GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

THE EXECUTIVE BOARD

 

MINUTES

Meeting of October 25, 2011

Held in the Poole Board Room of the Wardlaw Building

 

 

Members Present:        Bafna (Architecture), Black (Grad. Student), Bohlander (Secretary of the Faculty, GTRI), Bras (Provost), Cunefare (ME), Downing (EII), DíUrbano (Chair, OSP), Ingram (ECE), Leggon (Public Policy), Lyon (Vice-Chair, Chemistry), Neu (ME), Peterson (President), Ready (GTRI-EOSL), Tyson (Chemistry), Vuchatu (GTRI-ESD), Weissburg (Biology), White (CoC), Williams (USGFC Rep., ECE)

 

Members Absent:        Bennett (Mgt), Creel (UíGrad. Student), Millard (GTRI-ICL), Tavares (EVPRís Office), Wozniak (OTL)

 

Guests:                        Bidstrup Allen (FAR), Herazy (Provostís Office), Khanduri (SGA VP), Lohmann(Vice-Provost), Paraska (Prog. Rev. & Accred.), Radakovich (AD), Smith (SVPAA)

 

1.   Mr. Chris DíUrbano (Chair) opened the meeting at 3:05 P.M.

2.      The Chair directed the Boardís attention to the Minutes of the September 20, 2011 Executive Board meeting (Attachment #1).  These were approved unanimously.

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

a)      Dr. Peterson stated that the administration was continuing to work on crime issues in and around the campus.  There were four recent assaults that were also similar to three incidents in Atlantic Station and two in Piedmont Park.  Georgia Tech police were coordinating closely with Atlantaís Police Department and Midtown Blue in measure to investigate and prevent such incidents.  The number of Georgia Tech police officers has increased by 25% in the last two and a half years.

b)   The France-Atlanta 2011 events were to start on October 26, 2011.  Georgia Tech has been involved as a co-sponsor in recognition of its stake in its Metz, France campus.

c)   Homecoming would occur during the October 28-30 weekend, with Clemson as the football opponent.

d)   Dr. Peterson said that Georgia Tech budgets had been set and communicated to the campus units.  This incorporated the most recent 2% budget cut requested by the Governorís office.  The cumulative reduction was $108 million over the past three years, with about $40 million of that offset by tuition and fees increases.  The President also reported that the Board of Regents supported four building projects in its recommendations to the Governor for the next year.  One of these was the Engineered Biosystems Building for Georgia Tech.  This 280,000+ square foot building would be located on campus on Tenth Street west of Atlantic Drive.

e)   The President thanked the students for their advocacy for a more bicycle-friendly campus and for setting aside bike lanes. 

f)   The Georgia Tech Annual Report would be distributed shortly.  Samples were passed around. 

g)   The Capital Campaign was proceeding.  Thirty-two of forty events had been held so far during calendar 2011.  Some international events would be scheduled in 2012.  Nearly $1.1 billion had been raised so far, against a $1.5 billion goal by the end of 2015.  Of the 6,120 faculty and staff, 946 have contributed a total of $607,000.  Of the 946 who have contributed, 432 were alumni of Georgia Tech. 

Dr. Peterson asked Provost Dr. Bras for comments as well:

a)      Georgia Tech has been able to make a few prudent investments despite tight budgets; in particular,

         Hiring new faculty

         Initiatives for increased student-faculty interaction through programs like the Living-Learning Communities.

b)      Efforts to develop implementation plans for Techís Strategic Plan continued.  The X-College group was nearing completion of its work.  The Tech Art group was making rapid progress.  Work continued with Emory University on enhancements to educational offerings concerning the law. 

c)      As mentioned last month, plans continued on a new organizational structure of the Provost Office.  Dr. Bras expected to make announcements next month, with a start on the new organization, January 1.  He asked for patience because he predicted it would take the better part of spring semester 2012 to accomplish the necessary moves and get the offices working properly. 

d)     Dr. Bras announced that advising for student athletes would move under the direction of the Provostís Office and be integrated with other student advising, effective January 1.  Athletics rules compliance would move under the Office of Legal Affairs and Risk Management. 

e)      The Provost also reported that plans for new activities on the Savannah campus were proceeding well. 

Dr. Peterson asked the Secretary, Dr. Ron Bohlander, whether the faculty on Savannah campus were represented in faculty governance.  Dr. Bohlander responded that a few years ago, faculty members from the Savannah campus were made part of the faculty of schools headquartered at the Atlanta campus according to their discipline.  Faculty members in Savannah did not have set-aside representation in faculty governance but there have been members of the Savannah campus who have been elected to the Academic Senate and faculty standing committees as part of regular faculty elections.

