GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
THE EXECUTIVE BOARD
Meeting of June 21, 2005
Held in the Poole Board Room of the Wardlaw Center
Members Present: Akins (Prof Prac); Cabot (OIT); Clough (President); Evans (GTRI); Foley (CoC); Horton (GTRI); Huff (GTRI); Hughes (ECE); McGinnis (ISyE); Schneider (MGT); Telotte (LCC); Yen (BIOL); Andersen (U. Student); David (G. Student); Alexander (Staff Rep); Abdel-Khalik (SoF).
Members Absent: Chameau (Provost); First (Phys); Gentry (Arch); Peterson (ECE); Uzer (Phys); Warren (EDI)
Visitors: Allen (Pres. Office); Czaballa (Cardiac Science); Kennedy (Cardiac Science); Lambert (ECE)
1. Leon McGinnis (Chair) opened the meeting at 3:05 PM, and called on the President to comment on matters of interest to the Georgia Tech community. The President offered the following comments:
a. The President testified before the US Senate’s Subcommittee on Technology, Innovation and Competitiveness on the subject of manufacturing competitiveness. The hearing was chaired by Senator Ensign of Nevada, and attended by Senators Kerry of Massachusetts, Allen of Virginia, and Pryor of Arkansas. The President also spoke to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors on the issue of innovation, presented the Plenary address on “The Engineer of 2020” at the American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Meeting in Portland, Oregon (June 12-15), and held meetings with alumni in both Portland and Seattle.
b. Fifth Street Construction work between Techwood and Fowler streets is progressing; it will include a bike path and be more pedestrian-oriented (the work was delayed from last year because of lack of funding).
c. An economic impact study is being conducted. The study will quantify Georgia Tech’s economic impact on the State during the past ten years; it will also estimate the economic impact during the next ten years if conditions were favorable. The study was motivated by recent changes in the State’s economy and its ability to support higher education, which may necessitate a higher level of “autonomy” in the manner we do business. The study is sponsored by twelve companies who have a strong interest in Georgia Tech; it will be conducted by an outside company which did a similar study for another prominent academic institution.
d. A Memorandum of Understanding between the Institute and the GT Foundation has been ratified by the Foundation’s Board (it was signed earlier by the Foundation’s Executive Committee).
e. Professor Dan Schrage (AE) has agreed to serve as the Faculty Athletics Representative replacing Professor George Nemhauser (ISyE), who held that position for several years. Professor Schrage previously served as a member of the GT Athletics Board. Four faculty members have been appointed to the Athletics Board: Danny Boston (Econ), Susan Cozzens (Pub Policy), Marie Thursby (MGT), and Narayan Jayaraman (MGT).
f. Sue Ann Bidstrup-Allen (ChBE) has been appointed as the new Executive Assistant to the President replacing Gary May (ECE), who was named Chair of the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering.
g. Preliminary discussions are being held between the Chancellor’s Office and the Governor’s Office regarding next year’s budget; emphasis will be placed on faculty salaries. Full funding of the formula next year will not generate/require a significant amount of money because it is related to enrollment increases from two years ago, which were relatively modest for nearly all System institutions. Hence, there is an opportunity for increased funding for salary increases, while fully funding the formula.
h. A recently-issued brochure describing the various study abroad opportunities available for Georgia Tech students was shown (“Study Abroad – The world awaits you” – see Office of International Education web page http://www.oie.gatech.edu/sa).
i. A recent study by McKenzie and Associates and a related article in the June 16th issue of Wall Street Journal online pointed to the special capabilities of US engineering graduates, and indicated that despite recent trends toward “off shoring,” US engineering graduates have strong career opportunities.
A question was asked regarding the Fifth Street construction between Techwood and Fowler streets, and whether it will be completed before the beginning of the academic year. The President indicated that it is estimated that this part of the construction will be completed two weeks after the beginning of the fall semester. A question was asked regarding the sponsors of the economic impact study. The President indicated that the study’s sponsors include Bank of America, Bell South, Southern Company, Earthlink, and ISS. These companies have made significant contributions to Georgia Tech over the years; they are interested in our economic impact because an improved economy enhances business activities. A question was asked as to whether we also intend to prepare an environmental impact study. The President indicated that sustainability has been a major focus in the development of our Campus Master Plan. A comment was made that a detailed talk on sustainability and the Campus Master Plan was presented to the Academic Senate last Fall (http://www.space.gatech.edu/masterplan.htm).
