I. Approval of the Agenda
II. Approval of the Minutes of the December 6, 2000 Meeting
III. Admissions and Standards Committee

A. Proposed Repeated Course Policy (Report No. 22, 2000-2001)
B. Proposed Petition Limitation for Course Withdrawal (Report No. 23, 2000- 2001)
C. Proposed New Language for Credit for Study Abroad Policy (Report No. 24, 2000-2001)
D. Proposed Clarification of the Foreign Language Requirement (Report No. 25, 2000-2001)
E. Proposed Law School Calendar Adjustments (Report No. 26, 2000-2001)

IV. Proposed Additions to the Student Conduct Code (Report No. 27, 2000-2001)
V. Proposed RTA Universal Transit Passes ("U-Pass") (Report No. 28, 2000-2001)
VI. Proposed Resolution Regarding Distance and Online Learning Forum (Report No. 29, 2000-2001)
Text of resolution
VII. University President's Report
VIII. Senate President's Report

• Presidential Search
• Interim President
• Board of Trustees
• NCA Report
• Other

IX. New Business: keys and security (Report No. 30, 2000-2001)

PRESENT: Aquila, Barbato, J. Bazyk, A. Benander, W. Bowen, Buckley, Dieterich, Dillard-Mitchell, Doerder, Dunegan, Dural, Falk, Flechtner, Frew, Govea, B. Green, Hemann, Hollinger, Jeffres, Konangi, Larson, Mahmud, Mastboom, Matthews, McCahon, McLoughlin, Meiksins, Miracle, Misra, Neuendorf, Nuru-Holm, Rahm, Ray, Reinhart, A. Schwartz, M. Smith, Sparks, Spicer, Steckol, Thornton, Tumeo, Valencic, Van Ummersen, Wadhwa, J. Webb, Wheatley, Whyte, J. Wilson.

ABSENT/EXCUSED:Chung, Flynn, Forte, Gorla, Gross, Konstantinos, Nolan, Orendi, Quigney, Ramsey, Rosentraub, Sanders, Sawicki, Shah, Steinglass, Tewari, Vallos.

ALSO PRESENT: Ekelman, Jain, Lupton.

Senate President William Bowen called the meeting to order at approximately 3:00 P.M.

Dr. 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 informed the Senate that he had invited our Provost Designate Chin Kuo to the meeting. Dr. Bowen said, "Let us all look to and focus on the future together. Under Dr. Kuo's stewardship, may the faculty and administration develop a symbiotic relationship that awakens the will to act as a community to advance the mission of the University." Dr. Bowen extended a warm welcome to Dr. Kuo. He noted that Dr. Kuo will attend the meeting today as an observer.

Dr. Bowen stated that our purpose here today is to play a part in the making of decisions in academic policy, to look after the welfare of the institution, and to increase the joint capacity of the faculty and administration to solve educational problems.

Dr. Bowen stated that on the Agenda today, we have several decisions to make regarding some recommendations brought to us by Senate committees. We have a proposal for universal bus passes which was heard earlier by the Steering Committee and, at their suggestion, brought forward today for consideration by the entire Senate. He said that he would ask that the Senate consider granting to the Steering Committee the authority to set up an ad hoc committee to study the idea and make recommendations to the full Senate. We will then entertain a request by the Provost's Office that Faculty Senate co-sponsor a Forum on Distance Learning, and then the University President and the Faculty Senate President will give their reports.

.

I. Approval of the Agenda

Acceptance of the Agenda for February 7, 2001 was moved, seconded, and approved.

II. Approval of the Minutes of the December 6, 2000 Meeting

Acceptance of the Minutes of the December 6, 2000 meeting was moved by Dr. Rodger Govea and seconded. Professor Tayyab Mahmud reported several errors in his comments on page 10 of the Minutes. The Minutes were approved as corrected.

[Go to top of page]

III. Admissions and Standards Committee

A. Proposed Repeated Course Policy (Report No. 22, 2000-2001

Dr. Chet Jain, Chair of the Admissions and Standards Committee, stated that this proposal is primarily for the benefit of students who have been here a long time trying to graduate and for one reason or another have had difficulty in one or two courses. They may have taken a course several times and have repeatedly gotten a "D" or an "F." In our current policy, all of the grades the students have obtained in the same course remain and are calculated in the Grade Point computation. So, even after the third attempt, if the student were to get a "C", that "C" does not erase the burden of the previous two attempts where the student has a "D" in four hours and an "F" in four hours. Now with twelve hours, they get a "C" and still do not make the grade. It becomes very difficult for them to graduate. The Committee has looked at the policy of many other institutions in and around Ohio and elsewhere. Without exception, every institution (Akron, Ohio University, Central State, Youngstown, Kent State, Wright State, Miami University, Case Western Reserve University, etc.) are more liberal than what we are proposing. We are proposing that whenever students have earned a grade of "D" or "F" they can repeat that course any number of times and only the highest grade they have earned will count towards graduation. But, in order to maintain the integrity of the transcript, all attempts will remain and be noted as "RPT." Dr. Jain reported that he has been told that this can be implemented with a software change in PeopleSoft. Ms. Susan Lindsey, the Registrar, said that it can be done by the Spring of 2002.

Professor Thomas Flechtner reported that the latest Bulletin he has in his office says that the current policy allows a student to repeat a course if he/she has earned a grade of "C" just once. He asked Dr. Jain if that policy is being dropped. Dr. Jain replied that it was not. Right now there is no such policy of repeating a course. What Dr. Flechtner mentioned may be with reference to something a little bit different. If the student gets an "F", he/she repeats the course if that course is needed, but the "F" and the new grade stays. Dr. Flechtner commented that the current policy allows a student to repeat a course once if he/she has a "C." Dr. Jain indicated that he was not sure if this is the same thing that the Committee is proposing.

Professor Santosh Misra noted that in all cases that is required so he is sure that the policy is in support of that.

Dr. Peter Meiksins stated that if it is the case that this proposal changes the existing policy the way Professor Flechtner described, then we need to discuss whether or not we want to do that.

Dr. David Larson commented, "Assuming there is a current policy in which a "C" may be repeated for a higher grade, does the Committee intend to get rid of that or is this just in addition to that?" Dr. Jain replied that this proposal would be in addition to that policy.

Dr. Barbara Green wondered if this would mean that if one student got a "D" the first time, retook the course and got a "B" the next time, and another student got a "C", retook it and got a "B" the second time, for the second student both grades count, but for the first student who did worse the first time, only the second grade would count. Dr. Jain agreed that this is exactly what will happen. To the best of the Committee's knowledge, no policy currently exists that allows one to repeat a course and have only the higher grade counted.

Dr. Flechtner reported that there is an existing policy that allows students to repeat courses. Dr. Jain noted that then both grades count. That will remain as such. It is only the courses in which a "D" or an "F" has been achieved. Those grades can be repeated and not have the cumulative effect of the previous grade counted.

