GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
CALLED MEETING OF THE GENERAL FACULTY
MEETING OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE
GENERAL FACULTY ASSEMBLY
Tuesday, September 13, 2005, 3:00 pm
Student Center Theater
1. The President opened the meeting at 3:05 PM. He welcomed members present and introduced the new Registrar, Ms. Reta Pikowsky, who joined Georgia Tech in July.
2. The President called for approval of the minutes of the April 19, 2005 called meeting of the General Faculty combined with meeting of the Academic Senate and Annual Meeting of the Academic Faculty. 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 expressed his appreciation to members of the Georgia Tech community for their efforts in the recovery from hurricane Katrina. He stated that our efforts began by inviting nearly 250 students from Tulane (mostly freshmen) who were stranded in Mississippi to come to Georgia Tech. Student Affairs personnel took the lead on this effort and worked hard to help the students. We were later asked and agreed to allow our coliseum to be used as a temporary shelter for evacuees; many students, faculty and staff volunteered to help with that effort. The Red Cross has relocated all evacuees to more-suitable housing and the shelter has been closed. Our faculty and students have contributed in many other ways; for example, one of our students has established a “survivors’ website” to assist victims at different locations around the Country. We have had discussions with the Core of Engineers, the National Academy, NSF, and several universities regarding the possibility of arranging a Workshop to discuss how faculty can help with the reconstruction efforts. We are continuing to explore other opportunities to exert some leadership in the recovery efforts.
The President called on Dr. Sue Ann Allen (Pres. Office) to provide a status report on admissions of students from the hurricane-affected area. Allen stated that the admissions process was opened till September 8th. Sixty two undergraduate students were admitted; most were admitted for the fall semester as “temporary students” and were given non-resident tuition waivers. Georgia residents who qualified for the HOPE Scholarship were admitted as regular students. Of the 62 undergraduate students admitted, 50 students enrolled in classes (45 are currently enrolled). Additionally, 20 graduate students have been admitted; at least 14 of them have actually enrolled. Most of the students admitted are from Tulane and the University of New Orleans; a few come from Xavier, Dillard, and Holy Cross.
Allen provided details on the use of the coliseum as a temporary shelter. She stated that the coliseum was assessed to be able to hold 500 evacuees; 290 cots were placed there and a maximum of 106 people actually slept there on any given night. The coliseum became a service distribution facility rather than a sleeping facility; many evacuees came to the facility to seek counseling, financial aid, clothing, food, etc. The Red Cross has estimated that nearly 1000 people were helped during the one-week period in which the facility was open.
4. The President offered the following remarks on other matters of interest to the Georgia Tech community:
Professor Geronimo (Math) asked a question regarding the fees charged to faculty for use of the Campus Recreation Center. He stated that when he asked about the subject last Spring, he was told that the fees are fair and necessary, and that faculty are being asked to pay because students are required to pay. He stated that faculty members (through grants and contracts) contribute over 25% of the Institute’s budget, and many of them donate a great deal of extra time to the Institute (mentoring students, etc.). The President stated that facilities such as CRC have to stand on their own. It would have been ideal if we were able to raise all the money needed to build the facility; however, in order to build the type of facility we wanted, we had to borrow money and, therefore, the income streams are needed to pay the debt. He indicated that the rates are lower than market rates for health and fitness facilities and that faculty participation is voluntary, while all students are required to pay. Additionally, students began paying for the facility even before it was built. A question was asked as to whether the CRC operating budget has exceeded the original expectations. The President indicated that the costs had been anticipated, and that the operating budget matches expectations. He stated that both the Institute and the Athletics Association pay for part of the operating cost; the athletics association’s contribution is based on their use of the facility consistent with the original agreement developed by a group which included faculty and students. A question was asked as to whether such financial information is public. The President responded affirmatively. A question was asked as to whether faculty and staff had been consulted, and whether they knew that fees would be required. The President stated that students, faculty, and staff were involved in the planning and that numerous meetings were held before the decision was made to build this level of facility; the fees were developed in an equitable manner and input was sought and provided from/by all groups.
