PRESENT: H. Allen, Andrist, Barbato, Blake, Buckley, Crocker, DeGroot, Dieterich, Dunegan, Dural, Eyerdam, Falk, Flechtner, Govea, B. Green, Gross, Hartnagel, Hollinger, C. Jackson, Jeffres, Kamath, S. Kaufman, Keys, Konangi, Lindsey, Mahmud, Mastboom, McCahon, J. McIntyre, Meiksins, Misra, Moutafakis, Neuendorf, Nolan, Nuru-Holm, Olson, Orendi, D. Phillips, Spicer, Steckol, Steinglass, Tewari, Thornton, Vallos, Wadhwa, Walsh, Webb, Wheatley.ABSENT/EXCUSED: Bowen, Chung, Dillard-Mitchell, Doerder, Drake, Feko, Gorla, Hemann, M. Jackson, Konstantinos, MacCluskie, McLoughlin, Quigney, Sekayi, Sweet, Valencic, Van Ummersen, Waren, J. Wilson.
ALSO PRESENT: Larson.
Senate President Donna Burns Phillips called the meeting to order at 3:05 P.M. Dr. Phillips introduced and welcomed the new members of Senate as well as Joseph Nolan, the new Vice President of Human Resources Development and Labor Relations.
I. Approval of the Agenda
Acceptance of the Agenda for October 13, 1999 was moved by Professor Rodger Govea, seconded, and approved.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the September 15, 1999 Meeting
Acceptance of the Minutes of the September 15, 1999 Meeting was moved by Professor Govea and seconded. Professor Tayyab Mahmud requested an addition in the Minutes to record his comment that the Administration is reluctant to acknowledge the gravity of the PeopleSoft situation. The failure to acknowledge the seriousness of the problem may come back to haunt the University if the issue goes to litigation. The corrected Minutes were then approved.
III. University Curriculum Committee (Report No. 4, 1999-2000) Professor David Larson, Chair of the University Curriculum Committee, reported that at a Senate meeting last Spring, a Senate member brought forward a sketch of a Proposed Honors Program for the Senate to dispose of as it wished. The Senate referred the proposal to the University Curriculum Committee. The UCC met, examined the proposal, and discussed it, and determined that in its judgment, the proposal was too skeletal to act on. Some members of the UCC also believed that two few faculty had participated in the drawing up of the proposal for there to be a real sense of how much faculty support there was for any such proposal; others objected to its not having been drawn up by a faculty committee. The UCC was therefore unwilling to proceed with this proposal. The question then is whether or not a subcommittee should be appointed by the UCC to work out a fully detailed proposal for some kind of an honors program. Without definite Senate interest, the UCC is reluctant to commit hours of faculty time by setting up a Committee to write a proposal; thus the UCC decided to schedule a discussion on the idea of some kind of honors program -- not on the specifics of any particular proposal, but simply on the notion of whether some type of University-wide honors program is or is not a good idea in the minds of sufficient faculty to make it worth setting up a subcommittee to actually work out such a proposal. An expression of interest in the idea would not be a commitment on a future vote for a specific proposal. First, he asked to hear from those members who do think that the notion of an honors program is worth discussing. Then, he would like to hear from those who have serious reservations about it. Then, there would be a brief discussion. Professor Jane McIntyre asked if it is possible to have a two-stage structuring of the discussion at Senate this year, with a group asked to do a very limited initial investigation of honors program models. That would not be the huge commitment of developing the detailed proposal, and then possibly the Senate could have an informed discussion. Dr. Larson did not see any problem with having a preliminary discussion just on the notion of whether or not people support any kind of honors program and then setting up a committee of two people to look up specific kinds. He asked if there is a general awareness that an honors program can be anything from a whole college to a few courses. Professor Rodger Govea noted that he is not sure exactly how he would answer the question of favoring an honors program: he would say not to a separate college with a separate structure, but he would not necessarily commit to disapproving any such program. Professor Larson asked for a motion to set up a subcommittee of two people to investigate honors program models. Professor Sanda Kaufman noted that if someone actually will take it upon themselves to provide that sketch of models, she would also ask for some insight into the benefits and costs of running such a program. Professor McIntyre moved that prior to any discussion, there be some preliminary investigation of different models and some attempt at least to address the question of the benefits and the cost. Professor Leo Jeffres seconded the motion. Professor Larson added that the dangers and limitations of such a program should also be investigated. There being no further discussion, Dr. Phillips called for the vote. The motion to create a subcommittee to investigate the idea of an honors program was approved. Professor Peter Meiksins suggested that the call for volunteers might be extended beyond the limits of the Senate. Professor Larson noted that a general faculty memo could be prepared and distributed, but it seemed to him to be over-kill. If we just want two or three people to do an investigation, it seems that announcing in Senate and the UCC would suffice at this point. Then, before any actual honors program came forward, we could bring it out to the public as a whole. Dr. Phillips asked Professor Govea if he would be willing to join her as a subcommittee to do the investigation. Professor Govea agreed. Dr. Larson said that if any others wish to serve as part of the subcommittee, they should contact him.
IV. Benefits for Domestic Partners (Report No. 5, 1999-2000)
Dr. Phillips reported that the Ohio Faculty Council had decided among its members that the issue of benefits for domestic partners was one that they wanted to pursue. There is an unsuccessful history of such attempts in the State. It was the perception of the people on OFC that even though many people favored such a move, no institution was willing to move forward with it because of the possible political repercussions. It was the sense of the Council that if we did it as a group, we might actually move somewhere. For those universities that have unions, of course, this is a bargaining unit matter. She said that they are not in any way attempting, nor is she today, attempting to usurp that arena. However, if we believed the issue important, the various bargaining units could take it up with the administration. She wanted from the Senate today a sense of whether members believed the faculty supports the principle of benefits for domestic partners. The Ohio University Faculty Senate has passed a resolution asking the administration to allow bereavement benefits and family medical leave to care for an ill domestic partner. This has not yet gone to their Board of Trustees but apparently their administration is not going to block it. They are also a non-unionized university so the move would come directly from the Senate.
Dr. Phillips reported that she had received a letter from Dean Steinglass of the Law School saying that the Law faculty on this campus supports according at least bereavement and family medical leave and would eventually like to see certain other kinds of health benefits extended to domestic partners. Other kinds of domestic partner benefits include the use of university facilities, for example, as well as tuition remission. There are a variety of benefits that one can accord domestic partners that perhaps we would eventually like to include. She asked for the sense of Senate members to take back to the Ohio Faculty Council.
Professor McIntyre asked for the future, if it would be possible to have a resolution in writing to vote on. That is what it takes -- a resolution from this body. Since it was on the Agenda, why did members not get a specific resolution? Dr. Phillips responded that she hadn't considered asking for anything so formal as a resolution. She was just looking for the sense of the Senate on the Ohio Faculty Council's pursuing the possibilities for according benefits to domestic partners.
Professor Kimberly Neuendorf asked if, besides the obvious economic reasons, there are other reasons why administrations at universities are reluctant. Dr. Phillips replied that the cost of something as minimal as bereavement and family medical leave are very small. So far as she knows, the block at the administrative level is political. When Ohio State tried to offer such benefits, it was hit so hard with threats from the Legislature to withdraw funding that no other institution at this point is willing to put itself in that kind of political jeopardy. Thus it will need to be all or none in the Council's current view. When we get to the Legislature, the argument will be framed differently. The perception is that at the Legislature this will be framed as a moral issue. One cannot argue a moral issue on economic grounds. At this point, one possible tactic is to make the kinds of small moves on individual campuses that do not have to go to the Legislature and thus not attract too much notice.
