|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveApril 7, 1993
The following minutes were officially approved on April 20, 1993. FACULTY SENATE Minutes 7 April 1993 32 Pamplin Hall I. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by President Leon Geyer. Visitors were welcomed: John Ashby (Spectrum), Joanna Baker (Advisor to Undergraduate Honor System), Jennifer Gold (Chief Justice, Undergraduate Honor System), Martha Johnson (Assistant Dean, Graduate School), Ken Kahn (President, Graduate Students Association), Peggy Rasnick (Staff Senate Liaison), Tim Schell (President-Elect, Graduate Students Association), Ronnie Stephenson (President-Elect, Student Government Association), Neal Stewart (Chief Justice, Graduate Honor System). New senators were welcomed and introduced themselves. II. The agenda was adopted with the following changes: Minutes to be approved were Senate minutes of 23 February and 18 March 1993; Senate Cabinet minutes of 26 March 1993. III. Roll call Senators present: Barbeau, Beagle, Brown, Carrig, deWolf, Eng, Fern, Ficenec, Foy, Geyer, Hardell, Holtzman, Jones, Lambur, Landgraf, McDaniels, Miller, Norstedt, O'Brien, Olin, Pierce, Scigaj, Shumsky, Snoke, Sumichrast, Tideman, Weaver, Webb, Williams. Senators absent: Armstrong, Bunce, Clowes, Falkinham, Fuller, Graham, Hasselman, Haugh, Howard, Hult, Martin, Mullins, Murray, Parsons, Rakes, Sherman, Simmons, Vinson, Wang, Wright. New Senators present: Bambach, Bandinelli, Benson, Burger, Creamer, Giles, Greenberg, Gregoire, McDaniel, McKenna, Riley, Rojiani, Shires. IV. Announcements A. President Geyer announced that an ad hoc committee composed of himself, Senators deWolf and Eng, and Past President Hillison is examining the Senate bylaws for needed changes. A report may be ready for the next meeting. B. Secretary Dyke's visit was successful: he enjoyed the visit to the fibre optics facility and was impressed by the Phase II plans. Dyke, however, warned against change for the sake of change, and asked that the university justify the outcomes of its policies (such as requiring more than 120 hours for graduation). C. President Geyer also announced that President McComas had received a letter from Governor Wilder praising the university's Phase II planning. V. Program A. Honor System review 1. Graduate Honor System. Chief Justice Neal Stewart distributed the summary of cases for 1992/93. Stewart pointed out that there were only one-third as many cases this year as in 1991/92. Under the Graduate Honor System, all students are responsible for their own academic integrity. Unlike undergraduates, graduate students are not required to sign the Honor Code understanding; the Chief Justice talks with the majority of new graduate students each year about the system. Stewart agreed that consistency might be a good idea. 2. Undergraduate Honor System. Professor Baker reviewed the summary report of cases for 1991/92. Most sanctions (77%) fell into class II. There is a decline in cases this year, but the statistics are not yet complete. Chief Justice Jennifer Gold noted that a video about the Honor System is available for classroom use and is on reserve at the library. Discussion A question regarding the percentage of cases dismissed by the Undergraduate System (56%) led to a discussion of transmitting information about the system, particularly to the faculty. Although there are efforts made each year to reach new faculty and teaching assistants, improvements need to be made. All faculty need to be aware of the regulations, particularly the time limits; it might help to prepare a summary sheet for faculty use. The constitution and other Honor System documents are available in paper copies on request. Gold emphasized the need for complete documentation for all cases: seating charts, very specific reporting, etc. Time is important, particularly in cheating cases, where there is a 30-day rule. Nearing graduation, everything needs to speed up because, according to the constitution, students who have graduated cannot be punished. A student investigator is assigned to each case, but the investigator can only help if the reporter is willing to follow through. Question: Are most charges brought by the faculty? Answer: Yes, but other students and secretaries also bring charges. A considerable number are brought by graduate assistants. Question: Where do freshmen get information about the system? It's no longer available in The Pylon. Answer: The information is in the undergraduate catalog. The Chief Justice gives a one-minute talk on the system at orientation. Question: Does the system really work? Is it equitable? Are most people caught? Answer: That's difficult to say. As to being equitable, we try to adhere to the rights of both the prosecutor and the accused. Question: Is there any periodic checking on faculty attitudes toward the system? Are there identifiable "pockets" of cases? Answer: The statistical information is not too good. We know that some people/departments consider the system a waste of time, and we can't force people to embrace the system. Observation: It might be possible to influence newer faculty. Observation (Stewart): The Graduate Honor System did a survey a few years ago; this has, perhaps, helped to reduce the number of cases. B. Student government leaders 1. Ken Kahn, outgoing GSA President, discussed his organization's statewide role through the Graduate and Professional Student Association of Virginia. This group is lobbying for better funding for graduate students, tuition waivers, and the like. They also are emphasizing the importance of graduate education at all relevant state institutions. 