Meeting Minutes - January 2006

Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia
Held at 270 Washington St., S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia
January 10 and 11, 2006

Quick Links:

CALL TO ORDER

The Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia met on Tuesday, January 10, and Wednesday, January 11, 2006, in the Board Room, room 7007, 270 Washington St., S.W., seventh floor. The Chair of the Board, Regent J. Timothy Shelnut, called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 10, 2006. Present on Tuesday, in addition to Chair Shelnut, were Vice Chair Patrick S. Pittard and Regents Hugh A. Carter, Jr., William H. Cleveland, Michael J. Coles, Joe Frank Harris, Robert F. Hatcher, Julie Ewing Hunt, A. Felton Jenkins, Jr., W. Mansfield Jennings, Jr., James R. Jolly, Donald M. Leebern, Jr., Elridge W. McMillan, Doreen Stiles Poitevint, Wanda Yancey Rodwell, Benjamin J. Tarbutton III, Richard L. Tucker, and Allan Vigil.

Chair Shelnut recognized Representative Amos Amerson from Dahlonega and welcomed him to the meeting.

He congratulated Regent Jennings on his reappointment to the Board of Regents. He also welcomed new Regents-Elect Hatcher, Jenkins, and Tarbutton, who would be sworn-in by the Governor in February. Chair Shelnut thanked former Regents Connie Cater, Martin W. NeSmith, and Joel O. Wooten, Jr. for their service to the Board of Regents and said that the Board would invite them back at some future date to officially recognize them.

Chair Shelnut reminded the Regents about the Joint Board Liaison Committee reception the Board was hosting that evening at the Capital City Club. He noted that the Governor is highly supportive of the Board’s efforts to collaborate with the Georgia Department of Education and the Department of Technical and Adult Education. Regents Poitevint, Cleveland, and Carter represent the Board of Regents on this committee.

Finally, Chair Shelnut welcomed former Regent and Board Chair Juanita P. Baranco, who was visiting the Board at this meeting and had brought cookies for all of the Regents.

Regent Emerita Baranco said that it was good to be back among friends at the University System Office.

ATTENDANCE REPORT

The attendance report was read on Tuesday, January 10, 2006, by Secretary Gail S. Weber, who announced that all Regents were in attendance on that day.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion properly made and duly seconded, the minutes of the Board of Regents meeting held on November 15 and 16, 2005, as well as the minutes of the special meetings of the Board of Regents held on December 6, 2005, and December 8, 2005, were unanimously approved as distributed.

SPECIAL PRESENTATION ON NORTH GEORGIA COLLEGE & STATE UNIVERSITY

Chair Shelnut noted that in November 2005, the Board had initiated a new item on their monthly agenda where a president from a University System of Georgia institution would come to the meeting to tell the Regents about good things happening at that institution. At this meeting, President David L. Potter would make a special presentation on North Georgia College & State University (“NGCSU”)/

President Potter thanked the Regents for the opportunity to talk about NGCSU. He recognized staff members from NGCSU who had accompanied him to this meeting, as follows: the Vice President for Business and Finance, Frank J. (Mac) McConnell; the Vice President for Institutional Advancement, Bruce Howerton; the Chief Information Officer, Jay Steed; the Assistant to the President for Leadership Development, Billy E. Wells, Jr.; the Vice President for Student Affairs, Judith Bryant; and Colonel Bruce A Georgia, Professor of Military Science. He also thanked Representative Amos Amerson and Senator Chip Pearson for coming to support NGCSU at this meeting.

President Potter explained that his presentation at this meeting had two purposes: first, to give the Regents a sense of the institution’s current profile, and second, to outline the university’s approach to the future; that is, its strategy of development. It is always appropriate, he said, to begin such a discussion with the institution’s mission, which serves as the foundation of its identity and as a guide to set its future directions. NGCSU is honored to be a part of the University System of Georgia, he stated, and it is grateful to be beneficiaries of the Board’s belief in the importance of diverse missions. The Board has assigned the university a distinctive role and mission. The institution treats that assignment as a responsibility that it must try to fulfill. NGCSU is especially proud of its designations as the military college of Georgia and as a leadership institution. The university’s military mission is reinforced by federal legislation that identifies it as one of six senior military colleges in the country. NGCSU discharges this responsibility by offering a 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week program for its corps of cadets, much like the national service academies. The university’s leadership programs derive from its success in producing military leaders. NGCSU’s intent is to extend leadership opportunities to all of its students. Also significant for the institution’s mission is the preeminence of liberal education as the basis for all undergraduate programs. The university’s strength in the core disciplines of the arts and sciences is an integral part of its identity. These disciplines ensure that NGCSU graduates have the fundamental skills and knowledge for long-term success in whatever careers or personal lives they choose.

NGCSU now serves more than 4,700 students, a dramatic increase from the institution’s enrollment a decade ago. The university has been on a sustained growth path, averaging 5% increases per year during that time. That growth has occurred at all levels, including the corps of cadets and graduate enrollments, but the institution’s fastest pace of growth is among undergraduates. President Potter said that he is particularly proud of the corps’ role in educating young officers, including those the university produces for the Georgia National Guard (the “Guard”). The university’s partnership with the Guard is a very positive relationship. NGCSU now trains more Guard officers than any other program, including the Guard’s own. The institution’s undergraduate military students have also contributed to the nation’s armed forces in action. Over 120 have been deployed in recent conflicts. NGCSU currently has more than 60 cadets serving with the 48th brigade in Iraq. NGCSU is now reintegrating into the corps 15 veterans who have returned from combat.

The university’s recent growth reflects the urbanization of the North Atlanta metropolitan area, explained President Potter. The institution’s student market draws heavily from this area as well as the mountain counties surrounding Dahlonega. Two-thirds of NGCSU students come from these two areas; one-third comes from three nearby counties. The institution expects this demand to grow given these counties’ remarkable rate of development. NGCSU sees itself as a flagship institution for the Northeast Georgia region. To meet this need, the university has established off-campus sites in Gainesville (on the campus of Gainesville State College) and in Forsyth County. The institution anticipates the need to respond further to these regional needs in the future with additional locations. The university’s strategic challenge will be to accommodate regional demand while continuing to strengthen its most cherished qualities and its distinctive identity. The heart of that identity, said President Potter, is the institution’s academic excellence. NGCSU has a long history of high-quality academic programs. Its preprofessional programs are a key part of this history, including programs in business, education, and health-related professions. Once again, the institution’s foundational disciplines in the arts and sciences contribute to nearly all these programs as well as having a solid base of students in their own.

NGCSU’s degree production reflects these strengths, stated President Potter. The institution’s productivity on behalf of the regional business community and its schools is significant. The university also has successful programs in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities, and it has strength in health-related fields, including nursing and exercise science. The importance of the corps of cadets is evidenced by the fact that the number of its graduates who are commissioned as officers annually is equivalent to the productivity of the institution’s third-largest degree program. NGCSU’s graduate programs build upon undergraduate emphases and upon regional needs. The School of Education has an exceptional record of working in partnership with regional schools to address the state’s critical need for teachers and P-12 administrators. These graduate education programs are connected directly to the arts and science disciplines that become the subject matter specialties of these teachers. The sciences also support the health-related graduate nursing and physical therapy programs.

The university’s demographic and academic profiles shape its sense of self. They are the result of past decisions about the institution’s development. They continue to influence NGCSU’s institutional values and traditions and its organizational culture. The university sees itself as a small-scale, intimate educational environment steeped in the two heritages of military and civilian education, blessed with students who have an unusual commitment to service beyond self. The institution offers an intensely personal and rigorous alternative for students in an exceptional natural setting.

The university’s strategic directions for the future are aimed at continuing this traditional identity while responding to changes within higher education, the military, and the region. The institution’s aspiration is to achieve national stature in its areas of strength. President Potter stated that NGCSU wants to use its designation as a leadership institution to drive this strategy. The institution views its approach to leadership as one of action, not simply as a field of study. The university wants to demonstrate leadership in key areas of change.

One critical arena of change currently is military education, said President Potter. The Department of Defense and the U.S. Army have articulated new standards of preparation and achievement for the next generation of military officers. NGCSU must educate its military students to meet these requirements by providing learning experiences that will create “Pentathlete” leaders. The university is particularly pleased that the new military leadership model recognizes the value of knowledge and skills associated with the liberal arts and sciences. The institution sees the convergence between military and liberal education as a great advantage for an institution that serves both military and civilian students and that has highly reputed programs in the humanities and social sciences. These core programs are central to the leadership programs of the future.

Innovations also are taking place within liberal education, President Potter reported. The adaptive military leader corresponds to the changing requirements for a first-rate liberal arts and sciences graduate. The national Business-Higher Education Partnership for 21st Century Skills (the “Partnership”) has defined the qualities needed in the future to be equipped for success. These include broad-based intellectual competencies, a commitment to lifelong learning, and an ability to use knowledge both locally and globally. The capability to be flexible and adept in the face of uncertainty is the hallmark of the future college graduate, military or civilian. The Partnership bases its conclusions on the recognition that young people face an exceedingly competitive world environment. If institutions become inattentive to these educational requirements, the United States risks losing its stature and dominance in world affairs.

NGCSU’s national ambitions as a leader in military and liberal education, and its centrality to regional growth and development, frame its strategic vision. If the university is to achieve this vision, it must be as agile and adaptive as it asks its students to be. The institution’s self-assessment over the past year has revealed some critical gaps between what the institution is and what it aspires to become. President Potter stated that NGCSU is determined to close these gaps, to focus its energies on improvements in areas essential to its vision and goals. To address this vision, the institution also must grapple with the pace and extent of growth on the Dahlonega campus and at off-campus sites and the relative growth of its undergraduate and graduate programs. The university’s strategy is premised on its ability to change while being true to the special features that distinguish it from others. NGCSU does not seek to be a pale imitation of other kinds of institutions. Rather, it wants to deepen and enrich student learning and to contribute to the quality of life in the region. In fact, involvement in the community will be a central part of students’ learning experiences. The institution recognizes that this strategy involves some delicate balancing, but President Potter explained that it makes sense for a complex university in the midst of change, an institution with a commitment to service and citizenship to match its students' commitments.

The Board of Regents has recognized NGCSU’s distinctive mission through a special funding initiative over the past few years. President Potter said that this year, the initiative is funded at about $600,000. Given the dramatic changes underway in military and liberal education, he asked that the Board continue to support this initiative and that the Regents consider expanding this funding and incorporating it into the institution’s base budget. If the Board does that, NGCSU can continue to compete nationally in these fields in the face of their increasing requirements and demands.

