I. Moment of Slience for Victims of September 11, 2001
III.Approval of Agenda
IV.Approval of the Minutes of the May 8, 2002 Meeting
V.Senate President's Report
VI.Senate Nominating Committee
VIII.Proposed Amendments to the Student Handbook (Report No. 1, 2002-2003)
IX. Information Technology Status Report
X.University President's Report
XI. Passing of the Gavel
XII. New Business
PRESENT: David Adams,
C. Alexander, E. Anderson, Barbato, Bathala, J. Bazyk,Beckette, W. Bowen,
Buckley, Charity, B. Cook, Dieterich, Dillard, Dobda, Doerder, Droney,
Ekelman, Forte, Geier, Govea, B. Green, Gross, Hanlon, S. Hill, Hinds,
Jeffres, M. Kaufman, Keller, Konangi, Kuo, Lambert, Larson, McCahon, J.
McIntyre, Meeting, Misra, Moutafakis, N. Nelson, Ng, Nolan, Nuru-Holm,
L. Patterson, L. E. Reed, Rom, Scherer, A. Schwartz, M. Schwartz, M. Smith,
Sparks, Spicer, Spiker, Stivers, Thornton, Wadhwa, J. Webb, Webster, F.
White, J. G. Wilson.
ABSENT/EXCUSED: Annapragada, Atherton, Bagaka's, Ball, Burt, Kiel, Lopresti, McLoughlin, Perkins, Rosentraub, Sawicki, Shah, Steinglass, Tewari, Tumeo, S. Wright.
ALSO PRESENT: E. Brennan, Jain, Kleidman.
Senate President William Bowen called the meeting to order at 3:10 P.M.
A. Eulogy for Dan O. Rains (Music)
Professor Eric Ziolek delivered the Eulogy.
"On May 25, 2002, Cleveland State University and the Department of Music lost a dear friend and colleague. Dan Rains, a respected and admired master teacher, lost his five-month battle with lung cancer. He was forty-nine years old. Dan spent the last eighteen years of his life dedicated to building a string program and the University Orchestra at Cleveland State. He had already established a reputation as a program builder.
Dan Rains received degrees from The Cincinnati College-Conservatory of Music and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. He began his career teaching in the public schools of Lexington and Winchester, Kentucky.
Before coming to CSU, Dan taught at the University of Maine. His letters of reference from colleagues in Maine described an individual who had roamed the backwoods of Maine in "Golda" his ancient VW beetle, helping to plant and nurture string programs in schools where none had existed in the hope of eventually harvesting students for the university program. Here in Cleveland, he visited schools often, was an invited guest conductor, and clinician. Many students who worked with him did, in fact, enroll at CSU.
In the fall of 1985, the CSU orchestra consisted of 11 string players, most of whom were non-majors. Their repertory was limited, needless to say. By 1986, the orchestra boasted 23 string players, 16 of whom were music majors, and 22 wind, brass, and percussion players. CSU students began to have the experience of learning major orchestral repertoire. The orchestra has continued to grow while other schools' orchestra programs struggled to maintain what they had. Dan's orchestra received its first invitation to bring the ensemble to an Ohio Music Educators Association convention within his first five years here. Four additional invitations were to follow -- an amazing record that compares favorably with any music school in the state.
As a teacher, Dan was known as "Mr. Fixit" who could find solutions to students' technical problems where other teachers had given up. He has former students who now occupy positions in schools throughout the region in which they too grow and nurture school orchestra programs.
Dan remained an active performer until the time of his illness, and even then, tried to play his violin in bed so that he could be ready to play when he was able. He played over 100 solo and chamber violin recitals during his time at CSU. His playing, like his teaching, conveyed a warm and passionate dedication to his art. He lived for his students and thought that his role was to give everyone a chance to excel and to develop a life-long commitment to learning. He had written articles on string pedagogy and was, himself, the subject of an article on string pedagogy.
Dan had many gifts. The Department of Music will retain memories of great music making, scores of well-trained string performers and teachers who now pass the gift of music on to their students, a remarkably accomplished university orchestra, and the gift of friendship. I do not know who was on the search committee that recommended hiring Dan Rains in 1985. I do know that the decision to do so helped the department grow, to realize potential that was only a dream, and to establish itself as the place of opportunity for those who wanted a chance to succeed.
In February of 2003, Dan's students and colleagues from throughout his career have volunteered to assemble as an orchestra to play a concert in his memory. He would have been embarrassed by such an occasion, but the tribute is testimony to his effectiveness. CSU was fortunate to have Dan Rains on its faculty. He is sorely missed."
B. Eulogy for Donald Scotton (Marketing)
Professor Andrew Gross delivered the Eulogy.
"Donald Scotton was truly one of the builders of this University. Indeed he could be called a "founding father." Donald Scotton died at the age of 82 in late June of this year. He came to CSU in 1968, having received his undergraduate, master, and doctoral degrees at the University of Illinois. He taught there for a time and he also taught at the University of Detroit.