5. The President called on Drs. Greg Nobles (HTS) and Randy Engle (Psych) to present an overview of the proposed undergraduate Honors Program; a copy of the slides used in the presentation is attached (See Attachment #2 below). Nobles stated that last October, Drs. Chameau and McMath formed a committee to explore the possibility of creating an undergraduate, institute-wide, honors program at GT, and asked him and Randy Engle (Psych) to co-chair the committee (see committee report including membership list in Attachment #4 below). He stated that at the beginning of the process several committee members were skeptical regarding the notion of creating such a program. However, after numerous meetings and engaged discussions, the committee concluded that the time is right for such an initiative, and strongly recommended that the Institute support the creation of the Honors Program. He stated that the purpose of this presentation is to update the Academic Senate on the status of the Program, invite comments and suggestions, and, possibly, gain the Senate’s endorsement. He stated that presentations have been made to various faculty and staff groups, and will soon be made to student groups, including SGA.
Nobles stated that the committee discussed at great length the features which would make the Program distinctive and appropriate for Georgia Tech, given the academic achievement of all our students. The answer is “inquiry-based education,” aimed at students with a sense of intellectual self-direction, who are willing to “engage” with faculty members in the education process, rather than just listening to them. The Program will invite students to look at different disciplines, and engage in interdisciplinary work; faculty members from various disciplines will be involved. Additionally, we would like students to be involved in the broader community (GT, the City of Atlanta, and the State) through internships, community service projects, etc. The aim is to get students to utilize the education they receive at GT to reach out broadly across the City and the State. The Program offers the opportunity for a great deal of interactions between students and faculty, through different venues, including faculty/student colloquia, faculty/student dinners, etc. The goal is to create an “environment,” that can provide a test bed of ideas, which will enhance the educational experience for the participants and all students at Georgia Tech.
Nobles stated that the aim is to start the Program by next Fall (06) with 100 students. The students will be admitted through the normal admissions process; additionally, an “entrance ramp” will be provided for students who are already enrolled, or those who may wish to join in the Spring. The Program will seek to identify students not just according to high school GPA and SAT scores (since all GT students are “high achievers”), but according to their record (and promise) of commitment to intellectual initiative and interdisciplinary inquiry. The Program seeks to identify “inquisitive” students who want to pursue their education with a good deal of “self direction.” He stated that the committee has had discussions with the Admissions Office, as to how such students can be identified; the conclusion is that this can be done, albeit with some extra effort by both the Admissions Staff and the students. He stated that the program should allow us to attract more of the “very-best” students, who may not have come to Georgia Tech. He indicated that among the 2005 semi-finalists for the President’s Scholars Program, 33 decided not to come to GT, and opted to enroll at universities with Honors Programs even though they may not be as “highly-ranked” as GT (e.g. Clemson, UGA, and South Carolina). The proposed Program will provide a broader range of opportunities for those students and will allow us to attract them to GT.
Nobles stated that the program will initially focus on the first two years of study at Georgia Tech, where students take the introductory math, science, English, and US history classes. These classes will not only be smaller, but will also emphasize and encourage inquiry-based teaching and learning. They will require faculty to re-think the manner in which they teach the classes, so that they can engage these energetic and highly-inquisitive students. Students will also participate in interdisciplinary seminars, which address broad issues (e.g. how does a city work?); the courses will be submitted for approval by the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee. Students will take a one-credit hour colloquium which involves a small group of students (~10) and two faculty members from different disciplines, who meet at least one hour per week and engage each other through different forms of study on topics that invite different perspectives. Nobles described the co-curricular component of the proposed Program. He stated that it is proposed that Honors Program students be housed in a residential facility that can accommodate co- and extra-curricular activities such as faculty-student dinners, invited lectures, performances, outreach projects, and other opportunities for shared learning. Discussions are being held with Student Housing regarding this aspect of the Program. It is important for students involved in this Program not only to live together, but also to have a sense of community, through common activities. The intent is not to “isolate” the participants from the rest of Georgia Tech, but to create a “ripple effect” across the campus that will improve the educational opportunities for all GT students. Participants will also have the opportunity to participate in the “International Plan” and the “Research Plan;” these programs are viewed as complementary, rather than competing programs.
