I. Approval of the Agenda
II. Approval of the Minutes of the November 7, 2001 Meeting
III. University President's Report
IV. Report on Parking Fee Increase (Report No. 6, 2001-2002
V.Proposed Name Change of the Department of Specialized Instructional Programs to the Department of Teacher Education (Report No. 7, 2001-2002).
VI. Proposed Addition to the Student Conduct Code, Section IX.G. Parental/Guardian Notification (Report No. 8, 2001-2002)
VII. Report on the Budget (Report No. 9, 2001-2002)
VIII. Informational Report and Request for Input (Report No. 10, 2001-2002)
IX. Senate President's Report
X. New Business
PRESENT: David Adams, Atherton,
Bagaka's, D. Ball, Barbato, A. Benander, Bonder, W. Bowen, Buckley, Chung, Dieterich,
Dillard, Doerder, Droney, Dunegan, Flechtner, Geier, Govea, B. Green, Gross,
Hanlon, Hemann, Hill, M. Kaufman, Konangi, Kuo, Larson, Mahmud, Matthews, J.
McIntyre, McLoughlin, Misra, Moutafakis, Ng, J. Nolan, Nuru-Holm, Ramsey, Ray,
Reinhart, A. Schwartz, M. Schwartz, Shah, Sparks, Steinglass, Stivers, Thornton,
J. Webb, Whyte, James Wilson.
ABSENT/EXCUSED: E. Anderson, Annapragada, Aquila, J. Bazyk, Burt, D. Chandler, Davenport, James Flynn, Forte, Hollinger, L. Keller, Caroline King, Konstantinos, Marredeth, McCahon, R. Ramos, Rosentraub, Sanders, Sawicki, M. Smith, Tewari, Tumeo.
ALSO PRESENT: Ekelman, Lupton, Werth.
Senate President William
Bowen called the meeting to order at 3:05 P.M.
Acceptance of the Agenda for December 5, 2001 was moved and second. Dr. Rodger Govea stated that on behalf of the Arts and Sciences Caucus, he would like to move that the Agenda be altered so that Item VII, Report on Parking Fee Increase be moved immediately after Item III, University President's Report. The motion was seconded and the Agenda, as amended, was approved.
Acceptance of the Minutes of the November 7, 2001 meeting was moved, second, and approved.
Senate President Bowen
stated that today is a great day for him since he has the distinct honor and
privilege of introducing Dr. Michael Schwartz to Senate as our permanent President.
Dr. Bowen said that he takes enormous pleasure in doing so because we seem to
share so many of the same goals and aims in making CSU a great university. The
level of support for Dr. Schwartz among the faculty, as well as the other constituencies
of the university, was uniformly high and virtually unanimous. It is a great
tribute to the Board of Trustees that they would hire someone of Dr. Schwartz's
experience and wisdom. Dr. Bowen said that he is sure the Faculty Senate will
work with President Schwartz on a collegial basis. On behalf of the Faculty
Senate, Dr. Bowen welcomed Dr. Michael Schwartz and extended the Senate's best
President Michael Schwartz thanked Dr. Bowen for his very gracious welcome.
President Schwartz stated that he had only a few items to take up with Senate mostly in terms of just letting everyone know the kinds of general views he has on a few issues. The first issue is the key policy. While there is always the potential for trouble or mischief of one kind or another, if you do lock yourself out of your office, you ought to be able to call a police officer and have him open your office. Therefore, President Schwartz directed that this be the policy. He said that he knows there has been some difficulty with the policy in the past but it also seems to him that if you are looking for a world without mischief, you are just not going to find it. He said that he will do the best he can to see that this recommendation goes forward in an intelligent way. Now, the intelligent way may involve some rules. It may, for example, involve people showing an identification card to the police officer identifying you as the person who belongs there. Secondly, there is a valid ID number that the police officer can then log and bring back to the police department at the end of the shift to verify that the dispatcher's request was taken care of.
President Schwartz mentioned another piece that occurs to him (and that is not really in the holiday spirit at all), but that it ought to cost you $10 to unlock your office. That fee could go into the general scholarship fund.
