Cleveland State University

Faculty Senate

MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE FACULTY SENATE
February 9, 2000

Topics:

PRESENT: Barbato, Blake, Bowen, Buckley, Chung, Crocker, DeGroot, Dieterich, Doerder, Drake, Dunegan, Dural, Eyerdam, Flechtner, Frew, Gorla, Govea, Green, Gross, Hartnagel, Hemann, Holmes, Hollinger, C. Jackson, M. Jackson, Jeffres, Kamath, S. Kaufman, Konangi, Lindsey, Mahmud, Mastboom, McCahon, J. McIntyre, McLoughlin, Meiksins, Misra, Moutafakis, Neuendorf, Nolan, Nuru-Holm, Olson, Orendi, D. Phillips, Quigney, Rini, Sekayi, Spicer, Steckol, Tewari, Thornton, Tumeo, Valencic, Vallos, Van Ummersen, Wadhwa, Walsh, Wheatley, J. Wilson.

ABSENT/EXCUSED: Dillard-Mitchell, Falk, Feko, Keys, Konstantinos, MacCluskie, Steinglass, Sweet, Waren, M. Webb.

ALSO PRESENT: Jain, Lupton.

Senate President Donna Phillips informed the Senate that Mr. Ronald Rutti, a reporter from The Plain Dealer, was present today. The Senate needs to give permission for Mr. Rutti to stay at the meeting. The Senate approved.

Dr. Phillips introduced Carol Wallington, the news editor of the Cauldron, to the Senate.


I. Approval of the Agenda

Dr. Phillipsasked for acceptance of the Agenda for February 9, 2000. Dr. Jane McIntyre asked to place an item on the Agenda before item III. Election of five faculty to the Provost Search Committee. The new item III. would be motions concerning the Provost search process. These would be in order here because before we elect faculty to the Provost Search Committee, we might want to say something about directives or suggestions we want to make to the Committee. She then moved to insert motions concerning the search process. Dr. Joyce Mastboom seconded the motion and the Agenda was approved as amended.

 

[Go to top of page]


II. Approval of the Minutes of the December 8, 1999 Meeting

Acceptance of the Minutes of the December 8, 1999 meeting was moved, seconded, and the Minutes were approved.

[Go to top of page]


III. Motions Concerning the Provost Search Committee (Report No. 24, 1999-2000) Professor Peter Meiksins raised a couple of issues that had emerged from discussions in the Arts and Sciences Caucus meeting. Many people including some Senate members had concerns about the timing of the search. When should the search commence, when should the interviews take place, and when should the screening occur. It is generally the case that most of us would prefer to have the search, the interviews on campus, and the screening take place during the regular academic year as opposed to during the Summer.

Dr. Phillips asked if Professor Meiksins was speaking specifically about the search for a Provost or all searches. Professor Meiksins responded that he was speaking specifically about the search for a Provost. Obviously, many of us are not here over the Summer. If candidates for Provost come to campus and are interviewed during the Summer, many of us would not have the opportunity to hear the candidates and voice our opinions about who they are and which ones we prefer. So, personally, he would prefer to have the candidates come in during the regular academic year as opposed to during the Summer. The second reason it is important is that faculty on other campuses are away during the Summer. An important part of a search for an administrator is making calls to other campuses consulting references and people who may not be references to find out about the person's reputation. If the screening takes place over the Summer, then it is very unlikely that we would be able to reach those references in order to find out what we need to know about the candidates. That is often a very important part of screening. It is not practical for us to hold and finish the search before the end of the Spring 2000 semester. With that in mind, Professor Meiksins proposed the following motion:



Motion: The Senate recommends that the deadline for the Provost search be set at the end of August 2000 which would mean that all screening and interviews would have to take place during the Fall semester.

Professor Meiksins went on to state that this is not an unreasonably long period of time to defer the search. We have a perfectly capable Interim Provost who could serve for that period of time.

Dr. Phillips asked Professor Meiksins if he was referring to the deadline for accepting applications. Professor Meiksins stated that he did not know how it would be worded -- whether the deadline is set at August 31, 2000 or whether consideration will begin then, but neither of those things should take place before the end of August 2000.

Professor McIntyre seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the motion was approved.

Dr. Phillips noted that she will forward to the Chair of the Provost Search Committee the recommendation that no screening or interviews for Provost take place prior to August 31, 2000.

Professor Meiksins stated that the second issue he wanted to raise concerned the use of "headhunting" firms. This is common practice in administrative searches and he expects that we will use a "headhunting" firm in this search as well. But, from his own experience in a Dean search, "headhunting" firms can be used in various ways. They can be used as a substitute for the faculty/administration committee. They could be asked to make the screening calls, to contact other campuses, and to be the primary go-between between this University and other schools; or, they can be used to supplement the efforts of the University Committee. He personally favors the latter. Since he is not on the Committee and none of us may very well be, he moved the following advice to whoever puts the committee together:



Motion: The Search Committee appointed to search for a new Provost shall determine whether and how to use a "headhunting" firm and which firm, if any, shall be employed. It should be the responsibility of the Search Committee to determine the manner in which the "headhunting" firm is used and to make the final decision as to which one is used.

With no further discussion, the motion was seconded and approved. Dr. Phillips said that she will send both of these recommendations to the Provost Search Committee.

Professor Tayyab Mahmud asked Dr. Phillips to clarify what she had said to President Van Ummersen this morning about the search. Dr. Phillips responded that she thought one of the things that would come up today would be that the Search Committee should have a very definite voice in selecting the search firm. She had asked the President this morning if there would be any objection. The President had told her at that time that there would be no problem with that.


[Go to top of page]



IV. Election of Five Faculty Members to the Provost Search Committee)

Dr. Phillips reported that the Provost Search Committee would be composed of nine people altogether. After considerable discussion in the Academic Steering Committee and given the importance of the makeup of such a committee, it was decided that the members should be elected by the entire Senate as opposed to being appointed by the Academic Steering Committee. In addition to five faculty members, no more than two faculty could be from the same College. We would simply take the top five vote getters. If, in fact, no more than two of them were from the same college, those would be the five members elected. If more than two were from the same College, we would drop down to number six. Dr. McIntyre asked for clarification of what was written on the ballot. The ballot does not state the process correctly. It says, "Vote for five, no more than two from any one College." Dr. McIntyre noted that people can vote for any five faculty members that they want. It is just that no more than two from any one college can be elected. So the instruction at the top of the ballot is not quite correct. Dr. Phillips reported that Dr. Chung from Business Administration has withdrawn. Professor Thomas Buckley from the College of Law informed the Senate that he also withdraws from the list of candidates. Dr. Phillips reported that it was also agreed that since each member of the Academic Steering Committee had gone back to his/her caucus and brought forward names to the Steering Committee, we would start with those names, but there may be nominations from the floor provided the person has agreed to serve if elected. Dr. Phillips then called for a vote on the process. The Senate approved the process. Dr. Phillips then called for nominations from the floor to supplement those nominations already on the ballot. Professor Buckley nominated Professor David Forte from the College of Law. Professor Nicholas Moutafakis nominated Professor Leo Jeffres from Communication, College of Arts and Sciences. Professor Jane Zaharias from the College of Education was also nominated. Professor Daniel Drake moved to close nominations. The motion was seconded and approved.

