Cleveland State University

Faculty Senate

November 7, 2001

I. Approval of the Agenda
II. Approval of the Minutes of the October 10, 2001 Meeting
III. Election of faculty to Budget and Finance Committee
IV.Admissions and Standards Committee

A. Proposed Acceptance of C- Grades in Transfer (Report No. 3, 2001-2002)
B. Clarification of Call-up Policy Regarding Students who are Military Reservists (Report No. 4, 2001-2002)
C. Proposed Elimination of the Common Hour (Report No. 5, 2001-2002)

V.University Faculty Affairs Committee Proposed Revisions to Bylaws, Sections 8.2.2 C) and D) (Report No. 2, 2001-2002)

A. Professional Staff Representation, Section 8.2.2 C)
B. Retired Faculty Association Representation, Section 8.2.2 D)

VI.University President's Report
VII.Report on Graduate College
VIII. Foundation Case Statement
IX. Senate President's Report
X. New Business

PRESENT: E. Anderson, Aquila, Atherton, Bagaka's, D. Ball, Barbato, A. Benander, Bonder, W. Bowen, Buckley, Chung, Davenport, Dieterich, Doerder, Droney, Dunegan, Flechtner, James Flynn, Geier, B. Green, Gross, Hemann, S. Hill, Hollinger, M. Kaufman, L. Keller, Konangi, Kuo, Larson, Matthews, McCahon, J. McIntyre, McLoughlin, Misra, Moutafakis, Ng, J. Nolan, Nuru-Holm, Ramsey, R. Ramos, Ray, A. Schwartz, M. Schwartz, M. Smith, Sparks, Steinglass, Stivers, Thornton, Tumeo, J. Webb, Whyte, James Wilson.

ABSENT/EXCUSED: David Adams, Annapragada, J. Bazyk, D. Chandler, Dillard, Forte, Govea, Caroline King, Konstantinos, Mahmud, Reinhart, Rosentraub, Sanders, Sawicki, Shah, Tewari.

ALSO PRESENT: Brennan, Jain.

Senate President William Bowen called the meeting to order at 3:05 P.M.

[Go to top of page]

I. Approval of the Agenda

Acceptance of the Agenda for November 7, 2001 was moved, seconded, and approved.

[Go to top of page]

II. Approval of the Minutes of the October 10, 2001 Meeting

Acceptance of the Minutes of the October 10, 2001 meeting was moved and seconded. Professor Thomas Flechtner reported that a correction was in order in his comments on page 4, fifth paragraph. The Minutes were approved as corrected.

III. Election of faculty to Budget and Finance Committee

The following faculty were elected to the new Senate Budget and Finance Committee:

Two-year Terms One-year Terms
Professor Thomas Buckley
Professor Vijay Mathur
Professor Arthur Schwartz
Professor Samuel Richmond
Professor James Webb

IV. Admissions and Standards Committee

A. Proposed Acceptance of C- Grades in Transfer (Report No. 3, 2001-2002)

Professor Chet Jain, Chair of the Admissions and Standards Committee, reported that all of the area schools except for the University of Akron, as well as the institutions in the Penn State system accept C- for transfer credit. The Admissions and Standards Committee requests that Faculty Senate consider and approve this recommendation.

Professor Thomas Flechtner inquired if C- for transfer credit applies to graduate students. Dr. Jain responded that this policy is only for undergraduate courses taken at accredited institutions.

Professor Susan Hill asked how would the policy effect students "in the stream." "When does it become effective? What if people are here now and their C- grades didn't count." Dr. Jain responded that the Committee did not address that issue but the intent will be from now on. Professor Chia-Shin Chung asked if Dr. Jain knew of any university not accepting C- grades. Dr. Jain said that he did not know of any others.

Dr. Jane McIntyre inquired if this would be from community colleges as well. Dr. Jain replied that this policy would also apply to community colleges.

Dr. McIntyre asked, "Apart from the fact that other people do it, is there a rationale for it?" Dr. Jain replied that the rationale is that the Admissions Office gets many complaints from students who have earned C- grades and they wonder why we don't accept C- while neighboring institutions accept it.

An unidentified Senator commented that the reason CSU doesn't accept C- grades is so that the students have to take more courses.

Professor Cynthia Dieterich noted that C- is low and asked what is the highest amount of C- grades students are allowed to transfer. Dr. Jain said that there is not a total per se. If you have a 2+2 program or when you finish your first two years and there is some kind of a pre-agreed program, those are different. Dr. Dieterich noted then it doesn't matter how many C- grades a student has. Dr. Jain replied that it doesn't matter but the overall, of course, matters if it is a blanket transfer.

Senate President Bowen called for the vote. The proposed Acceptance of C- Grades in Transfer was approved.

B. Clarification of Call-up Policy Regarding Students who are Military Reservists (Report No. 4, 2001-2002)

Dr. Jain reported that this item is an informational item for the Senate and members of the University community. This item was brought to the attention of the Admissions and Standards Committee by the administration. When reservists are called up, the administration thought that it would be a good idea to have a policy in place before it becomes an issue. Along with the administration, the Admissions and Standards Committee discussed this issue and came up with the recommendation that if any current students are called up for reserve duty, they would be given the choice of withdrawing completely from all courses. They would receive a full refund, or, at their discretion, they may chose to take an incomplete. When they return, they would have a reasonable time to complete their courses. The current level of thinking would be that should students come in the middle of a semester, they would have the balance of that semester plus a full semester to complete the courses. Dr. Jain reported that the President and the Provost have accepted this policy and have circulated that this is our policy regarding potential call-up of reservists.

Dr. Cheryl McCahon commented that the incomplete makes no difference where the students are in terms of the semester. Dr. Jain stated that Dr. McCahon was correct.

Professor Chia-Shin Chung noted that it is mentioned in section one of the document that the incomplete can be extended until the student has the opportunity to finish class requirements. He asked if the instructor will make the determination as to whether the student has the opportunity or not. Dr. Jain replied that the determination would be made by the instructor of the course. Dr. Jain pointed out that students may not come back the semester after or two semesters after and the incomplete remains an "I." Otherwise after two semesters, the "I" automatically turns into an "F." That will not happen.

