University Libraries Logo University Archives of Virginia Tech

Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes Archive

October 8, 1991


            Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University

                             Faculty Senate



                          8 October 1991

                         32 Pamplin Hall



  1. Call to Order and Welcome Visitors:

          John Ashby (Spectrum), Madelaine Rosenberg (Roanoke Times),

          Peggy Rasnick (Staff Senate), Vicky Ingraham, Ken Shaw,

          Steve Cochran and Holtzman (B'burg High School).


  2. Announcements:

     (1) Faculty Senate Officers had a cordial meeting with Secretary

          of Education Dyke, September 23. The Secretary emphasized

          maintaining an open dialogue with faculty. He announced

          that a meeting for faculty and administrators on "The

          Future Direction of the Faculty in Virginia" will be held

          in Richmond on October 29th.

     (2) Faculty Senate Officers met with the Provost; personnel matters

          were discussed.

     (3) Faculty Senate Dues: $ 5.00

     (4) The forum on the Honor System will be held, October 17

          3:30 - 5:00 PM 211 Norris.


  3. Program:


     (1)  Forum: Candidates for Virginia General Assembly

          Madison Marye: Candidate, 39th Senatorial District

          Joan Munford: Candidate, 12th House of Delegates District

          Al Leighton: Candidate, 12th House of Delegates District


  4. Roll Call


  5. Adoption of Agenda


  6. Minutes

     The Faculty Senate Minutes of September 10th were approved

     The Faculty Senate Cabinet Minutes of September 27th were approved


  7. Reports

     (a) All reports should be sent via E-mail to Senate @ VTVM1 the

              Friday before the next Senate meeting to be included in

              the Minutes.

     (b) University Council (Senator Geyer):

          First Reading of the Faculty Grievance Policy

          The President will report on Foundation charges

     (c) Benefits (Bunce): A coordinator for the Wellness Program will

          be hired (1 Jan 92)

     (d) Senator Snoke reported that graduate students are dissatisfied

          withe the health insurance plan, especially the requirement for

          one lump sum payment, poor communication with Blue Cross/Blue

          Shield and slow repayment of claims.

     (e) Research (Olin): Big cuts are facing the Research Division and

          there may be changes in overhead charges to reflect effective

          recovery rates

     (f) Senator Snoke reported that he reason to believe that the

          University was not monitoring the Federal Register to gain

          information concerning research and note of Virginia Tech



   8. Unfinished Business


      (a) Geographic Transfer: President Hillison reported on three

          questions: (1) VPI & SU policy dated 1 Dec 90 was based on

          State Policy, (2) reimbursement rates of 9 cents/mi and

          $ 7,500. maximum per move were correct and (3) salary raises

          for staff moving from low to high cost of living areas are

          not yet policy and controversial.


  9.  New Business: none


  10.  Adjournment



                        Commission on Extension



        The Commission on Extension met on October 1, 1991.  Charles

  Steger discussed the possibility of raising funds to recognize in-

  ductees in the newly formed Academy for Public Service Excellence.

  The updated statement on the role of the Commission was discussed

  and approved.  The Commission voted to table the resolution on the

  proposed Professional Practices Institute until further strategy

  for this organization is provided.  The need for a Committee on

  External Relations was revisited and it was decided that this com-

  mittee can supplement the marketing plan for the University while

  serving as a committee of the Commission.


        A resolution to change the name of the Commission on Extension

  to the Commission on Extension and Public Service was passed.

  Bonnie Braun provided an update on the new extension organization.

  Future agenda items and speakers were discussed prior to Ned Lester

  providing a summary of activities of the Donaldson Brown Center for

  Continuing Education.



                                 N.G. Marriott





              Commission on Faculty Affairs


              October 4, 1991, 400D Burruss


  Present:  M. Arnegard, J. Buffer, E. F. Carlisle, D. de Wolf, J.

  Falkinham,  L. L. Geyer, P. Hyer, C. McDaniels, L. Richardson,

  R.  Sorensen, W. Williams


  Agenda  was adopted as circulated.


  Minutes of April 12, 1991, were approved as circulated.


