Combined with




Tuesday, April 18, 2006, 3:00 pm

Student Center Theater





1.      The President opened the meeting at 3:05 PM and offered the following remarks on matters of interest to the Georgia Tech community:


a.       Highlights of State budget approved by the Legislature include: (1) 4% average salary increase for faculty;  (2) near full funding of the formula (new money is nearly half of last year’s amount because of limited system-wide enrollment growth during the past two years); (3) strong MRR (maintenance, renovation, and repair) funding (GT share ≈ $4M); (4) $38M for construction of the Nanotechnology Research Center (last installment of the State’s $45M contribution); (5) funding for four additional capital projects (three more than the Governor’s budget request) which moves our Undergraduate Learning Resources Center from 12th to 8th on the BoR list of capital projects;  (6) $5M for renovation of the Old CE building (not included in the Governor’s budget request; hopefully, he will not veto it); (7) strong funding for the Georgia Research Alliance, including new money for energy research which will benefit our Strategic Energy Initiative, and two new Eminent Scholar positions, one of which will be at Georgia Tech; and (8) $5M for nanotechnology equipment for GRA (most will come to GT; not in Governor’s budget request).


b.      Legislative activity related to higher education include: (1) passage of the so-called Stem Cell bill (with input from GT, UGA and Emory, the bill was significantly modified; the original draft would have adversely impacted our ability to engage in stem cell research); (2) approval of the “Carry-over” bill which makes it possible to carry-over certain types of funding (e.g. continuing education income) rather than being forced to spend it before the end of the fiscal year (this will enhance our flexibility); (3) proposed bill to require universities to accept the top 10% of high school graduates did not make it out of committee; and (5) proposed bill to remove sales tax on textbooks was not approved (bill was supported by students).


c.       State tax receipts are much stronger than last year (~$1B higher than last year); we expect this to be a good budget year.


d.      At the Federal level, we are pleased with the President’s proposal (presented in the State of the Union address) regarding the American Competitiveness Initiative; it calls for doubling of the budget for NSF and DOE Science over the next 10 years.  There is strong bi-partisan support for the proposal. It will provide scholarships and fellowships for graduate and undergraduate students in science and technology, which should be very beneficial for GT.  There is also significant funding for K-12 initiatives which can benefit some GT programs such as CEISMIC. 


e.       Undergraduate applications are up by 3.25% (application period concluded; we are now seeking deposits).  Applications are lower for the College of Computing, and slightly lower (~2%) for the College of Engineering; this is a part of a national trend which may be related to concerns regarding “off-shoring” of technology. Applications to the Ivan Allen College and the College of Sciences are significantly higher because of their strong recruitment efforts.  [Andy Smith (V. Provost) stated that the number of deposits received so far is well ahead of last year’s pace; final figures will be known on May 1st.  Out-of-state deposits are up considerably; we have been working hard to restore the balance between in-State and out-of-State student enrollment. We are confident that we will meet or slightly exceed our enrollment targets.]


f.        Thanks to the efforts of Andy Smith and many faculty from the various schools, enrollment in our new condensed summer program (back end of the summer session) is expected to be very strong.  The program starts after high school graduation, which allows us to bring in some freshmen who need a “head start” before the school year begins in the fall.  [Andy Smith stated that there has been strong interest among admitted students even those whose admission was not conditional on attending the condensed summer session.  We expect to enroll 200 freshmen in the condensed summer program, which may be expanded in the future.]


g.       Honors recognition ceremonies for faculty, staff, and students were held last week; Bryan Norton (Public Policy) has been recognized as this year’s Distinguished Professor.


h.       Six GT faculty members have won CAREER awards this year (lower than previous years but still very strong even though we did not hire many new faculty last year because of budgetary constraints).  We continue to be in second place in the country for the total number of awards.


i.         The Chancellor is in the process of visiting all 35 institutions in the University System.  He will visit GT for about six hours on May 2nd. He will have a very tight schedule; will accommodate his interests by arranging for him to meet with some faculty (meeting to be held in the library).  He will meet with students and alumni over lunch and will tour a few labs in the afternoon, where he will have a chance to meet with more graduate students and faculty.


j.        The Chancellor will be meeting with the BoR to decide on tuition; he is expected to propose a new tuition model (just announced this afternoon) which may offer incoming students a fixed tuition for a four-year period. 



