I. Approval of the Agenda
II. Approval of the Minutes of the April 2, 2003 Meeting
III. University Faculty Affairs Committee
V. University Curriculum Committee
VII.University Planning Steering Committee Final Report (Report No. 35, 2002-2003)
VIII. Status Report on the College of Graduate Studies (Report No. 36, 2002-2003)
IX. Annual Reports
X. New Business
PRESENT:D. W. Adams, E. Anderson, Ball, Bathala, J. Bazyk, Bonder, Buckley, Dobda, Doerder, Ekelman, Geier, Govea, B. Green, Hanlon, S. Hill, Jeffres, M. Kaufman, L. Keller, Konangi, Kuo, Lambert, Larson, McCahon, J. McIntyre, Misra, Moutafakis, N. Nelson, L. Patterson, L. E. Reed, Rom, Sparks, Spicer, Spiker, Stivers, E. Thomas, Tumeo, J. Webb, Webster, F. White, J. G. Wilson.
ABSENT/EXCUSED: : C. Alexander, Annapragada, Atherton, Bagaka's, Barbato, Beckette, Boyle, Burt, Charity, Dieterich, Dillard-Mitchell, Droney, Dunegan, Forte, Hinds, Kiel, C. King, Lemke, Lopresti, McLoughlin, Nolan, Nuru-Holm, Ng, Rosentraub, Sawicki, Scherer, A. Schwartz, M. Schwartz, Shah, M. Smith, Steinglass, Tewari, Thornton.
ALSO PRESENT: E. Brennan.
Senate President Vijay Konangi called the meeting to order at 3:10 P.M.
I. Approval of the Agenda
Acceptance of the Agenda for May 7, 2003 was moved. Professor David Larson moved that Items III. and IV. be reversed. The University Faculty Affairs Committee will be taken up as Item III. and Elections will be Item IV. The motion was seconded and approved.
A. Proposed Amendments to Personnel Policies and Bylaws Sections 8.3.1 (H) and 8.3.8 - College of Law Clinical Professors and Legal Writing Professors (Second Reading) (Report No. 23, 2002-2003)
Senate President Konangi reported that the proposed amendments to the Personnel Policies and Bylaws were presented at the April 23, 2003 Senate meeting for the first reading. This is the second reading. It is quite likely that we may have amendments to the proposal. Each amendment would need a simple majority for approval but the entire proposal needs a two-thirds majority affirmative vote in order to be approved.
Professor Edward Brennan, chair of the University Faculty Affairs Committee, noted that there are several friendly amendments -- one from Professor David Larson and two from Professor James Wilson. Dr. Brennan reported that Professor James Wilson and the Law faculty reviewed the original proposal and made some simplified language changes. Professor Wilson distributed copies of the proposed language changes.
Dr. Barbara Green called a point of order. Any amendments from the Law School or from Professor David Larson or anyone else have to be approved by Senate. Unless it is technical wording that is agreed to, anything substantive, even if it is good, has to be voted on. That would include what Dr. Brennan said were friendly amendments.
Senate President Konangi noted that the first amendment proposed by Professor David Larson reads as follows:
"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 material modification of the program in which the faculty member teaches, or a declaration of financial exigency."
The amendment was moved by Professor David Larson and seconded by Professor James Wilson.
A Senator asked if this proposed amendment is intended to be a supplement to the current 4.b) or a replacement to it. Senate President Konangi responded that this amendment is a replacement to the current section 4.b).
Professor Bette Bonder commented that since the proposed amendment was seconded this means it works for the Law School. Professor James Wilson replied that it does. The reason the Law School wanted the change in language was that it reflects the ABA requirement and that is the text they used. But more importantly, it gives us some degree of flexibility. This language makes it extremely difficult for a Dean to target a particular faculty member to retaliate which was the concern behind the amendment in the first place. Dr. David Larson added that this is why he changed the wording to make it more acceptable to the Law School.
There being no further discussion, Senate President Konangi asked for a vote. The proposed amendment to 4.b) was approved unanimously.
Senate President Konangi noted that the next amendment concerns 8.3.8 A) 5) Termination of Five-Year Appointment. Professor James Wilson moved the amendment and noted that the first two clauses, "the contract of" and "may not be renewed due to" were discussed at the last Senate meeting and the feeling was that they were redundant. He was again contacted by the University Legal Counsel and it was suggested that we also eliminate the "sanction and dismissal of" clause. The reason was that "termination proceedings shall be in accordance with University policy governing non-bargaining unit faculty." Legal Counsel was concerned that by retaining the sanction and dismissal clause, it would somehow be implied that these professors would actually have more rights than tenured faculty because in a sense they could only be removed if there was a sanction involved and not for eliminations. It is an ambiguity so the Law School agreed to delete these three linguistic clauses. He added that eliminating some language makes it clearer. Dr. David Larson seconded the motion.
The proposed amendment to 8.3.8 A) 5) reads as follows:
"During a five-year appointment a Clinical Professor or a Legal Writing Professor may be terminated for good cause, or the termination or material modification of the clinical or legal writing program. Termination proceedings shall be in accordance with University policy governing non-bargaining unit faculty."
There being no further discussion, Senate President Konangi asked for a vote. The proposed amendment to section 8.3.8 A) 5) Termination of Five-Year Appointment was approved unanimously.
Senate President Konangi noted that the next proposed amendment concerns 8.3.8 B) 2). Professor James Wilson moved the amendment to 8.3.8 B) 2) adding the sentence: "These faculty members shall not be eligible to vote on any tenure-related issues." The motion was seconded. Professor Wilson stated that this sentence was included to reflect the Law School Bylaws to create within the Green Book what is considered to be the most important principle of the whole system which is that these faculty members should not be eligible to vote on any tenure-related issues. Therefore, the Dean still remains primarily a coequal to, responsible to, and in a sense vulnerable to tenured faculty and that was why they wanted that in the proposal. It was in the Law School Bylaws and it was the organizing principle that allowed them to get this far originally. The Law School Bylaws will be used to implement it on a case by case situation, for instance, to exclude membership in the Faculty Senate because only tenured or tenure-track people can serve in this body. It is believed that over time, the Bylaws can be developed with a clear set of rules establishing in more detail what this particular standard is and then, if people want to, we can bring it back in a few years.
Professor Santosh Misra referred to the sentence, "These faculty members shall not be eligible to vote on any tenure-related issues." and asked if it is any tenure-related or tenure and promotion-related issues. Professor Wilson responded that tenure-related includes promotion-related to tenure. Professor Misra asked if there is also a statement where it is not tenure. Professor Wilson replied that he was willing to accept a friendly amendment if Professor Misra wanted to change the wording to, "tenure-related and promotion-related issues." He felt this would also be fine with the Law School.
