In March, 2000 Provost Louis Esposito appointed a Task Force to examine the organizational structure of the Office of Graduate Study and the Office of Research Administration and to explore the possibility of realigning or combining these respective offices.

The Task Force makes the following recommendations:

1. The Office of Research Administration and the Office of Graduate Study be formally combined under the leadership of the Vice-Provost for Research and Graduate Study.
2. Two positions be created under the Vice Provost: an Associate Vice Provost for Research and an Associate Vice Provost for Graduate Study.
3. The two offices, the Office of Graduate Study and the Office of Research Administration (Office of Research), be given increased administrative, technical and clerical personnel to fulfill Oakland’s commitment to quality graduate programs and its desired stature as a recognized research institution.
4. The Office of Vice Provost of Research and Graduate Study be given its own budget including discretionary funds above and beyond operational expenses.
5. The Office of Research and the Office of Graduate Study be allowed to generate additional revenue streams from their operations that would accrue to the Office of the Vice Provost for Research and Graduate Study.

ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT CONDITIONS

OFFICE OF RESEARCH

It is clear to the Task Force that Oakland University is experiencing vibrant and impressive growth through the development of several new Masters, Ph.D. and Certification programs, a truly impressive building program and recognition as a "Best Buy" in American colleges and universities. However, the University’s record in research funding has remained relatively static during this same period. Oakland has lagged considerably behind comparable institutions in acquiring external support.

The following table serves to support our contention.

Table I
Funding for Research
(Millions)

Additionally the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC) has increased its research funding from $8 million (FY90) to $51 million (FY99). The University of Michigan, Dearborn has seen a 65% growth in research funding over the past decade. Oakland’s failure to grow in research funding stands in stark contrast to the record of these other comparable institutions.

The Task Force has concluded that the Office of Research is overwhelmed and drastic measures must be taken to remedy the situation. The following fundamental issues need to be addressed:

• No cohesive voice or vision exists for research at Oakland University.
• Gross inadequacies exist in resources and personnel in the Research Office.
• Services commonly provided by other universities to faculty and students are not a priority at Oakland University. These areas include: budget preparation and monitoring of grants and contracts, technical aid in grant and proposal writing, dissemination of current information on funding sources, grant writing workshops and liaisons with funding agencies.
• The lack of institutional support for research activities is particularly acute for new and untenured faculty.

• There is a major void in protecting the university and individual researchers with regards to matters of regulatory compliance. Guidelines and procedures necessary to protect researchers as well as human and animal subjects need to be better developed, communicated and enforced.

The conclusion is that the Research Office needs appropriate and predictable revenue sources to address the important issues noted above. To meet its responsibilities and invigorate the research mission, the Office needs to generate some of its own funds from indirect cost recovery. Through a refocusing of its mission and the appropriate expansion of personnel and resources the problems in the Research Office can be solved.

OFFICE OF GRADUATE STUDY

Our study of the Graduate Office notes a similar pattern. The Office of Graduate Study is likewise overwhelmed. The Task Force notes the following major concerns:

• There is no fulltime academician/administrator to provide the needed leadership for the Office of Graduate Study.
• There is a lack of support to, and coordination with, Schools and Departments across the University. The Graduate Office has virtually no resources and personnel to assist and coordinate with individual Schools and Departments in conducting needs assessments, gathering support data, developing new program proposals and marketing the existing programs.
• Program reviews of existing graduate programs which are required by North Central Accreditation are not being done on a scheduled basis.
• There are increasing concerns about the lack of timely processing of records and data regarding student applicants. The Office of Graduate Study is aware of and concerned about the issue of data integrity.
• The Office of Graduate Study suffers from the lack of a sufficient annual budget, with too many funding decisions made on a case-by-case basis.
• The significant growth in graduate and professional programs across the University has not seen a comparable growth in Office of Graduate Study personnel to support and maintain these programs.
• The Office of Graduate Study currently lacks the political and administrative clout to enforce recommendations and guidelines that emanate from the Graduate Council and the Office of Graduate Study.
• There are a host of issues on the immediate horizon impacting graduate education which will require the vision and wisdom of fulltime academic leaders: program development, response to community needs, the issues of satellite campuses and centers, on line courses, distance learning, etc. These issues must be thoughtfully addressed not only in terms of what Oakland University can accomplish, but a strategy must be developed to compete with other educational institutions.

