Cleveland State University

Faculty Senate

April 18, 2001

I. Approval of the Agenda
II. Approval of the Minutes of the February 7, 2001 Meeting
III. Announcement of Elections at the May 2, 2001 Meeting
V. University President's ReportIV. Announcement of Coming Faculty-wide Election
VI. Senate President's Report
VII. Planning and Budget Advisory Committee (Report No. 38, 2000-2001)
VIII. Editorial Change to Foreign Language Deficiency Policy (Report No. 25, 2000-2001)

IX. Proposed Senate Endorsement of Two Expressions of Intent Re: Budget Information in Program Proposals (Report No. 39, 2000-2001)
X. Proposed Revised Charge for Faculty Participation in Budget and Planning and Creation of a New Standing Committee (Report No. 40, 2000-2001)
XI. Proposed Senate Endorsement of The Association of College and Research Libraries' Intellectual Freedom Principles for Academic Libraries (Report No. 41, 2000-2001)

PRESENT: Aquila, Barbato, J. Bazyk, A. Benander, W. Bowen, Buckley, Dieterich, Doerder, Dunegan, Flechtner, Govea, B. Green, Gross, Hollinger, Jeffres, Larson, Mahmund, Mastboom, Matthews, McCahon, McLoughlin, Meiksins, Misra, Nolan, Nuru-Holm, Quigney, Rahm, Ray, Reinhart, A. Schwartz, Sparks, Spicer, Thornton, Van Ummersen, Wadhwa, Whyte, J. Wilson.
ABSENT/EXCUSED: Chung, Dillard-Mitchell, Dural, Falk, Flynn, Forte, Frew, Gorla, Hemann, Konangi, Konstantinos, Miracle, Neuendorf, Orendi, Ramsey, Rosentraub, Sanders, Sawicki, Shah, M. Smith, Steckol, Steinglass, Tewari, Tumeo, Valencic, Vallos, J. Webb, Wheatley.
ALSO PRESENT: Jain, Lupton.


Senate President William Bowen called the meeting to order at approximately 3:10 P.M.

I. Approval of the Agenda

Acceptance of the Agenda for April 18, 2001 was moved, seconded, and approved.

II. Approval of the Minutes of the February 7, 2001 Meeting

Acceptance of the Minutes of the March 7, 2001 meeting was moved and seconded. Professor Chet Jain reported an error is his comments on page 16 of the Minutes. The Minutes were approved as corrected.


[Go to top of page]

III. Announcement of Elections at the May 2, 2001 Meeting

Senate President William Bowen announced the elections scheduled for the meeting of May 2, 2001 as follows: Three faculty representatives to the University Faculty Affairs Committee; two faculty representatives to the Minority Affairs Committee; one faculty representative to the Board of Trustees; one faculty representative to the Honorary Degree Committee; one faculty representative to the Ohio Faculty Council; one faculty representative to the Copyright Review Committee; one faculty representative to the Patent Review Committee; four representative to the Equal Opportunity Hearing Panel. Dr. Bowen reminded members to check with candidates to be sure they are willing to serve before nominating them.

IV. Announcement of Coming Faculty-wide Election

Senate President Bowen announced the upcoming faculty-wide election of one faculty representative to the Academic Misconduct Review Committee. Nominations for this election come from the Academic Steering Committee.


[Go to top of page]

V. University President's Report

President Claire Van Ummersen reported that at the Board meeting this morning, members approved resolutions granting promotion and tenure to the recommended list of candidates and also approved professional leaves of absence to all of those who had been recommended. In addition, the Board approved a resolution adopting the proposed Master of Occupational Therapy Degree program. They also approved a resolution naming Dr. Michael Schwartz as Interim President of the University. Dr. Schwartz has accepted their offer and will be here on Friday to negotiate a contract with the Chairman of the Board. Dr. Van Ummersen said that she hopes everyone is pleased that Michael Schwartz was willing to take on this assignment and she is certain that he and the campus will be in good hands for the foreseeable future until the appointment of a new President.

President Van Ummersen commented on some terrific news about our faculty. Professor Gregory D'Alessio, Assistant Professor of Music Composition, has been granted a prestigious Guggenheim Fellowship for the year 2001. The Foundation awarded 183 fellowships this year from a field of 2,700 applicants. The fellows are appointed on the basis of distinguished achievement in the past and exceptional promise for future development. Dr. Gary Dyer, Assistant Professor of English, has been selected as a Summer Fellow by the National Endowment for the Humanities for Summer 2001. Professor James Webb, from our Business School, was ranked first or second as an individual author in all three measures of research in real estate. The study ranked individual authors and institutions for the ten-year period by adjusted pages, weighted appearances, and raw appearances in the top three core real estate journals in the world. Cleveland State, as an institution, ranked second in all categories and above institutions such as the University of California at Berkeley, University of Illinois, Wisconsin, Penn State, University of North Carolina, and Ohio State University, etc. Congratulations to the College of Urban Affairs for once again achieving the ranking of number two in U.S. News and World Report for its program in City Management and Urban Policy. The ranking of academic quality of programs was based on assessment of all factors bearing on excellence such as curriculum, record of scholarship, and quality of faculty and graduates. President Van Ummersen also offered congratulations to the faculty in the College of Education. Cleveland State College of Education graduates were above the national average in all categories of the Praxis Exam.

