|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveNovember 12, 1991
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Faculty Senate Minutes 12 November 1991 32 Pamplin Hall 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM and visitors introduced: John Ashby Spectrum Peggy Rasnick Sponsored Programs and Liaison for Staff Senate Marion S. Farmer EO/AA Office 2. Announcements: a. President Hillison attended a conference on Faculty Rewards October 29th jointly sponsored by VCU and SCHEV. The keynote speaker was President Shaw from Syracuse. The major theme had to do with modifying the rewards system for faculty and giving greater recognition to both teaching and service, as well as permitting greater input from individual faculty members on their own reward system. The Provost spoke to Deans and Department Heads the next day. b. The President attended the William Preston Society meeting on November 8th. c. The President attended the Squires rededication, November 1st. d. Gordon Davies will speak at the December 10th Faculty Senate meeting. e. The President will make a presentation to the academic affairs committee of the Board of Visitors on November 18th. f. The President will attend Fall Commencement on December 14th and urges all faculty to attend as well. 3. Program: Cornel Morton, Dir. EOAA a. Mr. Morton provided Senators with a short personal history. b. Affirmative action and equal opportunity are not the same. Equal opportunity means just that, selection of students and faculty is independent of race, gender or class. c. Compliance is required by law for faculty and staff and there are certain standards the University must meet. In addition, we have measures for faculty balance and student productivity. Staff and student plans are also in place. d. Classroom climate committee looks at classroom and campus climate, especially from a minority viewpoint. e. Sexual and Racial Harassment Policies are in place. f. A policy and procedures for recruiting and hiring is being developed. g. The floor was opened for questions and answers. (i) Question: In light of the legal decisions affecting harassment policies, what should we do? Answer: I am more interested in fostering a climate and defining standards in the university. I am interested in fostering education to achieve diversity and dissuade individuals from harassing others. (ii) Question: Can we take a positive educational approach rather than a negative, enforcement approach? Answer: Yes, the MAPS Classroom Climate Committee and awareness programs are aimed at education. (iii) Question: What are we doing about retention of students? Answer: It must be solved at the Department. Those students with problems lack an association with their department and their personnel. Advisors should establish an early strong relationship with students. (iv) Question: What has been the response to efforts aimed at educating students about gay and lesbian issues? Answer: As much now as before. A video was presented to new students and their parents during summer orientation. Question: Were certain scenes missing from the version shown parents? Answer: Yes, though the parents still showed a visible response to the material. (v) Question: What is your view of minority awareness issues? Answer: I am very positive about the efforts and aware of the difficulties in a large institution. There is a fundamental problem due to the conflict between tradition and the changing world (reflected by new programs). (vi) Question: Won't students have difficulty finding mentors where the student/faculty ratio is high? Answer: Clearly these departments are at a disadvantage, but you can subdivide a large group. But, the smallest effort (e.g. remembering a name) counts. (vii) Question: What can Faculty Senate do? Answer: Focus on a topic (i.e., diversity and climate issues, minority student concerns) within small groups. (viii) Closing Statement: We should confront more often those individuals whose behavior is not in the best interest of encouraging diversity. 4. Roll call: Present: Bunce, Feret, Flick, Geyer, Marriott, Wright, Poole, Wang, Barker, Falkinham, Ficenec, Holtzman, Hult, Miller, Murray, Simmons, Snoke, Webster, Williams, Hicks, Rakes, Hillison, Brown, Crittenden, deWolf, Hasselman, Michelsen, Walker, Jones, Barbeau, Beamish, Norstedt, Richardson, Carrig and Saunders. 5. Agenda The Secretary was asked to send instructions on accessing mainframe 6. Approval of Minutes Oct 8 - approved, subject to review by Snoke Oct 22 - approved with a change in the question from Senator Murray on the Commonwealth Mathematics Center. Senate Cabinet minutes of Nov 1 were approved 7. Council, Commission and Committee Reports a. Senator Barker: Supplemental Grants (1) Maximal award for international travel has been $1,000 That amount was awarded in fall, however there will be less available in spring. (2) A discussion of supplemental grants will go on in December. b. Senator Snoke - Graduate Studies (1) Discussion has started about a possible cap on enrollment. (2) The University of Virginia has reduced tuition for graduate students who have completed course work. VPI is looking into the implementation of such a program. c. Senator Geyer - University Council (1) The policy on geographic transfer will have a second reading at the next University Council meeting. (2) Charges against donations to the Virginia Tech Foundation will be reviewed. (3) Commission on Faculty Affairs approved the policy on faculty searches and that policy will be included with the minutes. d. Senator Crittenden asked Senator Murray (re: Commission on Student Affairs: (1) Will there be a committee to review admissions policy? (2) Will the acceptance of earth sciences as science and the removal of the algebra 2 requirement be discussed? Answer: Yes. Admissions will be reviewed, but broadly. Those topics will be discussed. 