I. Approval of the Agenda
II. Approvalof the Minutes of the March 5, 2003 Meeting
III. University Curriculum Committee
IV. Student Life Committee (Report No. 20, 2002-2003)
V.Committee on Academic Space (Report No. 21, 2002-2003)
VI. University President's Report
PRESENT: D. W. Adams, E. Anderson, Ball, Barbato, Bathala, Boyle, Buckley, Charity, Dillard-Mitchell, Dobda, Doerder, Ekelman, Geier, Govea, B. Green, Hanlon, S. Hill, Hinds, Jeffres, M. Kaufman, L. Keller, C. King, Konangi, Kuo, Lambert, Larson, Lemke, McCahon, J. McIntyre, Moutafakis, Nolan, Nuru- Holm, Ng, L. Patterson, Rom, M. Schwartz, M. Smith, Spicer, E. Thomas, Thornton, Webster, J. G. Wilson.
ABSENT/EXCUSED: C. Alexander, Annapragada, Atherton, Bagaka's, J. Bazyk, Beckette, Bonder, Burt, Dieterich, Droney, Dunegan, Forte, Kiel, Lopresti, McLoughlin, Misra, N. Nelson, L. E. Reed, Rosentraub, Sawicki, Scherer, A. Schwartz, Shah, Sparks, Spiker, Steinglass, Stivers, Tewari, Tumeo, J. Webb, F. White.
ALSO PRESENT: Kleidman, Silberger.
Senate President Vijay Konangi called the meeting to order at 3:10 P.M.
Professor Walter Rom, Chair of the University Curriculum Committee, noted that two of the departments have not made their final decision, but a decision should be made by April 30, 2003. The UCC would also like reports from the transition committee in the coming year and at the end of each semester in terms of any curriculum issues that may arise.
Professor Beth Ekelman inquired, "What happens if the Departments of Nursing and Social Work have not decided where they would like to be after April 30, 2003?" Professor Rom responded that he talked to both departments and, hopefully, that will not be an issue. Both departments have indicated that things were moving along and the April 30, 2003 deadline should not be a problem. The feeling was that we need a deadline so the reorganization doesn't go beyond the Summer into next year. This would give us some time to come back to the Faculty Senate with alternatives.
Professor James Wilson commented that the sense of the Academic Steering Committee was that if either of the Departments does not make a decision, eventually someone else will.
Senate President Konangi noted that the Steering Committee did not resolve the issue.
Professor Michael Spicer stated that the College of Urban Affairs made an invitation to the Department of Social Work to join the College and the invitation is still good. Professor Mieko Smith stated that the Department of Social Work faculty voted to accept the invitation from the College of Urban Affairs.
Dr. Jane McIntyre commented that only because this is such an important motion, she has a question about the oddity of the way Dr. Rom phrased point number one in his memo. He stated that the UCC approved the College of Arts and Sciences Reorganization process. She noted that what Arts and Sciences had was more than a process. By the time it came to the University Curriculum Committee, it was the outcome of a process, namely, of the faculty of Arts and Sciences to create two new colleges. Again, on something as momentous as this, a few years down the road she would not like somebody to look back and say, "They approved the process but never actually approved the action."
Senate President Konangi asked Dr. Jane McIntyre if she would like to suggest a friendly amendment to the sentence in Dr. Rom's memo. Dr. Barbara Green suggested taking out the word "process". Dr. McIntyre noted that the process makes it sound like you are at the outset of something. Professor Rom stated that his thinking was that it is going to happen in the coming year and it is going to take a while to decide on an administrative structure, etc. and so it is a process in that sense that it is going to take place over the following year. He accepted Dr. Barbara Green's friendly amendment. Dr. Green also suggested changing the "R" in reorganization to a small "r." The sentence would then read, "The UCC approved the College of Arts and Sciences reorganization."
Dr. Susan Kogler Hill, a member of the University Curriculum Committee, stated that what came to the UCC was a whole process. There were going to be two transition committees that were going to work on this next year and then the reorganization will go forward.
