Student Regulations Committee Meeting

Minutes

March 31, 2011

Present

Charles Parsons (Faculty and SR Chair)

John Miller (SGA)

Carole Moore (Faculty and Provosts Office)

Jimmy Williams  (SGA)

Reta Pikowsky (Registrar’s Office)

Brenda Morales (SGA)

Cathy Carpenter (Library)

Andrew Lyon  (Chem)

Jung Choi (Faculty Biology)

Atc O’K

William Schafer , VP Student Services

Ann Laros (Registrar’s Office)

Jeanne Balsam  (GTRI - Statutes Committee)

Robert Simon (Registrar’s Office)

Gary Wolovick (Legal Affairs)

Richard Barke (Public Policy)

The meeting was opened at 8:30

1.       Reta Pikowsky proposed that we remove reference to re-examination to remove single deficiency.  There was the opinion that was not completely understood by some of the academic units and not consistently applied.  It was also believed that there was growing abuse of the provision.  The feeling was that there were alternative ways to help students handle a single deficiency prior to graduation rather than having that text in the catalog.  The proposal passed unanimously.

 

2.      John Miller from SGA offered some suggested change to the catalog that was a planned follow-up to the earlier faculty senate approval of the ‘Faculty-Student Expectations document”.  The committee extensively discussed the suggested wording, its intent, and its likely impact on the larger goals of the Faculty-Student Expectations document.  They made a change to the wording associated with language which should be in each course syllabus.  This revised document was unanimously approved.

 

GT Course Catalog Amendments:

 

The Undergraduate Student Government proposes to

1)      Amend Section VI, Article H, Part 1 under ‘Regulations’ in GT Course Catalog to read:

“Each course shall have a syllabus and course policies provided to students before the last day to withdraw from the course without penalty (the last day of Add/Drop Period). Each syllabus should include an outline of the course objectives, required materials, criteria used in determining the course grade, and any other requirements for successful completion of the course. Each syllabus should outline acceptable student conduct as it relates to the Georgia Tech Honor Code and Student-Faculty Expectations Agreement. Students shall be informed of any changes made to the syllabus and course policies with reasonable time to adjust to these changes.”

2)      Add following language as Section VI, Article H, Part 4 under ‘Regulations’ in GT Course Catalog:

“Students shall not be penalized if they cannot attend instructional, lab, or examination sessions that are not institutionally scheduled in accordance with the standard protocols.”

3)      Add following language as Section VI, Article H, Part 5 under ‘Regulations’ in GT Course Catalog:

“Students shall have the opportunity to review graded material in a timely fashion and with reasonable access to grading instruments and/or grading criteria for individual assignments, projects, or exams.”

 

 

3.       Carole Moore proposed a revision to the Code of Conduct to deal with the growing commercial business involving lecture notes, power point slides, etc.  There was some discussion about what intellectual property meant and the extent that faculty should explicitly state what is theirs.  The following language was recommended, but suggested that Carole review it, work it a bit more, and send it the chair who will then circulate to the rest of the committee for possible approval

 

 

4.       Bill Shafer introduced the new proposed policy on Freedom of Expression and Campus Use Procedures.  This language is intended to replace the language in the Faculty Handbook under section 47 Facilities.   The rationale for the new policy is that it is more reflective of current law in freedom of expression on public college campuses and provides clearer decision-making processes for requests, approvals, and appeals.   This new policy has been under construction for several years and has been approved by the Statutes committee.  It will be reviewed by the Executive Board  next week.  Because of the length of the document and the fact that it was received the day prior to this meeting, we agreed that we could not render an informed decision at this time, but were sensitive to the needs of the Institute on this matter and agreed to take no more than one week from today to read the document, circulate suggested changes, questions, opinions, etc. through e-mail- with all committee members on the mailing list.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:35.

Subsequent e-mail exchanges of comments and revisions to the “Freedom of Expression and Campus Use Procedures” have yielded a slightly revised document that was approved by the committee by April 21, 2011.