|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveJanuary 25, 1994
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes Approved: 15 February 1994 25 January 1994 7:00 p.m. 32 Pamplin Hall Senator Present: Anderson, Armstrong, Badinelli, Bambach, Barbeau, Beagle, Brown, Creamer, de Wolf, Dyck, Ficenec, Giles, Graham, Hardell, Holtzman, Howard, Jones, Lambur, Landgraf, Martin, Norstedt, Pinder, Rojiani, Sherman, Shires, Shumsky, Sumichrast, David Russell (for Hsiung Tze), Webb, Williams, Zhang, Burger Absent Benson, Bunce, Carrig, Cramer, Fern, Foy, Greenberg, Gregoire, Hult, McDaniel, McKenna, Mullins, O'Brien, Olin, Pierce, Richardson, Riley, Sanzone, Scigaj, Vinson Guests John Ashby, Editor, Spectrum Peggy Rasnick, Staff Senate Representative Charles Steger, Vice President, Development & University Relations 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. Program: President de Wolf welcomed Charles Steger, Vice President of Development & University Relations, and provided the Senate with a brief background of Dr. Steger. Dr. Steger described his role in his new position at Virginia Tech. He began by emphasizing his efforts related to fund raising. He explained the need to respond to criticisms higher education in this capacity. Dr. Steger listed several issues of higher education in general which impact fund raising. These included escalating costs, reduction in state support, faculty productivity, tenure, the tension between research and teaching, a need to address the concerns of nontraditional students and the value of a college education compared to its cost in the current job market. Dr. Steger said that there were also several issues specific to Virginia Tech which potential donors were concerned about. He finds that donors want assurances of greater accountability on the part of Virginia Tech and its faculty. They are concerned about the overlap of degree offerings within schools and the competition between schools in Virginia. They are also concerned about class sizes. Next Dr. Steger explained his role in university relations. He provided several examples of work which his office does. This includes assuring that newspapers, in home towns of students and faculty receiving awards, are aware of these awards. It includes arranging national news releases such as recent Wall Street Journal and NBC television new stories about the Blacksburg Electronic Village. Dr. Steger said his objective was to try for as much public visibility as possible. He is currently trying to measure how effective Tech's publicity efforts are by counting the frequency of references to Virginia Tech in national news outlets. He said he recognizes that his ability to publicize the university is due entirely to the achievements of faculty and students. On the issue of fund raising, Dr. Steger noted that as public support for higher education decreases, fund raising becomes more important. Privately raised money must be used, to a certain extent, to offset decreases in public funding. However, private donations should also be used as extra funds to support programs of excellence. This year donations are up approximately 25% when compared to last year. Last year the university raised approximately $32.4 million. Dr. Steger noted that the amount of unrestricted money has decreased. Next, Dr. Steger reviewed the Virginia Tech endowment funds. Currently, the Virginia Tech Foundation has assets of over $200 million. A useful way to look at trends within the endowment is to compare endowment funds to FTE student credit hours. In 1984 the endowment had $1,470 per FTE student. Last year, the endowment had approximately $6,900 per FTE student. Dr. Steger provided members of the Faculty Senate with the Foundation's Annual Report and other related documents. These documents help explain why tuition costs are increasing and try to dispel misconceptions about money available to the university. Dr. Steger discussed the efficiency of fund raising operations at Virginia Tech. His operation's goal is to require no more than $.10 to raise each dollar. Currently, they are spending $.12 to raise each dollar. Their goal is to be comparable to the efficiency of fund raising by the Salvation Army. His organization tries to work with donors to help them save tax dollars while providing funds to Virginia Tech. While unrestricted donations amount for a decreasing amount of funds, there are still donors who are undecided about how to dedicate their donation. For this reason, Dr. Steger's organization tries to prioritize needs of faculty, staff, students and the administration. He chairs the University Needs Assessment Committee with constituencies from groups around the university to help determine these priorities. At the conclusion of Dr. Steger's presentation, President de Wolf invited members of the Senate to ask questions. Question: Senater Dyck asked what the major sources of donations are and if there are any trends evident. Answer: Approximately 31% of donations come from alumni, 44% from corporations, 10% from friends of the university, 7% from foundations and 8% from other sources. One trend is donors requiring greater accountability for their donations. This has resulted in fewer unrestricted donations. Question: Senator Dyck heard that SCHEV has asked departments at the university to identify jobs within Virginia for graduates from their programs. He asked if Dr. Steger was familiar with this request and if he believed that the focus on local and in-state opportunities might relate to problems which the university is experiencing in recruiting out-of-state students? Answer: Dr. Steger said he was unfamiliar with this request and went on to relate experiences which he has had with three Virginia Tech graduates who are now working abroad. He expressed his belief in the importance of looking at world-wide opportunities but said it would be a continuing struggle to get that message across. Question: A senator related his personal experience with paying in- state tuition for students at the University of Wisconsin and at Virginia Tech. He noted that tuition at Virginia Tech is $1,750 whereas at Wisconsin tuition is $1,250. He asked if this is typical. Answer: Virginia Tech has one of the highest in-state tuition rates. Dr. Steger was unsure of the rates in Wisconsin but believed that Wisconsin got even less state support than schools in Virginia. Comment: President de Wolf noted that a complete picture would look at all costs for students