|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveFebruary 15, 1994
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes Approved: 15 March 1994 15 February 1994 7:00 p.m. 32 Pamplin Hall Senator Present: Anderson, Badinelli, Barbeau, Beagle, A. L. Wicks (for E. Brown), Bunce, Carrig, Creamer, de Wolf, Dyck, Ficenec, Giles, Gregoire, Hardell, Hult, Lambur, Martin, Norstedt, Pierce, Pinder, Richardson, Riley, Rojiani, Scigaj, Sherman, Shires, Sumichrast, Williams Absent Armstrong, Bambach, Benson, Burger, Cramer, Fern, Foy, Graham, Greenberg, Holtzman, Howard, Jones, Landgraf, McDaniel, McKenna, Mullins, O'Brien, Olin, Sanzone, Shumsky, Tze, Vinson, Webb, Zhang Guests Netta Eisler, Assistant Editor, Spectrum Susan Brooker-Gross, Associate Provost for Undergraduate Studies Dixon Hanna, Executive Director for Finance and Administration Patrick Liverpool, Vice Provost for University Outreach and International Programs Peggy Rasnick, Staff Senate Representative Ted Settle, Director of Continuing Education Herb Stoevener, Director of International Academic Programs 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: a. President de Wolf marked the passing of former University President James McComas. President de Wolf noted sadness at the University at the loss of Dr. McComas and presented the Senate with a resolution which he had drafted. The Senate unanimously approved the resolution with the contention of having the words put on a plaque to be given to Mrs. McComas. Then President de Wolf asked the Senate to rise and observe a moment of silence in remembrance of the late Dr. McComas. b. President de Wolf announced that the Senate officers had met with Provost Carlisle three times in recent weeks. Senators were instructed to refer to Cabinet minutes for items discussed at those meetings. c. Dr. de Wolf noted that on January 26, the Senate officers met with Paul Torgersen. Routine matters were discussed. In addition, he noted that the Senate officers would meet tomorrow with Dr. Torgersen, primarily for the purpose of discussing the proposed funding reduction to the College of Education. d. Dr. de Wolf noted that the Senate needed representation on the Waste Policy Institute. Dr. de Wolf explained the position and requested two nominations to serve a three-year term. e. Finally, Dr. de Wolf noted that on Sunday, February 13, the Board of Visitors met. However, most of the important issues were discussed in the executive session leaving him unable to report on these matters. 4. Program: President de Wolf welcomed Patrick Liverpool, Vice Provost for University Outreach and International Programs, and his three associates, Herb Stoevener, Director of International Academic Programs; Dixon Hanna, Executive Director for Finance and Administration; and Ted Settle, Director of Continuing Education, President de Wolf provided the Senate with a brief background of Dr. Liverpool and invited Dr. Liverpool to address the Senate. Dr. Liverpool introduced his associates and provided a brief background on each of them. He began his remarks by noting that university outreach is an amorphous and ambiguous concept to most faculty at Virginia Tech. He called outreach a new concept at the university. At the same time, he recognized that many parts of the outreach program have been a part of Virginia Tech activities and mission for a long time. Dr. Liverpool said that the university's future is connected to it's ability to meet the needs of it's constituents. He said that outreach and extension activities can help to meet that need. He expressed a desire for at least a tentative agreement on the meaning of university outreach and suggested his own interpretation. Dr. Liverpool said that outreach is the creation and transmission of knowledge for the direct benefit of society. He said it draws on the breadth of experiences across the campus. He described outreach as a scholarly activity involving research and teaching as well as service. At this point, Dr. Liverpool and his associates distributed notes connected to his statements. Dr. Liverpool acknowledged the need and value for basic research. However, his focus was on the direct benefit society can receive from applied research. He noted benefits which faculty receive by working with new cultures in new environments. He stated that outreach creates a concrete link between the university and it's constituents. Dr. Liverpool speculated that the faculty in the College of Education could use outreach activities to help generate revenue and thus help offset the funding reduction due to restructuring. He noted the tremendous demand for knowledge throughout the world. Dr. Liverpool spoke of specific contacts which have been made between the University and officials from foreign countries as well as representatives of international universities. He explained the value of such contacts as well as the value of international students attending Virginia Tech. Finally, Dr. Liverpool noted that without faculty interest and involvement, outreach activities can not grow and prosper. He suggested re-balancing the faculty rewards system so that no single activity is overemphasized. At the conclusion of Dr. Liverpool's presentation, President de Wolf invited members of the Senate to ask questions. Question: How