Faculty Senate of Virginia Tech
October meeting
minutes
(Pamplin 32)
Senators
in Attendance:
Larry Alexander, Susan Anderson, Rick Ashley, Carol Burch-Brown, Jack Cranford,
Helen Crawford, Sam Easterling, Leon Geyer, Bill Greenberg, Frank Gwazdauskas,
Tom Hammett, Valerie Hardcastle, Ian Herring, Sam Hicks, Rakesh Kapania, Brad
Klein, Ann-Marie Knoblauch, Ellen Krupar, Shelley Martin, Susan Molesky (ALT), Jim
Pease, David Radcliffe, Kerry Redican, Shelly Nichols Richardson, Susanna Rinehart,
Kamal Rojiani, Edd Sewell, Uri Vansberger, Dennis Welch, Sharon Witonsky, Brian Woerner, Randy
Wynne, Diane Zahm, Shep Zedaker
Senators
not in Attendance: Terry Clements, Richard Goff, Mike Gregg, Bernice Hausman, Kathleen
Jones, Michael Lambur, Jack Lesko, Amy Nelson, Sean O'Keefe, Nan Seamans, Jim
Weaver, Yonsenia White
President Diane Zahm called
the meeting to order at
September minutes were
approved with two minor changes.
Heidi Baldwin, Graduate Assistant for Fraternity and Sorority Life, announced that Fraternities and Sororities are seeking Faculty Advisors for their chapters, to serve as resources and mentors. Faculty members do not have to have a prior affiliation with a chapter to serve as an advisor. Any interested faculty members should contact Heidi at baldwin@vt.edu.
Presentation by Jim Shuler
Representative Shuler spoke
of the hit higher education took in the early 90’s budget cuts; followed by an
42% increase in state revenue from 1995-2000 during which time education did
not receive its fair share; leading us to where we are now – a three-year
recession, and a recent $6 billion shortfall… to be followed by a $1 billion
shortfall in January, 2004.
Shuler said that Higher
Education is currently under funded by about $350-360 million; K-12 by $1
billion.
The Governor has pledged to
“find” $500 million. Where will it come from? The majority of the General Assembly
was elected on no-tax pledges. Currently we are balancing the budget with fees,
and by drawing down the state “rainy day fund” (was $900m, now $125m).
Shuler commented that the
only good thing that happened for higher education in the last few years is the
bond referendum; and that it has taken three years to get the faculty “a modicum
of a raise.”
Shuler agrees that we need
to work on public relations with the GA in
Warner’s proposed budget
will get to legislators just before Christmas.
Shuler called the VA tax
system “archaic” and “not equitable”; some parts of the tax code have remained
untouched for 30 years. Last year the estate tax/death tax was the only tax
issue that came before the GA.
What can we do for education?
Shuler believes it’s got to
be a strong personal approach to our legislators – phone calls and personal
letters, NOT mass petitions and emails. We can’t realistically contact every
member, so we need to pick and choose; Shuler recommends that in addition to
our local NRV reps, that we focus on the Senate Finance Committee and the House
Appropriations Committee.
Q & A with Shuler:
Senator: Should we go
private?
JS: Capital
improvement needs make that problematic.
Senator: How would the
governor respond to the fact that UNC and NC State get double the funding that
we get?
JS: The Governor
of Alabama tried to get $1.5 billion to bring
Senator: The fact that the
Governor of Virginia is not allowed to run for re-election means that VA
governors don’t have to live up to their promises.
Senator: There have been no
pay raises, benefits have gone down (especially prescription plans), and there
has been erosion across the board. There is a limit to how far the faculty as
an economic force can be degraded.
JS: Until the
insurance crisis is addressed nationally, the states are going to be
struggling.
Senator: We are forced to
participate in the State plan. If we could go to private insurance options,
we’d get better benefits for less $$.
Senator: Will there be a
budget impasse?
JS: If it were
left up to
Senator: 33%of our research
$$ go to the state. Is there any way the university could keep it?
JS: That’s “a
hard nut to crack.” I’ve brought it up before and got very little support.
Senator: We need the
parents to write letters. How do we get parents motivated?
JS: I share the
frustration.
Senator: Should the faculty
hire a lobbyist?
JS: If it were
affordable, it would help. Legislators rely on lobbyists, and higher education
doesn’t have that presence in
Senator: Who is lobbying
against us?
JS: Nobody,
really. Just so much competition and need.
Senator: What makes a
lobbyist effective?
JS: Being able
to state their case in two minutes, and give the opposition’s p.o.v. as well.
Being honest, up front, sticking to the facts, and being polite (esp. to the
legislative assistant!)
