GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

THE EXECUTIVE BOARD

 

MINUTES

Meeting of June 19, 2007

Held in the Poole Board Room of the Wardlaw Center

 

 

Members Present: Akins (Vice-Chair, Prof. Prac.), Alexander (Staff), Ballard (GTRI), Barnhart (GTRI) , Bohlander (SoF), Braga (Chemistry), Bras (ME), Clough (President), First (Physics), Hughes (Chair, ECE), Parvatiyar (U. Grad Student), Price (IMTC), Schuster (Provost), Stein (VPSS), West (GTRI), Wester (Grad Student), Williams (ECE/GT-S)

 

Members Absent: Dagenhart (ARCH), Foley (CoC), Gaimon (Mgt), Wood (LCC), Yen (Biology),

 

Visitors:  Allen (President’s Office), Harwell (U/G Research), Paraska (Vice Provost for Institutional Development), Rollins (International Programs)

1.                  Tom Akins (Vice-Chair) opened the meeting at 3:08 P.M., filling in for the chair, Joe Hughes, because Joe, while present for the meeting, was having a spell of laryngitis.  Mr. Akins began by welcoming the new student representatives to the Executive Board: Anu Pavatiyar (undergraduate student president, majoring in biomedical engineering) and Brock Wester (graduate student president, also in biomedical engineering).  Mr. Akins went on to announce that there were two vacancies on the Student Honor Committee and replacements would be needed to serve from 2007-09.  Two people, who previously ran for these committees, have agreed to fill these vacancies; namely, Blake Leland (LCC) and Georgia Persons (PubPol).  Their appointment was passed without dissent.

2.                  Mr. Akins called the Board’s attention to the minutes of the April 10, 2007 meeting of the Executive Board.  The minutes were approved without dissent. (See Attachment #1).

3.                  He then called on President Clough to comment on matters of interest to the Georgia Tech community:

    1. President Clough began by welcoming 200 new students to the Georgia Tech campus for the enhanced summer program.
    2. Georgia Tech is in the process of taking over the residence halls on North Avenue that were acquired from Georgia State University.  There has been an excellent response from students who want to stay in these halls starting this fall.  The plan will be to tear down some of Tech’s older (but not historic) residence halls that would otherwise be expensive to keep maintaining.  Tech will assume responsibility for paying off bonds on the recently acquired residence halls.  The acquisition of the North Avenue residence halls makes it more likely that Tech might eventually own and control all of the property on the south side of North Avenue across from the stadium and Tech Tower. 
    3. President Clough commented on the possibility of a special session of the Georgia General Assembly that legislators may opt to call this year.  If this did come to pass, it would be for the purpose of attempting to override some or all of the Governor’s vetoes of legislation from the last session.  Two items are of interest to Georgia Tech.  One is funding for a project to renovate the Hinman Building for utilization by the College of Architecture.  The second is a measure that grants high school graduates with International Baccalaureate diplomas an automatic 24 credit hours of college credit at any of the institutions of the University System of Georgia.  While such a provision would encourage more interest in advanced studies in high school, there are concerns in the university system that the amount of credit may not be warranted in every instance, and the provision itself creates a dangerous precedent of setting university policy in the legislature instead of in the Board of Regents.
    4. Tech has had a great year in attracting new research support and will likely set a new record for research awards.  $339million was received as of the end of May.
    5. President Clough had the opportunity to attend the recent inauguration of Jean Lou Chameau as President of California Institute of Technology.  The inauguration was held in conjunction with Cal Tech’s graduation ceremony.  Dr. Clough also reported on a visit to his home town, Douglas, GA, where he visited two companies, one focused on the design of pharmaceuticals, the other turbine structures for aircraft engines, and both populated with many Georgia Tech alumni. 
    6. There is a great deal of interest from the international community in possible relationships with Georgia Tech, and Dr. Clough commented that it was good to have Provost Gary Schuster back from a round of international visits.  Tech is being very careful in weighing its options because ventures that are selected need to meet high quality standards, have important benefits for Georgia Tech, and be sound financially.  The State of Georgia does not provide funding to underwrite international programs so considerable care is needed.  The President spoke well of the existing operations in France, Singapore, Shanghai, China, and Ireland (where GTRI has led the way).  The Governor was recently in Ireland and attended a reception that was co-hosted by the Irish government and Georgia Tech.  That visit went very well indeed. 