should your performance as Vice Provost of University Outreach and International Programs be evaluated five years from now? Answer: There are several important measures. One should look at the extent of faculty involvement in outreach activities. One should look at the extent to which Virginia Tech is recognized for it's outreach effort. One should look at the extent to which a significant percent of students are involved in study abroad. Dr. Liverpool presented many other measures of success with outreach activities. Question: How are current outreach activities being tracked? Answer: We are in the process of working on this problem. Outreach activities are not new to Virginia Tech. We recognize a need for a better way to track them. Question: The organizational structure shown on the chart just distributed includes an Advisory Council to the Vice Provost for Research and International Programs. Who is included in this Advisory Council. Answer: At this time, the Advisory Council does not exist. It will include students and other influential individuals. Comment: Senator Barbeau noted that he has suggested Tech forums where knowledgeable faculty can speak on a variety of topics. He provided examples of how these forums might be used. Response: Dr. Liverpool noted that his office had been involved in such forums. He provided examples of topics including defense conversion and prison reform. These forums have occurred over the last 2 1/2 years at the initiative of then President, McComas. It was noted that the forums which have taken place are somewhat different than those proposed by Senator Barbeau. The forums have not been highly publicized. Instead, they have been meant to allow decision-makers to discuss topics without the fear of the intrusion of the media. Dr. Liverpool thanked Senator Barbeau for his input and added that he believed the suggestion was a good one. Question: How are issues for outreach activities selected and what is the roll of the faculty in such decisions? Answer: We believe that most programs should be originated within academic units. University Outreach staff acts as facilitators. Faculty must take the initiative. Dr. Liverpool noted that his organization could do a better job in communicating with the faculty. Question: Your remarks expressed a need for changes in the faculty rewards system. Will new resources be provided so that faculty can be rewarded for new activities? Answer: We recognize that it is unrealistic to rely solely on state funds. Our organization must help to find new funds. Question: What is the future of the European Study Center? Answer: At this time, the Center is not in jeopardy. Dr. Liverpool asked Dr. Settle to provide more details concerning this matter. Dr. Settle described the European Study Center as a valuable asset. He noted that substantial sums of money had already been spent and compared it to other costly programs on campus. Dr. Settle said the program should be expanded to provide opportunities to more students. While he recognized that this would increase overall costs, he stated that it would reduce the cost per student. He said that the cost per student would not be high in the long run. Dr. de Wolf thanked Dr. Liverpool and his associates and turned to the next agenda item. 5. The Faculty Senate Minutes of 25 January 1994 were approved after a brief discussion concerning the Athletic Committee report. The Cabinet minutes of 4 February 1994 and 9 February 1994 were accepted by the Senate. 6. Council, Commission and Committee reports had been distributed electronically. A brief discussion period was held concerning these reports. Although Senator Bambach was unable to attend, he had asked other Senators to correct information he had provided at the previous Senate meeting. At the January meeting, the Athletic Committee report discussion noted that the swim team had been eliminated from the men's sports program. This was incorrect. No change in the status of the swim team will be made until a survey has been compiled to determine the interest in various sports by students at the university. Senator Barbeau discussed the report from the University Advisory Council on Strategic Planning and Budgeting. He noted that he was disturbed by the financial analysis of academic departments under- taken by the Advisory Council. He read various parts of the report. President de Wolf agreed that financial analysis should not be over- used in the evaluation of academic departments. In response to questions from the Senate, President de Wolf stated that the financial analysis had not been asked for the by University Administration. Instead, Professor Sam Hicks had undertaken it individually and had volunteered the results to the Advisory Council. Senator Badinelli made a correction to his January report from the Commission on Public Service and Extension. His original report said that the Virginia Department of Planning and Budget, in October 1993, prepared a report on Virginia Cooperative Extension. Senator Badinelli's report said that the report was sharply critical of VCE and made 40 specific recommendations for change. He informed the Senate that the report was not sharply critical of VCE and the report will be discussed at an upcoming meeting of the commission. President de