President Potter noted that the Board’s support also will be essential to meet several challenges the university will face in the future. He expressed his hope that the Regents will continue to endorse the university’s mission and that they will offer guidance and insights to help NGCSU refine its strategic approach. The institution recognizes the need to help itself and is actively engaged in that process, he said. NGCSU is now in the silent phase of its first capital campaign to raise private funds to support its vision. The university is launching a federal relations program to take advantage of its military capabilities and reputation. It is also building public-private venture partnerships to pursue regional development. The institution is also exploring innovative funding approaches to meet capital project needs, but it will continue to rely on a stable and strong state appropriation. This appropriation is necessary to modernize, renovate, and expand the physical plant, to recruit and retain the highly qualified faculty and staff to meet its mission, to transform teaching and learning and meet the burgeoning demand for its services, to provide its students with the education they deserve at a price they and their families can afford, and to sustain its ability to contribute to the deserved reputation of the University System of Georgia as one of the nation’s finest. President Potter again thanked the Regents for this opportunity to showcase NGCSU and stepped down.

Chair Shelnut thanked President Potter for this very informative presentation. He also thanked Representative Amerson and Senator Pearson for joining President Potter and his staff for this presentation.

return to top

REPORTS FROM BOARD'S TASK FORCES

Chair Shelnut called upon the Senior Vice Chancellor for Academics and Fiscal Affairs, Daniel S. Papp, to begin the monthly updates on the Board’s task forces with his update on the Regents’ task force on retention, progression, and graduation (“RPG”) rates. After Dr. Papp, the Associate Vice Chancellor for Media and Publications, Arlethia Perry-Johnson, would update the board on the activities of the communications task force, followed by the Vice Chancellor for Facilities, Linda M. Daniels, and the Vice Chancellor for Fiscal Affairs, William R. Bowes, who would propose to the board a new system to approve facilities projects. The fourth task force would report to the Board on Wednesday morning.

Dr. Papp explained that his report at this meeting would focus on what the RPG task force has accomplished over the course of the last few months as well as a forward look at what the task force will be doing in upcoming months. He reminded the Regents of this initiatives goals: to understand why the University System’s RPG rates are not better than they are; to expand and initiate programs that will increase the System’s RPG rates; to bring the institution-specific graduation rate at least to the national average by 2010; and to become a national leader in graduation rates in the longer-term future. Dr. Papp said that the true success of the RPG initiative will be driven by what happens on the campuses. Therefore, the task force has asked each of the System’s 35 institutions to develop a set of goals and plans to enhance their RPG rates depending upon their own individual characteristics. Those goals and plans were submitted by the end of 2005. The University System Office review is underway and will provide feedback by April 2006.

The second major element of the RPG initiative was to establish a liaison committee. Each of the System presidents named at least one liaison from the institution to the liaison committee. At committee meetings, the liaisons share issues related to RPG rates and identify best practices to see whether they are transferable among institutions. In October 2005, 72 institutional representatives attended the first Systemwide liaison committee workshop, and the second Systemwide workshop is scheduled for February 2006.

The third major element of the RPG initiative is to examine financial and economic impacts. The task force empanelled a committee that includes chief business officers, vice presidents for academic affairs, vice presidents for student affairs, and legal officers. This committee met several times to develop financial and economic options to improve RPG rates. The set of possible options under discussion includes the following: deferred tuition payments, premium tuition for excess credit hours, guaranteed tuition for specified progress toward degree, need-based financial aid, a potential policy revision on mandatory fees, discounted summer tuition, a limited number of withdrawals, and other incentives. Dr. Papp said that he hoped to bring forward some of these options to the Board in the next few months.

The impact of general education on RPG rates is another significant issue. The System’s retention rate of first-time full-time (“FTFT”) students from first-year fall semester to second-year fall semester is approximately 80%. That means the System loses one of five students in the freshman year, which is when students begin their general education curriculum. The general education task force is comprised of faculty and academic administrators and is charged to examine the impact of general education on the RPG rates. Dr. Papp anticipates returning to the Board with a preliminary report by the June 2006 meeting.

Another significant factor in RPG rates is the impact of student engagement. A committee of faculty and academic administrators is in the process of assessing results of the 2005 National Survey of Student Engagement (“NSSE”) and Community College Survey of Student Engagement (“CCSSE”). The Associate Vice Chancellor for Planning and Policy Analysis, Cathie Mayes Hudson, will present the preliminary results of these surveys to the Board at its February 2006 meeting. Dr. Papp explained that the end goal is to develop set of recommendations on campus-based practices to improve RPG.

The final focus of the RPG initiative is data development and mining. Dr. Papp noted that the System will be surveying every fall 2004 FTFT freshman who did not return as a full-time student in fall 2005 to see specifically why they did not return. Many System institutions already survey students who do not return the second year. Academic issues are important, but so too are financial issue. In fact, most institutions cite financial issues as the second largest reason students do not return the second year. The staff are also examining nonreturning FTFT students’ grade point averages (“GPAs”). This effort should provide a very good analysis of these issues. Dr. Papp reminded the Regents that Dr. Hudson had presented very preliminary data mining results at the November 2005 Board meeting. She had reported that six-year graduation rates are higher (48%) for FTFT immediate entry students than for delayed entry students (27%). Moreover, there is a direct correlation between graduation rates and high school GPAs. There are also direct correlations between graduation rates and SAT scores and between graduation rates and the number of parents a student has with at least a bachelor’s degree. There is also an extremely high correlation between graduation rates and family income levels.

Dr. Papp said that through these different approaches, the RPG task force will be developing a host of recommendations to improve RPGs, which he will present to the Board over the course of the next several months. In closing, he asked whether the Regents had any questions or comments.

Chair Shelnut thanked Dr. Papp for this informative presentation and said that the Regents look forward to his future updates on this initiative.

Vice Chair Pittard asked whether it will be easy to contact the 2004 cohort of FTFT freshmen who did not return in fall 2005.

Dr. Papp responded that the staff will conduct a survey of the 2004 cohort to the extent that they have their home addresses. He said that the staff will not be able to contact 100% of those students.

Chair Shelnut next called upon Ms. Perry-Johnson to update the Board on the activities of the communications task force.

Ms. Perry-Johnson greeted the Regents and announced that at this meeting, she would be presenting to the Board the strategic communications plan, which had been under development for the past several months. She noted that staff had provided a copy of this plan to each of the Regents. She would highlight key aspects of this plan, but on behalf of Regent Pittard, who chaired this task force, she asked that the Regents take time to read through the entire document and let them know if they had any suggested changes before the document is presented for approval. The document gives a background of the issue and speaks to internal and external audiences. It identifies specific goals and objectives to be achieved over the next 18 months, as well as specific strategies and tactics to achieve those goals and objectives. The document also references key messages of the communications plan and focuses on evaluation and measurement of the plan.

Ms. Perry-Johnson noted that the University System of Georgia is quite complex in terms of its various audiences. Critical internal audiences include over 38,000 full-time faculty and staff, more than 250,000 students, University System Office employees, and members of the System’s cooperative organizations. External audiences include the executive branch of state government, legislative leadership, general members of the legislature, business and industry leaders, employers of System graduates, potential students, System alumni, the national higher education community, and national, regional, and local media.

The strategic communications plan includes a broad array of goals aimed at better telling the story of the University System of Georgia and raising the Board of Regents’ public visibility. Ms. Perry-Johnson highlighted some of the primary goals for the Regents’ to consider, which the task force members feel are the most important reasons why they are engaging in this work. Their activities will be aimed at achieving the following key goals: assessing current public awareness of the Board of Regents and the University System of Georgia, raising the profile of the Board of Regents and its primary mission of creating a more educated Georgia, communicating directly with targeted audiences to provide unfiltered information about the System’s activities, and enhancing the System’s national preeminence as a leader in public higher education policy setting.

Moving from the goals to the objectives, Ms. Perry-Johnson reported that the plan document contains many more specific objectives than she had time to discuss, but the efforts will be multi-faceted and will be conducted both at the System level and at the institutional level. From February to December 2006, the Regents will introduce the new Chancellor to key stakeholders of the University System of Georgia to ensure that he is very visible to all key audiences. This initiative will also integrate findings from the total impact study into all communications vehicles. The staff will implement quarterly communications initiatives for University System of Georgia institutions to support. They will work with the institutions to have bylined columns published statewide by the Regents, reporting the critical news from each month's Board meetings in local community publications. The initiative will utilize the new Chancellor's inauguration as a key event to communicate strategic directions. It will reproduce the System's primary marketing brochure, now featuring 35 System institutions, for distribution to key stakeholders.

Next, Ms. Perry-Johnson discussed some of the highlighted objectives to take a closer look at three of the key projects associated with the strategic communications plan. The first project is a proposed constituent survey that would be a key component of the expanded communications activities. In order to ensure that the System’s communications activities are effective and efficient, it is important to learn several things about and from its key audiences. Successful communications programs take appropriate measures to identify what their key constituents already know about an organization, what it is they want and/or need to know, where the perceptual gaps exist, and by what different methods will these communications gaps be filled. These are the goals for this project. Regents Rodwell, Cleveland, and Pittard attended a special meeting in early December where Ms. Perry-Johnson introduced them to a constituent survey that could be done quickly and at an acceptable cost. This survey will be used to anchor some of the continuing communications work that is proposed in this strategic plan. It also would be a benchmarking tool that would allow the staff to determine what barometer movements to make over time with regard to improved communications.

The second project Ms. Perry-Johnson highlighted was the very new publication titled “Progress Report: Creating a More Educated Georgia.” She noted that the Regents had been given the very first copies of this publication at this meeting. This publication will be distributed to the System campuses, the legislature, state agency partners, the media, national higher education associations, and key business and industry stakeholders. It will also be used in editorial board meetings, media relations visits, and other marketing efforts. She said that she would like the Regents to distribute copies of this publication to their constituents and asked them to let her know whether they would like to receive multiple copies for that purpose.

The third and final project Ms. Perry-Johnson discussed was the premiere issue of the new email blast publication, called Linkages. She showed the Regents a picture of the first issue, which will be an electronic publication full of live links to a wide variety of Web sites that contain direct and unfiltered information about the Board of Regents and University System institutions. This publication also will be sent to a wide variety of System key stakeholders for whom the staff can secure active email addresses. She demonstrated how the new publications works so that the Regents will be able to navigate it when they receive it online.

Ms. Perry-Johnson next highlighted some of the key messages of the strategic communications plan. The first message is that the primary mission of the University System of Georgia is creating a more educated Georgia; that is, to increase the educational level of the state’s citizenry. The System seeks to achieve this mission by increasing the educational attainment level of the state’s citizenry. She noted that Georgia is one of only four states in the nation with more than one university in U.S. News and World Report’s top 20 public universities. (California, Virginia, and Pennsylvania are the other three.) Another key message is that the System’s tuition is among the most affordable in the nation. It annually ranks at the bottom of an annual Washington University survey of college tuition. Another important message is that the Board of Regents has hired a nationally recognized leader as its new Chancellor-Designate to carry out the Board’s vision and build a new level of momentum. Another key message is that the System’s burgeoning enrollment is affecting its facilities capacity. New funding mechanisms are needed to meet demand. Finally, the System contributes nearly $10 billion annually to Georgia’s economy and employs more than 38,000 employees in knowledge-based positions.

