PRESENT: Barbato, Blake, Bowen, Buckley, Chung, DeGroot, Dieterich, Doerder, Drake, Dunegan, Eyerdam, Flechtner, Frew, Govea, B. Green, Gross, Hartnagel, Hemann, C. Jackson, Jeffres, Kamath, Konangi, Lindsey, Mahmud, Mastboom, McCahon, McLoughlin, Misra, Moutafakis, Neuendorf, Nolan, Nuru-Holm, Olson, D. Phillips, Sekayi, Spicer, Steckol, Tewari, Thornton, Tumeo, Van Ummersen, M. Webb, Wheatley, J. Wilson.
ABSENT/EXCUSED: Crocker, Dillard-Mitchell, Dural, Falk, Feko, Gorla, Hollinger, Holmes, M. Jackson, S. Kaufman, Konstantinos, MacCluskie, J. McIntyre, Meiksins, Orendi, Quigney, Rini, Steinglass, Sweet, Valencic, Vallos, Wadhwa, Walsh, Waren.
ALSO PRESENT: Govoni, Jain, Lupton.
Senate President Donna Burns Phillips called the meeting to order at approximately 3:05 P.M.
Senate President Phillips asked to make two changes to the Agenda. First, under Item XI, Annual Reports, the University Faculty Affairs Committee report is not yet available. Second, Dr. Phillips asked to switch Items XIII and XIV. Acceptance of the revised Agenda for May 3, 2000 was then moved, seconded, and approved.
Acceptance of the Minutes of the April 19, 2000 meeting was moved and seconded. Dr. Rodger Govea asked that a minor correction be made in the fourth paragraph on page 18 of the Minutes. The Minutes were then approved as corrected.
Provost James McLoughlin stated that it was his pleasure to come before the Senate at this time to recognize the work of Dr. Robert Wheeler as the Director of the University Center for Teaching and Learning. Over the last four years, the Center has provided a
variety of quality support for the faculty and their instructional roles. There have been teaching enhancement and small grants programs, teaching fellows program, the Web CT workshops, teaching portfolio projects, and teleconferences. Bob has vigorously directed this particular program and advocated for the important role of faculty as teachers on campus. Provost McLoughlin can testify, as a new Dean on campus, that Professor Wheeler has vigorously come forward to all of the Deans to make the point about the importance of instruction and often solicited their support, and even their money, which is extraordinary when you can extract blood from the likes of Deans and Provosts. He added that Bob has been particularly effective in developing networks here on campus of faculty who are very interested in the instructional role and how to improve its quality on behalf of our students.
Dr. McLoughlin stated that now, as Bob completes his tenure as the Director of the Center and prepares to go to those blissful moments of sabbatical, he informed the Senate that a search will be mounted for a Director for the Center. Announcements will be sent out about that. Also, there are plans to expand the Center next year to include the Center for Applied Technology and Teaching (CATS) and also possibly some other initiatives that faculty have been approaching him about such as Service Learning. The Center will be alive and well in the Fall with the cooperation of a Faculty Advisory Committee.
On behalf of everyone, Provost McLoughlin extended his appreciation to Bob. He noted that he had asked Bob to please come to the Senate because he had to say something intelligent about the Center for Teaching and Learning and for anybody in a Provost position, that is a challenge; plus, because he has to go in front of the Senate, he asked Bob to come and give him moral support. He then presented Dr. Bob Wheeler with a momentum on everyone's behalf [a clock] with an inscription that reads: "Robert A. Wheeler, Founding Director, University Center for Teaching and Learning, 1996 through 2000." Provost McLoughlin stated that he hoped that when Bob looks at this clock in his office, it will mean to him that all of the time he had spent on this particular effort was well spent. Dr. McLoughlin stated that everybody at the University will always be thankful to Bob for his efforts.
Dr. Bob Wheeler commented that since this was a surprise, members don't have to listen to a speech. He said that he was very grateful. He was mostly grateful to the faculty members who supported the Center and the help the Center was in encouraging technology, in helping improve teaching, to have faculty more focused on it, and to be rewarded for some of their teaching. He said that he appreciated Dr. McLoughlin's thank you and he hopes the Center will continue and prosper.
Dr. Phillips noted that Item A is the election of three faculty representatives to the University Faculty Affairs Committee for two-year terms. Dr. Phillips reported that on the sheets members received indicating interest or willingness of faculty to serve on University Committees, Roger Marty, who is listed under those willing to serve, is already serving on another standing committee so he is not eligible to run for election.
Dr. Thomas Flechtner made a statement on behalf of the Arts and Sciences Caucus. "The Faculty Affairs Committee is an important Committee. There are very good people continuing as members of this Committee. There are certainly some good people on the list of people positively interested and willing to serve. This, it seems to him, and he speaks for the Caucus on this, is not a Committee that is good for a non-tenured person to be on. The Committee makes decisions that some people may take personally. Of the people that are interested or willing to serve, subtracting the people who are already on other committees and those who are untenured, there are not very many left. One idea at this point would be to delay voting on the membership of this Committee until the first Senate meeting in the Fall. Some of the Arts and Sciences Caucus members supported that in a very quick telephone call, and other Caucus members supported going ahead with what we have."
Dr. Phillips asked members if there was a response to Dr. Flechtner's non-motion possibility. She asked if there were nominations from other Senate members for membership on the University Faculty Affairs Committee.
Dr. Barbara Green moved that the election to the University Faculty Affairs Committee be delayed until the Fall when faculty of all of the Colleges here will have time to consider potential members (Report No. 35, 1999-2000.) The motion was seconded by Professor Flechtner.
Dr. Andrew Gross commented that it would have been nice if the Arts and Sciences Caucus had informed other College Senators about their proposed or non-proposed motion.
Dr. Santosh Misra asked if the suggestion is to delay voting on everything or just the University Faculty Affairs Committee. Dr. Phillips responded that the suggestion is just concerning the Faculty Affairs Committee, but she is not suggesting anything.
Professor Kenneth Dunegan asked if there is any downside to delaying this election. Dr. Phillips noted that current terms expire on August 31, 2000. Professor Misra suggested holding the election at the first meeting in the Fall if there is no downside to it.
