|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveNovember 16, 1993
VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes Approved: 7 December 1993 16 November 1993 7:00 p.m. 32 Pamplin Hall Senators Present: Anderson, Armstrong, Badinelli, Barbeau, Beagle, Brown, Bunce, Carrig, Creamer, de Wolf, Dyck, Fern, Ficenec, Gregoire, Hardell, Holtzman, Jacobson (For Howard), Hult, Gerkin (For Lambur), Landgraf, Martin, McKenna, Mullins, Norstedt, Olin, Pierce, Pinder, Richardson, Riley, Rojiani, Scigaj, Sherman, Shumsky, Sumichrast, Tze, Vinson, Williams, Zhang, Zink Absent Bambach, Benson, Cramer, Foy, Giles, Graham, Greenberg, Jones, McDaniel, O'Brien, Sanzone, Shires, Webb Guests John Ashby, Editor, Spectrum Gregory N. Brown, Dean of the College of Forestry & Wildlife Resources Peter Eyre, Dean of the College of Veterinary Medicine Susan Brooker-Gross, Associate Provost for Undergraduate Studies Edmund Henneke, Acting Dean of the College of Engineering Elyzabeth Holford, Assistant Dean of the College of Education Patrick R. Liverpool, Vice Provost for Outreach Peggy Meszaros, Dean of the College of Human Resources Robert A. Paterson, Interim Dean of the College of Arts & Sciences Peggy Rasnick, Staff Senate Representative Richard E. Sorensen, Dean of the College of Business Louis A. Swiger, Dean of the College of Agriculture & Life Sciences 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 several modifications proposed by President de Wolf. 3. Announcements: President de Wolf made the following announcements related to activities of the Senate. SGA held a rally against further cuts in the state's higher education budget. President de Wolf spoke at the rally. The Senate officers met with Provost Carlisle on October 22, 1993. President de Wolf recently spoke at a meeting of the Virginia Tech Foundation. Senate officers Shumsky and de Wolf participated in a meeting to refine structures in the University's governance system. Some progress was made. The Senate officers met with presidents of the College Faculty Associations to discuss qualifications desired in the next president of Virginia Tech and to discuss how faculty input should be included if programmatic reductions are necessary due to further reductions in state higher education funding. President de Wolf participated in a Faculty Review Committee training session on November 10. Last weekend President de Wolf met with the University's Board of Visitors. Details of the meeting were not discussed with the Senate. University Vice President Thomas G. Goodale is directing a reorganization effort of Cooperative Education, Placement and Counseling. A brief report on a speech by James Madison University President Carrier was given. This speech suggested that the JMU Faculty Senate abolish itself. President de Wolf is investigating the circumstances surrounding this incident. 4. Program: President de Wolf explained the format for the meeting program and requested the College Deans to address the Senate. Each Dean was asked to explain how his or her college was addressing issues discussed in the Faculty Rewards Project. L. Andy Swiger, Dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences began his remarks by applauding the work of the Faculty Rewards Project. He explained that his college has a long history of recognizing teaching, research, and extension activities by faculty. Unlike most colleges, Agriculture and Life Sciences explicitly allocates faculty time to each of the three parts of the University's mission. However, Dean Swiger noted that contributions measured in terms of refereed articles and the acquisition of research grants has been over emphasized. Agriculture and life Sciences is currently attempting to achieve a better balance between the three parts of its mission. He noted that his college's faculty association agrees that progress is being made in this matter. Dean Swiger stressed the need for unit leaders (department heads and deans) to know individual faculty members so that each person's contributions can be understood. After understanding the contribution of a faculty member, a unit leader can look for data to support his conclusions. He said he knows which faculty are the best researchers. However, he finds it more difficult to measure research achievements. Dean Swiger noted the difficulty of using external reviews for teaching and research performance measurement. He stated that he agreed with the specific ideas in the Faculty Rewards Project related to salary savings. However, he said that he disagreed with removing the time limit on promotion and tenure decisions. James J. Buffer, Dean of the College of Education, was unable to attend; Assistant Dean, Elyzabeth J. Holford addressed the Senate. She stressed the College of Education's holistic approach to education and it's integration of research and teaching. Assistant Dean Holford discussed a training program offered by the College of Education which has participants from several of the University's colleges. She also reported on a restructuring effort within the College of Education which she feels is consistent with an important issue in the Faculty Rewards Project. This restructuring effort is deigned to provide greater faculty participation in governance without requiring excessive time from faculty. She promised that the University would see a restructured College of Education