Professor Diana Orendi reported that as a point of history at CSU, the CSU-AAUP had such proposals in the last two rounds of negotiations, but they were rejected by the Administration. The AAUP had tried to get that into the new contract. Dr. Govea added that the reasons cited were political problems; no one at the table had said, "No, this is an awful thing." What was said was, "This is a political mess."
Professor Barbara Green agreed that Dr. Phillips' tactic is exactly the one that should be taken: to begin with things that have no cost or no discernable cost and that open the door. Then we have precedent and can perhaps get other things included. This at least is at no cost and would be hard for anybody to say no to.
It was moved that the Ohio Faculty Council will pursue aspects of providing benefits to domestic partners. The motion was approved.
Professor Tayyab Mahmud reported that the Law School is supporting the College of Arts and Sciences and the Office of Minority Affairs in having a day-long conference on Saturday, October 23, 1999, revolving around the issues of alternate families. Admission is free for the CSU community. National Scholars, activists, and lawyers will be attending this conference. He distributed brochures.
V. Budget Payment Plan (Report No. 6, 1999-2000)
Vice President Christine Jackson gave a brief overview of the Budget Payment Plan including its background. She first acknowledged and thanked the faculty for pointing out to her and her staff areas in which they have not met our appropriate service objective. She has worked with many faculty to identify particular student concerns and to identify the particular issues. She said they are still not perfect, but are aiming for perfection and have made a great deal of progress over last year. She noted that critiques and suggestions today will also be very helpful.
Vice President Jackson noted that all of our programs coming through the Bursar's Office started under these premises. First, payment options have been provided to students. Obviously not all students walk in through the door with cash in their hand. Some have Visa and Discover Cards. We also offer financial aid. There are a wide variety of options for students to pay their fees at CSU. It is also critical, from the Bursar's perspective, that we balance the human needs versus the financial requirements. We are trying to balance those two kinds of issues. We believe that it is important to communicate available options. First, a Bursar's manual was mailed to all students this summer as part of our communication plan. We do monthly billings. Bursar's information can be picked up from the Worldwide web site. Also, a number of letters have been sent to students detailing particular blocks of issues, where we are in the process, and what concerns are being voiced. The Viking Kiosks have been a real asset. Students can go to the Kiosks, put in their CSU ID number, their PIN number, and gain information on the current status of their accounts. This has been helpful for students trying to discover if a payment was received, financial aid has been posted, etc. The last premise is that students must pay their bills.
Vice President Jackson reported that another issue is to clearly identify what a subsidy-eligible student is according to the Board of Regents. A subsidy eligible student is a person who pays his/her bill, is working with Financial Aid, or is a combination of both. We have students who work in Financial Aid for a portion of their bills and pay the balance. In addition, the student can owe no money for any previous terms or semesters. That is a change. We are spending a great deal of time trying to make sure that we are moving students along in their payment process so that by the end of the semester, they have paid their bills. Student fees plus subsidy is 95 percent of CSU's budget. So from one end of the continuum back to the multiple payment plan, this is a difficult situation to be in because 95 percent of our income that supports the budgets and programs of Cleveland State University are tied to student income. That is very high for a public institution.
Vice President Jackson reported on student payment options. Students can pay by cash or check, they can use Visa or Discover, they have Financial Aid, the Budget Payment Plan, or payment by third parties. Third parties are students who get paid by the State of Ohio. For example, the State of Ohio pays the tuition for the child of a deceased firefighter. We have a number of students going through programs sponsored by their employers. Some have grade requirements and some do not. We also have staff development, which is heavily used on campus, for faculty, staff, and children of employees.
Vice president Jackson reported that the Budget Payment Plan allows the student to pay his/her balance to CSU in four payments spread between August and November, which gets the bill paid by the end of the Semester. Approximately 25 percent (varying between 20 and 26 percent in an average Semester) join the Budget Payment Plan, making it a popular option. There is a fee of $22.50 per Semester to join the BPP. Ohio University charges a fee of $50 per term to join. As a term institution, students are paying $150 to join their version of the Budget Payment Plan. Shawnee charges $16 per term.
Professor Buckley referred to the schedule in a previous transparency and asked Vice President Jackson if that was for the entire year. Vice President Jackson replied that the August, September, October, November payment schedule is for Fall Semester. January, February, March, April is the payment schedule for Spring Semester.
Dr. Green asked what would happen if a student paid the first three payments and not the fourth payment. Vice President Jackson responded that when that happens, registration for the next semester will be put on hold. If a student joins the BPP, he/she is not withdrawn from classes or cancelled. The student is considered a legitimate student who is going to pay his/her bill. It is interesting to note that most students pay their Budget Payment Plan with a Visa card.
Vice President Jackson noted that a question was raised as to whether everybody pays to join the payment plan. She responded if the student is a non-financial aid student, the fee of $22.50 must be paid. Adjustments have been made. The earlier decision was that if the student had signed up for financial aid prior to school's starting, the Budget Payment Plan fee would be waived. However, we had many students who, when they got to school and received their first Bursar's bill, then started their financial aid process. CSU has not charged the BPP to those students. So, there was a change in the procedure. We planned it one way, but we changed our mind when we looked at the number of students who were coming in.
As of yesterday, of the 16,500 students on our campus, about 9,000 students have paid their bills in full; 4,500 students are in the Budget Payment Plan; 1,300 are awaiting financial aid; 1,500 have not paid or notified CSU how they wish to pay.
Dr. Allen asked if we know if the 1,500 students are here. Vice President Jackson responded that we do not.
Dr. McIntyre asked how students were told about the change in the policy for the BPP fee. Vice President Jackson responded that the students were informed in a memorandum that was mailed to students who are currently receiving bills from CSU. Of the 1,300 who are still in the financial aid process, it is important to note that many began the financial aid process late, after school started. They are not necessarily getting grant money, but have started the Federal loan process. So we are working with them, but we have no guarantee today that once the financial aid is awarded, it will pay off their fees 100 percent. Right now we consider them as financial aid recipients awaiting that process to be completed. That takes time. When she sat in the Bursar's Office during the first week of school to answer phones, a student called stating he had received a bill and asked how he was going to pay it. She told the student that he had options. She asked if the student had been to Financial Aid, and the student said, "No, I guess I better do that." So, if the financial aid process is started literally from scratch, with the filing of Federal financial aid forms, it will be a very lengthy process. In her conversation with Suzanne Carlson, she was told that it takes six to eight weeks to get through the Federal process before you ever land back at Cleveland State. So, currently we call these students pre-financial aid. These students will not be stopped from registration if their financial aid process takes a little longer, but those student are currently being monitored.
Vice President Jackson reported that we truly do not know if the 1,500 unpaid students are really here. We sent them a bill in August and we have sent them a bill that is due on Thursday, October 14, 1999. We will continue to refine this number, which has gone down about 200 in the last three days. Last week we sent out a "please pay your bill or we will have to cancel your classes" memo. Late last week we sent another memo asking if they had received the previous memo. Our goal is not to cancel students for the heck of it. We anticipate that the customer bill due date will be a very hectic day in the Bursar's Office, and we will get a couple hundred more students who will pay.
Professor Dieterich asked what will happen if the students do not pay tomorrow or have their financial aid. Vice President Jackson replied that if we still have students in the financial aid pipeline tomorrow, or who tell us tomorrow that they are going to begin the financial aid process, we will not cancel those students. They have made contact with the Bursar's Office.
