|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveJanuary 29, 1990
Minutes University Council Meeting January 29, 1990 Dr. McComas called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. Present:J. McComas, M. Ridenour, F. Carlisle, L. Cross (for T. Goodale), L. Eng, J. Johnson, P. Gherman, L. Harris, G. Hooper, W. Allen (for J. Nichols), C. Steger, M. Ogliaruso (for H. Doswald), T. Bonham (for R. Sorensen), D. Robertshaw (for J. Buffer), J. Marchman (for P. Torgersen), S. Ritchey, P. Eyre, L. Moore, P. Scanlon (for L. Arnold), A.J. Davis, L. Rees, R. Small, C. Carrig, E. Henneke, L. Geyer, N. Eiss, D. Kingston, J. Crittenden, N. Marriott, S. Batie, A. Snoke, D. Gilbert, P. Murphy, P. Radcliffe, W. Tyrrell, M. Miller, A. Towsend Guests: Cornel N. Morton, Office of the President; Janine S. Hiller, Honor System; Nancy Hooker, Honor System; John Ashby, Spectrum Absent: R. Smoot, C. Forbes, R. Heterick, R. Lovingood, R. Riddle, D. Lush 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 15, 1990 Dr. Kingston noted that his comments regarding increasing graduate school representation on commissions/committees mentions the Commission for Under- graduate Studies, while it should reference the Commission on Student Affairs. Ms. Hooker requested that the two references to the "Honor Socie- ty" in the attendance section be replaced by the correct term, "Honor System." Both Drs. Kingston and Snoke raised a question about the accuracy of the square foot shortages and corresponding dollar deficits cited in the minutes. Dr. McComas responded that those figures would be verified and corrected. The University Council minutes of the meeting of January 15, 1990 were approved as amended. 3. SECOND READING, CSA RESOLUTION 1989-90 A, CONCERNING CHANGE IN MEMBER- SHIP FOR THE COMMISSION ON STUDENT AFFAIRS. FIRST READING: JANUARY 15, 1990. Dr. Cross distributed the revised document and informed Council that the changes provide additional rationale for the resolution. He noted that the revised text does not state the official name of the Honor System, namely the "Virginia Tech Honor System," but offered to preface each mention of the Honor System with "Virginia Tech." Dr. Scanlon questioned whether it was appropriate to add "Virginia Tech" to the resolution, as this is not the "official" name of the university. Dr. Cross responded that the name "Virginia Tech Honor System" is used in its constitution, thus a change of that nature would entail much more than simply revising this one resol- ution. Committee members concurred that the present name should be retained. Dr. Cross also mentioned that the resolution in its present form does not distinguish between the undergraduate and graduate honor systems. In response, Mr. Townsend requested that the word "undergraduate" be inserted prior to each reference to "student(s)" to make that distinction. A. motion was made and seconded to approve the resolution with the insertion of the word "undergraduate" where appropriate. The motion CARRIED. 4. SECOND READING, CSA RESOLUTION 1989-90 B, CONCERNING THE VIRGINIA TECH HONOR SYSTEM CONSTITUTION AND THE DELETION OF THE GRADE "*" SANCTION. FIRST READING: JANUARY 15, 1990. Dr. Cross requested that this resolution be referred back to the Commission on Student Affairs for further discussion. A motion was made and seconded to refer the resolution. The motion CARRIED. 5. IN SUCCESSIVE MOTIONS, COUNCIL APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS. a. Commission on Undergraduate Studies, October 9, and November 6, 1989. 6. FOR INFORMATION a. In reference to the Computer Committee minutes of October 4, Dr. Kingston questioned the high cost ($500,000) of delivering output from the Computer Center. Since Dr. Heterick was not present, Dr. McComas asked Dr. Harris to pursue this issue with Dr. Heterick and provide his findings at the next meeting. Also in reference to the October 4 minutes, Dr. Snoke asked if Learning Resources was now a sub-group of CNS, as indicated by the stated four-group composition of CNS under Agenda Item #3. In response, Dr. Carlisle offered to explore this and provide clarification for Council. b. Dr. Snoke then referenced the University Library Committee Minutes of November 1, 1989 and questioned whether Item I under "Old Business" should come before University Council. It was noted that a resolution concerning the approval of policy on branch libraries should have been submitted to Council for approval. Rather than act on it at the present time and in its present form as an item within the minutes, Dr. McComas recommended that a resolution be drafted and and be presented to Council at a subsequent meeting. c. ONGOING 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 thanked Council members for their input and welcomed further comments. He then referenced pages 24-29 of the Task Force Report summa- rizing the changes to the commissions and committees. He reminded members that some of the changes are in name only, because they only reflect new academic or administrative titles. He then invited discussion of any portion of the document. Dr. McComas inquired whether there had been any substantive feedback to the proposed changes. Dr. Moore indicated that several good suggestions had been received but none that relate to changes in commission/committee composition. Mr. Townsend reported that the Gradu- ate Student Assembly recently passed a resolution requesting certain changes to the Report and would forward it to Dr. Moore as soon as possi- ble. Dr. Moore requested comments by the 15th of February -- particularly those involving the composition of committees and commissions -- and reminded members that the revised Report would come before Council at the March 19 meeting. Dr. Snoke inquired whether the Task Force was preparing an updated version of the Report incorporating the suggested changes so that Council members would have a fresh draft with which to work. Dr. Moore replied that he is waiting on further input prior to doing so, but would be able to provide a revised report shortly thereafter. Dr. Snoke referenced Attachment I from the University Library Committee meeting minutes of November 1, 1989, RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY COMMITTEE TO THE TASK FORCE ON UNIVERSITY COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES AND UNIVERSITY COUNCIL