|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveNovember 10, 1992
The following minutes were officially approved on Dec. 8, 1992 FACULTY SENATE Minutes 10 November 1992 32 Pamplin Hall I. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by President Leon Geyer. Visitors were introduced: John Ashby (Spectrum), Valerie Myers (alternate Staff Senate Liaison), Senator Frank Nolan (24th District), Delegate Creigh Dees (18th District). Senators present: Barbeau, Beagle, Brown, Bunce, Carrig, deWolf, Eng, Fern, Ficenec, Foy, Fuller, Geyer, Gordon (for Lambur), Graham, Hardell, Hasselman, Haugh, Heath-Camp (for Sherman), Holtzman, Hult, Jones, Landgraf, McDaniels, Miller, Mullins, Murray, Norstedt, Pierce, Rossi (for Olin), Scigaj, Shumsky, Snoke, Sumichrast, Vinson, Wang, Weaver, Webb, Williams. Senators absent: Armstrong, Clowes, Feret, Howard, Martin, O'Brien, Parsons, Rakes, Simmons, Tidemen, Wright. II. Higher education and state government (Senator Nolan, Delegate Dees) President Geyer introduced the speakers, noting that Senator Nolan is a Virginia Tech alumnus with long Senate service and that Delegate Dees is relatively new to the General Assembly. Senator Nolan expressed disappointment that the state cannot support Tech as it should, but it is difficult for his constituents to understand the university's role. Their perception is that the state still puts too much money into Tech, and that the school is too expensive. Part of the problem is that the voters do not understand research, and the university is not marketing the importance of research. He is also concerned about the percentage of students who do not graduate in four years; this creates an added expense for the state because a certain amount of student support comes from the taxpayers. Nolan praised the faculty for staying on at Tech during adverse economic times. Delegate Dees believes that money will dominate the thinking in the next session of the General Assembly. Like Nolan, he sorry that the university found it necessary to raise tuition, but he will not vote for a tax increase. He spoke of constituents who could not understand why there was a need for a bond issue when professors only taught one course and earned high salaries. He, too, emphasized the need to explain research to the voters. Public service/Extension Question: What do you believe the public service role of a university should be? Answer: Nolan, who is very familiar with Extension, would like to see the public service role expanded to business and engineering, particularly to serve small business and industry. Most of his constituents support agricultural extension, but he received many complaints when it became necessary to charge for formerly free services. Dees's experience with public service has been only with Extension and 4-H, both of which he praised, emphasizing the work done in the non-rural areas. In neither legislator's constituency are all Extension employees seen as representing Virginia Tech - it depends on the individuals. The combining of some agency offices has been an efficiency. Observation: Tech is not a totally undergraduate, resident institution. People all over the state take in-service courses offered by Tech. Also, our master's programs are offered throughout the commonwealth. Do your constituents really think that nothing happens outside Blacksburg? Answer (Nolan): There is great support for Tech from those who take the courses, but 80% of the jobs opening up only require a high school education. Most of our constituents are those who will find themselves in those jobs. Faculty workload/Research Question: Will the legislature be mandating teaching hours? Answer (Nolan): Probably not, but the legislature might well put pressure on SCHEV to increase the instructional load, considering the pressure from the voters. Question: What do your constituents think the instructional load should be? Answer: They probably don't have any idea what it is or what it should be; they tend to compare it with high school teaching. They do not understand the value of research; the faculty must help to educate them in this regard. Question: For faculty to be more effective teachers, they must continue learning, to do research and keep well ahead of the students. Teaching without research at the university level implies a static body of knowledge; students don't get value from a static course. Can't this be imparted to the voters? Answer: According to Nolan, the perception is, in some areas, that continuing education and research should be done after normal working hours. Dees would not support any bill mandating teaching hours, but the legislation could get passed if it were worked into a budget bill. Observation: You've pointed out that your constituents say we should be doing more teaching, and you say we should be doing more research that's important to Virginia. Federal cutbacks have reduced funding for research, yet the research needs to be done for national reasons, not just for an individual state. Response: Nolan considers this kind of research as an investment that should be treated as such, but it is hard to make decisions in