GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
THE EXECUTIVE BOARD
Meeting of May 20, 2014
Held in the Poole Board Room of the Wardlaw Building
Members Present: Balch (CoC-IC), Bohlander (Secretary of the Faculty, GTRI), Bras (Provost), Butera (Chair, ECE), Coleman (GTRI-ELSYS), Downing (EII), Gamble (CoA-Arch.), Kirkman (Vice-Chair, Public Policy), Koh (Grad. Student), Powell (OSP), Roseen (Undergrad. Student), Schumacher (Psychology), Tavares (EVPR’s Office), Turner (Business), Tyson (Chemistry), Vuchatu (GTRI-ESD), Williams (USGFC Rep., ECE), Wood (ECE), Zakir (Radiation Safety)
Members Absent: Cunefare (ME), Eckert (GTRI-ATAS), Grover (ChBE), Hernandez (Chemistry), Peterson (President)
Guests: Baines(Deputy CIO, OIT), Cozzens (Vice-Provost for Grad. Ed. & Faculty Affairs), Cross (EVPR), Herazy (Provost’s Office), McKenna (VP Legal Affairs & Risk Mgt.), Moorhead (Email Services Coord., OIT), Watson (Policy Specialist)
1. Prof. Rob Butera, Chair, opened the meeting at 3:05 P.M. He introduced the new Executive Vice-President of the graduate student body, Mr. Daegene Koh (“DK”). Mr. Koh said that he was a Ph.D. student in the field of astrophysics. Another student leader would be introduced later in the meeting when he arrived.
2. Prof. Butera directed the Board’s attention to notes of the April 8, 2014 meeting (Attachment #1). No approval was necessary as there was no quorum for that meeting. No corrections were offered. The Secretary, Dr. Ron Bohlander, stated that the notes were followed by a record of email ballots passed by the Executive Board following the April meeting.
3. The Chair next called on Provost Bras to comment on matters of interest to the Georgia Tech community.
a) Dr. Bras reported that Dr. Peterson was attending a Board of Regents meeting.
b) He noted that preparation for merit salary increases was in progress for employees of the Institute.
c) He reported that the Institute was financially healthy. Revenues were up and Georgia Tech would be receiving some formula funding.
d) Admissions for the next class of incoming students had been concluded at between 2750 and 2780 students. This number and the proportion of students from the state of Georgia were right on target. The incoming class had excellent academic qualifications.
e) The Africa-Atlanta celebrations led by Dean Royster (Ivan Allen College) were very popular. An opening event was held recently at the Carter Center.
f) Prominent human rights attorney Ms. Beatrice Mtetwa had been named recipient of the 2014 Ivan Allen Jr. Prize for Social Courage.
g) The spring graduation ceremonies went well. The PhD hooding ceremony was held separately on Thursday evening for the first time.
h) The sculptures around campus in the exhibition “Engineered Art” would be leaving the campus soon as the year-long exhibition would be wrapping up. A few of the sculptures might be purchased.
i) Progress continued to be made on the SACSCOC reaffirmation effort.
j) The first class of approximately 350 students completed their first semester of the online MS in Computer Science and had responded favorably to the experience. Many applications had been received for a place in the second cohort.
k) The competitive value of a Georgia Tech degree was underscored in a recent article in The Economist.
l) The Board of Regents had approved a new Georgia Tech MS degree in Analytics that featured a synthesis of engineering and business perspectives. The lead instructional units were the School of Industrial and Systems Engineering and the Scheller Jr. College of Business.
m) The new capital project for the renovation of the library buildings was set to start the planning phase soon.
n) Winning students involved in the InVenture program were well-received when they made a presentation to the Board of Regents about their work.
Dr. Bohlander added that Dr. Reggie DesRoches had recently been appointed by President Peterson to be Georgia Tech’s Faculty Athletic Representative, succeeding Dr. Sue Ann Allen. Dr. Bohlander expressed the thanks of the faculty for Dr. Allen’s service for several years in that roll.
