Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes - April 23, 2021

Friday, April 23, 2021; 10:00 am – 12:00 noon
Zoom Virtual Meeting


Joel Hockensmith (chair), Ellen Bassett, Alan Beckenstein, Melody Bianchetto, Ari Blatt, Aaron Bloomfield, Aniko Bodroghkozy, Maite Brandt-Pearce, Brandon Butler, Donna Chen, Ming-jer Chen, Sylvia Chong, John Comazzi, Adam Daniel, Jennifer Davis, Linda Duska ,Maxim Engers, James Fitz-Gerald, Avik Ghosh, Peter Gray, Vanessa Gregg, Doug Grissom, Mark Haskins, Walter Heinecke, Ira Herbst, Janet Herman, Bob Hirosky, Jay Hirsh, Tish Jennings, Ann Kellams, Michael Kennedy, Jason Kerrigan, Kevin Lehmann, Elizabeth Magill, Carol Manning, Brett Marshall, Kirk Martini, Kim Brooks Mata, Benjamin Moses, Kathryn Neeley, Rob Patterson, James Ryan, James Savage, Jeri Seidman, Mircea Stan, Jerilyn Teahan, Mandy Turner, Nolan Wages, Sarah Ware


Joe Allen, Mike Citro, Edmond Dukes, David Feith, Maggie Harden, Donna Hearn, Melinda Poulter, Cynthia Reed, Julie Richardson, Chris Thom, Judith Thomas

Administrative Support: Ashley Ayers; a closed captioner

Meeting agenda:

  1. Convene and Call to Order - Chair Joel Hockensmith

  2. Executive Leadership Session: 10:00 a.m. – 10:45 a.m.

    1. President’s comments - Jim Ryan, President

    2. Financial/Budget perspectives

      1. J.J. Davis, EVP-COO

      2. Liz Magill, Provost

    3. Provost’s comments – Liz Magill, Provost

  3. Approve minutes 

    1. *FS 03/25/2021

  4. Committee Reports

    1. BOV – Past-Chair Bassett

    2. Academic Affairs – Cmte Chair Bloomfield

      1. Report

      2. Action Item - Discontinuation of the Ed.S degree in Administration and Supervision.

    3. EXCO

      1. Conflict of Interest Policy

        1. COI draft from RTS - posted

        2. EXCO approved by General Consent

      2. Open Access policy at UVa – FS Chair Hockensmith

        1. “Open Access” Document – posted

        2. EXCO approved by General Consent

    4. DEI – Cmte Chair Jennings

    5. BOV – Past-Chair Bassett

    6. Faculty Grievance – Cmte Chair Al-Samman OR Manning

    7. Policy – Cmte Chair Norton

    8. RTS  – Cmte Chair Hirosky OR Lehmann

    9. FRRRW – Cmte Chair Beckenstein OR Modesitt

    10. Finance – Cmte Chair Hallowell

  5. Committee Membership

  6. Other business

  7. Noon – Adjourn

“*” denotes items to be approved by “General Consent”. Dissent of a single Faculty Senate member sends the item to an “on line” vote by the full FS.

Meeting Notes:
Joel Hockensmith called meeting to order at 10:01am

Joel Hockensmith shared the following announcement that was distributed by email to all Faculty Senate members:

Impact of COVID: Maintaining Progress Towards Advancement
The Committee on Women In Medicine and Science is pleased to announce that Susan Pollart, MD, will be presenting the "Impact of COVID: Maintaining Progress Towards Advancement". on May 5 at 5:00 pm. We hope that you will join us for this timely talk.

Jim Ryan: thanks! Thanks to Joel for his leadership! Thanks to Faculty Senators! This body is a great resource.

Financial Overview, presented by JJ Davis and Liz Magill
JJ Davis:

  • Focus on academic budget.

  • State funding was not reduced, even though they planned for reduction.

  • Financial aid: need more to fulfill needs of students.

  • Financial status is due to hiring freeze, no compensation increase, budget cuts.

  • We came into pandemic with strong financial health. But 142 million dollars lost revenue in this FY; federal support to help with that that loss.

  • Is there additional stimulus funding: answer is “yes” – additional 30 million, in higher education emergency relief funds. Half is for students who need it; the other 15 million can be counted toward loss revenues. And they are also seeking additional funding from commonwealth, awaiting response.

  • BOV approved undergrad/graduate fees, room and board. Decision not to raise undergraduate tuition. Mandatory fees were increased – student wellness building, up and operational by summer. Small increase in room/board (food, electricity, utilities).

  • Capital plan: $1,297.1 under construction; $824.3 planned; $1,008.2 holding/deferred.