attending a university. The cost for a full-time, in-state student to live on campus and attend the university shows that Virginia Tech is more competitive than when tuition alone is looked at. Question: How do Virginia Tech's out-of-state rates compare to those of other states? Answer: Out-of-state students currently pay for 100% of the cost of their education. Dr. Steger offered to find exact figures and provide them to members of the Faculty Senate. Question: Senator Pinder asked to what extent Virginia Tech is penalized by raising private funds. Do we lose public funds because of our success in fund raising? Answer: Virginia Tech has come through years of budget crisis without adopting a crisis mentality. The public does not understand the long-term impacts of reduced funding. Virginia Tech has incurred a great deal of debt for buildings. It is important for the public to understand these problems. Question: Senator Beagle asked if there is a relationship between a success in athletics and donations to Virginia Tech and how much of private donations go to Virginia Tech athletic foundation? Answer: We do not transfer funds to athletics. Some funds are allocated to athletics by the donor. We have seen an upswing in giving since the Independence bowl victory. However, it is difficult to say that this will be significant in the long term. Typically, there is a great deal of variability in donations from month to month. Question: Senator Graham inquired about the status of the gender equity suit. Answer: The fundamental question is, are we providing the same treatment for males and females. About a year ago, a study was performed which found problems. Virginia Tech is addressing those problems as rapidly as possible. The university is acting in good faith, adjusting salaries, making facilities more available, as well as taking other actions. Question: Senator Brown asked what percent of the $32.4 million given to the university last year was targeted for athletics. Answer: Approximately $4.6 million. Dr. Steger offered to check this figure and provide additional information to the Faculty Senate. Question: Senator Bambach inquired if there are ways which the university can encourage unrestricted giving. Answer: We have encouraged people to give unrestricted donations. This is important because expenses and opportunities which are unexpected come up from time to time. However, the trend across the country is for people to give less unrestricted money. Question: Does the athletic debt include the payout to Coach Dooley? Answer: No, that issue has been taken care of some time ago. The athletic debt is primarily for buildings. Question: How does the university decide to mount a fund raising campaign for a specific department? For example, how was the campaign for the chemistry department decided upon? Answer: The university is preparing to mount an institutional effort for fund raising. All departments are invited to give a presentation as part of this institution-wide effort. Problems arise if small units undertake fund raising efforts in isolation. Almost every college, as well as athletics, has professional staff to help coordinate fund raising. Question: President de Wolf asked Dr. Steger to comment on the ties between the Alumni Association and university fund raising. Answer: The university fund raising efforts try to focus on key themes. We look at how the university has contributed to the life of students. Surveys by the university find that our alumni are very positive about their experiences at Virginia Tech. At the conclusion of the question/answer session, Dr. Steger promised to provide the senate with more information about funding for athletics as well as Virginia Tech's rank with peer institutions concerning education costs. 4. The Faculty Senate Minutes of 7 December 1993 were approved without changes. Cabinet Minutes of 10 January 1994 were accepted. 5. Council, Commission and Committee reports had been distributed electronically. A discussion period was held concerning these reports. Senator Bambach discussed recent events in the University Athletic Committee. He said that last Friday a proposal to address gender equity issues was discussed. This proposal will cost the university $2.9 million over four years. It calls for participation in sports by gender, at the level as college enrollment. Virginia Tech has a relatively small athletic budget and can't afford to drop men's programs. So, women's programs must be added. This plan is more generous than gender equity plans by other universities which have been accepted by courts. Therefore, it is very likely that it would be found legal by a court. It should blunt any adverse impact which could arise from a lawsuit brought against Tech by women athletes. Senator Bambach said that Minnis Ridenour hoped the plan could be paid for without raising student athletic fees. This may be possible due to a number of changes which may enhance sports' revenues. Finally, Senator Bambach addressed the issue of scholarship in athletics. He cited statistics showing that Tech athletes graduate at higher rates than the overall university rate. He provided examples of other programs which are designed to increase the importance of scholarship by athletics. He stated that athletics has provided positive publicity for the university. Question: Senator Graham asked if the plan addressed issues raised by the women's swim team. Answer: Senator Bambach stated that the plan addressed numbers and scholarships explicitly. Coaching salary adjustments and other changes are already in the process of being achieved. Question: What is the student athletic fee? Answer: Approximately $50. This fee is relatively low when compared to peer institutions. Question: Is there hope that this plan will result in an out-of- court settlement of the lawsuit brought against Virginia Tech by women athletes? Answer: That would be a good outcome. The plan may be submitted to a judge to document that the plan satisfies legal requirements. Question: Does the decision to eliminate the swim team stand? Answer: The men's swim team was eliminated. That decision stands. Next Senator Shumsky provided an update from the Commission on Faculty Affairs. He stated that last spring, a concern had arisen about protection for faculty serving in the university governance system. Specifically, some worry that faculty members might be held liable for their actions on committees. University officials responded to this concern