|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveFebruary 19, 1990
Minutes University Council Meeting February 19, 1990 Dr. McComas called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. Present:J. McComas, F. Carlisle, T. Goodale, L. Eng, J. Johnson, P. Gherman, L. Harris, G. Hooper, J. Nichols, C. Steger, H. Crawford (for H. Doswald), R. Sorensen, S. Crumwell (for J. Buffer), J. Marchman (for P. Torgersen), S. Ritchey, L. Moore, L. Arnold, A.J. Davis, L. Rees, R. Small, C. Carrig, R. Purdy (for R. Lovingood), E. Henneke, L. Geyer, N. Eiss, D. Kingston, J. Crittenden, N. Marriott, P.F. Scanlon (for S. Batie), A. Snoke, D. Gilbert, W. Kuster (for P. Murphy), P. Radcliffe, D. Wood (for W. Tyrrell), M. Miller, D. Lush, A. Townsend Guests: Norman Dodl, Library Committee; John Ashby, Spectrum; Cornel Morton (Office of the President) Absent: C. Forbes, M. Ridenour, R. Smoot, P. Eyre, R. Heterick, 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 JANUARY 29, 1990. The University Council minutes of the meeting of January 29, 1990 were approved as distributed. 3. FIRST READING, UNIVERSITY LIBRARY COMMITTEE RESOLUTION 1989-90 A, CONCERNING THE CREATION OF NEW BRANCH LIBRARIES. Dr. Dodl noted that increasing budgetary constraints confront the library system at Virginia Tech. The establishment of library facilities at distant learning centers would stretch existing resources beyond reasonable limits. Thus, an operational policy was drafted to make clear that any additional branch libraries should not be created from within the existing library budget. The resolution states that "no new branch libraries be created without specific additional funding being made available for that purpose." Dr. Arnold questioned whether this resolution implied that no new "dead book facilities" would be created. Dr. Gherman replied that the two are unrelated. Dr. Arnold also observed that this is the first resolution coming before University Council that deals with matters of resource allocation. Dr. Gherman noted that this resolution addresses the internal use of funding, rather than the allocation of resources from the university at large. In response, Dr. Arnold expressed some concern regarding the nature of policy coming before Council, e.g., should Council routinely deal with matters relating to the internal use of funds? What precedent does this set? Mr. Townsend noted that the Graduate Student Assembly is trying to increase the number of book drop-off locations. He questioned whether this resol- ution would affect these efforts. Dr. Gherman responded that it would not. The resolution was carried forward for second reading. 4. IN SUCCESSIVE MOTIONS, COUNCIL APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS. a. Commission on Faculty Affairs, January 5, 1990. b. Commission on Research, November 8, 1989. Dr. Hooper called attention to Item #4, concerning the Public Health Service Final Rule on Misconduct in Science. He noted that an interim institutional response has been submitted to the Public Health Service. c. Commission on Student Affairs, December 7, 1989. Dr. Goodale called attention to the Delta Kappa Epsilon incident and added that a future CSA meeting would be devoted to a discussion of the racial climate on campus. 5. FOR INFORMATION Dr. McComas asked Dr. Snoke to respond to any questions concerning the minutes of the University Communications Network Committee, dated November 29, 1989. Dr. Arnold referenced the Policy Regarding Campus Networks and asked if there was a body of documentation that addresses policy issues within the information services area to which this document would be "attached." Dr. Snoke replied that he is not aware of any written body of such documentation. He added that the term "policy" is used loosely in this situation and actually refers more to "a way of doing things." Dr. Carlisle noted that if such a set of codified policies exist, it would be identified and made known to Council. In the University Library Committee minutes dated December 6, 1989, Dr. Gherman called attention to the discussion of the issue of access vs. ownership. Dr. Gherman was asked to speak to the issue of the organizational structure of CNS. Prior to doing so, he distributed the attached CNS organizational chart. He then referenced the question from the previous Council meeting dealing with the organizational fit of the Learning Resources Center and Media Services. While they were once a single unit, they now assume separate and distinct roles. Media Services includes photography, graphic arts, printing and copying; the Learning Resources Center deals with matters of video production, audio-visual services and educational technol- ogy. Dr. Gherman also identified the directors of these five sub-divisions as follows: Media Production Services, Tom Head; Network Services, Judy Lilly; Research and Development, Theta Bowden; Scholarly Communications Project, Lon Savage; and Learning Resources Center, John Moore. Dr. Moore then invited further discussion of the Report of the Task Force on the University Council, Standing University Commissions and Committees: Recommended Constitution and Bylaws Revisions, January 5, 1990. Dr. Moore noted that the Faculty Senate met to address the report and asked Dr. Eng to summarize those discussions. Dr. Eng mentioned that any of the proposed recommendations would entail some modification of the existing constitu- tion. He added that the present system of governance was adopted some time ago when the university was