At this point, President Clough turned the meeting over to Provost Gary Schuster for further comments on a variety of new international programs which are under consideration. 

1.                  Dr. Schuster remarked that Georgia Tech is in the early stages of a globalization of higher education that parallels the earlier globalization of business.  This particularly applies to graduate education and to engineering, science, and technology.  The motivation is the realization that higher education, particularly in these areas, is a driver for economic development.  Successes of this kind in the U.S. and Europe attract interest in emulating this elsewhere in the world.  For example, Mr. Antonio Villaraigosa, mayor of Los Angeles, has stated that 85% of the world’s biotechnology firms are within 25 miles of the University of California.  So the research that is done in universities has become a driving force for economic development.  Georgia Tech has a good reputation for entrepreneurship and for converting discoveries in Tech laboratories into start-up companies and products.  There are not many universities well-positioned at the intersection of three themes: the globalization of universities, the focus on science, engineering, and technology, and the emphasis on entrepreneurship.  Georgia Tech is among a few who have high quality and impact in these three areas and therefore is attractive to suitors for new international relationships.

The other side of this is the question, what is in this for Georgia Tech?  Why should Tech and others be interested in globalization?  The answer is in the broad lessons of history.  The trading centers and cross roads of the world have been the catalysts for change and for growth, not only in trade and economics.  In every such city, science and the arts have also prospered.  Such activity promotes the interchange of ideas that foment new discoveries, whether it is in science, engineering, art, music, or humanities.  The trading centers in the 21st century may be known as much for trading ideas in the knowledge economy as for trading commodities like coffee and tea.  Georgia Tech will benefit from being part of this world of trade in the knowledge economy and new paradigms of thought.  Tech faculty and students will benefit from being a part of this. 

That’s the high level view.  More specifically, Tech has recently received many opportunities for possible liaisons, but Dr. Schuster cautioned Tech about trying to become the Starbucks of technical universities with an outpost on every corner.  It is important to be selective in choosing partners carefully and three criteria will be used: 

·        The first requirement to be met is that Tech and its partners are aligned strategically, meaning that both have the same goals in mind. 

·        The second requirement is that the prospective partnership and anticipated operations be consistent with Georgia Tech’s reputation for high quality and excellence.  Operationally this means that Tech must be able to control admissions, ongoing student quality, curriculum, faculty hiring and ongoing quality, and finally degree granting authority.  These cannot be delegated to another political or economic entity because the Tech reputation is on the line. 

·        The third criterion is that the business model be economically viable.  There are no resources from the state, from tuition, or from any other source to underwrite initiatives to set up and maintain international operations.  Therefore, Tech must require that partners who invite Georgia Tech to embark on such an operation must be able to provide the resources.

There are other possible considerations but those three are the major ones.  Other criteria include questions like: are there sufficient numbers of faculty and students to populate the vision?  So in this framework Tech is considering a number of specific opportunities.

Georgia Tech Lorraine, in Metz, France, has been existence for sometime and is well known, but in the last eighteen months, it has gone through a major transition.  In the first ten years of its existence, it was primarily a Masters degree granting program focused in electrical engineering and later also mechanical engineering.  Added during the past year has been the Unité Mixte Internationale (UMI) research laboratory, which makes the working environment comparable with graduate education research facilities on main campus in Atlanta.  This is a shared laboratory between Georgia Tech Lorraine and CNRS, a world-respected French national research agency.  Faculty, graduate student, and undergraduate student researchers will be working in this laboratory on research topics of mutual interest to Georgia Tech and CNRS.  A mirror laboratory is being established here in Atlanta so that when participants move back and forth, they can carry on with their research.  There is a great deal of enthusiasm for this development, not only in Lorraine but throughout the European Union.  Dr. Schuster reported that the news of the UMI laboratory was very well received in a recent meeting with Laurent Bochereau, Counselor and Head of the Science, Technology & Education Section of the Delegation of the European Commission to the USA (equivalent to an embassy for the EU in Washington, DC).  Of all Tech’s international initiatives, this is the most mature and fulfills very well the model that has been set for international programs generally.