Professor Dieterich inquired if at any point the students are told that they have extended their time. Vice President Jackson replied that the students were told in the letter that was sent out two weeks ago; they were told in the letter that went out late last week that would have arrived Tuesday, October 13; they were told in the memorandum that accompanied the billings that were sent out and due on Thursday, October 14. When we get down to Thursday, if the number is still too large, cancelling 1,500 students is a lot of students. We are going to regroup and figure out what is the problem with this group. In the past, we have divided up calling lists and have called students and asked, "Are you really attending class?" We have done a great deal of that kind of work. Our goal is to figure out if these students are here or not and why have they not paid.
Professor Meiksins reported that he had a graduate student in his office in response to one of the two mailings that Vice President Jackson had mentioned. She had delayed paying her Summer bill when she was an undergraduate student at CSU. She was admitted to the graduate program, got an assistantship so her bill for the Fall was paid, but she received one of the memos referred to saying that her classes for this semester may have been cancelled because of her non-payment of the Summer, although in the meantime she had made arrangements to pay for the Summer. When she called, she was told two different things. One person told her that yes, in fact, she had been deregistered. The second person told Professor Meiksins that the student had not been deregistered. When he checked into PeopleSoft, he found that the student was in fact still on the books. But this student may show up as one of the students who had not paid because she is a recipient of one of the memos even though she had paid.
Vice President Jackson reported that when we get down to our small group, we then contact Financial Aid and ask one more time if anybody knows anything about the students on the list. We also contact the Graduate Office. Graduate Assistantships are of particular concern because those students get paid their assistantship over a period of time. Some of those students use the money from the assistantships to pay their bills and some do not. We do contact the Graduate Office to determine if there are any assistantships on that listing as well that do not need to be in the cancellation stage. We also have a lot of ad hoc issues that we can put together as well to make sure that when we do a cancellation, we are as accurate as possible. Are we 100 percent accurate? No, we are not, but we are trying.
Professor Flechtner asked if Financial Aid was going to be closed tomorrow. Financial Aid is moving tomorrow, October 14 and 15, and will be closed. Dean Douglas Hartnagel reported that students can contact the office via the telephone. Everyone should have received a memo sent to the entire campus community listing a special telephone number to call for those two days. There will be a message on the special number when the Financial Aid office is called. When students apply for financial aid, they do not apply through the Financial Aid office. So, if they want to initiate financial aid today, they pick up the form, fill it out, and send it in for processing. They do not need to interact with the Financial Aid office today or tomorrow to apply for financial aid. The forms can be picked up at a number of places throughout the campus -- the Admissions Offices, in UC, etc. It is a generic form issued throughout the country. Vice President Jackson added that a student can also get that form on the Web and apply electronically.
Professor Meiksins stated that it might be wise to wait a couple of days on the decision-making process. Because if he were a student and thinking about initiating financial aid, he would go to the Financial Aid office. It just makes sense. There may be other options, but he would not know that. So, it sounds like a lot of students will do that.
Professor Larson stated that students do not know these things. He has four students who have forms that say they are registered. He reported that when he calls up his class roster, supposedly the most recent one on PeopleSoft, there are students not listed. What does one do about that? He sent the students to the Registrar because they are not on his roster. Dean Hartnagel confirmed that the Registrar's Office is the proper office to send these students. He noted that if Professor Larson gives him the names of the four students, he will follow up on it. He reported that nothing had been done to remove any students from the roster. Dr. Larson asked Dean Hartnagel if he knew why this has happened.
Vice President Jackson noted that if there are particular issues regarding students, her EMail is C.Jackson. She would need a name, a student ID number, and a brief description of the problem. It would also be helpful if she is given an EMail address for the student, or a phone number, or voice mail. She would be more than happy to look into what the particular problem is and try to address it.
Referring to the last slide Vice President Jackson showed, Professor Bhushan Wadhwa asked how this data compares with the pre-PeopleSoft days. Vice President Jackson responded that in the pre-PeopleSoft days, we had the same kinds of issues. We had students who do not pay. She would have answered the same question as she did earlier regarding how many students are here, and what is the next triage to bring this number down.
Professor Wadhwa asked how CSU compares with other universities in the State of Ohio. Vice President Jackson responded that CSU is much more lenient than other institutions. At Ohio State, for instance, you cannot pay with Visa or Discover cards. It is cash only. If you want to pay with your Visa, you go to your bank to get a cash advance from your Visa and bring the cash to the university. Many institutions are much closer to cash equals registration. We have bent over to one extreme and we have to try to find that balance. It is a continuing process to balance those human needs versus financial requirements.
Professor Wadhwa inquired about the ten percent of the students who have not paid at all. Vice President Jackson stated that ultimately, about 600 to 700 students will be cancelled.
Provost Allen reported that once the students get a notice they are being cancelled, a large percentage will come in very quickly to make arrangements to stay in their classes. The problem is that we do not do a roster process. Students apply to four to seven schools simultaneously, register in multiple institutions, and then literally do not show up. Without course rosters during the first week of classes, turning in mid-term grades, or doing things done at some other institutions in Ohio, we have no mechanism for determining who is physically in class. Hence the number that we are deregistering for lack of payment or any response to us is probably exacerbated by these multiple applicants.
Professor Kenneth Dunegan asked the percentage of the 4,500 students in the BPP program for whom the fees were waived. Vice President Jackson responded that she did not know the answer. Some of the students were non-financial aid students and they paid the fees. Professor Dunegan noted then that it was only the financial aid students who paid the BPP fee. Vice President Jackson replied that only the students with financial aid had their fees waived.
VI. Issuance of Accurate Transcripts (Report No. 7, 1999-2000)
Dean Douglas Hartnagel first followed up on Christine Jackson's presentation regarding financial aid. As of Monday, of the financial aid applications received back from the Federal Government, ninety-eight percent have been processed, and those students have been offered financial aid. However, some students are just starting the process; others may be dealing with verification issues. The Financial Aid office, the Registrar's Office, the Bursar's Office, and Collegiate Studies are all moving into University Center this week in different phases. We will have both for the Registrar's Office and Financial Aid, staff manning the 687-2100 number or our 800-CSU-OHIO number to be able to respond to general questions. If there is an emergency situation, that person can get the message to the appropriate staff person.
Dean Hartnagel reported that he was told to come to Senate today because there was a question dealing with accuracy of transcripts. Unfortunately, that is all he was told. He was not sure what the real issue is. Maybe he can just respond to the question.
Professor Mahmud stated that the issue is, and he checked again today as we speak, the Law School students are going through employment interviews and their transcripts are bad. They were issued bad transcripts for the Spring semester. When updating was done, it was bad. Likewise for Summer transcripts. The transcripts are still bad. So, the people of the Law School are correcting transcripts by hand, then putting a sticker on them saying that this is happening. To add credibility to this piece of paper, instead of letting the students send the transcripts to employers, the Law School is mailing them to employers. The concern is that this piece of paper, compared to other transcripts from other schools, does not look too good and will ruin the reputation of this institution and will harm any chance of our students' getting employment. This is the type of problem we are talking about.
Dean Hartnagel noted that when Professor Mahmud used the word "bad" what is not accurate? Professor Mahmud responded that the grades actually received by the student do not match up with what is on the transcript. Dean Hartnagel asked whether he was talking about a GPA or the actual grade. Dean Steven Steinglass responded that the actual grades are not the correct grades students received in the courses. There have been repeated runs and the grades still have not been corrected.
