Cleveland State University

Faculty Senate

March 5, 2003

I. Eulogy for Marilyn Wagner (Health Sciences)
II. Approval of Agenda
III. Approval of the Minutes of the February 5, 2003 Meeting
IV. Admissions and Standards Committee
V.University Faculty Affairs Committee
VI.University Curriculum Committee hoc Committee on Honors Initiative
VIII. University President's Report
IX. Status of Presidential Commission on the Future of Information Technology (Report No. 15, 2002-2003)
X. Report on Financial Position of the University (Report No. 16, 2002-2003)
XI. New Business

PRESENT: D. W. Adams, Bagaka's, Barbato, Bathala, J. Bazyk, Bonder, Boyle, Buckley, Charity, Dieterich, Dobda, Doerder, Droney, Ekelman, Geier, B. Green, Hanlon, S. Hill, Jeffres, L. Keller, Kiel, Konangi, Lambert, Larson, Lemke, McCahon, J. McIntyre, Moutafakis, N. Nelson, L. Patterson, Rom, M. Schwartz, Shah, Spicer, E. Thomas, Thornton, Webster, J.G. Wilson.
ABSENT/EXCUSED: : C. Alexander, E. Anderson, Annapragada, Atherton, Ball, Beckette, Burt, Dillard, Dunegan, Forte, Govea, Hinds, M. Kaufman, C. King, Kuo, Lopresti, McLoughlin, Misra, Nolan, Nuru-Holm, Ng, L. E. Reed, Rosentraub, Sawicki, Scherer, A. Schwartz, M. Smith, Sparks, Spiker, Steinglass, Stivers, Tewari, Tumeo, J. Webb, F. White.
ALSO PRESENT: E. Brennan, Buckner Inniss.

Senate President Vijay Konangi called the meeting to order at 3:10 P.M.

[Go to top of page]

I. Eulogy for Marilyn Wagner (Health Sciences)

Professor Bette R. Bonder delivered the Eulogy.

"Marilyn Wagner arrived at Cleveland State in 1985. Like so many faculty in the Health Sciences Department, she came from a background as an accomplished clinician. She began her career as a physical therapist at the old Highland View Hospital, and rose through the ranks from staff therapist to Director of Physical Therapy.

Lynne's initial position at CSU was as a Visiting Assistant Professor, job-sharing while she took care of two small children. However, she quickly moved into a full-time faculty position and equally quickly became indispensable to the program. Her teaching was known to be excellent, her concern for her students exemplary.

She fully recognized the importance of research and scholarly work in a faculty position and chose to combine her research with her love of clinical work. She continued to work part-time in the muscle disease clinic at University Hospitals, where she was a figure beloved by colleagues and parents alike. One father told me about his son now 24, who was diagnosed with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy as a child. Most such children die very young. The father is convinced that his son owes both his quality of life and his very existence to Lynne's determined care. These interventions were the core of Lynne's research, as she explored physical therapy strategies that would assist individuals with Muscular Dystrophy. She also developed an interest in gerontology, co-editing a major text, a second edition of which was published in 2001.

Lynne ultimately decided that a faculty member should have a doctorate. Never one to shirk a challenge, she began to study in the Sociology Department at Kent State. Her studies were interrupted by her initial diagnosis with cancer, but Lynne showed her typical determination and became Dr. Wagner in 2000. Her experiences helped her mentor other faculty who were also pursuing doctoral degrees as she encouraged, sympathized, and cajoled.

Her reward for finishing her degree was to be drafted immediately as Program Director for Physical Therapy. Although initially reluctant, she accepted in a demonstration of good citizenship, and eventually she came to like the position. And like it or not, she was masterful at the job, insuring the high quality for which the program is known in our community.

Lynne's passions were her family, physical therapy, and her students for whom she always found time, taking an interest in every aspect of their lives. She was a determined advocate for the physical therapy program. I know it was deeply meaningful to her to see the first class graduate from the Master of Physical Therapy program this last December, as she was instrumental in its establishment.

In the ten years since her diagnosis, Lynne continued to pursue her multiple roles as teacher, researcher, clinician, student, and devoted mother with her typical vigor, refusing to be impeded by her illness. For those of us in Health Sciences, Lynne was a central figure, and I regret that you could not all know her as we did. She could be counted on for support, a joke, and, above all, a frank opinion. You always knew where Lynne stood. She sometimes laughed about what she feared was her excessive honesty. We found her perceptiveness and directness refreshing. She supported the development of her colleagues in many ways: a word of advice here, some encouragement there, a kick in the pants when called for. She led by example as well, masterfully juggling her many roles.

Lynne taught us a great deal about grace and courage under difficult circumstances. Though she was determined to fight her illness, she was also determined not to let it prevent the accomplishment of the goals she valued. We in the Department of Health Sciences, students and faculty alike, as well as the broader community of therapists and patients, will remember Lynne as a thoughtful, accomplished, forthright colleague and dear friend. She will be greatly missed."