k.      We are in the quiet phase of the $1B Capital Campaign which started nearly a year and half ago.  By the end of this fiscal year, we expect to raise about $250M in gifts and commitments.  We have recently received several major gifts including $20M from Milton and Carolyn Stewart, who have supported the ISyE School for many years (the School will be named after them).  We expect to announce an eight-figure gift in May to support the Nanotechnology Research Building.  Leaders of the Campaign Committee have been named; we are working very hard to ramp up our rate of fundraising and hope to raise $400 to 500M by the end of next year.


l.         Several important appointments have been made:  Dr. Steven Salbu has been appointed as Dean of the College of Management and Business School; he comes to us from the University of Texas at Austin and will start July 1st.  Dan Radakovich has been appointed as Athletics Director; he came from LSU where he was Associate Athletic Director. Jim Fetig has been appointed as Associate Vice President and head of Institute Communications and Public Affairs; in addition to media relations, he has strong experience in marketing in both industry and political campaigns.  He will also help with the Capital Campaign.


m.     The Spring Commencement will be held in the Georgia Dome because of the large number of graduates; the speaker will be Bernie Marcus.


n.       Work will be done to enhance the venting capabilities of the Alexander memorial Coliseum, so that the floor can be cleared in case of a fire. This is not a problem during a basketball game when only two teams are on the floor, but it is important for events such as graduation ceremonies with many people on the court.  The undergraduate and Masters Graduation ceremonies for the summer will be held in the coliseum (Fire Marshall is satisfied because of the small number of graduates).  The PhD ceremony for the summer term will be held separately (probably in the Ferst Theater); this will give us an opportunity to see how such a separate ceremony will turn out, so that we may continue doing so in the future to “enhance the experience” for our PhD graduates. The Fall commencement will likely be held elsewhere (not at the Dome; currently examining other venues including the Fox Theater).


There were no questions for the President.


2.      The President called for approval of the minutes of the February 28, 2006 Spring meeting of the General Faculty and General Faculty Assembly combined with meeting of the Academic Senate.  He indicated that the minutes had been posted on the faculty governance website and that a link was provided from this meeting’s agenda.  The minutes were approved without dissent.  (See attachment #1 below for web site reference). 


3.      The President called on Craig Womack (Assistant Registrar) to present the degree candidates for the Spring Commencement.  Womack stated that the names of the 2,477 degree candidates for the Spring 2006 commencement have been made available to the Academic Deans and Departments.  It was moved that all candidates who complete their requirements by May 10th, 2006 be awarded their degrees.  The motion passed without dissent.


4.      The President stated that in the Fall of 2004, the General Faculty adopted a new policy which requires the person serving as the Faculty Athletics Representative to make an annual presentation to the Academic Senate on the state of Georgia Tech’s intercollegiate athletics program.  He indicated that Georgia Tech is going through a certification process with NCAA; the certification is done once every ten years (last one performed in 1997).  Many members of the GT community, including the Registrar’s Office, Admissions, Financial Aid, etc. will be asked to participate.   He called on Professor Dan Schrage (AE), who serves as the Georgia Tech Faculty Athletics Representative to present the annual report.  A copy of the slides used in the presentation is attached (see Attachment #2 below).  Schrage stated that prior to being appointed as the FAR in January of this year, he served on the Athletics Board for two years.  He began by describing the roles and responsibilities of the FAR with respect to ACC & NCAA, Georgia Tech, Administration of the Georgia Tech Athletic Association (GTAA), and GTAA Compliance.  The FAR’s roles and responsibilities with respect to each of these constituencies were enumerated (see Attachment #2 for a detailed list)


Schrage stated that, if done correctly, athletics can contribute significantly to the educational mission of the Institute by contributing to students’ morale, recreation and university selection; enhancing student recruitment (e.g. National Football Championship and NCAA Final Four Basketball Tournament in 1990-91 resulted in substantial increase in applications the following year); and bringing increased recognition and additional resources to GT (especially through the ACC).  He stated that GTAA is an independent organization (not directly under Georgia Tech); it does not receive direct funding from the Institute or the State.  For FY05, GTAA had an operating profit of $1.5M (versus $23.9M for UGA Athletics).   Financial challenges for GTAA include the increases in out-of-state tuition which significantly affect the budget since many GT Scholar-athletes are from out of State, coupled with reduced revenues due to the smaller capacity of the Football stadium and the smaller number of season ticket holders.  Key financial revenues are from the Alexander-Tharpe Fund and the ACC allocation.  A question was asked as to what happens to the profits.  The President indicated that this does not happen regularly, and that GTAA operates essentially on a “hand-to-mouth” basis.  They have a ~$60M endowment -- their main challenge is to meet the debt payments on facilities and scholarships since 75% of the student-athletes are from out-of-state, for whom they have to pay the full out-of-state tuition.


