University Council Minutes, April 7, 1997 Present: D. Stetler (for B. Bates), D. Smith (for G. Brown), L. Cross, E. Holford, P. Edwards, P. Eyre, D. Kenney (for E. Hitchingham), D. Yardley (for J. Johnson), P. Meszaros, C. Nickerson, L. Peters, M. Ridenour, R. Smoot, R. Sorensen, C. Steger, F. W. Stephenson, A. Swiger, T. Tillar, P. Torgersen, J. Aughenbaugh, B. Ley, J. McKenna, J. Seiler, M. Smith, N. Spencer, T. Swecker, B. Dyck, C. Goodsell, R. Goss, S. Pleasant (for K. pelzer), A. Snoke (for B. Benoit), C. Carrig, R. Daniel, T. Sherman, P. Shires, N. Shumsky, B. Benoit, D. deWolf, F. Gwazdauskas, T. Head, N. Phillips, P. Scanlon, J. Yardley, K. Burke (by phone), G. Johns, T. Lawrence, M. Norstedt, C. Couples, and S. Schneider (for J. Hulings). Guests: P. Hyer, Provost Office; M. Denbow, Commission on Undergraduate Studies & Policies; J. Fulton, Provost's Office; P. Metz, Faculty Senate; M. Harrington, Institutional Research; W. David Conn, Provost's Office; D. Shelton, Budget Office; M. Lambur, CFE. 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 March 17, 1997 Dr. Torgersen noted that the minutes from the March 17, 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. Opening remarks by Dr. Torgersen: Dr. Torgersen began the meeting by noting that since there was no new business, he would take a few moments to speak about several issues of interest. He introduced Ms. Carole Nickerson, executive assistant to the president, and explained that she would clarify the "quorum" issue that had been raised at the previous meeting. Ms. Nickerson explained that the University Council Constitution and Bylaws, by design, were silent on the issue of quorum. She explained that ours is a "default system" which carries the automatic assumption, according to parliamentary law, is that a quorum is one-half plus one of the members. Ms. Nickerson pointed out that the "half plus one" is typically observed at institutions such as ours where there is a value of generous input opportunities and of consensus. Dr. Frank Gwazdauskas explained that he had raised the question because he was concerned that some of the commissions were pushing items of business through the system with a quarter (or less) of its members being present for voting. Dr. Pat Hyer added that quorum voting is not an issue unless someone raises a question and makes it an issue. Ms. Nickerson responded that Sturgis, our parliamentary guide, prescribes that a quorum issue must be raised at the time of a vote or at the time a meeting is called to order, and if it is not raised at that time, it cannot be raised later. After a discussion concerning commissions doing business without a quorum being present, the consensus was that commission chairpersons work diligently to ensure that the majority of members will be present for meetings. Next Dr. Torgersen informed Council members about the large numbers of alumni and friends on campus for Founders Week and how supportive they were of the university. Dr. Torgersen passed around an interesting editorial from the Lexington Herald Leader - the hometown paper of the University of Kentucky. He summarized the article, "Virginia Tech - a model for ascent: An example for UK to follow," as follows: · Virginia Tech has a modest sustained increase in research development - $148 million to research, ranked 47th nationally--compared to UK's $114 million for research and a ranking of 66. · Virginia Tech has expanded and diversified its graduate programs - Tech confers 370 doctoral degrees, UK confers 236. · Virginia Tech has an academically strong undergraduate student body drawn from all sectors of the state. The average freshmen SATs are 1160; thus Virginia Tech has become an attractive choice for high school seniors from Virginia and surrounding states. · Virginia Tech has a nationally acclaimed presence in technology. The Blacksburg Electronic Village has been praised for having expanded the university's electronic interest to the entire community. · Virginia Tech warrants attention because it has, like UK, long-term strengths in such fields as engineering, agriculture, architecture, and applied sciences. More surprisingly, in the past two decades Virginia Tech has been strong in such fields as economics, English, math, computer science, sociology, biology, and education. · University of Kentucky can learn from Virginia Tech's motto "Ut Prosim" translated "That I May Serve." · UK can learn from Virginia Tech how to nurture an excellent and complete university true to its land-grant charter. 4. Second Reading, Commission on Undergraduate Studies and Policies Resolution 1996-1997B: Change in Scheduling M, W, F Classes Dr. John Seiler, commission chair, presented Commission on Undergraduate Studies and Policies Resolution 1996-1997B: Change in Scheduling M, W, F Classes, for second reading. He began by summarizing the facts that had been previously presented: the distance between many of the buildings cannot be traveled in ten minutes; approximately 85 percent of the students polled cited distance as a problem; some departments have as many as 75 percent of their students impacted by back-to-back classes; about 5 percent of the overall student population has at least one of these building combinations; it appears that better scheduling is not going to be accomplished by adding another constraint to the system--in fact adding another constraint to the system will just increase the amount of students not getting to their classes on time; due to Tuesday and Thursday classes we already have two-fifths of the week not on the hour/half hour; and services like the Blacksburg Transit will not have to change their schedule. Dr. Seiler pointed out that he was aware of many different polls being conducted, some conducted in a vacuum, some involving biased questions, some with incomplete data being presented, and in some cases, the complete faculty body within a college were not polled. After a lengthy discussion of pros and cons, and after several alternate suggestions, friendly amendments and motions were presented, Council members accepted and voted upon a friendly amendment provided by Dr. P. Scanlon. The friendly amendment makes the resolution less specific, and the new wording is "THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the ten-minute break between classes scheduled Monday, Wednesday, and Friday should be changed to fifteen minutes for classes scheduled prior to 5:30 p.m." The motion was voted on and passed. 