Faculty Assembly
THE FACULTY ASSEMBLY
THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY IN VIRGINIA:
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 3:33pm with 19 members present.
The minutes of the meeting of May 9, 2000 were approved.
I. Administrative Reports
A. Report from Vice President Sam Jones on Parking:
Vice President Jones presented a report on the parking situation at the College.
He began by distributing a map which indicated parking usage during a typical
weekday at the College; not surprisingly, this document confirmed that most
lots are at full capacity and that additional parking space is desperately needed.
The Vice President then described both the short-term and long-term efforts
that are underway to remedy the parking situation. He stated that some additional
spaces were already added, particularly in the lot next to Facilities Management,
and that options for expanding the number of parking spaces on new campus was
also underway. Several new internal bus routes have been put into operation
as well. Perhaps most importantly, the College is in the final stages of hiring
an architect for the construction of a parking deck near William and Mary Hall;
this facility will add between 500 to 600 new spaces. He also noted that 7.3
million dollars has been authorized for the construction of this parking deck.
The report from the Vice President was followed by questions and comments from the floor. One of the major issues of discussion was the possibility that the price of a parking permit would double for next year. There was widespread concern that this was an extraordinarily high amount to ask, for example, the housekeeping staff to pay for parking. Sam Jones confirmed that it was likely that the fees would rise to $165 to $170 per year, but he also stated that no decision was made regarding the manner in which to distribute this cost. Several options were then discussed including: different prices based upon the location of the space; parking rates adjusted for income level; raising rates on the second car in a given family; reducing the number of student spaces in the central part of campus; altering the size of the spaces; charging by the size of the vehicle; enlarging the boundaries of the actual parking lots; investigating the possible whimsical enforcement of parking regulations.
The discussion concluded with general agreement that there must be some type of long term plan for the parking situation at the College and that it is important the those making the policy decisions seek input from faculty, staff and students prior to any decisions.
Vice President Jones stated that input was welcome and would be sought. He stated that it was imperative that the parking pressure be relieved and that there is no inexpensive way to accomplish this. However assembly members were assured that if there were no reasonable bids (~7.3 million dollars) for the parking deck, this option would be reconsidered. He stated that other options, such as the rental of off-campus parking (e.g. in Colonial Williamsburg), were also being investigated. He closed with the assurance that members of the Faculty Assembly would have access to the consultant's report if they so desired.
B. Report from Provost Cell on "William and Mary 2010":
Provost Cell began by thanking assembly members for their helpful comments on
the earlier drafts of the William and Mary 2010 document. She stated that the
current version was substantially revised from the earlier version on the basis
of these comments. The Provost then distributed the final version (26 September
2000) along with a cover letter to make it as clear as possible what the document
is and what it is not. The Provost briefly summarized the content of the cover
letter. She emphasized that is a purely internal document specifically drafted
for the faculty but will be used in meetings with selected staff and students.
It is not a case statement for the campaign but simply a report on the conversation
that has taken place thus far with the external community of alumni. Nor is
it a comprehensive list of the priorities of the College for the upcoming campaign;
it was never intended to be list of every priority. Just because the needs of
graduate schools and other schools are not prominently discussed in the document
does not mean they will not be included the campaign. The document will be made
available on the WEB so that it can be discussed by the separate faculties but
will not be represented as a document approved by the Faculty Assembly. The
Provost assured members of the assembly that any written or oral comments received
over the course of the semester will be taken under serious consideration. The
Provost then took questions and comments from the floor.
Vice President Colleen Kennedy began by expressing appreciation for the fact that so many of the suggestions offered by the Faculty Assembly were incorporated into the revised document. This view was echoed by other Assembly members.
Comments and questions regarding specific aspects of the document followed. These included the following points:
- On p.12 , "faculty digital centers (social and life sciences)" is cited as a specific need. The question was asked as to why only the social and life sciences were included. The response was that such a center already existed for the humanities in Blair Hall and that this list was not meant to be a comprehensive list.
- On p.11, a "Faculty Commons/Center" was listed as an initiative and the question was asked as to what exactly this entailed. The Provost responded that this was simply a faculty "drop-in" space, a room with a coffee pot to be used for meetings or seminars.
