Cleveland State University

Faculty Senate

March 15, 2000


PRESENT: Barbato, Blake, Chung, Crocker, Dieterich, Dillard-Mitchell, Doerder, Drake, Dunegan, Dural, Flechtner, Govea, B. Green, Gross, Hartnagel, Holmes, C. Jackson, Jeffres, Kamath, S. Kaufman, Konangi, MacCluskie, Mahmud, Mastboom, McCahon, J. McIntyre, McLoughlin, Misra, Moutafakis, Nolan, Nuru-Holm, Olson, Orendi, D. Phillips, Quigney, Rini, Sekayi, Spicer, Steckol, Tewari, Thornton, Valencic, Van Ummersen, Wadhwa, Walsh, M. Webb, J. Wilson.

ABSENT/EXCUSED: Bowen, Buckley, DeGroot, Eyerdam, Falk, Feko, Frew, Gorla, Hemann, Hollinger, M. Jackson, Keys, Konstantinos, Lindsey, Meiksins, Neuendorf, Steinglass, Sweet, Tumeo, Vallos, Waren, Wheatley.

ALSO PRESENT: Jain, Lupton, Matthews.

Senate President Donna Burns Phillips called the meeting to order at approximately 3:00 P.M.

I. Eulogy for Israel Rubin

Professor Mareyjoyce Green delivered the Eulogy.

"On December 4th we lost a colleague who has contributed many years of faithful service to the Department of Sociology, to the College of Arts and Sciences, to the University, to our profession and to his denomination. We pause to remember Professor Emeritus Israel Rubin, who came to Cleveland State in 1966.

Professor Rubin began his professional career as a Teaching Assistant at the University of Pittsburgh in 1959, where he received his Bachelor's degree in History and his Doctorate in Sociology. Prior to joining us at Cleveland State he had taught at Northwestern University, the University of Minnesota, and had spent a year as a Visiting Senior Lecturer in Sociology at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, Israel.

Although his areas of interest included Industry, Social Change, Community, and Religion, he was best known for his research and publications on Jewish Society. His participant observation study of an Orthodox Jewish community in New York resulted in a book, Satmar: An Island in the City. Dr. Rubin visited the community periodically to keep his research current and prior to the onset of illness, revised and in 1997 published a new edition of the book, Satmar: Two Generations of an Urban Island. He was the author of many articles and a reviewer for the widely respected ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. His articles included for example: "Ethnicity and Cultural Pluralism," published in Phylon. He was the author of chapters in books of readings. His article, "Chassidic Community Behavior" was reprinted as a chapter in the edited book, A Coat of Many Colors: Jewish Subcommunities in the United States and "Function and Structure of Community: Conceptual and Theoretical Analysis" was a chapter in New Pespectives on the American Community. An active professional, he presented papers at annual meetings of The American Sociological Association, the Society for the Study of Social Problems, North Central Sociological Association and the National Conference on Jewish Communal Service. With his devoted wife of many years, Dr. Anna Halberstam Rubin, he wrote for the Cleveland Jewish News.

A Holocaust survivor, Professor Rubin was born in Sighet, Rumania and came to the United States in 1947. He was a prominent Jewish scholar with a wide-ranging knowledge and love of Torah, Talmud, and Jewish history and culture. He was a founding member of Torah U'Tefillah Congregation in Cleveland Heights where he led services.

Israel was a loyal colleague who joined the faculty at Cleveland State University during the early years. He was a member of the Proposal and Development Committee for establishing the College of Urban Affairs. In the early years, the Department of Sociology was housed in the Roth Building (now the Euclid Building) where the room partitions ended several feet from the ceiling. When someone forgot his or her key, we would climb over the wall and into our office, a practice of which Israel never entirely approved. He contributed much to the growth and development of the Department of Sociology. Israel Rubin's introductory Sociology class is a CSU memory for alumni numbering in the thousands. In his later years, it was both commonplace and gratifying for Dr. Rubin to be greeted by a former student whenever he appeared in a public place. He inspired students to academic excellence and expected comprehensive literacy. Grade inflation was a concept that did not exist in the vocabulary of either Dr. Rubin or of his students. Many of his students went on to excel in graduate school.

Professor Rubin will be missed by his many friends at the University and by colleagues in the Sociology Department. We will continue to honor his legacy, which will live on in the careers and contributions of his students."

Senate President Donna Phillips asked everyone to join her in a moment of silence in remembrance of Israel Rubin.

[Go to top of page]

II. Approval of the Agenda

Acceptance of the Agenda for March 15, 2000 was moved, seconded, and approved.

[Go to top of page]

III. Approval of the Minutes of the February 9, 2000 Meeting

Acceptance of the Minutes of the February 9, 2000 meeting was moved and seconded. Several Senators reported minor errors in the Minutes. The corrected Minutes were then approved.

[Go to top of page]

IV. Proposed Master of Physical Therapy Degree Program (Report No. 26, 1999-2000)

Dr. Gregory Lupton, Chair of the University Curriculum Committee, presented the proposed Master of Physical Therapy Degree Program. He pointed out that this program is being proposed essentially in line with national trends making a transition from an undergraduate degree to a graduate Master's program. In addition, this is in response to accreditation agency pressures. He noted that Andrew Miracle, Chair of Health Sciences, was present to take technical questions.

Professor Joyce Mastboom commented that there was extensive discussion of this proposal in the Academic Steering Committee, particularly regarding the finances, and the condition was that this proposal would not come to Faculty Senate unless certain questions were answered. Dr. Phillips noted that the Steering Committee had questions about necessary resources for this program.

Professor Spicer referred to page 25 of the proposal. He noted that it is clear that new faculty members are not being asked for, but budget funding of some $90,000 per year is needed. His concern, which was shared by several members of the Academic Steering Committee, is where is this money coming from? Are there commitments for this funding from the Dean of Arts and Sciences, or the Provost's Office? It seems that in the absence of such commitments, this is an open-ended contract and, frankly, he is a little bit uneasy about it.

