Cleveland State University

Faculty Senate

MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE FACULTY SENATE
April 5, 2000

Topics:

PRESENT: Barbato, Buckley, Chung, Crocker, DeGroot, Dieterich, Dillard-Mitchell, Doerder, Dunegan, Dural, Eyerdam, Flechtner, Govea, B. Green, Gross, Hartnagel, Hemann, Holmes, C. Jackson, Jeffres, S. Kaufman, Konangi, Lindsey, McCahon, J. McIntyre, Misra, Moutafakis, Olson, D. Phillips, Quigney, Rini, Sekayi, Spicer, Steckol, Tewari, Thornton, Tumeo, Valencic, Vallos, Van Ummersen, Wadhwa, Walsh, M. Webb, Wheatley, J. Wilson.

ABSENT/EXCUSED: Blake, Bowen, Drake, Falk, Feko, Frew, Gorla, Hollinger, M. Jackson, Kamath, Keys, Konstantinos, MacCluskie, Mahmud, Mastboom, McLoughlin, Meiksins, Neuendorf, Nolan, Nuru-Holm, Orendi, Steinglass, Sweet, Waren.

ALSO PRESENT: Engle, Jain, Lupton.

Senate President Donna Burns Phillips called the meeting to order at 3:05 P.M.

I. Approval of the Agenda

Acceptance of the Agenda for April 5, 2000 was moved, seconded, and approved.

[Go to top of page]


II. Approval of the Minutes of the March 15, 2000 Meeting

Acceptance of the Minutes of the March 15, 2000 meeting was moved and seconded. Several minor errors were reported in the Minutes. The corrected Minutes were then approved.

[Go to top of page]