Senator: During the
campaigns, legislators focus much more on K-12, not on Higher Education.
JS: K-12 has a
much more active, organized lobby group.
Senator: Are parents more
involved in the K-12?
JS: No, it’s the
teachers. They do a good job showing where the needs are. College presidents
are well connected; but some are more aggressive than others. Steger is
effective, but quieter than some.
Senator: Is our state in
violation of the 20% funding law?
JS: We are under
funding. We haven’t yet met that mandate.
Senator: What about the
perception that we are not accountable?
JS: Many on the
legislature don’t appreciate what is involved other than teaching. The only way
is repetition – repeatedly showing what it is we do. The target of our efforts
should be the Appropriations Committee and the Finance Committee.
Senator: We need businesses
to tell the legislature that they need those students, businesses to be
advocates for higher education.
Senator: We need to put the
case to the citizenry in a different way – show that there are more tangible
benefits to spending on higher education.
JS: The issue is
“the public as a whole” vs. individual, immediate needs. Even good people get
focused on their own needs. People have to be able to look beyond themselves.
People need to take a broader look.
The senators thanked Jim
Shuler for his time.
“A Day in the Life” project:
Diane asked Senators to
participate in keeping a written record of one work day, and to recruit other
colleagues to do the same. The goal is to try to collect a minimum of 50 “day
in the life” journal narratives of faculty, staff and administrators. The
collected narratives will be used to attempt to put a real face on what we do
and who we are.
It was suggested that we
might get senior and retired Virginia Tech professors and administrators to
speak up for us in
A senator commented that it
seems we need to “create a crisis” in order to get people to see the impact of
the budget cuts.
Commission/Committee Reports:
§
Diane reported on
the meeting of the Academic Council,
of which she is a member as the Faculty Senate president. The Council is
addressing concerns regarding management of fundraising $$ and endowments.
There have been no problems, but the desire is to avoid any in the future.
§
Edd Sewell
reported that the Commission on Equal
Opportunity and Diversity is in the process, as a new commission, of
figuring out “who we are”, operational guidelines and an agenda for the year.
The next meeting is Monday, October 27th. Edd Sewell was elected
chair of the commission, and Jean Elliott is vice chair.
§
Rakesh Kapania
reported that the Commission on Graduate
Studies and Policies has had three meetings since the September Faculty Senate
meeting. They are addressing
1)
The rights and responsibilities of graduate students (comparing to other
universities, and considering who the other stakeholders are). Their
recommendations will be sent to Student Affairs and the Commission on Research
2)
The Certificate Program – requiring a minimum of 9 credits, and requiring
approval, a more rigorous process, so as to increase the value of the
certificate
3)modifications
of the President’s memo #1, written in 1977, so as to make it up-to-date
(changing language to reflect the change from the quarter system; changing the
use of the word “males” to include both genders; and noting the requirement
that graduate students be evaluated in writing every year.
§
Frank Gwazdauskas
reported that the Commission on Research
is looking at research expenditure metrics, at the request of the BOV. Some are
pushing for more accountability in research. Currently indirect costs
(IDC) generated are about $20 million. This number needs to be increased
to $60 million by 2010. One model metric is that provided by AAU, which
uses a number of 'indicators' to determine breadth and quality of research and
education programs. Frank listed some current measures used by AAU and how Tech
ranked relative to peers in the AAU. VT’s rank for total research $$ is 49th
, it is 118th for endowments,
61st for National Academy members, 45th for Doctorates granted, and 210th for SAT rank for incoming freshman. Frank
notes that the value of some of these metrics is questionable. For
example, one prominent institution on the AAU list has a rank of 434 for SAT
scores.
§
Ellen Krupar
reported that the Commission on Student
Affairs had a presentation on student fees – where they go, where they come
from; and at their next meeting will have a presentation from parking services
§
University Council’s meeting was cancelled for lack of business.
§
G.V. Loganathan
reported via email that the Academic Support
Committee has not met for this year yet, and therefore has nothing to
report. The committee did meet at the end of last academic year to vote in
favor of observing Dr. Martin Luther King , Jr. holiday beginning in AY2005-06
(third Monday in January). Please see the President's policy memorandum #221 at
http://www.policies.vt.edu/policymemos/.
§
Frank Grazdauskas
reported that the Athletic Committee
met on 9/25, and is looking at NCAA rules and compliance; gender equity; and
graduation rates of VT athletes as compared to the general student population.
For students entering in 1996, the overall graduation rate was 74%; for student
athletes, it was 70%. In addition, Frank reported that profits from the
contract with Coca Cola will go to the University.
