Combined with



Tuesday, April 22, 2008, 3:00 pm

Student Center Theater





1.      The President opened the meeting at 3:00 P.M. and offered the following comments on matters of interest to the Georgia Tech community:

a.       He announced that Georgia Tech has received the certification of its intercollegiate athletics program from the NCAA, following the extensive process of self study, site visits, and review.  He acknowledged the hard work of many faculty, staff, and athletics personnel for their dedication to this project, and thanked particularly Dr. Jack Lohmann, Ms. Susan Paraska, Paul Parker, and Dan Radakovich for their leadership.  He stated that Tech was receiving the benefits of continued efforts to comply with NCAA standards and help its student athletes excel in both academics and athletics.  President Clough also acknowledged the sad news of the recent death of one of Tech’s baseball players and indicated investigations were ongoing.

b.   He commented on the “When the Whistle Blows” ceremony [April 17, 2008] held in remembrance of the lives of sixteen people from the campus community who passed away during the past year while studying or working here.  He said it is one of the few occasions that bring together the whole community in a bond of common concern.  Sadly, four of the sixteen were students this year.

c.   President Clough mentioned the celebrations associated with the recent Faculty and Staff Honors Luncheon [held April 10, 2008] and several student honors luncheons.  He said the first of the spring graduations would be held on April 23, 2008, namely, the Ph.D. commencement.  Dr. Arden Bement, Jr., Director of the National Science Foundation would give the address on this occasion and also be available to meet with faculty members during his visit to campus.  Graduation for bachelors and masters degree students was scheduled for May 3, 2008 in the Georgia Dome (because there was not room to handle that many students in on-campus facilities).  The commencement speaker for this occasion would be Dean Kamen, the inventor of such things as the Segway, and founder of the FIRST Robotics Competition which just completed the latest national finals in Atlanta.  President Clough said this was a good opportunity to say thank you to Mr. Kamen for engaging a hundred thousand young people in math and science.  Georgia Tech would be awarding an honorary doctorate to Mr. Kamen and also to Senator Sam Nunn, the latter in recognition of his years of service in the senate and more recently his efforts to limit nuclear proliferation.

d.   President Clough provided a wrap up on the Georgia legislature’s recently completed session.  The legislature supported several things of vital importance to Georgia Tech and the rest of the university system, including:

·         Full support for the university funding formula;

·         Maintenance support;

·         Salary increases averaging 2.5%;

·         Renovation of the Hinman Building, which will be utilized by the College of Architecture; and

·         $10 million in state funding for a beginning on the Undergraduate Learning Center (in addition to $20 million from private donations).

President Clough said that the Governor has until May 14 to veto anything in these bills but was hopeful that all would be affirmed.  He thanked Tech’s liaison to the legislature, Dene Sheheane, for his efforts on Tech’s behalf. 

Another piece of legislation that was passed, President Clough explained, was the ORP Bill which made major changes in the Optional Retirement Plan (ORP) for the University System.  This bill made it possible for new full-time salaried employees (and not just new faculty) to participate in this retirement option.  Over the years, he said, Tech has broadened its definitions of faculty to provide wider access to the option to participate in this program.  Now it would be possible to revisit the criteria for membership in the faculty since that would no longer be tied to access to ORP.  This bill also made the Board of Regents now responsible for determining the employer’s matching contributions.

President Clough commented that Georgia was fortunate so far in that many surrounding states and their university systems were experiencing budget cuts and zero salary increases.

The President then asked for questions but there were none at that time.

2.      The President asked for approval of the minutes of the meeting of February 5, 2008 [a combined meeting of the General Faculty, General Faculty Assembly, and Academic Senate].  He indicated that the minutes were published and posted on the faculty governance web site and that no additions or corrections had been received. (See Attachment #1 below for web site reference).   The minutes were approved without dissent.  

