GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

FALL MEETING OF THE GENERAL FACULTY

and

GENERAL FACULTY ASSEMBLY

Combined with

MEETING OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE

 

Tuesday, October 10, 2006, 3:00 pm

Amphitheater 236 Global Learning Center

 

MINUTES

 

 

1.      Joe Hughes, Chair of the Executive Board opened the meeting at 3:00 PM.  He introduced President Clough who delivered the “2006 State of the Institute Address” (Presentation text, slides, and brochure distributed at the meeting can be found at the web site referenced below – Attachment #1).   A summary prepared by Sarah Eby-Ebersole (Institute Communications) follows.

 

President Clough devoted his annual State of the Institute address, entitled “Defining the Future,” to taking stock of the Institute’s progress toward achieving its mission statement of defining the technological university of the twenty-first century.  He said, “The phrase ‘define the technological university of the twenty-first century’ recognizes that what succeeded in the past is not necessarily relevant to the future, and that we are going to help define the path forward by being at the forefront ourselves.”  Georgia Tech’s efforts change the paradigm come at the same time that education, research and innovation have become the pillars of prosperity and productivity, Clough said. The world also faces growing global problems from clean water to greenhouse gases that cry out for technological solutions. In short, society is looking to technological universities for help in facing its challenges and maintaining its standard of living.

 

Clough described how the Institute is responding by reshaping its dual missions of research and technology transfer and of education.  As a measure of the Institute’s success in its research mission, Clough pointed out that fields in which Georgia Tech has strengthened its expertise are coming into alignment with the pressing needs of the nation and the world. “From energy to nanotechnology, from innovation to technology transfer, I believe Georgia Tech has chosen well,” he said.  He described several evolving interdisciplinary fields in which Tech is emerging as a leader. The arrival of Jeffrey Skolnick together with 19 colleagues enabled Georgia Tech to start the Center for the Study of Systems Biology, which will take novel approaches to the development of drugs and engineering pathways for their delivery.  Another new center, the Center for Biologically Inspired Design, provides an opportunity for leadership in biomimetics, a new field that studies nature’s design solutions for clues to complex engineering challenges. 

 

Georgia Tech is also much edgier than the typical college of university in using technology as an artistic medium. Clough cited Haile, the Music Department’s robotic drummer, which uses artificial intelligence to recognize and adjust to rhythms in real time.  Similarly, the School of Literature, Culture, and Communication has joined forces with the College of Computing to move out on the edge of digital media.  As a result, Georgia Tech was named on of the nation’s top institutions for gaming, and Assistant Professor Michael Mateas won the top prize in the Slamdance Grand Jury Guerilla Gamemaker competition at the Sundance Film Festival.  Georgia Tech is also creative in forming partnerships that enable it to leverage its strengths.  The Georgia Tech-Emory partnership in biomedical engineering, for example, has grown into one of the nation’s foremost programs. Together, Tech and Emory are among the top institutions in attracting nanomedicine funding from the National Institutes of Health, and now have three centers of excellence in nanomedicine.  Other nanomedicine partnerships include a father-son duo in which Tech Chemistry and Biochemistry Professor Mostafa El-Sayed works with his son who is a professor at the University of California, San Francisco in ground-breaking research using nanorods made of gold to illuminate then destroy cancer cells.

 

Georgia Tech’s research partnerships extend around the globe. During the past year, a new research unit was announced at Georgia Tech Lorraine in France. It is GT Lorraine’s second collaborative effort with the French National Center for Scientific Research, and will focus on telecommunications and new materials.  The Georgia Tech Research Institute, Tech’s applied research arm, opened its first international center in Ireland last June, working in collaboration with the Irish Industrial Development Agency. Over the next five years, the center will grow to 50 researchers and a portfolio of about $25 million.  Clough also led a Tech delegation to China last winter to sign a dual degree agreement with Shanghai Jiao Tong University.  “We already had a successful student exchange program, and I expect our relationship will continue to expand in the future,” he said.  In other cases, fields in which Tech has built strength over the years are now coming into the nation and international spotlight. Tech’s considerable expertise in a variety of alternative energy sources now offers the Institute an opportunity to step forward with new technologies and solutions. The Institute is also a long-time center of expertise in robotics, for which the demand is expected to grow significantly.  As a result, RIM@Georgia Tech – the Robotics and Intelligent Machine Center – has been created to coordinate Tech’s endeavors and promote technology transfer.

