|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveDecember 7, 1993
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes Approved: 25 January 1994 7 December 1993 7:00 p.m. 32 Pamplin Hall Senator Present: Anderson, Armstrong, Badinelli, Bambach, Barbeau, Beagle, Brown, Bunce Creamer, de Wolf, Wendy Jacobson (for Bob Dyck), Fern, Ficenec, Foy, Graham, Hardell, Holtzman, Wendy Jacobson (for J.B. Howard), Hult, Jones, Lambur, Landgraf, Martin, McDaniel, Mullins, Wendy Jacobson (for Michael O'Brien), Pierce, Pinder, Richardson, Rojiani, Sherman, Shumsky, Sumichrast, Tze, Vinson, Webb, Zhang, Zink Absent Benson, Carrig, Cramer, Giles, Greenberg, Gregoire, McKenna, Norstedt Olin, Riley, Sanzone, Scigaj, Shires, Williams Guests John Ashby, Editor, Spectrum Allison Blake, Higher Education Reporter, Current Peggy Rasnick, Staff Senate Representative Paul Torgersen, Acting President of VPI 1. The meeting was called to order by President David de Wolf at 7:00 p.m. Visitors were welcomed. 2. The agenda was adopted after minor modifications proposed by President de Wolf. 3. Announcements: President de Wolf made the following announcements: The University Advisory Council on Strategic Planning and Budgeting met on 2 December 1993. Senate officers were present at the meeting. Senate Vice President, Larry Shumsky, called a meeting with University Provost, Fred Carlisle, to discuss possible student attendance policies. President de Wolf met with the Faculty Response Committee on 1 December 1993. The Faculty Senate Officers met 26 November 1993 with Acting President Paul Torgersen. Senate Officers met with Executive Vice President Minnis Ridenour earlier today. They arranged for Mr. Ridenour to be the main speaker at the January Senate Meeting. President de Wolf met with the leaders of the Student Government Association and the Graduate Student Association on 6 December 1993 for the purpose of gathering information for the Faculty Response Committee. 4. Program: President de Wolf welcomed Acting University President Paul Torgersen and provided the Senate with a brief background of Dr. Torgersen. Acting University President Torgersen began his address by reading from a report published in 1881. The report, written by a geologist, offered the State of Virginia advice on a university which ultimately became Virginia Tech. Dr. Torgersen noted that in these days of tight budgets, the state and the university are getting a great deal of advice, sometimes from people who are not well qualified to give it. Dr. Torgersen went on to discuss general criticisms given to higher education by authors and the general public. He noted that foreigners have a different perception of American universities. The citizens of foreign countries are almost unanimous in their praise and admiration for American universities. The first general type of criticism mentioned is the alleged obsession with research by university professors. He said there is some truth to this criticism because universities often want to increase their prestige through research. A second general criticism is that professors do not value teaching. Dr. Torgersen provided several examples from publications, such as the Wall Street Journal, which anecdotally supported this claim. A third general criticism mentioned by Acting University President Torgersen is that tuition and fees are going up much faster than the rate of inflation. He acknowledged that many people realize this is due in large part, to state budget cuts. However, he also mentioned that parents still must pay the increasing tuition and fees. The fourth category of criticism generally found in the popular press, is that college teachers do not work. Dr. Torgersen used numerous examples of published articles which hold each of these criticisms. He did not say that he agreed with the criticisms but went on to say that it is important for faculty to be aware of what is being said about them. President Torgersen reviewed the positions he has held since 1990. He explained how he became Acting President of the University and reported on actions which he has taken since assuming the office. Dr. Torgersen has spent a great deal of time visiting state legislators. He explained to the Senate that the Virginia General Assembly includes a wide variety of people with various backgrounds. He noted the general trend of increasing Republican strength within the legislature and he spoke of the significant turnover in the House Appropriations Committee after the last election. Dr. Torgersen used personal stories to explain the priorities of legislators. He stated that they were receptive to higher education but, higher education is only one item on a long list of priorities for legislators. His personal knowledge of the thoughts of individual legislators demonstrated again and again that the legislators feel pride in Virginia's higher education system in general and in Virginia Tech in particular. Acting President Torgersen explained that Virginia Tech has the potential to greatly influence state legislators. He mentioned that approximately 1 in every 100 Virginians are Virginia Tech graduates. However, he feels that Virginia Tech is late in getting to the legislature. In his own words, "...we are playing catch up". Other university presidents have courted the legislature for years. Dr. Torgersen explained the concerns of the legislators to the faculty. He stated that the legislature is disturbed about the Virginia economy and that the legislators need to be convinced that the faculty knows that the state has serious financial problems. He said that the university needs to send signals back to the legislature. Dr. Torgersen also said that legislators want assurances that faculty teach. He provided them with some anecdotal evidence of this. Finally, he said that legislators want a restructuring of higher education. While the precise meaning of restructuring is not clear, it is clear that change is necessary. Dr. Torgersen gave examples of actions taken by Ron Carrier which are viewed in a very positive light by the public and by the legislators, because these actions are seen as changes. Next, Dr. Torgersen addressed actions that the university should take. He stated that he is optimistic for the long term future of Virginia Tech. He expressed the necessity to communicate better with the public and the legislature. Virginia Tech needs to use it's alumni and extension agents to carry it's message effectively to the public. Dr. Torgersen stated that the President of Virginia Tech should be highly visible. In the short term, Virginia Tech must show that it is ready to change without sacrificing quality. He mentioned two specific examples which he can point to in conversations with state legislators: the Phase II program devised by Provost Carlisle and the efficiencies in administration achieved by Vice President Ridenour. At the conclusion of these opening remarks, Senate President de Wolf opened the floor to questions. Question: Senator Bunce stated that he was disturbed by pressure put on faculty to use technology to deliver lectures. He stated his displeasure with this aspect of restructuring and said that he believed it would break down faculty to student ratios. He expressed his desire for more personal contact between students and faculty. Answer: Acting University President Torgersen said he was