GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

SPRING MEETING OF THE

GENERAL FACULTY

and

GENERAL FACULTY ASSEMBLY

 

Tuesday, February 25, 2003, 3:00 pm, Student Center Theater

 

MINUTES

 

 

1.      The President opened the meeting at 3:08 PM.  He welcomed the faculty and introduced Dr. Thomas Meredith, Chancellor of the University System of Georgia [A brief biography of Dr. Meredith can be found at the web site referenced below -- Attachment #1].

 

The President lauded Dr. Meredith’s rational approach to budget allocation, which has benefited Georgia Tech by accounting for our enrollment growth; he indicated that the funding formula for continuing education is also under review, which will benefit institutions involved in such educational activities, including Georgia Tech. 

 

The Chancellor began his remarks by congratulating Georgia Tech (the ninth best public university in America), its faculty, and administrative team on their outstanding performance and commitment to excellence, which benefit the students, the University System, the State, and (through education and research) the world. He highlighted several of Georgia Tech’s accomplishments and contributions, as described by President Clough in a recent presentation to the Board of Regents: 26 faculty members belong to the National Academies; 74 NSF CAREER Award winners; third in the Nation in research performed with industry; winner of the 1999 Theodore Hesburgh Award for undergraduate teaching and learning; many undergraduate students involved in research; extensive partnerships; ATDC State-wide outreach and impact on the State’s economy --  a reputation of excellence and “engagement” with the State, the Nation, and the World.

 

Dr. Meredith provided an overview of the current challenges faced by the University System as a result of the State budget cuts and revenue shortfalls.  He indicated that, for the current fiscal year, Georgia’s higher education System is operating with a $184M cut (10.6% of the budget).  The Governor’s proposed 2004 budget reflects a $211M cut in the higher education budget.  The impacts of such cuts include: unfilled vacant positions; higher student/faculty ratios; larger classes; full sections/classes for which students could not enroll; delayed student graduation -- all of which reflect a growing gap between the number of students who want/need our services and the resources available to provide such services.  He indicated that the Governor’s 2004 budget assumes that his proposed ~$600M tax increases will be enacted; if that were not to happen, it would result in an additional $72M budget cut for higher education.  Georgia Tech’s share of the $211M budget cut is $17.8M; an additional $7.9M cut would result if the Governor’s proposed tax increases are not enacted -- a staggering total of $25.7M cut.  The Chancellor also indicated that $22M had been sought by the University System to help defray the increased costs of health benefits, and that the Legislature is not inclined to provide such funds; since the costs of health benefits have to be paid, this represents an additional $22M cut to be shouldered by the system institutions.  He also pointed out that an additional 1% budget cut may be imposed for the current fiscal year; we are nearly three quarters of the way through the fiscal year, and 75-80% of the budget is for salaries, which, combined with other “fixed costs,” makes it very difficult to accommodate such a cut.  The Chancellor indicated that while our budget cuts are severe, other states, such as North Carolina ($2B budget shortfall), Virginia, Florida, and Alabama, have had even more severe budget cuts -- except for a few states such as Louisiana (increased oil revenues), and Mississippi, where education has been shielded from budget cuts. 

 

The Chancellor outlined some of the arguments being presented to the Legislature in order to limit the extent/impact of budget cuts on higher education.  The State has invested a great deal of money over the past several years to build the nation’s best higher education system; we should protect that investment.  Higher education is a “reputation-driven” industry -- if our reputation declines; it would take a long time to recover.  The State’s investment in education has paid off, as evidenced by:  higher rankings (ninth best public university in America); attracting the best faculty in the world to Georgia; $800M in outside research grants and contracts which benefit the State -- the State spends $1.5B/year on the University System; it costs $4.6B/year to run the System; a three-to-one “return on investment.” 

 

Dr. Meredith discussed some of the reasons behind the recent increases in enrollments.  He indicated that while the current state of the economy has forced some people to return to school, there are additional factors which will continue to increase the demand for our services even after the economy recovers.  He indicated that children of “baby-boomers” are now going through the higher education system, and that such a large “bubble” will continue for nearly the next decade.  Additionally, student retention has significantly improved throughout the System -- Georgia Tech has done an outstanding job in that area through initiatives such as mid-term grades and enhanced advising.  Now, nearly three fourths of our students move from their freshman to their sophomore years in all institutions (80% if they are tracked through all System institutions; the corresponding number for GT is nearly 91%).  Currently, there are 233,000 students enrolled in the System -- nearly 7% increase from last year (equivalent to attending an institute the size of Georgia Tech); full-time-equivalent enrollment has also increased by more than 8%.  At the same time, quality continues to improve; average System-wide freshman SAT of 1030 (versus 1026 last year and 1352 for Georgia Tech).