The following faculty were elected to the Provost Search Committee:

  • Professor David Forte, Law
  • Professor Norman Krumholz, Urban Affairs
  • Professor Lily Ng, Arts and Sciences (Chemistry)
  • Professor Glending Olson, Arts and Sciences (English)
  • Professor Jane Zaharias, Education (Specialized Instructional Programs)

[Go to top of page]

V. Election of one Faculty Representative to the Ohio Faculty Council to complete Philip Allen's term expiring on August 31, 2001

Dr. Phillips reported that Professor Philip Allen has gone to Akron University. She noted that the position on the Ohio Faculty Council involves driving back and forth to Columbus once a month. Meetings of the OFC are always held on Friday afternoons. She then called for nominations from the floor. Professor Flechtner nominated Professor Rodger Govea (Political Science) who was elected by acclamation.

[Go to top of page]

VI. Admissions and Standards Committee (Report No. 16, 1999-2000)

Professor Chet Jain, Chair of the Admissions and Standards Committee, reported that he is bringing back to Senate the revised Late Registration/Add/Drop/Withdrawal Policy that the Senate, at its last meeting, referred back to the Admissions and Standards Committee. This is about reinstating the Add/Drop Policy that we formerly had until 1998. The Committee hopes that all of the Senate's questions have been answered.

Dr. McIntyre asked Dr. Jain to reiterate the policy that the Committee is asking the Senate to reinstate. Dr. Jain responded that the Committee is reinstating the policy that anytime students need to petition for any late/add/drop/withdrawal they must make a petition in their own College office. The petition will have all of the instructions for the student. The College Petitions Committee will act on it and advise the Dean of its decision. It will be the responsibility of the Dean to advise the student accordingly. The Registrar's Office will update the student's academic records according to the decision of that Committee.

Dr. Green recalled that one of the problems was that some faculty were finding students placed in their classes after two and three weeks after the class began without the knowledge of the faculty. Then the faculty were expected to fill the students in on two or three weeks worth of work. This could still happen then if we go back to the old policy. A College could still put students in her class in the third week after they have missed quite a lot. Dr. Jain responded that it depends upon the late/add policy of the Colleges. If Professor Green's College policy allows for that without the knowledge of the instructor, a student can certainly be put into her class.

Dr. Green asked if the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences could tell her what the Arts and Sciences' policy is. Dean Karen Steckol responded that she had no idea. Dr. Jain asked if someone from Arts and Sciences could respond to Dr. Green's question. Dean Steckol stated that she could find out. Dr. McIntyre commented that her recollection is that the late add form from the College of Arts and Sciences has a place for the Instructor's signature on it.

Dr. Phillips asked if something should be added to the policy that says students cannot be added to a faculty member's class after the official add date without the instructor's signature. Dr. Jain informed the Senate that there is a place for the instructor's signature on the Add/Drop form for all Colleges.

Dr. Phillips called for the vote. The proposed revised Late Registration/Add/Drop/ Withdrawal Policy was approved.

[Go to top of page]

VII. Communication Issues at the University (Report No. 25, 1999-2000)

Professor Thomas Flechtner stated that he stands before the Senate as a representative of the Arts and Sciences Caucus. He is at Senate to present, for its consideration, a proposed Resolution of the Faculty Senate which, if approved, would constitute a strong statement by the Faculty about the Administration's role in the current PeopleSoft crises and about steps to be taken to end it. Before he read the proposed resolution, he made a few comments.

Professor Flechtner stated that the crisis has been growing for years. At meetings of the Board of Trustees more than two years ago, Faculty Representative Jane McIntyre questioned the choices being made and the procedures being followed in selecting software vendors and consultants. As the chosen software was being installed, the problems began. At the beginning, the voices of alarm belonged mostly to the students and to the employees charged with dealing directly with the students. "The Administration, on the rare occasions when it felt it had to respond to these complaints, denied knowledge of the existence of serious problems and insisted that the students were mistaken."

Dr. Flechtner went on to state that almost exactly one year ago, the Arts and Sciences Caucus brought to the Senate a litany of complaints, several of which involved the PeopleSoft issue, when several faculty including Professors Walter Leedy, Philip Allen, David Larson, Valerie George, and he rose to describe faculty concerns. Their complaints continued and the Administration began to respond to them on the floor of the Senate. "The Administration, on these occasions when it felt it had to respond to these complaints, denied knowledge of the existence of serious problems and insisted that the students were mistaken."

Dr. Flechtner noted that obviously the Administration's attitude has now changed. The Administration admits that there are serious problems and that many of the students are not mistaken. In the past six weeks, we have seen many administrative departures, reassignments, and new hires. We cannot know if these personnel changes will end the crisis, but we must hope that something eventually does.

Dr. Flechtner said that the proposed resolution is presented so that the Faculty Senate shall formally state its opinion of the important administrative errors and failures that made the crisis as serious as it has become and to indicate to the Administration where it needs to improve its performance. He moved passage of the following resolution:



A RESOLUTION BY THE FACULTY SENATE CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY

WHEREAS, Cleveland State University has suffered losses in both prestige and financial health resulting from the acquisition and implementation of the PeopleSoft software package, and

WHEREAS, the problems created by the package have caused hardship for Cleveland State's staff, faculty, and especially students,

WHEREAS, the poor handling of the problems can be traced to communication problems within the administration, between the administration and the faculty, and the administration and the greater community CSU serves,

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT

The Cleveland State University Administration should

  1. Improve communication among administrators to emphasize accurate information gathering, even (and especially) when such information indicates an adverse situation on campus;
  2. Include faculty and staff in the decision-making process, especially when those decisions will have profound effects on the University community (specifically, by creating search committees for the positions of University Provost and College Deans that contain a majority of faculty chosen by faculty);
  3. Improve relationships with media, political officials, and community leaders.

Dr. Phillips noted that because this motion does not come from a standing committee, it requires a second. The motion was seconded.

Professor Tayyab Mahmud indicated that he supported the motion. He said that he appreciated the drafting of the motion and the fact that it has gone forward. What disturbs him a little bit, in reading the motion, is that it appears the only problem going on around here is a communication problem. The Inspector General's report, which is being touted now as having condoned the Administration's behavior, points out more problem areas and has more suggestions than the resolution. When everyone has to clear the consensus, one has to water down things and he recognizes that. So, he supports the resolution but the Minutes of this body, over the last many months, also indicated the sentiments of the Senators as they articulated concerns of the staff, students, and faculty.

