|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveSeptember 22, 1992
The following minutes were officially approved on 20 October, 1992 FACULTY SENATE 22 September 1992 32 Pamplin Hall I. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by President Leon Geyer. Visitors were introduced: Deans Gregory Brown (Forestry and Wildlife Resources), James Buffer (Education), Wayne Clough (Engineering), Herman Doswald (Arts and Sciences), S. J. Ritchey (Human Resources), Rich Sorensen (Business), Charles Steger (Architecture and Urban Studies), John Ashby (Spectrum), Peggy Rasnick (Staff Senate liaison), Senate Alternate Robert Pillow. Later visitors: Minnis Ridenour, Raymond Smoot, Ralph Byers. Present: Senators Armstrong, Beagle, Brown, Grayson (for Bunce), Carrig, Heath-Camp (for Clowes), deWolf, Eng, Falkinham, Feret, Fern, Ficenec, Geyer, Graham, Hardell, Haugh, Holtzman, Jacobson (for Howard), Hult, Jones, Lambur, Landgraf, Martin, McDaniels, Miller, Mullins, Murray, Norstedt, Olin, Pierce, Rakes, Scigaj, Sherman, Shumsky, Simmons, Snoke, Sumichrast, Vinson, Wang, Weaver, Webb, Williams, Wright Absent: Senators Barbeau, Foy, Hasselman, Landen, O'Brien, Parsons, Tideman II. Conversation with the deans. Each dean discussed initiatives and goals relating to their colleges, what they envisioned the future might be, and problems/other situational concerns relating to the colleges. A. Dean Doswald discussed the planning process begun in Arts and Sciences in 1987/1988, which, for the year 2000, emphasized the environment of education, the image of the college, and the justification of the college's existence. He also touched on global issues (such as expansion of the international studies program and general internationalization of the curriculum) and issues relating to EO/AA. In the future, he predicted more years with limited resources, further emphasis on interdisciplinary programs and research, more emphasis on advising, and an adjustment in the faculty reward structure. Throughout, much of his concern centered on undergraduate instruction. B. Dean Brown also touched on planning, which is important for his new college. They must position themselves within the university. Down the road, he seeks to retain the quality of the college, to be more responsive the public at large, and to promote diversity (his present faculty is all white male). He is concerned with developing more effective international programs, striving for a more acceptable balance between faculty salaries and operating budgets, and rewarding effective teaching and service. C. Dean Ritchey briefly stated the mission of the College of Human Resources: "To provide service to citizens." The college has a high national ranking, second only to Cornell in 1991. Through a comprehensive planning process, the college has attempted to integrate its extension mission with the academic programs of the university, to develop within the curriculum the components of a liberal education, and to recognize diverse faculty contributions. D. Dean Buffer also talked of his college's mission: "The Commonwealth is our campus." The college teaches in every county in the state, providing the most comprehensive education program in Virginia. Among the many achievements and accomplishments of the College of Education, Dean Buffer emphasized the research base of the certification programs. In all endeavors, and particularly in strategic planning, the college is structured to secure faculty input, outside opinions, and - in particular - collaboration with other colleges. E. Dean Steger discussed the development of AUS and its efforts to become international, through such endeavors as the European center at Lugano and other world-wide programs. The college has programs on all continents except Antarctica, primarily because the disciplines represented are global in character. Among the initiatives being developed are the multimedia laboratory and the undergraduate program in industrial design. F. Like several other deans, Sorensen dealt with the internationalization of the business curriculum and the importance of faculty public service activities. He spoke of the college's successful fund-raising activities and of the challenge of maintaining current programmatic quality while developing new, and very different programs. He emphasized the college's governance by diverse committees, and stressed faculty involvement at all levels of the governance process. G. Dean Eyre provided a humorous and enlightening history of the College of Veterinary Medicine. He described the need for change from the conventional curriculum to a more unusual, yet useful, course of study. This process, which was developed by a committee of faculty and representatives from outside the university, enables students to work in the field of government and corporate veterinary medicine during their final year of study. As a result, the same group that wished to deny accreditation to the college has now given VMCVM a fully accredited blessing. H. Dean Clough discussed the College of Engineering's planning process, which began in 1988 and is now operating in its second version. The plan created momentum and focus in program development and fund- raising efforts. At present, the college is working on a new approach to undergraduate education in engineering. Among his concerns is the need to maintain balance and quality in current programs while new programs are being developed. He believes faculty need to understand the need for change and the importance of getting the message out about Virginia Tech. Discussion: Question: What does the state "productivity enhancement" mean for teaching loads? Doswald: There is a need to explain more to the public. We do need to be concerned about faculty time - people whose research loads have diminished could do more teaching. We need to address the reward system. Clough: We will continue to be bashed by the state because the statistics can be used against us. Question: Don't we owe an explanation to the public, to the legislature, to SCHEV as to what we do, particularly in tough economic