Dr. David Grilly, University Ombudsman, reported that the only policy that exists is what is sometimes called the "Freshman Forgiveness Program" which, in this case, is within 60 credit hours, and if you start at the University, you can repeat a course and have a grade replace the old grade. But, you have to apply for it before you take the course. Even though the Bulletin doesn't specify that, the Registrar requires that you go to your advisor and say, "I am repeating this course under the particular option." Also, you can repeat a course as many times as you want, but it will always go on your record. All of the grades will count, but the credit hours will not count. Professor Jain noted that the Committee is not changing the "Freshmen Forgiveness Program."

Professor Meiksins asked if it would make sense to modify the motion somewhat to indicate that this policy applies only to those cases where a student repeats a course in which he/she had earned a "D" or an "F." By implication that means they may not repeat a course in which a grade other then "D" or "F" was earned. The Committee doesn't say that explicitly, but that is what it means. Dr. Jain noted that then the others would remain. He felt that Dr. Meiksins' language could be incorporated in the Committee's proposal.

Professor Flechtner remarked, "Then we have Dr. Green's question." Isn't that unfair to somebody who gets a "C" and repeats a course? Dr. Jain noted that this would be by choice. The intent of this particular proposal is to help students who are having a lot of difficulty graduating. They have already accumulated 25% more than the number of hours required for graduation. We really want them to graduate.

Dr. Green stated that if she were to get a "C" in a class and she didn't want a "C" because she wanted to get "As" and "Bs", the best thing she could do would be to go to her instructor and say, "Please don't give me the "C." Give me the "D." Professor Jain commented that he was not sure that we, as instructors would work that out, but the student may choose not to take the final exam and get an "F" in the course. That should be the prerogative of the student. We have no problem with that. The grade will remain. The transcript will show what grade was earned earlier. The "RPT" goes on the repeat grade. The transcript will truly represent your academic performance when you took the course.

Professor Kimberly Neuendorf concurred with Dr. Green's concerns. She would offer an amendment adding "C" to the list which would eliminate the problem of identifying where someone would be penalized for getting a "C" rather than a "D."

Dr. Bowen asked if it was the desire of the Senate to send the proposal back to the Committee. The Senate concurred.

Dr. Jain added that the Committee did consider "Cs" and everything else. A "C", which is a 2.0, is an acceptable grade for graduation purposes. The intent of the Committee was not to allow students to repeat grades to improve their GPA for honors or any other purposes. The intent was strictly to help those who have been around a long time and are having a lot of difficulty because of one course or so to graduate.

Dr. Jain agreed to take the Proposed Repeated Course Policy back to the Admissions and Standards Committee for revision.

B. Proposed Petition Limitation for Course Withdrawal (Report No. 23, 2000- 2001)

Dr. Jain reported that the Admissions and Standards Committee is recommending that a student can petition for a course for a late withdrawal only within the limit of one year of the time in which the grade was awarded. Petitions are coming two, three, or even ten years later from students. There is no documentation available to support those petitions. Oftentimes, attempts have been made quite successfully to change the entire transcript just because the student now is a good candidate for graduate studies or something else. The Committee feels that in this process the integrity of the academic transcript has been compromised. With the proposed process, the integrity will be maintained and a student of that kind, who for whatever reason did not do well earlier, can waive any entrance requirement so options will still be available.

Professor Michael Spicer asked if a student presumably would be able to petition the time for additional study. Dr. Jain responded that he would assume so. Professor Spicer noted that all petitions are an exception to the rule and he was not sure adding a rule will help. Professor Jain replied that the petition the student would be looking at would be strictly whether we want to extend the time limit for that purpose rather than to allow late withdrawal for whatever reason the student might have had earlier. Dr. Spicer said that some horror stories could be given. One can conceive of a reason where a student might wish to make such a petition, but not be able to file it within the year; then what? Dr. Jain responded that the difficulty that arises is how do you go back to reconstruct the scenario? In some cases you can not. Dr. Jain agreed that you can't and, therefore, for whatever reason the student wants to have that grade removed, that requirement for the program can be waived rather than change the integrity of the transcript.

Professor Thomas Buckley asked, "If you can't reconstruct the circumstances, doesn't that mean that the petition is denied? Doesn't the petitioner have to prove whatever he/she wanted to prove?" Professor Jain responded that evidently it doesn't happen that way. Professor Spicer noted that the problem is not in the integrity of the process. It is in the integrity of the decision-making that is going on. Dr. Jain noted that hopefully, with this legislation, we will not confront the people with such difficult decisions.

There being no further discussion, Dr. Bowen called for the question. The Proposed Petition Limitation for Course Withdrawal Policy was approved with 16 yea votes and 13 nays.

C. Proposed New Language for Credit for Study Abroad Policy (Report No. 24, 2000-2001)

Professor Jain reported that the Committee is clarifying the potential confusion that exists in the Study Abroad language particularly with reference to non-degree students. With the proposed new language, anybody, can participate in a Study Abroad program that is offered by CSU. We offer two types of Study Abroad programs. Either our faculty teaches in a different institution or we have already approved a particular plan and/or a particular course in another institution which is being taught by the faculty from that institution. The Committee is proposing that if a student wishes to sign up for such a course, he/she can sign up for that course as a graded course but the student has to receive prior approval from the department and the program in which that grade will eventually be assigned. It doesn't matter whether the student is a degree student, non-degree student, our student, or another student as long as the student has met the minimum requirements for a university level course.

Professor Buckley asked if CSU sometimes gives people credit for study abroad before they start work here. Dr. Jain responded that under this plan, yes, you could. Professor Buckley inquired if that is not possible now. Dr. Jain said no.

Dr. Sarah Matthews asked what problem this policy is intended to solve. Dr. Jain responded that because of the current language, the person has to be a degree seeking student in order to enter a study abroad program. As we are trying to expand our study abroad program opportunities, that created a lot of confusion.

There being no further discussion, Dr. Bowen called for the vote. The Proposed New Language for the Credit for Study Abroad Policy was approved.

D. Proposed Clarification of the Foreign Language Requirement (Report No. 25, 2000-2001)

Dr. Jain reported that this policy is regarding the foreign language requirement. Typically, entering freshmen and entering graduate students can meet their foreign language requirement in a variety of ways. They can prove that they have taken the course or they can take tests here for the courses in which we have experts available. Sometimes we have no expert available on our campus to certify that the student has foreign knowledge which has two parts -- something about the language and something about the culture from which that language is derived. Basically, the student tries to find a faculty who happens to be of that ethnic background and comments with a piece of paper in front of the faculty and says, "I know this language." and signs the paper. Dr. Jain noted that it has happened to him several times and it has happened to many fellow colleagues several times. Students say, "Well, I can talk." That is not good enough for the foreign language requirement. For those cases where we do not have in-house expertise, the Modern Languages Department will develop a list of people they trust and will prepare the kinds of questions that need to be asked in order to certify proficiency in a given language. When the student comes to the Modern Languages Department, he/she will be referred to such a person who will give the student the appropriate exam. Hopefully, there will be a little bit more equality among all students getting credit for foreign language.

