bGEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
FALL MEETING OF THE FACULTY,
FACULTY SENATE, AND
THE ACADEMIC FACULTY SENATE
Tuesday, October 21, 2014, 3:00 pm
Student Center Theater
1. Provost Bras opened the meeting at about 3:06 PM, stating that he was filling in for President Peterson who was attending the AAU Presidents’ Meeting in Washington. Dr. Bras then provided the following remarks on matters of interest to the campus:
a) Georgia Tech began operating as a tobacco-free campus at the beginning of the fall semester and thus had a head start on the Board of Regents requirement to be compliant beginning October 1. Georgia Tech was deliberately changing its culture and doing so in a respectful manner. Cessation programs were available to support any member of the campus community who needed such services.
b) Georgia Tech was continuing to move forward aggressively with online or technology-enabled education. On October 23, Tech would be hosting a roundtable in New York City on this subject involving other leaders in this field. At Georgia Tech, GTPE has become the operational leader in delivering such educational programs, with assistance from OIT. The Center for 21st Century Universities would be increasingly focused on research concerning this field.
c) In the Online Master of Computer Science program, more than 4,000 applications were received and the quality of the students was very high. There were now more than 1,150 enrolled, and both student and faculty response to the experience was favorable.
d) After the recent Engineered Art exhibition of sculptures on campus, eight of the sculptures were purchased with donations. A new Director of the Office of the Arts has been named: Ms. Madison Cario. She came to Tech from The Annenberg Center for the Performing Arts at the University of Pennsylvania. She has been working on new student initiatives since arriving on campus.
e) The SACSCOC reaffirmation effort was proceeding well. The compliance report was submitted on time (Sept. 10, 2014) and an offsite review team would report back after November 7. Georgia Tech had decided that its Quality Enhancement Program (QEP) would focus this time on sustainment topics and service learning opportunities for students. There would be a presentation on this at the next faculty meeting. Ten years ago, Tech’s QEP focused on international programs and undergraduate research and those programs had been a huge success. The SACSCOC on-site review of all aspects of accreditation reaffirmation would be held on campus March 9-12, 2015.
f) Much work was being done on campus to prevent any incidents of sexual violence. A task force chaired by Chief of Staff, Ms. Lynn Durham, had submitted their final report. One of their recommendations was to create a central office to coordinate all preventative measures and all responses to such incidents should they occur. An investment of $150 thousand had been made to establish an office that would handle these functions and also create wider wellness programs for the campus. Provost Bras emphasized that sexual violence was totally unacceptable.
2. Provost Bras asked for the minutes of the April 22, 2014 meeting to be approved. He indicated that the minutes were posted on the faculty governance web site and no additions or corrections had been received. (See Attachment #1 below for web site reference). The minutes were approved without dissent.
3. Dr. Bras asked Dr. Ron Bohlander, Secretary of the Faculty, to explain progress in setting up the new Faculty Senate in response to faculty decisions in April 2014 in which a number of changes were made as documented in Attachment #1. He presented the information found in Attachment #2. He began by asking new members of the Academic Faculty Senate and of the Research Faculty Senate to identify themselves; many new members were present. Dr. Bohlander reminded the attendees that a person could participate in faculty governance if their title was on the official list shown in slide 3 and posted on a website maintained by the President’s Office.
Dr. Bohlander explained the census figures in slide 4: Before the changes made in April 2014, academic faculty were all tenure-track, and other members of the faculty were research faculty and other types of untenured faculty. After the redefinition of faculty categories, the academic portion increased to include some non-tenure track titles that were part of the educational enterprise. The remainder were research faculty members. The sum of both was somewhat smaller than before because some titles that used to be part of the “general faculty” were no longer included as participants in faculty governance or were designated as staff positions.
Slide 5 illustrated the change from the General Faculty Assembly to the new Faculty Senate. The Academic Senate became the Academic Faculty Senate but was somewhat larger than before due to the inclusion of some non-tenure track members.
Slide 6 showed a column representing the ideal size of the constituent parts of the Faculty Senate based on apportionment formulas; also a column showing that the actual numbers this year would be larger due to people held over from the General Faculty Assembly with unexpired terms; and finally there was a column with the numbers actually continuing or elected so far.
Dr. Bohlander thanked everyone present for their participation and asked for questions.
Q. Later in the meeting, how would we know whether questions meant just for academic faculty were being answered just by academic faculty. Ans. Dr. Bras would announce when such question began and would ask for participation on that basis. If there were any close votes, appropriate care would be taken.
