Attendance: Catherine Axinn, Pat Beamish, Josephine Bloomfield, Duncan Brown, Angie Bukley, Carolyn Cardenas, Lee Cibrowski, Donna Conaty, John Day, Glenn Doston, Jason Hartz, Hans Kruse, Liz Miller, Michael Mumper, Robert Roe, Josep Rota, Susan Sarnoff, Katherine Tadlock, Yingjiao Xu, Bill Reinhart for Julia Zimmerman, Joanne Bray for Judith Edinger. 

Excused: David Drabold, Peter Johnson, David Juedes, Mark Mecum, Christine Mattley, David Mould, Chester Pach, Maureen Weissenrieder.

Convened: The meeting was convened at 2:10 pm.  Packets with agenda were distributed. 

1.      Approval of Minutes:

Several corrections were made to the minutes from the October 14^th, 2005 meeting.  The amended minutes would be circulated via email before being approved. 

2.      Chair’s Report (Dr. Duncan Brown):

1. President’s visit: Duncan informed Graduate Council that President McDavis will be attending the first hour of the January 13, 2006 meeting.  At this point there is a conflict in the President’s schedule, but it seems that it will be sorted and he will be able to come.

2. Assignments for standing committees during winter break: Duncan said that he would like to send two assignments for the standing committees to work on during the upcoming winter break. 

B.1. Posthumous degrees: Duncan informed Graduate Council that the university has a policy of granting posthumous undergraduate degrees but not graduate degrees.  He added that Raymie McKerrow had started this process a few years ago.  He explained that the process did not go much further because just changing the language of the undergraduate policy to fit the graduate requirements does not work because of the credit hour requirements and other issues. 

B.2. Ohio Bill 24: Duncan informed Graduate Council that Faculty Senate is looking into the Ohio Bill 24 Academic Rights and responsibilities.  There is a procedure in place for dealing with grievances about grades when a Professor is involved.  But, there is no procedure in place if the instructor of record is a graduate student.  Duncan asked Council if the Graduate Affairs and Fellowships Committee would be the appropriate committee to deal with this.  Katie said that it probably is and Lee agreed. 

3.      Associate Provost of Graduate Studies (Michael Mumper):

1. Multi-cultural Visitation: Michael thanked everyone for participating in the multi-cultural visitation that took place in the first week of November.  He informed Graduate Council that there were 60 participants this year and now we should try to turn those participants into applicants and then those applicants to matriculants.  He added that this was the first visitation after the leadership change in the office of Multicultural Graduate Affairs. For the next year the visitation might be held on a Thursday and Friday instead of Saturday and Sunday.  He added that Eddith Dashiell is interested in everyone’s comments about the visitation. 
2. International Recruitment: Michael informed Graduate Council that Beth Clodfelter (Assistant Director, Center of International Studies) is in the Middle East and Turkey for recruitment.  Early next year there is one trip each to East Asia and Mexico and that will be the last of recruitment travel for this academic year.  He also told everyone that all the leads or prospect information is entered into a database.  This then facilitates the sending of an automated email response system has been set up, which sends a ‘thank you’ email to the potential student and another one to the graduate chair of the department of interest indicated by that person on their form.    
3. Recruitment Grants: Michael said that $85,000 has been allotted in grants in chunks of $2500 or less.  This grant money can be used for creating brochures, redesigning websites, faculty travel, and other recruitment related activities.  He also added that we need to monitor our efforts more closely and then compile a best practices document that can be shared at large at the university to spread the success. 
4. Stipend Enhancement: Michael informed Graduate Council that $500,000 worth of proposals were received for the $200,000 that was available to be given as stipend enhancement grants.  He said that in early December departments would receive notification about the funds that will be available to them for the next fiscal year starting July 1, 2006. 
5. Staffing Updates: Michael presented the recent updates in staffing at Graduate Studies.  He informed Graduate Council that the position of Director of ETD (Electronic Thesis and Dissertations) has been approved and the advertisement will be in the regional newspapers on Sunday.  He also added that the deadlines for ETD submissions will be moved closer to the Registrar’s deadlines so that students have more time to submit their documents.  Another change is that of Lisa Poston now being the Budget Manager at Graduate Studies.  She was the Graduate Appointment Administrator. He also added that two Group 3 employees will now be full time employees at Graduate Studies.  Vicky Hixson will now be the Graduate Appointment Administrator and Usha Matta the Assistant Director of Graduate Student Services. 
6. Minimum Registration during summer: Michael said that the Provost had asked him to raise the issue at a Graduate Council meeting about the minimum number of hours a graduate student should be required to register if they are teaching in the summer.  As of now, students are required to register for 12 credit hours and they are proposing to lower that number to 9 hours.  Josie said that we always run into problems with the 260 hours rule, so she is in favor of this reduction of hours.  Michael added that there are no revenue implications if this policy is enforced.  Catherine asked if it could be 8 hours and not 9.  Katie responded that 9 is the minimum number to be considered a full time student.  Catherine also asked if this would work for international students.  Katie said that it would not jeopardize the visa status of international students.  Hans asked if this would apply to everyone.  Michael said that at present Graduate Studies does not approve an appointment if a student is registered for less than 12 credit hours.  But, if the requirement is dropped from 12 to 9, then appointments will be approved for them.  Catherine added this will not prohibit a student from registering for more hours if they wish to or for a College to make a requirement for registering for more than 9 hours.  Pat asked that since there is no perceivable short term impact of this new policy, are there any potential long term implications that we should be aware of.  Michael said that in the long run, if we turn in fewer hours we receive less subsidy.  Susan said that unless these are just ‘busywork’ hours, it is to a student’s advantage to have hours available to them in a later quarter.  Duncan agreed saying that they run into this issue in their School, because the number of hours required for one of the Master’s program’s is 70 hours.  Also, for the MFA programs the required number of hours for the completion of the programs is 120 -130.  Those students hit the 260 hour limit a lot sooner than others.  Carolyn noted that the Fine Arts students are called upon for ‘facility service’ in the summer, so the reduction would work well for them.  Duncan said that it seems like most people do not think that there is a downside to it and that we should then pass the motion.  Michael agreed saying that the sooner he gets the clarification to the Deans, the better it is for them.  This will enable them to make their summer schedules. 