Professor Meiksins said that he assumes the Department of Modern Languages has been asked. Dr. Jain replied that the Department has been notified. Dr. Anita Stoll has discussed this with her group and they have agreed to go along with this.

Professor Flechtner asked if the external people who would assess the language would get paid. Dr. Jain replied that this issue was not discussed. Right now, when a student comes for the credit by exam, the student pays a fee.

There being no further discussion, Dr. Bowen asked for a vote. The Proposed Clarification of the Foreign Language Requirement was approved.

E. Proposed Law School Calendar Adjustments (Report No. 26, 2000-2001)

Dr. Jain reported that the Committee is proposing a change in the University Calendar to the extent of a holiday. Currently, this proposal is for the Law School alone. It would replace the Columbus Day Holiday with the Wednesday before Thanksgiving. In all schools, not only the Law School, the Wednesday before Thanksgiving is notoriously very poorly attended. Columbus Day is not the common holiday everywhere. The Committee believes that this change allows for a five day vacation. The Committee would like to propose this for the entire University very soon. The University could be shut down and we could save on heat, and electricity.

Dr. Jain noted that currently this cannot be done for the rest of the University because the unions have Columbus Day as a holiday. They work on Veterans Day and the faculty do not work. The Committee will ask the unions to exchange Columbus Day with Veterans Day and then take the day before Thanksgiving as a holiday. This information has been given to the three union Presidents -- CWA, SEIU, and the FOP. At this time the proposed change is strictly for the Law School.

Professor Larson asked how it can be done for the Law School because they have secretaries and police and everybody else. Dr. Jain responded that it appears they can manage it. Dr. Larson asked, "Without secretaries, police, and professional staff on campus?" Dr. Jain noted that it appears the Law School has some understanding with their staff and have assured us that they can do that. Dr. Larson pointed out that this would be illegal. Dr. Jain said that he could not speak for the Law School.

Professor Buckley asked Dr. Jain if he was talking about class. Dr. Jain said that all he is talking about now is Law classes. Right now, Columbus Day classes will be held and classes will not be held the day before Thanksgiving.

Dr. Rodger Govea said that he was extremely uncomfortable in passing this proposal without having the union questions resolved first. He is not sure it is a good idea to have classes on a day when there will be no police on campus. Dr. Jain agreed with Dr. Govea. Dr. Govea said that he has received several calls from heads of other unions on the campus and they have expressed some skepticism. Now, if they are willing to waive these provisions, then it is a perfectly good idea for the Senate to consider it. Failing that, it would be inappropriate for the Senate to take up this question at this moment.

Dr. Bowen asked if it was the will of the Senate to send this proposal back to the Admissions and Standards Committee.

Dr. Jain asked if there were questions other than the union issue that he should take back to the Committee. Professor Joyce Mastboom said that what concerns her is that the Wednesday before Thanksgiving is not a holiday for public schools but Columbus Day is a holiday. Many students who have children are going to be faced with a baby sitting issue. Dr. Jain reported that the Committee did a survey of most of the school systems in and around CSU and it is not uniform. Some school systems have it and in some school systems the students are not having classes, but the teachers have to be there for teacher's day. That is not only true for Columbus Day, it is also true for the day before Thanksgiving, and for Veterans Day.

Professor Spicer stated that he was not convinced it will eliminate the attendance problem. It will simply shift it. Professor Jain felt that this is a very legitimate question because it applies to any holiday. But this is a specific day and would be good for everybody.

Dr. Neuendorf agreed with Professor Spicer. She added that with this proposal, we will have a situation of having only two class days in the week. What do you think the students will do then? She commented that the absentee problem will be made worse.

Professor Buckley commented that on the idea of holding classes without police would not happen. We have all been here on Saturday and Sunday when there are no classes, but the police force is at work. The police work seven days a week. Dr. Jain noted that campus security will be here whatever the holiday schedule is. Only the office staff will not be here. Professor Buckley stated that the staff is not needed for classes.

Dr. Larson said that he actually favored the proposal because he would like the day to get ready for Thanksgiving. But, the Senate should not vote on it until the other unions have signed off on it.

Dr. Barbara Green asked, "If the unions are going to be asked to sign off on it, could we also find out whether it can be taken care of so that we can extend this to the other Colleges?" Dr. Jain responded that the question proposed to the unions through Mr. Joseph Nolan, the Director of Human Resources, is for the whole University. Dr. Green noted that then the proposal could be brought to Senate for everyone.

The Senate agreed to send the Proposed Law School Calendar Adjustments back to the Admissions and Standards Committee for further study.

[Go to top of page]

IV. Proposed Additions to the Student Conduct Code (Report No. 27, 2000-2001)

Dr. Beth Ekelman, Chair of the Student Life Committee, reported that the Office of Judicial Affairs recommended two additions to the Student Conduct Code. The Student Life Committee has reviewed them and approved them. These changes have also been reviewed by the Office of Legal Counsel for wording. If students are charged with misconduct, they have the option to waive a hearing and go directly to the Judicial Officer or they have the option to choose between two hearing bodies. One is the Student Conduct Officer who is really an administrator or they can go before the Judicial Board which is a board of peers and faculty. The Judicial Board is really active during the academic year. The problem is, what happens when a student is charged with misconduct in the Summer? They haven't had a choice between two different hearing bodies.

Professor Ekelman stated that the first addition to the Student Conduct Code is: "That students who are charged with Conduct Code Violations during Summer Semester have the option to have their case heard by the Student Conduct Officer (administrative hearing ) or wait until the Judicial Board convenes in the Fall." That way they are given their due process rights.

Professor Meiksins asked, "In the event students are caught in this bind and they elect to wait until the Fall semester to be heard, is he correct that a student cannot register for classes if it is a plagiarism issue or something like that?" Dr. Ekelman replied that it doesn't effect their registration. Dr. Meiksins noted that he was not sure that this is true. Ms. Valerie Hinton-Hannah reported that if a student is charged with a violation, no sanctions are imposed until the case is heard. If a student is charged and refuses to have his/her case heard in the Fall based on having the Judicial Board hear the case, no sanctions would be imposed until that case is heard and it has been determined that a violation of the Student Conduct Code has occurred.

Professor Buckley asked if there are any kinds of charges that would require being resolved right away. Professor Govea asked, "What if the student shoots his roommate?" Dr. Ekelman said that this would be a violation of the law. That is a different penalty. We still need to give the students their due process rights. Without the proposed change, their due process rights are violated and that is why the Committee wants to make this change.

Professor Buckley noted that there are no examples where you would want to deal with it right away. Professor Ekelman responded that if it is a code 19 offense, that would go forward. The students can be immediately reviewed and a hearing would be put in place within 24 hours. This is not about violations that are against the law of crimes. We are talking about if a student threatens another student, he/she has the right to have his/her case heard by his/her peers. In the Summer, we have no faculty and we have no students that would be on the Board, but at the same time, our Code does give the students a choice between an administrator or a Review Board.