To provide continuity, it is important to provide a way for students who enroll in the Program during their first two years to remain “connected” and “involved” throughout the remainder of their career at GT. Students will continue to be engaged in Honors Program activities (colloquia, performances, faculty-student dinners, etc.). Additionally, the committee would like to encourage all undergraduate majors to extend the Program into the third and fourth years. The expectation is that, in time, every undergraduate major at GT will have Honors Program activities for 3rd and 4th year students. Nobles stated that some academic programs already have an Honors program; the aim is to get all programs to develop activities for the Honors students, and perhaps for all their majors. He stated that it is important to recognize that this Program is not an “enclave;” instead, it should be viewed as an “incubator,” where many good ideas can be generated. Faculty participating in the Program can export these ideas to their own departments and incorporate them into all their classes. Engle stated that he was among the early “skeptics” on the committee; his early experience at other institutions suggested that most of them develop honors programs in order to capture what we already have at Georgia Tech. He stated that he became a strong supporter of the Program after the committee’s deliberations, and that the proposed Honors Program will create a “community of scholars,” and will serve as a test bed of ideas that will enhance the educational experience of all students at Georgia Tech.
A question was asked regarding the connection between the proposed Honors Program and the International Plan. Nobles stated that the International Plan was developed to broaden the opportunities available to our students. It is hoped that many of the students involved in the Honors Program will take advantage of those opportunities. The aim is not to create another set of “requirements” that participants need to complete so that someone can check them off; instead, the aim is expand the educational opportunities for the students. Participants in the Honors program will be encouraged to participate in the International Plan and the Research Plan. Specific details as to how these programs will “interface” have not been worked out. A question was asked regarding the relationship between the proposed Honors Program and the President’s Scholars Program. Nobles stated that the aim is not to compete with the President’s Scholars Program, which has its own purpose, identity and mission; naturally, there will be some overlap between the students in both programs. However, while the President’s Scholars Program has nearly 60 scholars, the plan calls for the Honors Program to enroll nearly 150 students per year. So, many participants in the Honors Program will have to come from outside the President’s Scholars program.
A motion was made to endorse the development of the Honors Program. The motion passed without dissent. The President thanked Drs. Nobles and Engle for their efforts in developing this important Program.
6. The President called on Ms. Pamela Rary (Legal Affairs) to discuss the impact of export controls on academic and research programs at Georgia Tech. A copy of the slides used in the presentation is attached (see Attachment #4 below); copies of handouts distributed at the meeting are also attached (see Attachment #5 below). Ms. Rary stated that the US Government restricts the release of critical technologies, critical data, equipment, chemicals, biological agents, software code and other materials and information to foreign nationals through export regulations and embargoes. US entities are required to obtain export licenses prior to providing foreign nationals access to controlled technologies or materials. She stated that Georgia Tech’s Legal Department wants faculty and administrators to be aware that export regulations apply to us in many areas, including sponsored research, international programs, and international collaboration. Since 9/11, export controls have been increasingly used as anti-terrorism tools, with focused enforcement on universities (versus past enforcement practices which focused on commercial industry). There has also been an increased focus on life sciences and biological materials. Rary stated that there are several sets of laws and regulations dealing with export controls: (1) The International Traffic in Arms regulations (ITAR) under the jurisdiction of the State Department, which regulates and controls the export of any technology or information with an inherent military use; (2) The Export Administration Act (EAR) under the jurisdiction of the Commerce Department which applies to commercial applications without an inherent military use (the Department of State has jurisdiction over dual-use items); and (3) The Treasury Department’s Office of Assets Control (OFAC), which regulates the transfer of assets or services to embargoed nations. OFAC deals with drug trafficking, and financial transactions; they have, however, recently taken actions which may impact us (e.g. finding that IEEE’s editing of articles from embargoed countries constitutes an illegal “service” in violation of these regulations). Other laws and regulations impacting export controls include the Patriot Act and DOE regulations.
