CEOSE

COMMITTEE ON EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IN

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

Meeting Minutes
June 16-17, 2008

Meeting Site

National Science Foundation (NSF), Room 1235 S; 4201 Wilson Boulevard; Arlington, Virginia 22230

Meeting Participants

Members Present:
Ms. Sandra Begay-Campbell, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM (via Telcon)
Dr. Wesley L. Harris, CEOSE Chair, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA
Dr. Beverly Karplus Hartline, Delaware State University, Dover, DE
Dr. Mae C. Jemison, The Jemison Group, Houston, TX (Via Telcon)
Dr. Richard E. Ladner, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Dr. Robert L. Lichter, Merrimack Consultants, LLC, Great Barrington, MA
Dr. Marigold Linton, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS
Dr. William C. McCarthy, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM
Dr. Samuel L. Myers, Jr., HHH Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
Dr. Maria Ong, TERC, Cambridge, MA
Dr. Muriel Poston, Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs, NY
Members Absent:
Dr. Joseph S. Francisco, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
Dr. Theresa A. Maldonado, CEOSE Vice Chair, Texas A & M University, College Station, TX 

Former Member Present as a CEOSE Guest:
Dr. Germán R. Nuñez, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, TX (1st Day Only)
                                                                                                     
CEOSE Executive Liaison/CEOSE Executive Secretary:
Dr. Margaret E. M. Tolbert, Senior Advisor, Office of Integrative Activities, NSF
OIA/NSF Primary Support Staff Members:
Ms. Geri Farvés, IT Specialist, Office of Integrative Activities/NSF
Ms. Denita Norris, Program and Technology Specialist, Office of Integrative Activities/NSF

Non-Members Who Presented Oral or Written Statements, Participated in the Discussions and/or Were Meeting Attendees without Specific Roles:

Meeting Notes

June 16, 2008

Welcome, Opening Remarks, and Introductions: Dr. Wesley L. Harris, CEOSE Chair

The meeting was called to order at 8:35 a.m. by Dr. Wesley L. Harris.  In response to Dr. Harris’ request, everyone—including several NSF Interns and a AAAS Fellow— introduced themselves.  Ms. Denita Norris and Ms. Geri Farvés were introduced as new support persons whose position titles are shown above.  Dr. Harris included in his opening remarks details about the agenda for the meeting, and he commented on the meeting that he and Dr. Theresa Maldonado had with Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., the NSF Director, on June 2, 2008.  He included among his comments, information pertinent to the January 22, 2008 letter by Dr. Beverly Hartline to Drs Bement and Olsen.  Also, he briefly discussed Senator Obama’s proposed STEM bill.

ACTION ITEMS APPROVED BY CEOSE MEMBERS, JUNE 16, 2008:

• Dr. Harris requested comments on the minutes of the February 2008 meeting.  Members expressed their concurrence with the minutes as written and with Dr. Harris’ earlier approval of the minutes.  Based on the relevant FACA rule, meeting minutes must be approved by the CEOSE Chair within 90 days of the completion of the meeting. 
• After the completion of a discussion, the NSF Broader Impacts Criterion—the refined version by CEOSE—was approved by the Committee.  The corresponding approved action is that it be presented to Dr. Bement with a request for him to present it to the National Science Board (NSB) as appropriate.

The American Community Survey                                                    

Dr. Mary J. Frase, Deputy Director of the SBE/NSF Division of Science Resources Statistics, gave a presentation titled “Adding of Field of Degree to the American Community Survey: A Powerful New Data Source”.  She told the Committee that the American Community Survey (ACS) is the successor to the long form of the decennial census.  The content is the same as the long form.  Although the survey is conducted every month, the data are aggregated and reported on a calendar year basis.  The first release of data gathered with the use of this survey instrument will take place in August or early September.  The status of the Field of Degree Item that is to be added to the ACS is that, in 2008, the clearance package was submitted to OMB.  If approved, this will result in the addition of the open-ended version of the Field of Degree Item to the ACS, beginning in January 2009.  This will enable important analytical and methodological uses of the Field of Degree Item, which will increase the efficiency of sampling for the National Survey of College Graduates (NSCG).  Dr. Frase provided information on the analyses of data with an ACS Field of Degree Item and comparisons of past strategies used in sampling for the NSCG and those possible using the new strategy.  She advised that disability data will be included in the data reports.