President Schwartz commented that he has not paid enormously close attention to this business about computers and privacy. He understands that there are documents kicking around, some of which have been constructed by people with law degrees. President Schwartz stated that if you are working on a university computer and you are writing things or emailing, for example, and don't want to see them on the front page of the Plain Dealer the next day, you probably ought to do it from home. Even then, there is no such guarantee of privacy. He is pretty certain that if CSU got a request for public documents, we would have to produce that material. Dr. Schwartz promised that the administration has absolutely no interest whatsoever in what people are doing or interfering with anybody's privacy at all. If there is a suspected violation of the law or if there is a request under the "Public Documents" or Public Records" acts, CSU has to produce the material and the university will produce it. We do need a policy at CSU because the auditors have been complaining that we need a policy so we need to get that done with some speed. The university has no interest in anybody's information, but everyone needs to know that when people come after CSU under the "Public Records Act", the information will be provided.
President Schwartz indicated he has been hearing that there is some talk about some reorganization plans in the colleges. He is interested in helping faculty colleagues function in organizations that they find conducive to better work on their behalf and on behalf of their students. Whatever emerges from the faculty and ultimately has been through the processes with the Provost and appropriate other kinds of consultations that we have here and lands on his desk, it is something he wants to be able to be helpful with. This is one of the "will of the people" things as far as he is concerned. He is interested in what makes the best organizational structure for the kind of work people want to achieve.
President Schwartz said that he wants the Senate to know that he does have considerable interest in the notion of a Cleveland State University Honors College. The President could not tell the Senate what the form of that might look like. He is familiar with two different ways of organizing this. Pulling the best students out of classes is not what he has in mind. It does seem to him that when we have students who are academically talented, if not gifted, then we might want to be sure that their experience here is something that meets their expectations so that they stay here rather than look for other collegiate level options especially at the upper division level. Our attrition rate among very good students and students in good standing at the upper division level is not something to brag about. It is the kind of thing that he is hoping this Senate will take on as a matter of academic concern, not merely conversation because there seems to be more to be gained from this than to be lost.
Finally, President Schwartz
commented that members may have seen in this morning's Plain Dealer a report
on crime data, institution by institution, in which CSU looks something less
than spectacular. The Senate needs to know that we have been at about half strength
as far as staffing of the Police Department. President Schwartz reported that
he swore in five new officers last week. We are advertising for eight or nine
more at this time. We should be up to full strength not later than the end of
spring term. After we recruit these young officer cadets, we send them to the
Police Academy and we don't get them back in service here for fifteen or sixteen
weeks. President Schwartz has also asked Mr. Jack Boyle to take a look at security
issues on the campus. Many people may have participated in a survey that he
conducted of which buildings and at what time of day might people be at risk,
etc. We have been looking into security technologies. We would like to see the
Governor add some money in the capital bill for security technologies for all
the universities. His aim is to make it clear to the Governor that we would
be happy to serve as a model institution in this regard or a demonstration site,
if you will. We are not unmindful of our need to begin to make some investments
in that sort of thing. Safety and security are issues that are early on the
list of questions, even earlier on the list of questions than food. New students
are looking for academic opportunities. We have not been taking this issue lightly.
The reason he raised this issue today is because it was in the Plain Dealer
but it is something that we have been doing now and have been concerned about
for some months.
President Schwartz noted that he has some feelings about parking. One is that we may have less of a parking problem than a walking problem. It might be a course scheduling issue as well that we need to take a look at. There is a parking fee increase issue coming up and therefore he is grateful for the presence of Vice Presidents at Senate today.
President Schwartz announced that he is going shortly to the President's holiday reception. This is his first go-around with it. It is his understanding that it always falls on a day that the Senate meets. He means no disrespect to the Senate and will see if a change can be made in all of this for next year. In the meantime, let's hope that we raise a few dollars for the United Way and the Uniting to Share campaign. That will be our good deed for the day.
Dr. Rodger Govea stated that it is his duty to report to Senate that there is an anticipated increase in parking beyond the one that is scheduled to go into effect at the beginning of the next semester and that is scheduled to go into effect in the fall of next year. The actual amount of the increase has not been set. The purpose of the increase is to finance the construction of a parking garage which is to be above the proposed RTA transit station that will be located on East 18th Street and Prospect Avenue. The parking fees will pay for that garage.
Dr. Govea reported that Mr. Gary Meszaros, Director of Auxiliary Services, met with the AAUP Executive Committee yesterday and informed the Committee that there is a proposed change. The administration did carry out their obligation of the contract and discussed it with the Committee. It is not known what the amount will be or even if the fee increase will actually be carried out. The administration wants to put this into effect in the fall so they met and said that an increase of some sort is, we think, going to happen, but we are not sure.