 

Tech’s growing research enterprise reflects the conclusion of a study by Management Professor Marie Thursby and her husband, a professor at Emory. They found that while the growing talent base in India and China will continue to attract research and development, stronger intellectual property protection in advanced countries like the United States will keep the most cutting-edge work here. 

 

Clough also noted Georgia Tech’s progress in commercializing its research.  The Enterprise Innovation Institute was created during the past year to bring Tech’s new and established programs together in an integrated initiative to help entrepreneurs, industries, and communities become more innovative and competitive.  The most recent acknowledgement of Tech’s talent for technology transfer came from the Milken Institute, which recognized the Institute’s success in commercializing its biotechnology discoveries. Another new area of focus for Tech’s commercialization efforts is “clean-tech” companies, which bring environmentally sustainable technology to market.

 

The second major focus of Georgia Tech’s efforts to define the technological university of the twenty-first century is reshaping the educational experience it provides. Clough noted that Tech’s tuition is among the lowest of its public peers, and the Institute offers an outstanding co-op program that gives students a way to pay for the education and explore their future careers at the same time.  However, the challenge is to be accessible and affordable while at the same time offering a relevant, innovative educational experience. Clough cited a long list of programs developed over the past several years to make education broader, deeper, richer, more flexible, and more interdisciplinary.  The most recent is the Honors Program, begun this year for outstanding first and second-year students who want an intense educational experience that extends beyond the classroom. “I met with the Honors Program students and parents last week,” Clough said, “and I realized that we had opened yet another door of opportunity for students to expand their talents and abilities.”  He noted that several came to Georgia Tech because of this program.  Other programs cited by Clough are focused on providing students with opportunities for international experience, leadership experience, and research experience.

 

Georgia Tech is also defining the curriculum of the twenty-first century, he said. The Institute began by requiring each student to have a computer and revising the entire curriculum to include web enhancements.  Then innovative new curricula were developed, including problem-based learning in biomedical engineering, interdisciplinary degrees in digital media, interdisciplinary professional master’s degrees, and the TI:GER program, which involves graduate students in hands-on learning about the commercialization of new technology.  The latest curriculum innovation is in the College of Computing, which reorganized its undergraduate curriculum around “threads” and “roles.” Students choose from threads, which are focused on different areas that engage computing, and roles, which are slanted toward future career tracks.  “The goal is to put things together horizontally in ways that make sense and produce graduates who are more than the basic, standard programmers who are available at lower cost in India,” Clough explained.  He also highlighted the new Library East Commons. “This facility is so cutting edge that when the Association of Research Libraries decided to explore digital roles for libraries last month, this is the only campus they visited,” he said.

 

Clough emphasized that defining the technological university of the twenty-first century requires outstanding people who bring intellect, discipline, drive, creativity, and curiosity to the task. He noted that while other universities experienced a drop in the average SAT score of new freshmen, Georgia Tech’s average SAT increased even as the enrollment grew.  Students are also winning prestigious scholarships and awards while they are here, and the Institute achieved a record high graduation rate for the 2005-06 academic year.  Sports teams perform well in Division I-A competition even as more than half of the student athletes make the dean’s list.  Clough commended Kristi Miller who simultaneously became the nation’s top woman collegiate tennis athlete and was named first-team Academic All-American for her 4.0 GPA.

 

Tech faculty are also outstanding, winning awards and memberships in prestigious professional organizations at rates that far outstrip most universities. Clough noted that the Institute’s unique interdisciplinary culture is beginning to show itself, with management faculty winning National Science Foundation CAREER Awards and engineering faculty winning Fulbright Awards, which usually go to the liberal arts. 

