texas higher education coordinating board technology ...developed an internship program targeting...

Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Technology Workforce Development Grants Program

Advisory Committee

Agenda Materials

June 02, 2004

http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/techworkforce/

http://www.tetc.us/

TEXAS HIGHER EDUCATION COORDINATING BOARD Technology Workforce Development Grants Program

Advisory Committee

Mr. H. Thomas Dickey, Chair (2005)* Director and General Manger Intel Corporation Austin, Texas 78746 (512) 732-3915

Dr. Moonis Ali (2005)* Chairman and Professor of Computer Science Texas State University - San Marcos San Marcos, TX 78666 (512) 245-3409

Mr. Ray Almgren (2005)* Vice President National Instruments Austin, TX 78759 (512) 683-5401

Ms. Cheryl R. Hewett (2003)* Higher Education Marketing Manager Hewlett Packard Company Spring, TX 77379 (281) 927-7564

Ms. Nan McRaven, M.P.A. (2006)* Vice President and Director Motorola Austin, TX 78735 (512) 895-8932

Mr. Torrence H. Robinson, Chair (2004)*Public Affairs Director Texas Instruments, Inc. Dallas, TX 75243 (214) 480-6823

Ms. Pamela Y. Sherman (2006)* Program Manager Applied Materials Austin, Texas 78758 (512) 272-1371

Dr. Ben Streetman (2004)* Dean, College of Engineering The University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX 78712 (512) 471-1166

Dr. Valerie E. Taylor (2005)* Department Head and Stewart & Stevenson Professor Department of Computer Science Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843 (979) 845-5820

Academic Member (2006)* XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Coordinating Board Support Staff: Dr. Reinold R. Cornelius Program Director in Research THECB P.O. Box 12788 Austin, TX 78711 512/427-6156 FAX: 427-6147 [email protected]

Dr. Linda N. Domelsmith Director of Research THECB P. O. Box 12788 Austin, TX 78711 512/427-6150 FAX: 512/427-6147 [email protected]

TEXAS HIGHER EDUCATION COORDINATING BOARD Technology Workforce Development Grant Program

Advisory Committee

Southern Methodist University School of Engineering

Jerry R. Junkins Building TI Board Room (Room 210)

6251 Airline Road Dallas, TX 75205

June 02, 2004 12:30 a.m.

Agenda

Introduction of New Members ......................................................................................... A

Consideration of Minutes of the April 14, 2004 Meeting ................................................. B

Discussion of Project Visits ............................................................................................ C

Consideration on Funding and Funding Priorities............................................................ D

Consideration of Granting Time Extensions to 2002 Grants............................................ E

Update on Proposed Rule Changes for the Technology Workforce Development Grant Program ..........................................................................................................F

Consideration of Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the TWD Grant Program.................. G

Update on News and Information................................................................................... H

Reference Section ...................................................................................................... Ref

A-1

AGENDA ITEM A

Introduction of New Members

Jerry Farrington, chair of the Coordinating Board, appointed tree new industry members to the Committee:

• Cheryl R. Hewett, Higher Education Marketing Manager, Hewlett Packard Company

• Nan McRaven, Vice President and Director of Communications and Public Affairs, Motorola, and

• Pamela Sherman, Human Resources Program Manage – College Programs, Applied Materials.

Biographical information is included in this section

Consideration of Minutes of the Previous Meeting Action: None required.

A-3

Cheryl R. Hewett

16026 Salmon Lane Spring, TX 77379

281-376-8039

EDUCATION

Master of Business Administration / 1993 / University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT

Bachelor of Science in Education, Curriculum and Instruction with emphasis in Physics and Physical Science / 1985 / Texas A&M University, College Station, TX

EXPERIENCE

Higher Education Marketing Manager, Hewlett Packard Company, Houston, TX Responsible for increasing market share centered around the HP Enterprise Solutions for the Higher Education Market. HP Higher Education has recently increased market share from 5th to 3rd place as well as doubled revenue contribution. Responsible for managing the communications and programs to position HP as a Total Solution Provider in Academic and Administrative computing, emphasizing ISV partnerships and service offerings. Serve as primary point of coordination with the Marketing Communications Group, Product Managers, ISV Alliance Managers and the Global Services Group. Manage customer events and tradeshow participation. Manage the relationships with partners such as Microsoft and Packeteer. Work closely with associations such as ACE, AACC, The League for Innovation and Educause as well as the newly formed Educause Center for Applied Research. Additional responsibilities include, RFP participation, business plan development, customer visits and briefings and sales force training. Received five internal commendations for outstanding performance.

Contracts Manager, Compaq Computer Corporation, Houston, TX Responsible for negotiating and managing the Compaq direct contracts in the government and education markets in the Mountain and Pacific Areas (13 states). Large contracts included the CMAS (California Multiple Award Schedule) and the WSCA (Western States Contracting Alliance) contracts. Worked with individual customers on contracting issues for both new and established contracts. Aided Compaq Account Managers with the strategy and submittal of proposals to obtain new business. Received awards on all bids submitted, with top evaluation scores on WSIPC, WSCA and the State of Montana Term Contracts. The WSCA contract is a cooperative purchasing vehicle, which has grown to become Compaq’s largest contract in the government and education space. The success of the contract is dependent on the pricing strategy in conjunction with the full Compaq product and service mix. Received internal commendations for effective teamwork and successful contracting strategies, with particular regard to presenting Compaq as the total solution provider. Obtained top score on the CPCM National Certification Examination on the November 1999 examination.

A-4

Accountant, Apex Process Technologies, Houston, TX Established Accounting and Management Reporting function for a start-up corporation. Responsibility for installing software system and establishing accounting procedures and job-costing strategies. Sole responsibility for the General Ledger, Budget, Account Reconciliation, Foreign Funds Transfer, Payroll and 401K Administration. Produced management reports regarding budgets and financial status of the corporation. Worked with corporate attorney and CPA in a professional capacity on both incorporation and tax related issues.

Deputy Program Manager, Universities Space Research Association, Huntsville, AL Deputy Program Manager of the NASA/JOVE Program, a NASA research program involving approximately 150 research scientists and 75 universities. Responsible for participant proposal review and selection. Managed initial funding of participants through subcontracts and later with the initiation of a NASA grant for ongoing funding. Assisted Program Manager in overall budgeting and cost containment. Maximized efficiency with the design and implementation of a new Microsoft Access database. Major role in marketing the program to potential participants and to NASA Headquarters for continued funding. Achieved 50% increase in funding during a period of unsubstantiated budget cuts. Took the lead role in individual researcher performance and overall program evaluation and reporting. Worked with all 150 program participants in day-to-day program operations and in special problem situations. Worked on proposal team for new business ventures.

Program Evaluation Specialist, SAIC (Science Applications International Corp.), Ogden, UT Research, preparation and implementation of evaluation strategy for Department of Energy EM-522 Educational programs. Provided training workshops in evaluation practice to program managers in DOE EM-522. Evaluation workshop presenter at DOE EM-522 1991 Annual Review meeting in Washington DC.

Physics Teacher, Klein Independent School District, Spring, TX Lead teacher of Physics, Physics-Honors, and Physics II. Purchased and coordinated inventory for the department. Planned curriculum and laboratory program for Physics Department. Achieved a 50% increase in enrollment in one year. Worked with all Physics students on Science Fair Projects and helped to plan and hold the Science Fair. Coached Science Olympiad team to National Finals. JETS (Junior Engineering and Technology Society) Sponsor.

CERTIFICATION

Certified Professional Contract Manager

A-5

Nan McRaven, Motorola, 2004

Nan is Vice President and Director of Communications and Public Affairs for Motorola’s Semiconductor Products Sector. In that capacity, Nan leads a global team of public relations and public affairs specialists. She directs the employee, analyst, regional, business, media and crisis communications functions as well as the community and government relations programs. This marks Nan's thirteenth year with Motorola.

Nan joined Motorola in 1989 as the Southwest Regional Director of Government Relations for Motorola. In this role, she established the State Government Relations office to support Motorola businesses in Texas, New Mexico, and Virginia. Because of her early work in the government relations arena, SPS today enjoys a number of tax incentives that allow Motorola to compete equitably with competitors around the world. In the process, Nan has created continuous opportunities for Motorola to be involved in shaping public policy in the areas of workforce and education, environmental, tax and telecommunications policy.

From 1995 to 1998, Nan provided the internal leadership for creation of SPS' first cross-functional communications team as Director of External Communications and Government Relations. During this time, she created processes through which a number of separate communication functions were able to come together to share information and leverage resources in delivery of messages to our key publics. This work represented a real effort in collaboration and was a major benchmark in the creation of the company's current Communications and Public Affairs structure.

Nan served in a dual role as Director of Government Relations and as the Director for Strategic Communications for the Sector President's Office from 1999 to 2000.

Nan received an M.P.A. - Public Affairs, from The University of Texas at Austin, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, 1976. She also has a B.A. degree from Sam Houston State University, 1973. Received Pennybacker award for outstanding University student.

Her community service over the past 25 years is extensive. She presently serves on the following boards: Austin Community College Board of Trustees, The Austin Idea Network, Austin Area Research Organization, The Trust For Public Land and the University of Texas Alumni Advisory Board.

A-6

Pamela Y. Sherman 12349 Metric Blvd., #1110 Austin, Texas 78758 (512) 873-9058 - Home (512) 272-1371 - Office

• Skills Summary Manage implementation of a strategic new college graduate training. Manage budget of approximately $3 million. Developed and maintained relationships with targeted technical schools and colleges to

recruit, screen, and select qualified candidates for Engineering Technician positions. Managed a program staff of three ensuring division goals were successfully met for the

Intern/ Co-op Program and NCG-Manufacturing Program. Provide coaching and feedback to new college graduates and interns to assist with

successful assimilation into the company. Over 300 new college graduates have completed the program.

Certified Franklin Covey Trainer in What Matters Most (Time Management) and Project Management.

• Professional ExperienceApplied Materials, Austin, TX Human Resources Program Manager – College Programs 9/00 – present Develop strategic objectives of assigned assimilation and rotational programs. Interface with executive and senior management to ensure program processes align with the business goals. Communicate relevant program data related to retention, diversity, and performance to executive and senior management. Manage the overall direction of the Intern/ Co-op Program for the Austin site. Partner with division Human Resources and Applied Global University to ensure successful assimilation of new college grads into the manufacturing environment. Coordinate and facilitate assimilation activities for new college graduates and interns.

Human Resources Development Specialist - College Programs 6/98 – 9/00 Develop objectives and goals of assigned assimilation and rotational programs. Supervise, manage, and track project rotations and evaluation process. Assist with recruiting and hiring process of engineers, buyers, planners and technicians. Recommend, prioritize, and manage implementation of program enhancement methods and processes including mentoring, coaching, and developing career paths for all program participants. Identify training needs associated with assigned programs or projects, develop and implement training strategies. Facilitate basic Human Resources Development courses. Ensure that all course materials are ready for class presentation.

Technical Recruiter - College Programs 9/97-6/99Recruited, screened, and selected qualified candidates for Engineering Technician positions. Developed recruiting strategies and maintained relationships at 20 targeted schools for engineering technician and customer engineering positions. Coordinated interview schedules for managers and conducted Behavioral Style Interviewing. Represented company at collegiate and national organizational job fairs. Ensured that efficient communications were maintained with all hiring needs and in evaluating candidates. Developed an internship program targeting students seeking technology related degrees. Managed the placement and program coordination of over 80 intern and co-op students.

