Present:	Allen Bell, David Heathcote, Connie Jo (staff support), Robert Jeske, Sunwoong Kim, Patrice Petro, Mark Schwartz, Gabrielle Verdier
Excused:	Doug Cherkauer, Chuck Schuster, William Wainwright
Guests:	Dale Jaffe, Robert Jones, William Rayburn

1. Acting Chair, Mark Schwartz, called the meeting to order at 2:33 p.m. in Holton 241.
   
   
2. Automatic Consent
   
   1. Minutes #3 of the November 12, 1999 meeting were amended to show Sunwoong Kim as present and Mark Schwartz as excused. The minutes were approved as amended.
      
   
   
3. Special Order of Business - Meeting with Dean Rayburn and Associate Deans Jaffe and Jones. Dean Rayburn gave a summary statement on Graduate School (GS) links with the "First Ideas" of the Milwaukee Idea and future directions for the GS. He indicated that it appears the time has come for the institution to give a strong emphasis to graduate enrollments and programs.
   D. Heathcote: We need closer linkages with the GS. We don't always know what is going on, what issues are being addressed, what programs are under development. We need to work closely to support our sciences.
   W. Rayburn: Grad enrollments are down 2% this year for the second year in a row.
   D. Heathcote: What can we do to encourage students to come here?
   W. Rayburn: Research stipends are competitive. TA salaries are bargained between the union and the State; the university is not involved.
   D. Jaffe: The GS supports higher stipends. Other institutions support additional funds, beyond assistantships, to attract and keep the best students. One fellowship fund in the GS has been used as additional support for students already here. Perhaps it should be used to recruit new students. GS would like to discuss with the deans a proposal to develop add-on fellowships, with 2/3 being supported by GS and 1/3 by the school/college.
   R. Jeske: I would like to see funds to support even one fellowship per department to bring in a top quality graduate student. Are there outside sources of funding we could get to support such a program?
   P. Petro: Because of the varying size of departments, a simple "one per department" formula is likely not to be well received by a number of departments. We have a need to offer entire packages to get the best students—a full fellowship the first year, two years of an assistantship, and a final year of dissertation support. Patrice described a program that had functioned well in the English Department for years. An outside gift supported the first year, departments supported the next two years, and the GS supported the final year. The program ended when the principle of the outside gift was exhausted. The existence of this program attracted many applicants, and many of those came here even when they did not receive the award. English Department Ph.D. applications dropped significantly after the program ended.
   C. Jo: Is it possible to get the chancellor to include fundraising for this purpose as part of a major capital campaign?
   W. Rayburn: That is possible. The GS would like to develop a partnership with the school and college deans to secure outside funding.
   S. Kim: The goals of the Research 2006 plan seem sound, but we have seen so much erosion of faculty and funds to support those goals. Does UWM really care about research goals? The MKE Idea does not seem truly research oriented. It is community oriented, which also is a laudable goal, but we cannot do everything that UWM is outlining as a goal. In the social sciences, sponsored research actually works against the reputation of the institution. If research is focused on addressing questions for which some out agency pays, this hurts the reputation of the department doing the research. There needs to be more support from within the institution for doing research.
   P. Petro: Limiting summer research grants to junior faculty members is a mistake. The sources of support for senior faculty tend to be for curricular development. There is nowhere for senior faculty to go for research support.
   S. Kim: It seems that there are a number of different small incentives given for various kinds of individual activities, such as faculty development workshops, etc. This may not be the best approach to using monies available. Faculty members have an obligation to develop and create new pedagogy, to upgrade skills, without being paid for it. The money used for those purposes could be used to support intellectual activity. There is no way the UWM can be all the things we say we want to be.
   D. Jaffe: Much of the money spent as incentives was part of the University's approach to digging out of an enrollment hole with a focus on the undergraduate experience. This approach has been very successful. The new enrollment management plan makes graduate enrollments a priority, even though such enrollments do not produce the same kinds of returns in tuition that undergraduate enrollments do.
   D. Heathcote: But isn't most of that support for graduate enrollments going to be aimed at professional schools, not at typical students in the sciences?
   D. Jaffe: That's true; focus will be on groups of students who have corporate sponsorship, those that will move through as a cohort, those who will learn using new technologies.
   G. Verdier: What is the GS view on the Carnegie report? How will we respond to the new guidelines?
   D. Jaffe: The GS has designed a plan to get rid of the moratorium on new Ph.D. programs at UWM (the Doctoral Array Report) and to increase modestly the number of Ph.D. programs. The report has not yet been released, but it will be soon.
