Cleveland State University

Faculty Senate

MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE FACULTY SENATE
October 10, 2001

I. Eulogy for John T. Burns
II. Approval of the Agenda
III. Approval of the Minutes of the April 18, 2001 Meeting
IV. Approval of the Minutes of the May 2, 2001 Meeting
V. Presidential Search Process
VI. Senate Nominating Committee
VII. University President's Report
VIII. Proposed Revisions to Social Studies Major (Report No. 1, 2001-2002
IX. Proposed Revisions to Bylaws (First Reading) (Report No. 2, 2001-2002)

A. Professional Staff Representation
B. Retired Faculty Association Representation

X. Senate President's Report
XI. New Business

PRESENT: David Adams, E. Anderson, Annapragada, Aquila, Atherton, Bagaka's, D. Ball, Barbato, Bonder, W. Bowen, Buckley, D. Chandler, Chung, Dieterich, Doerder, Dunegan, Flechtner, James Flynn, Forte, Geier, Govea, B. Green, Gross, Hemann, S. Hill, Hollinger, M. Kaufman, L. Keller, Konangi, Kuo, Larson, Mahmud, Matthews, McCahon, Misra, Moutafakis, Ng, J. Nolan, Nuru-Holm, Ramsey, Ray, Reinhart, A. Schwartz, M. Schwartz, M. Smith, Steinglass, Stivers, Thornton, J. Webb, Whyte, James Wilson.
ABSENT/EXCUSED: J. Bazyk, A. Benander, Davenport, Dillard-Mitchell, Droney, Caroline King, Konstantinos, J. McIntyre, McLoughlin, R. Ramos, Rosentraub, Sanders, Sawicki, Shah, Sparks, Tewari, Tumeo.
ALSO PRESENT: Brennan, Lupton, Slane.


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

Professor Stephen Slane said that in light of the events of the last month, perhaps it is appropriate that before he starts with the Eulogy for John Burns, we join in a moment of silence for the victims of September 11, 2001.

[Go to top of page]

I. Eulogy for John T. Burns

Professor Stephen Slane delivered the Eulogy.

"John Burns, Associate Professor Emeritus, died June 6, of this year. John completed his undergraduate education at the University of Michigan in 1958, and stayed on to earn his Ph.D. in 1965. For three years, before coming to CSU, he directed the Behavioral Pharmacology Program at the University of Michigan.

He joined the CSU Psychology Department in 1968, with his friend Bob House, former Associate Dean of Arts and Sciences. John was among those early recruits who were so important in the growth and development of the University. John and I spoke often about those early days. His descriptions reminded me of the boomtowns of the early west. The University infrastructure of faculty, staff, and facilities was flooded with students. Programs were constructed overnight, faculty taught extra courses, courses outside their specialty, and they took on enormous administrative and service duties. John was a hero of those times.

John assumed the role of Graduate Program Director, and was instrumental in the development of the Clinical/Community Master's Program. He obtained a grant from the State of Ohio to develop our School Psychology Program -- a program that has become a model for training in Ohio and nationally. He was a licensed psychologist, a member and chairperson of the Board of Directors of the Gestalt Institute, a representative to the Ohio Inter-University Council, and a consultant to the Cleveland Board of Education.

John's teaching and research interests were in the area of stress and coping, and in the structure of intelligence. He was a voracious reader who seemed to know something about everything. He was a divergent thinker. Depending on your politics or your flexibility you would describe him as either "creative" or "contrary." He did not tolerate fools. And he taught me the difference between intellect, which is plentiful in an academic environment, and intelligence, which is not.

 

In the years before retiring in 1994, John concentrated on his teaching and on departmental service. Thus, he was not well known outside the Department. But let us not forget his foundational contributions to the Department, the University, and the community.

[Go to top of page]

II. Approval of the Agenda

Acceptance of the Agenda for October 10, 2001 was moved, seconded, and approved.

III. Approval of the Minutes of the April 18, 2001 Meeting

Acceptance of the Minutes of the April 18, 2001 meeting was moved, seconded, and approved.