During the question and answer period, Dr. Frase responded “yes” to the question of whether there will be an over sampling of data on minorities and persons with disabilities.  In response to Dr. Ong’s question of when the data will be available, Dr. Frase responded that the public use files and data will be available in 2009.  Dr. Frase said that requests would have to be made for certain data and that there “will be rules” about the level of detail that can be released.

Reports by CEOSE Liaisons to NSF Advisory Committees

CEOSE Liaisons to NSF advisory committees provided brief reports on those meetings.   Only action items and special notes are presented below because of space limitation.  Most of the Liaisons have submitted short reports for the CEOSE file.

• B&O AC – Dr. Beverly K. Hartline
  Dr. Hartline gave a verbal report on the meeting of the B&O Advisory Committee and submitted her full liaison report in writing.  No action items or recommendations were included.
• BIO AC – Dr. Muriel Poston
  Dr. Poston provided a verbal report on the BIO Advisory Committee meeting. No action items or recommendations were included.
• CISE AC – Dr. Richard E. Ladner
  Dr. Ladner provided a verbal report on the CISE Advisory Committee meeting. No action items or recommendations were included.
• EHR AC – Dr. William C. McCarthy
  Dr. McCarthy provided a verbal report on the EHR Advisory Committee meeting. He expressed concern that none of the programs discussed during the meeting included any information on persons with disabilities.
• ENG AC – Dr. Marshall Jones (former CEOSE Member)
  Dr. Jones, whose term expired in May, was invited to attend the CEOSE meeting as a guest, but he was unable to do so.  No report on the ENG Advisory Committee meeting was received.
• ERE AC – Ms. Sandra Begay-Campbell
  Ms. Begay-Campbell provided a verbal combined report on the ERE Advisory Committee meeting held on April 9-10, 2008 and other meetings in which she participated earlier. No action items or recommendations were included.
• GEO AC – Dr. Joseph S. Francisco
  Dr. Francisco was not present at this CEOSE meeting, and no report on the GEO Advisory Committee meeting was given in his absence.
• MPS AC – Dr. Theresa A. Maldonado
  Dr. Maldonado was not present at the present CEOSE meeting, and no report on the MPS Advisory Committee meeting was received from her.
• OISE AC – Dr. Germán Nuñez (former CEOSE Member)

      Dr. Nuñez, whose term expired in May 2008, was an invited guest of CEOSE.  His report resulted in a recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION:  It was recommended that an invitation be extended to OISE official(s) to present information on international programs, especially the PIRE Program.  The primary focus is to be on broadening participation in science and engineering and the involvement of third world countries.  Also, information on participation in international programs by persons with disabilities should be included.

• OPP AC – Dr. Marigold Linton
  Dr. Linton gave a detailed account of her attendance at the Office of Polar Programs Advisory Committee meeting.  Her report resulted in the following suggestion.

SUGGESTION:  Dr. Linton suggested that the IPY program be refined to further enhance ethnic, racial, and institution diversity in the current period and in post-IPY programs and activities.

• SBE AC – Dr. Samuel L. Myers, Jr.
  Dr. Myers provided a verbal report on the SBE Advisory Committee meeting. He suggested the following:
        SUGGESTION:   Dr. Myers suggested that CEOSE prepare a response to the suppression of

data by SRS/SBE/NSF.  He also suggested that CEOSE provide comments on the bill by Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson while it is in the mark-up state.

• AC/GPA – Dr. Robert L. Lichter
  Dr. Lichter had no report because the AC/GPA was due to meet immediately following the CEOSE meeting.
• OCI AC – Dr. Wesley L. Harris
  Dr. Harris provided a verbal report on the OCI Advisory Committee meeting. No action items or recommendations were included.    

Following the completion of reports by the CEOSE Liaisons, Federal Representatives were asked for comments on their agencies.  Dr. Carl Person reported that NASA is pleased with its space achievements and its budget, which was increased in FY 2008 compared to FY 2007.  Also, the possibility of a satisfactory budget for FY 2009 looks good.  Dr. J.V. Martinez reported that the U.S. Department of Energy has a number of activities that are focused on broadening participation in science and engineering; all are tied to funding.  He also reported that he is developing a number of programs, using some of those at NSF as models.  Of particular interest to him is how NSF defines transformative research.  The definition of transformative research was defined by the National Science Board earlier.

