|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveDecember 8, 1992
The following minutes were officially approved on January 19, 1993. FACULTY SENATE Minutes 8 December 1992 32 Pamplin Hall I. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by President Leon Geyer. Visitors were introduced: Tom Head (Media Services) Barney Holtzman (Senator Holtzman's son), Peggy Rasnick (Staff Senate Liaison), Doug Martin (Benefits Program Manager), Pat Scanlon (Faculty Senate of Virginia). James I. Robertson, Jr. (History) and Mrs. Robertson joined the group later in the meeting. II. The agenda was adopted with two additions to new business: parking and the academic calendar. III. Roll call Senators present: Armstrong, Barbeau, Baumgartner (for Snoke), Beagle, Bunce, Carrig, Clowes, Collins (for Wright), deWolf, Fern, Ficenec, Foy, Fuller, Geyer, Graham, Hanson (substitute), Hardell, Hasselman, Haugh, Heath-Camp (for Sherman), Holtzman, Jacobson (for Howard), Jones, Lambur, Landgraf, Martin, McDaniels, Miller, Murray, Norstedt, O'Brien, Pienkowski (for Mullins), Pierce, Rakes, Scigaj, Simmons, Sumichrast, Vinson, Wang, Weaver, Webb. Senators absent: Brown, Eng, Falkinham, Feret, Hult, Olin, Parsons, Shumsky, Tideman, Williams. IV. Announcements President Geyer announced that there have been student complaints about faculty office hours. He urged that all faculty ascertain that office hours are adequate for meeting student needs. V. Program A: Benefits (Doug Martin, Benefits Programs Manager) Martin emphasized the need for everyone, no matter what their age, to be aware of the pension plans, which can vary greatly in certain circumstances. New faculty have a choice: they may select the state plan (VRS) or an optional plan. The VRS benefits are based on a formula: length of service multiplied by the three highest salaried years. So long as this formula remains the same, this benefit is guaranteed by the state. There are five optional plan choices, one of which is TIAA- CREF. Formerly, the state placed the same amount of money in each plan. The percentages now are 10.4% in optional, 8.9% in VRS. In Martin's opinion, there are almost no reasons for a new faculty member to select VRS - it is too inflexible because of the longevity base. VRS, however, does have a built-in 3% inflation benefit after retirement, while any of the optional choices stay level. Some trends and other interesting points: A. Virginia Tech is an aging campus. The tenured faculty, as a group, is getting older. B. Research faculty members work longer than instructional faculty. Optional plan holders retire about two years later than VRS members, possibly because they gain more from working longer. C. Spouses are not really covered if early retirement (age 50-60) is taken. Retirement between 60 and 65 gives spouses half coverage; coverage is full after 65. In response to questions, Martin made the following comments: A. No matter which plan is selected, the benefits are lifetime. You cannot use up your money. B. Most people will have more money at retirement than they think. It is a good idea to talk with the Benefits Office and ask pointed questions about investments. The duty of the office is to protect the individual. Do not rely on rumors. C. He agreed that it would be helpful for his office to issue all this information in simplified, summary form, possibly in Spectrum. D. As to whether a member should drop VRS and switch to an optional plan, much depends on age. If you are over 50, stay with VRS; if under 40, take the option. The intermediate years are a gray area. If you intend to move, get out of VRS. E. VRS basic guarantees do not change; in fact, retirees sometimes have better protection - they received a 4% raise last year. But we need to watch that the formula is not tampered with. Guarantees with the optional plans need to be watched with more attention because varying degrees of risk area built in. TIAA, however, is one of the best companies in the business. F. In the past, one had to live sixty days from the date of application for disability retirement, no matter how near death. This is no longer true. Death in service, however, is considered "early retirement," not disability. G. The state contribution for the optional plans can be changed. There is a schedule for review. H. In regard to tax sheltered annuities, a faculty member with less than fifteen years of service can shelter up to 20% of salary, but not to exceed $9500. Over fifteen years, the amount rises to $12,500. This is worth investigating, as it can be an important component of retirement. President Geyer thanked Martin for his informative and entertaining presentation. VI. Approval of minutes Senate minutes of 10 November 1992 were approved. VII. Council, commission, and committee reports A. Advisory Council on Budgeting and Planning Geyer reported that there has been a definite reduction in the number of out-of-state students. B. Commission on Student Affairs Miller said the commission has been discussing parking for graduate students. C. Athletic Committee Referring to the minutes of 10 November, Baumgartner noted that there has been an improvement in academic standards for athletes. VIII. New business (A) A. Senator Hardell volunteered to be the faculty representative to the CommonHealth program. B. Board of Visitors meeting and other activity President Geyer reported that the question of four-year graduation was raised at the BOV meeting. He informed the board that, although the 120-hour base is not correct for this university, a student who takes 15-16 hours per semester can graduate in four years. President Geyer also met with state legislators during the weekend of the Virginia game and considered the discussions were worthwhile. C. Parking The Senate Cabinet met with Richard Alvarez to discuss parking problems, among them the possibility of extending the hours for faculty-staff parking in selected areas. The Senate asked that the Parking and Traffic Committee be requested to look into this matter. It was also suggested that parking payment through a monthly paycheck deduction might be helpful. D. Calendar Baumgartner noted that draft calendars for 1994-1996 have provision for a single summer session. He expressed concerns with dropping the teaching opportunity offered by two summer sessions and with the change in the academic drop policy - students do not do as well when courses are made up in the fall term. He also pointed out that the single session reduces summer school at a time when SCHEV has asked that it be expanded. In the discussion that followed, the following observations were made: 1. The students are concerned with the total number of hours that can be taken. The new proposal would allow only nine hours as opposed to the present eighteen hours. 