Huston-Tillotson College, Austin, TX 9/95 - 9/97 Director of Student Activities Provided leadership for and work with students to plan and implement cultural, social, educational, and recreational programs for the campus community. Created leadership

A-7

development materials which provided direction to all students. Developed department policies and procedures. Developed and implemented training seminars focused on leadership and personal development. Served on several campus and education committees to support leadership and community development. Maintained budget for the Office of Student Activities and the Student Government Association. Prepared and submitted all departmental reports.

The Casey Family Program, Austin, TX 6/95 - 7/96 Contract Job Developer and Co-FacilitatorAssessed the abilities of youth to assist with the identification of career interests in the context of strengths, abilities, and needs. Developed and facilitated vocational and career activities. Coordinated collaboratively with the Division Direction and Cross Cultural Specialist, with chambers of commerce representing minority owned and operated businesses in order to target job placement opportunities for youth. Co-facilitated a group for female youth to assist with identifying goals.

Austin Area Urban League, Austin, TX 6/93 - 9/95 Case Manager/Job DeveloperAssisted clients with the development of personal and career goals utilizing Case Management techniques and individual service strategies. Developed and facilitated personal development and career development training seminars and programs which targeted youth and adults. Supervised and managed activities of a 26 member Business Advisory Council. Organized agency career fairs and represented the agency at area career/volunteer fairs. Worked closely with area corporations in developing job opportunities for clients. Coordinated recruitment efforts of students for the Employment and Training Program. Prepared and submitted monthly, quarterly, and yearly reports to administration and funding sources. Analyzed program contracts to ensure compliance.

Texas A&M University, Multicultural Services, College Station, TX 10/92 - 5/93 Graduate Assistant Typed and edited correspondence to university officials and provided general clerical assistance. Responded to inquiries regarding student organizations and various University related information. Informed prospective students of the various opportunities available at Texas A&M.

• Presentations/ Training Certification

• What Matters Most, Franklin Covey, Applied Materials • Project Management, Franklin Covey, Applied Materials • Self-Performance Management, Applied Materials • Working Through Networks, Applied Materials

• Memberships/ Affiliations

• American Society for Training and Development 1999 – 2002 • Society of Human Resources Management (SHRM) 1998 – 2002 • The Casey Family Program Advisory Committee 1998 - 1999

• Education

Texas A&M University 1992 - 1993 Post-Baccalaureate - Educational Psychology

Texas A&M University 1989 - 1992 Bachelor of Science - Sociology

Navarro College 1987 - 1989 Associate of Science - Psychology

B-1

AGENDA ITEM B

Consideration of the Minutes of the April 14, 2004 Meeting

This section includes the minutes of the previous meeting.

Consideration of Minutes of the Previous Meeting Action: The Committee will consider approving the minutes of its April 14, 2004 meeting.

DRAFT *** DRAFT *** DRAFT

B-3

Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Technology Workforce Development Grant Program Advisory Committee

April 14, 2004

Minutes (Draft)

Linda Domelsmith called the meeting to order at 12:30 p.m. in the Dean’s Room of the UT Club at Darrell K. Royal Texas Memorial Stadium.

Those present were: members Tom Dickey (Chair), Moonis Ali, Torrence Robinson, Ben Streetman, and Valerie Taylor. Committee members Ray Almgren, C. S. Burrus, Nan McRaven, Pamela Sherman, and Sue Snyder were absent. Staff members present were Deborah Greene, Linda Domelsmith, and Reinold Cornelius. Guests present were Anthony Ambler and John Werth, project leaders from The University of Texas at Austin.

Agenda Item A: Election of Committee ChairLinda Domelsmith explained the statutory requirement for the Committee to elect its own chair on a yearly basis and asked for a nomination. Ben Streetman moved to elect Tom Dickey as chair. It would be advantageous for an industry representative to chair this committee, he said. Moonis Ali seconded the motion and the Committee elected Mr. Dickey by acclamation. Tom Dickey accepted the position. He thanked Torrence Robinson for his guidance, sense of direction, and balance he brought to the Committee during the two years he chaired it. Debbi Greene agreed and expressed her thanks to Torrence Robinson in her capacity as head of staff.

Linda Domelsmith reported that two new members to the Committee, Nan McRaven and Pamela Sherman, were unable to attend.

Agenda Item B: Consideration of Minutes of the January 8, 2004 MeetingTorrence Robinson moved for the approval of the minutes for the previous meeting, Valerie Taylor seconded, and the Committee approved the minutes unanimously.

Agenda Item C: Discussion of Project VisitsTom Dickey opened the discussion by observing that the teams of the three projects visited earlier that day all presented their data to support the proposals in different forms and that it might be of advantage to create an easy-format template for such data and indicators. Debbi Greene said work on this had started through Ray Almgren’s questionnaire. Valerie Taylor said such a template was very hard to create, because all projects have such different foci. Moonis Ali agreed saying the interpretation of the data was so important. Ben Streetman added that the institutions need to “follow the kids” to determine which disciplines they enter at higher education institutions, including out-of-state institutions, to provide an accurate measure of the success of recruitment programs. Otherwise, an increase was hard to demonstrate.

Tom Dickey suggested sending out a questionnaire to the departments to capture employment trends by mid-May and asking for a response in time for the early June Committee meeting. At a minimum the Committee would get feedback about the reasonableness of the data query. Reinold Cornelius offered to include the Committee’s questionnaire as part of the annual report, due at the end of summer.

Debbi Greene said she would investigate the Coordinating Board’s ability to track


B-4

employment data.

Ben Streetman gave compliments to the three departments visited for doing well on their Workforce Development grants projects. The Committee had seen varied approaches and different student targets addressed.

Tom Dickey suggested inviting other project leaders to these visits and Ben Streetman concurred that there was much to be learned. Valerie Taylor said they had seen elaborate presentations and a coordinated effort would pull in people.

Ben Streetman asked if these visits could be done with off-site presentations and slides. However, Valerie Taylor said she had enjoyed the large group of people involved with the projects, something possible only through onsite visits, and Linda Domelsmith added that the enthusiasm for and overall level of activity related to the project was better transmitted onsite as well. The Committee realized, that for their coming site visit in June, they would experience a mixture of onsite visits and off-site visits in that some of the departments from institutions in the area would travel to SMU to give a presentation.

Tom Dickey thanked staff for handling the logistics for the project visits.

Agenda Item D: Consideration on Funding, Funding Priorities and Guidelines for TWDCompetitions. Linda Domelsmith summarized the collection of letters asking the Comptroller for a State match to federal grants and in-kind contributions. The request for a match came from TETC. The letters were necessary, because the federal dollars went straight to the institutions and cannot be routed through the TWD account at the Comptroller’s office.

Linda Domelsmith explained the “wrinkle” that caused the ongoing delay of State match to federal grants, in-kind contributions, as well as industry cash. The State match was supposed to have come from the “Smart Jobs” fund but the legislative appropriations bill appropriated this money twice with the money going to, besides TWD, the Governor’s Texas Enterprise Fund. When staff tried to draw down the appropriated money as a match to TWD contributions, they learned that the funds were not available. The question now was whether the House and Senate would make other money available for this program. Debbi Greene added that not all of the $295 million Enterprise Fund had been obligated and that setting aside $8 million for this program might be accomplished through the House and Senate leadership working with the Governor.

In the meantime State representatives wanted to see the benefits of the program and staff prepared many data sheets on request. They are collected in the agenda materials under this section. Other than providing data, the situation was completely out of the hands of staff, said Linda Domelsmith.

Linda Domelsmith said she had conveyed to the House Appropriations Committee staff that the Board tracks progress toward goals of its higher education plan Closing the Gaps. The last progress report showed that in 2002, the State had achieved only 8.8 percent of the increase targeted for 2005 for technology degrees. This was far behind the progress for other goals. Ben Streetman noted that it was the intent for requesting as well as for receiving the $3 million dollars of federal earmarked appropriation to this program that it would be


B-5

matched by the State. Debbi Greene acknowledged this. Tom Dickey added industry would also be disappointed if the State match to their cash and in-kind contributions would not be provided.

The Committee took a five minute break.

Agenda Item E: Update on Proposed Rule Changes for the Technology Workforce Development Grant ProgramLinda Domelsmith explained that the Board had not received any comments to the proposed rule changes to the program the Board had accepted in a first reading in January. The rule changes are going before the Board for a second time at its April 22 meeting. She highlighted the change for a longer grant period of up to five years.

Reinold Cornelius introduced the Committee to guidelines for new rules regarding the State match for external grants. Debbi Greene explained that the Board’s legal counsel will draft rules from these guidelines and staff will bring the drafted rules before the Committee at its next meeting.

Ben Streetman asked why rules are necessary to get a State match to the $3 million federal appropriation. Staff said that these rules concern external grants to departments and in-kind donations to schools and departments and not the federal appropriation. TETC can deposit cash from the federal appropriation directly with the Comptroller for a match. Ben Streetman asked staff to add language to clarify this point.

Agenda item F: Consideration of Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Technology Workforce Development Grant ProgramReinold Cornelius introduced the summary of the written reviewer comments for the TWD 2003 competition under separate cover. The Committee had asked for this information at their last meeting to get a better insight into what kind of concerns the reviewer panels expressed in evaluating proposals.

Tom Dickey asked what it meant that this material was marked “confidential.” Staff said they had redacted most of the terms that would identify a particular institution or person so the members could keep the collection, but that they would not like to have this information displayed publicly.

Reinold Cornelius showed the present TWD roster. From fall 2001 to Fall 2003, the overall student count in electrical engineering had risen by 9 percent. In the computer sciences it had fallen by 12 percent. However, the number of graduated computer science baccalaureates increased considerably. This might indicate that students are now able to finish their studies because companies are not hiring the students before they finish. The roster was still undergoing changes, he said, since staff were continuing to work on programming improvements to the on-line tool used to collect data.

The Committee discussed whether to hold a separate review of the 2003 proposal review via a group of reviewers similar to the NSF’s Committee of Visitors, or whether to include such a review as part of the biennial external evaluation of the entire program required by statute. Staff explained that they would conduct the external review in the fall, since the new projects have not received funding and an earlier review would not make sense.


B-6

Committee members asked staff if they could direct the external review committee to include the review of the proposal review and staff said they could write a charge for the external review. Staff offered to include a draft to such a charge with the agenda materials for the next meeting.

Valerie Taylor moved to charge the external review committee with this review and Ben Streetman seconded. The Committee approved unanimously.

The committee adjourned at 2:30 p.m.

rrc April-16-2004

C-1

AGENDA ITEM C

Discussion of Project Visits

The Committee will tour active TWD projects at The University of Texas at Arlington, The University of Texas at Dallas, and Southern Methodist University during the morning. Teams of projects from the Texas Woman’s University and the University of North Texas will meet with members of the Committee on the SMU campus.

Committee members will comment on the projects they visited and note any issues that they wish to address regarding program guidelines or administration.


D-1

AGENDA ITEM D

Consideration on Funding and Funding Priorities

The Advisory Committee decided to use the first $2.4 million dollars available for funding of the second round of TWD grants. TETC has sent $363,000 to the TWD account at the Comptroller’s office and the program is awaiting a State match. Together with a match, this money would allow the second round of TWD grants to receive 30 percent of their funding.

Consideration of Minutes of the Previous Meeting Action: The Committee will discuss implications of the funding situation for the program.

TETC Fundraising Successes, 2004/2005: Cash

Balance Transfers Transfer Sum Comptroller:

Year AMDApplied

MaterialsSematech

Lockheed Martin

Motorola IntelFederal Appropr.

