|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveFebruary 25, 1992
The attached are the official minutes of February 25, 1992. Faculty Senate Minutes 25 February 1992 32 Pamplin Hall Forum with Provost Carlisle 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by President Leon Geyer, and visitors welcomed: a. Peggy Rasnick, Staff Senate b. John Ashby, Spectrum c. Barbara Michelsen, Director, University YMCA d. W. A. Davis, President, Engineering Faculty 2. Announcements a. The faculty association presidents will meet Friday, 28 February, at 7:30 AM in the CEC. Senator Wang was asked to represent Architecture and Urban Planning; Senator Rakes, Business. b. The Committee on Committees will meet after the meeting 3. Roll call a. Present: Feret, Geyer, Marriott, Vinson, Wright, Poole, Wang, Barker, Ficenec, Holtzman, Hult, Miller, Murray, Simmons, Snoke, Tideman, Williams, Rakes, Clowes, Brown, Crittenden, deWolf, Hasselman, Michelsen, Pierce, Walker, Asche, Jones, Barbeau, Norstedt, Beagle, Carrig b. Absent: Bunce, Flick, Kerns, Webb, Howard, Falkinham, Olin, Sorrentino, Webster, Fern, Hicks, McDaniels, Neu, Parsons, Beamish, Eng, Saunders 4. President Geyer introduced Provost Fred Carlisle a. The Provost began his remarks by discussing the budget 1) Most of the governor's proposals have passed the hurdles. We will be able to raise tuition in order to restore some faculty positions, library funding, operating money, equipment money, etc. It now appears that there might also be a modest salary "restoration" of 2% to make up for the December 1990 reduction. The exact method of implementation is unclear. Apparently all classified staff will receive a 2% increase; faculty who took the reduction in 1990 will have first priority for the 2% restoration. Any additional money from the pool would be distributed on a merit basis. Question: Is the merit raise in addition to the 2%? Answer: Yes. Each university will receive a pool for faculty. The first priority is to restore the 2% loss. Any balance - if it exists - may be distributed as merit money. Question: Would faculty and teaching assistants who have joined the university since December 1990 receive money only if the balance is there? Answer: I don't know. "Faculty" has not been defined, nor do we know on what basis the pool is being calculated. It is still unclear. Question: Unlike graduate assistants, faculty are not on a fixed scale. The bookkeeping involved might eat up all the savings. Answer: A lot will depend on whether the calculation includes grad assistants, and how many are involved. 2) Special budget reductions included a devastating cut for Extension. A main legislative effort has been to restore the funding. The main bills from each house have restoration features, but neither has the amount requested. It may still be possible to come close through compromise in the conference committee. These were recommended for some of the research centers; the university has made proposals to the conference committee in this regard. 3) The general obligation bond proposals are presently at a standstill, with neither the House bill or Senate bill prevailing (the House bill was not considered by the Senate; the Senate bill was defeated in the house). the Provost does not believe it will be left this way - efforts are being made to convince the Governor to reintroduce the bond issue. The university did not back one bill or the other, since our requests were basically the same in both. 4) Internally, a number of decisions need to be made, mostly based on what is decided about tuition. There is no general fund money to speak of. The authorization to increase tuition is to fund the necessary areas. Should we restore the full number of faculty positions authorized? Should we increase the library budget to the full level of the authorization? These questions and others are being examined by the Interim Budget and Planning Committee, the deans and others. Presentations are being made by the library, various administrative offices, deans, etc., as to ways money could be used in different areas of the university. This is the first time so many people have been involved with the budget/planning process. The hearings give people an idea of what has been lost and what needs to be or might be done. Recommendations will be taken to a special meeting of the Board of Visitors in March. Question: Are we tracking tuition increases in neighboring states? Answer: Yes, we have a sense of total costs both inside and outside Virginia. In terms of tuition alone, we are among the leading ten land-grant universities in the nation, and we are number one in Virginia. In terms of total costs (tuition/fees/room and board), however, we are fourteenth in Virginia. We hope people will consider total costs. Applications are up this year by 5%. Question: Can we tell if the proportion of applications from out- of-state students has changed? Answer: Yes. The proportion did not decrease last year and does not seem to be decreasing this year. The real test is how many will actually enroll. The tuition increase will be announced in March, which is early and will give time for applicants to decide. 