Catherine proposed the passing of the motion that the ‘minimum hours for graduate enrollment be reduced to 9 from 12 for graduate students on a summer appointment’.  Susan seconded and everyone was in favor of the motion.

Discussion about Graduate Fair, email contacts for potential students:

Susan said that she really appreciated getting all the information at the recent Graduate Fair.  She also added that she appreciates getting all the prospect information about potential students.  But, many a time, the emails bounce and then there is no way to get the correct email address of that person.  Michael explained the process of collecting prospect information.  There are two ways by which this information is collected.  It is either collected on cards that recruiters have the people attending the fair fill out.  Or, the organizers of a fair collect this information and send it to us as a spreadsheet.  Prospects receive an email from Graduate Studies and that email tries to give them some information about the university and services provided.  Michael added that they do not want to be redundant and so refrain from giving out department specific information.  On the other hand we want to ensure that we do not miss giving important information.  Most often, the email contains links to the online application, links to the programs of interest and contact information at Graduate Studies.  The department can send detailed information about the program and other things that they think the potential student might be interested in.  Katie added that particularly for international students it is important to send them information about the visa process and so on.  She added that ISFS is working on a document titled, ‘coming to OU’ that will be very helpful.  With the admit letter, Katie said that we send fliers of University Commons, and an academic calendar.  She noted that Graduate Studies is usually not aware if the student has some disability and would need information about Institutional Equity. 

4.      Admissions Requirement Committee (Josie Bloomfield):

Duncan asked about the maximum number of hours a student could take as a non-degree option.  Katie said that limit for non-degree course work is a maximum of 18 credits in a six year period.  Duncan asked if this coursework could then be used towards a degree.  Katie responded saying that not according to the catalog, because that was not the intent of seeking/granting admission.  But, departments make exceptions and students have been able to use the non-degree coursework towards a degree requirement.  Pat said if an employee took courses in his or her area then there is the potential for conflict.  Josie said that it would then come up for a review of conflict of interest when they change from a non-degree to a degree option.  Duncan proposed having a two level review like the IRB.  The first one could be an expedited review and the second a full review.  And, that we could start listing cases that could go through only the expedited review.  The expedited review could take place at Graduate Studies.  Josie added only those cases that require discussion should be brought to Graduate Council.  Duncan asked if this would require a vote.  Katie said that it seemed like a procedural decision for Graduate Council.  Carolyn said that we can create a list that clearly outlines cases that would fall under the expedited category and then apply it consistently.  Pat said that we can then review this at the end of one year.  Hans said that he would prefer the standing committee be involved in this process.  Duncan said that it would be consultative process and that it could still go through the expedited review.  He suggested bringing a draft of the proposal to the January meeting. 

