Attendance: Joseph Bernt, Tiao Chang, Douglas Green, Kenneth Hicks, Donald Miles, Averell Overby, Scott Sparks, Maureen Weissenrieder, Daniel Innis, Patrick Washburn, Glenn Doston, Jessica Haigney, Gary Schumacher, Leona Cibrowski, Kent Mulliner for Julia Zimmerman, Bobbi Conliffee, Jenny Lau.

Staff: Jennifer Francone

Excused: William Condee, Donald Jordan, Rajindar Koshal, Josep Rota, Gordon Schanzenbach, Margaret Appel, Jerrel Mitchell, Mehmet Celenk,.

Absent: Richard Miller, James Crawford.

Guests: Florence Sharp, Kathy Krendl, David Descutner.

Meeting Convened: 10:05 A.M.

Chair’s Report: Chair Ken Hicks introduced the appeal for Carolyn Lewis’ appeal. He stated that the council would take time to review the letters involved in the case, ask questions of Dean Krendl and David Descutner, have a private council discussion on the appeal, and then vote. Chair Hicks stated that he brought the appeal forward because he did not feel that there had been adequate time at the previous council meeting to properly discuss this issue.

Ken Hicks addressed some of the issues presented in the previous council as to whether or not there was a conflict. He reviewed points on both sides of the issue. He noted that there is a distinct separation between the Center and the School itself and neither the Director or the Dean sees a conflict. He also noted that the council needs to determine if there is a real conflict that exists and cautioned that parallels to prior decisions need to be carefully drawn. The Chair also pointed out that some believe conflicts may exist because the Director of the Center is in a position to influence others. He noted that the Dean also must sign Carolyn Lewis’ thesis. Several administrative controls, also called firewalls, were suggested by Dean Krendl at the November meeting of Graduate Council, but these still cause concern for several members of council.

Dean Krendl responded that a clear determination of conflict had not been determined and that the possible conflicts that were presented would affect Carolyn Lewis if she tried to get a degree in any department. Dean Krendl also stated that the firewalls that were set up were done by the Provost because an administrative office was reporting to an academic office. She also said that there were always going to be potentials for conflicts of interest, but precautions had been taken.

Dean Krendl stated that there are separate budget processes for the Center and the School and there is no way to transfer money between the two. She noted that the directors and the dean meet weekly to discuss issues involving the school. Carolyn Lewis would only attend these meetings when an issue involving the Center is discussed. There are interns at the Center but there is an internship coordinator who handles that aspect and the faculty are the ones who give the grades.

The council was concerned that there would not be a way to build a firewall regarding the internships. During discussion, it was noted that Carolyn Lewis would not be allowed to teach courses or take courses from either Dean Krendl or other directors in the school. However, it was noted that Carolyn Lewis does report directly to Dean Krendl and Dean Krendl does her yearly evaluations.

David Descutner, Director of the School of Interpersonal Communication, commented that Carolyn Lewis would not be allowed to take any courses from him or any other faculty who she would report to. David Descutner and Carolyn Lewis are not colleagues and she has minimum access to faculty.

Dean Krendl and David Descutner left the meeting and the council had a private discussion concerning the conflict of interest. Their concerns were that Carolyn Lewis would not have the same degree as other students because she would not be able to take classes from all the faculty members that are available. Some council members felt that Dean Krendl had addressed many concerns with the proposed firewalls. However, there was concern regarding the chain of command. Carolyn Lewis reports to Dean Krendl, who signs her evaluations and contracts. People observed that other people at Ohio University in similar situations have gone to other universities to avoid such difficulties. There was also the concern that the internship situation could not have a firewall put in place. Professors who advise students holding interns at the center could also be teaching Ms. Lewis and this is seen as a direct conflict of interest because the grades given to Ms. Lewis may be influences by this situation. In the worst possible case, she could influence the status of internships as a result of grades given. The Associate Provost for Graduate Studies was concerned about which way the pressure worked. He was concerned if Ms. Lewis reported elsewhere if a conflict would still exist.

The council took a voice vote to affirm that there had been sufficient discussion and to do the voting on Ms. Lewis’ appeal by secret ballot. A written vote was taken and a majority of the council voted that Carolyn Lewis would be in a conflict of interest situation. The Chair will draft the letter to Carolyn Lewis informing her of the council’s decision and the reasons of the denial.

The minutes for the November 12, 1999 Graduate Council Meeting were voted on and accepted.

Associate Provost’s Report: Gary Schumacher, Associate Provost for Graduate Studies, informed the council that following the vote on the selective enhancement proposal, he sent out a call to all departments to have their proposals in by March 15, 2000. At the Funding Commission and Regents Advisory Council for Graduate Studies (RACGS) meeting he spoke with deans from the other universities and found that generally they are using the same procedures as Ohio University and have similar concerns about funding. During discussion, he argued that selective enhancement should be used as a way to strengthen programs. He noted that the university’s enhancement plan that is sent to RACGS will need to be selective in order to be approved. He reported briefly on the Funding Commission and noted that the Regents were exploring ways to fund graduate education that are not solely enrollment driven.

Committee Reports:

Curriculum: The curriculum committee met on the M.S. in Accountancy for the Lancaster campus and recommended the proposal to the council. Ohio State University is also starting a master’s program in accounting, but it should not be a concern because in the year 2000 all CPAs will be required to have five years of education. Also, the Ohio State University program is a day time only program and requires full time enrollment. The Ohio University Lancaster program will have the same requirements as the Athens program. It will be targeted at students and professionals. It is an on-load program using the current faculty. No courses will be offered in the Winter session because that will be a busy season for the potential students. It will be primarily competitive with other MBA programs. The program will generally take two years to complete. The council voted on the new degree and approved it.

Extension of Time: James Sand and Patricia Wickline were recommended for extension of time. The council voted and approved time extensions.

Admission Requirements: No report.

Adjournment: 11:55 A.M.