8. Unfinished Business: none 9. New Business: a. Elections: (i) University Council: Senator Rakes (ii) Commission Undergraduate Studies: Senator Simmons (iii) Communication Resources: Senator Snoke b. Attendance at Presidential Symposia (i) The reasons for poor attendance were discussed. (ii) Possible reasons included: (1) the fact that there was little relationship between the symposia and ongoing University research and teaching and (2) that the time of faculty and staff are already deeply committed. (ii) Two solutions were offered: (1) Could competitive grants be offered for such symposia to departments and other units and (2) could the symposia be related to ongoing teaching and research by holding discussion programs before and after the symposia? 10. Adjournment: 9:00 PM University Communications Resources Committee Report The UCRC has met three times this year: on 25 September, 30 October and 20 November. At the September meeting, a chart summarizing the current organizational structure for Informational Systems. Of particular note is that Earv Blythe is acting as interim Vice President for Information Systems, standing in for the retiring Bob Heterick. Units under the umbrella of UCRC include Research Projects (headed by Philip Bowden), CNS (headed by Judy Lilly) and Media Services (headed by Tom Head). (New to me is the fact that Mail Services is now a subset of Media Services.) At each meeting there have been reports on various units in Information Services. The purpose of these reports is to inform the Committee members about the activities, and to provide a vehicle for feedback/input from the members to the units. At the September meeting, Blythe shared with the Committee information about the Blacksburg Electronic Village Project and the dedicated statewide data network for Cooperative Extension Service, Public Service, and local government projects. At the October meeting, Ted DeBord gave a brief overview of the improvements and long-range goals of Printing Services. At the November meeting Tom Head talked about Media Services in general, and Richard Stock reported on mail services. (I can get further information on any of these reports for anyone interested in more details.) At all three meetings there were discussions of a vision statement (prepared by a committee drawn from UCRC, the Library Committee and the Computer Committee) and the "charge" to the committee. The current version of the charge reads as follows: To report and make recommendations through the governance structure and/or operating units regarding planning, purchasing, installing and utilizing the University's communication systems and services, e.g., audiovisual support, cable TVV, data networks, learning resources, mail, photographic, printing, telephone, and video broadcast services. (At this most recent meeting, I was a vocal minority in favor of the charge including more information flow from the communications units to the university community at large, both through the minutes and through the members reporting to their constituencies.) The charge was sent to Larry Harris. The report back (subsequent to our meeting) is that the current plan is to have the new commissions formed in time to have one meeting before summer break. The first order of business will be to review the committees and the charges of those committees that report to them. Accordingly, no action will be taken on the UCRC charge until that time. (This also allows time for revisions in the charge -- such as my proposal.) One final item of possible interest to the Senate is that at the November meeting the final wording was decided for a memo to Provost Carlisle, as Chair of CUS. At issue was the question as to whether or not all students should be given, or guaranteed, access to the University computer/data networks. If CUS wants to discuss the issue, the UCRC could offer help with logistics/cost considerations. Commission on Graduate Studies Report The CGS met twice in November: on the 8th and the 20th. At the 8 November meeting, Dean Hooper shared with us that there has begun to be discussion about a possible cap on graduate enrollment. What form it would take and when it would be implemented have not been established. Just a potential to be anticipated. At both meetings graduate student tuition was discussed. At issue is the fact that UVA charges students who have completed all course work and residency requirements a significantly reduced tuition fee, whereas we have no such plan. It also came out that UVA charges students on leave of absence a nominal fee to keep their status current, whereas we have no charges for students who are not currently enrolled. The state system is such that reduced tuition payments