Schrage stated that there are many advantages to being a member of the ACC.  It boasts more top-40 academically ranked schools than any conference in the nation other than the Ivy League.  It distributes ~ $8-10M per year to each of its member universities (from television and bowl game revenues).   ACC sponsors 30 post-graduate scholarships annually (3 per member), and has initiated an Inter-Institutional Academic Collaborative (ACC-IAC).  To date, the ACC-IAC, which is funded by allocation of income from the Dr. Pepper ACC Football Championship game, is comprised of four major programs:  (1) A PhD student exchange program; (2) An undergraduate research conference (April 24-25, 2006 at Clemson; 20 Georgia Tech students will participate); (3) Best-practice sharing among the chief technology officers; and (4) an array of collaborations in international education with ~200 foreign locations where students can go.  A question was asked regarding the PhD student exchange program.  Schrage stated that details can be found on the ACC-IAC website (


The recent NCAA Academic reform and its impact were discussed.  The reforms are largely based on recommendations from the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics.  The Commission was first convened in 1989; it issued its report [Keeping Faith with the Student Athlete:  A New Model for Intercollegiate Athletics] in 1991, along with two follow-up reports.  It was reconvened in 2000 and issued its report [A call to Action:  Reconnecting College Sports and Higher Education] in 2001.  It was again reconvened in November 2003.  The Knight Commission is an ongoing discussion – an ongoing dialog about ethics and values in the context of athletics in our diverse society.  A table, listing the NCAA eligibility requirements, was shown; requirements prior to and after August 2003 for student athletes entering in the second, third, fourth, and fifth year of collegiate enrollment were shown (see Attachment #2 for details).  In order for a student-athlete to be eligible for participation in Intercollegiate Athletics at Georgia Tech, a student must meet the following requirements: (1) carry a full-time workload; (2) not be on academic probation; (3) make satisfactory progress toward a degree; and (4) meet any further requirements of the NCAA or governing organizations.  Assignment of academic standing is based on both the student’s most recent term and overall grade point average.  ACC regulations were presented; these include requirements for initial eligibility and strict requirements for transfer eligibility (see Attachment #2 for details). 


The impact of Academic Reform was discussed.  Beginning in Fall 2006, measurements and penalties (lost scholarships) will be assessed based on the “Academic Progress Rate” (APR) and the “Graduation Success Rate” (GSR).  The APR is a real-time assessment of a team’s academic performance, which awards two points each term to scholarship student-athletes who meet academic eligibility standards and who remain with the institution.  A team’s APR is the total points earned by the team at a given time divided by the total points possible.  The GSR is an alternative graduation-rate methodology to be launched by NCAA this Fall.  The new rate, which will supplement and not replace the Federal methodology, credits institutions for incoming transfers who graduate.  This will not adversely affect the team rate for outgoing transfers who leave the institution as long as they would have been academically eligible had they returned.   The NCAA will implement this new Academic program because the APR is related to initial eligibility for prospective students and term-by-term progress toward earning a degree for current student-athletes.  The new academic measurement will hold teams accountable and lead to increased academic success and graduation for student-athletes.  An APR cut score of 925 was selected because it correlates to an expected graduation rate of nearly 50% using the federal graduation rate methodology.


Contemporaneous, or real-time, penalties are the most immediate penalties in the academic-reform structure. They occur when a team’s APR (after an appropriate squad-size adjustment) is under the 925 cut score and loses a student athlete who would not be academically eligible had he/she returned to the institution.  A contemporaneous penalty means that that the affected teams cannot re-award that grant-in-aid to another player for one year.   These penalties are meant to give immediate feedback to specific teams, to inform them that some of their student-athletes are on the wrong track and need to make changes to turn things around academically.  It is a part of a larger academic package designed to improve the academic success and graduation of student-athletes.  A detailed report showing the APR scores of each of Georgia Tech’s Intercollegiate Athletics teams was presented (see Attachment #2 for details).  The report is based on academic progress information submitted by member institutions for 2003-04 and 2004-05.  All Georgia Tech teams, except for cross country, had an APR score above the 925 cut score.  The golf team and the women’s swimming team had a perfect score of 1000.  A table for the Graduation Success Rate of the 1995-1999 Cohorts for various men’s and women’s sports at Georgia Tech was also shown.  In most cases, the GSR is higher than the corresponding federal graduation rate, since it accounts for people who transfer.  Graduation rate data for all 1998-99 Georgia Tech freshman cohorts, including data for male and female students of various races, were shown.  The graduation rate for all students among the 1998-99 freshmen cohorts is 72%; the corresponding rate for student-athletes is 52%.