Announcements by CEOSE Members

Dr. Lichter told the Committee that Dr. Francisco is a candidate for the position of President-Elect of the American Chemical Society; therefore, he would appreciate the support and votes on his behalf. 

ACTION ITEM:  In preparation for the October meeting of CEOSE, Dr. Lichter was asked to invite a representative of the American Chemical Society to discuss its Scholars Program.

Dr. Hartline requested an update on the CEOSE response to items on which the National Science Board requested comments. One of these had to do with cost sharing and the other has to do with proposal limits set by some NSF programs on institutions.  The response was that a CEOSE response based on her comments was sent to the National Science Board on May 30, 2008.

After the reports and comments were completed, the Committee developed plans for the meeting with the National Science Foundation Director.                                                                             

Broadening Participation in the CISE Community                          

Dr. Jeannette M. Wing, Assistant Director, NSF Directorate for Computer and Information Science & Engineering (CISE), made a presentation titled “Broadening Participation in Computing by and in CISE”.  Dr. Wing explained that CISE has two kinds of awards, alliances and demonstration projects, both of which are good ideas.  Also, both models are important, each serving different purposes.  The alliances are large regional or national collaborations that work across multiple underrepresented groups and multiple stages in the academic pipeline.  The smaller demonstration projects are focused on developing novel interventions that hopefully can be replicated across an alliance.  Dr. Wing then presented specific examples of programs by focusing on projects funded through them, and she discussed the challenges of the CISE Broadening Participation in Computing (BPC) Program.  Among the examples of projects funded through BPC are the STARS, AccessComputing, ARTSI, and Into the Loop.  Assessments will be completed and the resulting data analyzed to determine the impact of the program.  With his in-depth knowledge of CISE programs gained in a number of ways, such as service as the CEOSE Liaison to CISE and its Broadening Participation Strategic Planning Committee, Dr. Ladner made several explanatory contributions to the conversation.  This segment of the presentation was followed by a discussion on the CISE preliminary report on broadening participation.  The focus was on the next steps in the development of this report and the main challenge involved, including the steps that CISE needs to take to more fully address broadening participation in computing.  Dr. Wing advised CEOSE that the CISE goal is to have all of the diverse populations fully participating in computing research and education.  In response to Dr. Harris’ question about the digital divide in the computing community. Dr. Wing responded that, in addressing the digital divide, she has a grand vision: access anywhere by anyone to anything by anyone authorized.  Due to limited funds, the initial focus of CISE is on women, African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanics, and persons with disabilities.  However, one can assume that this will be expanded given Dr. Wing’s suggestion that computational thinking is a skill needed by everyone to function globally in modern society. She admits that a national community of awareness must be built in order to successfully move forward.

Meeting with Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director of the National Science Foundation

Committee members welcomed the opportunity to meet with Dr. Bement who made an opening statement focused on the appreciation that he has for the work of CEOSE.  This work is most beneficial to the National Science Foundation.  The deep concerns of CEOSE are felt by the Foundation, and actions are taken by NSF on recommendations from CEOSE as expeditiously as possible.   Dr. Bement proposed that there be more direct interactions among the NSF Assistant Directors, as well as with him, and CEOSE members.  While a large portion of the broadening participation programs and activities are under the auspices of the Directorate for Education and Human Resources, Assistant Directors in the research and related activities parts of NSF have broadening participation responsibilities too.  Direct interactions will enable greater benefits for all involved.  Dr. Bement will work with CEOSE in obtaining full participation in CEOSE meetings by the Assistant Directors, Major Office Directors, and other key NSF officials. He volunteered to introduce the CEOSE Chair to the full group of NSF senior level management officials at an early date.  He will include those officials in the next meeting of the CEOSE Chair and Vice Chair with Dr. Olsen and him.  Through enhanced communications, CEOSE will be able to express concerns to them and receive their input on a first hand basis.  Dr. Bement called the attention of the members to reports containing information that answers the question raised in Dr. Hartline’s letter of January 22, 2008 to Dr. Olsen and him.  He stated that about 650 highlights of NSF-sponsored activities have been collected.  These show some success in broadening participation.  In reference to interagency involvement, Dr. Bement commended Dr. Cora Marrett, Assistant Director for Education and Human Resources at NSF, for her service as Co-Chair of the Education Subcommittee of the NSTC Committee on Science.  He also commended her for her leadership in establishing an education subcommittee under the Interagency Committee on Disabilities Research. This is pertinent to the recommendations that resulted from the CEOSE mini-symposium on institutions serving large populations of persons with disabilities.  Dr. Bement suggested that while some progress is being made in NSF programs, a strategy is needed to integrate them for greater impact and synergy.  Given the CEOSE mandate and NSF’s need for assistance in this area, input from CEOSE is welcome.  The NSF framework for action in broadening participation is a step forward.  The CEOSE perspective on this framework would be appreciated by NSF.  Dr. Korsmo is compiling the data requested by CEOSE, and she will make it available soon.