a very different institution than it is today. He added that this might be an opportune time to critically rethink not only structural changes but also needed modifications to the underlying system. Dr. Eng noted that the Faculty Senate is considering the formation of its own "task force" to examine some of these underlying assumptions and structure. For example, what is the proper role of faculty, students and staff in matters of resource allocation? How can faculty, student and staff participation be increased in the formulation of university-wide policy? Dr. Arnold added that some faculty members perceive the university governance and planning structure as too hierarchical. Dr. Moore asked Dr. Eng if he was proposing that the Faculty Senate and Task Force work together to address these issues (and thus delay the submission of a final resolution)? Dr. Eng agreed that this might be preferable, although Dr. Arnold noted that the Faculty Senate must first come to agreement on some of these issues. Dr. McComas observed that there seems to be some fundamental questions that have not been worked out by faculty members themselves. Specifically, what faculty university-wide perceive the role of the Faculty Senate and the role of University Council to be? Lack of faculty involvement in the planning process was cited as an example of something that contributes to their sense of disaffection with the present governance system. Dr. Carlisle noted that the planning process is a relatively long and compli- cated one -- one that has offered and will continue to offer faculty meaningful participation at all stages. In fact, he noted, the planning committee is comprised mainly of faculty and has consciously attempted to involve other faculty members in its work. Dr. Snoke asked when an updated version of the Task Force Report would be available? Dr. Moore replied that he is waiting for several promised revisions before he generates a new draft. Dr. Snoke also raised the issue of policy submission from committees. There currently seems to be no clear-cut mechanism whereby policy resolutions from the six committees that report directly to University Council can be submitted, as not every committee has a representative sitting on Council. In addition, because the minutes from these committees do not require formal Council approval, several committee members are concerned that the minutes do not receive Council's full attention. Dr. McComas asked that the Task Force give further thought to the many issues raised during this discussion. 6. ANNOUNCEMENTS In relation to current budgetary constraints, Dr. McComas announced that an Ad Hoc Committee on Budget Reductions would be formed to participate in discussions of budget cuts. Dr. Scanlon has been asked to submit at least five nominations from the Faculty Senate. In addition, a University Distinguished Professor will be asked to serve on the committee, and each college will be represented on the committee. An undergraduate and gradu- ate student representative will also be added to the committee's member- ship. Dr. McComas updated Council on the status of the budget reductions. He noted that the House and Senate have made preliminary reports. The House has recommended the addition of $1 million in unavoidable costs for Virginia Tech, while the Senate has not. Dr. Carlisle added that faculty salary increases are included on the agendas of both the House and the Senate, with the former recommending 4.5% and the latter 5.1%. The most potentially damaging result of the reductions would be the increase in out-of-state fees, especially for graduate students. Dr. McComas mentioned that ways are being sought to avoid this possibility. He added that there have been conflicting reports about the magnitude of the cuts, varying from 5% to 6%, but it is not currently known which figure (if either) is correct. Dr. McComas also noted that he sent a letter (attached) to H.B. Andrews, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and Robert Ball, Chair- man of the House Appropriations Committee, requesting that funding alterna- tives be developed to share more fully the serious impact of these reductions across all state agencies. In addition, Dr. McComas expressed concern that very little public outcry, particularly in the way of newspa- per editorials, has been expressed. Public leadership needs to emerge to call attention to the severity of the cuts for higher education. Dr. Marriott asked about the viability of using lottery funds to supplement the budget. Dr. McComas responded that state officials have proposed borrowing $100 million from the retirement fund in order to put the lottery schedule back on target. These funds would be used for capital construction only. In closing this discussion, Dr. McComas emphasized the need for the university to work together in formulating a viable solution to the imposed reductions. Dr. McComas announced that Dr. Steger has agreed to serve as Acting Vice President for Public Service, in addition to serving in his current capaci- ty as Dean of the College of Architecture and Urban Affairs. Dr. Harris mentioned that he is attempting to locate an alternate location for future University Council meetings, as current membership exceeds the Boardroom's capacity. He asked members to contact him with their suggestions for appropriate space. The meeting adjourned at 4:20 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/February+19++1990.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:49 EDT