|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveApril 20, 1992
Minutes University Council Meeting April 20, 1992 Dr. McComas called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. Present:J. McComas, R. Smoot, J. Wolfe (for E.F. Carlisle), J. Falkinham, T. Goodale, N. Lester (for C. Steger), J. Eustis, L. Harris, G. Hooper, E. Blythe, W. Allen (for A. Swiger), H. Bonham (for R. Sorensen), J. Buffer, J. Marchman (for G.W. Clough), S. J. Ritchey, J. Hess (for D. Smith), D. Hewitt, N. Dodl, J. Robertson, F. Thye, R. Heller, P. Feret (for G. Bunce), G. Holtzman, J. Ficenec, B. Crittenden, N. Marriott, T. Rakes, A. Snoke, L. Barroso, J. Aughenbaugh, C. Vargo, K. Mottley, T. Stoll, B. Rexroad, P. Larkin Guests: Bill Burleson, Spectrum; Cornel N. Morton, EO/AA; Timothy Reed, U.U.S.A.; Pat Hyer, Provost's Office; Regina Smick-Attisano, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences; Michael Hurd, Residence Hall Federation; Sharon Yeagle, Recreational Sports; Chris Wise, Recre- ational Sports; Pamela Orcutt, Staff Senate; Russ Cole, CSAC; Clara Cox, Staff Senate; Carole Nickerson, Presi- dent's Office; Anthony Townsend, GSA; Leo Smith, Recre- ational Sports Absent: C. Forbes, M. Ridenour, H. Doswald, P. Eyre, P. Miller, L. Rees, T. Snead 1. ADOPTION OF AGENDA A motion was made and seconded to approve the agenda with one procedural change. The motion PASSED. 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 1992 The University Council minutes of the meeting of February 24, 1992 were approved as submitted. 3. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES OF MARCH 2, 1992 The University Council minutes of the meeting of March 2, 1992 were approved as submitted. 4. SECOND READING, PROPOSAL FROM THE JOINT TASK FORCE ON COUNCILS, COMMIS- SIONS AND COMMITTEES TO CHANGE THE COMPOSITION ON THE COMMISSION ON STUDENT AFFAIRS. FIRST READING, APRIL 3, 1991. Dr. Harris informed Council that the officers of the Graduate Student Assembly (GSA) have expressed concern about the number of graduate student representatives on the Commission on Student Affairs, believing that the recommendation of the Joint Task Force had not been followed. He then called on Dr. Larry D. Moore, former chair of the Joint Task Force, to provide background. Dr. Moore stated that the Task Force's Report, sent to Council for approval on April 3, 1991, recommended four graduate student members on CSA. However, in response to concerns that four GSA represen- tatives might be disproportionate representation on CSA, Dr. Moore reduced that number from four to three but, through an oversight, neglected to bring this change to Council for its consideration and vote during the final meeting. Thus, he explained, the resolution before Council at this time is to stipulate that three graduate students will represent the Commission on Student Affairs. If the motion fails, he added, Council will thereby accept the original recommendation of the Task Force that provides four CSA graduate student representatives: Speaker of the GSA, Vice Speak- er of the GSA, and two elected representatives of the GSA -- a represen- tative of Master's programs and a representative of doctoral programs. As a member of both the Joint Task Force and the graduate student communi- ty, Mr. Tony Townsend spoke in favor of the Task Force's original recommen- dation that four students sit on CSA, stating that (1) it would allow this constituency more meaningful participation, and (2) four representatives would not over-balance the eleven undergraduate student representatives on CSA. Several other members concurred with this evaluation, including Dr. Hooper and Mr. Aughenbaugh. Dr. Moore reminded members that if the motion fails, four GSA members will represent the Commission on Student Affairs. The motion FAILED. (Thus, CSA will have four GSA representatives.) 5. FIRST READING, COMMISSION ON FACULTY AFFAIRS RESOLUTION 1991-92B, PROPOSED POLICY ON INSTRUCTORS AND LECTURERS. Dr. Falkinham explained the genesis and key rationale for this resolution, which is designed to address what the CFA believes is an inequity in the treatment of instructors at Virginia Tech. Current university policy does not permit full-time employment of instructors beyond the seven-year probationary period. The effect of this policy has been to discontinue the full-time employment of instructors after six years of service (unless they are granted tenure as assistant professors). While many of these instruc- tors are subsequently employed in part-time positions, carrying as much as an 80% load, they are denied university fringe benefits, such as health insurance and retirement benefits. In redressing these inequities, this resolution redefines the rank titles of instructor and lecturer and adds an additional title, EXTRA-COLLEGIATE INSTRUCTOR, which will be used for designated library and extension appointments on continued appointment track. Moreover, the proposed policy will allow reappointment of full-time instructors in non-tenure-track positions without limiting the number of years for such full-time