Science Planning Meeting Minutes
Thursday October 12, 2006
Attending: David Bickar, Alan Bloomgarden, John Brady, Dick Briggs, Peter DeVilliers, Suzan Edwards, Nat
Fortune, Adam Hall, Tom Litwin, Michael Marcotrigiano, Deborah McClean, Joe O’Rourke, Phil Peake, Rocco
Piccinino, David L. Smith, Cristina Suarez.
Absent: Christophe Gole, Jim Johnson, Dawn Scaparotti, Charles Staelin.
AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes of September 28th Meeting.
Minutes are approved.
Christian Lagier read Dawn Scapparotti’s addition to the Sept 28th minutes to be added to these minutes:
Dawn Scaparotti raised an issue with respect to the Engineering Program’s continued need to
retain some space in the Green building after the move to the new building.
As an example, she detailed Engineering’s continued need to have access to a space with a
sufficient number of computers that are equipped with the requisite engineering software. Nearly
every engineering class taught requires students to compete homework problem sets and or
project work for which access to the computers is essential throughout the day and night.
This is a need that has been consistently identified and for which no space large enough to
accommodate the need has been provided in the new building. Currently room 203 in the Green
building serves this purpose with approximately 24 workstations.
She noted the need to meet with Marc Cammerota to ensure the Engineering Program’s
requirements are captured as part of the master documents regarding space.
Further, in response to a concern expressed my Nate Fortune, chair of the classroom committee,
she committed to ensuring Engineering’s input was adequately conveyed to the classroom
committee."
Linda Jones and Dawn Scaparotti met with Marc Cammerota and conveyed the Engineering
Program’s needs so he can reflect them in the master document he is preparing.
2. General Announcements and Updates
Alan Bloomgarden introduced the newest member of Advancement, Deborah McLean, Assistant Director of
Corporate & Foundation Relations. She will attend occasional Science Planning meetings.
3. Report of the Director of the Science Center
a) Update on Research Corporation visit
Tom Litwin reported that Dr. Raymond Kellman, Vice-President of Research Corporation visited Smith on
October 11. Research Corporation funds for research in Chemistry, Physics and some interdisciplinary work.
Gayle Jackson on the Board of Trustees, is also on the board if Research Corporation and has helped in making
connections. Tom met with Dr. Kellman to talk about the administrative portion of his work in the Science
Center. Tom also gathered a group from Biochemistry and Engineering, to talk briefly about their work with Dr.
Kellman.
Cristina Suarez said that in her meeting with Dr. Kellman she showed him around the science Center and
discussed what the chemistry department does and what is on the horizon—the recent decennial review points
out places where the dept is on the verge of changes.
Nat Fortune reported that he met with Dr. Kellman individually over lunch, and also showed him the shop and
the lab. Then the rest of the Physics department met with him. He was encouraging established faculty to apply
for funding (less than 10% of applications are established faculty) if there is a change in direction in their
research.
Alan Bloomgarden reported that most institutions receive no advanced notice when Research Corp visits, which
is just how they do things. Research Corp was founded in 1912 by Frederick Gardner Cottrell, the inventor of
the precipitator. It is the second oldest foundation in country after Carnegie. They continue to earn money for
the foundation on various patents. Today their funding is focused on chemistry and physics. They have 3
categories of grants: 1) For junior faculty based in chemistry and physics departments in the first 3 years of their
work 2) For senior faculty, usually support preliminary work before for applying to NSF 3) Department
development grants for departments which is by invitation only.
b) November 3 deadline for Goldwater nominees
Tom reminded everyone that November 3 is the deadline for departmental nominations for the Goldwater
Scholarship. Smith can nominate 4 students who are sophomores or juniors. Tom will ask people individually to
be on the nomination committee, who will in turn report back to the Science Planning Committee.
