II. Approval of Agenda
III. Acceptance of the Minutes of May 7, 2003 Meeting
IV. Senate Nominating Committee
V. Committee Elections
VI.Status Report on College of Graduate Studies (Report No. 1, 2003-2004)
VII.Report on Financial Position of the University (Report No. 2, 2003-2004)
VIII.University President's Report
IX. Annual Report for 2002-2003 (Report No. 3, 2003-2004)
X. New Business
PRESENT:E. Anderson, Angelova, Barbato, Bathala, J. Bazyk, Boyle, Charity, Dobda, Doerder, Droney, Ekelman, Forte, Ghorashi, B. Green, Gross, Hanlon, Hanniford, Hoffman, Hoke, Hinds, Jeffers, Jeffres, S. Kaufman, Konangi, Kuo, Larson, Lazarus, J. McIntyre, Moutafakis, Nuru-Holm, Ozturk, L. Patterson, Quigney, A. Schwartz, M. Schwartz, Shah, M. Smith, Sparks, Spicer, Steinglass, Tewari, E. Thomas, Thornton, Tumeo, Webster, F. White, J. G. Wilson.
ABSENT/EXCUSED: C. Alexander, Atherton, Ball, J. O. Flynn, S. Hill, Jin, L. Keller, Kiel, Lopresti, McLoughlin, N. Nelson, J. Nolan, L. E. Reed, Rom, Rosentraub, Sawicki, Scherer, Spiker, Zhou.
ALSO PRESENT: Govea.
Senate President Vijay Konangi called the meeting to order at 3:10 P.M.
B. Eulogy for Butler A. Jones (Sociology)
Professor Mareyjoyce Green delivered the Eulogy for the late Professor Butler A. Jones. Her remarks follow.
“Professor Butler A. Jones died on May 9, 2003 at his retirement center in Delaware , Ohio . He was 86 and remained active and alert almost to the end in spite of numerous chronic health problems.
“Dr. Jones' many acts of leadership in service to the profession, his academic institutions, the community, and indeed the nation are legendary. He was a past president of the North Central Sociological Association, and the National Association of Black Sociologists, and a founder of the American Sociological Association's Minority Fellowship Program as well as the DuBoise-Johnson-Frazier Award programs, which continue today.
“Dr. Jones was born July 22, 1916 in Birmingham Alabama . Having lost his mother to the flu epidemic, he was reared by his maternal grandparents. His grandfather who had lived in slavery through adolescence was an important early teacher for Butler . He studied at Morehouse College , and Atlanta University where he earned his Bachelor's and Master's Degrees respectively in 1937 and 1938. After his career was well underway, he earned his Ph.D. from New York University in 1955.
“Dr. Jones' first job was teaching Social Studies for four years at the Atlanta University Laboratory School where his remarkable students included Martin Luther King, Jr. and sociologist Larry Bobo's mother. He conducted background research as one of the contributing young scholars in the Carnegie-Gunnar Myrdal Study of the Negro in the United States , which resulted in Myrdal's Nobel Prize-winning classic, An American Dilemma . Throughout the 1940s and early ‘50s he contributed several briefs for the NAACP in support of school desegregation including one for Thurgood Marshall's successful 1954 Supreme Court pleading. His steady pursuit of social justice, however, was not without an occasional light touch. After moving north, he, surreptitiously and with wry humor, got himself on the mailing list for the Mississippi White Citizen's League newsletter and was counted as one their members.
“Dr. Jones began teaching at Talladega College in 1943. In 1952 he came to Ohio Wesleyan University and was its first Black professor. He later became chair of Sociology. A bronze bust of Dr. Jones, sculpted by his long-time friend Eb Haycock, stands at the entrance to the department. He came to Cleveland State in 1969 to chair the Sociology Department.
“A Sociology Department was considered pivotal for this new urban university that was formed in the midst of the civil rights strife of the ‘60s. Dr. Jones was just the man of character and academic strength the University was looking for to lead this department, and his appointment was heralded in a major article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer . As you all know, he more than lived up to those high expectations. His list of significant accomplishments in the service of the University and the Cleveland community is unexcelled, especially for the relatively short duration of his tenure at Cleveland State . He was a major figure in the establishment of Social Science at Cleveland State and continued teaching Sociology until his retirement in 1982.
“During his tenure at CSU, Dr. Jones was an important and successful bridge to the local community. In the Sociology Department, he was involved in developing programs aimed at bringing greater understanding to the pressures of urban living, of the need for change, and of the direction that change should take. At CSU, Dr. Jones was a champion of faculty rights and women's rights and played an active role in academic governance. He was president of the local chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and was repeatedly elected faculty representative to CSU's Board of Trustees. He served as a member of the AAUP National Council, including its Executive Committee and its highly respected Tenure Committee. He was honored with more than a dozen major national and local awards.
“In his teaching, Dr. Jones insisted on high academic standards for all students, regardless of the subject matter or level of instruction. At Cleveland State he successfully promoted the curriculum concept that all students would benefit from rigorous course work on the Black experience. Three courses he developed for this purpose – Black-White Interaction, the Black Family, and the Black Community continue to be taught as popular electives that fulfill the University's diversity requirement. Another mark of this teaching was to use original sources whenever possible. Among the many sociologists Dr. Jones helped develop was Marshall Fields Professor at the University of Chicago, Edgar Epps, who recalled how, as a student of young Butler Jones at Talledega, he had the opportunity and challenge to read two books for the freshman honors seminar – the complete text of An American Dilemma and Oliver Cromwell Cox's critical alternative, Caste, Class, and Race .
