Commission on Public Service and Extension Minutes of Meeting on October 14, 1994 Room 210 D Burruss Hall Members Present: Ralph Badinelli, Donna Dunay, Bill Mashburn, Gregory Brown, William Swecker, Connie Kratzer, Patrick Liverpool, Heather Pert, Deb Williams, Brenda Olafsen Alternate: Jim Bowen for Bob Martin, Robert Dunay for Pat Edwards, Tom McAnge for Bill Allen, Linda Leffel for Ted Settle Not represented: David Johnson, SGA, College of Business, Fred Krimgold, James Jones, Doug McAlister, Thomas Hohenshil, Fred Lamb 1. The meeting was convened and chaired by Ralph Badinelli, who presented the agenda for approval. There being no requests for alterations, the agenda was adopted. 2. The minutes for the meeting on September 16, 1994 were approved. 3. The memorandum of understanding regarding the meanings of the term Public Service, MOU#1, that had been distributed to all members of the Commission was adopted without revision. 4. Bill Mashburn, Chair of the Committee for the Implementation of the Academy of Public Service Excellence, raised several questions about what was necessary to implement this awards program. Connie Kratzer provided clarifications from the bylaws of the Academy of Public Service Excellence. She indicated that, in addition to the awards for Extension Service excellence, as many as four awards can be given for public service excellence. She also said that the Commission was charged with selecting the winners of the award. Bill s committee will determine a plan for making the first public service awards this year. Bobby Lowe queried the need for dollars behind the award. There must be some source of funds. Ralph Badinelli charged the committee to investigate the source of funds and develop a plan to provide for making the award as requested by Founder's Day with nominations being due before the end of the semester. 5. Discussion of potential roles played by Extension offices. This discussion continued the discussion on this topic from the previous meeting of the Commission. Several topics were raised and debated. The summary of the discussion given below lists the points made by individuals. Tom McAnge: - Extension offices are currently being used for the distribution of literature that Virginia Tech would like to disseminate throughout the Commonwealth. This activity can continue and could be expanded. - Extension agents are educators, not administrators, and they should not be diverted from their educational mission. - Many current activities carried out by the Extension offices as well as future roles of the offices do not require an extensive amount of agents time. Also, many of these activities are paid for by departments at Virginia Tech on a direct-cost basis. - It would be a good idea to look at opportunities for expanding the role of Extension offices by categories, distinguishing between programs and activities and between opportunities that requires new funding and those that would require a shift in existing funding. Deb Williams: - The Commission needs to be educated in the job responsibilities of Extension agents. - The fact that the University now has one division where there was two before makes the issue of funding for activities in the Extension offices rather fuzzy. She will look into this question and report to the Commission at its next meeting. - For now, the Commission should simply make a list of potential roles for the Extension offices and evaluate the merits of each one, and worry about the funding question later. Linda Leffel: - In 1989, the University undertook a study of the integration of outreach efforts and the Extension offices. She recommended a review of this report by the Commission. - She suggested that the Commission should define the roles that it wants the Extension offices to play, then look into the issue of resources. Patrick Liverpool supported this idea but added that the Commission should also study the needs and desires of the customers of the University s outreach activities - In response to a question from William Swecker about the use of faculty for extension programs on a pro bono basis, she explained that there is a continuing education policy that explains how revenues for such programs should be shared with the faculty. - Bill Stephenson in the Engineering College has led a task force to try to coordinate the rewards for faculty participation in Extension and Continuing Education. - In response to another question from William Swecker about the distinction between consulting and continuing education, Linda said that, in some instances, there may not be a clear distinction between these two activities, but the Continuing Education Division has a mechanism for judging if an activity is to be considered consulting or continuing education. Jim Bowen: - Extension is a popular instituition and should be able to secure funds for worthwhile activities. - Many of the suggestions for new activities carried out by the Extension offices are secretarial activities or tasks that do not require agents time. Therefore, funding conflicts should not be a major issue. Bill Mashburn: - Whatever Extension does in the field, its activities ideally should be an extension of some on-campus working group. The rewards system for faculty do not promote the integration of faculty efforts with extension work. - Plans for Extension should include expansion of Extension into services for industry support, not just for support of agriculture. Brenda Olafsen: - Many Commission members are not aware of what goes on at an Extension field office. It might be a good idea to hold a Commission meeting at one of these offices. This would allow Commission members to recognize that the offices experience heavy traffic. The offices do far more than answer phone calls or function as a place for citizens to pick up brochures. 6. Discussion of the provost search Ralph Badinelli told the Commission that he had not received any response to his request for questions to put to candidates for the provost position. This request stemmed from the Commission s concern, expressed at the September meeting, for the value that a new provost would place on outreach activities. Bill Swecker asked why we need to make a special effort to make sure that the outreach mission of the University is raised in the interviews for the provost. Linda Leffel and Ralph Badinelli responded that, historically, outreach efforts by the faculty were under-rewarded, and did not receive the respect and acceptance of other missions of the University. Gregory Brown stated that the deans will have an opportunity to interview candidates for the provost s job, but that, in doing so, they will focus on administrative and funding issues. Faculty must have some input to reflect concerns of faculty as opposed to those of administrators. While the administrators will discuss process, structure and funding they may not elicit a candidates view on value and direction of the three missions of the University. Heather Pert suggested that the Commission define extension and outreach and communicate this definition to the Search Committee. Deb Williams revised this suggestion to that of asking each candidate to articulate his/her definition of the role of Extension/Public Service in the university, and Commonwealth. The meeting adjourned at 2:35. The next meeting will be held on Monday, November 14, at 3:00 pm in 400D Burruss.