|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveApril 14, 1992
The following minutes were officialy approved on 28 April, 1992. Faculty Senate Minutes 14 April 1992 32 Pamplin Hall I. President Leon Geyer called the Senate to order at 7:00 PM. Visitors Peggy Rasnick (Staff Senate), John Ashby (Spectrum), and representatives of student government organizations (see below) were welcomed. Roll call and announcements were held until the program was completed. II. A. Present: Bunce, Geyer, Marriott, Vinson, Webb, Wright, Howard, Wang, Ficenec, Murray, Baumbach (for Snoke), Sorrentino, Tideman, Webster, Williams, McDaniels, Brown, Crittenden, deWolf, Hasselman, Michelsen, Hardell (for Neu), Pierce, Walker, Asche, Gordon (for Jones), Barbeau, Beamish, Parsons, Beagle, Norstedt, Carrig, Eng, Saunders, Shires (alt.) B. Absent: Feret, Flick, Kerns, Poole, Barker, Falkinham, Holtzman, Hult, Miller, Olin, Simmons, Fern, Hicks, Rakes, Clowes C. New senators present: Mullins (Entomology), O'Brien (Architecture), Graham (Art/Art History), Scigaj (English), Shumsky (History), Armstrong (Electrical Engineering), Laudgraf (Engineering Science and Mechanics), Martin (Veterinary Medicine). III. Announcements A. The draft roster of the 1992/93 Senate has been distributed. Make certain the information, particularly the e-mail address, is correct. Some colleges still need to provide alternatives. B. Next meetings 1. 24 April 1992. Breakfast with President McComas, 7:30 AM, CEC Old Guard Room. Old and new senators and the faculty association presidents are invited. 2. 28 April 1992. Election meeting. Nomination forms should be returned as soon as possible. Thee elections are especially important since faculty will be chairing the commissions. C. Senate officers met with President McComas on 1 April. Among items discussed: 1. Faculty representation on the Virginia Tech Foundation Board. President McComas suggested that President Geyer meet with the chairman of the Foundation Board to discuss faculty involvement. 2. Faculty representation on the Board of Visitors. At the August meeting, selected faculty will meet with BOV subcommittees. Chairs or members of commissions probably would be the most appropriate representatives. 3. President McComas expressed concern over future legislative support for the university. SCHEV is going to do a faculty load analysis to assess faculty productivity. He stressed the need for the university to publicize the importance of research to the state. D. President Geyer attended the April Board of Visitors meeting. 1. The Board is concerned with the efficiency of management in the university, but is quite supportive of the current administration. 2. Tuition was raised, but with some reluctance. 3. Approval was given for construction of a parking garage. E. Senate officers met with the Provost on 30 March. 1. The Provost supported faculty representation on the Foundation Board but indicated he would not be an advocate. 2. He was receptive to the Senates' proposed resolution on domestic travel. 3. Regarding executive search firms, the Provost said he would go ahead with his plan to use the firm. F. President Geyer and the secretary met with the faculty association presidents on 27 March to discuss how the budget review process could be used at the college level. G. President Geyer met with Charles Forbes and other members of the administration to discuss administrative costs. Endowment accounts will be assessed by 1.5% to recover money for management, fund-raising, etc. H. An article in the 31 March Collegiate Times contained a proposal (from a CSA subcommittee) to include a question on student evaluation forms regarding the instructor's attitudes on matters of race, sex, politics, etc. While the concerns might be legitimate, such a question is open to abuse. For the time being, the faculty will work behind the scenes on this proposal. IV. Program: Student-Faculty Relations Speakers: Melissa Byrne, President, SGA Kevin Mottley, President-elect, SGA Tony Townsend, President, GSA Ken Kahn, President-elect, GSA A. Townsend thanked the Senate and the faculty in general for their support of graduate students. He hoped for greater communication on objects of joint concern, such as an additional seat for graduate students on CSA. Enumerating some of the needs of graduate students, Townsend discussed better housing, parking privileges equal to faculty/staff, reducing tuition costs for ABD students (similar to the UVa program), and a more competitive wage/benefit/insurance package. On the other hand, the inequities of Virginia Tech - particularly the financial inequities - are overshowed by the high quality of graduate education at the university. B. Byrne shared comments, both positive and negative, she had collected on students' opinions of faculty. She suggested that the university study those areas where graduate students (as opposed to faculty) are teaching undergraduates. She strongly encouraged faculty to share their research with undergraduates in their classes, which would help the students understand the faculty and the university and would improve faculty- student communications. C. Mottley pointed out some similarities between students and faculty, chiefly that, no matter what the perception, neither group has nine-to-five jobs. The students are aware that they are paying for their education, and many are considering the quality of teaching as a commodity, which can be stressful for faculty. In an effort to improve faculty stamina and endurance, Mottley challenged the Senate to a volleyball game with the SGA. Senators can get into condition over the summer. D. Kahn, backing Townsend's concerns, referred to them as "supportability" issues that could be worked through by faculty-GSA cooperation. In the coming year, the GSA will be looking at the role of graduate education at Tech, in the state, and nationally. He asked for faculty support and assistance in this endeavor. President Geyer thanked the speakers and accepted the SGA's volleyball challenge. E. Discussion. 