Cleveland State University

Faculty Senate

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FACULTY SENATE September 13, 2000

Topics:

PRESENT: Aquila, Barbato, A. Benander, W. Bowen, Boyle, Buckley, Chung, Dillard-Mitchell, Doerder, Dunegan, Falk, Flechtner, Flynn, Forte, Govea, Gross, Hartnagel, Jeffres, Keating, Konangi, Larson, Mahmud, Mastboom, Matthews, McCahon, McLoughlin, Meiksins, Miracle, Misra, Neuendorf, Nolan, Nuru-Holm, Quigney, Rahm, Reinhart, Schwartz, Shah, M. Smith, Sparks, Spicer, Thornton, Valencic, Van Ummersen, Wadhwa, Wheatley, J. Wilson.

ABSENT/EXCUSED: J. Bazyk, Dieterich, Dural, Frew, Gorla, B. Green, Hemann, Hollinger, Konstantinos, Orendi, Ramsey, Sanders, Steckol, Steinglass, Tewari, Tumeo, J. Webb, Whyte.

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

I. Eulogy for T. Temple Tuttle

Professor Howard Meeker delivered the Eulogy.

"A few weeks ago Cleveland State University and the Department of Music lost a dear friend and colleague. A member of this faculty for almost 30 years, Dr. T. Temple Tuttle was a beloved master teacher, musician, and scholar. His interests and areas of expertise were as wide and varied as the world itself. A native of Cleveland Heights, he received his undergraduate degree in French horn performance from the Cleveland Institute of Music in 1955. Two years later he graduated from Oberlin College with a master's degree in music education. Tom worked in the public schools near Philadelphia and New York City before completing his doctorate in education from the University of Maryland and joining the Cleveland State faculty in 1971 as a specialist in music education.

Shortly after returning to Cleveland, Tom had the opportunity to hear a concert of classical Asian Indian drumming. He began to study Indian drumming and soon found himself hooked on the rich and varied musical culture of India. The end result was the development of an annual festival of Indian music -- the largest of its kind outside of India -- hosted by Tom for the past 27 years on this campus. The festival and the hundreds of multi-cultural performances that Tom brought to this campus over the years created a truly world-wide view of music for Cleveland State students and the citizens of Northern Ohio.

Tom was a tireless researcher who sparked similar interests in his students. Although he had an international reputation as a researcher, was the recipient of two Fulbright scholarships, and authored many dozens of publications and presentations, Tom never forgot that students come first. There are many CSU-trained musicians and public school teachers in the Greater Cleveland area who have published research or who have presented papers at important professional meetings because of Tom's encouragement and guidance.

Tom never lost his creativity and passion for learning. Those of us fortunate enough to spend time with him while he was in hospice found him writing poetry and working on his research materials gathered last summer while on his most recent Fulbright trip to India. He was a shining example and inspiration to all who value scholarship and the art of teaching. Cleveland State University and the community it serves are better places because Tom Tuttle called them home."

[Go to top of page]

II. Eulogy for Joseph M. Egar

Professor Sherwood Silliman delivered the Eulogy.

"Professor Joe Egar died of a stroke on June 25, 2000 in Lake Forest, California, while visiting his daughter's family. Joe was 70 years old. He was born and raised in Jacksonville, Florida, and received his bachelor's degree from the University of Oklahoma in 1952 and his doctorate in Geophysics from Texas A&M University in 1959. After field research in geophysics and work on one of the earliest computers, Joe settled on the career of mathematics professor. He taught at Marietta College, The University of Oklahoma, Ball State University, The University of Akron and, beginning in 1966, Cleveland State University.

Joe was an Honorary Research Fellow at the University of Birmingham in England and was a visiting scholar at Hatfield Polytechnic Institute there. He also spent a year as a visiting professor at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology in Terre Haute, Indiana. He held professional memberships in Sigma Xi, a scientific society, the Mathematical Association of America, and Tau Beta Pi, an engineering society. His background was extremely broad in mathematics, science, and engineering.

Joe was an excellent teacher and extremely knowledgeable in many areas of applied mathematics. Over the years he consistently demanded a high standard of performance from his students. He had the reputation of being a tough, but eminently fair teacher. And he was funny. His classroom was a very lively place. Upon leaving Rose Hulman Institute after his year there, his students presented him with a bound copy of the wit and wisdom of Joe Egar -- items they'd collected over the year.

In terms of math education issues, he was often ahead of the curve. In the 1970s he and two other faculty changed the way we taught our calculus to a mastery-learning, self-paced approach for all our students. This turned out to be very successful and CSU was invited to present this approach at a national engineering education conference at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Joe's talk was a highlight of that conference. Eventually, we moved away from this approach because the faculty complained of the heavy workload required.

Joe was a key member of the Math Department's Enrichment Program in Calculus -- EPIC -- a program to help mostly minority students excel in their calculus courses. He was the main reason this program was expanded to include pre-calculus students as well. This program began in 1988 and is one of the longest running programs like it in the country. It was featured on a three hour long nationwide video telecast in 1992.

Joe was also an early member of the Mathematicians and Education Reform Network, an organization of mathematicians working on effective reform from kindergarten through graduate school. Through his work on PROMISE, a program in Math, Information, Science, and Engineering, students were given scholarships to follow technical careers.

Joe Egar was also an excellent CSU citizen. He combined his wit with good sense in serving on a number of CSU's most important committees. He could very good-naturedly prick not so well-thought-out trial balloons offered by his colleagues. He always had CSU's and its students' best interests at heart.

Joe Egar will be missed by his many friends in the Math Department and throughout CSU. We will continue to honor his legacy, which will live on in the hearts and minds of his students."

[Go to top of page]

III. Eulogy for Richard B. Small

Professor Bruce A. Beatie delivered the Eulogy.

"I first met Dick Small in the Fall of 1969, when I came to Cleveland State University as a candidate for the chairmanship of the Department of Modern Languages, and therefore as his replacement, for he had served as chair of the department since 1960. He was a person of quiet reserve, who didn't easily open up to others. It is a testimony to this reserve that, in the nineteen years that we were colleagues, I learned details of his life only at his death last Spring, when On Campus asked me for information. He said little in faculty meetings and in private conversations, but what he said was always clear and to the point, and he had a dry sense of humor, such that you had to listen carefully to appreciate it.

Let me give you the facts I was able to discover about his life. He was born in Toronto, August 18, 1918 -- I had not known that he was Canadian-born. His parents must have moved to the United States at some point, and then moved around, for he did his undergraduate work at several institutions: Blackburn College in Illinois (where he earned an AA degree in 1939), Park College in Missouri, and Washington University (where he earned his BA in 1942). He attended the Middlebury College French School in the Summer of 1943, and went on to earn a MA in French at Cornell University (1946) with a thesis on Balzac and Swedenborg. He took summer courses in Paris (1949 and 1955) and Guatemala (1952). He began work on his Ph.D. at Western Reserve University in Cleveland in 1952, and passed his qualifying examination in 1957, but he never completed his proposed dissertation on two French literary journals of the 1860-1870 period.

He was appointed Instructor of French at Fenn College in 1946, became an Assistant Professor in 1949, and an Associate Professor in 1960. He served as chair of the Department of Modern Languages at Fenn College from 1960 until it became Cleveland State University in 1965, and continued to serve as chair until 1970. He took "early retirement" in 1984 (though he had turned 65 in 1983, and had been teaching at Fenn/CSU for 38 years), but continued to teach regularly for the department through 1988-1989, at which time he was recommended for and granted Emeritus status.

As a teacher of French language and literature, he was stern and demanding: letters in his departmental file show that students didn't necessarily like his classes at the time, but many reported later that they had learned more in his classes than in many others they'd taken. He had a passionate love of French culture, and an enormous collection of slides and other materials, taken and collected on his many trips to France, that he used in classes and community presentations. He was very active in the Cleveland community, speaking often at local organizations and schools, and he often provided translations of French documents for local businesses and organizations.

In the years that I knew him, he kept a deliberately low profile, and I suspect that his true quality was under-appreciated by his colleagues, including myself. But I should note that three of my remaining colleagues in the Department of Modern Languages were appointed by Dick Small before I came -- and that is certainly a testimony to his judgment. I hope that those who knew him will remember his wry smile, his unobtrusive wit, and his quiet, determined voice."

Dr. Donna Phillips asked everyone to join her in a moment of silence in remembrance of T. Temple Tuttle, Joseph M. Egar, and Richard B. Small.

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

[Go to top of page]

IV. Approval of the Agenda

Acceptance of the Agenda for September 13, 2000 was moved, seconded, and approved.

V. Approval of the Minutes of the May 3, 2000 Meeting

Acceptance of the Minutes of the May 3, 2000 meeting was moved and seconded. Several errors in the Minutes were reported. The corrected Minutes were then approved.

VI. Senate President's Report

Senate President Donna Phillips extended greetings to all new members of the Senate.

