Combined with the



Tuesday APRIL 23, 2002

3:00 pm Student Center Theater





1.   The President called the meeting to order at 3:05 pm.

Clough commented on the current budget situation. This is complicated, as there are different allocations for different purposes, and Tech has received notice of some allocations but not all. The bad news is that there is an overall cut of 6 percent from the anticipated base budget. There is also a 50 percent cut in Maintenance and Renovation funds but this might be addressed later in the year in the supplemental budget. There are, however, a number of off-setting increases under formula funding. There is an increase due to the increased square footage of buildings on the campus. There is an increase due to the increased student enrollment; the increase lags behind by two years. There is a 5 percent increase in tuition, which will be needed to handle salary raises. Also we benefit from the second year of the planned increase in out-of-state tuition.

Some of the increases may be used for new hires, matching funds to NSF projects, urgent staffing issues and equipment. There should also be a little for new initiatives. Tech is still “owed money” related to the increase in enrollment at Tech in the years when the overall system enrollment declined. Chameau stated that we are in better shape than we had at one time feared, but its still not great shape!

Clough was asked about funding for special initiatives. GTREP receives a special allocation and in the early budget process this was cut by 20 percent, but Tech was successful in having most of this restored. There will be no funding for new hires under the Yamacraw project but in fact, Tech has already made more hires than was originally planned for this stage so this is not a great problem. The big question is what happens next year. We seek to integrate the new Yamacraw funded faculty into the base formula. The expenses of the Yamacraw building were fully funded. Chameau stated that there was already a small piece of base funding for the Yamacraw project, and this needs to be clearly identified and protected.


2.   The President announced that the meeting was convened first as a “Called” meeting of the General Faculty for the purpose of deciding on changes to the Statutes. He called on Sandra Corse to introduce the proposals:

(a)  Corse introduced the second reading of propose changes to the formulas giving composition of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee and the Graduate Committee, also changes to the program review functions of both bodies. These are revisions to Sections;; (k) (1), and of the current Statutes ( see attachments ). She moved first that the words “rounded up” in the original proposals be modified to read “rounded to the nearest whole number”. This was agreed without dissent. She then moved that the modified language be accepted for the second reading. This was agreed without dissent.

(b)  Corse then proposed a change to Section which would make the Registrar a non-voting member of the Student Regulations Committee (see attachments). The change would bring the Statutes into accord with the traditional practice of this Committee. She proposed that this be accepted for a first reading. This was approved without dissent.

(c)  Corse then introduced proposed substantive changes to the Faculty Status and Grievance Committee. These are the following (see attachments):

i/     Remove entirely Section which provides for an automatic review of faculty who have not received promotions within certain time periods. This is now redundant due to the 5-year post tenure review process. The change does not preclude faculty from requesting a review by the Committee.

ii/    Alter the wording of Section to remove the need for “annual” review of certain Institutional practices and substitute that such reviews “may occasionally” be undertaken and reported to the faculty. She stated that in practice the Committee had not been carrying out such reviews; the new language would make it clear that the Committee had the right to perform such reviews if it thought necessary.

iii/   Change the wording of Section to include consideration of matters related to “relations between or among faculty members”. In practice this is a major part of the Committee workload.

iv/   Change the wording of Section to make it clear that confidential archives of this Committee would be deposited with the Secretary of the Faculty for long-term retention.

v/    Renumbering of items to reflect these changes.

vi/   Change the wording of Section (of the Promotion and Tenure Procedures section) to remove reference to the FS&G Committee’s duty to make reviews of faculty who have not received promotion in a specified time interval. This item repeats the language of the section that is to be removed under item i/ above; the removal is necessary for consistency.

Corse moved that all these items be approved for a first reading. There was discussion about the use of the word “occasional” in item ii/ above. Hughes suggested that this word could be dropped as being redundant; or maybe the committee should find a different word. There was comment about retention of a single sentence in which refers to denial of promotion due to budgetary reasons; a member asked whether this type of situation had ever occurred. The President suggested that the Statutes Committee consider both these questions before the matters are presented for a second reading in the Fall. With this proviso, he called for a vote and the motion was approved without dissent.


3.   The President stated that there was a need to appoint a new “Secretary of the Faculty” to replace Edward Thomas who was retiring. He thanked Thomas for his contributions and called on Gisele Welch to present a proposal from the Executive Board. Welch stated that the Board had traditionally taken the responsibility of proposing to the faculty persons for this position. The Board had solicited candidates, had received two names, but one had declined to be considered. Before announcing the Board’s suggestion she invited any proposals from the floor or comments on the process being used. There being no comments she announced that the Board proposed Said Abdel Khalik to be the next Secretary and moved that “This body recommended to the President that Abdel Khalik be appointed”. This was approved without dissent.


4.   The President stated that the meeting was now convened as the regular Spring meeting of the Academic Senate. He called on the Registrar to present degree candidates. McIver stated that a list of all degree candidates had been circulated to all Deans and Chairs. She moved that all candidates that had satisfactorily completed their degree requirements by noon Wednesday, May 8th, should be awarded their degrees. This was approved without dissent.


5.   Clough asked for approval of the minutes of the Senate meeting of December 4, 2001. This was agreed without dissent.


