Minutes_4_20

Meeting Minutes of April 20, 2004
Minutes taken by Susanna Rinehart
Pamplin 32

Senators in Attendance: Susan Anderson, Rick Ashley, Carlyle Brewster, Carol Burch-Brown, Terry Clements, Jack Cranford, Helen Crawford, Sam Easterling, Richard Goff, Valerie Hardcastle, Bernice Hausman, Ian Herring, Kathleen Jones, Brad Klein, Ann-Marie Knoblauch, Ellen Krupar, Jack Lesko, Amy Nelson, Sean O'Keefe, Jim Pease, David Radcliffe, Susanna Rinehart, Kamal Rojiani, Nan Seamans, Edd Sewell, Uri Vansberger, Jim Weaver, Dennis Welch, Sharon Witonsky, Diane Zahm

Senators not in Attendance: Larry Alexander, Leon Geyer, Bill Greenberg, Mike Gregg, Frank Gwazdauskas, Tom Hammett, Sam Hicks, Rakesh Kapania, Michael Lambur, Shelley Martin, Kerry Redican, Shelly Nichols Richardson, Yonsenia White, Brian Woerner, Randy Wynne

President Diane Zahm called the meeting to order at 7:03 pm.

BOV proposal for policy certification

Presentation: Linda Woodard and Dwight Shelton presented the BOV proposal for policy certification, to be signed by all VT employees, acknowledging understanding and review of university policies and procedures. Woodard and Shelton said it is a question of how we conduct our business.

External and internal auditors looking at operations
Policies and procedures are comprehensive, but are they understood and disseminated?
There have been some irregularities in departments; the explanation was that the person did not understand the policies, or was not aware of the policies.
BOV wants the university to be more “professional” and “business-like”. 12-15 months ago the Finance Committee began looking at other institutions for models of how dissemination and employee acknowledgement of policies. Other organizations seem similar in terms of policies, but seem to do a better job of dissemination.
There will be a fall presentation to the BOV on this; and the plan is to distribute to the BOV a complete set of policies and procedures.
BOV wants assurance that employees have seen them and understand them.
Took a proposal to the BOV in March. This will be a 2 or 3 step process. New and current employees could be asked to acknowledge receipt and understanding. Covers all employees; classified staff and faculty will be dealt with differently; first step – notification of everybody; second step – new employees asked to sign off; third step – current employees asked to sign off.
Needs to be completed by the end of calendar year 2004. The BOV was comfortable with the plan, now considering implementation strategies.
What Linda and Dwight currently have in mind is a one-page summary, with 6 – 8 categories, and a broad statement on the business standards of the University. This would be followed by a 2nd document detailing each category, and referencing specific policies and procedures, to provide a look and an understanding of basic principles that guide our business and administrative practices.
Linda and Dwight have met with CFA. They want to make it effective and not intrusive.

Q & A/ Discussion:

Senator: What are the consequences if you do not sign it?
LW/DS: Nothing specific at this time. BOV wants a list of all of the approximately 7,000 employees.
Senator: Are we responsible for interpretation of policies?
Senator: Do other campuses in VA have to do this?
LW/DS: Not that we are aware of.
Senator: It is obviously important not to cheat lie or steal. However, certification process has been used as a technique to displace institutional responsibilities. Members are being asked to sign off on complex procedures = what kind of individual legal responsibility?
LW/DS: We have a lot of work to do in shaping these documents. It will probably be “acknowledgement” rather than “certification”.
Senator: Will employees be provided with copies of all policies and procedures?
LW/DS: We will point you to them.

Senators:

We would not be able to sign if I don’t know all the policies. It is asking too much.
Will the faculty receive similar acknowledgement from the BOV?
Can the process be developed so that it relates to an individual’s area of work?
If it isn’t going to be used for legal purposes, then what is it for?
Why hold everyone accountable for the mistakes/abuses of a few?

LW/DS: We want suggestions from you about these issues, and as to method of delivery.

Diane Zahm closed the discussion.

March minutes were approved.

Commission on Faculty Affairs Report (Sam Easterling)

CFA’s business is concluded for the year. A quick summary:

1. The 2/3 vote for promotion and tenure was voted down. Passing forward the division of the vote was approved, with the opportunity for a minority report if the vote is not unanimous.