Questions asked of and comments made to Dr. Bement covered such topics as the following:  transformative research and how is it to be identified, NSF actions on CEOSE recommendations from the mini-symposium held last October, how one makes transparent the support for project focused on persons with disabilities, NSF's response to the gender equity bill put forth by Congresswoman Johnson, the testimony of Dr. Lynda Carlson relative to action on data release, the process that NSF follows in clearing the testimony that it gives to Congress and the reaction time that NSF has once it receives a congressional order for a testimony, how CEOSE can be kept informed of planned congressional actions, NSF’s potential collaboration with other federal agencies with respect to broadening participation, the standardization of data collection across agencies,  the NSTC’s Committee on Science and its Subcommittee on Education with an emphasis on broadening participation,  efforts of NSF to address implicit bias through rigorous training of program officers, the diversity of the scientific workforce of NSF and accountability and responsibility (this is covered under the Human Capital Plan.) for it at all levels, the role of the position held by Dr. Korsmo, the NSF budget particularly the broadening participation investment capability in this year and next, small data sets and their value to researchers, the importance of having CEOSE input on data, and cost sharing. 

Reports of CEOSE Ad Hoc Subcommittees

Three concurrent meetings of CEOSE Ad Hoc Subcommittees (Accountability, Evaluation,
and Communications, Chair: Dr. Harris; Strategic Planning, Chair: Dr. Poston; and Broadening Participation Plan, Chair: Dr. McCarthy) were held to prepare for reports.  Dr. Poston gave her subcommittee’s report on June 17th.  Drs. Harris and McCarthy gave their reports on the 16th.  Both reports were accepted by CEOSE members.

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.

 Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Opening Comments by the CEOSE Chair and Approvals

The meeting was called to order at 8:30 a.m. by Dr. Harris who recapped the key points of the June 16th sessions and led the committee in deliberations in which all CEOSE members, who were present, contributed.  The following is a summary of key developments.

APPROVED:  After a discussion of the draft NSF Broader Impacts Criterion, the revised version was approved with the directive that it is to be presented to Dr. Bement with a request for him to present it to the National Science Board (NSB).

APPROVED:  After a discussion of the NSB Cost Sharing Workshop, CEOSE members approved a motion to seek additional information on the workshop and, if feasible, to request participation by two CEOSE members.

AGREED:  Following a discussion of qualifications needed for membership and the selection method, it was agreed that each CEOSE member would identify a maximum of six new potential members.  The selections could be made from the list that was provided by the Executive Liaison, sources of their own, or a combination of these two.  The selections are to be submitted to the Executive Liaison for compilation and submission to Dr. Harris for action.  Additional membership nominations will be requested of NSF senior management officials.  ACTION ITEM:  Dr. Ladner agreed to prepare and share the matrix to facilitate the selection of persons without duplication of current membership diversity and expertise.

AGREED:  It was agreed that the Chair and Vice Chair of CEOSE would send a letter of congratulations to Dr. George Cooper on the occasion of his appointment (effective July 16, 2008) as the tenth President of South Carolina State University.  Dr. Cooper represented USDA in the role of Federal Liaison to CEOSE.