2. The Chair called for approval of minutes of the May 17, 2005 meeting of the Executive Board. The minutes were approved without dissent. (See Attachment #1 below).
3. The Chair called on Mr. Frank Lambert (ECE), Chair of the Welfare and Security Committee, to discuss the committee’s recommendation to install Automatic External Defibrillators (AEDs) in campus buildings. A copy of the slides used in Mr. Lambert’s presentation is attached (see Attachment #2 below). Lambert introduced GT alumni Mike Czaballa and Ed Kennedy, both of Cardiac Science Inc. (manufacturer of several AEDs currently installed around campus). Lambert stated that sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) is the leading cause of death in the US; it accounts for 36% (~ 465,000 deaths/year) of all deaths. Nearly two thirds of SCA deaths occur while at home, work, or play, and one third occur in hospitals. Response time is the most important factor affecting survival. The average EMS and paramedic response time is 8-12 minutes, which is too long. Data suggest that after four minutes, brain death begins and permanent central nervous system damage occurs. The effective time limit to restart the heart ranges from one to three minutes (American Heart Association recommends 3 minutes to begin defibrillation). The survival rate declines from nearly 90% when defibrillation is applied after one minute to only 10% when applied after 9 minutes. A question was asked as to whether these data apply to all heart attacks. Kennedy stated that the data pertains to “electrically-related” heart attacks (i.e. “arrhythmia” vs. mechanically-related blockage of blood flow). The SCA survival rate increases significantly when AEDs are present (40 to 74% vs. ~ 5% when AEDs are not present).
An AED unit manufactured by Cardiac Science Inc. was shown; it is a small, battery-operated, portable device that can deliver an electric shock to the heart to restore normal rhythm to a heart attack victim. It is a safe device, since it will not deliver a shock unless the victim is in cardiac arrest. They are placed in wall cabinets; an alarm sounds when the unit is removed. Lambert stated that proper training of employees and equipment access are critical to the effectiveness of an AED program. It is important that an appropriate number of employees be trained in CPR and AED use. CPR training provides protection under Georgia’s “Good Samaritan” Law. Currently, units are available in several campus buildings, including the CRC and the Love Manufacturing Building. The GTPD has ten portable AEDs in service; typical response time is estimated to be 5-6 minutes (vs. ~3 minutes recommended by AHA). Lambert stated that the Welfare & Security Committee recommends that a comprehensive AED plan for the campus be undertaken. Nearly 100 AEDs would be deployed in buildings across campus (the plan excludes residence halls and fraternity housing because of the young age of their residents; it also excludes athletic facilities since many of them already have AEDs). The AEDs would be integrated into the buildings emergency plans. Five to ten responders per AED unit should be trained (based on location). It is also necessary to develop and implement an AED awareness program for the campus community. In order to be protected under the “Good Samaritan” Law, the AED program needs to be managed to track maintenance of units and training of personnel. The estimated cost for deploying the 100 AEDs is $160,000; an additional $40,000 will be needed to train approximately 500 employees. Lambert stated that there are two options to implement the plan; the preferred option calls for campus-wide AED deployment (phased-in as funds become available). The second option is to develop a campus plan and encourage each unit to acquire AEDs as budget permits.
