Tuesday, November 29th, 2005, Student Center Theater




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


a.       Homecoming was very successful.  The faculty lectures were very well attended.  The Alumni Association is doing a good job in broadening the connection between our alumni and the academic programs.   


b.      Our undergraduate commencement speaker this fall will be Mayor Shirley Franklin, who was recently named one of the top five leaders in the Country.  The graduate commencement speaker will be Dr. Michael Griffin, NASA Director.  Both ceremonies will be held in the Coliseum.  The Spring semester ceremony will be held at the Dome. 


c.       The National Cancer Institute of NIH has selected Georgia Tech and Emory as one of seven National centers for cancer nanotechnology excellence.  With this award GT and Emory now have one of the largest Federally-funded programs in the US for Biomedical nanotechnology.


d.      The SACS Commission will hold its annual meeting in December; at that time, they are expected to officially reaffirm our accreditation.  Thanks to the efforts of Jack Lohmann and many faculty and staff, the accreditation process went very smoothly; they were very pleased with our Quality Enhancement Plan. 


e.       The NCAA has decided to place GT on two years probation, vacate records of several sports, and adopt scholarship reductions self-imposed by the Institute.  The violations involve 17 student athletes in four sports over a six year period (out of a total of 865 cases) who were improperly certified as eligible to compete due to an inadvertent misapplication of NCAA eligibility certification rules by the Athletic Association and Institute staff members.  We have modified our processes to make sure that such violations do not happen in the future; the process will include more academic engagement. The Registrar’s office now has a full-time person working on this issue.  Georgia Tech will file an appeal.


f.        A Georgia Tech delegation led by President Clough will visit Shanghai next week to formalize the relationship we have developed with Shanghai Jiao Tong University (SJTU) over the past two years.  It includes student and faculty exchanges and a dual MS degree in Electrical & Computer Engineering.  The President of SJTU has already visited Georgia Tech.


g.       State revenues have grown faster than the forecast.  The Governor and Legislature will likely place the excess revenues in a “rainy-day fund” to guard against future down turns in the economy.  However, we expect the Governor to support salary increases and full-funding of the formula.  We also expect him to support funding for the Nanotechnology Research Center building and renovation of the Old Civil Engineering building.


A question was asked regarding the recent Board of Regents approval of new engineering degree programs at UGA, and whether GT is looking at opportunities to expand its offerings in areas normally covered by UGA.  The President stated that, in the past, the two flagship institutions resisted overlap in program offerings.  However, at this time, we are willing to accept UGA’s offering of some limited engineering courses, inasmuch as it opens the door for us to expand in interdisciplinary areas at the intersection between engineering and sciences where UGA may have degree programs.  He added that the engineering programs to be offered by UGA are relatively small and clearly defined relative to their sciences programs.  Part of the driving factor for this development is the fact that for the last several years we have not been able to accept all eligible Georgia students who are interested in engineering.  Overall, we view this development as a positive change, since it will give us opportunities that we did not have before.  It is also better to have another research institution involved in engineering rather than a non-research institution. 


A question was asked regarding the status of the Undergraduate Learning Center.  The President stated that the process of moving up through the Board of Regents Capital Projects list is very slow.  The total cost of the projects on the list is about $700M, which means that at the current funding rate of $100 to 125M/year, it takes nearly seven years from the time a project is placed on the list to the point when design funds are provided, or nearly 10 years from the time a project is placed on the list to the time it is ready for occupancy.  This is obviously very slow; at some point the State will need to authorize a bond issue to address the needs of higher education.  At this time, our Undergraduate Learning Center is number 12 on the list, so at the current funding rate we will not get design money for it this year.  We have taken this opportunity to re-assess what the Undergraduate Learning Center will be in order to make it even better (Andy Smith is following up on the work started by Bob McMath).   


A question was asked regarding the status of the students displaced by hurricane Katrina who were admitted to Georgia Tech and whether they will continue to enroll in the Spring.  Dr. Sue Ann Allen (Pres. Office) stated that the students were admitted to Georgia Tech in the Fall as temporary students; they have been invited to apply to GT as regular degree-seeking students starting in the Spring.  The application deadline was November 25.  Only three undergraduates and one graduate student have applied; the rest of the students plan to go back to their universities in the New Orleans area at the end of this term.   The President stated that we have also been concerned about a few of our own students whose parents lost their homes in the hurricane; we will help those who have been so disadvantaged.  


