I. Approval of the Agenda
II. Approval of the Minutes of the February 7, 2000 Meeting
III. Presidential Search Update
IV. Planning and Budget Advisory Committee (Report No. 32, 2000-2001)
V. University Curriculum Committee
- Proposed Master of Occupational Therapy Program (Report No. 33, 2000-2001)
- Proposed Procedures for Program Alteration (Report No. 34, 2000-2001)
VI. Proposed Resolution Regarding Distance and Online Learning Forum (Report No. 29, 2000-2001)
VII. Overview of 2001-2002 Parking Plan (Report No. 35, 2000-2001)
VIII. Proposed Repeat Course Policy (Report No. 22, 2000-2001)
IX. Search for Director of the University Center for Teaching and Learning (Report No. 	37, 2000-2001)
X. University President's Report
XI. Senate President's Report
PRESENT: Aquila, Barbato, J. Bazyk, A. Benander, B. Bowen, Buckley, Dieterich, Doerder, Dunegan, Flechtner, Frew, Govea, B. Green, Hollinger, Jeffres, Konangi, Larson, Mahmud, Mastboom, Matthews, McCahon, McLoughlin, Meiksins, Miracle, Misra, Nolan, Nuru-Holm, Rahm, A. Schwartz, Shah, M. Smith, Sparks, Spicer, Thornton, Tumeo, Valencic, Van Ummersen, Wadhwa, Wheatley, Whyte, J. Wilson.
ABSENT/EXCUSED: Chung, Dillard-Mitchell, Dural, Falk, Flynn, Forte, Gorla, Gross, Hemann, Konstantinos, Neuendorf, Orendi, Quigney, Ramsey, Ray, Reinhart, Rosentraub, Sanders, Sawicki, Steckol, Steinglass, Tewari, Vallos, J. Webb.
ALSO PRESENT: Jain, Lupton.
Senate President William Bowen called the meeting to order at approximately 3:10 P.M.
Acceptance of the Agenda for March 7, 2001 was moved by Dr. Peter Meiksins, seconded by Dr. Thomas Flechtner, and approved.
Acceptance of the Minutes of the February 7, 2001 meeting was moved and seconded. Professor Michael Spicer reported an error in his comments on page 5 of the Minutes. The Minutes were approved as corrected.
Mr. Vir K. Sondhi, Chair of the Presidential Search Committee, said that he was very pleased to be at Senate and thanked everyone for inviting him. Everyone has a great deal of interest in the Presidential search. This is a very important process for a very important and special person and it is not taken lightly. In the history of schools, colleges, and universities, we don't have opportunities to change Presidents every day. We would like to bring in the very best. To bring in the very best, we have to go through an open process and
have a great deal of dialogue with faculty, staff, students, government, and business leaders. The individual we are seeking is going to have an impact far beyond the boundaries of the campus. The campus is a beautiful place, but the community at large is interested in this particular individual who will lead us in the next millennium.
Mr. Sondhi noted that the Chairman of the Board of Trustees appointed the Presidential Search Committee and asked him (Mr. Sondhi) to chair the Committee. He is happy to do so. Nine other members were appointed as well including Dr. Bowen. The representation of each and every individual on that Search Committee has been carefully measured and they have been selected for the contributions that they can make.
Mr. Sondhi reported that he has appointed an Advisory Committee to the Search Committee which consists of 12 people from various walks of life: two former Chairmen of the Board of Trustees; the President of the Cleveland Browns; a retired Federal Judge; a special agent in charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the General Counsel of the RTA; the President of the Cleveland Growth Association and several other people including Dean Steven Steinglass, and Dr. Donna Phillips.
Mr. Sondhi reported that he is in constant touch with the Advisory Committee. He encouraged everyone to send in nominations. No nomination will be discarded. The Advisory Committee will look to the background and the qualifications of candidates and forward them to the Search Committee. The Search Committee, after evaluation, will then decide whether to solicit particular individuals. He noted that the Committee is very conscious of the requirement to respect the privacy rights of individuals. A name that is disclosed at the wrong time may not help the individual very much. Disclosure of the names of final candidates will come only after they have gone through the Advisory Committee, the Search Committee, and have been informed that they are the finalists. This is not in any way to be disrespectful for the public's right to know. This is required by law because we are spending public money. We have to be conscious that we are in compliance with all of the Affirmative Action Laws, Sunshine Laws, and such requirements which are justifiably imposed upon us to conduct such a search.
Mr. Sondhi reported that he has heard from many, many people and he is grateful to each one of them. He commented that Professor Kenneth Dunegan and he were talking about a note Professor Dunegan had written concerning the disparity of salaries. Mr. Sondhi said that he was well aware of it even before Professor Dunegan wrote him the note. There are a lot of things that need to be corrected over a period of time.
Mr. Sondhi stated that we want a President who not only is academically qualified, but knows about the business of teaching besides the profession of teaching. The profession of teaching is very important in order to keep everybody on track, focused, motivated, and of course, have a good idea of what it takes to run a campus. We want someone who is a good communicator; a person who has some government experience, some business experience, some academic experience, and a person who may have some experience in the area of applied research. Mr. Sondhi noted that he has a bias towards applied research himself and he overlooks it, from the business point of view, to see that the six colleges here can produce tremendous research. All of this research can be used by business. In this present day world, we want to avoid mismatches. We want to produce the type of education that students are needed by industry and by business and prepare them for getting a job when they graduate.