6.   The President called on Cheryl Contant to provide an interim report from the ‘Committee on Academic Misconduct”. The membership of the Committee is drawn from the academic members of four Colleges, it includes two students and there are representatives of the Administration and the Dean of Students. Their charge was to examine how faculty, students and the Student Affairs office, interact in academic integrity issues; also to review the appropriateness of current procedures and the Honor Code.

They looked first at the resources involved. A first topic is the proper role of faculty and academic interests. Currently, these matters are handled through the Dean of Student’s office. They sought to define the question of appropriate collaboration between students. Also, they were to examine how to enhance the culture of academic integrity. The committee was to examine only academic misconduct and was to work independently of recent public cases.

Contant commented that responsibility rests with the Georgia Tech community; we need to prevent unfair advantage for some students, dishonesty is a violation of trust. The purpose of the Honor Code is to create an environment where dishonesty is not tolerated.

The current load and process, combined with the current staffing situation, has led to an intractable situation. The process is so broken that it is difficult to know how to fix it.

The Committee will propose establishing “benchmarks” for performance of the process and then suggest addition of staff to meet these benchmarks. The size of the Student Honor Committee should be doubled, training and guidance should be given to the committee; arrangements must be made for summer term meetings. The process should be changed to allow for a greater faculty role early in the process. The process should be followed in all cases; even those with high publicity. They will propose no change in the location of the process.

The Committee will recommend establishment of a Senate Committee on Academic Integrity which would co-ordinate with the Student Honor Committee, Dean of Students and Student Honor Advisors. We should seek to enhance the culture of academic integrity on this campus with programs led by the new Committee. The present Committee continues to meet, and will have its final report completed in the near future.

Clough commented that students might appeal further to the Student Grievance and Appeal Committee and then to the Board of Regents. The process is complex and time consuming.

Contant was asked what could be done to improve fairness and consistency. She said that departments should provide more information on what is being done internally in the school and seek more consistency. Hughes commented that penalties reside entirely with the student; there is no penalty for faculty. Moreover there should be some “default” definition of what is inappropriate collaboration. Contant was asked what fraction of honor violations were being directly by faculty and she stated that this appeared to be about 45 percent of all cases. Gieblehaus commented that many faculty have a diminished trust in the present system. Often they have no further contact with a case after they have reported it. Chameau said he would like the Committee to review how to better have faculty involvement at an earlier stage. He had the impression that Tech faculty were not as involved in the process as faculty of other institutions. He also made it clear that this Committee was not established in response to the current situation in Computing but was started in the Fall when he became aware that faculty lacked faith in the present system.


7.   Clough announced that Committee Chairs would now present minutes for formal approval:

(a)  Joe Hughes, Chair of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee said that the UCC had two specific action items that merited separate consideration. First, there was approval of two petitions to award undesignated Bachelors of Science degrees. This is an authorized degree, given very few times each year. In the present cases the students had created two overlapping programs that did not meet the specific requirements of either school. He moved that these be approved, and this was agreed without dissent. The second matter was approval of a Minor in “Legal Studies”. Tech does not have an approved major in this subject. In such a case, the faculty must ask the Provost to request permission from the Chancellor to offer such a minor. This was approved without dissent.

Hughes described the remaining items and moved that the minutes listed in the agenda be approved. Sayle asked why the course designator proposed for “Internship” was specific to Modern Languages. Hughes replied that this responded to the sole current request but could be altered later if requests for such a course arose from other units. Sayle further asked that question of change to the course designator for courses from the former HPS department be removed from the blanket approval of minutes. With this proviso the minutes were approved.

There was discussion on the change of HPS designators to AP that is related to the change in name of that unit. Sayle pointed out that “AP” might be confused with “Advanced Placement” or “Applied Physics” which were already well-established terms. After some discussion Hughes moved that the Senate approve the notion that the designators should be changed but ask the UCC to come up with a different designator term and that the UCC and Registrar should jointly approve the term. This was agreed without dissent.

(b) Hertel discussed actions by the Graduate Committee. He moved that all minutes listed in the agenda be approved; this was agreed without dissent.

(c) Benkeser discussed the March 27th minutes of the Student Regulations Committee and moved that they be approved; this was agreed without dissent. He noted that the April 8th minutes were also available but these would be delayed until the Fall Senate meeting when there will be a presentation of the revised Student Honor Code.

(d) Usselman reviewed the minutes of the Student Academic and Financial Affairs Committee. He moved that the minutes listed in the agenda be approved and this was agreed without dissent.

(e) Tomajko reviewed the minutes of the Student Computer ownership Committee and moved that the minutes listed in the agenda be approved. Sayle pointed out that the agenda listing of these minutes has an incorrect date for the first minutes; the date should be 1/23/02 (and not 2/23/02). The motion was agreed without dissent.

8.  The President asked for any other business. There being none he closed the meeting at 4:45 pm.




Respectfully submitted,


Edward W. Thomas

Secretary of the Faculty

April 25, 2002


Attachments to the Archival copy of the Minutes:

(1) Attendance List

(2) Agenda

(3) Copies of Approved Statutes:

(a) Changes to UCC and GC Committee; as approved at second reading

[Text will be placed as item #11 on the page]

(b) Change to Student Regulations committee; as approved at first reading.

[Text at]

(c) Changes to FS+G Committee; as approved at first reading.

[text at]