|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveDecember 3, 1990
Minutes University Council Meeting December 3, 1990 Dr. McComas called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. Present:J. McComas, E.F. Carlisle, L. Eng (for J. Hillison), L. Cross (for T. Goodale), P. Gherman, L. Harris, G. Hooper, A. Swiger (for J. Nichols), G. Crofts (for H. Doswald), H. Bonham (for R. Sorensen), D. Robertshaw (for J. Buffer), S.J. Ritchey, P. Eyre, L. Moore, D. Hewitt, L. Rees, R. Small, C. Carrig, F. Thye, R.A. Heller, P. Wilson (for L. Geyer), N. Eiss, D. Kingston, J. Crittenden, N. Marriott, S. Batie, R. Johnson (for A. Snoke), D. Adams, C. Vargo, J. Budd, G. LoCascio, P. Radcliffe, M. Byrne, P. Larkin Guests: Brian McConnell, SGA; Kay Heidbreder, General Counsel's Office; Barbara Pendergrass, Student Affairs; Pat Hyer, Provost's Office; Bill Burleson, Spectrum; Cornel N. Morton, Office of EO/AA Absent: C. Forbes, M. Ridenour, R. Smoot, C. Steger, G.W. Clough, A.J. Davis, R.A. Heller, J. Riddle 1. ADOPTION OF AGENDA A motion was made and seconded to approve the agenda as distributed. The motion PASSED. 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 6, 1990 The University Council minutes of the meeting of November 6, 1990 were approved with the correction of one mechanical error. 3. FIRST READING, COMMISSION ON STUDENT AFFAIRS, RESOLUTION 1990-91A, CONCERNING THE ADDITION OF A NON-DISCRIMINATORY SEXUAL ORIENTATION CLAUSE TO THE VIRGINIA TECH EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION STATEMENT. Dr. Landrum Cross, representing the Commission on Student Affairs, explained that, unlike other groups of faculty, staff, and students protected by the Commonwealth's non-discrimination policy, gays, lesbians, and bisexuals are not currently included in the statute. This resolution addresses that omission. Despite the fact that there is no statutory weight behind this resolution, the Commission on Student Affairs seeks to take action on behalf of these individuals. Dr. Gherman expressed concern about the liability of the university if it were to act favorably on the resolution. In response, Ms. Kay Heidbreder, Associate General Counsel, explained that an Assistant Attorney General had addressed a similar issue at Radford University and determined that the university was not legally prohibited from including the clause in its EO/AA statement. Dr. Kingston then commented on the general tenor of the resolution. He questioned the increasingly "piecemeal approach" to the statement and wondered if the university might be unintentionally excluding certain groups from the non-discrimination statement by not specifically mentioning them. He advised that the university develop a simpler, more inclusive statement, such as not discriminating on all non-academic and non-employment related grounds. Mr. Brian McConnell, a senator from the Student Government Associ- ation who drafted the resolution, agreed that while simplifying the clause makes sense, the wording is based on the advice of legal counsel who indicated that the university is bound to a more specific statement for legal purposes. He added that he felt the "climate" in southwest Virginia for this constituency justified the proposed modification of the statement. Dr. Kingston made a motion to refer the resolution to the University's Committee on EO/AA. President McComas commented that other interested groups could also review the resolution if they wished. Mr. Gregg LoCascio advised that any group reviewing the resolution should have a represen- tative from the General Counsel's Office present to respond to questions concerning legal matters to expedite discussion. The resolution was REFERRED to the EO/AA Committee. 4. FIRST READING, UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON EQUAL/OPPORTUNITY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, RESOLUTION 1990-91A, SEXUAL HARASSMENT POLICY. Dr. Morton, Chairperson of the EO/AA Committee, shared the history and rationale for the new sexual harassment policy. He explained that the new document is written in a more understandable and explicit way. Specif- ically, 1) the rationale for the policy is more clearly stated, 2) the language concerning relationships between faculty and students is more explicitly stated, 3) a clearer definition of "faculty member" is included, and 4) prohibited acts are both stated and exemplified for additional clarity. In addition, the new policy includes a section on consensual relationships and a more condensed section on grievance procedures. Dr. Eiss inquired as to whom a complaint should be directed if a graduate teaching assistant is charged with any form of sexual harassment. Dr. Morton responded that such a complaint would come under the purview of the EO/AA Office. Dr. Batie expressed her support for the new policy and also noted that the university could benefit from a series of workshops dealing with sexual harassment. Dr. Eng observed that the new policy would directly impact faculty and asked that the resolution be referred to the Faculty Senate. The resolution was REFERRED to the Faculty Senate. 5. SECOND READING, COMMISSION ON GRADUATE STUDIES RESOLUTION 1990-91A, CONCERNING REINSTATEMENT OF THE "D" GRADES FOR GRADUATE CREDIT. FIRST READING, NOVEMBER 6, 1990. Dr. Hooper noted that this resolution, effective Fall 1991, adopts the same grading standards for graduate students as are applicable to undergradu- ates. He moved approval of the resolution. The motion CARRIED. 