Cleveland State University

Faculty Senate

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FACULTY SENATE November 8, 2000

PRESENT: Aquila, Barbato, J. Bazyk, A. Benander, W. Bowen, Buckley, Chung, Dieterich, Dillard-Mitchell, Doerder, Dunegan, Falk, Flechtner, Flynn, Forte, Frew, Govea, Gross, Hemann, Hollinger, Jeffres, Keating, Kellogg, Konangi, Konstantinos, Larson, Mahmud, Mastboom, Matthews, McCahon, McLoughlin, Meiksins, Miracle, Misra, Neuendorf, Nolan, Nuru-Holm, Orendi, Rahm, Ramsey, Reinhart, Schwartz, Shah, M. Smith, Sparks, Steckol, Thornton, Tumeo, Valencic, Vallos, Van Ummersen, Wadhwa, J. Webb, Wheatley, Whyte, J. Wilson.

ABSENT/EXCUSED: Boyle, Dural, Gorla, B. Green, Hartnagel, Quigney, Sanders, Spicer, Steinglass, Tewari.

ALSO PRESENT: S. Bazyk, Brennan, Jain, M. Kaufman, Lupton.

Senate President William Bowen informed the Senate that Mr. Ronald Rutti, a reporter from The Plain Dealer, was present today. The Senate gave its approval for Mr. Rutti to attend the meeting.

Dr. Bowen introduced Professor Sidney Kraus, stating that he is here today in the role of Parliamentarian.

I. Approval of the Agenda

Acceptance of the Agenda for November 8, 2000 was moved, seconded, and approved.

[Go to top of page]

 

II. Approval of the Minutes of the October 11, 2000 Meeting

Acceptance of the Minutes of the October 11, 2000 meeting was moved and seconded. Several errors in the Minutes were reported. The corrected Minutes were then approved.

[Go to top of page]

III.Proposed Revision of the Foreign Language Requirement (Report No. 11, 2000-2001)

Dr. Chet Jain, Chair of the Admissions and Standards Committee, reported that the Committee is trying to formalize a long-standing procedure of the Admissions Office. The Foreign Language Policy is not applicable to students who are entering as post baccalaureate students. These are students who already have an undergraduate degree from elsewhere and they are here, not to seek a degree, but maybe for a certification program, for a course, for a licensing requirement, etc. The Committee believes that whatever the language requirement was at their earlier school, they have already met it. It doesn't make any sense to subject them to our undergraduate admissions requirement for a foreign language. For whatever reason, post baccalaureate students are classified as undergraduates. Therefore, the long-standing policy has been that we do not require of them the foreign language policy. We have included, as a clause, that the foreign language policy will not be applicable to students who are entering as post baccalaureate students.

Professor Kenneth Dunegan inquired if this would also apply to someone who has just decided to undertake a second bachelors program. Dr. Jain replied that Professor Dunegan was correct. The students already have a bachelors degree but the Committee is assuming that whatever the foreign language requirement was, they have met it when they got their first bachelor's degree. The

Senate approved the revised Policy on the Foreign Language Requirement.

[Go to top of page]

IV. Proposed Recommendations Concerning the Smoking Ban, Inspection of Labs, and Indoor Pollution (Report No. 12, 2000-2001)

Dr. Susan Bazyk, Chair of the University Safety and Health Advisory Committee, presented three recommendations of the Committee based on the Committee's 1999-2000 Annual Report.

  1. Smoking Ban: Expand the ways in which the smoking ban is enforced throughout campus. This has been a long-standing item, and last year the Committee finally decided to push it forward.
  2. Inspection of Labs: Mandatory safety inspections of all labs on a regular basis.
  3. Indoor Pollution: Recommend ventilation inspections of all buildings on a regular basis.

Dr. Susan Bazyk noted that Mr. Harlan Merwin, the Director of Safety and Environmental Services, was present today to answer any questions. Professor Thomas Flechtner referred to #2 (Security), of the Committee's recommendations on Smoking and wondered if this meant the University Police Force. Dr. Susan Bazyk responded that this is referring to the University Police although, in talking to Amy Govoni, the Chairperson of the Committee last year, the Committee knew that there would be some concerns about that and whether the security force would enforce this law, but it is the law. Dr. John Bazyk called attention to #5 of the list of Safety Issues concerning the air hand dryers in the Chester Building rest rooms and asked if this just applies to the Chester Building. Professor Susan Bazyk responded that it was brought up in the Committee. They would be open to considering the rest of the University but, of course, the Committee knew that there would be a cost issue attached to it. Specifically, people on the Committee were talking about Chester Building. Mr. Harlan Merwin indicated that there was some concern about the air hand dryers where you could pass or pick up a disease from somebody else. But, there has never been any real hard proof. The EPA has not come out and said that we need to do away with air hand dryers. There was a lot of discussion in Committee. Because of the financial concerns and no hard proof, the Committee let it hang. Somebody suggested going with towels but there is no requirement to do that. Dr. Susan Bazyk indicated that many people prefer towels. She did not include that recommendation because the other three issues were the stronger issues that the Committee really wanted to push forward. Professor Paul Doerder raised the issue of inspection of labs under Safety Issues. He assumed that Dr. S. Bazyk was referring to research labs. Dr. S. Bazyk replied that there were also concerns about some of the labs in the Art Department that required hoods for areas where people were using materials with fumes. She noted that there is a chemical hygiene plan in place at CSU. Each department has a chemical hygiene officer, but the Committee is not sure how much of this is enforced. The plan requires that department people will do the walk-throughs because it was approved by Management and Legal Counsel and everybody involved in the preparation of the procedure. For example, a professor came up to him about a week ago stating that some of the graduate students weren't wearing goggles. We have been over this and that is required. That is where the walk-through comes in. He noted that he cannot be every place, so people in different departments were appointed in order to help out. If they walk through and see graduate students without goggles, they will point out that the students are not allowed in class. This can help enforce some of the rules and procedures. Mr. Merwin stated that he doesn't know if that is really being done or if everybody is even aware that it exists. We need to remind people about this. Dr. Susan Bazyk reported that it was brought up because there was an incident about a year ago with some problems in labs. When people looked into it more, some real problems were found in the labs. We do have a chemical hygiene plan; and under inspections, it does require annual inspections by the assigned person within the department. The Committee is not sure how much is enforced at this point. Mr. Merwin reported that he received a call from the EPA because he is in charge of hazardous waste. The EPA has placed universities as number one in the United States to inspect. They are going down the East coast and Hawaii, sending their teams into universities, and the universities are being fined. He noted that within three weeks, he will have all of our stuff shipped and hopes that when the EPA shows up, we will have an empty cupboard. They can just take a look around and leave. We don't want to get caught up in that sort of situation. It is hoped that they don't do spot checks of the labs. We need to make sure that our labs are in order as well.

