skip to main content ISU bar University Faculty Senate Approved September 26, 2008 September 19, 2008 Minutes Indiana State University Faculty Senate 2008-09 GC#2 Present: W. Barratt, M. Boyer, Stan Buchanan, B. Corcoran, E. Hampton, M. Haque, B. El-Mansour, L. O’Laughlin Absent: B. Frank Speaking Seats: W. Barratt (Administrative Fellow, SOGS), D. Collins (COE), Jay Gatrell (Graduate Dean), S. Gick (Registrar), R. McGiverin (Library), T. Sawyer (Senate Liaison), P. Terpelets (Student Rep.) Guests: 1. Call to Order: M. Boyer called the meeting to order at 10:03 AM. 2. Agenda: Addition to agenda: program development material. The agenda was adopted by acclamation. 3. Minutes: S. Buchanan moved approval of minutes from 9.12.08. L. O’Laughlin seconded. Minutes were approved (7-0-1). 4. Reports: a. Chairperson (M. Boyer): i. No further report. b. Faculty Senate Liaison’s Report (T. Sawyer): i. No further report. c. Registrar’s Report (S. Gick): No report. i. S. Gick requests that responses to the minus-grade proposal be submitted to the Registrar. d. Administrative Report (Dean J. Gatrell): i. Dean Gatrell states that he prefers that material relevant to the Administrative Report be sent to the committee electronically. Any questions or comments regarding weekly materials can then be addressed during the meeting itself. e. Graduate Student Report: (P. Terpelets) i. P. Tereplets asks about electronic dissertations; Dean Gatrell states that a discussion is pending. P. Terpelets conveys GSA letter in support of electronic thesis/dissertation submission and the development of an electronic thesis/dissertation database. ii. P. Tereplets also asks if it is possible to discuss increasing the minimum stipend for Graduate Assistantships. Chairperson Boyer acknowledges that the floor was elevated several years ago leading to the increased funding of fewer students. Dean Gatrell suggests that right now the most pressing concern is overall compensation as opposed to stipend minimums. Thus, health care and major medical might be included in a future improvement of compensation packages. Also, Dean Gatrell says that the building fee should be addressed. iii. B. El-Mansour asks about how the Grad Fair went. There remains a question of whether this is a good use of faculty time. Dean Gatrell encourages all students to use the Kiosk in the commons to maintain sustained visibility of programs. This might be better marketing strategy for our home-market than the Grad Fair. 5. Old/Unfinished/Ongoing Business a. GC Subcommittee Appointments i. 29 people volunteered for GC Committees and 28 people were utilized. The recommendation is presented to the committee. No discussion on the slate of committee members. Vote: (7-0-1) ii. Chairperson Boyer says that given potential future problems maintaining a quorum at the current meeting time, the 8:00-9:30 slot on Thursday mornings should be kept open. iii. Regarding incomplete grading challenges on Master’s theses, S. Gick agrees to meet with J. Gatrell to address the relevant issues. Those conversations will occur soon. 6. New Business a. Program development recently met and "fast-tracked" course revisions, eliminations, and editorial changes from MUS, BIO/CHEM, PSY, and GEOL, and approved a program elimination in history. i. Revised courses include: MUS 528, 529, 545, 549, 555, 557, 569W, 600, 604, 610, 611, 612, 613, 625, 676 (A-G, I-U, W-Z), 697; BIO 587 / CHEM 587; GEOL 518, 554, 555, 565, 581, 583, 588, 597, 600, 601, 602, 661, 664, 666, 668, 697; and PSY 665C. ii. Banked courses include: MUS 503, 561, 607. iii. Eliminated courses include: MUS 501, 544, 555, 605, 636, 638, 647, 695. iv. Changes to programs include: the elimination of the MA/MS History specialization in Labor History and creation of a new concentration: MA History with Concentration in History of Labor and Reform Movements in the United States. v. The Program Development committee voted 4-0-0 to support these motions. A vote on all fast-tracked program changes is held as the motion comes from committee. vi. Vote: (7-0-1). b. A proposal is presented to fast-track the editing of the graduate curriculum, allowing for expedited approval of minor curriculum changes. Dean Gatrell addresses an earlier GC motion regarding the expediting of editorial changes to catalog copy. i. The motion to fast track graduate curriculum states: In an attempt to streamline the curriculum approval process, program development agrees that the Dean or a representative of the Dean’s Office will review and approve (if appropriate) course revisions, minor editorial changes, name changes (not accompanied by curriculum proposals), new courses accompanied by course eliminations, course eliminations/banking, and program eliminations. The Dean or his/her representative will notify the chairperson of the committee of all actions in a timely fashion. New programs, program modifications, administrative restructuring, and new courses not accompanied by course eliminations will undergo a full hearing in the committee. ii. This motion presented to the Program Development Committee was approved 4-0-0. Coming from committee, this is considered an action item by the GC. iii. Vote: (7-0-1). c. Dean’s Action Items: i. GA Guidelines update. Memorandum is distributed. Dean entertains any questions. Dean asks that any action be effective immediately. 