Cleveland State University

Faculty Senate

February 6, 2002

I. Approval of the Agenda
II. Approval of the Minutes of the March 6, 2002 Meeting
III. University President's Report
IV.Potential Cuts in Library Materials Budget (Report No. 12, 2001-2002
V.Senate President's Report.

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

Senate President William Bowen called the meeting to order at 3:08 P.M.



[Go to top of page]

I. Approval of the Agenda

Acceptance of the Agenda for February 6, 2002 was moved, seconded, and approved.

[Go to top of page]

II. Approval of the Minutes of the December 5, 2001 Meeting

Acceptance of the Minutes of the December 5, 2001 meeting was moved, seconded, and approved.

III. University President's Report

President Michael Schwartz reported that CSU is currently in the process of de-registration of students for non-payment. Prior to that process beginning, we had an increase over a year ago in credit hours of approximately 7.75%. We anticipate that after the de-registration process, we will still have about a 5% growth. At one point while we were watching this develop, our headcount was greater than it had been in the Fall 2001 term. The President said that he has never seen this before.

President Schwartz informed the Senate that Dr. Gerald Kiel, Vice Provost for Enrollment Management, has put together a strategic recruitment plan for undergraduate
students. It lists information about current classes, etc. and how we are doing. Dr. Kiel's strategic recruitment plan has six goals.

First, Dr. Kiel wishes to see CSU make the freshmen class here grow by 4% per year for each of the next five years. Our ultimate goal is to get back to the high enrollment that we once enjoyed here of just over 19,000 students from the current roughly 16,000 students.

Second, Dr. Kiel wants to develop and implement strategic initiatives that will result in enhancing the academic profile of the entering classes while at the same time remaining true to the university's access mission. He is after more students in the top ranges on the ACT scores.

Third, Dr. Kiel wants to work with Academic Affairs to identify optimum enrollment capacities for each academic program in order to achieve the institution's goals. In Dr. Kiel's sense, enrollment management means where we have capacity that is not used and what do we do about that.

Fourth, Dr. Kiel wants to enhance the yield of admitted students through assertive and sustained recruitment activities by Admissions personnel and by asking for help from the faculty, staff, and administration.

Fifth, Dr. Kiel wants to enhance the use of the web and related electronic technologies to market the University to prospective students.

Finally, President Schwartz reported that Dr. Kiel wants to strengthen partnerships with area secondary and post-secondary institutions, businesses, social service agencies, governmental units, etc. such that we become positioned as the preferred public higher institution in Northeast Ohio.

President Schwartz noted that there is a great deal that Dr. Kiel will need to do. Not all of the news is good, but it does tell us a great deal about some of the things we will have to be doing.

President Schwartz reported that when it comes to ACT scores for example, at the last taking of the ACT, 45,675 score reports were generated. Students can send those to institutions of their choice. CSU received 1,228 of them -- 2.69%. That is not something that we can sustain nor should. Cleveland State University was 18th among Ohio schools in the number of score reports that were received. OSU was first, Kent State was sixth -- CSU was 18th. Finally, when viewed in score range distributions of 0 to 18, 19 to 21, 22 to 26, and 27 to 36, compared to all other Ohio institutions, CSU received the highest percentage of scores in the two lower ranges and the lowest percentage of scores in the two higher ranges. These are all things to which we, as a faculty and staff, have to attend to together. We need to make some changes here.

President Schwartz noted that Dr. Kiel proposes any number of efforts to do that. The report is very long. Dr. Kiel proposes the use of student ambassadors as something we can develop. He talks about college fairs and campus visitation programs, high school counselor articulation programs, personalized admissions services -- his list of things that we need to do here is extensive. He is not going to be able to do this by himself. He is going to need all of us as volunteers in service to this matter. We have a number of academic issues to take up beyond this, but we know that if we want to change the character of our student body at the undergraduate level, we are going to need to do some things that will be in our own best interests.

President Schwartz commented that the Senate Steering Committee has had a discussion recently having to do with an Honors College. He doesn't know what it would look like and he doesn't want to dictate that, but that is an initiative we need to think through very carefully. We have other opportunities in the high schools and elsewhere for all of us to participate. Dr. Kiel will be asking for everyone's help.

President Schwartz made it clear that CSU is hard at work on the undergraduate enrollment strategy. This institution can grow, at least in part, its way out of some of its current fiscal difficulties. He is quite comfortable with the organization of the effort with Dr. Kiel here now.

President Schwartz announced that he has determined that CSU would be better served with a slight change in organization. The Student Affairs function that has been a Vice Provost position, will be changed to a Vice President position and Dr. Njeri Nuru-Holm will become Vice President for Student Affairs and Minority Relations. He will announce that more formally at another time. This is a critical issue for us and he wants Dr. Nuru-Holm's focus on retention. We lose a large number of students in good standing after the second year. We have to make a dent in that and Dr. Nuru-Holm understands that his expectation is that with this change, that will become a major focus of her attention.

