University Council Minutes, February 17, 1997 Present: D. Stetler (for B. Bates), S. Yeagle (for L. Cross), E. Holford, P. Edwards, J. Johnson, C. Nickerson, M. Ridenour, J. Eversole (for R. Smoot), R. Sorensen, C. Steger, A. Swiger, T. Tillar, P. Torgersen, J. Aughenbaugh, B. Ley, J. McKenna, S. Allen (for V. Myers), J. Seiler, M. Smith, N. Spencer, T. Swecker, B. Dyck, C. Goodsell, N. Marriott, K Pelzer, T. Sherman, N. Shumsky, R. Daniel, D. deWolf, R. Goss, F. Gwazdauskas, R. Lalik, P. Scanlon, J. Yardley, K. Burke (by phone), T. Head, T. Lawrence, M. Norstedt, N. Phillips, C. Couples, K. McNinney, P. Dolezel, and C. Forstner. Guests: P. Hyer, Provost Office; S. Allen, Staff Senate; M. Lambur, Committee on Faculty Ethics; 1. Adoption of Agenda A motion was made and seconded to approve the agenda. The motion passed. 2. Announcement of approval and posting of Council Minutes of February 3, 1997. Dr. Torgersen noted that the minutes from the February 3, 1997 University Council meeting had been voted on and approved electronically. Once voted upon, University Council minutes can be publicly accessed on the Governance Information System of the GOPHER. 3. First Reading, Joint Resolution from the Commission on Undergraduate Studies and Policies 1996-97D and the Commission on Graduate Studies and Policies: Establishment of Schools. Dr. John Seiler presented Joint Resolution from the Commission on Undergraduate Studies and Policies 1996-97D and the Commission on Graduate Studies and Policies: Establishment of Schools for first reading. He began the presentation by introducing Dr. Pat Hyer, Associate Provost for Administration, who explained that this resolution was written on behalf of, and at the request of, the Board of Visitors. Dr. Hyer explained that at the time Virginia Tech sought and received approval from the Board of Visitors to establish two new schools, the School of the Arts and the School for Public and International Affairs, the Rector of the Board asked us to develop more implicit guidelines and a formal process for new schools. To accommodate this request, a task force chaired by Dr. Pat Edwards, and staffed by members from the Commission on Graduate Studies and Policies, Commission on Undergraduate Studies and Policies and Dr. Hyer was formed. Rather than starting from scratch, the task force actually utilized a study that Institutional Research had completed regarding the formation and rules other universities used in establishing schools. The resolution put forth today is a result of that study. Dr. Hyer explained that the difference between a school and a research center is that a school has a curriculum or programmatic focus whereas a research center has research and/or outreach as its mission. She pointed out that in attempting to be flexible, there may be varying levels of budgetary and administrative independence and those kinds of questions will be part of the proposal process negotiated throughout the proposal discussion. Dr. Hyer cited important criteria for the establishment of a school: 1) it must be consistent with the objectives of the university; 2) it generally consists of more than one department or unit; 3) it must have a critical mass of students and faculty; 4) must have a strong curricular programmatic justification; 5) a university benefit will be the result; and 5) there are unique features that make our current structure inappropriate, inflexible, unacceptable, and non-nurturing to the kind of relationship that would exist within the school. Dr. Hyer explained that the process would begin with a preproposal to identify if there is enough support to sustain the idea. Once it appears there is enough interest, a full proposal will be developed involving the departmental faculty, college curriculum committees, the deans, CGS&P AND CUS&P, University Council, the President, and the Board of Visitors. Dr. David deWolf inquired as to the meaning of Òcritical massÓ and who would make that official decision. Dr. Hyer responded that all the people involved in the review process would help decide that issue. She explained there needs to be a reason why the department structure is not working and is inadequate. Virginia Tech is not interested in proliferating administrative units so there must be justification to create a school - one of which is the critical mass - but there is no exact figure mind. Dr. Pat Edwards pointed out that Òcritical massÓ would depend on the goals of the school and that the number should remain flexible. Dr. deWolf expressed his concern that the wording, as it now stands, appeared to be very loose, and Dr. Edwards assured him that was the intention of the policy (in order to remain flexible). Dr. Torgersen encouraged Dr. Edwards and Dr. Hyer to provide a ÒsenseÓ of what a school looks like. Dr. Edwards explained that the School for Public and International Affairs (SPIA) is considered a ÒweakÓ school model because it has less authority inherent in the school and more authority inherent in the departments. The initial group is comprised of two departments, the Department of Architecture and Urban Studies and the Department of Public Administration and Policy and Urban Affairs and Planning. Additionally there are two participating departments in the College of Arts and Sciences (and other departments may join in later on). Dr. Edwards explained that not every faculty member in that department is necessarily involved; the school is governed by the department heads who form a committee with one person responsible for coordination. Dr. Edwards pointed out that this is a way of more efficiently engaging in teaching and research activities, but that all the degree programs are maintained within the colleges and departments that currently exist. Dr. Hyer continued by describing the School of the Arts as a much stronger