PRESENT: Barbato, Blake, Bowen, Buckley, Chung, Crocker, Dieterich, Doerder, Drake, Dunegan, Dural, Eyerdam, Flechtner, Govea, B. Green, Gross, Hemann, Hollinger, Holmes, C. Jackson, Jeffres, Kamath, Keys, Konangi, Mahmud, Mastboom, McCahon, J. McIntyre, McLoughlin, Misra, Moutafakis, Neuendorf, Nolan, Nuru-Holm, Orendi, D. Phillips, Quigney, Sekayi, Spicer, Tewari, Thornton, Vallos, Van Ummersen, Wadhwa, M. Webb, J. Wilson.
ABSENT/EXCUSED: DeGroot, Dillard-Mitchell, Falk, Feko, Frew, Gorla, Hartnagel, M. Jackson, S. Kaufman, Konstantinos, Lindsey, MacCluskie, Meiksins, Olson, Rini, Steckol, Steinglass, Sweet, Tumeo, Valencic, Walsh, Waren, Wheatley.
ALSO PRESENT: Lupton, Snyder.
Senate President Donna Burns Phillips called the meeting to order at 3:00 P.M.
I. Approval of the Agenda
Acceptance of the Agenda for April 19, 2000 was moved, seconded, and approved.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the April 5, 2000 Meeting
Acceptance of the Minutes of the April 5, 2000 was moved, seconded, and approved.
III. Announcement of Elections at the May 3, 2000 Meeting
Senate President Donna Phillips announced the elections scheduled for the meeting of May 3, 2000 as follows: Three faculty representatives to the University Faculty Affairs Committee; three faculty representatives to the Minority Affairs Committee; one faculty representative to the Board of Trustees; one faculty representative to the Honorary Degree Committee; one faculty representative to the Copyright Review Committee; one faculty representative to the Patent Review Committee; four representatives to the Equal Opportunity Hearing Panel. Dr. Phillips reminded members to check with candidates to be sure they are willing to serve before nominating them.
IV. Announcement of Coming Faculty-wide Election
Senate President Phillips announced the upcoming faculty-wide election of one faculty representative to the Academic Misconduct Review Committee. Nominations for this election come from the Academic Steering Committee.
V. University Curriculum Committee
Dr. Gregory Lupton, Chair of the University Curriculum Committee, presented the Committee's proposed Accredited Undergraduate Computer Engineering Degree Program. He moved that the Faculty Senate approve this program. The Electrical and Computer Engineering Department currently offers an option within its Bachelor of Electrical Engineering. What is being proposed here is that this option within a degree be expanded into a standard level program. He noted that Eugenio Villaseca, from Electrical and Computer Engineering, was present to answer technical questions about the proposal. Professor Kenneth Dunegan stated that he will vote against approving this program. He distributed a memo addressed to Faculty Senate that stated his rationale for not voting for it. "In total, the proposal calls for adding four new faculty. Based on the description in the proposal of the type of faculty needed to teach the classes, service the students, do quality research, publish in leading journals, and satisfy the accrediting agency, I am assuming we will be looking for the best people we can find. According to data in the recently published Oklahoma State Faculty Salary Survey, the average salary for Assistant Professors in Electrical Engineering is $62,112. If current trends continue, by next year the average Assistant Professor in Electrical Engineering will be making $64,286. Currently, the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at CSU has ten faculty members: two Full Professors, six Associates, and two Assistants. I am assuming we will need to offer market rates to entice and hire the faculty needed to staff this new program. If so, they will join CSU making more than all current faculty in this department, with the exception of the two Full Professors and one of the Associate Professors (who has been with CSU for over 25 years). If we assume salaries at CSU will only increase at the three percent rate for next year, these new hires will be making over $6,000 more than seven of the ten current faculty members, despite the fact that, in the academic year 2000-2001, the seven will have been with CSU for an average of almost nine years. I have seen first hand the effects of salary compression and salary inversion in the College of Business. Last year, for example, we had two members of our faculty promoted to the rank of Full Professor. Between them they averaged twenty years at CSU. Both received the standard increase in salary associated with promotion to Full Professor. Even with the promotion increases, these two Full Professors are paid $3,950 less than the brand new Assistant Professors hired last year in the College. As of this year, the average salary for Associate Professors in the College of Business is $2,985 less than the average salary for Assistants. I cannot endorse a proposal that would introduce the same compression and inversion of problems to the College of Engineering. I don't think the emotional well-being of the College of Engineering or the emotional well-being of the University can afford it." Dr. Jane McIntyre stated that she was very sympathetic to Professor Dunegan's salary compression but she would like to hear if the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering had discussed this and what their own thoughts were on it. Professor Eugenio Villaseca responded that he understands fully well Dr. Dunegan's sentiments on this issue. He noted a couple of corrections to Dr. Dunegan's remarks. The first one is that the proposal is only asking for two new faculty, not four. A search process is going on right now to replace two positions that are vacant. One is a result of a retirement and the other one is a result of a resignation. So, the net increase is only two. The Department currently has eleven faculty. There are three Full Professors, six Associates, and two Assistants. The salary issue is one that has always agonized the Department when it is time to recruit. The basic bottom line is that you hire or you don't. It is not his responsibility to address a problem that is University-wide. The Administration should be addressing this salary inversion, not just compression. He will leave it to them and his colleagues in the AAUP-CSU Chapter to address it at the time of negotiations. But, we are proposing converting our option into a full degree program. Our students want this. They are getting degrees in Electrical Engineering and they want to see that their specialty is in Computer Engineering. The students are right because the demand is enormous. We are missing the boat by not doing what is right. Dr. Villaseca noted that there are six letters from major companies in the area attached to the proposal firmly endorsing it. Statistics he produced show how the enrollment in the number of degrees that have been awarded in Electrical and Computer Engineering have mainly come from Computer Engineers. We have had the option at this University for fifteen years. It is time to move and give these students the proper education that is in high demand. He cannot deal with the issue of salaries. The other alternative is to have the University respond to what is happening. The problem he has, as the Chair of the Department, is that they might start loosing the most qualified faculty in the area because of this. The program should be approved. Let's deal with the salary issue where it belongs. Professor Dunegan remarked that he stands corrected in the number of faculty. The number he was looking at, in terms of the number of Full Professors, was the number listed in the Phone Book. He asked if the three Full Professors includes someone with an Administrative position. Professor Villaseca responded that Professor Dunegan was correct. Professor Dunegan commented that this is why he did not have his/her data. His reading of the proposal says four faculty members will be replaced. There are two new ones according to the proposal and two