Cleveland State University

Faculty Senate

April 3, 2002

I. Approval of the Agenda
II. Approval of the Minutes of the March 6, 2002 Meeting
III. University President's Report
IV.Proposed Motion from Budget and Finance Committee (Report No. 15, 2001-2002
V.Proposed Computer Security Policy (Report No. 16, 2001-2002)
VI. Proposed December Commencement (Report No. 17, 2001-2002)
VII. Senate President's Report.
VIII. New Business

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

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


[Go to top of page]

I. Approval of the Agenda

Acceptance of the Agenda for April 3, 2002 was moved, seconded, and approved.

[Go to top of page]

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

Acceptance of the Minutes of the March 6, 2002 meeting was moved and seconded. Dr. Bowen reported one error in the third paragraph on page 7 of the Minutes that talked about a tuition ban. It should read, "tuition band." The Minutes, as corrected, were approved.

III. University President's Report

President Michael Schwartz mentioned the mass mailing he sent out recently about establishing a Presidential Commission on the Future of Administrative Computing. He will appoint the Commission not later than next Tuesday, April 9, 2002 so that it will be in place soon enough to review whatever proposals come to CSU from a vendor or vendors. Between now and then, if anyone has any comments about members for that Commission, please let him know.

President Michael Schwartz reported that new applications for undergraduate students are up by 15% from one year ago. New graduate applications are up by about 35%. He was unsure if all of this will materialize. We are doing some things well and the word is getting around.

President Michael Schwartz informed the Senate that CSU has received a $1 million grant from the Department of Energy that has to do with glass -- specifically with the manufacturing process for glass fibers. This process consumes enormous amounts of energy in the first place and, because there is so much breakage in the process, maybe we can find a way to reduce energy consumption. We do those kinds of things pretty well at CSU -- which is to say we address the contemporary problems of old industries, etc. The reason he mentioned the grant is not because it is almost $1 million and it is glass, but because the story about it appeared in Monday's Crain's Cleveland Business. President Schwartz said that Cleveland State University was finally mentioned in the article in the seventh paragraph which was a real attention getter for him. CSU was, in effect, an afterthought as an institution in what is really an important piece of work. Important pieces of work are going on at this university in many places -- in the sciences, in engineering, in the humanities, in the arts, in the professions. We are just being overlooked one way or another. It is President Schwartz's view that if we don't blow our own horn, nobody is going to do it for us.

President Michael Schwartz stated that the focus of our marketing and advertising campaign, according to the application figures, has been quite successful. It would be better perhaps if we were to focus upon the scholars, researchers, and artists on this campus who are doing wonderful things and to show them in conjunction with the students who participate in the work with them. So, we are going to change that. Some people will get these phone calls in the middle of the afternoon so that their picture can be taken. The President asked for everyone's help. Let's show people that what happens at CSU is very important.

President Michael Schwartz reported that he asked Provost Chin Kuo recently to give him a couple of numbers. He first asked for a number that would show what it would take to raise the academic program up to the point where none of our accreditations were threatened and where we were doing things at a reasonable, if not humble, level. It would be $12 million. That is probably not a bad number -- it makes sense. The last cut we took was about $6 million. We had been in a pretty steady enrollment decline for about a decade. Our tuition and fee policy here was not the best that it could be because the legislature had slapped a 6% cap on us. Our average increase over the five years of the 6% cap was 2.6% and, in one of those years, it was zero. So we add what we left on the table with what the legislature had steadily been cutting, and with the enrollment decline on top of that, and it sounds like $12 million is pretty realistic. President Schwartz stated, "That's the good news." The bad news is that we think we will be flat-funded for next year but the Governor, tomorrow, is going to tell us what his plan is for plugging the budget loop-hole for this year. We don't know if we are part of that plug or not and won't know until tomorrow.

President Michael Schwartz said that in the meantime, as everyone has read, we taxed our students again to the tune of 9.9% because we told the Governor that we wouldn't exceed 10%. We were good to our word. And, at the same time that we did that, we put a $300 surcharge on new students at this university. And, the same time we did that, we shortened up the band of full-timers from what was 12 to 18 credit hours to 12 to 16 credit hours so students start paying at the 17th hour. We are trying to improve our revenue position a little bit. After we had done all of that, and assuming a very modest amount of enrollment growth, we can produce a budget that probably has no wiggle room in it whatsoever. President Schwartz reported that our best information is that in the next biennium, State funding for higher education will not change. These kinds of fee increases are not going to go away. Our students are now paying more than one half of the cost to run the university. He said that he never harbored any interest of being the President of a private institution, but we are getting close. He wished he could come to Senate today to report better news than that, but he can't.