President Van Ummersen commented that the Moot Court teams in the College of Law continue to be successful in their competitions and are competing or have competed in the final rounds of national competition in Chicago. We have two accounting students who were top scorers in the CPA exam in the State taking both the first and fourth places. All of these accomplishments give evidence of the quality of the faculty at Cleveland State and the excellence of their teaching in the success of our students.

President Van Ummersen commented on the current 2001 budget and the impending 2002-03 biennial budget that is still in process in Columbus. CSU has been notified that there will be a one percent cut this year for higher education. We don't know, in actual dollars, what that is going to mean for Cleveland State. It's going to be dependent on the way in which the Regents actually make the budget cuts in the different line items. A one percent cut at this point in the year is really a four percent cut in the remaining dollars that we are due from the State of Ohio. The Regents are promising by Friday, April 20, 2001, to give us what the final situation is with the actual amount of dollars.

On April 4, 2001, President Van Ummersen, along with four other University Presidents, met with individuals in the Governor's Office -- representatives, senators in leadership positions, and the chairs of the Finance and Education Committees in the House and in the Senate. They also met with the Legislative Budget Officers for the House and for the Senate. The news was not very optimistic. Everyone in Columbus is in agreement that higher education is important but they have a problem to solve in answering the Supreme Court on the funding for K-12 and that is really driving the current budget process. That day (April 4th) it was determined that they would go into a two-week recess in order to permit the leadership team to craft some sort of a consensus position on funding K-12 and to develop a funding plan for that and for the rest of the state budget. They are doing that with no new taxes, possibly using some small part of the "Rainy Day Fund," possibly by closing tax loopholes, and deferring implementation of certain tax roll-backs and possibly using some video gambling component. President Van Ummersen said "possibly" in each of those cases because there are representatives and senators in favor of and others that are opposed to each and every one of those points.

President Van Ummersen reported that the one thing that was not heard on anybody's lips was "new taxes." It is unclear how that gap is going to be closed. Everything was heard from holding higher education harmless to higher education giving up $300 million of its budget. The $150 million that the Governor put in was to be new money. That $150 million is not out of muscle, but out of bone because we gave up the fat a long time ago and most of the muscle is gone. This will effect every public institution in this state. Private institutions are equally concerned because they are very dependent upon the choice grants and the OIG grants, much more so than the public institutions and they have the same fears that we do. They are talking about completely wiping out Access Challenge. Access Challenge right now undergirds probably one quarter to one third of the funding that is in the community colleges. Over night, they would have to experience 20% to 25% percent tuition hikes in order to make up for the loss of those dollars. Overnight, an institution of our size would lose $8 or $10 million from our budget.

President Van Ummersen commented that anyone who has contacts with representatives and senators and anybody else that has influence, now is the time to be talking to them. The House and the Senate will come back in session next week. The House is going to vote on some kind of a budget and then there will be hearings in the Senate. It will move to some conference arrangement, but no one is talking about higher education being spared. It is just a question of how bad the pain will be.

President Van Ummersen mentioned that she had an e-mail this afternoon at 1:50 P.M. from Jan Allen who is part of the PR team the IUC hired to help with position statements and the strategies with the legislature and the Governor. They are hoping to have a meeting with the House budget officer next Tuesday. At that point, they will be able to get some further information about what is actually going to happen. In some newspapers, the Governor has indicated that some agreement has been reached on higher education cuts but there is no information about what that might be. We need to simply stay tuned and be alert to the things that are happening.

President Van Ummersen commented that, as the search for the new President goes forward, she would like to encourage the faculty to stay close to the process and make arrangements to meet with the candidates as they come to campus. It is very important to the future of the campus that the faculty be actively involved in the process. She urged faculty to rise to the occasion.

Finally, President Van Ummersen informed the Senate that on May 1, 2001, Cleveland State University, Kent State University, the University of Akron, and Youngstown State University are going to make a presentation before The Greater Cleveland Growth Association here in Cleveland. She wanted to publicly thank Dennis Eckart for giving the public universities this opportunity. Cleveland State needs to shine as much as the other institutions in that process. A small group is now working to put together the presentation. If anyone has ideas or things that President Van Ummersen should be saying as she takes on that task, she would like to hear from them. This is important to the long-term health of CSU to have the support from the members of The Growth Association as we try to serve this region with resources that come from Columbus.