Dr. Phillips asked if there was any further discussion. Professor Ben Blake asked for a clarification of why this election is being delayed. He thought that everybody got something in their mailbox asking them to indicate what Committees they were willing to serve on. He did not see what delaying this election until the Fall was going to do especially since a lot of the faculty are not on campus during the Summer anyway.
Professor Flechtner stated that part of the reason is, yes the list went around to indicate faculty interest, but Senate members did not find out who was on that list until they received these materials yesterday and many of the people who were interested were already serving on other committees.
Professor Gross commented that if this is good for one committee, it is good for all of the others. Dr. Flechtner replied that the same situation doesn't pertain to the other committees.
Professor Blake asked if this was discrimination. If faculty are willing to serve on the Committee, they are the ones that said it. If they aren't willing to serve on the Committee, he can accept that, but he is not one to tell people what is good or not good for them.
Dr. Green commented that when the preference list goes around, a lot of Assistant Professors, who want to have some service on their record, sign up not knowing the implications. Not talking to Assistant Professors and making sure they know the consequences if they are put on the UFAC, is very dangerous. That Committee has to tell senior administrators when they are wrong some times and it could be dangerous for an untenured faculty member.
Dr. John Hemann asked if there was a clear answer on whether the University Faculty Affairs Committee will meet this Summer. Dr. Phillips responded that like all Committees, the term of the current Committee does last until August 31, 2000. There is business pending on this Committee that should have been accomplished and wasn't over this current year. She did not know if there were any plans of this Committee to meet over the Summer.
Professor Tayyab Mahmud commented that he strongly objected to this business that you cannot do something because it is very dangerous. This is the kind of posture that we need to get rid of. This is the kind of thing that we should make sure does not happen. The fact that it may happen, shows that we should leave the decision-making to others. He very strongly urged that this not be a reason to delay the election. Certainly serving on a more sensitive Committee is taking chances but we should encourage taking chances. We should open up communication and we should show people that there are no reprisals for speaking up. This past year, a lot of people were very reluctant to put their name next to their view. He would strongly urge that we open up this process and let people speak their minds.
Professor Leo Jeffres suggested that next time people sign up for Committees, it would be helpful if there is a very brief paragraph describing the functions of the Committees. So, the next time around, if Assistant Professors have signed up for the UFAC, it would be a clear indication that they are willing to take the risk. But, practically speaking, Dr. Green is right.
Dr. Phillips commented that it would seem odd that people would volunteer for service on a Committee without checking to see what it did.
Professor Michael Spicer noted that only one of the interested candidates who is eligible to be elected to the UFAC is an Assistant Professor. All of the rest are Associate and Full Professors.
There being no further discussion, Dr. Phillips called for a vote on the motion on the floor postponing the election of members to the University Faculty Affairs Committee until the September 2000 Senate meeting. The motion was approved.
Following formal procedures for nominating candidates for election to the remaining various committees of the Faculty Senate and other posts, members of Senate elected the following faculty:
Minority Affairs Committee
Board of Trustee
Honorary Degree Committee
Patent Review Committee
Equal Opportunity Hearing Panel
[Note: The election of one faculty member for a three-year term to the Copyright Review Committee must be conducted again at the September Senate meeting because there was a tie vote.]
A. Proposed Revised Policy on Academic Misconduct (Report No. 36, 1999- 2000)
Dr. Chet Jain, Chair of the Admissions and Standards Committee, presented the Committee's proposed Revised Policy on Academic Misconduct. He noted that there is no substantial change. The previous policy was very confusing, and at times, inconsistent. The revision was necessitated at the request of the Academic Misconduct Review Committee. It has taken a goodly part of this year's work. Last year's people also worked on this policy. He publicly acknowledged the work of the Admissions and Standards Committee people, Fred Smith and Bob Abelman, who represented the Arts and Sciences Dean, Debbie Geier and Glending Olson of the Academic Misconduct Review Committee, and Tama Engelking, the former Chair of the Admissions and Standards Committee. The document before the Senate is a cleaned up easy to understand policy that can be applied uniformly.
Professor Flechtner inquired what is signified by text that is both bold and italic. Dr. Jain responded that bold is the new material and italic just paraphrases some of the existing material. Dr. Flechtner noted again that some of the text on page 3, item (b) is both bold and italic. Dr. Jain said that this may be a typographical problem. Dr. Jain noted that the text Dr. Flechtner referred to should just be italic. Dr. Jain commented that these things exist and we have just paraphrased them.
Interim Dean Mark Tumeo asked if it would be possible to keep records on our Graduate Students in the Graduate College. Would it be appropriate to add the Graduate Dean as well? Dr. Jain responded that the Admissions and Standards Committee would have no objection to that, if that is a friendly motion.
Dr. Green asked if this policy has been run through Legal Counsel. Dr. Jain replied that there was a member of the Law School on the Committee. This policy only refers to the academic part of misconduct.
Dr. Green noted that she heard there is a case where somebody is suing a faculty member who has brought these charges. If the University is going to have to defend people, we need to be awfully careful exactly how this is brought and done so that the law will be on our side. She firmly suggested that the proposed revised policy be sent through the University Legal Counsel for review. Dr. Phillips remarked that we could certainly have a motion to approve it pending approval by Legal Counsel. Dr. Jain replied that the Committee would have no problem with that.
Dr. Phillips called for the vote. The proposed Revised Policy on Academic Misconduct was approved pending approval of the University Legal Counsel. If the University Legal Counsel does not approve it, it will come back to Faculty Senate.
B. Intersession 2000 Survey Results (Report No. 37, 1999-2000)
Dr. Jain noted that there was a minor correction to the report. The total headcount (386) does not include the number of students who enrolled in one Law course. There are 59 students from the Law School that need to be added to the headcount. The Law School offered just one course, Trial Advocacy, for three credit hours. The total credit hours that were generated, are 839 and that includes the credit hours from the Law School. Dr. Jain reported that the students are very satisfied except for a very few sprinklings of dissatisfaction. The majority of the students indicated that, if given the opportunity, they would take another course during Intersession. Uniformly, students were extremely happy with the teachers who taught the courses. They thought, by and large, every teacher who offered those courses was much appreciated. Among the unsatisfactory comments included a course offered that required extensive use of computers and sometimes the computers were not available to the students.