1. Tuition, etc. Question: How does Tech's financial package for graduate students compare to those of other universities? Answer (Townsend): Because graduate students at Tech are required to pay tuition, the benefits package is about 50% of what a student would receive at "sister" schools. The tuition waivers were a great idea, but they revert back to the departments for use at the department's discretion. Most departments use the money to attract new students for the first year, but offer little to graduate students after that. He would like to see more extensive support for all grad students. Observation: The College of Architecture and Urban Studies proportions the money, giving about 10% for first-year students and reserving the rest for second- and third- year students. Question: Regarding tuition increases, how much more can undergraduates bear? Answer (Mottley): The in-state students seem to be able to handle the increases. The SGA is concerned mostly with out-of-state students who come to Tech rather than attend a similar institution in their home state; the margin of advantage is closing. SGA is stressing the quality of education at Tech in this regard. Answer (Byrne): As an out-of-state student, her tuition has increased 40% since she came to Tech. Had she known this might happen, she would not have chosen Tech. Students like herself will be continuing to work for the bond issue, taking trips to Richmond, etc., but they need the support of the faculty to keep attitudes positive. Question: Could the graduate students prioritize their concerns? There might be things on which we could work together. Answer (Townsend): The most important matter is the economic status the students will have when they leave the university. As all costs go up, the debts increase. His and his wife's combined debt will be $47,000. He is afraid this situation may lead to a lowering in the quality of graduate students. Answer (Kahn): Graduate tuition has had the highest jump. How does this affect the role of graduate education in the state? We have to work on this locally and at the state level. 2. Role of the faculty Question: In a recent column in the Roanoke Times, Gordon Davies assigned a role to faculty that differs from the perceptions of some, emphasizing the need for universities to support more applied research, as opposed to pure research. What do you think? Answer (Townsend): Given the outside pressures on higher education, this is almost inevitable. Graduate students need to be prepared for this, but current faculty cannot be expected to change overnight. There has to be a link between what the university does and what benefits the commonwealth can derive. 3. Classroom and campus climate Observation: Classrooms will be greatly improved over the next few years. This is the first time in Tech's history that money has been budgeted specifically for improvement in the classroom environment. Question: Many classrooms are marred by appalling graffiti. How does this form of communication affect the classroom climate? Answer (Byrne): Older classrooms seem to be the most abused. Perhaps the professor should remind the students not to make things worse. Question: The graffiti is not just untidy - the comments are racist, sexist, violent, homophobic. Everything we attempt to do to improve classroom climate is negated by this. Can the students get a handle on this problem? Answer (Townsend): A lack of respect for property is an historic problem with students. The other problem is the thought behind the language on the wall - this underscores the tensions existing on the campus between races, sexes, etc. Both organizations are working on efforts to identify the tensions and establishing methods for defusing them. The GSA has had little success in dealing with the problem and in bringing people together. The climate on this campus seems to be more pressurized in this area than at other schools. Answer (Byrne): All student senators were required to attend a sexual assault and rape awareness seminar. This was a successful effort that included many more students than those in SGA. On campus, however, many compare Tech to a stew, rather than a melting-pot. Observation: The new core curriculum supports courses in diversity. If every student were to take courses in black studies, women's studies, the third world, and the environment, the graffiti would disappear. Observation (Townsend): Students believe that taking courses that identify groups as "special" (without identifying their own group as special) has, in part, created the tensions. What is needed is a program to teach students the common culture of academia, including respect, courtesy, dignity, and the like. 4. Honor System Question: There's a general perception in the country that student cheating is on the increase. Is the Honor System really working? Answer (Townsend): There are separate systems for graduates and undergraduates. The system is successful in some areas, such as plagiarism, computer programs, etc. But the Honor Court