Cleveland State University

Faculty Senate

MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE FACULTY SENATE
December 8, 1999

Topics:

PRESENT: H. Allen, Andrist, Barbato, Blake, Bowen, Buckley, Crocker, DeGroot, Dillard-Mitchell, Doerder, Drake, Dunegan, Dural, Eyerdam, Falk, Flechtner, Govea, B. Green, Gross, Hollinger, Holmes, C. Jackson, M. Jackson, Jeffres, Kamath, S. Kaufman, Konangi, MacCluskie, Mahmud, Mastboom, McCahon, J. McIntyre, Misra, Moutafakis, Neuendorf, Nolan, Nuru-Holm, Olson, D. Phillips, Quigney, Sekayi, Spicer, Steckol, Tewari, Thornton, Vallos, Van Ummersen, Wadhwa, Walsh, Webb, Wheatley, J. Wilson.

ABSENT/EXCUSED: Chung, Dieterich, Feko, Gorla, Hartnagel, Hemann, Keys, Konstantinos, Lindsey, McLoughlin, Meiksins, Orendi, Rini, Steinglass, Sweet, Valencic, Waren.

ALSO PRESENT: Jain, Larson.

Senate President Donna Phillips informed the Senate that Mr. Ronald Rutti, a reporter from The Plain Dealer, was present today. The Bylaws of the Senate say that someone who is not a member of the CSU community may attend the Senate meeting with the permission of the Senate. She asked for a motion to allow Mr. Rutti to be present. It was moved, seconded, and approved to allow Mr. Rutti to be present.

I. Approval of the Agenda

Dr. Phillips informed the Senate that two changes needed to be made to the Agenda. Professor Jain, Chair of the Admissions and Standards Committee, has asked if his items under IV. could follow the President because it is he who is running the Silent Auction at President Van Ummersen's holiday gathering. In addition, Professor Larson, Chair of the University Curriculum Committee, has asked that Item VI. C. be removed because OBOR has failed as yet to give us a vital piece of information. Acceptance of the Agenda for December 8, 1999, as amended, was then moved, seconded, and approved.

[Go to top of page]

II. Approval of the Minutes of the November 10, 1999 Meeting

Acceptance of the Minutes of the November 10, 1999 meeting was moved and seconded. Dr. Phillips reported that several errors had been noted in the Minutes and will be corrected. Several other corrections were reported by Senators. The corrected Minutes were then approved.

In the absence of the President, who is on her way, Dr. Phillips asked Professor Jain if he would start first.

[Go to top of page]

III. Admissions and Standards Committee

A. Proposed English Language Proficiency Policy for International Applicants (Report No. 15, 1999-2000)

Professor Chet Jain, Chair of the Admissions and Standards Committee, reported that the English Proficiency tests are being expanded to meet the English Language requirement of foreign applicants by adding three additional options by which the perspective applicants can meet the requirements. He moved acceptance of the proposal.

Professor Sanda Kaufman observed that since these are alternatives, any student can use any one of them. Professor Jain responded that she was correct. These are quite popular around the country. They are just additional options for students to use.

Professor Jane McIntyre hoped that the Admissions and Standards Committee had consulted the people responsible for teaching English for non-native speakers on the campus in preparing recommendations about the grades, etc. Dr. Jain responded that they were consulted. This item came from a whole year's worth of work.

There being no further discussion, the proposed English Language Proficiency Policy for International Applicants was approved.

B. Proposed Revised Late Registration/Add/Drop/Withdrawal Policy (Report No. 16, 1999-2000)

Professor Jain reported that the Admissions and Standards Committee is reinstating the original policy that was in existence for many years on campus. Last year, the Committee had made a small change and the current policy added another layer when a student wanted to drop a course after the tenth week. After the Colleges had done their work, it had to go to the University Petitions Committee. This change created a nightmare for the Registrar's Office. The Committee is now asking to remove that additional layer of the University Petitions Committee. Once the College Petitions Committee has made its recommendation, that will be final. The Committee is basically rescinding the policy that has been in existence for about one year. Dr. Phillips added that the new policy also created a nightmare for the University Petitions Committee and for the students who had petitions. The original intent of the revision was to make things faster but, in fact, it just slowed the process down.

Professor William Bowen stated that this just did not make sense. Why would an extra layer of bureaucracy be added to make the process faster. There must have been some other rationale. Before changing it, the Senate ought to know what that rationale was. Dr. Phillips noted that Doug Hartnagel was called away for an emergency and could not be here today to respond. She asked if anyone else from the Registrar's Office was present or if anyone else remembers the discussion when the policy was passed last year.

Professor Barbara Green responded that part of it had to do with adding courses. The Registrar was the administer of putting students in classes after the first two weeks without consulting the instructors and faculty were complaining that students were arriving in their classes late in the term. So, the burden was put on the faculty member to catch them up on three weeks of work.

Professor Jain noted in retrospect that it did not make any sense for the new policy last year.

Dr. Green wanted to know if this policy would mean that a student who did not drop his course by the deadline but waited and found out towards the end of the term that he was going to be doing badly, could then find an Assistant Dean who would allow him to drop the course without approvals. Dr. Jain responded that if the College policy allows that, he would say yes, but most Colleges have a Petitions Committee that reviews it and makes the final decision.

Dr. Green observed that the policy doesn't say that a College Petitions Committee has to be involved. Dr. Jain stressed that the Admissions and Standards Committee is saying that the current policy in each individual College will be in effect without having to go beyond the College.

Professor Joyce Mastboom noted that the policy doesn't say all of these procedures are being followed in the individual Colleges. Dr. Jain responded that this was the intent. That can be added if the Senate wishes. Dr. Phillips suggested changing the wording to: "...dropping courses must follow the College Petitions procedures in order..." Dr. Jain said that was the Committee's intent.

Professor Bowen remarked that one implication from the students' point of view is, if they are able to drop a class at some point in one College, they are likely to think that the same policy will apply in another College. If they are taking classes across Colleges, they might get confused. He asked if there was some way to preempt that confusion. Somehow we need to let the students know what we are doing so that they don't think it is uniform across Colleges. Dr. Phillips said that she would notify the various student organization publications, etc. and make sure that the Registrar's Office is notified about this change.

Dr. Jain stated that whenever a student wants to drop a course, the student is told that permission is needed from the College in which the course is offered. The student must get a signature from somewhere -- whether it is the Instructor, or the Department Secretary, or the Department Chair.

Professor Mastboom asked if this was a friendly amendment. Dr. Jain replied that Professor Bowen's suggestion has been noted as a friendly amendment.

Dr. Phillips stated that the amendment would read: "...dropping courses must follow the established College petitions procedure in order to process registration..."

Dr. Glending Olson asked if this is the procedure of the College in which the course is offered or is it the procedure of the College in which the student is enrolled. Dr. Phillips replied that it would have to be the College in which the course is being offered. Dr. Olson observed that the grammar of the sentence currently says: "Students... must get approval of the Dean (or designee) of their College..." Dr. Phillips noted that this part of the sentence is being removed. Dr. Phillips then read the amended statement: "Students who miss the deadlines for registration or adding or dropping courses must follow the established petitions procedure of the College in which the course is being taken in order to process registration or changes to registration." Dr. Jain accepted Dr. Phillips statement as a friendly amendment.

Professor Thomas Buckley noted that maybe some College doesn't have a petitions procedure. He suggested deleting the word "petitions" and just using the word "procedure."

Dr. Green expressed fear that the Dean in any College will assign this to an Assistant Dean who will, on his or her own, allow students to enroll or drop courses past the deadline without going through any kind of faculty procedures. This may have serious implications for the integrity of courses and what the faculty are trying to do. Dr. Phillips asked if there isn't an established procedure that says, "In order to add the course beyond the published deadline..." Dr. Green replied that this is last year's procedure which is what we are now rescinding. Dr. Phillips noted that we are just rescinding the University Petitions Committee level of it. Dr. Jain stated that it doesn't have to go beyond the College. We are assuming that the College does have the procedure. Dr. Phillips stated that originally students could be added into classes for the first two weeks of a semester. She thought that it was Professor Meiksins who had asked whether, after a certain period of time, they could do it with only the Instructor's signature. Professor Larson stated that we are rescinding that part. Dr. Jain noted that the intent of the proposal is to rescind any procedure beyond the College level.