3.   The President asked Mr. Brock Wester and Ms. Anu Parvatiyar (outgoing presidents of the graduate student and undergraduate student bodies respectively) to introduce the new student body presidents and delegates to the faculty meeting.  Mr. Wester introduced Mr. Nick Wellkamp as the new president of the undergraduate student body, and Mr. Aaron Fowler, as the graduate student body president.  President Clough thanked Mr. Wester and Ms. Parvatiyar for their excellent contributions to the Tech community in the past year and expressed the welcome of the faculty to the new student leaders.  He encouraged them to let the faculty know student perspectives on issues that arise.

4.   The President called on Dr. Dan Schrage (Professor in AE) who has served as Tech’s Faculty Athletics Representative (FAR) for three years.  Dr. Schrage commented Dr. Schrage presented his annual report to the faculty on the State of Georgia Tech’s Intercollegiate Athletics Program and followed closely the material in Attachment #2.  He began by commenting that the ACC was unique in having its FARs serve in rotation as presidents of the conference.  He then explained the role of the FAR on behalf of Georgia Tech and its faculty, describing the check and balance system at Tech for certifying an athlete’s academic eligibility to participate in intercollegiate athletics.  He said the FAR provided a final check that the processes were being followed correctly.  

Dr. Schrage cataloged the educational benefits in slide 6 and commented that athletics success often brought more applications from students in general.  He also commented on the trend toward bringing more of athletics administration out of the Georgia Tech Athletic Association (GTAA) and into Georgia Tech itself and thanked Dan Radakovich (Athletics Director) for his leadership in this.

Dr. Schrage explained two metrics used by the NCAA for monitoring student athletes’ academic progress [namely, the Academic Progress Rate (APR) and Graduation Success Rate (GSR)] and provided representative data for each.  He said that the APR had been a very positive influence focusing on academics in the lives of student athletes and that President Clough had had a lot of influence on its development and adoption.  If a school did not meet the mandated APR levels, it would lose scholarships so the penalties would have a significant impact.  He stated that the GSR is a better measure than other federal standards for graduate and was a six-year average.  Tech’s performance steadily improved over the past several years with student athletes improving by three percent since last year.

Dr. Schrage stated there were no salient areas of concern that had not been addressed by the administration and athletics leadership in their application for the latest NCAA certification.  He thanked Dr. Jack Lohmann and Ms. Susan Paraska for their leadership toward this.  Dr. Schrage described three areas of concern for which Institute plans have been developed and commented that the GTAA Board of Trustees will be watching these closely.  The first concerned processes to consider academic entrance qualifications.  The Institute has adjusted its admissions appeals process to better communicate the available processes to all students and has plans to monitor the progress of those who enter under the USG BOR limited admissions processes.  He said there was increasing pressure to find student athletes who were committed to stay through graduation.  He appealed to faculty to get more involved with mentoring sports teams.

The second area of concern involved needs for improvement in gender equity and plans to address these would be reviewed in the June meeting of the GTAA Board of Trustees.  Dr. Schrage discussed metrics for salary equity and numbers of women on the coaching staff.  He reported that at long last there was a plan in place to build a new women’s software facility near the coliseum.  Improved recruiting resources for female teams were also being developed.

Similarly, the GTAA Board would review in June plans for improved minority opportunities in athletics, Dr. Schrage reported.  Some of the considerations and metrics paralleled the gender equity situation just described.  

Slide 20 provided a good summary of the overall situation.  Dr. Schrage said that it is important that plans not only be implemented but also tracked and watched over time.

President Clough added that the APR and GSR are consistent with best practices in measuring academic progress and they may have wider applicability than just with student athletes.

Q.  Do the required 128-130 hours required for a degree in engineering make it difficult for student athletes to major in engineering and maintain APR standards?  Ans.  Dr. Clough stated that the NCAA standards do not take account of the fact that some majors are harder to complete in five years than others; so these rules make it more difficult for engineering majors but not impossible.  Examples of success were provided.