5. Second Reading, Resolution Regarding University Council Communications and Relevant Bylaw Changes. (Passage requires approval of majority of Council members.) Dr. Paul Metz, president of the Faculty Senate, presented Resolution Regarding University Council Communications and Relevant Bylaw Changes for second reading. He reminded Council that this resolution is designed to institutionalize modifications born out of concerns raised by the previous Faculty Senate. These modifications include: providing agenda-setting meetings among the commission chairs, President, and Provost at the beginning of each semester to alert and coordinate specific items of commission concerns; increasing awareness among UCOUNCIL members and other commission members about concerns; ranking the ordering of substantive discussion topics for UCOUNCIL; providing commission chairs the opportunity to report their commissions' activities/interests/concerns during the "commission minutes" presentation of UCOUNCIL; and communicating UCOUNCIL progress on specific business items through greater use of the Spectrum and Worldwide Web. Dr. Metz noted that this resolution will formally institutionalize improvements in UCOUNCIL this year, due in large part to Ms. Carole Nickerson's initiatives. The motion was voted on and passed. 6. Second Reading, Commission on Faculty Affairs Resolution 1996-97A: Professional Ethics. (Returns from referral of March 17, 1997). Dr. Pat Hyer presented Commission on Faculty Affairs Resolution 1996-97A: Professional Ethics for second reading after its referral of March 17, 1997. Dr. Hyer explained that the Commission on Administrative and Professional Faculty Affairs had requested a referral of this resolution for the purpose of further discussion. She explained that CAPFA members were agreed that administrative and professional faculty's ethical behavior should be covered by this policy. Editorial revisions reflect the role of the Faculty Ethics Committee, what their charge and composition is, and prescribe which matters would or would not go to said committee. Matters that are normally addressed by an administrative officer or supervisor would not go to Ethics; also complaints concerning personnel actions taken by a supervisor are normally handled by the appropriate grievance procedure and are not meant to go to Faculty Ethics Committee unless a specific ethical issue or problem is developed by those proceedings. Regarding Faculty Ethics Committee membership, in the case of an A/P faculty member being charged with a violation, the committee that would hear such a violation would be composed of five A/P faculty members and, if the commission chairperson chose, he/she would ask for an experienced member of the other body to join and aid in the deliberation. Dr. Hyer pointed out that the principles remain unchanged from the first reading and only editorial changes to Section 1.5.3. are being presented. The motion was voted on and passed. 7. Second Reading, Commission on Graduate Studies and Policy Resolution 1996-97A: 5974 and 5984 Hour Limits on the Plan of Study. (Returns from deferral effective February 17, 1997.) Dr. Bill Ley, chairperson of the Commission on Graduate Studies and Policies, withdrew Resolution 1996-97A: 5974 and 5984 Hour Limits on the Plan of Study. 8. Commission on Student Affairs Resolution 96-97A: Availability and Circulation Enhancement of Library Resources. Deferred to April 22, 1997 UCOUNCIL Meeting. Deferred to the April 22, 1997 UCOUNCIL Meeting. 9. Council approved a packet of commission minutes comprised of: · Commission on Administrative and Professional Faculty Affairs, February 18, 1997. · Commission on Classified Staff Affairs, February 12, 1997. These minutes were deferred to a subsequent meeting since there was no CCSA representative at Council. · Commission on Faculty Affairs, February 28 and March 14, 1997. · Commission on Graduate Studies & Policies, February 18, 1997. · Commission on Outreach, March 18, 1997. · Commission on Research, March 12, 1997. · Commission on Student Affairs, March 12, 1997. · Commission on Undergraduate Studies and Policies, March 10, 1997. 10. Announcements · Dr. Torgersen introduced Dr. David Conn who reminded Council the Self Study "Must Statements" had been mailed to the entire UCOUNCIL body of the UCOUNCIL. He explained that at this point in the review process, Council members are being asked to check on the accuracy and completeness of the responses to the "must" statements, NOT to determine whether we are doing things correctly now or are doing them the way we would like to see them done, but whether the responses are accurately and completely describing what we are currently doing. Dr. Conn asked members to mail comments to Marcia Harrington, who, he noted, has done a fantastic job of coordinating this process. 