TETC's account

to Comptroller Date TransfersWith State

MatchJan 1 2004 $100,000 $100,000 0.00 0.00Feb 2 2004 $100,000 $5,000 $10,000 $215,000 0.00 0.00Mar 3 2004 $225 $75,000 $100,000 $232,225 (158,000.00) 2-Mar-04 158,000.00 316,000.00Mar 3b 2004 $157,225 (75,000.00) 26-Mar-04 233,000.00 466,000.00Apr 4 2004 $57,225 (100,000.00) 26-Apr-04 333,000.00 666,000.00May 5 2004 $30,000 $57,225 (30,000.00) 21-May-04 363,000.00 726,000.00Jun 6 2004 $57,225 363,000.00 726,000.00Jul 7 2004 $57,225 363,000.00 726,000.00Aug 8 2004 $57,225 363,000.00 726,000.00Sep 9 2004 $57,225 363,000.00 726,000.00Oct 10 2004 $57,225 363,000.00 726,000.00Nov 11 2004 $57,225 363,000.00 726,000.00Dec 12 2004 $57,225 363,000.00 726,000.00Jan 1 2004 $57,225 363,000.00 726,000.00Feb 2 2005 $57,225 363,000.00 726,000.00Mar 3 2005 $57,225 363,000.00 726,000.00Apr 4 2005 $57,225 363,000.00 726,000.00May 5 2005 $57,225 363,000.00 726,000.00Jun 6 2005 $57,225 363,000.00 726,000.00Jul 7 2005 $57,225 363,000.00 726,000.00Aug 8 2005 $57,225 363,000.00 726,000.00

total $100,225 $100,000 $5,000 $40,000 $75,000 $100,000 $0

$ needed for 2003 funding: $2,399,949available (with State match): $726,000

theoretical present funding level: 30.3%updated: 24-May-04

Month

Technology Workforce Development Grant Proposals: 2003Awards

Pending sufficient funding in the TWD account with the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts

Computer Sciences Fund Category 11. The University of Texas at Austin $447,990 Recruiting and Retaining Computer Science Students 2. Texas Engineering Experiment Station $173,158 Increasing Computer Science Retention with Peer Teachers and Learning Modules 3. Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi $235,817 More Attention for Retention and Recruitment 4. Texas Tech University $35,930 Integrated, Seamless, Education System to Recruit and Retain Students 5. The University of Texas - Pan American $67,105 Increasing Computer Science Graduates and Enrollment through Learning Communities and Outreach

Electrical Engineering Fund Category 1 1. Texas A&M University – Kingsville $50,325 Expansion of Electrical Engineering Program at TAMUK with Scholarships and Tutoring 2. The University of Texas - Pan American $104,518 Electrical Engineering Recruitment and Retention through On-Campus Jobs and Summer Scholarships 3. The University of Texas at El Paso $139,767 Creating Learning Communities at UTEP to Increase Throughput 4. Texas Tech University $255,562 Electrical Engineering Recruitment and Retention at Texas Tech 5. Texas Engineering Experiment Station $313,828 Improving the Quality, Quantity, and Diversity of Electrical and Computer Engineering

Graduates

Electrical Engineering Fund Category 2 6. Prairie View A&M University $52,449 Increasing the Quantity and Diversity of Students Pursuing Degrees in Electrical and Computer Engineering 7. The University of Texas at San Antonio $69,000 Improving Retention in Electrical Engineering Using Programmable Logic Devices 8. Southern Methodist University $31,248 SHinE: Strengthening Hispanics in Engineering 9. The University of Texas at Arlington $91,803 Recruitment and Retention to Increase the Number of Undergraduate Students in the Electrical Engineering Program 10. University of Houston (Main) $331,449 Undergraduate Retention and Recruiting of Electrical and Computer Engineering Students at the University of Houston

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER AND SERVICE PROVIDER

Enclosure: TI In-Kind donations summary sheet (CB compilation) Tegwin Pulley’s letter from May 7, 2004 Cathy Wick’s TI pricing from December 1, 2003 Confirmations to TETC from academic recipients

Cc: Don Brown, Commissioner, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Kenneth Vickers, Assistant Commissioner, Administrative Services, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Tom Dickey, Chair, Technology Workforce Development Grant Program Advisory Committee Tegwin Pulley, Chair, Texas Engineering and Technical Consortium Advisory Committee

Hardware Software TotalInstitution Kits Studio May-04

1 Sam Houston State University $3,950 $9,000 $12,9502 Southern Methodist University $3,160 $0 $3,1603 Texas A&M University at Commerce $750 $900 $1,6504 Texas Tech University $3,950 $9,000 $12,950

5(a) University of Texas at Arlington (Computer Science) $3,550 $9,000 $12,5505(b) University of Texas at Arlington (Electrical Engineering) $3,750 $9,000 $12,750

6 University of Texas at Brownsville $3,950 $9,000 $12,9507 University of Texas at San Antonio $3,950 $9,000 $12,950

sum $27,010 $54,900 $81,910

THECB11-May-04

Texas Instruments In-Kind Donation of DSP Equipment and Software

E-1

AGENDA ITEM E

Consideration of Granting Time Extensions to 2002 Grants

In April the Board changed its rules for TWD to include section 13.195. b: “Grants shall be for a period of no longer than five years.” This allows the Committee to extend the grant period for the 2002 TWD grants beyond the present termination date of August 31, 2004. The 2002 grants started April 1, 2002.

This section contains the list of grants for the 2002 grants. The list of grants for the 2003 grants is under Agenda Item D.

Action: The Committee will consider granting a time extension for the 2002 TWD grants.

E-3

Texas Technology Workforce Development Grants Funded Awards: 2002

Funding received by August 2003: 64 percent of potential funding

Electrical Engineering Awards

Launching the Texas Engineering Education Pipeline: Deploying The Infinity Project Statewide

Baylor University $24,435 of $38,000 Lamar University $45,656 of $71,000 Prairie View A&M University $49,900 of $77,600 Rice University $18,052 of $29,763 Southern Methodist University $62,180 of $96,697 St. Mary’s University of San Antonio $31,940 of $49,670 Texas A&M University $37,296 of $58,000 The University of Texas at Arlington $57,678 of $89,697 The University of Texas at Austin $59,256 of $92,150 The University of Texas at El Paso $57,873 of $90,000 The University of Texas at San Antonio $57,680 of $89,700

Increasing Electrical Engineering Program Enrollment: New Program, Increased Retention and College Transfers

Prairie View A&M University $248,084 of $385,800

Enhancing the Quality and Quantity of Electrical and Computer Engineering Graduates

Texas A&M University (TEES) $546,705 of $850,192

Expansion of the EE Program at TAMU-K with Scholarships and Tutoring Texas A&M University – Kingsville $41,335 of $64,280

Electrical Engineering Workforce Development at Texas Tech Texas Tech University $204,176 of $317,518

Undergraduate Retention and Recruiting of ECE Students at the University of Houston

University of Houston (Main Campus) $388,684 of $604,450

Recruitment and Retention to Increase the Number of Undergraduate Students in the Electrical Engineering Program

The University of Texas at Arlington $197,200 of $306,670

Increasing and Improving Texas Capability in Electrical Engineering The University of Texas at Austin $546,581 of $850,000

UTD School of Engineering and Computer Science -- TETC Undergraduate Expansion Program

The University of Texas at Dallas $446,911 of $695,000

Electrical Engineering Recruitment and Retention Enhancement The University of Texas - Pan American $172,450 of $268,180

E-4

Computer Science Awards

Study, Research, and Achievement in Lamar University Computer Science Lamar University $63,526 of $98,790

Enhance Computing Workforce & Provide Higher Education in Computer Science to Working Professionals

Southwest Texas State University $391,932 of $609,502

Launching the Texas Engineering Education Pipeline: Deploying the Infinity Project Statewide

Tarleton State University $14,799 of $23,014 Texas Woman’s University $36,975 of $57,500 The University of Texas at Arlington $72,756 of $113,144 The University of Texas at Tyler $28,551 of $44,400

Increasing Computer Science Retention by Developing and Deploying Self-Paced Learning Modules

Texas A&M University (TEES) $271,807 of $422,692

Efficient, Cost-Effective, Seamless, Advising Process to Increase CS GraduatesTexas Tech University $125,278 of $194,822

Texas Scholars in Computer Science University of Houston - Clear Lake $327,252 of $508,916

Recruitment and Retention of Computer Science Students University of Houston – Victoria $40,635 of $63,192

Retention Strategies for Computer Sciences University of North Texas $83,322 of $129,575

Target Diversity: Increasing Graduation Rates by Recruiting and Retaining Underrepresented Populations

The University of Texas at Austin $235,858 of $366,788

Building Strategic Pathways to the Baccalaureate Degree in Computer Science The University of Texas at San Antonio $313,224 of $487,102

F-1

AGENDA ITEM F

Update on Proposed Rule Changes for the Technology Workforce Development Grant Program

The guidelines include now the Committee’s recommendation from it’s April 14 meeting to include this sentence:

(a) Cash contributions for TETC purposes from federal or other external sources may be deposited without CB verification into the TWD account at the Comptroller’s office for State match.


F-3

Developing Guidelines for State Matching Funds for External Grants

13.198. State Match for Federal or Other External (Non-State) Grants

(a) Cash contributions for TETC purposes from federal or other external sources may be deposited without CB verification into the TWD account at the Comptroller’s office for State match.

(b) Institutions that have received approval for Technology Workforce Development grants can apply for federal or other external (non-state) funding and indicate that the grants process of the Technology Workforce Development grants program has approved them for State funding. Strategies proposed for federal/external funding must be similar to those submitted to the Technology Workforce Development Grant Program.

(c) The Board will review federal/external grants to determine if the grants are eligible for generating State matching funds in the Technology Workforce Development account. The review process is initiated when an institution provides the Board with a copy of the proposal submitted for federal/external funding, a copy of the federal/external award letter, and a stipulation letter that explains why the purpose and goals of the federal/external grant align with the institution’s Technology Workforce Development grant and references relevant sections of the federal/external proposal.

(d) If the Coordinating Board deems the federal/external grant eligible for a State match to the TWD account, it will verify the value of the match from the Comptroller.

(e) Criteria for eligibility are:

(1) The Technology Workforce Development grant project was a pilot project for a larger scope federal/external project.

(2) The Technology Workforce Development grant project created conditions used for proposing the federal/external project.

(3) The Technology Workforce Development grant strategy and the federal/external grant strategy are unique to the institution or its department.

(4) The institution or its department has no prior funding through the particular external funding program.

(5) A majority of funding must go to the type of departments the Technology Workforce Development grants target for funding (Texas Engineering and Technical Consortium members). Support areas, e.g., mathematics, chemistry, or physics, can be included, if funding prepares students to succeed in the target departments.

(6) Funding must support strategies to increase the number of graduates as described in Texas Education Code, Section 51.857.

(7) The federal/external grant amount (dollar value) must be in-line with the scope of Technology Workforce Development grant projects at that institution or its department.

(8) A fraction of external funding can be in-line with goals of the Texas Engineering and Technical Consortium and the suitable portion only may be approved for requesting a State match for the Technology Workforce Development grant program.

(f) The Texas Engineering and Technical Consortium will submit a letter to the Comptroller requesting the State match for the federal/external grant because the

F-4

grant supports the goals and program of the Technology Workforce Development program.

(g) If the Comptroller provides matching funds to the Technology Workforce Development account because of an institution’s federal/external grant, the Coordinating Board will use these funds to fill the partially funded active TWD grant(s) that generated the funding up to the approved funding level for the project(s).

