University Libraries Logo University Archives of Virginia Tech

Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes Archive

March 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

 

Current Virginia Tech Governance Minutes Archive

Return to Virginia Tech Governance Minutes Archive


VT History | Digital Library and Archives | Special Collections | University Archives


Send questions or comments to:

Tamara Kennelly, University Archivist
University Libraries
Virginia Tech
P.O. Box 90001
Blacksburg, VA, 24062-9001

URL: http://spec.lib.vt.edu/minutes/fsm/1991/March+5++1991.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:40 EDT