Senate President Konangi asked everyone to please observe a moment of silence in the memory of Professor Marilyn Wagner.

[Go to top of page]

II. Approval of Agenda
Acceptance of the Agenda for March 5, 2003 was moved, seconded, and approved.

III. Approval of the Minutes of the February 5, 2003 Meeting
Acceptance of the Minutes of the February 5, 2003 meeting was moved, seconded, and approved.

IV. Admissions and Standards Committee

A. Proposed Revised Five-year Academic Calendar (Report No. 8, 2002-2003)

Professor Buckner Inniss, chair of the Admissions and Standards Committee, noted that the Committee has proposed revisions to the five-year academic calendar. First, to incorporate Spring Saturday commencements in lieu of Spring Sunday commencement dates. Second, the Committee has proposed to adjust the start dates of Spring semesters in order to achieve Saturday commencements, to insure sufficient Saturday meetings for instruction, and that examinations would not occur on commencement day.

Professor Thomas Buckley asked if the proposed calendar applies to the Law School. Professor Buckner Inniss replied that it does not apply to the Law School. The proposed calendar right now applies to the undergraduate and graduate school programs.

There being no further discussion, Senate President Konangi asked for a vote. The Proposed Revised Five-year Academic Calendar was approved.

B. Proposed Revision to Academic Reassessment Policy (Report No. 9, 2002- 2003)

Professor Buckner Inniss noted that this proposed revision is to the Undergraduate Catalogue and not to the Graduate Catalogue or to the Law School Catalogue. Current university regulations allow undergraduate students with poor grades to apply for reassessment. This allows students with poor grades to return to good standing whether or not they are non-degree students or degree seeking students. The Admissions and Standards Committee has reviewed the matter and concluded that this procedure should only be available to those students who are degree seeking. There are a number of non-degree students who are students who are just passing through, taking a couple of undergraduate courses, yet there are also students who actually do intend a degree at some point, but for reasons of convenience, etc., end up choosing non-degree status. It is the Committee's belief that the relief that is afforded by the reassessment regulations, should only apply to those students who have committed themselves to a course of study and who have decided that they are degree seeking. In addition, the Graduate School Catalogue does refer to degree-seeking students as well. This change would bring the Undergraduate Catalogue in line with the Graduate Catalogue.

Professor Mareyjoyce Green commented on re-entry women who have left school under sometimes traumatic circumstances and simply did not bother to withdraw and so they have a very low grade point average. She asked, "When they return and have a reassessment, can they, if they do very well, ultimately graduate with honors? These women are very concerned about returning to school, doing very well, and getting credit for that, but frequently because of those earlier low grades, they feel that they are denied the opportunity to graduate with honors." Professor Buckner Inniss responded that she was not prepared today to answer Professor Mareyjoyce Green's question specifically about honors. Ultimately, what we would like to see students do at academic standards, is simply to clear themselves. We want to encourage students to make an election and the earlier the better in terms of declaring degree status.

Professor Beth Ekelman noted that we often have students who have undergraduate degrees and have to come back for prerequisites to enter our Masters of Occupational Physical Therapy programs. She asked, "What if students, for example, when they got the first undergraduate degree, didn't do well and want to re-take an undergraduate prerequisite like biology, or chemistry, or physics but don't necessarily want another undergraduate degree? They want to take these prerequisites so that they can apply to our program as a Master." Professor Buckner Inniss indicated that she was not sure that she understood Professor Ekelman's question.

Professor Ekelman stated that if a student re-takes a biology course for example that she/he took the first time around and did not do very well, the student wouldn't be eligible for any kind of forgiveness. Professor Buckner Inniss responded that in terms of this reassessment policy, we are looking to people who typically and ideally would not be granted any particular undergraduate degree. In addition, if the student is simply trying to improve his or her record for admission to another program, and would have the course that was retaken, they would have the grades comparatively and could present those. Again, she was not quite sure that this particular change does affect the type of student Professor Ekelman is talking about.

Dr. David Larson indicated that the proposed revised policy has nothing to do with the policy already in place. As he recalls, the Senate voted that the second grade will replace the first grade. They used to be averaged out. That policy is separate from the proposed revised policy.

Professor Larry Keller asked for a clarification. A grade cannot be changed if the student has completed the degree program. Professor Buckner Inniss stated that this would be her understanding.

There being no further discussion, Senate President Konangi called for the vote. The Proposed Revision to the Academic Reassessment Policy was approved.

