Graduate School Administrative Board Meeting
Monday, October 09, 2006, 3:30 PM
Present: Paul Bell, Sharon Bland, Sylvia Brown, Dennis Brunt, Stan Eakins, Margie Gallagher, Linner Griffin, Jim Holte, Gerhard Kalmus, George Kasperek, Sharon Knight, John Kramar, Vivian Mott, Ron Newton, Todd Nolan, Belinda Patterson, Pat Pellicane, John Placer, Heather Ries, Art Rouse, Carmine Scavo, and Mark Taggart.
Patrick Pellicane called the meeting to order at 3:30 PM. Pellicane welcomed Todd Nolan, Graduate Student Council representative to the GSAB. He called for acceptance consideration of the minutes from the last meeting. Corrections to the minutes were addressed and it was moved for acceptance as corrected; the motion was seconded and approved.
Sharon Knight submitted GCC curriculum minutes for consideration for course approval for the September 6, 13 and 15 meetings (See Attached). A motion was entertained by GCC Chair Knight for approval of the dental school courses; the motion was seconded and approved. A motion was entertained to approve HIMA 5060, Health Informatics, a course in health information management; the motion was seconded and approved. A signature form was submitted for approval (See attached); the motion was seconded and approved. The GCC recommended two new individuals to be added to the GCC; nominations included Richard Monroe and Scott Dellana; they were elected unanimously. A motion was entertained to accept the Sept 15 minutes relating to the dental school; the motion was seconded and was approved.
A proposal for “criteria for graduate faculty status” was submitted by Paul Bell for faculty in Health Services and Information. They requesting GSAB to consider approval of their stated criteria (See attached). A motion was entertained for approval and it was seconded; after discussion, the motion was approved.
Dean Pellicane entertained discussion on policy criteria for graduate faculty status consideration – Mark Taggart volunteered to study the issue, procure documents and report back to GSAB at the next meeting.
Dual degree credit issues were presented for discussion by Heather Ries and Carmine Scavo. Discussion revolved around the fact that if a student takes an adequate amount of course work to gain knowledge in both fields, then they should be allowed to obtain both degrees. The motion submitted was: “That the first two sentences under the heading of TRANSFER CREDITS, page 38 of the Graduate Catalog, be stricken and replaced with the following: “Up to 20% of the credit hours in a program may be earned in a regionally accredited institution.” This motion was seconded and after discussion was approved.
A second motion was submitted and seconded (See attached). The motion was amended [item (i)] and an additional item [item (iv)] was added. The amended motion was:
Credits in excess of 20% would be governed by the following section entitled “Dual Degrees” which would go into a section immediately after the TRANSFER CREDITS section of the Graduate Catalog:
(a) ECU graduates students can enroll in dual degree programs (programs in which the student is seeking two degrees from two different disciplines) in which more than 20% of a program is credited by the other. Students interested in pursuing two related degree programs need to:
(i) Be accepted by both degree programs;
(ii) Propose how many s.h. the two programs will accept in common;
(iii) Prepare a statement explaining why they want to pursue the dual degree program and provide justification for doing so;
(iv) Obtain acceptance of their proposal by both degree programs
(b) The dual degree programs will forward the student’s proposal and number of s.h. to be treated in common to the Graduate Credits Committee which will approve or disapprove the proposal.
(c) In no case will more than 30% of a graduate program or 15 s.h. (whichever is greater) be counted in common between two master’s degree programs.
It was moved that the motion be tabled as amended; the tabled motion was seconded and approved.
Dean Pellicane wanted the GSAB to consider the relationship between the GSAB and the Graduate School Assembly. It appears that the purpose of GSA is to approve policy changes, but it is important to clarify what its role is and is to be. What does GSA do? Is it information dissemination? Policy changes would be recommended by GSAB for consideration by GSA?
It is anticipated that a grievance policy document will be discussed at the next meeting:
The meeting was adjourned at 4:55pm.
Ronald J. Newton