GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
COMBINED MEETING OF THE GENERAL FACULTY,
GENERAL FACULTY ASSEMBLY, AND THE ACADEMIC SENATE
Tuesday, February 5, 2008, 3:00 pm
Student Center Theater
1. The President opened the meeting at 3:05 P.M. and offered the following comments on matters of interest to the Georgia Tech community:
a. He began by acknowledging the passing of Prof. Emeritus Bill Sayle, a beloved colleague who served in the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering and was an outspoken faculty leader. The President asked the faculty to recognize his passing with a moment of silence.
b. Pres. Clough commented on recent opportunities to listen to presidential candidates and other speakers on campus who are part of ongoing political campaigns. He explained that it is student organizations who extend the invitations, sponsor the speakers, and make the arrangements, not the Georgia Tech administration or faculty.
c. He also commented that the Georgia General Assembly was in session. There were 236 legislators of which five are Georgia Tech alumni. The Chancellor recommended a budget to the Governor, and he, in turn, recommended a budget to the Assembly. By and large Tech’s interests were well represented in these. Two budgets were to be passed, one for the remainder of fiscal year 2008 and one for fiscal year 2009. Of the adjusted 2008 budget, the only impact on Georgia Tech would be in support for closing on the purchase of the North Avenue apartments acquired from Georgia State University. Dr. Clough said the House was just beginning to discuss the fiscal year 2009 budget and after they are finished, it would go to the Senate, then to a conference committee to resolve differences, followed by the Governor. If university items were not vetoed by the Governor they would go to the Board of Regents who would finish the process of making allocations to particular universities and purposes in the system. Along the way, the Governor has accepted the recommendation for $81million in formula funding to the University System of Georgia. Tech has a big stake in this support because the formula is based on enrollment in fiscal year 2007 when enrollment at Tech experienced a big increase. The salary recommendations from the Governor were for a 2.5% increase on average. Also recommended was a project to renovate the Hinman Building which the College of Architecture needs. Not recommended was the Tech Undergraduate Learning Center because the $50 million requested was more than the budget could accommodate. In response Georgia Tech has been discussing alternative funding of $10 million to get the project launched. The design team has been selected and could make a beginning with this funding as well as get the site ground preparation accomplished in the next year. Positive responses to this alternative budget proposal have been received so far.
d. Dr. Clough explained that Georgia Tech has a vital stake in planning for Georgia’s water needs. Tech has had the Georgia Water Resources Institute for many years, but it’s never been funded by the State, until now. Proposed State funding has received favorable congressional approval recently and awaits the Governor’s signature.
e. One of the pieces of legislation under consideration, President Clough explained, is the ORP Bill which would make major changes in the Optional Retirement Plan (ORP) for the University System. This bill would create more equitable contributions from the State to ORP in comparison with the alternative Teachers Retirement System. It has been getting a positive response from both houses of the legislature.
f. There has also arisen a “gun bill” that could authorize licensed hand gun carriers to carry weapons in more public places. So far changes in gun possession on campuses have not gotten traction Dr. Clough reported.
g. The Board of Regents was reported to be working on how to allocate funds when the legislature and the Governor have completed their deliberations. In response Tech leaders have been assembling data requested by the Board.
h. Dr. Clough expressed disappointment with recent federal budgets that removed, at the last minute, previously recommended funding to agencies like NSF, DoE, and NIST. Universities across the country and even the President had advocated a higher level of funding, but this was pared back at the end of the last federal budget deliberation, in an effort to meet a particular overall spending target. President Clough has participated in drafting a letter from the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) expressing dismay. He said also that work was underway articulating science issues to the current presidential candidates.
President Clough then asked for questions, of which there were the following:
· Q. Does the ORP Bill also make ORP available now to any salaried employee of the University System? Ans. Yes. It would remove the need to extend faculty status to professional staff simply to provide them with access to ORP.