Professor Mastboom observed that maybe this is the intent, but the proposal doesn't state that clearly. It seems to offer other things as well maybe because we are only partially rescinding.

Professor David Larson suggested that the proposal be sent back to the Admissions and Standards Committee for revision. The Senate agreed.

Professor Michael Spicer suggested that it would be useful to have a sentence in the policy indicating that the petitions should have to be approved by the Instructor of the course. Dr. Phillips explained that we need to look up the language of record.

C. Reaffirmation of "Change of Grade Policy" for all Grades Except I (Report No. 17, 1999-2000)

Dr. Jain reported that all the Admissions and Standards Committee is asking is that the Senate reaffirm the University's current "Change of Grade Policy." All change of grades must be initiated by the faculty. There have been cases where certain grade changes have been processed without being initiated by the faculty. The Committee wants to go on record that this policy remains the University policy, the Senate endorses the policy, and everybody involved follows that policy.

Dean Harry Andrist asked if the policy was strictly for undergraduate grade changes. Dr. Jain replied that the policy covers all change of grade procedures. Dr. Andrist noted that the policy should also list the grade of "NS" as well. Dr. Jain agreed.

Professor Bowen asked if there isn't some grade change that occurs through petitions. If it is done through the Petitions Committee that would work. Dr. Jain replied that Professor Bowen was correct. A student can petition for anything.

Dr. Green commented that the grade change appeal is the process where the student is appealing the grade that the faculty member has given. It then goes to the appropriate committee within the College for review and then to the Admissions and Standards Committee. This is stated as a process. Either a faculty member initiates it and it is signed off by the Dean on the "Change of Grade" form, or, if there cannot be an agreement, then it has to go through the grade change process which has been approved by the Senate in the past.

Professor Bowen inquired as to what is being excluded by this process. Dr. Green replied that a change of grade by the Dean or a designated Dean without consultation or approval of the faculty member is being excluded. Dr. Jain reported that complaints have been received to that effect.

Professor Kimberly Neuendorf noted that the intent of introducing the "Change of Grade Policy" is to enter it into the record of the Senate. She asked if there was any other action the Admissions and Standards Committee had considered pertaining to the "Change of Grade Policy." Dr. Jain replied that the Committee did not consider it, but it would be appropriate if the "Change of Grade Policy" is sent out to every faculty or to the Dean's Offices. In fact, he will do that.

Dr. Green moved that the Senate reaffirm the "Change of Grade Policy." Professor Rodger Govea seconded the motion and it was approved.

D. Proposed Academic Calendar, Intersession 2000 (Report No. 18, 1999-2000)

Dr. Jain reported that the last item from the Admissions and Standards Committee is the proposed Intersession Calendar after it has already been published. The time was rather short and it had to be advertised. The Committee is now asking for the Senate's approval. If somebody has a course for only one week duration and eight hours on a Saturday, they can get the entire benefit of the course.

On that same point, Professor McIntyre asked if something is being done now to initiate planning for both the calendar and the curriculum side for next year -- planning for everything, not just the calendar, but also the programming which came very late this year. It would be much better if something could get under way in advance. Dr. Jain agreed with Dr. McIntyre.

There being no further discussion, Dr. Phillips called for the vote. The Proposed Academic Calendar, Intersession 2000 was approved.

At this point, Dr. Jain reminded everyone of the Uniting to Share Campaign. There will be a Silent Auction today. Dr. Jain reminded those who have not yet made their pledge, to please do so and to encourage others to do so as well.


IV. University President's Report

President Claire Van Ummersen apologized to the Senate for being late today. She was on a conference call. The President reported that she had three things to talk about today.

First, the Graduate Funding Commission had its first meeting several weeks ago. President Van Ummersen said that to some extent, it was an organizational meeting to organize things that the Commission would be handling. Probably the beginning issue they will deal with is the investment component of the Doctoral subsidy. The change in the way Doctoral subsidy would be dealt with was voted by the Regents last year and that became a part of the subsidy allocation. Eighty-five percent of the subsidy in the Doctoral area would be allocated according to enrollments in the Doctoral programs. The other fifteen percent would be invested in two ways. Ten percent of it would be left at the campus as an incentive to focus in on one or two of the campus programs for major improvement and those dollars would likely be moved over time into one or more of the programs. The five percent piece would be collected into a State-wide pool and that money would then be invested or steered to State needs. Those State needs will probably come out of the Technology Action Board that is working now in the State. Glenn Brown has been appointed as its chair and there will be, in the fairly near future, a number of areas that will be identified for enhancement. Campuses that have programs in those areas will be able to access the dollars and they will be accessed for a number of possible uses within the programs. We have yet to know whether we have programs in those areas or not.

President Van Ummersen reported that one other thing that was shared with the Funding Commission was the fact that they have changed some of the graduate categories of funding. The Computer Science areas have all be moved up from the first level of subsidy to the second level of subsidy in both the Masters and Doctoral level so we will likely gain a little bit more for those programs than we have been given in subsidy in the past. The subsidy, as a whole across the State, is now capped at 10.75 percent of the total subsidy. That number is to go down over the next couple of years to 10.5 percent. The President reported that there was a discussion about how we would get there and the question she raised, but does not yet have an answer to, is that with all of the money that was put into the community colleges in the Access budget and in the Jobs Challenge budget whether, in fact, we had already achieved the goal that had been set for three years hence. So, we will have some information on that, but that is something we have to watch carefully. The intention seems to be to put more and more money into the two-year schools at the expense of the graduate programs at the very time when this Technology Action Board and a number of the business people in the State are saying that one of the things we need to do is to understand that higher education is really the engine of economic development. These two things are working in opposite directions of one another.

President Van Ummersen reported that the second area the Funding Commission will be looking into is the whole area of the subsidy for Masters level programming. This is a very important area for us because this is where most of our graduate programs are lodged. We do not, as yet, have any proposals. We did ask that the Regents look at the way other states deal with these issues so that we not deal with them in a vacuum. There really is an underlying current that says the Regents or their staff at least would like to change the way the funding for Masters level programming is actually done in the State, but we have not had any proposals about what it might look like. That is clearly on the agenda and will be for the next several meetings. The next meeting will be in January 2000. She indicated that she will continue to report on the activities of the Commission to the Senate.

President Van Ummersen reported some good news in the area of the Capital Budget for the next biennium. The Governor's Chief of Staff indicated last week that the higher education total would remain the same as it was in the last biennium and that has now been confirmed by the Regents staff. That means that the formula allocation for Cleveland State will remain the same as it was in the last biennium. That is good news for us because, as you will recall, a good portion of it will go to fund the last piece of the Urban College building and it also means that the projects we proposed to the Board for funding in the biennium will actually have the dollars to see them to completion. A number of those projects concern renovations on the campus in some of the main classroom buildings.

Lastly, President Van Ummersen reminded everyone of the holiday reception this afternoon in Mather Mansion that will begin about 4:00 P.M. The Senate has a pretty heavy Agenda today so things will be kept open until 6:00 P.M. in the hope that Senate will finish the Agenda and members will join everyone. As Chet Jain has noted, the Silent Auction will be going on. It may be held a little longer so that people will have a chance to be a part of it.

Professor Tayyab Mahmud stated that at the last Senate meeting he raised a question of conflict of interest between the University and the President and Provost. The President had responded that we should wait for the Inspector General's report and hoped that she would agree with it. He asked the President if she was privy to that report. President Van Ummersen responded that she has not seen a copy of the report. It should be coming very soon. The report was promised in December and she believes that the Inspector General will provide it to us. She will certainly make it public.

Professor Mahmud said that he hated to pursue the issue of conflict of interest of the President. The question of conflict of interest is that the decision maker should recuse herself before the PeopleSoft issue is resolved. So, the idea that something is being discussed and we should wait for the Inspector General's report doesn't really address that question. Contrary to what President Van Ummersen had reported at the last Senate meeting, publicly now, the Board of Trustees has raised the possibility of litigation against PeopleSoft. He wondered if the possibility of suing the consultant has also been raised because his understanding is that it was the consultants who pushed the idea of implementing the Peoplesoft system. President Van Ummersen responded that litigation was considered in the past by the Board. At that point, the Board took no action. All of those are open questions.