existing lines that will be used to fill vacant spots so they will be bringing in four new people at market rates. He feels that his numbers are still accurate. Dr. Villaseca responded that he was trying to correct the impression that Electrical Engineering is hiring four new faculty because of the program but that is not the case. Professor Dunegan stated that he does not, in any way, feel that we should not have a program such as this. His concern is with the impact of hiring four new people without correcting the internal problems. He endorses the program but does not think that we can afford it emotionally at this point. Professor Santosh Misra stated that he would like to see such a program. It is a good move, but he also senses a real concern. For example, coming from the CIS Department, there are students lined up starting at 2:30 in the morning to register for CIS courses. Six or seven courses for Fall have already been closed. Many courses offered in the Summer are already closed. The number of credit hours produced in one Department of CIS is more than the entire College of Engineering. We can probably increase those credit hours, given faculty resources, easily thirty/forty percent without any problem. While it is very nice to have the Computer Engineering program and we should have this program, it comes down to centralized resource planning and we should not be going in that direction if we cannot properly locate the resources for the program. Before we approve a new program, somebody at the higher level needs to decide on the University's strategy that these are the programs that need to be given additional resources for whatever reason before we add any new programs. Professor Lupton commented that the pressure on enrollments in CIS was an issue that came up in the Curriculum Committee. He understands that Professor Villaseca met with Professor Donald Golden and discussed exactly this issue. In fact, there is a letter in the proposal from Donald Golden stating that this won't cause a problem. Professor Misra remarked that his question was misunderstood. He was not saying that this proposal will cause a problem. What he is saying is that if we are not in a position to locate resources for adding four faculty salaries, we should add those salaries to an existing program. People are unhappy. Basically, we are producing alumni who are unhappy because they cannot get into courses. And people come to CIS and line up at 2:30 in the morning to sign up for courses. If we are going to be spending resources at the University, then we need to stop the courses that have already been offered right now. The number of courses available in the Summer schedule, for various reasons, are not enough for the students. If there is an expansion possibility, let's expand somewhere where there is already the demand. Professor John Hemann indicated that he supported the program. We are running into a problem. We can't really hold program development hostage -- not just in Electrical Engineering, but in other areas where there is a good program put forth and where there is a need for it. If this proposal is voted down because of these salary numbers, and he agrees with the numbers, we are making a mistake. We need the upper Administration to respond to the economic side of this. The recruitment of new faculty can always be stopped if the money is not available. Let us not inhibit offering the program. This is not the last chance that the University will have to deal with the economic issue. Dr. McIntyre responded to Professor Misra's point. She noticed that there is a letter of support from the Provost included in the proposal which she assumes means that, at that high level Professor Misra was talking about, this issue has been discussed. They are not going to pour all of the resources into CIS, for example, but have decided to have more balance for a different mix of program development. She doesn't think that this question has not been considered by the Administration. She is actually glad to see that somebody included it in this proposal because it certainly is something that we need to know. She wondered if somebody has made the decision as to where the resources are going to go. She actually agrees despite the more pluralistic view of program development and saying that we might very well give all of our resources to CIS and have nothing but a College of CIS at the moment. We are not going to become that because we are a University and we have other needs to meet as well even if we can't meet all of the needs in one particular area. In addition to this memo, perhaps somebody from the Administration would like to speak to some of the reasoning behind this report since it indicates the kinds of points that Professor Misra is concerned about. She asked if these points have been considered on the Administration side. Provost Jay McLoughlin reported that he did talk to Dean Kenneth Keys about this particular program. In fact, he is trying to make it a procedure and a policy that he does so at the beginning of program development before it gets to this floor and we have to have this discussion. In looking at this particular program -- searches are going on right now -- the notion of having any additional faculty added to this program in the future, will depend on increased enrollments and internal reallocation within the Department depending on retirement and the availability of positions. There is a request in the proposal for some graduate assistants and some laboratory help and those are also on the budget request for the year. We can take care of the lab support this year with some resources that we have. The broader issue that was brought up, is how do we decide whether we put positions in this program or in another College that has opportunity for a lot of enrollment? He agrees with Dr. McIntyre that this is a University and we have a variety of different kinds of programs. This is a program that is called for at a variety of different levels and it is a unique opportunity. We can mount it in a modest way and, if it expands, then the resources will be available to support it, but not at the expense of another program. Professor Misra stated that he does support this program. It is a good program. He is not suggesting at all that the program should not be approved. He is suggesting that there needs to be some supervised planning that does look at the resource issues. We should have a diversified program at the University. He is not suggesting that all of the resources should go to CIS, but at the same token, we cannot just put programs together if we cannot adequately fund existing programs. That is the whole issue. He would like to see, from the Administration, some kind of resource planning, some kind of indication that when we put programs together and when we introduce new programs, we also give equal consideration to long-term resource availability. Professor Leo Jeffres stated that program development should come from the faculty. He is hearing that the Administration is telling us what we are going to get. He applauds the Engineering College for coming up with a program that they think is appropriate and that they need. They are arguing for approaching the Administration and asking for the resources and support. We should not have the grand mission coming down from the top. In the case of the curriculum, it should come from the faculty. Faculty within the various areas and Colleges should be proposing programs that they think serve the audiences -- the clientele if you will -- that we expect to have here. He stated that he hopes we aren't missing the boat here. We have a program proposed by faculty within the unit. We are not asking for a grand design from on high because the curriculum is a product of the faculty. Dean Kenneth Keys reported that Colleges of Engineering across the nation, because of the cycles in enrollment, are under tremendous pressures to