Faculty Senate of Virginia Tech

February meeting minutes

February 17th, 2004

(Pamplin 32)

 

Senators in Attendance: Susan Anderson, Rick Ashley, Terry Clements, Jack Cranford, Helen Crawford, Sam Easterling, Leon Geyer, Richard Goff, Bill Greenberg, Frank Gwazdauskas, Tom Hammett, Kathleen Jones, Rakesh Kapania, Brad Klein, Ellen Krupar, Jack Lesko, Sean O'Keefe, David Radcliffe, Kerry Redican, Shelly Nichols Richardson, Susanna Rinehart, Kamal Rojiani, Nan Seamans, Edd Sewell, Uri Vansberger, Jim Weaver, Dennis Welch, Brian Woerner, Randy Wynne, Diane Zahm

 

Senators not in Attendance: Larry Alexander, Carlyle Brewster, Carol Burch-Brown, Mike Gregg, Valerie Hardcastle, Bernice Hausman, Ian Herring, Sam Hicks, Ann-Marie Knoblauch, Michael Lambur, Shelley Martin, Amy Nelson, Jim Pease, Yonsenia White, Sharon Witonsky, Shep Zedaker

 

President Diane Zahm called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.

 

Discussion: “Expectations for Graduate Education at Virginia Tech” 

(revised from “Rights and Responsibilities of Graduate Students at Virginia Tech”)

 

Following input and feedback received from the Faculty Senate and others, the document previously entitled “Rights and Responsibilities of Graduate Students at Virginia Tech” had been thoroughly revised, retitled as “Building Graduate Community: Expectations for Graduate Education at Virginia Tech”, and disseminated to the Senate prior to this meeting.

The following questions and concerns were raised regarding the current draft:

·         It was suggested that the University policy regarding patents should be referenced in the document.

·         The section about Leaves of Absence at the bottom of page 2 of the document needs to reference and make clear that there is a formal process for applying for a leave in the Graduate Student Handbook.

·         A concern of the Commission of Research was raised regarding graduate students changing advisors late in the game, and the way in which that impacts on the ability to fulfill commitments already in progress and under contract. Karen DePauw agreed that there are several places in the document where something needs to be added about contractual agreements relative to sponsored projects.

 

Several senators expressed their gratitude to the committee for their hard work in effecting the significant overhaul and reworking of this document. A motion was made, seconded, and unanimously passed to support the document with the aforementioned changes.

Karen DePauw thanked the Senate for their time and efforts in helping to enhance graduate education and strengthen the graduate community.

 

Discussion: 2003-04 Institutional Plan for New Graduate Degrees

(1/12/04 Memorandum from Karen DePauw, Vice Provost for Graduate Studies & Dean of the Graduate School, to Deans, Department Heads and Graduate Chairs)

 

Karen DePauw told senators that there has been a process in development for months, to create an inventory of degrees and where they are located. The purposes of the process were to:

1) have a broad perspective of new graduate degrees throughout the university; 

2) for the faculty to be able to look at what they want to do in an abbreviated fashion; 

3) to get new degree programs pre-approved before going through the formal process;

4) to put some onto a “wish list” for exploration at a later date.

 

The Academic Council, Deans and the Provost have approved the process, and the second round of the abbreviated 2-page proposals is now coming in. This will result in the pre-approval list for the whole next year; those on that list will then go through the formal process. Pre-approval does not guarantee anything, nor does it guarantee that the money is there, but it represents an “inclination” to approve, more likelihood of approval.

There will be an annual call for proposals with a deadline of March 15th. Notification from the grad school will come by May; those not approved will stay on the wish list for the following year.

Discussion:

·         A senator asked if SHEV will be apprised of what is on the list. DePauw answered that it will be used to make the argument preemptively; show them what we’re looking at; what our plan is; so if they see any problems, duplications, etc. they can let us know.

·         There was also concern from several senators as to the process, the criteria, and the lack of faculty input, involvement and knowledge of the process. DePauw stated strongly that she does not want this to be top down; that she wants involvement of faculty, departments and colleges in this. Also, only those programs that everybody buys into will stay on the list. The programs will need to go back to the departments, will need to be well developed and justified.

·         A senator asked if a department could “veto” what another department is proposing. DePauw said it would not be a “veto”, but that of course questions and conflicts would all need to be discussed and resolved at a cross-college level.

·         Also, there will most likely be name and title and language changes as the programs move through the process.

 

The January minutes were approved.

 

Commission on Faculty Affairs Report (Sam Easterling)

Sam reported that the CFA is drawing up a resolution recommending that there be no change in P&T voting threshold at the departmental level, but that the threshold for the College and University level be changed to 2/3 majority. CFA is also recommending that the division of the vote will go forward (be transparent) at all levels.

In addition, regarding the make-up of the University Promotion and Tenure Committee, the CFA is recommending that each of the colleges have one representative on the committee (currently, CLAHS has two representatives – a holdover from the old College of Arts and Sciences); and that in order to maintain a faculty majority (as is required), the Faculty Senate will select an additional member from the faculty.

Finally, the CFA is working on some editorial changes to the language in the Faculty Handbook, in order to clarify and simplify meaning. Those language changes will be appended to the resolution.

In the discussion that followed Sam’s report, a senator asked why it is necessary for the University P&T Committee to have a faculty majority. The response from other senators was;

a) that some universities have only faculty on this committee, no administrators at all

b) a university should be intellectually led by faculty

c) both the president and the provost believe that these decisions (i.e., hiring, promotion and tenure) are the purview of the faculty

d) there are many areas over which the faculty is losing significant input; “councils” are being created to do what faculty used to do.