Dr. Phillips reported that the students are conducting a campus voter registration drive. She did not have any particulars on that, but the students did request that we announce that today.

[Go to top of page]

VII. Senate Nominating Committee

Professor Cheryl McCahon, Chair of the Senate Nominating Committee, announced that the Committee had nominated Professor William Bowen (College of Urban Affairs) and Professor Leo Jeffres (College of Arts and Sciences), as candidates for the position of President of the Faculty Senate. Professor William Bowen was elected as the new Senate President for a two-year term.

Dr. McCahon reported that there were no candidates for Senate Secretary.

VIII. Other Elections

A. University Faculty Affairs Committee

Professors Edward Brennan (Religious Studies), Barbara Green (Political Science), and Harry Margulis (Urban Studies) were nominated and elected by acclamation to two-year terms on the University Faculty Affairs Committee.

B. Copyright Review Committee

Professor Michael Davis was elected to a three-year term on the Copyright Review Committee.

At this point, Dr. Phillips introduced Mr. Jack Boyle, III, the Interim Vice President for Financial Affairs. She noted that she had first met Jack Boyle on the Board of Trustees.

[Go to top of page]

IX. Questions about the Budget from the A&S Caucus (Report No. 1, 2000-2001)

Mr. Jack Boyle stated that in the interests of full disclosure and to adequately share any credit or blame for his six months here as Interim Vice President, everything he has learned about cost benefit analysis in public sector budgeting, he learned from Professor Spicer last semester so feel free to e-mail him.

Mr. Boyle noted that he would respond to questions #1 and #9 together because #1 is the current situation and #9 is the outlook for the future.

1. What was the amount of the end-of-the-budget-year shortfall for FY 99-00?

a. What caused the shortfall?

b. How was it paid for?

Mr. Boyle reported the books are not quite closed yet. For FY 2000, our expenditures exceeded the current year revenues by approximately $3.7 Million. The cause was a combination of two things: first, the spending was about $6 Million more than the revised budget that was passed in the early part of the fiscal year. Income was a little more than $2 Million more than the estimated income when the revised budget was passed. Revenue could have been more but we did not meet the enrollment projections that had been made when we put the original budget together. On the additional spending side of it, about one half of it was computer related. Much of this was for projects that had been previously approved by the Board. There was a Board resolution in March 2000 to approve some additional spending on computers. One half of it was academic related -- part-time faculty and graduate assistant lines -- about $3 Million of academic expenses. It was paid for by using the carry-over funds from previous years that had been accumulating in the University's unrestricted reserves. Obviously, your total revenues plus your budget carry-overs from previous years must always exceed your expenses or you are in default. The situation in the University is always that you cannot exceed what monies you have available to spend.

9. What is the long-term budget outlook (i.e., for the year after next and beyond)? Is it true that the university is considering not filling vacant faculty positions caused by retirements/deaths/departures, etc. in anticipation of tight budgets in FY 2001-2?

Mr. Boyle reported that for Fiscal year 2000-01, he has on his a desk a list of approximately $5 to $6 Million of additional requests for expenditures that were not included in the budget that was approved in June. That budget was $137 Million worth of expenses and $137 Million of revenue. In order to whittle down that figure, we are going to receive about $2 Million of additional revenue -- part of it from future vacancy savings and part of it from miscellaneous little pots of money that might creep up such as interest being more than expected or the State of Ohio being more generous than originally budgeted. That leaves about $4 Million of the $6 Million list that has to be taken care of, either by not doing things that are on the list, or by doing some of those and not doing some other things, or whatever the priorities end up being in the original spending units. We will end up with an expenditure of around $139 Million for Fiscal 2001. For Fiscal 2002, if we don't increase enrollment, the projection would be that we would get another four percent from the State. If we raise our tuition again by the four percent or the six percent that you are allowed to go with, we might end up with another $4 or $5 Million revenue. Basically, that is the $139 Million budget for this year plus three percent inflation on top of that, unless we can figure out a way to increase enrollment. The budget will have to be flat for the next two fiscal years. In terms of filling vacancies, clearly vacancies don't occur in nice even fashions in the units of the University. The spending limit of $143 Million for the next fiscal year will probably be where we are at. Does that mean that every vacancy will not be filled? The answer is no. Does it mean that there won't be reallocation of savings that we might get from vacancies in one year that might be over balanced between one college or another? The answer is no. There will have to be some give and take. The total budget is going to have to be very close for the next fiscal year to what it is this fiscal year.

Professor Joyce Mastboom indicated that she didn't quite understand Mr. Boyle's answer to question #9 about the replacement of people. She asked if he was talking about additional expenditures being requested that are on his desk. She did not feel that this question refers to additional expenditures. It talks about people who have retired over the last year, maybe very late in the last year, who would have been on the roles had they not decided on May 31st to retire. In fact, she would suggest that they are in the budget. We have vacancy savings of those people this year. People are looking to replace them this year to be put on the roles next September. That is what the question is about. Mr. Boyle responded that the budget limit has to stay the same. He is not prepared to deal with "a person." So, if "a person" in the College of Education retired in May and wasn't replaced, whether that line and that person gets replaced is going to depend upon a lot of factors. One, maybe the College of Education had a huge chunk of the vacancy savings and maybe that is not a fair distribution for the permanent budget. But the permanent budget is going to have to stay pretty close to what it is this year. He cannot answer the question of individual vacancies being replaced.

Dr. Mastboom stated that she is simply discussing people who were in the budget last year. Mr. Boyle indicated that if they are out now, that amount of money cannot be replaced. Whether that line gets replaced depends on whether something else gets cut to put the line back. Dr. Mastboom noted that the lines are then cut. Mr. Boyle said, "yes." The amount of spending that we are going to have to reduce for this year, in total for the whole university, will have to be the level that we continue to spend at for one more year. He could not answer the question as to whether a line that was swept out for this year would be replaced for next year. The total of all the lines that were swept and the money that was saved by the lines that were swept will have to remain swept. "A line" may be replaced but another line would have to be eliminated.

Professor Kenneth Dunegan noted that the bottom line is, those lines that are currently not filled will not be filled. Mr. Boyle responded that he was not prepared to say that. If we swept 100 lines and that saved us $3 Million, we will have to save the same $3 Million next year. It may not be the same 100 lines.

Professor Arthur Schwartz noted that Mr. Boyle had mentioned that the budgeting process for 2002 is beginning. Mr. Boyle responded that it has not started but it has to begin soon. Dr. Schwartz inquired if the Senate Planning and Budget Advisory Committee will be involved. Mr. Boyle responded that he is not going to eliminate steps from whatever processes have always been used. The process has not been started as yet.

Professor Dunegan referred to question #1.a. concerning the shortfall. He noted that Mr. Boyle had stated that currently one half of the $6 Million in spending was academic related and for part-time. He wondered what other kinds it was for. Mr. Boyle replied that they were lines for graduate assistants and student job lines -- those which get charged to the Academic Deans. Dr. Dunegan noted that we then spend $3 Million for part-timers and GAs. Mr. Boyle replied that the amount is about $2.1 Million and the rest of it is for miscellaneous. He just added up all of the budget lines that were exceeded on June 30th from the revised budget. Those are large groups. The part-time factor is only about $1.1 Million over the budget line. He has no way of knowing, at this point, whether the budget line was out of whack with reality.

Professor Mastboom noted that Mr. Boyle had said that $3.7 Million was the short-fall. This was the short-fall over the budget as it had been passed before September. Mr. Boyle responded that the budgets that were passed in September and that were revised in the Spring were always balanced. Professor Mastboom noted then that the $3.7 Million was over the revised budget. Mr. Boyle responded that Professor Mastboom was correct.

2. Is it true that there are administrators whose salaries are in whole or in part being paid from soft money and who are not in regular 'lines?' How many of these are there? How much do they cost?

Mr. Boyle said that he went through the whole list of people that are being paid out of soft dollars and there really are no administrators in there in terms of the entire university administration. There are obviously administrators of the soft money programs that are in there like the Urban Center, etc., but there is nobody working for the central administration of the university whose salaries aren't all hard dollar funded that he could find.

3. Where is the money to fund the various 'Centers' on campus coming from?

Mr. Boyle stated that Centers can be defined in a lot of ways. He found three sources of funding. Some are university funded meaning they are in the regular colleges or units of the university. Some are entirely grant funded, and some of them, like the Urban Center, are line item funded from the legislature. There really aren't that many of them and they don't amount to that much. The ones that he located easily are in the regular university budget. A couple of them are general fee funded like International Programs and the Poetry Center. One of them is in Student Life.

4. Is it true that we received several grants last year that required significant matching funds from the university that were not budgeted?

a. How much money are we obligated to match?

b. Did we meet our obligations last year?

c. Where did the funds come from?