COMPOSITION. He mentioned that one of the recommen- dations therein reinforces his previous comment regarding the inadequate reporting structure for the ULC. Dr. Moore responded that the Task Force had been contacted directly by the ULC and also by the Library Faculty Association, who, as he stated, "unfortunately agreed to disagree among themselves." Thus, the Task Force attempted to meet the needs of both groups. He added that this could be an item for the upcoming meeting of the Task Force and the Faculty Senate. Dr. Rees raised the issue of staff concerns, which from his own informal college survey seem to be state policy-related issues rather than university-level ones. However, he referenced page 10 of the Task Force Report under "Functions and Duties" of the Commission on Faculty Affairs and said that with a few exceptions (topics of tenure, academic freedom, sabbatical leaves), these issues do not significantly differ from the concerns he heard expressed through his survey. Dr. Moore replied that although these concerns may apply to both constituencies, they are not addressed through the same channels. Thus, the Task Force does not recom- mend the formation of a Commission on Staff Affairs at this time. Dr. Moore added that classified staff are represented through the Classified Staff Affairs Committee, which reports directly to Council. Dr. Kingston observed that research associates, who are neither faculty nor classified staff, do not serve on university committees and commissions. Dr. Hooper added that this constituency represents several hundred individ- uals. Dr. Moore noted that many departments include their research associ- ates in faculty meetings, thus there are channels through which research associates CAN voice their concerns. However, because their total numbers are relatively small, the Task Force did not consider it appropriate to add research associates to committees and commissions. Dr. Gherman inquired how the Task Force had determined which individuals would serve at the various reporting levels. Using the example of the University Library Committee, he described how the Provost and the Vice President for Information Services serve on that committee, on the commis- sion to which the ULC reports, and on University Council. He wondered aloud whether overlapping membership was the best use of people's time? Dr. Moore replied that committee membership was designed to include individuals who could provide the best input. Thus, the Task Force asked senior admin- istrators to suggest individuals who could maximize communication and interaction within these committees. Dr. Moore added that the Task Force has received recent suggestions that could change this structure. Dr. Gherman also posed a procedural question: How would Council be voting on the document; in its entirety or section-by-section? Dr. McComas responded that the latter approach, although more time consuming, would be more practical. No decision was reached on this matter, but will need to be resolved soon. 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS Dr. McComas recapped the gist of the testimony given by state university presidents to the House Appropriations Committee with regard to budget cuts. He said that the presidents made clear their concern that higher education was to be asked to carry a disproportionate share of the budget reductions as compared with other state agencies. Dr. McComas and other representatives at the hearings also emphasized the damage that would be done to programs by increasing out-of-state tuition costs, especially at the graduate level. Following the formal meeting, some college and univer- sity representatives had an opportunity to discuss this situation with several key legislators. In sum, they sought the restoration of $70 million to higher education over the biennium through various means, including the following: o Supporting the community college request for faculty positions to full-time status, as opposed to part-time or adjunct status o Returning to the Baliles budget for salary increases (Governor Wilder recommended a faculty salary cap of 4.5%) o Restoring funds to the budget for unavoidable and fixed costs (utili- ties, telephones, and insurance, for example) o Changing the language that would return growth in overhead research dollars to the state. Several key legislators agreed that higher education had been hard hit and Dr. McComas voiced his optimism that these individuals would make every effort to minimize the damage. He also mentioned the possibility of an amendment being passed that would give institutions the option of levying a temporary 2-year fee surcharge on students. Several other sources are also being considered as a way of providing additional revenue. Mr. Ridenour then described in detail the base budgetary cuts of the estimated $9.2 million Tech would lose for each year of the next biennium (see attached document). Several adjustments were recommended by former Governor Baliles, all of which are detailed on page 1 of the budget report. Mr. Ridenour also explained that a new lottery bill has been introduced that would move certain items from the general fund to the lottery. If passed, this bill would directly affect our operating budget in a negative way. Mr. Ridenour then briefly discussed the current budget proposal that: 1) mandates graduate students would pay substantially more in fees than would undergraduates, and 2) requires that out-of-state students pay 100% of the cost of their instruction. He informed Council that the university has requested that this language be amended so that greater flexibility is granted in addressing these issues. Dr. McComas added that the proposed legislation fails to recognize that graduate and out-of-state students make a positive contribution to the local and state economies. Dr. Kingston asked if there was anything faculty members could do to help the situation. Dr. McComas suggested that representatives of the faculty senate visit with local delegates to enlist their support. Dr. McComas closed the meeting by stressing that the political climate for continued funding of higher educa- tion is quite favorable, if funds can be located. The meeting adjourned at 4:30 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/January+29++1990.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:49 EDT