by stating that the university's liability insurance would extend to faculty in these situations. Liability coverage for faculty is now explicitly stated in the recently revised faculty handbook. Senator Shumsky next reported on the issue of classroom attendance. Currently, the faculty handbook states that student grades can not be based on attendance. This policy has been criticized for a variety of reasons. The Commission on Faculty Affairs passed a resolution to modify the policy. This resolution, with minor modifications, has also been passed by the Commission on Undergraduate Studies and will now go to the University Council for a first reading in February. In essence, the new policy would allow faculty to use attendance to help determine a grade, as long as this was stated in the syllabus. It does not require that faculty take attendance or use attendance to help determine a grade. Senator Norstedt, the reporter for the University Library Committee, passed out copies of the 1992-1993 Annual Report of the University Library. This action was suggested by the committee. Senator de Wolf, who was briefed by reporter John Hillison, reported on actions of the Faculty Senate of Virginia which occurred last Friday. Gordon Davies addressed the Faculty Senate of Virginia and stated that the governor and legislators have a more positive attitude towards higher education. However, for the first time, less than 50% of the support for higher education will come from general funds. Faculty salaries continue to decline as compared to those of peer institutions. As a positive note, Virginia Tech was used at this meeting as a positive example. The Phase II program was cited. Question: Senator Barbeau asked about the status of the budget. It has been reported that 208 money will not be cut. Answer: President de Wolf said that this report comes from Ex- Governor Wilder's budget. In fact, general revenue for 208 funds is cut in this budget. Tuition increases are allowed to offset for the cut. The final outcome of the budget is not known at this point. 6. New Business a. President de Wolf began by providing the Senate with additional budget information which was made available at the General Budget Forum held in Smyth hall earlier today. He reported on proposed salary increases and a bonus program for faculty and staff during the '94-'96 biennial. He reported that Governor Wilder's budget had been amended by Governor Allen so that smaller tuition raises would be allowed, thus creating a short-fall in 208 money. This means that a fifth round of budget cuts is likely. However, the General Assembly may choose to modify this budget. President de Wolf also reported that research and extension funds have been cut significantly. University President Torgersen plans to make a last pitch to legislators to try to restore some of these funds. Without funding restoration, Virginia Tech's Equine Medical Center will be forced to close. Finally, President De Wolf offered to make additional information available as requested by senators. b. Next, President de Wolf reported on actions taken by the University Advisory Council on Strategic Planning and Budgeting. The Council has studied plans for the 1.5% reallocation money which is part of Provost Carlisle's Phase II initiative. The Council has prioritized requests for funds from this pool of $1.9 million. Highest priority will be given for funding for salary increases resulting from promotion. Also in this category are the Provost's Exceptional Opportunity Program and enhanced financial support for graduate students. President de Wolf also briefed the Senate on items included in the second and third highest categories as determined by the Advisory Council. c. Senator Barbeau noted problems which departments will suffer after budget reductions of 1.5% per year. Senator Barbeau noted that it could cause some departments to close. Senator Graham noted that within the College of Arts and Sciences departments with no graduate programs received disproportionate shares of the cuts due to the Phase II reallocation process. Senator Graham expressed his perception on how the Phase II reallocation process has unfairly affected some departments and programs. President de Wolf said he understood some of the problems which various university units experience. Further, he offered to take the concerns expressed during the meeting to the next University Advisory Council meeting. Other senators expressed their concerns about actions related to the Phase II program or other effects of budget cutting. For example, it was noted that only new innovative programs would be funded through the Phase II program. Existing programs could not benefit from the new resources. Another Senator noted that members of his department had been asked to voluntarily teach more. He said that there was a danger in some responses to budget cutting because it showed that additional work with fewer resources was possible. President de Wolf noted that concerns about faculty duties would be addressed in the upcoming Faculty Rewards Project. d. President de Wolf reported on the aborted search for a president of Virginia Tech. He said that he had received a number of questions about the procedures which had been followed. Specifically, some individuals wondered if it was legal for the Board of Visitors to make the appointment in a way that seemed to violate EOAA guidelines. President de Wolf said he posed this question to Henry Dekker, Vice Rector of the Board of Visitors. Vice Rector Dekker passed President de Wolf's concern to the University Legal Council, Jerry Cain, who replied to President de Wolf. President de Wolf read the letter and summarized detachments which he received from Mr. Cain. This written response, as well as a subsequent telephone conversation, confirmed that the University Board of Visitors had the power to appoint a president in any way it saw fit. e. Finally, President de Wolf reported that most positions on committees and commissions had been filled. However, it was necessary that the Senate nominate someone to serve on the newly formed commission for AP faculty. This nomination was necessary within twenty-four hours. President de Wolf said if no nomination was received he would appoint a senator to the position. 7. Adjournment There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 8:50pm. 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/January+25++1994.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:42 EDT