Dr. Andrew Miracle, Chair of Health Sciences, responded that we are caught in the middle here because of changes in the Administration and within the College of Graduate Studies. This version of the proposal is something like eight months old. It has been circulated to a variety of other committees. There have certainly been some changes in the situation since it was initially proposed. In the proposal itself, all that was suggested was that the difference in tuition income alone for the current undergraduate program and the proposed graduate program would be roughly twice what has been asked for. We are indicating that there would be new income. There has been some discussion in meetings between Mark Tumeo, Dean Steckol, and the Provost in terms of how to deal with this. His understanding is that they are present and they can comment on the program. There is a general commitment but no resources would be diverted from existing academic programs. There is a willingness to look for a way to allocate resources to this program. These are obviously fairly minimal requests for a graduate program in terms of Graduate Assistants and some additional resources for the Library, supplies, and equipment. That is the basis for what was presented to the Academic Steering Committee.

Professor Spicer asked if a credible graduate program could still be put together if the $90,000 cannot be raised. Dr. Miracle responded that it could be done, but the implications are about different qualities. We have had a high quality program. The undergraduate Physical Therapy Program has been a very competitive program. Academically, it has been very difficult to be accepted into that program. We have had very good students. We have had waiting lists. Over the past ten years, we have probably had three or four applicants for every student that we accepted into the program. We want to maintain that quality and we think this is minimally what one would need to address the kinds of issues at graduate level education. We understand that there is no hard and fast contract. Things change from year to year and even those programs that have been in existence for a while often experience changes in resources. As citizens of the University, we understand that this is a situation we are currently dealing with.

Professor Mastboom noted that we are being cut $3,000 in journals. Dr. Miracle noted that his area is being cut as well. Dr. Mastboom noted that two or three graduate assistants have been lost; maybe they are currently being reallocated. This is very significant. Where are these four graduate assistants coming from? Maybe someone can answer that. If the Senate approves this as it is, it is kind of like us subscribing. Of course we are going to shift resources in this direction, but it will be at the expense of other departments.

Dr. Phillips noted that she can call someone to speak to that issue. She just spoke to the Interim Provost about this earlier today. Provost James McLoughlin stated that he would love to say that he has everything that Dr. Miracle needs, but that is not the case. A source of funding has not been identified for the graduate assistants or for the Library at this point. For the materials necessary for laboratories, we do have a fund called House Bill Money that we can draw on if some of it is left. Right now, he is in the process of getting requests from each of the Deans for that money. He talked to Dean Steckol about this. At this point, we don't have a source for these additional requests. He, along with Dean Steckol, is committed to putting them among the priority list of the College along with the other ones and working on it. That is the best he can say today.

Dr. Barbara Green asked if it is possible to approve the proposal with a caveat so that this body is not on record as saying that there ought to be first priority to these expenses as opposed to other priorities. If we approve this program without that statement, then when the priorities are set, it will be said that the Faculty Senate said that this was the highest priority because they just approved it. We are then not on record as being committed to this part of the document. That is something that could be taken up separately. Dr. Green reported that when this came up before the Arts and Sciences faculty, one of the issues being raised here was the qualifications of the existing faculty in terms of how many had doctoral degrees. Several months ago, Dr. Miracle reported that there were several faculty members who were well on their way to getting their doctorate. She was wondering if Dr. Miracle could add to that report so that we would know how many faculty teaching in the graduate program would actually have a Ph.D.

Dr. Miracle responded that there is one defending in May 2000. We have separate issues here because some of the courses for this program are indeed taught by people in the Department who are not physical therapists. In preparing this document, we are talking about the core Physical Therapy faculty. For accreditation purposes, that is what the accrediting agency is interested in. They are not terribly concerned about this issue for the Physical Therapy faculty because across the country, there are very few physical therapists teaching in Physical Therapy programs who have doctorates. This is just the nature of the profession and it is changing, but the process has been very slow up to this point. It is not an issue with them; it is more of an issue for us within the department. If we look at the department as a whole, over two-thirds of the faculty in the department have graduate faculty status. We are now down to four people in the department who don't have their doctorates. These are tenured people who were hired with the understanding that a Masters Degree was the terminal degree for this program. We have been very successful and have been suggesting to them that they ought to keep working educationally to develop those skills and develop a sort of validation. We are pleased about the progress, but on the other hand, we are in transition on this plan.

Dr. Green noted that Dr. Miracle really did not answer her question. She is certainly not challenging the right of these people who are tenured to be tenured and continue under those circumstances, but they were hired to teach in a department that had an undergraduate degree. You are now trying to change this into a graduate degree and it is legitimate to say, if you are going to give a Masters degree, at least most of the people giving the Masters degree, should have a doctorate. If you are giving an undergraduate degree, it is perhaps less important. So we know that one more person is on the way to getting a doctorate. How many of the people in the Physical Therapy core, who will be here next year, actually have a doctorate?

Dr. Miracle responded that there are six, and two are ABD. The sixth one is enrolled in doctoral studies. Dr. Miracle stated that we are ahead of the rest of the country. You can't find any programs that are ahead of us on this particular issue. He also clarified that this is not a choice to make this conversion at this time. We are in the ninth inning. We either make this conversion now, or there won't be any Physical Therapy program at CSU next year. In terms of accreditation, this is exactly where we are now. We have been trying to get this proposal through now for a couple of years. We have encountered a lot of resistance in terms of, "well let's wait; let's do this or that." We have tried to meet all of the arguments and now we have no more room left. This is where we are. We will have our junior students who will finish up their senior year next year and then we are poised, if we gain approval, to move forward and take in a new class for the Masters program next January 2001, but there are no more juniors who can be taken into an undergraduate program.

Professor Cheryl McCahon spoke in favor of the proposed program simply because it reflects what is going on in a lot of different areas of health care. The idea is that the levels of professional development in education are higher and speak to what is happening in Physical Therapy, just as they have in the past in Nursing where there weren't enough Ph.D. prepared nurses. We are finally getting to the point, even though there aren't going to be enough, where we are going to be able to educate the people that need to be here. As you are going along, you have to look at the clinicians and use the clinicians that you have until you can educate the doctoral prepared people.

Dr. Rodger Govea commented that it is indeed the bottom of the ninth and he finds it a little appalling that no one is coming to bat here. Someone needs to step up and say that $92,300 is necessary and we need to find it. Make a guarantee. This is a program that we need. It looks like it is a winner. Somebody needs to stand up and say, "Okay we need $92,300, and it is not going to be as expensive as some of these other academic programs." That is what needs to happen. It is not happening. Professor Govea noted that this is a difficult dilemma for him in terms of voting for the Physical Therapy program.