2.      The President called for approval of the minutes of the October 11, 2005 meeting of the General Faculty, General Faculty Assembly, and Academic Senate. He indicated that the minutes had been posted on the faculty governance web site 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 Ms. Reta Pikowsky (Registrar) to present the degree candidates for the Fall Commencement.  The Registrar indicated that the list of degree candidates for the Fall 2005 commencement has been circulated to the Academic Departments and Deans.  It was moved that all candidates who complete their requirements by Noon on Thursday December 22nd, 2005 be awarded their degrees.  The motion passed without dissent. 


4.      The President called on Dr. Monson Hayes (ECE), Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee on Faculty Governance, to present a status report on the committee’s activities. A copy of the slides used by Dr. Hayes is attached (See Attachment #2 below).  Hayes stated that following the Executive Board retreat last April, the Ad Hoc Committee was established to examine faculty governance across a multi-campus institution.  The Committee is to present its final report and recommendations to the Executive Board in the Spring.  A list of committee members was shown (see Attachment #2); it includes members from various units who have had experience with multi-campus issues.  The Committee’s goal is to identify the issues (not necessarily the solutions) to be encountered in applying the current faculty governance policies and procedures (contained in the Faculty Handbook) as GT diversifies geographically.    Hayes stated that the Committee will draw on the experience of Ron Bohlander, Chair of the Statutes Committee, as they evaluate the various policies contained in the Faculty Handbook.   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 (Beijing University) and new initiatives in India are under discussion.  As GT expands, it is important to identify and understand the issues before problems arise. 


So far, the Committee has met twice; it will likely be very active in the Spring.  One of the first questions addressed by the committee was the choice of an appropriate name that reflects its charter.  The committee decided that an appropriate name for it should be “The Committee on Multi-Campus Faculty Development, Governance, and Integration.”  The name captures the important issues to be addressed by the committee.  The second issue addressed was to classify the various entities involved since each campus and/or international program is unique; issues important to one may not be relevant for another.  For example, while GTL and Shanghai are both outside the US, they each have unique problems which they do not share with each other; in Asia, one is more concerned with issues such as internet connectivity, patents and licensing, export controls, etc.  Therefore, the committee began by identifying the different program “categories” in order to identify unique issues associated with each category; four categories of programs and activities have been identified.  The first includes campuses like those in Savannah and the one proposed in India, which are envisioned to hire faculty who will reside at those locations on a full-time basis.  Some faculty at those locations may never come to Atlanta; so, the issue is how they can be integrated within our faculty governance activities.  The second category includes campuses like Shanghai and GTL where faculty may rotate there for a specific period (a semester or a year) and then return to their main campus.  The third category includes faculty members who organize or participate in much shorter study abroad programs (~ 4 to 6 weeks).   The fourth category includes research faculty (e.g. GTRI employees) who work at various locations throughout the world.   


The committee will identify the issues and concerns with current policies in the faculty handbook as they apply to the four categories.  The three main areas to be addressed are: (1) Success of faculty and faculty development.  This includes such issues as reappointment, promotion and tenure, availability of resources necessary for faculty members to be successful, reasonableness of faculty loads, faculty mentoring, and embracing of programs by individual units.  (2) Integration with the main campus, which includes such issues as faculty representation on governance bodies and standing committees, dissemination of information and announcements, and reporting of grades and student faculty/course evaluations (difficulties due to fire walls and computer security concerns caused some faculty not to conduct the course evaluations).   (3) Hiring practices, which include such issues as criteria used for hiring (should we hire only tenured professors to serve outside Atlanta?), and involvement of non-tenured faculty in study abroad and start-up programs.  Hayes stated that other groups on campus, e.g. the Welfare and Security Committee, are also looking at issues related to faculty governance across the multi-campus institute (he was recently invited to give a presentation to the W&S Committee). He stated that there are many legal and regulatory concerns/issues related to some of our international activities. The Institute has hired Price Waterhouse Coopers to assist GT in legal and regulatory issues associated with campuses in China. It is important for the Committee to be aware of such activities, inasmuch as they impact faculty development and governance through issues such as intellectual property (including course content), tax status of individuals and units, fundraising, and export controls.   