5.   The President called on Mr. Tim Strike (GTRI), Chair of the Statutes Committee, to present a proposed addition to the Faculty Handbook on intellectual diversity.  Dr. Clough explained that this topic had been the subject of proposed state legislation that had not passed during recent years.  He said the universities in the University System of Georgia (USG) did not favor these bills because they would dictate how subject matter should be presented in the classroom and would be counterproductive.  However, the Chancellor’s office has asked that members of USG make sure that the basic principles respecting intellectual diversity are affirmed in university policy.  Mr. Strike presented his proposal with slides in Attachment #3.  He explained that the Chancellor’s Office had recommended the adoption of the “Statement on Academic Rights and Responsibilities” prepared by the American Council on Education (ACE) (see Attachment #3b).  The Georgia Tech administration had followed this guidance, he said, and the ACE statement was now available via a link from the Provost’s and the Dean of Students’ web sites.  Mr. Strike said that the ACE statement provides a good discussion of some important principles, but now it was time to boil this down to a few clear policy statements. 

Some elements of the ACE statement already were covered by existing Tech policy, he said; for example:

·         Section 6.2 of the Statutes says that the evaluation of student academic performance needs to be on an “academic basis, not on opinions, conduct, or associations in matters unrelated to academic pursuits.”

·         Furthermore, the policy in Section 37.3.2 is that “only job related criteria” should be used “in selection for hire, promotion, transfer training, and all other employment opportunities.” 

So he said there was only a little that needed to be added to complete the support of the ACE statement. 

The Statutes Committee recommended that a single paragraph be added as a new Section 46.5 titled Academic Rights and Responsibilities (Attachment #3a).  This would be in the policy section of the Handbook that only needs one reading for the faculty to adopt it if they wish.  The existing sections 46.5 and 46.6 would then move to 46.6 and 46.7.  He summarized the proposed new Section 46.5 as follows:

·         It expresses support for the ACE statement and provides a hyperlink to it.

·         It emphasizes that politics will not disadvantage members of the Tech community: “At no time shall students or faculty be disadvantaged or evaluated on the basis of their political opinions.”

·         It defines how grievances are to be resolved: “Any grievance based on an alleged incident shall follow the appropriate procedure outlined elsewhere in the Faculty Handbook.”

Mr. Strike took the following questions:

·         Q. Why does this seem to protect only political opinions?  Why not also religious opinions, for example?  Ans. Protection for that is already covered in the Handbook.  Politics is only mentioned in the proposed new section because that seemed to be the only part of the material covered in the ACE statement that was not covered explicitly in the existing Handbook material.  Dr. Clough added that the attraction of this approach is for Georgia Tech to be in line with a national standard.

Mr. Strike moved that the proposed changes to the Faculty Handbook in Attachment #3a be adopted.  The motion was seconded and adopted without dissent.


6.   Dr. Clough asked Dr. Ron Bohlander to provide a required second reading of proposed improvements to faculty election processes.  Dr. Bohlander made his presentation using the slides in Attachment #4 and reminded the faculty that the improvements were focused on helping faculty elections run more smoothly.  He said there were three main areas:

·          There were often multiple slots to fill on a given committee.  The proposal provided a pool of candidates from which to fill these slots, with the pool having 50% more candidates than there were slots to fill.

·         There was a need for better limits on the size of the curriculum committees and better  representation of the colleges on these committees.  Existing formulas based on teaching loads were making the committees too large.

·         There was a need to automatically recognize units of Georgia Tech’s Services and Central Administration that were large enough to conduct their own elections for representation to the General Faculty Assembly.  For all the rest of this category, the Executive Board would continue to conduct a special election for representatives.

Dr. Bohlander reminded the faculty that, with their permission, the just completed elections were conducted under these rules on a provisional basis.  As the supervisor of the elections, Dr. Bohlander reported that they had run very smoothly.  He said the new rules made the job of this year’s Nominations Committee under Barbara Henry much easier and thanked the committee for a fabulous job.  He asked if there were any contrary observations and received none.

Slide 3 showed how candidates would be pooled for multiple slots on a committee.  Dr. Bohlander explained that when there were restrictions to elect a particular distribution of representatives from the colleges there would be a pool for each college.  The material on this slide showed an excerpt from Section 10.7.1 of the By-Laws and he noted that he would have more to say about the rest of this section later.