4.   Mr. DíUrbano called on Prof. Sue Ann Bidstrup Allen, Faculty Athletics Representative, and Mr. Dan Radakovich, Director of Athletics, to bring the Board news of Techís intercollegiate athletics programs.  Mr. DíUrbano also recognized Ms. Susan Paraska, Director of Program Review and Accreditation, and Dr. Jack Lohmann, Vice-Provost for Faculty and Academic Development, who have assisted the athletics program with planning and assessment.  Dr. Allen explained her role as the facultyís athletics representative, as shown in a joint presentation in Attachment #2a.  In accordance with her usual emphasis on academics, Prof. Allen explained the academic progress of tech student athletes in terms of their Graduation Success Rate and Academic Progress Rate.  The evidence showed that academic success had been increasing over the past few years.  She explained that the latest figures that could officially be released were for 2009-10; ones for 2010-11 had been calculated but could not be released until May 2012 under NCAA rules.  She did say though that all the news would be good for the 2010-11 year.  Georgia Tech had been earlier been assessed a penalty to its Menís Basketball program because its APR was less than 925 and one player was both academically ineligible and not retained as a student.  The penalty was one athletic scholarship in basketball lost for the 2010-11 year.  None would be lost in the current 2011-12 year.  Prof. Allen said that Techís athletics programs had become much more effective in promoting academic success and that was paying off in steadily improving results.  Techís new basketball coach, Brian Gregory, was a strong supporter of academic success in his student athletes. 

Q.  Dr. Bras asked how Georgia Tech compared with other schools in the ACC.  Ans.  Prof. Allen said there were several teams at Georgia Tech that had been recognized for being in the top 10% in APR scores in their sport.  Mr. Radakovich estimated that Georgia Tech would be in the lower third of the ACC in Graduation Success Rate.  He also noted that some teams like womenís tennis were small and were subject to unusual swings when a few members left to turn pro or experienced academic difficulties.

Mr. Radakovich picked up with the news beginning at frame 11 in Attachment #2a.  He covered the history of the NCAAís recent sanction of Georgia Tech for alleged failure to cooperate in an investigation and failure to meet the conditions and obligations of membership in the NCAA.  It was explained that Georgia Tech was in the process of appealing the findings and the penalty in which the 2009 ACC football championship was vacated.  A decision on the appeal was expected to be announced 60-90 days from mid-November.  In any case Georgia Tech had, in the meantime, reviewed its processes and worked to strengthen its organization in an effort to avoid future questions of NCAA compliance.  

The Athletics Director also reviewed progress under the five year Gender, Minority, and Academic Equity Plans completed in 2011.  Improvements would continue, but the NCAA had just suspended for two years their certification program in which these plans were developed; this would give the NCAA time to develop a new streamlined process.  Thus, formal guidelines for further planning were on hold.  Mr. Radakovich made a report of detailed progress on the Georgia Tech plans available to the Board in a handout, Attachment #2b.  Mr. Radakovich commented that the administration was watching closely the increase in enrollment of women at Georgia Tech.  If the trend continued upward as expected, Georgia Tech would need to add another one to two womenís sports teams under Title 9, such as golf or womenís sand volleyball. 

He concluded with some other highlights from 2010-11, as shown in Attachment #2a.

5.   Mr. DíUrbano called on the Secretary, Dr. Ron Bohlander, to present a proposed agenda for the November 17, 2011 scheduled meeting of the Academic Senate, as shown in Attachment #3.  Dr. Bohlander explained that normally Dr. Allen would deliver her Faculty Athletics Representative report to the Academic Senate at this meeting.  However, due to a conflict in her schedule, this presentation was postponed until the February 21, 2012 meeting.  Dr. Bohlander asked Mr. Radakovich to make a report on NCAA news to the Academic Senate meeting in November and he agreed.  It was moved and seconded to approve the agenda.  The motion passed unanimously.

6.   Mr. DíUrbano asked for reports from committee liaisons.  Most dealt with routine committee start up issues, except:

Dr. Ingram reported that the Statutes Committee was working on updating the sections of the Faculty Handbook dealing with Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure, using the recommendations from Andy Smithís task force and from the ADVANCE Professors as resources.

Dr. Williams reported that the University System of Georgia Faculty Council would meet on November 5, 2011, and further attention would be given to pending by-laws changes concerning voting procedures and quorums. 

Dr. Cunefare reported that the Institute Undergraduate Curriculum Committee was taking a look at how much information should be included on each diploma, some of which was otherwise available on a studentís transcript.

7.   Mr. DíUrbano asked for any additional business and, hearing none, adjourned the meeting at about 4:35 p.m. 

Submitted by Ronald A Bohlander, Secretary

November 28, 2011

Attachments

1)      Minutes of the September 20, 2011 meeting of the Executive Board

2)   Intercollegiate Athletics information

a)      Presentation

b)      Update in Gender, Minority, and Academic Equity Plans

3)   Proposed agenda for the November 17, 2011 meeting of the Academic Senate.