Also well known is that Georgia Tech has been in Singapore for about seven years in joint operation of The Logistics Institute - Asia Pacific (TLI-AP) with the National University of Singapore.  TLI-AP has two primary programs.  One is a Masters degree program in logistics and supply chain management.  The other is a research component covering those fields.  Such programs are particularly apropos for Singapore which is at the cross roads of so many supply chains.  For the past two years Tech has been in discussions with the Economic Development Board of Singapore about a possible significant expansion of operations in Singapore that would include building a unique campus for Georgia Tech programs.  Also added would be possible new centers of excellence for education and research in aerospace engineering, precision manufacturing, and water quality.  Active discussions are underway about these possibilities and Vice Provost Steve Danyluk has been in Singapore negotiating with the Economic Development Board concerning the details, keeping in mind the criteria described above.  A final decision is expected within a few months about whether to proceed.

Dr. Schuster mentioned that before his visit in France, he had been in India with a delegation from Georgia Tech assessing opportunities within India.  A memorandum of intent was signed between Georgia Tech and the state of Andhra Pradesh and the city of Hyderabad.  This promises continued discussions about the possibility of establishing a campus in India.  No commitments have been made to have a campus there, however, because data have not yet been gathered and analyzed in relation to Tech’s three critical criteria.  But the memorandum expresses mutual intent for in-depth fact finding, analysis, and discussions.  The Indian economy is expanding very rapidly, fueled by movement up the knowledge chain into high technology.  The Indian educational infrastructure is well known to many at Tech, with the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) among the best undergraduate institutions in the world.  Dr. Vijay Madisetti (ECE) is taking a leading role for Tech in these discussions and has his first degree from IIT [in Kharagpur].  There is a belief that there is a significant need for advances in graduate educational opportunities in India to meet the demands of industry particularly.  So it is attractive for Georgia Tech to consider taking a trend setting role in providing some of the needed capacity for producing Masters and Ph.D. degrees.  This possibility is being explored and will probably require about six months to reach a decision point.

A third new opportunity is in Abu Dhabi, where Tech has been approach by the government of this emirate.  They are very interested in building programs in aerospace engineering and discussions are at a very preliminary stage.  Similarly a possible new opportunity has arisen for discussion in Panama.  This might provide Tech with important geographic balance as well as additional opportunities for a comprehensive view of worldwide logistics.

The Provost also mentioned other opportunities including some that are well along already, such as those in Shanghai, and all will be strategically guided in accordance with Tech’s criteria.  Dr. Schuster mentioned that a town hall meeting would be held, probably in late August, in which faculty and staff will receive a comprehensive briefing of Tech’s global developments.

Dr. Schuster took questions from the Board.  Ed Price asked if the recent withdrawal by the University of New South Wales from developing educational programs in Singapore gave Georgia Tech any pause.  Dr. Schuster explained that the University of New South Wales was pulling back for internal reasons and Georgia Tech’s approach would not be affected in any direct way.  Dr. Bert Bras complimented Dr. Schuster on the plan for town hall meeting just mentioned because faculty buy-in will be important.  Pearl Alexander asked if new operations would start in Singapore in fall of 2007.  Dr. Schuster replied that current programs of the TLI-AP would continue but the earliest possible start for any new programs would be January 2009.  Dr. Ron Bohlander asked for more information about the Atlanta lab that will mirror the UMI lab in France.  Dr. Schuster said that the two labs would have complementary equipment and be available to the participating faculty and students, primarily from ECE, ME, and CS.  The Provost’s Office has incentivized involvement by graduate students by making fellowships available to Ph.D. students who are jointly directed by one faculty member in Atlanta and one in Metz.  The Provost’s Office pays for half the cost and the two faculty members cover one quarter each.  So this provides four years (approx.) of a bond holding this international team together.  Pearl Alexander asked about whether Tech would relocate some faculty and staff to new campuses overseas, temporarily or permanently.  Dr. Schuster answered that, important as strategy is, getting operations set up to run well and finding the right people are often the hard parts.  Finding the right leadership for each site is a key.  In Singapore, Steve Danyluk, Hal Irvin, and Chin Lee have committed to spending two years there getting it off the ground, if the decision is reached to move forward.  The operating model for steady state is that 80% of the faculty who would be teaching and doing research in Singapore would be hired in Singapore, be based there, and would spend 80% of their time there and 20% of their time in Atlanta.  The reciprocal would also be true.  However, initially, Atlanta based faculty will have more of a role in Singapore to help things get started and participate in the hiring of their successors.  President Clough went on to say that most of the staff would be hired locally, both as a practical matter and as a gesture of good faith with the host country.  Pearl Alexander asked in follow up if a staff consultant like Hal Irvin would be used consistently from now on, whereas primarily locally hired staff had been used in GT Lorraine.  President Clough explained that, if the decision is reached to proceed, the initial leadership team for Singapore would be larger than it had been for Lorraine because the ramp up time would be shorter and the scale of operations larger.  Many future programs will start out with a much narrower focus, though India may turn out to be broadly focused like Singapore.  He also reminded the board that a new Vice Provost for International Initiatives is being sought and that will entail a more robust staff for international program development.  Dr. Ron Bohlander pointed out that new business processes need to be mastered in each new international setting, and that sometimes requires the involvement of business leaders from the Atlanta campus as well as experts from the host country.  Dr. Clough agreed and pointed to models followed by multinational firms, saying at the same time that Georgia Tech is early on this learning curve.