4. The Chair called on Dr. Ron Bohlander, Secretary, to lead a discussion of proposed job titles which would be granted the privilege of involvement in faculty governance under the new definitions of faculty that were passed at the recent meeting of the General Faculty on April 22, 2014. He handed out Attachment #2a showing a recommended list developed by the Faculty Definition Subcommittee in consultation with the President’s and Provost’s offices. Dr. Bohlander stated that much of this material had been briefed in preparation for the decisions on faculty definitions. Most of this attachment had been presented in just the same way at the previous meeting; comments from that meeting had helped identify a few final changes.
The attachment comprised three lists: 1) A list of titles proposed to have Academic Faculty governance privileges along with a few Administrative Officer titles selected by the President which were proposed to vote with the Academic Faculty; 2) A list of titles proposed to have Research Faculty governance privileges along with a few Administrative Officer titles selected by the President which were proposed to vote with the Research Faculty; and 3) A list of Administrative Officer positions proposed not to have faculty voting privileges. As previously explained, Administrative Officers were designated by the President in accordance with the Board of Regents, but it was up to a joint decision of the Faculty Executive Board and the President whether any such had voting privileges with the Academic or Research Faculty. Dr. Bohlander reminded the Board that the President used two criteria in deciding which titles would be designated as Administrative Officers: 1) Persons in a designated title needed to have an impact across the Institute, and 2) they were either a member of the top executive team or reported to that team. The intention was to keep the size of that list of Administrative Officers well bounded.
Dr. Bohlander stated that one of the differences from previous presentations of proposed lists was that a few kinds of Associate titles had been dropped from the Academic Faculty list – namely Associate Vice-Provosts, Associate Deans (in the Colleges and in the Dean of Students Office), and Associate School Chairs. The reason was that there was not a good definition of the duties and scope of these job titles. It was possible for an Associate to be appointed with a scope inconsistent with the definition of Academic Faculty. It was understood that many of the people in these Associate titles had important roles today within the Academic Faculty. The good news was that most of those also held a faculty rank like Academic Professional or a professorial title that would afford them the privilege of active participation in faculty governance. The Office of the Vice-Provost for Graduate Education and Faculty Affairs would work with any not having such faculty rank to address the potential need for faculty rank.
Q. When Academic Officers were added to lists like those in Attachment #2a, was it the title that was added or the appointment of an individual? Were the Faculty privileges in such cases personal or associated with a title designated to have faculty governance privileges. Ans. All faculty governance privileges went with titles, not specific individuals.
Dr. Bohlander continued with a brief review of proposed processes for appeals to the Board concerning titles on the lists, or petitions to consider titles to be added in the future. This material in Attachment #2b was presented previously as detailed in the notes of the April 8 meeting. He stated that this would be a process document of the Executive Board and it would be up to the Board to determine any future changes.
Dr. Bohlander moved that the Executive Board approve the lists of titles as presented in Attachment #2a and the appeals and petition process presented in Attachment #2b. The motion was seconded and approved without dissent. Dr. Bohlander stated that he would forward this result to the President for his concurrence, which was necessary for the faculty lists to become official.
Q. Would information concerning the changes in faculty definitions and these faculty lists continue to be available on a website. Ans. Dr. Bohlander said that the draft website with proposed changes adopted by the faculty in their April 22, 2014 meeting would continue online until the changes became effective on July 1. Then a new edition of the Faculty Handbook would go live in the Policy Library site. Dr. Bohlander also reported that he had sent a detailed email concerning the changes to all unit heads that would be conducting elections to the Academic Faculty Senate and the Research Faculty Senate in the Aug.-Sep. time frame. Between now and then, the Secretary would be carefully building a census of how many Academic Faculty and Research Faculty members each unit had which would determine how many representatives each would have. The plan was to map all current representatives into the new Senates if they were not yet at the end of their terms. Where additional representatives would be needed, they would be elected.