Dr. Barbara Green said that she was under the impression that plagiarism came under a special violation of academic standards and there is a separate policy that goes through a different process. This is dealing with student conduct that is not academic misconduct. Ms. Hinton-Hannah confirmed that Dr. Green was correct.

Professor Cynthia Dieterich asked about the scheduling of Judicial Board meetings in the Fall. Dr. Ekelman responded that the Board is gathered in the early Fall. They usually call a meeting in mid September. Professor Dieterich wondered what happens when students enroll and they are dismissed and it is beyond the withdrawal date. Ms. Hinton-Hannah responded that if the expulsion is upheld by the President's Office, that student would be separated from the University even though he/she enrolled before the Fall semester. Dr. Dieterich asked if the student would get his/her money back. Dean Diane Dillard-Mitchell responded only when suspensions and dismissals are handled through the President's Office.

Ms. Billie Joy Reinhart asked, "What is the difference is between the conduct code and legality?" Could we have some examples of misconduct? Professor Ekelman referred the question to Ms. Hinton-Hannah, the Judicial Officer who handles all of these things directly. Ms. Hinton-Hannah read a few from the Student Conduct Code. She noted that they are in alphabetical order and range from A though II: disruption; infliction, attempted infliction or threatened infliction of bodily harm; harassment; sexual harassment; hazing; theft of property; unauthorized entry into a University facility; illegal use of alcoholic beverages; falsification of records; possession of drugs, etc.

Ms. Reinhart asked, "Aren't those crimes?" Ms. Hinton-Hannah replied that she is talking about conduct code. It doesn't say that a student cannot be charged with a crime, but on campus, we do not try to make it a legalistic process. If you break into someone's office, that is theft and we handle it here. However, if a student commits a criminal act or physical assault, that student can also be charged on campus under violation of the Student Conduct Code and should the student who is the victim choose to pursue that, which we have had happen through the City Prosecutor, they can. But, violations of the Student Conduct Code are handled on campus.

Dr. Bowen called for the vote on the first change to the Student Conduct Code:

"That students who are charged with Conduct Code Violations during Summer Semester have the option to have their case heard by the Student Conduct Officer (administrative hearing) or wait until the Judicial Board convenes in the Fall." The Senate approved the change.

Professor Ekelman reported that the second change really goes to the student's right to appeal a decision. Currently, if they are heard by the Student Conduct Officer or the Judicial Board and they don't like their punishment, they can appeal that decision to the Appeals Board. However, the student that decides to waive that hearing and go directly to the Judicial Officer for their punishment or sanction, has no right to appeal. There is nothing in the Code that gives them that right. In other words, he/she is saying, "I'm busted; give me my punishment." If they don't like what they got, there is no mechanism in place right now. The second change basically says that the Appeals Board hears appeals of decisions of the Judicial Affairs Officer. So, it gives them that right to appeal if they don't like their sanction.

There being no further discussion, Dr. Bowen called for the vote on the second change to the Student Conduct Code: "That the Appeals Board hears appeals of decisions of the Judicial Affairs Officer." The proposed change was approved.

[Go to top of page]

V. Proposed RTA Universal Transit Passes ("U-Pass") (Report No. 28, 2000-2001)

Dr. Bowen said that he would like hopefully to get the authority for the Academic Steering Committee to appoint an ad hoc Committee to study this further.

Professor Norman Krumholz reported that in 1999 he asked one of his Graduate students to do a survey of students with respect to an unlimited transit access program. It is a program that is on the way in many colleges and universities around the country including the University of California at Berkeley and Wisconsin. Ohio State has a similar program. One of the key findings of the study was that 68% of the CSU students surveyed indicated their support for a nominal semester fee in exchange for a universal pass on RTA. This universal pass or "U-Pass" provides unlimited free and unrestricted travel on all RTA busses and trains for an entire semester based on one relatively low semester fare. All CSU faculty, staff, and students would be covered under a single fee. Obviously, there are important revenue implications. Operationally, all participants would show an ID to a driver or swipe their card through the appropriate technology when that is installed. If everybody gets into the program, the user fee is $58 per year for unlimited use of RTA facilities compared to the $54 monthly fee that RTA charges. So, for $4 more, assuming that these data are accurate, you have free transit all year long.

A "U-Pass" program would improve convenience and help attract and retain students since CSU just happens to be in the middle of the Euclid Avenue Corridor. It would especially aid low income students, it would enhance access for all users, and it certainly would reduce pressure on the University for more parking. For RTA, the "U-Pass" would increase ridership and create a steady revenue stream. If, as a result of the increased ridership, new and enhanced services resulted, that would benefit the entire community. Dr. Krumholz noted that he had asked Mr. Steve Bitto, Director of Marketing and Communications for RTA, to come up and say a few words and perhaps answer questions.

Mr. Bitto stated that in terms of current service use, according to the survey Professor Krumholz mentioned that was conducted in 1999, 12.5% of the campus population already use the transit each day to get to class or to work. This is a substantially higher level of use than many of the successful programs other universities have implemented. Talking about potential future use and expanding the use of the service using the "U-Pass" to access transit, three factors that come into mind are: convenience, affordability, and reliability. When the survey was conducted, 90% of the respondents said that RTA stopped within walking distance of their homes. The survey overwhelmingly shows that those who used the service found the service to get them to campus on time. Interestingly enough, those who had not used the service did not hold the same opinion. Obviously, what we need to do is shape those perceptions and convert these non-users into using the system to get to class and to campus daily.

Finally, as it relates to the affordability issue, Mr. Bitto stated that, the best discount fare RTA offers customers is a monthly pass which is about a 20% discount off of the cash fare. Going to the "U-Pass," RTA can cut that discount to approximately 50% or even lower. Obviously, it greatly enhances the affordability of the program. Dr. Krumholz was using $60 as the target; that was the student's target. For the package he put together, Bitto was using $70 -- $35 per semester. On average, each person on campus would take 100 trips for the year which represents ten trips per month or two trips per week for a ten month academic year. That is not significant use of the service, but working our way in terms of covering their expense and using the discount, that is how he came up with $70.

Dr. Arthur Schwartz asked about ridership. Many of us teach classes in the late afternoon and early evening. The service is greatly curtailed after 6:00 P.M. What kind of ridership does RTA need in order to increase service past 6:00 P.M.? Mr. Bitto responded that obviously, if this partnership is formed, we would go back and look at the service provided in the evening. There is an obvious need for expanded service in the evenings because we have such a large group of students, faculty, and staff on campus in the evening and we need to address that issue.

Professor Krumholz added that he teaches night classes. Our students get out at 10:00 P.M. at night. We have to be assured, that the service provided for our students would replicate that of an automobile which is to say a prompt, clean, safe service at hours that our students need that service.

Professor Spicer asked about connections. Mr. Bitto responded that this would have to be worked out as well.