2. The primary concern should be with the quality of instruction. It is difficult to do a quality job in five weeks. Summer courses often have to be "different." 3. The proposal gives us a hybrid nine-week session. Why not a full semester in the summer? At present, some departments don't even attempt to offer advanced courses in the summer. 4. It is important to look at the mix of GTAs and faculty teaching in the summer session. Senator Carrig pointed out that the calendar report was generated by a subcommittee of the Scheduling and Registration Committee and will be discussed further at the committee's 20 January meeting. Nothing is in place; feedback would be helpful to the committee. President Geyer asked that senators discuss the matter with the college representatives to the committee and that the calendar question be allowed to continue through the governance system. IX. Program (B): Higher education and SCHEV (James I. Robertson, Jr., Virginia Tech representative to SCHEV's General Professional Advisory Committee) President Geyer introduced Robertson and quoted from some of the sections of the SCHEV report and from other state reports that impinged on higher education. He emphasized the university's concern with present situation. Robertson spoke of the reality of SCHEV's actions. The council was mandated by the legislature to "streamline" higher education. SCHEV named fifteen faculty to an advisory committee and paid no attention to the advice received. In his view, the faculty committee was treated very badly, especially by members of the legislative staff. Robertson summarized the points made in the report: A. The legislature and SCHEV seem to believe that teaching is teaching, no matter the level; that there is no difference between university professors and community college instructors. The entire emphasis is on teaching, and teaching larger classes. Technological applications are expected to solve problems in this area. B. There is no opposition to sponsored research, but department research is discouraged. C. Service is completely ignored. In fact, faculty committee service is discouraged. D. The idea of self-contained campuses is a good one. This could lead to more local control in a presently cumbersome system. E. In-house review of university administrations, as proposed, might also be a helpful exercise. F. SCHEV will investigate duplication of courses. There will be a moratorium on new programs. Small graduate departments are possibly in trouble. G. There are plans to go into a trimester system, making the summer term a full semester. Robertson has reported regularly to President McComas on the work of the advisory committee. The president shares Robertson's concerns over the report; both believe we have to do something, or something will be done to us. Responding to questions, Robertson made the following observations: A. The legislature does not believe there will be an exodus from the Virginia system if the report is implemented. B. To motivate faculty, SCHEV may initiate more awards for teaching, etc. C. It is highly unlikely that the state will raise income taxes on the wealthy. Some states have raised certain taxes and earmarked the increase for education. D. If the moratorium on the curriculum goes through, it means that nothing new can be added without something being cut. E. The report ignores graduate education. F. SCHEV is doing what the legislature has mandated it to do. The legislature will never set up an outside committee to study higher education. Both Robertson and President Geyer pointed out that there is much going on behind the scenes. The university presidents are working on the problems raised by the report, the Faculty Senate of Virginia may get involved, and Tech and UVa graduates in the legislature are a promising source of support. X. New business (B): Public perception of faculty; answering our critics This discussion centered on publicizing the university, its faculty, and the importance of its research contribution. It was suggested that more publicity through newspaper columns, through publicizing the success stories of our graduates, and through emphasizing the monetary contributions that university research makes to the state would help. The legislature seems unaware that research overhead is supporting a good deal of the university's infrastructure. Sponsored research, however, is not in danger; we need to change the perception that research keeps faculty from having time for students. Perhaps the public we need to influence is our alumni, which we can do through alumni magazines, etc. Extension did a good job of selling itself; could its plan be used as a guide? At the same time, there is a need to make changes in higher education. Not all the criticisms can be ignored; we know that improvements can be made. Scanlon spoke of the difficulties the Faculty Senate of Virginia has in addressing the problem. Their meetings with SCHEV and state officials are usually unfocused. There is no formal lobbying structure for higher education, as there is for K-12. Our lobbyists are the institution presidents. We need to turn students into our supporters; we need to talk about scholarship rather than research. In summarizing, President Geyer encouraged all senators to talk with colleagues about the problem. He emphasized the need to publicize our accomplishments, both to the general public and to students, and the need to keep apprised of developments in the current situation. XI. There being no further business, the Senate adjourned at 9:58 PM. Respectfully submitted, Marilyn L. Norstedt Secretary
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/December+8++1992.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:41 EDT