III. Proposed Revised Five-Year Academic Calendar (Report No. 30, 1999-2000)

Dr. Chet Jain presented the Admissions and Standards Committee's proposed Revised Five-Year Academic Calendar. He noted that this calendar begins with Fall 2000 and ends with the Summer of 2005. Professor Philip DeGroot referred to the total number of instructional days and asked if it included Saturdays. Professor Jain responded that Saturdays were included. He reported that the Admissions and Standards Committee looked at all of the Semester calendars of all of the Ohio State schools and others as well as those in the Urban 13. Those included the University of Missouri--Kansas City, Georgia State, University of Missouri--St. Louis, Akron, Kent, and several others. This will be a uniform calendar. There will be no Thursday that is to be a Monday one year and no Tuesday that will be a Wednesday. The motivation primarily has been to make it student responsive and student friendly so that they can plan their activities better. It mirrors closely the Semester State schools in our area -- Akron, Kent, John Carroll, Case Western Reserve University. Because we have so many articulation agreements between the community colleges and us, students can be taking courses in any one of the community colleges in the area -- Cuyahoga, Lakeland, Lorain -- simultaneously without an overlap. It allows students to complete one school and attend another. It also allows students who may be at Case at the end of their Spring term to take a course here in the Summer. Also, it is a little bit more friendly in a sense that every Fall begins on the Monday following the last Saturday of August. So you have an idea of when our Semesters will begin. It also has at least one week between the end of the Spring and Summer sessions. It has at least two weeks at the end of Summer and the beginning of next Fall and it also gives us a reasonable holiday period in December. Packaging all of these things together, the Committee believes that it is really uniform and an academic calendar that we can all live with. Professor Chung asked if there is any reason why the holiday periods in 2003 and 2004 are five weeks but only four weeks in the other years. Dr. Jain responded that it is simply the luck of the draw, if you will. August is a very funny month. Sometimes you have four Mondays and sometimes you have five. The Committee has tried to make sure that there are at least two weeks between the previous Summer and the next Fall. Dr. Jane McIntyre stated that she understood the constraints that Dr. Jain had described. This is a calendar that needs those constraints, but it does seem to leave the Intersession period very short. It has a nice length for holidays. She wondered if Dr. Jain could respond to what the expectations are or whether there is the possibility of a longer Intersession at some point. Dr. Jain responded that the Committee first fixed the main calendar for the next five years. The Intersession should not drive what the main academic calendar ought to be. So, once the regular calendar has been fixed, now we see how many days are available to us between the end of the Fall and the beginning of the Spring semesters. It depends upon how a course can be offered during that short time and what the course ought to be. Those are the kinds of things that can be discussed now. He reported that a Committee has been formed with representation from the University Curriculum Committee and from the Admissions and Standards Committee. The Committee will be meeting with the Provost very shortly to go over the entire Intersession issue. Last year the plan was put into place in a hurry with no faculty overseeing what a course ought to be during the Intersession. Courses were approved for a regular academic year. When you are offering an abbreviated version of that course, what should the course be? Faculty did not get a chance to give input on those matters. Whether we can offer during the Intersession only a one credit course or a two credit course -- those things will be decided. Dr. McIntyre indicated that she did not disagree with anything Dr. Jain had said, but she is concerned. For instance, last year somebody in the Provost's Office was urging us to have general education classes in the Intersession when general education classes are exactly the sort of thing that cannot be crammed into a two-week period. So there was a lack of compatibility between what the Provost's Office was urging us to do and what the calendar permitted. If this is a five-year calendar that we are going to stick to, then we ought to put the concept of offering general education classes during Intersession on the back burner and save this for very special small course offerings. Dr. Jain noted that the point was well taken. It might be exactly that. Let's wait until after our deliberations and discussions with the Committee. Dr. McIntyre noted that if there is a Committee that is discussing this, and if there is any possibility that the Committee might recommend something else, why are we adopting a calendar now? Dr. Jain responded that because this is the main thing that drives the University. This is the one that accommodates the needs of 95 or more percent of the Students and the Faculty. Therefore, they need to have a uniform idea of what is going ahead for the next five years to plan their activities. For those who will be interested in the Intersession, it will be taken up accordingly. Dr. McIntyre commented that this strikes her as being a kind of policy issue and not just a consequence of the calendar. We ought to vote or discuss this as a separate issue. Do we want the Intersession to stay to the constraints of this calendar? She did not object to that, but noted that it seems that we shouldn't just get it as a consequence of something else that we have adopted especially since the Provost's Office has taken an interest in this in the past. Perhaps we ought to discuss it separately before adopting the calendar. Dr. Barbara Green stated that this is an excellent calendar and it gives us enough time in August, it gives us time between the Semesters, and it starts at a reasonable time. Regarding the Intersession, we should have done something about it when the orders came through to create one without consultation with the Admissions and Standards Committee or the University Curriculum Committee. Being told to come up with classes for something which had not been thought through and set aside for that, was basically one of the most fundamental violations of academic governance that you can have because it dealt with curriculum standards. We need to get a calendar that makes sense for our regular Semesters. Then, if there seems to be some places where people with creative or interesting ideas can come up with proposals for short courses, different kinds of courses, intensive courses, let's work at that and have that as a separate kind of proposal, but make that fit into this calendar, and not this calendar fit into that. Dr. Jain agreed with Dr. Green. Dr. McIntyre stated that she wanted to clarify the point that she was making. She wanted to avoid the same situation that Dr. Green described. She also thought it was a violation of academic governance. There seems to be an independent discussion of Intersession going on which might or might not fit into this calendar. The main calendar ought to dominate, but the question ought to be addressed directly rather than just as the fallout from some other decision. Dr. Jain commented that earlier this year, he did not feel good when he had to come and ask for the Senate's blessing of the Intercession Calendar when it was already published and students were enrolling, etc. But, we had no choice at that time. We still needed the Senate's blessing to approve that calendar. It was very bad. Hopefully, after hearing the discussion today and knowing the motivations of the main calendar, the Chair of the University Curriculum Committee, the Admissions and Standards Committee, and the Provost, when they consider the Intercession, it will be in that spirit that he and Dr. Green have described. Dr. Michael Spicer asked if Dr. Jain could report a little bit about the background that led the Committee to make these changes. Dr. Jain responded that the Admissions and Standards Committee's motivation was to make the calendar uniform; to make a calendar that is going to be responsive to the needs of our students and is compatible with other area institutions. In addition, we also had input from the Office of the Board of Regents because our Spring term was shorter than that of the other Semester schools. We have also corrected that situation although nobody challenged us. But, why create a situation if we have an opportunity to prevent if from occurring? That was the Committee's motivation. Dr. Spicer asked why our Spring Semester is three days longer than our Fall Semester starting with 2001. Dr. Jain responded that it may depend upon when the Saturdays fall or it may have been adjusted to take care of the reading days, but the number of instructional days depends on how many holidays are in Spring versus Fall. We had to look at the actual potential number of days available for classes after subtracting the holidays. The Semesters have a different number of holidays. Professor Sanda Kaufman referred to the total number of instructional days and asked if it included holidays. Dr. Jain said that the two Semesters have a slightly different number of holidays. An unidentified Senator responded that it did not. Dr. Rodger Govea commented that the logistics of that would be hopeless. Putting another three days on the calendar means that finals start on Thursday which would give the 88 days that Dr. Kaufman is looking for but that would be a rather awkward calendar. Dr. Green noted that exams would start in the middle of the week. Dr. Jain stated that if we look at the reading period and how the week ends and begins, it is pretty consistent. The exam days are the same. Dean Douglas Hartnagel stated that basically it is the holidays. Notice that Fall has four holidays and the number of holidays in Spring depends on how Spring falls. For example, in Spring 2001, Martin Luther King Day is actually the day before classes begin and is not part of the Semester. So you only have President's Day in the Spring, unless you want to start or end in the middle of the week. Dr. DeGroot commented that if the goal of the Semester Calendar is to have fifteen weeks of instruction, and we are actually including Saturdays, six times fifteen is 90. This explains the difference between the 88 and the 85 which makes the Fall Semester one week too short. He brought this up about four years ago when this first came around and one of the things that came about was the need for having Tuesdays for Mondays, etc., but we still have the situation where the Fall Semester is one week too short. If you think back to when we were on the quarter system, Fall quarter was always eleven weeks of classes and finals. In the Winter and Spring, it was ten weeks of classes and finals. What has been done is a departure where the calendar is now set equal and we have too short of a period for the Fall Semester. Professor Santosh Misra asked if there is any State standard number of credit hours, number of days of instructional time, and number of weeks. Dr. Jain responded that he is not sure if it is precisely written that way, but it is generally the accepted norm that a one credit Semester course needs to meet for a fifty minute period per week for a minimum of fifteen weeks. Then you may choose to meet more often, just the number of days, or less often or whatever you want to do. Professor Bhushan Wadhwa referred to Spring Semester 2002 and 2003 -- both of them are starting on the 13th or 14th of January. In 2001 and 2004, classes will begin on the Tuesday following Martin Luther King Day. There must have been a logical reason. What would happen if you start these two Spring Semesters a week later? Dr. Jain replied that you would not even have one week between the Spring and the Summer. You finish the Spring on a Friday and you start the Summer on the next Monday. That really caused a lot of commotion both among faculty as well as among students. Professor Wadhwa commented that this calendar will, effectively, kill the Intersession. Dr. Jain responded that he was not sure. Let the Admissions and Standards Committee, the University Curriculum Committee, and the Provost's Office meet and hopefully we can come up with a solution to accommodate those concerns. The concerns of the Intersession are well taken.