Mr. Sondhi informed the Senate that he has talked with a number of groups besides having the Search Committee meeting and the Advisory Committee meeting. He has talked with the Senate Steering Committee. Yesterday, he talked with the Development Department, with the Academic Council, and now he is talking to Faculty Senate. The reason for doing so is for Senate members to be able to express concerns and for him to allay members' fears and to be assured that he knows members' feelings. This kind of communication is very important to all of us. He hopes to have it frequently. He indicated that he was happy to answer questions only on one condition -- he doesn't speak for the Board of Trustees. He only speaks for the Search Committee.
Professor Kenneth Dunegan clarified what was in his communication to Mr. Sondhi. His concern is with the viability of the internal structure of the University. He was a little bit concerned about the sense he was getting that the focus of our Presidential search would be for someone who would be an "outside" person -- someone who could go to the external community, represent the University, and perhaps build some bridges between the University and the external community and that is a very laudable goal. In addition, his concern is that we were trying perhaps to do things a little prematurely. The internal structure of the University has some serious problems that, if not attended to, compromise the success that we would have in building bridges with the external community. Our relationship with the business community is going to be face to face between the business people and the people that are teaching in front of the classrooms. Unless we address some of the issues that those folks feel, and that the student body feels, and that the staff feel, we are really misplacing our priorities. He doesn't know if there has ever been any kind of a survey done with the faculty, staff, and students with respect to their attitudes and their feelings about how things have been going, but from a consulting standpoint, that is one of the very first things you do when you go into an organization and get an idea about internal conditions. We have been overlooking too much some of the difficulties that we have internally.
Mr. Sondhi commented that this is sort of a process that he believes can be undertaken together. Together means that if there are concerns, they should be expressed. Mr. Sondhi said, "You are in a great position at the present moment to take a survey and tell Mr. Sondhi that this is the feeling we have." A lot of good things have happened to this University and once in a while some bad things do happen. We can do things as long as we stick together and we present each other's views and have a dialogue frequently. Mr. Sondhi said he realizes that many members have written about PeopleSoft, but we need to remember that PeopleSoft was to improve things, not to degrade them. Everyone is well aware that it didn't work out. That doesn't mean it cannot be put back on track. In fact, it is being put back on track. Things are improving. Yes, we have lost some reserves, but we will create some more reserves. We have to be optimistic in our outlook, in our vision, in our motivation, and in our thinking. We are not going to sit down and take it lying down and say that we can't do anything; we are in a crisis. Mr. Sondhi added that he is very optimistic about it and any disparities members feel that have been coming through over a period of time will be cured. This is a university where we have the least expensive education given to so many people in an urban setting and where a great many students, whether they are able to pay or not, are not going to be left behind. We have a purpose; we have a motive and we will do all that we can.
Mr. Sondhi stated that he realizes -- in the 47 years that he worked in various parts of the world and in various parts of this country, there hasn't been any moment in his life where he sat back and said, "Nothing can be done anymore." We are all going to face some problems here and there. If we start fighting with each other, we are going to have a problem getting a good leader. No one would like to come into a divided house. We want to be sure that we will bring the right person. Everyone will have the opportunity to talk to the candidates and to get views about them. But, once the selection has been made, we have to offer total support and move forward. That is what he is asking. His e-mail, his fax, his telephone are all available to everyone. He reads each and every word that comes into his office. He may be standing on one side as a speaker, but in his mind, he is sitting right there with everyone. We are on the same side; we are not against each other in any way. We are not looking from a different point of view. We are looking from the same point of view.
Professor Tayyab Mahmud noted that while Mr. Sondhi is certainly optimistic, it is difficult to be euphoric when we are going through a 5.7% budget cut. Having said that, he had two issues: 1) the focus of the Search Committee is to have the vision of the University driving it and to be productive; 2) all of us, and certainly the Search Committee, should keep in mind that the University has this other function too -- to create an informed citizen and sometimes create knowledge which may not have a quantitative quality to it but still is an essential one.
Mr. Sondhi agreed with Professor Mahmud. He noted that the other day he read an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education concerning a lady in a lab who had done some research about the behavior of different kinds of fish. She was at Case Western Reserve and could not get tenure. There had been some difficult situation that arose and now she works here in the lab at the University. Mr. Sondhi said, "You will never find me saying you shouldn't be doing research of this type." Research is important. In the academic world, all kinds of subjects are taken. But he does have that bias towards applied research only because he wants to bring a lot more money in here and make more money.
Professor Mahmud stated that Mr. Sondhi's comments about the importance of the university community are very welcome. Many of us, however, were disappointed that the Board formally adopted a position on our dissatisfaction with the representation question. In addition, we were doubly disappointed when the Advisory Committee was formed which was a mirror image of the Selection Committee. One would have thought that students and administrators may have something to add to it. We welcomed the chance. But, there is a difference between giving input and participating in decision-making. For example, we
welcomed the opportunity to draft questions to be given to the candidates. Effective participation is to evaluate the candidates' answers.
Mr. Sondhi responded that the Committee certainly will. He added that Professor Mahmud should not think that the Advisory Committee is a mirror image of the Search Committee. In fact, he tried his best to bring in people exactly the opposite of the Search Committee. He doesn't need two people with the same viewpoint. We do need a different kind of viewpoint. As long as the search is continuing, he would say to Dr. Bowen that this sort of dialogue between himself and between the Senate is important. If Dr. Bowen invites him to Senate again, he will come. He will keep the Senate informed as to the status of the search. He will answer all questions to the best of his knowledge. Mr. Sondhi said, "You can depend on it -- you can bet on it." Mr. Sondhi thanked the Senate for the opportunity to speak and said that he would be happy to come again.
Dr. Arthur Schwartz reported on updated budget information based on the Planning and Budget Advisory Committee meeting held on February 23, 2001. At that time, information was distributed indicating that a projection of $145.7 million is expected in revenues for next year. There are a similar amount of expenses anticipated but there are additional commitments that have been made that are now being moved into the regular budget. As a consequence, what we have is approximately $145.7 million expected revenue and $150.1 million expenses. We have a shortfall which has led to the budget reductions that have been sent around.