Professor Santosh Misra stated that basically he has no objection to this motion but, as has been pointed out, he doesn't believe that the issue is one of communication. The issue goes much more deeper than that. By saying improve the communication, we are probably setting ourselves up for the same lack of management to continue. If you look in real terms, we have wasted $8.5 Million and we have reduced the name of this University to a symbol of laughter in the community. In fact, some of our former students who are in business, are appalled, given the type of publicity we have been getting, how the head of this institution still has his or her job. In that situation, all of us sitting here are trying to dilute ourselves by saying improve the communication then the problems are going to magically vanish.

Dr. Andrew Gross supported Professor Misra's comments. He circulated a three page memo to members of the Senate. The PeopleSoft problem is just the tip of the iceberg. He urged Senators to vote for the motion on the floor. He stated that first, he was going to put forth a motion of censure or no confidence, but he is not going to do that for any number of reasons and because he believes that it wouldn't pass. Second, it would need strong support from the Board of Trustees and from the Arts and Sciences Caucus in an open meeting that is not possible. It would be nice if the members of the Arts and Sciences Caucus and others would take some quiet poll-taking. It would be nice if the Board would act rather than vacillate. This is a great country which has survived bad presidents and the same holds for CSU.

Dr. Leo Jeffres said that the hope here is that some of the decisions that were made would not have been made if we had better communication or if we had a different communication pattern. This is a campus on which we don't even have a faculty club or a place to congregate. We don't even have meals after three o'clock in the afternoon on campus. There is very little opportunity and very little that really promotes communication at all. But more than that, it also speaks for the structure. Having faculty in positions here and involved does change the nature of communication. You would hope we would have no one to blame but ourselves if we don't speak out when the opportunity arises. Then the external image is about communication and speaking with the media. One of our graduates did a Master's Thesis on the "Winbush Affair" when we last wholly managed our relationship with the external community. It is a textbook case that the current administration should probably pay attention to because rather than deny and rather than worry about explaining, even if you think you are right, you don't make the mistake that politicians make. Most have learned that by now. You just simply say, listen, we have a problem here and let's take care of it. People react much better to that type of a situation even if you don't feel culpable. You have to acknowledge it and move forward on it. That is what this resolution is talking about. Let's move forward on it. One way of moving forward is to improve the communication on this campus and one way that we, as faculty can enable that, is to be involved in these search processes.

Dr. Rodger Govea stated that he did not think the intent of the resolution is to find a solution for everything. The Senate is attempting to communicate with the Administration which is another strategy for governance -- a different kind of relationship with faculty, a different kind of relationship with other constituencies of this University. This is not going to solve all of the problems. There is no way to solve all of the problems at once. We are saying that the Administration is in flux. We are putting forth pretty forward principles by which we think the Administration should act and if they are willing to make a good faith effort, then we will have a much improved relationship. All of us can support an Administration that commits itself to these particular principles.

Professor Kenneth Dunegan said that he, like Professor Gross and most other folks, would vote for the resolution because there is no reason not to, but he wonders whether or not it would be helpful if some suggestions were provided. For example, when it says improve communication, what does that mean? It would seem an option especially in situations where you have a project that has gone awry such as the PeopleSoft project. Have weekly updates or weekly press releases indicating what has been done over that period of time to resolve the issue. That might be one recommendation about how communication might be improved. Regarding (3) of the resolution, he is not so sure we only need to improve relationships with those external constituents. There are three other pretty substantial bodies within this University -- the faculty, the staff, and the students, also with whom the Administration might need to improve relations. He was not sure whether to make an amendment to the resolution. It might be helpful if we could try to be a little bit more specific in the suggestions.

Dr. Barbara Green strongly supported the resolution because it does recognize that we have had problems. But rather than to focus us solely on what went wrong in the past, it turns us to talk about what are we going to do from now on -- how do we operate better, how do we cooperate together for the future? If we are going to spend all of our time on who might have been responsible and what they should have done, that doesn't get us very far. This resolution does and it talks about a way of operating which could last not only in this crisis, but perhaps in future crises or show us how to deal with future problems. She did not think that it ought to be very specific in terms of reports because this is not only dealing with one case. It is talking about the future. Before certain kinds of decisions are made, talk to the faculty -- there is expertise on the faculty. Talk to the staff and talk to the people who will be affected. Report to us when there are problems so that we can work together to overcome these problems. It ought to be this kind of broad statement which talks about certain parameters for future behavior. It certainly implies that we are not only talking about the media, public officials, and community leaders in terms of external constituencies, but also internal and that is implied by (1) and (2) of the resolution. What is most important is that it is looking to future relations of mending this place, getting us going, dealing with problems, and averting future problems and saying that is where we have to go.

Dr. Jane McIntyre commented on an aspect of (1). She understands what is intended there but she sympathizes with people who feel that this is perhaps too much of a "feel good" motion. Part of the issue that surfaced in the most recent PeopleSoft problems was that there was definitely a certain mind set. It was an attitude of not wanting to hear the difficult news and the bad news. People who were speaking out as the Senators did, as our organized attempts to bring concerns to the attention of the Administration did, and who spoke out in a forthright manner about the problems, were given messages both explicitly and implicitly that this kind of discussion wasn't welcome, it shouldn't take place in public forums, and we could settle things in another manner. In a university, particularly, it is a shame if the atmosphere is not one of being receptive to hearing critical news and bad news. She understands what is intended by (1). To say, "Improve communication among administrators to emphasize accurate information gathering, even (and especially) when such information indicates an adverse situation on campus;" it is not just the activity of information-gathering. It is an openness to hearing people make critical remarks or bringing forth problems to the attention of the Administration. Her disappointment is that we did not have that kind of open attitude towards recognizing problems or at least acknowledging them in public and she does not actually, at the moment, have a lot of confidence that this motion will create that. Perhaps her remarks would contribute to that if we put on the record that this is what we feel was lacking. She was not saying that the motion should be modified, but she felt very strongly that there was not an attitude of receptiveness to hearing the problems. The people who brought those problems to the attention of others were marginalized or criticized themselves.

Dr. Joyce Mastboom supported Professor McIntyre's comments and added a couple of points. One, even now, when supposedly we are into solving the problems and actively doing so with various committees, she finds that there is a distinct lack of communication. Even as we speak, the communication is not particularly good at all. Too much is being thrown into the public relations aspect, and, internally, she doesn't think the faculty are particularly well-informed as to what is currently happening on PeopleSoft issues. She also agreed with Professor Dunegan's point about not having faculty, staff, and students mentioned in the resolution. She then proposed a friendly amendment to number (3) of the resolution adding the words, "faculty, staff, students" between the words "with media."

Professor Flechtner accepted Professor Mastboom's friendly amendment.