Slide 4 illustrated what would be done to modify the representations to the curriculum committees.  First, the proposal provided for proportional representation based on relative (instead of absolute) teaching load metrics.  Secondly it provided for a floor and a ceiling on membership from each college.  No college would have fewer than two representatives on each committee, and none would have more than seven.  The rule on the ceiling was consistent with a general principle in faculty governance at Tech that no college holds more than about one-third of the votes on any deliberative body.  The proposed formulas were scaled to get approximately 20 members on each committee, a number reached after consultation with the curriculum committees.

Slide 5 showed the proposed new provisions for elections of General Faculty Assembly representatives from faculty in Services and Central Administration.  Dr. Bohlander explained that units of this category having 10 or more faculty members would be eligible to conduct their own elections.  He also said there were proposed new provisions for filling vacancies (due to resignations, retirement, etc.) in the positions elected under the supervision of the Executive Board.  Procedures similar to those used to fill vacancies on Standing Committees would be used. 

Dr. Bohlander said these three areas covered the original intent of the changes for faculty elections and were the subject of the first reading.  In the meantime, the Executive Board had raised some questions about the fact that the Statutes and By-Laws say that members of the administration cannot be elected to certain Standing Committees and the Executive Board.  Some may serve in ex officio roles if so designated but they cannot be elected.  The questions concerned how members of the administration were defined; the Statutes and By-Laws were not completely clear and experienced faculty members sometimes took on roles that included administrative duties.  When the Executive Board looked at this more closely, they found there was good guidance in Section 10.7.1 of the By-Laws but that the sentences of that section seemed to be in a rather haphazard order.  Dr. Bohlander showed in Slide 7 the existing outline of the section in the left column, and in the right column, a recommended improved order.  Slide 8 showed the beginning of this section in the revised order, and a key sentence was highlighted which reminded all that all members of any deliberative body were not to “participate in the consideration of an appeal of their own decision rendered in the performance of other duties.”  Conflict of interest was something all persons should avoid, Dr. Bohlander said.  He explained that the latest text for this section contained no new words except those heard in the first reading of the proposals just reviewed.  Since these were just housekeeping changes, the Executive Board recommended that the sentences of Section 10.7.1 be reordered in way shown in a handout to the meeting (Attachment #4a) and asked that this be adopted as part of the faculty’s approval of this second reading.  [Note this Attachment #4a contains the recommended changes to all sections of the Faculty Handbook considered at this meeting.]

Accordingly Dr. Bohlander moved that the changes shown in Attachment #4a and briefed per Attachment #4 be approved with the understanding that the new order of sentences in Section 10.7.1 would be used.  The motion was seconded.

Dr. Joe Hughes (ECE) spoke up to point out that the task force that dealt with this (of which he was a member) inadvertently overlooked a part of the Handbook that also needed to be amended to be consistent with the recommended changes.  He handed Dr. Bohlander a mark-up of the handout showing the additional changes needed to Section 10.2.1 (as shown in purple in Attachment #4b).  Dr. Bohlander agreed and asked the faculty’s indulgence to include consonant changes in Section 10.2.1 covering the same intent as those they have seen proposed for Section 5.2.3.  He made an amendment to his motion to include changes in Section 10.2.1 consonant with the changes in Section 5.2.3 (as shown in Attachment #4b) as part of full approval of the second reading of this package.  The amendment was seconded and passed without dissent.  The motion as amended then passed without dissent.  Thus Attachment #4b was adopted by the faculty.


7.   President Clough then called on Dr. Carol Colatrella, Chair of the Faculty Status and Grievance Committee (FSGC), to report on the work of a task force that looked at improvements in the procedures of this committee.  Dr. Clough said the task force recommendations were motivated by the need to better handle times when a large number of grievance cases arise, as they did a year or so ago.  Dr. Colatrella briefed the faculty from the slides in Attachment #5 and began by introducing the members of the task force commissioned by the Executive Board, as listed on Slide 2.  All, she said, were experienced in the workings of the FSGC or were experienced in matters like reappointment, promotion, and tenure which are often at issue in grievances.  She explained the situation that prompted the revision of committee procedures and arrangements:

·         A very large number of grievances arose in 2006-07;

·         The committee did not have formal administrative support at that time;

·         Some members of the committee had become inactive and the mechanism to replace them was not known to the committee;

·         There were procedural inconsistencies and some confusion over the purpose and use of the different forms of resolution.

