1) increasing energy efficiency on campus (electricity and water)
2) recycling (basic recycling and composting)

The Facilities Department currently has several projects that university could pursue to increase efficiency; i.e. a Whittemore Hall Lighting Efficiency project could save $13.5k per year at a rate of return on investment of ~28% paid back over 3.5 - 7 years (this involves replacing existing lighting with bulbs that are approximately a factor 3 more expensive, but that would reduce energy consumption in the long run). The Facilities Department is allocated only a certain portion of the budget per year, but can’t perform all these functions. Another problem that Facilities Department faces is that the budget for building maintenance is not increasing, yet more buildings are being constructed each year. Following budget cuts, 3 recycling positions have been eliminated. The VT recycling rate is ~21% and does not meet the state mandated 25% (the institutions in the region collectively do meet the state mandated rate.) This proposal also includes a plan to reinstate the recycling at buildings. The Faculty Senate was asked to support the institution of the Green Fee.

When asked about the level of student support for the Green Fee, Sara and Netanya indicated that on average only 1/3-1/2 of students agreed to sign the resolution in classes.

Comments and recommendations from Senators:

Since the students will be paying the fee, it is important to recognize that a majority of student support would be required. Furthermore, this is not a faculty issue, but a student issue and a request for support from the Faculty Senate may be inappropriate. Concern was expressed over the students being taxed for something the university should be doing anyway. Even though this is an important issue, there is a question whether students should be paying for this at all
.
For more information, Senators were invited to contact Netanya Huska (netanya@vt.edu) or Sara Breakiron (sbreak@vt.edu).

Dr. Redican turned the floor over to Frances Keene, Director of Judicial Affairs, to present the three Resolutions for changes to University Policies for Student Life.

Ms. Keene stated that in 2005 most cases of misconduct were alcohol related, followed by drug possession, and then property damage. At University Council the 1st reading several questions were raised, and the University Council recommendation was to take this to the Faculty Senate for input.

Amendments:

- The 1st resolution regards a Reciprocity Statement for Jurisdiction of Off Campus Misconduct
- The 2nd resolution pertains to the withholding of a degree in cases of serious misconduct. A concern was raised regarding the vagueness as to the meaning of “serious misconduct”. It was recommended that the resolution be stripped of vagueness and be more specific about violations and what constitutes a ‘serious’ case of misconduct.
- The last resolution dealt with the sharing information between the Undergraduate and Graduate Honor Systems.

A motion was made, seconded and carried for a Senate straw vote on the 3 resolutions. The straw vote result was 28 in favor and 4 opposing the resolutions.

Dr. Viehland highlighted the problem of a reduction of ORP funds that faculty can select from. Whereas there had been >100 funds to choose from in the past, only 11 remain at present (Fidelity). There is only one low-cost index fund and the funds are rarely updated. Dr. Fuller noted that changes appear to be related to the change of status to a charter university. The charter university reduced flexibility and imposed a certain cost to having these funds. Ironically, charter university was touted as increase in flexibility and savings. Faculty in ORP were lead to believe they would always have that flexibility. Bonds are viewed as low risk, but carry their own risk (inflation risk, interest rate risk) stocks have more growth potential, but increased risk. It is desirable to have a good choice of stocks or mutual funds.

Possible reasons for the problems are:

- cost of monitoring
- fiduciary responsibility

The working group had the following recommendations:

1) Restore the range of options in ORPs
2) VT should provide short courses on financial planning for faculty members
3) Retirement/benefits advisory committee should have more representation by faculty members actually participating in ORP
4) Each college should have representation
5) The university should hire people with expertise to provide short courses
6) A survey should be conducted to determine level of interest and how to meet faculty needs.
7) Faculty at other universities in VA should be contacted and their views solicited

Comments from the Senators:

- Replacement cost for being in ORP is 15%
- If university increased contribution by 2-2.5% back to original would be a better solution
- A question was raised as to whether someone from the university administration could be invited to discuss the ORP issue, it was not clear who to contact.
- The appropriate individual or individuals should be identified and invited to speak to the Faculty Senate.

Dr. Balci stated that the Student Evaluations of Teaching has been in place unchanged for >40years. An online system will present a tremendous amount of flexibility. The purpose of using it for teaching evaluations will be to improve quality of teaching. The current system has serious problems:

- it is a top-down process;
- it is a single value assessment;
- and it has a tendency to lead to a popularity contest.

The assessment of teaching should be based on specific characteristics of the course. The resolution is to change the system and also to implement the system.

Some advantages of online assessment are:

- flexibility
- faculty can add their own questions in section 2 and gather information pertinent to their specific course.
- easy extraction of results for inclusion into dossiers will be possible.
- responses are not necessarily anonymous, hence students should take it more seriously.

The resolution is for a bottom up, online approach to teaching evaluation to improve teaching effectiveness. The committee requests faculty feedback from departments.

In response to questions from the Senators:

- Narrative responses should be possible. However, narrative responses cannot be included in dossiers.
- A concern was raised regarding the anonymity and whether the students would participate in evaluations using their PIDs.
- In collaboration with Terry Wildman, a workgroup has been established to create example indicators and forms. Osman Balci’s group works on the policy, whereas the content and software are being developed by Terry’s group. However, there was lack of consensus regarding the level at which these groups collaborate.
- Overall, the Faculty Senate recommendation is for the working groups of Drs. Balci, Terry Wildman and CEUT to work together on a coherent plan.

Kerry Redican reported that no meeting with the President or the Provost has been held yet. Questions raised previously in the Senate regarding salary adjustments will be asked in the next meeting and reported to the Senate, especially with regards to changes following the charter initiative. Another issue that will be raised is the ORP matter and which individuals would best be able to answer questions.

Valerie Hardcastle said that the opinion of CFA was to start over with the survey because most faculty might find it too difficult to interpret. A handout was passed out among senators and feedback on the survey requested.

Two remaining slots are open on Commissions and Committees:

- Commission on Undergraduate Studies and Policies
- Commission on Student Affairs

Bob Denton cited some preliminary statistics on faculty clubs elsewhere:

- Nationwide there are 93 university faculty clubs (of which 30 were reviewed)
- 6 out of 12 in ACC own Faculty Clubs (FCs)
- 19 out of 24 peer institutions own FC’s
- most FC’s are either non-profit organizations or part of the foundation.
- most are renovated big, multi-floor houses on the perimeter of campuses.
- typical amenities are lunch & dining; library; bar; banquet rooms, and some have sports facilities, guest rooms
- The majority has corporate membership and some offer departmental membership
- most include faculty (full time and retired); staff, alumni
- most have initiation fees ($100-$1000) but fall mostly in $150-$200 range
- dues range between $15-$80 per month, and the average is $20-$25 / month, but there are some where the dues differ by rank/salary
- critical mass of membership for viability is about 500 members
- for 300 members, one-time money of $50,000 is needed and $150,000 in operating before food services, rentals, basic managerial staff
- for 500 members, one-time money of $30,000 is needed and $90,000 in operating before food services, rentals, basic managerial staff

Robert asked for more volunteers, and thanked Eric Standley for having already volunteered.