The strategic communications task force is working on a wide variety of communications activities on behalf of the Board of Regents, stated Ms. Perry-Johnson. Some of these are already underway, some are in the planning stages, and some are scheduled over the next year to 18 months. All of these activities will be aimed at reaching the System’s key stakeholders and primary audiences in increasingly effective ways in order to share the Board’s key messages with them. In closing, she thanked Regent Pittard for chairing the task force and for his leadership on this project. She also thanked Regents Rodwell and Cleveland for their participation, time, and direction. Finally, she acknowledged the hard work of her staff. The Assistant Vice Chancellor for Strategic Communications, John Millsaps, worked hard on the design of the Linkages e-magazine with the help of Manager/Webmaster James Ray Lee and System Support Specialist Jason Steele of the Office of Information and Instructional Technology (“OIIT”). She also acknowledged the Director of Publications, Diane Payne, for her hard work on the progress report. She also worked through the holidays to ensure the on-time delivery of the publication. Ms. Perry-Johnson then turned the floor over to Regent Pittard.

Regent Pittard noted that the staff need the System presidents’ help to build a robust email database of people who will receive Linkages. He said this publication will be the key element in this strategic communications effort.

Interim Chancellor Cummings thanked Ms. Perry-Johnson and the staff of the Office of Media and Publications for their hard work. She also thanked Regents Pittard, Cleveland, and Rowell for their leadership and vision. With this strategic communications plan, the University System of Georgia will be telling its own story. She thanked everyone for their hard work.

Chair Shelnut thanked Ms. Perry-Johnson for her presentation and called upon Ms. Daniels and Mr. Bowes to present a proposed new system to approve facilities projects.

Ms. Daniels reminded the Regents that at their November 2005 meeting, she had promised to bring them two items this month. At this meeting, she would briefly present the proposed new capital request submittal process, focusing mostly on the proposed new principles for capital resource allocation. Mr. Bowes would then present the progress on proposed legislation for a Georgia Higher Education Facilities Authority (“GHEFA”). She noted that included in each Regent’s folder was a copy of the sample project request form in the new streamlined database format. This format was being rolled out to the institutions this month and was much more user-friendly than the previous redundant data entry process. She recognized Atlanta Metropolitan College’s Director of Facilities Planning, Sharon Brittain, who is on loan to the University System Office, for sharing her research and tireless efforts in bringing forward this improvement and especially for her leadership in engaging colleagues across the System in this process. The new process is very intuitive, said Ms. Daniels, who thanked her OIIT colleagues for their help in this effort. She said that she is scheduled training opportunities for the institutions over the next two months. The staff will continue to refine this form with further input based upon use this year and the ultimate adoption of new capital resources principles.

Ms. Daniels explained that the proposed principles place paramount importance on institutional strategic planning that is both thorough and appropriately integrated with System strategic planning. The proposed principles are as follows:

Capital investment will support the University System of Georgia’s strategic plan and its statewide mission.
Capital investment will implement the strategic mission and goals of System institutions.
Capital will be allocated within a comprehensive program of integrated projects prioritized in adherence to systematic physical planning and sound financial model.
Capital investment will be economically and environmentally sustainable, promote optimal stewardship of existing state resources, and have a superior long-term benefit-cost ratio.
Capital investment should meet the following criteria to the greatest extent possible:
- Increase quality of instruction, research and public service
- Maintain or increase capacity (as strategically warranted)
- Enhance regulatory compliance.
- Enhance productivity and operating efficiency
Capital investment should enhance output to geographic areas and in occupations and technologies that support state workforce needs and economic development goals.
State capital investment should be leveraged and enhanced by external funds at a rate appropriate to the characteristics of the individual institution, program, and project.

Ms. Daniels said that the committee working to update the current principles felt strongly that the System should undertake a comprehensive strategic planning initiative and should sponsor ongoing annual conferences or workshops to promote the need for and importance of strategic planning and to educate campus personnel in strategic planning processes, methods, and outcomes. The third principle supports the System’s campus master planning initiative. It champions thorough ongoing analysis of facilities policy and process that is holistic, considering multiple options, various funding sources (state and private) and inherent, de facto funding demands for maintenance and operations, major repair and renovation (“MRR”) and the like. The funding formula inputs for plant maintenance and operations and MRR need to be considered along with the analysis of capital funding requests so that strategic campus decisions are not perversely influenced by unintended funding incentives. To support growth or address change, historically institutional priorities jump quickly to architectural planning of construction solutions. The third principle challenges this predisposition and requires that a business case analysis replace the automatic assumption that constructing new space is the only solution to meeting space needs. Before the Regents consider prioritizing any capital project, they should ask a more fundamental question: Is facility construction superior to other alternatives that would provide the same result or outcome in instruction, research, or public service? The institutions must consider all options, including borrowing, buying, or leasing facilities, as well as possible technology alternative. However, when the Regents decide to proceed with a project, they must ask the following questions in order to prioritize the project:

How does the project support the University System of Georgia’s strategic plan?
How does the project support and implement the institution’s mission and goals?
How are the priorities of the institution best addressed through this project?

Assuming a capital project is the best option, Ms. Daniels explained, the fourth principle hammers home that it be evaluated by its life cycle cost in addition to its initial cost with a bias toward projects that best address mission and reduce cost over the long term. Some considerations in developing facilities on our campuses include a longer over shorter life span. She said that 50 to 100 years should be the normal term of analysis of an enduring public building. Another consideration is greater physical adaptability and program flexibility, which is essential to the extended life cycle of a public building. Thorough and accurate analysis of renovation versus replacement cost is also critical.

With regard to the fourth principle, Ms. Daniels said that the Regents need to ask both whether the project has a long-term superior benefit-cost ratio (with a financial/business model to back it up) and whether the project addresses stewardship and protects existing state resources. The fifth principle is a series of bulleted points in a hierarchy of importance, she explained, just as the order of the principles in general is hierarchical. She asked the Regents to consider whether a given project increases the quality of the institution’s service delivery, whether the project increases capacity (assuming greater capacity is an institutional goal.), whether the project enhances regulatory compliance, and whether the project enhances productivity and/or operational efficiency.

The sixth principle addresses the University System of Georgia’s ever-increasing role in economic development and meeting state needs. The questions to be answered are as follows: How does the project involve technologies of strategic interest to state economic development? Does the project increase the number of graduates in occupations critical to the state, and by how much? Will graduates work/practice in geographic areas of critical need?

Ms. Daniels said the seventh principle is very important in that it addresses how projects leverage state funding. She posed the question: What exactly are external (nonstate) funds? She stressed it is important to consider the implications of varying degrees of public or private financial participation in projects. However, the distinction between public and private funds is not always absolute. While there are legal distinctions (which are regularly debated), there is a funding continuum that can be ordered. The question remains: Where are the lines drawn?

Ms. Daniels stated that this was the first reading of these proposed principles and that no action was being requested at this meeting. Instead, she was asking the Regents to take this proposal under consideration and advise the staff. She would bring this item back to the Board for action at the February 2006 meeting. In concluding this topic, Ms. Daniels shared some final thoughts from the task force members. Capital allocation should be based upon strategic planning, need, and a good financial/business case rather than on the politics of getting on the list. Capital requests must be characterized by transparency and honesty. Predictability and consistency of funding is a cornerstone of successful planning implementation. She thanked the Director of Planning, Alan S. Travis , for heading up the task force on the updating of these principles. She also thanked the task force members: Chair Vigil (chair); Valdosta State University’s Vice President for Finance and Administration, James L. Black; Georgia College & State University’s Executive Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, Robert W. Haney; the University of Georgia’s Senior Vice President for Finance and Administration, Henry M. (Hank) Huckaby; the Georgia Institute of Technology’s Les Saunders, Professional, Capital Planning and Space Management; and Georgia State University’s Director of Facilities and Planning, Ramesh Vakamudi. She also thanked the Assistant Vice Chancellor for Legal Affairs (Contracts) Daryl Griswold; the Assistant Vice Chancellor for Facilities (Real Property and Administration) Peter J. Hickey; the Executive Director of Real Estate Ventures, Marty Nance; Program Manager Sandra Neuse; as well as Ms. Brittain and Mr. Bowes, whom she had already mentioned.

Ms. Daniels said that the second topic of her update was a progress report on a proposed new funding mechanism, GHEFA, to complement the System’s General Obligation (“G.O”) bonds and public-private venture funding mechanisms. Mr. Bowes would give the Regents some background history and an update on this matter with proposed legislation.

Mr. Bowes said that he wanted to discuss the University System Office’s efforts and the efforts of many others to create a new Georgia Higher Education Facilities Authority. He said it would be helpful to first provide some history and background as to why the staff believe this legislation is so important and how they believe it can benefit the System. The purpose of the legislation is, in some measure, an attempt to resurrect or reinstate the Georgia Educational Authority (University) (the “GEAU”). The GEAU was created in 1949 under O.C.G.A. § 20-3-150 as a public corporation and was authorized to issue revenue bonds to support University System of Georgia capital projects. At the time and until the mid-1970s, the GEAU was the only vehicle available for capital financing of System projects. It was during the 1970s that the Georgia State Finance and Investment Commission (“GSFIC”) was created and given authority to issue G.O. bonds for all State of Georgia capital projects. As a result, the GEAU, though still part of state of Georgia law, has become a dormant arm of state government. Further, subsequent changes to state law concerning contracts, capital financing, and related issues have rendered it nearly inoperable in its present form.

Over the last several years, state support for self-supporting projects, such as resident halls, parking facilities, and the like, using G.O. bonds has all but evaporated, explained Mr. Bowes. Even general obligation bond support for capital projects such as classrooms and research facilities has been sharply curtailed. So, in order to meet the demands of the recent significant enrollment increase in the face of declining state capital project support, to provide for housing, parking, and student center facilities and fulfill mission requirements, University System of Georgia institutions have turned to private financing as an alternative. This has been enormously beneficial to the System; however, even this option has certain limits. Many System institutions cannot take advantage of this option because of the fairly high costs associated with interest and legal and financial advisory expenses.

The benefit of the GHEFA, and the Board’s objectives in wanting it reinstated, would be threefold, said Mr. Bowes. First, it would allow for better control over projects at the System level. Second, it would offer the ability to pool capital projects under a single bond issue and thus reduce transaction cost for each project. Third, by spreading risk among multiple System institutions, there is the potential to obtain better financing rates. There are additional benefits as well, such as the ability to undertake renovation projects that are more difficult to finance under the privatized model now in use.