Professor Kenneth Dunegan asked if: (a) the program would be voluntary; (b) would everybody have to pay the $58 or $70; or, (c) can people choose to be a participant or not. Mr. Bitto responded that there are a hand full of programs that are currently in place that offer a voluntary opt-out. When they do that, it substantially increases the cost of the program. Dr. Krumholz added that the numbers his student used in the study assumed that everybody is "in." That is the way to drive the price down.

Professor Spicer asked about similarly situated campuses with similar markets. What happens when these kinds of programs are adopted? Does the student usage of mass transit significantly increase? Mr. Bitto replied that usage greatly increased at Marquette University and the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee and some of their branch campuses. Again, you make that financial commitment -- the $25 or $35 for the semester; $50 or $70 for the year -- folks take the service. RTA recognizes that the service has to be there for the students, faculty, and staff to be able to use it.

Professor Kenneth Sparks asked if they have looked at the impact this will have on the parking service. Does that mean that we will have to pay more for our parking on campus because revenues have gone down for campus parking? Professor Krumholz said that this would be a possibility. His student did not look at that particular angle. Everyone will have questions. His assumption is that a committee will be appointed of reasonably knowledgeable people who will be open-minded and who will see the possibilities in this program.

Dr. Cynthia Dieterich noted that Mr. Bitto was specifically addressing semesters so students are not permitted to use it off semester time. Mr. Bitto responded that this is actually part of the negotiations. Dr. Dieterich asked if any of these institutions are an inner-city university. Mr. Bitto replied that Marquette is. RTA also is currently negotiating with Case Western Reserve for Fall semester 2002. Dr. Dieterich noted that their students and faculty have the money to do it. Mr. Bitto stated that currently a substantial number of the CSU population is paying the $54 for the monthly pass and they are paying cash for that ride.

Dr. Green stated that having a committee set up to look into the "U-Pass" makes sense, but she would urge that we also have students on it and that Student Government be involved. Mr. Bitto replied that this program has been presented to Student Government on several occasions.

Mr. Jack Boyle commented that our Department of Auxiliary Services has been studying this program over the past year. One of the things we just have to take into consideration is, if everyone pays on the student standpoint, it is caught under the 6% cap. That means it is a direct tuition subsidy so we have to figure out a way of about $1 million to deal with it.

Dr. Bowen asked permission of the Senate to have the Steering Committee appoint an ad hoc committee to study the "U-Pass" program. The committee can then bring it back to Senate with some formal recommendations. The Senate approved.

Dr. Krumholz added that there are some reports available if anyone wants them.

[Go to top of page]

VI. Proposed Resolution Regarding Distance and Online Learning Forum (Report No. 29, 2000-2001)

Dr. William Shorrock explained the memo from him to the Senate describing the upcoming Distance and Online Forum scheduled for Friday, March 9, 2001 in the Cole Center. The Online Forum is quite important for many of our faculty to be exposed to and to perhaps become interested in and participate in. Currently at CSU this term (Spring semester) no fewer than 102 on-campus courses are being offered in one form of distance learning or another -- either instructors traveling directly to the distance site or through interactive video or through on-line instruction. We have 88 different courses involving 2,982 students employing Web.CT either as a web course or more commonly as a web enhanced option. He said that it occurred to those who were organizing this forum that it would add a good deal of viability and creditability to that program if Faculty Senate would be interested in joining as a co-sponsor of it. He presented this idea to the Academic Steering Committee and the Committee asked him (Dr. Shorrock) to prepare the resolution that appears in boldface in the materials for the Senate's affirmation.

Professor Flechtner asked if it will cost Faculty Senate any money. Dr. Shorrock assured Professor Flechtner that it won't cost the Senate a penney. It might even provide the Senate, through Dr. Bowen and other representatives, an opportunity to appear with other faculty members such as Professor William Beasley and Professor Joseph DeMarco who are appearing on the program along with their students.

Dr. Flechtner inquired if attendees will be charged. Dr. Shorrock said that he did not believe so. Dr. Flechtner asked if the forum will have a web site. Dr. Shorrock said that he did not believe the forum has a web site and he did not know if it will have one. Interim Provost Jay McLoughlin added that this support is part of the self-study being done this semester of where we are. We will have that for our new Provost next year.

Resolution: Resolved: that CSU Faculty Senate, in cooperation with the Office of Academic and Student Affairs, join as a co-sponsor of the March 9, 2001 Distance Learning Forum.

Dr. Bowen asked if anyone would like to move the proposed resolution for the Distance and Online Learning Forum. Dr. Govea moved the resolution, Dr. John Bazyk seconded the motion, and it was approved.

[Go to top of page]

VII. University President's Report

President Claire Van Ummersen began by introducing Mr. Roy Ray, our new Vice President for Finance and Administration. He is now on campus full-time and will be working primarily in the early part of his time here on the 2002 budget process and the kinds of activities that will be ongoing into next year. Mr. Jack Boyle will also continue as Special Assistant to the President. He will continue to monitor this year's budget (which by the way is in the black.) Mr. Boyle will also deal with a number of the audit points that came in our audits last year to get those cleaned up and ready for our audit this June when Price Waterhouse Coopers comes back. If anyone has questions or issues, please feel free to call one or the other of them. Ms. Judy Gaydos is assisting both of them and they can be reached through the same telephone number.

President Van Ummersen reported that it was learned yesterday that the Governor has appointed a new Trustee to complete the remaining year and one half of Mr. William Patient's term. The person is Mr. Trevor Jones who is the Chairman and Founder of a Company called Biomec, Inc. The Company translates research into products for commercialization. President Van Ummersen will give the Senate more information as it is received from the Governor's Office.

President Van Ummersen reported that a tentative agreement has been reached with the AAUP on a new contract. Hopefully, the Board of Trustees will approve the contract on February 21, 2001 when they meet. CWA and FOP contracts have already been signed off and approved by the Board at its special meeting in January.

President Van Ummersen said that she would like to take this opportunity to publicly thank all of the members of the negotiating teams. Bargaining is a very difficult process and neither side ever achieves everything that it wants in that process. But the processes were civil and speak to the quality of the people who were involved. President Van Ummersen gave her very personal thanks to each and every one of them.

President Van Ummersen also thanked everyone who gave so generously to our Uniting to Share Campaign. Our goal was $80,000 and over $82,000 was raised. A special thanks go to Professor Edward Thomas and Ms. Sandra Emerick who co-chaired the campaign this year and to all of the unit captains for their hard work and dedication. They were the ones who truly brought in the dollars. The money that was raised will certainly be very helpful to many needy individuals both through the United Way and through Community Shares. This year we also raised almost $8,000 for the Environmental Fund of Ohio and that means that they will be part of our Uniting to Share Campaign next year as well.

President Van Ummersen noted that the Governor's budget released last week was less than the Regents requested. Of particular concern to the Presidents has been the recommendation for the subsidy increase of only 2% in each of the years. That will create considerable concern on all of our campuses, not just at Cleveland State. The Presidents have developed a statement that will be used with all of the legislators. Over the next few weeks, all of the Presidents will be meeting with particular legislators to argue that an increase is needed in the State share of instruction from the 2% that appears in the Governor's budget to the levels that were requested by the Board of Regents which was about 5.5% in 2002 and 6.25% in 2003.

