Loyola University Chicago

MINUTES
[Approved, 4/5/02]

Members Present: Gad Bensinger, Barney Berlin, Pamela Caughie (chair), David Chinitz, Andrew Cutrofello, Fran Daly, Joseph Durlak, Mary Elsbernd, O.S.F., Jawed Fareed, Maureen Hellwig, Susan Hirsch, Claudio Katz, James Keenan, Fred Kniss, Randolph Lucente, Michael Maher, Duarte Mota de Freitas, E.J. Neafsey, Jon Nilson, Marie Opatrny, Diane Suter, Pauline Viviano,.

Members Excused: Susan Cavallo, Adam Driks, Mark Frasier, Thackery Gray, Mary Manteuffel,

Marcia Maurer, Joan McLane, David Ozar, Alan Wolfe.

Graduate School Deans: Trevor Bechtel, Max Caproni, Marianne Gramza, William Yost.

Guest: Patricia Clemente (Spanish Program, attending for Susan Cavallo).

Call to Order

Pamela Caughie, chair of the Council, called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.?

Approval of Minutes

Dr. Caughie proposed including the text of her chair?s report in the minutes of the Council's November 30, 2001 regular meeting.? There were no objections. The Council approved the minutes as revised by a unanimous vote, with one abstention.

Dean's Report

William Yost distributed a written report. He reported on the current university administrative structure, the university's search for a provost, the January 29 university retreat, and the proposed new life-sciences building. Discussion followed.

Chair's Report

Dr. Caughie requested that the Council consider the proposed new policies included in Dean Yost's November 30, 2001 report to the Council. Discussion regarding enrollment in 400- and 500-level courses followed.

Diane Suter made the following motion:

The Council of Graduate School Programs directs its Chair to send a letter to the Academic Vice President (with copies to the deans of The Graduate School, College of Arts & Sciences, Marcella Niehoff School of Nursing, School of Social Work, and School of Education) stating that the Council strongly affirms that the dean of The Graduate School (and the Council of Graduate School Programs, where appropriate) should be involved in all phases of decision-making regarding the number of 400- and 500- level courses to be offered, including decisions on section size, the number of sections necessary to mount successful programs, and the development of innovations such as section-sharing among programs.

Barney Berlin seconded the motion. Discussion followed.

The Council approved the motion by a vote of 20 in favor and 0 opposed, with 1 abstention.

Dr. Caughie reported on her discussion with Bren Murphy, chair of the university's Faculty Council, regarding graduate faculty representation on committees.

Dr. Caughie discussed the recent review of the graduate programs in Chemistry and the general program review process.

Dr. Caughie reminded members of the importance of attending Council meetings and of finding substitutes when members are unable to attend.

[The text of Dr. Caughie's report is attached.]  

Curriculum Committee Report

Duarte Mota de Freitas, a member of the Curriculum Committee, summarized proposed revisions to the master's programs in Sociology and reported that the committee determined that the proposed revisions do not require full review and a recommendation of approval by the full Council.

The Council discussed the Committee?s proposed policy on courses delivered via distance learning and the additional questions the Committee raised on the subject.

Dr. Caughie stated that she would brief Marcia Maurer, chair of the Curriculum Committee, on the discussion [please see attached e-mail message dated February 2, 2002]. Dr. Caughie also invited Council members to send comments or questions directly to Dr. Maurer via e-mail.

New Business

Susan Hirsch, chair of the Nominating Committee, requested that members send nominations for officer positions to her via e-mail.?

Adjournment

Dr. Caughie adjourned the meeting at 3:00 p.m.

Council of Graduate School Programs
Friday, February 1, 2002
Chair's Report:

1.  Discussion of new policies proposed in the Dean?s Report from

November 30:

1. number of dissertations per faculty member
2. number of graduate faculty members per program
3. number of students in 400 and 500 level courses

Although Dean Yost reported at the Executive Committee meeting that there is no rush in discussing the first two, I'd like to hear the Council's views on any of these three. For example, the second might be important for program review, and the first might be an issue in establishing equitable workloads across the University. But we might start with the third since that?s the most pressing issue right now. [discussion]

2.  Discussion with Bren Murphy, chair of Faculty Council, on graduate faculty representation on committees

Dean Yost indicated to me and the Executive Committee his concern that the Graduate School was being ?shut out? of the retreat on strategic goals and the faculty governance committee. Faculty Council had nominated faculty to serve on these committees, but no one from this Council was invited. Shortly after our discussion, Bren Murphy, chair of FC, sent an email to all faculty reporting on the progress toward faculty/administration collaboration over the past six months. In that report Bren stated that Faculty Council and the President agreed to establish ?a clear picture of existing decision-making bodies [e.g., standing committees] and have been working on that project.

I spoke to Bren about both issues the exclusion of Graduate Council members on strategic planning and shared governance, and the process of clarifying what standing committees do without consulting representatives of those committees. On the first issue, Bren told me (1) that FC didn't consider representatives from standing committees when suggesting names for the Jan. 29 retreat or the shared governance committee (which she said wasn't really a committee) and (2) that she believed any member of the graduate faculty could speak to issues of graduate education. I responded that only GPDs and Council representatives have the in-depth knowledge necessary to address issues of graduate education, that many graduate faculty aren't aware of what's going on on the Council. Bren agreed to send additional names to Father Garanzini (all from the Executive Committee) and ask him to consider inviting one of them to join the retreat and the shared governance discussions. So far I have not heard that any one was invited. On the second issue (establishing a clear picture of existing faculty committees), Bren said that the initial stage was simply to determine what committees still exist, who sits on them, how long the terms were, etc. This semester they will continue these discussions and decide what more they need.

[discussion]

2.  On the issue of Workplace Studies (Human Relations and Industrial Relations) being absorbed by the School of Business, I?ve heard from several faculty that there is some concern on the tenure review process for untenured faculty be followed by Business.? For example, the composition of the committee making the tenure recommendation should be what the faculty member expected it to be when hired.? I understand that some senior faculty in Workplace Studies have raised this issue with the AAUP chapter.? There is also some concern on the fate of the industrial relations degree under the Business school.

3.  I want to thank Dean Yost for informing this Council promptly about his decision on our recommendation for the Chemistry program. Marcia Maurer asked for a follow-up report on the Chemistry program prior to its next formal review to see how the recommendations for that program are being met.

4.  In light of the strategic goals and the two recent program reviews (Chemistry and Classics), it seems to me that we need a discussion on this Council of criteria for graduate programs at Loyola. This year the Program Review Committee has been charged with revisiting the criteria for program review, and I expect we'll have a report at our next, and last, meeting. But I worry that that won't be sufficient. I asked the Executive Committee to consider, for example, whether or not the Council's program review should take into account the cost of the program when making its evaluation, or size. We also need a clear understanding of what excellence means.

5.  Attendance: I know last year we had meetings where we had to worry about getting a quorum and Diane Suter reminded us of our obligation to attend these meetings. In November, I too was worried we would not get a quorum and thus not be able to vote on the Chemistry programs review. I just want to remind representatives that attending these meetings is one requirement of the job. Article VI of the by-laws states that members of the Council are expected to:

1.      Attend and participate in Council meetings.
2.      Establish regular procedures for consulting the faculty ? of their respective departments.
3.      Represent to the Council the concerns of their faculty.
4.      Report actions of the Council to their respective departments.

If you cannot attend a meeting, it is your responsibility to find a substitute.

February 2, 2002 E-mail Message
From: Pamela Caughie
To: Marcia Maurer

Re: Council meeting: DL policy

Dear Marcia,

Duarte presented the committee?s decision on the Sociology program to the Council on Friday. There was little discussion. We didn?t have a lot of time to discuss the distance learning policy (I urged Council members to email you their comments and concerns), but here is a summary of what was said at the meeting.

Michael Maher was concerned that in #10, the word ?during? not be taken temporally since, he argued, students may delay work until the end of the course. I wonder if you didn?t intend that word to mean precisely that work shouldn?t be so delayed.

Jon Nilson saw this policy on DL as an opportunity for the Council to be more pro-active by setting forth a ?vision? or broader statement on DL rather than just setting policy for curriculum review.? To that end, he suggested that the items be reorganized, sorting out the different levels.? That is, some items deal with overall policies while others deal with more micro-level issues. #11 and 12, for example, go with #1.? The same with the questions you asked. Some, most notably #10 and #4, deal with philosophical issues: do we want an entire degree on line?? Others deal with finances, still others with administrative issues.?

One member saw a ?warning light? in the running together of financial issues with academic concerns, worrying that what?s driving DL courses is revenue not academic integrity (my phrase, not his). The Council would like to see these issues sorted out in any policy it receives, with a philosophy laid out.

Several people spoke of their discomfort with offering entire degrees online. The consensus seemed to be (though we didn?t take any votes) that it was not a good idea to have a Ph.D. degree completed through DL alone. One member suggested only certificates be offered solely by DL.? Anther member (I believe addressing your eighth question)? objected to offering incentives to faculty to develop DL courses since he is leery of them and worries that such incentives will lead to a proliferation of courses that he feels they should be kept to special cases.?

I believe I've covered the main points. I am copying this to Max and Susan, who take the minutes, in case they have anything to add or correct. In any case, I would like to see a formal policy presented to the Council at the April 5th meeting as a motion for a discussion and possibly a vote.? If no one responds to your questions, Marcia, then the Committee can devise the proposal as they see fit and let the Council respond. But I hope you will receive some emails from your colleagues.

Thanks for your efforts on this issue.

Pamela