from one category of students would have to be offset with increased payments from another group. The graduate school is investigating this matter further. At the 20 November meeting there were two announcements regarding fellow- ships: Patricia R. Harris Fellowships for Afro-Americans. At present, all qualified applicants are being awarded these fellowships. Cunningham Fellowship plan is being changed from terminal year grants to awards for incoming students which would last for several years. It was decided that recruiting was the higher priority for these funds. Commission on Faculty Affairs Minutes October 25, 1991, 1:00-3:00 P.M. 400-D Burruss Hall Present: J. Buffer, D. de Wolf, J. Falkinham, L. L. Geyer, L. Richardson, C. Schwertz, R. Sorensen, J. Wolfe, W. Williams Agenda was adopted as circulated. Minutes of October 4, 1991, were approved with typographical corrections. Consulting request approval process - By unanimous vote the Commission adopted the following proposed revision of the process and forms for requesting and approving faculty consulting: "that the department head be given responsibility for approving all faculty consulting and that the Consulting Approval Request forms and Faculty Handbook be revised to reflect this change." (See Attachments 1 and 2.) CFA Resolution 1991-92 A on Faculty Grievance Procedures - The Commission considered six amendments proposed by Senator J. B. Crittenden to the Faculty Senate's proposed revision of the Faculty Grievance Procedures (Section 2.11 of the Faculty Handbook). (See Attachments 3, 4 and 5.) (1) Proposed change in lines 86-90: (a) It was not clear to members of the Commission that any useful purpose would be served by placing letters of reprimand for significant procedural violations in the personnel files of erring administrators, especially given that such errors would result in the automatic advance of the grievance to the next level. (b) The proposed language concerning the definition of procedural error was thought unnecessary. The Commission favored leaving lines 86-90 of the Faculty Senate proposal unchanged. (2) The Commission unanimously endorsed the change proposed by Crittenden at line 185. (3) The Commission unanimously endorsed the spirit of the change proposed by Crittenden at line 192 but urged that the Senate incorporate a time limit of ten weekdays for initiation of selection of a hearing panel in the Procedures of the Faculty Review Committee rather than in its Handbook policy. The Commission proposed that the Handbook revision be amended at line 192 to read " ... of the Faculty Review Committee. The chair of the Faculty Review Committee will initiate selection of a Hearing Panel within a reasonable time of receipt of the grievance by the Provost." (4) With respect to Crittenden's proposed amendment of lines 254-258 of the Senate's proposal, the Commission voted unanimously to strike the first sentence of Crittenden's proposed amendment and to retain the second sentence, so that the Senate may debate the time limits to be prescribed in its "Procedures". (5) The Commission unanimously suggested the following substitute for Crittenden's proposed amendment to lines 261-264. (262)" ... the aggrieved faculty member may appeal in writing to the President of the University as soon as possible (but within a period not to exceed three months)" (6) The Commission unanimously endorsed the Crittenden proposal to change line 330 to read " ... President, that specific grievance is closed ... " Academic Rank for Part-Time Faculty - The Commission considered the report of the subcommittee (chaired by L. Richardson and including J. Falkinham, R. Sorensen, and E. F. Carlisle) on the propriety of the designation "Adjunct status" (FACULTY HANDBOOK, p. 9) for faculty (e.g. administrative faculty) employed part-time by a department but full-time elsewhere within (or without) the University. Noting that the title covers a wide variety of faculty associated on a less than full-time basis with a department, the Commission found no reason to doubt the propriety of the definition of "Adjunct Professor" in the current FACULTY HANDBOOK. The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 P.M. William H. Williams Secretary Commission on Faculty Affairs Minutes November 8, 1991, 1:00-3:00 P.M. 400-D Burruss Hall Present: E. F. Carlisle, D. de Wolf, J. Falkinham, L. L. Geyer, P. Hyer, M. Lewis (for J. Buffer), C. McDaniels, W. Murphy (for C. Schwertz), L. Richardson, R. Sorensen, W. Williams Agenda was adopted as circulated. Minutes of October 25, 1991, were approved as circulated. A motion was made by C. McDaniels and seconded that Commission members be granted the privilege, upon written request and subject to the Chair's discretion, of postponement of an agenda item to the next meeting. The motion passed by unanimous vote. Ascertaining consensus to do so, the chair announced that the matter of academic rank for part-time faculty will be reconsidered at our next meeting. Procedures for approved faculty search - The Provost moved approval of the Procedures as recast by the deWolf subcommittee, November 1, 1991. (See Attachment 1.) The motion was seconded. Discussion centered on modifications proposed by Cornel Morton to items 9 and 11 of the subcommittee's draft. L. Richardson moved that