5) There are some bright spots (until this morning, the general obligation bond issue was one of the brightest) even though there is a huge cost shift to students and their families: a) We allocated almost 60 new faculty positions last year and a considerable number of tuition waivers for graduate students b) In the coming year, by combining positions available through early retirement and those we could be authorized to add, we could get almost 130 faculty/administrative positions. There are 60 positions available through early retirement. There is an attempt to bring us back to where we were. He has a plan for reallocating the early retirement positions; this has been discussed with the interim committee, the deans, and the President. This will be implemented in about two weeks. Shortly thereafter, the other allocations (operating money, library money, etc.) will be made. Then the budget reduction targets will be distributed, and the heads of various units will have to make their reduction decisions. Question: How does the steady stream of budget reductions affect programs staffed by joint appointment faculty? Recently, a joint appointment in mathematics eduction was advertised, but had to be dropped when Education pulled out. Answer: In such cases, the administrators involved - deans or department heads need to identify the problem and need to come to an agreement on the remaining half position. Question: Are the deans getting enough information from the departments on matters of the restoration of positions? Answer: I have to go on the deans' statements and tabulations, which have provided a fair amount of information. The plans for the future are also taken into consideration: priorities, areas for development, etc. There has been more faculty involvement in some colleges than in others. I know some of the acute areas, mathematics certainly being one. Question: We are doing more with less. This doesn't mean, however, that we're not hurting. Answer: We know the faculty in some areas are under stress. This can't be tolerated over a long period of time. b. The Provost took questions on other matters 1) Associate Provost for Outreach Question: What is the significance of this advertised position? Answer: To give some background: Extension was put under the College of Agriculture, making it ultimately responsible to the Provost. At the same time, there was a Vice President for Public Service, heading a separate division of the university. There is a basic distinction between Extension and Public Service. Co-op programs focus on individuals, the family, and rural aspects (though not exclusively); Public Service focuses more on communities, business, and government. The Public Service function seems to be an academic function and has been moved to the academic side, to be headed by a Vice (not Associate) Provost. We would like to extend this job to include more than Public Service, therefore "Outreach." We have eliminated a vice presidency and combined two positions into one. Question: Will Outreach include Continuing Education? Answer: Yes. Question: Is there a reason why the term "Outreach" is better than "Public Service"? Answer: We've had trouble defining "Public Service." "Outreach" seems more descriptive and comprehensive. The person in the position can be responsible for all of the university's outreach. 2) Recycling Question: What has happened to the recycling project? Answer: Ray Smoot is trying to work out a way that Larry Bechtel can be assigned more time and money to recycling. The project needs about $25,000. The university would like to see it reorganized and restarted. 3) University calendar The Provost described the committee that develops the calendar. It includes eight faculty members (one from each college) nominated by the dean, as well as other representatives. The committee has tried to set some basic criteria. These include no commencement conflict with Radford University, no holiday on Labor Day, no mid- term break in the fall, a full week vacation at Thanksgiving, and at least 72 class days (and the same number of class days) in each semester. Question: At the last Senate meeting, we discussed the criteria and wondered if some points could be reevaluated. There was some support for a 75-day semester, for beginning on a Monday and ending on a Friday. Can't these become a part of the discussion of criteria? Answer: These are things are discussed almost every year. The committee started with a Labor Day holiday, a mid-term break, and a three-day Thanksgiving holiday, etc. These were considered and rejected. My feeling was that there was not extensive support for 75 days and that 72 was a compromise. Question: The full week idea needs further examination. If 72 days are the rule, leaving a full week at the beginning or the end would help. Answer: The 1993/94 calendar is our for comment and discussion until May. Some of the particulars can be addressed. Question: The College of Engineering supports 75 days; however, if there were a university wide consensus for 72 days we could probably support it. The problem is that the consensus is that of eight people - we need a greater consensus for acceptance. Answer: It's more like fifteen people. Question: The perception is that faculty concerns about the calendar are swept under the rug. The 75 day issue was not really brought up at the committee. The letter from Forestry was not brought up until the Engineering representative inquired about its status. Why isn't the committee finding out about the things that are being asked? Answer: Your impression may be correct. I don't know. The committee was looking for support for 75 days; they received a half-dozen letters. Question: But there were no letters to the negative. Answer: This will have to be addressed by Jim Wolfe. Question: Where is the calendar out? How does one comment on it? Answer: I'm not sure if it's sent to Spectrum or to the department heads. Question: When some department heads were asked, none of them knew the calendar was out for review. Maybe it's on the computer but no one knows it's there? Answer: I'll find out from Jim Wolfe. Question: Isn't the faculty representative the spokesperson for the college? Why isn't the dean also involved? The impression is that the faculty is being ignored. Answer: What would be a process that would not be cumbersome or require a referendum every year? Observations from Senators The problem goes beyond the committee. One representative from a college cannot possibly know how an entire college feels on any issue. It might be better to have the faculty members nominated by faculty associations rather than by deans. When things leave committees there is a need for follow-up. We can't comment on something we haven't seen, as was pointed out earlier. When the Engineering Faculty Association has commented on other issues, a response has usually been forthcoming from the appropriate administrator or committee. This has not been true with the Calendar Committee. The Calendar Committee really doesn't report anywhere through the governance structure. Shouldn't it report through CUS, then to University Council, which could refer it to the Senate? This is a matter that has never been channeled through the system. It is a committee of CUS, according to the Handbook, but CUS does not discuss the calendar. 