Cleveland State University

Faculty Senate

May 2, 2001

I. Approval of the Agenda
II. Elections
III. University Faculty Affairs Committee

A. Proposed Revised Charge for Faculty Participation in Budget and Planning and Creation of a New Standing Committee called the Budget and Finance Committee (Report No. 40, 2000-2001)
B. Proposed Revisions to University Personnel Committee (Report No. 42, 2000- 2001)

IV. University Safety and Health Advisory Committee

A. Recommendation Regarding the University Policy on Keys and Security (Report No. 43, 2000-2001)
B. Recommendation on Use of Non-toxic Building Products (Report No. 44, 2000-2001)

V. Annual Reports
VI. Provost's Remarks
VII. Senate President's Report
VIII. New Business

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

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 May 2, 2001 was moved, seconded, and approved.

II. Elections

Following formal procedures for nominating candidates for election to the various committees of the Faculty Senate and other posts, members of Senate elected the following faculty:

University Faculty Affairs Committee
Ohio Faculty Council
Two year terms: Two-year term:

Professor Ravindra Kamath
Professor Arthur Landever
Professor Mieko Smith

Professor Rodger Govea

Minority Affairs Committee Copyright Review Committee
Two year terms: Three-year term:
Professor April Cherry
Professor Jeff Dean
Professor Antonio Medina-Rivera
Board of Trustees Patent Review Committee
One year term: Three-year term:
Professor Thomas Flechtner
Professor Zhiqiang Gao
Honorary Degree Committee Equal Opportunity Hearing Panel
Three-year term: Three-year terms:
Professor David Atkin
Professor Chia-Shin Chung
Professor Joan Flynn
Professor Rama Gorla
Professor Diana Orendi

[Go to top of page]

III. University Faculty Affairs Committee

Proposed Revisions to Senate Bylaws

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

Professor Edward Brennan, Chair of the University Faculty Affairs Committee, stated that this proposal will enable faculty to participate fully and proactively in creating the budget. The proposed Budget and Finance Committee will require a significant commitment of time and effort of the members. A slate of candidates will be presented and then Faculty Senate will be offered the opportunity to add nominees to the slate.

Professor James Wilson indicated concern about how this will interact with the union and also the Law School, which isn't part of the union. He doesn't know what the Law School's function would be in all of this either. Dr. Brennan said that he did not know what the union's function would be in terms of setting budget priorities. Dr. David Larson commented that the union would have no function with setting budget priorities whatsoever.

Professor Thomas Buckley asked how Dr. Brennan contemplated this group working with the administration which would presumably be preparing a budget at the same time. Dr. Brennan responded that this group would be a part of the administration's committee. The faculty will elect their own chair and will serve concurrently as members of the University Planning and Budget Advisory Committee.

Professor Buckley remarked that there are faculty on the University Planning and Budget Advisory Committee now. Professor Brennan stated that the proposal will revise that somewhat in order to make the Senate's elected members a much stronger proactive group. The Committee, as presently constituted, doesn't have teeth. It became an information provider from the administration on down. This Committee would be oriented toward proaction, actual participation, and planning the budget that would be recommended to the administration and to the Board of Trustees.

Professor Buckley asked where the members would get the information. "Would they have administrators reporting to them with the numbers?" Dr. Brennan replied that they would be part of the PBAC. The PBAC is given the information and it can always be sought. If you have an active committee, information can be requested from the administration and every other source that might have relevant information.

Dr. Barbara Green reported that the old Budget Committee had faculty representatives on it but they were basically treated as second class members of the Committee and did not themselves directly report to the Faculty Senate. The Budget Committee was a Presidential Advisory Committee and the President could appoint whomever she/he wished to it. This revision is saying that the Budget Committee is still advisory. The Budget Committee doesn't make decisions. It advises the central administration but the faculty members of this committee will now report to Senate and be responsible to Senate which strengthens the connection there and the ability, at least, to know what it is that is being discussed and criticized. It terms of Professor Wilson's remarks, if this new committee actually made the budget, then we would have some mix up of functions. It is still an advisory committee to the administration and it is the administration's decision.