1. Regarding elimination of job descriptions, E. Hampton moves approval; L. O’Laughlin seconds. a. Dean Gatrell’s rationale for this policy change: “based on my experiences in the College of Arts & Sciences supervising the processing of graduate assistantships, serving as a grant PI, and in numerous conversations with department chairs, program coordinators, and departmental support staff, the specific and original rationale for compulsory job descriptions for all graduate assistantships is unclear. Further, the quality and detail of the job descriptions has been historically uneven (perhaps inaccurate in many cases) and places an additional administrative burden on support staff, faculty advisors, and department chairpersons. I have consulted with members of the SoGS support staff to determine the purpose of the descriptions—as well as how these descriptions inform the decision making or allocation process to determine that they do not—hence, no internal rationale exists. Further, I have consulted with key offices on campus including human resources, payroll, and student employment to learn no requirement for them exists per se. Finally, I would suggest that the graduate student experience is a unique one in that it plays a significant role in the academic training of students and as such the assertion that a GA appointment is akin to a traditional student position on campus is problematic. As such, I would respectfully request the requirement be eliminated. Having said this, I recognize that for some programs, departments, and other units the job description is a useful tool. As such, I would strongly encourage those programs, departments, and units for which it is a useful planning and/or resource management tool to continue the practice.” b. Vote: (7-0-1). 2. Regarding the elimination of posting of GA positions, L. O’laughlin moves approval; E. Hampton seconds. a. Dean Gatrell’s rationale for this policy change: “the current guideline concerning the posting of GAs has not been enforced. Further, the unique nature of GA appointments and their specific linkage to the admissions process and disciplines precludes all GAs from being truly competitive—either on-campus or on-line. Additionally, the publication of the graduate assistantship application on the SoGS website constitutes publication or posting. Insofar as the rule has not been enforced (to my knowledge) and is practically unenforceable, the current guideline should be deleted. More importantly, I remain unconvinced that the requirement necessarily produces better outcomes, transparency, or accountability insofar as the majority of GA positions are linked to the initial admissions decision. Likewise, GAs associated with grants are seldom open competitions as the GA is a component of a student’s academic training. As in my prior request, I recognize that the posting of GA positions may be professionally appropriate for some programs, departments, and/or other units. Indeed, many non-academic units recruit all GAs through postings. As such, I do not intend to eliminate the practice per se. Rather, my intent is to create a document that is both practical and enforceable.” b. Vote: (7-0-1). 3. Regarding revision of language governing non-ISU employment and less than full-time employment, L. O’Laughlin moves approval; E. Hampton seconds. a. This proposal is a clarification of language and a reduction in verbiage. Dean Gatrell states that this is an unenforceable issue producing a lot of subterfuge. The real problem with student employment is that they are working multiple part-time jobs. M. Boyer acknowledges that the current language of the rules affects programs and students, and leads to various administrative complications. Students will be told that there are tax issues involving any employment outside the university, but students will be responsible for their own economic choices. Ultimately, these are not academic issues b. The motion states: ISU graduate assistantships are intended to support the mission of academic departments and ISU programs, to facilitate student success through professional development and financial support, and enable students to focus primarily on the rigors of academic study. Graduate assistants are discouraged from seeking additional employment opportunities beyond the "GA." Full-time employees of ISU are ineligible for appointment as a graduate assistant. Part-time employees of Indiana State University may be eligible for concurrent appointments as GAs with the approval (via email or memorandum to the School of Graduate Studies) of the immediate supervisor, advisor (or department chairperson), and the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies, insofar as total ISU responsibilities do not exceed 1 FTE. Exceptions to this guideline are at the discretion of the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies. c. Dean Gatrell’s rationale for this policy change: “the proposed language clarifies the scale and scope of on-campus employment opportunities and eliminates any reference to off -campus employment. While I agree that “Graduate assistants [should be] discouraged from seeking additional employment opportunities beyond the ‘GA,’” the lives and fiscal realities of our students are complex. Further, I do not believe SoGS can reasonably police off-campus activities and/or that monitoring such activities is a legitimate function of SoGS. Further, I do not believe we should place unreasonable limitations on part-time ISU employees based solely on their current place of employment. With respect to on-campus employment, I have discussed this particular issue with payroll and no policy statement prevents it per se. Having said this, ISU employees who hold a GA (as well as may have obtained a waiver) may incur additional tax liabilities as clearly outlined in the GA/Waiver student acknowledgement on the present acceptance form. Indeed, I am aware that payroll regularly counsels individuals of these potential liabilities. More importantly, I believe it is entirely reasonable that part-time ISU employees be eligible to receive GA appointments and believe the requirement to obtain an administrative exception is not necessary insofar consultation is required and occurs. As such, an a priori policy statement that prevents (or reduces the possibility of) such appointments and/or makes it administratively difficult for talented students/employees to hold an appointment is problematic.” d. Vote: (7-0-1). 