Lastly, Professor Mahmud observed that since the President has met with the students, it now appears that the administration finally has acknowledged that there is a problem with PeopleSoft. Then there is the speculation of the President's departure. Irrespective of that, he asked if there is any inclination to otherwise clear the ranks of people who may have helped create this problem and certainly the people who advised the administration to deny this problem for so long. First, President Van Ummersen responded that, as far as she knows, she is not planning to leave Cleveland State. Secondly, we are obviously looking at all angles. This is probably not the place to discuss this particular kind of issue, but the answer is that there are a lot of issues under consideration now.

Professor Santosh Misra raised the issue of looking at the documents because people have seen only The Plain Dealer's side of the PeopleSoft issue. President Van Ummersen stated that she is in total agreement with Professor Misra and she will ask Ms. Nancy Cribbs, our Legal Counsel, who has all of those documents together, to make them available in her office for anybody who wants to see them. They are in existence, they are public documents, and anybody who wishes to see them has access to them.

Professor James Wilson noted that there was quite a bit of discussion at the last two Senate meetings about the possibility of providing an independent ombudsperson for Financial Aid. President Van Ummersen replied that a person in Financial Aid has been identified with a special phone number that faculty can call directly if they have an issue or a problem. She noted that a sheet was included in the Senate packets identifying the counsellors and the letter of the last name of the individual that goes to a particular counsellor. You are able then, to tell a student whose name begins with "C" that he/she should see counsellor X, etc. We will continue to try to give faculty up-to-date information. A process is also being put in place for communication with the students. One of the things the forum highlighted for us is just how little information some of our students have about financial aid. That says we need to do a much better job at providing that information. Information will be placed on E-mail, it will be mailed out with bills, and it will appear in student publications. The students are also looking at other ways that information can be made available -- posters, etc. We are even thinking about doing a sort of MTV video that worked very well for Semester Conversion; it is the sort of thing that catches students' eyes as they walk through our various buildings. We are going to try to manage that as soon as possible. A number of things are being done in Financial Aid to provide full-time people instead of students at the desk and on the telephone. It is hoped that over the next several weeks, people will begin to get better responses from both people answering the telephones and from the individuals that staff the desks.

Professor Mastboom questioned a report on page 2 of On Campus that just came out on December 6, 1999. It states that approximately $1.7 Million in tuition and other accounts was written off as an uncollectible debt. She thought that this was not collected but not written off either. President Van Ummersen replied that it has not been written off but it had to be moved into the bad debt column and CSU is in the process of trying to collect it. That was just the way it had been reported.

Coming back to PeopleSoft, Professor Misra commented that the initial budget was $3.5 Million and from that we have now spent $12.5 Million. Since we spent an extra $9 Million, is there any intention of the University to find that the same process of decision-making is [tape unintelligible.] If people made 300% extra, President Van Ummersen would not tolerate that with any Dean or Chair. President Van Ummersen replied that Professor Misra was a little low on the first estimate and a little high on the last estimate, but it is within the ballpark. The project had a number of issues that had to be resolved. When we went into the project, we were told by IBM that their equipment would run the PeopleSoft software but we were not able to do that because PeopleSoft changed its architecture from the time we actually purchased the software until it was implemented. That added to the cost. We needed a lot more help. A lot of the apparent cost in the area of consulting resulted from the fact that we lost a number of staff from the IS&T operation and were not able to replace that staff. We still have that problem. We are down about twelve or thirteen positions in IS&T and we are not having success in being able to recruit people. When you hire temporary staff, you end up having to pay them more in this area than you would if you hired a full-time person because they are in tremendous demand. This is an ongoing problem for us and will remain until we can get those positions filled. These are very hard people to find particularly with everyone dealing with Y2K but we are constantly out on the market. Our new people leave and we have to replace them and we end up spending more than we intended to in those areas. That is not a PeopleSoft issue; that is a Cleveland State issue.

Professor Mahmud commented on the damage caused by the PeopleSoft debacle in public relations and the integrity and reputation of the University in the community and in the State. He asked if the administration has plans to do anything about that. President Van Ummersen responded that CSU is working on a marketing plan which has been shared with the Board. We will continue to market the positive aspects of this University in print, we will continue to do it on the radio, and certainly on television. We are also looking at the kinds of things that faculty are doing. In our last campaign, we focused very heavily on faculty as teachers at Cleveland State. We know, from the market research we have done, that this is something everybody wants to know about. People want to know about the quality of the programs and they want to know about the quality of the teaching. But, we also have faculty who are doing incredible things in the research areas and in the service areas and we also want to begin to focus on those. So, we do have a plan for continuing to market the University.

Senate President Phillips introduced Vice President Joseph Nolan and stated that he is heading the "Just Fix It" team which probably expresses our sentiment. He is at Senate today to give an update on plans for just fixing it.

[Go to top of page]

V. Update on PeopleSoft (Report No. 19, 1999-2000)

Vice President Joseph Nolan apologized for being late. He reported that he has been in intense, ten hours at a time, negotiations with District 9 to 5, with both sides desiring to achieve a contract at the earliest possible moment. He is meeting every day, all day, through the rest of this week and Saturday and then for three days next week. Both sides are working hard and are committed to a positive outcome in that arena. They were just working on the job classification article which everyone knows at least as much about as he does or even more, but it is certainly one of the reasons why we have this union. A tentative agreement was reached this afternoon on that article. That is a very positive sign. We have not begun to discuss wages, and obviously that is a critical issue. We will do that beginning Saturday and continuing through Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of next week, and Friday if necessary. He remains optimistic that many of the issues will be resolved. If we cannot resolve them all, because a couple of them are outside the purview that they have been given to operate in, they will be down to two or three issues at the very end. He is even hoping that as they work together, they may be able to resolve those as well. He knows that both sides are working very hard to achieve a contract. They have some fifty TAs in place with probably ten to twelve more to go including the economics. He just wanted to give an update because that is where he just came from

With regard to the "Just Fix It" task force, or the Student Financial Aid Enhancement Task Force, Vice President Nolan reported that the group is meeting on Monday evenings every week, except this week they met last night (Tuesday.) They are cautiously optimistic that, as a result of a visit from PeopleSoft executives somewhere near the beginning of next week along with an action plan to resolve our problems, we will be able to move forward in a positive way with resolution of issues such as transfer credit, academic history, and others that are critical to all of us. A document called the "Action Plan" has been prepared and is in final stages of review. We expect to see it sometime early next week. Everything he has heard so far indicates that PeopleSoft is going to be as responsive as it humanly can be to the concerns of Cleveland State University. He understands that the President of PeopleSoft was interviewed today by The Plain Dealer and he has made a very positive commitment on the part of PeopleSoft to us. Supplementary plans have been prepared should we need to engage in those. One of the primary purposes of the task force so far has been to assist us in developing a backup and support plan. Vice President Nolan said that if he seems not his ebullient self, he is getting a little physically tired because he has been trying to work on the 9 to 5 contract and the PeopleSoft issues simultaneously late every night. The ultimate goal everyone has in common is the good of the University, the good name of the University, and a positive outcome in every way for our students, whether it is in Financial Aid, in the classroom, in the Student Services area, or any other area. We are all committed to that. He is hopeful that PeopleSoft is just as committed and will provide solutions and a reasonably quick time line for implementing those solutions when we meet with them next week. He noted that this is about as much as he can say at this point in time without having seen the actual action plan. He will certainly be glad to report back to the Faculty Senate when that plan becomes available.

Vice President Nolan reported that at the end of this week or the beginning of next week the Financial Aid Office will send an E-Mail message on a monthly basis to all students who are receiving financial aid which will update them on changes in regulations, time lines, requirements on their part, and the individual services that can be provided to them. Some physical changes will be seen in the entrance to the Financial Aid Office over the next couple of weeks. These changes are not just cosmetic but designed to make it easier for students to physically get in and out of the office, especially during the crunch period beginning early in January and extending through the middle of February.