Next year, there will be an increase in allocations to different areas but what was passed at that meeting, is well on the way to what we have been asking. The analysis shows that next year a 5.3% increase in revenues is allocated to the instructional component of the University. There is a 6.2% decrease in expenses that are going to be in the administrative and support section. There are expenses that are going to be incurred in technology -- we can't avoid them -- as well as replenishment of the contingency fund. Dr. Schwartz stated that he was personally encouraged by the shifting of funds from the administrative sector to the academic sector. Subsequent to that, each of the colleges were informed of the target cuts for them on a percentage basis and overall university-wide.
Dr. Barbara Green reported about her conversation concerning items that previously had come under the student fee portion of the budget which may have been shifted into the instructional budget. If that is true, the difference in the cuts may only be paper differences -- whether you are paying for something under the instructional or the non-instructional part of the budget. She asked that the Budget Committee look into this and report back to Senate. Dr. Schwartz noted that he could report back. He wondered if Provost Jay McLoughlin wanted to address that issue now because they talked about it. Dr. Schwartz said he doesn't have the specifics on it. An analysis had been made of general fees and things devoted specifically to the student organizations had not been touched, but the other things funded through the student fees had been subjected to the same analyses and cuts. Provost Jay McLoughlin agreed with Dr. Schwartz's statement.
Mr. Jack Boyle commented that the Board of Trustees are going to decide if fees will be on their Agenda at the March meeting and whether to switch the funding source. All departments except the student activities sector are being asked to take the same cut. Everything is under the cap now including the general fee and the technology fee. If we held certain divisions harmless from the cut, then the other ones will have to take a bigger cut. So we asked them all to take the same percentage cuts no matter what their funding source was and holding harmless only the student activities. The actual funding source will be presented to the Board for their discussion.
Professor James Wilson noted that most of the administrative savings are going to come from reduction of secretarial staff and low level positions rather than from upper level positions of administration. He was wondering if there is any sense if that is going to be a pattern throughout the entire administration. Dr. Schwartz said that the principles guiding cuts were to not hit the instructional component, to decentralize the authority, and to give the individual units the decision-making power. He can't comment on a college by college basis.
Professor Wilson remarked that one high ranking administrator who doesn't do much maybe would be a lot easier to get rid of than three or four secretaries who do a lot. Often organizations buy off the weaker people first. That is what concerns him. Dr. Schwartz added that it concerns all of us. He would say that through Professor Wilson's college representative, if this is a particular issue, make it known to the committee. Communication has been forthright and it will get the attention that Professor Wilson is asking for.
Professor Tayyab Mahmud noted that the question raised by Professor Green has not been answered. The question was whether the trend has been shifted to increase the instructional component or is it just moving things around? Dr. Schwartz said that he would take that as a charge and have an answer for Professor Mahmud at the next Senate meeting.
Dr. Rodger Govea noted that Dr. Green's question is: "Have items which used to be covered by the General Fee been switched to be covered by the Instructional budget?" Dr. Schwartz's report indicates that the Instructional section has gone up when other sections have gone down. Is this simply a result of the shift? Interim Provost McLoughlin stated that the allocations and the money was moved over from the General Fee to the Instructional budget. Dr. Green noted that the 5.3% increase in the Instructional budget may be totally the result of moving things. Provost McLoughlin stated that it is new money.
Professor Santosh Misra asked for simple numbers using 1999-2000 as the base. Keeping the base exactly the same, give us the instructional amount with exactly the same line items included and for next year as well. Dr. Schwartz asked if Professor Misra wanted that for the fiscal 01-02 budget and for fiscal 00-01. Professor Misra said, "Whatever the line items, keep the same base." Dr. Schwartz said that he would get that information and report it as a handout in preparation for the next meeting.
Professor Thomas Flechtner asked if the Committee is being provided with the information on how each of the different colleges are making the cuts that have been assigned. Dr. Schwartz responded, "Not at this time." The assignments were made subsequent to the report. The notifications were made subsequent to the February 23rd meeting. Professor Flechtner asked Dr. Schwartz to ask for that information and then make it available to the Senate. Dr. Schwartz noted that there are now three things to report back on.
Professor Misra asked if Dr. Schwartz could also give the Senate some idea on exactly what steps have been taken to reduce some of the administrative overhead in the last six/seven years. Dr. Schwartz stated that if the Committee gets the other information that Professor Misra is asking for, that information is apparent in there. Professor Misra noted that it needs to be quoted a little bit differently because somebody just pointed out that it is probably very easy to say we reduced "x" percent of the administrative budget by firing two secretaries. Could we fire somebody else that makes $300,000 per year and doesn't contribute much to the university and save in that process? Professor Schwartz said that he will get that information and report back to Senate.
Professor Paul Doerder noted that Dr. Schwartz had mentioned $145 million of revenue and then additional expenses that brought the total expenditures to $150 million. He wondered what were those additional expenses. Dr. Schwartz responded that it includes advertising, part-time faculty, doctoral set-aside, technology support, etc. These are things that had been funded previously through different ways that now are being moved into a standard way of accounting as expenses so that we can keep track of them. Dr. Schwartz assured the Senate that he will have answers to the four questions raised today at the next Senate meeting.
Dr. Gregory Lupton, Chair of the University Curriculum, stated that he brings two items of business from the Committee.
Dr. Lupton presented the Proposed Master of Occupational Therapy Program. He explained that some materials were included with the Agenda along with the main body of the proposal. There were some rather bulky appendices that were not included with the packet. He drew the Senate's attention to the first paragraph on page 2 of the main body of the proposal. This is not a new program but rather a transition of an existing undergraduate program to the graduate level to retain its accreditation. He then moved acceptance of the proposed program. The motion was seconded.