Compliance with all institutional, conference, and NCAA regulations was discussed.  Last year, Georgia Tech was penalized by NCAA when it was found (and reported by Georgia Tech) that 18 scholar-athletes in past years were not eligible because they did not make sufficient progress in their designated majors.  The NCAA penalty was identified as “lack of institutional control.”  The case is currently being appealed.  However, substantial changes have taken place to insure that such error does not happen again.  Prior to the Spring/Summer of 2005, the Registrar was the only staff member in the Registrar’s Office involved in certifying eligibility.  The Registrar generally accepted the evaluation done by the academic advisors in the Athletics Association; the Registrar’s Office did not independently evaluate the records and did not have control of the actual student-athlete records.    Since that time, substantial changes have taken place; these include:  greatly-improved documentation, better processes, enhanced communications, placement of necessary redundancies, implementation of checks and balances, on-going rules education and training, and adequate staffing in the Registrar’s Office.


Schrage discussed his recent initiative aimed at tightening the bond between academics and athletics at Georgia Tech.  It is aimed at fostering a closer relationship between Georgia Tech Intercollegiate Sports teams and the general faculty and the academic community through the establishment of the “Faculty Liaison Professor” (FLP) Program.   It provides the Georgia Tech Intercollegiate Sports teams, both coaches and players, with a direct liaison on academic questions and issues.  The FLP is a volunteer position.  It is planned to have one FLP per Athletic Team, except for Football, which may have two FLPs.   Coaches have been asked to select their FLP; alternatively, the FAR will seek a match for each team without a FLP.  FLPs are expected to provide real time academic interaction with their athletic teams.  The Program has been initiated; it is hoped that all FLPs will be identified by the end of the Spring semester.   Schrage invited faculty interested in participating in the FLP Program to contact him.


Schrage concluded his presentation by stating that Georgia Tech’s intercollegiate athletics program is a big business with nearly $40M in annual revenues.  It requires an experienced Athletics Director who serves as a CEO, with a competent staff to assist him; the new AD, Dan Radakovich, provides that expertise and experience. The FAR’s principal role is to be the liaison between academics and athletics at Georgia Tech and between Georgia Tech, the ACC, and the NCAA with an emphasis on maintaining the proper balance between academics and athletics.  Georgia Tech has a rich tradition of maintaining this balance, and provides an excellent role model for other universities.  Close collaboration between Georgia Tech academics and athletics can maintain this tradition and improve on it.


A comment was made that the tables shown in the presentation indicate that there are many sports in which Georgia Tech does not compete.  A follow-up question was asked as to whether there are any plans to add more teams.  Schrage stated that we would like to add more sports; the logical next addition is women’s soccer.  The Atlanta metropolitan area is a hub for amateur soccer, and we are losing many star athletes to Duke and North Carolina.  A comment was made that with the conference expansion, teams have to fly since it is hard to get to Boston on a bus.  The President indicated that this issue was examined in detail at the time of the expansion; football and basketball are the only sports where teams compete entirely within the conference.  Other sports, e.g. women’s softball, play in the ACC as well as many non-conference games.    Schrage stated that in most cases teams travel by air.                                                      

5.      The President called on Dr. Monson Hayes (ECE/GTS), Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee on Multi-Campus Faculty Development, Governance, and Integration, to present the committee’s findings.  A copy of the slides used in the presentation is attached (see Attachment #3 below).  Hayes stated that preparation of the committee’s final report is in progress, and that he expects it to be issued within two weeks.  The committee was formed by the Executive Board last spring.  The committee’s initial charge, as derived from last April’s Executive Board retreat, is to identify the hurdles, if any, to be encountered in applying the current faculty governance policies and procedures (contained in the Faculty Handbook) as GT diversifies geographically. After extensive discussions, the committee broadened the charge to address other important issues for a multi-campus institution; the expanded mission is reflected in the committee’s chosen name:   “The Committee on Multi-Campus Faculty Development, Governance, and Integration.”   A list of committee members was shown (see Attachment #3); it includes members from various units who have had experience with multi-campus issues.  Hayes thanked the committee members for the time and effort they have devoted to this study. 


