University Libraries Logo University Archives of Virginia Tech

Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes Archive

January 14, 1992

  The following are the official Faculty Senate minutes for 1/14/92.



                               Faculty Senate


                              14 January 1992

                              32 Pamplin Hall


     1.   The meeting was called to order by President Leon Geyer at

          7:00 PM and visitors introduced:

               Peggy Rasnick, Staff Senate

               John Ashby, Spectrum

               Ray Smoot, Vice-President for Business Affairs

               Robert Pillow, University Libraries (Senate alternate)


     2.  Roll call

         Present:  Vinson, Feret, Flick, Geyer, Webb, Wang, Barker,

         Falkinham, Ficenec, Holtzman, Miller, Murray, Olin, Simmons,

         Snoke, Sorrentino, Tideman, Webster, Williams, Fern,

         McDaniels, Hardell (for Crittenden), Brown, deWolf, Hasselman

         Neu, Walker, Gordon (for Asche), Jones, Beamish, Norstedt,

         Beagle, Carrig, Eng, Saunders.


         Absent:  Bunce, Kerns, Marriott, Wright, Howard, Poole, Hult,

         Hicks, Rakes, Clowes, Michelsen, Pierce, Barbeau, Parsons


     3   Announcements by the President:

          a.   Because of reorganization within the University

               Libraries, Linda Richardson is no longer eligible to

               serve in the Senate.  Her replacement is David Beagle.

          b.   The President is planning to call a meeting of the

               Presidents' Round Table to discuss several issues,

               including senate implementation of revised shared


          c.   The Senate Cabinet will meet on 31 January.

          d.   Nominations have been received for the Senate

               representative to the search committee for the

               Associate Vice-President and Director of Facilities.

          e.   The Senate officers met with Delegate Joan Munford and

               Senator Madison Marye in December.  Both expressed

               willingness to support a general obligation bond bill.

               They also indicated support for a tax increase, but

               believed that such a measure should have broad-based

               backing from the legislature.

          f.   The Senate officers will meet with President McComas on

               15 January.

          g.   The Advisory Committee on the budget will meet on 22



     4.   Program:  Charles M. Forbes, Vice-President for Development

          and University Relations

          a.   Mr. Forbes outlined the success of the university's

               fund-raising programs:

               (1)  In ten years, the assets of the Virginia Tech

                    Foundation have increased from $10 million to $200


               (2)  The Campaign for Excellence raised $118 million.

               (3)  or the past five years, about $25 million has been

                    raised each year.

               (4)  Virginia Tech, with an endowment of $150 million,

                    ranks twenty-fourth among public institutions of

                    higher education.  Ten years ago, the university

                    was unranked.


          b.   Foundation support

               (1)  On-going projects

                    (a)  Supplemental grants to faculty.  These

                         numbered 160 last year.

                    (b)  Radio station WVTF, Roanoke.  The station has

                         a number one Arbitron rank in its category.

                         Communication has been improved by building

                         transmitters at Charlottesville and Marion.

                    (c)  The Corporate Research Center.  The CRC has

                         assets of $15 million and employs about 500

                         people.  A fifth building is now under

                         construction there.

               (2)  Foundation expenditures this year are $25.2

                    million.  This money supports many university

                    programs and funds new initiatives, facilities,

                    and equipment.


          c.   Mr. Forbes discussed the organization of his

               administrative unit.  Except for the Colleges of

               Education and Human Resources, each college now has a

               development officer.  Emphasizing collegiate-based

               giving has meant an increased level of support for the

               colleges, but has decreased the amount of unrestricted

               funds received.  Other organizational areas include

               trusts and estates, the Corporate Foundation Program,

               the Annual Fund, and major gifts.


          d.   Mr. Forbes detailed what he considered to be critical

               issues for future development:

               (1)  The need to mount a new major campaign in an

                    uncertain financial environment.

               (2)  The need to pay for the cost of fund raising and

                    operating the Foundation.