President Schwartz noted that part of the problem that we have as an institution, is the nature of the place and keeping students somehow attached to the university. We know that those who are attached to it in one way or another, persist to the degree better than those who are not. Because of the commuting nature of our student population, making those attachments is not so simple. We are not exactly "facilities rich" in terms of a student union or a recreation center or anything of that nature, although we are working hard on that problem. In the meantime, we need an officer of this institution who will devote attention, not only to retention, but to the roots of retention, which is somehow attaching students to us in a better and more long-lasting way. We shouldn't be losing students in good standing at the end of their junior year to any other institution. We are much better than that. As of today, Dr. Nuru-Holm has her hands full. President Schwartz stated that there will be at least one other announcement of this type to come. In the near future, he will let everyone know about it in advance.

President Schwartz hopes that by paying constant serious and concentrated attention to our students, letting them know they are on top of our list of concerns, and letting all the rest of us know that recruitment is everybody's business, we want to change the character of our entering classes so that they contain more of the better students. Everybody will now become involved in making this institution grow properly and academically, and grow also in getting us out of our fiscal problems. If we can do that successfully over the next four or five years, this will be a very strong institution when the good times come. President Schwartz stated that he doesn't ever want to see this institution again dependent on a downturn in the economy for enrollment growth. CSU is better than that. He doesn't want CSU to be afraid of a good economy.

Dr. Thomas Flechtner commented on a report in the Plain Dealer that the Governor had a conference call with all of the State University Presidents. He wondered if President Schwartz was part of that call and what his side of the conversation might have been. President Schwartz responded that he was not part of that call but one of his closest associates was there. He got a detailed report of the call. He can report that none of the Presidents reacted particularly well to what was being said. He would not characterize this call as a bold and positive initiative for higher education. He can understand the Governor's concern about limiting access to the State's institutions with the kind of increases for freshmen classes that have been proposed. Those tiering of increases may not even be legal as far as he knows. It is clear that we are not getting anything like the support from the State we ought to get. There have to be some limits to the burdens we can put on the backs of our students. There is a question here of what is just unconscionable. He is not one who believes that the faculty and staff ought to go on as the major subsidizing agent of the institution. But at the same time, there has to be some limit to what we can ask in this regard. The Plain Dealer and the Beacon Journal did not take kindly to what was being said there.

Dr. Jane McIntyre questioned President Schwartz and the terminology he used in speaking of an Honors College. She understands that he is not dictating anything about the structure or content of an honors program. But when he says Honors College, even that suggests a separate entity of some sort as opposed to honors programs either within each college or within each major. She asked if the President intended for it to at least limit structure in that way or does he really mean something more general like he would like to see an honors program and let the structure of it be "whatever."

President Schwartz responded that he would let the structure not be "whatever." But he would like to encourage every department to have some kind of an honors effort. Some overarching organization of that effort so that students in all those departments share some experience in common would probably be an ideal that he would like to introduce into the mix. For example, if this were to be just as a beginning statement, students who would be admitted into a program like this would all sit together in a small freshmen English Colloquium -- not necessarily all of those things taught by English faculty, but some common experience of some high level literacy experience as the kick off to the collegiate experience is something we need to talk about. He is not prepared to dictate this but he does think that if we are going to do this well and attract students into honors kinds of programs, we need to have a visible organization to give to them. Part of the problem is we have a lot of good stuff at CSU that we manage to hide -- we manage to bury organizations that are too big or too small. We have to get better at this. One way to attract more of the better students is to show them that there is a place for them at home. It is not scattered and disbursed and the central administration isn't paying attention. We are paying attention.

Dr. Barbara Green wondered if President Schwartz was planning to do any study of the impact that a large number of underprepared students has on students who are prepared. When you have a large number of student who are in development, whose reading and arithmetic skills are not up to college entrance levels and they are in the same class, isn't this telling the better prepared students that this is the wrong institution for them and encouraging them to transfer?

President Schwartz replied that that may be sensitive in some quarters but it isn't with him. There is a kind of academic Gresham's law that does work; that is that very poor students can drive out the better ones. However, it is also the case that we have to be sure that, as an equity institution, we are prepared to do the remediation in a way that makes as much sense as we can. We don't do it well; we do it poorly. There is also an ethical issue here. The ethical issue is we have students who, at the end of the first semester, have grade point averages low enough such that catching up is going to be tough but we let them persist into the second semester. At the end of the second semester, for all of our good efforts, we have some students who would have to be on the 22 year plan to get their grade point averages up. By the end of that first year, the question is, are we telling lies? Would such students often be better off somewhere else? I want us to stop doing that. We need cash money, but we don't need it that much. What we need to do is to be honest, ethical, hardworking on behalf of students who come to us who need that help, and we will profit by it. We can no longer keep students here and tell them things about themselves that happen not to be true. We want them here and we will work very hard on their behalf but if, at the end of the year, it is eminent and clear to them and to us that this isn't going very well, we should tell them that. President Schwartz said that he thinks CSU will be better off.

