I. Approval of the Agenda
II.Approval of the Minutes of the April 17, 2002 Meeting
IV.University President's Report
V.University Curriculum Committee
VI.Admissions and Standards Committee
VII.Budget and Finance Committee Informational Report (Report No. 27, 2001-2002)
IX.Senate President's Report
PRESENT: David Adams, Annapragada, Bagaka's, D. Ball, Barbato, J. Bazyk, Bonder, W. Bowen, Buckley, Dieterich, Doerder, Droney, Dunegan, Flechtner, James Flynn, Geier, Govea, B. Green, Gross, Hanlon, Hemann, S. Hill, Hinds, M. Kaufman, L. Keller, Konangi, Kuo, Larson, Matthews, J. McIntyre, Misra, Moutafakis, Ng, Nolan, Nuru-Holm, Ray, A. Schwartz, M. Schwartz, Shah, M. Smith, Steinglass, Stivers, Thornton, Whyte.
ABSENT/EXCUSED: E. Anderson, Aquila, Atherton, A. Benander, Burt, D. Chandler, Chung, Davenport, Dillard, Forte, Kiel, Caroline King, Konstantinos, Mahmud, Marredeth, McCahon, McLoughlin, L. Patterson, Ramsey, R. Ramos, Reinhart, Rosentraub, Sanders, Sawicki, Sparks, Tewari, Tumeo, J. Webb, James Wilson.
ALSO PRESENT: Brennan, George, Jain, Lupton.
Senate President William Bowen called the meeting to order at 3:10 P.M.
Acceptance of the Agenda for May 8, 2002 was moved and seconded. Professor Chet Jain, Chair of the Admissions and Standards Committee, reported that at the present time, item VI. C., Task Force Report on Recruitment and Retention, is a discussion item. He moved to change it to an action item. The motion was seconded and approved. Senate President Bowen informed Senate that an annual report was received yesterday from the Minority Affairs Committee that will be item VIII. K. The Agenda was approved as amended.
Acceptance of the Minutes of the April 17, 2002 meeting was moved and seconded. Dr. Barbara Green reported an error in the last paragraph on page 11 in Dr. Andrew Gross' comments. The word "illicity" should be "elasticity." The Minutes, as corrected, were approved.
Following formal procedures for nominating candidates for election to the various committees of the Faculty Senate and other posts, members of Senate elected the following faculty:
University Faculty Affairs Committee
Professor Edward Brennan
Professor Barbara Green
Professor Wendy Kellogg
Minority Affairs Committee
Professor Gloria Freire
Professor Delia Galvan
One faculty to be elected
Budget and Finance Committee
Professor Samuel Richmond
Professor James Webb
Board of Trustees
Professor Peter Meiksins
Copyright Review Committee
Honorary Degree CommitteeThree-year term:
Professor Cynthia Dieterich
Honorary Degree CommitteeThree-year term:
Professor Sarah Matthews
Equal Opportunity Hearing Panel
Professor Sanza Clark
Professor Dena Davis
Professor Lee Werth
Professor Karl Wheatley
Patent Review CommitteeThree-year term:
Professor Boachuan Guo
President Michael Schwartz reported that four faculty members from Cleveland State University have been awarded Fulbright Grants. He commented that four faculty from a single institution is unusual in itself. Professor Renee Botta, Assistant Professor in Communication, will be going to Copperbelt University in Zambia to do a project on communicating health issues to the media with a special emphasis on areas related to HIV. She will also study how businesses convey public health information to employees and will teach public relations and quantitative methods. Professor Valerie George, Associate Professor and Graduate Program Director for Nursing, will be going to Mbarara University in Uganda where she will help design, teach, and maintain a new curriculum of nursing. In that country, nursing is the profession that is really the primary health care providers. Professor Jae-won Lee, Graduate Program Director in Communication, will be going to Botswana to help the University of Botswana develop its journalism and communication department. He will also present a seminar on localizing international news and internationalizing local news. This is his third Fulbright. Professor Masumi Hayashi, Professor of Art, will be going to India and Nepal to photograph Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain Temples.