A question was asked as to whether the committee will also address student issues associated with the different campuses, or limit itself to faculty governance issues.  For example, how will issues such as academic misconduct be handled when multiple campuses are involved.  Hayes stated that while it is difficult to completely separate student and faculty issues, the committee’s charge as defined by the Executive Board is limited to faculty governance issues.  Leon McGinnis, Chair of the Executive Board, concurred; he stated that the committee’s charge was intentionally focused and that broadening the committee’s charge would make it difficult to get the job done.  The President stated that there are many issues related to student life on the various campuses – students have their own governance process, so, for example, how does a student outside Atlanta vote on issues related to activity fees.  He indicated that Bill Schafer (V. President, Student Affairs) and others are beginning to think about student life issues related to campuses outside Atlanta; these issues are very important, but they are outside the scope of Ad Hoc Committee on faculty governance.


The President thanked Dr. Hayes and the committee for their efforts on this important area.                  


5.      The President called on Dr. Scott Wills (ECE, 2003-05 Chair of the Institute Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, IUCC) to present an overview of the issue of increasing committee workload due to the rise in student petitions and appeals.  Wills stated that the Executive Board has appointed an Ad Hoc Committee to address this issue.  He began by presenting data to describe the nature and extent of the problem (a copy of the slides used by Dr. Wills is attached -- see Attachment #3 below).  He stated that the IUCC has a very broad charter; the main committee activity is approval of all curricular matters (e.g. new courses, minors, certificates, programs, etc.; approximately 100 such items are addressed every year -- see Attachment #3 for a list of curricular items addressed by IUCC during 2004-05).  These are matters that require a great deal of attention.  Additionally, there are three main subcommittee activities which also require a significant amount of effort:  (1) General Education, which is a part of all our degree programs -- it deals with science, math, writing, presentation skills, and health and Wellness; (2) Study Abroad which has increased in scope given the recent increase in international study opportunities; and (3) Program Reviews, where existing degree programs are periodically reviewed.  Clearly, the IUCC has a very important, “non-petition,” function that must be done; the same is true for the Graduate Curriculum Committee.  The IUCC had 738 student petitions during 2004-05, which is nearly 7% of the number of undergraduate students.  In other words, in a given year, 7% of our students file a petition which is heard by the Committee, which means that nearly one-fourth of our undergraduate students will on average submit a petition to the committee during their four-year career at GT.     Additionally, there were 27 personal appeals; students whose previously-submitted petitions had been denied personally appear before the committee to appeal those decisions.  Last year, the personal appeals required 9 hours of Committee time.  Nearly 75% of the 24 IUCC meetings were spent on petitions and appeals (a total of 36 to 48 hours).  The increase in the petitions and appeals workload impedes the other essential IUCC activities; hence, action is required. 


A table comparing the number of petitions and appeals for 1999-2000 and 2004-05 was shown (See Attachment #3).  Wills stated that 1999-2000 was the first year after semester conversion; there were many transition issues which were addressed through the appeals process. There were 760 petitions and five appeals during 1999-2000; many of the petitions were addressed by the Registrar’s office.  There were seven IUCC meetings devoted to petitions and appeals which represented approximately 46% of the total IUCC hours.  For 2004-05, there were 738 petitions and 27 appeals; while the number of petitions is smaller than that for 99-00, the recent petitions were more varied in nature and required more thought on how they should be handled.  Each of the 27 appeals heard during 2004-05 (versus 5 for 99-00) required 20 to 30 minutes of full committee time to process.  During 2004-05, there were 18 IUCC meetings devoted to petitions and appeals which represented 75% of the total IUCC hours.  A table showing the number of petitions and appeals during each of the five years between 99-00 and 04-05 was shown.  The total number of petitions reached a peak of 932 during 03-04, and declined to 738 for 04-05; much of this decline however, is due to resolution of all remaining cases related to semester conversion.  However, despite fluctuations in the number of personal appeals, the large rise experienced during 04-05 is a cause for alarm; some students now view the petition process as another “instrument” for getting through GT.  A summary of the nature of various petitions for 02-03 (prepared by Joe Hughes, 2002-03 IUCC Chair) was shown; the top four representing nearly more than 70% of the total are: (1) re-admission after being dropped, (2) late withdrawal or change all grades to “W”,  (3) substitution of course(s) and use of previous grade/credit, and (4) waiver of the 36 hour or 10-year rule – the fractions of denied petitions in those four categories were 15%, 32%, 14%, and 8% respectively.  Wills stated that the breakdown was probably similar during the two years he had served as IUCC Chair (2003-05).


