|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveMay 4, 1992
Minutes University Council Meeting May 4, 1992 Dr. McComas called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. Present:J. McComas, M. Ridenour, E.F. Carlisle, J. Falkinham, T. Goodale, D. McAlister (for C. Steger), J. Eustis, L. Harris, G. Hooper, E. Blythe, A. Swiger, H. Doswald, R. Sorensen, S. Crumwell (for J. Buffer), G.W. Clough, S. J. Ritchey, D. Smith, D. Hewitt, L. Rees, N. Dodl, J. Robertson, F. Thye, G. Bunce, G. Holtzman, J. Ficenec, J. Hardell (for B. Crittenden), N. Marriott, A. Snoke, L. Barroso, C. Vargo, M. Hurd (for P. Larkin) Guests: Bill Burleson, Spectrum; Cornel N. Morton, EO/AA; Robin Ball, Personnel Services; Pam Orcutt, Staff Senate Absent: C. Forbes, R. Smoot, P. Eyre, P. Miller, R. Heller, T. Rakes, C. Luch, K. Mottley, T. Stoll, B. Rexroad 1. ADOPTION OF AGENDA A motion was made and seconded to approve the agenda as submitted. The motion PASSED. 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES OF APRIL 20, 1992 The University Council minutes of the meeting of April 20, 1992 were approved with one correction. 3. FIRST READING, COMMISSION ON FACULTY AFFAIRS RESOLUTION 1991-92C, PROPOSED FAMILY LEAVE POLICY. Before explaining the resolution, Dr. Falkinham requested that University Council waive second reading and vote to adopt the policy during this final meeting. As rationale for his request, he stated that (1) approval of this resolution would follow the recent (July, 1991) institution of a parental leave policy for salaried classified staff, and (2) the proposed policy requires approval of the Board of Visitors before becoming effective. Dr. Falkinham then briefly reviewed each section of the policy, stating that the proposed revisions are intended to offer faculty members more flexibil- ity to deal with childbirth, adoption, serious family illness, or other extenuating non-professional circumstances. He highlighted the new recom- mendation that up to ten days of paid family leave could be used by parents upon the birth or adoption of a child. Additionally, annual leave can be used by calendar year faculty to extend the leave period beyond the usual 6 weeks certified by a physician. Much of the remaining proposal, he added, is either existing policy or slightly modifies the current language, such as redefining the term "family" to include stepchildren or "any individual residing in the same household." Prior to further discussion of the resolution, Dr. McComas sought a motion to waive second reading. Although voicing approval of the general intent of the resolution, Dr. Clough expressed concern about passing it with so little time to consider the ramifications of the proposal, such as the implications for department heads who deal with the absence of faculty. To respond, Dr. Falkinham quoted from the policy that deans, department heads and supervisory personnel must be consulted before family leave is granted, and "it may not be possible to meet every requested accommodation if it imposes serious hardship on students, other staff, or a funded project." The motion to waive second reading passed. Ms. Barroso questioned whether the policy applied to individuals categor- ized as special research faculty appointments? Dr. Falkinham replied that it did not; only faculty members on regular, salaried, non-restricted appointment could access these proposed benefits. A corollary question was raised about compensating eligible faculty members who are partially funded through research contracts. Who would be responsible for reimbursing the sponsoring project for the days of paid leave? Dr. Hooper voiced his concern about the financial ramifications of this resolution for these special-appointment people. Dr. Snoke suggested that the proposal be amended to clarify who will be affected by this policy; Dr. Falkinham agreed to do so. Several Council members noted that if this policy is passed, it would result in different benefits for faculty and classified staff. Ms. Ball agreed and explained that effective July 1, 1991, classified staff are allowed up to 30 days of unpaid leave for the birth or adoption of a child, but are not allowed paid-leave. Dr. Morton noted that the University Committee on Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action discussed this issue at length, but agreed that the proposed faculty family leave policy would not violate any equity issues, as the university cannot dictate compensatory policy for classified staff. Dr. Sorensen added that he hoped that Council would not feel constrained by the state polcicy for classified staff, but instead would provide leadership in improving benefits for Virginia Tech employees that might lead to a change for classified staff as well. He voiced his approval of the resolution. The resolution passed. _______ 4. SECOND READING, COMMISSION