|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveOctober 2, 1991
University Commencement Committee October 2, 1991 Minutes Members present: R. Alls, N. Barclay, J. Beach, J. Comeaux, D. Drapeau, J. Williams-Green, E. Henneke, L. Hincker, M. Johnson, C. Kennedy, J. Marchman, D. McKee, S. Musser, C. Nickerson, R. Smith, W. Spear, R. Stith, D. Taylor, T. Tillar, P. White, Krystal McAnelly (Senior Class rep.) Chair Kennedy called the meeting to order at 12:08 p.m. in 210 Burruss Hall. The agenda had already been distributed. 1. Kennedy reported on the results of the postcard poll for Fall Commencement: 341 students said they plan to attend as of today. Last year 258 said they would attend and 400 appeared for the ceremony. In the discussion it was noted that since this is the second time for the Fall Commencement and the postcard survey, the numbers may be more accurate this year; it might not be proper to extrapolate a 33% increase in actual attendees. [N.B. As of 10/16/91 there have been 445 responses and students are still coming daily to add their names. Ed.] Last year there was standing room only in Burruss Auditorium for the 400 students and their guests. It was therefore agreed that Carole Nickerson and the chair would talk with the President about moving the ceremony to Cassell Coliseum. 2. Larry Hincker reported that Bob McIlhenny, a banner artist from Gettysburg, PA, had made a presentation to the Messrs. McComas, Carlisle, and Ridenhour about the design and manufacture of flags and banners to decorate the campus for major events such as Founders Day, Commencements, and Parents Weekend. The matter is under further review by the administration. 3. Tom Tillar presented the report of the Faculty Participation Subcommittee. Its recommendations are: 1. Inclusion of Emeriti Faculty in Spring Commencement - Should be invited by their respective Colleges - Should be encouraged to attend University and College/Departmental exercises and related activities - Because they are traditionally invited to participate in Founders Day activities, they should be encouraged in a communication in March to participate in both. 2. Encouraging Faculty to attend the University Spring Commencement - Mail letter from the President in April encouraging their participation; stress that recent changes have added to the formality and pageantry of the program - Encourage their participation in both University and College/Departmental Programs - Include reply card addressed to Commencement Committee, so faculty may indicate whether they plan to march - Require Associate and Assistant Deans and Department Heads to march - Encourage professional (non-academic) staff members and Administrative Faculty to march - Require ALL marshals to wear academic regalia 4. James Marchman presented the report of the Honors Eligibility Subcommittee. Its recommendations are: The group discussed the sources of the problem leading to student complaints about not receiving honors sashes at graduation. The problems seem to be due to the following: 1. The list prepared last year for use by the bookstore did not include dual (graduate/undergraduate) registered seniors. 2. Some students believe that their final-term grades are sufficient to pull them over the line and they should be eligible for a sash. 3. Students who are not graduating in spring but will finish in summer and wish to "walk through" the ceremony are not on the honors sash list. (There is some question about whether a student who is not yet eligible to graduate should be able to wear a sash.) We felt that it is not practical to ask the Registrar's Office to take on the additional task of last-minute checks for "sash eligibility" and this is better handled through the colleges. The Registrar's Office does not need to make sure that all eligible students have been considered in preparation of the list given the bookstore. Our recommendations are: 1. The Registrar's Office needs to make sure that the honors sash list provided the bookstore includes dual (graduate/undergraduate) registered students and any others who might receive a B.S. or B.A. degree but be coded differently from regular undergraduate students. 2. Each college should be given a supply of honors sashes for distribution as it sees fit to students, including walk-throughs, whose grades at graduation would qualify them as honor students. Each college will maintain a record of students receiving sashes in this manner. The availability of sashes through the colleges should be publicized as a part of commencement information normally distributed to students. Finally, we must realize that despite everyone's best effort, there will always be the occasional student who first learns of the existence of honors sashes at the ceremony itself and who complains bitterly that he or she should have been tracked down and given a sash. There is little we can do in such cases. 5. Martha Johnson presented the report of the subcommittee on Ph.D. and D.V.M. candidates in the University Spring Ceremony. The sub-committee of the University Commencement Committee met September 24 to discuss the appropriate recognition of doctoral students at the Saturday morning commencement. Committee members in attendance were: Nancy Barclay, Jay Commeaux, Martha Johnson, Carol Nickerson and Josiah Tlou. The committee makes the following recommendations: 1. Doctoral Ceremony and DVM Ceremony be elevated to Commencement Ceremony for those students 2. President confer degrees at those ceremonies 3. President's speech for Saturday morning be amended to announce the graduation of the doctoral students and DVM's the previous evening 4. Change general invitation to commencement sent by President's office to include Friday night commencements 5. Program to handle multiple ceremonies (use of plural in bulletin) Ms. Nickerson will work with editor to make sure that we treat ceremonies the same in all publications 6. Reduce the number of reserved chairs for doctoral students and DVM's for Saturday morning commencement 7. Make sure all students feel invited to Saturday morning commencement a well as Doctoral Commencement and DVM Commencement 6. The chair presented a proposal for re-instating the diploma application (with or without a fee). The various administrative units concerned with Commencement have a common problem: the lack of accurate mailing lists for sending Commencement information to students and invitations to the parents. It shows up when we go to mail the postcard survey to Fall Commencement candidates and when the President's Office mails invitations to their parents. Presently, we have to work from lists derived from the applications for graduation, which a student may submit two years in advance of the actual date of graduation. Also and inevitably, there are those students who expect to graduate in one cycle and then for whatever reason find themselves graduating at a later date. Since the only information we have is on the application, there is no way to verify the student's status and thus insure more accurate information for the mailing lists and the printed program. As long as we were under the once-a-year commencement with a single printed program that listed everyone for the preceding year, this was less of a problem. Having moved to the twice-a-year format, new problems are emerging about listing students in the proper printed program. The students naturally assume that the printed program will reflect their attendance at the ceremony. They and their parents get understandably upset when their names do not appear. The root cause of this problem is the lack of a reporting instrument that will give us reliable information in a timely fashion. A review of the University catalogs shows that up until 1983 there was a provision for a diploma fee of $10 (1982-83 Catalog, p. 39). I propose that this committee request the Provost to reinstate a diploma application (with or without fee) that would be due by October 15 for Fall Commencement and March 15 for Spring Commencement. This application would allow the registrar to cross-check graduation lists and also provide current family addresses for the President's Office to send invitations to the parents. With the information from these cards, the printed program could go to press with the names of those who state that they will attend included in the printed program for the ceremony they selected. Should a fee be reinstated, the proceeds should be reserved for commencement-related activities such as, but not limited to, the purchase of necessary equipment (staging, chairs, banners), honoraria for speakers, offsets for the cost of college/department receptions, etc. The administration of the form could be handled by the Registrar's Office or by the President's Office/Commencement Office. If it were decided to include a fee, as many universities do, the collection function might determine which office would handle the form and the money. After some discussion it was noted that the Registrar's Office was preparing a letter to be sent to students asking them to verify their local address and the address(es) of parents or guardians for commencement-related mailings. This letter would probably help solve the problem of returned or missing invitations to parents. 7. The committee considered a proposal from a commercial photographer to videotape the University ceremony and edit highlights for sale through the University Bookstore. The decision was to reject the offer and continue to allow the colleges and families to make their own videotapes. Two videotapes were available for viewing by members who cared to stay after the adjournment: a demo tape of stage units being considered for replacing the wooden units for Lane Stadium and a tape of Emory University Commencement produced by the commercial photographer. The meeting adjourned at 12:55 p.m.
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/mcc/1991/October+2++1991.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:43 EDT