Wills stated that several suggestions have been made to limit the number of petitions heard by the IUCC and GCC; among these are: delegation/transfer of some decisions to the units (e.g. the re-admit after drop petitions can be decided by the units in which the students are petitioning to be re-admitted), imposing a time limit on when a petition/appeal can be filed, limiting the type of petitions which can be personally appealed, and creating a separate body to hear/decide on medical appeals.  He emphasized the urgent need to act on this issue, otherwise the petitions and appeals process will detract from the main functions of the Curriculum Committees.  He stated that these activities must be done by faculty; however, it would be very difficult to accommodate the workload beyond the current 24 meetings per year.  Recognizing the importance of this issue, the Executive Board has established an ad hoc Committee to examine the problem and offer specific recommendations; necessary changes in the rules and regulations based on these recommendations can then be formulated and submitted to the Academic Senate for approval.  The committee members are:  Kent Barefield (Chair, Student Rules and Regulations Committee), Lloyd Byars (current Chair, UGCC), Bill Green (Chair, GCC), Reta Pikowsky (Registrar), Scott Wills (former Chair, UGCC), an undergraduate student (to be appointed by the undergraduate student body president), and a graduate student (to be appointed by the graduate student body president).   The committee will report to the Executive Board and the Academic Senate before the end of the Spring term (06).   


A comment was made that some types/categories of petitions are nearly always approved.  For example, petitions requesting re-admission after drop (nearly 25% of the total number of petitions) are always approved if the departments to which the students are applying to be re-admitted approve.  Therefore, the rules need to be changed to match current practice/policies.  These changes can reduce the number of petitions significantly.  Wills stated that the main concern is not the number of petitions per se; instead, it is the time required to address the petitions.  Nevertheless, this is one of the issues to be addressed by the Ad Hoc Committee.  A comment was made that one also needs to look at the other extreme, i.e. petitions which are always rejected (e.g. graduation with fewer than required credit hours); perhaps students need to know that we really mean what we say about the requirements.  Wills concurred; he stated that it is also important to convey that message to the students regarding the outcome of the petitions process so that the number of personal appeals can be reduced.  


The President thanked Dr. Wills and the committee for their efforts on this important issue. 


6.      The President called on Dr. Ron Hutchins (OIT) and Mr. Darren Hunt (Provost’s Office) to present an overview of the information technology infrastructure to support faculty and students at Georgia Tech.  A copy of the slides used in the presentation is attached (see Attachment #4 below).  Hutchins began by describing activities in the networking area.  He stated that the aim is to seamlessly connect all campuses including our international programs.  The high speed campus backbone is being revamped which will allow us to quickly catch up with our top peers.  Regional, national, and international connectivity services are provided through SLR (Southern Light Rail), and SOX (Southern Crossroad) which provide ISP service for education and research (currently has 22 members).  High speed research connections is a new offering (~ 1 year) from SLR/NLR (National Lambda Rail), which is a national research organization (a not-for-profit corporation) with 17 consortia of schools; it provides great opportunities for doing high-end research by bringing supercomputers together.  Georgia Tech is among the top 20 institutions in the country with respect to wireless access; there are 1000 wireless access points covering all buildings on campus – nearly 5000 students per day use the wireless network.  A wireless corridor has been built across campus so that one can walk across the campus without losing access.  Eventually one will be able to ride the buses from GT to Emory and remain connected. 


High performance computing is another growing area – simulation and modeling is a precursor to experimentation in many of the sciences, including physics, nano-science, biology, biochemistry, and genetics.  OIT has recently started a program where a commodity computing cluster was formed with joint institute and faculty collaboration and funding.  It provides the means for students and faculty to run and test their high performance codes.  OIT will host the computers in conditioned floor space; common services will be provided/shared (networking, software licenses, system administration, and file backup). 


Digital and streaming media is a rapidly growing area for teaching and learning, as well as entertainment and campus announcements.  OIT supports a service that provides storage of such media to all faculty, staff, and departments on a centralized server.  The server can be expected to have a 99% uptime; it is capable of streaming different types of assets (MPEG1, MP3, etc.).  The library and OIT are coordinating an effort to encode media assets such as video and audio tapes for faculty.  Once the original media are dropped off at the library and appropriate copyright permissions are obtained, they will be digitized and returned to the faculty member.  Links to online versions of the assets will be provided to the faculty and listed in the library’s existing digital reserves webpage.  In addition, OIT has a mobile production kit which can be rolled into the classrooms.  As resources become available, OIT will provide faculty with an easy method for capturing video and audio assets such as experiments, guest lectures, and demonstrations.  These assets can then be added to the OIT streaming server and accessed by students online through library reserves or through a faculty member’s WebCT page.  Video conferencing is another rapidly growing service; high quality video conferencing is provided in conjunction with Distance Learning & Professional Education (DLPE).  A video conferencing room is also available in the Rich building.


