Absences:

Guest Speakers

Prior to the meeting, Professor Freeman and Provost Snyder addressed the delagate body. Their remarks and questions from the delegates can be found here.

Mr. Jeff Pelletier, from Explore Columbus also visited the body. His remarks and questions from the delegates can be found here.

I. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 4:38pm, Barbara Pletz, President, presiding.

II. Approval of Minutes

Motion to approve minutes from the January 14th meeting was made by Delegate Evans, seconded by Delegate Eggleston. With no corrections or addition, the minutes were approved by unanimous voice vote.

III. Delegate Issues and Concerns

Delegate Ndoundou stated that residents of Buckeye Village were concerned that undergraduates were being allowed to live in the complex. Chair Depelteau said he’s heard from Steve Kremer that it’s a pilot program to see how it works because there’s a possibility of expanding Buckeye Village in the near future. He will attempt to find out more information about it.

Delegate Best added that she lived in Buckeye Village and she wouldn’t mind undergraduate students living their as long as they were married and had friends of their own.

Delegate Evans suggested it would be a mistake to say, as a group, that they have to be married. Rather, stating that they must be partners is more in line with the rest of our policies. Del Hudson – I don’t hafve a fam but I think that’s kind of a priv for grad students. That helps us cut costs. Undergrads have other means of taking care of students.

Chair Cunningham stated the she believed that this was one pilot program for satisfying the needs of non-traditional undergraduate students as part of a possible Buckeye Village expansion.

Delegate Pearson asked how this program would affect the growing shortage of graduate student housing. Treasurer Hodak responded that it might help for family housing, but for graduate student housing in general, the demand has gone down. When they did open the new graduate student housing on Neil they were unable to fill it with graduate students.

Chair Cunningham asked how the Gateway Project fits into the demand for graduate student housing. Chair Depeltau responded that they’re actually looking to graduate and professional students to live there, it’s primarily geared toward for graduate and professional students and young professionals. Secretary Scott pointed out that the fact that housing is geared toward graduate and professional students often means nicer places that are a lot more expensive.

Delegate Eggleston said that one of her constituents asked whether increased activity fees for the Larkins expansion would be covered by their fee waivers. President Pletz responded that it would not be covered unless the department chooses to do so.

Delegate Kinsey reported on the information he got from the Safety Committee he serves on. Car theft has been going up a lot around campus area in winter. Usually we have 1 per month but last month there were 6 or 8. Delegate Kinsey didn’t have specific information about different areas, but just that they were concerned with central campus and surrounding areas and that most of the thefts have happened at night. There’s also been no update on the progress on the police substation. President Pletz will attempt to find out next Tuesday.

III. Old Business

IV. New Business

Resolution 0405-WI-014: A Resolution Concerning Departmental Responses to the 260-Hr. Limit on State Subsidy Eligibility
Rationale:
The rationale for this resolution is fairly straightforward. I just want to focus on two things. The main effect is to say that this practice of voluntarily dropping to lecturer and/or researcher status is something that no one can make informed consent to. There are a whole host of consequences that we don’t think anyone can understand, so asking students to do it is unconscionable. I’d also like to note that we are in no way calling upon the graduate school or anyone else to not have ways to gauge satisfactory progress. We just say that 260 is arbitrary and not a good metric. Finally, an email I’ve received from the Board of Regents indicates that all of the data is frozen at 1998 level. Nothing changes when people cross the line, with regards to the Regents – it does not change allocation. Internal policy is a different issue

Questions for the author
Delegate Eggleston: I’ve spoken a lot with our financial officer and one of her problems is that once students go over the 260 hour limit, the department stops getting money from the graduate school. What should departments do about this?
You’ll notice that we don’t call on the departments. The third whereas basically says that the Office of Academic Affairs should remove that rule and the corresponding financial penalty.

Delegate Corwin : If the ultimate origin of this problem is at the Ohio Board of Regents, why isn’t this communicated to them?
The Board of Regents at this point has no formula for determining subsidy – things have been frozen at 1998 levels. Departments are only having to do this because of OAA policy, not Board of Regents.

Chair Evans: I don’t quite get how this is only an OAA policy. I thought I heard them say this is a restraint they can’t do anything about.
The formula at OAA allocates the money according to the 260 credit hour limit. The Board of Regents would only be concerned if our enrollment dropped below 3000 graduate students, and then they would give us less money.

At this point, time for questions and answers expires. Delegate Lucas moves to extend the time for one more questions, Delegate Corwin seconds the motion and it passes by unanimous voice vote.

Del Lucas – I really don’t understand this Board of Regents thing. Why are they untouchable? Why can’t we do anything about them?
Treasurer Hodak responds that they’re appointed by the governor and they have control over all public education in Ohio. This 260 credit hour limit doesn’t matter to the Board of Regents now. They were tired of fighting with legislators fighting over budgets.

