PRESENT: Aquila, Barbato, J. Bazyk, A. Benander, W. Bowen, Boyle, Buckley, Chung, Dieterich, Dillard-Mitchell, Doerder, Dunegan, Falk, Flechtner, Flynn, Frew, Govea, B. Green, Gross, Hemann, Hollinger, Jeffres, Kellogg, Konangi, Larson, Mahmud, Mastboom, Matthews, McCahon, McLoughlin, Meiksins, Misra, Neuendorf, Nolan, Quigney, Rahm, Ramsey, Reinhart, Schwartz, Shah, M. Smith, Sparks, Steckol, Steinglass, Tewari, Tumeo, Valencic, Van Ummersen, Wadhwa, J. Webb, Wheatley, Whyte, J. Wilson.
ABSENT/EXCUSED: Dural, Forte, Gorla, Hartnagel, Keating, Konstantinos, Miracle, Nuru-Holm, Orendi, Sanders, Spicer, Thornton.
ALSO PRESENT: Brennan.
Senate President William Bowen called the meeting to order at approximately 3:05 P.M.
I. Approval of the Agenda
Acceptance of the Agenda for October 11, 2000 was moved, seconded, and approved.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the September 13, 2000 Meeting
Acceptance of the Minutes of the September 13, 2000 meeting was moved and seconded. Two corrections were noted on page 28. The corrected Minutes were then approved.
III.University Faculty Affairs Committee (Report No. 6, 2000-2001)
Dr. Edward Brennan, Chair of the University Faculty Affairs Committee, presented the Committee's recommended Bylaws change. He noted that it is not substantial, but a modification in wording. The rationale is simple. The wording of the Bylaws should reflect intentions. The wording change obviously intends experience in competence in selecting members for President, Vice President, or Secretary of Faculty Senate. The UFAC feels that a little expansion of the description of qualifications would enable qualified members to be elected. The UFAC recommends adding wording in 8.2.2 Article II, F) 4) that would read as follows: "Elected members of the Faculty Senate who have served as a chair of a standing Faculty Senate Committee or as an elected member of the Faculty Senate for at least one year..." That would enable qualified members who may not have served a full year on the Senate to be elected to an officer position. The Committee's recommendation was moved, seconded, and approved by the Faculty Senate.
IV. Senate Nominating Committee
Dr. Cheryl McCahon, Chair of the Senate Nominating Committee, announced that the Committee has nominated Professor Arthur Schwartz (College of Arts and Sciences) as a candidate for the position of Secretary of the Faculty Senate. Professor Arthur Schwartz was elected as the new Senate Secretary for a two-year term.
V. Election of Faculty Representative to the University Faculty Affairs Committee
Professor Surendra Tewari (Chemical Engineering) was elected by acclamation to a one-year term on the University Faculty Affairs Committee, replacing Paul Doerder who is not eligible to continue on the Committee because he is a member of the University Peer Review Committee.
President Claire Van Ummersen distributed a copy of the Summary of the Regents Budget that has now been submitted to the Governor's office and will be under review by the Office of Budget and Management for the next several months. She noted that so far, we only have the totals. We were notified yesterday that the models by institution will be forthcoming in the near future. The request for the first year of the biennium is a 16% increase; the second year of the biennium is an 8% increase. The subsidy, if this request were to be honored in full, would constitute only 83% of State dollars. The other 17% would be in the Challenges. The President said that she distributed the summary so that everyone could begin to see just how much of the new dollars are going into the Challenge items and infrastructure investments which are dollars that are held by the Board of Regents for a number of items that are system-wide.
President Van Ummersen reported that the administration has also begun preparations to look at how we are going to support the budget requests both for 2002 and 2003. The Chancellor has indicated that the Graduate Funding Commission will continue to meet and to review the funding models for the Graduate Masters level in Business and in Education because that was an unfinished piece of business. Even though this new budget takes that into account, we still haven't seen the models to get a feel for what the effect is going to be on individual institutions. The Chancellor has also indicated that the full Funding Commission will be called back into session to meet to set priorities among the Challenges and to identify criteria for assessing access to these Challenge funds.
President Van Ummersen reported that the IUC Presidents met yesterday. At this point, they are contemplating hiring a public relations firm that will assist with both the strategy and the key messages that all of us can use in our discussions with our own legislative people and certainly with the Governor's Office. It is not just some of the smaller universities that are having difficulty with this shift from Subsidy to Challenge. Even institutions the size of Cincinnati and Ohio State are having the same difficulties. It really isn't an issue of restricted dollars in the Challenges versus unrestricted dollars in the Subsidy. We will have the distinction, if this budget goes through, of being first in the nation in terms of the amount of state dollars that are in Challenge items rather than in general Subsidy -- whether it is calculated by formula or some other means. The Presidents took the position that if the budget request is not fully funded, the first priority within the budget has got to be the Subsidy dollars. That is probably going to get us in trouble with the Chancellor. He believes that the first priority ought to be the Ohio Plan which he is asking for and calling break-through funds to put $150 million in each year of the biennium into research in bio-technology, nano-technology, and information technology. Those are the three areas that have been delineated in the budget. While everybody would like to have dollars that are available (if they are available) there is a deep concern that we need those dollars in order to run our campuses.
The President pointed out one other item under institutional support called Collegenet. This is a $50 million item in each year of the biennium that is for technology that would be distributed to the campuses by formula. You also get a feel for how much of this money is going to other kinds of institutions -- the amount that goes in medicine, the amount that goes in scholarships, etc. You can get a sense of what the whole budget looks like and not just the piece that pertains to public higher education.
President Van Ummersen commented on the study teams that are working in three areas of importance to the campus. These study teams are really "think tanks" that are advisory to the President. We have one in Enrollment Strategy. That particular study team is going to be taking an in-depth look and recommend strategies and actions to increase both the number of students enrolled at Cleveland State and the number of credits that are taken by these students. Three sub-groups on that team are looking at market strategies, retention strategies, and management strategies. The second team is in Revenues and Resources. This team is charged with recommending not only some strategic actions to increase our revenue base but also to explore and recommend possible new budget models for allocating resources. Again, we have three sub-groups: one looking at resource projections, one looking at opportunities and strategies for increasing revenue, and a third group looking at possible budget models. The third group -- Connections with Cleveland and Northeast Ohio -- is going to try to recommend some strategies and actions to continue to position Cleveland State to connect effectively to our region in ways that support our academic programs, provide research opportunities for faculty, and graduate students and professional service. The three sub-groups are looking at opportunities, implementation strategies, and long-term funding strategies for a number of these partnerships.
President Van Ummersen reported that it is expected that these teams will be reporting in the early part of December. That should allow time for those recommendations that would pertain to discussions around the budget to feed into the Planning and Budget Advisory Committee. It may be that some of these recommendations will need to go to College governance bodies or to the Faculty Senate, some of them to the Provost and Deans, and some may go to other departments like Student Life, Enrollment Services, University Studies, and other places within the University. The idea is to use these study teams as data-gathering instruments that begin to look in depth at some of these areas and then to move those ideas into the larger University in ways that are appropriate depending on what the recommendation might be.
President Van Ummersen mentioned some of the good things that faculty have been doing at the University. Two of our faculty have been awarded grants by the Ohio Board of Regents for the Eisenhower Science and Math Program -- Ronald Abate in Education, $63,000 for Project Team; and Ruth Bombaugh in Education, $35,700 for Citizen Scientists with a Satellite Connection. We have also been successful with the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities and one of the two Earnest Litton Research Grants for $10,000 have been awarded to Sarah Matthews in Sociology who is looking at an Urban University through Student's Eyes. As you have seen in On Campus, we have two Fulbright's again -- Cathy Curnow in Art -- this is her third Fulbright, and Bob Wei in Chemistry.
President Van Ummersen gave special thanks and congratulations to the Humanities Consortium for the spectacular launch of the Cultural Crossings Lecture series. The inaugural lecture was not only an elegant lecture but there was a splendid turnout of campus and community people. The next lecture in the series is tomorrow at 5:00 P.M. in Waetjen Auditorium. Professor Patricia Williams will be speaking on Justice and the Humanities: The Emperor's New Clothes. She recommended the series to everyone. It is an excellent series and the people who have worked so hard to make this happen deserve our thanks and recognition for the amount of work that it took not only to put the series together but also to assist in raising the funds that made it possible for all of us to bring this series to the campus.
Professor Thomas Flechtner asked President Van Ummersen if she remembered the year that the Academic Challenge disappeared. President Van Ummersen responded that it was very early in her tenure at CSU, so it may possibly have been 1993 or 1994. She could not remember if it was as soon as she came to campus or if we were in the final year of it that year. But it has never resurfaced. The Eminent Scholars program is back. They are not being proposed in 2002 but they are being proposed in 2003. The problem is, there is a matching component to it. As we do our capital campaign, that may serve as an incentive to get one half of the amount that we would need for a chair.