Hardware and software services include the Library West Commons (LWC), which is a full- service joint effort between the library and OIT; it offers different information services and is very well received by the students.  The Student Center Cluster is a standard cluster; it is one of the major clusters on campus.  The Library East Commons is intended to be an extension of the LWC geared towards groups and one-to-many collaborators.  The Ground Floor West is a collaboration between the library, OIT, Advising, and Freshman tutoring.  OIT also provides software distribution services; these include: (1) handling licensing and distribution of requested software applications for the Georgia Tech community (OIT often gets large discounts from the vendors and does not add overhead to this service), (2) working with the Board of Regents’ Office of Information and Instructional Technology and other large State institutions to provide licenses at an equitable fee, and (3) managing agreements with Sun Microsystems and Silicon Graphics, Inc. which permit us to distribute software to all 34 University System institutions.


OIT provides hardware and software support for classrooms (nearly 200 classrooms around campus) including audio, video, and display technology; laptop data projection; VHS/DVD projection; slide and overhead projection; and CD playback.  Hardware and software assistance can be gained by contacting OIT by phone or online.  Advice is offered on technology integration in a new building or room renovation, as well as selection and purchase of audio visual equipment (the classrooms at Technology Square were designed by OIT).  Assistance is also offered with design work on classrooms controlled by the various units in order to encourage consistency around campus. 


Identity management and Email aliasing is another service provided by OIT.  Each person at Georgia Tech is allowed one email alias ending in  This email alias is not another email address; instead it is an address that will deliver email to an existing email address.  The self-assigned alias can be kept as long as the user has a Georgia Tech e-mail account.  We are working with the alumni association and others to see how people can continue to keep their e-mail alias after they leave Georgia Tech. 


Teaching and learning technologies are rapidly changing.  At this time, WebCT Campus Edition 4.1 is Georgia Tech’s official Learning Management System (LMS).  OIT works closely with CETL and the various units; nearly 8000 courses (current and past) exist on the WebCT server, which can be accessed by the students. WebCT training sessions are offered for all Georgia Tech course designers, instructors, and TA’s.  Group training, one-on-one coaching, and telephone or e-mail assistance are provided.  Quick reference support can also be found on the WebCT website ( 


Hutchins concluded by describing Buzzport.  For the past three years we have been investigating how it can be best used for teaching, learning, and administration.  It is a collaborative web presence (any one with a GT account can gain access).  It serves as a communications facilitator for groups, classes, etc. and includes identity-based calendars.  It provides seamless access to other services (some refer to this as “single sign on”); e.g. after logging on Buzzport, the user can get his/her e-mail without logging in again.  Various examples of how Buzzport is currently used were shown.  The research tab provides news and research opportunities from NSF and NIH, as well as news and important announcements from OSP.  A sample course homepage was also shown; it includes course tools, message board, information, announcements, news, etc.  This integrates with WebCT, so that the instructor can either use Buzzport or WebCT as the course page.  An example of a school tab (CEE) was shown; it includes news, students’ resources, faculty and staff resources and research resources; there is also a school calendar of events, which lists current events, e.g. short courses, seminars, etc.  Hutchins stated that similar pages are being created for constituencies who have a need to locate information in one spot.  Darren Hunt manages the Buzzport server; he and his staff have done a good job finding the constituencies, and building the tabs and making them available.  Faculty should contact him ( if they need assistance or have questions regarding Buzzport.  


A comment was made that one of the issues is consistency of display technology in the classrooms; there is a large difference between classrooms designed/managed by OIT versus distance learning.  Hutchins stated that DLPE and OIT have partnered and now work together more closely.  For example, there is no reason for both OIT and DLPE to offer video conferencing.  Instead, OIT should build the infrastructure and DLPE should offer the services.  We are working on standardizing the various classrooms.  Hutchins concluded by asking faculty to contact him ( if they have any question. The President thanked Dr. Hutchins for his presentation.                  


