Attendance: Margaret Appel, Joseph Bernt, Mehmet Celenk, Tiao Chang, William Condee, Kenneth Hicks, Rajindar Koshal, Donald Miles, Averell Overby, Scott Sparks, Maureen Weissenrieder, Patrick Washburn, Glenn Doston, Jerrel Mitchell, Jessica Haigney, Gary Schumacher, Julia Zimmerman, Bobbi Conliffee, Josep Rota, Larisa Zelenskaya.

Staff: Gordon Schanzenbach, Jennifer Francone

Excused: Daniel Innis, Leona Cibrowski.

Absent: Douglas Green, Donald Jordan, Richard Miller, Adam Weaver, Jenny Lau.

Guests: Dina Lopez, Gene Mapes, Sharon Brehm, Aimee Howley.

Convened: 2:07 P.M.

Chair’s Report: Ken Hicks distributed copies of the Graduate Council’s home page and asked for any suggestions. He stated that there will be links from the committee page to committee procedures. He also passed out the procedures for each committee with slight changes from the last Graduate Council meeting. The chair stated that during old business they could discuss any changes that needed to be made to the procedures. Josep Rota suggested a link to the University International Council web site be added. Chair Hicks stated that previous approved minutes were also on the web site. February’s minutes were voted on and approved.

Chair Hicks stated that Provost Brehm was present to discuss the appeal of Carolyn Lewis. Chair Hicks reviewed his letter to Ms. Lewis regarding her appeal to council regarding the conflict of interest decision. The letter stated that the council voted 13 to 3 after considerable discussion on the appeal that there was a potential conflict of interest. The bases for this decision were:

1. Dean Krendl signs off on all of the theses and is Ms. Lewis’s direct supervisor. Chair Hicks stated that he felt that there was not a likelihood that a conflict would occur but the situation is listed in the procedures as a potential conflict of interest.
2. The interns at the Telecommunications Center report to Ms. Lewis and an interns advisor could possibly be a professor for Ms. Lewis.

The Provost stated that she has never encountered this type of situation before. She reviewed all the materials and came to a very different conclusion than did Graduate Council. She came to the meeting so that she could better understand Graduate Council’s opinion. She feels that the thesis is a small point. Someone else other than the dean could sign off on the thesis (e.g. the Provost). Also, the interns at the Telecommunications Center are not there for credit. They are there for experience. A committee of five people select the interns and Carolyn Lewis is not one of them. Ms. Lewis has no direct contact with any of the interns and there would not be any interpersonal communication graduate students underneath her. The Provost was most interested in the conflict of interest procedure. She had never seen it before. It is not located in either the Faculty Handbook or in the Policies and Procedures. The Provost feels that the people listed in the senior administrative category need to be notified that they are not allowed to apply for or take classes in graduate school. She feels that a conflict of interest decision denies employee benefits and this should be done carefully. There is no policy currently that implied power causes conflict of interest and if one were passed, could not be retroactively applied to Ms. Lewis’s situation. The Provost was concerned about where the line should be drawn. If it is too strict, then no one could ever take classes who works at the university. Ms. Lewis would not be allowed to serve on any university committees while she was in the graduate program. The Provost realizes the importance of protecting the quality of our graduate programs but is concerned that if the process is too restrictive then it may cause difficulties. The Provost compared the situation to spouses working within the same department. The university makes sure that appropriate measures are taken so that they cannot influence one another. The Provost would use a recusal process to try to eliminate any conflict of interest. She believes that there is no way that any Ohio University employee would not have conflict of interest beyond a shadow of a doubt. When the Provost moved the Telecommunications Center under the college, she made sure that the two were very separate, especially financially. The Provost wanted to reiterate that she believes that Ms. Lewis is being held to too high of a standard.

At this time the Graduate Council was invited to respond to the Provost’s position. Council members stated that they were trying to retain consistency with their past decisions. The Provost responded that she believed each case should be judged on its own merit. Council members also responded that it did not want to prevent Ms. Lewis from taking classes or getting a degree but that she should not be allowed to do so in that college. Council members felt that she could apply for an interdisciplinary degree. The Provost stated that she presented this option to Ms. Lewis but she was unwilling to compromise which degree she received. Council members were also concerned about the potential for conflict of interest. They felt that there was a potential conflict of interest, not that there was one for sure. The Provost responded that there are potential conflicts of interest constantly but the university builds in recusal processes because the benefits are greater to the university than the possibility of conflict of interest. The Provost believes that if a newly hired person has an inherent conflict of interest that they should be told at the time of hiring that they will not be allowed to take graduate courses. A council member stated that he believed the university should operate under good will. The Provost urged Graduate Council to bring their procedure forth to the Faculty Senate to become a policy. She suggested that if the council thought directors were inherently in a conflict of interest situation, the council should consider adding a statement saying that directors would not be allowed to get degrees in the college that they work in. The Provost ended by stating that she just did not agree with the Graduate Council’s position.