model because administrative support and a division director already existed at the time of its conception. The purpose of the school was an attempt to coordinate the performance aspects of three departments, Music, Theater, and Arts, and to provide additional visibility, enhance fund raising efforts, help with grant proposals, enhance performance opportunities, curricular issues, and help attract students. In answer to a question regarding degree granting, Dr. Hyer pointed out that the degree granting authority lies within the departments. This proposal does not preclude the notion that a school could eventually award a degree but that degree process would be run through the governance process like any other process. Dr. Torgersen pointed out that although the BOV was initially not supportive of the ÒschoolÓ idea, it did agree to establish schools based on the stipulation that guidelines be established. He noted that a concern was expressed regarding ÒschoolsÓ becoming Òcolleges.Ó Dr. Terry Swecker wondered when it would be appropriate to merge similar departments versus creating a new school? Dr. Hyer explained that there would be different goals, and it would be a college level decision. She felt that a merger would address increased administrative efficiency whereas the establishment of a school would be designed to raise up the visibility of programs. Dr. Torgersen pointed out that typically the combining of two departments involves combining a degree program also. 4. First Reading, Commission on Research Resolution 96-97B: Policy on Animal Disposal. Dr. Mark Smith presented First Reading, Commission on Research Resolution 96-97B: Policy on Animal Disposal for first reading. He led the discussion by pointing out that Dr. Len Peters appointed a task force to create an animal disposal policy. Dr. Smith commended the task force for working in an efficient and timely manner toward the creation of such a policy, and pointed out that the new policy would serve as an umbrella policy for the entire university regarding the disposal of animals used for instruction, research, and/or for scholarly activities. He pointed out that the resolution basically acknowledges state and federal regulatory laws, animal use, the acquisition of animals, the source of animals, the adoption of animals, as well as the need for disposal of animals. Dr. Smith said the Commission on Research unanimously approved the resolution and it would serve as the framework for a second document, an administrative policy, providing the necessary implementation of details. Dr. Pat Scanlon reiterated that Virginia Tech must recognize the fact that we are in the animal care business and that it is important to introduce a policy statement into the governance system. Dr. Marilyn Norstedt suggested an editorial change that would make certain phrases easier to understand. 5. First Reading, Commission on Graduate Studies and Policy Resolution 1996-97A: 5974 and 5984 Hour Limits on the Plan of Study. Dr. Bill Ley presented Commission on Graduate Studies and Policy Resolution 1996-97A: 5974 and 5984 Hour Limits on the Plan of Study for first reading. Dr. Ley explained that this resolution grew out of a Graduate School concern that a number of courses, originally designed as Special Studies in the 5984 category, turned into regular courses throughout Ph.D. plans of study and that the credit hours, currently set at six hours for masterÕs and nine for Ph.D., were potentially too restrictive. A second concern spoke to the quality of the educational experience with respect to 5974, Independent Study, use might have been too liberal. Having reviewed all the factors, the Degree Requirements Committee presented this resolution which has been adopted by the CGS&P with the intent to limit the number of hours for independent study and to expand the available credit hours for masterÕs students to a total of six out of nine and similarly for the Ph.D. program. Dr. Torgersen noted a conflict in timing because the resolution states that a plan of study must comply with the new requirements by January 13, 1997 even though the resolution has been presented to Council on February 17, 1997 for the first time. Dr. Richard Sorensen expressed concern that some college academic programs may have a greater number of listed courses and find from time to time that they actually want to use the independent study without necessarily going through the development of a new course proposal. Dr. Sorensen said that since the current policy requires the faculty membersÕ approval, the college administrative approval, as well as the approval of the Graduate School, he find it hard to understand why this would be considered inadequate to provide structure to the graduate programs. Even though Dr. Sorensen understands the reason to provide restriction, he is concerned that approval of the new policy will direct the focus toward developing separate courses where currently individual independent studies might adequately meet the needs of a particular academic degree program. There could actually be pressure to lean toward proliferation of additional courses when they might not be in the best interest of the university. Dr. Sorensen offered this concern so that others might be able to think about the issue before it is brought to a vote at the proper time. It was suggested that an editorial change be made to more clearly state the required combination of hours. Dr. Tom Sherman questioned what CGS&P considered too many independent studies. Dr. Ley pointed out that presently a total of 6 hours of independent study could be allowed for a masterÕs degree program and some felt that was an excessive number of hours for an unstructured, unformatted type of educational experience. This explanation brought up another question regarding the definition of Òunstructured experiences.