[Go to top of page]

VI. Senate President's Report

Senate President William Bowen stated, "People are often talking about all of the changes that are going on and I think it is important to point out that we are writing the future of the university every single day. It is written mostly of layers of little accomplishments. Those as well as some of the bigger accomplishments need some recognition."

Dr. Bowen stated that, as President Van Ummersen reported, the Board of Trustees met this morning and approved faculty promotions. He congratulated Senators Tayyab Mahmud and Dianne Rahm. He also congratulated Professor Maggie Jackson.

Dr. Bowen stated that changes are passages from one state or stage to another and today we have a couple of significant ones to recognize. After fifteen months, this is the final Faculty Senate meeting at which Dr. Jay McLoughlin will serve as Interim Provost. It has been a difficult time to serve. We owe him many thanks.

Dr. Jay McLoughlin commented that he is finishing his fifteen month term as Interim Provost with many feelings. He is pleased with what has been achieved and what has been done in a very volatile situation. There is a more permanent budget in 2002 in terms of a budget base for the university. We have a system for research efficiency ratios that are reflective of the fact that the colleges are the programmatic and financial drivers of the university. We have newly initiated academic and student services programs which the Senate has approved. We have improved policies and procedures concerning our allocation of graduate assistants, scholarships, and indirect funding of grants. We have compliance with the NCA and other accrediting bodies. We have upgraded our technology infrastructure and facilities. Dr. McLoughlin is also very proud of our students who have won national awards and successfully entered the job market; of our faculty and staff who have consistently provided a high level of customer service both to the faculty and to the students; of the Dean's Council and other administrators who have achieved a new level of common vision and collaboration this year. At the same time, he is also very concerned by the loss of young faculty who are being hired away from the university; of the lack of resources to offer competitive salaries for new faculty; and the disconnect that he has experienced within and across colleges and other units about our mission, our goals, and our values.

However, being the supreme optimist, Dr. McLoughlin is heartened by a number of things: The recent hires of our Provost, a Chief Information Officer, a Development Officer, and a Vice President for Finance, who will replace our lost leadership. We have searches now for a Vice Provost for Enrollment Management and Services and a Director of Financial Aid which would help us with our enrollment issues. We have some successful faculty searches in critical shortage areas. A number of things have not been completed such as: planning a marketing and delivery of an aggressive entrepreneurial off-campus and distance learning program; and plans for providing incentives and venture capital for new academic growth, and new collaborations with area schools, agencies, businesses, and colleges. He admitted that he is excited about returning to the College of Education and returning to the work having to do with K-12 education; promoting the funding of a College of Education building (hopefully, something he will see in his lifetime) involving more CSU faculty and staff in the work of preparing professional individuals for our schools; and raising the standards and reputation of the College of Education. He is hopeful that students, faculty, and staff support Dr. Kuo as he assumes the role of Provost on May 1, 2001.

Finally, Dr. McLoughlin said that he is grateful for the unique opportunity to learn about the colleges and many units around this university -- an opportunity that is not afforded to everybody. He is grateful for the time that the faculty, staff, and students have spent telling him about their work; to the Dean's Council, Academic Council, and to the Senate Academic Steering Committee, who cooperated with him to maintain the standards of our programs; and to the President and to the Board of Trustees for their confidence in him and support and encouragement throughout this year.

Dr. William Bowen stated that it seemed only appropriate that the Senate would provide Dr. McLoughlin with a little token of appreciation. He then presented Dr. McLoughlin with a clock with an engraving: "In appreciation of the Faculty Senate, Dr. James A. McLoughlin, Interim Provost, Cleveland State University, January 2000 - April 2001."

Dr. Bowen noted that this is also the final Faculty Senate meeting at which Dr. Claire Van Ummersen will attend as President. Dr. Bowen presented President Van Ummersen with a desk set (pens and clock) with an engraving: "In Appreciation of the Faculty Senate, Dr. Claire A. Van Ummersen, President, Cleveland State University, 1993 - 2001." Dr. Bowen noted that President Van Ummersen has served us through some hard times and we appreciate it very much.