“In the community, Dr. Jones is best remembered for his broad and varied civic contributions. In music, he was co-chair of the Cleveland Music School Settlement's long-range planning committee and was on the Board of Directors at the Ohio Chamber Orchestra. Dr. Jones was a charter member of the Black History Archives Committee at the Western Reserve Historical Society and was on the editorial committee of the Cleveland Heritage Program at the Cleveland Public Library. Finally, as a professional sociologist, Dr. Jones lent his expertise to a variety of activities; the Federation for Community Planning, Study Group on Racial Isolation, Community Action Against Addiction, Cleveland Mental Health Association, and Legal Aid Society of Cleveland, among others. He was a member of the Amisted Committee.
“Beginning in 1995 and 1996 respectively, the annual Jones Lecture Series on contemporary issues in American race relations have been held at Ohio Wesleyan and Cleveland State . A heart-warming parade of leading scholars has appeared at both schools to pay tribute to Dr. Jones, many of whom counted him as a major career mentor. Our first speaker was University of Chicago 's Dr. Edgar Epps, and our speaker in 1998 was William Julius Wilson from Harvard, arguably the preeminent sociologist of our time. At a critical point in his career, Wilson needed confidential advice for a major personal decision. Butler Jones was the senior scholar he turned to for this advice, and fortunately for the profession of sociology, Dr. Wilson followed his mentor's advice. Until the past couple of years, Dr. Jones regularly appeared at both lectures to give the closing commentary, always the highlight of the evening no matter how accomplished the main speaker. He leaves to the profession a legacy of scholarship, teaching, and community service in the very best sense of these three terms.
“I close by citing a colleague, a Professor of English who also serves as Special Assistant to the University President: ‘Butler Jones was revered on the Cleveland State University campus for his outstanding personal qualities of gentleness, civility, and respect for students and colleagues. But he was also an academic leader of unreproachable fairness, commitment to excellence, and unmatched inspiration. He quickly recognized junior faculty members of talent and encouraged their progress and independence. Yet he made certain that they never lost their sense of loyalty to their institution, their profession, and to another. His scholarly influence has been preserved at Cleveland State through the Butler Jones Lecture Series. His personal influence lives on through the young faculty and students whom he trained and nurtured in the very best traditions of academic life. They, and we, will never forget him, and many of his legion of students will rise up to call him Blessed.' ”
B. Eulogy for Ernest M. Schuttenberg (CASAL)
Professor Lewis Patterson noted that he will be delivering the Eulogy for Professor Ernest Schuttenberg of the Department of Counseling, Administration, Supervision, and Adult Learning and recognized that Dr. Schuttenberg's wife Ann and his daughter Renee Liston are with us as we remember Ernie today. Professor Lewis Patterson delivered the Eulogy. His remarks follow.
“When Ernie Schuttenberg arrived at Cleveland State University in the fall of 1972, it was already 18 years since he had completed his undergraduate degree in English literature at Rutgers University Phi Beta Kappa. He had spent nearly two decades living the life of the adult learner – and thereby gaining the firsthand experience that would allow him to provide leadership for our Masters degree program in Adult Learning and Development.
“Along the adult leaner road, he had picked up a Master of Arts in Teaching from Yale University and a Doctorate in Adult Education and Educational Administration from Boston University . His mentor at Boston University was Malcolm Knowles, often considered to be the father of adult education. Ernie's career as a public school English teacher in Verona , New Jersey , was interrupted by a three-year stint in the U.S. Army as a Military Intelligence Specialist, that included learning to speak Chinese and then service in Korea . By the time he finished the doctorate, he had also served as the director of a reading institute and as a training manager for American Airlines and for Honeywell Information Systems.
“Ernie was born in New York City and spent his youth in northern New Jersey . He met his wife, Ann, during his year of teaching in Verona . The Schuttenbergs came to Cleveland in 1972 and raised two daughters here, who have gifted them with four grandchildren. Ernie retired from Cleveland State in 1998 after 26 years of service.
“Dr. Schuttenberg's single greatest contribution to Cleveland State University was the establishment of the Masters program in Adult Learning and Development. When Ernie arrived at Cleveland State there was a small funded program to train college student personnel workers for service in the newly emerging colleges and community colleges. Over his 26 years Ernie nurtured that program to a comprehensive adult education degree that continues the original mission, and now also prepares adult educators for a variety of other roles in business, industry, and higher education. For many years, Ernie has been a mainstay of the Adult Education Council of Greater Cleveland, having served repeatedly on its Board of Directors and as President.
“In addition to his program leadership, Ernie also served as Assistant Dean of the College of Education from 1981-1985 and as Acting Department Chair in 1979-1980. He was also a key contributor to the development of the Ph.D. Program in Urban Education as a member of the policy committee that directed that effort. He served on more other committees than we can mention now. At the time of his death on May 24, 2003 , he was President elect of the Cleveland State University Retired Faculty Association.
“Over the years, Dr. Schuttenberg taught a wide variety of courses in adult education and educational administration, especially the area of organizational development. That he was a memorable teacher is verified by the fact that within the last few months, he was contacted by three students from his first English class taught in 1955, nearly 50 years ago.
“Even with his effective venture into adult education and educational leadership, Ernie's true love was to be found in the roots of his early training in literature and writing. His professional writing included more than 50 refereed journal articles, a number of book chapters, and other forms of writing. Over the years, he collaborated in his writing with 14 other faculty members – a remarkable record if you think about how much work such relationships require. All of those who have written with Ernie, as well as the Doctoral Students on whose dissertations Ernie served, will attest to his meticulous use of the English language. And over the years, Ernie continued his “hobby” of writing poetry. This hobby resulted in the publication of more than thirty of his poems, and culminated in the publication of his book of collected poems entitled “How B. F. Skinner Taught his Cat to Fly”. The title of the book will give you a clue to one of Ernie's most endearing qualities. Through years of living and working in a sometimes confounding bureaucracy, his quiet smile and playful sense of humor persisted.”
Senate President Vijay Konangi asked that everyone observe a moment of silence in honor of Professor Butler Jones and Professor Ernest Schuttenberg.
