|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveFebruary 11, 1992
Attached are the official minutes of February 11, 1992 Faculty Senate Minutes 11 February 1992 32 Pamplin Hall 1. The meeting was called to order by President Leon Geyer at 7:00 PM. Visitors included: Peggy Rasnick, Staff Senate John Ashby, Spectrum W. A. Davis, President, Engineering Faculty Association 2. Roll call Present: Burger (for Bunce), Feret, Geyer, Vinson, Webb, Wright, Poole, Wang, Falkinham, Ficenec, Holtzman, Hult, Miller, Olin, Snoke, Tideman, Webster, Williams, Fern, Hicks, Clowes, McDaniels, Brown, Crittenden, deWolf, Hasselman, Michelson, Pierce, Walker, Asche, Jones, Barbeau, Beamish, Norstedt, Beagle, Carrig, Eng Absent: Flick, Kerns, Howard, Barker, Murray, Simmons, Sorrentino, Rakes, Neu, Parsons, Saunders 3. Tom Brown, Alumni Association advisor to the Student Alumni Association (SAA), accompanied by the SAA President, and the Chair for Faculty Appreciation Day a. Mr. Brown spoke to the Senate about Faculty Appreciation Day, which the SAA will sponsor on 25 February. The idea for such a day was generated by the students. b. The students discussed the details of the day. The SAA will distribute apples and apple badges at strategic points on the campus. Local restaurants will offer two- for-one deals for students taking faculty members to lunch. Also, student organizations have been urged to honor their faculty sponsors and supporters. c. President Geyer expressed the thanks of the Senate and faculty as a whole for the students' thoughtfulness. 4. Larry Killough, faculty representative to the National Collegiate Athletic Association. a. Professor Killough presented some background as to how athletics had been administered at the university and how he came to be in his present position. He then explained the role of the faculty representative to the NCAA. Although he serves as President McComas's representative, the president takes an active role in athletic matters. Killough's duties have included: 1) conference attendance, 2) monitoring the investigation of the cross- country program, 3) working with the AD, the compliance officer, and the president to determine Tech's stance on NCAA legislation, 4) attending many of the AD's staff meetings, and 5) participating in the NCAA's association of faculty representatives. b. Professor Killough outlined what he considers to be significant improvements in the athletic program. 1) The old corporation was dissolved and control brought under the university. 2) We have a professional athletic director who understands the importance of academics and works well with students, faculty, administration, and alumni. 3) The new Athletic Committee has broad representation, especially from faculty, and members take their work seriously. The importance of the committee's role is recognized by the AD. 4) The academic advising of athletes has been placed under the Provost. 5) There are student-athletes on campus today; this was not the case a few years ago. 6) The role of university presidents in the NCAA has expanded, which has led to an improvement in NCAA standards for athletic participation. Question: Is there sufficient faculty involvement? Does faculty have enough input on admissions and other matters? Answer: Although progress has been made, there are problems with retention and graduation rates. Statistics have only become available over the past few years and it is still difficult to compare athletes' performance with that os the general student body. The involvement of the academic advising group has been significant, as has that of the Athletic Committee. Question: When the old corporation was dissolved, the financial situation of athletics was "gloom and doom." What is the situation at present? We see a lot of construction going on. Answer: The old athletic group was operating in the red. They were then required by Ridenour's office to have a balanced budget. The Athletic Department operates, more or less, on a balanced budget today, even though this budget is slim in comparison with those of peer institutions. The Second Century Campaign now stands at about $13 million. Question: Is the Athletic Committee the group asking for reductions/substitutions in academic requirements? Answer: The science requirements present a problem because some high school science courses (earth sciences, oceanography) are not accepted. More flexibility should be applied. In regard to math, the committee was not concerned with reducing requirements; the concern was with the high schools that did not provide the requisite number of courses. The committee has discussed these matters with the Provost. Question: Aren't the graduation rate statistics for athletes available? Answer: Some data is available, but it is difficult to separate out the Dooley Era and the Braine Era. The focus was on football, to the detriment of other sports. What information we have is positive; retention rates are up, but it is still too early to compare graduation rates. There are pockets; basketball is still a problem area. The university does not seem to have the computer programs in place to do comparative studies on an overall university or college basis. Some schools have very high graduation rates (Notre Dame, Virginia). We're not there yet, but we're making progress. Question: The university has a special admissions policy which, we have been led to believe, is not just for athletes. Are you a part of committee that reviews special