Professor William Bowen stated that it seems to him that if the Senate were to pass such a resolution at all, it should address the issues in a straightforward way. He can imagine a headline that says, "CSU blames problems on poor communication" when, in reality, the issue has often centered around poor decision-making as well. He added that we might make ourselves look silly.

Professor Wilson suggested an alternative between a vote of no confidence, for which there isn't enough support, and writing this resolution which sounds like something out of "Cool Hand Luke" and that is basically to do nothing right now and see how the administration responds in the future. He then moved to table the proposed resolution.The motion was seconded.

Professor Mahmud indicated that he supported the motion to table the resolution. It keeps the issues open as they are. We were just talking about what happened. The PeopleSoft issue is not past. As we sit here, problems are continuing. Students don't have their money for this session, their transcripts are still garbled, the pressures on the staff are still there, so we are not talking about yesterday. He felt that Professor Wilson's suggestion was a good one. Let's see how things unfold; let's see how the Administration deals with it. We don't have information about what they do, but they do have information about what we do because we have Minutes here. We will have another opportunity to revisit this issue instead of closing it in a way where it leaves doubt as to what our sentiments really are.

With regard to Professor Bowen's statement, Professor Govea indicated that, he, too, is concerned about this being publicized.

At this point, Professor John Hemann called a point of order stating that he thought a motion to table is not debatable. Dr. Phillips reported that Dr. John Hemann is quite right. A motion to table is not debatable. So all debate that has taken place should be disregarded. She then asked for a vote on tabling the motion. The motion to table failed and debate continued on the original motion.

Professor John Hemann said that he could support the motion from the Arts and Sciences Caucus, but it really misses a key point. As he reads the sentiment on campus, there are a lot of faculty and staff who have a question about confidence in the leadership of the President and the Administration. Somehow that is a problem. We are talking about the confidence to lead us out of the PeopleSoft problem, the confidence that we would have in leading a search for a Provost, to a vision for the University, etc. If the faculty and the staff do not have confidence, then we are in some trouble. We really need to think about that issue. He does not have a suggestion because he had thought that Professor Gross was probably going to put forth a motion and the Senate could talk about it.

Professor Surendra Tewari stated that PeopleSoft is a serious problem and possibly it will stay with us for a while because it is a computer related highly technical problem. The whole country was fooled very recently to the tune of about $300 Billion in the name of Y2K. He noted that the computers in his lab, which are 286s and 386s are still functioning. There has been no crises in the developing countries and no plane has fallen down because of Y2K. So is the solution that we should fire all of us? Technology is like that, therefore, let us realize that this PeopleSoft problem is going to be with us for a while. At this time, the solution should be to throw PeopleSoft out, which is very unlikely. The only solution he has is that we should fix the problems. Let us not forget that this President and this University, with the help of the faculty, have done a lot over the last eight years. PeopleSoft is a serious problem. Recently we have had bad images. He remembers what the situation was ten/fifteen years ago when he joined the University and what the situation is today. Look at the buildings. We should not forget the positive things that have been done in the University because of all of us and because of the Administration. Therefore, in the past at least, we should have had the courtesy to tell people once in a while, hey, you are doing a good job. In the future, as a Senate, let us at least take that step once in six months, once in two years. Let us not come back after once in six years and say, no, every fault around this campus is because of you. This campus is a good campus. It has moved only in a positive direction for the last ten years, and, anyone who says otherwise, is wrong. Dr. Tewari said that he personally sees problems within the Administration in various aspects. For example, people in Accounting are having problems because of PeopleSoft. He made a payment for a particular person. He was told yes, the payment was made. But then it was not made. So he goes back again. The problems are still there. The basic problem is that people are still afraid to talk to each other. If there is a problem, let us come out and say, yes, there is a problem here. How do we go about fixing it? That is the approach we should take. We have to somehow fix it. Please remember we cannot get out of it. It is really a technical problem which has us by our throat.

Dr. Daniel Drake commented that he is certainly glad his fellow Senators spoke in those terms because there have been a lot of positive things that have occurred over the past years. They would not have been able to have occurred without leadership and without collaboration. No one is perfect. We run into bumpy spots along the road all the time. The one thing we need to do from time to time is to lay out the concerns and this resolution catches that. Someone had mentioned earlier that there has been poor decision-making. When we have continuous and improved communication, we will get improved decisions. That sort of goes hand in hand. It is easy enough to throw out criticisms without giving accolades where they are due. It is his own personal opinion that there are some people in the University that maybe, at the outset, were not really thrilled about having a female President. He still feels that some of that exists somewhere in the quarters. We need to look at leadership in terms of what has been accomplished. Then we should try to work collaboratively to move this University forward. It is still a young University and a lot of stride has been made. We can make even greater strides by working in a collaborative mode.

Professor Meiksins pointed out that decision-making is not gendered and it is unfair to those faculty who have expressed concerns here to imply that somehow or another it is because we are sexist. He said that he did not think that is the case. He doesn't think that the people who spoke against this particular Administration's approach to problems are sexist and he strongly takes exception to that argument. He also shares the sentiment with many other Senators here who find this resolution to be somewhat insipid. It expresses a concern that is real, however, and he does not think that this is a problem so he supports the resolution because it addresses one of the problems. He commented that if he were an administrator at this University, he would interpret this as an expression of concern that isn't confined to the specific issue raised in this resolution. As one can see from the discussion here, there are other concerns simmering among a wide variety of faculty and a wide variety of colleges. We are expressing our concern as a faculty that things have not gone the way we would like them to go, that we are concerned, among other things, with the approach to communication that this Administration has taken, and that we expect that things will change. If things don't change, he doesn't agree that this puts an end to the discussion as someone had implied earlier. We can bring this issue up again, and again, and again, bring stronger resolutions, and express our concern in more aggressive ways if required. He added that he hopes we don't come to that point. He hopes that the problems are resolved. He agrees with what was said earlier, but he doesn't think change has gone far enough yet so that he is confident that problems have been resolved. Voting for this resolution does not put an end to this issue. For that reason he supported the resolution.

Professor Michael Spicer indicated that he shared some of the sentiments stated; nonetheless, he felt that despite the "feel good" tone of the discussion in part, our external audience is going to have difficulty discerning the difference between this type of resolution and a vote of no confidence. At the very least, he would see this as sort of a soft vote of no confidence. In addition, he would point to the "WHEREASES" and the fact that the Administration here seems to be charged with a large part of the responsibility for the problems. He sees it as a soft vote of no confidence. He also would agree that the concerns seem to go far beyond communication. He would rather dispense with the present resolution and go to a straight up or down vote of no confidence and see how people feel about it.

