NOTE: At times, issues of confidentiality may require that some items discussed in meetings be excluded from these minutes.

PRESENT: Charles Bachman, Bill Barnes, Richard Bennett, David Caudill, Tom Currin, Venu Dasigi, Ameen Farooq, Steven Hamrick, Ruston Hunt, Mike Murphy, Julie Newell, Mark Nunes, Jeff Orr, Nikki Palamiotis, Phil Patterson, Dawn Ramsey, Sandra Vasa-Sideris for Ronny Richardson, Khalid Siddiqi, John Sweigart, Zvi Szafran, Andy Wang, and Tim Zeigler

GUESTS: Bill Gruszka, Becky Rutherfoord

ABSENT: Joel Fowler, Alan Gabrielli, Andrew McMorran, Joyce Mills, Nancy Reichert

Item 1: Updates

Board of Regents

Mechatronics Engineering was approved at the October Board of Regents meeting.

The Systems Engineering proposal will go forward as a full proposal rather than a letter of intent. The proposal will go to the faculty senate and then to the Board of Regents for approval. Once approved it will go to the curriculum committee for final approval.

Special Funding Initiative – The Board of Regents announced that a special funding initiative of up to 5% of our operating budget may be available for qualifying projects. After discussion at the Deans Council and meeting with participating departments, a proposal for funding was submitted that included an articulation with DTAE schools and offering courses from engineering technology, business and related disciplines on-line. Dr. Szafran feels our proposal is a good fit with the Chancellor’s goals. Approvals will be announced early next year.

Deans Searches – It was decided to go forward with national searches for the open deans’ positions in ETM and CSE. Job descriptions are being drafted with input from the faculty.

Restructuring Academic Affairs – Tom Currin has been named Coordinator for Engineering. No decision has been made yet to change the Department of Business Administration to the School of Business Administration. Zvi and Joel Fowler had a discussion on a model that might be used by Business Administration and other departments who may want to change from departments to schools. Dr. Fowler will discuss this model at the next Deans Council meeting and (if still viable) then to the Academic Leadership Council.

Capital Equipment – The departments have submitted equipment proposals which have been prioritized by their deans. Final decisions on the proposals will be made at the next Deans Council meeting.

Item 2: Outcomes Assessments

Dr. Szafran reminded the Council that every department and every program must have:

a set of outcomes goals
course outcomes goals which must be included in all course syllabi beginning Spring 2007
all course outcomes goals must be measurable

Dr. Becky Rutherfoord is in the process of visiting with each department to talk about the beginning phase of SACS preparation. Workshops will be offered in November on how to write outcomes, and in January on how to measure course outcomes. These workshops will be open to everyone.

Program reviews have been reinstated by the Board of Regents and a schedule will be generated and distributed to show when each department’s review is due. Accreditation packages can be substituted and submitted in place of the program review.

Item 3: Capital Equipment Needs

Dr. Szafran noted that in reviewing the departments’ proposals for equipment, many were for computers and other small items and did not contain any large-ticket items. He stated that there is a real need to have state-of-the-art equipment and facilities on our campus so we must look at all possible ways to accomplish this. Dr. Szafran opened the discussion on how to meet these needs and supplement our current methods of funding. He asked for input and suggestions and the ALC responded with the following suggestions/comments:

move computer replacement cost out of the Academic Affairs budget (Gruszka is currently working on a computer replacement plan for the University)
departments are reluctant to ask for large items because they are so expensive
there is a critical need for additional space – even if we had all of the equipment we needed, there is still a critical shortage of space which will only get worse as we grow
Julie Newell talked about the BoR draft on research and campus scholarship of teaching and the need for engineering education.
Engineering faculty should be doing research in their field and while most departments have teaching equipment, most do not have research equipment.
some departments reluctant to request larger ticket items when basic teaching equipment is outdated and needs to be replaced
need better facilities support
need to write grants to help purchase expensive equipment
need to use industrial advisory boards for support
need a plan in hand that shows campus needs
need more feedback from the Development Office on their efforts to raise money for the programs
need to communicate Academic Affairs needs to the Foundation
need more support from the Foundation on fundraising, accurate alumni information, etc.
It was asked if the University would match gifts as they do with grants. Dr. Szafran responded that the University would possibly be able to match gifts if it fit within an overall strategic plan.
All agreed that capital equipment needs are an important issue to the University and that we should move forward with the first step being that of evaluating equipment needs on campus.

ITEM 4: Campus Computer Replacement Plan

Bill Gruszka talked about his plan for a campus-wide computer replacement plan based on a 4-year replacement cycle. Some of the highlights of his plan include:

replacing 25% of the computers each year and maintaining smart classrooms
cost for this plan is approximately $350,000 per year
suggestions for funding include a contribution from Academic Affairs, use of end-of-year funds, and increasing the student technology fee by $25 per semester, which would require student approval
new hires and new labs would not be funded under this plan but would need to be addressed
departments that require more frequent updating of computer equipment would recycle their existing computers to other departments

It was suggested that UITAC be asked to help make decisions regarding implementation of this plan. Since not all units on campus are represented by UITAC, they would need representation. It was also stated that UITAC would need to have a policy in place to determine how and when computers are replaced and whether replacement is guided by the age of the computer and whether entire departments would be upgraded at the same time, etc. All agreed that we need a campus survey of equipment needs.

Dr. Szafran reminded the Council that he needs their permanent schedules ASAP and that the on-campus memorial for Dr. Ken Rainey is scheduled for November 9^th at 11:30 near the Atrium Building.

Based on a question from one of the chairs, Steve Hamrick explained the Faculty Initiated Withdrawal Policy and the Late Withdrawal Policy. He stated that the new policy for late withdrawal is basically the same except that the faculty committee has delegated authority to the faculty member to give a withdrawal after the deadline based on mitigating circumstances. The Faculty Initiated Withdrawal Policy can be used by the faculty member to officially withdraw a student from their class when they are not attending.

Dawn Ramsey reminded the Council that she still needs seven middle schools to participate in the Future Cities Competition. She also needs engineer mentors and campus volunteers.

Dr. Szafran announced that the Chancellor will be our guest speaker at graduation in December and encouraged the Council to encourage their faculty to attend.

Meeting adjourned at 4:15 P.M.