GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Meeting of September 25, 2001
Held in the Poole Board Room of the Wardlaw Building
Members Present: Abdel-Khalik (ME); Allen (Arch); Boyd (Stu Servcs); Hall (Bio); Henry (OSP); Jayaraman (Mgt); Kahn (CEE); Mark (CoC); Marr (Psy); McGuire (LCC); Richards (GTRI); Wardi (ECE); Welch (GTRI); Liotta (Vice Provost); Alexander (Staff Rep); Katzen (for Kavanaugh U. Stu.); Thomas (SoF)
Members Absent: Estes (EDI); Swank (GTRI); Clough (Pres.); Chameau (Provost);Childress (G. Stu)
Visitors: Bob McMath (Provost Office); Joe Hughes (EE); Jilda Garton (GTRC); George Harker (GTRC)
1. The Chair opened the meeting at 3:00 p.m. He asked Liotta, in the absence of Clough and Chameau, whether he wished to make any comments. Liotta reviewed briefly the research success of the last year. Research awards totaled $237M, the highest in our history. Research expenditures in FY2001 were around $314M. Other States have much interest in the success of the Georgia Research Alliance. Over 10 years the State invested about $300M in its Research Institutions and brought to the State about $4 for each dollar invested.
In response to a question, Liotta stated that the awards from Federal sources came to 63 percent and from Industry ,23 percent for the last year. He was asked where one could find information about the Cancer Coalition; he replied that the procedures for this initiative were only now under development and that Don Giddens would be the main source of current information.
2. The Chair moved for approval of the minutes of August 21, 2001 with a spelling correction to one name (Katzen). This was agreed without dissent.
(3) Welch reported on the committee review of the “Proposed Policy on Commercialization and Intellectual Property Rights” (dated September 2000). They had studied five issues:
a. Whether the policy would apply to students; the answer is yes.
Whether the policy was in accord with State and Federal Legislation; again affirmative.
b. The adequacy of the conflict of interest policy; they decided that this should be studied as a follow-up matter.
c. Whether there should be a standing “Intellectual Property” Committee; they concluded that the policies provide for this although the committee was not fully operational.
d. Finally they reviewed the proposed distribution of royalties and concluded that this was a significant improvement over past practice.
Welch explained that they had initiated some changes to the proposed policy and that these were fully acceptable to the administration. The policy was written and dated September 2000 but the revised document would show a recent date. She was asked whether this policy would be retroactive. Jilda Garton answered that the policy had been administratively applied during the last year, subject to the agreement of all parties. Katzen asked whether the new policy would be communicated to students and Welch replied that this must be done. She stated that the student catalog carries an obscure reference to the matter. There is a plan to produce a pamphlet describing the policy for faculty use; perhaps there should be a separate document for students. She was asked whether the policy applied to all students or only to those who were paid by the institution. She stated that it applied to all students.
Welch moved that the revised policy be presented to the GFA for its approval. There was discussion of how to handle special situations and Welch agreed to add a new section 220.127.116.11 (d) which would state that the IP committee would approve any deviations from the policy. She further stated that the revised policy would be distributed to the Board and placed on a web site for faculty review before the meeting. With these provisos the motion was approved.
Welch further moved that the existing Committee be charted to review the “Conflict of Interest Policy” and to bring a revised version to the faculty. This was approved without dissent.
Welch further moved that the existing committee, or a subset thereof, be chartered to consider a possible software policy. The starting point would be the old policy that dated from some 10 years ago. Garton was asked how GTRC currently handled Software and she stated that it was licensed out just like a patented Intellectual Property. Welch was asked whether “Software” included teaching packages; she replied that the matter of instructional materials was under consideration by a committee headed by Bohlander. The motion was approved.
There was some further discussion of the proliferation of IP committees and the need to avoid overlap of functions.
