|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveApril 11, 1991
Minutes University Council Meeting April 11, 1991 Dr. James D. McComas called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. Present:J. McComas, C. Forbes, M. Ridenour, E.F. Carlisle, T. Goodale, P. Gherman, L. Harris, G. Hooper, R. Heterick, George Crofts (for H. Doswald), J. Nichols, R. Sorensen, John Crunkilton (for J. Buffer), G.W. Clough, L. Moore, D. Hewitt, C. Carrig, F. Thye, R. Small, L. Rees, L. Geyer, N. Eiss, D. Kingston, J. Crittenden, Ludeman Eng (for S. Batie), A. Snoke, L. Barroso, M. Byrne, K. Mottley, P. Larkin, Guests: Bill Burleson, Spectrum; Cornel N. Morton, Office of EO/AA; Jim Budd, student; Clara B. Cox, CSAC; Sherilyn McConnell, CSAC; Joanne Eustis, Governance Task Force; Russ Cole, CSAC; Ezra Brown, CUS; Pamela Orcutt, CSAC Absent: R. Smoot, J. Hillison, C. Steger, S.J. Ritchey, P. Eyre, A.J. Davis, R.A. Heller, N. Marriott, D. Adams, C. Vargo, P. Radcliffe, M. Cacheris 1. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Dr. McComas made two changes to the order of business. A motion was made and seconded to approve the agenda as amended. The motion PASSED. 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES OF APRIL 1, 1991 The University Council minutes of the meeting of April 1, 1991 were approved as submitted. 3. SECOND READING, COMMISSION ON UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES RESOLUTION 1990-91D, CONCERNING THE INTERNAL TRANSFERS OF STUDENTS. FIRST READING, APRIL 1, 1991. Dr. Carlisle moved that the resolution be approved. The motion CARRIED. 4. FIRST READING, COMMISSION ON RESEARCH RESOLUTION 1990-91A, CONCERNING SPECIAL RESEARCH FACULTY APPOINTMENTS. Dr. Hooper explained that the growth in research and related activities at Virginia Tech has necessitated the modification of the FACULTY HANDBOOK as it relates to special research faculty appointments. The proposed resol- ution would add the classifications of senior research associate and postdoctoral associate to the HANDBOOK, redefine some of the existing classifications, and would clarify matters relating to the fringe benefits for these individuals. Dr. Hewitt noted that the qualifications for appointment to research scientist seem to be consistent with those for assistant professor, and those for senior research scientist are equivalent to those for full professor. Consequently, he inquired, is there a research appointment that equates to the level of associate professor? Dr. Hooper responded that while there was no "middle category," as such, the quali- fications for research scientist are equivalent to those for an assistant OR associate professor. When Dr. Geyer inquired if this resolution had been reviewed by the Commis- sion on Faculty Affairs, Dr. Hooper responded that had not been. Dr. Geyer then made a motion to refer the resolution to the Commission on Faculty Affairs. The motion CARRIED. 5. FIRST READING, REPORT OF THE JOINT TASK FORCE ON UNIVERSITY COUNCIL, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES: RECOMMENDED CONSTITUTION REVISIONS, APRIL 3, 1991. Dr. Moore initiated discussion of the Report by acknowledging the assist- ance of the members of the Joint Task Force (JTF): Rosemary Bleiszner, James R. Budd, Russell D. Cole, Joanne D. Eustis, Daniel R. Farkas, David L. Lush, James D. Riddle, Patrick F. Scanlon, Richard E. Sorensen, and Anthony M. Townsend. He then provided the history of the document, initi- ated in December 1988, and stated that it represents a negotiated effort to unite this diverse university and provide a vehicle for improving the quality of life for the entire Virginia Tech community. Dr. Moore then provided a broad overview of the proposed university governance system, highlighting the following points: 1) all major university activities are represented in this structure of interlocking memberships; 2) the develop- ment of administrative internships for faculty and staff is proposed in order to further enhance an informed and knowledgeable citizenry; 3) governance becomes a year-long activity; 4) the size of University Council is increased to allow for more comprehensive representation (a maximum of 58-60 members, depending on the number of commissions); and 5) the number and configuration of the commissions is modified so as to better integrate all major university activities into the governance structure. Dr. Moore noted that the Report stresses shared leadership and provides for voting representation at all levels, including undergraduate and graduate students, classified staff, and non-administrative faculty. On the subject of University Council membership, Dr. Moore described the proposed "congressional model" that includes the chairs of the commissions and the Council on Human Rights and Social Responsibility; representatives from the library faculty, extension faculty/staff, EO/AA, Alumni Relations, and the African-American community; three additional staff represen- tatives; and two additional students. He stated that the new model permits important interest groups to participate, provides for comprehen- sive representation, and insures the representation of minorities. Dr. Moore then explained the rationale for designating a member of the African- American community on University Council (but not members of other minority groups), noting that other groups would have representation through the University Advisory Council on Human Rights and Social Responsibility. While Dr. Moore emphasized that Black faculty are eligible for election to any governance body, he acknowledged that they have not often been elected. (Dr. Randy Grayson later pointed out that there has been only one Black member on the Faculty Senate.) Dr. Moore explained that the JTF viewed the African-American seat on University Council as a short-term way of remedy- ing that fact. However, several members of Council still expressed concern that African-Americans were singled out for Council representation, while other minorities were excluded. Mr. Patrick Larkin expressed concern about the year-round governance struc- ture, noting that only a few student leaders are required to be on campus during the summer. Dr. Sorensen responded University Council permits elected alternates with voting privileges, or substitute members with voting privileges. There was some discussion about the proposed system of faculty/staff internships in University Governance and the necessary release time associ- ated with that system. Several individuals suggested reducing the number of these internships and clarifying the issue of release time. Mr. Larkin also spoke to the need for students becoming more involved in and educated about university governance. He voiced his concern, however, about compet- ing