• Ben Davenport and Sandra Lowe will attend the March Faculty Senate meeting.
• Faculty Senate officers met with President Steger and Provost McNamee and discussed both the Business Standards document and the Charter Initiative. There still appears to be some confusion regarding many facets (e.g. what if someone doesn’t sign?) of the Business Standards document. Both President Steger and Provost McNamee agreed that the Charter Initiative is proceeding smoothly and they are optimistic for a positive outcome.
• Textbook bill has passed the House. The main outcome will be that the bookstores will be required to post lists of class textbooks early so students will have multiple options to procure textbooks.

Commission on Faculty Affairs

• Computer privacy policy underwent a second reading. Some word changes have been incorporated and the policy will now go on to University Council.
• Good discussions were held with SGA leaders regarding the textbook bill and midterm evaluations of faculty. With respect to midterm evaluations of faculty, students were encouraged to have dialogue with faculty before taking any action.
• A proposal for retirement benefits for part time employees will be reviewed by the BOV.
• Karen DePauw will be discussing the graduate faculty concept with CFA.
• Several hundred former faculty members who left 2-3 years ago were sent exit surveys and the results will be presented to CFA shortly.
• The work life survey we all recently completed should provide usable data to get at some significant issues

• Principles of Community: With the support of the BOV and faculty, the Commission on Equal Opportunity and Diversity developed the “Principles of Community” document which is an attempt to make a positive statement of principles we wish to follow. The document was sent through campus mail to the university community. The document requires signature from the president of the Faculty Senate. Sam felt a need for senate discussion before he signed. Sam noted that his signature would reflect supporting the “spirit” of the document. He recognized that individuals may have concerns over specific statements in the document. Senators who have issues with the document can forward their comments to Ben Dixon’s office.
  
  • Discussion points focused on affirming the right of each person to express thoughts and opinions freely. We encourage open expression within a climate of civility, sensitivity, and mutual respect.
  • Motion/Seconded: Move to authorize Sam to sign document at next BOV meeting.
  • Motion passed. (1 negative, 1 abstention)
• Business Conduct Standards: In response to legal criticisms of the way Virginia Tech communicates business standards and policies to faculty and staff, Dwight Shelton, Linda Woodward, and Bob Broyden were assigned the task from the BOV (Finance and Audit Committee) to develop a Business Conduct Standards document for all faculty to certify receipt. Because of the complexity of the issue, Sam’s desire was to get a draft of the final version and discuss with faculty before we were asked to certify receipt. This did not happen. Unfortunately, there are inconsistencies in Virginia Tech policies. Further, no one knows of any penalties if one doesn’t acknowledge receipt. In reality, ignorance of university policies is no excuse for violating policy. Senate discussion focused on some inconsistencies. Sam as a member on the Finance and Audit Committee will bring the concerns to the committee.
  
• Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA): Jim Armstrong made a presentation on the deliberations of the Faculty Senate subcommittee formed to discuss the feasibility of the Virginia Tech Faculty Senate joining COIA. The members of the COIA subcommittee were Jim Armstrong, Brian Mihalik, and Diane Zahm.
  
  • The goals of the committee were to undertake fact finding regarding COIA and recommend to the full Senate whether or not VT should join.
  • The committee studied the COIA website and met with Chris Helms (Director of Student Athletic Support), Joe Tront (Chairman of the Athletic Committee), and Frank Gwuazdauskas (Faculty Senate representative on the Athletic Committee)
  • COIA is an alliance of faculty senates from Division IA school who seek to become a faculty voice in the national debate over the future of college sports.
  • COIA areas of concern are academic integrity, athletic welfare, governance, finances, and over-commercialization.
  • The subcommittee did not recommend that VT Senate join the COIA at this time. The rationale for the recommendation was that we do not need more rules, the NCAA is already doing much of this effort and joining sends the message that VT has a problem with athletics. Academic performance of our athletes seems good and time is better spent supporting our current efforts.
  • The subcommittee does recommend that we keep up with the activities of COIA as well as similar organizations and revisit the possibility of joining COIA in the future.
  • Motion/Seconded: Recommendation was made for the Faculty Senate of Virginia Tech not join COIA at this time.
  • Motion passed (one negative vote).

• Jim Weaver (Commission on Research): VT has two separate policies on books concerning administration of university research centers and they are inconsistent with one another. Last fall the Commission on Research asked Dr. Moore to provide a report on compliance with respect to lab staffing issues. It was reported that those labs out of compliance are now in compliance. A question for further discussion is: How are research institutes represented in terms of university governance? They now appear to currently be lost in governance.
  
• The following unedited report was not presented, but was written by the Faculty Senate representative to the commission specifically for inclusion in the Faculty Senate minutes.

Commission on Research (Frank Gwazdaukas), February 9, 2005 Meeting

• Dr. David Moore was unable to attend, but provided a written report on the activities of the Office of Research Compliance.
• Dr. Edward Fox’s request that the Internet Technology Innovation Center be dissolved was approved.
• Dr. Pickering provided background on the two policies currently at the university highlighting a need for Center Reorganization and Policy Consolidation.
• Dr. Blair summarized the basic principles behind ICTAS and IBPHS and the potential new arts, humanities, and social sciences institute. He reviewed the current plans on the structures of these institutes. Concern was expressed regarding faculty morale in relation to the emphasis on the financial aspects of these institutes versus quality of faculty, graduate students, publications, etc. Discussion shifted to metrics used to measure excellence. Dr. Blair stated he would provide charter drafts for the two institutes from the stakeholders for the next meeting.
• Dr. Blair reported there were eight disclosures approved by the Intellectual Properties Committee. Dr. Blair provided handouts on the technology commercialization system at the university and discussed the process.
• Dr. Weaver asked the membership to consider the best option for the University Library Committee to provide information to the Commission concerning research resource needs of the Library and to share their ideas by email.

9. New Business:

• Campus classroom renovation project (Roger Ehrich and Con Rodi): VT has received 8 million dollars for classroom renovations. The project is headed by Dixon Hanna. There are 160 classrooms with wide variation in terms of quality. The goals of the renovation project include: (1) development of a physical environment conducive to good pedagogy; (2) looking to future to support technology to promote teaching and learning; and (3) conduct demographic analyses of classroom usage. Input is needed from faculty. Architects will hold meetings with stakeholders and use technology to solicit input. Input from the university community will drive the designs. Use website (http://space.prov.vt.edu) to provide input. Senators were requested to ask colleagues to participate in providing input through the website.
  
• Faculty Review Committee (Susanna Rinehart): There is an immediate need to constitute the Faculty Review Committee. This means we need a pool of faculty from which to draw if a case comes forward. She discussed the framework for college representation on the Faculty Review Committee and encouraged senators to volunteer and/or nominate people from their colleges and forward the names to her.