5. Prof. Butera next called on Ms. Tiffany Watson, Policy Specialist, to review for the Board the status of Georgia Tech’s online Policy Library and the processes for policy assessment and revision. She made a presentation based on Attachment #3 and noted that the Policy Library had been in place for a little over a year. It was designed to provide a resource for publishing and tracking the development of all Institute-wide policies. Units of the Institute maintained their own documents and sources for policy if such applied only to the unit. All Institute policies would be reviewed and updated by the responsible office (“policy owner”) at least every three years. The Faculty was completely in charge of its policy processes in relation to the Faculty Handbook and student regulations. The process for administration policies was facilitated by and closely reviewed by the Policy Steering Committee appointed by the President. An extremely important part of policy change was stakeholder input. One of the things that the Steering Committee did was to help identify appropriate stakeholders for involvement in each policy update. If there was a regulatory or legal requirement that had to be met by a policy, then the Institute attorneys in the Office of Legal Affairs would be part of the policy review and update. Once a policy had cleared the stakeholder input phase and amendments, the Steering Committee would clear the policy to go out for campus comment over at least a two-week period. After any appropriate amendments, the policy would be cleared to go the President’s Cabinet and the President for final review and approval.
With slide 6 in the attachment, Ms. Watson outlined projects for the remainder of 2014. A new collection of Academic Affairs policies from the administration would be assembled in an Academic Affairs book. This would support the 2015 SACSCOC reaffirmation of accreditation efforts. The Student Life book would be renamed “Student Affairs”. Other projects would address usability improvements for the Policy Library website. Ms. Watson also stated that the Office of Legal Affairs and Risk Management which curated the Policy Library was conducting a campaign to bring greater awareness of policies and “Doing Business the Right Way” to units across campus. Ms. Watson concluded her presentation with a brief tour of the Policy Library highlighting the “books” of the library, the resources supporting the policy revision process, and examples of new policies and ones out for campus review.
Ms. Watson explained that the Policy Steering Committee focused mostly on policies from the administration which set or align operations or set standards of behavior. Policies recently reviewed along with the stakeholders identified were
· The Bicycle Use Policy. Stakeholders (included but not limited to): Known faculty and student bicycle enthusiasts, the faculty Welfare & Security Committee, GT Police Department, and Parking and Transportation Services.
· The Graduate Assistant Policy. Stakeholders (included but not limited to): Graduate Curriculum Committee, Student Academic and Financial Affairs Committee, as well as faculty across the colleges associated with directing graduate programs.
· The Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy. Stakeholder (included but not limited to): Faculty Status and Grievance Committee
Dr. Bohlander, who served on the Policy Steering Committee, provided some additional perspectives on new initiatives. The Policy Library initially brought together policies found in the Faculty Handbook, the Catalog of the Institute, the HR Manual, and the Business and Finance Manual. In preparing for SACSCOC reaffirmation, it was realized that central academic affairs policies were a bit scattered or buried. Some were in the Faculty Handbook, some in the Catalog of the Institute, and some not in the Policy Library at all but in websites supporting specialized processes like those of the Institute Curriculum Committees and Academic Program Reviews. The need to pull this together was the basis of the project to build an Academic Affairs book in the Policy Library.
Q Who decided who would be on the Policy Steering Committee? Ans. The President decided.