Professor Peter Meiksins stated that, for the record, there was considerable discussion of this proposal in the College of Arts and Sciences Caucus meeting. Some months ago an issue was raised which does not warrant holding up the program. The force of the argument is that there is an accreditation need, but this proposal reflects an ongoing problem with the creation and modification of programs at CSU which needs addressing. This modification does have resource implications which have been made clear in the proposal and which have been addressed to some degree by the Graduate Dean and by the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. We are proposing to make this commitment in resources at a time when the University has just undergone a 5.7% cut and where there are a number of departments which have lost as many as two full-time faculty lines for next year and for the foreseeable future. The irony is that we are, in fact, subsidizing creation of a new or modified program at the same time that we are starving existing programs which have students in them. It is time that the University, as a whole, confronts its responsibility to its existing programs and its existing students who are in those programs as well as to new and modified programs. Dr. Meiksins stated that he is fully in support of the proposal and this should not be interpreted as opposition to it. He will vote for it. But, perhaps this is something for the Budget Committee to take up. It is time for us to think about the needs of existing programs as much as we think about the needs of new and developing programs.
Dr. Leo Jeffres added that to get out of the zero sum gain that we throw a faculty into, we can probably resolve some of it by providing better data. We need to distribute data widely so that we have the figures that show what current programs are generating -- those with students in them so that there is not a disincentive to create new programs or come up with ideas which are going to be necessary to survive at a time when the environment is changing quite rapidly. If you know that you have to keep your feet up at every step, no one is going to come up with anything new. This is a good example. This is a case where the undergraduate program is going out of business. We are not going to come up with anything very creative beyond that unless there are processes put into place and data are available where it will be quite clear that this is not just a little political game of who is the favorite at the moment. Professor Jeffres said that he hopes this process of getting the data ready is broken down to the absolute lowest level possible so that we can make the case for existing programs and others in order to see where revenue is coming from.
Professor Wilson was particularly concerned about the fate of First College. His sense is that over the years, it has been one of the most successful programs we have had in this university and yet it seems to be slowly fading away. It hasn't been discussed much at Senate. Somewhere along the line, he would like to see some explanation of why we have to give it up.
The being no further discussion, Dr. Bowen called for the vote. The Proposed Master of Occupational Therapy program was approved.
Dr. Lupton next moved the Proposed Procedure for Program Alteration (suspension, cancellation, deletion, etc.). The Committee's intent on having Faculty Senate consider this is to set a bench mark or point of reference regarding Faculty governance involvement in program alteration in a general sense. The motion was seconded.
Professor Misra asked for a definition of alteration. What does alteration mean? Dr. Lupton responded that it is a catch-all phrase. He took the wording from the charge to the University Curriculum Committee from the Faculty Senate Bylaws.
Professor Misra gave his reason for asking. "Let's say that I have a course that is already approved and a change is made in the content of the course. Is this an alteration?" Dr. Lupton responded that this is covered in (B). That sort of change needs very little Faculty governance consideration. Professor Lupton noted that there are several examples. If it were several courses or what constitutes a Certificate Program for instance, then substantive changes and alterations in a Certificate Program would require something of this process. Individual courses would not.
Dr. Rodger Govea explained that by using the word "alteration," we are not pinned down to a specific term. Pursuant to the First College situation, the program is not being eliminated; it is being suspended. The University Curriculum Committee is saying that anything is a change no matter what it is called and, therefore, that would trigger these procedures. That is the strength of this proposal.
Dr. Barbara Green added that part of the issue is the question that the administration controls the budget. And certainly at most universities, the faculty controls the curriculum. The question is whether it is legitimate for the administration to abolish a program by cutting the budget to such a point that the courses and nature of that program, as it has been approved by the Faculty Senate, can no longer be offered. We are not talking about cutting back slightly or making people no longer able to offer certain electives or having it in alternate years. At the point where the budget cuts the program core as it has been approved, whether it is Political Science, First College, Drama, or anything else, is it not something then which must go through a faculty curricular process? This proposal is saying, "Yes, you can't control curricula just by controlling the money."
There being no further discussion, Dr. Bowen called the question. The Proposed Procedure for Program Alteration was approved.
Mr. Gary Meszaros reported that this plan was put together by the Parking Advisory Committee. The plan was explained to the Academic Steering Committee, the SGA, the CWA, and the SEIU. It still needs to be presented to the FOP. It will then be presented to the Board of Trustees committee meeting on March 23, 2001.
Mr. Meszaros noted that Parking Services is an auxiliary unit that is self supporting. All revenue stays in Parking. The revenue is used to maintain the parking lots, increase the inventory, and to keep the rates as low as possible. The rates need to be raised this year. We have over $1.2 million of maintenance needs in various lots throughout the campus. In addition, we are still planning to save some money in order to be able to build another garage sometime in the future. A garage estimate is about $14,000 per space. If we want to build a 500/600 car garage, the cost will be over $6 million.
Mr. Meszaros explained that this is the first fee increase since 1998. The increase for a faculty and staff annual permit and for the student semester permit will be 6%. This is about $2 per month which ends up a ten cent per day increase if you come to campus 20 days per month. The bigger change is the "Must Pay" which is the pay as you go per day. The cost will go from $2 to $3 per day. Parking Services doesn't want to deal in change because it slows down the lines. It is more of an administrative problem trying to keep track of all of the change. Parking Services wants to reduce people using the day to day "Must Pay." Parking Services has had some crimes in the lots. Money has been taken from attendants because people know the cash is out there. Over the next few months, Parking Services hopes to actually start looking at some new technology so that they can reduce the need for cash collection and switch over to a more technological solution like using an ID card. They are also planning to streamline the parking registration system. They have been trying to improve things over the last several years. Parking Services went from quarters to semesters and they are still cleaning up some of those issues and trying to make permits a lot easier to understand. Reading some of the parking rules and regulations are confusing especially if you are new here and are trying to figure out which plan is best for you.