Professor Rodger Govea, chair of the Senate Nominating Committee, announced that the Committee has just one nominee for Senate Vice President, Professor Mieko Smith (Social Work), and one nominee for Senate Secretary, Professor Nicholas Moutafakis (Philosophy). Dr. Govea noted that no other nominations by petition have been received and that by Senate rules no nominations from the floor are allowed.
Dr. Govea moved that Professor Mieko Smith be elected Senate Vice President for a two-year term by acclamation. The motion was seconded and approved.
Dr. Govea then moved that Professor Nicholas Moutafakis also be elected Senate Secretary for a one-year term by acclamation. The motion was seconded and approved.
Budget and Finance Committee Copyright Review Committee One-year term: Two-year term:
Professor Arthur Schwartz
Professor Nelson Pole
Dr. Mark Tumeo, Dean of the College of Graduate Studies , presented his semi-annual report relating to activities concerning the College of Graduate Studies and the Office of Vice Provost for Research. Dr. Tumeo distributed Report No. 1, 2003-2004 to Senate members.
Dr. Tumeo noted that when he was appointed the Interim Dean of Graduate Studies, the Faculty Senate requested that there be increased communication between the Graduate College and its Research branch and the Faculty Senate. In response to the Senate's request, Dr. Tumeo has chosen to update the members of Senate twice annually with information pertaining to the Graduate College and the Office of Research.
Dr. Tumeo began by stating that during the last academic year, Graduate Council has prioritized the institution of new policies, which are designed to be more sensitive to our student's needs and academic aspirations. To this end, five specific policies were approved by Graduate Council.
1) On October 7, 2002 , Council approved a Special Admission Policy for the Executive MBA program to allow admission for students without a bachelor's degree that have significant real-world experience. This Special Case policy is an alternative admission route for the EMBA that can be used for no more than 5% of any EMBA class admitted. This policy will not be advertised in the catalog or on the website, and will be used only in unusual circumstances to grant admission to the EMBA program for individuals with exceptional business or professional backgrounds. This policy is effectively immediately.
2) On November 4, 2002 , Council approved a policy for a non-degree application fee of $10 to cover the cost of on-line application processing for non-degree seeking students. While degree-seeking applications have been on line for quite a while, the intent of the new policy was to have non-degree applications on-line as well. This is all handled by an outside server who charges us per application, regardless of whether the application is complete or accepted. Subsequent to discussion, a decision was made by Council to take all application fees to the same level so that there will be no confusion and double-charging. Starting January 1, 2004 , all application fees at the graduate level will be $30 and paid only once. (Effective July 1, 2003 )
3) On December 2, 2002 , Council approved a policy clarification allowing the option of only providing in-state tuition support to Graduate Assistants. The policy is to set minimum requirements for Graduate Assistantships. When the Assistantship money is distributed to students, it is no longer locked in as either tuition or a stipend. There is now more flexibility among the various options for Graduate Assistantships, which maximizes our ability to serve the student. A question was raised in Graduate Council as to whether the nine-credit minimum was for out-of-state or for in-state students. Council said that the minimum is the same for everyone regardless of residency, and, therefore, that is nine credits of in-state tuition. If a department desires to pay additional out-of-state surcharges or more than nine credits, that is fully within its purview. (Effective immediately)
4) On March 19 2002 , Council approved a policy that no late add/late registrations will be allowed by petition or otherwise after the 11 th week of the semester (or the appropriately adjusted week of instruction in the summer term). If the reason for the late add/late registration request is due to administrative error, the student will be allowed to late add/late register after the 11 th week upon the approval of the Graduate Dean. (Effective Fall Semester 2003 to allow ample time for distribution and notification of students)
5) On April 9, 2003 , Council approved a policy that no reinstatement (after de-registration for non-payment) will be allowed by petition or otherwise, after the 11 th week of the semester (or appropriately adjusted week of instruction in the summer term). However, if the reason for de-registration was due to administrative error, the student will be reinstated after the 11 th week upon the approval of the Graduate Dean. (Effective Fall Semester 2003 to allow ample time for distribution and notification of students)
Professor Tumeo noted that the first meeting of the Graduate Council this year is scheduled on Monday, September 29, 2003 at 1:30 P.M. in the Keith Building on the 9 th floor. The Graduate College is now located on the 11 th floor of the Keith Building .
Dr. Tumeo also reported that Graduate enrollment is up for Fall by approximately 6% or 7%. Additional information is also being provided to Graduate program directors through the Deans. New personnel have been brought in to interface the program with PeopleSoft. Every two weeks a list of pending applications is generated in the system, detailing who the applicants are, their addresses, and what information is still needed from them. If the applicants have gotten everything completed, the system forwards their application to the Deans and program directors, who can now track each student to make sure that their applications are processed in a timely fashion, and that students don't have to wait for Admissions. The Director of Graduate Admissions, Professor Bill Bailey, has met with each of the College Deans and Associate Deans. He has asked them to explain what was needed specifically from Graduate Studies in order to insure that all applications are processed efficiently and in a manner that was appropriate to their disciplines. New procedures, resulting from Dr. Bailey's findings, have been instituted. As a consequence for Fall, the pending application queue has dropped by about 20%. We are processing more applications quicker, and student inquiries are being handled in a more expeditious manner. Graduate Admissions is working continuously to improve the kind of support and information given to departments and programs so that they have everything needed in order to process applications in a timely manner. Dr. Tumeo noted that Graduate Admissions is still in Rhodes Tower West on the second floor.
Internal Funding Programs . Dr. Tumeo also reported that the Graduate Faculty Travel Award Program is now in its fifth fiscal year. The demand for travel support is immensely outstripping the resources available. These awards are distributed across different programs and fields. Unfortunately, many applications are not funded. Dr. Tumeo noted that on the example spreadsheet submitted with his report and made available to anyone who is interested, the numbers of all those funded and not funded are shown. This information enables future applicants to see exactly what the metrics are, what criteria are used, and how one would score on it. So if anyone wants to apply again in the next round, by having this information, they will know how to increase their rankings. The next round is due on September 15, 2003 . All of the needed information is on line. This year awards will be funded at the $15,000 level. The reason why the award totals go over by a little on the handouts he provided in his report is due to the fact that applicants sometimes overstate their travel costs, so they don't always spend all of it. Dr. Tumeo sometimes happens to overestimate and give out a little more in the awards than is actually used by the awardee.