this area. Dees pointed to increasing efforts in the area of private-public partnerships. Citizen education Question: How can faculty get involved in the citizen education process? Answer: Get invited by speakers' bureaus that are used by civic clubs. Work with alumni chapters. Expand the news releases sent out by the university, and don't limit them to agriculture. Observation: Why should we have to sell the university and higher education? What is needed is legislative leadership; the legislators should be the advocates. Response: Nolan indicated that the legislative supporters of higher education might get voted out - and then what do we have? Dees pointed out that his people are more concerned about elementary and secondary education, although he is willing to get on the stump for higher education. Tuition increases/Budget cuts Observation: Tuition is going up faster than the CPI; tuition is going up because we've lost state support. Response: Nolan believes too much has been shifted to the students. If the state cannot find more revenue, the universities will have to do more internal cutting to keep costs down. The people in Richmond feel they are not getting the bang for the buck in higher education that was obtained formerly. Observations: We've heard a lot about your constituents' perception of higher education spending. The first budget cut, however, which hit the universities particularly hard, was a directive from the Wilder administration and had nothing to do with constituents. The administration has led the onslaught against higher education, then the perceptions trickled down. Response: Nolan pointed out that the cuts were a conscious decision to shift the costs to the students rather than to raise taxes. He agrees that the perceptions might have come down from the administration rather than up from the voters, but Wilder will be remembered for balancing the budget in a recession, not for raising taxes. Dees's constituents claim they cannot take another tax increase; all attempts to increase certain taxes during the last session failed. Question: Can we anticipate that there will be no raises for the next two years? What happens if the state loses the big lawsuits? Would that bring another round of cuts? Answer: Nolan observed that more money is coming in than was estimated, and some salary increases may be possible in July. Although he does not think the state will lose the disparity suit, a loss would mean both further cuts and tax increases. Question: Why does Virginia rank 42nd in general fund appropriations per full time equivalent student [referring to a chart distributed to the meeting]? Other states apparently have not found it necessary to shift the costs to the students. Response: Nolan could only speculate on why Virginia has less discretionary spending - perhaps because of defense cuts. Neither he nor Dees had seen the figures before; both agreed that the situation was embarrassing and merited study. But tax increases are not possible. Observation: Perhaps a state income tax that was actually based on income would make it possible for the state to support students from low-income families. The way things are going, only the well-off will be able to send their children to state institutions. Question: What do you think of the idea of reduced or free tuition for dependents of university employees? Some departments have lost faculty to states that give this benefit. Answer: Nolan believes a fairness component is involved; what about employees who have no affected dependents? Dees considered it not a bad idea, but his constituents believe the faculty are overpaid and probably wouldn't approve. Graduation rate Observations: The problem of students taking more time to graduate has also affected graduate students. Because of the budget cuts, faculty and graduate student positions have been lost, which means remaining personnel are spending more time teaching the same or greater numbers of undergraduates. The graduate students cannot complete their work as quickly as in the past. It is not possible to make generalizations about the graduation rate; there are too many variables, such as the necessity to work, health problems, financial restraints, etc. Each case needs to be examined on its own merits. Response: Nolan stated he is only concerned with full-time undergraduates taking more than four years to complete the degree. State resources are being wasted on students who take just a few courses. He needs to be convinced that students are not languishing at Tech. In some state institutions, only 26% of the students graduate in four years. Dees expressed concern at the percentage, but recalled that many of his classmates at Concord College found it necessary to work their way through school and took longer to graduate. Nolan believes that a student who does not change majors and adheres to the requirements in the catalog under which he/she enrolls should graduate in four years. There should be no question of not getting classes. In the discussion that followed, several senators defended Tech's rate and denied that large numbers of students were purposely prolonging