|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveMarch 15, 1994
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes Approved: 5 April 1994 15 March 1994 7:00 p.m. 32 Pamplin Hall Senator Present: Anderson, Armstrong, Badinelli, Bambach, Barbeau, Beagle, E. Brown, Carrig, Creamer, de Wolf, Fern, Ficenec, Foy, Graham, Hardell, Holtzman, Lambur, Landgraf, McDaniel, McKenna, Robert Pillow (for Norstedt), Pierce, Pinder, Richardson, Riley, Rojiani, Scigaj, Betty Heath-Camp (for Sherman), Shires, Shumsky, Sumichrast, Tze, Zhang Absent Benson, Bunce, Burger, Cramer, Dyck, Giles, Greenberg, Gregoire, Howard, Hult, Jones, Martin, Mullins, O'Brien, Olin, Sanzone, Vinson, Webb, Williams Guests John Ashby, Editor, Spectrum John Eaton, Associate Dean, Graduate School John Hess, Professor, Biochemistry and Anaerobic Microbiology Ronald D. Johnson, Associate Dean for Graduate and International Programs Len Peters, Vice Provost for Research and Dean of the Graduate School Minnis Ridenour, Executive Vice President and Chief Business Officer 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 modifications proposed by President de Wolf. 3. Announcements: President de Wolf said that the senate officers met with University President Paul Torgersen on February 16. A variety of issues were discussed. President de Wolf and Senator Shumsky met with the College of Education's Faculty Association on February 17. President de Wolf said he was invited to attend the February 25 Commission on Faculty Affairs meeting to discuss proposed modifications in the university's reduction in force policies. President de Wolf also addressed the graduate student assembly at their February meeting. Finally, President de Wolf reminded senators of two upcoming events: 1) senate elections will be held at the April meeting;President de Wolf asked that senators submit nominations to him by April 5, 2) the senate constitution and by-laws require revision. This project was originally suggested by Leon Geyer, the former Senate President, and is strongly supported by President de Wolf. He asked that senators interested in working on this project contact him as soon as possible. 4. Program: a. President de Wolf welcomed Len Peters, Vice Provost for Research and Dean of the Graduate School, and invited Dr. Peters to discuss his March 9th memo which outlines a new funding policy for graduate students. Dr. Peters joined Virginia Tech in August 1993 and immediately found that stipends were not competitive with those at peer institutions. After gathering data about this problem, he determined that Virginia Tech stipends were approximately $3,800 below those of peer institutions. He said that it was purely coincidental that this amount is close to that of tuition. Dr. Peters said that approximately 1,200 full-time GA and GTA positions were currently available to support 4,450 on-campus graduate students. He said that more than 1,200 graduate students receive stipends due to position splitting. In addition, he said approximately 850 GRA positions, which are supported by a variety of funds, are available on campus. Dr. Peters said that several options were considered to make Virginia Tech stipends more competitive. It was decided that the best way to make up the deficit was by providing tuition scholarships. He explained advantages to the students and to research principle investigators. These advantages include a reduction in taxes for the student and reduced overhead to the proposer of grants and contracts. Dr. Peters said that a plan has been developed to increase the amount of funds in the Instructional Scholarship Fund by $1.5 million. In order to make this money available, a decision was made to allocate funds from those previously allocated to GA and GTA positions. Dr. Peters went through a numeric example explaining how many instructional fee scholarships would be awarded to different types of departments. Dr. Peters noted that additional flexibility has been given to departments by allowing ranges of funding within levels. At this point, Dr. Peters invited questions from Faculty Senators. Question: From where is the money coming to support these additional scholarships? Answer: 208 funds come from reallocation and from doing things differently. The stipend amounts will remain unchanged. Additional money must come from project funds. Dr. Peters said that many sources of funds would be necessary. He said that funds generated from overhead might be required or departments might have fewer GAs and GTAs. Question: Does your plan require that departments find the additional money required and, if so, when must this happen? Answer: Sponsored Programs staff are already putting these amounts into budgets. Question: Will this policy change be put through the University Governance system? Answer: No, we have discussed it with deans and other groups. Question: Is it required that all students receive both a scholarship and a stipend and is it possible to split positions under the proposed policy change? Answer: Positions can be split and normally a student must receive a scholarship and a stipend. If money is left over then additional stipends can be provided. Question: Is it possible that the teaching mission of departments will be adversely affected by this change? It seems that some departments will reduce the number of GAs which are available. Answer: Several scenarios are possible. Dr. Peters said he does not think such a change will happen. He said he believed that the levels of stipends should be monitored to avoid inequities. Question: Will GAs and GTAs receive tuition scholarships in the summer? Answer: No, not enough money is available to address that problem. Question: Will GAs and GTAs be required to register for class in the summer? Answer: This problem is under examination. A uniform answer to this question must be determined. Question: If graduate assistants are given summer support in the future, will departments be required to provide funds for this purpose? Answer: Yes. Question: It appears that those units with few GRAs are penalized by this policy. Answer: Arguments have been raised to say that departments with few GRAs are penalized and arguments have been raised which say that departments with many GRAs are penalized. In the future, we may decide to change the allocation procedure. Question: Where is the 208 funding coming from? Answer: A combination of sources and from reallocation. Comment: You are really saying that departments must come up with the funds. Comment: For some time our department has been embarrassed by the low level of stipends available. Thank you for making more competitive stipends available. President