4. The Chair commenced a review of the five main recommendations by the “Committee on Committees”:
a. The Committee recommends establishment of a “Study Abroad Committee” to be a sub-committee of the Undergraduate and Graduate Curriculum Committees. He called on Hughes to introduce the proposal to establish this body. Hughes reviewed the composition and charge (see attachments)
There was a question as to the likely main activity of this committee. Hughes replied that, almost by necessity, a study abroad program needs exceptions from the normal rules. For example, length of term is irregular and there are questions such as the definition of “mid-term”. This committee will handle the approval of all such matters. He hoped that the committee would also focus on the quality of programs and, in time, develop standard guidelines for dealing with questions. Karen Boyd pointed out that SACS and other accreditation agencies would focus on these programs that are likely to grow to include perhaps 50 percent of all our students. Hughes agreed and stated that assessment was a duty included in the proposal. The programs were the responsibility of the sponsoring schools but there was Institutional responsibility for maintaining overall quality. There was a question of the breadth of responsibility to be exercised by this committee. Hughes pointed out that this was to be a subcommittee of the two existing standing committees and, as such, its responsibility did not extend beyond the charter of the two sponsoring bodies. It was pointed out that an existing ad-hoc committee reviewed each program each year and Hughes was asked whether the new committee would be following the same practice. He responded that, in principle, they would make annual reviews but in practice after a few years this may become unnecessary.
It was moved that Hughes’ proposal be approved and this was agreed without dissent.
b. The Chair introduced the second recommendation that was each standing committee of the Faculty bodies should receive, annually, a report from the Administrator(s) with responsibility in the area of the committee’s jurisdiction. Moreover, this report should be included in the Committee’s annual report to the faculty. There was some discussion as to how this requirement should be “policed”. It was suggested that each Executive Board liaison should periodically report to the Board on how their committee is functioning and whether they are receiving the necessary input from administrators. This general suggestion was approved without dissent.
c. The Chair introduced the third recommendation that relates to an increase in size of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee and some change to its structure. He invited Hughes, on behalf of the UCC to introduce a specific proposal for the change (see attachments). This proposal seeks to make the Dean of Students an ex-officio member, increases the committee size to about 16 members, and also changes the timing of the program review cycle. Hughes suggested that this proposal be sent to the Statutes Committee for implementation.
The Secretary commented that the words used in the Statutes to define committee composition need to be changed because the terminology is now out of date. Also that the Statutes committee might prefer not to give a specific interval for program review but rather refer to some other authority to define this matter. Marr suggested that perhaps the workload of the UCC was sufficiently high that the committee should be broken up into two or more committees. In response, Hughes argued that the increased size will permit the major functions of the committee to be delegated to subcommittees and that he saw no reason at present to formally break up the committee responsibilities.
It was moved that Hughes’ proposal be transmitted to the Statutes committee for their consideration of the proposed changes. This was agreed without dissent.
d. The Chair introduced the recommendation that the Statutes covering the Graduate Curriculum Committee be changed to include a statement on periodic review of programs. He also indicated that the Statutes covering distribution of representatives would need modification to remove out-of-date language. He moved that these two matters be sent to the Statutes committee for consideration. This was approved without dissent.
e. The Chair introduced the final recommendation that there should be a Faculty committee concerned with Intellectual Property Rights. Thomas mentioned that the Board had already, in part, implemented this with a sub-committee of the Academic Services Committee that has specific responsibilities in Distance Education and IP rights. Welch again mentioned that the Institutional Policy on Intellectual Property Rights (discussed earlier as agenda item # 3) calls for the formation of such a committee organized administratively. There needs to be care that the various committees do not overlap in function.
5. The Chair called on Mark Richards to introduce the report of the committee on “Retention of General Faculty Status” (see attachments). Richards reminded the Board that this question arose form a specific case discussed at the June 19th meeting of the Board. The question is whether a person changing from a position that automatically confers GF status to a staff position can retain their GF status in the new job. Since June, the Attorney General has ruled that when a person makes such a change, their pension arrangements are not altered. Nevertheless there are many other reasons why a person might seek to retain General Faculty status. The committee was not in favor of automatic retention of GF status. They do, however, favor automatic review of whether GF status should be granted to the individual in the new position; the award of GF status is within the existing powers of the Board. The committee proposes that the “EB guidelines to General Faculty Status” be amended to include the following new provision.