2. Tim Schell, GSA President-elect, spoke of the closeness of the graduate student and faculty groups - that benefits to one group can also benefit the other. He hopes GSA in the coming year will address the real needs of graduate students, not their social status. 3. Ronnie Stephenson, SGA President-elect, believes communication is the key to meeting goals in working with students and organizations. He would like to work with and/or observe the Faculty Senate; this would be helpful in his work with student senators and representatives. Prior to the discussion, President Geyer spoke briefly about faculty/student relations and his contacts with the GSA. The graduate students, particularly teaching assistants, are misunderstood even more than faculty. Geyer also opined that students could visit Faculty Senate as observers. Stephenson announced that the student forum with Minnis Ridenour and Secretary James Dyke (23 April, 5-7 PM) will be open to everyone. Question: How is student morale? Stephenson: Students are feeling the pinch. He met with the Parents Advisory Board, and finances were a major topic. Out-of-state students will leave, which is unfortunate for the university. Schell: Graduate student morale is very low. Many feel they are getting nothing more, yet paying more money as tuition increases. Kahn: Graduate students are very satisfied with their relationships with the faculty, but other issues - chiefly financial - are causing morale problems. Question: Are foreign students affected? Kahn: They share common problems, but these are compounded in the case of the foreign students by a lack of a family support system. The GSA is working on this with the international organizations. The SCHEV Task Force on Graduate Education (on which he is the Virginia Tech representative) is also looking into this issue. Observation: We need forceful statistics on the importance of graduate students. These would be helpful for their case and meaningful for faculty. Kahn: The SCHEV study may yield some statistics, particularly on the role of graduate students in the economy. Question: Many students seem unaware of the tuition problem. Does the SGA do any mailings, etc., to apprise students of the situation? Stephenson: That's part of the communication process. The SGA will be looking into programs of this type. Observation: The reason for the current difficulties is that higher education is behind prisons, medical care, and K-12 education as a priority. Higher education needs state-wide support. The students have a natural constituency in their parents. To have influence on parents is to have influence on the legislature. (Several senators supported these remarks.) Schell: Kahn is to be commended on his lobbying efforts. The Virginia graduate student organization is one of the best of its kind in the country. Stephenson: A state-wide undergraduate conference is being planned to discuss this topic. Observation: The money for fee waivers is coming from other students. The legislature should be aware of this. Observation: Alums are not aware of what is happening to students today. They need to be educated. Kahn: He spoke to a senator, a Tech graduate, who only wanted to talk about football and other peripherals. Question: What do graduate students get for their money? What would happen if the programs had to be closed down? Kahn: The general impression at the state level is that all is well with higher education because the bond referendum passed. Question: What about the national level? Schell: The national meeting of graduate student organizations showed that most were not as well- organized as Virginia's. Kahn: There are three bills currently in Congress to address higher education. Question: Why do students skip class? Should we care? Stephenson: The recent report in the Collegiate Times showed there were many reasons for non-attendance, but there is probably no real answer. Observations: Yet the legislature wonders why the state is paying anything at all for students who are not going to class. The university, not the students, gets blamed for student behavior, such as non- attendance, failure to graduate in four years, etc. VI. Approval of minutes A. Senate minutes for 23 February 1993 were approved with the addition of Senator Olin as among those present. B. Senate minutes for 18 March were approved with corrections to be supplied by Senator Snoke. [Added in proof: The following has been inserted in section V at the end of the Response beginning, "It could be set up ..." "[Added for clarification: It is within the province of the commission to pursue resource issues.]" Also, the following was added to section VI.B: "In response to questions, it was stated that the schedule included in the minutes was only a suggestion; perhaps next year such suggestions will be included in the bylaws. Also, no specific suggestion was made as to