service, thus making instructors eligible for university benefits. Furthermore, the section of the FACULTY HANDBOOK on promotion from Instructor to Assistant Professor will be deleted. Dr. Falkinham also stated that a new section is included to address the appointment and employment of full- and part-time non-tenure-track instruc- tors. He then summarized several ramifications of these changes, especial- ly the increased responsibility for deans and department heads to "keep up with these appointments." When Dr. McComas asked for an estimate of the number of individuals who would be positively affected by approval of this resolution, Dr. Wolfe responded that approximately 20-30 instructors would again be eligible for full-time employment, particularly in the Mathematics and English depart- ments. The resolution carried forward for second reading. 6. FIRST READING, COMMISSION ON GRADUATE STUDIES RESOLUTION 1991-92B, DEFINITIONS OF GRADUATE ASSISTANTSHIPS. Dr. Hooper explained that the increasingly complex and varied responsibil- ities of graduate assistants necessitates the proposed modifications to the FACULTY HANDBOOK. He defined the normal workload of a graduate student as 20 hours work, then explained the five categories of graduate assistantships: Graduate Teaching Assistant, Senior Graduate Teaching Assistant, Graduate Assistant, Graduate Research Assistant, and Senior Graduate Research Assistant (formerly Graduate Program Assistant). In particular, Dr. Hooper highlighted the responsibilities of the relatively small number of individuals who will meet the criteria of a Senior Graduate Teaching Assistant. Several questions were raised about funding this new category. In response, Dr. Hooper estimated that the 20 or so individuals who will meet these more rigorous job specifications will merit a higher stipend, resulting in an additional total annual expense of approximately $60,000. When Dr. Heller requested clarification of the role of the Graduate Assist- ant, Dr. Hooper responded that although they will have more general respon- sibilities than the GRA or GTA, all three are at the same stipend level. The resolution carried forward for second reading. 7. FIRST READING, COMMISSION ON STUDENT AFFAIRS RESOLUTION 1991-92C, RE-ALLOCATION OF ATHLETIC FEES TO SUPPORT RECREATIONAL SPORTS. As background, Dr. Goodale pointed out that the Fall, 1991, decision to withdraw the proposal for a new physical fitness building forced a re-examination of alternative methods for improving existing Recreation Sports facilities and programs. In that context, the Facilities Subcommit- tee of CSA, currently chaired by Patrick Larkin, proposed that one dollar per student, per semester, be re-allocated from the athletic fee to the Department of Recreational Sports, beginning 1992-93. Furthermore, the subcommittee recommended the permanent implementation of a recreation fee as part of the comprehensive fee, beginning 1993-94. Mr. Larkin pointed out, however, that the first proposal is moot because the Board of Visitors has already set tuition and fees for 1992-93. Dr. Goodale then detailed a feasibility study that has been proposed to examine alternative methods for improving recreational sports, as well as to measure the potential benefit of the proposed recreational fee implementation. Saying he had discussed this matter with Mr. Ridenour, Mr. Smoot requested that this resolution be referred back to CSA for further study. The resolution was referred to the Commission on Student Affairs. 8. FIRST READING, COMMISSION ON UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES RESOLUTION 1991-92B, ACADEMIC ELIGIBILITY POLICY FOR AGRICULTURE TECHNOLOGY. Dr. Wolfe explained that this resolution is designed to (1) bring agricul- ture technology students under the provisions of the university's academic eligibility schedule, and (2) respond to students' requests to define university expectations of their performance. In response to a question from Dr. Crittenden about the entrance requirements for these students, Regina Smick-Attisano, Acting Assistant Director of Resident Instruction, noted that students must have a minimum 2.0 high school or community college GPA for entrance into the program. The resolution carried forward for second reading. 9. FIRST READING, STAFF SENATE CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS, FEBRUARY 14, 1992. Ms. Lisa Barroso described the three-year Classified Staff Affairs Commit- tee effort to put into place the structure that is detailed in the Staff Senate Constitution. Ms. Pam Orcutt, vice-president of the Staff Senate, then described the process followed to prepare and finalize the constitu- tion. The resolution carried forward for second reading. 10. SECOND READING, COMMISSION ON GRADUATE STUDIES RESOLUTION 1991-92A, CONCERNING GRADUATE PROGRAM STANDARDS AND POLICIES. Dr. Hooper moved approval of the resolution. The motion PASSED. 