|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveFebruary 9, 1993
The following minutes were officially approved on March 18, 1993. FACULTY SENATE Minutes 9 February 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), Henry Dekker (Vice Rector, VPI & SU Board of Visitors), Brian Dunch (Student Alumni Associates), Peggy Rasnick (Staff Senate Liaison), Minnis Ridenour (Executive Vice President and Chief Business Officer), Peter Rony (Chemical Engineering), Mike Williams (Director, Computing Center). II. The agenda was adopted with two changes: A. Item E, the Future Professors Program, was dropped. B. A new item, to elect a replacement for Senator Howard on the CSA, was added. III. Roll call Senators present: Armstrong, Beagle, Carrig, deWolf, Eng, Falkinham, Feret, Fern, Ficenec, Fuller, Geyer, Graham, Hardell, Heath-Camp (for Sherman), Holtzman, Howard, Hult, Jones, Lambur, Landgraf, McDaniels, Miller, Mullins, Norstedt, O'Brien, Olin, Phadke (for Brown), Pierce, Shumsky, Simmons, Snoke, Sumichrast, Tideman, Vinson, Wang, Webb, Williams, Wright. Senators absent: Barbeau, Bunce, Clowes, Foy, Hasselman, Haugh, Martin, Murray, Parsons, Rakes, Scigaj, Weaver. IV. Announcements A. President Geyer distributed draft copies of the calendar criteria, the procedures for the Faculty Review Committee, and the faculty grievance form. B. Senator deWolf announced that Senate Alternate Arun Phadke had been elected to the prestigious National Academy of Engineering. This news was greeted with a round of congratulatory applause. C. Brian Dunch of the Student Alumni Associates announced that 17 February 1993 is Faculty Appreciation Day. Individual students or student organizations are encouraged to invite faculty to lunch or other functions during the day. Several local restaurants will be giving discounts. Dunch asked that senators spread the word and urge their colleagues to participate. D. President Geyer reminded the group that Senate officers will be elected 7 April and elections to commissions and committees will be held on 20 April. V. Program A. Henry J. Dekker, Vice Rector, VPI & SU Board of Visitors In his introductory remarks, Dekker praised the faculty as a group with the most crucial responsibility in the university. He touched on the current financial situation in the state and supported increased taxes as the only way to pay for state programs. Dekker recommended a recent book, The Guardians, as helpful reading for anyone interested in the role of university trustees. [The Guardians: Boards of Trustees of American Colleges and Universities, by Clark Kerr and Marian L. Gade. Washington: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, 1989. LB2342.5 K470 1989] He briefly outlined the history of governing boards, which, in this country, have become primarily lay boards without internal university representation. Among other duties, governing boards are called upon to select, advise, and support the university president; to establish major policy; to supervise economic affairs and matters relating to the physical plant; and to act as a court of last resort. Boards of public institutions are usually appointed by the state governor, although some states have elected boards, some have mixed boards, and in two states boards are elected by the legislature. The Virginia Tech Board of Visitors has thirteen members. There is a student representative to the BOV (who is not a board member), and Leon Geyer represents the faculty. Ten of the board members are alumni, two are women. Occupations of board members concentrate on business (six) and the law (two), with the rest mixed. Prospective members are recommended by the University Development Office, the Alumni Association, and others. The governor's recommendations must be approved by the legislature. Members serve for four years. The BOV has five standing committees: Academic Affairs, Student Affairs, Buildings and Grounds, Finance and Audit, and the Executive Committee. Dekker believes that students and faculty should not be board members, although their participation on board committees can be useful. He considers that faculty membership opens a potential conflict of interest, and that faculty have effective representation through the university governance structure. Boards should be independent, operating under lay trustee control; there should be no "superboards." Higher education should be based on autonomy and competition. Among his concerns, Dekker mentioned the problems of financing higher education, raising faculty salaries, and combatting the adversarial attitude current in the state. He also emphasized that we must do a better job of supplying solutions ourselves or we will have solutions legislated for us. Regarding the SCHEV report, Dekker thinks an article in U.S. News & World Report in September might have been the "source document." [Senator Beagle located this article, which was later sent to all senators.] In the discussion period, Dekker spoke of BOV efforts to address the problems of higher education. The Council of Rectors has been working closely with the Council of Presidents to educate legislators on these matters. The SCHEV message seemed to come from the legislature, not from a group that is to represent higher education. He is opposed to another increase in student fees - this should be only a last resort measure. Regarding faculty representation on the BOV, Dekker reemphasized his belief that the fundamental purpose of the board is to be an independent agency, which it cannot be with faculty or student membership. The faculty is well represented by the Senate President. This does not mean that the board devalues faculty; the shared governance system is the basis for faculty representation. B. Minnis Ridenour, Executive Vice President and Chief Business Officer Ridenour distributed information sheets showing 1) amendments for Virginia Tech to the 1993 Governor's Budget and actions taken, 2) the Governor's Budget proposed changes to the 1992/94 appropriations for Virginia Tech, 3) proposed budget amendments before the legislature, and 4) relevant 1993/94 state-wide budget amendments. He noted that the House and Senate will complete their budget proposals this week, and the work of the joint committees will begin after that. He also pointed out that the House is recommending a 2% across- the-board increase in faculty salaries, while the Senate favors a 3.55% merit increase. The "Proposed Changes" document shows several large amounts that are proposed to come out of the nongeneral fund (i.e., student fees), including the money needed for university compliance with new federal regulations. The meeting then opened for discussion. Salaries. The across-the-board increase is an attempt to move us into a position to compete with our peer institutions. When this is in place, the traditional merit raises will become appropriate. Graduate students holding assistantships from faculty positions would be included in the 2% increase; the university would be responsible for the other graduate stipends. Tuition/Fees. Because there are few general fund increases in the instructional division, student tuition/fees will have to be adjusted. An increase will have to be recommended to the BOV, but he cannot speculate on the amount. The money for graduate student waivers will have to come from other student's fees. The money for student financial assistance will go primarily to needy undergraduates. Out-of-state