also in favor of low student to faculty ratios. However, through an example example, he showed how the student to faculty ratio could be increased without sacrificing quality. He said that he is currently teaching a class with only five students and suggested that this type of a class might be taught every other year with a higher enrollment. Question: Senator Lambur asked what was meant by legislators who say "we need to get our act together". Answer: Dr. Torgersen expressed resentment at the insinuation by some that we do not have our act together. He stated that he was unsure of exactly what was meant by the statement but went on to say that he feels it is necessary to send positive signals to the legislators. He used actions taken by Minnis Ridenour to improve administrative efficiency as examples of positive signals which could be sent to the legislature at this time. Question: Senator Brown noted that Virginia has always ranked low on state support for higher education compared to other states. He asked Dr. Torgersen if Virginia's low rank on this measure has come up in discussions with legislators. He asked how legislators would respond when confronted with the fact that other states are better able to support higher education than Virginia. Answer: Dr. Torgersen noted that many items in the state's budget are fixed. He also noted that state legislators are extremely worried about a pending $300 million lawsuit. Dr. Torgersen noted other priorities for state funding such as students in primary and secondary schools in the southwestern part of the state who enter institutions of higher learning with significant deficiencies as compared to students from wealthier areas in the northern part of the state. He stated that a state tax increase could help eliminate some of these problems but, was unlikely within the next four years. Question: Senator Hult noted that a great deal of time had been spent considering how to respond to external influences. She stated her concern that Virginia Tech is not participating in a debate about what is really important. She asked how to find a balance between fighting for what we find to be important and trying to please external critics. Answer: In the long term, Virginia Tech needs to explain why it is important to Virginia. It must take an advocacy position. However, this type of response will not be effective in the short term. We need to respond to our critics to receive financial relief in January. Question: Senator Barbeau noted that we can claim that Virginia Tech is an "economic engine" to the state. He stated that by emphasizing the financial benefits of the university it won't be seen as a drain on state funds. Answer: Dr. Torgersen said he would like to see that case made. He believes that the university does a good job of making the case at the local level, however, it can do a better job making the case statewide. Question: Senator Hult expressed her concern at over-emphasizing the economic development aspects of Virginia Tech within the state. She stated that it would cause parts of the university which, can not be directly linked to economic development, to shrink. Answer: Dr. Torgersen agreed a balance must be reached. Question: There is a disturbing mismatch between education that is needed and what is actually provided. Values are missing. Virginia Tech should stake out the high moral ground and emphasize its ability to teach values. Answer: Dr. Torgersen stated that this was an internal issue. He pointed out practical problems from overemphasizing such an issue with state legislators. Dr. Torgersen stated that legislators freely acknowledge that Virginia has a first class system of higher education and that universities do not need to apologize. Question: President de Wolf stated that some have claimed that Virginia Tech is becoming a regional university. He asked if Dr. Torgersen had heard this during his visits with legislators. Answer: Dr. Torgersen stated that Virginia Tech has the best case for claiming it is a statewide university. He mentioned the broad range of students which Virginia Tech attracts. He noted, however, that Virginia Tech must become more visible statewide. President de Wolf thanked Acting University President Torgersen for addressing the Faculty Senate. 5. The Faculty Senate Minutes of 16 November 1993 were approved without changes. Cabinet Minutes of 29 November 1993 were accepted. 6. Council, Commission and Committee reports had been distributed electronically. A brief discussion period was held concerning these reports. President de Wolf summarized a late report sent by Former Senator Carl McDaniel concerning the Faculty Senate of Virginia. Senator Holtzman reported that the EOAA Committee has formed a sub- committee to coordinate various diversity committees within the university colleges. Senator Holtzman stated that representatives of college committees are invited to attend a meeting with this new university subcommittee. 7. New Business a. President de Wolf asked that Faculty Senate Cabinet to meet briefly after the Senate meeting. b. President de Wolf reminded senators to pay Faculty Senate dues. c. President de Wolf invited nominations for various for committee and commission openings. A senator must be nominated for the newly formed Commission on Administrative and Professional Faculty Affairs. The Virginia Tech Intellectual Properties Board requires an additional member to represent the Faculty Senate on a three year appointment. This representative need not be a senator. The Faculty Review Committee needs a representative from the College of Architecture and Urban Planning for a two year appointment. The Committee on Committees requires additional representation from any college. The Committee on Credentials and Elections requires representatives from College of Architecture and Urban Planning and Extension. The Commission on Academic Support needs two representatives. University Architect, Peter Karp, has requested a representative from the Faculty Senate to help determine building priorities for the university. Senator Bambach noted that the faculty has never before been asked to help make such decisions. He emphasized the importance of such an offer. Senator Graham volunteered to assume this responsibility. c. Senator Shumsky informed the Senate of a memo sent to him by university legal council, Jerry Cain. This memo summarized a new law passed by the Virginia General Assembly specifically for institutions of higher education. The new law requires that any financial aid provided to increase diversity at a campus must be open to all minority groups as defined by the federal government. Further, the memo stated that the federal government has recently redefined minority groups in such a way that almost everyone could be considered a minority. The Senate discussed the potential implications for this change. Senator Bambach provides a plausible interpretation for this apparent weakening: as an example, whites may be a minority at an afro-american university, and they may require EOAA action there for federally-mandated programs. 8. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:21 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Robert T. Sumichrast 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/1993/December+7++1993.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:42 EDT