• Topics of concern to the Board of Visitors (BOV) are academic affairs; graduate education; diversity; and faculty affairs.
• The Faculty Senate website was in the process of being updated and all Faculty Senate-related documents should be available through the website including the Academic Affairs document developed by the BOV.

Karen DePauw stated that the charge given to her by the BOV was to increase by 900 the number of Ph.D. students by the year 2010. At the last meeting of the BOV the business plan for graduate education was presented (copies were not distributed). To increase the number of Ph.D. student by 900, $17 million in commonwealth funds, $14 million in sponsored research and $2-3 million in development dollars (supporting fellowships) will be required. This $30+ million dollars is in addition to current expenditures.

Given the increasing number of Ph.D. students, Karen emphasized that we have the capacity to grow with current faculty for only one year; then we would need more faculty. Some resources will be made available to colleges and departments in order to reach the goal. Karen prefers to focus on recruiting quality graduate students including competitive stipends to recruit those students. She also noted that the GTA stipend schedule has been changed to provide more flexibility in funding graduate students. Health insurance, housing, and child care for graduate students are also going to be important recruitment issues and are currently being addressed.

The following points were made in response to questions from senators:

• We are approaching Top 30 by developing an AAU-like portfolio of graduate programs (AAU schools have Ph.D. s in social sciences and humanities). Built into the institutional plan for graduate degrees are proposals for Ph.D.s in sciences and humanities. A good proportion of the new Ph.D. students supported on grants will most likely be in engineering and less likely in the humanities because of funding opportunities in those disciplines. With respect to the charter initiative we will have flexibility within the charter initiative to move dollars to where we need them.
• “Building Graduate Community” (institutional plan) has been sent to faculty. However, the institutional plan is an annual process and the building of the plan begins at the department level. There will be a call for the next round of proposed degrees in spring 2005.
• In Blacksburg there are approximately 4,000 graduate students; of those 27% are Ph.D. students (low compared to peer institutions). There are a total 6,000 graduate students if we include the other Virginia Tech graduate centers.
• A process hasn’t been finalized yet for distributing new dollars.
• New resources are primarily for Ph.D. students but master's degree students will not be ignored.
• There will be a slight increase of master’s students but will not grow as rapidly as Ph.Ds.

At this point in the meeting a transition was made to Brad Fenwick. Brad stressed that his charge is to double research funding by 2010. His focus is to increase scholarly standards one faculty member at a time and one department at a time. He also stressed that the university is in a stronger position when it has a multidisciplinary perspective. Brad felt that his title should be Vice President for Discovery because discovery occurs throughout the campus not just the laboratory. If the university is to arrive where it needs to be all disciplines need to move forward. Faculty in Top 30 institutions are focused and balanced. He mentioned that he is constantly asked, "Can Top 30 be attained?" His answer is "Yes, but it won’t be easy." Other institutions have undergone transformation to Top 30 and Virginia Tech is at a place better than one would predict given all that has happened in the last few years.

The following points were made in response to questions from senators:

• Virginia Tech was following the lead of other institutions in changing the title from Vice Provost for Research to Vice President for Research. The title provides more visibility in terms of negotiating with companies. The reporting lines have not changed.
• The decision to reach the Top 30 is a decision the community makes – not just the administration. There are enough resources on campus to fulfill requirements – the question is “Are we willing to reallocate resources?”
• The increase in cost on grants for fringe benefits is upsetting because of the implications of the immediate effect on research budgets. In some cases renegotiating with sponsors has helped but in most instances increasing by over 50% in one year has made it extremely difficult.
• For the most part, states of peer institutions contribute less to higher education than Virginia.
• Library funding is a concern and how it is supported is high on the agenda. One of the reasons we receive indirect monies is to support the information stream in the university which is largely the library.
• Virginia Tech follows a business model approach to all aspects of operations because some of the institutions we are trying to emulate are private not public. Society demands that public universities act more like private universities. Society decided that college education is an individual benefit not a societal benefit.
• In reality, Virginia is the middle of peer institutions in terms of state support. What we need is revenue streams to be more robust to keep tuition low and scholarly activity up.
• Virginia Tech does better than most given undergraduate resources.
• The four drivers of a prestigious university are attracting the best students, attracting student scholars, attracting faculty notable in their disciplines and extramural funding.

