular wishes of the VA Tech Libraries. Since the issue of whether to define a new Task Force was not clearly defined, it was agreed to table further discussion until the next meeting and to draft a statement about what a Task Force would do for consideration at the April meeting. SCHOLARSHIP & FINANCIAL AID COMMITTEE--R. Goss--1 Mar 91 The Scholarship and Financial Aid Committee met for the first time this academic year. Richard Stillwagon, Director of Financial Aid, presented an overview of student aid at Virginia Tech. A summary is attached. He noted that applications for financial aid have increased by more than 1000 over last year, and they continue to arrive. There have been many more appeals from parents at mid-year asking for assistance. As for next year, out-of-state students will have to pay much more, and there will not be enough assistance for them. There has been a concern expressed by African-American students that they receive substantial support in the form of grants in the first year, but this assistance is not as readily available in subsequent years. It was noted that aid is available in subsequent years, but primarily in the form of loans. A proposed mission statement for the Office of Scholarships and Financial Aid was distributed. Committee members were asked to return comments. Susan Bambach, Admissions Office, discussed the National Merit Scholars Program and the National Achievement Scholarship program which is restricted to African American students. A report on financial aid at Virginia Tech is attached. SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS COMMITTEE--Senator Barker--no report PARKING/TRANSPORTATION TASK FORCE--C. Polan--5 Mar 91 A subcommittee is revising parking rules and regulations for the coming year. In addition to the matter of updating, issues that have been brought to our attention by persons in the University community are also being evaluated. Requests and concerns brought to our attention earlier in the year have been deferred until now unless there were some over-riding reason for them to have been considered. Issues under consideration are: Increased fines for certain parking violations and fraudulent use of permits, immobilization, payroll deduction, twenty-four hour restricted zones, motorcycle and graduate student parking. Question: A policy on 24 hour parking at selected parking sites was raised. Answer: The policy is under review. We have two areas now. FACULTY SENATE OF VIRGINIA--Senator Scanlon--no report INTERIM BUDGET AND PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE--Senator Eiss--20 Feb 91 Two major items were discussed: A draft of Resource Allocation Principles And Criteria (RAPAC), and the functions of the University Planning Coordination Committee (UPCC). Of the three sections of the RAPAC draft (I. Resource Allocation and Reallocation Criteria, II. Other Personnel and Resource Guidance and III. Operating Principles for the Allocation of Additional Resources 1991- 92.) only the last one was discussed. The discussion centered on current priorities, especially the inclusion of new programs in the list of priorities. It was explained that only those programs that had been approved by SCHEV would be considered for funding and the funding needs would be for graduate assistants not faculty positions. Other priorities discussed included the following: funding for graduate students would be used to offset tuition increases; no funds would be available for salary increases until they are provided by the state. Members of the UPCC were present to answer questions about the planning process. They indicated that a governance plan with a combined planning and budget commission or council would require too much work for the members. They also suggested that some members of council should be appointed to assure minority representation. A review of the budget reduction process was presented with projections for the remainder of the biennium. More specific information will be presented at the next meeting (March 6) after the legislature has adjourned. CLASSIFIED STAFF AFFAIRS COMMITTEE--Senator Canestaro--no report BOARD OF VISITORS--Senator Eng--18 Feb 91 Actions of the Board have already been reported in the newspapers and in Spectrum, but those of special interest to the Senate include approval of Big East Conference Affiliation and approval of the Faculty Senate Constitution. Past Senate President Pat Scanlon gave his review of the 1989-90 activities of the Faculty Senate, which were well received. COMMENCEMENT--Senator Scanlon--no report HONORIFICS--W.D. Conn--no report STUDENT BUDGET BOARD--Senator Clowes--5 Mar 91 The annual budget review process began February 4 and continued until March 4. The Board met from 4 until late at night (often past 11 p.m.) on an average of three days a week during this period. Budget proposals were presented by thirty-nine student organizations, critiqued by the Board, and evaluated against program goals. The budget requests for 1991-92 were $972,544; the available funds from student fees were the same as last year - $745,000. Student organization budgets were funded for a total of $695,000; $25,000 was set aside for the Contingency Account and $25,000 was established to fund the Small Grants Program. Both of these are administered by the Student Budget Board over the 1991-92 academic year in support of these thirty-nine and many other student organizations. This board consists of six undergraduate students, two graduate students, two staff from student services, and two faculty (one from the Faculty Senate). My attendance was erratic; the others were consistent and persistent. The level of responsible management, careful oversight, and informed decision making was as high as any I have encountered in over twenty-five years in higher education. These students deserve our respect for their careful stewardship in a demanding and generally unappreciated committee assignment. Representative organizations funded through the Board's budget review process are: Black Student Alliance Collegiate Times Dance Company Honor Society Ice Hockey Club NAACP Preston Journal Student Government Association Students for the (Re) Opening of the American Mind Virginia Tech Union WUVT The final budget allocations by organizations will be provided when they are available. VPI FACILITIES BOARD--C. Polan--5 Mar 91 The Senate asked for representation on the Board of VPI Facilities. From the suggested names advanced by the Senate President, I was appointed and am now completing 2 years of service. This report is to communicate to the Senate my impression of the operation of VPI Facilities. The fore-runner of this corporation was operated by the Athletic Association. Several years ago that arrangement was changed. Based on an agreement at that time, a fee is still paid to the athletic program. However, the lions share of the "profits" goes to the Educational Foundation each year. VPI Facilities is a well-managed business under the guidance of Mr. Don Williams. It operates on a fine-line philosophy - set the mark up at a rate to provide a service to the campus, yet don't undercut local merchants, i.e. remain somewhat competitive. As a Board Member, I participated in the normal board business decisions. In addition, I served on the Audit Committee and reviewed and endorsed recommendations of professional auditors. The Board and management are receptive to concerns of the Faculty and larger University community. In addition, a student is on the Board and at nearly every meeting a period of time is spent on student concerns. I doubt my presence on the Board made a big impact or difference in the decisions of the Board. However, I did learn, and wish to share with you, that VPI Facilities provides a service to our Institution that is sensitive to the University community in a manner that we can largely claim pride. President Eng stated VPI facilities have requested 6 nominees from the Senate for appointment to one position. Faculty Senate fought for and won representational rights. It was questioned why the request was for six nominees from selected colleges (Arts and Science, Education, Business, Engineering). Why not elect one? Other faculty are on the Board, only one is from the Senate. Senators Tideman, Brown, McDaniels and Baumgartner were nominated. VIRGINIA TECH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES--Senator Eiss--no report 7.UNFINISHED BUSINESS The following items of unfinished business were carried over to the next meeting. 1) Special admissions -- Senator Crittenden 2) Proposed revision of the Faculty Review Committee (FRC) Procedures 3) Proposed changes to Faculty Handbook regarding FRC (Items 2 and 3 were distributed at the last meeting) 8. NEW BUSINESS The following Senators have been nominated for 1991-92 Officers: President: John Hillison Vice President: L. Leon Geyer Secretary-Treasurer: Joseph Falkinham Nominations remain open for the next meeting. 9. ADJOURNMENT NEXT SENATE MEETINGS: April 9 and 23, 1991 Senate Retreat April 25, l991 University Club
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/March+5++1991.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:40 EDT