Q. What was the process for revising a policy? How could grassroots faculty and students make an impact? Ans. Ms. Watson stated that every three years, the policy owner would be notified to determine if policy changes were needed or the policy owner might know of a need before then. A change process would be started by the policy owner who would also notify Ms. Watson. When a new draft was ready it would usually be reviewed by the Policy Steering Committee. Then the cycles of stakeholder review and input and campus comment would be started. Vice-President for Legal Affairs & Risk Management, Mr. Pat McKenna, said that his office was encouraging units all over campus to make more use of the Policy Library and to provide feedback to his office about anything that was not working. Then they would work with the policy owner and with the Steering Committee to iron such things out. Dr. Bohlander cited the example of the Bicycle Use policy which arose from the Bicycle Infrastructure Improvement Committee (BIIC) whose members were avid faculty and student bicycle users; Mr. Johann Weber, Executive Vice-President of the Graduate Student Body for last year took the lead in this project. The BIIC developed the recommended new policy and worked with the ultimate policy owners (Parking & Transportation Services, GT Facilities, and the Georgia Tech Police) to get buy in. They all worked closely with the Policy Steering Committee to identify and respond to additional stakeholders. So a great deal of dialog went into the new policy.
Prof. Butera commented that he had had the opportunity to engage in inputs to policies and the above process was working to create better dialog between faculty and administrators. Dr. Bohlander added that it was helping administrators be more aware of what various faculty committees could contribute. Ms. Watson reiterated that she wanted members of the Board to let her know if there were policies that were a problem or did not make sense and she would follow up. Vice-Provost Susan Cozzens stated that the initiative to create the Academic Affairs book in the Policy Library should be complemented by attention to the revised Student Affairs book so it truly contained the policies that students needed to be able to find.
6. The Chair then called on Ms. Rachel Moorhead (Email Services Manager) and Mr. Herb Baines (Deputy CIO) from OIT. He asked them to tell the Board about a major campus project for a new Email, Calendar, and Contacts system and transition. Mr. Baines set the scene by stating that OIT had needed to find a solution other than Google Apps for Georgia Tech’s ongoing needs in these areas. The reason was that Google Apps could not supply the level of security needed for the research results and proprietary information developed by Georgia Tech researchers and their sponsors. So Georgia Tech was faced with either upgrading the current Zimbra platform or finding something better. OIT believed it found good options in new Microsoft products, and it would even be possible to add chat communications to the services offered. In fact, a version of the Microsoft Lync program was expected to make widespread video conferencing possible as well.
Ms. Moorhead used Attachment #4 for her presentation. She used slide 2 to illustrate the considerable breath of people and topics involved in the subject OIT project. Relative to the last bubble on the right of this slide, Ms. Moorhead explained that students would be able to keep their personal Internet Service Provider (ISP) for their email if they wanted and get a GT alias to that email; or they could request a mailbox in the GT system. They would not have to have a GT mailbox. Prof. Butera commented that Georgia Tech students would get more notice from faculty when they sent emails from a “gatech.edu” address than they would if they just used their “gmail.com” address, so these aliases were important. Dr. Bohlander commented on the flip side: People who sent sensitive materials to gatech.edu addresses needed to know that these addresses were serviced in the gatech.edu domain in which appropriate levels of security were used. Thus the possibility of an alias from gatech.edu to gmail.com was something of a hazard. Mr. Baines explained that Board of Regents policies would be announced soon that any faculty or staff member would have to get special permission to forward their email outside the gatech.edu domain. Similarly, students who became employees would need to use real gatech.edu addresses on servers in the campus domain for business emails or get explicit permission to do otherwise.
Q. Did Georgia Tech make gatech.edu aliases available to alumni to make it easier to stay in touch with them? Ans. Yes, that was already in place as GT’s “email for life” program.
Q. Was there any way for a person to know the difference between a current faculty member or student and one who has left Tech and using the email for life? Ans. No.
The point of slide 3 in the attachment was that there would be three levels of emails service: 1) aliasing to a personal email ISP (when permitted); 2) use of an Office 365 mailbox in the cloud; and 3) use of an on-premises Microsoft Exchange server. Relative to the transition timelines presented in slide 6, it was important to understand that once a switch from Zimbra to the new systems was made, there would be no collaboration tools to bridge back to Zimbra users. Thus, units on campus would need to plan carefully to make changes comprehensively and at the best time for them.