11. SECOND READING, COMMISSION ON STUDENT AFFAIRS RESOLUTION 1991-92A, CONCERNING A CHANGE IN CLASSIFICATION AND FUNDING OF STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS. Dr. Cross reviewed some of the major points raised during Council's previ- ous discussion of the document. He then distributed copies of corrected pages 11 and 12 of the full proposal. He reminded Council that the resol- ution is intended to clarify the role of the student organizations and their relationship to the university, especially in terms of the universi- ty's liability for these groups. When asked by Dr. Smoot whether Council would be voting on the resolution or the proposal, Dr. Cross responded that the resolution, a summary of the items contained in the proposal, will be voted upon. Dr. Smoot then advised that approval of the resolution be contingent on the removal of all notations in the actual proposal as to how specific student organizations should be categorized. He added that the Commission on Student Affairs should be responsible for internally assessing how student organizations are classified, independent of University Council approval. Dr. Cross moved approval of the resolution. The motion PASSED. 12. IN SUCCESSIVE MOTIONS, COUNCIL APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS. a. Commission on Extension, February 4, 1992. b. Commission on Graduate Studies, February 19, March 4, and March 18, 1992. With regard to the March 4 minutes, Dr. Snoke pointed out that the Commission on Graduate Students approves Ph.D. programs based on the academic merit of the program, rather than on the basis of resource availability. He noted that the two do not necessarily go hand-in- hand, which often is problematic for CGS. Dr. Hooper discussed the attachment regarding Ph.D. residency require- ments in the March 18 minutes. c. Commission on Research, January 22, 1992. d. Commission on Student Affairs, February 6, February 20, March 5, March 19, and March 26, 1992. Dr. Heller recommended that the recording secretaries of commissions and committees clarify the meaning of acronyms, used consistently in minutes but often without explanation. Dr. McComas concurred and asked that his concern be noted in Council's minutes. e. Commission on Undergraduate Studies, February 25 and March 23, 1992. 13. FOR INFORMATION a. Minutes of the Virginia Tech Athletic Committee, February 12, 1992. b. Minutes of the University Communications Resources Committee, January 29 and February 26, 1992. c. Minutes of the Computer Committee, February 5 and March 4, 1992. Ms. Vargo expressed concern about the notation in the March 4 minutes that a charge for off-campus dial-in service is being contemplated, stating that most graduate students can little afford this additional charge. Mr. Blythe explained that on-campus students have been paying a semester fee for voice-data-video services, which has also been used to support the off-campus modem pool. He said this practice is proba- bly indefensible in any case, but that expenses have grown to such an extent that it was becoming increasingly bothersome to charge on-campus students for the expansion and development of off-campus access. Mr. Townsend pointed out that graduate assistants must often work at home due to the lack of campus office space and telephone-data lines. He questioned why these students should have to pay for dial-in access while performing job-related activities. Mr. Blythe stated that departments have a responsibility to pay for work-related costs. Dr. McComas asked Dr. Hooper, in consultation with the Office of the Provost, to further investigate the feasibility of billing departments for job-related computer access. d. Minutes of the University Committee on Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action, February 18, 1992. e. Minutes of the University Library Committee, January 15, and February 12, 1992. Dr. Dodl noted that a policy statement concerning the Library fine structure would be attached to the next set of minutes. f. Classified Staff Affairs Committee Final Report, April, 1991. Ms. Barroso called on Ms. Ann Spencer, who provided a brief chronology of the genesis of the Classified Staff Affairs Committee (CSAC), begin- ning in Fall, 1989. Russ Cole, Chair of CSAC, then highlighted the organization's most notable accomplishments, namely the establishment of the Commission on Classified Staff Affairs and the Staff Senate of Virginia Tech. He thanked the many faculty members and administrators who contributed to CSAC's efforts. 14. ANNOUNCEMENTS Dr. McComas responded at length about the varied and important contrib- utions of classified staff, stating that their work is often under-noticed and under-appreciated. Dr. McComas then addressed concerns about the implementation of the new KEY ADVANTAGE health care plan, particularly those of out-of-state employees, employees with serious illnesses, and those requiring mental health services. As a result of these problems, Ms. Spencer informed Council that there will be a three-month grace period for state employees before the plan is fully implemented on October 1st. 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/1992/April+20++1992.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:49 EDT