 

The Chancellor described some of the initiatives he has recently undertaken to address the challenges ahead.   A task force is currently engaged in a study to determine what Georgia will look like ten years from now, and whether the State’s higher education system is well-positioned to meet the anticipated needs.  The task forces is examining such issues as the adequacy of current facilities to meet the anticipated enrollment increases, and whether enrollment caps may be required due to constraints imposed by facilities or faculty and budget needs.  He indicated that enrollment caps are not wise given the need to increase the percentage of our State’s 18-24 year olds who are enrolled in higher education (see discussion below).  However, one must balance the need for increased access with the imperative of maintaining/enhancing quality.    He indicated that one of the main strengths of Georgia’s University System is the coordinated efforts of all our institutions, through the leadership of the Board of Regents, which allows us to pool our financial and intellectual resources to meet the State’s higher education needs.  He contrasted our System with that of Alabama, where 15 four-year institutions are governed by ten different Boards. 

 

Dr. Meredith indicated that our primary objective is to create a “more-educated Georgia.”  He pointed to the fact that Georgia’s percentage of 18-24 year olds who are enrolled in an educational institution beyond high school is one of the lowest in the Nation -- this should not be the case for a State like ours with many institutions and opportunities for higher education (HOPE).  To illustrate the magnitude of the problem, he pointed out that if the percentage of our 18-24 year olds enrolled in higher education were to increase to a level comparable to the highest among other states, our System enrollment would be nearly 550,000, instead of the current 233,000 -- there are many more people who should be enrolled in higher education, in order for our State to be nationally competitive.

 

The Chancellor concluded by commending Georgia Tech for its well-earned reputation of quality, effectiveness, and service -- through the efforts of its faculty, students, and staff, Georgia Tech has become an internationally-renowned institution helping to create a more-educated Georgia.  He indicated that, as Chancellor, his job is to serve as a “facilitator” to help make that happen, by securing the necessary resources, removing the political barriers, and eliminating bureaucratic policies that may interfere with our progress.  He thanked the audience for their commitment to quality and excellence.

 

 A question was raised regarding the fate of the HOPE scholarship program, and how that may impact the goals stated in the presentation.  The Chancellor responded by stating that to many around the State, the HOPE scholarship program is sacrosanct; its growth has been phenomenal; for example, 85% of the incoming freshman class at Georgia Southern was on HOPE; many other institutions are also drawing heavily on HOPE.  While the lottery income has slightly increased, the draw on the HOPE program has increased at a much higher rate.  When/if those two lines converge, we would not want the Legislature to take money out of our appropriations and put it directly into the HOPE program.  The program has expanded to include additional benefits beyond tuition (e.g. books, fees, etc.); some of those benefits need to be examined.   The increased draw on the HOPE program, vis-à-vis the lottery revenues, causes a ceiling to be imposed on our tuition.  As a result, our tuition increases have been near the bottom of all the SREB States -- if we were to go to the average tuition among the SREB states, our tuition would need to be increased by 19%, which is unrealistic to expect.  We are examining other options to get more revenues to run our institutions without severe adverse effects in the face of budget cuts and tuition constraints.  For example, we are examining the possibility of adding a “quality surcharge” (name undecided) for the research institutions, since such institutions cost a lot more to run than the tuition we are allowed to charge.  Such an approach would increase revenues to those institutions without impacting the tuition ceiling imposed due to the HOPE program.  However, in order for that to work, it must be for something other than “tuition,” since, by Law, HOPE pays all tuition. 

 

A follow up question was asked as to whether the Chancellor’s office has any evidence of State- wide grade inflation due to the HOPE scholarship program.  The Chancellor responded by indicating that while such claims have been made, there is no obvious evidence to support them.  The number of students who are taking remedial courses may be viewed as an indirect measure of such an effect; that number has fallen off dramatically -- it has been mostly eliminated from four-year institutions and is only done by the two-year institutions.  The decline of those numbers goes against the suggestion of grade inflation. 

 

A question was asked as to whether the State of Georgia can support two engineering programs without adversely impacting the quality of existing programs.  The Chancellor pointed to the success of the GTREP Program in addressing the engineering needs/concerns of South Georgia.  He indicated that the University of Georgia has had some engineering programs related to agriculture and biology, and that they have a desire to expand their offerings in engineering; they intend to send forward two or three new programs (have not seen them yet).  Like all other proposed new programs, they will be fully reviewed; many factors are looked at during such reviews, including duplication of existing programs, costs involved, and whether the institution can shoulder the increased costs -- there is a long list of things that need to be addressed in order to approve a new program.  It is clear that those new engineering programs will be sent forward by UGA. We did not ask for, or encourage, the submission of those programs; however, they have the right to submit them, and when they do, they will get a full hearing, like all other new programs. 