get their enrollment up because of math and science issues that we have read about in this State and others. Over the past ten years, one of the biggest growth areas, if not the biggest forecast for at least the next ten years and beyond in Engineering, is foreign enrollment in Computer Engineering. If we look at Colleges across the nation, those that have grown have grown because the differential is that Computer Engineering, as the main leeway, has compensated for other enrollment decreases in other areas. Computer Engineering is not a one-shot thing. The biological model of engineering is one approach. There will be generations of micro-processors that even become biochemical at some point in time and the architecture will change. That means that Computer Engineering is a discipline that has thirty to fifty years of life. It is critical from an enrollment point of view. Second, the College has a history of being very successful in obtaining grants and bringing dollars to the institution. As we look at the letters of support, and the opportunities for partnering with NASA and various major companies in the region, that partnering for funding and for support for students will come from the research side of the same faculty working to strengthen the research success in the College. It is very important to the curriculum as well as to the continuing research success of the College. The only way the College can keep bringing in more dollars -- and the faculty will attest to that -- is really by bringing in new faculty. For every opportunity we have to get new faculty, look at where they relate to strengthening the research opportunity as well as the partnering. These are two critical things for the College of Engineering and the Department. Professor James Wilson stated that he understands the concern about new faculty and new students and enrollment and money and hostages and everything else; nevertheless, some of our faculty, who have been here for a while, are grossly underpaid. Best of all, the power of a new faculty member, when he comes in here, you have to understand this is the only time you ever are going to get a decent raise. In ten years, you are going to be behind the averages. Basically, this is a bait and switch operation. When people start saying that kind of thing, then it seems to be problematic. So far, he hasn't heard anything from the Administration about compression which is the issue that has been raised -- not the value of the program which is evidently good. Consequently, part of him says maybe he should just go along and be a good Senator, but part of him says the opposite. We have got to start raising a little bit of trouble here and make it clear that the compression issue is serious. If that means jamming up programs for a year or two, and no new faculty for a year or two until the senior faculty are taken care of, so be it. He would like to say cool off. What is the senior Administration doing about the compression issue? Professor Surendra Tewari noted that the purpose of the meeting today is really to discuss the proposed Computer Engineering program. If we want to look into the resource allocation and our overall University policy in terms of which programs should be supported at the expense of which programs, we should create a forum for that on another day. We need to focus on the purpose for today. Then maybe tomorrow, somebody can propose that we have a special meeting to discuss faculty resources, salary compression, and other issues. Those issues are very serious issues and they need a very serious thorough discussion on their own merit, not at the expense of any one single program. Dr. Phillips reminded members that, at the last Senate meeting, we talked about having a very serious and extensive discussion of where the University is going, perhaps over the next five years. She and President Van Ummersen have begun a discussion about how best to structure that which was the direction of the Academic Steering Committee. It would seem to her that much of what we are talking about in terms of where the support goes etc., -- not the money issue because we all know that is AAUP -- would be part, she would think, of that kind of a presentation of a vision of where the University is going. We do have, without having a definite scheduled date, plans at this moment to have those kinds of presentations probably in September. Again, the exact scheduling would depend on the decision of the new Senate President. Professor Dunegan said that he would not disagree with Dr. Phillips except that we cannot separate the cause and effect here. If we approve this program, and it does have merit to be voted in, there are effects that have to be taken into account now in regard to how it is going to impact current faculty. Those two issues cannot be ignored and treated independently. If we want to vote on whether this is a wonderful program, it is. Professor Tewari again noted that this is the purpose of today's presentation. Dr. Phillips asked if the faculty of the Department of Electrical Engineering have approved this program. Dr. Villaseca responded that the program started several years ago. It was finalized by going through departmental committees, going back to the whole departmental faculty, and then to the College of Engineering Curriculum Committee. The College Curriculum Committee recommended it to the whole College. In all of these instances, the approval was unanimous. He is pretty happy and thankful to the University Curriculum Committee that also recommended its approval unanimously. We are aware of the issues that are being presented here. We cannot ignore them, but the program is a separate issue. The Department cannot deal with the salaries; the Administration has to deal with that. We are proposing a program that is in extremely high demand, that will help us increase enrollment, and that will create the kinds of things Dean Keys mentioned in terms of research collaborations. Professor Thomas Buckley felt that Professor Dunegan's point was in order. Any Senator could agree that this should be taken into consideration. The program comes forward with a budget. The budget, as far as it goes, is very persuasive. This program will pay for itself. It does address resources in that way and another resource issue is coming forward. It should be on the table and this is as good a place as any to address it. Professor Joyce Mastboom reminded members that a couple of months ago, we passed a program in Health Sciences where we also heard this discussion about resources. Where is the money going to come from? There too, we said, well, we have to pass it because this program is going to go out of business and we must have a Masters program. But, there were no resources there either. It is beginning to add up here and we can't say it is just the program. We are passing programs that are not adequately funded. That is an issue and it is our issue. Dr. McIntyre observed that the objection raised here is not that there aren't adequate resources, but that salary inequity will be created and that is something we should not be enforcing. It is not so much that there isn't the $60,000 plus per person to spend on salary, but if we spend it, we create an unjust inequitable situation. It may be true that it will be very poignant within that department if it happens, but those of us, for instance, in Arts and Sciences, when we vote to approve programs in Business, we are knowingly approving programs where Assistant Professors will be hired at salaries at twice that of Full Professors in Arts and Sciences. We do that in the University all of the time because, in our overall judgment, we may think under that circumstance it is the best thing to do for the University. She added that she doesn't vote against things in the Law College because her Law colleagues are so much better paid that Philosophers are paid, for example. Hopefully, we sometimes put those