 

Outstanding people have a commitment to service, Clough said. He recounted the Institute’s ongoing response to Hurricane Katrina, which began with hosting evacuees and continued with teams of faculty and students working on clean-up and damage assessment.  Just last month, Georgia Tech spearheaded a three-day symposium to examine the best approaches to rebuilding New Orleans’ public infrastructure, and Clough himself continues to chair a committee for the Department of Defense to provide oversight of the work to rebuild and improve hurricane and flood protection infrastructure in the New Orleans region.   Other Tech faculty and students develop technology for visually and hearing disabled persons, and participate in the Center for Global Safe Water – the newest Georgia Tech-Emory University collaboration to work on water and sanitation problems in developing countries.

 

Clough noted that the hard work of faculty, staff, and students is lifting Georgia Tech to new levels of recognition in a broad array of measures from academic excellence to technology transfer, facilities, and workplace environment.  “Defining the technological university of the twenty-first century is not a challenge for the slow or faint of heart, but requires courage, agility, hard work, perceptiveness, and a willingness to take intelligent risks,” he said. He noted the positive comments about Georgia Tech by Pulitzer Prize winning author Thomas Friedman in the expanded edition of The World is Flat as evidence that Georgia Tech is off to a good start toward achieving its goal.

 

There were no questions for the President.

 

2.      The President re-convened the meeting at 3:40 PM.  He called for approval of the minutes of the meeting of April 18, 2006 [Called meeting of the General Faculty combined with meeting of the Academic Senate and Annual Meeting of the Academic Faculty].  He indicated that the minutes were published and posted on the faculty governance web site and that there were no additions or corrections. (See Attachment #2 below for web site reference).   The minutes were approved without dissent.  

 

3.      The President called on Dr. Joe Hughes, Chair of the Executive Board, to discuss the appointment of a new Secretary of the Faculty.  Hughes stated that the current Secretary of the Faculty (Said Abdel-Khalik) has requested to step down because of increased service load at the National level.  A search has been conducted to identify candidates for the position; several persons were approached.  Dr. Ron Bohlander (GTRI) has agreed to be nominated and is willing to serve if selected.  At its August 22, 2006 meeting, the Executive Board unanimously voted to recommend that Dr. Bohlander be appointed as the next Secretary of the Faculty.  He has been active in faculty governance and has served as Chair of the Statutes Committee for several years. A motion to approve the appointment of Dr. Ron Bohlander as Secretary of the Faculty passed without dissent.  Members applauded in appreciation of the efforts of the outgoing Secretary of the Faculty, Dr. Said Abdel-Khalik.

 

4.      The President called on Dr. Ron Bohlander, Chair of the Statutes Committee, to present proposed Faculty Handbook revisions.  A copy of the slides used in the presentation is attached (see Attachment #3a below).  Detailed listings of the recommended changes are given in Attachment # 3b below. Bohlander acknowledged the contributions of members of the Statutes Committee (see membership list in Attachment #3a) and stated that there are five changes to be presented; the first is a part of the Statutes which means that it will require two readings by the General Faculty before it is fully approved, while the other four are outside the Statutes and Bylaws sections of the Handbook, and will, therefore, require only one reading by the General Faculty (today’s).  He indicated that each of the changes will be presented, discussed, and voted on separately. 

 

The first change deals with Sections 5.1.1 and 5.3.1 of the Faculty Handbook which address membership in the General Faculty and Academic Faculty.  It is proposed to add Archivists as members of the General Faculty and Academic Faculty in the same manner as Librarians are currently included.  The changes were requested by the Library and referred to the Statutes Committee by the Executive Board.  Bohlander stated that the required qualifications for Archivists I, II, III, and IV are identical to those for Librarians I, II, III, and IV; hence, it is appropriate to make this change.  It is recommended that Archivists I become members of the General Faculty and that Archivists II, III, and IV become members of the Academic Faculty.  Bohlander stated that the new title of “Professor of the Practice” approved by the General faculty last Spring has also been added to the list of General Faculty.  In addition, minor changes were made to Sections 5.1.1 and 5.3.1 to make the terminology for Administrative Officers consistent with the BOR Policy Manual and the rest of the Faculty Handbook.    A motion was made to approve the recommended changes to Sections 5.1.1 and 5.3.1 of the Faculty Handbook. The motion passed without dissent.

