|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveMarch 2, 1992
Minutes University Council Meeting March 2, 1992 Dr. McComas called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. Present:J. McComas, M. Ridenour, R. Smoot, E.F. Carlisle, T. Goodale, C. Steger, G. Hooper, E. Blythe, A. Swiger, H. Doswald, R. Sorensen, J. Buffer, G.W. Clough, S. J. Ritchey, P. Eyre, D. Smith, D. Hewitt, L. Rees, N. Dodl, F. Thye, R. Heller, G. Holtzman, J. Ficenec, J. Marchman (for B. Crittenden), L. Geyer (for N. Marriott), T. Rakes, A. Snoke, Lisa Jansen (for L. Barroso), C. Luch, C. Vargo, M. Byrne, T. Snead (for K. Mottley), B. Rexroad, P. Larkin, Guests: Bill Burleson, Spectrum; Cornel N. Morton, EO/AA; Wanda Hankins Dean, University Registrar; Timothy Reed, U.U.S.A.; Guy Hammond, University Forum on Liberal Educa- tion (U.F.L.E.); Susan Brooker-Gross, U.F.L.E.; Carol Burch-Brown, U.F.L.E.; Jon Shepard, U.F.L.E.; C. Gene Haugh, U.F.L.E.; John Aughenbaugh, G.S.A. Absent: C. Forbes, J. Falkinham, J. Eustis, L. Harris, P. Miller, J. Robertson, G. Bunce, T. Stoll 1. ADOPTION OF AGENDA A motion was made and seconded to approve the agenda as distributed. The motion PASSED. 2. FIRST READING, COMMISSION ON GRADUATE STUDIES RESOLUTION 1991-92B, CONCERNING GRADUATE PROGRAM STANDARDS AND POLICIES. Dr. Hooper provided the background for this resolution which revises and is intended to replace POLICY MEMORANDUM N. 14 (dated May 7, 1979). He explained that the Commission on Graduate Studies amended the policy in response to recurring problems related to: 1) graduate admissions proce- dures and requirements, 2) the advisement of graduate students, and 3) faculty participation on graduate advisory committees. In addition to requiring departments to provide more specific graduate program guidelines, this resolution also mandates periodic evaluation and assessment by CGS and the Graduate School of a department's program standards and procedures. The resolution carried forward for second reading. 3. FIRST READING, COMMISSION ON STUDENT AFFAIRS RESOLUTION 1991-92A, CONCERNING A CHANGE IN CLASSIFICATION AND FUNDING OF STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS. Dr. Goodale asked Mr. Tim Reed, Assistant Director of Student Activities and co-author of the proposal, to explain the eight-year history of the resolution. In response, Mr. Reed noted that much of the work needed to "hammer out" the relationships between the various student organizations and the university has been ongoing since 1988. Following a brief overview of the resolution's background, Mr. Reed identified and described the three classifications of student organizations detailed in the resolution: 1) University Student Life Programs (USLP), 2) University Chartered Student Organizations (UCSO), and 3) Registered Student Organizations (RSO). USLP's are organizations, comprised primarily or exclusively of students, which are directly linked to an administrative or academic department of the university. A second type, University Chartered Student Organizations, is one having a special, direct relationship with the university, typically involving university staff who are hired to work directly with such organ- izations. A third type, the Registered Student Organization, is a volun- tary association of Virginia Tech students with no direct tie to the university except that members of RSO's are entitled to operate, meet, advertise and participate in activities at Virginia Tech. Mr. Reed then described the underlying funding model including 1) its applicability to the Virginia Public Procurement Act, 2) the source of funding and location of accounts, and 3) the tax status of the various organizations. He added that the university's General Counsel's Office worked closely with CSA to ensure that the funding model was in compliance with university policy. He then addressed each aspect of the funding model as it applies to the three types of organizations. Following Mr. Reed's overview, Dr. Goodale introduced Mr. John Aughenbaugh, delegate from the Graduate Student Assembly and co-author of the proposal, to explain how existing policies governing student organizations will be affected by the proposed change, particularly with regard to funding. Mr. Aughenbaugh highlighted the creation and functions of the Regranting Budget Boards (one each for the Student Government Association and the Graduate Student Assembly) from which the RSO's must solicit their annual funding. When asked by Dr. Heller how religious organizations will be classified, Mr. Aughenbaugh replied that they will be considered Registered Student Organizations. The resolution carried forward for second reading. 4. SECOND READING, COMMISSION ON UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES RESOLUTION 1991-92A, CONCERNING THE REVISED UNIVERSITY CORE CURRICULUM. FIRST READING, FEBRUARY 24, 1992. Dr. Carlisle moved approval of the resolution, then reminded Council of the two main issues raised during first reading of the document: 1) the imple- mentation of the resolution as it affects credit-hour requirement changes, and 2) how and when changes in requirements will affect currently-enrolled students. He called on Prof. Burch-Brown to address the issue of implemen- tation. The Report of the University Forum on Liberal Education (UFLE), she explained, is a broadly-based statement about the philosophy, pedagogy, and structure of liberal education at Virginia Tech. The standing university policy on effective dates of graduation affects all academic programs, including the new core curriculum. To graphically illustrate the core's implementation, she distributed a one-page chart, "Time-Line for Implemen- tation of Core Curriculum Requirements." The chart, although it does not appear in the resolution or UFLE report, illustrates how and when each of the area requirements will be implemented. Dr. Jon Shepard, member of the UFLE, explained that Areas 2-5 are comprised of those courses that are already included in the core curriculum under departmental designations with no changes in credit-hour requirements for the graduating class of 1996 or 1997. Actual credit-hour changes do not occur until the fall of 1994 with the implementation of the one credit-hour requirement for Area 6, "Creativity and Aesthetic Experience, and the three-credit hour requirement for Area 7, "Critical Issues in a Global Context." Dr. Shepard pointed out that the evaluation of new and existing courses for inclusion in the new core curriculum will begin in 1995. The first writing-intensive courses, he noted, will begin in the fall of 1995, with the second to be added in the fall of 1999. He stressed that the chart is consistent with the way the resolution is written -- it simply clarifies the proposed