|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveOctober 4, 1989
These minutes were approved as submitted at the ULC meeting on November 1, 1989. UNIVERSITY LIBRARY COMMITTEE MINUTES October 4, 1989 PRESENT: Sharon Brusic, GSA Paul Gherman, Library Bill Custer, Alternate for SGA J. Scott Poole, Architecture Norman Dodl, Education Michael Vorster, Engineering J. C. Duke, Faculty Senate Jane Wentworth, Human Resources Richard Ebel, Alternate for Agr. and Life Science GUESTS: Bela Foltin, Library Frances Painter, Library Shirley Glazener, Library Linda Richardson, Library Laurence D. Moore, Chair, Task Force on Commissions, Committees, and University Council Composition ABSENT: John Bowen, Veterinary Medicine Provost's Representative Coll. of Business Representative David West, Arts & Sciences Michael Kainer, SGA Roderick Young, Agr. & Life Science MEETING SUMMARY: The meeting was called to order at 4:05 p.m. Minutes of the September 7, 1989, meeting were approved as submitted. The committee agreed to immediately consider item 2 under New Business, the Report of the Task Force on University Commissions, Committees, and University Council Composition. Laurence D. Moore, Chair of the Task Force was invited to share with the committee his perception of what information the committee could provide that would be most helpful to the Task Force . After discussion it was agreed that the University Library Committee would convene in special session on Tuesday, October 17, 1989, at 11:30 a.m. in the library boardroom to prepare a brief position statement from the committee which will be forwarded to the Task Force. The committee voted to adopt the 1988- 89 Annual Report as submitted. The committee elected Paul Gherman to serve as Assistant Chair of the University Library Committee. The rest of the agenda was postponed until the next regular meeting on November 1, 1989. MEETING DETAIL: NEW BUSINESS I. REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE ON UNIVERSITY COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES, AND UNIVERSITY COUNCIL COMPOSITION (L. D. Moore): (Note change in Task Force name) The opportunity of the Task Force is to identify the structure of the University Council and its composition. In addition, the President has asked the Task Force to define the role of all university commissions and standing university committees, including their function and their composition. The Task Force would like to see all standing committees report to a commission. The Task Force would like the University Library Committee to advise the Task Force on where the committee feels it should report. Dr. Moore distributed organization charts, which show the committee reporting to the Commission on Undergraduate Studies or to the Commission on Academic Affairs. The committee might also report to the Commission on Research. One of the Task Force recommendations to the university community will be that one classified staff member be elected from among all classified employees to serve on all standing committees. The initial report from last April has gone through several revisions. The Task Force may take to the President three options on the composition of the University Council. In two of the options the Director of University Libraries would be a member of the University Council. In the third option the Director would not be a member. This last option reduces the Council to only 20 or 21 members and has received very little support. The Task Force is proposing two new University Commissions; a Commission on Academic Support and a Commission on Public Service and International Affairs. This latter name will definitely be changed, and this commission would replace the current Commission on Extension. A commission is defined as the only body having the privilege of disseminating policy statements and preparing policy recommendations to the University Council. The Task Force has no preconceived idea of where the University Library Committee should be placed, but will give weight to the recommendation of the committee. The Task Force will meet on October 20, 1989, and will to finalize their recommendations, and will need to hear from the committee by that time. P. Gherman: Can additional commissions be formed? There is strong resistance to forming any further additional commissions. N. Dodl: What is the rationale for all committees reporting to a commission? The Task Force would like to see all committees report to commissions, since the commissions are defined as the policy recommending groups of the university. They are the only groups in the university in which all members except the administrators are elected by the constituents. The organization chart shows three committees reporting directly to the University Council. The Staff Concerns Committee is subject to review. Their Ad Hoc Committee is recommending to the Task Force that a Commission on Staff Concerns be formed, but placement has not been finally decided. The President has directed that the Affirmative Action Committee report directly to him. A decision will be made about the Athletic Committee, Library Committee, and Staff Committee at the October 20 meeting. J. Wentworth: Previously this committee reported directly to the University Council. Does the Task Force wish us to say where we should now report? The Library Committee has previously been one of the committees that report directly to University Council, and if it is the consensus of the committee that this should continue to be the reporting structure, then this case should be presented to the Task Force. However, the committee should probably present more than one option to the Task Force. M. Vorster: What are the advantages to the committee of reporting to a commission? As a committee there would be no direct policy recommending capacity. If the committee comes under a commission either the chairperson of the committee, the Director of Libraries, or both, would serve as voting members of the commission to which the committee was assigned. J. Wentworth: How would a commission learn all it was necessary to know about the library? It's adding another layer between the committee and the University Council. Any policy recommendations that the committee formulated in the past has gone to the University Council secretary to be passed on to a commission for evaluation before going to the University Council. Only in the minutes of the meetings has the committee had the privilege of reporting directly to the Council. N. Dodl: What prevents the commissions from functioning as creatures of the particular Administrator who serves as chair, responding only to his/her agenda? One of the Task Force recommendations is that the chair of all commissions be non-administrative faculty, elected from the group elected to serve on that commission, and the highest administrator serve as secretary. M. Vorster: As presently structured (a free-standing committee), policy recommendations from the committee get passed on to whichever commission might best evaluate that recommendation. Are we not more effective under this arrangement than as a part of a particular commission? Any commission can request the privilege to review recommendations submitted to any other commission. B. Custer: How firm is the recommendation that the committee be placed under the Commission for Academic Support. Nothing is firm at this point. Recommendations will go to the total Task Force on October 20, then to the President, and then to the University Council. The library is only listed under the Commission for Academic Support as an example of where it might be placed. The Task Force will wait to hear recommendations from this committee. J. Duke: The frustrations for this committee have come, not in getting heard on policy recommendations, but rather in the area of funding. The problem of governance structure has nothing to do with the budget formation in the university administration. Perhaps in that sense, our commission "home" would not make that much difference. There was no response to Dr. Duke's statement. Dr. Moore distributed another paper showing the recommendations of the Task Force for Library Committee composition. There are three differences: in the current composition of the committee the Library Faculty Association President is a guest rather than ex officio, there is one member elected from the Faculty Senate rather than two, and there is no classified staff representation. The committee members decided to meet in special session on Tuesday, October 17, at 11:30 a.m., after consultation with their constituencies, to formulate a response to the Task Force by the deadline of October 20. II. ELECTION OF AN ASSISTANT CHAIR P. Gherman volunteered to serve as chair in the absence of the chair. The committee voted unanimous approval. OLD BUSINESS I. APPROVAL OF 1988-89 ANNUAL REPORT After two minor corrections, the Annual Report was adopted by unanimous vote of the committee. Because of time constraints, the remaining agenda items were postponed until the next regularly scheduled meeting on November 1, 1989. There will be a special meeting on Tuesday, October 17, 1989, to consider the single agenda item of a University Library Committee recommendation to the Task Force on Commissions, Committees, and University Council Composition. The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
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/ulc/1989/October+4++1989.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:52 EDT