Meeting of January 13, 2004

Held in the Poole Board Room of the Wardlaw Center



Members Present: Cabot (OIT); Chameau (Provost); Clough (President); Evans (GTRI); Gentry (ARCH); Horton (GTRI); Kahn (CEE); Marr (PSYCH); Peterson (ECE); Telotte (LCC);  Uzer (PHYS); Warren (EDI); Watson (U. Student); Bechtel (for Norville, G. Stu); Abdel-Khalik (SoF).


Members Absent: Alexander (Staff Rep); Henry (OSP); Huff (GTRI); Mark (CoC); McGinnis (ISyE); Schneider (MGT); 


Visitors: Bennett (GTRI); Bohlander (GTRI); Crocker (Sec&Police); Garton (GTRC/OSP); Hagearty (ICPA); Hoey (OARS/Provost); May (Pres. Office); Purcell (Sec&Police)  


1.      Larry Kahn (Chair) opened the meeting at 3:05 PM and called for approval of the minutes of the November 18, 2003 Executive Board meeting.  The minutes were approved without dissent. (See Attachment #1 below).


2.      The Chair called on Ms. Teresa Crocker, Director of Security and Police, to present an overview of crime statistics and trends at Georgia Tech.  (A copy of the slides used in the presentation is attached -- Attachment #2 below).  Chief Crocker began her presentation by introducing Deputy-Chief Anthony Purcell.  She indicated that she has been at Georgia Tech for nearly one year, and that today’s presentation is a part of the Police Department’s effort to better-inform the Georgia Tech community about crime on campus.  She indicated that it is important to continually do that, since many new students, faculty, and staff join us every year.  Ten different seminars on this subject have been/will be offered during the first two weeks of this term.  


Crocker provided data on “Part-I Crimes” (i.e. crimes that have to be reported to the Department of Education) at Georgia Tech between 1997 and 2003.  Part-I crimes include:  murder and non-negligent manslaughter (none occurred at Georgia Tech), forcible rape (very few, possibly because of under-reporting), robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson; the last four offenses are classified as “Property Crime,” while the first four are classified as “Violent Crime.”  A total of 1,097 Part-I crimes occurred in 2003 (see attachment for number of different offenses), which represents a 3.9% reduction compared to 2002.  While the number of burglaries was reduced by more than 50%, there were substantial increases in motor vehicle theft, thefts from motor vehicles, and bicycle thefts. Many thefts of/from vehicles occurred near the campus outer boundaries -- Curran Street Deck (59), Woodruff Lot (43), and Student center Deck (46).  Nearly 40% of such crimes occurred in parking decks, 34% in parking lots, and 26% from vehicles on the street.  The top vehicle stolen was the Jeep Cherokee (22), because these vehicles are easy to enter and start; they were followed by the Dodge Minivan (6), Chevy Blazer (5), and Honda Accord (5).


Annual data for Part-I Crime at Georgia Tech between 1997 and 2003 were presented; they ranged from a low of 852 in 1997 to a high of 1248 in 2000. [A question was asked as to possible reasons for the high crime rate in 2000.  Crocker indicated that no specific reasons have been identified].  Out of 1097 crimes in 2003, 552 were vehicle-related.  Over the 1997-2003 period, a maximum of one rape, 3 aggravated assaults, and twelve robberies occurred per year (one, two, and nine, respectively, for 2003).  [A question was asked regarding the accuracy of the rape statistics.  Crocker indicated that rapes are generally under-reported to the Police in most universities].  Part-I property crimes during the 1997-2003 period were dominated by larceny-theft, which ranged from 700 in 1997 to 1,029 in 2000 (919 in 2003).  Data for burglaries, and motor vehicle thefts during the same period were also presented.  Of the 76 burglaries reported to Campus Police in 2003, 26 occurred in fraternities/sororities, 14 occurred in residence halls, and the remaining 36 occurred in other campus buildings.


Of the 919 incidents of larceny-theft reported to the Campus Police in 2003, nearly half of them occurred from motor vehicles.  Besides motor vehicles, areas with more than 35 incidents include the Student Athletic Complex (Campus Recreation Center) and the Student Center.  Sixty-eight laptop computers were reported stolen last year, 24 of which were stolen from vehicles.  [A question was asked as to whether the stolen laptops were personally or institutionally-owned.  Crocker indicated that both types were involved, but many were GT-owned].  Crocker stressed the importance of not leaving laptops in open view in parked vehicles, or unsecured in offices.  She indicated that a record of the serial number and description should be kept, and that people should be encouraged to purchase anti-theft devices when computer equipment is purchased.  Of the 462 incidents of “entering auto” reported in 2003, 42% occurred in parking decks, 31% in parking lots, and 27% in street parking.  The highest number of incidents occurred during the months of January, February, and October. 