things aside. This is not to say that the University shouldn't deal with salary inversion and salary compression. She entirely agrees with everybody who has said the University must deal with that more honestly. If Arts and Sciences faculty voted in that way, then we would consistently vote against every program in every other College because of the fact that we are not paid as well as the faculty in every other College. She is not willing to say that the University's business should be done that way. She just thinks that we ought to put pressure on the Administration to deal with the salary inversion issue, but not through endorsing or not endorsing programs. Professor Michael Spicer remarked that the Senate, this year, approved a number of programs and, regardless of the discussion today, will likely approve programs in the future. In light of that, unless this body is prepared to support some sort of across the board freeze, not only on new programs but new faculty positions and also following the logic on replacements for existing positions, it would seem to be arbitrary to pick out Electrical Engineering at this point and hold them accountable for these issues. It is simply unfair. Professor Misra offered a compromise solution. Obviously, all of us like the program and all of us feel that the program is good. That is not the question. But, as has been pointed out by Professor Mastboom, we have approved a program in Health Sciences and we are approving a program today, and we will be approving a program tomorrow. So, in a sense, we have a disjoint here. We go on approving programs without looking at resources at all. From an academic side, we can keep on approving programs. Let's approve this program and then say, okay the program cannot be started until the Administration comes back and tells us in thirty days, how they are going to fund this program. Dr. McIntyre pointed out that, in this case, the Administration has done that. Dr. Misra noted that they are saying that new faculty members are going to be added, but where exactly are those resources coming from? Professor Tewari said that he doesn't want to punish his students because of his salary. It is really hurting those students who are coming here every day wanting a diploma in Electrical Engineering and Computer Engineering. There is no way he will take that attitude and hurt his students just because he wants his salary to go up. That is what is wrong here. Salaries are low and have to be raised. But this program and the students have nothing to do with the salaries. Dr. Barbara Green reflected that if this continues the way it is now without this program being approved, the College of Engineering can go out and hire two new Computer Engineers on the vacancies. There is no relationship between that and whether we pass this program or not. We are dealing here with two separate issues. The College can also, if their enrollment should increase, continue to hire and each time they hire, they are going to hire at a higher salary. Holding up this program will not make the issue of salary inversion or compression any better. Dr. Green noted that she is on the University Curriculum Committee and this is one of the first times she has seen where they have been very careful by showing exactly where the two positions will come from (they are existing positions), how they will expand and get other positions, how they will use resources from within the College of Engineering as they become available -- through resignations, through retirements, etc. and reassign those resources. $50,000 to start off is nothing. What they have done here is clear. We have had other programs where all has not been told. This program has done it and shown it. We have a separate issue on salary inversion, etc., and, as has been said before, we ought not to punish this program by not approving it when it is not even going to help the salary issue. Professor Wilson stated that he is going to support the program and probably everybody will, but his point primarily is that the University Administration should see this as a shot across the bow that a lot of people are extremely upset about the status quo and the constant degradation of people within departments. Eventually, people may start taking means that are not the most desirable ones that they are completely comfortable with. That is what he is starting to think about and that is why he will at least support Professor Dunegan in terms of where he is going even if he, in the end, ends up supporting the program. Dr. Rodger Govea advised that he plans to vote in favor of the proposal but he wanted to explain his vote to everyone. In no way does he need to denigrate anything that Professor Dunegan has brought forward. Professor Dunegan has raised a very important issue. In fact, he hopes that this discussion is well included in the Minutes. It is something that the AAUP would like to consider very carefully. The problem he has is that the instincts are right and he cannot even say that he objects to the tactic of holding something hostage in order to get a little justice. There are many persons, places, or things he would be willing to hold hostage in order to get some justice around here, but academic programs isn't one of those things. That is his problem. He doesn't object to strong-arm tactics; he doesn't object to confrontation. He simply doesn't think that academic programs should be the things that we hold hostage. He cannot, in good conscience, hold something hostage like that. He added that anything else Professor Dunegan can suggest, he would be delighted to use. The problem here is that the Electrical and Computer program is meritorious, it is a program that has been worked out, and it is a program that really everyone here approves. We need to pass this program and we need to address the question of inversion as best we can. This is not the way to do it. Professor Dunegan emphasized that this is an outstanding package and he applauds the identification of sources of funding. He agrees that this program is self-supporting and is in no way going to compromise any budgetary lines. His concern is with the impact that these new faculty will have on the existing faculty and it is not just in this department in the College of Engineering. If you look at these salaries and the people who are going to be brought in to staff these positions and compare them with the rest of the faculty in the College of Engineering, in terms of feelings of motivation and morale that are anywhere near where they are in the College of Business, you are going to have to deal with the emotional collateral damage and that should be planned for. Dr. Andrew Gross noted that another issue here is the assumption of numbers. How many students are going to be enrolled in this program and in the next program? In the future, when we propose a major or a minor or a degree program and make these assumptions about enrollments, it would be nice if the Provost's Office or another office would give us a five or ten-year perspective on similar proposals and assumptions that have been made and whether or not the enrollments indeed have come true. That certainly could sway some votes and would allay some fears. Dr. Villaseca reported that the prospects on enrollment came from a meeting he attended where all the Chairmen in the Electrical Engineering Departments in this country met -- actually there were some guests from abroad as well. The forecasted enrollment figures for Computer Engineering were anywhere between twenty percent and 400 percent. He did not want to present an undue rosy picture so he took the minimum -- twenty percent. Yes, the proof will only come if the program exists and the students start enrolling, but, for that, we need an approved program.
There being no further discussion, the vote was taken. The proposed Accredited Undergraduate Computer Engineering Degree Program was approved with two abstentions.