Professor Santosh Misra asked what exactly would happen during this term when an "I" automatically turns into an "F" or something else. "Let's say I am called up for reserve duty and I get an "I". Then I go away for three semesters. How exactly are you going to insure that this "I" doesn't turn into an "F" and become a nightmare." Dr. Jain replied that the Registrar's office will handle each issue by manually entering this specific information into the student's transcript so that the "I" will not automatically go into an "F." We do not expect that this will involve hundreds of students.

Dr. Andrew Gross stated, "Along those lines, all you would have to do is designate another letter and then it could be handled even more expediently and possibly automatically." Dr. Jain said that this is quite conceivable. We would assume that the Registrar's Office is quite capable of handling such issues. Ms. Susan Lindsey, the Registrar, comes to the Admissions and Standards Committee meetings regularly.

Professor Misra stated, "The point is, we give this person an "I." The person leaves and three semesters later comes back and finds an "F." Now we force that person to go through a petition which would generate resentment in that process." Dr. Jain commented that Professor Misra's point is well taken and he is sure that the Registrar's Office will make sure that such nightmares do not occur.

The Senate received the Admissions and Standards Committee's Policy regarding Call-up of Students who are Military Reservists.

C. Proposed Elimination of the Common Hour (Report No. 5, 2001-2002)


Professor Jain brought the issue of the "common hour" to the Senate's attention. Classes are not held on Tuesday and Thursday from 12:00 P.M. to 1:00 P.M. This semester, the Admissions and Standards Committee received a request from one faculty member in Biology to revisit the issue because they cannot have 12:00 P.M. to 1:00 P.M. for labs. It results in potentially losing two sections for labs because it conflicts with the afternoon sessions as well. The Committee started looking into this matter and thought that elimination of the "common hour" has merit, but it was instituted by a request from the students. The Committee would like to conduct surveys, find all of the pertinent information, and then perhaps report back to the Senate. If the Committee feels that there is a need for a change, a recommendation will be made at that time. The Committee sent a request to the Provost to find out from the Dean's Council what the experience has been of the Colleges in terms of how they have used the "common hour" and the benefits they have seen. That information has started filtering in. In our last Steering Committee meeting on October 24, 2001, it was requested that everything possible be done to come to Senate with a recommendation at this time. At this time, the Committee feels that they do not have sufficient information to make an informed recommendation to Senate. The Committee does not have the plurality even within our own Committee to recommend eliminating the "common hour." Based on the responses received from the Deans, there is no majority opinion there either.

Dr. Jain commented that Elizabeth Alexy, a student member of the Admissions and Standards Committee, collected information from all pertinent student bodies to get their views. Overwhelmingly, the students have rejected the idea of elimination of the "common hour." At this stage, the Committee does not know for sure what the effect will be. The Committee does not know how it effects enrollment. As the Committee was collecting information, one of the things that came up is perhaps we should look more seriously into how we schedule our courses. It is quite apparent that it doesn't matter whether it is Tuesday/Thursday or Monday/Wednesday/Friday -- there are substantially fewer courses scheduled on any of the afternoons. Why is this? In addition, we are a commuter school. Why is Saturday so sacrosanct? When we do offer a course on Saturday, why it is to be a one day per week course? Why can't Saturday be part of a two-day or a three-day per week course? The Committee needs to gather concrete evidence that can be presented to Senate in order for an informed decision to be made. The Admissions and Standards Committee's recommendation is not to make a decision to change the "common hour." Leave it the way it is. Hopefully, some time during the Spring semester, the Committee can come back with a recommendation. If there is a need to eliminate or change the "common hour" for the following academic year, it can be done it at that time.

Dr. Susan Kogler Hill noted that she is a member of the Steering Committee. The urgency came to the Steering Committee via a memo from Earl Anderson, Interim Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. At the last Cabinet meeting of the chairs of Arts and Sciences, every single chair in the College (24) voted unanimously to eliminate the "common hour" to increase enrollment. By having a common hour at Noon, we lose one whole block in the prime time on Tuesdays and Thursdays. We do not have a class from 3:00 to 4:00 P.M. on those days either. So, we have an empty block from 3:00 to 4:00 P.M. and we have an empty block from Noon to 1:00 P.M. The Noon to 2:00 P.M. block we used to have on Tuesday and Thursday rivalled in enrollments. The department chairs have been tracking and tracing these enrollments since the "common hour" was instituted. We are the ones that see what happens to enrollments and we are the ones that understand how difficult it is not having the eight, ten, twelve, two, four, six, eight and ten blocks on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Student Government leaders and other chairs know that this is useful but right now we need to increase enrollments to protect having tuition increases and to prevent having to fire and lay off people. This is a very important and fast change. The motion to delay action on this would hurt the schedule for all of next year. Department chairs are doing annual scheduling for next year at this time. That is why the Steering Committee requested that this action be brought to Senate.

Dr. Jain reminded Professor Hill that he did not make a motion to eliminate the "common hour." Professor Hill noted that it was a suggestion. She just wants Senate to understand the urgency and that it wasn't one faculty member bringing it up -- it was 24 department chairs unanimously bringing it up.

Dr. Gross suggested that Professor Hill make a motion.

Professor Susan Hill moved that the Senate eliminate the "common hour." Dr. Gross seconded the motion.

Professor Jain stated that Ms. Ruth Ramos, Vice President of Student Government, would like to speak to the issue.

Ms. Ramos thanked members of the Senate for allowing her this opportunity to speak about the students' thoughts regarding the existence of "common hour." She indicated that after discussion with the students and a vote at the last Student Government meeting, it is imperative to keep "common hour." First, "common hour" provides students with an opportunity to do whatever they need to do on campus. Whether it is visiting the Financial Aid office, going to the Library, paying a bill and waiting in long lines at the Bursar's, or eating lunch, "common hour" is beneficial to students. For those students who do not take advantage of "common hour" to handle financial matters of school or run errands, it is a great way to get them involved and keep them on campus. "Common hour" allows for a sense of community. It is the one hour in the day that groups of students or student organizations can come together to meet to hold official business or get to know each other better and expand their minds. Ms. Ramos reported that most student organizations on campus meet and hold official business during this hour. Also, students and faculty who know about the benefits of "common hour" take advantage of different opportunities that they have during that hour. For instance, Lutheran Campus Ministry offers free movies and popcorn to all students and faculty during that time. Dismissing "common hour" could be the downfall of many wonderful things that are occurring on campus during this time.