Mr. Meszaros reported that the goal is to maintain the 4,600 spaces we currently have. The fee increase will allow maintenance of the lots and to keep them up and running. In addition, Parking Services needs to build some type of reserve funds so land can be purchased for more lots or to have money available to build another garage some day.
Professor Kenneth Dunegan asked if Mr. Meszaros had any sense of what the rates were at CSU ten years ago. Mr. Meszaros said that he did not know. Dr. Schwartz reported that it was $1.25 per day. Professor Dunegan said he appreciated the claim that this is the first increase we have had since 1998, but compared to 1995 rates, this is about a 26% increase over that period of time. Yet, the rates are now being increased by 6% which is a pretty good chunk and available options are being cut back.
Professor Dunegan noted that the last time the Senate was addressed concerning parking, Professor Cynthia Dieterich raised some questions about having the opportunity to buy pre-paid faculty hang tags that would not be five day tags but rather reflect the responsibility that some faculty have to be off campus many days during the week and not be penalized. At that point, he recalls that Mr. Meszaros had said that he was going to look into that. Mr. Meszaros replied that the Committee still is. The Committee just focused on getting these rates ready to go to the Board of Trustees. The Committee is looking to review a possible part-time permit and a weekend type permit for students. The Committee talked about that briefly at its last meeting. That might be an option, but again, it is hard to have an option for every single person and every single circumstance. The challenge is to try to come up with something that meets everybody's needs.
Professor Dunegan stated that he understands, but Mr. Meszaros has streamlined to the point where there is one option. If you want to buy a prepaid hangtag, you buy an annual tag for five days per week. Mr. Meszaros pointed out that there is also a semester tag. If you divide that up, it comes out to $1.45 per day if you use it every single day.
Dr. Cynthia Dieterich stated that she does hope the Committee aggressively looks at an alternative because just from a dollar and cents point of view, she paid $200 for parking last year. If she were to engage in the annual staff parking, Parking would be collecting in excess of $408. She sees that as abhorrent.
Mr. John Oden commented that the last time he and Mr. Meszaros were at Senate, he had made a statement that Dr. Dieterich had a unique situation. He asked her to call him and he would figure out something. Dr. Dieterich said that it was not unique to her. Mr. Oden said that since she brought it up, he was willing to address it. He would be willing to address it on a larger scale. Mr. Oden stated that there is a situation where we have full-time and part-time employees. He took the rate of $408 and wondered what would happen if a part-time individual wanted to buy an annual decal either through payroll deduction or through cash. He took 266 working days and subtracted 22 vacation days, subtracted ten holidays, and got it down to a point that if you come to campus 2.6 days per week and pay $3.00 per day, you will pay $408. We are trying to scale back categories and situations. If you come to campus three, four, or five days, you need to prepay. Everybody needs to understand that the payroll deduction option is pre-tax dollars where a person might save $50 to $75 depending on their base salary.
Dr. David Larson commented that the semester increase for faculty and staff and for students is significantly different. He wondered if there was an explanation for the difference. Mr. Oden explained that during the last calculation, when we went from quarters to semesters, the increase was supposed to be 12.5%. Instead it was increased the same dollar amount per the faculty contract that the students got. Actually the $129 was lower than it should have been so when it was recalculated, he took a situation of two semesters and a summer session equaling 52 weeks and came up with $408.
Dr. Larson pointed out that the same union contract is still in force. That has not changed.
Mr. Meszaros noted that in the past, faculty were getting a special deal if they paid semester, semester, and summer. Faculty were paying less than somebody who paid in advance and paid for an annual permit. Dr. Larson stated that it doesn't matter. Mr. Meszaros stated that it should equal. Dr. Larson noted that the contract says nothing about this sort of thing. It says, "The amount of parking fee increases, if any, shall be uniformly applied to faculty, students, staff, and administrators." That is one violation of the contract. This cannot go forward to the Board of Trustees. There is a second violation of the contract. "The CSU-AAUP shall be informed of any proposed changes in parking fees at least one term in advance and the administration shall discuss any proposed changes in fees with the CSU-AAUP." Dr. Larson stated that he is the President of the CSU-AAUP and this has not been done. He informed Mr. Meszaros that he is in double violation of the contract.
Mr. Meszaros reported that there was a mistake made four years ago. Mr. Jack Boyle stated that two semesters and a summer would only get you 43 weeks. So you still have nine weeks where you would have to pay $3.00 per day. Dr. Larson stated that the point is the faculty will file a grievance and go to arbitration. Mr. Boyle stated: "They ought to do away with a semester." Dr. Larson replied that the administration cannot go ahead because this is not the AAUP. This is the Faculty Senate. The AAUP has not been consulted a semester in advance which is required to be done according to the contract. Mr. Boyle stated: "If this is a contractual matter, why don't we go ahead and let it be settled by CIC?" Dr. Larson again stated that the faculty will file a grievance. This is the Faculty Senate. The administration has not consulted faculty in advance according to the contract.
Professor Frank Aquila commented that he was not aware that parking was pre tax. He asked if parking has made money or lost money over the past ten years. Mr. Meszaros replied that overall, there is some money in reserve and last year there was a surplus. Mr. Oden stated that over the last ten years, parking has made money. Parking has also spent quite a bit of money. Ten years ago, we didn't have the super lots North of Chester and the UPF garage was renovated at a cost of $750,000. The increase basically is to take what we have and make it last as long as possible and to add more space that obviously everybody here in this room knows we need.