“ 18.104.22.168 In the event of an administrative transfer of a person from a position conferring General Faculty status to a position not so designated, the Executive Board will use the following procedure to determine whether the person should be granted General Faculty status as an individual in the new position. The Office of Human Resources will notify the Faculty Status and Grievance Committee that such a transfer is proposed. Copies of this notification will be provided to the individual and the supervisor initiating the reclassification. The Committee will ascertain whether or not the individual wishes to seek General Faculty status in the new position and, if so, will then review the nature of the responsibilities in the new position and the qualifications of the individual. The Committee will recommend to the Executive Board whether the person should be granted General Faculty status as an individual in the new position under the general provisions of Section 22.214.171.124.(d) of the Statutes. In the event of a positive decision by the Executive Board then the person will hold General Faculty status as an individual and the provisions of 126.96.36.199 of these guidelines will apply. The review by the Faculty Status and Grievance Committee shall be subject to their normal rules of confidentiality”.
Richards explained that the guidelines were not a part of the Statutes but rather an Executive Board document; thus no approval beyond that of the Board was required. The procedure uses existing powers and only provides for a route to consider the matter. Use of the FS+G committee as an intermediate step permits initial review to be confidential. Richards moved that this provision be added to the “guidelines” and this was approved without dissent.
6. The Chair moved that the agenda for the October 9th meeting of the General Faculty Assembly should be as in the agenda for the meeting. This was approved without dissent.
7. The Secretary then introduced various administrative decisions:
a. Approval of proposed dates of meetings for 2002-2003. Approved without dissent.
b. Proposed changes to composition of certain committees to replace persons unable or unwilling to serve:
Larson to replace Bullock on Student Regulations for a single year only
Uzer to replace Horst on FS+G for a full three-year term
Arkin to replace Navathe, and Gentry to replace Rudolph on the IRC for Assessment.
All the above were approved.
c. Secretary announced that the FS+G committee did not wish to retain its “confidential” records and had asked the Secretary to take responsibility. The Secretary proposed to retain these for two years in a sealed location and to then transfer them to the library archives for confidential retention. There was discussion on the appropriateness of the procedure and the time period for retention. Hughes pointed out that other committees, particularly those concerned with student conduct and student petitions, faced the same problem of custody of confidential records. The Secretary was instructed to seek legal advice on how to handle all such confidential records generated by faculty governance bodies.
d. For information, the Secretary presented the list of EB liaison assignments for 2001-2002.
e. Presentation of a detailed proposal from the Academic Services Committee for the formation of a sub-committee on “Distance Learning and Intellectual property” (see attachments). Approved without dissent.
f. Approval, on behalf of the GFA and AS, of minutes for the committees that involve no action items.
Student Academic and Financial Affairs Committee (2/9/2001 and 6/1/2001)
Academic Services Committee (4/18/01)
All approved without dissent.
g. Proposal from the “Faculty Honors Committee” that the rules for the two “Outstanding Teacher” Awards be altered to say that faculty members should have taught at least six semester hours in the preceding academic year (rather than the words “six quarter hours” which are in the current rules). Approved without dissent.
h. Information that the Faculty Handbook was being revised to improve and simplify its content. McMath’s office has pointed out that detailed specifications of the schedules for promotion and tenure are found in both the Statutes and also in the Procedures for Reappointment Promotion and Tenure. The duplication is confusing and this material need not be included in the Statutes. The Statutes committee has agreed to review the matter and consider removing the details of the process. It might also be necessary to reconstitute the Board’s “Committee on Reappointment Promotion and Tenure” in order to make sure that the revised documents are satisfactory.
(8) The Chair called for any other business and there being none, closed the meeting at 5:00 p.m.
Edward W. Thomas
Secretary of the Faculty
September 26, 2001
Attachments to the archival copy of the minutes:
(b) Proposal to form a “Study Abroad Subcommittee” (by Hughes and Hertel)
(c) Proposal to modify the Statutes covering the UCC (by Hughes)
(d) Report of the Committee on Retention of General Faculty Status (Richards)
(e) Meeting Dates 2002-2003
(e) Liaison Assignments for 2001-2002
(f) Proposal for formation of a “Distance Learning and Intellectual Property Rights” Committee (by Ron Bohlander)