Also, Vice President Nolan reported that beginning on Monday, the three counters and the telephone lines will be staffed with full-time employees in addition to the E-Mail message. We have masses of communications to students -- letters two and three pages long in great detail, booklets of 20, 30, and 40 pages long in great detail, but the students tell us that they don't read them. Well, that is a problem. This is a different generation. We are trying to work with the Student Government Association and with the students. What ways work best? Well, E-Mail does work; people do read their E-Mail messages rather than 40 page pamphlets. A series of posters will be placed around the campus in various buildings which outline specific issues that students need to be aware of whether they be Spring enrollees or next Fall enrollees. More information will be seen in the various campus publications about financial aid. We are also working closely with the Department of Education to respond to all of their questions with regard to financial aid and so far that has been a positive process. Vice President Nolan said that he will be more than willing to take students up to Financial Aid, introduce them to staff members, and get them to their financial aid counsellors. All of the Financial Aid staff feel the same way. Even though that is not the perception on the campus, that is the feeling. At the same time, they are overwhelmed with two things: 1) the continual concerns expressed by students about insufficient financial aid, when, in fact, they have been awarded all of the aid they are eligible for -- sometimes to the tune of $18,000, but that is not stopping them from continuing to write and visit the Financial Aid Office. Students have also discovered his E-Mail address. Actually, a lot of the students whose names appear again, and again on various lists that we are attempting to deal with every single day, are the same students. We have given out 13,000 different kinds of financial aid awards in this Fall semester amounting to $20 Million. We are not perfect. There is no question about that. We are working to make our staff more efficient. We are making system improvements and no matter how many times a person comes to us, we will still respond to him or her.

Professor Mastboom remarked that she had sympathy for Vice President Nolan going through these negotiations. But, she does object a little bit though to the suggestion being made to the Senate about how much effort is being put into it at this time. First, even though he just came on board recently, the fact is that these negotiations have been going on for over a year. Secondly, he is here to represent the "Fix It" team. She said that she keeps hearing and reading the latest propaganda piece, that there is to be a faculty member and a student to be selected to the "Fix It" task force. Who are these people and how were they selected?

Vice President Nolan said that he was not sure he could respond to Professor Mastboom's question. He was not involved in the process of selecting either faculty members or students. Professor Mastboom noted that there is no faculty member on board yet. Vice President Nolan confirmed that there is no faculty member on board yet although he is welcoming anyone who wants to work on this project.

Professor Green asked if the report is about to come out. Vice President Nolan responded that the Committee's work is unrelated to the report. In the absence of a report, the Committee is trying to determine what are the issues that the University needs to address and what are the backup plans that may need to be in place in case the report (action plan) is unsatisfactory. That is going to be an ongoing process. It may change after the report is received. A different kind of backup plan may need to be developed depending on how responsive the action plan submitted by PeopleSoft is.

Professor Mahmud noted that the operative word in Vice President Nolan's presentation was "hope" about PeopleSoft's attitude, etc. We also hope that it will come true but the wise thing to do would be to have a contingency plan. Yet, importantly to be noted is that a Plain Dealer reporter is present at today's meeting. Vice President Nolan's presentation amounted to the fact that he is dealing with the students very well and that is great, but the way the administration is dealing with the faculty, especially the Senate [tape unintelligible.] A case in point: today we were given a piece of paper as we walked into this room, which is a memo from Doug Hartnagel dated December 7, 1999. This is an amazing document. This is contempt of the Senate. The history of this memo is that Doug Hartnagel was supposed to answer issues raised at the Senate meeting in September. The next month, he came to the Senate and said that he did not know what the issues were that were raised in the meeting at which he was present. Then at that meeting he indicated that he would report back within one day. He then sends a letter which is full of inaccuracies. Then a meeting is held. Professor Mahmud said that he reported on that meeting at the last Senate meeting. Then, today we finally get Dean Hartnagel's response. If this is indicative of the administration's response regarding PeopleSoft issues, then he wonders how students are being treated if the Senate is being treated this way. Vice President Nolan remarked that the document Professor Mahmud referred to was not from him. He will certainly share Professor Mahmud's concerns and those concerns of the Faculty Senate.

Dr. Green commented that she was pleased at first to hear that the Administration was appointing a Committee that would look into matters concerning PeopleSoft to see what could be done and just fix it. She felt to some extent that the perpetrators of these problems would be included on this Committee. It was originally stated that at least one faculty member and one student would be included on this Committee. She believes this was in response to a report that the Board of Trustees recommended that this be done in order to get the support of the faculty and the students. However, the faculty responded by saying that we thought the impact of these problems with PeopleSoft was felt primarily by students and faculty -- that we needed more than one faculty member and student on this committee. These are the people who felt the problems and knew about the problems and have been talking about the problems since August, and now we find that this Committee exists with no official representation from the students or the faculty. So, we are back to where we started in the first place except that Vice President Nolan is being put in charge of the same people. Still, just going to meetings is quite different than having official representation from faculty members appointed by the Senate or by the Faculty Affairs Committee and students coming as official representatives of Student Government. She no longer has much of the faith and hope she had in this Committee. It is the same people except that Vice President Nolan, who is overburdened, has been put in charge of the Committee to supervise the people who made the errors to see what can be done about them.

Vice President Nolan responded that it is his understanding that he is going to receive some recommendation from the Student Government Association with regard to committee appointees in the next couple of days. He would trust that Senate President Phillips will ask the President or design with the President a process for faculty representation which he welcomes.

Dr. McIntyre noted that Vice President Nolan had made reference to the plan he will be receiving for fixing PeopleSoft and having to decide whether it is responsive or not. What Professor Mahmud's comments show and what Dr. Green's comments show as well is that he won't really know whether it is really responsive if he does not have faculty representation on that Committee. The people who are on the Committee are not fully informed about all of the problems. It would be very disappointing for a decision to be made if faculty are not even consulted in a serious way. That is essential whether or not you accept some proposal from PeopleSoft.

Professor Andrew Gross observed, as a point of information, if we all consider the student body as one of our most important clients, was it actually friendly to move the Bursar's Office from a first floor level to a fourth floor level? Vice President Nolan responded that he was not aware of any process that went into that decision.

Student Representative Staci Vallos reported that she is the Chair of the Student Appointments Board. The Board has not yet met with a full vote from the student senators. She indicated that she would be willing to attend the "Fix It" Committee meeting to represent Student Government.

Vice President Nolan announced that the next meeting of the "Fix It" Committee will be on Monday, December 13, 1999 at 5:00 P.M. in RT 1104.

Professor Bhushan Wadhwa remarked that his impression is that Vice President Nolan is too busy with other things and he might want to excuse himself from the PeopleSoft "Fix It" Committee. Professor Wadhwa commented that he is interested in the PeopleSoft problem and he came to Senate today to hear the report on PeopleSoft. He asked Vice President Nolan if he was taking on too much. Vice President Nolan responded that he has had very successful meetings. He has communicated to the Board of Trustees and to the President that whatever hours it takes, he will remain committed.

Professor Misra commented that his understanding of "fix it" means fix it. He applauded Mr. Nolan's people skills, but it seems that Mr. Nolan is just planning. He asked how many things have been fixed in the last three weeks. He suggested that maybe Vice President Nolan is too busy and should step down. Vice President Nolan said that we have a contract from PeopleSoft and we will meet with PeopleSoft next week. Professor Misra noted that no one has been able to solve any of the problems over the last six months. He asked if any of these problems have been fixed. Vice President Nolan responded that over 100 student financial aid problems have been solved.

Professor Mahmud moved that the Senate elect three faculty members to the "Fix It" Committee. Professor Mastboom seconded the motion. Professor Flechtner proposed a friendly amendment to include three professional staff members and three students on the "Fix It" Committee. Professor Bowen stated that the Committee would be too big. Professor Flechtner noted that the Committee is already too big.

Professor Ben Blake observed that the "Fix It" Committee is not a Senate Committee. We can ask the administration nicely to include faculty on it. Professor Mahmud noted that there is a motion on the floor. This is an opportunity for the Senate to step up to the plate. Professor Misra stated that, as far as the investigation is concerned, faculty have no role in that administrative committee. Faculty need to look at that document. At this point, Professor Mahmud withdrew his motion.

