a. In process of reviewing a case, the CFE discovered a lack of clarity in faculty handbook on the relation between committee of faculty ethics and procedures for investigating scholarly misconduct. Many new policies now appear between principles of ethic behavior and the description of the committee (principles of community, harassment policy, ethical computer use).

b. Proposed changes:

i. Describe how chair should recuse self if there is a perceived conflict of interest.
ii. Describe to deal with electronic documents, given that email communications now secure.
iii. Create a separate section for ethical violations.
iv. Strengthen language regarding ethical violations.
v. Suggest putting committee member on all committees investigating scholarly misconduct, which makes CFE have more active role.
vi. Chair of committee can forward complaints received to the relevant dean.
vii. Strengthen language concerning disciplinary actions.

c. Discussion by Senate:

i. Who decides whether someone is close friend (or enemy)? The CFE will decide what it means in each case. The CFE is a peer group, not a court. One can recuse oneself at any time if there is a perceived conflict of interest. But conflict should be out in the open from the beginning, perhaps polling members in the beginning.
ii. Reword communications section to allow for secure electronic communications. But technology is not available for everyone today. There is no way to keep things secure on your own computer. We know this the hard way. Talk to legal council to figure out best way to handle this issue.
iii. Understanding what counts as plagiarism is discipline specific; we need the discipline to understand ideas involved and to know mores of disciplines.
iv. Another hard question: who is responsible for problems in multi-authored works, especially with scholars across different countries with different ethics?

d. CFE will deliberate and then bring back revised proposal to the Senate. The Senate will then pass the proposal on to the Commission on Faculty Affairs (CFA).

a. Legislative Outreach Committee: Meet with local delegates (Shuler 5 January at 10:30 scheduled so far) and senators. AAUP and Faculty Senate of Virginia will be going to Richmond to talk to people on higher education day (12 January).

b. CFA: Charged with reviewing faculty procedures and policies. This year, it will be discussing annual evaluations. It is considering adding language for professors of practice and modified duties. In addition, it will be discussing part-time tenure or more flexibility with the tenure clock. Kerry Redican passed out a survey on annual evaluations to get a sense of how different programs evaluate its faculty.

c. Commission on Research: There is a problem with institutes. All operate differently; many bypass established procedures.

d. Commission on Graduate Studies and Policies: It reviews newly proposed graduate programs, MOUs between Tech and other universities for dual degrees.

e. CUSP: The proposal for the School of Construction passed. A BA in Humanities, Science, and Environment is being discussed. Other committees report to CUSP. More cases coming to honors court; if faculty handle cheating on their own, then they are personally liable. Any suspected cheating should go through the honor system. The university core is undergoing lots of discussion/changes.

f. Master Planning Committee: We can’t afford a faculty club, but maybe if we demonstrate desire for one, we could get one added to the master plan.

Thank you Susanna, and thank you my fellow Senators for taking the time to listen to my remarks. I’d like to stand here and give you a lively, eloquent presentation and bestow great words or wisdom, but I’m afraid what I have to offer will sound more like rambling. So be it. I have the floor and I suppose if you get tired of listening or don’t like what I say then you can beat me to the door. I hope that is not the case.

I began my Faculty Senate service in 2000 – Why? – I’d been at Virginia Tech for almost 13 years and could tell you very little about the governance and administrative structure. I thought at that point that I might be here awhile and that I ought to know more about those things. Further, I wanted an opportunity to interact with colleagues across campus. And to be honest, I strongly felt then, and feel now, that we all should contribute to activities outside our mainstream teaching, research and outreach focus areas. We, as members of the Faculty, are an integral part of the University, and as such we should be an integral part of developing and maintaining the policies that govern the University. What we do here and in the various committees, commissions, study groups, etc really does matter. If it doesn’t then we’re to blame, at least in part.

My service on the Senate has been a very enjoyable, disappointing, enlightening, frustrating, inspiring and challenging time. Mostly it has been enjoyable.

I would like to share my thoughts on just a few fundamental issues that I believe must be addressed if we are to strengthen faculty governance at Virginia Tech.

1. The Faculty Senate must have staff support and associated office space. We need an administrative assistant to help keep us on task, help with transition from one year to the next and to make sure that the Senate, in particular the officers, is responding to the long list of requests, inquiries, etc. that come with job.

2. Support for the Faculty Senate President needs to be provided to enable a 50% teaching buyout. The demands and pressure to do the job right require more time than is currently allotted.

3. A review of the governance structure needs to be undertaken. I don’t mean we need to start over, but simply that we need to review the charge and membership of the various committees and commissions to insure that the focus and personnel is appropriate and that the intent of the particular body is being faithfully pursued.

4. We, as Senators, need to re-commit ourselves to working diligently on behalf of our colleagues. As a minimum we must insure that we communicate effectively with our departmental colleagues. I hope that each of us will find at least one issue or committee to which we can honestly and strongly commit.

In a recent conversation with a colleague in my department, I was asked how I was enjoying my research leave. I commented that I was enjoying the time, particularly that time that I spent in my office at home or at our lab, where I was able to get away from the phone and seemingly constant interruptions. I went on to say that I thought I might continue that mode of operation once I was off my research leave – that is I’d try to spend as much time as possible out of the office to avoid “the interruptions.” My colleague looked at me for a moment, knowing that I wasn’t completely serious about the notion and knowing perhaps that I wanted to hear him say something like he did – which was “Sam, there’s an old saying – the work gets done by those that show up for the job.” He of course is right. I think you and I both know that. So, my only parting words of encouragement are to keep showing up for the job. Our job as representatives of our colleagues is important. Our role in shaping and participating in the governance structure of the University is important. Find that issue or committee or commission that is important to you and give it the same attention and dedication that you give your teaching or research.

Thank you for the opportunity to share some of my thoughts tonight and more importantly thank you for the privilege of having served as President of the Virginia Tech Faculty Senate.