Minutes_1_16

Meeting Minutes of January 16, 2007
Minutes taken by Harduus Odendaal

Senators in attendance: Jeff Alwang; Markus Breitschmid; Robert Broadwater; Carol Burger; Collin Carrig; Virgilio Centeno; Jim Craig; Jay Crone; Robert Denton; Jack (John C.) Duke; Sam Easterling; Roger Ehrich; Jack Evans; George Glasson; Rob Grange; Ruth Grene; Sue Hagen; Roger Harris; Shannon Jarrott; TImothy Larson; Ed Lener; Jim Littlefield; Jeff Mann; Gail McMillan; Margaret McQuain; Joel Nachlas; Doug Nelson; Marie Paretti; Ronald Pearson; Doug Pfeiffer; Helen Schneider; Rick Shingles; Don Shoemaker; Elisa Sotelino; Eric Standley; Terry Surjan; Fabrice Teulon; Uri Vandsburger;Mary L. Wolfe (Substitute for B. Grisso); Cynthia Wood; Anne Zajac; Kerry Redican, Valerie Hardcastle, Hardus Odendaal

Guests: Brad Fenwick, Greg Esposito (Roanoke Times), Bernice Hausman

Kerry called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.

1. Approval of Agenda: The agenda was approved.

2. Approval of December Meeting Minutes: The December meeting minutes were approved.

3. Brad Fenwick, Vice President for Research

Kerry introduced Dr. Fenwick and gave him the floor. Brad attended to address the faculty senate on:

Research integrity—Federal regulations/issues: Research/scholarly integrity is high profiles item in scientific press in amost every discipline. Big scandals rocked research especially in Asian countries. Various scandals (plagiarism, conflict of interest, falsified data, etc.) These have low tolerance with public and must be handled with care; it lowers level of confidence. NIH undertaking a large effort. NIH funding fastest growing on campus. First draft was 48 pages long (now about 28 pages). Our system is not entirely in compliance with federal guidelines. Some universities have adopted federal guidelines. it. But one size doesn’t fit all. Portions of the document covers optional areas. The Commission on Research and Brad’s office are working on how we will handle it. Now the agency has to be informed if there’s an allegation (previously it could be handled internally). There are ssues of fairness. How do policies that we intend to adopt interface with our honors system? If federal funding is involved then we don’t have a choice. Certain questions remaining: What to do if it’s non-federal funding? We currently have some, but not very frequent occurrences.

Research Progress:

In 18 months: 5 new buildings; 3 under construction; 3 remodeled.
Things are turning around; providing infrastructure.
Growth of research portfolio (nearly doubled) in face of budget cuts; but loss of faculty.
Puzzle: Since new resources have been coming on line – research portfolio hasn’t grown – perhaps reached capacity – need more space.
Budget at federal level not good probably for next 6 years. Consolidation between universities who gets funding and those who don’t.
$26M from state last year; another $26 this year should help.
In some areas the library is their lab – resources needed.
Whenever we buy facilities or assets – want maximum usage. Cost centers are intended to do that. Consolitation of animal care; material characterization. Would like agencies to cover full cost of those facilities.
Medical school in news. It’s a work in progress. Doesn’t make sense for VT to subsidize the enterprise. Carilion has deep pockets. If state interested enough – could give us opportunity that we couldn’t afford on our own.
Discussion about private dental school ongoing.
A lot of people on campus in humanities social sciences doing research in/on medical field should be at the table.
Faculty in our medical school, related areas should be involved.
Our reputation as much on the line as Carilion’s.
The Carilion endeavour is not intended to injure Wake Forrest biomedical program.

Overhead redistribution: This decision was made to rebuild the research enterprise. A portion of overhead stream off the top is being taken out on annual basis to build space at CRC.

Kerry closed the floor and thanked Brad for addressing the Senate.