For the 2005 legislative session, the Board proposed some modifications to the existing statutes in the legislative package it provided to the Governor. That legislative proposal did not go forward. However, a bill was introduced in the Senate in 2005 – Senate Bill 250 (“S.B. 250”) – which was intended to do something similar but contained provisions the Board determined to be unfavorable to the University System of Georgia and its capital funding needs. S.B. 250 would have prohibited System institutions from engaging in any long-term financing of capital projects, except through the authority and, of course, through G.O. bond issues of the State of Georgia. In effect, this would have brought an end to the privatized model that has been so beneficial to System institutions. Although this was not made explicit in the bill, the intent of the legislation was to have all currently funded projects refinanced through the new authority. Proponents of the bill claimed this would result in significant savings to the state of approximately $40 million, though details about how these savings would be achieved were never revealed. The University System Office staff findings, based upon information provided to them by several of the financial institutions that have participated in privatized projects, was that wholesale refinancing could have resulted in a significant negative cash flow to the University System.

Through the efforts of many, this legislation was put on hold and postponed for action in the 2006 legislative session. Under the rules of the General Assembly, that bill is eligible for reconsideration in the current session. Earlier this year, a study group was convened under the Governor’s direction and leadership of Georgia’s Chief Financial Officer, Thomas (Tommy) Hills, to develop and recommend an alternative to S.B. 250 and, equally important, a model for the financing authority that was workable within the current legal context of the state. Several of the University System Office staff – the Senior Vice Chancellor for External Activities and Facilities, Thomas E. Daniel, Ms. Daniels, Mr. Nance, Mr. Hickey, Mr. Griswold, and Mr. Bowes, along with the University of Georgia’s Senior Vice President for Finance and Administration, Henry M. (Hank) Huckaby – have been working with this study group since May 2005. Early on, the group recognized that they would need to draft new legislation. Many of the current provisions of the GEAU statutes were outdated and did not reflect the current legal or financial environment.

Mr. Bowes then listed additional early decisions made in designing the new legislation. First, the new legislation would cover both University System of Georgia and Department of Technical and Adult Education (“DTAE”) institutions, hence the change in name to the Georgia Higher Education Facilities Authority. Second, the new legislation would not require amendments to the state constitution. This is a significant decision, as well as a significant restriction. Mr. Bowes stated that Article VII, Section IV, Paragraph IV of the state constitution prohibits state entities (institutions, departments, and agencies) from entering into any contract with a public agency, corporation, or authority if such contract is intended to constitute security for bonds or other obligations issued by such agency, corporations, or authority. In other words, the University System of Georgia or its institutions could not enter a lease agreement directly with the authority for a facility if the bonds issued to finance that facility are secured on the basis of that lease agreement. If this restriction could be lifted, he said, it would greatly simplify the functioning of the authority and its relationship to the Board of Regents and DTAE. Third, GSFIC would have responsibility for all bond approvals (as it does for all similar state authorities). Fourth, the new organization would be administratively lean. Apart from hiring an executive director and staff to support that position, it is expected that there would be a reliance on consulting support and possibly staff support from DTAE and the Board of Regents.

After several meetings, a special assistant attorney general was hired to draft the legislation. The draft was completed around mid December 2005. Mr. Bowes summarized some of the legislation’s major components. He stressed that this legislation is still in draft form. There are two important definitions in the proposed legislation. “Construction” is defined to include both construction and renovation, thus providing for a much broader scope than existed in previous language and a change that is consistent with the Board’s interests and goals. “Project” is defined to include facilities of every kind, type, and character deemed by the authority as necessary or convenient for the operation of any unit. This definition provides significant leeway in terms of the nature of the projects to be funded and the source of funding.

Mr. Bowes explained that under the proposed legislation, the Governor will have three appointees to the board of the authority. The House of Representatives will appoint a member from the board of DTAE. The Senate will appoint a member from the Board of Regents. The University System Office staff have recommended that terms be limited to three years and staggered for all members. In addition, they have recommended that the Chancellor of the Board of Regents and the Commissioner of DTAE or their designees shall serve as ex officio members and that the Speaker of the House and the President ProTem of the Senate appoint members from the general citizenry of Georgia. As currently drafted, the legislation would require a full vote of the Senate and House to make appointments from the respective higher education boards. These changes are under consideration.

Under the proposed legislation, the authority is given the power to make and execute contracts, leases, and other instruments needed to carry out its basic functions, including contracts for construction of projects and leases of projects or contracts. Additionally, the authority has power to extend credit or make loans to any person, firm, corporation, limited liability company, or other type of entity for the planning, design, construction, acquisition, refinancing, or carrying out of any project, which credit or loans shall be secured by loan agreements, deeds to secure debt, security agreements, contracts, and all other instruments, fees, or charges, upon such terms and conditions as the authority shall determine reasonable in connection with such loans. These provisions allow the authority to function in two essential ways. First, it would function as the owner of the facilities for which it would have direct access to revenue streams necessary to pay debt service (e.g., student rents, fees, or other charges) and assume responsibility for the collection of those rents, fees, and charges as well as ongoing maintenance and operations. The second is to serve as a conduit issuer of bonds, much like the role currently played by local development authorities, through agreements with corporations, limited liability companies (“LLCs”), etc. where the authority would serve as a pass-through for funds from the corporation, LLC, etc. to the bondholders, thus limiting its liability for payment of debt. These provisions add to the flexibility of the authority and thus our flexibility in working with the authority to meet capital facility needs. These provisions, however, would not supersede constitutional prohibitions regarding the ability of the Board of Regents or DTAE to enter lease agreements directly with the authority. Mr. Bowes noted that it will make it much more difficult to pool projects under single bond issues, but not impossible.

Finally, under the proposed legislation, there will be a limitation on the amount of revenue bonds which the authority may issue. Although not stated in the current draft, the staff believe this limitation will be set initially by statute at $300 million. They concur with the idea of placing some limits as this new entity takes shape with the hope that, if it becomes a successful and cost-effective vehicle for financing of capital projects, the limit can be increased through future legislative action.

In closing, Mr. Bowes said that the staff have been working with Mr. Hills and the study group and have begun speaking with legislators about the introduction of the new bill in the 2006 session. They hope to have a final draft with some of the changes he had mentioned addressed within the next week or so. Although perhaps more modest in its scope than the staff initially had hoped, the proposed bill provides an excellent start in helping both the Board of Regents and DTAE meet capital facilities needs. He asked whether the Regents had any questions or comments.

Vice Chair Pittard asked Mr. Bowes to comment on the state bond rating.

Mr. Bowes said that the way the proposed legislation is drafted, the full faith and credit of the state is not behind the bonds issued.

Regent Leebern asked when this legislation will be proposed for legislative approval and how the Board of Regents can help in its consideration.

Mr. Bowes asked Mr. Daniel to respond to this question.

Mr. Daniel said that the staff have been having very productive conversation with Mr. Hills in the Governor’s Office. They have submitted their proposed changes to him, and he has indicated to the staff that it may be January 20 before he will be able to respond. Hopefully, the proposed legislation will be introduced around that time.

Regent Leebern asked whether the higher education committees of both houses were informed about this proposed legislation and whether they would support it.

Mr. Daniel responded that the staff have been granted permission by the Governor’s Office to have preliminary conversations with the sponsors. Several senators were involved with S.B. 250 last year, including Senator Tommie Williams and Senator Daniel J. Weber. The staff have had conversations with Senator Weber about his interest in carrying this legislation forward, and he has indicated that once the legislation is approved by the Governor’s Office, he would be glad to introduce it on behalf of the Board of Regents.

Regent Leebern asked whether a cap of $300 million is appropriate.

Mr. Bowes said that this was a good figure to start, considering the University System of Georgia has approximately $150 million to $200 million in G.O. bonds per year. He said this figure could potentially be increased at some later date. He stressed that the way the proposed legislation is worded, it would not limit the Board from refinancing bonds. So, it would be more than $300 million, and refinancing could be very beneficial to some institutions.

Chair Shelnut asked whether the System can expect to get other funding from the usual formula budget.

Mr. Daniel responded that the University System Office staff are anxiously awaiting the Governor’s budget recommendations, which would be announced on Wednesday, January 11, 2006, at 3:00 p.m.

Regent Cleveland asked whether the $300 million would be in addition to current G.O. bonds.

Mr. Bowes responded that it would. He emphasized that the $300 million would be in addition to current privatized projects and that he expected the state to continue its G.O. bonds. This is simply another funding option.

Regent Pittard asked whether the new funds would be for projects already on the major capital outlay list or for special projects requiring a fast-track methodology.

Ms. Daniels responded that depending upon the actual source of the funding, there will be certain projects that fit into the parameters of the funding. The System needs to augment G.O. bond funding, so it still needs that basic state support. In addition, the System now has a viable public-private venture program. The proposed legislation is to be a complementary mechanism to bridge the two extremes of facilities funding. She stated that competition is a good thing and that it will be interesting to see how these different mechanisms can be leveraged against each other.

Regent Pittard stated that the $300 million will be shared between the University System of Georgia and DTAE.

Mr. Bowes confirmed this. He added that there could be some tremendous financial benefit from the ability to pool projects.

Regent Jolly asked whether DTAE is dealing with the same types of issues as the System.

Ms. Daniels said that based upon her experience with the New Georgia Commission, this administration is stressing accountability. The message is loud and clear that the State of Georgia has precious dollars and extraordinary need, so the System cannot afford to make mistakes. It is incumbent upon all agencies to be accountable.

Chair Shelnut asked whether the DTAE has a similar facilities prioritization process and whether their major capital outlay list is as backed-up as the System’s list.

Mr. Daniel said that he has been in attendance when Commissioner Michael F. Vollmer has made his budget presentations to the legislature. He said that as a former University System president, Commissioner Vollmer has implemented an almost identical facilities prioritization process for DTAE. He said that the DTAE backlog is not as well documented as that of the University System of Georgia because that agency is not trying to build as many large facilities as the System.

Seeing that there were no further comments or questions, Chair Shelnut said that it was almost time for Committee meetings. He invited the new Regents to attend the Committees of their choosing until they have been given their Committee assignments.

Before adjourning, Chair Shelnut reminded the Regents of the Joint Board Liaison Committee meeting at 5:30 p.m. that day at the Capital City Club. He also reminded them of the Second Annual Regents Awards for Excellence in Education Celebration to be held on January 28, 2006, at the new Georgia Aquarium. At approximately 2:30 p.m., he adjourned the Regents into their regular Committee meetings.

return to top

CALL TO ORDER

The Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia met again on Wednesday, January 11, 2006, in the Board Room, room 7007, 270 Washington St., S.W., seventh floor. The Chair of the Board, Regent J. Timothy Shelnut, called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. Present on Wednesday, in addition to Chair Shelnut, were Vice Chair Patrick S. Pittard and Regents Hugh A. Carter, Jr., William H. Cleveland, Joe Frank Harris, Julie Ewing Hunt, A. Felton Jenkins, Jr., W. Mansfield Jennings, Jr., James R. Jolly, Donald M. Leebern, Jr., Elridge W. McMillan, Doreen Stiles Poitevint, Wanda Yancey Rodwell, and Richard L. Tucker.

return to top

INVOCATION

The invocation was given on Wednesday, January 11, 2006, by Regent William H. Cleveland.

return to top

INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUEST

Chair Shelnut asked the Senior Vice Chancellor for External Activities and Facilities, Thomas E. Daniel, to introduce some special guests in attendance at this meeting.

