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
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.
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.
Acceptance of the Agenda for February 7, 2001 was moved, seconded, and approved.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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:
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:55 P.M
Arthur H. Schwart
Faculty Senate Secretary