Attendance: Catherine Axinn, Dominic Barbato, Patricia Beamish, Josephine Bloomfield, Angie Bukley, Lee Cibrowski, Donna Conaty, Dawn Deeter, Judith Edinger, Aimee Howley, David Juedes, Hans Kruse, Christine Mattley, Michael Mumper, Chester Pach, Animesh Rathore, Joe Rota, Susan Sarnoff, Nihar Shah, Robert Staron, Katherine Tadlock, Maureen Weissenrieder, and Julia Zimmerman.
Excused: Ben Allen, Duncan Brown, Carolyn Cardenas, David Drabold, Tim Heckman, David Mould and Yingjiao Xu,
Convened: The meeting was convened at 2:10 pm .
1. Approval of November Minutes
The minutes for the November meeting were approved.
2. Chair's Report (Chester Pach for Duncan Brown)
Posthumous degree policy : The Provost approved the posthumous degree policy. Each department will now need to set and/or add to the criteria. Angie asked if the final version of the policy has been posted on the Ohio University website. Chester said he will check and will send the link.
3. Remarks by Michael Mumper
A. Graduate Priorities Implementation Team : Michael informed Graduate Council that the team received many recommendations and they are now going over those proposals.
B. Graduate Education and Research Board : The Provost will announce the winners of the competition held for the small GERB proposals next week. The six big proposals (that are listed in the handout circulated) will be evaluated during the spring quarter. Chester asked if there was a change in the amount of money allocated for the smaller proposals. Michael said that there is still some ongoing discussion about it and that the Provost has said that for now we will continue with the same format and if there isn't an adequate number of the larger proposals, then she will move all of the money to the smaller ones.
C. National Research Council : Michael said that the National Research Council survey is being conducted. This body ranks doctoral programs offered nationwide. Some of these surveys need to be completed by faculty, while some of them are being completed by graduate students, those who have achieved candidacy.
4. Remarks by Katie Tadlock
A. Named Fellowships : Katie informed Graduate Council that the information for the nomination process, applications, deadlines for the Named Fellowships are available on the Graduate Studies website and on the graduate student list-serv. This goes along the Graduate Studies initiative of doing more things online. She added that this will prevent lost forms and last minute hassles.
B. Change in I-20 amount : Katie informed members of Graduate Council of the recent update in the amount required from international students before an I-20 can be issued to them. She said that Dr. Rota convened a meeting to discuss this and the new figure represents tuition for three quarters and living expenses for nine months. So far, we had been asking students to show living expenses for 12 months. Based on our high I-20 amount, living costs in Athens were appearing to be more than that in New York or San Diego . The new figure reflects a 20% reduction in the amount asked for. Katie noted that another advantage of this lower amount is that it brings the stipends offered closer to showing that a student is fully funded. This makes us more competitive for recruitment. She added that there will be information on the website to indicate that if students plan on spending the summer in Athens or buying a car, it will cost more. Maureen agreed that this is a great idea; she added that it also might be worthwhile to conduct a survey at the end of the year to get feedback (from students) about the accuracy of the amount.
Katie added that undergraduate expenses are higher because they factor in residence halls and meal plans for students. The undergraduate I-20 will continue to reflect that, so it is significantly higher than that for graduate students. Maureen asked if each university determines its own amount and if there are any external reviews regarding the I-20 amount. Katie and Michael assured Graduate Council that the new policy follows federal guidelines. Michael added that Valerie Young had compiled data about I-20 amounts from some other schools and our amount was higher than places like Virginia Tech.
5. Curriculum Committee (Chris Mattley)
Seven year review of the Department of Mechanical Engineering : Chris said that the committee did not have any questions or concerns about the review. However, since the department has been the focus of discussion, it seems fitting to open the matter for discussion here. She added that the College has responded well (based on the letters from the Dean and the Chair that are included in the review) to the questions that were raised. Chris said it is important to remember that the review had been completed by the time these issues surfaced. David said that he is surprised that only the Dean's letter mentions the issue. He noted that Graduate Council should address it, because if we do not, then which other body will. Discussion centered on the process followed in conducting seven year reviews and if there is any way of discovering such issues via the review process. It was concluded that there is no component of the review process that involves looking at thesis and dissertation content.
Susan, who is the co-chair of the academic honesty committee, noted that they are happy with the remedial measures taken by the department. She added that they have recommended that the trustees receive a full report of the remedial measures that have been taken. The review covers the period from 1998 to 2004. Catherine said that the review is rather vague about the infractions. Angie said that most of the issues were about student copying entire introductory paragraphs, and not about copying research. Most of the research is good and original. Aimee and Dominic asked about the process of review that would look at the content of the thesis. Hans asked if such a process does not exist at this point in time, then could it not be added to it. He added that it seems like a two part process, one is what should be reviewed and two, how UCC can make it a part of the review process. Chester said that maybe the curriculum committee could draft some language for Graduate Council to approve and to forward to UCC. Susan noted that it seems like if we discuss it more it might just end up in The Post. David said that he did not mean to be hard on the department, given that he is also a member of the same College, but it needs to be addressed and not only at the graduate level, but also at the undergraduate level.