Dr. Phillips promised that she will take the number of faculty on the "Fix It" Committee under consideration. Dr. Green remarked that she thought it was too late to add faculty. Professor Mahmud agreed that it is too late to add faculty to the Committee.

Dr. Green commented that after the Committee has already been meeting, and after it has been prepared to do what it wants to do, now a faculty member will be included. Regarding the consultants' report to the Board, for public relations purposes, it would not be a good idea to add faculty after the fact. A faculty member is being put on this Committee as a means of co-opting faculty. That is very dangerous and faculty should have been on this "Fix It" Committee sooner. Dr. Phillips noted that it could not be done in time for this Monday's meeting.

Professor Surendra Tewari commented that the question is, "Are we trying to fix it"? He remarked that we are all in a mess. Students and faculty research are hurting. How do we fix it? It is not too late to raise our voices. They should be aware of these problems. We should go back to faculty members and ask if they are having these problems. There is no need to fight at Senate.

Professor Misra asked if the Senate can elect a faculty member to the "Fix It" task force. Dr. Phillips reported that President Van Ummersen had agreed some time ago to appoint a faculty member to the "Fix It" Committee. She asked if the Senate wanted a faculty member to be included by the Monday meeting.

Professor Neuendorf inquired when the PeopleSoft consultants are coming. She also asked if there will be any forums in which faculty and students will be involved. Vice President Nolan responded that he did not know the exact date PeopleSoft consultants are coming to CSU. He will certainly take note of the fact that this is a request from Faculty Senate. Vice Provost Fred Gage is working with PeopleSoft to determine their schedule. Given whatever time they have, we will set up whatever opportunity is available and will let Dr. Phillips know about it.

[Go to top of page]

VI. University Curriculum Committee

Dr. David Larson, Chair of the University Curriculum Committee, reported that, as it turns out, the Committee has three items again. With the Senate's permission, he would like to add the UCC's third item back to the Agenda because the information he had been waiting for came through in the middle of the Senate meeting. He then moved to add Item VI.C. back on the Agenda. The motion was approved..

A. Proposed Major in Public Safety Management (Report No. 20, 1999-2000)

Dr. Larson moved approval of the proposed Major in Public Safety Management. This is basically a proposal for a Major in Public Safety Management targeted toward police officers and fire officers who already have associate degrees, often from Community Colleges, in their particular professions. This would then give them an actual four-year level degree. In a sense, it is backwards of a usual proposal, i.e., most majors are for people who have had broad general education and then have specialized. This is for people who already have had specialized training and want to broaden it to expand their knowledge. He pointed out that the Urban College has consulted almost every imaginable College and Department that might have an interest in this program and it has, in fact, included many courses in the program which are not offered by Urban itself. So, it is an inter-college and not merely an inter-departmental program.

Professor Blake indicated he had one question which had nothing to do with the proposal being discussed. He just received the Senate material in his mail box a day ago and has not had a chance to read it all. He noted this has happened before. He has always wondered if there is some procedure in Senate that the Senate materials should be received with some amount of time to review them better before we have to vote. He doesn't feel comfortable voting on this proposal. Dr. Phillips replied that the material for this meeting was particularly late. Dr. Larson added that there was a particular reason for the lateness this time. Normally, there are two weeks between the Academic Steering Committee meeting and the Senate meeting. Things have to be approved by Steering before they come to the Senate. Because we are reaching the end of the Semester and because of the Thanksgiving Holiday, whoever set up the Steering Committee meetings did not want us to meet the Wednesday before Thanksgiving because they assumed not many people would attend. The Steering Committee met one week before Senate instead of two weeks, and, as a result, the packets were received with very little time to review the material. Dr. Larson added that with the Nursing proposal, there is even another reason why the material was sent out late.

There being no further discussion, Dr. Phillips called for the vote. The proposed Major in Public Safety Management was approved.

B. Proposed Master of Science in Nursing Program (Report No. 21, 1999-2000)

Professor Larson stated that there have been plans in the works for several years to develop a Master of Science in Nursing and this is the result. The University Curriculum Committee did not have extensive time to consider it, but the UCC does believe that it should be approved and so recommends it to the Senate.

There being no questions or discussion, the Proposed Master of Science in Nursing Program was approved.

C. Proposed Certificate Program Credit Hours (Report No. 22, 1999-2000)

Professor Larson commented that the Senate may remember that at the last Senate meeting, he brought up two issues. One, he asked for the Senate's approval of all past Certificate Programs that had been approved by the UCC and he received that. Second, that the UC be allowed to approve Certificate Programs up to twenty credit hours without the need of Senate approval and to report them on the Committee's annual report. The issue was raised as to what is the maximum number of credits allowed by the Ohio Board of Regents for Certificate Programs. That is the information he has been waiting for. Professor William Shorrock found out that it is twenty-one credits for graduate programs but he has been waiting for the number of credit hours for undergraduate programs. He was just informed that for Undergraduate Certificate Programs, it is sixty credits which is fairly astonishing. Professor Shorrock reported that the Board of Regents considers it under local control, but the individual universities can develop academic programs up to one half the credits of a degree program so he just picked sixty credits.

Dr. Larson then moved that Undergraduate and Graduate Certificate Programs should be between twelve and twenty credits and that the UCC be given the authority to approve those and report such approval to the Senate.

Professor McIntyre asked for a point of clarification. On the graduate side, is twenty one semester credits what the Regents say is within local control? Professor Shorrock replied that she was correct.

Professor Larson stated that the UCC is proposing that Certificate Programs should fall within the range of twelve to twenty semester credits and that the UCC be given authority to approve such programs and report the programs that have been approved to the Senate in the annual report which is, in fact, what the UCC has been doing.

Dean Harry Andrist asked if it was the UCC's direct intent to reduce the credits from twenty-one. Dr. Larson replied that the credits are not being reduced from twenty-one. It had never been twenty-one. It was twenty-four credits under the quarter system. Twenty credits under semesters is actually more than twenty-four credits under quarters. The Committee came up with twenty credits before they knew about the twenty-one credits.

Dean Andrist stated that he was thinking of multiples of three. Some of the Colleges have three credit hour courses. Maybe it is a sequence of seven three credit hour courses. RACGS increased it because universities went to substandard Certificate Programs. Dr. Larson replied that it would mean such a program would have to go to the Senate. This merely gives the UCC authority to do it without Senate approval. The Committee picked twenty because that is what we have been using. It was twenty-four quarter credits. Twenty is actually more than the equivalent of twenty-four quarter credits.

Dean Andrist stated that what the Regents have done is gather data that it would actually increase from the lower number to the higher number because what came back to them was that the universities wanted to add more substantial Certificate Programs and yet did not want to go to whole program approval. The change in the legislation allows that. Dr. Larson suggested that if someone would like to change the proposal to twenty-one instead of twenty credit hours, he would have no problem with it. He is simply reporting what the UCC recommended before this information was known. He cannot unilaterally change it.

Professor Misra offered a friendly amendment that the proposal be from twelve to twenty-one semester credit hours. Dr. Larson accepted the friendly amendment.

Dean Andrist asked if the approval process would be the same for Undergraduate and Graduate Certificate Programs. Dr. Larson replied that it would be the same for both Graduate and Undergraduate Certificate programs.

Dean Andrist reported that the Regents do not approve Undergraduate Certificate Programs whereas they would approve the Graduate Certificates so there is actually a total vacuum. It is based on the idea that if you take a program off campus and you have local authority for that degree program, you are allowed to go to any site and offer that program except when you get to the fifty percent level. At fifty percent, you need approval. That is where the fifty percent of the degree program has a stipulation of fifty percent of 120 hours. It just means that you can do anything you want to do. Professor Larson stated that the UCC is not trying to change the fundamental policy. The Senate thought, and earlier the UCC thought, that twenty-four quarter credit hours was certainly the maximum. The UCC feels that twenty or twenty-one semester credits will do otherwise we are getting into minors and even majors sometimes.

Dean Andrist asked if the UCC was limiting subject matter or would the Certificates at the undergraduate level include any topic. Would there be something specific like Economics, Chemistry, Biology, Geology, or would there be some mix that could be anything? Dr. Larson replied that the Committee looks at each Certificate Program and decides whether it is intellectually coherent. There is no rule that it be within one department. The Committee has had several Certificate Programs that have crossed different disciplines.