C. Proposed Revision to Readmissions Procedures (Report No. 10, 2002-2003)

Professor Buckner Inniss noted that current regulations allow students dismissed from the University who wish to return to petition for readmission after remaining out of CSU for at least two semesters. Those dismissed for a second time must remain out for at least four semesters. These petitions are reviewed by the appropriate college committee. However, questions have arisen as to whether or not this provision is meant to apply to those students who are dismissed for a time subsequent to the second dismissal. There was not any particular student seeking this or if there was, it was being resolved in the colleges. In order to clarify matters, the Committee considered it and concluded that the provisions available to those students dismissed beyond two times and those students dismissed for a second or subsequent time must remain out for at least four semesters. In making this clarification, the Committee is mindful of the fact that these decisions ultimately are with the colleges and it is expected that they will exercise their discretion accordingly. The Committee is simply trying to clarify the procedures to make it clear that if the colleges do wish to make such a decision regarding a student who has been dismissed more than twice, they certainly have the power to do so.

Dr. Jane McIntyre wondered if the Admissions and Standards Committee might consider setting a regulation which would say once a person has been dismissed twice, that is it for this university. She is not necessarily recommending it -- she is just saying that the Senate could do that. Professor Buckner Inniss responded that her Committee certainly could propose that change to the regulations and the Senate could agree to do that as well. But in the Committee's thinking, again, it is important that the colleges be empowered to make these decisions. They know their students' backgrounds best, etc. The colleges are ideally situated to make those decisions. Therefore, it would be the Admissions and Standards Committee's decision that it is best for the colleges and we should not try to set such a limit.

Professor Jane McIntyre asked, "Might not we be able to make a better decision if we were informed whether this was occurring often and colleges were often facing this situation and having to make a decision of this kind or whether it was something that was rare? Because if it is often, actually we might decide we should be intervening in some other way here to set a different standard." Professor Buckner Inniss said that it would be the Admissions and Standards Committee's position that the answer is, "No." Of course we would leave it to the Senators. As an urban college, our unique situation is one that offers education to second career people, etc. We do think that the individual colleges are best in a position to make this determination. If we were to try to set policy either at the committee level as academic standards or here in the Senate, we take away discretion from the colleges that really should be in their hands. They know their students best and certainly in individual situations, could not be dealt with unless, of course, those students were to make a petition ultimately to Admissions and Standards for a waiver of such a standard. With all of that in view, at least from the Admissions and Standards Committee's perspective, it does make sense to leave this to the colleges.

Dr. Barbara Green suggested that Professor Buckner Inniss might want to take this issue back to Committee and see if there should be any limit to the number of times somebody could fail out and come back. It seems that there comes a time when it certainly is not advisable for them to do so and, if it ever happens, it ought to be extremely rare. There comes a point when somebody has to say that you can't keep coming back. She agreed that the Admissions and Standards Committee does have the obligation to set university-wide standards which then can be petitioned in extraordinary cases. Professor Buckner Inniss replied that she would leave that to the Senate. Certainly if it is the desire of the Senate that the Committee go back and look to set such a limit, the Committee will do that.

Senate President Konangi stated that he didn't feel that Dr. Barbara Green was proposing that this issue be remanded to the Committee. Dr. Barbara Green stated that she felt the Senate should support this issue now, but should also ask the Admissions and Standards Committee to look into the question.

There being no further discussion, a vote was taken. The Proposed Revision to the Readmission Procedures was approved.

Senate President Konangi reported that at the January 2003 meeting of the Academic Steering Committee, two proposals for schools were presented. At that time, the Steering Committee felt that it would be advisable to have companion language to clarify the role of the heads of the schools. The proposals were referred to the University Faculty Affairs Committee. The UFAC gave these proposals high priority and have taken expeditious action on them.

V. University Faculty Affairs Committee

Recommendations on School Proposals (Report No. 11, 2002-2003)

Dr. Edward Brennan, chair of the University Faculty Affairs Committee, reported that there were three particular items the Committee considered concerning school proposals.

The UFAC felt that calling the head of the school a dean would confuse the language. It was felt that the head of the school should be a director. The Committee didn't see any reason not to have that person equivalent to a chairperson of a department. The UFAC supported the idea of a school but the responsibilities and privileges seem to be identical policy-wise to those of a department chair and the only recommendation here is in the last paragraph where the director of a school in this policy would have the rights and responsibilities equal unto a chair. The UFAC is recommending a slight change in 8.1.1 (Q) Department Chairperson/Director of School, where the language will include Directors of Schools.

There being no discussion, Senate President Konangi asked for a vote on the proposal. The Proposed Recommendations on School Proposals were approved.

VI. University Curriculum Committee

A. Proposal for a School of Communication (Report No. 12, 2002-2003)

Professor Walter Rom, chair of the University Curriculum Committee, stated that the UCC reviewed the proposal for the School of Communication. From the curriculum standpoint, the UCC did not see any issues in the impact on the students which should be minimal. The structure of the curriculum would be better in that it would enable the students to have more majors available to them. The UCC was unanimously in favor of a School of Communication.

Professor Lawrence Keller noted that if you make the school comparable to a department, then that becomes a college issue or a university issue. Departments have to be approved.

Dr. Barbara Green noted that the "Greenbook" states that the restructuring of a college has to go through the University Curriculum Committee.