Dr. Bras commended the faculty on this great beginning and urged them to continue to participate fully.
4. Dr. Bras called on Prof. Joe Hughes, Co-Chair of the Charitable Campaign, to explain the campaign this year. He presented the material in Attachment #3. Last year Tech did not quite reach its goal but it did win the Governor’s Cup for the seventh time highest participation in its category of state agencies. The focus this year was on trying to increase the percentage of employees participating. The campaign dates this year were about a month earlier than previous years to de-conflict the campaign with people’s attention to the holidays. Prof. Hughes urged the faculty to at least catch up with the staff in the percentage of participation. He noted that there were over a thousand charitable organizations that could be designated to receive donations through this program and there was no overhead taken out in administering this campaign. Prof. Hughes closed by asking the faculty to contribute themselves to this campaign and to talk it up with other faculty members.
Q. Was there an option to make a one-time lump gift via payroll deduction (instead of a monthly deduction)? Ans. No, one-time gifts could only be done with credit card, debit card, or electronic check.
Q. Why should someone give to this campaign instead of some other route to a given charity? Ans. Two reasons: 1) This was a zero overhead way to give to the charity. Another fundraising organization would likely rake off a portion of what was given. 2) This was a chance to show that the Georgia Tech community cared about the communities and people around them. It was also the case that some members of the Georgia Tech community themselves benefitted from the services of these charitable agencies.
Provost Bras added his encouragement for faculty to participate in giving.
5. The Provost called on Ms. Rachel Morehead, OIT Project Leader, to explain efforts underway in the Office of Information Technology to provide new email, calendar, and contacts services. She presented the materials in Attachment #4. Ms. Morehead stated that in many ways the effectiveness of email services needed to be improved and aligned with present realities.
In going forward, for some, the email address would be an alias that could point to an address outside Georgia Tech. That would only be allowed for correspondence that did not need special controls, such as for export controlled data. For those who did work in sensitive areas and who had data that had to be secure, the campus would offer Exchange email services through GTRI. Thus employees would use either Office 365 Outlook and an external ISP, or they would use the GTRI hosted Exchange Outlook. “Email for Life” (EMFL) service would be continued whereby someone who went to school here or worked here and departed in good standing could have a Georgia Tech email alias they could use even after they left.
Slide 4 laid out the scope of migration to new email and other services. Ms. Morehead said that a couple of large units had already been successfully migrated. New students were also already served under the new system. Other units would be migrating until sometime in the spring. Existing students would be given the option of migrating away from Zimbra during the remainder of the fall.
Q. Was there a mobile device management policy? Ans. No. Ms. Morehead reminded the attendees that, if one connected a smart phone for example to the Exchange system, then there would be an opportunity to wipe the contents of the phone clean remotely (say, if it was lost or stolen).
Q. Would OIT focus their security upgrades on email transport or on email storage? Ans. OIT was able to accomplish security primarily in storage.
Q. Would there be features like those of Dropbox? Ans. One Drive for Business would offer some or all of those features. It was likely that some units would make additional arrangements.
Q. Was there a schedule for rollout? Ans. Kickoff dates for implementation in those units that had already committed were posted on the project website.
Q. Did Georgia Tech have a policy on the use of cloud storage? Ans. Ms. Morehead stated that there was not a separate policy, but overall Georgia Tech’s Computer and Network Usage and Security Policy governed the use of IT services including cloud storage. Dr. Ron Bohlander added that some units like GTRI had policies that cloud storage outside Georgia Tech could not be used because of the need to protect sensitive data such as export controlled technical information. That was consistent with GTRI’s Master Technology Control Plan.
Q. Would Georgia Tech plan to migrate to common access cards? Ans. Not as part of this project.
Q. What form of a person’s name would be used in an email address? For example, would nicknames be allowed? Ans. When an email account was set up in the new system, it would be set up from the name found in official Human Resources records. But after setup, the user could request that their email address name be edited.
Ms. Morehead asked those attending to email her any additional questions, or to fill out the feedback form on the website.
6. The Provost then called on representatives of each of the Standing Committees of the Faculty as a whole to present their annual reports and any minutes requiring approval. There were no specific action items that needed further approval. In most cases the representatives followed closely the reports in the committees’ files on the faculty governance website noted in Attachment #5 below and so this text is not repeated here. The following is an outline of the material presented showing the representatives that appeared to make the presentations.