Dr. Jane McIntyre stated that the matter under debate was the assignment of specific departments to specific colleges and even the existence of the colleges, or whether a majority of the College of Arts and Sciences would approve the reorganization. All of that is a proposal that came to the UCC. The record deserves some statement that either the UCC approved that position or it didn't. Professor Rom accepted the friendly amendment.
There being no further discussion, Senate President Konangi asked for a vote. The proposed College of Arts and Sciences reorganization was unanimously approved.
Senate President Konangi thanked President Schwartz and Provost Kuo for their patience and endurance during this whole process. We realize that several of our colleagues, in addition to the administration, would have liked to see this happen on an accelerated time-table. Given the deliberate nature of faculty governance, we are at a very good point, as Professor Jane McIntyre pointed out. This is a momentous event as far as the history of CSU is concerned. Our faculty governance process is a very robust process and we have been able to reach this point in a very collegial manner. Dr. Konangi thanked everyone including the Arts and Sciences Reorganization Committee, the Arts and Sciences Curriculum Committee, the University Curriculum Committee, and the patience and endurance of several of our colleagues.
B. Proposed Reinstatement of the Bachelor of Music in Music Therapy Degree (Report No. 18, 2002-2003)
Professor Walter Rom noted that the Bachelor of Music in Music Therapy Degree program was dropped a number of years ago because of budget issues. At that time, the university was subsidizing the difference in the tuition for some of the courses that students took at Baldwin Wallace and that became the reason for dropping the program. However, there is still student demand for the music therapy degree. In this proposal, the students would have to pay the extra tuition for courses they take at Baldwin Wallace so there wouldn't be the cost involved for the university. The program had been approved before so the courses listed are really Baldwin Wallace courses that had been in the program previously.
There being no questions or discussion, Senate President Konangi asked for a vote. The proposed reinstatement of the Bachelor of Music in Music Therapy Degree program was approved.
C. Proposed Name Change of the Department of Chemical Engineering (Report No. 19, 2002-2003)
Professor Walter Rom stated that there are a number of reasons for changing the name of the Department of Chemical Engineering to the Department of Chemical and Biomedical Engineering. Primarily, the department does have a number of faculty in that area and they have joint programs with the Cleveland Clinic. The name change would be helpful in terms funding of the program, etc.
There being no questions or discussion, Senate President Konangi called for the vote. The proposed name change of the Department of Chemical Engineering to the Department of Chemical and Biomedical Engineering was approved.
IV. Student Life Committee (Report No. 20, 2002-2003)
Professor Robert Kleidman, chair of the Student Life Committee, stated that he is bringing forward a proposed revision to the Sound Policy that was passed by the Student Life Committee on February 26, 2003. To speak to the substance of the policy, Dr. Kleidman introduced Professor Lynn Deering and Mr. Paul Novak, director of Safety and Environmental Services, who were members of the subcommittee.
Professor Lynn Deering reported that the subcommittee met many times on the Sound Policy and come forward with several changes to the policy. She noted that Mr. Novak will speak to the technical details of it. Professor Deering stated that first the performance agreement given to all of the artists that have some kind of amplified sound has been changed. Termination of the engagement can result if there is an issue with sound effecting what is going on if it goes beyond OSHA standards. The amplified sound request form that goes to Conference Services has also been changed. Amplified sound in the atrium is limited to the time-frame from 11:30 A.M. until 1:30 P.M. and after 4:00 P.M. with one amplified sound event happening per week. The outdoor scheduling has also been clarified to include Tuesday and Thursday from 11:45 A.M. until 1:15 P.M. during the free block time. A fifteen minute buffer period was given before and after in order for someone to set up their sound, do sound checks, and make it worthwhile for a student organization to bring in someone. It is very expensive to pay an artist to come in and amplify sound so we wanted to give the artist a complete hour of playing with time before and after.
Professor Deering stated that an advisory will go out throughout campus at least one week prior to any amplified sound event so that everyone is aware it will be happening which has not been done before. Finally, the sound level limitations have been set towards OSHA standards.