Hayes stated that Georgia Tech is becoming geographically diverse; new “outposts” appear throughout the world.  Major centers of operation outside Atlanta include Savannah, Lorraine, Shanghai, Singapore, and multiple GTRI outposts; additional initiatives are being pursued in China and India.  As GT expands, it is important to identify and understand the issues before problems arise.  Early in the deliberations, the Committee realized that there are many different programs and that each campus and/or program is unique; issues important to one may not be relevant for another.  Therefore, the committee defined four “categories” of programs and activities to consider:  (1) Faculty on rotation to GTx (where “x” can be Lorraine, Savannah, Shanghai, Singapore, etc.); (2) Permanent GTx Faculty; (3) Faculty in Study Abroad programs; and (4) Research Faculty outside Atlanta.  The first category (Faculty on rotation to “GTx”) refers to faculty who spend one or two semesters at another campus (e.g. Shanghai or Lorraine) then return to their home department in Atlanta.  The second category (Permanent GTx Faculty) refers to faculty members who are hired specifically for permanent assignment at a campus outside Atlanta, e.g. Savannah or Lorraine.  Faculty members involved in study abroad programs typically go away during the summer and return during the academic year; some of them may spend a great deal of time developing and planning such programs. Research faculty members outside Atlanta are primarily GTRI employees; GTRI has several outposts around the country, and will soon have international outposts (e.g. Ireland).  Hayes stated that the committee’s task was to only identify the issues (rather than offer solutions or recommendations); issues unique to each of these four faculty categories have been identified.  


Hayes stated that when he reported to the Executive Board last week, the issues were presented by grouping them as they pertain to each of the four faculty categories.  Here, the issues will be presented by grouping them based on their area, namely faculty governance, development, or integration.  With regard to faculty governance, the two main issues are Reappointment, Promotion & Tenure, and Faculty Representation on Committees.  RPT issues revolve around faculty evaluation and representation.   Faculty evaluation issues pertain to both the evaluation guidelines, as well as the evaluation process itself.  Faculty may have been involved in the “start-up phase” of GTx (when resources and infrastructure are established, students are recruited, and faculty are hired); these activities divert their efforts from areas normally considered for RPT evaluations – how should the RPT committees view the contributions of such faculty?  Also, the mission of GTx may differ from that of GT-Atlanta; the focus may be on teaching rather than research – will the RPT process be adaptable?  Questions related to the evaluation process itself include:  Who writes the evaluation letters (local administrator at GTx or Chair of an affiliated school in Atlanta)? What evaluation committees are local to GTx and how does the RPT process tie back to Atlanta?   Representation on RPT committees is another issue of concern for GTx faculty; they desire the opportunity to participate in such committees (as well as other committees and governance bodies such as the Academic Senate) since they are most familiar with the GTx environment and program.  RPT committees may have difficulty evaluating faculty in new and evolving programs. 


Among the important questions which need to be addressed are:   (1) what is the effect on RPT for faculty who rotate or visit GTx for more than one term?  (Is this viewed as something good to do?  Does the Institute support that type of activity?  (2) How will RPT committees view faculty participation in GTx?  (3)  How should the Institute support faculty when critical resources at GTx are not in place?  The issue of “Location of Tenure” is also unclear; Section 5.8 of the Faculty Handbook states that “Tenure resides at the Institutional level.”  If someone from GTx is awarded tenure, what happens if that school disappears?  The faculty “Home Unit” is defined in Section 5.12 of the Handbook which states “The Faculty of a Department of Instruction is defined as those individuals who devote 0.38 or more EFT to that unit and have the rank of Regents Professor, Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, or Instructor.”  So, presumably, the home unit where tenure resides is where a faculty member spends >50% time during the academic year.  Since money flows back and forth between the two campuses, does the faculty member’s home unit flip back and forth between Atlanta and GTx?  Another issue relates to the Joint Appointments and Courtesy Appointments given by units at GT-Atlanta to faculty members hired permanently for GTx.  What level of support (and money flow) does it require to receive such appointments? 


Faculty hiring for GTx is another issue related to governance.  The issues center on the process to be used.  Should candidates be interviewed by faculty and administrators at both GTx and GT-Atlanta?  Is this feasible for international campuses?  Should the candidates make the trip back and forth?  Should the interviews be conducted using video conferencing?  Most important, who makes the hiring decision (GTx, GT-Atlanta, or both)?