A question was asked as to how long the units last and how often do they need to be replaced. Kennedy stated that Cardiac Science units are warranted for seven years (repair and replacement). However, there are two consumables, namely, the electrodes which need to be replaced every two years (~$40 each) and the battery which should last about five years (Cardiac Science provides a 4-year unconditional replacement warrantee for the batteries). A question was asked regarding technological obsolescence of current AEDs. Czaballa stated that the technology is fairly mature so that obsolescence should not be a matter of concern. A question was asked as to how many GT employees would be covered. Lambert stated that the proposed coverage would reach nearly all GT employees in central campus. A comment was made that if units are to be placed in various buildings, the GTPD can direct callers to the exact location of the units, thereby reducing the response time; action can be taken before the Police arrives. A comment was made that people may be reluctant to use the units. Lambert stated that voice commands make the units very easy to use; nevertheless, it is important to overcome the psychological barrier against responding by implementing the awareness and training programs. A question was asked as to how many SCA deaths we have had on campus during the past ten years. Lambert indicated that the Committee does not have that data. Kennedy stated that a recent study showed that nearly 8700 people per year die in the metro Atlanta area as a result of cardiac arrest, and that the survival rate in the metro Atlanta area is only 6%. The AEDs have become very affordable that it makes sense to have them at work sites in order to reduce the response time and enhance the survival rate. A comment was made that with nearly 7000 employees in central campus, the cost per employee is relatively modest. A suggestion was made that this item be included in the capital campaign. A question was asked as to whether an analysis of the age distribution of personnel in different campus buildings has been done so that units can be placed in the right locations. Kennedy stated that the work force around campus is relatively mobile and that the distribution of units is to be done geographically to assure a response time less than 3 minutes. A comment was made that employee training and integration within the emergency plan for the buildings is a big logistic issue. A question was asked as to who is going to manage/oversee/own the program especially if individual units are going to purchase their own devices; it is important that someone takes responsibility for the program across the campus so that maintenance and training requirements can be tracked. A comment was made that that this is an “infrastructure” issue that needs to be centrally handled by the administration, and that the Executive Board needs to endorse the centralized option.
A motion was made that the Executive Board strongly endorses the AED plan recommended by the Welfare and Security Committee and recommends that the Committee work with the Campus Administration to develop an appropriate implementation plan. The motion passed without dissent.
4. The Chair called on Dr. Fred Andrew (MATH), Chair of the Students Grievance & Appeal Committee (SGAC), to present the committee’s proposed procedure for the conduct of formal grade grievance hearings (see Attachment #3 below). Andrew stated that Section XX.C of the Student Rules and Regulations outlines the grievance process steps for a student with a grade dispute. Informal resolution at the school, department, or unit level is first attempted; if the grievance is not resolved, formal resolution is sought at the school, department, or unit level. The merits of the complaint are examined by an ad hoc, unit-level, appeal committee consisting of four faculty members (one appointed by the unit chair, one selected by the SGAC from outside the unit, one selected by the student, and one selected by the faculty member involved in the dispute). Typically, the process ends when the unit-level appeal committee renders its decision. However, a student, unsatisfied with the decision of a unit-level committee, may seek a hearing with the SGAC; the decision as to whether a hearing is warranted is made by the SGAC. Andrew stated that such hearings are rare. Since 1998, only four requests for a hearing with the SGAC were made; the first three were denied. The fourth request was recently submitted; after examining that case, the SGAC decided to hold a hearing. The Student Rules and Regulations (XX.C.3.c.6.) specify that “The Committee shall develop, and with the approval of the Academic Senate, establish and publish its own procedures for the conduct of formal hearings.” Andrew stated that, to the best of his knowledge, the Committee has never developed such procedures since no hearings were previously held. Therefore, procedures have been drafted (see Attachment # 3b below); the proposed procedures were approved by the SGAC on May 31, 2005. They were reviewed by Carole Moore (Provost Office), Karen Boyd (Sr. Assoc. Dean of Students), and Gary Wolovick (Legal Affairs). McGinnis indicated that these procedures are being presented to the Executive Board for approval in behalf of the Academic Senate. A motion to approve the proposed procedures for Grade Grievance Hearings as submitted by the Student Grievance & Appeal Committee (Attachment #3b below) passed without dissent.