  Procedures for an Approved Faculty Search - The Provost stated that the

  proposed procedures are part of the faculty diversity plan ("An

  Affirmative Commitment to Faculty Diversity", September, 1991), designed

  to make explicit affirmative action goals of the University and to

  specify procedures for reporting what the University is required to

  report.  Discussion of the proposed procedures focused chiefly on

  whether they give to the EO/AA office too intrusive a rule in faculty

  recruitment procedures. Given wide agreement that the proposed

  procedures should undergo further revision, the matter was referred to

  D. de Wolf's subcommittee, already appointed to pursue this issue. Dean

  Sorensen, and the University Attorney, will join D. de wolf, C.

  Schwertz, and P. Hyer as members of the subcommittee.


  Racial Harassment Procedures - Possible, unwarranted impingement on

  tenure review of allegations of findings of racial (and other

  specifically proscribed forms of) harassment or discrimination was

  discussed, together with questions concerning existing procedures for

  dealing wiht harassment complaints.  Note was taken of the absence in

  the Faculty Handbook (and elsewhere) of comprehensive, generic

  procedures.  The existing subcommittee consisting of W. Williams, J.

  Buffer, M. Arnegard, and P. Hyer was directed to frame general

  procedures on the model of the current Sexual Harassment Policy. C.F.A.

  also directed the subcommittee to consider further the question whether

  allegations or findings of harassment should figure in tenure review.


  The hour being late, the remainder of the agenda was postponed until the

  next meeting of C.F.A., October 25, 1:00-3:00 P.M.  First item on the

  agenda for that meeting will be the question of academic rank for

  part-time faculty.


  Meeting adjourned at 3:00 P.M.


                                William H. Williams






  Report of Commission on Student Affairs

  meeting of 5 September 1991


  The first CSA meeting of the year was mainly devoted to routine

  matters.  Of interest among the announcement were the status of a

  number of student-related capital projects.  The rebuilding of Squires

  is not quite finished, causing a certain amount of inconvenience.  The

  renovation of Owens Dining Hall will not be complete until November.

  Some students are being fed in tents.  Authority to issue revenue bonds

  for the proposed Physical Fitness Center has so far been denied by

  Richmond.  Representatives of the state legislative and executive

  branches will be here soon to discuss the project.


  A new system of classification of student organizations was passed on

  second reading.  Student organizations are to be sorted into three

  categories. University Student Life Programs such as the Corps of

  Cadets and the Honor Systems are closely tied to, and at least partially

  controlled by, university employees.  University Chartered Student

  Organizations, such as the Student Government Association and the

  Residence Hall Federation, are not controlled by the University but are

  authorized to act as agents for the University in specified areas or

  otherwise given special recognition.  The third category, Registered

  Student Organizations, includes everything else (Agronomy Club, Frisbee

  Club, etc.).  In this last category the organization need only register

  with the University, it need not seek approval.  This reclassification

  is another major stretching of the short leash on which student

  organizations were kept until a few years ago.


                       Harlan B. Miller

                       Faculty Senate Reporter



  Report of Commission on Student Affairs

  meeting of 19 September 1991


  At the second CSA meeting of the year the primary substantial matter of

  business was the passage, on second reading, of the revised constitute

  of the Graduate Student Assembly.


  There was extensive discussion of health coverage problems for students,

  especially graduate students.  There was also a report of continuing

  negotiations with the state government about issuance of bonds for the

  proposed physical fitness center.


                       Harlan B. Miller

                       Faculty Senate Reporter




  Report of Commission on Student Affairs

  meeting of 3 October 1991


  Almost no official business was conducted at the third CSA meeting of the

  year, but a very wide range of issues was discussed.  There were reports

  on the regional meeting of the Governor's Task Force on Substance Abuse,

  on the upcoming visit of the first Al Payne Lecturer, the October 8

  teleconference on the Greek system, and the Administrative Review of

  facilities issues, in which students were invited to participate.


  Fred Mead, Director of the Corporate Research Center, made a presentation

  on the Center.


  Three items that provoked very extensive discussion were continuing

  concerns about the cost of student health insurance, alcohol abuse in

  the community (as exemplified in the death of a student by alcohol

  poisoning), and arrangements for security at large social events.  The

  security issue came to the fore as a result of the Vice President for

  Student Affairs' decision to cancel two planned events for the weekend

  of October 4-6.  Both events were sponsored by predominantly African-

  American student groups, and the VPSA feared that security arrangements

  were inadequate to guarantee exclusion of the nonstudents responsible

  for the disturbance (and gunfire) last weekend at Radford University

  (itself a replay of events on our campus a year ago).


