Meeting of August 25, 2009

Held in the Poole Board Room of the Wardlaw Building

(See also a record of business conducted by email later in the same month.)



Members Present*: Bafna (Architecture), Bennett (Mgt), Bishop (GTRI-ELSYS), Bohlander (Secretary of the Faculty, GTRI), Bowman (INTA), Buck (ECE), Dagenhart (Architecture), Fox (Library), Gaimon (Mgt), Harley (Grad. Student), Henry (ORC), Ingram (ECE), Jenkins (GTRI), Leggon (Public Policy), Marder (Chemistry), Millard (GTRI-ITTL), Morley (Math), Peterson (President), Rossignac (CoC-IC), Staskevicius (U’Grad. Student), Stein (Dean of Students), West (Chair, GTRI), Whiteman (ME), Williams (Vice-Chair, ECE)


Members Absent*: D’Urbano (OSP), Huey (EAS), Schuster (Provost), Tavares (Provost Office)


* Note the above lists include members serving on the Board for 2008-09 and 2009-10, as by tradition, this was a transition meeting involving both sets.


Visitors:  Allen (President’s Office), Barabino (VP Academic Diversity), Beisner (GTRI), Colatrella (LCC), Garton (Assoc. VP Research), Herazy (Provost’s Office), McKinney (OSP), Paraska (Program Review and Accreditation ), Smith (SVPAA)

1.      Ms. Leanne West (Chair) opened the meeting at 3:05 P.M. and began by welcoming and introducing new members of the Board: Sonit Bafna (Arch.), John Buck (ECE), Nate Bennett (Mgt), Chris D’Urbano (OSP), Mary Ann Ingram (ECE), Cheryl Leggon (Public Policy), David Millard (GTRI-ITTL).  She went on to mention those who were retiring from the Board this year: Richard Dagenhart (Architecture), Cheryl Gaimon (Mgt), John Stein (Dean of Students), and herself.  She said that although Doug Williams (ECE) was also completing a term on the Executive Board, he had been appointed by the Board in the past year to serve as Georgia Tech’s representative to the University System of Georgia (USG) Faculty Council and had been asked to continue to meet with the Executive Board while he serves in this capacity in 2009-10.  This would ensure that he regularly heard what was going on in Georgia Tech faculty governance and the Board could hear from him about USG Faculty Council business.  Ms. West thanked all the members of the Board for their service in the past year.

2.      Ms. West directed the Board’s attention to the Minutes of the June 23, 2009 Executive Board meeting (Attachment #1).  These were approved without dissent.

3.      She next called on President Peterson to comment on matters of interest to the Georgia Tech community.

a.     Dr. Peterson thanked the outgoing members of the Board for their service which he said was very meaningful and appreciated by the whole Tech community.  He said he was impressed with the healthy relationship that existed at Georgia Tech between the administration and the Executive Board – one that represented hard work toward common goals.  Dr. Peterson thanked Leanne West for her leadership in 2008-09.

b.     Dr. Peterson took a moment to introduce Ms. Jennifer Herazy (Assistant Provost).  He said that in the year ahead Ms. Herazy would take over from Dr. Sue Ann Allen as principal liaison to the Executive Board from the President’s and Provost’s offices.  Dr. Allen has served for several years as Faculty Executive Assistant to the President and was glad to be returning to her work as a professor in Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering.  She had planned this move 18 months ago but had stayed on to help Interim President Schuster and President Peterson through their transitions.  Dr. Peterson explained that the position of Faculty Executive Assistant to the President would not be re-filled due to budget restrictions.  He said this was one of four positions eliminated in the President’s office.  Dr. Peterson thanked Dr. Allen for her several years of service.  He noted that Dr. Allen was not entirely escaping service to the Institute as a whole since she had agreed to serve as Georgia Tech’s Faculty Athletics Representative. In this role she would serve as the NCAA-mandated liaison between the academic and athletics programs of the Institute.

c.     President Peterson went on to comment on the budgetary situation.  He said that in fiscal year 2009, cuts to Georgia Tech’s budget prior to April 1 amounted to $29 million.  Between May and the end of the fiscal year on June 30, the administration had to take another $5 million cut and they absorbed this centrally.  It was impractical that late in the year to expect academic departments to have much discretion left in their commitments.  Thus the total reduction of the state appropriation to Georgia Tech in FY09 was $34 million.