the last sentence of item 11 of the subcommittee's proposal be revised to read: "In addition, if ..., the head should attach a memo reporting recruiting efforts, as part of the final record." Motion to amend was seconded and passed unanimously. The original motion then passed by unanimous vote. The Commission decided to postpone until its next meeting reconsideration of CFA Resolution 1991-92A (revision of 2.11 of the Faculty Handbook). At that time it will review the matter with an eye to suggestions made by Jerry Cain in memos of October 21 and November 1 to Larry Harris. Geographical Transfer (CFA Resolution 1991-92B and proposed Faculty Handbook Addition, 2.17; see Attachment 2.) - (a) Noting that the revision as now proposed is not germane to temporary transfers, the Chair asked whether it might be amended to provide guidelines for salary adjustment, reimbursement of expenses, etc. in such cases. Discussion revealed difficulty in defining "temporary" for the purpose of this policy. R. Sorensen suggested (1) that questions about these cases should be addressed to the State and (2) that should CFA take up the matter of temporary transfer, it do so independently of the proposed addition to the Handbook now under discussion. There was consensus, moreover, that the Chair explore further with Dean Eyre what specific problems have been encountered in cases of this sort. (b) Discussion then addressed the final paragraph of the proposed addition. P. Hyer moved that the final paragraph be amended to read "A cost of living adjustment will be added to the faculty member's base salary during the period they are employed in a high cost area as defined for classified employees in the Virginia Compensation Plan issued by the State Personnel Director." The motion was seconded and passed with one dissenting vote. Much of the immediately preceding discussion was concerned with the inadequacy of the maximum increase in salary base ($2000) currently allowed for those transferred to high cost areas such as Northern Virginia. The Provost expressed his willingness to determine what more adequate increase might be feasible given the University's financial condition. Accordingly, the following resolution with respect to 2.17 of the Faculty Handbook was moved and unanimously adopted: "That every effort shall be made by the Administration to make the aforementioned cost of living adjustment reasonably consistent with the expected increase in living costs." The Chair asked if the Commission wished to invite a representative group of faculty concerned with the status of full-time, non-tenure-track instructors to discuss recent proposals for classifications of "career instructors" and the like. The Commission expressed its eagerness to discuss these questions with such a group. The hour being late, the Chair announced that the first two items on the agenda for November 22 would be (1) Cain's suggestions regarding grievance procedures, and (2) reconsideration of faculty rank for part-time faculty. The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 P.M. William H. Williams Secretary Commission on Faculty Affairs Minutes November 22, 1991, 1:00-3:00 P.M. 400-D Burruss Hall Present: E. F. Carlisle, J. Crunkilton (for J. Buffer), D. de Wolf, J. Falkinham, L. L. Geyer, C. McDaniels, L. Richarson, C. Schwertz, R. Sorensen, W. Williams Agenda was adopted as circulated. Minutes of October 25, 1991, were approved as circulated. Proposed revision of the faculty grievance procedures: Jerry Cain's suggested changes - (1) Moved and seconded that "member of the general faculty" replace "faculty member" in line 13 of the proposed revision. Motion carried. (2) Moved and seconded that "illegal" be inserted before "discriminatory" in line 16 of the proposed revision. Motion failed. (3) Moved and seconded that "unjust allocation of University resources (e.g. space, operating funds and others)" be deleted from lines 18 and 19 of the proposed revision. Motion failed. (4) Moved and seconded that "and encroachments upon faculty responsibility with respect to enforcement of other university policies" be deleted from lines 19 and 20 of the proposed revision and that "and" be inserted before "unjust" in line 18. Motion carried. (5) Moved and seconded that "normally" NOT be deleted from line 21 of the proposed revision. Motion carried. (6) Moved and seconded that "appeal" be deleted from line 28 of the proposed revision and that line 29 be revised to read "procedures dealing with faculty disputes." Motion carried. (7) There was consensus that "grievant" and "person against whom a grievance is filed" should replace "faculty member" and "administrator" at appropriate places throughout the document as an editorial change. (8) Moved and seconded that the sentence beginning at line 195 "None of the appointees will be members of the college/administrative unit from which the grievance originated." be deleted. Motion carried. Commission on Research Resolution 90-91A - Special Research Faculty Appointments - Professor Castagnoli had to leave before CFA reached this item. Accordingly, J. Falkinham moved that the item be postponed until the next meeting or such time as Professor Castagnoli and Vice Provost Hooper can be present. The motion was seconded and passed. Reconsideration of the question of