their graduation. At present, there are situations in which students cannot get into required classes, and one of the reasons goes back to the budget cuts - the courses cannot be offered with the frequency they were before. The catalog is based on the assumption of full staffing. The statistics do not take into consideration the many legitimate exceptions to four-year graduation, such as co-op programs, demographics, and financial constraints. According to the Provost, Tech is second only to Cornell among land-grant institutions in its four-year graduation rate. Virginia Retirement System Question: What is the status of VRS? Answer: The system is one of the best in the country, according to Nolan. The present concerns are not with investments but with the board - how it's appointed and how it's paid. Money has not been lost on the real estate investments; Crystal City was a good example in this area. But VRS needs to be treated like any other state agency. Dees stressed the problem of Potomac Yards, which needs either to be developed or sold. In thanking the legislators, President Geyer summed up the discussion as open and honest, and expressed the senate's appreciation for the support both gave to the bond issues. He stressed the point that the faculty was always available to answer questions dealing with areas covered in the dialogue. III. Announcements A. At their last meeting with the Provost, the Senate officers discussed implementation of governance, tuition waivers, and the late drop policy. B. President Geyer met with the faculty association presidents. Discussion centered on tuition waivers and child care benefits and department policies and procedures regarding governance. Departments with policy/procedure documentation are encouraged to send the material to Ken McCleary in Human Resources. C. President Geyer met with the chairs of the university commissions to discuss the relationship between the commissions and the reporting committees. IV. The agenda was adopted without change. V. Approval of minutes Senate minutes of 20 October 1992 were approved with the correction of a typographical error. Senate Cabinet minutes of 30 October 1992 were accepted. VI. Council, Commission, and Committee reports A. Communication Resources Committee Senator Snoke called attention to the fact that campus mail is not confidential. Mail from the outside is considered delivered when it arrives at 24061. [Added in proof: The above statement was in error. See report from UCRC for 2 December 1992]. B. Virginia Tech Academic Advising Network Harking back to the discussion with the legislators, Senator Snoke pointed out that a full-time student taking 12 hours per semester to meet a 126-hour graduation requirement would require 10 1/2 semesters to graduate. Also, the reference to the catalog of entry being the student's contract is incorrect. The requirements in place at the time of graduation are those that must be met. This is probably not the way it should be, but that is the statement in the catalog. Only one other school (Mississippi State) could be found that follows this same pattern. The Tech regulation will probably be changed sometime this year. President Geyer noted that SCHEV is considering 120 hours as the graduation requirement, which creates further confusion, because 126 hours is the lowest requirement of Tech. Later in the meeting, Snoke asked if a more reliable graduation statistic than that produced by the legislators could be found. Senator Murray indicated that the Advising Network had tried to impress on the administration the importance of obtaining detailed and accurate statistics in this regard. C. Athletic Committee President Geyer asked if there was a way to find out if the athletes graduation rate was improving. If so, the Senate should perhaps congratulate the athletic administration in the form of a resolution. Senator Ficenec noted that there probably is improvement, but questioned the wisdom of a resolution at this time. VII. New business: Tuition relief for faculty dependents President Geyer gave the background to this issue, which was included in the Senate Cabinet minutes of 30 October. He asked if the Senate was interested in pursuing the topic. Should it be approached with other faculty senate presidents and with our legislators? This is an exploratory discussion. In the discussion that followed, concerns were raised about equity (unfair to faculty without dependents), the perception that tuition relief would be a trade for a raise, and the coverage of such a plan (would it be for faculty only?). Senators suggested that it might be a good idea to find out how this is done elsewhere, and several contributed knowledge from their experiences at other institutions. Low- or no-interest loans and half-price breaks were also mentioned. Geyer indicated he would continue the dialogue with Radford and other interested groups, such as the president's of other faculty senates. VIII. There being no further business, the Senate adjourned at 9:35 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/November+10++1992.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:41 EDT