Prior to academe, Donald Scotton served in business in Dayton, Ohio and he was a member of the Office of Naval Intelligence in Washington. He then served overseas during World War II in Africa, in Italy, and in France. After World War II, he met his wife Beverly Warren in Washington, D.C. and then they moved to Cleveland.
Donald Scotton was, at one point, chairman of four departments when the University was just starting out. We were working, teaching, and enjoying life in the quonset huts where Woodling Gym now stands and those were the best years because we were young, eager, enthusiastic, and building this great University.
Don Scotton then, of course, moved over to University Center and eventually became the chairman of Marketing only. But he has served with distinction as chair of Management and Labor and other departments as well. Don was well liked by students and he was very active in promoting the American Marketing Association Student Chapter at CSU. Don has also participated in a number of conferences and seminars in and out of the City. I remember driving to an International Marketing conference with him to Montreal, Canada.
Don was always enthused, he was very supportive of colleagues, and he had a great family. Daughter Elaine predeceased him. He is survived by his wife Beverly and by two sons and their families -- Bruce and Paul -- both of whom and their families are on the west coast.
Don Scotton has made a great contribution to this University from 1968 to 1983 and he enjoyed retirement and later on fishing with Allan Waren and Jan Muczyk in Canada.
May he rest in peace and this University is all the greater for him having been here."
Senate President William Bowen first introduced and welcomed student representative to Faculty Senate, JC Beckette, First College Senator. Dr. Bowen noted that there are two other student representatives, Greg Perkins and Samuel Wright, III, President of the Black Student Union, who were not present today.
Senate President Bowen stated that the job of Faculty Senate President has been a great job. It has been a lot of fun; it has been a big challenge; he has met interesting people; he has made some new friends a couple of whom he has grown to value a great deal. The University is in a different situation than when he took the position of President of the Faculty Senate two years ago. For one thing, then he had almost no grey hair on his head and look at him now. One big difference is leadership. It has improved and strengthened significantly over the past two years. In this regard, he especially wanted to thank his numerous faculty colleagues for helping him to strategize and formulate positions on behalf of the faculty.
Senate President Bowen noted that we now have an experienced new President who understands that while budgets are urgent, the things that are the most urgent at the University are not always the most important. It has become abundantly clear to him that the faculty does the real and the important business at the University. We are the ones that provide the scholarship that provide the transmission and creation of knowledge. The Administration provides the scaffolding for us to do this. When he started as Senate President, the scaffolding was weak. Now it has gotten stronger.
Some of the implications are that we individually and collectively can now start to rethink some of the ways that things have been considered for the past 30 or 40 years around here. To what extent has form triumphed over spirit. To what extent have the means triumphed over the ends. To what extent has the turf syndrome triumphed over everything. What new ways of programming, of working together, and building trust can we come up with. One major challenge that we face in the immediate future is accreditation. In particular, we have to deal with the NCA's demand that we establish and implement systematic procedures for outcome assessment. Specifically, we have to have by the year 2005, a system in place that we can show the NCA has been working for two years. Since accreditation is an academic issue, we, the faculty, need to deal actively with it. Dr. Bowen said that he is deeply committed to Cleveland State. He noted that he will pass the gavel at the end of the meeting, but anytime the Faculty Senate or any of the standing committees need any help insofar as he is capable of providing that help, he will be more than happy to oblige.
Senate President Bowen acknowledged a few people to whom he owes thanks -- Vijay Konangi, Art Schwartz, Sid Kraus, Violet Lunder-Baker -- all of them have helped him tremendously. His wife Chien-Chen Bowen gets special thanks. She tolerated his occasional preoccupation, the late nights he spent away from his family, and she also helped to piece him back together the couple of times when the emotional challenges of the position momentarily got the better of him.
Finally, Dr. Bowen
commented that he has recently heard various faculty members say that
they are proud to work at Cleveland State. He hadn't heard that before.
He said that he certainly feels that way today, and he thanked everyone.
VI. Senate Nominating Committee
Professor David Adams, a member of the Senate Nominating Committee, announced that the Committee has just one nominee for Senate President, Vijay Konangi, and two nominees for Senate Secretary, Cynthia Dieterich and Nicholas Moutafakis. Dr. Adams noted that there are no additional nominations from the floor. The Bylaws provide that petitions must be received in advance of the elections.
Dr. Rodger Govea moved that Vijay Konangi be elected Faculty Senate President by acclamation given that there are no other candidates. The motion was seconded and approved. Professor Vijay Konangi was elected as the new Senate President for a two-year term.
Professor Cynthia Dieterich was elected to a two-year term as the new Faculty Senate Secretary.
Dr. Robert Kleidman, chair of the Student Life Committee, stated that the Committee is bringing several amendments to the Student Handbook forward to Senate for approval.
Dr. William Bowen suggested discussing the resolutions together.
Dr. Kleidman noted that these resolutions were discussed at the May 2002 meeting of the Student Life Committee. For the most part, these revisions will just bring the Handbook in line and in some cases just update titles, etc. The ones that are substantive and important to look at are:
Professor James Wilson stated that at the last Academic Steering Committee meeting, it was reported that apparently some Student Government groups are unhappy because this money comes from the student fees and goes to these few people which means that there is less money available for the student groups.