 

The second change deals with Section 17.3 which addresses Tenure and Hiring with Tenure.  Section 17.3 already allows units to offer tenure to distinguished faculty at the time they are hired.  The Executive Board requested that language be added to the Faculty Handbook to provide guidelines for the process.  Section 17.3.1 has been modified by adding introductory comments from the BOR Policy Manual (which were removed from Section 17.3) and outlining the process to be followed by the various units when hiring someone with tenure.  The process is consistent as much as possible with the tenure decision process for our own faculty.  It begins with the Dean or unit Chair making a documented case for hiring someone with tenure and helping to assemble a faculty committee to review the case.  The faculty committee reviews the candidate’s qualifications and makes a formal recommendation on its findings to the Dean or unit Chair consistent with the unit’s standards for tenure.  The Dean or unit Chair then makes a recommendation to the Provost including the recommendation from the faculty review committee.  A question was asked as whether the process can be initiated by either the Dean or the unit Chair.  Bohlander stated that given the close relationship between the unit Chairs and the Deans in colleges with multiple units, the Statutes Committee decided that it is not necessary to complicate the process by adding another approval step and that consultation between the unit Chair and the Dean are expected.  A motion was made to approve the proposed changes to Section 17.3 of the Handbook.  The motion passed without dissent.

 

The third change deals with revision to Sections 17.6 and 17.7 of the Faculty Handbook to include the newly approved title of “Professor of the Practice.”  Bohlander stated that on February 28, 2006, the Faculty adopted the proposal for establishing this new title.  It is a non-tenure track position which allows us to hire and pay distinguished academic, business, or government leaders who can enhance the Institute’s programs.  It is recommended that the title “Professor of the Practice” be added to the list of titles of non-tenure track personnel who can hold Academic Faculty status (Section 17.6).  A new Section 17.7 has also been added; this includes the contents of the proposal adopted by the Faculty in February 2006 and is aimed at documenting the qualifications and expectations in hiring people with that title, along with the guidelines for implementation.  A motion was made to approve the proposed revisions to Sections 17.6 and 17.7 of the Faculty Handbook.  The motion passed without dissent.

 

The fourth change deals with revisions to Section 22 of the faculty Handbook which pertains to the promotion guidelines for research-titled personnel.  Bohlander stated that GTRI appointed a committee to review the promotion guidelines for research-titled personnel.  The Committee recommended changes to the current policy; the recommendations were submitted to the Director of GTRI and the Vice-Provost for Research, who, in turn, recommended them to the Statutes Committee.  The recommended changes broaden the evidence of technical mastery of a complex field (Sections 22.4 and 22.5.2) to include development of software/hardware products and documented impacts of these products.  This acknowledges that stakeholders and peers nowadays recognize a broader spectrum of impacts in addition to the classic peer-reviewed literature.  The proposed revisions also broaden the recognition of supervisory activities to roles beyond those of a project director, including program managers, co-project directors, and task leaders.  These revisions recognize that some large programs have significant leadership opportunities across a spectrum of project roles.  A question was asked as to whether the tenure criteria for Academic Faculty are listed in the Faculty Handbook and whether those criteria have also been broadened in a similar manner to that proposed for research-titled faculty.  Bohlander stated that the tenure criteria for Academic Faculty are discussed in a different section of the Faculty Handbook and that the Statutes Committee has only modified the criteria for research-titled personnel.  He stated that if the faculty wishes to revise the promotion criteria for tenure-track faculty, he can forward this request to the Statutes Committee.   A motion was made to approve the proposed revisions to Section 22 of the Faculty Handbook.  The motion passed without dissent.