Dr. Barbara Green commented that Professor Deering gave the time as the free hour on Tuesday and Thursday on the outdoor locations. She noted that the proposal also states Friday after 1:30 P.M. Dr. Green inquired, "As a faculty member who teaches a class in Main Classroom from 1:30 P.M. to 2:35 P.M. on Friday, why is the time set on Friday afternoon at that time?" Professor Deering responded that the committee went back and as far as amplified sound events per year, the most we have ever had was six. When there is something going on for an extended period of time, the committee felt that the Friday afternoon time block was the least invasive of those times. There are very few Friday afternoon times that these amplified sound events have occurred. Usually, there are three per year. This year has been an exception and the committee recognized that. The only exceptions being made would be during Welcome Week and Spring Fest. The committee talked with many student groups and they spoke about wanting a campus life. Because we are a commuter campus, we advised them to wait until Friday nights and do the events on weekends. Student groups spoke to the fact that there are not many people here at those periods of time. In addition, with the outside events, the weather is usually not cooperative except for that early time period in September and the latter part of Spring semester. Professor Deering said that she understands Dr. Green's concerns. Many of the limitations have been trying to find some kind of happy medium between having students being able to sponsor something with a group, but not disturbing academic course work.
Dr. Jane McIntyre remarked that the policy does not speak to the issue of what happens to those classes. There may not be very many classes after 2:30 P.M., but there are many 1:30 P.M. classes and this is a prime academic block. Knowing in advance that you are not going to be able to speak in your class because you are going to be drowned out, doesn't help.
Professor Deering reported that Conference Services spoke to the fact that steering people away from certain time periods is going to be one of the first goals. But if there is a week like Welcome Week where there are many things going on at that period of time, to say you absolutely cannot have an event does require approval of the Dean of Student Life. Part of that is redirecting to the most conducive times that will not be disruptive to classes.
Senate President Konangi responded to Professors Jane McIntyre and Barbara Green, stating that Mr. Paul Novak indicated that if it somehow disturbs the class, he can intervene.
Mr. Paul Novak reported that he was asked to get involved with the subcommittee because of the major concern about disruption. They are going with the textbook OSHA standard with a certain level of decibels. Should an amplified sound event coincide, every individual member on campus has the option and the right to call Mr. Novak and ask him to come to the event so that he can assess what types of sound levels are there and make some corrections and modifications to the sound event itself. It is a matter of, should it be there or should it not. This amplified sound policy represents many good things such as diversity and fostering student life without interfering with the main mission which is the academic excellence that we do at CSU on a day-to-day basis.
Dr. Barbara Green commented that when this policy was being presented and the fact that Friday after 1:30 P.M. was skipped over, she does think that to expect a faculty member in the middle of a class to say it is too noisy so I will call Paul Novak and ask him to tell the band that they should go home is not going to work. She understands that we want to have student life here. The justification was that we need it on Friday evenings. Dr. Green asked, "Why doesn't Friday evening begin at 2:35 P.M. instead of at 1:30 P.M.?" Mr. Novak could not answer Dr. Green's question.
Professor Deering stated that she can take this concern back to the committee. She said that 1:30 P.M. was a time that it was felt there would be enough people around on campus to take part in the event. She does recognize what Dr. Green is saying. Mr. Novak has been educating everyone in terms of where we can put sound so that it isn't directed into particular areas because of the way things are designed.
Professor Leo Jeffres remarked that this only happens a couple of times per year. The idea of giving an advisory weeks in advance is that if there is going to be a potential problem, there might be a way of taking care of it without destroying a whole schedule for a couple of rooms on that particular side of Main Classroom.
Mr. Novak noted that Professor Jeffres hit the nail on the head. The spirit of this policy represents diversity and it represents collegiality and communication which has been a forefront to putting this policy together. Most importantly, it represents cooperation and an embracement of this policy to make it work. The individuals on the committee and he are committed to maintaining an effective student life without damaging the educational integrity of our course offerings here. The committee is always open to suggestions.