   W. Rayburn: The Research 2006 report has very high goals. We must remember that we have more than one public to serve. Carnegie will change its classifications next year. Originally, the system was designed to describe what institutions do, not as a ranking. When Carnegie began using extramural dollars as a criterion, institutions themselves began to use that criterion to rank themselves. In the year 2005, Carnegie will incorporate additional criteria, including distance education, community engagement, and alumni relations. The question of extramural funding, however, remains an issue for the institution. We must have engineering and the sciences pulling their weight to get the sponsored research support needed to build an infrastructure that can support those disciplines that cannot raise money in order to allow those areas also to engage in scholarship.
   P. Petro: Faculty members are asked to do far too much here, especially administratively. All faculty have a responsibility to assist in keeping things running, and those who stay in the ivory tower and don't do their share in administration are resented. The faculty most conscientious about keeping things organized and functioning are penalized in that they don't have time for their research. We must find some way to allow more time for faculty research.
   A. Bell: We need buyouts of courses so we can do research. Other kinds of awards may help a little, but the most effective way of ensuring that faculty members have the time needed is buyouts. What happened to the Research Incentive Program?
   D. Jaffe: Having chaired the RIP committee, I can tell you that those who were getting the grants were faculty members who already had active projects. The Program was not working to engage new researchers or to create new money.
   R. Jeske: The bottom line is that we have two absolute needs: money to attract graduate students and money for senior faculty to do research. We need to fundraise for these items.
   W. Rayburn: UWM has a development structure unlike most other institutions I have seen where that function tends to be centralized. Here it is very decentralized. The development staff is very small. Fund raising must happen at the school/college level.
   A. Bell: Are you saying that Dean Goodman has to do the fundraising for graduate level purposes?
   W. Rayburn: Yes, because we don't have a centralized system here.
   D. Heathcote: But the leadership and support for these goals must come from a campus-wide level.
   P. Petro: I am hoping that the new Carnegie position will contribute to a change in the climate on this campus.
   M. Schwartz: Could you comment on the "cluster paper" that has been getting so much attention recently?
   W. Rayburn: The "cluster paper" grew out of a request from the Administration for the GS to create a "concept paper" describing what cluster hiring meant. We were given one week to do so. It is one model of what clusters may be like. The ideas for specific clusters came from a thorough review of a lot of information on what is being funded, what is "on the front line," where we already have strengths, where we could link with doctoral programs. We identified a list of fourteen programs that we thought were possible for UWM to do if the State provided the necessary fund. From this list, we selected as our examples five that fit well with the Milwaukee Idea. Some of the opposition to the concept of clusters may stem from a misunderstanding that we have proposed all faculty hiring should follow this model. That is not the case; our example accounts for only thirty of the 120 positions proposed by the research team in the budget planning group.
   P. Petro: Some faculty members object because of the heavy science focus in the model.
   W. Rayburn: There are social science oriented clusters among those mentioned.
   P. Petro: But the proposal must be expanded beyond the hard sciences and social sciences to allow for such hiring in the humanities as well.
   W. Rayburn: Clusters can work in any discipline. Our concept paper developed as it did because the GS was asked to design it around the question of how sponsored research could be increased.
   S. Kim: A major part of the problem surrounding the reaction to this concept paper is distrust. This appears to be another example of something being imposed from above. Faculty members have not been given a voice in its development.
   M. Schwartz: Yes, that clearly is a major part of the problem. The idea itself might make some sense, but there is mistrust.
   P. Petro: It seems that every new idea here is coming from the top down. Faculty members feel excluded from the process, beleaguered, depressed.
   D. Jaffe: We are looking at ways to work more closely with schools and colleges.
   C. Jo: We have not yet distributed copies of a memo from Dean Jaffe to Doug Cherkauer, offering assistance with the master's program survey we are conducting.
   D. Jaffe: The GS has much of the material that your survey is seeking. We will be glad to share that information with you. Our attention the past few years, of necessity, has been focused more on Ph.D. programs. We are turning our attention now to master's programs. I am planning a meeting with coordinators of master's programs to discuss the capstone experiences in the master's programs.
   C. Jo: Would it be appropriate for a member of this committee to attend that meeting since we are looking at the same issues?
   D. Jaffe: I have not set the meeting as yet, but, yes; a representative of your committee would be welcome. I will keep you informed.
   
   Several of those in attendance indicated that they had other commitments at 4:30, so the discussion was brought to a close. The Committee members thanked the Deans for taking the time for this important exchange.
   
   
4. Old Business - None
   
   
5. New Business
   1. It was moved and seconded to recommend to the Dean approval of the Graduate Certificate Program in International Technical Communication. After a brief discussion, the motion was approved unanimously.
      
   
   
6. Adjournment --The meeting was adjourned at 4:23 p.m.