Crocker indicated that there are 137 emergency telephones strategically located around campus.  By pushing the red emergency button, Campus Police is automatically notified of the location, and will respond (i.e. send an officer to that location) regardless of whether or not the person pushing the emergency button verbally communicates with the officer manning the desk.  Campus Police, in close cooperation with the students Parents Associations, is in the process of securing funding to install additional emergency telephones around campus.  The Stingerette transportation service (operated by Parking and Transportation) operates till 2:30 AM; it provides service to faculty, staff, and students working late (call 404-894-9649).


Campus crime data for 29 peer institutions and other universities were presented.  These data were obtained from the Department of Education website; they provide a consistent method for comparison among different institutions.  Tabulated and graphical data for the annual crime rate per 1000 students for the period 2000 through 2002 were presented; among the universities examined are Cal Tech, MIT, Stanford, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern, NC State, Purdue, and Penn State.  Significant differences among campus crime rates were noted, with urban campuses in large metropolitan areas generally exhibiting higher crime rates. 


Crocker outlined some of the crime reduction efforts at Georgia Tech.  She indicated that everyone in the campus community has a role in those efforts; the briefings to be given to the various campus constituencies, including today’s presentation, are aimed at getting everyone involved.  She described several initiatives undertaken by the GTPD, including Adopt-A-Cop program in residence halls; increasing the number of crime awareness/prevention programs; publishing crime data on the GTPD website including photographs of arrested individuals involved in crime; increasing crime alert e-mails (anyone wishing to add his/her e-mail to the alert system should contact GTPD); increasing crime awareness/prevention efforts in campus areas with high crime rates; partnership with others to assist in crime prevention and reduction (e.g. SGA – night walk); and forming a physical security team (led by Deputy-Chief Purcell) to identify measures which can reduce crime in high-crime areas (e.g. campus outer boundary near Northside Drive, Woodruff Lot, and Curran Deck).  She indicated that GTPD is currently seeking National Accreditation (to be followed by State Certification).  Only ~550 agencies in the US are nationally accredited.  Accreditation for law enforcement agencies means that they have to meet certain standards and must have in place processes and written policies to do so.  Accreditation benefits include establishment of effective policies and procedures, greater accountability, strong interagency cooperation, defense against law suits, and control of liability insurance.  State certification is usually “automatic” following National accreditation. Crocker indicated that GTPD has hired several new police officers, including two K-9 officers.


Crocker concluded her presentation by encouraging interested individuals to sign-up to be a part of the new campus safety committee, where people can share their knowledge to help the GTPD do things better.  She also encouraged people to report inoperable exterior lighting through the websites of either the facilities department ( or the GTPD (


A question was asked as to the percentage of crimes solved among the nearly 1000 crimes which occur on campus every year. Purcell stated that in 2003, 18.5% of the crimes were solved, versus the national average of 22%.  A follow-up question was asked as the fraction of crimes committed by people from within the campus versus those from outside.  Crocker indicated that the vast majority of violent crime is committed by off-campus individuals, while property crimes, which tend to be crimes of opportunity, are often committed by on-campus individuals.  A question was asked as to whether off-campus individuals look at Georgia Tech as a “good target.”   Crocker indicated that there are some people who return to prey on the Georgia Tech community.  She indicated that criminals use cell phones to alert each other to police presence, which makes it more difficult to catch them.  A question was asked as to the number of campus police patrols at any time.  Crocker indicated that the number ranges from six to ten depending on days off, holidays, etc.  She indicated that when break-ins occur, more coverage is devoted to those areas since criminals usually return to the same areas. 


A comment was made that feedback from fraternities over the past several years points to the students’ satisfaction and positive interactions with the GTPD.  A question was asked as to the nature of the campus safety committee mentioned in the presentation and its relationship to the faculty’s Welfare and Security Committee.  Crocker indicated that she regularly attends meetings of the faculty Welfare and Security Committee.  The new campus safety committee is aimed at getting input from (and involvement of) a broad segment of the Georgia Tech community.  A question was asked as to whether there is a problem with DUI incidents on campus.  Crocker indicated that alcohol drinking takes place on most campuses; there are cases of under-age drinking and DUI.  However, while DUI certainly endangers others, it has not been a top priority for GTPD; instead, they have focused their resources on more serious crimes.  A comment was made that the crime statistics from peer institutions consistently point to the comparatively high rates for urban campuses in large metropolitan areas.   