4. Bernice Hausman, Chair, Committee on Faculty Ethics: Kerry introduced Bernice and gave her the floor.

CFE receives complaints - violations of ethical behavior coming from faculty. These are not covered by policies that have legal ramifications. Research misconduct is not investigated by the committee. It deals with behaviors between faculty members. Complaints can come from students, staff, etc. Committee works closely with faculty review and reconciliation committees. Most unethical incidents that occur never reaches CFE – but are dealt with at department level. They are mostly long-term, damaged relationships. The procedures of CFE are on the web.

Scolarly misconduct/research misconduct: Currently CFE is advisory to scholarly misconduct. Have reviewed cases where allegedly procedure hasn’t been followed properly. CFE will not have only advisory role. Bernice represents faculty role. It is a complicated process. RIO will have advisory role. CFE will appoint member to serve on inquiry & investigation committees. CFE member cannot serve on review committee (where grievance may be appropriate after the process) CFE cannot provide robust review. Can’t provide full educational context. Should be RIO’s job to educate faculty.

Comments:

Faculty members are not aware of all the commitees and bodies dealing with different issues.
A FACT sheet to be shared with faculty would be of benefit for faculty.
Brad Fenwick proposed that the RIO be a faculty member. Asking community to think about potential candidates.
Committees can make recommendations for the disposition. RIO is accountable to federal guidelines.
Some concern was raised for the accused who would not have access to information as institution does.
Example of unethical behaviour: Someone gets put-down by a colleague at every faculty meeting. Chair doesn’t do anything.
It was proposed that chairs of Faculty Senate President, CFE, Faculty Review, Reconciliation and the RIO form a committee from which designated person can be picked.

Principles of Community: At CEOD the question arose how to enforce the Principles of Community (PoC). This came from Student affairs - PoC important for student life. Principles of Community covers ethical behavior as well as legal issues. COE could cover some of it. Last paragraph of PoC could be covered by Office of Equal Opportunity. CEOD could be informed that existing bodies can deal with violations. Carlos Evia will be invited to address Senate on this issue.

5. Vice-President's Report (Valerie Hardcastle):

Higher education assessment day. Several bills being sponsored that are relevant to us. For instance: (1) John Edwards: Partial Tuition waiver for faculty; (2) Schuler: One time Switch from ORP to Virginia Retirement plan.
Weekly faculty reception: Tuesdays 2-5pm in Torgersen Museum. Wine at 4pm. Drag colleagues; hold faculty meetings there. Make use of it.
P and T Committee Discussion: Valerie reminded Senators to discuss the resolution with their faculty constituents. There is no consensus on who should serve on department level. Some are disgruntlement because the policy is being changed. Another issue: clarification of language between serving and voting. Valerie asked senators to collect input from departments. A revised version will be distributed and the resolution will be voted on in February.
Annual Faculty Evaluations: Faculty will be reviewed in writing within 90 days of FAR. Merit raise letter will be separate. Review of pre-tenure faculty members: In addition to annual review; will be reviewed at least twice during probationary period (1&3 or 2&4) w.r.t. P&T.
Student Evaluation of Teaching Resolution: Osman Balci appeared before FS last year on SPOI. More and more stakeholders are appearing and the resolution more complicated than anticipated. Provost will appoint a taskforce under CEUT to look at the Student Evaluations of Instruction.
Comments: The only data point being used in faculty evaluation is one question despite a form with many apsects. Changing the form is just part of the problem. More importantly: how information will be used and what information is used. Student evaluations is not the only possible measure. The letter to the provost will be reworded and brought back for discussion.

6. President's Report (Kerry Redican)

AY/CY Salary Update: Amy Bell presented the possibility last year. A meeting was held with Linda Woodard. It would cost the university about $16 million to make the change. Kerry and Amy intend to find out what percentage of faculty will make use of it.
ORP Update: Kerry is still in dialogue with the president on this issue. It’s on the president’s desk.

7. Old Business: BOV retreat: There has been a change of focus, which will now be diversity.

8. Commission/Committee Reports: none.

9. New Business: Undergraduate BOV Nominations

10. Adjourn: Kerry adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m.

Faculty Senate, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061
Website updated on 3/15/07. Please contact Suzie Karlin with questions or comments about this website.