Dr. Tumeo went on to report on the Full-Time Faculty Research Development Program (EFFRD) that is processed in a competitive manner through the University Research Council. We have done pretty well in giving out $100,000 to $150,000 per year. The funding comes from our Research Challenge Funds. This is a State program in which money is given to the institution to support leveraging research internally. The amount we receive is based on our market share of all out-of-state research money brought to the State by all of the public universities. They total all of the research expenditures of non-state money of the 13 public universities (i.e. federal money or foundations outside the state). They then take how much our expenditures are and that is our ratio or the percentage we receive. The critical aspect is that any time we spend that money we have to be spending it in a way that increases the probability of getting out-of-state money, usually federal, back into the system. The criteria on these awards leverages outside funding to the University. We are currently in an upswing. We have had a steady increase in both research expenditures and the proportion of expenditures that are in federal dollars. Research Challenge monies operate on a three-year rolling cycle that lags by two years. We will start seeing an increase in Research Challenge percentage over the next few years. Of course, if the State reduces the pool, the fact that our percentage goes up doesn't help us. The good news is that our percentage is starting to go up.
Presidential Initiative Fund Awards . This is money brought into the University by President Schwartz from the Cleveland and Gund Foundations, and matched by the President, so that we have a pool of money to start on big program-type initiatives. There were two initial phase one rounds. The second round of the RFP will be coming out towards the middle to end of October 2003, with a due date in December. These projects are all listed in Dr. Tumeo's report.
Indirect Cost Recovery Program . Dr. Tumeo stated that this aspect of his report has not been updated for FY 03, although FY 03 numbers are audited. Dr. Tumeo will give the FY 03 report when he reports to Senate at the end of the Fall semester. He noted that when he first came to CSU, he worked with the Vice President for Financial Affairs to establish a sharing of the indirect cost recovery we receive off of grants. Indirect cost recovery is the allowed cost on a grant for those things that you don't directly bill for on the grant. When you put in a grant proposal, you list an amount for your salary, for student help, for supplies, etc. You don't put in things like rent on the laboratory space, light or gas, or the administrative costs of processing paper, including your paycheck, and a grant's accounting, etc. Those are indirect costs. The institution bears those costs that are real costs to support the research but are not line items in the proposal. The Federal Government has a formula for indirect costs. We negotiate that with the Federal Government every five years. The Federal Government says they will pay you a percentage above what you requested as indirect cost recovery to cover those expenses that are not line items. Dr. Tumeo noted that they try to put that income back to where the costs are borne. It is now arranged so that the department receives 15% of that, because if you are doing research in your department, you are using the Secretary's service, the copier, etc. The college receives 10% because they are also supporting it. The Graduate College receives 20%, which covers research administration, processing, and allows putting money back into things like Graduate Faculty travel, assistantships, and match money. The central administration receives 50% for light, gas, library, etc. Another 5% of the indirect cost is then returned to an account in control of the PI (Principle Investigator) to spend on other research related activities. They can pay summer salary out of it; they can hire a Graduate Student; they can go to conferences; they can purchase supplies; they can use the funds for whatever is permissible by law. Working with the Controller, the monies are now deposited automatically to the PIs account. As research continues to grow, especially federal research where indirects are applicable, the amount of money going to both colleges and PIs will become more significant.
Dr. Tumeo also reported that the Office of Sponsored Programs and Research has four full-time staff: Katie Watkins-Wendell, the director; Karen O'Connor-Knox, the post-awards manager; Christina Sell, the pre-awards manager; Barbara Bryant, who does regulatory compliance. In FY 02-03, these four people managed the processing of $40 million in awards to CSU. Dr. Tumeo predicted that the number is going to be significantly higher. Just as a comparator, Wright State University did $42 million and they have 13 full-time staff in their grants office. Our grants officers are each doing the work of three or four people. Everything that is being accomplished in the research area is coming from dedicated hard-working people, and Dr. Tumeo expressed his pride and admiration of them.
Generation of Intellectual Property . Here Again, Dr. Tumeo explained that this area of operation involves procedures relative to the disclosure of things that are patentable, as well as the actual issuance of patents. The number of disclosures has gone up from zero in FY 99 to nine the past two years. This is reflective of the level of activity in the laboratories generating intellectual property. We have also generated from two to four patents per year in the past four years, compared to none prior to 2000. We have just forwarded to the Board of Trustees for approval a new license agreement that will bring income to the University from one of these patents. A company has agreed to commercialize the patented item, and they will pay the University for the use of that patent. PP& G has also donated to the University $6 million worth of glass forming patents that we can now commercialize and do research on at the University. This is yet another source of income that comes back to the institution to support the research endeavor.
Research Expenditures . Research activity can be tracked in two ways. One is by awards and the other is expenditure of money. The traditional way of tracking it is by expenditure because awards are very uneven and spikey. If we get a big award, it is recorded in the year in which it is received, even if we are supposed to spend it over ten years. One may see a significant spike in the number of awards, and then nothing on the award side. The important thing is the amount of expenditure. Where is the money actually working? Our Research Expenditures determine our rankings by the National Science Foundation. In FY 99, our total Research Expenditures was just over $15,000,000 and of that $5,000,000 were federal. We now have reached $30,000,000 of expenditures in FY 03. In five fiscal years, we have doubled the Research Expenditures of the University. Federal money is now approaching $10 million and federal money is what brings in the indirects. This includes things like awards in history, art, and communication, which are research and sponsored programs, but may not initially trip as research. The last fiscal year and for this fiscal year, the largest federal expenditure college is the College of Education . They received a five-year award of $30 million for the next six years. As a result, we have a nice long-term base building of federal money that comes with indirects, which is going to move us up in the rankings.