He reminded everyone that members should report back to their departments on whatever is discussed in
Science Planning meetings—such as the reminder about the Goldwater deadline. Christian has also been
working on the director’s website where the Goldwater guidelines, Science Planning minutes, etc. are posted.
c) Status of Equipment Inventory submissions
Departments need to submit their inventory so that numbers can be projected for budget. Details are on the web
site. John Brady added that this info should be updated annually so that the Science Center always has this
information.
d) Facelift needs assessment meeting scheduled
Tom will be meeting with Bill Brandt to develop the action plan to get the facelift started. He will be reporting
on this further to committee.
e) Tech shop update (Center for Design & Fabrication)
Tom met with the Erics and Greg, and the view of the Science Center is that there is no backlog (electronically)
of tasks. They asked to point out that in the past there have been extensive delays in repairs, now there are no
delays. Dick Brigg’s observations about more teaching going on in the shop are correct—which is in response
to the needs of department programs. The Erics and Greg, think what is needed is to have a person to keep the
shop open from 6-9pm during the week and 1-5 on weekend, to provide time outside of the academic day to
release some pressure. They are happy that the shop is so busy with students.
f) Classroom report:
Tom, Nat, the registrar, and construction manager admin assistant Karen Hebert met to discuss some of the
classroom issue. Nat reported that due to scheduling difficulties the classroom committee has not yet met. The
reports so far from Marc Camorrata show a shortage of computer classrooms. To date, comments in Committee
indicate that the size of computer classrooms has been a problem. Nat has also done some research on models
for computer classrooms. He passed out a list of computer classroom characteristics and layout suggestions. The
conclusion that the current spaces being too small parallels with the recommendations in these materials. He
asked Committee to review the models and weigh in with feedback from the departments on whether these
models are applicable. Much of the current space can not be made to match these models.
At next meeting committee will decide if he has gathered enough info to address this issue.
4. Report of the Advancement Office Representative
None offered, other than Deborah McLean’s introduction.
5. Old Business
a. Discussion of priorities for making decisions about space allocations in the renovations to come.
John Brady said that it will be up to this committee to recommend renovations to the president and board. The
departments may be in these buildings longer that originally anticipated and need to articulates this and discuss
it further. Bob Merit in an email to John, has asked to come to the next meeting to be part of the discussion.
John then asked the committee to decide on guiding principles, and priorities to help make decisions before
deciding on allocations. He suggested that shared classrooms be the first priority, both general classrooms and
special classrooms (such as one with computers).
Departments have noted that classrooms adjacent to departments may fill a specific need, but classrooms should
not be allocated to a department without allowing for equivalent space for shared classrooms.
Discussion followed on:
- Distinction between the needs of classroom space that needs only occasional computer use and the need
for permanent space when more computing power or specialized setup is required
- many required programs for different departments are currently not available on laptops but it they may
be in the future
- the need for both computer classroom space and classroom space away from the distraction of
computers for the same class
- that peripheral setup with computers around the edge of the room works well—although sometimes at
the expense of adequate blackboard space.
- concerns about computer classrooms not being appropriate for other types of teaching and of there being
too much emphasis on this type of classroom.
Nat said that there are 7 identified computer classroom spaces in Sabin Reed and Burton (not including Bass).
In the input so far from classroom committee, non one thought they were examples to perpetuate when planning
additional computer classroom space. He also said that the classroom committee was not just working to
preserve the current number of classrooms, but to revisit the proper number, size and distribution for the
Science Center.
John said that if the Committee can agree that shared class room are top priority, the Classroom Committee can
come back with advice based on this priority, and Marc can build into plans, so that there is enough shared
space but not more than is needed.
Adam commented that so far the number of students and number of majors in departments has not been factored
as priority. Cristina commented that some departments teach many who aren’t majors, so shear volume of
students is important consideration. Tom said that enrollment date will be part of what is presented to
committee. Joe commented that if a room is used more because of sharing, then it should take priority
John then asked the Committee where do the priorities come in for non- shared space, is the department
assigned space next on the list of priorities?
Discussion followed on:
- research space should be high on the list of priorities
- concerns about having priority to use an adjacent or specialized classroom space ( i.e. dibs) if it is
designated as a registrar classroom
- storing materials that are only for a specific class in a shared classroom space
- -teaching space that simply cannot be shared because of highly specialized or delicate equipment, or
dangerous materials
- -lack of staffing to facilitate changing of equipment in shared classroom space
- -the current lack of any system at all to deal with shared classroom space, regardless of the renovations
- -the need for more space to facilitate recruiting.
Conclusion: Committee members will think about the priorities discussed and also discuss them with the
colleagues in their departments and bring more thoughts back to the next meeting to help further define
priorities for decision making.
Note: No representative from the Mathematics and Statistics department attended this meeting.
Submitted by,
Heather McQueen