IV. Approval of the Minutes of the May 2, 2001 Meeting

Acceptance of the Minutes of the May 2, 2001 meeting was moved, seconded, and approved.

V. Presidential Search Process

Dr. Bowen stated that he had expected Mr. David Hill to be at Senate today. He would like to suspend the rules. It was moved, seconded, and approved to add Mr. David Hill to the Agenda if he arrives.

VI. Senate Nominating Committee

Professor Kenneth Dunegan, Chair of the Senate Nominating Committee, announced that the Committee had nominated Professor Vijaya Konangi (College of Engineering) as a candidate for the position of Vice President of the Faculty Senate. Professor Vijaya Konangi was re-elected by acclamation as the Senate Vice President for a two-year term expiring August 31, 2003.

[Go to top of page]

VII. University President's Report

Interim President Michael Schwartz reported on the enrollment. We seem to have increased enrollment in the Fall term by four percent in credit hours. We had a remarkedly smooth opening to the Fall term. In opening this term, the invisibility level was very high in information technology and in a number of other places. Congratulations can really be spread around. Financial Aid worked like a dream and Vice President Nolan was, in very large measure, responsible for that. We had virtually no really big problems in the President's Office -- nobody coming in and making threats of any kind. The Registrar's system worked better than it has in the past. They were doing triage outside the door so that people who didn't really need to be there weren't kept there. The whole notion, again Joe Nolan's of being in service to students and members of the faculty and staff here, has worked wonders in the creation of a very welcoming atmosphere here for the beginning of the term including the banners that went up. President Schwartz said that all of that changed some feelings here. It was a good feeling and he felt really good about being a party to all of that.

 

Interim President Schwartz stated that the down side of life around here does get to you quickly and has to do with the aftermath of September 11, 2001. We had just absolutely incredible cooperation from the students, the staff, and the faculty in the Department of Music especially for the memorial service that we held. The Department of Student Life was there and did a good job. At the same time, we learned some things about evacuation plans that we don't have and that didn't work well. We really need to have a disaster plan -- a very good campus evacuation plan. We are already at work on that. We have learned some things about some of our buildings and physical facilities that we need to change. Dean Anthony is working on a disaster plan. Bowling Green State University has a very good model for a disaster plan and that will be looked at as well.

Interim President Schwartz congratulated the Student Government Association for running a very good mayoral debate or forum before the primary date. They did a great job in organizing it. On a Friday evening, the turnout was small, but considering when it was, it went very well. It was done very professionally and, as a faculty, we have every right to be proud of what they did. In addition, there was a debate following the primary that the Student Women's Association ran that went extremely well.

He reported that a six percent budget cut is on the way for this year. There is some reason to think that there may be a second cut during the year depending on what happens in the State's response to the K-12 funding decision. The other certainty, barring a turnaround in economy and some other things, we will take another six percent cut off of the base in the second year of the biennium (FY 2003). That is what the Governor has been talking about. This is an enormous amount of money. Dr. Schwartz reminded members that, last year before he arrived, there was a cut in the budget that came to almost seven percent. No university can sustain that year in and year out. This is not fat. This is beyond bone and muscle. We are now into the removal of limbs here and it isn't pretty. As he reported in his recent e-mail, no one has a monopoly on wisdom in this. If anyone has some thoughts, please send them to Dr. Schwartz. The six percent problem is a $5 million problem. You can say no more duplicating and long distance phone calls. We are probably at the point of time that we have to start about thinking things that have to go. We can't let go the academic programs. Whatever sacrifices have to be made, have to be made in the name of preserving those programs at the highest level that we can deliver them. That is the first responsibility of the University. Dr. Schwartz said that he understands if anyone doesn't want to be a party to this. Just keep in mind, it is not just this go-around. There could be maybe as many as two more cuts.

Interim President Schwartz reported that one of the proposals that surfaced at the Inter-University Council yesterday was the suggestion of a one percent increase in the sales tax for just one year. That just doesn't have much of a chance in the current legislature. Putting this on the Governor's back isn't all together fair. The Governor only has the authority to cut spending. The Governor has no ability to increase taxes, close loop-holes, or do any of that good stuff that everyone has been hearing about. That has to come from the legislature. This legislature does not seem disposed at all to do any of that.