Report of the CEOSE Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Strategic Planning

Dr. Muriel Poston presented information on the CEOSE Strategic Plan, which the Ad Hoc Strategic Plan Subcommittee is developing.  The subcommittee will develop a mission and vision statements later.  At this point, the subcommittee is focused on the identification of CEOSE priorities/goals; data collection and trends analyses; research and evaluation on the effectiveness of broadening participation programs; NSF policies and practices; the influence of pathways in broadening participation in STEM; communication about CEOSE activities and recommendations; and CEOSE membership and leadership.  This subcommittee will continue the development of the Strategic Plan and will provide additional details at future CEOSE meetings.

Among the questions raised by CEOSE members and Federal Liaisons following the presentation were:  Are metrics to define required outcomes?  Do the NSF data provide us with a sense of the health and strength of the STEM field? Is it possible to keep the strategic plan separate from the implementation plan? Is it possible to identify the White House reports that are relevant to the CEOSE mandate? 

Presentation on Graduate Education

Ms. Carol F. Stoel, Acting Director of the EHR Division of Graduate Education (DGE), presented to CEOSE a wealth of information on NSF-sponsored graduate programs. During her presentation, “Broadening Participation: Selected Programs in EHR“, she told the Committee that broadening participation is a topic that is constantly being addressed in the Division of Graduate Education, as well as throughout the Education and Human Resources Directorate. She stated that it is an occasion like this that really brings together her staff members, including the number crunchers and policy thinkers, who piece together the big picture and get into really figuring out what's going in the programs.  She gave her staff members—most of whom also participated in the meeting by addressing questions about programs managed by them—the credit for preparing her presentation. She referred to the contents of her presentation as a work in progress.  Putting together the presentation enabled her staff to crystallize their thoughts on broadening participation in reference to programs of the division.  Ms. Stoel provided a brief description of EHR and how it operates using a thematic framework approach.  Then she presented information on graduate programs (e.g., GK-12, IGERT and Graduate Research Fellowship Program), using a large volume of program data in graphic and tabular format, as well as budgetary information. She presented the pros and cons of current graduate programs and their impact on broadening the participation of students—especially women, minorities, and persons with disabilities—in STEM.  The focus on graduate education actually has become a lot more powerful in the last six months.  Perhaps this comes from anxieties about security and competitiveness and a much more general understanding that we, as a nation, have some serious considerations in terms of how we stay effective and competitive in the world. 

During the discussion period, several questions were raised and answered.  Among these were cultural changes resulting from graduate programs; the need for disaggregated data on the programs; targeted efforts in the Engineering, Mathematical and Physical Sciences Directorate, and the Computer and Information Science and Engineering directorates to increase applications from underrepresented minorities; and the percentage of awards to underrepresented minorities.  RECOMMENDATION:  It was recommended that data resulting from the three programs in DGE be disaggregated relative to women, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities. This will enable better indications of impact on these groups. RECOMMENDATION:  It was noted that the number of GRF awards to underrepresented minorities is approximating, but has not yet reached, the 1998 level when the minority GRF Program was eliminated from the NSF portfolio.  It was recommended that efforts continue to rapidly increase the number of awards to persons from underrepresented groups in STEM.

Presentation: The NSF Broadening Participation Report                            

Dr. Fae L. Korsmo, Senior Advisor in the Office of the NSF Director, presented details on the draft report titled “Broadening Participation at the National Science Foundation: A Framework for Action”. Drs. Celeste Rolfing and Victor Santiago, the co-chairs of the NSF Broadening Participation Working Group, were credited by Dr. Korsmo for their leadership in developing this document.  In April 2007, NSF established this Broadening Participation Working Group to develop a plan to increase the participation of underrepresented groups in NSF programs and to develop a plan to broaden the pool of reviewers for NSF proposals.  After presenting several components (i.e., the meaning of broadening participation, its status, diversifying the reviewer pool, training, accountability, dissemination, and implementation) of the report, Dr. Korsmo advised that comments on the draft are accepted until about July 14th.  She reported that the anticipated release date for the final version of the document is August 2008. 

EXPRESSION OF SUPPORT:  CEOSE members and Federal Liaisons to CEOSE commended NSF for its work on the draft report titled “Broadening Participation at the National Science Foundation: A Framework for Action” and encouraged the completion of the work for use by NSF, as well as the general public.