Professor Buckley noted that the Budget Committee members have reported to the Faculty Senate several times this year. Dr. Green reiterated that it is not a Faculty Senate Committee.

Professor Arthur Schwartz stated that the reporting to the Senate this year has been on an informal basis while this proposal has been working its way through. It was sensed that the desire of this group was to have regular reporting. This is a mechanism which formalizes it, and, through this, there will be a faculty member who will serve as chair of this committee and will do it as part of the designated responsibilities.

There being no further discussion, the vote was called. The proposed amendment to the Bylaws of the Faculty Senate revising the Charge for faculty participation in budget and planning and creation of a new standing committee of Senate called the Budget and Finance Committee was approved.

B. Proposed Revisions to University Personnel Committee (Report No. 42, 2000- 2001)

Dr. Brennan reported that the next issue has been a long-standing matter concerning the University Personnel Committee and unionization of most of the faculty other than those in the Law School and then fitting the Law School faculty into that Committee. This proposal was drawn in consultation with the Law School Dean and Law faculty. It seems to be an acceptable recommendation by all the interested and knowledgeable parties and it resolves the issue. Should there become a problem in the Law School that has to reach higher, this is the mechanism that would be used. It coordinates nicely with the AAUP regulations, and, for that reason, the University Faculty Affairs Committee approved it and recommends it to the Senate.

Professor Wilson supported the motion as a reasonable compromise. He stated that as a full member of the University Personnel Committee in the past, he would prefer that the Law School members would be full members. They have something to contribute in all of the cases. He would not want to see them just sit there silently case after case and develop some sort of formal report. He hopes that this issue will be revisited and that the Law School member will be given full rights.

Professor Kenneth Dunegan noted that the document makes reference on PP 70 in the amendment that the elections will be held in the "spring quarter" of every year and asked if that wording could be changed to "spring semester." Professor Brennan stated that the wording would be changed from spring quarter to spring semester.

Dr. Barbara Green noted that the wording Professor Dunegan referred to is under the section dealing with the Faculty Affairs Committee and not with the UPC. Professor Joyce Mastboom pointed out that the words "spring quarter" on PP 75 should be changed to "spring semester." Dr. Brennan again stated that the wording would be changed from spring quarter to spring semester.

Dr. Brennan called for the vote. The proposed Revision to the Bylaws concerning the University Personnel Committee was approved.

[Go to top of page]

IV. University Safety and Health Advisory Committee

Professor Susan Bazyk, Chair of the University Safety and Health Advisory Committee, reported that the Committee is bringing two items to Senate today.

A. Recommendation Regarding the University Policy on Keys and Security (Report No. 43, 2000-2001)

Dr. Susan Bazyk reported that the issue of keys and security came up at the February 7, 2001 Faculty Senate meeting and was passed on to another committee before coming to the Safety Committee. The Safety Committee dealt with the issue because this was a potential safety issue. Since the University has been re-keyed, we are no longer able to use Security to open offices. It not only posses inconvenience for people who lock their belongings in their offices, there is a potential health and safety issue. The Committee is recommending that the University Police have master keys for access to all offices and labs in case of health emergencies.

Dr. Andrew Gross suggested that it should not be "a key." It should be master keys. Professor Bazyk agreed with Dr. Gross.

Dr. Bowen called for a motion to accept the Recommendation on Keys and Security from the University Safety and Health Advisory Committee. It was moved and seconded to accept the recommendation.

Professor Dunegan inquired if these keys would be available to people who are not ill but rather have locked themselves out of their offices. Dr. Bazyk responded that this is one of the reasons this issue was put forth because usually the Chairperson has one master key. We have had instances where the Chairperson has to drive back to CSU to let someone into their office to get their car keys.

Professor Dunegan said that for clarification, the message we want to send to the enforcement people is that it is not just for health related issues, but if people do lock themselves out of their offices, they can be let in.