There are several means by which something is “exported;” these include the transfer of physical controlled items to a foreign national within or outside the US, and the transfer or disclosure of information or technical data to a foreign party (including teaching someone how to repair something with an inherent military use). An export of technology or source code is “deemed” to take place when released to a foreign national within the US. The term “release” means making technology or source code available to foreign nationals, either visually, orally, or by practice and application under guidance of persons with knowledge of the technology or source code. This includes “use technology,” i.e. information on the operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, and refurbishing of controlled equipment (it covers people giving lab tours to foreign national and showing them how to use a controlled piece of equipment). Rary stated that export controls do not apply if the recipient is a lawful permanent resident (green card), or a person who is in the US under the statutory provisions of political asylum. Foreign entities include foreign governments and businesses or other entities not incorporated in the US.
An export license may be required before a controlled item, information, or material is exported. However, most research and teaching on campus in the US, and some information transfers on campus and abroad, can qualify for exclusion and/or exemption. Due to proprietary restrictions, certain sponsored research activities often require licenses. Exclusions applicable to universities cover three categories: fundamental research, public domain, and educational information. The fundamental research exclusion applies to basic and applied research in science and engineering where the results are ordinarily published and shared broadly with the scientific community (versus proprietary research, the results of which are restricted for proprietary or national security reasons). The work has to be performed at an accredited institution of higher education located in the US. The exclusion does not apply to items or materials (e.g. samples of controlled biological materials). We rely most heavily on this exclusion which was confirmed in a National Security Directive issued in 1985, and reaffirmed in 2001 by the current administration; it states that it is the policy of the administration, to the maximum extent possible, to allow results of fundamental research to remain unrestricted. It further states that if the research results will not be available to the public, a national security classification is required.
The “Public Domain” exclusion applies to information that is already published and available in the public domain. This includes information available at libraries which are open to the public, including most university libraries It also includes material presented at conferences, meetings, seminars, and trade shows open to the public (for ITAR, the conference, meeting, etc. must be held in the US, while for EAR it can be held anywhere). It also includes material which can be obtained through unrestricted subscriptions, newsstands, bookstores, as well as published patent information, and websites accessible to the public for free and without the host’s knowledge or control of who visits. Application of the “Educational Information” exclusion differs between ITAR and EAR regulations; ITAR focuses on the subject matter, while EAR is focused on the venue. For ITAR, the exclusion applies to general science, math, and engineering commonly taught at schools and universities. For EAR, the exclusion applies to information conveyed in courses listed in course catalogues and associated teaching labs of any academic institution; however, the exclusion does not cover encrypted software.
The exclusions and exemptions do not apply when controlled research equipment, biological samples, or computers with research data or encrypted or proprietary software are hand-carried or shipped abroad. They also do not apply when there is reason to believe the recipient is violating export laws, or when sponsors provide proprietary information that is controlled to the university researchers who are foreign nationals, or who share it with anyone abroad or foreign nationals in the US. Rary stated that many of GTRI’s projects may not fall under the fundamental research exemption. Licensing is needed for: (1) Research related to defense, military, weapons, space, or other dual-use technologies; (2) Attending conferences with limited registration (note that GT employees working at Federal Government facilities under an IPA are still considered GT employees – they do need a license even if they are instructed by the Federal Agency for which they work to attend a meeting overseas); (3) Exclusions do not apply; and (4) Providing anything of value to a sanctioned country/entity/individual from Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, N. Korea, Burma, Liberia, Sudan, Syria, or Zimbabwe. When exemptions and/or exclusions do not apply, a license must be obtained before any deemed export, export, or re-export takes place, i.e. prior to undertaking the activity, or transfer of information sufficient to develop research proposals. The Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) coordinates the licenses. Rary stated that even when exclusions to ITAR/EAR apply, OFAC may prohibit travel or other activities with sanctioned countries and individuals. OFAC seeks to limit trade between embargoed countries and the US for a variety of reasons, including drug trafficking and involvement with terrorism. As an example, she pointed to the “Iranian Transaction Regulation,” which makes it unlawful to provide goods or services to a person in Iran. [This does not prevent a faculty member from providing support to an Iranian student as long as the support does not exceed the cost of attending school].