Mr. Boyle commented that this is a section he knew absolutely nothing about so he is quoting the Graduate Dean who couldn't be here today. The Graduate Dean said that he must certify that the match is available in the budget for any item before he signs off on a grant request. For fiscal year 2000, we had to pay, in terms of matching money, approximately $250,000 of tuition waivers for students under federally funded programs. As he understands it under a federally funded grant, we can do stipends out of the grant but we can't do tuition. So the tuition has to be a university match. Did we meet our obligations last year? The answer is yes we did. The university budget was the source but we have an indirect cost recovery on all of the grants which averaged somewhere between eight and fifteen percent depending on where the grant came from. He looked at the numbers in terms of our indirect cost recovery versus the $250,000 that we had to match in tuition waivers and the indirect cost recovery is substantially more -- like three times the amount that we actually paid in tuition waivers. Does that make it a cost profit center? To some extent yes, you can make that argument. If we needed to open up a new space for them, the answer Bob Criminger would give is no.

5. Where will we get the money to pay the $350,000 owed to PeopleSoft for consulting fees?

a. Who are the consultants?

b. How much are they being paid?

c. What is the source of funding? What portion is being paid for by funds that do not come from the reserve funds allocated by the Board in January?

Mr. Boyle reported that the actual number was something like $295,000 and what we are talking about here was the bill that we received at the beginning of the year that the Board had requested that we not pay. We didn't pay it until August when PeopleSoft said that they were going to shut us down in terms of answering any of our questions if we didn't pay it. So, the Board agreed to pay it but it was an accrued bill from last year. The $295,000 that we paid was already accounted for in the $3.7 Million that we closed fiscal year 2000 with so it was one of those computer items that made up that piece. That was not paid out of new funds; it was paid out of old funds.

6. How much are we currently expending on consultants?

Mr. Boyle said that a department could hire a consultant for $2,000 on a purchase order and we really wouldn't know about it. He is aware of three and they are people who are not just consultants. In some cases, we are paying an outside firm, in effect, to provide temporary staffing to the university. We are currently spending about $3.8 Million in the student stabilization area. He added that all of this money has been approved by the Board as funding coming out of the carry-over. It is not actually in this year's budget; it is not part of the $137 Million. It is funded outside of that by Board direction from last February. $3.8 Million is being paid to FAS which is the firm that is providing assistance in the Financial Aid Office. It is both for programming and the two top people in Student Financial Aid who are employees of FAS on loan to us as the Director and the Assistant Director of that department. The Hunter Group has been working on consulting for Student Financial programming and SAIC which has been dealing with the problems in programming Admissions, Financial Aid, and the Registrar's Office. Part of this amount is for temporary staffing and part of it is for actual computer consultation. In addition, a firm called Jefferson Wells has been on campus providing us with temporary accounting services. They have been helping us with the work we have to do to close the books for this year which, unfortunately, occurred at the same time that we were trying to register students, etc. We did have some temporary help out of the current budget that was already budgeted.

7. What is our plan to wean ourselves of dependence on consultants in areas such as Information Technology and Financial Aid?

a. How long will it take?

b. What positions will need to be filled to make this possible?

c. What is the approximate cost of filling those positions?

Mr. Boyle commented that this is a superbly good question and one which we all ask every day. There are on-going searches. We don't know how long it is going to take. He doesn't feel that there is anybody in this University that believes what we are doing now would make any sense if we had an alternative. He went on to say that the problem at the moment is that we don't have large numbers of people knocking on our door to hold these positions. We have been forced into a situation that is really not preferable for anybody.

Mr. Boyle reported there are at least five positions in Student Financial Aid including the top three and eight in IS&T that are currently vacant including a Chief Information Officer. He noted that the fifteen positions are budgeted at something like $850,000. That would not be new money. Those positions are still in the budget except for those in Student Financial Aid, where we had to sweep some of the vacancies to pay for the consultants. They were in the budget originally when we approved it in June. The only position that wasn't in the budget is the Chief Information Officer. If we are lucky enough to find someone, that is part of the $5/$6 Million he mentioned earlier that is on his desk in terms of unfunded liability. At this point, we don't have any money for that position, but, if the right person is found, he promised to find a way to get the money for that position and a lot of the other things into the budget.

Professor Dunegan stated, "If the open positions for these areas -- the support group -- weren't swept away, why were the faculty lines swept away? The argument you can make is that faculty are not necessary but these things are." Mr. Boyle replied that Professor Dunegan could make that argument and he could make the other side of the argument that the temporary people we are paying for now are so much more expensive than the line items that are in there and that is the reason we didn't. We did sweep the five in Student Financial Aid. It is the IS&T positions that are currently unfilled. They were not swept; that is true. The question is, "Is that a satisfactory situation?" That is a judgment call. Those positions haven't been filled.

Provost Jay McLoughlin made the point that salaries were swept for the faculty who left in June and July because we replaced them generally with part-time faculty. Those positions still exist, but the salaries that were left over from the part-time faculty were swept for this year. The others were left open because the searches were active. If there are active searches, the money was retained. Mr. Boyle added that this included faculty lines for which open searches were going on. Those were not swept either. Provost McLoughlin stated that those were closed by July and August and we have done our hiring for the year. So, any hiring we were going to do, we will be doing in terms of visitors or part-timers.

Professor Peter Meiksins noted that the implication of what Mr. Boyle had just said is that we are essentially anticipating sweeping of savings again in the subsequent fiscal year if we are not anticipating filling them except on an individual as need dictates basis. We are not anticipating doing that with IS&T and perhaps Financial Aid. So, Mr. Boyle is right; a judgment call has been made. Mr. Boyle said, "no." For this year, judgment calls are being made on an on-going basis. For next year, no judgment calls have been made other than the one he just hopes he can leave the Senate with. If we spend all of the $6 Million of requests this year, we are spending it at an unsupportable level. We have to spend at a $139 Million plus or minus level this year which, with inflation, is $143 Million next year. That is how big the pile of blocks is and so the job of the university is to make the little piles in front of the spending units. How you want to use them within the Colleges is going to be another topic of discussion at that level, but he can only tell the Senate how big the pile of blocks will be from his perspective. It is a system of give and take and we are going to have to steal jobs from one division and give them to another. Whether they are supportable in IS&T as opposed to the academic units is a very good question that we have to wrestle with.

Professor Mastboom referred to Financial Aid and stated that the Board just extended the consultants contract. Mr. Boyle noted that the five positions in Student Financial Aid were swept to pay for it. But, he pointed out that this leaves us without the positions if, in fact, we find people who are just perfect for those jobs. That presents him with the next problem. We are working on band-aids here to some extent which he doesn't like. This is not where he comes from, but that is the way it is in university budgeting in Cleveland, Ohio in the year 2000.

8. Assuming that we continue to rely on some consulting services to continue the PeopleSoft Stabilization Project, how will we pay for those services (or otherwise complete the project) once the special reserve funds allocated by the Board have been expended?

Mr. Boyle stated that there are two parts to the answer. First, the Board of Regents, and we hope they follow through on this, are looking at a budget model for next year which includes a special technology allocation to the universities over and above the regular allocation in the other little pieces of the allocation formulas that they have now. That would be a separate one that could get us over $1 Million and maybe closer to $1.5 Million of additional funds. It would be his hope that we would devote that money to upgrading hardware and software at the university level. In every university and business in the country now, you have to budget continuously for upgrades of software and hardware and IS&T kinds of consulting things because there is nobody from your own house who can figure out why your software won't work. That is true here too. So we have to put ongoing funds into our regular budget to take care of these technology kinds of hardware and software items. Our hope is that we can devote this extra money for this kind of project if we do get it from the university funds at the OBOR. If we can't, we are going to have to figure out a way within our regular budget because it is not a temporary thing -- it is not a one-time thing to have to take care of the software upgrades, train the people on the upgrades, change the hardware when they tell you that the upgrade is going to require more memory, and all the kinds of stuff that all of us have to put up with when we go from Windows 95 to Windows 2000. It is the same problem that we have on this level. That is not ever going to end. We can expect that a business or a university is going to spend some percent of its budget every year for these kinds of things. We need to just include it as part of the regular university budget. There is no other way to do it.

Professor Leo Jeffres noted that this could probably be a shorter list next time if the Faculty Senate committees are involved in the process. Also, Mr. Boyle forestalled rumors that always arise. Dr. Jeffres said that he hopes it is taken into consideration maybe earlier because it is good for the administration as well as for the faculty. Faculty are as interested in this institution as anyone else in the administration. Mr. Boyle responded that certainly where he comes from, he wouldn't have come back here and taken a six-month leave from his golf game and his grandchildren to do this if he wasn't interested in this institution. He put nine years into the Board. A lot of time and effort on his part went into this university. So, we really are all in this together and the only way we are going to get to the next piece of the millennium is if we work together to figure out a way to live within our means or to grow our resources. The only message he wants to leave with the Senate is that we have to figure out a way to increase enrollment and we have to be able to keep the expenses in line with the level of enrollment that we have.