Dr. Phillips referred to item 2 where it states only 19 students had not been previously enrolled at CSU and asked if that means "ever." Dr. Jain replied that Dr. Phillips was correct. These were not CSU students.
There being no further discussion, the report on Intersession 2000 Survey Results was received.
VI. Proposal Concerning Intersession (Report No. 38, 1999-2000)
Dr. Gregory Lupton, Chair of the University Curriculum Committee, presented the Committee's proposal concerning Intersession. Dr. Lupton noted that when Intersession ran for the first time this past Winter, it did so in a way that essentially completely sidestepped the usual process of Faculty Governance. This proposal is sort of a first attempt to begin to bring Intersession into conformity with the process of Faculty Governance. Professor Lupton then moved that the six points listed on page two be adopted to govern the academic or curricular aspects of Intersession 2000-2001. He also moved that the UCC will be responsible for forming an ad hoc committee on Intersession. The charge of this committee is to study Intersession in all its aspects, not just academic or curricular, and bring to Faculty Senate, in Spring 2001, a proposal that addresses all aspects of Intersession appropriate to Faculty governance oversight. He noted that the motion is rather cautiously worded. The reason for this is that in attempting to phrase this kind of motion, the UCC is attempting to bring Intersession in line with Faculty governance. It became clear, at least to him, that Faculty have never had an opportunity for discussing even the very existence of Intersession and that accounts for the fair amount of cautious wording in the motion.
Dr. Phillips suggested voting on each motion separately.
Motion: To adopt the six points listed to govern the academic or curricular aspects of Intersession 2000-2001.
Professor Misra indicated that he did not know anything about Intersession. He asked if anybody could tell him exactly what kind of body of experience exists in this country for Intersession and whether they are academic units. Dr. Lupton responded that he had a small amount of information about the previous version of Intersession -- the number of students enrolled and the courses that were offered. Professor Misra commented that he did not mean this University. He asked if other universities do this and are all of their credits four credits?
Dr. Cheryl McCahon noted that many of the courses in area Nursing programs that don't have clinical components are called intensives which is somewhat similar in that they offer a whole lot of information in a very short period of time with a backup presentation of information prior to coming to the classes and then significant assignments following the compressed classes. These are done a lot, especially in Nursing programs across the country.
Professor Misra asked if this was part of the graduation requirement. Dr. McCahon responded, "yes and no." There are some that are and some that are not required.
Dean Mark Tumeo commented on point 2 which needs some input concerning putting a limit on students about giving them a method to petition around it. So we do an overload in the case that someone can only take so many credits but end up a due process issue where we are telling people what they can't do without giving them the right to explain to us why they should be able to do it.
Dr. Green stated that in any university, of course, anything may be petitionable, but it is quite clear that we did very much want to restrict the number of hours. Two credits is the equivalent of 45 hours per week for a class of two weeks. We had students this last time who were taking four and some were even taking six credit hours in two weeks. In one class, for example, the textbook didn't arrive until half way through the course. Courses were being given in some cases where basically, it was come to class and talk. If we don't restrict the number of hours that students can take and the number of hours that faculty can teach, we are really going to undermine the academic viability of new courses and it is going to reflect on everything that we are doing.
Professor Tumeo stated that he agrees with the latter; but regarding the former, as long as you say that it is petitionable, then he doesn't have an issue with it. As much as he would like students not to do something, they have a right to try to get into his class.
Dr. Lupton responded that these are the kinds of questions his intention was to address in the motion. There were very many questions about Intersession which really need a more thorough kind of consideration.
Dr. Tumeo commented, first, adopt the policy and then look at it. Once you have a petition on the student's part, it is reasonable, otherwise it may not be possible.
There being no further discussion, the vote was called. The motion that the six points listed be adopted to govern the academic or curricular aspects of Intersession 2000-2001 was approved.
Motion: The UCC will be responsible for forming an ad hoc committee on Intersession. The charge of this committee is to study Intersession in all its aspects and bring to Faculty Senate, in Spring 2001, a proposal that addresses all aspects of Intersession appropriate to Faculty governance and oversight. In the absence of any discussion, Dr. Phillips called for the vote and the motion was approved.
Discussion of the Interim Computer Security Policy (IS&T) (Report No. 39, 1999-2000)
Mr. Peter Phillips reported that, in going through their audit this past year, the external auditors put our Board on notice that the University's failure to address various issues would lead to another series of comments in the management letter. He read one of the issues called the University Security Policies and Procedures. "The University-wide Computer Security Policy be implemented and disseminated to all University departments and/or functional areas. We recommend that management develop and implement a comprehensive monitoring strategy to insure that University departments and functional areas apply these policies on a consistent basis. Finally, we recommend that management develop, implement, and disseminate formal password policies. Additionally, password changes should be monitored on a regular basis to insure compliance with documented procedures." Mr. Phillips stated that the Administration took this to mean that an overall security policy was needed for the institution. That policy has been developed and disseminated. It has been taken to the University's Executive Management and it has been approved and placed as an Interim Policy. Faculty Senate approval is needed to help move this policy into official rather than interim status. It is hoped that this can be done as soon as possible so that this audit issue can be removed from our plate for next year's audit. He is, therefore, looking for that approval.
Professor Buckley commented that Mr. Phillips would not get that approval from the Senate. The Law School has had a lot of internal e-mail about this policy and it needs extensive revision. The policy on privacy and e-mail should be revised. The Computer Use Policy should also be revised. The Law faculty also think that the entire policy should be re-written so that it takes cognizance of the fact that this place is a University that deals with information. We have a Library that is the biggest depository of information. This puts everything on a need-to-know basis. Its scope is vastly larger than it should be. The policy is written as if it were a business that is sitting on top of trade secrets and everything has to be extremely secretive as in the CIA. It sounds like it is in conflict with our concerns about privacy. That complicates the questions. There has to be some kind of a resolution of intention between the privacy for faculty, staff, and everybody. It opens the open records law that will kind of be in the background in the minds of the people who are working on this policy. The Appropriate Use Committee is also working on it. He has seen a draft of what they are doing which is the appropriate use of computers and they are coming at it from a completely different direction than what is found in this policy. For instance, you are allowed to use your telephone for personal use already. That is not news. So, you have to pay for long distance calls. As he understands it in that Committee, you are taking the same attitude toward the use of your office computer. That is the kind of perspective that ought to be kept in mind. The Law School faculty urge that this policy not be approved.