President Schwartz reported that three Arts and Sciences graduates, all interestingly with degrees in psychology, are recipients of Ohio Board of Regents fellowships: Thomas Leskovec, Geraldine Saaka, and Karmen Garrett will each receive a maximum of $3500 per year for two years of graduate or professional study in a State College or University. This is the third consecutive year that Cleveland State turns out to be the only school in Ohio to receive three of these fellowships. Mr. Leskovec will pursue a Ph.D. in clinical psychology either at Cleveland State, Ohio State, or Kent State. He has a 4.0 GPA. Saaka graduated summa cum laude in December. She will pursue a master's degree in clinical psychology with an emphasis on child psychology at CSU. Mr. Garrett will pursue a master's degree in psychology at CSU as well. President Schwartz commented that it is nice to be picked by your own. Katlin Szabo is graduating with a 4.0 GPA with a Bachelor of Science in the College of Arts and Sciences. She has been awarded an undergraduate research fellowship from the American Heart Association. The $2500 award will allow her to continue her research this summer in the laboratory of Professor Michael Kalafatis, Assistant Professor of Chemistry. This is research that may provide a breakthrough for more successful treatment of patients who are at risk of developing potentially fatal blood clots or thrombosis. A native of Austria, she majored in both chemistry and biology. She hopes to go to medical school.
Mr. Victoriano Choco, a Mayan from Belize, is graduating with a bachelors degree in anthropology. In 1995, he was a field guide and student in training for Professor Peter Dunham's Mayan mountains archeological project -- a major archeological project in Belize funded for several years by the National Geographic Society. He came to Cleveland in 1997 with financial assistance provided by Cleveland State University. Other local donors put up airline tickets, books, clothes, and Dr. Dunham put up room and board and kept Vic's studies on track even though, when Hurricane Iris hit, it almost completely destroyed his village last October. There are three other Mayan students who joined Vic in earning degrees at Cleveland State University. We should be very proud of them especially.
President Schwartz reported that applications for admission are up. His goals for Cleveland State are to develop it back to its highest enrollment which at one point was about 19,000 students. He doesn't see any reason why we can't get back to that if we work hard and smart at doing it. We will need to do some things. We will need to attract more of the better students into our pool. We can do it if we can raise more scholarship money. He is hoping by Fall to be able to report on how we are doing in that regard. He thinks that the news will be very good. We need to develop some real student amenities -- a student union building is an absolute must for us. Campus life is generally determined by the 18 to 22 year-old students. We need more campus housing. He reported that the University is working very diligently at finding it.
President Schwartz commented that security needs to be improved here. A number of police officers have been hired who are in training. Some of them will be with us pretty soon. By Fall, the remainder of the officers will be here and we will pretty much be back at full staff. We have made a concerted effort to persuade the legislature and the Governor that we need some real high tech stuff to go with it. We need cameras and card swiping systems. Access to elevators for people who shouldn't be here is not a good thing for us. If we can do those things and keep our integrity in the academic process as well, we will be doing very well.
President Schwartz noted that anybody that walks on this campus will recognize that there has been enormous pressure to keep the FTE up. It is not good when you get in the car and somebody is making a left onto Euclid off of East 21st Street and a student is crossing and a remark is made, "Don't hit the FTE." He understands that, but there is an item on the Senate Agenda that will help with a different issue. As he has said before, he will say it again -- there is a certain Gresham's law in this business which is to say that bad students will drive out good students. We need to really encourage preparation in high school for this collegiate experience. We need to provide help for those students who need it, but not forever. We need to pay attention to the probation and dismissal policies. We need to tell our students that when they find themselves in a hole, wisdom dictates that they stop digging. As he has also said, "There is nothing wrong with using the full range of grades." As everyone knows, good curriculum is the curriculum that challenges. He understands the pressure on FTE and he doesn't want to hit it with his car either but let's not "dumb this place down" thinking that that kind of money is the kind of money we want. It isn't. Let's challenge our students every day they come in our classrooms and we will be a first class university when that gets around. It should be around by now, and it will.
Finally, President Schwartz thanked everyone for the warm welcome and for the gracious reception everyone has given to him. It has been terrific and he is really quite grateful. He didn't know how to characterize this past academic year since it was his first year here. In comparison to other universities, he thought CSU ran very smoothly this year. That is not to say that we didn't have a bump in the road here and there, but for the most part, it was really a fine year. We should look forward to more of those.