All the Conflict of Interest cases were recommended ‘no conflict’ by the committee and Council approved all of them as no conflict. 

5.      Curriculum Committee (John Day):

1. Program Review—Individual Interdisciplinary Program: John Day said that the based on the review of the IIP, the previous Provost had asked to suspend admissions.  For about a year and a half, the program really did not do much.  Some procedures need to be put in place for the program.  A couple of other issues that the program faces are that there is no clear academic home for the program and there is no funding or support for it either.  Michael informed Graduate Council that now there is one person in the Office of Graduate Studies (Annette Love) who co-ordinates the whole process.  A packet has also been developed for all IIP students; sometimes a few years go by before a new student starts an IIP.  He also said that a personal interview is conducted for each student applying to the IIP.  During this interview the student is made aware of the limits of the program and how this could be a more difficult one than another program.  Hans said that there has been a fairly pervasive concern about the academic standards adhered to by the program.  Michael said that now expectations are clarified to students who start the program.  Some of the students who have successfully completed the program have produced work that is of high caliber.  On the other hand there are some students who seem to be wandering and do not finish their programs.  Catherine asked if the regulations could be modified to require an annual meeting of the committee to ensure that the student is on the right track.  Michael added that to facilitate this, one of the committee members also has to be identified as Chair and the responsibilities of and expectations from the Chair should be clarified to him/her as well.  He said that a standard can be maintained at the College level.  Donna said that a lot of responsibility in an IIP program falls on the student and at some level that does not seem fair and it does not work efficiently either.  There has to be a happy medium of maintaining academic rigor and focus on the program.  Michael added that and that is why the College would be the best place to enforce that academic rigor.  Catherine added that but with the IIP multiple Colleges are involved and one College might not be aware of the standards set by another one.  So, it would be best that each College sends their standard requirements to Graduate Studies.  Donna agreed and said that it could be a set of principles and a set of guidelines.  Michael said that there are about 15 active IIP students and some 15 more taking courses her and there.  Donna said the issues of not having sufficient contact with faculty or the lack of real understanding or commitment about the program also need to be addressed. 

Joe Rota said that in the 80s and 90s he was on the committee for four IIP students.  Out of those four, three never finished and the one who did had the worst dissertation that he has seen so far.  The doctoral program needs more focus; otherwise it seems to be nothing more than a glorified Masters program.  Duncan said that this review was done two years ago but it has been presented now and we have an opportunity to suggest changes.  He added that the last five lines on the concerns page are important.  Michael said that Graduate Studies has devoted more time and effort to the program in the last couple of years.  Duncan said that his concern is about the fact that a doctoral degree grants admission to a community of scholars and with an IIP that community is missing.  So, it is possible that this program can work at the Masters level.  Carolyn added that in the case of the College of Fine Arts, the MFA degree is a terminal degree, so the concerns are not just about a doctoral degree.  Donna added that a closer mentorship is important for this process.  Michael said that we should talk about the downside of eliminating the program.  He added that the IIP works well in areas where there is a coherent field—a field that exists in other Universities and we do not offer it.  But, it is possible for a student to create that by combining courses from different colleges.  Duncan said that he was happy to hear that because that alleviates his concern of the existence of a community of scholars in that field.  Also, that there are conferences that a student can attend in that area.  Katie added that there are a couple of OU administrators who are pursuing an IIP. 