 

A follow up comment was made that with the $211M system budget reduction, one would assume that since it is expensive to run engineering programs, this may not be the best time to propose new engineering programs.  A comment was made that the UGA web page claims that they already have about a dozen engineering programs; the Chancellor indicated that whenever claims are found which can not be substantiated with facts, those claims are pulled out -- there was a lot of inaccurate/misleading literature out in various schools around the state; all of which has been pulled back.  The institution issuing such literature had to sign off that they have retrieved all of it. We are doing our best to stay on top of such problems; so, if anyone finds inaccurate or misleading literature, please let us know.

 

A question was raised regarding the implications of the data presented earlier on the percentage of 18-24 year olds enrolled in higher education, and what needs to be done during K-12 to correct that imbalance.  The Chancellor responded by indicating that several efforts have been initiated to address this problem, and that we need to approach the State Department of Education to see if they would be a part of such initiatives; there are programs that recommend intervening in the seventh grade; some are successful, while others are not. He indicated that 40% of the State’s high school students drop out between ninth grade and graduation.  We are losing a large fraction before they reach the end; a large fraction of those who graduate from high school continue their studies.  So, we have to start early; we need to raise aspirations and expectations.  There are many social factors/barriers involved; for example, in some parts of the State, the thing to do is to get married before getting out of high school, and to have a child as soon as you could.  Faculty in two community colleges in the southern part of the State have relayed their frustration because they are losing many bright kids because of such social barriers -- parents do not encourage their kids to get out of the area and pursue higher education out of fear that they may never come back.    The Chancellor indicated that we also have an African American male initiative underway to find out why they are not finishing high school, and why many who finish high school are not going to college.  Among the issues identified by focus groups is the students’ concern about the economic impact of four additional years of “being poor.”  He also pointed to the increasing number of Hispanics in the State (e.g. the Dalton School district is now 59% Hispanic), who are not going to college.  Dr. Meredith indicated that, currently, Georgia leads the Nation in importing professional workers -- we do not have them -- we have to create them; we can’t create them unless they graduate from high school and get into college.  So, we have a lot of work to do -- the future of the State depends on it.  All this work needs to get done at times when revenues are declining.  He indicated that he often tells the Presidents of the various System institutions that any one can be a good President during good times; great Presidents rise during the tough times; so, they now have an opportunity to be great Presidents.  He stated that while it is going to be difficult for two or three years, this is the time to rise up and make things work, because it is worth it.  

 

He stated that Georgia Tech has a “good product;” it is easy to sell to the State leadership; we will do all we can to make it successful.

 

The President thanked the Chancellor for his insightful remarks and for taking the time from his busy schedule to meet with the Georgia Tech faculty. 

 

2.      The President offered the following comments on matters of interest to the Georgia Tech community:

 

a.       Applications for this year are down approximately 4%; the drop is nearly all accounted for by a drop in applications to the college of computing -- a national trend because of the “dot com burst;” that may not be a bad thing -- it will give our College of Computing time to “catch their breath” after the very rapid recent increases; we are looking at the trends to see if there is anything that we need to be concerned with; our admissions staff are also looking at ways to enhance our application materials; the quality of the applicant pool is even higher than before;  so we are in very good shape in terms of the quality and size of the freshman class we expect next fall. 

 

b.      We do not know what our tuition increases will be (will know in April or May), and how such increases may impact the enrollment decisions of applicants.  There have been significant tuition increases across the country, e.g. Purdue has increased tuition by 37%.  We have recently completed a study of tuition at our benchmark group; the group was selected about three years ago from among our public institution peers; the study indicates that we are thirteenth out of fourteen in that group in terms of the tuition charged to our students; we are $2000 below the average tuition for that peer group.

 

c.       We are in the process of moving to Technology Square; some units will be moving there by the beginning of next year.  We are in the process of finalizing the contract for our new trolleys that will serve that area; they will be different than the Stinger buses; they will have front and rear entrances to jump on them; there will be a fleet of trolleys which will provide reliable service for the students and faculty going back and forth from technology square and the campus; the lease for the trolleys has been signed; they will be built specially for Georgia Tech.