Standing Committees of the Faculty
Benefits Committee – Mr. Dave Millard presented the Annual
Report for the Chair, Prof. Jason Freeman.
Minutes 4/1/14, 4/29/14. No action items.
Mr. Millard moved to have the above minutes approved and the motion passed without dissent.
Concerning the matter of long delayed salary increases for faculty and staff, the Provost noted that increases given at the end of last fiscal year were permitted by the Board of Regents but funded largely out of funds controlled by Georgia Tech.
b. Faculty Honors Committee – Dr. Ron Bohlander presented the Annual Report for the Chair, Dr. Donna Llewellyn. Provost Bras noted that Dr. Llewellyn would be moving to Boise State at the end of the year and commended her for many years of excellent service to Georgia Tech.
c. Faculty Status & Grievance Committee – Prof. Jon Colton (2014-15 Chair) presented the Annual Report for the outgoing Chair, Prof. David Anderson.
d. Statutes Committee – Ms. Jeanne Balsam (Chair, 2013-14) presented the Annual Report. She noted that the incoming Chair would be Prof. Joe Hughes from ECE.
Services Committee, now called Faculty Services Committee –Prof. Sonit Bafna
(Chair) presented the Annual
Minutes 9/16/13, 10/21/13, 11/18/13, 12/16/13, 1/27/14, 3/24/14, 4/21/14. No action items.
Prof. Bafna moved to have the above minutes approved and the motion passed without dissent. One of the topics covered by their report was the committee’s review of the planned renovation of the Library, and Provost Bras expressed his excitement about the vision for the coming changes.
f. Welfare & Security Committee –Prof. Maggie Kosal (Chair (2013-14) presented the Annual Report. She noted that the incoming Chair would be Mr. Andrew Hardin from GTRI.
7. The Provost then called on representatives of each of the Academic Faculty’s Standing Committees to present their annual reports and any minutes requiring approval. Explicit approval of the Academic Faculty for specific action items was also sought where required. In most cases the representatives followed closely the reports in the committees’ files on the faculty governance website noted in Attachment #5 below and so there was not need to repeat the text here. The following provides an outline of the material presented showing the representatives that appeared to make the presentations. Where presenters utilized additional presentation materials, they are noted below and provided as attachments.
Standing Committees of the Academic Faculty
a. Institute Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (IUCC) – Prof. Laura Hollengreen (Chair 2013-14) presented the Annual Report and also covered minutes and action items, including those from the 2014-15 academic year, utilizing the presentation in Attachment #5a. She noted that the chair for the 2014-15 year was Prof. Rhett Mayor from ME.
Minutes 4/29/14, 5/13/14, 6/3/14, 6/17/14, 7/8/14, 7/22/14, 8/12/14, 8/19/14, 9/2/14, 9/16/14, 10/7/14:
Action items: From 6/17: ECE – 10 new courses, 1 course description mod, and modification in BS degree in Electrical Engineering involving course requirements; HTS – 4 new courses & a genl. ed. attribute added to an existing course; Psychology – 1 new course; Modern Languages – 1 new course; LMC – 2 new courses. From 7/22: Chemistry & Biochemistry – modification in the BS degree in Chemistry involving course requirements; Applied Physiology – modification in the Certificate in Applied Physiology involving course requirements, and a new Minor in Physiology; CEE – modification in the BS degree in Environmental Engineering involving course requirements; CoC – deactivation of the Certificate in Software Engineering and modification in the BS degree in Computer Science (Intelligence & Systems Architecture thread) involving course requirements. From 8/12: INTA – 2 new courses; INTA and ME – 2 new courses and a new interdisciplinary Minor in Global Development; Biology – 1 new course, 1 deactivation, and a modification in the BS degree in Biology involving changes in course names and requirements. From 10/7: INTA – modification in description of 1 course; CoC – 1 new course and a change to have seven distinct Computer Science Minors each with a specialization rather than a single Computer Science Minor and seven tracks.
Two comments of note during the presentation were the following: The IUCC’s Study Abroad Subcommittee was in reality a joint subcommittee with the IGCC. Prof. Hollengreen noted that the number of petitions for curriculum waivers and the like were significantly lower in the past year; she thought that could be the result of improved clarity in curriculum requirements.