There being no further discussion, Senate President Konangi called for the vote. The proposal for a School of Communication was approved.

B. Proposal for a School of Nursing (Report No. 13, 2002-2003)

Professor Walter Rom noted that the next proposal is for a School of Nursing. The University Curriculum Committee was also in favor of this proposal. One of the issues was in terms of competing with other universities. Most universities have a School of Nursing and this makes it more competitive in terms of hiring other faculty and getting grants with a School of Nursing rather than a Department of Nursing.

There being no questions or discussion, Senate President Konangi asked for a vote. The proposal for a School of Nursing was approved.

C. Proposal for a Major in Health Sciences (Report No. 14, 2002-2003)

Dr. Walter Rom stated that the third proposal is for undergraduate majors in the Health Sciences area. One track in the undergraduate major was approved by Faculty Senate last year and has been implemented this year. Three other tracks were not approved last year and were brought back to the UCC. Some modifications were made in terms of the number of hours required in the core requirements and also in terms of the terminology in the areas of concentration. The UCC approved the proposal unanimously.

There being no questions or discussion, Senate President Konangi asked for a vote. The proposal for a Major in Health Sciences was approved.

Senate President Konangi stated that the next item is the Proposed Cleveland State University Honors Program. Professor Patricia Falk, chair of the ad hoc Committee on Honors Initiative, is not feeling well so Professor John Donoghue, a member of the Committee, will substitute for her. Dr. Vijay Konangi noted that the Senate had a discussion of the Honors Program late in Fall semester. We also have recommendations from the University Curriculum Committee and from the Admissions and Standards Committee.

VII. ad hoc Committee on Honors Initiative

Proposed Cleveland State University Honors Program (Report No. 5, 2002-2003) (December 4, 2002 Senate Meeting)

There being no further business, Senate President Konangi asked for a motion to adjourn. The motion was seconded and approved and the meeting adjourned at 3:55 P.M.

Dr. John Donoghue, stated that last Spring semester President Michael Schwartz asked the Faculty Senate Academic Steering Committee to form a committee to look into an Honors Program for Cleveland State University. The Committee was comprised of 14 faculty members. They first met in April 2002. The charge to the Committee was to look into the need for an Honors Program at CSU, and, if we thought that this made sense for this university, to then come up with a curricular structure, an administrative structure, and an implementation plan. The Committee met weekly and came back to the Academic Steering Committee in November 2002 with the proposal now before the Senate.

Dr. Donoghue noted that one of the four major goals of the Honors Program is to attract and retain highly motivated and academically talented students. We are also interested in raising the bar for everybody in the University by bringing these students into the mix of the general population. A third goal of the program is to improve the intellectual life of the faculty who are teaching at the university through their collaboration with each other in the development of interdisciplinary courses and also through interactions with students in the program. Finally, Professor Donoghue stated that the fourth goal of the program is to help improve the reputation of Cleveland State University locally, in Northeast Ohio, and also throughout the academic community.

Dr. John Donoghue noted that the administrative structure consists of a half time program director drawn from an internal search. An Honors Council made up of eight elected faculty will appoint three faculty to teach in the program. There are also two students and the director as an ex officio member. In addition, faculty departmental liaisons will work between the departments and the Honors Council in its directive.

Dr. Donoghue stated that the curricular structure consists of two levels -- the lower level, the first two years, and an upper division, the last two years. In the first two years, the emphasis is on creating a sense of community among the honors students. All honors students will be required to take the universal one credit hour course per semester and four honors courses worth 16 credits. These courses could be either honors versions of existing courses or new interdisciplinary courses developed for the Honors Program. In the upper division, the emphasis moves to the departments. Honors students in the upper division will develop contracts that are approved by the Honors Council and the director in which the student agrees to do extra work such as participate in a research project, service learning, or complete additional research in the course, papers, etc.

Dr. Donoghue reported that the admission requirement is 27 or above on the ACT or a score of 1220 or above on the SAT. Entry points are either in the first year as an entering freshmen in the lower division or the third year as a junior entering in the sixth semester. Students must maintain a minimum G.P.A. of 3.5 to remain in the program. The Committee felt that there would probably be 50 freshmen and 25 juniors admitted each year with a total of 250 students in the program once it is up and running.

Dr. Donoghue noted that the Honors Committee felt that scholarships for the honors students were important. Scholarships for students include tuition, books, and a small stipend that adds up to $10,000 per student per year. The total operating budget is $370,000 per year including salaries for the program director, the administrative assistant, course development, and money for faculty replacement. On the other hand, you can have an honors program without any scholarship although you might not attract many students.

Professor John Donoghue noted that if the proposed Honors Program is approved and funded, it would be in place next year with the first students beginning in Fall semester 2004. The proposal has been to the University Curriculum Committee and to the Admissions and Standards Committee.