The Senate accepted the report and recommendations of the University Safety and Health Advisory Committee.

[Go to top of page]

V. Status of Provost Search (Report No. 13, 2000-2001)

Vice President Njeri Nuru-Holm reported that the Provost Search Committee has received 57 applications and an additional 32 nominations. The pool was narrowed down to ten individuals and the Committee held screening interviews the week before last with those individuals. Since then, the pool has been narrowed to six individuals. The Committee has been in the midst of in-depth reference checks. The schedule for the Provost search calls for the Committee to have another meeting on November 17, 2000, at which time references will be discussed and a determination made as to which individuals we would want to bring to campus. The schedule calls for bringing to campus no more than three to four candidates the week after Thanksgiving. We will have full-day interviews with those candidates. The Committee will not be bringing to campus any individuals that they do not believe would suffice as Provost. Dr. Nuru-Holm stated that the Committee has a group of individuals who have the types of skills, urban experience, and talent, and are capable of handling the issues that are before us in the academic sector.

Dr. Nuru-Holm stated that when individuals come to campus, whether it is for this search or any other search, it is important for all of us to keep in mind that while they are looking at our campus and the type of environment they would be in, it doesn't necessarily mean they would accept a position when offered. We are looking critically at them, but whenever any candidate comes to this campus, we have to sell the type of institution we are which is an open-admissions institution and an urban institution. That is one of the strengths pointed out by the NCA. Any candidate for any position that comes to this university, should be prepared to embrace that and provide leadership in that direction.

Dr. Rodger Govea suggested that once the list of invitees has been established and agreed upon, Dr. Nuru-Holm should send a mass mailing to everyone. Dr. Nuru-Holm said that this will be done. She noted that the Search Committee does have a web site and she invited everyone to log on to that web site (http://www.csuohio.edu/choosecsu/). She noted that Lida Allen has helped the Committee with it and the candidates have indicated that it has been very helpful to them. The web site does link them into the rest of the university for information that they can use. Also, the Committee did not send the candidates paper in advance of their interviews. They were advised to log on to the web site.

Professor Andrew Gross asked if the Committee checked references beyond those given to the Committee by the candidates. Dr. Nuru-Holm assured Dr. Gross that the Committee is doing that. In addition, there is a student representative on the search committee and the student has been asked to check his counterparts at the institutions. The candidates are aware that we are going "off the list" and they are aware that the student is also contacting his counterparts.

Professor Tayyab Mahmud reported that this mornings newspaper informed us that the President has decided to move to Washington, D.C. If that is true, wouldn't it make sense to suspend the Provost search and allow the new President to develop his/her own cabinet in light of the present circumstances? Dr. Nuru-Holm responded that this is certainly something she has to wait for some direction on. Until she gets that direction, which she presumes would be coming from the Board of Trustees, she cannot really answer that question. She is just providing the Senate with a report on where the Committee is at this time.

Dr. Peter Meiksins commented, "Assuming that the search goes forward and assuming that the news we read in the Plain Dealer this morning is accurate, is the Committee going to discuss ways of informing the candidates that the position to which they are coming is now in a somewhat different circumstance than it initially was?" Dr. Nuru-Holm replied that this is in process and she has had discussions already with the search firm, A T Kearney, so it is being handled as appropriate.

[Go to top of page]

 

VI. University President's Report

President Claire Van Ummersen talked about some of the things that have been happening at CSU. She offered congratulations to Professor Mieko Smith who has received a wonderful family strengthening grant for the year 2000 and was congratulated also by Hope Taft, the First Lady of the State of Ohio. That not only brings great exposure to Mieko, but the work that our faculty are doing at Cleveland State.