 

d.      Our graduation speakers for this term have been selected; in celebration of the fiftieth year in which women have enrolled at Georgia Tech, we have selected two outstanding women with some connection to science and technology to be our speakers.  Senator Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, who has had a distinguished career of public service in a wide range of cabinet positions, civic service, and non-profit organizations, will be the speaker at our undergraduate ceremony.  Dr. Julie Gerberding, the Director of CDC, will be the speaker at our graduate ceremony; we are very pleased to have such distinguished speakers.

 

e.        We have been working hard at the State Capitol to help keep our budgets up, and avoid severe repercussions of the projected budget cuts. The President spoke to the Senate Higher Education Committee and the House Higher Education Subcommittee on Appropriations; pointed out the seriousness of both past and new proposed budget cuts; was also asked to speak on the state of the “High Tech Economy” of the State of Georgia to a committee of the House and Senate; in 2001 (data for 2002 not yet available) Georgia had the highest growth rate of high tech jobs in the country -- those were not large absolute numbers, but many other states lost jobs; the gains were in the Biotechnology and software areas.  There are many GT interns now working in the State Capitol; our students are our best “ambassadors;” their efforts speak for us and what we do; we are very proud of them. 

 

f.        The President indicated that upon the Governor’s request, he currently serves as chair of the State’s Telecom Task Force.  The State had previously attempted to consolidate the offering of  Telecom, computing, and data access services; it  was bid twice -- both times received only one bid; the State could not accept one bidder, particularly for such ubiquitous service and the length of the contract (ten years); had the State signed the contract, it would have lost  about $12M per year.  The task force is looking at different ways of bundling these services; Georgia Tech had some concerns about the original way of consolidating the services, because it would have bound us into a uniform services arrangement that would not have been good for a unique organization such as our institute.

 

g.       Tonight we will hold a “legislative reception;” about 60-70 members of the General Assembly are expected to come to the President’s home for a reception and informal discussions -- the expected turnout is very encouraging.  

 

A question was asked as to whether the number of applications to the University of Georgia Engineering program has gone up.  The President indicated that he does not have that information; however, the overall number of applications to the University of Georgia has decreased.  There were no other questions for the President.

 

3.      The President called on Marc Smith, Chair of the Statutes Committee to present recommended changes to the Statutes.

 

a.       Smith presented a “second reading” of the proposed changes to Sections 2.8.1.7.(e)(1) through 2.8.1.7.(e)(3) of the Bylaws which deal with increasing the size of the Student Honor Committee and the formation of Hearing Panels to hear and decide on individual cases.  He indicated that there was minor wording change in Section 2.8.1.7.(e)(2) as recommended during the first reading (changed “heard and tried” to “heard and decided” by a Hearing Panel).  Smith also presented a “second reading” of Sections 2.8.1.7.(p)(1) through 2.8.1.7.(p)(6) of the Bylaws which deal with the creation of a new standing committee on Academic Integrity, and outline its composition, and functions.   He indicated that there have been no changes to those sections since the first reading.  It was moved that the General Faculty approve the second reading of recommended changes to Sections 2.8.1.7.(e)(1) through 2.8.1.7.(e)(3) and 2.8.1.7.(p)(1) through 2.8.1.7.(p)(6) of the Bylaws as presented. (See Attachment #2 for the exact wording of the approved changes).  The motion was approved without dissent.

 

b.      Smith presented a “first reading” for the recommended change to section 2.8.1.7.(b)(1) of the Bylaws.  The change deals with increasing the size of the Faculty Honors Committee from four to six elected members.  The change was requested by the Faculty Honors Committee and recommended by the Executive Board; it was motivated by the recognition that the range of expertise among the current small committee membership may not be sufficiently broad to evaluate candidates for the various faculty awards.  He indicated that similar to the current committee, no specific distribution of membership from the various units is being requested.   It was moved that the General Faculty approve the first reading of the recommended change to Section 2.8.1.7.(b)(1) of the Bylaws.  (See Attachment #3 for the exact wording of the approved changes). The motion was approved without dissent.

 

4.      The President called for any other business; there was none.  The meeting adjourned at 4:05 PM.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Said Abdel-Khalik

Secretary of the Faculty

February 27, 2003

Amended March 18, 2003

 

Attachments to be included with archival copy of the minutes:

 

1.  Brief Biography of Dr. Thomas C. Meredith, Chancellor, University System of Georgia  http://www.usg.edu/admin/oc/

2. Statutes changes related to: (a) increasing the size of the Student Honor Committee and Formation of Hearing Panels, and (b) creation of a Standing Committee on Academic Integrity.

3. Statutes Changes related to increasing the size of the Faculty Honors Committee.