President Van Ummersen thanked each and every member of the Senate and especially thanked the Senate Presidents she has served with. Two of them are here today -- Sid Kraus who was the President when she arrived at Cleveland State and Bill Bowen, the President as she leaves Cleveland State. "It has been a great eight years for me. I have enjoyed the 'colleague-ship' of each and everyone of you. I have enjoyed the work that we have done together. It has been important work for this University and I hope that it will help this University to prosper in the future. I had a letter yesterday from former Governor Voinovich, now Senator Voinovich, and I was taken by something that he said in the letter. That was, that when I came to Cleveland, he was not very enamored with Cleveland State. He had felt that in his time as Mayor, the University had not reached out to the community and that was something he found very difficult because the University was located in the City. He said in the letter that in the time that I was here, we had, in fact, turned ourselves around and we were now a part of the community. That has only come about because each and every one of you has continued (sometimes under very difficult circumstances) to work to make that happen. You can take pride in what you have accomplished and you can take pride in the quality of the students that you produce that serve as the backbone of the work force in this area. You can also take pride in the research that you are all involved in that is making for a better quality of life for people who live in the Northeast Ohio region and beyond. Cleveland State is a great University. In my meeting with the Governor a little over a week ago, that is exactly what I told him and that it needs strong support and money. We live in the most expensive part of the State, we operate under conditions that no other institution does, and we get the least amount of dollars to do that. The Governor listened. I hope, for each and everyone of you, that it translates into dollars because this institution needs support and it needs public support from its community and also from its legislative leadership and gubernatorial leadership."

President Van Ummersen said, "I am humbled by the fact that you would in fact recognize me today. My mother always taught me that it was important to be of service, not to expect anything in return; that there was value in giving and not to expect to be valued. That has been very important advice and I have tried to live by those values. So, as I leave Cleveland State, I want you to know that you have a friend for life. If I can be of service, I will be of service whether that's in Washington or somewhere else. Count on me to do whatever you need done and I will continue to keep each and everyone of you in my memory and in my prayers."

Dr. Bowen also recognized some other accomplishments. Professors Mike Tevesz and Mike Wells deserve our recognition and praise for the Sacred Landmarks Initiative. "Since taking the role of the President of the Faculty Senate, I quite frankly have learned to feel even better about Cleveland State. I have been around and I have met people who are doing things that I just never had the opportunity to know about before or had never taken the time to learn about. One example is the Sacred Landmarks Initiative. It is a brilliant activity that we, as a faculty, can be quite proud of. It started in 1986 and over the years the group has procured grant funding, they have published monographs, they have produced videos, and they have advised churches. Tomorrow there is going to be a Sacred Landmarks Forum in the Library and in the Urban Building and I encourage you to attend."

Dr. Bowen said, "Another brilliant activity that is worthy of our recognition and praise is the work of Professor Peter Dunham in the Anthropology Department. At a Board of Trustees meeting the time before last, Professor Dunham gave a presentation on the field station he is building in Belize, La Sierra. The opportunities from La Sierra are nothing short of world-class programming right here at CSU. I wish that we could have an all-out faculty effort to not only get the Board of Trustees behind La Sierra, but the entire campus community."

Finally, Dr. Bowen recognized and praised Professor Michael Slinger, of the Law School, who has inaugurated a highly successful faculty lecture series in which faculty members speak informally about their research. There are three each semester with some interesting topics such as, "The Politics of Intellectual Property Loss," "Sex and the CD," and "Representing Timothy Leary and Other Reflections on the 60s." It is quite interesting.

Dr. Bowen noted that President Van Ummersen reported that we are going to face a tough road because of what is going on down in Columbus. We will have an Interim President for at least part of the year and perhaps all of it. We will have a new Provost and we have several other new key administrative personnel. We may be facing further budget cuts and all the while we are going to be trying to attract the sort of President who can move the University to the next level. It makes for a pretty big challenge. From Dr. Bowen's point of view, one of the most important and relevant things to be said about the faculty facing this situation is that we are fragmented into a number of different constituencies. What he has seen over the past year looks like our various partial constituencies often end up working against the whole. Not all of the constituencies can prevail at once. There is a tendency towards an undercurrent of grievants. Each constituency tends to be convinced of the righteousness of its own role, of its own aims, and centrality of its activities. Each concludes that the importance of its contribution is not appreciated. This makes for a faculty that is not particularly in the mood to collaborate with others to share in the creation of a positive future. To meet the challenges that we face, we need to overcome this fragmentation. One possibility is a university faculty retreat. Dr. Bowen would be interested in hearing faculty thoughts over the next couple of weeks and any other thoughts that faculty might have about how to work with that fragmentation.