Professor Tayyab Mahmud noted that there was a memorandum dated October 2nd by John Boyle addressed to President Van Ummersen and the Board of Trustees making recommendations for the budget. Many of us are curious whether this memo was a surprise to the President. President Van Ummersen replied that the memo wasn't a surprise to her. The surprise came on the Friday before the memo and that was the meeting with our outside auditors who were looking, not only at our overspending last year, but also at the level of reserves. They believed that both of those items were of sufficient weight that they warranted immediate action on our part. Both Mr. Boyle and she were being asked by the outside accountants to respond to how we were going to deal with both of these problems. We needed to do that and we needed to inform our Board that this was being asked of us so that everyone understood the situation. Mr. Boyle will be talking more about that.
Dr. Barbara Green asked if President Van Ummersen was saying that the administration of this University did not know that reserves would be down to $1.3 million at the end of this year until the auditors reported. President Van Ummersen stated that the auditors concern was, if we continued to spend at the rate we were spending in this fiscal year, (that is where our reserves would come out) we would be spending beyond the revenue that we were going to be taking in. We knew we were beginning to overspend and we needed to figure out how to clean that up. But the auditors had two concerns. One concern was that we bring our budget for 2001 in line with our revenue. The second concern was that the auditors wanted what they call a healthy reserve. For our campus and the size of our budget, they believed that this is somewhere between $7 million and $10 million. We did know that we were heading below that, but because we were above the threshold for fiscal watch in the State, we didn't think that this would be an audit point. In that sense, it was a bit of a surprise.
Professor Mahmud noted that the President had said that Mr. Boyle will explain it. But, the question in many minds, and certainly in his mind is, are the recommendations in the memo those owned by the administration or are they Mr. Boyle's recommendations? President Van Ummersen reported that they are owned not only by the administration but by the Board at this point in time. What does remain to be determined is what that means for next year and the release of faculty positions. She believes that the Provost has sent a memo to the Deans asking for their priorities for next year. That issue has yet to be decided. Technically, we have been under a freeze since we began sweeping the position vacancies or the vacancy dollars. Now we have to look at what kind of a critical needs process we will have on campus that will keep us in line with our revenues. As we look at that revenue picture across the year, we may release things along the way. But, we have to make certain that we stay within our budget. That is what we are promising the auditors -- that we will stay within our revenue.
Professor Mahmud said that he is bewildered about the policy-making processes. If the administration has owned it and even the Board has, it is interesting that none of the supposedly decision-making processes were there. The Senate certainly did not know about it. There is information that the Deans didn't know about it. He is curious as to how such fundamental decisions and proposals can be formulated and adopted... President Van Ummersen stated that it is fair to say that the Deans did know about it since they had been working with the Provost for several months as many of the units of the University had been working with their Vice Presidents. Everyone knew that vacancy savings were being swept, including the Senate. The actual "putting on paper" of that information may not have happened, but certainly the content of that memo was not unknown to people at the University.
Professor Thomas Buckley also questioned the October 2, 2000 memo. Did the Board committee adopt the proposal? Mr. Jack Boyle replied that many people were at that meeting. He discussed what our response was going to have to be to the auditors. President Van Ummersen stated that while a formal resolution was not needed, we did need to make sure that we let the auditors know how we were going to handle it.
Professor Buckley asked if that means then that all vacancy savings will be swept for 2002 and added to the reserves. Mr. Boyle stated that we haven't even gotten near to the 2002 budget. The only operative resolution of the Board is that the spending limit is $137.9 million. The President added that we have to stay within that. Mr. Boyle went on to say that how it is done is an administrative prerogative; it is not a Board action.
Professor Buckley noted that he just quoted the memo. Mr. Boyle replied that it was his recommendation, but it wasn't adopted. The Board did not address 2002. The Board addressed the fact that we can't spend more than $137.9 million this year. That is the budget they passed and that is the expected revenue for FY 2001. That issue is settled. How the money gets spent within the budget that was approved by the Board is certainly the issue that we are wrestling with now.
Professor Mahmud asked if the Senate could have some assurance that the appropriate committees of the Senate will be involved with the policy-making process as such drastic things take place at the University and that memos don't just inform us that this is going on. President Van Ummersen asked what the appropriate committee of the Senate would be. Professor Bowen noted that there is a Budget and Planning Advisory Committee and we will focus on this very carefully. Professor Mahmud remarked that it is advisory. President Van Ummersen noted that the Budget Committee will be involved not only in looking at the kind of model that we are going to use, but the scenarios that get developed, and the projections. The Budget Committee has always been involved in all of those pieces of the budget. They haven't yet met but they will be meeting very soon and they will continue to meet. This year they will meet hopefully beyond the end of the Senate meetings because we won't know about our State Subsidy piece until well into June.
Professor Mahmud added that the administration should not consider this request as an impediment, but as a request to participate. President Van Ummersen responded that she really doesn't. Professor Mahmud went on to say that it helps everybody to participate in that decision-making so they can be willing participants. The President said that she understands that and she regards the Planning and Budget Committee as a committee that is important in this process. The committee has been extremely helpful in thinking through not only some of the issues around projections but also some of the issues around tuition increases that are clearly something that we are going to have to deal with.
VII. Senate President's Report
"My name is Bill Bowen. First, let me thank you again for electing me to this position. I am honored and humbled by your trust. There are several things to say, but the first thing I want to do is answer a question that has come up several times over the last couple of weeks about why I ran for President of the Faculty Senate.
I tend to think there are two tracks for faculty to follow, one of which aspires to the title of Dean or Provost or University President and the other to the title of 'Distinguished Research Professor.' I am committed to the second of those tracks. The reason I ran for President is to help create an institutional environment in which people with such aspirations such as mine can thrive at CSU. Simply stated, I want to honor in my behavior the values that I profess.
The first time I met with President Van Ummersen, my first words to her were about when I was in the Navy. When a Navel ship at sea encounters a new ship on the radar screen, the first communication is an 'IFF' signal... 'identify friend or foe.' I identified myself as a friend. But, in the next breath, I said that I expect to remain 100% committed to Faculty Senate objectives, even when they conflict with administrative ones. I have no inclination to actively seek conflict with administrative ones. I have no inclination to actively seek conflict with the administration. But, if and when conflict becomes necessary or occurs, then neither have I any inclination to back off from it. One way or another, I shall not willingly compromise my sense of integrity in terms of the duties and obligations of my office.
I think that collegiality demands such an attitude. In the long run, the faculty and the administration have an overriding common objective in creating and delivering a dynamic curriculum. That objective is paramount, and I hope we all realize that it ties all of us together in a common cause. Only in short run activities that organizationally support the curriculum does the faculty and the administration have different and potentially conflicting objectives. One simple way to characterize the difference is to state that the administration's objectives are more in the conduct of the social and financial dimensions of curriculum creation and delivery and the faculty's are more in the intellectual dimensions. Ultimately, of course, we cannot separate the two functions -- the faculty and the administration depend upon each other. But in the short run picture of day to day activities, the reality is that the two functions potentially conflict.
Given this reality, the role of President of Faculty Senate, as I see it, has at least two major aspects. First, the role involves conflict resolution. That is, the short run conflicts must be resolved for the sake of the larger common objective. In more concrete terms, from what I have seen so far, it seems to be largely a matter of de-escalating the rhetoric and posturing on both sides of several salient disputes, and searching for solutions that give both faculty and administration the opportunity to compromise without losing face. Second, the role of President of the Faculty Senate involves building trust. Specifically, right now I think that one of the biggest areas is to raise the level of trust between the faculty and the administration. I also think it is important to develop trust within the faculty, between colleges, and between the union and Senate leadership.
That having been said, the curricular objectives of the faculty must logically remain as the frame of reference around which all other university activities are organized. That is, the faculty creates the curriculum from which the administration gets its purpose. Without the curriculum, there would be no university, and, therefore, no administration. In the long run, the faculty's curricular objectives must be clearly seen as the preeminent concern of both faculty and administration.
The faculty's role is to create a dynamic curriculum; the administration's role is largely to attract and retain a faculty whose dynamism is rooted in an active research agenda. That means the administration is responsible for maintaining competitive faculty salaries, instituting programs and policies that recognize excellence, and, wherever possible and appropriate, encouraging entrepreneurialism.
At a much more mundane level, given the circumstances right now at CSU, it seems to me that the proper focus for Faculty Senate discussion of the relationship between faculty and administration is squarely on the budget process. The budget is about numbers, but it is also the clearest and most definitive expression of the politics and values of the university. Over the past couple of weeks, I have spoken with both middle and top level administrators involved directly in the budget process. I have also had conversations with numerous faculty members. So far, I am happy to report having found committed, knowledgeable, and ethical individuals on both sides. Let us diligently avoid misrepresenting or distorting one another's opinions as a means of advancing our own interests. Let us consciously avoid disparaging one another's motives and intentions whenever possible.