               (3)  The need to project what can be done in the



          e.   Additional comments by Ray Smoot (Vice-President for

               Business Affairs)

               (1)  Foundation operational costs are rising at a time


                    (a)  Only 5% of the money received is unrestricted

                    (b)  Interest rates are declining

                    (c)  Considerable money has been advanced for

                         construction projects, which takes away from

                         unrestricted investment

               (2)  Mr. Smoot also commented on recent press accounts

                    of Hotel Roanoke funding and differing

                    interpretations of "public funds."


     Question: How would faculty membership on the board of the

               Foundation be considered?

     Answer:   It's not necessary.  No university employees are on the

               board.  All board members are donating members of the

               Foundation, elected from Foundation membership.


     Question: Is any of the donated money going into the university

               general fund to support programs that may be wiped out

               during the coming year?

     Answer:   The Foundation distributed $25 million to the

               University in the past year:  $12.7 million to current

               operations of university programs; $6.3 million to

               endowments (professorships and scholarships); $1

               million for facilities and equipment; $5.8 million to

               research programs.


     Question: Is there any way to divert some of this money to the


     Answer:   The Foundation cannot make grants unless a project is

               requested by the university.  If the library has a

               request, it must go through university channels.  The

               Development Office does not set the priorities.


     Question: Would it be possible for the Faculty Senate to propose

               a program (say, $100,000) for support of new faculty?

               This would be similar to supplemental grants.

     Answer:   I have no problems with supporting such a request.

               Supplemental grants was established to support young

               faculty along the tenure track.  Another possibility

               would be to increase level of funding to the present



     Question: Perhaps the Faculty Senate Cabinet should look into

               this.  It would be a morale-booster for the faculty and

               would reflect well on the Foundation.

     Answer:   Dr. McComas is very sensitive to faculty needs and

               probably would support such an endeavor.  This could

               also be part of the general fund-raising appeal.


     Question: How much is the amount for supplemental grants?

     Answer:   $125,000.


     Question: What are the procedures that need to be followed when a

               donation is made to a college?  How are departmental

               scholarship committees to obtain information about

               available funds?

     Answer:   Accounts are established in the Foundation for each

               scholarship fund.  Printouts showing the status of the

               funds are sent to the deans and account-holders each

               month.  I am perplexed by your question - any

               scholarship grant would have to involve the dean, and

               the Development Office should be sending

               acknowledgement letters to the department.

     Answer (Mr. Smoot):  Departments handle these accounts in various

               ways, and some department heads may not communicate the

               information to the department.  If your scholarship

               committee does not receive the necessary information,

               there is a breakdown of communication somewhere.

     Answer:   Gary Small (development director for Arts and Sciences)

               will be in touch with you regarding policies and


     Question: A number of endowed professorships seem to be in the

               red.  How is the Foundation handling this?

     Answer:   The endowments do not run out of money.  Perhaps this

               is being confused with the Eminent Scholars Program,

               which is funded by the General Assembly and for which

               funding has been reduced.

     Answer (Mr. Smoot):  Some of the professorships are on hold until

               the endowment is complete, but none are in the red.

     Answer:   The Foundation is holding $19 million for the



     Question: What goes on at the Corporate Research Center besides

               the Computer Center?

     Answer:   VTLS, IBM, the Management Systems Lab, Delta

               Electronics, a reaction science group, a biotechnology

               group, an environmental research unit, faculty-owned

               small companies.  About half of the 500 people who work

               there are university employees, chiefly in the Computer

               Center and MSL.


     Question: Are supplemental grants exclusively for foreign travel?

               If so, why?  Wouldn't a restructuring of the supplemental

               grant program satisfy some of the concerns expressed


     Answer:   The program was started to help younger faculty.  The

               travel component became important when the state placed

               restrictions on paying for travel abroad.  The program

               is run through the Provost's Office.  The Faculty

               Senate should feel free to make recommendations about

               the program.


     Question: Could there be better interaction between companies

               that would like to use the university as a research and

               development center and the Development Office?

     Answer:   Yes, the Development Office functions as a facilitator.

               Enough lead time is needed for contacts to be made and

               proposals to be written.


     Question:  Do you have any plans for evaluating the

               effectiveness/benefits from your expenditures?