  • Debt management: triple-A rating from all three rating agencies. Only one of 4 public institutions with this rating.

Liz Magill:

  • Melody Bianchetto and Adam Daniel are both in this meeting.

  • University Financial Model – Responsibility Center Management (RCM) based model, decentralized (entrusts leaders to move local control of financial resources). In place since 2016.

  • Considering revisions to increase transparency and efficiency/predictability.

  • Strategic Investment Fund: from investment of UVA cash balances. Earnings are generated on an annual basis. SIF funding used to leverage philanthropy; matching funds. Endowed professorships, scholarship, research, infrastructure.

  • Grants and Contracts: slightly down since 2020, reflects effects of slowed down research efforts due to COVID. Most funding by SOM, then Engineering, Arts and Sciences, Education, Other. The outlook for sponsored research is uncertain, locally and nationally.

  • Faculty Salaries: regularly measured against peers. Not where we’d like to be: brought to the board. BOV endorsed making faculty salaries more competitive. COACH survey results to Board in June and the question of competitive faculty salaries will come up again in the June meeting.


  • Tish Jennings: is UVA doing anything to address disparities in impact of COVID on faculty; studies indicate that women have been impacted more?

  • Liz Magill: Maite – a faculty working group with suggestions made by Faculty Senate. Many suggestions need to be implemented on the school level, collecting impact statements on effects of COVID. Looking at two years of activity vs. one year, for annual review purposes. Tenure clock extended. Tracking renewals. Leave policy changed, better access to leave policies.  Study childcare issues/benefits. P&T Committee researching consequences of COVID on faculty productivity and life cycle. We will be thinking about impact of COVID for at least a decade, impact very varied. 

  • Maite Brandt-Pearce: if you have any concerns and questions, please contact me.

  • Joel Hockensmith: reminder that Susan Pollart is having a session on issues related to advancement for women.

  • Jim Savage: question about revising the University financial model, the split of allocation of resources: 70/30. This split incentivized departments to create majors and courses to attract students in the College. Any way to reform the split to bring it back to 50/50?

  • Liz Magill:  the split is on the table as something to be discussed. Our resources come from our mission; important to make visible in university community. The split is set to reward some entrepreneurial thinking. But we are looking at the algorithm.

  • Ben Moses: capital projects that have been funded and have been deferred. College at Wise – those projects deferred/adversely affected. Plan to address the issues supporting our rural students, patients, faculty.

  • JJ Davis: state decided not to fund but will be able to move forward. Overall support for College at Wise – has been beneficiary of funding; have helped discount COVID testing, have been working with them and helping them as they work through their financial issues.

  • Jim Ryan: part of the mission is to help Wise fulfill its mission. Approval for joint funding for nursing school. Wise’s biggest challenge is enrollment. Wait-list students could attend Wise and transfer in two years; changed to transfer after one year. 30 students attended Wise, some transferred/some stayed; this year, 60 students put down deposit to participate in the program. Appalachian Prosperity Project – in process of raising additional funding for this project.

  • Michael Kennedy: has there been discussion around UVA requiring vaccines for students and potentially staff, for returning in the fall?

  • Jim Ryan: yes, we are considering it. We’ve been focused first on students and trying to figure out if we can legally do it. Federal law, we are comfortable moving forward; state law is unclear, but attorney general’s office is going to issue guidance in the next week or so. We are positively inclined to required student vaccines.

  • Walt Heinecke: University’s commitment to low-income housing. It’s time for us to find out what RCM looks like from the point of view of faculty. Investigate the problematic aspects of it from a faculty perspective. Are there going to be opportunities to discuss resolutions other than a digital contextualization of Jefferson and statues?

  • Jim Ryan: next step in contextualizing process is for the working group to oversee the work. Might have to have subgroups for particular statues. There will be opportunities for others to participate. Open forum about Hume memorial.

  • Kevin Lehmann: the COVID vaccine should be required. Should not just be required for students. Should be universal requirement for all people on campus.

  • Liz Magill: students must be vaccinated but employees are not required. Employees in Health system are required to have a flu vaccine. Many make argument that they should be the same.

  • Joel Hockensmith: would it be helpful to the administration if Faculty Senate provided a resolution?

  • Jim Ryan: yes, that would be helpful.

  • Rob Patterson: are we required to create a hybrid? What requirement/accommodations for those who do not want to come to Grounds?

  • Liz Magill: the schools that are requiring vaccines: you have a choice but if you want to be here you must have a vaccine. They are being clear that they’re not offering the full selection of classes to those who are not going to be there in person. Issues for international students who cannot get to the US, thinking about what options will be offered for them. Trying to create partnerships for schools there – going to find a way to meet the needs of that population without requiring the difficult hybrid assumption. Assumption is in person, not hybrid.