de Wolf thanked Dr. Peters for his presentation on this issue. b. President de Wolf welcomed Minnis Ridenour, Executive Vice President and Chief Business Officer, who had just arrived at the senate meeting from his work with the legislature in Richmond. Mr. Ridenour passed out a summary of actions taken by the General Assembly regarding appropriations for higher education in Virginia. He cautioned the Senate that his understanding of the legislative action was still tentative. He explained many of the actions of the legislature by referring to the handout. First, he discussed raises for university faculty, staff and graduate students. He noted that no across-the-board increase would be available to classified staff. He also mentioned that raises would take effect in December. Next, Mr. Ridenour discussed limits on tuition increases proposed by former Governor Wilder, Governor Allen and the legislature. The final plan calls for a 3% limit on in-state tuition and a 7.5% limit on out-of-state tuition increases. These tuition increases reflect a tendency to shift more of the cost of education from general funds to students and their families. Mr. Ridenour said that the proposal to require out-of-state students to help pay debt service on bonds issued for new buildings at Virginia Tech had been dropped. Mr. Ridenour said that Virginia Tech will receive approximately $2.7 million more in financial aid funds during the 94-96 biennium. Mr. Ridenour noted that colleges and universities are required to prepare a plan for restructuring by September 1, 1994. The plans will be reviewed by the State Council and by the Secretary of Education. A proposal to require a 1.5% reallocation in higher education budgets was eliminated in final legislation. The Secretary of Finance will authorize pilot projects at five institutions, including Virginia Tech, for the purpose of identifying potential savings in personnel and financial processes. Mr. Ridenour discussed several other issues including operating funds for new buildings and the equipment trust fund. He told the Senate that previously, Virginia Tech set up an equipment trust fund which was the model for the entire state. Mr. Ridenour discussed projects approved for non-general funding including a student health and fitness center, two new dorms and a new dining hall. A relationship between these plans and the university integrated space plan was discussed. Mr. Ridenour noted that the plans included in his summary reflected the university's current operating environment. He said that effective July 1, the university will have only two divisions as opposed to its current three. Finally, Mr. Ridenour used a table to demonstrate how an increased use of non-general funds in institutions of higher education has taken place. The net result over the upcoming biennium is not a reduction in funds for the instructional division, simply a shift in costs to students. In response to a question, Mr. Ridenour said that it takes three in-state students to make up for the funds lost from one out-of-state student. Last year the university had a short fall of $2.9 million because it was unable to attract qualified out-of-state students. This year the university will have a short fall of approximately $1.9 million for this reason. He said that additional money was being put into financial aid to try to attract more qualified out-of-state students. Next, Mr. Ridenour asked senators to review appropriations for the research division. He said that problems created by the appropriations were even greater than those shown by the net decrease in funding. This is because additional funds were allocated to salary increases and cannot be diverted to other purposes. He asked the senators to review appropriations for the extension division and said that the problems with this division were very similar to those of the research division. Mr. Ridenour tried to put the current budget in perspective by reviewing changes since funding reductions began in 1989. In the current biennium, Virginia Tech is operating with $37 million less in general fund money per year. After the next biennium, or round five of the budget cuts, Virginia Tech will be operating with $45.6 million less in general fund support per year. After offsetting for increases allowed in tuition and fees, the university will still be operating with $29.6 million less per year at the end of the upcoming biennium. While budget problems continue, Mr. Ridenour said that in his opinion, higher education "has turned the corner". Restructuring by universities has been recognized by the state legislators. He said that he believes as additional money becomes available, universities are likely to get some of it. At the conclusion of these remarks, Mr. Ridenour offered to answer questions from senators. Question: In your opinion, are the appropriations to the various institutions in Virginia equitable? Answer: Across higher education, the cuts have been equitable. Differences over specific funded projects do exist. The legislators claim that certain funds have been made available to accommodate enrollment growth. Some may say that this practice is not equitable. Question: Is the state committed to fund technology for instruction? Do legislators believe that this technology is premature? Answer: There is still support for instructional technology. There simply was not funding available for it during this legislative session. Question: What is the status of the proposed high technology classroom facility to be located in the upper quad? Answer: The university is in the process of finalizing a master plan. A high tech classroom facility has been discussed as a potential part of this plan. Before this proposal has a significant chance of becoming a reality, it must become a part of the university master plan. Question: Is computing included in the pilot decentralization project (in which Virginia Tech will participate)? Answer: Computing will remain centralized. The university has a certain degree of freedom within this centralization and will work to retain this freedom. Question: How will the restructuring plan be created? Will each unit of the university be required to create a restructuring plan and have guidelines for these plans been provided to university units? Answer: We have restructuring plans already underway. These include the 1.5% reallocation plan and other aspects of Phase II. Thursday, the restructuring of all nonacademic units will be reviewed. All units have received clear guidelines for how to accomplish restructuring. Mr. Ridenour went on to explain successful examples of restructuring which have resulted in savings. These