Cleveland State University

Faculty Senate

April 17, 2002

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, Slane.

Senate President William Bowen called the meeting to order at 3:10 P.M.

[Go to top of page]

I. Approval of the Agenda

Acceptance of the Agenda for April 17, 2002 was moved, seconded, and approved.

[Go to top of page]

II. Approval of the Minutes

Acceptance of the Minutes of the April 3, 2002 meeting was moved, seconded, and approved.

III. Announcement of Elections

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.

IV. Announcement of Coming Faculty-wide Election

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.


V. University President's Report

President 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.

President 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.

President 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.

President 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.

President 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 Walsh.

President 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.

Also, 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.

President 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 Engineering.

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.

VI. Informational Report on the Budget (Report No. 18, 2001-2002)

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.


[Go to top of page]

VII. Proposed One-year Moratorium on Program Review (Report No. 19, 2001-2002)

Dr. 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.

Dr. William Bowen noted that we have a motion on the floor from a standing committee and asked if there was any discussion.

Dr. 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 year.

Senate 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.

Dr. 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.

[Go to top of page]

VIII. Report from Student Government

Ms. 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 education campaign.

Ms. 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.

Ms. 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.

Ms. 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.

IX. Report on Parking Fee Increases (Report No. 20, 2001-2002)

Dr. 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 to.

Professor 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.

Professor 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.

Professor 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.

Mr. 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.

Senate 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.

Professor 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.

Professor Dunegan asked how many parking spaces CSU currently maintains. Mr. Ray responded that CSU maintains 4,600 spaces.

Professor Dunegan asked what the budget for the year is. Mr. Ray replied that the budget for parking is $2.5 million for the year.

Professor 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 parking rates?"

Mr. 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.

President 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.

Professor 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.

Dr. 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.

Professor 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.

Mr. 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.

As 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.

Dr. 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.

Professor 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.

Professor 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.

Professor 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.

Professor 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.

Dr. 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.

X. Committee on Athletics Annual Report (Report No. 21, 2001-2002)

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.

XI. Senate President's Report

Senate 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 the rally.

Dr. 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.

Dr. 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 successful.

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.

XII. New Business

Professor 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.

Professor 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.

Professor 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.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:17 P.M.


[Go to top of page]

Arthur H. Schwartz
Faculty Senate Secretary


[Go to top of page]