Professor Tayyab Mahmud stated that as the academic units were being told to tighten their belts, he was curious as to how the pain is being spread. He asked if the President's Office has been told to tighten its belt at all, and, if so, how much. Mr. Boyle responded that at this point, no dictates have been issued down from the top about how belt-tightening is to occur and where it is to occur and that is part of the process that he talked about earlier. His department is responsible for about 25% of the budget. He has to come up with about $1 Million of the $4 Million. He understands that. Whether he makes the President go without a salary or not to have heat is a decision that will have to made at some point down the line.

Professor Meiksins wanted to qualify something that Mr. Boyle had just said that no dictates have come down. At least the departments in the College of Arts and Sciences, and he assumes other Colleges as well, have been asked or told to reduce their part-time expenditures. In the College of Arts and Sciences, that developed into a reduction in the number of sections being taught by part-timers of almost 15% to 20%. He noted that Mr. Boyle referred earlier to the need to find ways to increase enrollment. He is puzzled by the theory that we can increase enrollment by not filling faculty positions and simultaneously reducing the number of part-timers. What that spells to him is fewer classes which means fewer students. He doesn't understand the logic to that approach. Mr. Boyle responded that the logic is simple. Professor Meiksins is right and so is he. He only had so many blocks and so the Deans were asked to do something about the part-time line because that was the one with a substantial problem last time. He understands the fact that if you don't teach a section, there is the danger that you are going to decrease the enrollment. There is also the hope that the student will come on Tuesday and Thursday instead of Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. He understands the problem, but right now the dictates are that we can't over spend any of the budget lines. That is point A and that is why we are tightening at this point because the spending in some lines was going over the allocated amount. We could close down on May 3rd if the budget runs out -- that is the fear and that is what he certainly wants to avoid.

Professor Mastboom asked, "How is it possible to overspend that much on part-time?" Mr. Boyle stated that he could not answer that question. Professor Mastboom hoped there was an answer out there somewhere. Mr. Boyle stated that the Deans, he suspects, may have answers, but he doesn't have answers at this point how it happened. He noted that it can't happen next year. Currently, it can't happen this year. We've got contracts for lots of part-timers. In addition, the retired full-time professors teaching is a part-time expenditure as well if they come back on the three-year option to teach some courses after their retirement. A combination of those two things plus summer is what makes up the part-time line. Summer is part-time for everybody. The annual budget ending June 30 is going to include all part-time -- it includes Summer, Fall, and Spring.

Professor Mastboom asked, "Then you add summer income to the budget?" Mr. Boyle responded, "absolutely." We are up a little from summer income but down a little from fall. The two together is a wash. Income was close to $4,000 over budget. The part-time faculty line was $150,000 over budget. We increased revenue so then we ended up with a profit from summer. We increased revenue and it cost us money to do that, but we expected that it would. We encouraged the colleges to do that by the way and so we ended up with a profit from the summer, but with the one percent we were down for fall, those two things were washed. Where we thought we might have some money, maybe we don't.

Professor James Wilson indicated that he had question #10. Is there any sense of how the pie is carved up in terms of full-time faculty, part-time faculty, administration, equipment, etc., and any sense of how that pie is changing? Mr. Boyle replied that he could not give an historical piece on that. One reason is, since we have changed to semesters, we sort of have to just weigh the last couple of years or semesters to be able to track some of the academic stuff. Historically, we have been at 25% non-academic and 75% academic in terms of the overall expenditures, and academic includes things like the library and support services and that hasn't changed much. Within the lines, instructional is something like 48% or 49% of the overall budget.

Dr. Thomas Flechtner remarked that this is different from the seventy-five percent. Mr. Boyle noted that this is the instructional piece of the academic part of it but the library is put in as well as the other academic support services. In the comparative stuff that he has seen throughout the state, where we compare ourselves to our peer universities, the academic and academic support units versus the plant and equipment and central administrative piece breaks down in about that way.

Provost Jay McLoughlin pointed out that the increase in the part-time budget last year occurred without an increase in enrollment and that was attributed to the part-time budget having to hire people not only to teach classes but also to teach classes for individuals who were released to do other things. This semester we are going to look at the whole issue of course releases and all of the different reasons faculty might be in activities on campus other than in the classroom. That was the phenomena that happened last year. We didn't get an enrollment increase but we got an increase in cost and the question is why?

Professor Mahmud stated that he believes the system of questions and answers has to be that, if the answer is not available, then there has to be a commitment to come back with an answer. He pointed out that Professor Wilson's question is a very important one because we need to know on a time-frame basis which way is this institution going. What was the allocation in units five years ago, ten years ago -- what is it today so that we have some idea. Mr. Boyle responded that he did not have the answer with him today, but he would be happy to get it to Professor Mahmud. Professor Mahmud went on to say that he wasn't suggesting cutting anybody's salary. For example, we have been told budgets in the library and all adjuncts have been cut by 15%; cut this, cut that. We would like to know in specific terms how the cuts for this year are spread out. That should include the administrative cost for advisors you see walking down the corridors. How is it shaping up? If you don't know, then you should come back to the next meeting with an answer. Mr. Boyle replied that so far, the central administration hasn't cut anything. Departments have been asked to live within the already allocated budget. If there is a cut, it is because something is overspending the allocation and you are going to run out of money in that line before the end of the year as opposed to us saying that the $136.9 Million budget is still operative. If somebody told you to cut, it is because you are in danger of going over the budget line, not because we have reduced the amount in any of the budget lines. Those are really two different kinds of concepts.

Professor Mahmud insisted that a better answer was needed. It would be very instructive for the university community and it would be very interesting for the community at large to know who gets the ax when an institution gets in trouble. Mr. Boyle agreed. When we get to the point where we are going to be saying how do we get from $143 Million worth of budget plus requests down to $139 Million, that will, in fact, occur. We are not at that point and we have asked nobody to make cuts at this point. The reductions Professor Mahmud is talking about are Deans in various areas maybe seeing that some budgeted lines are in danger of being overspent and so there has to be some action taken in order to control it within the already budgeted amount.

Professor Andrew Gross thanked Mr. Boyle for a fine presentation. Going back to the Minutes of the Senate, the Minutes will show somewhere that the top administration assured this body that the PeopleSoft affair, "Will not affect hiring projects in general." Professor Gross stated that none of us really believed that or would hold the administration to that because we knew some crunch was coming. His concern now, given the situation, is that we have used up what we call carry-over funds -- others call it rainy day funds, or reserve funds. So, in the current year, if something bad should befall this university, what kind of reserve, rainy day, or carry-over funds do we have to deal with that? Mr. Boyle replied that the university has about $10 Million at this point, but it is programmed to go down to $6 Million because the Trustees have approved $4.5 Million for the stabilization in February for which we have only spent about $500,000 for fiscal 2000. We will be around $6 Million which is obviously why the budget cannot be overspent by $6 Million.

Mr. Boyle commented that he really appreciates the opportunity to be able address the Senate and to rap with members about these things. He noted that if members have any great ideas about what he should do next, feel free to let him know.

[Go to top of page]

X. Report on the Just Fix It Task Force (Report No. 2, 2000-2001)

Dr. Peter Meiksins said that he thought it was a good idea for him, as a faculty representative to the "Just Fix Task Force," to make a report on what he has observed over the past. He was asked to join the Task Force as a faculty representative back in late December 1999, some time after the committee had actually started meeting. Shortly thereafter, the $4.5 Million which was referred to was authorized and it is that phase of the project that he has had the chance to observe. The Committee hasn't actually been overseeing the project. That is a separate issue. But, because he sits on the Committee, he has had an opportunity to hear what is going on and to serve as a sounding board as well as a source of suggestions and ideas about potential problems that might arise. He is speaking as a faculty member. Obviously, as most know, the university took the decision to purchase Power FAIDS in order to process financial aid for this academic year. Much of the last year was spent purchasing it, testing it, installing it, and linking it up to PeopleSoft which continues to run. In addition, Professor John Walsh of the Mathematics Department, was asked to serve as internal project manager for the larger projects of stabilizing the PeopleSoft system. This is the first time we have had such an internal project manager and that has been a very healthy development. It had a lot to do with some of the good things that have happened. We have hired a rather large number of consultants with the $4.5 Million allocation to do various tasks within the overall project. They included the folks in Financial Aid as well as a number of technical consultants who have worked on various aspects of the system. Most of the Financial Aid folks have been doing financial aid because of the number of vacancies in both management and the actual staffing areas there. We have had to rely on outsiders to perform a lot of this work for us. In the technical areas, the consultants were asked to do a variety of things including getting our student records in shape so that all these other systems could run. You cannot process financial aid unless the student records make sense, which they did not. So a great deal of effort was expended to make them accurate and reliable. A lot of these consultants were involved in the installation of Power FAIDS and making sure that they linked up well with the PeopleSoft system, making sure that funds could be dispersed from the financial aid package to the Bursar's Office, etc., and clearing up other system problems.