Professor Kimberly Neuendorf concurred with what Professor Meiksins had said. Keep in mind that this does not preclude further action down the line. This is today's step. If we choose to pass this resolution, who knows what we will do next time. But, it is a step in the right direction as a movement to express our grave concern with everything that has been going on. She also concurred with those who noted that this is not just about communication. Point (2) in the resolution, of all of them, is the point that has some teeth. It insists that faculty be involved in the decision-making processes because, she assumes, it is felt that if faculty had greater input in the entire PeopleSoft debacle, the things that occurred may not have. With that in mind, she asked to add a friendly amendment to the final words in that statement. She asked to change the wording in (2) "...(that contain a majority of faculty chosen by faculty);" to "(...that contain a majority of full-time members who are faculty chosen by faculty);"

Professor Bowen was also in agreement with Professor Meiksins' suggestion. He stated that if we must say something now, then let us modify what we say to include decision-making explicitly in the amendment as well as communication. In the third whereas, "WHEREAS, the poor handling of the problems can be traced to communication..." add "and decision-making." In addition, in (1) change "Improve communication among administrators..." to "Improve communication and decision-making among administrators..."

Professor Gross made two points. First of all with regard to communication, he suggested to Professor Flechtner, from the Arts and Sciences Caucus, that when he puts out a resolution, he should sign his name and/or the Arts and Sciences Caucus as a whole. Professor Gross noted that when he put out a three page thirty point memo, he signed his name. Even though it is very critical to the Administration, he was not afraid to put his name on it. In the spirit of better communication, put your name and/or committees to this piece of paper. Second, again, PeopleSoft is just the tip of the iceberg. Year in and year out under this and previous Administrations, he was pleading for comparative data. We are not getting it. How many endowed Chairs does this University have compared to our sister institutions? All he gets is stonewalling because we are not getting comparisons. We are in the fourth quartile among national universities. When he showed that to the Provost, the Provost said, "Well wait. We are right at the top." Professor Gross said, "No, Harold, it is alphabetical. We are not at the top." Look at the data across it and compare ourselves to other schools. When we have that kind of actual comparisons and when we admit our shortcomings and what we have accomplished as Professor Tewari said, then he will be happy.

Dr. Phillips noted that probably when the Agenda was made, we should have listed "Professor Thomas Flechtner for the Arts and Sciences Caucus" on the document, but we did inform Senators that it was on the Agenda. With the permission of the Arts and Sciences Caucus, when we enter this into our records, we could put on the resolution, "brought to the Faculty Senate by the Arts and Sciences Caucus." It was never intended to be unattributed, so that correction can be made. Professor Flechtner added that the resolution was distributed in advance of the meeting.

Professor Bowen proposed rewording the resolution. In the third WHEREAS, he proposed adding: "and decision-making" after the word "communication." In addition, in (1), he proposed adding "decision-making, especially by improving" between the words "Improve communication." He felt it would be stronger. The point is, it is a decision-making process.

Professor Karl Wheatley commented that perhaps because he is new, with only one half year on the Senate, it has not been entirely clear to him what percentage of the cost overruns, for example, can be attributed to decision-making or poor communication, although he is in favor of better communication for the usual reasons. It is hard for him to understand. He felt there is a general feeling that something has gone wrong, but it is hard for him to know. Is the $1 Million overrun due to that or is it more that this is the package which seems to be the only option that many people chose? He doesn't know how to judge and he doesn't know whether it makes sense to add.

Professor Meiksins called a point of order. He asked If Professor Bowen was proposing a friendly amendment or was he proposing the changes as a motion. Professor Flechtner said that he did not see it as friendly -- it changes the meaning of the resolution. Professor Meiksins asked Professor Bowen if he was making a motion to amend or withdrawing. Professor Bowen stated that he was making a motion to amend. The motion was seconded.

Dr. Phillips noted that the discussion now would be on the motion to amend.

Professor Misra strongly supported the motion to amend because he does understand the sentiment of "feel good" as has been used. Improving communication, for example, doesn't solve any problem. When you call the Registrar's office or six different places, there is absolutely nobody receiving your call. He offered this as an example of general administrative collapse. It is not only decision-making, it is poor decision-making, stonewalling, general administrative collapse, fostering low faculty morale, fostering low staff morale, and any amount of improving communication is not going to solve those problems. For example, when one of the professional teams fails, for whatever reason it fails, it is the coach who has to go. In this case, in all honesty, the coach should take the responsibility and say it is time to move on and do something else interesting.

Dr. Govea spoke against the proposed amendment for two reasons. One, putting in decision-making doesn't make much of a point except to state what is really obvious. He wishes we hadn't spent a lot of money and he wishes the software would work. It is kind of pointless for us to point out that this has not been a really good decision and that we find ourselves in a bit of trouble. The second reason is that he perceives the flood gates opening to word sniffing the document and we could be here several hours. By the time we get out of here, the document will be either unreadable or fundamentally the same as when we started. He suggested that the amendment be voted down.

Professor Cheryl McCahon also spoke against the amendment. What it says here is a best attempt at beginning to address resolving some of the problems. Look at some of the issues and concerns that the Senate body has identified. This is not the last time we can bring this to the attention of anyone. It is a start that identifies three major concerns that have been determined to be, at least from the Arts and Sciences Caucus, concerns that need to be addressed.

Professor Mastboom asked that the proposed amendment be read again. Professor Hemann read the proposed amendment: "(1) Improve decision-making especially by improving communication among administrators..." Professor Hemann indicated that he still had a question on that very paragraph. He asked if it reads, "Improve decision-making, especially by improving communication...". He felt that it did not make sense. Dr. Phillips said the motion should read: "Improve decision-making especially by improving communication among administrators..."

Professor Glending Olson stated that he felt the amendment makes perfectly good sense.

Professor Bowen remarked that the basic simple message translates into either Cleveland State University blames problems on communication or Cleveland State University blames problems on decision-making. For a responsible University, he felt the latter sits better to blame problems on poor decision-making. That is the basic message we are going to get across here. We are either blaming our problems on poor decision-making or on poor communication. To say that it is poor decision-making, is a much more responsible kind of statement or message to give out.

Professor Mahmud remarked that he was in total agreement with Professor Bowen. He felt that the question here is how far to go. There is consensus here that there would not have been a motion of no confidence for a variety of reasons -- not because people have confidence in the Administration, but for other reasons. The other is to say nothing. The suggested amendment is a middle ground consensus and he strongly supported it.

Dr. Green said that much of what is intended by this amendment is included in (2) "Include faculty and staff in the decision-making process..." That is the thrust of what we are trying to say here or at least what the A&S Caucus is trying to say. If we simply say improve decision-making, the Administration can very well say, "Yes, we will. We will go off and huddle secretly and improve decision-making." What we are trying to argue here is that participation and communication is the key. If we improve that, and if we talk to each other both before, during, and after decisions are made, the decisions will improve. When errors are made, the errors will be coming forward and we will be able to deal with them. The statement, as it stands, takes care of what we are trying to get at. She added that she had said this way back in September at the first meeting. It is a not a very wonderful idea for us to sit around and run a witch hunt as to who is responsible, who made mistakes, who we should get, and why. We have to look at the mistakes that were made, see how we can prevent them in the future, try to deal with the mistakes that have occurred, and look to the future. She doesn't want something which is half way towards a no confidence vote. She has been the grievance officer for the AAUP union and she does not like it when a faculty member makes a mistake and the response of some administrator is, "Away with his tenure or fire the person." I ask for people to listen to what somebody has done as a whole, how they can grow, and how they can change. We ought to have the same respect for each other that she asks as a grievance officer. Mistakes are made. The penalty for mistakes is not execution.

