|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveMarch 17, 1992
The folowing minutes were officially approved on 4/14/92. Faculty Senate Minutes 17 March 1992 32 Pamplin Hall I. President Leon Geyer called the Senate to order at 7:00 PM. Visitors Peggy Rasnick (Staff Senate) and John Ashby (Spectrum) were welcomed. II. Roll Call A. Present: Feret, Flick, Geyer, Kerns, Marriott, Webb, Wright, Dugas, (for Wang), Barker, Falkinham, Ficenec, Holtzman, Hult, Miller, Murray, Olin, Simmons, Snoke, Williams, Fern, Hicks, Rakes, Clowes, McDaniels, Brown, Crittenden, deWolf, Hasselman, Jones, Barbeau, Beamish, Norstedt, Beagle, Carrig, Eng, Saunders B. Absent: Bunce, Vinson, Howard, Poole, Sorrentino, Tideman, Webster, Michelsen, Neu, Pierce, Walker, Asche, Parsons III. Announcements (President Geyer) A. The Senate officers will meet with the President and the Provost before the next Senate meeting to discuss faculty representation to the Virginia Tech Foundation and the to the Board of Visitors. B. Faculty association presidents will meet on 27 March to discuss college governance. C. All members of university committees will be asked to serve another year in order to implement the transition to the new governance system. Commission members with unexpired terms will serve out their terms. D. The University Interim Budget and Planning Committee has been active. E. There is an explanation of the Electronic Village project in the Cabinet minutes. The Cabinet considered that, at present, the UCRC is the group that should monitor the project for faculty. Once the concept stage is past, formal faculty representation may be appropriate. IV. Program A. John Hillison, Past President, Address to the Senate 1. President Hillison outlined some of the Senate's accomplishments during the past few years: a. The promise of greater shared governance, both with the reorganization of the governance structure and the participation of faculty in committees such as Interim Budget and Planning. b. Excellent informal working relationships with the Board of Visitors, the development officers, and the alumni board. c. Service to other faculty, especially the contributions of the Faculty Review Committee, the Ethics Committee, and the Reconciliation Committee. d. Improved public relations through Spectrum news coverage and columns. 2. Among things yet to be done, Hillison cited: a. Extension of the Senate model to college and department level governance and to other senates in the commonwealth. b. Formal faculty membership on the Board of Visitors and the Board of the Virginia Tech Foundation. c. Recognition and reward for faculty serving on university commissions and committees, especially grievance committees. d. Continued public relations emphasis. [The full text of Hillison's address was published in Spectrum, 26 March 1992] 3. On behalf of the Senate, President Geyer presented Past President Hillison with a plaque recognizing his service in Senate leadership. B. Minnis Ridenour, Executive Vice President and Chief Business Officer 1. University budget report a. Almost all new items must be funded from increased tuition. About $28 million in tuition has been authorized, with the understanding that out-of- state students must pay 100% of their costs. In response to a question regarding out-of-state students, Ridenour emphasized that the authorization was based on full payment, but that the final schedules for graduation tuition/fees were still being worked out. The package will be in place by 3 April. b. Refunding of the Equipment Trust Fund. Since 1987, Tech has received more money from the fund than any other university/college. This year we will receive $8 million, which will be used to replace outmoded equipment. Because of present low interest rates, the fund's outstanding bonds can be refinanced while still keeping the debt service requirement in line with what was planned. Tech will have to pay a portion of the debt service in the future from tuition and fees, not from the general fund as before. c. Salaries. There will be a 2% restoration in salaries for faculty who were on the payroll in December 1990, for all classified staff, and for graduate students serving in converted faculty positions. We do not know about the other graduate students. There is a possibility that all faculty might be factored into the amount received, but the details are unknown. This is an across-the-board 2%; no merit is involved. d. The university presented one budget amendment: to restore $9.2 million to the Extension budget. We received $3.2 million for the first year and $2.6 million for the second, leaving us short by $3.4 million. We would have received more had money been available, and we will ask for the difference next year. Question: Regarding the budget in general, were the efforts of students and faculty to influence the legislators successful? Answer: Yes, although it's not immediately apparent. The most positive result was the authorization of general obligation bonds, which could bring $46 million to us for building projects. The students conducted themselves very well in Richmond. We need greater cooperation with other universities in order to make the case for higher education. Question: In view of the construction projects, will we be asked to take over some of the debt service? Answer: No. If the bond issue passes in November, we will receive the money from the Commonwealth. However, we do have to fund one-half of the cost of research space. We will have to provide about $7 million for the Architecture/Engineering Building and some of the funding for Major Williams. The intent is that this comes from overhead, but it would be difficult to get this amount in two-three years. The university is working with the state to develop a revenue bond package to raise the $7 million. 