Dr. Kleidman reported that overall, Dr. Diane Dillard did a study of this among universities around the country. We are at an extremely high level in terms of the proportion of money available for student activities that goes to stipends particularly.
Dr. Diane Dillard reported that a national study was conducted on stipends across the country. Washington State University is at the top at $17,000. Cleveland State University is under that in second place in terms of the amount that we compensate students. We are asking that the process simply separate out the tuition part from the stipend so that the stipend can be reviewed by the President in a budget setting.
Professor James Wilson stated that he had two concerns. His substantive concern is that it does seem high to him given the limited amount of money and, therefore, less money is available to other student groups. His procedural concern is that some of the student groups have been upset. Professor Wilson wondered if the students had an opportunity to participate in the making of this particular rule so that they will not come back later on and say, "this was a fait accompli and you have ratified something that we are opposed to and we never had a chance to participate in the discussion." Professor Wilson asked, "What can we say in response to that?"
Professor Kleidman reported that this revision was brought to the Student Life Committee from the General Fee Committee on which there is student participation. He does not know which particular students are unhappy with the situation and he doesn't know directly if the students had representation. Dr. Dillard reported that the General Fee Advisory Committee, consisting primarily of students, made the recommendation to the Vice President that, in fact, it would be helpful to cap the stipend at the Fall 2002 level. The proposal then came to the Student Life Committee that also has student representation on it. She indicated that there are students present at Senate today who did, in fact, participate in those decisions.
Ms. Elizabeth Alexy, President of Student Government, commented that at that same meeting, as far as questioning the amount of money available for students, the amount of money to our Finance Committee which allocates money to the student organizations was also increased. Generally, we have had $16,000 each year. This year the General Fee Committee has $51,000 to give out to student organizations. Our stipends are becoming so high because every time tuition goes up, the stipends go up. We wanted to cap the stipends so that the next time the ax comes from Columbus, if it happens again, we won't keep making more money because tuition keeps going up. That way it will stop the stipends from going extremely high. Ms. Alexy noted that there are about an equal number of students to faculty members on the General Fee Committee and most of the students have voting privileges.
Professor David Forte asked, "Out of the $51,000, how much of that is allocated to stipends right now?" Dr. Dillard noted that it is separate from the $51,000. Professor Forte then said that as he understands this resolution, the President may vary the stipend. It need not be matching tuition; it could be less. "Is that correct? It says that no student shall receive more than a double stipend. Does that mean that a student can receive two stipends in addition to the tuition?" Dr. Kleidman responded, "Not in addition." He noted that some do currently. Professor Forte inquired what that actually means. "Does it mean that no student can receive no more than tuition plus stipend, or no student can receive more than tuition plus two stipends?" Dr. Diane Dillard responded that it is a double stipend so it would be twice tuition. Tuition would be included as one of the stipends.
Dr. Jane McIntyre questioned the language used in the first resolution: "General Fee stipends shall be capped at the Fall Semester 2002 rate of tuition. The University President will set stipend amounts annually." She noted that Dr. Kleidman said in response to Professor Forte's question that the stipend will be set below the level of tuition now, but if it is capped and the President can set it, does that mean that stipends will never go up? Are they currently at the current rate? Dr. Kleidman responded, "No. There may be a problem with the language. The intent is to allow the President to set the amount. The cap part refers to this current upcoming year."
Dr. Jane McIntyre then suggested that Dr. Kleidman include language that states, "for the year 2002-2003, it will be capped at that level and then the President will set the stipend level." Otherwise, it seems to be giving and taking away. Dr. Kleidman responded that Dr. McIntyre was correct.
Dr. Jane McIntyre brought one other point of clarification to Senate. The language refers to the rate of tuition and states that it will not depend on the status of the student filling that position. But, we don't have a single rate of tuition. We have different rates of tuition for different levels of students. We have graduate tuition, law school tuition, executive business school tuition. We don't have a single rate of tuition and, therefore, the words "rate of tuition" should probably be clarified to mean which rate of tuition. Actually, those figures vary quite a lot. So if the rate of tuition is set at the Executive MBA rate of tuition, these stipends would suddenly go up a lot. She would recommend that Dr. Kleidman state which of those tuitions he has in mind.
Dr. Diane Dillard commented that, with the exception of the Student Bar Association, basically all of the stipends are capped or keyed to undergraduate tuition.
Dr. Jane McIntyre suggested a slight revision as Dr. Dillard had reported and state, "with the exception of the Student Bar Association", if that is intended. Further down in the proposal it states that it will not depend on the position of the student filling that position. She assumed that the Student Bar Association was always a law student.
Dr. Bill Bowen noted that Dr. Jane McIntyre's suggestion is a friendly amendment. Dr. McIntyre confirmed that these are just points of clarification and she will accept whatever comments are made. She was not sure that it would require a motion if the Senate doesn't have the actual language.