The proposed amendment with Professor Misra's friendly amendment reads:
"Clinical Professors and Legal Writing Professors shall serve on College of Law faculty committees at the discretion of the Dean of the College of Law. These faculty members shall not be eligible to vote on any tenure-related or promotion-related issues. Clinical Professors and Legal Writing Professors shall participate in the governance of the College of Law to the extent provided in policies adopted by and kept on file at the College of Law and shall be afforded non-compensatory perquisites reasonably similar to those provided other full-time faculty members."
There being no further discussion, Senate President Konangi called for a vote. The proposed amendment to 8.3.8 B) 2) was approved unanimously.
Senate President Konangi brought Senate back to the original proposal from the University Faculty Affairs Committee.
Professor Jane McIntyre wanted to reiterate what the Faculty Affairs Committee said at the last Senate meeting so that at least it is in the same set of Minutes that records the vote on this policy and that this is not intended to set a precedent for any other unit of the University or for a general category of faculty that will now be accepted in other colleges or in other situations. It is appropriate if the language of the University Faculty Affairs Committee's proposal brought to Senate for the first reading is just repeated. Professor Edward Brennan noted that Dr. McIntyre's concern was emphasized in the last section of the proposal, "C) Limitations. Sections 8.3.1 (H) and 8.3.8 shall apply to the College of Law only and shall not set a precedent."
Professor James Wilson suggested that to confirm that point, it might be good to put into the record that all of this was drafted partly in response to external accreditation pressures from the ABA.
Senate President Konangi informed Senate that a two-thirds majority vote is required to approve the proposed amendments to the Bylaws. He then called for a vote. The proposed revisions to the Personnel Policies and Bylaws as amended were approved unanimously.
B. Proposed Policy on Satellite Course Offerings (Report No. 30, 2002-2003)
Professor Edward Brennan presented the University Faculty Affairs Committee's proposed Policy on Satellite Course Offerings. Teaching at a satellite campus is optional for full-time faculty. The UFAC emphasized that full-time and part-time faculty on satellite campuses have to be balanced approximately the same according to departments and colleges as holds for the main campus. He was not sure exactly how that is to be determined. He reported that at the last Academic Steering Committee meeting, somebody recommended getting actual data to determine the ratio. It will vary from college to college. It would not be one simple ratio for the University but rather according to the colleges. The third item relates to course approval. Any new courses to be offered in satellite locations must undergo the same approval process as central campus courses.
Senate President Konangi noted that this is being proposed by the UFAC for Senate approval as a policy that pertains to all future off-campus course offerings whether it happens to be Westlake or some other location. One of the comments pertains to item 2 where the ratio of full-time to part-time faculty was discussed at Steering and the feeling was that we need to get a three-year average of the ratio of full-time to part-time faculty and not have more part-timers in off-campus locations. Institutional Research is now in the process of compiling the data. It will then be forwarded to the Provost's Office to make sure that this part of it is implemented in on-going offerings.
Professor Edward Thomas wanted to know if the UFAC was proposing that these three items be the policy because the lead-in paragraph states that these are concerns and that a policy to deal with them should be developed by someone. Item number two is more an editorial comment than policy. Senate President Konangi responded that the intention of the UFAC was that the three items be the policy. The policies were predicated on concerns of how these courses were going to be offered. Senate President Konangi also stated that from his discussions with the Provost's Office, his understanding is that this policy will be implemented. If we want to have this as part of the Green Book policy, then we have to vote to amend the Green Book. Provost Chin Kuo commented that if this policy is approved by Senate, he will try to follow the guidelines as much as possible. Sometimes we do have exceptional cases out in the field and we might have to come back and deal with them. He will try to follow the general guidelines.
Professor Edward Thomas noted that the Provost used the term "guidelines" which say something different than policies. He was just trying to figure out what it is that is being done here.
Dr. Susan Kogler Hill asked Provost Chin Kuo if all of these recommendations are problematic at some point or is one of them more problematic than the others. Provost Kuo responded that when courses are offered at the West Center, the new proposed accreditation no longer calls for a ratio. However, the dean and perhaps some others feel that anybody teaching courses there, ought to do something very similar to our full-time faculty on campus and vice versa to ensure that students there enjoy the same type of interaction with the rest of the student body and the faculty. We really want to have more full-time faculty eventually teaching over there instead of everything being taught by part-time faculty. Once that is done, then it depends on how many people on the campus are willing to teach there. In extreme cases, if no one wants to go, then we have a problem.
Dr. Jane McIntyre noted that numbers one and two can be consistent if we are willing to say, "When we can't meet the demands of number two with volunteers, then we won't do whatever it is that we were considering doing." If there is some program we want to offer at a satellite but there are no full-time faculty who want to teach there, we would then make the decision not to teach that program there. Dr. McIntyre was not in opposition to the intent but wondered if people would be willing to go along with it. Otherwise, these two recommendations are not fully consistent. It will be offered either by forcing people or with part-timers. There is the potential for conflict. We should state what we are going to do in case of conflict.
Professor Edward Brennan replied that there is always the potential for conflict unless we spell things out very literally which the UFAC did not want to do. It would be left to departments and colleges to meet this requirement.
Dr. Barbara Green pointed out that Senate can in fact only recommend this kind of a policy. It is unlike some other instances like the union where it is a contract. Anything passed by Senate is recommendatory to the Provost in terms of academic policy. It is hoped that there would be efforts to fulfill this but there is no enforcement mechanism available. The third item is in a different category. It involves the academic integrity of the institution. We cannot permit people to go off on their own and offer courses that have not been approved by departments through normal processes. That could probably threaten the academic viability of the institution. She supported the first two recommendations but added that Senate cannot enforce -- it can recommend.
Senate President Konangi noted that it is quite likely that there will be exceptional circumstances and, when that happens, we will have to refer those issues to the Faculty Affairs Committee for their recommendation and resolution.
There being no further discussion, Senate President Konangi asked for the vote. The proposed Recommended Policy on Satellite Course Offerings was approved unanimously.
C. Proposed Computer Use Policy (Report No. 31, 2002-2003)
Professor Edward Brennan noted that some issues arose in Steering Committee concerning the second full paragraph on page 2 of the document regarding email. "The email and computer files of all other employees (including student workers and faculty administrators) are subject to access by those to whom they report." The Academic Steering Committee recommended that this paragraph be eliminated. He talked with various members of Steering as well as Fabian Ferreri of IS&T. He also spoke with Professor Thomas Buckley who actually created the language. Today Professor Buckley said that this paragraph has to remain in the document because people have to have access to documents if somebody is not on campus for example. It is really talking about employees who might not be available yet whose documentation might be needed at the moment.