rank for part-time (administrative) faculty - It was ascertained in discussion that the Faculty Handbook, 2.1.4 (paragraph 6) allows for assignment of faculty rank to administrative faculty. Decision on whether or not to grant such rank is in the hands of the appropriate dean and the provost according to present policy. Committee on Parental Leave Policy - L. L. Geyer has recommended J. Buffer, C. McDaniels, and L. Richardson to P. Hyer for appointment to a committee on parental leave policy. The hour being late L. L. Geyer announced that proposals regarding teaching associate status will be taken up after the first of the year. It is expected that Research Commission Resolution 90-91A will be taken up at the next meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 P.M. William H. Williams Secretary Report of Commission on Student Affairs meeting of 7 November 1991 The beginning and the end of this meeting concerned the proposed system of (re)classification of student organizations. That system, presented to the CSA at its 5 September meeting, and endorsed by the Commission at that meeting, sets up three categories of student organizations. The categories are distinguished by the nature and intimacy of the relation between the organization and the university. A subcommittee was appointed to propose guidelines for the funding of the various sorts of organizations. That subcommittee submitted a report proposing changes to the classification system and a funding model, to be discussed at this meeting of CSA. In the announcements at the start of the meeting the Chair, Vice President Goodale, ruled that the submitted report was out of order on the ground that it the committee had exceeded its charge by revising the classification system, and that its recommendations failed to conform with State financial regulations. In the very last item of business the Commission returned to this matter. After substantial discussion a motion was passed rescinding the CSA's approval of the new classification system. The new system will now be considered afresh in the light of the issues raised by the search for a funding model. In between the two periods devoted to the classification system the Commission dealt with three major items. The revised constitution of the Virginia Tech Union was approved on second reading. Professors Burch-Brown and Shepard from the University Forum on Liberal Education led a wide-ranging discussion of the proposed changes to the University Core Curriculum. Many of the concerns expressed reflected the tension between the demands of technical curricula and the minimal requirements for a liberal education. The President of the Student Government Association and the Speaker of the Graduate Student Assembly solicited advice on how the SGA and GSA could really represent, in the revised governance system, all the diverse elements that they nominally represent. Harlan B. Miller Faculty Senate Reporter Report of Commission on Student Affairs meeting of 21 November 1991 At this meeting no formal business was actually conducted (we didn't even approve minutes). But a full two hours of intense dicussion took place. The first 30 or 40 minutes was devoted to announcements and discussion about the latest state budget cutback mandates. Most interesting in that connection were the plans of the (undergraduate) Student Government Association and the Graduate Student Assembly for systematic constituent letter writing to state legislatures. Most of the meeting was concerned with the (re)classification of student organizations. The discussion was sometimes complicated and sometimes quite heated. It is hoped that the Commission will be able to act on matter soon. Harlan B. Miller Faculty Senate Reporter Report of Commission on Student Affairs meeting of 5 December 1991 At the start of this meeting Barbara Pendergrass reported that Tom Goodale had received the Distinguished Service Award from the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Vice President Goodale reported on the continuing saga of budget cutback mandates and plans. Extensive discussion followed, touching on the joint SGA/GSA letter-writing initiative and liaison by those groups with other student groups across the state. The report of the ad hoc University Committee on Bicycle Concerns was circulated and discussed. The continuing issue of the (re)classification of student organizations and reorganization of funding mechanisms was brought a step nearer to closure by the reconstitution of a subcommittee to reconcile the various proposals and report back to the Commission in early February. The last matter of discussion was fan misbehavior at football games. Complaints from visitors have called attention to this continuing problem. Harlan B. Miller Faculty Senate Reporter Report of the University Computer Committee Meeting 6 Nov 91 Computing Center Announcements Several changes have been made this fall to the University's MVS batch system relating to security and disk management. These modifications required some changes to existing user programs, but most users probably didn't notice the changes. The new shield letterhead is now in production on the central mainframe printers. If you have used standard VT GML tags, no changes to your files should be necessary. Older letterhead forms