Dr. Andrew Gross commented that the proposed Calendar is a great calendar. He then called the question. The motion to call the question was approved. Dr. Phillips then asked for the vote on accepting the proposed Academic Calendar. The proposed revised Academic Calendar was approved with two nays (Professors DeGroot and Wadhwa.)

[Go to top of page]

IV. Proposed Revised Student Conduct Code (Report No. 31, 1999-2000)

Dr. Gary Engle, Chair of the Student Life Committee, presented the Committee's revised Student Conduct Code. He stated that this is the result of about four years of work. A task force was brought together by Dr. Nuru-Holm in the Spring of 1997 and asked to do some housekeeping work on the Student Handbook, specifically, on the section dealing with the Student Code. That task force made a recommendation to the Student Life Committee which revised the recommendation and then submitted it to the University community for study and feedback which lead to a third revision of the Code and that is the document before Senate. The majority of the items in the document are housekeeping. The Committee tried to make stylistic changes, do a lot of proof reading that had not been done, eliminate certain parts of the code which are now available elsewhere such as the Ohio Revised Code Criminal Law that is now on our web site, and, in doing so, make the document more student friendly.

Dr. Engle noted that there were a number of substantive issues that required lengthy debate among the task force. There was some confusion about the nature of the interface between the Student Judicial process at the University and the Disciplinary process that existed at Viking Hall. We revised it with the goal of making that interface clear; not only indicating what powers are held by the staff at Viking Hall, but what role the Student Judicial process would play in violations at Viking Hall. The Committee had to revise sections of the document involving the definition of violations so that they would conform with the University's policies as articulated by the Affirmative Action Office. These were parts of the Code which dealt with Title IX issues. That was a major part of the revision.

Dr. Engle reported that perhaps the most important part of the revision was the result of the University's hiring of a Judicial Affairs Officer to serve in something like an Ombudsman role for students who are involved in the Judicial process. The Judicial Affairs Officer was intended to be a non-participating objective overseer of the process. The responsibility for doing that had previously been carried out by the Student Conduct Officer. The Student Conduct Officer is a long-standing member of the University Administration whose duties are to serve as a Hearing Officer when charges are brought in the Judicial process. There was the perception of a potential conflict of interest if there wasn't a clear explanation of the differences between these two positions and their responsibilities. So major revision was done to the document with that in mind. This included adding definitions of the two positions as well as articulating the responsibilities of the two positions to eliminate the possibility of a perceived conflict of interest.