is not hearing many cases brought forward, claiming a clack of physical evidence, even if the cheating is reported by several people. The GTAs have little confidence in the system. Observation (Byrne): Why do faculty not report people in blatant cheating situations? Observation: When a student was reported for plagiarizing a computer program, the Honor Court did not follow through because the program was not a significant percentage of the student's grade. When a faculty member goes through all the steps and there is no conviction in a case like this, it's hardly worth the faculty member's time. Observation (Townsend): At UVa, the system was single sanction; cheating meant expulsion. There's a different climate surrounding Tech's Honor System. UVa, however, has dropped single sanction. Observation: Greater participation in the process might clarify matters for the faculty. President Geyer reminded the Senate that there will be reports from both the graduate and undergraduate Honor Systems at the next Senate meeting. 5. Athletics Question: Is there any hope of getting the $1.00 per student portion of the activity fee diverted to recreation? Answer (Byrne): There are two issues: First, is there a need to increase recreation facilities? Second, is too much money going to athletics? Everyone agreed that there was a need for money for rec sports, and, according to the Division of Student Affairs, the money was there. It was how the money was spent that was the issue. Athletics is a separate issue. It seemed that the money for rec sports was available, but it needed to be reallocated to areas where it was needed instead of taxing the athletic portion. President Geyer thanked the student panel and Senator Barbeau who had suggested the discussion topic. V. Program: Health Care Issues Speaker: Ann Spencer, Associate Vice President for Personnel and Administrative Services Senator Ed Bunce, Chair, Employee Benefits Committee A. The Senate viewed a state-produced video, "Commonwealth of Virginia Open Enrollment 1992," that attempted to explain the new Key Advantage system. B. Spencer provided some background to the development of Key Advantage. 1. The 1991 General Assembly directed a revision of the state health care program. The objective was to reduce costs through a preferred provider plan. The Governor set up an advisory committee, with consultants, to devise a plan. There was no representation from higher education on the committee. The new plan was to be included in the budget package for 1992. The plan was presented to a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, was accepted (probably because it showed a $64 million saving), put into the budget, and passed. Most legislators did not realize the plan was included. 2. It was not until mid-March that the university began to learn details of the plan, which is to be implemented 1 July. Spencer contacted the state Department of Personnel and Training to express concerns from the university and the region but found the responses she received were rather unhelpful. She reported the concerns to President McComas and his staff. The President, in turn, took these to the Presidents' Council (a state- wide group), Minnis Ridenour took them to the state group of collegiate business officers, and a task force was formed with Ridenour as chair. [Spencer distributed a handout, "Issues Raised by College and University Committee on Health Benefits." Copies of the handout are available from the secretary.] The task force encouraged a transitional plan prior to full adoption of Key Advantage. 3. Timing is a major issue. An equally important issue is the number of physicians who have signed up for the program. In the Sourcebook list, there are only seven physicians. The state and Blue Cross, however, have assured the university that there are many more signees. The university is facing significant problems in attempting to implement the plan, and is receiving little help from the state/Blue Cross. At the last meeting she attended, she was told by the Blue Cross representative (who could provide no detailed information): "Trust me, just trust me." 4. There was a large rally in Richmond last week in opposition to the plan. Legislative action is needed to effect change. The legislature is meeting tomorrow - some action may be taken. At the minimum, we hope for delayed implementation. C. Discussion Question: What about the issue of referrals to OB/GYNs? Answer: That is one of the major issues. We are meeting with local physicians on Thursday to discuss this. Question: How does one choose a dentist or a therapist? Answer: Any dentist currently under KeyCare is automatically signed on - no referral is required. As to therapist, it is unclear if the same provision stands. Specialists are the current network of KeyCare physicians, but it is not clear if this applies to mental health specialists. It would be best if we could continue as we are now until a better implementation plan is designed. Any managed care program requires tremendous planning. This can't be done by 1 July, given that the plan was only passed last month. Enrollment is to take place in May, just when school is out and the faculty disperses. Question: In business, there is often a choice for health care. Are we locked into the state program? Answer: The state is self-insured; Blue Cross administers the program. The design of the program is up to the state. We have no option to go outside. We have discussed pursuing a separate plan for higher education as a long-term