(h) The Coordinating Board will use matching funds generated by federal/external grants over and above the award limit of a partially funded grant to provide additional funding for approved grants in the priority order established by the review panels and recommended by the Technology Workforce Development Grant Program Advisory Committee.

(i) All funding from federal/external grants made to institutions for these projects will remain with the grantee institutions.

G-1

AGENDA ITEM G

Consideration of Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the TWD Grant Program

At its April 14, 2004 meeting, the Committee decided to include an explicit “charge” for the upcoming biennial external program review to include functioning as a kind of “Committee of Visitors” for the proposal selection process.

This section contains a draft for an all-encompassing charge for external review committee, an up-date of the TWD roster summary compilation, a cost per student tabulation, and CB forms for annual and final reports by the grantees.

Consideration of Minutes of the Previous Meeting Action: The Committee will consider its charge to the external Grant Program Evaluation Committee.

G-3

Grant Program Evaluation Committee

The Chair of the Coordinating Board (CB) will appoint a committee to review the effectiveness of the Technology Workforce Development (TWD) grant program. This committee, hereinafter referred to as the “Evaluation Team,” will consist of higher education representatives; and experts in the fields of engineering and computer science

The Evaluation Team shall meet with: a. representatives of State government b. CB staff c. TWD Grant Program Advisory Committee d. Texas Engineering and Technical Consortium (TETC) Executive Committee e. project leaders f. members of past proposal review teams

CB staff will supply, at a minimum, review materials containing: a. review schedule b. enabling legislation, CB rules, and TETC bylaws c. program announcements and grant conditions d. instruction for reviewers and evaluation criteria e. list of awards f. funding statistics g. CB annual reports h. TWD roster statistics i. previous external review

The Evaluation Team will have access to: a. proposals and review sheets b. grantee’s annual reports c. TWC Grant Program Advisory Committee agenda materials

The Evaluation Team will make observations and offer recommendations about fulfilling the statutory purposes for the program with regard to these activities:

1. CB Administration

2. Proposal Review Process: a. program announcement b. review criteria c. reviewer recruitment d. proposal review, ranking, and selection

3. Grant Program Implementation and Operation: a. proposal submissions b. collaboration between academic TETC members

4. Program Metrics: a. TWD rosters b. progress reports

G-4

5. Funding and Continuance Issues

6. Participation of Independent Engineering Institutions

7. Industry Participation

8. Value of Program to the State of Texas

G-5

From: Cornelius, Reinold Dr. Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 10:59 AM To: '[email protected]' Subject: RE: Metrics for TWD

Ray, I attach the measurement definitions as well as some FAQs including roster questions.

The more classical classifications of Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior would be easier to report for most departments, I assume. When our former Assistant Commissioner Roger Elliott determined the present TWD measurement definitions (I don't know who else was involved in the process), he stressed that we should include accounting of specific classroom milestones. He felt is was important for the departments to have a close tap on how far along their students are in reaching the actual goal of graduation.

We relaxed the requirement a bit by allowing large institutions to use a "benchmark" course for their measurement, if this benchmark course implies the same minimum requirements as for the TWD roster definitions (see FAQ). Important is that each department is consistent in reporting over time.

By now all departments are getting more used to the reporting and I feel the data collection is getting better. The revised web entry for the data input also helps. I don't think we can change the measurement definitions mid-stream without rendering the entire effort useless.

The problem is the sensitivity of the system: if we have, say, 7000 EE students total in the state, and we have ca. 20 EE departments reporting, a small error from each department (e.g., five students) can easily translate into a one to two percent error of the overall measurement. This is not good if we try to detect a five percent growth. (I have not done a rigorous error calculation yet; it is probably something we should do.) Worse, we have departments with vastly different populations. Less than careful reporting at one large department can throw the entire measurement into disarray.

I think the best way to improve the data is to make known how important it is for TETC.

We will be here Friday. If you want to meet somewhere or if you would like to talk on the phone, please tell us.

So long, Reinold

> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 8:56 AM > To: Cornelius, Reinold Dr. > Subject: Metrics for TWD > > Hello Reinold, > > Before we make any new recommendations on what metrics we should obtain from the TETC institutions, we wanted to be sure we completely understand the process that

G-6

you use to obtain the current metrics on entering, progressing, graduating etc. We assume that these are the only metrics you currently obtain from the universities > > Can you provide me with any information that will help us understand how well this process works for you. A specific question we have is whether schools would more easily supply information based upon the more classical classifications of Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior. > > Also, we would like to know what suggestions you have for either improving the process or improving the quality of the data you receive. > > If you prefer, I can come to your office to discuss this. I'm out of the office this week until Friday. Would you have time to meet this Friday afternoon? > > Best Regards, > > Ray Almgren

G-7

Measuring Progress

2002 Texas Technology Workforce Development Grants Program Announcement

The goal of the grant program is to increase the number of graduates. While some increase in graduates can be obtained in the near term by increased retention, in general, it requires four to six years to produce a graduate and the Coordinating Board defined three pre-graduation enrollment measures:

ENTERING - a student with a declared major in the eligible engineering or computer science programs who has a GPA of at least 2.0 or is in good standing during the first semester of enrollment and who has not yet completed both the semester credit and course requirements for "Progressing" students.

PROGRESSING - a student with a declared major in the eligible engineering or computer science programs who has a GPA of at least 2.0 and who has completed between 30 and 89 semester credits that count toward his or her degree, including two semesters of calculus and two semesters of a required science course.

ADVANCED - a student who has been admitted to an eligible engineering or computer science degree program and who has accumulated at least 90 semester credits that count toward his or her degree with a GPA of at least 2.0.

GRADUATED - a student who was awarded a baccalaureate degree from an eligible engineering or computer science program during the previous 12-month period from the beginning of the present semester.

All participating institutions track all four measures.

G-8

Frequently Asked Questions for the Texas Technology Workforce Development Grants Competition

Question: Measuring Progress. First semester students have not taken any exams and will not have a GPA. Shall they be counted? Answer: Yes, first semester students in "good standing" should be counted as "ENTERING"

Question: Measuring Progress. Some students do not fall into any category: those who have more than 30 semester credits but who have not yet completed the math and science requirements for "PROGRESSING" status. Answer: All students who not yet have acquired all conditions to be counted as "PROGRESSING" should be counted as "ENTERING", as long as their GPA is at least 2.0 (or first semesters in good standing), even if their semester credits are more than 30 hours.

Question: Measuring Progress. With thousands of students to count, a manual check of whether or not courses taken "count toward [a student's] degree" may be too difficult to conduct. Answer: One of the purposes of the tracking system is to ensure that departments are tracking the progress of their students. We measure progress at only three points - progressing, advanced, and graduating. A department might use some department specific criteria for classifying students, such as the completion of, or the enrollment in, a certain course. This is acceptable if it guarantees, that the Program Announcement's criteria are met at a minimum. You should also be consistent in your measuring from year to year!

Question: Proposal Format. For the 'Description of undergraduate program', do we need to calculate the overview of historical enrollments in terms of "ENTERING", "PROGRESSING", "ADVANCED", and "GRAD"? Answer: No. You need to include those measuring measures from the fall of 2001 only. You should point out peculiarities of your system, which explain all your statistics. The goal is to give the reviewers of your grant the best information, with which they can fairly compare your department from other.

Question: Proposal Format. We are double-spacing our text for the proposal, but we are including some tables. Can tables be single-spaced? Answer: Yes. Tables are commonly single-spaced.

Question: Proposal Format. What are 'quality indicators', asked for under 'Description of undergraduate program'? Answer: Some indicators of quality of your program might include, among others, the entrance requirements for students entering the program; academic qualifications of your students; percentage of courses taught by full-time faculty; qualifications of your faculty; accreditation, in the case of CS programs (all EE programs must be accredited); quality of laboratory facilities.

G-9

Question: Budget. Is there a limit I can budget for faculty salary (as it is the case for the ARP/ATP competition)? Answer: No. Your plan might conceivably be to hire new faculty.

Question: Budget. If I do not budget time as cost for the TETC grant, will this be seen as a detriment - even though the University will give me time out of their budget to further our effort. Answer: No. Make sure you include such arrangements in your proposal body for the review panel to understand clearly.

Percentage Increase

Relative to Base Line

Goals of TWD Grant E P A

E+P+A G E+P+A+G E P A G E+P+A G

Electrical Engineering fall 2001 2430 2544 1873 6847 862 fall base line

spring 2002 spring base line

fall 2002 2589 2501 2167 7257 965 7% 159 -43 294 103 6% 12%

spring 2003fall 2003 2997 2323 2085 7405 691 5% 408 -178 -82 -274 2% -28%

spring 2004fall 2004

"2002" 2912 2969 2172 8053 1075 18% 482 425 299 213

"2003" 3118 3135 2317 8570 1182 27% 206 166 145 107

Percentage Increase




Computer Sciences fall 2001 3065 3043 2225 8333 1041 fall base line


fall 2002 2612 2471 2545 7628 1305 -5% -453 -572 320 264 -8% 25%

spring 2003fall 2003 2019 2136 2279 6434 1461 -16% -593 -335 -266 156 -16% 12%


"2002" 3356 3235 2442 9033 1208 9% 291 192 217 167

"2003" 3506 3334 2478 9318 1238 13% 150 99 36 30GOAL for fall 06

Department

GOAL for fall 04

May 1, 2004page 1 of 2

Percentage Increase over Previous Year

Table 1 TETC Roster Data Summary - Electrical Engineering

Semester Roster Data by CategoryChange in Student Numbers

over Previous Year

Percentage Increase over Previous Year

GOAL for fall 06

Department

GOAL for fall 04

Table 2 TETC Roster Data Summary - Computer Sciences

Semester Roster Data by CategoryChange in Student Numbers

over Previous Year

Percentage Increase




fall 2001 5495 5587 4098 15180 1903 fall base line


fall 2002 5201 4972 4712 14885 2270 0% -294 -615 614 367 -2% 19%

spring 2003fall 2003 5016 4459 4364 13839 2152 -6% -185 -513 -348 -118 -7% -5%


"2002" 6268 6204 4614 17086 2283 13% 773 617 516 380

"2003" 6624 6469 4795 17888 2420 19% 356 265 181 137

Computer Sciences and Electrical Engineering, combined

GOAL for fall 04

GOAL for fall 06

Roster Data by CategoryChange in Student Numbers

over Previous Year

Department

Table 3 TETC Roster Data Summary - Computer Sciences and Electrical EngineeringPercentage

Increase over Previous Year

page 2 of 2

Semester

G-12

Annual Report for

Texas Technology Workforce Development Grant Fall 2003 Through Summer 2004

Deadline: July 15 2004

Any previous project summaries and reports are listed on http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/techworkforce/

Activity Type Emphasis of Activity Type as Percent of Overall

Project

Number of Students Involved

(fall ‘03 through summer ‘04)

Student Recruitment Student Retention Student Mentoring Efforts Concerning Under-represented Students

Outreach Placement Other: (_______________________)

A) For each strategy in your approved project, describe in abstract form the activities followed through with TWD grant money. (Please keep your answers short and concise. If a strategy covers more than one activity type, please use the type that you feel is most relevant.) a. Student Recruitment b. Student Retention c. Student Mentoring

Institution: Department: Project Title: Project Number: Grant Cycle (2002 or 2003):

Name of Person completing report: Title: Phone: E-mail:

Date: Signature or name of OSP representative:

(Electronic submission is preferred; please cc your OSP.)

G-13

d. Efforts Concerning Under-represented Students e. Outreach f. Placement g. Other (_______________________)

B) Please state if you believe your program was successful and why or why not.