Dr. Miracle commented that we would all feel more comfortable about that. At the same time, we recognize that this is an unusual situation and he is willing to live with the level of agreement we have at this point in time. We will not be admitting a class until next January 2000 which gives us that much more time to see how things are and where things are working out, and it gives us two more fiscal years to live with this. He can live with this especially given the alternatives.

Professor Lupton commented about the funding. He understands from Mark Tumeo that in a meeting between he and the College of Arts and Sciences in the Provost's Office, there was a clear commitment to finding these funds and, at the same time, a commitment not to use existing resources to fund this Program. That is not as specific as Dr. Govea is looking for, but in principle, there is such a commitment.

Dr. Jane McIntyre commented that the College of Arts and Sciences has $280,000 less for graduate teaching assistants in the budget for next year than it had for this year. Everybody is being cut; that is just the fact in our College. Our people are being promised things that other people are not being promised for existing programs. Dr. Miracle responded that his existing program was cut by sixty percent this year. Dr. McIntyre noted that these would be in addition to the cuts that have already been made for him and for everybody else. This is a high quality program, but there are existing programs that are also of high quality that are losing funds and Dr. Miracle is gaining new funds.

Dean Karen Steckol reported that two years ago, there was a particular budget for graduate assistants in the College of Arts and Sciences. Everybody was happy or unhappy, but nothing had changed for thirty years. So, last year, she came up with a creative way to try to fund additional graduate assistants that we really didn't have the money for, but that she was banking on by other incomes that came into the College. So, she added somewhere in the neighborhood of $250,000 to the pool and was able to give out additional stipends to the departments with the hopes that through attrition, we would be able to add an additional fund and would be able to make up the difference and everybody would be happy. Well, along comes January and nobody is happy with the attrition model so everybody wants to rehire their stipend people because they are running their programs, at least on their graduate students, which in and of itself, is another whole argument that we need to get into. So, she had to back off and decided to go ahead and fund those people, knowing that she was going to be in the hole a significant amount of money. At the same time that this happened, she also did not receive $235,000 that had been promised to the College for the stipends in Chemistry and Biology. They were part of a four-year start-up program for the Cleveland Clinic Foundation relationship between the College and our doctoral programs. She is now in the hole $500,000. She was able to find ways in the College and different ways of creativity through the Provost's Office to make up almost all of the deficit, but she had to go back to 1998 numbers because that is all she had funding for. So all of the people who got extra positions this year, who are now getting cut back to last year, are thinking they are being cut. Funds are just being taken back to last year. There is a little misunderstanding and maybe perhaps there are some other little pennies and dimes and thousands of dollars that are being moved around from place to place, but she tried to keep as much as she could back to the 1998 session. The experiment failed and she has apologized five hundred times to her Department Chairs. She is sorry that it caused all of this mayhem, but she is promising to everyone and to the Chairs and to Andy Miracle, as far as this program is concerned, that she is not going to cut the programs that we currently have based on what we have. If she gets more money, everybody is going to get more money, but she is not going to cut any programs to give to Andy.

Dean Steckl said that there are some creative ways again where we can come up with some more money to fund these kinds of programs. She is currently working with the Provost, with the Graduate Dean, and with all of the Deans in the Colleges to come up with that creative way. She does believe that we will end up with it. We are not prepared, at this point in time, to put it on the table because it is not final yet and it is not appropriate. So, here we sit; we are stuck between a rock and a hard place, but the Senate has her commitment to the College of Arts and Sciences at least that nothing will be cut, no one will be hurt, and she is hopeful that soon we will have ways to increase everybody and we can keep it as opposed to having to cut back.

Dr. Phillips stated that, in the end, what the Senate is currently voting on is to allow the Physical Therapy program to start, using its existing resources. The Senate does not set priorities for individual colleges in terms of their resource allocation and with the full awareness that the list on page 25 is a "wish list" that is just like everybody else's "wish list." She noted that this is a motion from a Standing Committee for approval of this program and it does not need a second. The proposed Master of Physical Therapy Degree Program was approved.

[Go to top of page]

V. Committee on Academic Space (Report No. 27, 1999-2000)

Professor Thomas Flechtner, Chair of the Committee on Academic Space, gave a progress report. This Summer 2000 the plan is to renovate twenty-three general purpose classrooms in the Main Classroom Building. Six classrooms will be renovated on the plaza level. On the third floor of the Main Classroom, the remaining general purpose classrooms will all be renovated. The fourth floor classrooms are targeted for the following Summer 2001, although the proposals being sought at this time cover the fourth floor. The University will go after money for the second floor later. There are two problems. One, it is the connection for a large part of the campus and, two, these rooms (201 and 202) are much larger than the other rooms. Mr. Criminger calls them "million dollar rooms" just to renovate.

Professor Flechtner reported that one of the rooms from the group on the plaza level (101, 102, 103, 104) will be equipped with seating that has network connections and electrical power at each student seat. The other rooms will all have conduit but no wiring for the possibility of being installed at a later date. One of the difficulties with such wiring is that it almost mandates fixed seating. When you put in fixed seating, that changes the room capacity. According to Susan Lindsey, the Registrar, she has found alternatives for all of the classrooms that have classes currently scheduled in the Main Classroom Building for this coming Summer 2000. All of those alternatives are in the Main Classroom Building. Now, there are many classes listed in the Summer 2000 Schedule that are listed as "to be assigned" or "to be arranged." If you hope they are going to be in the Main Classroom, you ought to be talking to the Registrar soon because things are going to be kind of tight in that area for this coming Summer 2000.

Professor Ben Blake inquired if those ugly shaped deep rooms on the fourth floor, where they are tearing out a wall, are being made. Dr. Flechtner responded that the plan for the coming renovation does not involve moving walls except in a few places where the doorways have to be widened for ADA access. They are not going to be changing the rooms, and the bad rooms will remain bad rooms.

Regarding the ADA requirements, Professor Daniel Drake asked if there will be some type of surveillance in terms of people who have handicapped conditions, so that they will not be scheduled in one of the rooms that cannot accommodate them. Dr. Flechtner responded that the plan is to make every room ADA accessible. It is just that some are not currently and some of them are. Professor Drake then noted that all doors should be replaced and some of the room doorways will be made wider. Professor Flechtner noted that some of the doorways are already wide enough.