Professor Kenneth Dunegan asked if the Parking Committee acted as the equivalent of the "fox in the hen house?" Can they decide what rates to charge independent of any oversight by the University? Dr. Govea responded, "Yes." The Parking Committee is an administrative committee. The actual power that it has as a committee is merely advisory. The Committee has two faculty members and two student members. There are other people on the Committee. The two faculty members, were they to vote against such an increase, could not prevent such an increase. Dr. Govea stated that he is more like the "trip wire guy." His only function there is to alert everyone else that this is happening. He doesn't have a lot of power inside that group.
Professor Dunegan noted
that the Committee itself is not the "fox" deciding to raise the rates
at their whim. Professor Govea agreed that would be his interpretation. Professor
Dunegan asked, "Who makes the decision of whether we can or can't raise
the parking rates?" Professor Govea replied that it would be Auxiliary
Mr. Roy Ray, Vice President of Finance and Administration, reported that ultimately, the administration will make that decision. It will be done in consultation with the Parking Committee. We will explain the rationale behind it and hopefully get their approval. We have the ultimate responsibility to try to provide adequate parking at a reasonable rate.
Professor Dunegan remarked
that the timing of this proposed increase is not the greatest with double digit
tuition increases already being thrust upon the students. We have had 26% parking
increases since 1995. It seems as if we are wringing the students dry. This
is not the appropriate time to do that. As President Schwartz suggested, we
don't have so much of a parking problem as a walking problem. That is consistent
with Gary Meszaros' report last November to Faculty Senate that there are always
parking spots available although we don't necessarily find them. "Is this
the time to do this or are there other ways of funding the proposed garage?"
He would raise the issue, for example, that other universities sometimes collect
five times as much for parking fees as Cleveland State. Last year we collected
all of $40,000. Youngstown or maybe it was Akron collected something like $250,000.
Our enforcement of our existing parking regulations seems somewhat soft. He
is from the West side of campus and he knows that the parking garage on East
17th Street is very popular for the working folks around the corner. People
sign up for a class, get the parking sticker, drop the class, and still have
the parking sticker. You can come in the morning and watch them walk across
the street to their jobs. The Senate raised this issue last year about having
evening parking rather than daily parking passes. We raised the issue about
having three day per week parking passes to make it a little bit more convenient
for the community here at CSU, but the response was that we are trying to make
it easier for the folks over in the Parking area. We have not explored enough
alternatives to making the parking condition a little bit more palatable for
people who have to be down here.
Mr. Ray responded that as to the overall condition of the parking fund, that fund is Auxiliary Services so it is a separate issue from tuition. In terms of the East 17th Street parking garage, as soon as the campus closes down, we are going to make some changes there and tow those people away. We are not going to have people come here and take a class and then drop the class and keep the parking sticker. Enforcement of that issue is going to be difficult. In general terms, we have to operate the existing parking facilities as well and that is expensive.
Professor Dunegan stated that he understands that we have two different funds -- tuition and auxiliary. But, the parking fee comes out of the same students' pockets or wallets. They don't have an auxiliary wallet and a tuition wallet. Again, we are coming off of double digit tuition increases. The timing is just not right.
Professor Jane McIntyre
asked if it is also true that parking is still fifty cents at Tri C and Tri
C is one of our biggest competitors. They are not as centrally located. Their
lots are not downtown business type lots. But our students are the same students
who go to Tri C and one of the factors in that cost equation is that multi dollar
difference every day when students have to park. Given the enrollment situation,
that is something we ought to be thinking very seriously about.
Dr. Barbara Green commented that on a related issue, her recollection is that when Gary Meszaros was talking to Senate last year, he said that the present fees pay for the present lots. They are trying to raise the fees for our students so that they can get enough money in order to get bonds to build this new garage at a reasonable rate. That means at a time when we have raised the tuition twice in the same year and we will raise it again, we are planning to hit up students for something which they will not even benefit from because the garage would not be built until after they graduate. It seems that this is close to being immoral at this point to do that. We don't have to build that garage now out of these students' money.