admissions? Are special admissions a loophole? Answer: Considerations for special admissions in the recent past have been primarily athletes, but other departments are represented. This is not a loophole; for a comprehensive university it provides flexability. The loopholes I'm talking about are on the national level - in the NCAA requirements and in special programs universities set up for athletes. Question: Some universities have programs designed to enhance the graduation rate of athletes. How can we compare graduation rates with them? Answer: I'm interested in comparing within our university, not with the kinds of schools you mean. Our internal statistics are more meaningful. Observations: The work of Jerry Via's group and its cooperative attitude is appreciated by faculty. A university retention committee has been forced to look into some of the problems raised by the speaker. The Admissions Committee, a subcommittee of CUS, could possibly give some feedback to the Senate. 5. Announcements a. Secretary's announcements 1) Please send all committee and commission reports to SENATE@ VM1 by the Thursday afternoon preceding the Senate meeting. Avoid using SENATE for anything other than thee reports. 2) All technical correspondence and questions relating to minutes, agenda, etc., should be sent to Linda Southard: SOUTHARD@VM1. 3) Anything relating to the contents of minutes, reports, etc. or general correspondence to the secretary should be sent to the secretary: SWEDE@VM1. 4) Senators were reminded to pay their dues. A discussion followed regarding printing the minutes and the problems involved. Reports are sent in varying format, which varies the output. The secretary pointed out that the official copy of the minutes is the archived hard copy. The recipient of the online minutes has the option of how to print them out for personal files. We can try to get all reports entered in the same format, but this is not always possible. b. The Senate officers met with President McComas on 15 January. A main topic of discussion was faculty representation on the Board of Visitors, which he agreed to take under advisement and discuss with the board. The President believed faculty could be most valuable as resource persons for BOV subcommittees. c. The Presidents Round Table met and discussed governance, faculty morale, and other issues. d. Meetings of faculty association presidents will be held on the last Friday of each month; the next meeting will be 28 February at 7:30 AM in the CEC. The most recent meeting featured discussions of faculty participation at the department/college level, involvement in the new governance system, and the lack of faculty input regarding summer school teaching. e. Interim Budget and Planning Advisory Committee 1) The administration is supporting three areas of the state budget proposals: restoration of extension funding, the bond referendum, and salary increases for faculty and staff. 2) Discussion of resource allocation, particularly salary adjustments. A numerical report of salary adjustments was supplied to the Senate (a copy of this report was circulated by President Geyer during this announcement). f. Carol Berger of the Women's Research Institute requested the names of three female senators who would be interested in discussing the establishment of a women's center on campus. Senators Hult, Asche, and Beamish volunteered. g. An Alumni Association planning group has requested representation from the Senate for a planning conference on 21-22 February. h. The President sent a letter of thanks to Charles Forbes for his presentation at the last Senate meeting. In the letter, President Geyer also suggested that a faculty member be appointed to the Virginia Tech Foundation board as a representative of the total monetary contributions made by faculty. i. Governance 1) The Senate will be required to nominate 30 senators and three additional faculty to serve on commissions and committees. We will try to do this during the regularly scheduled elections in April. 2) The way the new structure is set up means that we start from ground zero - all previous members are off. However, University Council agreed that present committee members can stay on for an additional year. We have to consider staggering, which the Senate Cabinet will consider at this next meeting. Senator Snoke pointed out that the new committees should have charges. It will be very difficult for the commissions to produce these charges during this year. He believes that the administration will try to continue the committees as they are for the next year. Although some of the committees' duties will be different, the structure may remain intact. A "good faith set-up" may be required because of the 27 March deadline set by the reorganization. New senators may not be elected by that time. President Geyer responded that he had spoken with Larry Harris and both believe this can be resolved. Good faith and good sense are required. The question of staggered terms is important, particularly to the colleges. Senators were encouraged to discuss the problems with their constituents 6. Adoption of agenda The agenda was adopted with the addition of two items: a faculty observer/representative to the Virginia Tech Foundation, and the university calendar. 