§
Bill Greenberg
reported that the Employee Benefits Committee
has not met.
§
Leon Geyer
reported that the Honorifics Committee
had two people nominated, and therefore sent two people forward. He expressed
regret that so few people are being put forward for awards.
§
Brad Klein
reported that the Graduate Curriculum
Committee is engaged in the regular business of meeting to approve courses.
§
Ellen Krupar
reported for the Honor System that
the Chief Justice is pushing for everyone to be caught up with their caseloads
within two weeks. In general, it seems that the number of new cases is down
this semester.
§
David Radcliffe
reported that the Library Committee
had its first meeting that day. He told the Senate that the Library needs much
more faculty input on acquisitions. He also reported that the results of a
library consortium self-study show VT at the bottom of the rankings for student
usage of the library – either online or in person. A senator raised the
question as to how good the databases are, noting that he had come across “huge
gaps” in the databases in his field.
Commission on Faculty Affairs Report to Faculty Senate
(Sam Easterling):
Sam told senators that we wanted
to update them on two issues on the CFA agenda: 1) the Promotion and Tenure
Policies Review, and 2) the Computer Privacy Policy.
§ The Promotion and Tenure Policies Review
In 2002-2003 P&T Policies as described in the Faculty
Handbook were reviewed and a list of issues, concerns, etc was
sent from CFA to the University P&T
Committee. The University
P&T Committee discussed the memo and the Provost responded to CFA near the beginning of fall semester 2003. The CFA is working on various items,
some of which are editorial. What follows are the two significant policy
changes being proposed:
2/3 Majority vote to go forward at all levels:
CFA 2002-2003 and the University
P&T Committee 2002-2003 supported the policy change that a 2/3 majority
vote at all levels (departmental, college and university) be required for a
positive recommendation by the Committee to the Dean.
Upon further discussion this
fall CFA unanimously supported the change to a 2/3 majority at all levels for
the following reasons:
1) statement of high-quality
standard
2) consistency across campus
3) practically used by most
across campus anyway
Division of vote conveyed to the next level:
The Faculty Handbook states that the division of vote at the Dept level should
be conveyed to the Dean. No mention of conveying the vote beyond the College.
CFA 2003-2004 discussed this at length and voted in favor of requiring
the division be passed to all subsequent levels, including the committee
members and ex-officio administrator. This item was not part of the memo
sent to the University P&T Committee last academic year.
The result of these two items is
a Resolution adopted by CFA on
Prior to sending it to University
Council, CFA wanted additional input from the Senate at large. Input received will be considered during the
first CFA meeting following the
November Faculty Senate meeting. Input from the Senate on other items under
consideration by CFA will be requested during the year.
Shep Zedaker, chair of the review committee, reported that there had been three tenure candidates last year who were passed through all the levels, but denied tenure by the Provost. Two of the three appealed, and the Provost’s decisions were reversed by the Faculty Review Committee. It was Shep’s opinion that the Provost has sent a message regarding his own definition of scholarship.
Opinions, comments, concerns, and questions raised by Senators in response
to the proposed policy changes:
§ it was pointed out that the 2/3
rule would have little impact on small departments, since committees of 4 and 6
would be completely unaffected, and a department with a committee of 5 could
switch to 1 more or 1 less if it wanted to preserve the simple majority rule.
§
Given the inconsistency
in size and make-up of committees, the imposition of the 2/3 rule will have
significantly different impact on different candidates and departments.
§
We are supposed
to celebrate diversity. Scholarship is different in every department. The
policy change to the super-majority endangers that diversity. We should allow
each level to decide for themselves to pass someone on.
§
2/3 as a method
of standardization is a problem. On a committee of 5, the vote would have to be
4/5, which is actually 80%. The beauty of the simple majority is that is always
simple.
§
There is
inconsistency in what constitutes a p& t committee, who votes, how many,
what percentage of the total faculty of a given department votes.
§
With the 2/3
rule, you could have a department of 30, a committee of 5, and essentially one
person could decide for that entire department as to whether a person gets
passed to the next level.
§
The size and
diversity of the university makes it hugely problematic to impose one single
way.
§
The question was
raised as to why this was taken up in the first place. Sam said it was because
there was believed to be inequity taking place.
§
Senators wanted
to have the information gathered as to how each department does the tenure
process.
Shep was asked what the
opinion of his committee would be. Although he said he couldn’t speak for the
committee, he said that his opinion is: “Every department defines scholarship
differently. That’s good. If a department wants to put someone forward, let
them do it.”
