I. Approval of the Agenda
II. Approval of the Minutes of the April 2, 2003 Meeting
III. Announcement of Elections at the May 7, 2003 Meeting
IV. Announcement of Coming Faculty-Wide Election
V.University Faculty Affairs Committee
VI. Final Report of the ad hoc Committee on Program Review (Report No. 24, 2002- 2003)
VII.University President's Report
VIII. Annual Reports
IX. New Business
PRESENT: D. W. Adams, E. Anderson, Ball, Barbato, Bathala, J. Bazyk, Bonder, Buckley, Dieterich, Doerder, Droney, Dunegan, Geier, Govea, B. Green, Hanlon, S. Hill, Hinds, Jeffres, Kiel, Konangi, Kuo, Larson, Lemke, McCahon, J. McIntyre, Misra, Moutafakis, N. Nelson, Nuru-Holm, L. E. Reed, Rom, M. Schwartz, M. Smith, Spicer, Stivers, E. Thomas, F. White, J. G. Wilson.
ABSENT/EXCUSED: : C. Alexander, Annapragada, Atherton, Bagaka's, Beckette, Boyle, Burt, Charity, Dillard-Mitchell, Dobda, Ekelman, Forte, M. Kaufman, L. Keller, C. King, Lambert, Lopresti, McLoughlin, Nolan, Ng, L. Patterson, Rosentraub, Sawicki, Scherer, A. Schwartz, Shah, Sparks, Spiker, Steinglass, Tewari, Thornton, Tumeo, J. Webb, Webster.
ALSO PRESENT: Brennan, Steinberg.
Senate President Vijay Konangi called the meeting to order at 3:10 P.M.
III. Announcement of Elections at the May 7, 2003 Meeting
Senate President Konangi announced the elections scheduled for the meeting of May 7, 2003 as follows: three faculty representatives to the University Faculty Affairs Committee; two faculty representatives to the Minority Affairs Committee; three faculty representatives to the Budget and Finance Committee; one faculty advisor to the Board of Trustees; one faculty representative to the Board Committee on Citations and Recognitions; one faculty representative to the Ohio Faculty Council; one faculty representative to the Copyright Review Committee; one faculty representative to the Patent Review Committee; four representatives to the Equal Opportunity Hearing Panel.
A. Proposed University Professorship (Report No. 22, 2002-2003)
Professor Edward Brennan, chair of the University Faculty Affairs Committee, presented the committee's proposed University Professorship, a special designation the University would create to both honor and make use of the faculty who are truly distinguished. The committee acknowledges that in these difficult budgetary times, it might not be possible for the University to enact this proposal. This would have to be negotiated by the administration when it becomes possible to enact.
Dr. Jane McIntyre proposed a change with respect to the section titled, "Responsibilities and Compensation." The proposal stipulates that after an initial period of three years, awardees may retain the title of University Professor but not the compensation. She recommended that the section be modified so that although the stipend of $10,000 would not be retained, these persons would be allowed to retain the $4,000 annual account set up for their professional expenses. If we are recognizing people for genuine distinction and give them this designation and they continue to do their research, the least that could be done is to continue the support for their research and professional activities. She recommended a change that states, "After the three-year period, they retain the title of University Professor and the account for professional expenses, but not the stipend."
Senate President Konangi suggested adding a sentence in the section titled "Compensation:" "After the initial three-year appointment, awardees may retain the $4,000 annual account for professional expenses. Dr. Edward Brennan accepted the proposed wording as a friendly amendment.
Professor Nels Nelson stated that he was concerned about giving $10,000 to a handful of people while there are many faculty who are under paid. Until everyone is compensated fairly, we should be careful about bestowing a large amount of money on a handful of people. Professor Leo Jeffres commented, "We will wait forever in that case."
Dr. Jane McIntyre commented on the section, "Method of Selection." In this section, it currently stipulates that the Distinguished Faculty Awards Committee will review the nominations. Given the fact that this is something that carries with it substantial compensation, even for a short period of time, it would be better if there was an elected faculty committee, either elected by the entire faculty or elected by Faculty Senate rather than an appointed committee.
Senate President Konangi suggested that perhaps it would be beneficial if the language is more specific. Dr. McIntyre would certainly be happy to hear what other people think about who should do the electing.
Dr. Barbara Green suggested that there be a committee of five senior faculty elected by Faculty Senate, no more than two from any one college. Dr. Konangi noted that when Dr. Green states five senior faculty she means five full professors. Dr. Green moved that there be a committee of five full professors, no more than two from any one college, elected by Faculty Senate. The motion was seconded by Professor Leo Jeffres.
Professor Kenneth Dunegan asked if the Senate would entertain having one faculty from each of the colleges rather than two from one college. Dr. Barbara Green stated that she would certainly entertain no more than two from each college. Especially with the fact that we will have two Colleges of Arts and Sciences instead of one, the division could be two from any one college and, in time, it will not be the same as in the past where we automatically mean two from the College of Arts and Sciences.
Professor Jane McIntyre noted that we have other elected committees with heavy responsibilities where it is not proportional college by college. The main point is that the committee be elected so that the people reviewing and making the recommendations have the fullest expression of confidence of the faculty.
Senate President Konangi stated that since Professor Barbara Green intends her language to stay as it is, we have to vote on the amendment as proposed by Professor Green.