Ó It was pointed out that where small departments are concerned, an independent study could offer a channel to pursue material they wouldnÕt otherwise fit into a plan of study. Dr. Ley said this had been considered by the commission and the commission felt although independent studies did have their place, the current hours were excessive. Dr. Pat Edwards asked for an explanation of Òexcessive.Ó She thought limiting these hours would diminish the flexibility of graduate programs and therefore she would be opposed unless some rationale could be presented. In response to her query, Dr. David deWolf mentioned that in some cases the independent study option is often chosen by graduate students to sneak in a research hour that wonÕt fit in otherwise and that upon being denied that option, they often camouflage the independent study unit as a sequel to a nonexisting course. Further debate will occur at the next UCOUNCIL meeting. 6. Second Reading, Commission on Faculty Affairs Resolution 1996-97A: Professional Ethics. Dr. Mike Lambur presented Commission on Faculty Affairs Resolution 1996-97A: Professional Ethics for second reading. Dr. Lambur stated that subsequent to suggestions at the first reading, certain editorial changes had been accomplished including defining the duties of the Ethics Committee more specifically and earlier in the document. Dr. Lambur also pointed out that a meeting has been arranged with the Executive Vice President and his staff to alleviate some of their concerns. Mr. Ridenour reiterated that concerns were expressed by members of his staff who would be affected by this policy but who have not had the opportunity to review it or have input. Dr. Torgersen introduced Ms. Kay Burke, Amelia County Extension Agent, who visits each UCOUNCIL meeting via our teleconferencing equipment. Ms. Burke expressed concern that when resolutions are brought forth it is important to make sure that all faculty who might be affected by it are taken into consideration and are fully informed of the changes. Ms. Burke said that as a representative of the field extension faculty, she knows that very few of the faculty, unless they are serving on a commission, are aware of this policy. At this point, Dr. Torgersen quoted Ò....when the allegation is against an administrative or professional faculty member without tenure or continued appointment, the committee shall compose a special panel of five members: the chair or an experienced designee from CFE, one additional CFE member, and three administrative and professional faculty members chosen from among members of the Commission on Administrative and Professional Faculty Affairs (CAPFA) by the chair of this Commission.Ó He asked if everyone understood this section and if it was acceptable. Dr. Pat Hyer interjected that the language should read Òthree members chosen from among the administrative and professional faculty,Ó not Òfrom among members of the Commission on Administrative and Professional Faculty Affairs....Ó Conversation followed that indicated this section needs to be rewritten so that it is clearly understood that when choosing AP faculty members to serve on the Ethics Committee, the members should be chosen from among the broad and general administrative & professional staff. A deferment of one month was voted upon after Dr. Steger observed that the presentation of the resolution to the EVP staff would occur after UCOUNCIL voted today, as would further clarification to the field extension agent constituency. Dialogue will continue at the next UCOUNCIL meeting. 7. Second Reading, Joint Resolution, Commission on Classified Staff Affairs Resolution 96-97B and Commission on Faculty Affairs Resolution 96-97B: Accommodation of Disabilities. Dr. Elyzabeth Holford presented Joint Resolution, Commission on Classified Staff Affairs Resolution 96-97B and Commission on Faculty Affairs Resolution 96-97B: Accommodation of Disabilities for second reading. Dr. Holford reminded Council that at the first reading she explained that this resolution was not the creation of any new commitment nor responsibilities but merely the expression of our current commitment. She explained that the reasons for presenting this resolution were twofold: 1) it is the right thing to do according to federal law; and 2) we must have an umbrella policy in place when we are audited by federal agencies. Dr. Jim McKenna, chairperson of Commission on Faculty Affairs, noted that CFA has approved this resolution but there are concerns regarding faculty responsibilities in the implementation of the policy. Mr. Spencer Allen, chairperson of Commission on Classified Staff Affairs, stated that members of CCSA have similar questions and concerns. Dr. Holford assured members of Council that the university as a whole has a shared responsibility. She pointed out that the university has various structures to assist in accommodations of disabilities; there is no one department head or one person with total responsibility for implementation of the policy. Dr. Holford agreed that it would be a good idea to inform the university population of not only the services that are provided, but the type of issues we address and the ways we go about it. Dr. McKenna and Mr. Allen agreed that their commissions would find this most helpful. The resolution was voted upon and passed. 8. Council approved a packet of commission minutes comprised of: · Commission on Classified Staff Affairs, January 8, 1997. Mr. Spencer Allen presented the minutes in lieu of Ms. Valerie Myers. · Commission on Graduate Studies and Policies, January 15, 1997. Regarding the recent dialogue about the upcoming dramatic reduction in serial budget funding, concern was expressed over the lack of a University Library Committee report and update. Dr. Ley explained that there was no report because Dr. Hitchingham had not been available at the January 15 meeting, but a recent update on the budget issue indicates it is not as ominuous as once thought.. · Commission on Research, January 22, 1997. · Commission on Undergraduate Studies and Policies, January 27, 1997. 