Mr. Ray responded that
he has been accused of a lot of things but not being immoral. Dr. Green stated
that taking money from students in a year in which we have hit them with two
tuition increases and we are going to hit them again in the fall, we don't have
to increase parking fees. When we look at student fee increases, that is a different
pocket than tuition. We look at both of those and say, how much can we raise
student fees? Do we need to have those things now? If keeping the lots the way
they are now would cost more money, that is one thing, but to build something
so that you can borrow money against it for the future is another question.
Professor James Webb reported that the rumor is that the Euclid Avenue corridor will be delayed several years, therefore, parking can be delayed for several years. Mr. Ray reported that it will take several years to build a parking garage.
Professor Dunegan asked,
"If this increase goes through and it is for the purpose of building a
new garage, will the increase be taken away once the garage is paid for? Mr.
Ray replied, "No."
Professor David Larson urged the administration not to look at the parking fee increase as a separate issue from tuition. They are not separate issues for the students who have to pay them. It will give a very bad message to students if we say parking is a separate issue from tuition because we know perfectly well that for them it is not. Mr. Ray noted that this is a combined issue when you look at the question of financial aid. Dr. Larson stated that frankly, it is also a combined issue when students look at how much money it is going to take out of their pockets, how many loans they are going to take out, and how much debt they are going to be in when they decide whether to come to CSU or go to Tri C or someplace cheaper.
Professor Tayyab Mahmud
said that the proposed fee increase must be seen as part of the total cost of
studies for the students. It would be a useful exercise to see how many withdrawals
by students would wipe out any gain from raising the parking fee.
Professor Gregory Lupton, Chair of the University Curriculum Committee, reported that this department name change was approved by the majority of the faculty in the College of Education. It is worth noting that there is no request for any additional resources. Dr. Lupton then moved approval of changing of the name of the Department of Specialized Instructional Programs to the Department of Teacher Education.
There being no discussion,
the Senate approved changing the name of the Department of Specialized Instructional
Programs to the Department of Teacher Education.
Proposed Addition to the Student Conduct Code, Section IX.G. Parental/Guardian
Notification (Report No. 8, 2001-2002)
Professor Beth Ekelman, Chair of the Student Life Committee, reported that the Committee is proposing the Parental/Guardian Notification provision. It would allow the Dean of Student Life to notify parents or guardians of students under the age of 21 who have been found in violation of an alcohol or drug provision of the Student Conduct Code. The General Education Provision Act gives us that right. The University can decide whether to impose this type of notification or not. The problem at CSU is primarily occurring in the dorms. Compared to many other universities, we don't have a huge problem because we are not a residential university. The Student Life Committee and the Department of Student Life would like to add this provision to the Student Conduct Code in light of the new dorms to be constructed. It is suspected that this problem will get bigger. Many other Ohio institutions have already adopted such a provision -- Bowling Green, Kent State, Ohio University, Ohio State, University of Toledo, and Wright State.
Professor Thomas Flechtner noted that Dr. Ekelman had stated that this policy would allow Student Life to notify the parent or guardian, but the policy looks like it would require this notification. Professor Ekelman responded that it would be mandatory. Once this policy is adopted, if there is a violation, Student Life has to notify after the violation and after the students have exhausted all of their appeal processes as well.
Without further discussion, the Senate approved the proposed addition to the Student Conduct Code, Section IX.G. Parental/Guardian Notification.
Professor Arthur Schwartz, Chair of the Senate Budget and Finance Committee, reported that since the last Senate meeting, the Committee has met once. The Committee talked about various agendas they would like to pursue. The Senate Budget and Finance Committee has had one meeting with the University Planning and Budget Advisory Committee (PBAC) where they were given the breakdown of the sources for coming up with the $5 million revenue shortfall for the current year. Approximately $1.6 million toward that shortfall comes from the mid-year tuition increase; $600,000 comes from vacancy savings; $1 million comes from contingency; $1.8 million comes from enrollment increases -- total $5 million. We seem to be covered for the current year. The Committee hasn't started working yet on budget 03, but an additional cut in subsidy is projected. The Senate Committee will be meeting separately and then meeting with the University Committee. He hopes to have more substantive information to report to Senate by January 2002.
Professor James Webb reported
that the Senate Committee doesn't know when the next PBAC meeting is and will
not know what they will have to report. Professor Schwartz added that with the
change of membership in the Committee and the change in semesters, there are
changes in schedules. The Committee is working to come up with mutually agreeable
times for meetings. That may be impossible, but we are trying to get everybody
at every meeting.