Dr. Cheryl McCahon reported that there was also some discussion in the Academic Steering Committee about the possibility of a master key being kept at Security. The person who is locked out of his/her office would go to Security and sign out for that key and then return it so that it wouldn't be the Police Department coming everywhere on campus to let people into their offices. We have had situations where faculty in the Chester Building have gone into the rest room and inadvertently left their office keys, car keys, cell phones, driver's license, etc. in their office and had to find a public phone and call their husband to bring a key for their car but still couldn't get anything out of their office. Dr. Bazyk noted that she will add letting people into their offices to the proposal.

Professor Santosh Misra asked if the Senate was amending the proposal. Dr. Bazyk replied that she will accept an amendment to include health, safety, and other emergencies.

Dr. Bowen noted that the Senate then needs to vote on the proposed amendment. Dr. Larson stated that this is not a substantive amendment, but a friendly amendment. This was the intent of the Committee's proposal. Professor Bazyk accepted the friendly amendment.

Dr. Bowen then called for the vote. The proposed Recommendation regarding the University Policy on Keys and Security, as amended, was approved.

[Go to top of page]

B. Recommendation on Use of Non-toxic Building Products (Report No. 44, 2000-2001)

Professor Bazyk reported that the Committee's second issue is regarding the use of non-toxic building products during building and renovation. The Committee did talk about the cost issue. In the process of the Law School renovation, there were a few faculty who had issues related to chemical sensitivities. Someone was pregnant and the Committee did look into the use of non-toxic materials which is not routinely done on campus with building and renovation. The Safety Committee is recommending that this be done on a routine basis.

Professor Dunegan inquired what "looking into" means. Dr. Bazyk stated that the Committee is recommending that non-toxic materials be used routinely during renovation.

Professor David Forte questioned the cost. Professor Susan Bazyk replied that in the instance of the Law School, they were able to find non-toxic materials that were comparable in cost.

Professor Forte asked if that is a qualification. Professor Tayyab Mahmud said the recommendation speaks for itself.

There being no further discussion, Dr. Bowen asked for all those in favor of accepting this recommendation. The recommendation was accepted with one abstention.

Dr. Bowen stated that several annual reports need to be received by Senate. If there are no objections, he would like a motion to accept all of the annual reports. Dr. Bowen noted that before the Senate does that, Dr. Helen Tien, Director of IMS, has a film she would like to share with Senate.


[Go to top of page

V. Annual Reports

Professor Lloyd Snyder, Chair of the Instructional Media Services Committee, stated that the IMS staff is proud of the work they do for the members of the University community. He noted that the work is summarized in the annual report of the Instructional Media Services Committee. A report cannot present the full scope of services performed by the staff every day. To give the Senate a better appreciation of the wide range of activities of the people who work for IMS, the Committee presented a short video.

The Senate received Annual Reports from the following Committees:

A. Instructional Media Services Committee (Report No. 45, 2000-2001)
B. Admissions and Standards Committee (Report No. 46, 2000-2001)
C. University Curriculum Committee (Report No. 47, 2000-2001)
D. Committee on Athletics (Report No. 48. 2000-2001)
E. Minority Affairs Committee (Report No. 49, 2000-2001)
F. Student Life Committee (Report No. 50, 2000-2001)
G. University Safety and Health Advisory Committee (Report No. 51, 2000-2001)

Dr. Bowen reported that President Claire Van Ummersen was unable to be at Senate today.

[Go to top of page]

VI. Provost's Remarks

Dr. Chin Kuo, Provost, said that he is pleased to be here and is looking forward to working with everyone in this room as well as the CSU community.

Dr. Kuo commented that the IMS film was a very nice treat.

Dr. Kuo noted that CSU has many fine programs. Sometimes we don't realize it until somebody from off campus points out that CSU has a fine program that they would like to copy or follow. Every member of the CSU community should be proud of what we do. It is a cooperative effort of the faculty, the staff, the students, and the administration to make it happen.