The Task Force wishes to emphasize that our concerns in both the Office of Research and the Office of Graduate Study are in no way an indictment of any personnel serving in these offices. Moreover, we are encouraged by a new sense of purpose and leadership emanating from the Office of the Vice Provost. However, without additional leadership, staff and funding these efforts will prove fruitless.

DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDATIONS

The Office of Research Administration and the Office of Graduate Study be formally combined under the leadership of the Vice Provost for Research and Graduate Studies.

The proposed new organization provides a voice of sufficient academic and administrative stature for the operations of research as well as the programs in graduate study. This organizational scheme is similar to organization flow charts of other universities we examined. Each operation has its unique mission: one to promote research and grant activity and the other to develop, market, maintain and monitor academic programs.

These two major operations of research and graduate study require coordination. It is at the Vice Provost level that we see needed attention being paid to long range planning, developing a vision for Oakland’s commitment to both research and graduate study, lobbying for funding, and addressing the macro issues that will ultimately affect how successful this University will become in research productivity and the quality of graduate programs. However, one individual cannot possibly provide adequate leadership to both offices with the myriad of issues facing the Research Office and the Office of Graduate Study.

Two positions be created under the Vice Provost: an Associate Vice Provost for Research and an Associate Vice Provost for Graduate Study. ( See Appendix B)

The Task Force spent a considerable amount of time on this issue and concluded that one individual can not provide sufficient leadership to both offices. The Office of Graduate Study requires an academician who helps set and implement policy, works with Graduate Council, assists in program development, monitors program reviews, and works closely with the faculty and respective deans to promote graduate education at Oakland University. As one individual stated in referring to the Office of Graduate Study, "It needs someone to own it every day."

We view this position as an Associate Vice Provost position rather than a Dean position. Deans should have a Faculty or School and this position clearly does not. In addition, we discussed briefly and then dismissed the notion that these offices could be headed by a Director. The Director designation simply does not carry the necessary academic and political clout to negotiate effectively with other high level administrators and academicians within the University or with State and Federal officials or community and business leaders.

A similar argument can be made for the Associate Vice Provost for Research. This too should be an academic position, promoting research, lobbying for funds, promoting cross-disciplinary research, etc. and overseeing the daily operations of the Research Office, including the important issues of budget, grant writing support, and regulatory compliance.

A new layer of administration with accompanying financial costs to the University is not recommended lightly. However, if Oakland University is going to develop and mature as a graduate and research institution, there must be a critical mass of academic/administrative leaders to place a high priority on research and graduate study.

When the critical mass of personnel in the Graduate and Research Offices falls well below the required level, the University is disadvantaged and quality is compromised. We believe the addition of two leadership positions and their associated staff will provide the necessary expertise to increase sponsored research and grants as well as meet the responsibilities in graduate programs. These changes will serve to raise the profile and academic reputation of Oakland University.

It is conceivable that an increased commitment of resources would become revenue neutral. For example, if these two positions resulted in an increase of $3 million annually in federally sponsored research, this could result in close to $1 million in indirect costs. Approximately 25% ($250,000) of those indirect costs would pay for these two positions. Indeed, we would anticipate that growth in Office of Research Administration would exceed this modest figure. It would not be unreasonable to expect Oakland University to double its sponsored research and grants over the next five to seven years to a projected figure of $15 million or more. Such a goal is absolutely necessary if Oakland is to be regarded as a University seriously committed to research as well as to outstanding teaching. We cannot legitimately make this claim on the basis of the modest track record over the past decade.

The two offices, the Office of Graduate Study and the Office of Research, be given adequate administrative, technical and clerical personnel to fulfill Oakland’s commitment to quality graduate programs and its desired stature as a legitimate research institution.

Creating the leadership position of Associate Vice Provost in both the Research Office and the Office of Graduate Study is a major first step. However, this action alone will not solve the current problems or provide adequate service.

The Office of Graduate Study needs personnel for budgeting, data processing, as well as individuals to assist Schools in market research, program development and program reviews. Increased clerical staff is necessary to process and efficiently monitor the records of an increasing number of graduate students. Specific personnel decisions should be left to the Graduate Office and the Vice Provost. We would like to emphasize that the Office of Graduate Study is woefully understaffed. (see Faculty Survey).