Dr. Bowen asked if the Senate needs the specific language.
Dr. Barbara Green stated that if the University President will set stipends annually, then we don't need the first sentence in the first resolution at all. We can remove, "General Fee stipends shall be capped at the Fall Semester 2002 rate of tuition." Leave in, "The University President will set stipend amounts annually." Dr. Kleidman noted that he had no problem with Dr. Green's suggestion. Dr. Jane McIntyre suggested adding the point that Dean Dillard made in explaining the rate of tuition. Dr. Barbara Green pointed out that we don't need any reference to tuition any longer. Dr. Jane McIntyre agreed.
Mr. JC Beckette, student representative, noted that it is kind of important to have the capping and it is good to have the President have the power. To have that capping at the 2002-2003 rate is important so that students coming in know it and everybody else who comes in after, as far as Senate is concerned, know that stipends are capped.
Dr. Barbara Green commented that ten years from now, depending on inflation, we don't want this written in as legislation that it can't go higher than the 2002-2003 rate. We are not legislating for this year; we are legislating for a long period of time.
Dr. Kleidman informed Senate that this was exactly the thinking of the members of the Student Life Committee and the reason they did it in this somewhat awkward way, but that was the committee's exact intent.
Professor Santosh Misra suggested that since there has been so much discussion with all sorts of language changes, maybe the language changes should be worked out before the proposed changes come back to Senate. Dr. Bill Bowen noted that the proposed changes seem to be pretty clear. We are going to keep the same language with the exception of the first sentence that will be removed.
Dr. Bowen noted that since this proposal comes from a Senate standing committee, a motion is not needed. He then called for the vote. The Senate approved the proposed changes to the Student Handbook along with the friendly amendments.
Technology Status Report
Mr. Michael Droney, Chief Information Officer, and also chairman of the Presidential Commission on the Future of Information Technology, reported that the Commission consists of five faculty representatives, four representatives from the colleges, four representatives of the administrative staff, and five representatives from Information Technology. The Commission was designed and formed by President Michael Schwartz back in May 2002. The Commission, feeling the pressures and the severity of the issues surrounding PeopleSoft, took it upon themselves to meet every second and fourth Friday of each month. The Commission held seven meetings throughout the summer. Each member gave the Commission over fifteen hours of time during the summer.
Mr. Droney reported that the formal role of the Commission is actually two-fold. The first role is to guide and communicate the University's decisions as they relate to the near term upgrade of PeopleSoft administrative systems. The second role is to analyze, develop, and guide the University's long-term direction for all information technology at CSU.
What is the current direction? Mr. Droney reported that with all of the results from the summer meetings, and all the efforts put forth, the PeopleSoft implementation is proceeding. We are progressing quite well with the acquisition of the new data center computer hardware. We are progressing with the acquisition of the new network on campus. We also are addressing the long-term IT related issues, and we will be evaluating and formulating strategies for alternatives for PeopleSoft.
Mr. Droney informed the Senate that the Commission has had several meetings with certain specialists in various areas with the IT group. IT itself has invested close to 2,000 hours in this project to date. We have looked at all PeopleSoft for planning from the actual product itself (PeopleSoft 8.0). We subscribe to the research firm Gartner Group which looks at the IT industry and gives us input from the industry's point of view. We have looked at other universities that are doing conversions of PeopleSoft 8.0. We have looked at the management approach timetables, budget, project risks, and cost of updates. This Commission has even been engaged in negotiations with these vendors. The Commission has identified characteristics of successful projects. We have also identified the definition of what PeopleSoft 8.0 success has to be in order for it to be successful.
Mr. Droney noted that he is pleased to report that one member of the Presidential Commission took it upon himself to lobby the PeopleSoft user group and a team of people to the extent that we have maintenance support extended for one additional year. That is quite an achievement.
Mr. Droney reported that we still hold to costs that were shared and initial estimates. We are still doing technical analysis of software. The total impact of this project for CSU is $5.8 million of new monies. Things like internal costs (CSU employees working on this project) are deducted from it. From a software point of view, still in technical analysis, we have determined that PeopleSoft's data conversational item is extremely cost effective and we are negotiating a contract there. The Commission did not like anything PeopleSoft gave us in terms of consulting. We are reviewing other options of other consulting groups. In addition, we have come up with some creative ideas and may hire these people in and not bring consultants in at all and that will be fifty cents on a dollar saved. The Commission has identified all of the internal planners. We actually have about 45 people identified by name. We have an organization laid out and the President's Commission is part of that organizational structure.
Mr. Droney went on to say that the exciting news is that we will build the infrastructure first. The new hardware has been totally configured, identified, planning is done, and bids are out. The President's Commission was engaged through the entire process of contract negotiations and approved it. The same is true for the network upgrading. A gigabit network significantly faster than our current data network on campus has gone to the Commission for full approval. Both of these are on the agenda for approval at the next meeting of the Board of Trustees.