Professor Jane McIntyre stated that the "Method of Selection" section is really only an outline. If we stipulate that the committee be elected with the details Dr. Barbara Green suggested, the rest of it could be worked out. The election should be conducted in the same way Faculty Senate does all elections. Dr. Jane McIntyre seconded Dr. Barbara Green's proposed amendment.
The amendment reads: "A committee of five full professors, no more than two from one college, to be elected by Faculty Senate." Senate President Konangi called for a vote on the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment was approved.
There being no further discussion on the main motion, Dr. Konangi asked for a vote on the proposal. The proposed University Professorship as twice amended was approved with one dissenting vote.
B. Proposed Revisions to Personnel Policies and Bylaws, Sections 8.3.1 (H) and 8.3.8 concerning College of Law Clinical Professors and Legal Writing Professors (First Reading) (Report No. 23, 2002-2003)
Dr. Edward Brennan noted that this matter has been a long standing issue. There was a charge to the Cleveland Marshall College of Law from the American Bar Association that to maintain its appropriate accreditation, it was to modify the disposition of our policy with respect to Clinical Professors. Incidentally, the Legal Writing Professors were added under the same strength and position. In order to meet that, the Faculty Affairs Committee and the College of Law worked out an amended policy and, therefore, this is the first reading. It comes as recommended by the Faculty Affairs Committee. There is a particular matter that the committee wanted to draw attention to under C) "Limitations." The committee found that this particular matter is specific to the College of Law. It is a special case concerning the disposition of these faculty members who will not be tenured. Nevertheless, a stronger position for them was required by the Bar Association and it was strongly supported by our Law School. The committee wanted to highlight that this does not set a precedent for other units in the University. If someone feels that they have a similar case, they would have to argue their case on its own merits and not see the new policy to be a precedent for other conditions. He noted that Professor James Wilson of the Law School along with Dr. Barbara Green of the Faculty Affairs Committee have been active in creating and working out an acceptable policy that seems to fully fit University policy and the AAUP, although the College of Law is not under the AAUP.
Senate President Konangi stated that this is the first reading of the proposed amendment to our Bylaws and Personnel Policies which requires two readings. The second reading will be two weeks from today when the proposal will be formally moved and voted on. The intention of the first reading is to have a discussion that will advise the University Faculty Affairs Committee. If the committee chooses to modify the proposal, the committee can. If not, we will take it up one more time on May 7, 2003. At the next Senate meeting, we will need a two-thirds affirmative vote to approve the proposal because this is an amendment to the Personnel Policies and Bylaws.
Dr. Barbara Green clarified that she doesn't agree that there is no violation of AAUP standards and her vote in the Faculty Affairs Committee was to bring it to Senate but not to recommend it. She was outvoted but she wanted to make it clear where she stands on the proposal.
Professor James Wilson reported that the University Legal Office has a couple of editorial amendments they would like to make and then one serious substantive amendment. We might want to address those initially. He referred to A) 5) "Termination of Five-Year Appointment" on page 2 of the document. The University recommends omitting some language which he agrees is not essential. In the first sentence, the words "the contract of" would be eliminated. He has no objection to deleting that wording. In addition, the University would like to delete the wording, "and may not be renewed" and add the word "or." The sentence would then read: "During a five-year appointment a Clinical Professor or a Legal Writing Professor may be terminated for good cause or due to the termination or material modification of the entire clinical or legal writing program." These changes do not have any substantive significance and he has no objection. This would be considered a friendly amendment from the University. If UFAC agrees, these changes should be made.
Professor Wilson noted that the University also wants to eliminate the following sentence: "Termination proceedings will be in accordance with University policy governing the sanction and dismissal of non-bargaining unit faculty." This takes away the tenure-type protection that is given to those of us who are not part of the Union and defeats the purpose of this proposal. Consequently, the Law School is completely opposed to it.
Dr. Susan Kogler Hill asked Professor Wilson to repeat the sentence that the University would like deleted. Professor Wilson repeated the sentence and noted that the University wants to put in its place the professional staff which significantly modifies the purpose of the proposal and that is to create faculty members who have a significant amount of autonomy and academic freedom so that they can participate actively in the governance of the Law School.
Professor Susan Hill remarked that the University wants to put in the sanction and dismissal of professional staff. Professor Wilson said, yes, this was his understanding. He suggested that the first two linguistic amendments be accepted and then Senate can decide on the merits.
Professor Wilson reported that about five or six years ago, the ABA found the Law School in non-compliance with their standards concerning clinicians and required that they be given governance rights and some type of long-term contractual rights or tenure. The Law School did not know what to do with that because reasonably similar is obviously in the eye of the beholder. A committee was formed and they proposed that the clinicians be given all governance rights except for the selection of tenure-track positions and voting on tenure. That was opposed by a fair number of people including himself on the grounds that it wasn't appropriate for people who are ultimately more accountable to the Dean and untenured to be able to be involved directly in the selection of the Dean, retention of the Dean, votes of no confidence, etc. or anything else that involves tenure. It was felt that if the Deans knew that the people who would make the tri-annual reviews could make votes of no confidence, etc. where tenured faculty are concerned, the Deans would remember their primary constituency. Consequently, it was opposed on the grounds that the issue of the Dean had not been addressed and it was narrowly defeated. Then the ABA asked the Law School what we were going to do. Professor Wilson noted that he chaired the Legal Writing Committee and they decided to give clinicians the same governance rights over internal affairs of the Law School except for issues involving tenure, the Deanship, etc. That is what is being proposed here. The Law School felt that it ought to be extended to the legal writing instructors as well. They work with the first year law students and we now have an extended second year program where they work with students on writing and it is an essential part of the Law School program. The feeling was that they are part of the academic institution and academic mission and they should have rights similar to the clinicians. Although it was not mandated by the ABA, it was felt that this would be a significant step forward in terms of increasing their status within the school and within the profession. Consequently, it was agreed to extend it to both the clinicians and to the legal writing instructors to have these responsibilities and rights.