In terms of the Interim President, Dr. Bowen said that it is critical that we are totally supportive of him. If the faculty is not supportive of the Interim President, he will not succeed. Similarly, the success of the University over the next couple of years is going to depend upon the success of the Office of the Provost. Earlier, when the Senate asked for a continuation of the search, he (Dr. Bowen) expressed the sense of the Senate as fully as he could to the Board of Trustees. Once Dr. Chin Kuo was hired, Dr. Bowen promised to do whatever he could to support Dr. Kuo and give him a chance. The success of Dr. Kuo's office depends in no small measure upon faculty support. Dr. Bowen noted that he spoke with Dr. Kuo and his understanding is that Dr. Kuo's thrust will be to overcome the fragmentation both within the faculty and among different constituencies in the University. Dr. Kuo's message will be twofold. One, we are a University community and we need to work as such overall; and two, communication, communication, and communication.

Finally, Dr. Bowen stated that he had agreed to report to Senate each time the Presidential Search Committee has met. A second meeting of the Search Committee is tomorrow (April 19, 2001). Everyone knows that the ad is out. We have a number of candidates already, and tomorrow the main topic will be to discuss those candidates. Dr. Bowen reiterated his very positive impression of each and every one of the members of the search committee. He has met with people individually and collectively now. The faculty is under represented numerically on the Search Committee, but that fact alone, by no means, implies anything negative about the people who are actually on the Search Committee.

Dr. Bowen said that he expects to continue with the search over the summer. There may be some initial visits to campus over the summer. If and when these occur, he will send e-mails to everyone. But, the chances of actually hiring somebody during that time are somewhere between negligible and nothing. First of all, no candidate in his or her "right mind" is going to want to come to campus and take a job when he or she has not had a real intensive interaction with the faculty. Second of all, Mr. Vir K. Sondhi has repeatedly said that this would not happen. Third of all, he doubts that there is going to be much of a pool of institutions competing with us for the best candidates who will themselves not have faculty available over the summer. It seems unlikely that we are going to be coming up with somebody in the next couple of months. If an unlikely situation arises, Dr. Bowen will get in touch with the Steering Committee immediately and take their advice.

Professor Joyce Mastboom noted that Dr. Bowen had stated that the Search Committee is meeting tomorrow to discuss these initial applications. She asked Dr. Bowen how he envisions this going forth. The trouble with these open ads is that we start considering them as we get them. "When do you stop?" The best of them could come next week or two months from now. "How does the Search Committee expect to do their consideration of these candidates tomorrow?" "Are they meeting minimum qualifications or not?" "Is it that kind of selection?" Dr. Bowen replied that it can't be done because there is not any minimum criteria formally defined yet.

Professor Mastboom noted that the ad specified some qualifications. Dr. Bowen stated that one of his primary points to bring in to the Committee tomorrow will be that we need to define those minimum criteria.

Professor Mastboom remarked that Dr. Bowen had not answered her question. The question being, "What else is being visited?" Professor Mastboom stated, "Tomorrow the Committee is just going to look at these things; fine, nothing is going to happen. How does the Committee envision moving forward from here? These open-ended ads are so annoying because you don't know really when to start looking at applications seriously because the best one could always come the next day. How does the Committee envision dealing with that?" Dr. Bowen replied that he can't speak for the entire Committee. This has been of some concern to him. He spoke with Mr. Vir Sondhi about it this morning -- the possibility that the person we want might be in this group. Mr. Sondhi's idea is that we will start to interview the people and we will bring them on campus over the summer, but that putting them off until September or August when the faculty gets back for a final decision is not a problem.

Professor Tayyab Mahmud stated that he thought people were brought to campus when faculty and other constituencies are in place to make a decision. He understands Dr. Bowen's concern for the Committee, but Dr. Bowen may want to insist on some system or procedure here. He would urge Dr. Bowen to insist that the candidates visit the campus when the campus is in "full bloom."

Dr. Bowen stated that before anybody is hired (if there is talk about hiring somebody before that person comes on campus) with the whole faculty here, then he promised to do everything he can to raise hell in every way he possibly can and he will notify faculty about it.

Professor Santosh Misra inquired if Dr. Michael Schwartz has any kind of timetable saying that he will be here for three months, six months, or is it completely open-ended. Dr. Bowen replied that it is open-ended. Dr. Bowen indicated that Dr. Michael Schwartz has no interest in being the permanent president and he will not attempt to influence the search directly.

Dr. Barbara Green noted that some faculty know Dr. Schwartz and wondered if it would be possible to get out a small flier or sheet of paper that would summarize the background of Mike Schwartz so that everybody would know who is coming on board. He may be here for two months, three months, or he could be here a year or longer and it seems to be very important that everybody knows who he is. Dr. Green stated that she was really pleased to be the Senate representative on the Interim President Search Committee. The Committee was outstanding. She had gone in assuming that there might be conflict or different points of view between the trustee representatives, students, and faculty but there wasn't. There was wonderful cooperation and consensus in the recommendations that were made to the full Board. That is important. The Trustee representatives on that Committee had very strong academic values and wanted to make sure that anyone selected was appreciative of academic values. There was no question, of course, that their selection of Michael Schwartz is somebody with a great deal of academic experience and experience of first a Provost and then a President.