· Q. How is the GTENS warning system working out? Some false starts have been noted. Ans. Yes, there was a very interesting recent false alarm. Dr. Clough said he hoped all have registered to participate in GTENS, with notifications of emergencies via phone, text mail, and email. The false alarm in question was a notification via GTENS at a time when a campus-wide emergency did not really exist. There was only an isolated incident in the Ford building and someone over-reacted in sending out the GTENS messages. That said, much was learned through this and also from a still more recent planned test. John Mullin, GT Director of OIT, commented that both processes and the technology have been tuned up through these “tests”. Seventy percent of the campus has signed up for alerts.
· Q. Is there a central point of contact for additional feedback on the most recent tests? Ans. Yes. Feedback should be provided via http://www.remedy.gatech.edu/gtens/ or with an email to email@example.com.
2. The President asked for approval of the minutes of the meeting of November 27, 2007 [a meeting of the Academic Senate combined with a meeting of the General 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 #1 below for web site reference). The minutes were approved without dissent.
3. The President called on the Dr. Andy Smith, Senior
Vice-Provost for Academic Affairs to tell the faculty about plans for the
Undergraduate Learning Center. Dr. Smith presented the set of slides
included in Attachment #2. He began by
explaining that Tech learned last summer that the Chancellor had recommended
the Undergraduate Learning Center project be funded. However, the
priority ranking of recommended projects was not known, so it was difficult for
Tech to know how to plan. As it later developed the Center (aka the
Innovative Learning Resource Center) came near the bottom of the list (slide 2)
that went to the Governor and the he was unable to stretch the budget that
far. As Dr. Clough said, a new proposal has been developed to get started
with a smaller first increment of funding. This would not put Tech that
far behind schedule because the proposed site needs considerable work including
the moving of major utility lines. The artist’s rendering in slide 3 is just
one idea, Dr. Smith said, because the building has not been designed yet.
The site layout in slide 4 shows that the building would be the east
anchor of the Tech Green and would be connected to the Price Gilbert
Library. Dr. Smith said that the planning of the functionality of the
Undergraduate Learning Center (ULC) was done in conjunction with long range
planning for the library. The Price Gilbert Library where the West
Commons is now will not be needed to store monographs in the future; those will
all be moved to the Crosland Tower. Thus, the Price Gilbert Library will
provide even more learning spaces like the East and West Commons that can be
combined with what will go on in the ULC.
The many different functions that will be housed in the ULC are diagrammed in slide 5. Dr. Smith said this building will be the academic home for freshmen and sophomores in the future. It will house the freshmen core science laboratories along with a science learning center for group meetings with TAs. It will have lecture halls, smaller classrooms, and conference room-sized “collaboratories” for team and smaller group meetings. The building will be open 24/7 and such rooms accessible by students. Most rooms will be highly reconfigurable, he said. Slide 5 also shows a wide range of student services provided in the building, with a concierge desk to guide students to the right places. Dr. Smith explained that the East and West Commons in the library were experiments that arose from fact finding tours conducted in 2000-01 at other institutions around the country and were prototypes for plans in the ULC. He stated that in the year after the West Commons opened, library visits tripled.
The history of the project planning is laid out in slide 6. Dr. Smith said the final report of the programming study by Perry Dean Rogers would be presented on Feb. 6, 2008. When the Board of Regents decided in 2007 to recommend the ULC, Tech decided to spend its own money to hire the design architect so all would be in readiness if funding was ultimately approved. Thus, Bohlin Cywinski Jackson was recently selected to lead the team of architects and will start, also on Feb. 6, 2008. Slide 7 charts the plan going forward. Dr. Smith said that if funding is provided in the current cycle, then work on the site would begin in summer 2008 and first classes would occupy the building in fall 2010.