Professor Wilson pointed out that the vote was overwhelmingly positive. One faculty member remained opposed on the grounds that it should be tenure or nothing and that we should not have any second class citizenship. He stated that certainly on a practical level, the Faculty Senate could require tenure and say that this is an unacceptable alternative. He believes that if it is remanded to the Law School, the clinicians would probably be given tenure but he believes one of the purposes of tenure is not just academic freedom but also scholarship. He would certainly advocate that all of those positions be opened to a national search because it is a radical change in the job and that there be a scholarship component to it which would arguably change the nature of the clinic significantly. Furthermore, there is a good chance that the tenured faculty would then say the legal writing instructors should go back to the status quo. Professor Wilson pointed out that there may be only two or three schools in the country that have granted legal writing instructors tenure but otherwise, they have no rights to speak of. The basic plan is that there would be a five-year probation period and then the rolling five-year contracts after that. Basically, they could only be dismissed for good cause.
Professor Leo Jeffres asked if these individuals would be able to serve on search committees. Professor Wilson replied that they would not. They may search for clinical and legal writing staff but would not be on search committees for the Dean. Professor Jeffres reported that he knows of instances at private institutions where people who were vulnerable were placed on search committees so that they could manipulate the hiring and this creates a whole class of people who could be put into that position. Professor Wilson stated that the Bylaws have been deliberately kept out of the Green Book so these distinctions can be worked out in detail. For instance, someone asked, "Well, can they be on Faculty Senate?" We said "no" and everybody agreed.
Professor Kenneth Dunegan commented that it then becomes important to clarify what committees these people can and cannot serve on. In section B) 2) under "Privileges and Responsibilities," it states, "Clinical Professors and legal Writing Professors shall participate in the governance of the College of Law at the discretion of the Dean." That seems to raise some concern about the very issue Professor Wilson brought up in his explanation. He would be more comfortable if there was some clarification of the committees that they would be able to serve on or not. Professor Wilson stated that explicit language cettainly could be included making it clear that they cannot serve on the Faculty Senate and on any Decanal Search Committees. Professor Dunegan wanted to know about promotion and tenure decisions. Professor Wilson replied that this would be excluded.
Senate President Konangi clarified that as far as membership on Faculty Senate is concerned, the Bylaws of the Faculty Senate would prevail. Even if the Law School for some reason were to change it, that still doesn't override the Bylaws as far as Faculty Senate is concerned.
Professor Deborah Geier noted that Faculty Senate only has the Green Book section. There is also a much larger thicker document in-house that the Law School voted on that includes the process by which this all occurred. In that document it states, "They will not serve on promotion and tenure committees and they will not serve on Dean search committees," etc. Professor Wilson stated that we could put language in the Green Book but we felt that it was more the process of how we implement the Green Book policy so it was more appropriate in that document rather than this document.
Relating to curriculum and other issues within the Law School, Professor Barbara Green noted that these faculty members are subject to re-appointment every five years and they need to have the support of the Dean. If, in the third or fourth year of a five-year appointment, they should vote against what the Dean wants in a curricular change or anything else internally, they could then not be recommended. They do not have the ability to stand up to the administration within the Law School and not go along with what the Dean says, fearing that they might not be reappointed. Professor Wilson agreed that this is theoretically the case and it is possible, but he does think that after a five-year contract, they must first go through a faculty vote. If the faculty overwhelmingly supports them, most Deans would not use political capital to retaliate against them.
Dr. Barbara Green stated, "That is why we have rules though because we don't always have most Deans; we sometimes have other Deans."
Professor Jane McIntyre noted that one of the reasons she is particularly concerned about this proposal is whether he has actually set up a teaching faculty even though he thinks he has protected himself against setting up a teaching faculty. These faculty members are not limited by the language to teaching legal writing and research classes. This means that it could become the vehicle in harder economic times when the Dean and even possibly the faculty will see it as necessary or desirable to expand the faculty by expanding these positions. There is no limit in the first year on the percentage of faculty that could be in such a position and these faculty are not limited to teaching only the writing and research classes. Then we would have regular faculty teaching part of the regular curriculum who are not protected by tenure and who are in vulnerable positions. If a clause saying that they are not limited to teaching these specific classes is going to be left in, we ought to think very hard about whether we want to open the door to having our faculty grow by growing people into this second class academic citizenship. Professor Wilson responded that he was not saying that they were trying to get rid of two tiers. The point was to make the gap less.
