A faculty representative from each department in MCS attended this meeting to discuss the issue of departmental ombudspersons for the graduate students, and to give feedback on the recommended role and desired qualities for the position. Discussion focused on the motivation for raising the issue of ombudspersons, and whether or not there was enough of a need to address the issue formally via development of a policy. These concerns were backed by a reluctance to create a new administrative function that had no clearly defined procedures or expected returns.

In order to address these concerns, the background of the idea for departmental ombudspersons was discussed in some detail. The roots of the issue lie in the findings of the Graduate Advisory Board and the results of the university-wide graduate survey which was completed last year. These sources indicated that graduate students sometimes feel as though there is no one they can consult, particularly when they do not have a good relationship with their advisor or when their advisor does not have the resources to guide them (i.e. concerning non-academic issues.) For the most part, graduate students have identified individuals in their departments who they feel comfortable approaching with certain issues. This person might be an advisor, the graduate student coordinator, or a faculty member. These individuals are approached for a variety of reasons: they have useful knowledge and experience, they are trusted by the student, or they are in a position to influence outcomes. Despite the evidence that students often seek help on their own, it is also the case that students often do so with some trepidation. There is no way to be certain that their interests and privacy will be unequivocally protected, and, particularly in the case of non-academic issues, students might be uncertain of who in their department has the qualifications and/or the knowledge to advise them. The purpose of designating a single ombudsperson in each department is to provide an advising resource which students can turn to with any issue. Sometimes the advice might be referral to another campus resource; nonetheless, the ombudsperson will be clearly identified as a non-partial individual whose job is to help students resolve problems and find information.

GSAC members and faculty representatives discussed how graduate students currently seek advice in their respective departments. Biological Sciences does not have a formally designated advocate for graduate students and, due to the upcoming change in department head, its administrative organization is in flux. There are two directors of graduate studies whom students could approach if they felt so inclined. Chemistry has the most formal graduate student advocacy system in place. Rea Freeland is the designated advocate (it is a duty of her special faculty position), and she sits on the graduate program committee. Mathematical Sciences has no procedure in place; students approach whomever they feel most comfortable talking to. Physics recently asked Rich Holman to serve as a graduate student ombudsperson, but he expressed uncertainty over what his responsibilities as such would be.

Based on information they received during the discussion, the faculty representatives agreed that the proposal calling for the development of a policy on departmental ombudspersons is sound. Their recommendations for a draft policy include the following:

1) The draft policy should include a clear description of the duties of the position. In the most general terms, the duties of the ombudsperson would be to answer non-academic questions not addressed in the graduate handbook and act as mediator when there is a grievance involving a graduate student.

2) The revised draft policy should clearly demonstrate the need for ombudspersons, as well as identify the role and desired qualities of the position.

3) The desired length of term should be considered and outlined in the policy. Probably the term should be for a duration of several years in order to facilitate the building of trust with faculty and students.

4) Support, in the form of training and informational resources, should be made available to the ombudspersons. Eric Grotzinger, Barbara Lazarus, Indira Nair, and Rea Freeland were identified as probable sources of consultation for training and resource development. Also the "calibrating expectations" project should be completed, and the results made available to ombudspersons as an advising resource.