C) What constraints do you see as impacting the progress of your project (e.g. staff time, availability of equipment, facilities, other)?

D) Please list recommendations for other project leaders regarding improving recruitment and retention of students based on your experience.

E) Please list any publications.

F) Please list any additional grants for which TWD funding served as “seed funding.”

G) If you received in-kind contributions to TETC, i.e., NI, TI, or Motorola hardware and software, please describe if and how you put them to use for the purposes of TWD.

H) What suggestions/requests do you have for the Texas Workforce Development Grants Advisory Committee? a. Grant proposal process b. Review process c. Award amounts d. Assessment process e. Other

I) We are interested in detailed information on curriculum changes. Please summarize improvements you have made to courses based on your TWD grant project. List only those changes, which you added fall 2003 through summer 2004 (for previous changes you reported see: http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/techworkforce/).

Course number: Course name: Curriculum improvement: Number of students effected:

J) You may want to relay any ‘Success Stories’ related to the TWD project:

K) Additional Comments:

G-14

Final Report for

Texas Technology Workforce Development Grants

TWD 2002

Any previous project summaries and reports are listed on http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/techworkforce/

Activity Type Emphasis of Activity Type as Percent of Overall

Project

Number of Students Involved

Over Period of Grant Student Recruitment Student Retention Student Mentoring Efforts Concerning Under-represented Students

Outreach Placement Other: (_______________________)

L) For each strategy in your approved project, describe in abstract form the activities followed through with TWD grant money. (Please keep your answers short and concise. If a strategy covers more than one activity type, please use the type that you feel is most relevant.) a. Student Recruitment b. Student Retention c. Student Mentoring

Institution: Department: Project Title: Project Number:

Name of Project Leader completing report: Title: Phone: E-mail:

Date: Signature or name of OSP representative:

(For electronic submission please cc your OSP.)

G-15

d. Efforts Concerning Under-represented Students e. Outreach f. Placement g. Other (_______________________)

M) Please state if you believe your program was successful and why or why not.

N) What constraints did you see as impacting the progress of your project (e.g. staff time, availability of equipment, facilities, other)?

O) Please list recommendations for other project leaders regarding improving recruitment and retention of students based on your experience.

P) Please list any publications.

Q) Please list any additional grants for which TWD funding served as “seed funding.”

R) If you received in-kind contributions to TETC, i.e., NI, TI, or Motorola hardware and software, please describe if and how you put them to use for the purposes of TWD.

S) What suggestions/requests do you have for the Texas Workforce Development Grants Advisory Committee? a. Grant proposal process b. Review process c. Award amounts d. Assessment process e. Other

T) We are interested in detailed information on curriculum changes. Please summarize improvements you have made to courses based on your TWD grant project.

Course number: Course name: Curriculum improvement: Number of students effected:

U) You may want to relay any ‘Success Stories’ related to the TWD project:

V) Additional Comments:

Approved Received Expended Unexpended Approved Received Expended Unexpended54 percent 64 percent

A PersonnelProject Leader $0 $0

Graduates/Post-Doc $0 $0Undergraduates $0 $0

Other $0 $0Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Fringe Benefits## $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

B Capital EquipmentTotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

C TravelTotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

D Other Direct CostsTotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Total Budget $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

# For Independent Institutions## Fringe Benefits were not part of the original budgets. Fringe Beneftis were allowed due to a change in Grant Conditions

in June 2002. (see: http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/techworkforce/)

Institution

Department

Project Title

Project Number

Grant Cycle (2002 or 2003)

Project Leader

Date

Signature

Budget Institutional Matching#

Technology Workforce Development Grants Final Financial Report

H-1

AGENDA ITEM H

News and Information

TWD’s new website: http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/techworkforce/ E-3

CB Press Release, April 22, 2004: Raymund A. Paredes appointed Commissioner E-5

The New York Times Op-Ed, May 13, 2004: Where the Jobs Are E-7


In 2001, the 77th Texas Legislature passed the Technology Workforce Development Act, in response to requests by industry to increase the number of electrical engineering and computer science graduates from higher education institutions in the state. The purpose of the law is

to provide seed money that would enable institutions to expand enrollments in engineering and computer science programs, to increase both the quantity and quality of baccalaureate-level engineers and computer scientists, to foster cooperative relationships and activities involving technology companies and universities that offer engineering and computer science degrees.

This legislation created the Texas Engineering and Technical Consortium (TETC), the Technology Workforce Development (TWD) Grants Program, and charged the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) with administration of the grant program.

Technology Workforce Development Grants Program

TWD Advisory Committee

TWD Calendar

What are TWD Grants Programs? (including links to statute and CB rules)

What is TETC?

TETC's Web Site

Program Successes...

Program Benefits...

External Evaluations of the TWD Grants Program ( January 200� )

TWD Awards ( 2002), ( 200�)

TWD Project Summaries and Annual Reports 2002 and 200�, listed by departments

TWD Student Roster Fall '01 through Fall '0�

TWD Annual Reports by THECB

Log in to Edit YoDepartment's TWRoster (for academic TETC m

Annual Report 2(Deadline: July 15)

Final Report for Final Report aFinancial Repo

Audit Guide anfor Institutional A

Forms for a bud

Page 1 of 2THECB > Technology Workforce Development Grants Program

5/24/2004http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/techworkforce/

TWD Grants Statistics

Closing the Gaps by 2015 (2000), (Progress Report 200�)

Expanding the Technology Workforce - Higher Education's Role

( 2002), ( 200�)

TWD Program Announcements ( 2002), ( 2002 revised grant conditions), ( 200�)

(MS Excel) or a schange (MS Wo

Page 2 of 2THECB > Technology Workforce Development Grants Program

5/24/2004http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/techworkforce/

H-5

TEXAS HIGHER EDUCATION

COORDINATING BOARD

1200 East Anderson Lane •••• P.O. Box 12788, Austin, Texas 78711-2788 •••• www.thecb.state.tx.us

AUSTIN, April 22, 2004 – Raymund A. Paredes, Vice President for Programs at the

Hispanic Scholarship Fund, a former professor and university administrator with long

experience in student outreach efforts, and a native Texan with degrees from a Texas

university was appointed Commissioner of Higher Education today by the Texas Higher

Education Coordinating Board.

“Dr. Paredes has the special mix of knowledge, skill, and experience that Texas must

have in a higher education leader,” said Jerry Farrington, Chairman of the Coordinating

Board. “He’s the right person at the right time to continue and build on the progress we’ve

made in closing the gaps in student participation and success, in excellence, and in

research.”

“Dr. Paredes has experience in working with a wide range of people in higher education,

public education, and state government,” said Bob Shepard, Vice Chairman of the

Coordinating Board. “In particular, his experience in reaching out to public schools will

help Texas further strengthen collaboration and cooperation between that sector and our

colleges and universities.”

Paredes, a native of El Paso, holds a bachelor’s degree in English and a doctoral

degree in American Civilization from The University of Texas at Austin. He holds a

master’s degree in American Studies from the University of Southern California.

Before his current position at the Hispanic Scholarship Fund, Paredes was Director of

Creativity and Culture at The Rockefeller Foundation, where from 2001 to 2003 he

managed a program that awarded arts and humanities grants worldwide. He was also a

senior scholar and adjunct professor at The University of Texas at San Antonio from

January to August 2003.

Ray Grasshoff Public Information

(512) 427-6111

H-6

Prior to his work with The Rockefeller Foundation, Paredes was Associate Vice

Chancellor-Academic Development for 10 years at the University of California, Los

Angeles (UCLA). His duties included oversight of outreach efforts to K-12 and community

college students.

At UCLA, he also served as an English professor from 1973 to 2001, Assistant to the

Executive Vice Chancellor from 1982 to 1986, Associate Dean in the Graduate Division

from 1986 to 1989, and Chair of the Cesar Chavez Center for Chicano Studies from 1996

to 1998. In addition, he was Special Assistant to the President of the University of

California System from 1998 to 2000, a position in which he was responsible for improving

access to higher education for students from economically disadvantaged communities.

Paredes’ extensive research and writing has focused on Mexican American literature

and culture, as well as the impact of demographic change on American culture, art, and

education. In addition, he has been a judge for the Los Angeles Times Book Prize in

fiction, a cultural diversity consultant for National Public Radio, and a consultant on

several film projects.

-more-

A U.S. Army veteran, he served a 14-month tour of duty in the Vietnam conflict.

Paredes will succeed Commissioner of Higher Education Don W. Brown, who at the end

of May is stepping down from the position after seven years and after more than 20 years

with the Coordinating Board. Brown is leaving to help the College for All Texans

Foundation and other efforts to reach the goals of Closing the Gaps by 2015, the state’s

higher education plan.

###

Ref-1

Reference Section

Reference Materials

Texas Education, Code Chapter 51, Subchapter X. TECHNOLOGY WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT.................................................................................................Ref-3

House Bill 1 General Appropriations Bill (excerpt for TWD).................................Ref-8

Board Rules, Subchapter K. Technology Workforce Development Grant Program ....................................................................................................Ref-9

Texas Engineering and Technical Consortium Bylaws ......................................Ref-13

Meeting Schedule for 2003 ........................................................................ back cover

Ref-3

17 Texas Education Code, Chapter 51 18

SUBCHAPTER X. TECHNOLOGY WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT 19 20

§ 51.851. PURPOSE. The purpose of this subchapter is to establish programs to: 21 (1) increase the number of engineering and computer science 22 graduates from Texas institutions of higher education; and 23 (2) increase collaborative efforts between universities, 24 engineering and computer science departments, and private companies in Texas. 25

26 Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 146, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. 27 Renumbered from V.T.C.A., Education Code § 51.831 by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 28 1275, § 2(26), eff. Sept. 1, 2003. 29

30 31

§ 51.852. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter: 32 (1) "Account" means the technology workforce development 33 account. 34 (2) "Consortium" means the Texas Engineering and Technical 35 Consortium. 36 (3) "Coordinating board" means the Texas Higher Education 37 Coordinating Board. 38 (4) "Eligible computer science institution" means a general 39 academic teaching institution that offers a baccalaureate degree program in 40 computer science. 41 (5) "Eligible engineering institution" means a general academic 42 teaching institution that offers a baccalaureate degree program in engineering that is 43 accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology. 44 (6) "Eligible private or independent engineering institution" 45 means a private or independent institution of higher education that offers a 46 baccalaureate degree program in electrical engineering that is accredited by the 47 Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology. 48 (7) "General academic teaching institution" has the meaning 49 assigned by Section 61.003. 50 (8) "Private or independent institution of higher education" has 51 the meaning assigned by Section 61.003. 52

53 Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 146, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. 54 Renumbered from V.T.C.A., Education Code § 51.832 55

56 § 51.853. TEXAS ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL 57 CONSORTIUM. (a) Eligible engineering institutions, eligible computer science 58 institutions, and private companies as described by Subsection (b) may establish 59 and administer the Texas Engineering and Technical Consortium as a resource-60 sharing program operated within an eligible institution to: 61 (1) provide a forum for eligible engineering institutions, eligible 62 computer science institutions, and private companies to consolidate research grant 63 applications and research projects; 64 (2) strengthen instruction in engineering and computer science; 65