6. SECOND READING, COMMISSION ON UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES RESOLUTION 1990-91A, CONCERNING RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT. FIRST READING, NOVEMBER 6, 1990. Dr. Carlisle observed that the former policy was largely based on require- ments associated with the quarter system and moved approval of the resol- ution. The motion CARRIED. 7. SECOND READING, CONSTITUTION OF THE FACULTY SENATE. FIRST READING, NOVEMBER 6, 1990. Dr. Eng reminded Council of a question asked at the previous meeting concerning the number of faculty remaining in the Extra-Collegiate Exten- sion Division. He estimates that about 70-80 individuals remain in this division--about the same number as in the library and the College of Veterinary Medicine. He moved approval of the Faculty Senate Constitution. The motion CARRIED. 8. IN SUCCESSIVE MOTIONS, COUNCIL APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS. a. Commission on Graduate Studies, October 17, 1990. b. Commission on Research, October 10, 1990. c. Commission on Student Affairs, October 18, 1990. d. Commission on Undergraduate Studies, September 24 & October 22, 1990. 9. FOR INFORMATION a. Minutes of the University Committee on Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action, October 10, 1990. Dr. Morton noted the establishment of the Affirmative Action Incentive Grants Program, detailed in the minutes. Application forms will be avail- able from the Equal Opportunity Office in early December. 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS Dr. Carlisle reported that the contingency plans submitted to the Secretary of Education's office for the possible third round of budget cuts have been accepted without comment. Dr. McComas described the concerns being expressed by the state's agricul- tural groups about the proportionally greater budget cuts being made in agriculture programs and the extension division. He emphasized that the university has made significant efforts to protect agriculture in the first two rounds of cuts and, as a result, additional layoffs have been avoided. The agriculture units, particularly the Agriculture Experiment Station and the Extension Service may take cuts totaling 17.5% (as compared to 15% in the other divisions). Dr. McComas added that we will continue to work to minimize additional cuts to Agriculture and Extension. In describing capital improvements, Dr. McComas noted that projects have been delayed that place certain programs, such as Veterinary Medicine and the Colleges of Architecture and Urban Studies and Engineering at risk. A total of $27 million is no longer available for capital projects and this loss could affect the accreditation status of these colleges--not for programmatic reasons, but as a result of facilities deficits. Because lottery money has been reallocated in support of the general budget, there is talk of issuing general obligation bonds to support capital projects, as other states do. But the public mood evidenced in November's election results has not been supportive of issuing bonds. He reported that the university will continue to work with the state legislature on ways to provide support for these projects. 11. QUESTION/ANSWER FORUM Dr. Eiss inquired about reports that academic program review might be delayed until next December. He also conveyed a concern of the Faculty Senate about the lack of program planning occurring at this time. Dr. Carlisle responded that there are currently two forms of program review: 1) administrative and support services, and 2) academic programs. He indicated that it made sense to him for the latter review to be conjoined with the planning process and that this could not be realistically accom- plished until next fall, especially given the present anxiety surrounding budgetary issues, but that he expected administrative and support services review to begin perhaps as early as January. Dr. Batie asked about the status of congressional funding for a biotechnical building on campus. Dr. Hooper responded that for the past two years Congress has authorized planning money, to be matched by state funds. This past year, over $900,000 Federal dollars were authorized to initiate planning of the estimated $9 million biotechnical building. To access those funds, however, the the state would have to pledge the same amount. Virginia Tech has requested that the state's share for the building be made available, at which time Congress would take steps to commit its share. Dr. Hooper indicated that if the university is not able to provide some evidence that it can raise half of the total costs, the entire project could be jeopardized. Dr. Swiger added, however, that those federal funds will be available for several years so long as the state and university provide some indication that efforts are being made to generate their portion. Mr. Budd asked how student groups might be represented on the Building Committee. Dr. Carlisle responded that the Building Committee has not been meeting regularly but that he would provide that information to Mr. Budd. The meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Larry A. Harris Executive Assistant to the President LAH:lg
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/ucm/1990/December+3++1990.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:49 EDT