Professor Jane McIntyre asked, "What is the reason for saying they can teach other classes?" Professor Wilson replied, "Because they want to." Professor McIntyre recommended that they might want to and he may want them to and then we have a growing number of faculty teaching in non-tenured positions and also in positions where scholarship is not part of their selection review. Professor Wilson responded that the truth is, the legal writing requirements are so onerous and the faculty student ratios have to be kept very low that there is little discretion left here in terms of what those people do.
Dr. David Larson asked if these positions are currently on a year by year basis. Professor Wilson replied that Dr. Larson was correct. Dr. Larson asked if there was some provision for these positions that he doesn't know about in the current Green Book Personnel Policies. Professor Wilson responded that this has been an anomaly. Dr. Larson noted that there has been a long-standing violation of our current policies. Professor Wilson stated that this is a very serious problem. We have had legal writing instructors for ten/twenty years and that has been the tradition in the unique nature of this Law School. It seems that if we suddenly get draconian and follow that to the letter of the law, we would be destroying that institution which would be counter productive.
Dr. Larson stated that he is not proposing destroying the institution though he finds a certain irony in the notion that it is the Law College that is ignoring the rules. He did want to stress the point that every university that has hired a non-tenured track cadre, has found that this cadre expands while the tenure-track shrinks. It is not safe to just dismiss the notion that, yes, so our current legal writing people don't have room to teach more than legal writing, but instead of hiring one tenure-track lawyer, you hire three legal writing people and give them some of your courses when somebody leaves. That does happen at many universities. Beyond that, however, he has more fundamental objections to this particular proposal. We have people who still don't have any academic freedom protection. It has been pointed out again and again, since they are in renewable five-year contracts, they are going to be very careful, especially in the third and fourth years, that they don't say anything that offends the Dean, that they don't teach in any way that is not approved by their superior faculty colleagues, and that they don't do anything perhaps even outside the University which is politically sensitive. These people don't have academic freedom. They do not have the same rights as other faculty members who do have tenure and the result is that you are maintaining a cadre of people who don't have academic freedom. Dr. Larson stated that he does have an amendment to the proposal.
Professor Wilson responded that he doesn't mean to dismiss the claims and fears as irrelevant. He thinks the tenure argument is a decent one as he has tried to intimate. Yet, he has to disagree in part with Dr. Larson's characterization. This is an increase in academic freedom of these people; whether it is sufficient or not is up to Faculty Senate.
Professor Larson stated that he is not saying it is not a better situation -- it is. They still do not have the fundamental guarantee of academic freedom which is the expectation of continued employment short of just cause. As far as tenure is concerned, there is not any inherent connection to research. He would point out that tenure exists in small liberal arts colleges where people do not do research. It existed at the State Teachers Colleges when they did not do research. There is no inherent connection between those two things. Nonetheless, he is not proposing that these people must be tenured. The proposed amendment merely states:
"4.b) The award of a five year appointment to a faculty member carries the presumption of successive five year appointments. Faculty members awarded five year appointments shall be denied successive five year appointments only for just cause, or the discontinuance of the program in which the faculty member teaches, or a declaration of financial exigency."
Professor Deborah Geier stated, "To put this into context a little bit better, because now we are starting to have the idea that we are this renegade law school, twenty years ago, no law school in the country had a legal writing program. This has been an evolution over the last fifteen to twenty years in which the AALS (Association of American Law Schools) and the ABA accreditation committees began to expect that law schools implement some kind of legal writing program. The first generation of these programs were typically taught by third-year law students. About the late 80s, early 90s, these accreditation bodies and the AALS and ABA started to pressure law schools to hire full-time legal writing people. Then slowly law schools started to hire full-time people to teach law students. But, because this was experimental, I don't know of any law school that did anything but one-year contracts. Then, as Professor Wilson said, the pressure started to give legal writing professors greater involvement in law school affairs and greater protection. Now, the ABA is pressuring us and other law schools, who are still using the one-year contract model, to give as the language in the standard as reasonably similar to faculty governance rights and some protection. A host of law schools are trying to figure out what to do. A few of them have extended tenure, but they are the rarity in the 180 years of law schools in the country. Most of them have gone to some form of long-term contracts."
Dr. Barbara Green noted that the rules of this University, according to the Personnel Policies and Bylaws, do not and have not permitted one-year full-time appointments. Appointments can be part-time or they can be tenure-track or two-year visitors or even six-year term appointments, but the appointments didn't violate nature, morality, etc. It is certainly true, especially with legal writing, that there have been one-year appointments. She actually has served on the ABA accrediting committee and has been to their sessions and there the push has been at least, for a number of years certainly with the clinical people, to make sure that those are not one-year appointments and that they are extended protection and that used to be true here at CSU. There certainly used to be tenure-track positions and tenured faculty here and some of our senior faculty in the Law School right now started out teaching clinical law. Legal writing is quite different and has evolved with the times but the point was not that there isn't an improvement, but one does have to abide by the rules or change them.
Professor Wilson commented that one advantage is that the proposal does address that concern in part. If there is a legal ambiguity about their current status, this law would be incorporated into the rest of the system and would resolve the question of their status. Right now, it is not clear if we can continue with the existing system. This would resolve that problem and the rules would be in compliance. To that degree, it is a significant step forward.
Professor Deborah Geier noted that one more reason why this came about, when you say this is in violation of University policies, in its infancy, the legal program was done on soft money grants. It wasn't until maybe five years ago that we finally got slots actually recognized by the University for legal writing instructors.
