|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveApril 28, 1992
The following minutes were officially approved on 9/22/92. Faculty Senate Minutes 28 April 1992 32 Pamplin Hall I. President Leon Geyer called the Senate to order at 7:00 PM. Visitors Martha Johnson (Assistant Dean of the Graduate School), Peggy Rasnick (Staff Senate), and John Ashby (Spectrum) were welcomed. Visitors were later joined by Janine Hiller (Honor System Review Board) and Patrick Scanlon (former Senate President). II. Roll Call Present: Bunce, Feret, Flick, Geyer, Marriott, Mullins, Vinson, Webb, Wright, Howard, O'Brien, Falkinham, Ficenec, Holtzman, Hult, Miller, Murray, Olin, Shumsky, Simmons, Snoke, Tideman, Webster, Williams, Fern, Rakes, Sumichrast, Clowes, McDaniels, Armstrong, Crittenden, deWolf, Hardell, Hasselman, Landgraf, Michelsen, Pierce, Ascke, Jones, Barbeau, Norstedt, Beagle, Carrig, Eng. Absent: Foy, Kerns, Poole, Wang, Barker, Graham, Landen, Scigaj, Sorrentino, Hicks, Sherman, Brown, Neu, Walker, Beamish, Parsons, Martin, Saunders III. Announcements A. President Geyer announced that this is a combined meeting of the old and new Senate. All senators can vote. B. The President welcomes suggestions for programs for next year. He can be reached at 1-4528 or online at GEYER@ VTVM1. The Senate Cabinet will meet during the summer. C. There will be no Senate retreat this spring. Instead, the Senate will hold an "advance" in the fall. D. President Geyer recognized the service of the outgoing senators, who received a round of applause from their colleagues. IV. Program: Report of the Graduate and Undergraduate Honor Boards A. Martha Johnson (Graduate Honor System) 1. Dean Johnson described how the Graduate Honor System is constituted, the training of panel members, and the procedures followed. 2. During this academic year, there have been 13 cases. Two cases are pending, one new case has just come in, and another is in the investigation stage. The probation penalty, which is frequently given, can range from simple probation to assigning an F* on the student's transcript, indicating that the grade was based on committee action. The panel can also recommend a zero grade on an assignment. Plagiarism was the charge in the majority of cases; cheating, falsification, and research fraud were also charged. Question: What happens to a student who is already on probation who then receives an F with notation? What is the Graduate School's policy? Answer: It is up to the faculty to recommend dismissal in such a case. A grade of F is not automatic dismissal. The Graduate School would not dismiss the student without faculty consultation. There is no automatic dropping of a student because of a poor academic record. Observation: Cases are sometimes the result of a different cultural perspective. A committee is working on a policy to clarify such matters as ownership of data. Response: The students must sign a statement indicating they are aware of the honor system. The university does not differentiate between American students and international students. Question: Are students ever dismissed for an honors violation? Answer: Yes, this has happened twice in the last five years. One student was reinstated on appeal. Question: Why are there two honor systems? Answer: Not sure. The graduate system predates her arrival. Graduate students are possibly more comfortable with their peers. The College of Veterinary Medicine has its own system. B. Janine Hiller (Advisor to the Undergraduate Honor System) 1. Professor Hiller gave an overview of cases heard in 1990/91 (this year's cases will not be completed until the end of summer). One hundred twenty-one cases were turned in. The most common sanction was class 2: probation, 50 hours of university service, and recommended double-weighted zero on the assignment. About one-third of the sanctions were class 3, in which the service hours are raised to 75. Class 4 sanctions - one semester suspension, probation, and a double- weighted zero-comprised five percent of the sanctions. There were no class 1 or class 5 sanctions. 2. Professor Hiller outlined the other activities of the board during the year, including participation in GTA training, new faculty orientation, and student orientation during the summer. She also announced that nominations had been made for the new faculty advisor (Joanna Butler, College of Business), the new Chief Justice (Jennifer Gold), and suggested the nomination of Theodore Fuller (Sociology) for the faculty position that Senator Fern has filled so admirably for six years. 