Professor James Wilson commented that the no zones of privacy that protect faculty and staff at all, should be immunized from monitoring barring some sort of litigation. There is the freedom of speech issue here. He writes drafts both in e-mail and elsewhere that are tentative and at times maybe even outrageous and he doesn't want to have the showing effect of knowing that this stuff can be monitored. You can monitor the system but the system should largely contain privacy between very narrow areas like student transcripts, etc., but the overall presumption should be in favor of openness. This document goes in the wrong direction so he cannot vote for it.
Professor Mahmud stated that the document also talks about privacy rights. It amuses him because the telephone is owned by the University too, but he presumes that people do not listen in to his conversations just because the University owns the telephone. Simarly, regarding libraries, there is a universal idea that we don't ask who is reading what books. Lastly, there is the issue of academic freedom and privacy, but there may also be some particular issues related to those. In the Law School, for example, we have faculty who do pro bono work and run legal clinics which we are encouraged to do. In the Law practice particularly, there is confidentiality of communication. If one gives up the security of communication, that opens up a can of worms that we don't even want to discuss here. He urged that the Interim Security Policy be referred back to the existing Committee or somebody who knows the other sensitive issues. He remarked that he is amused at data privacy. The only things listed are restrictions of privacy. It should go back to somebody who is more sensitive to the needs of an academic institution, the needs of academic freedom of expression, and the needs for privacy.
Professor Wilson stated that he did not see any reason why "the management" should have the right to review e-mails concerning inner-departmental discussion about management. Maybe some people don't know what is going on, but it seems that people should be allowed to be relatively honest, particularly individual e-mail between two people. There is an element of privacy and expectation of privacy there. If a person wants to complain about a certain Associate Dean, etc., he doesn't want the Associate Dean or the Dean doing massive computer searches to see what has been said about him or her. Again, that is another example of the sort of zones of privacy that have to be clearly defined.
Professor Jeffres stated that there were discussions some time ago about the backup being explicit. We have backup of data. It is looked at as if everything is data. That is one of the problems of the whole document itself. Where it discusses backup, it is very general. We had discussed earlier that perhaps we need a policy that e-mail is kept for exactly one week and then discarded.
Dr. Phillips asked if anyone would like to argue against the notion of sending this document to another venue.
Professor Blake noted that his Law colleagues keep referring to the phone system. He stated that he doesn't know anything about this so he wants to get educated a little bit. He has a University phone on his desk. He asked if it would be highly illegal for the University Administration to listen to his phone conversations. Whoever can listen to all of his phone conversations should also be able to look at his e-mail as well. Professor Mahmud asked if it was Professor Blake's assumption that the Administration can listen to his conversations. Dr. Blake replied that he did not know. It is not his phone. He knows nothing about the legal system. Professor Mahmud stated that there is the question of decency and even privacy.
Professor Buckley noted that he wasn't talking about the law -- he was just talking about the way things ought to be. In response to Professor Blake's question, Professor Buckley stated that he assumes that the Administration is not tapping and listening to his phone conversations. Whether the Administration has a legal right to do it or not, this is something he doesn't even want to have to think about. Dr. Blake stated that this is what he was wondering about. This document just states what the Administration can do and not what they are going to do.
Professor Flechtner commented that looking at the prohibition of privacy in the e-mail, he decided that he will have to instruct his students from now on not to send him anything that they don't want anybody else to know. In other words, don't use your e-mail for your excuse why you are late for an exam, etc.
Questioning procedure, Dr. Green asked why this document came directly to Faculty Senate instead of going through a Faculty Governance committee. It seems that we are dealing not only with technicalities but with policy. For example, if the Administration has a legal right to do certain things but there is an agreement between the faculty and the Administration that something will not be done, then that can be narrow and it ought to go through Faculty Governance if we are dealing here with policy. Administrators can draft the policy and make whatever suggestions they want, but a Faculty Committee should handle this issue. Mr. Phillips replied that this policy did go through the Computational Services Committee of the Faculty Senate and was brought here by that Committee.
Professor Jeffres stated that the Computational Services Committee is too narrow of a Committee in a negative sense. It is simply that the issue is much greater and that is the point he was trying to make earlier.
Professor Mahmud stated that this document speaks to issues which are beyond the charge of the Computational Services Committee. He referred to language in section 18.104.22.168. Restrictions of Privacy Rights, number 4 on page 12 of the document: "...University management reserves the right to examine archived electronic mail, personal file directories, hard disk drive files..." He stated that this would be beyond the purview of the Computational Services Committee and suggested strongly that somebody needs to look at it.
Ms. Sonali Wilson, Assistant University Legal Counsel, reported that she did take part in the Computer Use Policy which is very different from the Security Policy -- they are for two different purposes basically. There is no real privacy right involving e-mail unless, for example, the FERPA law which prevents us from releasing information about a student without the student's permission. We are bound by law to produce, if requested for example by the media, e-mails and any other information. This Security Policy talks about the security of the information on the computer system. The intent was not to be able to go into everyone's e-mail -- faculty, staff, students -- and monitor discussions, etc. We cannot guarantee privacy because just the nature of it, we cannot tell you in servicing the system that something may not come up and be seen. That basically is what it is addressing. This is not a tool for monitoring. The Computer Use Policy gets more to whether supervisors can go in. That is not the policy that is being discussed here. It is a Security Policy that has a different purpose and point.