In looking to the future Dr Smith indicated there would be a second phase to renovate the existing library buildings. In Phase I, the ULC.s 128,000 assignable square feet would be about equally divided between foundation science labs, study commons, and learning spaces or classrooms. There will be two large lecture halls of 500 and 350 seats each and then a number of other learning spaces as detailed in slide 10, all based on a study of what size classrooms were needed in the Tech inventory. Almost all the rooms will have reconfigurable furniture so they can serve many different purposes and none will be “owned” by any particular School or College on campus.
Many other functions are detailed on slides 11-12. Dr. Smith said that the ULC would be a featured building located on a principal crossroads of main campus. The building will be very open with lots of walkways and ramps not only to get between floors but also to get from one ground elevation on one side of the building to something very different on the opposite side. An as yet undetermined amount of parking will be provided under the building.
Dr. Smith indicated he will be forming an advisory committee of faculty and students with nominees provided by the Deans. Suggestions were also welcome directly from faculty, he said.
Dr. Clough mentioned that the total cost of the building was estimated at $85 million with $25 million provided by private donors.
4. The President introduced Mr. John Mullin, Associate
Vice-Provost for Information Technology, to tell the faculty about the
campus-wide data cleanup process. He began by introducing Herbert Baines,
Director of Information Security, and Victoria Anderson, Associate Director of
Information Security and Program Manager of the data cleanup effort. He
also thanked Dr. Clough for his support of this necessary program. He
stated that Georgia Tech had led the University System of Georgia in developing
good information security practices. Tremendous progress has been made in
better security of campus data servers. He said the next area of risk to
address was the proliferation of sensitive data about the people that Tech
serves. This data is often present to a greater degree than it needs to
be on laptop and desktop computers and the latter are subject to loss and
theft, he said.
Mr. Mullin then made a presentation about the Georgia Tech campaign to address this issue using Attachment #3. He said that this campaign should not be viewed as an isolated event but the beginning of an ongoing process. He said the object was to minimize the placement of sensitive information on laptops and desktops, moving such info where possible to more secure servers on campus, and providing better protection to such data when it must be retained on laptops and desktops. The campaign has been in progress and was approaching the halfway point, he said, on the way to a target benchmark date of February 8 on which everyone should report progress to date. Higher risk areas have been tackled first; i.e. ones that work a lot with students and personnel. Even in these areas, Mr. Mullin suggested that only current year files should be needed (if at all) on desktops and laptops, not prior years which can be stored in more secure systems (if at all). If ready access on desktops and laptops was important then data should be appropriately encrypted, he indicated. Efforts to make encryption decisions appropriate to different situations have been launched with units across campus. He explained that Feb. 8 is not a hard deadline but rather a reporting benchmark. The whole community (OIT and unit computer representatives) has been moving as expeditiously but also realistically as possible. Computers have been scanned all over campus to locate sensitive information. An important question, Mr. Mullin said, was to ask along the way, “Do we really need this data on this machine?” There may be better ways to complete processes than to download and store sensitive data locally.
He said there was a lot of confusion about FERPA [i.e. Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, also known as the "Buckley Amendment."]. A set of simplified guidelines has been developed with the Registrar’s Office to help the units know how best to protect student information that is covered under FERPA.
He explained that two of the most frequent areas of concern were a) faculty grade book records, and b) sensitive information contained in email attachments. Concerning the latter, he said that saved emails with attachments are often forgotten as a store of information and efforts to scan computers around campus for sensitive information have found a lot of problems in this domain. Thus an important part of this campaign has been educational dialog to encourage thoughtfulness about avoiding sensitive information in emails. Furthermore, he said that the T-Square project makes available tools to store grade books in a secure way within the T-Square system.
Mr. Mullin charted out several on-going steps:
· Periodic review of access to administrative data. One thing to watch out for, he said, was unofficial distribution lists that may contain email addresses that become no longer appropriate for access to administrative information.
· Work with sensitive data stewards to make it easier for people to perform their duties at a lower risk of loss of sensitive data.
· Work with people who create applications that access sensitive data to make that safer.