The issue for CSU is in two parts: quality and access. Both of those are very serious for us. With regard to the access part, do we get to the point where we finally say that we have this much money that allows us to educate only this many students and nobody else can come? Is that where we are prepared to go? If it comes to that discussion, we should have it together with the realization of what that means to people. The issue is what do we stop doing. Do we want to grow enrollment and try to grow our way out of this? We really can't grow our way out of this because there is no money to fund growth in the system. At the IUC meeting yesterday, Dr. Schwartz heard that students probably will wind up funding the short-fall. Some universities have begun to talk about mid-year fee increases. We have been through these things before. But the truth also is that we are pretty good at doing what we do. We are better than what people have given us credit for. We will be a great university in the face of this kind of adversity. But it is not going to be easy.

Finally, Interim President Schwartz reported on House Bill 234. If House Bill 234 passes, it will prohibit the extension of benefits to partners of state employees. This is called the defensive marriage act. That is sitting in the legislature in both houses now. He had hoped to report something more pleasant. He regrets that he can't. In this day and age, we will find other ways to celebrate what we are doing.

Professor Thomas Flechtner noticed that Interim President Schwartz used carefully the words that a budget cut of six percent is certain and enrollment seems to be up four percent. CSU still does not have a way to count the credit hours.

Interim President Schwartz responded that there is a way to do it, but we haven't been able to do it yet. We have been very flexible here on when students have to be enrolled and when we take our counts. We cannot go on doing that. When students register, they either have to pay or they have to get on the payment plan. We have been literally extending the credit of the institution for weeks and not having an accurate count of who is a student here and who isn't. There is a difference between being a not-for-profit and being a charitable institution. We are the former, we are most certainly not the latter. One of the consequences of this charity -- students sign up for classes and they occupy seats. Then we deem certain classes closed and we have further demand. Then we go out and create a new section and we have to put up the funding for the new section and then we de-register some of the students who are occupying that space and maybe we wouldn't have needed the new section. This is not something we can continue. This will break our back sooner or later. Interim President Schwartz, Vice President Ray, and Mr. Boyle have been having conversations about this and this must stop. This will be hurtful to some students or maybe it will hurt their feelings. We are in the seventh week of the term and he cannot report precisely what the enrollment is.

Professor Andrew Gross asked Interim President Schwartz if he envisions coming to Faculty Senate in the next six months talking about position eliminations and/or pay cuts. President Schwartz responded that he does not see that. He has put on a hiring freeze for positions other than the ones we are currently searching for. The last time we had a freeze, it was kind of continuing. He walked into one when he got here which he calls much more of a "slush" than a "freeze" because he was signing lots of appointments. That is easy to do when you are brand new here. Now when you catch on, it is not so easy. That freeze is on. He doesn't anticipate coming to Senate talking about pay cuts or position eliminations. That does not mean that it doesn't happen; it means that he doesn't anticipate doing that.

 

Interim President Schwartz said that while we have problems, we will fix them.

[Go to top of page]

VIII. Proposed Revisions to Social Studies Major (Report No. 1, 2001-2002

Professor Gregory Lupton, Chair of the University Curriculum Committee, reported on proposed revisions from the History Department to revise the content of the Social Studies Major. He moved that Faculty Senate approve these revisions. He noted that in the materials members received, page 1 of 2 in the proposal proper, the rationale for the proposal is basically to align the content of the Social Studies Major more closely with what would be expected for licensure which is explained in the proposal. Dr. Lupton noted that Dr. Donald Ramos, of the History Department, is present to answer any questions about the proposal.

Professor Cynthia Dieterich stated that her Department of Teacher Education houses social studies professors who provide a social studies methods class for individuals receiving licensure. Both the coordinator of the Social Studies Program as well as the Department Chair (who is a Social Studies person) disapproved the introduction to the Social Studies course proposed here in light of the fact that methodology is already taught in Teacher Education. So students are getting methodology in non methods which they see as a pedagogical problem.