Recently, the Governor mandated that every state agency prepare new budget plans that included three days of furlough. Three new budget plans were requested with target reductions of 4%, 6%, and 8% in state appropriations.  The Regents modified this mandate and said they wanted plans for six days of furlough built into budget plans for 4%, 6%, and 8% reductions in state appropriations.  These percentage decreases corresponded to $10, 15, and 20 million respectively.  Subsequently, a budget with a 5% reduction became the first scenario to be implemented as a plan, or about a $12.5 million cut.  Dr. Peterson reported he had some flexibility in how furloughs would be set up.  The Regents decided no one’s salary after furloughs would be allowed to drop below the federal poverty level of $23,660/year.  Public safety and health workers would be exempted.  Georgia Tech has also decided to exempt

·         All graduate students because they have trouble enough making ends meet. 

·         GTRI employees because only a very small percentage of their funding is from the state and therefore they cannot accomplish savings by taking furlough days.

·         Prorated cases:  Georgia Tech employees and staff to the extent they are supported by research funding that does not come from the state. 

Dr. Peterson explained that if people on non-state research dollars are forced to take furloughs several undesirable things happen:

·         The State loses tax withholding from those individuals.

·         The State does not save any money because they weren’t paying that part of the salary anyway.

·         Georgia Tech loses support for indirect costs.

·         Because Georgia Tech decided not to let the furloughs impact faculty benefits, Georgia Tech would be paying for the pro rata share of those benefits without any way to recover those costs from the research sponsors.  If all people in GTRI and Resident Instruction who are on non-state research funds take furlough days like everyone else it would cost Georgia Tech $3 million.  The intent was to save $6 million by having furlough days, so if these researchers were furloughed, there would be two steps forward and one back and considerably more furlough days would be needed to realize the target savings.

Dr. Peterson said that the three furlough days in fall semester were identified as the last three of the semester.  Specific furlough days in spring semester had not yet been identified.  He said that persons who cannot take furloughs on the designated days can work out substitutes with their unit leaders.

d.    Dr. Peterson reported that

·         Applications for admission were up 15%;

·         The largest, best qualified, most diverse freshman class in the history of Georgia Tech has been enrolled for the fall semester this year;

·         There were more than 20,000 students overall;

·         The percentage of females in the undergraduate class has risen above 30% for the first time in history; and

·         Progress has been made on some major gifts.

The President then took some questions:

Q. Concern was expressed about safety in the Institute when furloughs would be taken on days when graduate students (who were not furloughed) could be in buildings conducting research.  It was noted that this situation was somewhat different from a holiday.  On a holiday, everyone is designated to be nominally on leave.  But on the designated furlough days, most faculty members would probably be on furlough, and the graduate students, not.  The question was posed, could furloughs be organized in laboratory buildings so there were several attending faculty members present at all times?  Ans. The President acknowledged the importance of safety in such situations.  He said that departments facing that situation would have the flexibility to organize a different pattern of furlough days to meet the need.  The President clarified that the Institute would not be closed on the designated furlough days.  He anticipated there would be minimal activity on those days but individual unit managers would have the flexibility and responsibility to work out plans to meet the need for safety.  The President went on to say he was confident that Georgia Tech would get through this with minimal impact on the education of the students at Tech.

4.      Ms. West reminded everyone about the President’s Investiture ceremony on Sep.3, 2009.  She said members of the Board could still sign up for the faculty procession and stated that the Board members names would be listed in the program.  Board members were also invited to the breakfast and lunch being held around the event.  Instructions for logistics would be sent out soon along with information about the strategic planning seminars in the afternoon of that same day.  President Peterson reported that two meetings had been held to kick off the new round of strategic planning for Georgia Tech.  The Deans and President’s Cabinet met on August 3 and identified a preliminary list of issues.  A steering committee comprising about ninety people met on August 24 and began to put more flesh on the topics to be considered.  Nine main topic themes have been selected for focus.  The afternoon of the investiture day would include two parallel sessions in which these nine topics would be briefed and open for comment from all attending members of the Georgia Tech community.  Dr. Peterson encouraged Board members to participate and to signal their interest in particular sessions via the website