4. Regarding proposed changes to GA term limits, L. O’laughlin moves approval; B. El-Mansour seconds. Key to the discussion is the fact that the number of years enrolled is different from programmatic hours. It is vital for program coordinators to come up with a reasonable as opposed to maximal position. The aim is to avoid conflict where it is not necessary. a. The motion for clarification of maximum years of support or “term limits” states: Table 1 defines the maximum number of enrolled years (and/or its credit hour equivalent, which may vary slightly by program) for which a student may be eligible to receive a university funded assistantship. Please note, individuals who have been enrolled at ISU beyond the maximum number years (or its credit hour equivalent) are ineligible for university funded support even if s/he has not received the “maximum” number of years of support from university resources. Exceptions to this rule will be at the discretion of the Dean of Graduate Studies and will not exceed one semester. b. Dean Gatrell’s rationale for this policy change: “the intent of the term limits was to promote a reasonable time to degree and conserve limited stipend resources. The current policy is imprecise with respect to the interpretation of the time limit. The current language suggests the term limits refer to the total years of university support a student may receive while in residence at ISU. However, the intent—based on my understanding of the discussions and prior ex officio participation in GC—of the term limits was to limit the maximum year of eligibility. c. Vote: (7-0-1). ii. Handbook for Theses & Dissertations – revision. R. McGiverin moves approval of document revisions; B. El-Mansour seconds. Discussion about the current document developed by W. Barratt and J. Gatrell ensues. 1. This text was developed from the prior version of the handbook, but this preceding version was filled with errors. R. McGiverin suggests that citations for electronic resources should be less prescriptive. Dean Gatrell says that this handbook version does not prescribe citation formats as that is the province of programs and advisors in particular disciplines. 2. The handbook’s bibliography page should be deleted per wide consensus, as the aim is to produce a document that makes sense for students. This document should transcend disciplines. 3. Specific language of the document is considered. There is a question about the stipulation of “chapters”—are all theses/dissertations required to be prepared with chapters? A language change substituting “Text” with “Content” will help clarity questions about thesis/dissertation organization. 4. Other questions: M. Haque asks about pagination. E. Hampton asks about plagiarism detection. B. Corcoran asks about the accountability of chairs and specific disciplinary consequences for chairs if students are caught plagiarizing. Dean Gatrell states that there would be administrative consequences for such Thesis/Dissertation Chairs, as in letters to their Deans. GC could write specific guidelines and consequences for graduate faculty. R. McGiverin encourages that students and advisors address plagiarism issues before the document goes to the committee. Dean Gatrell is hesitant to create a specific global policy. 5. Dean Gatrell moves to table motion; L. O’Laughlin seconds. iii. Faculty Senate Charges – review and plan action. 1. Review and enhancement of curriculum management processes. Faculty Senate Executive Committee addressed these. T. Sawyer notes that Colleges should deal with curriculum. A lot of time gets wasted in Senate addressing specific program changes including minor and major revisions. The aim is to work with CAAC on improving efficiency. Dean asks if, for example, the addition of a MA concentration would need to go to Senate. With this improved efficiency, it would go directly to Academic Notes, where it would be published as approved by GC. New degree programs would go before Senate. Program Development should consider this further. 2. Evaluate the functioning of DARS. This charge will go to committee. 3. Review effectiveness of Graduate Assistantship/Scholarship policy and make recommendations for changes. This will be taken up by GC subcommittee. 4. Review policy of providing graduate scholarships to distance students and make recommendations. This is a new charge. 5. Develop recommendations for an academic master-planning process. SOGS wants to address a master plan for graduate education. The program development committee should look at this. 6. GC domains of responsibility. GC will address this, inquiring into whether the GC is currently over-worked. Should we have more subcommittees? 7. Provide advice and consent on curricular proposals as articulated in the CAPS manual. This is on-going. 8. Recommend one nominee for service on the Theodore Dreiser Research/Creativity Award committee. This was completed 9.12.08. B. El-Mansour agreed to serve on the Theodore Dreiser Research/Creativity Award Committee. iv. Request to consider GC statement on plagiarism (per B. Frank). Chair suggests that this be addressed later when B. Frank is in attendance. d. Dean Gatrell also suggests that questions about residency for assistantships should be addressed. This could be revenue neutral. Policy statement about residency would be incredibly useful. Chair acknowledges that GC has been historically very supportive of this. This is an on-going discussion. 7. Upcoming Business a. Subcommittee charges. b. Assistantship/Fellowship Policy clarifications 8. Adjournment – 11:20 AM Respectfully submitted, Dr. Brendan Corcoran Secretary Last modified: March 03, 2009 Copyright © 2007 by Indiana State University.