Professor Jane McIntyre commented on the noisy work being scheduled after 11:00 A.M. in Rhodes Tower. Although she is not currently teaching in Rhodes Tower, she happened to be in a room on the third floor at 10:00 A.M. yesterday and the noise was impossible. She has no idea how those faculty teaching on the third floor of Rhodes Tower yesterday could possibly have been doing it because the noise was so bad. Some sort of monitoring of what is considered to be noisy construction should take place. Dr. Flechtner agreed with Professor McIntyre.

Professor Doerder commented that even if there is no noise, there are odors from construction. Last Summer he had to move out of the Main Classroom Building because he was right next to fresh concrete, all of the dust, and drywall. While there was no noise, the odors and the dust made it impossible to teach. It was very difficult to find another classroom. Then, somehow construction started during that period in Rhodes Tower and he was unable to teach. Dr. McIntyre noted that apparently this is going on now and she is sure that there are the same assurances about noisy work not being done during class time, but this was 10:00 A.M. on a Tuesday and this is prime time. Dr. Flechtner noted that the Space Committee was not involved in that planning. That is becoming non-academic space. Dr. McIntyre asked Professor Flechtner if he would inquire about this going on there because if she were a person teaching there, she would have been upset long ago.

Dr. McIntyre noted that Professor Flechtner had mentioned a lot of changes such as new chairs, desks, lighting, wall coverings, etc. She taught in one of the renovated rooms on the fourth floor of the Main Classroom Building last Semester and there were no coat racks for students to hang their coats on. When you get 75 to 100 students in a room that size and everybody has a winter coat and no place to hang the coats, it gets very uncomfortable. The old rooms used to have coat racks on the wall. She asked if, in the planning, coat racks could be restored in those rooms.

Professor Doerder mentioned two items -- firts, insure that the new blinds work so that we can actually lower or close them in order to show videos in darkened rooms; and, second, the heat or lack thereof. He wondered if there will be classes this Summer in the Main Classroom Building next to the rooms that are being renovated. Dr. Flechtner replied that he was correct. The plan is to use some of the renovated rooms on the third floor. Professor Doerder suggested that those classes all be moved if possible. Dr. Flechtner responded that he will propose that, but Susan Lindsey may ask him to sit down with her to figure out where those classes can be moved. Professor Doerder commented that there may not be any rooms available.

Student Jerry Struthers commented on the fourth floor of the Main Classroom Building. Everybody knows about the big leak in one of the rooms. He wondered if some of the money could be used to clean that up. Also, he looked at the contractors who are making all of the noise and noticed that they are non-union contractors. He was wondering why CSU has selected non-union contractors when there are some great union contractors in the City of Cleveland that could be doing these jobs. Professor Flechtner replied that he would make inquiries. Dr. McIntyre asked if Professor Flechtner could report back to Senate. Professor Flechtner responded that he would be happy to report back to Senate.

Dr. Donna Phillips stated that she thought it was important for the Senate to know the plans for providing opportunity to discuss the NCA document to the various groups on and off campus. So she asked Everett Cataldo to come to Senate today to talk about the plans and to ask for suggestions of groups that might have been forgotten or other ways that should be added to that plan.


[Go to top of page]

VI. NCA Planning Committee (Report No. 28, 1999-2000)

Dr. Everett Cataldo noted that he would share the spotlight with Marie Zeglen, the Associate Provost for Planning, Assessment, and Information Resource Management, who joined CSU recently.

Dr. Cataldo reported that the site visit from the North Central Accreditation Association on campus will be from October 23 through 25, 2000. That follows fairly quickly on the heels of accreditation reviews in other Colleges (Engineering and Education) and it runs concurrently with one in Business. Professor Cataldo commented that hosting accreditation teams and writing accreditation reports must be one of the growth industries on campus. Like our other growth industries on campus, it is unfunded which brings us to the current topic and that is the Self-Study that the NCA Planning Committee, partly appointed by the Senate, has just finished drafting and circulating on campus. He commented that it is very much a work in progress. Professor Cataldo noted that he and Marie Zeglen are here today to talk a little bit about the Self-Study and to enlist the Senate's help and assistance in order to make sure that this is a good document and one that represents our institution credibly, accurately, and responsibly. Responses to the document are needed. It has been distributed through the Offices of the President, the Provost, the Vice Presidents, the Deans, Directors, and Department Chairs. There should be a copy available in each department or unit office. It is hoped that everyone will take the opportunity to read it and to respond to it in terms of its accuracy, its content, what is in it, what isn't in it, and what should be in it. This sets the tone of the document or anything that is relevant to moving this first draft into a better subsequent draft as we get on the road to completing it this summer and sending it off to Chicago in August 2000.

Dr. Cataldo reported that his office will serve as the clearing-house for comments. Professor Cataldo distributed a copy of a public announcement that will go out today or tomorrow regarding the Self-Study Report. He also distributed a copy of the NCA Self-Study Committee Membership. He would prefer responses to the document in writing because they are easier to keep track of that way. People can respond to him by E-mail, fax them to him at X-5568, or mail them to his office at SI 105. He would like some ideas as to how we might have a more meaningful dialogue and get the involvement of the Senate, as the instrument of faculty governance on campus, in developing this draft further and to prepare for the site visit in October 2000. He reported that two open forums have been scheduled to discuss the Self-Study and other issues associated with accreditation. Those forums will occur on Tuesday, April 11, 2000 and Monday, April 17, 2000. Both will take place from 3:00 to 5:00 P.M. in RT 1916-17.

Dr. Cataldo asked Dr. Phillips if the Senate could, in fact, designate some delegates from the Senate to come to those forums and discuss the Self-Study and make recommendations. That would be one possible way of involving the Senate fairly early. He noted that some members have been involved already and have supplied materials or have been involved in self-studies within their own units which were the basis for the document that the Committee produced. He is grateful of their efforts at this point and looks forward to their continued help and participation.

Professor Cataldo reported that Marie Zeglen has been working on an action plan. Lots of things need to be done between now and the time that the site visit team gets here, so he invited her to say a few words about that.

Dr. Marie Zeglen commented that she is pleased that one of her first assignments at Cleveland State has been to work on the Self-Study document. It has helped her to learn more about the institution and has put her in contact with a lot of really fine people working on this project.

Dr. Zeglen commented on two things. First, the NCA convention is coming up and we will have an opportunity to talk to John Taylor, our NCA liaison, and to make some suggestions on the composition of the visiting team which has not yet been finalized by NCA. We are not able to suggst names of people but we can list the sort of qualities that we would like to see and the expertise that we would like to see represented on this site visit team. If anyone has ideas on that, or schools that are good in particular areas, or types of expertise, she would appreciate the feedback and suggestions.