11. Discussion/Question/Answer Forum Dr. Torgersen introduced Dr. Peggy Meszaros and Mr. Minnis Ridenour for a presentation on resource allocation processes. After distributing a handout, Mr. Ridenour explained that the university allocation process is a shared process where decisions are reached by the President, Provost, and himself, based on initiatives moving through the university with input from vice presidents, deans, and the Advisory Council on Strategic Budget & Planning. He pointed out that the Advisory Council on Strategic Budget and Planning, established by the University Council and linked to the Council by the sharing of its minutes, is a key part of the total resource allocation process. The Budget and Planning Council is charged with reviewing all the budget decisions whether annual, biannual or the six-year capital outlay proposal which is placed before the General Assembly, and it studies issues having to do with budget and planning decisions. This Council has representatives from every college in the university, SGA, GSA, staff senate, faculty senate, the library association, the administrative and professional faculty, extension, professional faculty on campus, representatives from central offices of the administration, a number of ex officio members, and is co-chaired by Peggy and himself. Mr. Ridenour explained that the Council meets at least twice monthly during the academic year, once a month during the summer months, and at critical times of the year, the Council meets as often as necessary to handle matters of budget crisis. Mr. Ridenour described how requests for resources are handled--each year a budget call goes out to the vice presidents and deans to identify resources needed for programs, and those requests are subsequently presented to the President, the Provost, and himself with input from the vice presidents, deans, and from the Council on Strategic Budget & Planning. Once allocation decisions are made, the budget goes to the Board of Visitors and subsequently resources are allocated. (We will be taking the budget for next year to the April BOV meeting.) At this time, the vice presidents and deans have the authority within their centers to make decisions (with the exception of line-item allocations such as faculty positions being allocated for specific colleges, departments, or technology). At this time, Dean Pat Edwards noted that this year she had not passed on budget requests within her college because she had not been solicited herself. Mr. Dwight Shelton, Budget Director, explained that the parameters for making budget calls are different this year. He pointed out that in the last three years, budget parameters have been different -- the first year was for reallocation where we did not have enough resources; last year there were additional resources to allocate; and this year we are basically flat. He explained that the normal process, on an annual basis, would call for a budget letter to go out to deans asking for input. Further explanation ensued regarding salary savings staying within the vice presidents' or the deans' discretion, as well as the fact that basically there is no money at the university to address issues because it has been allocated out except for a contingency fund (that we hold and roll forward each year to deal with emergencies). Most of the money we have received in the last several years at the General Assembly level has come to us earmarked, and we have very little discretion as to how that money can be used. In response to a question about the $10 million overage last year, Mr. Ridenour and Mr. Shelton explained that this was actually money that was not spent out by June 30 and was carried over by the Budget Responsibility Center. He explained that a plan had to be worked out for rolling over those dollars into the current year. He further explained that if a department did not spend all the monies allocated to it before June 30, a plan could be worked out where the Budget Office could carry that forward, and that a piece of equipment, for example, could be purchased after June 30. This is done by a procedure of trading dollars and budgets. If someone else has the need to pay for something or buy something that they can accelerate, we accelerate that payment; consequently there is no overage or shortage. Mr. Ridenour explained that while we try to provide year-end flexibility, long-term carryover in significant dollars beyond June 30 is risky business because dollars are appropriated to the university to be utilized within that specific year, and if dollars are moved beyond that year, there is a risk that they will be taken away. Dr. Peggy Meszaros reiterated the university's lack of flexibility, and suggested that it would be helpful for members of Council to share this handout with colleagues to foster better understanding of the budget/resource allocation process. (Dwight Shelton will use the electronic DDD list to distribute the handout.) Dr. Pat Hyer suggested that we alter the phrase "that every year there will be a call for budget input from the deans and vice presidents" since this phrase is misleading and may cause concern. In response to a question about the sprinkler system problem, Mr. Ridenour stated that all the auxiliaries must be, by state law, 100 percent self-supporting. Therefore, when political leaders talk about providing the resources to do the sprinkler system in the dorms, a cost of $5 million, what they are really saying to the university is that the university will have the opportunity to put in the sprinkler systems and to find the money to make it happen, even though it is being mandated. Mr. Ridenour pointed out that the problem with this is that we are unable to increase student fees, and we can't spend all of our reserves because of the interest lost, so basically in order to cover the loss, the cost MUST go back to the student. Dr. Torgersen adjourned the meeting at 4:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Carole Nickerson Executive Assistant to the President /bjl