Professor Mareyjoyce Green noted that President Schwartz has been visiting high schools in the area and asked him to tell the Senate something about his receptions at the schools and his impressions. President Schwartz responded that he has been to almost all of the schools within the City. The receptions have been very interesting. It always starts out the same way: "What does he want?" President Schwartz visits the high schools along with Jerry Kiel. When it becomes pretty evident quickly that we want to be of some help, the attitude softens. He has learned that with an exception or two, the administrators work very hard on behalf of those students and the teachers. At least the ones he has come in contact with, are really quite remarkable people who work under circumstances most of us would not endure. He also learned that it is kind of tough to run a high school if you are the principal who has to tell somebody like President Schwartz that, at the end of the academic year, 25% of the ninth graders who entered will be incarcerated. It is a tough world that these folks live in. It is just as hard to go to an elementary school, as he did as principal for the day, and be told that the attendance rate there is about 93%. He thought that was quite remarkable, but in the early grades -- kindergarten, first grade, second grade -- it is nothing like that because parents won't get up out of bed in the morning and take their children to school. So, we have very bright six-year old children being held back. When all of this starts pouring in on you over the course of the year, you gain enormous respect for the problems that the schools in the City begin to face every morning very early and come back all day every day. If you can walk away from that without respect for those teachers and administrators, then you are a different kind of person from what he would expect. It is an amazing performance and the leadership that Barbara Byrd-Bennett has put into this is not something to be trifled with or underestimated.
Concerning using the full range of grades, Professor Jane McIntyre asked President Schwartz if he has any evidence that we are not using the full range of grades. As a faculty member, Cleveland State seems to be a place where, although sometimes it breaks her heart, we are using every grade from F to A. There are way too many Fs and Ds for those incoming freshmen who we would like to do something about. Her personal perception is that we are using the full range of grades. Dr. McIntyre wondered if President Schwartz had different information. President Schwartz replied that there are spots here and there. He would suggest to Dr. McIntyre that re-enforcement of that view is never a waste of time. President Schwartz urged everyone to continue to use the full range of grades.
A.Proposed Revised WAC Criteria (Report No. 22, 2001-2002)
Professor Gregory Lupton, chair of the University Curriculum Committee, stated that the UCC would like Senate support in making a slight adjustment to the criteria of Writing Across the Curriculum. The first part of the motion is that the criteria be adjusted to be more specific about the nature of feedback that is required for the students. The second part of the motion would be to require that an abbreviated version of these criteria actually appear on every syllabus. The Curriculum Committee believes this adjustment would allow it to be a little more directive in what it is looking for in these courses when it approves them. The second part is really directed at on-going maintenance of these courses. The UCC believes that if the syllabus of the course, for example, contains the enrollment count for these courses, it is less likely that such a course would be over-enrolled. Dr. Lupton moved that Faculty Senate adopt these revised criteria and also that the short version of these criteria be required to appear on the syllabi.
There being no discussion, Senate President Bowen called for a vote. The proposed revised WAC Criteria was approved.
B.Proposed B.S. in Health Sciences (Report No. 23, 2001-2002)
Professor Gregory Lupton, chair of the University Curriculum Committee, presented the Committee's proposed Bachelor in Health Sciences to Senate for approval. As discussed in the memo in the Senate packet, this is a somewhat thinned down version of a proposal sent to the UCC by the College of Arts and Sciences. Dr. Lupton moved that the Faculty Senate approve the proposed Bachelor of Health Sciences with the specifics contained in the proposal.
Professor Jane McIntyre stated that she knows Health Sciences would like to go ahead with even one of its tracks if it can. The proposal that is being presented to Senate today is a selection from what Arts and Sciences approved, but in a way it is substantially different. Arts and Sciences approved something at the College level that was much broader. This is a very narrowly focused proposal. Dr. McIntyre asked Dr. Lupton if the University Curriculum Committee has considered at least going back to the College to discuss its response to this proposal. Dr. McIntyre asked if it is only time that is keeping the UCC from reviewing it. Dr. Lupton responded that Professor McIntyre was correct. The proposal's own move through the college meeting two weeks ago (the day before the University Curriculum Committee meeting) was the day before the Academic Steering Committee meeting. The Committee fell under a severe time pressure and basically the questions the Committee had about pieces of the proposal forwarded to us from the College really required a little bit more time to do them. It is not the Committee's intention to let those just be ignored. The Committee's understanding or expectation would be that those actually would be sent back to the UCC or be discussed at some point in the College.
Dr. Jane McIntyre asked if Professor Lupton meant the University Curriculum Committee. Professor Lupton replied he meant the College Curriculum Committee.
Dr. Barbara Green wondered if she assumed correctly that the department itself would prefer to have one track at this point rather than none. Professor Bette Bonder, chair of Health Sciences, responded that this particular track is a collaborative track with the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. They have a fairly significant personnel shortage in this area. These are the people who run the heart machines when you have open heart surgery. They have a number of interested individuals who would very much like to start the program this Fall. If it would be at all possible to get this piece approved, we could begin to accommodate that need. We would like to do it and then revisit the other three tracks which we fully expect to bring forward and to bring them back to the appropriate level of approval when we revisit them in the Fall.