 

The last change deals with revisions to Section 50 of the Faculty Handbook which pertains to IP Policy.  Bohlander stated that the changes were recommended by the Office of Technology Licensing and endorsed by GTRC as a part of the annual process in which people/units responsible for different sections of the Handbook are polled to see if any changes are necessary.  The recommended changes clarify the language used in Section 50.5 to state that student employees will fill out an Assignment of Rights form like all other employees.  Section 50.6 was revised to indicate that Computer Software “may be” (versus “is”) a scholarly activity, and that individual efforts are not institute-assigned efforts.  Section 50.7.1 was modified to replace the word “inventor” with “creator,” make clear that there may be multiple creators associated with a given IP and that the list may from time to time be updated, and that R&D internal investments could be viewed as legitimate up-front costs to be deducted from royalties only if agreed to in advance in writing.  A motion was made to approve the proposed revisions to Section 50 of the Faculty Handbook.  The motion passed without dissent.

 

The President thanked Dr. Bohlander and the Statutes Committee for their efforts.

 

5.      The President called for approval of the minutes of Standing Committees of the General Faculty which do not contain any action items, all of which have been posted on the web (see Attachment #4 below for web site listing of minutes of all Standing Committees)

 

a.       Faculty Benefits:  04/27/06

b.      Statutes: 08/30/06

c.       Academic Services:  04/13/06; 08/24/06; 09/12/06

d.      Welfare and Security:  02/08/06; 05/03/06; 07/17/06

 

The minutes were approved without dissent.

 

6.      The President called on Dr. Paul Benkeser, Chair of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, to present minutes of the committee’s meetings and action items therein.  He indicated that these minutes were published on the faculty governance web site and that a link was provided from the formal agenda for this meeting (see Attachment #4 below).  Benkeser indicated that there are twelve sets of minutes to be approved [04/05/06; 04/26/06(a); 04/26/06(b); 05/03/06; 05/15/06; 05/22/06; 06/14/06; 07/12/06; 08/02/06; 08/21/06; 08/28/06; and 09/06/06] and that two of them contain action items requiring separate approval by the Senate.  A list of the action items was presented (see Attachment #5 below).  The action items include:  name change for minor/certificate in “Fiber Enterprise Management” (FEM) to “Polymer/Fiber Enterprise Management” (P/FEM); change in the course requirements for the FEM minor; change in degree requirements for BS degree in Psychology; and new course in CP (04/26/06); New courses in ChBE, PUBP, and INEX; change in requirements for Public Policy and Political Science minors; and establishment of schools within the College of Computing (08/21/06).  Benkeser stated that the committee did not receive a written proposal regarding the establishment of schools within the College of Computing, and that this action item is being reported to Academic Senate “with caution.” A motion to approve the minutes of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee meetings dated 04/05/06; 04/26/06(a); 04/26/06(b); 05/03/06; 05/15/06; 05/22/06; 06/14/06; 07/12/06; 08/02/06; 08/21/06; 08/28/06; and 09/06/06, and all the action items therein passed without dissent.

 

7.      The President called on Dr. Bill Green, Chair of the Graduate Curriculum Committee, to present minutes of the committee’s meetings and action items therein.  He indicated that these minutes were published on the faculty governance web site and that a link was provided from the formal agenda for this meeting (see Attachment #4 below).  Green indicated that there are six sets of minutes to be approved [05/02/06; 05/18/06; 07/06/06; 07/26/06; 08/29/06; and 09/21/06] and that three of them contain action items requiring separate approval by the Senate.  A list of action items was presented (see Attachment #6 below).  The action items include: New courses in AE, CP, COA, and ECE; and inactive course in AE (05/02/06); Name change for MS in “Information Design and Technology” to MS in “Digital Media;” new courses in ME and APPH; Title change for APPH course; and inactive course in APPH (07/06/06); Dual MS degree between ISyE and Shanghai Jiao Tong University; new double degree program between CoC (MSCS) and Korea University; and new course in ME (09/21/06).  Green stated that at its September 21, 2006 meeting, the Graduate Committee endorsed the plan proposed by the College of Computing to establish schools within the College for “Interactive and Intelligent Computing” and “Computing Science and Systems.”    A motion to approve the minutes of the Graduate Curriculum Committee meetings dated 05/02/06; 05/18/06; 07/06/06; 07/26/06; 08/29/06; and 09/21/06, and all the action items therein passed without dissent.