The Research Office requires a fulltime Compliance Officer. (Note: We understand that this is being addressed as our final report is being written.) A Grants and Contracts Administrator is needed as well as additional personnel to promote and assist in grant writing, conduct grant writing workshops, publicize funding opportunities on a continuing basis, assist new untenured faculty, and monitor budgets among other activities. The Task Force again leaves specific personnel decisions to others. However, it is clear that the Research Offices at other universities provide a myriad of services that Oakland University does not. The result is an increase in grant writing and research funding activity. The Faculty Survey data and comparisons to other universities support the conclusions of the Task Force.

The Office of Vice Provost of Research and Graduate Study be given its own budget including discretionary funds above and beyond operational expenses.

The operations of the current Office of Vice Provost for Research and Graduate Study runs too much on an ad hoc financial basis. To do their work properly this Office needs a budget with discretionary powers. This would allow the office to make timely decisions regarding such activities as providing seed money, matching funds, travel, bridge grants, as well as to engage in long range planning and to capitalize on opportunities in both research and graduate study.

The budget is both an issue of substance and an issue of perception. In order to attract and maintain the quality of individuals required to provide the leadership and vision so necessary for research and graduate study, responsible discretionary budget procedures must be in place. Although the amount of discretionary monies available for this office was discussed, the Task Force did not see fit to make a recommendation as to a specific amount. The funds should be sufficient, however, to take advantage of special opportunities that arise in both the Office of Research and the Office of Graduate Study. These Offices suffer too often from a "too little too late" syndrome.

The Office of Research and the Office of Graduate Study be allowed to generate additional revenue streams from their operations that would accrue to the Office of Vice Provost for Research and Graduate Study.

We believe it makes financial sense that the two offices, Research and Graduate Study, be provided incentives for increased productivity. One possible source of revenue would be a formula for returning a significant portion of indirect costs to the Office of the Vice Provost. This formula could be a percentage or a sliding scale that would take effect after a base amount of research funds has been generated. The Task Force noted that many universities have a standard procedure or formula for some significant amount of indirect cost revenue reverting back to the Research Office.

A percentage of graduate admission fees or readmission fees should accrue to the Office. As the Office of Graduate Study processes more admissions, there should be a built-in budget increase for employing additional staff or outsourcing certain tasks. In this way offices are encouraged to be even more productive knowing they will get additional support when needed. Other revenue sources should be explored in addition to the two suggested above.

In conclusion, these recommendations and supporting arguments represent a good deal of thoughtful discussion and investigation by the Task Force. What is abundantly clear is that the Office of Research and the Office of Graduate Study are critical operations and in many ways can add immeasurably to the quality and prestige of Oakland University. At this time these respective offices are understaffed and underfunded. They demand more leadership, coordination, vision and policy-making ability as well as supervision on a day to day basis.

Strategy Two in the Learning Works Report (1995) states " To sustain Oakland’s reputation of overall excellence in selected areas of graduate and professional education, resources will be focused on creating and strengthening areas of graduate study in a manner that is responsive to regional and national needs."

Strategy Four in the Learning Works Report states that "Research, scholarship and creative activities are among Oakland’s greatest strengths and will be aggressively encouraged and supported."

The Task Force heartily recommends that we follow the Strategies laid out in the Learning Works Report. We believe that a serious administrative commitment to the recommendations of the Task Force will greatly benefit the Oakland University community; our administration, our faculty, our students, our alumni and the general public.

Appendix A

CHARGE

The Task Force interpreted its specific charge to be as follows:

To examine the organizational structure of the Office of Graduate Studies and the Office of Grants, Contract and Sponsored Research and to explore the feasibility of combining or realigning these respective offices.

Implicit in this charge was the necessity of examining the role or mission of these offices and the possible services they might provide in the future.

The focus of the Task Force was on organization, missions and services and not on the evaluation of individual personnel nor on the day-to-day activities of any of these individuals.

Procedures

The Task Force met as a group fourteen times – five meetings in the Spring and nine meetings in the Fall. The meetings were very well attended. The Task Force met in subcommittees on two additional occasions as well as in small group writing sessions. In between weekly meetings there was an ongoing communication stream between individual members and the chairperson via email and phone. The Task Force began by meeting with Vice Provost Hansen and Director, Research Development and Support, Pat Beaver. In addition, the Task Force had a conference call with David Bauer in the Spring and a face to face meeting with Dr. Bauer in September. David Bauer is a consultant to Oakland University on organizational systems and conducts workshops for the faculty in grant and proposal writing. We also met with Claire Rammel, Director of Graduate Study.