Q. The presentation said that email quotas would rise to 50 GB. What would the file storage quota be on One Drive for Business? Ans. Each person would have a 1 TB quota. But if groups were collaborating they would have another, better option to use called SharePoint Online that was advantageous for large group collaboration. Its content also was easily preserved as the group evolved. On the other hand, One Drive for Business files would be locked up if a person left Georgia Tech. If they contained material of interest to more than that individual, special arrangements would need to be made for its preservation.
Q. Would there be good support for Macintosh computers? Ans. A new version of Office for Mac would be coming out in January 2015, including One Drive for Business. It was hoped that would be good enough. OIT would be working with users to get them set up with access to the new systems as transparently as possible.
Q. How about iPads? Ans. All tools could be accessed through a web browser.
Q. If One Drive was on the cloud, did a person always have to be networked? Ans. A local mirror could be set up so it was possible to work offline and then resynch when connected.
Q. Could export-controlled information be stored in the One Drive cloud? Ans. This cloud would be implemented on US servers.
Q. Would the decision to be in the Exchange Server or the cloud be done by unit or by individual? Ans. Coaching on this decision would be available. Persons conducting classified or sensitive work were already required to be on the Exchange Server.
Mr. Baines explained that the project Ms. Moorhead had been briefing was the first approved project that the Strategic Technology Investment Committee (STIC) at Georgia Tech has sanctioned for the Institute. The STIC was made up of staff, faculty, and students.
7. Prof. Butera introduced Mr. Dillon Roseen, the new President of the Undergraduate Student Body. Mr. Roseen explained that he was a rising senior in Economics and International Affairs. He spoke for a few minutes about some of the main initiatives which students were advocating for the year ahead. One of the primary ones was the academic calendar revision briefed to the Board last month. Another idea was to develop an Undergraduate Conference Fund to help undergraduates participating in research to have an opportunity to attend a conference. Finally, he was enthusiastic about the X-Degree being developed under the leadership of Prof. Richard Barke. Mr. Roseen said he was grateful for the opportunity to work with Board in the year ahead.
8. Prof. Butera called on Secretary Ron Bohlander to tell the Board about a proposed calendar of Faculty meetings in the next academic year. He provided a handout in Attachment #5 showing the proposed calendar. He said much of this was analogous to this year's calendar with just a couple meetings jumping to a different week in the month to avoid experienced conflicts. He called attention to one meeting that would be held on a Thursday instead of the usual Tuesday in order to avoid an annual recognition of employees with important service anniversaries. Dr. Bohlander noted that the names of the major faculty meetings had been changed to reflect the latest faculty governance structure. He moved that the calendar be adopted. The motion was seconded and passed without dissent.
9. The Chair asked Vice-Chair Prof. Bob Kirkman to propose an appointment. Prof. Kirkman moved that Prof. Hayriye Ayhan (ISyE) be appointed to fill an unexpired term (June 6, 2014 – August 2016) on the Institute Graduate Curriculum Committee left by the resignation from the committee of Prof. Paul Kvam (ISyE). The motion was seconded and approved without dissent.
10. The Chair then polled committee liaisons for any reports of matters that should come to the Board’s attention:
Mr. Raj Vuchatu reported that the Student Computer Ownership Committee has completed its guidebook for the next academic year – see: http://sco.gatech.edu/.
Other liaisons reported routine activities.
11. Professor Butera asked if there was any further business. Hearing no further business, Prof. Butera adjourned the meeting at about 4:50 p.m.
Submitted by Ronald A Bohlander, Secretary
June 16, 2014
1) Notes of the April 8, 2014 Executive Board meeting.
2) Faculty Titles
3) Briefing on the Georgia Tech Policy Library.
4) Briefing on the Email, Calendar, and Contacts Transition Project.
5) Calendar of faculty meetings for 2014-15 academic year.