|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveFebruary 4, 1991
Minutes University Council Meeting February 4, 1991 Dr. James D. McComas called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. Present:J. McComas, R. Smoot, E.F. Carlisle, J. Hillison, T. Goodale, C. Steger, F.O. Painter (for P. Gherman), L. Harris, G. Hooper, H. Doswald, R. Sorensen, J. Buffer, J. Marchman (for G.W. Clough), J. Lee (for Peter Eyre) L. Moore, A.J. Davis, L. Rees, D. Hewitt, R. Small, F. Thye, R.A. Heller, L. Eng (for L. Geyer), N. Eiss, P.F. Scanlon (for D. Kingston), J. Crittenden, N. Marriott, N. Canestaro (for S. Batie), A. Snoke, L. Barroso, J. Budd, W. Kuster, P. Radcliffe, M. Byrne, C. Vargo Guests: Brian McConnell, SGA; Pat Hyer, Provost's Office; Cornel N. Morton, Office of EO/AA; Bill Burleson, Spectrum; Kay Heidbreder, Office of the General Counsel; Josh Goodman, student; Lorie Pizecha, student; Lisa Taranto, student; Thomas Maroney, student; Terri Dawson, student Absent: C. Forbes, M. Ridenour, J. Nichols, S.J. Ritchey, R. Heterick, C. Carrig, D. Adams, P. Larkin 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 21, 1991 The University Council minutes of the meeting of January 21, 1991 were approved as distributed. 3. FIRST READING, COMMISSION ON UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES RESOLUTION 1990-91C, CONCERNING ACADEMIC ELIGIBILITY. Dr. McComas called on Dr. Marchman to provide the history and rationale for the resolution. Dr. Marchman explained that this resolution results in part from a recommendation contained in the University Self Study calling for the review of the academic eligibility policy once the semester system had been in place for several years. A CUS subcommittee, comprised of faculty and students, drafted the document which makes the academic eligi- bility statement in the UNDERGRADUATE CATALOG more consistent with the way the policy is currently applied. The major change, he explained, is to allow a student on academic drop greater flexibility in raising his or her QCA to the required level. Dr. Marchman noted that appeals have increased from students who could not attend summer school because of required military reserve duty or the need to work during the summer. Thus, this resolution adds flexibility to the academic eligibility policy currently on the books -- allowing students to choose summer or fall to remedy an academic deficiency. He also described a change to the language in the UNDERGRADUATE CATALOG that would henceforth state that a student on academ- ic suspension for two years could appeal for readmission in order to raise the QCA to the minimum standard. Failure to meet the minimum standard, however, would result in permanent academic dismissal. The resolution also substitutes "probation" and "suspension" for "academic drop." The resolution carried forward for second reading. 4. SECOND 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. Goodale, chair of the Commission on Student Affairs, made reference to the minutes of the previous University Council meeting (dated January 21, 1991) detailing the legislative history of this document. He moved adoption of the resolution. Dr. McComas then called for discussion. Dr. Hillison reiterated that the Faculty Senate had not voted on the resolution as written, only on an amended version. Mr. McConnell informed Council about action taken at the University of Virginia recently to broaden its non-discrimination policy to cover homosexuals. He stressed that a policy prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation is now in place at "well over one hundred schools nationwide." Dr. Crittenden voiced his opposing view, noting that what other universi- ties have done should not dictate Virginia Tech's policy. He added that the present statement is sufficient to meet state and federal requirements and advocated that this resolution not be passed. Mr. Kuster, representing the Student Senate, noted that the Senate has supported adoption of this resolution for several years. He voiced his strong support of the document. Dr. Snoke stated that although he does not like the kind of "grocery list" statement we currently have, the case is well-made to include "sexual orientation" on that list. He, too, advocated passage of the resolution. Mr. McConnell asked Council members to "put themselves in the shoes" of those who would be most affected by the resolution, which he added, is really only about 10% of faculty, staff and students. He noted that while the practical effect on most of the university population would be nil, adoption of the resolution nevertheless would send an important symbolic message about this institution's stance against discrimination of any kind. Mr. Budd reiterated the Student Government Association's support of the resolution. Dr. Morton, Director of the Office of Affirmative Action, also encouraged Council to support the resolution. Dr. McComas then called for a vote on the resolution. The resolution was PASSED. 