Second, Dr. Zeglen gave some key dates that are coming up. We have about a ten-page action plan. Between now and about May 1st, 2000 it is hoped to get the bulk of the feedback concerning the draft of the Self-Study so that about a month can be spent correcting the document, incorporating the edits, the changes, and the suggestions that have been made, and putting it into final form. After that, a lot of materials need to be assembled related to the Appendix and the beginning of the Resource Room for this project. Between June and July 1, 2000 the document, in the final drafted form, will go through a packaging process so that it is more presentable for publication. It should take about a month to incorporate graphics and to put it into a publishable form. The final version of the Self-Study will be available by July 1, 2000. It will be duplicated and distributed and sent to the NCA by late August 2000. Ample time is being allowed for editing or whatever is needed in the process. Between September 1 and September 30, 2000, she hopes to spend some time working with different groups on campus in order to communicate the preferences of the visiting team. We will have a chance to work with them and they will specify, for instance, people that they want to see, sites that they want to visit, or Colleges for which they may have a particular interest. We will work with them and help them schedule their time with us on the campus.

Dr. Zeglen reported that the Resource Room will be put together in early October 2000. It is a pretty expensive operation. We will have a lot of communication with the visiting team in order to identify their special needs for computers or other types of equipment and materials that must be assembled for the campus. They already have a working list of about ninety documents that they are starting to assemble. Also, in October 2000, we plan to create an updated report of any events that occur between the publishing of the Self-Study and arrival of the team on campus. The update will probably be in the form of a newsletter or something that is very readable that picks up the highlights of any changes before publication of the Self-Study. The team visits from October 23 - 25, 2000. We have initiated planning for activities and events related to this visit. Usually, there is a reception for a team when they arrive. They schedule pretty much what they want during their time on campus. Generally, there is some type of exit interview at the end. After the team completes its visit, they have roughly one month in order to provide a draft report to NCA which would put that around November 25, 2000. That report has to be in final form by January 1, 2001. Beyond that, we are a little dependent on NCA's meeting schedule to determine exactly when their report will be completed and accepted by the NCA. We hope to get results of the study somewhere between February 1st and March 1st, 2001.

Professor Flechtner inquired if there was a component in the process for comments by the external community. Dr. Zeglen responded that the NCA has a third party comment and requirement. It is not clear from their documentation whether that pertains only to institutions undergoing an initial accreditation visit where they are first coming under review for accreditation or whether we, in applying for reaccreditation, also fall under that. Philosophically, every attempt is being made to create a lot of public opportunities for comment. Professor Flechtner noted that he did not hear that in the action plan.

Dr. Phillips stated that she did not know if a formal appointment of Senators is needed to be at the NCA Self-Study meetings. But, it would seem part of our general responsibility to have actually read this document, try to be present at the meetings, or at least send written comments to the Committee.

[Go to top of page]

VII. Response to Senate Request for PeopleSoft Financial Report (Report No. 29, 1999- 2000)

President Claire Van Ummersen reported that she had promised Dr. Jane McIntyre that she would attempt to put the PeopleSoft Financial Report in some format that would be understandable to everyone. She has that in two parts -- the part up to now (the past) and the present and the future. Vice President Christine Jackson has put these together by year, starting in 1997, when we started the project, and following through the current year to 2003. It adds to about $10 Million. In addition, in this budget, we have the second piece that adds up to the famous $11,156,101 that goes in our initial planning and takes us to the end point. We envisioned costs beyond the year 2000 in the PeopleSoft project to the final end point, particularly in the area of additions to the SUN System, the hardware, consulting fees, and additional training that would be involved. This is the total that was given to the Board of Trustees last July 1999 and that originally we thought would take us to the end point of the project. This was before much of the Student Administration problems occurred with the system that we are now working on. In addition to that funding, at the last meeting of the Board, $4.6 Million was requested from reserves in order to fund the consulting and the necessary components that are going to be required, we believe, to fix the Student system and make it functional. These are:

  • SAIC/SoftLink $2,500,000
  • Hunter Group 947,000
  • FAS (Fin. Aid) 360,000
  • Bridge Consultants:
  • MODIS 190,000
  • CBSI 93,000
  • Software: 500,000

    TOTAL $4,590,000

The President stated that we still have the question of the software in this budget. We proposed to the Board that it may be necessary for us to purchase a back-up software system for Financial Aid in order to allow us to process aid for Fall 2000. As the team is being put together, we are looking at whether or not we are actually going to have to purchase backup software. That is dependent on our progress with the new upgrade we received from PeopleSoft on February 18, 2000. It is still being worked on and tested. Next week we will have to make a decision about whether it is ready to go into production or whether, in fact, we are going to have to purchase the backup software. So, we are working on two parallel tracks at this point and, at some time very soon, a decision will have to be made. But, if the $4.6 Million is all spent, it will have to be added to the $11.156 Million. At least one half of the money has come out of reserves. The other money has come from either vacancy savings or has come from one-time sources of revenue that we have had over the period of the first four years of the project. In the next three years, we will be looking basically at using reserve money in order to fund PeopleSoft. She noted that Professor McIntyre had asked for both the sources of the funds and the expenses that were detailed. Hopefully, she has answered Professor McIntyre's questions.

Professor Mastboom questioned the new funding and the potential "off-the-shelf" packaging that President Van Ummersen had mentioned. She wondered if that is not yet in the budget. President Van Ummersen replied that this is the only thing that is still very tentative at this point. We simply haven't been able to make that decision one way or another. Hopefully, that will get done within the next week.

Professor James Wilson inquired as to how much a consultant is paid per hour on the average. Vice President Joseph Nolan replied that it varies but an average is probably $160.00 per hour and we are billed by the agency.

Professor Tayyab Mahmud asked if there is an end in sight here or should we expect more to come. President Van Ummersen responded that this better be the end. We have been at this a very long time. This is her fourth system implementation. She has been at other institutions where they brought up whole systems. She has never been anywhere and experienced the degree of problems that we have had with the PeopleSoft system. We have had difficulties with the Financial System and the Human Resource system, but they were probably much more of what would be expected on bringing up any new software. The Student system has been an entirely different matter. It was certainly not a mature product. We have been living with its adolescence; it has not reached maturity yet. We continue to get upgrades, patches, and fixes, on a regular basis that you would not expect with a mature software product. We are slowly working toward endpoints. We are not the only ones doing it. We are learning from others as they are learning from us because we are all working on different parts of it. Hopefully, it will all come together within the next year and we will all have functional systems.