Ms. Ramos went on to say that she truly believes "common hour" helps to alleviate some of the parking dilemmas. It is easier to find parking on Tuesdays and Thursdays not only because the amount of students on campus is at a minimum, but also because the students who take classes in the morning have enough time to leave. The afternoon and evening students have enough time to come and park. Student leaders and their constituents fought hard for these two hours during the week and we now would hope that their efforts were not in vain. The issue at that time was finding a moment in the day to take a break from classes and to handle other matters that pertain to college life. That same issue is still upon us some years later and we would hope that the faculty and the administration would not be so quick to dismiss the needs of students in order to better accommodate the minority. Lastly, Ms. Ramos said that she hopes the Senate seriously considers what she has said on the students' thoughts here. It is quite obvious what the students at CSU want. It is hoped that this institution is still based on serving the students' needs. Ms. Ramos thanked the Senate members for their time.

Ms. Ramos added that it is believed that enrollment will go up if classes are scheduled during the "common hour." She feels that student involvement is needed to keep enrollment high and to make CSU more of a community. Taking away these couple of hours a week that students have to themselves, totally goes against what we believe in the CSU community. We can't make this a commuter school. That is what we would be doing if the "common hour" is eliminated.

Professor David Larson inquired if there has been any systematic survey of the majority of the students themselves. Dr. Jain responded that the Admissions and Standards Committee has not been able to do that. The Committee's information is based upon what Liz Alexy and Ruth Ramos have been able to compile in the past two weeks.

Dr. Andrew Gross noted that his sense of student groups' attendance records at the Noon hour is one that the turnout is not so high. He is wondering whether an hour between 5:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M. would work for both sides in the sense that it would attract daytime as well as nighttime students. That would allow this Noon to 1:00 P.M. hour to be used for the block that Professor Susan Hill has suggested would increase enrollment.

Dean Mark Tumeo reported that he had discussed this with some of the Graduate faculty and a couple of thoughts came forward. One, there is merit to the idea. There is data out there that we can look at to try to determine how much of an increase in enrollment elimination of the "common hour" might produce. What were those courses like before? What are our students wanting? There hasn't been any systematic asking around even in most of the other colleges. There are other things that can be done to increase enrollment that don't require a shift in these kinds of things. In scheduling meetings, everybody knows how booked everybody is. The faculty use this hour as well to meet. The idea of taking a chance to look at this is a substantive change. The students are right. This was fought for by the students and we are doing this for the students. The idea of increasing enrollment is important, but we shouldn't do it at the cost of what students really want.

Professor Jain stated that the Committee has also sought feedback from the other college deans. Naturally the Arts and Sciences Dean is proposing the position of what the Arts and Sciences chairs are saying. The Committee has not received formal information from the deans of the other colleges except from the Law School. The Law School simply says that they really don't have a strong view and they have not paid much attention to this regulation anyway. The Law Dean stated that they try not to schedule classes during Noon hours period. From his personal experience, this indicates that there is a lot to be said about how we schedule classes and why there are so few classes available in any afternoon. Professor Jain informed the Senate that the Committee does not have sufficient creditable information except for very strong views from the Arts and Sciences department chairs, as Professor Susan Hill has indicated, to really come before Senate and make an informed position before the Senate rules.

Dr. Jane McIntyre noted that there is at least one critical thing that the student representative pointed out. In a way, campus life is more pleasant on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Why? Because there are fewer people here. That is exactly the problem that the Arts and Sciences chairs were addressing. There are fewer people here on Tuesdays and Thursdays and a good reason for that is the fact that students can't schedule classes in the middle of the day as they can on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Dr. McIntyre said, "I grant you, as a quality of life issue, it is a less pleasant place when people go to school -- block, block, block -- and then leave campus. This is one of those competing values where we are asking ourselves questions about efficient use of the university schedule of facilities and not merely how convenient it is to schedule meetings." Dr. McIntyre noted that she is somewhat torn in two directions here. But, the very fact of it being more pleasant on Tuesday and Thursday is exactly what it is telling us and that is that there is an imbalance of the resources being used on campus.

Professor Jain noted that Dr. McIntyre may be right, but the Committee does not have hard evidence to indicate how the enrollment will increase by eliminating the "common hour." The particular issue that came to the Committee are the lab courses. The majority of the lab courses are required courses so somehow they have been able to schedule those and students have been taking them.

Dr. McIntyre stated that she was on Senate when the "common hour" was debated before it was instituted. What was predicted at that time was exactly what has happened, namely, a falloff of enrollment on Tuesdays and Thursdays. So in the sense that Dr. Jain now states that we don't know what the impact would be to change it back, yes we do. We predicted what would happen. It happened and actually some of the things the students predicted also happened. There is a time for people to have meetings and it is a more pleasant atmosphere, but enrollment has fallen. That is the issue we have to grapple with here. Which of those two things at this point do we give priority to?

Dr. Tumeo stated that we have all been at universities that have had "common hours" and they also have managed to block courses on Tuesdays and Thursdays by either leaving a half hour later in the evening or a half hour earlier in the morning. The question is not do we need to eliminate the "common hour" to block courses on Tuesday and Thursday. The question is how do we arrange the schedule so that we can block courses. We don't need to eliminate lunch hour to do that.

Dr. Njeri Nuru-Holm commented that the enrollment problem at Cleveland State University is not the cause and effect related to whether or not we have "common hour." If we backtrack, we have had an enrollment decline for many more years. This is a very complex issue. We need to take time to study it very carefully and not isolate one thing such as "common hour" as the cause for the problem in enrollment. "Common hour" is not the cause that enrollment declined over ten years at this university.

Professor Miron Kaufman stated that we should also look at a possible compromise not to have this hour on Tuesday/Thursday. The Physics Department offers labs on Tuesdays and Thursdays and that keeps them on one lab session. Don't keep it on Tuesday/Thursday. Keep in on Monday/Wednesday/Friday.

Dr. Thomas Flechtner commented that we don't have the data. Those of us who have been here for a while could probably make a list of a hundred other things we are doing better. Decrease enrollment or don't allow it to increase. At this point, he would not vote in favor of eliminating the "common hour."

Dr. Barbara Green agreed that we are not ready to eliminate the "common hour." Many of us have not heard about this until today. If it is examined, what we might want to look at also would be are there better times to have a "common hour." If we decide to maintain the "common hour," maybe there is some time that we could have it when students would still be here and would be able to use it but would not hurt enrollment as much. But, that requires study and she doesn't think Senate can do it here today.