Dean Andrist commented that there is absolutely nothing stated where we don't have degree authority and we offer a Certificate Program. Professor Larson reported that the Committee has approved several Certificate Programs across disciplinary boundaries. But what the UCC looks at is a major that crosses disciplinary boundaries and whether there is intellectual coherence to the program. The UCC has never enforced that limitation. Dr. Andrist noted that what the UCC is doing is proposing that other bodies like the Curriculum Committee can actually do it and that they only come to the UCC under exceptional circumstances. Dr. Larson reported that they always come to the University Curriculum Committee. What he is proposing is that they don't have to come to the Senate. They stop at the level of the UCC. He indicated that Dr. Andrist was not at the last Senate meeting where the history of this whole thing was discussed.

There being no further discussion, the vote was taken. The proposal that the UCC be allowed to approve Undergraduate Certificate Programs with twelve to twenty-one semester credit hours without going to the Senate was approved.

[Go to top of page]



VII. Provost's Remarks

Provost Harold Allen stated that, at the last meeting of the Senate, at least one Senator questioned the possibility of a one percent reallocation of the base budget in FY 01. He reported that he had earlier advised the Deans that there would be a need to continue to focus resources on high priority programs and College and University strategic goals and other growth opportunities in this next budget. In fact, in each of the last several years, very specific allocations of some limited funds have been made to address student success needs, student retention type issues, the refilling of faculty vacancies in particular areas, and adding faculty positions in strategic areas. When the North Central Association comes back for the decennial review, they will be expecting us to demonstrate that we have developed a strategy for funding selective excellence initiatives. Increasingly, everyone should know from President Van Ummersen and from others that the Regents and the public are looking for us to make difficult choices among competing demands.

Provost Allen reported that the University Planning and Budget Advisory Committee, on which both Christine Jackson and he and others sit along with the President, will soon be meeting to begin reviewing budget building assumptions for this next fiscal year taking into consideration projected enrollment changes that may occur and anticipated revenues from the State. It is far too early to say with any certainty that there will be a one percent reallocation based on the level of resources that will be available to us for this next year, but we need to come to grips with setting aside a certain amount of money annually to fund the highest priorities across the institution. That is something that we and perhaps one or two other institutions in the Board of Regents' system have not done historically, but all of the other institutions have. He doesn't claim that Toledo is a good example, but they routinely set aside a certain amount of money each year through reallocation and focus on the leading-edge priorities within each of the Colleges in an effort to try to move them forward. He will be working with Christine Jackson and the President and others to begin looking at the budget assumptions. He assumes that the President will constitute the University Planning and Budget Advisory Committee soon and the Committee will begin developing the recommended budget for this next year. Provost Allen said that he cannot be certain that there will be a one percent reallocation pool, but he believes that there are new resources and we need to look carefully at what are our highest priorities. He added that we ought to be doing that annually.

Provost Allen commented on a couple of other issues that have surfaced. He noted that President Van Ummersen had talked about the Graduate Subsidy Commission that will deal with Masters level subsidy. He reported that he has been elected to the Commission as a representative of the IUC's Committee on Provosts. In addition to some of the comments that the President addressed about the Commission's activities, he is concerned that the Regents are looking for a way to correct what they perceive to be some problems between Masters and Professional subsidy -- particularly, Masters and Professional III and Doctoral I where there is an overlap of monies. Given that we have the second largest Masters level program in the State, there is some concern that there will be serious redistribution of Masters level subsidy across the State as a result of the consultation. He reported that Harry Andrist will be down in Columbus with RACGS and at some level will certainly be involved in this discussion starting January 3, 2000. He commented to Harry Andrist that we will be looking to him for help along the way.

Provost Allen reported that another topic of concern to the Senate and certainly to all of us on campus has to do with graduate admissions. He reported that he has met with all of the College Deans in separate meetings to talk about some of their perceptions and some of their experiences with respect to graduate admissions. He has also met with the Graduate Council and the University Research Council and very recently he met with the Graduate Advisors and Departmental Chairpersons. They had a very frank and direct discussion and he thought it was very helpful. He is hoping, within the next several weeks, to develop a recommendation concerning what should be done. He cannot think of many things more important to the institution's future than insuring that we have very effective and timely admissions processes in place for the large number of graduate students that we have. We have 5,000 graduate students on campus.

Dr. Green commented that it is fine and essential that the University should look at its highest academic priorities and budget in accord with those priorities. She wondered whether the Senate might not be the body that might discuss what the academic priorities of this institution are or ought to be. It does seem that this is a representative body of faculty members who are concerned with academics. We very rarely get the opportunity to talk about the academic aspect of the institution and she would ask that the Provost bring this up. Provost Allen responded that he very much would like to do that. Faculty representatives will be named to the University Planning and Budget Advisory Committee, but there may be a gap in communications in terms of involving the Senate in some discussion of the academic priorities.

Dr. Green noted that it is not the budget part. Once it has been decided what the priorities are, you are budgeting in accord with that, but she would like to have some discussion of the priorities. Provost Allen noted that he would be happy to do that.

Professor Misra observed that Provost Allen is sweeping all sorts of available monies from the Colleges and asked if Provost Allen cared to comment on that. Provost Allen stated that he has been at CSU since 1994 and, in the first year in which he came here, the President put in place a process for sweeping faculty vacancies. The process is very familiar to him from working at other institutions. What is meant by faculty vacancies, staff vacancies, and position vacancies, are the monies that would accrue while a position is vacant. It doesn't imply that there is a hold on authorizing a search to refill a position. Those funds have been accumulated annually. They are accumulated once a month by sweeping the accounts into which they accrue. A very large segment of those funds have gone into funding part-time instruction and a variety of other one-time needs that the Colleges request annually. There is the perception that those funds are entitlement dollars based on where they are generated, but the fact of the matter is, we have a wide variety of fairly diverse needs across this campus that historically have been met with one-time funding. The funds accrue in a special account that is used for specific little things or requests that have been made by the Colleges. Those funds are dispersed to meet as many needs as we possibly can meet. This is the first year in which a large number of faculty vacancies are now filled and this is the first year in which we have seen a very sharp decline in the availability of vacancy savings that originated from faculty positions. Professor Misra observed then that this is not a cut of any faculty. Provost Allen responded that it is not a cut of faculty at all.



Professor Mastboom observed that at the end of the first part of Provost Allen's presentation, he was talking about the one percent reallocation and then ended by saying, if there are new resources, we are going to be looking at our highest priorities. In other words, what he is saying is that we may use one percent of the budget assuming that there are new resources. He did not imply a one percent cut across the budget of each College. Provost Allen responded that these are separate issues. One issue is do we want to set up a fund from which we will fund new strategic priorities in the University through reallocation processes? Some institutions start the process at one half percent and then graduate up to a higher number; some are fixed at one percent; some institutions in the State of Ohio are doing two percent as a basic reallocation. Once the institution's priorities are known, Colleges can apply for those funds and they may very well get their own funds back or those funds may be reallocated among other Colleges. In terms of new resources, neither he nor Vice President Jackson or anybody else has a crystal ball right now. New resources could be enrollment changes, the mix of students for which subsidy is earned, or it could be a tuition increase.



Professor Mastboom commented that to say to a College Dean that your budget will be cut one percent and that money will be put into a special pot does not strike her as planning. That just means that the Colleges just get so much less money and cut wherever they can. Also, that often means that retirement is now going to be on permanent hold because all of a sudden the Deans are faced with these cuts. Provost Allen responded that this is not what reallocation for strategic purposes is really all about. Internally, each College should have a strategic plan that articulates specific priorities on an annual basis. In addition, if it were making strategic investments, each College also ought to know where it wishes to place new monies or new growth opportunities or to expand the quality of certain programs and perhaps keep others at a particular level. If we do a reallocation, each Dean will need to make a decision as to which positions might not be refilled or perhaps which program areas might not be moved ahead at the expense of others. That is what strategic planning and making decisions at the College level is all about and presumably within each College there is a planning process that helps in some consensus to identify what those priorities are likely to be. It is not a haphazard process; it is a process that unfolds almost every year on almost every university campus.