Duncan said that the committee recommends we accept the review.  A letter will be sent to the Curriculum Council with the executive summary attached to it.  Carolyn will craft some changes to the summary before it is sent.  Catherine reiterated that each College should establish some guidelines and present them to Michael’s office.  These guidelines should focus on the nature of the committee, designation of a formal chairperson, an annual meeting and so on.  Pat said that she was unclear about the role of Graduate Council regarding this review.  She asked if Graduate Council would accept the review if the changes that are being suggested are made.  John clarified saying that we can either approve the review or make a recommendation and send it to the Provost.  Duncan added that the UCC will review our recommendations.  Donna said that the processing at the UCC has been very slow and they have only reviewed two programs in two years.  John said that he is aware of that and that they are at the mercy of the meetings, which take place about eight times a year. Susan asked if a timetable can be implemented regarding why it takes so long to get the reviews back from UCC.  John said that one of their MBA program reviews was reviewed two years ago, but we will not have it for one more year.  There are no rules, guidelines or standards to follow to conducting these reviews.  Also, if the program is already accredited, there isn’t anything new that the review committee will find that the accreditation team could not find. 

Duncan said that the Trustees want to review the entire document, not just the one page executive summary (as they did in the past).  Michael said that he would like to seek guidance to restructure the program.  There should be an advisory body, or a governing body.  He added that many share his view that the IIP is worth saving.  Joe added that a general set of rules which would focus on who would direct the degree, what departments can be a part of it, who can and who cannot serve on the committee, what courses are eligible to eliminate the preponderance of 500 and 600 level courses from a Ph.D. program.  Hans said that the ownership of the program lies in Graduate Studies, hence with Michael. 

Graduate Council approved the review.

2. Program Review—MBA at Tsinghua University: John said that they have experimented with admissions part of the program by using the Oxford Placement Test.  John said that students do not come to the Athens campus; the faculty from OU go to China to teach.  John said that online instruction is also imparted.  He added that some adjunct faculty will be hired to offset the course load.  And, that they will use similar standards for hiring those adjunct faculty as those of hiring regular faculty.  Michael asked John to examine and report their opinion about the Oxford Placement Test.  He added that if that works for this program then it could be added to the list of acceptable test scores for OU.  John said he is not sure if it would work as well for other departments as it does for Business. 

Graduate Council approved the review.

6.      Vision Ohio:

Josie is chairing the Graduate Priorities committee.  David Mould and John are on the Resources committee, Glenn and Susan are on the new committee, Quality and Diversity of Students, Faculty, and Staff (??), and Joe is on the Interdisciplinary Initiatives committee.  Duncan said that the Planning and Strategy Standing Committee of Graduate Council should keep in touch with implementation teams and report back to Council.  This will keep us informed about initiatives we should be taking and getting involved with. 

Josie explained a little bit about what her committee was involved in.  Josie said that all committees were given charges by the Provost.  The Provost’s website has the entire document online with lists of members and dates and places of meetings with their agendas.  The minutes of those meetings are also posted online.  Josie added that they are in the process of uploading information about their meetings.  She said that Michael has done significant amount of research about having an administrative structure that will lead to more resources for graduate students and in turn will facilitate national prominence.  Some issues that have come up are, lack of research monies, shortage of space, inadequate number of faculty and support staff, low graduate stipends, higher fees, and recruitment and health insurance issues with international students. 

Josie said that by February or March they expect to have a draft which will propose some recommendations that will have come about as a result of this above mentioned research and discussions.  She added that they are not responsible for the implementation of those recommendations and wondered why they were called the implementation team.

Glenn apprised Council about the work his committee is involved in.  He said that the first part is the data gathering process, the second is categorizing that data, the third part is summarizing those findings, and the fourth part is having a communications plan, which includes new websites and newsletters.  The target date for their document is May 30^th.  They have been looking at the Penn State Model he added. 

John presented a brief overview of his committee.  He said that they are benchmarking other institutions, OSU, Denver, Michigan, and identifying variations.  In January they will start using the information collected to put together their report. 

Joe said that four members of the Dean’s Council report to the Provost which was endorsed and present to the Interdisciplinary team.  This is an important task, but there is a lot that merits reviews here at OU.  The changing promotion and tenure rules and joint/dual faculty positions should be evaluated.  He added that faculty are punished, not rewarded for interdisciplinary research.  He also said that Graduate Chairs will be asked to participate in a survey about this in the near future.     

Duncan said that most teams are moving along in a similar direction—conducting research, identifying bench marks and putting together their reports. 

The meeting was adjourned at 4:05 pm.

Next meeting: January 13^th, 2006 in the Governance Room at Walter Hall, 2 - 4 pm.