Professor David Ball asked if that means that the dean can look at the email of all of the chairs. Professor Brennan noted that Senate President Konangi and Professor Susan Hill had objections to the paragraph. Senate President Konangi stated that his objection to the paragraph was in conveying the sentiments of the Steering Committee as advisory to the Faculty Affairs Committee. There was an immediate consensus in Steering that this one sentence is very problematic. The discussion in Steering was that this is a "blank check."
Professor Leo Jeffres stated that if someone needs access to something because someone is off campus, they can call to get permission. Right now, even IS&T will not do that without approval. This would give blanket approval to a higher authority. Chairs, for example, still do research, they still have conversations, they still are engaging in activities that should not be open to the purview of a supervisor. Even if you are teaching, that is a violation of academic freedom in relationship to faculty and students. There are all sorts of problems with this. Having the guise of being able to help someone when someone is sick, but it goes far beyond that.
Professor Thomas Buckley stressed that it is necessary to have access to administrative records that would be on an administrator's email when that person is not accessible to give permission. There could be all kinds of reasons why the person might not be accessible. If you have "two hats" -- an academic hat and an administrative hat -- then you need two email accounts to keep your research in one and your office business in another. We need administrators with access to all of the administrative material in detail which is necessary to carry out your job.
Professor Brennan suggested that the language could be modified to account for what Professor Buckley just spoke of. In other words, a modification of email and computer files and specify it with a modifier.
Dr. Jane McIntyre stated that she could understand if there are electronic copies of administrative files that the dean or a chair might need to have access to under some circumstances, but to refer to all computer files of a faculty member without any restrictions... It states, "The email and computer files of all other employees..." Dr. McIntyre asked, "All computer files, no matter what they concern?" It seems very broad and it is not talking about having two email accounts. It just states all of my computer files. She noted that she has a lot of computer files that have nothing to do with her business with the dean or her role as a department chair. This could be restricted at least to have some connection with being a chair.
Professor Susan Hill commented that she brought this issue up at Steering Committee and found it problematic. She read the sentence as a chair. She is going to be a faculty member soon and then will finally get some protection from this document, but as a department chair, she can imagine President Schwartz running into Provost Kuo's office and going through his file and Provost Kuo running into the deans' offices and the deans running into the department chairs' offices. Everybody has access to everything in everybody's computer in email.
Senate President Konangi noted that since there is a fair amount of concern regarding the proposed Computer Use Policy, he wondered if someone would like to propose an amendment. Dr. Susan Hill moved to strike the paragraph. The motion was seconded by Professor David Larson.
Professor Thomas Buckley stated that it would be a mistake to strike the paragraph. The administration has to have access to the administrative files. There are different ways to store information. Dr. Jane McIntyre stated that this isn't just about email. This is about all computer files. She was concerned with the fact that in her years at the University, she has been on many committees, she has kept many records and many of these have nothing to do with the present dean or even her role as a chair anymore. She asked, "Does this mean that business she has conducted at the University forever is now open to the current dean because she has a computer file on it?" Professor Buckley responded that he is not unsympathetic but it is not the solution here to strike this paragraph. There has to be something worked out so that the administrative material remains accessible and the other things are not accessible. That would not be achieved by striking the paragraph.
Professor David Larson pointed out that indeed as stated, this language would give an administrator access to every word file, every wordperfect file, every excel file on a chair's or a dean's computer even if that were private research involved in the academic area, even if those were committees that the person had served on in the faculty hat, or even if it were committees served on before the person became the chair. The language as written is so broad that it is unacceptable.
Professor Frederic White agreed that this is a serious issue. Rather than trying to amend this policy from the Senate floor, he would suggest that it be sent back to the University Faculty Affairs Committee in order to recommend language that will address those very serious issues rather than trying to do it now.
Professor Lawrence Keller suggested striking the sentence with administratively relevant email and computer files.
Dr. David Larson stated that he would like to send the proposed policy back to committee but he would like some discussion on the rest of the report before it is sent back because he finds other problematic things in it. The UFAC could use some discussion on it.
Dr. Barbara Green wondered if Fabian Ferreri was at Senate today because it would be useful for us to know whether it is possible to have administrative faculty have a separate account purely for administrative purposes and that this be the one that people can access. It is a question not simply of policy but of feasibility -- can we do it? If it can be done, then why don't we just say that the administrative files of all other employees (including student workers and faculty administrators) shall be subject to access.
Senate President Konangi noted that it may be possible to have separate email accounts but he doesn't know how files can be separated out from the hard drive. That is a bit of a problem.
Professor Santosh Misra mentioned the Computer Security Policy previously approved. He suggested sending the proposed Computer Use Policy back to committee so that it can be consolidated with the Computer Security Policy and maybe come up with one policy rather than trying to amend the language from the Senate floor.
Senate President Konangi asked if the person who proposed the Computer Use Policy will withdraw the motion and then we can have a motion to refer it back to committee. Professor Susan Hill withdrew her motion and Professor David Larson withdrew his second of the motion.
Dr. Larson referred to the section titled, " System and Network Activities" on page 4 which are strictly prohibited with no exceptions. He found it a rather odd melange of activities. It includes really serious things which are strictly prohibited with no exceptions such as violating copyright and email viruses and things you would expect. Then in the same list sending out chain letters is strictly prohibited. This is a nuisance but hardly on the same level. Also sharing a password with a family member is prohibited. He said that he would like the UFAC to examine these prohibited items and see whether they can't have a smaller list of strictly prohibited and forbidden and a list of discouraged items because it does seem that these are not at the same level of seriousness.
Professor Brennan noted that the chain letter referred to here is quite specific. Fabian Ferreri says that it comes from the www.dictionary.com definition and that is somewhat exclusive.
Dr. Barbara Green noted that when the UFAC looked at this document, they specifically said that they wanted the reference to chain letters removed pointing out, for example, that it could be called a chain letter when the President of the University sends out something and asks us to send it to our legislators. That is a chain letter as well and the committee asked to have that removed. Dr. Green noted that Professor Brennan stated that this type of communication would not be considered a chain letter. Her recollection is that the UFAC had said to eliminate the reference to chain letters but we would keep in things like hoaxes and pyramid schemes.
Professor Leo Jeffres stated that trying to decide what is good and what is bad for someone else is difficult. If it is for politics, that is okay, but for someone else for religious purposes or for someone else who has a different one, that might not be approved. This is an area to stay away from. If you want to discourage it on technical grounds because it congests the system and you suggest to do it somewhere else, yes, but there are too many gray areas where conflict can be created within the community itself.
Dr. Rodger Govea suggested that the reference to chain letters be removed because it is very clear that we are not all talking about the same type of letter when we talk about chain letters. That is not the sort of thing that belongs in this document.