5.      Ms. West next called on Dr. Gilda Barabino (Vice Provost of Academic Diversity) to tell the Board about the activities in her office and about an upcoming Diversity Symposium.  Dr. Barabino used the slides found in Attachment #2, which faithfully reflected her remarks.  She particularly invited all members of the Board to attend the Symposium planned for September 14, as described in slide 6 and following.  She thanked Prof. Carol Colatrella for help with organizing and planning this event.  The speakers have been asked to concentrate on the concept of faculty diversity and the need for diversification of our faculty.  Dr. Barabino commented that Tech was doing a good job in its outreach to a diversity of students but it was not yet recognized for leadership in the diversification if its faculty.  She commented on research that shows that diversification of the faculty supports efforts of diversification of the student body and improves students’ learning outcomes.  She emphasized the importance of faculty leaders and administrators committing to support goals of this kind.  The symposium would be a good opportunity for dialog about the meaning of diversity, as well as about goals and strategies for achieving better diversification in the faculty.  She reviewed the agenda on Slide 10 and talked about how the speakers and participating faculty, administrators, and students would participate.  She encouraged members of the Board to register via the symposium website

Dr. Barabino received some questions:

Q. Are students with disabilities included within the definition of academic diversity?  Ans. Dr. Barabino acknowledged they were important.  She noted that there is a special arm of the Office of Student Affairs that deals with that.  She said there was also a study underway in the Office of Organizational Development to better define the scope of what should be included in the office of the Vice Provost for Academic Diversity.

Q. Would video records of presentations from the Symposium be available for later viewing.  Ans. As a cost cutting measure, no, they were not being recorded but presentation materials (slides) and notes from the meeting would be posted to the above symposium website.  Benchmarking of other institutions and planning efforts were underway with the help of the Communications and Marketing department and the Office of Organizational Development.  This would include how to improve campus events on diversity in the future.

Q. What could the Executive Board do to support the mission of the office of the Vice Provost for Academic Diversity?  Ans. A specific wish list was not yet available.  But she said that she wanted support from leaders for the concept of collective and personal responsibility for diversity and for improving access to Georgia Tech.  She has a passion for raised consciousness for those who were presently underserved.  She promised to come back with more specifics in the future.

6.   Ms. West called next on Ms. Jilda Garton (Assoc. Vice Provost for Research) to explain a new online system to help faculty with their annual and regular obligations to disclose conflicts of interest in research.  Ms. Garton began by explaining that for now there was no change in the Institute’s conflict of interest policy as found in Section 38 of the Faculty Handbook, last revised in a significant way in 2006.  She was coming to the Executive Board to describe a new procedure for disclosures enabled by a new online system.  She said in the course of implementing it, they found things that needed to be cleaned up in the policy but recommended changes would be coming later.  She said one thing that would be coming was a change in the definition of a family member, per a requirement of the Internal Revenue Service.  In the old policy, tests for conflict of interest included business dealings of spouses and dependent children.  The IRS was currently conducting audits including any person who might reasonably be considered to be a family member (i.e. a broader, but not well-defined list).  She said the new online form related most closely to the annual form faculty were used to filling out.  She showed the Executive Board what the online system involved using slides shown in Attachment #3.  The system has been in beta testing in ECE and preliminary results were encouraging.  Full implementation in Resident Instruction was planned for September.  [GTRI has had their own online system for a little more than a year.]

The system allowed faculty members to make either an annual disclosure or a disclosure specifically connected with a proposed or actual research project.  She said this new system solved problems such as:

·         Data from old paper based systems were hard to use or find sometimes.

·         The Institute needed to meet new federal requirements:

o   The National Institutes of Health now required information about potential or real conflicts of interest at the time of submittal of proposals.  If there were any, a written management plan had to be provided.

o   The National Science Foundation now required a written conflict management plan to exist in case they needed to ask for it.

o   The Office of Human Research Protections has tightened up the rules on what Institute Review Boards must do in reviewing conflicts of interest.

So the online system would support having disclosures relative to each project.

·         The online conflict of interest system will integrate with other online proposal submission systems (e.g. the new IRB protocol submission system, new animal care and use protocol submission system, ultimately the new sponsored programs database submission system, and the online routing sheet).  The goal was to make it possible to get proposal submissions approved without hand carrying from office to office.

Ms. Garton stated that forms filled out online would be routed to the appropriate supervisor for review and approval.  This would be done manually at first but eventually via a database. If after supervisor review there were still questions, the form would be routed to the Institute Conflict of Interest Committee for review. 

Q. Would a faculty get a report back about the results of reviews of their disclosure?  Ans. Yes. An electronic report would be sent if the supervisor approved.  If the Conflict of Interest Committee got the matter for review, the faculty member would get a result through personal contact.

Q. Would Resident Instruction return to the usual deadlines next year?  Ans. Yes.  The delay this year was to allow more time for testing.