2. Smart highway a. The direct link (alternative 6) would cost $108 million. The Christiansburg-Blacksburg bypass (alternative 3A) would be about $40 million. The transportation bond package contains some funds for 3A, which would free up money for alternative 6. About $5.9 million in federal funds have been appropriated for "smart technology" for highways; some of this would go to the project. The university has received about $250,000 from General Motors for research on vehicles and highway systems. b. Senator Kerns explained that the bond package has $28 million for alternative 3A. A 2-cent gasoline tax is also involved. 3. Hotel Roanoke a. The university is negotiating a final agreement with a new developer. We have the right to return the hotel to N and S, but this is not being considered. The university is putting money into development as a loan to pay up front costs. The asset to the university is $14 million. We have the right to sell the hotel if we like, but our intent is to reopen the hotel. It is an effective way of carrying out the public service mission of the university. b. The university is only putting money into the project that can be repaid. We would consider abandoning the project only if it could not be funded. We will know this in about a year. Roanoke City has made a major commitment; we are seeking gifts from major corporations. The hotel is a $32 million project; the convention center, $12 million. The university contribution to the convention center ($2 million) would be paid back from conventions. This is a minimum risk project for the university. 4. Off-campus Centers a. Northern Virginia Graduate Center. The Telstar facility, shared with UVa, is too small. The universities are working with local governments in northern Virginia to find a way to get a permanent facility. b. Southwest Virginia Center for Higher Education (Abingdon). This is a joint project among the local community colleges (freshman-sophomore instruction), Clinch Valley (junior-senior), and Tech and UVa (graduate). The general obligation bond package includes $9 million for a facility. 5. Growth in administration. The university's internal program structure considers instruction, public service, research, student services, academic support, and general administration. Tech has a greater percentage of money in instruction than any other school in Virginia, and than fourteen other schools in the southeast. A study is underway as to how we compare nationally regarding the level of institutional support. Observation: Perhaps some of this information could be shared through Spectrum and other sources. This might help get around the impression that there is "creeping administrivia." Observation: There is a lack of observed change. We see a reduction in faculty and staff, but a similar reduction in administration is not perceived. Answer: We can share this information. The only new positions authorized last year were faculty positions. There is a much higher turnover in administrative/classified positions, which accounts for the ads. Observation: Perhaps there is a lack of understanding about reassignments as opposed to new positions. The reassignment of Paul Gherman is an example; no new position has opened in the University Libraries as a result. Observation: The definition of "administration" and "faculty" seems to be a problem. Answer: Instruction includes faculty and department heads. Academic support includes all the deans, "deanlets", the library, LRC, etc. The central administration includes student services, institutional support, and the physical plant. Observation: The overhead item in contracts and grants has been steadily growing. Some see this as a part of administrative growth. Answer: The colleges are the direct recipients of the overheads. A portion of the money could be used to reimburse the accounting office, personnel office, etc., but we have not chosen to do that. The only administrative growth in this area has been in the Office of Grant and Contract Administration. Our focus is to put the money back into the basic mission of the university. Question: In view of the fact that not all universities measure faculty/administrative ratios in the same way, can we really feel comfortable in comparison with others? Answer: I believe the university addresses the administrative allocation process in a reasonable way. We are doing more work than ever with the same number of positions. Observation: Faculty interest in this area may come about because faculty do not know what administrators do. It is difficult to find out how many administrators there are. Some positions are necessary, but there seems to be a proliferation of middle managers and hemi-demi-semi deans. What do they do? How can we get information about these