The duty of the administration toward the budget includes more than only making sure that the correct numbers are getting put in the appropriate columns, and that they all add up accurately. It also includes providing information that will assist faculty in accomplishing our curricular objectives. More specifically, if the faculty is to accomplish our objectives, then we need complete, objective, reliable, and relevant information about the budget, and, in my view, it is the administration's duty to make sure that we have it.
In contrast, as I understand it, our duties toward the budget, as faculty, are primarily twofold. First, we are obliged to evaluate the financial strength of the institution. This we are doing today and have been doing for some time. Second, perhaps less sensationally, but in the long run, it seems to me even more importantly, we are obliged to judge the effectiveness of the administration in terms of supporting the university's curricular objectives.
I want to briefly amplify this second duty of judging the effectiveness of the administration in supporting the university's curricular objectives. It relates to the concepts of accountability and stewardship. That is, the administration controls resources on behalf of two groups. The first group to whom the administration is accountable is the state and the students who benefit by the curriculum. The second group to whom the administration is accountable is the faculty who furnishes the curriculum. These are different kinds of accountability. That is, the administration is accountable on legal grounds to the state and accountable on moral and ethical grounds to the faculty for their stewardship over those resources.
By 'accountable to the faculty on moral and ethical grounds' I mean that there is nothing more crucial to the renewal of our society than releasing the potential of the people who graduate from CSU. This release, to my mind, is our primary moral obligation to society as a university. The curriculum is of inherently moral and ethical significance because it is preeminently the instrument through which this release is accomplished. I want to briefly add that the moral and ethical accountability toward the budget owed by the administration to the faculty justifies the importance of faculty participation on the University Planning and Budget Advisory Committee. As the political document through which the university's values are most clearly articulated, it is essential for the faculty -- through its representatives -- to be intimately familiar with it.
In terms of the Board of Trustees, I met David Hill, the Chairman of the Board, at a meeting of the Visiting Committees and he expressed interest in being invited to attend Faculty Senate meetings. These meetings are open to members of the university community, so I sent him a letter inviting him or other members of the Board of Trustees to Faculty Senate meetings this year. I hope this will not only improve communication, but also tend to improve the basis of knowledge and understanding from which decisions that affect the university community are made. I have asked to be notified in advance if any Board members will attend our meetings, and, if and when they do, I will recognize them at the beginning of the meeting, express thanks for their commitment, and proceed with the agenda as planned.
Finally, I want to affirm that a strong Faculty Senate is in everybody's best interest whether faculty, administration, staff, student, trustee, or potential employee of a future CSU graduate. Other than curricular issues, in my view, formulation of the university's current organizational problems is the most important intellectual activity we have right now. Furthermore, I think the way the problem is framed should -- indeed in the interest of an excellent curriculum must -- begin here in the Senate.
How should we frame the organizational problems we face? It is relatively easy, for example, to look at the budget, see the numbers, look at their trends in particular categories, abhor the trends, and find someone to blame for them. But what exactly are the root causes? Do we not have key individuals around whom by the processes of persuasion and example can induce the university community to take appropriate action? Do we mainly have a problem of better management and efficiency? Do we have a control problem in that there is a lack of control in administrative processes? Is it a problem of resource allocation? communication? organizational rigidity?
Over the next couple of months, I anticipate focusing largely on getting people to recognize and understand the significance of framing the organizational problem. A couple of concrete things I will do toward that end will be to speak to several faculty non-participants on the University Planning and Budget Advisory Committee and also take some action through the Steering Committee. Otherwise, please let me know if you have any suggestions about how to get this discussion going. It is not merely the numbers in the budget, but perhaps even more importantly, how we frame the problem they represent that will determine whether or to what degree our response to it is successful."
VIII. NCA Update (Report No. 7, 2000-2001)
Dr. Everett Cataldo remarked that two weeks to the day, almost to the minute, the evaluation team from NCA will have left our campus -- all of its members will have boarded a plane, and they will be winging their way back from whence they came and Cleveland State University will not have to go through this experience for another ten years.
Dr. Cataldo noted that everyone should have received, in the materials for today's meeting, a roster of the team and also probably 90% to 95% of the schedule that they will be following when they get here. It took a while to get this team together. There were three or four or five earlier versions that the University had some comments about. The NCA office in Chicago would respond by proposing a different roster of team members. We finally agreed on this team about four weeks ago -- a little late in the game. It looks to be a reasonably good team from our perspective. The Chairperson of the team is the Associate Provost for Academic Programs at Wayne State University. Three other members of this team come from urban universities like ours. So, four of the nine members will have experience with the issues and the climate on an urban campus like ours. Depending on your view, there is some degree of balance or imbalance in terms of genre, race, and ethnicity. Six members of the team are men and three are women. Two of the three women are of African-American descent and there is a Hispanic member of the team as well.
Dr. Cataldo reported that he has had several exchanges with Dr. Dykes. She expressed, on behalf of the team, their interest in having us help schedule them with maximum flexibility to get around the campus, to talk with people, and to visit units. They are beginning on Monday, October 23, 2000 with a meeting with President Van Ummersen and then going down through or across the administrative or academic structure of the institution. All of the colleges and at least the major academic and student support units can assume that they are going to get a visit. Some members of the team, at least, will visit them and some academic departments as well. There should be sufficient opportunity for faculty to interact with team members during those visits to colleges and to departments.
Professor Cataldo noted that the team has not requested a meeting, per se, with the Faculty Senate. They have requested, however, an Open Faculty Forum. That Open Faculty Forum is scheduled for the open period or open hour on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 from 12:00 P.M. to 1:00 P.M. in RT 1916-17. It is hoped that there will be a very good and substantial faculty turnout for that forum and a good discussion and interchange between our faculty and the members of the team that choose to come to the faculty forum. The team chair also requested an open forum with students and an open forum with staff, hopefully, to get maximum turnout. The forum for the students will be held in UC1 and the forum for the staff will be held in the University Center Auditorium. There will be plenty of publicity on this beginning next week. We will put out fliers and everybody will receive mass mailings and telephone messages. Student Affairs is getting the information out to the students and we will have pizza and pop for them because it is the lunch hour. Faculty and staff will have to brown-bag it or go out and get something to eat after the meeting.
Dr. Cataldo reported that Dr. Dykes has raised a couple of issues with him. The first and most important is assessment -- not that Cleveland State is being singled out for assessment, but because it is on the top of the list of every team that is going out for accreditation visits to universities these days. Three or four of the nine members of this team list assessment as one of their evaluation specialties. They will be looking at assessment not only in the academic sector but in the academic and student support and administrative sectors as well. It looks like they will be looking at assessment in two somewhat different, but nevertheless, related ways. One, they want to know what we are doing objectively. What kinds of instruments we are using for assessment, what we are doing with the results from those assessment instruments, the extent to which they are being used to look at our programs, to modify our programs, to change our programs. Ultimately, they are moving toward a model in which assessment results will be used for program planning and budgetary decisions as well as just more purely curricular kinds of decisions.
Professor Cataldo reported that he has talked to some people at universities who have recently gone through this exercise, and, apparently, teams also are interested in finding out the extent to which the campus community has bought into assessment, or to use their term, "claimed ownership over assessment". If you get an opportunity to meet with the team, this will come up in those discussions and interactions.
Dr. Cataldo reported that the only other issue Dr. Dykes mentioned to him was a piece of the financial issue, not having to do with our budget, per se, but having to do with something the President talked to us about a few minutes ago -- the shift in Columbus and the taking away from the enrollment driven subsidy of a certain amount or portion of funds and putting it into things the Regents themselves are interested in promoting which may or may not be consistent with a university's mission. Dr. Dykes said that this had become an issue as she discussed these things with her team. Dr. Cataldo said that he did not know if they knew about this ahead of time or from some sort of external stimulus. They could have picked it up from our self-study because, frankly, in our chapter on resources, there is the deliberate insertion of a paragraph of what this shift in policy in Columbus could mean for an institution like Cleveland State. Dr. Dykes indicated the team wants to talk to somebody from the Board of Regents, either a member of the board itself, or some Regents' staff or both and ask them maybe, "What do you think you are doing with this?" or "What do you think the impact might be on the institutions in the state as a result of this kind of switch?" Dr. Cataldo reported that he has talked to the Chair of the team, about these two issues, but beyond that, he would not want to speculate.
Professor Cataldo commented that the end result of all of this, of course, there could be four different outcomes: continued accreditation for another ten year period without any stipulations or conditions. That is our present accreditation status and that is the one we want to have extended for another ten years. There is also continued accreditation with stipulations: monitoring, progress reports, focused visits in a couple or few years if they think the university is deficient in a particular area. This is a monumental pain and that is not what we want to confront. There is also probation which is terribly damaging and even withdrawal of accreditation, which is kind of like a death sentence. Those two things are completely off the radar screen as far as an institution like Cleveland State is concerned.