Faculty development issues can be grouped into three areas:  (1) Travel and Faculty rotation to GT-Atlanta; (2) Collaborating/interfacing with GT-Atlanta; and (3) Distance Learning.  Travel to GT-Atlanta is an issue of concern for faculty on rotation to GTx.  Should the institute or GTx (or both) support travel back and forth between the two campuses?  This may not be an issue if the faculty member is away for only one term; but it becomes important when the faculty member is away for a year.  Do we provide funds for graduate students to go back and forth?  Should the travel budget be tied to the length of stay away from Atlanta or the number of family members or the number of graduate students?  For permanent GTx faculty, rotation between GTx and GT-Atlanta is viewed as extremely beneficial for GTx faculty development and integration.  The question is whether a process should be put in place to formalize such cross-campus rotations.  Research project collaboration, i.e. interactions with colleagues and GRAs is another important issue for faculty on rotation to GTx.  There are many technologies available to facilitate such communications (MSM, Skype, Conference XP, Netmeeting, Polycom, etc.); the issue is whether the institute should support these activities, or should it be the responsibility of the person traveling overseas to arrange for such connections.


Distance learning is another important issue for faculty at GTx.  DLPE supports distance learning courses to and from GTx.  Several questions arise including:  What should the support level be?  Faculty at GTx would like to develop DL courses and deliver them to Atlanta as a way to recruit students and keep themselves involved with the Atlanta campus.  Who manages and maintains DL classrooms at GTx?  What is the financial model for the participating units and DL instructors (should GT-Atlanta faculty who deliver a DL course to GTx receive some compensation for such activities or is that an expected part of their load?) and what commitments must the Atlanta units make to support the course needs of GTx?    For example, GTx may not have the resources and/or faculty to offer courses to support a minor; the question is how many such courses can we expect the Atlanta campus to deliver? Who should pay for such courses?


Faculty integration issues include:  (1) Participation in seminars, meetings, and committees; (2) Connectivity; and (3) Faculty Services.  The ability of GTx faculty to participate in institute activities such as seminars, workshops, faculty meetings, webcasts, etc. is critical for campus integration.  Participation in Institute committees, Academic Senate committees, school committees, and theses committees is an important component of faculty integration.  “Connectivity” essentially refers to electronic connectivity – how do we continue to do the things we are used to doing here in Atlanta when we are located in Lorraine, Singapore, or Shanghai?  These include: (1) Grade submission, i.e. access to OSCAR, which requires the calendars (i.e. the exam periods) at different campuses to be aligned, which has not always been the case; (2) Travel expense forms – timely submission of forms, need for original receipts, foreign language, and currency conversion make it difficult; (3) Teaching assessment and student evaluations – these are important for RPT; however, they require student access to the internet which is not always the case; and (4) ability to maintain connectivity to services provided by OCA and OHR.   There are many faculty services provided at GT-Atlanta; the question is what services should GTx faculty expect to be provided?  Services include Banner registration, grades entry through OSCAR, admissions and recruitment, OCA, OHR, WebCT, Library Lends program, and Software licenses. 


Other issues which do not fall within the governance, development, and integration categories have been identified.  Nevertheless, they are viewed as important inasmuch as they impact faculty productivity.  These issues can be grouped into “Residence Issues” and “International Issues.”  Residence issues include:  (1) Local Support, i.e. what type of administrative and secretarial support should be provided?  Other campuses may have different “cultures” with a hierarchical system that determines the level of support received by a faculty member. (2) Laboratory facilities at GTx – should GT facilitate access to laboratories and facilities in neighboring schools, universities, and companies, or should GT assist in the development of labs and computing facilities at GTx in order for faculty to continue their research? Who should maintain such facilities?  (3)  Support Infrastructure, i.e. equipment and technology such as computers, network connections, printers, and digital senders should be available to the faculty at GTx.  (4)  Housing conditions vary significantly between the different campuses – should there be a minimum standard for the type of housing to be provided?  So far, nearly every program developed by GT has provided housing with a good level of comfort and support.  But, is there a need for a policy on minimum housing requirements? (5) Medical insurance – faculty should be educated on the issues of medical insurance and health care costs. What happens in the event of serious illness or death?  Does the medical insurance come from GT in Atlanta or is it provided through some company in China, India, or somewhere else? (6) Orientation – faculty should be given an introduction to the culture and educated on issues such as banking, schools for children, etc.  Such orientation would go a long way toward smoothing the transition to the new campus.