 

8.      The President called for approval of the minutes of Standing Committees of the Academic Senate which do not contain any action items, all of which have been posted on the web (see Attachment #4 below for web site listing of minutes of all Standing Committees)

 

a.       Student Regulations:  09/22/05

b.      Student Activities:  11/07/05; 04/17/06

c.       Academic Integrity: 09/02/05; 10/07/05; 11/04/05

 

The minutes were approved without dissent.

 

9.      The President called on Chairs of Standing Committees of the General Faculty to present their committees’ annual reports for 2005-2006 (see Attachment #7 below for web site listing of the 2005-06 annual reports of all Standing Committees).

 

a.       Michael Chang reported on the activities of the Faculty Benefits Committee.  The major issues addressed during the year included the following: (1) Faculty Development Program – the committee recommended that the General Faculty/Academic Senate create an ad hoc committee to develop a professional leave (“Sabbatical”) policy within the context of a Faculty Development program. (2) Post-Doc Eligibility for the Optional Retirement Plan – currently, post doctoral fellows are classified as staff employees and are required to participate in the Teachers Retirement System.  Most of them leave Georgia Tech before they are vested in TRS (10 years), and must forfeit the employer contributions.  The committee recommends that post docs be granted General Faculty status so that they can become eligible to participate in the Optional Retirement Plan.  (3) Optional Voluntary Benefits Program – The Committee heard presentations from Met Life regarding potential additional benefits (e.g. car and home owners insurance).  Overall, this is a good idea; OHR is encouraged to continue negotiating with the vendors.  (4) Supplementary Life Insurance – In March, GT employees could elect to obtain supplemental life insurance through MetLife.  A significant number of employees have participated.  (5) Classified Employees Compensation Review – The annual merit allocation for classified employees during the period 2003-06 has averaged 1.8%.  The committee has found that nearly 50% of the classified employees were compensated at near-market rates, while 37% were compensated at rates 10% or more below market rates.  Based on these findings, OHR is recommending that particular attention be paid to those below market rates in the allocation of increases for 2007.

 

b.      Bill Hunt, Chair of the Faculty Honors Committee, was absent.  The 2005-06 Annual Report of the Faculty Honors Committee will be presented at the next General Faculty Meeting.

 

c.       Mike Rodgers, Chair of the Faculty Status & Grievance Committee, was absent.  The 2005-06 Annual Report of the Faculty Status & Grievance Committee will be presented at the next General Faculty Meeting.

 

d.      Ron Bohlander reported on the activities of the Statutes Committee.  The Committee prepared several Faculty Handbook revisions which were presented for approval by the faculty earlier in the meeting (see Attachments 3a and 3b below). 

 

e.       Jeff Donnell reported on the activities of the Academic Services Committee in behalf of the 2005-06 Committee Chair (Jim Sowell).  The Committee met seven times during the academic year to discuss issues related to the infrastructure supporting teaching and learning.    Presentations were given by representatives of several units including OIT, the Library, the Bookstore, Undergraduate Academic Advising, Academic Affairs, and Distance Learning. 

 