Professor Jane McIntyre indicated that she didn't quite understand exactly what is being prohibited when the last item states, "Providing information about, or lists of, Cleveland State University employees to parties outside Cleveland State University." Providing information about, first of all is very vague and there are many things we legitimately do via email that sound like they would be prohibited by this policy. For instance, in the Philosophy department, one of our peer institutions was undergoing assessment and asked Dr. McIntyre for some facts and figures about how many people we had in various employment categories and she responded to that email. She has also provided information about Cleveland State University employees. That is not particular to them, but this policy doesn't say what kind of information. It is also too broadly written. Now they may not really care about all of the sorts of things that we legitimately do, but she would prefer to have something more specific if we are talking about a prohibition.
Professor David Ball stated that if he is not mistaken, the University, since we are a public institution, is required to give information about its employees under certain circumstances.
There being no further discussion, Senate President Konangi asked for a motion to remand the proposed Computer Use Policy back to committee.
Professor Peter Meiksins noted that some people are married to CSU employees and the policy prohibits sharing information with a CSU employee, his wife. Dr. Mark Tumeo commented that the policy seems terribly inconsistent. If he is not here and the Provost wants access to his data since he is a faculty administrator, he cannot give the Provost his password.
There being no further discussion, Senate President Konangi asked for a second to Professor Larson's motion to remand the proposed Computer Use Policy back to committee. The motion was seconded and approved.
Following formal procedures for nominating candidates for election to the various committees of the Faculty Senate and other posts, members of Senate elected the following faculty:
University Faculty Affairs Committee Budget and Finance Committee Two-year terms: Two-year terms:
Professor Susan Becker
Professor Rodger Govea
Professor Mieko Smith
Professor Thomas Buckley
Professor Vijay Mathur
Professor Barbara Modney
Minority Affairs Committee Copyright Review Committee Two-year terms: Three-year term: Professor Sanza Clark Professor Frederic White Professor Murali Nair Board of Trustees Patent Review Committee One-year term: Three-year term: Professor Edward Thomas Professor Santosh Misra Board Committee on Citations and Recognitions Equal Opportunity Hearing Panel Three-year term: Three-year terms: Professor Ravindra Kamath Professor Leo Jeffres Professor Nicholas Moutafakis Professor Samuel Richmond Professor Ieda Rodrigues Ohio Faculty Council One-year term:
Professor Rodger Govea
V. University Curriculum Committee
Professor Walter Rom, chair of the University Curriculum Committee, stated that when the committee and the Senate approved the reorganization of the College of Arts and Sciences, two of the departments had not finalized where they were going to move. They were informed that they must decide by April 30, 2003.
A. Proposed Move of Nursing into the College of Education (Report No. 32, 2002-2003)
Professor Rom noted that the proposed move of Nursing into the College of Education was pending approval of the College of Arts and Sciences. The College of Arts and Sciences has since approved the move of Nursing to the College of Education.
There being no questions or discussion, Senate President Konangi asked for a vote. The proposed move of Nursing into the College of Education was approved unanimously.
B. Proposed Move of Social Work into the College of Urban Affairs (Report No. 33, 2002-2003)
Professor Walter Rom reported that when the Curriculum Committee received the request for the Department of Social Work to move to the College of Urban Affairs, Social Work also requested to change their name to the School of Social Work. At that time, the UCC was not aware that the Faculty Senate had already approved the name change in June 1991.
Professor Michael Spicer commented that if this is a matter of faculty governance, this matter should be brought back to the faculty of the College of Urban Affairs because they voted on the motion accepting Social Work as a department.
Professor Thomas Buckley asked if he had heard correctly that the name change of the Department of Social Work to the School of Social Work had been approved by Faculty Senate in 1991. Senate President Konangi affirmed that this was correct. Professor Lawrence Keller noted that the Faculty Senate approved the name change but it was never approved beyond that.
Senate President Konangi reported that this issue was discussed in Steering Committee and it was essentially felt that there were two parts: 1) the affiliation of Social Work with Urban Affairs; 2) the designation of Social Work in the administrative structure. Should Social Work be structured as a department or as a school? The Steering Committee felt that the recommendation coming from the University Curriculum Committee only pertains to Social Work's affiliation with Urban Affairs. Whether that department becomes a school or not at a later stage is a separate issue that needs to be addressed.
Professor Maggie Jackson stated that the understanding of the Department of Social Work was that the name change to a school was approved back in 1991. It was approved in the College of Arts and Sciences, it was approved by the Faculty Senate, but it stayed in the Provost's Office. The Department of Social Work is requesting to move to a School of Social Work. The importance of Social Work as a school has been outlined.
Senate President Konangi noted that what is before the Senate is the move of Social Work to the College of Urban Affairs. Professor Camilla Stivers noted that the proposal states, "the move of the Department of Social Work into the College of Urban Affairs as a department." When Urban Affairs voted as a college faculty, they voted on a measure that had the words "as a department" in it.
Professor Maggie Jackson remarked that Social Work has stated from the very beginning that a name change had already been requested and that is how Social Work has been presented. That still stands. The Senate body spent a very long time debating the name change from department to school in the early 90s. That has already been approved by Senate.
Professor Thomas Buckley commented that the department name has not yet been changed. This Senate might recommend the name change but it wouldn't happen until something else happens apparently in the Provost's Office. Therefore, the name is not school right now. It is still department so we are talking about a department. If the College of Urban Affairs voted to welcome Social Work as a department, it cannot evolve into a school by any vote that Senate takes today. He was not sure whether there would be a further recommendation for Social Work to be a school either because Senate must deal with the move to Urban Affairs.
Professor Maggie Jackson stated that Social Work is not asking Senate to vote on the name change -- that has already been done. The name change has gone through every route except to the Board of Trustees.
Professor Rodger Govea noted his dismay that Senate was getting hung up on the name change issue. The Senate has already passed language that establishes the governance difference between a department and a school so that a school will function as if it were a department except that Social Work will be called a school. He sincerely hoped that such a semantic separation does not hold Senate up any further.
Senate President Konangi stated that at this stage, Senate is talking about the potential affiliation of Social Work with the College of Urban Affairs.
Dr. Barbara Green observed that it is not an internal affair of the Urban College. There was a recommendation to turn Social Work into a School which is still sitting on the Provost's desk. The Provost may administratively decide to move it forward or not. Senate has already made its decision. At some future time, it could be rescinded if proposals came through to rescind it, but at the present time, there is a proposal on the Provost's desk that the Department of Social Work be a School of Social Work. The School question isn't before us. The College of Urban Affairs could feel that there is a psychological difference in balancing a school with a department. Dr. Green's view is that there is a very simple solution and that is to have the Department of Urban Studies come up with a proposal to be turned into a School of Urban Studies balancing the School of Social Work within the College of Urban Affairs. Then they would have equal name status in any case.