Dr. Engle reported that the Committee also did a major revision of the process itself. The practice at Cleveland State University is that when students have charges brought against them, they are allowed to choose between having their case heard by an administrative representative, in our case the Student Conduct Officer, or having their case heard by a group of peers, the Student Judicial Board, which also has faculty representation. The problem was that in the old Code, these processes were not parallel and they interfaced with each other in very awkward ways because appeals by one party could be heard by the other, etc. The Committee decided that the process should be identical in either option and so the description of two separate processes was eliminated and one description was written that applies to both options.

Finally, Dr. Engle reported that the last of the substantial changes had to do with the Appeals process in the Judicial Hearing process. In the past, the Appeals process which eventually winds up on the desk of the President of the University, had in it a number of places where hearing appeals bodies could revert cases back down in the chain. This created the possibility of several loops or even endless loops of re-hearing. The Committee streamlined it so now there is no referring cases back down the chain. They only go up in the Appeals process. A number of housekeeping changes were made to be sure that deadlines were printed consistently in different sections of the Code, etc. The Committee had some clarifying issues. There was some interest on Dr. Nuru-Holm's part that the smoking policy was written into the Code in such a way that it could be used for enforcement as a violation in the process. So the Committee did that and tried to draw attention to it by isolating it in the document in various ways.

Dr. Nicholas Moutafakis asked what is meant by leadership probation. Dr. Engle responded that leadership probation is a housekeeping issue that came up this year. Last year, the Senate passed the Leaderquest Program which sets certain requirements for students who assume leadership positions on campus for which they receive stipends from the University. This includes Student Government, the editor of the Cauldron, the Whiskey Island editor, the manager of the radio station, and positions like that. The original version of that language said that a student must achieve a minimum grade point average of 2.5 and maintain it during the course of the stipend. If they fail to achieve that or fall below that, then they are put on probation for a period of one academic term. With our Semester system now, you have one semester to achieve a 2.5 and, if you don't, you are on probation for one semester so it is possible to go through a full year of a stipend without any consequences. In effect, it invalidates the grade point average requirement. So, it was revised to say that you must have a GPA of 2.5 in order to take office in a stipend position instead of having to earn it. The revision in the language on the back page makes that clear.

Dr. Barbara Green asked, "If a student commits one of these acts listed as violations, for example, theft from an individual, how is the decision made whether to turn it over to the normal police procedures or to use University procedures? If somebody steals from me, does it not go through the regular legal system?" Dr. Engle responded that if you are a victim of a crime in the State of Ohio, you choose how you wish to initiate proceedings. If you want it to go through the University Judicial Process, and it qualifies as a violation, we will begin the process here. If you choose then to file a police report, it will become a case in the courts. There is no problem of jurisdiction; both processes apply to behavior on campus.

Professor Cynthia Dieterich commented about eliminating the Ohio Revised Code section. She felt that something needs to be in the Student Conduct Code noting that students are held liable under State laws. Simply include a note referring to the Ohio Revised Code section on the web page. To completely eliminate it simply suggests that they are only bound by University regulations and not State laws as well. Professor Engle responded that there are sections of the document in which that point is made directly. The students are subject to Ohio law.

Professor Dieterich suggested that it should be noted somewhere that, therefore, these laws can be found in X, Y, and Z. This really puts meat to it when you have it listed there in black and white. Dr. Engle noted that the Student Code says that they must obey Ohio law as students of Cleveland State University. We have taken the section of the Ohio Revised Code detailing criminal violations and moved it to the web page instead of having it in the list of violations. We have not changed the document in terms of it saying to the students that they must obey the law. He noted that there is a cross reference that will be filled in once the web page is created and the Code is put there. That is blank at this point because we don't know what that page number will be.

Professor Misra asked, "When you do such things like the Student Conduct Code, is that specifically taken from the Law College?" Dr. Engle stated that he did not know what the input was on the original Code. It was written before he was a member of the faculty at CSU -- some twenty years ago. The task force consisted of the Student Conduct Officer, the Judicial Affairs Officer, a member of the Legal Council Office, a member of the Administrative Staff at Viking Hall, the Chair of the Student Life Committee, and students from several parts of the University including Student Government, the Law College, and the Judicial Board. The membership of the Student Life Committee, which reviewed the recommendation from the Task Force has, during the whole process, had members from the Law College on it. When we put it out to the University for feedback, one of the places we positioned it was in the Law College. We did, in fact, get a great deal of feedback from Law students. Dr. Engle added that some of the faculty in the Law College may have used this as a homework assignment for their students, given how much feedback was received.