Dr. Phillips asked if we were looking at the difference between the phrases "decision-making" and "decision-making processes?" Dr. Green responded that we were not. Dr. Phillips said that it sounds as if we are talking about decision-making processes. Somebody had asked for clarification. Are we talking about the decisions themselves? Professor Bowen responded that to his mind, the statement, as he proposed it, goes along perfectly with what Professor Green had said insofar as it doesn't say decision-making. He said that the two messages simply boiled down into one, or two, or three word short phrases. If you read that whole amendment, it talks specifically about communication. The reason he wants to have that phrase in there is so that it all translates into the simple message that people communicate to each other on the street and they are saying Cleveland State is interested in improving its decision-making processes in particular. It is not linguistic. Dr. Phillips noted that the difference between "decision-making" and "decision-making processes" is certainly one of substance, not merely linguistics.

Dr. Tewari commented that this University is like a family and if things are going good, that is fine, but if things are going wrong in any corner, the whole family should know about it. That is not what has been happening and that is the problem which made the PeopleSoft issue much worse. All of us should be involved on at least some level of having a communication link. For example, having spent $10 Million overhead, we are going into financial exigency very soon. Those kinds of things should be coming out openly. Say, all right, we are having a serious problem. In his opinion, that is the communication which is lacking. Therefore, the way the resolution is written is fine.

Dr. Jeffres remarked that the phrasing does not make any sense. He noted that if the motion to improve decisions is kept, it doesn't make any sense to him. He knows how to improve communication. The people who made the decision to buy PeopleSoft before Vice Provost Fred Gage came thought that it was a good decision. So, what we are saying is make a good decision in advance which doesn't make any sense at all. A more inclusive decision-making process is part of what is being said which is what he thought was being said in (2). A more inclusive decision-making process includes faculty and staff, especially when those decisions will have profound effects. If the notion of improving the decision-making process is separate from communication, that makes sense. Keep them separate.

Professor Mastboom stated that she is willing to accept Professor Olson's correct English and she supports the motion. She then called the question. Dr. Gross seconded the motion. Dr. Phillips stated that there is no debate on calling the question on the amendment and that means we will now vote on whether to accept the amendment to the original motion. Then we have to go back and accept the original motion. The amendment to the motion was defeated. Dr. Phillips noted that we are now back to concluding discussion on the original motion. The question on the original motion was called, seconded, and approved. The Senate next voted on the text of the original motion, revised by the two friendly amendments. The motion was then approved by a vote of 27 for the motion, 4 opposed to the motion, and 3 abstentions.

[Go to top of page]


VIII. University President's Report

President Claire Van Ummersen thanked the many faculty, staff, and students who have spoken, written, or E-mailed her over the past several months. Their support and caring is very deeply appreciated. It is their spirit, love, and support for Cleveland State University and their willingness to be a contributor to its continued progress, at this point in time, that buoys her and keeps her moving forward. She hears everyone loud and clearly. She has really tried, over the last seven years, to work at this issue of communication. A whole series of ways of doing that have been tried. She hears today that, for the most part, we have been unsuccessful. She is certainly willing to try harder and to have her Administration try harder to work with faculty on the issues of communication, openness, and decision-making. She will look to faculty for advice and counsel on how we can best move forward. We have, in the past, worked together on very difficult situations. We still have a situation facing us with PeopleSoft and we will have other crises as we move ahead. This institution faced crises before she got here. But, only by working together, can we solve these problems and move forward. She assured Dr. Gross that his thirty plus questions will be answered. Some of them are from misinformation at this moment in time. He is correct in that he has not been given proper information. Incorrect information has been reported in a number of places.

Secondly, President Van Ummersen reported that two search committees are being put together at this point in time. Three members of the Administration and one student will be added to the Provost Search Committee, for which the membership was voted on today. The student will be Steven Lake, President of Student Government, and one member of the Administration will be Dr. Njeri Nuru-Holm, Vice President for Minority Affairs and Community Relations and Vice Provost for Student Affairs. An academic administrator and a staff member will be added. We will wait until we have a better sense of who the faculty are to try to balance some of the diversity and gender issues as we move forward with that Committee.

President Van Ummersen reported that as she said to Dr. Phillips this morning, a search firm will be used for the Provost search, and she has no problem with the search committee selecting the firm. There are a number of good firms out there and any number of them could be helpful to us in that process. She did not think that one firm over another provides any great difference. Regarding the second search for a Dean in Urban Affairs, the Provost has already met with the Faculty Senators in that College and has met with others in the College who represent some of the Centers. In addition, he will be meeting with the Chair and one of the senior members of the Visiting Committee, and a search committee will be put together for that process. We will try to respect the wishes of the College in terms of the timing for that search just as we certainly will respect the wishes of the Senate in terms of the Provost Search. There is no intention to try to have a process completed for the Provost without having full input from the faculty. This affects every single College in the University and we want the widest possible participation in that process. The Provost that will eventually be appointed will need to work with all of the Colleges and will have to have the confidence of those Colleges.

President Van Ummersen reported on three other issues. One, an open forum will be held where the issues of communication and decision-making can be discussed. She will try to get a scheduled date for the forum and get back to everyone with that. It is hoped that there will be broad participation, not only by the members of the Senate, but by other faculty who would like to be a part of that. It is important that this be done openly and that we try to come to some consensus about how we are going to proceed. Speaking to Dr. Jeffres, the President said that as the communication person, she hopes that he can help the Administration to think through better ways to communicate with one another and better processes that can be used at the University.

President Van Ummersen reported on two other items that came out of meetings in Columbus over the last couple of weeks. One was a meeting of the IUC Presidents yesterday. Concerned about the problem of financing for higher education, particularly public higher education in the State of Ohio, the Presidents have decided that they are going to take the position that they are, at this point, terming it the economic cold war and they are using that approach to try to get the attention, not only of the Regents, but also of the legislature. Looking at the data that compares Ohio, it is very clear that we are losing the war in comparison to our neighboring states. In order to deal with that, we need to greatly increase the pool of dollars that flows to all of higher education. We believe that by banding together and making our case to the legislature, we will be more apt to garner additional dollars than individually asking for money from the legislature. We are also going to come forward with a State-wide public relations campaign that will deal with economic impact, that will deal with the needs of the colleges across the State, and also that will include an opinion survey that is going to be done by the University of Cincinnati's Public Policy Institute. We are planning to have a set of information based on data that will assist us in making our case to the legislature. The issue for us is that we are going to have a forty percent turnover in the State legislature between now and next January. We need to start gearing up for that. We believe that this campaign should be waged with all of the candidates before they end up being elected or not elected. We will have a single document that all of us will use so that we are saying the same things in every region of the State. We are going to be calling on people in our own institutions. All of you have representatives. Some of you know them better than others and we are going to be asking you to contact them during this process. We hope that by orchestrating this, we will have a legislature that is educated to our needs and hopefully sympathetic to them when we come up to January 2001. That is one of the things that is going to be underway in the next six to eight months.