She said some of these issues had been resolved by agreement of the parties involved; in particular:

·         The Office of Faculty Career Development Services (FCDS) was now providing support for setting up appointments, handling paperwork, and record keeping.

o   She thanked Reid Tankersley for his assistance in that regard and

o   She said the committee now has a T-Square site to manage some of their business.

·         FSGC has regular monthly meetings the members can count on.

·         [For completeness, it should be noted that the committee now knows it can get quick action on committee member replacements from the Executive Board as well.]

Dr. Colatrella described a recommendation that the committee create a pool of faculty members that could be drawn on like reserves to deal with grievance investigations when loads became high.  These reserves would not be voting members of the FSGC, she said, but they would be briefed on procedures and empowered to assist the elected members in particular cases.  The involvement of experienced former committee members would be sought and appreciated.  The Executive Board would review and approve the list of pool members annually or as required.  She said this had not yet been implemented but was recommended for the future if grievances spiked again.

The discussion then focused on the task force’s recommendations for changes to Section 14 of the Faculty Handbook.  Participants in the meeting referred to the handout Attachment #4a mentioned earlier.  Dr. Colarella reviewed the highlights of the changes using the outline in Slide 7 of Attachment #5.  The new procedure would follow this order:

·         The grievant would be encouraged to first discuss the matter in question with the administrator one level above the source of the grievance.  Discussions with a Georgia Tech ombuds or with a member of the FSGC could also be helpful.  It might at that point be possible to work out an informal resolution. 

·         If the faculty member chose to file a formal grievance this would be done via a web interface.  The FSGC and the FCDS would work together to see that a filing is complete.  Grievances more than one year before the filing date would not be accepted.

·         The FSGC would decide formally whether to accept the case and inform the parties within six weeks.  If the decision were not to review, reasons would be provided.

·         A method of proceeding would be chosen and communicated to the parties.

o   The FSGC chair would discuss the possibilities of informal resolution, mediation, or negotiation with the grievant and follow such an option if the grievant chose.  The goal would be to accomplish a resolution in a period of time of 45 days or less. 

o   If that were not possible or the grievant did not prefer one of these methods, then an investigation would be initiated. 

§  The nature of the grievance and the names of the parties would be communicated to those involved.

§  A three-person investigation team would be named, some possibly from a pool of reserves approved by the Executive Board.

§  Interviews would be conducted to obtain necessary information.

§  The investigating subcommittee would make a written report to the FSGC.

·         At the conclusion of any investigation, the FSGC would make a report and present it to the grievant and the one(s) alleged to have caused the grievance.

·         Written responses from the principal parties would be solicited.  If the grievant were going to request a formal hearing, it would have to be done at that time.

·         After the time for responses and a formal hearing (if any), all relevant material would be sent to the President as advisory input.  He/she would then make the final decision.

Dr. Colatrella showed how this process would be implemented by scrolling through a side-by-side comparison of the current text of Section 14 and the proposed new text, as recorded here in Attachment #5a.  She showed that all of the changes were to processes prior to any formal hearing and the only change proposed relative to formal hearings concerned a time limit on requesting such a hearing.

Dr. Colatrella asked for questions.  In response to one, she clarified that the only members of the current FSGC who were on the task force were Marion Usselman and herself.  Some of the other task force members had served in previous years on the FSGC.  Dr. Clough emphasized that the purpose of this study and the recommended improvements was to ensure timely action while remaining fair in the process.  Dr. Bohlander commented that the recommendations brought forward by the task force were reviewed and approved by this year’s FSGC, the Statutes Committee, and the Executive Board.  A motion to approve the recommended changes as presented and written down in Attachment #4b was made and approved without dissent.