Ms. Elizabeth Alexy, student representative, stated that the elimination of "common hour" will be the death of student morale here at CSU. She noted that they just saw the new budget predictions last Friday from Dr. Nuru-Holm, Mr. Roy Ray, and Interim President Michael Schwartz and they are ugly. Tuition is going up at the end of the semester and it is going to be going up at least at the beginning of next year and the year following that. Eliminating the "common hour" and having more two hour classes on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and putting everyone under these huge budget stresses, academic excellence is going to go down. The students are unhappy. If the quality of life here just goes down even further, what are we here for? We are here for one reason and that is academic excellence. It just seems like we are losing sight of that goal day by day.

A student employee of the Cauldron stated that the students he talked to feel that if "common hour" is eliminated, it makes you look like you just want to get out of here an hour earlier. He understands that some faculty teach afternoon classes as well as morning classes, but for the students he has talked to, it is going to make it look bad and he wanted Senate to be aware of that.

Professor Cheryl McCahon stated that Nursing students prefer to go straight through and be out of here because they work 3:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M. and that is one of the reasons they want "common hour" eliminated.

There being no further discussion, Senate President Bowen called the question. The motion to eliminate "common hour" was defeated.


V. University Faculty Affairs Committee Proposed Revisions to Bylaws, Sections 8.2.2 C) and D) (Report No. 2, 2001-2002)

Dr. Edward Brennan, Chair of the University Faculty Affairs Committee, stated that this is the second reading of the University Faculty Affairs Committee's proposal to add four additional non-voting members to Faculty Senate. Two slots would be given to the Retired Faculty Association and two additional members to the professional staff organizations.

Professor Brennan stated that before he gets to the Committee's proposal, he wanted to raise a point of important information. A subcommittee of the University Faculty Affairs Committee has been working on the proposed Computer Security Policy. Dr. Brennan reported that Professor Thomas Buckley particularly has done a great deal of work on the Interim Policy which was not fully acceptable to the Senate. He has been integrating new ideas into it, eliminating things that were found to be objectionable, and then adding some additional matter. At this point, the tentative draft has not been completed. The Committee hopes to have it completed very soon. The next Academic Steering Committee meeting is on November 28, 2001. Dr. Brennan proposed that a draft of the proposed policy be sent to the Steering Committee and to members of Faculty Senate so that everyone will have ample time to review it and get back to the Steering Committee by November 26, 2001 -- two days before the Steering Committee meets. That should be enough time for those people who are interested in the issue to review it. Some people are not so concerned and some people are very concerned about the issue. Professor Brennan noted that the reason this policy is being put on the fast track is that the auditors have insisted that this be done immediately. The Subcommittee is very active at this time and the Committee will be able to get a draft to Senate and the Steering Committee. It should be ready within one week and that would give everybody two weeks to review it and respond with comments to the Steering Committee. Hopefully a draft can be finalized between the time of the Steering Committee meeting and whatever comes from them and the Senate meeting on December 5, 2001. The President is quite concerned on the feedback from the auditors.

A. Professional Staff Representation, Section 8.2.2 C)

Dr. Brennan noted that two members were allotted to the Professional Staff Organization when it was just one organization. The professional staff has split into two organizations -- one became unionized and one has remained a non-union organization and each of them would like to have two non-voting members on the Senate.

Professor Santosh Misra inquired how many members are on Senate from the professional staff. Professor Brennan responded that there are two professional staff members on Senate. When the professional staff split into two organizations, the idea was to give each organization only one member. Each organization wanted two slots and the University Faculty Affairs Committee felt that this was a reasonable request. There is always going to be a conflict where somebody cannot attend meetings and it seemed that it would not hurt because they are non-voting members.

Senate President Bowen called for the vote. The Senate approved increasing Senate representation from the professional staff organizations to four non-voting representatives -- two from each organization.

B. Retired Faculty Association Representation, Section 8.2.2 D)

Dr. Brennan noted that the UFAC has proposed two senate representatives on Faculty Senate from the Retired Faculty Association. The Committee would like to keep retired faculty integrated in the University community. When faculty joined the organization, they are obviously showing their commitment and interest in the University and they have an awful lot to offer.

Professor Santosh Misra inquired how these retired faculty would be elected. Dr. Brennan responded that the UFAC left the responsibility of electing representatives to Faculty Senate to the Retired Faculty Association. The Association would know those of their membership that might be interested in serving on Faculty Senate.

There being no further discussion, Dr. Bowen called for the vote. The Senate approved adding two non-voting representatives to Faculty Senate from the Retired Faculty Association.

VI. University President's Report

Interim President Michael Schwartz said that he wanted to discuss some budget issues with the Senate because he is trying to keep people as well informed as he can.

First, Dr. Schwartz assured everyone that this University and everyone is performing extremely well. This is a good University and it does its work with some honor and with some distinction that is focused on the real business of the University and it doesn't vary from that. There is a great deal to be proud of here. It is also the case that we have been confronted with some very difficult fiscal times. As he has said in other venues, the Governor's decision to cut higher education by 6% is now a fact. The Governor has also said that next year he will do it again from what is essentially a flat base. We have some reason to suspect that the 6% for this year will not hold and will probably be increased, but we haven't any idea by how much. Dr. Schwartz reported that we have found a way to manage the 6% without dipping into departments although we do have a semi-hard freeze often called a "slush" on hiring. We take money from salary savings and add to that money that we had available to us from enrollment growth in the Fall and monies that were budgeted as contingency funds and we get through the 6%.

Dr. Schwartz reported that he has asked the Deans to make plans for possibly reducing their operating budgets as we go along by anywhere from 2% or 4% or 6% or 8% more. Vice President Ray is giving the Deans the dollar amounts as to what that means. It is less then he thought it would be. In any case, Dr. Schwartz is trying not to anticipate what is coming but to be as nimble as he can be on everyone's behalf so that if the legislature and the Governor unwisely decide that they want to come after more of higher education's budget, we will be prepared.