Interim Dean Mark Tumeo said that he wanted to report back to Senate in response to the Faculty Senate Committee report that was delivered to the Graduate College in October 2000. A written report was included in today's meeting materials in which he went through each recommendation the Faculty Senate Committee gave to the Graduate College and the actions taken by the College in response. The College did most of what was recommended and is working on fulfilling the rest of the recommendations.
Structure of the College. The Committee suggested changing the name. Dr. Tumeo stated that the name will stand until the Graduate Dean is appointed. As an Interim Dean, he did not think it was appropriate to change structure or name. That would be something the Dean would do.
Strategic Goals. Dr. Tumeo reported that the College is working on developing a process by which strategic goals can be proposed, brought through the Graduate Council, and forwarded through whatever process is appropriate to help focus research and graduate education issues.
Graduate Faculty Membership. The Graduate Council has formed a committee charged by Dr. June Romeo to look at Graduate faculty membership. If members want input into the membership, please contact Dr. Romeo. A lot of work has been done collecting information on how other universities around the State have structured their Graduate faculty. We are looking specifically at the recommendations that the committee put forward in terms of a tiered kind of approach. The Committee plans to report to the Graduate Council by the end of April 2001. If it requires a change of Bylaws, then we go to the Graduate faculty process of Bylaws and there would be a meeting of the Graduate faculty to vote on it.
Research Council. This is another concern that somehow did not fit into the governance structure. The College has changed a couple of things to address the Research Council more directly. One is in the appointment nomination process. The formal process is that the Deans of the Colleges make the nominations. The nominations come to Graduate Council. Graduate Council reviews those nominations and can add, change, or do whatever they will. Nominations are then forwarded to the Academic Steering Committee which is where that confirmation took place according to the rules that were set forth. It was the nomination process that the College ran through the Graduate Council because the Faculty Senate Steering Committee has the confirmation duties. In addition, the College clarified, in terms of policy, that Research Council does not do policy. Policy comes through Graduate Council. Graduate Council can make recommendations but policy, including the procedures for funding or the criteria for funding decisions, all comes through Graduate Council for approval now.
Office of Research and Economic Development. Dr. Tumeo reported that this office is one of the areas that the Committee found the College was doing very well in. The College is continuing to strengthen it. The search for a Director is going forward. It is going to be a national search as requested. The College is putting extra energy into getting the announcement out regionally because we will probably get most of our candidates regionally, but we are advertising nationally. That has been timed such that the decision for the hiring will be made by the Dean that is appointed through the hiring process for the Graduate Dean rather than having an Interim Dean appoint the Director.
Communications. Dr. Tumeo noted that the communications area was another major concern. Two Graduate Faculty meetings have been held and two Graduate Program Director meetings have been held. Another one is being scheduled for this semester. He has been trying to have a Graduate Faculty and a Graduate Program Director meeting every semester to keep people informed of things and to get announcements out. He has also been meeting regularly with the Doctoral Program Directors because of all the OBOR programs that are focused specifically on doctoral programs. He has also answered a lot of e-mails and a lot of phone calls and he tries to come to Faculty Senate meetings every semester. He anticipates that the new Graduate Dean, whomever that will be, will probably follow that same kind of procedure. He hopes that the Faculty Senate will agree to let the Graduate Dean come and do a report at least annually, but preferably semester-wise. The first semester report can be more operational. The second semester report can be an overview of accomplishments.
Resource Allocation. Dr. Tumeo said that there were issues about resource allocation. The Graduate College budget is now run through the Graduate Council so that the Faculty governance has input and responsibility for seeing what is going on there. Research Council makes recommendations on policy and procedures for travel grants, EFFRD grants and other funding programs. Graduate Council is the ultimate authority for resource allocation.
Graduate Admissions. Dr. Tumeo reported that Graduate Admissions is one of the things he is most proud of during his tenure as Interim Dean. Graduate Admissions was passed over to Graduate College in September in response to both the ad hoc Committee on Graduate Admissions and the Faculty Senate Committee. He hopes that the experience has been as positive as the feed-back he has been getting. Dr. William Bailey and Ms. Linda Gilmore have put that on-line. We have reduced to a total of zero errors in data input and papers getting processed and hopefully everyone is being contacted. Dr. Bailey is working with the program directors to make sure that whatever things we put in, we put in in a way that doesn't negatively impact but only helps the programs do recruitment and retention. We now have Certificates as a degree seeking program. They are no longer Non Degree students so they are now in the degree seeking count, counted to the College, and consequently counted towards our positive role towards OBOR reporting. He noted that he is very pleased with Graduate Admissions.
Overall, Dr. Tumeo reported that the College is moving in the right direction. The College has responded to almost everything the Committee on the Graduate College had reported. He is anxious to keep doing those kinds of reports and he is sure the new team will also do the same.
Dr. Schwartz asked Dr. Tumeo to repeat what he had said about the category of Non Degree students or Certificates. Dr. Tumeo explained that beforehand, if you came in seeking only a Certificate, for example the Graduate Certificate in Bioethics, you were admitted to the University as a Non Degree seeking student which meant to OBOR that there was no planned curricula and at some point you just disappeared from the system and there was never the notion that you completed anything. We have moved that into its own category. It is not a degree, it is still a Certificate, but it is counted by OBOR as an admission and matriculation into that admission and then you actually complete it. So when you complete the course of study, the Certificate is done and you commence.