Ref-4

(3) institute recruitment, development, and retention programs 66 for students in engineering and computer science programs; 67 (4) share instructional and research resources; and 68 (5) coordinate activities related to engineering and computer 69 science instruction, research, and public service. 70 (b) The consortium must include at least one eligible engineering 71 institution or eligible computer science institution. Each participant in the consortium 72 must be: 73 (1) an eligible engineering institution; 74 (2) an eligible computer science institution; or 75 (3) a private company that contributes at least $100,000 each 76 year to the consortium. 77 (c) At the end of each two-year period or any other period determined by 78 the consortium, the consortium may transfer its administrative functions to another 79 eligible institution participating in the consortium. 80

81 Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 146, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. 82 Renumbered from V.T.C.A., Education Code § 51.833 by Acts 2003, 83 78th Leg., ch. 1275, § 2(26), eff. Sept. 1, 2003. 84

85 86

§ 51.854. CONSORTIUM ADVISORY COMMITTEE. (a) The consortium 87 shall appoint an advisory committee to advise and make recommendations to the 88 consortium regarding the operations and activities of the consortium. 89 (b) The advisory committee must include a representative of each 90 consortium participant. 91 (c) The advisory committee is subject to Chapter 2110, Government 92 Code. 93


98 99

§ 51.855. GIFTS, GRANTS AND DONATIONS; TECHNOLOGY 100 WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNT. (a) The consortium may solicit and 101 accept gifts, grants, and donations of any kind and from any source, including 102 foundations, corporations, and institutions of higher education, for the purpose of 103 implementing this subchapter. 104 (b) The consortium shall transfer money received under Subsection (a), 105 other than money retained to administer the consortium, to the comptroller for 106 deposit to the credit of the technology workforce development account. 107 (c) The technology workforce development account is an account in the 108 general revenue fund. Money in the account may be appropriated only for the 109 purpose of awarding grants under this subchapter. 110 (d) The account consists of gifts, grants, and donations deposited to the 111 credit of the account under this section. 112 (e) The coordinating board shall administer the account and shall adopt 113 any rules necessary to administer the account. 114

115 Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 146, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. 116

Ref-5

Renumbered from V.T.C.A., Education Code § 51.835 by Acts 2003, 117 78th Leg., ch. 1275, § 2(26), eff. Sept. 1, 2003. 118

119 120

§ 51.856. APPROPRIATIONS; STATE MATCHING 121 PROGRAM. (a) The legislature may appropriate money from the undedicated 122 portion of the general revenue fund, in addition to money from the technology 123 workforce development account, for the purpose of awarding grants under this 124 subchapter. 125 (b) For a state fiscal biennium, the amount appropriated from the 126 undedicated portion of the general revenue fund under Subsection (a) may not be 127 less than the sum of: 128 (1) the amount of money deposited to the credit of the account 129 during that biennium under Section 51.855; and 130 (2) the market value of any in-kind contributions accepted by the 131 consortium during that biennium under Section 51.855, as determined by the 132 comptroller based on information provided to the comptroller by the consortium and 133 verified by the coordinating board. 134 (c) Subsection (b) does not prohibit the legislature from appropriating an 135 amount under Subsection (a) that exceeds the minimum matching amount 136 computed under Subsection (b). 137

138 Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 146, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. 139 Renumbered from V.T.C.A., Education Code § 51.836 and amended by 140 Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1275, § 2(26), 3(7), eff. Sept. 1, 2003. 141

142 143

§ 51.857. GRANT PROGRAM. (a) The coordinating board shall use 144 money appropriated under Section 52.856 to award grants as described by 145 Subsection (c) on a competitive, peer-review basis to eligible engineering 146 institutions, eligible computer science institutions, and eligible private or 147 independent engineering institutions meeting the requirements of Subsection (d) to: 148 (1) increase the number of graduates with baccalaureate 149 degrees in engineering and computer science; 150 (2) increase the size of engineering and computer science 151 programs; 152 (3) recruit students to enter engineering and computer science 153 programs, including: 154 (A) students from groups or backgrounds that are 155 traditionally underrepresented in the fields of engineering and computer science, 156 including female students; and 157 (B) students from public or private junior colleges or 158 technical institutes; 159 (4) provide scholarships for students in engineering and 160 computer science programs; 161 (5) provide retention and mentoring programs for students in 162 engineering and computer science programs; 163 (6) provide supplemental compensation for faculty and support 164 personnel in engineering and computer science departments; 165 (7) provide research and laboratory equipment to engineering 166 and computer science departments; 167

Ref-6

(8) provide for distance learning programs in engineering and 168 computer science; and 169 (9) fund other related activities. 170 (b) In awarding grants under this section, the coordinating board shall 171 consider with respect to the engineering or computer science program of each 172 eligible institution: 173 (1) faculty; 174 (2) instructional and research resources; 175 (3) current enrollment; 176 (4) quality of curriculum; 177 (5) placement record of graduates; 178 (6) past performance in increasing graduates; and 179 (7) any other appropriate factor. 180 (c) The coordinating board may award a grant under this section only to 181 fund a new project or activity or the expansion or enhancement of an existing project 182 or activity. The coordinating board may not award a grant under this section to 183 replace current funding for an existing project or activity. 184 (d) To receive a grant awarded under this section, an eligible private or 185 independent engineering institution must match the amount of the grant with an 186 equal amount of contributions made by that institution for the project or activity for 187 which the grant is awarded. 188

189 Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 146, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. 190 Renumbered from V.T.C.A., Education Code § 51.837 and amended by Acts 2003, 191 78th Leg., ch. 1275, § 2(26), 3(b), eff. Sept. 1, 2003. 192

193 194

§ 51.858. COORDINATING BOARD ADVISORY COMMITTEE. (a) To 195 advise the coordinating board regarding grants awarded under this subchapter, the 196 coordinating board shall appoint an advisory committee consisting of the following 197 11 members with significant expertise in engineering, computer science, or higher 198 education: 199 (1) six members who are representatives of private companies 200 participating in the consortium; and 201 (2) five members who are representatives of higher education. 202 (b) The advisory committee is subject to Chapter 2110, Government 203 Code. 204

205 Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 146, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. 206

207 Renumbered from V.T.C.A., Education Code § 51.838 by Acts 2003, 208 78th Leg., ch. 1275, § 2(26), eff. Sept. 1, 2003. 209

210 211

§ 51.859. ANNUAL REPORTS. (a) An eligible institution that is awarded 212 a grant under this subchapter shall report to the coordinating board regarding the 213 use of that grant not later than September 1 of each year. 214 (b) Not later than October 31 of each year, the coordinating board shall 215 provide to the governor, the legislature, and the consortium participants a report 216 consolidated from reports submitted to the coordinating board by eligible institutions 217 under this section. 218

Ref-7


223 224

§ 51.860. COMMITTEE TO EVALUATE GRANT PROGRAM; BIENNIAL 225 REPORTS. (a) To evaluate the effectiveness of the grant program under this 226 subchapter, the coordinating board shall appoint an advisory committee consisting 227 of: 228 (1) higher education representatives; and 229 (2) experts in the fields of engineering and computer science. 230 (b) An evaluation under this section must include an evaluation of the 231 level of participation in the grant program by eligible private or independent 232 engineering institutions. 233 (c) The grant program evaluation committee is subject to Chapter 2110, 234 Government Code. 235 (d) The grant program evaluation committee shall report the results of its 236 evaluation to the coordinating board not later than September 1 of each even-237 numbered year. 238 (e) The coordinating board shall report the results of the evaluation to the 239 governor, the legislature, and the consortium participants not later than October 31 240 of each even-numbered year. 241


Ref-8

H.B. NO. 1 GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL

ARTICLE III EDUCATION

Sec. 1. The several sums of money herein specified, or so much thereby as may be necessary, are appropriated out of any funds in the State Treasury not otherwise appropriated, or out of special funds as indicated, for the support, maintenance, or improvement of the designated agencies and institutions of education.

Page III-50-51: E. Goal: CLOSE GAPS – QUALITY/PARTICIPATION Close the gaps in Texas higher education by providing trusteed funds to institutions through special programs designed to improve the quality and delivery of instruction and also increase the participation and success of Texans.

E.1.6 Strategy: TECHNOLOGY WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT $ 8,197,916 $ 8,197,916

Page III-61: 43. Technology Workforce Development. General revenue dedicated funds appropriated

above in Strategy E.1.6, Technology Workforce Development are contingent upon a finding of fact by the Comptroller of Public Accounts that revenue is available from the General Revenue Dedicated Account No 5079, Technology Workforce Development and are appropriated in accordance with Education Code § § 51.831 – 51.840. Unexpended balances from funds appropriated to the Technology Workforce Development Grants Program in Senate Bill 1, Seventy-seventh Legislature, for the 2002-03 biennium may be used as a portion of the above amount and are hereby appropriated for the same purposes for the 2004-05 biennium. Of the funds appropriated herein, any unexpended balances on hand at the end of fiscal year 2004 are hereby appropriated for the same purposes in fiscal year 2005.

April 2004

Ref-9

CHAPTER 13. FINANCIAL PLANNING

SUBCHAPTER K. TECHNOLOGY WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT GRANT PROGRAM

Section 13.190. Authority, Scope, and Purpose 13.191. Definitions. 13.192. Advisory Committee. 13.193. Proposal Solicitation. 13.194. Proposal Evaluation. 13.195. Grants. 13.196. Reporting. 13.197. External Evaluation.

13.190. Authority, Scope, and Purpose.

(a) Authority. Authority for this subchapter is provided in the Texas Education Code, Subchapter V, Technology Workforce Development. These rules establish rules for administering the grant program as prescribed in the Texas Education Code, Sections 51.851 through 51.860.

(b) Scope. Unless otherwise noted, this subchapter applies to any Texas institution of higher education seeking funding under this program.

(c) Purpose. The purpose of this program is to provide grants to eligible institutions of higher education to undertake programs to increase the number of graduates with baccalaureate degrees in engineering and computer science.

13.191. Definitions.

The following words and terms, when used in this subchapter, shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.

(1) Board means the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.

(2) Consortium means the Texas Engineering and Technical Consortium created pursuant to Texas Education Code, Section 51.833.

(3) Eligible institution means an academic member of the consortium.

(4) Technology Workforce Development Account means an account in the general revenue fund of the State Treasury created pursuant to Texas Education Code, Section 51.835.

(5) Commissioner means the Commissioner of Higher Education.

April 2004

Ref-10

(6) Sole proposal means a proposal involving eligible institution.

(7) Joint proposal means a proposal submitted by two or more eligible institutions.

13.192. Advisory Committee.

(a) The Board chair shall appoint an advisory committee to provide advice regarding implementing the grant program.

(b) Members of the advisory committee shall be experts in the field of engineering or computer science.

(c) The committee shall consist of 11 members, six of whom are representatives of companies participating in the consortium and five of whom are representatives of higher education.

(d) Members shall serve for staggered three-year terms.

(e) The committee shall meet at least once each year in Austin on a date determined by the chair.

(f) The committee shall elect a chair and vice chair and such other officers, as the committee deems necessary at the first meeting in each calendar year.

13.193. Proposal Solicitation.

(a) At least once each biennium, and no more often than once each fiscal year, the Board shall authorize distribution of a request for proposals.

(b) The request for proposals shall be distributed to all members of the consortium at least 30 working days prior to the due date for proposals.

(c) The request for proposals shall contain all information necessary to prepare a grant proposal for the program including the financial and other resources available for distribution, the evaluation criteria that will be used by the review panels, and the award selection criteria that shall be used in funding projects.

(d) The request for proposals shall include grant conditions that will describe eligible uses of grant funds, reporting requirements, and relevant administrative restrictions associated with the grants.

(e) Eligible institutions shall submit their proposals in the manner and format specified by the Coordinating Board with all requested information included.