Professor Meiksins stated that the bottom line here is that as a result of all of this, we can safely say that the Fall went reasonably well. There was no repetition of the previous two years when we had all kinds of problems, long lines of angry students, and rather poor performance in these areas. As far as he can tell and as far as the task force was able to determine, the problems which existed were the sort of normal background problems that happen in any year, and that is good news. This was, however, achieved at great expense. $4.5 Million were allocated to this project. Not all of it has been expended but the expectation is that much of it will be, if not all. As you know, another $300,000 plus was allocated a few weeks ago to continue the Financial Aid consultants role on campus because we have been unable to hire permanent people in the management areas of Financial Aid. None of the numbers that we are talking about here include the various regular CSU personnel involved in IS&T and other areas who spent enormous amounts of time working specifically on PeopleSoft as opposed to other things they might be doing. This is a very expensive project and no one is pretending that it is otherwise.

Professor Meiksins reported that the good news is that we didn't have a mess this Fall. Things went pretty well. If there are any concerns, it is with respect to weaning ourselves of the consultants question which appeared in the previous presentation. We have succeeded in avoiding a repetition of previous problems, but whether we are going to be able to do so in the future without spending a lot of money remains an open question. He has asked on several occasions in the committee's meetings about our plan for reducing dependence on these consultants. The answers he received, although well meant, have not reassured him a great deal. He hears a lot about the difficulty of filling positions in Financial Aid. He believes that this is true, but that nevertheless means that we are going to have to continue at least for some time to rely on a rather expensive way of processing financial aid. Moreover, he still hasn't heard anybody say to him for sure that we would be able to go through the normal process of registration, processing financial aid, and various other things without making use of some of the technical consultants we've had on campus. This is not only for one-time purposes dealing with some special problems, but just for the routine business of making the systems work, updating them, and making things happen. We confront other sources of uncertainty as well. We need to make a decision whether to continue to use Power FAIDS. He has been told that we will continue to use it next year but that doesn't mean we will continue to use it forever. We have to, as a structural necessity, maintain the PeopleSoft version or portion of the Financial Aid system because the whole system won't work unless we do. Unfortunately, we are not comfortable relying on it at this point. We have chosen to use Power FAIDS but there is this ongoing question, "At what point might we chose to go back to the PeopleSoft version, or will we?" That is an unanswered question. Similarly, a new version of PeopleSoft will be released in mid 2001 which we are anticipating installing some time after that. The joker in the deck here, he has been told, is that this version of PeopleSoft works differently. He is not sure if he totally understands this. Those who are more computer savvy than he could perhaps explain that this version of PeopleSoft is allegedly web based which means that it functions somewhat differently than the one we use now and it is completely unclear how that will work, or whether that will work. Also, it is unclear what that will involve in training, maintenance, learning, etc. to try to get up to speed with it, nor is it clear how satisfactory it will be. The previous history of upgrades is not good so one hopes that it will be a little bit better in the future. Professor Meiksins stated that the perception at this point is that we have weathered the storm for this year, but this is an ongoing cloud hanging over us. He has no reason, as a member of the committee, to be able to assure everyone that these expenses are going to diminish significantly or that these problems are going to go away. As a Senate, we need to continue to be extremely vigilant and attentive to what is going on in this area because it is clearly an ongoing problem for us.

Professor Jeffres asked if the task force has monitored similar problems at Ohio State and some of the other much larger institutions. He hasn't heard the same stories in the media, but he has heard rumors that it is a bad situation. Dr. Meiksins replied that the committee has made a study of it. There has been reference to the experiences at these institutions in the meetings. A number of consultants who were working on the project had either been directly employed at those institutions, and that is one of the reasons that they are here, or at least have knowledge of it. In Minnesota they had a big mess with Financial Aid and were able to get out of it by using their own funds to pay financial aid.

Professor Mahmud asked if Professor Meiksins could address the fact that there appears to be a personnel hemorrhaging particularly in the Financial Aid sector. Quite a few people have turned over. He inquired if the committee was concerned about what impact this may be having on morale and functioning of the whole project and asked what is the latest headcount on any given date. Professor Meiksins responded that the committee hasn't talked about it in precisely those terms. Personally, he said that he has detected some tensions arising from the co-mingling of consulting and staff people on campus and that is an issue that he, as an observer, is concerned about. There has been at least some elliptical discussion of that within the task force. They haven't monitored headcount. There is a lot of concern and a repeated discussion almost every week about how we are going to replace the people in Financial Aid. The answers have been understandably, "I don't know." There are ongoing searches but they have been unsuccessful. The last search yielded no real candidates for any of the three managerial positions. So, we have to go through it again. He reported that he has been told, and he has no way of verifying this, that there are a very substantial number of institutions where the Financial Aid positions that we are trying to staff here are empty. We have made the problem more difficult by acquiring an extremely bad reputation in this area. The concern is very real. It helps when people are concerned but there is not much we can do about it unfortunately.

Professor Gross reported that PeopleSoft stock is up eighty percent from a year ago.

[Go to top of page]

XI. Questions and Update on Construction (Report No. 3, 2000-2001)

Mr. Bob Criminger reported on a number of projects. The College of Urban Affairs building is nearing completion and the construction phase of the project is due to be completed on September 30th. The month of October will be used to furnish the building, bring the systems up to speed, and the College of Urban Affairs will begin their move on November 2nd.

The Enrollment Services project, which is in the West wing of the Rhodes Tower second floor, will be completed on September 28th. Career Services, the Dean of Enrollment Services, and the Advising Center have already moved into the space. The Admissions Office will be moving in late next week.

Mr. Criminger reported on a handicap signage program that will improve the handicap signs across our bridge network from East 17th to East 24th Street. They worked very closely with the handicap office to try to make this a successful project. The project will start in October and will be completed in November.

A new dehumidification system was installed in the Physical Education building pool area to try to control the humidity in order to preserve the building and to conserve energy.

Installation of a new energy management system should be completed at the end of September. It replaces the old energy management system which controls 13,000 points across the campus for heating, cooling, and lights.

The campus is being re-keyed and new locks are being installed on each door. Most people have been contacted and the project is about eighty percent complete.

Two new chillers have been installed in the Rhodes Tower chiller plant this year which have added 2,000 tons of capacity for future and current chill water needs.

Twenty-three classrooms have been renovated in the Main Classroom building this year on the third floor in the plaza level. This project was a little bit over $2 Million. Work on the project was done from 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. in the morning to accommodate the building being used in the daytime. It was a very successful project and many compliments have been received from the faculty that teach in that area. One complaint was received and that has been addressed.

Mr. Criminger reported that the Main Classroom parking garage was rebuilt. Structural concrete was torn out and replaced and the first floor of that parking garage opened on September 15th. The bottom part of that deck will open on September 30th.

The Science building steps have been renovated and made safer and more attractive. The steps in front of Rhodes Tower that go down to the parking level will be dressed up and made more attractive. This was done because of the deteriorated condition of those steps and the eyesore that they were.

The cooling tower on top of Rhodes Tower is being rebuilt. That is where the heat rejection for the cooling system of the campus is done. The tower was installed in 1968 and this is its first renovation.

The elevator in the Main Classroom building is being rebuilt; it was the original freight elevator.

Finally, Mr. Criminger reported that the southern half of the third floor in University Center, where the Dean of Enrollment Services moved out of, is being renovated for Connie Hollinger's office area and the International Program will be moving in there in January 2001.

Professor David Larson inquired how soon there will be stairs so one can go directly from the ground level to the plaza level at Rhodes Tower as opposed to having to go across the street. Mr. Criminger responded that it can be done today and on Tuesday of this week. Signs were put up to direct people to UC. Some people saw the signs and some people did not see the signs, but you could access that from the handicap position by going into UC. Dr. Larson asked how long it will be until we can actually walk up the stairs or go up the elevator without going to UC. Mr. Criminger replied that the elevator can be used today. The stairs will be available at the end of October.

Dr. William Bowen reported that the locker room in the Physical Education building is a very effective way to communicate the message that CSU is a slum to tens of thousands of regional high school students each year. He noted that for two years, he has heard promises that it will be renovated soon. Most recently he heard that it would be renovated this summer. He was down there the other day and did not see any indication of anything getting done yet. He asked when will this be done. Mr. Criminger replied that anytime people have questions like that, he would appreciate receiving a phone call so he can provide an answer. That project is funded and will be executed in the summer of 2001. It was not funded until this year. It was appropriated with the funding in the state capital program that was approved by the legislature this year. The funds will be available to us after October 1st this year. Professor Bowen asked if the project will begin next summer. Mr. Criminger responded that they will begin the design this fall, it will be bid next spring, and executed next summer.