The Chair thanked Chief Crocker for her informative presentation and invited her to give a similar presentation at the upcoming February 3, 2004 combined meeting of the Academic Senate and General Faculty Assembly.  She agreed to do so.


3.      The Chair called on Dr. Gisele Bennett (GTRI) to provide a status report on the activities of the Conflict of Interest (CoI) Committee. (A copy of the slides used in the presentation is attached -- Attachment #3 below).  Bennett stated that this presentation is a follow-up to the presentation made to the Executive Board last October.  She enumerated the topics reviewed in the CoI policy, including: entrepreneurial activities, students, use of GT facilities, ownership in corporations, impact on license from future research, pipeline activities, SBIR language, and the CoI review form and approval process.  The Committee’s approach is to remain within the guidelines required by the State, the Board of Regents, and Federal agencies, including NIH, NSF, and DoD.  Bennett indicated the committee will require an additional “iteration” before presenting its final recommendations to the Executive Board and the faculty. 


Bennett stated that entrepreneurial activities are encouraged; however, the CoI Policy language will be clarified to define the conditions, limitations, and approval process governing such activities.  Among the issues to be clarified are: the definitions of “substantial interest,” “monetary value,” and “resident instruction,” as well as the amount of consulting in which a faculty member/employee can engage.  Students were not addressed in the original policy -- the policy should apply to all State employees; hence, whenever appropriate, the language has been changed in many sections to either include staff and students along with faculty, or refer to “employees.”  The use of GT facilities will be addressed in the policy by requiring “prior approval with appropriate charges.” Ownership in corporations was clarified and simplified, by limiting such ownership to less than 25%.  Reference to SBIRs was removed from the policy since Georgia Tech cannot submit proposals for SBIRs.  Two items remain to be finalized: (1) the CoI review form (to be filed by all employees), along with the associated approval process, and (2) clarification of the consulting hours in which a faculty member/employee can engage.  The committee is examining the current CoI review form to determine if changes are needed, and is soliciting input from Deans, unit chairs, and laboratory directors as to how to streamline the approval process.  The committee’s goal is to complete the final draft CoI Policy within the next two weeks, present it to the Provost for review, and, if acceptable, present it to the faculty.


A question was raised about the term “conflict of commitment” which appears in the distance learning section of the CoI policy.  Bennett responded by indicating that the Policy will include a definition of the term “conflict of commitment,” and will make it clear that commitment to the University comes first.  A follow-up comment was made that unlike other CoI issues, which normally deal with financial matters, the issue in this case is perception -- for example, in the professional education section, the aim is to limit GT faculty participation in the creation and delivery of courses marketed by other organizations or universities since such organizations directly compete with Georgia Tech.  A question was raised regarding the outcome of the committee’s deliberations on the limits on consulting hours and corporate ownership. Bennett indicated that the limit on corporate ownership is clear, namely, less than 25%; however, discussions on consulting hours are still continuing.  The committee has solicited input from Deans and School Chairs on this issue.  She indicated that there is a difference in accounting between GTRI and the academic units which complicates the problem.  A comment was made that the accounting system should not drive the decision on the consulting hours.  Garton indicated that Georgia Tech and other research universities in the Georgia University System are working together to articulate a consistent set of conflict of interest management principles, so that faculty in these universities can be treated in a similar manner.  The Chair thanked Dr. Bennett and Ms. Garton for their presentation.  He indicated that the Board will take no action at this time and that we will await the final outcome from the committee before the proposed policy is presented to the General faculty.   


4.      The Chair called on Dr. Joseph Hoey, Director of Assessment, to present a status report and recommendations of the Institutional Review Committee (IRC) for Assessment of Academic Programs. (Copies of the slides used in the presentation, and memorandum from the IRC to the Executive Board dated January 13, 2004 are attached -- Attachments # 4a & b below).  Hoey indicated that the IRC was established three years ago as an ad hoc committee of the Executive Board.  The committee membership has remained consistent over the past three years, which allowed the committee to develop the process and infrastructure for program review at Georgia Tech.  The effort so far has been consistent with the plan presented to the Board last April by Russell Gentry. 