Mr. Mullin then asked for questions and responded to the following:
· Q. What is the campus wide scanning of computers looking for? The person with this question explained that she was asking because when her computer was scanned, the test flagged many files that clearly did not have sensitive data and missed some that did. She asked, “Are we getting a false sense of security from a scanning system that may not be good enough?” Ans. Mr. Mullin said that the current tool is certainly imperfect. Avoiding false senses of security is extremely important. Tech is adapting a particular scanning tool to its use and has gone through multiple iterations to tune out false positives and improve chances to find files of interest. Herb Baines explained that Tech was using an open-source tool called Spider developed by Cornell University. The intent has been to look for GT IDs, social security numbers, and credit card numbers. Spider has some unique problems, so OIT has been working with the CSRs in the campus units to fine tune it for the Georgia Tech environment. He stressed that this tool is just an indicator or reminder. Most folks know what types of sensitive information they might have and just need to be reminded to deal with them properly. He asked that everyone do their own audit of their files and take appropriate action. For the future, OIT is working with GTISC (the Georgia Tech Information Security Center) to identify alternative file scanning providers including commercial sources. So far none is better than Spider but this may change by next year. Tech is also working with Cornell to provide feedback for their improvements.
· Q. Does Spider work on Macintosh computers? Ans. Yes, it does, said Herb Baines, but the problem is that one cannot control which directories to exclude in the scan, so the scanning takes longer on Macs. This is an area for future improvements from Cornell.
5. Dr. Clough asked Ms. Barbara Henry (Chair of the Executive Board Nominations Committee) to talk about this year’s nominations process. She said that preparations were underway to elect new representatives to the General Faculty Assembly, the Academic Senate, the Executive Board, and each of the fifteen faculty standing committees. She explained that the nominations committee of which she was chair was responsible for nominations for primarily the Executive Board and the standing committees (as well as for some representatives of Services and Central Administration on the General Faculty Assembly). She invited nominations to be communicated to her committee as quickly as possible and asked that the permission of the nominee be obtained before passing on the nomination. Approximately eighty candidates would be needed, she said, to fill the ballot for this election. She named the members of the nominating committee for this year: Bert Bras (ME), Richard Barke (Pub.Pol.), Jilda Garton (GTRC), Tom Horton (GTRI), Patty Sobecky (Biology), and herself. She said any nominations or questions about the process can be referred to any of these people. She asked those in attendance to consider running for an office. She then took questions:
· Q. Will there be a list sent out of open positions? Ans. Ron Bohlander responded by saying that all committees have openings for next year. Please consult the faculty governance website at www.facultysenate.gatech.edu for a list.
· Q. What is the timeline? Ans. Dr. Bohlander explained that elections start on Mar. 26, 2008 and continue through April 9. So the final ballot will be approved at the Executive Board meeting on Mar. 11. The nominations committee would prefer to have as many nominations as possible settled by the February 19 Board meeting, so that is the best near term deadline.
6. Dr. Clough called on Mr. Tim Strike, Chair of the Statutes Committee, to bring a second reading of the recommendation for a change in the Statute dealing with the Student Grievance and Appeal Committee. He made his presentation using the material in Attachment #4. Mr. Strike stated that the need for this change was motivated by revisions the faculty adopted last year in the Student Code of Conduct. In the revised code the Student Grievance and Appeals Committee no longer handles appeals from students who have received sanctions under the code. In accordance with a handout at the meeting, Mr. Strike presented a recommendation to delete an obsolete paragraph in Section 5.6.12 describing this appeals work. Mr. Strike moved that the recommended change documented in Attachment #4 be accepted. The motion was seconded and passed without dissent.