Professor Gross inquired if Mr. Criminger could say a sentence or two on climate control on the weekends and more specifically in buildings where classes are held on Saturdays and whether at that time offices could also be cooled or heated to the proper temperature. Mr. Criminger replied that the energy management system has been replaced across the campus. In doing that, some discomfort was caused to people on different days, and he apologized for that, but it was necessary to get the job done. There were a significant amount of problems in converting from one system to another system. The heating and cooling systems in all of the buildings are run for all classroom schedules on the campus. He gets the scheduling information from the Registrar's Office. If programs are being scheduled outside of the Registrar's Office, or the Conference schedule, you need to get on one of those so we know what you are doing. We reference those things every week and schedules are adjusted to accommodate that. Our buildings are set up with air handling systems that are configured in many different ways. If your office area is in a portion of the building that we are running the climate control to support a classroom, you will have cooling. If your office area is in a part of the building that is not on the same system we are accommodating other things for, you will not get cooling on Saturday or Sunday.

Professor Thomas Buckley noted that Mr. Criminger had mentioned many projects and asked if they are all funded from capital funds or did some of them come out of the $137 Million. Mr. Criminger responded that there are no capital projects funded from the $137 Million. Professor Buckley asked if all of the projects Mr. Criminger had mentioned are coming out of capital money or is there a mixture. Mr. Criminger replied that 99% of

all of the projects that he had mentioned are funded from capital money. He did not mention the carpeting in the Library project. Carpet is being replaced on the first, second and third floors and $450,000 of that project was funded from local funds -- $300,000 from capital funds. We have a couple of projects -- the Main Classroom elevator rebuild is funded from local funds and that is $130,000. But, 99% of all of the money that he spends is from State appropriations. He went on to say that State appropriated capital money is bond debt that the State sells to finance capital permanent improvements. Some people ask, "why don't we divert money from this source to that source", and that is why the bond laws require us to spend that for those purposes.

Professor Edward Thomas asked if Mr. Criminger could tell the Senate about de-construction projects regarding buildings that are being abandoned by the moves that are being made. Mr. Criminger reported that there is a plan to demolish a number of buildings. Discussions are being held with a number of committees within the City about when and how we will demolish those buildings. The plan is to demolish the Corlett building, the Kinko building, the Euclid building, and the Bookstore when we move the Bookstore. We are currently in conversations with the Landmark Commission, the Historical Society, and the City of Cleveland over their concerns about the historical value and the nature of these buildings. We will be having an upcoming meeting with the Landmark Commission to discuss this further. The university decision is that those buildings will be demolished.

[Go to top of page]

XII. Status of Negotiations with WVIZ (Report No. 4, 2000-2001)

Dr. Lorilee Sandmann, Vice Provost, stated that she appreciated the opportunity to update and brief the Senate on the partnership between WVIZ, WCPN, and CSU called the Applied Digital Technology Center. "What is the Applied Digital Technology Center?" This is a facility conceptualized as a state of the art regional digital communication broadcast education and community center. The purpose is to harness the power of new digital technology for education and public service. The project has been in discussion for over four years but the concepts are becoming much more concrete. Part of the impetus on the part of WVIZ in initiating this is the FCC's mandate for broadcast stations, including our own, to convert to begin digital operations by 2003. The proposed Applied Digital Technology Center will be roughly an 87,000 square foot building currently proposed to be on the North side of Euclid Avenue between East 18th and East 21st Streets on the property owned by CSU; a portion of the site is currently occupied by the Corlett building. CSU would provide a long-term land lease to WVIZ. WVIZ/PBS would own the building and fund its construction, its equipment, its operations, and its maintenance. No architectural plans have been commissioned, but a site study was conducted by The Austin Company and Morse Diesel last fall to help define the scope of this project. Based on preliminary needs of the partners and relative funding available, the facility will include: digital studios and offices for public broadcasting; digital distance learning classrooms for continuing professional education especially for K-12 teachers and health care professionals; a training center for K-12 teachers in the use of digital learning technologies; access to technology training for small business and low income families; applied digital technology labs for our students and faculty to evaluate the effectiveness of digital instructional methods in media. It is conceptual at this stage. As time goes on, we would expect these plans to become more specific and concrete.

What are the benefits of such a partnership and such a facility for our CSU Community? Dr. Sandmann stated that part of it is support for our academic programs and projects. It will give us access to space and equipment for production, broadcast, and distance learning. It is projected that there will be dedicated space for CSU and some dedicated air time and all of this will need to be discussed in the negotiations. We will have access to production and broadcast expertise. There will be new technology application and research labs for our students and faculty on campus and at a distance. There will be teaching and learning opportunities both for our faculty and for WVIZ/WCPN's staff so that we can have faculty exchange in our programs. In addition, there will be possibilities for assistantships and internships for our students. Such a partnership will help us to leverage grant dollars to support our programs and equipment needs. Some evidence of that is the Ohio Board of Regents - Ohio Learning Network grants that we received this past year -- in which WVIZ is currently a partner. Such a facility will also provide a high profile partnership for WVIZ, WCPN, and CSU as a regional, digital, communication hub proximal to the technology on Euclid Avenue and the perspective college town project. It will also be a resource to us as well as to the community and an evening site for small business and community needs that will address the digital divide.

"How will this be financed?" Dr. Sandmann reported that CSU is assisting and supporting the project in a number of ways. We will provide the land on a long-term lease basis and serve as the State agency to which State dollars flow. We are paid an administrative fee of 1.5% of the State funds for doing so. No funding for the facility will come from CSU capital allocations now or in the foreseeable future. An undecided issue at present is what is going to happen with the Corlett building. CSU does have a dedicated $500,000 from capital funds for its tear-down, so that may be an investment. It is not our intention to have any CSU capital money as a part of this project because CSU's capital allocations are already targeted for major projects such as our new College of Education and continuing major renovations for Main Classroom and Science Research. The proposed facility, based on The Austin Company and Morse Diesel conception is about $17 Million. It is projected to cost another $10 Million to equip the facility. WVIZ was awarded $1 Million by the State of Ohio's Capital Appropriations Community Project. Blakely, John, Pierce, and Jones conducted a capital campaign assessment study to define WVIZ/WCPN's potential in a community capital campaign. Based on that review, the WVIZ board leadership is in place to begin to raise $10 Million in private funds from the community. They have also applied for several grant programs for equipment and some of those resources have already been received. There is a gap, however, of $7 Million between what they expect to raise, the $1 Million they have received, and the construction costs for this Center. Currently, we are committed to actively collaborate and support WVIZ in seeking this from the State of Ohio in a State Capital appropriation or going back two years from now in the Community Capital Needs venue. CSU, as required by the State of Ohio's revised code, must receive value or benefit equal to the land and any improvements and any pass-through monies. An assessment of the land is being done. The figure of $1.5 Million is being used just for planning purposes and there is also the value of the $1 Million capital pass-through. Therefore, we need to insure that CSU receives value of $1.5 Million over the length of the lease and the $1 Million pass-through, through joint use agreements. There will be an annual trade for services at least equal to the amortized value of the lease and joint use agreement(s).

What kinds of things are we thinking about for that annual trade for services? Dr. Sandmann reported that several groups have been involved in the discussions here at Cleveland State. One group was a Digital Technology Advisory Committee which was a broad-based group from across campus charged with creating a better understanding about digital technology and its implications for CSU of which the study of the WVIZ partnership was only a part. This group met sporadically over the past year. The agenda was too ambitious since people wanted to focus on the WVIZ partnership. A Joint Use Agreement drafting team, which is a subgroup of the Digital Technology Advisory Committee, is currently in place. They are beginning to address the programming partnership. They are charged with drafting the conditions of the joint use agreement. This is the group that is suggesting what would be of greatest value to CSU's academic programs in return for the land lease and the pass-through monies. Members of this group are Tom Frew, represented by Dick Hurwitz from the College of Education, Sue Hill, Chair of the Department of Communication, Stuart Mendel, Assistant Dean, College of Urban Affairs, Andy Miracle, Chair of Health Sciences, Bob Criminger, Executive Director, Facilities Management Services, and Rick Pitchford from Communication who is serving as a technical advisor. They are tallying the written input that was solicited from the Colleges and translating that into specific support for our academic programs. Preliminary requests include Applied Digital Technology Center, housed media classroom for digital media presentation, and research. There would be a dedicated classroom for our students and faculty in this facility; air time for CSU produced student and faculty programs; contract expertise that could help us with our own productions, (for example; our Urban College's Community Civic Forums); a Center for Public Broadcast, Research, and Policy; paid internships and sponsorships of graduate assistantships. There will be a request to initiate a ten-year campaign to endow a chair in Public Broadcasting, Research, and Policy. They are also beginning to address the governance or accountability of joint-use agreements. In addition to that group, a lease-drafting team is looking at addressing basic business terms. This group consists of: Jack Boyle, Bob Criminger, and Nancy Cribbs. They are working on terms of the lease, construction, renovation, services, utilities, insurance, etc. The work of the Joint Use Drafting Team plus the Lease Drafting Team will come together into one package that will eventually be approved by the Board of Trustees of Cleveland State as well as WVIZ/WCPN.

Dr. Sandmann reported that it has been her opportunity to serve as the point person, contact, and coordinator for this effort. But, know that the President, the Provost, and many of you have been involved and informed at every step of the way.