within the next few months. Edmund Henneke, Acting Dean of the College of Engineering, said that his remarks should be interpreted as personal comments rather than a representation of the views of the College of Engineering because he has assumed his position so recently. He said that he would address the Faculty Rewards Project by highlighting efforts in the College of Engineering which relate to each of five assertions included in the report. Assertion A of the Faculty Rewards Project calls for recognizing the importance of the three principal roles of faculty. Acting Dean Henneke said that the College of Engineering has always valued teaching and provided examples which supported his claim. He referred to the importance of research within his college as self evident and he related its role to providing funds for the financial support of expensive equipment required for teaching within the engineering curriculum. Finally, he said that engineering prefers to speak of outreach programs rather than service or extension. Acting Dean Henneke specifically took issue with action item 3 under Assertion A. He said that promotion and tenure committees at the department and college level should not be required to represent all three roles of faculty at the university, especially if this representation would require recruiting members from outside of the college. He said that the three roles should be represented at the university level. In addition, he said that department heads are often in the best position to help faculty achieve promotion and tenure and that it was in the interest of the faculty to have them as members of these committees. He stressed the need to provide flexibility to colleges in regards to these matters. Assertion B refers to the need for maintaining the university's standing as a research institution. Acting Dean Henneke agreed with this assertion and further agreed with the action item calling for restructuring the overhead recovery structure. He believes that the system which was in place a few years ago was better because it returned more money to the colleges. Assertion C calls for linking faculty resources to productivity. Acting Dean Henneke found this very appropriate. Assertion D recognizes the appropriateness of alternative teaching/learning strategies. Dean Henneke spoke of on-going activities in the College of Engineering which are consistent with this assertion. Finally, Dean Henneke agreed with the need for new modes of allocating resources to faculty rewards as proposed in assertion E. He provided examples of items consistent with this assertion such as travel money and space. P. Eyre, Dean of the College of Veterinary Medicine, praised the Faculty Rewards Project and said it is consistent with a restructuring which his college underwent years ago. He also stated that it showed an "incredible misunderstanding" around the university. Dean Eyre explained how funding for the College of Veterinary Medicine was different from most other colleges because about one half of its funds are outside of the instructional budget (i.e., they are not "208" funds). Each year, faculty members are given explicit assignments of teaching, research, and service which are consistent with the needs of the college and which take into consideration the desires and skills of each faculty member. Dean Eyre stated that his college says that the three roles are equal but, "trouble is, we do not really believe they are equal". Dean Eyre also spoke of the integration of departments within the college. He discussed the use of both peer and student teaching evaluations as well as customer evaluations of service received at the teaching hospital. He reported that in the College of Veterinary Medicine, department heads do not serve on promotion and tenure committees and no faculty member is allowed to serve simultaneously at the department, college, and university levels on these committees. In conclusion, Dean Eyre said that the College of Veterinary Medicine was already doing many of the things suggested in the Faculty Rewards Project document. In general, he supports the ideas although he does not support every item. Peggy Meszaros, Dean of the College of Human Resources, said there was nothing in the Faculty Rewards Project report with which she disagrees. She said that faculty want a greater voice in governance and she reported on her colleges attempt to accomplish this through a newly formed council composed of administrators, faculty, staff and students. She spoke of the difficulty of evaluating teaching and her college's attempt to address it through the development of "teaching portfolios". She asserted that there is a need for cultural change at the university to increase the perceived importance of teaching. Robert A. Paterson, Interim Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, said that he had been invited to address the Senate about the effects of the Faculty Rewards project on his college. He said that it was only possible to provide proper rewards after proper evaluation and he hoped the Faculty Rewards Project would promote discussion on what is important in each area: teaching, research, and service. He said the he recognized that research was not synonymous with grants, publications, and meeting presentations. However, a relationship exits between them. He endorsed the concept of a teaching