There being no further discussion, Senate President Bowen asked for a vote. The proposed Bachelor of Science in Health Sciences was approved.
A.Proposed Grade Policy Change for Missing Grade Designation (Report No. 24, 2001-2002)
Professor Chet Jain, chair of the Admissions and Standards Committee, presented the Committee's proposed Grade Policy Change for Missing Grade Designation. He noted that this is the grade that appear as ** and usually this grade appears when nothing is reported against the student who appears on the grade sheet. Until now, these grades remain on the grade sheet forever and nothing gets done. When you look at the grade sheet or final transcript, you do not know what to make of it. Here is an attempt to clear this up. The ** would be treated exactly the same way we treat the current I and X grades. Both the student and the instructor will be informed promptly that some action has to be taken otherwise the ** will revert to an F grade similar to I and X grades.
Dr. Barbara Green proposed a friendly amendment adding wording to the proposal: "If there was a grading mixup, the student should be responsible to clear it up with the instructor within two weeks of the beginning of the subsequent semester." Then this doesn't go on until the last three days of the following semester when students will appear with some kind of excuse. We have been having that problem with Xs where students don't appear for an exam and then some students show up a semester later wanting a makeup exam for the X in the last three days of the subsequent semester. It seems that these students could at least clear it up with their instructors within two weeks of the beginning of the following semester. Dr. Jain stated that the Admissions and Standards Committee would have no objections to Dr. Green's friendly amendment.
Dr. David Larson commented in relationship to the statement in the second sentence: "Students are given the opportunity to complete work associated with courses for which the I or X was awarded during the following term." Dr. Larson stated that he was at Senate when this legislation was passed and, in his memory, this is not an accurate statement of the situation. Students who are given an I are automatically given the opportunity to make up that work. An X is given when a student disappears and you don't know why. That does not mean that students may make up that work. That means that they come to the instructor and see if they have a good enough excuse so the instructor will allow them to make up the work. He does not like to see an official document with the students' misunderstanding being ratified. Dr. Larson asked that the sentence be stricken. Dr. Barbara Green added, or clarified. Dr. Larson stated that an X is not the equivalent of an I.
Dr. Jane McIntyre suggested that it should state someplace explicitly that neither the X nor the ** guarantees that the student will be allowed to make up the work. It depends on what the student's reason is for not being there. The I is the only thing that shows that the student and the instructor have agreed that there is some portion of work to be made up and how it will be made up. Dr. Jain agreed with Dr. McIntyre. There is no intent here to change any of the regulations that are associated with the I and the X grades.
Dr. Jane McIntyre noted that anything that is said about it would suggest that the student who gets an X or a ** has a right to make up the work even though the student may just disappear from your class. That gives a false impression to the students and unfortunately it is a fairly common impression. Dr. Jain noted that if the Senate wishes, the language of this Grade Policy Change can be modified per the Senate's suggestions as long as the Senate agrees that if the student does not take care of it, then the grade will automatically change to an F.
Senate President Bowen noted that his understanding at this point is that the Admissions and Standards Committee will take this discussion and incorporate it into some language that then will be brought back to Senate in the form of a motion. Dr. Jain stated that he did not get that idea. He thought that if the Senate approves this proposed change, then whatever changes the Senate is suggesting will be incorporated. From here on it will be the regulation.
Senate President Bowen stated that this is then coming forward by way of a motion. Dr. Susan Hill noted that if this is a motion, then the Senate will have to agree on what it says. The Senate can't just approve an idea.
Dr. Chet Jain said that the Admissions and Standards Committee will accept whatever the Senate suggests.
Dr. Barbara Green asked if the section called "Proposal" is cut out and the document is started with "Rationale," would do it. Dr. Jane McIntyre remarked that this cannot be done. That is describing the current situation.
Professor Jain noted that the whole idea is if a student gets a **, the student has to do something within the next semester. If something has not been done at the end of the following semester, the grade will turn to an F.
Dr. David Larson suggested that the document just state that from now on a ** grade will be treated the same as an X grade. Dr. Rodger Govea asked, "What happened to the two weeks?"
Dr. Barbara Green commented that in the second paragraph under Rationale, it states that the ** grade designation should never remain on the record. If there was a registration mix up, the student should be responsible for clearing that up with the Registrar's office. If there was a grading mix up, the student should be responsible for clearing that up with the instructor within two weeks of the subsequent semester. She suggested that Dr. Jain make that his proposal. Dr. Jain agreed with Dr. Green's suggested proposal.
