Graduate Council Meeting Minutes

November 15, 2006

GBB 202, 12:10-1:00 p.m.

Members Present: A. Borgmann, T. Cossitt, D. Erickson,  T. Herron, N. Hassanein, J. Hirstein, R. Malecki, M. McClintock, T. Thibeau, G. Stanley

Members Absent/Excused: L. Hayes, M. DeGrandpre, C. Fiore, N. Moisey, Arlene Walker-Andrews


Ex-officio members Present: Dean Strobel
Interim Chair-Elect Hassanein called the meeting to order at 12:15p.m.

The minutes from 11/8/06 were amended and approved.



  • The Council's concerns were addressed in an addendum to the Speech Language Pathology proposal. If members are interested in the document, they may contact the Senate Office.
  • Professor Hassanein's department is currently preparing documentation for program review and has just been asked to prepare additional documentation for the department's operational plan. Without support to track the data this is an onerous task. She suggested that perhaps at a future meeting, the Council could discuss the need for the same type of systematic assessment of the administration.

    There was discussion about the new academic planning and budgeting process and the lack of consultation with its development and implementation. The faculty are represented as a corporate body by the Senate and the Union. Word should get to these entities regarding the faculty's unhappiness and the need to streamline the process for better use of faculty time. Faculty should let their deans know how this impacts them.

    The trend is for agencies to rely more and more on data. So it is important that departments evaluate the institutional data to make sure it is correct. Frustration was expressed that even when discrepancies are found, Planning, Budgeting and Analysis will not correct the information that is in Banner.


Unfinished Business


  • Curriculum follow-up was postponed for the Science, Social Science and Schools.
  • Professor Thibeau reported that sufficient information was received and reviewed by the subcommittee on ART 580 and the program modification. These items were approved.
  • Professor Erickson asked that Council members send their comments and recommendations to the workgroup for incorporation into the next program review template.

    Items not included in the current required internal review documents are the entrance requirements, number of applications/acceptances and the justification of UG courses.

    It was asked whether the instructor evaluations are considered in the review process. It is important that student perceptions of the program be considered. Often the external reviewer will interview students. It was suggested that the internal review materials include data on faculty merits and promotions. Also quality of teaching could be added to section II.

New Business

  • The Bertha Morton Workgroup has met and considered various options to the nomination process. They are considering expanding the break off point for departments relative to the number of nominations allowed. Professor Moisey is working up a matrix that will take into account the various programs within large schools or colleges to see whether this would make a difference in the number of nominees allowed. Also discussed was the possibility that the review be done according to subcommittees with a certain number of awards going to each group. When the workgroup is further along, a proposal will be submitted to the Council for consideration.
  • The program review document for Art was approved.

The meeting was adjourned at 1:00 p.m.