Graduate Council voted in favor of accepting the review with the addition of the word academic to read ‘academic integrity' in the third line. The Curriculum committee will work on creating a document to address academic honesty and plagiarism for Graduate Council to discuss.
6. Ohio University Librarians pursuing advanced degrees (Julia Zimmerman) :
Julia informed members of Graduate Council that during the fall quarter one librarian applied for a Ph.D. program. There are many new and young librarians who are interested in pursuing either a Masters degree in a subject area that is relevant to their job or a Ph.D. She added that the M.L.S and the M.L.I.S are considered terminal degrees for librarians, but it is easier to advance if librarians have a subject Masters or a Ph.D. Each librarian or bibliographer who is assigned to a particular department gets to know the people in that department very well. There are about 40 such people in these positions. Interaction between a department and a bibliographer/librarian differs from department to department, for example, in some departments the bibliographers order all books. In other departments, like History, all decisions about book orders are made by faculty. Librarians also provide research support and perform other duties as required.
Julia added that she is thankful that the administration understands the inflation in costs of library materials that takes place every year. She noted that as a reason for the library's acquisition budget to have never been reduced. In fact, the budget has always had $100 ,000 to $450,000 added every year. If some money is not added every year, then in essence it means that a part of it is being taken away. She noted that once a budget is allocated for a department, it does not change, i.e., they cannot move money back and forth between departments. This maintains the integrity of the process. She said that given the nature of the policies and procedures followed for acquisition of materials and providing support to all academic departments; it makes sense to offer to the librarian/bibliographers the opportunity to pursue further degrees.
Catherine noted that she is not concerned about misappropriation of funds, but her concern is about relational leverage. She added that she is concerned about the protection of students. If a student finds himself/herself being pushed by his/her professor to order certain materials, then what recourse would a student have. Donna said she would like to look at the recommendation that the committee drafted. She added that if an electronic version could be circulated it would help all departments review it. She said that one of the ways to avoid having decision making powers vested in one person, would be to create a faculty group that would review all purchases made.
Joe said that since Graduate Council already voted on approving Gary Ginther's admission, would we now rescind the previous vote. Hans said that to rescind would mean to withdraw the permission given to the student to register, and that is not fair to the student. Chester added that we do not need to take a new vote, but we should circulate the new language drafted by the committee.
Aimee asked if some guidelines have been established in the past about similar applicants. She noted that they have a bibliographer in their College who is working on his doctoral degree and that when his case was first presented to Graduate Council, there would have been some discussion about similar issues like the present discussion. Julia added that six or seven cases have come up in the past few years, but each one was dealt as a case by case basis.
7. Discussion Item-- Ohio Patriot Act
Dominic said that students have been concerned about the vagueness of the law. Faculty and staff are required to sign it, but he is not clear why Graduate Assistants and Teaching Assistants are required to sign it as well. The University of Akron is the only other university in the state besides us that has GAs and TAs sign the document. Chester asked about the process in which this decision was made and that if there was any communication with our legal counsel regarding it. Michael responded saying that last year when the law was passed and OU applied the policy to all faculty and staff he asked Human Resources if GAs and TAs should sign it as well. At that point the HR staff did not have the answer, but they called him later to say that GAs and TAs should sign it. Catherine said she wonders why it only applies to new employees. Angie said that she had to sign it this past fall, since the nature of her appointment changed from that of a visiting Professor to full time. She said that her pay was on hold until she signed the document. Susan said she wonders why other universities are not doing it and maybe this has thwarted some of our faculty searches. Catherine said that it would be a good idea to raise this issue at a faculty senate meeting and asked if those members of Graduate Council who are also members of faculty senate would do the same. Hans noted that the law is confusing and it does not include a definition of terms used, like many other laws do.
Graduate Council approved the motion for Michael to have a conversation with Jim Kemper regarding not treating graduate students as employees for the sake of signing the form.
8. New Business (TA Handbook) :
Alyssa Thomas, a doctoral student in the department of Chemistry presented her idea to Graduate Council. She noted that new Graduate Assistants have a GA handbook to refer to, but new TAs who work in laboratories do not have a resource manual. Some departments have created their own handbooks for their TAs, but TAs from those departments that do not have such a handbook have to struggle to find the right resources. She said that she has looked at TA handbooks from various institutions like Stanford, Brown, UC Santa Barbara and all of their Graduate Assistant handbooks specifically address TAs who have laboratory duties. In response to Chester 's question about who is responsible for this, Michael said that it would be the Center for Teaching Excellence. Alyssa said that the Center could create a generic resource book and each department can then add its own specific components to it. Michael encouraged her to contact him and Tim Vickers from the Center for Teaching Excellence to set up a meeting to develop the idea.
Adjourned: The meeting was adjourned at 3:35 pm . The next meeting is on February 9th, 2007 , from 2 to 4 pm in the Governance Room in Walter Hall.