Hoey stated that the IRC recommends that it remains as an administrative committee rather than an elected committee, and that members are to serve at the pleasure of the Provost and Vice-Provost.  The IRC will annually report the results of program reviews to the Provost and Vice-Provost and will provide the Executive Board with annual updates of its activities.  Members of the committee are to be appointed by the Executive Board based on their expertise in (and concern with) accreditation and program review.  This approach will help preserve the institutional memory of how the review process can be effectively conducted.  It is recommended that members be appointed for three-year terms, with one-third of the membership rotating off every year.  Each college will be represented by one member, except for engineering which will have two members.  Both the Institute Graduate and Undergraduate Curriculum Committees will have an ex-officio liaison on the IRC.  The Provost’s office will be represented by the Director of Assessment, who will serve as the committee chair.  These recommendations are consistent with the committee’s membership structure during the past three years.  Subgroups will be assigned for specific program reviews at the beginning of each academic year; membership will be selected based on the disciplines to be reviewed.  The committee may request that additional members be appointed by the Executive Board during years when large numbers of reviews are undertaken.  Such requests will be made before the beginning of the academic year, so that members can be brought on board in time for the reviews.


The IRC will provide faculty liaison to units undergoing program reviews.  The committee chair will be responsible for general oversight of the program review “process;” the infrastructure is now in place, so that managing the “process” itself can be done by the Assessment Director’s office.  The IRC will be charged with gathering documentation, delivering documentation to (and accepting the reports of) the Graduate and Undergraduate Curriculum Committees, creating a “synthesis review” of all reports/documentation for each unit or program under review, and delivering the synthesis reviews to the Provost and Associate Provost. The synthesis reviews created by the IRC should cogently summarize relevant educational program considerations and recommendations to enable the Provost to utilize program reviews for strategic decision-making.  The IRC sub-committee assigned to a program review will create an initial draft synthesis review; the IRC committee as a whole will review the draft synthesis reviews before they are finalized and forwarded to the Provost and Vice-Provost. 


A question was raised as to whether the committee has received any feedback from the reviewed units/programs as to the value of such reviews, as well as feedback from the Chancellor’s Office as to the adequacy of the documentation forwarded to them.  Hoey responded by indicating that all the reviewed units/programs have consistently acknowledged the value added by the external review process; peer reviews have generally been honest and insightful.  However, nearly all the reviewed units/programs have complained about the voluminous amount of data required by the Board of Regents.  We have questioned the need for such data; in response, the BoR has given us a two-year hiatus in the reporting requirement.  This hiatus provides us with an opportunity to structure the review process and format the reports in a manner that is appropriate and useful for Georgia Tech.  Hoey stated that feedback from the BoR/Chancellor’s Office regarding previous reviews has, surprisingly, indicated that the reports are not “data-rich.” This is difficult to address since the final reports are required to be presented in a two-page web format. He stated that it is questionable whether their limited staff (six or seven) can adequately evaluate all the program reviews conducted by the various System units (~300 per year). Everyone in the University System is on a “learning curve;” however, we are well on our way to having a workable process for Georgia Tech.


A motion to approve the recommendations of the Institutional Review Committee (IRC) for Assessment of Academic Programs as outlined in the January 13, 2004 memorandum from the IRC to the Executive Board (Attachment #4b below) passed without dissent.  The Chair thanked Dr. Hoey and the IRC for their efforts.


5.      The Chair called on the President to comment on matters of interest to the Georgia Tech community.  The President offered the following comments:


a.       In order to “fast-track” the new Nanotechnology Research Center project, the Board of Regents had to modify their procedures (upon the recommendation of the State AG).  The project, which is nearly half-funded by the State, will be delegated to Georgia Tech; this will allow us to run the project as if it were privately-funded, which will speed up the construction by nearly one year.  This is the first time that the BoR has delegated authority for projects partially-funded by the State to a campus; we want it to work well since it may serve as a model for future buildings.


b.      Tomorrow, the BoR and the Chancellor will hold a meeting about foundations and their relationship to the universities. Our foundation is well-positioned and has good trustees who understand the foundation’s role and how the university works.  Our foundation has many checks-and-balances to control expenditures, and we have good procedures that allow us to be flexible, yet accountable.


c.       Several capital construction projects are underway; site-clearing for the Nanotechnology Research Center will begin soon -- this will require substantial amount of work since it involves the Neely Nuclear Research Center and the Electronic Research Building.  Construction of the Klaus Computing building will begin soon; bids have been received.  Construction of Phase-II of the Campus Recreation Center will likely be completed ahead of schedule.  Renovation of the Student Center Commons (old bookstore) will be completed in February.


d.      Search committees for the Vice-President for Student Affairs and Director of Campus Recreation are making good progress.


e.       Tomorrow the Governor will present his budget for FY05; he will likely recommend a 5% budget cut. There were no surprises in the amended FY04 budget.  Georgia Tech is operating with 1999 budget but with 3000 more students.  We hope that increases in workload money (formula funding) and modest tuition increases will offset some of the budget cuts.  The budget includes $2M for the Nanotechnology Research Center; the remainder of the State’s $45M commitment will be funded next year.