President Van Ummersen noted that congratulations are also in order to Professor Michael Walton of the Biology Department. He was the major author of a pre-proposal that went to the National Science Foundation in a grant category for integrative graduate education and research training. The pre-proposal was successful and The Center for Environmental Science, Technology, and Policy has been selected to submit a full proposal. That will offer us the opportunity to work in collaboration with our sister universities in the area and it will be on a topic of crucial importance to the ecosystem in Northeast Ohio.

President Van Ummersen also recognized the College of Law which has been working very hard on its strategic planning. Some major changes have been made in the curriculum in the Law School, particularly the addition of programming in legal writing. This is one of the major areas that is necessary for our students to understand and do well both for their own use and also in terms of the ABA passage. The number of upper division courses involving technology and globalization have been increased in recognition of the important changes taking place in the practice of law. The Law College deserves credit for taking the time and making the effort. As a faculty, she wanted to recognize both the Dean and the College for the good work that they've done.

Lastly, President Van Ummersen reported that Professors Thomas Lechner and Peter Poznanski, of the Department of Accounting, coached a team of eight students in the College of Business who took first place in the 17th annual Accounting Challenge sponsored by DeLoitte & Touche LLP. We beat all of the other competing teams that include The University of Akron, John Carroll University, Case Western Reserve University, Kent State University, and Youngstown State University. So, congratulations both to the students and to the faculty members who take the time to work in these areas. It is wonderful experience for the students and not bad press for the University. "It's too bad that The Plain Dealer doesn't print more of those good things, but then you can't have everything here", she noted.

President Van Ummersen reported that Chancellor Chu met yesterday with the Presidents in Columbus to encourage them to support the Regents' budget request. She noted that she has talked to the Senate about the budget request before. The Presidents have agreed that they would support the full request that was put in place by the Regents and that is before the Governor. We will work together with the Regents as a group in terms of attempting to get the Regents' requests as a reality and a budget that would be passed ultimately by the legislature and signed by the Governor with one caveat. The caveat was that the Chancellor work with the Presidents of the two and four-year institutions who are members of the Funding Commission to begin to set priorities in the event that the full request does not get funded. The Chancellor has agreed to do that and we have our first session on December 4, 2000.

Finally, President Van Ummersen informed members of the Senate that she has accepted a position at the American Council on Education as Vice President of the American Council and Director of the Office of Women in Higher Education. Since the Board Chairman is out of the country until Friday, she can't give the Senate an exact date when she will leave the University, but it will be no later than June 30, 2001.

The President said that she has enjoyed very much being an integral part of the progress of this University during the last several years. We have made major progress in redirecting our mission, forming important partnerships which have strengthened our programs, and attracted an excellent faculty. We have also improved the liveability of our campus environment and completed a number of important construction projects, among them, the 17th and 18th Street Project. We have also finally moved the Social Work Department out of Mathur Hall. In addition, Health Sciences has moved into new and appropriate space. Together, we have much to be proud of and to those who have been colleagues, she thanked them for their continuing support and stated that it is truly gratifying. "Thank you for giving me the opportunity to have served Cleveland State."

[Go to top of page]

 

VII. Senate President's Report

Senate President William Bowen wished President Claire Van Ummersen well.

"First, there are a number of managerial items to talk about. All of us owe congratulations to Professor Everett Cataldo and all of those who helped and supported him with the NCA visit. I think you will all agree that it was very perceptive and astute of them to recognize that the faculty has a strong commitment to providing quality education. On the other hand, among the challenges and concerns, there was mention of enrollment and budget. In terms of enrollment, briefly, when the President's Enrollment Task Force finishes their work, I will, if you would like, ask for a report to be made to the Faculty Senate and then, we as a body, can decide how to proceed. Please let me know your views on that.

"In terms of the University's budget and finance situation, there is currently a draft proposal for a reconstituted Planning and Budget Advisory Committee being worked on by the University Faculty Affairs Committee. Thank you to Vijaya Konangi, Art Schwartz, and Ed Brennan for putting together the initial draft, and to the Faculty Affairs Committee for working up the initial draft, and to Jack Boyle and Marie Zeglen for their positive and supportive input. The proposal is not yet complete, so for now, suffice it to say that the idea is to reconstitute the committee in such a way as to enhance faculty participation. In the initial draft, it is called the Budget and Finance Committee, and it is jointly chaired by an administrator and a faculty member. If all goes well, there will be a first reading of it at the Faculty Senate meeting next month.

"While on the topic of the budget, I have heard almost unanimous support among faculty members for the idea of increased faculty participation in the budget process. Besides institutional arrangements at the university level, one of the most important potential avenues for faculty to participate in the budget process is within the colleges themselves. Once the administration gives budget figures to the colleges, the situation is ripe inside the colleges for meaningful faculty participation.

"I want to congratulate Dean Steckol and all of those in the College of Arts and Sciences who put together the Jewish Ritual Art exhibit. I went to that exhibit last week and it was terrific. It is one of a number of really wonderful things that are going on here at Cleveland State. Keep up the excellent work.

"One of the items on the informal agenda now is the internal search for a Graduate Dean. The Provost yesterday spoke with me about it, asked me for faculty input, and told me that he would like to begin the process soon. If you want or at least are willing to make early input into the process, now is the time to do so. Again, please get back to me. Also, while on the topic of the Graduate College, I need direction from the Faculty Senate on the Report on the Graduate College presented to Senate last month. Within the next few days, I will get on Dean Tumeo's schedule to talk about the report, and I would like to have feedback from Senate members to take with me.