portfolio as a better way to evaluate this part of the university's mission and he also stated the need for more dialog concerning how teaching should be evaluated. Interim Dean Paterson said that service is the most difficult part of the mission to evaluate. He spoke of the importance of recognizing differences between the colleges and of his efforts to address some deficiencies in the ability to evaluate. These efforts include a new, improved definition of service developed by a college committee and a survey taken to determine the impressions of alumni concerning advising. Richard E. Sorensen, Dean of the College of Business, praised the report and said that it is consistent with many of the key goals of the strategic plan recently developed by the College of Business. He also reported the role played by faculty in developing the College's strategic plan. Dean Sorensen said that the Faculty Rewards Project report shows that there is a lack of trust by faculty toward administrators. He referred to the use of a review process for administrators as a way for faculty to help control administrators. Finally, Dean Sorensen said that he believes we are trying to do too many things and that our goal should be to focus on what is most important. G. N. Brown, Dean of the College of Forestry and Wildlife Resources, applauded the effort that went into the Faculty Rewards Project. He said that throughout his personal career, many of the ideas in the report have been talked without any real action taking place. He said that for the first time, a real effort is being made to take action. The College of Forestry and Wildlife Resources is very new at Virginia Tech and Dean Brown said that this gives the college more freedom to undertake new directions. Dean Brown addressed several action items under the assertions of the Faculty Rewards Project report. Related to assertion A, Dean Brown recognized the importance of innovation in teaching. Under assertion B, he said that too much emphasis is placed on the inputs to research (such as grant money) rather than on the output of research. He discussed the need for careful evaluation of research. Under assertion C, he said that the control of funds should be primarily under the control of the departments. He also expressed strong support for Assertions D and E, to the extent allowed by university policy. At the conclusion of these opening statements, President de Wolf opened the floor to questions for the deans. Question: Senator Shumsky noted that a great deal of effort has been put into the Faculty Rewards Project as a means of creating change. The deans have expressed support for the project and have also asserted that their colleges have been taking the actions suggested by the report for a number of years. He asked the deans how these facts could be reconciled. Answers: Dean Paterson said that he had spoken of the beginning of a process to arrive at the state called for in the report. He also emphasized the need for better evaluation methods. Dean Eyre responded that there is no paradox. He noted the diversity of different units across campus and suggested that the report has "brought lots of pieces together." Question: Senator Riley asked the deans to state what long-term changes would be made in response to the report. Answer: Dean Henneke said he feels the colleges should be proud that they are already moving in the direction called for by the report. He said that it helps focus efforts already underway. Question: Senator Shumsky noted that in addition to general assertions which are almost universally accepted, the report contains controversial ideas and very specific proposals and recommendations. He asked the deans to discuss these specific proposals. Answers: Dean Henneke agreed that discussion was necessary. He noted that hours of discussion rather than minutes were needed. He also said that the deans had met with David de Wolf and Susan Brooker-Gross a couple of weeks ago for such a discussion. Dean Brown said that there was not much controversial in the report. He also said that its recommendations must be endorsed by "the powers that be". Question: Senator Riley asked what actual changes would take place in response to the report. Answers: Dean Swiger said that the process of change started some time ago and the report is actually a capstone of the process. Assistant Dean Holford said that the best result would be that the university community believe that the three parts of the mission really are equal. So far, this is not believed. Comment: Senator Bunce noted that anyone who receives high marks on teaching evaluations and brings in significant funded research is promoted. However, he said that one-on-one activities such as advising are difficult to document and are not rewarded. He suggested that no effort is made to evaluate this important type of activity. Question: Senator Barbeau asked if any effort is made to contact alumni five to ten years after graduation for the purpose of evaluating teaching. Answers: Dean Eyre reported that the College of Veterinary Medicine spends a "huge amount of time" doing this. He said the results are very important in promotion and tenure decisions as well as in salary adjustments. Assistant Dean Holford said that the College of Education does this type of evaluation on a more limited basis. She suggested that doing it more uniformly would