Finally, President Michael Schwartz reported that the current hiring freeze, which he has characterized as more of a "slush" with regard to non-academic positions, will have to stay in place. He regrets that very much. He knows how some departments are really hurting, but the whole university is hurting. President Schwartz stated that we will make it better if we stick together.

Professor Andrew Gross thanked President Schwartz for the email. It was very thoughtful and detailed. He asked President Schwartz if he could comment briefly on what is happening within the Development Office. President Schwartz responded that he would not comment.

IV. Proposed Motion from Budget and Finance Committee (Report No. 15, 2001-2002)

Professor Arthur Schwartz, Chair of the Budget and Finance Committee, reported that the motion in the Senate packets concerns a recommendation to the university that over the next few years, the proportion of funds allocated to instruction and department research be shifted a minimum of 2% per year until we get back approximately to the split that was in place more than five years ago where 55% of the budget was going to instruction and 45% to administrative overhead. These are the categories that the Committee has been dealing with as they have been looking at the budget proposals. These are the categories, as they traced back, that are used so that they can see the shifts. The categories are not neat and clean. There are some administrative people providing support on the academic function. That needs to be tweaked, but the general purpose of this motion is a sense of the Senate that we would like to see the administration moved back at a target rate and then, thereafter, we can begin to see whether or not we are making progress in hitting that rate of 2% per year.

Dr. Barbara Green wondered if President Schwartz would support the measure because faculty can vote this as many times as they want but it depends on whether the President and the administration will support it. President Michael Schwartz responded that the President wants to spend as much money as he possibly can on the academic programs because that is the purpose of the university. In that sense, President Schwartz said that he can support the motion. He also wanted to be realistic. If we take Provost Chin Kuo's estimate of $12 million and added it in, we would be there. His concern is that as budgets stay stable, fixed costs become a larger percentage of our expenditures.

Dr. Jane McIntyre wondered if the Budget Committee can resolve to report back on this issue every budget year. In other words, report on whether we have actually achieved that which we resolved as a goal or whether we have fallen off more. Part of what is necessary on the part of the faculty is to keep this issue before the administration and before the faculty to the extent that we can. The powers to be in the State do not care quite as much as we do. Make this one of the issues where we are going to say, "This is something we think needs attention and needs to continue to focus on whatever that figure is." Dr. Arthur Schwartz replied that this is the rationale that drove the motion. It was felt that by setting a target and a goal, the Committee could evaluate our progress toward meeting it for that particular year and then go back and see how the progress is being made.

Dr. Jane McIntyre stated that she knows there are some areas in which they are starting to focus on just reporting some of the figures in a certain targeted way which can actually help to change the situation. It would be a good idea if the Budget Committee planned to have their annual report on the success or failure in doing this and try to generate some publicity for recommendations for next year. Dr. Art Schwartz responded that this was the Committee's intent.

Professor Camilla Stivers said that she appreciated her colleagues' concern for trying to be explicit about this and set targets. She is a little skeptical, however, about whether that is an empty gesture or not because it seems to her that, if we have learned anything in recent months over the Enron situation, we've learned that any good accountant can make this come out. Two percent is nothing. She stated that she could do it and she is not an accountant. What she sees here is a frustration among the faculty who see the erosion of academic priorities in favor of the overhead. She is certainly right with Dr. Art Schwartz on that but she is just a little skeptical about whether this is a real measure or a symbolic one.

Dr. Jane McIntyre asked whether Dr. Bowen or President Schwartz, or any of the financial officers agree that it will be easy just to adjust the figures by that 2%. Her impression from years past is that these categories are treated as quite fixed by the State reporting system. It is not something where we can just say we are going to put this group on the academic side and now we can restore the percentage we are spending on the academic side. She said that she thought the categories were fairly stable for reporting purposes. Dr. Art Schwartz responded that he hasn't seen the State categories but there has been some question that has arisen about particular items within these categories. The consensus of the members on the Committee was, "Let's set a goal, then begin to fine tune it." The goal is to get back to a greater proportion in strengthening the academics. Those details will be coming.

Referring to Vice President Roy Ray, Dr. Bowen noted that the question is whether or not we can take and adjust the numbers in such a way that the 2% can be created. Mr. Ray responded that there are specific categories of expenditures that we can make sure we agree on with the PBAC. He felt that it is doable; it is not a problem.

Dr. Jane McIntyre stated that it is then doable and we can just adjust by nominal changes without actually changing anything we are spending. Mr. Ray said, "No." He added that they will work with PBAC in terms of what specific items belong in which specific categories. The figures will be created based upon that agreement.

Dr. David Larson inquired if there is only rhetorical power anyway and nothing beyond that in the proposed motion. He would imagine that one of the things the Committee is charged with doing is to try to make sure that no one does creatively play games so that we really get 2%. That would have to be implicit in one of the charges to the Committee because they do study those kinds of figures and make sure that there aren't too many shell games being played out. Professor Art Schwartz stated that some of the members of the Committee have more content knowledge about reading financial statements, but all of the members have questions and all of the members are on the same page with the intent. They will be following up and making sure.

There being no further discussion, Senate President Bowen called for the vote. The proposed Motion of the Budget and Finance Committee recommending increasing the proportion of funds allocated to Instructional and Department Research by a minimum of 2% per year until not less than 55% of annual resources are allocated for support of Instructional and Department Research was approved.

Dr. Bowen stated that the next item comes from the University Faculty Affairs Committee and it is about the privacy of email and files on computer systems. He noted that Professor Thomas Buckley has put an enormous amount of time into this in negotiating it with Legal Counsel and with Information Services and Technology. He assures us that we will have, under this policy, the necessary privacy that was expressed on the Senate floor when it was brought up last year.


V. Proposed Computer Security Policy (Report No. 16, 2001-2002)

Professor Edward Brennan, Chair of the University Faculty Affairs Committee, stated that he didn't know how much background information is particularly necessary. He felt that the Senate is quite familiar with the issue. The campus security policy became an issue when faculty required security and that it be contrary to policy to access email or other files within the faculty's computer arrangement. Other arms of the university find it necessary for one person to access another person's files -- people more in the administrative branch. Professor Thomas Buckley, from the Law College, finally worked out a policy that is acceptable by all sides with some bit of compromise. It seems to be acceptable to the faculty who have looked into it carefully. It will be contrary to policy for anybody arbitrarily to enter into computer files and email. One note of caution that kept being emphasized is not to feel overly secure. It just is not a terribly secure computer condition. It is accessible by people. The Committee emphasized that it will be contrary to policy so that if a member of the university is in breach, they will be in trouble in their position in the university. Dr. Brennan noted that if anyone has any questions, Professor Buckley is present to respond to questions about the policy. Dr. Brennan again mentioned that the proposed policy is acceptable on all sides of the university.

Dr. Bowen noted that a second to the Committee's proposed motion is not needed since it comes from a Senate standing committee.

Professor Andrew Gross quoted from the top of page 15 of the proposed policy: "Employees are specifically prohibited from using the University's electronic mail system to disseminate information on any non-University activities, including, but not limited to, charitable events, religious observances, fund-raisers, and personal businesses." He stated that he could live with all of those even though there are at times either mass mailings or semi-mass mailings coming out about certain charitable, religious, and fund-raising events and so he submits that this happens. But, more important, rather than to delete any of them, he would prefer that an additional one would be political campaigning. In other words, we should not be disseminating political campaigning literature on emails. Rather than argue that some of the charitable, religious, and fund-raisings are already being violated, leave it in. Dr. Gross felt political campaigning is another item that would not be desirable on the email system. He would hope that Professor Tom Buckley or someone would address this specific sentence.

Professor Thomas Buckley reported that the Subcommittee of the University Faculty Affairs Committee looked at the whole document. There are things about pass words and fire walls and most of it is technological and the committee did not get into that. He stated that he did not have any objection to Professor Gross' suggestion. There is, however, another document called the Appropriate Use Policy that another group is working on. That policy addresses how much people can use computers for what is appropriate and what you can do with it. Dr. Bowen stated that there are some other issues as well. There is computer maintenance and a whole set of issues related to the computer not addressed by this particular policy. This policy is dealing with computer privacy and security.

Dr. Jane McIntyre asked, "When this policy is circulated to faculty in whatever form it is, might there also be some brief summary of the kinds of records that might constitute public records?" Most faculty members would not know that and might not know whether some memo they were writing and keeping on their computer would count as a public record or not. There is a general knowledge, maybe in the Senate, but most people do not have general knowledge of how extensive that is. Perhaps some brief summary might be made available to people. It is one thing to just say that anything that might be acceptable under the Public Records Act might be subject to being asked for, but if people don't know what that is, that is not going to be very informative. Professor Edward Brennan noted that Dr. Jane McIntyre was really talking about giving more information and instruction to faculty and other people.

Dr. Jane McIntyre stated that when this policy is disseminated, a little more information about that would be useful. Dr. Brennan agreed that Dr. McIntyre's suggestion was a good idea.

Senate President Bowen asked members if Dr. McIntyre's suggestion should be referred to the Senate Computational Services Committee. Dr. McIntyre said that she assumed this policy is going to be promulgated in some way. These policies usually are. Along with that, something explanatory of that kind would be useful for some people.

Dr. Barbara Green reported that the University Faculty Affairs Committee, of course, is not a legal body which can come out with a legal statement so it might be worth while to have our Legal Office come out with something that would inform faculty.

Dr. Jane McIntyre stated that she knows there are State summaries. The Attorney General's Office does summaries of that kind. Maybe all we need to do is extract something from those summaries and make it a little more readily available to faculty. Professor Brennan noted that we could appeal to Ms. Nancy Cribbs' Office to provide clarifying information to the faculty. He indicated that he will contact the Legal Office.

There being no further discussion, Dr. Bowen called for the vote. The proposed Computer Security Policy was approved.

Dr. Barbara Green commented that this policy comes out under the University Faculty Affairs Committee, but the Faculty Affairs Committee owes a great debt for it all to the Subcommittee and to Professor Tom Buckley, without whom it simply would not have been done.

VI. Proposed December Commencement (Report No. 17, 2001-2002)

Dr. Cheryl McCahon, Chair of the Graduation, Convocation, and Assembly Committee, proposed that we have a December commencement, the first one of which would be this December 2002. The Committee met and strongly supports this second commencement specifically speaking to the fact that it improves the possibilities that the students would participate in a commencement when indeed if they graduated at other times during the year, they may not. Because we know that there are many first generation students who are graduating and families want to be involved and the families get very excited, it would benefit the students greatly to have the second commencement. Also, there are enough students who are graduating in December to make that commencement, hopefully, a situation where the commencement in May would not be so large and bulky. Without any reservations at all, the Committee does recommend the December commencement.

Dr. Bowen noted that since this proposal comes from a Senate standing committee, a second is not needed.

Professor Andrew Gross inquired if Dr. McCahon and the administration envision 50% of faculty attending in December and 50% of the faculty attending in May. Dr. McCahon replied, "No." The Committee did not consider that their purview when the second commencement was being discussed. The Committee assumed that this would be decided with the union. Dr. David Larson stated that this is in the contract.

Professor Gross noted that usually, in the College of Business, it is decided at the department level and for the past umpteen years, basically 50% percent of the faculty were, "required to attend" the spring commencement and it was rotated. He is just reporting what has been the practice. He is not saying it is good, bad, or whatever.

Professor Chet Jain reported that in the Admissions and Standards Committee's meeting, President Schwartz had indicated that whatever the rules are currently, 50% of the faculty will participate in commencement so they would be divided. It is still 50%. President Michael Schwartz stated that this was his suggested view.

Professor Cynthia Dieterich inquired if there will be additional expenses incurred with the second commencement. Dr. Cheryl McCahon replied that the comments the Committee heard were, as this becomes standard, there will not be additional expenses necessarily. This has come up a number of different times in past years in some of the Committee meetings and when we look at the possibilities of one giant commencement every year versus more than one commencement, you can say on the one side, sure it will cost less to have one commencement maybe, but you have to look at honorary degree recipients, how many honorary degrees you are giving, issues like the rental for the Convocation Center, etc., over time. One member of the Committee, who is involved with doing the invitations and those kinds of things, said that over time her feeling was it would come out about even.

Professor Dieterich asked what will happen for now. Dr. McCahon responded that she would assume that there would be some additional expense, perhaps for the first one, but she did not feel there would be additional expense after that. Dr. Susan Kogler Hill noted that at the last Steering Committee meeting, President Michael Schwartz had indicated that the second commencement would cost an additional $10,000.

Professor Mieko Smith remarked, "Then we can have two graduations with all of the Colleges together. Is that the idea?" Dr. McCahon responded that she believed that this is the idea.

Professor Thomas Flechtner asked if the second commencement includes the Law College. Professor McCahon asked if President Schwartz would respond to Professor Flechtner's question. President Michael Schwartz commented that there is at least one trustee who is more than interested in the answer to Professor Flechtner's question and he had not intended for there to be a Law commencement along with the rest of them. He is sure that Dean Steven Steinglass would like to engage in "friendly conversations and frank expressions of views" about that.

Professor Mareyjoyce Green inquired if anyone has talked to the Registrar's Office about the second commencement. She knows they will do it if assigned to do it, but is this going to be a special hardship on them in terms of what they do ordinarily from one semester to the other and doing the extra commencement? Dr. McCahon responded that over time, it would actually be easier for the Graduation Office. They agreed that once the process has begun and is a consistent process and it doesn't bottle up in spring semester it would be easier.

Professor Flechtner asked if PeopleSoft can handle the additional commencement. Professor Jane McIntyre stated that the answer is, "sometimes." The Registrar's Office sometimes gets things done in a timely fashion in December and sometimes does not.

Professor Chet Jain commented that, in order to advance the process, the Admissions and Standards Committee has met on this decision and, subject to the approval of the motion of the Graduation, Convocation, and Assembly Committee, has approved that December 15, 2002 be the date of the second commencement. If Senate approves the motion today, the Admissions and Standards Committee has approved December 15 as the date of the second commencement.

Professor Dieterich asked, "Even though students may have finished their requirements in the summer, but due to December being a winter month they want to graduate in May, would they have that option?" President Michael Schwartz responded that the students would have the option, but just once.

Dr. Barbara Green reported that she was told this was discussed at a Steering Committee meeting. She does hope that conditions under which faculty participate in these graduations will be improved over the past. To ask faculty to come and, when they arrive, there are no seats available for them at the graduation is not a good practice. In addition, the way the faculty are treated and given no food or water, it seems that those things ought to be improved if we really want to have the graduation come off with faculty participating.

Dr. Bowen confirmed that this issue was discussed at Steering Committee. He asked President Schwartz to comment. President Michael Schwartz noted that he has not been to any commencements yet, but he is hearing the "wonderful" tales. This year in May, the trustees, the faculty, and honored guests will all robe together and will be subject to the same fare. He noted that he was surprised to hear about the lack of food and water. Dr. Jane McIntyre added that seats should also be provided. President Schwartz said that he knows what happened with the seats. That was an usher error. There is a certain inevitability about commencements. Once you get it down, it goes well. One of our problems with commencement is that we have a much too small commencement committee. There is an awful lot of work to do and we don't have enough people to spread it around. In addition, there is a failure to build a routine. He reported that he is also trying to slow down the spread of honorary doctorates. The chairman of the Honorary Degree Committee concurs with that. Maybe this is one way to spread that out a little because it takes forever. He is hoping that ultimately we have brief commencements in May.

There being no further discussion, Dr. Bowen called for the vote. The Graduation, Convocation, and Assembly Committee's proposed December Commencement was approved.


[Go to top of page]

VII.Senate President's Report

Senate President William Bowen reported that in terms of migrating Senate meetings, apparently it was an experiment that failed. It seems that it was a good idea whose time has not yet come because we don't have the space. It looks like we are going to go back to RT 1916-17 where we can face our colleagues -- the lack of distinction in that room notwithstanding.

Dr. Bowen reported that the Academic Steering Committee gave the ad hoc Committee on the Honors Initiative a charge. That Committee meets tomorrow, April 11, 2002.

Dr. Bowen next mentioned that the Student Government Association is going to Columbus on April 24, 2002 for a rally. He will be going with them and noted that if anyone would like to come, they are welcome. The idea is to try to get the attention of some of the State decision-makers with regard to the State budget for higher education.

An unidentified Senator asked who the members are on the ad hoc Committee on the Honors Initiative. Dr. Bowen responded that two faculty from each college were appointed by the caucuses of the different colleges except for Arts and Sciences which insisted on four members because we have proportional representation. The members of the Honors Initiative Committee are:

Arts and Sciences
John Jeziorowski (Health Sciences)
Barbara Margolius (Mathematics)
Sarah Matthews (Sociology)
Robert Wheeler (History)
Chia-Shin Chung (Operations Management)
Edward Thomas (Marketing)
Ruth Bombaugh (Teacher Education)
Brian Yusko (Curriculum/Foundations)
Engineering John Donoghue (Electrical Engineering)
Lutful Khan (Civil Engineering)
Patricia Falk
Sheldon Gelman
Urban Affairs
William Bowen
Nancy Meyer-Emerick

Professor Kenneth Dunegan asked Dr. Bowen to clarify why Arts and Sciences has four representatives on the Committee. Dr. Bowen responded because Arts and Sciences is such a large college relative to the other colleges. Professor Dunegan asked if Urban Affairs should have fewer than two because it is a smaller college. He noted that he was asked to reduce the number of volunteers from the College of Business because we wanted to get it down to two representatives per college. Dr. Bowen replied that Dr. Dunegan had made a good point and he hears what he (Dr. Dunegan) is saying. Dr. Bowen's way of interpreting this job all the way along is that we have this really large college that wants to have more people on various committees and that is how he has accepted that things get done. Professor Dunegan disagreed with that. If we are going to do it proportionally, then we should do it proportionally across all of the colleges.

Dr. Jane McIntyre said that she was not sure exactly why there is representation from Law on this committee. An Honors College, she assumed, would be an undergraduate college.

Dr. Bowen asked if anyone would like to talk about that. Professor Tayyab Mahmud responded that there is representation from Law for two reasons. The College of Law is certainly part of CSU. But, more importantly, we still don't know what shape the Honors College will take. In the Law School it is a given that we recruit substantially from CSU itself. The Law School has a stake in the shape and size and form of an Honors College and can only be helpful in deliberations.

Dr. Barbara Green added that she was even intrigued by the possibility of a real Honors College and having a course taught for them by the Law School faculty.

[Go to top of page]

VIII. New Business

Professor Mareyjoyce Green stated that it seems to her that any time there is a public policy that categorically denies opportunity for post-secondary education for qualified citizens, it is not a direct concern or at least an implicit concern for faculty members. Right now Congress is in the process of re-authorization of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act which is commonly known as welfare reform. Post-secondary education ignored this Act when it was first done. It is now under reorganization. What is being proposed by the administration will categorically deny the opportunity for post-secondary education for well qualified, intellectual with intelligence, students who could benefit from post-secondary education. We have had experience at CSU with some of those students, not only graduating with honors, but who went on to excel in professional and graduate school. Re-authorization is proposing now that work be 40 hours per week. With required work of 40 hours per week, there is no way, with problems with child care, transportation, those people can come to school in their spare time.

Professor Mareyjoyce Green noted that she had an opportunity to testify at a congressional briefing in Washington DC about a week ago and it appears as though there is the possibility that the need for post-secondary education to become an allowable work activity in the re-authorization may get through the House. She asked if members know personally any legislative people, to ask them to support post-secondary education as an allowable work activity. Twenty-three states now have post-secondary education as an allowable work activity. Ohio may be given an option that it can as the Act supports devolution to the States. We need to begin now to say that in our State, for qualified students who would benefit and can do well in post-secondary education, this should be an allowable work activity. There is no question that the payoff is better for all of us. Once people have their degrees, they are away from dependence and take their children with them. We just need to be alerted that Washington re-authorization is going on now and there is the chance that post-secondary education, as an allowable work activity, will pass the House. If it gets to the Senate, it may well pass, but that still doesn't mean that Ohio will accept it. It is just a heads up for us to become aware that this is occurring. If it continues with 40 hours and related barriers, there will be a category of well-qualified citizens that will not be potential students at our school.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:00 P.M.


[Go to top of page]


Arthur H. Schwartz
Faculty Senate Secretary



[Go to top of page]