objective. Observation: This plan and KeyCare pays the doctors less less than Medicare. It's shocking that we are being subsidized by the poor and unemployed. Question: Doe the primary care physician dictate your specialists? Answer: The plan is to have each patient's care managed by one physician. Each individual will work with the primary care physician to ensure continued care by the specialist of choice. But doctors also have major problems with the plan. We are caught in the ongoing battle between the insurance carriers and the doctors. Observation: If your primary care physician believes the best specialist for you is at Duke, you'll have to pay. My freedom of choice, and my doctor's freedom of choice is being eroded. This is unacceptable. Question: How are weekend emergencies to be handled? What about children and other dependents who are away? Answer: The problem of family members living away is on the list of concerns, along with the problem of out-of-state employees. We have been told that these people can designate a primary care physician in that area. Also, the primary care physician can be changed once a month. Emergency care is covered. Observation: According to personnel in a local physician's office, an office visit to the primary care provider in order to get referred would be required. This would double the paperwork. Spencer: We are all experiencing inconsistency in information. Even the Sourcebook does not provide enough. Question: Great power is being given to the referring physician. Convenient arrangements, possibly financial, could be made. Has thought been given to this? Answer: One of the concerns listed is the quality of care that might result from the system. Question: Many people have ongoing medical conditions. Do they always have to be referred by the PCP? Answer: That's what we've been told. We are suggesting grandfathering of pregnancies and preexisting conditions. Question: How will this save the state $64 million? Observation: No one has really explained this. Answer: One of the savings (we've been told) is that the Basic Plan will no longer be offered. The mental portion of Basic was very costly. We are unclear as to how this will be covered in the new plan. Question: Is there any incentive for doctors to sign up? Answer: It's more of a disincentive. If no doctors sign, Blue Cross designates the doctors. These doctors get full reimbursement. Question: Are there major changes in coverage or benefits? Answer: The benefits are similar to KeyCare, so long as you stay in the network. If you go outside the network, the penalty is 25% of the allowable charge. Question: How does the new plan work with major medical? Answer: There is still major medical as a part of the plan. President Geyer thanked Ms. Spencer for sharing her views and concerns so openly with the Senate. VI. Adoption of agenda The agenda was adopted with the addition of two items: Faculty-legislator hospitality and a resolution on health care. VII. Approval of minutes A. Senate Cabinet minutes of 3 April 1992 were accepted. B. Senate minutes of 17 March 1992 were approved with a clarification. VIII. Council, Commissions, and Committees A. Commission on Undergraduate Studies (Senator Murray) 1. The meeting of 23 March continued the discussion of W. Winstead's proposal to have a moratorium on academic policy changes. 2. At the meeting of 13 April, Joyce Williams-Greene presented the report of the Retention Committee, which generated much discussion. The proposed calendar for 1993/94 was also considered. The calendar published in Spectrum is most likely to be implemented. B. Commission on Faculty Affairs (Senator Murray) The proposal on instructors, discussed at the last Senate meeting, passed the CFA and will go to University Council on Monday. The initial employment will be for one year; subsequent employment will be for either one or two years. There are explicit provisions for notification of non-reappointment. Both the Provost and the legal counsel considered that the proposal would not give rise to claims of de facto tenure and that the university needed to give strong support to the instructorate. The proposal does not require a department to follow the policy; departments may continue to hire part-time instructors. IX. Unfinished business: Resolution on Support for Domestic Travel, Senate Resolution 1991-1992A (appended to 14 April agenda, with minor language changes). (Senator McDaniels) The motion was made and seconded to take the resolution off the table. Discussion centered on clarifying who would be eligible for the grants, the number of people who might be included (probably between 150-250), the amount of the awards, the geographic area covered. Senator McDaniels accepted two changes: to change the range from "$500-$1000" to "less than $1000," and to drop "continental" from "continental USA." An amendment specifying eligibility, "untenured tenure track or continuing appointment track faculty who have been at Virginia Tech less than five years," was approved, 21-7. The resolution as amended passed unanimously. A copy of the resolution is appended to thee minutes. X. New business A. Election of officers (Senator Eng) 1. Nominations: President - Leon Geyer Vice President - David deWolf Secretary - Marilyn Norstedt There were no further nominations from the floor. 