f.        Mary Ann Ingram reported on the activities of the Welfare and Security Committee.  She stated that the main items addressed by the committee during 2005-06 were:  (1) Deployment of Automatic External Defibrillators (AED’s) throughout campus; (2) Motorized cart policy; (3) Parking fee increases; (4) Multi-campus governance policy; (5) Travel policies and export controls; and (6) Pedestrian Safety.  She highlighted the first three items – AED deployment throughout campus would cut the response time to a sudden cardiac arrest event in half, thereby increasing the chance of survival by 30 to 40%.  An AED ad hoc committee (chaired by Frank Lambert) was formed; the committee developed a proposal for a campus-wide AED program based on a five-year commitment to install a total of 350 AED’s (150 in 2006 at a cost of nearly $200k, and 50 each year thereafter at a cost of nearly $72k/year).  The proposal was delivered to Sr. Vice President Thompson; the committee is waiting for a response.   The second item deals with motorized carts on campus – The W&S committee met twice with Teresa Crocker (Campus Police Chief) and re-expressed concern regarding the lack of a campus policy for motorized carts, and the potential harm to pedestrians and cart drivers.  A draft of the proposed policy dealing with motorized carts was received by the Committee last Friday.  The third issue deals with parking fee increase – At the April 18, 2006 meeting of the General faculty, the Committee protested the 5% increase in parking fees for 2006-07 and the closed nature of the Parking budget preparation process.  The W&S Committee would like to have one of its members participate in the parking budget process.  The Committee also recommends that the Chair of the Parking and Transportation Committee not be a member of Auxiliary Services.

 

10.  The President called on Chairs of Standing Committees of the Academic Senate to present their committees’ annual reports for 2005-2006 (see Attachment #7 below for web site listing of annual reports of all Standing Committees).

 

a.       Paul Benkeser reported on the activities of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee.  The Committee held 27 meetings during 2005-06 plus additional meetings on focused topics (General Education, Study Abroad, and Program Reviews).  New courses were approved for 13 departments.  Changes in nine degree programs, and two new degree programs were approved.  The Committee considered 579 petitions and 43 appeals; these numbers are lower than last year’s since they do not include the 140 petitions which were administratively handled by the Registrar.  The General Education Subcommittee continued to address the evaluation of the general education curriculum across the Institute.  The Study Abroad Subcommittee reviewed 21 proposals for faculty-led study abroad programs. 

 

A question was asked regarding the nature of the appeals submitted to the committee.  Benkeser stated that the majority of the appeals involve withdrawals from courses under unusual circumstances.  A question was asked as to whether the Committee has looked at possible changes in its structure.  Benkeser stated that the Committee has not done so; instead, attention has been paid to the internal organization of the committee and distribution of the load among members.

 

b.      Bill Green reported on the activities of the Graduate Curriculum Committee.  The committee met 12 times during 2005-06.  The Committee approved one new MS program (Music Technology), one new Certificate (Remote Sensing), and participation of CEE in the Bioengineering MS and PhD programs.  The Committee also approved two name changes, use of “minisemesters” by the college of management (to be reviewed in two years), and clarified the policies on use of the same hours or theses at various levels.  The Committee approved 37 new courses (versus 67 for 2004-05); 28 courses were made inactive (versus 23 in 2004-05).  The Committee completed reviews for graduate programs in City and Regional Planning; Algorithms, Combinatronics & Optimization; International Affairs; Human Computer Interactions; Aerospace Engineering; and Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering.  The committee heard 103 petitions (versus 137 for 2004-05) and one appeal (versus 3 for 2004-05).  Green stated that student petitions at the graduate level do not seem to be a big problem and that the Graduate Committee’s load is manageable (slightly lower than last year).

 

c.       Kent Barefield reported on the activities of the Student Regulations Committee.  He stated that the Committee met once during 2005-06.  There were no issues brought to the Committee; hence, no other meetings were held.      

 

d.      Ed Omiecinski reported on the activities of the Student Academic and Financial Affairs Committee.  He stated that during 2005-06, the committee met six times.  In accordance with the Faculty Handbook, the Committee reviewed Policy and Procedures for Career Services, Admissions, and Student Financial Planning.  He stated that for the current year, the Committee intends to collaborate with the Academic Affairs Committee of the Student Government Association because of their insights related to the problems faced by students on campus.

 

e.       Brent Carter reported on the activities of the Student Activities Committee.  The committee met four times during 2005-06; 14 new student organization charters were approved.   The 2005-06 Student Activity Fee budget was reviewed and approved.   