Professor Misra asked Dr. Green if it was Dr. Schwartz's choice not to be a candidate. Dr. Green responded that Dr. Schwartz chose to be a candidate only for Acting President. He has been a President and he is coming on board to do this job.

Professor Mastboom commented that before these candidates were interviewed, Mr. David Hill, the Chairman of the Board, stated that whoever is going to be a candidate for the Interim position would be full-time. Even before Dr. Schwartz's name was up there, that was the decision the Board had made -- that there would not be an internal candidate.

Dr. David Larson indicated that he was confused. He asked if Dr. Bowen was saying that the Search Committee is going to sit down and set up some procedures or is the Committee going to proceed without procedures? Dr. Bowen responded that to the extent he can influence it, there will be procedures and explicit criteria. Professor Larson noted that there are some criteria in the ad. He did not know if they are legally binding, but there are some there.


[Go to top of page]

VII. Planning and Budget Advisory Committee (Report No. 38, 2000-2001)

Dr. Arthur Schwartz distributed handouts that Fred Kantz, Vice Provost for Information Technology and Academic Innovation, had prepared for Senate. One was a pie chart that dealt with the percent of budget cuts in response to what had been allocated to each of the units. The second handout was a chart which gave what each unit had in terms of a percent of the total university budget and then the percent of the budget reduced. The third item was in response to a request for multi-year budgets that enabled them to see a base. Dr. Schwartz noted that the Committee went back through 1999. They couldn't go back to fiscal year 1998 because some of the categories were changed and they couldn't tease it out at that time. Dr. Schwartz commented that this was based on a couple of assumptions that the Committee has been working on.

One, the Committee will be working with an overall budget for fiscal 2002 of $145,757,000. That is based on a projection of a two percent enrollment decline; a six percent tuition increase; a two percent budget subsidy, and we have already heard that because of the State revenue shortfalls -- that is up in the air; and, the contractual increase with the AAUP and other union contracts of 4.5%.

Dr. Schwartz reviewed the pie chart. He stated that the total budget cuts (at least as of this morning) were $7,423,632 so the figures on the chart indicate what percent cut of the $7,423,632 each unit took. For example, in the Provost's Office, which does not include the Colleges, 23.4% of that would be $1.6 million. So this chart gives a breakdown of each of the Colleges and also the offices in terms of the percent hit that they took.

Professor Misra asked if there was any rationale for the cuts. Dr. Schwartz stated that as we talked about previously, we had come up with a set of principles: one, was to preserve the courses and the teaching component, and, two, was decentralization of decision-making. There were also some computations in terms of efficiency and effectiveness ratings that were put together. Dr. Jay McLoughlin could speak more to those if that information is needed.

Professor James Wilson wondered about all the money spent in the Provost's sector. Professor Schwartz stated that the Provost's Office is the entire instructional component and student services. Professor Wilson asked if that was all administrative expenses. Dr. Schwartz indicated that it was not the colleges.

Interim Provost McLoughlin commented that the Library, Computer Services, and the Graduate College is included in the Provost's sector. Anything that is not broken out is included. The Colleges were broken out but the Provost's Office includes the Graduate School, the Library, (IS&T is technology so that is separated out), it includes all of the Student Services and the Student Affairs section. The cut for the Colleges was not across the board because some Colleges were doing better with enrollment and so we went back to the principle where we were going to try as well as we could not to reduce our ability to bring in enrollment, tuition, and subsidy. Those Colleges that have had a history of doing better with enrollment, tuition, and subsidy income and that were being efficient at using their resources to accomplish that, were given less of a reduction.

Professor Misra asked Provost McLoughlin if, as a result of the cuts, it would be possible to tell how many credit hours are likely to be lost. Dr. McLoughlin responded that the figure that was accomplished this year was with a diminished number of faculty and staff for the instructional program. It would be possible to accomplish what we accomplished this year because we had vacant positions. However, as Professor Schwartz indicated, we are estimating a two percent drop in enrollment next year. So, if Professor Misra is asking what we are predicting and budgeting for, it is two percent down. We have also looked at the part-time instructional budget. This year we spent $8.4 million; next year it will be approximately $7.7 million. The Deans are confident that through some efficiency measures they have put into place, they can accomplish their goals. We have really tightened the belt to try to pull off this budget reduction. What this does accomplish that we didn't have this past year, is that whatever is being allocated to our permanent funds, they are not dependant at all on vacancy savings. We are going into 2002 with only two obligations on vacancy savings. All of the Deans have their part-time instructional budgets on a permanent basis -- all of their faculty and staff positions on a permanent base. If there is vacancy savings or any discretionary funds, it can be shared among the Colleges and units.