Dr. Lupton presented the University Curriculum Committee's proposal for an Undergraduate Major in Women's Studies and moved that Faculty Senate approve it. The Women's Comprehensive Program currently administers a minor in Women's Studies. We are simply proposing that students be given the opportunity to major in Women's Studies. He noted that Professors Mareyjoyce Green and Beth Cagan were present to answer technical questions about the program.
Dr. Gross referred to page 5 of the document and read the following: "A regional study of the Women's Studies graduates of Bowling Green State University shows graduates contributing their expertise as directors of hospitals and foundations, ministers, stockbrokers, personnel directors, flight instructors, politicians, and claims reviewers." Professor Gross noted that they contribute their expertise, but wondered if they got their expertise only from Women's Studies to be ministers, stockbrokers, or personnel directors. Maybe they have taken some finance or divinity courses as well. Dr. Gross next referred to page 6 and read the following: "Since 1995, twenty-six students have declared a minor in Women's Studies..." He noted that this works out roughly to five students per year. "...with over ninety students taking advantage of that option since 1986." Professor Gross then stated, "Well, okay, we will accept those numbers because they are past." He then referred to Appendix D, page 1 that showed the projection of 5 in FY 2000 moving to 15 the next year, which is a tripling, and by 2003, the number is 31. Again, while the program seems to be "cost free," he wondered about those projections.
Professor Kimberly Neuendorf asked if all units in the University were approached to submit courses to be included in the curriculum or is it based on existing courses. Professor Mareyjoyce Green replied that this program is based on existing courses. Any department or college can, in fact, submit courses for this program. New courses are added as they are submitted. Professor Neuendorf commented, "And these courses were not the result of a selective process where courses were submitted and some were accepted and some were not." Professor Green responded that Dr. Neuendorf was correct.
Dr. McIntyre observed that Women's Studies has been an established field of scholarship for at least twenty years. We are way behind. We have been waiting a long time at this University to have a Women's Studies program. This is a very interdisciplinary program and at this stage, it is no longer an issue whether this is even a field or something people major in. People all over the country major in it. She added that the Senate should approve the proposed program.
Professor Cheryl McCahon stated that, for re-entry women as well, it is an appropriate place for them to come back into or begin in a university setting and to get the support they may not have had in some of the other majors.
There being no further discussion, Dr. Phillips asked for the vote. The proposed Undergraduate Major in Women's Studies was approved with one abstention.
V. Annual Report of the Instructional Media Services Committee (Report No. 34, 1999- 2000)
Professor Misra commented that half of the time the video units he uses for his classes almost every day don't work. He wondered if someone could tell him the plan for the future. Dr. Helen Tien, Director of Instructional Media Services, responded that there is a money problem. She is trying to look at the budget situation.
There being no further questions or discussion, the Senate received the annual report of the Instructional Media Services Committee.
President Claire Van Ummersen stated that she had two quick announcements. Then she will ask Vice President Joseph Nolan to come up and talk to the Senate about progress on PeopleSoft and in Financial Aid.
First, President Van Ummersen reported that the Honorary Degree recipients for this Spring have all now been approved by both the Faculty Committee and the Board of Trustees. One of them was in the newspaper on Tuesday [Actor Drew Carey, the Commencement speaker for the morning session]. There are others as well and she wanted to report on them. Dr. Jenny Brown will be our Commencement Speaker for the afternoon session. She is a member of the Board of Regents and a former Director of Research at BP. Senator Grace Drake will be joining us for an Honorary Degree; Bob Madison, a very well known architect in the Cleveland area; Larry Robinson, a very well-known figure in Cleveland who does a good deal of work with the Cleveland Public Schools and a number of other volunteer organizations; Congressman Chung-Won Suh, from Korea, who has been actively involved with the College of Urban Affairs in their joint program with Chung-Ang University.
Second, President Van Ummersen reported that the contract with 9 to 5 has been completed and ratified by the Union. On next Wednesday, when our Board meets, there will be a resolution to implement the contract and that will move us to the point where we will release, on April 28, 2000, the retroactive funds to the members of that union. About two weeks later, we will roll that over to all of the non-bargaining staff. President Van Ummersen then asked Vice President Joseph Nolan to come up and talk about PeopleSoft and Financial Aid.
Vice President Joseph Nolan reported that about two months ago, the Board approved the hiring of two consulting firms to assist CSU for approximately one year in completing the installation and implementation of the Student Administration System component of the PeopleSoft system. Those consultants are on campus working. Professor John Walsh of the Department of Mathematics is our internal project manager here at the University and we have an outside project manager representing the vendors. They have been working extremely well together. We have recently installed Federal REGS 2 in the Financial Aid System without any significant defects. There have been some upgrades, some batches, and a couple of bundles, but essentially, the installation went smoothly. REGS 2 is working as is the transfer credit component of the latest PeopleSoft release as it applies to Financial Aid. Also, a transfer credit issue with regard to admissions was resolved some time ago. We are making progress and, hopefully, that will continue.
Vice President Nolan reported that REGS 3 is coming to the University at the end of this month. It will be tested for about a month before installation. Hopefully, it is of the same quality as REGS 2. The regulations for this year will then have been completed by PeopleSoft. We will know that by the middle or end of May. This will be a significant improvement. The consultants have been of great assistance in anticipating the difficulties in the installation process and forestalling them. Our resources are being well spent.
Vice President Nolan reported that a backup Financial Aid system is also in place and ready to go if necessary. It certainly will be used this year to generate award letters for new students and incoming Law students. We will probably use it to generate, in the middle of May, the award letters for continuing students as well. The reason for this is that PeopleSoft doesn't have a very good student tracking system built into it. We have designed a series of letters that we can bolt onto the PeopleSoft system. We are not nearly as comfortable with that as simply using the power fade system which has those letters already in and working at five hundred colleges and universities around the country. So, it should be a relatively smooth process, in terms of the award letters, followed up immediately by letters to students in terms of verification or whatever else they may need to supply the University to speed up the process.