Dr. Rodger Govea asked, "Are we going to be considering any of these suggestions that came from them -- changes that they suggested and a substitute amendment that they wanted?" Senate President Konangi noted that the procedure requires that a voting Senate member propose an amendment. Dr. Govea observed that many of the things his colleagues have said are correct. He would warn the proposers of this amendment that if one leaves any loopholes and decides that perhaps those loopholes can be covered by an act of faith, they are making a mistake. Any loopholes that are left will be exploited and he thinks it is important that everyone understands that.
Senate President Konangi commented that he would prefer that somebody representing the Law administration or their equal field some of the questions and concerns that were raised on the Senate floor. Unfortunately, our good colleague Professor Wilson is in the position of having to defend the Law administration.
Dr. David Larson stated that he also didn't mean his comments as an attack on Professor Wilson or the Law School. The real issue is, if you don't want to give these people tenure, how close to some kind of guarantee can you come. Five years doesn't cut it. It is better than one year, but it still does not begin to give them true academic freedom because they are still vulnerable to be non-renewed if at any point they offend the powers that be. Therefore, he has proposed an amendment which he believes will bring them closer to that kind of guarantee but which is not yet tenure.
Professor David Adams noted that he didn't see anything in relation to work load and, since there is no explicit connection or stipulations around scholarship, he wondered if that issue has been discussed? Senate President Konangi asked if it is perhaps in the companion document in the Law School that was mentioned. Professor Deborah Geier responded that the understanding was that we have four or five clinics in which students and the supervising clinical faculty are involved in real-life cases as well as transactional work in the community. They are twelve month year around positions. The Legal Writing Committee just did an extensive review of the curriculum in the legal writing program and there is a formal curriculum. In that sense, the legal faculty is responsible for implementing that curriculum.
For the record and to alleviate concerns, Professor Wilson reported that occasionally a clinician and/or a legal writing instructor has taught a course. Some of them have taught courses in art law and have taught as overloads. That is a legitimate concern. The question is, do we want to try to solve all of this at the Green Book level immediately in advance, or do we want to involve common law and then bring it back to codify it once we work it through. Maybe we can resolve three or four of these issues and then come back in three or five years and clarify it. We can't foresee all the possibilities. Things keep coming up that are legitimate and that is the reason we were trying to resolve a lot of this below the Green Book level.
Professor Susan Hill asked if the writing and clinical things get credit. Professor Wilson responded that they did. Professor Hill asked if there is any stipulation about the number of credits. Professor Wilson replied that they are courses and there are credits and grades. Professor Hill noted that they sometimes teach a real course. Professor Wilson replied that they do. Professor Hill noted that there is no stipulation on how many credit hours these people can be assigned. Professor Wilson responded that the normal load is two classes. They have two sections of about 24 students each and that is the normal load. Professor Hill stated that those are four credit classes. Professor Wilson noted that they are two and one half credit classes per semester. Professor Hill noted that they then teach five credits per term and ten credits per year. Professor Wilson responded that Professor Hill was correct.
Dr. Barbara Green stated that work loads are not in the Green Book under the Bylaws or Personnel Policies. Those are taken care of in other places. This issue is not something that is before us or ought to be part of this document. Professor Wilson remarked, "We have to be trusted to a certain degree and, if we get the general principles right, we can put in the document that we will report back in three years and tell you what we have. The Law faculty is going to take care of itself to some degree."
Dr. Jane McIntyre spoke against the idea that we should see how it goes for five years and then come back. From background discussions in Arts & Sciences Caucus, part of the problem is that we have people who have been here for twenty years teaching clinical and legal writing classes. We feel concern for these people and their futures and their continuity at the institution, etc. and we should, but that is making it very hard to just say what the proper policy should be. Although they were grandfathered in and then there was a policy, these people and their situation is part of what is driving the consideration as to actually how they will be treated in this constitutional document. If we now wait and get another whole cadre of people who will then also have this wait of, "Well, we can't change this policy because that will affect professor x, professor y, professor z," the time to make these decisions in the best way that we can is now.
Professor Wilson agreed with Dr. Jane McIntyre. He felt that those details can be worked out. There are different ways to do this legislation. An extra clause can be put in that says the following things will be things in which they do not serve. There are different anxiety levels about how we should codify this in the Green Book. Maybe we can address some of that and then we could include, "but this is not exclusive." Then the Law faculty can sort it out and continue to evolve it over time both at the Bylaw level of the Law faculty and, if necessary, we can amend the Green Book which he hopes can be avoided. The main thing that would be helpful before they go back and redesign it, is to see if the Faculty Senate is willing to go along with this notion of five-year contracts versus tenure. If people don't want to do that, then all the fine-tuning in the world won't matter. Although the details are important, we have to keep our eye on the really big issue and it would be good if we could get that resolved.
Dr. Jane McIntyre commented that the holes they were trying to fill were the ones that seem to make it hard to accept the idea of these five-year contracts without the actual protection of academic freedom. If we hire people for fifteen/twenty years without their gaining any protection of academic freedom, that is the part that would be very hard to swallow.
Professor Wilson noted that this is a step forward but the question is, "Could we do more?" He thinks we could. It would be nice if, by the end of the year, we at least clarified whether or not the Faculty Senate or the faculty in general will go along with any variation of this theme.