Professor Mahmud stated that it disturbs him that Dean Hartnagel does not know the problem because this issue was raised last month and specifically the Law School issue was brought up. He would have imagined that somebody would have taken the trouble to go and find out what the issue was instead of coming back to Senate on October 13th and asking us what the problem is. Dean Hartnagel responded that he was sorry because he was not told the specifics. He cannot deal with a problem unless he is told the specifics. He does know that the one issue he was made aware of regarding the Law School was the issue of those courses that go beyond one particular term. He assumed that is not the issue being addressed here. That is a system issue.
Professor Mahmud pointed out that the Minutes reflect that Dean Hartnagel was present at the September 15, 1999 meeting, so he would imagine that he would have heard the issue. Dean Hartnagel again stated that he was not aware of the problem.
A Senator asked who was supposed to tell him? A number of Senators stated that Dean Hartnagel was at the last meeting. Professor Mahmud asked Dean Hartnagel when he was told of the issue what did he think was going to be discussed. Dean Hartnagel replied that he tried to do his homework and the two issues his staff told him regarding the Law School was the one dealing with a course that goes over two terms and we have to issue a grade per term and the other issue dealing with the turn around time to generate the transcript. Those were the only two issues he was prepared to address specifically for the Law School. He also thought that it had to do with the Viking situation which has not been updated. Professor Mahmud stated that he could not imagine that there is any more serious a question at a University than transcripts being bad. Then, after a month, we would hear this kind of response. Dean Hartnagel stated that the only thing he can promise is that he will personally deliver a response to Professor Mahmud by tomorrow. He assumed that Jean knows the specific students.
Provost Allen stated that if there has been a problem with transcripts, we do not know whether it is sporadic or systematic, and he suggested Dean Hartnagel might want to sit down with the Registrar and with Peter Phillips to try to determine what the issues are, and any letter should be sent to all Senators, identifying the issue, the remedy, and the proposed time line.
Professor Barbara Green commented that in the past when faculty have been sent grade verification forms, we have been asked to check the grades that the Registrar has against the grades that faculty think they submitted and get back if there is an error. She reported that this Summer, faculty received a list of grades, but without information on whom to notify if there was a problem. In fact, in her class for example, there were students who had been left off. There was nobody to call and she had to finally contact Dean Hartnagel who had to reach somebody and they did check one person and went through his records. Yes, the grade was on his record correctly, but somehow it got left off. There is no way for faculty to check through all of the students if we do not have grade verification and some number to call if there is a discrepancy. Dean Hartnagel responded that based upon their conversation, an adjustment has been made within that office to deal with that in the future.
Professor Joyce Mastboom asked if there was also a question to be answered about what are faculty to do with a student in their office and how do they get help with financial problems, registration, Pell grants, etc. -- a student in one's office who wants help that instant. We will send them all to Dean Hartnagel. Vice President Jackson stated that if the issue is regarding payment of a student's account, the student should be sent to her. She also realizes that many problems are not necessarily just a payment issue. Payment, Financial Aid, Bursar -- we try to work with all of those offices and try to identify from where the answers have to come. Professor Mastboom reported that she had sent some things to Bill Shorrock who forwarded them to Douglas Hartnagel and Suzanne Carlson and she never heard anything. She followed up once and received no response. The student seems to have dropped out of her class at this point.
Dean Hartnagel stated that what they are asking is that if a student has a problem with financial aid or has an issue with financial aid, the Financial Aid Office is organized in a way that counselors are assigned to students. The student should contact that assigned counselor. Professor Mastboom remarked that faculty do not get an answer -- that is the problem. They do not get an answer from Financial Aid. Financial Aid says, "yes, we will call you within 48 hours." A week later, nothing has been received from them. That is why the students come to her. They hope she runs interference. She tries but does not get an answer so, okay, we go to the Senate and hope that maybe that has a little more impact. She asked what is she to do? She has already sent the stuff to Dean Hartnagel. Dean Hartnagel said that he has followed up on every student who has been sent his way. He said that if a student is forwarded to the appropriate counselor and is still dissatisfied, then the student needs to see the supervisor of that particular counselor. If the student is still dissatisfied, then the student needs to contact him and he will follow up on it. While he cannot solve a financial aid problem, he can address the issue dealing with service.
Dr. Phillips asked Dean Hartnagel if he has a routine system to get back to the person who has forwarded the complaints. Is it possible, for example, that he did something about those students but did not inform the person who had sent him the complaint? Dean Hartnagel responded that it is more than likely. His first goal is to satisfy the student. Dr. Phillips noted that it would be helpful to faculty to know that, in fact, he did act.
Professor Santosh Misra noted that he would like to bring closure in the sense that when Dean Hartnagel comes back in a month, we do not have a repeated discussion again on the same issue. So, when he comes back in a month, give a report saying X, Y, Z happened during the last month and the Law School faculty are satisfied with that. Dean Hartnagel responded that given this particular issue he will have a written communique out to all members of the Senate responding to that immediately. He added that members will not have to wait one month.
Dr. Phillips reported that the nine issues that came up at last month's Senate meeting have been forwarded to the appropriate people for response. The third issue had to do with a report on the Decanal Evaluation Process.
VII. Decanal Evaluation Process (Report No. 8, 1999-2000)
Provost Harold Allen stated that at the last meeting of the Senate a question had been raised at the very end of the meeting about the Decanal Review Process. He thought it would be helpful to outline the process contained in the "Green Book," which was last revised in November 1993. The current procedures call for an evaluation of all newly appointed deans at the end of their first three years of appointment. Evaluation forms are sent out to faculty and chairs of that college, soliciting information about a wide range of performance criteria. They also solicit comments. The evaluations that are returned to the Office of the Provost are then reviewed and summarized in the office and shared directly in a face-to-face meeting with the Dean who is undergoing review. Also contained in the "Green Book" language is a statement that the narrative shall not be included in any personnel file or permanent record; no part of the policy calls for any part of the evaluation to be made public. The Deans receive written comments and they have a verbal discussion with the Provost when they go through their reviews. If they so desire, they can certainly share those comments with others, but he does not believe, given the current policies, that it is appropriate for him to share the specific results, the confidential results, in any public way.
Provost Allen reported that on all of the reviews that have taken place while he has been Provost, he has received a substantial number of responses from both faculty and Chairs in the individual colleges; that was the case for those who were reviewed this last Spring. He stated that he would be happy to answer any questions.
Professor Govea asked Provost Allen for an estimate of the return rate. Provost Allen responded that it was a significant number.
Professor Wadhwa asked if there is anything in the rules that forbids the Provost from sharing an abstract of the Dean's evaluation with the faculty of the College. Provost Allen responded that they are not intended to become matters of a record, or permanent records, or materials that would go into a file. He would, of course, attend a meeting of the faculty of any College to talk about issues of importance to the faculty, but he would not get into details about the evaluation with the faculty of the College. He believed that would not be appropriate.
Professor Wadhwa asked a hypothetical question. If a Dean were to get an overwhelmingly negative evaluation and the Provost still decided that the Dean would continue, would the Provost share his reasons for retaining the Dean with the College faculty? Provost Allen responded that if he received a one hundred percent negative feedback, there would not really be a reason for a meeting with the faculty. He would have taken independent action on his own. Professor Wadhwa stated that the problem is that we do not have in the rules anything by which the faculty can express disapproval of the Dean and get reaction from the Provost. Provost Allen responded that the faculty have every opportunity to do that as part of the evaluation process. They do that in written comments and in the ratings that they provide for individuals who are undergoing review.
