skip to main content ISU bar University Faculty Senate Approved November 30, 2006 November 16, 2006 Minutes Indiana State University Faculty Senate 2005-06 GC#9 Present: W. Barratt, M. Boyer, B. Corcoran, H. Chait, B. Frank (Senate Liaison), A. Gilberti, M. Haque, C. MacDonald, C. Mayer, L. O’Laughlin Absent: Ex Officio: D. Collier (student rep), J. Gatrell (AS), J. Kuhlman (Interim Graduate Dean), S. Powers (Ed), L. Romero (student rep), T. Siefert (SOGS) Guests: Call to Order: C. MacDonald called the meeting to order at 9:01. Agenda with one change that the Chair’s report comes first was adopted by consensus. Minutes for 11.09.06 approved by consensus. C. Mayer moves approval; A. Gilberti seconds. Minutes approved unanimously [9-0-0] Reports Chairperson On Program Prioritization, CAAC did not approve GC statement or form. They will send their own statement. The GC statement goes on to Senate Executive Committee. The GC form goes forward to Chairs and Deans to be returned by this coming Friday, Nov. 17. There is a question about whether GC will review all graduate programs facing elimination. Chair responds that when graduate programs facing elimination agree to this elimination the process will go forward directly to the Executive Committee without comment from GC. Where programs disagree with the proposed elimination, the GC will discuss the elimination proposal. In some cases, programs will find alternate ways of addressing elimination. Graduate Council recognizes the loss of J. Kuhlman’s father. An expression of condolence is signed by all in attendance. Unfinished/Ongoing Business Revised Assistantship Guidelines: Additional changes include: Sections 1.a. and 1.b. are clarified. Section 1.c. is clarified so that graduate GPA on admission with regular status to PhD programs in the College of Education must be 3.5; all other PhD programs must be a 3.0 minimum. Term limits only apply to assistantships funded by the university. Section 3.a.i., on exceptions to rules for students awarded full or half-time assistantships, is clarified. A question is raised about Life Sciences’ statement that their NIH grants prohibit teaching assistantships and only allow for research assistantships. There is concern about how graduate assistantships are being used here. Life Sciences argues that their students teach 4 labs and only take 2 courses. The response is that their students are ultimately not teaching more than the stipulated 3 credit hours. Another question involves fee waivers: if ISU is paying fee waivers, it is vital that fee waivers be structured into grants. Many programs are asking for out-of-state fee waivers because they say they cannot attract enough qualified in-state students. The fund for fee waivers next year are the same as this year. Without extra assistantship money and with assistantships going up to $7000-$10,000 for PhD students, departments will face real pressure, losing up to a third of their PhD assistantships. Some roll-over money for fee waivers is possible, but the situation is exceedingly tight. If tuition goes up 3% fee waivers go up 3%. And regarding fee waivers for out-of-state students, there is little public information from other institutions about how they handle waive fees. Some institutions categorize teaching assistants as in-state students lowering the cost of fee waivers. We are currently trying to connect all teaching assistantships to in-state fee waivers. Dean Kuhlman addresses clarifications to the language regarding the difference in eligibility requirements for fee waivers and assistantships. There have been some problems with double payment: graduate assistantships also going to adjunct faculty members. Graduate assistants cannot be full-time temporary faculty or support staff. We need clarity as to what students are paid for. Also, if they are working for the university full-time they can get staff fee waivers, but for only 15 hours per academic year. What happens to a graduate assistant with fee waivers for the year who gives up the assistantship to take a full-time university position? Right now we are paying for these fee waivers for the full academic year even when such persons are full-time university employees. We cannot force them to give up fee waivers once they have been given them for the year. Semester-by-semester fee waivers would be the obvious solution. This doesn’t happen all that often, but the incidence is increasing and in such tight budgetary environments this sort of thing needs to be examined. Another suggestion involves attaching a note to the fee waiver stating that it is a benefit that will be taken away if the student assumes full-time university employment, but then the fee waiver becomes taxable. Also, there is a reminder that giving assistantships for a year and fee waivers by the semester could cause significant student anxiety. Serious and frank conversations need to be had with graduate students to avoid this situation. The question is asked: why would students apply for fee waivers if they were already getting assistantships? Some departments only have money for scholarships and not assistantships. A committee member asks to whom does the current document apply? For those already in the institution? Dean Kuhlman says that the rules apply for new enrollments beginning January 1, 2007. Current students will be grandfathered in. Another committee member asks if increased GPA requirements could be prohibitive. These increases in GPA only apply to College of Education, and this has already been college policy. C. Mayer moves to approve the document with changes. M. Boyer seconds. The motion is approved 8-0-0. The document will now go to the Senate Executive Committee and all Department Chairs and administrative assistants of programs. Dean’s List will be addressed at a later meeting. Policy regarding faculty taking courses will be discussed at the November 30 meeting. New Business Graduate Faculty Status Policy The Senate Executive Committee did not approve the Graduate Faculty Status Policy by a 2-4 vote and has sent the policy document back to the GC with specific concerns. The first concern involves a need for greater oversight by the GC because everyone with Graduate Faculty Status would be grandfathered in and would never have to be reviewed again. A related concern involves the need for minimum standards for Graduate Faculty Status. The new policy does include some structure for maintaining standards. For instance, tenure-track hires will be automatically given Graduate Faculty Status but they will have to earn the ability to Chair dissertations and theses. There is also concern about the revocation of Graduate Faculty Status and/or the endorsement to chair thesis committees. “For cause”—the language adopted from the university attorney for this document—was questioned because it is unstated exactly who would determine the infraction. Senate Executive Committee sees no process here and they want a multi-step procedure. Such procedures are already a part of the university’s “due process”. One possible response is to change the document to state that Graduate Faculty Status could be removed with approval of the Graduate School Dean. There was no concern with the appeal process. GC members express concern that these issues are not being dealt with at the level of the departments as chairing or sitting on thesis committees is an assignment of load and Chairs can assign loads differently. GC affirms its position that responsibilities for quality control or oversight of faculty sitting on or chairing thesis committees lies with the departments. This is also where the revocation of Graduate Faculty Status should predominantly be handled. Is the bottom line that Senate Executive Committee does not trust the department chairs to do their jobs? Perhaps the Graduate Faculty Status Policy could include language stating that responsibility for the review process lies within individual departments. Reports Chairperson’s report presented at outset of meeting. Senate Liaison’s report: Promotion and tenure pay increases need to be made comparable with peer institutions. AAUP statement about faculty participation in budget process is considered. Senate is addressing incompletes and the question of whether students can graduate with incompletes. Administrative report: Interviews conducted for a new receptionist. Assistant to the Dean resigned and a national search will be launched soon. In the Dean’s office, Janet Rose will not be reviewing theses and dissertations. Dean Kuhlman will look at them and send them back to Chairs if needed. Tuesday Nov. 14 was the last day to hand in dissertations and theses. None will be accepted after this date. Some departments are commended for turning in theses in a timely manner. Faculty need to take greater ownership of the quality of theses and dissertations. New library awards will be given for superior graduate and undergraduate papers. Adjournment—10:12 Respectfully Submitted, Brendan Corcoran Secretary Last modified: March 03, 2009  Copyright © 2009 by Indiana State University.