5. SECOND READING, UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION RESOLUTION 1990-91A, SEXUAL HARASSMENT POLICY. Dr. Morton noted that members of the EO/AA Committee who drafted the sexual harassment policy have been working with the Faculty Senate and the Commis- sion on Faculty Affairs to ensure that the policy statement is useful and productive for resolving complaints. Dr. Small, representing the Executive Committee of the College of Educa- tion, distributed a five-page response to the policy. He moved to defer action on the policy and then offered several reasons for so doing. First, he stated the Committee's belief that the EO/AA Office is accorded too much power in the investigatory process. As stated in the response, "the Office of EO/AA is designated counselor-resolution negotiator, investigator- prosecutor and also the 'judge' of the issue. . . this presents a situation of potential prejudice and bias which could be easily challenged." He wondered if there was some way to eliminate those multiple roles. Second, Dr. Small expressed concern about the ambiguous nature of the section on consensual relationships. The policy states that "questions of favoritism frequently arise and undermine the work or learning environment for many others." Dr. Small gave a hypothetical example of an office worker who was uncomfortable with or offended by a relationship between two co-workers. Could that person, he asked, make a charge of sexual harassment against those two individuals, even though that relationship may not impact the third party in any tangible way? He stated, that a "tremendous amount of power" is accorded to that third person and he asked how the EO/AA Office would deal with such a charge? Dr. Small concluded that this section needs modification. Dr. McComas, speaking to the nature of the motion itself, noted that a deferral at first reading results in a six-week delay. During that time, he explained, the sponsoring group has the option of incorporating suggested modifications or leaving the policy as is. Dr. Steger asked if the Office of the General Counsel had reviewed the policy -- especially in relation to the section on consensual relationships. Dr. Hyer responded that Ms. Kay Heidbreder, Associate General Counsel, had been present during the drafting of the resolution. While Ms. Heidbreder did not comment on the legality of the section on consensual relationships, she did state that the university needs to decide whether it wants to include this section in its policy statement. Dr. Carlisle expressed some concern that these objections were being brought forward so late in the approval process, especially in light of the fact that the proposed policy has been in circulation for some time. He noted that it makes it is difficult for the drafters of the policy to respond effectively, and added that it is "reasonable and important" to include a section on consensual relationships. He also invited Council to think about the way that various complaints are handled within universi- ties. They are not treated, he stated, in the same manner as they would be in the external legal system. As an example, Dr. Carlisle noted that the Faculty Review Committee acts in multiple roles in dealing with grievances. He also stressed that "there are reasonable people" involved in complaint resolution who are qualified to determine whether or not a charge is justi- fied. He concluded by stating that there are good reasons not to defer this resolution. Dr. Morton, who also expressed frustration about receiving the College of Education's Executive Committee's response so late, reiterated that it is unfortunate and misleading to imply that the Director of EO/AA sits as judge and jury. He again stressed that he works with a panel in complaint resolution. In response, Dr. Small described the process by which the College of Education's Executive Committee brought forth their written objections to the policy. He indicated that the Committee had acted in as timely a manner as possible. Dr. Small noted that, given the fact that a sexual harassment policy is already in force, a deferral is entirely appropriate to resolve these concerns. Dr. Crittenden announced that he will propose an amendment to the policy at the next University Council meeting and stressed that a deferral is justi- fied. Mr. Kuster, representing the Student Senate, also advocated defer- ring the policy until these issues could be resolved. Dr. Hyer commented that the issues raised by Dr. Small are precisely those dealt with by the Commission on Faculty Affairs. She stated that those recommendations have been incorporated into the document. In response, Dr. Buffer stressed that the College of Education is not attempting to "stonewall this issue." Revisions to the sexual harassment policy are needed and they want to contribute to a more responsive document. Dr. Steger recommended that the General Counsel's office prepare a statement concerning the legality of the policy. Dr. Harris responded that he would ask Mr. Jerry Cain to do so, and also informed Council that any amendments or recommendations concerning the sexual harassment policy should be forwarded to him for distribution. Dr. McComas then suggested that anyone with additional objections to the policy meet with the EO/AA Committee directly in order to expedite this matter. The motion to defer the resolution CARRIED. It will come back for second reading. 