Dr. Barbara Green urged people to take very seriously the proposal that came from Professor David Larson. Many of the objections that people have to the five-year appointments could be taken care of by his amendment. It is not tenure but it does give assurance that someone can't be gotten rid of on a whim or because people don't like someone, etc. It also gives the University more freedom than they would have under tenure because if we decide we don't want legal writing anymore, then abolish the program. These people don't have tenure protection in that sense, but they do have protection during good behavior as long as the program is carried on.
Professor Wilson stated that they were trying to address that concern by keeping the sentence in that Legal Counsel wanted removed. Dr. Green noted that the sentence Legal Counsel wanted removed is within a five-year appointment. Professor Larson is proposing to the next appointment which is a different issue here. In the Professional Staff Policies for non-union people, we are an at-will employment and that means that there is no protection. If you don't give a reason that can be challenged, then you can just be gotten rid of. That would come at the end of the five years and that is why Professor Larson proposed an amendment. Professor Wilson stated that he liked the amendment.
Senate President Konangi noted that the Law School proposal will be on the Agenda for the May 7, 2003 Senate meeting at which time it will be formally moved and voted upon.
Senate President Konangi reported that last Spring, the University Curriculum Committee recommended that program review be suspended and that an ad hoc Committee be appointed. That committee was appointed by the Academic Steering Committee and the committee is now making its final report today.
Professor Michael Wells, chair of the ad hoc Committee on Program Review, stated that essentially, there was a concern that program review at Cleveland State had become inconsistent, was not being completed on time, was not being completed at all, and perhaps needed to be revisited to see what could be done to fix the problem. The committee was provided with all of the documents concerning program review, the historical documents, and the policies and procedures that formulate our program review. The committee reviewed those extensively and then the committee took an historical look at what has been done with program review going back to 1989 up to last March 2002. Thirty-one reviews were investigated; 12 of these elicited responses and nine of these responses were from review committees and clustered in the years 1992 and 1993 when the University was engaged in a campus-wide review process. Two other responses were from committees and from the same effort but were not dated. The last response was from a consultant obviously engaged to look at a report.
Professor Wells went on to state that our review process does not seem to ever result in any feedback to the reporting unit from decision-making offices in the University. This would seem to be the reason colleges and departments do not wish to engage in an exercise that seems to be meaningless to their ongoing and ever increasing activities. It is not the review process that needs improvement; it is the followup that needs attention. This cannot be the responsibility of an ad hoc committee. It is a sound process. It has a timetable, guidelines, and suggestions, but we just do not know what do with the product that it produces.
Professor Wells stated that the committee recommends the current program review process be reinstated with a plan for followup action from the Provost's Office because that is where the reviews are sent.
Professor Leo Jeffres asked what the relationship is between the review process and the assessment process that we are also undergoing. Professor Wells replied that there is not supposed to be a connection between assessment and review. He tried to make that connection because both of these processes are a lot of work. They are being imposed on us. One is by North Central, which is program assessment, and they are coming back in a couple of years. The other is by the Ohio Board of Regents although North Central is also interested in program review. Program Assessment is about student outcomes -- how they are measured and what we do to change our teaching to make sure our students are learning what we say we want them to learn. We must have a continuous loop where we assess the students in some measurable way so that we can say that we have assessed the students, we have reviewed the assessment, and we have made these adjustments to make sure the students are learning what we say they are supposed to be learning. Program Review is a look at the program -- its strengths, its weaknesses, its challenges, its opportunities. As pointed out at the last Steering Committee meeting, all the literature strongly suggests that the two be kept separate. He tried to find a way to put them together so only one monster would have to be dealt with instead of two, but that is not possible. So we have two huge on-going never ceasing processes.
Professor Jane McIntyre asked about the recommendation to re-instate the program review process. The current round of program review was stopped before it had gone through a complete cycle. As somebody who was in the first year review, she asked that the committee not reinstate the process by starting again at ground zero. "If this process is going to be reinstated, can we include in the recommendation that we will pick it up where we left off? Those that have not yet been reviewed will be reviewed. Those of us who have been reviewed would not like to immediately be re-reviewed because we were at the top of the list for the cycle."
Senate President Konangi stated that since the ad hoc Committee on Program Review is not a standing committee, a motion is needed to accept the recommendation. Dr. Rodger Govea moved and Dr. Jane McIntyre seconded the motion that the recommendation of the ad hoc Committee be accepted. Dr. Jane McIntyre then proposed a friendly amendment stating that program review be reinstated at the point in the cycle where it was suspended.
Dr. Jane McIntyre inquired if the committee took up the question of the quality of the data from the institution. Professor Michael Wells responded that the committee did not because there was no way for them to determine the quality of the information in the reports. Dr. Jane McIntyre noted that one way this can be determined is by asking departments and units that have been reviewed what was the greatest sticking point in the review process and disputes over the data. If it is data that came from Institutional Research that did not reflect what departments could substantiate -- things such as the number of majors -- is this partly because things like our registration process only lists one major even if a student has two or three majors, etc.?