- The comment was made that "Initiative Q" was already completed and "Initiative P" was half completed. This was confirmed by the Provost.
- Clarification on the "Intellectual Property Policy" (p. 25) was requested. The Provost responded that the goal of this policy was to develop a policy that would assist those faculty members seeking patents, a policy that would result in the College becoming more proactive in this process.
- A question was also raised as to why it was important to fund needy students to study abroad, in effect, why students were "better off away from us."
- A major concern was raised as to why this document focused primarily on undergraduate education. The Provost responded that this is attributable to the nature of the document. The President asked the external constituencies to share their vison of the future of this college. Given that the majority of the alumni were undergraduates at the College, the overwhelming majority of responses were also related to undergraduate education. The Provost reiterated that the document is not a list of priorities for the College, but simply a report of what happened when the President asked the external constituencies for their view of College's future. She assured the Assembly that there are other documents from the schools (as well as from Arts and Sciences) and that all of these will be taken into account when setting the priorities for the campaign.
- The question then arose as to when the College will set its priorities for this campaign. The Provost responded that this would be done next semester, with the assistance of the new Development Officer and with input from the various faculties. David Lutzer stated that we were pleased to be consulted for the 2010 document; he hoped that the faculty would continue to play a significant role in setting priorities, not just as another constituency equal to others, but as a critical player in this process. Dean Feiss commented that this is a working document that needs to be (and will be) blended with other documents such as the strategic planning document.
- A question (and discussion) arose as to the meaning of the term "public good." The Provost responded that it generally meant that the College encourages its students, faculty and staff to be active participating citizens.
- Concern was expressed by Colleen Kennedy that Initiatives A-H and Initiative K might be dropped in subsequent versions. The Provost assured the Faculty Assembly that, although certain difficult decisions would have to be made about priorities, these initiatives would remain.
The discussion concluded with a statement by the Provost regarding procedure for further comment. She stated that the document would be posted on the Web sites of all the schools for further discussion by the individual faculties. She stated that the Faculty Assembly had "carte blanche" for eliciting further comments and suggestions from the faculty. This included encouraging individual committees to comment on specific parts that are relevant to the charge of those committees.
C. Provost Cell : Report on Proposed Budget Amendments
Provost Cell then presented a brief statement on the proposed budget amendments
being submitted to Richmond. (Given that it is the "off year" of the
biennium, only budget amendments, not major funding initiatives, can be proposed).
Statewide issues, that is, those being pursued by the Council of University
Presidents, include: faculty salaries; staff salaries; and student financial
aid. In terms of faculty salaries, the recommendation will be for a 4.4% increase
which will hopefully place the College at the 60% level of our peer institutions.
Five operating amendments are also being requested; including a 3.2% increase in the operating budget and funding for ERP Systems implementation; economic development/workforce training; base operating support; K-12 Teacher Support; and Discovery Center. All of these initiatives are repeats of items proposed last year. Finally, one capital amendment was proposed namely planning money for the renovation and expansion of Rogers Hall.
II. New Business
George Greenia presented a brief summary of the meeting of the Faculty senate of Virginia, Faculty Leaders Meeting that took place on September 23, 2000. Several issues that pertained specifically to the College of William and Mary were discussed. It was urged that the faculty assembly of W&M should individually and collectively lobby the General Assembly representatives for passage of the bill to include a faculty representative on the BOV. He also reported on plans to have the faculty merit raises begin with the start of the fiscal year. Institutional Performance Assessments were also discussed and he advised that when (and if) W&M's turn arose, the Faculty Assembly should be involved. Finally, he reported on a discussion of domestic partner benefits; the senate requested that a plan of action be presented at the next regular meeting.
On behalf of the Assembly members, President Bill O'Connell thanked Katherine Kulick for her well received presentation to the BOV; not only was it well received by the BOV, but it received coverage in the Daily Press.
A question was raised as to whether the janitorial staff was generally hired on a part-time basis and was therefore not eligible for benefits. This could require them to hold down two jobs and make it difficult to be effective in their jobs at the College. The issues was referred to the Executive Committee for further investigation.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:25pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Margaret Saha
Secretary