Professor Mahmud asked if there is any notion how much money may have been saved if we had moved to the other consultants six months ago. President Van Ummersen responded that she did not know if there would have been any savings if we had moved from the PeopleSoft consultants to the ones that we currently have. They cost about the same. The PeopleSoft consultants that we did have, probably know more about that software and have better access to the people that are the designers that work at PeopleSoft rather than our new people. Our new consultants are PeopleSoft certified and so they do have access to all of their global development people.

Professor Mahmud noted that the reserve fund came as a surprise to some of us who are not up to speed with the University budgeting. He asked if the Senate could have some idea of the size of this reserve fund. President Van Ummersen responded that the size of the reserve fund is reported every year in CSU's financial statements. It is about $7.3 Million and we have asked to spend up to $4.6 Million of it on the PeopleSoft project.

Professor Mahmud questioned the statement from the President and the Board. He asked for clarification of the curious language used by the President and from the Board. It said, "Whereupon, long established by the Administration to cover such unforeseen needs..." President Van Ummersen responded that this money is for any emergency purpose. The auditors ask that you have such an unallocated reserve fund. There are no strings attached to it. We have a lot of reserves. We have a plant reserve that can only be spent on plant-type issues. We have a vacation accrual reserve that we have to hold at a certain level, etc. Those are designated reserves and the University is not allowed to spend them except for those purposes. The unallocated reserve can be spent for emergency purposes across the institution. This is the reserve we go to if we have a fire or something of that nature.

Professor Mahmud asked, "Now that about 75 percent of this reserve is being used up, will it be replenished?" President Van Ummersen responded that over time the plan would be to try to replenish the reserve so that it is about five percent of our budget.

Professor Mastboom commented that the mid-year budget statement only accounts for the money through October 31, 1999. President Van Ummersen noted that there are three months of consulting with PeopleSoft for $287,000 and we were requested by the Trustees not to pay those amounts. Those have been escrowed. They may be paid or they may not be paid; it depends on what the Trustees decide to do. That was not included in the $4.6 Million that was being discussed that day at the Board meeting.

Dr. Barbara Green commented that reserves are clearly intended for unforeseen emergencies. She was wondering if the percentage that is now going to be left in the reserves will invoke any kind of fiscal watch for the University. President Van Ummersen replied that her understanding is that it will not. Those ratios were figured very carefully and we would still be in compliance with the State rule.

Professor Santosh Misra asked if the $500,000 for software is just for the software or does that include the installation and training. President Van Ummersen responded that it includes everything. It includes the purchasing, the installation, and the training of people to use it.

Professor Dunegan asked the President to explain the unallocated reserves at the bottom of the first overhead that she had shown. President Van Ummersen reported that we were given permission in 1998 to change our mainframe from the IBM to the SUN System. We went to the Board and asked to take $2 Million from the unallocated reserves in order to purchase that equipment. We did so, but we only spent $1.7 Million and then bought some additional equipment in another year. So there was $2 Million of unallocated reserves that was in that first $11.156 Million budget which we had intended to be the entire budget for the project. We then took $4.6 Million from the reserves to deal with the Student system problems.

Professor Dunegan remarked that the extraction from reserves is actually closer to $6.5 Million. President Van Ummersen responded that he was correct.

Professor Dunegan noted that the money coming from vacancy savings looks like a heck of a lot of money. President Van Ummersen reported that some of it was one time dollars that we got from area sources and some of it was vacancy savings. Professor Dunegan asked if she had any idea of the percentage of vacancy savings. He also asked if these are open lines that have not been filled. President Van Ummersen responded that they would be staff lines and faculty lines. In some cases, they are not lines that stay open the whole year. They are lines that are open for a couple of months until a position is filled. Both the actual salary piece and the benefit piece is pulled from them.

Professor Dunegan inquired if any full-time lines have been cancelled because of this. President Van Ummersen replied that none have been cancelled. During the earlier part of this process, some of the lines in IS&T were kept vacant because we needed particular kinds of skills and we purchased consulting skills rather than fill the lines. We now have gone back and filled the lines in IS&T. At one point, we probably had fifteen lines in IS&T that were being held vacant. That was done purposefully because we were needing different skills almost on a weekly basis and we could bring those in and then get different people through the consultants. We could not do that if we had hired permanent staff. Now, the Financial system and the HR system has settled down and we need to maintain it and we can do that with permanent people. We will do this with the Student system as well as we phase out the consultants. Then a number of full-time staff will maintain the system over time.

Professor Dunegan asked if the President had any idea of the percentage of vacancy savings versus one time revenue. Vice President Christine Jackson said that she had no idea. President Van Ummersen said that we are looking at year-end savings kinds of things. We would have to go back an analyze it. Off the top of our heads, we don't know that.

Dr. Green remarked that the College of Arts and Sciences vacancy savings is $1 Million. President Van Ummersen stated that on vacancy savings, she doesn't have an exact number for Cleveland State, but at other places she has been, vacancy savings runs about two percent of the salary budget. She worked at two different places where the number was fairly consistent.

For clarification, Professor Dunegan asked Vice President Jackson, "If those are year-end numbers, could we get the percentage at some point?" Being a business person, he is used to sources of fund statements that are a little more explicit than what the President had given. Vice President Jackson said that she would be happy to provide that information.

Regarding the consultants, Professor Misra stated that because, to some extent the problems that we have with PeopleSoft can probably be traced back to the lack of experience with the original set of consultants, we ought not to repeat that problem with the new companies that are being chosen to come in for consulting. President Van Ummersen stated that first, the consultants that are coming in, particularly in the financial aid area, have been working at Minnesota on this very part of the system that we are having the difficulty with. So, they come with that experience. Secondly, we have asked each of the firms that we have hired to take out a performance bond. That is as close as we can get to a guarantee because they won't put guarantees into their contracts. If they don't perform, then the bonding company pays up. It was a little hard getting software companies to do that because they are not used to dealing with those kinds of things. But, they have finally worked out a way to do it. Those are the two things we have done to prevent any additional problems. The PeopleSoft consultants that we had certainly had experience in working with PeopleSoft. Again, this was very new software. Nobody was an expert at it and that was part of the problem that we all faced.