The Senate recognized Jerry Struthers, a student. Mr. Struthers commented that quite recently he found that there are no provisions in the Judicial Code for certain things. Recently he asked about the election procedure. Only 84 students from the entire University campus voted. He wondered why no absentee votes were allowed. No write-in candidates were allowed. The only thing he could do was to file some kind of objection since there is nothing in the rules or in any University document stating that students are prohibited from absentee votes or from writing in candidates. He had to ask for some type of a hearing. Because it is not covered in the courts, we did not break any laws by not allowing the absentee votes or any write-in votes. In light of this argument, Mr. Struthers wondered if there should be some type of provision in the Student Guide for allowing absentee votes and write-in candidates. The Trustees signed off on this, the President signed off on this, but there is no procedure on the books to follow.

Professor Engle stated that he did not have an answer to Mr. Struthers question. The Committee is looking at the section of the Student Handbook that covers the Judicial Process. His guess is that what Mr. Struthers is interested in sounds as though it has to do with the election processes for Student Government. That is a separate part of the Student Handbook. The proper venue for discussing that would be in the Student Life Committee and he would invite Mr. Struthers to bring his concerns to the Student Life Committee and they will be put on their Agenda.

There being no further discussion, Dr. Phillips called for the vote. The proposed Revised Student Conduct Code was then approved.

Dr. John Hemann inquired if the motion just passed and the previous motion that was passed would now go to the Board of Trustees. Dr. Phillips replied that the Student Conduct Code does go to the Board of Trustees; the Academic Calendar does not.

 

[Go to top of page]

 

V. University President's Report

President Claire Van Ummersen stated that she had two items to report on. First, she reported on a meeting she had last week with Chancellor Chu. The Chancellor has been traveling the State meeting with each of the University and Community College Presidents. His visits come as a result of the visits we had from the Chair of the Board of Regents and the Chancellor is now following through on some of the things that the Chairman discovered as he traveled the State. She had a two and one half hour meeting with the Chancellor. They discussed a number of Cleveland State concerns. Perhaps the most important one, is the fact that given Cleveland State's mission, we are not funded for a number of the things that we do on this campus through the Subsidy. The Chancellor's response to this was that if we could clearly delineate these areas, he would entertain either a factor or factors that might be added to the Subsidy that would increase support for urban universities. Needless to say, she will be talking to colleagues in other urban universities to try to define enough of those areas where the formula has not supported us in a proper way. Also, if it is possible for us to either change the formula or change the weighing of some of the factors in order to assist us in the Subsidy component of the formula.

Second, President Van Ummersen reported on the Graduate Funding Commission. The Commission met last Wednesday and the discussion there continues to center around this boundary of defining Masters and Doctoral level credits. The current rule is that 34 semester credits or 60 quarter credits defines the boundary between a Masters student and a Doctoral student. Whether you are enrolled in a Doctoral program or not, seems not to matter. It depends on the actual courses that you are taking. There is a proposal on the table to move the boundary from 34 semester credits to 60 semester credits. We have asked twice now to have some models run so that we can actually see what will happen to both the Masters level credits and Doctoral level credits on our campuses and get a feel for what the actual economic impact of that will be. At our next session, we finally will have some of those models. Obviously, the push is an attempt to move us toward the 60 credit model and we are all pushing to move back toward the 34 credit model. She indicated that she was not sure where it is going to come out. They have been told that the boundary will move. So we will stay on top of that. The Committee continues to try to encourage the Regents to take a much broader approach in Graduate education and to look at the importance of terminal Masters degrees and the fact that the work force is continuing to need additional education as the years go on. Also, to encourage the Regents to look at Certificates that are not only post baccalaureate but also post Masters because these are the fastest growing areas on all of our university campuses. So far, that piece is falling on deaf ears with the exception of the Educational Specialists Degree or Certificate. That is the only one that is currently recognized. We have some more work to do in that area. There continues to be an attempt to somehow define sponsored research and other activities and make that a part of the actual funding formula for Masters level education. None of us can quite figure out how to do that at this point in time. We have been told that the Committee will continue its work during the Summer so that we will come to closure on this before the actual budget for the next biennium is prepared. She will try to keep everyone informed about what is happening in that area.

President Van Ummersen reported that the Capital Budget was released by the Governor yesterday and clearly our formula allocation is in tact. In addition, there are monies that will pass through our budget again for a number of entities -- the Play House, the Science Museum, some money is in it for the WVIZ project which we will attempt to get increased as we move through the House and the Senate. Several others are included where the money will not actually come to us but will be passed through to them. The Crawford Museum is another one that is going to be built on the Waterfront. We are beginning to see a number of projects like that including something called the Vocational Guidance Center. She has no idea what that is or what the money is intended for, but we will eventually find that out.