Q. Would all participants in a research project have to complete the research project disclosure?  Ans. Only if the faculty member were on the list of key personnel.  Did the faculty member have a role in the design, conduct, or reporting of the research results?  This would include graduate students if they were far enough along in their research.

Q. Would the system retain data from one reporting period to the next so that renewals of information are easy? Ans. Yes.  Furthermore, data associated with the faculty member’s login ID should automatically populate the form.

Q. What volume of cases did the Conflict of Interest Committee see?  Ans. Probably less than 100 files per year.

7.   Ms. West called on Ms. Susan Paraska (Director, Program Review and Accreditation) to brief the Board and seek approval for the Academic Program Review (APR) schedule for 2010-11.  Ms. Paraska began by reminding the Board of actions taken in March 2009 to revise Institute procedures for APR as found in the Faculty Handbook in Section 46.1 and outlined in slide 2 of her presentation (Attachment #4).  This new policy called for the review and approval of future APR schedules by the Executive Board and so that was the purpose of her visit to the Board at this time.  She explained how the schedules were developed, as shown in Slide 3, and said that schedules were now posted to to serve as a shared reference to all involved.

She stated that the purpose of the Executive Board review was to ensure that faculty had the chance to be involved in steering the process.  The other major way that faculty were involved was through the curriculum committees which reviewed the results from the individual Academic Program Reviews.  Because the reviews were posted online, accreditation agencies and the Board of Regents had convenient access. 

New programs would be reviewed for the first time five years from program approvals, and every five years thereafter.  Reviews were required to begin with a self study which addressed a prescribed set of questions answered by the unit responsible for the program.  External reviewers were lined up to provide their assessment and recommendations.  Recommendations were then assimilated and reviewed from the unit on up through the Provost’s office.  The precise scheduling of a given program’s review could be adjusted somewhat, for example, for alignment with required accreditation visits or due to changes in unit leadership.

Ms. Paraska provided a schedule of activities already underway in 2010-11 and ones for the next two years, as shown in Slide 5.  She said a master schedule of tentatively planned reviews went out to 2015 at which time the next SACS accreditation review would be held.  In accordance with the Faculty Handbook, she was asking approval for next year’s schedule (2010-11) so that arrangements could be made for those reviews.  She explained that the reason City and Regional Planning was annotated with an asterisk in Slide 5 was that an external accreditation review was being planned for this program, and this might necessitate a different schedule.  She stated that the proposed schedule for 2010-11 had been thoroughly reviewed and approved by the responsible units and colleges.  Slide 7 outlined what would happen if the schedule was approved by the Board.

It was moved to approve the proposed schedule for 2010-11 in Slide 5 of Attachment #4.  The motion was seconded and approved without dissent.

There was then some follow up Q&A:

Q. If there was an accreditation review that was coordinated with the Academic Program Review, did this serve in place of the external reviewers?  Ans. Yes.

Q. If there was not an accreditation body involved, how were the external reviewers selected? Ans. The unit responsible for the program suggested a list of possible reviewers.  Then the Dean’s and Provost’s offices reviewed the list and could also add more names.

8.   Ms. West called on Prof. Tom Morley (Chair) to give a report from the Task Force on Definition of General Faculty at Georgia Tech.  He made a presentation shown in Attachment #5a and referred to recommended changes in the Faculty Handbook recorded in Attachment #5b.  Prof. Morley thanked all the members of the committee, as listed in the slides.  In recounting the study made by the Task Force he said that the Regents Definition of faculty had a central place in their deliberations.  This definition shown on slide 5 described the Corps of Instruction, a term Prof. Morley said came closest to what Georgia Tech called General Faculty.  He then pointed to a new statement the Task Force crafted for inclusion in the Faculty Handbook policies about the essence of what faculty members do; namely:

Faculty members are “responsible for creative development and delivery of programs in education, research, or extension. Administrative or other positions that support such responsibilities do not qualify.” Sec. 13.2.1