§ Computer Privacy Policy
During the 2002-2003 academic
year, a work group composed of members from the Faculty and Staff Senates
developed a draft policy document on computer privacy issues. The group put a
great deal of work into the effort and solicited input from various groups. The
document was discussed at multiple meetings of the Faculty Senate, as well as
the Staff Senate, and the task group presented the final form of the draft to
the Faculty Senate near the end of the academic year. The Senate accepted the
document as a report.
The document was then forwarded
to the Commission on Faculty Affairs (CFA) in August to begin the review
process within the governance system. At that point the document was reviewed
by administrative units that are either involved in implementation of the policy
or directly impacted by it; and concerns or issues were brought forth to the
President and Provost.
The Provost then asked that a
group of stakeholders be put together to review the document and address these
concerns prior to having CFA begin the work of formal review and moving it
through the governance structure. The group of stakeholders has been formed and
the initial meeting will be held on 5 November.
Upon completion of the work by
the stakeholders group, the document will be placed back on the agenda for CFA.
Following that, it will go back to the Faculty and Staff Senates.
The membership of the Stakeholders
Group is as follows:
Kay Heidbreder, Legal Counsel
(to convene the group, non-voting member)
Linda Woodard, Personnel
Services
Debra Duncan, Chief of VT
Police Dept
Judy Lilly, Assoc VP for
Network Infrastructure and Services
John Rudd, Internal Audit
Pat Hyer, Provost's Office
Matt McAllister, Faculty
member of previous task force
Sam Easterling, Chair, CFA
Jimmy Martin, Staff member of
previous task force
Leon Geyer, member of CFA,
Faculty Senate
Janine Hiller, Faculty member
with expertise in internet law and policy
The meeting was adjourned
at
[Minutes taken by Susanna Rinehart]
CFA Resolution 2003-04A follows.
Resolution 2003-04A
Commission on Faculty
Affairs
Committee Recommendations
for Promotion and/or Tenure
Approved by the CFA:
Approved by University Council:
Approved by the President:
Approved by the Board of Visitors:
Effective date: Fall
2004
WHEREAS, the quality
of the faculty is critical to the future of Virginia Tech and
the achievement of its mission and goals; and
WHEREAS, faculty
committees play the primary role in evaluating the credentials
and achievements of their colleagues, thereby directly
impacting the quality of
the faculty as a whole; and
WHEREAS, the faculty
of Virginia Tech has reached a maturity and intellectual
rigor that provides confidence in committees making the
critical decisions related
to promotion and/or tenure for individual faculty members,
and that adequate
appeals exist to protect the rights of individuals
throughout the process;
THEREFORE be it resolved, that a two-thirds vote of the departmental, college,
and university-level committees involved in making
decisions on promotion
and/or tenure is required for a positive recommendation to
move forward to the
next step, and that the Faculty Handbook be changed as
delineated below to
reflect the newly-articulated standard for a positive
recommendation; and
Be it further resolved that
the division of the vote at each level shall be
forwarded and made available to the committee members and
administrator at
the subsequent level.
Proposed Faculty Handbook
Changes
Section 2.8.4.1 Departmental Evaluation, paragraph 4:
The committee will make a recommendation on each candidate
to the
department head or chair, including a written evaluation
that assesses the quality
of the candidate’s performance in each relevant area. A two-thirds vote is
required for a positive recommendation by the committee for
either promotion or
tenure. The division of the vote is recorded and conveyed to
college-level
committee and administrator. Whenever the department head or chair does not
concur with the committee’s recommendation, the committee
is so notified.
(Eliminating current reference to division of vote since
does not cover all levels or
cases)
In all cases of mandatory (sixth year) tenure decision, the
head or chair will pass
on to the dean the dossier of every candidate, which will
include the committee’s
evaluation and recommendation (including the division of vote) and the head’s or
chair’s own recommendation, whether concurring or not.
2.8.4.2 College Evaluation, paragraph 3
The committee shall make a recommendation on each candidate
to the dean. A
two-thirds vote is required for a positive recommendation by
the committee for
either promotion or tenure. The division of the vote is
recorded and conveyed to
the university-level committee and Provost. Should the recommendation be at
variance with that received from the department head or
chair, reasons for that
variance should be specified in the recommendation.
2.8.4.3 University Evaluation, paragraph 3
The committee will make a recommendation on each candidate
to the provost. A
two-thirds vote is required for a positive recommendation by
the committee for
either promotion or tenure.
The provost will make recommendations to the
president, informing the committee of those
recommendations, including the
basis for any non-concurrence with committee
recommendations. The provost
will inform the president of any variation between the
provost’s recommendations
and those of the committee.