Mr. Daniel said that the Board of Regents was delighted to have several members of the General Assembly in attendance at this meeting. He recognized Representative Ben L. Harbin, Chair of the Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives; Senator Seth Harp, Chair of the Senate Higher Education Committee; Senator Brian R. Kemp, Chair of the Senate Higher Education Subcommittee of Appropriations; Representative Bob Smith, Chair of the House Higher Education Subcommittee of Appropriations; and Representative Chuck Martin, Secretary of the House Higher Education Subcommittee of Appropriations.

Chair Shelnut recognized Regent Emeritus Kenneth W. Cannestra and his wife, Dianne, who were also in attendance.

return to top

ATTENDANCE REPORT

The attendance report was read on Wednesday, January 11, 2006, by Secretary Gail S. Weber, who announced that Regents Michael J. Coles, Robert F. Hatcher, Benjamin J. Tarbutton III, and Allan Vigil had asked for and been given permission to be absent on that day.

return to top

STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE, “COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE”

Chair Shelnut next convened the Strategic Planning Committee as a Committee of the Whole and turned the Chairmanship of the meeting over to Regent Leebern, the Chair of the Committee.

Chair Leebern said that he was pleased to combine the report of one of the Board’s most important task forces with the work of the Strategic Planning Committee at this meeting. Board Chair Shelnut had announced the formation of the Board’s four task forces at its August 2005 meeting, and three of those task forces had updated the Regents the previous day. Chair Leebern noted that all System research presidents were in attendance at this meeting: President Michael F. Adams of the University of Georgia (“UGA”), President G. Wayne Clough of the Georgia Institute of Technology (“GIT”), President Carl V. Patton of Georgia State University (“GSU”), and President Daniel W. Rahn of the Medical College of Georgia (“MCG”). President Clough would present to the Board the findings of the total impact task force to show the role that the University System of Georgia serves throughout the State of Georgia.

President Clough greeted the Regents and said that he had good news to report. Chair Shelnut had formed this task force to examine the total impact of the University System of Georgia on the State of Georgia. All four System research university presidents were members of this task force, as well as Commissioner Craig S. Lesser of the Georgia Department of Economic Development, President C. Michael Cassidy of the Georgia Research Alliance, and President Michael A. Gerber of the Atlanta Regional Council for Higher Education. President Clough chaired the total impact task force. The total impact of the University System of Georgia is a topic of enormous complexity, he said. Therefore, Chair Shelnut gave the task force four months to complete its study so that the Board of Regents could present this information to the legislature and others. As a result, the task force did not perform any groundbreaking new work, but rather compiled some excellent research that had already been performed. President Clough noted that the task force referenced the year 2004 in its study because that was the last year for which the task force had a comprehensive data set. He also noted that given the challenge of the timeframe, the task force needed an incredible staff to work on this project. Staff from the University System Office included the Assistant Vice Chancellor for Economic Development, Joy Hymel, and the Research Policy Associate, Susan Campbell. Staff from GIT included the Managing Director of the Science, Technology and Innovation Program in the Office of Economic Development and Technology Ventures, Terry Gandy; Strategic Partners Officer, Nancy E. Nolan; Director of Government Relations and Special Assistant to the President, Andrew J. Harris, Jr.; and Senior Speechwriter/Editor, Sarah Ann Eby-Ebersole. President Clough thanked these staff members for their hard work on this initiative.

The task force broke down the total impact of the University System of Georgia on the state into two pieces. One is the economic impact, which is something the Regents have heard about in the past. The other is the societal impact, which is just as important as the economic impact. President Clough noted that in the course of his presentation, he would prove his hypothesis that the University System of Georgia is the state’s best investment. He showed the Regents a map of System institutions across the State of Georgia, noting that the System is pervasive geographically around the state.

President Clough then turned to the economic piece of the total impact, which would be further broken down into four elements. The first of these was the annual economic impact of System expenditures on the State of Georgia, which is $9.9 billion. Of this $9.9 billion, $1.6 is from state appropriations. Another $2.4 billion comes from research and grants, tuition and fees, auxiliaries, gifts, athletics programs, etc. Another $5.9 billion is the indirect economic impact measured by a standard multiplier effect.

The second piece as the annual benefit to Georgia’s business via University System of Georgia outreach, producing $2.9 billion in new sales and cost savings. This piece has to do with the System’s outreach efforts to improve the competitiveness of Georgia’s businesses to help existing Georgia businesses do well, to generate new businesses, and to help attract existing businesses to the state. Of this $2.9 billion, $1.7 billion comes from the annual revenues of the start-up companies that came out of GIT’s Advanced Technology Development Center (“ATDC”) business incubator that are still in business and operating in the State of Georgia. Another $660 million comes from the business services provided through GIT’s Economic Development Institute (“EDI”). Additionally, UGA has a Small Business Development Center that generates another $540 million in revenues. President Clough noted these figures cover the major bases, but in several places, there is economic impact but no data available. Therefore, these figures are conservative.

The third element of the total economic impact has to do with the average annual additional salary of all University System of Georgia graduates who stay in the State of Georgia over those who would have just earned a high school education, and that figure totals $10.5 billion. President Clough reported that the average high school graduate earns approximately $28,000 annually. Meanwhile, a person with a bachelor’s degree earns approximately $60,000, and average annual income increases with every subsequent degree earned. Since there are approximately 350,000 living alumni of the University System of Georgia still living in the State of Georgia, this number is multiplied times the difference in these salaries. The total impact is $10.5 billion, a very significant impact.

The fourth element is the total economic impact of the University System of Georgia, which is $23.3 billion. President Clough explained that this was the total impact of the other three pieces. To put this into perspective, he said that $23.3 billion is 1.5 times the total state budget. It is equal to the sales of the third largest company in the State of Georgia, or $2,300 for every citizen of the state. Considering, the 2004 state appropriation was $1.6 billion and the 2004 economic impact of the University System of Georgia was $23.3 billion, this constitutes a significant return on investment.

Economic impact also has to do with jobs, stated President Clough. In the State of Georgia, 130,000 jobs are attributable to the University System of Georgia. Of these, 40,000 jobs are on System campuses, 5,500 jobs are in ATDC start-up companies, 17,500 jobs are created or saved through economic outreach programs, and 67,000 jobs are supported by System spending.

President Clough stressed that the System is also concerned with creating jobs of the future. System research universities have very significant and robust research endeavors that attract $718 million to the State of Georgia from nonstate sources. From that research, new ideas and new businesses are generated. In 2004, 68 patents were awarded to System institutions. He noted that there had been a significant increase in these figures in the past four or five years. As an example of research development in the state, President Clough discussed (“CardioMEMS”), which uses micro-electro-mechanical systems (“MEMS”) technology to create a new generation of medical devices. President Clough said that Dr. Mark G. Allen, Associate Professor in the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, is a recognized authority on MEMS, which are electro-mechanical structures at the micron level (one-millionth of a meter). With funding from the federal Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Dr. Allen developed a micro-sensor to measure the pressure of air turbulence in jet engines on military drone aircraft. Dr. Allen learned from a colleague that the human heart has similar issues with pressure and that being able to measure that pressure would be very helpful. The problem was that a CT scan was the only tool for heart patients requiring life-long monitoring and CT scans can be expensive and time-consuming. Moreover, such treatment requires repeated radiation exposure and uses dyes that are toxic to kidneys. Together with Dr. Jay S. Yadav, Attending Cardiologist and Associate Professor of Cardiology, Vascular Medicine, Neurology and Radiology at the The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Dr. Allen invented the EndoSensor, which could be implanted with a heart stint. An electronic wand waved in front of the chest sends radiowaves that activate the EndoSensor, which takes measurements and sends results by radio waves to an external monitor. The first sensors are now in human clinical trials. CardioMEMS now has 30 employees and is located in Atlanta.

However, the total impact of the University System of Georgia on the State of Georgia is about more than just dollars. President Clough next discussed how the System affects quality of life issues in Georgia. This is particularly important for System institutions in smaller communities around Georgia because they often form the pillar of the cultural and educational activities of those communities. For example, Georgia College & State University has a community dance program, South Georgia College allows the community to use its aquatic center, and Valdosta State University has cultural arts programs for the City of Valdosta. There are also continuing education programs at these institutions. Georgia citizens take almost 500,000 continuing education units annually Systemwide. System institutions also host concerts and theater performances, both by students and by visiting artists. They host guest lectures by renowned individuals and athletic events, among other community activities.

The University System of Georgia also plays a critical role in developing Georgia’s leaders. For example, Governor Sonny Perdue earned two degrees at UGA. The Carl Vinson Institute of Government at UGA has a spectacular history of helping develop the leadership skills of legislators, county officials, commissioners, and courthouse officials. President Clough stated that many business leaders across the state have benefited from the University System of Georgia, which has 13 Master of Business Administration (“M.B.A.”) degrees, many of which have executive components catering to the needs of the business community.

The System also has a large role in keeping Georgians healthy. The core of that is MCG, which educates the highest level of all health professionals in the state and also participates in medical research. Moreover, 32 of the 35 institutions in the System have programs to educate health professionals. The System is also performing research to improve the health of tomorrow’s citizenry. MCG is performing research on sickle-cell anemia. GSU is performing research on Alzheimer’s Disease. UGA is working to prevent infectious disease. GIT is developing nanomedicine tools to diagnose and treat cancer. The future discoveries of these research endeavors will benefit the state and the world.

The core of the University System of Georgia is education, said President Clough. At the November 2005 Board meeting, Ms. Hymel had discussed GSU’s Bio Bus, which has served more than 70,000 students in 24 Georgia counties since 1999. In terms of degrees, in fiscal year 2004, the University System of Georgia granted over 6,000 associate’s degrees, over 23,000 bachelor’s degrees, and over 11,000 graduate and professional degrees.

In closing, President Clough said that he had tried to prove his hypothesis that the University System of Georgia is the State of Georgia’s best investment by providing the Regents with data and information. Through its threefold mission of education, research, and service, the System will enable the state to prosper in the twenty-first century. President Clough stressed that the total impact of the System on the state is not important for today, but also for the future. In his book, The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century, Thomas L. Friedman argues that anyone anywhere in the world today with a computer and access to the Internet can get in business and compete with anyone else. In fact, 3 billion new people were added to the world’s economy in the last five years, many of whom will compete with the citizens of the State of Georgia. Therefore, the State of Georgia must learn to compete in that environment. Some people have argued that the world is not flat, but rather, it is spiky and that those places that haves spikes of excellence and who know how to take their university systems and integrate them into the economic development aspect of their states will be the places that have the best and most prosperous environments for their citizens. The University System of Georgia will be a key element of the State of Georgia’s success in this new world economy.