are no longer available. Most of the rest of the meeting was spent with Dr. Williams responding to questions. It was asked whether it would be possible to merge the VM2 and VM1 systems. Dr. Williams responded that the systems are different because te systems run on different mainframes and that the hardware on which VM2 runs is so old that the same operating system cannot be run on both. VM2 can not be merged into VM1 because there is insufficient capacity on VM1. Responding to whether there was has been a detectable drop in the VM1 load with the increasing usage of the RS/6000 computer node, Dr. Williams said that it was too early to tell. Interest in the RS/6000 has been high. We also discussed the appropriateness of the practice of lowering a student's grade if he cannot prove that he purchased a given piece of software. Many issues regarding site licenses remain open (central procurement, enforcement and administration of licensing arrangements, commonality with library copyright issues (particularly video materials), sharing license information, etc.) and the PC Subcommittee should continue last year's investigations in this area. Jack Webster CUS Meeting of 11 November 1991 The following is a brief summary of the meeting of the Commission on Undergraduate Studies, held on Monday 11 November at 3.00 pm: This was a very brief meeting, the only one scheduled for the month of November. Owing to the absence of Provost Carlisle and Associate Provost Burch-Brown, the meeting was chaired by Vice Provost Jim Wolfe. The only item of business was the report of the Course Criteria Committee, presented by Leon Geyer substituting for John White. Two courses in Military Science and a course in Management Science were presented for second reading and unanimously approved. Two revised courses in Computer Science, together with revised checksheets for the major and the minor in Computer Science, were presented for first reading and discussion. Elizabeth Guertin expressed her concern that one of the courses, CS 1034, was being presented for approval retroactive to Fall 1991. Her concern was shared by others and duly registered. The next meeting of CUS will be held on Monday 9 December Report to Faculty Senate by John Ficenec Virginia Tech Athletic Committee Meeting November 13, 1991 Coach Bill Foster enumerated his goals for the men's basketball team. Vince Cilimberg discussed the preliminary work of the Subcommittee on Resource Allocation. He pointed out that data were collected from the Metro, Southeastern, and other conferences. A request was also made about anticipated revenues from the Big East Conference football affiliation. Tony Dziepak pointed out the subcommittee may meet with the other subcommittee on women's programs. Sue Murrmann spoke about the goals of the Subcommittee on Women's Athletic Programs. A handout was distributed and explanations provided for clarity. Chair Cassell asked for a broader interpretation; for example, should more emphasis or less emphasis be placed on certain women's sports. Tom Goodale pointed out his aegis and oversight for recreational sports and its interface with varsity athletics. Dave Braine distributed a mission statement of the Virginia Tech Athletic Department for varsity athletics. Specific goals for football are to go to post season competition every four years, and in basketball, to participate in men's and women's postseason play each year. Other goals were articulated for the non-revenue sports. Dave Braine reported on the bowl situation, the regular volleyball season, cross-country, soccer, golf, and tennis. The tennis complex is 70% complete. The baseball pressbox has not gone out to bid. A design for the soccer and track complex is under study in Richmond. Questions were raised about the use of a point system in allocating tickets with donations to the Second Century Campaign affecting ticket availability. Dave Braine pointed out that tickets are already allocated based on giving level, and that longevity in purchasing a ticket is considered. Jerry Via distributed a report on athletes majoring in university studies. Adjourned at 3:00PM Marge Murray Senate Reporter for CUS Report to Faculty Senate by John Ficenec Virginia Tech Athletic Committee Meeting December 4, 1991 Coach Stephanie Hawbecker enumerated her goals for the women's volleyball team. The Subcommittee on Resource Allocation presented its findings. A lively discussion followed. Steve Horton briefed the committee on a few of the 153 proposals that will be discussed at the upcoming NCAA Convention. Dave Braine discussed the Lane Stadium renovation review, the radio/TV/coaches-show package which is out for bids, upcoming conference meetings, and honors received by some of our football players. John Moody discussed the Virginia Tech Athletic Fund and the Second Century Campaign. After 23 months of the 36 month campaign $13.2M has been pledged. The campaign goal is $17M. Annual scholarships and capital projects are about 50% short of goal. Jeff Bourne reviewed the Virginia Tech Athletic Department Scholarship Cash Flow Projections for the current fiscal year and for the next fiscal year. Both years show deficits.
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/November+12++1991.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:40 EDT