Vice President Nolan reported that the Financial Awarding process is going well for this Summer. It is being watched every day and every hour. Our Interim Financial Aid Director has been terrific in terms of her commitment to this University. He noted that sometimes he will get an E-mail from her at 10:00 P.M. at night. She is a consultant and she doesn't have to do that, but she is very committed and we have been very fortunate to have her services. She has improved the morale of that office enormously, she has improved the service quality to our students, and our goal is to extend that throughout the Enrollment Services division of the University. That is a personal commitment of many of us including the Dean.
Professor Tayyab Mahmud brought up the specific issue of incorrect transcripts at the Law School. He asked Vice President Nolan if he had any progress to report on that issue. Vice President Nolan responded that he did. Unfortunately, the transcript problem is University-wide. A full-time consultant is working on it. The first day he was on the job, the time needed to generate a PeopleSoft transcript was reduced from four to six minutes on the average to one second. He has figured out how to use the PeopleSoft system which is incredible. He is now working on integration of Legacy. It is a very difficult issue because it involves an enormous amount of data clean-up. He is trying to do that electronically rather than manually. Vice President Nolan indicated that he will know better after the project team meeting on Friday. Project team meetings are held every Friday at which reports on topics like that are given. Certainly, there has been significant improvement, but he could not report exactly when the transcript problem will be resolved. In the meantime, the Registrar's Office is prepared for the onslaught of requests for transcripts that are going to come before, during, and after graduation. We will do the best we can with additional staff and a commitment to get those transcripts out to graduate schools, to employers, and to wherever else is necessary. The unfortunate aspect of this is our continued reliance on the old Legacy data.
Professor Mahmud stated that he is sure it is a very complicated problem. He hopes that the Administration realizes that there may not be any more important thing for a student to have than the proper communication from the school to an employer. He hopes that by the next Senate meeting, we will have a clearer idea of when this complicated problem will be resolved. Vice President Nolan responded that he certainly would be glad to do that. When he thinks back to his own day of graduation from John Carroll and his need to have a transcript almost that same day to secure his graduate assistantship, like many people in this room, he can assure the Senate that the Administration understands and they are doing the best that they can. It is, unfortunately, a significant data problem. We are committed to not transferring bad data into PeopleSoft to the degree that it is humanly possible. We are committed to resolving the problem of duplicate IDs. In some cases, we have four IDs for one student.
Professor Mahmud remarked that a more responsive answer to his question would be very much appreciated rather than Vice President Nolan's horror story of John Carroll which is very well taken. But, what Vice President Nolan had stated was not responsive to his question which is simply to recognize the gravity of the problem and to get it solved. Then, hopefully, he can report to the Senate a reasonable time frame of when it will be done. Vice President Nolan assured Professor Mahmud that he will do that at the next meeting if he is invited back.
Professor Thomas Flechtner reported that in the last On Campus, there was an apology for a big slowdown in Registration. He hopes that the apology appeared where the students might see it. Vice President Nolan replied that it was sent to the President of Student Government, to the Vice President of Student Government, to On Campus, and to The Cleveland Stater. If it needs to be sent to other places, he will certainly be glad to do so. Professor Flechtner asked if that problem has been solved now. Vice President Nolan responded that it has been solved to the degree that no longer can we run multiple queries which might request trillions of rows of data. That is impossible to do. Secondly, we have restricted, at least in certain areas, people who can run queries like that. The next challenge is to make sure that we have all of the restrictions in place that we need to have so that it doesn't happen again. He cannot promise today that a query like that might not be run again. He can report for sure that two or three of them will not run at the same time. IS&T has now developed a tracking system to become more quickly aware of when a query like that is placed into the system that clearly will generate, as in this case, literally three trillion rows of data inadvertently. They will catch it much more quickly and are now aware of the fact that it could happen again.
Professor McCahon asked if the May award letters are for financial aid for the Fall semester. Vice President Nolan responded that they are for continuing students for Fall. We will get the letters for new students for Fall out this month. The goal is next week.
Professor Jeffres asked if there is a schedule for next year on the implementation of the new services provided by PeopleSoft. Vice President Nolan replied that there is a plan for telephone registration to go into effect in November 2000. The use of the web for registration has to await version 8.0 from PeopleSoft. PeopleSoft originally had planned to release 8.0 this year. Their target is now the end of the first quarter and maybe the end of the second quarter next year. Vice President Nolan indicated that there is an option available to us but he would not recommend it. We could write our own program to register on the web. Because we are dealing with a relational database, it is very risky to do that and to experiment. Obviously testing and Q and A would be done but it is kind of a risky proposition to do that on our own. We may have to wait for version 8.0 which will present its own unique set of challenges to us since there will be a fairly fundamental redesign of certain functions that PeopleSoft now either does not do well or not at all.
Professor Jeffres commented that realistically, it would not happen until a year from this Fall. Vice President Nolan stated that this was possible. If we are going to do it, we need to do it right. A lot depends, however, on when 8.0 is released and how different it is from the architecture of the present system.
Professor Jeffres stated that he presumes that there will be a discussion of the various units in terms of permission, etc. because, in the past, there have been glitches that closed classes and let students in without permission and we need to deal with those clearly. Vice President Nolan replied that he will be sure to remind himself that one thing that needs to be done early on in the process is to talk with Faculty Senate to make sure that all of these issues are covered.
Professor Mahmud reminded the Senate that the matter of PeopleSoft had been referred to a Law firm. He wondered if Vice President Nolan had a status report about the deliberations and if there is a time frame. They should be letting us and the Board know what the time frame should be. Vice President Nolan responded that he did not have any information today, but he would certainly report on that at the next Senate meeting. Professor Dunegan stated that given some of the discussion that preceded the meeting, he was wondering whether or not the Administration could tell us if there exists, for the faculty, a strategy that the University has for dealing with faculty compensation. There is a Professional Staff Compensation Manual that deals with issues of internal inequity and competitiveness; it deals with issues about hiring folks in at market rates and how the Administration would handle incumbents in positions; it has provisions in it for how we would respond to changes in market conditions; and it has apparently been articulated for our Professional Staff. He wondered if there is such a strategy for compensation for faculty and, if not, why not.