Dr. Cataldo reported that the team will have an exit interview with President Van Ummersen on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 at 11:00 A.M. At that point, the team will tell the President and whoever else she assembles to meet with the team what will be in their report. They will write a fairly lengthy substantive report as a result of this visit. The last one was some 91 pages in length. They intend to have a draft of the report written by November 22nd, and a final report that they will submit to the Commission and send back to us by December 27th. That seems like a fairly quick schedule for getting these things done but these are the dates on the official correspondence from Chicago. They will be very busy for two and one half days. They will talk to a lot of people. We have a ton of documents assembled in the Business building resource room that are required by NCA specifications. The President has done these things and it was a lot of hard work.
Dr. Green asked if the work that comes out of the NCA evaluation team will be available for faculty to read when it comes in. Last time it was, the time before that it was suppressed. If we are working on this, it would be a good idea for us to at least have access to the report. Dr. Cataldo agreed with Dr. Green.
President Van Ummersen commented that she could not believe the report was suppressed in the past. Dr. Green said that its caveat was basically that there were problems with faculty governance at Cleveland State University.
President Van Ummersen noted that it might make sense for the Steering Committee to be part of the exit interview and to hear what the team says because the team must tell us orally what issues they are willing to highlight in the report. They don't have to tell us if they are going to ask for a progress report or not, but most team leaders will tell the institution whether they are going to recommend a progress report or a monitoring report. That will be the first thing to help us spread the word among everybody. We will get a draft to correct for factual and inaccuracies. The more people that read it, the better to insure that we are getting the best light on whatever it is that they are saying. It has to be a quick read because usually the institution gets about two weeks turnaround on that if the team is on time. The final report should not be vastly different from the draft that we get.
Dr. Andrew Gross commented that the team seems to be determined to stress assessment outcomes. While he subscribes to that, he would like to cite the example of the State of Texas where essentially in the primary and high school levels, outside accreditating agencies are dictating practically what tests will be done and how. He hopes that will not come to pass at the college and university level. Professor Gross noted that on Tuesday, October 24th and Wednesday, October 25th, there are several time slots -- meetings, interviews, activities as determined by the team. He asked if we will know whom they wish to see.
Dr. Cataldo responded that in some of these instances, there will be relatively short notice. We just drew up this broad general schedule to accommodate their interests and needs in order to have a lot of flexibly allotted time. When the team gets here and after they have dinner on Sunday night, they will have a team meeting and will decide how they might want to proceed. At that time, we will be able to contact people or units and tell them to expect a visit on Monday morning or afternoon at an approximate time. There will be interaction between those of us who will be the links between the faculty, the staff, the units, and the team itself. Student Life put out a sign-up sheet for students to be escorts for the team when they get here. There will be a core of students available from 8:00 A.M. until 5:00 P.M. when the team leaves to respond to whatever requests they have and to escort them around campus.
On Dr. Gross' first comment, Dr. Cataldo responded that he is not aware that this regional accrediting agency has specified what the evaluation instruments must be or what kinds of tests must be administered. They leave that entirely up to the institution and the institution's own purposes and mission and sense about what serves its curriculum the best. They are looking for more external or objective kinds of measures than the kinds of assessment activities faculty have always been engaging in and doing quite well down through the years.
Dr. Flechtner noted that today he got the draft of accreditation guidelines for distance education programs from an organization of accreditating groups. He asked Dr. Cataldo if he had it. Dr. Cataldo responded that he did not have it and he would like to see it. Professor Flechtner noted that it is twenty pages of fine print and it seems to him that we can't have a lot of what they want installed right now. He asked if that is going to mandate some kind of a revisit or a report later on. Dr. Cataldo commented that not having seen the document and only hearing about it for the first time this very moment, he would not think so. He would think that things like this begin to get proposed, not even implemented. There is a fairly long period of time before the agencies begin to say, "Well, now you have had enough time to look at this, to plan for it, to figure out how to do it, now let's see how you are going to go about doing this." The assessment thing began in the early 1990s. This university, along with a number of others, came up with its first comprehensive assessment plan in 1995 and NCA, along with a number of other accreditating agencies, are beginning to look now to see how those plans are being carried out. If this other process is similar, we are probably looking at something that is going to be a five to ten year period of implementation and initial review. Dr. Flechtner remarked that it has a large assessment section.
Dr. Arthur Schwartz questioned the quote "little piece of financial issue." Given some of the documents that are before us today, is this something that we should anticipate is going to come up for discussion? Professor Cataldo responded that we are required to provide the team with the last ten years worth of audited financial statements of the university. We sent them a ten pound packet of stuff that included the self-study and the audited financial reports for the last two years. When they get here, they are going to have the opportunity to review the previous eight years. We also have to present them with whatever other audited public financial reports are available at the time of their visit. This even includes the last five years of reports to management which is a separate part of the auditing procedure that results in the audited financial report -- the kinds of requests that the President and the Vice President were requested from our auditors this time. They have a full plate of information. We are not required to provide them anything that is informal or unaudited or memos that are circulating and not in any way official, but we are required to provide them with everything that is officially audited and part of the public record.
Professor Schwartz asked, "Where does this resolution from the Finance Committee stand in terms of official or informal -- the one that Jack Boyle was referring to?" Dr. Cataldo replied that as he heard the discussion, and he was at the Finance Committee meeting last Friday, the only thing that seems to be official is the passage by the Board of a resolution that the University must live within the limits of the $136.9 million budget that they approved for this fiscal year. As he understands it, that is the only official action that has been taken and the only thing that sounds like an official documentary piece of action.
Professor Peter Meiksins offered, as a piece of information, the memo to which Dr. Schwartz was referring that was released to the University's Public Relations Department at the moment that it was released to everyone else. It is certainly a public document. Dr. Cataldo noted that he was not contesting that.
Vice President Jack Boyle reported that the financial statements will be audited and have to be submitted to the State by the 15th of October that is closing year 2000. That will be done and that will be made available to the team. That is the only financial document in terms of an audited statement that will be available. The other report to management, which is the discussion about what we have to do for next year, will not yet be available. Obviously, the document has been floating around. He will probably have to defend or not defend it to the people that come in to talk to us, but it is not official university policy. What is official university policy is the $137 million budget that was passed last June.
Ms. Billie Joy Reinhart asked if we should be concerned with the change in the shift in state funding. Dr. Cataldo asked if Ms. Reinhart meant the move away from enrollment driven subsidy into Challenge grants. He noted that this has already come up in the discussion he had with Dr. Marie Draper Dykes. They want to talk to somebody on the Board of Regents about that very thing. And the President has invited a member of the Board to be here.
President Van Ummersen said that she is also going to talk either with Rich Patrick or Rob Sheehan to determine who would be the appropriate individual for the campus to get in touch with. They may want to explore more deeply the formula and the shift from Subsidy to the Challenges.
Professor Kimberly Neuendorf asked if Dr. Cataldo could comment on the selection criteria. She noticed that some specialties represented education, engineering, communication -- is there any effort for disciplinary balance, and does that relate to the role they will play when they come to campus? Dr. Cataldo responded that there was an effort to balance these teams in so many ways that, in the end, the attempt failed in several.
Dr. Neuendorf asked if it relates to what they will do when they get here. Would the communication person inspect the Communication Department and would the engineering person inspect the Engineering College? Dr. Cataldo replied that the College of Engineering should expect that the Dean of Engineering at UIC will be the person that visits that College. Dr. McPhail may be very interested in what is going on in the Department of Communication although President Van Ummersen told him that she is a biologist and the team she was on recently sent her to the College of Engineering because she was the closest person on the team to an engineer.
Dr. Dalen Chiang, Chair of the Graduate College Committee, reported that this committee convened in the middle of Spring Semester 2000. During the last month the report was finalized. He highlighted what is in the report.
Structure of the College of Graduate Studies - The Committee finds tremendous support for a strong central College of Graduate Studies in order to maintain uniformly high standards and effectively allocate resources. There was some discussion that this college should be eliminated. Because of the strong relationship between graduate education and research and the desire of the Graduate College, the name should be changed to the College of Graduate Studies and Research.
Setting Strategic Goals - There is considerable concern over the decision to move the University to a higher Carnegie Classification. The Committee recommends that goals regarding research and doctoral education be determined jointly and collegially between the faculty and administration through the faculty governance process. Goals should be set in consideration of resource availability, university priorities, and needs of the community in general. The goals should be widely publicized, especially the goals on research funding and doctoral degrees, but production should not be dependent upon Carnegie Classification.
Graduate Faculty Membership - The Committee found a wide range of opinions regarding the criteria for graduate faculty membership. The Committee tried to compromise. The Committee recommends that the Graduate College should consider alternative models for graduate faculty membership. Right now, we have size fits all types of models. For example: should we have a doctoral faculty group and/or a graduate faculty group just for the master program, a broader group obviously then the doctoral faculty, and also life-time graduate faculty status. Graduate Council should determine how many years a faculty on the Graduate Faculty can attain lifetime membership.
