GRADUATE COUNCIL MINUTES

Friday, May 4, 2007-10:00 a.m.

325 Graff Main Hall

 

 

Members Present:    Vijendra Agarwal, Ashley Burrowes, Lauren Cikara, Tim Donahue, Gary Gilmore, Jonathan Majak, Kasi Periyasamy, S.N. Rajagopal, David Reineke, William Schwan, Steve Simpson

 

Members Excused:  Peggy Denton, Teri Staloch

 

Consultants Present:   Chris Bakkum, Lise Graham, Charles Martin-Stanley

 

Consultants Excused:  Rob Tyser

 

1.  The meeting was called to order at 10:04 a.m. by Bill Schwan

 

2.      A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes for the March 30, 2007 meeting.  (10  yes, 0 no, 0 abstentions)

 

Motion carried

 

3.      Announcements

 

  • Graduate Council may need to meet over the summer or the week before the new semester to hear academic appeals.

 

  • Vijendra Agarwal requested the names of any graduate students interested in serving in leadership roles.  There are several committee seats that need to be filled for next year.

 

  • Vijendra Agarwal thanked the Graduate Committee for all the work they have done over the past year.  As of the meeting, Peggy Denton, Steve Simpson, and Teri Staloch will not be with Graduate Council next year.  New members next year will include Rob Dixon, Thomas Kuffel, and Michele Thorman.  The Graduate Council applauded the work done with care and efficiency by Chandra Hawkins. 

 

4.      Graduate Council Advisory Committee Self Assessment

 

  • Overall, the Advisory Committee felt that they functioned well, succeeding in their established goal to reduce the workload and discussion time in Graduate Council
  • Most beneficial were the review of Professional Travel Grants and time extension appeals, and reviews of policies and issues.
  • One issue for the members of Advisory Committee to improve upon is to be more cognizant of the time spent on some issues that are likely to be discussed in depth by the Graduate Council.

 

5.  The Graduate Council received recommendations from the RSEL Grant Committee.

  • The RSEL Grant Committee is Steve Simpson, Lauren Cikara, Gary Gilmore, and Teri Staloch. 

.

  • Steve Simpson reviewed the reasons for recommending specific reductions in funding.  Funding was not recommended for one because RSEL funding is not intended to fund travel to present at a conference.  Another student was not recommended for funding because the application was incomplete.  Two projects were recommended for reduced funding: the committee chose to limit funding for travel.  Lastly, one project received reduced funding because they wished to purchase computers and those purchases are typically done in partnership with the school that will be housing the computers.  Most proposals were subject to some reductions in funding because the amount applied for exceeded the grant dollars available. 
  • A motion was made and seconded to allocate the $9,000 per the recommendations of the committee.  (11 yes, 0 no, 0 abstentions)

 

Motion carried.

 

 

6.      RSEL and Professional Travel fund guideline changes

 

  • RSEL changes were reviewed first.  The changes put limits on the request for travel expenses, require students traveling overseas to provide evidence that they had consulted with the Office of International Education, and strengthen the language regarding grant recipient participation in Research and Creativity Celebration Day.  A few changes were suggested by the Council.  A motion was made and seconded to approve the guidelines as amended.  (11 yes, 0 no, 0 abstentions)

 

Motion carried.

 

  • Then changes to the Professional Travel fund guidelines were reviewed.  Like the RSEL grant changes, the Travel fund changes focused on students checking with the Office of International Education.  Additional changes included a listing the funding priorities and restricting expenses for conferences held in La Crosse.  Minor changes were suggested by the Council.  A motion was made and seconded to approve the guidelines as amended.  (9 yes, 0 no, 0 abstentions)

 

Motion carried.

 

7.      Academic appeal by a student

 

  • The Graduate Council Advisory Committee presented its recommendation to the Graduate Council regarding an academic appeal not supported by the graduate program.  The Advisory Committee could find no evidence of the program’s appeal committee being capricious or arbitrary in their decision to not allow the student back into the program.  The student missed several deadlines in the appeals process.  Without going into closed session, few additional details could be shared with the Council.
  • A motion was made and seconded to accept the Advisory Committee’s recommendation.  (4 yes, 4 no, 1 abstention)

 

Motion failed.

 

  • The appeal will be heard before the Graduate Council in the future.

 

8.      Repeating a course policy.

  • The Graduate Council reviewed the “repeating a course” policy.  The current policy is that repeating a course is not allowed.  The proposed policy reviewed and discussed by the Council:

 

“A graduate student can repeat a course only once in which a grade of D or F was earned”

 

Option A:  The new grade will replace the original grade.

 

Option B:  Both grades will be averaged into GPA.

 

  • A motion was made and seconded to vote on the favored change of policy.  (Option A – 3 votes, Option B – 4 votes, no change – 2 votes)

 

Motion produced no decision.

 

  • A subsequent motion was made and seconded to approve Option B, as it was the option receiving the most votes (though not enough to pass to change the policy).  (4 yes, 4 no, 1 abstention)

 

Motion failed.

 

  • (Note:  since the Graduate Council meeting, Vijendra Agarwal has reviewed the failed motions with Carmen Wilson, Faculty Senate Chair.  Per Robert’s Rules of Order, the motions were deemed to have failed based on a tie vote above.)

 

9.      Resolution

 

  • A resolution voicing the concern of the Graduate Council over the significant funding cut for RSEL Grant funding was discussed.  The resolution focused on the growing number of graduate students and the contributions they make to the campus and the community.  A Graduate Council member requested the addition of historical funding data.  With that addition, a motion was made and seconded to approve the resolution.  (8 yes, 0 no, 0 abstentions)

 

Motion carried.

 

10.  A motion was made to move into closed session to consider Graduate Faculty applications as provided in sections 19.85(1)(F) of Wisconsin.  A roll call vote was taken on the motion (8 yes, 0 no, 0 abstentions) (3 Council members had to leave due to other commitments)

 

Motion carried.

 

·         Both faculty applicants received affirmative votes from both members of their respective review committees.   

·         A motion was made and seconded to approve the applicant from SAH for the requested Graduate faculty status (8 yes, 0 no, 0 abstentions)

 

Motion carried.

  • A motion was made and seconded to approve the applicant from CLS for the requested Graduate faculty status (8 yes, 0 no, 0 abstentions)

 

Motion carried.

 

In summary:

 

            CLS: 1 Full

            SAH: 1 Assistant

                       

 

 

Meeting adjourned:  11:40 a.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Chandra Hawkins

 

C:        Graduate Council Members

            Department Chairs

            Graduate Program Directors

            Faculty Senate

            Graduate Council File