Professor Lee Werth, Chair of the Committee on Academic Space, stated that it seems people have problems with classrooms and they don't report the problems to the Committee. The Committee needs to know whether classrooms are suitable for the purpose for which they are being used, and, if not, what would make them suitable. He frequently hears problems related to temperature control, particularly in the summer. The Physical Plant people are quite willing to make whatever adjustments are needed and have done it for him. Our faculty are not fully aware that accommodations can be made. In addition, equipment in some rooms probably isn't being used. The renovated classrooms have equipment that might be very useful for certain sorts of classes and people perhaps ought to be scheduled in the classrooms with good equipment. That would make it easier for them. He is more urging the faculty to bring to the Committee whatever problems they have and express whatever needs they have for equipment and space.
Dr. Werth noted that the Committee doesn't want to be involved in turf wars such as jurisdiction over laboratories. That goes to the University Faculty Affairs Committee. Issues related to safety belong to the University Safety and Health Advisory Committee. Dr. Werth noted that if those issues overlap matters related to teaching and use of space, the Academic Space Committee ought to be apprised of any changes that would block access to a classroom or a laboratory.
Professor Jane McIntyre noted that regularly, every semester, every course and instructor is evaluated and wondered if it would be possible for every person teaching a class to be given a simple form to evaluate the classrooms they were teaching in every semester. This could provide uniform and universal information to the administration as to how acceptable or unacceptable the physical teaching situation was. We need to have systematic information and it could be just on some basic simple things. Was there adequate blackboard space or equipment? It seems that even though we spent a huge amount of money on renovating some classrooms, that whole project was, in many cases, very unsuccessful. It created rooms that are not good rooms to teach in and that same model is probably going to be used for whatever renovations go forth next time. She would really like to see some responsiveness to those "bad new rooms" that have been created. She noted that there should be some systematic form that faculty could use for evaluation of classrooms.
Dr. Werth responded that Dr. McIntyre's suggestion was a good idea. He noted that we have all been plagued by construction noise and a classroom that otherwise would be quite suitable turns out to be a disaster owing to noise. We might anticipate similar problems this coming summer. Evaluation forms would certainly make that obvious. As to some of the "bad new rooms," Dr. Werth commented that, in some cases, faculty need to be taught how to use some of the equipment that is in the classrooms. It may well be that there are things there that intrude but are not being used.
Dr. McIntyre stated that she is thinking of more basic things than those mentioned by Dr. Werth. She has yet to see a newly renovated room that has coat hooks on the wall. This is not a major expense. She has complained about it to Physical Plant before and they say that nobody appropriated money for coat hooks. In many cases, these rooms are small and desks are crammed to the max. When students have coats, there is no place to put them. Simple things like that can make a room really uncomfortable to teach and learn in. A lot of things are fixable if anybody were collecting information to know what it is that people actually find wrong with those rooms.
Professor Werth commented that if coat hooks are installed, even if you have a sign saying "not responsible for lost or stolen property," there may be a liability issue. Dr. McIntyre stated that, in the past, there were coat hooks in classrooms. She is not asking Dr. Werth to defend what is currently in the classrooms, she is just asking his committee to serve as a conduit for gathering information about people's judgments of the classrooms.
Professor Susan Hill reported
that there are some new combined chairs and desks in the Communication Department
classrooms and some of the handicapped students or some of the heavier students
can't fit in the desks. There might be some need in each room to provide a desk
or two where the chair is separated from the desk to accommodate some of these
exceptional circumstances. She had a student who could not take a test because
he could not pull the desk top down.
Professor Werth agreed with Professor Hill about the chairs. He doesn't think that it ever came to the Committee on Academic Space when the chairs were ordered. He added that he is not that small but he is uncomfortable in those chairs. He took one look at them and knew there were people who cannot fit in those chairs. It is humiliating; you feel you are not a monster but suddenly you can't use a chair at Cleveland State. The chairs are a problem and no coat hooks are a problem as well. These things seem minor but they add up and make a difference.
Professor Jane McIntyre
moved that the Committee on Academic Space be asked to prepare an evaluation
form that faculty would fill out at the end of each semester for each room that
they have been using for teaching and a plan for implementation. (Report
No. 11, 2001-2002) Say some basic things about appropriateness of the room
for their teaching. The motion was seconded.