4) Electronic Village Question: We've all been reading about the Electronic Village. What is the funding? Is it a real entity? Answer: At this point, a feasibility study involving the town, C & P, and the university has been announced. Bob Heterick is leading the university's part of the study. This is to determine if the plan would work; if so, how; what the funding would be, etc. It appears that virtually all the funding would have to come from C & P. Question: Is there an ending date for the project? Answer: Yes, but I'm not sure what it is at the moment. 5) Core Curriculum Question: What are your personal feelings about the core? What is the potential impact of the budgetary situation on the core? Answer: We reached an impasse with the present core curriculum and had to put more money into it last year so that students could meet their requirements. Implementation of the new core is scheduled over a rather long time period. At first, changes will be in course descriptions and will give students greater flexability. The more expensive and complex aspects are not intended for implementation for four to five years. The faculty who worked on the core did a remarkable job. They were able to focus the curriculum on the present and future without neglecting the past. Question: Is the students' contract made at the time of entering a program or at the time of graduation? There seems to be differences of interpretation between the College of Arts and Sciences and the Registrar. With the core curriculum, this could make a difference. The catalog indicates that the requirements count at the time of graduation; the A and S Advisors' Manual says the requirements to be met are those in place when the student enters. The new core curriculum is cited as being effective for all students graduating after a certain date, currently 1996. Answer: The core is only a part of the total picture. The general problem needs to be resolved. It is unreasonable to expect seniors to meet a new graduation requirement; it is equally unreasonable to assume that the university would enter a 4-6 year contract with a student. This is clearly an issue that needs to be clarified; it should not be clarified, however, at the expense of the core curriculum. 6) Outreach and the Hotel Roanoke Question: Is the Hotel Roanoke project a part of the Outreach? Answer: Yes, the program part would be. Question: Could we do a better job with the project if we relied more on our own resources for planning, marketing, and such? Answer: It's necessary to contract with a developer to put together financial contracts and other preliminaries. There is a small advisory committee of faculty. Our job is to make the program work, and we will rely on our resources for this. Our present resource commitment is in time rather than money. 7) University programs Question: Proposals for masters' programs were withdrawn from SCHEV's agenda. Why? Will these come back? Answer: The proposal for the philosophy masters was withdrawn because the presidents were in a "no new programs" mood. Believing all presidents were abiding by this and that the proposal would be returned to the agenda at a later date, Tech withdrew in good faith. The other schools, however, did not drop their plans. We now must raise the proposal again. Because of budget restrictions, it might take longer for us to become as comprehensive as we would like. Question: There is increasing demand for off-campus programs. The resources coming in from these programs don't seem to be trickling back to the departments. Answer: I agree. There is a pressing demand, and we have not determined the best way of budgeting. There are four different groups working on campus/off-campus matters, such as administrative structure, finances, position allocations, etc. 8) Representation of the Senate Question: The Senate has raised the questions of Senate representation to the Electronic Village and to the Board of the Virginia Tech Foundation. What is your response to the role of the faculty in these areas? Answer: I'm not sure of the mechanism for getting Senate/faculty involvement in the Electronic Village feasibility study. It makes good sense, though, and it would be especially helpful once the study is completed. This should be pursued. I need to find out more about the organization myself. I hadn't thought much about the Foundation Board, but I don't know of any reasons why there shouldn't be a faculty representative. Regarding the Board of Visitors, there is the principle of a "lay board," which is a reasonable concept. The concept has been changed by introducing student membership. Therefore, it makes sense that the faculty should be represented. The matter of voting membership is a real issue. President Geyer reminded the Senate that President McComas supports faculty representation at the subcommittee level. The Provost believes this is a good idea, particularly in regard to the "action" subcommittees. e. President Geyer thanked Provost Carlisle for his contributions to the Forum. The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 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/February+25++1992.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:41 EDT