                       Harlan B. Miller

                       Faculty Senate Reporter




                                     VPI & SU




  The Intellectual Properties Committee met in 334 Burruss Hall on

  September 12, 1991.  The following were present:  Tom Bell, Tom

  Head, Ernie Stout, Joe Falkingham, Gary Hooper, Walter Butke, Ray

  Smoot, Glen McMullen, E.T. Kornegay, Bill Barbeau and Justice



  Dr. Stout called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m.  The minutes,

  upon a motion by Joe Falkingham and a second by Tom Bell, were

  approved as distributed.  Dr. Hooper noted that the 1st annual

  patent awards luncheon is scheduled for Friday, September 13,

  1991.  The following disclosures were discussed:




          By:  Kenneth D. Tucker

               Tracy D. Wilkins


          Disclosure is a refinement and improvement over currently

          patented proceses; this new method is safer for techni-

          cians and increases shelf-life of the product; University

          owned; assign to VTIP, Inc.





          By:  Thomas Hudlicky

               Eric Boros

               Christie Boros


          This technology, a morphine derivative, has license

          potential; the company Mallinkrodt is sponsoring an

          unrestricted grant to VPI for further research; results

          of the research will be licensed to them; University

          owned; assigned to VTIP, Inc.






          By:  Balraj Singh

               James R. Armstrong


          Software program which may have some commercial interest;

          University owned; assigned to VTIP, Inc.




          By:  Uri Vandsburger

               Phillip H. Paul

               Seshu B. Desu


          University owned; assign to VTIP, Inc.  One inventor at

          Sandia Labs, whose Technology Transfer Office will be







          By:  Philip E.J. Jones

               Daniel L. Gallagher


          Software, with licensing potential to WATER; University

          owned; assign to VTIP, Inc.


  Joe Falkingham moved that disclosures 91-045 through 91-049 be

  identified as University owned and assigned to VTIP, Inc; Ernie

  Stout seconded, the motion passed.


  Dr Hooper noted that the revised Intellectual Property Policy has

  been approved by the Commission on Research and is ready to be

  submitted to University Council.  Dr. Hooper reminded the commit-

  tee that when the new policy goes into effect, there will be a

  small group of members to determine ownership and a larger group

  of members to evaluate the disclosures.  A copy of the revised

  policy will be sent to each member along with this meeting's



  A request for a change in meeting times will be considered.


  There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at

  2.36 p.m.






  Past President L. Eng's Address to the Faculty Senate,

  September 10, 1991


       Mr. President and other officers, fellow Senators, and

  guests.  I am pleased to have this opportunity to address the

  Faculty Senate.


       In the Chinese calendar, this is the year 4628.  For well

  over 4 millenia, a civilization developed in China that was,

  until very recently, unequaled in the achievements of the arts

  and sciences.  For a society to have survived so long, it has had

  a history of long stretches of stability, punctuated occasionally

  with briefer periods of change, turmoil and even chaos.  Life was

  relatively peaceful and productive during the long stretches, but

  tumultuous and stressful during the short ones.  These times of

  stress and instability came to be viewed unfavorably.  Tradition

  and stability came to be prized.  Change and tumult came to be

  feared and avoided.  Indeed, to wish change upon a person became

  equivalent to wishing evil upon them, and to this day, to say

  "May you live in interesting times!" is not regarded as a



       This past year has been "interesting times" indeed!

  Certainly we have had more than our share of ill fortune, with

  first a budget reversion at the end of the last fiscal year, and

  then what seemed like unending rounds of devastating permanent

  budget reductions in the current one, continuing into the future.


       A more recent view of tumultuous times holds that they can

  be times of challenge and perhaps even opportunity.  While

  opportunities seem to have been slim this year, challenges have

  abounded.  I am pleased to observe that this university has

  responded very positively to challenges that were severe, to say

  the least.


       One of the first things to happen when we faced our first

  budgetary crisis was the Faculty Senate's request to President

  McComas for faculty participation in decisions regarding

  implementation of budget reversions and reductions.  Dr. McComas

  promptly named an Ad Hoc Budget Advisory Committee which included

  faculty, staff, and students as well as administrators.  This

  committee has evolved into the Ad Hoc Budget Advisory and

  Planning Committee, and it has been incorporated as a standing

  committee into the proposed revision of the University Council

  Constitution.  Having served in an ex officio capacity on this

  committee, I have been impressed with the open and sincere

  discussion of sensitive issues which have taken place there, and

  also by the responsible manner in which all members of the

  committee have sought the good of the university.


