Attendance: Margaret Appel, Joseph Bernt, Mehmet Celenk, Tiao Chang, William Condee, Douglas Green, Kenneth Hicks, Donald Jordan, Donald Miles, Averell Overby, Scott Sparks, Maureen Weissenrieder, Patrick Washburn, Glenn Doston, Jerrel Mitchell, Jessica Haigney, Gary Schumacher, Leona Cibrowski, Kent Mulliner for Julia Zimmerman, Bobbi Conliffee, Larisa Zelenskaya, Adam Weaver

Staff: Gordon Schanzenbach, Jennifer Francone

Excused: Rajindar Koshal, Daniel Innis, Josep Rota, Jenny Lau

Absent: Richard Miller

Guests: Gene Mapes, John Keifer, Roger Rollins, Bruce Steiner, Dorothy Bryant, Milton Butler

Convened: 2:07 P.M.

Chair’s Report: The minutes for the March meeting were voted on and approved. Ken Hicks stated some observations on the conflict of interest situation. He informed council that the Provost had decided not to follow the Graduate Council’s recommendation for Carolyn Bailey Lewis. The Provost admitted Ms. Bailey-Lewis with three contingencies:

1. Dean Krendl is to recuse herself from all responsibilities related to Ms. Bailey-Lewis’s degree program. The Provost will be responsible for any duties normally done by the dean (e.g., signing of Ms. Bailey-Lewis’s dissertation).
2. Two people outside of the College of Communication shall be appointed to Ms. Bailey-Lewis’s graduate committee. The two people can either be in addition to the normal members or in place of the normal members.
3. Ms. Bailey-Lewis will not be allowed to take any courses from the Director of the School of Interpersonal Communication.

Ken Hicks stated that he felt that it is disappointing when the Provost does not accept Council recommendations, but that this does not diminish Council’s role. He feels that since the Provost made a decision independent of the Graduate Council’s recommendation, she is responsible for the situation and will need to handle any problems if they arise. Ken Hicks stated that he feels that there does not need to be any further action by council since the Graduate Council recommends actions to the Provost.

Ken Hicks would like to have guidelines on conflict of interest passed that the Graduate Council and the Provost can both agree upon. After the policy is in place, there may no longer be a need for a committee to review all cases. Gary Schumacher noted that at the last RACGS meeting he attended he asked other members about how their schools handle such situations and they stated that they have policies in place that require no regular review. Ohio University is apparently the only university in Ohio that does this type of reviewing process. Dr. Schumacher also noted that he reviewed available council minutes for the last four years and in 151 cases reviewed only two were turned down. Chair Hicks would like to have a policy established that works like the 260 hour rule. He feels that council members’ time could be better used.

There was a motion made that the Admissions Requirement Committee put together a policy to be brought forth at the May meeting for review. The Graduate Council voted on the motion and it was passed with one opposed vote. Joseph Bernt thought that there should be greater discussion as to what the policy should entail. Chair Hicks agreed that Graduate Council needs to discuss the issue further and noted that in the agenda under Old Business time was allotted for that discussion. He also noted that the policy would need to go before the Faculty Senate and stated that he would initiate contact.

Ken Hicks wanted to address the issue of increasing work loads on department chairs and graduate chairs. The increased load seems to relate to the amount of reporting on graduate programs. There seems to be a continuous requirement to justify graduate programs. Some people felt that the Board of Regents is one of the major causes of the increase. Some members noted that there is not just an increase in graduate work load but a general increase in work load. It seems that departments are being pulled in several directions. The university does not seem to be very clear in its mission statement. There seems to be a lack of correlation between reporting and the outcome. Dr. Schumacher noted that over the years there has been a lot of change. He noted that is one reason for moving the departmental review process from every five years to every seven. It was observed that review guidelines are difficult to interpret and are sometimes changed. There is sometimes a question of criteria because review guidelines are not very explicit. Chair Hicks asked that everyone think about the problem and bring ideas to the next meeting.

Associate Provost’s Report: Gary Schumacher received the guidelines for the Eminent Scholar and Incentive Proposals from the Board of Regents. The letter of intent is due July 1, 2000 and final proposals are due September 1, 2000 for both proposals. The Office of Graduate Studies sent out a request to departments for a two page concept paper. A committee will review the concept papers and choose which departments will be asked to submit full proposals. For each eminent scholar proposal we submit, we will need to have $750,000 in matching funds. For the first year of the incentive proposal process, Ohio University will be able to submit proposals totaling $1.8 million. The incentive proposal process is open to all doctoral programs.