Chair Leebern thanked President Clough for his presentation and asked whether the Regents had any questions or comments.

Board Chair Shelnut remarked that he was very impressed with this report. He thanked President Clough and the total impact task force for their hard work on this initiative.

Seeing that there were no further questions or comments, Chair Leebern adjourned the meeting of the Strategic Planning Committee as a Committee of the Whole and turned the chairmanship of the meeting back to Regent Shelnut.

return to top

2005 ACADEMIC PROGRAM AWARDS

Chair Shelnut said that the next presentation was symbolic of what the University System of Georgia is all about: excellence in the classroom. He called upon the Senior Vice Chancellor for Academics and Fiscal Affairs, Daniel S. Papp, to begin the presentation.

Dr. Papp said that every year since 1996, the Board of Regents has presented Awards for Academic Excellence on both an individual and programmatic basis. He noted that the individual teaching awards would be presented at the Regents Awards for Academic Excellence Celebration on January 28, 2006, at the new Georgia Aquarium. At this meeting, the Board of Regents would award programmatic excellence. Dr. Papp presented the first award to the Department of Mathematics, Computer Sciences, and Engineering at the Clarkston Campus of Georgia Perimeter College (“GPC”). Present to accept this award on behalf of the department was Department Chair Margaret Ehrlich.

Dr. Ehrlich greeted the Regents and said that she was a graduate of both Georgia State University and the University of Georgia. She showed the Regents a photo of the faculty of the Department of Mathematics, Computer Sciences, and Engineering, and said that they are more than a department; they are a winning team. Through the department’s innovative programs, the faculty’s scholarly efforts, and their collegiality, they have been able to create a unique team with an ability to envision and create strategies to reach students and provide distinctive learning opportunities. The department’s programs range from No Class Left Uncovered, Computational Science Initiatives, Distance Learning Firsts, outreach programs, the African-American Male Leadership Academy, which is in its second year, and the department’s designation as a Hewlett-Packard Mathematics Engineering and Science Academy (“MESA”) center.

Dr. Ehrlich noted that the Board of Regents is asking the legislature for $3.5 million this year for new programs and services to improve retention. Last semester, her department launched a successful pilot retention program entitled “Go the Distance.” She said this program is a clear example of how her department is in the forefront of academic improvements in graduation and retention. This retention program and the application for the nomination for this award were supported by the GPC Center for Teaching and Learning. Dr. Ehrlich thanked the Assistant Vice President for Education Affairs, Debi Moon, and the Assistant Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning, Pamela Moolenaar-Wirsiy. Dr. Ehrlich said the faculty are able to achieve success because GPC gives them an environment that motivates them to achieve. So, on behalf of the department, she thanked the Dean of Academic Affairs, Donald Pearl; Provost Dennis Harkins; the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs, the Vice President for Educational Affairs, Virginia Michelich; and Interim President Robert E. Watts. She also recognize the support of her husband and Regent Emeritus Kenneth W. Cannestra and his wife, Dianne. Most importantly, on behalf of all of the faculty members of the department, she thanked the Regents for this recognition.

Dr. Papp presented the second award to the Family Nurse Practitioner program at Albany State University (“ALSU”). Present to accept this award on behalf of the program were the Dean of the College of Health Professions, Joyce Y. Johnson, and the Director of the Family Nurse Practitioner program, Sherry T. Ward.

Dr. Johnson first recognized the Chair of the Department of Nursing, Linda Grimsley; Assistant Professor Linda Alford; and the Media Utilization Specialist, Reginald H. Christian. She said that although her comments would focus mainly on the program’s recent transition to the online environment, she would also highlight some of the program’s achievements over the past decade, achievements that have truly made this program worthy of this outstanding recognition. The primary mission of the Family Nurse Practitioner program is to prepare capable and cost-effective advanced practice nurses to provide primary healthcare to diverse populations and medically underserved communities. This is a master’s degree program, and all of the students admitted into the program are already experienced registered nurses with a wealth of professional experience in backgrounds ranging from intensive care to home-health. Upon completion of the program, most graduates accept positions in an underserved medical community and provide comprehensive healthcare, including the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of disease, as well as health promotion of the individual, family, and community. Family nurse practitioners play an important role in the healthcare delivery system, which is very evident in Southwest Georgia. The Southwest Georgia region is characterized by a high percentage of residents who live in persistent poverty, who live in remote rural locations, and are minorities. This region is also disproportionately affected by chronic disease. Southwest Georgia has one of the highest rates for cardiovascular disease and stroke in the United States.

Since producing its first graduates in 1996, this program has been very successful in increasing the number of healthcare providers in the region, particularly minorities. However, the program saw a need to reach out to potential students who resided in the remote rural areas of Southwest Georgia, where the healthcare shortage was most acute. It became apparent that the best means to reach these geographically isolated students was through online distance education. So, beginning in 2001, the program undertook a major initiative to transition from the traditional face-to-face classroom setting to an online environment. It was thought that this method of delivery would be appealing to Family Nurse Practitioner students, as it allows the convenience and flexibility of “anytime, anywhere” education, a very attractive option for graduate students who have multiple family, work, and community-related obligations.

Ms. Ward said that ALSU is very proud of this program. She also recognized the former Director of the program, Assistant Professor Kathleen Schachman, and Assistant Professor Janet Wills. She explained that the online Family Nurse Practitioner program is identical to traditional face-to-face program, except that all didactic content is delivered via an online medium. Students come to campus two or three times each semester for workshops, and the required 750 hours of precepted clinical experience is done with a healthcare provider in their home town.

Didactic content is delivered through WebCT Vista, and students proceed through each unit at a semi-structured pace. Students are required to complete each unit by a designated date (usually one week). In designing the online presentation, the faculty have made every effort to develop a stimulating and interactive multimedia event. Students are engaged with both audio and visual components in an effort to appeal to a variety of learning styles. Ms. Ward showed the Regents an online lecture about the cardiovascular system, with Web links to both a video demonstrating the examination of the heart and a Web site that allows students to hear various heard sounds simulated by a stethoscope.

Ms. Ward explained that the most challenging aspect of the pedagogical transformation from the traditional face-to-face classroom format to online courses was to create an environment that provided for both the education and socialization of future healthcare providers. The art and science of nursing care requires both critical thinking and connectedness. This connectedness has been achieved mainly through the creation of a learning community within the discussion forum. Through the online discussion forums, students have access to their peers, thus creating a network of scholars for the purposes of intellectual exchange, collective thinking, collaborative endeavors, and socialization. As the students share information, insights, personal experience, and perspectives, they gain an appreciation and understanding of other views and potentially create new knowledge. The online learning activities developed and implemented by Family Nurse Practitioner faculty have not only facilitated the construction of new knowledge, but have also supported social negotiation of ideas, provided students with multiple perspectives on any given topic, and improved access to a vast array of information. Additionally, all learners participate, which does not always happen in a classroom setting, and writing skills are strengthened.

Of course not all learning can be achieved through an online environment, said Ms. Ward. Thus, students come to campus two or three days each semester for hand-on skills workshops such as x-ray and EKG interpretation, suturing, joint injection, and splint application. In addition to the hands-on skills workshops, the on-campus days often include expert guest presentations and student presentations. Since the transition to the online environment, both student and faculty satisfaction have remained very high. Once admitted to the online Family Nurse Practitioner program, over 95% of the students continue on to graduate within their anticipated plan of study. There have been increased admissions from both the targeted rural regions and within minority populations.

Next, Ms. Ward discussed the achievements of the program over the past decade and how it has impacted the health of South Georgia residents. Since the first graduating class of 1996, there have been 102 graduates of the program. Of this number, over 80% of the graduates are practicing in Southwest Georgia. An additional 17% are practicing in adjacent medically underserved counties. Thus, the Family program has had a formidable impact on reducing the undersupply of primary care providers in Southwest Georgia and surrounding areas and, more importantly, has improved the distribution of primary care providers, since most of the program graduates have selected some of the less populous areas in the region as practice sites.

Ms. Ward stated that over the last ten years, the Family Nurse Practitioner program pass rate on National Certification Board Exams has averaged 92%. For the past three years, there has been a 100% pass rate. This is quite an achievement in light of the national average pass rate of 78%. The education received in the program has also provided an excellent foundation for future educational pursuits. Seven program graduates were accepted into doctoral programs, and two of them have graduated.

Dr. Johnson thanked the Board of Regents for this award, and then, she and Ms. Ward stepped down.

Dr. Papp presented the third award to the Teaching Assistants Development program in the School of Mathematics at the Georgia Institute of Technology (“GIT”). Present to accept this award on behalf of the program was the Chair of the School of Mathematics, William T. (Tom) Trotter.

Dr. Trotter said that GIT is a very special place. With an average entering SAT score of 1340, which ranks among the best public universities in the nation, GIT has unique challenges. Mathematics is central to GIT and the career and education goals of its students. Each term, approximately 50% of GIT undergraduates are enrolled in mathematics courses that are part of their core requirements, and approximately 10% of all credit hours taught are delivered by the School of Mathematics. Dr. Trotter stressed that there are no majors at GIT that do not require Calculus. He said that he likes to think that at GIT, every undergraduate student is a math major. At GIT, the regular faculty play a significantly larger role in teaching undergraduates than is the norm at major research universities. This places on the institution some unique challenges in the effective use of resources. If mathematics education is central at GIT, the challenge is to deliver a high-quality undergraduate program while keeping the drain on resources reasonable.

Dr. Trotter asked his colleagues to stand and be recognized. They were Assistant Undergraduate Coordinator Rena Brakebill, Instructor Klara Grodzinsky, and Instructor Cathy Jacobson. He said that they had been in the school 9, 11, and 23 years, respectively, while he had been at GIT only 4 years. He said that core mathematics courses are delivered typically in a lecture/recitation format for with mixture of intermediate and large class sizes. Most classes are taught by regular faculty with teaching assistants (“TAs”) in support roles. There is a highly competitive selection process for TA positions, and the school places an emphasis on training TAs before their first classroom assignment. Moreover, the faculty continue to support training and development for TAs throughout their tenure in the department. During their first semester, TAs have a required semester-long training program. It features group discussions and case studies. There is a TA handbook and Web-based support materials. All new TAs are video-taped in their first teaching assignment. Ms. Jacobson is responsible for an award-winning special language and communication course for international TAs with video-taped practice sessions. Moreover, all TAs are provided with faculty mentors.

Dr. Trotter said that the School of Mathematics is an integral part of GIT that partners with other academic units on campus and with the Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning to share best practices. The School of Mathematics is viewed as a national role model for how undergraduate mathematics should be structured in a research university environment. In closing, Dr. Trotter thanked the Regents for this award.