  • Joel Hockensmith: if you want to vote on a proposal for requiring vaccines, this can come up under “other business” portion of the meeting.

Approval of Minutes from March 25 Full Faculty Senate Meeting

  • any changes or amendments?

  • None: Minutes approved by General Consent.

BOV report, presented by Ellen Bassett

  • Contextualization of the statues; passed a resolution to do digital contextualization of statues. Does adapting this resolution preclude the removal of the statues?

  • On Tuesday, April 13th, there was a special meeting of the BOV. The main purpose of the meeting was to deal with the question of tuition for the next academic year. This decision is normally made much earlier in the BOV’s schedule, but due to fluidity around the State of Virginia budget, it was delayed so as to take into account changes that might be made in state allocations to public universities.

  • The tuition question was not an easy one. In earlier meetings before the Faculty Senate, President Ryan has pointed to the tensions – a bad year not to raise tuition (if only for the costs that the university has incurred due to the pandemic) and a bad year to raise tuition (given the economic impacts of the pandemic on students and their families.) There was significant media coverage of this decision; the university’s analysis was also widely available.

  • The BOV voted to not raise tuition for undergraduate students; tuition for graduate students has been allowed to go up in keeping with the “market.” The range of those increases is from 0%-6.4%. Mandatory fees went up by $114, and room and board was raised by 2.3 to 2.7%.

  • One point in the discussion was, of course, the impact of this decision upon faculty salaries. In October 2013, the BOV passed a resolution to play nationally competitive faculty salaries. The goal set at that time was to move from 34th amongst AAU peer institutions into the top 20 by June 2017. We made some headway and in 2016-2017 we were 27th but by 2019-2020 we dropped to 30th. (See attached graphic.) This analysis probably understates the problem—as we all know that certain heavily endowed schools pay quite competitive salaries, whereas other units do not. (I assume this analysis is based on means, not medians, but I am unsure.) Suffice it to say, the administration is aware of this problem and remains committed to competitive faculty salaries, as does the BOV.

  • Lastly there was a motion passed to contextualize university statues and memorials through digital means. The BOV supported a recommendation from the Naming and Memorials Committee to commission a working group that would create an appropriate digital narrative with a “balances and fulsome history of the subject of each statue, as well as the sculptor.” This recommendation does extend to the Jefferson statue in front of the Rotunda

  • There was an interesting point raised by BOV member, Maurice Jones, as to whether this motion precluded removal of certain remaining statues (including one in the UVA cemetery to the Confederate Fallen.) It was decided that this decision did not preclude the removal of such a statue; it would be the focus of the committee’s deliberation, and if the committee voted to remove that would be presented to the BOV for approval.

  • If you wish to learn more about the meeting by watching it, UVA has a YouTube channel for the BOV. This meeting can be found at:

Academic Affairs. presented by Aaron Bloomfield

  • Discontinuation of the EdS degree in Administration and Supervision. Some were not being used anymore.

  • Approved by General Consent.

  • Other AAC actions were approved by General Consent electronically.

  • There were some committee concerns about the proposal and how it interacted with diversity

EXCO report, presented by Joel Hockensmith

  • Two “policies” Conflict of Interest and Open Access

COI draft:

  • EXCO passed by General Consent; discussion in Faculty Senate, followed by an online vote.

  • COI feedback, around the appearance of conflict of interest.

  • Statement: the distinction for being called to present expert testimony about a field, but not an individual, was what was lacking before. In my other committee work, often conflicted individual’s thinking that they are being helpful by bringing positive comments forward about and individual’s history of performance. What is often missed is that unless all candidates/grievants have that advantage, then this presents an inequity in the committee’s deliberations.

  • The COI draft will be put to a vote.

  • Policy has been sent to Provost Office.

Open access draft:

  • Would be up to university to establish those guidelines. Library has access to tools needed. But some things need to come along from administration.

  • Other institutions have progressed but UVa has stood still and has not had any action taken.

  • Document emanates from within UVA. Faculty objected to adopting other institution’s standards; wanted to have our own.

  • Ben Moses: is this the first time this is coming up in the current iteration of the Faculty Senate? Is this a modification or the first time?

  • Joel Hockensmith: this is the first time this document has been before the faculty senate.

  • Kevin Lehmann: feeling that it was a hybrid document. Partially an aspirational document but then there was a lot of detailed procedural text too.

  • Joel Hockensmith: The document on the screenis just the clean document. He previously provided additional context.

  • Walt Heinecke: in the committee process, did this draft go before the library committee? There is a group in the library working on open access? Was this seen by those in the library?

  • Joel Hockensmith: yes, Brandon Butler has seen the documents and served on the ad hoc committee.

  • Bob Hirosky: Kevin’s comments are fair and we did discuss the policy vs. the philosophy of the document. The framework is reasonable suggestions to start a conversation. Maybe add a sentence to specify that we are not providing policy but are providing suggestions. Ricky Patterson in the library is organizing a committee and are trying to get faculty to participate in discussions related to open access. This requires some investment to implement.

  • Joel Hockensmith: this is a hybrid document. It does say “guidelines and recommendations” on the title of the document.

  • Brandon Butler: infrastructure for making things accessible has been available in the library. It is available to accept. We would have to think about adding resources to support the implementation. The library would like to be a part of those conversations.

  • Joel Hockensmith: the Dean of the library, John Unsworth, has been in contact. And is supportive. What do we want as faculty, that is the question?

  • Sylvia Chong: this is the first time I have seen books included. In our department, we assumed it was journal access. Scholarly books are a different concern. University presses are under stress and don’t receive funding that journals do. Books have not been a traditional part of the conversation.

  • Brandon Butler: University council – attentive to the definition of scholarly works. Books are covered by that existing copyright policy. A drafting accident – those are the works covered by the policy, but you are correct, books are not a part of the conversation about open access of journals.

  • Joel Hockensmith: question from reviewers? Should we include blogs and other electronic things? These are examples? This is not an opt-in document. The 2010 document was an op-in document. This document is more of an opt-out document with a very specific clause. If you decide to opt out, you just complete a form – your dean doesn’t have the option to refuse it. You just complete a form, and you don’t mak the deposit. Idea is that we want to move toward. Not making a policy; making a documentation.

  • Sylvia Chong: if this is an opt out process, this might raise the hackles of those who write books. Books, documentary films. They have their own financial quandaries.

  • Joel Hockensmith: should it be amended; put to a vote?

  • Ellen Bassett: we should move forward. Possibly remove the mention of “book”

  • Joel Hockensmith: this is a motion that came from EXCO. We are in discussion phase. We can amend it. If passed by General Consent. If not agree, we could vote on the amendment with a subsequent vote on the document.

  • Bob Hirosky: establishes goals. Easy to read this as an aspirational document. Not requiring that any book be open access. Scholarly books and instructional books are very different. I am happy with the phrasing of this draft.

  • Kevin Lehmann: I oppose removing the word “books” – old publishing models are dying.

  • Jim Savage: incentive to do this? Is it financial?

  • Brandon Butler: a mix of financial and idealistic. Peer financial problem – prestigious commercially published journal content is very expensive. Makes it difficult for library to provide. But: this is a public mission that we have to spread knowledge. Knowledge is better spread if it is free. It is becoming increasingly important in the Academy to make information free.

  • Joel Hockensmith: already a decision made as to which journals we’ll subscribe to and which we won’t. Looking at limited subscriptions. Move toward having an open access policy. This document will continue to evolve.

  • Joel Hockensmith: amendments should be made now during this meeting.

  • Walt Heinecke: if this isn’t a policy, will the university press itself adopt a policy? Where does the policy reside?

  • Joel Hockensmith: if UVA decides to draft a polity it will have to go through the University Policy Committee, then Faculty Senate policy committee. We would see it again.  John Unsworth asked if the faculty favor or disfavor open access. Where do we stand?

  • Brandon Butler: UVA at level of the school or department to customize this approach and adopt it at the school or department level. Could customize it to your program.

  • Sylvia Chong: motion to strike the word book: I move to strike the word “book”. It muddies what we have previously understood as the financial stakes of Open Access. I’d rather have a future discussion on how to treat books.

  • Aniko Bodroghkozy: seconded the motion

  • Jim Savage: great motion; should consider books separately and have another discussion about the importance of books.

  • Joel Hockensmith read the amended statement: Examples included journal articles and papers. Does anyone object to amendment?

  • Kevin Lehmann: opposes the motion.

  • Bob Hirosky: these are examples. Should lean toward open source.

  • Joel will take the amendment and it will be voted on, online. Could not pass by General Consent. Nothing forces you to comply with this policy; it is an opt out policy.

  • Walt Heinecke: will P&T committees acknowledge these books as equivalent to privately published books.

  • Joel Hockensmith: document says P&T decisions are outside of this process.

  • Sylvia Chong: could people listen to the discussion from today’s meeting before voting on the amendment?

  • Joel Hockensmith: yes, we will post link to the video.  

Committee reports?