Professor Wadhwa raised his hypothetical question again. Provost Allen replied that there is nothing in the policy that would prevent him from doing that, but he does not envision that this would occur -- not with him anyhow. It might occur with somebody else.
Professor Wadhwa asked if the rules are fair. For example, the Dean has to serve with the College faculty. Provost Allen responded that it is important to have an appropriate base of support within the College from which to effect college business. He did not know what level is required and he did not know how it needs to be defined. Individual departments in large Colleges may be quite dissatisfied with the performance of administrators. And, in the same College in the same review, large numbers of faculty in the single departments indicate their pleasure with decision-making of and support from that individual Dean. He has seen the full range of responses.
Professor Wadhwa asked, hypothetically, if the Provost did not feel the need to share his reasons with the Faculty. Provost Allen replied that he is going to follow the existing policies. Something that cannot become part of a permanent record is not intended to be made public. He has always remained open and available to meet with faculty. In fact, in his first eighteen months at CSU, he met with all but four academic departments. At any invitation, he would certainly come back and meet with a faculty. It serves no purpose whatsoever for faculty to believe that they have issues of concern to which he is unresponsive, but he will not go into details that are intended to remain private.
Professor Surendra Tewari asked the Provost what percentage of a negative evaluation from the faculty would begin to bother him. Provost Allen replied that he could not give a number. It is not a cut and dried process. The ratings occur in a wide variety of performance criteria and also people have an opportunity to offer comments. His job, as he sees it, is to weigh whether or not there has been adequate progress and whether or not goals have been met. That does not mean that things are going to go smoothly in each and every area in which a Dean is evaluated. But, he cannot answer in numerical terms, certainly not easily.
Professor Tewari stated that if ninety percent of a faculty do not approve of a person and if the boss of that person still keeps him going, there will be a problem down the road. Provost Allen noted that he has never received a ninety percent disapproval rating upon which he did not act.
Professor Thomas Buckley inquired if administrators above Deans are evaluated. Provost Allen said yes -- annually or every other year. He knows of no administrator at any level who is not evaluated on a routine basis.
VIII. Report on Coordination of the Center for Teaching and Learning and the Center for Academic Technology Services (Report No. 9, 1999-2000)
A. Center for Teaching and Learning
Professor Robert Wheeler, the Director, gave a brief history on the University Center for Teaching and Learning. In response to a memo from the Provost, a discussion in Faculty Senate, and a subsequent clarifying memo, the University Center for Teaching and Learning now reports to the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs rather than to the Vice Provost for Information, Technology, and Academic Innovation. The change was made to place the Teaching Center under an academic unit rather than a technical non-academic unit. The new Center for Academic Technology Services or CATS reports to the Vice Provost for Information Technology and Academic Innovation.
Recent Developments. Basically, the two Centers are slowly evolving a relationship. The crux of the relationship and the difficulties of it have to do with budget and staffing and also this attempt to amalgamate some of the skills of the various areas and an attempt to keep some of those responsibilities separate. The pedagogical parts of the Center, presumably the ones that are not linked with technology, need to be separate and distinct and supported. It is fair to say that this is crucial within a university, but he can assert that they are amongst the underfunded portions of the University. Professor Wheeler reported that the Center itself has had a budget that has been stable since its inception in 1996. The new relationship with CATS presumably would add more responsibilities. He sees some small increase in resources. After the Faculty Senate discussion and a subsequent placing of the Center under Vice Provost William Shorrock, the Center in March of 1999 proposed a series of new and seemingly appropriate programs, including a new program of a ten-workshop series for new Faculty called Foundations of Teaching and Learning, an observer program for new faculty, a customized four-year teaching development program for all faculty, programs for training observers, mentors, and helping faculty evaluate teaching through peer review. A budget request went in that would presumably accommodate some of these changes. Budget information was not forthcoming over the Summer and it meant that planning for some of these new initiatives was unclear at that point. In late August, it was found that there would be some potential release time, but the people who could potentially have been involved, with one exception, were already committed at that point since it was the beginning of the semester. Recently, further discussions have taken place and very recently new resources, potentially relatively small, have been discussed. Frankly, it has been so recent, that the implications for Center programs are not clear, so he could not report that those things will happen.
Professor Wheeler reported that CATS has been staffed by a transfer of personnel from IS&T. The ratio between the staff members for CATS and for the UCTL is somewhere between 4.5 and 5 to one. He is half time, and he has a half time secretary. He has a one-semester release faculty person, Rosemary Sutton, who is the master teacher in residence for this year.
Professor Wheeler spoke to some unresolved issues that the Center itself can help. First, he would like the Center to insure that practicing teachers help teachers learn technology. Second, the Center needs to act as a conduit for faculty and their technology needs. He has been involved directly in a new server and the application of a new server to Web CT because of complaints by faculty of the slowness of the initial Web CT server. Third, keep up to date on pedagogical and technological trends; getting information to appropriate faculty members and training them is part of the responsibility of the academic side rather than of the technical side. In these three ways, the Center needs to be involved in technological initiatives with respect to pedagogy. None of the staff members from any of the two groups is an instructional designer, nor have any of the technical people in the CATS operation at this point been trained to teach teachers how to teach with technology. He stated that his ability to teach Web CT to 110 faculty over the last eight months is due to the fact that he has been in the Center for a very long time and that he was a practicing user of Web CT during the period he was trying to help people. So, that is expertise. Ideally, you would have some Web CT person as opposed to Bob Wheeler, but what you have is Bob Wheeler, and that was okay. He would have preferred to be a consultant to the Web CT person.
Professor John Walsh stated that he would like to hear Bob Wheeler's idea of how he would propose the structure if the current one is not to his liking. If Professor Wheeler could make the decisions, how would he like to see the overall issue of teaching excellence versus academic innovation and technologies? Professor Wheeler responded that he did not have a simple answer. He does believe that there are certain academic technology issues that are technical and that need people with expertise in that area. He believes that there is a cusp, maybe as much as one third. Given the present structure, he does not believe that the reporting is going to be other than parallel. He does not think that is relevant. He has proposed that there be a series of faculty pedagogical associates who would get release time to, in effect, mentor other faculty members with tech help from CATS staff. To his mind, that is the most appropriate resolution to a complicated separate kind of report structure. The bottom line, nationally, is that there is a big problem between technical support for teaching and support for teaching that is not technical, although, of course, that is ridiculous because teaching is still teaching even if it is technical. But, people make such distinctions, which he does not think have a legitimate meaning. Techniques by which you teach are important regardless of whether you put them on the Web or not. If they are bad, presumably they will just be bad electronically. Professor Wheeler stated that his sense is that we need to have people who are appropriately trained and focused on this goal. His difficulty is many of these are what we call in this business, early adopters -- people who are in the forefront, and what they want to be is in the forefront; with all due respect for the rest of us, maybe they do not want to sit down and hold our hands. They want to find out what the newest, hottest thing is. If you are like Joe DeMarco, you want to put sound in and you want to put all kinds of cool video clips in. You do not want to really tell a novice how to make a color. The point is, there are fairly unique individuals who can make this and they are in demand for all kinds of things in addition to their own intellectual interests. It is a very hard field to keep up in -- very difficult. All universities are tussling with this. The point is, nationally, resources are typically heavily weighted toward the tech side. His colleague, who used to head the Teaching Center at Ohio State, and he have had discussions about this for the last three or four years. Balance is not realistic, but some interaction from the faculty side is important. He thinks those pedagogical associates, whatever you want to call them, are the way to do it. It is hard to manage and it is hard to get the right people. If you get the wrong person, it is actually counterproductive.