Rary stated that export control issues which pose a challenge to universities derive from changes being considered by the US Government which may further restrict activities at research universities. In 2003, several universities (including GT) were audited to see how well they have complied with the “deemed-export” rules. Universities have traditionally assumed that use of controlled equipment for fundamental research is exempt under the EAR fundamental research exemption. However, the Commerce Department has taken the position that technology relating to controlled equipment is subject to the deemed export provisions (and the requirement to license foreign nationals having access to that equipment) even if the research being conducted with that equipment is fundamental. The Commerce Department’s proposed rule changes include a more encompassing definition for “use technology.” They have recommended that the word “and” in the current definition be replaced by the word “or” [current definition: “information on the operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, and refurbishing of controlled equipment”]. Another change which would increase the difficulty of the licensing process requires employers to obtain export licenses based on the country of origin regardless of an individual’s most recent citizenship or residency status. She stated that the Defense Department has recently proposed amending the DFAR to include requirements for export controlled information in research contracts. Universities would be required to establish unique badging for foreign nationals and foreign persons, and conduct initial and periodic training on export compliance controls for employees who have access to export-controlled information and technology.
Rary stated that export controls have far-reaching impact on universities, which extends well beyond research. Departments and activities that warrant attention include laboratories, Human Resources, Security, Health, and Libraries. Georgia Tech has a review process in place for research contracts and new hires. For research, OLA coordinates the review with OSP and other offices (see Attachment #5b below). The Contracting Officer provides OLA with copies of the statement of work, and completed export questionnaire, along with any additional information to assist with the export review. OLA attorneys review the project for any exclusions or exceptions and determine whether a license is required; if a license is required, OLA files the necessary application for export license. The review process for hiring of foreign personnel and visitors is coordinated by OHR and OLA. OHR contacts OLA and Homeland Security regarding employment of foreign nationals or visitors. The hiring department completes an export questionnaire which provides information regarding access to specialized equipment, restricted chemicals or biologicals, controlled equipment, encrypted software, and proprietary information. This, together with information on the type of projects the person will be working on, allows OLA to determine whether an export review needs to be done. Rary stated that, moving forward, there is work to be done. Additional training will be available from OSP this fall to increase awareness among departments and administrators. A more comprehensive policy and procedures are being reviewed; this may expand the review process related to travel, access to specialized equipment, and overseas campus issues. OLA and OSP will continue to work to address the proposed rule changes. Rary concluded by stating that this is an important issue, since there is some individual liability associated with non-compliance; it is not only an institutional liability for GT as an entity, but also an individual exposure to criminal penalties, including jail (10 years) and fines (5 times the export value).
A question was asked as to whether there is currently a formal process to review proposals, programs, activities, etc. done by GT faculty at our overseas campuses and programs (e.g. GTL, Singapore, China, India, etc.). Rary stated that the expanded processes and procedures being reviewed at this time will address these issues. A question was asked as to whether training is being provided to faculty planning to travel overseas as to what software they can or cannot take on their laptops, or if they can even take a laptop. Rary stated that, at this time, no such training is being done for Academic Faculty; however, this is another area being evaluated. A follow-up comment was made that faculty involved in study-abroad programs should attend/be offered this type of training.
The President thanked Ms. Rary for her presentation.
7. The President called on Dr. Tom Morley, Chair of the Academic Integrity Committee, to present proposed procedures for faculty resolution of Academic Honor Code violations. Morley stated that last Spring, the Academic Senate approved a change in Student Rules and Regulations dealing with the Students Code of Conduct. The revision gives faculty the option to resolve alleged Honor Code violations by directly interacting with the student(s) involved. Procedures have been prepared to guide the faculty’s involvement in that process; a pamphlet summarizing these procedures will soon be sent to all faculty members. Morley urged faculty to read it and indicated that members of the Academic Integrity Committee, including himself, as well as members of the Office of Student Integrity, would be glad to discuss the details of these procedures at any department meetings. He stated that there are three important things that faculty members need to keep in mind if they elect to directly resolve alleged Honor Code violations: (1) Whatever the outcome, students must be informed of the appeals process available to them (students can appeal within six calendar days to the Office of Student Integrity); (2) Faculty members must inform the Office of Student Integrity as to how the issue was resolved (this will help them maintain records and “catch” multiple offenders); and (3) Faculty are urged to call the Office of Student Integrity or the Honor Advisory Council prior to meeting with the student(s) involved, so that they can provide an observer (“witness”) for the meeting(s). Gail DiSabitino (Dean of Students) stated that the primary purpose of providing an observer to these conferences is to help the faculty and students understand the process. Morley concluded by reiterating the importance of reading the soon-to-be-distributed pamphlet summarizing the procedures, and expressing the Integrity Committee members’ willingness to discuss the details at Department meetings. The President stated that Ms. Karen Boyd (Senior Associate Dean of Students) will be leaving GT to pursue her PhD; he acknowledged her efforts and contributions in the area of Academic Integrity.
