|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveOctober 8, 1991
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University Faculty Senate Minutes 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 activities. 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 Minutes 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 Secretary 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 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES COMMITTEE VPI & SU Minutes 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 McCormick. 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: 91-045 USE OF POIKILOTHERM CELL LINES FOR THE DETECTION OF CLOSTRIDIUM DIFFICILE CYTOTOXIN 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. 91-046 A MODEL STUDY DIRECTED TOWARDS A PRACTICAL ENANTIOSELECT- IVE TOTAL SYNTHESIS OF (-) MORPHINE 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. 91-047 THE MODELOR'S ASSISTANT: AN INTERACTIVE, X WINDOWS BASED TOOL FOR VHDL BEHAVIORAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT, WHICH RUNS ON A UNIX BASED WORKSTATION. By: Balraj Singh James R. Armstrong Software program which may have some commercial interest; University owned; assigned to VTIP, Inc. 91-048 OPTICAL MULTI-LAYER HEAT FLUX GAGE 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 contacted. 91-049 TRAK: A COMPUTER MODEL FOR TRACKING WATERBORN CONSTITU- ENTS IN DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS. 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 minutes. 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 benediction. 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 Richmond. 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 mine. 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 below 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. REPORT OF UNIVERSITY COMPUTER COMMITTEE MEETING 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 added. 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 slow. 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 1992. 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.
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/October+8++1991.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:40 EDT