Professor Michael Spicer pointed out that he is not necessarily stating opposition to the name change. He is simply stating that as a process of faculty governance, when the College of Urban Affairs faculty voted, they voted for the motion as originally worded.
Dr. Leo Jeffres commented that this issue was not the work of Senate. Professor Spicer is saying that, in the College of Urban Affairs, the decision has already been made. Professor Spicer was not sure of the answer to that issue, but it does look like Social Work is in double jeopardy saying, "We have been through it once and now we are switching colleges and Urban Affairs wants us to reconsider it."
Professor Thomas Buckley stated that Faculty governance required that this go through the Urban College faculty for a vote and they voted that Social Work come in as a department. When Urban Affairs voted on it, that is all they approved and that is the approval that is on the record now. Professor Lawrence Keller commented that the statement is fine. It said proposed move of the Department of Social Work into the College of Urban Affairs as a Department and that is what Urban Affairs approved. Then in parentheses, "The change to School should be pursued separately." That was the proposal.
Professor Walter Rom noted that when the University Curriculum Committee discussed the move of Social Work, they were not aware of the previous vote to change the name to School of Social Work. It seemed as though they wanted to do the move and name change at the same time so the UCC wanted to drop it at this point because it now looks like what we have here is intended to undue the vote of the Faculty Senate.
Professor Maggie Jackson stated that when Social Work negotiated the proposed move, they shared with the College of Urban Affairs that they had already gone through the request to change the name to the School of Social Work but would function as a department. For Social Work, it is important for recognition in the profession. That was in the presentation when Urban Affairs was asked to vote on it. That language has always been used and has not changed.
Professor William Bowen informed the Senate that he is also on the University Curriculum Committee and he begs to differ with his esteemed colleagues' representation of what happened in Curriculum Committee. The committee had a discussion about the status of Social Work and it was very clear that in 1991, the name change had come up for a vote. In fact, one of the members at the table had a discussion about that vote. To represent that somehow the UCC was unaware of this issue, misrepresents the conversation there. In fact, UCC was aware and decided explicitly that Social Work would move over as a department.
Professor David Larson pointed out that since the Provost, the President, and the Board of Trustees have not acted on the recommendation for Social Work to become a School, the Department of Social Work is currently a department. So accurately, it is moving as a department. It is up to the Provost to decide what he wants to do next. If he wants to send it straight forward to the President and the Board, he may do so. Dr. Larson felt that it would be unlikely that Provost Kuo would do that without consulting with the College of Urban Affairs first. If he (Dr. Larson) were on either side of this issue, which he is not, he would pass this as a department because that is what it is and trust that the Provost would consult with the College of Urban Affairs before he forwards an eleven year old proposal further. Since it has been sitting that long, it can sit another few months.
Professor Jane McIntyre commented, just to clarify Senate's own operating procedures, we should be clear that when something requiring Board action is passed by the Senate, the Provost's Office has an obligation to bring it to the Board of Trustees in a relatively timely fashion even if it is going to be without his personal endorsement or recommendation. That is very important to reiterate otherwise, we become a meaningless body here.
Dr. Susan Hill stated that somewhere in the process of the Department of Communication becoming a School of Communication, she was told that this did not need to be approved by the Board of Trustees.
Professor Nicholas Moutafakis wondered why the Social Work issue has taken so long. He would like to know the history of why this issue was not acted upon and pushed forward. Senate President Konangi responded that the UCC can act only when issues are forwarded to it. Professor William Shorrock stated that he was in the Provost's Office at the time the name change of Social Work came through but he doesn't have a clue why it was not forwarded on.
Senate President Konangi explained that after this issue came up, Ms. Violet Lunder, Administrative Coordinator to Faculty Senate, did look into the records and archives and the date that Senate approved the name change was June 12, 1991. But, we need to act on the proposal at hand.
Professor David Larson moved to call the question. Senate President Konangi stated that the motion to call the question is not debatable and asked for a second. The motion was seconded. Senate President Konangi called for a vote on terminating the discussion. The motion was approved.
Professor Thomas Buckley inquired what exactly is before the Senate. Is it the language as a Department? Professor Lawrence Keller noted that there is a memorandum from the UCC titled proposals. Professor Rom stated the language is: "Proposed move of Social Work into the College of Urban Affairs." Senate President Konangi noted that this is a motion coming from the University Curriculum Committee. The discussion has been terminated at this stage so Senate has an obligation to vote on the proposal. He then asked the Senate to vote on the proposal from the UCC. The motion to move Social Work into the College of Urban Affairs was approved.
C. Recommendation on Program Review (Report No. 24, 2002-2003)
Professor Walter Rom reported that the University Curriculum Committee discussed the Program Review Report that was sent back to the Committee at the last Senate meeting. The committee's recommendation was that the new University Strategic Planning Committees formed this year be charged with monitoring of the process and providing feedback to the departments. In addition, units which are accredited by outside agencies should have the two reviews coordinated by the appropriate Strategic Planning Committee.
Professor Jane McIntyre wanted to know if there was an elected committee supervising the previous program review process. She recalled a process by which at least college curriculum committees had to nominate persons to be on these committees. Senate President Konangi replied that he believed the University Curriculum Committee was responsible. Dr. McIntyre stated that whatever kind of committee supervises program review, she would not like it to be open as to what the percentage of faculty would be or whether they were elected or appointed by administrators. We cannot hand off an important responsibility like that to a committee whose structure and manner of appointments, etc. isn't known to us now. Without further information about what committee would be supervising program review, she would urge the Senate to vote no. Program review is more important than just allowing it to essentially be run by the administration. It is very important that we retain a strong faculty control of this process.
Senate President Konangi advised that the University Strategic Planning process is a new process that involves several committees. He referred to the large document in the Senate meeting packet. Senate President Konangi fully concurred with Dr. McIntyre's concerns that it is not known how this whole thing is going to be handled as far as the University Strategic Planning Committee is concerned. Since we have a proposal from the University Curriculum Committee, either we accept it or remand it back to committee.
Professor David Larson inquired if it was the intention of the UCC to give over its authority for the review process to this new committee of which we don't know the composition. Professor Susan Kogler Hill informed the Senate that the problem was that this report came through and said that nothing was wrong with the present system but nothing happened to the reports after the reviews. She explained that the next item on the Senate Agenda is a report on the strategic planning process of the University that builds on all of the existing processes. It assumes that colleges will have their own program review committees that are doing program reviews the way they are in policy.