Dr. Kuo stated that CSU has a important urban mission which means a lot to many different people. As an urban university, we want to make sure that we interact with the stake-holders of the campus. At the same time, we want to make sure within the CSU community that we cooperate and work together. This morning he talked to all the staff within the Provost's Office. He mentioned that the faculty and the students are a very important part of a university because if we do not have students, we wouldn't have a university to begin with. Then you might ask, "Who else? What is everybody else doing?" They are supporting whatever the students and the faculty do. Dr. Kuo noted that he is just one of the supporting personnel. He is here to support everybody in the research area or in the instructional area, or whatever activity is being done. He is here to help set up whatever the policy is in cooperation with everybody to make sure we are on the right track and to make sure that we work together to achieve the goals that we set. Dr. Kuo said that his job is to support everyone.

Dr. Kuo stated that we want to make sure that our system is user friendly. This is not only applied to the students, but also applied to the faculty. You will see many cases where you ask a question and people kick the ball around and refer it to somebody else and that person will refer it to somebody else. We are not getting the issue resolved. We want to make sure that we will be able to get to the point and get the issue resolved as soon as possible.

Dr. Kuo stated that the excellence and the quality of our academic program, as well as any research or scholarly work, is important because we cannot always talk about just quantity. We need quality as well. He realizes both quantity and quality are equally important. When talking about quality, we are talking about our reputation and whether we meet the needs of our community. In terms of quantity, there is an implication of enrollment and budget. A lot of people think that because we are a university we should just talk about academics and not talk about other budget matters. Sometimes running a university is just like running a company. Now people probably may not like the way he put it, but in reality, we must pay attention to both. Just like a family. For the whole family, you have to know how to budget and how to spend your money.

Finally, Dr. Kuo wanted to share with Senate how to continue to build a sense of the CSU community. This, to him, is very important. One thing is diversity. Different ethnic backgrounds, different races, different gender, is what is important to make our society and our community what it is today. There is an important ingredient to the beauty of this community and that is communication. Dr. Kuo intends to keep the communication lines open. He attended a Faculty Senate reception for him even before he arrived on campus. In addition, he had a very productive meeting with both Dr. Bill Bowen and Dr. Vijaya Konangi to discuss issues that the faculty are interested in. Yesterday, he met with Dr. Bowen again. This is one way to get the communication lines open. Hopefully, from time to time, Dr. Bowen will share their discussions with everybody.

Dr. Kuo mentioned that as of yesterday, the Provost's page on the web site is up. This is one of many communication channels where he will be able to communicate with everybody. Of course he will be very happy to report to Senate from time to time on other issues facing Cleveland State University.

Dr. Kuo stated that partnerships are an important component of our urban university mission. Partnerships with external constituents as well as partnerships on the campus are included. For example, the College of Education works with the public schools which is a partnership. Then on campus, you have a particular activity where several colleges all work together with the same goal instead of everybody all fighting for their own turf. After all, the reason we are here is for CSU. We want to make sure that CSU is the kind of working environment and the kind of university where we want to spend our careers.

Dr. Kuo said that he is pleased to be at CSU and he is looking forward to working with everyone. He thanked everyone for the opportunity.

Professor Dunegan noted that a couple of things Dr. Kuo mentioned in his address struck home -- the fact that we are concerned about student enrollment; the fact that without the students we don't have a university; and that we want our system to be user friendly. Prior to coming to this meeting, Dr. Dunegan had an occasion to talk with a student who was having some difficulty getting registered for a class. The student was unable to go to the Registrar's Office to get registered because in-person registration is closed. He could register by fax, mail, or phone, but not in person. Dr. Dunegan was not aware that this was the case and so he did make some phone calls to verify that indeed we are not accepting in-person registration for either summer session, until May 14th, or for fall semester, until August 1st. Within six minutes of going to the web sites at Kent State, Toledo, and Akron, he got to a page where he could register on-line. Dr. Kuo noted that we don't have that facility available yet, but it is forthcoming. That will be a very good step. Dr. Dunegan asked, "Until such time as we do have internet registration, wouldn't it be advisable to make the registration process overly convenient for the students instead of trying to make it more difficult for them to sign up for our classes? It would seem that we would want to extend in-person registration rather than restrict it. When students are trying to register and can't walk over and get it accomplished, we may be doing ourselves and the students a disservice."