7. Approval of minutes a. Faculty Senate minutes, 14 January 1992 Senator Snoke asked that his question regarding supplemental grants (three questions preceding item 5 of the minutes) should be linked to earlier questions on this topic (the fourth through sixth questions following item 4.e). He wished to point out that a restructuring of supplemental grants might satisfy the concerns raised in the earlier questions. Senator Hasselman pointed out that Senator Hardell's name was misspelled in the roll call. The minutes were approved as amended. b. Faculty Senate Cabinet minutes, 31 January 1992, were approved. 8. Council, Commission, and Committee Reports a. University Communications Resources Committee (Senator Snoke) Senator Snoke distributed copies of Judy Lilly's report on the CNS plan to reduce overall expenditure for on- campus communications. He then addressed some of the points in the report. [A copy of Senator Snoke's comments are attached to these minutes.] Senator Miller commented that he appreciated the report as a response to faculty concerns about campus communications. In response to a question from Senator Eng regarding off- campus access, Senator Snoke pointed out that access for undergraduates living off campus has not yet been addressed. b. Commencement Committee and VTIP (Senator Eng) Although the committees have met several times, nothing has come forward to require the Senate's attention. c. Commission on Undergraduate Studies (President Geyer for Senator Murray) Earlier in the day, CUS voted favorably on the second reading of the core curriculum document. d. Parking Committee The issue of extending faculty/staff parking privileges to graduate students was raised. This matter was discussed at the last meeting of the Senate Cabinet, and the Senate representative to the committee will be informed of the group's opinion. e. Commission on Faculty Affairs President Geyer raised the matter of the commission's inability to propose a racial harassment policy because of the constraints of the Wisconsin case. What would happen if a complaint were raised? Senator Falkinham: The university would handle it as a complaint to be reported to Cornel Morton. Senator Williams: It is unclear how the Wisconsin case bears on faculty, since that case struck down student policies. There is a policy in the student handbook indicating procedures for reporting various types of harassment. CFS faced the problem of lack of published procedures (for faculty) for anything but sexual harassment. The commission planned to use these procedures as a model for a racial harassment document until the Wisconsin case came up. When questioned about this at an earlier Senate meeting, Cornel Morton's response on procedures was rather vague. [Senator Beagle has provided a citation to the University of Wisconsin case for those who might be interested: 744 F. Supp 1163 (KF105 F47x, located in the third-floor stacks of Newman Library). See vol. 774 of West's Federal Supplement, pp. 1163-1181. The UWM Post, Incorporated, Lafi Abdalla ... (et al.), Plaintiffs v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin, Defendant Senator Beagle can download the case and send it to anyone requesting an electronic copy.] f. University Communications Resources Committee President Geyer asked Senator Snoke if there were any plans for faculty input into the "electronic village" concept. If not, should the Senate request faculty input? Senator Snoke responded that Paul Gherman had been appointed to work on the electronic village project. Others involved include Ed Fox, a faculty member. Faculty involvement is rather indirect - the UCRC simply hears reports. President Geyer indicated that more formal faculty involvement would be appropriate. Senator Eng suggested that UCRC have a larger role in the project. After further discussion, it was agreed that the President should follow up on this matter. g. Library Committee (Senator Clowes) University Librarian Paul Gherman will be moving to another assignment as special assistant to the Vice President for Information Systems. Joanne Eustis will serve as Interim University Librarian for an undetermined period. h. Commission on Faculty Affairs revisited Senator Jones, harking back to the harassment issue, indicated that there were three ways of reporting harassment: the staff has guidelines spelled out in their handbook; reports can be made to Morton's office; and reports can be made to the Ethics Committee. Senator Williams reiterated the procedural problem - we have procedures for sexual harassment; these are required by federal law. He agreed that a matter of unprofessional conduct, which could include racial harassment, could come before the Ethics Committee. 9. New business a. Outside search firms (President Geyer) 1) Use of an outside firm for the vice presidential position was justified by Minnis Ridenour as an effort to attract candidates in similar positions at other institutions. 2) In regard to the Director of Marketing and Director of the CEC, Charles Steger responded that an earlier search for the marketing position had produced no viable candidates. He hoped that, by using an outside firm, a more qualified group of candidates would result. Although there will be faculty input into the final selection process, the procedure is not one traditionally followed. We do not know what the cost will be. Senators were asked to forward comments to the President. b. Faculty observer to the Virginia Tech Foundation (Senator Miller) 1) At the last Senate meeting, Charles Forbes stated that membership on the Foundation's board was based on donations made to the university. Faculty, as a group, contribute financially to the university. In the hope of improving communication with the Foundation, the Senate should ask to sit in on the meetings of the board. 