Senate President Bowen noted that this covers Dr. Green's concern but there is another concern here as well which Dr. David Larson brought forward. Dr. Larson stated that Dr. Green's proposal takes care of his concerns. Dr. Bill Bowen noted that we will add at the end of this language, "within two weeks of the end of the semester." Dr. Barbara Green stated that this should be the proposal -- "That it shall not remain on the record within two weeks..." Dr. Rodger Govea noted then that the whole proposal section will be stricken and the "Rationale" becomes the proposal. Dr. Green stated that Dr. Govea was correct.
Ms. Susan Lindsey, Registrar, asked, since her department has to implement this proposal, would they be changing the grade to an F at the end of two weeks? Dr. Jain replied, "No." If the student does not do anything within the first two weeks, then the instructor does not state that the student has to do anything. At the end of the semester, the grade will automatically change to an F.
Ms. Lindsey asked if the ** would be changed to an F as of the last day of instruction as they do for the I and X grades unless they hear otherwise from the instructor. Dr. Jain said that the same thing would be done.
Senate President Bowen stated that the idea is to have something in writing that encourages the student to come in within two weeks and speak with the instructor.
Professor Lillian Hinds remarked that it is very important that we not lock ourselves into a corner. For example, in a summer school session, she knew that a professor who was not a full-time tenured professor was gone and the student could not reach the person for two weeks. She is saying to be very careful of the language so that someone is not washed out through no fault of his own.
Dr. Chet Jain stated that for whatever reason something gets wrongly done, the student has the option to petition. That route is always available.
Professor Santosh Misra commented that the intent is probably accepted by everyone at Senate but the language needs to be cleared up. He suggested that the Senate formulate the language and take it up next year so that there is no confusion about exactly which words should be taken out of the proposal.
Professor David Ball stated that for simplicity, it might be nice to have one deadline for all grade changes instead of having different deadlines for the different grades. In addition, at the beginning of the semester, the last thing he wants to do is to worry about changing his grades from last semester because he is busy dealing with the beginning of this semester. Maybe we should make all of the deadlines the last instructional day of the subsequent semester.
Professor David Larson suggested that it is best to just withdraw this proposal and come back with some language next Fall.
Professor David Adams asked if there would be a history of the grades. If the ** changes to an F, will there be a record somewhere? Dr. Jain replied that there would not be a record. Dr. Adams said that it is conceivable that students might not know that they have an **. Dr. Jain stated that the students know because it is on the transcript plus the student will be informed individually. In addition, the instructor will be informed.
Professor David Adams noted that he can think of circumstances where students move, etc. It is not always the student's fault.
Senate President Bowen noted that it appears that this proposal needs more rationalization before the Senate can come up with language upon which everybody can agree. Dr. Jane McIntyre stated that the Senate understands the rationale, but the proposal needs more precise language. Dr. Chet Jain agreed to consult with Senate and anyone else who wants to give the Admissions and Standards Committee suggestions and the Committee will reformulate the proposal.
Dr. Barbara Green asked Dr. Chet Jain if he could do something about clarifying the problem that many students seem to have when they get the note from the Registrar saying that they have until May to clear something up. They think that the University has given them permission to make up the last class and retake the exam, or do whatever they want. There is a difference between saying this is the deadline date by which your instructor may change the grade to saying you have until then. Dr. Jain agreed with Dr. Barbara Green. He stated that other than I, everything else is discretionary on the part of the instructor. Dr. Jane McIntyre remarked that somehow we are not communicating that well enough to the students. Dr. Jain noted that the language needs to be made precise enough that we do communicate.
The proposed Grade Policy Change for Missing Grade Designation was referred back to the Admissions and Standards Committee.
B.Revised Five-Year Calendar (Report No. 25, 2001-2002)
Dr. Chet Jain reported that the revised Five-Year Calendar will take us to the end of the academic year 2006-2007. The calendar is pretty much the same as the previous calendar. The dates have been changed to make sure that the Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays are in conformity. The only additional items that were added are the Fall commencement dates. In addition, Dr. Jain noted that in the Fall term, a makeup day after the final exam has been removed. The Law School has a slightly different calendar. They maintain the same holiday schedule as well as the Spring break schedule but their commencement dates are different and both their Spring and Fall terms are longer.
Professor Lawrence Keller asked why school starts in a week with a holiday. If we started the following week, we wouldn't have a holiday. Dr. Jain responded that we start the week before the holiday. Dr. Keller commented that if he reads the schedule right, the Martin Luther King holiday is within that same week. Dr. McIntyre commented that it depends on the year. Dr. Jain noted that Saturday classes are held.