All four individuals, Hansen, Beaver, Bauer and Rammel were exceedingly cooperative and forthright and should be commended for their invaluable contributions to our deliberations.

A second important source of information came from the Task Force itself. Some members have ongoing and longstanding dealings with the Office of Research Administration, while other Task Force members have worked closely with the Office of Graduate Study in program development and monitoring of existing programs. At least four members of the Task Force are now serving or have recently served on the Graduate Council.

A third source of information was the Research and Graduate Study Task Force Faculty Survey. The raw data support the issues raised by individual Task Force members. Mike Ponder is to be commended for his outstanding contribution in writing and revising the survey based upon Task Force recommendations. Stephen Szalay’s technical support in bringing the E Survey on line was invaluable.

A fourth source of information that has been particularly helpful was looking at the mission and operations of Research and Graduate Study of other institutions including Eastern Michigan, Western Michigan, Central Michigan, University of Michigan Dearborn, Ohio University and to a lesser extent University of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC). These universities were researched through the Internet, which provided a relatively rich data source. In most cases, follow-up conversations were held with key personnel at each of these institutions.

Through this combination of data sources (the testimony of Hansen, Beaver, Rammel and Bauer, experiences of Task Force members, information from the Faculty Survey and our investigation of the operations of other institutions) a pattern of issues and concerns emerged.

The Task Force is continuing to analyze the Faculty Survey and will deliver an additional report to the Provost in the near future.

The Task Force respectfully requests that we reconvene in one year to assess progress on these issues.

Respectfully submitted,

Gary C. Barber
Acting Chair and Associate Professor, Mechanical Engineering

Janet C. Blanks
Director, Eye Research Institute, Professor of Biomedical Sciences

Bhushan L. Bhatt
Associate Dean, Engineering and Computer Science

Arthur W. Bull, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Chemistry

W. Dorsey Hammond, Chair 
Professor, Reading and Language Arts

Suha Al-Oballi Kridli
Assistant Professor, Nursing

Mildred Merz 
Associate Professor, Library

David R. Maines
Chair and Professor, Sociology and Anthropology

Billy J. Minor 
Chair and Associate Professor of Education, Human Resource Development

 Eileen Peacock
 Associate Dean and Professor of Accounting, School of Business Administration

Miron Stano
Professor, Economics and Management, Business Administration

Lynne Williams
Professor,  Medical Lab Sciences,Health Sciences

*******************************************************************************************

*****************************************************************************************

2.  Response of the University Senate Research Committee

Thanks for the opportunity to respond on behalf of the University Research Committee to the Report of the Task Force on Graduate Study and Research.  Each of us has pondered the document since the middle of December when you asked us through Randy to take a look at it, and at our meeting this morning we discussed the proposed structures.  We respect the Task Force's dedication and expertise in putting together this report after their deliberations, and commend them for their efforts.  We would like to offer our comments in the constructive spirit of the conversations we are currently holding across the campus in an effort to promote and facilitate research.  There was no vote per se taken on the points which follow, but I'm not reporting any opinions that were not supported by consensus, for which I checked often during the meeting.  These items reflect a distillation of an hour-long discussion, which, I am happy to say, was the most enthusiastic we have had so far this year.

1) The proposed structure provides a linking of graduate study and research.  Some see this as a positive linkage, and representatives of departments and schools with graduate programs welcome this, since faculty recruitment is often dependent on the health of a graduate program.  Others question it and warn that the joining together may confuse issues that properly belong in one area or the other.

2) There was a strong reaction against creating a new layer of administration at the Associate Vice Provost level.  This response was the most universal and the strongest among all the members.  The feeling of the committee was that the idea attempted, through the creation of bureaucracy, to solve problems that needed to be addressed by simple, nuts and bolts solutions that are less sensational but much more concretely effective.  It was suggested that the creation of administrative layers   might make OU "appear" more serious about research, but that it would do little to further the efforts of the researchers themselves.  The opinion was offered that this solution is backwards, and that there are critical needs of researchers which must be addressed now by practical solutions and concrete aid.