Tim Strike turned the podium over to Ron Bohlander to handle a second matter concerning the Faculty Handbook. Dr. Bohlander presented some further proposed changes shown in Attachment #5. Dr. Bohlander explained that the Executive Board appointed a task force to look at ways to improve the faculty election process and he introduced the members of that team: Dr. Jarek Rossignac (CoC-IC), chair; Robert Braga (Chem.); Barbara Henry (Offc. Res. Compliance), Joe Hughes (ECE); Ed Price (IMTC); and himself as secretary to the team. Dr. Bohlander explained that the group coordinated their work with the Statutes Committee and received their blessing. They also coordinated with a couple of affected committees and have their encouragement to proceed. Three issues were addressed. The first had to do with the number of candidates that the nominating committee needed to identify to hold the election(s) necessary to fill openings on any given committee. The second had to do with the fact that the number of delegates from the colleges to the curriculum committees was tied to the enrollment in those colleges or in the classes they teach. Since enrollment has been increasing over recent years, the size of these committees has become unwieldy. Finally there was some awkwardness in how elections were handled for all the units that make up the category of faculty in Services and Central Administration as defined in the Statutes.
The first of the recommended improvements had to do with pooled candidates. Dr. Bohlander explained that Tech typically has more than one opening on any given committee. In the past, if there were two openings, the nominating committee would find four candidates and would arbitrarily pair them up, and have each pair run against each other to determine the two winners needed. Instead, Dr. Bohlander said the task force proposes to create a pool of three candidates for such a situation (i.e. 50% more than the number of openings), and then have everyone who votes pick two people from the pool of three to fill the two openings. This means the nominating committee needs to find fewer candidates and Dr. Bohlander pointed out that the nominating committee has had difficulty finding enough nominees willing to serve so this is a significant advantage. The second advantage he cited was that in this way the faculty would elect the top two preferences for a committee, which might not have been the result in the old system. Slide 4 of Attachment #5 shows how the recommended change would be implemented in the By-Laws.
improvement had to do with representation to the curriculum committees.
In the existing approach, some metrics of the intensity of teaching load for
each college have been used (numbers of students enrolled and numbers of course
credits taught). Then these measures have been divided by a fixed number
to determine the number of delegates from each college to each curriculum
committee. If total enrollment were stable, as it was for many years,
then this formula would result in a stable size of the committee. But in
recent years, enrollment has grown and the committees were supposed to get much
larger as a result. As it happens, this had been ignored for awhile, so
either Tech needed to get back in compliance and have very large committees or
the rules needed to be changed. Dr. Bohlander said that the graduate
committee for example was supposed, under the present formulas, to be about 50%
larger than it actually has been (or about 28 members instead of the current
17). The task force talked with both curriculum committees and both said
a good size was about 20 members each. To arrange then for a stable
committee size, Dr. Bohlander proposed that the same metrics that have been
used up to now be used but in a proportional way, instead of as an absolute
measure. So there could be twice as many students, but each college’s
proportions of the things measured would be stable on average.
He said that there were two more considerations in obtaining effective representation from each college. First, it was important for each college to have at least two representatives, which has not been the case up to the present. In this way, one representative of the college could be away at the time of a given committee meeting and the voice of that college would not be lost. Secondly, there can also be more representatives than needed for colleges with a high teaching loads; i.e., there can be a case of diminishing returns, Dr. Bohlander said. Throughout Tech’s faculty governance there have been caps on representation to avoid this problem. For example no college can have more than one-third of the representatives on the General Faculty Assembly and no more than one-third of the members of the Executive Board. So, by analogy, the task force has recommended that a college not have more than seven members on either of the curriculum committees (following approximately this one-third tradition). Dr. Bohlander showed Tables in slide 6 of Attachment #5 to illustrate how the proposed rules would turn out for 2008-09 in comparison with the existing ones. He showed that the combination of proportional metrics and the minimum and maximum bounds on college representation does not always result in exactly 20 members on each committee, but the results are close and should be well behaved over variations in enrollment. In Slide 7 he showed how the proposal would be implemented in the By-Laws.