Professor Mike Wells remarked that the process is fine so that process will operate. There will also be an overarching way that those program reviews fit into the strategic planning process of the University which speaks to the one negative that Professor Wells' committee came forward with and that is that nothing is done with the program reviews. The Strategic Planning Committee itself will not be taking over the program review function. It will be coordinating with the ongoing program review function.
Dr. Barbara Green felt that it was inappropriate for the Senate to vote to hand a process over to a committee when Senate hasn't discussed the committee yet, how it is appointed, who it is responsible to, etc. The Senate ought to postpone the vote until at least Senate discusses what is the University Strategic Planning Committee.
Dr. David Larson moved to remand the recommendation of the University Curriculum Committee back to committee. Dr. David Ball seconded the motion. The motion to remand the UCC's recommendations on program review back to committee was approved unanimously.
D. Proposed Change in Requirements for a Second Undergraduate Degree (Report No. 34, 2002-2003)
Professor Walter Rom reported that currently, according to the General Education Requirements, students wanting a second undergraduate degree are required to take one African-American Experience course unless evidence of taking two such courses at another school is presented. The University Curriculum Committee voted to drop that requirement and just accept their accredited undergraduate degree. Several members of the UCC were opposed saying that this is a requirement. We are saying that students must have two courses on their record in order to get out of taking one course.
Dr. David Larson stated that it is merely a matter of equity from that point of view. Dr. Jae-won Lee commented that if a student comes with an Associate of Arts and an Associate of Science degree and if the student has completed the transfer module, the student would get credit for the transfer module portion. Dr. Larson noted that the student would still have to do the rest. Dr. Jae-won Lee agreed that Dr. Larson was correct.
There being no further discussion, Senate President Konangi called for a vote. The proposed change in requirements for a second undergraduate degree deleting the requirement that students must take one African-American Experience course unless evidence of taking two such courses at another school is presented was approved.
At this point, Senate President Konangi noted that before the start of the meeting, he should have informed Senate that President Michael Schwartz was unable to attend this afternoon's meeting and he was sorry for the oversight.
Provost Chin Kuo said, "I am very pleased to have this opportunity to make a few remarks. As this academic year comes to an end, it is appropriate to summarize and reflect on some of the major activities.
"I have reappointed Steven Steinglass as Dean of the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law and Earl Anderson as Interim Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. Ms. Bonnie Jones has verbally accepted the position of Director for Undergraduate Admissions. She will be on board July 1, 2003. Searches are in progress for the Registrar and Vice Provost for Planning, Assessment, and Information Resource Management.
"We have established a West Center to extend our program offerings on the West side. It is located at the FenCorp Building, a few hundred yards West of Columbia Road and Detroit Road. We have a very aggressive marketing plan and will offer the Master of Business Administration, Accelerated Bachelor for Business Administration, Master of Education, Master in Public Administration, Master of Science in Health Sciences, Engineering Management, and Continuing Education.
"As a result of your hard work and support, I am ready to recommend to the President and the Board of Trustees the plan for reorganization in the academic area. The college of Arts and Sciences will be divided into two colleges, their names to be determined later. One includes departments in arts, humanities, and social sciences. The other includes departments in natural and health sciences. We will rename three departments to schools. They are Communication, Social Work, and Nursing. I suggest that we rename the Communication Department first and deal with the proposed program expansion when funds become available. Social Work will move to the Levin College of Urban Affairs and Nursing will move to the College of Education, which will be renamed the College of Education and Allied Professions. There are four programs (Interdisciplinary Studies, Liberal Studies, Black Studies, and Women's Studies), all of which will have to find an individual home next year.
"The University Honors Program will be implemented beginning this coming academic year. When faculty return in August, the first order of business will be to find a half-time Director. We submitted a Title III grant the U.S. Department of Education in conjunction with our Honors Program Initiative. If it is successful, it will help defer some of the costs in program implementation.
"Though some units have fallen behind, most have an outcome assessment plan in place in order to achieve Level II as defined by NCA in two years. I believe that we have established the process and laid the foundation for our assessment effort. Based on my observation, some change from "climate" to "culture" has been realized on campus.
"Faculty continue to be a significant strength for CSU. Student survey results consistently reflect excellent faculty and curriculum. Our faculty did very well in scholarly and creative work. We have six Fulbright Scholars this year and five so far for the coming year. Many faculty have received prestigious awards and recognition, both on and off campus. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate those of you who have received tenure and promotion, and merit increases this year.
"We have established three Institutes at the University level and a couple of new Centers at the college level. The goal is to enhance the campus research environment and promote interdisciplinary collaboration. Fifteen projects have been awarded for the Presidential Initiative. I plan to continue to support some of these projects and eventually identify signature programs for CSU. For your information, our research expenditure has increased and the proposal acceptance rate has also increased. External funding has supported more graduate assistants. These are all encouraging signs.
"We have improved customer services and administrative efficiency. We have implemented a web-based application for admissions, registration, grade reporting, viewing and requesting transcripts, and web payment. We also have on-site admissions and express transcript orders. We have implemented the Pringle's State Law to certify non-English speaking teaching assistants, the ADA Section 508 for full information access, and the SEVIS system to track international students as required by INS. In addition, we have maintained effective budget management and devised a budget model to keep track of revenue and expenses for each unit. I am pleased to report that our day-to-day operation has been much smoother. There are fewer student complaints. Our overall enrollment has increased over two consecutive years. You should have realized this enrollment reverse trend. This is why many of you have received salary market adjustments.
"In closing, this month I completed two years of service to Cleveland State University. You have had ample opportunity to observe my management style. I am a strong believer and stick to the principles of integrity and fairness. I believe that I have gained the trust of faculty and staff. I have improved the credibility of the Provost's Office. I have advocated resources for the academic sector. I have enhanced faculty morale and strengthened relations between faculty and administration. I will continue my decision-making to be process oriented and clearly articulated without flip-flap. I will continue to communicate with you through my regular "Message from the Provost" segments, emails, individual appointments, college faculty meetings, and by attending events and functions. To keep CSU moving forward, I ask for your continuous support.
"Thank you for listening and have a nice summer."
Dr. Susan Kogler Hill stated that she is at Senate in place of Dr. Marie Zeglen who has left CSU for Miami. Dr. Zeglen headed up the Presidential committee called the University Planning Steering Committee. The committee was formed by President Schwartz last year and the charge of the committee was to design and implement an effective planning process for CSU. Various principles had to be followed, mostly broad involvement. She noted that this is a 35 minute presentation that she was told to do in ten minutes.
Dr. Hill indicated that there were faculty and administrators on the committee. There were four subcommittees -- Mission, Vision, Values, and Goals Team and the faculty member on this committee was Professor Walter Leedy; Planning Process Team that Dr. Hill was on; Evaluation and Improvement Team that Professor David Ball was on; Environmental Scanning Team that Professor Surendra Tewari was on. We did have faculty involvement on this committee and we met all year working on a planning process for the University.