3) An often repeated phrase during the discussion was "develop a research culture."  Supported with copious, personal anecdotal evidence, the committee complained that the current infrastructure [throughout the university] does not facilitate research, but seems instead to serve the constraints and rules of the bureaucracy.   Hence, overnight express mail deliveries for critical, time-sensitive biological experiments might remain in the receiving docks for the better part of a day because there is no one to deliver such items to the lab, and because the professor her/himself may not pick up such and item due to some regulation; or that a professor in immediate need of computer support or repair might have to wait weeks before that support is made available. These are two of perhaps ten examples which the committee members cited.  An energetic, research-supportive culture throughout the campus could be fostered and maintained by the current administrative structures dedicated to emphasizing research as a priority.

4) Rather than changes at the top levels, the committee suggested a "big push" at the lower levels toward facilitating research.  Here are some of the suggestions offered: 
a) editors / writing specialists who would work with the professors on their proposals; 
b) specialists in the various disciplines who could help professors identify possible funding sources; 
c) incentives to increase the flow of proposals going out to funding sources; 
d) a concentration of resources and of assistance to those who might produce proposals and do research, but who have not done so.  The departments and institutes that are doing research now will do research in the future.  Those individuals who have just received tenure or promotion, who have submitted proposals but have not been funded for University Fellowships, or who have large service or teaching burdens ought to be provided encouragement and incentives.

In this final area the committee was enthusiatically supportive of increasing, motivating and retraining staff at the lower administrative levels. We are all deeply indebted to Pat and Randy for their great support, but we realize that they are doing a huge job already and certainly cannot fulfill the needs of everyone who walks into their office [although they often do and amaze me!].  We feel it would be most important to hire specialists in various aspects of the grant-writing process - placing immediate emphasis at the bottom will do much more for research than starting at the top.   Most importantly, the creation of a research culture on this campus which introduces the team concept to the infrastructure will result in minimal cost and the "best bang for our buck.

*******************************************************************************************

3.  Response of the Graduate Council

MEMORANDUM

 Date:      February 2, 2001

 TO:        Louis Esposito,  Provost

FROM:   Ranald Hansen, Interim Vice Provost for Research and Graduate Study

RE:         Graduate Council Discussion of the Research and Graduate Study Task Force Final Report

Graduate Council devoted time during two meetings to discussing the final report of the Research and Graduate Study Task Force. Below you will find extracts from the minutes of those meetings reporting those discussions. Please note that Graduate Council has not had the opportunity to vote on approval of the minutes for the January 24, 2001.

Discussion of Final Report on Research and Graduate Study Task Force: Frances Jackson questioned why there is a need for a Vice Provost when there are going to be Associate Vice Provosts for both Research and Graduate Study. Dorsey Hammond stated that a high profile person is needed to oversee the planning and vision of each of these areas. Kathleen Moore commented that it would be difficult for one person to represent two domains. Frances Jackson requested that a case be made justifying a third organizational layer; however she did agree that graduate study and research should be integrated. Michelle Piskulich stated she would like to see Marketing as a budget item for the Graduate Program. Dorsey Hammond mentioned that the Task Force committee will reconvene in one year to analyze and review the progress of this new organizational structure. The discussion was closed and will be continued at next meeting.

Discussion of Final Report on Research and Graduate Study Task Force: Ranald Hansen stated that the minutes on the discussion of the Final Report will be consolidated and sent to the Provost. Any additional comments could be forwarded to Dorsey Hammond or directly to the Provost. Kathleen Moore questioned why Research comes first and Graduate Study second. She also pointed out that the organizational chart doesn’t show new positions on the Graduate Study side. Dorsey Hammond stated that the chart was not current. Kathleen Moore indicated she was unhappy with the faculty survey because it focused more on research. Dorsey Hammond stated that he felt this reflected the composition of the task force. Frances Jackson felt that the roles of the Vice Provost and of the two associates were not clear. She felt a case could be made for having two Vice Provosts, one for Graduate Study and one for Research. Dorsey Hammond stated that the task force saw two operations with an Associate Vice Provost running the day-to-day operations of each office and the Vice Provost coordinating the activities of the two offices. He also stated that it seemed probable that these two positions would pay for themselves by creating additional revenue. Eric Follo questioned how the Research and Graduate Study budget could be augmented. Dorsey Hammond replied the task force felt that a percentage of indirect costs should be returned to the Research office and that percentage of admission fees could be returned to Graduate Study office providing discretionary income. Kristine Thompson questioned how research and graduate study could be enhanced. Dorsey Hammond stated this could be accomplished by giving the office ownership/credibility on a daily basis. Kathleen Moore suggested there be a Vice Provost for each side with direct access to the Provost. Discussion closed.