Research Council - The mission of the Research Council should be clarified. Graduate Council should submit the names to the Faculty Senate Steering Committee for appointment to the Research Council. The Research Council should report regularly to the Graduate Council. Activities of the Research Council should also be reported by the Graduate Dean to the Faculty Senate. In addition, criteria for grants should be widely publicized and a list of awardees and their projects should be published. Research Council should regularly evaluate the outcomes of these awards when setting agenda priorities for future awards.
University Office of Research and Economic Development (UORED) - UROED should be maintained as part of the Graduate College. UORED should report regularly to Graduate Council on its activities. The committee found uniform high praise for the Resource Center and for the Workshops provided for faculty. The Committee recommends a national search be undertaken by the administration for the next director. A major criteria, the person should have considerable experience in grants administration.
Communication - The Committee found that communication has been the biggest problem in the past among the Graduate College and the rest of the University. The Committee recommends that the following actions be taken by the appropriate administrators:
Resource Allocation - The Committee believes that the Graduate program is seriously underfunded. The budgetary matters should be decided before the program is either approved by the College or Graduate Council. The Graduate Dean and Graduate Council should establish a special committee to reconsider the allocation of graduate assistants (TA, GA, and tuition waivers) and the budget (including stipends) to different colleges and departments. The Graduate Dean should work with the Provost and College Deans to insure that all GA and TA lines are fully budgeted and that stipends be competitive with those of other institutions. The Graduate Dean should publicize the programs run by the Graduate College including travel, EFFRD and PRIMES grants and report on activity at Graduate faculty meetings. The Graduate Dean should also assist the departments with start-up funds for new faculty and should ensure that these funds are available upon arrival of the faculty.
Graduate Admission - An ad hoc Committee on Graduate Admissions Issues, chaired by Professor Brenda Marshall, noted that "serious organizational, managerial, and personnel problems pertaining to the handling of degree and non-degree graduate admissions exist in the division of Enrollment Services." The Committee thought that this could be a supervision problem and/or it could be personnel problems. That committee recommended that the University should consider the Centralized Model or the Flexible Model to shift responsibility of graduate admissions out of Enrollment Services.
The Committee recommends that:
Professor Gross asked Dr. Chiang if the Senate had time to digest this and look through the document before voting. Dr. William Bowen suggested asking the Acting Graduate Dean for his response to it. There are a number of things that can be done.
Professor Surendra Tewari asked if, in Dr. Chiang's opinion, policies and procedures in place within the University have sufficient motivational factors to generate additional resources. We keep simply talking about allocation of resources, but he doesn't see anybody talking about generation of additional resources. Dr. Chiang reported that the Committee talked about that issue. He was not sure that the campus committee agrees that "X" percent of the overhead should go to the investigator, "X" percent of the overhead should go to the department or the college, and the central administration should keep "X" percent. Given a central mission, everybody loves to have an administration that takes less, but that question should go to the Budget Advisory Committee.
Professor Tewari noted that there are diminishing resources and the pie is getting cut all of the time. It used to be 90% and now it is 80%. Where is that additional money going to come from? Somebody has to struggle for it. We have to create an environment where that kind of struggle is promoted, and he doesn't see that at all in the report from the Senate Committee on the College of Graduate Studies.
In the interest of making today's Agenda manageable, Senate President Bowen asked if anybody would object to postponing the Parking Report to the next Senate meeting in November. There were no objections.
Vice President Jack Boyle distributed written answers to budget questions. He stated that he is sure that everyone has read the memo he sent to the President and to the Board. Everyone probably read the Plain Dealer article about what he said at the Board meeting.
Mr. Boyle reported that the Board of Trustees basically gave us "X" number of dollars to spend in June. Let's say that we have $1.00 to spend. We tried to go through the supermarket scanner with $1.04 worth of goods. That is sort of like where we are now. At the check-out they said, well you have to take $.04 back and I said, well I will take the Oreo Cookies back and then you find out that your kids have already opened the package and eaten some of the cookies. Well, that is sort of where we were. So now we had to find something else to take back in order to make it come out to $1.00. In the short run, the vacancy savings are really the only source of revenue that we have to pay for that other $.04 worth of goods unless we get more money someplace which we may or may not get. When we get to next year, with inflation and if the Board of Trustees gives us some additional tuition money, we might have $1.04 to spend. But, we can't try to get that same $1.04 of goods through the scanner next year, because now they cost $1.08 because of inflation. He is now back in the same place he was before. So, we have to get down to the $1.00, which next year, will cost $1.04 and that has to be the level of expenditure that gets approved for next year. What he was trying to say to the accountants and to the university community is that when we get down to the $1.00 that we can spend this year, the debt is really the starting point for next year's budget because that is probably all we are going to get if we add inflation to that level of spending.
In terms of what he said about potential vacancy savings in 2002, Mr. Boyle said that in an institution with 1,500 employees, no matter how hard we try, we will not fill every position. He wasn't implying that we shouldn't try to fill the 2002 vacancies, but we simply won't. The law of averages tell you that you have to have money left on the table. When you get to the end of 2002, and you haven't eaten the Grape Nuts yet, maybe you can get Giant Eagle to take the Grape Nuts back and give you $.02 back for them. All we said was you are going to put that in the bank and we are not going to go back and get the Oreo Cookies again. So, really, that in a nutshell, is what he was trying to say to the Board. To the University community, the hard part this year will obviously be getting down to the $137 million that we budgeted. If we do that successfully, then that is what we have to look at as the level of spending for next year. Now, how that gets divided up, is the process question that we are all wrestling with. A lot of the questions and follow-ups he got this time are really addressing that issue.
Follow up questions from the last Faculty Senate meeting:
Mr. Boyle reported that the shortfall is now probably $5.5 million. The figure he gave the Senate last month was a temporary figure. Administration have now agreed with the accountants on a permanent number. The difference is that there were things paid for this year that really belonged to last year so they got moved back. One was a piece of PeopleSoft -- the $4.5 million approval from last February. We actually spent $1 million last year and not $500,000 that you were told. That got moved from one year to the other. There was television advertising that was paid for this year that was really last year. We had to add another $1.1 million of bad debts per the auditors requirement. Mr. Boyle noted that they asked for $1.8 million and he whittled it down to $1.1 million. That will make the total shortfall for last year under $5.6 million. We took money from the unrestricted reserves. There are a number of little accounts in the unrestricted budget surplus. The accounts specifically used were Fringe Benefits -- nobody is sure exactly what that was, but there was money in it; departmental carryovers, the General University surplus, and Encumbrances which were built up from past years. So those are the specifics of how the shortfall was covered.
Mr. Boyle reported that based on the time frame, that statement was referring to the Board meeting in February where they had approved $4.5 million of additional funding for the PeopleSoft program which was and is coming out of reserves.
Professor Peter Meiksins said that inasmuch as the auditor recommends we replenish the reserves and Mr. Boyle's proposal on how to do that involves sweeping vacancy savings and various other forms of revenue, in effect, if not in intent, the way of solving the problem does have an affect on the academic areas. Mr. Boyle indicated that he did not disagree with that. He is just responding to the statement that the $4.5 million was going to come out of reserves. Clearly "university money is university money" whether it comes out of one pocket or another. When we get down to zero, we have to stop.
Professor Meiksins noted that his question then becomes, "How are we to treat assurances we receive in the future that expenditures will not affect academic areas, will not affect students, will not affect other central activities?" And, then to be told six months after the fact, "Oops, we do have to take money out of the academic area to pay for these expenses as necessary as they may have been." Mr. Boyle stated that he cannot give any assurances. He can tell everyone that we can't spend more than $137 million this year.
Mr. Boyle reported that one administrator is paid on non-permanent money. Personnel in Strategic Partnership were funded in hard dollars through the Provost's Office budget.
Dr. Schwartz asked Mr. Boyle what vocabulary is used to define funding sources. Is it state appropriated money, is it matching money from grants, is it soft money, is it "funny money" -- what is the vocabulary that is used to define the funding of positions? Mr. Boyle noted that the first question at the last Senate meeting referring to soft money was funding money -- state grants, indirects, people that are not paid through the normal university operating budget. The revision of the question was, "Is there anybody paid under temporary dollars rather than permanent dollars?" Yes, there is one administrator. Permanent dollars would mean something that is already in the budget. Temporary is something that is on this $5.5 million list that he is trying to figure out how to fund.
Professor Kenneth Dunegan commented, "Say we have two people we were replacing last year and the two vacancies that we had for those two people were funded in hard lines at $60,000 each and we had to hire people at $80,000; where did that other $20,000 come from -- hard money or soft money?" Mr. Boyle responded that it would have come from hard money or temporary money if there wasn't someplace else in that unit's budget to move the hard money from. So, if that spending unit now hired somebody at $80,000 and only had a line with $60,000 in it, they had two choices. They could come up with the extra $20,000 out of their budget by reducing something else in their existing budget, or they could come to him and ask for $20,000 more.