Prof. Morley said that in keeping with current policy, persons presently holding faculty status would keep this privilege under a grandfathering clause.  However, the number of persons elected to represent each unit would be determined on the basis of the number of positions with General Faculty status in the unit (not including grandfathered persons).  All existing representatives would finish terms, though, regardless of formulae for representation.  So the Handbook would cover principles of who were defined as faculty and ultimately a list would be prepared consistent with the principles as described on Slide 8.  The Executive Board would review and approve such lists, similar to the current role of the Board. Slide 9 listed examples of types of titles that would have faculty status and those that probably would not. Among the latter were Post Doctoral Fellows which had been included to provide access to the Optional Retirement plan with its fairer vesting policies, but Prof. Morley noted that the inclusion of Post Doctoral Fellows had been accompanied by considerable controversy.  The other two categories likely to no longer be associated with faculty membership were Athletics Affair Professionals and professionals primarily engaged in support functions.  Next steps were outlined in Slide 10 and would include meetings with impacted individuals and units.  Dr. Bohlander highlighted a finding from the Task Force’s study. He cited the example of the University of Georgia where staff members were afforded more representation on their equivalent of the Executive Board.  So campus governance was not the exclusive realm of faculty members.  Dr. Bohlander said a possible area of further study was the possibility of expanded avenues of campus governance at Georgia Tech.  This would also include possible opportunities for staff to participate to a greater degree in standing committees in which they have significant interest, such as the Faculty Benefits Committee.  The President commended this concern on behalf of staff and he too had noticed there was no representative body for staff.  An alternative to involving faculty and staff together in appropriate bodies would be the formation of a staff governance body, a staff council of some sort. 

Q. What would be an example of a “professional primarily engaged in support functions? Ans.  Prof. Morley suggested some possibilities and he noted that this designation did not mean such persons were unimportant.  Dr. Bohlander mentioned that it was important to realize that faculty were not the only important people on campus and that “important person” and “faculty member” were not synonymous.  Faculty membership should be defined not by importance but by function.

Q. What would be some examples of Administrative Officers who qualify for faculty status?  Ans. Prof. Morley referred to the language of Section 5.1.1 of the recommended statutes where it defines those with faculty status as Administrators who report other Administrators close enough on the organization chart to the President, as spelled out in that Section.

Q.  Concerning the draft statement in Section 13.2.1 cited above, what is meant by “extension”? Ans. Dr. Bohlander replied that the mysterious word “extension” was used because the Board of Regents used it and because it had historic meaning.  Historically, land grant universities used that term in connection with agricultural extension programs to teach the latest in farming know-how to state farming communities.  Georgia Tech was a pioneer in expanding this idea to industrial extension.  Today this was often in the realm of industrial process improvements or economic development.  Prof. Morley said it could take other forms of outreach as well, such as helping high school teachers advance their skills.  It was suggested that community service and outreach might be more acceptable terms in ordinary language.

Q. How does one exclude Post Doctoral Fellows from inclusion in faculty by the functional definition of faculty proposed in Section 13.2.1?  Post docs would seem to be engaged in one or more of the specified creative activities, for example, for research sponsors. Ans.  Prof. Morley said that was a good point and further work was needed to resolve that point.  Nevertheless, it was clear from past faculty meetings that exclusion from faculty governance was desired by many, perhaps on the basis of the intended temporariness of Post Docs’ appointment.  He expressed thanks for the suggestion and a commitment to follow up with improvements.

Q. How would the voice of Post Doctoral Fellows be heard on campus before this issue was decided? Ans. One possible answer was that Post Docs could be included in the meetings outlined in Slide 10.  President Peterson noted that Post Docs may need their own council rather than trying to decide about fitting them into faculty governance.

Ms. West suggested that further discussion be suspended until the Board had more opportunity to read recommended changes in depth.  She asked Board members to bring forth further dialog toward improvements.  This could be taken up in future Executive Board meetings since there was time before the matter would be brought to the faculty in November or later.

9.      Ms. West asked if there were any reports from the standing committee liaisons or task forces.  She explained, for the benefit of new members of the Board, that each member would be assigned to be a liaison to a standing committee.   Notable highlights heard from members of the Board included:

·         Prof. Morley noted, on behalf of the Student Honor Committee, that the Office of Student Integrity (OSI) has been hit hard by budget restrictions and was woefully under staffed.  There were now only one and a fraction of another staff member involved, whereas there used to be three and a fraction.  If there were a big spike in cases, OSI would be completely overwhelmed.

·         It was noted that the Student Regulations Committee was still working to reach a better consensus on Dead Week rules following the last faculty meeting of the spring when the matter was referred back to them.

·         Ms. Barbara Henry reported that the Faculty Benefits Committee had been reviewing options for new voluntary benefit programs that were expected to be announced in the fall open enrollment.  These would include enhanced offerings in life insurance, and short term and long term disability insurance.  Discussions were continuing about a possible shared leave program.  Ms. Henry noted that better maternity benefits might be possible from one or more of these programs.

