Student Regulations Committee

October 7, 2009

Minutes

 

Present:     Voting Members:† ††††††††††† Jeff Streator (Chair), Bill Drummond (Secretary), Miroslav Begovic, Mitch Keller,
Charles Parsons, Corey Boone, Parker Hancock, Jung Choi, Naresh Thadhani

††††††††††††††††† Non-voting Members:†††††† Reta Pikowsky (Registrar), Wayne Whiteman (EB Liaison)

†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††

††††††††††††††††† Guests:††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Carole Moore (Provostís office)

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† John Stein (Dean of Students)

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Christopher Schmidt (Asst. Dean of Students)

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Robert Kirkman (Academic Integrity Committee)

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Jimmy Williams (SGA)

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Alina Staskeviaus (SGA)

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Rob Parrish (SGA)†††††††††††††††††

 

†Absent:†††† Voting Members:††††††††††††† None

Non-voting members:†††††† Bill Schafer

 

 

1.      The meeting began at 2:00 pm.

2.      Proposed changes to the Student Code appeals procedures

a.       The basic issue is concern from the Board of Regents about the number of student appeals from Georgia Tech.† On an interim basis, the Code was changed by order of President Peterson so that appeals of low level sanctions (i.e., less than Suspension or Expulsion) to the Regents are no longer allowed.

b.      This is the third version of this question.† Under Dr. Clough, spring 2007 revisions were based upon a year of deliberation.† When Dr. Schuster became interim president, the Board of Regents asked if the Presidentís Office reviewed decisions, which it did not directly, but indirectly through Dr. Andy Smith and Dr. Bill Schafer.† The Board of Regents wanted the Presidentís Office to have direct eyes.† The Presidentís Office began direct review of all academic and non-academic cases.† On occasion they modified a decision, but students still had right to go to the Board of Regents.

c.       Dr. Peterson arrived and questioned the high level of involvement of the Presidentís Office. After discussing with the Board of Regents, it was agreed that cases of Suspension and Expulsion are appealable to the President, but other cases should be stopped at a lower level.† The policy change needed to be done before the start of the fall semester.† After many internal discussions, the Presidentís Office directed the change to be put in place, followed by consultation.† This was done with the authority vested in President by the Board of Regents.† The changes were put on the web site of Office of Student Integrity (OSI) showing edits of the old version so the changes would be transparent.

d.      The Committee discussed the difference between cases being decided by an administrator and sent to a panel.† Most students choose to be heard by the administrator.† The changed language says that the OSI has the right to determine the administration of the case, if necessary.† Does this mean that the student still has the right to choose?† The Committee reached a general consensus that the language should be tightened to list the extreme cases in which it may be necessary for the OSI to make the selection.† An example of an extreme case is one involving multiple students, at the end of a semester, with students scheduled to graduate.† In this case the panel system could be too slow to resolve a time-sensitive case.

  1. Dead week policy

    1. The Committee reviewed an SGA proposed dead week policy that has been informally reviewed by Deans and other faculty.
    2. Rob Parrish gave the results of a survey of 600 students.† There was an overwhelming opinion that students are too stressed during Dead Week to integrate the course material successfully.
    3. The committee discussion was generally favorable to content of the new policy, but it must be clearly stated in language corresponding to the language in the current catalog, faculty bylaws, or wherever the policy will reside. The table included in the proposal is excellent as a summary and teaching tool, but cannot substitute for exact language, and the changes could be implemented by spring.

 

4.†† The meeting adjourned at 3:10pm