Challenges in the Near Future

"Cleveland State University is entering a time of swift change and uncertainty as everybody knows. Change, in my view, is not to be sought for its own sake. Its consequences can be very good, very bad, or somewhere in between. The challenge that we at Cleveland State University now face stems from the fact that for us to forego change is not an option -- we will change. We will undoubtedly face a swift sequence of events (with President Van Ummersen leaving) over which we have no control, and the change will occur. The question is whether it will be the kind of change that will preserve our deepest values, enhance the viability of Cleveland State University, and insure its future.

"In terms of interfacing externally, the Board of Trustee is undoubtedly well-enough intentioned, socially connected, and genuinely interested in the university. But the people on it are business people and lawyers and good citizens rather than people who have made the university the center of their life-work. Most top administrative positions through which the university conducts external relations will now be filled with people serving in interim positions -- we will have an Interim President and several Interim Deans. The faculty, therefore, in my view, needs to pro-actively put together a set of suggestions to take to the Board of Trustees and suggest to them how to proceed next.

"Internally, one of the first points is that while we will also continue to have an Interim Provost for a while, one big related question is whether we, as a faculty, think it is wise to continue with the Provost search. There is also the question of whether we, as a faculty, think it is wise for the Provost to continue having responsibility for Student Services which really needs to be answered first. Another point is do we wait until we get a new President before we get a new Provost or how are we going to do that? Internally, one of the greatest, if not the greatest threat to us is loss of confidence. Loss of confidence brings images of defeat and failure and helplessness, even self-contempt at times. Means begin to triumph over ends, form begins to triumph over spirit, and the turf syndrome starts to conquer all which we know is sometimes occurring around here. It brings an incapacity to summon energy on behalf of purposeful effort, an unwillingness to take risks, and a fatal timidity at the moment when opportunity breaks.

"All regeneration and renewal is a blend of continuity and change. We, the faculty, are the continuity amidst all of the change. Therefore, now is the time for us to work together. We need to get to the root of the communication breakdown, whether it's rooted in anger or fear or mistrust or differing assumptions and definitions. It is time to listen to each other; to listen to the administration; and to understand how the other perceives the problem. It is time to pro-actively generate alternative proposals for action seeking, among the many interests held by different groups around campus, those that constitute positive contributions to the creation and delivery of the curriculum. It is time to create the conditions to attract the kind of President that we would really like to have next. We need to take our future into our own hands and create those conditions. It is important that we view the situation as a tremendous opportunity for the regeneration and renewal of our values. On one hand, we face tremendous problems and, on the other hand, we face tremendous opportunities. I have a very positive view and I think a lot of people at CSU have a very positive view about the future of Cleveland State University.

"One of the first things I think we need to do to get there is to correct some of the objective circumstances that have produced some of the negative attitudes and defeatism. Of course, doing that will not be easy -- life is seldom easy -- but let's not take the uncertainty and the first failures of our efforts to dash our hopes, but rather take them as a reason to strengthen our resolve. There are many positive things here at CSU and we need to build on those. Now is the time to build on the positive things at the University and make it into the future that we want."