Dr. Papp said that this concluded the presentation of awards for programmatic award winners. He remarked that these programs represent some of the remarkable programs around the University System of Georgia.

Chair Shelnut called for a break at approximately 10:00 a.m. At approximately 10:15 a.m., he reconvened the meeting and called for the Committee reports.

return to top

EXECUTIVE AND COMPENSATION COMMITTEE

The Executive and Compensation Committee met on Tuesday, January 10, 2006, at approximately 11:15 a.m. in the room 7019, the Chancellor’s Conference Room. Committee members in attendance were Chair J. Timothy Shelnut, Vice Chair Patrick S. Pittard, and Regents William H. Cleveland, Donald M. Leebern, Jr., Elridge W. McMillan, and Richard L. Tucker. Chair Shelnut reported to the Board on Wednesday that the Committee had reviewed one item, which did not require action. That item was as follows:

Information Item: Executive Session: Personnel and Compensation Issues
At approximately 11:15 a.m. on Tuesday, January 10, 2006, Chair J. Timothy Shelnut called for an Executive Session for the purpose of discussing personnel and compensation issues. With motion properly made and variously seconded, the Regents who were present voted unanimously to go into Executive Session. Those Regents were as follows: Chair Shelnut, Vice Chair Patrick S. Pittard, and Regents William H. Cleveland, Donald M. Leebern, Jr., Elridge W. McMillan, and Richard L. Tucker. Secretary Gail S. Weber was also in attendance. In accordance with H.B. 278, Section 3 (amending O.C.G.A. § 50-14-4), an affidavit regarding this Executive Session is on file with the Chancellor’s Office.

At approximately 12:15 p.m., Chair Shelnut reconvened the Committee meeting in its regular session and announced that no actions had been taken.

return to top

AUDIT COMMITTEE

The Audit Committee met on Tuesday, January 10, 2006, at approximately 11:15 a.m. in room 7005. Committee members in attendance were Chair Julie Ewing Hunt and Regents Joe Frank Harris, James R. Jolly, and Wanda Yancey Rodwell. Regent-Elect A. Felton Jenkins, Jr. was also in attendance. Chair Hunt reported to the full Board on Wednesday that the Committee had reviewed two items, neither of which required action. Those items were as follows:

Information Item: Status of Fiscal Year 2006 Internal Audits and Findings
The Associate Vice Chancellor for Internal Audit, Ronald B. Stark, presented a status of audit plans versus actual audits completed by the University System Office and campus-based auditors as of November 30, 2005. He reported that the campus-based auditors and the University System Office audit staff had completed 51 audits so far this fiscal year. Additionally, Mr. Stark presented the ratings of audit findings disclosed in fiscal year 2006 audits.
Information Item: Status of Open Audit Findings
The Associate Vice Chancellor for Internal Audit, Ronald B. Stark, presented the status of all open findings as of September 30, 2005, as identified by the University System Office and campus-based auditors. At the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 2006, there were a total of 211 open findings. Mr. Stark stated that this number is within the norm of 150 to 250 open findings.

return to top

COMMITTEE ON INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY

The Committee on Information and Instructional Technology met on Tuesday, January 10, 2006, at approximately 11:20 a.m. in the Board Room, room 7007. Committee members in attendance were Chair Hugh A. Carter, Jr. and Regents Michael J. Coles, W. Mansfield Jennings, Jr., Doreen Stiles Poitevint, and Allan Vigil. Chair Carter reported to the full Board on Wednesday that the Committee had reviewed two items, both of which required action. With motion properly made, seconded, and unanimously adopted, the Board approved and authorized the following:

Revision of the Committee on Information and Instructional Technology Task Statement
Approved: The Board adopted the revised Committee on Information and Instructional Technology Task Statement (the “Task Statement”), effective January 11, 2005.

Background: At the September 2005 Committee meeting, Chair Regent Hugh A. Carter asked that the members review the Task Statement adopted when the Committee was formed in 2000 and provide suggestions for revisions or updates. A first draft of the revised Task Statement was distributed to the Committee at its October 2005 meeting with a request for additional comments. The following revised Task Statement represents a final draft containing all requested changes.

Previous Task Statement

Committee on Information and Instructional Technology
Task Statement
October 2000

Role

The Regents Committee on Information and Instructional Technology (the “Technology Committee”) is a standing Committee of the Board of Regents formally created at the September 2000 meeting of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. The role of the Technology Committee is to provide, through the Board of Regents, strategic direction and oversight to the System’s information and instructional technology policies and practices.

Responsibilities

The responsibilities of the Technology Committee are:
- to review the University System of Georgia's information and instructional technology strategy at the System level, including fiscal implications and campus technology master plans;
- to identify major technological opportunities for the University System of Georgia to pursue in establishing priorities for action, such as enhanced networking facilities in support of instruction;
- to identify major technological threats and challenges which the University System of Georgia faces and to propose solutions to those threats and challenges;
- to review, coordinate, and implement University System of Georgia programs and policies to ensure effective use of System and institutional information and instructional technology resources;
- to coordinate management of major University System of Georgia initiatives related to information and instructional technology in conjunction with other Board of Regents committees, other appropriate System committees, and state agencies; and
- to review and assess major University System of Georgia information and instructional initiatives relative to their progress and success.
Organization

The division of labor between the Technology Committee, the Regents’ Central Office, and System campuses is that the Technology Committee, through the full Board, reviews and adopts policies which govern instruction and information technology, while the Chancellor, the Senior Vice Chancellors, and the campus presidents propose and implement policy.

The primary responsible officer for information and instructional technology is the Senior Vice Chancellor for Academics and Fiscal Affairs, who, in conjunction with the Vice Chancellor for Information and Instructional Technology/Chief Information Officer, works closely with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Technology Committee to establish the agenda for the Committee. The Technology Committee’s staffing requirements are met primarily by the Office of Academics and Fiscal Affairs.

Given the overarching nature of the issues for which the Technology Committee has responsibility, the Technology Committee will work closely with other Board of Regents standing Committees. Similarly, the Technology Committee’s responsibilities will often require the Office of Academics and Fiscal Affairs in its staffing function to work closely with other University System offices and state agencies, such as the Georgia Technology Authority.

Revised Task Statement

Committee on Information and Instructional Technology
Task Statement
January 2006

Role

The Regents Committee on Information and Instructional Technology (the “Technology Committee”) is a standing Committee of the Board of Regents formally created at the September 2000 meeting of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. The role of the Technology Committee is to provide, through the Board of Regents, oversight, advice, and consent on strategic directions and actions involving to the System’s information and instructional technology policies and practices.

Responsibilities

The responsibilities of the Technology Committee are to review, discuss, and take appropriate action on issues brought before it to include:
- ~~to review~~ the University System of Georgia’s information and instructional technology strategy at the System level, including fiscal implications of strategic goals cited; ~~and campus technology master plans;~~
- ~~to identify~~ major technological opportunities for the University System of Georgia to pursue, including in establishing priorities for action; ~~such as enhanced networking facilities in support of instruction;~~
- ~~to identify~~ major technological threats and challenges which the University System of Georgia faces and to proposed solutions to those threats and challenges;
- ~~to review, coordinate, and implement~~ University System of Georgia programs, ~~and~~ policies, and practices that ensure effective and efficient use of System and institutional information and instructional technology resources;
- ~~to coordinate~~ management of major University System of Georgia initiatives related to information and instructional technology in conjunction with other Board of Regents Committees, other appropriate System committees, and state agencies; and
- ~~to review and assess~~ major University System of Georgia information and instructional initiatives relative to their progress and success.
Organization

The division of labor between the Technology Committee, the University System Office, and System campuses is that the Technology Committee, through the full Board, reviews and adopts policies which govern ~~instruction and~~ information and instructional technology, while the Chancellor, the Senior Vice Chancellors, and the campus presidents propose and implement policy.

The primary responsible officer for information and instructional technology is the Senior Vice Chancellor for Academics and Fiscal Affairs, who, in conjunction with the Vice Chancellor for Information and Instructional Technology/Chief Information Officer, works closely with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Technology Committee to establish the agenda for the Committee. The Technology Committee’s staffing requirements are met primarily by the Office of Academics and Fiscal Affairs.

Given the overarching nature of the issues for which the Technology Committee has responsibility, the Technology Committee will work closely with other Board of Regents standing Committees. Similarly, the Technology Committee’s responsibilities will often require the Office of Academics and Fiscal Affairs in its staffing function to work closely with other University System offices and state agencies, such as the Georgia Technology Authority.
Revision of The Policy Manual, Section 712, Computer Security
Approved: The Board approved a revision of The Policy Manual, Section 712, Computer Security, effective January 11, 2005.

Background: The Committee has voiced concern regarding the increase in information security incidents and has been briefed at several meetings about the impact of such incidents and the status of System actions to address ongoing threats. Suggested actions that have been cited to combat such security incidents include new technologies (hardware and software), training, and policies. The revision to Section 712 of The Policy Manual is directed at updating and improving the System’s information security policy and making it consistent with the State of Georgia policies in this area.

Previous Policy

712 COMPUTER SECURITY POLICY

712.01 GENERAL POLICY

The Board of Regents recognizes that all computer and computer related resources are valuable state assets and require some degree of protection. The degree of protection needed is based on the nature of the resource and its intended use. The Board also recognizes that, while no security procedures will provide for absolute security, all institutions of the System have the responsibility to minimize risk by enacting a computer security or related policy.

712.02 SYSTEM LEVEL ACTIVITIES
1. The Vice Chancellor for Information Technology shall maintain a security plan and guidelines for inter-institutional computer activities.
2. The Vice Chancellor for Information Technology shall maintain a computer security implementation handbook which the individual units of the University System of Georgia may choose to use in their individualized implementation schemes.
712.03 INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
1. The president of each institution shall be responsible for ensuring that appropriate and auditable security controls are in place on his/her campus.
2. Each institution shall develop, implement and maintain a computer security plan which follows guidelines provided by the Office of Information Technology. Institutions should submit the plan to the Office of Information Technology for review and approval.
3. The Board recognizes that user education is a vital part of security. Therefore, each institution shall include in its security plan methods for ensuring that information regarding the applicable laws, regulations, guidelines and policies is distributed and readily available to computer users.
4. Clear and documented procedures for reporting and handling security violations shall be distributed on each campus. The method of providing this information shall be included in the formal plan.
5. The Regents’ Central Office, Skidaway Institute, and any other institutions or institutes added to the University System of Georgia shall develop computer security plans using the same guidelines provided to the institutions (BR Minutes, 1991-92, pp. 391-392).
Revised Policy

712 ~~COMPUTER~~ INFORMATION SECURITY POLICY

712.01 GENERAL POLICY

The Board of Regents recognizes that ~~all computer and computer-related resources are~~ information created, collected, or distributed using technology by the University System Office and System institutions is a valuable ~~state~~ assets and ~~require some degree of protection~~ must be protected from unauthorized disclosure, modification, or destruction. The degree of protection needed is based on the nature of the resource and its intended use. The Board also recognizes that, while no security procedures will provide for absolute security, all institutions of the System have the responsibility to minimize risk by enacting a computer security or related policy. The University System Office and all System institutions have the responsibility to employ prudent information security policies, standards, and practices to minimize the risk to the integrity, confidentiality, and availability of University System information.