4. Response from the Senate Budget Review Committee 

MEMORANDUM

TO:           Provost Louis Esposito

FROM:     Michael B. Smith, Chair
                 Senate Budget Review Committee

RE:           Committee response to the Research and Graduate Study Task Force report.

DATE:       February 2, 2001

This memorandum summarizes the Senate Budget Review Committee's comments on the items listed above, reflecting the consensus reached by the committee during its meeting on January 23, 2001.  The original drafts of the committee's reports on the Oakland International Imperative and the Master of Arts in Liberal Studies documents were prepared by committee member Austin Murphy and were circulated to members of the committee for comments. The committee chair then organized the committee's comments on the Research and Graduate Study document and incorporated them into this final memorandum based on the drafts and any additional relevant comments. Our response will focus on each item individually. Members of the committee who were present and participated in the discussion were: Buck Dillon, Marc Lipman, Austin Murphy, Pat Nicosia, Richard Pettengill, Michael Smith, and Gloria Sosa.

Research and Graduate Study Task Force

The committee found the report on research and graduate study interesting and timely, because it addresses clear existing problems in these areas at Oakland University which need to be rectified. But we have concerns about the budgetary implications of several of the proposals and are not convinced that the proposals as currently described should be fully implemented at the present time.

First, the task force report recommends that Oakland create two new administrative positions at the Associate Vice Provost level: an Associate Vice Provost for Research and an Associate Vice Provost for Graduate Study. The estimated budgetary outlay for these two new positions is approximately $250,000 per year in salaries alone. In addition, the report calls for directing significant additional funds to each office for the hiring of new support and technical staff, etc. It is not clear where the additional funding will come from, since no budget was included in the report.

While we understand and appreciate the rationale for dividing the responsibilites in these two areas between two separate offices, we are concerned that the full implementation of these recommendations would be very expensive, and are not convinced that the benefits would necessarily outweigh the proposed costs. For one thing, we are not completely convinced that the creation of an additional layer of administration would result in the kind of outcomes which would justify the increased expense. One theme which emerged in our discussions was that there is a particular need above the departmental level for a strong unifying voice to promote and support graduate study at Oakland. We would therefore  prefer hiring only one new Vice Provost at first, preferably the one for graduate study, who could provide needed leadership to improve the university's handling of the many problems associated with the day-to-day running of high-quailty graduate programs (as listed on page 3 of the report) and to help focus the university's resources in this area (e.g. with respect to recruitment). Perhaps at least some of the resources saved by hiring only one new person now could be distributed in other ways which would improve graduate study and research at Oakland. For example, the money saved might better be directed to individual departments to improve existing graduate programs, though we are aware that money not budgeted initially for one of these proposed positions might actually never materialize.

We also generally favor the idea raised in items 4 and 5 in the task force's recommendations that these offices be given their own budgets and be allowed to generate additional revenue from their operations. Ideally, a good deal of the costs associated with the proposed positions could conceivably be made up through indirect recovery from research grants if a substantial portion of this money is allowed to stay in the research office.

5.  Response from the Senate Planning Review Committee

To:        University Senate

From: Senate Planning and Review
                Frances Jackson, Chair

Re:        Research and Graduate Study Taskforce Report

Date: 8 February 2001

The SPRC carefully reviewed and discussed the above named report. We felt that the report accurately portrays the issues and concerns that have been voiced by the university community over the years about both of these areas. It is clear that a change must be made to ensure that both graduate studies and the research and grants office have both the administrative structure and human and financial resources necessary to meet the missions of these two offices. That being said, we make the observation that the proposal does not provide sufficient rationale to support the Vice-Provost position it is recommending. The proposal is rather top-heavy in administrators, something that has been a criticism of Oakland University in the past. We also felt that the recommendations of the Taskforce are more generic than specific. This is particularly true for the Graduate School side.

Specifically, we support either recommendation # 4 or #2, but not both. We believe that recommendation # 3 is correct in principle, but we’re not sure what it means. We support recommendation # 5. We felt there are insufficient references in the report on how these recommendations will help students. International students are not addressed and how they would be assisted with these changes.

In conclusion, we believe the report accurately identifies the areas of concern. What is lacking is compelling rationale to support the proposed administrative structure.

2/13/01