|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveSeptember 21, 1993
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes Approved: October 19, 1993 September 21, 1993 7:00 p.m. 32 Pamplin Hall Senators Present: Anderson, Bambach, Barbeau, Beagle, Brown, Carrig, Creamer, de Wolf, Dyck, Fern, Ficenec, Foy, Giles, Graham, Greenberg, Gregoire, Hardell, Holtzman, Howard, Hult, Jones, Lambur, Landgraf, Martin, McDaniel, McKenna, Mullins, Norstedt, O'Brien, Olin, Richardson, Riley, Rojiani, Sanzone, Scigaj, Sherman, Shires, Shumsky, Sumichrast, Tze, Vinson, Webb, Williams, Zink Absent Armstrong, Badinelli, Benson, Bunce, Cramer, Pierce, Pinder, Zhang Guests John Ashby, Editor, Spectrum E. Fred Carlisle, Senior Vice President and Provost Peggy Rasnick, Staff Senate Representative James Wolfe, Vice Provost for Academic Affairs 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 without modification. 3. Announcements: President David de Wolf reviewed some of the activities in which Senate officers and members have been involved. These activities include the Faculty Response committee's work, consultations with the University's administration concerning the budget and the possibility of further significant reductions in state funding for higher education, attempts to effectively respond to the recent series of newspaper stories carried by major newspapers within Virginia, and cooperation with the administration in recruiting and funding a paid, part-time secretary for the Senate. He briefly discussed the progress of the Faculty Rewards Project. President de Wolf also provided a brief report concerning the recuperation of University President, James McComas. President de Wolf reported that the Senate must fill several vacancies on committee and other assignments. Related to this matter, he said that Senator Williams has agreed to be the Senate Parliamentarian. The next Senate meeting will include an opportunity to discuss issues with the two, major party candidates for Delegate Joan Munford's seat. Come prepared. Finally, President de Wolf reminded Senators to submit reports the Senate secretary by October 8 and asked all Senators to pay $5.00 dues directly to Bob Sumichrast, the Senate Treasurer. 4. Program: E. Fred Carlisle, Senior Vice President and Provost provided the Senate with an update on the restructuring of the University through Phase II. Provost Carlisle stressed that Phase II is a "constructive project, not a budget reduction strategy." He said that "a good question is whether we really will do it." The provost explained that he has stressed the need for a deliberate and systematic change to the Board of Visitors (as opposed to a sudden change imposed from above). He believes that the University must be convinced that a proper strategy is being followed so that the University can continue to do more than simply survive. Provost Carlisle reviewed many of the ideas which he previously articulated in the original Phase II paper. He spoke of the need for Virginia Tech to continue to be a comprehensive research university without the need to necessarily continue every service and program. He spoke of the need for increased cooperation and of the need for updating our definition of effective leadership. The provost reported that the University has submitted to SHEV, general plans for dealing with potential 10% and 15% cuts in state funding. Since there is a great deal of uncertainty in the state budget, the university does not plan to further detail these plans before January or February. Two academic disciplines were singled out as examples of how restructuring may be accomplished. The provost spoke of changes which might be made in the biological sciences and in the Department of Music to utilize resources more efficiently. The Faculty Rewards Project was discussed. This project mandates that teaching, outreach, and public service activities be rewarded. This must be accomplished without loosing the research aspects of the University. A balance is required. In addition, a stronger link between productivity and resources is needed. The Provost spoke of the need for "opening up" the budgeting process and the need for faculty input. He reported his intention to give deans greater autonomy and authority in budget matters with the hope that deans will treat department heads similarly. After the provost's remarks, the floor was open for questions. Question: Who should be contacted for specific information about the Information Systems Faculty Development Project? Answer: Contact the Provost. Question: So far, budget reductions tended to be across the board. Doesn't the vision of Phase II require programmatic reductions? Answer: Earlier reductions were not entirely across the board. However, programs were not eliminated. It is hoped that Phase II will improve the situation by a further redistribution of resources. Question: If programmatic changes are required, who will decide how these changes are made: the Provost's office or departments? Answer: The Provost's office will work with the Advisory Council and other groups. Deans and central administrators will be involved. Question: Both major candidates for Governor of Virginia have spoken in favor of limiting tuition increases. Is the university trying to counter these ideas? If such a plan is adopted by Virginia, what will its effect be? Answer: Less funding will make things worse. The Council of Presidents signed a statement which agreed to tuition increases based on inflation. But, it was assumed that the state would provide the same funding level as a percent of the budget. Question: Newspaper articles reported that the instructional funding budget was approximately 30%. Previously, the Provost's office had claimed that this figure was in excess of 60%. Which figure is correct? Answer: I do not know