|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveMarch 18, 1993
The following minutes were officially approved with clarifications on 4/7/93. FACULTY SENATE Minutes 18 March 1993 32 Pamplin Hall I. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by President Leon Geyer. Visitors were welcomed: John Ashby (Spectrum), Fred Carlisle (University Provost), Peggy Rasnick (Staff Senate Liaison). II. The agenda was adopted with one addition: acceptance of Senate Cabinet minutes of 5 March 1993. III. Roll call Senators present: Armstrong, Barbeau, Beagle, Brown, Clowes, deWolf, Eng, Fern, Ficenec, Foy, Fuller, Geyer, Gordon (for Lambur), Hardell, Haugh, Heath-Camp (for Sherman), Holtzman, Hult, Jones, Landgraf, Miller, Mullins, Murray, Norstedt, O'Brien, Olin, Pierce, Scigaj, Shumsky, Simmons, Snoke, Sumichrast, Wang, Webb, Wright. Senators absent: Bunce, Carrig, Falkinham, Graham, Hasselman, Howard, Martin, McDaniels, Parsons, Rakes, Tideman, Vinson, Weaver, Williams. IV. Senator Peter Paul Feret President Geyer presented the following tribute to the memory of Senator Feret: PETER PAUL FERET It is with saddened heart that I remind my colleagues of the death of our departed friend and colleague Peter Paul Feret. A devoted father, husband, and educator, he made many of our lives better because he was here. He makes all of our lives sadder because he is no longer here for advice, counsel, and support. The Senate President will, with the consent of the Senate, convey our sympathy to his family. A contribution on behalf of the Senate will be made to the Forestry Faculty Scholarship Fund. I would urge others to do the same as an individual recognition of remembrance. The Senate shall take a moment to memorialize our friend and cherished colleague Peter Feret. Many of us knew him as a colleague on campus, a father and husband off campus. In all his endeavors, Peter was a gentleman of strong character and effective resolve. He was an energetic team player, always showing concern for students and his colleagues. I had spoken with him about his willingness to take on a major leadership role in the Senate. He had already shown his skills in drafting and negotiating a new constitution for his college. He served the students as chair of the Commission on Student Affairs; academic concerns on the Commission on Undergraduate Studies; and the whole university in the classroom, with research, and with public service. He cared about the trees and the look of the campus - a relentless crusader for keeping the environment one tree better. Just as a building is built a block at a time, Peter Paul Feret made the university better - one student, one tree, one colleague at a time. We shall miss him - his talents, energy, wit, and concern and respect for others. He was a very fine human being. We will all miss his kind words, ever-present smile, and caring manner - caring for students, colleagues, and family. May we now observe a moment of silence to be ended with the President's announcements that In silence, we have remembered our colleague and friend. V. Program: Provost E. Fred Carlisle The Provost outlined the background to the Phase II document recently printed in Spectrum and dated 1 February 1993. In the four rounds of budget cuts experienced by the university, time constraints made it necessary to approach the last three rounds in a less thoughtful manner than he would have liked. It became obvious that a better process was needed - a two-stage process. The second phase would begin when the budget was stabilized and would be, among other things, an attempt to reconfigure the university. In his view, Phase II is a process of review, restructuring, and renewal. Phase II primarily deals with internal solutions, focusing on the administration, the colleges, and the departments as the locus for action. The Provost then gave a slide presentation of Phase II, emphasizing that the faculty should be engaged in discussions of the plan in their departments. If nothing is being done in the departments, faculty should ask the reason for lack of action and let the Provost know. Discussion Question: Is this a basic redistribution of resources? Answer: Yes, but it can also be a redistribution of effort, such as changing teaching methods. For example, three departments, all dealing with some aspect of biological sciences, could coordinate the undergraduate level courses. Question: Are there inter-university aspects to this, such as the consolidation of small departments? Answer: Not yet, but this will probably become necessary in the future. There may be more "academic common market" areas. Question: What are the savings involved in merging departments? Answer: We're not really talking about merging - no one changes departments. In the biological sciences, Biology would have fewer undergraduates (which is good) and Agriculture and Human Resources would have more (which is also good). Question: How are the faculty discussions conveyed to the task forces? Answer: Through the academic program structure - the department heads and deans. Question: Is there a danger of task forces dictating departmental policies? Answer: The task forces are not making finished reports; they provide a basis for further discussion through the planning process. Not everything in the paper applies to all departments - the plan is flexible. It is important to recognize the differences throughout the university. Observation: Great effort has been put into developing the governance system. Some faculty believe that the development of this paper and the implementation has ignored the governance structure. Also, it's almost impossible for some large faculties to "discuss" the paper without stated goals. Response: There will be faculty on the task forces. If policy matters are at issue, they should go through the governance structure. The structure is designed to handle specifics - there are no real specifics in the paper. Academic programs are department-based, therefore, we need to go through departments. Observation: This distinction raises a problem that has come up in the Commission on Graduate Studies. The commission reviews the academic aspects of programs but has no control over resources or knowing if resources exist. Response: The commission could receive assurances of support from the dean or department head. It could do its own resource evaluation, or such evaluation could rest with the administration. Observations: CGS has been told that resources are not the concern of the commission. The commission needs some backing from the Provost's office regarding resource evaluation. CUS requires a letter from the department head stating that no new resources are required. Perhaps CGS could do something similar. Response: It could be set up so that the dean's signature means resources have been dealt with, that the commission could get a brief resource explanation; the commission could have the Provost attend to discuss resource problems. [Added for clarification: It is within the province of the commissions to pursue resource issues.] Observation: One of the problems with Phase II is where decisions are going to be made. In many cases, departmental decision-making will require the processes and procedures of governance to be revised. Response: That might not be a bad thing; the processes need to be examined. Observation: You should make that clear, because the perception is that decisions are becoming more centralized in Burruss. Question: Is the four-year graduation rate something the departments should discuss? Answer: It would be appropriate. However, we are not proposing reductions to 120 hours or a four-year requirement. Question: What are your thoughts on whether students should meet date of entry (DOE) requirements or date of graduation (DOG) requirements? Answer: DOG requirements are unfair to students, but DOE requirements mean the university would have to hold programs for an excessive number of years. A junior year date for requirement might be suitable. Further questions related to the document "Funding Research Facilities at Virginia Tech" which had been distributed. The Provost explained that the proposed central capital account would be about $2 million, half of which would go to renovation and small new construction. Regarding overhead recoveries, 50% goes to the college, 20% stays in the university, and 30% is reappropriated in Richmond. The plan does not propose to reduce the level of service currently offered by Sponsored Programs. VI. Approval of minutes A. Senate minutes for 9 February 1993 were approved. B. Senate Cabinet minutes for 5 March 1993 were accepted with one correction. Point 1.A should read: Commissions elect a chair-elect in September. 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. VII. Council, commission, and committee reports A. Commission on Undergraduate Studies (Senator Murray) A subcommittee has been charged with investigating the DOE/DOG problem (see above). A proposed resolution is being prepared. The implementation of the core curriculum makes the DOE requirement more appealing. B. Campus Card Committee (Senator Beagle) The committee seems a bit bogged down in discussing the scope of the card and in debating its name. C. President's Award for Excellence Committee (Senator Norstedt) The definition of "administrative and professional faculty" used by this committee (chaired by Ann Spencer) was different from the definition in documents recently under discussion by CFA. She asked that commission and committee members be aware of this problem, particularly in regard to recent proposals concerning the A and P faculty. VIII. New business A. Members of the Steering Committee on a Blueprint for Faculty Action are Robert Denton, Carl McDaniels, Sam Riley, and Paul Torgersen. B. Senators deWolf, Eng, Hasselman, and Shumsky will review the procedures of the Faculty Review Committee. C. President's meetings 1. Board of Visitors. The Provost presented the Phase II plan; BOV passed a resolution calling for an implementation report in August. A resolution was also passed to reduce summer school tuition. President Geyer reported on required graduation hours, the graduation rate, etc., using statistics from the Department of Agricultural Economics. 2. President McComas. The question was raised regarding a code of conduct for student-faculty "relationships." This will be referred to the Ethics Committee. Other topics included GTAs, class attendance, and faculty representation on the Foundation board (which will be discussed with Charles Steger). 3. Provost Carlisle. Topics were Phase II and the involvement of graduate students in governance. 4. Minnis Ridenour. Discussed the need to broaden the membership of the Employee Benefits Committee and make the committee more responsible; how computing that is paid for by grants will be dealt with under the distributed computing plan; and the priorities and funding for the creative arts complex and the library addition. 5. Forms for commission and committee nominations have been distributed by the Committee on Committees. The 20 April Senate meeting will be open to all current and newly elected senators. IX. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 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/March+18++1993.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:42 EDT