times? How can we do this? Brown: Workload assessments almost always focus on teaching. People need to know that universities generate knowledge. Ritchey: Fears we are coming to a time when legislators will be prescribing our workloads. We are hampered by a few bad examples in our midst; these are the folks who often get in the papers. Buffer: We're not telling our story about public service and research. We need to show that external activities are important. Clough: The problem is not just with the state; it extends to the federal government. Congressmen need to know how the research they fund and we do helps the public. Observation: We need to educate our students to our research. Question: Is the legislature aware of how much of our operating budget comes from research grants? Doswald: We have tried to tell the story, but we need to do a better job. Observation: Maybe it would be a good idea to have a reporter follow a faculty member around for a few days to see exactly what we do. Question: How do you feel about the concept of shared governance? General response: Look upon it quite favorably. There is more to be gained by a horizontal structure. Some colleges already had a history of shared governance. The current program was developed with input from the deans. Observation: Faculty service is not always encouraged or supported. Even Faculty Senate officers have sometimes been told that such service will not "count." The new structure will not work unless faculty service is recognized. General discussion: Although departments might give a high value to service, at promotion and tenure time things are likely to change. Even though P & T is a peer review process, many faculty still operate on the overall importance of research. The faculty need to be convinced of the value of service. Trouble can arise when the service/teaching component is too high in relation to research. While the situation might vary from college to college, it is changing. However, do we really believe that the three parts - teaching, research, and service - are equal? A further examination is needed because, in time, the value placed on various activities describes the nature of the institution. The concept of service needs to be defined and broadened beyond the limitations of university governance. Questions: How do we communicate with the legislators and with the state? What we value as faculty is not necessarily what the legislature wants to buy. Has the administration addressed this at all? Clough: Engineering documents all faculty service activities. The only way to communicate with outsiders is to show them what we've done; we have to start thinking as they do. Steger: There are many different constituencies - each needs to be addressed differently. There is a conscious effort on the part of the administration to do this. Question: How do we expand into the global arena when funding is so tight? General response: The need for outside funding is important in this area. Donors frequently can identify with the global programs. People are beginning to see such programs as important. Question: What has happened regarding the Senate resolution on funding travel for new faculty? General response: No one would have turned down funds from the Provost or the Foundation. Where should these funding decisions be made? In some colleges, there are very good "startup packages" for young faculty. III. Hotel Roanoke (at this point, Minnis Ridenour and Ray Smoot joined the visitors group) Harking back to the previous discussion, Ridenour pointed out that our students are our most important advocates, and that legislators do understand something about the institution's mission, which is why Tech is funded differently from Radford. Ridenour emphasized that Tech's involvement with the Hotel Roanoke is to provide a greater opportunity for public service and continuing education. If the process works, we will not own the hotel, at least not more than 5% of it. The City of Roanoke is going to build the conference center, which will enhance faculty involvement in public service. The last thing the university should be involved in is the operation of a hotel. The conference center activities will generate funding that will come back to faculty and programs. Steger pointed out that continuing education involves about 4% of the faculty who reach about 55,000 people per year. This activity would be doubled by the new facility. Question: How does the facility enhance the Gainsboro neighborhood. Expansion has been at the expense of one group of people. Does this enhance the university? Smoot: Tech has stayed out of the parking controversy. The Wells Avenue project is a city project and the problem will have to be worked through by the city. There is support in the Gainsboro community for Tech, because the development will benefit the neighborhood economically. Question: Is it true that the developer will pull out if something isn't done by January? Smoot: Yes. There is no point in hanging onto a languishing project. We need to get on with it or pull out. Question: What are the chances of success if $20 million needs to be raised within three or four months? How does the sale of Dominion Bank affect the project? Smoot: All the studies are now complete. The university is now meeting with individuals and corporations for purposes of obtaining gifts and support. Banks are willing to give support; he has visited with administrators from First Union. We should know by December if the project will fly. Ridenour: Now that the studies are complete, there is more visibility. We need to debt finance; the debt will be paid back by revenues from the hotel. Question: What will it cost the university if it fails - if the university pulls out? Ridenour: The university is not obligated beyond that level at which the university gets its money back. The hotel is valued at $16 million; the university has advanced $1.5 million on the project so far. If we need to sell the hotel, we will certainly get the $1.5 million back. Question: What will happen to the Roanoke Valley Graduate Center? Is it part of the