The university is presently undergoing a comprehensive self-study of policies and operational procedures associated with intercollegiate athletics. Following submittal of the self-study report, an on-campus evaluation will take place during Fall 2007 by a team appointed by the NCAA. The objective of the process is to receive full re-accreditation by the NCAA. This accreditation process takes place every 10 years. Several current and former Faculty Senators are serving on the self-study team. Operating principles and other information are available for review on the NCAA self-study website (http://www.ncaacert.vt.edu/). The Self-Study Report is currently in the editing stage and upon completion will be posted on the website for a review by the campus community, as well as the general public. On overview of the process is provided in the attached document. Natalie Hart (nrasor@exchange.vt.edu) may be contacted for additional information.

Principles of Community are not among the university policies. CEOD is now looking which principles are already policy. The document proceeds to quote from Faculty handbook policies related to ethics and principles of community. This is a statement put forward by CEOD. We need approval from Senate to make this statement.

The motion to accept was approved by the Faculty Senate.

The resolutions in front of the Faculty Senate are divided into 2 groups. The first two need to be voted on for approval to move forward to University Council. The rest are up for feedback and discussion.

1) P and T Committee Discussion: The draft has been changed, i.e.

• Committee composition: request for college to set criteria for who is eligible to serve.
• Department heads or chairs change from “less than” to “no more than” regular faculty.
• Some departments have too few members to serve limited terms. The wording “if possible” was added.
• In reference to ideal range: Recommended: Drop sentence “Such specifications as all tenured faculty members, when the above range is thus greatly exceeded, should be avoided to allow a thoughtful recommendation to be framed. Individual letters of evaluation by faculty members not on the committee can be requested and studied by the committee, of course.” What has been accomplished?

- Restricts influence that dept heads can have on process. (now a recommendation letter; this applies to deans also)
- It attempts at having each review be independent of the other
- Structure of college committee: No college committee with more administrators than faculty ranking members.

• College level committee changes: It can go to 50-50.
• College would decide who would serve and might restrict it.
• Do chairs or dept heads observe, or must they be absent? Recommendation is framed without head present. Committee has a vote; dean has a separate vote.
• Multi-level influence by one faculty member by means of sitting on multiple committees are still present and permitted.
• Straw vote on Item 6 page 3 as written: In favor: (22) Against: (13)
• A motion to approve the resolution with changes:
  
  - Dropping “Such specifications as all tenured faculty members, when the above range is thus greatly exceeded, should be avoided to allow a thoughtful recommendation to be framed. Individual letters of evaluation by faculty members not on the committee can be requested and studied by the committee, of course.”
  - Committee composition: (making it parallel to departments)
  - leaving no. 6 as written.
  - item 7: adding “if possible”
  
• The motion to approve the resolution with the changes carried.
• The Faculty Senate approval will be recorded on document.

2) Annual Faculty Evaluations

• In order to enforce this, someone would have to file a grievance. This is about faculty evaluation, but not about retention. University Council: decisions to not renew are administrative decisions.
• A motion to approve the resolution was received and seconded.
• The motion was unanimously approved.

3) Student Evaluation of Teaching Letter Discussion: The Provost has asked Terry Wildman to put together a task force. It is moving along. Comment: The sense is that Terry is putting together a faculty driven committee addressing all the right issues. Question from the floor: Whether Osman Balci and/or other members of his committee will serve on this task force?

4) Professors of Practice Policy Comments:

• We already have lecturer, instructor, etc. Moving across ranks is not clear. Concern: This is a method to eliminate ‘tenure track’ faculty positions/ranks. Answer: this was originated by faculty (architecture).
• Recommendation: that there be better education of community of this concept. We need more understanding of value of adding additional ranks. One dept is already using this designation. Original justification was to hire professionals engaged in their practice, to also teach our students/chair student committees. Professor of Practice would be an employee of VT. Several concerns were raised by the senators about the justification for instituting this designation.
• The general concensus from the Senate was not in favor of this new designation.

5) Policies Related to Non-Tenure Track Appointments Comments:

• Applies to all non-tenure track faculty.
• No further discussion.

• AY/CY Salary Update: The first meeting with president and provost will be this coming Thursday. Amy Bell and Kerry had meeting with Linda Woodard; Pat Hyer. It would cost approx. $16 million to move system from 24 to 18 pay periods. The question was raised: What is the extent of faculty interest? A short survey was created and distributed to senators .The survey link gave a brief explanation and an example. Results: 44 senators responded. 28 preferred pay over 24 pay periods. 13 preferred 18 pay periods. Next steps: to authorize Linda to survey faculty at large.
  
• ORP Update: This is still on the president’s desk. Preliminary comments have been that it’s not clear why this cannot be implemented. At the moment the focus is on the General Assembly and the proceedings in Richmond. President will visit the Faculty Senate in April.
  
• Academic Council: Focus was on Richmond and budget/legislation issues related to education.
  
• University Honor System Review Resolution: This recommendation will be covered under new business.

Reminder of Faculty Tuesdays – Please spread the word; please support.

University Honor System Review Resolution: This is a resolution in favor of an independent review of the Honor System. The resolution was passed unanimously.

Commission on Research: focussing on Ethics; Sarbanes-Oxly; federal business practices. NSF numbers expenditures: 2005-2006: ranked 56; largest source of funds was $120million; state and local government: $93million. 3rd largest item on research expenditures: indirect cost; Lack of facilities/funds for maintenance, staff etc. 2006: 56%, 2007: 56%, 2008: 56.8%, 2009: 58.5%. The only portion that can be cut is summer salary.