Dr. Kuo agreed with Professor Dunegan and said that he will discuss this issue with his staff. During the transition period, when we have a new system in place, this type of thing happens. We just need to be more flexible to accommodate and to make sure that students feel that they are welcome. It is an attitude that we express to the students.

Dr. Dunegan remarked that it is more than an attitude right now. It is getting students registered. Dr. Kuo stated that it is the mechanism. Before we move to that type of registration, we want to make sure that our telephone registration is working the way it is supposed to. There are bound to be some exceptional cases and we will deal with them.

Dr. Dunegan asked if that would include reopening on-site registration. Dr. Kuo responded that he would speak to his staff to see how the students can be accommodated.

Dr. Andrew Gross stated that he truly believes that if we think students are the heart of a university, then the recruitment of students is the number one task. Every faculty member should devote exactly one hour a month to visit the local high school. He asked Dr. Kuo how he would feel about promoting such a statement and would he put that forth to the faculty.


Dr. Kuo stated that as everyone knows, the university is in the process of taking a very hard look at the enrollment/recruitment issue. That is why we have a consulting company making suggestions to us. Internally, we have people looking at this particular issue. We are in the process of recruiting a Vice Provost for Enrollment Management and Services. He would like to see that we have a very good business plan versus a long term strategic plan where we will be able to deal with a three to five year strategy. One, obviously, is getting the faculty involved. It is also important to get the students involved.

Provost Kuo went on to say that if faculty go to the high schools, students may or may not listen just like with their parents. For example, before he left his former university on Wednesday, in his college, they have an open house and always organize a panel to answer everyone's questions. One parent is going to ask a question about the campus security and another is going to ask about financial aid, etc. That is very effective. Visiting a high school is a good idea but you see by talking to the principals of high schools, sometimes they don't like the idea. The reason is that too many people make that request and they have a hard time making room and freeing up time to have every party come to visit. He is not saying that he doesn't want to do that, he is just saying that there are some little issues that need to be worked out to get the principals to agree that faculty can come to the schools. There are many other things we can do and he is certainly very eager to get the ball rolling. Enrollment is one of the very top priorities for him to tackle.


[Go to top of page]

VII. Senate President's Report

Dr. Bowen welcomed Provost Chin Kuo. He noted that he has read through Dr. Kuo's message on the Provost's web page. There is no doubt that the relationship between the Provost's Office and the Faculty Senate calls for open lines of communication and full opportunity for joint planning and effort. Dr. Kuo's plan to keep communication lines open and to frequently seek consultation and feedback from the Senate are both promising and hopeful.

Dr. Bowen said, "Dr. Kuo has come at a time when we face an extremely difficult next few years. In all likelihood, our revenues from the state, as we keep hearing, will be more-or-less flat from the last biennium. We have escalating costs from salaries, health care, and utilities. It is going to be a very difficult time. What Dr. Kuo can do for the faculty is to envision some realistic goals; affirm academic values; help us to achieve a workable level of unity amongst a very diverse set of constituencies within the university, and manage the university well." Dr. Bowen said that if Dr. Kuo does that and if he listens very carefully and considers the arguments that he hears from members of Faculty Senate, and when having heard them and considered them, he acts in the interest of the whole university, he is quite certain that Dr. Kuo will find faculty to be a cooperative and supportive group.

Dr. Bowen stated that everyone knows we have a new Interim President, Dr. Michael Schwartz, who will be with us until we find a permanent President. Dr. Schwartz mentioned to him (Dr. Bowen) that he would like to speak to the entire faculty, and to the entire university community. Therefore, through Faculty Senate, Dr. Bowen has sponsored a talk for tomorrow afternoon at 3:00 P.M. in the University Center Auditorium. Faculty are invited. He has also invited the Board of Trustees. Staff and students are invited as well.