positions? Response: Ridenour spoke about how his time is spent. He would be glad to have a faculty member spend several months with him and other administrators to learn how many important university projects and programs are developed. Faculty should raise questions about positions they don't understand. He and the Provost are willing to discuss these matters as they relate to their supervisory areas. Question: Some faculty members have been told by Gordon Davies and others that faculty should be writing to legislators and others about the situation with the out-of-state graduate students and other problems related to research and teaching. Isn't this the role of administrators? Answer: Yes. The role of the administration is to support and carry the message; this is not a part of a faculty member's normal work. It's best to invite legislators and state officials to the campus where they can see the efforts being made and learn what is coming out of university research. Question: Could you publish statistics showing the rate of growth of faculty salaries and administrative salaries? Answer: 135% of the average faculty salary is the overall authorization for administrative salaries in the state. The Tech percentage is 114 or 115%. That statistics are something that could be worked on. Question: Is it the case that there is decreasing legislative support for Tech? Answer: No, the support has grown, if anything. There was tremendous legislative and grass-roots support for the Extension amendment. We were seen as serving the entire state. We need to become more visible in the area of research. Question: Has there been any success in reducing the amount of duplication of paperwork between the universities and Richmond? Answer: Yes, we have been given more local authority in personnel classification and purchasing. Two years ago the legislature asked for a pilot study on the accounting area. Working with UVa, we showed how decentralization could work without double-checking. A bill on decentralization was introduced but killed; our efforts will continue. Question: There is a feeling that revenues generated by off- campus activities are not flowing back into the programs. Has the administration looked into this? Question: The library at the NOVA Graduate Center is inadequate in relation to the number of students. Why isn't money being put into it? Answer: Has not heard these concerns raised before. Most of the money should be going back to the programs. He will look into these matters. Question: What is the status regarding the restructuring of communication rates? Will the restructuring go into effect 1 July? Answer: Has been working on some of the details, but the budget process is not complete yet. He does not know if the program has been approved yet. Question: Would you support the requests for faculty representation on the Board of Visitors and the Foundation Board? Answer: He needs to know more about the rationale. The Foundation Board is an external board, which makes it somewhat different. He serves as an officer to the board; maybe there could be a similar slot for a faculty member. He understands the faculty's concerns, but the staff level of participation was greater than that of the faculty. The board is self-sustaining. President Geyer thanked Mr. Ridenour for his presentation. V. The motion passed for the adoption of the agenda VI. Approval of minutes A. Faculty Senate minutes of 11 February 1992 - approved with corrections. B. Prior to the approval of the 25 February minutes, the university calendar was discussed. 1. Where is the proposed calendar? CFA has a copy, and a copy has been given to John Ashby for publication in Spectrum. Comments can be directed to Jim Wolfe. 2. The minutes provided a good summary of the Senate's concerns. Because CUS is the responsible commission, perhaps these could be circulated to the membership and the calendar issue put on the agenda for the next meeting. 3. Representation on the committee was questioned, as were the guidelines for calendar construction. C. Faculty Senate minutes of 25 February 1992 - approved. D. Senate Cabinet minutes of 6 March 1992 - accepted with minor corrections. VII. Council, commissions, and committees A. University Council (Senator Falkinham) Council passed the new undergraduate core requirements at its 2 March meeting. A memo has come from the Provost regarding the composition of the implementation committee. The committee will have a member from each college. The Senate will select three representatives, the Provost appoints two. The committee can expand itself to cover all areas of concern. B. Commission on Undergraduate Studies (Senator Murray) Senator deWolf asked about plans to waive or change university admissions requirement. Senator Murray reported that the Admissions Review Subcommittee had been reconstituted to investigate these matters. The subcommittee is discussing a wide range of admissions policies, but the sense of the group is that the Algebra II requirement will be retained. President Geyer pointed out that questionnaires on admissions have been sent to all the college curriculum committees. C. Commission on Faculty Affairs (Senator Williams) At the 6 March meeting, the commission considered a Provost's Office proposal for a new category of instructors. Instructors, after an initial year, would receive an appointment in the form of two- year contracts. (This is in no way comparable to continued appointment, which is outlined and defined in the Faculty Handbook.) The proposal was received favorably, with some sentiment to extend the plan to part-time instructors as well. CFA will act on the proposal on Friday. 