A. Recommendations of University Curriculum Committee

Dr. Walter Rom, chair of the University Curriculum Committee, reported that the Committee reviewed the proposed Honors Program and approved it unanimously. The UCC talked about the implementation.

1. Adequate support for the director and the participating faculty.

2. How would the student credit hours be allocated? Would they go to the home department of the instructor?

3. The director's workload seems high, especially for the initial years. His job would seem to involve more work than the chair of a typical department.

4. Is it possible for non-traditional students to participate?

5. How will the curriculum be developed?

Dr. Jane McIntyre noted that she is happy to see money in the budget for replacing faculty in departments where a faculty member might be moved over, in a given semester, to teach an honors class. She is concerned that the Honors Program is going to be staffed with full-time faculty and more and more of the regular classes will be staffed with part-time faculty. In general, an expansion of the faculty for initiatives like this is what is necessary and not an increase in the reliance on part-time faculty for our very important general education courses which most of the students will take.

Professor Rom agreed that Dr. McIntyre's concern could be an issue especially if we have relatively few faculty and they teach a lot of courses. But, if you have a case where you have a faculty member who teaches one course and it is one section per year, that would not be much of an issue for most departments. If we try to do it with just a few faculty from a few departments, then we will have problems.

Dr. Jane McIntyre further expressed a concern that honor students are getting a full-time faculty member at the expense of some other students who get a part-time faculty member and many other things that are going to be different for those two classes as well. We could make a commitment at the university to have a faculty large enough to staff both of these endeavors fully with full-time faculty and not have to make part-time faculty be what gets shoveled into the general education classes for the non-honor students.

Professor Rom noted that to some extent, we are making a special case out of the Honors program. That is the purpose of the Honors program. We are going to treat these people differently than the rest. Professor Donoghue stated that the Honors Committee was very concerned about this issue and it is a legitimate issue. Short of saying we want ten new faculty positions, the Committee budgeted $153,600 per year for course replacement for faculty. The feeling in the Committee was that maybe we could find a middle ground that would address Dr. Jane McIntyre's concerns, which are legitimate concerns, and hire not part-timers, but visiting faculty members.

B. Recommendations of Admissions and Standards Committee

Professor Lolita Buckner Inniss, chair of the Admissions and Standards Committee, stated that her committee took up the Honors proposal as well. The Committee limited its review to those aspects of the proposal that specifically seemed to have some effect either upon admissions or retention standards. The Committee endorsed the concept of the Honors Initiative, but did have three specific concerns:

1. Firming up admissions standards so that it was clear what materials had to be submitted by students. We wanted all language suggesting, "may" to be replaced with mandatory language. The Honors Committee did respond to that recommendation in the memo of February 24, 2003.

2. Retention standards should clearly state whether only G.P.A., or G.P.A. plus rank, or rank only are used in retention. Again, the memo of February 24, 2003 from the Honors Committee did respond to the Admissions and Standards Committee's concern. The program is recommending only a single retention standard. The Admissions and Standards Committee might have preferred use of rank or rank plus G.P.A. The Committee is at least satisfied that it has been made clear that the program only intends to look at G.P.A.

3. The final concern was the reference to those with excellence in an academic or artistic area not including G.P.A. The Committee was concerned that those individuals could be admitted without clear admissions standards and wanted that language either clarified or eliminated. The memo of February 24, 2003 addresses that as well, and, in short, indicates that this alternate means of admissions for those who are otherwise gifted, is outside of traditional standards and right now is not part of the admissions standards.

There being no further discussion, Senate President Konangi asked for a vote. The proposed Cleveland State University Honors Program was approved.

VIII. University President's Report

President Michael Schwartz first congratulated Professor Mareyjoyce Green who has been selected to speak at the Oxford Roundtable at Lincoln College Oxford. She will be speaking in a forum on human civil rights.

President Schwartz commented on the budget. He received a letter this morning that came to all university presidents from the Governor making formal that we will take a 2.5% budget cut from what is called the State Share of Instruction Line. We will start to lose that money with our April check. We must take approximately $1.7 million out of our budget between now and the end of the fiscal year. That does not include the fact that we have already lost about 2.5% earlier from other lines in the higher education budget. The total budget cut that we will sustain this year probably will be in excess of about $2.2 to $2.4 million.

President Schwartz distributed a sheet on the Ohio structural budget imbalance. Expenditures have outstripped the revenues and that began right after the year 2000. Looking at the Key State Budget Spending Trends, Medicaid and K-12 School Funding are accounting for about 92% of the increases in the State budget. All Other Programs includes higher education. We have about .58 billion dollars more in 2003 than we had in 1998 in this five-year period. We account for about 8.2% of this budget. Higher education is even less than that. That makes it particularly difficult to hear from some people that higher education has been getting double digit increases all along and should be able to sustain these cuts without any trouble. We are not faring all that well.