Dr. Sandmann noted that the question probably everyone really wanted answered is, "Where are we in this process?" Dr. Sandmann reported that no agreements have been made. Actually, no formal negotiation has taken place. At this point, we have begun to put the issues on the table. In order to facilitate the securing of funds for construction of the Center, in a community fund-raising effort as well as the State of Ohio, and provide WVIZ a basis for incurring costs and expenses in pursuing the project, WVIZ has requested an option to lease the site, exercisable over a period of three years. During this time, the parties will continue to cooperate and then negotiate in good faith and satisfactorily finish or finalize a lease as well as a joint use agreement. Ms. Nancy Cribbs is actually seeing if that is possible and that is the current way in which we will proceed.

Dr. Sandmann commented that yesterday, somebody stopped her after the Convocation noting the merits of this partnership and what it could do for our students, faculty, and programs, but he said, "Don't touch my parking." She has heard this sentiment before. So, she is sure that the final question is, "What about parking?" She again noted that no agreements have been made. Neither the President nor she nor anyone else have agreed to any parking arrangements in conjunction with this project. WVIZ/WCPN has staff, visitors, and guests as well equipment parking needs that will need to be addressed in this process. We are committed in figuring out how to provide new parking over and above our current inventory.

Professor Jeffres commented that he presumed the joint use agreement would be negotiated before anything else is signed; in other words, be sure what we get out of it is there before we sign something. Dr. Sandmann agreed with Professor Jeffres. We need to have value for what we are contributing. The two come together. The joint use agreement is the basis that we use when we think about the services in return for the land lease.

Professor Larson commented that he is probably the only person in the room that cares about this, but when the Music/Communication building was built, the Corlett building was supposed to be torn down and replaced with some green space. Now it is being proposed to take up much of it with a much larger building then Corlett. He asked if there is some good reason that the proposed Center has to be put in that location. That is a dreadful place. Dr. Sandmann reported that other properties have been investigated around campus. None of them seem to be suitable and some of them would actually take away more parking. We are working toward positioning the building further back so that there is a green corridor coming through at the front of the other buildings and continuing through. Mr. Criminger added that the position has been taken that it has to be an architectural feature of the campus. Strong recommendations have been made that it should be moved back adjacent to the Waetjen Auditorium. We believe that the building can be placed there and it will be a feature for the campus. It will be an addition, not a subtraction.

Professor Mastboom wondered if that is a condition or is this a recommendation. Mr. Criminger responded that right now, that is a recommendation for discussion. Dr. Sandmann noted that part of the conditions will be that we will review the plans. Mr. Criminger confirmed Dr. Sandmann's statement. Continuing, Dr. Sandmann noted that CSU will have input on the placement of the building.

Dr. Rodger Govea inquired if there are other plans for having some of the relevant academic committees involved in this. The question of parking will eventually come up and there is a University Parking Committee. Dr. Govea asked if there are plans for submission of whatever agreements there are to the appropriate governing bodies for consideration. Dr. Sandmann replied that we would certainly want input as we look at options for parking so that is an excellent suggestion. Mr. Boyle commented that he endorsed Dr. Govea's idea for consultation by the University Parking Committee.

[Go to top of page]

XIII. Report from the Provost Search Committee (Report No. 5, 2000-2001)

Dr. Njeri Nuru-Holm mentioned the members of the Provost Search Committee: Lily Ng, Helen Tien, Glending Olson, David Forte, Jane Zaharias, Rosemary Ramsey, Norman Krumholz, Steven Lake, the student member, and herself. During the latter part of spring, several open sessions were held and there was a site visit from the consultant, Charles Bunting of AT Kearney & Associates. Based on the feed-back, comments, and recommendations, the Committee did develop a position description that was approved by the President. It has been advertized twice in the Chronicle of Higher Education, in Black Issues in Higher Education, in The Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education, and in Women in Higher Education. In addition, the President is sending out letters, probably at the beginning of next week, to targeted networks including NASUGLC, the Urban 21, The American Council on Higher Education, The American Association of Higher Education, the ACE Program for Women, and the Office of Minorities in Higher Education.

Dr. Nuru-Holm reported that the consultant is working on bringing in nominations and applicants. To date, we have nineteen full applications and, thirteen nominations. Dr. Nuru-Holm noted that no responses have been received to last Friday's ad. It is anticipated that responses will be coming in shortly. For those of you who have seen the ad, we did not put in an application date, but it was indicated that we would begin reviewing applications the first of October. A search committee meeting is scheduled for the 6th of October at which time we will be making some decisions on who to invite or "airport interviews." We anticipate doing this around the 20th of October. We are targeting to actually have campus interviews the week before Thanksgiving. We know we will need approximately one month to really do some deep reference checking and anticipate that, if we have a strong group, we will be bringing individuals to campus right before Thanksgiving. If we are successful in attracting the types of candidates that would certainly be a good fit for the challenges we have at this university at this time, it is hoped that we would be able to make recommendations of acceptable candidates and forward those to the President early in December. If it is not a strong group, then we certainly are committed to continuing and not disappointing the faculty. We are very well aware of what we do have at stake at this university and the type of leadership we do need. Dr. Nuru thanked those who did give the committee feedback. A lot of feedback has been received. The committee really appreciates that feedback and are heeding all of the advice that has been received.

Dr. Nuru-Holm noted that beyond what appeared in the Chronicle, there is a seven page institutional description that provides much more in depth information related to the parameters of the position. There will be a web site up to keep everyone informed. She is working with Lida Allen on that now. All applicants as well as the nominees are receiving that full description so that they have a much broader picture beyond what has actually appeared in print.

[Go to top of page]

XIV. University President's Report

President Claire Van Ummersen reported that she would talk about three things: enrollment, financial aid, and a little bit about the Regents budget. The enrollment as of September 13, 2000 -- and we are tracking this against last year, same day -- is running about .86% below last year's credit hour totals. This appears to be mostly in Arts and Sciences, the College of Law, and strangely, in the College of Education. However, these numbers don't include the off-campus registrations yet especially in Education and Business nor do they include the variably scheduled courses. In addition, they do not take into account any cancellations that are going to come next for non-payment of bills. Unless a student either has financial aid coming, or has made arrangements to pay for their credit hours, they will be cancelled from their courses. We still have a bit to go in terms of looking at our enrollments for Fall and will try to keep tracking them and keep people apprised of what is happening. We are a little bit off target at this point and need to be aware that this is an issue. Interestingly though, if you look at the headcount versus the credit hours, we seem to have students registering for more credits than they have in the past and that may be a good sign that they are beginning to get the switch from quarters to semesters and understand that they can handle more than they used to handle on the quarter system. So, if that trend continues, that is a positive trend that we are seeing in the data collected to date.

On the financial aid side, President Van Ummersen reported that, as Professor Meiksins has already indicated, we did have a rather orderly Fall. So far, 8,076 students have applied for aid; 706 of these were Law students; 7,370 were either graduate or undergraduate students. They have made 5,569 awards already. We have about 1,400 that are incomplete because the students still have not provided documents that are needed in order to process the aid. We have 59 on hold for various complexities in their aid process. There are 348 that are ready to award but we need verification from the students. We have to do a random sample of students and have them verified in terms of eligibility for financial aid. That requires that they bring in their tax forms and a number of other documents. We are not allowed to award the aid until that is available. As of September 13, 2000, we have actually awarded and dispersed $12.6 Million in aid to students. We are doing a very good job this year of getting the aid dispersed as soon as it is awarded and available in the Financial Aid office. The information is transferred to the Bursar's Office to the student's accounts and the checks are then cut. The Bursar's office has been cutting checks at least two to three times per week so that the students are getting their aid almost as quickly as it arrives at the campus.

President Van Ummersen reported that the Regents' Request Budget will be going to the Board of Regents for approval next week. Then it will be filed with the Governor's office by the end of the month. That budget has a number of components. She singled out a few of them. First, the requests that the Regents' are making in the instructional subsidy is about a five percent increase -- roughly four percent of it will be available for instructional subsidy inflation costs of one kind and another and for certain adjustments that they make every biennium. The other one percent will be available for enrollment growth. Much of that growth is taking place in the community colleges and on the two-year campuses, but it will be available for all campuses that are growing in their enrollments. In the Challenge Line items this year, the Access Budget is going to grow considerably. The Regents are requesting an increase of $130 Million in the Challenge. The Success Challenge, however, which is one of the Challenges that we have the opportunity to benefit from, will grow only by inflation. The request there is for about three or four percent in new money and some of that is to allow for some of the adjustments that have been made in enrollment numbers across the campuses. The Research Challenge money will double. It is about $23 Million now. In the next biennium it will go to about $44 Million and then it will increase by one half again so that it will be around $63 Million in the second year of the biennium. We do have access to that as a result of the grants that we bring in, particularly, from the Federal Government. The Jobs Challenge, that is money for the two-year colleges only, will have a major increase.