The last area of improvement concerned how delegates to the General Faculty Assembly are chosen for people in Services and Central Administration. These faculty members have tended to be in very small units and so the Executive Board has been responsible for conducting an election on their behalf. A few of the constituent units in this group have been large enough to conduct their own elections of representatives and the By-Laws have provided for this. Dr. Bohlander explained that two basic changes were needed:
· There needed to be an automatic way for the Executive Board to recognize that a unit within Services and Central Administration had become large enough to conduct their own elections without having to amend the By-Laws each time to enable this. So the change proposed was to say that any unit of ten or more faculty reporting to one unit head could elect their own representative. This would also assure better distribution of representation, which has sometimes been a problem with the existing system.
· A member of the General Faculty Assembly representing the aggregate of all the small units of Services and Central Administration may occasionally leave or resign his/her post. Filling such a vacancy through elections was somewhat cumbersome using the full online election machinery. A better way to fill these vacancies was needed and the way proposed was to use the same system that is used to fill vacancies on standing committees; namely, the Executive Board would appoint willing runners-up from past elections.
He indicated there were about 6-10 units who could handle elections for themselves as contemplated, pending further study. The implementation of the above two proposals through changes in Statutes and By-Laws is illustrated on slide 11 of Attachment #5. Dr. Bohlander explained that these proposals included deleting an obsolete Section 10.2.2 of the By-Laws about the order of elections and converting its purpose to explaining the proposed process for filling the vacancies as just discussed.
The President asked for a motion to approve all three proposals as just explained and documented in Attachment #5. It was so moved and seconded. Dr. Bohlander responded to questions:
· Q. Suppose the nominating committee recognizes a need for more representatives from a particular sector of the campus for a given committee. In the existing system it is possible for them to pair up two candidates that both come from the needed constituency. With candidate pools one runs the risk of not getting the desired outcome. How did the task force envision addressing these needs? Ans. Dr. Bohlander replied that the proposal on pooled candidates was an option to have pools but not a requirement so it would be possible if there was an identified need to fill a committee slot with a special pool. He also said that past experience did not seem to support the hypothesis that candidates from smaller departments typically lose out. Moreover, there seemed to be more nominees from some smaller departments so there are often peers in the candidate pool. With only one third of a pool not being elected, if the pool has decent diversity in the first place that diversity would be likely to be reflected in final outcomes. Dr. Bohlander also pointed out that many who have not been selected at the time of election have received a later opportunity to fill a vacancy. He said, “Do not volunteer to run for election in the hopes of losing.” There will be a high probability of service in any case.
· Q. How do faculty members in Savannah fit in? Ans. Dr. Bohlander replied that those serving in Savannah are now considered simply part of their home units, as a matter of official Georgia Tech policy. He reported that more and more faculty members in Savannah are serving on committees and this has been welcomed.
· Q. Will candidate pooling conflict with the need to have a certain number of representatives from each college on the curriculum committees? Ans. Dr. Bohlander replied that no, there would be separate pools for each college to ensure the right number of representatives would be achieved.
The question was called and the motion passed without dissent.
Dr. Bohlander then asked if the faculty would concur with running the elections in 2008 on a provisional basis under the rules just passed? He explained that these rules would not be fully adopted until there was a second reading of these proposals at the April 22, 2008 faculty meeting. The election would happen before then. But the Executive Board asked that the spring 2008 elections be operated under these new rules on a provisional basis with the permission of the faculty. He said there were two advantages: 1) This would make the work of the nominating committee much easier. 2) It would also be an excellent prototype experiment that would help the faculty find out if this was a good idea. Corrective action could be taken if something went awry. So Dr. Bohlander moved that the faculty agree to operate under the rules just passed provisionally for the spring 2008 elections. The motion was seconded. Q. Why not wait until next year? Ans. Dr. Bohlander responded that it was not unusual to prototype something before a design is settled. If this step were not taken, there would be a much larger number of candidates to secure and a large number of positions to fill on what would be an oversized Graduate Curriculum Committee, only to not need that many once the new rules set in. If this is the page the faculty intends to turn, it made sense to implement a plan in consonant with the intended outcome. Corrective action could still be taken in a timely way if the results proved unacceptable. The question was called and the motion passed without dissent.