There being no further discussion, Senate President Bowen called the question. The proposed revised Five-Year Calendar was approved.
C.Task Force Report on Recruitment and Retention -- Proposed Policy Changes (Report No. 26, 2001-2002)
Dr. Chet Jain reported that the Admissions and Standards Committee is proposing that the Policy on Recruitment and Retention be adopted. If the policy is adopted, the proposed Admissions Standards will go into effect in Fall 2002. The Good Academic Standing Standards would go into effect in Fall of 2003 essentially due to the current catalogue rights. This proposal comes to us from the Task Force on Recruitment and Retention that was put together by Dr. Njeri Nuru-Holm, Vice President for Student Affairs and Minority Affairs, and her staff. Dr. Jain noted that the Academic Steering Committee included, in addition to the members from Student Affairs and Institutional Research, several faculty members including John Donoghue, Rama Jayanti, Wendy Kellogg, and Mieko Smith, and Vice Provost Marie Zeglen of the Assessment Office. They reviewed the history of CSU for the past six years and they have also made sure that these policies are in line with what is typically done at Youngstown, Akron, and many other Ohio institutions. The intent is to gradually improve the academic standards of the university both in terms of admission and retention. We want to let the students know early enough that 1.5 is not good enough for them to continue in school. They can't be thinking that they are in good academic standing. We are an open admission university and we want to retain that. We want to give students a chance, but they have to do things. We have many different types of help available for students -- early intervention, advising, etc., but students have to perform.
Dr. Jain pointed out that this policy proposes that we have two types of admissions. Students who are graduates of twelfth grade with a 2.3, 750 on the SAT, or better than 16 on the ACT, get standard admission. Whether they are admitted into a specific program or not depends upon what the requirements are of their specific programs. Students who do not meet these requirements, (meaning they come with a high school grade point average of less than 2.3, less than 750 on the SAT, or less than 16 on the ACT) will be given admission as provisional students. They will be housed in the Collegiate Program in University Studies. They will be monitored closely and will have basically one year to finish all of their deficiencies. During that period, they can take only 100 level courses providing the advisor approves even the 100 level courses. The advisor at all times would know what the deficiencies are. For example, if a student has a math deficiency and wants to take a 100 math course, he or she may not be able to take that course until after the deficiency is completed. Every semester the students will have to maintain a GPA of 2.0 as well as a cumulative 2.0. If the cumulative is below a 2.0, but the individual's semester grade is at least a 2.0, the student will be under probation and will be advised accordingly. The student will be allowed to continue in school as long as he/she is within the 60 credit hours. Dr. Jain stated that this is an excellent beginning for what we want to achieve.
Professor Mieko Smith indicated that she had last minute concerns about the dismissal portion and asked Dr. Nuru-Holm to amend. Dr. Jain noted that the last sentence under Dismissal has been corrected. It should state, "Petitions will be reviewed and acted upon by the appropriate college academic petitions committee." The faculty committee of the college will evaluate the petition. Dr. Jain apologized for not bringing that change to the Senate's attention.
Dr. Jane McIntyre asked how many students do we anticipate being admitted provisionally. For this past year, how many of the incoming students were provisional? Dr. Jain replied that usually it is about 15% of the incoming class -- about 125 to 150 students in the past.
Dr. McIntyre asked if we have an advising office that is appropriately organized for advising these students. Dr. Njeri Nuru-Holm responded that they are reorganizing some of the advising staff. In addition, two additional full-time advising positions will be added. It is anticipated that there would be an increase of approximately 300 students who would fall into the category of being on probation if we approve these new standards and there would be much closer advising. This group of students has also been looked at by racial category. There would be no racial disparity with the increase. They are being very careful to look at what it would mean if this proposal is imposed.
Professor Susan Hill asked if there is any anticipation of additional costs in approving this proposal. Dr. Nuru-Holm reported that the costs would actually be in advising and that is why additional advisors have been requested. With the closer advising, it is anticipated that, at the end of the freshman year, there would be fewer students who would actually be in academic jeopardy. Right now, we are losing a lot of students and we have a large number of students who are on probation at the end of the year. About one-third actually return to the university. We have found that approximately 50% of African-American and Spanish students who are returning are underachieving and are under a 2.0 and 25% of white and Asian students. So we have many students who are in jeopardy very early, but the students think they are doing well although they are achieving under a 2.0. The standards for the first year allow the student to stay in good academic standing if he/she achieves a 1.5 in the first semester and a 1.6 by the end of the academic year.