International issues related to “money” include faculty salaries, movement of faculty between GTx and GT-Atlanta, research dollars, and movement of funds between GTA and GTx.  Because of differences in the standard of living in the US and countries such as India or China, salaries for permanent faculty located there will be significantly lower than those in Atlanta.  How will the salaries at these locations be determined and how can we accommodate faculty moving from GT-Atlanta to an international GTx and vice-versa?  With respect to research funding, the question is how does one view the level of research funding for RPT purposes ($100k in Atlanta supports 2 GRAs, while the same amount supports 10 in India)? The committee also recognized that movement of funds to and from GT-Atlanta and GTx at international locations needs to be addressed.  Faculty benefits at International GTx include issues such as health care and disability (is the insurance offered by GT-Atlanta or is coverage provided from a local company?).  Other international GTx issues which need to be addressed include taxes, IP, and grants and contracts (the Institute has hired Price Waterhouse Cooper to examine these issues). 


The Committee recognizes that many of the issues presented here are related to the “Organizational Structure” of GTx vis-à-vis the Institute.  The administrative structure of the multi-campus institute will define many operations such as:  to whom do the GTx faculty report?  How are GTx faculty hired and evaluated? What is the reporting chain between units at GT-Atlanta and GTx?  and What services are to be provided by GT-Atlanta to GTx?    It has been suggested that the organizational structure should include a vice-provost for multi-campus issues to provide a “corporate” headquarters to manage these numerous multi-campus issues.  The campuses should be as cohesive as possible; we do not want to get into the “branch campus” mindset. 


Hayes concluded by stating that while the committee’s task was to only identify the issues (rather than offer solutions or recommendations), the committee believes that it is important to establish a central office on the Atlanta campus to address issues/problems and to disseminate information.  There is often a need for faculty to be able to contact someone and get a timely response.  The proposed central office can handle such requests, connect faculty members to the appropriate person, and address their concerns.


A question was asked to the number of faculty involved in these activities.  Hayes stated that currently, there are nearly 20 faculty members at GT-Savannah, nearly 10 at GT-L, ~ 6 in Shanghai, and more than 40 Study Abroad programs; additionally, there are several hundred GTRI faculty outside Atlanta.  Other programs in India and Beijing are under consideration.


The President thanked Dr. Hayes and the committee for their efforts on this important assignment.  Members applauded in appreciation of the committee’s contributions.     


6.      The President called on Chairs of two standing committees of the Academic Senate to introduce minutes from their respective committee meetings and action items therein.  He indicated that these minutes were published on the faculty governance web site and that a link was provided from the formal agenda for this meeting (see Attachment #4 below for web site listing of minutes of all Standing Committees)


a.       Paul Benkeser, acting in behalf of Lloyd Byars, Chair of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, indicated that there are six sets of minutes to be approved [02/22/06(1); 02/22/06(2); 03/01/06; 03/15/06; 03/29/06(1); and 03/29/06(2)]   He indicated that two of the meeting minutes (02/22/06 and 03/29/06) include action items which require separate approval by the faculty (see list of action items in attachment #5 below).  The action items include:  Modification of degree requirements for BS degree in EAS; new course in EAS; modification of guidelines for minors and certificates (02/22/06); New courses in Modern Languages, ECON, ECE, INTA, and MGT; Participation of MSE, ChBE, and ECE in the Research Option; Change of “Applied Biology” degree name; Modification of Social Sciences requirements for BS degrees in EE, and Comp E; Modification of degree requirements for BS PFE; Deactivation of courses in Mod. Lang, and MGT; Change of hours distribution for CETL courses; change in course numbers for PSYCH; Program reviews for ECON, CEE, PTFE (03/29/06), all of which are described in the minutes in more detail.


A question was asked regarding the rationale for the proposed revision to the Guidelines for Minors and Certificates with respect to the use of non-resident (transfer) credits.  The current policy requires that all courses counting toward a minor or certificate be completed in residence at Georgia Tech; the proposed revision removes that requirement (see Attachment #5 for exact wording of the current and proposed Guidelines).   Benkeser stated that because of the increased emphasis on study abroad and international plans, there are many venues for students to take courses which are relevant to their Minors and certificates.  The courses may be taken under the auspices of a partner institution, which are then transferred to Georgia Tech.  It would be very difficult to legislate which ones are acceptable and which ones are not with respect to Minors and Certificates.  A comment was made that acceptance/approval of transfer credits is in the hands of the Georgia Tech unit responsible for the equivalent course(s); hence, removal of the residency requirement does not take away accountability from the GT school(s) responsible for the courses.