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 #6 below)
a. Statutes: 07/19/05
b. Academic Services: 04/07/05
c. Welfare & Security: 03/18/05; 04/27/05
The President indicated that representatives of these committees are available to answer any questions. The minutes were approved without dissent.
9. The President called on Dr. Bill Green, Chair of the Graduate Curriculum Committee, to present minutes of the committee’s 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 #6 below). Green indicated that there are three sets of minutes to be approved (04/26/05; 06/30/05; and 07/28/05. He provided a list of action items contained in those minutes which require separate approval by the faculty; these include: new courses in ME/ECE and ARCH (04/26/05); New courses in CEE, ISyE, and MATH; participation of ISyE in the Bioinformatics PhD Program; and Establishment of a Dual MS program in ECE with Shanghai Jiao Tong University (06/30/05). He stated that Dr. Zhou (ECE) and Dr. May (ECE Chair) are available to answer any questions regarding the dual MS degree program with Shanghai Jiao Tong University (SJTU). Zhou stated that SJTU is a technological university (similar to GT), with approximately 40,000 students. The proposed dual MS Program will have the same admission and degree requirements as our GT degree program. Three GT faculty members (chosen from rotating volunteers) will teach at SJTU during the summer and fall; they will be paid as if they were here. The Program will be self-sufficient; tuition will be used to pay faculty salaries, fringe benefits, travel, etc. There will be no infrastructure investment by GT since SJTU has all the facilities needed. May stated that SJTU has already approved the proposal and that GT Academic Senate approval is being sought at this time so that we can proceed. A motion to approve the minutes of the Graduate Curriculum Committee meetings dated 04/26/05; 06/30/05; and 07/28/05, and all the action items therein passed without dissent.
Green presented an additional action item which was tabled at the April 19, 2005 meeting of the Academic Senate (item #5 of the 02/24/05 Graduate Committee meeting minutes). The action involves clarification of the policy on hour loads for graduate students. The proposed revised wording of the policy states: “Full-time students must be enrolled for at least 12 credit hours on a letter grade or pass-fail basis. As an exception, the Advisor and School Chair may allow up to 3 hours out of the 12 minimum to be taken on an audit basis in Fall and Spring semesters; in Summer semesters, the Advisor and School Chair may allow up to 6 hours out of the 12 minimum to be taken on an audit basis. Full-time students working exclusively on thesis research should be registered for 18 or more hours of 7000 or 9000 (Master’s or Doctoral Thesis) in Fall and Spring semesters, and up to 16 hours during Summer semesters.” Green indicated that this item was tabled at the April 19, 2005 meeting since, counter to the original policy and the Committee’s intent, the words “Advisor and School Chair” in the second sentence were inadvertently replaced by “Advisor or School Chair.” He indicated that the proposed wording, as corrected, does not constitute a change in policy, but merely a clarification of the rules. A motion to approve the proposed corrected wording for the policy on hour loads for graduate students (item #5 of the 02/24/05 Graduate Committee meeting minutes, as corrected) passed without dissent.
10. 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 #6 below).
a. Undergraduate Curriculum: 04/06/05; 04/27/05; 05/04/05; 05/16/05; 06/15/05; 07/13/05; and 07/27/05
b. Student Activities: 09/28/04; 10/26/04; 02/24/05; and 05/05/05
The President indicated that representatives of these committees are available to answer any questions. The minutes were approved without dissent.
11. The President called for any other business; hearing none, the meeting was adjourned at 4:40 PM.
Secretary of the Faculty
September 19, 2005
Attachments to be included with archival copy of the minutes:
a. April 19, 2005 Called meeting of the General Faculty combined with meeting of the Academic Senate & Annual Meeting of the Academic Faculty: http://www.facultysenate.gatech.edu/ASAFGF2005-041905-Minuteswp.htm