1. The concept of tenure is not affected. The instructors would not stand for tenure. It provides a measure of job stability for this segment of the faculty, and meets the needs of the instructional staff. 2. At present, full-time instructors cease to be full time after six years. At that point, they continue as part-time instructors with little reduction in teaching load and loss of their benefits. 3. Is there a way to keep this from being abused, say, as a substitute for hiring tenure-track faculty? Are there safeguards? The possibility for abuse is present and is happening. However, if a department sacrificed research faculty positions for instructors, the standing of the department would fall. Nonetheless, this is a matter of concern, particularly in times of financial difficulties. 4. Senator Hasselman pointed out that instructors currently make less than graduate assistants in his college. Their status is that of "no fringe benefits and slave labor." Other senators praised the dedication of the instructors, many of whom have received teaching awards while working without benefits. The university owes the instructors (who are a majority of women) much more than they get. They are our colleagues and deserve the security and stature the proposal might provide. 5. If the proposal goes into the handbook, the rank will be as extra-collegiate instructor. The definition for lecturer will also be changed. D. Supplemental Grants Committee (Senator Barker) This committee awards grants for travel to international meetings, using money provided by the Foundation. The criteria for the award are documented acceptance of a paper and presentation at an international meeting. The committee is reluctant to award grants for travel to eastern Canada or Mexico. The amount of the awards shrinks as the academic year goes by and the committee now works with a shortfall. The Senate is asked: 1. to request additional financial support for the program from the Foundation. 2. to request that the committee predict the maximum number of awards and attempt to equalize the value of grants. VIII. Unfinished business There were no items of unfinished business. IX. New business A. Nominations for Senate officers (Committee on Committees) President: Senator Geyer Vice President: Senator deWolf Secretary: Senator Norstedt There were no additional nominations from the floor. The election will be held at the next Senate meeting. Further nominations can be accepted. Candidates should be prepared to make presentations at that meeting. B. Senate Resolution 1991-1992A (Support for Domestic Travel) 1. Senator McDaniels moved acceptance of the resolution for discussion purposes. The intent of the resolution is to ask for Foundation money to establish a fund to provide domestic travel grants for junior faculty. This would be separate from the Supplemental Grants program. Discussion: a. Perhaps Supplemental Grants should be mentioned in the preamble. Without this, the resolution could be misread. b. The intent of the program is admirable, but the consensus from the Foundation/administration is that the money is not available to support this project and Supplemental Grants. We need to prioritize. Possibly, we could restrict the level of the request to about 25%, which would make the program more realistic at this time. c. In principle, there is probably no reason why Supplemental Grants need to be restricted to foreign travel. The procedure favors senior faculty, even though the guidelines are supposed to favor junior faculty. If Supplemental Grants were unrestricted, the junior faculty could be at a disadvantage. However, recommendations could be made to restructure the Supplemental Grants program. The Supplemental Grants program is important - for some it is the only source for international travel funding. We must be careful not to destroy it. Could we request that Supplemental Grants receive more money, and that a portion of that increased pool be allocated to junior faculty? d. Senator McDaniels pointed out that this was a request for a five-year period only. It's a new initiative to help our colleagues. We should ask for it and let the Foundation turn us down if they wish. e. Supplemental Grants is considered as an entitlement for the faculty. Would this proposal also be considered that way or would it be competitive? Are there other areas that need funding more than this one? The Foundation's interest in giving money for foreign travel is to showcase the university. f. We're asking for membership on the Foundation board and for $200,000. Maybe they'd rather give us the money. 2. After further discussion, Senator Falkinham moved to table the resolution. This was approved, and Senators were encouraged to discuss the matter with their constituents. X. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 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/March+17++1992.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:41 EDT