President Van Ummersen noted that Mr. Jack Boyle had mentioned the special dollars that are going to be requested for technology. She reported that the Board of Regents is going to request $50 Million and it will be allocated to campuses. Our allocation, if the $50 Million is appropriated by the legislature, would be about $1.6 Million per year. The intent is to make that a part of the regular operating budget of campuses. We will be able to use that money to provide, as Jack mentioned, upgrades in computers for faculty and students, to deal with software, and also for additional support. That support might be in the form of individuals who either staff labs or provide help-desk support for faculty and staff. Another very large item the Regents are going to request is called, at this moment, The Ohio Plan. This is a plan to provide for research dollars for universities in the State at the rate of $150 Million each year of the biennium. Requests for the use of those dollars or the awarding of those dollars will be made according to a set of criteria. The intention at this point is that all university campuses will have the opportunity to bid on those dollars. They are looking for cooperative, collaborative, research projects and three areas have been singled out: nano-technology, bio-technology, and information technology. There has been some discussion about adding advanced materials to the grouping, but that is something that is still very much under discussion and they may fold it in under the nano-technology component.

Lastly, President Van Ummersen reported that there is also a group they are calling K-16 funding. This is a set of projects that have been agreed to by the Joint Council formed from the Board of Regents and the Department of Education that has been working on all aspects of teacher education and K-12 issues and the relationship with higher education. Included in this group are urban initiatives dollars for teacher professional development. These kinds of things will also be requested as a part of the Regents' budget. This grouping has also had the support of Susan Zelman and the Department of Education. It is unclear whether the dollars will end up in a special pot or whether they will be incorporated within the Regents' budget itself. In all of these items, except the first four she mentioned -- the Access, Success, Research, and Jobs Challenges, where all of the criteria have already been worked out -- there are no criteria yet developed for the other pots of money that may be available. These are going to be developed over the next several months by task groups that will be put together by the Board of Regents, and, at that point, sometime in the Spring when it is clear as to whether or not the dollars will actually materialize, there will be criteria and we will be able to start looking at how we can, as a campus, access those dollars. It is going to be very important that faculty get involved teaming together to get the grants written that will have to be written in order for us to access these dollars. She noted that Jack Boyle had indicated how important some of them will be to us as we go into next year. This will be the way that we can do some new things on this campus.

Dr. Van Ummersen commented that there is one other thing that may affect us, but she doesn't have enough information about it yet to tell the Senate whether it will affect us in a good way or a bad way. There has been a lot of discussion about graduate education, specifically, at the master's level. At this point, the business programs at the master's level and the education programs at the master's level are being looked at separately with an idea about funding them in a different way. She doesn't know whether funding them in a different way will result in a little more money for us or a little less money for us. The Graduate Funding Commission has been looking at ways to deal with some of the issues in graduate education that look at professional programs and the fact that these will not be capped; in other words, enrollment will be allowed to grow in all of those programs. In that way, the question then became, how would they be funded and how are they different from master's programs that then lead to doctoral programs? So, the idea was to split those out and look at them separately. There still is no determination about what the funding for those credit hours will look like in the future. She will try to keep everyone posted on that.

Professor Flechtner indicated that he heard a rumor that President Van Ummersen is one of the volunteers available to take attendance. President Van Ummersen responded that she would be happy to do that. She commented that the point Tom is making about attendance, is that there is a new federal requirement. In order for students to keep their financial aid, they have to complete 60% of the course they are taking. We have to assure the federal government that those students have completed 60% of the course or they haven't. If they have completed 60%, it is not an issue. If they haven't, we have to first determine that in fact they haven't and then notify the federal government that they haven't. They are then not entitled to keep the aid for the semester if, in fact, they haven't completed 60%. This is a place for creativity because maybe there is another way to do this other than to take attendance but we need to have a way of knowing sometime around November 1st for us, because we will have completed 60% of our course at that point. How many of our students are in class? The only thing she could think of was to count the noses at that point. But, if there are other ways, we are certainly open to suggestions. She indicated that she has volunteered and she will be willing to stand outside of class and take attendance particularly in large classes where this could be an issue. She understands that enough elves will have to be found across the campus to be available to take attendance.

Professor Mastboom indicated that she had questions concerning budget matters. We have been told that part of the $3.7 Million deficit from last year was zeroed out by using carry-overs, etc. using faculty lines for this year. Of course we wouldn't be hiring faculty until next September. We need to find the allocations. "When are we going to know whether the lines will come back since hiring cycles usually start at about this time? What budget planning will kick in so that we are told at some point where these lines will be allocated?" President Van Ummersen responded that they are starting to look at those items now and are getting ready to gear up the Planning and Budget Committee to work with them on some of these. As we try to look at next year, we are looking at a number of issues. On the part-time side, as Jack reported, one of the things we found was that we were funding the faculty who have retired and come back to teach on a part-time basis. We have been funding that out of the part-time line and then returning the entire line to either the department from which it came or another department. We can't continue to do that because that is one of the things that made us overspend our part-time budget. If a line goes back now, it will go back at two-thirds at least until that faculty member completes the part-time teaching. We are trying to look at staffing patterns and the Deans and the Provost will begin working on those, not only at completing this year, but also staffing for next year.

Professor Mastboom noted that for faculty, what we are talking about is for next year. President Van Ummersen stated that she hears Professor Mastboom and the administration will try to get what needs to be done, done. They know some of the greatest needs in the Colleges. She doesn't know today, for example, exactly how many faculty lines have been retired or, because of someone's passing, are available. Those dollars, as Jack said, are currently swept. We are going to have to look at where we are going to release the $2 Million he talked about, not only for this year, but also for next year.

Professor Mahmud had a general question. Maybe at another time we will have to think about it in more detail. Given that this budget drought may continue for awhile, one area that something can be done about is initiatives by different units and some units are in a better position to do that then others. However, in the past, the problem has been that for all of those initiatives, one needs some seed investment by the University and some incentive to succeed. It has been rather difficult on both ends and the proposition should be that we should look at that. President Van Ummersen replied that the Provost and the Deans have already begun to do that. She asked Provost McLoughlin to respond to Professor Mahmud's question about providing some incentive for new initiatives.

Provost McLoughlin commented that this is a favorite topic with the Deans. The real complexity of the situation is to figure out how much it takes to run the University and how to factor in covering people when they are spiraling and have down sides. Certain parts of the University are helping other parts of the University during certain periods. If we had a sure way of identifying those units that had opportunities for brand new enrollment, and we could cover the cost beyond the current budget, then we have a scenario where you start talking freely of a portion of the tuition and expenses. They are looking at a couple of models like that. Right now, everything comes in to the general fund so it is very hard to say that the Distance Learning program from Education or Engineering is bringing in a certain amount of money. Professor Mahmud stated that now that we have the second version of PeopleSoft we should use.... Provost McLoughlin responded, "absolutely." If ragging is the appropriate word, the Deans do it regularly. He is very interested and so is Jack when he talks about blocks -- that is part of his block system -- some kind of incentive to do more in enrollment, particularly in off-campus and distance learning where our competition is very fierce.

[Go to top of page]

XV. Passing of the Gavel

At this point, Dr. Donna Burns Phillips asked Dr. William M. Bowen, the newly elected Senate President, to come to the podium. Dr. Phillips then passed the gavel to Dr. Bowen.

Dr. Bowen accepted the gavel. He then stated: "The decision processes at Cleveland State University are often far too political in nature. Political decisions are necessary because there are deficiencies in the university's decision structure and processes.

I have heard the deficiencies attributed to several putative causes. The first is a form of narrowness, in that the structure is not receptive to an adequate range of facts. The second is that it is unable to break away from known formulas in its estimates of problems or its suggestions for action. The third is that it is insufficiently self-critical to admit error. The fourth is that its procedures are excessively rigid, thus shutting out novelty.

While I do not know whether or to what extent any of these putative causes are to blame, this much I do know. Cleveland State University has very little of lasting importance to contribute to society unless somehow the spirit of learning is kept alive and allowed to thrive in abundance throughout the organization. Accordingly, I think we first have to recognize that even the most intelligent and experienced amongst us have an imperfect understanding of our constantly changing world. In turn, this recognition seems to imply that appropriate approach to decision-making is through open-minded discussion and reasoned debate in emphatically experimental rather than political decision processes. Much as scientists learn from the events they do not anticipate, so in such decision processes unanticipated events are viewed as opportunities to learn rather than failures to predict. In my view, only when such an approach predominates will it be possible for CSU to become known as an organization in which learning is alive in abundance.

To earn a reputation as such an organization, I think we first need to remedy the deficiencies in the university's decision structure and processes. I take getting elected to mean that many of you agree with me on this. Please help me to lead the university in that direction."

XVI. New Business

There being no new business, the meeting adjourned at 5:25 P.M.

 

Vijaya K. Konangi

Senate Secretary pro tem

/velb

[Go to top of page]