 

Report from the Commission on Graduate Studies & Policies (Rakesh Kapania)

Rakesh reported that the commission is working on specifying what the minimum requirements are for earning a Master’s degree (either MS or MA) from VT are, and making that a universal standard across the University.

 

The Library Committee needs a faculty Senator to cover for David Radcliffe.

 

Position Statement Reaffirming Our Civil Liberties (Helen Crawford)

Helen Crawford presented the revised version of the Position Statement Reaffirming Our Civil Liberties.

After a discussion and agreement on language and editing changes, a motion was made to endorse the statement with the recommended changes. There was a second, and the motion passed unanimously.  [A copy of the document can be found at the end of these minutes]

 

Discussion: membership composition of University Council

 

We continued our discussion of University Council Resolution 2003-04A, “Resolution to Amend the University Council Constitution and By-Laws to Accommodate Organizational and Administrative Changes of the University”.

It was recommended that the wording be such that a certain given ratio of faculty to administrators is always maintained, even as actual numbers might change. A motion was made that Diane go back with a recommendation that the Faculty Senate be authorized to elect the number of faculty required to maintain a majority on the University Council. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.

The Senate also wants to encourage the Student Government Association to select some students from under-represented groups to sit on the Council, and agrees that the Senate should do the same when choosing faculty U.C. membership.

 

Report from the Faculty Senate of Virginia (Susan Anderson)

Susan reported that the language in Senate Bill 244 (on the addition of non-voting faculty members to the Boards of Visitors) has been changed from “shall appoint one or more nonvoting, advisory faculty representatives to their respective boards” to “may appoint….”

The Senate Subcommittee on Higher Education is scheduled to hear this on Thursday, February 19th.

 

 

 

 

Discussion: Commission on Outreach and International Affairs Resolutions

COIA Resolution 2003-04 A, Resolution for Change in the Membership of the Commission on Outreach and International Affairs (revision of University Council Bylaws), was approved with no discussion.

 

COIA Resolution 2003-04 B, Resolution for Change in the Charge of the Commission on Outreach and International Affairs (revision of University Council Constitution), raised some questions as to whether “study abroad” and “international exchange programs” should be included in the list of “areas for consideration”. It was also suggested that perhaps there be some cross-jurisdiction between the COIA and the Commission on Undergraduate Studies and Policies regarding study abroad and international exchange programs.

 

           

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9 pm.

 

 

[Minutes taken by Susanna Rinehart]

 

 

“A POSITION STATEMENT REAFFIRMING OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES” follows.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Passed by Virginia Tech Faculty Senate, February 17, 2004

A POSITION STATEMENT REAFFIRMING OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES

 

WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia has a rich history of securing the inalienable rights of individuals, dating to the first settlement of our Commonwealth in 1607, through the Revolutionary War and the adoption of key documents authored by Virginians such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Mason; and

WHEREAS, these documents include the Declaration of Independence, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, the United States Constitution, and the U.S. Bill of Rights; and

WHEREAS, Virginia Tech deeply appreciates its Police Department’s commitment to our country’s cherished rights and liberties; and

WHEREAS, Virginia Tech houses a diverse population, including citizens of other nations, whose contributions to the University community are vital to its character and function; and

WHEREAS, the United States Constitution guarantees to all persons living in the United States fundamental rights; and

WHEREAS, Federal, State and Local governments, in their efforts to protect residents from terrorist attacks, should do so in a rational and deliberative fashion to ensure that any new security measures enhance public safety without impairing constitutional rights or infringing on civil liberties; and 

WHEREAS, our nation has taken its strength from the freedoms guaranteed to all individuals and should lead the world in setting the example of Democracy's ability to protect itself without undue coercion of its citizens or resorting to government secrecy, violation of due process or invasion of privacy.


NOW, THEREFORE, THE FACULTY SENATE AT VIRGINIA TECH:

1. AFFIRMS its strong support for fundamental constitutional rights; and

2. AFFIRMS its opposition to measures that single out individuals for government stricture based solely on their ethnicity, gender, religious beliefs, political beliefs, and/or  country of origin; and

 3. RECOGNIZES efforts of Virginia Tech law enforcement to preserve and support the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution and thereby preserve individuals' constitutional freedoms; and

4.  CALLS UPON all members of the community to demonstrate similar respect for civil rights and civil liberties; and

5.  CALLS UPON the Virginia Tech community to proactively educate all individuals that any university records may be obtained by federal agents under the USA PATRIOT Act without informing the individual unless a request or subpoena permits such notification; and   

6.  AFFIRMS that Virginia Tech should provide notice to individuals whose education and/or other records have been obtained by law enforcement agents, when a request or subpoena permits such notice to occur, pursuant to Section 507 of the USA PATRIOT Act and other federal security legislation; and

7. AFFIRMS that Virginia Tech libraries should provide notice to library users as follows: "Library Patrons: Under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Public Law 107-56) records of books and other materials borrowed from this library, as well as Internet activity in this library, may be obtained by Federal agents. This federal law prohibits librarians from informing you if records about you have been obtained by Federal agents"; and

8. REQUESTS that the Virginia Tech administration and police department continue to ensure that all persons within the University community are guaranteed their fundamental constitutional rights, including: freedom of religion, speech, assembly, and privacy; protection from unreasonable searches and seizures; due process and equal protection to any person; equality before the law and the presumption of innocence; access to counsel in judicial proceedings; and the right to a fair, speedy, and public trial.