when the commission chairs should be elected."] C. Senate Cabinet minutes for 26 March 1993 were accepted. VII. Council, commission, committee reports A. Commission on Graduate Affairs (Senator Snoke) Reginald Mitchiner (Mechanical Engineering) was elected as new chair of the commission. The commission learned that LEXIS/NEXIS is canceling its contract with the university next month. Senator Beagle, who is in charge of LEXIS/NEXIS operations through the University Libraries, explained that the company claims we are not in compliance as instructional users. He will be sending out letters to all campus users of the database, clarifying the situation. B. Advisory Council on Budget and Planning (Senator Geyer) Senator Olin questioned the first item in the council's minutes of 5 March 1993, which related to the 1991 study done by the University of Tennessee--Knoxville. He wondered how Virginia Tech could rank second among fifteen institutions if the institutional group keeps changing. Senator Miller pointed out that the group was comprised of SREB members who volunteered statistics; this is different from our state-sanctioned peer group. In response to Senator Holtzman, Geyer explained that "gender concerns" refers to whether or not gender would be considered in salary issues (such as compression). C. Commission on Faculty Affairs (Senator deWolf) In response to Senator Olin, Senator deWolf reported that CFA has approved the document, Misconduct in Research, and passed it on to University Council. D. University Council (Senator deWolf) The faculty grievance procedures have been passed by University Council. VIII. New business A. Alumni Association President Geyer met with the board of the Alumni Association on 3 April. He reported that the association is concerned about the problems faced by the university and the faculty; they, too, are interested in getting greater positive publicity for the university and its endeavors. The AA was recognized as having the most outstanding alumni relations program in the southeast during the past year. Also, William W. Moseley ('59), immediate past president of the association, received the 1993 Volunteer Award of the Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) for his leadership of the Tech Alumni Association. B. "Blueprint Committee" draft report (Senator McDaniels) Senator McDaniels distributed the draft report on the committee's responses to faculty bashing. He gave a brief background regarding the formation of the committee as a planning group to come up with ideas for positive publicity for the university and the faculty. The committee is asking that senators read the draft and send comments (or a marked-up text) either in hard copy or by e-mail to any committee member by 20 April. The members of the committee are McDaniels, Robert Denton, Sam Riley, and Paul Torgersen. C. Phase II update The Provost has added one senator to each of the committees. There should also be an additional faculty member on each committee. D. Committee on Committees report The committee presented the draft of nominations for commissions and committees. Corrections, additions, etc., were suggested. E. Election of Senate officers for 1993/1994 Nominated for President: David deWolf (Engineering). Senator deWolf was elected by acclamation. Nominated for Vice-President: Neil L. Shumsky (Arts and Sciences). Senator Shumsky was elected by acclamation. Nominated for Secretary/Treasurer: William Williams (Arts and Sciences), Robert Sumichrast (Business). Senator Sumichrast was elected on the second ballot. F. Resolution on faculty salaries (appended to the agenda) It was noted that the resolution originated with Prof. Stephen Baehr (Arts and Sciences). Senator Snoke suggested that the resolution be referred to the Blueprint Committee. For purposes of discussion, Senator Eng moved the resolution as a motion. Eng believed that the resolution, in its present form, could be construed as self serving. It was too tied to Tech, when the problem was state wide; also, it seemed to imply no person or group had done much about faculty salaries, which was not the case. In the discussion that followed, it was pointed out that passage of the resolution might make it clear that the Senate was truly looking out for faculty interests. The intent of the resolution matched sentiments expressed by the President and the Provost; it might be helpful to redraft the text and have the Senate officers discuss it with the administration. The question was raised as to the importance of faculty salaries over graduate student support. Senator Tideman moved to refer the resolution to the Senate officers for discussion with the President and Provost. Senator Snoke presented a friendly amendment to also refer the resolution to the Blueprint Committee (amendment accepted). After further discussion on expanding the scope of the resolution, the seconded motion to refer the resolution to the Senate officers for discussion with the President and Provost and to also refer the resolution to the Blueprint Committee was passed unanimously. IX. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 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/1993/April+7++1993.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:42 EDT