Ms. West wrapped up with a review of some of the overall highlights from the Executive Board’s 2008-09 year, as outlined in Attachment #6

10. Ms. West called on Dr. Bohlander to lead the Board through the process of selecting their next Chair and Vice-Chair.  Dr. Bohlander announced the names of those interested in these positions, as received prior to the meeting.  In particular, Ms. Barbara Henry had expressed an interest in serving as Chair, and Prof. Kirk Bowman had indicated his interest in serving as Vice-Chair.  Dr. Bohlander opened the floor to additional nominations or expressions of interest.  Hearing none, he observed there was one candidate for Chair and one for Vice-Chair and asked the two candidates to introduce themselves.  There being no other candidates, a motion was made to elect Ms. Henry as Chair, and Prof. Bowman as Vice-Chair by acclamation.  The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.  Applause followed.

11.   Ms. West declared the meeting adjourned at about 4:50 p.m.  A reception followed.


Submitted by Ronald A Bohlander, Secretary

September 29, 2009


1)      Minutes of the June 23, 2009 meeting of the Executive Board

2)      Presentation on Academic Diversity

3)      Presentation on Online Conflict of Interest Disclosure System

4)   Briefing on Academic Program Review Schedule

5)   Report of Task Force on General Faculty Definition

      a) Presentation

      b) Proposed changes in Faculty Handbook

6) Executive Board Highlights of 2008-09


Addendum #1

The Secretary sent an electronic ballot to the Executive Board on August 17

We have two appointments to consider to help fill vacancies.  In both cases standard procedure has been followed in which our Vice Chair, Doug Williams has asked the most recent runner up if he/she would be willing to serve by filling the unexpired term of the person vacating the position.  He has received affirmative answers in both of the following cases and recommends we approve these appointments.  Thus, please answer the following two questions by close of day this Thursday, August 20, 2009:


  1. Do you approve the appointment of John Buck (ECE) to fill the unexpired term of Jianmin Qu (ME) to represent the College of Engineering on the Executive Board?  This term would last though August 2011. Prof. Qu has left Tech to head up Civil and Environmental Engineering at Northwestern.
    Yes _____    No _____
  2. Do you approve the appointment of Tanah Barchichat (GTRI-ITTL) to fill the unexpired term of David Millard (GTRI-ITTL) on the Welfare and Security Committee?  This term would last through August 2010. Mr. Millard was elected to the Executive Board and therefore relinquishes his position on the standing committee.
    Yes _____    No _____

A quorum of Board members answered both questions Yes without dissent.


Addendum #2

The Secretary sent an electronic ballot to the Executive Board on August 17

From time to time we need to take care of business between meetings and this is one of those.  I recently received a request from the Provost’s Office to update the arrangements for administration representation to the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee.  Right now the Bylaws (Sec. 10.7.9) say that “The Administration shall be represented by the Administrative Officer in charge of academic affairs, the Dean of Students (without the right to vote) and the Registrar who shall be the Secretary.”  The latter two are straightforward and will remain the same.  The only “Administrative Officer in charge of academic affairs” used to be the Provost until the current hierarchy was created and now there is a team.  We have continued to keep the Provost’s name on the committee roster though to fill the first position, having heard no word to the contrary.  In contrast, on the Graduate Curriculum Committee, the Bylaws (Sec. 10.7.10) say  “Administration shall be represented by the Administrative Officer in charge of graduate studies and by the Registrar who shall be Secretary.”  The first spot has been filled by Ray Vito,  Vice Provost for Undergraduate and Graduate Studies.  When either committee makes a recommendation about a curriculum change, their recommendations go from the committee to Andy Smith, Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs for implementation.  Since Ray Vito reports to Andy it seems appropriate for him to be the administration representative to both committees so that their work goes up the chain in the same way.  That’s the Provost’s request to us.


In the longer run, we can tweak and clarify the bylaws the next time we’re doing something worth the attention.  But in the meantime, the Statutes (Sec. 5) provide that “Any Administrator appointed by these Statutes and/or Bylaws to serve on the General Faculty Assembly, the Academic Senate, the Executive Board, or any Institute Standing Committee may appoint another appropriate and qualified General or Academic Faculty member to serve on that body and to carry out any designated duties related to that body in said Administrators place.  Such an appointment must be approved in advance by the Executive Board.”


So I am asking you, the Executive Board, this question:


Do you agree with the proposal from the Provost that the Vice Provost for Undergraduate and Graduate Studies, Ray Vito, should represent the Administration on the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee?

__________Yes          _________ No


Please respond by the end of the day this Thursday, Sep. 3.

A quorum of Board members answered Yes without dissent.