Professor Bahman Ghorashi asked Dr. Tumeo to go over the procedure relevant to the generation of the decision as to whether an intellectual property is patentable. Dr. Tumeo explained that on the chart provided with his written report, the light columns are the disclosures. A disclosure is when a researcher produces something that they believe may be patentable. The researcher then fills out a disclosure form, provided by the Office of Sponsored Programs, which is then submitted to the Patent Committee. What a disclosure says is that there is activity that someone believes may be patentable. The Patent Committee proceeds to make a recommendation to the President based on its evaluation of the technical feasibility and market merit of the said intellectual property. Whether or not it is recommended that the University should pursue patent, the recommendation and the disclosure must go to the President, and the President then makes the final decision. If favorable, the University pays for and files the patent, and the Professor assigns the patent to CSU. If it is decided not to patent, then the intellectual property is released back to the researcher, who can then pursue the patent on his/her own.
Professor Ghorashi inquired if, in this process, one can go outside of the University to get the views of experts as to whether or not a patent should be pursued. Dr. Tumeo replied that the Patent Committee can and often does draw on the expertise of individuals outside of the Patent Committee if the discovery is in a technical field the committee members are not familiar with. The Committee can also have contracts with Biotech. The latter will provide the service on technical evaluation on those things in their area that may be beyond the expertise that we have internally. In such instances, there are confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements in effect, so that the intellectual property is protected while good evaluations are made available for the Committee's consideration.
Professor Ghorashi noted that what Dr. Tumeo is showing is that basically we have about two to three patents since 1999. He asked how many patents does the University have as a whole. Dr. Tumeo replied that not counting the donation we just received, CSU has 31 patents. Professor Ghorashi asked what revenue has the University received from these patents. Dr. Tumeo responded that up until FY 99, there was only one patent that was licensed and the University had received an initial licensing fee of $25,000 and less than $1,000 or $2,000 per year in royalties since then. At best, the income has been, low. His goal, now that we have these new patents, is to get them commercialized. If the company makes money off of the item, then CSU will receive royalties. There is a second license currently in negotiation, and two patents are currently being considered for commercialization by an outside entity that has more experience in that area.
Vice President Jack Boyle reported on a few of the highlights of FY 03. He stated that presently the auditors are in the process of preparing their final report. Before audit and the tallying of some closing entries, FY 03 finished about 4% above budget from a revenue standpoint -- $3.5 million, which is tuition income that resulted from enrollment being slightly higher than was originally estimated. Expenditures were about a little over $1 million less than budgeted. Thus, again it was another successful year, whereby the whole University community cooperated with our budget mandates. This has resulted in our carry-over being roughly $7.2 million at the end of FY 03. The latter is money accumulated basically over the last three years by the various departments and units on campus. Vice President Boyle informed the Senate that the carryover policy has been changed from the practice in place in FY 00 where virtually all of the carryover was taken in the same year in order to balance the budget. Under the new practice, most of the $7.2 million is the result of the average over the last two years. This change in policy now allows one to carry over anything except the vacancy savings from salaries.
Vice President Boyle also reported on the revenue side for FY 04. He noted that he did not list the revenue sources in the report circulated to the Senate since it has just two components. The two pieces are the State subsidy and the student tuition and fees. In FY 03, the State subsidy comprised roughly 44% of our total budget, and student tuition covered 52%. The remaining 4% was investment income, basically the indirect cost recoveries that Dean Tumeo talked about earlier, and a few other items. For FY 04, the State subsidy is down to 40% and the student tuition and fees are up to 56%. This is a record high in terms of the percentage that the students are contributing to the annual budget of the University. The State subsidy would not even be as high as 40% if it were not for the fact that Cleveland State, like all of the other four-year colleges in the State, is operating under the “hold harmless” rule, which in the old OBOR formula guaranteed 98% of what it generated the year before. All of the four-year colleges would have received less were it not for the “hold harmless” rule being plugged into the formula. At one point during budget deliberations in the State Legislature last year, removing the “hold harmless” rule was one of the items on the table.
Vice President Boyle reported on the other thing that happened in terms of revenue from the State subsidy standpoint. At the last minute, the House Conference Committee set a tuition cap increase of 6% for undergraduate tuition. However, they allowed universities to go an additional 3.9% to a total of 9.9% provided an additional 3.9% was put into a segregated fund, to be used only for scholarships for needy students or for increased technology for students. In March 2003, the 9.9% tuition increase was approved so we didn't have to change the actual fee that we were charging students. However, we had to pull a little more than $2 million out of the general operating budget that was available for any university purpose and put it into this segregated fund mentioned above. This change was the bad news piece from the Conference Committee. The good news was that we ended up in total with about $2.8 million more than the low point, which was the House passed version. In the end, we did end up with the Conference Committee slightly increasing the total amount that the University received.
Vice President Boyle pointed out that on the material distributed to Senate, he is showing the breakdown of FY 04 expenditures into the major units on campus, showing the breakdown between the Provost's division and the other Vice Presidents, and also between the operating units within the Provost's division. He said that one final note on FY 04 revenue to date is that the summer term was not as good as expected. The tuition revenue for summer was about $700,000 less than budgeted. The good news is that we are up a bit in the fall, although the total credit hours are only up about 0.4% at this point. The revenues are actually up about 2% now because there was a huge increase in the Graduate enrollment, and a small decrease in the undergraduate. From a financial standpoint, that actually ends up with us doing a little better than 0.4% in terms of revenue. At the moment, we are sort of on budget, but we still have two more cancellations to go through. The first cancellation in August did not hit any Graduate students. We still have one to come at the end of September, and then the final one which is de-registration in October for anybody that has not paid as of October 27, 2003 .
Dr. Edward Thomas referred to the category headed: “Provost-Other” in Vice President Boyle's report and inquired as to what it covered. Vice President Boyle responded that he did not have the specific breakdown before him. Senate President Konangi stated that this item is in the administrative area and most likely relates to the recommendation coming from the Senate in Spring of 2002, when the Budget and Finance Committee recommended that the ratio between the academic side and the non-academic side be changed so that the academic side will increase by 2% every year. $1 million allocated to this item, and which the Provost will explain in greater detail in his remarks, is in response to that request to the President and the Provost. In addition, Dr. Konangi added that another $1.8 million, which the Provost will also address, comes from vacancy savings.
Provost Chin Kuo explained that the item reported as “Other -- $11 million” includes IMS and the Main Library, which is close to $5 million, and the technology fee, which is also a very big portion of it. Normally this item alone runs to around $2.3 million. This heading also covers the Office of Institutional Research, the Office of Strategic Planning, and the Office of Assessment. These expenditures are all grouped together in one area. The rest are smaller numbers ranging from Faculty Senate for release time to contingency money.
Dr. Barbara Green inquired if it would be possible, in the future, to have this category carefully broken down. In her view, it does make a significant difference whether an allocation is to the Main Library or whether it is for some different purpose. Surely, the Library is something that is considered clearly to be an academic purpose.
Vice President Boyle stated, “In defense of that, my office did that.” Provost Kuo added that the numbers he just read to Senate are included in the whole budget book. Dr. Kuo also addressed the issue of the $1 million transfer to the academic side referred to by Professor Konangi above. He reminded the Senate that during the last academic year, the President went ahead with a streamlining of certain academic units, which produced a net savings of about $1 million. As the President promised, that $1 million savings will be reallocated to the academic side. Provost Kuo proceeded to share with the Senate what he did with the $1 million. He noted that there are many competing demands across the units within the academic side. He reflected how two years ago every unit had a very big budget and that now practically every unit is down to the bare bone. The operating budget is currently very small, and there is not a lot that can be done about it. If there is any further cut or any further reallocation, it will cut into the faculty and staff side. There is also not much that can be done about fringes. Salaries are associated with fringes. Most of the budget for each unit, that is salaries and fringes, are more than 80%; and in some units they run as high as 90%. Provost Kuo said that he told all the Deans that at this point he has not implemented any reallocation among the colleges. In other words, the colleges get to keep what they now have. By doing so, however, he also stated that he doesn't have the flexibility to meet the University mission to reallocate positions from one college and move them to another. However, he is constantly looking for opportunities, which will allow him to reallocate resources at the University level.
Provost Chin Kuo identified three critical areas that need to be implemented or enhanced: 1) Arts and Sciences reorganization; 2) the Honors Program; 3) the creation of extra faculty positions (new positions) that he will be able to allocate. Roughly the cost for the Arts and Sciences reorganization ranges from $600,000 to $750,000. The Honors Program is about $400,000. Hence, these two together exceed $1 million. The question is where is he going to get support to create extra faculty positions? Provost Kuo has chosen to reallocate in this area by taking money from an existing program in Engineering. He has already informed the Dean of the College of Engineering that the program for Engineering Graduate Tuition Scholarships will be phased out. Last year this program was budgeted at about $400,000 and because of the tuition increase of 9.9%this year, its budget is $440,000. This is one component. He also reallocated $80,000 from a program currently in place called International Partnership Tuition Scholarship. Out of the resulting $520,000, Provost Kuo will create eight faculty positions. He has already authorized a search for these eight openings. The new faculty will be on board before 2004. The criteria governing the allocation of these new positions are: 1) accreditation, 2) high enrollment, and 3) emerging research or instructional programs. He has asked each Dean to submit to him their priority list, from which he will make his decisions. With the eight new faculty positions, he is able to address criteria 1) and 2). He has not had a chance to even address 3). As soon as he is able to reallocate additional funding, it is hoped that he can address the third category relating to emerging research or instruction programs.
Provost Kuo also explained what happens to salary savings. If, for example, a department has an open position at the Assistant Professor level at $50,000, we normally authorize that unit to find a replacement. The replacement cost is for 24 credit hours per year. That will be paid first. The rest of the cost for the position will then return to central administration. About $2 million was allocated to the Provost's Office out of this line. There are many programs competing for this resource. However, if there is a long waiting line of students and there is a need to open extra sessions, that is where the money goes. The College of Education , for example, has a special core of students. If you don't take it, then you lose enrollment. We have to invest money to hire more faculty to take care of that program, which in turn helps us generate revenue. If all of those programs having faculty savings are added up, we actually exceed $2 million -- the amount is roughly about $2.5 million. How are we going to handle the $500,000 we are short, for this year? Provost Kuo explained that this year he had to allocate substantial funding to the Arts and Sciences reorganization and to the Honors Program. Next year, however, we will have some money saved from these items and moved to the short fall. We will also have trimmed down some of the programs to make sure we don't spend over the $2 million of salary savings, and, at the same time, the Arts and Sciences reorganization and the Honors Program will be in full force.
President Michael Schwartz announced that a highly distinguished citizen of our community, Mr. Steven Minter, joined Cleveland State University as Executive in Residence. Dr. Schwartz noted that we had a little competition for this honor and Cleveland State won. President Schwartz also announced that joining us this fall as the Director of Governmental Relations is Mr. Bill Napier. For many years, Mr. Napier has been the Director of Governmental Relations for the Ohio Board of Regents and for the Ohio State University , and he has agreed to leave Ohio State and join us here at CSU. President Schwartz indicated that he was very pleased about this new hire as well. He hopes there is opportunity for everyone to meet both of these people soon.
President Schwartz noted that the West Center in Westlake opened very successfully this year. We had set a goal in the fall semester of 1,000 credit hours and we have about 1,350 credit hours, which exceeded our goal very nicely. People worked very hard on this project and we put together a very good team and it worked. That Center looks very promising.