Dr. Schwartz reported that there is apparently some discussion, if not a rumor, that our reserves are so large that there really isn't a need to cut budgets. He wanted to address what the reserves, in fact, are so that there is no misunderstanding on anybody's part with regard to this. Reserves are reported in a document titled "Cleveland State University Financial Report for the Fiscal Year 2000-2001." This is the last fiscal year ended. That report will show that what is a balance in the Student General Fee Fund is about $1,153,000. That fund is locked up as allocated to student activities and other things that serve the students. Students pay a fee separate from the instructional fee. That General Fee money is available for uses in the Student Affairs division.

Dr. Schwartz reported that another item is called University Reserve. This is an item of $6,585,000. That is the size of the actual institutional reserve. That money is less than what the auditors in the state would recommend that we have which is at least 5% of our operating budget of about $174 million a year. We should probably have about $8.5 million in reserves. We are not quite there. It is a substantial improvement over what it has been. That is the good news.

Dr. Schwartz stated that another item is called Encumbrances. These encumbrances amount to $1,324,000. Those are the funds that in fact we have already spent -- it is just a question of writing the checks for them. So the money is encumbered. That is a classic case of not spending the same dollar twice. That money is gone, but it shows until it is spent and therefore it is under the column of balances. Then there is the department carryover line item of $3,055,000. This is money that the departments, in this case generally meaning the colleges, have not spent. We have had a policy that permits them to carry that money forward rather than our taking it all back at one time. Now we take it back. There is no rule that says the administration, in time of dire need, can't grab that money. Dr. Schwartz reminded everyone that in his "State of the University Address," he said we can do enormous damage to this place by grabbing every buck we can get our hands on in bad times rather than thinking things through about what is in the long term best interests of our students in the academic program. The very first obligation of administration is to see to it that the academic program is put on at the highest level that we can manage given the resources of the institution. If you come in and grab those dollars, unless the circumstances are extraordinary, it reduces the possibility of putting that program on at the highest possible level given our resources. That money is not incumbered, but it belongs to the programs, and, therefore, to the students. It is a big item. The question is, "What is the wisest use of it?" That, it seems to him, is best left to those people who have to put on the program.

Dr. Schwartz noted that there are some smaller items. There is an interesting $150,000 for a faculty center which seems to show up constantly that he suspects long ago disappeared, but we are grateful for the interest that it earns. There is another category of about $400,000 that, in a way, is an incumbrance for fringe benefits. Then there is the telephone bill of $613,000 that we also have available to us. That is hardly a reserve -- it is money that needs to be spent, but it all shows up under balances. Therefore, people add all of that up and believe that we have $13,281,217. The actual institutional reserves are less than the 5% that we ought to have according to the auditors. At one point, as you know, the reserves of this university fell to the point where the institution received a letter from the state auditor that essentially said, "Watch it, you are approaching the status of fiscal watch." Dr. Schwartz stated that he knows about that status because it was created as a warning system at the time that Governor Voinovich asked him to serve as a new trustee at Central State University. We don't want the state to think that maybe they need to take this place over somehow the way our associates and colleagues at Central State were literally taken over. We are considerably better at managing our affairs. We need to protect the real reserve and continue to build it. It is not where it ought to be. Dr. Schwartz made it clear that most of the money that shows up as fund balances are not reserves. The reserve is about $6.5 million. The rest of it is designed for specific kinds of purposes. Given that fact, we want to be able to manage the institution in such a way that the words "financial exigency" are never spoken here. We need an institution that, given these kinds of resources, is still well managed.

President Schwartz commented that in order to get there, we have done a couple of things. One, the Deans have been asked to make some contingency plans. If we need to cut operating budgets, we will cut operating budgets. Two task forces have been impaneled -- one under the leadership of Dean Mark Tumeo -- to try to find ways to improve our growth in enrollment in graduate and professional programs. Dr. Schwartz commented that improving our growth, means full fee payers in those categories. The second task force, lead by Dean Mark Rosentraub, will look into two kinds of undergraduate enrollment increases. One is new freshman students and the other is transfer students. Dr. Schwartz noted that it is good to have data around. Dean Rosentraub has pointed out quite recently that total employment in downtown Cleveland has been growing -- not declining. More than 161,000 people work in downtown now. It has even been broken down by job category. You might be interested to know that about 365 of our fellow Clevelanders work downtown in occupations listed as agriculture and mining. Well, it turns out that they are all in mining -- the salt mines. We know that this is a very substantial market of potential students for us, especially in graduate programs that we really haven't gone after.

Dr. Schwartz commented, "What are we going to try to do with these two Task Forces?" So everybody understands the purpose, we are trying to grow our way past this predicament. It is a very tall order. Dr. Schwartz said that he doesn't think that it can be done but we are going to give it everything we've got in trying to do that. If we can grow our way out of this, then all this other conversation about cutting, etc. becomes irrelevant to us. We have the capacity in many places and we can do it. He has asked for the reports from the Task Forces by the end of this term. He will share them with everyone and in Senate where he expects that they will be subject to a frank exchange of views.

Dr. Schwartz went on to say that if we can adopt that strategy and it works well, if we have contingency plans for cuts if we have to, and if we go to the one group that we really shouldn't have to go to at all -- which is to say the students -- for fee increases, we will get by this. The reason he stated the one group we shouldn't have to go to at all is pretty obvious. On the one hand, it is kind of fair. Every revenue source that we have ought to participate in the problem and help us. But the other side of it is that the legislature has made it eminently clear in spite of the fact that the Press state-wide is on the side of higher education and its utility. The people state-wide seem quite persuaded of the importance of the utility of higher education and its availability to them and to their children. That is not the problem. The problem is that this message has yet to filter into the legislature although he is not quite sure what they could do if they got the information given the problems. Nevertheless, between trying to grow, having contingency plans for cuts of the operating budget, and asking the students frankly to pay more (we are going to ask them to pay $132.00 per semester more next semester, and probably even more than that come next Fall) we will weather all of this. What is done at CSU is done well.

Professor Edward Brennan brought up the matter of raising people's taxes and asked if that would impact our crisis. Dr. Schwartz responded that he believes the idea of raising some taxes and closing loopholes was part of the House proposal but that was dead on arrival in the Senate.


[Go to top of page]

VII. Report on Graduate College

Dean Mark Tumeo stated that he had six points to cover. First, he distributed a new organization chart. The Office of Sponsored Programs and Research has been reorganized. It was formerly called the University Office of Research and Economic Development. He queried the Graduate faculty and the Graduate Council and they couldn't figure out what economic development was we were supposed to be doing since we were doing sponsored programs and research. So, development will be left to the appropriate office, to the foundation, and we are going to go back to sponsored programs and research. The office has been split into two parts as is tradition in every grant office in the state. He spoke to all of the research officers on this. There will be a pre-award services side and a post-award services side.