President Schwartz reported that Fall admissions are 2% ahead of one year ago. Mr. Jerry Kiel, director of Enrollment Services, says that even though we are running ahead in these applications, it is quite clear students are making multiple applications to institutions, many more than in the past. Mr. Kiel also informed the President that fewer students are taking and sending out their SAT scores. President Schwartz was not quite sure how that and the 20% increase we are seeing all fits together. But, because we are seeing that increase in our applications, all of the Provost approved faculty lines have been exempted from the current hiring freeze. We have some concerns about this next budget. We have been told that baring any revenue enhancements, further cuts to higher education could be more than 15% in the next biennium. President Michael Schwartz commented that the effort is to move resources that are currently not being spent in the academic program into the academic program.

President Schwartz reported that a survey of students conducted by Professor Chieh-Chen Bowen is being looked at in advance. It strikes us that many of the issues students encounter in being admitted -- getting financial aid, registering for class, etc. -- are problems with the lack of articulation among offices and the failure of business processes. We are determined that a student will be able to come to Cleveland State University, be admitted, apply for and receive financial aid, register for classes, and receive and pay the bill on-line all at once. We are behind other universities in that regard. We want to be able to catch
up and pass them in getting our organization to be much more responsive to the needs of those students.

President Schwartz reported that we have an RFP for our recreation and the student center planning. We are going to the Regents for approval of a bond issue for the recreation center, a rehab for Howe, and a new administration center for current Fenn occupants. We are currently in the stages of leasing temporary space adjacent to the campus to relocate everybody who is currently in Fenn. We want to recycle that building and have the private sector rehab it for student housing.

President Schwartz announced that the Faculty and Staff Appeal begins on March 20, 2003. Last year the faculty and staff contributed very generously -- we gave more than $100,000 to this university -- a figure that impressed the Board of Trustees and a lot of other people from off this campus.

Finally, President Michael Schwartz wished everyone a relaxing Spring break.

CSU student David Turner of Collegiate Studies asked President Schwartz when the new student center building would be built. President Schwartz responded that he did not know.

IX. Status of Presidential Commission on the Future of Information Technology (Report No. 15, 2002-2003)

Mr. Mike Droney, Vice President for Information Services, noted that the Presidential Commission on the Future of Information Technology was established in April 2002 by President Schwartz. It consists of six faculty members, four members of colleges, four administrative members, and the IT team. The role of this commission is first, to guide and communicate the university's decisions as they relate to the near term upgrade of the administrative application (PeopleSoft), and, second, to analyze, develop, and guide the university's long-range direction for information technology.

Status of PeopleSoft. Mr. Droney noted that 1500 tasks were identified in the project plan. About one quarter of the tasks are complete using one third of the time. From a budget point of view for this overall project of $5.8 million, $1.3 million of purchase orders have been issued. The project is on track and on budget and there are no reasons to re-estimate the budget.

Long-term future of PeopleSoft. Five options with PeopleSoft have been analyzed: a) commit to PeopleSoft exclusively, maximize use; b) core PeopleSoft combined with third party solutions; c) multi vendor/enterprise solution; d) new ERP solution; e) develop in-house. The Commission ruled out option (a) because of our past experiences. Option (d) would drop PeopleSoft and bring in another ERP product like Banner. Option (e) would start all over from scratch. Option (b) is the best representation of our current situation. We use core PeopleSoft for our student financial and HR payroll activities but we have many third party vendors used in conjunction with that. Option (c) is using the best vendor for the best solution. After considerable evaluation, the Commission concluded that it is in the best interests of CSU to stay the course in our current direction and focus on other activities. When the industry is studied and the way applications are being configured, in our expectations of the future, all the indicators show that there is a high probability that option (c) is going to be predominant as the middleware tools that connect everything together. The Commission recommends the ten-year option which is to adopt option (c).

Mr. Droney noted that the Commission tried to identify all of the needs across the university. All items were put into topics which were then prioritized through a mechanism that gave us a scale. The highest rating achieved was 13 and 0 was the lowest rating. Rankings were as follows:

Project Value Rating
Web   13
Student Advising/Admissions/Enrollment 12  
Disaster Recovery   11
University Process Re-engineering 10  
PeopleSoft   10
Distance Learning/Multi Media/Electronic Courses 10  
Security   10
Data Warehousing/Reporting/Data Administration 9  
PC Replacement   9

Dr. Jane McIntyre reported that at a meeting with Arts and Sciences chairs several weeks ago and at today's Arts and Sciences Cabinet meeting, questions were raised about the automated degree audit. Arts and Sciences have a serious concern with the automation of the entire degree audit process particularly for transfer students. The goal as described under Interim Findings "Long Term Initiatives", is to be able to have data on-line that states, "Populate the system with the data necessary for a prospective student to get the answer to: 'If I've taken the following courses elsewhere, exactly what additional courses would CSU require to grant me a degree?' (without having to contact a human advisor)." The Arts and Sciences chairs are very concerned about that last component because we do not believe that the students should be given advise about the major that does not have the authority of the major program standing behind it. Moving towards that level of automated advising would be, in Arts and Sciences' judgment, very unwise and we would like it to be the case that at the very least, advice that students get on line have big disclaimers written all over it that this is not an official approval of some program and not a guarantee that their courses will count as they are tentatively being advised. Better yet, that part of it should not be done on-line.