Professor McIntyre focused on the resources at the moment. It is one half of Bob Wheeler's time, one half of a secretary's time, and a course buy-out for Rosemary Sutton. This is what the Center has now. Professor Wheeler replied that it has a budget that includes maintenance for its equipment, a copy machine, etc. The resources that were discussed with him within the last twenty-four hours had to do with some more release time. Those who are realists know that probably no one will be pulled out of class this semester. It will be difficult to do it next semester as well, given the fact that many of these people are committed to doing things. In any case, it is a long term planning question to get the right people to make sure you have sufficient lead time so that the academic departments can respond to these matters. When you can, it is feasible. We need faculty input even if we have an instructional designer. We need people who know our students and our applications as well as someone who theoretically understands the issue but may not understand that he can have a person whose only access to the Web CT is through the public library in East Cleveland. That is not something most instructional designers have to design for, but it is something he has to understand how to teach for.
Professor Misra asked Professor Wheeler if he sees this activity continuing as a centralized activity or does he see more confusion by building such centers in colleges. Professor Wheeler responded that his experience says that where there is need and where the functional use is not as good in a centralized location, it tends to be college-specific. His guess is, in some instances, the colleges will, and already have, take up some pieces of this. Generally colleges do not have the resources for, or choose not to put them in, people's keeping up with the pedagogy in general or maybe not even in the pedagogy in their own disciplinary umbrellas. We do become decentralized. That is not necessarily bad. The Center can provide some umbrella uses, and where needed, colleges choosing to put their resources in some of these areas, faculty can benefit from that.
Professor Misra stated that he asked because pedagogy requires the teaching part and having a technological structure to support it. Then the question is if we are responding and creating an infrastructure that is going to support it at the college level. Professor Wheeler responded that we have been, at best, remiss in our technical support for the various things we have brought on line; therefore, some colleges have chosen to have their own people or may end up having to do so. Ultimately, we should have at least some centralized advice and expertise, especially adopted software packages that are ubiquitous across campus because there will be solutions arrived at in one college that are easily translatable to another. But, specific applications within the College of Business or some other College would be more likely to be spread faster within those colleges, whether they are technical solutions or pedagogical insight.
Professor Rodger Govea commended what Professor Wheeler was talking about in terms of his approach. In universities just about anywhere, whether you are talking about this kind of technology or the acquisition of computers, almost any technological issue, what most institutions are very good at is acquiring new stuff, but what they are very bad at, in fact, is getting everybody to use it. Sometimes that does require a sort of low tech approach to find the people. This university still lags in terms of computer use. A lot of faculty still are not using computers. He said that he very much supports what Professor Wheeler is talking about, which is the notion that in order for technology to be useful, people have to understand and get into it, which may mean teaching people at a very elementary level.
Professor Wheeler noted that one of the things he found in teaching Web CT workshops was that he spent the first fifteen minutes explaining why he thought it should be done at all. Even though it may be obvious, it is not obvious to everyone. He found it useful to him and he found other people telling him that it was useful to them. So, what he tries to do is to say why people said that. He said, if you do not find any use for it, use the grade book. Then, as it evolves, if you find other things, use that or not, but the point is, do not assume that it is automatically wonderful and that it will solve all of your problems. It is hard to learn and it takes time.
Professor Green stated that Professor Wheeler has done a tremendous job with a large number of faculty who have received help not only in the technological approaches to teaching, but in non-technological approaches. There are large numbers of Promotion and Tenure candidates who have taken advantage of workshops and other things with him, and it is amazing that with one half release time, a one half time secretary, and with a one course release person he has been able to do as much as he has and be as responsive as he has been to the faculty. She felt that was commendable.
Dr. James Bradford, the Director of the Center for Academic Technology Services, reported that he and Professor Wheeler have spent a fair amount of time talking about a lot of these issues. He was not sure how far the Senate wanted him to go back and explain what CATS is or whether the Senate wanted to focus on the coordination issue. Certainly he agrees entirely with the things that Professor Wheeler said. There needs to be a much stronger emphasis on working with faculty and pedagogy. He also agrees that he has no clue what his budget is. He has never had a budget, so he does not even know what he might expect as a continuing budget. We are really just getting started. We finally got some people all in one place about two weeks ago and we are still trying to find things that were moved from other locations. He cannot give a lot of history, but they have begun. He is in the opposite corner of the second floor of the Library from where Professor Wheeler is, which is more convenient.
Dr. Bradford noted that his background is education. Another part of his background is providing service to faculty and the people that he has from the IS&T staff -- Lida Allen, Louise Boston, and Lana Conley who is in the outside office in IS&T and will be in his outside office and doing some Web designing -- who are very much faculty-oriented and he intends to keep that whole group very much faculty oriented. They had a first meeting this morning of what has been tentatively called the teaching and technology team or group, and the point of that is to try to be sure that we do not lose touch with the combination of technology and pedagogy. He agrees that technology cannot be separated from pedagogy. He does think that there are some people whom they need to have working on this problem, whoever they might be. One of those is some kind of instructional designer. As we get more of those kinds of people, we can sit down with everyone and work through a whole set of issues that we need to make technology an integral part of what we are doing. He felt that it was not necessary for him to say more because he should be responding to questions. Just looking at the notes he made about what Professor Wheeler said, the bottom line is that we need to approach this from a faculty point of view, looking at faculty problems, and applying both pedagogy and technology solutions or options.
Professor Meiksins mentioned the silence that he has heard in both presentations. Both presentations talked about what each unit can do to educate faculty about or help faculty with. What is missing is an inquiry into what faculty actually would like to see. His bet is that if faculty on this campus were asked what things they would like to see done that would benefit teaching the most, it would probably speak to things that neither of these two units has any control over. If the Sociology Department were asked, they would say that they would like physical spaces that are suited to the kinds of strategies that they use in the classroom -- not seminar rooms on the fourth floor of Main Classroom where the chairs are all facing a blackboard and where there is no seminar table. They would like to see classrooms with PCs in them, networked together, with net access -- of which there is one in the College of Arts and Sciences and perhaps a second coming on line shortly. In his department as well as most of the Social Sciences departments that teach things like quantitative methods on line to SPSS, to use SASS, to use all of these applications is very difficult in the absence of appropriate rooms. All of the things that these units are doing are beneficial and he has made use of Professor Wheeler's unit, and he has actually had some conversations with Dr. Bradford as well. That is all fine, but pedagogy and teaching goes well beyond the things that they are allowed to talk about and these things need to be addressed.
Dr. Bradford agreed with Professor Meiksins. It does take some resources and time to really get a good feel for the kinds of information that the faculty are feeding back to him now. Professor Wheeler gets a certain amount of this and he feeds it to him as well. The approach that he takes in his professional life is looking at what is really needed by whoever needs it and trying to meet those kinds of needs with whatever resources he can get. He has not really had a chance to do that because he does not have any resources. He noted that they have talked about it and in larger forums in terms of the activities that Arts and Sciences has for faculty development and how we can interface with that kind of activity.