In November, the Graduate Council passed the 260 hours rule. Dr. Schumacher would like the Policies and Regulations Committee to consider modifying the minimum hour enrollment in that policy for students on a stipend. There appears to be a negative impact on some departments having the minimum enrollment at 15 hours for masters and 12 for doctoral students. The old requirement was 9 hours. The new policy will be presented at the next meeting.

At the last Funding Commission meeting, the commission appeared to back off modifying the 51 hour rule for the transition from masters to doctoral level. A few years back, the Regents switched databases so there is not a reliable source of data to make that transition possible. They are considering having masters funding changes occur in education and business programs only because that is where the major problem is. In these two areas, they may try a new level of masters funding to support students who are not in doctoral programs.

The Office of Graduate Studies is now able to monitor fee-paying students. Two sets of reports have been sent to departments for their review. The Investment component proposals are currently being reviewed. The committee will submit a final recommendation to the Provost. Dr. Schumacher will keep Graduate Council informed on the decisions.

Assistant Provost’s Report: Gordon Schanzenbach informed the Graduate Council that the graduate contracts were now on the web for departments to download and use. The Office of Graduate Studies has revised the summer registration process to make it easier for students.

Committee Reports:

Fellowship Committee: The Fellowship Committee received eleven applications. They chose five nominees with two alternates in the event that one of the nominees turned down their fellowship. The Graduate Council voted and approved Dale Casamatta from Environmental and Plant Biology for the Donald Clippinger Fellowship, Gabriela Petculescu from Physics for the John Cady Fellowship, Lance McBrayer from Biological Sciences for the Claude Kantner Fellowship, Yueh-hsia Chang from Teacher Education for the Anthony Trisolini Fellowship, and David Beckman from Civil Engineering for the Graduate Fellowship. Alternate John Gunstad is from Clinical Psychology and Alicia Massie-Legg is from Music.

Curriculum Committee: The committee brought forth three programs for review. The first was from the School of Music to offer a Master’s of Music beginning fall quarter. The program would primarily be done with distance learning and video. The curriculum for the program is already in place. The program is geared toward middle and secondary school teachers. The students would not need to take any time off from work for the program. There have already been 147 inquiries into the program. The classes would be taught by Athens faculty on-load. The council approved the program.

The second program was from the College of Business to offer an MBA for Brazilian executives. The courses will primarily be taught during summer and intersession in combination with distance learning throughout the academic year. The college would follow all overload guidelines. The program would begin summer of 2001. The students would come to the Athens campus in the summer of 2001 for the first of four on-campus programs occurring in summer and intersession breaks. The first summer they would spend three weeks taking OPIE courses and one week being introduced to their next three courses. The students would be required to have 550 on the TOEFL. The program is being offered in conjunction with the Vargas Foundation. The council approved the program.

The third program was from the College of Arts and Sciences to offer a Social Science Master’s program on the Zanesville campus. The classes would be in the history, political sciences, and geography departments. The program is about 25 years old and has been approved in the past for regional campus delivery. All administrative work would be handled through the history department. It would be taught by Athens faculty and some regional faculty. It is designed to start in the fall 2000 and end in the spring 2002. The primary students would be middle and high school teachers. The council approved the program.

Old Business: There was a policy written by the Admissions Requirement committee about conflict of interest but it was never voted on. It was suggested that any contract employee could not get a degree in the college in which they work. Chair Hicks suggested that it should only be restricted to departments because the university wants to encourage people to continue learning. The current policy in the Faculty Handbook restricts people by positions so a new policy might consider some modification of this approach. There may need to be a different provision for courses than degrees. The policy should be agreeable to the Graduate Council, Faculty Senate, and the Provost. Any feedback about the policy should be sent to Ken Hicks.

New Business: The draft report from the Electronic Thesis and Dissertation committee was presented to council. The committee decided that the university should provide a process for students to submit their thesis or dissertation electronically. OhioLink is putting together a process for electronic theses and dissertations to be available through OhioLink. The committee recommends that Ohio University use OhioLink as a server. The committee believes that the university should use a phase-in process for implementing the electronic thesis and dissertation process. The committee suggested that there be a subcommittee of Graduate Council to monitor the process and help establish guidelines for ETD. The library would still keep a paper copy but would like to use the incentive that if students submit their thesis or dissertation electronically the library would copy and bind it for them. The Office of Graduate Studies may need to have an office to advise and/or help students with their formatting of ETD. Due to the effects that having the thesis or dissertation on the web for publishing, the committee recommends allowing students to be able to restrict access. The final report will be before the Graduate Council in May for vote.

It was noted that finals are held on the same day as graduate graduation. This is unfair to students who have to either take exams or administer them. There is also a problem that faculty also have to leave the ceremony to administer exams.

Adjourned: 3:53 P.M.