       Related to budget reductions, the Faculty Senate co-

  sponsored and supported the Virginia Tech Employees Fund,

  established to financially help university employees who lost

  their jobs due to budget reductions.  As of May 1991, the fund

  has collected $12,984 and disbursed $7,684.44 on behalf of former

  employees in need.


       While budget has been on the minds of all of us, it has not

  prevented us from moving ahead on a number of fronts towards

  improving the university wherever possible.  The university

  continued with development of a 5-year plan which was adopted by

  this Board at the April 29 meeting.  Throughout the year, the

  faculty were involved in making suggestions to improve the plan

  through several drafts.  The Faculty Senate played an important

  role as a forum for debate not only on how issues would be

  presented, but also what issues would be in the plan at all.


       Faculty input into the plan also came via the Council of

  Faculty Association Presidents.  This group, whose creation was

  indicated in the May 1987 Faculty Senate report to the BOV, had

  been relatively moribund.  It was rejuvenated this year upon the

  initiative of the Faculty Senate and has been very active in

  communicating among the faculty leaderships of the various

  colleges, library and extension, and serving as a liaison between

  those faculty groups and the administration.  This past year,

  when budgetary guidelines from Richmond seemed to change

  constantly, multiple channels of free and open communication were

  essential to dispelling unfounded rumors and sustaining what

  remained of faculty morale.


       The Faculty Senate was deeply involved in the recent

  rewriting of the university's policy on sexual harassment.  Also

  rewritten this year were the policies and procedures of the

  Faculty Review Committee.  Both of these revisions resulted in

  vastly improved policies in their respective arenas which carried

  with them the participation and endorsement of the Senate, and

  thus acceptance by the faculty.


       As has been alluded to earlier, the University Council

  recently revised its constitution.  This revised constitution

  still requires formal endorsement of the Faculty Senate.  Because

  of a lot of hard work by the members of the constitution task

  force, including faculty appointed by the Senate, we are on the

  verge of a much improved system of univeristy governance than the

  previous system (which has stood us in good stead for many many

  years).  It is probably not perfect in the eyes of anyone at the

  university.  I don't know that a perfect system exists.  I am

  however absolutely convinced that it is the best that can be

  agreed upon by all the universities constituencies, and I know it

  is a lot more, from a faculty members point of view, than I would

  have dreamed possible a couple of years ago.  I will therefore

  urge its ratification with a minimum of delay.  One of the

  consequences arising out of the new constitution would be a much

  increased involvement of staff in all areas of university

  governance, a development which we in the Faculty Senate

  encouraged.  Also, faculty would have new and greater

  responsibilities, as most of the commissions and committees would

  be chaired by non-administrative faculty.  The new Council

  constitution will necessitate yet another revision of the Faculty

  Senate constitution, which we just revise after great effort just

  last year.  It will, however, be well worth the effort.


       The Faculty Senate hosted a meeting in February between Tech

  faculty and State Secretary of Education James W. Dyke, Jr.  This

  resulted in a good, frank exchange of views that was informative

  and beneficial to both sides.  Later, we organized a meeting in

  late April with Secretary Dyke, Deputy Secretary Karen Petersen

  and SCHEV Director Gordon Davies together with the faculty

  leaderships from the senior state institutions across the

  commonwealth.  At that meeting, we initiated what I hope will be

  an ongoing series of dialogues and discussions among the state's

  faculties, as well as interactions with the administration in




       In addition to these major activities, the Senate has also

  continued, in cooperation with students, staff and

  administrators, with the everyday governing of the University.

  This has been somewhat less glamorous, if indeed anything the

  Senate does can be said to have glamour about it, but it lies at

  the core of what shared governance is all about.  It is that

  work, day in and day out, which in the end is the most important

  activity of the Faculty Senate.


       In that regard, I have had a rare and privileged experience

  this past year in serving as Senate President and working with

  groups as diverse as SGA, CSAC, the Alumni Association, the

  administration, and the Board of Visitors.  Throughout all of

  these interactions I have been struck and impressed by the

  genuine interest and depth of feeling of all of these people in

  the welfare of the university.


       I know that, as faculty members, you consider this to be

  your university.  Likewise, the student body considers Virginia

  Tech to be their university.  The 114,000 or so of the loyal sons

  and daughters of VPI consider this to be their university.