Professor Rodger Govea asked to clarify one point. The Sound Policy does not call for unlimited blasting at 1:30 P.M. on Friday. The volume of the events as he understands it, is limited by the policy itself to particular standards so that it is not as though it is simply open warfare. Mr. Novak stated that the perception of loudness is a really subjective human response. What can be deafening to one person could be attractive to another and that is where the committee tried to come to some type of compromise.
Professor David Larson noted that for those of us who have, in the past, taught in Main Classroom on that side of the building on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 1:30 P.M., the definition of deafening in that case is not subjective. It is whether or not your students can hear you speak. The speakers are always set up to use Main Classroom as a backdrop so they get the reverberation and all of the sound goes straight into those classrooms. Quite literally, no one can hear you speak unless you have a microphone, which one doesn't, where you can yell louder than the sound from outdoors. Professor Larson asked: "1) Do you plan on putting the speakers somewhere else on the plaza so they don't do that? 2) Compare the past events -- how loud is this going to be? If it is the same volume, it will deafen us; if it is less, it might be tolerable. 3) Is someone actually going to go check or is that only going to happen if somebody calls and complains in the middle of a class?" Dr. Larson went on to state that if no one is going to check, the situation is going to be ignored repeatedly.
Mr. Paul Novak replied that the answer is, yes, especially with the events that have happened this past Fall and Summer. Yes, someone will check the physical things that need to be done to reduce the loudness of the band or amplified sound event. Maybe we also need to get some additional volume in the classrooms. Maybe we can look at relocating the class if it is very important for one or two times per year. This is an ongoing type of policy and we are going to work with it. Like many other things we try to see if it works. If there is something that doesn't work and we need to tweak it, we are going to do that. Keep in mind that everything will be done that can be done to not interfere with the academic classes.
Professor Paul Doerder stated that he was pretty much in favor of the Sound Policy, but he would like to know, along the lines of Professor Larson's question, if the sound levels have been measured this past year for example. He knows that there are times when he walks through the atrium on the way to the cafeteria and just leaves.
Mr. Novak commented that we are talking about the interior versus the outside. Professor Doerder wondered if Mr. Novak had measured those and if he knows if they have exceeded the OSHA standards. Mr. Novak responded that he has measured them and they haven't exceeded OSHA standards.
Professor Myron Kaufman stated that it is loud enough that the sound level will be in a different level. Even if he is teaching students and the music coming from outside is at a good level, the students will be disrupted. That will not be conducive to teaching physics or anything else. In addition, he would suggest that Mr. Novak look at the expertise of at least one gentleman in Physics who is an expert in acoustics. Mr. Novak responded that he will definitely do that. We want to make this work so he will take everyone's comments.
Ms. Kathy Dobda, Librarian, asked Mr. Novak to also consider that the Library is in Rhodes Tower and the students who are there on Friday afternoon are usually trying to get something done before they rush home for the weekend. Mr. Novak said that he will do that especially with the outside. The committee focused on the interior of UC and now they are focusing on the outside. Senate's concerns are his concerns both from an occupational standpoint as employees, and also as individuals who foster education.
Professor Jane McIntyre remarked that it is one of the peculiarities of that same setup that Dr. Larson described where they normally put the amplifiers and have those musical events. The sound actually echoes up Rhodes Tower and not necessarily uniformly. She has been in various offices on the 19th floor of Rhodes Tower for many years. In some, the sound becomes quite loud. You can hear it virtually as if you were downstairs on the plaza. Mr. Novak replied that he became aware of Dr. McIntyre's concern after the fact. This will be one of his main concerns.