Professor Kenneth Dunegan noted that, at the last Senate meeting, it was requested and the President had agreed to provide additional data about sources of funds for the PeopleSoft project. President Van Ummersen asked Vice President Christine Jackson if she could give that information to Dr. Dunegan.

Dr. Dunegan noted that this information was not just for him; someone else had asked about the additional data for the one-time sources of funds. President Van Ummersen said that she had thought he had been the one who had asked the question initially. She didn't mean to say that this information was only for him.

Vice President Christine Jackson distributed a copy of the same summary that had been prepared for the last Senate meeting. She noted that outlined at the bottom of the page are the calculation assumptions using vacancy savings and one-time revenues to fund the PeopleSoft project.

Dr. Leo Jeffres asked how vacancy savings can go from $2 Million one year to $69,000 the next year. President Van Ummersen responded that, in the early years, we still had vacancy savings from positions that were slowly being recruited and actually put into place. Toward the end points, we had very little vacancy savings, and, therefore, in some of the years, the one-time revenues took over as the major source of funds.

Dr. Green noted that there was $2 Million in 1998 and then $69,000 the next year, and this year apparently $194,000, but this includes numbers which are for the future. She wondered on what basis do we assume that we will have $500,000 in 2001, $350,000 in 2002, and $275,000 in 2003. In the past, we always generally had a certain amount left over. But, given the volatility of going from $2,069,000, if these in fact are vacancy savings, means this money is actually part of the budget and people are actually authorized to have people on those lines and in those positions. What kind of magic has lead to these numbers here? Vice President Jackson replied that 2001 to 2003 is purely an estimate at this point in time. Obviously, since we don't have revenues for Summer, Fall, and Spring of next year, it is hard to know what the vacancy savings will be. Currently we will have to use vacancy savings.

Dr. Green asked Vice President Jackson if she is prepared to put a freeze on positions at a certain point in the year if the money is not there or how is she going to come up with the money to pay for PeopleSoft? If it gets to be January and we don't have this kind of savings, will there be a freeze on hiring for vacancies? Vice President Jackson replied that, at this point in time, this is included in the budget plan models. It is one of the one-time items that we know we have to fund. We know we will have to fund each source. Can she say that six months from now there will be a freeze? No, she can't. Historically, the University has had a history of vacancy savings and we have not put a freeze on positions.

Dr. Green asked about 1997 and 1999. Vice President Jackson responded that financial statements don't go back to identify sources of funds or uses of funds in this kind of detail.

[Go to top of page]

VI. Senate President's Report

Dr. Phillips reminded everyone of the NCA Self Study input sessions that are coming up. We also have a WITT Auction coming up and donations are needed.

[Go to top of page]

 

VII. New Business

Dr. Gross indicated that he had two questions. First, when Fred Gage left CSU, his title was Chief Technology Officer. He wondered if that title has been given to someone. President Van Ummersen responded that his title has not been given to anyone else. We will recruit for a new Chief Information Officer. Hopefully, one who will not be taken up with PeopleSoft since we now have consultants who are working on that project. We have not yet gotten to the point of defining if the job description will be similar to the one that was originally written that resulted in Fred Gage's hire. The Provost is looking at this issue at this time.

Dr. Gross asked if the CSU Administration monitors or plans to monitor E-mail and web usage by faculty, staff, and students. President Van Ummersen asked Dr. Gross if she can get an answer to his question. She stated that she did not know whether we are or not.

Dr. Louis Barbato commented that the misunderstanding came over the Plain Dealer's reporter not knowing that public announcements had to be approved before they can go out over E-mail. He said that the faculty did not want their E-mail censored. E-mail is not censored. You have to get approval to have a public announcement go out to everybody over the E-mail system.

Dr. Gross asked, "Where do those public announcements originate and who has the right to make announcements?" Dr. Barbato replied that they can originate anywhere. They are supposed to be announcements that are of interest to the entire campus community.

Dr. Phillips asked Dr. Barbato who would decide. If someone wanted to make an announcement, to whom would it be directed? Dr. Barbato replied that it would be the Director of IS&T.

Professor Surendra Tewari commented that usually after the Senate meeting when he goes home, he writes a very short description of what went on in the Senate and passes it on to his Engineering colleagues via E-mail. He asked if that was now illegal. Dr. Barbato responded that it was not illegal. That is not a public announcement that goes to everyone. Dr. Phillips commented that it is just those that come up on your E-mail listed as public announcements.