Professor Michael Wells stated that every program review at Cleveland State starts with an argument with IR and it never gets resolved. There is no way an ad hoc committee can resolve the issue. Every program review that he has ever been associated with has started out with an argument over the data. Dr. Jane McIntyre noted that one of the things that caused the review process to grind to a halt was because there were so many conflicts between units being evaluated and the data that was being provided. Professor Wells stated that as long as departments have their files and their counts and their understanding from their advisors as to what the student body is, and as long as Institutional Research says these are the statistics we have, which you can call up on the Web Site, there will be an argument until somebody figures out how these two are going to come together. He always felt that it is the departments that deal with the students on an every-day basis, that see them in and out until they graduate, that probably have the best data. But, that is just his point of view. He agreed that this is a problem we all share.
Dr. Susan Hill noted that it sounds like the committee is saying that the process by which programs are reviewed is fine but at the same time, the inputs are problematic and what happens afterward is problematic. "How can we have a good process if we have bad data going in and nothing happening?" Professor Wells replied that the committee can only look at what Faculty Senate approved as the process. The inputs and what we do with the product is something that we would not let an ad hoc committee address. If we go back and re-institute the program as we suggested but we don't change the beginning and the end, we are going to have the same problem all over again.
Dr. Susan Hill commented that it seems as though Professor Wells' committee is going on record saying there is a problem with the inputs and there is a problem with the follow-through. Professor Wells replied that from the committee's investigation, there is definitely a problem with the follow-up. To be fair to the people who are supposed to follow up, there isn't any wherewithal here to follow up with. You get the document, it is seriously done, and it raises issues that you can't do anything about because there aren't any resources to address what many of the program reviews are talking about. This is a tough problem. Again, this is not for an ad hoc committee.
Dr. Bette Bonder asked, "In terms of looking at the process, did the committee deal at all with the third monster that some of us have to contend with in addition to program assessment and program review which is accreditation? Each of these asks for similar information in a different format such that we are constantly writing new and different reports and trying to ferret out data from inaccurate sources." Professor Michael Wells responded that the committee talked about that. Again, this is not a decision for this committee, but there are units on campus that go through extensive professional accreditation and the committee's thought was that, to the extent that we could use that to substitute for program review or program assessment, it could take some of the burden off of the departments that could say, "Hey, we have already done this and would like to show you this information and use it as part of our program review or part of program assessment." But, that is not for this committee to decide.
At this point, Senate President Konangi called for a vote on the ad hoc Committee's recommendation along with the amendment proposed by Dr. Jane McIntyre. Dr. McIntyre wondered why Senate President Konangi was asking the Senate to vote now on the ad hoc committee's recommendation. Senate President Konangi noted that there was a motion. He went on to state that because Senate suspended the original program review, to reinstate the program review, Senate would have to approve the start of the program.
Dr. Barbara Green remarked that she thought this was a report the Senate was receiving. If we are voting on the recommendation as a policy of the Faculty Senate, then it is important that the Senate be on record stating that, "Provided that the Office of Institutional Research improves its methods of data collection so that they are useful for the departments, then we can do this." Dr. Green noted that in the Department of Political Science, an award is given to outstanding students. A few years ago, about the time program review was being suspended, the department voted on the selection of the students for the award and then Institutional Research discovered that they hadn't given us the names of several of our majors that came to us late and some of them had grade point averages higher than those people we had seen before. If Institutional Research can't give us a list of our majors, and we can't get the numbers and we can't talk about whether enrollments are going up or down, or any of those issues, then it is impossible to do this kind of report. The consequences of doing this kind of report lead to recommendations such as, programs should be suspended, programs should be continued, programs should have more money in them. If the data on which that is based is not accurate, then these are worse than useless. It is not that we shouldn't have them, but we have to ask the administration to make sure that the kind of data collected and made available to us is more accurate than it has been in the past.
Dr. Jane McIntyre asked if it was possible for the report and this discussion to go back to the University Curriculum Committee which was the origin of the program review process. Before Senate is asked to vote on this, let's have another look from the Standing Committee it came from. Dr. David Larson noted that the original program review process was created by the University Faculty Affairs Committee and then it came through the University Curriculum Committee. Dr. Jane McIntyre suggested that perhaps Senate can ask for the original recommendation for the process from whichever committee had it as its purview. Take this report and whatever else the committee gathered and have a standing committee review of it before Senate votes on it.
Senate President Konangi noted that Dr. Jane McIntyre was saying that she would like an endorsement of this from the University Curriculum Committee before Senate votes on the recommendation. Dr. McIntyre suggested whichever standing committee is appropriate.
Professor David Larson reported that he was the chair of the University Faculty Affairs Committee when the original program review process was proposed. Ms. Marsha Krotseng, Associate Provost for Strategic Planning, Assessment Analysis & Program Review, brought the Program Review Process to UFAC which we found unacceptable and UFAC rewrote it. Dr. McIntyre suggested that the recommendation be reviewed by the University Faculty Affairs Committee and by the University Curriculum Committee.
Professor Rodger Govea asked if Professor Larson was going back to the early 80s and the old UCRC. The UCC took over program review so the UCC is the proper place for it to go. Senate President Konangi recalled that this came from Gregory Lupton, the former chair of the UCC last spring. Dr. Govea remarked that this is true. Senate President Konangi stated that we will have our University Curriculum Committee take this under advisement and, if they want to modify it or propose something else, then we will bring it back to the Senate floor.
Professor Leo Jeffres suggested that there should be some solicitation of the problems with the data from the different departments as well so that it is taken into consideration rather than just simply saying, "Well, we have to work on these problems." When we did the college reorganization, we asked for things like double majors and Institutional Research did provide long lists. So, there are some things that can be done if they at least consider them.