Dr. Donald Ramos responded that he is sympathetic to the question. His concern isn't with pedagogy at all. Since he has been having conversations with relevant people in the College of Education, he downloaded the syllabus of the current course. He read the first paragraph of the syllabus. "This course introduces students to content issues and teaching social studies by exploring the theme of migrations culminating discussion of great migration of African-Americans to Cleveland. This course will not examine issues of pedagogy but content." History sees it as a content course. Dr. Ramos understands that the line between content and pedagogy can get very weak in the same way we would assume that courses dealing with pedagogy in social studies could also have some content. We assume that it is not devoid of content. This course certainly is not devoid of pedagogy. But that is not its purpose; that is not its structure. It requires four books -- they are traditional history books. The course is really trying to bring together History, Social Science, Sociology, Economics, and Anthropology. We ask them to take separate courses and then they jump up and down and then they produce social studies. We want them to bring together a course that would deal with the content of social studies. We understand the relationship in its ongoing discussion between us and the College of Education. We don't want to do content. We don't want to do pedagogy. We are not trained to do it and it is not our mission, but it is our responsibility to train students to go out and teach the content of social studies. We are asking them to do something that is very difficult for us -- to integrate five disciplines. That course is intended to integrate the five by using social history as the base. We also made this material available to the College of Education a year ago. In the packet that everyone received is an approval from Acting Dean Thomas Frew. He didn't know where it went in the College of Education but the College of Education certainly had ample time to review it.

Dr. Dieterich commented then her concerns and those from her two colleagues is isolated. There was no meeting to discuss those concerns and considerations. It would be her suggestion that there be a separateness given that History is training them specifically in content and in the College of Education there be one course in methodology and some kind of an agreement. She can't see that this would be impossible rather than Dr. Ramos saying, "yes it does" and them saying, "no it doesn't."

Dr. Ramos proposed, as an alternative, that Senate go ahead and approve the program and then assume that the History Department and the interested departments in the College of Arts and Sciences will work with the College of Education to resolve any differences on the whole nature of the program rather than one separate piece.

Dr. Dieterich stated that if it didn't occur now, why would she assume it would occur after the fact. Dr. Ramos said that he is contending that they have in fact produced a course which is content-based, not pedagogically-based. The course description says that right up front. The College of Education reviewed it and approved it.

Dr. Dieterich stated that the description and what it says actually occurs in the content of the course are not necessarily one in the same. Dr. Ramos noted that this is possible. We have to trust the instructor that in fact what it says in the description meets the objectives.

Dr. Ramos noted again that the proposal was reviewed and approved by the then Acting Dean of the College of Education. Professor Dieterich stated that it wasn't approved by the persons teaching the course.

Professor Lupton added that this course has been approved by the University Curriculum Committee on which the College of Education is represented. It seems that Dr. Dieterich's issue is more questioning the representation of the College of Education on the University Curriculum Committee. It has been approved. He suggested that Dr. Dieterich might take up her questions with the College of Education representative on the UCC.

Professor David Adams commented that he feels a little bit in a strange position. He is a member of both the College of Education and the History Department and his Doctorate is in Social Studies Education. He reviewed the proposal and actually he is convinced that this is a good program. There is not that much overlap.

Professor Frank Aquila asked if there is such an urgency that we cannot hold off for one month to allow people to review it and bring it back to Senate. Dr. Lupton noted that according to the dates on the proposal, it hasn't been rushed through.

Senate President Bowen called the question. He then asked for the vote. The proposed revision to the Social Studies Major was approved with one nea and four abstentions.

[Go to top of page]

IX. Proposed Revisions to Bylaws (First Reading) (Report No. 2, 2001-2002)

A. Professional Staff Representation

Dr. Edward Brennan, Chair of the University Faculty Affairs Committee, reported to the Senate that the proposal is for an increase in the Faculty Senate membership by four non-voting members.

First, there has been a change in the Professional Staff from the original time of adoption allowing two members from the Professional Staff organization. There are now two Professional Staff organizations. The issue was to split and give each of the two Professional Staff organizations one member or to give them two members. Since they are non-voting members, and each organization wished to have two members, the UFAC went along with the recommendation.