include the elimination of seven senior administrative positions, reorganization of the Virginia Tech airport and closing of the Virginia Tech laundry facility. Mr. Ridenour said that the restructuring plan, which will be submitted to Richmond on September 1, will come from information already available to the university. There is no need to ask departments to submit additional plans. Question: What is the attitude of the Board of Visitors concerning the financial situation at Virginia Tech? Answer: The Virginia Tech Board of Visitors is very supportive of the university. However, it understands that situations have changed and that the university must change in response to its new environment. The Board of Visitors encourages change. It is aware of the reduction in funds which Virginia Tech has had to absorb. Mr. Ridenour also noted that members of the Board of Visitors have worked with legislators in support of Virginia Tech. He specifically noted work done by Vice Rector, Henry Dekker. Mr. Ridenour asked President de Wolf to provide the Senate with his own impression of the Board of Visitors. President de Wolf agreed with many of Mr. Ridenour's statements. He said that the Board of Visitors is very interested in the situation at Virginia Tech and is very supportive. At the conclusion of the question/answer period, President de Wolf thanked Mr. Ridenour and turned to the next part of the program. c. President de Wolf introduced John Hess, Professor of Biochemistry and Anaerobic Microbiology, and invited him to explain how the College of Agriculture has responded to reductions in funding. Dr. Hess reviewed how faculty involvement has changed in the College of Agriculture over the last several years. He noted that while a great deal of faculty involvement existed through committees, committee decisions had no means of becoming policy. He said that there is now a closer association between committees and the Faculty Association. He said the College of Agriculture now has a group which works in a way similar to the University Advisory Council on Strategic Planning and Budgeting. Dr. Hess said that a sense of collegiality on the part of administrators and faculty is required to make the new system work. At the conclusion of the remarks of Dr. Hess, President de Wolf invited senators to ask questions. Question: Can you cite a specific example of how faculty involvement has affected the way the College of Agriculture budgets its money? Answer: Early reductions in the budget resulted in a plan to lay off a considerable number of staff personnel. Faculty concerns caused this plan to be modified significantly. The dialogue between the administration and faculty was responsible for the change. President de Wolf thanked Dr. Hess for his remarks and went on to relate them to a letter which the senate officers sent to all deans requesting that a committee with the responsibility for budget reallocation be formed in each college. President de Wolf said that he had received three positive responses from deans so far and hoped that others would have a similar response. 5. Approval of Minutes: a. The Faculty Senate Minutes of 15 February 1994 were approved after modification. The Cabinet minutes of 21 February 1994 were accepted. 6. Council, Commission and Committee reports had been distributed electronically. A brief discussion period was held concerning these reports. Senator Holtzman passed out copies of an EOAA committee report which had not been made available for electronic distribution. He said that the Policy Subcommittee is preparing a revision of the Sexual Harassment Policy so as to prevent consenting sexual relations between faculty and students under their supervision and between supervisors in general and those whom they supervise. He said that the subcommittee had almost finished its work and the revised policy would soon be considered by the entire committee. A lively discussion of the proposed policy followed. Particular note was made that sexual relations would be prohibited between classified staff and supervisors. Arguments for loosening and for strengthening the policy were made by various senators. President de Wolf suggested that further comments should be directed towards the committee. President de Wolf noted that, if approved, the policy would then move to the Commission on Faculty Affairs which has senate representation. Senator Barbeau asked President de Wolf to elaborate on the Hicks and Pratt studies mentioned in the University Advisory Council on Strategic Planning and Budgeting report. Dr. de Wolf said these studies tried to quantify the value of departments. Financial measures have been used by the reports. The Advisory Council has been reluctant to draw any conclusions based on these studies. Senator Shumsky added that the Advisory Council discussed Phase II proposals for months. At some point, Sam Hicks decided on his own to undertake his study. This prompted Tim Pratt to perform a different study. Senator Shumsky said that many flaws had been noted in both. He said that the significance of both reports has been exaggerated. 7. New Business a. A Proposed Faculty Retirement Buy-Out President de Wolf provided the Senate with an overview of the plan. He said it is unclear about the amount of faculty involvement in the plan's preparation. He mentioned several specific items from the plan including: a maximum of only one year salary will be available, only tenured faculty will be allowed to participate, and only faculty from departments with significant budget reductions will be allowed to participate. Dr. de Wolf noted that the Commission on Faculty Affairs will be discussing this plan Friday. The Commission on Faculty Affairs has the option of sending the plan back to the Senate for further discussion. Senator Pierce commented on the plan's timetable. He said that it is very short. Senator Creamer said that he believed the plan is probably being put in place for use by faculty in the College of Education. However, he found it unlikely that anyone would take advantage of it. Senator Shumsky suggested that no one under the age of 64 would be likely to benefit from such a plan and stated that he was unsure of the plan's origin. Senator Graham said that the proposed plan was not generous enough to interest members of his department. After further discussion, it became apparent that the Senate would like the Commission on Faculty Affairs to look very carefully at this issue. 8. Adjournment There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 9:16pm. 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/March+15++1994.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:42 EDT