Professor Wheeler reported that the UCTL three years ago surveyed faculty not only about technology but what other things they wanted about teaching and received a sixty percent response rate. He was also an ex officio member, and now a regular member, of the Committee on Academic Space and that has been one of the more impressive frustrations of his existence. We have tried to have some impact. He is sorry that Christine Jackson is not here. He is very sorry that Bob Criminger is not here -- he is on the Academic Space Committee as well. He ought to come at some point and we ought to talk to him. The bottom line is that the Main Classroom is being refurbished from the second floor up to the fourth and then the rest of the building has been funded. He has not been terribly impressed with the ability of the faculty members on that Committee to impress the architects who are actually implementing things to get stuff done that would acknowledge that within the last thirty years since the Main Classroom building was actually built, views of teaching, uses of classrooms, etc. are rather different. The Committee was told that the reason various classrooms had to be of various sizes -- and they blew out walls to accommodate this -- was because the Registrar said so, despite the fact that we argued that one hundred people in some of those rooms on the fourth floor even with the wall blown out and now the temperatures of 98 degrees really is not feasible. It is a long sad tale, but the crux of it is, we have had relatively little impact on this process. His fear is that Criminger or whoever it was proposed refurbishing these rooms based on lighting, rugs, fire alarms, and not on teaching so the budget is somewhat limited now. Well, we cannot do all of that now. We seem to be limited at the top and we are coming up with things which, while they affect creature comfort, do not accommodate classrooms in the modern sense. He has tried to be there because he thought that was an important part of the Center. He went to Tufts University and got their default requirements for classrooms. This is not new, but we do not have standards. He is hoping that the Committee will have standards for these classrooms in Main Classroom. He is afraid that the quickness with which we have to respond to the construction plans will prevent that from happening again and we have lost a chance.
Professor Buckley reported that he is also on the Committee on Academic Space. At the Committee's last meeting, somebody said that it is as if a hospital wanted to build operating rooms and they never asked the surgeons what they wanted to put in an operating room. It is not even Criminger. Criminger reports to somebody and does what he is told and there is just no way to really integrate the ideas of the faculty.
Dr. Bradford responded that he has had some discussion with Criminger. He agrees that if we can keep talking with him, we can influence him more. We had some discussions last year but this year we did not see the results of those discussions. He also gave some very detailed kinds of information.
Professor Buckley noted that the problem is that Dr. Bradford is trying to persuade Criminger. He ought to have the power to influence Criminger, not try to persuade him.
Provost Allen stated that he cannot speak to the configuration of the classrooms, although he believes that there are going to be classrooms where the faculty need some direct input in the process. Maybe the problem is one of timing, of doing a more periodic inventory of the quality and extent of our classrooms, and how well or how poorly they match up with student demand for individual sections, particularly at introductory levels. It was, in fact, the Registrar who said we have a surplus of classrooms in this particular size category for these time slots. When we got into the semester conversion process it got looked at very carefully. He does not know where the funds for the classroom renovation came from. He thought they were part of a larger renovation project funded by the Regents. But, in fact, student demand drove the size. The actual configuration is an issue for which we probably ought to utilize more effectively the Space Committee earlier in the discussions.
Provost Allen noted that he did not think the discussion should come across as a competition between the University Center for Teaching and Learning and the Center for Academic Technology Services. The agenda, in fact, is much more substantial than any single center of these types could possibly accommodate. Every single one of the Board of Regents institutions, perhaps excepting Shawnee, has been or is in the process of developing a Center for Academic Technology Services or its equivalent along with a Center for Teaching and Learning that has probably been in place for a long time. When he came here, he created the University Center for Teaching and Learning, having looked at a number of dossiers of upcoming faculty for promotion and tenure and felt that the institution needed to commit itself much more visibly to the whole issue of quality instruction for our students. He would hope that we would continue to find better and more effective ways for investing in new faculty and developing a mentoring system. It is also true that there are large numbers of resources external to this campus that could be sought to try to help us with some of these activities. He would encourage Bob Wheeler and Jim Bradford to work together and work separately where it is appropriate to go looking for some of these resources. When we created the University Center for Teaching and Learning back in January of 1996, it was a very clearly written expectation that external grants with which to support faculty development were to be solicited. The topic of both of these Centers is investment in the faculty. He added that he hopes we can develop a focus and a collaborative set of initiatives that will be responsive to faculty needs and move forward. We have to remember what is pushing the time table a little bit. One is to look for more effective ways in the classroom of helping students learn. Another is to enable CSU to be a player in the whole process of distance learning where it suits our mission. The Board of the Ohio Learning Network was put formally in place yesterday and will be approved by the Regents. He sits on that Board and has worked with that group for the last year-and-one-half on policies that would help guide it. His suspicion is that subsidy will find its way, perhaps through a new subsidy category, into distance learning initiatives. His hope is that Cleveland State University will find ways to make itself a significant part of that State-level initiative. He is going to push both of these Centers about as hard as he can to help the Faculty respond to the challenge and to the opportunity.
Professor Mastboom noted that Dr. Allen said that he pushes both Centers, but she got the distinct impression, certainly from Professor Wheeler, that he is not willing to fund it. Provost Allen stated that this is not about resources. At some level it probably is, but from where he sits, it is not. The funds that have gone into the Center for Academic Technology Services have been directly reallocated from IS&T because that is the direction in which IS&T needs to move. At some point, the technology infrastructure, although it will continue to evolve, will be viewed positively by many. What we do with the technology will improve the quality of what we do at this institution.
Professor Mastboom asked about Professor Wheeler's side. Provost Allen replied that Professor Wheeler has a director's stipend, he has release time, and he has a part-time secretary. All of the grant funds made available to the faculty and to the University Center for Teaching and Learning were provided by the President from presidential initiative funds, not from external sources. We still do not have the $924,000 that we anticipate from the Board of Regents' new Success Challenge, basically a subsidy line item. But even without those money's being in the bank, and it will be a while before the Regents release it to us, we decided to go ahead and put some money into the mentoring program that Professor Wheeler alluded to. We were not prepared to go ahead earlier, not knowing what our final budget would be. But even if we start with Spring semester and invest in the faculty through release time, that will help the faculty working with Professor Wheeler to develop a cadre of teaching mentors, which is important. There is also, in this next year's budget, the year in which we are actually in, $40,000 worth of Summer support and other support for the University Center for Teaching and Learning. Provost Allen said that without knowing more about what the Regents will finally give us, our eligibility for average students on the one hand versus our performance in the area of graduation rates on the other, he has been unwilling to go ahead and put that $40,000 of permanent money on the table. It is an issue of wanting to make it available as quickly as we can. Professor Wheeler has to work very hard, not just by himself, but with groups of faculty, to put together proposals soliciting external funds, because it was a clearly written and accepted understanding when the Center was created that this would occur. It now has to occur. At yesterday's Board meeting of the Ohio Learning Network, we went around the table and asked institutions to talk about their investments in faculty and technology. Many of them are hitting very hard on external foundation funding and various other kinds of private funds. We have to begin to focus on this so that we have more resources available.
Professor Wheeler responded that over the past four years, the Center has participated in sending in grant applications to seek outside and/or governmental funding for Center activities, some involving technology, most in fact, and some not.
Professor Larson commented that it is neither a new technological nor a new pedagogical innovation to discover that you need a seminar table in a seminar room rather than fixed chairs. Professor Wheeler noted that new seminar rooms have been built on the second, third, and fourth floors of Main Classroom. The seminar furniture did not arrive. It will be in place in those rooms for the next semester.
Dr. Bradford noted that there was not time to answer all of the questions. If there are other questions, he will answer them individually or he would be glad to come back.