Mr. Droney responded that this was a planning effort. The Commission took the data raw. There is a preface at the top of all definitions that this was data as it was actually received by the Commission in format and it was just collapsed together.

Dr. Jane McIntyre inquired what Mr. Droney meant by data. Mr. Droney replied that this was all captured as input of ideas. Those decisions will be part of a project effort identified specifically in that case. He added, this is still a plan.

Dr. McIntyre continued stating that she has concerns about that being stated as a goal. The message she is bringing to Mr. Droney from the 20 plus chairs of the Arts and Sciences departments is that this is a goal that is not endorsed. This is a very important academic function that should not be carried out in an automatic function.

Professor David Larson pointed out along those same lines that, at this university, we seem to be working in two different directions. On the one hand, we are stressing properly the importance of close faculty student interaction and of students getting in touch with faculty as crucial to retention. On the other hand, the planning we are hearing about doing everything on-line seems designed to make it easier for students to do what some students do and that is never see an advisor until they are ready to graduate. We need to put those two things together. He is very concerned that if we don't integrate the planning toward doing things on-line, with the need to see actual human beings from departments, we are going to make what is already a bad problem worse. Again and again, Dr. Larson sees us working at cross odds this way as Dr. Jane McIntyre pointed out.

Mr. Droney stated that he agreed with Dr. McIntyre and Dr. Larson. The whole concept of automation doesn't have to replace everything and it shouldn't. But, there are many routine items that can be easily captured and that is what the Commission is going after. There is no intent to do something that would jeopardize a student's experience at CSU in any way.

Professor Jane McIntyre commented that there was a lot of support among advisors and chairs for having automated degree audits that could come to departments. It is fine to have the automated information coming to advisors so they can spend all their time not on paperwork but on advising. However, the area of concern is if that goes to the student without first coming to an advisor.

Dr. Susan Kogler Hill stated she was also at the Cabinet meeting where this issue came up earlier. The real concern is with the transfer student. The more automation to help the advisor the better, but the human has to be involved in transfer evaluation.

Mr. Droney said that he was not disagreeing with the human aspect and agrees one hundred percent. The flip side to it is that there are initiatives even at OBOR and a few other organizations to pre-identify some repeat or logical ones that come up frequently. If we can identify those, there is no need for each advisor to have to repeat that exercise every time.

Professor Susan Hill stated that if we could get every school that teaches communication and every single course that every student could take and we plug it in and determine how they would transfer, it would only be good for a couple of weeks because the courses change.

Professor Leo Jeffres stated that his Department of Communication has talked about trying to come up with a standard email address for on-line advising. He noted that we can have an advising page where students can go to in A&S Advising -- click on, and send your message, guaranteed at the other end are responsible people who respond within 48 hours and take ownership of it.

X. Report on Financial Position of the University (Report No. 16, 2002-2003)

Mr. Brian Cook, Associate Vice President of Business Affairs and Finance and Controller, stated that the topics of his presentation touch briefly on the university's revenues, expenses, the status of the university's reserves, and the university's Senate Bill 6 Ratios which is the fiscal watch legislation that was enacted in Ohio in the mid 90s.

Unrestricted Revenues. These include auxiliary enterprises. The university relies on two sources of revenues -- State subsidy and student fees for 90% of its revenues. If you take the revenues out of the equation, because those are really dedicated towards their own programming expenses, the percentage is 95%. What we would define as our operating budget is funded 95% from the two sources of revenue. Looking at the trend on restricted revenue, the growth is about 4.5% per year overall during this time period. Student fees grew at 7% per year during this time period. As a combination of increasing enrollment, State subsidy grew by only about 2.5% per year during this period. In fiscal year 2002, for the first time at CSU, student fees passed the State share of instruction to become our largest single source of revenue. We are certainly not unique in the State of Ohio. All of our sister institutions in the State experienced the same thing -- some in 2001 and others in 2002.

Restricted Revenues. These come from gifts, grants, and endowments which total almost $41 million in fiscal year 2002. The largest source is Federal which includes financial aid. Looking at the trends, total restricted revenues grew by about 8% per year during this period. Federal, the largest piece, grew by about 9% per year during this period.

Unrestricted Expenses. Seventy-five percent of our unrestricted funds are spent on our compensation programs either in the form of salaries or benefits to our employees. That is not at all unusual for our industry. Of the other 25%, maintenance and utilities are the biggest piece. Financial aid is probably the fastest growing piece here because every time we increase our tuition, we have a corresponding increase in our institutionally funded financial aid. It is currently only 13%. That is the piece of the 25% that has grown the fastest. Looking at the past five years, total spending over this period increased on an average of about 3.8% per year. If you break it down into the components, salaries increased by about 5%, fringes 4.2%, and the other expenses, even though financial aid grew, increased by less than .05% per year.

