Attendance: Margaret Appel, Joseph Bernt, Mehmet Celenk, Tiao Chang, William Condee, Douglas Green, Kenneth Hicks, Donald Jordan, Rajindar Koshal, Jenny Lau, Donald Miles, Averell Overby, Scott Sparks, Maureen Weissenrieder, Daniel Innis, Jessica Haigney, Gary Schumacher, Leona Cibrowski, Julia Zimmerman, Bobbi Conliffee, Patrick Washburn.

Staff: Gordon Schazenbach, Jennifer Francone

Excused: Glenn Doston, Josep Rota, Jerrel Mitchell

Absent: Richard Miller, James Crawford.

Guests: Sylvia Henry, Kathy Krendl.

Meeting Convened at 2:10 P.M.

Chair’s Report: Chair Ken Hicks welcomed the council. The previous meeting minutes were approved with the addition of Josep Rota being in attendance.

There was a second reading on the Policies on Graduate Student Support. There was no discussion on the second reading. The council voted and passed the new policy.

There was a second reading on the Policy on the 260 Hour Rule. There was concern that the policy would put restrictions on extensions allowed to students. It was stated that the policy is geared to aid students who are having difficulties completing their degrees in a timely fashion. The policy will tentatively go into effective Winter 2000. It is already printed in the Graduate Catalog. The council voted and passed the new policy.

The chair mentioned that Ohio State University is already using the Selective Enhancement process to bring its Ph.D. programs. OSU is targeting several program, such as Psychology, History, Physics, and some other Ph.D. programs for selective enhancement, which means that these programs are being given new faculty positions and extra resources. If Ohio University is to stay competitive in Ph.D. education, we should consider how a program for selective enhancement could help our doctoral programs. The question is: how to obtain the necessary financial resources to do this at Ohio University?

Chair Hicks passed the discussion onto the Associate Provost for Graduate Studies Gary Schumacher.

Associate Provost’s Report: Gary Schumacher, Associate Provost for Graduate Studies, wanted to advise the council about several topics:

1. The Electronic Theses and Dissertation Committee is active and will make recommendations to the Council by April 1, 2000
2. Approximately $100,000 for recruitment has been awarded to various schools and departments. There were 30 awards ranging from $400 to $5000. The departments are to submit results of their recruiting activities by July 1, 2000.
3. The second Funding Commission of the Regents met for the first time on November 15, 1999 and will discuss master’s funding, boundaries for Ph.D./M.A. funding, and implementation of doctoral funding.
4. A committee is being put together to evaluate TA training for next year. The committee is to have recommendations to the Council by March 15, 2000 for next year and by May 15, 2000 for long term.
5. Proposals for permanent stipend increases are due November 22, 1999.
6. The web sites for the doctoral goal statements are now online.
7. There is a committee looking at how distance education and off-campus programs are financially administered.

Dr. Schumacher introduced the issue of selective enhancement for doctoral programs. He stated that two years ago a Funding Commission was started to review concerns that doctoral programs were being driven by enrollment instead or quality. The commission recommended a Performance Funding Model that included an 85% base component, a 10% investment component, and a 5% incentive component. The Regents Advisory Committee on Graduate Studies (RACGS) was given the responsibility to implement the investment component. The investment component calls for each university to submit an enhancement plan by July 1, 2000 in order to receive the 10% investment component subsidy. At Ohio University, a Policy Review Committee was involved in establishing a procedure for Ohio University. This procedure is detailed in the recommended policy and calls for proposals from the departments. The proposals for Selective Enhancement would be due March 15, 2000, selection would be done by May 15, 2000, drafts of the university’s investment plan would be done by June 15, 2000, and the final draft would be sent to the Board of Regents by July 1, 2000. Criteria for the proposals would be a clearly articulated mission, evidence of recognized quality, and a well conceptualized plan. Some priority will be given to programs with the ability to leverage these funds for additional monies, who can compete for incentive funds, or who explore reallocation. Funding can be base or term funding. The proposals will be reviewed by a committee put together by the Chair of Faculty Senate, Chair of Graduate Council, and the Associate Provost for Graduate Studies. The reasons for this approach are: (1) the desire for an approach in which units could propose plans and (2) the possibility that although not all units could be funded immediately, the ideas could be used for additional funding requests or capital campaigns. Some concerns are that this process requires too much effort from the departments, that such enhancements have already been done, and that we do not have the funds to do this enhancement without stripping other departments. The goal of the Ohio University procedure is to target Ph.D. programs that are good and make them better so Ohio University can compete better nationally.