Dr. Hill skipped the Mission, Vision, Values, and Goals part. Basically that subcommittee dovetailed with the university development, the marketing plan, and the mission and vision process. We have done continued review and development of the University Mission, Vision, and Values which will be part of the strategic planning process.
Dr. Hill noted that the strategic planning process itself is to create a process for CSU that is collaborative which means administration, faculty, students -- everybody working together by which Mission, Vision, Values, and Goals are used to shape the programs budgets and capital plans of the University. The strategic planning process will work in concert with existing academic review and planning processes. It is important for Senate to know that we tried to build everything on existing Senate processes, plans and timetables, and review procedures so it is supposed to go in concert with existing processes and procedures.
Dr. Hill stated that a set of four interlocked university-wide committees were created. The Strategic Planning Committee itself is at the top. The committee itself has 15 members; four faculty from the Program Review and Planning Advisory Committee (PRPAC); two faculty members from the Planning and Budget Advisory Committee (PBAC); and one faculty member from the Capital Planning Advisory Committee (CPAC). About one half of the Strategic Planning Committee is composed of people who also sit on PRPAC, PBAC, and CPAC so at any point in time, the Strategic Planning Committee will know what all three of those committees are doing and those three committees will know what the Strategic Planning Committee is doing. All four committees have faculty membership and administrative membership. Faculty Senate is responsible for selecting the faculty on all of these committees. Faculty on the Strategic Planning Steering Committee fought very hard to insure a very strong faculty role in this process.
Dr. Hill pointed out that the Strategic Planning Committee itself is an on-going permanent collaborative committee at the University. It helps insure that academic programs, non-academic and administrative functions, resources, and both capital and operating resources support the mission, vision, values, and goals of the University.
Professor Hill noted that there is a discussion in the document of what these committees do in their first year and then what they will do on an ongoing basis because the processes will be very different in the first year from the later years. The first year the Strategic Planning Committee will get organized; it will meet with the President and the Provost to review the existing goals of the University; it will obtain feedback from all departments and units on campus; it will participate in a goals retreat in the Fall with senior team, Deans, and Faculty Senators in attendance; it will establish its operating procedures; it will establish a University process for reviewing the University Mission and Goals every three years; and, it will submit the first annual strategic planning document, not to the President, but to the University. In recurring years, the Strategic Planning Committee will continue to get feedback on the strategic plan, will get environmental data and all other sorts of data from the Provost's Office, it will meet with the President and Senior Team to revise the Strategic Plan, and the revised plan will go to the advisory committees. The advisory committees will do their job; they will submit reports to the Strategic Planning Committee in the Spring and the Strategic Plan will be revised.
Dr. Hill stated that the PRPAC (Program Review and Planning Advisory Committee) oversees the entire program review process of the University including all of the administrative units and all of the academic units. They do not do the program reviews. The Colleges do the program reviews of the academic programs. Administrative review committees do the administrative reviews, but they are the ultimate planning and review committee to which all of the reports of all of the reviews go. This is a 12 member committee -- one representative from each of the University's six colleges and six administrators representing all relevant areas of non-academic administration. The report states every five years -- we think maybe it will take the seven year cycle, but we are being optimists. In its implementation year, it will get organized; it will establish its five to seven year rotating cycle; it will assist all of the colleges in creating their program review committees; it will assist the administrative units in creating their program review committees; and, it will establish procedures for new program initiatives to get woven into the Strategic Plan -- not changing our procedures for program initiatives, but how they get woven into the Strategic Plan.
Planning and Budget Advisory Committee (PBAC). It was felt that the PBAC was a really good working committee of the University and was used as the design for all of the other committees. The only thing different that PBAC will do in the implementation year from what it currently does is it will be charged with establishing an inclusive process to assure that each campus unit allocates its resources in accord with the strategic plan. That is one of the things we are going to try to get a more bottom up budgeting model that occurs through this process. In recurring years, it will pretty much do what it is doing now.
Capital Planning Advisory Committee (CPAC). This is a new committee. We thought it was nice to have a permanent on-going committee that reviews capital projects that were consistent with the mission of the University so that buildings didn't just pop up and we didn't know where they came from. We thought it might be nice to have a Capital Planning Committee composed of faculty and administrators. In its first year, it will get organized, it will review capital projects, the master plan timetable, etc., and then in the second year of its operation, it will develop the fiscal year 07-08 capital budget for the first time consistent with the University mission and goals.
Dr. Hill urged everyone to read and study the report and make corrections, criticisms, additions, etc. over the Summer so when the committee gets together in August and September they can really deal with it. After consultation and feedback, if we are going to go forward, the Strategic Planning Committee will be formed, it will meet with the President and the Provost, and look over those University goals. All departments and units are going to be asked to respond to one and two page feed sheets to the Strategic Planning Committee with their views of the goals and then there will be a retreat with the Senior Team, the Strategic Planning Committee, the Deans, and Faculty Senate, but not the departments and units. Departments and units do their paper input in October/November.
Dr. Hill went on to say that based on all of this, the President issues budget guidelines in December; colleges and units develop budgets; PBAC assesses the budget scenarios; and PBAC recommends the budget in May/June. At the same time, the Strategic Planning Committee and these advisory committees are doing those things we talked about in the implementation year and they are making a report to the Strategic Planning Committee in March. The Strategic Planning Committee is working in May/June and July/August. There will be some compensation for the faculty involved on that committee, the cost of this process, the cost of the retreat, and compensation for faculty working on the Strategic Planning Committee in the Summer.
Dr. Hill noted that in recurring years, we will get consultation and feedback on the Strategic Plan. There is always consultation and feedback in this model. The plan is adjusted based on that feedback. The President, Senior Team, and Strategic Planning meet and then data reports are coming from the Provost's Office of Institutional Research such as environmental scans and various kinds of data needed for program reviews that we talked about at our last meeting. All of that kind of data goes to the Strategic Planning Committee and the Advisory Committee. They do their work, report to the Strategic Planning Committee in March, and the cycle begins all over again. The Strategic Planning Committee works during the Summer because this is the only way to keep this all going on a continual basis. There will be an evaluation component to this. As with any process evaluation, improvement should be subject to modification.
Professor Hill stated that accountability must be an important component of evaluation. In year one, the PRPAC, one of the three advisory committees, will come up with a process for determining what the metrics are for regular evaluation of this program and it should involve input from Institutional Research. On an annual basis, information will be issued for use by all of these committees. The approach to evaluation is what is called the dash-board approach identifying small numbers of specific quantities or qualities that we want to keep track of; developing different metrics for the academic side and the administrative side of the University; dealing with accreditation issues; and trying to group programs and units into various categories.