Delegate Lucas: How much feedback do they get?
Dean Clark responds that there are a lot of committees that meet with Regents, including a Regent Advisory Committee. In addition, there are legislators in every part of Ohio who insist that funding go to their institution. The Board of Regents is highly political, and appointed by the government. The last time Dean Clark went to lobby was to lobby them it was to keep Wright State from adding a grad program in engineering. Basicially, Dean Clark suggests, The Regents give us money based on a ludicrous formula. Doctoral education is very expensive, compared to Masters-level education, and this is especially true in science and engineering. There are huge investments for those departments. If you look at the numbers we graduate compared to others, it’s absolutely clear that the funding profits Masters at the cost of Ph.D.s. Dean Clark is now a member of the Freeman Committee and and one of his main objectives is to convince them of the importance of the distinction between Masters and Ph.D. education. The programs growing this FTE are Masters programs. Here at OSU that can be seen in the growth of the MPA program, Allied Medical program and the Masters of social work. However, we can redistribute it internally and it’s up to us and this body to convince OAA that the rule should be changed. Finally, Dean Clark pointed out that absolutely none of the money comes from the graduate school. If you’re department tells you that they’re wrong.

Delegate Mrozek: My feeling about this is I don’t think the department should be restricted. They will have to make the decision but at least it won’t negatively impact students.

President Pletz calls the question and the motion carried by unanimous voice vote.

Resolution 0405-WI-015: A Resolution Commending Dean Susan L. Huntington
Rationale:
She’s been in the office for a long time. She’s served the graduate students well, and she’s often gone to bat for us. It’s pretty traditional that we do a resolution to honor people who have helped us this much for this long.

Questions for the author
Delegate Corwin: In the last resolve clause we’re making her an honorary member. Why are we doing that? And does it actually mean anything?
It’s just a tradition – like getting the key to city. We’ve done it before. There are no practical implications.

Chair Evans: I think it’s actually 9 and 1/2 years. Do we want to check that? Yes, we will. We’ll be presenting this to Dean Huntington who will be addressing this body next month, as will Bill Shikurdi for the budget stuff.

Delegate Evans moves to approve the resolution and Delegate Eggleston seconds. Motion passes by unanimous voice vote.

V.Officer Reports

As Provost Snyder mentioned there is a Beck Committee. Some say this committee will be the next step forward from the Freeman. From the Provost it seems like they’ll be working more in parallel. This committee will reevaluate the organization and structure of the Graduate School and Office of Research. The model of funding and organization has been in place for a few years and now is probably a logical time to do this.

Secretary Scott – I’d just like to make one point. I think that Dean Freeman did an excellent job of justifying why any kind of evaluation needs to be done. However, he didn’t say anything about why these specific kinds of evaluations and what metrics should be used. I’d just like us to keep that in the forefront of our minds.

Delegate On’Neil: What can we, as delegates, do to facilitate the process? What can we send to the Freeman Committee to be a part of it? I would email them to Dean Freeman. They are looking for feedback. If you have trouble getting ahold of them or getting a response from them, let me know. It’s certainly not a document that they’ve been hiding. They want our feedback.

Delegate Pearson: It might also be wise to discuss this report with students and faculty, decision leaders in your department to get their feedback on the process. Delegate Sharp: This was the interim dean that was introduced today. Are they doing a search? There hasn’t been a search initiated yet. She will be in office for about a year and a half.

Chair Cunningham: In a year and a half this Freeman report and everything will be done and they’ll need a fall person so that if this goes badly she will be responsible, but everything goes well, everything will be fine.

Dean Clark: The interim charge says that the interim Dean will not be a candidate for the position. Just to let you know.

Delegate Corwin: I just want to address Sec Scott’s pt that the metrics are laid out in the report in pretty gory detail.

President Pletz: I remain concerned about the process, and at this point I just want to set back and let the faculty act on this. I don’t think, frankly, that they are very happy.

Vice President Baack: I still need presentation judges for the Hayes Research Forum. I need one from the Arts cluster, two from Business and one from Engineering. I want to thank all of you who encouraged your applicants to apply – we had 239 applicants, up from last year.

Treasurer Hodak: No additions to online report.

Secretary Scott: No additions to online report.

VI. Announcements

Delegate Lupe: Lillian asked me to point out that she left a survey for everyone and she asked me to collect the bottom portion for her. Please fill it out and give it to me before you leave.

Chair Crawford – I’ve got a set of three colored flyers for you to take with you. The idea is just to have something out there with our logo and get more awareness in the community. I’ve contacted building managers around campus and we do have permission to post. If you have any questions, please let me know.

President Pletz – The Buck-I-Thon fundraiser in Bill Hall’s honor was successful. I believe that we collected $5000 for his hour for the Cancer Center. The rest of the Buck-I-Thon money went to Children’s Hospital.
Vice Presdent Baack: There is a box set up in the Union for cards and greeting for Bill and they’re being taken to him periodically.

VII.Adjournment