Wolf reported on a meeting of the Virginia Tech Board of Visitors. This meeting concentrated on the current state of the budget for the next biannium in relation to funding for higher education. President de Wolf highlighted various aspects of the report. He noted that salary increases had been proposed for faculty and staff. The impact of reductions in 208 funds and allowed increases in tuition vary between the budgets submitted by former Governor Wilder and Governor Allen. President de Wolf discussed a new fee proposed for out-of-state students to pay for the cost of general obligation bonds designed to fund building projects on campus. President de Wolf compared funding for higher education to funding for other state agencies. He noted that the research and extension divisions received greater reductions than the education division. President de Wolf reviewed budget cuts which had occurred over the past several years and put the current round of budget cuts in this context. He said that the bottom line is that there has been a net revenue reduction of $32.26 million after offsetting for increases in tuition. In response, to questions President de Wolf said that he was unsure of how faculty raises would be given. He said that Minnis Ridenour has been asked to come to the March Senate meeting to provide more details. 7. New Business a. Proposed Changes in the Reduction in Force Policy: President de Wolf explained the background for this discussion. He had already passed out a proposed new policy concerning Reduction in Force. He went on to explain the link between changes in the policy on Reduction in Force and a loss in funding by the College of Education. President de Wolf reviewed current procedures as stated in the Faculty Handbook, contrasted them with a proposal for procedures made by the Provost's, office and contrasted both of them with the new proposal written by the Senate officers in consultation with the Cabinet and the Commission on Faculty Affairs. President de Wolf noted that the proposal created by the Provost's office has more limited faculty involvement than either the current procedure or the procedure written by him and Senator Shumsky. President de Wolf said that he discussed his newest version of this policy with Pat Hyer, Assistant Provost for Administration, earlier today. She wondered if the new proposal might be slower than the original policy included in the Faculty Handbook. At this time, President de Wolf invited questions from Senators on this matter. Senator Williams said that when the matter was discussed at the Commission on Faculty Affairs, there was significant sentiment for explicitly requiring chairs of various commissions to take the matter back to the members of their commissions. He wondered why this aspect had been left out of the proposal written by the Senate officers. Senator Beagle asked if one possible option was not to change the current policy stated in the Faculty Handbook. President de Wolf said that this was an option and stated that the proposal created by the Provost's office had been withdrawn. Senator Lambur said that the Commission on Faculty Affairs, in discussing this matter, was concerned about how a change in policy might be used to speed the reduction in force required by the College of Education. Senator Norstedt noted that the original procedure has never been invoked. She wondered how it was possible to know that the original procedure would be too slow if implemented when the occasion to implement it had never arisen. She also complimented President de Wolf and Senator Shumsky on their revision to the current procedure. Senator Pierce spoke in favor of the policy written by de Wolf and Shumsky. He said that their policy helps to maintain faculty influence. After further discussion, it became clear that the consensus of the Senate was to support a policy which required two levels of review, such as the current policy in the Faculty Handbook or the policy written by de Wolf and Shumsky. The Senate was strongly in favor of the keeping the Ad Hoc Committee to protect the rights and privilege of faculty members. President de Wolf agreed to take the concerns of senators to the next meeting of the Commission on Faculty Affairs where the policy would be discussed. b. Faculty Rewards Project: President de Wolf provided a brief background on the Faculty Rewards Project. He distributed an article which appeared in the 30 September 1993 edition of the Spectrum containing a full report on this project. Dr. de Wolf said that if recommendations of the Faculty Rewards Project were to be implemented, the Faculty Handbook must change. He said that a subgroup of the Faculty Rewards Project might be formed to propose specific changes and that legislation based on these changes might be introduced into the appropriate commissions. Dr. Susan Brooker- Gross reminded the Senate that at her previous visit, senators had asked the question "what would happen next to the Faculty Rewards Project?". She stated that this effort was to move the project forward. President de Wolf asked senators to express their opinion regarding whether specific proposals from the Faculty Rewards Project should now be sent to commissions and he opened the floor to comments and questions. Senator Riley asked if