B. Retired Faculty Association Representation

Dr. Brennan reported that the second change is that two non-voting memberships be given to the Retired Faculty Association in order to strengthen it and to keep a good liaison to the mutual benefit of both the retired faculty and the university. The UFAC sees a very strong bond between the current faculty and the retired faculty as something that should be encouraged. The UFAC recommended two non-voting slots on Faculty Senate for the Retired Faculty Association.

Dr. Brennan noted that since this is a first reading, the proposed changes in membership will come up at the next Senate meeting for discussion and a vote.

[Go to top of page]

X. Senate President's Report

Senate President Bill Bowen first mentioned the tragedy that began on September 11th. The conflict will escalate and a good portion of it very possibly will happen right here in the United States.

Dr. Bowen stated, "By my light, we in American universities are in the cross hairs. We have been targeted because the university is the birthplace and the center of renewal of many of the ideas and developments from which come the liberties and fruits of progress we enjoy today. I have in mind specifically the growth of cross-cultural fertilization that is growing all over the world, the generalization of international exchanges, the worldwide convergence of consciousness, the worldwide coverage of news, and the interdisciplinary movement among the different branches of learning. Accordingly, we will be affected in a number of ways as a faculty. The terrorists bet that we are soft, impatient, and self-centered, and they are trying to erode the moral conviction and resolve that led many of us in this room to enter the professoriate in the first place. Therefore, in the interest of the ideas, developments, and liberties we hold dear, I urge you to consciously redouble your commitment to scholarship -- however you might understand that term -- as well as to the governance and leadership of the university. Let us be willing to take initiatives, to make mistakes, to learn from them, to improvise, and to adapt successfully to this new situation that we face."

 

"Second, in terms of the President search, in my opinion, as I have stated repeatedly, all three of the candidates are excellent men and leaders, and any of them could undoubtedly, in his own way, help CSU a great deal. The CVs of each candidate are, I am told, on the internal web, but certainly if you want to make much of the sense of the candidates and their potential for serving as the President of Cleveland State University, and if you want to make your preferences known, then you'll want to meet them in person. There will be four opportunities for you to meet with each candidate."

Glenn Corlett will be on campus tomorrow, October 11 and Friday, October 12. Tomorrow he will meet with the Faculty Senate at 3:30 P.M. in Drinko Hall, and the entire faculty at 4:30 P.M., same place. Friday he will meet with the entire faculty in the Dively Auditorium at 9:00 A.M., and there will be an open forum for the CSU community at Noon in Drinko Hall.

Michael Schwartz will interview on Tuesday and Wednesday, October 16 and 17. On Tuesday he has an open meeting with the faculty in the Moot Court room in the Law School at 9:00 A.M. and that day there will also be an open forum for the entire CSU community in the Main Classroom Auditorium at Noon. Next Wednesday at 3:30 P.M. Dr. Schwartz will meet with the Faculty Senate in UC 6, and with the entire faculty at 4:30 P.M. at the same location.

Jim Harris will interview the following week. On Monday, October 22, he is scheduled to meet with the Faculty Senate at 3:30 P.M. in UC 6, and the entire faculty at 4:30 P.M. at the same location. On Tuesday, October 23 at 9:00 A.M. he is scheduled to meet with the entire faculty in LB 101 and at Noon with the entire campus community in the MC Auditorium.

Dr. Bowen noted that there is ample opportunity for members to interact with all of the candidates.

Dr. Bowen informed members that they will receive feedback forms at the meetings. Please get the forms back immediately. We have one day after each meeting to get your feedback and summarize them. Professors Vijaya Konangi, Tom Flechtner, or Donna Phillips will attend the interviews, collect your responses there, and summarize the completed response forms. A copy of the summaries, along with the original response forms, will be presented to the Search Committee. A copy of each summary will also be placed in the Faculty Senate office.

Professor Flechtner commented that he was told by Ann Melville that he was not to collect the forms. People were supposed to send them back to the Board of Trustees office.