A motion to approve the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee meeting minutes of 02/22/06(1); 02/22/06(2); 03/01/06; 03/15/06; 03/29/06(1); and 03/29/06(2), and all the action items therein passed without dissent..


b.      Bill Green, Chair of the Graduate Curriculum Committee, indicated that there are two sets of minutes to be approved (03/16/06 and 04/06/06).  He provided a list of action items contained in those minutes which require separate approval by the faculty (see list of action items in attachment #6 below); these include: New courses in CS and ECE; change of name for MS and PhD degrees in “Applied Biology;” new graduate certificate in Remote Sensing (EAS); New Courses and Curriculum revision in APPH; Deactivation of courses in APPH and ECE.  A motion to approve the Graduate Curriculum Committee minutes of 03/16/06 and 04/06/06 and the action items therein passed without dissent.  


7.      The President called for approval of the minutes of other Standing Committees of the Academic Senate which do not contain any action items, all of which have been posted on the web (see Attachment #4 below for web site listing of minutes of all Standing Committees)


a.       Student Academic and Financial Affairs: 11/17/05; 02/14/06; 03/14/06

b.      Student Activities: 07/26/05; 10/10/05


The President indicated that representatives of these committees are available to answer any questions. The minutes were approved without dissent.


8.      The President called for approval of the minutes of Standing Committees of the General Faculty which do not contain any action items, all of which have been posted on the web (see Attachment #4 below for web site listing of minutes of all Standing Committees)


c.       Faculty Benefits: 01/26/06; 02/23/06

d.      Academic Services: 03/02/06

e.       Welfare & Security:  01/08/06


The President indicated that representatives of these committees are available to answer any questions. The minutes were approved without dissent.


9.      The President called for any other business.  Professor Mary Ann Ingram (ECE), Chair of the Welfare and Security Committee, made the following statement: 


“The Executive Board has charged the Welfare and Security Committee to annually review and make recommendations on the policies and procedures governing numerous campus functions, including Parking and Auxiliary Services.  The Welfare and Security Committee wishes to protest the 5% increase in parking fees for 2006-2007, and it wants to inform this body that it has attempted to perform its charge with regards to Parking.  This Committee accepted the aggressive increase to $500/year in 2004-2005, because it was assured by Bob Furniss, the Parking and Transportation Director, that there would be no significant increases for three years.  Instead, for this and next year, the parking fee raises have been higher than the average salary raises by 1%.  Parking has a $1.7M projected deficit and a $1.4M deficit this year, mostly from debt service on parking deck construction. A 5% increase in parking fees doesn’t come close to balancing this budget.  Instead of cutting its own expenditures, Parking is increasing actual amounts in every category of its budget.  In January, the Welfare and Security Committee asked that the Parking fee increase be limited to 2% and for clarification on some of the budget categories.  The response was essentially that a careful internal review within Auxiliary Services “should more than satisfy Tech’s faculty and staff expectations of accountability for the use of parking funds.”  The Vice President of Auxiliary Services wrote recently that “the budget was supplied to the WSC as a courtesy, not for the purpose of review and approval.”  The Welfare and Security Committee does not agree and will actively seek ways to have at least some influence over the budget preparation process.”


The President thanked Dr. Ingram for her statement and asked the Secretary of the Faculty to include this matter as an action item for discussion at a future meeting.


10.  The President stated that Georgia Tech will participate in the “Flex Car” concept, which will allow faculty and staff who take public transportation to campus and do not have access to a personal automobile during the day to reserve one of four automobiles stationed here on campus to go to university functions and/or activities which may require travel off-campus.


11.  The President invited members present to attend the “Whistle Blows” ceremony to be held on Thursday on the green in front of the Carnegie Building to honor members of the Georgia Tech community (students, faculty, and staff) who passed away during the past year.   


12.  The President called for any other business; hearing none, the meeting was adjourned at 4:35 PM.



Respectfully submitted,


Said Abdel-Khalik

Secretary of the Faculty

April 23, 2006


Attachments to be included with archival copy of the minutes:


  1. Minutes of Faculty Meetings:

a.       February 28, 2006 Spring meeting of the General faculty and General Faculty Assembly combined with meeting of the Academic Senate:

  1. The Faculty Athletic Representative’s (FAR’s) Annual Presentation to the Academic Senate on the State of Georgia Tech’s Intercollegiate Athletics Program (Presentation by Daniel P. Schrage)
  2. Ad Hoc Committee on Multi-Campus Faculty Development, Governance, and Integration (Presentation by Monson H. Hayes)
  3. Minutes of Committee Meetings
  4. Action Items proposed by the Undergraduate Committee (presented by Paul Benkeser)
  5. Action Items proposed by the Graduate Committee (presented by Bill Green)