classroom obligations. Dr. Moore agreed that this is a valid issue and thought it should be addressed by the Student Government Association. Dr. Moore briefly described how the commissions and advisory councils were formed or restructured. He stated that the proposed structure: 1) provides for participation by students, staff, and faculty; 2) brings the classi- fied staff, budgeting, planning, human relations, communications and related areas into the governance system; and 3) pools appropriate inter- est areas to attain a minimum number of commissions. On the last point, Dr. Moore noted that the present Commissions on Graduate Studies and Undergrad- uate Studies would be consolidated in a Commission on Undergraduate Affairs, while the Commission on Research would be expanded to include Research and Public Service. He added, however, that the JTF suggests that these two commissions be established with a sunset provision, meaning the new constitution would be written so that at the end of five years Univer- sity Council can determine whether to continue this structure (described in Appendix C and D). After several members spoke against combining graduate and undergraduate studies, and others about combining research and public service, Dr. Moore stressed that these are issues that will be voted on during Second Reading on April 26. He reminded Council members that written amendments are requested by April 17. Regarding the University Standing Committees, Dr. Moore stated that the commissions will be given the responsibility to study and recommend to University Council the establishment of such committees as are deemed necessary. He also stressed that every standing committee will report directly to at least one commission and will have on it a member of the commission to which it reports. Dr. Moore asked Council members to remem- ber that the various standing committees listed in the document and their individual charges are only suggestions. Once formed, the committees will formulate their own mission statement. Regarding membership on the stand- ing committees, the JTF recommends that, where possible, undergraduates, graduate students, faculty, and staff are to be ELECTED to serve. Dr. Moore then described two new advisory councils -- the University Advisory Council on Human Rights and Social Responsibility and the Univer- sity Advisory Council on Strategic Budgeting and Planning. He noted that these bodies would have a different relationship to the governance system because of the "confidential nature of certain charges" and because they will report directly to the President and to University Council. Dr. Moore pointed out that while the chair of the Advisory Council on Human Rights and Social Responsibility will be a member of University Council, the Advisory Council on Strategic Budgeting and Planning will be represented on Council by its co-chairs (Sr. Vice President/Provost and Exec. Vice President/Chief Business Officer). In summarizing the discussion of the Joint Task Force Report, Dr. Moore indicated that University Council would be asked to consider two resol- utions concerning the following: 1) the structure and composition of University Council; 2) the structure and composition of commissions and advisory councils. He added that Council would also be asked to accept the sense of the document. The resolutions were carried forward for Second Reading. 6. IN SUCCESSIVE MOTIONS, COUNCIL APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS. a. Commission on Graduate Studies, March 6, 1991. Dr. Hooper made reference to the previously submitted CGS minutes of January 16 in which the discussion of the "I" Grade was excepted from approval. With that discussion now resolved, Dr. Hooper asked that those minutes be approved in their entirety. The motion carried. b. Commission on Research, January 23 and February 13, 1991. Dr. Hooper distributed to Council members a proposed motion regarding the Professional Practices Institute (discussed in February 13 minutes). He explained that this item was reviewed by the Commissions on Research, Extension, and Graduate Studies, and by the Faculty Senate where it has received initial endorsement. Dr. Hooper stated that with the help of a broad-based committee, the Commission on Research will be developing this summer or fall a resolution to establish the Professional Practices Insti- tute. c. Commission on Student Affairs, February 21 and March 7, 1991. Mr. Kevin Mottley pointed out to Council the discussion in the February 21 minutes of the Two-Town Trolley. He noted that there would be a public forum to discuss this issue on April 23rd by the Blacksburg Town Council. Mr. Mottley also highlighted a discussion of class gifts in the March 7 minutes. d. Commission on Undergraduate Studies, February 11, 1991. 7. FOR INFORMATION a. Minutes of the University Committee on Athletics, February 7, 1991. b. Minutes of the University Communications Resources Committee, February 27, 1991. 8. ANNOUNCEMENTS At the request of Dr. McComas, Dr. Eng introduced the recently-elected Faculty Senate Officers: President, John Hillison; Vice President, Leon Geyer; and Secretary-Treasurer, Joseph Falkinham. Dr. McComas then described to Council the state-wide study group that has been formed by Governor Wilder to look at drug-abuse on campus and the issue of assault and date-rape. He noted that an issue under consideration by this group is initiation of mandatory drug testing of all incoming freshmen and random testing of upperclassmen. He asked for Council's views on this subject. Mr. Larkin noted that because universities nationwide are becoming increasingly competitive for new admissions, instituting such a policy could deter effective recruitment for Virginia's universities. Mr. Gherman pointed out that if the policy is enacted, it should apply to all state institutions, not just colleges and universities. Dr. Geyer expressed his opposition to the policy, stating that it would set a "dangerous precedent." Ms. Byrne also disapproved of the policy as being punitive, rather than educational. Dr. Crittenden voiced his approval of the policy, PROVIDING that some substantive action be taken if a student is found to be using illegal substances. Dr. Snoke thought the policy unwise and imprac- tical, especially since it ignores the more pervasive problem of alcohol abuse. Ms. Barroso expressed her belief that Virginia Tech should test for AIDS rather than drugs. Dr. Moore reminded Council that written amendments to the Joint Task Force Report are requested by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, the 17th of April. The meeting adjourned at 4:50 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+11++1991.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:49 EDT