University Libraries Logo University Archives of Virginia Tech

Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes Archive

November 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.

 

 

 

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/November+12++1991.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:40 EDT