MINUTES UC Jan 21 2005

							                                                                                                1


                            Minutes of University Council Meeting
                                  Friday, January 21, 2005

Members present: Tracie Baines, David Bejou, Donna Crawford, David Dussere, Sandra
Garner, Roberto Golfe, Randy Holmes, Murel Jones, Bethany Miller, Eddie N. Moore, Jr.,
Ernestine Newsome, Dirk Philipsen, Maxine Sample, W. Eric Thomas, Robert Turner

Member absent with notification: Harbans Bhardwaj

The meeting commenced at 3:10 in the Institute for the Study of Race Relations. Minutes for the
meeting of November 5, 2004 were approved with one amendment, requested by Cone in an e-
mail message. UC members present introduced themselves to Bethany Miller, graduate student
representative, who was attending her first meeting.

Reports from governing bodies were heard:

      Faculty Senate: Dussere reported that FS has met three times since the last UC
       meeting—on November 12, 2004, December 10, 2004, and January 14, 2005—and at
       each of these meetings, committee reports were the main focus. He went on to say that
       FS has formulated and discussed an evaluation instrument for faculty chairs;
       consideration of the instrument was tabled at the January 14 meeting and will be brought
       for a vote at the next FS meeting, January 28. It was also noted that the Virginia Higher
       Education Advocacy Day in Richmond, sponsored by AAUP and the Faculty Senate of
       Virginia, was a success. Sample added that FS of Virginia is concerned with HB 1726,
       which mandates that universities must post online the titles of textbooks to be used in
       courses and also that faculty members will not be allowed to take kickbacks from
       textbook publishers. As Sample noted, this component of the bill is based on the
       misconception that it is common for faculty members to receive kickbacks. Golfe added
       that Virginia 21 is also formulating a proposal to address student concerns about
       textbooks and about the practices of Follett.

      SGA: Golfe reported on an e-mail circulated from the president of the VSU Chapter of
       the NAACP, a matter on which Golfe had also reported to the BOV. The student who is
       NAACP Chapter president raised concerns in her e-mail about several matters, including
       the VSU One Card system, textbook prices, asbestos in the dorms, and use of the comp
       fee. As the Provost noted, this e-mail was sent to a number of addresses and then
       forwarded to more, ending up in the office of Secretary of Education, who contacted
       President Moore for comment. He also observed that the timing of the e-mail holds the
       potential for harm as the university seeks funding from General Assembly. The Provost
       also wondered whether a faculty member (or members) had played a role in the student’s
       sending of the e-mail. It was noted that although some student members of the VSU
       chapter of NAACP were aware of the e-mail, the faculty advisor, Lucious Edwards, was
       not. Golfe indicated that SGA had not been notified of any of the concerns raised in the
       e-mail, nor had any effort been made prior to sending the e-mail to resolve the issues via
       communication with SGA, the faculty, or the administration. In addition, Golfe stated
       that when SGA learned of the e-mail, they contacted all named departments and learned
                                                                                                     2


       that most statements in the e-mail were false. Golfe said a meeting has been set up for
       next week with the sender of the e-mail and the Vice President for Student Affairs, to
       attempt to address the concerns expressed. UC members agreed that this way of dealing
       with the matter would probably be more effective than a more formal procedure such as
       bringing it to the UC Mediation Committee.

       The issue generated considerable discussion. As Philipsen stated, there is the issue of
       how to deal with this specific incident, but also of how to prevent it from happening
       again. Golfe noted that SGA meetings are open to all students, and thus SGA can act on
       behalf of student concerns; however, there is a problem of apathy and complacency
       among students. Jones observed that Student Activities uses annual retreats to inform
       student leaders of the procedures for solving problems and effecting change.

       Golfe raised one additional matter, stating that he plans to bring a proposal about
       eventual use of the annex building on Carter Woodson Drive that held books during the
       remodeling of Johnston Memorial Library. He stated there is an interest in having space
       for student activities and events. The Provost indicated that the building will in the near
       future be used for offices once the move-out for remodeling of Gandy Hall commences.

      Staff Senate: Garner reported that the discussions of SGA concerns about staff
       respectfulness have led to complaints among staff members about their treatment by
       students. The request was made for SGA to implore students to behave respectfully in
       their dealings with staff and faculty. Jones noted that Chairpersons have also expressed
       concerns about deportment and decorum among students and would like to see attention
       paid to emphasizing civil behavior at formal events. Golfe replied that he has given an
       address about what students need to know about life at VSU and also that he will try to
       set up a campus-wide meeting with all students about the topic of appropriate behavior.
       Newsome asked about why the University Success course, in which matters such as
       appropriate behavior were taken up, was dropped a number of years ago. It was noted
       that the General Education Committee of the Faculty Senate is currently working on
       reform and that such matters could be taken up there,

       Garner also reported that the scarf and glove drive by staff on behalf of students is
       continuing and that donated scarves and gloves can be given to any Staff Senate member.
       She also elaborated on the e-mail message received from Governor Warner about the
       tsunami relief effort, stating that checks should be made to CVC. She indicated as well
       that clearer criteria are being established for the employee of the quarter. Finally, she
       stated that after successful involvement last year, staff participation will resume this
       spring in the Junior Achievement program in several of the Petersburg Public Schools.

