MINUTES

Graduate School Administrative Board Meeting

Monday, October 8,  2007

3:30 pm

Greenville Centre

Small Conference Room

MEMBERS PRESENT: Alligood, Martha; Eakins, Stan; Eastman, Brenda; Everhart, Erik; Griffin, Linner; Holte, James; Hough, Monica; Kasperek, George; Knight, Sharon; Kramar, John, Newton, Ron; Pellicane, Patrick; Reis, John; and Ries, Heather.

MEMBERS ABSENT: Bland, Sharon; Mott, Vivian, Nolan, Todd; Patterson, Belinda; Rouse, Art; Taggart, Mark, and West, Terry.

AGENDA

1) Meeting was called to order by Dean Pellicane

2) Approval of the minutes of the Sept. 24th, 2007 meeting

• Minutes were approved as written

3) Announcements:

• Update on tuition remissions-A legislative bill for tuition remissions was passed. It is still not clear how many remissions ECU will receive. Dean Pellicane has been in touch with the General Administration. Expect to get information from Allen Mabe on this. It is believed that his office will make the allocation decision
• Update on meeting with the ECU Deans-The Dean’s meetings have been most informative. Proposals from Research and Graduate Studies for allocation of funds and how resources should be used have been presented. Of several presented, three proposals have resonated. They are: (1) health insurance for full-time PhD students, (2) Tuition remissions, and (3) “Top-off” graduate scholar awards. A health insurance provision will make us more competitive in the recruiting market. The model that is being proposed is that “the funding for the insurance follows the source of the support.” For example, if the funding is external for the stipend, then the insurance would also be externally funded by the same source. More tuition remissions appeared to be a top priority for the Deans, particularly if they are out of state remissions. They, too, would be most helpful in recruiting. Where should the primary focus for their use be? At the doctoral level? The “top-off” graduate scholar awards would be several thousand dollars per eligible student. Will have to create a pool of dollars and make them available during the recruiting process. Another proposal, “buy one – get one free” resonated with the Deans, but it was decided that this approach should be supported at the College level – not with resources from the Graduate School.
• Graduate Governance Steering Committee-Dean Pellicane announced that he has appointed a GSAB subcommittee (Graduate Governance Steering Committee) to draft a document on policies and guidelines for graduate issues. Members of the steering committee are as follows: Carmine Scavo, Linner Griffin, George Kasperek, Stan Eakins, and Patrick Pellicane (chair)
• Other- It was reported that the Education Policies and Planning Committee (EPPC) is broadening their scope of items that would be subject to their consideration. It was reported that they are recommending that they be more involved with proposed new programs, both at the undergraduate and the graduate level. This could add more steps to the approval process. It was stated that the EPPC has few graduate faculty represented in its composition. Members were also reminded that the EPPC reports to the Faculty Senate, which then makes recommendation to the chancellor. It is interpreted that this process is such that the EPPC and the Senate make recommendations to the chancellor, but they do not have approval authority.

4) Approval of the Graduate Curriculum Committee Meeting Minutes of September 12, 2007

• Items of business considered by the GCC

1.  Representation on GCC

2.  Approval of Sept 5, 2007 GCC Minutes

3. Revision of PADP 6370

4. MS in Biomedical Science

5. Revision in MSN Program

6. Renaming of MCBI 7460

• All of the above were recommended for approved by the GCC-Items 1, 3, 5, and 6 were approved by the GSAB
• The recommendation to approved the MS in Biomedical Sciences Intent to Plan document was discussed by the GSAB-This will be a master’s research program. It will be small with about 25 students. The curriculum will be flexible with a minimal core of courses. It is a program that has been needed, and there is overwhelming support by the chairs in the participating departments. There are student clientele who are looking for this. The participating departments will be provided with a larger pool of applicants for future doctoral student consideration. It also prepares some students for a combined research and medical school career. Presently, there is a shortage of biomedical researchers. This program will be open to medical students who want to do also do research. The proposed program will not be costly to the institution. The curriculum will not include the same courses that medical students take. The overlap of programs with the Department of Biology has been addressed. One new faculty position is needed, and financial support for this position has been granted. Will this program accommodate biomedical engineering students? Engineering students with biomaterials and biochemical background? Would they be interested in this program? Entrance requirements will require that student have a good biological background; they will receive a lot of biochemistry and molecular biology training.
  
  The recommendation of the GCC to approve the intent to plan for the M.S. in Biomedical Sciences was approved.

5) Continued Discussion and Consideration of the Three Documents: Graduate Faculty, Graduate Teaching, and Graduate Advising

The two documents presented at the previous GSAB meeting have been revised and expanded to three: Proposed Policy on Graduate Faculty, Proposed Policy on Eligibility to Teach Graduate Courses, and the Proposed Policy on Graduate Student Advising.

From a previous meeting, the motion to approve the Graduate Faculty document was still on the floor, and discussion was opened once again. The document presented was revised based on recommendations from the previous meeting. It was stated that there was a need for this policy document to relate to the academic codes of units which specify their own requirements and guidelines for establishing “graduate faculty status.” Typically, each unit has a committee that approves the codes. It was recommended that these entities be referred to as “academic code units.”

The first paragraph of Section B (Membership) was amended. The term, “academic code units,” was inserted in the third sentence to replace: “academic programs and/or units.”

The first two bullet items of Section B were approved. The remaining five bullets were discussed. Does everyone have to accomplish the rest of the bullet items in order to be a member of the Graduate Faculty? The intent of the document is to stipulate that they do; however, there are exceptions. Some of these are covered in Section G. (Reminder: There is a separate Teaching Faculty document which addresses some of the other requirements). It was stated that there are some faculty who do not teach graduate classes, but they are working with or supervising graduate students (this implies teaching) even though they not lecturing formally.

Section C was amended: the “eligibility to teach” bullet was removed from first place and inserted as the last bullet of the section.

The last paragraph of page 2 was discussed. It implies that all faculty will be re-credentialed within the next three years. This also implies that “academic code units” will have to meet this requirement with their own codes.

A reminder was given that the term, “academic code unit,’ should be inserted throughout the document where appropriate. A reminder was also given that the phrase, “Dean of Graduate Studies,” should be inserted throughout where appropriate. A statement that the “Dean gives signatory approval” was recommended for inclusion. The first paragraph of Section D was amended to include all of the items in a bullet format.

In the discussion of Section F, it was asked? Can the Dean of the Graduate School disagree with the decision of a college dean? What are the grounds for removal? This process of removal can be disciplinary, but it does not have to be. A scenario could be that a faculty member is removed at his/her own request. The phrase, “For a variety of legitimate reasons,” in the first sentence of the section was approved to be removed. In addition, the words “wish to” in the same sentence were approved for removal. It was recommended that a bullet format be used for the series of steps that are stated.

In the discussion and consideration of Section G, it was stated that administrators would have to be associated with an academic unit in order to be considered for graduate faculty status.

After discussion, the original previous motion to approve the whole Graduate Faculty document (as amended) was passed unanimously.

The other two documents (Proposed Policy to Teach Graduate Courses and Proposed Policy on Graduate Student Advising) will be considered at the next meeting.

6) Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 pm

Respectfully submitted,

Ronald J. Newton

Recorder