4.         Mr. Akins called on President Clough to tell the Executive Board about progress so far in Georgia Tech’s Capital Campaign.  President Clough explained that work began on the current campaign in June 2004.  The current goal is to raise at least $1 billion by December 2010, and as of the end of May 2007 about $416 million was booked, putting the campaign very much on track.  By the end of 2007, close to $500 million is expected.  The campaign is still in its quiet phase and has not gone public.  So the exact goal and exact end dates are not set in concrete either.  The development team is quite experienced and has developed a detailed plan and model with which to track progress.  President Clough explained some of the nuances of that model.  He also explained some of the conventional wisdom and GT experience with the distribution of donors and the amounts of their gifts.  Many donors are repeat donors who contributed in past campaigns.  Many are new and some of these are interested because Tech has broadened its portfolio of teaching and research and now covers topics of interest that appeal to new donors.  Capital campaigns require a lot of travel and the good news is that Tech alums and supporters have provided resources, both with transportation and also with interesting venues at which to meet prospective donors.  In addition, the presence of these committed supporters, such as Al West (Chair of the Capital Campaign), adds to the credibility of the appeals made.  President Clough praised the Tech development staff and all those who work hard to prepare the trips that are needed to make the campaign a success.  He stated that Tech’s reputation with industry is stellar and makes this a very enjoyable process.  He cited also high interest in hiring Tech students and the attractiveness of new ventures at Tech as factors that have brought success so far in Tech’s funding appeals.  President Clough pointed out that Emory and Tech not only cooperate in research and teaching; they also collaborate on development, and he cited the example of mutual interest in research leading to safe water becoming more widely available across the globe.  Joint programs like this attract donations to both schools.  President Clough explained also the different amounts of progress toward donations for purposes of various kinds, such as endowment, facilities and equipment, and current operations.  He showed the varying responses of different categories of donors, such as alumni, corporations, foundations, parents, etc.  Individual units on campus help conduct the campaign and their rates of progress were reviewed. 

President Clough also gave a brief update on the new Promise scholarship program, which will provide better access to a Georgia Tech education for families with the greatest financial need.  Eligibility is restricted to families with income less than $30,000/yr, who apply for a Pell Grant (or similar), and contribute through the work/study program.  Perhaps as many as 400 students will qualify; 127 have been approved so far of which 50 are new students.  The average family income of those approved so far is $18,560/yr.  About one-third are women, and about 60% minorities.  The program is only open to Georgia residents at this time and the students come from 67 communities around the state.  Their average SAT is 1343 and seven have been invited to participate in the honors program.  In the long run it will take $50 million in endowments to operate this program at a cost of $2 million/yr.  The Georgia Tech Foundation has advanced the money necessary to get started immediately.  The program was only recently announced and already $11 million in new funds have been received toward the necessary endowments.  The response has been very strong and is helping to create broad interest in the Capital Campaign as a whole.

President Clough opened the floor to questions and Mr. Akins asked how the large number of small donations came in: did they tend to come in steadily over the campaign or mostly at the end?  Dr. Clough answered that most of these arise from habits of regular giving and the campaign would appreciate it if such donors would pledge ahead for the six years of the campaign so this giving could be factored in at one time rather than little by little.  Mr. Akins noted that this probably applied to the members of the Executive Board and the President said yes, Tech’s faculty members are known to be remarkably generous.

