Kerry Redican reported on BOV Academic Affairs issues and CFA issues:

1. BOV Faculty Affairs Issues (Academic Affairs Committee)

A. Academic Affairs committee is focusing on 4 areas:

1. Faculty Affairs
2. Diversity
3. Graduate Education
4. Undergraduate Education

2. CFA is in the discussing the following issues:

A. Revision of the language in the Faculty Handbook Section 2.8.2.1 (Stopping the Tenure Clock)

1. Some problems with this policy include is that it has been enacted differently across departments; perceptions regarding negative consequences regarding stopping the tenure clock; confusion over legitimate reasons to stop the tenure clock.
2. The policy is currently being reviewed by the Advance VT Policy Workgroup has proposed that the policy be rewritten so that childbirth or adoption would entitle both male and female faculty to an automatic one-year extension of the tenure clock.
3. Pat Hyer is currently working on a draft of a revised policy to be presented to CFA.

B. Upcoming and Continuing Discussions focusing on

1. Modified duties policy (reduction of teaching assignment with central funding for hire-behind funds for faculty members with extraordinary dependent care responsibilities);
2. "Professors of Practice" as a hiring option;
3. Part time tenure track appointments;
4. Promotion and Tenure policies in light of recent issues involving promotion and tenure deliberations and appeals.

Susanna reported that, at her request, Provost McNamee has emailed her an answer and explanation of where things stand on moving faculty salaries to the 60th percentile. She will forward it to the senate and would like senate feedback and comments.

She reminded senators to RSVP by November 8th to the President’s invitation to a November 10th reception at the Grove (send RSVP to ssmith@vt.edu).
Susanna also informed senators that there is progress on procuring office space and staff support for the senate, and that she hopes to have solid information by the November meeting.

Lastly, Susanna raised the question as to whether Senate meetings should be extended by 1⁄2 hour (till 9:30 pm) so as to ensure that there is enough time to do what we need to do, and for substantive discussion to take place.

Doug provided background information and an update on the retirement programs available to University faculty. He explained the differences between the Defined Benefit Virginia Retirement System Plan and the Defined Contribution Optional Retirement Plan (ORP). Background retirement information included the following:

A. TIAA/CREF the first ORP around mid 1980’s

B. Other ORPs added in early 1990s

C. In addition to TIAA/CREF, Fidelity, VALIC, Great West, T. Rowe Price, Met Life were added

D. Faculty members were given an option to change from VRS to the ORP when the initial ORP was added and again in the early 1990s when additional carriers were added.

E. In a meeting perhaps 8-10 years ago with VRS, they advised that their intent was to take the ORP money and set up a state defined contribution plan and VRS would choose the vendors and the investment options.

F. Virginia Tech asked to have a role in the vendor selection process and we were advised that VRS would make those decisions. However, we were advised that we could request to opt out from the VRS defined contribution plan with their approval if we could provide programs similar to theirs and would meet their audit scrutiny on a periodic basis. With Board of Visitors approval, we requested permission to manage our own Defined Contribution retirement plan and this request was approved.

G. After our “Opt Out” request was approved we established the legal, fiduciary and administrative framework to implement our own Defined Contribution program with an effective date of July 1, 2005. In the same vein, the University of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth University, and George Mason University received approval from VRS to opt out and they established similar programs. VRS, as planned, established a Defined Contribution Plan under their oversight for the remaining public colleges and universities. At Virginia Tech after we obtained the Board of Visitors approval for our actions, we established an Investments Policy Statement that is on our Web-site, we established an oversight committee with representation from faculty, administration, and staff, and we obtained the services of an outside consultant to help with the legal, fiduciary, and administration of these ORP plans. We used Palmer and Cay, a consulting group based in Richmond, Virginia and is the same consultant used by the other Opt out universities and by VRS, to help us with the selection process and to develop a lineup of funds consistent with our Investment Policy Statement. Part of the rationale for using Palmer and Cay as consultants was that their work with VRS and the other Universities would be beneficial to us as we addressed common issues.

H. We placed our Defined Contribution Plan out for bid and held a mandatory pre-bid conference.

I. Three vendors were selected and a fund lineup was selected for each vendor to be compatible with the Investment Policy Statement.

J. The funds are monitored on an on-going basis and the oversight committee meets quarterly with Palmer and Cay and we will have each vendor attend one of our meetings annually.

K. As of July 1, 2005, we required that the funds approved would have to be used for the employer portion of retirement i.e. the 10.4% that Tech pays into an optional retirement plan from that date forward. We did not require that old money already invested be moved into these new funds.

L. There are about 1,900 faculty members currently enrolled in the Optional Retirement Plans and each faculty member had to select among the approved funds for the employer contributions to their retirement plan.

M. The enrollment process went extremely well with only 1-2 defaults out of the 1900 participants.

N. We have heard from some faculty (mostly with Fidelity) who are not pleased with the funds selected for retirement contributions and from other faculty who are pleased that there is now university ownership of the Defined Contribution retirement program We have a responsibility to make sure that retirement plans are prudent ones. Even though we are not governed by private sector rules, we follow the tenets of ERISA and are making a great effort to assure that the faculty retirement plans are well structured, that there is an educational process coming from the approved vendors, and that the various IRS rules governing retirement plans are honored.

O. This is a new endeavor for us and welcome and encourage the support from the Faculty Senate to assure that our faculty retirement plans meet the long-term retirement needs of our faculty.

P. Doug also provided updates on the life insurance, health insurance, 403(b) tax Shelters, the 457 Deferred Compensation plan and related benefits programs.

Following Doug's presentation, Dwight Viehland commented that faculty should have more options for their investments and the current structure is too limiting and that other options are available and still within the letter of the law. He distributed investment information materials for senators to review.

Dixon presented the plan for general assignment classroom renovation.

A. He emphasized that we are in classroom crisis. He cited that we lost 20 rooms with the Williams Hall renovation; one class period per day with the longer breaks, and repeated budget reductions has led to larger classes.

B. $7.2 million is allocated by Virginia Tech for near term renovation

C. Classroom utilization is unusually efficient and there are time slots in most class days that have availability; classrooms are consistently available at 8:00 a.m. and after 4:00 p.m.

D. Of the 170 general assignment classrooms 30 are relatively new, 40 await building renovation, and 100 are renovation candidates (17 of which are affordable now.

E. The goals of the classroom renovation are to impact the maximum number of faculty and students, provide for standard installations of instructional technology, create opportunities for innovative pedagogy, update to current, ADA and building code expectations, and increase classroom inventory to relieve current and future shortfalls.

F. Senators were encouraged to be involved in classroom renovation by accessing http://space.prov.vt.edu and providing input.

“In light of recent events, the Faculty Senate of Virginia Tech stands in solidarity with the campus Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/ Transgender Alliance and condemns all acts of intolerance against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. We urge the university administration, all academic units, and our entire campus community to do the same and promote Virginia Tech’s Principles of Community in our classrooms, laboratories, and throughout our campus.”