Professor Gross thanked Dr. Bowen for his remarks. Dr. Gross said that he believes that we are all indeed both involved and committed but there is such a thing as "paralysis by analysis." This body tends to deliberate often too long and other bodies deliberate too long. He suggested a very practical avenue for expediting things. Dr. Bowen is now the leader of this body. Professor Gross suggested that Dr. Bowen put out a memo to Faculty Senators with a deadline on e-mail -- 72 hours to 96 hours. If Senators don't respond negatively or positively, then Dr. Bowen should go ahead. Just to prolong and debate, it has gone on far too long too many times in this body and many other bodies. Dr. Bowen has the leadership role and he can set the deadline and say, "Unless I hear from you otherwise, we shall proceed this way." Professor Gross stated that we need to do that to move forward. Professor Tayyab Mahmud said that he respected the spirit behind those comments, but carefully laid out processes and later deliberation does take time. First, particularly in times when the issues become more difficult, more serious deliberation is warranted. As we are asking others to be part of the community to correlate our procedures, it behooves us to do the same. Secondly, the primary participation of the faculty in the budget process happens after the pie has been cut. Particularly, it is very important, given the nature of the financial situation and the recent past, that involvement of the faculty be at all levels of budget planning and execution. Professor Meiksins noted that Dr. Bowen had made reference in his statement to a search for an internal Graduate Dean. He wondered if Dr. Bowen could say more. This is a question that should be directed to Mark Tumeo, but this is the first that he has actually heard about there being a search that might actually begin. He wondered whether members of the Graduate Faculty are going to be informed of this process, or be involved in it, and in what way. He is on the Graduate Faculty. Dr. Bowen responded that the Provost spoke with him about that and asked him for faculty input. He brought it to Senate because he thought this would be the opportunity to get faculty input. Of course there will be faculty participation. Dr. Bowen's impression is that Mark Tumeo is starting to think about it. Provost Jay McLoughlin reported that he and Dr. Bowen talked about a search for an internal Graduate Dean and it was his intention to visit with the Graduate Council. They had a preliminary discussion because in organizing searches for Deans, of course, you go to the populous and talk about the selection of the committee. In this case, it will be a university-wide process. He asked Dr. Bowen his preliminary thoughts about it and thought that Dr. Bowen would be speaking to the Steering Committee or to the Senate. Provost McLoughlin is certainly interested in the Senate's thoughts about the organization of the committee. He will be visiting with the Graduate Council and the Research Council and get back to Senate. He added that he is not starting the search tomorrow. Professor Misra brought up budget problems. For example, twelve graduate students in the College of Business were in some kind of hourly contract for fall semester and were removed from their jobs because the College of Business could not pay them for the rest of the semester. We, in the College of Business, have been told that we are going to run out of money to have telephones available. Professor Misra stated that he would be happy to have his telephone removed right now. The question is, we have seen figures which say that the administrative area is now 54% compared to the operational side which is "some 40%." These are issues that cannot wait until we get our act together to get a new President, to get a new Provost, or to have a new Budget Committee. These are some of the issues that need to be addressed now. It is silly to remove $8.00 per hour students when we have a Provost and perhaps Vice Provosts getting $150,000, when he is not sure what they are contributing to the university. Dr. Bowen noted that we are going to run into a number of situations where the procedures to proceed are not clear and the key decision-makers will not be available. Provost McLoughlin reported that the Deans will arrive at an appropriate resolution of many issues that have come up with the budget in the different colleges. If it is otherwise, he will come to the Senate and explain why not. Professor Misra requested that the Provost come back with a report. It is a very small amount of money. Somebody can transfer one percent of the travel budget from somewhere so that these students can be employed for the rest of this semester. Why do these students have to be fired because we cannot pay them when we gave them contracts to be employed for the fall semester? Provost McLoughlin said that he would like an opportunity to work on that problem. Professor Thomas Buckley suggested that the Trustees should start a search for a new President as soon as possible. He doesn't know how many people would agree with that, but he would recommend that the Steering Committee consider that and make a recommendation to the Senate at the next meeting. That recommendation should be forwarded to the Board of Trustees with a view of getting a President by next July 1, 2001 or at the end of next year at the latest. Professor Buckley then moved that the Academic Steering Committee consider his idea. Motion: For the Academic Steering Committee to take up the possibility that we engage as soon as possible in a search for a new President. (Report No. 14, 2000-2001) The motion was seconded. Professor Meiksins supported the motion. He noted that he is not familiar with procedures at CSU for recruiting a President and asked if there are established procedures for doing that. What form does faculty involvement take in that search or is this something that we make up each time we do it? Professor Buckley responded that it is the Trustees' responsibility. Dr. Bowen confirmed that it will be up to the Trustees. He would like to see a number of faculty get together soon in order to discuss going to the Board of Trustees and what sort of input the faculty will have in the search. Professor Meiksins offered a friendly amendment: "The Steering Committee consider recommending to the Board that the search for a President be done as soon as possible and that faculty involvement in the search be as great as possible."

Dr. Leo Jeffres called the question. The motion with the friendly amendment was approved.

[Go to top of page]

VIII. Budget Questions (Report No. 9, 2000-2001)

Dr. Bowen informed the Senate that he had received a memo from Vice President Jack Boyle this morning regarding Item VIII Budget Questions and proceeded to read the memo to the Senate:

"Given the current circumstances at Cleveland State, I feel that the appropriate vehicle for discussion of budget matters between the faculty and the administration is the Planning and Budget Advisory Committee. Therefore, I respectfully decline your invitation to discuss budget matters at this afternoon's meeting of the Faculty Senate. The agenda item regarding parking will be addressed by Gary Meszaros, Director of Auxiliary Services and John Oden, Director of Parking Services."