President Van Ummersen reported that the second issue is the work of the Graduate Funding Commission that is continuing in Columbus. The Commission asked that information be put together for us so that we could make a determination about whether, in fact, some of what we have been told was true. The interesting information that came to us at our last meeting clearly shows that the increase in funding for Doctoral education that we were all told was affecting undergraduates across the State, and, therefore, graduate programs and Doctoral programs had to be cut, etc., turns out not to be true at all. In fact, there has been no affect on the undergraduate programs across the State. The affect, if any, has been on the slowing of the increase in support for medical education. All of the difference has come from that source and despite the fact that the Regents keep saying that graduate education funding is growing, it is very clear that during the past three years, it has declined. All of the support, whether it goes to public or private institutions, goes into both the medical and to the Doctoral and Masters level graduate education. Overall, in the past ten years, it has actually declined. So, the Funding Commission had worked for three years under the impression that all of the changes being made were being made because of the problems with undergraduate education losing its subsidy because of all the graduate students we were now supporting. In fact, that is not true and that, in a way, threw a curve to the Regents staff. They now have to go back and rethink why we are looking at funding at the Masters level. The President said that she is not quite sure how all of this is going to come out, but she is glad that she was selected by the Presidents to sit on that Commission because Presidents have a different perspective and ask different questions from what Graduate Deans ask and finance people ask. The finance people are very good and very accurate, but they are always figuring out how they are going to work with the third decimal point. The Presidents' issues are different. We have to enlarge the pie. It is not a question of undergraduate or graduate support. It is a question of Ohio being behind everybody else. If we are going to succeed as a State economically, we are going to have to deal with the issues of increasing support for graduate education at the same time we increase support for undergraduate education. She added that she will keep everyone posted of these issues. She reported that she keeps Dr. Donna Phillips informed because she is our representative to the Ohio Faculty Council. This is not just the Presidents' issue -- it is a faculty issue as well.

Professor Jeffres reported that CSU is contemplating an agreement with WVIZ, and, as someone who has worked on a couple of agreements with non-profit institutions in the past, he is always leery of what looks like a good relationship. This could be a wonderful relationship with WVIZ. But, we need to make sure that the academic side of this institution is involved in the planning all along the way if we are going to get anything other than lukewarm promises. They did it with WXCBN and with the Playhouse and a lot of others. He would ask that at least Susan Hill, Chair of the Department of Communication, and Donna Phillips, President of the Senate, be at those discussions, not just a non-academic out of the Provost's Office. Then we can be certain that our students and our curriculum are served, not just our image in that sense, and that we truly benefit from this relationship.

President Van Ummersen responded that she is in total agreement with Professor Jeffres. Dr. Susan Hill has been involved and that will be continued. At this point, and we need to clarify this, we do not have a programmatic agreement. We have $250,000 from the State to plan and the agreement that we signed up front was to do that planning. Professor Jeffres is absolutely right. We need to have the faculty involved in the planning of that facility and we will do that. We are not looking at the next stage. The President said that she has learned from the process. She has come after the fact on most of these and we have been crawling up hill with some of the agreements that we have. We are trying to get this agreement up front so that it is very clear that these dollars, when they come, do not belong to WVIZ but that they belong to both of us. In the past, the problem we've had is that the dollars have been perceived as belonging to the Science Center or belonging to the Playhouse and we have come in after the fact and then tried to rationalize them because they come out of the State Higher Education Bonding Authority. This time, we are saying, look, we can do this up front. Normally, the agreement that the Board Committee approved last week or the week before never would have happened. That planning would have gone on if there were capital budget dollars. Then only at that point would there be a need to put something together. As a matter of fact in the case of the Science Museum, they had already spent the money and then wanted to get it from the State. You can imagine the discussions that went on. Even though we have a fairly tight agreement with them on paper, it doesn't work in practice. Dr. Mark Tumeo can give you chapter and verse on that. The perception out there in the community is that it is not our money; it is theirs. That is why we have been trying to work up front with WVIZ to get these agreements in place.

Professor Bowen remarked that he could tell the President how to get 40,000 eligible high school students on campus and give them a very clear message about Cleveland State University without spending a penney. The message would be to stay away from this place. The way we would do that would be by doing nothing about the locker rooms down in Physical Education. They are a catastrophe. He felt so thankful today that he could find one locker out of six rows that he could put his stuff in when he was going swimming. He can not think of a better anti-recruiting device than that. President Van Ummersen replied that they are under design and both the men's and women's locker rooms will be taken care of as soon as classes are out this spring.

Professor Meiksins noted that the President had mentioned in her report two Administrative searches -- one for the Provost and one for the Dean of the Urban School. There is also an Interim Dean in the Graduate College. There was supposed to be a committee meeting to discuss the Graduate College. He wondered if that is happening. President Van Ummersen responded that she understands that the Committee has already had one meeting. She has agreed that nothing would be done about that search until there is a report from that Committee.

Professor Gross expressed his appreciation of President Van Ummersen's remarks and said that he does hope that she will answer some or all of the points he raised in his memo. In the spirit of what has gone on before, what we have just stated, and along the lines of what Professor Misra has said, he gave two specific examples to show the President that the devil is in the details and that little things matter a lot. First, when he called the President's Office a week ago Saturday, he counted well over fifteen rings before the voice mail or the answering machine kicked in. He would suggest, for better communication, it should be fewer rings. Second, at the Computer Help Desk at Ext. 5050, the mail box was full today at noon. That is a very crucial place and it should be manned all of the time, the phones should be answered all of the time, and the mail box should be emptied all of the time.

Dr. Jane McIntyre stated that the ongoing PeopleSoft problems have had a devastating financial impact on many parts of the University and, although Faculty Senate does not normally receive budgetary reports from the President, this is an issue on which the faculty deserve to have an accounting of what it has cost and where the money has come from. She is very concerned that the money is coming out of all parts of the academic side. She would like a forthright discussion of what is being done to finance the solution to this problem, and she would like the Senate to have a report on the total cost of it -- not excluding several months of this year when there were big expenses, as the most recent report to the Budget Committee of the Board did. We need to know that.