Professor Buckley commented that employers have to pay people at least the minimum wage. The Constitution protects your privacy in a minimal way perhaps, but that doesn't mean that people should settle for the minimum wage or for the minimum amount of legally available privacy. Those are things that can be discussed or negotiated. The University now says that it needs a Computer Security Policy without telling us who is going to decide what the need is. There may be reasons for looking into these things. They have to be spelled out so that it isn't going to be done lightly. This just means that anybody who has access to the servers and other things can just look at anything at any time if they decide that there is some university need. That is the kind of problem in this policy. People shouldn't count on privacy in e-mail, but that doesn't mean that we have to anticipate that a rule will be written for the University to have the right to look at all of the e-mail which is the way this policy is written. There should be some reasons to look at it even if there is the capacity to look at it. There should just be an agreement not to do it.
Professor Flechtner stated that the examination of e-mail and personal file directories is not inadvertent here. It says, "management reserves the right to examine," so it is not something accidentally done in servicing the system; it is an intentional thing.
Ms. Wilson noted that if there is a virus, it could be intentional and not inadvertent. There may be a need to go in to service. It is really the wording that is of concern here -- not the intent.
Professor Nicholas Moutafakis commented that in all of his thirty-three years at Cleveland State University, he has never been so scandalized. It seems to him that this document has been prepared without really considering faculty sentiment and input. Faculty was not considered in the drafting of this policy and this is a blatant disregard for academic freedom.
Professor Buckley stated that just concerning the scope and applicability of these policies, they are intended to be as broad as legally possible. They are as appropriately applicable independent of the way information is represented -- written, spoken, electronic, and other forms; -- applicable independent of the technology used to handle the information -- file cabinets, fax machines, computers; applicable to everybody -- employees, students; it also covers the Library.
Professor Misra noted that he just received this document two days back and has not even had a chance to read through it completely. This document is too important to rush through in this meeting. He suggested that discussion be tabled until September. Professor Mahmud observed that even in September we don't want to take this document up because it needs to go to a Committee to be discussed before Senate.
Dr. Phillips reminded members that this Interim Computer Security Policy is available on the web for all faculty to review.
Dr. Green moved that the Interim Computer Security Policy document be sent to the new University Faculty Affairs Committee in the Fall. This is a very serious issue and this is one reason why we have to make sure that there are very good people on the UFAC. The UFAC ought to look at this document in terms of its implications for academic freedom. The motion was seconded.
Dr. Vijaya Konangi asked for clarification. It was pointed out that this Interim Security Policy has been approved by the Executive Council. Professor Konangi asked if management now assumes that because they have approved the policy they can go ahead and implement it even though Faculty Senate has not approved it. It is dated June 1999 and nothing is going to happen until September 2000. Dr. Konangi asked, "What is the position of Management? Can they use this policy now because they have approved it?" Professor Wilson pointed out that it is not legally clear here. The law here is changing rapidly, consequently, it is not clear what is legally permissible here at all in predicting a University situation. Even if this policy is fine for MicroSoft, there are real serious constitutional legal problems as well as possible court violations and invasion of privacy issues. He suggested that whatever the Administration does or does not do, do not look at our files.
Dr. Phillips asked if this policy is in effect at this moment. Ms. Wilson stated that this is an interim policy and it is not much different from what is being practiced at this time. Without a stated policy, it is a formalized version of what is in existence now. The auditor just suggested that we have a formal policy. So, this is the interim policy that is waiting approval. It basically reflects what has been going on already.
Dr. Green asked why the policy is dated June 1999 and not June 2000. Ms. Wilson responded that the policy went before the Executive Council -- the senior staff -- the President, the Provost, Vice Presidents -- in June 1999. A Senator pointed out that this was done a year ago and it is just coming to Senate now. Ms. Wilson observed that she was just at Senate to answer legal questions in terms of the Senate process.
Professor Wilson asked the Administration, in the interim, to promise that they will not do any fishing expeditions into our e-mails, our files, or anything else in the absence of litigation. He indicated that he would like that promise right now that the Administration will not do it. Mr. Phillips responded that there is no intention here. Professor Wilson stated that he wants a promise that the Administration will not do it. President Claire Van Ummersen replied that the Administration has not gone out on a witch hunt of people's files. This was a formal directive that came from our external auditors last year. This is something that was worked on by the former Chief Information Officer who is no longer with us. She had assumed that it was going to some Committee that would look at the Interim Policy and decide whether it would be appropriate. Changes certainly need to be made in the document. Very recently it was discovered that it had not been forwarded to Faculty Senate so she asked that it be forwarded to the Senate. With one exception in terms of providing something that according to the Ohio Records Law we need to produce, nobody's e-mail or phone calls have been monitored. We don't have that kind of time and staff here. She assured the Senate that the Administration will not be doing that kind of thing with the one exception she mentioned. If those types of information are not provided, we could go to court over it.
Professor Wilson wondered, as far as open records go, if people would be notified in advance of any request. President Van Ummersen responded, "Absolutely -- that will be done." She added that requests have been mostly for e-mail. Professor Wilson commented then that nobody will look in his files unless he has first heard about it. President Van Ummersen assured Professor Wilson that he was correct.
Professor Jeffres noted that this isn't just faculty versus the Administration. This is one of the hot political issues, if you will, not just here, but in the country. We need to talk about it in terms of what type of an institution do we want to be in and then come up with
policies that protect us as an institution in our various roles -- as administrators, students, and faculty and not just worry about the technical capability.
Professor Mahmud commented that this is a serious issue. The University was asked a year ago to do something about this sensitive issue, but the administration did not choose to come to the Senate, the Faculty, or concerned constituencies, and put together a coherent body which would comprehensively look at the problem and come up with something, but went ahead with a solution. These are very interesting procedural issues for not just this policy, but every policy. We just recently learned that this has been the policy since June 9, 1999. He just heard about it two days ago. Somehow the administration can have an interim policy and bypass the policy making or policy guiding body. That is an issue but this may not be the time to deal with it. In the spirit of the motion, the new Faculty Affairs Committee will again take advice from or recruit other people whether from Technology, Law, or other concerned constituencies to really comprehensively examine this issue. Until that time, we need to do something about this business of an interim policy before it comes to the Senate.
Dr. Phillips stated that like the University Curriculum Committee, which has the ability to have a subcommittee look at Intersession, the University Faculty Affairs Committee also certainly can appoint a subcommittee that brings together a variety of expertise to consider this policy. So if the motion passes, this policy issue will be a priority charge to the UFAC in the Fall.