President Schwartz also commented with regard to enrollment. Everyone heard earlier today that graduate enrollment is doing very well. We cannot rest with regard to that. You will see us working pretty hard to be sure that graduate enrollment is stable and, in fact, that we can make it grow within the limits. The enrollment piece at the community college level has transfers from the community colleges and elsewhere coming into the junior class, and that has been typically pretty good. The competition for those students, however, is increasing all of the time. It is an interesting place we have here with a bigger junior class than we have a freshman class – that is from all of the community college transfers that come to us. But, we have been assuming for a very long time that by doing nothing those students will continue to come to us in very substantial numbers. He believes that that is a very foolish assumption and as a consequence of that, we need to have somebody who will be responsible all day, every day, for transfer and articulation and community college relations. He is not referring to the three regional community colleges alone, although they are peculiarly important to us. There are a lot of community colleges in this State and we need to attend to all of them. Therefore, he has asked Dr. Jerry Kiel to take on the responsibility of being our liaison to the community colleges. He has asked him to take on the responsibility for articulation and transfer matters and to help us also, when he can, with regard to high school relations at the same time. The development of the freshman class is of major concern. A freshman class of 1,000 students more or less, at a university of this size, to be candid, is not acceptable. The freshman class at Cleveland State University should sooner or later be a class of 3,000 new and very well qualified students. There is no reason why we can't do that. It is one of the reasons, for example, why we are tying to build facilities that will make us very attractive to new students in many different kinds of ways. We are going to begin soon on a recreation center and a student union project, and a number of other projects that will encourage housing for students on and around the campus. In any case, there has to be a coordinated effort that focuses very heavily, if not entirely, on the development of a freshman class. The business we are in is not too complicated. We need to recruit more students, we need to recruit better students, we need to educate those students to the best of our ability, given the resources that we have, and we need to retain those students. Good students and students in good standing should not be leaving us, and they do. We need to graduate those students, we need to place them, and then we need to provide alumni services. In the end finally, we need to be able to go to them and ask them for their financial help for this institution in the long term. That is the cycle. Let's begin at the beginning. More students; better students. President Schwartz has asked Mr. Ed Mills, who has come to Cleveland State to help us put together the 411 (the one stop shop) which we are piloting and which is showing great success already, to take over a coordinated effort with regard to recruiting and retention that will include the offices of Admissions, Registrars, Student Services and aspects of the Bursar's Office. We are also adding a housing office because there is housing around here and our students are in it, a lot of it, but it is just not CSU housing and there will be more CSU housing. On our behalf, Mr. Mills is going to organize all of those functions that help us recruit and retain students, with an eye toward perfect service. President Schwartz is also going to have Mr. Mills report directly to the President's Office. President Schwartz said that he takes this business of a freshman class that seriously. It shouldn't be 1,000 students; it should be 3,000 students and there isn't any reason that it really can't be 3,000 qualified undergraduates coming in as freshman in one year. He is yielding that to no one.
President Michael Schwartz stated that there was a little more money in the higher education budget at the beginning of this biennium we are in than there was at the end of the last biennium and we didn't get any of it. It all went to the community colleges. Our summer enrollment went down; Cuyahoga Community College 's summer enrollment was up by over 13%. If the State paid for all of the growth and let the chips fall where they may, the growth money would all have gone to the community colleges. All of the four-year institutions would have paid a heavy price and we would not have had the amount of money we have this year and we would be down by about $5 million. Instead of saying, “We are letting the money go where the enrollments go,” they said, “We will give you about a 98% guarantee.” That 98% guarantee is the only thing that stood between us and a $5 million loss. Growth here is survival. There is no reason that this institution cannot be an attractive one for very good students to come to.
President Schwartz noted that there are a lot of other good wonderful things going on at CSU. He will get to that at another time, but he wanted everyone to know that CSU cannot afford to assume any longer that students will come to us because we're here. Competition is really severe and that is good for us.
Professor Edward Thomas inquired if the President had any notion of why our summer enrollment was down so much. Was it just economics? President Schwartz responded that 1) CSU did not do as good a marketing job in the summer as we should have; 2) price made a difference – he has no doubt about that. Community colleges charge a little less than half of what we charge. We can't be price competitors and we ought not to worry about that. What we ought to worry about, is being quality competitors. That is where we are going to make it. Quality has to differentiate this institution from others, and we have to be able to make that point and make it stick. Price competition – not interested; quality competition – interested.
Dr. Barbara Green observed that if she were a regular student at CSU, and there are some courses that she had to take in order to meet some requirements (we must accept Tri-C's courses as the equivalent of our courses), “I can go to Tri-C in the summer and pick those courses up at half the price. Maybe our courses are better, but it doesn't matter. I'm just going to get the requirements out of the way. I would be stupid not to take the courses at Tri-C. That is the dilemma.”
President Schwartz replied that we are going to have to find a way to persuade Dr. Green otherwise. Dr. Green stated that she was referring to requirements. President Schwartz stated that we also want to be in a position where those who do that will be our students. That is the critical issue. We are now in a position where all of the money flows into the community colleges allowing them to keep their prices down. Our response to that was that we raised fees 9.9%. A public policy is being made here in a way that isn't helpful to us but might be in the long term. President Schwartz emphasized the differentiation of this institution from others around us. Quite frankly we are not a community college and we need to be able to say that and make it understood what that difference is. This is a university experience. We ought to be able to say with our heads up, if you want the university experience, we hope you do, get ready for it. President Schwartz stated that he or the Provost will bring to Senate notions of entry with a college preparatory program. It would be nice to have students who come in with their own language and command of mathematics, etc. Those things, it seems, can help us be differentiated and we need to do it. There is a kind of a Gresham 's Law with regard to the student body. Bad students will drive out good ones every time. Let's be sure that we don't have any students driving out other students. Let's have a fine student body coming to this institution.