President Schwartz noted that we are in the fourth week of the term and he still can't report what our enrollment is. Come next Fall, we are telling students -- many won't like this -- that on the Friday before classes begin, you will be paid up, or on the pay plan, or you will not be going to class. We are really going to get the de-registration problem out of the way before school starts. There will be some exceptions to this and we will make them. That is why we have a Financial Aid Office. Dr. Schwartz never believed in the substitution of rules for brains. A notice to students will be going out to that effect shortly. We have lots of things that look small and need to be cleaned up, but we have to take care of ourselves. We have to take care of our finances, we have to pay the bills, and we have to know what our enrollment is. We also have a responsibility to make a response of integrity to the students here and tell them the truth about themselves. If there is an argument against grade inflation that every member of the faculty take to heart, it is this business of telling the students the truth about themselves. There is nothing wrong with using the entire range of grades whether it is in the Law School or in Business. That is why we have them. If you don't want to use them, let us know. We have got to tell people the truth about their performance. We want good students to come to us. We don't want aggressions law operating here, but we are an equity institution. President Schwartz said that the longer he is at CSU, the more of that he knows that we are very gifted people here. We need to say that we can be gifted and people of integrity and be kind to our students in more ways than one.

Professor Andrew Gross stated that on the enrollment and income front, what he would like to see from the President's Office or the Provost's Office, is a specific policy rewarding people who do things -- specifically, those who go out to high schools and specifically those who do telethons because the State is only giving a limited amount of money, and the money originating from the alumni is absolutely crucial. Therefore, people who do telethons and who do go out to high schools should be rewarded. He is not saying everybody should do it, although possibly they can or should. But for those who do it, there could be, and should be, a policy spelling out certain rewards. It could be taken into account in a salary increase and/or some release time, etc. That is the kind of a policy he would like to see and if that were announced from on high, it will have more meaning for all of us.

President Schwartz replied that he did not disagree with Dr. Gross. He would like to see a reward system include those things mentioned by Dr. Gross as well.

IV. Potential Cuts in Library Materials Budget (Report No. 12, 2001-2002)

Dr. Sarah Matthews, Chairperson of the Library Committee, reported that two years ago she stood before the Faculty Senate and talked about Library cuts. It was agreed at that time that the plan the Library had come up with made sense. It seemed like a rational thing to do as well because there was still some waste in the Library that had to do with the fact that we have become increasingly electronic and we are involved with OhioLINK. When the Library Committee got together with the Library Director this year, it was generally agreed that it is a rational way to do it. Another issue is whether the Library should be asked to make cuts. The Library Committee felt it was important to bring it before the Faculty Senate. The Library Committee is concerned about what will happen to the library if, in fact, more cuts are made. The Library Committee would like essentially to suggest that the Faculty Senate take a stand and say that we need to protect the Library. We can't ask it to make cuts in the same way that colleges are asked to make cuts. The Library is central to the University and to ask it to decrease its budget when, in fact, in order to keep even, it needs to increase its budget, the Faculty Senate should support that saying the plan may be rational but we would prefer that it not be put into place. We would rather the Library maintain its current budget, if not get more money in order to do what we all need for it to do.

Dr. Matthews noted that Glenda Thornton, Director of the Library, was at Senate to answer questions about how these cuts would be made although it is fairly carefully spelled out in her memo that was included in today's meeting packet. She also can answer other questions about some of the difficulties that the Library is facing with respect to budgets.

Dr. Glenda Thornton asked if the Senate would like an update from where the Library was several years ago. Dr. Andrew Gross stated that the Senate would like a broad picture in short and then open up to questions.

Dr. Thornton reported that she had come before the Senate in November 1999 to talk about the situation. She distributed the Library's Materials Budget that had been presented to Faculty Senate on November 10, 1999. It stands pretty much as it was a couple of years ago. At that time, the Library's expenditures were increasing at a pretty high rate but University funding for the Library Materials Budget had remained relatively flat over a number of years. We were getting to the point of having about a $500,000 budget difference. That was difficult for the Library to handle. Using the overhead projector, she referred to the first page of the report. She indicated that the blue line on the handout represented the actual dollars that the Library was getting from the University. No changes were made in the expenditures for the periodical subscriptions. When she came to Faculty Senate in November 1999, she had indicated that the University was going to try to give the Library some additional money and that the other half of the solution was a cancellation project.

Dr. Thornton referred to the next page -- FY01 Materials Budget Fix and Planning Ahead for FY02. She noted that these are the same overheads she used a couple of years ago. It had been projected that there were no cancellations. The Library did get a small increase in FY01. She indicated the projected expenditure and the reality of the situation. They pretty much hit their target. The subscriptions were reduced via the process they used in the Spring of 2000 and they also received some additional dollars from the University. So they pretty much brought the expenditures and the budget together. That has worked until just recently. Now this fiscal year 02, the Library actually had a budget decrease of 6%. She is projecting that the Library expenditures will be a little over $2 million. The Library has been able to do that because every penny was saved and all of the credit memos were called in so we did not have to do a cancellation project for 2002.

Dr. Thornton reported that for next fiscal year, if there are no cancellations, the Library will need $2,300,000. The Library has been asked, as all of us have been asked, to plan for a potential reduction of about 6%. That is the plan that she will be bringing to everyone to work with her on. But that doesn't take into consideration inflation. Inflation on our journals for this next year is projected to be at about 8%. That seems unreasonable because we know there is not much inflation out there in consumer goods. Unfortunately, scholarly publications continue to inflate much higher than average. She has been asking for the projections from various vendors and various sources. They are still using about 10%. We have been lucky in Ohio because OhioLINK has been able to negotiate some of those rate increases down for us. As you know, we have been buying big packages of journals through the electronic journal center. Tom Sanville, the director, goes out and negotiates with Elsevier Science and Academic Press. There are fewer publishers each year, but he is negotiating with these folks. He was able to get three-year deals whereby we guaranteed the publishers subscriptions for about three years if they would keep inflation down a little bit. Inflation rates in Ohio have been much less than nation-wide. We are now engaging in the second round of those negotiations with those publishers. They are not very happy when Mr. Sanville says we want to keep inflation down again. It will be very interesting to see what happens in the next couple of years. That is why she sent her budget memo forward saying that the Library needed $300,000 just for the materials budget. The plan is the same plan she suggested in the past.

Professor James Webb wondered what percent of the budget are serials. Dr. Thornton replied that serials were about 80% to 90% a couple of years ago when she did the serials cancellation -- it was brought down a little bit.

Professor Webb noted that $300,000 is a 15% increase. Dr. Thornton agreed that he was correct. We have 10% inflation plus we have been asked to do a 6% budget cut plus we need some additional money to fund the OhioLINK resources that OhioLINK will no longer be able to fund. OhioLINK has had a straight across the board 6% cut this year and will have a 6% cut next year. She has a list of 31 data-bases that have been funded directly out of their central funds. Some of those data-bases may be critical to Cleveland State University. We may have to pick some of them up. It is not just inflation and it is not just cancellation making up for some of the other problems we have.

President Michael Schwartz commented that the Library really hasn't had their budget cut 6%. That is the worse case scenario. What would you do if that were to happen? Dr. Thornton is right to plan for that but it hasn't happened. Dr. Thornton agreed with President Schwartz. She added that she is hoping that it won't happen. But she can't wait until next fall to make those cuts because her cuts are due to the vendors by no later than July/August 2002. If faculty helped select the journals to be reduced, she would have to go through a process this spring when people are around. People will not be around in the summer to help the Library make those decisions.

Professor Webb asked if the Library does any negotiating directly. This increase of 10% inflation is just unconscionable. Dr. Thornton pointed out that Cleveland State University has almost no voice. They would say, "Take it or leave it."

President Schwartz noted that part of that is we have single vendors. Dr. Thornton pointed out that OhioLINK has been able to leverage the fact that they send multiple million dollar checks to these vendors and this has held inflation down in the last several years. Our average inflation with Elsevier for the last several years has been about 5% to 7%. Everybody else has been having 10%.

Dr. William Bowen asked Professor Matthews if she was proposing a motion. Dr. Matthews said that she would like the Faculty Senate to endorse the idea that the Library be spared cuts for as long as possible. The Library is important to all of us and to ask it to make the same cuts that the Colleges are asked to make -- to treat it essentially like it were simply another College -- would be a mistake. The Library Committee is asking that the Faculty Senate endorse the idea that the Library be protected as long as possible as a community resource.

Dr. Bowen stated that there are two possibilities. One is to get a sense of the Senate and the second is to put forth a formal motion.

Professor Thomas Buckley proposed a friendly amendment to make the word Library plural.

Provost Chin Kuo commented that first, the 6% reduction is a stand-by plan. It is not known if the cut will be 1%, 0%, or 6%. He has been keeping in touch with the Vice President of Finance to get the most up-to-date information. He knows that Dr. Thornton is very anxious to get this process going before the end of the semester. The Vice President of Finance is also aware of what we are asking for. Second, the Law School is also asking for the same type of request. We are talking about somewhere around $400,000 to $500,000. We are not just talking about $300,000. Third, he stated that everything is down to the bone right now. There are so many urgent projects on the campus. Everybody is asking not to cut but to increase the budget. Keep in mind that all of the resources are a fine line. So, if Faculty Senate decides, yes, the Libraries are a high priority, we certainly will take that into consideration. However, the ripple effect is that something else would have to be cut.

