• The Virginia Tech BOV is a unique one with both faculty and student representation. The BOV realizes that faculty are the life blood of the university and the BOV views it’s role as creating an environment so faculty can do their best work.
• Since the BOV last met in November two important things have happened: first, the Principles of Community Statement was developed and adopted. This statement reflects the values of our university community; second, the BOV has increased the commitment to diversity. The BOV wants to recruit and retain faculty and students from underrepresented groups. Money can only solve some of the problems – administration needs faculty help in creating a welcoming climate and we need to work together for a long time to reach our goals. We will persist until our goals are reached.
• With respect to the Top 30 goal, the BOV views it as a metaphor for excellence. Sponsored research is only part of the equation. Faculty bring much important visibility to the university.
• The General Assembly passed the Charter Initiative. We will begin to see some of the effects this July. By July 1, 2007 we should reap the full benefits which is mainly predictable revenue and control of the capital budget.
• The BOV understands resource issues we face on a daily basis.
• The BOV is committed to increase faculty salaries to 60th percentile of our peer group.
• Decisions to raise tuition and fees are not taken lightly. When decisions are made to raise tuition and fees there is an increase in financial aid for those who need funding. This BOV has a vision to do the right things.
  
  Some discussion was held regarding Mr. Davenport’s points. The highlights of the discussion were as follows:
  
• Concern was expressed that raising tuition at 10% on a regular basis would result in losing students from lower income areas. We’ve lost student representation from lower income areas of the state. Also there appears to be a more passive recruiting of students from these areas – not the active efforts as is seen in recruiting from higher income areas.
• Concern was also expressed that since Virginia Tech is a land-grant university in which taking knowledge to people is a key tenet, the emphasis on Top 30 and research is leaving taking knowledge to the people behind. Further, extension has always been a key component to the land-grant mission and the resources for extension have been reduced. Mr. Davenport responded that the commitment is to lift up the whole university and extension is not limited to agriculture but to also rebuilding economies.
• Concern was expressed regarding the lack of mentoring efforts in order to defuse the perceived unwelcoming climate at the university for minority faculty. The BOV is especially interested in recruiting and retaining minority faculty. Mr. Davenport felt that we all have responsibility to do our part with respect to mentoring.
• Concern also focused on what will happen on the progress of BOV under a different governor with a different political agenda. Mr. Davenport responded that the system is what it is and he sees his role as getting commitments from both candidates.
• Junior faculty expressed concern that it is not clear what they need to do to be successful at Virginia Tech. They understand that teaching, research, and service provide the framework for evaluation for promotion and tenure, but in the effort to become a Top 30 institution, excellence in all three areas is difficult, especially with the emphasis on scholarship and sponsored research.
• Other notable points from the discussion included that one billion dollars has been identified for capital needs, but the priorities on how to spend the money have not been decided; a very aggressive six year plan will address Virginia Tech as a multifaceted university; and there has been no conversation on differential tuition.

• Resolution Principles of Community signed.
• Restructure in higher education: the BOV was briefed on the legislation that came out of session and in particular they were given a timeline for the roles they will play in the process.
• Computer privacy document: the computer privacy document was passed. No comments were made in the BOV general session.

• Academic Affairs (BOV):
  • Principles of Community adopted and reflects that change is taking place.
  • Provost McNamee commented on starting a process of the update of the strategic plan over the next year. Faculty are encouraged to comment when asked.
  • Number of African American applicants in 2005 is just over 1⁄2 of what it was in 2001. Hispanic Americans a little higher. Other groups as much as four times higher.
  • Core Curriculum Committee report: campus wide forum regarding core curriculum will take place in March and April.
  • Computer Privacy Policy approved by Academic Affairs Committee and the BOV
    
• Commission on Faculty Affairs:
  • Partnership with Advance Policy Workgroup to talk about faculty work life issues and quality of life among faculty members is moving along.

• Committee on Reconcilation: former committee is finishing up with a couple of cases. The new committee was presented to the Faculty Senate.
• Motion to accept the slate of members for the Committee on Reconcilation.
• Motion passed.
  

• None presented.
  
• 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), March 16, 2005 Meeting

• The a motion for the resolution seeking to add CoR to the reporting line for the University Library Committee was approved.
• Tim Pickering reported on the organization and function of university institutes with the draft statements that were presented to the commission last fall. The chair was deeply disturbed with the process and documentation for establishment of the new institutes. Discussion centered on Policy 3020 and 13005. It did not appear that either one was being used to establish ICTAS or IBPHS. The lack of follow through affects morale through disenfranchisement of faculty. A formal document needs to be submitted to CoR for evaluation of the charters. Three options were presented by the chair:

  1) Discuss faculty involvement with Drs. Fenwick and McNamee,
  2) Have Dr. Fenwick come before the Commission to explain why charters have not been developed, and
  3) Report to University Council that information has not been forthcoming and have the funds redirected elsewhere.

• Option 1 was chosen.
• Nominations were made for CoR chair for next year. Dr. Jim Weaver was elected to be the commission chair for next year.

9. New Business:

• Hardus Odendaal expressed that it would be nice to have a mechanism established for faculty, especially young faculty (untenured and faculty recruited over the past few years) to interact. Hardus was willing to head this effort and encouraged senators to forward the name/e-mails of young faculty members to wgo@vt.edu.
• Resolution regarding membership of University Council UC Resolution 2004-05A was presented. President Steger formed a task group to look at membership of University Council. As a result, two positions added and there were some language changes for clarity and flexibility. Even with the changes there will always be one more faculty than administrators on the Council. The Faculty Senate requires two readings before a vote.
  • Move to waive first reading: Passed (one abstention)
  • Move to approve UC Resolution 2004-05A: Passed (one abstention)
    

10. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.