how the newspaper article computed this figure. The value reported by the Provost's office is correct. Leon Geyer, President of the Faculty Senate, 1992-1993, received a certificate from David de Wolf recognizing his service to the Senate. Then Leon distributed copies of his paper titled, "Reinventing Tech: The Role of the Faculty" and summarized it. Former President Geyer noted that dramatic changes will occur in the university and suggested that faculty could and should help direct those changes. He emphasized the importance of governance as a process and noted that faculty was sufficiently involved in the governance process within colleges and departments. He referred to the historic model of the university in which faculty acted as the administration. Former President Geyer challenged the faculty to ask themselves how they can improve their classes so that students will not want to miss lectures. He suggested that faculty should explain to students how research improves instruction. Rights and responsibilities of the state and the faculty were discussed. Tenure was discussed. Former President Geyer suggested that while most faculty were productive, some were not and should be eliminated. The faculty should take the initiative and avoid the "sin of omission". President de Wolf presented Former President Geyer with a plaque on behalf of the Senate. Senator Riley, Faculty Response Committee Chair, briefly reviewed the history of the committee and gave credit to the committee's members, including its former chair, Carl McDaniels. Senator Riley distributed a summary of the charges made by critics of university professors and asked senators to read them before the October 19 Senate meeting so that specific charges can be discussed at that time. Senator Riley noted that an immediate faculty response which is coordinated and well thought out is necessary and such a response is being provided by articles written by David de Wolf, Larry Hinker, and himself. Many ideas generated by the faculty are represented in these articles. In addition, Larry Hinker's office will also mail information directly to the parents of students and to alumni in the near future. Senator Riley also asked for faculty interested in being featured on talk radio shows to contact him. Finally Senator Riley reported on a meeting which he had with the editor of the Roanoke Times and World News. In this meeting, Senator Riley was able to demonstrate bias and inaccuracies present in the recent series of articles run by the paper. In the longer term, Senator Riley feels we must teach people what professors do. Some specific suggestions for accomplishing this include: tell your students, use a departmental newsletter, mail information to the homes of legislators, make talks to civic groups, and cooperate with the Virginia Tech magazine to provide examples of how research enhances teaching. In response to a question, Senator Riley said that coordinating efforts to get statistics to various newsletters was a good idea. President de Wolf suggested communicating with Senator Riley electronically. 5. Faculty Senate minutes of April 20, 1993 were approved. Cabinet minutes of May 25, 1993 and August 17, 1993 were accepted. 6. Council, Commission, and Committee Reports had been distributed electronically. A brief discussion period was held concerning these reports. Senator Norstedt cited the importance of the university librarian to the faculty and encouraged everyone to review the ad for the position. Please send comments to Erv Blythe. Senator Shires noted two items which were discussed at the Computer Committee meeting: new instructional innovations and new E-MAIL systems. By a show of hands, most senators were aware of these innovations. However, some worried that the faculty, in general, might not be aware of them, Senator Shires suggested that the Senate arrange for a presentation on these items in the future. 7. New Business a. Faculty Ethics Committee procedures President de Wolf briefly provided the Senate with some background as motivation for the proposed changes. The concerns arose from a particular case. Important conclusions were drawn by a faculty ethics committee and these conclusions were published without any explanation of their basis. There is a desire for documentation of the process. The motion was passed unanimously. It will be sent to the Commission on Faculty Affairs and ultimately to the University Council. b. Commission/Committee vacancies: nominations, elections, and appointments. Randolph L. Grayson was elected unanimously to serve on the Faculty Senate of Virginia. New procedures require that the Senate nominate two people to serve on the Virginia Tech Services, Inc., Board of Directors. One of the two will be chosen by the President of the Board. Senator Lambur was elected to serve on the Virginia Tech Intellectual Properties Board of Directors. The Faculty Review Committee has three vacancies. The College of Architecture and Urban Studies requires two representatives and the College of Forestry requires one additional representative. 8. Other business Senator Greenberg suggested asking the University for written assurances that no faculty member would be held liable for serving the University on a committee. President de Wolf replied that he had discussed this matter with the administration. Kay Heidbreder, Associate Legal Counsel for the University, had assured him that faculty was protected in these cases. In addition, Senator Shumsky reported that the Commission on Faculty Affairs had discussed the matter and Provost Carlisle agreed to have language drafted to address the matter. 9. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:08 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/September+21++1993.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:42 EDT