Therefore, the University System Office and all System institutions shall create and maintain an internal information security technology infrastructure consisting of an information security organization and program that ensures the confidentiality, availability, and integrity of all University System information assets.

712.02 SYSTEM-LEVEL ACTIVITIES
1. The Vice Chancellor for Information and Instructional Technology shall develop and maintain an information security ~~plan and guidelines for inter-institutional computer~~ organization and architecture for support of information security across the System and support of activities between institutions.
2. The Vice Chancellor for Information and Instructional Technology shall maintain a ~~computer~~ information security implementation ~~handbook~~ guidelines ~~which~~ that the individual units of the University System of Georgia ~~may~~ should ~~choose to use~~ consider in the development of their individualized ~~implementation schemes~~ information security plans.
712.03 INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
1. The president of each institution shall be responsible for ensuring that appropriate and auditable information security controls are in place on his/her campus.
2. Each institution shall develop, implement, and maintain an ~~computer~~ information security plan ~~which follows~~ consisting of a set of information security policies, standards, and guidelines that is consistent with the guidelines provided by the Office of Information and Instructional Technology. Institutions ~~should~~ must submit the information security plan to the Office of Information and Instructional Technology for periodic review ~~and approval~~.
3. The Board recognizes that user education is a vital part of information security. Therefore, each institution shall include in its information security plan methods for ensuring that information regarding the applicable laws, regulations, guidelines, and policies is distributed and readily available to its user community.
4. Clear ~~and documented~~ procedures for reporting and handling of information security ~~violations~~ incidents shall be ~~distributed~~ followed on each campus. ~~The method of providing this information shall be included in the formal plan.~~ These procedures shall include reporting of incidents to the University System Office in a timely manner These procedures shall be documented in the institution’s formal information security plan.
5. The ~~Regents’ Central~~ University System Office, the Skidaway Institute of Oceanography, and any other institutions or institutes added to the University System of Georgia shall develop ~~computer~~ information security plans using the same guidelines as referred to in Section 712.03B ~~provided to the institutions (BR Minutes, 1991-92, pp. 391-392)~~ (BR Minutes, January 2006).

return to top

COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC AFFAIRS

The Committee on Academic Affairs met on Tuesday, January 10, 2006, at approximately 2:40 p.m. in the Sixth Floor Training Room, room 6041. Committee members in attendance were Chair William H. Cleveland, Vice Chair Doreen Stiles Poitevint, and Regents Joe Frank Harris and James R. Jolly. Regent-Elect Robert F. Hatcher was also in attendance. Chair Cleveland reported to the Board that the Committee had reviewed 13 items, 12 of which required action. As part of item 8, 161 regular faculty appointments were reviewed and recommended for approval. Chair Cleveland noted that three of these appointments had been walked on to the Committee’s agenda. With motion properly made, seconded, and unanimously adopted, the Board approved and authorized the following:

Establishment of a Bachelor of Applied Science with a Major in Technology Management, Gainesville State College
Approved : The Board approved the request of President Martha T. Nesbitt that Gainesville State College (“GSC”) be authorized to establish a Bachelor of Applied Science with a major in Technology Management, effective January 11, 2006.

Abstract: The Bachelor of Applied Science with a major in Technology Management prepares graduates to move into supervisory positions in businesses and industry, retail environments, law offices, and travel or tourism related businesses. Courses in management, marketing, and accounting help students blend their specific expertise with new technology skills. The Bachelor of Applied Science curriculum is designed to prepare students who have a career associate degree with appropriate business and management skills. The degree represents a shift from a narrow focus to a broader paradigm that enables students to experience a broad array of management practices that include the use of technology. The Bachelor of Applied Science upper-division courses will only be offered on the Gainesville campus of GSC.

Need: The career educational requirements for many areas of technology management have increased. In many fields, a degree at the baccalaureate level is required. The Georgia Department of Labor estimates that 25% of all new jobs created will require a minimum of a baccalaureate degree. The Bachelor of Applied Science degree offers career advancement opportunities for students who have earned the Associate of Applied Science or Associate of Applied Technology degree or other career associate degrees. The proposed program will build on a student’s current vocational abilities and provide additional managerial skills within the field of technology management.

Objectives: The curriculum is designed to enable all Bachelor of Applied Science graduates to meet learning outcomes that include understanding the business environment and global marketplace, becoming proficient in the use of the latest information technology, developing critical thinking and problem-solving skills, managing in career and technical environments, and understanding the legal environment of business.

Curriculum: The program, housed within the Business Division, will include 15 hours of bridge courses for the Area F in Business Administration, 18 hours of upper-division Bachelor of Applied Science professional core courses, and 6 hours of upper-division electives. Students who wish to pursue the degree must already hold an appropriate career associate degree (e.g., Associate of Applied Science or Associate of Applied Technology) from an institution regionally accredited to grant associate degrees. After completion of the Associate of Applied Science or Associate of Applied Technology degree, the Bachelor of Applied Science will require the completion of approximately 66 semester hours of credit at the baccalaureate level.

Projected Enrollment: The institution anticipates enrollments of 60, 70, and 85 during the first three years of the program.

Funding: The program has been developed with new courses at the upper-division level. President Nesbitt has provided reverification that funding for the program is available at the institution.

Assessment: The Office of Academics and Fiscal Affairs will work with the institution to measure the success and continued effectiveness of the program. The program will be reviewed in concert with the institution’s programmatic schedule of comprehensive program reviews.
Establishment of a Bachelor of Science with a Major in Early Childhood Care and Education, Gainesville State College
Approved: The Board approved the request of President Martha T. Nesbitt that Gainesville State College (“GSC”) be authorized to establish a Bachelor of Science with a major in Early Childhood Care and Education, effective January 11, 2006.

Abstract: GSC proposed establishment of the Bachelor of Science with a major in Early Childhood Care and Education as part of its focus on providing a program that addresses the needs of professionals working with children from birth to five years of age. The program meets the economic and educational needs of the northeast Georgia community through expanding access to educational opportunities for nontraditional students and recognizing the need for new baccalaureate programs specifically tailored for pre-kindergarten teachers. The Bachelor of Science with a major in Early Childhood Care and Education will be offered only on the Gainesville campus of GSC.

Need: The need for well-educated teachers working with children from birth to five years of age has been reinforced by research concerning early childhood education and brain development. Summative information retrieved from various reports reveals that children in high-quality early childhood care settings are more likely to be emotionally secure, self-confident, better able to regulate aggression, and more intellectually advanced. High-quality preschool experiences may lead to higher retention rates in the school system and thus increase an individual’s economic prospects over a lifetime.

Two employers of early childhood teachers are the Georgia Head Start Association, Inc. (“Head Start”) and Georgia’s Pre-K Program. These employers have mandates that require their teachers to obtain post-secondary education credentials. Head Start will require early childhood care teachers to obtain a baccalaureate degree by year 2011. Currently, a majority of coursework offered in teacher certification programs focuses on children five years of age and older. Such coursework is not appropriate for early childhood care teachers involved with children from birth to age five. GSC has 125 Early Childhood Care and Education students currently enrolled in its Associate of Science program. A majority of the current matriculants are required by their employers to obtain a baccalaureate degree by year 2011. The potential exists to provide baccalaureate opportunities to this pool of students.

Objectives: Graduates of the program will be expected to achieve the following general learning objectives of the proposed degree program: 1) recognition of physical growth and social, emotional, and cognitive development characteristics; 2) implementation of appropriate methods of observation; 3) demonstration of verbal and nonverbal guidance techniques; 4) development and design of transition strategies; 5) preparation of appropriate curricula with a developmentally appropriate learning environment; 6) recognition of appropriate space, equipment, and materials in child care settings; and 7) recognition, explanation, and execution of a variety of intervention strategies appropriate for use in an educational setting.

Curriculum: The program will be housed within the Division of Social Sciences and Education. Delivery of the curriculum will include using principles of adult education to help nontraditional learners achieve success, proven student supports such as tutoring and the summer academy to help students succeed, laboratory work using a model child development center, internships to enhance student experiences, and a semester-long practicum. The 124-semester-hour program requires a waiver to degree credit hour length for baccalaureate degree programs.

Projected Enrollment: The institution anticipates enrollments of 60, 70, and 85 during the first three years of the program.

Funding: The program has been developed with new courses at the upper-division level. President Nesbitt has provided reverification that funding for the program is available at the institution.

Assessment: The Office of Academics and Fiscal Affairs will work with the institution to measure the success and continued effectiveness of the program. The program will be reviewed in concert with the institution’s programmatic schedule of comprehensive program reviews.
Establishment of a Major in Applied Statistics under the Master of Science, Kennesaw State University
Approved: The Board approved the request of President Betty L. Siegel that Kennesaw State University (“KSU”) be authorized to establish a major in Applied Statistics under the Master of Science degree, effective January 11, 2006.

Abstract: KSU’s Department of Mathematics proposes the establishment of a major in Applied Statistics under the Master of Science degree. The degree program will complement existing graduate programs in such areas as computer science, business, and nursing. The proposed program will conduct all of its classes in the evening in order to make it accessible to a wide audience of nontraditional students in the north metropolitan Atlanta area. The applied focus of the program will prepare students for employment in a wide variety of business, industry, health services, and government organizations that have a need for quantitatively trained professionals.

Need: The program is in alignment with the mission and goals of KSU and supports the needs of industry. KSU has procured letters of support from such companies as Equifax, Inc., Georgia-Pacific Corporation, United Parcel Service of America, Inc. (“UPS”), Shaw Industries, and Kemira Chemicals, Inc. The American Statistical Association’s Web site lists 30 fields that employ statisticians. These fields span a variety of science,

Main Navigation

Meeting Minutes - January 2006

Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia Held at 270 Washington St., S.W. Atlanta, Georgia January 10 and 11, 2006

CALL TO ORDER

ATTENDANCE REPORT

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

SPECIAL PRESENTATION ON NORTH GEORGIA COLLEGE & STATE UNIVERSITY

REPORTS FROM BOARD'S TASK FORCES

CALL TO ORDER

INVOCATION

INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUEST

ATTENDANCE REPORT

STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE, “COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE”

2005 ACADEMIC PROGRAM AWARDS

EXECUTIVE AND COMPENSATION COMMITTEE

AUDIT COMMITTEE

COMMITTEE ON INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY

COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC AFFAIRS

Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia
Held at 270 Washington St., S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia
January 10 and 11, 2006