Dr. Barbara Green said that one has to realize there is a difference between a competition between different units for limited resources and an understanding that the Library is a resource that serves us all and is essential to all of our functions. We are not talking about exempting a particular department. All of us can make cases for that. We certainly should not bring those to Faculty Senate. The major purpose of this institution is, after all, an academic goal. The Library serves all of us. She sends her students to the Library often both to get help from personnel in the Library and also to use the materials there. Most of our courses and what we are doing in our own work for our courses would be badly affected if the Library was cut. This is a priority. It serves all of us and is at least one of the very major central goals of the university to have a Library that can do this.

Ms. Billie Joy Reinhart, Librarian, stated that we also have to realize that the Library has cut back so much already. The hours are cut back and there is unhappiness with that. The hours on Saturdays have been cut. Personnel have been cut quite a bit in the last five to six years. The materials are what is left. Otherwise, we can't keep our doors open long.

Professor Webb agreed with what had already been stated, but he also knows that a periodic reviewing and culling is good because he doesn't use the same journals today that he used five years ago or ten years ago. In addition, he suspects that the escalation in some disciplines is 20% per year and the escalation in others is 0% per year. In business, out of 15 journals, he cannot think of any of them that have gone up over the last two or three years. Paper prices have gone up but now with the economy slump, paper prices are coming down. That has been the big expense. He is the executive director of a group that publishes four journals.

Dr. Thornton noted that Professor Webb's individual rates are different than our rates as an institution. Dr. Webb agreed that the rates are different, but 7%, 8%, 9%, 10% with 15% inflation comes to treason.

Ms. Reinhart noted that some of the international library organizations are trying to address the problem.


Dr. Thornton agreed with the comment that we do need to cull and we do need to have a process whereby we look at our subscriptions. One of the things that has been very frustrating to her since she has been at CSU, is that there have been no new monies for new programs that are desperately needed on our campus. We need to support new programs. But, she has no mechanism of moving those dollars around where a program dries up or there is not as much use. That is why she has focused on the use factor in these various cuts. Even if we don't have a 6% cut or even a 1% or a 2% cut, she still has an inflation bill to pay. Whether we see it in individual subscriptions or not, the Library will see something. She doesn't see how it can possibly be the 10% that they have been advised to use. She is using about 7% to 8% in her planning. It behooves us to look at those subscriptions and better utilize that money. Dr. Thornton handed out her latest brochure about how the Library is making electronic access very helpful to everyone.

Professor David Larson commented that the Library is not the only area where things are going up out of proportion to general inflation. If you think the 8% or 9% increase in the Library is treasonous, then you should prepare the courts because our health insurance is going up 34% next year.

Professor Arthur Schwartz noted that as the Senate Planning and Budget Committee pursues this goal of shifting monies from administration into academics, it is going to affect how we can make that transition. That must be factored into account.

Dr. William Bowen noted that there seems to be a general sentiment of the Faculty Senate that the Library is a very critical priority.

Dr. Susan Hill supported the comment that the review and culling process go forward even if the Library is not cut. Then it would allow us to grow in the right direction. If we had terrible cuts, then the Library would be positioned to make them at the last minute.

Professor Jane McIntyre stated that we are also saying that they can't make cuts at the last minute. Subscriptions run out at a certain time and are renewed at a certain time.

Dr. Thornton reported that if the Library does not get the cut list to the vendors in the early fall, the vendors will bill us and it will be a nightmare.

Professor Mieko Smith said that she supported the Library but it is difficult for her to say high priority -- high priority to what? The Senate should support the Library. It is a very important and critical area that should be considered in that group of priority items. She did not have any idea what else would be out there competing with the Library.

Professor Webb added that the Library is central to our mission.

Provost Chin Kuo stated that he doesn't have a complete list of the top priority items. First, because we want to increase enrollment, and we have quite a few off-campus programs, we need more distance learning rooms. Most classes are during the prime time. Everybody wants prime time, therefore, we do have a problem having sufficient classrooms to go around. Second, in some of the Colleges, the part-time faculty line is very low and this is a high priority. We constantly have to look for money. If we have to cancel classes, we lose credit hours. He assured everyone that whatever is done is for the best interests of the University.

Ms. Reinhart commented that she knows Dr. Kuo is trying to expand our distance learning, but really what percentage of the students do we expect ever to be in distance learning compared to the complete student body? Dr. Kuo replied that he did not have that data at this time.

Professor Andrew Gross wondered if Dr. Thornton could give the Senate a peak at her internal decision process. Let's say a college and the departments within the college cooperate with her and suggest cuts, but the cuts are not enough. He would like to know what she will do next. Does she cut the highest subscription or journal next if enough cuts are not suggested by the Colleges? Dr. Thornton responded that she would leave that up to faculty discretion. The Library is going to prepare a list of journals with information about how often they have been used within the Library. Once it is known what the various cuts are, if they have to prepare up to a 6% cut, then they will know how many dollars they have to allocate. A formula will allocate that across all of the journals. We are not talking about electronic journals here. They cannot be cut unless everybody in Ohio cuts them. We are talking about our print collection. We have a limited group of things to select from. Included with the print journals are standing orders as well. There is very little use data about them. She will give that information to the faculty as well. Once they have the data -- the target is based upon this use factor -- they will bring those out and ask faculty to prioritize them from most important to keep to least important to keep. Then, if she is very fortunate and has a 1% cut, she will only cut 1% from that prioritized list. She added that the Library is working now to put some figures in place. It is not just across-the-board. They have always tried to look at various inflation rates and things of that sort. That is the traditional way of doing it. But they are now looking at use and replacement by document delivery and access services where we have been subsidizing. Many people have taken advantage of that. The Library is trying its best. Dr. Thornton distributed a brochure that talks about those things that can be done.

Professor Chia-Shin Chung said that it is very important for the Library to receive the necessary support, but he is concerned about setting a precedent. All of the programs could be equally important and short of money for them to continue. What happens if another program comes to this body and asks for more money? Is the Senate going to do the same for that other program? It is a matter of prioritizing. We don't know what program is considered important for the entire University. For anybody to come here to argue that they need that much support, it is difficult for us to know the whole picture. The only people who know the whole picture are the administrators. He was not saying that it is not important for the Senate to support the Library. It is very important because we all use the Library's services. He is concerned about what will happen in the future.

Dr. Bowen noted that there seems to be the general sense that the Library is very important and people support it.

Dr. Green stated that what is important about this process is that something which is central to the academic mission has been brought to the attention of the faculty and their representatives. It is not simply an administrative decision but rather the faculty making the statement that the Library is central and is a high priority for the academic mission. It is precisely for the faculty to make that recommendation, not administrators. The importance of the Library is a faculty decision. The input has to be there.

Dr. Thornton announced that the Library is going to put on a luncheon in collaboration with Auxiliary Services in the Library on March 25, 2002 from 11:30 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. on the first floor in the Southeast corner. The special guest speaker will be Deanna Marcum, President of the Council on Library and Information Resources. She will talk about the importance of the "Library as Place." She hopes that everyone will attend.


V. Senate President's Report

Migrating Meetings
Dr. William Bowen commented that one of the reasons why there is not broader participation in Faculty Senate is that a number of faculty members do not know or understand what Faculty Senate is all about. The Steering Committee decided to migrate the Senate meetings, to go out to the faculty in the various colleges, and make it easy to attend a meeting. For the next few meetings, we will be going around to the various colleges. Each month before the meeting, he will contact the respective Deans and have invitations sent out to all faculty members in the various colleges.

Dr. Bowen commented that, in his view, Senate is an essentially deliberative body. Within CSU, we have the primary responsibility to make collective choices that determine, enforce, continue, or alter actions affecting the moral and intellectual aspects of the university. That is, on any and all matters that affect this moral and intellectual domain, the Faculty Senate can (and should) take leadership whenever the university is in a position to decide (a) what we collectively as a university are to believe, accept or endorse, (b) what collective actions we are to take, or (c) that we are to collectively adopt regarding goals and ends.

Dr. Bowen stated that to be clear, there is an important sense in which we are and should be an autonomous body. But there is also a sense in which we depend upon the administration, the Board of Trustees, and the State of Ohio. Without their institutional and financial support, we cannot affect the resolution of choices in ways that realistically reflect the full range of academic and civic mandates on our university. Without the full and active participation of the faculty in Faculty Senate, these same mandates will not be met, in which case Cleveland State University will never become a highly reputable university, much less a great one. One cannot help but to depend upon each other; let's make the best of it.

College Reorganization
Dr. Bowen stated that what is being talked about all over the place except in Faculty Senate is college reorganization. Undoubtedly this will come before Senate soon. Dr. Bowen said that he has only one point for the Senate's information. The important question -- as far as he is concerned the only really important question -- is whether it is possible to redefine college and department organization structure in ways that reflect the full range of academic and civic mandates on the university. There are competing values, there will be winners and losers, and there are complex and highly symbolic issues involved. If we look at the history of American higher education, even in just the past few decades, it is very clear that educational priorities have been significantly realigned. Dr. Bowen said, "As a Professor of Public Administration, I can tell you first that successful public organizations periodically reorganize and second, that most public organizational change is based upon the assumption that changing the formal structure will improve organizational performance. The only really interesting question is and should be: Will reorganization improve the performance of the university?"

Dr. Bowen commented that this is a good time to bring up the tangentially related topic of ethics. He wishes he did not have to bring it up, but given some of the recent discussions he has heard, he feels obligated to. Ever since he has been involved in faculty governance, he has heard rumors about senior faculty pressuring junior faculty to vote one way or the other on faculty issues. This instantiates a more general concern about ethical faculty behavior. He has read through the professional ethics portion of the union contract, and looked at the sanction and dismissal procedures in the "Green Book." He found an apparent gap in the way ethical norms are enforced here. The processes we have in place for dealing with ethical violations -- which by the way by his reading are very loosely defined -- are initiated by the Provost, and are enforced with potential for suspension or termination. By his reading, this is suitable for egregious offenses -- on the order of the sort of things for which one might get terminated. But they do not appear to work so well for the "in between" offenses -- one faculty member standing up in the classroom and berating another faculty member -- offenses to each other's reputations -- pressuring of junior faculty by senior faculty. This issue of intermediate level offenses to ethical behavior may be something the Faculty Senate may want to deal with as a problem.

Several "for your information and action" items

Honors Program
Dr. Bowen reported that at the direction of the Steering Committee, he recently sent out a request to each of the college caucuses, asking for the names of faculty members from each college who are interested in working on an honors program. An Honors Program Planning Committee will be formed. That committee will be formulated by the Steering Committee on February 27, 2002. If you have an interest, please volunteer. Or, you can submit the names of others -- not necessarily on Faculty Senate -- who are interested. The names go to the chairs of your caucuses.

President's Chat
Dr. Bowen announced that the next President's Chat is scheduled for Wednesday, February 13, 2002 in Viking Hall, parlors B and C at 3:00 P.M. The Faculty Senate sponsors these chats so that faculty members have a forum for frank and open conversation with the President about any matters related to the university -- except those within the domain of the contract. For example, one faculty member recently spoke with Dr. Bowen about some concerns regarding the university's marketing posture. He had some valuable ideas and insights that Dr. Bowen thought the President might have some interest in. This is the forum. After the chat, there will be a "meet your colleagues" reception -- Dean James McLoughlin will offer a word of welcome, and afterwards is a time for socializing.

Faculty Volunteers for SGA
Dr. Bowen noted that much as we have positions for students on Faculty Senate, so the Student Government Association has recently established positions for faculty in SGA. They have requested that Dr. Bowen provide them the names of faculty members interested in participating. When Dr. Bowen raised SGA's request at the Steering Committee, he was instructed to bring it to the Senate. If anyone thinks about it for a minute, you will agree that this is really important stuff for the long-term interest of the university. If anyone would like to volunteer to represent the faculty at the SGA meetings, then that would be great. Otherwise, the input of names or other suggestions either to Dr. Bowen or to Violet at Ext. 9250 would be most appreciated.

Forum on Faculty Roles and Rewards
Dr. Bowen commented that he has mentioned to Senate that the Steering Committee has had conversations about what we collectively as faculty define and value about scholarship and how we reward it in our incentive system. Pursuant to that conversation, on February 27, from Noon to 2:00 P.M., in the Sweet Seminar Room in the College of Urban Affairs, UR 241, the Office of the Faculty Senate and the Office of the University President will co-sponsor a forum on Faculty Roles and Rewards at Cleveland State University. The process of putting the panel together has begun. Hopefully it will include someone from a university who has adopted the standards suggested in Earnest Boyer's book, Scholarship Reconsidered. Professor Sylvester Murray from the Urban College recently attended a national level conference on the topic, and has agreed to sit on the panel. Conversations with a couple of other possible panel members have started, but definite arrangements have not been reached yet. Invitations will be sent out to the entire faculty within the next couple of weeks. Dr. Bowen will make sure that everyone is kept abreast of the forum as it develops.

RTA U-Pass Program
Dr. Bowen reported that the U-Pass Committee has approved a student survey. RTA is printing it this week and plans to get the survey and Professor Norm Krumholz's cover letter to John Oden, Director of Parking Operations, next week. The survey should be distributed within a very short while after that, and within a few weeks the results should be available.


President's Inauguration Planning Committee
Dr. Bowen reported that he just came from a President Inauguration Planning Committee meeting. Next September, we will have a Presidential Inauguration Month and one of the aspects of that will be a faculty/staff showcase. There will be faculty/staff art, music, lecture series, and symposium. He will take this to the next Steering Committee meeting and start to talk about how faculty can participate in what he hopes will be opportunity for the faculty of Cleveland State to get some of their work out in front of the public in a time when we are celebrating and doing some rejoicing.

Finally, Dr. Bowen extended a warm welcome to our two new members representing the retired faculty: Lewis Patterson and Lillian Hinds -- both from the College of Education. Dr. Bowen thanked them for their willingness to participate.

Professor David Larson brought two items to the Senate's attention. Professor Larson stated that it is certainly appropriate for the Faculty Senate to discuss what is and what is not ethical behavior on the part of the faculty. But, when it comes to actual sanctions and dismissal, that is an issue reserved for union contracts. The Faculty Senate doesn't have authority over that. In our current sanction and dismissal policy, there is a role that sanctions can play including recommending among many things, suspension and other things short of dismissal. He noted that there was also some confusion in what is and is not ethical. Certainly pressuring another faculty member to vote a certain way is unethical. Criticizing another faculty member, though impolite, is not unethical unless you are being slanderous or libelous. It is an exercise, although perhaps an unwise one, of academic freedom. So we have different kinds of issues as he sees it. If the Senate does discuss this issue, we need to be careful about that.


Next, Dr. Larson brought up the memo Dr. Bowen didn't comment on but distributed with the Senate packets about faculty/staff telephone directories. He stated that he found the tone of the memo both condescending and offensive in many respects. He wanted to comment on the assertion that the CDs were handed out in an effort to continue CSU's timely technology transition to a more economic, cost effective, paperless operation. He has not heard any discussion in the Senate of our moving to a paperless operation as a university goal. He has not seen any announcement from either the President or the Provost that this is a university goal. He certainly doesn't think it is a university goal that the Chief Information Officer can unilaterally decide we are going to pursue. Dr. Larson stated that it is a mirage. Every study has shown that computers, by producing more documents, have increased the amount of paper rather than lessened what is produced because everybody needs a permanent non-changeable trail. Further, the assertion that this is more cost-effective is true only if you are talking about IS&T. It no doubt cost IS&T less, but it cost a good deal more if you look at the amount of faculty time involved. Not only, for example, was he given a bad CD that had only one page on it and it took a full hour for him to understand with the help of the Help Desk, but he had to print out the directory and purchase a binder. Dr. Larson accepts the decision for this year, which we are over half way through, that we are not going to have free telephone directories. He resists the notion that we are going to transfer the cost of producing workable telephone directories to the faculty since most faculty do not carry lap tops with them at all times, and do not have computers booted up constantly. He urged the administration to reconsider this decision for next year and to produce, for free as has been done in the past, a basic necessary tool at CSU which is a functioning accessible paper telephone directory.

Dr. Andrew Gross asked Dr. Bowen what he had meant by college reorganization. Which college and what kind of reorganization? That phrase had been used by Dr. Bowen in his statement several times. Dr. Bowen responded that there are proposals and discussions around the university. For example, in the College of Urban Affairs, they are talking about getting together with the Department of Social Work. The current proposal that has been floated around has a College of Natural and Health Sciences. There have been discussions about reorganizing the colleges.

Dr. Jane McIntyre asked to speak about proper process. No proposal has been presented to this body and this body never considers proposal of that kind until they have been through a standing committee. Nothing yet has gotten to a standing committee because nothing has yet gotten through even lower stages of discussion. We know that there are proposals floating around but it seems to be quite improper for Dr. Bowen to introduce discussion of that at Senate when there have been absolutely no bases for it in the orderly business of the Senate. She would say that was very unwise. Professor McIntyre continued stating that Dr. Bowen doesn't know what is going to come to this body or in what form.

Dr. Gross remarked, "If these things are floating around, then why not discuss them?" Dr. McIntyre noted that we would not be discussing this if it had not been loosely referred to in that way. These are going through processes of being considered. Dr. Gross commented that it has now been referred to, it is in the open now, so why not discuss it? Dr. McIntyre responded that Senate doesn't discuss proposals of that kind without a recommendation from a standing committee of this body. That is exactly the point. That isn't how we discuss things in the Senate.

Dr. Gross stated that he has been at CSU 33 years and whatever the Arts and Sciences Caucus wants it gets.

Dr. Barbara Green reinforced what Dr. McIntyre had stated. Dr. Bowen may be talking about something in the College of Urban Affairs which effects the College of Arts and Sciences. A department in the College of Arts and Sciences may be talking to Dr. Bowen. This is not something which has been brought to the attention even of the College of Arts and Sciences and centrally affects the College of Arts and Sciences. People can have rumors and discussions all over the place. We can talk about anything we want to. We can talk about merging Engineering and the Art Department. We do have faculty governance which has procedures and they start in proper ways through committees and through colleges and not simply by people who are advocates bringing them to the attention of the President of the Faculty Senate.

Dr. Rodger Govea stated that since Dr. Bowen's department is in fact involved in whatever discussions are going on, he would hope that this is the last the Senate is going to hear from the Senate President until this has gone through the proper process. Dr. Bowen replied, "You better believe it will be."

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


[Go to top of page]


Arthur H. Schwartz
Faculty Senate Secretary





[Go to top of page]