Mr. Droney emphasized that the $5.8 million original preliminary estimate still stands. We have not uncovered anything that would concern us that those estimates are not correct.
Dr. Jane McIntyre asked Mr. Droney if he could take questions as he goes along with his presentation. Mr. Droney replied that he would take questions.
Dr. Jane McIntyre stated that when we first received the estimate last year, she did not recall whether it had eliminated or subtracted the internal costs of personnel. In any event, it is not a good way to report that cost. For example, if we are forced into devoting a large number of internal personnel resources to PeopleSoft that are not going into things like academic support -- as a matter of fact, many faculty have been complaining about the lack of technical academic support -- if all of our resources are going to PeopleSoft, that is a real cost and we should be reporting it. Dr. McIntyre suggested that in future reports, Mr. Droney should not make that faction. Mr. Droney responded that this is actually what he is doing at Senate today. The difference would be a $2 million internal cost.
Dr. Jane McIntyre asked, "If we are on target with last year's prediction, was it with those internal costs or without them?" Mr. Droney responded that this was the exact page he used last year. He is not trying to hide anything. He added that Dr. McIntyre is absolutely correct in her evaluation. That is why they constantly project the total costs of the project and the incremental cost or the new monies.
Mr. Droney stated that the second piece is to guide the long range direction of information technology. The Commission is starting to discuss how to attack the long-term IT initiative. The Commission was originally charged by the President to look at the long-term direction of administrative computing. Academic issues brought up by Dr. Jane McIntyre were part of that Commission's discussion. We rallied, we agreed, we got the consensus within the Commission, and confirmed by the President. We have changed our charge to look at all information technology including the academic pieces. In fact, the Commission had its first session on planning last month. We used the Delphi approach. The exercise identified over 129 different comments and suggestions that were synthesized down to 28 topics. That is where we are starting our next session this Friday.
Mr. Droney reported that the project will be stretched over two years. The hardware purchase mentioned earlier will be in two pieces. The first piece will be for development and training hardware. We will wait until the last minute to get the production group. We want to defer that cost as long as we can. The network installation will stretch over June/July of 2003. One of the big reasons for extending it is that it brings more safety. More people will be bringing up PeopleSoft 8.0 before CSU. Second, we will defer the financial impact on CSU over a two-year period rather than absorbing it all in one year.
Mr. Droney stated
that the role of the President's Commission is to keep an eye on the PeopleSoft
initiative and the long-range direction.
President Michael Schwartz first thanked everyone for the new grant and confidence of power with regard to the student stipends.
President Schwartz informed the Senate that we now have a group of about twenty students serving as student ambassadors. They are first rate students. We rolled them out last week at the President's Scholarship Awards dinner. As people entered the Convocation Center, they were met by a student ambassador. It was really nice to see that and our students are eager, bright, and enthusiastic and they represented us extremely well. When you dress them up in new green blazers that say Cleveland State University Student Ambassadors, it is a source of substantial pride to all of us. They will be present at the President's Inauguration as well. He added that he hopes to see everyone at the Inauguration. The procession of delegates from other institutions and organizations and our own faculty now exceeds two hundred people. He added that he feels really good about that.
President Schwartz talked about outcomes assessment. He made it clear that this is a critical faculty issue and it is critical in the sense that we need to fulfill NCA requirements. After the NCA review in 2000, we were found deficient on assessment and are required to demonstrate full compliance by 2005, including two full years of assessment results.
President Schwartz commented on several items. He hoped everyone is noticing the new campus signage going up. Some of it is already up on Rhodes Tower and some street level signs are now up as well. Now, when people drive past the campus, they at least know what it is that they are driving past. We are going to get some reasonably decent art in the upper deck and clean that place up and make it more attractive fairly soon. The plaza construction project is almost complete. In the spring, that will be a nice place to sit and should be a major change for us physically.
President Schwartz commented on a number of things that CSU is working on. If the dominos fall properly and within certain reasonable parameters, we may have a considerably different look to this campus before we are through. The first part has to do with the bookstore. We really want to tear it down. We are dealing with somebody who has a piece of property in the 1900 block of Euclid Avenue where there is an existing building. This person who controls that building may tear it down and put a new bookstore there which would be on Euclid at about the center of campus. The bookstore would also be built in such a way that it can accommodate student housing above. It would also be built in a way as to provide a walk-through from Euclid Avenue to Prospect Avenue. Behind this, the RTA is planning a new transit center. It is possible to build a parking deck on the air rights above the new transit center. Once that happens, we can get the old bookstore out of way and then decide later what to do with that space. At the same time, bonds may be issued. In the course of doing that, those bonds could build a new building that connects to the old Kinkos building and stretch across Euclid Avenue in front of Viking Hall. It could be maybe three or four stories high and might include offices for all of those folks currently working in Fenn Tower who would be moved into this new building. The President said that he might move into the new building. If it is possible, we would like to be able to put a faculty club in there as well so it could share the kitchen facilities with Viking Hall. In addition, if the bond issue goes well and the rates stay down, we might just build a student union building as well.