Dr. Schwartz pointed out that the second figure questioned in the last Senate meeting pertained to which offices (in terms of the percent of the total 2002 budget) and the percent of the budget cut as is represented by 2002. For example, the Provost's Office percent of budget reduced (the 7.5 percent of $145,757,000) represents roughly $1.56 million. This table was an attempt to provide members percentage-wise of where were the cuts of the total budget. This is the distribution of the $7.4 million. These are percents of the total budget of the $145,757,000. There are two separate things. The incongruity is total budget and how much the cuts went in different directions.

Professor Schwartz noted that the last chart covers four fiscal years. It shows changes in the lines having to do with the Provost's Office, Human Resources, Financial Aid, Minority Affairs, etc. You can see where there have been increases and where there have been decreases. Again, with one of the priorities being shifted back from administrative overhead into the instructional component.

Professor Tayyab Mahmud asked, "What exactly is University Relations?" Dr. Schwartz responded, "Promotion, advertising, fund-raising, etc."

Professor James Wilson asked how it will play out next year if everything goes wrong. He noted that the President suggested we might have a $9 million additional cut to what we expect already if things go the way they go. He figured that would be approximately six percent across the board. Professor Schwartz stated that all of this was done prior to the word of the budget shortfalls. Professor Wilson noted that vacancy savings might reduce that a little bit or perhaps an increase in enrollment, but short of that, that is what we might be looking at. Dr. Schwartz replied that this came up at Steering Committee meeting last week. We have been told that those figures are still in the state of flux. We thought we might know by Easter but obviously not. Mr. Jack Boyle was working on it. He had nothing to report in the subsequent time on that. The Budget Committee meets this coming Friday, April 20, 2001. If there is anything else, he will present it to Steering Committee next week for the following Senate meeting.

VIII. Editorial Change to Foreign Language Deficiency Policy (Report No. 25, 2000-2001)

Dr. Chet Jain, Chair of the Admissions and Standards Committee, reported that the editorial change was brought to the Committee's attention by Professor Peter Meiksins. Dr. Anita Stoll, Chair of Modern Languages, was concerned about this policy because inadvertently the word "CSU" was left out of the faculty. The Committee didn't mean that the Department of Modern Languages would be responsible for making a "bank" of all possible faculty. The Committee's intent was only those CSU faculty who may be interested. So the word "CSU" was inserted between "bank of faculty" and will now read: "bank of CSU faculty." That is the only change. He met with Dr. Stoll and she is quite happy with this change.

The Senate approved the editorial change to the Foreign Language Deficiency Policy.

IX. Proposed Senate Endorsement of Two Expressions of Intent Re: Budget Information in Program Proposals (Report No. 39, 2000-2001)

Dr. Gregory Lupton, Chair of the University Curriculum Committee, reported that when a program proposal comes before the UCC or the Senate, there are certain budgetary questions and concerns centering on the request for additional resources when existing programs seem increasingly starved for resources.

Dr. Bowen stated that the UCC is requesting the Senate's endorsement of two "expressions of intent." The UCC's motion was seconded, and the endorsement of the UCC's "expressions of intent" were approved.


[Go to top of page]

X. Proposed Revised Charge for Faculty Participation in Budget and Planning and Creation of a New Standing Committee (Report No. 40, 2000-2001)

Dr. William Bowen stated that technically notice on an amendment should be given in the previous meeting. The University Faculty Affairs Committee is proposing an amendment to the Bylaws of the Senate. Our Parliamentarian says that we can go ahead with a vote of the majority of the members present and consider this proposal now or Senate can be notified of the intent here and consider it at the next Senate meeting.

Dr. Sidney Kraus, Parliamentarian, noted that if Senate wants to consider the proposal, the majority present at Senate today has to vote to consider it. If the Senate doesn't want to vote on it today, then this serves as a notice that this proposed change in the Bylaws will be considered at the next Senate meeting.

Dr. David Larson noted that the rule is that a proposed amendment to the Bylaws needs two readings. Dr. Kraus agreed but noted that the majority can vote to consider it today. Dr. Larson asked if this proposed amendment is urgent so that the usual process of having two readings shouldn't be used.

Dr. Edward Brennan, Chair of the University Faculty Affairs Committee, stated that it should be done within the next two weeks. There is a large sentiment that this matter be concluded in this academic year.

Dr. Kraus stated that if Senate wants to consider the proposed amendment now, a majority vote is needed. Then Dr. Brennan can present it and it can pass or fail now. Otherwise this constitutes a first reading and it will be presented to Senate at the next meeting.

