GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
THE EXECUTIVE BOARD
Held in the Poole Board Room of the
Members Present: Boyd (Stu. Servcs); Chameau (Provost); Clough (President); Hall (Bio); Horton (for Richards, GTRI); Jayaraman (Mgt); Kahn (CEE); Marr (Psy); Swank (GTRI); Welch (GTRI); Alexander (Staff Rep); DesCamps (for Michaels, G. Stu); Abdel-Khalik (SoF).
Members Absent: Agrawal (ChE); Allen (Arch); Estes (EDI); Henry (OSP); Mark (CoC); McGuire (LCC); Wardi (ECE); Massey (U. Stu).
Visitors: May (Pres. Office); McIver (Registrar); McMath (Provost Office); Mistree (ME)
1. Gisele Welch (Chair) opened the meeting at and invited the President to comment on matters of interest to the Georgia Tech community. The President commented:
a. Georgia Tech has done very well during the past year despite the budget cuts; the Chancellor and his staff are to be thanked for responding to Tech’s needs and providing additional “formula” funding.
b. Cautiously optimistic about next year; continue to watch State-side of the budget; will work closely with Governor’s Office; gift funding continues to be strong.
c. Tuition has been increased; increase is significantly less than that expected at other universities across the country.
d. Additional resources will be used to enhance quality by hiring new faculty to improve the student/faculty ratio, and among other things, adding staff to the Dean of Students Office and the GT Police Department.
e. Research awards last year increased to record levels thanks to outstanding faculty.
f. Excellent incoming class; undergraduate class size on target; freshman scores are up; student retention in upper classes continues to improve.
Facilities construction on target; ES&T
h. Child day care project is on track; facility should be open in January’03.
i. President chaired a panel on Research and Development (as a part of President Bush’s Science Advisory Panel); Georgia Tech is involved in all the cutting-edge research areas; additional funding for graduate scholarships will be made available by various Government agencies.
The President was asked if additional support will be made available for
OSP. He indicated that additional
funding will be provided in response to increased activities for patent support
(OTL) and industry group of OSP. The
size of the OSP facility on
The Chair asked for approval of the minutes of the
The Chair called on Jo McIver who offered the
following motion: "The list
of degree candidates for the Summer 2002 commencement was sent to the College
Deans and Academic Departments. It is moved that all candidates who
complete their requirements by on
4. The Chair called on Bob McMath and Farrokh Mistree to present the results of a comprehensive assessment of the Post-Tenure Review (PTR) process conducted by the Institute PTR Oversight Committee (IOC) upon conclusion of the first five-year cycle of PTR reviews. The committee received input from approximately 100 faculty members and 15 unit heads/chairs. With a high degree of unanimity among both faculty and administrators on the IOC committee, the following key recommendations were made:
a. Retain faculty-driven, peer evaluation process.
b. Retain provision that the decision of the faculty peer reviewers is final.
c. Focus on faculty development with 5/3 year recommendation to be part of the process.
d. Change name from Post-Tenure Review (PTR) to Periodic Peer Review (PPR).
e. Replace Special Recognition feature with Program for Faculty Development for all.
f. Conduct major review of PPR process every five years with monitoring between major reviews.
g. Assign the responsibility for instituting and maintaining the Faculty Development Program and process monitoring to the respective College Deans for units within the colleges of Architecture, Engineering, Ivan Allen, and Sciences, and to the VP-Academic for the colleges of Computing and Management.
A time line for the annual conduct of the process, along with specific recommendations on the unit level committee composition, documentation, the role of the chair/unit head, and communication of outcome to the candidate were also offered. The major 5-year reviews of the PPR process are to be conducted by an Institute committee with similar composition to the current IOC. The annual assessments between major reviews are to be performed by a “Faculty Development Oversight Committee;” the composition of such committee is still under discussion. Copies of the slides used in the presentation, along with the draft report of the IOC committee, are attached (#2 and 3).
Kahn asked whether the recommended changes, including the change in name
and focus on faculty development, are consistent with the BoR
requirements. McMath responded affirmatively
and indicated that the Chancellor’s office will be pleased by such changes
which make the process more meaningful, rather than “pro-forma” as is the case at other institutions. The President indicated that the committee’s
comprehensive five-year assessment report is very valuable to the institute
since it offers an opportunity for process improvement. Hall sought a
clarification on the nomination of an un-elected “advocate” for each candidate
to serve on the unit-level committee.