2. The slate as presented was elected. B. Faculty-legislator hospitality (President Geyer) Former Senator Hillison attended the spring Alumni Association meeting on behalf of the Senate. He reported to President Geyer that, for the Commonwealth Day football game (Tech vs. UVa), the Norfolk and Southern is running a special train from Norfolk to bring members of the state legislature to the game. A concern is the lack of lodging in Blacksburg. A possible alternative would be to have legislators stay in faculty members' homes, which could be good PR for the university if handled well. Would the Senate be interested? After discussion - some wondered what railway station in Blacksburg would be used, others asked it the hosts might get complimentary game tickets - there was a consensus that the idea was worth pursuing. A straw vote showed approval. C. Resolution on health care (Senator Bunce) 1. Prior to the presentation of the resolution, Senator Tideman responded to Senator Bunce's request that someone defend the Key Advantage proposal: Perhaps the intent of the program is to stop people from "wasting" health care resources because they cost so little. They are unconcerned about medical resources. The state has decided that the way to better manage these resources is to have a "gate-keeper," either the PCP or the 800 number. The program is flawed, but it deserves attention. Senator Bunce pointed out that it has never been explained how the money will be saved. 2. After further discussion, Senator Bunce presented the following resolution: Whereas the primary benefit of a health-care insurance program is to protect the enrollee from bearing personally the cost of catastrophic diagnostic and treatment procedures, and whereas the Key Advantage health-care plan will limit the choice of both primary care and specialist physicians unless state employees are willing to pay a significant proportion of medical costs, it follows that the Key Advantage health-care program will represent a significant erosion of our present benefits program since state employees will either have to accept the services of enrolled physicians only or pay a potentially severe financial penalty, therefore be it resolved that the Faculty Senate of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University finds the Key Advantage health-care program to be unsatisfactory as a sole program and therefore requests that the Department of Personnel and Training offer Key Advantage as an option to the current programs rather than as the single mandatory health-care program. Senator Bunce moved acceptance of the resolution. The motion was seconded. 3. Discussion centered on options and implementation. Perhaps specific options should be made. Should options be tied to cost considerations? This would be difficult, considering the constantly developing medical procedures. Could we ask that the university be free to look elsewhere for an option while details are being worked out? The resolution does not address the problem of implementation procedures, even if we have options. 4. Senator Shumsky suggested two additional clauses: a. Following paragraph two, insert: and whereas adequate procedures have not been developed for the implementation of the Key Advantage health-care plan, b. Add to the final paragraph: and that implementation of the Key Advantage plan be delayed for one year. 5. Senator Bunce said he was in contact Joan Munford's office and would see that the resolution, if passed, would be phoned or faxed to her in the morning. Senator Williams moved the Shumsky amendment, which was seconded. Discussion centered on whether implementation should be included and whether the option was a reasonable way to go. The amendment presupposes the option. 6. By voice vote, the amendment was defeated. The original motion, to pass the resolution as it stands, passed unanimously to Senate applause. XI. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM. Respectfully submitted, Marilyn L. Norstedt, Secretary - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Resolution on Support for Domestic Travel, Senate Resolution 1991-1992 A: Whereas, the funds available for new faculty to travel to professional conferences in the last 3-5 years has been severely restricted just when these new faculty need to be establishing themselves by presenting papers and teaming up with colleagues at other research universities, Whereas, there are very limited funds available for travel either in Virginia or in the USA, Whereas, at the start of their careers new faculty especially need to establish themselves professionally in order to earn tenure and promotion at Virginia Tech, Whereas, the Faculty Senate is particularly concerned about providing the most favorable climate possible in order that junior faculty members can succeed here at Virginia Tech, and Whereas, the University has a supplemental grants program to support faculty presentations at international conferences and enhance the reputation of the University, Now, therefore be it resolved by the Faculty Senate, that the Faculty Senate President be instructed to ask the Provost to continue to request $125,000 for supplemental grants for international travel and to include a new $125,000 for supplemental grants for domestic travel for untenured tenure track or continuing appointment track faculty who have been at Virginia Tech less than five years, And be it further resolved, that these grants would be less than $1,000 for a faculty member presenting an accepted paper or presentation at a state or national meeting in the USA. Passed by the Faculty Senate 14 April 1992
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/1992/April+14++1992.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:41 EDT