Discussion on the report followed:

Several members of Graduate Council were concerned about the effects on the budget at Ohio University to carry out this program. Maureen Weissenrieder, Chair of the Policies and Regulations Committee, summarized discussion of this policy at their committee meeting. The colleges are already allocating resources with the intent to enhance selective programs. One possible way to address the strategic plan for the Ohio Board of Regents is to list the many ways that Ohio University is currently providing enhanced resources to selected programs. Another concern is how much money will be reallocated to selected doctoral programs, and how this will impact the budget of undergraduate and masters level programs. If the amount of money is small and most of it comes from new sources, such as alumni donations and other development funds, then this will not impact other educational levels. However, if the funding for selective enhancement of doctoral education affects the budgets for undergraduate and masters education, then this would likely be a cause for concern by the Deans. Gary Schumacher responded that the intent is not to cut existing programs. However, the intent is to get more dollars into graduate education and various sources are being considered for this purpose.

Ken Hicks discussed his meeting earlier in the day with Provost Brehm. The Provost stated that there are essentially 3 sources for funding the program for selected enhancement of doctoral education: 1) “new” money (donations, increased enrollment, etc.), 2) existing reallocation (the current “one percent tax”, which is being phased in slowly over several years), and 3) a “special” reallocation (which might, for example, cut some programs in order to enhance other programs). The third option is not likely to happen, although this is not ruled out at this stage. In any case, there would need to be very good arguments brought forward if the third option were used. So the bottom line is that new money or existing reallocation will likely be the source for the funding the selective enhancement proposals.

Hicks also noted that the Provost said that the second year of the budget is being built now (to be done be April, 2000). The plan for strategic plan for the Board of Regents is due in July, 2000 and will not take effect until the 2001-2002 budget year. So the budget of the next academic year (2000-2001) will not be affected.

Margaret Appel asked if there would be any reallocation between the administrative and academic budgets that might be a source for funding of selective enhancement. It was stated that this is unlikely to happen because of the “firewall” set up to separate these reallocations.

Assistant Provost’s Report: Gordon Schazenbach, Assistant Provost for Graduate Studies, had nothing to report.

Committee Reports:

Extension of Time: The committee voted to grant Connie Anderson, Craig McCarthy, and Karen O’Donnell time extension. The committee did not vote on time extensions for James Sand and Patricia Wickline due to insufficient information.

Admissions Requirements: The Admissions Requirements committee reviewed 15 cases and determined that 14 cases did not have conflicts. Carolyn Lewis, Director of Telecommunications Center, was determined to be in conflict. Kathy Krendl, Dean of Telecommunications spoke to the committee regarding the conflicts addressed. The committee voted on the conflicts and voted to turn down Carolyn Lewis admittance into the Ph.D. program in Interpersonal Communications. Curriculum: The committee recommended approval of a proposal from the School of Music for a Performer’s Graduate Diploma. The students would be required to have B.A. level of knowledge in music history and theory. There would be no music theory or history courses required. The council voted and approved the new diploma. Since the program exceeds the maximum credits allowed for a certificate, the program must go before the Board of Regents for approval. Policy and Regulations: The council decided that they wanted to go forward with the Selective Enhancement vote via e-mail. The votes are to be sent to the chair by November 18, 1999.

A meeting has been scheduled for December 9, 1999 at 10:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. in Baker Center 304 to discuss curriculum, extension of time, and selective enhancement.

Adjournment at 3:58 P.M.