|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveApril 1, 1991
Minutes University Council Meeting April 1, 1991 Dr. James D. McComas called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. Present:J. McComas, C. Forbes, R. Smoot, M. Ridenour, E.F. Carlisle, J. Hillison, T. Goodale, C. Steger, P. Gherman, L. Harris, G. Hooper, R. Heterick, Helen Crawford (for H. Doswald), J. Johnson (for J. Nichols), J. Buffer, S.J. Ritchey, Blair Meldrum (for P. Eyre), L. Moore, D. Hewitt, A.J. Davis, C. Carrig, Janet Johnson (for F. Thye), R.A. Heller, L. Geyer, N. Eiss, D. Kingston, J. Crittenden, N. Marriott, S. Batie, A. Snoke, Russ Cole (for L. Barroso), M. Byrne, K. Mottley, Jennifer Tank (for C. Vargo), P. Radcliffe, K. Konopka, M. Cacheris Guests: Bill Burleson, Spectrum; Cornel N. Morton, Office of EO/AA; Lud Eng, Faculty Senate; Jim Budd, SGA; Absent: R. Sorensen, L. Rees, R. Small, D. Adams, G.W. Clough 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 MARCH 4, 1991 The University Council minutes of the meeting of March 4, 1991 were approved as submitted. 3. FIRST READING, COMMISSION ON UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES RESOLUTION 1990-91D, CONCERNING THE INTERNAL TRANSFERS OF STUDENTS. For an explanation of the resolution, Dr. Carlisle called on Dr. Ezra Brown, who noted that there are a number of academic programs on campus that must limit student enrollments because of budgetary constraints or other programmatic restrictions. He pointed out, however, that there is no published information regarding the policies and procedures for limiting program enrollments, a situation that is not fair to students. Dr. Brown then explained that the proposed resolution requires colleges or depart- ments that wish to restrict internal transfers of students or to restrict the total number of students in their programs to seek university approval for doing so. Such a proposal will include a rationale statement, criteria for enrollment, method of communication to students, effective dates, contingency plans, and a statement on how the restriction might impact other programs. Approval of the department/program, the college curriculum committee, the college dean, the Commission on Undergraduate Studies, and the Provost will be required. Dr. Crittenden inquired whether colleges or departments who already restrict enrollments must formally submit the required proposal, or whether they would be "grandfathered in." Dr. Brown noted that the resolution requires a college/department to justify every four years the continuation of a restricted program. Thus, programs that wish to maintain current enrollment restrictions would be required to submit a written request four years from the effective date of this resolution. Dr. Brown added that restricted programs would be so designated in the undergraduate catalog and in course timetables. The resolution was carried forward for second reading. 4. IN SUCCESSIVE MOTIONS, COUNCIL APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS. a. Commission on Extension, February 5, 1991. b. Commission on Faculty Affairs, February 8 and 22, 1991. c. Commission on Graduate Studies, February 6 and 20, 1991. d. Commission on Student Affairs, January 17 and February 7, 1991. 5. FOR INFORMATION a. Minutes of the Computer Committee, February 6 and March 6, 1991. Dr. Heterick reported that the committee continues to address issues related to acceptable use of computer systems and networks. b. Minutes of the University Committee on Athletics, December 13, 1991. Dr. Crittenden requested clarification of the discussion on special admissions policy. Dr. Carlisle reported that the committee is consid- ering two issues: 1) can earth science be used to meet this universi- ty's admissions requirements in science, and 2) should the present math requirements be modified? Dr. Crittenden expressed concern that changes are being made outside the governance system. Dr. Carlisle responded that no changes have been made to Virginia Tech's current admissions requirements and, furthermore, no changes will be made unless approved by all the proper constituencies in the appropriate manner. Dr. Crittenden then stated that the current special admissions procedures have never been formally approved by all the units of the governance system. In response, Dr. Carlisle provided a brief history of special admissions and stated that it had been discussed by both the Faculty Senate and the Commission on Undergraduate Studies. He added that admissions procedures are administrative when they do not effectively change Virginia Tech's admissions requirements. Any change that involves admissions standards will be submitted for review by the governance system. Dr. Crittenden reiterated his belief that these special admissions policies have not been voted on by CUS, the Faculty Senate, or University Council and that they should be. c. Minutes of the University Committee on Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action, February 12, 1991. d. Minutes of the University Communications Resources Committee, January 30, 1990. e. Report from the Joint Task Force on University Council, Commissions, and Committees. Dr. McComas called on Dr. Moore to provide information about how and when Council will review the Task Force Report. Dr. Moore reported that the Task Force would be circulating a final report on Wednesday, April 3rd. He asked that all previous copies of the document be discarded and recommended that the first reading of the report take place on April 11th, with the second reading to occur at one of this year's remaining University Council meetings. The report contains two resolutions: one concerning the composition of University Council, and the second addressing the number, structure, and charges of the university commis- sions. He added that the report contains provisions for two additional commissions (alternatives to the proposed Commission on Academic Affairs and the Commission on Research and Public Service). Dr. McComas thanked Dr. Moore and his committee for their considerable efforts. After discussion of possible dates, an additional University Council meeting was scheduled for Thursday, April 25th, at 4:00 p.m., in the President's Boardroom, to discuss the report. 6. ANNOUNCEMENTS Dr. McComas spoke briefly about the recent drug problems at several Univer- sity of Virginia fraternities. He noted that drugs are problematic at many educational institutions in this state and stressed the importance of providing a drug-free environment for learning. Dr. McComas then noted that alcohol abuse continues to be a more pervasive problem at high schools and universities in Virginia. He added that Virginia Tech attempts to closely monitor all fraternities both on- and off-campus. Dr. McComas recognized the work of Dr. Goodale and his staff for their work in the areas of drug and alcohol abuse education and prevention. Dr. Goodale indicated that law enforcement agencies in Montgomery County are working closely with Virginia Tech to curb alcohol and drug abuse. He stated, for example, that there were 600 student violations of the underage drinking law last year alone. He also stressed the seriousness of provid- ing false identifications for underage students and described the conse- quences of one such incident (a Virginia Tech student was convicted of manufacturing false identifications and is now serving 3-10 years in prison). He stated that while drug use is certainly of concern at Virginia Tech, alcohol abuse continues to be a more serious problem, making up 68% of the disciplinary cases in residence halls on campus. He acknowledged the support of the student leadership in Virginia Tech's risk management program. 7. QUESTION/ANSWER SESSION Dr. Crittenden asked if the recent investigation of Stanford University's improper use of overhead funds might have a spillover effect at Virginia Tech. Dr. McComas responded that while he felt the public image of higher education in general would suffer as a result of this incident, Virginia Tech has maintained strict internal controls regarding the use of overhead income. He did not envision any similar problems at this institution, but assured Council that a review had recently been undertaken to be doubly sure we are not vulnerable. Ms. Melissa Byrne, President-elect of the SGA, introduced Ms. Mary Cacheris, the new President of the Class of 1992. The meeting adjourned at 3:45 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/1991/April+1++1991.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:49 EDT