5.         Mr. Akins then turned to Ms. Susan Paraska, Assistant to Jack Lohmann, Vice Provost for Institutional Development, to introduce two speakers who would brief the Executive Board on progress made under Tech’s Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP).  This plan had been developed in preparation for the last round of SACS accreditation visits, because SACS requires a broad-based institutional plan focusing on improvements in learning outcomes and support to students.  Ms. Paraska introduced Dr. Howard Rollins, Associate Vice Provost for International Programs, to cover the International Plan part of this report.  He and the following speaker, Dr. Karen Harwell, spoke from PowerPoint slides contained in Attachment #2.  Dr. Rollins explained that Tech put quite a lot of effort over a year’s time developing its QEP and decided that it would concentrate on developing an International Plan option for undergraduate learning as well as an Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program.  The International Plan began in the spring of 2005 and so this is a report now on about two years of operations.  The thrust of the International Plan is to help Georgia Tech students develop global competence.  This is explicitly something beyond the traditional “study abroad” sort of program.  At Georgia tech, global competence requires obtaining global knowledge, achieving proficiency in a language other than English, and having an overseas experience (in study, an internship, or research).  The latter would involve at least a six-month stay that would permit a deeper familiarity with another culture.  Tech is unique as a university in practicing curricular integration, which means that students learn how to practice their discipline elsewhere in the world, and not just become generally familiar with other cultures.  Students participating in the International Plan will have a culminating course in their major focusing on some international aspect of the subject matter.  An important goal in creating a program like this is to attract very good students who are looking for a challenge and for opportunities that are rarely available.  Dr. Rollins stated that the program has doubled in the number of participating degree programs since the beginning and nearly tripled in the number of participating students (as documented in Attachment #2).  About half of the 291 students presently participating are engineering students and 20% are science students so this is a remarkable involvement of core technology students in obtaining global competence.  This program has brought Tech considerable recognition for excellence in international programs. 

Challenges faced in the program include understanding how to assess global competence.  Tech has decided to measure knowledge gained, cultural sensitivity, and discipline-based competence for a global setting.  There is an extensive evaluation process in collecting metrics from entering students, from control respondents not in the program, and then also from program students at the end of their studies.  One of the assessment tools is the respected Intercultural Development Inventory.  Challenges are also found in possible barriers for student participation, such as higher cost, increased time to graduation, and competition from other interesting options in the curriculum.  Some students initially believe this is a good thing to do but drop out during the first two years when their only involvement in the International Plan is to take some language courses.  Therefore, plans are being developed to increase participant engagement during the first two years. 

Dr. Rollins turned the floor over to Dr. Harwell who introduced herself as having come to Tech 15 months ago from the National Academies to be the Director of Undergraduate Research.  She stated that Tech has long had opportunities for undergraduate students to be involved in research, but that the Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program (UROP) provides greater encouragement and visible central support.  The program was planned with two main outcomes in mind: increased participation in research and a new formal Research Option for degree plans.  Since 2004, participation has increased 20%/yr. and reached 365 participants last year.  The research option requires a longer commitment from a participating student and culminates in a capstone thesis.  Dr. Harwell stated that fourteen schools offer the Research Option and there have been 19 graduates so far.  Approximately twice that number is in the pipeline and it is catching on as a program of interest across a wider spectrum of students.  Some special endowments and sponsorships have been coming in from donors and corporations.  Students can elect to participate at any stage in their time at Tech and many do so in their senior year.

One of the challenges faced by the program is to meet increasing demand with limited resources.  There is a desire to maintain high quality and also not to impose unduly on individual faculty members’ scarce resources.  There is also a challenge in accurately counting the number of students served due to the informality and flexibility of the program.  Students are easily counted if registered for course credit but those working on faculty grants but not registered are harder to count.  Finally, it is worthwhile to concentrate more on fundraising to help solve resource problems.  Explicit support in the Capital Campaign would be welcome.  Dr. Rollins mentioned that the International Plan and UROP in some sense compete for students.  Dr. Harwell mentioned that some effort is now being made to find ways they can work together.