be better and stressed that it is consistent with her college's holistic view of education. Comment: Senator Bunce reported that according to a recent survey, advising is not highly rated by alumni. He suggested that it needs more prominence in job descriptions. Comment: Senator Pinder stated that the university is a long way from implementing the suggestions in the report. He disagreed with the assertions by the deans which suggest otherwise. Response: Dean Henneke disagreed with Senator Pinder saying that more work is needed but much positive results can be shown as well. He noted that improvements were especially needed in advising. However, he provided examples to support his claim that the College of Engineering takes teaching very seriously. Comment: Senator Holtzman said that currently, college promotion and tenure committees often overrule department committees. Assertion number 1 says that it will be rare for a college committee to overrule a department committee. This is radical. Comment: Senator McKenna stated that the deans are stressing various strengths while the senators are stressing various weaknesses. Senator McKenna stressed a need for cooperation and learning from each other. Comment: Senator Richardson said that asserting that the three roles of the university are equal will diminish research. He said that research is more difficult and serves the commonwealth better in the long run. Comment: Senator Bunce said that rating the three missions will cause trouble. He stressed the need to recognize strength in diversity. Response: Dean Sorensen compared the report to a strategic plan and noted that strategic planning takes years to accomplish. He said that it was unrealistic to expect the deans to provide a detailed response to the report in such a short time. Dean Sorensen also remarked about the difficulty in evaluating service activities. Response: Dean Brown elaborated on the difficulty in evaluating service. He said that it should be understood to include activities such as consulting and applied research. He contrasted service with teaching saying that teaching can be more easily bounded. Question: Senator de Wolf asked to what extent departments will achieve greater autonomy. Answer: Dean Sorensen reported that in a recent meeting of the Business Advisory Council, departments within the College of Business were compared to fiefdoms. He did not think even more autonomy was a good idea. Question: Senator Olin asked each dean to clarify the difference between a department head and a department chair. Answer: Dean Eyre said that the title and its meaning vary by the culture of the college. He also noted that different cultures were not necessarily bad. He noted the limited degree of autonomy in departments in the College of Veterinary Medicine and suggested that a democratic process was still present. Question: Senator Scigaj asked why the College of Arts and Sciences has such a small number of teaching awards? He noted that the difficulty in obtaining one is frustrating. Answer: Interim Dean Paterson said that many years ago, the college had many more awards. This promoted a feeling that there was little value in receiving an award. President de Wolf thanked the deans for addressing the Faculty Senate. 5. Faculty Senate minutes of October 19, 1993 were approved without changes. Cabinet minutes of November 1, 1993 were accepted. 6. Council, Commission, and Committee Reports had been distributed electronically. A brief discussion period was held concerning these reports. Senator Ficenec asked for another Senator to represent him at the next University Athletic Committee meeting. Senator Olin asked for clarification about the actions being taken with regard to "extraordinary promotions". Senator Shumsky responded that the Commission on Faculty Affairs was discussing this topic. He reported that no subcommittee had been formed and no specific proposals had been presented. The basic philosophies include specifying procedures in the faculty handbook or treating procedures in the handbook as the normal ones and allowing other procedures (which may not be written) to be applied under unusual circumstances. Senator Olin requested input from interested senators on two items under consideration by the Commission on Graduate Studies and Policies. One proposal would provide departments with graduate student funds and allow them to distribute the funds in any way consistent with the department's needs. Another proposal would require outside review of dissertations. 7. New Business a. Faculty Rewards Project Discussion Susan Brooker-Gross addressed the Senate about the project. She stated that a change in culture was necessary for teaching and outreach programs to "feel" equal in importance to research. She suggested that we have been very successful to have built up a research institute and should be proud of the at fact. However, she noted the need for change at this time. Dr. Brooker-Gross noted that faculty mobility was an important issue which had not yet been discussed. She suggested that the kinds of change called for in he Faculty Rewards Project are taking place at other institutions and unless we change, our faculty could be less mobile. She also spoke of the need to discuss how much variability is acceptable within one institution. She noted the need for accountability at every level. Responsibilities must