Cleveland State University

Faculty Senate

March 6, 2002

I. Approval of the Agenda
II. Approval of the Minutes of the February 6, 2002 Meeting
III.University President's Report
IV. Presidential Inauguration (Report No. 13, 2001-2002)
V. Informational Report on the Budget (Report No. 14, 2001-2002)
VI. Senate President's Report
VII. New Business

PRESENT:Annapragada, D. Ball, J. Bazyk, A. Benander, Bonder, W. Bowen, Buckley, Chung, Dieterich, Doerder,
Droney, Flechtner, James Flynn, Forte, Geier, Gross, Hanlon, Hill, Hinds, L. Keller, Kiel, Konangi, Kuo, Larson,
Mahmud, Matthews, McCahon, J. McIntyre, McLoughlin, Misra, Moutafakis, Ng, Nolan, Nuru-Holm, L. Patterson,
A. Schwartz, M. Smith, Steinglass, J. Webb.

ABSENT/EXCUSED: David Adams, E. Anderson, Aquila, Atherton, Bagaka's, Barbato, Burt, D. Chandler,
Davenport, Dillard, Dunegan, Govea, B. Green, Hemann, M. Kaufman, Caroline King, Konstantinos, Marredeth,
Ramsey, R. Ramos, Ray, Reinhart, Rosentraub, Sanders, Sawicki, M. Schwartz, Shah, Sparks, Stivers, Tewari,
Thornton, Tumeo, Whyte, James Wilson.

ALSO PRESENT: Brennan, Jain, Werth.

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

I.Approval of the Agenda

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

II.Approval of the Minutes of the February 6, 2002 Meeting

Acceptance of the Minutes of the February 6, 2002 meeting was moved and seconded. Dr. Bowen reported several
errors in Dr. Glenda Thornton's comments. Dr. Lawrence Keller reported an error on page 5 of the Minutes. Dr.
Bowen reported that William Atherton had been marked absent when he had been present at the meeting. The
Minutes, as corrected, were approved.

III.University President's Report

Dr. Bowen announced that President Michael Schwartz is not here today. He is at a Board of Trustees retreat,
therefore, we will not have a President's Report today.

IV.Presidential Inauguration (Report No. 13, 2001-2002)

Dr. Chet Jain, Chair of the Admissions and Standards Committee, reported that the Inauguration of President Michael
Schwartz will take place on Thursday, September 26, 2002, beginning at 11:30 A.M. The tentative venue for the
installation will be at the State Theater and a reception beginning at 2:30 P.M. will be held in the Atrium of the
College of Urban Affairs. A special committee has been formed to plan the activities for the event. Tentatively, it will
include all week activities, presentations of lectures, and other works of art, music, etc. by faculty. There will be a
student picnic; a kick-off dinner on Friday; and a black-tie fund-raiser on Saturday.

Dr. Jain noted that it is expected that the entire expense of this event will be written off by donations from corporate
people, individuals, as well as foundations. It is expected that a large number of local business, civic, and political
leadership will be in attendance in addition to people from academia from throughout the State and perhaps from

Dr. Jain noted that according to the President, this is truly an opportunity to showcase the University and get
maximum visibility. President Schwartz expects to deliver a major address outlining his vision for the University,
particularly emphasizing not only the academics but a place where students, faculty, and staff get together in a
congenial social environment to assist in changing the lives of students for the better.

Dr. Jain reported that President Schwartz has requested, and the Admissions and Standards Committee is pleased to
recommend, that the Senate approve the request of suspension of classes for three hours from 1:00 P.M. to 4:00 P.M.
on Thursday, September 26, 2002 to allow for maximum participation by faculty and students. There are no classes on
Thursday from Noon to 1:00 P.M.

Dr. Thomas Flechtner said he would support the motion on the condition that faculty members are notified of this
event repeatedly from the week before the beginning of classes until the day of the event. Dr. Jain agreed with
Professor Flechtner. The Admissions and Standards Committee has brought this matter to the Registrar's Office and
have been assured that such information will be sent repeatedly to every single faculty, all college administrators, etc.
An attempt will also be made to notify the students through the fall semester schedule.

Dr. Cheryl McCahon suggested that faculty be notified before the end of this semester because that is when all the
syllabi is done. Dr. Jain agreed with Dr. McCahon.

Dr. Jane McIntyre noted that the suggested time just hits one block. It should not be that hard to identify those who
are teaching in that block and notify them as well as all of the administrators. The key is that notice gets to the faculty
who are affected by it. Since it is not a super popular block, it shouldn't be so hard to get to those people. Dr. Jain
stated that in addition to the general communication, a special attempt will be made to notify those who are teaching
classes in that block.

Dr. Bowen called for the vote. The Senate approved the Admissions and Standards Committee's recommendation to
suspend classes from 1:00 P.M. to 4:00 P.M. on Thursday, September 26, 2002 for the Inauguration of President
Michael Schwartz.

V.Informational Report on the Budget (Report No. 14, 2001-2002)

Dr. Arthur Schwartz, Chair of the Budget and Finance Committee, reported that the Committee met yesterday. He
attended the first part and Professors Tom Buckley and Jim Webb attended the full meeting. Dr. Art Schwartz
indicated that he would report on the first part of the meeting. The first part of the meeting was devoted to PeopleSoft
8.0. Right now, we are using PeopleSoft version 7.6. PeopleSoft has notified the universities who are on 7.6 that, as
of August 2003, they will no longer support that version but will be going to version 8.0. Version 8.0, the next
release, is a new product. It is not an upgrade; it is completely web compatible. Mr. Mike Droney made a
presentation to the Committee. He talked about the considerations that went into this upgrade along with the finances
that are involved. It will take approximately two years to phase in the new program in terms of hardware and
software. Various alternatives were considered on whether or not to continue with PeopleSoft, whether or not to
upgrade, or whether to go out on our own.

Dr. Art Schwartz said that it was reported that both the risks and the benefits were analyzed by a team that included
Professor John Walsh from Physics and it was decided that the best choice was to go with PeopleSoft version 8.0.
There is some information on it based on usage. It has been used at the University of Louisville, which is somewhat
similar to CSU. They are bringing it on board one module at a time. They have been using it since the beginning of
February 2002. Based on what they know, there are going to be some changeover considerations -- hardware costs
and software costs. Over the next two years, the conversion to PeopleSoft 8.0 will run between $7 and $9 million.
The life of PeopleSoft 8.0 is approximately four years. There was considerable discussion. Dr. Art Schwartz said that
his personal impression is that we don't have any choice on the matter and nobody likes it. It looks like we are headed
for a new version. Version 7.6 will be in use for approximately one to two years while we phase in version 8.0.

Professor Tayyab Mahmud commented that the $7 million will be paid off just in time for version 9.0 and we have not
heard if we will also need consultants to facilitate the conversion. We are being squeezed in every nook and cranny
of the budget. Although he doesn't have information to question, the concern that alarms him is that in this financial
setting, we don't have an option. Dr. Mahmud said that he hopes somebody is alive at the switch given the history of

Dr. Schwartz noted that the concerns Dr. Mahmud expressed were expressed on both sides of the table and were
shared by everybody at the PBAC meeting. Included in the future were costs for the consultants and for the personnel
training for the upgrading for other software. Nevertheless, there is uniform concern that this is only the tip of the
iceberg and we may be heading toward some of the same problems we encountered before.

Professor Thomas Buckley reported that the Committee heard that there are 200 universities that are using PeopleSoft
version 7.6. They will have to do something after the middle of 2003. The problem is that no one school can do
anything alone. An unidentified Senator asked, "Why don't some schools step forward and try to organize a substantial
number of these people who are all being subjected to this extortion?" Professor Buckley responded that his answer
was that this couldn't be done. Seven out of ten of the Big 10 schools tried to negotiate with PeopleSoft once before
and they failed. Professor Buckley said that he didn't know if they have heard from all of the people who have looked
into it, but it is so outrageous. Somebody should try to organize some opposition to this.

Dr. Jane McIntyre stated that if the cost is going to be from $7 to $9 million just for our school and taking into account
all of the other schools, it is hard to believe that even if only one quarter of the schools that are going to spend $7 to
$9 million pool those resources, maybe a cadre of consultants can be trained and paid to keep version 7.6 running
effectively at all of those schools.Professor Buckley replied that there should be some other competition at least to
keep version 7.6.

Dr. McIntyre said that it seems there would be plenty of money if we were going to spend $7 to $9 million to get out
from under PeopleSoft by spending that money on whatever it will take to keep version 7.6 running. Anything that
costs up to $9 million and gets us out of PeopleSoft sounds like it is a better deal. We are already committed to
spending up to $9 million to continue being one of their subjects as it were.

Dr. Susan Hill commented that we should proceed with two strategies. The one strategy is to work with PeopleSoft to
try to get the best deal and try to get the price down. The university needs a second strategy that is a longer term
strategy so that when version 9.0 comes out, we don't have a $15 million budget to swallow. If that means forming a
coalition with other universities that takes us four years to plan, we have four years. We might use this $9 million, but
we should plan for a longer strategy. Dr. Arthur Schwartz reported that both statements Dr. Hill made were brought
up very specifically and have been studied.

Mr. Mike Droney, Director of IS&T, reported that the issue about the coalition has been taken up in IS&T here at
CSU to form a group through various list services, email, group discussion efforts, and getting in contact with as many
of those other universities who are on version 7.6. In fact, there is a user conference once a year that will take place
this week which we sent some of our people to. The activity resulted in a separate committee meeting of just
PeopleSoft existing customers on this very subject to put a petition together. We are the ones that led that charge. In
addition, we have gone up through the chain of command through the software company. President Michael Schwartz
is totally up to speed on this issue and he is addressing the Vice President of Education in the Government where our
product sits. The week of Spring Break, he will be on campus. We are pushing that vigorously.

Mr. Droney reported that the original PeopleSoft implementation for organizations of our size ranges anywhere from
$15 to $20 million. Our implementation, if you count all of the "get-well" programs that took place afterwards, fell
close into that range -- $17 to $18 million. The issue is, we are running out of time to bring in a whole new system. If
we decide we are going to go to another solution or to sustain ourselves, we have to do that with a little bit more
timing than we have to make this decision. The risks were way too high to not go to PeopleSoft 8.0. We are moving
cautiously, but, yes, it is expensive. PeopleSoft is driving us to do hardware upgrades and network upgrades which
are one half of the cost of this $7 to $9 million. The natural growth and utilization of technology is driving us to do
upgrades probably one year to a year and one half sooner than we would normally do them. So one half of the costs
we would bear with PeopleSoft we'd have to do within the next two years anyway.

Dr. Art Schwartz noted that Mr. Droney answered one of the things he wanted to follow up on. "Let's say we are
stuck with version 8.0. Shouldn't we be planning to do something to get away from 9.0 -- to use that time for the next
several years and develop our own system?" Mr. Droney responded that this is the direction being considered right
now. All of our energy is going into trying to cost out version 8.0. As soon as we get that under control, we see that as
an option. It doesn't have to be cold turkey as far as a conversion. We can start removing parts of the existing
PeopleSoft product and replace them with other parts. There are several options.

Professor Mahmud asked, "When were we told that we would need this software -- version 8.0?" Dr. Art Schwartz
responded that it was first brought to the Budget and Finance Committee at its last meeting in February when the
tentative budget for 2003 was presented and the issue was raised.

Professor Mahmud stated that he hears there was a different time-line for hardware upgrades and now that is being
revised. The question that comes to his mind is, "When were we told by PeopleSoft that we would have to upgrade to
version 8.0?" Mr. Droney replied that four to five months ago our organization realized that PeopleSoft was serious
about this (August 2003) deadline. We didn't take it too seriously because we assumed that so many customers were
not prepared to do that. What has changed is the fact that there are few universities "tooling up" on version 8.0.

Professor Mahmud stated that Mr. Droney had not answered his question. "When was CSU told that we needed to
upgrade by spring?" Mr. Droney responded that about four or five months ago we were notified, and, through the
next few months, he has worked with PeopleSoft vigorously to try to find a hole and get them to extend the support
maintenance through August 2003.

Professor David Larson said that he suspects our petitions to PeopleSoft through redress will have about as much
effect as the colonies petitions to King George and will fall on equally deaf ears. He would urge the administrators
responsible for this to look at finding some form of independence. That may mean creating our own programs, using
the old PeopleSoft programs, or creating the capability to update and upgrade and prepare them and extend them for
what we need. He understands that this can not be done right now, but unless we focus on creating an independent
system fairly soon, we are going to be powerless in the future when PeopleSoft does insist on another upgrade.

Professor Hill asked, "Are there other companies, or does PeopleSoft have the unilateral control on universities?"
Professor Arthur Schwartz replied that the Committee was told that there is one other company or product called
Banner that is designed more for use in two-year community colleges. Dr. Hill asked if Peoplesoft is the only
company in four-year universities. Dr. Schwartz replied, "Yes." Mr. Droney stated that there are other solutions when
you look at the marketplace. Banner and PeopleSoft are considered by Gardner. Gardner is a research firm in IT that
follows the industry. They are the two leaders that could possibly fit us. About two years ago, a few other companies
were investing in creating a higher education model for a higher education software system. A lot of them have taken
their money back out because of market conditions.

Professor Santosh Misra commented on the upgrade situation. Any time you buy into a new product, this is the price
we have to pay to upgrade the product. It follows that we have to pay for PeopleSoft upgrades. What needs to be
looked at is how much we are paying for the software because the cost of hardware is separate. These numbers are
going to look very different. However, if we say that we have to pay for hardware anyway, the software cost is going
to be a lot less. It is going to be cheaper than developing a system internally. Professor Art Schwartz promised to keep
the Senate up to date.

Professor Jane McIntyre commented on one point. If it is true that we've had to accelerate our acquisition of hardware
and other systems in order to accommodate PeopleSoft, although it is also true that we might have to buy that
hardware eventually, if we are buying a new piece of hardware every third year instead of every fifth year, that is a
lot more money spent on hardware that we might not actually have to spend. Just as if you bought a new car every
third year instead of every fifth year, over your life you would be spending a lot more on new cars then you might
have to spend. So, if PeopleSoft is forcing us into buying things that we don't need, then that is an additional cost.
Even if we buy some hardware, we wouldn't necessarily buy that much hardware.

Professor Misra noted that this may be true. Any alternative for upgrading may also force you to buy hardware. You
are spending a lot more money for less features and probably a lot longer life-cycle.

Dr. McIntyre commented that there are some other things as well. As a department chair, she has a fair amount of
interaction with at least some of the PeopleSoft features such as the ones having to do with scheduling. There are a lot
of features that actually have, as a cost, greatly increased secretarial and administrative time because they insist on
things that we don't want. They have sold us a product that has forced us to change our mode of operation -- not for
the better, but for the worse in many cases. In addition, it is very time-intensive in terms of the actions and activities
that the staff have to undertake. Those are costs too. We could develop something that would meet our needs and our
particular kinds of operations. That should not be dismissed. Up to the time we got PeopleSoft, we had our own fully
functioning written in-house systems. Since then, it has been expensive and problem-ridden. We should not just
assume that we can't go back to the mode of operation of developing a system ourselves that we had before.

Dr. Art Schwartz reported that these are some of the same points that have come up in discussions since we have
basically two Budget and Finance Committees -- the Senate Committee and then the University Committee. The
members of the Senate Committee will get together ahead of schedule to pursue this line, meet with Mike Droney,
find out more information about the rationale, and see if we can get more information as to the process that justified
the decision or the direction.

Professor Mahmud said that while we should keep our eyes on hidden costs, there may also be non-monetary
benefits of going in-house. The charge of technological self-sufficiency would dove-tail well with programs aimed at
excellence in the science and engineering departments. Self-sufficiency will also help us project the image of CSU as
an innovative and progressive institution.

Dr. Art Schwartz asked if, for the next Senate meeting, the Senate would like the Budget and Finance Committee to
report back on information that the Committee has obtained on cost benefits for the different alternatives.

Professor Thomas Buckley noted that Professor Art Schwartz had to leave the Budget Committee meeting early for a
class. After his departure, some other items came up. Professor Buckley said that there was a report on State revenue.
Taxes overall are down $260 million. Spending is also down $160 million. There is a net down-turn of $100 million
between receipts and spending. There was a report on the agreement between the Governor and the university
presidents. Under that agreement, there will be no more subsidy cuts through 2003. We are now approaching the end
of 2002 with no more subsidy cuts into the next year. The universities, with two exceptions, will not raise tuition over
10%. The two exceptions are Ohio State and Ohio University. In addition to the 10% or up to the 10% that can be
raised, universities can add $300 to the tuition of new students -- new not meaning first year students, but new transfer
students. Any new face can be charged $300 more on top of the 10%. There will be a special meeting of the Board of
Trustees on Wednesday, March 27, 2002 to deal with tuition. A tuition increase that starts in the summer will be
proposed -- 9.6% going into the next year as well. A tuition band, that is the number of credits that a student takes for
the same price -- right now if you take 12, 13, 14 credits, you pay the same. That band is going to change and will
shrink to a band of from 13 to 16 credits for the same price. There was a report on enrollment. The bottom line hasn't
been reached yet for the spring, but it is projected that when all of the cuts and cancellations and drops and adds, etc.
are factored in, we will be up 7% over spring one year ago.

Professor Buckley informed the Senate that the faculty members of the Senate Budget and Finance Committee
distributed a draft motion to the PBAC that will go to the Senate Steering Committee and perhaps will come to the
Senate in the future. The motion is to the effect that the division of university funds, which is now about 46.5% to
47% for instruction and research, increase 2% per year until it is no less than 55% for instruction and research. That
was the recommendation or form of the motion. It is our business to see what happens to that motion. The reaction of
the larger Planning and Budget Advisory Committee to the motion was favorable and it was felt that it was a great
idea. No one disagrees with recommendation principles, but PeopleSoft will make it more difficult to achieve. In
addition, some of the ideas about making the university grow in the places where it is able to grow and there is room
for development in that direction, it will take a little money to invest to get that process going as well. But the
principle or idea of that motion was met with favor.

Professor Mahmud mentioned that the Committee should remain mindful of the checkered history of getting accurate
budget figures from previous administrations. He wondered whether it was possible now to get accurate figures so
that we have a clear idea of the resources and application of these resources. Dr. Schwartz responded that he believes
it is possible. The Committee has a copy of the 2002 budget which has that information. It may take some teasing to
get out that information, but we have the people that can do it. They are still looking at different scenarios for 2003
and Professor Schwartz doesn't have a handle on that yet. The Budget and Finance Committee will work on that for
the next Senate meeting.

VI.Senate President's Report

Dr. William Bowen stated that there is not much to report. There are a number of things going on. We are still
working on a computer security policy, the honors initiative, and continuing with the President's Chats. The U-Pass
surveys are in and will be going to RTA for analysis within the week. All of those things are in progress and there is
nothing much to report on at this time.

Dr. Bowen reported that there was a special meeting of the Steering Committee a couple of weeks ago to brainstorm
about the State budget. The question we considered was what we, as a faculty, could do to make the case before the
State decision-makers that the state of the State would improve by making more investments in higher education.
Vice President Ray was there as was former Senator Grace Drake, and President Michael Schwartz. Several ideas
were discussed, and if and when anything comes of it, he will let the Senate know. Meanwhile, there was a general
agreement that higher education in the State of Ohio currently lacks enough of a constituency to ensure that we'll
receive adequate funding.

Dr. Bowen reported that the Faculty Senate and the University President's Office jointly sponsored a Forum on
Faculty Roles and Rewards at CSU last week. The discussion was on Earnest Boyer's book, Scholarship
. There were about 50 faculty members present. Dr. Bowen thanked Professors David Barnhizer from
the Law School and Sylvester Murray from the College of Urban Affairs for their presentations. The responses he
heard to the forum were quite positive and more and similar forums may occur in the future.

Finally, Dr. Bowen said that he tries to make it a point to give kudos to faculty members during his reports, but this
month he wanted to give them to the leaders of the Student Government. None of them are present today. He felt
really proud of them for coordinating with public universities from all around the State, gathering tens of thousands of
signatures, and heading to Columbus to make their views known. Dr. Bowen reported that he was just called by
Aaron Kuntz, one of the leaders of Student Government, and was asked to announce that they will have a rally on
April 24, 2002 at the State House. He asked Dr. Bowen to pass this on to Senate. They would like to get other
students involved. If there is any way for Senators to help them to do that, please do so. If there are any questions,
please contact Student Government at Ext. 2262.

VII.New Business

Dr. Lee Werth, Chair of the Committee on Academic Space, reported that next month, the Committee would like to
have a draft of a Classroom Evaluation Form ready to present to the Faculty Senate. He does not wish to discuss the
draft of the form that was distributed to members today. Dr. Werth asked members to take a look at the form and
email him with any comments and suggestions. The Committee will then meet and make some changes.

Dr. Andrew Gross stated that he would like to salute Professor Art Schwartz regarding the budget and PeopleSoft. He
would also like to thank Lynne Anderson and Joseph Nolan for bringing the health care costs to our attention. They
asked for input and they communicated in time.

Dr. Gross next talked about the suggestion to decrease communication and mass mailings that go on here. Just about
any group can send out a mass mailing. He would prefer to decrease the volume if at all possible. He would like the
administration's viewpoint on who gets approved to send mass mailings and on what basis. There are surveys and
appeals and they are all legitimate, but some of the mass mailings regarding power outages coming, becomes too
much. At the same time, some substantive issues are not being addressed. Yet he gets mailings from Athletics, the
Office of Development, etc. While these are substantive matters, he is saying the amount of mass mailings needs to
decline. He has taken an informal survey and most people hit the delete button whenever they see mass mailings.

Provost Chin Kuo responded to Dr. Gross. At a senior staff meeting, the President informed the Vice Presidents that
all emails must be approved by one of the Vice Presidents. That was the decision. After that, we did receive messages
saying there were too many emails. Dr. Kuo brought up the issue again to the same group at another meeting and the
issue was discussed. At that time, the feeling was, yes, we need to trim it down. In fact, emailings have already been
trimmed down. Perhaps because there are so many people still complaining, we do not disseminate to everybody.
The rationale is to inform everybody. We have been debating on this particular issue. It is not something we ignore.
On one hand you want to reach everyone. On the other hand, you want to avoid mass emailings.

Professor Lawrence Keller reported that many of his messages are empty. Provost Kuo responded that there may be a
technical problem.

Professor David Forte commented that a faculty member taught him how to dump emailings so he doesn't get any
mass mailings. He must be missing a lot of things. Provost Kuo commented that if people need a little bit of input, he
certainly will discuss this issue. At this point, most email requests that ask for mass mailings come through his office.
The three biggest groups sending out mass emailings at this point are the music program, the arts, Urban, and Law.

Professor Susan Hill suggested looking into something like bulletin board arrangements for events and things like that.
Dr. Kuo responded that this point was discussed. Currently, IS&T is looking into a university calendar. If we go that
route, the question is how many people actually will want to pull it up and look at it.

Professor Thomas Buckley disagreed. He doesn't find that the volume so far has become intolerable. He just deletes
the messages.

Professor Cynthia Dieterich said that what is best for her is in the descriptor. If the descriptor is really clear, that would
be helpful.

Professor James Webb stated his biggest complaint is that the functions are always at the wrong time and he cannot
attend them.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:55 P.M.


Arthur H. Schwartz
Faculty Senate Secretary




[Go to top of page]