Professor Mastboom commented that this is a very haphazard way, because, again, if Deans know in March that they are going to get X percent and at that moment three people decide in department Y that they are going to retire, that department is going to get hurt. Provost Allen agreed with part of what Professor Mastboom had said. The planning and budget cycle ought to start earlier. But, in a very fickle environment in which the subsidy formulas are changing from year to year as they are right now, and given the fickleness of enrollments as they are across the State of Ohio right now, we are basically in a zero sum gain. We are going to begin to see some increase in enrollments as a result of high school graduation rates in Ohio -- very gradual over the next three to four years -- but he would look for any large number of new resources from any external source at the moment. His greatest hope is that we will be successful in mounting whatever campaigns we are going to mount and make the argument for quality enhancements, and bring in some outside gifts and grants and other monies that will help us along the way.



Dr. McIntyre asked if CSU is now just above the minimum subsidy or are we earning our own subsidy. Provost Allen responded that we are now getting funds for our FTE entitlement. Dr. McIntyre asked if this is at the different levels. Provost Allen responded that it is at the different levels. Dr. McIntyre noted that when we were below that flat level, our mix of students really did not make a difference. Provost Allen responded that they were being buffered and any enrollment increases didn't result in any new resources.



Dr. McIntyre noted that as it stands now, if we increase the number of Masters students, for example, each Masters student brings in more subsidy than that same student if he/she were a freshman. Provost Allen responded that Professor McIntyre was correct. We are now back to the subsidy level of our student credit hours. The exception is that the Doctoral subsidy system President Van Ummersen alluded to is being capped at a particular percentage of the total budget. We are being capped at a particular FTE level. However, the ratio of FTEs to headcount can vary by institution and does so dramatically between an urban commuter institution and a residential school. We do have some flexibility in terms of the growth of our Doctoral programs. The down side is, if we were operating in a capped environment dollar-wise, we simply are going to end up with fewer cents on the dollar. Money is just being moved among institutions. Dr. McIntyre remarked that she was thinking more of internally at least for the years we were operating below that minimum. We really were not thinking anymore as we had in the past in terms of where the student credit hours are coming from. A student credit hour was just a student credit hour. Now, once again, it has a subsidy differential attached to it. That is something people have to be more widely aware of. That has not been made very public. Provost Allen stated that this is the first year in which we are living on our own so to speak. Professor McIntyre noted that it makes a big difference in terms of whether people plan. Provost Allen said that there is some reason to be cautiously optimistic given the new Masters programs that were put in place last year. He is really ecstatic about the Masters program in Nursing because it is a program for which needs assessments have long demonstrated that CSU had phenomenal potential. With the relationship with the Cleveland Health Institute and opportunities to grow health care related programs in general, now is the time for Cleveland State to begin to be a little bit strategic in the way in which it grows and develops these programs.



Professor Surendra Tewari stated that at one time, this University was trying to close down the Nursing program and the Senate opposed it. Provost Allen remarked that the Senate should be commended.



An unidentified Senator asked about plans to cover the ever increasing costs associated with the PeopleSoft problems. Provost Allen replied that this is not a question he can easily answer. He stated that he would get back to him.



Professor Mahmud asked if Provost Allen has now or a few months past been involved with discussions or decisions related to PeopleSoft. Provost Allen responded that he was not directly involved. Vice Provost Fred Gage has, within the Provost's Office, been the point person for leadership on that project. Professor Mahmud stated that serious allegations have come up in the press. He asked Provost Allen how he felt about at least the appearance of the conflict of interest and the possibility of recusing himself from any direct or indirect discussion. Provost Allen said that he would pretty much give the same response that President Van Ummersen gave Professor Mahmud and that is, we are looking forward to receiving a copy of the Inspector General's report. He believes that the very best decisions were made on behalf of the institution. Hindsight is a different issue. Professor Mahmud said that he is giving the same response to Provost Allen that he gave to the President. This is an amazing interpretation of the idea for recusal. "Let's wait for resolution and then we will know." The idea is to recuse yourself while the process is trying to find out whether there actually was or was not a conflict of interest. Provost Allen indicated that he understood what Professor Mahmud was saying. Professor Mahmud then concluded that basically what the Provost was saying is that it doesn't matter. Provost Allen stated that he did not say that. He just does not have another answer for Professor Mahmud at the moment.



At this point, Dr. Phillips introduced and welcomed Lorilee Sandmann, our Vice Provost for Institutional Effectiveness and Strategic Partnerships. Most everyone has met

her by now, but this is the first time that she has been able to come to a Senate meeting. Dr. Phillips also welcomed Charles Holmes, a new student representative to the Senate.



Dr. Phillips asked Professor Mastboom if she wanted to report on the last Board of Trustees meeting. Professor Mastboom reported that the meeting was in three parts: a public part, an executive session, and another public part. The important matter, of course, was the issue of the report of the accountants and the various problems with financial aid and debts that have to be collected, etc. There has been some movement. Lately the Board of Trustees has been more active, less rubber stamping, and more of examining issues. While there is more activity, some Board members lack an understanding of what a University is all about. There is the lack of understanding of what tenure is, the fact that the University is a non-profit institution, etc. Some newer members don't seem to be aware of that. In that sense, the faculty representatives play an important role to make sure that our interests are represented.


[Go to top of page]



VIII. Senate President's Report

Dr. Phillips stated that she had two items to report on that have a direct effect on the Senate. One, the Ohio Faculty Council is pursuing the issue of benefits for domestic partners. She wanted the Senate to know that right now the OFC is developing the statement that it will forward to the Regents. The question at this point is whether or not we should make our statement one that says we want full benefits for domestic partners or whether we will go to what is perceived to be the more strategic route and ask for some smaller steps first. She did not have a chance to read it, but she believes that one of the universities in New England has just accorded its employees with full benefits for domestic partners. Case Western Reserve did as well. There does seem to be some movement in that direction.



Second, Dr. Phillips noted that the other item, and perhaps more immediate, is the Regents Vision/Mission document that was discussed at the last Senate meeting. She reported that she took the responses back to the Ohio Faculty Council. Matt Filipic, the Vice Chancellor, had managed to be away for the last several meetings and will be away for the next meeting of the Ohio Faculty Council. There was nothing surprising there. All of the other universities' comments on that document were approximately the same as ours and some even less political. What did surprise her was that two weeks later at the Board of Regents meeting which was where and when this document was supposed to be approved, suddenly there was no opportunity for the various committees to meet individually. Allegedly, there were too few Regents present, and there was absolutely no discussion of the content of this document. What happened instead, was that the various committee chairs reported on various ways in which they had implemented some of the items in the document. Because this meeting was unusual, anyone who was not a Regent was, once again, delegated to the outer perimeter and with no opportunity for recognition to speak. The OFC will be meeting again with Matt Filipic this coming Friday. The OFC will express to him its considerable outrage at the way things seemed to be proceeding. One of the difficulties, of course, is that if you are speaking to Matt Filipic as opposed to the Chancellor, you are not sure where anything is going. Dr. Phillips remarked that she expected Harry Andrist to do something about this when he gets to the Regents.

[Go to top of page]

 

IX. New Business

A. Professor Rodger Govea reported that he had one piece of new business from the Arts and Sciences Caucus and read the following motion: Report No. 23, 1999-2000)



That a special committee consisting of five members, the majority of them faculty, with representation from the University Curriculum Committee, the University Faculty Affairs Committee, and the Faculty Senate be appointed by the Academic Steering Committee to examine the role and the function of the College of Graduate Studies. This special committee is to report to Faculty Senate.



Dr. Govea stated that we have the opportunity right now to examine the role and function of the College of Graduate Studies and the various linkages and structure of the entire operation. We would like to have a Committee to look at all of this and report back to Senate as soon as possible. Professor Govea reported that this has been discussed in Steering Committee. The timing is important because everyone here knows that there will be a new Graduate Dean and we would like to expedite this matter so that there is coordination between our work and the group that will be hiring the Graduate Dean. Professor Neuendorf seconded the motion.



Dr. Phillips reported that Provost Allen was at the Steering Committee meeting when this special committee was discussed and has agreed that it is a good idea. Provost Allen remarked that he agreed with the recommendation. Given the timing of the search to identify a Graduate Dean and the competitiveness of the market, the search needs to begin some time in February. He hopes that recommendations have been developed by that time.