President Schwartz reported that besides the housing that might go above the bookstore, other options are being considered not the least of which is renovating Fenn Tower into student housing. Mr. Jack Boyle has been representing the President in developing a campus master plan. We are closing in on getting serious about these things and we are very close on negotiating at least the new bookstore deal which is the first of the things that has to happen before all the rest of these things happen. President Schwartz reported that there has been a little interruption doing these things because Vice President Roy Ray has left CSU. He added that he is very sorry that Mr. Ray made that decision.
President Schwartz introduced Mr. Brian Cook, Controller, and noted that he has asked Brian to step in as Interim Vice President for Finance. President Schwartz introduced the three new Deans on campus -- Barbara Hanniford, Continuing Education; Robert Scherer, Business Administration; and Charles Alexander, Engineering. He also introduced William Spiker, the new Vice President for University Relations and Development. President Schwartz then introduced Lee Reed, the new Athletic Director. The President noted that Mr. Reed will say a few words shortly. He has some interesting thoughts on athletics and academics.
The President also thanked Mr. Mike Droney for what he has been doing with the President's Commission. Things are going a little better this time than they went the last time with regard to the first PeopleSoft installation. That is Mike's doing and the Commissions's doing.
President Schwartz stated that it has been a hard day for all of us. It has been one year since that terrible event on September 11, 2001. At the memorial service today on campus, the Department of Music performed brilliantly and in ways that touched everybody who attended it. It was a wonderful moment of sadness and pride all combined at once.
President Schwartz reported that enrollment appears to be quite strong and we are off to a very good start, but his optimism here has always been guarded. Enrollment is up about 5% over this time one year ago. Last year enrollment was up as well. Our enrollment numbers are particularly strong in the graduate programs. We are really starting to look like the Graduate College of Cleveland. He would be remiss if he did not say that we have some weakness in our undergraduate enrollment and in two professional schools -- Engineering and Business. That weakness is something that we will need to repair just as rapidly as we can.
President Schwartz remarked that the campus really looks good. Somebody commented the other day that he could see our letters up on the top of Rhodes Tower when he was flying in to Cleveland. That is making use of the largest billboard that money can't buy. The landscaping the crews perform around here is nothing short of miraculous. They seem to have an uncanny ability to transform concrete into green and the kinds of things you are just not used to seeing downtown. The landscaping is beautiful here.
President Schwartz noted that he is extremely encouraged by the new hires. We have 35 new full-time faculty members who are already here. This faculty does us proud. We have six Fulbright scholars on our faculty which makes Cleveland number one in the State of Ohio and number three nationally in the number of Fulbrights for the year.
President Schwartz informed the Senate that the Industrial Technology Institute has been formed. Dean Alexander has agreed to be the Interim Director of the Institute. This is a collaborative effort of Cleveland State University, the City of Cleveland, NASA Glenn, and CAMP, the Cleveland Advanced Manufacturing Program. The idea of this is to collaborate in ways that will allow us to take existing patents (ours, NASA's, some that are contributed to us for example from Lubrizol Corp.) and engineer those into new products. We can then get those products into the local economy as fast as possible as part of this University's economic development effort. At the same time that this is going on, some of our colleagues in Urban Affairs are developing the Product Improvement Initiative which is not new product development, but old product improvement. The idea is to help the existing manufacturing base do its work better.
President Schwartz informed the Senate that we also have a new Education Consortium with Kent State University, the University of Akron, and Cuyahoga Community College that is designed to try to enhance teacher professional growth and student achievement in mathematics and science. That Center merges the strengths of all of these institutions.
President Schwartz commented that we have relationships that are improving in the private sector at a relatively fast pace. Some of you have already heard from Provost Chin Kuo about the President's Initiative Fund. Through the creation of this fund, we will have the ability to match dollars with funding donated through private sources. We will probably wind up with more than $1 million for our faculty to expand or initiate projects in key interdisciplinary areas while strengthening the relationship between the University and the greater Cleveland community. This holds terrific promise for the future of our University and the curriculum. We have also devised something called the Moses Cleveland Scholarship Program and have several new Endowed Scholarships that will be announced at the Inaugural Scholarship ball on September 28, 2002. We are getting an awful lot of financial support for our students. Frankly, without it, some of our students wouldn't be here or anywhere else. Raising this kind of money becomes more and more critical to us as the State's support for us dwindles and we have to put more of this on the backs of the students.
President Schwartz reported that an economic impact study of the University is just about complete and will be released in October. It will amaze everyone with the size of the fiscal influence this University has on the City of Cleveland and the region. For example, we either have here or do create 3,000 jobs. When you say those kinds of numbers around town, people start to pay attention to you. If you think losing LTV was a bad thing, you wouldn't want much to happen to CSU. It is also the case that we either spend or induce about a quarter of a billion dollars of other impacts on this region considering salaries, taxes paid, etc.