2. Language in handbook on teaching policies went through. Commission on Outreach will continue looking at language.

3. Veterinary Medicine’s establishment of clinical faculty ranks that essentially parallel tenure-track faculty passed.

4. Provost presented the current dual career operational guidelines to CFA and to the BOV Academic Affairs committee. Concerns are maintaining quality – i.e., were this an open search, would this person be on the short list?

University Core Curriculum Committee Report (Nan Seamans)

Presentation: There is support for the principle of the Writing/Speaking/Visual skills requirement to replace the writing intensive. Concerns are about implementation (for fall, 2005). Departments will say “our students need a certain set of skills and here is how they will get them”. CEUT, Institutional Research, and Academic Affairs are putting together support for this process. Departments will most likely use the accrediting body of their field for standards. The hope is to streamline things. CUSP and the Provost are aware of the need for resources, and are working on making resources available. Professional and technical writing, for example, need resources; partnerships between and among departments will help.

Each department will submit a plan to the UCCC for approval. UCCC will review the plans – has the department identified the appropriate criteria?

Q & A/ Discussion:

Senators:

Why does the UCCC have purview over what departments perceive is important for their students? Why do departments need approval from the UCCC if they know what their students need?
Disturbed and concerned about resources. The presumption is that W.I. hasn’t worked. If there weren’t enough resources for W.I., why/how are there resources now?
A communications professor can’t teach business majors what business majors specifically need.
Response: Departments simply need to look at what their students need, and figure out the best way to provide it. Departments will set the standards and then decide how their students will get that set of skills. Need to be looking at it broadly and creatively.
Senator: This would appear to be breaking up the core into vocational skills. Is that what higher education is? Grammar, rhetoric and logic are foundations; that is why they are in the core. They should be taught by professionals. This undermines the idea of a core curriculum.
Response: Will be addressing the question at the April 30th retreat as to whether we actually have a core curriculum.

Senators:

There is a question here about governance as regards curriculum. University governance has a level of interest in curriculum, and resources as they relate to curriculum. University vs. departmental interest – there is ambiguity as to whose property this is. An unanswerable question perhaps. A balance is important. How will we negotiate and move through this? A modest amount of governance is necessary. Put the governance in the hands of the departments rather than the UCCC.
What will be the tools, the scope, and the structure of the plans to be assessed? We need more clearly defined language.
Perhaps these plans should be “filed” with the Provost’s office, as opposed to “approved”.
The UCCC resolution should strike the comments about the W.I., and simply acknowledge that the committee wants to make a change. Strike the 2nd and 4th “whereas”
Concern about lowering the standards for student writing and critical thinking through writing. The specter of potentially lowering the quantity and quality of student writing – even if unintentionally – is a grave concern. We need to provide general literacy. What impact would this have on students who change majors? There is a problem with discipline-specific modes of communication.
Problem is resources – too few faculty, too many students.
Response: Feedback from a student focus group tells us that students are writing more in their majors than in the W.I. classes, and don’t see the value of the W.I. classes. If a student changes majors, then the new department would determine that student’s requirements to fulfill the new major.

Commission on Research Report (Jim Weaver)

Have met three times. Good foundation for next year. There is expanding awareness of the lack of a clear program for funding leaves. Want to look at that, as it is a clear component of top-level universities. Because it has been handled by departments, some have had some, some have not. It is a funding issue. Optimistic that something will be done.

Academic Council Report (Diane Zahm)

The retreat consisted largely of power point presentations. Karen DePauw presented on the key role of graduate student enrollment – goal to increase # of PhD’s by 900/ 4 PhD students per faculty member; increase GTAs, GRAs.

Faculty Senate of Virginia Report (Susan Anderson)

The FSV has made revisions to their by-laws with the goals of: 1) making the language gender-neutral 2) structural streamlining and 3) clarifying necessary committees. Susan will email for electronic approval.

Other business:

1. Senate representation changes: Bill’s language was accepted as a friendly amendment: After the sentence, "A department with limited faculty resources may join with another department of its choosing to elect a representative", add: "For purposes of determining the number of representatives, the faculties of such co-joined departments will be enumerated as a single faculty."

2. Senators asked that Diane send a letter regarding the BOV’s policy certification proposal, stating Senators’ concerns: people can’t know what all the policies are; university is different than other businesses; need to know those policies that apply to one’s area, but can’t be expected to know all; what other universities are doing this; consequences of not signing/ ramifications of signing; doesn’t seem to be an overall problem; implications for the staff.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 pm.

Faculty Senate, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061
Website updated on 9/19/04. Please contact Suzie Karlin with questions or comments about this website.