Working Luncheon Session: The Legal History of CEOSE                                                            

NSF's Deputy General Counsel, Ms. Amy Northcutt, held an informal discussion with CEOSE members on the legal history of CEOSE. CEOSE was created in 1980 as part of the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act.  As a statutorily mandated Federal advisory committee, the work of CEOSE falls within the scope of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).  This is the nature and spirit in which CEOSE does its work.  The establishment of Federal advisory committees is one of the many efforts of the early 70's to open up the government.  Therefore, CEOSE meetings are public.  These meetings are announced, and members of the public are invited to provide input to the work of the Committee.  Materials that are provided by NSF staff are made public if requested.  Also, transcripts of CEOSE meetings are made available to the public.  The policy commitment behind that is clear.  Preserving the independence of CEOSE is important.   FACA makes clear that advisory committees advise Federal agencies.  The agencies then take that advice into consideration in formulating policy and adopting positions.  The context within which this Committee was created was that Congress made a strong statement endorsing the importance of engaging all of America in the STEM enterprise.  The CEOSE Charter, which has its genesis from NSF, contains its purpose and function.   FACA specifies that CEOSE may meet only when its designated Federal official, Dr. Tolbert, agrees that a meeting is necessary and she approves of the meeting agenda. 

During the question and answer period, it was noted that by statute, CEOSE prepares and transmits to the Director a report on its activities of the previous two years and proposed activities for the next two years.  Again, by statute, the Director transmits the report to Congress unaltered, with any comments the Director chooses to add. Dr. Myers posed the question:  To what extent should CEOSE be involved in advising NSF on its responses to Congressional questions and issues?   Ms. Northcutt responded that it would be appropriate for the Foundation to receive CEOSE comments on any piece of proposed legislation as an input to NSF's comments.  Ms. Northcutt also suggested that CEOSE staff work with staff from the Office of Legislative and Public Affairs to develop administrative processes to allow for CEOSE input.  CEOSE also discussed the possibility of working directly with Congress as a witness on any particular piece of legislation.   That is a possibility if a Congressional committee were to invite a CEOSE member to testify, recognizing that it was that person’s opinion that the committee cared about as opposed to the Foundation’s. 

In response to Dr. Ladner’s question about CEOSE holding dialogue with representatives of Federal agencies and organizations like the National Academy of Science, Ms. Northcutt responded as follows: If a need for conversation with resources external to NSF is identified, CEOSE members should appreciate that they do not represent the NSF in those interactions; the purpose of the interaction is to gather information, which will then inform the Committee.   Ms. Northcutt indicated that the Office of the General Counsel supports the Foundation's multiple efforts to broaden participation, and will staunchly defend against any challenges to such efforts.  She also noted that, consistent with Constitutional requirements, the Foundation does not endorse race-exclusive programs.  

Other CEOSE members (e.g., Drs. Poston, Lichter, Ong, and Hartline) also posed questions to which  Ms. Northcutt responded to bring clarity to the role and responsibility of CEOSE—data suppression, use of the NSF website for posting CEOSE information, and the use of the NSF logo.  Because of the rapid turn around time for responses to Congressional inquiries, the following recommendation was made. 

RECOMMENDATION:  It was recommended that Dr. Tolbert interact with Ms. Teresa Davies of OLPA/NSF to keep abreast of legislation that will require comments from NSF.  This would enable CEOSE to get ahead of the process since Dr. Tolbert would inform CEOSE members and request their input for submission to NSF in a timely manner.

Closing Comments and Adjournment

Dr. Harris thanked CEOSE members, NSF staff, the Federal agency representatives, and other guests for participating in the meeting.  He noted that the members who were present for this meeting were engaged in lively discussions that are mutually beneficial to CEOSE and NSF.  Before adjourning the meeting, he announced that the next meeting is scheduled for October 30-31, 2008.

The CEOSE meeting was adjourned at 1:15 p.m.

CERTIFICATION OF THE ACCURACY OF THE CEOSE MEETING MINUTES

Dr. Wesley L. Harris, Chair of the Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering, approved the meeting minutes on August 9, 2008, by e-mail message to Dr. Margaret E.M. Tolbert, CEOSE Executive Secretary and NSF Executive Liaison to CEOSE.