Student Regulations Committee

January 31, 2001



Members Present: Deborah Johnson (Committee Chair, Public Policy), Paul Benkeser (ECE/BMED), Kent Barefield (CHEM), Gail De Sabatino [for Lee Wilcox], Jo McIver (Registrar), Barbara Walker (LIBRARY , E.W. Looney (student), Hugh Coke (student), Bob McMath (Vice Provost), Doug Allen (Exec. Board Lia., (ARCH), Ken Cunefare (ME)


Members Absent: Richard Barke (PUB POL), William Bullock (ARCH),), Kim Spuller (Student)



1.      The minutes of the meeting of November 30, 2000 were approved.


2.      Discussion focused on the claim that the Student Bill of Rights, appearing in the current Georgia Tech catalogue, was never officially approved by the Board of Regents.  Because it was never officially approved, it was proposed that it be deleted from the next catalogue.  After further discussion, especially discussion of the likelihood of the Faculty Senate approving such a proposal at the last minute, the following motion was moved and passed by a vote of 3 with 1 abstention.  The motion was that: the Chair of the Committee find out if the Student Bill of Rights was or was not approved by the Board of Regents, and if she determine that it was not approved, she should make a motion at the Faculty Senate meeting to have the Bill of Rights removed from the catalogue.


3.      The Committee was given a copy of a proposed, new Undergraduate Students Bill of Academic Rights authored by Nate Watson.  The Committee agreed to discuss this proposed new Bill of Rights at the next meeting.


4.      After a long discussion of the pros and cons of reconsidering our recommendation that email be considered the official point of conduct for students at Georgia Tech, the Committee agreed, by consensus, to invite Randy Nordin, Chief Legal Advisor for Georgia Tech, to our next meeting to discuss the legal implications of this policy.


5.      The Committee next considered a proposal by Ken Cunefare to change the wording of the catalogue in Section XX.G regarding the appeals procedure for student misconduct.  The wording of the procedure specifies a timeframe of 5 days at several points in the process but does not specify whether these are calendar days or business days or class days.  A problem arises when a decision must be made in 5 calendar days when this falls on a semester break and students are not on campus.  Hence, Cunefare made a motion to change the procedures and specify which types of days are at issue.  The attached proposal was made and passed by a vote of 5, no abstentions.


6.      Hugh Coke and Bob McMath were present to discuss with the Committee the attached proposal for midterm grades. Hugh Coke explained how the midterm report will be helpful to students, especially first-year students.  The focus is not on the drop date but on giving students feedback in time for them to do something about their grade.


Joe McIver explained that the Banner system has changed so that grades can be reported during the semester.  She suggested it could be done for all 1000 and 2000 level courses in which freshmen and sophomores are enrolled. 


It was pointed out that midterm grades won’t have their intended effect unless advisors use them.  McMath pointed out that the student retention issue is important to Georgia Tech and midterm grades could impact retention positively. 


The discussion centered on the need for a specific proposal that the Committee could consider.  There was a consensus that the Committee would continue to discuss this issue when there is a specific proposal.