At this point in time, State funds account for less than 30% of the revenues that are available to Ohio's public universities. It is very important to understand that many people truly believe that 100% of our money comes from the State. At Cleveland State, about 10% of our money comes from outside funds and the rest of it comes out of student tuition. There is also controversy because the Governor has relieved Ohio State from the cap. None of us have a problem that Ohio State has been relieved from the cap, but we are concerned that the rest of us don't have access to the same kind of dollars. That is an issue that will also be very much discussed.

President Van Ummersen reported that the other area the Presidents are concerned about is the College Net proposal that the Regents had put forward. We are all hurting for money in the technology area and have asked that special attention be given in that area. Technology was an area that the Governor chose not to fund at all. The Presidents will be attempting to make a case to have some funds put in that category. Access Challenge again only goes to two-year campuses and only at a sufficient level to freeze tuition, and not to reduce tuition. There will be inflationary increases in the Success Challenge. There will be considerable money put into Jobs Challenge and into Research Challenge. Those will increase about 10% according to the Governor's budget. We will continue to support the Governor's recommendations for the $40 million that was recommended for the Ohio Plan. As you will recall, that is to support research development and commercialization, particularly in biotechnology, information technology and nano technology. The President said that she would keep everyone posted with the activities and also where she thinks the Faculty Senate and others at the University can be helpful as they try to make their case. The Regents have put together a consultation on urban universities. We are represented on that consultation by Vice President Roy Ray and also by Associate Provost Marie Zeglen. They had their first meeting on Friday. We were able to make a number of points. A coalition has been formed with Toledo, Akron, and Youngstown to continue to make the case for a factor in the formula that will recognize the true costs of operating urban universities. It is a beginning. It is the first time we have had an audience and it is hoped that it will lead to some increased funding for Cleveland State University.

Professor Meiksins said that he is interested to hear that we are in the black and encouraged by that. Faculty have been hearing persistent rumors that the cuts for next year have grown from 4% to 6% to 8% and perhaps higher. He wondered if President Van Ummersen could comment on how both of those things can be true.

President Van Ummersen responded that a number of positions are frozen and the money being generated from those frozen positions has clearly balanced the budget for this year. Also, the estimates of revenue for the spring seem to be on target. Those were the two things we were waiting to make certain would in fact fill that gap. At this point, CSU is looking at cuts somewhere between 4% and 6%. Mr. Boyle added that this assumes that all of the jobs that are currently vacant and frozen get added back into the mix. If that doesn't occur, then obviously those were a big chunk if not all of the 6%. What is being determined now is which of those positions might stay vacant versus the ones that will have to be filled for next year.

Dr. Barbara Green said that she hopes the faculty will be kept informed because the faculty at this point are being told things like 8% which would have a devastating impact on the curriculum. President Van Ummersen said that they know that. Mr. Boyle commented that the faculty have not been told by anybody at the administrative level. President Van Ummersen noted that it is the rumors that circulated. Mr. Boyle said that a full report will be made to the Planning and Budget Committee on Friday, February 9, 2001.

Dr. Bowen noted that the report will come back to the Senate next time.

Professor James Wilson asked President Van Ummersen if there is any chance she will come back to Faculty Senate assuming that we are maybe going to hire 30 or 40 people next year, who that is going to be, and how that decision is going to be made. President Van Ummersen replied that the decision is being made by the Provost and the Deans.

[Go to top of page]

VIII. Senate President's Report

A. Presidential Search

Dr. Bowen reported that the Search Committee met one time, on January 22, primarily to organize and discuss the search process. It was explained by the chairman, Mr. Vir K. Sondhi, that the role of the committee is to "search, screen, select, and recommend" candidates. Dr. Bowen reported that at the meeting, members were told that the "search" phase involves writing a job description and an advertisement and reaching out to the world to bring in applications from the broadest and best possible pool of candidates. Mr. Sondhi made the point that he wants to write the job description "broader" than the one used in the process through which President Van Ummersen was hired -- to get (in Mr. Sondhi's term) a "leader" -- not necessarily someone with an academic background.

Dr. Bowen reported that the "screen" phase involves narrowing down the pool of applicants to a relatively smaller group. He doesn't know the exact number -- probably less than a dozen. This relatively smaller group will then be narrowed down still further through a "selection" phase involving interviews and information gathering efforts. Those who survive the selection phase, a still smaller group of finalists, will then be brought to campus. At that point, meetings will be set up so that the finalists can meet with faculty. Dr. Bowen said that he will make sure that separate meetings are set up for each of the finalists to meet with Faculty Senate.

Dr. Bowen reported that once the finalists have been interviewed on campus the faculty will then provide feedback to the Search Committee and the Search Committee will make recommendations to the Board of Trustees. It was made very clear through repeated statements by Mr. Sondhi at the Search Committee meeting that the final decision is ultimately up to the Board of Trustees.

Dr. Bowen noted that Mr. Sondhi also repeatedly made the point that he plans to conduct the entire process in a very open fashion. In this regard, Dr. Bowen noted that his interactions with Mr. Sondhi on balance have been very positive and encouraging. Mr. Sondhi has offered to come to speak to the Steering Committee and it is hoped that he will come to the next Steering Committee meeting. Mr. Sondhi has also offered to come to speak to the entire Senate. If the Senate would like Dr. Bowen to ask Mr. Sondhi to come to speak to the Senate at the next Senate meeting, he will do so.

Dr. Bowen stated that everyone has probably heard about or read about the 12 member "Advisory Committee." He reported that it has not been made clear to him exactly what the Advisory Committee is all about. The only thing Mr. Sondhi told members at the meeting is that applications will go through the Advisory Committee before hitting the Search Committee.

Dr. Bowen noted that everyone has probably heard about or read about the three member "Public Comments Committee." This committee will serve as a vehicle for the public -- or for faculty, students, or administrative personnel -- to communicate input into the deliberations with regard to the characteristics to look for in the next President. He reported that he has received one letter from a faculty member already that is going there. He encouraged people individually or in groups to submit their thoughts in that regard. If there are any questions about how to contact the committee, Mr. Sondhi has an office and can be reached by calling X-2013. The deadline for input is Thursday, February 15, 2001.

Dr. Bowen reported that Mr. Joseph Valencic will handle the media coordination.

Dr. Bowen reported that Mr. Bill Bowen (from the search firm) spoke about the time line for the search. He has conducted about 200 university president searches. It will probably take about a month to get the job description together, two months for outreach, a couple of months for screening and selection, and a month to come to closure. That adds up to six months which is the average time required to find a university President. Once an agreement is made with the person, there will be approximately a three-month period before the person comes here to report for duty.

Dr. Bowen stated that first, there has not been another meeting date set. Second, and far more importantly, one of the ways faculty can actively participate is to provide nominations. Nominations from the faculty are of great value. He informed members to get those nominations to him and he will forward them to Mr. Sondhi. He added that the stronger faculty make the case to him, the stronger he can argue for the individual at the Search Committee meetings. Dr. Bowen asked faculty to please give him their nominations, and give him as much ammunition as they can to help advocate for them.