 

f.        Cheryl Gaimon reported on the activities of the Student Grievance and Appeal Committee in behalf of the 2005-06 Committee Chair (Deborah Turner).  Ten cases were brought before the committee in 2005-06 (versus 8 for 2004-05).  Five of the cases involved academic misconduct, four involved non-academic misconduct, and one involved grade appeals.   The disposition of the cases was as follows:  seven appeals were denied, one hearing was granted with no change in grade but additional recommendations were made to the Provost, and two appeals were granted with a recommended change in sanction.  In addition, the committee solicited twelve volunteers to serve as outside members on unit-level grade appeal committees. 

 

g.       Gus Giebelhaus reported on the activities of the Student Honor Committee.  The committee consists of 12 elected faculty members and nine students (6 undergraduates and 3 graduate students).  Giebelhaus thanked Drs. Beckham, Contant, and Michaels who, together with himself, chaired the hearings conducted during the past year.  A total of 320 cases were adjudicated; of those, 245 were resolved administratively by the Office of the Dean of Students, 31 were resolved by the new process (Faculty Conference Resolution), 39 were heard by the Honor Committee, and five were appealed to the VP of Student Affairs.  The disposition of all the cases was as follows:  221 were found to be responsible and 99 were found to be not responsible.  The disposition of the 39 cases heard by the Honor Committee was as follows:  18 cases were found to be responsible and 21 were found to be not responsible.  Giebelhaus stated that the committee is performing its duties in a timely manner, as evidenced by the fact that cases being heard at this time relate to alleged Honor violations from the current semester. 

 

A question was asked as to how the case load compares with last year’s.  Giebelhaus stated that the case load is roughly the same as last year.  The main difference is that the committee continued to hear active cases during this summer which eliminated the “log jam” of cases that typically accumulate during the summer.  

 

h.       Jim McClellan reported on the activities of the Student Computer Ownership Committee.  The committee met three times during 2005-06.  The committee overseas the requirement that all Georgia Tech students own their own computer system and prepare the software/hardware specifications for the incoming freshman class.  The committee consists of five elected faculty members, two students, and representatives from Housing, OIT, and the Bookstore.  The committee’s ongoing project is to examine the issue of whether or not to require a laptop (instead of either a desktop or a laptop).  Concerns were raised by OIT and Housing as to the support implications associated with the complete switch to laptops.  The Committee surveyed the faculty to determine how laptops would be used in the educational setting.  A recent survey of the incoming freshmen class this fall indicates that 89% of the incoming freshmen brought laptops either as their first or second machine.  Hence, this issue may resolve itself. 

 

i.         Tom Morley reported on the activities of the Academic Integrity Committee.  The committee met three times during 2005-06.  He stated that last year was the first year that the Office of Student Integrity imposed sanctions based on the guidelines developed by the Committee the previous year.  Much of the effort this year was devoted to working closely with the Office of Student Integrity to make sure that the process works and that the details make sense.  He stated that the statistics of the various cases adjudicated, including distribution among the various units, have been posted on the web as a part of the annual report.       

 

11.  The President called for any other business; hearing none, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 PM.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Said Abdel-Khalik

October 13th, 2006

 

Attachments to be included with archival copy of the minutes:

 

  1. State of the Institute Address – 2006 http://www.gatech.edu/president/soi/
  2. Minutes of the Called meeting of the General Faculty combined with meeting of the Academic Senate and Annual Meeting of the Academic Faculty April 18, 2006  http://www.facultysenate.gatech.edu/ASAFGF2006-041806-Minuteswp.htm
  3. Proposed Changes to the Faculty Handbook

a.       Presentation by Ron Bohlander

b.      Detailed Listing of Recommended Changes to the Faculty Handbook

  1. Minutes of Standing Committees:

a.       08/05-07/06: http://www.facultysenate.gatech.edu/CommittMin005-006.htm

b.      08/06-07/07: http://www.facultysenate.gatech.edu/CommittMin006-007.htm

  1. Action items from meeting minutes of the Institute Undergraduate Curriculum Committee.
  2. Action items from meeting minutes of the Institute Graduate Curriculum Committee.
  3. Annual Reports of Standing Committees for 2005-2006:  http://www.facultysenate.gatech.edu/CommittMin005-006.htm