Graduate College

Graduate Council Minutes #895

April 20, 2000


Present: Bankston, Coulter, Jackson, Reineke, Smaldino, Spencer, Utz, Vajpeyi, Walker, Wallingford, Wartick
Absent: Bozylinsky, Dolgener, Durham, Hanson, Somervill
Visitors: Murray Austin-Geography, J. Phillip East- Computer Science, Mohammed Fahmy- Industrial Technology
Action on minutes #894 were approved as published.
Vajpeyi asked for a report from the committee that met to discuss the curriculum proposal revisions by the College of Behavioral Sciences. The members of the committee were Walker, Jackson, Reineke, Austin, Utz, and McDevitt. The changes done by the committee were to eliminate the step involving the Board of Regents in the curriculum process. Also letting the bodies that are involved in a dispute or change in curriculum make the decision on their own or with the help of an administrative mediator.
Austin stated that he would like the Council to motion to accept the proposal in principle. Continuing by saying that this new curriculum proposal has no effect on the general education curriculum. Also stating that there has been an acceptance of the proposal by most department heads, concerning these changes.
Reineke expressed that there were issues at the adhoc meeting that had not been resolved. Reineke told the Council that she was not at all comfortable with the proposal stating that the University Faculty Senate was the last court of appeals (section I, #4 of proposal).
Austin explained that this proposal was not the last step in the change of the curriculum. There would be another group formed that would be in charge of implementation. Which would look at the way that the Graduate Council would be involved in the curriculum process.
Jackson raised the question of whether or not this proposal will be voted on by the Faculty Senate as it is at present time?
Austin answered with the Faculty Senate will vote on the proposal in principle with the promise of a follow-up committee to be formed to handle the implementation of the proposal.
Reineke motioned for the acceptance of the proposed bill with the modification of section I #4 by the insertion of "Graduate Council as appropriate" following Faculty Senate. Seconded, by Smaldino.
Another motion of modification by Reineke to the proposal would be the entrance of a sentence that would state as follows "create an implementation committee, which will report back to the Faculty Senate and the Graduate Council". Seconded, by Spencer.
Austin answered that there are no questions that have to do with the proposal, but there will be a problem with the implementation of it. This is the reason that there will be a committee to discuss and handle those points after the proposal has been accepted.
Reineke stated that the Faculty Senate should know that there is support for the proposal, except for a few points. Reineke continued by saying that the Council should not lose this chance to have input on the proposal.
Reineke said that she only wants to make sure that the Graduate Council is involved in the decision making process.
The committee that met for the discussion of Proposed Guidelines for Fellowship of Distinction gave their report to the Council. Walker told the Council he supported the guidelines and would like to have the Council's acceptance. Reineke told the Graduate Council that she had spoken with the Provost, and his view was that the decision would be left up to him to decide the faculty member's actual University assignment at their time of the Fellowship.
East questioned the significance of the "salaries" in the proposal. Reineke stated that a University faculty member could not earn more than what they are paid by the University while being still on its payroll. Other funds received by the faculty member can be issued as a living stipend, and go over what the faculty member is paid by the University. The University does not consider what a living stipend a portion of salary. Reineke moved to accept the proposal of the guidelines for fellowship of distinction. The motion was seconded by Utz, passed.
East stated to the Council that he was interested in finding the problem that the computer science department was having with the registering of the graduate students for research hours. East continued by saying that he would like the Council to make it possible for computer science students to register for the amount that is stated in the catalog. East also said that there is nothing in the catalog that limits the number of hours, and wanted to know why the Graduate College limits the amount of research hours that can be taken. If there is not a limit in the catalog then how can the graduate college limit.
Jackson explained that it states indirectly that only 6-9 hours of research can be taken in the computer science department. Jackson continued by saying that she had confronted this problem before and it has yet been resolved.
A recess was called by Spencer to have copies made of the appropriate catalog pages for all members of the Council.
Jackson told the Council that the determination of what the specific amount of research hours that can be taken in the computer science department has not been established in the catalog. The language in the catalog is not specific enough to explain this. Jackson said that there is a need for a language change in the catalog.
Vajpeyi expressed to East that there is a need for clarification of this in the catalog. He continued by saying that East, Jackson, and Somervill need to work together on this.
East asked if summer students would be allowed to take six hours of research credit. Spencer answered with: the support for the change needs to be expressed to Somervill, upon his return. With the support of the Dean a summer student would be allowed to take six hours. Spencer motion to communicate to the Dean the "sense" of the Council for the support of the change. Seconded by Smaldino, approved.
Vajpeyi thanked the Council for a great year as a council member.
The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebel Saffold III