Dr. Jane McIntyre remarked that having experience, she discovered that when she has called the office responsible for the event or physical plant about the sound, they usually deny that it is happening. Usually the first thing they say is that you can't be hearing it on the 19th floor; it is too far away. The second thing they say is, there is nothing that can be done. Directing her question to Mr. Novak, Dr. McIntyre asked, "What process does he plan to have for dealing with the various miscellaneous problems that will arise?" Mr. Novak stated that he can't speak to what the past response of physical plant has been. All he can speak to is what is being dealt with here and now. And, here and now, he is committed to doing everything he can in working with the committee to be sure that we maintain an aurora of student life without interfering with the educational mission. Obviously from the comments he has received and just by virtue of the need to form this committee, it is not going be easy -- it's going to be challenging. Speaking for the subcommittee, Mr. Novak asked for everyone's cooperation and definitely everyone's input so that the committee can make this work if at all possible. The only other option is that we don't have these events.
Professor Leo Jeffres asked if a sliding scale can be used as well. The students want some sense of activity -- something going on during the hour from 1:30 P.M. to 2:30 P.M. It would not be like turning up the volume after 2:30 P.M., but literally the notion that you start up with a very low level and that develops interest for students. After the class is over then you can move up the sound.
Professor James Wilson stated that by the OSHA standard, he assumes that Mr. Novak means he will use that standard in the classroom where the person is complaining. Mr. Novak responded that Professor Wilson was correct. So, the sound will be much louder outside.
Professor James Wilson suggested that maybe there is an alternative like the Convocation Center. Mr. Novak stated that as far as location, he is not going to speak on that issue.
Professor Lynn Deering commented that part of the issue is also visibility. For any event, if it is not visible, it is very difficult to get people to attend. In addition, she pointed out that the outdoor time-frame is much smaller and it will be strictly adhered to. Previously, that policy has not necessarily been followed. She realizes that does not address Friday afternoon. Also, any student organization will be advised strongly that they cannot disturb classes. Language is now in the contract that states artists will not be paid if they do not cooperate by turning the music down if there are complaints. That has not been in the contract previously. There is a little bit of leverage that did not exist before. The times are much more limited and because of the signatures and Conferences Services being strongly involved on this Sound Policy Subcommittee, as well as the Department of Student Life, everybody is aware of the sensitive nature of this issue and how important it is to limit and follow through at least what the committee has put in place so far.
Student John Lemke asked Professor Deering, "As you are trying to remedy this issue, are you looking at the fact that basically the way the Cage is positioned with the concrete stairs and the concrete planters, you have an echo box. When the master plan is done, are they taking input from Professor Deering to create natural foliage baffles, etc.?" He noted that he owns property and when he was in a band, he put up hedges, etc. to better work with his neighbors. Mr. Novak replied that the subcommittee is definitely going to look at that. He became aware of the external concern well after the fact. Before the season starts up, the subcommittee will look at all of these issues. This is an ongoing process and they will address and review the suggestions made today as well. They are out to make it work, but it needs to be a cooperative effort on everyone's part in order to make it work.
Senate President Konangi asked for a vote. The Student Life Committee's proposed revised Sound Policy was approved.
VI. University President's Report
President Michael Schwartz commented that last Fall the sound really did get out of hand and he heard it on the 12th floor of Rhodes Tower so he knows exactly what everyone is talking about.
President Michael Schwartz stated that there is an elaborate dance between the Governor, the House, the Senate, and the Ohio Board of Regents concerning the next biennial budget. It is still very early and he doesn't want everyone to be overly alarmed by the news reports coming out of Columbus. He assured everyone that he is in touch almost hourly with what is going on and we are doing what we can on our own behalf. President Schwartz reported that he sent the following letter to about 1400 people today:
"In the next two weeks, the Ohio House of Representatives will most probably conclude hearings on the proposed Ohio operating budget for State fiscal year beginning July 1, 2003 and ending June 30, 2004. The State budget will then move to the Senate for its deliberations and finally to the Governor for his signature. This year's budget deliberations have been extremely difficult. Ohio's economy is experiencing difficulties, and difficult choices have been made regarding the budget. In the current budget, for the year that will end on June 30, 2003, Cleveland State University has experienced three cuts in State support, including a recent cut of $1.67 million.