Professor Lillian Hinds commented to Senate President Bill Bowen that a letter she addressed to Dr. Bowen some time ago dealt with the issue of recruitment and retention. While it might not be absolutely pertinent to the vote now, it would be important that the continuing committee see the contents of some of her suggestions which could make an impact. Dr. Bowen stated that he will make sure Dr. Nuru-Holm's committee gets a copy of Professor Hinds' letter.
Professor John Bazyk stated that according to this proposal, the students will remain on provisional status until they meet one or both of the criteria. "What happens to a student if he or she does not meet that criteria?" Dr. Chet Jain replied that the student will continue to remain on probation at the discretion of the individual college's review committee.
Dr. John Bazyk noted that the proposal doesn't say that. Dr. Jain replied that this would be automatic and is stated under Dismissal.
Senate President Bowen noted that there is a motion on the floor to adopt the proposed policy changes. Dr. Chet Jain reported that the Admissions part will be effective Fall 2002 and the Good Standing part will be effective Fall 2003 because of catalogue rights. Dr. Rodger Govea added, with the addition of the colleges' petitions committees as corrected.
The proposed Policy Changes concerning Admissions Standards for New Freshmen were approved.
Dr. Arthur Schwartz, Chair of the Budget and Finance Committee, reported that there was a University PBAC meeting this past Tuesday. The Committee was given an updated budget proposal for next year. The numbers are essentially the same as the budget draft that was distributed at the last Senate meeting, so there is nothing new to report.
However, Dr. Art Schwartz did have some information to report in response to a request for clarification about the long-term changes in instruction versus non-instructional matters. He informed the Senate that he obtained the data from the Provost's Office. It is from audited financial reports beginning in 1996. Viewing transparencies, Dr. Art Schwartz noted that the three columns reflect the problem that has to be addressed. A work group has been formed and will be meeting on May 24, 2002. The work group's job is to clarify just what fits into each category -- instructional department research, academic support, and institutional support. The five-year figures show the changes that have occurred over time, but as we have talked about before, these numbers are not "clean" and the purpose of this work group will be to go back and clarify them. That will not change the audited figures. But, in the future, we will be able to get an accurate count of the percent or the amount of funds in relation to the overall budget. The reason he didn't do this as a hand out is because this is subject to change based on the analysis. The Committee will have a document for Senate as early as possible in the Fall that will reflect the results of the work group that will be doing the analysis.
Dr. Jane McIntyre asked Professor Arthur Schwartz to tell the Senate something about the different categories on the top of the transparency. Professor Art Schwartz stated that instructional and departmental research covers departmental lines -- departmental research. Academic support covers Deans' Offices, and institutional support is the Provost and the President's Office. He indicated that he did not have anything more specific at this point.
An unidentified Senator inquired, "If you read across the columns, are the amounts supposed to add up?" Professor Art Schwartz replied, "No, these are just the salary items and the benefits from the budget. There are many other budget lines."
An unidentified Senator asked, "Where are the items like IS&T and the Library, etc.?" Professor Art Schwartz could not answer that question at this point. He indicated that he will have that information in the Fall.
Dr. Jane McIntyre remarked that she is finding it hard to believe what Professor Art Schwartz just said. "Does this mean that we spent $20,590,346 on salaries in the President's and the Provost's Office, but only three times that much for the whole academic instructional side of the University?" Dr. Art Schwartz replied that these figures are from the audited budget report from the last fiscal year.
An unidentified Senator asked, "Isn't the Library under the Provost's sector in the institutional report?" Dr. Art Schwartz said yes and it probably includes computers as well.
Mr. Jack Boyle stated that all of the salaries for people who are not in any of the other two categories are in the last column. That includes all of our maintenance people, etc.
Dr. Jane McIntyre stated that she didn't think the questions were just about salaries. Obviously money is being spent on a lot of other things and we have a very sore point about things like support for faculty travel and things of that kind which are not salary matters but for which adequate funds are not being put forth.
Professor Arthur Schwartz said that the best thing he could tell the Senate is that this report is preliminary. As soon as the committee gets the work group report, then he will have some hard figures that we can look at.
Dr. Susan Hill asked which of the three categories would the two new advisors Senate just approved for that program fall under. "Would that be academic support?" Professor Art Schwartz replied that it would go into a different category this year.
Professor David Larson commented that it is fair to say that we really can't discuss this intelligently. Professor Art Schwartz agreed that it is fair to say that but he had committed to bringing this information to Senate in some form.
Senate President Bowen stated that this is the distinction between quantification and measurement.