Dr. Green remarked, "If you had somebody at $60,000 who left and then you hired somebody new at $80,000 and you fiddled around with your budget and you used your vacancy savings last year and paid that person $80,000 and then you gave them a contract with no new money in the budget, that is a shortfall of $20,000 and that has been done without going through the budget process." Mr. Boyle noted that if that were to happen, then the $20,000 is left on the unfunded list. Dr. Green went on to state that this is one of the things that faculty are concerned with. Mr. Boyle assured Dr. Green that he was concerned as well. Mr. Boyle continued, "If it is not funded at $80,000, there isn't going to be any pot from which to get the $20,000." We can't play any game and borrow the $20,000 from somebody else. It is going to be funded at $80,000 or you are going to have to figure out something else to fund that $80,000 position.
First, Mr. Boyle reported that this position hasn't been filled. Secondly, it is currently on the list of all vacant positions sitting in his office awaiting a decision. Currently, there are 80 positions in the faculty or professional line that are unfilled -- 27 are faculty. There are 33 classified, which are people assigned to academic units. He noted some of the other questions: "What's the non-academic piece doing in terms of streamlining?" At the moment, more than half of the positions currently vacant are not academic.
Professor Dunegan remarked that Mr. Boyle did not answer the question. Mr. Boyle responded that there is no money. Professor Dunegan asked if the position is open. Mr. Boyle replied that everything is open right now until we actually do a freeze. Dr. Dunegan asked, "What if tomorrow you find that person?" Mr. Boyle responded that this would be the Provost's problem at that point. Professor Dunegan asked Jay McLoughlin if he had the money to hire this person. Mr. Boyle replied that we do -- if we don't sweep the money. It is on his sweep list. Provost Jay McLoughlin clarified that these positions have the money in them. By freezing them, we have the funds available.
Professor Dunegan asked if the Senate could see the sweep list. Mr. Boyle responded that the sweep list is every position that is not filled. Dr. Dunegan asked if there is a list. Mr. Boyle responded that it is the total number of positions that are unfilled. He noted that Professor Dunegan could talk to the Budget Office about what they are.
Dr. David Larson inquired if Mr. Boyle was recommending a general freeze or a freeze without exceptions, or what. Mr. Boyle responded that it depends -- what do you want to pay for? If you want to pay for all of the $5.5 million on the table, then he has to come up with $5.5 million of money.
Professor Mahmud wondered who is making these decisions. Mr. Boyle responded that if it is in an academic unit, the Deans and the Provost will make them. If it is in a non-academic unit, he will make, Joe Nolan will make, and ultimately the President will approve the list.
Professor Mahmud asked if they will be made case by case or will we have some strategic position..? Mr. Boyle stated that in an academic unit, he would have to ask his Dean and/or the Provost about how the decisions are getting made. He has $21 million of spending that he is in charge of as the Vice President of Administration. He knows how he is doing it in his section. None are being filled except for the ones that are being paid with temporary people in them now where he can hire somebody permanent cheaper than the temporary.
Professor Mahmud said that he is not asking a rhetorical question. These are problems from day to day. We are asking our Dean, "Are we filling these positions or not? We have a hiring conference in two weeks. Are we going there or not?" Mr. Boyle stated that right now, everybody, including all of the Colleges, has a budget. Professor Mahmud asked to complete his statement and question. We need to know if the sweep means everything, but when we try to pinpoint it, it becomes nothing. We need some clarity. What exactly is the posture of it? How does it come down to this department or the Law School, etc., so one can plan ahead academic programs, etc. That is what we are trying to find out. But, what we hear is these blanket statements which we can't get a handle on and that is what is so frustrating. Mr. Boyle said that the simple answer is, we passed a budget. Every college and spending unit in the university has a budget and knows what it is. That is what it is unless you want to move some money around. That equals the $137 million that has been approved. That is all any spending unit has authority to spend until or unless something is transferred back and forth. Mr. Boyle added that since he got here, not one penny has been transferred.
Professor Meiksins commented that he would like to hear, and the faculty and the students would like to hear, that the University is making it a priority to move money around precisely to preserve classes and the quality of instruction at this university. The concern is that the policy of delaying searches and proposing blanket freezes will become fact. The consequences would be deterioration in the quality of education on this campus and a decline in the revenues which we, in fact, need to increase. There are 80 positions here, only 27 of which are faculty. Is the University prepared to commit itself to prioritizing the faculty vacancies because that creates seats in the classroom and it creates enrollment and it generates more students in the university? Provost Jay McLoughlin said that he has in fact several requests to the Deans to look at their vacant positions in 02 and to provide a prioritized list for possible searches this year.
Mr. Boyle commented, "As long as everybody understands the only money to move around are some positions that are vacant. So, you want one back; I have to take it from these people over here to give it to you." We are taking it from one academic unit and giving it to another or, in this case, 53 of them from non-academic units. We can do it that way but there is no other money to be created. So, if somebody is going to get one position, somebody else has to give one up.
Provost McLoughlin commented that Professor Meiksins' point about the quality of programs and the staffing for 02 is related but it is separate from what needs to be done to get us through this year. The issue of some kind of strategic freeze on the vacant positions right now is one thing. It happens that the 27 faculty positions are just not filled. Professor Meiksins noted the only savings we can generate on faculty that you don't have are for next year because those faculty will not be replaced in this academic year. The concern is about next year. Provost McLoughlin said that he has asked the Deans to come up with proposals on their vacant positions and those that they would like authorization to search for. Mr. Boyle noted that this doesn't change the other basic fact that next year, except for inflation, you really won't have any more money to spend than you do after the vacancy savings and any other cuts might occur. Professor Cheryl McCahon stated that she is also concerned about any searches that are out now for which we are recruiting to hire. What is going to happen to those? Mr. Boyle replied that this is why he has the list out to the Provost and the Vice Presidents to tell him the answers to those questions. There may be people out there that we have already made an offer to that are on the list. Dr. Green indicated one of the problems is that the Senate is asking Mr. Boyle some questions that he is not able to answer. He is dealing with the budget. If an academic institution seems to be in financial difficulties, shouldn't there be some decision with lots of input? Shouldn't we look at the priorities of the institution and talk about whether there ought to be re-prioritization? For example, in an institution whose main function is to educate students and to do research, it may have many other service functions as long as the institution has a lot of money. There are things that are nice; there are things that are good; there are things we like. As you start cutting, the question is, should you cut evenly or do you cut off the fringes first and start re-prioritizing? That is not something Mr. Boyle can do, but it needs to be done. Mr. Boyle pointed out that it isn't something that really can be done in 01. This year we are dealing with trying to patch together a situation that will get us through without doing any more harm to the academic pieces of the institution. For 2002, everything is back on the table. His job is to report for the process what we logically expect the income to be. We are going to start working on that as soon as we get some handle specifically on what the Board of Regents are up to for next year. Then a bunch of scenarios will be put together based on no tuition increase, one, two, three, four, five percent tuition increase, and those will be the macros really that we have to deal with. We already know the FTE is going to be down this year over last year. Whatever the increase in state aid that the Board of Regents are recommending, it probably won't result in that many dollars because it lags a year behind. We will factor those in and come up with a figure and then all of those academic and non-academic units will put their numbers on the table. He guarantees that it will be a number way higher than the income figure. That is where the process has to set the priorities for the University.
Professor Leo Jeffres commented that if these cuts aren't made along the lines suggested here, we would cut into the profit center. You have already started to cut part-time classes, people are playing around with notions of part-time positions, and it could be a fait accompli that we make some of those cuts assuming that those students will redistribute themselves across other classes. If they don't enroll, then we will spiral. We need to set those priorities earlier. Mr. Boyle reported that they are already asking the academic units about summer -- well that is 02.
