|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveOctober 7, 1991
Minutes University Council Meeting October 7, 1991 Dr. McComas called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. Present:J. McComas, E.F. Carlisle, R. Smoot, L. Geyer, B. Pendergrass (for T. Goodale), C. Steger, P. Gherman, L. Harris, G. Hooper, J. Nichols, H. Doswald, R. Sorensen, E. Blythe, J. Buffer, J. Marchman (for W.G. Clough), P. Eyre, D. Smith, D. Hewitt, P. Miller, L. Rees, N. Dodl, J. Robertson, F. Thye, R. Heller, G. Bunce, G. Holtzman, J. Ficenec, B. Crittenden, N. Marriott, S. Batie, A. Snoke, L. Barroso, C. Vargo, M. Byrne, K. Mottley, M. Cacheris, B. Rexroad, P. Larkin Guests: Peter Rony, Chemical Engineering; John Hillison, Faculty Senate; Bill Burleson, Spectrum; Richard Bambach, Geological Sciences Absent: C. Forbes, S.J. Ritchey 1. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS Dr. McComas opened the first University Council meeting of the 1991-92 academic year by welcoming new and returning members. Each member intro- duced himself/herself and noted his/her university affiliation. 2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA A motion was made and seconded to approve the agenda as distributed. The motion PASSED. 3. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 1991 The University Council minutes of the meeting of April 25, 1991 were approved as distributed. 4. FIRST READING, COMMISSION ON FACULTY AFFAIRS RESOLUTION, 1991-92A, CONCERNING THE PROPOSED REVISION OF THE FACULTY GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES. Dr. Geyer opened discussion of this item by providing a brief history of the faculty grievance system, which is excluded by law from the state classified staff grievance system. He noted that the principal difference between the two systems is that faculty can file salary grievances, while classified staff cannot. He explained that the new proposed procedures, which differ from the existing procedures in that they are less cumbersome, have been available to faculty as an alternative approach for about a year. Dr. Geyer reported that all faculty have chosen the new procedures. He also noted that the Faculty Senate has twice reviewed and amended the document. Dr. Barry Crittenden then introduced nine amendments to the proposed griev- ance procedures. The amendments, he argued, (1) are designed to allow both the aggrieved and the Faculty Review Committee ample opportunity to present all relevant information, and (2) provide for more timeliness throughout the grievance process. He then explained each of the nine amendments. Dr. McComas asked the Commission on Faculty Affairs to examine and respond to Dr. Crittenden's amendments as appropriate. Dr. Gherman pointed out that the resolution allows an aggrieved faculty member to call in the Faculty Senate Committee on Reconciliation, but as written does not permit an administrator the same right in order to mediate a grievance with a faculty member. This, he indicated, should be changed. Dr. Peter Rony, Professor of Chemical Engineering, spoke about his personal experiences with the faculty grievance procedures. He informed Council that his grievance took three full years to resolve. He urged that (1) the resolution be returned to the CFA for further consideration regarding timely review, (2) all university faculty be made party to these deliber- ations, and (3) the resolution be published in SPECTRUM so that all faculty members will be aware of its content. Dr. Richard Bambach, who acted as chair of the Faculty Review Committee, noted that the revision of the grievance procedures was designed specif- ically to eliminate the problems that had occurred in the past. Dr. Bambach stated that the difficulty of coordinating the schedules of the involved individuals made it impractical to set specific time limits. He added his belief that the new procedures would eliminate the possibility of cases being dragged out over a long period. Dr. Snoke expressed his reservation about further efforts to gain input such as publishing the resolution in SPECTRUM, stating that the CFA and the Faculty Senate provide avenues for two-way communication and feedback. In response, Dr. Rony reiterated his belief that the faculty grievance proce- dures are sufficiently important to justify broader dissemination. The resolution was carried forward for second reading. 5. IN SUCCESSIVE MOTIONS, COUNCIL APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS. a. Commission on Graduate Studies, April 3, 1991. b. Commission on Research, April 10 and September 11, 1991. c. Commission on Student Affairs, March 21, April 18, and September 5, 1991. d. Commission on Undergraduate Studies, March 25 and April 8, 1991. 6. FOR INFORMATION a. Minutes of the Committee on Athletics, March 21, April 11, and May 13, 1991. b. Minutes of the Building Committee, April 12, 1991. Dr. McComas briefly reported the status of capital projects at Virginia Tech, including the integrated plan to convert upper quad residence halls to academic space. He also noted that the university-wide need for space is estimated at 500,000 square feet. He stated that Virginia Tech will need to continue to make its case to increase capital funds. c. Minutes of the University Communications Resources Committee, March 27, April 24, and May 29, 1991. In response to a question from Dr. Snoke about the Committee's ongoing discussions of dial-in access, Dr. Blythe reported that the Committee has been unable to locate appropriate software that would facilitate pricing and cost-recovery for this service. He did not anticipate that charging for dial-in access would occur during this fiscal year because of software limitations. d. Minutes of the Computer Committee, April 3, and May 1, 1991. e. Minutes of the University Committee on Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action, March 20 and April 17, 1991. f. Minutes of the University Library Committee, April 3, 1991. Dr. Gherman reported that the VTLS computer has been upgraded to include a "word-search" feature. g. Status of Searches Dr. Carlisle reported that it is unlikely that the Provost's Office will be initiating the search for the Vice President for Information Systems before the spring, due to the work-load constraints involved with the two other searches (Dean for the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and Dean for the School of Forestry). Dr. Carlisle added that Dr. Blythe, interim V.P. for Information Systems, and others will be reevaluating the structure and purpose of Information Systems. On the subject of the search for Dr. Nichols' successor, Dr. Carlisle reported that the search committee will be identifying individuals to bring to campus in the next several weeks. He then stated that the search for the Dean of the School of Forestry is still in its early stages, adding that the anticipated status change to a college necessi- tated that the position be readvertised as a dean's position. h. University Council Constitution Reporting for Dr. Larry Moore, Dr. Harris relayed two corrections to the document, dated July 9, 1991. The first, on page 7, adds the Associate Provost for Research to the Commission on Graduate Studies (for a total of 25 members). The second, in section 13, adds the Associate Provost for Undergraduate Studies to the Commission on Under- graduate Studies (totaling 27 members). A third correction noted after the meeting adds the Vice President for Alumni Relations to the Commis- sion for University Support. Dr. Harris added that the revised document will be distributed at the next meeting. 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS Dr. McComas introduced a slide-tape presentation produced by University Relations and narrated by Ms. Karen Cronin, Information Officer for Educa- tional Communications. He informed Council that the slide show will be used by university presidents and members of their staffs as they address the needs of higher education in talks to alumni and friends around the state. The same presentation will also be made to legislators and members of newspaper editorial boards. 8. QUESTION/ANSWER FORUM Dr. Geyer note that there has been a change in the procedures used by the Educational Foundation to manage funds. He asked for a summary of past and current charges and for an explanation as to why there has been a change in the policy. In response, Dr. McComas described how the university's decen- tralized development effort has led over time to more restricted giving, especially to specific colleges, rather than to the university at large, thus leaving fewer resources to support the operation of the Foundation itself. He asked that a statement concerning this policy be developed by Mr. Forbes and distributed at an upcoming meeting. In response to a question from Dr. Heller about a recent increase in VTIP administrative costs charged to inventors, Dr. Hooper noted that it, too, was related to the associated costs of investing and managing these funds. Mr. Ridenour added that more detailed information would be distributed to Council members about these matters. 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/1991/October+7++1991.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:49 EDT