Professor Spicer asked if it would be a good idea to look at other universities' policies. Dr. Phillips responded that Professor Spicer was correct. Dr. Phillips added that in all fairness, this did go to the Computational Services Committee. She was not sure what happened to it there, but that is a Faculty Senate Committee. They did not bring it forward until just a couple of months ago. They were not looking at it in the way we are talking about it today.
Professor Mahmud commented that it is good to know what others are doing, but we should keep in mind two things. This is an area where things are perpetually changing so, one, by the time somebody reports to you the printed policy, it may be dated. Secondly, there appears to be a particular skill at this University to find some institution somewhere which does something like we do. So, when we say universities, he hopes that we mean reputable universities that we would like to be compared with.
Professor Buckley suggested that Information Services and Technology should be intimately involved with the process.
There being no further discussion, Dr. Phillips called for the vote. The motion to refer the Interim Computer Security Policy as a priority to the new University Faculty Affairs Committee in the Fall was approved.
Dr. Phillips reported that Professors Mahmud and Jeffres had asked questions at the last Senate meeting and Vice President Joseph Nolan had agreed to be here today to answer those questions.
Vice President Joseph Nolan reported that at the last Senate meeting, Professor Mahmud had asked him to follow up on two questions and Professor Jeffres had asked him to follow up on one question. He does have responses to those issues.
Vice President Nolan reported that Professor Mahmud had asked him to follow up on the status of the transcript issue in the College of Law. The College of Law transcript problem seems to be under control. Many of the past issues have been dealt with by the Registrar's Office. Eight hundred and seventy five Law students were manually reviewed during the course of this year for accuracy. As a result of that review, 54 students had problems. In the course of the review of those 54 students, all but 25 of those problems were resolved. The Registrar's Office is confident that by June 12th of this year, the date when transcript requests would be coming in, in significant numbers, those 25 problems will all be resolved. They do involve a significant amount of research, but the Registrar has assured him that, in her opinion and the opinion of her staff, those problems will be resolved. In addition, the Registrar's Office has been working with the Dean and the Assistant Deans of the College of Law in the following ways. In the beginning of the Spring Semester, transcripts were provided to Kay Benjamin, Director of Student Records in the College of Law for all Law students. The College was asked to respond to the Registrar's Office to determine whether there were any problems other than the 25 that had been identified. Apparently, there were no other problems. Those are under resolution even as we speak here today. With regard to the issue that Professor Mahmud has raised, and the fact that all of us in this room know that there will be significant requests for transcripts coming out on or about June 12th as soon as grades are in, it is critically important for the Registrar's Office to be able to have all of the faculty grades in as timely as possible so that those transcripts can be produced.
Vice President Nolan reported that Professor Jeffres had asked him to look into the issue of overloaded classes -- classes that get overloaded apparently without permission. He may have asked that question because he thought that it might be related to the PeopleSoft issue. Actually, it is a carry-over from the old Legacy system, as he understands it. Because there are multiple sites for registration around the campus, and because multiple individuals outside the Registrar's Office have the capacity to register students, the possibility of overriding limitations on classroom limits or numbers exists. He remembers stating at the last Senate meeting that one of the issues that would have to be worked on with the Faculty Senate on through the Department Chairs, or however the Senate feels is appropriate, is to look at who has the capacity to register students, under what condition can that registration take place, and what overload rights individuals have without proper authority from the department having signed off on the overload. That is an issue that needs to be worked on starting this Summer to the degree that the Administration is committed.
Finally, Vice President Nolan reported that Professor Mahmud had asked him to give a report back to the Faculty Senate with regard to the status of the proposed lawsuit by the University against PeopleSoft. While he cannot go into a detailed status of that situation, he can report to the Senate that the Board, at its most recent meeting, determined that it would not make a decision about suing PeopleSoft. The decision was deferred until the external legal counsel is prepared to make that recommendation to the Board. So, there is no lawsuit pending at the present time.
Professor Mahmud stated that the precise question was, is there a time frame on the external counsel? Is it because they don't have enough law parties to do the work, or have they been asked to hold off? Ordinarily this would be moved in sufficient time to get something from a Law firm. Vice President Nolan now states that it is not the Board, it is not us, it is the Law firm. Is the Law firm doing this on their own, are they under a charge to take a particular amount of time, or will they be ready when they run out of money? When should we expect that because it has been an extraordinarily long time. Vice President Nolan responded that he believes the Board charged the Law firm to come back to the Board when it was prepared to make a recommendation. He would expect that would not be before August 2000.
Dr. Phillips noted that Kenneth Dunegan will introduce a proposed resolution. Ordinarily, we don't have resolutions necessarily from individual people, but this has gone through the appropriate request to the Steering Committee. Professor Dunegan reported that the resolution is from the Caucuses of the Colleges of Business, Law, and Urban Affairs.
Professor Kenneth Dunegan reported that at the February 9, 2000 meeting of the Faculty Senate, Professor Flechtner spoke to us about a history of denials regarding the existence and severity of problems surrounding the PeopleSoft catastrophe. In an attempt to forestall similar crises in the future, a resolution was put to the Senate calling for improved communication between the Administration and various stakeholder groups. In the ensuing discussion, various senators indicated support for the resolution in the belief that a more honest, open, and candid exchange between the Administration and these stakeholder groups would help identify and recognize future problems earlier, thereby, expediting the attention needed to get them resolved. The resolution for improved communication was approved by a vote of 27 to 4 with three abstentions. President Van Ummersen responded to the resolution saying that she, "hears everyone loud and clearly." She went on to say, "and her Administration would try harder to work with faculty on the issues of communication, openness, and decision-making." In the spirit of that resolution for honest and open communication and in the realization that problems cannot be solved until they are identified and acknowledged, the Caucuses of the Colleges of Business, Law, and Urban Affairs present the following resolution for discussion by the Senate. The Caucuses want to make perfectly clear that this resolution is in no way intended to represent any form of negotiation or bargaining. It is simply a resolution asking the Administration to publicly recognize and acknowledge a problem of considerable proportion. Therefore, as a representative of the Caucus from the College of Business, he moved that the Senate consider, discuss, and then pass the following resolution:
WHEREAS, problems with faculty compensation have and continue to create on-going difficulties associated with hiring and retaining faculty, and
WHEREAS, problems with faculty compensation have and continue to create systemic salary compression and, in several Colleges, salary inversion, and,
WHEREAS, problems with faculty compensation have and continue to erode faculty morale, destroy faculty motivation, and threaten faculty commitment, and
WHEREAS, other universities have publicly acknowledged problems with faculty compensation and market competitiveness, and
WHEREAS, there are no restrictions in the Ohio Public Employee Collective Bargaining Act to prohibit the Administration from making a statement,
BE IT RESOLVED THAT FACULTY SENATE REQUESTS THE UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION JOIN US IN RECOGNIZING
(1) That compensation problems exist within the faculty ranks of all Colleges of the University;
(2) That these compensation problems are substantial;
(3) That these compensation problems have resulted in severe salary compression and, in many cases, salary inversion;
(4) That these compensation problems have resulted in significant negative deviations in average faculty salaries when compared with peer group institutions.