     Answer:   We have begun to make a comprehensive evaluation study.

               Some sources, such as the Annual Fund, are evaluated

               frequently, because they have high operational costs.

               Other areas have such small staffs that the expenses

               are not great.


     5.   Agenda:  The agenda was approved with the addition to new

          business of faculty representation on the Board of Visitors.

          It was also clarified that nominations for officers will be

          made on 17 March, the election of officers will be on 14

          April, and the other elections will be held 28 April.


     6.   Approval of minutes.  The Senate minutes for 10 December

          1991 were approved.

          Comments:  (Senator Murray):  CUS Documents do not appear

          with the minutes although they have been submitted.  The

          secretary will investigate.

          (Senator Snoke):  Are there copies of corrected minutes?

          Can senators receive hard-copy minutes?  The President

          responded that hard-copy minutes could be made available on

          request.  There are copies of corrected minutes, but these

          have not been put online.  The Senate Cabinet will discuss

          distribution of minutes at its next meeting.


     7.   Council, Commission, and Committee Reports


          Commission on Faculty Affairs:  The document on Faculty

          Review will not go to University Council next Monday but

          will be on a future agenda.


          Honorifics Committee:  Tech has submitted five names to

          SCHEV for the state teaching awards, which pay $5,000



     8.   Unfinished business



     9.   New business

          a.  Elections

               (1)  Senator Flick was elected to the Commission on

                    Faculty Affairs.

               (2)  Senator deWolf was elected to the Committee on


               [For the following election there was unanimous consent

               for the Senate as a whole to act as the Committee on


               (3)  Senator Beagle was elected to the Committee on

                    Elections and Credentials.


          b.   Faculty representation on the Board of Visitors

               (1)  President Geyer presented the background of

                    faculty representation on the BOV.  Over the

                    years, the Senate President has attended at the

                    request of President McComas, and has become more

                    involved in the board's discussions.  The student

                    representative is a non-voting member of the

                    board.  For a faculty member to serve on the BOV,

                    legislation would be required. Delegate Munford

                    would support such legislation if the university

                    administration would request it.  The Senate

                    officers will discuss this matter with President

                    McComas tomorrow and need to have an indication of

                    the sense of the Senate.


               (2)  Discussion.

                    There are few negatives to membership, other than

                    being liable, just as all members are.  There ia a

                    positive relationship between the BOV and the

                    faculty representative, to whom the board

                    frequently turns for faculty opinion and


                      Other universities in the state may be

                    interested in this kind of representation.  We

                    could pursue this with the help of past Senate

                    presidents; we could ask the AAUP for assistance

                    in determining how this is handled in other


                      Other aspects of the discussion covered the

                    power of the BOV and the relative power of the

                    faculty member if he/she were a full voting



               (3)  Motion:  That the Faculty Senate supports full

                    voting membership of a faculty member on the Board

                    of Visitors on a one-year, rotating basis.

                    (Senator McDaniels)


               (4)  Further discussion centered on the pros and cons

                    of voting membership (the student member does not

                    vote) and on how the representative should be

                    selected.  A friendly amendment was put forward

                    that the representative be the immediate past

                    president of the Senate (Senator deWolf).  Having

                    a voting faculty member might be construed as a

                    conflict of interest; the purpose of having a

                    representative should be educational.  On the

                    other hand, we should have more than symbolic

                    representation, and our representation should be

                    at least that of the student member.  The

                    importance of working with other institutions,

                    such as UVa and George Mason, was also pointed

                    out.  An amendment was put forward to substitute

                    "formal representation" for "full voting

                    membership" (Senator Barker)  This amendment



               (5)  Amended motion:  That the Faculty Senate supports

                    the formal representation of faculty membership on

                    the Board of visitors, and that this member be the

                    immediate past president of the Faculty Senate.

                    The motion passed unanimously.

     10.  There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.


                                       Respectfully submitted,

                                       Marilyn L. Norstedt


Current Virginia Tech Governance Minutes Archive

Return to Virginia Tech Governance Minutes Archive

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, 24062-9001

Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:41 EDT