New Questions -- listed in a rough order of priority: 1. How far back did we know about budget problems? To what extent are we being affected by the same "don't tell" syndrome that preceded the PeopleSoft Problem? Mr. Boyle reported that Christine Jackson delivered the papers for the office on July 28th. He is sure that somebody else knew about it at some other time, but that is the only answer he can give the Senate. Professor Dunegan reported that he was told that the Board was somewhat surprised when they got the data at the committee meeting of October 2nd. He asked Mr. Boyle if that was true or not true. The rumor he (Dunegan) heard was that the Board was told in June or July that things were fine. President Van Ummersen reported that the Board was told very soon after she knew on the 13th of June that we had a problem and they were notified within days of the financial situation. Dr. Bowen confirmed that it is pretty clear that they knew -- at least some of them. Professor Mahmud remarked: "So we were the only ones who didn't know." Mr. Boyle commented that most of the academic units knew that they had a big list of things that didn't get taken care of in that budget passed in June. The 28th of July, when he took over here and got the stuff, it wasn't that far from the June date. President Van Ummersen stated when that budget was passed in June, we had a list of about $3 million of requests that were over and above what was in the budget. The belief at that time was that we would have perhaps some extra money in the summer. If we made our fall enrollments, we might very well be able to fund some or all of those during the year as has been the case in previous years. We have always started out with an "extras list." That is not what we told the Board we were funding but what has been requested. We didn't know, at the time of comparing this year's budget, of the overspending that had occurred last year that we ended up having to deal with in closing our books. That was an issue. It certainly was a surprise when we met with the auditors and they required of us the response we needed to make. It was on a Friday. We met immediately on Monday with the Finance Chair, on Tuesday with the Board Chair, and notified the Finance Committee on Thursday. President Van Ummersen stated that she certainly didn't expect that the auditors would require a response from the administration. Mr. Boyle added that just last Friday, October 6, the auditors came in and said that they wanted another $1.8 million in bad debts for last year in the closing. We were using our Reserving Table we historically used and they said, no, we want to use a more harsh Reserving Table. Mr. Boyle noted that as Barbara Green pointed out, questions 2, 4, 5, 9, and 10 are sort of process questions. They are all good questions and they are all questions that he has asked. The answers belong in the process of figuring out how to do the 2002 budget. We have all agreed that we do need answers to these questions if we are going to logically figure out how to get through 2002. 3. How much do we have in Reserves? How much is required? How much is already earmarked from the Reserves for funding existing projects/activities? Rumor has it that we will be down to $0 in Reserves by year end -- is that true? Mr. Boyle reported that we currently have "around" $9 million in reserves. That is the current number after the bad debt adjustment. As we discussed, $3.6 million of that has already been earmarked by the Board of Trustees for the Student Stabilization Project (PeopleSoft) and that leaves $5.4 million, which is just about what the unfunded funding requests are. So, in answer to the question that we would be at $0 by year end, the answer is "yes." If we don't cut, and we spend the $5.4 million that we have in reserves, and we don't get any more income, yes, that will be the result. That is the issue that the auditors were concerned about. 7. How much do we have in receivables? What is the collection period? How much is uncollectible? How much do we have in payables? Have we stretched payables? Are we paying on time? Mr. Boyle reported that as of September 30th, our receivables were $16.3 million of which $10.5 million are 90 days or less. We have currently $4.2 million in Bad Debt write-offs -- not actual accounts that we have written off but the reserve for bad debt. With the settlement he made with the auditors today, we have written an amount equivalent to every debt that is over 180 days old. That is the bad news. The good news is that we are going to collect a lot of those and that will all be new revenue. The Payables are $7.6 million and we are current which means that they are paid in 30 days or less. Payables are not a problem and they wouldn't be in this part of the year anyway even if we were dead broke because the tuition just came in. If you are not going to be able to pay your bills, it is going to be in May. That is really what the concern is about having reserves. Obviously, from the cash flow standpoint, if you don't have something in the bank, you can only spend what you are getting in and the State is not always real rapid in giving us the money. 8. University Studies was funded by cuts from the colleges. Is that money ever coming back to the colleges? Mr. Boyle noted that he was not exactly sure of the question. Apparently, somebody believes that University Studies took some money from the colleges to fund it. It may have. University Studies students, at least for the last year that we have numbers for, generated about $4 million for credit FTE eligible courses in the six colleges. Dr. Bowen clarified the question. It says that University Studies was funded by cuts from the colleges and is that money ever coming back to the colleges? Mr. Boyle responded that he doesn't understand the question and neither did the President. They don't know where the money came from. The money is coming back in terms of those students who were admitted generating credit hour revenues within the colleges and those students generated $4 million worth in 1999 which is the last year we have complete numbers for. Dean Constance Hollinger stated that she had a few comments on when University Studies was created. She was the only new position funded on a year-to-year basis. She would be happy to answer specific questions in terms of what dollars were coming from the academic colleges. Most of University Studies is funded and functions on the dollars already in existence from Special Studies, the New Student Center, the Career Services Center, and the dollars that were in the Provost's office. Mr. Boyle noted that none of the monies will actually come back to the colleges. We have never actually done a functional budget that says here is what the College of Business generated in terms of income and that is all you can spend. It certainly is his recommendation that the credit hour generation be one of the measurements that goes into the decisions that get made about what funding level various academic units get funded at. Clearly, he assumes if there is a college whose credit hours are going up, it costs more to run the program. If they are going down, it should cost less to run the program. That is an impact figure that needs to be looked at. But, like a corporation, you don't say that every division has to produce a profit or you get rid of it. Obviously, we have a mission in the University that has to be taken into consideration. Mr. Boyle noted that he cannot answer question #6 but Joe Nolan can answer it. Professor Meiksins pointed out that one of the questions raised at the last meeting concerned grants that require significant matching funding. Mr. Boyle's answer was that he knew nothing about that. Professor Meiksins did some checking; one of the things he discovered is that the University received two grants from the Ohio Learning Network last year which require significant matching funds. He was told that one of them was matched at the tune of $663,000 and the other was matched at $870,000, totalling $1,533,000. Mr. Boyle stated that he did not know about them at the last meeting. What is in this year's list now, which wasn't in when he was here last month, is a $262,000 item in the unfunded list to match the Ohio Learning Network grant for this year. Professor Meiksins remarked that we were over by some millions of dollars in the last fiscal year. If one simply subtracted that $1.4 Million from the amount we spent last year, we would have been less badly in the hole. That may have been a perfectly reasonable budgetary decision, but if we are thinking of things we might not do in order to free up monies for the core activities of the University, it is precisely this kind of activity that we need to avoid. Mr. Boyle said that he asked that question as well and the answer he got was, yes, we "kind of" have to do it. Dr. Lorilee Sandmann knows about it and she can tell you what it is. Mr. Boyle noted that he doesn't know what happened last year in terms of dollars. Dr. Sandmann reported that CSU received about $775,000 for the equipment in those grants. She didn't know the exact figure of our match, but we are at about $200,000 for this next year. The figure must include a lot of "in kind." Professor Meiksins said that those were the numbers he was told. Mr. Boyle again noted that there is a request in this year's budget for $262,000 and that is currently in the unfunded list. It wasn't in the list that he had last month. Dr. Flechtner asked Mr. Boyle if he had figured out the Senate Bill 6 numbers. Mr. Boyle replied that in the Senate Bill 6 numbers we are better off now than we were. The Senate Bill 6 numbers are a perfect example of how you should never let the legislature get involved in trying to figure stuff out. They allow you to count all kinds of stuff like foundation monies that he can't possibly spend on the University to calculate the Senate Bill 6 thing. When he had Brian Cook do that last week for him, it actually was a couple of hundredths of a percent better than it was the year before, thus proving how useless the Senate Bill 6 numbers are. Professor Thomas Buckley commented that he heard it said that we didn't find out we were overspending until June. How can that be? Mr. Boyle reported that he didn't find about $2 million until the accountants brought to his attention that they wanted to reserve more money. Professor Buckley noted that this would be an explanation if they just forced us to recognize a minus number. Mr. Boyle stated that a lot of the departments wait until the end to spend. If you don't lock departmental carry-overs, they spend everything. Professor Buckley asked if there is something wrong with the controls. Mr. Boyle responded there is something wrong. Every month now, he gets a report that lists what divisions and lines are over budget and our Budget Office notifies the appropriate spending units if that is occurring. But, what you don't know is that somebody out there has ordered a whole bunch of something that doesn't come in until the end of the year and then they give you the bill for it or they sign contracts for people that are not contractually in the budget. Professor Buckley noted that this can be controlled too. Mr. Boyle agreed that it has to be. President Van Ummersen reported that it was known in January that we had a problem of about $1.5 million. When we made our mid-year adjustment, after getting the Regents final numbers and knowing our fall enrollments, and at least some handle on spring, we believed that we were off by $1.5 million. We made those adjustments in the budget at that time and that amount was absorbed. Whether it was the way things were posted, whether it was college financial offices, our financial officers, whatever, when the closings began in May, she was still being told that we were going to balance our budget. In her thinking, that meant that sufficient dollars had been put away. Then we learned that the Graduate College had overspent and we learned that several other colleges had overspent. And, as we began to close out the various parts of the budget, there was overspending in almost every place we were closing out. Nobody should be allowed to spend anything unless it is in the appropriate line of the budget for which the thing is being purchased. You can't say, "Well, we will use the vacancy savings so it is okay." The transfers must be done. At the end of the year, a lot of transfers came to cover things and the money wasn't there.
Provost McLoughlin reported that when he sent his memo out to everybody, he said don't spend because we may have a problem closing. Then there was a burst of spending. President Van Ummersen noted that it is that kind of behavior that we must stop. It is everybody; it is not just one piece. We are putting very tight controls at Jack Boyle's level to make sure that nothing gets through that isn't supposed to get through. Now, if you have to be mean and rotten, then you have to be mean and rotten.