Dr. Brennan noted that the urgency is to make sure that the proposed amendment is concluded this academic year. There is a strong sentiment that it be in place next year if this Senate so desires. He preferred that Senate consider it now.

Dr. Rodger Govea asked Dr. Kraus if a two-thirds vote is required to suspend the vote. Dr. Kraus responded that the passing of the amendment would require two-thirds. This just requires a majority.

It was moved and seconded to consider the proposed amendment today.

Professor James Wilson stated that he doesn't see any urgency now and would rather wait until the next Senate meeting. This is a bad custom for constitutional changes.

Professor Larson felt that it is better to wait because some members have left. If they had assumed that this was going to be a first reading and have not been told, they will have been disenfranchised if it turns out to be an actual vote. If this were the only way, he would support it, but we have another Senate meeting and he doesn't see any reason not to wait for the meeting in two weeks.

Dr. Barbara Green asked if the Senate will have a very crowded agenda for the last meeting so that the proposed amendment might be a problem or is there room on the agenda. Dr. Bowen responded that there will be room. We have some elections, but other than that, there will be room. Dr. Green stated that, in her recollection, the Senate has never passed a change to the Bylaws at the first reading. We have always had a second reading.

Dr. Louis Barbato asked if the Senate thinks an addition of a standing committee is a substantive issue that requires a vote of the whole faculty. Dr. Brennan noted that the issue Dr. Barbato raised might modify the thinking.

Dr. Barbara Green said that the Senate can vote on whether to consider the amendment. The motion on the floor is to consider the amendment today. We can have that temporarily withdrawn and have the question brought up as to whether this is a substantive motion which would require a vote of the faculty.

Dr. Brennan withdrew his motion to consider the proposed amendment to the Bylaws today.

Dr. Kraus remarked that regardless of what is talked about now, the proposed amendment will be considered at the next Senate meeting. This is the first reading of the proposed amendment to the Bylaws.

Dr. Green suggested that somebody could make a motion that this is substantive and has to go out to the full faculty. If it is voted down, then Dr. Brennan can bring his motion back that Senate discuss it and pass it now.

Professor Wilson felt that the best way to deal with this is to do a double motion. Have a motion that this constitutes the first reading, but also it should be sent out to the full faculty before a vote.

Dr. Larson remarked that this is the first reading and no vote is necessary. Professor Wilson agreed that this is the first reading.

Professor Rodger Govea asked if the Senate is essentially stating that we take up this question and do the amendment this year rather than next year. "If we turn this amendment down today, does this mean that we are postponing it until September?" Dr. Barbara Green responded that it is being postponed until the next Senate meeting.

Dr. Barbara Green noted that the Senate is first voting as to whether the proposed amendment is substantive. If it is substantive, then it has to go to the full faculty.

Dr. Brennan asked if the faculty vote would be prior to the action of the Senate. Dr. Larson replied that it would not.

Dr. Sidney Kraus pointed out that there is no motion on the floor now. Dr. Govea remarked that the idea dies for lack of a motion.

Dr. Brennan felt that Dr. Barbato's idea would deserve prior consideration if it is substantive or not, and after that, we might decide whether or not we ought to consider it today.

Dr. William Bowen noted that the question is whether or not the proposed amendment is substantive and needs to go out to the full faculty.

Dr. Andrew Gross asked, "Who decides that?" Professor Thomas Buckley asked, "How do you deal with that without getting into the substantiveness of it or not?"

Dr. Bowen stated that the Senate has had the first reading of the proposed amendment to the Bylaws. There was no further discussion.

XI. Proposed Senate Endorsement of The Association of College and Research Libraries' Intellectual Freedom Principles for Academic Libraries (Report No. 41, 2000-2001)

Dr. Sarah Matthews, Chair of the Library Committee, stated that the Committee asks that the circulated document be endorsed by the Senate.

Dr. Andrew Gross moved Senate endorsement of The Association of College and Research Libraries' Intellectual Freedom Principles for Academic Libraries. Dr. Arthur Schwartz seconded the motion.

Ms. Billie Joy Reinhart stated that libraries are forever and right now being attacked for internet use, etc. Just this week, the FCC has made it mandatory for K-12 schools to have filters and this doesn't only deal with pornography but it also deals with hate mail, etc. They also suggest that Librarians go around and monitor what minors are looking at on the internet. This is the law already so this is just one step and this is why it is so important for higher education to back it.

Dr. Glenda Thornton, Director of the Library, stated that if the Senate endorses this statement, a larger framed document will be posted in the Library.


Dr. Bowen called for the vote. The proposed Senate Endorsement of The Association of College and Research Libraries' Intellectual Freedom Principles for Academic Libraries was approved.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:25 P.M.


Arthur H. Schwartz
Faculty Senate Secretary







[Go to top of page]