Dr. Jane McIntyre said that
she would like to be clear that part of what was asked for was not just information
about salaries but information about university expenditures. So it is not a
salary issue; it is an issue about where we are spending our money for all kinds
of things. If these figures are just about salaries, that is not really what
people need to know.
The Senate received Annual Reports from the following Committees:
A. University Curriculum Committee (Report No. 28, 2001-2002)
B. Admissions and Standards Committee (Report No. 29, 2001-2002)
Professor Nicholas Moutafakis noted that on page two of the Admissions and Standards Committee Annual Report, item 13 reflects the discussion the Senate had earlier about the X and I grades and it indicates ... the distinction between the I grade and the X grade. He suggested that the report be altered. Dr. Chet Jain replied that he listed it as item 13 and indicated that this would be presented to Senate on May 8, 2002. The Committee has presented it to Senate and the action of the Senate has not been indicated in the report. The last three items have been presented today, but they have only been presented to Senate and the action of the Senate has not been mentioned.
Dr. Barbara Green stated that because we have had cases in the past for which people have maintained that something has been approved, because it said the report is ambiguous, it would be useful if Professor Chet Jain added some statement in the report indicating that this item was modified or sent back to the Committee by the Faculty Senate so people can't say, "Hey, this was approved." because it says that the instructor will be informed. Dr. Chet Jain agreed to change the report.
C. Student Life Committee (Report No. 30, 2001-2002)
D. Library Committee (Report No. 31, 2001-2002)
Professor Sarah Matthews commented that she would like everybody to read the Library Committee Report. The Power Point slides that are included in the report are extremely informative and give an idea of why we are in a crisis. If faculty members don't begin to pay attention to how and what we are producing, we are going to be in trouble. It has become so commercialized, we are going to lose out on how we publish and how knowledge is distributed. There is a very serious crisis which is laid out in those slides. She encouraged everyone to read all the way through the report.
E. Committee on Academic Space (Report No. 32, 2001-2002)
Senate President Bowen commented that Professor Lee Werth, chair of the Committee on Academic Space, asked Dr. Bowen to remind everyone that there is a classroom survey circulating and to ask everyone to please fill that survey out.
Professor Susan Hill commented that she received the survey and it states that it is supposed to be filled out on a scan sheet but the questions are not set up for the scan sheet. She asked if faculty are to be given the scan sheets because the survey was distributed without scan sheets.
An unidentified Senator stated that faculty can use either the blue or green scan sheets.
Dr. Susan Hill noted that then each department has to provide the scan sheets to faculty when the surveys are distributed. Dr. Bowen replied that Dr. Hill was correct.
F. Computational Services Committee (Report No. 33, 2001-2002)
G. University Safety and Health Advisory Committee (Report No. 34, 2001-2002)
H. University Petitions Committee (Report No. 35, 2001-2002)
I. Instructional Media Services Committee (Report No. 36, 2001-2002)
J. Budget and Finance Committee (Report No. 37, 2001-2002)
K. Minority Affairs Committee (Report No. 38, 2001-2002)
Dr. Rodger Govea moved that the Faculty Senate accept all of the Annual Reports. The motion was seconded and Senate received all of the Annual Reports.
Senate President William Bowen reported that Student Government has sent him a letter asking the Senate to send two faculty members to represent the faculty on the Student Government Association Senate. He has asked Senate for volunteers and has received one volunteer. He informed the Senate that he will send out a mass email asking all faculty members for volunteers. He said that he is sure there are some faculty who would be very interested in serving.
Professor Nicholas Moutafakis stated that he would like to go on record and wish Professor Thomas Flechtner a happy retirement. Dr. Bill Bowen added that Professor Thomas Flechtner will be sorely missed at CSU.
Professor Lillian Hinds wondered whether there was any report at all as to what happened to the creative ideas relative to parking that we talked about at the last Senate meeting. Dr. Rodger Govea reported that the Parking Committee has not met since then. He added that any wisdom will probably have to wait until next year. Professor Hinds wondered if there will possibly be creativity if we wait until a new semester. Dr. Govea hesitated to predict on the creativity of that group.
Professor Mareyjoyce Green said that we certainly want to commend the students for participating in the democratic process and taking their concerns to Columbus. We probably need to help them also understand that, as long as they are perceived as the lowest voting category of actually registering and going to vote, they are being taken less seriously. So, if we can help them to understand that once they get registered and become a voting category, then they will be perceived with some power behind their intentions when going to Columbus or wherever they choose to go.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:25 P.M.
Faculty Senate Secretary
[Top of Page]