Professor James Wilson said that, normally, we don't have to clear with anybody in government something we want to say to any member of the public, so he is very troubled by the notion that there is a constraint on public announcements. In addition, he pointed out that Dr. Gross' question was also a question of monitoring, not just a question of censuring. He is also troubled and concerned about that issue. There should be a clear policy on that. It is becoming clearer and clearer now that we have no privacy. He would like a separate provider. Dr. Barbato remarked that the reason it has to be approved is that it clutters up the system so they try to do it over night rather than anytime during the day.

Dr. Green inquired if any public announcement has been refused. Dr. Barbato replied, "Not that I know of." Dr. Green noted that this is the real question. If you are going to have somebody who is technical look at this stuff, can they say this is not a public announcement or this is or we won't allow this or that? That is a real problem. President Van Ummersen said that she can find out. She stated that she did not believe that anyone has been refused. It has to do with the fact that a public announcement is not a regular E-mail. It is more like something that is posted on a bulletin board. She discovered after the forum that the people in Urban Affairs don't always get public announcements because they are on a different E-mail system and the public announcement doesn't get posted. There is a special way to get it over there. She will try to get more information around public announcements.

Dr. Jeffres commented that now that people know that no one has been rejected, there could be a huge increase. Since the web site could be revised anyway, when you go to a faculty page, there is a bulletin board where people can post. Perhaps you might want a more prominent area which would get rid of any clutter that might occur. In any case, it would be friendly, it would get rid of the gate keeper, and perhaps save some time. We look forward to that.

Dr. Thomas Flechtner commented on a relevant privacy issue. He noted that Professor Doerder had pointed out that the Minutes for the Senate meetings are indexed on world wide search engines all over the place. If you have been quoted in the Minutes, you can very easily find yourself on the web. In fact, be aware that anybody can find you on the web. When you receive the Minutes from the Senate meeting, make sure you check your name thoroughly.

Dr. Green stated that part of the question, though, is a question about privacy and people ought to be aware, as indicated in the AAUP News, that anything you put on E-mail can be retrieved by the Administration. It doesn't belong to you; there is no privacy. In fact, things that faculty have said on E-mail have been used against them.

President Claire Van Ummersen commented that certainly we learned that at the time the Plain Dealer was requesting information. We had to provide all of those E-mails to them. Anything you put on E-mail is a public record.

Dr. Jeffres stated that he is ready for some laws. Private organizations and companies are far worse at this. He noted that people are using analysis of E-mail messages and others to do psychological profiles, etc. If that's the case, then we are providing a transcript over which we have no control. One way to defeat this is to start wiping out the backups of personal E-mail messages as a policy. If we don't keep them, they can't be analyzed as long as we make that our policy. So, we should think about how long we keep things. Is there any reason for keeping backups of our E-mail messages anyway? If there isn't, then this provides some security and more privacy for our members. Perhaps people in IS&T can discuss this issue.

Professor Dunegan reported that, as part of a committee in the College of Business, an analysis of salaries was done across the University and sent out for informative purposes to members of the Senate. The reason for bringing it up now is to raise the issue of whether or not -- not salaries themselves -- the ramifications of deviations from the market are something that the Senate needs to be cognizant of in order to discuss and get feedback from the Administration regarding potential motivational erosion and morale problems. Also, if the feedback the Colleges received was from folks who have come in to help us out with the AACSB reaccreditation, and whether the deviations from the market that the University has relative to salary might pose a threat to long-term viability of some of our academic programs. He understands that the Faculty Senate is not the place for any kind of negotiations or bargaining to take place, and that is not the intent of making the information public, but rather to raise it as a source of motivational and morale problems. Just like we asked the Administration to respond to other issues that are problematic, like PeopleSoft and like the condition of the classrooms in the Main Classroom building. This is also a problem that we can't ignore -- the morale problem -- the motivational problem that is associated with this issue. He indicated that he does not know where to take this issue, but given that we are responsible for the general well-being and welfare of the University to the extent that this is a problem that is causing some difficulty, it seems a legitimate one for the Faculty Senate to deal with.

Dr. Rodger Govea asked Professor Dunegan if there is anything specific that he would like the Senate to do. Clearly, receipt of the information is important in and of itself. Everyone here really does need to look at what they have done. Is there any specific action or discussion that should take place, or perhaps should it be put on the Agenda of a future meeting? Professor Dunegan stated that we have a problem and he would really like to have some discussion about what we need to do to resolve the problem. That is the purpose.

Professor Jeffres responded that one thing we might do is to raise an issue that people are often uncomfortable with and that is that the institution can be marketed as "WalMart" for the Masters program. Students don't want to pay any higher tuition than they have to, but they need to realize, at some point, that the quality of education they are getting can be eroded if their tuition is not increased. The students should be informed that more is not always worse if it means maintaining the quality of the institution and strengthening programs. That is the discussion we need to have in public with the Trustees. We have to keep the costs down. If we don't have that discussion, then students won't understand that some type of tuition increases are necessary for a quality institution unless the State is willing to cough up more money for higher education. We have to have that discussion rather than just simply saying that our salaries are too low.