B. Interim President

In terms of the possibility of an Interim President, no decision has been made. Dr. Bowen said that he had received two nominations for Interim President from faculty, and he had called Mr. Hill to find out what he wanted him to do with them. Mr. Hill informed Dr. Bowen that he has received several names, some from other faculty, and some from administrators. He (Mr. Hill) will collect them all and, if at some point it is determined that we will need an Interim President, he will consider all nominees. The Board will make a selection at that point in time. At this point, there has been no decision made on an Interim President.

C. Board of Trustees

Dr. Bowen reported that he has been going to Board of Trustee meetings and has met with several Board members individually. There is very little mutual understanding. The faculty tends not to understand the role of the Board of Trustees and the Board of Trustees members tend not to understand the roles of the faculty. The best thing we can do proactively, as a faculty, is to educate the Board members about the many positive things we do.

Dr. Bowen reported that at the last Board meeting, he walked away feeling really glad to be a part of Cleveland State University. Professor Ananth Annapragada made a terrific presentation on Biomedical Engineering. Professor Annapragada presented himself exceptionally well, by the highest standards of professionalism, in a manner that the Board members could relate to. The Board members were visibly excited by it.

Dr. Bowen commented that he has also found that some Board members, at least, do not feel that we, as a faculty, know or appreciate what they do and what they have done. He tends to think it would help if we were to make some concerted efforts in that regard.

Dr. Bowen mentioned that the three Task Forces have completed their work now. The entire documents will be up on the web before long. Associate Provost Marie Zeglen is analyzing them and compiling a synoptic version for those who do not want to trudge their way through the entire documents. He has asked Provost Jay McLoughlin to take some initiative with the Steering Committee by bringing forward some definite proposals for ways that the implementation of the Task Force recommendations might involve faculty governance processes.

D. NCA Report

Dr. Bowen informed the Senate that the NCA Report is here now and hopefully that, too, will make its way to the web.

E. Other

Finally, Dr. Bowen recognized several faculty members whose commitment is giving shape to the University. He will start bringing forward people's names. He asked members to let him know who is doing terrific things so that he can share them with Senate each month.

Professor Alan Reichert of the Finance Department has received a Fellowship from the Management Institute for Environment and Business to develop courses in Environmental Risk Analysis as part of our MBA program. Professor Claudia Mesch of the Art Department and Professor Liz Lehfeldt of the History Department have put together the "Cultural Crossings" Lecture Series in the Humanities. Dr. Bowen said that he has heard nothing but wonderful things about the three lectures that have occurred, and we still have three to look forward to. Professor Dena Davis of the Law College, who this year is a SmithKline Beecham Fellow in Genetics and the Law at the Center for the Study of Law, Science, and Technology at Arizona State University, has just published Genetic Dilemmas for Routledge Press. Her book examines the moral dilemmas that the rapid increase of reproductive and genetic technology imposes on parents, physicians, and policy makers.

Dr. Bowen congratulated all of these faculty members. They are the kind of people who are shaping the University and it is good to have them around.

Dr. Paul Doerder noted that the time table for the Presidential search Dr. Bowen just mentioned suggests that it might go into summer. If that is true, that will certainly limit faculty participation with the visits. Dr. Bowen responded that, at this point, what he has heard is that it will be expeditious but there is no definite time period set. Mr. Sondhi attempted to tell the Search Committee that they will act quickly. On the other hand, Dr. Bowen said that he has read repeatedly and has been told that there will be no specific date to have somebody. In his estimation, it is possible that it will extend to the Summer.

Professor Mahmud thanked Dr. Bowen for his report on the Presidential search. He noted that Dr. Bowen had mentioned process. His (Professor Mahmud's) hunch would have been that there was some process in the last meeting and the Senate adopted a resolution. He was wondering whether: (1) that resolution was communicated to the Board; (2) what their response has been; and (3) what follow-up he suggested. None of what Dr. Bowen said follows from the position the Senate took the last time. Professor Mahmud is wondering if we are all on the same page on this.

Dr. Larson read the last paragraph of the Resolution that was passed at the December 6, 2000 Senate meeting: "Therefore, Faculty Senate requests that the Presidential Search Committee be expanded to include additional representatives from the student body, the faculty, the staff, and the administration."

Dr. Bowen responded that he had not formally forwarded the written resolution to the Board, but he would do so if the Senate wishes. He has expressed the need for additional representation repeatedly and individually and in the group to the Search Committee. It has been brought forward that the faculty desire greater representation and representation for other members of the community repeatedly.

Professor Mahmud indicated that his concern is that the process be followed. The resolution was an official position taken by the Senate and it should be officially transmitted to the Board, particularly in light of the fact that one learns from the media that there is some sentiment within the Board in support of this position. He doesn't see why the Senate needs to be shy from expressing it when this is the official position of the Senate.

Professor Larson agreed. If there is an official Senate Resolution, it must be officially carried to the Board. Dr. Bowen responded that the Resolution will be forwarded to the Board.

Professor Misra noted that Dr. Bowen had mentioned something about Task Forces and asked him to elaborate on them. Dr. Bowen responded that these were administrative Task Forces set up last semester without the normal procedures for faculty governance. There was one on Enrollment, one on Revenues, and one on Connections to the Community. There are faculty participating on those Task Forces. Those Task Forces have made their recommendations.

Dr. Barbara Green stated that there is a difference between faculty participating in an administratively appointed committee and the usage of the procedures of faculty governance. Any recommendations in those Task Forces that effect any area in which faculty governance should be considered, have to be submitted to the committees of faculty governance. Dr. Bowen responded that he has asked Interim Provost Jay McLoughlin to run things through the faculty governance process. Provost McLoughlin seemed to be receptive to that.

Dr. Schwartz reported that the Task Force report on budget is coming to the Planning and Budget Committee. The next meeting of that Committee is this Friday, February 9, 2001. He will report back to Senate on the next one as to what transpired.

Professor Mahmud asked if there is any information about whether the NCA Report has been sent in and when it will be made accessible to the faculty. President Van Ummersen reported that the NCA report arrived on Monday of this week. We have two weeks to officially respond. Professor Everett Cataldo, who was the chair of the Steering Committee, has scheduled a meeting for tomorrow afternoon to decide what kind of a response we want to make. We have two choices. One choice will be to send it to a Reader Panel or to go to the full-blown Review Panel. If it goes to the Reader Panel, the reader will read both the report and our response. If the sense is that they we are synchronized -- we both are saying that we are in agreement -- then they will simply pass that through to the council that makes the final recommendation. President Van Ummersen noted that it is a very thick report. The document is about 75 pages. Her inclination is to put the whole thing on the web. President Van Ummersen stated that there are only three recommendations, but there are many suggestions and those are good things for everybody on the campus to know.