April 2004

Ref-11

13.194. Proposal Evaluation and Project Selection.

(a) The Commissioner shall organize a competitive, peer-review system for evaluating proposals.

(b) Prior to the review panel meetings, the advisory committee shall establish the criteria for allocating available funds to projects ranked by peer review. The criteria shall be published on the Coordinating Board’s web site.

(c) In evaluating proposals, reviewers shall consider the quality of the academic program, placement record for recent graduates, the feasibility of the institution’s plans for increasing enrollments and graduates, and the cost-effectiveness of those plans. The review panels shall deliver a ranked list of competitively selected proposals to the Commissioner.

(d) The advisory committee shall review the selections of the reviewers and the recommendations of the staff and make recommendations to the Board. A committee member shall publicly disclose any personal, professional, or private interest in a proposal pending before the committee and shall not vote or otherwise participate in the decision regarding proposal recommendations. A committee member shall not be personally involved in handling any proposal, award, or other matter in which the member, a member’s immediate family, a member’s general business partner, or a member’s institution has or may have a financial interest.

(e) Any information related to the evaluation and selection of proposals for the grant awards shall be confidential unless released by the Board pursuant to Subsections (f) and (g) of this section.

(f) Reviews will not be disclosed to persons outside the Board at any time, except that each project leader (grant applicant) will receive a copy of the reviewers of his or her proposal with the names, affiliations, and any other identifying characteristics of the reviewers redacted; and

(g) The names and affiliations of reviewers will be released as a group, without an identifying link to any grant application, until after the review process is complete.

(h) Decisions of the Commissioner/Board are final.

13.195. Grants.

(a) Grants shall be funded from the technology workforce development account in the general revenue fund and may include both money and in-kind contributions accepted by the Comptroller.

(b) Grants shall be for a period of no longer than five years.

(c) Grants shall be made to eligible institutions.

April 2004

Ref-12

(d) After making a finding that an institution has failed to perform or failed to conform to grant conditions, the Commissioner may retract or reduce a grant.

(e) Grants must be used to fund new projects or activities or the expansion of existing activities. Grants may not be used to replace current funding for an existing project or activity.

(f) An eligible private or independent engineering institution must match the amount of the grant with an equal amount of contributions made by that institution for the project or activity for which the grant is awarded.

13.196. Reporting.

(a) Twice each year, on dates and in a format specified by the Commissioner, eligible institutions that wish to participate in the grant program shall report enrollments and graduates in engineering and computer science.

(b) An institution that is awarded a grant under this program shall report on the use of grant funds and results of the grant not later than September 1 of each year in a format specified by the Board.

(c) An institution that is awarded a grant under this program shall provide a final report within 60 days of termination of the grant in a format specified by the Commissioner.

13.197. External Evaluation.

(a) Once each biennium, the Board chair shall appoint a committee to evaluate the effectiveness of the program.

(b) The committee shall consist of at least three persons, all of whom are experts in engineering or computer science. The committee shall include at least one representative of higher education and at least one representative of industry.

(c) The committee shall report the results of its evaluation to the Board not later than September 1 of each even-numbered year.

(d) The Board shall report the results of the evaluation to the governor, the legislature, and the consortium participants not later than October 31 of each even-numbered year.

Ver. 08; June 2002

Ref-13

TEXAS ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL CONSORTIUM BYLAWS

ARTICLE 1-ORGANIZATION

1.1 Name and Background. The organization is a non-profit membership organization known as the Texas Engineering and Technical Consortium, hereinafter referred to by the acronym TETC as an alternate name. TETC is established in August 2001, to accomplish the ends of, and for other purposes not inconsistent with, Subchapter V, Chapter 51, Texas Education Code.

1.2 Address. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, 1200 East Anderson Lane, Austin, Texas 78711.

1.3 Purpose and Objectives. Purpose. To increase the number of engineering and computer science graduates from Texas institutions of higher education; and increase collaborative efforts between Texas universities, engineering and computer science departments, and private companies. TETC is formed to implement Subchapter V, Chapter 51, Texas Education Code. For the first two years of its existence, TETC will focus on increasing electrical engineering, computer engineering and computer science graduates.

Objectives.To provide a forum for eligible engineering institutions, eligible computer science institutions, and private companies to consolidate research grant applications and research projects; To strengthen instruction in engineering and computer science; To institute recruitment, development, and retention programs for students in engineering and computer science programs; To share instructional and research resources; and To coordinate activities related to engineering and computer science instruction, research, and public service. To raise contributions to match state and other funds.

1.4 Policies. TETC is a non-profit, non-discriminatory and politically non-partisan organization. TETC will not advocate or represent special interest groups, nor promote a particular company’s product or service. TETC is not a lobbying organization.

1.5 Fiscal year. The fiscal year of the TETC will be September 1 through August 31.

ARTICLE 2 – MEMBERS

2.1 Classes of Membership. The consortium shall initially have two classes of Members. The designation of such classes and the qualifications and rights of the Members of each class are as follows:

Industry Members. Industry Members shall be composed of private companies and entities that make a two-year, non-binding, commitment to support the Purpose and Objectives of TETC and to contribute at least $100,000 in cash or eligible in-kind each year to the consortium. Other qualifications and dues may be established from time to time by the

Ver. 08; June 2002

Ref-14

Executive Committee. Each industry member may have one voting participant and one designated alternate.

Education Members. Education Members shall be composed of eligible public engineering institutions, eligible private or independent engineering institutions, or eligible public computer science institutions, that make a two-year, non-binding, commitment to support the Purpose and Objectives of TETC. Each institution may have one voting participant and one designated alternate. Other qualifications may be established from time to time by the Executive Committee. An “eligible computer science institution" means a general academic teaching institution that offers a baccalaureate degree program in computer science. An "eligible engineering institution" means a general academic teaching institution that offers a baccalaureate degree program in engineering that is accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology. An "eligible private or independent engineering institution" means a private or independent institution of higher education that offers a baccalaureate degree program in electrical engineering that is accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology.

The Executive Committee may designate additional classes of membership from time to time.

2.2 Powers. The Member shall have those rights as are set forth in these Bylaws.

2.3 Rights of Members. The right of a Member to vote and all of a Member’s right, title and interest in and to the Consortium shall cease on the termination of its Membership. No Member shall be entitled to share in the distribution of the Consortium assets upon the dissolution of the Consortium.

2.4 Dues and Assessments. Dues and Assessments for each applicable class of membership shall be determined and set by the Executive Committee as they deem necessary and appropriate from time to time.

2.5 Members in Good Standing. A Member is considered to be in good standing if the Member has shown support for the Purposes and Objectives of TETC; has been an active Member of TETC; and has consistently met the other qualifications of Membership as set forth in these Bylaws. A Member is considered active if the member has been involved in and committed to the TETC as determined by the Executive Committee.

2.6 Eligibility to vote. A Member is not eligible to vote on any TETC matter if the Executive Committee has determined the Member ineligible for membership or has suspended, expelled or terminated the Member for cause as stated in the Bylaws.

2.7 Removal or Termination of Membership. The Executive Committee may terminate the membership of any Member who becomes ineligible for membership or suspend or expel any Member who is in default on payment of dues or assessments provided in the Bylaws.

2.8 Resignation. Any Member may resign by filing a written resignation with the Secretary, but such resignation will not relieve the member of the obligation to pay past dues, assessments, or other charges theretofore accrued and unpaid.

Article 3 – GOVERNANCE

Ver. 08; June 2002

Ref-15

3.1 Advisory Committee. The Consortium shall have an Advisory Committee which includes a representative of each consortium Member, heretofore referred to as the voting participant, to advise and make recommendations to the Executive Committee regarding the operations and activities of the consortium. Each Advisory Committee Member may select a designated alternate who shall have the rights and privileges of the Industry or Education Member’s voting participant in the event the voting participant is not present.

3.2 Advisory Committee Members Rights. Advisory Committee Members rights are:

3.2.1 By majority vote of the Members in good standing and eligible to vote at the time of the election:

3.2.1.1 Modification in either the size of or the qualifications of the Executive Committee as further provided for in these Bylaws and approved by the Executive Committee Members.

3.2.2 By two-third (2/3) vote of the Members in good standing and eligible to vote at the time of voting:

3.2.2.1 Recommendations to the Executive Committee for amendments, restatement, or modifications of the Bylaws. 3.2.2.2 The approval of the sale, lease or other disposition (excluding the mortgage or pledge) of all, or substantially all of the assets and property of the Consortium. 3.2.2.3 The dissolution of the Consortium or its merger with or consolidation with another organization.

3.2.3 By majority vote of the Industry Members at the time of the election: 3.2.1.1 Selection of Members to the Executive Committee.

3.3 Executive Committee.3.3.1 Authority. Consistent with the organizational goals and interest of the Members, the Executive Committee shall be and shall have the full authority to direct the affairs and activities of the Consortium. The Executive Committee shall have the general power to control and manage the affairs, funds and property of the consortium and disburse the consortium’s monies and dispose of its property in fulfillment of its purpose and in accordance with the statute. The Executive Committee shall not permit any part of the net earnings or capital of the consortium to inure to the benefit of any company, entity or private individual.

3.3.2 Qualifications. The Executive Committee shall be composed of both Consortium Representatives from the Industry and Education membership who are in a position to advance the purposes and objectives of the consortium.

3.3.3 Size and Representation. The Executive Committee shall consist of eleven (11) Members selected from the Advisory Committee Members’ voting participants. The Executive committee shall be composed of six (6) Industry Members and five (5) Education Members selected by the Industry Members of the Advisory Committee. The hosting institution shall serve as one (1) of the five (5) Education Members on the Executive Committee. In addition to the eleven (11) voting Members, the Executive Committee may have additional non-voting members.

Ver. 08; June 2002

Ref-16

3.3.4 Terms of Service. Each Executive Committee Member may serve for two (2) consecutive two (2) year terms. Following a one year break in service, a Member is eligible for two additional two (2) year terms.

3.3.5 Voting Rights. Each Member of the Executive Committee present shall have one vote.

3.3.6 Removal of an Executive Committee Member. The industry or educational Member is expected to remain in good standing during the Executive Committee Member’s service on the Committee. In the event an industry or educational Member terminates or has its membership terminated, the Member may be subject to removal by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the remaining Executive Committee Members. The Chair of the Executive Committee may make a recommendation to the Committee to retain such Member on the Committee until the next annual meeting of the membership at which time such individual may also be eligible for reconsideration.

Regardless of any Executive Committee Member’s status, any Executive Committee Member may be removed with cause subject to a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the remaining Executive Committee Members.

3.3.7 Vacancies. In case of a vacancy on the Executive Committee, the Executive Committee may, by a majority vote of the Executive Committee Members then in office, elect a replacement Executive Committee Member from among the total membership of the consortium meeting the specified criteria to fulfill the expired term.

3.3.8 Removal of a Member. A membership may be terminated by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the Executive Committee for failure of the Member to meet its obligation.

3.4 Officers. 3.4.1 Enumeration and Term of Officers. The Executive Committee shall elect a Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Secretary, and Treasurer of the Executive Committee and such other officers as the Executive Committee from time to time deems appropriate (including without limitation one or more additional Vice Chairs). With the exception of the Chairperson and as provided below, Officers need not be elected annually and shall hold office until their successors are chosen and have been qualified, or until their earlier resignations or removal from office.

3.4.2 Chairperson. The Executive Committee shall elect one of its members as Chairperson at the annual meeting of the Executive Committee of the Consortium. The Chairperson shall serve a two-year term and is eligible for re-election. The Chairperson shall provide policy direction and have general oversight of all affairs of the Consortium. She/he shall preside at all meetings of the Executive Committee and shall perform all duties incident of the office of Chairperson.