Environmental Scanning Process. This process will also occur through Institutional Research where we try to go outside of CSU to get information to make sure our plans make sense, given the changing external environment. We will be collecting all kinds of data -- employment trends, student decision-making, higher education trends, local expectations, student characteristics, information on CSU's competitors, technology information.
Dr. Jane McIntyre commented that she knows how much work Dr. Hill and other faculty members have put into this process and she tremendously appreciates that.
Dr. Jane McIntyre referred to the timetable for the implementation year for the strategic planning process. She stated that in September, the President will be appointing these committees and members will be chosen, etc., and the academic year will be starting. So, our comments and potential suggestions for revision are not actually going to be taken into account since the process is also scheduled to start as we are having our discussion. It is very unfortunate that we are not having an earlier chance for substantive input, particularly because she sees in the Program Review section some things which really concern her. She would not like to get into a detailed discussion, but people can be thinking about these things over the Summer and quite possibly even the Provost and others can convey this to the President. The administrative members of the Program Review and Planning Advisory Committee are specifically described as non-academic administration. Yet, one of their charges will be to receive, analyze, and make recommendations concerning the program reviews of even the academic departments. Although one half of the committee will be faculty, the other half will be non-academic administration. Having non-academic administrators be half of the committee that is going to be making recommendations based on academic program review is a very bad step. There should be provision for the academic reviews to be made by a committee composed of a majority of academics -- faculty and academic administrators. That is a very important principle.
Dr. Susan Hill suggested that Dr. Jane McIntyre could send that as an email to the Provost's Office. Normally, it would be sent to Dr. Marie Zeglen's office, but until Dr. Zeglen's replacement is hired, it should be sent to the Provost's Office and "Committee Composition" should be highlighted stating, "I recommend this kind of change; these are my concerns." That is the kind of feedback that is needed.
Dr. McIntyre explained that, because the whole point of this process is to integrate the reviews with planning decisions, to have the recommendations and decisions be made by a group with the majority of non-academic, or that at least is not majority academic and which is 50/50, strikes her as being just the wrong conceptual idea for how the integration of these processes will take place. So, it does no good to say, "We academics have reviewed the academic programs." and then the committee that is going to evaluate and make recommendations based on the review is non-academic administration. This is being wrong-headed.
Senate President Konangi fully agreed with Dr. Jane McIntyre. He further stated that this document was received just in time for the Academic Steering Committee meeting last Wednesday because the committee completed its work a little earlier than actually expected. So, we really have not had the time to review it. Dr. McIntyre responded that she is not faulting Senate President Konangi or the faculty members on that committee. She is very concerned about the fact that this process is going to be actually starting at the same point in which this body, the elected faculty voice, is going to be discussing it in detail for the first time. Suppose we vote that this is the wrong process. What happens. Dr. Susan Hill responded that if she gave the impression that the time-table would be followed regardless of whether or not we have had a chance to consult, she mislead everyone. At the front end, there will be a huge consultation process. Senate will be given the opportunity to do that and departments and units will be given an opportunity to do that. If consultation takes longer, then the time-table will be moved back. We tried to come up with a guesstimate and that is why we had two months there -- September/October. Perhaps the retreat can't be started until October 31st because more time is needed to get some of this stuff done. No dates were put in the document. Two month intervals were put in it. The most important part of the process was how it was started. It was based on consultation and there will be consultation in the process.
Dr. McIntyre said that she didn't doubt Dr. Hill's personal good will, but, according to this time-table, it would be perfectly legitimate for the President to say, "I am charged with making my appointments." and those are the appointments she is concerned about -- the fact that non-academic administrators are going to be appointed to this committee which could take place in September no matter what we say.
Senate President Konangi assured Senate that he will certainly take up Dr. Jane McIntyre's concerns with President Schwartz and Provost Kuo. There is room for concern -- there is no doubt about that. Without having extensively reviewed the document, it is still clear that at least two of the Senate standing committees have to examine this document -- the University Faculty Affairs Committee and the University Curriculum Committee. It might be also true that other committees have to review this document. That alone will take at least one/two months. He agreed with Dr. Jane McIntyre that the time-table was problematic.
Dr. Barbara Green asked if there could be a motion that no appointments be made to the committee until the Faculty Senate has had a chance to review it. Senate President Konangi replied that Dr. Green could do so. Dr. Barbara Green then moved that no appointments be made to the Strategic Planning Committee until Faculty Senate has had a chance to review it. The motion was seconded by Dr. Jane McIntyre. Senate President Konangi asked for a vote. The motion was approved unanimously. Senate President Konangi said that he will take the motion to the President's Office and the Provost's Office.
Dr. Rodger Govea noted that he came across a document titled, "Investments in Strategic Areas" that suggested that there are already three areas where the budget is going to actually be increased. He was not sure where the document came from -- it is un-attributed, but it makes claims that there are already three areas of strategic importance. Dr. Susan Hill stated that she did not know what Dr. Govea was referring to. Dr. Govea said that he wished he could get clarification. It is a document prepared in April 2003 and that is the only attribution to it. He added that the committee probably needs to see this document. It suggests that there already are some budget investment priorities.
Dr. Jane McIntyre commented that with respect to program review and quite possibly in other sections -- she hasn't studied them as carefully -- there is reference to Faculty Senate appointing its representatives. We should always stick with the process of electing our representatives and not appointing them because appointing them suggests at least that the Steering Committee could make those appointments. The Steering Committee is not a faculty body but is a joint faculty and administrative body and we should stick with the language of election and maybe make a commitment to that. Dr. Hill responded that those are exactly the kinds of things that need to be modified.
Senate President Konangi informed the Senate that the background for this report is Dean Mark Tumeo's interest in reporting to Faculty Senate on an annual basis.
Dean Mark Tumeo reported that Graduate Council has passed the following policies:
Dean Tumeo urged everyone to be aware of these policies and to make sure they get disseminated.
Dean Tumeo noted that the remainder of his report just gives information on things the College has been doing. The work on the research side has already been highlighted by the Provost.
The Senate received Annual Reports from the following Committees:
A. University Curriculum Committee (Report No. 37, 2002-2003)
B. Admissions and Standards Committee (Report No. 38, 2002-2003)
C. Student Life Committee (Report No. 39, 2002-2003)
D. University Safety and Health Advisory Committee (Report No. 40, 2002-2003)
E. Budget and Finance Committee (Report No. 41, 2002-2003)
F. University Petitions Committee (Report No. 42, 2002-2003)
Senate President Konangi thanked the Senate for a productive year and said that he hopes everyone has an enjoyable Summer.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:20 P.M.
Cynthia A. Dieterich
Faculty Senate Secretary
[Top of Page]