Reports from Standing Committees were heard:

      Communication and Program/Event Calendar Committee: No report was given.

      Joint Committee on Student Academic Life: No report was given.
                                                                                                    3


      Mediation Committee: No report was given, but Golfe, the Co-Chair who was present,
       was encouraged to meet with Ruffin, the other Co-Chair, to formulate membership of the
       committee as specified in the UC Constitution.

      Personnel, Compensation, Facilities and Services: No report was given. Holmes asked
       that the committee be charged with taking the lead in considering the role of Human
       Resources in the faculty hiring process.

      Strategic Planning, Budget Allocation, and Finance: Sample reported that Co-Chairs of
       the committee had met with Thomas and the Chair of FS Strategic Planning Committee
       on November 22, 2004 and had reached two conclusions: 1) that there is not a conflict
       between the UC/FS strategic planning committees and the University Planning Council in
       terms of shared governance, and 2) that the purview of the UC committee is not just
       strategic planning, that its full name is more accurate than its customary abbreviated
       name, and that each of the planning groups has its own planning area. Sample also
       distributed a draft of By-Laws that the committee had produced and requested that UC
       members read the draft and offer feedback by the time of the next UC meeting. Philipsen
       disagreed with the statement that there is not a conflict involving the UPC in the context
       of shared governance, citing the preamble of the Shared Governance document which
       specifies that shared governance supercedes/replaces earlier bodies, including the
       University Planning Council. Given the difference of opinion, it was reiterated that there
       is a need for a written charter for UPC, which the Provost has already been tasked with
       writing. UC members reached a consensus to give the Provost a deadline of February 21
       to produce the UPC charter document.

      University Outreach and Community Relations: No report was given.

      Executive Committee: No report was given.

Reports of the Vice Presidents were heard:

      Vice President of Academic and Student Affairs: Thomas reported on highlights of the
       BOV meeting yesterday and today. He said there was considerable discussion of VSU’s
       two foundations, the VSU Foundation and the VSU Real Estate Foundation, both of
       which are 501c3 foundations. He said there was also discussion of two upcoming
       institutional accreditations, NCATE (with a site visit in Fall 2005) and AACSB (with a
       site visit in Fall 2006). He stated as well that there was considerable discussion of the
       implementation of the Banner Software System, which will replace the current SIS/FRS.
       He indicated that the implementation is a large project that must be taken step by step,
       and that since the software is integrated, it will not be operational until the whole thing is
       in place. The current project plan involves a three-and-a-half year timeline, with a
       proposed completion deadline of December 2007. Dussere added that at the BOV
       meeting, Thomas, as Provost, had reported OIT is not working and that he is trying to fix
       it. Dussere also asked about the inclusion in NCATE accreditation of certain programs
       that have not been producing graduates. Thomas replied that the Virginia Department of
       Education has made it possible for VSU to develop recruitment plans for middle school
                                                                                                 4


       endorsement programs that were initially dropped from NCATE accreditation but now
       have been put back in under the Department of Education program.

      Vice President of Development: Turner reported that Development is ahead of last year’s
       pace in the annual fund but behind in the tuition assistance program. He also reported
       that the BOV had approved an endowment fund to be started in the name of Dr. Edgar
       Toppin, as well as an endowment for international education and a scholarship fund
       established in partnership with the Petersburg Redevelopment and Housing Authority.

      Vice President of Administration and Finance: Cone submitted a written report, and the
       President summarized its contents for UC members, noting that progress has been made
       in filling vacancies in Administration and Finance, that the remodeled library has been
       opened, that preparations are being made for the remodeling of Gandy Hall, and that the
       Governor’s amendments to the 2004-2006 biennial budget have been presented.

The President reported that the BOV is very interested in the proposal for a University of
Southside Virginia as well as in the proposal for charter institutions. He indicated that the
college and universities bringing the charter proposal have dominated the state’s agenda for
higher education, making it difficult for other important issues to be discussed. The President
also amended Dussere’s earlier statement by saying that OIT is not working well, and that an
assessment is to be given to the BOV at its April meeting. He stated that a new director for OIT
should bring better management. In response to questions from faculty members, it was pointed
out that classroom technology comes under LRC, not OIT, and the President asked the Provost to
make sure at the next meeting of deans that this is understood.

In a brief discussion of other business, it was noted that announcements about weather-related
university opening delays are not clear about class starting times and that they need to be.

The meeting adjourned at 5:20 PM.

Respectfully submitted,
Donna Crawford
Co-Chair, Communication and Program/Event Calendar Committee