2002 Expenses: Budget vs Actual. In 2002, we lived within our means. We spent 97.2% of our operating budget that year.

Reserves. Looking at the levels of the university's reserves, our fund balances dipped in 1999 and in 2000 but they recovered nicely. We have had positive operating results the last two years. The reserves in dollars are actually slightly higher today than they were in 1998 at about $19.3 million in total, but these numbers include carry-over.

2002 Reserves Breakdown. Breakdown of that $19 million, about 40% or $7.7 million is under the control of the colleges and the departments on campus in the form of carry-over. Designated funds are funds that have been allocated by our Board of Trustees for a particular purpose such as the PeopleSoft upgrade project. The 33% are undesignated so they are reserves that are there and not allocated by the Board for any particular purpose.

1998-2002 Reserves as Percent of Budget. Even though in absolute terms reserves are higher in 2002 than they were in 1998, as a percent of budget, they still have not fully recovered. Our auditors told us in 2000 when they felt that our reserves were too low for an institution of our size, that if you take carry-over out of the equation, our reserves should be at a minimum in the 5% to 10% range of our budget. They are currently at 7%. So we are within the range, but we are in the bottom half of the range that our auditors recommend.

Senate Bill 6 (Fiscal Watch). In 1996 in response to the crises at Central State University, the Ohio legislature passed Senate Bill 6 and it authorizes or requires the Board of Regents, in conjunction with the Auditor of State, to annually calculate certain ratios for all of the educational institutions in the State to come up with what they call a composite score. If your composite score dips too low, you can be placed on fiscal watch. You can be placed on fiscal watch for other reasons besides poor ratio performance, but ratios are usually when people talk about Senate Bill 6. There are three ratios the State uses to measure universities and colleges because this applies to community colleges as well. There is a viability ratio, a primary reserve ratio, and a net income ratio.

Ratio Scores. Looking at the ratio scores for Cleveland State, it is pretty apparent that in the last two years as our operating results have improved, so have our ratio scores.

Composite Score. This has also increased. Currently, for 2002, it is at 3.6%. The maximum composite score is 5%. The highest composite score that any institution has is Miami University at 4.5%. These ratios are published on the Board of Regents Web Site. The most recent available are for 2001. For the 15 IUC institutions, at June 30, 2001, the average composite score was 3.42%. Ours at 2001 was 3.3% so we were slightly below the average. Mr. Cook stated that CSU increased at 2002, but he did not know how we compared to the average for 2002 yet.

Fiscal Watch Line. If you are below the composite score of the fiscal watch line for two years in a row, you are automatically placed on fiscal watch.

Beyond FY 2002. In the current fiscal year 2003, we are dealing with a 2.5% cut in our subsidy in our operating budget which is $1.7 million. We have a hiring freeze on non-faculty in place. As we start to try to build the budget for 2004, we are in a difficult position because essentially what we want to know or would like to know, we don't know. We don't know what our subsidy is going to be next year. There are likely to be fee caps imposed next year but it is not known for certain what they will be. All four of our collective bargaining agreements expire between July 1 and December 31 so the impact that this might have in terms of salaries on the operating budget is unknown. In addition, our medical insurance providers are telling us that we are going to be facing increases in the neighborhood of 30% to 33% next year. Again, those last two items comprise 75% of our operating budget.

Professor Leo Jeffres inquired what the situation is with our auxiliaries. Mr. Cook responded that the auxiliaries are budgeted to make a little over $500,000 this year and they are on track. They did spend some money that was not budgeted on renovation of the Food Court so they might fall short of that, but they should finish the year in the black.

Professor Jeffres asked how does the Convocation Center figure as a part of that. Mr. Cook replied that the Convocation Center, over the course of the last four or five years, has always finished with a small surplus. Basically, it breaks even; it doesn't make a lot of money, but it is not a drain on other resources either.

Professor Edward Thomas noted that Mr. Cook pointed out that the student contribution to our budget is now greater than the State contribution. He asked if Mr. Cook had percentages on that. When he came to CSU, students were paying one third and they are probably paying closer to 50% now of the total budget. Mr. Cook responded that the total operating budget is about $160 million and the student fee portion of that budget is in the low 80s so it is more than one half.

Professor Mareyjoyce Green commented that some schools have already announced tuition increases or proposed tuition increases. "If the State then brings a cap, will the schools be required to roll back the announced increases?" Mr. Cook replied that the schools will have to do one of two things -- either roll back the increases or make a refund to the students. But, they will be required to comply with the fee cap.

XI. New Business

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m.

[Go to top of page]

Cynthia A. Dieterich
Faculty Senate Secretary





[Top of Page]