Dr. Hemann suggested that this might be a perfect topic for the Steering Committee to refer to the University Faculty Affairs Committee. Dr. Govea stated that Dr. Hemann is right. In fact, if we did a similar type of study in the Engineering College we may find many of the same things going on so it is not just relevant to the Business College.

Professor Santosh Misra proposed that a general compensation issue be included on the Senate's Agenda for the next meeting, particularly, what impact it has on the morale of the faculty and staff and the long-term viability of the institution because this cannot be solved by one side. It needs to have input from the Administration. If it is made a part of the next meeting's agenda, then at least we will see some hard facts being presented here and that hopefully will start a dialogue and lead to some kind of resolution. Dr. Phillips said that she can certainly ask the Academic Steering Committee to consider putting this issue on the Agenda. She doesn't have the power herself to do that. It is very difficult because there is such a fine line and because the Senate has absolutely no jurisdiction whatsoever over money or salaries. It is hard to separate the questions that Professor Misra is talking about -- morale questions, etc. -- from the question of money. It is kind of difficult to give the discussion a shape.

Dr. Misra stated that he did not think motivation and morale is such a small issue that we can simply say it is a salary issue; it is not. This particular issue effects the general body as a whole -- far more members of this University community than any other particular issue. So, it is not strictly salary that we are talking about. Dr. Phillips noted then that Dr. Misra was talking about morale issues that can not be solved by money that we could discuss. Dr. Misra commented that there are repercussions of the long-term compensation policy.

Dr. Cheryl McCahon remarked that it could be called the quality of life at the University.

Dr. Green observed that Dr. Jeffres is talking about whether we want to have a "K-Mart" or whether we want to have a "Dillards." We could have a discussion, not specifically about salaries or things like that, but the relationship between the quality of the institution, the amount of revenue that the institution is able to secure, and how that effects the quality of programs. Faculty salaries obviously are implied in this but rather than aim it directly at that, aim it at the question of the quality of the institution which requires a faculty which is competitive.

Professor Misra noted that you have to take it at the level of the market issue. What are the level market simple principles? If you do not tie the performance and compensation, your performance is going to go down. Ultimately, six years down the road, your institution is going to be in trouble. We have to be responsible and address that issue. If we don't, six years down the road there is a new Administration and then people are going to come back and say, your faculty group never took any leadership. That is what we are calling for here.

Professor Spicer suggested starting with performance before compensation.

Professor Wilson said that he would like a general discussion about what kind of University we want to have in ten years. Also, the overall budget and support for the Faculty in every sense of the word.

Dr. Jeffres observed that if CSU wants to move from one level to another in the Carnegie Classifications, we are not going to do that without a discussion of the number and quality of graduate programs. For example, the support for research, etc. It does fit in with some of the goals that the University has set for itself.

Dr. Green inquired if this body has ever discussed the issue of what is implied by moving from one level in the Carnegie Classifications to the other so that it is not simply a recommendation from the Graduate Council and from the President's retreat, but, in fact, this is a very central issue for the future of the University and precisely the issue that this Senate ought to be involved with. This ought to get at the question of what kinds of additional assets do we need, how are we going to get them, what does it mean about government grants, how are we going to have faculty assisted so that we will be able to get the grants, what kind of teaching, what kind of student body -- all of these issues are involved in that. It seems that we ought not to move into that kind commitment until we have real debate and facts and figures and numbers on it.

Professor Tewari noted that the question, as a group, is whether we have decided that we are going to become a Doctoral II institution in the future. The trouble is that quite a few of the faculty are struggling with that aim and there are all kinds of forces within the University which are against that attitude. Has the Senate, as a body, decided that this is the direction that we have to move?

Dr. Green suggested putting Professor Tewari's question on the next Senate Agenda. Dr. Phillips said that the Senate has two meetings left this year -- April 19, 2000 and May 3, 2000. We have April 12, 2000 and April 26, 2000 for the Academic Steering Committee. Professor Tewari stated that one meeting would not be enough. Dr. Phillips noted that this is a huge question. Professor Tewari stated that this is a very important issue for a lot of us. Dr. Phillips agreed to take this issue to the Academic Steering Committee to see what kind of plan they can come up with to schedule these various sorts of discussions and structure them.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:20 P.M.

Pamela J. Eyerdam

Senate Secretary



/velb

[Go to top of page]