Finally, President Michael Schwartz commented that it has been an interesting sixteen months since he came to CSU. Monday, he testified before the House Select Committee on Higher Education which met at Case Western Reserve University. Part of his testimony was taken from this economic impact report which Ziona Austrian in the Urban College did with a colleague. It is an excellent report. In that testimony, he reported that if it weren't for Cleveland State University, which he characterized in part as an access university, higher education wouldn't be on the radar screen for a lot of our students. The report states that 20% of our students live in the City; 10% live in census tracks in which the median income is at or below the poverty level; one third live in census tracks where the median income is less than one and one half times the poverty level. It is fair to say that without Cleveland State, they wouldn't be here. There is a little journal called "Post Secondary Education Opportunity" which recently reported that Ohio ranks 32nd among the states in participation of students from low income families. President Schwartz remarked that he is not proud of that. One student in four here is a member of a minority group; about 35% of our students need remediation in math; 35% need remediation in English. The President reported that he went on to point out that, as far as he is concerned, paying for the same thing twice is probably not a good thing, but not paying for that same thing twice would be more expensive because we would be losing students. If we work hard enough, we could make those students into able university students, who would be major contributors to the economic growth and development of this region. Using Ziona's data, the President went on to tell the legislators what the return on investment could be with regard to what our degree holders bring back.
President Schwartz commented that most of the Presidents who have been testifying in these hearings have been doing the right thing -- they have been bragging about their institutions. And, they are very good at it. He said that he did some of that too. The President pointed out to the legislators that based on life-time income taxes paid to the State of Ohio, a holder of a bachelors degree from Cleveland State will return to the tax payers 5.8 times the amount that he or she received as a subsidy for his or her education at this university. That is a pretty good "bang for the buck" as the former Governor of the State used to like to say.
President Schwartz went on then to say that financial stability of all universities in this environment now is terribly critical. We had that financial stability pretty well guaranteed in our deal with the Governor which was that we wouldn't raise our tuitions more than 9.9% as long as there would be no further cuts to higher education. That got to be known legislatively as a 100% guarantee. The Regents then interpreted the 100% guarantee as meaning that the pot would be 100% next year of what it was -- not that the individual institutions would get what they had so the Regents' view is that they can redistribute the pot and they are doing that. The Regents are rewarding growth institutions and punishing institutions that have not had growth or that have suffered enrollment declines. President Schwartz remarked that he called foul on that one. A number of the Presidents felt blind-sighted by that. The President reported that CSU did lose some money.
President Schwartz noted that there was some bad communication between the Presidents and the Chancellor's office and there is enough blame to go around here. In his testimony, President Schwartz commented on this as destabilizing to some of our sister institutions and it wasn't a good thing. Frankly, in our environment when we lose $100,000, it hurts and we lost it.
President Schwartz informed the Senate that later in his testimony he commented that maybe it is also time to re-examine the State's posture with regard to the funding of private institutions with public money. For example, he pointed out that if one adds together the line item in the higher education budget called "Student Choice Grants," and about one half of the line for "Ohio instructional grants," that is close to what goes to private schools. You get very close to $120 million total. In the last go-around, our budget cut in higher education was about $121 million. He didn't say to anybody, "Let's take that money out of the private schools," but he did suggest strongly that it may be time to review this program.
President Schwartz reported that he has made a large number of friends on this campus recently with the lock-out policy. This policy fundamentally pertains to things that go on at this campus at night. During the day, people shouldn't have too much trouble getting somebody to help them get into offices. After the last round of cuts on this campus, it was almost "grab what you can get so that we can balance the budget." We did harm everywhere almost indiscriminately and some of that harm was to our Police Force which we are now rebuilding. It is hard to rebuild a campus Police Force because you recruit new officers, they go to the academy, they come back to start a probationary year, and some of them will inevitably leave within that first year to go out to suburban departments where they can make a little more money and where it is not quite so nerve-wracking. They have no idea what it is like to deal with university students. That means we continue to be a little thinner than we ought to be, and that means if you lock yourself out of your office and a police officer has to go get a key and bring it to you to open your door, that police officer is not patrolling where that police officer has to be. To get your door open, we put something else at risk for a time. He hasn't heard people argue with the idea that there ought to be a fee for service here, but has heard concern about how much money we are asking for. It is nice for a change to hear that it is not the principle of the thing and that it is the money -- usually it is the other way around and we can talk about that. Since the lock-out policy has gone into effect, there has been one case of a distinguished colleague being locked out of an office .
Professor David Meeting asked President Schwartz if the Cleveland Clinic extorts $25 from a doctor if he locks himself out of his office. Professor Meeting wondered, if he locks himself out of his office, should he get his car keys on a separate ring and go home? President Schwartz responded that first, he would never suggest how anyone carries his/her keys. That is a personal decision that has to be made. Second, he doesn't know what they do at the Cleveland Clinic, but if he had their money, he probably wouldn't worry about it either and they run a police department about nine times the size of ours.
Dr. Barbara Green said that she is happy to contribute to the Michael Schwartz Scholarship Fund, but she is not pleased about a requirement to contribute non-tax deductible money to a not for profit scholarship fund. She suggested that it could be a fine. People should not be told that they have to donate money to unlock their office door. President Schwartz informed the Senate that it is no longer a donation. It is a fee for service. When collecting that fee, he would suggest that his preference would be to put it where it will do our students the most good.