Professor Andrew Gross congratulated President Schwartz and others for appointing three major grant seeking officers as announced in “On Campus.” That is a major step. Dr. Gross continued stating that after several months of searching, the University of Toronto concluded that the number one stakeholder will not be the students, will not be faculty, will not be staff, and will not be the community. They concluded that the number one stakeholder is a group of alumni. Recently, universities across the country are signing on to that realization. In light of these two statements, Dr. Gross asked, “How up to date is our Alumni database?” President Schwartz responded that when Vice President Spiker arrived on campus, it wasn't up to date at all. It has been steadily improving. We have outside help tracking addresses. We had a little problem doing that last year, but it takes a long time to clean it up, refresh it, and get it accurate, so Dr. Gross' question is well taken. We have worked pretty hard at it. We also have a grant for a computing system over in Alumni and Development, and that will help us a lot as well. Vice President Droney helped to set that up. We are getting better.
President Schwartz commented that speaking about grants officers, it was not a bad summer. We received a gift of $515,000 from a couple for honors scholarships for the College of Education . It was a gift in honor of President Schwartz's wife, Dr. Joanne Rand Schwartz, by her friends from Kent State who are now retired. There is another gift that should be settled shortly, which is going to help us endow a chair in Education and Leadership in the College of Education . That should come to a total of a $1 million gift. So with the new offices, there is a lot more activity and we are doing a lot better than we had been doing before. Mr. Bill Spiker has done a good job in getting that together and organizing.
Professor Emerita Lillian Hinds commented that it has been her impression that a number of very good students attend junior colleges for a variety of reasons, and she has had a lot of contact with them for many years, as well as with students who attend during the summer. A smooth transition between leaving that two-year program and coming here is extremely important. Professor Hinds wondered to what degree we are cognizant of the courses they are giving, and how these relate to what we can accept, and whether we accept students who are capable of doing the kind of work we offer. That kind of relationship is extremely important in our getting students in that particular group. To what extent are we active in the suburban schools? Professor Hinds said that she goes to a fair number of them and she has been in the classrooms as a volunteer and sees school teachers from all over Ohio, but she doesn't see too many or not as many as she would like to see from Cleveland State. She observed that this is another way of getting children to know about this University.
President Michael Schwartz responded that the first of Professor Hinds' comments had to do with good students at community colleges. There are all kinds of good students at community colleges and we want them here and that is why we are paying very special attention to them. We will do more of that in more of those community colleges, not only the three local colleges. Students go to those schools for very good reasons, and they have suddenly been very heavily recruited by institutions all over the country. He doesn't know if everyone understands what has been going on, but that is being seen as a very fertile market by some of the very best institutions in the nation – recruiting community college students after they finish two years. We are going to work at that much more than we have in the past. President Schwartz commented regarding high school relations saying that he thinks they are better than Professor Hinds thinks they are. We've worked very diligently going to those high schools and establishing those relationships. Dr. Jerry Kiel has done wonderful work in that regard and now that he can turn more of his attention to that along with Dr. Bonnie Jones, who is our new Director of the Undergraduate Admissions Office, he sees that only as improving. We now have a new director of Admissions and a new Registrar and they are very hard at work doing very good things and changes are occurring already. We are becoming attractive to high school students. By the way, we have a lot of student teachers out there in the schools. As someone who has a daughter and son-in-law who hire those teachers, they said that they have been having trouble getting them from Cleveland State .
Professor Lillian Hinds commented that one point which bothered her, and probably bothered a lot of people, was the article in the Plain Dealer that named a number of good universities including ours, accusing them of being anti-Semitic. She didn't know if we should just disregard that or whether somehow, in our own way, we need to dispel that notion. President Schwartz responded that the issue is very complex and there is little time for discussion. He noted that there are real issues here of first amendment rights. He reported that he read those letters and he took real issue with them. President Schwartz observed that a little stepping on that freedom goes a long way and he declined to add to that infringement.
Professor Mareyjoyce Green noted that President Schwartz had said something about increasing competition. Governor Rhodes had said that he planned to put some form of education within forty miles of every Ohioan. As citizens, do we continue to ask the question, “Is there a saturation point for the State of Ohio inasmuch as we have a limited cap of subsidy? Does it improve the quiet crisis of educating citizens that we keep adding more institutions within the State?”
President Schwartz answered that it is not improving too much as far as he is concerned. The Board of Regents has taken the position that is against regulation of any kind at all. President Schwartz has been in touch with a number of legislators about this issue. In our environment, the free market can also be a very wasteful market. Indiana Wesleyan is not going to get any tate subsidy any time soon, but that doesn't mean never. In the meantime, other state institutions come into this community to do business and his question to the Regents is, how much of this kind of competition can you really afford to encourage? Why aren't there policies being put in place that would encourage cooperation of the institutions far more than the competitive view? The real issue from his point of view is, when does some free market kind of philosophy make sense in public higher education? In President Schwartz's view, it doesn't make sense. The role of the Board of Regents is to coordinate and to regulate to some extent, but they have gotten all of that out of their minds.
Professor Jane McIntyre commented that they (Board of Regents) micro manage curriculum. President Schwartz responded that Dr. McIntyre was right. Dr. McIntyre stated that they (Board of Regents) want to tell us what to teach and how we should teach. President Schwartz added that there is more of that coming. In addition, there is a certain federalizing of higher education that has been going on since the advent of the Morale Act in 1862 but it is reaching a crescendo now with Buck McKeon saying that we are going to punish institutions that raise their tuition more than the cost of living. This is a zany era in which we are currently in, but we will weather the storm.
Faculty Senate received the 2002-2003 annual report of the University Faculty Affairs Committee.
There being no new business, the meeting adjourned at 4:45 P.M.
Nicholas J. Moutafakis
Faculty Senate Secretary
[Top of Page]