Professor Cheryl McCahon commented that Senate also might want to include Bette Bonder's comments for departments that have accreditation reviews especially when we have accreditation from a variety of groups. The ad hoc committee did discuss that issue.
Provost Chin Kuo urged Senate to consider the fact that we have requirements by the Ohio Board of Regents and we have to have a program review. Since we have already suspended program review for one year, we are forced into a situation that if we don't continue, we may have problems with OBOR. He wanted Senate to take that into consideration in terms of the timing.
Professor Louis Barbato suggested that it is probably not a good idea to leave hanging in the air the notion that the NCA is coming back because that suggests a site visit. It is not that we have to present a report on assessment but it is finding that most colleges and universities that went under NCA review had the notion of a site visit and that is fairly serious. He added that he didn't want anybody to believe that.
Senate referred the recommendation of the ad hoc Committee on Program Review to reinstate the current program review process to the University Curriculum Committee for review and recommendation.
Regarding the higher education budget, President Michael Schwartz commented that the Ohio Senate will be taking testimony and higher education will have a couple of opportunities -- one in early May and one in late May. Most of the testimony from higher education institutions will be pretty much in support of the Governor's version of the budget as it was first introduced in the House and amended. The difference between what the Governor has proposed and what the House passed for us would be $13 million over the biennium. The stakes here are very high. We will be down in Columbus doing everything we can. In the meantime, President Schwartz urged everyone to contact the Senators from this region urging them to reinstate the Governor's version of the budget which would include the money that was hacked out of urban that we really believe has to come back. He pointed out that the House increased the line item for rural programs and cut the urban university program by about 24%. We need to get to Senators here -- Senator Fingerhut, Senator Carnes, Senator Armbruster, Senator Gardner. The more people writing to them the better and the more ammunition they have on our behalf. They are friendly so, if everyone can write to them, it would be appreciated.
President Michael Schwartz reported that Summer school registrations are up. Freshman applications for Fall are up by about 10.5%. Transfer applications are up by more than 27% for next Fall. We are trying to accommodate all of them as fast as we can.
President Schwartz reported that CSU now has five Fulbrights for the year and we are not through yet.
President Schwartz announced that we will have two honorary degree recipients at Commencement; one in the morning and one in the afternoon -- Antwone Fisher and Scott Hamilton have both agreed to do the commencement addresses.
President Schwartz congratulated the Faculty Merit Award winners for this year.
President Schwartz noted that a few days ago, there was a luncheon for student athletes who have compiled a 3.0 grade point average or better. It was exactly one half of the cadre of student athletes which is quite remarkable. There were 112 of them. Some of them came to the luncheon with a professor in tow. Some of those students said to him that one of the reasons they chose to come to Cleveland State as opposed to other places was because they appreciated the quality of the faculty here and they weren't wrong in that judgment.
President Schwartz announced that other changes are being made. Students can now get their transcripts on-line. That is especially important to teachers. We have a same-day transcript service for $15 which is a very substantial change at this university.
President Schwartz stated that CSU is about to employ a new Undergraduate Admissions Director and her name is Dr. Bonnie Jones. She is doing similar work at the Northeast Ohio University's College of Medicine.
President Schwartz reported that this morning the University sold about $35 million worth of bonds so the long promised construction at least can be paid for. That is the first wave; there will be more later. We will be doing three projects in this first wave -- renovating the Howe Mansion (not for a faculty club). The Graduate College may go in there. We will do an administrative center and a student recreation and wellness center and that will be the beginning of these projects. In the meantime, we have signed a lease on space in the Keith Building which is across East 17th Street and most of the offices currently in Fenn Tower will be relocated there. Fenn Tower will be moth-balled. We are now searching for a developer to come in and take Fenn Tower on a long-term lease and convert it into student housing.
President Schwartz reported that a new men's basketball coach has been hired and we are within minutes of hiring a coach for the women's team.
President Schwartz commented that on April 6, 2003, Alpha Lambda Delta was initiated on this campus. Fifty-four students were inducted into our chapter. They all had a 3.5 grade point average in their freshman year. We have some really good students here. It is a pleasure to have Alpha Lambda Delta on this campus. Professor Louis Barbato was very instrumental in making all of that a reality.
Finally, President Schwartz remarked that all things considered, this has been a good year for us. There have been great achievements with a minimum of rancor. For the most part, good humor has prevailed here. As a matter of fact, he has really enjoyed this year being with everyone.
Professor Kenneth Dunegan noted that he has been encouraging his students to contact their Representatives in the State. He asked President Schwartz if it is his sense that the Senators at this point are responsive to email communications or are they more responsive to hand-written communications. President Schwartz responded that some have been very good about replying especially when they think the communications are coming from students. The Governor has also been especially good about replying.
The Senate received Annual Reports from the following Committees:
A. Committee on Athletics (Report No. 25, 2002-2003)
B. Minority Affairs Committee (Report No. 26, 2002-2003)
C. Library Committee (Report No. 27, 2002-2003)
D. Computational Services Committee (Report No. 28, 2002-2003)
E. Instructional Media Services Committee (Report No. 29, 2002-2003
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:40 P.M.
Cynthia A. Dieterich
Faculty Senate Secretary
[Top of Page]