6. IN SUCCESSIVE MOTIONS, COUNCIL APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS. a. Commission on Extension, December 4, 1990. b. Commission on Student Affairs, December 6, 1990 and January 10, 1991. Dr. Goodale called attention to the fact that the Board of Visitors has approved the process to allow nominees for the student member of the BOV to include any enrolled student. Previously, he explained, the student member nominees represented only organizations sitting on the Commission on Student Affairs. c. Commission on Undergraduate Studies, November 26, and December 10, 1990. 7. FOR INFORMATION a. Minutes of the Computer Committee, December 5, 1990. b. Minutes of the University Library Committee, December 5, 1990. c. Dr. Moore, chair of the Task Force on University Council, Standing University Commissions and Committees, reported that his group has been conferring with constituencies and individuals across campus. He expects to submit a proposal to University Council by late-March or early-April. He invited further input from any interested party. 8. QUESTION/ANSWER SESSION Dr. McComas described recent legislative events surrounding proposed funding for higher education. He indicated that the House of Delegates and the Senate had recommended differing levels of support for the University and those differences will be resolved through a conference committee. He then directed his comments to the proposed furlough plan. He reported that while the Governor recommended furloughs of up to fifteen days, the House and Senate both developed different plans, with the latter recommending that $100 million be used from the $200 million reserve prior to the imposition of any furlough. The House of Delegates, on the other hand, has recommended a maximum of eight days furlough, with an unspecified funding mechanism. Dr. McComas also shared with Council how several furlough plans translate to annual salary reduction. He noted that one day would equate to a .4% decrease, one week = 1.9%, two weeks = 3.9%, three weeks = 5.8%. He also noted that the university is concerned about the proposed early retirement system because the positions lost through retirement would be frozen, along with the resultant salary savings. Dr. Carlisle noted that the tuition increase would be used to restore faculty levels to 90% of the state guidelines (Virginia Tech is currently at 82%), to increase equipment levels, and to somehow buffer the effects of tuition increases on graduate students. Dr. McComas reported on a meeting with the Senate Finance Committee on the proposed bond issue for higher education, which includes approximately $42 million for Virginia Tech. This figure includes $25 million for a engineering/architecture structure recommended by SCHEV. If approved by the House and the Governor (it has already been approved by the Senate), it will come before the public as a general referendum. He described a recent poll indicating that 62% of voters would support a general obligation bond. Dr. McComas asked Mr. Budd to describe a meeting of several student body presidents with the Higher Education Subcommittee of the Senate Finance Committee. Mr. Budd felt that the Senate was very responsive to their concerns, especially regarding the general obligation bond. He plans on initiating a letter-writing campaign directed at the House of Delegates, as well as the Governor and the Secretary of Education. Dr. McComas noted a bill has been introduced that would reduce Virginia Tech auxiliary funds by $1.5 million. These dollars, generated by student fees, have been used in the past to improve residence and dining facili- ties. He also described how several other universities in the state would lose auxiliary funds. On a more positive note, Dr. McComas reported that cuts to public schools have been reduced by about one third. He stressed that the Commonwealth's national and international competitiveness rests in its public K-12 and higher education system. Thus, every effort is being made to minimize any further reductions. The meeting adjourned at 4:10 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/February+4++1991.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:49 EDT