Mr. Jerry Strothers, a CSU student, stated that he was very disappointed when he heard Dr. Bowen say that the Resolution approved at the last Senate meeting was not forwarded to the Board. He had thought that it would be a "ray of hope" for the students and the faculty. He also mentioned the mass mailing to everybody concerning the selection process and that input should be in by February 15th. It is very confusing. He is wondering why we can't push these people to at least have one meeting. He couldn't find very many students who even remembered any memo at all.

Dr. Bowen apologized to the Senate for not formally passing on the Resolution concerning the Presidential Search Committee. That was his duty to do and he was remiss.

Professor Misra commented that since we have Senator Ray here at CSU, who until very recently was the Chair of the Finance Committee at the State level, and he has taken over the Vice President of Finance position in the University, maybe he can give Senate a little bit of his perspective of the whole budget mess.

Vice President Roy Ray said that he appreciated Professor Misra's question. There are a whole new set of circumstances in Columbus. New term limits mean that you have people in the House and in the Senate that don't understand the process. This is going to be a real education process that we will have to undertake. President Van Ummersen is going to have her hands full in trying to educate the new members. Also, we are now facing a budget crisis in the State where revenues are declining. That has forced the Governor to propose a budget that is a minimal budget. He is trying to maintain all of the other services of the State without raising taxes and that is a difficult thing when you see diminution of taxes. The economy has taken a severe drop. In Ohio, we are dependent on the automobile industry and that is seeing a major drop as well.

Mr. Ray explained the process. The Governor proposed the budget. It now goes to the House. There are 43 new members in the House. If you ask them to be able to understand the budget process alone, much less our particular needs, they are not going to be able to understand it; they haven't been there long enough. But, they will propose something. The leadership of the House comes from Perry County. Perry County is where the origin of the K-12 situation occurred. The Governor's concern is to make sure that he meets the K-12 problem. He is not going to be concerned about our problem. The House will do something with the budget. It will then move through the Senate. We have a better shot in the Senate to make something happen for higher education. Mr. Ray said that he left a few notes around his office saying that $10 million will help; $5 million would not be as good, but he will take it. We have a better shot in the Senate at getting a positive recognition of our particular needs. The last part of the process is when you go to the Conference Committee where real damage can take place or where we can make something happen. We have been talking about a strategy there because of the downturn in the economy. In normal times in the Conference Committee, the administration would say, "Well, revenues are going to be better than we anticipated and, therefore, here is an additional pot of money." Last time, we were able to guarantee the higher education sector 3%.

Mr. Ray said that he has always been a supporter of higher education when he was in the Senate. This time, it will be a different ball game. One, we would like to take the cap off so we would have that amendment. In addition, since Ohio State got there before us, at least give us 9% like they are getting. If that doesn't happen, then we want to exempt the general fees from the cap so that we would have the ability to raise the cap higher. That is the general strategy Mr. Ray sees happening. Again, this is probably going to be a very difficult budget for the Governor to put together. He is under a gun to take care of the K-12 problem and he is also up for re-election in two years. His particular plan is that we are not going to raise any taxes; we are not going to raise any fees.

[Go to top of page]

IX. New Business

Professor Govea reported that the Arts and Sciences Caucus asked him to bring faculty sentiment to Senate about the University policy with regard to keys and security. (Report No. 30, 2000-2001) There have been a lot of problems. Security will no longer go into faculty offices.

Professor Doerder reported that security can't get into our teaching and research labs if anybody is injured. They cannot get help and that is a very serious concern. Most of us work behind closed doors on weekends and evenings.

A Senator noted that the custodial staff cannot get in but he has locked himself out of his office several times and Security came right over and opened all of the doors. Dr. Barbara Green remarked that Security won't do that anymore. She locked herself out and her purse in her office. When she called Security, she was informed that they do not handle that anymore. You have to call the Key Shop. The Key Shop says that you must come over with your ID, which is in my locked office, otherwise they won't handle it. There are other people who have had that problem.

Professor Doerder reported that when this happened to him, Security said that they could not let him into his research lab or into his office which are adjoining rooms. Also, if we have to go to the Key Shop, many of us teach at night and the Key Shop is closed at 5:00 P.M. If we lock our keys in our office, we cannot get access to our car keys to go home either.

Professor Larson informed the Senate that he was speaking for Professor Peter Meiksins who told him that the people responsible for letting in faculty members after hours are the chairs of departments. Professor Meiksins drove from Cleveland Heights to CSU to let in a faculty member who was locked out of his office because the police could not let him in.

Dr. Bowen asked if anybody at Senate could provide a rationale for our current policy. Mr. Jack Boyle responded that it was felt that there had been a number of problems with people getting access to internal offices and so when the University was re-keyed, the decision was made that there would not be keys available after the re-keying process. It would be the responsibility of individuals in their offices or the department heads to maintain extra keys. There are two possible solutions to the current dilemma: 1) A system like the key pad that Urban Affairs has now, where if you can remember the four digit code, you can get into the office even if you don't have your key. 2) He has not discussed the second solution with Security, but go to a system far less expensive similar to what realtors use in vacant open houses where there would be a small box kept at the Police Dispatch Office with your extra key in it. If you can remember your key number and your combination, you can get into the little box, but you would have to go over to get it. The other problem is that there really aren't enough police on duty to be doing this anymore. We are short staff and we are going to continue to be short because of the cost. But, if you could make it to the Dispatch, show your ID, sign the log, and get into your own little combination lock, you can get your extra key out. Giving out and having the Police have keys available, that anybody can get to is not a good idea. You could have available in a secure area keys that only the people who are supposed to have access to would and that would be one possible solution. He is willing to discuss either solution.

Professor Doerder said that he would like to have more discussion, but if somebody is injured in the research lab and the police cannot get in, this poses serious problems. Mr. Boyle responded that the police will get in just like the fire department -- they will tear down the door.

Mr. Boyle noted that he will wait to see whether the Senate committee thinks it is a good idea and whether the Police will administer that kind of policy. He is willing to pursue it if somebody thinks it is a good idea. He hasn't run this through the Police as yet.

Professor James Webb said that he didn't fully understand the problem. Did the police let somebody into offices? Mr. Boyle replied that we had a lot of break-ins that appeared not to be forced, and we are still having them. So, it means that there are extra keys running around. He would think that professors would want their offices and their tests, etc. to be as secure as possible. He wants to limit the possibilities that there would be extra keys around.

Professor Spicer said that he shared Mr. Boyle's concern for stray keys running around. He inquired if there was any evidence that the Security Forces were part of the problem. Mr. Boyle responded, "Absolutely."

Dr. Bowen asked the Senate if lock boxes sounded like a good idea. Mr. Boyle noted that the only person who would be able to get the key would have to know the combination to the lock box.

Dr. Green suggested that the Committee on Academic Space might look into this issue. Dr. Bowen noted that this issue would then be passed on to the Committee on Academic Space.

 

[Go to top of page]

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:55 P.M

Arthur H. Schwart

Faculty Senate Secretary

/vel

 

 

 

[Go to top of page]