i. Presentation of Revised Strategic Plan: Provost McNamee, Dean Kelly, from the College of Natural Resources, and Ellen Plummer, the Director of the Women’s Center, were on hand to discuss the strategic planning process, generally, and an updated draft (2/21/06) of the strategic plan, specifically. Provost McNamee began by describing economic realities. Virginia Tech, while facing declining public support, attempted to keep its position as the state’s lowest cost university. The strain was too great. Tuition must be increased. Still, the goal is to keep the cost of attending Virginia Tech reasonable while continuing to meet the university’s land grant mission. The revised strategic plan responds to Tech’s need for greater resources and desire to become a more well-regarded research university. The revised strategic plan was developed starting with the colleges and based on a six-year budget projection. Currently, the focus of revision is the plan’s language. Provost McNamee directed the Senate’s attention to the revised plan and referred to: language resulting from the branding study (quality, innovation and results); possible changes in the mission statement; the university’s core values; the scholarship of learning; revising VT Pathways; and aspects of university life (e.g., library funding, construction).

ii. Discussion from the Senate floor: Suggestions ranged on the aims and language of the strategic plan. Could we further describe the core values of the university? The language in reference to scholarship domains was much discussed. The category of “Social Transformation” did not appear to adequately address individuals as part of society, or individual expression as an object of scholarship. Might the strategic plan directly address K-12 education or, perhaps more comprehensively, address K-16 education? “Energy, Materials & Environment” nicely draws attention to the interdependent relationship of the domain of discovery. How might the strategic plan speak to community college curricula in preparing their students wishing to attend Virginia Tech? How might the strategic plan attend to the pressing issue of class sizes? Also noted was whether the “Health, Food & Nutrition” domain was sufficiently inclusive.

i. Hausman, assuming that the Senate had reviewed the proposed changes to the Faculty Handbook discussed at December’s meeting and sent to the Senate listserv on 31 January, asked for a vote sending the changes to the Committee of Faculty Affairs (CFA) for approval.

ii. Discussion from the Senate floor: Noted was the possibility a quorum was not present. Procedural questions arose regarding the numbers needed for a quorum, the actual need for a quorum to vote on this issue, and whether voting by e-mail might ameliorate the problem. Absent a parliamentarian the Senate voted, with 3 abstentions, to send the changes to the faculty handbook to the CFA for approval.

i. The issue of Virginia Tech’s financial support for children of faculty and staff wishing to attend the university was raised. Currently the university provides $700 in scholarship aid, per student.

ii. Discussion from the Senate floor: Being able to send children to the university where one is employed is a necessary tool in recruiting and retaining of faculty and staff. Fully tuition should be given to children of Tech faculty and staff. Perhaps a private fund could by developed during the next capital campaign. A consortium of state schools might provide additional options for such financial aid.

i. At the behest of Professor Bliss the question was brought before the Senate as to university and state regulations, and their proper enforcement, regarding the location of smokers in relation to public building entrances.

ii. The Senate had no information on the matter and discussion was postponed until the next meeting in March.