larger plan? Ridenour: This has been raised and studied on several occasions. We need to explore how the center can become part of the project. But we need to keep in mind that programs must generate revenue. We are working on the problem of additional space needed for the center. Question: Mr. Faison is the developer in the project and also the owner of the Dominion Tower? Should we worry about this? Ridenour: First Union is sincere in its Roanoke efforts. A large enterprise may very likely want to participate in the downtown project. Question: On a different topic: What is happening with the three houses that are next to Randolph Hall? Smoot: The university has periodically tried to buy the properties from the owners; the area is part of the university's master plan. Tech's latest offer has been rejected. A local developer reportedly has made a much higher offer for the property and claims to have an option. Tech is still interested in the property. The university could condemn the property. IV. Athletic Committee's decision regarding abolition of the swimming team (raised by Senator Ficenec) Ridenour pointed out that the Athletic Department must be 100% self-supporting; it needs to reimburse the university about $600,000 per year for administrative costs. The committee formed a subcommittee to look at resource allocations. This group recommended that men's and women's swimming teams be eliminated and a women's soccer team be added. All scholarships for the swimmers would be honored. With this, Tech will have 10 men's sports and 7 women's sports. The recommendation came from the Athletic Committee to him via Dave Braine. He shared the recommendation with the President and the Provost, who agreed with the recommendation. The outcome was announced at the recent Board of Visitors meeting. The level of support for women's programs is the subject of a forthcoming in-depth study. Question: What is the amount spent on women's sports compared to total sports? Answer: Does not have the figures at hand, but it is quite small, probably in the area of 17%. Question: If the programs are not revenue-generating, how did these moves help? Answer: Not very much. The money will have to come from football and student fees. Observation: The problem is that the swimming decision was taken outside the existing governance structure. Response: It is in the minutes of the University Council - that the committee was bringing forward recommendations. Question: Was swimming competitive? Answer: No. We do not have the facilities to support the program at the NCAA level. V. Announcements and adoption of agenda A. Senate dues are $5.00, payable at any time. B. President Geyer distributed his report on events since the last Senate meeting. C. The agenda was adopted without change. D. Minutes Senate minutes for 28 April 1992 were approved. Cabinet minutes for 6 July 1992 were accepted. VI. Comments on commission and committee reports A. Commission on University Support. Senator Falkinham has seen no information on this new commission. He will attempt to get things started. B. Athletic Committee. Senator deWolf asked if this committee could gather statistics on student-athletes missing classes because of athletic competition. VII. New business A. Elections 1. Commission on Public Service and Extension - Senator Sumichrast (Business) 2. Student Budget Board - Senator Jones (Extension) 3. Credentials and Elections Committee (Extension representative) - Senator Lambur B. November bond issue Ralph Byers presented comments on what the university is doing to promote passage of the bond issue and what the faculty can do in support. Tech students have hold a very successful voter registration drive. The alumnae have secured endorsements from business and professional organizations. There will be spot announcements during October football games. All mailings to alums carry a message. The administration has been cooperating with the other institutions in the state. Media time has been purchased and notices placed in the football programs. 65,000 alums will be contacted by letter, as will the parents of students (a mailing of about 12,000). The faculty effort could be put into passing resolutions of support, getting the largest possible voter turnout in Montgomery County, and communicating a sense of urgency to all faculty. In early August, polls showed a low awareness of the bond issue. When the details were explained, about two-thirds of those polled agreed to support the referendum. There is little organized opposition. The motion was made and seconded to move the following resolution: RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE BOND REFERENDUM Whereas, Virginians will vote on a bond referendum on 3 November 1992 to include $472.4 million for education, including $45.5 million for Virginia Tech; Whereas, the Senate recognizes the importance of assisting the economy by investment in public facilities which promote the development of human capital; Whereas, the Senate recognizes the important role of labor and the economic benefits to labor in the construction of public facilities; Whereas, the investment in education facilities is an investment in the sons, daughters, granddaughters, and grandsons of all members of the Commonwealth; Whereas, the improvement of laboratories, classrooms, and facilities will directly enhance the educational opportunities of the youth of the Commonwealth for years to come and help to assure their role in a competitive society; Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Faculty Senate of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University endorses and supports the November bond referendum for higher education in Virginia. Faculty Senate Resolution 1992/93-1 22 September 1992 The resolution was adopted unanimously, without further discussion. VIII.There being no further business, the Senate adjourned at 10:12 PM. Respectfully submitted, Marilyn L. Norstedt Secretary, Faculty Senate
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/September+22++1992.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:41 EDT