Professor James Webb suggested not only coming up with a form, but suggestions for operationalizing. Somebody has to do it -- collect it, tabulate it, detract from it.
The motion to prepare an
evaluation form that faculty would complete at the end of each semester for
each room they have been using for teaching was approved.
Senate President Bill Bowen first talked about recruiting. The other day he was in a check out line at a car wash and struck up a conversation with the cashier at the cash register. He asked her if she enjoys her work and whether she thinks it might be a good idea for her to go to Cleveland State. She responded that she had been thinking about coming here and so Dr. Bowen highly recommended that she give it serious consideration and gave her his business card. He told her if there was anything he could do to help bring her on the University campus or show her around the campus, she should feel free to call him.
From everything Dr. Bowen has gathered about our budget situation, we are going to need to grow enrollments or start thinking about who is going to get laid off. Somehow we need to do a lot more recruiting. He was not just talking about Jerry Kiel's operation. President Schwartz has been going into the high schools. He asked Senate members, "What have you done recently?"
Dr. Bowen briefly mentioned things that will be happening here in the near future. He will be sending out a memo inviting faculty to participate in a forum on professorial careers at CSU. For the past few months, the Steering Committee has been discussing Ernest Boyer's book, Scholarship Reconsidered. It talks about what constitutes scholarship, what we value in universities, and specifically what we value here at Cleveland State. Practically speaking, it boils down to a question of what criteria we, as a faculty, want to use in promotion and tenure standards, and do we want to revisit this. The concern is that if such a discussion will occur, it ought not to occur from the President's Office or from the Steering Committee. It ought to start inside the departments. He has talked with a number of faculty who have expressed quite a bit of interest in this. He will send out an invitation and a forum will be held in conjunction with either the President's Office or the Provost's Office.
Professor James Webb commented that he has heard people talk about retention. Retaining a student seems to be a problem especially as they get to upper levels. We have no hard facts; no hard numbers -- nothing of that sort. He noted that President Schwartz mentioned it today. An Honors Program and retention at upper levels came up in the PBAC Committee several times. Retaining a student is much easier than recruiting a student. Dollar for dollar, a dollar spent in retention could be much more rewarding in revenues than a dollar spent in recruiting. We bring them in but we don't keep them. That is a problem that needs attention.
Dr. David Larson inquired if Dr. Bowen or anyone else knows who is responsible for the decision to discontinue distributing real faculty/staff directories and giving us these CDs. He asked for a reason. The CD destroyed the AAUP printer. He has just spent 55 minutes with his personal CD and the help desk trying to get the CD to load. He managed to print two pages so far in almost an hour's time. He doesn't know who thinks we are saving money doing this, but we are certainly losing time, energy, and everything else. In addition to that, it is enormously inconvenient and he will print it so that he can carry it around with him. He wondered if people could be given the option of a printed directory or a CD. He is not saying that we shouldn't have the CD, but people who prefer telephone books, should get a phone book.
Dr. Andrew Gross agreed with Dr. Larson. He suggested that a more cost-effective solution would have been to issue a list of changes to the old faculty/staff directory.
Dr. Bowen asked if anybody at Senate knows who the responsible individual might be. There was no response.
Professor Larson went on to say that this is a serious mistake and he would like to see it rectified next year, if not sooner.
Professor David Ball reported that there is a phone book web site for Cleveland State. It is phone.csuohio.edu. That is another alternative if you need a phone number. Dr. Larson said that he wants more than that. He wants something that he can carry with him and that he can take home after work. He doesn't want to have to use the computer every time he needs a phone number. He wants a phone book.
Dr. Jane McIntyre noted that this is another example of how one unit in the university will try to save money by passing the cost on to other people and it ends up costing much more both in terms of time and in terms of the actual cost of printing. The unit can probably check off, "saved money" because they did not print phone books but everybody else is now using 90 pages per person and printer toner and time, etc.
Dr. Bowen asked if the Senate would like somebody to talk about this decision at the next Senate meeting. Dr. McIntyre responded that people want phone books. In addition, people should be aware that every decision someone chooses to make at this time may be something that is expensive in some other way. This is the first instance, but it is not likely to be the last one.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:00 P.M.
Arthur H. Schwartz
Faculty Senate Secretary