7. The President then called on representatives of some of the Academic Faculty’s Standing Committees to present minutes and action items requiring approval. Copies of minutes have been recorded at the website noted as Attachment #6 below.
Prof. Chuck Parsons, chair of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee,
introduced minutes from six meetings (11/28/07, 12/12/07, 12/19/07, 1/7/08,
1/16/08, and 1/25/08), two of which had action items:
In the 12/12 meeting minutes, the following changes were approved: one new course from EAS on water quality.
In the 1/16 meeting minutes, the following changes were approved: Modern Languages – 6 new courses and approval of AP credit for Latin; BMED – 7 new courses and numerous curriculum changes incl. provision to count BMED 2699/4699 Undergraduate Research as an elective if research conducted in the same lab over 2 semesters; ECE – 5 new courses, numerous curriculum changes, and changes in degree requirements for BSEE and BSEE (Regional Engineering Program), with also changes in the 8-semester schedule; posthumous degree for a ChBE student and one for an MSE student; CoC – curriculum changes for BSCS involving renaming of three of the threads and reorganization of elective courses as well as a number of prerequisite corrections, and also a new Certificate in Software Engineering.
Prof. Parsons moved that all the above minutes and action items be approved. The motion was second and approved without dissent.
b) Prof. Gary Parker,
Chair of the Graduate Curriculum Committee, introduced minutes from one meeting
(1/17/08), with action items:
In the 1/17 meeting minutes, the following changes were approved: CoC – 1 new course and change in grading option for another; AE – 3 new courses; ECE – 10 new courses, 1 deactivated, change in course restrictions for 4 courses, and 1 prerequisite change; ECE – dual MS in ECE with Politecnico di Torino; Management – 4 new courses.
Prof. Parker moved that the above minutes and action items be approved. The motion was second and approved without dissent.
c) Prof. Jeff Streator, Chair of the Student Regulations Committee (SRC), introduced minutes of one committee meeting (11/19/07) and its action items. He used Attachment #7 to support his presentation. He showed in blue in slide 1 a correction to the minutes as they were posted online as of the date of the Feb. 5, 2008 faculty meeting. [This has subsequently been corrected in the minutes posted on line.] Prof. Streator moved that the Nov. 19 minutes be accepted as corrected. The motion was seconded and approved without dissent.
The Action Item shown on slide 2 was a proposed change in the grade point average below which an undergraduate student would be placed on academic probation or dropped for unsatisfactory scholarship. The change was from GPA≤1.0 to GPA<1.0. This is change was for compatibility with the Banner software used. Prof. Streator moved that these actions be approved. The motion was seconded and approved without dissent.
The Action Item on slide 3 (and also shown on slide 1) had to do with how the grade substitution policy might be affected by the optional freshman summer session. Now that this Freshmen Semester option was available, the SRC did not want this session to count as a term for the purposes of administering rules about grade substitution, so the recommended new language is shown in slide 3 of the attachment. Prof. Streator moved that these actions be approved. The motion was seconded and approved without dissent.
d) President Clough recognized there were minutes of the Student Academic and Financial Affairs committee to approve for the dates 8/28/07, 9/27/07, 10/25/07, and 11/29/07. None of these minutes had action items. The President received a motion to approve these minutes. It was seconded and passed without dissent.
7. The President stated that approval was needed for the minutes of two Standing Committees of the General Faculty; namely, Faculty Benefits (10/23/07, 11/27/07, and 1/15/08) and Academic Services (11/15/07). None of these minutes had action items. Copies of minutes have been recorded at the website noted as Attachment #6 below. The President received a motion to approve these minutes. It was seconded and passed without dissent.
8. The President called for any other business, and hearing none, he adjourned the meeting at about 4:35 PM.
Secretary of the Faculty
April 20, 2008
Attachments to be included with archival copy of the minutes: