Eastern Mennonite University
Graduate Council
November 12, 2007
#3  

Present: David Glanzer, Beryl Brubaker, Dave Brubaker, Dave Detrow, Lori Leaman (representing education), Allon Lefever, Lynn Roth, Ervin Stutzman and Lonnie Yoder
Absent: Cathy Smeltzer Erb, George Nipe and Don Smeeton

AGENDA:

David encouraged graduate council members to keep agenda items coming to him.

I. Review October 8, 2008 Minutes:

Beryl highlighted the October minutes that reported on a review of department syllabi. She encouraged the education and MBA chairs to note the recommendations since they were not at the meeting. Dave Brubaker acknowledged that the syllabi review was very useful and recommended continuing the process.

II. Governance Provost Search Report (Lonnie):

Lonnie reported that he met with Loren and felt Loren was quite open to hearing the graduate council’s feedback about the future provost. At this time, the suggestion is to have an interim graduate dean, rather than have the provost also function as graduate dean. The search committee will meet with graduate council for their input. David Glanzer requested that the search committee work with a future scheduled graduate council meeting. Lonnie shared the questions that the search committee is seeking input on for graduate council members to reflect on.

III. Scholarship/Practice Payment Policy:

David noted that current policy states that faculty members are not to be paid by an outside source for scholarship practice hours. Does this include stipends and honoraria and should these earnings offset the budget? Discussion followed on the details of this policy. The policy is not intended to exclude activities for which modest honoraria and stipends may be received. Graduate council recommends revising Assumption #3 on the policy to read: “Scholarship practice load hours are not assigned for activities for which faculty members are being paid salary or consulting fees by an external source. Faculty members may receive modest honoraria and stipends.”

Motion: To recommend the approval of this policy revision to president’s cabinet.
PASSED.

IV. Grade Appeal Policy:

David reviewed the grade appeal process for both the undergraduate and graduate students. Discussion followed on whose responsibility it is to notify the registrar’s office that a grade has been changed. Does the dean have final authority to make grade changes? It was noted that if the faculty member has deviated from the syllabi or departmental policy, then the dean has authority to step in. Due to inconsistencies in the course catalogues, Dave Detrow will follow up on this issue and bring the matter back to graduate council for further processing.

V. Loading & Pay for Teaching Load Greater than 24 SH:

David reviewed the issues that have occurred regarding faculty contracts and the pay rates for teaching additional summer courses. Graduate departments have different expectations and needs for teaching summer courses. Significant discussion followed and these issues were identified:

• Cost, fairness and reasonable teaching expectations for faculty
• Faculty should have the option whether to teach in summer
• Equity of pay for faculty at full-time faculty rates vs. adjunct rates for summer classes
• Departments need the faculty available when the students are available to come to class

Beryl noted that policy states that faculty cannot earn more than 30% of their salary in the summer. It was noted that this conversation was tabled from last year’s graduate council due to a general lack of agreement. It was recommended that graduate council work at a document that outlines a general policy which notes the distinctives for the counseling and education departments. The general consensus for other programs seems to be to limit load to 24 SH over 12 months. This agenda item will be reviewed again in spring semester when Don Steiner can join the discussion. David asked council members to articulate principles that can be included in a future policy after the minutes are reviewed. This list can be circulated for further review and processing in preparation for the spring discussion.

VI. Structural Barriers to Graduate Program Collaboration?

Dave asked the directors to take this question back to their respective departments and determine what are the structural barriers to program collaboration that do not need to be barriers? What barriers need some work on? In addition, collaboration with undergraduate departments will also be reviewed. These issues will be on the next agenda.

Lois R. Shank
Recorder
November 12, 2007