Mistree responded that the intent is for the “advocate” named by each
candidate to be appointed to the committee “with voice and vote”, and that the
“advocate” would only participate in discussions of his/her respective
candidate. In response to a question
from Jayaraman, McMath indicated that during the first five-year cycle, ~3
people per year, out of 60-80 candidates, received a 3-year recommendation and
that several people opted for retirement.
Marr commented that the process reflects poorly on how departments conduct
their annual evaluations. Mistree
indicated that about 50% of the faculty surveyed by the committee indicated
that the act of documenting what they had achieved during the previous five
years and thinking about their future goals had been worthwhile. A nearly equal number of faculty registered
their displeasure with the current PTR process, primarily because of the
quality of the feedback they had received.
Others concurred that while the depth of annual evaluations may vary
widely among units, the 5-year PPR process is valuable. It was suggested that the committee should
monitor the progress made by candidates who receive 3-year
recommendations. Welch thanked the committee
for their comprehensive assessment and indicated that this item will be placed
on the agenda for the
Welch presented a status report on ongoing reviews
of the Georgia Tech Intellectual Property Policy. A copy of the presentation is attached
(#4). The recommendations made by
the committee chartered by the Executive Board last year, which she chaired,
were approved by the General Faculty on
The President indicated that it is important to examine the conflict of interest policy because of the significant increase in royalty income received by universities nationwide (nearly $1.2B in 2000) as a result of the Bayh-Dole Act. The Provost indicated that currently there is a campus committee, which deals with management of IP matters. The committee has members from GTRC, Legal department, VP research, and one faculty member; it reviews individual cases where there may be disagreement on how the royalties should be divided. Welch expressed concern that the Institute Intellectual Property Committee called for in the IP policy amendments approved last fall has not yet been appointed, and that the current management committee may be performing that function. The Provost indicated that the management committee does not deal with Policy issues.
6. Welch called on Boyd, who presented a status report on the implementation of the recommendations of the Academic Misconduct Review Committee (AMRC), as described in its report to the Provost dated May 29, 2002 (copy attached #5). Boyd indicated that significant progress has been made on implementing the AMRC recommendations; a hand-out describing each of the ten recommendations, along with a list of actions taken to date and action items needing attention, was provided (copy attached #6). Boyd indicated that the committee recommendations address academic integrity/misconduct, in general, rather than the specific problem of the Computer Science Course. Funding has been made available for three new positions: “Assistant dean of Students for Academic Integrity,” an “Ethics Education Specialist,” and an Administrative Assistant; interviewing for these positions is in progress.
May asked if all the AMRC recommendations have been accepted. Boyd responded affirmatively and the Provost concurred. He indicated that all recommendations which can be directly acted upon by his office have been implemented; actions requiring changes in the Statutes and/or Bylaws will be forwarded to the appropriate faculty committee(s) to be ultimately approved by the faculty. In response to a question regarding the compatibility between the AMRC recommendations and the Student Code of Conduct modifications recommended by the Student Regulations Committee (see minutes of Committee meeting dated April 8, 2002), Boyd indicated that there are two specific changes which need to be made in the policy recommended by the Academic Regulations Committee and that the policy, including these modifications, will be presented to the Academic Senate in the Fall. A question was raised regarding the need for the new “Committee on Academic Integrity,” (AMRC Recommendation #8) and whether the charge of such a committee can be handled by the Academic Regulations Committee. Boyd responded that the new committees will perform a different function. Chameau indicated that it is important that a standing committee look at this issue on a regular basis.
Boyd presented a list of faculty and students
recommended to serve on the Ad Hoc Committee of the Student Honor Committee to
assist with cases related to the Computer Science Courses (list attached #9). Formation of the sub-committee was approved,
in principle, at the
Welch called on Larry Kahn, who described the
proposed five-year BS-MS Program in Civil and Environmental Engineering (copy
attached #8). He indicated that the
program has been patterned after the existing ME program and that the proposal
has been approved by the Institute Graduate Curriculum on
9. Welch called on Abdel-Khalik, who indicated that based on the Board’s June 18th meeting recommendation, Mark Richards (ECE) has agreed to serve the un-expired term of Prateen Desai (ME) on the Faculty Status and Grievance Committee. Abdel-Khalik indicated that future meetings’ agendas and attachments will be posted on the web ahead of the meetings to avoid lengthy E-Mails.
10. The Chair asked for any other business; there was none.
11. The Chair closed the meeting at .
Said I. Abdel-Khalik
Secretary of the Faculty
Attachments (Distributed at the meeting and to be attached to the archival copy of the minutes)