Surveys have been used to measure progress in research competencies including communications skills, confidence in research abilities, and confidence in problem solving.  Competency in thesis writing is also being measured, though faculty buy in for the assessment tools can be a challenge.  There has not been time to measure the long term impact on eventual career progressions.  Focus groups are being used to understand how and why students get into the program and what they perceive they might need in terms of added support.  Included in this are discussions of how and when Tech teaches students about thesis writing.  Some student indicate that this program is a good way for them to get a taste of graduate student activities and it helps them decide whether to pursue a graduate degree.

Contact info for both programs is included on Attachment #2.

Bill Ballard asked if it was possible to be a Co-Op student in the International Plan.  Dr. Rollins answered, yes, and it is possible to work one or more work semesters in an international setting to satisfy both programs.  Tom Akins commented that, in the 2006-07 year, Tech had 46 students working abroad in 19 countries on five continents.  This is a much higher number than in previous years, made possible when Debbie Gulick (Assistant Director of Professional Practice for Work Abroad) became available to assist with the special logistics issues.  The top three venues are France, Germany, and India.  Of the 46 participants this past year, 26 were in engineering.  Co-Op students in the International Plan typically study abroad and then stay in country for a semester of work. 

6.         Mr. Akins commented that the July meeting of the Executive Board is sometimes cancelled because summer schedules take many faculty away to special activities.  He asked if there was any urgent business to conduct in a July meeting.  Hearing none, Ron Bohlander suggested that the July 17 date for the meeting be held open until early July when a final decision to cancel, or not, would be made and announced to the Executive Board.

7.         Dr. Hughes asked that Ron Bohlander discuss the upcoming election of Executive Board officers for 2007-08.  Dr. Bohlander explained that the Executive Board members for 2006-07 and those for 2007-08 would all be invited to the Board meeting on August 21, 2007.  The agenda for this meeting would usually include an invitation to all members continuing into the coming year to let the secretary know if they are interested in running for chair or vice-chair of the Executive Board.  The secretary would then send out an email ballot to determine those who would serve so that this would be known going into the September meeting.  Dr. Bohlander offered two process improvements for the Board to consider:

·        It would be an advantage to determine the officers a bit earlier so that there is more time for the officers to meet with President Clough and prioritize possible agenda items for the coming year before the September meeting.  To this end, he asked if it would be possible to get nominees during July and hold the ballot before the August meeting.

·        It was observed that the end of 2006-07 leaves us with both the chair and vice-chair coming to the end of their terms on the Executive Board.  Dr. Bohlander suggested that some special consideration be given to vice-chair candidates who have two years of eligibility left, so that if mutually agreeable, the person elected would be able to stand for election to chair in the subsequent year.

Dr. Bohlander then moved that candidates for Executive Board officers be identified and elected prior to the August meeting via email processes, and this motion was seconded.  Dr. Bert Bras asked about specific timelines for these emails because he was concerned that many faculty might be away until close to the time classes start.  Dr. Hughes said the process could be compressed into the time immediately before the August meeting because the new chair has no responsibilities to prepare something for this meeting.  Discussion from the floor focused on advantages in meeting candidates at the August meeting and then voting by email ballot within a few days following the meeting.  This would allow a bit more time for candidates to step forward and would give people a chance to hear what the candidates were thinking.  Accordingly, Dr. Bohlander amended his motion with the concurrence of the seconder, as follows:  He moved that candidates for the Executive Board officers be invited to declare their interest prior to the August meeting, that nominations be accepted also from the floor, that each candidate be allowed to make a brief statement to the Board at the August meeting, and that an email ballot then be conducted to select the officers within about a week from the Board meeting.   This motion was approved without dissent.

The sense of the meeting was that candidates for Vice Chair would be encouraged who could continue as chair in the following year if mutually agreeable but this would not be a rule.

8.         Dr. Bohlander called the Board’s attention to the proposed calendar of meetings for the next year documented in Attachment #3.  He showed how the different meetings on the calendar related to each other and to other events in campus life.  He commented that all of these dates had been coordinated with the President and the Registrar.  The timing of meetings must pay close attention particularly to curriculum change deadlines.  A motion to adopt the calendar passed without dissent.

9.                  Mr. Akins asked for any new business.  Hearing none the meeting was adjourned at about 5:20 P.M.

Submitted by Ronald A Bohlander, Secretary

July 25, 2007

Attachments (to be included with the archival copy of the minutes)

1.      Minutes of the EB meeting of April 10, 2007.

2.      Presentation on the QEP

3.   Calendar