3. In response to questions, Professor Hiller explained that cases can be reheard on recommendation of the Review Board. Cases can be dropped by recommendation at any level, beginning at the investigative panel stage, and the faculty member would be notified. It is rare to have a case dropped by the Chief Justice. Of the 121 cases, about 39% resulted in convictions, which is less than the usual 50% or more. The Provost can overrule a case, but this has happened only once in the past three years. Question: Why are there two honor systems? Answer: Expectations are different. Graduate students are more involved in the academic arena and probably should be heard by their peers. Question: Some faculty have had bad experiences with the honor system. How is the system perceived by faculty and students? Answer: The university is fortunate to have the honor system. It is not perfect, but every student is treated fairly and equally. Faculty input and participation is welcome and important - faculty are a part of the system too. V. Adoption of Agenda A. Additions to new business: 1. Report on Senate Faculty Support Survey (Snoke) 2. Faculty Senate of Virginia (Eng) B. The agenda was adopted with additions. VI. The Senate minutes of 14 April were approved. VII. Council, commission, and committee reports A. Communications Resources Committee (Snoke) Senator Snoke distributed a copy of UCRC Resolution 1991- 92A: Faculty Computer - Network Access, which asks that a means be developed to ensure that all faculty have a computer network connection which guarantees them use of electronic mail from their offices. [A copy of the resolution is available from the secretary.] This resolution will be discussed by the committee on 29 April. B. Commission on Graduate Affairs (Snoke) The colleges have been asked to put caps on graduate enrollment. Various colleges are reacting differently. If a college has the resources, why should enrollment be capped? The answer appears to be political; if undergraduate enrollment is capped, legislators and others might not look kindly on the graduate program doing business as usual. In the discussion that followed, it was pointed out that the "targets" set by the administration were very difficult to achieve, particularly at this time in the year. When the Provost was asked about the policy, his answer was unclear. The Graduate School is trying to work with the colleges during this transition, because reducing the number of graduate students reduces the number of GAs, GRAs, and GTAs available to do the work. President Geyer suggested that this matter should be brought before University Council. C. Commission on Faculty Affairs (Williams) The commission passed a resolution on faculty family leave policy. The resolution basically consolidates the options open to faculty. This will go forward to University Council. D. Commission on Research (Olin) The commission has formed a committee to redesign the grant budget reporting forms for on-campus use. VIII. New Business A. Faculty Senate of Virginia (Eng and Scanlon) Senator Eng and Professor Scanlon have represented Tech at the FSV, which has been holding workshops on university governance throughout the state. Eng and Scanlon have led two of the workshops and have come away with the feeling that Tech faculty are allowed greater participation in governance than their counterparts at other institutions. On the health care issue, the FSV appointed a committee to investigate the possibility of more direct dialogue with the Department of Personnel and Training. The FSV is also concerned with the state-wide faculty productivity assessment and will be meeting with SCHEV to discuss the study. SCHEV has asked the FSV to find ways of monitoring compensation, which will be a challenge to the group. One of the issues that will be discussed next year relates to the inclusion of summer school salaries as part of the retirement base. B. Elections. The results of the elections are as follows (* = non-senator) University Council: Snoke, Olin, Asche Commission on Classified Staff Affairs: Jones Commission on Faculty Affairs: Pierce, Martin, O'Brien, Norstedt, Shumsky, McDaniels Commission on Graduate Studies and Policies: Holtzman, as a backup to Tideman Commission on Public Service and Extension: Martin, Asche Commission on Research: Scanlon* to remain on commission Commission on Student Affairs: Feret, Howard Commission on Undergraduate Studies: Feret and Murray to remain on commission; Simmons to step down Commission on University Support: Armstrong, Polin*, Falkinham, Mullins, Harrington* University Advisory Council on Human Rights and Social Responsibility: Hult. Two nominees from the Reconciliation Committee: Falkinham, Farkas* University Forum on a Liberal Education: Brooker-Gross*, Landgraf, Miller Reconciliation Committee: Boisen*, Hillison*, Bunce, Jones Committee on Committees: Wang, Ficenec, Holtzman, Fern Beagle Senate Cabinet: Carrig (Vet Med), Williams (A & S), Jones (Extension), Clowes (Education), Rakes (Business), O'Brien (Arch/Urban Studies), Barbeau (Human Resources) Arts and Sciences Liaison: Shumsky Credentials and Elections: Eng (Vet Med), Beagle (Library), Tideman (A & S) Supplemental Grants (to replace Barker): Scigaj Honor Council Review Board (to replace Fern): Fuller* C. Health care issues President Geyer reported on his discussions with health care professionals in the area. The doctors seem to be just as confused as the state employees, and they are concerned about the ethical aspects of the referral process. Not all the physicians on the list actually agreed to be listed. There is also confusion over the legality of the way in which the plan was approved. The Senate officers will meet with Delegate Munford and Senator Marye on 6 May to discuss the issue. What more should the Senate do at this point? Lengthy discussion ensued. It was agreed that a list of appropriate legislators be drawn up and forwarded to faculty, who could write letters as they deemed necessary. Copies of the letters could be sent electronically to SENATE. In response to the observation that the Senate should be seen to be doing something, President Geyer pointed out that the Senate has passed a resolution, the officers will be meeting with local legislators, we have talked with the university administration, and we have contacted local physicians. It was suggested that we might contact senates at other universities, perhaps through the Faculty Senate of Virginia. We need to attack the problem at several levels, perhaps even contacting Secretary Dyke and/or teaming up with the physicians. We should work with the Staff Senate as well. The university administration has been working on the problem, chiefly through the work of Minnis Ridenour's state committee. It might be appropriate to have him give us a progress report. D. Report on Senate Faculty-Support Survey (Snoke) Senator Snoke distributed copies of the report [available from the Senate secretary on request]. He thanked his committee and acknowledged the help he received from Bob Frary and Jack Dudley. He also recommended that the report be forwarded to the university administration. E. Other matters 1. Senator Flick noted that he has had difficulty obtaining information on the retirement fund and suggested the Senate might want to look into this next year. President Geyer agreed to put this on the cabinet agenda, along with an examination of the effect the state retirement changes have had on the TIAA plan subscribers. 2. Senator deWolf asked to be relieved of his duties as parliamentarian. President Geyer asked for volunteers, to take office in the fall. IX. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:38 PM. Respectfully submitted, Marilyn L. Norstedt, Secretary - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Notes on the Faculty Senate breakfast with President James McComas 25 April 1992 Areas of concern: 1. Undergraduate instruction The general public sees undergraduate education as the primary function of the university. It is necessary for the faculty to work on improving relationships with the undergraduate community in order to give the public a more positive image of the university's role. As faculty, we should make students more aware of the university's resources and should share with them our research and concerns. 2. Out-of-state tuition Out-of-state students currently enrolled at Virginia Tech have experienced a 40% tuition increase. The next issue probably will be to reduce the number of out-of-state students, which will reduce income from tuition. One out- of-state student is the dollar equivalent of three in-state students. 3. Public relations All the research universities are targeted by the current "bashing" of higher education. We need better PR for graduate education and research. There is a pressing need to make the state aware of the benefits of research. Close contact with local legislators can help in this regard. The university has plans to strengthen the Northern Virginia Graduate Center, which should improve our influence in that area. 4. Health care plan 5. Faculty assessment survey Accomplishments: 1. There is a steady increase in the quality of our undergraduates and in numbers seeking admission (17,000 applicants for 3,900 freshman openings). Tech ranks fourteenth in the nation in the number of National Achievement Scholars, eighteenth in National Merit Scholars. 2. Increase in grants and contracts/research 3. Development of an outstanding honors program under Jack Dudley. 4. Legislative agreement on the bond issue for higher education. He cautioned, however, that we must work hard for its passage, particularly among our northern Virginia constituents. 5. Restoration of Extension funding Priorities: 1. Restore competitive salaries 2. Selectively restore positions 3. Accelerate needed curriculum changes, such as implementation of the new core curriculum.
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+28++1992.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:41 EDT