  • Alan Beckenstein: Susan Kirk has been doing a great job getting to each chair and capturing the workload. This was a difficult year, so it is hard to capture normal workload. The new officers should lend guidance as to what they’d like to see.

Tish Jennings: appreciate that Aaron came to us with AAC question, and we unanimously agreed with the language out of McDonald’s office. We encourage the cross-committee work; so we are not siloed. Legacy issue is still on the agenda, still investigating it. Committee membership: Joel Hockensmith

  • Brett Marshall will support the Faculty Senate more in the next year. He is finishing edits on the Faculty Senate Handbook. The handbook should be up before the end of May.

  • Brett has also set up the names of new faculty senators. Will be polling faculty senators soon asking which committees they would like to serve on. We will ask for volunteers to serve as chairs of committees.

Other business?

  • Walt Heinecke: we are supposed to be electing committee chairs for next year. We could elect co-chairs and that lead to problems on EXCO having two people vote. We should elect a chair and a vice chair. Simplifies the voting issue. Vice chair would attend if chair could not attend. Need to discuss policy committee: can our policy committee recommend policy to UVA policy committee instead of just reviewing policy.

  • Joel Hockensmith: chair/vice chair – left to EXCO. Should submit a written document to him or to EXCO for discussion.

  • Jim Savage: appropriate to have co-chairs. There are some committees who have not met at all, or only had one meeting. Some chairs are not present at this meeting. It is important to have a co-chair. Including at-large members.

  • Joel Hockensmith: we will have a discussion at May EXCO meeting.

Meeting adjourned at 12:02pm

Chat log

  • 0:16:35 Tish Jennings (she, her, hers): Thank you

  • 0:59:42 Jennifer Davis: Updates on Affordable Housing can be found at

  • 1:00:17 Janet Herman: I agree with Kevin that vaccination should be required and required of everyone.

  • 1:00:32 Michael Kennedy: Seconded (or 3rd)

  • 1:00:39 Benjamin Moses: Agree with Janet, Michael, and Kevin

  • 1:02:29 Sylvia Chong: Joel: Can we send out a poll to the full FS membership on requiring vaccination so that we capture a wider range of opinions?

  • 1:03:48 Tish Jennings (she, her, hers): Thanks!!!

  • 1:16:49 James Savage: Ellen mentioned the Confederate statue. It's in the Confederate cemetery on Grounds.  More than 1,000 Confederates are buried there, next to the faculty cemetery.

  • 1:49:07 Sylvia Chong: Does this mean I’d have to submit an amendment right now in order to request an edit to the document? My concern is not just books, but also films, artworks, music, etc.

  • 1:49:15 Kim Brooks Mata (she/her): How does this impact the work of faculty in the visual and performing arts? Seeing that this work is not represented under scholarly and academic works in this document.

  • 1:50:44 Brandon Butler: Those kinds of works are purposefully excluded from these types of policies/guidelines, Kim, since they don’t have the same kind of implications for access to knowledge, or the same broken publishing systems etc.

  • 1:52:54 Brandon Butler: Typically, yes!

  • 1:53:27 Brandon Butler: Apologies - that was meant to be a direct message¦

  • 1:58:23 Sylvia Chong: I move to strike the word “book” It muddies what we have previously understood as the financial stakes of Open Access. I’d rather have a future discussion on how to treat books.

  • 1:59:48 Aniko Bodroghkozy: I agree with Sylvia’s point. I’d second if that where we are.

  • 2:01:20 Sylvia Chong: Yes

  • 2:09:59 Tish Jennings (she, her, hers): Welcome Brett!

  • 2:10:33 Benjamin Moses: All, for full disclosure prior to adjourning:  I am running for the Virginia House of Delegates this year, while continuing to serve in this body.  I am open to your comments or concerns.  Please contact me directly at  For more information, please see . Thank you for time.

  • 2:10:38 Tish Jennings (she, her, hers): Thank you for doing this Joel! It will really be helpful for Susan and me going forward.

  • 2:11:19 Alan Beckenstein: Great comments, Tish.

  • 2:12:45 Carol Manning: Thanks Joel for your leadership!

  • 2:12:55 Rob Patterson: Thanks Joel for your service!!!

  • 2:13:53 Carol Manning: Thanks Walt

  • Thank you, Joel, for your leadership and dedication.

  • 2:14:51 Alan Beckenstein: Walt, it was very flexible and useful this year, With a backlog of issues from the past year (or more), the workload for chairs could be great. The co-chair concept worked out well in my opinion.

  • 2:15:23 Ellen Bassett (she/her): I’ve got to run to another meeting.  Good luck everyone with next year. Have a great summer.  Ellen