Dr. Bowen commented that he would like to recognize a couple of people who have made his job satisfying this year. First, he thanked Ms. . He said she is just phenomenal. She is an Administrative Secretary I, but she should be an Executive Secretary X. All of the things she does are just amazing. Dr. Bowen thanked Professor Vijaya Konangi who has been terrific support. He gives Dr. Bowen suggestions that are often very helpful. He also recognized Professor Arthur Schwartz who has taken a lead on the budget. Dr. Bowen said that if the faculty can influence the budget, we can influence the shape of the university. Art has really picked that up and worked with it and taken a real active role. He mentioned that Professor Greg Lupton has made his job easier. Greg is thoughtful, systematic, and constructive. He is a real pleasure to work with. Professor Edward Brennan has been terrific. Finally, Dr. Bowen thanked Professor Sidney Kraus who has served Faculty Senate as Parliamentarian this past year.

Dr. Bowen reported that the Presidential Search Committee met again. The Committee has two more meetings scheduled. At the last meeting, the Committee agreed on a job description. Dr. Bowen said that he is comfortable with it. If members are interested in the job description, copies can be obtained from Violet. Dr. Bowen said that if we can find someone who lives up to that job description, then we will have a real leader who will serve us quite well.

Dr. Bowen reported that the Affirmative Action Guidelines, as he understands them, demand that the advertisement reflect the job description and that the two are in synch. Since the job description that was agreed upon casts a somewhat broader net than does the ad that was sent out, an amended ad will soon go out if it hasn't already. Dr. Bowen noted that he has a copy with him and he can read the differences for Senate if members are interested. Everybody who applied from the earlier ad will be eligible for consideration under the amended ad. He has been told that it really shouldn't create any problems for us.

Dr. Bowen reported that the pool of applicants includes both academics and others. He indicated that he was not going to talk about that pool until such time that we have a short list. It has been agreed that any questions about individuals will be referred to Mr. Vir K. Sondhi, Chair of the Search Committee, who continues to express his willingness to come and speak with Faculty Senate. Dr. Bowen said that he has been promised access to the files. He will be able to go in and examine these applicants. The search will continue over the summer. Some screening and initial interviews will be done. Dr. Bowen reported that Mr. Sondhi called him (Dr. Bowen) and asked him for the date that faculty will be back on contract. Presumably, there will be no decisions made until then. There is an awful lot of pressure to get it done quickly. When the time comes that faculty are back on contract, we can expect that there will be some people on campus very soon thereafter.

Dr. David Larson asked Dr. Bowen to be a little bit more explicit about the differences between the original ad and the new ad without reading both of them. Dr. Bowen read just the part that was revised. Dr. Bowen did not defend the ad to the Senate.

Original Ad: "Candidates should possess an earned doctorate or other terminal degree and demonstrate a continued commitment to academic excellence. Significant academic leadership experience is essential."

New Ad: "A strong educational/academic/administrative experience in institutions of recognized excellence is important. An earned doctorate of Philosophy or equivalent degree or other terminal degree is desirable. Equally significant is a record of intellectual accomplishment evidencing a superior mind and appreciation for educational values."

Without defending the ad, Dr. Larson wondered if Dr. Bowen could explain. It sounds as if we formerly required academic experience and a Ph.D. and now we don't require even a college degree much less any academic experience. He asked Dr. Bowen why he was comfortable with that. Dr. Bowen responded that the job description, amongst other things, says that the person will be somebody who earns the respect of the faculty. Dr. Bowen stated that no members here are so narrow as to only respect people that have a Ph.D. The ad says clearly that whoever comes in on this job will be somebody who will receive the respect and support of the faculty.