anything in the Faculty Rewards Project precluded a department from rewarding its members for only one part of the tripartite mission. Dr. de Wolf said that it was not precluded but, such a decision could not be taken out of hand. Dr. Brooker-Gross said a department must look at its mission to find out how to appropriately reward its faculty members. In response to a question, President de Wolf said that the statements contained in the Faculty Rewards Project report were guidelines rather than mandates. Actual mandates will depend on how legislation is written to implement the report. Some senators wondered about the ultimate affect of the Faculty Rewards Project. Senator Rojiani wondered if putting the recommendations through commissions might dilute its effect to the point where it has no impact. Similarly, Senator Lambur questioned the wisdom of pulling the report apart and putting it through the commissions. He wondered if the project was strong enough to come through this process as a whole. Senator Pierce wondered if a change would actually occur in response to legislation. President de Wolf responded that he believed it was necessary to send the recommendations through the governance process. Further, he said that it was his belief that the University was moving away from an authoritarian model. Dr. Brooker-Gross added that the report takes decentralization to the department level and would be hard to implement. Senator Cramer said that the report centers around changing the culture of the institution. He said that legislating a culture change does not make sense. President de Wolf called this a very perceptive comment. He added that it is not possible to change a culture without action items. Senator Cramer suggested that further debate was necessary which would include more members of the University community. He said that legislation is premature at this point. At this point, considerable debate went into the phrasing and the meaning of the first sentence of the report. Senators Richardson and Badinelli worried that it might allow departments to de- emphasize the role of research. Senator Anderson objected to the phrasing of the first sentence stating that it was open to many possible interpretations. Dr. de Wolf and Dr. Brooker-Gross responded to these comments by explaining that rewards would be provided to faculty members who contribute to the mission of departments. The project was not designed to diminish the importance of research. There was considerable debate about the next step to take in implementing the findings in this report. Senators questioned how the report's findings had been presented to the faculty up to this point, and suggested that more debate and more discussion would be helpful before specific legislation was proposed. Greater involvement of the faculty associations was also suggested. Dr. Brooker-Gross acknowledged these points yet stated her belief that discussing the project's implementation without knowing the details would be difficult. Senator Norstedt suggested it would be useful to have the deans provide specific information about how they would implement the plan. Various senators spoke against legislating action items contained in the Faculty Rewards Project. Potential problems associated with concepts of the Rewards Project were discussed. President de Wolf summarized the tone of the discussion by saying that a consensus on the Faculty Rewards Project had not been reached. More discussion was needed. c. Senator Lambur brought House Bill 861 to the attention of the Faculty Senate. He said that this bill affected grievance procedures for staff positions. It may not apply to Virginia Tech but it will be brought up at the next Staff Senate meeting. d. Senator Sherman offered the Senate a point of information. He said there were enormous implications for the entire university based on how funding reduction was accomplished at the College of Education. He spoke of three issues with implications for the entire university, which the four senators from the College of Education believe require special scrutiny from the Senate: 1) that the reorganization process conform to established regulations, 2) that legal rights be fully protected, 3) that positions be made equally available to all members of the College of Education without preference. Senator Sherman emphasized that he believed the Senate should create a special capability to monitor reorganization issues and communicate those issues to the whole university. President de Wolf said he planned to meet with the Faculty Association from the College of Education to ask for input on what actions the Senate might take. Senator Cramer suggested that the Faculty Senate Cabinet discuss these matters as well. The following motion was made and unanimously passed by the Senate. The Faculty Senate authorizes the Faculty Senate President to form any committees associated with actions which the Senate should consider and undertake in connection with the funding reduction and reorganization mandated by the Provost for the College of Education. 8. Adjournment There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 9:47pm. 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/1994/February+15++1994.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:42 EDT