Dr. Tumeo reported that the pre-award services side is where you come to work on writing grants to make sure that you are getting the assistance that you can from us. There is a grants research center where we can tell you what is available -- foundation, private, federal, state funding, what the guidelines are, when to apply -- those kinds of things. We have on-line data bases for you and some part-time help to get you through that process. For very large interdisciplinary grants to federal and state government, we can also offer some part-time assistance in grant writing. So, if you have a large team, we can help pull that together and actually produce the grant that goes out.

Dr. Tumeo reported that on the post-award side, is the stuff that goes along with compliance -- making sure that reports go in and that your budgets are managed and that we have all the appropriate approvals, and that we meet our federal audits. That is what we have done with that office. This was run through Graduate Council and Graduate Council worked on the chart and voted this change at their last meeting. So this went through the elected policy body of the Graduate College.

Dr. Tumeo noted that one of the nice things about dealing in research is that, even in bad times, you sometimes get to have good news. He has some good news. He distributed the first quarter distribution of the new indirect cost recovery sharing program that he managed to get approved by the administration last year. Indirect cost recovery on grants is accrued when monies are expended from the grants. The old formula had 15% going to the college or department, 20% coming to Graduate College for reinvestment, and the Upward programs and internal granting, and 65% going to the central budget. He reported that the new formula is 5% to the PI, 15% to the department, 10% to the college, 20% comes to the Graduate College for the internal programs, and 50% to the central administration which covers library, laboratory fees, those kinds of things.

Dr. Tumeo reported on the distribution for the first quarter. He has deposited almost $44,000 of disposable income to the college accounts. Each college listed plus the environmental center, which is an interdisciplinary center, has an account and these funds are now available for them to spend for anything that state law allows state funds to be spent on. He has also deposited almost $25,000 into individual PI accounts. Those PI's will be notified by letter this week of their account number. If the amount is over $100, they have their own account number. If it is less than $100, it is held in a central account and they can either accrue it to $100 and more to get their own account, or spend it out of that central account.

Dr. Tumeo reported that he has also gotten the guarantee from the President and the Vice President of Finance that these accounts will not be swept at year end. So, indirects can be accrued over the fiscal years. Down the road, if we have millions of dollars held in indirect accounts, we may have to put a limit on how long you hold them. He said that his goal is that we have millions of dollars in indirect. In the first quarter, almost one half million has been accrued of total income to the University from research grant expenditures. We have been increasing our expenditures. Last year, we had almost $30 million in grant receipts and about $15 million in direct expenditures from grants. This year we are seeing an increase in the indirects being asked for in grants. That is because people are now seeing that the money is coming back to the units. Dr. Tumeo said that this is good news and he is very pleased.

Dr. Tumeo reported that the other piece of good news is from Research Challenge monies and doctoral subsidy set-aside that was ordered by the Ohio Board of Regents. The set-aside has been decreased by 6%, but the set-aside is still there. The Graduate Council has approved two different programs for doctoral faculty and doctoral students. The first is an investment program process for approval. They were all approved last year and now are being established. We had to go through more approvals this year. The second is a doctoral faculty enhancement program. It is a program where you can get small grants of $5,000, $10,000, to $15,000 to do interdisciplinary doctoral programmatic work to enhance the quality of our doctoral programs. The focus on doctoral programs is mandated by OBOR. It comes from the doctoral subsidy set-aside. So, they have required that it has to be focused on doctoral programs. We are also starting a small travel program for doctoral students. A student can apply for up to $800 to present papers or go to workshops. It is fashioned after the graduate faculty travel program.

Dr. Tumeo noted that those are the three items from the research half of the house. He will be sending those programs out by email as well. He urged faculty to spread them around.

Professor Frank Aquila asked if last year's indirect is also going to be available. Dr. Tumeo said no. The new indirect cost distribution formula started on July 1. It starts with this fiscal year. Dr. Aquila said that he thought Dr. Tumeo had indicated that he had figured out a way also to handle the distribution. Dr. Tumeo responded that the agreement with the administration is that all new grants starting on July 1 have that distribution automatically. That automatic distribution does not apply to old grants. So, out of Research Challenge money, he is matching the percentage for the old grants. Even though old grants are getting the new distribution, 65% is still going to the central administration. Right now the 15% shift of indirects from old grants is being covered by Research Challenge. That will diminish with time because grants have a set lifetime. Within the next couple of years, we will move to where we are all on the new distribution. In that way, we could minimize the hit to the central budget which is what goes back out to departments and colleges in their budgets while at the same time not disadvantaging people who had gone out and gotten grants under the old system. The distribution started on July 1 for all grants whether old or new.

Dr. Aquila noted that a faculty member in the College of Education who had a grant last year brought in indirects. Dr. Tumeo reported that they will not receive any sharing in the indirects generated last fiscal year. If the grant was awarded last year, they are probably generating the indirects this fiscal year, and, yes, they will share the indirects.

On the Graduate College side, Dr. Tumeo reported that Graduate Admissions has the on-line up and running. They are receiving about five to six domestic graduate admissions applications every day. International graduate admissions is handled through International Services and Programs but he doesn't know what the numbers are there. He reported that Dr. William Bailey, Director of Graduate Admissions, has been meeting with other graduate program directors on an individual basis to make sure we are handling those issues. The graduate program directors will be meeting on Tuesday, November 26, 2001 from 11:30 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. The Graduate Faculty meeting is on the following Tuesday, December 4, 2001 from 11:30 A.M. to 1:00 P.M.

Dr. Tumeo announced that they were successful in getting unanimous approval from the Regents' Advisory Council for the new Masters of Occupational Therapy degree program. That approval was achieved at the last RAGGS meeting and will be validated by the full Ohio Board of Regents in January 2002. Over the last six months, we have entered into a couple of agreements in collaborative efforts. Most notably, we signed a $1 million agreement with the Cleveland Clinic to establish an Accelerated Nursing program. That $1 million is going exclusively to hire new faculty and staff within that program.