Dr. Phillips reported that President Claire Van Ummersen was unable to be at today's meeting. She asked if Provost Allen had anything to report on her behalf. Provost Allen suggested that perhaps Dr. Phillips might want to report on the Regents' Vision Statement.
IX. Senate President's Report
Dr. Phillips handed out copies of what the Chancellor had distributed to the Ohio Faculty Council on Friday. The document was developed during a retreat for the Regents this summer. We will need time to study the Vision and the Mission, but she wanted to tell the Senate, and she quoted the Chancellor directly, "If it is not on the project list, it won't get done." Any kind of funding that we receive under any of those Challenges is going to have to be tied to something that is on this project list. We obviously cannot have a discussion of this today, but she would like everyone to take a careful look at it, because it is going to drive a lot of the monies that we can count on.
Dr. Phillips inquired if anyone knew anything about the Baldridge National Quality Program. She noted that the Chancellor is, "enamored of this program," which is essentially accountability criteria with points assigned to it. For example, student and stakeholder satisfaction and relationship enhancement gets forty points. He has also said that the Colleges of Education and Arts and Sciences must work to together to produce effective teachers and the process has to be able to be evaluated, which means even if he gets this into the Education Colleges, it is not going to stop there. He is going to use this, apparently, to train his staff and the State education staff.
Professor Larson asked how long the Chancellor is going to be in office. Dr. Phillips responded that she did not know.
Professor Tewari stated that it gives him the impression that this person is trying to respond to today's need. He just does not care what the future is going to be. That is the end of his whole mission. Dr. Phillips agreed with Professor Tewari's conclusion that the Chancellor is concerned with accountability today. She does not know that the Chancellor does not see a future, but it certainly is not the same future that she sees or that the four year group sees, which is one of the reasons why their relationship with him is far less effective at this point than is his relationship with the two year group, which is far more attuned to the sorts of things he is looking at.
Professor Mahmud interposed that he came to this meeting under the mistaken assumption that there would be something accomplished. At the last meeting serious questions were raised and ultimately we heard from the President and the Provost that some answers would be given today. It is very interesting that President Van Ummersen is not here today and Provost Allen has chosen not to say anything. Is he to assume that this is a valid question now? Dr. Phillips responded that Professor Mahmud is to assume that she isolated each of the questions from a word by word transcript of the last meeting. There were nine actual questions contained in the Minutes. She brought the questions to the Academic Steering Committee. The Committee decided who would be needed to answer what. Those who were available to answer questions today were invited here today. The others will be at the next Senate meeting.
Dr. Phillips returned to the subject of the Regents' plan. She does not know if any response given to the Chancellor will be effective in any way, but sometimes we at least get small changes made, such as we did in our faculty activity reporting instrument.
Provost Allen asked if there were any questions in the OFC discussion with the Chancellor about whether or not this would impact subsidy. Referring to the Regents Goals, "II. Increase the percent of Ohio residents who participate successfully in post-secondary education within the next three years", Dr. Phillips reported that she had asked the Chancellor directly if that word choice "participate" was deliberate, because it seemed to indicate a change in the previous direction of making performance funding based on graduation rates. The Chancellor said yes, that it had been chosen deliberately because it would appear that our fastest growing market is one-year certificates. So now it has suddenly occurred to the Board of Regents that one ought to be doing 82 one-year certificates. While that part is bad, at least it might move them away from the notion that the only criterion for success is that somebody graduates in four or four and one half years.
Professor Larson noted that essentially Dr. Phillips was saying that the Chancellor of Higher Education does not really believe in higher education and is not educable on the subject.
Professor Misra stated that if he is going to come here to hear speeches and give speeches, he can better use his time somewhere else. Here is the Agenda. In a sense, we want a resolution of the questions one at a time. He said that if he were to come back regarding the same topic and the key persons are not going to be present to respond, it is a total disrespect for him and this body and a total waste of his time. We saw an example today where an officer of the University comes unprepared to respond to a question. Dr. Phillips responded that Professor Misra was being somewhat unfair. We got as much response to as many of the questions today as possible. We cannot even keep Senators here for two hours. None of us can control what the response is. Now, on Dean Hartnagel's behalf, she does have to say that when she forwarded these questions to everyone, she did not specify the Law School on the question about transcripts.
Professor Misra apologized. What he is trying to say is that we had a lengthy discussion at the last meeting about PeopleSoft. He understands that Dr. Gage could not be present. Dr. Phillips noted that Dr. Gage will be at Senate next month. Professor Misra remarked that Dr. Gage is not the only one in the Department. Dr. Phillips said that it does not work very well that way. If we bring someone else in, that someone then says, "I don't know, you have to ask Dr. Gage." Professor Misra was trying to argue that this is an institution. An institution does not run because X, Y, Z person is there. An institution runs because there is a system. So, if Dr. Gage is unable to attend the meeting, someone else should be able to come in and answer. Dr. Phillips replied that she does understand Professor Misra's point. There is little she can do to control it, however.
Dr. Louis Barbato stated that for the record, Dr. Phillips should say that none of those questions was directed to President Van Ummersen.
Professor Larson pointed out that this has nothing to do with higher ups, but that if someone were doing research on a question and did not know what it means, he would think that the first step to take would be to call the person who sent you the question and ask, as opposed to appearing before the Senate and saying, "Oh, gee, I did not know what it meant, but I did research in my own office." Professor Larson said that he was sorry, but that is not an acceptable response. Dr. Green added, especially from somebody who was present at the previous meeting.
Dr. Phillips noted that we certainly seem to have a larger problem in terms of whose responsibility, for example, it is to take back items from the Senate. She always thought that the Deans were at the Senate meetings so that they could take back to the faculties that which happened here. Apparently, that is not so and they do not feel responsibility for doing that.
Professor Wadhwa stated that nothing got done today. We heard a beautiful presentation by Vice President Christine Jackson who said that the problem with financial aid was solved. She said that two percent of the people have an answer to their financial aid problems. But, we are talking about 1,300 students. Two percent versus 90 percent.
Provost Allen noted that Professor Wadhwa seemed to have gotten two things mixed up. The ninety-eight percent of the students who have met the criterion applied for financial aid, completed an application before the beginning of classes, and by August 20, had been notified by the guarantee agency that they were eligible for the funds. Ninety-eight percent of that. We picked up 964 students in a two week period immediately before classes, some of whom are still deciding if they want to apply for financial aid. Professor Wadhwa stated that we need to get some of these problems solved, not just get answers to the questions. Professor Wadhwa reported that he had a student who was about to be thrown out of his job because his aid was not done properly. That is on his conscience.
Dr. Green noted that Vice President Chris Jackson did tell us what she was going to do. She was going to get on the phone and call these people. Something is actually going to be done. She gave us a clear report. When we got Dean Hartnagel in, he spoke about one student who messed up. We are talking here about a large percentage of students and asked Dean Hartnagel what he was going to do. We have a Law School where students are having problems. We have other things that do not get on to the transcript. Dean Hartnagel responded that he did not know why he was asked to be here; "I don't know what the questions are. I had a student who messed up." That is not responsive.
Professor Misra stated that in an institution you will always have one or two cases which are bad; that will always be there. How do we go about solving these problems? He noted that Dr. Phillips is a powerful person who can find the Provost and take care of these problems. The Provost was sitting here during all this so that this can be handled in the future. It is not such a big problem that it cannot be taken care of.
Dr. Phillips announced that the CSU Bookstore is hosting the second annual faculty appreciation day on Thursday, October 28 from 11:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:15 P.M.
Pamela J. Eyerdam