8.   The President called on Reta Pikowsky (Registrar) for graduation information.  She noted for the minutes that the Curriculum Committees had approved three posthumous degrees, one doctoral, and two undergraduate.  She reported that the college Deans had reviewed the lists of candidates for spring graduation, so she moved that the faculty accept these candidates for graduation.  The motion was seconded and approved without dissent.


9.   The President then called on representatives of some of the Academic Faculty’s Standing Committees to present minutes and action items requiring approval.  Copies of minutes have been recorded at the website noted as Attachment #6 below.

a)   Prof. Jeff Streator, Chair of the Student Regulations Committee (SRC), introduced minutes from two committee meeting (1/29/08, 2/26/08), both with action items.  He used Attachment #7 to support his presentation.  He stated that the SRC recommended a summertime exception to regulations shown in Slide 1 having to do with eligibility for cross-enrollment. He said the motivation was to help student athletes overcome a hurdle:  They are required by the NCAA to be enrolled on campus and thus they had less freedom than other students to enroll elsewhere for summer term courses.   Prof. Streator moved that the changes shown on Slide 1 be accepted, and the motion was seconded.  Questions from the floor included:

·         Q. Why is asking for permission in advance viewed as problematic?  This requirement was added in the first place to insure that departments in charge of a given subject matter would approve courses taken elsewhere during the summer. Ans. The existing rule applies to concurrent registration.  Students who are not at Tech during the summer do not have to request permission in advance and this would put athletes on the same footing.

·         Q. If this rule change were adopted, would Georgia Tech be saying that persons taking Tech’s classes are at a disadvantage? Ans. What Georgia Tech offers in the summer is limited and hundreds of students take courses that are accepted for transfer.  It is not a rare thing. 

·         Comment. The proposed rule change would permit a student to be enrolled at Tech, taking courses, and also be enrolled somewhere else taking courses.  When the original rule was instituted, the presumption was that a student who is here would ordinarily take classes here.  Ans. Yes, but the summer is a time when greater flexibility is expected yet conflicts can happen with the limited offerings available.

·         Comment from Dan Radkovich, Director of Athletics.  Sometimes financial aid resources can be optimized better by utilizing some educational opportunities at other schools.  Furthermore, the dates of summer sessions vary at the different schools in the area and sometimes the dates that a course is offered at another school better matches the athletic program dates here.

The question was called and the motion passed.

The Action Item shown on slide 2 was a similar proposed change extending the eligibility for cross enrollment and concurrent registration to any degree-seeking student, not just juniors and seniors.  Prof. Streator said this would similarly benefit particularly student athletes for the reasons given above. He moved that this change and the minutes of 1/29/08 be approved.  The motion was seconded and approved without dissent.

The Action Item on slide 3 would bring Georgia Tech policy into line with the Board of Regents. Prof. Streator explained that the proposed regulation would allow an undergraduate student to withdraw and, if readmitted after five years, the student could petition to the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee for academic renewal.  In that case old academic records would be erased and the student would have the chance to start over.  Prof. Streator moved that this recommendation and the minutes of 2/26/08 be approved and the motion was seconded.  After some brief clarifying discussion it was approved without dissent.

b)      Prof. Chuck Parsons, chair of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, introduced minutes from seven meetings (1/30/08, 2/13/08, 2/27/08, 3/12/08, 3/26/08, 4/9/08, 4/11/08), three of which had action items (2/13/08, 3/12/08, 3/26/08):

New programs approved included: New minor in engineering and management; a new certificate in astrophysics; a revision to the linguistic certificate from Modern Languages; a revised entrepreneurs certificate in management to allow a track for management students; participation by students in the School of Economics in the research option; addition of a course option that would satisfy one of the requirements of the Women, Science, and Technology minor in the Ivan Allen College.

The committee approved new standards for minors reducing the number of hours required from 18 hours to 15 hours, and the upper division hours from 12 hours to 9 hours.  Prof. Parsons said these numbers were now consistent with Board of Regents requirements.  These changes represent a new standard for minors but application of these standards to existing minors would need committee approval. 