Professor Mastboom asked President Van Ummersen for some examples of one-time revenues. President Van Ummersen responded that she will provide that information.

Professor Ravindra Kamath asked how the consultants were selected and what was the process. President Van Ummersen responded that an RFP was prepared and sent out to thirty-eight different companies. There were fourteen responses. The Committee that reviewed the responses narrowed it to four. They were all interviewed by telephone and then three were brought to campus for interviews. They each spent a day here being interviewed by all of the various levels -- the functional people and the technical people. We had trustees sit in and we had several faculty join us in that process. Students were invited but the President could not recall if any of the students came to the actual interviews. Based on that, the Committee made a recommendation and the Trustees accepted the Committee's recommendation. We actually have two different companies -- the Hunter Group for one specific piece of the Financial Aid, and the SAC/SoftLink for the remainder.

Professor Cheryl McCahon inquired about the $500,000 software backup. She really liked that idea simply because it would be a terrible time to have anything happen when it looks like things are coming together in terms of solving some of the issues. President Van Ummersen reported that the bids for the other software came in today. Those will have to be evaluated and moved on.

Regarding the financial situation, Professor Mahmud reminded the President that at our last meeting, the Senate had authorized a resolution asking the Administration to improve its communication. Some of us wanted to do a little bit more but we settled on the communication thing and then she said that she heard that voice. It was very interesting that after the decision was taken by the Board, the Plain Dealer, never known for its accuracy or speed, reported that decision some twelve hours before the school sent us an E-mail. This was a curious way of responding to a resolution and one would urge the Administration to act promptly. President Van Ummersen responded that the Executive Session lasted a very long time. By the time the session was over, everyone had left except Mr. Rutti from the Plain Dealer. So, as the resolution was passed, he was present. Both Vice President Joseph Nolan and Board Chairman William Patient and she immediately talked with him at that point. It was the next day when we came back that the E-mail was sent out to the campus. That explains the twelve hour delay. None of us came back to the office after the meeting to do that, but we did get it out as soon as we could. Hopefully, it was an accurate characterization of what the Board did. We will continue to do that for the Senate.

[Go to top of page]

VIII. University President's Report

President Claire Van Ummersen reported that a couple of weeks ago the Graduate Funding Commission met in Columbus. On Monday the Higher Education Funding Commission met at the Board of Regents. Part of our task on Monday was to review some of the FY 2000-2001 budget items and issues. We started off reviewing Access Challenge as it related to the reduced rate of growth and now a roll-back in instructional general fees in the two-year sector. Also, we looked at the State share for two-year campuses approaching the share for all campuses. The good news is that with the money that went into Access this past biennium, the community college component has actually dropped lower than the four-year schools. Where the community colleges were approximately 180 percent off the national benchmark, they are now somewhere close to 125 percent so they are approaching the national average. The four-year institutions are about 130 percent off the national average. So, at this point, there should be no Access money going into the community colleges. Some of the technical colleges are a little away from that and also the universities that have regional campuses are about 190 percent away from the benchmark. She indicated that she felt there is going to be a battle because the campuses that have a main campus and regional campuses can use those dollars anywhere in the system. So we have to deal with the issue of fairness. The Regents would like to do another round of Access funding for the two-year sector. She pointed out to her colleagues at the IUC meeting yesterday that the original arrangement that was cut between the two and four-year schools in the Funding Commission was that once the two-year schools reached the same percentage deficit from the national benchmark, then both the two and four-year schools would progress together. So we need to make that point very directly.

President Van Ummersen noted that the second issue concerning the Access Challenge was whether it should be moved into the instructional subsidy. Remember, this is tied to enrollment and tuition and the original discussion was always that after a certain length of time, it will be folded into the instructional subsidy. At this general funding commission, we have not only people from the Governor's Office, but also representation from the legislative branch from both the House and the Senate. The advice that came was that we might not wish to fold it into subsidy because it is something that is liked very much by the Legislature and it has been something that has helped us to gain additional dollars. One of the decisions that will have to be made as we try to deal with the 2001-2002 budget will be what position we are going to take about folding Access into the instructional subsidy.

President Van Ummersen reported they also looked at the Research Challenge. The Research Challenge dollars were also increased but there were additional strings placed on them. There was also, in the second year of the biennium, a $5 Million amount put in for Eminent Scholars. The guidelines for both the incentive fund competition which is part of the Research Challenge and the Ohio Eminent Scholars, have been worked on by RACGS which is the Graduate Commission that meets and approves all graduate programs. They developed three categories. One, economic development of Ohio. The objective here is to insist that the State of Ohio compete more aggressively in the knowledge based economy as well as to enhance Ohio's per capita income and per capita share of federal research support. They will be developing indicators that will help them to evaluate proposals that come from the campus. The second area is to strengthen Ohio's system of K-12 education in order to optimize K-12 learning. There will be a different set of criteria for those proposals. The third area is improving public safety and health. They are talking about enhancing public health, public safety, and the quality of the environment. So, there will be a third set of criteria for those proposals that will move forward.

President Van Ummersen commented that the whole problem of deciding critical State needs is one that the different groups are now working on and we are going to see more and more of the dollars that are available though these funding pots being tied to critical State needs. In the Graduate Funding Commission, we are continuing to look at the Masters funding formula. There is a great deal of interest on the part of at least one member of the Regents staff to divide up the way in which we look at the funding formula for Masters. The Masters formula is now based strictly on enrollment. It has been proposed that we look at dividing that into three components. One piece will continue to be enrollment driven. A second piece would be tied to State needs, and further, that they would look at whether the students that graduate actually stay in Ohio and work in Ohio. Third, they would somehow take into account, and none of us understands this one, sponsored research and other activities. We have no idea what that means. But we have been asked, as a part of the Graduate Funding Commission, to consider these issues and to consider whether, in fact, we would want to move in that direction.

President Van Ummersen commented on the FY 2002-2003 operating budget. They are trying to deal with what the fees might be as we move this budget to the Legislature for Fall 2000. They have suggsted focusing on three areas: high impact investment, K-12 student achievement, and building Ohio's twenty-first century economy. There was some initial discussion about what that would mean. Concern was expressed that there is more money being put in the Challenges than in Subsidy. One of the things that we are all starting to experience is that as more money goes into the Challenges, we have a shrinking base to our operating budgets to run the campuses because the money is targeted and we can't move it. That issue is going to be an issue at both the Graduate Funding Commission and the larger Funding Commission that deals with the budget.