Dr. Larson asked, "How can we tell?" Dr. Bowen responded that he presumed by the interviews. He has been told that the decision for who will get into the final pool will be consensus. If there is somebody we cannot live with, then at such time as that person comes on campus, it is critical for him to know -- for faculty to tell him: "We cannot live with this person." We don't all have to agree and think this is the greatest thing since life's bread, but if we cannot live with that person, he needs to know that.

Dr. Larson asked, "What is the process going to be by which we find out whether we can live with the person or not? Will it be through Faculty Senate or are we just going to fill out comment sheets? What matters is that there be an actual process whereby some representative body such as the Faculty Senate do an actual vote as opposed to a few people who happen to be free at that moment who go see the person and fill out comment sheets."

Dr. Bowen said that if there are any suggestions for ways to do this, he is fully in support of what Dr. Larson is saying. He totally understands it. It is crucial. He asked members to not just leave it on him. He asked for help to come up with a mechanism whereby he can take faculty views and represent them.


Dr. Larson suggested that the candidates give a talk to Faculty Senate and explain themselves.

Dr. Barbara Green said that when faculty talk about who they have respect for, she has tremendous respect for a master carpenter. She can't do what he does and she doesn't know anyone who can do what he does. But she doesn't think that anyone with a Ph.D. in Political Science, or History, or Philosophy ought to be the person who does carpentry. She doesn't think that people who don't have experience and know something about academics ought to assume because they are very good that they can come in and run a university. Those are different things. She would hope, even if the description has been changed, that our representative (Dr. Bowen) will insist on academic knowledge, academic experience, and academic credentials. She has respect for many people but not in running this kind of an institution. Universities run very differently than corporations. The worst thing that can happen would be for some really "hot shot" entrepreneur to come in here and try to run the university.

Dr. Bowen informed the Senate that he has read a number of books on choosing presidents in academic leadership and it comes across again and again. If the President does not have the full support of the faculty, there are going to be big problems. He understands that. Anybody that is going to want to take the job is going to understand that -- has got to understand that.

Professor Santosh Misra asked Dr. Bowen to tell the Senate a little bit about why the description was changed. Dr. Bowen stated that a piece by the Knight Foundation that studies university presidents said that more often than not, people who are not traditional candidates, people who are not necessarily coming up through being a dean and then a provost and then a president, are the ones that are successful. They are studying university presidents. The Board of Trustees and the Search Committee are of the opinion that it is more sensible for us to keep our net as broad as possible and then once the people come in, narrow it down rather than casting our net just narrowly. The effort is to broaden the search to get more non-traditional candidates in the pool.

Dr. Rodger Govea asked if it is also the case that Mr. Sondhi told the Steering Committee that he believes there is no difference between the two ads.

Professor Andrew Miracle inquired how many applicants are in the pool. Dr. Bowen replied that around sixty applicants came in through all channels. He didn't know how many came in from the ad or from faculty.

Professor Leo Jeffres asked if Mr. Sondhi said that he would speak to the Senate. Dr. Bowen confirmed that Mr. Sondhi did say he would speak to the Senate. Dr. Cheryl McCahon added that Mr. Sondhi said that he would speak to the Senate at any time.


Professor Misra said that what scares him is, if we are going to get a president and if this person is going to have the respect of the faculty. A non-traditional candidate is well and good but we would definitely like to have somebody who is distinguished in terms of their academic record. That is probably the only way that person is going to carry the respect of the faculty. If that is not true, this other person they may bring is going to be a problem that we will have to live with.

Professor Gross noted that there are two points and possibly neither one can be answered. One is, if Dr. Bowen could see the short list for the interim president, one can draw conclusions from that. Everybody seems to be happy with the eventual outcome. Second, Dr. David Larson's point is a valid one. Dr. Bowen needs to take the leadership in the Senate Steering Committee and possibly have the short list of candidates appear at a Senate meeting even if it is ad hoc or a short notice meeting in the Fall. Dr. Bowen accepted Dr. Gross' points.

VIII. New Business

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:35 P.M.


[Go to top of page]


Arthur H. Schwartz
Faculty Senate Secretary






[Go to top of page]