New courses approved included: CS (19, incl. 2 cross-listed with math); ME (6, incl. 4 cross-listed with Mgt. as part of the engineering and management minor); Dept. of Professional Practice (1 as part of preparation for work overseas); Modern Languages (2, in Spanish); College of Engineering (1 as part of the engineering and management minor); College of Management (6, incl. 4 cross-listed with ME).  Deactivated courses included: CS (1); CEE (4); and Linguistics (1).

Eighteen courses in LCC were changed from 2000 level courses to 3000 level courses.

Prof. Parsons moved that all the above action items be approved. 

Reta Pikowsky moved that all the minutes including those without action items be approved.  The motion was second and approved without dissent.

c)      Prof. Gary Parker, Chair of the Graduate Curriculum Committee, introduced minutes from three meetings (2/28/08, 3/13/08, 4/10/08), all with action items.  Dr. Parker followed closely the outline in the agenda, taking each meeting in turn.

From 2/28: CEE – 7 new courses, a new non-thesis option for MS in Environmental Engineering, an option for students in the BS in Environmental Engineering program to participate in the 5-year BS/MS program, and 8 new courses related to the joint program with the U. of Pretoria; Economics – new PhD program with major in economics, and 16 new courses; Math – 2 new courses.  Prof. Parker moved that these minutes and action items be approved.  The motion was second and approved without dissent.

From 3/13: Coll. of Management – curriculum changes and 14 new courses for the MBA-Global Business degree, and reactivate 2 courses; BME – new curriculum for GT/Emory PhD in Biomedical Engineering and new cross-listing of 3 courses.  Prof. Parker moved that these minutes and action items be approved.  The motion was second and approved without dissent.

From 4/10: Applied Physiology – new Ph.D. concentration in Prosthetics and Orthotics plus 3 new courses; College of Engineering, GTRI, & DLPE – new Professional Masters Degree in Applied Systems Engineering, plus 12 new courses; LCC – new 5-year BS/MS program in Digital Media; Public Policy – 1 new course; ECE mods in degree requirement for Undesignated MS in ECE and mods for Ph.D. with a major in ECE; College of Engineering – new global Ph.D. in Biomedical Engineering jointly awarded by GIT, Emory, and Peking University in Beijing.  Prof. Parker moved that these minutes and action items be approved and the motion was seconded.  In discussion Joe Hughes (ECE) explained that there were also modifications to the designated MS in ECE.  With this understanding the minutes and action items were approved without dissent.

10.  The President stated that approval was needed for the minutes of three Standing Committees of the General Faculty; namely, Faculty Benefits (1/22/08, 2/19/08), Statutes (9/4/07, 10/30/07 ), Academic Services (1/15/08), and Welfare and Security Committee (9/10/07, 10/15/07, 11/12/07, 1/28/08, 2/11/08, 3/10/08).  None of these minutes had action items.  Copies of minutes have been recorded at the website noted as Attachment #6 below.  The President received a motion to approve these minutes.  It was seconded and passed without dissent. 

11. The President called for any other business, and hearing none, he commented that this was his last faculty meeting to chair [prior to his retirement]. He said it had been a great pleasure working with the faculty here [and received hearty applause].  He adjourned the meeting at about 4:30 PM.


Respectfully submitted,


Ronald A. Bohlander
Secretary of the Faculty

June 23, 2008


Attachments to be included with archival copy of the minutes:


  1. Minutes of the meeting of the Academic Senate combined with a meeting of the General Faculty February 5, 2008
  2. Report of the Faculty Athletics Representative
  3. Proposed changes to the Faculty Handbook dealing with intellectual diversity
    1. Text of proposed changes
    2. American Council on Education’s “Statement on Academic Rights and Responsibilities”
  4. Second reading of proposed changes in the Faculty Handbook on improved faculty election procedures
    1. Compendium of all Faculty Handbook changes considered at this faculty meeting.
    2. Same but with a modification recommended by Joe Hughes (ECE) and adopted by the faculty.
  1. Proposed changes in the Faculty Handbook relating to the Faculty Status and Grievance Committee.
    1. Comparison of the existing text and proposed new text of Section 14 of the Faculty Handbook.
  1. Standing Committee Minutes
  2. Recommended changes in student regulations.