• BOV report: Sam noted that as Faculty Senate President he is a non-voting member of the BOV and he attends the Finance and Audit Committee meeting. Other Faculty Senate officers—Vice President Susanna Rinehart attends the BOV Academic Affairs Committee, Secretary Kerry Redican, and Past President Diane Zahm attend the BOV Student Affairs Committee and BOV Building and Grounds Committee respectively.
• The Finance and Audit Committee is currently concerned with business standards and policy and criminal background checks. Shortly, faculty will be asked to review a document regarding university policies and procedures and will be requested to sign a form stating that the document has been read and understood. This document is currently being revised in order to make it more focused and readable.
• With respect to criminal background checks, a statement now appears on the application form asking if the applicant has ever been convicted of a felony. The BOV wants to pursue this issue further, particularly in the areas regarding liability. The criminal background check protocol is still in a fact finding phase.
• Sam reported that we have switched from college representation to department representation for Faculty Senate. This was done in an effort to increase communication regarding Faculty Senate with the intention that senators will return to their home departments and communicate to their colleagues issues discussed in the Faculty Senate.
• The Faculty Senate has a voice on all Virginia Tech commissions and committees.
• Civility Issues and Faculty: We expect students to have a civil tone; the same expectation should be true of faculty. Incidents of uncivil faculty interactions with staff have been brought to Sam’s attention.
• Sam reminded senators that when a reply is made to the Faculty Senate listserv everyone on the listserv receives the message and to keep in mind that the listserv is broad and includes members of the university community who are not on the Faculty Senate. Do not hit the reply function unless you want the entire senate and others to read your message.

• Susanna reported that all faculty senators should have received “Faculty Affairs Issues” (a copy will be sent through the listserv). The document was developed by the provost as a result of conversations with Sam, Susanna, and David Ford. Susanna is optimistic that the document is a useful one and has made the suggestion to CFA to use topics in the document to establish CFA agenda, especially issues of faculty recruitment and retention.
• The BOV Academic Affairs Committee will focus their efforts on graduate education, faculty affairs, and diversity.
• Commission on Faculty Affairs (CFA)
  • Computer privacy policy: CFA members heard a presentation from Leon Geyer and Janine Hiller on the latest draft of the computer privacy policy.
  • CFA has requested to review the "certification of employee receipt and review of business conduct standards." Concerns addressed in the Senate were also addressed in the document.
  • CFA is developing a concept paper on electronic Faculty Activity Reports.
  • A workgroup of AdvanceVT is working on a faculty climate survey. CFA will look at the current draft.
• Appreciation was extended to senators for volunteering for service on commissions and committees. Despite the great response, there are still many open spots on Faculty Review Committee. Faculty Review Committee requires 2 faculty members from each college (do not have to be senators).
• We also need to replace Brian Worner on CFA and a senator for the Transportation and Parking Committee are also needed. A note on the listserv will be sent asking for volunteers to serve.

Note: Sam asked that we not send the minutes to everyone – 3 or 4 bulleted items for inclusion in the minutes would be appropriate.

Commission on Equal Opportunity and Diversity (Valerie Hardcastle): A plan for increasing diversity on campus has been developed. Four position papers are being circulated. The commission requested a one month delay on action so these papers can be reviewed by the Faculty Senate before going to the provost. Valerie urged senators to look at the papers and hold some discussions. The commission feels that the Faculty Senate needs to review the papers.

Commission on Research Activities (Jim Weaver): Jim reported that Jim Blair, at the last commission meeting, distributed a document highlighting the best ways to implement the Aspires program. Some limitations were noted and the document may need revisions. If senators have any ideas or suggestions regarding Aspires, contact Jim Weaver at Jim.Weaver@vt.edu.

Sam announced that there is a need for Senate Cabinet members: The cabinet includes the Faculty Senate officers (including past president) and one senator from each college. So far, the colleges not represented include: Agriculture and Life Sciences; Business; Libraries; Natural Resources; and Science. Sam requested that members from these colleges caucus after the meeting and “elect” a member to the cabinet.

Sam also announced that the Faculty Senate often forms issue-driven workgroups focused on important issues. Currently, there is the Legislative Affairs workgroup chaired by Susan Anderson (Math). Ideas/discussions regarding workgroups will be an October agenda item.