[Go to top of page]

VIII. Foundation Case Statement

Vice President J. Wayne Davenport stated that the University and various sectors in the Foundation have discussed a comprehensive University-wide campaign for at least three years. When he came on board in May 2001, one of the issues that came immediately to his attention was that during the two and one-half years previously the Foundation in the University had not been able to develop its own Case Statement. Many people were put to task on that. Mr. Davenport noted that the third draft of the Case Statement was distributed in today's meeting packet. The purpose in coming to the Faculty Senate is that this document, although one for the Foundation, reflects upon the entire University and candid and constructive comments would be very much appreciated on how to enhance the way the Foundation describes the excellent work of the faculty and the importance of the students that faculty teach. Comments may be directed to Vice President Davenport in written form or via email. Mr. Davenport inquired if there were any questions about the Case Statement and the Foundation's interest in finally having one that can be shared with our constituents.

Professor Andrew Gross stated that he was impressed by this statement. But, over the years, there have been any number of real undertakings in this regard. When push comes to shove, ultimately numbers do matter. He asked Mr. Davenport to give two figures if at all possible. "What is the number for the percentage of alumni giving to CSU as of mid 2001?" "What is your vision of that percentage figure in the future for whatever date you care to chose?" Mr. Davenport responded that unfortunately he could not give an accurate figure about the percentage of our graduates that give and that is because we don't know who all of our graduates are yet. That is a major concern as it relates to our data base. He hates to stand in front of Senate and have to explain that. The good news is that this situation has been identified very clearly. We have a plan in place to address it. As far as the future goes, most state universities that have mature fund raising programs will range anywhere from 25% to 30% of their alumni that are giving and that will happen at CSU within the next decade. We are getting there relatively quickly based on the road that we have traveled so far.

Professor James Webb asked if Mr. Davenport was going to have the document printed and distributed to potential donors or what will happen to it. Mr. Davenport reported that the document is in its forth draft. The campaign theme will be integrated in that draft as well as the input that he is receiving. In addition, he has a comprehensive plan in place to use that with current donors and perspective donors. Its shelf life will probably be about three to five years.

Professor Webb commented that he would send Mr. Davenport several suggestions. In fund raising particularly, if you come to me and ask me to donate, I am going to say that I am in area "X" and I want to give something to area "X" and I don't see anything in the document about area "X". Mr. Davenport replied that he was correct. Area "Xs" will be defined based on the extent of the campaign parameters and that specifically relates to college based case statements and more appropriately finding out exactly where the center of the heart of the donor is and matching that heart with what we do best here. As you well know, that is the way you raise major gifts.

Professor David Larson raised a point. He noted that he has only skimmed the document, but he did start reading it carefully. On the first page of the Executive Summary, the word "its" is used with the wrong spelling. He asked Mr. Davenport to please have somebody proof read the document. Mr. Davenport commented that there are no picky responses to anything that we do.

Mr. Davenport commented that when he was afforded the opportunity to talk with the Academic Steering Committee to seek audience before the Senate, the next day an individual told him about the follow-up conversation the Steering Committee had after he left. It went something like this: "There was quite a bit of discussion and there was a consensus reached fairly quickly. The consensus is that fund raisers at Cleveland State have impossible jobs. Those fund raisers will fail and no one will personally blame those fund raisers." Mr. Davenport stated that he takes great umbrage at that and he does because that reflects in some way that you are not a good faculty and that we don't have good students, and that we don't have good programs. That simply is not the case. He stated that he is very optimistic that we can, when we come together as a village, be increasingly successful in convincing people of wealth, large and small; that Cleveland State University is a superb investment in the future of our students, in the work of each one of you as faculty, in our staff, and in our administration and that outside the giving to whatever God you believe in, an investment at this institution is about the best thing you can do with your money. Until we, every individual, start believing that, then we are just setting ourselves back from the opportunities that we have.

Professor Santosh Misra stated that he was quite impressed by Mr. Davenport's energy and hopes that it carries through. He had heard in another college meeting that Mr. Davenport had indicated that the alumni data base was about 60% clean if he recalls correctly. But Mr. Davenport's statement indicates that the Alumni data base doesn't exist.

Mr. Davenport responded that the Alumni data base exists but we do need to go through a methodical process of record by record to verify it. In our opinion, we also need to put in certificate holders in addition to degree holders and we also need to put in former students. On his third day at CSU, May 3rd, he met a very influential former student and he got that former student's business card. He went right back to the office, taped it onto a piece of paper, sent it to records and said, "Put this in as a former student and research it." Mr. Davenport noted that he got it back the next day and the Records Office said that we don't put former students in the data base. That decision was made some time ago. Mr. Davenport noted that he said that this decision has been changed and we are going to start doing it. You can look at that as a cup half empty but it is not; it is a cup half full. Our data base to the extent that we have it, and it is fairly comprehensive but it has some holes, is cleaner by the day and a good deal of very good work has been done to it in the last several months. We have nothing but opportunity, but we are never going to get there unless we tell ourselves that we are worthy, that our endeavor is really worthy, and that it is time it was recognized more fully including people sharing their wealth with us.


[Go to top of page]

IX. Senate President's Report

Senate President William Bowen commented on the monthly faculty luncheons. At the last meeting of the Academic Steering Committee, it was decided to make these luncheons faculty/staff luncheons. They would be more inclusive and we would be able to bring more people together and make the offering of the luncheon by the University a little bit more cost effective.

Senate President Bowen announced that a President's Chat is scheduled for Wednesday, November 14, 2001. There is no agenda. It will be at 3:00 P.M. in the College of Urban Affairs and it will be followed by a "meet your colleagues reception." It is a nice opportunity to meet people who are on the faculty here who have different interests.

Dr. Bowen reported that he attended a Search Committee meeting this morning and told the Committee that all of the Presidential candidates had been received cordially and treated and judged fairly in interviews with the faculty. He was pleased with the way that happened.

Dr. Bowen reported that David Hill, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, wrote a letter and apologized for not attending the previous Senate meeting. Apparently he had recorded the wrong date on his calendar.

Dr. Bowen informed the Senate that the decision on the selection of a President is scheduled for next Tuesday, November 13, 2001. He doesn't know what the outcome will be.