  Historically, the administration has sometimes been accused of

  acting as if it were their university.  And, I am pleased to note

  that, increasingly, the staff are coming to think of this place

  as their university.  While the case can be made for the role of

  faculty as sine qua non, we must come to realize that the

  university does belong to all of us - and it is only through the

  efforts of all of us working together that any of us can succeed

  in this enterprise that we call the University.


       I appreciate the opportunity for service which the Senate

  conferred upon me last year.  Even more, I grateful for the

  outstanding job which Senators Hillison and Geyer performed as

  Vice-President and Secretary last year.  The lions share of

  credit for anything that we accomplished last year must go to

  them.  Most of all, perhaps, I am glad that the Senate leadership

  is in such good hands this year, and that those hands are not



       Thank you.




  VPI Facilities Board - no report


  VTIP Board - meeting on July 31 was routine.  Some minor changes to

  bylaws and articles of incorporation to reflect changed personel

  titles at the university; work on revising the mission statement

  and a statement of goals and objectives.


  Commencement Committee:  see email received 9/9/91 as appended



  TO:     L. Eng, Vet Med    cvmlae@vm2

  FROM:   Charles A. Kennedy  Religion@vm2

  RE:     Commencement


  For the Faculty Senate meeting of 9/10/91, you may wish to report

  on commencement matters as the Faculty Marshal for this year.

  John Hillison, as president of the Senate, will join the stage

  party for these ceremonies.


  Fall Commencement will be held on Saturday, December 15, 1991, in

  Burruss Hall Auditorium as it was last year unless the anticipated

  number of seniors graduating exceeds last year's number (400). The

  Spring Commencement will be held on May 9, 1992, with Graduate and

  VetMed ceremonies the night before in Cassell (unless the new space

  in Squires is more appealing for one of these).


  With the improved behavior of the students at graduation, it is

  hoped that more faculty will take part in the May ceremony.  The

  number of champagne corks flying has diminished markedly in the

  past two years and the new seating arrangements have relocated the

  faculty out of the line of fire. Please encourage faculty to plan

  to attend.







                          4 September 1991


    Computing Center Announcements:


         1. SSI Mail has been released. This software will

         provide a mail facility for PC's without requiring a

         mainframe userid.


         2. The TELNET server is in full production, providing

         an interface between CBX and Internet to allow a termi-

         nal to establish an Internet session. Access to Inter-

         net is becoming more and more useful as services are



         3. A PC-based, online University calendar system is

         now available, with a news facility to be added soon.

         Software to access the system resides on the user's PC,

         and no mainframe userid is required. The system is

         oriented toward meeting student information needs, in-

         cluding items such as athletic events and information

         from student advising and placement services.  An-

         nouncements are installed by individual departments,

         who are responsible for the accuracy of their informa-

         tion. This service is expected to grow substantially

         as it gains momentum, providing not only a valuable

         service to students, but also cutting down on printed

         matter circulating on campus.


         4. The first version of the computerized directory is

         in production. Directory information is available on

         VM via the PHONEDIR command. Provision of service via

         PC's is also planned. Virginia Tech directory informa-

         tion is available to many other Internet users.


         5. The Center has proposed that the University include

         replacing the 3084 mainframe as part of its request

         for special funding initiatives to be considered during

         the next legislative session.


         6. Computer Purchasing, a new department in the Com-

         puting Center, is responsible for managing all

         computer-related University purchases. This department

         will provide help to departments that request advice or

         information on choosing hardware and software.


         7. The Center expects to move to printing the new Uni-

         versity letterhead on its 3800 printer this fall. The

         old and new letterhead styles are expected to be avail-

         able for about a week with a fixed schedule for print-

         ing each style. The 3800 will then move permanently to

         printing only the new letterhead. Office 3812 printers

         will need pre-printed letterhead paper since using the

         printer to produce each letterhead page would be very



    A draft of the 1990-91 Annual Report was distributed. This

    report will be submitted to University Council.


    Drafts of last year's vision statement have been returned to

    the Computer, Communications, and Library committees for

    further consideration.


    The PC Subcommittee met with VPI facilities to discuss site

    license policy for PC software. A follow-up meeting with

    the Provost was held to explore possibilities.



                                            Jack Webster




   Here is a brief summary of the 23 September meeting of the

   Commission on Undergraduate Studies:


   Provost Carlisle opened this first CUS meeting of the year

   by mentioning two major agenda items for the months ahead.