Professor Schwartz asked if there still is a Non Degree category. Dr. Tumeo replied that Professor Schwartz was correct. The College was just trying to clean it up. The Non Degree category had traditionally been used for four different things: Certificates, people who want to get into the degrees but either don't have the grades or don't have all the kinds of things they need and so they are in a kind of pre-degree status -- the Certificates and licensure kinds of issues. That is a big deal in both Education and Business and for true Non Degrees -- people who are just coming in and taking some courses. OBOR is moving towards a reporting scenario where people that come in and take a course of study and then leave count towards the University doing its mission and people who kind of just come in and float, don't count. The denominator gets big, the numerator is small and it looks like you have horrible retention and horrible graduation. By moving them into their proper classifications where they are actually doing a course of study, they have an academic goal and they are completing it and we are now counting it as such. In addition, for Certificate students with a set category of studies, they are now eligible for financial aid, whereas before, they were not.
Regarding the subcommittee on membership for example, and the resource allocation proposals that Dr. Tumeo was suggesting, Professor Dunegan asked if he is looking at external comparative groups. Dr. Tumeo asked Professor Dunegan if he was talking in terms of the Graduate faculty. Professor Dunegan said that the subcommittee is looking at the composition of the membership and the resource allocation component of it. Last year the University and the faculty established a fifteen school peer comparative group. He asked if it is for more than just faculty issues.
Dr. Rodger Govea stated that we specifically agreed the peer group was for the basis of salary comparison only and not any other practices.
Dr. Tumeo reported that information has been received from all of our sister institutions concerning the Graduate faculty issue. They are looking externally for comparators, but they didn't go to this fifteen school group.
Dr. Chet Jain, Chair of the Admissions and Standards Committee, reported that the Committee is bringing the Repeat Course Policy proposal back to Senate after the last meeting. The Committee took the Senate's comments and suggestions into account. Originally, the proposal stated that only courses where a student received a grade of "D" or "F" could be repeated. The Committee has added that courses with a grade of "C" can be repeated as well. A course in which a grade of "C" was received under this policy can only be repeated for two courses.
Dr. Thomas Flechtner asked Dr. Jain for the rationale for the limit of two courses on the "C" grade. Dr. Jain responded that this was something the Committee could compromise with. Professor Frank Aquila, a member of the Committee, explained that on one side there were no "Cs" and on another side there were unlimited "Cs", so it was a qualitative rationale.
Dr. Flechtner stated that if you are allowed to repeat the course, you should be allowed to repeat it any number of times no matter what the grade was. This actually would give an advantage to somebody earning a "D" or an "F" compared to somebody earning a "C."
Professor Govea reported that at the Arts and Sciences Caucus meeting, another idea was floated. He brings the following amendment to the proposal: delete the words: "courses in which a "C" grade was awarded may be repeated" and add: "repetitions of any course will be allowed" under this policy. That is to say that two repetitions of any course are allowed with no limit and all "C", "D", and "F" grades can be repeated. Dr. Jain noted that this would be a substantial change. Dr. Govea stated that this is a formal amendment; it is not friendly. Dr. Jain said that he would have no problem with it.
Dr. Bowen asked Dr. Govea to read the proposed wording again.
Dr. Govea read the proposed policy with the proposed amendment: "A student may repeat a course in which a grade of "C", "D", or "F" was earned. However, no more than two (2) repetitions of any course will be allowed under this policy." Everything else remains as proposed. The amendment changes the proposal from two courses in which a "C" grade was awarded to an unlimited number of courses in which a "C" grade was received but only two repetitions. So, it is a three strikes policy basically.
Dr. Jain noted that some schools allow a course to be repeated only twice. This is not totally out of the ordinary.
The proposed amendment was seconded. There was no further discussion on the amendment and it was approved.
Dr. Bowen then asked for discussion on the original motion.
Professor Bhushan Wadhwa asked what happens if somebody gets an "F" grade by disciplinary action because of cheating. Dr. Jain noted that this policy would concern the earned grade only.
There being no further discussion, Dr. Bowen asked for the vote. The proposed Repeat Course Policy as amended was approved.
Professor Peter Meiksins noted that at the last Senate meeting the Senate approved making the Modern Languages Department the custodian of a list of requirements concerning the Foreign Language Requirement. He reported that he spoke with the Chair of the Department of Modern Languages a few days ago and she expressed to him that it was not possible for the Department to maintain such a list. She claimed that she had communicated this to Dr. Jain. Professor Meiksins suggested that Dr. Jain needs to talk to her. Dr. Jain said that he will talk to her, but she did communicate to him and they did discuss it. Professor Meiksins said that it needs to be sorted out. Dr. Jain said that he would certainly do that.
Interim Provost Jay McLoughlin stated that he was at Senate to ask for assistance in identifying or finding a person who would be interested in the role of Director of the University Center for Teaching and Learning. The search is being reopened. He has allocated some resources and made the position and the Center more stable and hopefully more attractive. It is now a twelve month position. The Director will also provide leadership for the Center for Academic Technology Services that supports the faculty in developing web-based courses. There is also permanent funding for faculty grants that wasn't there before. There is still an obligation for the Director to attract other extramural funding. This is a good step forward. He would encourage members to encourage colleagues to consider it. It is his hope to be able to have somebody in this position by mid June. A number of faculty on campus would like to have some professional development this Summer related to distance learning and some other things. Provost McLoughlin stated that anything members can do to help him identify a good person would be appreciated.