5. The Chair presented a summary of the April 12, 2005 Executive Board retreat and a proposal for follow-up action (see Attachment #4 below). The proposal calls for the Executive Board, in collaboration with the Provost, to create an ad hoc committee, with membership representing the academic faculty, the research faculty, and the administration, to address three specific questions: (1) As GT diversifies geographically, what hurdles, if any, are encountered in applying the policies and procedures for faculty governance as currently constituted in the Faculty Handbook?; (2) Will the existing policies and procedures for (a) hiring, tenure, promotion, and periodic peer review, and (b) participation in faculty governance work effectively for faculty not in residence in Atlanta?; and (3) If not, what are the fundamental issues impeding the adherence to those policies and procedures? A comment was made that the proposed committee charge seems to be narrowly focused on academic faculty issues. McGinnis stated that the proposed committee membership will include research faculty, and that the committee’s charge with respect to policies and procedures for faculty governance, hiring, promotion, etc. pertains to both academic and research faculty. While, at this time, we do not have many research faculty at GT-Lorraine and GT-Savannah, it is important to address these issues early, since the number of research faculty outside Atlanta may increase. A comment was made that many corporations are expanding their R&D facilities outside the US, which will likely increase research activities at our overseas campuses.
A comment was made that other issues were identified at the retreat (e.g. issues related to the “GT Brand”); however, from the Board’s perspective, it is appropriate to focus on faculty governance issues versus administration issues. McGinnis stated that there was a deliberate attempt to narrowly focus the proposed committee’s charter to assure a successful outcome. A comment was made that there are differences between the various programs in Lorraine, Savannah, China, and India, and that it is appropriate to focus on hiring, promotion, and tenure issues since faculty are most interested in those issues. A comment was made that faculty governance includes other issues, e.g. benefits, welfare & security, etc., and that geographical separation impacts faculty participation -- for example, today’s presentation on the placement of AEDs in campus buildings did not address whether or not we need to do the same at GT-Savannah. Hughes stated that the second item in the proposed ad hoc committee’s charter addresses the issue of faculty participation in governance activities. He stated that it is necessary to broadly examine the issue in light of the differences between the different sites -- faculty at GTL are predominantly Atlanta faculty who “rotate” through GT-Lorraine, while GT-Savannah faculty are primarily located in Savannah. A comment was made that while the SACS accreditation process assures that we have the “basics” in place at all locations, there are many details that must be worked out.
A question was asked as to how/when the Board will address the other questions raised during the retreat (e.g. measuring the success of external programs in terms of student and faculty outcomes). McGinnis stated that over the next several years, the Board will need to look at all the issues; however, the issues included in the proposed ad hoc committee’s charter are the ones we need to look at in the near term. A question was asked regarding issues related to student admissions to the various campuses. Hughes stated that the charter for one of the Academic Senate standing committees includes overseeing of student admissions; hence the issue will be covered as a part of the question of faculty participation in governance. A comment was made that admission to GT-Savannah is done through transfers from the three partner institutions, which means that students have to meet the same transfer criteria we use for Atlanta. A follow-up comment was made that graduate admissions are done at the unit level. A question was asked as to the immediate next steps, i.e. how the proposed committee will be appointed. McGinnis stated that, if the proposal is approved, he will meet with the provost to come up with a membership list and will then present it to the Board at the August meeting
A motion to approve creation of the proposed ad hoc committee and the committee’s charter as presented by the Chair (Attachment #4b) passed without dissent.
6. The Chair called on the Secretary of the Faculty, who stated that Professor Bill Rhodes (ECE) will retire this August, and that there is a need to appoint a faculty member to complete his un-expired term [05-06] on the Student Honor Committee. In accordance with the procedure previously established by the Board, Professor Gunter Sharp (ISyE) has been contacted and has agreed to serve on the committee pending the Board’s approval. A motion to approve the appointment of Professor Gunter Sharp (ISyE) to the Student Honor Committee to complete the un-expired term [05-06] of Professor Bill Rhodes (ECE) passed without dissent.
7. The Chair stated that unless there is urgent business, the July 19th meeting of the Executive Board will be canceled. He called for any other business; hearing none, he adjourned the meeting at 4:25 PM.
Secretary of the Faculty
June 26th, 2005
Attachments (to be included with the archival copy of the minutes)
1. Minutes of the EB meeting of May 17, 2005. http://www.facultysenate.gatech.edu/EB2005-051705-Minuteswp.htm
3. Proposed Procedures for Grade Grievance Hearings
4. Report of the Executive Board Retreat of April 12, 2005