f.        Lt. Governor Taylor made a statement today that the University System is trying to bankrupt the HOPE Scholarship system by excessive increases in tuition.  The Governor and the Chancellor clarified the issue later in the day.  In fact, our tuition is near the bottom among our 21 peer institutions. 


g.       The Governor will likely recommend a substantial capital funding list of projects this year in order to energize the State’s economy.  Hopefully, many of the projects on the BoR list will be funded, so that our Undergraduate Learning Center would advance closer to the top of the list.


h.       Undergraduate applications are slightly ahead of last year’s pace; applications are again down in the computing area, but applications for other areas are significantly higher.  We believe that we will be able to meet our enrollment projections with possibly a slight increase in enrollment.  [The Provost added that enrollment this Spring is about 250 more than last year – mostly at the graduate level with some undergraduate transfer students.  Applications from out-of-State students are up this year (versus a reduction during the past two years) probably due to improvement in the economic outlook].


i.         The President indicated that he has been asked to co-Chair (along with Sam Palmisano, CEO of IBM) the National Innovation Initiative of the US Council on Competitiveness.  He indicated that several Georgia Tech personnel, including Drs. Chameau and May, will play significant roles in the working groups.  A meeting will be held at the Global Learning Center in late February and a National summit with the US President is planned for December 15th.    These activities offer a great platform to represent the Institute at the National level.    


A question was asked as to the status of ETACT funding (Equipment, Technology, and Construction Trust Fund).  The President indicated that the Governor’s recommended budget removes ETACT funding from the lottery; this cut is on top of the 5% cut. He stated that we are working with the Chancellor’s Office and other System universities to inform the Legislature leadership of the importance of this type of funding.  It will, however, be more difficult since it is no longer funded by the lottery; we will need to position ourselves to create other funding sources beyond FY05.  There were no other questions for the President.


6.      The Chair presented the proposed agenda for the combined meeting of the General faculty Assembly and Academic Senate to be held on February 3rd, 2004 (See attachment #5).  The agenda includes an overview of undergraduate research by Leigh Bottomley and Bob McMath, and a presentation by Chief Crocker similar to the one made at today’s meeting.   The Secretary of the Faculty indicated that, upon the request of the Welfare and Security Committee, the draft agenda includes a presentation by the Director of Parking and Transportation (Bob Furniss); it will be included in the final agenda upon securing his agreement.  The proposed agenda was approved without dissent.


7.      The Chair called on the Secretary of the Faculty to discuss administrative matters.  Abdel-Khalik indicated that the March meeting of the Executive Board is currently scheduled for March 9, 2004, which falls during spring break.  The conflict occurred because Executive Board meetings are scheduled well before the academic calendar is published.  He suggested that the meeting date be changed, and indicated that both the President and Executive Board Chair are available on Tuesday March 2, 2004.   It was agreed to change the date of the Executive Board’s March meeting to March 2nd, 2004.


8.      The Chair called for any other business.  Linda Cabot (OIT) indicated that the Student Activities Committee (on which she serves as the Executive Board liaison) would like to get the Board opinion on the advisability of approving the Constitution of the Zymurgy Society in light of the Institute’s policy on alcohol consumption (see Attachment #6).  The organization studies fermentation and the art of making beer and wine. A comment was made that the goal of our policy is not to be “dry” but to encourage “responsible use,” and that there should be no problem as long as their constitution speaks of “responsible alcohol use.”  Watson (Undergraduate Student body President) concurred and indicated that both the graduate and undergraduate student bodies have approved this application last year, and that all organizations chartered by the student government are required to have stringent alcohol policies. A comment was made that the number of honor code violations related to alcohol consumption has decreased significantly over the past two years.  Ms. Cabot will convey the sense of these discussions to the Student Activities Committee.


There was no other business; the Chair adjourned the meeting at 4:50 PM.



Respectfully submitted,


Said Abdel-Khalik

Secretary of the Faculty

January 16, 2004


Attachments (to be included with the archival copy of the minutes)


1.      Minutes of the EB meeting of November 18, 2003.

2.      Campus Crime Briefing (Presentation by Teresa Crocker, Director of  Security & Police)

3.      Status Report on Conflict of Interest Committee (Presentation by Gisele Bennett and Jilda Garton)

4.      Institute Review Committee

a.       Presentation by Joseph Hoey and Russell Gentry

b.      Memorandum from the Institute Review Committee to the Executive Board dated January 13, 2004

5.      Proposed Agenda for February 3rd Combined Meeting of the General Faculty Assembly and Academic Senate.

6.      Constitution of the Zymurgy Society (Dated February 25, 2003).