3.4.3 Vice Chairperson. The Vice Chairperson shall be a member of the Executive Committee. Among her/his duties, the Vice Chairperson shall perform the functions of the Chairperson in her/his absence, and other duties as assigned by the Executive Committee.

Ver. 08; June 2002

Ref-17

3.4.4 Treasurer. The Treasurer shall be a member of the Executive Committee. Among her/his duties, the Treasurer shall insure the preparation of financial statements, including quarterly operating figures and balance sheets, supervise the preparation of the annual budget, and be responsible for the financial management of the Consortium, including long range financial planning. The Treasurer shall prepare and give a financial report at the annual meeting of the Executive Committee.

3.4.5 Secretary. The Secretary shall be a member of the Executive Committee and be responsible for the recording of the proceedings at the Executive Committee meetings. She/he may give, or cause to be given, notice of all meetings of the Executive Committee. The Secretary may certify all votes, resolutions, and actions of the Executive Committee and may attest all documents executed on behalf of the Consortium.

3.4.6 Removal. All officers serve at the pleasure of the Executive Committee and may be removed at any time by the vote of a majority of the Executive Committee then serving, with or without cause.

3.4.7 Resignations. Any officer may resign by giving written notice to the Chairperson or Secretary. Unless otherwise specified therein, a resignation shall take effect upon receipt of such notice, and the acceptance of such resignation shall not be necessary to make it effective.

3.4.8 Vacancies. A vacancy in any office, however occurring, shall be filled by the Executive Committee.

3.4.9 Powers and Duties. Except as provided for herein and subject to the control of the Executive Committee, each officer shall have such powers and duties as are customarily incident to his or her office or as the Executive Committee may otherwise prescribe.

3.5 Administration. An eligible institution shall host and provide limited administrative services for the Consortium. At the end of each two-year period or any other period determined by the consortium, the Consortium may transfer its administrative functions to another eligible institution participating in the Consortium. The Executive Committee may choose to hire a full or part-time administrator for the Consortium. 3.6 Committees and Task Forces. The Chairperson, upon approval from the Executive Committee, may designate one or more Subcommittees, such as a Program Subcommittee and Publicity and Marketing Subcommittee, from among the Advisory Committee Members.

Article 4 – MEETINGS

4.1 Meetings. The Executive Committee shall meet as needed to conduct business. Members of the Advisory Committee may attend meetings of any committee of the Consortium. One of the meetings of the Executive Committee shall be its annual meeting. Three or more Executive Committee Members may call a Special meeting of the Executive Committee.

4.2 Notice of Meetings. The Chairperson or her/his designee shall notify the Executive Committee Members of each meeting at least ten (10) working days before the date of the

Ver. 08; June 2002

Ref-18

meeting. The schedule of meetings shall be sent, as information copies, to all members of the Advisory Committee and shall be posted on the Consortium’s website, when available. Any proposed changes to the Bylaws shall be included with the notice of the meeting sent to all Members of the Advisory Committee and shall be posted on the Consortium’s website, when available.

4.3 Minutes. Minutes of all meetings of the Executive Committee and any relevant committees shall be taken and reported at the next meeting of the Executive Committee or relevant committee. Draft copies of the minutes shall be e-mailed to each Advisory Committee Member for informational purposes only.

4.4 Quorum. A majority of the Executive Committee Members then in office, including a voting participant’s designated alternate if the voting participant is not present, shall constitute a quorum, for the transaction of business at any meeting of the Executive Committee, and the act of a majority of the Executive Committee Members present at any meeting at which there is a quorum shall be the act of the Executive Committee, except as may be otherwise specifically provided by statute or these Bylaws. A designated alternate of an Executive Committee Member shall have the rights and privileges of the Executive Committee Member in the event the Executive Committee Member is not present.

4.5 Unanimous Action Without a Meeting. Any action which may be taken at a meeting of the Executive Committee or by a committee of the Executive Committee may be taken without a meeting if all of the Executive Committee Members or all of the Members of the committee, as the case may be, sign written consents setting forth the action taken or to be taken, at any time before or after the intended effective date of such action. Such consents shall be filed with the minutes of Executive Committee meetings and shall have the same effect as a unanimous vote.

4.6 Meetings by Electronic Conference. Meetings of the Executive Committee or any Committee of the Executive Committee may be held by means of an electronic conference allowing all persons participating in the meeting to hear each other at the same time; provided that all Executive Committee Members are properly notified and called, unless they expressly indicate they cannot participate. The minutes of any meeting held by an electronic conference shall be reported at the next meeting of the Executive Committee or relevant committee.

Article 5 – FISCAL POLICIES

5.1 Compensation. Directors, officers , and Members shall not receive any stated salary for their services as such, but the Executive Committee shall have power in its discretion to pay for the expenses of Executive Committee Members, officers or Members in extraordinary or exceptional circumstances. The Executive Committee may choose to hire a full or part-time administrator for the Consortium and designate a salary for the position.

5.2 Financial Reports. Financial reports will be due to the Executive Committee from the Treasurer during the first month of each quarter. Financial reports must include financial activity during the previous quarter, anticipated assets, projected expenses for the coming quarter, and anticipated revenues, as well as projected expenses and anticipated revenues for the remainder of the current biennium. In the first quarter of the fiscal year a comprehensive report will be prepared and briefed to the membership.

Ver. 08; June 2002

Ref-19

5.3 Asset Distribution. In the event of dissolution of the consortium, it shall be dissolved and its assets distributed in accordance with Article VI of its Articles of Association dated December 20, 2001.

Article 6 – CONTRACTS, CHECKS, DEPOSITS, GIFTS

6.1 Contracts. The Executive Committee, except as otherwise provided in these Bylaws, may authorize any officer or agent to enter into any contract or execute and deliver any instrument in the name of and on behalf of the Consortium, and such authority may be general or confined to a specific instance; and unless so authorized by the Executive Committee, no officer, agent, or employee shall have any power or authority to bind the Consortium by any contract or engagement, or to pledge its credit, or render it liable pecuniarily for any purpose or to any amount.

6.2 Checks. Except as otherwise specifically determined by resolution of the Executive Committee, or as otherwise required by law, checks, drafts, promissory notes, orders for the payment of money , and other evidence of indebtedness of the Consortium shall be signed by the Treasurer and approved by the Chairman, except in cases where the amount exceeds a pre-determined threshold set by the Executive Committee; in such cases instruments shall be signed by the Treasurer and countersigned by the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman.

6.3 Deposits. All funds of the Consortium shall be deposited from time to time to the credit of the Consortium in such banks, trust companies or other depositories as the Executive Committee may select. All funds of the Consortium solicited and/or accepted for the purpose of implementing Subchapter V, Chapter 51, Texas Education Code, other than money retained to administer the consortium, shall be deposited to the credit of the technology workforce development account in the state treasury.

6.4 Contributions. The Executive Committee may coordinate solicitation of gifts, grants, and donations of any kind and from any eligible source, including foundations, corporations, and institutions of higher education. The TETC recognizes that certain in-kind contributions may effectively advance the goals of the consortium. It also is aware of difficulties that may arise in determining the monetary value of in-kind contributions, and the intent of the law that in-kind contributions match the needs of an eligible institution in advancing the Purpose and Objectives of TETC. In-kind contributions, and especially used equipment, will generally not be encouraged as an Industry Member’s $100,000 contribution as specified in Section 2.1. If an in-kind contribution is accepted as part of an Industry Member’s $100,000 contribution, the in-kind items or services must be awarded to an eligible institution for the Member to stay in good standing. In-kind contributions will be accepted judiciously by the Executive Committee in accordance with the stipulations below.

6.4.1 For purposes of state matching:

6.4.1.1 Contributions may NOT be donor-targeted to any particular individual or institution, or group of individuals or institutions. All contributions must be granted to eligible institutions by the THECB, using a peer-review process, per the statute.

6.4.1.2 Non-cash contributions, such as equipment, software, material, processing, etc. may be

Ver. 08; June 2002

Ref-20

accepted once the following conditions have been met:

1. The TETC Executive Committee has determined that the contribution is likely to help an eligible institution increase the number of engineering or computer science graduates;

2. An eligible institution of higher education has submitted a letter of intent (a) indicating that it is interested in receiving the contribution and (b) outlining how it would use the contribution to increase the numbers of engineering or computer science graduates in the state; and

3. The donor, the Executive Committee, the Comptroller and the THECB are in agreement as to the market value of the contribution. (The donor must provide documentation that clearly states both the value of the contribution and how that value was determined.)

Note: the institution that submitted the letter of intent may or may not actually receive the contribution.

6.4.1.3 Other non-cash contributions, such as student or faculty internships or coop positions must meet the same three conditions of Section 6.4.1.2 above. However, since the employer will receive some benefit, credit for state matching will only be valued at 50% of the agreed market value.

Interns must meet the hiring requirements and follow the employee policies of the employer.

6.4.1.4 The market value of any single non-cash contribution must be at least $1,000 to be accepted, but will be capped at $1,000,000 maximum.

Article 7 – GENERAL PROVISIONS

7.1 Amendments to the Bylaws. The Bylaws may be amended at any meeting of the Executive Committee by an affirmative vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the Members present, provided that the notice of the meeting is accompanied by a copy of the proposed amendment or amendments.

Ver. 08; June 2002

Ref-21

Drafting Committee

Dr. Ben Streetman Dean College of Engineering The University of Texas at Austin MC2100 ECJ 10.310 Austin, Texas 78712 512-471-1166 512-475-7072 Email: [email protected]

Mr. Gary Daniels Senior Vice President and General Manager, Microcontroller Technologies Group (retired) Motorola 7700 West Parmer Lane Austin, Texas 78729 (512) 996-4356 Email: [email protected]

Dr. Gerry Burnham Associate Dean of Engineering Erk Jonsson School of Engineering and Computer Science The University of Texas at Dallas Post Office Box 830688 EC32 Richardson, Texas 75083-0688 972-883-6755 Email: [email protected]

Ms. Gray Mayes Director, State & Community Affairs Texas Instruments P. O. Box 660199, MS 8656 Dallas, Texas 75266-0199 214/ 480-6870 Email: [email protected]

Dr. Bart Sinclair Associate Dean, Brown School of Engineering Rice University 6100 Main Street, MS-364 Houston, Texas 77005-1892 713-348-6324 Email: [email protected]

Mr. Steve Kester Director, Public/Legislative Affairs AeA 1115 San Jacinto Blvd., Suite 275 Austin, TX 78701 (512) 474-4403 Email: [email protected]

Dr. Roger Elliott Assistant Commissioner 1200 East Anderson lane Austin, Texas 78711 512-427-6130 Email: [email protected]

Ref-22

2004 Advisory Meetings for TETC and TWD

Date Committee Meeting Time Room Availability Room

Jan 08 TWD Grants Advisory Meeting 9:30 – 11:30 am Pecan Room 3rd floor

Jan 29-30 CB Meeting

Apr 16 TWD Grants Advisory Meeting 12:15 – 2:30 pm UT Austin Dean’s Room The University of Texas Club Apr 22-23 CB Meeting

Jun 2 TWD Grants Advisory Meeting 12:30 – 2:45 SMU, Dallas IT Board Room Jerry R. Junkins Building

Jul 15-16 CB Meeting

Oct TWD Grants Advisory Meeting

Oct 28-29 CB Meeting

texas higher education coordinating board technology ...developed an internship program targeting...

Documents