Dr. Bowen stated that he was told that his job was to organize the faculty responses which he did. If other people start to organize it in different ways, he can't help that. At this point, his understanding is that there will be a faculty member in each of the meetings and we will hand the response forms to the faculty member in the meeting. If you are unable to complete the form at that time, the forms will go to the Board of Trustees office after which time they will come back to the Faculty Senate.

Dr. Bowen went on to state that two things will then happen with those summaries. First, they will go to the Search Committee. Second, Tom Flechtner and Bill Bowen -- as the Senate's representatives to the Board of Trustees -- will use them as the informational base from which to represent the faculty's views before the Board during the deliberations, as the opportunity arises.

Dr. Bowen urged Senators to attend the interviews, to encourage colleagues to do the same, and to provide feedback on both the front and back of the forms. The back of the form is for the qualitative responses. The more faculty members who show up and fill out the forms, the greater will be the ability Tom Flechtner and Bill Bowen will have to argue for faculty interests and preferences before the Board.

Dr. Bowen reported that Art Schwartz is organizing a faculty-initiated campus investigation of each of the candidates. We will go to the campuses; we are organizing that now. If Senators know of anyone on any of the three campuses -- Kent State, Defiance, or Ohio University -- who has worked with any of these individuals, please call Dr. Art Schwartz at X-6990 and let him know as soon as possible. We've got to have all of the relevant information gathered and processed by October 26, 2001.

Finally, Dr. Bowen reiterated his encouragement for Senators to listen to each of the candidates very carefully, and with an open mind. Please make every effort to give all three candidates a fair hearing so that when the deliberations begin, our voices will be heard with the full force and clarity they are due.

Dr. Bowen reported that the Chat with Interim President Schwartz previously scheduled for next Wednesday, October 17, 2001, will be cancelled. Dr. Schwartz will be interviewing with the faculty at that time.

Dr. Bowen commented, "Last year at this time, I told you that the reason I ran for President of the Faculty Senate was to help create an institutional environment in which people with scholarly aspirations such as mine can thrive at CSU. Since then, neither my intentions nor my aspirations have changed, but I've learned enough to be a bit more realistic and humble in my expectations."

"I thought then that the role of President of Faculty Senate was first about the resolution of conflicts between the faculty, the administration, and the Board of Trustees. I thought that the keys were to de-escalate the rhetoric and posturing on both sides of several salient disputes, and to search for solutions that give both faculty and administration the opportunity to compromise without losing face. I still think that is correct, but the conflicts are far more deeply built into the institutional arrangements than I had realized at the time.

As such, I no longer think that those conflicts are the sorts of things that anyone can "resolve," or for that matter come to closure upon in any final sense. Rather, they are the sorts of things that require constant vigilance and effort, and that can be dealt with more or less successfully depending upon the nature of that vigilance and that effort. In this regard, a key to successfully dealing with the conflicts is first to recognize them and not pretend that they are not there and then second, to respond on the basis of high standards of honor and civility. I think that these two simple values are key to improving CSU's reputation -- honor and civility -- and I wish we could all constantly bear them in mind. When honor and civility break down, the costs to the students -- as well as to the faculty, staff, administration, and Board members -- are unnecessarily high."

Dr. Bowen stated, "In terms of the budget, while the administration has to make sure that the correct numbers are getting put in the appropriate columns, and that they all add up accurately to an ever shrinking pie, without the curriculum, there would be no university, and, therefore, no need for an administration. One of the primary moral obligations that a university has is to release the potential of those who come here as students so the university's curricular decisions have to be seen as the preeminent budgetary concern of both faculty and administration. In that respect, I was really pleased to hear the Interim President voice his support for the academic aspects of the university. I hope that the permanent President holds those same values. This is also the reason why it is so important for the faculty to have influence over the budgetary decisions."

"In this respect, I am happy to report that the Budget and Finance Committee was approved at the most recent Board of Trustees Committee meeting and I expect that it will be finally approved by the full Board at the next meeting on October 24, 2001. The next hurtle will be to find and appoint faculty members who are positively interested and willing to serve vigilantly on that committee so that our voices are heard."