President Van Ummersen asked if she could do that in two parts. There is the back part -- the $11.1 Million. There is the forward going part that we don't have a final number for yet. We are in the process of interviewing possible production partners. She could give a range but she did not think that an accurate number could be provided. Maybe by the next Senate meeting she will have a more accurate number and the financing plan for it.

Dr. McIntyre noted that the financing plan is very important because Deans and Chairs are well aware that the money seems to be disappearing out of budgets quickly. She would really like to have some overall sense of the impact on the academic side.

Professor Mastboom observed that Professor McIntyre was just talking about the RFPs which are currently being bid and also the budget statement that went to the Board which actually excluded any money spent after October 31, 1999. President Van Ummersen stated that is what she would include in her report.

Professor Cynthia Dieterich appreciated the concern about the issue of communication. She suggested that the Administration not try harder but try differently and think about new ways to look at concerns.

Professor Mareyjoyce Green commented that she certainly agrees with President Van Ummersen's report encouraging increased funding for post-secondary education in the State. But, while we are speaking with our legislators, we should have some notion for ourselves so that CSU will, for a change, get its fair share of this increased funding based upon that which we uniquely present to the State in benefits because we are the special institution that we are. We should encourage whomever it is that is helping us develop our strategy to work with our legislators so that there will be increased funding, but specifically, in ways by which CSU will get its fair share. We will be in on the planning of that.

[Go to top of page]

IX. Senate President's Report

Dr. Phillips reported that she is bringing two concerns to Senate that were brought to her attention today at the Student Luncheon and that the students asked her to bring forward to the Senate.

One is a concern by some of the students that not all Masters and Doctoral programs have orientations for their incoming graduate students and, as a result, the graduate students feel excluded. Now we, of course, are going to turn this over to the Committee talking about the Graduate College and bring that to the attention of Dr. Mark Tumeo as the Interim Dean. She also promised the students that, in the meantime, she would encourage the departments that have graduate programs to be sure that there is something available for graduate students.

Dr. Mark Tumeo reported that the Graduate College is starting a program beginning this summer. A faculty member will be recruited to actually run the orientation program again and go across the board. We have put some money into doing it and doing it well so that our graduate students are welcomed appropriately and introduced appropriately to the University in all departments.

Dr. Phillips reported that her second item is much more delicate. The students believe that it would be unwise to say this directly so she promised that she would say it for them. She wanted to make it very clear at this point that neither the students nor she are talking about any sort of reasoned criticism of particular University issues that are made public. We are not talking about violating anyone's first amendment rights, but some of the articles that have appeared in various publications of late have disturbed the students because they believe that such things as comparing us to a "garbage dump" downgrades their education and the University as a whole. The students believe this to be unfair and they were disappointed in faculty members who were not careful about how they phrased their criticisms of the University so it appeared that they were downgrading the entire University and the entire University system. She brings this to the Senate's attention simply to say, please be careful that what you say is what you mean.

In terms of actual information pieces, Dr. Phillips reported on what will be coming to the Senate. We still have the Honors Program Report to talk about. Also, possibly a discussion about technology literacy is going to be important to the Senate. In addition, we are going to need the NCA Report to be circulated and discussed. That report is due in the Fall 2000. She commented that she forgets that February is so close to the end of our academic term that it doesn't leave us a great deal of time. So, we should probably invite Dr. Everett Cataldo to the next Senate meeting and talk about the plans for disseminating that report.

In terms of Columbus, Dr. Phillips reported that it appears that the Board of Regents are about to approve Phoenix University to operate in the State of Ohio and that it will be coming specifically to Cleveland. She is not sure of all of the issues. The point she wanted to make is that she doesn't know where any discussion of that has occurred but certainly not with the faculty. We are going to bring that up to them.

Dr. Phillips said that she had mentioned the report card concept to the Senate before which continues to be a favorite in Columbus, and it looks more and more as if, and the Presidents have been told this too, it is going to be tied to our mission statement. We have no idea how it is going to be tied to our mission statement. This is a discussion that we are going to want to begin to have. So, those things will be coming to the Ohio Faculty Council. She should also have, for the next Senate meeting, the final wording of the Domestic Partner Resolution from the Ohio Faculty Council. Actually, if this passes on Friday, it is a little stronger than the one that CSU's Faculty Senate approved. There will not be anything in it that would be disapproved given the discussion that took place in Senate.

Professor Misra pointed out that Phoenix University is not the only one we have heard about. We have also heard about schools such as Cornell and UCLA. They have each gone into a major initiative to set up whole programs on the Internet. So that is coming as well.

Dr. Phillips noted that certainly, at least, how they become able to work in the State is something that we ought to be looking at.

[Go to top of page]

 

X. New Business

Professor Dr. Chet Jain stated that he is humbled and encouraged by the graciousness with which President Van Ummersen responded to the Arts and Sciences Caucus Resolution that took one and one half hours of constant barrage by forty-five Senate members. It is not easy to be at the receiving end.

Dr. Rodger Govea responded to the students' comments about the metaphor. Actually, what disturbs him is the fact that the faculty member involved did not identify himself. If anybody is going to express an opinion with regard to University issues, we can all follow a simple rule which is to identify yourself and make sure that everybody knows that you are, in fact, representing yourself and nobody else.

Mr. Jerry Struthers, a student, reported that many know he has been very outspoken and has commented in the press many times. He noted that he is glad he spoke his piece because it has gotten us out of this denial that there is a problem with PeopleSoft. We all know that there is a problem. There is a bigger problem now that the upgrading has been done. He commented that he brought that up to President Van Ummersen at the recent President's Luncheon. He was even praying that the upgrading would not be done. He believes that it will be a major problem this next Fall. One of the biggest concerns he brought up to the President was the fact that students can't even type their papers in our crummy labs because the system crashes out. Earlier it was asked why the Help Desk mail box is full. He explained that it is full because students are calling the Help Desk telling them that they want to type papers. The students have asked and have been informed that Microsoft Word might possibly be installed on the computers. We are hoping that this will be done. Also, we have our Student Website up and we heard that there has been a battle between the University and our Website at csuohio.com as being a confusion site. The students want to get this information out. There will be no more denial in this century at this University. He added that he hopes the faculty understands and bears with the students because they do not have the power that Senators have.

Dr. Phillips commented that she was delighted to see so many students at the Senate meeting today. She said that they should come more often and wished that other students would come because they should know how business gets conducted at the Senate.

Professor Dunegan responded to Jerry Struthers giving him some indication of the power that the Senators have. He noted that he called the Help Desk in the middle of December and six weeks later he received a response. They called him back and wondered whether or not they could help him with his problem after he left a message on their voice mail. So, the students are not the only ones that feel powerless.

Dr. Phillips commented that most faculty have really scaled down their expectations from having power to having influence.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:55 P.M.

Pamela J. Eyerdam

Senate Secretary

/velb

[Go to top of page]