Dr. Bowen reported that he talked with Jack Boyle because he had heard some comments about whether this was a symbol of something hostile. He noted that Mr. Boyle had assured him (Dr. Bowen) that it was in no way intended to give offense. He simply wants to get perspective. There are a lot of changes going on and he plans to spend the remainder of his time focusing here at Cleveland State on the 2002 budget. Professor Mahmud stated that there appears to be a disconnect between the text of that memo and the conversation Dr. Bowen had with Mr. Boyle. The text appears to say that this is not the appropriate forum to answer the budget questions and some other place is. That is something that the Senate should consider seriously. Mr. Boyle came here to meet with us last month on these questions. Nothing has changed between then and now. The written statement appears to be coming close to contempt of the Senate. Dr. Bowen commented that the most important thing we can do right now is to begin to work together and to build levels of trust. It was Ben Franklin who said, "I never give an explanation. My friends don't ask for them and my enemies don't deserve them." So, his read of it would be simple; accept his declination. Professor Mahmud stated that he is not Ben Franklin and he is not talking about friendships. We are talking about governance of an institution where the problem has been a breakdown of procedure, a breakdown of communication, and he (Dr. Bowen) just now politely said that the task is to build confidence. He added that he doesn't see how a communication like that is an instrument or gesture towards building communication. It appears to be a gesture to curtail communication. So, it should be addressed in that light and he would urge Dr. Bowen to build that bridge and invite us here -- the spirit is to work together and we invite Mr. Boyle in that spirit. Dr. Leo Jeffres remarked that there are probably a dozen examples of the twelve students or equivalent issues that some of us would like to raise here from one department or college -- money swept, etc. It is the decisions that are being made that people want to talk about. Perhaps it isn't the Vice Presidents, but at the Provost level to talk about some of them. Mr. Boyle said earlier that he set some parameters, but the cuts were being made elsewhere. Some of the decisions the Senate wants to talk about and call the question on are at perhaps the Provost level. Perhaps the Provost is the one who could be talking about some of these factors because the process of cuts, what money is being swept, etc. is at that level. It isn't the Vice President who is doing it. So, perhaps we are asking the wrong person some of the questions here. Dr. Kimberly Neuendorf commented that to be a little more specific, if Dr. McLoughlin is listening, the line begins where? There are many cases of monies being swept and raids. The Communication Department was raided to the tune of $30,000 and we are waiting to find out when and how those monies will be restored because they are integral to our academic enterprise. We need answers this academic year about not just where the cuts are but how the money is going to be restored. We are poor enough. We cannot bear this sweep of funds. She asked Dr. McLoughlin where the line begins. Will you take care of all of these problems? Provost McLoughlin responded that it starts with your Deans and with your Chairpersons. If faculty have questions about the budget, they should talk to their Chairs and their Dean. He is in regular communication with the Deans and if these issues are brought to his attention, then he works them out with the Deans. He doesn't see any reason why it can't work. If it is not working, he asked that faculty let him know. If faculty are concerned about some things that they are not getting answers for, let him know. As far as he knows, the Chairs and the Deans are talking with the faculty. If that is not the case, then there is something that needs to be corrected and it will be corrected immediately. If the question is that what you are hearing is what you don't want to hear, then that is some other issue. He indicated that he is prepared to work with the faculty on either basis. Professor Meiksins emphasized that one problem we need to address, which emerged from what Dr. McLoughlin said, is Professor Neuendorf's question about where does the line start. Going back to Mr. Boyle, one of the difficulties and one of the reasons we need to have him as well as some of the other people who are responsible for trying to resolve the fiscal problems here, in attendance, talking to this body, is that no one has yet given us a satisfactory explanation of how we came to be in this position. We have heard accounts which, by and large, the faculty do not believe. Until and unless we are made to believe them, any action on our part is completely stymied. No one is willing to make sacrifices and to make changes and to make the tough decisions until some one explains to us in a persuasive, actual, and truthful manner, how we came to be in this predicament. Professor Meiksins added that he has not heard that answer yet to his satisfaction. Professor James Wilson stated that one of his concerns looking to the future is trying to reduce the amount of polarization between the administration and the faculty. It was rampant when he came on the Senate two and one half years ago, and, once again, he is starting to see it pick up. He really doesn't want to get into a big conflict with Mr. Boyle over his right never to talk to us, but it just seems that this is wrong and that this is polarizing. He really wishes that Mr. Boyle and the rest of the administration would reconsider that sort of general principle. That seems an awfully strong principle to stand by so, consequently, he would like them to reconsider in the light of re-established trust that we will continue to talk. Then maybe he (Mr. Boyle) will say that this isn't in our jurisdiction for right now, or this is what I want to talk to you about today, maybe I will talk to you about that later, maybe we will have to have a special meeting to talk about particular cuts and particular people, but it is different to just say that I am not going to talk to you at all. It is important that we calm down our rhetoric. This was a bad start. Professor Wilson hopes that Mr. Boyle will reconsider his position before the next Faculty Senate meeting. Professor Dunegan said that he also would like to maintain some communication with the Vice Presidents and with the Provost. In particular, we have some outstanding questions that were posed in the last Senate meeting and that Mr. Boyle suggested he was not capable of answering because they were process questions. In the Minutes, Mr. Boyle said that they were very valid questions and we deserve answers to them but he was not the party from whom those answers should come. That being the case, there will be instances where the Provost ought to step in and say, "Here are the answers to these process questions." For example, we have asked whether or not the Deans have been involved in this budgeting process. The Deans are telling us, "No." And yet, the Provost is saying that they are involved in the loop. So we are not getting the straight story or maybe they are both right, but we just don't understand the nuances. Regardless, we should have some vehicle by which we get answers to our questions and submitting it to another committee is, "administrative orbiting" that just basically allows things to die by sending them to committee. He added that this is not the appropriate thing for us to entertain right now. Dr. Arthur Schwartz reported that he is one of the people on the Planning and Budget Advisory Committee. The Committee met for the first time last Friday, November 3, 2000. What the Committee has done might answer some of the questions regarding process. The Committee has begun working on budget workups for the 2002 year. That does not address some of the questions that have come up about cuts this year. Express concerns were raised about deadlines that Deans have to meet, and, as a result of that, the Committee formed a subcommittee consisting of four people -- two from the administration and two faculty representatives. The two administrative representatives are Dean Steckol and Provost McLoughlin. Dr. Schwartz is one of the faculty and Jandhyala Sharma from Business is the other. They met this past weekend, they are meeting tomorrow, they are going to be meeting again -- they are shooting for a November 17 deadline. The goal is to come up with the decision process. What are the factors? What are the priorities? What's a hierarchy in the decision that is going to be going on? Dr. Schwartz stated that at present, he did not have anything to report to Senate. Members can e-mail him with concerns and suggestions, and he will pass them along to the committee. Based on the one meeting, it has been forthright and we can get our opinions and our recommendations heard. Whether or not they will be adhered to, he doesn't know, but we have a shot at communicating it. Professor Mahmud made a suggestion that may help to create communication to get the job done. We need to understand that there are two processes at work. The process that Dr. McLoughlin referred to, and rightly so, is the executive process where you go through the Deans and the Deans go through the Provost. The Senate is a slightly different process. This is the representative process. To put one down in favor of the other is not the way things work. These are the checks and balances as are known to many systems and there are some kinds of questions that have to go the executive route and some questions that have to go the representative route. Both the administration and the faculty have to recognize that and use both of these functions so that they can do what needs to be done and develop communication, and trust, and move on. Dr. Jeffres pointed out that Mr. Boyle has been very open in providing data and information for people who have requested it. His students interviewed Mr. Boyle about the budget, etc., far more often than the predecessor. He hopes to continue that. Mr. Boyle not appearing here today is somewhat of a surprise because he has been so open and has devoted a considerable amount of time doing that and he hopes that Mr. Boyle continues. Dr. Bowen reported that Mr. Boyle had mentioned to him that he is not making this a forever thing -- he is just not coming today. He also said that he (Mr. Boyle) wanted to focus on the 2002 budget when he comes back. Dean Karen Steckol spoke to two issues. First, it has been said that the Deans have said that they are not involved in the budget process and if she had been asked that question two months ago, her answer would have been, "Yes, I think you are right." That is not true anymore. She just wanted to make that correction in public from her perspective. She doesn't know how the other Deans feel about it, but she believes that they are intimately involved now and will continue to be. Second, the decisions that the hierarchy are making, which the Provost is speaking about, are in fact working. The Deans are going to the Provost and she believes that his last comment was the most salient comment -- that is people don't like the answers. If she has "X" number of dollars, she has to make decisions about what gets funded and what doesn't get funded and she has to make those recommendations to the Provost. That is her job as the person responsible for the College. The Provost then has to make decisions based on what he has in his coffers, then it comes back to her, and then she has to give it out. So, sometimes people hear what they want to hear and sometimes they hear what they don't want to hear, but they do get answers. She has always encouraged people that, if they don't agree with the decisions they get, they have recourse to go over her head, but we need to follow the process. The process in the College of Arts and Sciences is being followed almost exclusively all of the time.

Dean Rosemary Ramsey, College of Business, addressed the student issue mentioned earlier since it was her College. She reported that the twelve students were some of the College's hourly students. The College of Business does not have enough money on its operating lines to function this year. Period. She would be happy to show those lines to anyone. She went to many, many people in this university to try to find some way to keep those students on through the end of this semester. Dr. Njeri Nuru-Holm came up with some money for her. Dr. John Holm came up with some money to help with those kids. In addition, thanks to Andy Gross, the faculty and staff of the College of Business came up with $5,500 to help pay those students through this semester. That is the positive kind of thing we do here at Cleveland State and that should be recognized and saluted. She has talked to the Provost and he is well aware of the College of Business's financial situation. He is trying his best to get money for the College of Business so we can keep the phones going for the whole year, but we have to realize where we are and what the situation is and work together. Are the Deans involved? We are now. We have been involved in this process for about the last two weeks. Things will become a little more open to the rest of the University, but thanks to everybody working on it, we have those twelve students still on the payroll.

[Go to top of page]

IX. Parking Report (Report No. 15, 2000-2001)

 

Mr. Gary Meszaros, Director of Auxiliary Services, introduced himself and John Oden, Director of Parking. Mr. Meszaros reported that Auxiliary Services is a self-supported operation. We really don't get tuition dollars or state subsidy to run our operations. Other Auxiliary Operations besides Parking are Food Services, Housing, Convocation Center, Viking Card Office, and the Bookstore. He noted that Dr. Dunegan had sent some questions and asked for a response. In response to the question, "Why can't we give free parking to the faculty when other schools around Ohio are getting free parking," Mr. Meszaros said that basically, it is because it is self-funded and self-operated. He reported that they looked at the Urban 13 institutions. We are number eight among those, so we weren't the highest and we weren't the lowest in the cost per year in parking at $384 per year if you prepaid. We actually are below market right now compared to the City of Cleveland. If you do payroll deduction for your parking, you get approximately a $50 tax savings. Your permit that originally costs $384, ends up costing $1.46 per day. That is a pretty good value wherever you compare here in downtown Cleveland. The City of Cleveland actually charges their employees $960 per year. Case Western Reserve University, on average, charges $515. Cuyahoga County workers pay $900 per year.

Mr. Meszaros reported that there is also a Parking Advisory Committee which has two members appointed by Faculty Senate -- Professors Rodger Govea and Daniel Drake. They helped answer parking questions and helped develop a parking plan, which hasn't been done in the last four years. Parking fees haven't been raised since 1998. We are developing a plan to raise the parking fees next year. Mr. Meszaros noted that Professor Rodger Govea did not approve. The Committee is also prepared to come to Faculty Senate later in the year once the parking plan has been completely developed. The plan will not go forward until more people across the campus buy into it-- Faculty Senate, Student Government Association, Staff Council, and other areas on campus.

Dr. Cynthia Dieterich asked why the Committee changed the variable rates. Faculty in the College of Education are out in the field. She is not here two days a week and it does not benefit her to pay for five days a week. Mr. Meszaros noted that he has been involved in parking for 19 years of his career and he has done it at several different universities. There is no one good solution anywhere. He is trying to pick the best plan from among the different universities and different organizations that John Oden and he belong to. It is very tough in a university setting especially in an Urban area.