Dr. Barbara Green wondered whether CSU is taking any steps to try to have a committee which might position this University to be competitive for Research Challenge funds and scholar competitions. Obviously, it is a lot easier for Ohio State to get these funds. President Van Ummersen replied that we need to get every bit of that money that we can. They are going to loosen up some of the definitions around Research Challenge so that it may not be just federal research money. A lot of the money that comes into education is not federal money. It is State dollars and foundation dollars. Right now, we have a fair amount of that, so it may actually help us a little bit if they do free up the definition. But, the answer is yes, we do need to think about what kind of donors we have out there that might be willing to give us something that would be matched. Matching on the Eminent Scholars can go as high as $750,000 and it has to be matched dollar for dollar. So, we would have to get a $750,000 contribution. We might have one of those coming, and, we may be able to do something, but there will be fierce competition for those dollars.

[Go to top of page]

IX. Senate President's Report

Dr. Phillips distributed a copy of the final Resolution to come out of the Ohio Faculty Council on Benefits for Domestic Partners.

Dr. Phillips reported on the continued and growing emphasis in Columbus on preparing Ohio's work force as the aim of higher education. The Chancellor actually said, "We can prepare workers to spec." Now, he is enamored of the "Baldridge" method that she has mentioned to Senate before. People keep ignoring this because no one wants to deal with it, but when Marie Zeglen and she were in Columbus for the consultation on the Governor's "Report Card" they were assured in the morning that the Board of Regents' staff, in fact, had no particular plan for how this performance evaluation might be put together. There was some very interesting discussion about it except that just before lunch, a sheet identifying and evaluating performance measures was distributed to everyone. Now, for a group of people who had no preconceived notion about what such a report might look like, they seemed to have done a large amount of work. Obviously, we are all supposed to fill this out, which very much limits the way we can talk about our original institutions. Dr. Phillips noted that this morning, she and President Van Ummersen were talking about this document and how faculty can actually find a way to influence these kinds of things before it is too late. We have not come up with a solution. We can send in a written response to this, but again, responding to this particular document limits the way we can talk about our various institutions. When she had come out of the original morning discussion, there was the sense of this group that something was wanted that showed all contributions the individual institutions made to overall higher education in the State and how might we do that. Dr. Phillips said she would appreciate suggestions as to how we might respond to this document.

Professor Leo Jeffres noted that the hospitals favored performance measures years ago that were hard data. In a sense, those that were able to at least get it down to taking it into context, i.e., we are a hospital that takes in a lot more emergency care and transfers, etc., and thus you got an assessment that was a little below expectations as expected or above expectations on this measure as opposed to Ohio State is first, etc. or however you want to rank them. [Tape unintelligible]

Dr. Phillips noted that one suggestion has to do with looking at institutions from the student's point of view. Maybe we have to have graduation rates on a yearly basis. But, maybe we can have another section where one year you have a report of the kinds of things that would be of interest and importance to the eighteen year old who wants to go to a residential college. Then, another year you have a report on the kinds of things that would be of interest to the full-time working student who can go to school only part time. Their interests are very different and so we have tried to project something like that.

Professor Misra commented on the handout identifying and evaluating performance measures. It would almost seem that whoever put this together, is trying to build more of a professional model for higher education as opposed to a research model. He asked if that is a state-wide movement. Dr. Phillips responded that this is the whole thing about the "Baldridge Approach" which was originally the approach to quality control in business. Now the NCA is working on using the "Baldridge Approach" to accreditation. Professor Misra asked if Dr. Phillips was referring to Malcolm Baldridge when she referred to the "Baldridge Approach." Dr. Phillips responded that he was correct except that it is a higher education model which is the same thing. It is very important that the faculty get working on the response to our own NCA accreditation documents because we will all be leaving for the summer. All faculty responses have to be in before the end of this term otherwise it will just be a select group.

President Van Ummersen asked if anyone has suggestions about how we might change the format that has been suggested and given to both the Ohio Faculty Council and also to the Funding Commission. It behooves us to put it on paper and to send it back. As a campus response, the Presidents are going to try to collect these from every campus and put together a response from the universities across the State. But, if we don't do this, we are going to live with something like what we see probably even leaning more toward mean count than anything else because they want it "simple" which means looking up data in HEI and putting it on paper.

Professor James Wilson noted that the document mentions something about the quality of entering level students. That is something where you can mean count and can, to a certain degree, provide a minimal degree of content. In other words, if we are not bringing in students who are as strong as the average Ohio State student because we have a different mission in terms of the basic numbers, that seems to be a way to factor in what the graduation rates should be or how long it takes for students to graduate. There are a couple of factors that might help us deal with that follow-up. President Van Ummersen noted that we are looking at ACT scores. Dr. Phillips reported that Matt Filipic said that there is a formula of projected graduation rates for your kind of institution. Dr. Govea stated that they have a regression. You drop in a figure for average ACT scores, etc. and out comes a projected graduation rate.

Dr. Jae-won Lee commented that we will benefit by advancing some new ways. For instance, if you follow the regular formula for graduation rates, we will be very low compared to other institutions. We have students transferring out of CSU. They are perfectly capable students. Dr. Phillips commented that there is a new mobility data-base and Rob Sheehan reported that, much to his surprise, students were transferring out of four-year colleges to two-year colleges. Dr. Phillips suggested that people should E-mail her any suggestions that they have. She noted that the Ohio Faculty Council will try to have a response to this, but we also might want to do an institutional response.

[Go to top of page]


X. New Business

Dr. Rodger Govea reported that he and Steve Slane are faculty representatives to the Parking Committee. He wanted to inform Faculty Senate what is currently under cosideration in the Parking Committee. The Auxiliary Services of the Parking Department has identified about $1.25 Million that they wish to spend on particular kinds of upgrades for parking services. A number of members of the Committee believe that this extra $1.25 Million cost should be borne by the students, staff, and faculty. A proposal is likely to come out of that Committee by the end of the year. The tentative figure, he believes, from Gary Meszaros, is an increase of $48 per year for an annual permit for faculty.

Dr. Andrew Gross thanked President Claire Van Ummersen for responding to his list of thirty questions in detail.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 P.M.

Pamela J. Eyerdam

Senate Secretary


[Go to top of page]