XI. Report/Presentation Documenting Average Salaries (Report No. 10, 2000-2001)Dr. Marie Zeglen, Associate Provost for Planning, Assessment, and Information Resource Management, stated that her report is based on a small work group that was formed between the CSU-AAUP and the administration to identify a set of comparator institutions. The purpose of identifying the institutions was to enable discussion of market adjustments for the upcoming negotiation process. They worked together fairly cooperatively and collaboratively to define a list of fifteen institutions for which we would make market comparisons. The institutions were selected on the basis of urban location, size, to some extent types of programs, (although they did not have full information on that), Carnegie Classification, some other factors like the public mission, and being a public institution. We ended up with fifteen of them. We went and got information on those fifteen from two data sources -- the National CUPA, College and University Personnel Association Study, and the Oklahoma State University Study which is basically NASUGLC institutions. Most of the data we were able to obtain from CUPA for ten institutions. We pleaded with four institutions and they gave us their information directly, and then one institution, the University of Pittsburgh, refused. Our data was offered to them in exchange, but they still said no. Dr. Zeglen reported that on the CSU data, the information includes all members of the CSU AAUP. It does not include chairs and administrators and, of course, it only includes full-time faculty who are either tenure-track or have tenure and have rank. Professor Larson made a point of clarification. He noted that Dr. Zeglen's footnote in the material distributed says average salaries only include AAUP members. Surely she meant bargaining unit members. Dr. Zeglen agreed with Professor Larson. Dr. Zeglen noted that the disciplines are based upon the federally defined classification of instructional programs codes and they have been grouped in accordance with discussions that we had as part of this process. In some cases, we didn't have enough comparator data to make a judgment. For instance, we might have had less than five cases in a subset of the institutions in the comparator group. Where that happened, as a first choice, they went to National CUPA data or as a second choice, to National OSU data. Dr. Zeglen stated that deficiencies in the report are defined as the CSU average salary in a given rank and discipline minus the comparator average salary in that rank and discipline divided by the average for the comparator. She noted that the results were distributed to Senate members. Professor Dunegan asked Dr. Zeglen how different is this list from the one put together in June. Dr. Zeglen replied that the main difference is in the population. They updated as much as they could with data for 1999-2000 which means that the data for CSU are as of June 30, 2000. We are comparing in a way to a group of comparator institution data from the fall, basically taking in the fall of 1999. We are updating as much as possible to keep current on the CSU side. It is going to make things a little more difficult than they might be because we probably subtracted out some people who retired or who left at the end of the year, by June 30. We have not yet added in new hires because they won't come aboard in the financial systems until probably August and fall. They are not very different. Professor Dunegan asked Dr. Zeglen, "As you look over the whole thing, what is your observation and/or comments about the health of our compensation relative to the peers?" Dr. Zeglen responded that by this analysis, we show fairly substantial deficiencies in different areas and not very many that are over market. You can look discipline by discipline. She tends not to create a single deficiency number figure. When you look at the group of data that we have acquired from the comparator institutions and when you start trying to aggregate up, the numbers are going to be influenced by the relative portions of full versus associate and versus assistant professors who are in that mix as well as by the disciplinary array of those comparator institutions. For instance, if comparator groups happen to have more full professors or they happen to have more people in the sciences or engineering or business area, those numbers are going to be arbitrarily higher for just that reason. There are some corrections that can be made, but she didn't have a single magic number to give. Professor Dunegan remarked that he didn't quite follow that because if this is discipline and rank specific, then wouldn't bias by aggregation not occur? He could take, for example, the number of professors in Anthropology at Cleveland State and calculate the dollar deficiency, based on our comparative groups, and doesn't that number have particular meaning? Dr. Zeglen said that she is not calculating some overall magical percent deficient. You can look at it and that is what she tried to do, systematically, discipline by discipline to figure out what the deficiencies are. Professor Dunegan said that if he were to tell Dr. Zeglen that he calculated the deficiency and it is about $3.4 million would she be surprised? Dr. Zeglen replied that she has not done the calculation but it could be of that magnitude. Dr. Dunegan remarked that it is of that magnitude. Now, given that, would Dr. Zeglen care to make a comment about the health of our compensation relative to the peer group? Dr. Zeglen did not wish to comment. Professor Paul Doerder asked about the comparator calculation and how was it done. Was it weighted average or all individuals? He wondered how the numbers were obtained. If you had a mean with a sample size, that is one thing. Dr. Zeglen responded that the information she got from CUPA was group data. They would not release the names of the ten institutions in that pile. However, she did know the number of cases in each discipline and in each rank. Even in the case of the institutions that provided their individual data, it wasn't unit record data; it was still aggregated. So, if an institution had six associate professors, they gave us the average for those six associate professors. We don't have unit data that would enable more complicated statistics. Professor Doerder noted that some of these means are inflated so that more people are below that mean and there is not 50% above, but 50% below. Dr. Zeglen noted that effective median is a preferable statistic and most income statistics would be there but we don't have the data to do a median for the comparators. Professor Tewari reported that in certain departments about ten years ago, the median was about 15% below the median. Now, suddenly it has gone down to 21%. So, over the last two years, when things were not bad, they have lost 67% which to him looks ridiculous. Someone has to look into that. Dr. Zeglen had two observations. First, we were probably comparing to a different group two years ago. It wouldn't have been this group because it was just selected this May. Second, the comparator averages are going to be a moving target as well. So, if they are increasing at a faster rate than we are, you will see a widening of those gaps. Professor Dunegan asked if we have a target. Do we have a position? Do we have any sort of program to address where we want to be in terms of our salaries? As an institution, do we want to be at the median, do we want to be at the mean, do we want to be in the bottom 25%? Do we have something? Dr. Zeglen replied that this is a matter of the bargaining group and the administration right now. Dr. Dunegan stated that this is not a bargaining unit thing at all. He noted that Bill Bowen said in his opening statement and address to Faculty Senate that there is a certain degree of stewardship required here and, in that respect, we are looking at the University to be stewards of our well-being -- not the AAUP, but we are looking for responsibility in both parts. Where do we want to be? This came up in one of the Faculty Senate meetings last year. Where do we want to be as a university? Right now, we don't have people being paid at peer level rates. Dr. Doerder reported that there are Faculty Senates around the country that are concerned about the level of compensation in a university. It is not simply a matter of collective bargaining. It is indeed a concern of Faculty Senates in many places. President Van Ummersen commented that what we have is a group of comparator institutions, not necessarily peer institutions. There are at least as many, if not more that she would call "aspirational institutions" as opposed to peer institutions. That is not a bad situation as we try to look at making the case for faculty at our own institution vis-a-vis the other institutions in the state of Ohio. If we were to look at Kent, Toledo, and Akron, and maybe others, our salaries are not out of line for the people in disciplines in those institutions. When we are trying to make the case in Ohio that our faculty are being underpaid, it is important to have a comparative group that also deals with aspirations as well as salaries. Dr. Zeglen reported that of the fifteen institutions, thirteen have Carnegies above our level of a Doctoral II institution. Seven of them are Research I. Dr. Green commented that she was still puzzled. We were originally asked by the President of this university to participate in setting up a group of comparator institutions with an indication that we would at least make an effort to reach the level of these institutions and particularly some of the aspiration institutions. Now, she hears that our peer group and the ones that we should be compared to, are the Ohio universities, which would have been very easy. We wouldn't have had eight/nine meetings to come up with the data from Ohio universities. If the point were for all the Ohio universities to have some kind of comparator, then we should have done it cooperatively with the other institutions. She (Dr. Green) would like to know what the purpose of the exercise was, then basically, if this is just an aspiration group and we are going to still be talking about the fact that we compare with Ohio universities. In the comparison even with Ohio universities, if you take off Central, Shawnee, and Youngstown, our rating, especially for full professors, is not something I would like to see or brag about. Dr. Flechtner noted that for aspirational purposes, he looked up the average salaries in the AAUP survey, which is a very limited set of data, for the home institutions of the NCA evaluation team that is coming. Dr. Dunegan reported that in the Business School, they have compared their salaries with Ohio schools. This is data that was shared with the Dean's office last year. Based on Ohio schools, our full professors are $14,000 below; our associates are $11,000 below; our assistants are $3,000 below. If you want to talk about aspirational groups, fine, but we reported last year that 85% of the faculty in this university don't make the same that they would make at Lakeland Community College. So, the aspirational group has to be defined somehow, but it doesn't look like with whom we compare ourselves makes a difference. We don't compare well at all with anybody. We have to have some position to work here with some plan on how we are going to do that. That is not an AAUP decision. That is something that the university administration has to be able and willing to do. What do we want to be? Professor Jeffres asked if we are aiming for Carnegie II. Professor Dunegan remarked, "Then we should pay that." Professor Jeffres asked, "Wasn't the Carnegie Classification of the comparator group higher than we are?" Senate President Bowen noted that we have all shown some stamina and we are airing points that need to be aired. He thanked Dr. Zeglen for her report. Dr. Bowen noted that this discussion will continue the first chance we get. Because of the lateness, the meeting adjourned at 5:35 P.M. Arthur H. Schwartz Faculty Senate Secretary