Associate Provost for Graduate Studies’ Report: Gary Schumacher passed out the list of committee members reviewing the investment proposals. The committee has already met once to discuss procedures. They will have a review sheet to check if the departments have met the criteria. The final ratings will be on a five point scale. The members will rate independently and will not vote on their own department’s proposal. The committee’s recommendations are due to the Provost between May 1 and May 15, 2000. The committee will present a written recommendation. The final investment plan needs to be to the Regents by July 1, 2000. Dr. Schumacher noted that the deadlines for letters of intent for eminent scholars and incentive component proposals were changed to July 1, 2000 and the deadlines for final proposals were changed to September 1, 2000. The criteria for eminent scholars are still being finalized but there are some basic requirements. They must come from a strong program, they must help meet state needs (e.g. economic development, K-12 education, public health), and the university must have a $750,000 endowment match. Once official guidelines have been distributed, a call for proposals will be sent out. Dr. Schumacher realizes the strain this places on chairs and will initially only request a two page concept paper. Only seven eminent scholars will be chosen for the entire state. The university is allowed to submit as many proposals as it wishes for eminent scholars, but it must be able to have the endowment match for each one. The guidelines have been established for the incentive component. The proposals must show how the program will meet state needs. The university may ask for three times the contributed amount, which is about $240,000, totaling approximately $720,000. Once again there will be a general call to doctoral programs for a two page concept paper. The Office of Graduate Studies will send feedback to the departments on how to improve their proposals since this will become a yearly process for all three components.

Dr. Schumacher went to a Funding Commission meeting on February 29, 2000. They are still considering masters funding issues. The shift from 90 hours to 51 hours may be changed to 75 instead. The changes from 51 hours to 90 hours could cause about a 28% drop in Ph.D. enrollment. Some initial analyses indicate that Ohio University will suffer from the shift. The Funding Commission is considering adding some other variables besides enrollment to the masters funding formula. These variables may include the number of research dollars generated by masters programs or whether students are employed in Ohio after they graduate. These all show potential problems.

The Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Committee is moving forward. They have completed their open forum presentations. They will be drafting a report with their recommendations and present it at the May meeting. The TA Training and Orientation committee has had two meetings. They are interviewing graduate chairs to see what sort of training process they currently have in place. Their goal is to have a coherent training model. They will bring their proposal to council in late spring. The Policies and Regulations Committee will be asked to review the TA/RA/GA designations to have better definitions. This will help to better understand departmental teaching resources.

Assistant Provost for Graduate Studies’ Report: No report.

Committees:

Curriculum: Educational Studies wishes to offer a masters degree with emphasis in educational administration at five regional campuses. The committee recommended the proposal to council. They currently have twenty students in each of the five programs. There is currently a shortage of school administrators in Ohio and this program will help to supply more administrators for Ohio. It is a two year program. This program is identical to the one on the Athens campus. It is a completely off-campus program and is very internship focused. It requires 69 credits with 34 being completed during the summer. The Graduate Council voted on and approved the program.

Conflict of Interest: The committee found no evidence of potential conflict of interest for Mary Hogan or Shelly Morris. The Graduate Council voted and approved the two for admission.

Old Business:

Julia Zimmerman informed the council that the Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Committee brought in a group of visitors to discuss the issue. OhioLink will provide all of the technology and storage for electronic theses and dissertations. Virginia Tech has created the National Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD) to be a repository for theses and dissertations. Ms. Zimmerman believes that implementing an electronic thesis and dissertation program is a very doable project but should be done slowly. A policy will need to be made about the suppression of theses or dissertations. Students may be allowed to suppress their thesis or dissertation for a short period of time but not indefinitely. Some advantages of electronic theses and dissertations is that multimedia can be incorporated and hyperlinks can be created to other web sites or to other points within the document.

New Business:

Some council members showed concern about the procedures of the conflict of interest committee. They were not sure whether or not the committee was necessary or how it will function if the provost decides to overturn decisions recommended by the committee and approved by an overwhelming majority of council members. They thought that a policy needs to be written that can be upheld. They thought that the wording of the current procedure should be dealt with.

Adjourned: 3:55 P.M.