All public universities in Ohio face extreme difficulties in absorbing such cuts, but Cleveland State is especially hard hit because we have only two major sources of the funds needed to keep our facilities open and our faculty in our classrooms: student tuition and State support. In the past decade, Ohio has chosen not to invest in Public Higher Education. And so, as State support has declined over the past decade, we have had no choice but to raise tuition. Even so, we have kept our tuition as affordable as possible, because we provide access to an education for many in Ohio.
We believe that it is crucial to the future of the State of Ohio to invest in Public Higher Education now. Based on everything we know, higher education is the only solid economic development tool we have. And, in Ohio, we really need to use that tool to help our State rise once again to the top. Ohio's economy has been declining in comparison to the economies of other states for many years. In addition, the future of the Northeast Ohio economy is tied to the future of Cleveland State University particularly because of the more than 80% of our alumni who remain here after graduation. To restore the Northeast Ohio economy will require a solid investment in Cleveland State University.
I am writing today to ask that you call or write your State Legislators, and other State Legislators you know, immediately explaining why you believe it is time for Ohio to invest in Public Higher Education. I ask you to consider the wide-reaching negative implications under-funding of Public Higher Education in the State Budget has had. With a better-educated work force, the State of Ohio will improve its future through citizens who earn more, and contribute more taxes, more entrepreneurship skills, more volunteerism -- the list goes on and on.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the Cleveland State University Office of Governmental Relations at 216-687-3561. You may obtain information about individual State Legislators electronically at: www.legislature.state.oh.us."
President Schwartz stated that our students are on a campaign as well to let the Legislature know exactly what they think. The editorial writer in the Plain Dealer last Saturday remarked that the Legislature has already instituted a tax increase on Ohio's college students and their families in the wake of our last tuition increase.
President Schwartz commented that a father of one of our junior students called him and quite properly asked the question, "What will my son get for the 9.9% increase next year?" President Schwartz responded that he is going to get next year exactly what he had this year -- this increase is going to cover this last State cut in some form of inflation. He got a hostile parent to become a letter writer for us. Legislators say to him, "We don't hear from anybody about higher education; they never write; they never call." President Schwartz commented that the legislators are right. So, he is asking everyone at Senate today, even if it is only a note and they may not read it, but he assures everyone that they are counted.
President Michael Schwartz congratulated the students of the Cleveland State University chapter of the American Marketing Association for their terrific showing at the 25th annual AMA International Collegiate Conference. Our students were competing against more than 100 national and international student chapters of that organization and our students won four awards including the award for best overall exhibit. We are proud of those students and their performance and we congratulate that team of ten students who were lead by the chapter president, Cortney Straw, their faculty advisor, Dr. Edward Thomas, Dean Robert Scherer, and all of the faculty in the Department of Marketing in the College of Business.
President Schwartz noted that this past year, CSU had six Fulbright awards. We have already received notice of three for next year and we have a pretty good chance of having as many as seven.
President Schwartz reported that there is also a celebration of nearly 400 members of the faculty and staff who have served the University for 20 or more years who will be honored at a recognition luncheon on Tuesday, April 15, 2003.
President Schwartz extended congratulations to Dr. Glenda Thornton, Director of the Library, and to the Library staff who will receive the Library's two millionth item on April 8, 2003 when honored guest John Horton presents the University with an 1889 edition of "Cleveland Illustrated." That will take place in the special collections area at 3:00 P.M.
Finally, President Schwartz congratulated all of the faculty members who have been awarded with promotion and/or tenure and all of the faculty who have been awarded professional leaves of absence. He wanted everyone to know that they have his support.
President Schwartz commented that he received a very interesting email today about promotion and tenure from Professor Paul Doerder who said, "At one time, right after the Board approved promotions and tenure decisions, letters were hand delivered to the people who were getting those awards rather than making them wait until the mail delivered them." President Schwartz noted that he sent them out by mail and they were received by most people on Monday after the Wednesday Board meeting. And, Professor Doerder said, "There is enough anxiety created in this process to begin with. After the decision is made final, can we let people know right away." President Schwartz said, "yes, of course." We will figure out a way to do that next year."
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.
Cynthia A. Dieterich
Faculty Senate Secretary
[Top of Page]