President Claire Van Ummersen reported on some activities that have been going on in the University. First, the housing study undertaken by Professor Emeritus Ronald Busch has been completed and was reviewed by the Committee of the Board of Trustees that is working on student housing. The report from Dr. Busch showed an interest on the part of students, faculty, and staff. It showed that we could probably support somewhere between 425 to 445 new units on campus. The survey indicated that for a one bedroom arrangement that would be part of a four-bedroom unit with kitchen facilities, study areas, and living space, 36% of the respondents indicated that they would be interested in that type of unit. Forty percent of the respondents were interested in two-bedroom units and about 22% of the respondents wanted single units -- bedroom, kitchen facilities, and study area. The pricing ranged from roughly $400 per month to about $625 per month and that seemed to be within the ability of students and others to pay. Next, an RFQ will be prepared and sent out both to some of the national companies that have expressed an interest and to local developers in the Cleveland area who may also be interested in building some student housing. The student housing will be built on our land that would be leased to the company that will do the building. That company will bear the cost of actually constructing these apartments and will, hopefully, manage them over time for the University so that we won't have the expense of having staff to manage these facilities. If we are very lucky, maybe they will take over Viking Hall as part of the deal. It is hoped that they will do a good if not better job in managing all of our facilities than we have been able to do in the past.
President Van Ummersen reported that a planning grant proposal to the U.S. Department of Education's Strengthening Institutions Program which is Title III is being developed. It is hoped that we will be able to move to a full-blown grant that will provide funding for the campus to deal with a number of issues around admissions and recruiting that are critical to the future success of the campus. She said that she will keep the Senate posted on how they do with that. Because Cleveland State has a relatively high percentage of financially needy students on the one hand, but also a relatively low education and general expenditure budget on the other hand, we qualify for Title III funds.
President Van Ummersen mentioned the success of Cleveland State's Law students once again. This year, a team of second-year students defeated the University of Minnesota team in the fifth and final round and they are now going to the National final rounds in Chicago that will take place later this month. Once again, our Law students and Professor Stephen Werber, the faculty advisor, really deserve our applause for the work that they have done.
Dr. William Bowen reported that in terms of the Presidential Search, there is nothing to report other than what he has reported before and what was reported today from Mr. Vir Sondhi. Several people have brought forth nominees. That is great and the best thing that can be done right now. Otherwise, if anyone has questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to give Dr. Bowen a call or an e-mail message. He will get back to everyone.
Dr. Bowen noted that the Senate is co-sponsoring a "Distance and Online Learning Forum" this Friday, at 9:00 A.M. in the College of Continuing Education. He was asked to start that out and the thrust of his welcoming message will go something like this.
"Given the recent dot-com shake out, it is important for faculty to take a leadership role in the formulation of something resembling a shared sense of the reality regarding what we at CSU face in relation to distance learning. It seems that distance learning is something that will not go away anytime soon and it is probably in our best interest to deal with as much objectivity as we can muster.
We know that the Internet can extend the geographic reach of the university, and in some cases to people that otherwise would not have access to education. But we -- meaning so far as I can tell absolutely everybody -- have little to no idea in general about the relative benefits and costs of that extension. It is not clear in every case. In many cases, it seems to be that the cost really outweighs the benefits. In some cases, we can look at the University of Maryland where it has been a revenue generating activity and at other places like UCLA where it has been a real commercial turkey. It is not even clear how you measure the costs in benefits of this whole thing. That is one of the issues.
Another big issue has to do with assessment. Our reputation can be damaged if students do not receive the level of teaching that our name has been built upon. The guiding principle should probably be that the online student should get the same or better quality of education as the student who attends traditional classes. Yet our knowledge, in terms of the process of learning about how students respond to concepts presented via the computer, in comparison to those presented in the classroom, is extremely limited. We have no way to determine whether this principle is followed by practice. The question is whether, when we present online courses, we are providing a sufficiently high quality level of teaching. I was at the AAG meetings in New York City and listened to some people in some sessions trying to assess whether or not the quality of teaching online is up to par with teaching in the classroom. There are all sorts of issues. We really don't know how to do that.
Finally, there is an issue about whether we, as a faculty, want to accept distance learning as a cost center rather than a profit center. One model we could follow would be to establish a College of Online Learning, and make it a profit center. If it does not make a profit, we close it down. Another model would view distance education primarily as a traditional activity where we are providing an education, only we are using more up-to-date technology and accept it as a cost on the University. So, there is a whole set of issues that are involved with Distance Learning that, if we are going to respond to it sensibly, take whatever opportunities are available without throwing money at something that might end up turning out to be a fad. That is something that we should all sit down and think about."
Dr. Bowen announced that the University President's picnic, usually held in early Fall semester, has been canceled this year. We will evidently have to wait for a new President. Dr. Bowen also announced that two more faculty luncheons are coming up. The previous one was very positive. The first luncheon is on Monday, March 19, and the second is Tuesday, April 10, 2001. Both are from 11:30 A.M. to 1:30 P.M. in UC 364, and the cost is $5.00.
Dr. Bowen praised Professor Thomas Flechtner and the negotiating team for the union. They worked long and hard and are very dedicated to faculty welfare. The Senate applauded Professor Flechtner and the negotiating team.
Dr. Bowen announced that Professor Brian Michelbank, Urban Affairs, won the prestigious Tiebout Award from the Regional Science Association International. It was the best paper in Regional Science in 2000.
Dr. Bowen noted that at the last meeting, he missed the Project Director for Cultural Crossings, Professor Rachel K. Carnell, who is on the faculty in the English Department. Professor Carnell has chaired the Cultural Crossings Committee for the last three years, the culmination of which was this year's lecture series. The two faculty members he mentioned at the last Senate meeting will co-chair the Committee for the 2001-02 academic year. Again, that is the sort of activity the faculty here can be proud of.
Finally, Dr. Bowen mentioned that Professors Robert Wei, Chemistry, and Hou-mei Sung, Art, were both awarded Fulbright Scholarships. Excellent!
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:45 P.M.
Arthur H. Schwartz
Faculty Senate Secretary