Professor Dieterich asked why the parking was changed from being able to pick two days or three days. Mr. John Oden responded that the change was made to lower the number of administrative systems that we have to deal with. If you come one day and another Professor teaches two days, that is another category. If you teach three days, that is another category. Somebody else may teach four days and that is four categories. Somebody else teaches five days -- that is five categories -- five different decals, five different ways that his clerical people have to disseminate information. If you have five ways for faculty, five way for students, that is ten ways -- ten different decals. We are in the process of attempting to cut out some of the categories we have now so that we can be more efficient. The more efficient Parking is, the less we spend, and the less faculty and staff pay.

Mr. Meszaros stated that there is a parking plan. One of the goals is to simplify it and to make it easier for everybody to understand it. When he came here last year, he couldn't even understand some of the rates. We still had quarterly permits and we are not even on quarters anymore. We had all kinds of different confusing things. Our ultimate goal is to make it easy, simple, and keep the cost down. We are all on the same side. He stated that he doesn't want to pay any more for parking than anybody else does. The students don't want to pay. The goal is to make CSU as good as possible, bring in as much enrollment as possible, and that would allow us to have more money to spend on other issues.

Professor Dunegan asked if it is really that difficult to have ten different colored decals? Mr. Meszaros responded that it does cost more. For example, if you buy 5,000 of the same color, they are only $2.00 each as opposed to $3.00 to $4.00 each if you only buy 400 or 500. Professor Dieterich offered to pay for the decal. Mr. Meszaros noted that this is one issue and there are enforcement issues as well. How confusing do we want to get in enforcement and other issues?

Professor Dunegan commented that he liked Mr. Meszaros's suggestion that he (Professor Dunegan) was asking for free parking for everybody. He didn't know that he was going that far. We are trying to establish base rates here for comparative purposes. He asked Mr. Meszaros to share the information that he does have about the Urban 13 schools; that would be very nice to have. Mr. Meszaros said that he would respond to that question as well as the other questions.

Professor Dunegan noted that the Committee is looking at a report John Oden's group did last week about violators in the 17th Street Garage. A group of people were parking there inappropriately. He asked if there was any preliminary feedback about the results of that. Mr. Oden responded that the bottom level of the 17th Street Garage -- the area closest to East 17th Street -- was surveyed. Out of 100 cars, there were ten violators. He went through the Registrar's Office to attempt to find out if these people were ever registered and to try to find out how they got the decals. In one case, an individual dropped the same course twice. Other people registered, got the decals, and dropped their courses within one week. The remaining people did not bother to come to class, they didn't bother to pay any fees, and were de-registered, but still had the decals. Those people have been identified and notes have been attached to their records so the Parking Department will know that they have done this before. For the subsequent registration, he will make sure, probably by the third week of the semester or the sixth week, to get a report from the Registrar and the Bursar of people who have either dropped voluntarily, or who have been de-registered. He will then match them against people who have purchased pre-paid decals and they will be informed that the decal is the property of the University and they are in violation if they continue to park on campus without being a registered student.

Professor Dunegan asked Mr. Oden if he had any feeling for whether that 10% is a good figure for across the university. He added that this would free up a lot of parking. Mr. Oden responded that this 10% is probably more indicative of that particular location (17th Street Garage.) If Professor Dunegan thinks it is necessary for him to do surveys at other parking sites, he can do that, but he will not get the same percentage. Mr. Oden reported that as they went away from the bottom level of the 17th Street Garage towards the up ramp, of the last 50 people on the ramp, none were in violation.

Professor Dieterich suggested that as Mr. Meszaros considers our parking dilemmas in the future, he consider how not to penalize those who are only here a few days per week from being out in the middle of Chester or some open space. The days that she is on campus, she is easily here 14 hours. She is here at 8:00 A.M. for a class and then until 9:00 P.M. meeting with students. She is not about to move her car in the middle of the day from Chester to some other garage. She shouldn't have to do that. When she is here 14 hours a day, she should be under cover so that when she is leaving at 9:00 P.M. or 10:00 P.M. at night, she is not the only one in the Chester lot.

Mr. Oden noted that Professor Dieterich had a unique situation. People who have that situation can call him at Ext. 2045 and he will do whatever he can to help them. Mr. Meszaros reported that the Parking Committee is addressing that issue. Again there are two representatives from faculty on the committee. It is a very tough decision. You have to look for the greatest majority, but again, that is not always the best answer because there are exceptions. Those should be addressed as well. He assured Senate that he will keep working on it.

Student Jerry Strothers wondered, with the morale and all of the problems and bad feelings on this campus, what is the possibility of getting a few parking spaces reserved for "Student of the Month", "Staff of the Month", "Teacher of the Month?" Mr. Meszaros responded that he has seen that done at other schools. He will bring that up to the Parking Committee. [Go to top of page]

X. New Business

Professor Gross asked for permission to distribute a single fact page from a recent Crain's Cleveland Business listing the largest colleges and universities in the area. There were no objections.

There being no new business, the meeting adjourned at 4:27 P.M.

Arthur H. Schwartz

Faculty Senate Secretary

/velb

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[Go to top of page]