be clearly defined. Faculty involvement and better evaluation methods are necessary. After Dr. Brooker-Gross's presentation, the floor was opened for questions and comments. Question: Senator Brown noted the inward focus of the document and noted that resources available to the university often depend on how it is perceived from outside. Will this inward focus hurt us? Answer: Dr. Brooker-Gross responded that the external environment is shifting and we are staying in touch with it by changing. In addition, she noted that faculty must still be competent in all areas and that the document does not say more teaching and more service activities are necessary. The document says that faculty should be rewarded for their activities. Hopefully, appropriate rewards will improve the quality of the activities. Question: Senator Shumsky asked what next, was going to happen to the document. Answer: Dr. Brooker-Gross said that the document's future was undecided. She welcomed advise. She noted that the document contains both broad reaching policy and specific statements. Comment: Vice-Provost Liverpool noted that some universities are cooperating on similar projects in an attempt to achieve parity with regards to the evaluation of faculty. Question: Senator Beagle noted the specific action item calling for an increased role of computers in instruction. He related this item to the university's "Faculty Development Initiative" and asked how groups of faculty would be selected to participate in the initiative. Answer: Dr. Brooker-Gross responded that the goal of the initiative is to allow every faculty member to attend on a four- year cycle. Initially, some preference will be given to departments with little history of computer usage. Question: Senator Beagle asked if departments would be allowed to choose the type of equipment used when participating in the development initiative. Answer: Dr. Brooker-Gross answered that the initiative will try to supply the type of equipment and support which will be useful to the department. The department will be consulted. Question: Is there funding for the initiative? Answer: Dr. Brooker-Gross answered that there is sufficient funding planned to purchase a computer and provide training for every faculty member. Question: Senator Scigaj asked if there are plans to ask every department head and dean to sign the Faculty Rewards Project document, indicating acceptance. Answer: Dr. Brooker-Gross said that this was an open question. She expressed satisfaction at the degree of support for the project expressed by the deans. Question: Senator Barbeau noted the need to get beyond the discussion phase and asked how the recommendations would be implemented at the department level. Answer: Dr. Brooker-Gross said that there is an explicit assertion of what must be done at the department level. People are working at all levels as the project evolves. Comment: Senator Richardson said that adopting the suggestions in the report would reduce the quality of students at Virginia Tech. Response: Dr. Brooker-Gross responded with an example of another University (Syracuse) which required large student enrollments for funds. This university focused its efforts on becoming more "student oriented" and has been successful in achieving enrollment goals. Question: Students come to Virginia Tech because it is a research institute. If the culture is changed, will they continue to come? We are giving in to our critics too much. Answer: Dr. Brooker-Gross said that the choice of words is a problem. Question: Senator Badinelli reported that the College of Business has been asked to increase its outreach efforts by 400%. Such an increase is only possible with a dramatic change in the rewards system. Senator Badinelli asked Dr. Liverpool if there was a need for such a "ground shaking change". Answers: Dr. Liverpool responded that university outreach programs include extension and some aspects of teaching and research. The university looks at outreach as a scholarly activity rather than exclusively as service. The point of the Faculty Rewards Project is that people are doing these things but not getting rewarded. Dr. Brooker-Gross added that people should be evaluated for what they do. Senate President de Wolf noted that some areas will decide that research is most important and will concentrate on it. Comment: Senator Scigaj noted that some adjustment in responsibilities is being considered. Possibly, faculty will be asked to do more teaching. The Faculty Rewards Project report is consistent with changing responsibilities. President de Wolf thanked Dr. Brooker-Gross for her discussion. b. President de Wolf presented the Senate with a resolution clarifying administrative and professional faculty representation within the university governance system. The resolution had been discussed at the October Senate meeting. The revised wording of the resolution addressed concerns expressed by Senators at the October meeting. After brief discussion, the resolution passed. c. President de Wolf reported to the Senate that several committee vacancies exist. He provided information about the specific openings and asked Senators to contact him with nominations. 8. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:50 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/November+16++1993.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:42 EDT