Finally, Dr. Bowen stated, "It was suggested to me, having now served as Senate President for over a year, to interpret what in my judgment are a couple of the most important things going on at CSU. I've thought a lot about CSU over the past year, about our strengths and weaknesses, and I think one of the most valuable things we have going on here is that we have such a glorious diversity of perspectives. There are tremendous individual differences on campus, both within faculty and between different groups, and when they are recognized, respected, and nurtured, they translate into an extraordinary characteristic of CSU. When I was a Visiting Assistant Professor at Indiana University in Bloomington, my students were, as a rule, pretty much uniformly white, 21 to 22, middle to upper middle class kids whose parents never asked them whether they wanted to go to a university, but instead asked which university they wanted to go to. Typically they were putting in "chair time" and the university experience was a right of passage for them. My job seemed to be largely to reproduce and perpetuate the status quo. It is nothing like that here. Here we have an opportunity to provide a quality educational experience to committed hard working talented people, often who did not happen to be born into the right family, or who, for some other reason, are tied to the area. Our openness for this particular student body ensures that we'll never develop ourselves into a high status university. But there is no reason we cannot use the tremendous diversity of perspectives we have here as a springboard from which to develop a reputation as an excellent university. I, for one, think it is probably our single greatest asset. We are doing noble work at CSU, and I am very proud to be a part of it."

Dr. Bowen briefly mentioned that if members have not been over to see Professor Marvin Jones' art exhibit, they might want to consider doing so soon. It is really terrific, and this is the last week it will be showing.

Dr. Bowen inform members that Assistant Professor Andy Slifkin, of the Psychology Department, has put together a reading group that has started to attract attention from various departments, including Psychology, Philosophy, Computer Science, and others around campus. He has heard some highly positive feedback about it. So, congratulations to Andy.

Dr. David Larson offered a reminder for the old Senators and information for the new Senators. He stressed the fact that the reason the Senate, as an entity, is meeting separately with the presidential candidates is that the Senate insisted on it. If we don't show up at the meetings, it will look pretty pathetic. He encouraged everybody who doesn't have a class to try to make especially the meetings of the Senate itself. If we have six people there, it will be very embarrassing for us.

Dr. Arthur Schwartz commented that he is quite disappointed that neither the Chairman of the Board of Trustees nor some representative thereof was here to update us on the presidential search or provide any information for why they weren't here. In the next six weeks, there will be a major decision being made and he feels like we are hanging out on the end of a limb waiting for it to get cut off.

Professor Tayyab Mahmud added that the disturbing part of this no-show is that it is at one with a series of gestures by the Board towards the Senate over the last few years. He stated that it is about time somebody said something about it. Dr. Mahmud noted that Dr. Bowen had said that his perception was that his role is to resolve issues between the Board and the faculty. Professor Mahmud said that he fails to understand exactly what that means. People usually resolve issues between parties when they are in a neutral position between two parties or above those two parties. His understanding is that Dr. Bowen is a spokesman and advocate of the faculty in his interactions with the Board. Dr. Mahmud recommended that Dr. Bowen express and convey the disappointment and dismay of the Senate to Mr. Hill.

Dr. Bowen asked Professor Mahmud if he would like him (Dr. Bowen) to write a letter to Mr. David Hill. Professor Mahmud responded that he would leave that to Dr. Bowen's judgment. The point being that this may be geared to what may happen in the next six weeks. Another Senator suggested that Dr. Bowen could call Mr. Hill and express the Senate's disappointment. Dr. Rodger Govea commented that everybody here at Senate is a busy person and we've all made our choices.

Professor Santosh Misra commented that we have just been told that there is going to be a six percent cut coming. Maybe in one month the administration would know exactly where that cut is going so perhaps somebody in Finance could give Faculty Senate an overview as they did last year.

XI. New Business

There being no new business, the meeting adjourned at 4:43 P.M.

[Go to top of page]

 

Arthur H. Schwartz
Faculty Senate Secretary

/velb

 

 

[Go to top of page]