Commenting on the aftermath of September 11, 2001, Dr. Bowen reported that Interim President Schwartz had told him yesterday that he is getting some pressure to fire the Imam, Fawaz Damra, of the Islamic Center of Cleveland in Parma, a part-time instructor who teaches courses here at Cleveland State. Interim President Schwartz is inclined to resist that pressure and had asked Dr. Bowen for a sense of the faculty on the matter. Dr. Bowen asked everyone to let him know if his answer to Dr. Schwartz was incorrect. He understands the reasons for the pressure as fully as anyone and probably better than most, but what he said was that as long as the Imam does not break any laws and keeps any and all statements that are hostile to a free and open society out of the classroom, there is no choice but to resist pressure to fire him. He is teaching what he was hired to teach and apparently is doing very well at it. Academic freedom is the first and really indispensable condition for the kind of excellence in education that we aspire to provide at Cleveland State. Any argument that can be made to fire the Iman at this point, in essence, goes against academic freedom. If Dr. Bowen doesn't hear from members on this issue, then he will assume that for now everyone agrees with his response to Dr. Schwartz.

Professor James Wilson mentioned that the first amendment also makes firing the Iman illegal.

In terms of the budget, Dr. Bowen stated that the members of the new Budget and Finance Committee the Senate just elected really have two hats. The first is membership on the Planning and Budget Advisory Committee (PBAC). In that role, it is up to the members to make sure that the PBAC is a proactive deliberative body and not simply an opportunity for the administration to share information about decisions that have already been made. The second is the standing committee of the Faculty Senate and, in that role, it is up to members to identify and request relevant information and to formulate recommendations about the budget at their own initiative independently of PBAC and then report to the Senate. It is a big job but one that is vital to our future.

Dr. Bowen reported that last year the Senate recommended a Key Policy to the administration. He has heard a number of concerns about the way it is being managed. Another incident occurred yesterday which demonstrates the absurdity of the current policy. There was a water leak on the 17th floor of Rhodes Tower and there was no key to get into the room to turn off the water and the elevators had to be closed down. He reported that he asked Vice President Ray to come to Senate to speak on the matter and he will do that later.

Regarding the Computer Security Policy, Dr. Bowen asked members, when they receive the proposed policy from the University Faculty Affairs Committee, to get recommendations back to him by Monday, November 26, 2001 so that the Academic Steering Committee can take the matter up at its next meeting on November 28, 2001. If that doesn't happen through Faculty Senate, it will happen otherwise. He would like to see the Senate move on it.

Next, Dr. Bowen reported that the "U-Pass" idea is alive. It came up last year. The Board of Trustees has said to go ahead and do a survey to study it. "U-Pass" is an arrangement that would be negotiated between Cleveland State and RTA that would provide our students and faculty with a card that will allow us unlimited access to get on the bus and, in turn, the University would contract a lump sum payment with RTA. It is now in the study stage to find out responses of the faculty and the students.

Finally, Dr. Bowen recognized and celebrated the accomplishments of Professor David Forte from our Law School. In many respects, he is a shining example when we talk about the excellence at Cleveland State. Professor Forte has, through his work on Islamic Law, recently appeared on CNN and is scheduled to talk to the City Club this Friday, November 9, 2001. The reason for it all is that he has influenced the articulation of the policy in the White House towards extremism and Islam. Specifically, it validated President Bush's policy of distinguishing between terrorism and Islam. Congratulations to Professor Forte.

Dr. Bowen then invited Vice President Roy Ray to the podium to talk about the key policy.

Vice President Roy Ray commented that there were a couple of ideas floating around about how to deal with the problem of the Key Policy. It has been suggested that this is not really a facilities issue but a management issue. Several suggestions were made to the Senate before he arrived at CSU. One, Bob Criminger who is known for his ability to make reasonable charges, will install a key pad on your office door for a charge. Second, Mr. Criminger can also install a combination lock where you can have a separate key placed in a secure location and then that would be available to staff if you have lost your key and need access to your office. You can use the combination to get in to get your key. Third, which is much more expensive, a person would be available in the Facilities Office during regular hours that the university is open. He would have key blanks. If you have lost your key, you can call him and he would make a replacement key for a charge. That is very expensive and probably one that he (Mr. Ray) would not recommend.

Dr. James Webb inquired what the charge would be for a key pad. Vice President Ray responded that it is at least $800 without the Criminger surcharge.

Professor Flechtner noted that these recommendations don't solve the 17th floor problem in Rhodes Tower. Vice President Ray agreed. Mr. Ray reported that in addition to the particular key issue, there is also the larger question of security. He noted that Mr. Jack Boyle has been working on this issue trying to come up with some potential solutions most of which are very expensive and something that the University really can't afford. The President has suggested that we take this plan down to Columbus and try to get some extra funding to deal with the larger issue. Based upon the present financial condition in the State, it is probably not likely to happen.

Dr. Thomas Flechtner commented that he sees university employees wasting many hours every day because workers come to make a repair and there is no one available to let them into the room. Some days the workers spend all day just standing around. Vice President Ray said that he had not been aware of that particular situation or the 17th floor problem. He would ask for forbearance for a chance to review those issues.

Professor James Wilson inquired why we just can't have a master key in the University Library. The Library is open all of the time. If you have a problem, you could just go to the Library and a Librarian would know the combination. Vice President Ray stated that the key question is "master key." There must be thousands of master keys around. He agreed to consider Professor Wilson's suggestion.

Professor Chet Jain noted that previously the security people had master keys. Vice President Ray responded that there were issues regarding access by security personnel that raised other questions more serious and that is why the decision was made not to have the security people let people in their offices. Vice President Ray agreed to explore keeping a key in the Library.

Dr. Barbara Green wondered if we were really saying that the Library people are more secure than the security people. Vice President Ray replied that people would have to draw their own conclusions.

Dr. David Larson stated that there really has been an overreaction. It is known that we have had a couple of problems with the Police Department and the misuse of keys. But, you don't then create a policy because of a problem with a couple of people. Do a better job of hiring and supervising people. The old policy worked for years. Because we had a couple of people who acted irresponsibly, is not a reason to say that our own Police Department can't be trusted with keys to our offices. Mr. Ray reported that new people will be coming on board and he will revisit the key issue.

Professor Wilson commented that the custodial staff has keys and he trusts them. Dr. Larson stated that the cleaning staff comes into his office all of the time. Vice President Ray said that he will review the whole issue. Contrary to popular opinion, he has an open mind until it is closed.



[Go to top of page]

X. New Business

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:45 P.M.


Arthur H. Schwartz
Faculty Senate Secretary




[Go to top of page]