Professor Dunegan offered several items as some evidence of the statements that he had just made. In terms of supporting the statements about hiring, morale, and inversion problems, he referred everyone present to the Minutes of the April 5, 2000 Faculty Senate meeting and the April 19, 2000 Faculty Senate meeting in which issues surrounding compensation difficulties and the effect on hiring and morale were discussed at some length.
To document the wide-spread nature of the problem and its severity, Dr. Dunegan called the Senate's attention to a document that was prepared by a committee in the College of Business that was attached to all Faculty Senator's e-mails on the 5th of April. It was a report to Dr. Allen Waren, the Interim Dean, from the Salary Review Committee. In that document, it states that in comparing salaries for CSU faculty members with the average salaries paid to participants in the 1999-2000 Oklahoma Faculty Survey, 89 percent of the Arts and Sciences faculty currently receive salaries below that peer group; 94 percent of the College of Business faculty currently receive salaries below that market; 88 percent of the College of Education faculty currently receive salaries below market; 95 percent of the Engineering faculty currently receive salaries below market; 56 percent of the College of Law faculty currently receive salaries below market; 87 percent of the Urban Affairs faculty currently receive salaries below that market. In terms of indicating the severity and to further document that it is wide-spread, that document also reports that 81 percent of the faculty at Cleveland State would be receiving higher salaries at Lakeland Community College than they are receiving here. For those 81 percent, the amount of their Lakeland equivalent salaries would be $12,631 higher than they are currently receiving at Cleveland State University. He offered that as some indication of the severity of the problem.
To document the systemic nature of the problem, Dr. Dunegan indicated that he has a 13 year study that basically indicates how the Full Professors in the College of Business have been compensated with respect to a 15 school peer group. That peer group apparently was agreed to some years ago and was the only basis from which a comparison could be made. We have two deviating lines. He has been told by some of the more senior people at the University that ten years ago the University was paying salaries that were market level and that would coincide with his data from the College of Business. However, in the last five years, the College of Business Full Professors have a salary deficit compared to market of $65,100. He does not have data for the rest of the University because he does not have ten years worth of information from each of the Colleges. In the College of Business, this same pattern exists for the Associate Professors as well.
As indicated in the resolution that other schools have been making public statements with respect to the problems of compensation, Dr. Dunegan referred the Senate to a recent article in the Plain Dealer, April 9, 2000, in which the OSU Trustees were urged to increase faculty salaries. "Trustees were told Friday that salaries of Ohio State faculty members aren't rising as fast as the pay of their counterparts... at other universities. 'This is the third year in a row it has slipped and we are feeling concerned,' said Nancy Rudd, the Vice Provost for Academic Policy and Human Resources at Ohio State. 'There is evidence that rising market salaries are a problem and that is a morale problem as well as a marketing problem,' she said." They have been experiencing problems for three years. Dr. Dunegan remarked that CSU has been experiencing problems for thirteen years. He would also suggest that a review of the Chronicle of Higher Education would indicate any number of institutions that are also publicly recognizing problems with faculty compensation. A February 26, 1999 article by Peter Schmidt states that the States of Idaho, Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Washington, have asked public colleges and universities to increase faculty salaries. It is not something that administrators are ignoring.
In terms of the comment that the Administration is permitted to make any statements with respect to salary, Dr. Dunegan referred everyone to the Public Employees Collective Bargaining Act, chapter 41-17, where there is a whole list of things that the Administration is not capable of discussing and not supposed to be engaged in, but no where is it specified in this Act that he can find or that representatives in his College who are routinely engaged in labor relations work can find, where it says anything that the Administration is not allowed to make comment with respect to salary problems. As far as the Act is concerned, the Administration can make any statements that they want -- recognizing salary problems, stating salary problems, and stating what their intentions are with respect to salary targets and objectives.
Dr. Phillips noted that there is a resolution on the floor and asked if there was a second. The motion was seconded by Dr. Gross and was unanimously approved by the Senate with no dissentions or abstentions.
Dr. Mark Tumeo, Interim Dean of the College of Graduate Studies, said, in the future, he hoped to give Faculty Senate an update on a semester basis of what is going on in the College. Representatives from the Senate are on the Council. The Council has been very active this year. He wanted to be sure that Faculty Senate was appraised of some of the ideas they are working on.
First, Dr. Tumeo reported that a couple of policies have been instituted that have come through Graduate Council and passed. One is a travel program for Graduate faculty. It has been pretty widely circulated and it is also up on their web site now for Graduate faculty to apply for travel assistance for professional travel. They have been working with the Graduate Council and the Academic Deans to implement the President's decision to separate Graduate Admissions from its current structure into a separate Graduate Admissions Office. A model has been put together and presented to the Graduate Council and approved. It has been circulated among the Academic Deans and circulated at the Graduate Program Director's meeting and the Graduate Faculty meeting held this year.
Dr. Tumeo reported that a new policy is being instituted where we are having at least annual Graduate Faculty meetings. Actually, we are going to probably have semi-annual Graduate Faculty meetings -- one at the beginning of the academic year and one towards the end to make sure that the Graduate Faculty are included in everything. Dr. Tumeo reported that they have also started doing Graduate Program Director meetings.