ON FACULTY AFFAIRS RESOLUTION 1991-92B, PROPOSED POLICY ON INSTRUCTORS AND LECTURERS. Dr. Falkinham moved approval of the resolution. The motion passed. _______ 5. SECOND READING, COMMISSION ON GRADUATE STUDIES RESOLUTION 1991-92B, DEFINITIONS OF GRADUATE ASSISTANTSHIPS. Dr. Hooper summarized the intent of the policy, then moved approval of the resolution. The motion passed. _______ 6. SECOND READING, COMMISSION ON UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES RESOLUTION 1991-92B, ACADEMIC ELIGIBILITY POLICY FOR AGRICULTURE TECHNOLOGY. Dr. Carlisle moved approval of the resolution. The motion passed. _______ 7. SECOND READING, STAFF SENATE CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS, FEBRUARY 14, 1992. Ms. Barroso moved approval of the resolution. The motion passed. _______ 8. IN SUCCESSIVE MOTIONS, COUNCIL APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS. a. Commission on Extension, March 3, 1992. Dr. McAlister noted a correction in the date for the Public Service Forum in Tidewater, from May 5th (as stated in the minutes) to May 21st. b. Commission on Faculty Affairs, February 7, March 20 and April 10, 1992. c. Commission on Graduate Studies, April 1, 1992. Dr. Hooper noted Item #6, a description of the Graduate Research Sympo- sium help in early April, adding that it was well attended and received. Dr. Falkinham pointed out a typographical error in that paragraph. 9. FOR INFORMATION a. Minutes of the Virginia Tech Athletic Committee, March 18, 1992. b. Minutes of the University Committee on Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action, March 17, 1992. 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS o Dr. McComas recognized the exceptional achievements of Dr. Gary Hooper, Vice Provost for Research and Dean of the Graduate School, who is leaving Virginia Tech at the end of this academic year. o Dr. Goodale described several activities that occurred on- and off-campus in response to the riots in Los Angeles, such as the noontime gathering on the drillfield. He and Dr. McComas stressed the university's commitment to hearing and responding to the concerns raised as a result of the events in California. o Dr. McComas updated Council about the implementation of the KEY ADVAN- TAGE health plan. He and Mr. Ridenour described the genesis of the plan, which was developed by the state in response to escalating health care costs and passed by the General Assembly. It is due to be imple- mented on July 1, but Governor Wilder has granted a three-month delay to enable more physicians to enroll. Mr. Ridenour, chair of a state- wide committee to examine the plan, described the many concerns raised by both health care providers and state employees, including the lack of participating primary care physicians, the referral system, accommo- dations for out-of-state employees, the mental health care referral process, and the fact that many designated physicians are not accepting new patients. After lengthy discussion, Mr. Ridenour noted that Virginia Tech, as a state employer, has no choice and must implement the plan. He added, however, that the university will attempt to influence decisions to remove or modify as many of the major objections to the proposal as possible. Dr. Falkinham inquired whether Virginia Tech could independently contract for health care insurance. Dr. McComas responded that while it was possible, it would probably be a very costly alternative. Dr. Falkinham also criticized the lack of a wellness component to the plan. Dr. Bunce pointed out that the university was not even given the option of maintaining current coverage with possibly higher premiums, but rather was told about the change after the fact. Dr. McComas acknowledged these concerns, adding that the university is doing all that it can to positively influence what the state provides in health care benefits. 11. QUESTION/ANSWER SESSION Dr. Falkinham requested an update on the status of the bond issue. Dr. McComas responded that the governor has called a meeting of state universi- ty presidents on May 15 to discuss this and several other issues. He envisions the formation of a state-wide committee of university represen- tatives to promote passage of the bond. He then described the constituency groups who will be targeted, including current students and their families, alumni, and the local population. A looming problem, Dr. McComas explained, is that such lobbying is relatively ineffective during the summer months. Therefore, an intensive effort to publicize the bond must be initiated in the fall. Both Dr. McComas and Mr. Ridenour indicated that the success of this bond will influence the vote on future bonds. Thus, they concluded, this vote will be "critical." 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/May+4++1992.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:50 EDT