President Van Ummersen responded that the Administration has been working trying to identify a set of peer institutions that we will compare ourselves to, both in terms of factors across the University, and also compensation based upon fields, departments, etc. We have just come to the point of agreeing on a set of comparatives. We will try to use that information to deal with some of the salary issues that have been mentioned.
Professor Dunegan asked for clarification and asked if we have a position with respect to a target in terms of where we want to be as a University for whatever peer group we decide to use. It says in the Professional Staff Manual that we want to provide compensation opportunities which are slightly above competitive norms as defined by the competitive employment market. President Van Ummersen responded that we would have the same position for faculty.
Professor Misra indicated that he would also like the President to address the internal inequity within departments.
Professor Dunegan noted that, for Professional Staff, we have a position to, "adjust the salaries of all incumbents holding the same job title within a salary grade." President Van Ummersen replied that we don't have salary grades for faculty. Professor Dunegan agreed, but stated that faculty have ranks and disciplines. President Van Ummersen stated that those are issues that are negotiated.
Professor Dunegan stated that all he is asking for is the Administration's position. What would the Administration want to target? President Van Ummersen responded that this is not a question for the Faculty Senate. Professor Dunegan insisted that this is a question for the Faculty Senate. He went on to state that the President is allowed to state the employer's position on issues such as this, at least according to labor law. President Van Ummersen responded that, in fact, the same procedure for the professional staff is followed. She stated that she is not free, at this point, to talk or discuss this at this time. This is not the proper venue for it. Faculty have the opportunity to talk to the AAUP officers and they bring those issues to the bargaining table. Professor Dunegan indicated that he understood that, but he is just trying to get an idea of the University's strategy, target, objective mission with respect to faculty compensation. That is not a bargaining issue. It is just the President's position on what she thinks the faculty ought to try to be doing.
Professor Tewari stated that this is where the Senate should think about it as a collective body and come up with the guidance by the Administration to follow in the future; not only for the next year, but decades to come. We should have a vision for decades, not just for next year. This is what we should be discussing. This is quite important for the future of this University in terms of education and in terms of where we should be headed.
Dr. Govea said that this is a decent enough point to start to discuss this relationship between the AAUP collective bargaining on the one hand and the Senate on the other hand because there seems to be a lot of confusion as to what the proper roles are and aren't. What Professor Dunegan is pointing out is pretty much correct. The real thing that the Faculty Senate cannot do is negotiate for the faculty. That is the exclusive province of the AAUP. Any discussion that is allowable then is at the discretion of the people speaking. He pointed out that the Senate has already touched on an issue that will be negotiated and he heard no objections specifically about the question of domestic partner benefits. These benefits are clearly part of the salary package. The Senate passed a resolution in favor of domestic partner benefits and the AAUP is going to consider that strongly in taking this particular issue to the table. However, let's be aware that we have already discussed issues in this venue that are relevant to collective bargaining. The thing that cannot be done here is negotiations so, therefore, it is really up to the discretion of the people who are speaking. He also pointed out that at a recent meeting of his College, an administrator gave an opinion of what the faculty raise is going to be next time. He is not sure that there is a clear dividing line between what is legitimate conversation here and what isn't. All he knows is that the minute this body begins to actually directly negotiate with the Administration, he personally will object. That is not a comment about what Professor Dunegan had stated because he did not feel that Professor Dunegan's question was inappropriate. The answer he got is the answer he got.
Professor Misra said that he believes that when we have two parties negotiating, at least we are not trying to go around the AAUP. Whatever negotiation that has been done is ultimately towards bettering all of us. The Administration has an equal responsibility in that regard. So, unless the Administration says that the management of the University should be shifted to the AAUP, which would be perfectly fine, we can probably do a better job. The Administration has the responsibility to articulate this position. That is what we don't see by trying to say that this bargaining issue is not a bargaining issue that affects the morale of every individual that works in this University.
Professor Phyllis Crocker indicated that she had a question on a different point. Everyone received an E-mail this week stating that there had been a rape on campus. It apparently took place in a public rest room and we were given a description. She wanted to know more information like the location -- even if it is just the building -- and the time of day. We were told that it was the weekend. There were conferences being held at this University this weekend. If it occurred at the Law School at two o'clock in the afternoon, that would be significant. Dr. Phillips responded that she did not know. Professor Nilufer Dural reported that the rape happened in Stilwell Hall in a third floor rest room. Dr. Konangi thought that it was around 12:00 P.M. on Sunday.
Professor Jeffres commented that we have a new Police Chief, and, in a sense, he has to decide whether it is better to release information to stop rumors rather than to withhold things. Certainly we want to protect the individual, but we don't know whether this is a student, a faculty member, another employee, or someone just walking through. If it is left at that stage, people will find out in certain quarters. But knowing when and where can be useful to people because it helps them to plan their own behavior. He would hope that the campus police can be encouraged to release as much information as possible to stop rumors rather than to withhold it because it does just the opposite.
Professor Neuendorf commented that it is only a tangentially related issue but it does make her wonder whether the Administration may use this as another encouragement to not work on the weekends. We can strongly discourage people from coming in on the weekends. The heat is turned off, the air conditioning is turned off, and the lights are off in our hallways which is very frightening so you do feel unsafe coming in on the weekends. Yet, we should, as faculty, be working around the clock. She teaches two evening classes and her students have to come in to use the computer labs on weekends. There is no staff in the labs so the faculty have to come in on the weekends. But, it is very unpleasant, it is scary, and she wishes there were some mechanism for reaching the Administration indicating that it is a good thing to have faculty and students here on the weekends. She would encourage that kind of interaction.