Dr. Phillips reported that the faculty members on the special committee are to be appointed by the Academic Steering Committee. She informed the Senate that the Academic Steering Committee is not scheduled to meet again until January 26, 2000. She suggested that she could send something out to everyone to get responses. If anyone on the Senate is interested in being the third faculty member on this Committee, he/she should let her know and then she can send the names out to the Steering Committee before everybody disburses for the holiday break. She asked the Senate if that was satisfactory. The Senate approved Dr. Phillips' suggestion.



There being no further discussion, the motion to create a special committee to investigate the role and function of the Graduate College was approved.



Professor Misra stated that he hopes the Senate discusses the possibility of formally investigating the PeopleSoft issue particularly considering the damage that has been done to the public view of the University.



Regarding the special committee to investigate the role and function of the Graduate College, Professor Leo Jeffres asked if Dr. Phillips was just asking for faculty. He stated that it is going to take some resources and wondered from where they would come.



Professor Surendra Tewari stated that we don't want to create a mess. With regard to establishing one more inquiry, we don't really have the will and energy to do as thorough a job as would be required.



Professor Misra commented that we have discussed PeopleSoft problems for endless hours over the last four months and every time questions are asked, there is some kind of stonewalling or other including the latest. We have a public relations person who is there basically to do the "Clinton" on the whole issue. Maybe we need to look beyond that and go to the facts to see if we have been stonewalled. We have a right to know exactly what happened. There were five bids and the fourth bid was selected. The firm that was selected never had any experience in implementing PeopleSoft. It looks very unusual that we selected the contractor ranked fourth by the evaluation committee and this contractor had no experience in implementing PeopleSoft. On the face of it, was it incompetence or mismanagement or was it fraud? We do have a right to know so we should conduct an investigation ourselves. Dr. Phillips stated that as she recalls, that question has been asked and has been answered. Whether the answer was satisfactory to Professor Misra or not, even though this consulting firm did not have PeopleSoft experience, it did have the experience with higher education and that was determined to be a higher priority.



Professor Misra asked, "answered by whom?" He is not trying to put any implication on that, but the question is these responses [tape unintelligible.] Professor Tewari remarked, even if you do find out that this person or somebody is at fault [tape unintelligible.] Professor Misra remarked that hopefully that person will not again decide a major capital investment in the University.



Professor Andrew Gross suggested that the Senate wait for the Inspector General's report which should be available this month. Then the Senate can make a motion. Professor Mahmud agreed with Professor Gross' suggestion. With this issue, every time the Senate rules, there is some policy. One has to come around to the idea that [tape unintelligible.] Any step that we can take to be certain that this point needs to be taken, make that point [tape unintelligible.] Even students can choose their own representative, but somebody somewhere is supposed to choose the faculty representative. To suggest that we should have representatives which have confidence, he does not see confidence. We cannot let loose some bureaucrats who make strategic decisions about this institution.



Dr. Phillips stated that she does not know how this issue will come out. She would like to insist that the faculty representative to the "Fix It" task force be selected by Monday. Her recommendations were members of Senate Committees unless Professor Mahmud is going to suggest that the Senate does not have faith in the membership of Senate Committees. She had suggested someone either from the Computational Services Committee or the Student Life Committee. Professor Mahmud stated that he did not appreciate Dr. Philips saying that he would not have faith in Senate Committees.



Dr. Green noted that it was mentioned that the Student Senate was going to appoint the student representative to the "Fix It" Committee. There really is a difference between the President going to Dr. Phillips and asking her which Committees might have a person or coming to the Senate and asking the Senate or the Steering Committee to appoint the faculty representative who would represent the interests of the faculty. Dr. Phillips said that she tends to agree with Dr. Green, but it was she who went to the President and said that a faculty member is needed on this Committee.



Dr. Green said that this is a separate issue but if we want to turn ourselves into "Inspector Generals" or whatever, she would certainly not do that. Our job here is to see what can be done with the present situation and get faculty involved because faculty know how it impacts us and getting students involved and professional staff as well, but not to carry out some kind of inquisition. That is not something she wants to see.



Referring to the Inspector General's investigation, Professor Buckley asked if anybody knew what the scope was -- are they just investigating crime or are they investigating malfeasance? What are they going to look into? Dr. Phillips responded that as far as she knows, they had full authority to determine the scope of their own investigation. She asked Dr. Louis Barbato if he was aware of anything different. Dr. Barbato responded that the investigation was not limited to crimes in office. Dr. Phillips said that she did not know what that meant. Professor Mahmud stated that what it means is that it is limited to that institution. Dr. Phillips said that she did not know what that would mean necessarily in terms of the actual report that will be issued because the scope itself wasn't limited.



Professor Mastboom reported that one of the members of the Board of Trustees said that it was not limited and indeed included actual management practices.



Regarding faculty representation on the "Fix It" Committee, Professor Mastboom suggested not somebody with computer expertise, but a faculty member with administrative expertise. It strikes her that people who have administrative expertise have experience especially with problems they face with PeopleSoft and those who have been active a lot with students or chairs of the department, etc. As far as experts with computers, we have enough professionals for that. Dr. Phillips asked if Professor Mastboom was referring to appointing a former chair. Professor Mastboom said that a former chair would be useful because those are the people who have the insight.



Dr. Phillips inquired of Senate members if there was a sitting Chair who would like to do this. She then asked Dr. McIntyre if she would be willing but Dr. McIntyre declined stating that she will be away during break. Dr. Phillips suggested that the faculty member have administrative experience. Professor Bhushan Wadhwa nominated Professor John Walsh. Professor Walsh responded that he was not available. Professor Mastboom said that somebody with administrative experience would be constructive. Dr. Phillips noted that the reason she had thought of the Student Life Committee was that, again, this would be somebody who is handling student problems, but Professor Mastboom's suggestion may be better.



B. Professor Andrew Gross stated that he was tempted to give a half hour multi-media presentation on all of the accomplishments he has seen in the last thirty-two years he has been at CSU, but he decided not to do that even though, according to our Chief Executive, the health and vitality of the University has never been better. He was also tempted to talk for a half hour on issues ranging from the Rhodes Tower elevators to the PeopleSoft affair, but again, he did not want to keep members. But, he did want to talk about working conditions at CSU. "We all work here." He summarized his statement under four categories.



1. Safety and Security. Professor Gross reported that he has had chats with a number of police and security officers here and he believes the force is undermanned, undertrained, and underpaid. As a result, he will make a donation toward that cause. He hopes they will improve. For example, to the best of his knowledge, the new Business building has two doors to the garage which are open seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day; anybody can enter and people do enter. People in this building are afraid and secretaries are worried.



2. Climate Control. In contacting the Energy Officer of the University, Professor Gross was assured that, yes, he can change the temperature in his office on Saturdays because people do work on Saturdays. Well, he miss-spoke because he was informed by Mr. Criminger that he has a budget edict and he cannot cool Professor Gross' office down from 85 degrees on Saturdays; only certain classrooms.



3. College of Business Building. Dr. Gross said he would plead for reality rather than promises. When the Business building was opened, people said that we could be doing anything and everything. This is a fully wired building. Basically, most of the classrooms don't have the capacity to use Power Point, to use videos, etc. The stuff has to be hauled up and then taken back down. Again, promises and reality.



4. Finally, in the future, Professor Gross would plead for the administration not to bring us absolute numbers that compare to indicators such as we have seen reported in the Plain Dealer in the case of Law Schools and the Bar exam passing rates. He would like to see how CSU stacks up against other schools on endowments. How about budgets compared to Akron? We have seen some figures in Crain's Cleveland Business and Christine Jackson kindly corrected them. He still thinks there is a big gap between CSU and Akron. We really need to get our Alumni donations up. Figures are available. We need to constantly compare ourselves with other urban universities rather than cite absolute numbers all the time. He would like to know how CSU stacks up against Wayne State, Georgia State, etc. Those are the kinds of meaningful figures this Faculty Senate deserves.



There being no further business, it was moved, seconded, and the meeting adjourned at 5:15 P.M.



Pamela J. Eyerdam

Senate Secretary

/velb

[Go to top of page]