students. These students are already paying 108% of costs. The number of freshmen from out of state is about the same as last year, but the number of returnees dropped off (he has not seen the study detailing statistics and reasons). Athletics. The last increase from fees went directly to support women's programs and compliance with Title IX. The review of the women's programs showed a need to address both those programs and non-revenue sports. A committee from the Athletic Committee has been formed to study the programs. Because of this review, the swimming program will be retained in 1993/94. The Athletic Department is an auxiliary that must pay its own way. Conference participation is the best way to get good funding; our payments from the Big East begin after five years. The improved athletic facilities are paid for in part from designated gifts. Roanoke Conference Center. Planning for the center is the responsibility of Patrick Liverpool; it should operate something like the CEC. The Tech graduate program in Roanoke is not a part of the conference center. The city of Roanoke is paying for the center, and Tech will be paying operating costs as the university uses the facilities. There will be faculty input, just as there is for any new building project. Comment: There may be faculty input, but there was apparently no input from faculty who had to teach in rooms in the Johnston Center and Hancock. Ridenour agreed to check this out; the system may not be working. C. Mike Williams, Director, Computing Center In his introductory remarks, Williams spoke of the transition from large mainframe computers running administrative programs to smaller, affordable machines that could be used by departments to the personal computer. The university does a good job of supporting the mainframe, but does not provide much support for the distributed machines. Because both levels cannot be supported with the current resources available, the decision has been made to go with distributed computing (which is the source for instructional computing). It is estimated that this conversion will take 4-5 years. Several initiatives are being investigated, and plans for a summer faculty institute (for the instructional program) are progressing. The one-week summer workshop will be about teaching, using technology as a catalyst. Participants would go through a follow-up program, using equipment from the institute. The program is to be faculty driven; participants would receive stipends, and the goal is to reach all faculty. The first institute will be for faculty in "English writing," classics, and mathematics. Central computing cannot be removed until all services can be managed from the desktop computers. Also, the students have to be factored into this equation. Question: How are we going to get workstations that will link? Our communications are carried on via the mainframe. What will happen to archival materials? Response: The faculty development program is designed to address these concerns. We have the programs and they work. The pilot program will test the validity. Question: Won't this all lead to a proliferation of software? Where will the support come from? Response: People will be redistributed for software support. We need to be selective about software and try to narrow the choices. Question: Will there be a new LAN? Response: Components may have to be added, but the network is adequate. Question: Must everyone convert? What about programs that must run on the mainframe, such as SAS, programs supporting massive computations, etc.? Response: For the most part, the smaller machines are outperforming the larger. Many things will have to happen to get the systems moved, but it can be done. It is difficult to go into detail - things are still in the vision stage. We have consultants to help with plans for the future. Question: What will happen to SPIRES files? Response: There will probably be problems with SPIRES translations. Question: Some departments have the workstations and the ethernet connections, but they have had to hire a hardware specialist, a software specialist, and purchase their own programs. Can't this be done by the Computing Center? Response: We are trying to set up a group to get things going. This will probably be a contract service. Question: Does this mean a fee service? Response: Not immediately, but we're calling it a contract. Observation: It's time for a comprehensive Spectrum article from the Computing Center. VI. Approval of minutes A. Senate minutes for 19 January 1993 were approved. B. Senate Cabinet minutes for 11 January 1993 were accepted. VII. Council, commission, committee reports A. Commission on Faculty Affairs (Senator deWolf) The Faculty Review Committee procedures have been referred back to CFA. The commission will discuss the procedures this week, but CFA has two meetings before the next University Council meeting. President Geyer emphasized the importance of peer review in the FRC process. [After adjournment, Peter Rony supplied the secretary with a packet of material relating to the procedures. This material will be appended to the archival copy of these minutes.] B. Commission on Graduate Studies (Senator Snoke) Snoke reported a problem with the timing of elections vis-a-vis the election of chairs. President Geyer will take this up with Cornel Morton. C. President Geyer announced that proposals regarding the Administrative and Professional Faculty have been issued. Questions and comments should be directed to Senator Murray or Senator deWolf. VIII. New business A. Misconduct in science (Senator Olin) The university has been mandated to develop a policy on this topic; the Commission on Research was charged to do so. The draft prepared by the commission received a very mixed vote: 7 for, 2 against, 6 abstaining. With such a divided result, the document should probably not go to University Council. The draft will go to CFA, and President Geyer will try to get it sent out over e-mail. B. Faculty Assembly President Geyer thanked everyone for promoting and turning out for the assembly. Although the SCHEV document will not be discussed in this session of the legislature, its ramifications will return. C. White paper on the future of education (Senator McDaniels) McDaniels discussed the need for better communication and information sharing on campus - too many of us read about ourselves in the Chronicle. We need to generate our own publicity, concentrating on important institutional trends, positive news (such as student volunteerism), items that are individual in nature. We need a plan for the collection and dissemination of information. He suggested that the Senate Cabinet set up a task force to look into this. President Geyer agreed to discuss the plan with the Senate Cabinet. D. Faculty representation to the Commission on Student Affairs Senator Graham will replace Senator Howard for the remainder of this semester. E. New Virginians President Geyer explained that the "reduction" of the New Virginians was a decision made by the Music Department faculty which was approved by the college dean and the Provost. Resources are an issue, but a larger issue is the departmental program. Inquiries should be made to John Husser, department head, at 1- 5685. IX. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:23 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/February+9++1993.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:42 EDT