Dr. Tumeo next reported on activities that Graduate Studies has been involved in recently. They are working on revising the policies for Graduate Assistantships and tuition grants so they can more efficiently be administered out to the Colleges. In addition, there are strong efforts to try to increase the amount of funding that goes into those both to increase the level of the stipend for our graduate students and the number of stipends that we can provide to graduate students.
Dr. Tumeo reported that they have also been working on increasing research income to the University so that we can increase both indirect costs and Research Challenge which is the State money that comes to the Graduate College based on our market share of external research across the State. We get a percentage of the money from the State based on our percentage of out of state dollars compared to everyone else. The more out of state dollars we get, the more money we get from the State in addition in Research Challenge.
Lastly, Dr. Tumeo reported that Chuck Urbancic, the Director of the Office of Research and Economic Development, has indicated that he is going to retire on July 31, 2000, so he is in the process of selecting an Interim Director. This summer he will be looking at the staff structure throughout the Graduate College and will be trying to reorganize and restructure it so that they are more efficient and streamlined in what they are doing in order to serve the faculty in the Graduate programs better. He is also trying to put together a committee of the Graduate Faculty, the Research Council, the Financial HR people, Faculty Senate, and the Graduate Council to try to help him walk through some of that restructuring of the staff lines and reporting lines.
Dr. Tumeo added that the door is open, he reads his e-mail all of the time, and he is anxious to get as much input as possible. If anyone has any questions, he is more than glad to answer them.
Professor Misra asked why anybody should become a Graduate faculty. Dr. Tumeo responded that Graduate faculty status is a requirement we have from the State. The Ohio Board of Regents is not willing to accept just a Ph.D.
Professor Misra stated that if he doesn't become a Graduate faculty, he can teach introductory courses. He asked Dr. Tumeo what incentive he will provide to become a Graduate faculty. Dr. Tumeo responded that if you are a faculty member who wants to be involved in the full range of activities, which includes graduate education, then that would be an incentive. But, you don't have to be involved in the full range of activities of a faculty member. That is your choice.
Professor Tewari commented that this is not his choice. This University has to decide in what direction the University wants to go. It is not a rhetorical question. It is a very important question because if most people decide that they don't want to take that particular route, then this University is going down and down.
Dr. Tumeo stated that you are not paid extra to become a Graduate faculty, but you do not have access to a Graduate Faculty Travel Program.
Dr. Phillips reported that Annual Reports are generally presented to the Senate and accepted; however, we do have some Chairs who would be willing to answer questions if anyone has a question about any of the Annual Reports; otherwise, the Senate will receive them.
The Senate received annual Reports from the following Committees:
A. Admissions and Standards Committee (Report No. 41, 1999-2000)
B. University Curriculum Committee (Report No. 42, 1999-2000)
C. Committee on Athletics (Report No. 43, 1999-2000)
D. Library Committee (Report No. 44, 1999-2000)
E. Graduation, Convocation, and Assembly Committee (Report No. 45, 1999- 2000)
F. University Safety and Health Advisory Committee (Report No. 46, 1999-2000)
President Claire Van Ummersen thanked everyone for their good service this past year, especially the willingness to assist our students with their needs. As many know, last Fall was a difficult time for all of us and the extra mile that many people went in order to make our students as comfortable as possible is very deeply appreciated.
President Van Ummersen stated that the Senate has had a successful year in carrying on its business and in dealing with a number of very important issues to the University. She offered best wishes for a great Summer. She looks forward to seeing everyone next Fall and engaging in our forum discussions.
Professor Dunegan asked President Van Ummersen if she had any intention of making a comment about the resolution that the Faculty Senate passed. President Van Ummersen replied that she believed that the resolution will be forwarded to the Administration and they will act on it at that time. Dr. Dunegan stated that he is correct then in assuming that the President would not like to make any statement now to either recognize the problem or the severity of the problem. President Van Ummersen said that what she is willing to say publicly is that we have had, as a primary priority for the University, the recruitment and retention of the best faculty and that has been a priority for both the Administration and the Board of Trustees. The issue of fair compensation is very much on their agenda and it will be addressed at the appropriate context.
There being no new business, Dr. Phillips moved to the Senate President's Report.
Dr. Donna Phillips stated that this is her farewell speech and she really thought that she ought to make it something special. She thanked everyone who has helped her, and including both the people who had intended to help and the people who had intended to hinder her, because they have a tendency to keep one honest. She certainly has enjoyed her four years. She noted that she doesn't like to talk about what is in the past and certainly is not going to make a list of accomplishments. So, she thought instead, she would answer the question she has heard, although it has not been asked of her directly, which is, what she is going to do now. One of her colleagues asked her today how she was going to reinvent herself after this was over. She has given some thought to this. First, she considered the possibility of becoming a Chair, but she decided that she has been already too long in her life a piece of furniture and she doesn't want to go in that direction. Her next possibility, of course, was a Deanship. She eliminated the Deanship of the College of Law and the College of Arts and Sciences for obvious reasons. But, that left her with some possibilities. Dr. Phillips stated that she considered the College of Engineering, but those people are so aggrieved all of the time. She was not sure that this was the right spot for her. Then she thought, well, why not the College of Business Administration? But then, she thought, oh no, they are too compressed. Then she thought, alright, why not the College of Urban Affairs? They all get along over there, but then she knew she would have to raise money and that was too much of a bore. She then thought about being the Provost, but there does seem to be somebody sitting in that chair and she thought also, the Provost, really, really, has to go to a lot of meetings and has to suffer a whole bunch of fools gladly. She didn't want to do that. Then she decided, what she really wanted to be is Chief of Police and we have an opening. Now she would just let those officers with their guns go around and do those parking things, but she would be the Chief of the Grammar or Fashion Police, which seemed to be the perfect spot for her, but also kind of non PCish, and she thought the President would probably not grant her this particular wish. So, she has finally decided who she is going to be in her next life: the same person she was in her last life.
Dr. Phillips wished everyone a very productive Summer.
The meeting adjourned at 5:00 P.M.
Pamela J. Eyerdam