Prof. Hollengreen moved for the adoption of the listed minutes and action items. All were approved without dissent.
b. Institute Graduate Curriculum Committee (IGCC) – Prof. Victor Breedveld (2014-15 Chair) presented the Annual Report for outgoing chair, Prof. Jeff Jagoda. He also covered minutes and action items from both academic years, utilizing the presentation in Attachment #5b.
Minutes: 6/5/14, 9/4/14, 9/11/14, 10/2/14
Action Items: From 6/5: Public Policy – 1 new course; Math – modification in the PhD with Major in Mathematics involving changes in course and minor requirements, in comprehensive exam options, and a new breadth requirement; a change in the Catalog describing doctoral minor field of study, and addition of clarifying language in the Catalog about distance learning courses following the same processes of approval as for resident courses. From 9/11: Building and Construction – modification in the MS degree in Building Construction and Facility Management adding a new Program Management Track; CEE – termination of a Joint MS degree in Civil Engineering with University of Pretoria (South Africa); CoC-Interactive Computing – 1 new course and modification in the MS degree in Computer Science involving a new Concentration in Social Computing; continuation of admissions standards applied to European applicants, and clarification of course credit rules applicable to graduate courses applies to both BS and MS degrees by the same student. From 10/2: Econ – modification the MS in Economics, changing this to a designated degree, updating course requirements, and eliminating a thesis as an option; CETL – 3 new courses; CoC – modification in the MS degree in Computer Science, with concentrations in Machine Learning, in Computer Graphics, and in Databases & Software Engineering, involving changes in course options and requirements; BME – 2 new courses and modifications in the PhD with a major in Biomedical Engineering and in the MS in Biomedical Engineering (both joint with Emory), involving changes to fulfill the Responsible Conduct or Research requirements at both universities; ECE – 3 new courses.
Prof. Breedveld noted that, unlike the IUCC, the IGCC experienced a significant increase in petitions over the previous year.
Prof. Breedveld moved for the adoption of the listed minutes and action items. All were approved without dissent.
c. Student Regulations Committee (SRC) – Prof. Chuck Parsons (2013-14 Chair) presented the Annual Report and minutes and action items utilizing Attachment #5c. He noted that Prof. Al Ferri was the chair for the 2014-15 year.
9/4/14 and 9/16/14
Action items: Change from “impaired” to “incapacitated” in the wording of the standard for “not able to give consent” in sexual misconduct rules. In discussion, Institute attorneys clarified that this wording change made the policy easier to apply consistently.
Prof. Parsons moved for the adoption of the listed minutes and action items. All were approved without dissent.
d. Student Academic & Financial Affairs Committee (SAFAC) – Prof. Anne Pollock presented the Annual Report for Prof. Craig Tovey (2013-14 Chair) utilizing Attachment #5d as well as the following minutes with no action items.
Minutes: 8/27/14, 9/3/14, 10/1/14.
Prof. Pollock moved for the adoption of the listed minutes. All were approved without dissent.
e. Student Activities Committee– Mr. Bruce Henson (2013-14 Chair) presented the Annual Report and the following minutes and action items:
Minutes: 9/30/13, 10/21/13, 11/4/13, 11/18/13, 12/2/13, 1/27/14, 2/10/14, 2/24/14, 3/10/14, 3/24/14, 4/7/14, & 4/21/14
Action items: Approval of all student activity charters and constitution revisions recommended by the committee as documented in their minutes and the annual report.
Mr. Henson moved for the adoption of the listed minutes and action items. All were approved without dissent.
f. Student Grievance & Appeal Committee – Prof. Arnie Schneider (2013-14 Chair) presented the Annual Report.
g. Student Honor Committee – Prof. David Bucknall (2013-14 Chair) presented the Annual Report.
h. Student Computer Ownership Committee – Ms. Lori Critz (2012-14 Chair) presented the Annual Report and the following minutes and action items:
Minutes: Minutes: 11/22/13 & 3/10/14
Action items: Approval of the Student Computer Ownership plan for 2014-15 as documented in the Annual Report.
Ms. Critz reminded the faculty that the student computer ownership guidelines were posted at http://sco.gatech.edu.
Ms. Critz moved for the adoption of the listed minutes and action items. All were approved without dissent.
i. Academic Integrity – Dr. Ron Bohlander presented the Annual Report and the following minutes on behalf of the committee:
Dr. Bohlander moved for the adoption of the listed minutes. These were approved without dissent.
8. Dr. Bras adjourned the meeting at about 5:37 PM adding his thanks for everyone’s patience.
Secretary of the Faculty
November 13, 2014