2) Motion: That the Senate approach the Virginia Tech Foundation regarding the appointment of a faculty liaison to the Foundation's board. (Senator Miller) 3) Discussion Wouldn't it be more appropriate to ask for full membership in view of the amount contributed by faculty during the last campaign? We should probably pursue this in the same way we are asking for Board of Visitors representation. Given the difficulties of obtaining answers to relatively simple procedural questions addressed to the Foundation, it is important that the faculty know what is going on. 4) Amendment: That one representative of the faculty sit on the board of the Virginia Tech Foundation to represent total faculty gifts. (Senator McDaniels) 5) In further discussion, it was pointed out that the Foundation, according to Mr. Forbes, responds to requests from the university. It is appropriate that faculty have some input into this decision- making process. There are ex-officio members of the board, such as Ray Smoot and others. Perhaps we should request this status. 6) Amended motion: That one faculty member selected by the Faculty Senate sit on the board of the Virginia Tech Foundation to represent total faculty financial donations. The motion passed unanimously. c. University calendar 1) President Geyer gave some background information on the work of the Registration and Calendar Committee. The proposed calendar is currently out for discussion. 2) William A. Davis, President of the Engineering Faculty Association, outlined his college's problems with the calendar. a) Most of the colleges and departments that have expressed concern are those areas supporting laboratory instruction. There is a need for a full 15-week semester (75 days) with the same number of same days. b) Some departments are less concerned with the length of a semester, but want the length to be consistent. c) The faculty impression - right or wrong - is that the calendar is set by administrators without much outside input. d) Why does the university have two summer sessions? e) Why do we still have two-hour final exams when most semester systems have three-hour exams? f) What is the definition of a semester? By having 14 or 14 1/2-week semesters, our students are losing from a half to a whole semester of instruction over a four-year period. Professor Davis wanted to know how the general faculty felt about these matters. He was also concerned that some parents might consider that students were not receiving their money's worth. 3) In the discussion that followed, it was pointed out that the Calendar Committee seems to pay more attention to non-academic aspects of the calendar (holidays, etc.) than to educational requirements. Suggestions submitted to the committee have been ignored. For some areas of the university, the number of weeks is less important consistency. Support was given to the plan to start semesters on a Monday and end on a Friday. Concern was also expressed over the varying lengths of break periods. The procedural matter - who sets the calendar and how - is really fundamental. Can't the faculty have better representation on the committee? One representative from each college gives little input for the larger colleges. It was suggested that the subject be brought up with Provost Carlisle at the next meeting. It is also a good subject to be discussed with the faculty association presidents. The new governance structure should force a better reporting system from the committee to CUS. 4) President Geyer summarized: a) We will raise the issue with the Provost. b) We will try to get copies of the proposed calendar for every senator. c) We will bring this up with the association presidents. 10. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 PM. Respectfully submitted, Marilyn L. Norstedt Secretary _____________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM TO: Marilyn Norstedt, Secretary, Faculty Senate FROM: Arthur Snoke, Senate representative on UCRC DATE: February 11, 1992 SUBJECT: Comments on Judy Lilly's Report * A desired effect of these new rates is that the majority, if not all, faculty should be able to afford some kind of data connection that would allow them access to the main-frame computers. * Although phone costs go up a bit, note that voice mail will come for free. So think of it as adding voice mail for $2.50 /month, or saving $5.50/month if you already have voice mail. * Another impetus is to encourage using ethernet connections rather than switched data for those users who would be better served by that kind of access. * The least transparent change has to do with calling into the Virginia Tech network from off-campus. Even those who will not incur any extra cost will have to enter a password each time they call in. This aspect of the plan will require further clarification. * It appears that CNS is losing money by this change in rates. They certainly will have reduced revenue. What they have found is that maintenance costs have been significantly less than budgeted, and that buying equipment in bulk produces significant savings. Like Virginia's state budget, CNS cannot operate at a deficit, so unless their spreadsheet programs have a serious bug, they will have a balanced budget next year.
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/February+11++1992.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:41 EDT