changes. Dr. Heller observed that the chart alleviates many of the implementation concerns about the resolution, and asked that it be attached to the resol- ution. The chart was appended to the resolution by common consensus. Dr. Hammond, member of the UFLE, pointed out that the implementation timetable could be revised if the need arose, although he added that the UFLE believes its guidelines provide a realistic framework for implementa- tion. In response to several questions about the writing-intensive courses, Prof. Burch-Brown noted that this requirement can be accomplished within existing classes, rather than by adding writing-specific courses. She also stated that smaller, upper-level courses are the logical environment for promoting writing skills. Dr. McComas then recognized Ms. Hankins-Dean, University Registrar, who described the university's graduation requirements: i.e., students are subject to the requirements stated at the time of graduation, not those in effect at the time of admission. She then summarized the contents of Policy Memo #109, effective May, 1990, which requires a two-year window for any curricular changes. She pointed out that the new core curriculum meets these guidelines. Following the discussion of policies surrounding graduation requirements, Prof. Burch-Brown reiterated that these changes are only one aspect of the Report of the University Forum on Liberal Education. The larger picture, she stressed, is an articulated view concerning the substance and goals of liberal education including the formation of a university-level Core Curriculum Committee to govern all aspects of the new Core. Dr. McComas recognized Dr. Snoke who moved approval of an amendment to the resolution that would modify the effective date of the resolution. The motion died for want of a second. Dr. McComas recognized Dr. Marchman who moved approval of an amendment by Dr. Crittenden that would delay the effective date of the resolution. The motion died for want of a second. Dr. Marchman then commented on several positive aspects of the new core curriculum, particularly the increase in course-selection flexibility. In response to a question from Dr. Hewitt about the feasibility of produc- ing and distributing the core curriculum handbook by the summer, Prof. Burch-Brown responded that the handbook is already largely written; a more pressing issue, she noted, is the speedy identification of the new Core Curriculum Committee. The motion passed. _______ 5. IN SUCCESSIVE MOTIONS, COUNCIL APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS. a. Commission on Extension, January 7, 1992. b. Commission on Graduate Studies, February 5, 1992. c. Commission on Undergraduate Studies, February 11, 1992. Dr. Carlisle highlighted discussions of the state policy on transfer students and academic eligibility. 6. FOR INFORMATION a. Minutes of the Virginia Tech Athletic Committee, December 4, 1991. Mr. Ridenour clarified the notation on page 2 that the scholarship budget is $434,590 in arrears. He explained that this figure does not reflect the total sum of contributions received by the Athletic Department, so it is actually lower. He also pointed out that it is unlikely that an operating deficit will occur at the stated level of $500,000, adding that the Athlet- ic Department will work within a budget, even if services must be reduced. When Mr. Larkin inquired about the total percentage of student fees applied to the Athletic Department, Mr. Ridenour estimated it to be about $110 per student. He pointed out that this amount is significantly lower than the amount charged at many other universities b. Minutes of the Computer Committee, November 6, 1991. c. Minutes of the University Committee on Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action, January 21, 1992. Dr. Morton addressed the issue of the proposed Afrocentric Theme Hall, noting that, if implemented, this would probably occur sometime after 1993. Mr. Larkin added that this proposal first must be approved by the Commis- sion on Undergraduate Studies and the Vice President for Student Affairs. Dr. McComas stated that the creation of an Afrocentic residence hall would ultimately require the approval of the Board of Visitors. Dr. Morton also described the videotape, "Learning Disabilities: A University Challenge," funded through a grant from the Affirmative Action Incentive Grants Program. The video will be shown to faculty members conjointly with the presentation of a series of workshops on working with learning disabled students. 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS Dr. McComas acknowledged the efforts of Ms. Rexroad and Ms. Byrne, as well as several faculty members, during a recent trip to Northern Virginia to recruit national merit scholars. He described the difficulty of promoting the strengths of Virginia Tech to potential students while at the same time trying to describe the negative effects of the budget cuts. With the legislative session almost complete, Dr. McComas observed that public response has been very positive to our request for restoring funds to the 1992-94 budget for the Cooperative Extension Service. He informed Council that much of the support had come from urban areas rather than from rural areas, as might be expected. He also announced that the smaller of the two bond issues has passed both legislative houses and is likely to be approved by the governor. Now the work begins, he explained, to garner voter support for the bond issue. Dr. Geyer then inquired whether any thought had been given to promoting the passage of the bond as a way to create jobs, particularly in the construction sector. Dr. McComas agreed that the bond issue should be promoted in terms of the statewide benefits it would provide. On the subject of tuition, Dr. McComas informed members that there will likely be a tuition increase next year for both graduate students and undergraduates amounting to less than the authorized level of 12% for out-of-state students and 9% for in-state students; he pointed out that the precise figures will not be known until the Board of Visitors approves the budget at a special meeting in early April. Dr. McComas then stressed that any tuition increases must be viewed as a way of maintaining the integrity of academic programs at Virginia Tech. Dr. McComas also described how higher education in Virginia benefits the common good and, as such, merits the support of the entire population. He added that if we are unable to increase funding for higher education the quality of education will decrease, resulting in a devaluation of diplomas earned at Virginia's state institutions. 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/1992/March+2++1992.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:50 EDT