7.      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. (All committee minutes have been posted on the web -- see Attachment #5 below).


a.       Lloyd Byars, Chair of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, indicated that there are five meeting minutes to be approved (08/22/05, 08/29/05, 09/07/05, 09/21/05, and 10/19/05); one meeting involved curricular matters, while the other four were devoted to petitions and appeals.  Byars stated that, so far, the committee has heard over 200 petitions this academic year.  The curriculum meeting (09/07/05) included several action items which require separate approval by the Academic Senate.  The action items are:  (1) granting the Chair, Vice-Chair, and the Registrar the authority to act on urgent petitions between meeting cycles when decisions can be reasonably made without the full committee, (2) approval of two new courses from the college of Management, (3) approval of a new course from the School of Physics, and (4) approval of request from the School of Industrial and Systems Engineering to change the requirements for the BS ISyE degree (see details in Committee meeting minutes – Attachment #5 below).  Motions to approve each of the action items and the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee meeting minutes of 08/22/05, 08/29/05, 09/07/05, 09/21/05, and 10/19/05 passed without dissent.


b.      Bill Green, Chair of the Graduate Curriculum Committee, indicated that there are three sets of minutes to be approved (08/25/05, 09/27/05, and 10/27/05), two of which contain action items requiring separate approval by the Academic Senate (08/25/05 and 10/27/05).  Action items from the October 27, 2005 meeting include: (1) approval of two new courses from the School of Physics, and (2) approval of request from the School of CEE to participate in the Bioengineering MS and PhD Program.  The action items from the August 25, 2005 meeting deal with: (1) Clarification of rules on double counting course work between undergraduate and graduate levels, (2) Use of the same thesis at undergraduate and graduate levels, (3) Use of the same thesis credit hours to apply toward both undergraduate and graduate degrees for students in BS-MS or Graduate Course Option programs, and (4) Awarding of undergraduate certificates to graduate students (see details in Committee meeting minutes – Attachment #5 below).   Green stated that there are two situations specified in the catalog where double counting of credit hours is allowed (Graduate Course Option and BS-MS program); the intent to allow double counting only once, i.e. eligible undergraduates may take up to 12 graduate course hours, of which up to six may be counted toward both the undergraduate and graduate levels.  The second item disallows the use of the same thesis for both undergraduate and graduate degrees.  Similarly, the third item disallows the use of the same thesis credit hours for both undergraduate and graduate degrees.  The fourth item disallows the awarding of undergraduate certificates to graduate students; Green stated that such an action would be deceptive since it would appear on a graduate transcript.  


A comment was made that some departments allow students to use an earlier publication (e.g. an undergraduate thesis) instead of writing a separate report for their PhD qualifying process; a follow-up question was asked as to whether the prohibition on the use of a thesis at multiple levels would prevent departments from using undergraduate theses for that purpose.  Green stated that departments that wish to use an undergraduate thesis for some purpose other than the granting of a graduate degree can make their own rules.  A motion to approve the Graduate Curriculum Committee meeting minutes of 08/25/05, 09/27/05, and 10/27/05 and the action items therein passed without dissent.     


8.      The President called for approval of the minutes of Standing Committees of the Academic Senate which do not contain any action items, all of which have been posted on the web (see Attachment #5 below for web site listing of minutes of all Standing Committees)


a.       Student Academic & Financial Affairs:  08/25/05, 09/22/05, and 10/22/05


The minutes were approved without dissent.


9.      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 #5 below for web site listing of minutes of all Standing Committees)


a.       Faculty Benefits:  04/18/05 and 10/05/05

b.      Academic Services:   10/05/05

c.       Welfare and Security:  10/04/05


The minutes were approved without dissent.


10.  Dr. Joe Hughes (ECE) announced that he and Ms. Claudia Huff (GTRI) will serve as co-Chairs of the Nominations Committee for the Spring 2006 elections; they are tasked with identifying candidates to run for election to the various standing committees.  The Nominations Committee will begin soliciting candidates early in January; he urged faculty to either run for election or encourage others to engage in the faculty governance process.


11.  The President called for any other business; hearing none, he closed the meeting at 4:15 PM.



Respectfully submitted,


Said Abdel-Khalik

Secretary of the Faculty

December 4th, 2005


Attachments to be included with archival copy of the minutes:


  1. Minutes of Faculty Meetings:

a.       October 11, 2005 meeting of the General Faculty, general Faculty Assembly, and Academic Senate:

  1. Ad Hoc Committee on Faculty Governance (Presentation by Monson Hayes)
  2. Petition and Appeals 2000 and 2005 (Presentation by Scott Wills)
  3. Information Technology in Service of Teaching, Learning, Research, and Administration (Presentation by Ron Hutchins and Darren Hunt)
  4. Minutes of Standing Committees of the General Faculty and the Academic Senate: