I. Approval of the Agenda
II. Approval of the Minutes
III. Announcement of Elections at the May 8, 2002 Meeting
IV.Announcement of Coming Faculty-wide Election
V.University President's Report
VI. Informational Report on the Budget (Report No. 18, 2001-2002
VII. Proposed One-year Moratorium on Program Review (Report No. 19, 2001-2002
VIII. Report from Student Government
IX. Report on Parking Fee Increases (Report No. 20, 2001-2002
X. Committee on Athletics Annual Report (Report No. 21, 2001-2002)
XI. Senate President's Report
XII. New Business
PRESENT:David Adams, E. Anderson, Aquila, Bagaka's, D. Ball, Barbato, J. Bazyk, W. Bowen, Buckley, Chung, Dieterich, Doerder, Droney, Dunegan, Flechtner, James Flynn, Forte, Geier, Govea, B. Green, Gross, Hanlon, Hemann, Hill, Hinds, L. Keller, Konangi, Kuo, Larson, Matthews, J. McIntyre, Moutafakis, Ng, Nolan, Nuru-Holm, L. Patterson, R. Ramos, Ray, Reinhart, A. Schwartz, M. Schwartz, Shah, M. Smith, Steinglass, Stivers, Thornton, Tumeo, Whyte.
ABSENT/EXCUSED: Annapragada, Atherton, A. Benander, Bonder, Burt, D. Chandler, Davenport, Dillard, M. Kaufman, Kiel, Caroline King, Konstantinos, Mahmud, Marredeth, McCahon, McLoughlin, Misra, Ramsey, Rosentraub, Sanders, Sawicki, Sparks, Tewari, J. Webb, James Wilson.
ALSO PRESENT: Brennan, Lupton,
President William Bowen called the meeting to order at 3:10 P.M.
Acceptance of the Agenda for April 17, 2002 was moved, seconded, and approved.
Acceptance of the Minutes of the April 3, 2002 meeting was moved, seconded, and approved.
Announcement of Elections at the May 8, 2002 Meeting
Senate President Bowen announced the elections scheduled for the meeting of May 8, 2002 as follows: Three faculty representatives to the University Faculty Affairs Committee; three faculty representatives to the Minority Affairs Committee; two faculty representatives to the Budget and Finance Committee; one faculty representative to the Board of Trustees; one faculty representative to the Honorary Degree Committee; one faculty representative to the Copyright Review Committee; one faculty representative to the Patent Review Committee; four representatives to the Equal Opportunity Hearing Panel. Dr. Bowen reminded members to check with candidates to be sure they are willing to serve before nominating them.
Senate President Bowen announced the upcoming faculty-wide election of one faculty representative to the Academic Misconduct Review Committee. Nominations for this election come from the Academic Steering Committee.
Michael Schwartz noted that in just a few weeks, students will find it possible
to register for classes on the web for the first time. The next time we see
a TV ad that says the University of Akron is wireless, so are we. About one-third
of the campus is now wireless that includes Urban, Law, University Center, the
plaza out front between University Center and Rhodes Tower, and Rhodes Tower
to the fourteenth floor including the Library.
Schwartz reported that three members of the faculty have been honored with Fulbright
awards for the coming year. Professor Jae-won Lee, Communication, has received
his third Fulbright Award and will be assisting the University of Botswana in
developing its Department of Journalism and Communication. Also in the Department
of Communication, Professor Renee Botta will teach public relations and quantitative
methods at Copperbelt University in Zambia. She will also assist businesses
in the conveying of public health information particularly with regard to AIDS.
Professor Valerie George, Nursing, will be assisting in Mbarara University in
Uganda in the design, teaching, and maintenance of its curriculum in nursing.
Nurses represent the primary care providers in that country. President Schwartz
asked everyone to please join him in congratulating these very outstanding members
of our faculty.
Michael Schwartz said that he was also pleased on this occasion to thank our
Athletic Director, John Konstantinos, for his many years of dedicated service
and for bringing national recognition to Cleveland State University and the
City of Cleveland through the hosting of several NCAA tournaments. He is most
proud of the repeated rankings of our several athletes in the scholastic top
ten in the nation. John Konstantinos and his coaches and staff have demonstrated
that the phrase "student athlete" is not an oxymoron. The President congratulated
John Konstantinos and wished him well in his retirement.
Michael Schwartz reported that he has appointed a search committee to be chaired
by Professor Susan Ziegler to seek John Konstantinos' replacement. This committee
consists of: Mr. Dan Avis, Mr. Nick Boucher, a CSU student, Mr. Louis Brownlowe,
Interim Dean of University Studies, Mr. Michael Cleary, the president of the
National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics, Mr. David Gilbert,
of the Greater Cleveland Sports Commission, Ms. Alice Khol, Associate Athletics
Director, Mr. Wally Morton, Head Swim Coach, Dr. Bill Shorrock, Vice Provost
for Academic Affairs, Dr. Steve Slane, Professor in the Department of Psychology,
and Dr. Susan Ziegler, Professor in HPERD.
Schwartz also reported on the formation of the Presidential Commission on the
Future of Administrative Computing. He is really quite grateful for everyone's
help and advice in generating a list of nominees. Based on recommendations,
he has asked the following members of the University community to serve on the
Commission: Allan Taub, Maureen McQuestion, Mike Droney, William Beasley, David
Genzen, Ravi Kamath, Jack Boyle, Jerry Kiel, Joe Nolan, Don Golden, Bill Wilson,
Vijay Konangi, Art Schwartz, Santosh Misra, Roy Ray, Bill Shephard, and John
Schwartz noted that at the last meeting of the Senate, he was not in the position
to give a definitive answer to Professor Gross' question about personnel changes
in the Division of University Relations and Development. Today he is able to
report that Vice President Davenport has tendered his resignation effective
May 31st. He has asked Mr. Brian Johnston to assume responsibility for administering
the division on an acting basis.
at the last Senate meeting, President Schwartz had reported that the freeze
on non-academic positions would continue until the State budget situation for
next year became clearer. President Schwartz noted that the very next day, Governor
Taft announced his intention to hold higher education harmless for fiscal year
03 that means no additional cuts in our appropriation for next year although
Governor Taft is not the only one who can do that. President Schwartz went on
to say that no member of the legislature he has run into in Columbus wants to
come after higher education anymore. But, that can change in an eye blink. In
spite of that, we are behaving on the basis that we will be held harmless. He
has, therefore, removed the freeze on all sectors of the University. He thanked
everyone for great patience, cooperation, and a lot of extra hard work during
that freeze. It has been no fun for any of us.
Schwartz announced the pending appointment of two new Deans. This, of course,
depends on the approval of the Board of Trustees. Dr. Robert Scherer, who is
coming to us from Wright State University, will be Dean of the College of Business
Administration, and Dr. Charles Alexander, will be the Dean of the College of
President Schwartz reported on a successful trip to Washington, D.C. with Senator DeWine and quite a number of people in the Congress concerning a proposal that we are developing called The Applied Research Institute. This proposal is for a cooperative venture among the University, the City of Cleveland, NASA Glenn Research Center, and CAMP, the Advanced Manufacturing Center being part of that. The idea here is to take patents that currently exist (or are sitting on the shelf that have some market potential) and bring them into an environment in which further research can take place to turn them into potential products and new companies that can be spun off in the community. On the theory that it is important for our students to be prepared for the economy, it is equally important that there be an economy ready and waiting for our students. If this venture succeeds, we should be able to make quite a dent. As far as he knows, this is the first effort at bringing these four organizations together in this sort of way. So far, the enthusiasm level is quite high in each organization. This adventure might start with some science incubators and other things right here and then move to a site later provided by the City. The reason that we were in Washington talking about this is that we would like a fifth partner -- where the real money is -- and we were very well and very warmly received with this idea.
Finally, President Schwartz commented that the conversation that is going on electronically about reorganization in the College of Arts and Sciences, and which has a tendency to clog his email, is a conversation that he has been paying very careful attention to. It goes on almost interminably and he finds that to be unnecessary. While the conversation should end by the end of this term, President Schwartz said that he is hoping that the vote in the College of Arts and Sciences will be taken at the beginning of the Fall semester. As for his own view, President Schwartz stated that, as of this moment having read all of that electronic communication, he is quite supportive of the proposers of this new college. It doesn't mean that it is without its problems, but at this moment, he can see that they have done a pretty good job of making their case. There are options here to what is on the table. That new college can be very helpful to us. So can a College of Arts and Humanities; so can a College of the Social Science; etc. It would be terribly unwise to restrict our view of the possibilities largely based on the fact that we are poor. We are going to stay poor if we can't find some ways for ourselves to strike out in bold new adventuresome ways, and to direct our efforts more narrowly than we currently do. Having said that, President Schwartz stopped the conversation. He wanted everyone to know that this current proposal is one that looks to him as though it has some potential for driving enrollments forward. It may not be the only configuration that is possible. We ought to stay open to what those possibilities are like. He wanted everyone to know what he is thinking currently.
Dr. Arthur Schwartz, Chair of the Budget and Finance Committee, reported that he had included a draft of FY 2003 Budget Scenarios dated April 8, 2002 in the Senate packet. This is the most current information. Dr. Art Schwartz said that he is prepared to give an update on the budget. They are still working on getting information on PeopleSoft expenses. He had committed himself, according to the April 3rd Senate Minutes, to provide an update on the cost benefit analysis. He met with Mike Droney on that. He doesn't have precise figures for this meeting. They are working on getting more information. It may not be possible to quantify that at this time, but he will report as much as he has to Senate at the next meeting on May 8, 2002.
Dr. Art Schwartz had several
items that go along with good news. Looking at the draft scenarios of the budget
projections for next year, there are three different fiscal scenarios. These scenarios
are based on previous models and the budget that is being recommended is based
on scenario B which has a 1% increase in undergraduate enrollment, a 2% increase
in graduate school enrollment, and some other decreases. That yields a projected
budget with a total revenue of $160,150,000 and total expenditures of $157,380,000.
There are some good news items to report on in the lower right hand column under
new commitments. The figure of $1,365,000 committed to the PeopleSoft project,
is lower and the money freed up from that is going to go into the Provost's area
-- the instructional area.
Dr. Art Schwartz referred to the notations at the bottom of the sheet -- "The Vice President for Financial Affairs recommends allocating..." It is his understanding that we will finish this year with $3 million in increased revenues. That money is being proposed to be spent in the following way: $1.9 million will go into the PeopleSoft expenses -- the hardware, software upgrade. Many of those we would have had to incur anyway. Rather than taking it and putting it into the reserves, it is going into covering those expenses. There is $1 million proposed for the Academic Strategic Reinvestment. These are new program initiatives and requests for proposals will be forthcoming. He did not have any information on whether it is departmental or individual, or how that will be targeted. Rather than plowing the surplus straight back into reserves, it is being reallocated making it available for the academic instruction area. Dr. Art Schwartz said that he hopes to have those final figures possibly by the next Senate meeting.
Dr. Jane McIntyre indicated
that she had a request that Dr. Art Schwartz might be able to pass along through
the Senate Budget Committee. In past years, part of the lack of clarity about
what the last PeopleSoft project cost was the fact that there did not seem to
be any clear mechanism for tracking the costs that were attached to PeopleSoft
and often it was unclear whether monies that were being spent would have had to
have been spent in some way on IS&T, or not. So when it actually came down
to the crunch of saying, "What did this cost?", nobody could actually say. It
seems that this is the time now to be asking the financial officers to be thinking
about setting up a system that would track costs in a way that we will be able
to answer things like, "What did this cost more than what we would have spent
anyway on things that we would have had to have done anyway, etc." Maybe they
can start thinking now about having a better system for tracking the cost of this
project. In the Minutes of the previous Senate meeting, Professor McIntyre noticed
that it had been reported that the last PeopleSoft project ended up costing us
$15 to $17 million which was in the average range. But, that was actually four
or five times more than the initial cost projection for that project. No matter
how those costs were tracked, it was four or five times more than the initial
cost. Dr. McIntyre asked if there is any expectation that we are going to be wrong
by a factor that large again on what this project is going to cost. That is a
very bad mistake to have made.
Dr. Arthur Schwartz responded that in the extra meetings in the Senate Budget and Finance Committee, they have spoken with faculty members in finance and have then in turn talked to Mr. Mike Droney and other people in the administration about decision- making, tracking costs, and oversight.
Concerning the figures that
the Budget Committee was given on PeopleSoft 8.0, Dr. Art Schwartz reported that
there is one university that brought in on line the beginning of February 2002
-- the University of Louisville. They brought in certain modules -- not all of
them. They grossly underestimated what it was going to cost. IT projects, despite
the best estimates and the most careful projections, probably will come in above
those projections. Judging from the emails that Dr. Art Schwartz has received
from both constituencies, people are well aware and the administration is well
aware of our concerns. They are working together to at least keep track of that.
The budget, as it is set up, and the people who are on this Committee will enable
us to ask that information and to report back to Senate regularly. But, if what
he has been told is correct, they will be monitoring budgets; it is a matter of
keeping it from running away.
Professor Chia-Shin Chung noted that Dr. Art Schwartz had mentioned that scenario B is based on a 1% increase in undergraduate and a 2% increase in graduate enrollment. He asked about scenarios A and C. Dr. Art Schwartz responded that scenario A is based on 0% undergraduate and 2% graduate enrollment. Scenario C is based on 2% undergraduate and 4% graduate enrollment.
Professor Chung noted that
if we look at the three scenarios, we don't really see any changes for the Library
which is one of the questions Senate discussed two meetings ago. There are really
three different scenarios. If we look at all of the other items, we find that
those numbers pretty much stay the same. The difference we see at the bottom --
the total revenue less expenditures -- is 0 in scenario A, $330,000 in scenario
B, and $1,231,000 in scenario C. It is really a difference of the revenue we are
getting from the students. All of the numbers are pretty much constant under the
different scenarios. In the best scenarios, do we have any idea how we are going
to spend the additional money we are going to get? The Library is one of the things
that people consider very important. Would some of the money go to the Library?
What is going to happen there? Dr. Art Schwartz replied that this is something
he can bring to the Budget Committee as a question. Independent of Professor Chung's
question, Dr. Art Schwartz said that he has received two emails from other faculty
asking about this. Dr. Art Schwartz reported that the Budget Committee's next
meeting is in the beginning of May. At that time, he will present Professor Chung's
question to the Committee.
Referring to the assumptions of increases in enrollment, Dr. Andrew Gross asked, "How does that dovetail with what has happened in the past five or ten years?" Dr. Art Schwartz responded that it dovetails consistently with a multiple year trend whether it is a straight line trend or a moving five-year trend which has consistently been a decrease in enrollment.
Professor Andrew Gross commented
that he assumes the attrition percentages are basically minus signs. Dr. Art Schwartz
responded that Professor Gross was correct.
Professor Kenneth Dunegan reported that there was some question in the Steering Committee about the formula that was used to translate applications into enrollments. He was under the impression that we were going to try to get some additional information about the modeling that was used that would translate the increases in applications that President Michael Schwartz reported at the last Faculty Senate meeting that were up 35% for graduates and up 15% for undergraduates. Dr. Dunegan asked how those application percentages translated into enrollment increases. He asked if there is any additional information about the presence of or the lack of an econometric model that uses that information to generate these projections.
Professor Art Schwartz replied
that he wouldn't use the term "econometric model." He might use the term "empirical
model." It is not a precise model. The figures he has been given are between "25%
and 35% of applications" -- harvest rate from overall applications but those are
estimates, not hard numbers. They vary from department to department. If you have
a 15% increase in applications, harvest rate is about 4%.
Dr. Dunegan noted then that the lowest harvest rate would generate significantly higher enrollment numbers for next year. Professor Art Schwartz responded that it could.
Dr. Dunegan noted again that
if the lowest projection is 25% harvest rate, and we have a 35% increase in applications
for graduates, wouldn't the most optimistic of the scenarios that Dr. Art Schwartz
presented -- scenario C -- be a considerable understatement of what we should
be expecting next year? Professor Art Schwartz commented that there are at least
two views on that. One is yes, obviously we should be more aggressive. The other
is if more aggressive projections don't materialize, plus if other contingencies
that could be negative happen such as an additional budget shortfall at the State
level, it would not be a good idea to come back in mid-year to cut. We should
instead be conservative in our estimates and then if things free up in the middle
of the year, do what is happening this year.
Professor Dunegan commented that the assumption then is that we would be as active in the distribution of additional revenues as we are this year. He then asked if the Budget Committee would be as active in deciding how to distribute the additional revenues, should they materialize, as they have been in making recommendations for the distribution of revenues this year. Professor Art Schwartz replied that the Senate Budget Committee will give its opinions and recommendations. We believe that we are heard. Whether our recommendations will be taken each time remains to be seen. The next step is to try to get a more precise breakdown of the allocation of positions within instruction and administration. There is going to be a continued active dialogue.
Gregory Lupton, Chair of the University Curriculum Committee commented that
members should have two documents that were distributed in the meeting packets
-- one was a memo from the University Curriculum Committee and the second was
a memo from Dean Mark Tumeo which had been included for members' information.
Both of these memos are concerned with the formation of a committee to study
program review. This item of business has been dealt with by the Academic Steering
Committee. But during the discussion in Steering Committee, it became apparent
that the item mentioned in the third paragraph in the memo from the UCC to the
Steering Committee should be something that Faculty Senate should consider and
that is why he is here today. This item is a one-year moratorium on program
review. It seemed appropriate that Faculty Senate should be asked to approve
this, if not for reasons of courtesy or policy, at least for reasons of symmetry
since Faculty Senate is the body that approved the current process of program
review. Professor Lupton moved that Faculty Senate approve the one-year moratorium
on program review. He makes this motion on the understanding that the Curriculum
Committee in the meanwhile will be studying and hopefully be coming up with
a new and improved process of program review.
William Bowen noted that we have a motion on the floor from a standing committee
and asked if there was any discussion.
John Bazyk asked what this mean for programs that are currently under review.
Professor Lupton responded that they should be completing or have already completed
this year's cycle. Dr. Lupton asked Dr. Bazyk if he meant the program that the
Committee is just finishing or the ones that are about to start. Dr. John Bazyk
asked if there are any in process that have not been completed. Dr. Lupton replied
that it is really a process that is finished and would be started again next
President Bowen asked for a point of clarification -- what year are we talking
about? When does the year begin and when does it end? Professor Lupton responded
that it would be the next academic year.
Jane McIntyre asked that the committee that is apparently being set up to look
into program review take seriously the idea that programs are of very different
types. She was somewhat concerned by some of the points raised in Dean Mark
Tumeo's memo which seems to suggest that we ought to be looking to the professional
programs as a kind of standard for program review. Such program reviews are
very appropriate for some units in the college and not necessarily as appropriate
for others particularly the liberal arts majors in the College of Arts and Sciences.
She went on to say that she would not like to see the needs and very different
expectations of those programs be given short shrift. Professionally oriented
programs have their needs but the liberal arts majors also have quite a different
set of needs. She would hope that the committee would try to stay sensitive
to that and not just jump on the professionalization bandwagon which is a real
issue both in program review and assessment.
There being no further discussion, Senate President Bowen called for the vote. The University Curriculum Committee's proposed One-year Moratorium on Program Review was approved.
Erin Wells, Secretary of Student Government, introduced Ms. Ruth Ramos, President
of Student Government, and Ms. Elizabeth Alexy, Vice President and President-Elect
of Student Government. Ms. Wells stated that she is at Senate on behalf of the
Student Government Association at Cleveland State as well as the other students
in the State of Ohio. They came to Senate today to talk about their K-16 higher
Wells informed the Senate that the students will hold a rally next Wednesday,
April 24, 2002 in Columbus as a follow-up to their post card campaign in February.
They are doing the rally along with the students from the other 12 public universities
in the State of Ohio. The K-16 campaign is to no longer deny college students
the right to an affordable education and to hold legislators responsible for
the decisions that they make for higher education. She noted that when the students
went down to Columbus for the last rally, they met with State representatives
and the biggest excuse the students got was that higher education is not in
the Ohio Constitution so they don't have to fund us. She went on to say that
the students are here to let everyone know that they have a voice and that they
are here to stand up for higher education.
Wells reported that student government is working with OCSG which is the Ohio
Council of Student Governments that is made up of student leaders across the
State of Ohio. They usually meet every couple of months, but now have been meeting
every month to go forward with the higher education campaign and really work
for the students of Ohio. Governor Taft has been invited and Tim Hagan will
be there as well as many others who are in support of higher education. Ms.
Wells referred to the fliers she had distributed to members today. Transportation
and lunch will be provided for all Cleveland State students. Faculty, staff,
and administrators are also welcome to join them. She noted that Dr. William
Bowen will be going along with them.
Wells stated that the officers of Student Government came to Senate today to
ask for members' support and to encourage their students to attend the rally.
Proof of attendance will be provided to all students who attend the rally. She
added that it is hoped this rally will be a big success. The students want to
let the Ohio legislators know that they are not going to sit back quietly while
legislators make education so unaffordable that it will be only for the elite.
This will be school spirit. Students from all 12 State universities will be
going to the rally together to work together for higher education.
Dr. Barbara Green noted that the blue flier states that buses will leave promptly at 9:00 P.M. and the orange flier states that buses will leave at 9:00 A.M. Ms. Erin Wells apologized for the error and stated that the buses will leave at 9:00 A.M. and return to campus at 4:30 P.M. The rally will be approximately one hour long at the State House.
Rodger Govea reported that he is one of two faculty representatives to the University
Parking Committee. On April 10, 2002, the Committee approved the rate increase
schedule that was distributed with the meeting materials. It was approved with
one dissenting vote. Dr. Govea commented that these are the proposals for the
next four years. The increase that is coming this July 1, 2002, has been approved
and has gone through the contractual procedures with the AAUP and will be imposed.
The other increases have been approved by the Parking Committee. The plan calls
for 3% increases across the board. He commented on some of the other changes,
including the change from "must pay" coming July 1, 2004 from $3 per day to
$4 per day; some changes in visitors and special events. The "must pay" and
the continuous 3% increase are probably the things that members should pay attention
Kenneth Dunegan asked, "What happens with these parking fee increases. Does
it now go to the Board of Trustees for approval or has it already gone to the
Trustees for approval?" Dr. Govea responded that since the fee increases were
approved by the Committee, there has not been a Board of Trustees meeting. He
stated that the parking fee increases would go to the Trustees for final approval.
Dunegan commented that procedurally, the proposed fee increases go to the Board,
they approve them, and then the increases are enacted for the next four years.
Dr. Govea said that he was not sure procedurally what would happen in terms
of the Board's ability to actually pass a four-year schedule. Mr. Roy Ray stated
that the yearly increase will be taken to the Board year by year.
Dunegan stated that he assumed everybody received the second page that has the
list or projects the parking fee increases are supposed to be funding. Dr. Dunegan
reported that he circulated the announcement through the College of Business
Administration and asked for input and feedback, some of which he can't share.
He noted that there was some concern about the justification for not only these
projects but also for increasing the parking rates which are already about the
highest in the State. The question he was asked to bring to Senate was whether
or not there was any kind of investigation of other ways of funding these projects
and whether or not we can actually justify the rates that are currently being
charged in even this year's budget. The reason is that there has been some comparison
between our institution and other institutions. In the past, either last year
or the year before, Faculty Senate sent a memo not supporting the rate increases.
So the question he is putting forward is whether or not we have sufficient understanding
of not only the budget and how it is being used now, but justification for these
projects. We know that of the rates in the State, CSU's rates are the highest
of the State institutions. Our operating budget is higher than many of the State
institutions for parking so it comes down to a concern about justification.
Roy Ray stated that the situation is that we have a deferred maintenance of
$850,000. It will take some period of time to do deferred maintenance much less
keep up with needed technological advances in terms of controlling the parking
and making sure that we have security properly implemented in parking. He stated
that we have to look at our situation and compare it to other universities.
Most other universities are not located in an urban area so it is very difficult
to make that kind of inter-university comparison. One, we are in a market where
it is extremely expensive to operate, and, two, when looking at our parking
rates compared to adjacent parking lots and garages, our rates are very low.
President Bowen asked about Professor Dunegan's question regarding alternative
ways to fund parking by looking at some of the cost benefits and various alternatives.
Mr. Ray responded that we have to operate as an auxiliary service. If we are
talking about subsidizing, that is not something we can do.
Dunegan reported that on the web site for example, Kent State brings in about
$800,000 per year in parking fines. CSU brings in about $60,000 to $65,000 per
year. Mr. Ray reported that fines are up 73% over last year. Mr. Gary Meszaros
reported that as of the end of March 2002, we have $64,891 in parking fines
which is up 73%. He indicated that they will concentrate more on fines. Next
year fines will be enforced a little bit stronger by hiring a person who will
spend full-time doing that as opposed to using many part-timers.
Dunegan asked how many parking spaces CSU currently maintains. Mr. Ray responded
that CSU maintains 4,600 spaces.
Dunegan asked what the budget for the year is. Mr. Ray replied that the budget
for parking is $2.5 million for the year.
Dunegan remarked that it may not be appropriate to make one-to-one university
comparisons. Kent State's budget for parking is $2 million and they maintain
many more spaces then we do, yet parking rates at Kent are considerably lower.
It is also not subsidized by the general budget, and they have a factor of more
than ten bringing in additional revenues not from parking fees but from fines.
So, the question remains, "Should we not investigate or could we not investigate
other sources of funds as a way of perhaps postponing the need to increase the
Ray stated that two things are important -- one, as Gary Meszaros pointed out,
we are going to have a better enforcement of the fine situation. Second, we
have to develop a program for maintaining what we have and also prepare for
an additional parking deck. As you know when you come to CSU on Monday, Wednesday,
Friday, there is a parking shortage. We have to prepare to finance another parking
deck. One of the reasons this rate increase is going into effect is to begin
hopefully to accumulate some money so that we can add the parking deck. Third,
our special event parking is up 61%. We want to try to continue to mine that
potential because that can help us out as well. The parking deck that we want
to build across from the Convocation Center would be supported hopefully by
special event parking.
Michael Schwartz reported that, as the former chairman of the Kent State University
Parking Committee, he wanted to call members' attention to the fact that all
of Kent State's lots are surface lots. They are very inexpensive to maintain.
Their fine/fee income is so large that it is becoming a matter of enormous contention
on the campus. Another way they fund their lots and improvements is by charging
departments for every guest pass. That is not going over terribly well either.
The other thing to keep in mind is that when they need a new lot, they have
1,000 acres out there and they just plow it. It is a very different set of circumstances
from the one we deal with and it is all land that they own. They don't have
to acquire any land.
Susan Hill stated that we did, as a body, discuss common hour and scheduling
and moving courses around so that we didn't stress Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.
The fact that we are now getting proposals that we have to make more parking
places because Monday, Wednesday, Friday is so busy, there might be cheaper
options to solving that problem that make more sense in terms of using the resources
we already have more efficiently. We also have to pay for guest pass parking
in our departments now.
Andrew Gross congratulated Mr. Roy Ray for correcting him on the elasticity
of demand and charging $10 to evening visitors to Playhouse Square. That shows
creativity and, along those lines and what Professor Ken Dunegan said, there
can be other solutions as well as two different dances. At the high end, (and
he was laughed at -- and he is happy to be laughed at now) we could ask whether
certain faculty who have some income for that purpose would be able to bid on
certain spaces which would be reserved for them. It doesn't sound too democratic,
but if Professor X wants to have a lock and reserve that one space, and is willing
to pay $800, that is a market system at work. At the other end, he would like
to hear whether Professor Norman Krumholz's idea for the RTA U-Pass for the
student body could be extended to the faculty, and what is the status of the
program. That could mean that some faculty, staff, and students would be more
willing to take public transport. So, at the two ends as Professor Ken Dunegan
suggested, there is room for creativity. Mr. Roy Ray agreed to continue to try
to be creative.
Thomas Flechtner questioned the details on the parking fee increases. With regard
to the Student Semester, for the current rate it states $104 for 16 weeks and
then for this coming July 1, 2002, it goes up to $107 for 16 weeks, then apparently
the semester gets shorter. Dr. Rodger Govea said that it should be 16 weeks
all the way across.
Gary Meszaros reported that for the special events, we did raise $126,000 last
year which is up 61% in the Convocation lot and the East 17th Garage. Again
we did have an increase last year go to the Board and they did approve the market
rate. The good news is that your hang tag allows you to park at the Convocation
lot at no extra cost. So, if you are going to an event on a Saturday or Sunday,
you can drive right in without any cost as long as there is a space.
far as the RTA U-Pass goes, Mr. Meszaros reported that he was on the Committee
and met with Professor Krumholz and the RTA people. President Michael Schwartz
is supporting it. That will be coming up for a vote by the students next year.
Rodger Govea stated that his understanding is that the U-Pass program will be
a student only program. Mr. Meszaros said that RTA is willing to include faculty
but it might cost a little bit more. They have to do more study. The student
one is so low ($10 to $15) it might encourage some people to ride and free up
some of the spaces in the lots.
Cynthia Dieterich commented that she appreciates the higher cost we incur being
in an urban environment and that seems to be made in comparison to other area
ranges. However, in some instances, the cost for parking in the private industry
is part of the benefit package and is paid for so that is not a fair comparison.
Lillian Hinds commended those people who are thinking creatively. She said that
she is not commenting on the increase, but she does want to remind everyone
that Cleveland is suffering mightily right now. Thousands of workers have lost
their jobs and here we are on a campaign to bring more of the students from
Cleveland to us. It would seem that we might possibly think about some of the
students we heard this morning having a rally here when they hear about the
parking rate increases even though they might sympathize with the need. Professor
Hinds added that we need to think creatively and hopes that it is possible.
Chia-Shin Chung said that there should be some kind of justification which could
be in the form of information. Could Senate be provided with information about
what happened to the parking operation in terms of revenue and the cost in the
previous five years? Then we can look at whether the operation is efficient
and find ways where we can make the operation more efficient. The last recourse
would be to increase the fees. That would be the justification everybody is
looking for. That would be the kind of information that would stop people asking
more questions about it.
Lily Ng found some interesting points. In the "must pay" category from July
1, 2002 to July 2004 that is an increase of 33%. For a student coming part-time,
although we have faculty coming part-time, three days per week the student will
be paying $48 per month by July 1, 2004. We are talking about three days which
means that the purpose of the increase is to force them to go on a full-time
"must pay." Dr. Govea noted that there was a concern expressed in the Committee
often about the "must pay" situation. What is clearly unacceptable, and everyone
sees it as unacceptable, is the idea of having cash collected at parking booths
around campus. It is plainly and simply a security problem. That, of course,
can be solved by a number of possible methods. We don't have to go with cash
or a "must pay." The thinking of many people on the Committee is that in fact
the majority of people should be on "must pay" and there is this urge to create
conversion of most people from a "must pay" to a prepaid situation. That is
the dominant thinking right now on the Committee.
Ken Dunegan stated that in terms of looking for creative ways to reduce demand,
we have talked about in the past and have not followed through on having different
decals or hang tags for people who want to be here at different times -- day
versus evening. There are Ohio institutions that sell evening tags versus someone
who would buy one for the entire day. That would reduce those people who come
in, take the one class, go to their place of work, and then come back and take
a class during the evening. There was discussion two years ago about reinstating
passes we could use during the week to help reduce the costs and demand. Mr.
Ray responded that those developed enforcement problems. Professor Dunegan remarked
that other places do it. It is very common and it is just another hang tag and
you look to see if the color is appropriate. If it is not, then you get a fine.
Mr. Ray noted that this doesn't raise additional funds. Think about it.
Dr. William Bowen reported that the annual report of the Instructional Media Services Committee was not ready to present to Senate today.
Professor Stephen Slane, chair of the Committee on Athletics, echoed President Michael Schwartz's comments about the Athletic Department and the good work that John Konstantinos has done over there. He attended the Annual Athletic Academic Awards ceremony yesterday. Of the 230 athletics or so who are in the department, 106 of them have grade point averages of 3.0 or better -- 46%. The average grade point for men and women in Athletics is above a 2.9. On the academic side, and an enforcement of other areas such as alcohol, for example, perhaps the rest of the university can take a lesson from that work. The Annual Report of the Committee on Athletics was received.
President William Bowen first asked members if they were interested in going
down to Columbus with him and the students on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 for
Bowen next reported that he is going to the State AAUP meeting on Saturday,
April 20, 2002. Dr. Bowen reported that there was a special meeting of the Academic
Steering Committee several weeks ago concerning the State budget. The Committee
talked about some of the things that we, as a faculty, can do. One of the outcomes
of that meeting was the possibility that we put together some sort of an academic/faculty
pack. Apparently it has been done successfully in the State of Minnesota. He
has been in touch with some people in Minnesota with the idea of starting it.
Therefore, on Saturday, he will go to the State AAUP meeting and see if there
is some interest there. The AAUP can't officially put it together but we will
initiate some conversation and see if people are interested.
Bowen reported that President Michael Schwartz and Provost Chin Kuo are sponsoring
a retreat with the Academic Steering Committee on Thursday, May 2, 2002. If
senators have any ideas they want discussed with the President and the Provost
through that vehicle, please talk with your college representative on the Steering
Committee. The idea is to have some free time and just talk about things. Dr.
Bowen noted that the Committee did this once before and it seemed to be quite
Finally, Dr. Bowen expressed his heartfelt thanks to Professor Sidney Kraus who has been serving as Parliamentarian. He has just been a terrific help so many times for Dr. Bowen and he is a real contributor to whatever margin of success Dr. Bowen has had as the Senate President.
Andrew Gross inquired if there was any news about the format of a CSU directory
in coming years. Mr. Mike Droney stated that the directory will be issued on
a CD. In addition, the most current directory is also available on the web.
He noted that he extended the opportunity for people to get a hard copy. He
did have a hard copy printed and the proceeds of that go into a scholarship
fund. He stated that he will continue to do the CD. Mr. Droney added that it
saves a lot of money.
Susan Hill suggested that maybe a hard copy of the faculty/staff directory only
needs to be provided every other year. Mr. Droney stated that there are a lot
of changes every year and that is why he encourages everyone to use the web.
Jane McIntyre stated that she has noticed recently, since the weather improved,
that the UC plaza is in terrible disrepair. It seems as though we just redid
the concrete rather recently, but the concrete is just totally chewed up. There
are many places that look hazardous and she is wondering if there has been any
discussion of repairing the plaza and, if so, when. It is also very unsightly.
Mr. Jack Boyle responded that work will begin on the plaza shortly because it
is leaking below the plaza. It is a two year program to redo the whole thing.
Dr. Jane McIntyre inquired if there was anything wrong with the way it was redone last time because it seems that we re-patched it rather recently and now it is even worse than before.
being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:17 P.M.
Faculty Senate Secretary