Professor Mahmud commented that the Law School had two consecutive conferences which went through the weekend with people from all over the world and it was very impressive. We had lights but the temperature and air cooling systems were not working. Almost everybody wondered how we can have a function with those conditions. We need to do something about that.
Professor Neuendorf reported that the Communication Department also had a conference in January and they had a terrible time because the climate control was off.
Dr. Louis Barbato commented that the discussion preceding the Senate resolution favoring domestic partners was among members of Senate and not between the Senate and the Administration on the Senate floor. If the Senate would want to discuss salary compensation, it is free to do so, but the Administration must be careful to discuss salaries away from the bargaining table.
Professor Mareyjoyce Green stated that none of us can be responsible for crimes of opportunity, but we have to help the students to understand that this is not a cocoon of safety. We are probably safer, as we compare ourselves to some of the other universities, particularly in this area. But, sometimes we get somewhat overconfident in terms of our own safety. This is probably a bad time to bring it up, but people need to be reminded, once again, of the Escort Service. She commented that she works very late at night and has left this University at 11:00 P.M. and observed students walking over to the Payne Avenue parking lot in the middle of the night. She has stopped her car and offered to drive students to the parking lot. People have to be reminded that just because things haven't happened here as have outside of the University community, it doesn't mean that we don't need to be very careful. So, it would be very helpful for those of us teaching evening classes to remind students that the Escort Service is available by calling X-2020. We need to keep our people sensitive to what may happen because we are part of an urban society and crimes of opportunity and some of the manipulative kind are always there.
Professor Govea commented that the only unfair labor practice possible is if the Administration were dealing directly with individual faculty members or a faculty body that is not the AAUP -- that is negotiating. Given that an Administrator has already said that based on the tuition increase planned, there is an amount that the faculty can count on getting, he fails to see how this discussion would be an unfair labor practice. The law says that for the purposes of collective bargaining, the Administration must deal with the AAUP. It has been the Administration's position at the table that the AAUP does not represent the faculty but rather the Faculty Senate does. Given that position, the AAUP is very interested in the wisdom of Faculty Senate, as is the Administration.
Professor Dunegan concurred with Dr. Govea. As far as he knows, and he checked with some of our Labor Relations people, there is nothing in the National Labor Relations Act that precludes the Administration from talking about any issues if they choose to and from stating their position on any issues if they choose to. They cannot act in a threatening way, but they can engage in dialogue.
Dr. Barbara Green remarked that since we had reached this point, maybe it ought to be out on the table exactly what happened at the Arts and Sciences meeting. The Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences said to the full assembly of faculty who were there that the Administration was planning on a three and one half percent raise; however, because a student tuition raise of six percent would make available only three percent for raises, they were tying to figure out how to make it three and one half percent. This is an open statement by a senior person in the University Administration to a faculty body. It was not negotiated; it was stated.
VIII. Senate President's Report
First, Dr. Phillips reminded everyone that the WITT Auction is on Tuesday, April 25, 2000 to raise money for book scholarships for students. Tomorrow is the last day for donations. Next, Dr. Phillips announced the constitution of the Senate Nominating Committee for the new Senate President and Senate Secretary. Professor Cheryl McCahon from Nursing will be chairing the Committee; Karl Wheatley, from Education is the second member; and the third member from the College of Business is Professor Ravi Kamath. Dr. Phillips noted that she has already reported on discussions about the structure for a conversation in the Fall of where the University is going over the next five years. Finally, Dr. Phillips reported that the Interim Computer Security Policy does have a section in it on privacy. The Academic Steering Committee decided that the information about privacy, particularly on E-mail, is something that should be disseminated more widely then just to the Faculty Senate, so the policy is being put on the web. We can certainly discuss it at the next Senate meeting, but we wanted everyone to have the opportunity, to look at the policy. The specific place in the policy that seems to be generating the most discussion and concern is on page 12, [section 188.8.131.52 Restrictions of Privacy Rights] and the fact that we don't have any. We want to be sure that people at the University who currently use E-mail when they do not want to put something in writing assuming that it goes away, know that it doesn't. We do not want to be E-mailing what we don't want in writing and we need to be certain that everybody understands this. She encouraged everyone to take a look at this policy before the next Senate meeting and make sure that others in the Colleges know about it and they too take a look at it. Most of this isn't University policy as much as it is federal law. Nevertheless, we want to be certain that everyone is aware of it. Professor McCahon reported that there is a piece in that policy pertaining to records retention and the fact that the University has a Records Retention Policy. The question is, are there things that faculty really need to know about retaining things for any period of time? It was thought that perhaps this should be discussed as well.
Professor Flechtner asked if there will be some kind of general notice to everybody. Dr. Phillips replied that a public announcement will be put out with the appropriate address to respond to.
IX. New Business
Professor Hemann commented that he received the materials for today's meeting sometime around noon today. Dr. Phillips replied that most everyone got them on Monday which is probably the best you can ask right now since the Senate and the Steering Committee are meeting one week after another. Professor Hemann raised the issue of the revised Academic Calendar approved at the last Senate meeting. He is not sure that the Faculty Senate understood what had been approved. The last time we passed the calendar for five years, there was a "reading period" every semester. Well, there really isn't; it is just called that. The "reading period" happens to be just Saturday and Sunday. Maybe this can be editorially taken care of, but he wondered if everybody realized what they were voting for. Dr. Phillips reported that Professor Chet Jain, Chair of the Admissions and Standards Committee, has been informed that calling Saturday and Sunday a "reading period" is a bit of a stretch. Dr. Hemann thought that students might challenge us on this issue. Professor Jeffres stated that on the other hand, maybe some of them need to be told. Dr. Phillips said that she would check again with Professor Jain on this issue.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:38 P.M.
Pamela J. Eyerdam