Dr. Barbara Green felt that if it is a fee for service, it should go to pay for the Police Department. President Schwartz stated that if he can jack the police salaries up and keep them from going off to Shaker, that would be great. He was more than willing to consider Dr. Green's suggestion. He noted that Senate can see how desperate he is feeling personally about helping the students.
Dr. Barbara Green remarked that the logic is, if it takes time from our police officers so they can't perform their duties, then the money ought to go to the people performing the service. President Schwartz stated that if he thought the one or two times that happens per term would help him get more police officers, that would be great.
Professor Mareyjoyce Green commented that she was happy to hear the President say in his presentation to the legislators that he called attention to the fact that Ohio seems to be moving away from supporting public education and has a greater willingness to support private education. What the President is saying to us is that, as citizens, we have to begin to help our legislatures understand what is happening in the State if we continue this kind of public policy and that we will continue to lose that lower level at the bottom. The State needs those people because we are no longer in a win-win situation in the State of Ohio and a big part of it is that we are taking away educational opportunities that actually were there for that level of people.
President Michael Schwartz stated that, in his remarks, he was not asking the legislature for the best of everything -- not that we would get it anyway -- but we want to do more than a credible job with a lot of people for whom this is not just a chance, it is the only chance. If we can carry that message, as a faculty, subtly and not so subtly wherever we are, we will do not just this institution an enormous service, but we will be doing ourselves, as a faculty, a great service and an enormous service to the students. The kinds of tuitions being charged in this State, given the fact that this is a State in which earnings are declining, not going up, tuitions are going up, we are starting to price students out of this place. The President of Tri-C recently made the same point in that same hearing. He said that we know the students didn't come to us and we also know they didn't go anywhere else. It is unconscionable that this is going on. He has never heard anybody ever say that less education was better than more. But we are starting to see public policy being made, indirectly, that is essentially telling us that less education is okay as public policy. It is not an encouraging public policy. Jacking tuitions up is discouraging. Student debt is discouraging public policy. We need an encouraging public policy.
President Schwartz reported that his final comment in the legislative hearing was that he has been in this State for 26 years. It is time to ask the Governor and the legislative leadership to formulate an understandable vision of the future of the State of Ohio out five years, ten years, and have them forge a consensus around that understanding of the future. Then, we will know finally what our role is in the future of Ohio directly. As it stands now, we are all playing "Lone Ranger." We are not going anywhere or in any same direction. Economic development alone is not a vision of the future of the State of Ohio.
At this point, President Michael Schwartz introduced Mr. Lee Reed, our new Director of Athletics.
Mr. Lee Reed thanked the Senate for the opportunity to come before the body. He noted that he is quite impressed with the participation of the faculty at Cleveland State. Coming from Eastern Michigan University, he never saw this many faculty involved and engaged in the activity of the institution. He has been impressed by a lot of things going on here on the campus.
Mr. Reed informed the Senate what can be expected from the inter-collegiate athletic program. Our student athletes will be fully engaged in activities on campus. Student athlete welfare is very important to us and that means educating them beyond classroom activity and beyond the playing field types of activity. Some of the focus this year will be on enhancing their skill set, increasing their ability to go out into the real world and earn income, become alumni, and make us very proud of them. Mr. Reed stated that students will conduct themselves with a high level of sportsmanship and integrity. We will be very proud of our student athletes and how they will represent this institution. He also hopes that we will see an athletics program that wins as well. Mr. Reed noted that he is a very competitive person by nature. If we are going to be involved in inter-collegiate athletics, we want to be successful at the highest levels. He noted that success is achieved by laying a foundation of academic achievement, of community involvement, of good character people. That is what the Athletics department will attempt to do as new prospective student athletes are recruited to our campus. In the future, we will have student athletes that achieve in the classroom and on the playing field and they will make us very proud.
Mr. Reed stated that he is happy to be at Cleveland State. He is a product of CSU having attended CSU from 1979 to 1983 as a student athlete. A lot of things have changed, but he is proud to say that he is a Viking and he always has been and always will be, and he hopes that the Athletic department can represent CSU in a first class manner.
Finally, Mr. Reed
stated that he wants everyone to know that this is everyone's athletics
program. We are not an island unto ourselves. Athletics wants to be a
part of everyone and wants everyone to feel they are a part of athletics.
Everyone will see changes in how Athletics is conducted and how business
is done. He is currently very proud of our student athletes and of the
staff. Athletics looks forward to serving everyone in a first class manner.
XI.Passing of the Gavel
At this point, Dr. William Bowen passed the gavel to Dr. Vijay Konangi, the new Senate President. Dr. Konangi accepted the gavel.
There being no new business, the meeting adjourned at 4:30 P.M.
Cynthia A. Dieterich
Faculty Senate Secretary
Faculty Senate Secretary
[Top of Page]