9. Announcements · University Advisory Council on Strategic Budgeting and Planning Minutes, December 5, 1996 were presented for information only. 10. Discussion/Question/Answer Forum Dr. Torgersen pointed out that our relations with the administration in Richmond are critical to the future of the University. He mentioned that we also have an interest in our relationship with the Federal Government, and through the efforts of Mr. Ralph Byers, we recently hosted a reception for the 11 congressmen who represent the Commonwealth, as well as the two senators and their aides. Some Virginia Tech people attended as well as a number of our alumni. Dr. Torgersen said the turnout was very high and provided him the opportunity to speak about the university. Dr. Torgersen identified the three Virginia Tech personnel who spend the most time in Richmond as: 1) Mr. Minnis Ridenour, who in addition to other duties, spends a great deal of time working with the administration and its staff in both the House of Delegates and the Senate; 2) Dr. Torgersen who spends a great deal of time individually visiting legislators and when the time is right visiting with specific groups; and 3) Mr. Ralph Byers who coordinates all of our governance relations efforts, both on- and off-campus. Mr. Byers passed out handouts which provided the following overview of General Assembly Session: 1) Background; 2) General Assembly actions; 3) Prospects for future revenue increases for higher education; 4) issues in General Assembly; and 5) Prospects for the coming year. As he delved into each of these areas, Mr. Byers pointed out the good news that the two major items Virginia Tech requested, faculty salary increases and money for the Information Technology Building, were successful endeavors. The less-than-good news was directed towards salary increases for administrative and professional faculty (including extension agents). The argument supporting faculty receiving higher salary adjustments is that teaching and research faculty are peer calibrated and administrators are not. Regarding the observation that classified staff salaries are approximately 10-15 percent behind the private sector, Mr. Byers pointed out that one of Virginia TechÕs alums, P. C. Shields, is a lobbyist for the Virginia Government Employees Association and we keep in close touch with him. Mr. Byers explained that faculty salaries are budgeted into each university budget, but classified staff increases are budgeted centrally and looked at across the entire state employee work force. Mr. Minnis Ridenour explained that lack of additional money from the General Assembly was not unexpected because traditionally the second year of a two-year biennium budget receives less than the first year. He reiterated the importance of the General Assembly continuing to support the concept of returning faculty salaries (over a four-year period) to the 60th percentile of our benchmark group. Mr. Ridenour pointed out that if you study the following trend, it is easy to see why we are not getting ahead: 1) in the early 60s and 70s higher education received tremendous increases in terms of general fund growth; 2) in 1991, during the period of all the budget reductions, we were down to a negative growth; and 3) now revenues have leveled off to approximately 4-5 percent increase at the state level. He pointed out that without a major tax adjustment, and with all the different groups competing for their share, there is no way to get additional general fund money. In addition to this problem, we, like many other states, have pushed in- and out-of-state tuition to the maximum, so we cannot look for financial relief in that area. Mr. Ridenour stated that something must be done at the state level to alleviate this situation. When asked by a commission member what about the status of a tax increase, Mr. Byers stated that it would be very unlikely to see that as one of the upcoming campaign issues. Even though the leadership of the General Assembly is sympathetic to the plight of higher education, Governor Allen has made it clear that he would veto any attempt for a tax increase at this time. Dr. Torgersen pointed out that the Business Higher Education Council is already strategizing and preparing for the next General Assembly. Asked to comment on the Georgia tuition plan, Mr. Byers noted that Lt. Governor Byer and Attorney General Gilmore have had competing scholarship plans. The idea of providing scholarships is very popular nationwide and many politicians are getting on this bandwagon. The case in Georgia is different from ours, because they have a low college-going rate, where Virginia has an extremely high college-going rate. Massive scholarship programs will not help the institutions in terms of operating funds. Virginia is the 12th largest state and we have the 10th largest system of higher education, so the issues are different. Providing scholarships based on merit for students helps students and parents, but does not help higher education. We do not get additional operating money that way. We do need increased financial aid, but it should be need-based. Mr. Byers and Mr. Ridenour spoke to a particular item of interest -- the possibility of increased premium increases in Key Advantage due to premium holidays causing a loss of reserve necessary to support that program. Dr. Torgersen thanked everyone for their participation and adjourned the meeting at 4:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Carole Nickerson Executive Assistant to the President /bjl