   First, the recommendations of the University Forum on Liberal

   Education (UFLE), which has completed its review of the Core

   Curriculum, will enter the governance system via CUS, probably

   in November.  Next, CUS will undertake a general review of

   the University's admissions policies; the last such review

   was completed in April of 1986 and its recommendations went

   into effect in Autumn of 1988.  Among the items open for

   consideration in the review process will be the so-called

   Special Admissions policy.


   In addition to these major items of concern, the Provost suggested

   that CUS undertake a review of the policy on dropping courses

   (with specific emphasis on determining the most appropriate point

   in the semester for the drop deadline), and a review of the issue

   of whether Virginia Tech should adopt an attendance policy.


   As is routinely done at every CUS meeting, the Course Criteria

   committee presented a slate of new and revised courses, programs,

   and options, for first reading.  CUS voted to waive first reading

   and moved directly to approve the renaming of several BME (Biomedical

   Engineering) courses to reflect the fact that they are henceforth

   to be affiliated with ESM (Engineering Science and Mechanics).  This

   was done so that the correct course designations can appear in the

   1992-93 Undergraduate Catalog.  For up-to-date information on the

   business of the Course Criteria committee, please contact John

   White, who has recently replaced Mary Ann Lewis as committee chair.


   Carol Burch-Brown, Associate Provost for Undergraduate Programs,

   made a brief presentation on the status of the UFLE report.  Members

   of the Forum will attend the 14 October meeting of CUS to discuss

   the proposal in detail.  At this stage they want to solicit comments

   and responses to the report prior to submitting their recommendations

   in the form of a proposal to the governance system.  Two concerns

   were raised by CUS members: first, how will the assignment of

   courses to the new core be implemented if/when the report of UFLE

   is accepted? Second, how will the UFLE recommendations impact those

   university programs which are subject to accreditation agency requirements?

   Contingent upon a successful passage through the governance system, initial

   implementation of UFLE recommendations could come as early as Autumn of



   David Bousquet and Wanda Dean reported that Fall enrollment is up slightly

   this year.  Wanda Dean reported that the new Academic Eligibility Policy

   is already having an impact on Fall enrollments.   A total of 576 students

   on academic probation chose to take the option of enrolling in Fall rather

   than Summer in an attempt to meet eligibility guidelines.  The increase

   in enrollment is not due entirely to the new policy, however, as enrollment

   figures appear to be up across the board.


   Margaret Murray

  CUS Minutes of 23 Sept. 1991


  Commission on Graduate Studies Report to Faculty Senate


  The CGS met twice so far this year: on 20 September and 2 October.



   Here is my paragraph.


   Senator Arthur Snoke gave a preliminary report on the analysis of the

   Senate Faculty Support Survey carried out at the end of Fall Semester

   1991.  He noted, based on the "Comment" sheets accompanying the form,

   that there were ambiguities in some questions and, possible

   deficiencies in the survey. For example, several extension faculty

   wrote that they felt disfranchised by at least the language of the

   questions (as not being relevant to their mission), and the wording of

   the questions regarding sources of funds were felt by many to be

   ambiguous in that those respondents were expected (in engineering, for

   example) to raise money themselves for things rather than expecting to

   get money from the department/college/university. An interesting, but

   preliminary, result from the analysis is that if one compares responses

   to the set of questions pertaining to support for research to those

   pertaining to support for teaching, the faculty as a whole are

   significantly more dissatisfied with the research support they are

   getting.  It is Snoke's goal to present a report to the Senate before

   the end of the semester.



  The major topic at both meetings was the establishment of priorities for

  the year.  Members "voted", and the top 3 priority items had to do with

  GTA training; definition/duties of GTA's, GRA's, GA's; and continuous

  enrollment.  A vocal minority pushed for discussing the support

  "package" given to graduate students with respect to specific items like

  health insurance (options available and whether or not it should be

  required for all students, not just international students)

  and the general question of how competitive our offers

  are compared to other institutions.


  A couple of announcements of possible interest involve the total

  enrollments: 23,912 total students on campus including 4,297 graduate

  students.  The total number is up by about 150 from last year.  Also,

  there are in fact fewer full time classrooms now than

  in the past -- 160 now compared to 217 several years back.



Current Virginia Tech Governance Minutes Archive

Return to Virginia Tech Governance Minutes Archive

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

Send questions or comments to:

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

Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:40 EDT